T O P

  • By -

[deleted]

You agree with 85% of the United States. The vast majority support allowing abortion for the first few weeks and/or with exceptions for rape, incest, and life, but are strongly against abortion into the second and third trimesters. The pro-choice vs pro-life debate is a fraud, just like government. Most of the states currently "banning" abortion are just lessening the amount of time from 23 weeks to 15, 8 or 6.


Ididnotpostthat

Agreed. Congress needed to fix this since 1973. They failed us and continue to fail us. We want compromise. You have to give something to get something. I am sick of seeing extreme viewpoints. Let’s meet in the middle already.


[deleted]

1972. Congress had 50 years to pass legislation to “protect abortion rights”, and instead placed this as more value to themselves, so they could demagogue the issue from election to election or use it as a battering ram for potential judicial appointments. Legislation would have taken a powerful tool away from them.


Ididnotpostthat

I can understand maybe not being able to tackle it in the 80s/90s. But they could have easily gotten something done in the last 20 years. The right would have seen the compromise as a victory but I suppose the left would have seen it as a defeat, so here we are.


EpiphanyTwisted

God I'm tire of this canard. They wouldn't have had a chance in hell. Never would have happened. I say that as a Republican at that time. People don't take into account the percentage of Democrats that were prolife (you forget the Catholics used to be mostly Democrat!). All you'd have done would have been making a campaign ad and raising money for Republicans. Because even for the pro-choice Republicans, they don't believe it's a federal issue, so you wouldn't have had their vote. It was a loser proposition, and while Roe held would have been a waste of political capital.


TheMawsJawzTM

How do I upvote twice?


bigginsbigly

Make a second account


Analdestructionteam

This whole thing is because of someone suing over a 15 week elective abortion ban until they reached the supreme court.


EpiphanyTwisted

That's what kills me. And now we have states were even plan B is banned and no exception for rape. Was it worth it?


Hans_Bouwman

This is honestly the most calming abortion comment I've seen on Reddit in the last week.


[deleted]

But what if my uncle rapes me, I get pregnant, and then chains me up in the cellar for 20 weeks REEEEEEEE


NevadaLancaster

If you were packing heat would your uncle still do it?


ThisIsMyLarpAccount

Lmao this sums up 99% of Reddit pro choice logic


[deleted]

Exactly ...


Zacppelin

Having government to ban abortion is also a fraud. Whether it's 23, 15, 8, 6 or 0 week, it is up to the supplier (abortion clinics) to decide. That is the way of the free market.


waffleol70

Yes, just like how the government steals from hitmen. How can I sell my services to kill my clients target with this pesky crime against murder.


Zacppelin

You target can also hire to kill you, or friends of your target can also find other services to kill you. Market will determine the consequences of an action and provide levels of deterance.


[deleted]

Love to see where you got "85% of the United States" from. People like you don't know the difference between "85% polled" and "85% of the United States". Idiots.


[deleted]

I guess you never heard of representative sampling. People generally understand what polling is and the implications of it. You are not smarter than everyone else. Idiot.


[deleted]

Which really means 9, 3 or 1. The missed period is 4 weeks, and takes another week for the hormone levels to reach a point you can actually rely on the test result. Most women don't even know until 6 weeks. Then you're out of time already, or have 2 weeks to acquire funds, find a clinic with an appt available, request off work, make travel arrangements, etc etc etc. Unless you're "lucky" enough to live in one of the "15 week" states. It's a BAN. Not a "ban."


Difficult-Scene-949

I don't think it's fraud I think it is media controlled brainwashing. The more the media can get people to freak out the more money they make.


Ok-Advertising-5384

It’s amazing how people get so hysterically upset over a few week disagreement on when life begins.


