General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsI Can't Take The Anti-Choice Crowd Serious EVER, Not With Their Sheer Hypocrisy.
You can't call yourself 'pro-life' if all you ever do is try to cut food-aid to families, cut healthcare access to families, execute inmates, send kids to war, advocate for more guns in society, cut Social Security, cut Medicare, etc., the list goes on & on. Those are 'pro-death' policies.
Also, if you truly do consider yourself 'pro-life', how can one make exceptions in cases of rape or incest, I mean, if you truly believe that all life is precious then you must have no problem with forcing women & girls (sometimes very young) into carrying their rapists or incestual fetus to full-term, which is absurd & horrifying, both physically & mentally. Imagine an 11 year old girl being forced to give birth to her rapists baby, or any woman of any age having to do so. If she chooses to do so, then that's her CHOICE.
And another point, this on the rightwing's notion of "small govt". If abortion were outlawed, banned, made illegal, what exactly would the penalty be for woman who still go through with the procedure, albeit illegally? Is the rightwing advocating we start throwing masses of women in jail for making a personal health choice & bodily decision? Wouldn't that destroy the woman's career or possibly existing family, marriage, & life in general? Some "small govt".
Wouldn't making abortion illegal also give the press the right to publish the "criminals" names, photos & possibly home addresses? Is the rightwing's goal to shame women into making a choice they may not be ready for, both financially & emotionally, or even personally? We all know motherhood is extremely difficult, some even say "it's the most difficult job in the world", so why would we thrust the "most difficult job in the world" upon women who have no desire for it? Or young teens for that matter?
Here's what the rightwing doesn't get: One can be 'pro-life' & also be pro-choice. They can choose to teach THEIR children or family members THEIR own personal beliefs while acknowledging the importance of keeping choice legal & safe for others.
No one is infringing on their right to be personally anti-choice, yet they consistently try to infringe on others rights to be personally pro-choice. Here's an idea for the anti-choice crowd and the only principle they should adhere to when it comes to this issue: Mind Your Own Fucking Business.
And
Your
HYPOCRISY.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
kairos12
(12,861 posts)
Hayabusa
(2,135 posts)are also the ones who kill or threaten doctors and nurses and techs who work in abortion clinics. Not all of them, but enough to mention.
JaneyVee
(19,877 posts)Thank you for that point.
DogPawsBiscuitsNGrav
(408 posts)suddenly changes when it comes to smokers. Not all smokers get cancer and abortion has risks also. It basically boils down to everyone being hypocrites, and wanting to dictate the way everyone else should live. What's so hard about allowing your neighbor happiness and letting them live their life the way they most enjoy it. Let them smoke, drink, have an abortion, be obese, or end their life when the quality is no longer there.
Freedom isn't freedom unless it's for everyone's body.
JaneyVee
(19,877 posts)DogPawsBiscuitsNGrav
(408 posts)you will only be able to get smokes with a Dr.s prescription. If the Dr won't give you a prescription you'll be forced into buying them illegally on the street. Ins and taxes already higher because someone enjoys smoking. Soda is also starting to be taxed higher and in some places you can't order a large one because of obesity. This is how it started with smokers. And the same people who cheer these laws are the same people who believe a womans body belongs to her. How would you like it if the repubs starting taxing abortions till they were no longer affordable?
Making laws to tax things so highly that it's un affordable just because someone doesn't like what you like is wrong. People who pick and choose what you should be able to do or afford to do with your body is a hypocrite.
JaneyVee
(19,877 posts)DogPawsBiscuitsNGrav
(408 posts)your own body when it comes to smoking. The Repubs don't believe you have a right to your own body when it comes to abortion. The government doesn't believe you have a right to own body when it comes to obesity or marijuana. Everyone should stop being hypocrites. We should all have the right to our own body.
JaneyVee
(19,877 posts)Your smoking law isn't Dem groupthink the way anti-choice is Rep groupthink. NOT even close. Obesity isn't illegal. Marijuana is illegal but not because of personal decisions, because they're not making money off it. Still a bizarre equation. Your hypocrisy example is a FAR stretch from the major hypocrisy I pointed out.
Zoeisright
(8,339 posts)And apparently you didn't major in logical reasoning in school either. Because you're completely wrong.
daleanime
(17,796 posts)
JaneyVee
(19,877 posts)Or start bombing tobacco makers.
MH1
(17,600 posts)Since it's not a necessity to smoke, the government has the right to tax the shit out of it, or at least to the amount needed to pay for the societal harm. But they shouldn't be making it illegal or obtainable only with a prescription (that is an exceedingly stupid idea, btw; I may just have to go find that thread).
