This reversed imagery puts abortion restriction in perspective

Originally published at:


“I’m out” - C. Kramer.


The “reversal” isn’t quite, because the real world action bans American taxpayers money being used to support an action, while the alternate world action bans the action itself.

Having said that, as a man, I’d be 100% willing to endorse any abortion policy which was enacted as a result of a nationwide referendum in which only women could participate.


Yea, not every jizz results in an abortion. Could be stronger.

Also, I wonder if they actually enforce that gag rule? Do they send James O’Keefe and his crack team of muckrakers?


(Not to pick at nits, but if you’re going to change the graphic and headline on the left side, you should also change the “related articles” section on the right.)

1 Like

The problem with pictures like this and the arguments that go along with them is that they are preaching to the choir, and will do nothing to change the minds of people who believe abortion should be illegal. I’m intentionally not using the term “pro life” to describe these people because I’ve noticed a trend of late of people who believe abortion should be illegal claiming that they support a woman’s right to choose what to do with “her own body”. This tends to have the effect of stopping the pro choice person discussing the issue with them in their tracks, thinking they’ve won the argument. They have not. The problem with arguing about choice with someone who believes abortion should be illegal is that the main crux of their belief is that life begins at conception. They then don’t believe that a woman who chooses to have an abortion is exercising choice over her own body, but over someone else’s. So clever images like the one in this post, to them, completely miss the point of their objection to abortion. This allows them to dismiss it as ridiculous. If we want to successfully argue with people like this that abortion should be legal, we have to bite the bullet and get into the discussion about when does an embryo or fetus become a person. Well, actually, we don’t. We just have to convince them that not everyone believes that occurs at conception, and that those beliefs are as valid as theirs. This is a difficult task. Maybe impossible.


Except that’s not clearly enough either, because to someone who is vehemently pro-life, this would seem as absurd as “Well, not everyone believes that five-year-olds are people, so…”

I think your first point was right — it’s about convincing them that a tiny bundle of cells is not a person, not just explaining that some people think it’s not.

Regardless, I still think this image is powerful, just because it’s so jarring to see a group of women in power deciding anything without men, let alone men’s reproductive rights. It brings home the point that, when the roles are reversed and it’s all men, most people don’t even notice.


Why are you even posting here? It seems like you believe you can change someone’s mind by posting your thoughts even though what you write says you don’t.

You can’t stereotype belief systems any more than you can stereotype the music people enjoy. What speaks to you might not be what speaks to someone else, but art is a powerful tool and can reach people in ways that ordinary prose can’t.


Also, Viagra will still be available, but only at one clinic per state, and you have to undergo a counseling session with your doctor and then wait the required 24 hour waiting period before receiving the prescription.


And wait’ll you see the probe to verify the need for use!


You forgot the part where the guy has to review pictures of the dreaded erection lasting longer than 4 hours with the doctor.


Life Begins at 40.


I disagree.

I think the whole is it Live or is it Embryo debate is a total smokescreen.

The fact is, it is a woman who carries a baby from the moment it is conceived to the moment it is born.

Therefore, she gets to choose what she wants to do with her own body. Because her own body and life is valuable. As valuable as the life she is carrying; more so because she is a living, autonomous person and her baby is not.

The whole let’s focus on the baby thing ignores the mom entirely.

Women have choices about their bodies. Period.


That’s one question. Another you could ask is whether the state can force someone to give blood or otherwise risk their health to save the life of another person. The impression I get is that most conservatives would say never – except when the first is a woman and the second a fetus. Because without that exception, you would have to treat abortion as a choice regardless of how you think of the latter.

Making the topic as all about the fetus and ignoring the person carrying it is a trick of framing. We don’t do ourselves favors by letting things get distorted that way.


I think I prefer the caption: “…meanwhile on Earth 16”


This is by design.


If we laid eggs like birds, this would be so much easier. You’d lay it, and throw it out if you didn’t want it. And maybe (probably not) that would be considered immoral then you could drop it off at the egg orphanage and it would become someone else’s problem. Or many that would be considered abandonment. In any case, it’d be a lot easier to deal with.


No tax money goes to fund abortions. None.


I’d prefer that Earth. Not ejaculating ever again would be well worth not having had Trump as President.

1 Like