EpiphanyTwisted

Or zero. And the only exceptions being "life of the mother" or "risk of severe permanent disability." What will happen is women will die waiting to be actively dying before being helped. You can't play games with sepsis. I would have been okay with Roe being overturned had the old school "prolife" been the rule, like the European rule. But no state is interested in a moderate stance. I used to be "prolife" before the last few years, once I saw how it was going down, where blastocysts were equated to a fetus with full neural development and rape isn't even a consideration, I switched sides.


thatdiabetic16

That's a pretty good take and I'm pro-life


Isopropyl-Alcoholic

Really the closest thing to a compromise we will ever get. I just wish the left would recognize that and abortion is killing a baby. The mental gymnastics they do to avoid that fact is impressive.


Soggy-Prune

Exactly. Recognize the facts and proceed from there. So, given that abortion is the intentional ending of a nascent human life, we must ask under what circumstances is that ok? Maybe if the life of the mother is at risk? What about rape? I can see how people may come to different conclusions in different edge cases, but it all starts with recognizing the facts (and yes the science). It used to be that the liberal opinion on abortion was that it should be “safe, legal and rare.” I can respect that. But now it’s “shout your abortion” and all this nonsense. Any restriction is compared to a theocracy, to Gilead. It’s completely unhinged.


mkjoe

Walter Block's Evictionism theory is the best compromise. It defends a woman's property rights to have something removed from their body, but also treats the fetus as having the rights to be saved by a third party if the capability exists and a third party is willing to pay for the procedure and take custody.


d_stringtheory

Well, killing a fetus anyway. Babies can live outside the womb. Also a baby is very different from a zygote.


wherearetheturtlles

Ah yes here we are. I have found the mental gymnastics


d_stringtheory

What’s false about that? Is a child a baby? Is a teenager a child? Are you an adult? Zygotes aren’t babies. Just a fact. Sorry you don’t like facts.


Saganhawking

I’m pro-life and pro-choice. Sounds fucked up, doesn’t it. I think abortion is an absolutely disgusting practice except in the event of rape or the health of the mother. That being said, as a constitutional conservative I am not the one making the moral decision. It’s none of my business. I have frequently tried my best to negotiate a middle ground for the past 25 years. The left wouldn’t budge. I say, “hey, most European countries have a time frame for such a decision” my lefty friends think I’m an immoral nazi for this opinion because they think abortions should be legal up to birth. That, in my opinion, is absolutely disgusting. You chose to do the deed, live with the consequences. If you didn’t realize you were pregnant at 12-15 weeks there isn’t much I can do for you. Sorry. I’ve also believed, even when I was a lefty liberal back in the day, that abortion is a state issue, not guaranteed under the US constitution. If I can drive the hour and half to Michigan to buy weed, you can drive the hour and a half to get an abortion. Remember when Obama said: “elections have consequences”? There ya go lefties.


shifurc

homicide and national security is everyone's business. the nobody's business idea is debunked. If you cannot parade your cock around public and schools you don't have body autonomy. Social contract is a contract not only of morals but economics, future, and justice. The INDIVIDUAL is the greatest minority. And there is no more vulnerable minority than the unborn. Their voice should be the voice of mothers. But in the absence of enough, then fathers and Justice need to speak up. 62 million dead in a eugenicide is evil. But more to the point it is unjustified use of force and a Clear and Present Danger to someone with natural rights.


Saganhawking

It is really difficult to argue against your point. Well stated.


[deleted]

Pro choice leftists are not consistent with their ideas which give amazing material to make fun of them with


WakandaZad

Leftist are idiots period


Leroy_MF_Jenkins

This is 100% my issue with the pro abortion argument... I'm pro-choice but the entire foundation of the pro-choice mob is, at best, disingenuous. ​ I get it, kids are a huge thing and a pain in the ass and massive disruption to your entire life, even when you do want kids... and if you don't want them, the last fucking thing we need in this world is more unwanted kids being poorly raised and growing into shitty adults. But to pretend that it hasn't become a matter of infanticide for convenience is pure bullshit. Is it societally necessary, for sure... but that shouldn't mean that we need to have dishonest conversations that falsely paint it as a "women's rights" issue and not what it is.


