Kinda tracks: pro life until you're born, then it's the opposite.
post
I mean, this mentality far FAR precedes maga.....
1976 specifically.
https://time.com/6966056/republican-abortion-arizona-reagan/
it's not about babies, it's about fresh meat. It's not about morals, it's about controll.
The religious nuts don't actually say that the fertilised egg feels pain. Their contention is that the invisible genocide wizard in the sky imbues it with a magical spirit called a "soul" at the moment of conception. Therefore the fertilised egg must to be protected, or the invisible genocide wizard in the sky gets mad.
Israel and the USA threatening Iceland wanting to ban male enfant mutilation.
You left out the part where he sucks the blood out of the tip.
You left out the part where the baby contracts herpes.
I don't really get this comic. Judaism isn't even really against abortion. And what does MAGA have to with it? Are they specifically for circumcision?
Lots of Christians also circumcise their sons.
Source: have altered penis and parents who have been heavily influenced by the Christian Conservative grift.
I’m no penis expert but I believe it’s only mainly USian based Christians that do the whole chopping thing.
And we only do it because of the Kellogg’s cereal company.
Lol no, he tried but failed to accomplish anything because his brother did a hostile takeover of the company once he realized how batshit the puritan one was. One of the few cases where I applaud something like that, though unfortunately it didn't stop the puritans entirely.
He failed at selling cereal, sure, but it’s the same company that he started and that is part of its history. They weren’t just hawking bland cereal but also hyper puritanical disinformation, and we bought up the whole lot. Kellogg’s are specifically why we mutilate baby dicks by default in this stupid country.
US circumcision is not based on religion. It is instead a revenue source for hospitals that they push for at every male birth.
Right, I know it's pretty common, but does Project 2025 endorse it or something? I'd get it if this were aimed at society in general.
Have you ever heard a pro-lifer use "the baby will feel pain when you kill it" as their reason and not "the baby will die when you kill it"?
That's like a vegan who is on board with the meat industry as long as the cow is killed quickly.
If they exist at all, they're an outlier. This comic makes no sense lol
Have you ever heard a pro-lifer use "the baby will feel pain when you kill it"
Yes. I've heard many of them talk about the use of a suction extraction device, and how it painfully rips the "baby" apart, limb by limb.
I think you are being overly literal; they are concerned with harm to a person that they suppose the fetus embodies. In the context of a four panel comic, it's totally okay to condense that to "hurt".
There is more people who are OK with eating meat but dislike industrial farming that actual vegans. Your analogy makes less sense
That's basically the default view so yeah, of course it's more common. This comic is showing a conservative extremist going off about the fetus feeling pain.
Conservatives are pro-LIFE, not anti-pain. They don't give a shit if the fetus has a genetic defect that will lead to a year of suffering before death, that baby's getting born.
It's not like they're ok with abortion if it's painless. Come on lol
They are not even pro life, they're against women's autonomy, they're perfectly happy letting a woman and a fetus die as long as she doesn't receive healthcare she needs.
But to the point, incredibly common anti-abortion "argument" is this appeal to emotions, they lie that fetus has developed senses and actually wants to live and all that. All this shit isn't rational, and yet very common. You'll find a significant number of people who will use this "but it's not a fetus, it's a person with feeling, dreams, job, mortgage, and depression already", like it's an argument, but wouldn't answer yes to your question to "will it be ok if it didn't have this things?".
I agree that none of it rational. I guess my point was more that "you're killing the baby" is the weapon and "they are tortured in the process" is in the pile of ammo.
Like if I'm mad at you for killing someone, I'm gonna say "you're a psychopath for murdering someone" not "you're a psychopath for shooting them in the stomach"
I personally convinced more than one anti-abortion person out of their anti-abortion position, by definitively showing them that at the time abortion is performed, the fetus not yet posses the ability to feel. Those people were convinced into their anti-abortion position by those lying pictures of doctors going up there with sharp instruments and killing fully formed person that screams for help, and when discovered that it's not the case, abandoned their stance.
So it's a point of contention for at least someone, I know that.
yes, pro-lifers use the "abortion mutilates babies" argument all the time

top 50 comments