The Anti-Abortion Movement Was Always Built on Lies - Infanticide isn't wrong because The Queen of the Pro-Life Movement could be bought with money!

(Archive)

This week, it was revealed that Norma McCorvey, a.k.a. “Jane Roe,” admitted on her death bed that her late-career anti-abortion crusade was all a ruse funded by the Christian right. Laura Bassett takes a hard look at the house of cards the American anti-abortion movement was built upon.
BY LAURA BASSETT
May 20, 2020

In 1973, the plaintiff “Jane Roe” brought a case to the Supreme Court that would legalize abortion throughout America. So it was quite a surprise when, in the mid-1990s, Roe, whose real name was Norma McCorvey, suddenly emerged as an anti-abortion activist. She wrote a book about her change of heart, spoke at multiple annual March for Life rallies, and even filed a motion in 2003 to get the Supreme Court to re-decide her case. “I deeply regret the damage my original case caused women,” she said at the time. “I want the Supreme Court to examine the evidence and have a spirit of justice for women and children.”

As it turns out, that conversion was all a big lie, bought and paid for by the Christian right. In the new documentary AKA Jane Roe, McCorvey confesses on her death bed in 2017 that her change of heart was “all an act” that Evangelicals and anti-abortion groups had paid her nearly half a million dollars to perform. “I took their money and they took me out in front of the cameras and told me what to say,” McCorvey says bluntly.

On its face, this revelation is a bombshell. McCorvey’s about-face on abortion has been the subject of countless profiles and stories in many prestigious outlets, and anti-abortion activists love to bring it up any time the subject of Roe v. Wade arises. But the fact that conservatives were paying McCorvey all along to dupe America shouldn’t come as a surprise to anyone who’s been paying attention to abortion politics. Today’s whole “pro-life” movement was built on a lie, and they’ve had to lie in increasingly elaborate ways to stay relevant.

Before Roe, Republicans and white evangelicals generally supported abortion rights, much in the way libertarians do now, because to them it meant fewer mothers and children dependent on the government for support. Segregationists, meanwhile, had their own racist reasons. George Wallace, the longtime governor of Alabama, a Democrat who would later join the far-right American Independent Party, four-time presidential candidate, and outspoken segregationist who is often compared to Donald Trump, backed the legalization of abortion in the late 1960s because he claimed black women were “breeding children as a cash crop” and taking advantage of social welfare programs.

Around the same time, white evangelicals had been trying to avoid desegregation by sending their kids to private, tax-exempt, segregated religious schools. Then in 1971, the Supreme Court decided in Green v. Connally that racially discriminatory schools could no longer claim tax-exempt status. This infuriated and mobilized evangelical leaders like Jerry Falwell, who owned one such school in Virginia, to get involved in politics. And it so happened that conservative political activist Paul Weyrich had been looking for ways to harness the political power of white evangelicals to grow the Republican Party. “Weyrich understood that racism—and let's call it what it is—was unlikely to be a galvanizing issue among grassroots evangelicals,” historian Randall Balmer explained to NPR on the subject.


So Weyrich tried to make pornography the wedge issue, he tried prayer in schools, he tried the proposed Equal Rights Amendment to the Constitution which would have guaranteed equal legal rights to women, and none of those issues really rallied his troops. “I was trying to get people interested in those issues and I utterly failed,” he later admitted at a conference in 1990. Then, six years after Roe v. Wade in 1973, Weyrich and Falwell noticed that conservatives were starting to get uncomfortable with the spike in legal abortions after the landmark case and with the sexual, social and economic freedom that reproductive rights had brought to women. So they went all in on making abortion a wedge issue that could marry the Christian right and the GOP. They founded the Moral Majority in 1979, a political organization that essentially used abortion to deny President Jimmy Carter a second term, and made reproductive rights the political rallying cry it is today.

Ronald Reagan’s election in 1980 marked the beginning of an era in which Republican candidates relied on white evangelical enthusiasm to win, and he is considered by some to be the “father of the pro-life movement.” But even Reagan did not appear to hold genuine views on the issue; as governor of California in 1967, he had signed a bill into law that decriminalized abortion in the state, long before Roe v. Wade. Then as president, he said he regretted that move and suddenly opposed all abortions except to save the life of the mother. Under his leadership in the ‘80s, the anti-abortion movement radicalized—they ramped up protests at women’s health clinics, pouring glue into the locks and chaining themselves to the doors until they got arrested.

This renegade activism culminated in the first murder of an abortion provider in 1993—and that obviously wasn’t going to cut it as a lasting political strategy for a movement that called itself “pro-life” heading into the future. So they found increasingly deceptive, elaborate ways to manipulate people’s emotions about the procedure. In 1995, the National Right to Life Committee coined the term “partial-birth” abortions, and George W. Bush later signed a bill banning them, despite the fact that the term does not apply to any known medical procedure and is couched in language so vague that it could apply to any abortion procedure.

