I always find it odd that people conceptualize bodily autonomy as allowing the death of a separate individual. To actually support bodily autonomy you would be against abortion as a fetus is the one defenseless and not given the bodily autonomy. The overwhelming majority of pregnancy is due to choices of the individual. To say someone who has made a choice that develops a new life now has autonomy over that life is denial of bodily autonomy.
I used to be an atheist. I still don't go to church (though the wife and I should), but I don't describe myself as an atheist.
One of the big realizations I've had in the past 10 years (the span between edgy atheist teen and cynical 30-something) is this: while I don't need a church to have a conscience and morals (something I assume is true for you as well), there's a LOT of people in this world who DO need that framework.
I am very reluctant to sound like a priest or pastor, because I am definitely neither or those things -- but look at the degeneracy around us. Look at the lives people are living that will leave the next generation worse off than ours. Look at the hedonism, the nihilism, and the apathy. These are not pillars on which to build or maintain a society.
So yeah, I believe there's some sort of God out there -- not because I am trying to curry favor or get in to heaven, but because I think a society-wide moral framework is important. That may sound incongruous to you -- probably because it is.
I'm still working on it - I just see a lot in this comment and the comment above it that make me think you're kind of in the same mental vortex I was in for a while.
One of the big realizations I've had in the past 10 years (the span between edgy atheist teen and cynical 30-something) is this: while I don't need a church to have a conscience and morals (something I assume is true for you as well), there's a LOT of people in this world who DO need that framework.
Same with comfort. I'm also not religious and I totally understand why many people need that sort of a positive, structured cultural thing.
I don't understand what's so hard to get about it. I know people who are addicted to going out to drink, to go on Tinder fuck dates. To go to the gym, do many other things. But they act like it's baffling that others fulfill their social needs through church.
Because deep down most people know (or at least suspect) that they're going down the wrong path and engaging in socially degenerate behaviors.
People going to church and otherwise engaging in socially progenerative behaviors are generally still experiencing social mobility, good family structure, and generally good mental well-being.
I am not a perfect person, and I have my vices -- but at least I don't lie to myself about them (or at least try not to). Liberals, in my experience, take the cognitive dissonance (is this a good thing to do? Is this a smart decision? etc) and seek out people who will reassure them that their conscience is wrong (and is probably part of some white-supremacist system of patriarchy or something).
Girls and young women are especially susceptible to this line of thinking.
That's how female friendships work; you have to praise each other for shit behaviour.
This is why I have been hated out of many female friendship groups. I don't do that.
https://patriots.win/p/140vt1eNJI/lmao-never-date-sjw-women/ This link from a month or so ago -- woman posted on reddit about how she dumped her boyfriend because he's pureblooded and she's never dumped anyone before and needed to get that affirmation.
Then I found this:
Thank you. I originally posted in r/relationships and had so many people telling me that I was being unreasonable (ended up deleting that post). I should have come here first.
Classic woman behavior. In fact, in this instance it's classic children behavior: mom said no ice cream after dinner so I asked dad and he said yes.
I don't get along with most atheists because they're overwhelmingly liberal
Because they've replaced the moral framework religion provided with another moral framework tied in with their atheism and their politics.
Maybe it's as simple as this: humans need something bigger than themselves to believe in. How many people do you know personally that are just as 'religious' as a typical Christian (or more, even) about their atheism.
In these cases, what framework exists is pretty much hedonism and/or nihilism. If there's nothing bigger than us, then nothing we do matters.
Now, here's the biggest problem: the moral decay that I refer to is obviously bigger than a group of atheists. How many "liberal" christian sects are completely and irrevocably cucked? Look at how many denominations stand for absolutely nothing (looking at you, United Church of Christ).
Even the Catholic church is guilty of this. I grew up going to Catholic schools (even though I was not) and I really do like the ritual nature of the Catholic Mass (Hey, at least I feel like I'm participating in something with structure, right?) -- but the current Pope is actively destroying the church by diminishing the structures, the rituals, and the codes. It's all connected.
That's just where I'm at. I'm not going to pressure you to do anything differently - we're both on the same road trying to find the same answers and I wish you the best of luck.
