4 ms·

Every minute spent tracking down a lady getting an abortion is a minute not spent tracking down a murderer or a rapist or similar.

andsoitis 3mo ago
> getting an abortion is a minute not spent tracking down a murderer but see, there are people who believe abortion is murder, and perhaps one of the worst forms of murder because of its victim’s extreme innocence since it has not caused any harm in this world.
- pessimizer 3mo ago
  Weird-ass pagan child worship located nowhere in the Bible. The strange idea that people are born clean and deserving, and that life makes them filthy and worthy of death. A really hateful, sadistic ideology. Christians did not care about abortion until the late 18th century, it's not even an old belief. You can have a nearly identical baby in less than a year. A 50-year old takes 51 years to make. That being said, the weird secular idea that babies are meaningless lumps of protein until they are born and are suddenly ensouled is equally silly. They're just arguing about dates, and at least the Christian tradition actually believes in a soul. I don't think most secular people could explain why you shouldn't kill an infant other than they find it distasteful, like eating a dog (when you eat pig and cow.) That abortion is more distasteful than murder is a modern political culture-war position, though, that nobody would have considered until at least the early-mid 20th century. In fact, the idea that babies were sinless meant that they would go to Heaven, so 19th century Christians greatly preferred to murder a baby, turn themselves in and be executed for the crime rather than commit suicide (which was an express ticket to Hell.) Both the baby and the believer could then go to Heaven.
- adrian_b 3mo ago
  [flagged]
  - nailer 3mo ago
    > I would accept that such people are entitled to their beliefs only if they would equally believe in the extreme innocence of a chicken who has not caused any harm in this world and they would seek to punish the murderer of the chicken. Why is equating human and chicken life necessary for you to accept that people are entitled to their beliefs? > A finger is not able to live independently, but the same is true for an embryo. The finger is the person's DNA. The child is not their DNA. In a 2025 University of Iowa single-center study (published in JAMA Network Open), out of 22 infants born alive at 21 weeks gestation, resuscitation was attempted in 17. 6 survived to NICU discharge (about 35%), and 1 remained hospitalized.
ai_critic 3mo ago
(amazing username.) You assume that a lady getting an abortion is not committing murder--these folks clearly think she is. (We don't need to argue about whether it is in fact murder, or whether if it is that the murder is justified or not--just understand that there are people that believe differently, and apparently they're willing to expend police resources on it.)
- JoshTriplett 3mo ago
  > We don't need to argue about whether it is in fact murder That's exactly the problem: we do. Not here, specifically, but if someone's false beliefs have grown to the point that they are hurting others over them, they need to be stopped.
  - Joker_vD 3mo ago
    Do you not realize that this argument applies equally well both against pro-choice and against pro-lifers? It does, therefore it is entirely invalid and irrelevant. Yes, those people with "false beliefs". Ah, if only we could force everyone to have true beliefs. And it's not against freedom of thought and consciousness, oh no! We're only against actually false beliefs. That, you know, have been proven wrong. Or at least for which the proofs of incorrectness exist that we believe are correct. But since our beliefs true, this is fine.
    - lern_too_spel 3mo ago
      He said nothing about forcing. Suppose the false belief he was talking about was Creationism. Does his comment read as authoritarian?
      - Joker_vD 3mo ago
        Yes, it does.
        JoshTriplett 3mo ago
cindyllm 3mo ago
[dead]
kyle_martin1 3mo ago
[dead]
ButlerianJihad 3mo ago
[flagged]
- estearum 3mo ago
  Wait you think there are so many exceptions for rape and incest because of the political power of the rape and incest lobby? Holy fuck. Even for someone who has quickly earned a name for himself and his insane takes, this is a strong entry. Bravo, ButlerianJihad!
  - ButlerianJihad 3mo ago
    Think of it this way: Incest is not always consensual, and incest may be intra-family molestation or sexual abuse. In those cases, certainly the "rape exceptions" cover mothers who seek to abort their unborn children. However, incest is not always non-consensual, such as between ordinary adults who just cross a "bright line boundary" and have a sexual affair that they may or may not regret. So is this why there are so many exceptions for "non-rape incest" abortions? Why, to avoid being exposed to shame or having, for example, siblings need to co-parent their rather illicit offspring that nobody will talk about? What's unique about "non-rape incest" that it requires its own carved-out exception that is so often baked into all the laws prohibiting other kinds of abortions?
    - estearum 3mo ago
      You are incorrect. The logic behind a separate incest exception is that the vast majority of incest is at least coercive/groomed if not forcible rape, but qualifying for the rape exception would require meeting the significant and probably-not-achievable standard of proving rape months after it happened. And in many incest cases that means specifically "proving rape" after years and years "intimate relations," given again that most incest cases are coerced/groomed for years or decades. Contrast with the simple prenatal paternity test.
nine_k 3mo ago
As I said, the law is the problem. Since the law demands to track and investigate ladies suspected of destruction of embryos inside their own bodies, the police's direct job is to do just that, even to the detriment of other activities. The police themselves may consider it stupid and counterproductive, but their opinion does not count until the next elections.
- Joker_vD 3mo ago
  The universality of "I want the rule of law!.. unless I dislike the laws, of course" stance is truly depressing. I swear, were it not for rather strict ground-level prohibitions in the constitutions, we'd all went back to allegedly enlightened monarchies ages ago. Perhaps we yet all will, things really are looking quite peculiar around the world right now.

