The brain has a way of shutting that down

He also followed that statement with, "Of which we, the Republican party, only give one solitary shit about before it's born. After that, the mother and it can go fuck itself."
 

Dave

Staff member
They are not pro life, they are pro-fetus. And then they are for the death penalty and pro-war and do not see the irony in any of this.
 

Cajungal

Staff member
Could we just make adoption mandatory for people who try to force women to be happy about their rape babies?
 
They are not pro life, they are pro-fetus. And then they are for the death penalty and pro-war and do not see the irony in any of this.
Pro-life: "I not ok with killing someone who has unquestionably done nothing to deserve it"
Pro-death penalty/war: "I'm ok with killing someone who has done something to deserve it"

No irony there, those are entirely consistent beliefs.
 

Dave

Staff member
Pro-life: "I not ok with killing someone who has unquestionably done nothing to deserve it"
Pro-death penalty/war: "I'm ok with killing someone who has done something to deserve it"

No irony there, those are entirely consistent beliefs.
So then we as humans are the arbiters of who should live or die? The ones who decide - sometimes capriciously - who "deserves it"? The people who use religion that has a hard and fast rule that says "Thou shalt not kill" to further their own ends politically and socially? Dude, there is NO consistency at all. I'm not even getting into the fact that a large number of death row inmates are more than likely innocent. Do I have a number to justify "large"? Nope. But since 1973 150 people have been exonerated and freed from death row. And that's just the innocent ones we know about. I was under the impression we cared more to have a hundred guilty go free than to sacrifice one innocent life.
 
This thread is already turning into a shit-flinging contest, how delightful.

Soon:
"Are you saying that babies should die?"

"I dunno, are you saying that we should be allowed to kill people at random?"

"It sounds like you're saying that life has no meaning to you and you're an awful person."

"It sounds like you're saying women should be happy that they were raped, and you're the awful person."

And so on, and so on...
 
So then we as humans are the arbiters of who should live or die? The ones who decide - sometimes capriciously - who "deserves it"? The people who use religion that has a hard and fast rule that says "Thou shalt not kill" to further their own ends politically and socially? Dude, there is NO consistency at all. I'm not even getting into the fact that a large number of death row inmates are more than likely innocent. Do I have a number to justify "large"? Nope. But since 1973 150 people have been exonerated and freed from death row. And that's just the innocent ones we know about. I was under the impression we cared more to have a hundred guilty go free than to sacrifice one innocent life.
There are concerns about the legal system that I agree cause problems with the use of the death penalty. Still, that's a separate issue, having more faith in the system than it deserves isn't contradictory to thinking killing the unborn is wrong.
 

GasBandit

Staff member
And then there's those of us who are both pro choice and pro capital punishment, but rather than commenting on our consistency, we just get hated by both sides.
 
And then there's those of us who are both pro choice and pro capital punishment, but rather than commenting on our consistency, we just get hated by both sides.
Because a pregnant person's bodily autonomy has little to do with the prison-industiral complex, and so the stance seems like it's based on a false equivalency? *shrug*
 

GasBandit

Staff member
Because a pregnant person's bodily autonomy has little to do with the prison-industiral complex, and so the stance seems like it's based on a false equivalency? *shrug*
The way I look at it, I accept that a fetus can be considered a person - however I also assert that a fetus is no more a child than a child is an adult. I also acknowledge that we, as a society, make the call that people can and are put to death for reasons of our deciding - one might get the death penalty for murder, but cannot for extremely sadistic rape and torture, no matter how depraved or numerous the infractions, nor the likelihood of recidivism... but espionage or treason against the federal government, even if it does not result in a death, is eligible for the death penalty. There's no equivalency to draw upon anywhere, really - our standards for the acceptability of ending life are already rather arbitrary. I don't go as far as most abortion advocates and try to dehumanize the unborn, likening the process to the same as scraping a mole or excising a tumor, but I do recognize that that to emphasize "it stops a beating heart!" is intellectually disingenuous because we collectively decide to do that every day in other situations which are also much less nebulous on questions of sentience and suffering.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Cog
The way I look at it, I accept that a fetus can be considered a person - however I also assert that a fetus is no more a child than a child is an adult. I also acknowledge that we, as a society, make the call that people can and are put to death for reasons of our deciding - one might get the death penalty for murder, but cannot for extremely sadistic rape and torture, no matter how depraved or numerous the infractions, nor the likelihood of recidivism... but espionage or treason against the federal government, even if it does not result in a death, is eligible for the death penalty. There's no equivalency to draw upon anywhere, really - our standards for the acceptability of ending life are already rather arbitrary. I don't go as far as most abortion advocates and try to dehumanize the unborn, likening the process to the same as scraping a mole or excising a tumor, but I do recognize that that to emphasize "it stops a beating heart!" is intellectually disingenuous because we collectively decide to do that every day in other situations which are also much less nebulous on questions of sentience and suffering.
I think I get where you're going. Because I live in a country that doesn't have the death penalty, it (and any reasoning behind it) isn't part of my consciousness, so I'm sure I'm missing some of the nuances of where your coming from and what you're getting at, but I think I get it.