Meanwhile, Evangelicals were funding thousands of so-called Crisis Pregnancy Centers across the country, which lure scared pregnant women in with deceptive billboards and internet listings and even staff-members in fake medical garb, and then outright lie to these women to steer them away from abortions and even birth control. One woman said she was told at a CPC in Virginia that condoms don’t work because they’re “naturally porous” and that birth control causes memory loss and cancer.

In the late 2000s, the movement put Planned Parenthood in its crosshairs. An anti-abortion group called Live Action started sending undercover actors with hidden cameras into the family planning provider’s clinics, pretending to be a pimp and prositute looking for an abortion or some other wild scheme, and then heavily editing the videos for YouTube to make it look like Planned Parenthood was committing a crime. The most infamous of these, in which the group claims to have caught Planned Parenthood trafficking fetal body parts after abortions, dropped in 2015, giving House Republicans an excuse to launch a $1.59 million investigation into the women’s health organization. The investigation turned up no evidence to indict Planned Parenthood, but the whole issue was inflammatory enough to propel abortion into being a top issue in the upcoming presidential election. Donald Trump won that election, of course, thanks largely to evangelical Christians overlooking his lack of morality and eyeing that empty Supreme Court seat.

As recently as February Trump and Republicans tried to push the false narrative that women were aborting their babies after birth. “It is murder if you take the baby home and kill the baby at home, it’s murder,” former Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker said at a conservative conference in February. Trump tweeted that Democrats are “so extreme that they don’t mind executing babies AFTER birth.” Obviously, murdering a baby would be infanticide, which is already illegal.

The clearest sign that your movement is built on a house of cards is having to repeatedly lie to your supporters to keep them around. In reality, roughly two-thirds of Americans support abortion rights and would like to see Roe upheld. The Republican leaders trying to push anti-abortion laws are swimming upstream, and they know it.

On the abortion rights side, the message has been consistent: A woman’s choice to carry a pregnancy or not should be between her and her doctor, and perhaps her family, if applicable. No tricks, no sting videos, no deception. Perhaps McCorvey said it best in the film, after decades of being a fake mouthpiece for a movement trying to strip women of their reproductive autonomy.

“If a young woman wants to have an abortion—fine,” she says. “That’s no skin off my ass. You know, that’s why they call it ‘choice.’ It’s your choice.”

Correction 5/21: An earlier version of this piece misstated that George Wallace was a Republican. We regret the error.
 
Neither. You should probably breathe air outside a gated community-- I've met people who acknowledge abortion as murder without being religious, and Christians who somehow think abortion is okay despite their professed affiliation.

Yep. The idea that only fundies think of abortion as wrong and unnecessary sounds like something straight out of 1992. (I won't even touch the "incel" nonsense.) I'm an atheist and a woman, and I think abortion is wrong and unnecessary for many reasons. The "abortion, hooray!" crowd has tried to force abortion to become so intrinsically linked with feminism and modern womanhood that sows like Lena Dunham feel obligated to say that she wished she could have experienced one as if it's a beautiful rite of passage and the last vestige of true femininity in a tranny-tainted world. The propaganda is real, and it's not just from pro-lifers.

Anyway, it's sad that some people here somehow believe that birth control has a significant fail rate when used properly:
Screen Shot 2020-05-28 at 12.36.16 AM.png
(^N.B. These methods are all more than 99% effective as long as someone doesn't miss her pill or injection like an irresponsible dope--and when in doubt, abstain until the situation can be remedied or at the very least use a condom plus EC if you must; it's not rocket science.)
Screen Shot 2020-05-28 at 12.31.57 AM.png
Screen Shot 2020-05-28 at 12.33.22 AM.png
Screen Shot 2020-05-28 at 12.34.10 AM.png
Screen Shot 2020-05-28 at 12.35.28 AM.png
And that's not even factoring in condom use in tandem with those methods as well as maybe a modicum of awareness about one's body and menstrual cycle/fertile window.
 
(^N.B. These methods are all more than 99% effective as long as someone doesn't miss her pill or injection like an irresponsible dope--and when in doubt, abstain until the situation can be remedied or at the very least use a condom plus EC if you must; it's not rocket science.)

Per use? Because even a 99.9% success rate is 1 in 1000 failure. Over the course of three years, anyone who had sex daily would have a one third chance of experiencing a failure. That's pretty significant.
 
There are three reasons an abortion should always be allowed:

Medical reasons
Sexual Assault/Rape
Sexual Abuse/Incest

Anything else would be just misogyny and sadism. Because I am sorry, but how much do have to hate women (and the fetus) to want them to die or suffer immensely for something they are not at fault for? Seriously, people. What's wrong with you?

And even at three months/12 weeks a fetus is not a viable human being but the mother definitely is.
 