You don't need to believe in a sky father to understand the need for good, and doing things with good intent. Honoring the spirit, rather than the letter of the law is the heart of Christian practice-- we call it being lead by the Holy Spirit, but anyone who acts with posterity in mind, who plants trees who's shade they will never enjoy, acts in accordance with the same good we worship. Being a good steward of this earth doesn't require religion. Any who act in the name of the future are my allies, even if they aren't co-religionists.
I'm sure it wouldn't amuse him, but I ended up here in part due to reading some of Richard Dawkin's books. The one of his driving ideas that genes don't care about good or bad, only useful or harmful, can be applied to ideas, to memes. It doesn't matter if religion is true or not, it matters if it is useful or harmful. And I'm at the point now where I view it as a useful falsehood, a valuable set of memes.
God damn, I never thought of Dawkins that way (The God Delusion was one of my first nonfiction books after hitting my teens) -- but it's a great point and kind of describes where I'm at.
As an atheist you're against killing a five year old just because they're inconvenient, and for killing a single cell because it's not really much of anything.
But something Crowder said was that cell has a new combination of DNA, and that's an actual, hard, science-based criteria. Different genes, different person.
That argument has a lot of appeal to me, because limits like first 3 months are totally arbitrary and subjective. When it looks recognizable? When it has thoughts? I guess you could say after the first heartbeat, but why that? You can't expect people to agree with you if the criteria is just totally arbitrary.
All of this is arbitrary, but first 3 months aren't really subjective. There are a lot of good medical reasons for picking the second trimester as the start of 'human life'. Although the new Texas heartbeat law is probably more scientifically grounded. But I don't find the DNA argument any less arbitrary. Different genes, but is that all you need to call it a person?
The DNA argument is arbitrary in a sense that it's picking one difference out of many, but it's not subjective. All people have different DNA than their parents, unless they're a clone but that's a different topic.
It's not even my point that abortions should be banned because new DNA new person, since a lot of times we do things in the real world for practical not perfect reasons.
Like you have absolutists that say it's a new developing person so abortion is murder, but murder is subjective. Abortion is killing and there's a lot of killing of even full-grown people that society condones. For example, a lot of states have a Castle doctrine where it's okay to kill somebody even when you could retreat. Personally I don't care if a single cell is killed even though it's a new, developing person. Or a Down or rape baby, parents should not be forced to raise it.
But what the DNA argument does do is take away the idea that a clump of cells is not a person, making the ethical question one of murder vs killing instead of killing vs medical procedure / removing a 'growth'. A lot of liberals don't want to think of it as even killing, because especially convenience abortions would be a lot harder to justify.
Even an atheist who is at least trying not to have cognitive dissonance must use logical reasoning to draw a line between "tissue" and "human being" somewhere. Like you said some of them think post-birth killing is fine. If they wanted to set a line earlier in the pregnancy based on some biological reality, that would at least make sense. What never made sense to me was setting birth as the magical point when it becomes a person. You've at least given me some insight into their thought process, but you nicely destroyed that argument yourself.
Objective reality is not dependent on a person's subjective "impression" - any more than a man can become a woman just because he thinks he is.
Yeah. With modern medical technology, there's really four logical points, and none of them are "birth":
Initial-state: All eggs and all sperm are valid life forms. Like hair follicles, they should not be shed aimlessly. Obvious problem: The human body naturally disposes of these cells regularly.
Insemination/Implantation: Technically separate categories since on occasion an insemination won't implant, but one should lead to the other. Obvious problem: Most miscarriages occur at this time, often even without their knowledge. You cannot punish someone for a natural body process that unknowingly occurs.
When they could survive outside the womb: Modern medical tech can do it at, like, 4.5 months now, I believe. Since at that point it could, in theory, without further direct nurture, become an adult human in time, it's a possible point. Obvious problem: It clearly would have no sense of "self" at this time, no real cognitive function as we recognize it as associated with "personhood". Yet it is post heartbeat, and post-initial brain random neuron firings.
When they have that cognitive function in part 3. Obvious problem: Not only is this like 18 months old at the earliest for most which means post-birth abortions, but some people will never reach that cognitive function, such as the brain damaged, the developmentally crippled, or reddit moderators.
Convincing women abortion isn't killing and is instead exercising her rights is the both the most effective con ever concocted and the sad reality of women's rational thinking.
The thing is if they admit they are responsible for their own pregnancy it means whoring around is wrong and whoring around can't be wrong because they like doing it and denying themselves something they like is out of the question because they're selfish. This is what happens with addiction as well, you refuse the idea of being wrong and go from there, exactly the opposite of what a smart person would do.
