HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » I Can't Take The Anti-Cho...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Fri Jan 25, 2013, 01:53 PM

I 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.

36 replies, 2678 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 36 replies Author Time Post
Reply I Can't Take The Anti-Choice Crowd Serious EVER, Not With Their Sheer Hypocrisy. (Original post)
JaneyVee Jan 2013 OP
kairos12 Jan 2013 #1
Hayabusa Jan 2013 #2
JaneyVee Jan 2013 #4
DogPawsBiscuitsNGrav Jan 2013 #3
JaneyVee Jan 2013 #6
DogPawsBiscuitsNGrav Jan 2013 #7
JaneyVee Jan 2013 #8
DogPawsBiscuitsNGrav Jan 2013 #9
JaneyVee Jan 2013 #12
Zoeisright Jan 2013 #15
daleanime Jan 2013 #16
JaneyVee Jan 2013 #22
MH1 Jan 2013 #32
JDPriestly Jan 2013 #20
Zoeisright Jan 2013 #14
DogPawsBiscuitsNGrav Jan 2013 #24
JDPriestly Jan 2013 #19
Hissyspit Jan 2013 #26
left coaster Jan 2013 #28
DogPawsBiscuitsNGrav Jan 2013 #29
Hissyspit Jan 2013 #35
REP Jan 2013 #33
UnrepentantLiberal Jan 2013 #34
spanone Jan 2013 #5
indepat Jan 2013 #10
Initech Jan 2013 #11
Zoeisright Jan 2013 #13
mountain grammy Jan 2013 #17
adieu Jan 2013 #18
SheilaT Jan 2013 #21
Flaxbee Jan 2013 #23
PennsylvaniaMatt Jan 2013 #25
HockeyMom Jan 2013 #27
OnionPatch Jan 2013 #30
kestrel91316 Jan 2013 #31
bluestater1966fgs Jan 2013 #36

Response to JaneyVee (Original post)

Fri Jan 25, 2013, 02:10 PM

1. 100 Percent Correct

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JaneyVee (Original post)

Fri Jan 25, 2013, 02:14 PM

2. Also, these "pro-life" people

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hayabusa (Reply #2)

Fri Jan 25, 2013, 02:17 PM

4. Exactly. The hypocrisy is astounding. They're "pro-life" yet are willing to kill & bomb.

Thank you for that point.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JaneyVee (Original post)

Fri Jan 25, 2013, 02:16 PM

3. The people I love even more are the ones who say "a womans body a womans choice) but that

 

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DogPawsBiscuitsNGrav (Reply #3)

Fri Jan 25, 2013, 02:18 PM

6. This makes no sense. Last I checked tobacco, alcohol, & obesity is legal.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JaneyVee (Reply #6)

Fri Jan 25, 2013, 02:39 PM

7. True, however there's a thread up now where a state is trying to pass a law that says

 

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DogPawsBiscuitsNGrav (Reply #7)

Fri Jan 25, 2013, 02:47 PM

8. Still makes no sense. And it is a bizarre equation to even make.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JaneyVee (Reply #8)

Fri Jan 25, 2013, 03:01 PM

9. I'm pointing out the hypocrisy both ways. The Dems don't believe you have a right to

 

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DogPawsBiscuitsNGrav (Reply #9)

Fri Jan 25, 2013, 03:40 PM

12. I'm a Dem and I don't care what you do with your body as long as it doesn't harm others.

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DogPawsBiscuitsNGrav (Reply #9)

Fri Jan 25, 2013, 03:52 PM

15. You don't understand the definition of hypocrisy.

And apparently you didn't major in logical reasoning in school either. Because you're completely wrong.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DogPawsBiscuitsNGrav (Reply #9)

Fri Jan 25, 2013, 04:00 PM

16. Arn't we 'Dem'?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DogPawsBiscuitsNGrav (Reply #9)

Fri Jan 25, 2013, 04:48 PM

22. Let me know when Dems march on DC to take away your smoking rights.

Or start bombing tobacco makers.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DogPawsBiscuitsNGrav (Reply #9)