Last edited:
There are three reasons an abortion should always be allowed:

Medical reasons
Sexual Assault/Rape
Sexual Abuse/Incest

Anything else would be just misogyny and sadism. Because I am sorry, but how much do have to hate women (and the fetus) to want them to die or suffer immensely for something they are not at fault for? Seriously, people. What's wrong with you?

And even at three months/12 weeks a fetus is not a viable human being but the mother definitely is.

I'm curious about something. You say abortion should be allowed in cases of conception of rape or incest, but you also question how much would one have to hate a woman and fetus to cause them death and/or suffering for something that's not their fault. What gives?
 
I'm curious about something. You say abortion should be allowed in cases of conception of rape or incest, but you also question how much would one have to hate a woman and fetus to cause them death and/or suffering for something that's not their fault. What gives?

Do you have trouble putting yourself in the shoes of other people, meaning do you have trouble understanding what a woman who has gotten raped, much less gotten pregnant because of it, would feel? I'm not being mean. I just wondering why it would be so hard to understand how deeply traumatizing such things are.

Anyways, here are some points (after my own personal opinion) against forcing someone who has been traumatized by rape to carry the baby of the rapist.

1. It's wrong to force someone to be pregnant. It's wrong. WRONG. W.R.O.N.G. Wtf, man. Violating people's boundaries is not acceptable.
2. Because rape is bad and not the fault of the woman and she should not be punished for it. (And if you think abortion is murder why not charge the rapist with murder? He was the one who committed the crime that led to the pregnancy after all. Because yeah, rape is bad and a crime.)
3. The woman would be even more traumatized.
4. Women who are stressed during pregnancy have higher levels of cortisol which is bad for the development of the baby.
5. Trauma can be transferred by the mothers onto children.
6. The woman might give it up for adoption so the child might be parentless and be at high danger for getting abused in the foster care system.
7. The woman might hate the child which might or might not lead to abuse.
8. The woman will forever have to deal with the rapist as he is the father which might make healing from the trauma impossible. (In the UK a rapist sued his victim for visiting rights and he won. Can you imagine. So much for justice and victim protection. Sure the child will be thrilled to see rapist daddy.)
9. The child might get psychologically damaged if it finds out their dad is a rapist. See above.

And are you seriously arguing against sexually abused girls having abortions? :(

If you actually "cared" about the child, like all pro-lifers are yapping about, you'd care for more than the fact that the child is born.

And unless you can get pregnant, you don't get to decide about abortion anyways. You're not entitled to my body or to any product there of.

Sorry, if I come off a bit aggressive but you asked for my opinion and I will not change my tone. I don't consider myself a feminist but I will fight for my rights as a human being. I will especially fight for my right to not be forced to carry a rapist's baby. The fact that men think they have a right to discuss what I can and can not do with my body honestly makes me want to puke. It also reminds me as a woman that my freedom is still confined to a safety bubble and I shouldn't be so complacent when it comes to my rights.

Edit: The Death was mostly in relation to medical reasons not to the rape/incest reasons.
 
Last edited:
People do crystal meth and steal from their neighbors who weren't involved with their bad decision making. That doesn't mean we should legalize theft. Just because people do dumb shit doesn't make it right nor does it give anyone the right to take it out on anyone else, especially those that are completely defenseless. Also thanks for admitting that abortion is basically the result idiots justifying their inability to practice self-control and doing what's expedient versus what is actually good for them.

Let's ban men from masturbating then, since that is wasting sperm
 
Do you have trouble putting yourself in the shoes of other people, meaning do you have trouble understanding what a woman who has gotten raped, much less gotten pregnant because of it, would feel?
1. What does that have to do with the logic I highlighted?
2. I was asking because what I highlighted strongly appeared to be logically inconsistent.

Playing less ignorant, though-- because you went through the trouble of typing that all out-- this is something I concern myself with consistently when pondering the topic. I'm able to recognize the trauma of rape, and I'm very familiar with people who were sexually assaulted or nearly sexually assaulted. However, do understand that the rationales I have for disagreeing with abortion outside of active risk of death for the mother (i.e. when it comes to saving as many lives as possible) do not allow me to abide it outside that specific circumstance.

That's not easy to say-- on one hand, yes, it is putting the woman in a weighty situation she didn't choose, again. On the other hand, that's still me saying it's okay to kill what I recognize as a human being when the life of the mother isn't at mortal risk. If I have questions to answer to, so do you. Consider:

Anyways, here are some points (after my own personal opinion) against forcing someone who has been traumatized by rape to carry the baby of the rapist.
I've never really advocated the outlawing of abortion, as I recognize its ubiquity as part of a larger cultural issue that the rule of law would not be able to fix by itself, and I additionally recognize it as a necessary evil in extreme circumstances.

