How did you feel about the episode “Brrap Brrap Pew Pew,” and did it change your opinion on Diane and/or Mr. Peanutbutter’s character?

  • leftbrain-rightbrain@alien.topBEnglish
    1·
    1 year ago

    Just gonna pop in to downvote hell to say I’m pro-life and this episode did not change my views on anything either inside or outside of the show. It makes legitimate observations about the “panel of white men” talking about abortions. And the “brrap brrap pew pew” song was criticized as inappropriate within the show itself. I agree with all of that. I’m actually a little surprised the episode didn’t choose to target religion or Christianity specifically as a pro-life caricature. Which is good. I’m kind of tired of the two things being conflated.

    Overall, I think the episode told a reasonable story with reasonable criticisms. It’s one of the better representations of a truly pro-choice narrative out there right now, especially since the show also explores Princess Carolyn’s experiences with pregnancy and miscarriage and Sextina’s decision to keep her baby when she does get pregnant.

    I don’t agree with pro-choice philosophy because I believe that human life begins at conception and that no one has any right to deliberately end a healthy human life. I understand where pro-choice people are coming from, but I disagree fundamentally with the idea that a fetus is a woman’s property to do whatever she wants with, even though it relies on her body to survive.

    I’d actually be kind of an idiot to disagree with pro-choice philosophy without understanding it. And I think the episode does a good job of accurately representing it, within the context of an animated comedy tv show. If anyone is interested in hearing a reasonable and well-argued pro-life perspective, I recommend checking out Secular Pro-Life. And staying away from people who’s only argument is “because God said so.”

    • Antonioooooo0@alien.topBEnglish
      1·
      1 year ago

      Wow, an actual reasonable, well thought out, middle of the road argument. Aaaand it’s still downvoted. Issues like this will never be solved because ‘you’re either with us or against us’ and no one is able to meet in the middle and have an adult observation on anything.

    • Random986217453@alien.topBEnglish
      1·
      1 year ago

      You say that “no one has the rightt to deliberately end a healthy human life”. What is you definition of a “healthy human life” And what about an “unhealthy human life”?

      • leftbrain-rightbrain@alien.topBEnglish
        1·
        1 year ago

        I specified “healthy” in this scenario in an attempt to inject nuance regarding what is medically described as “inevitable abortion” - a type of miscarriage, and other such circumstances. I don’t think this is the most productive place to have a long back-and-forth conversation, so I would direct you to the above linked “Rehumanize Intl” which will provide more information on the consistent life ethic. I believe in a consistent life ethic.

    • HappinessFloatilla@alien.topBEnglish
      1·
      1 year ago

      I used to be pro-life, and you’re entitled to your views. With that said, I have two questions.

      1. Is there any scenario besides motherhood where you would force someone to use their body to sustain the life of another person?

      2. Do you think making abortion illegal would be the most effective way to reduce the number of abortions, and if you do, would that be worth the harm to women that would likely result from making abortion illegal?

      • leftbrain-rightbrain@alien.topBEnglish
        1·
        1 year ago

        I don’t think this is really the most productive place to have a long back-and-forth conversation. I would point you to the above linked “Secular Pro-Life” which will take you to an index of answers to many common questions. I will agree with 99% of everything laid out on that website.

        • Softbombsalad@alien.topBEnglish
          1·
          1 year ago

          Use all the mental gymnastics you want, u/leftbrain-rightbrain - you’re still in favour of stripping rights from living women and turning us into second class citizens.

        • largeinflatedbox@alien.topBEnglish
          1·
          1 year ago

          was excited thinking id found the day someone like this was not afraid to answer the difficult questions, like I definitely disagree with you but really want to know what the thinking behind all of it is

      • omega-lf@alien.topBEnglish
        1·
        1 year ago

        Not the guy, but I’ve got roughly the same ideas :

        ​

        1. Yes, if you find a person in cardiac arrest on the side of the road and know how to perform CPR I expect you to do it, if you don’t, I expect you to be sued for not helping somebody in distress. But that has nothing to do with maternity, because maternity is not something that falls on you unexpectedly (except in the rare case of rape, which imho is one of the only justification for abortion), pregnancy occurs after sexual relations. The two are absolutely unseparable, and despite modern contraception, each time you have sex, you know well and implicitely consent to the 0,5% risk of becoming pregnant/a father. It is a mistake of modern society to separate the two because one is the near-unavoidable and higly-predictable consequence of the other and there should be campaigns to remind people of that fact and that there if you do have sex, you may be responsible for the well-being of somebody new quite soon.
        2. Yes, in the same way that making murder illegal is the first step to preventing murder. If taking care of your senile and demented grandmother causes you immense psychological harm (mental health of caretakers is a major cause of concern in elderly patients with neurodegenerative pathologies) it still isn’t a good reason to shoot her. Of course, I make a distinction between medically-justified abortions (including psychiatric health of the mother) and voluntary abortions, which is the subject here. But yes, the literal lives of thousands of people are worth the cost of certain women being hurt by the pregnancy. This does not mean women shoudn’t be accompanied through pregnancy and offered help and a way to give up their babies safely after birth, that should be the goal of planned parenthood and would avoid most dangerous clandestine abortions.
        • vy_rat@alien.topBEnglish
          1·
          1 year ago

          Good job completely missing the point of the first question. CPR doesn’t require your body, it requires your actions. If someone required your bone marrow or blood to live, you have every right to deny them - why do women not have that same right?

      • mcjuliamc@alien.topBEnglish
        1·
        1 year ago

        1. To me, it’s not so much about cutting off support as it is about directly harming the fetus which does not fall into the bodily autonomy category anymore. However, if the afformationed support was temporary, denying it would otherwise result in death and you knew it could possibly happen, then yes.

        2. Yes, it does actually reduce abortions drastically. Harm to women can occur in legal abortions as well and if abortions go down overall, the risk of harm by unsafe abortions pretty much balances out the risk of many more safe abortions. Not to speak of the fetus. Harm done to them is also important and thereby gets reduced.

    • Gangsta_Gollum@alien.topBEnglish
      1·
      1 year ago

      Surely believing life starts at conception is a religious reason though because scientifically that is not correct.

    • Less_Chicken_1107@alien.topBEnglish
      1·
      1 year ago

      I say I swing the other way, and yet I totally respect what u believe! It’s sad that you’re getting downvoted to hell. But good on ya for being brave and saying your part! I think people are so quick to judge and let their options spread hate. No opinion should be the right one.