Something to the effect of: because we (as a society) have deemed it appropriate to terminate people's existence in other situations, where suffering and sentience are a given, to single out pregnant people and a fetus as a special case seems arbitrary and inconsistent?

I'm sure that's overly simplistic, but that's what I got out of what you said.
 

GasBandit

Staff member
I think I get where you're going. Because I live in a country that doesn't have the death penalty, it (and any reasoning behind it) isn't part of my consciousness, so I'm sure I'm missing some of the nuances of where your coming from and what you're getting at, but I think I get it.

Something to the effect of: because we (as a society) have deemed it appropriate to terminate people's existence in other situations, where suffering and sentience are a given, to single out pregnant people and a fetus as a special case seems arbitrary and inconsistent?

I'm sure that's overly simplistic, but that's what I got out of what you said.
Eh, close enough. As you say, sort of oversimplified, but essentially in line with my meaning.

The main reason abortion is so controversial here is that it was never actually decided through the usual procedure of how legislation is passed - rather, what our law is right now is based on a supreme court decision that tried to be King Solomon (Roe v Wade). And now it's gone on so long that the two sides have become utterly entrenched and implacable, so even doing it "right" now won't settle things. It's a right old mess.
 

Dave

Staff member
There are concerns about the legal system that I agree cause problems with the use of the death penalty. Still, that's a separate issue, having more faith in the system than it deserves isn't contradictory to thinking killing the unborn is wrong.
Fair enough point.
 
The death penalty has nothing to do with it. It's another middle aged white guy asserting control over a woman's uterus.

And then cutting all the programs and laws that would provide health, education, welfare, and safety for the actual, you know, CHILD. Like gutting the storage tank law that passed after the water to a third of the state was poisoned. Gutted at the behest of those storage tank owners.

Protect the unborn. The born? Fuck 'em.
 

GasBandit

Staff member
The death penalty has nothing to do with it. It's another middle aged white guy asserting control over a woman's uterus.

And then cutting all the programs and laws that would provide health, education, welfare, and safety for the actual, you know, CHILD. Like gutting the storage tank law that passed after the water to a third of the state was poisoned. Gutted at the behest of those storage tank owners.

Protect the unborn. The born? Fuck 'em.
What you are talking about however are two separate concepts - protection from harm vs support. Rhetorically, it's not at all contradictory to assert that it should not be legal to kill (subject) while at the same time denying that there is a legal requirement to provide monetary support and services for (subject).
 
it's not at all contradictory to assert that it should not be legal to kill (subject) while at the same time denying that there is a legal requirement to provide monetary support and services for (subject).
You have to admit that it is a bit short-sighted, though.

--Patrick
 

GasBandit

Staff member
You have to admit that it is a bit short-sighted, though.

--Patrick
It's part of the reason why I don't side with republicans on the issue. "We're going to force you to carry this to term, even if you can't afford a child, and we're not going to help you monetarily." Adoption alone doesn't cut the mustard (especially with how herculean the requirements are to adopt these days).
 
It's part of the reason why I don't side with republicans on the issue. "We're going to force you to carry this to term, even if you can't afford a child, and we're not going to help you monetarily."
It is a rather White, Elephant-y thing to do, isn't it?

