Imgflip Logo Icon

Florida's anti grooming bill HB1557

Florida's anti grooming bill HB1557 | You're pro abortion? So why should anyone consider your opinion on any legislation regarding children? | image tagged in memes,creepy condescending wonka | made w/ Imgflip meme maker
1,004 views 69 upvotes Made by Delphaneux 2 years ago in politics
Creepy Condescending Wonka memeCaption this Meme
65 Comments
12 ups, 2y,
1 reply
Smug | BY ABORTION LOGIC IF YOU’RE NOT A PARENT. YOU DON’T HAVE A SAY | image tagged in smug | made w/ Imgflip meme maker
4 ups, 2y
Also by the same 'logic' - If you're liberal and not a parent then you do have a say.
9 ups, 2y
Its like mice
If they cant smash it with a hammer then they'll opt for poisoning it
8 ups, 2y,
1 reply
Would like to see research on the percentage of teachers who are pro-abortion. That would be telling.
2 ups, 2y
Particularly the ones they impregnated.
3 ups, 2y
YEEAAAAHHH | image tagged in yeeaaaahhh | made w/ Imgflip meme maker
AGREED :0)
5 ups, 2y
being Pro AutoCrat and trying to dismantle our republic?
8 ups, 2y,
2 replies
I think you've got some reading to do.
4 ups, 2y
Fantastic.
[deleted]
9 ups, 2y,
4 replies
What is even "funnier" is how red states have booming economies and blue states don't. I know because I was raised in a blue state and I now live in a red state. When businesses do well they hire more people then poverty goes down. It is just a fact.

Just give up. You're attempt at spreading misinformation it just not working.
[deleted]
3 ups, 2y,
1 reply
[deleted]
2 ups, 2y
Who runs mainstream media? Of course your going to find all sorts of articles explaining in detail that how 2+2 does not equal 4.

These articles focused on something we've all known for decades, many of the states with the lowest wages are Republican states. BUT! Those states also have a lower cost of living.

The wages in blue states may be higher but the cost of living cannot compensate for those high wages. The bluer the area the higher the cost of living. My wife and I grew up in So. California. In 1997 I got a higher paying job in the SF Bay area. Yes, my wages went up but our jaw hit the floor when we saw how much rent was in the Bay area. We couldn't find an apartment that rented for less than $1500/mo. so we rented a mobile home. When we finally had enough we moved to Missouri and bought a brand new 4 bedroom house and our mortgage was less than the mobile home in the Bay area. We own a similar house in Utah now. Its not brand new but our mortgage is still less than that stupid mobile home in the bluest area of California.

Instead of trusting in fake news try looking around at the states with the lowest unemployment rates. And even then you have to be careful. You have to look at the labor participation rate because the unemployment rate is just the number of people collecting unemployment. It doesn't count those who gave up and blue states have a whole lot of people who just gave up.

Democrats have always had the worst policies when it comes to the economy. Democrats are the ones who forced personal income tax on us in 1913. They forced the Federal Reserve who gave us the Great Depression. The same Federal Reserve that has caused massive inflation ever since Biden told them to crank up the money printing presses to 11.

I've been around. I've seen blue states. I lived in blue states. I know what horrible places they are to live. I am far happier and freer in a red state. I don't need some hack radical leftist op/ed writer to tell me that 2+2 is not 4. I can clearly see that 2+2=4.
3 ups, 2y,
2 replies
"What is even "funnier" is how red states have booming economies and blue states don't"

That IS funny-ish.

Red States have and always shall be dependent on the teat of Blue States. Something about the Northern War of Aggression that crippled their already barely profitable (except for a very few plantation owners) mono-economy of not-quite-cash-crop farming by losing them their slaves to work for them.
5 ups, 2y,
1 reply
Five minutes of research into the richest and poorest counties in the US quickly disproves what he is saying
2 ups, 2y
As with the rest of his fave falsehoods, he's been told this many a time, yet still persists, of couse not replying to clarifications.
[deleted]
2 ups, 2y,
1 reply
0 ups, 2y
I've been saying for years to these self-proclaimed non-racists who say that crap that too bad they weren't around back then to tell that to the slave traders and owners.
Maybe Southies can get over the end of slavery and go and work their own jobs. Might help their moribund economies crawl out the hole it's been in since 1865.

