3 ms·

I completely agree with you, except I think the middle line of your comment is needlessly snide. One could equally say: "Protecting unborn (and newly born) hum

I completely agree with you, except I think the middle line of your comment is needlessly snide. One could equally say: "Protecting unborn (and newly born) humans is very inconvenient. They make all sorts of demands of you. (So maybe we should deny their humanity.)" The real questions are "At what point does human life begin / become valuable?" and "Should governments provide for their citizens or merely punish those who harm them?". There are good arguments to be made by decent people on all sides of those debates, so let's not make cheap shots which detract from reaching a better understanding.

saiya-jin 4y ago
You can't reach middle ground if you have religious fanatics who feel righteous above everybody else and keep pushing their values unto all. This is valid in any religion, and can be currently seen causing havoc among christians and muslims alike. They can shield themselves by extremist interpretations of 'word of god' (which takes some mental gymnastics since his are, if at all, only 10 commandments and thats it, rest is just human-made stories). Funnily most of those folks fail with following even those 10 basic rules, but thats another topic. We went through this decades ago in Europe and largely emerged as better, more democratic and freer societies. Those times are regarded as dark primitive times when looking back, when a lot of trauma was done and a lot of regretful actions happened.
frob 4y ago
I believe it is an allusion to a speech by the Methodist pastor David Barnhart: "The unborn” are a convenient group of people to advocate for. They never make demands of you; they are morally uncomplicated, unlike the incarcerated, addicted, or the chronically poor; they don’t resent your condescension or complain that you are not politically correct; unlike widows, they don’t ask you to question patriarchy; unlike orphans, they don’t need money, education, or childcare; unlike aliens, they don’t bring all that racial, cultural, and religious baggage that you dislike; they allow you to feel good about yourself without any work at creating or maintaining relationships; and when they are born, you can forget about them, because they cease to be unborn. You can love the unborn and advocate for them without substantially challenging your own wealth, power, or privilege, without re-imagining social structures, apologizing, or making reparations to anyone. They are, in short, the perfect people to love if you want to claim you love Jesus, but actually dislike people who breathe. Prisoners? Immigrants? The sick? The poor? Widows? Orphans? All the groups that are specifically mentioned in the Bible? They all get thrown under the bus for the unborn.
sangnoir 4y ago
> Should governments provide for their citizens or merely punish those who harm them? There is no argument about when a fetus becomes an citizen. Having the government protect its citizens from harm is a radically prochoice stance.

saiya-jin 4y ago

You can't reach middle ground if you have religious fanatics who feel righteous above everybody else and keep pushing their values unto all. This is valid in any religion, and can be currently seen causing havoc among christians and muslims alike. They can shield themselves by extremist interpretations of 'word of god' (which takes some mental gymnastics since his are, if at all, only 10 commandments and thats it, rest is just human-made stories). Funnily most of those folks fail with following even those 10 basic rules, but thats another topic. We went through this decades ago in Europe and largely emerged as better, more democratic and freer societies. Those times are regarded as dark primitive times when looking back, when a lot of trauma was done and a lot of regretful actions happened.

frob 4y ago

I believe it is an allusion to a speech by the Methodist pastor David Barnhart: "The unborn” are a convenient group of people to advocate for. They never make demands of you; they are morally uncomplicated, unlike the incarcerated, addicted, or the chronically poor; they don’t resent your condescension or complain that you are not politically correct; unlike widows, they don’t ask you to question patriarchy; unlike orphans, they don’t need money, education, or childcare; unlike aliens, they don’t bring all that racial, cultural, and religious baggage that you dislike; they allow you to feel good about yourself without any work at creating or maintaining relationships; and when they are born, you can forget about them, because they cease to be unborn. You can love the unborn and advocate for them without substantially challenging your own wealth, power, or privilege, without re-imagining social structures, apologizing, or making reparations to anyone. They are, in short, the perfect people to love if you want to claim you love Jesus, but actually dislike people who breathe. Prisoners? Immigrants? The sick? The poor? Widows? Orphans? All the groups that are specifically mentioned in the Bible? They all get thrown under the bus for the unborn.

sangnoir 4y ago

> Should governments provide for their citizens or merely punish those who harm them? There is no argument about when a fetus becomes an citizen. Having the government protect its citizens from harm is a radically prochoice stance.