In explanation of my previous thread

[Pedro de San Patricio]

Last night I wrote Would/do you trust pro-abortion people around your children? | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum and asked for everyone else's viewpoint. In it I mentioned that a close relationship with someone very firmly on the other side changed my own views on the subject. After a lot of thought, the following is probably the best explanation of why and what they are now:

I'm gonna be totally honest. Dating a pro-abortion (her self-identified term) zealot for a year really did kind of harden my views on this issue. Originally I just saw it an impersonal social/political issue and didn't actually believe the other side really believed everything it was saying. I thought there was a disconnect between what they say and how they truly see it. I thought that was why they always try to keep the conversation on an abstract and relativist philosophical plane and reject any attempt to bring objective science or the actual lives involved into the conversation.

Now... I kind of suspect *everyone* who holds, or even has held, that viewpoint in all total bluntness. I can't see them as safe around even born babies/children. I can't see them as deserving of parenthood for themselves. The concept of someone holding that viewpoint AND seeing their child as having a right not to be harmed or killed at a whim is just contradictory to me, you know? I mean, yeah, sure, they might feel something towards a child, either someone else's or their own, but there's a basic lack of a sense of their humanity and inherent worth.

I can see them seeing their kid as exceptionally valuable property, don't get me wrong. But Michael Vick saw his dogs as valuable property. Your child you're supposed to value over everything, including your own life itself. Your property you throw out because you decide that you don't want it anymore. It's just hard to believe that you can say and think such disgusting, dehumanizing things about your own child up until the moment they're born and then magically all of that goes away and you're suddenly a normal loving parent.

 

[TNHarley]

Your view is very ignorant. To say the least.

 

[Pedro de San Patricio]

Your view is very ignorant. To say the least.

How so?

 

[TNHarley]

Your view is very ignorant. To say the least.

How so?

You are telling me I don't deserve kids because I am pro-choice. Fuck you

 

[Pedro de San Patricio]

Your view is very ignorant. To say the least.

How so?

You are telling me I don't deserve kids because I am pro-choice. Fuck you

I'm telling the board:

I can see them seeing their kid as exceptionally valuable property, don't get me wrong. But Michael Vick saw his dogs as valuable property. Your child you're supposed to value over everything, including your own life itself. Your property you throw out because you decide that you don't want it anymore. It's just hard to believe that you can say and think such disgusting, dehumanizing things about your own child up until the moment they're born and then magically all of that goes away and you're suddenly a normal loving parent.

I'm sure you see them as valuable property. I'm sure you prioritize them over some other things. A parent prioritizes their child over everything though, because a parent doesn't see their child as property but a totally vulnerable, dependent, and beloved human being whose welfare is your moral obligation. This thread wasn't meant to be an argument btw. It was just an explanation of the motivation and thought process behind the previous thread.

 

[saveliberty]

Never complain, never explain.

 

[WinterBorn]

Your view is very ignorant. To say the least.

How so?

You are telling me I don't deserve kids because I am pro-choice. Fuck you

I'm telling the board:

I can see them seeing their kid as exceptionally valuable property, don't get me wrong. But Michael Vick saw his dogs as valuable property. Your child you're supposed to value over everything, including your own life itself. Your property you throw out because you decide that you don't want it anymore. It's just hard to believe that you can say and think such disgusting, dehumanizing things about your own child up until the moment they're born and then magically all of that goes away and you're suddenly a normal loving parent.

I'm sure you see them as valuable property. I'm sure you prioritize them over some other things. A parent prioritizes their child over everything though, because a parent doesn't see their child as property but a totally vulnerable, dependent, and beloved human being whose welfare is your moral obligation. This thread wasn't meant to be an argument btw. It was just an explanation of the motivation and thought process behind the previous thread.

I raised 3 remarkable children up to be remarkable adults.

But you think, because I think a woman should have a choice, that I am somehow going to put children at risk??

You are missing the entire point. No one is pro-abortion. People are pro-choice.

 

[Pedro de San Patricio]

I raised 3 remarkable children up to be remarkable adults.

But you think, because I think a woman should have a choice, that I am somehow going to put children at risk??

You are missing the entire point. No one is pro-abortion. People are pro-choice.

Pretty much. I can't see the kind of shit people on your side say about their own kids and believe that there's a capacity for real parental love there. At best I see it as the care that someone might have for their dog. It's valuable property to you (in the generic usage), and you would be sad if it died, but you wouldn't spend your entire life sacrificing so it can have the best life possible or risk death to find it if it were lost. You wouldn't give it the food off your plate and the clothes off your back if it came down to that. These are things you're supposed to be willing do for your child. I don't believe anyone who considers loving their child to be something they just chose to do one day or considers themselves to have the right to kill their child with zero judgment or second thoughts to be capable of this kind of love. In total blunt honesty people who really can just turn their emotions on and off like that and sees their own children as essentially disposable have no business having any in the first place. They certainly won't be allowed to be alone with any if I have any choice in the matter.

 

[WinterBorn]

I raised 3 remarkable children up to be remarkable adults.

But you think, because I think a woman should have a choice, that I am somehow going to put children at risk??

You are missing the entire point. No one is pro-abortion. People are pro-choice.