1. It's wrong to force someone to be pregnant. It's wrong. WRONG. W.R.O.N.G. Wtf, man. Violating people's boundaries is not acceptable.
So, the fetus should suffer for something it didn't choose (being conceived out of rape/incest) or cause (i.e. the rape)?

2. Because rape is bad and not the fault of the woman and she should not be punished for it.
So, the fetus should suffer for something it didn't choose or cause?

(And if you think abortion is murder why not charge the rapist with murder? He was the one who committed the crime that led to the pregnancy after all. Because yeah, rape is bad and a crime.)
The rapist will already be charged for rape, and he possibly isn't even commanding the abortion himself, but I'm not very interested in outlawing abortion in the rule of law, as explained earlier.

3. The woman would be even more traumatized.
So, the fetus should suffer for something it didn't choose or cause?

4. Women who are stressed during pregnancy have higher levels of cortisol which is bad for the development of the baby.
Are you proffering that this would be a mercy killing for the fetus? Furthermore, do you proffer that there's just absolutely no way that the child would be able to avoid such effects or live a stable and happy life?

5. Trauma can be transferred by the mothers onto children.
Are you saying that it will be transferred, without doubt?

6. The woman might give it up for adoption so the child might be parentless and be at high danger for getting abused in the foster care system.
And if the child was merely unwanted instead of conceived by rape, the same thing might happen, and you presumably don't agree with "abortion because unwanted pregnancy". Furthermore, specific adoptive parents could be arranged for instead. Regardless of that option, though, are you suggesting that the abortion of the child would be a mercy killing?

7. The woman might hate the child which might or might not lead to abuse.
And if the child was merely unwanted instead of conceived by rape, the same thing might happen, and you presumably don't agree with "abortion because unwanted pregnancy". At any rate, are you suggesting that the abortion of the child would be a mercy killing and that abuse would be certain otherwise?

8. The woman will forever have to deal with the rapist as he is the father which might make healing from the trauma impossible.
Wouldn't the fact that he's a registered sex offender make a solid case for not allowing him in the immediate vicinity of a child in such a way?

(In the UK a rapist sued his victim for visiting rights and he won. Can you imagine. So much for justice and victim protection. Sure the child will be thrilled to see rapist daddy.)
The UK is worse than I thought.

9. The child might get psychologically damaged if it finds out their dad is a rapist. See above.
Are you suggesting that the abortion of the child would be a mercy killing?

And are you seriously arguing against sexually abused girls having abortions? :(

I'm arguing that the logic you presented was internally inconsistent, in essence-- if only at the level of detail you demonstrated. You ask why one would want to cause suffering to the mother (and fetus) for something they're not at fault for. Neither the woman nor the fetus are at fault for, respectively, being raped or being conceived from rape. In all of these rationales you've given, you haven't actually made the statement that you consider abortion in such circumstances a mercy killing-- something that I would disagree with because we're incapable of significantly predicting the potential of our offspring (in contrast, there's no potential for a dead person in this world), but something that would tie up your argument better.

If you actually "cared" about the child, like all pro-lifers are yapping about, you'd care for more than the fact that the child is born.
What the hell is with this stupid canard that pro-lifers don't care about the child after they're born? There was a pro-life student org when I was in university that didn't just set up activist booths to talk about their POV, but also were working several initiatives to support the maternal needs of young and/or single mothers so that they'd be less inclined to abort their children. You would think that supporting young/single mothers so that they're less pressured to abort would be a winning strategy that most (even if not all) such activist orgs would be using.

And sure, don't actually ask me about what I actually do or advocate for, but assume that I merely want to get abortion outlawed, assume that I don't even advocate for the needs of children overall, and assume that I'm not even aware that more needs to be done to encourage women to not abort for any reason in the first place.

You don't have to apologize for "being a bit aggressive"-- in fact, because it was intentional, not only should you not apologize at all, it's a worthless apology to make. But if you did have to, it would have been for not knowing a thing about my position in its finer details and railing against a caricature for a page instead of just answering my question.

And unless you can get pregnant, you don't get to decide about abortion anyways. You're not entitled to my body or to any product there of.
1. How many abortions do you think are commanded by a man, if not the (male) rapist himself? Do you think that such a thing happens even as those who advocate for "bodily autonomy" don't recognize it? Or, perhaps they do recognize and talk about this possibility, and I'm making the same mistake you made when you assumed I had no interest in the child post-birth?
2. If I'm convinced that abortion is killing human life, I definitely have a say in killing people.
3. You are incapable of escaping the reality that any legislation or ruling involving abortion, whether it restrict or permit, is written/adjudicated by mostly old men.
4. If they don't have the right to legislate/adjudicate re: abortion, that cuts both ways. Resultant from 3), there ought to never be any legislation involving abortion-- neither permission, nor restriction, nor budgeting, nor regulation.
5. If a father can be kept on the hook for child support under even the most tenuous of circumstances, why would they not have a general say in whether or not a woman should abort? I don't speak to cases where you'd say abortion is reasonable, but in less traumatic cases (such as just not wanting the child) that you consider insufficient grounds.
6. If I had female reproductive organs, my points would be valid? And what if I just regurgitated the talking points of a woman?