Fri Jan 25, 2013, 07:41 PM

32. Er, this Dem thinks you have a right to smoke.

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.)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DogPawsBiscuitsNGrav (Reply #7)

Fri Jan 25, 2013, 04:30 PM

20. DogPawsBiscuitsNGrav

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DogPawsBiscuitsNGrav (Reply #3)

Fri Jan 25, 2013, 03:52 PM

14. When you can keep smoke in your own lungs

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?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Zoeisright (Reply #14)

Fri Jan 25, 2013, 06:08 PM

24. No. As a woman I don't see them as any different. Either way through laws & taxes

 

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DogPawsBiscuitsNGrav (Reply #3)

Fri Jan 25, 2013, 04:28 PM

19. No one will stop you from smoking or drinking.

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

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DogPawsBiscuitsNGrav (Reply #3)

Fri Jan 25, 2013, 06:19 PM

26. Not equivalent.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DogPawsBiscuitsNGrav (Reply #3)

Fri Jan 25, 2013, 06:35 PM

28. "Oooo the dangers of second hand pregnancy!" No one said, EVER. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to left coaster (Reply #28)

Fri Jan 25, 2013, 07:14 PM

29. I know you were being sarcastic but there really are second hand dangers and consequences

 

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?



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DogPawsBiscuitsNGrav (Reply #29)

Fri Jan 25, 2013, 09:24 PM

35. Holy fuck. Give it up.

Last edited Sat Jan 26, 2013, 01:41 AM - Edit history (1)

"Smoking = Pregnancy."

Good god...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DogPawsBiscuitsNGrav (Reply #3)

Fri Jan 25, 2013, 07:46 PM

33. You're really going there?

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DogPawsBiscuitsNGrav (Reply #3)

Fri Jan 25, 2013, 08:01 PM

34. You're goofy.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JaneyVee (Original post)

Fri Jan 25, 2013, 02:18 PM

5. my theory, you only truly love the fetus, if you love the old man/woman it becomes...

and they certainly don't give a shit about the fetus once it becomes a viable human

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JaneyVee (Original post)

Fri Jan 25, 2013, 03:10 PM

10. Shamefully loathsome hypocrisy knows

no bounds when spouted from the mouths of mendacious, disingenuous hypocrites.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JaneyVee (Original post)

Fri Jan 25, 2013, 03:36 PM

11. I really do think our "pro lifers" are really no better than the Taliban.

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JaneyVee (Original post)

Fri Jan 25, 2013, 03:50 PM

13. Not to mention cutting prenatal care and prenatal health research.

That PROVES repukes don't give a flying fuck about the fetus.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JaneyVee (Original post)

Fri Jan 25, 2013, 04:25 PM

17. One of my sons once got brave enough to tell me he favored "restricting abortions"

"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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JaneyVee (Original post)

Fri Jan 25, 2013, 04:26 PM

18. It has never been pro-life or anti-abortion

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JaneyVee (Original post)

Fri Jan 25, 2013, 04:43 PM

21. I'm always saying, if you don't believe in abortion then don't have one.

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JaneyVee (Original post)

Fri Jan 25, 2013, 04:58 PM

23. As Jennifer Granholm wrote in the Huffington Post a while back, they are Pro-BIRTH, that's it.

Nothing pro life about most of them. Just have that baby no matter what, then they all go back to not giving a damn.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JaneyVee (Original post)

Fri Jan 25, 2013, 06:17 PM

25. As someone once said...

"If only Republicans cared as much about 6 year old children as much as they care about a 6 day old bundle of cells"

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JaneyVee (Original post)

Fri Jan 25, 2013, 06:22 PM

27. Pro-BIRTH people

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JaneyVee (Original post)

Fri Jan 25, 2013, 07:29 PM

30. And if a fetus has the same rights as the born

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!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JaneyVee (Original post)

Fri Jan 25, 2013, 07:32 PM

31. Pro-"lifers" won't be content until the United States of America becomes the Republic of Gilead.

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JaneyVee (Original post)

Fri Jan 25, 2013, 09:34 PM

36. Personally, I never took the anti-choice types seriously either

 

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread