No, it really seems to be taking aim at the prochoice people, going by this chapter, in which a woman casually drops off an unwanted baby with no discussion of how she got to that point beyond ending the chapter with "How wonderful that she can dismiss her responsibilities so easily."
I'm not sure how you can read this line and think "yes, the pro-life side was Right and Good." Have you read the book yourself or are you operating wholly based on the sporking of a stranger that isn't giving you any context beyond what they can take in bad faith and snark at? (Pssst. The point is that the bodily autonomy of both pregnant women and legal minors is being violated in the name of 'pro-life' ideology.)
Have not read the books, am honestly really relieved to hear they're better than they sound from the summaries! I've seen enough bad arguments from anti-legal-abortion orgs and people that, due to Poe's Law, the book summaries pinged me as either "anti-legal-abortion propaganda pretending to be Both Sides Are Bad" or "someone wanted to write dystopian YA with Teenagers In Peril and used Abortion Debates as a backdrop without actually understanding the pro-choice stance." And GoodReads reviews haven't really helped clarify. I'm curious: is it in-universe canon that the anti-legal-abortion side won the civil war, but are teaching revisionist history claiming the current system is a "compromise"?
I'd have to reread the book but my recollection (several years out) was that the anti-abortion side won and the pro-abortion holdouts were the ones trying to help and hide the teens given up to be unwound; I can't remember if the compromise was a compromise in name only or an actual attempt to meet on the middle and don't want to assume it's the former, but the anti-abortion side both started the war and remains solidly in power as the dystopian rulers in the first book. (And I feel like I should say it doesn't always handle its themes well, because the dude writing it is a Dude Writing It, but I also feel pretty strongly that it is the polar opposite of a pro-life/anti-abortion book. In a similar way, the Purge movies don't always handle their themes well because they're caught up in the enthusiastic gore parts of the premise, but they are fundamentally movies about how the wealthy and bigoted in power are evil and not about how killing poor minorities is great, actually.)
Yeah it's been a few years since I read it but in general it's more about eugenics/people who are ostensibly "pro-life" valuing life very cheaply when it's people they don't care about.
I cannot stop fucking laughing at Dragons: Lexicon Triumvirate. Featuring such wonders as a character who shrugged off a nuclear explosion later being knocked out by a blow to the head from a rock somehow held by a limbless dragon, phrases like "Attempting to maintain their masculinity, they shirked, hiding their cowardice behind euphemistic visages", and rapidly increasing science failure starting out with confusing force with acceleration and ending up with a character hitting someone with a "sizeable piece of solid gravity".
This person took one for the team and read "The Mister", and I'm torn between horror and laughter. (TW for racism and shitty handling of human trafficking.)
We also see in that book the same issue that cropped up with Pepper Winters' stuff, in which the sophisticated nobleman curses like a sailor. Are these writers just under the impression that these guys wouldn't be MANLY enough if they spoke respectably? ETA: Gotta admit it's nice to see the male lead be the one who's too dumb to breathe for once, though.
It's not even... a nuclear first strike on Israel would draw massive retaliation from the US and Europe. To have the slightest chance of having any part of one's country that is not a glowing crater within twelve hours, you'd have to nuke NATO at the same time. Are we supposed to believe that Russia - Russia! - somehow didn't know that? That was the whole point of the cold war! Like, maybe if you're going to write about geopolitical events, you should have a bare minimum understanding of history?
Not to mention Israel's not big - one nuke would probably be enough, not every nuke Russia has, which, as you point out, would leave them with nothing to respond to retaliation with!
On the other hand, that would certainly stop any investigative reporters who were in Israel at the time from wondering why you did it.
The missiles were stopped by divine intervention, so they'd still be around to wonder about it, but...
Okay, hang on, this line about their pilot protagonist... Isn't it kind of... impossible or at least very inadvisable to land without communicating with ground control first? ETA: Oh, apparently not! You talk to air traffic control while in the air and that's different. I learned a thing!
Disappointing unfunny bad original fiction this time; webcomic Forest Hill spent some time as a heartfelt look at the wide-ranging effects of child abuse, and devolved into pretty much a vehicle for onscreen child nudity. It makes one wonder if the author doth protest too much, and while that's likely not the case it definitely undermines the point. The characters being comfortable with nudity wouldn't, but there's such a thing as an above-the-waist shot.
Research fail in another thing; clearly American author thinks Piccadilly has an actual circus there.
What is it with having characters express perfectly reasonable complaints in the most unlikeable way possible? It seems like a terrible way to handle things.