I never understood Conservatives, do they really think we're going to bring slavery back to sooth the snowflakes? Most Southerners were poor back then anyways.
4 ups, 2y,
1 reply
Yesterday I drove through rural Alabama, as red/Republican/conservative as you can get. Town after town after town had abandoned and derelict houses and buildings. Clearly a high poverty rate. And the facts back that up.
4 ups, 2y
Alabama has always been like that. It's simply that kind of state.
[deleted]
6 ups, 2y,
1 reply
And left wingers don't??? The left not only thinks their experience is the same as everyone else but they demand we all have the same experiences. That's why the left looks at equality as s virtue.

I never at any time thought that my experiences were the same as everyone else. Some of my experiences have been the same a some other people but the response to those experiences differ at the individual level.
0 ups, 2y,
1 reply
Yeah that’s definitely not what I advocate for or what equality is.
[deleted]
0 ups, 2y,
1 reply
"Equal people are never free and free people are never equal"

The reason why this is true is because no two people are identical. We are all different, we all have different dreams, motivation, work ethics, personalities, etc. As long as we are free we will never be equal. However we all start off with equal opportunities, but it is up to the individual as to what they do with those opportunities.

And this is why free people are never equal.

What the left is promoting is equal outcome. The Marxist idea of "to each according to their need, from each according to their ability". Or as Obama said, "we all need to spread the wealth around". The only way that can be accomplished is by force. Forcefully stealing the products of the labor of one person to give to another person who did nothing to earn it.

And that is why equal people are never free.
0 ups, 2y,
2 replies
"to each according to their need" It's almost like people each have different needs.

The communists I have read talk about a person's potential being restricted by laws and the capitalist system. Too many people live their lives a mere cog in a machine. They are overworked and don't enjoy enough time for leisure, recreation or learning. People are limited in achieving their hopes and dreams by private property, borders, money, laws, police, censorship and so forth. What communists desire is for work to be a necessary but not dominating aspect of life, so that we have more room to be social and work together to accomplish the things we want out of life.

Here is George Orwell's account of the accomplishments of the anarchist collectives during the Spanish Civil War:
"Up here in Aragon one was among tens of thousands of people, mainly though not entirely of working-class origin, all living at the same level and mingling on terms of equality. In theory it was perfect equality, and even in practice it was not far from it. There is a sense in which it would be true to say that one was experiencing a foretaste of Socialism, by which I mean that the prevailing mental atmosphere was that of Socialism. Many of the normal motives of civilized life — snobbishness, money-grubbing, fear of the boss, etc. — had simply ceased to exist. The ordinary class-division of society had disappeared to an extent that is almost unthinkable in the money — tainted air of England; there was no one there except the peasants and ourselves, and no one owned anyone else as his master."
Sounds like freedom and equality coincide just fine.
[deleted]
0 ups, 2y
My Danish friend first moved to the US but then left and the last I heard he was living in Thailand. He wasn't a friend I met in person. I met him through Facebook many years ago. We talked on the phone a few times. He was an interesting guy but then he dropped off of Facebook and I never heard from him again.

I really do not understand why people can read and read and read Marxism and all of the advocates of Marx and just not open their eyes and look at the horrors that have been caused by it. You just can continue to deny it by claiming they got it wrong. There just is no getting it right. It promises utopia and has only delivered dystopia.

People left alone can never live in equality because we are all different people. That is just human nature. For equality to exist it can only happen by force and even then it cannot be 100% equal because equality is contrary to human nature. The more equality is enforced the more society looks like Orwell's 1984.
[deleted]
0 ups, 2y
"The communists I have read talk about a person's potential being restricted by laws and the capitalist system."

The problem with communists (Marxists) in America is they think freedom is just the normal way of life. They reject all previous attempts at communism because the people were not free. All the while the never recognize the part where there is no private ownership. Without private ownership there cannot be freedom. If someone else owns everything then they make the rules that you have to live by.

"Too many people live their lives a mere cog in a machine."

A) In a free country how you live your life is your decision, even if it is being a cog in a machine.
B) Marxism forces everyone to be just cogs in a machine that feeds the ruling elite.

Many on the right point to Orwell as an example of what socialism is. Fewer people on the right don't know that Orwell was a socialist and his book 1984 was a expose on communism.

Back in Orwell's day the only example of socialism was the French Revolution. He still had faith in it. The world had just found out the horrors of communism, Nazism and fascism.

But today we have tons of examples of all four. All four are based on the exact same foundation. The promise equity and deliver equal poverty. You don't want to believe it because you're still convinced of the utopia that is promised. What you are missing is that when it comes to governments, all governments, all types of governments, they either start off corrupt or become corrupt. When you correct a socialist, communist, Nazi, fascist government you get the same results. Mass death, mass starvation and mass misery. It happens every time.