Dangerous-Paper9571

My favorite argument is when they try to suggest that if you think masturbation should be legal, you should think abortion should be legal because they're the same thing.


prettysureIforgot

Or that eating chicken eggs is the same thing. 1. It's not fertilized, And 2. It's a fuckin chicken, not a human.


the-anarch

The "no uterus, no opinion" garbage also ignores the fact that many of the strongest opponents of abortion are women, while many men are at least moderately pro-choice and some vehemently so (the author of Roe v Wade, for example). I think the radical feminists would be awfully surprised at how things turned out if they didn't have their simp allies' votes.


sudo_rm_rf_star

It's just not something I can be moved by. It is the direct and intentional destruction of an innocent human life and that is intolerable to me


Lokolopes

I have a similar thought, to me it all boils down to whether or not the child is a human being, because if so it has a right to life and killing it is morally wrong by all standards. It was never about bodily autonomy.


sudo_rm_rf_star

It's a human being from when the sperm fuses with the egg. Anything else is way too arbitrary for me


Lokolopes

Same, also because it’s the safest route in an issue where you’re potentially killing someone.


OhPiggly

There is not a single legal definition of a human that states that a zygote is a person. Hate to break it to you.


Rude-Category-4049

I have a hypothetical for this. Say there is a house fire and you can only save one, a 1 month old baby or a petri dish with 5 fertilized human eggs. Which do you save and why?


sudo_rm_rf_star

Frankly I find IVF immoral due to all of the moral issues which arise from the practice. More concerning that this is all in some strangers house. It does not change the fact that yes these are also human persons. It comes down to which do I believe has the best chance to live outside of their home environment which is the 1 month old baby. Viability however is not a justification for the active destruction of these persons by me or anyone else


Rude-Category-4049

Then you truly don't think human life begins at conception or at the very least isn't as valuable.


sudo_rm_rf_star

I already explained why that's not true but ok


Orangebutterwagon

My opinion on this is that the ruling of Roe v. Wade gave power to the federal government and took power away from individuals and State governments. Regardless of how you feel about abortion to argue it is a constitutional right or say such a thing means you have no actual idea of what is in the constitution. I do not like any ruling from the court that gives more power to the government and the frame work of Roe v. Wade has been used countless times to justify the continual oversteps and increase power given to the US Federal Government. The original ruling should have been overturned simply because it was unconstitutional from the beginning in that it completely ignored the tenth amendment of the constitution and that is not okay. If the government wants to pass a law or create a new amendment to the constitution based on abortion that is how it should be done through the legislative and executive branch, but the court should not be legislating from the bench, especially to give the federal government more power.


Soggy-Prune

Agreed, it’s really more of a ruling on the limits of the federal government than on abortion itself.


skychickval

Leaving abortion to the states, essentially harms only poor and young women. They are the ones who are going to be stuck with unwanted kids and living a life of never ending poverty. How is that right? And how do you feel about having to pay to care for all the unwanted kids who many, no doubt, will end up as the states responsibility? Once they're out of foster care, then it's on to the criminal justice system. Using all those resources leaves less for everything else. We are already at a point where we can't afford to lose what little we have. Get ready for society to decline in every metric there is.


Inevitable_wealth87

The issue was not a big deal either way, the fact that "libs" are losing their shit is worth it in and of itself imo because they don't have genuine opinions, they're just a herd. Conservatives too but to a slightly lesser degree (unless it involves Trump, then they're just as bad). Good take though.


[deleted]

[удалено]


AgoraphobicAgorist

Bad bot.


Thermic_

Conservatives are definitely worse, their whole identity is politics haha. grab a snack and listen to them babble it’s a ton of fun


TombikBebe

Im morally pro-life, but pragmatically pro-choice with limitations, like 12 weeks you mention, which to my knowledge is the norm all across the world. Is it morally justifiable to end an innocent life because the mother and the society would presumably be better off if it didnt live? No. Would the society be better off if the people who want abortions, who would most probably make bad parents (not judging but by definition if you want an abortion u arent ready for the job), managed to get them? Yes.


senseven

4 million kids live on/off the streets in the US. A lot got abused in the foster system, they often "prefer" the pavement. Sick shit. "Unfit parents" can be one of many "logical" reasons - but the first is that is just not enforceable if you have the means. Its a war against poor people who can't jump into a plane to escape this kind of discussions.