The fact that men think they have a right to discuss what I can and can not do with my body honestly makes me want to puke.
So, I was incorrect to believe that the lines you drew were about protecting human life?

Anyways, you can do whatever you want with your body, but the body inside someone's body isn't their body.

Edit: The Death was mostly in relation to medical reasons not to the rape/incest reasons.

Or I wasn't incorrect, and you're just being inconsistent in your selectiveness? What actually is your line-in-the-sand? When you abort outside the reasons you listed, you cause suffering to the mother and fetus that we should care about, but when you do so within the reasons you listed, the suffering of the fetus... doesn't matter? Like, when I say that abortion to save the life of the mother is a necessary evil, I say that recognizing that someone would be put up against the wall and wouldn't even have the opportunity to save their child in the first place.
 
Last edited:
1. What does that have to do with the logic I highlighted?
2. I was asking because what I highlighted strongly appeared to be logically inconsistent.

Playing less ignorant, though-- because you went through the trouble of typing that all out-- this is something I concern myself with consistently when pondering the topic. I'm able to recognize the trauma of rape, and I'm very familiar with people who were sexually assaulted or nearly sexually assaulted. However, do understand that the rationales I have for disagreeing with abortion outside of active risk of death for the mother (i.e. when it comes to saving as many lives as possible) do not allow me to abide it outside that specific circumstance.

That's not easy to say-- on one hand, yes, it is putting the woman in a weighty situation she didn't choose, again. On the other hand, that's still me saying it's okay to kill what I recognize as a human being when the life of the mother isn't at mortal risk. If I have questions to answer to, so do you. Consider:


I've never really advocated the outlawing of abortion, as I recognize its ubiquity as part of a larger cultural issue that the rule of law would not be able to fix by itself, and I additionally recognize it as a necessary evil in extreme circumstances.


So, the fetus should suffer for something it didn't choose (being conceived out of rape/incest) or cause (i.e. the rape)?


So, the fetus should suffer for something it didn't choose or cause?


The rapist will already be charged for rape, and he possibly isn't even commanding the abortion himself, but I'm not very interested in outlawing abortion in the rule of law, as explained earlier.


So, the fetus should suffer for something it didn't choose or cause?


Are you proffering that this would be a mercy killing for the fetus? Furthermore, do you proffer that there's just absolutely no way that the child would be able to avoid such effects or live a stable and happy life?


Are you saying that it will be transferred, without doubt?


And if the child was merely unwanted instead of conceived by rape, the same thing might happen, and you presumably don't agree with "abortion because unwanted pregnancy". Furthermore, specific adoptive parents could be arranged for instead. Regardless of that option, though, are you suggesting that the abortion of the child would be a mercy killing?


And if the child was merely unwanted instead of conceived by rape, the same thing might happen, and you presumably don't agree with "abortion because unwanted pregnancy". At any rate, are you suggesting that the abortion of the child would be a mercy killing and that abuse would be certain otherwise?


Wouldn't the fact that he's a registered sex offender make a solid case for not allowing him in the immediate vicinity of a child in such a way?


The UK is worse than I thought.


Are you suggesting that the abortion of the child would be a mercy killing?



I'm arguing that the logic you presented was internally inconsistent, in essence-- if only at the level of detail you demonstrated. You ask why one would want to cause suffering to the mother (and fetus) for something they're not at fault for. Neither the woman nor the fetus are at fault for, respectively, being raped or being conceived from rape. In all of these rationales you've given, you haven't actually made the statement that you consider abortion in such circumstances a mercy killing-- something that I would disagree with because we're incapable of significantly predicting the potential of our offspring (in contrast, there's no potential for a dead person in this world), but something that would tie up your argument better.


What the hell is with this stupid canard that pro-lifers don't care about the child after they're born? There was a pro-life student org when I was in university that didn't just set up activist booths to talk about their POV, but also were working several initiatives to support the maternal needs of young and/or single mothers so that they'd be less inclined to abort their children. You would think that supporting young/single mothers so that they're less pressured to abort would be a winning strategy that most (even if not all) such activist orgs would be using.

And sure, don't actually ask me about what I actually do or advocate for, but assume that I merely want to get abortion outlawed, assume that I don't even advocate for the needs of children overall, and assume that I'm not even aware that more needs to be done to encourage women to not abort for any reason in the first place.

You don't have to apologize for "being a bit aggressive"-- in fact, because it was intentional, not only should you not apologize at all, it's a worthless apology to make. But if you did have to, it would have been for not knowing a thing about my position in its finer details and railing against a caricature for a page instead of just answering my question.


