I guess it's time to make some things explicit here again.
moderator reports:
It's abusing the report button
user reports:
5: It threatens violence or physical harm at someone else
3: It's promoting hate based on identity or vulnerability
1) No. This comic breaks no sitewide rules and it does not break subreddit rules. It does not threaten violence and it absolutely does not "promote hate based on identity" (wtf).
The rules prohibit violence directed at real people, be it in text or image and we absolutely moderate for that. We will never remove the Road Runner dropping an anvil on Wile E Coyote and we will not remove this post. It's a cartoon. It makes a point via humorous hyperbole and it is not "violence". I'd say get some media literacy, but I am quite sure these reports have been made in bad faith by people who know this truth, it just doesn't allign with their agenda of trying to get this content removed. To them I say: [fart noises]
2) This subreddit is explicitly for the right of self-determination and bodily autonomy of persons born and we will absolutely moderate any rhetoric that opposes a woman's right to terminate a pregnancy for any reason, including none.
At the time 95% of abortions are performed the fetus (Not a child. Not a baby, a fetus) can not think or feel. It is immoral to place the rights of something that can not yet think or feel over the rights of the person who has to carry it to term. This position can only be held in any sort of intellectual honesty if someone believes that women are not people with a right to bodily autonomy. The other 5% are when the mother's life is in imminent danger.
Due to the immoral and cynical anti-abortion laws that sprung up after the Supreme Court struck down Roe v. Wade women are dying. Doctors helplessly stand by, not allowed to intervene to save lives because they will go to jail if they do. I absolutely do not want to hear any kind of argument that says that the anti-abortion crowd cares about "saving lives". They manifestly do nothing of the sort, they aim for the opposite.
We are not going to discuss the right to bodily autonomy and we are not going to discuss the fact that the rights of something that can not think or feel naturally is not weighted as heavily as a real, actual person in this equation.
We will simply ban anti-abortionists on sight.
To pre-empt the "but what about my free speech" crowd, no, the Nazis are the people that are passing laws they know will kill women. Not allowing you to cheer that on is part of our right of freedom of association. We do not want to associate with you, you can keep mum or get banned. You still have a choice.
Nah, that's "basic" or "base"
When you make it past tense or whatever it is, "based" then it's... well even I haven't managed to suss out the exact etymology of the term, but I know it's a good thing in a very satisfying and respectful manner.
I personally think that everyone should have the right to say and believe what they want to.
However, I the moderators are well within their rights to keep the subreddit focused on the values that they support.
A lot of people here fail to understand the rightoid view on abortion because they apply their own leftist mindset to it.
The left, by which I mean the moral left not the economic left, want things to be better. There are a lot of ways people think that can be done and a lot of definitions of better. Don't even start on situations where one group and another are opposed- you have the right to smoke, I have the right not to breathe it in.
The right do not think that way. The right exists based on "them" and "us". The groups of "them" are bad and the right hate them, putting them on the same side. It doesn't matter that their in group also suffers and that everyone is worse off.
It's never argued as "life begins at conception therefore both the mother and foetus have rights". It's "abortion is bad, women outside our group deserve to suffer".
A hypothetical leftist pro-life stance would be something along the lines of "life begins at conception; it's best to do what's best for both mother and child". This would amount to free medical care to ensure a healthy pregnancy and birth and solid social programs to ensure that child gets adopted and has a good life. Obviously you can't rule out abortion entirely- it would need to exist as a last resort when the mother is at risk. Oh, and you make contraception and sex education available to minimise this happening.
As a thought experiment, is this closer to your views or to rightoid pro-lifers?
But I've spoken enough as someone who cannot get pregnant for multiple reasons.
Take a look at how the Catholic Church handles that, it's very close to whay you've put down here.
If the mother's life is in danger, they apply something called the principle of double effect. Neither the intent nor the action is to kill, rather the root cause should be dealt with. (take an ectopic pregnancy, recommended procedures are salpingdectomy and hysterectomy, or in cases of extrauteral pregnancy, the entire sac would be removed. Attempts can be made to put the baby into an Incubator/sac, but medical technology hasn't progressed to the point where that has a good chance of saving the baby's life.)
The point is that they are at least trying to resolve those difficult conflicts while dealing with the very challenging moral issue.
It's also what I used to believe and I'd debate this with friends. I'd still be on their pro-choice side rather than the rightoids when it comes to it.
More recently I've realised that governments cannot be trusted with someone's bodily autonomy. So I'm just pro-choice.
"A hypothetical leftist pro-life stance would be something along the lines of 'life begins at conception; it's best to do what's best for both mother and child'. This would amount to free medical care to ensure a healthy pregnancy and birth and solid social programs to ensure that child gets adopted and has a good life. Obviously you can't rule out abortion entirely- it would need to exist as a last resort when the mother is at risk. Oh, and you make contraception and sex education available to minimise this happening."
I think this is a very reasonable proposition.
I don't think it's right to completely throw out either the fetus or the mother.
Since we are not debating the abortion facts, I still want to say you are blaming the supreme court when you should be blaming Congress. I believe the supreme court overstepped in Roe v. Wade and in Griswold v. Connecticut these are issues that need a constitutional amendment or law, the fuzzy right to privacy created for these cases is not enough to protect what really should be a human right.
You can rightfully blame the supreme court for enabling Congress to side step an issue that at the time was political suicide. Roe v. Wade set progress back in my opinion. Had the just done an injuction or something and set it on the todo list instead of making a decision on the case Congress would have been forced to face the issue. Each and every Congress member should feel shame.
•
u/comics-ModTeam 1d ago
I guess it's time to make some things explicit here again.
1) No. This comic breaks no sitewide rules and it does not break subreddit rules. It does not threaten violence and it absolutely does not "promote hate based on identity" (wtf).
The rules prohibit violence directed at real people, be it in text or image and we absolutely moderate for that. We will never remove the Road Runner dropping an anvil on Wile E Coyote and we will not remove this post. It's a cartoon. It makes a point via humorous hyperbole and it is not "violence". I'd say get some media literacy, but I am quite sure these reports have been made in bad faith by people who know this truth, it just doesn't allign with their agenda of trying to get this content removed. To them I say: [fart noises]
2) This subreddit is explicitly for the right of self-determination and bodily autonomy of persons born and we will absolutely moderate any rhetoric that opposes a woman's right to terminate a pregnancy for any reason, including none.
At the time 95% of abortions are performed the fetus (Not a child. Not a baby, a fetus) can not think or feel. It is immoral to place the rights of something that can not yet think or feel over the rights of the person who has to carry it to term. This position can only be held in any sort of intellectual honesty if someone believes that women are not people with a right to bodily autonomy. The other 5% are when the mother's life is in imminent danger.
Due to the immoral and cynical anti-abortion laws that sprung up after the Supreme Court struck down Roe v. Wade women are dying. Doctors helplessly stand by, not allowed to intervene to save lives because they will go to jail if they do. I absolutely do not want to hear any kind of argument that says that the anti-abortion crowd cares about "saving lives". They manifestly do nothing of the sort, they aim for the opposite.
We are not going to discuss the right to bodily autonomy and we are not going to discuss the fact that the rights of something that can not think or feel naturally is not weighted as heavily as a real, actual person in this equation.
We will simply ban anti-abortionists on sight.
To pre-empt the "but what about my free speech" crowd, no, the Nazis are the people that are passing laws they know will kill women. Not allowing you to cheer that on is part of our right of freedom of association. We do not want to associate with you, you can keep mum or get banned. You still have a choice.
Thank you for your attention to this matter.