--Patrick
 
It's part of the reason why I don't side with republicans on the issue. "We're going to force you to carry this to term, even if you can't afford a child, and we're not going to help you monetarily." Adoption alone doesn't cut the mustard (especially with how herculean the requirements are to adopt these days).
It's not just direct assistance they've cut. Protections that should be in place for everyone, like that storage tank legislation, are being gutted.

"Sorry that baby we forced you to carry to term died from tainted water, but Bob Murray gave us a boatload of money to not give a shit."
 

GasBandit

Staff member
It's not just direct assistance they've cut. Protections that should be in place for everyone, like that storage tank legislation, are being gutted.

"Sorry that baby we forced you to carry to term died from tainted water, but Bob Murray gave us a boatload of money to not give a shit."
I don't really follow how storage tank legislation is related to abortion. Moreover, the bill you are mad about has 11 sponsors, 4 of whom are democrats, including the house minority leader - so it seems to me that it's not just republicans who "hate born children" and want them to choke on tainted water.
 
I don't really follow how storage tank legislation is related to abortion. Moreover, the bill you are mad about has 11 sponsors, 4 of whom are democrats, including the house minority leader - so it seems to me that it's not just republicans who "hate born children" and want them to choke on tainted water.
You mean "democrat," this is WV after all.

Besides, I was never talking about the bill (not the abortion bill, at least... the other one is just the most recent example of WV politics at it's most owned to illustrate the "protect the unborn, but fuck the born" attitude). It is and has always been about that idiotic statement about rape that has since gone viral.
 

GasBandit

Staff member
You mean "democrat," this is WV after all.

Besides, I was never talking about the bill (not the abortion bill, at least... the other one is just the most recent example of WV politics at it's most owned to illustrate the "protect the unborn, but fuck the born" attitude). It is and has always been about that idiotic statement about rape that has since gone viral.
I think you got off on a bit of a tangent there, then. Because all of a sudden the thread lurched into storage tanks.

I shouldn't need to comment on "beautiful" children, regardless of the circumstances of their conception. I've made my position clear on the matter. And frankly, even babies conceived within wedlock by utterly loving parents are frequently little more than hypersonic germ-spewing nightmare poopbeasts :p

 
The people who use religion that has a hard and fast rule that says "Thou shalt not kill" to further their own ends politically and socially?
I see lots of people that oppose the death penalty try to use this argument, and I understand why. But the basis they are using is fundamentally flawed. The most accurate translation of that Commandment is "Thou shall not murder." Much more refined scope of meaning than "Thou shall not kill." The KJV of The Bible is an interesting read, but they did choose to go with the broader interpretation of some phrases than what is generally seen in the Hebrew texts that have been found since the KJV was translated.
 
I see lots of people that oppose the death penalty try to use this argument, and I understand why. But the basis they are using is fundamentally flawed. The most accurate translation of that Commandment is "Thou shall not murder." Much more refined scope of meaning than "Thou shall not kill." The KJV of The Bible is an interesting read, but they did choose to go with the broader interpretation of some phrases than what is generally seen in the Hebrew texts that have been found since the KJV was translated.
Christian politicans don't tend to be concerned with accuracy to Hebrew texts much of the time. The KJV interpretation is widely known, accepted, and ignored, much like the stuff about helping the poor and forgiveness and a bunch of other shit conservative politicians pay lip service to, but never act upon. Christianity is a talking point to score votes for them. It has nothing to do with the religion.
 
The GOP has strayed so far away from Christian beliefs that it's not funny. Problem is, people see the Liberal Left as a bunch of Godless evildoers.
 
Christian politicans don't tend to be concerned with accuracy to Hebrew texts much of the time. The KJV interpretation is widely known, accepted, and ignored, much like the stuff about helping the poor and forgiveness and a bunch of other shit conservative politicians pay lip service to, but never act upon. Christianity is a talking point to score votes for them. It has nothing to do with the religion.
Just as much as Islamic terrorism has to do with the actual Islam or what's written in the Qoran, yet people are still plenty happy to equate those two too.
 
Top