The left is quick to point out the Scandinavian countries as their examples but they are not socialist. Sweden's former president said they tried socialism but had to pull back because the country was about to collapse. They had to return to a market based economy.

I had a friend from Denmark who left because he thinks everyone in the country is crazy. Denmark is still not a socialist nation but they are playing with the fire of socialism more than just about any other country. Denmark has one of the highest suicide rates in Europe. It costs 3 times more to buy a car in Denmark than in the U.S. and the additional cost is all taxes. The people have the mentality that those who live in an oppressed nation have, that mentality is to report your neighbor to the government of anything.
4 ups, 2y
Citation needed.
0 ups, 2y
9 of the top 10 poorest areas in the US are run by Dems, and they also run virtually all of the ghettos/projects/inner cities.

And Dems (the politicians) like it that way. Being able to point to those areas every four years and say "vote for us so we can help you, save you from the nasty white conservatives" is, somehow, how they KEEP getting voted in.
6 ups, 2y,
1 reply
You're a conservative?

So why should anyone consider your opinion on any legislation regarding children?
6 ups, 2y,
3 replies
Because conservatives don't support tearing apart children, eugenics, and the such. Not killing children is just ground level for child care, if you didn't know.
1 up, 2y,
1 reply
"They are exactly the same. Both kill an innocent human being."

That's your belief

"I am a fertilized egg, and so are you"

Neither one of us is a fertilized egg. We are fully developed humans

"you an dI were still human beings at 10 years old, 5 years old, 1 year old, 2 months old"

I agree

"You should not care about the legality of life. The nazis made it legal to kill Jews, but it was not right and still is not right"

I didn't say that something being legal and something being right are always the same

"We are all attached to the human beings for life"

Not in the literal sense that I'm referring to

"A baby is dependant on its mother or caretaker to feed it. It would die by itself: Are you saying WE AN KILL IT BECAUSE IT IS dependent?"

That's not at all what I'm saying
1 up, 2y,
1 reply
Again, it is not a belief, it is has been grounded and proven by embryologists for nearly a hundred years. The very word FETUS is linked to "offspring" and is said as: "CONCEPTUM." Offspring of the species that it came from, which in this case, is homo sapiens sapiens. Therefore, we can ONLY BE HUMAN, as our fathers were.

We are not fully developed. As I explained, when a toddler is dependent on her mother, we cannot kill it, because it is dependent or is UNdeveloped. We are all developing, all the time, that is no different from the baby in the womb.

If you agree, how can you support killing the baby, if that is the same you inside and outside of the womb?

You didn't say that, but it was implied by how you made your argument.

Toddlers are attached to their mothers for life. Same difference.

Then what are you saying? Do you have any arguments at all? You simply read stuff and say, yes, no, yes, no. You have no counter arguments, no founded beliefs.
1 up, 2y,
1 reply
"Again, it is not a belief"

You saying it's innocent is your belief

"We are not fully developed. As I explained, when a toddler is dependent on her mother, we cannot kill it, because it is dependent or is UNdeveloped. We are all developing, all the time, that is no different from the baby in the womb."

Whether intentionally or unintentionally, you are missing what I'm saying. When I say a fetus is not fully developed, I mean it can't survive outside the womb. You and I can both survive outside the womb. We're doing it right now.

"If you agree, how can you support killing the baby, if that is the same you inside and outside of the womb?"

I support a woman's right to terminate a pregnancy in her body if she wants to

"You didn't say that, but it was implied by how you made your argument"

It was not implied, because I've consistently made the distinction between a fetus and a toddler.

"Toddlers are attached to their mothers for life. Same difference."

Is a toddler physically connected through an umbilical cord to another human being 24/7? No

"Then what are you saying? Do you have any arguments at all? You simply read stuff and say, yes, no, yes, no. You have no counter arguments, no founded beliefs."

I've already said it. An embryo isn't the same as a newborn. It doesn't have the same value or rights. If a woman wants to terminate a pregnancy, she has that right.
1 up, 2y,
1 reply
Yeah, the Jews were innocent, and so is the baby which you are about to tear apart. This, as I said, is all grounded in embryology. So no, it is not an opinion, I am citing fact.

Okay, but guess what? Ages birth-seven or eight (years old), cannot survive outside the womb. The youngest can't even lift it's own head, and the oldest (7/8 years old) don't have a proper understanding of money in order to keep itself alive.
We cannot kill it, since it cannot survive outside of the womb.

