26

I find the whole "Innocent lives" debate so lacking in any sensible logic in the way the anti-abortion people apply it. I'm not talking about the merit of the topic itself. I don't agree with them but I can concede that it could be a subject of debate. What I'm talking about is the way they pick and choose to only want to protect innocent lives when women are the ones in control. I want to know;

  1. If harm to innocent lives should be outlawed, why are they ok with the US president and military dropping drones onto foreign lands and killing thousands of civilians in one go? Where is outrage? Why aren't they pushing for laws to forbid the use of drone strikes if there is even a risk of killing even one single innocent life? Seems to me it should horrify them that the US President and military are killing innocent people this way. Abortions can't even compare.

  2. If innocent lives begin at conception, why is it ok to throw out fertilized eggs for IVF pregnancies? A woman having one abortion is unacceptable, but a lab throwing away a dozen fertilized eggs is ok and not morally repugnant?

Why it is only something that these people get all militant about when a woman is in control of "innocent lives"?

Of course this is a rhetorical question. The answer for the most part is misogyny. But for those who really think they're only saving "innocent lives", they should go and think about why they're so upset by abortions, but are totally indifferent to thousands and thousands of innocent people and children dying by a single blast set off by a push of a button in Utah, and why they don't feel the same urge to go out there to protest against IVF labs.

I find the whole "Innocent lives" debate so lacking in any sensible logic in the way the anti-abortion people apply it. I'm not talking about the merit of the topic itself. I don't agree with them but I can concede that it could be a subject of debate. What I'm talking about is the way they pick and choose to only want to protect innocent lives when women are the ones in control. I want to know; 1. If harm to innocent lives should be outlawed, why are they ok with the US president and military dropping drones onto foreign lands and killing thousands of civilians in one go? Where is outrage? Why aren't they pushing for laws to forbid the use of drone strikes if there is even a risk of killing even one single innocent life? Seems to me it should horrify them that the US President and military are killing innocent people this way. Abortions can't even compare. 2. If innocent lives begin at conception, why is it ok to throw out fertilized eggs for IVF pregnancies? A woman having one abortion is unacceptable, but a lab throwing away a dozen fertilized eggs is ok and not morally repugnant? Why it is only something that these people get all militant about when a woman is in control of "innocent lives"? Of course this is a rhetorical question. The answer for the most part is misogyny. But for those who really think they're only saving "innocent lives", they should go and think about why they're so upset by abortions, but are totally indifferent to thousands and thousands of innocent people and children dying by a single blast set off by a push of a button in Utah, and why they don't feel the same urge to go out there to protest against IVF labs.

23 comments

"Innocent lives are lost" every day from people choosing not to be organ donors. Almost everyone right now can donate a part of their liver or a kidney, etc. to help keep someone alive, but we all have the right to decline. No one has the right to rely on another human being for life support; you can't be forced to provide anything in your body to someone else, not even a simple blood donation to keep your own child alive. A mass murderer who just killed 30 people and injured a 31st cannot be forced to provide a blood donation to save that innocent person they single-handedly put on death's doorstep. Men have this right clearly established. They just don't believe women deserve equal rights.

In regards to IVF, it's not necessary to create extra embryos. The scientists performing the procedure could be required to only introduce one egg to the sperm sample at a time, and this would infringe on no one's individual liberties. But there's no woman to hate or shame, so forced birthers are seldom concerned with this.

Also, there are ~600,000 frozen donor embryos right now in the US alone. Conservatives usually don't seem to care about bringing these "unborn" into existence rather than creating their own genetic offspring, though. I guess an embryo is only a member of the "unborn" if they can force some other woman to develop and give birth to it. I mean it's certainly for the best that conservative men aren't trying to force the women in their lives to do this as donor embryos can lead to a more dangerous pregnancy, but it's still quite hypocritical.

[–] Apricot_Ibex 12 points Edited

Well said! The whole “movement” is just to punish women. Those children the U.S. government bombs? Oh well, they were just in the wrong place at the wrong time (and they were mostly brown children, which, let’s face it, is another strike against them with a lot of these so-called “innocent lives” propagandists).

The children being massacred in their own classrooms were also just in the wrong place at the wrong time according to these people. In fact, the “pro lifers” are so pro-life that they are the exact same demographic most likely to believe bullshit “false flag” gun conspiracies, i.e., that Sandy Hook was a hoax, and support nutjobs harassing the bereaved families of murdered first graders. And when the next school massacre occurs, it won’t faze them whatsoever, except to scream “hoax” again or maybe blame women for some deranged incel’s actions, a la Tucker Carlson.

If the conservative states that have completely banned abortion really cared about children, much less mothers, they would DO SOMETHING about their bottom-of-the-national-barrel infant and maternal mortality rates, number of children in poverty, number of children exposed to domestic violence, etc..

But nope, the Mississippi speaker of the house said that 12 year old incest victims should be forced to give birth while in the same breath talking about never expanding social services and that people can go to churches if they really need “extra” help with anything.

Anti-choicers are also far more likely to lean MRA and complain about “wallet rape” by evil moms, while railing against single moms destroying society and not the degenerate deadbeat dads who ditched their children. So pro family!

And great point about IVF too. I guess fertilized eggs are totally disposable as long as a woman (or ten year old rape victim) doesn’t get to “escape” from an unwanted life of misery, trauma, and poverty.

[–] Kevina 13 points Edited

If innocent lives begin at conception, why is it ok to throw out fertilized eggs for IVF pregnancies? A woman having one abortion is unacceptable, but a lab throwing away a dozen fertilized eggs is ok and not morally repugnant?