Very few people support bodily autonomy. It's not a popular political position. Most people want to have some part in regulating other people's bodies. I guess it's human nature.
I told my pro-choice mother and her friends at the start of all this:
"If you really believe in my body, my choice, you need to be on the front lines of this."
Because when the other shoe falls, and abortion is outlawed under the same flimsy reasoning "oh it's a public health crisis" then I will have no sympathy for the screeching hordes.
Granted, I was never going to have any sympathy anyway -- but at least I can point out the hypocrisy before they use it against me.
There is no hypocrisy. The situations simply aren’t comparable at all, in fact.
Pro-lifers aren’t against people having bodily autonomy in general. I’m not at least. They’re against a choice with no other outcome than the death of a developing child. That’s what an abortion is. That’s what it does. It’s not that you have a slightly higher risk of ending a life. You’re guaranteeing it ends.
Someone not choosing to get this vaccine and advocating they should have the right to weigh their own personal risk factors from getting covid versus the potential side effects from getting the vaccine is entirely different. It’s a series of risks assessments to their own personal health in relation to actually catching covid, with the chance of death being extremely low even after catching covid. Then there’s an even smaller risk of transmitting covid to someone else, a risk that can easily be mitigated by limiting contact with people when you’re actually sick. And getting vaccinated doesn’t even do much to mitigate those risks anyway. The vaccinated can still catch and spread covid.
Besides which, being told you can’t do something in a certain situations (abortion after going through all the choices required to get pregnant) is inherently different from being told you absolutely must do something regardless of your situation (mandatory vaccination regardless of natural immunity or risk factors). Both relate to choice, sure, but not in the same way and certainly not in a comparable fashion.
“You can’t do this” and “you must do that” aren’t even comparable propositions. Pretending they are to expand government authority into potentially every aspect of life is seriously concerning.
Pro-lifers aren’t against people having bodily autonomy in general. I’m not at least.
Banning abortion is actually supporting bodily autonomy. We're talking about the right of a baby to live and enjoy the same rights with regard to its body as the mother.
One thing I've always noticed is that women never ever refer to the baby in their womb as a fetus unless they want to kill it. Everyone intuitively understands that the baby is a growing human life that deserves rights as much as anyone else, but women disregard that and play god when it is inconvenient for them.
They need to grow up and accept that they are not more important than their baby just because they are stronger and more mature. They would hate if men took that attitude towards them, but they hypocritically do the same thing to the life growing within.
"A child, not a choice" literally explains why "my body. my choice" doesn't make sense for abortion; because it's more than a "choice" to kill your child just because it is engulfed by you. "My body. My Choice." actually makes sense for vaccines but is being used to show the irony of the party of "muh body. muh choice" forcing people to take shit experiment vaccine. Perhaps the vaccine is what causes people to lose their sense of irony (and skin falling off and exploding hearts and basically everything but actually preventing the fucking COOF).
Rule two requires that I very clearly state that I do not wholeheartedly wish for these people to be dragged into the street and hanged from lampposts.
Kind of ironic Dana Milbank (who is jewish coincidentally) is calling pro-lifers "pro-deathers" when "pro-choicers" are the ones killing children in the womb. Conservatives should just call their opponents baby murderers because it's simpler and it's the truth. Abortion is legalized wholesale murder of defenseless children and New York and Virginia allow it up to and including date of birth.
"My body, my choice" is a legitimate argument when you are talking about someone forcing a medical procedure on your own body.
"My body, my choice" is not legitimate when you are talking about killing another different human being, in this case, babies... they are deciding over another life, another body, not only their own body.
But, of course, this retarded brainwashed low IQ evil monkey is incapable of thinking about the mental diarrhea he's vomiting out most of the time.
Can't expect the duck to think about their duckspeak. The party will shout its slogans without thinking about them. This is both the means and the end to their propaganda.
In response to your title, it'spro-lifers using "My body, my choice" is literally just pointing out the hypocrisy. Actually, at this point I think it's evolved into a full on Hypocracy.
The left using the concept of bodily autonomy ("my body my choice") to allow people to avoid the consequences of their own actions by directly harming another, but denying that same concept and attempting to force people to accept responsibility for others to their own detriment. Apologies if that wasn't clear, I've edited that post for clarity.