All that said, I think it SUCKS and is INCREDIBLY RUDE when smokers pollute the public air that other people need to walk through, like by standing around a busy doorway puffing their crap. There's a few places in my daily commute where I routinely have to deal with incredibly rude smokers, and not to mention that a whole lot of smokers are apparently litterbugs (for which they should be busted and fined, IMO, until they learn to field-strip and dispose of their butts properly). It's annoying as hell, but so are slobs and loud people on the subway.
But yeah, if you want to poison your body without bothering mine, who the hell am I to stop you?
(and on a side note, lots of Dems favor marijuana legalization. Most of those aren't stupid and hypocritical enough to want cigarettes made illegal. But there are a few that I've seen. Sigh.)
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)Why wouldn't the doctor give you the prescription?
If I were so addicted to a luxury substance that the very thought of having to pay a high price to get it made me post on the internet, I think I would stop using it or go into rehab.
Zoeisright
(8,339 posts)and not spew it into air I have to breathe, I don't care if you explode. You also have to pay a higher insurance rate because of your addiction to a totally unnecessary product.
No one is saying people can't smoke or drink. But forcing women to become incubators is inhumane and unethical. Can't you see the difference?
DogPawsBiscuitsNGrav
(408 posts)you're demanding the right to control what I do with my body, just because you personally don't like it. You drive in traffic and you're getting far more pollution there than from a smoker, but that's ok because you like having transportation. I'm not a smoker and I've never had an abortion but I feel both should be the right of the individual. Not taxed or regulated out of existence because somebody else doesn't like it.
You believe you should be able to tax and regulate what I chose to do with my body - I don't.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)The Oregon law would require a prescription for cigarettes. That would not need to stop anyone from smoking.
You have to have a prescription for a lot of drugs that could be sold over the counter. They aren't because the medical profession wants to make sure that the person using the drug is not harmed for it.
Smoking is your choice. You can't choose to smoke in the office building, airplane or hotel room in which I work or fly or stay, but you can choose to smoke. As long as you are hurting only yourself, that's fine.
A woman's right to choose is very different. In fact, smoking, although it can end your life, is in no way comparable to giving birth and taking responsibility for the life of a child.
Here is what Sandra Day O'Connor said about why abortion is legal.
The mother who carries a child to full term is subject to anxieties, to physical constraints, to pain that only she must bear. That these sacrifices have from the beginning of the human race been endured by woman with a pride that ennobles her in the eyes of others and gives to the infant a bond of love cannot alone be grounds for the State to insist she make the sacrifice. Her suffering is too intimate and personal for the State to insist, without more, upon its own vision of the woman's role, however dominant that vision has been in the course of our history and our culture. The destiny of the woman must be shaped to a large extent on her own conception of her spiritual imperatives and her place in society.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/91-744.ZO.html
In fuller context -- but go to the link to read the entire case:
Our law affords constitutional protection to personal decisions relating to marriage, procreation, contraception, family relationships, child rearing, and education. Carey v. Population Services International, 431 U. S., at 685. Our cases recognize "the right of the individual, married or single, to be free from unwarranted governmental intrusion into matters so fundamentally affecting a person as the decision whether to bear or beget a child." Eisenstadt v. Baird, supra, at 453 (emphasis in original). Our precedents "have respected the private realm of family life which the state cannot enter." Prince v. Massachusetts, 321 U.S. 158, 166 (1944). These matters, involving the most intimate and personal choices a person may make in a lifetime, choices central to personal dignity and autonomy, are central to the liberty protected by the Fourteenth Amendment. At the heart of liberty is the right to define one's own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life. Beliefs about these matters could not define the attributes of personhood were they formed under compulsion of the State.
These considerations begin our analysis of the woman's interest in terminating her pregnancy but cannot end it, for this reason: though the abortion decision may originate within the zone of conscience and belief, it is more than a philosophic exercise. Abortion is a unique act. It is an act fraught with consequences for others: for the woman who must live with the implications of her decision; for the persons who perform and assist in the procedure; for the spouse, family, and society which must confront the knowledge that these procedures exist, procedures some deem nothing short of an act of violence against innocent human life; and, depending on one's beliefs, for the life or potential life that is aborted. Though abortion is conduct, it does not follow that the State is entitled to proscribe it in all instances. That is because the liberty of the woman is at stake in a sense unique to the human condition and so unique to the law. The mother who carries a child to full term is subject to anxieties, to physical constraints, to pain that only she must bear. That these sacrifices have from the beginning of the human race been endured by woman with a pride that ennobles her in the eyes of others and gives to the infant a bond of love cannot alone be grounds for the State to insist she make the sacrifice. Her suffering is too intimate and personal for the State to insist, without more, upon its own vision of the woman's role, however dominant that vision has been in the course of our history and our culture. The destiny of the woman must be shaped to a large extent on her own conception of her spiritual imperatives and her place in society.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/91-744.ZO.html
Hissyspit
(45,788 posts)
left coaster
(1,093 posts)DogPawsBiscuitsNGrav
(408 posts)from many pregnancy's. Every time someone has a child and can't afford to feed it, me, the taxpayer picks up the tab.The more this happens the more dangerous the world gets. Sometimes people feel forced into stealing and breaking into other peoples homes to feed their kids. That eventually gets picked up by the taxpayer. Who pays for the delivery for the uninsured? Again the taxpayer. These are consequences that costs me dearly every year.