1. How many abortions do you think are commanded by a man, if not the (male) rapist himself? Do you think that such a thing happens even as those who advocate for "bodily autonomy" don't recognize it? Or, perhaps they do recognize and talk about this possibility, and I'm making the same mistake you made when you assumed I had no interest in the child post-birth?
2. If I'm convinced that abortion is killing human life, I definitely have a say in killing people.
3. You are incapable of escaping the reality that any legislation or ruling involving abortion, whether it restrict or permit, is written/adjudicated by mostly old men.
4. If they don't have the right to legislate/adjudicate re: abortion, that cuts both ways. Resultant from 3), there ought to never be any legislation involving abortion-- neither permission, nor restriction, nor budgeting, nor regulation.
5. Supposing If a father can be kept on the hook for child support under even the most tenuous of circumstances, why would they not have a general say in whether or not a woman should abort? I don't speak to cases where you'd say abortion is reasonable, but in less traumatic cases (such as just not wanting the child) that you consider insufficient grounds.
6. If I had female reproductive organs, my points would be valid? And what if I just regurgitated the talking points of a woman?


So, I was incorrect to believe that the lines you drew were about protecting human life?

Anyways, you can do whatever you want with your body, but the body inside someone's body isn't their body.



Or I wasn't incorrect, and you're just being inconsistent in your selectiveness? What actually is your line-in-the-sand? When you abort outside the reasons you listed, you cause suffering to the mother and fetus that we should care about, but when you do so within the reasons you listed, the suffering of the fetus... doesn't matter? Like, when I say that abortion to save the life of the mother is a necessary evil, I say that recognizing that someone would be put up against the wall and wouldn't even have the opportunity to save their child in the first place.
Don't forget the fact that most abortions aren't for rape, incest, life/death, etc, and simply just "yeah I don't want a baby". But until pro-abortion people stop using those specific cases as a shield for those who are too lazy to use other forms, I'll just say abortion is great for killing all those would be black criminals.
 
Don't forget the fact that most abortions aren't for rape, incest, life/death, etc, and simply just "yeah I don't want a baby". But until pro-abortion people stop using those specific cases as a shield for those who are too lazy to use other forms, I'll just say abortion is great for killing all those would be black criminals.

Well, at least we know you have a say in this conversation, Ms. Sanger.
 
  • DRINK!
Reactions: DanteAlighieri
I was asking because what I highlighted strongly appeared to be logically inconsistent

Sorry, if what I initially wrote was a confusing. I guess, I should have phrased that sentence a bit better. I may also have misunderstood your question. English isn't my native language so sometimes it can come out weird. I probably should have written:

but how much do have to hate women to want the woman to die (not allowing abortion for medical reasons) or have the woman (and the child after birth) suffer immensely for something they are not at fault for (not allowing for rape/sexual abuse)?


So, does the suffering of the fetus matter to me?
No, because, a fetus is not a child yet, it's not a viable human being. I do not consider aborting a clump of cells murder. Especially not if it's a rape or incest baby.

I stand by what I wrote. Women should always be allowed to abort a child for the three reasons I listed initially. Actually, I think women should be allowed to abort in general. In my country all abortion is legal and free. I probably wouldn't abort a baby (unless I got raped) but I think I should have the freedom to do what I want with my body and whatever is growing in my womb. I don't care about your convictions. I don't care how much you think you should be allowed to decide about a woman's body just because some cells are growing in it. I won't discuss this with you because it would most likely be futile. You keep your opinion, I keep mine.
 
So, does the suffering of the fetus matter to me?
No, because, a fetus is not a child yet, it's not a viable human being. I do not consider aborting a clump of cells murder. Especially not if it's a rape or incest baby.

How is a fetus not a child? It has its own human DNA and is the product of the fusion of the gametes of two parties. I don't find "viability" a reasonable marker, not just because "fetus" is-- especially now-- being used imprecisely to refer to the subject at all points of gestation wherein at some point they become "viable", but because our technology to lower the base time for "viability" is constantly improving. The question exists, regardless, but is accentuated because of this reality: if we can ensure that fetuses are viable at earlier development stages at all, that suggests that there's a point in time where it becomes human (and it also suggests that they become human at earlier points because of technological advances).

But that's ludicrous. Its lineage and genetic makeup, at minimum, guarantee that it's human. That's always been the case. It's certainly not a dog, or a lizard, or any other animal, an it's not able to be an ambiguous object. It grows into a neonate, in the same fundamental way a neonate grows into an adult. The methods of nourishment take different forms (sharing the mother's nutrients in utero, breastfeeding, being otherwise fed by their parents) but they're fundamentally identical (nourishment is received by their parents, ideally). The manners of growth are different, but each stage of development is distinct from the other.