Most pro lifers are against this. They are also against stem cell research and a host of other things.

the pro-life people who go and protest, sure. but those that are casually pro-life, mostly men who say shit like "just keep your legs closed!" would shrug over IVF treatments.

from what ive observed at least.

This survey is 9 years old, but looks like it backs up your observation: 67% of conservatives said that abortion is morally wrong, while only 15% of conservatives said that IVF is morally wrong (which was only 3% more than the national sample average).

Largest group saying IVF is morally wrong was Hispanic Catholics at 18%; 75% of white evangelical Protestants and 64% of Hispanic Catholics said abortion is morally wrong.

Largest group saying IVF is morally wrong was Hispanic Catholics at 18%; 75% of white evangelical Protestants and 64% of Hispanic Catholics said abortion is morally wrong.

Kind of curious about this. So Hispanic Catholics are less likely to oppose abortion compared to evangelical Protestants, but when they do, they're more strict about it?

Yeah but they're not out there pushing for outlawing the practice for 50 years. You don't see them making it a litmus test for political office nominations. As we speak, we have Republican lawmakers carving out exceptions for IVF. What gives? Where's the outrage?

I do remember the embryonic stem cells research controversy. But I think you're giving these anti-choicers too much credit. That controversy lasted like a blip on the radar mostly during the Bush II administration and no one's making a fuss anymore. Stem cells research continued and they pretty much abandoned any serious protest. And let's be honest, we haven't heard any of them including the conservative talking heads rage on and on about it.

They would put a bunch of unviable, unconscious fetuses over research that could save hundreds of millions of people?

What kind of "pro life" is this?

Most pro lifers are against this

Most? They're a minority within the anti-abortion movement. And the ones who are against IVF aren't protesting at IVF clinics like they are at abortion clinics, nor are they setting up fake IVF organisations designed to trick unsuspecting women seeking IVF into going to an anti-IVF meeting, nor have they gained any ground in banning IVF like they have with abortion (I'm even giving them enough credit to assume they've tried). Because most people against abortion are for IVF.

I'm thinking more of the unused embryos/eggs than ivf in general.

aren't protesting at IVF clinics like they are at abortion clinics

Probably isn't as much fun to screech at those women. I also suspect that men are present far more often at ivf clinics than abortion clinics?

I like to pose the following mental exercise:

There's a fire at a building that houses a fertility clinic. You can run in and save an 8-year old child, or a canister of 1000 frozen zygotes. Which will you save?

The monster reveal themselves.

There’s an ideology called The Consistent Life Ethic that basically aligns with what you’re talking about.

The oppose any form of aggressive violence towards anyone. So no aggressive war, no death penalty, no killing someone’s because you’re angry, no physician assisted suicide, and no ivf/abortion.

I’m sure there are probably other issues too that I’m just not thinking of. Basically, don’t kill human beings for any reason outside of active self defense.

This started out in the left-wing Catholic world, but I’m seeing it with more secular youngish people these days.

As far as IVF goes, I know that officially the pro-life movement is against IVF and embryonic stem cell research, but you don’t see much public outcry about IVF.

I know I’ve seen some people argue that IVF can be ok if there are limited embryos created/implanted but any discussion I’ve seen around this has been just online. No one is picketing ivf doctors so far as I know.

The problem with the abortion rights debates is that it isn't about innocent babies and their lives. As long as we argue with this part of the issue, we can't win. They can be as pro life as they want. They can be against wars, guns, ivfs, etc. But you still can't use someone's body without their consent to keep yourself alive. Even if you're innocent, cute, alive, fully-formed, blood-related etc. If you need a kidney transplant and someone doesn't want to give it to you, that doesn't make them your murders. If you're a cute little embrio that can't survive outside of your mom's body, well too bad for you.

But you still can't use someone's body without their consent to keep yourself alive.

Exactly, and men will never forfeit this right. The entire abortion "debate" comes down to people who do not believe women deserve the same rights as men. That's it.

1) I think its silly to compare war and abortion because the issues have nothing in common

2) Many pro-lifers (mainly the Catholics) are against IVF and leaving fertilized embryos to be destroyed or to sit in a fridge for who knows how long. Many of them are anti death penalty on principle as well

Obviously, the anti-abortion advocacy gets more attention because its a hot button issue. But I've known a few who protest that other stuff as well.

Why it is "silly" to compare war and abortion? At issue is "innocent lives", nothing else. I can think of a whole load of supposed arguments by conservative politicians and talking heads where they ignore everything else (rape, incest, for example) solely for the sake of "innocent lives".They said the surrounding circumstances are irrelevant.

And we really aren't "at war" for the most part. In recent times, no one is in fact attacking the United States barring 9/11 which was truly an anomaly. Most of these anti-abortion people are anti-globalists. There's actually more reason for them to criminalize drone strikes and make it illegal and criminal for the US President and military to randomly kill thousands of innocent lives. By their logic they should go out and advocate for criminalizing all political leaders who order one.

And be that as it may be that they're against IVF and death penalties on principle, they never put in near the vitriol or energy to go after those responsible for those issues. You said abortion is a hot button issue. That's my point exactly. Why should abortion be more of a hot button issue for these people than any other situations? There's no logic. The only reason is that a woman is in control when it comes to abortion. They bully women but no one else.

I agree and have argued both of these points before.. the best I can come up with is this- People view women as soul incubators for god..it's really not about human lives, it's about "souls" and to have control over that, they have to control us and our bodies..