Pretty much. I can't see the kind of shit people on your side say about their own kids and believe that there's a capacity for real parental love there. At best I see it as the care that someone might have for their dog. It's valuable property to you (in the generic usage), and you would be sad if it died, but you wouldn't spend your entire life sacrificing so it can have the best life possible or risk death to find it if it were lost. You wouldn't give it the food off your plate and the clothes off your back if it came down to that. These are things you're supposed to be willing do for your child. I don't believe anyone who considers loving their child to be something they just chose to do one day or considers themselves to have the right to kill their child with zero judgment or second thoughts to be capable of this kind of love. In total blunt honesty people who really can just turn their emotions on and off like that and sees their own children as essentially disposable have no business having any in the first place. They certainly won't be allowed to be alone with any if I have any choice in the matter.

Absolutely ridiculous. Do you have any examples of the sort of things people "on my side" say that show a lack of capacity for parental love?

I think you are trying to show that pro-choice people actually want people to have more and more abortions and that they secretly hate children. This is simply propaganda and bullshit.

Once again, the pro-choice side wants women to have a choice. They do not hope for more abortions.

As for the sacrifices, you are absolutely wrong about pro-choice people. We are still willingto die for our children, give them the food off our plates ect ect. We simply do not believe that a woman should be forced to have a child.

 

[Pedro de San Patricio]

Absolutely ridiculous. Do you have any examples of the sort of things people "on my side" say that show a lack of capacity for parental love?

Let's see. There's the always implied and occasionally stated belief that they're essentially replaceable property, as demonstrated by the support Dawkins' tweet on the subject got. There's insisting that they were cancerous tissue for the first nine months of their life. There's all the arguments from selfishness (eg "Thanks to Roe I got to travel the world instead of raising a little bastard that couldn't.") I'm not even getting into things like the overlap with VHE or other ultraleft batshittery like that. It's unfortunate that me and her stopped talking though. She was in all the secret harassment groups on Facebook, all of which would be a treasure trove of screen shots on this.

I think you are trying to show that pro-choice people actually want people to have more and more abortions and that they secretly hate children. This is simply propaganda and bullshit.

I'm pretty sure it only counts as propaganda if it's not true.

Once again, the pro-choice side wants women to have a choice. They do not hope for more abortions.

Uhuh... Again. This isn't an argument. This is the explanation behind why I asked the question in that thread.

As for the sacrifices, you are absolutely wrong about pro-choice people. We are still willingto die for our children, give them the food off our plates ect ect. We simply do not believe that a woman should be forced to have a child.

What I said. There's a difference between the love someone has for their dog and the love they have for their child. Michael Vick cared about his dogs enough to see that they had food and veterinary care. He just didn't see their lives as worth anything except in their value to him. A deserving parent couldn't look at their kid like that. A decent human being couldn't look at anyone, regardless of age, like that. Obviously we're not going to agree on that though, and I'm fine with this. It's not like we know each other in person. I would make damn sure you were never around anyone's child without a trustworthy adult who was capable of stepping in if you tried anything though. That's my standard policy with everyone on that side I know at this point. They can believe whatever they want. This is America and that's their right. But that doesn't mean I have to be comfortable with leaving them in the room alone with a pregnant woman or an infant either.

 

[WinterBorn]

Absolutely ridiculous. Do you have any examples of the sort of things people "on my side" say that show a lack of capacity for parental love?

Let's see. There's the always implied and occasionally stated belief that they're essentially replaceable property, as demonstrated by the support Dawkins' tweet on the subject got. There's insisting that they were cancerous tissue for the first nine months of their life. There's all the arguments from selfishness (eg "Thanks to Roe I got to travel the world instead of raising a little bastard that couldn't.") I'm not even getting into things like the overlap with VHE or other ultraleft batshittery like that. It's unfortunate that me and her stopped talking though. She was in all the secret harassment groups on Facebook, all of which would be a treasure trove of screen shots on this.

I think you are trying to show that pro-choice people actually want people to have more and more abortions and that they secretly hate children. This is simply propaganda and bullshit.

I'm pretty sure it only counts as propaganda if it's not true.

Once again, the pro-choice side wants women to have a choice. They do not hope for more abortions.

Uhuh... Again. This isn't an argument. This is the explanation behind why I asked the question in that thread.

As for the sacrifices, you are absolutely wrong about pro-choice people. We are still willingto die for our children, give them the food off our plates ect ect. We simply do not believe that a woman should be forced to have a child.

What I said. There's a difference between the love someone has for their dog and the love they have for their child. Michael Vick cared about his dogs enough to see that they had food and veterinary care. He just didn't see their lives as worth anything except in their value to him. A deserving parent couldn't look at their kid like that. A decent human being couldn't look at anyone, regardless of age, like that. Obviously we're not going to agree on that though, and I'm fine with this. It's not like we know each other in person. I would make damn sure you were never around anyone's child without a trustworthy adult who was capable of stepping in if you tried anything though. That's my standard policy with everyone on that side I know at this point. They can believe whatever they want. This is America and that's their right. But that doesn't mean I have to be comfortable with leaving them in the room alone with a pregnant woman or an infant either.

It is quite simple to show you are wrong.

Please find me any reputable study that shows there is less child abuse in pro-life homes, as opposed to pro-choice homes.