this post was submitted on 21 Apr 2026
1212 points (99.5% liked)
Political Memes
11747 readers
1335 users here now
Welcome to politcal memes!
These are our rules:
1) Be civil
Jokes are okay, but don’t intentionally harass or disturb any member of our community. Sexism, racism and bigotry are not allowed. Good faith argumentation only. No posts discouraging people to vote or shaming people for voting.
2) No misinformation
Don’t post any intentional misinformation. When asked by mods, provide sources for any claims you make.
3) Posts should be memes
Random pictures do not qualify as memes. Relevance to politics is required.
4) No bots, spam or self-promotion
Follow instance rules, ask for your bot to be allowed on this community.
5) No AI generated content.
Content posted must not be created by AI with the intent to mimic the style of existing images
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
So according to the right wing a 12 y/o should be raped and should carry & raise a baby for the rest of her life just because “AbOrTiOn Is MuRdEr”.
Anti-abortion is a position exclusively for unreasonable or irrational people.
And privileged people.
Its the privilege that makes them unreasonable and irrational.
Same as the other polar extreme dogma.
... Gotta be some remedies for that, so people are alleviated of their unreasonableness and irrationality.
... ... Mattias Desmet's book The Psychology of Totalitarianism springs to mind. Main thrust of remedy is to keep speaking sensible nuance to those in a mass formation/groupthink/totalitarianised-psyche, even though it seems risky as they increasingly see any and all atrocities as necessary virtues, and double-down all the harder the more they're confronted with the contradictions, the self-inconsistency, ... which does seem more than just dangerous, but then you've got to compare that risk of danger with the greater escalating harm into worsening atrocities that happens all the faster when they go unchallenged.
Ummm one extreme is doing the right thing and one extreme is doing the wrong thing so I don't know the point you are trying to make. Yes there are some cases when Abortion can cause harm to the mother than actually giving birth. But those specific cases are for the DOCTORS AND MOTHERS TO DECIDE and not anyone else.
I think you're another responder to this who has missed what was meant there, not letting your imagination go far enough.
The opposite of an absolute dogma of no abortions is not some abortions. It's all abortions. ... Which is the political philosophy of some misanthropes (some of whom are very rich and powerful).
That’s still not pro-choice. That is anti-life lol. There are only 2 sides to this debate (which really shouldn’t even be a debate because even third world countries like India have better abortion laws than the US).
Oh boy...
* reads the rules before responding... "Be civil".*
... This may be challenging to respond to, as I think I've run out of ability to calmly and kindly clear up the miscommunication/mistake, as your not-even-wrong double-down still misses the point straight after I had clarified (~ or so I thought I had ~ but that seems completely missed), parodying Jam's "thick people" scene. And not only making the not-even-wrong fallacy, but also completely missing the broader principle [pro nuance, not falling for the manufactured divisive psyop'd groupthinks, the variety of perspectives, the other extreme, and especially, not falling for (nor being complicit in) the mutual unwitting abuse of cunningham's law], doubling down even on that, insisting there are only 2 sides... What hope of receiving new information and nuance with that kind of thing going on?
[Perhaps drifting off-topic] When stuff like that goes on, I wonder about chemical lobotomisation via fluoride, mercury, aluminium, aspartame/aminosweet, anti-nutrients, etc, where the fine grain neuro-connections keep getting mowed down before they can facilitate ease of conceiving of new ideas, where the entrenched ideas grow on and on strengthening the pre-existing neuro-connections. Though/And also, again, evokes thoughts of Mattias Desmet's explorations of the psychology of totalitarianism, in the "There are only" (and even the "which really shouldn’t even be a debate"), as that speaks to the reductive certainty of the one true way. Daunting.
... And just before I posted that... Thinking about how daunting it is, how pro division, how anti-nuance, trolling by playing dumb doing the very thing just called out, etc.... And then my concern about my civility (rule 1) turns to my concern about your sapience (or not, as per rule 4 and 5 (no bots, no ai generated content)), and that (as per the old advice "don't argue with fools as onlookers may not be able to tell you apart"), perhaps I should not have succumbed to xkcd386 here. [LOL. Cue the downvotes! (Over the target when taking fire?)]
...is that first part supposed to be a serious argument? The other side would say the exact same thing. It's also an issue that inherently will never be black and white because children don't develop in discrete stages, you can never point to a specific time and say "until here it's ok". Some of the arguments for abortion even still apply post-birth, such as the parents not being capable of caring for the child properly, making everyone including the child miserable. And the child a day before birth isn't all that different from the child the day after.
I'd choose birth as the arbitrary cutoff point just because the child stops being part of the mother at that time and we have to put a limit somewhere, but I'd probably lose a lot of people with that (and I'd also still say that's the right thing).
When there exist people unironically making the argument that factory farming is good actually because any life is better than no life, of course there will be a lot more wanting to just defend life for the sake of it even if it just makes everyone involved more miserable.
You only need one argument pro-choice and that is "Her body, her choice".
And wtf are you talking about post-natal abortion? Literally no sane person is calling for that.
It's really simple: Nobody has the right to use somebody else's body without their consent. And that goes doubly if this is about a lump of cells.
I've found that a weak ineffective incendiary argument.
Alarming that you say it's the only argument needed.
An argument I've seen be far more effective many times, is "if you disallow abortions, you let rapsists choose the mothers of their children".
Or another more broad: "Prohibition does not prevent. Prohibition makes the good things bad and the bad things worse." For the "handing it over to the black market" coat-hangers argument.