[Not my opinion] There are a couple of things in that regard. One is forcing women to follow through with pregnancy when they don't want to, but then saying people should be free to make their own decisions on vaccines.
The other is being adamant to save the lives of the unborn, but not being concerned for others' lives in practice by not getting vaxed (thus the "march for death" line).
Under the concept of bodily autonomy the rational course would be whether it was a decision by the individual or not. This still is murky as it is still subjecting another’s bodily autonomy to the mercy of the one impacted by the action.
Yes, but we're obviously arguing against people who don't believe in bodily autonomy. They need the state to protect them from personal responsibility and consequences. It is up to the state to protect women who magically get pregnant, regardless of their actions leading to conception.
It is now the responsibility of the state to protect us all by getting everyone vexed. We have to accommodate for grandma and other vulnerable people by forcing injections to the otherwise healthy population.
I'm against abortion for two reasons really. One I believe there's a kid in there, therefore it's not okay to kill it. I generally can't stand kids until they are about 10, they drive me nuts. Should I just kill them too? Just some cells, right? So some of them are going to have shitty lives too. That's another excuse they use. So I guess just kill them off too, why make them learn and try to overcome a shitty childhood?
I'm fine with the Texas law for example, which by the way allows abortions early on. It's not a ban despite what they say. Don't care if it's too soon for loose women to figure out they are pregnant. They can close their legs once in a while. That leads to my second point, I think abortions lead to a society of slutty degenerates because they get a free pass on the "downside" if you call it that. The way I see it this shitty families-last fun-first society is the largest reason why almost every discussion on this site for example even needs to exist.
Feminists have been hypocrites long before this recent vaccine mandate fiasco. Men have been campaigning for the outlawing of circumcising babies for decades using "my body, my choice". It was completely ignored for boys (yet strangely zealously pursued for girls) with arguments of "incel", "man baby" etc etc.
"My body, my choice" really should be "Rules for thee, none for me".
because these retards still believe the propaganda about injection effectiveness. not joking, most of these retards think 50%+ of people who get covid are hospitalized. they think people who get the jab can't transmit it. and they're highly resistant to any evidence even from official sources, that challenges the ridiculous bullshit they've bought into.
I always find it odd that people conceptualize bodily autonomy as allowing the death of a separate individual. To actually support bodily autonomy you would be against abortion as a fetus is the one defenseless and not given the bodily autonomy. The overwhelming majority of pregnancy is due to choices of the individual. To say someone who has made a choice that develops a new life now has autonomy over that life is denial of bodily autonomy.
I used to be an atheist. I still don't go to church (though the wife and I should), but I don't describe myself as an atheist.
One of the big realizations I've had in the past 10 years (the span between edgy atheist teen and cynical 30-something) is this: while I don't need a church to have a conscience and morals (something I assume is true for you as well), there's a LOT of people in this world who DO need that framework.
I am very reluctant to sound like a priest or pastor, because I am definitely neither or those things -- but look at the degeneracy around us. Look at the lives people are living that will leave the next generation worse off than ours. Look at the hedonism, the nihilism, and the apathy. These are not pillars on which to build or maintain a society.
So yeah, I believe there's some sort of God out there -- not because I am trying to curry favor or get in to heaven, but because I think a society-wide moral framework is important. That may sound incongruous to you -- probably because it is.
I'm still working on it - I just see a lot in this comment and the comment above it that make me think you're kind of in the same mental vortex I was in for a while.
Same with comfort. I'm also not religious and I totally understand why many people need that sort of a positive, structured cultural thing.
I don't understand what's so hard to get about it. I know people who are addicted to going out to drink, to go on Tinder fuck dates. To go to the gym, do many other things. But they act like it's baffling that others fulfill their social needs through church.
Because deep down most people know (or at least suspect) that they're going down the wrong path and engaging in socially degenerate behaviors.
People going to church and otherwise engaging in socially progenerative behaviors are generally still experiencing social mobility, good family structure, and generally good mental well-being.
I am not a perfect person, and I have my vices -- but at least I don't lie to myself about them (or at least try not to). Liberals, in my experience, take the cognitive dissonance (is this a good thing to do? Is this a smart decision? etc) and seek out people who will reassure them that their conscience is wrong (and is probably part of some white-supremacist system of patriarchy or something).
