Sign-language-abortion

That is an EMBELLISHED sign for abortion. The actual sign is to act like you are grabbing something from your other hand and throwing it away. It was the pro-life movement that thought it wasn't good enough and added the whole "rock the baby" movement before the "throw it away" one.

Posted by Guest on Thu Mar 6 15:55:57 2014

It should be something like "I don't like black babies"

Posted by Guest on Fri Mar 7 13:16:33 2014

I didn't know the pro life folks had a sense of humor.

Posted by Guest on Fri Mar 7 15:38:31 2014

This is why I hate deaf people

Posted by Guest on Fri Mar 7 15:39:54 2014

/facepalm

you know, the "rock the baby" movement you're talking about IS the sign for baby. it has nothing to do with pro life.

Posted by anon (guest) on Fri Mar 7 16:45:16 2014

/faceslap

You know a fetus isn't a baby. It has a lot to do with anti-abortion fucktards.

Posted by Guest on Sat Mar 8 12:17:44 2014

Double facepalm and missed the point

I know that the "rock the baby" motion is the sign for "baby." I never said otherwise. What I said is the sign was originally one thing and the pro-life movement didn't like it and added the sign for baby to it. Every pro-choice person I know uses the other one precisely because fetus =/= baby.

Posted by Guest on Sat Mar 8 15:54:34 2014

Calm down bro. Nobody's raining on your baby-killing parade.

Posted by Guest on Sun Mar 9 10:38:34 2014

Here's the real issue.

| show full

The legal system in place only considers it a mass of cells in a woman's body if she decides to abort it.

If someone else decides to abort it, say a man who administers an abortifacient drug to a chick he knocked up because he doesn't want to have a child and pay for it for 18 years, it's considered a baby, even by the pro-choicers.

Presumably because they wanted to murder that baby first, and because male privilege is not allowed in their independent wombs. But their child support payment is always welcome of course.

This effective compromise between the “pro-life” and “pro-choice” positions results in a Frankenstein gestalt of legalistic white-knighting, under which the legally protected “personhood” of a certain demographic lies at the mercy of a woman’s whim. In other words, that fledgling womb growth has rights/no rights, dammit…unless m’lady says...

The legal system in place only considers it a mass of cells in a woman's body if she decides to abort it.

If someone else decides to abort it, say a man who administers an abortifacient drug to a chick he knocked up because he doesn't want to have a child and pay for it for 18 years, it's considered a baby, even by the pro-choicers.

Presumably because they wanted to murder that baby first, and because male privilege is not allowed in their independent wombs. But their child support payment is always welcome of course.

This effective compromise between the “pro-life” and “pro-choice” positions results in a Frankenstein gestalt of legalistic white-knighting, under which the legally protected “personhood” of a certain demographic lies at the mercy of a woman’s whim. In other words, that fledgling womb growth has rights/no rights, dammit…unless m’lady says otherwise, of course! It reminds of those soldiers in the “pro-life” brigade who make an exception in their otherwise strident position for rape, placing female feelings above “the sanctity of life” and the decrees they profess to observe.

Posted by Anonymous (guest) on Sun Mar 9 19:51:51 2014

RSS Feeds

View Comments

Double facepalm and missed the point

Here's the real issue.

In reply to the anon directly below

In reply to the 2 anon below