Yet another conservative thinking about fucking a child.
this post was submitted on 14 Feb 2024
284 points (98.6% liked)
Not The Onion
11929 readers
1 users here now
Welcome
We're not The Onion! Not affiliated with them in any way! Not operated by them in any way! All the news here is real!
The Rules
Posts must be:
- Links to news stories from...
- ...credible sources, with...
- ...their original headlines, that...
- ...would make people who see the headline think, “That has got to be a story from The Onion, America’s Finest News Source.”
Comments must abide by the server rules for Lemmy.world and generally abstain from trollish, bigoted, or otherwise disruptive behavior that makes this community less fun for everyone.
And that’s basically it!
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
Not just a child. A toddler.
Not even a toddler at that stage
depends on how you define it. many places (CDC, for example,) define a toddler as starting at the first birthday.
We can go with infants, if you prefer.
Him and the lostprophets lead singer could be best mates...
"[...]the institutions of rape or of incest"
Ecxuse me?
Real big Ben shapiro "nobody said they'd ban crime" energy.
Don't worry about it.
Nobody:
Republicans: These one year olds need to learn to live with the choices they make!
This is a really weird thing to say but a lot of conservatives seem really obsessed with sex and little kids. I'm not saying they're for it, against it, or anything. But like they think A LOT about it. Like a incredible amount.
For people who think about it a lot, it's amazing how little they know about it.
They think about it so much that they forget to use Google
My experience tells me that the average voter has no idea how to discuss abortion. What the controversy is about, how scientific arguments are made, how medical experts make arguments.
And they still vote, without furthering their understanding whatsoever.
The narrative is just broken.
Pro-abortion folk like to focus on medically necessary abortions, but they shy away from the myriad of valid reasons to get an abortion.
For example, A mother of 3 that can't afford a 4th child. You can't expect someone in that situation to put the 4th child up for adoption.
And when later term abortions happen, pro abortion folks need to be ready with the why. The why is simple, abortion access. How is someone supposed to get an early term abortion when there's only one clinic in the state, constantly under protest, that's booked solid for the next 3 months?
But for the abortion enemys would have to reflect why they have this fundamentalist stance on abortion in the first place.
And they won't. Because then they would have to realize, that it is neither about the life of the child nor the life of the mother, but to punish women for being women and to punish them, for not fitting in the sexual morals that on the one hand are overly prude to the outside, but highly perverted on the inside.
It is to punish other women for their own moral shortcomings. Of course they are not open to a rational discussion. Because at the end of the discussion looms the realisation, that they need to reconcile with themselves.
Not all will, but that's why expanding the narrative to these tricky situations and making it a talking point is so important.
When the only discussion is only around rape and medical problems, it creates people that think "ok, we added a rape/medical exclusion in the law, that's good enough".
The goal, IMO, is to force pro-abortionists to admit the real reason they hate abortion is it let's women escape godly punishment. They'll admit it privately but we need to make their politicians say it publicly. Calling fetuses babies is a soft selling way to make things more palatable to constituents that never think about the why.
Abortion is popular and should be the thing Democrats run on more than anything else. But then, having a devout Catholic president as leader of the party really sucks at this moment. Pretty much any other dem would be willing to hit the abortion note harder.
They further their understanding by whatever the algorithm shows them. And for whatever rea$on certain stuff will be added to that algorithm very quickly with just one or a few watches of similar content. Conservative politics seems to be a really big one.
If he is against 1 year olds having abortions, then I guess he is for 1 year olds having babies under certain conditions. Weird fucker.
What a weird way to let everyone know he fantasizes about raped babies.
But Eigel isn’t alone in his condemnation of the bill. Another Republican, Missouri State Senator Sandy Crawford, claimed the incest and rape provision shouldn’t pass because “God is perfect.”
“God does not make mistakes. And for some reason he allows that to happen, bad things happen,” Crawford said. “I’m not gonna be able to support the amendments because I am very pro-life.”
You can't help but appreciate the sheer amount of cognitive dissonance you gotta have to say, "God is perfect," and "…for some reason He allows … bad things [to] happen." How delusional can you be to say that raped children giving birth is part of some perfect, divine plan?
Social conservatism is a complete joke.
“I don’t support the institutions of rape or of incest. But your amendment doesn’t address those,” Eigel replied.
The bar has been set. He doesn't support the continued institutions of rape and incest. I'm sorry, I thought this was America!
So abortion is murder. But they have to keep making all these exceptions when it's okay to murder. It's almost like abortion is Healthcare and should be a human right...
Babies 4 AboЯtions