Girls and young women are especially susceptible to this line of thinking.
That's how female friendships work; you have to praise each other for shit behaviour.
This is why I have been hated out of many female friendship groups. I don't do that.
Funny story to illustrate how correct you are:
https://patriots.win/p/140vt1eNJI/lmao-never-date-sjw-women/ This link from a month or so ago -- woman posted on reddit about how she dumped her boyfriend because he's pureblooded and she's never dumped anyone before and needed to get that affirmation.
Then I found this:
Classic woman behavior. In fact, in this instance it's classic children behavior: mom said no ice cream after dinner so I asked dad and he said yes.
Because they've replaced the moral framework religion provided with another moral framework tied in with their atheism and their politics.
Maybe it's as simple as this: humans need something bigger than themselves to believe in. How many people do you know personally that are just as 'religious' as a typical Christian (or more, even) about their atheism.
In these cases, what framework exists is pretty much hedonism and/or nihilism. If there's nothing bigger than us, then nothing we do matters.
Now, here's the biggest problem: the moral decay that I refer to is obviously bigger than a group of atheists. How many "liberal" christian sects are completely and irrevocably cucked? Look at how many denominations stand for absolutely nothing (looking at you, United Church of Christ).
Even the Catholic church is guilty of this. I grew up going to Catholic schools (even though I was not) and I really do like the ritual nature of the Catholic Mass (Hey, at least I feel like I'm participating in something with structure, right?) -- but the current Pope is actively destroying the church by diminishing the structures, the rituals, and the codes. It's all connected.
That's just where I'm at. I'm not going to pressure you to do anything differently - we're both on the same road trying to find the same answers and I wish you the best of luck.
I hear you.
You don't need to believe in a sky father to understand the need for good, and doing things with good intent. Honoring the spirit, rather than the letter of the law is the heart of Christian practice-- we call it being lead by the Holy Spirit, but anyone who acts with posterity in mind, who plants trees who's shade they will never enjoy, acts in accordance with the same good we worship. Being a good steward of this earth doesn't require religion. Any who act in the name of the future are my allies, even if they aren't co-religionists.
God damn, I never thought of Dawkins that way (The God Delusion was one of my first nonfiction books after hitting my teens) -- but it's a great point and kind of describes where I'm at.
As an atheist you're against killing a five year old just because they're inconvenient, and for killing a single cell because it's not really much of anything.
But something Crowder said was that cell has a new combination of DNA, and that's an actual, hard, science-based criteria. Different genes, different person.
That argument has a lot of appeal to me, because limits like first 3 months are totally arbitrary and subjective. When it looks recognizable? When it has thoughts? I guess you could say after the first heartbeat, but why that? You can't expect people to agree with you if the criteria is just totally arbitrary.
All of this is arbitrary, but first 3 months aren't really subjective. There are a lot of good medical reasons for picking the second trimester as the start of 'human life'. Although the new Texas heartbeat law is probably more scientifically grounded. But I don't find the DNA argument any less arbitrary. Different genes, but is that all you need to call it a person?
Why 3 months and not a week later? Just because.
The DNA argument is arbitrary in a sense that it's picking one difference out of many, but it's not subjective. All people have different DNA than their parents, unless they're a clone but that's a different topic.
It's not even my point that abortions should be banned because new DNA new person, since a lot of times we do things in the real world for practical not perfect reasons.
Like you have absolutists that say it's a new developing person so abortion is murder, but murder is subjective. Abortion is killing and there's a lot of killing of even full-grown people that society condones. For example, a lot of states have a Castle doctrine where it's okay to kill somebody even when you could retreat. Personally I don't care if a single cell is killed even though it's a new, developing person. Or a Down or rape baby, parents should not be forced to raise it.
But what the DNA argument does do is take away the idea that a clump of cells is not a person, making the ethical question one of murder vs killing instead of killing vs medical procedure / removing a 'growth'. A lot of liberals don't want to think of it as even killing, because especially convenience abortions would be a lot harder to justify.
Even an atheist who is at least trying not to have cognitive dissonance must use logical reasoning to draw a line between "tissue" and "human being" somewhere. Like you said some of them think post-birth killing is fine. If they wanted to set a line earlier in the pregnancy based on some biological reality, that would at least make sense. What never made sense to me was setting birth as the magical point when it becomes a person. You've at least given me some insight into their thought process, but you nicely destroyed that argument yourself.