Am I complaining about paying for all of this... NO, but at the same time we're paying for people who choose to have children they can't feed, you guys are complaining about someone who chooses to smoke. Which costs you more?
Hissyspit
(45,788 posts)Last edited Sat Jan 26, 2013, 02:41 AM - Edit history (1)
"Smoking = Pregnancy."
Good god...
REP
(21,691 posts)I smoke. I'm smoking right now. And I just don't get the (very, very few) other smokers who wail about smoking = abortion.
First, smoking isn't really healthcare. Fun, yes; but not healthcare. Getting help to quit should be healthcare, but basically, inhaling smoke isn't about health.
Second, no one ever died from not smoking. Women do die from being denied abortions.
So yeah. All these 'for your own good' anti-smoking laws are annoying, but I can still find plenty of places to smoke - in California, no less - and can buy my Sherman's numerous places in my neighborhood, without counseling, a waiting period, protestors or being made to go through an invasive exam of my lungs.
For too many women, access to abortion providers isn't nearly as simple at all. There's a waiting period, mandatory counseling (in some states, requiring that the patient be lied to), sometimes a mandated and invasive sonogram, often a throng of threatening protestors to pass through ... if there's even a clinic in her county.
Comparing the minor restrictions smokers face to the heavy-handed abortion restrictions is like comparing treatment on the Internet to the Holocaust: it weakens your argument considerably and makes whoever makes that argument look foolish and histrionic. At best.
UnrepentantLiberal
(11,700 posts)
spanone
(135,831 posts)and they certainly don't give a shit about the fetus once it becomes a viable human
indepat
(20,899 posts)no bounds when spouted from the mouths of mendacious, disingenuous hypocrites. 
Initech
(100,075 posts)They both want exactly the same thing and that's the complete control of women through archaic religious beliefs that don't make sense in a modern society.
Zoeisright
(8,339 posts)That PROVES repukes don't give a flying fuck about the fetus.
mountain grammy
(26,620 posts)"Restricting them how?" I asked, "to women?"
Well, that silenced him long enough for me to tell him, if you're against abortion, don't have one. Oh, can't be pregnant? Then it's none of your business or concern.
Found myself wondering who raised that boy? He's since seen the light; good girlfriend.
adieu
(1,009 posts)it's all about anti-women-enjoy-sex-as-a-fun-activity.
They don't want women to enjoy sex. That's why they shame them with name calling like sluts, why they don't want them to use any sort of birth control, why abstinence is the only method. (Remember when Governor Rick Perry said he practiced what he preaches -- abstinence? You really think that after having 2 or 3 or however many kids, he and his wife haven't done the dirty since the last kid?)
They want women to walk that morning walk of shame.
And frankly, women are tired of that. They're holding their heads high walking home in the morning from someone else's home. There's no shame.
SheilaT
(23,156 posts)It's as simple as that.
There's also, as some others have already pointed out, the idea that women get punished for enjoying sex by getting pregnant. So apparently men don't enjoy sex which is why they don't get pregnant, right? Oh, yeah, no matter what, it's only the women who get pregnant.
Because the argument is so often couched in terms of the woman's choice, it's as if every pregnancy is some miracle of conception that never involves men, except for the standard acknowledgment of rape and incest. So let's all say this together: Without a man involved, the woman does not get pregnant.
Flaxbee
(13,661 posts)Nothing pro life about most of them. Just have that baby no matter what, then they all go back to not giving a damn. 
PennsylvaniaMatt
(966 posts)"If only Republicans cared as much about 6 year old children as much as they care about a 6 day old bundle of cells"
HockeyMom
(14,337 posts)what happens after a baby is delivered ENDS their caring for them from infancy to old age. That does not make them PRO-LIFE at all.
OnionPatch
(6,169 posts)And if life starts at conception, are we going to scrap birth certificates for "conception certificates"? And if there is a miscarriage, will there be a murder investigation? Uterine inspections?
Talk about big government!
kestrel91316
(51,666 posts)Women who get abortions would be stoned to death, but the doctors who might provide such will be stoned to death first, so abortions won't be available. And women won't have careers to worry about.
bluestater1966fgs
(21 posts)I mean, I'd "respect" their arguments more if they were consistent. But time and time again these people have supported measures that would be considered "pro-death". They support the death penalty very strongly, for example. Not to mention, many of the "pro-lifers" are pro-war.