@grim_truth - "what a great red herring! Compare something that saves a life to something that ends a life. Yeah, that makes sense (in some worlds, I guess)"
What the post clearly attacks is the logic of much of the pro-life arguments and sentiments. Calling the comparison a red herring doesn't show how it is one, and merely pointing to he differences in the subjections of comparisons doesn't dismiss the logical connections between the two.
Let's be more literal: Ban abortions in all cases no exceptions like if a woman's life is endangered, if the child would be a product of rape or incest.
It sort of says Ban sex education, don't teach the use of condoms (because of course rapists never want to learn that usage), you can't use morning after pills nor is any other birth control allowed besides abstinence (which of course is useless for a woman who is being raped) The drowning parallel would be don't teach swiming, learning cpr and other lifesaving techniques people who drown were fated to die anyway by drowning. In otherwords turn your attention away from any deaths from drowning. Turning our hearts away from any exceptions for having an abortion is part of the campaign to overturn Roe Vs Wade and to push the idiotic position of life begins at conception. However one would compare that position to that position that Children deserve the right to vote...When life begins is a bit complicated. Buddhists could claim that life never ends, it just get recycled and the soul migrates elsewhere.
@Celestial_Teapot - There is no logical connection between the two. It compares something that saves lives with something that ends life. It clearly distracts from the actual issue by doing so. Thus, it is a red herring. It paints a picture that everyone of a certain segment thinks the same, which is untrue. Thus, it is also a strawman. (though I guess it depends on what one thinks the "lifejackets" are. One could take them as sex education, which would make a bit more sense, but at the bottom of the picture since it talks more of the "gift" and "legitimate" comments that have been made, it seems it is clearly more of an analogy for abortion. Which makes the comparisons not even close)
I'll translate it for the people have difficulty making the connections:
"We should ban abortion and other forms of contraception [as well as the HPV vaccine], because they encourage sinful behavior. The only 100% effective way to prevent pregnancy is to refrain from sexual activity. And if by chance you find yourself struggling with pregnancy [read: rape, pregnancy that threatens the mother's life], no abortion procedures should be allowed to be administered. You got yourself into this mess, you deal with the consequences."
Every ridiculous argument in the poster is a prominent pro-life argument or sentiment with the relevant words replaced. The poster is effective because it adequately demonstrates that an outright abortion ban (like an outright ban on life jackets) is an emotional and illogical approach to a real-world problem that directly and adversely affects the health of individuals. Both flotation devices and abortion procedures demonstrably save lives and improve the mental and physical health of many women who receive them. It also demonstrates how archaic religious principles (that are, ironically, arguably absent in the Bible) can cloud people's judgment and make them advocate for outrageous things regarding health issues.
Of course the arguments are nonsensical. That's the point of the post. The source material (pro-life arguments) they are directly translated from are also nonsensical. Attempts to differentiate the applicability of the arguments to life jackets are also difficult given the misunderstanding of reproductive health that many conservatives have (e.g., abortions kill and/or hurts "babies", abortion isn't necessary to protect the health of women, controversial interpretations of the Bible are a sound bases of legal rights in America, etc.)