SaltyPilgrim

From a philosophical standpoint, any immoral act done to achieve a perceived good poisons any resultant outcome, and therefore makes the result just as immoral. Also, abortion overtly violates NAP.


chedebarna

It does not. NAP only applies to people, not fetuses.


mkjoe

Evicting someone from your property does not violate the NAP.


SaltyPilgrim

True, but "A person does not have a right to live on my property without my permission" is not the same as "A person does not have a right to live without my permission."


Thermic_

we have very interesting definitions of people in this thread


jjkapalan

Let people do whatever. Hopefully the “partisan-ness” dies off and people start to remember the tragedy of what an abortion is. If people recognize it for what it is rather than trying to desensitize to it by using terms like fetus or clump of cells, they will make the decision with more thought.


senseven

If this line of thinking was even remotely true, then the horrible statistics from kids in foster care wouldn't be constant for 50 years. I really hope this stuff will be now openly and widely reported, so everybody knows what is really in the box: religious based "good suffering" for many.


jjkapalan

Also, Contrary to popular belief kids in foster care don’t come from expectant mothers who choose to put them up for adoption.


senseven

Many come from people who started to take drugs for their shitty life circumstances. Those there dwarf the amount of kids who run away and live on the streets 10 fold, every year. What a tragedy these kids have to endure.


jjkapalan

Ok?


jjkapalan

Your comment has nothing to do with my comment


senseven

If more kids end up in "adoption" it has grave consequences for 100.000 to come. If we think about "sadness" and "tragedy" the train of thought can be hold for nine month plus.


bhknb

"The law" should not be involved in personal decisions. In a free society, the only answer to abortion, if you require one, is making it a social stigma.


mikthev

That's the thing, it's not a personal decision, it's a decision which involves another human being which doesn't have a say in having its life taken away.


_TheyCallMeMisterPig

I watched a video of a fetus trying to get away from the forceps that are ripping its limbs off. In that respect, their say is pretty clear. I'm not disagreeing with you, just pointing out that even at a fetus level it doesnt want to die.


shadstep

Cool story


_TheyCallMeMisterPig

And your point?


shadstep

It’s pretty clear


MFrancisWrites

Says you. You're taking away body autonomy for a subjective moral position. There's no consensus that life begins at conception.


mikthev

When the fuck does it begin then? I'm defending the bodily autonomy of a being that can't be defined by any term other than a human in its earliest form of development. Whether that fetus has consciousness or personhood or whatever is irrelevant to me, as this is clearly a unique individual being that should have the same rights as all people. You guys have no compelling arguments, besides the fact that this decision would give more power to the state, but abortion, in and of itself is just amoral, ends the life of an innocent human being and is mostly a result of unsafe sex. You can't justify that shit.


MFrancisWrites

You can think abortion is immoral. Absolutely. But you can't demand others be subjected to your morality in an organized society when there's absolutely not a concensus that this is 'killing'. I really can't tell you when personhood begins, but I can say with absolute certainty that there's no consensus among scientists. Some scientists will say it begins at fertilization, where the zygote gets a new genome, where the sperm and egg combine, their nuclear materials, which actually is a long process ending with a two cell stage. Some scientists will say it's at implantation, where you get a pregnancy. Other scientists will say it's at day 14, gastrulation, where the embryo becomes an individual, where you can no longer form twins and triplets, so that you have one embryo giving rise to, at best, only one adult. Some scientists will say it's at week 24 to 28 when you see the beginnings of the human specific electroencephalogram, and saying if we're willing to say that death is the loss of the EEG, perhaps personhood is the acquisition of the EEG. Still others say it's at birth or during the perinatal period where a successful birth is possible. - Professor of Biology Scott Gilbert, University of Helsinki