Still even while having these discussions, to whichever extent to a side or to nuance one goes, it's worth reminding ourselves how this is one of those divisive topics used to distract us, to keep us divided and conquered, while we're all being [pardon the expression] screwed by the man, with usury and genocide and more happening all around out there, encroaching ever more inescapably.
Yes, women having bodily autonomy being an "incendiary argument" is definitely one of the many problems of the patriarchy.
Nice strawman. Hah.
Nah, to those convinced otherwise, that argument reads like "let them kill babies!", and they don't like it.
So if that's the only argument you've got... I imagine it's proving worse than ineffectual to some mindsets, and triggering them to double down harder, dig their heels in deeper, further into groupthink, further towards that terrorised totalitarianised psyche, doubtless joining with others similarly so, perhaps even citing your argument to further bolster their tribal cohesion contrast to those monsters who want to kill babies, strengthening their fervour against the baby killing threat they perceive. ... Where any and all atrocities are seen as necessary virtues. ... And it only gets worse, unchallenged. And so, challenge it wisely we must. Because merely aggravating them with words they hear differently to how such mantras and mottos sound among your own groupthinking tribe, is not the kind of challenge that helps alleviate them from their mental stupor. Wise to be aware of the psychology, not just for how to approach those in groupthink, but also, to catch ourselves, from becoming opposames, exorcising groupthink from ourselves as soon as we find it lurking. One does not realise when one is in groupthink, but there are still clues.
I feel like you're not stating your arguement very well because I don't actually understand the point you're trying to make. There is the anti-abortion crowd and then that's it, there is no other side to the arguement.
People who are pro-choice are all about enabling others to make their own determinations, people who are anti-abortion are against people being able to make their own determinations. The difference is the pro-choice crowd aren't forcing abortions on people who don't want them, which would be the antithesis viewpoint. You see how the are not equivalent?
This isn't even a philosophical issue — as much as the Right wants it to be — but a legal one. The basic concept is a pregnant individual must have the right to abort the pregnancy at any moment during. Law shouldn't say if it is feasible or moral to abort the pregnancy because there is only one legal entity here — the mother. That choice should lay with the one who is pregnant. The feasibility of the pregnancy/abortion should be determined by medical professionals because each individual case is different.
Just want to say I appreciate you having the courage to provide counterpoints in a very biased space.
They're not providing counter viewpoints They're just being intransitive. There is no such thing as the force everyone to have abortions viewpoint so they are arguing in bad faith.
A lot of their comments are completely nonsensical as well, e.g.
I mean what the hell has that got to do with anything? We're supposed to be talking about the morality of abortions and they throw in animal cruelty in there as if that's some kind of counterpoint. Also I don't think literally anyone thinks that factory farming is moral because otherwise the animals would never have existed, I've never heard of anyone espouse that view. Not that it would matter even if they did, because it's got literally nothing to do with the topic at hand.
There is no polar extreme opposite of the anti abortion argument. It doesn't exist.
Nobody is happy about getting an abortion. Some people might feel relief, but it's not something they want to go through.
Bold claim. Let me introduce you to some misanthropic extremists who want all babies aborted, and all people killed.
Bold claim. Let me introduce you to some edge case exceptional ladies.
Some may indeed, but also, some rare few are going further. ... Some of which I suspect an irrational reflexive over-"correction" to a hostile groupthink and the language used, unfortunately creating the counter-groupthink, even unto, as mentioned in my original comment there, mass formation and totalitarianised psyche, where any and all atrocities are seen as necessary virtues. I don't think being arrogantly presumptive and ignorant in denial of such socio-psyche problems lends any real world help to create the nice world in your mind where such extremes do not exist, not even in your imagination. We've much to mend in this world.
Lol Jesus Christ dude... Talk about nonsense.
If you have a cogent refutation, I'm eager to hear it.
I'm not sure if it is possible to cogently refute meaningless word salad.
Also the equivalent extreme to the anti choice side would be "everyone is forced to have abortions" which while something close has been done (namely via population control methods and eugenics) those are widely agreed upon by the pro choice side to be similarly evil to prohibiting all abortions for the same reason (denial of bodily autonomy). In fact, in the modern day the eugenicists typically vote for the same parties as the ones wanting to prohibit abortions.
My friend, after reading the rest of your comment, I suspect this is just a very unfortunate choice of words. Because you go on to talk about totalitarianism and although totalitarian regimes can force people to get abortions, it's not a commonly held political view, at least among Westerners.
I suspect you meant to say "other extreme dogma." But your use of "the" and "polar" would make every native English speaker think you intended to say "same as the extreme polar opposite dogma," which means you're talking about pro-choice extremism specifically.
I can't be sure that you didn't intend that meaning. If you did intend to mean pro-choice extremism, then you brought the response upon yourself. But if you didn't, may I suggest you be more careful with wording, especially in your first sentences?
LOL! No. XD
Pro-choice sounds much more like a sane middle ground. Use your imagination, go further than the middle (~ which may or may not be a dogmatically held position), to the other polar extreme than abortions=none, to the misanthropic anthrocidal all.
The 12-year-old would die in childbirth as god intended. These people don't actually care about the baby they just care about having power over other people.
specially women, specially young women
There's a group that see falling teenage pregnancy and say that's the reason birth rates are falling In the west. They then equate falling birth rates with the erasure of culture. Therefore, in their head, teenage pregnancy is necessary as is carrying it to term.
A wholly messed up view.
It's even worst than that, yes it's all that AND it doesn't apply to them, namely they'll shout that insanity to each other, and the whole World, to see but when it's "them" then they, rationally of course, find a clinic. Absolutely garbage of human beings who are not coherent. Do as I say, not as I do.
Well of course, the divine providence of their perfect God guided the penis to this holy deed. Man is not the interfere with His will.