In a 'TrueUnpopularOpinion' post titled 'I'm pro choice but y'all do a horrible job of understanding the pro life position'. The comments are full of brain worms, but the winner of the Galaxy brain award has to be this specimen, who claims that Pro-Choicers have been fire-bombing Pregnancy Care clinics in response to the Supreme Court decision.

Except if you follow the link, there is one case someone spray painting graffiti on a clinic in Florida: “If abortions aren’t safe than neither are you,”. This act isn't defensible IMO, but if you go down through the rest of the list, EVERY ONE is an example of (mostly actual) violence or blockades against health care providers who offer abortion or adjacent services. 10 occurrences from the list are acts against Planned Parenthood clinics.

Link

  • regul [any]
    ·
    1 year ago

    This act isn't defensible IMO

    Bzzt! Wrong-o.

    "Crisis Pregnancy Centers" should be getting firebombed.

    • GenXen [any, any]
      ·
      1 year ago

      Point Taken. Maybe 'defensible' is the wrong sentiment from what I want to convey. Debates about justification aside, I just don't want to appear to hand wave it away in the same way that Pro-Lifers do with ACTUAL violence.

      There's still this lib part in my brain that says "iF wE aDvOcAtE vIoLeNcE, tHeY'lL uSe It To JuStIfY tHeIrS!", while of course, staring at the obvious reality that they are using one example of graffiti and another example of reminding CPC patients about their reproductive rights against a litany of examples of real threats and violence against Planned Parenthood and Abortion clinics.

      Whether CPCs should be getting firebombed is secondary to the fact that they currently aren't despite the claim.