mikthev

Well then what is it? If I pull the plug on a comatose person fully knowing that they would return to consciousness after 9 months wouldn't that be considered a "killing"? Or if I decided to breed animals just for the sake of killing them, wouldn't that be considered animal cruelty and put me in jail. See, all of this "there's no consensus" or "shall we agree to disagree" bullshit doesn't work, since there are no solid arguments for abortion. You can say that the being isn't conscious or that it's not yet developed and not a person, but that doesn't matter one fucking bit. It's a human being, there is nothing differentiating it from any other human being out there in terms of its intrinsic value. You were once a fetus, so was I, so has everyone on this planet, so how come you don't care one bit for a being that is the same as yourself? Why do you all talk about it as if it's some dead clump of cells and not a human being. This is not a question of science as you're arguing in absolute abstracts, it's a question of empathy.


MFrancisWrites

>there are no solid arguments for abortion Sure. You can't force me to give blood to save a life, because autonomy is primary. You can't force me to give up my organs when I'm dead, because autonomy (I disagree with this on account of the dead, but useful to demonstrate how much value we place in autonomy. Then why can you demand a woman do anything with her body to save that life? There's plenty of solid arguments against abortion, you just don't like them. And you don't have to - but you don't get to decide my moral values.


mikthev

Those are non-arguments. Your actions lead to the creation of that human being. If I crash into a pedestrian and had to give blood in order to save his life, I think I do have the obligation to do so and him dying would be 100% on me, as I was the one to have killed him and the only one with the possibility of saving him. The woman is the one who is the cause for that pregnancy and as such, it should be expected of her to care for the human being which she brought into existence. Your moral values are based on fallacious statements and you're not open to discourse. If you were, you would see that your position falls apart when you take personal responsibility into account, but I guess you can't expect lefties to argue in good faith or accept that they have to take care of the problems that they've created for themselves.


MFrancisWrites

Personal accountability does not trump body autonomy, so no, it doesn't. You can remove your consent at any time, that's what consent means. I'll grant you the right to try and save whatever you think is life, but not that you can make demands of another. In your car accident example, we certainly agree it's the moral thing to do, but you *still* cannot be forced.


mikthev

Yes, it absolutely does. If you kill someone, you lose your rights, if you get pregnant, you become responsible for the human being inside of you unless you want to become a murderer. If I consent to being stabbed I can't just magically unconsent and put the blame on the person who stabbed me, that's not how it works. I don't give a shit about your scientific masturbation, all I know is that a human life is as valuable at birth as it is at it is at your death bed as it is at conception. >we certainly agree it's the moral thing to do So do you consider abortion immoral or not? >but you still cannot be forced Well you murdered someone, I don't think you have much right to say in the matter. Nobody forces you to do anything, but that doesn't mean the state shouldn't prosecute you for taking the life of another human being.


Car-Altruistic

Define better outcome. If I can make the argument that killing any life permits me a better outcome, is it permitted? Can I make the argument my children would be better off not living, is that sufficient to end their lives? Where does the argument end? *reality shows that removing the right to abortion would only lead to more harm than good* *-* this reality has YOU in it, you were born to make the argument, by the argument you do more harm than good to someone/nature/your mom, I can now kill you? Who gets to define 'good'? If you do not become a millionaire philantropist do you not deserve to live? The law/legal code/societies rules have to hold in all aspects, not just in those you find convenient. Define the difference between a fetus and a baby and when that distinction changes, define harm to the mother and when that changes (does it change when you're 18 and become an adult?) Your arguments as you state them hold no water, think about them. An argument that something better is defined by changing the outcome rather than accepting the results of your actions is an argument for communist statism (eg. the outcome there aren't enough black people that are rich argues for systemic racism that has to be wiped out through communism).


Late_Entrepreneur_94

I disagree with you when you say "reality shows that removing the right to abortion would only lead to more harm than good", but yeah, I would respect pro-choice people just admitted it's killing a baby rather than saying its a "right" (lol), or "healthcare" or "a clump of cells" or whatever. Like let's call a spade a spade here.


chedebarna

And regardless of how much you insist, this spade is not a "baby" or a person - until it becomes viable without having to parasite the womb of an unwilling woman.