Objective reality is not dependent on a person's subjective "impression" - any more than a man can become a woman just because he thinks he is.
Yeah. With modern medical technology, there's really four logical points, and none of them are "birth":
Initial-state: All eggs and all sperm are valid life forms. Like hair follicles, they should not be shed aimlessly. Obvious problem: The human body naturally disposes of these cells regularly.
Insemination/Implantation: Technically separate categories since on occasion an insemination won't implant, but one should lead to the other. Obvious problem: Most miscarriages occur at this time, often even without their knowledge. You cannot punish someone for a natural body process that unknowingly occurs.
When they could survive outside the womb: Modern medical tech can do it at, like, 4.5 months now, I believe. Since at that point it could, in theory, without further direct nurture, become an adult human in time, it's a possible point. Obvious problem: It clearly would have no sense of "self" at this time, no real cognitive function as we recognize it as associated with "personhood". Yet it is post heartbeat, and post-initial brain random neuron firings.
When they have that cognitive function in part 3. Obvious problem: Not only is this like 18 months old at the earliest for most which means post-birth abortions, but some people will never reach that cognitive function, such as the brain damaged, the developmentally crippled, or reddit moderators.
Convincing women abortion isn't killing and is instead exercising her rights is the both the most effective con ever concocted and the sad reality of women's rational thinking.
The thing is if they admit they are responsible for their own pregnancy it means whoring around is wrong and whoring around can't be wrong because they like doing it and denying themselves something they like is out of the question because they're selfish. This is what happens with addiction as well, you refuse the idea of being wrong and go from there, exactly the opposite of what a smart person would do.
Very few people support bodily autonomy. It's not a popular political position. Most people want to have some part in regulating other people's bodies. I guess it's human nature.
I told my pro-choice mother and her friends at the start of all this:
"If you really believe in my body, my choice, you need to be on the front lines of this."
Because when the other shoe falls, and abortion is outlawed under the same flimsy reasoning "oh it's a public health crisis" then I will have no sympathy for the screeching hordes.
Granted, I was never going to have any sympathy anyway -- but at least I can point out the hypocrisy before they use it against me.
You should have told them men can become pregnant (lol) and watch them freak out.
Apparently the denial of genetics is the new trend of the Pro-Science! Party.
link
There is no hypocrisy. The situations simply aren’t comparable at all, in fact.
Pro-lifers aren’t against people having bodily autonomy in general. I’m not at least. They’re against a choice with no other outcome than the death of a developing child. That’s what an abortion is. That’s what it does. It’s not that you have a slightly higher risk of ending a life. You’re guaranteeing it ends.
Someone not choosing to get this vaccine and advocating they should have the right to weigh their own personal risk factors from getting covid versus the potential side effects from getting the vaccine is entirely different. It’s a series of risks assessments to their own personal health in relation to actually catching covid, with the chance of death being extremely low even after catching covid. Then there’s an even smaller risk of transmitting covid to someone else, a risk that can easily be mitigated by limiting contact with people when you’re actually sick. And getting vaccinated doesn’t even do much to mitigate those risks anyway. The vaccinated can still catch and spread covid.
Besides which, being told you can’t do something in a certain situations (abortion after going through all the choices required to get pregnant) is inherently different from being told you absolutely must do something regardless of your situation (mandatory vaccination regardless of natural immunity or risk factors). Both relate to choice, sure, but not in the same way and certainly not in a comparable fashion.
“You can’t do this” and “you must do that” aren’t even comparable propositions. Pretending they are to expand government authority into potentially every aspect of life is seriously concerning.
Banning abortion is actually supporting bodily autonomy. We're talking about the right of a baby to live and enjoy the same rights with regard to its body as the mother.
One thing I've always noticed is that women never ever refer to the baby in their womb as a fetus unless they want to kill it. Everyone intuitively understands that the baby is a growing human life that deserves rights as much as anyone else, but women disregard that and play god when it is inconvenient for them.
They need to grow up and accept that they are not more important than their baby just because they are stronger and more mature. They would hate if men took that attitude towards them, but they hypocritically do the same thing to the life growing within.
