Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

caseymoz

(5,763 posts)
10. Yes. Anti-choicers would call it a necessary evil.
Sat Apr 14, 2012, 04:32 PM
Apr 2012

Necessary to prevent even the possibility of a murder innocent life, a fetus that may or may not be alive, and definitely is not a person. Because it still might make God angry enough to smite our nation. Better safe than sorry, even if it puts a few, possibly deserving women, in hell.

I'm just telling you how they think about this. Sometimes within that chain of thought, open contempt for women surfaces and then submerges again. As I said, though, it's impossible to get them to admit, or see, that contempt is what motivates them. Don't do sink into pointing out they're misogynists.. Repeat the message: The fetus is not a person, not a child. It's not worth inflicting this suffering on somebody to save it.

Meanwhile, you know the women with the problem have to pay to get tormented, too. Just for another kick in the teeth, they'll hold up universal medical coverage just because it would mean the woman wouldn't have to pay.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»AZ's abortion law & M...»Reply #10