"Keep her legs closed!": Republicans are mad one of them said the quiet part out loud
www.salon.com
Republicans definitely want to punish women for having sex — but they don't want voters to figure that out

An insightfull article on what pro-forced birth is actually about.

A reminder that voting GOP and wanting to reduce human suffering are mutually exclusive. The choice is yours.

Spoiler: Like always, it was never about the babies.

  • Throwaway@lemm.ee
    326·
    1 year ago

    For the record, I did not argue for no welfare. I said that the argument was stupid. Its perfectly logical to say “I’m anti-murder but not pro-welfare.”

    Imo, we need welfare, especially for babies and children.

    Hell, you can give a lot of reasons. Theres even one for feminists. I forget the exact wording I heard, but it hinges on the lack of mens reproductive rights, and women being equal to men.

    Men are considered smart enough and responsible enough to not fuck unless they want to risk children. Women are not stupid, they are just as smart and responsible as men.

    Theres also the racism argument since its mostly minorities aborting.

    • webadict@lemmy.world
      15·
      1 year ago

      Your post history indicates that you hate minorities, so that doesn’t feel like a point you believe in, but I don’t think you believe in anything, so there is that.

      • Throwaway@lemm.ee
        114·
        1 year ago

        Wtf are you talking about? What comment have I made that hates minorities?

        Fucking “indicates”, is that the new version of dogwhistle?

    • gamermanh@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      5·
      1 year ago

      Its perfectly logical to say “I’m anti-murder but not pro-welfare.”

      Only if you ignore the context that said “murder” being stopped will result in the need for welfare. In that case you’re 100% right

      Too bad reality doesn’t ignore context as easily as cuckservatives such as yourself

    • AnonTwo@kbin.social
      5·
      1 year ago

      For the record, I did not argue for no welfare.
      .
      Its perfectly logical to say “I’m anti-murder but not pro-welfare.”

      I dunno, I’d say if you say both in the same sentence, you probably haven’t actually cared enough to consider welfare to counteract your “anti-murder” stance

      So it’s perfectly fair to say that what you are arguing would lead to unnecessary death just from your negligence to follow through. You’re effectively just trying to hand waive it off as “we’ll worry about it later” when it’s already too late.