You did not address my statement. First, I said:

"you an dI were still human beings at 10 years old, 5 years old, 1 year old, 2 months old"

THEN YOU SAID:

"I agree"

THEN I SAID:

"If you agree, how can you support killing the baby, if that is the same you inside and outside of the womb"

And then you dissed my question. Not only did you diss it, but you used a euphemism. "Terminate the pregnancy." Terminate what? What is a pregnancy?

No, you made the end result of the distinction, you infact, have avoided the distinction, which is why we are here in the first place. There is no meaningful, value-giving difference between the toddler and the baby inside.

No, but it is actually needing the physical attention, as well as the physical sustenance from its mother. The only difference is the umbilical cord. In this case, the baby is getting nearly the same nutrients, but from the nipple. The umbilical cord, nipple, umbilical cord, nipple. Who cares? Why does the place that the baby is getting sustenance from determine its value?

No, they are not THE SAME, but being THE SAME and having VALUE is NOT EQUIVALENT.
You and I are not the same, we cannot rightfully kill each other.
1 up, 2y,
1 reply
"and so is the baby which you are about to tear apart"

Over 90% of abortions occur in the first trimester. Nothing is torn apart.

"Ages birth-seven or eight (years old), cannot survive outside the womb"

Did you actually just say a seven-year-old can't survive outside the womb?

"The youngest can't even lift it's own head, and the oldest (7/8 years old) don't have a proper understanding of money in order to keep itself alive"

The ability for a human being to survive outside the womb has literally nothing to do with its understanding of money

"You did not address my statement...I said:

"If you agree, how can you support killing the baby, if that is the same you inside and outside of the womb" "

I did address your question, by pointing out that it was inaccurate. I never said I support killing a baby.

" "Terminate the pregnancy." Terminate what? What is a pregnancy?"

A pregnancy is the developmental process of human reproduction.

"There is no meaningful, value-giving difference between the toddler and the baby inside"

According to you. I don't agree with that.

"Why does the place that the baby is getting sustenance from determine its value?"

I didn't say it does

"No, they are not THE SAME, but being THE SAME and having VALUE is NOT EQUIVALENT"

And I never said that was the case. I said that I don't view an embryo as having the same value as a toddler.

"You and I are not the same, we cannot rightfully kill each other"

I agree
1 up, 2y
"Nothin is torn apart." Oh, nothing is there? So I guess women don't need abortions, because nothing is there in the first place for them to have an abortion!
NOPE. That's not what embryology says: https://www.naturalbirthandbabycare.com/pregnancy-week-by-week/

Yes, it cannot. It will die without the aid of its mother or father, just like the more dependant toddler.

Yes, it does have to do with money (dependency). If you are allowed to kill a baby who is dependent on its mother via the umbilical cord, then why not a toddler on its mother's tit? Furthermore, a child with no more understanding of dependency then that he or she gets food from its parents, just like the toddler does.

yes, that is basically what pregnancy is. Except pregnant with what?

Why is there no value-giving difference between the toddler and the baby inside?

yes, by arguing that the attachment to the umbilical cord vs to the mothers tit allows it to be killed, you did say that.

No, you said they are not the same.

Yes, so what is the difference between you and I, and the baby inside? Years to develop, that's it. The same potential, the exact same human potential is inside that baby.
4 ups, 2y,
1 reply
Neither do liberals
3 ups, 2y,
1 reply
Yes, infact, many liberals do.
4 ups, 2y,
1 reply
Who said they support that?
2 ups, 2y,
1 reply
I know this tactic. It is the dumbest, lamest, shittiest argument that is riddled in self-denial.

here is the simple counter: imgflip.com/gif/4w22vs
2 ups, 2y,
2 replies
I asked which liberals said they support that, and you didn't name any
2 ups, 2y,
1 reply
"I didn't say it wasn't human."

No, you with words, but ideas have consequences. When having an abortion, there is a thing you are killing. What are you killing? A human being, with value. If you can kill that human being for any reason, then there is no difference between the womb and outside. By that standard, if the same mother is having financial issues with her toddler or 5 year-old, under the logic of abortion, she can still have him killed.
2 ups, 2y,
2 replies
"When having an abortion, there is a thing you are killing. What are you killing? A human being, with value"

Having human DNA and having value aren't the same thing

"If you can kill that human being for any reason, then there is no difference between the womb and outside"

Yes, there is a difference

"By that standard, if the same mother is having financial issues with her toddler or 5 year-old, under the logic of abortion, she can still have him killed"

No, under the "logic of abortion" (whatever that means), she can't
2 ups, 2y,
1 reply
"Having human DNA and having value aren't the same thing"

If they aren't, then I can just kill you. That is the same argument the nazies made in killing the jews. They knew the Jews were human, but didn't care.