"A child, not a choice" literally explains why "my body. my choice" doesn't make sense for abortion; because it's more than a "choice" to kill your child just because it is engulfed by you. "My body. My Choice." actually makes sense for vaccines but is being used to show the irony of the party of "muh body. muh choice" forcing people to take shit experiment vaccine. Perhaps the vaccine is what causes people to lose their sense of irony (and skin falling off and exploding hearts and basically everything but actually preventing the fucking COOF).
Rule two requires that I very clearly state that I do not wholeheartedly wish for these people to be dragged into the street and hanged from lampposts.
Kind of ironic Dana Milbank (who is jewish coincidentally) is calling pro-lifers "pro-deathers" when "pro-choicers" are the ones killing children in the womb. Conservatives should just call their opponents baby murderers because it's simpler and it's the truth. Abortion is legalized wholesale murder of defenseless children and New York and Virginia allow it up to and including date of birth.
I don't see the irony.
"My body, my choice" is a legitimate argument when you are talking about someone forcing a medical procedure on your own body.
"My body, my choice" is not legitimate when you are talking about killing another different human being, in this case, babies... they are deciding over another life, another body, not only their own body.
But, of course, this retarded brainwashed low IQ evil monkey is incapable of thinking about the mental diarrhea he's vomiting out most of the time.
Can't expect the duck to think about their duckspeak. The party will shout its slogans without thinking about them. This is both the means and the end to their propaganda.
In response to your title,
it'spro-lifers using "My body, my choice" is literally just pointing out the hypocrisy. Actually, at this point I think it's evolved into a full on Hypocracy.The hypocrisy of?
The left using the concept of bodily autonomy ("my body my choice") to allow people to avoid the consequences of their own actions by directly harming another, but denying that same concept and attempting to force people to accept responsibility for others to their own detriment. Apologies if that wasn't clear, I've edited that post for clarity.
Edit: misinterpreted 8bitarchitect's post. My b.
[Not my opinion] There are a couple of things in that regard. One is forcing women to follow through with pregnancy when they don't want to, but then saying people should be free to make their own decisions on vaccines.
The other is being adamant to save the lives of the unborn, but not being concerned for others' lives in practice by not getting vaxed (thus the "march for death" line).
Under the concept of bodily autonomy the rational course would be whether it was a decision by the individual or not. This still is murky as it is still subjecting another’s bodily autonomy to the mercy of the one impacted by the action.
Yes, but we're obviously arguing against people who don't believe in bodily autonomy. They need the state to protect them from personal responsibility and consequences. It is up to the state to protect women who magically get pregnant, regardless of their actions leading to conception.
It is now the responsibility of the state to protect us all by getting everyone vexed. We have to accommodate for grandma and other vulnerable people by forcing injections to the otherwise healthy population.
Yes but of course they are immoral liars.
Literal fucking wooosh
Nah, I think he knows exactly what he's doing.
Imagine if abortions modified their DNA
I'm against abortion for two reasons really. One I believe there's a kid in there, therefore it's not okay to kill it. I generally can't stand kids until they are about 10, they drive me nuts. Should I just kill them too? Just some cells, right? So some of them are going to have shitty lives too. That's another excuse they use. So I guess just kill them off too, why make them learn and try to overcome a shitty childhood?
I'm fine with the Texas law for example, which by the way allows abortions early on. It's not a ban despite what they say. Don't care if it's too soon for loose women to figure out they are pregnant. They can close their legs once in a while. That leads to my second point, I think abortions lead to a society of slutty degenerates because they get a free pass on the "downside" if you call it that. The way I see it this shitty families-last fun-first society is the largest reason why almost every discussion on this site for example even needs to exist.
Washington "Why can't we hate men" Post is pushing the jab? I'm so surprised.
https://archive.is/uq3jU
Feminists have been hypocrites long before this recent vaccine mandate fiasco. Men have been campaigning for the outlawing of circumcising babies for decades using "my body, my choice". It was completely ignored for boys (yet strangely zealously pursued for girls) with arguments of "incel", "man baby" etc etc.
"My body, my choice" really should be "Rules for thee, none for me".
because these retards still believe the propaganda about injection effectiveness. not joking, most of these retards think 50%+ of people who get covid are hospitalized. they think people who get the jab can't transmit it. and they're highly resistant to any evidence even from official sources, that challenges the ridiculous bullshit they've bought into.
meanwhile, getting an abortion is killing a baby.