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
18 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies

Ocelot II

(126,094 posts)
2. Since once the babies are born there's no inclination on the part of the RW
Tue Jul 8, 2025, 04:21 PM
Jul 8

to help them by making sure they have enough food, housing, education, etc., the answer to that question is pretty obvious: Those slutty sex-having women are to be punished for their immoral sluttiness (notwithstanding the obvious involvement of men) by having to give birth to and support their babies with no help from anyone.

Jeebo

(2,486 posts)
6. I've always thought it's about keeping people from having sex.
Tue Jul 8, 2025, 04:52 PM
Jul 8

The only time sex is allowed is within marriage, with the lights off, under the covers, and only ONCE for each child you're going to have, and even then, you're NEVER allowed to enjoy it. That's the puritanical culture I was brought up in. Those were the kinds of attitudes I had growing up, until I started coming to my senses in early adulthood. Inevitably, of course, if they can't keep people from having sex, they want to burden it with all kinds of onerous consequences, and that would be what y'all are calling punishment.

— Ron

csusan

(49 posts)
8. I can answer that
Tue Jul 8, 2025, 05:19 PM
Jul 8

I escorted at a reproductive health clinic in my town til it closed. Got in a discussion with a forced birther protester. I suggested we discuss together ways to decrease abortion like free birth control. His response was "NO! Then they will have sex whenever they want." I think that answers the question.

allegorical oracle

(5,388 posts)
10. The irony of ironies is that the Repugs want women having more babies at the same
Tue Jul 8, 2025, 05:37 PM
Jul 8

time they're passing laws that make pregnancy more dangerous than it's been in 60 years. That would suggest that they don't respect women very much.

Bettie

(18,590 posts)
11. Punishing women and
Tue Jul 8, 2025, 06:09 PM
Jul 8

punishing the children as well, since there will be no Medicaid, no Public Schools, no SNAP....it's their utopia, lots of suffering, while they roll around in piles of cash or count their crypto....however one would do that.

DFW

(58,514 posts)
13. "Pro-Life" was NEVER about saving lives, only about controlling women
Tue Jul 8, 2025, 07:09 PM
Jul 8

It was not about abolishing the death penalty or vegetarians preventing animals from being raised and slaughtered for human consumption. So, NOT "pro-life." It was only about controlling women and preventing them from having abortions if they wanted (or even needed) them. "Pro-life" extremists have not been reluctant to call for the death penalty for women who have abortions, and they sometimes have not even held back in murdering physicians who perform the procedure. The only ones among them who are credibly "pro-Life" are the ones who are advocates of a certain brand of Quaker Oats cereal.

RoeVWade

(566 posts)
17. Seems like the fight has gone to making sure people aren't prosecuted across state borders. And keeping Plan B legal.
Tue Jul 8, 2025, 07:28 PM
Jul 8

It's definitely proven you can't rest where your rights are concerned.

BigmanPigman

(53,370 posts)
18. Keep them barefoot and pregnant.
Tue Jul 8, 2025, 08:14 PM
Jul 8

Hasn't this been their agenda for thousands of years? It'll never change.

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Is "Pro-life" about savin...