Moreover, what does "viability" mean, in practicality? That they're able to survive outside the womb? As I've said before, if you leave a newborn on a sidewalk, it will die without outside intervention. If you leave an infant of 1-2 years on the sidewalk, you're abandoning them to die without outside intervention. Up to a certain point, children are absolutely helpless by themselves-- and that's to say nothing of fixable congenital complications that can pose to be major issues left untreated.

"Viability" is a concept that evolves faster than the human ever has-- it cannot be used to establish a cutoff for humanness.

I do not consider aborting a clump of cells murder.

At what point does a fetus cease to be a "clump of cells"? After it's born? Is it fair game literally any second before then?

Does it cease to be a "clump of cells" when you can recognize that it feels and thinks? Again, coma patients have those capacities largely stripped away from them for the duration of their coma, but we don't consider them non-human during that time.

Do you have any idea how idiotic describing a complex organism like a fetus as a "clump of cells" is? As though it were some incoherently structured and incoherently developing mass? It's not biologically accurate, and it's certainly not ontologically correct. And the term's so general it describes every human.

Women should always be allowed to abort a child for the three reasons I listed initially. Actually, I think women should be allowed to abort in general.

I'm sorry, what? How does this not contradict you saying:

There are three reasons an abortion should always be allowed:

Medical reasons
Sexual Assault/Rape
Sexual Abuse/Incest

Anything else would be just misogyny and sadism. Because I am sorry, but how much do have to hate women (and the fetus) to want them to die or suffer immensely for something they are not at fault for? Seriously, people. What's wrong with you?

Hell, how does you characterizing the fetus in that statement not contradict you choosing to characterize the fetus as a "clump of cells" here? Do you actually expect me to believe that what you really meant was:

but how much do have to hate women to want the woman to die (not allowing abortion for medical reasons) or have the woman (and the child after birth) suffer immensely for something they are not at fault for (not allowing for rape/sexual abuse)?

You know what a fetus is and how the term is used in common parlance-- you used the term "fetus" originally. Your original argument, as structured, cannot function if you actually meant "child after birth"; you're arguing three cases where abortion should be allowed, and you condemn "anything else" as "misogyny and sadism" because, presumably, abortion outside those cases would be punishing mother and fetus. This is why I ask you about the evident contradiction in not wanting to cause suffering to woman and fetus but having no problem with abortion outside life or death situations, and instead of just answering that question, you decide to sprawl out into some pagelong argument condemning me for supposedly not having compassion for people who conceive out of rape or sexual abuse without ever addressing the contention that you were being contradictory.

But now you're "clarifying".

I don't care about your convictions. I don't care how much you think you should be allowed to decide about a woman's body just because some cells are growing in it. I won't discuss this with you because it would most likely be futile. You keep your opinion, I keep mine.

It's not an "opinion" that a fetus is biologically and ontologically human, and thus questions and concerns about humanity are relevant to it. That's not even something you can relegate to triviality as you're trying to do. And you shouldn't have to tell me that your convictions can't be shaken and that this conversation is "futile", after participating in a back-and-forth with someone who's already well-demonstrated in this thread what his position on the topic was.
 
According to the Alan Guttmacher Institute, black women are more than 5 times as likely as white women to have an abortion. On average, 1,876 black babies are aborted every day in the United States.

This incidence of abortion has resulted in a tremendous loss of life. It has been estimated that since 1973 Black women have had about 16 million abortions. Michael Novak had calculated "Since the number of current living Blacks (in the U.S.) is 36 million, the missing 16 million represents an enormous loss, for without abortion, America's Black community would now number 52 million persons. It would be 36 percent larger than it is. Abortion has swept through the Black community like a scythe, cutting down every fourth member."

A highly significant 1993 Howard University studyshowed that African American women over age 50 were 4.7 times more likely to get breast cancer if they had had any abortions compared to women who had not had any abortions.

sparkhooray.gif


I do wonder why anti-abortion advocates haven't taken the "Abortion is racist" tack more often. Probably because if you remind middle class Republican Karens that abortion helps to keep down the jogger population, their enthusiasm for preventing it may wane.

I personally think abortion might be more acceptable to people if it weren't for the Planned Parenthood baby chop shops and the ghoulish feminist actresses who celebrate it like a sacrament. Weren't Democrats originally trying to push Abortion as a necessary evil, something that should be "safe, sane and rare?" There's something evil underneath the surface there that abortion advocates just can't seem to keep a lid on. If they could shut up the more hysterical and bloodthirsty of their numbers, they might curb a lot of the opposition to abortion among the normie ranks.
 
Last edited:
...why would an incel be advocating for people to not have sex until they're in a position where they could possibly shoulder the responsibility of a child? Isn't the point of being an incel that you don't want to be celibate?

It's mostly the whole "Women are HOORS unless they're fucking me!" mentality. And a lot of them think that only HOORS get abortions.

People in comas don't do much in the way of thinking or feeling, but killing a coma patient is sure to land you with a murder charge, and rightfully so.