andsoitis 3mo ago

> getting an abortion is a minute not spent tracking down a murderer but see, there are people who believe abortion is murder, and perhaps one of the worst forms of murder because of its victim’s extreme innocence since it has not caused any harm in this world.

pessimizer 3mo ago
Weird-ass pagan child worship located nowhere in the Bible. The strange idea that people are born clean and deserving, and that life makes them filthy and worthy of death. A really hateful, sadistic ideology. Christians did not care about abortion until the late 18th century, it's not even an old belief. You can have a nearly identical baby in less than a year. A 50-year old takes 51 years to make. That being said, the weird secular idea that babies are meaningless lumps of protein until they are born and are suddenly ensouled is equally silly. They're just arguing about dates, and at least the Christian tradition actually believes in a soul. I don't think most secular people could explain why you shouldn't kill an infant other than they find it distasteful, like eating a dog (when you eat pig and cow.) That abortion is more distasteful than murder is a modern political culture-war position, though, that nobody would have considered until at least the early-mid 20th century. In fact, the idea that babies were sinless meant that they would go to Heaven, so 19th century Christians greatly preferred to murder a baby, turn themselves in and be executed for the crime rather than commit suicide (which was an express ticket to Hell.) Both the baby and the believer could then go to Heaven.
adrian_b 3mo ago
[flagged]
- nailer 3mo ago
  > I would accept that such people are entitled to their beliefs only if they would equally believe in the extreme innocence of a chicken who has not caused any harm in this world and they would seek to punish the murderer of the chicken. Why is equating human and chicken life necessary for you to accept that people are entitled to their beliefs? > A finger is not able to live independently, but the same is true for an embryo. The finger is the person's DNA. The child is not their DNA. In a 2025 University of Iowa single-center study (published in JAMA Network Open), out of 22 infants born alive at 21 weeks gestation, resuscitation was attempted in 17. 6 survived to NICU discharge (about 35%), and 1 remained hospitalized.

ai_critic 3mo ago

(amazing username.) You assume that a lady getting an abortion is not committing murder--these folks clearly think she is. (We don't need to argue about whether it is in fact murder, or whether if it is that the murder is justified or not--just understand that there are people that believe differently, and apparently they're willing to expend police resources on it.)

JoshTriplett 3mo ago
> We don't need to argue about whether it is in fact murder That's exactly the problem: we do. Not here, specifically, but if someone's false beliefs have grown to the point that they are hurting others over them, they need to be stopped.
- Joker_vD 3mo ago
  Do you not realize that this argument applies equally well both against pro-choice and against pro-lifers? It does, therefore it is entirely invalid and irrelevant. Yes, those people with "false beliefs". Ah, if only we could force everyone to have true beliefs. And it's not against freedom of thought and consciousness, oh no! We're only against actually false beliefs. That, you know, have been proven wrong. Or at least for which the proofs of incorrectness exist that we believe are correct. But since our beliefs true, this is fine.
  - lern_too_spel 3mo ago
    He said nothing about forcing. Suppose the false belief he was talking about was Creationism. Does his comment read as authoritarian?
    - Joker_vD 3mo ago
      Yes, it does.
      - JoshTriplett 3mo ago

cindyllm 3mo ago

[dead]

kyle_martin1 3mo ago

[dead]

ButlerianJihad 3mo ago

[flagged]

estearum 3mo ago
Wait you think there are so many exceptions for rape and incest because of the political power of the rape and incest lobby? Holy fuck. Even for someone who has quickly earned a name for himself and his insane takes, this is a strong entry. Bravo, ButlerianJihad!
- ButlerianJihad 3mo ago
  Think of it this way: Incest is not always consensual, and incest may be intra-family molestation or sexual abuse. In those cases, certainly the "rape exceptions" cover mothers who seek to abort their unborn children. However, incest is not always non-consensual, such as between ordinary adults who just cross a "bright line boundary" and have a sexual affair that they may or may not regret. So is this why there are so many exceptions for "non-rape incest" abortions? Why, to avoid being exposed to shame or having, for example, siblings need to co-parent their rather illicit offspring that nobody will talk about? What's unique about "non-rape incest" that it requires its own carved-out exception that is so often baked into all the laws prohibiting other kinds of abortions?
  - estearum 3mo ago
    You are incorrect. The logic behind a separate incest exception is that the vast majority of incest is at least coercive/groomed if not forcible rape, but qualifying for the rape exception would require meeting the significant and probably-not-achievable standard of proving rape months after it happened. And in many incest cases that means specifically "proving rape" after years and years "intimate relations," given again that most incest cases are coerced/groomed for years or decades. Contrast with the simple prenatal paternity test.

nine_k 3mo ago

As I said, the law is the problem. Since the law demands to track and investigate ladies suspected of destruction of embryos inside their own bodies, the police's direct job is to do just that, even to the detriment of other activities. The police themselves may consider it stupid and counterproductive, but their opinion does not count until the next elections.

Joker_vD 3mo ago
The universality of "I want the rule of law!.. unless I dislike the laws, of course" stance is truly depressing. I swear, were it not for rather strict ground-level prohibitions in the constitutions, we'd all went back to allegedly enlightened monarchies ages ago. Perhaps we yet all will, things really are looking quite peculiar around the world right now.