"Yes, there is a difference"
What difference?

"No, under the "logic of abortion" (whatever that means), she can't"

You know what that means, stop being stupid. Why can't she? Its the same circumstance! She has the financial burden, why can't she alleviate it?
1 up, 2y
"If they aren't, then I can just kill you. That is the same argument the nazies made in killing the jews. They knew the Jews were human, but didn't care"

You're trying to compare killing adults to terminating a pregnancy, sometimes weeks or even days after conception. The two are not the same at all.

"What difference?"

The difference is that a fertilized egg is not the same as a child, and many people don't believe it has the same value. Legally it doesn't have any rights. But the most significant difference is that a child is not physically attached to another human being in order to stay alive, like an embryo is.

"Why can't she? Its the same circumstance! She has the financial burden, why can't she alleviate it?"

No, it is not the same circumstance and you know it. A five-year-old is not the same as a five day old embryo. If you take a five-year-old away from its mother because the mother doesn't want to care for it, you can give it to another adult who will care for it. If you remove a five day old embryo from a woman, there is literally no way to keep it alive.
2 ups, 2y
You're trying to compare killing adults to terminating a pregnancy, sometimes weeks or even days after conception. The two are not the same at all.

>>They are exactly the same. Both kill an innocent human being.

The difference is that a fertilized egg is not the same as a child, and many people don't believe it has the same value. Legally it doesn't have any rights. But the most significant difference is that a child is not physically attached to another human being in order to stay alive, like an embryo is.

>>I am a fertilized egg, and so are you. You and I have simply been given more time to develop into a more recognized human being, but you an dI were still human beings at 10 years old, 5 years old, 1 year old, 2 months old.

>> You should not care about the legality of life. The nazis made it legal to kill Jews, but it was not right and still is not right.

>>We are all attached to the human beings for life. If you really think you are fine, independent, then leave developed society, and see what happens. A baby is dependant on its mother or caretaker to feed it. It would die by itself: Are you saying WE AN KILL IT BECAUSE IT IS dependent?

No, it is not the same circumstance and you know it. A five-year-old is not the same as a five day old embryo. If you take a five-year-old away from its mother because the mother doesn't want to care for it, you can give it to another adult who will care for it. If you remove a five day old embryo from a woman, there is literally no way to keep it alive."

>> Yes, because it was designed to be there. The five year old has developed enough to do things that a 1 year old could not. Are you arguing for ableism?
2 ups, 2y,
1 reply
Classical liberals, or liberals? Don't get in the word game, you're not that stupid and you know it. We both know which "liberals" I am addressing.
2 ups, 2y,
2 replies
Any liberals
2 ups, 2y,
1 reply
""Liberals love abortion"

Probably very few

"It is their sacrament"

No, it isn't

"their god"

No, it isn't

"It represents self idolism and stolen freedom"

No, it doesn't

"Paganism and Satan worship"

No, it doesn't

I'm sorry if it bothers you that there are people who actually believe that a woman should be able to control her own body and not have her decisions made for her by someone else like she's a piece of property, as in Bible times."

Gotcha. Your last line admitted it. Did you watch the video I posted? If you did, you would see, there is no denying that there is a human being inside the womb, and that you are killing it. You don't follow the science, because the science is settled SINCE CONEPTION.
1 up, 2y
I didn't say it wasn't human
2 ups, 2y,
1 reply
Untrue. We both know that as well. Liberals love abortion. It is their sacrament, their god. It represents self idolism and stolen freedom. Paganism and Satan worship.
2 ups, 2y
"Liberals love abortion"

Probably very few

"It is their sacrament"

No, it isn't

"their god"

No, it isn't

"It represents self idolism and stolen freedom"

No, it doesn't

"Paganism and Satan worship"

No, it doesn't

I'm sorry if it bothers you that there are people who actually believe that a woman should be able to control her own body and not have her decisions made for her by someone else like she's a piece of property, as in Bible times.
3 ups, 2y
Explain please.
Show More Comments
Creepy Condescending Wonka memeCaption this Meme
Created with the Imgflip Meme Generator
IMAGE DESCRIPTION:
You're pro abortion? So why should anyone consider your opinion on any legislation regarding children?