Because people in comas are legal people. A fetus is not a legal person. And your morality is not universal, nor is it the law of the land.

Neither. You should probably breathe air outside a gated community-- I've met people who acknowledge abortion as murder without being religious, and Christians who somehow think abortion is okay despite their professed affiliation.

I didn't say that all pro-lifers are incels or fundies. I said that the extremely vocal and rabid ones are. And they're usually male too.

The Bible isn't exactly anti-abortion, ftr.

Anyways, fetuses aren't legally recognized as people, they don't have the ability to suffer or feel pain, and my rights (and your rights) trump theirs. The already born are more important and all you need to do is look at my avatar to understand why abortion is necessary. Good day.
 
It's mostly the whole "Women are HOORS unless they're fucking me!" mentality. And a lot of them think that only HOORS get abortions.

Okay, then they're not advocating for people to not have sex before they can shoulder the potential responsibility of the results. In the end, you still asked a question you should have already had answered because all it was, was a mindless insult.

Because people in comas are legal people. A fetus is not a legal person.
Now you're just avoiding your point and mine.

People in comas are considered legally people because they're biologically and ontologically people that aren't dead. In other words, the legality is a reflection of a reality. The laws that condemn you for harming a comatose person are borne out of a recognition that they're people. That's my point.

Your point is that your being able to think and feel fundamentally distinguishes you from a fetus, such that you're a human and the fetus is not. But the comatose also don't "think and feel"-- those capacities are temporarily disabled. So at that point, they bear essentially the same state of consciousness as a fetus in utero. But we still understand the comatose to be people. The legal reality is a reflection of this acknowledgment.

So, you have to choose something else as a delineator for humanity, or else you're being inconsistent. I've already stated mine.

And your morality is not universal, nor is it the law of the land.

Keep me out of your self-reinforcement of your own beliefs. Of course my morality isn't universal or the law of the land-- you're proof of the former, and my tax dollars going to institutions that kill children in utero and sell their body parts on whatever market is proof of the latter. The morality that enables people in the Middle East to launch homosexuals off rooftops also isn't universal, nor is the law that allows them to do so with impunity, but you aren't going to catch me abiding that for either reason.

There's hardly any such thing as a universal morality. That doesn't preclude a "right" morality, however, and it's mind-bogglingly pathetic that you even bothered to make that kind of appeal.

I didn't say that all pro-lifers are incels or fundies.

It's of no consequence to either your point or mine that you specified by "most vocal". You have a pea-sized view of the world, regardless.

The Bible isn't exactly anti-abortion, ftr.

Too bad early Christians (who adopted abandoned children and railed against abortifacents), every major Church figure that ever speaks on the topic, and nearly every standing Christian community (and every single ancient one) disagree with that assessment. Orthodox Jews, as well. Pro-choice/pro-abortion Christians and Jews are anomalies.

The Bible is meant to be a book of the community, to be used by the community, and existing within the greater corpus of said community's tradition-- if you're not going to bother even try to make claims from any established traditional understanding, your assessment is irrelevant.

Anyways, fetuses aren't legally recognized as people

Except that you'll be charged with double homicide killing a pregnant woman.

they don't have the ability to suffer or feel pain

Until they do. And never mind those unable to feel pain, either because they're in a disabled state of mind or they have a disorder preventing them from doing so.

The already born are more important

Nobody's classing the importance of lives except for you.

and all you need to do is look at my avatar to understand why abortion is necessary.

Eugenics is a fickle slope. One day you're aborting the lives of children with anencephaly, the next day, you're aborting black babies at five times the frequency of white babies. Never mind the Chinese dumping their perfectly healthy female children at orphanages when they weren't aborting them during the time of the One Child Policy-- in case you doubted we could go that far.
 
Last edited:
The people who are opposed to abortion are against paying for other people's birth control, you disingenuous kike faggot.
In the long run, paying for a bunch of rubbers for everybody is a hell of a lot more cost-effective than paying the welfare on a bunch of kids until at least they turn 18.

Even if it's miniscule, why should someone be forced to pay for something they find morally reprehensible?
Get back to me when I can stop my tax dollars from going to bombing brown people or bailing out billionaires, then I'll feel bad for pro-lifers where a miniscule bit of their tax dollars go to abortion.

Religious establishments don't pay taxes because it's generally understood that being a charity is one of their inherent functions.

Also, while the institution itself may not pay taxes, every (legal) adherent that makes up that institution does.
In theory, yeah, this is great. In practice this is how Kenneth Copeland and Joel Osteen grift a bunch of money from poor people, own multimillion dollar houses, and fly around on private jets. There needs to be some sort of cap on how much can be tax-free at least.

----
The question I have is, I understand people who feel it's murder still feeling it's okay to use as a last resort. But if I don't feel it's murder at all, why should I be against people using it as birth control? Because sex bad?
 
Back