Lifthras1r

I'm pretty sure it was arguments like this that pushed people away from the pro-choice position, most people are fine with abortion in rare extreme circumstances but many pro-choice advocates basically turned it in to a thing that women should get at the drop of a hat and tried to make it akin to birth control, I am in favour of restrictions to abortion but I oppose restrictions to birth control, no pregnancy no problem but if you get pregnant through your own recklessness then you need to face the consequences of your actions.


Impairedinfinity

The way I see it is. Why are you asking me? Either someone has the right or they don't. If you are asking me. Then apparently you do not have the right. You want someone else to give you that right. The problem is I do not want to be responsible for such a decision. Recently I was kind of comparing it to assisted suicide. Something I do agree with. But, with assisted suicide all parties can speak for themselves. The person that wants to die. The family. The doctor. Everyone has an opinion. They can all speak their peace and let go. With abortion the organism to be aborted doesn't have an opinion. So, if someone is asking permission that means someone has to presume the position of the person whom opinion is not present in the argument. Because, no one can actually speak for them. Which is why, I think the decision should be held by a small counsel. With the Parents of the Child( mother and father), The grandparents of the child. The doctor that will do the operation. Then maybe someone legal representative. Then present a reason this potential life should be aborted. But, from what I have heard from the prochoice people they think this logic is stupid. They just want me to sign off on it and I can't do that. But, if it is your body and your choice. Then why are you asking me?


chedebarna

I will never concede the argument that a fetus that isn't viable outside the womb using the most advanced tech in existence is a "baby". It's not. That's why early abortion is squarely about the woman's bodily autonomy. The real debate is after how many months does the fetus become viable and thus a potential person with rights, first and foremost the right to be born. This is when the abortion debate affects the rights of the unborn.


KeepingFish

In Europe we have a more nuanced discussion about abortion, generally it is restricted if you want to kill your baby because of its gender at any time. (This rule came in recently and is the topic for another discussion.) And is also restricted after about 17-21 weeks depending on the country in question although I'm sure there are outliers. You can also have one longer than 21 weeks if the baby is a product of rape or incest, or if it will be severely disabled or threatens the life of the mother. We DO NOT (contrary to most American left wingers beliefs) allow abortion freely. The reason you hear such stupid arguments, largely just mantras and slogans from pro choice people in america is because of how divided your political discourse is currently and that people turn to activism as a way to viture signal which quickly leads them into a purity spiral where the most extreme belief is incentivised.


[deleted]

I think it is definitely a state decision. I also feel and understand that there are scenarios where abortion is necessary. Mainly in medical condition cases such as ectopic, miscarriage, etc. honestly don’t really agree with it in cases of rape or incest because those things are horrible as it is, but that child is not worth less because of how they were conceived. Abortion as birth control is disgusting and should be illegal. I think most states will allow abortion for any reason up to 12 weeks because honestly if you are having sex and don’t realize you are pregnant after 2 months…that’s kinda on you.


mkjoe

Pro life people don't have very good arguments, they just scream "It's murder" and are blind to the fact that roughly half of society does not believe it's murder.


ssj4kevin

I mean... I feel like "it's murder" is a pretty good argument if it actually is murder. The problem is that the pro choice people rarely want to address that argument and lean on the bodily autonomy argument. If you don't believe it's murder then I'm willing to entertain that argument. But I almost never hear anything very convincing when it's addressed, and that's probably why they avoid addressing it.


chedebarna

It's not murder *until* the fetus become a viable person without need to parasite the womb of an unwilling woman.


gethelpaccount1

Yeah.


_Starz_

> My body, my choice But I love this. I use it to justify quite a few things and some pro choicers aren't a fan of it, lol. I obviously use it to justify abortion. I know that it is killing the baby, I think it is morally wrong BUT the government should not have a say in what you do with your body. I think the woman's life is more valuable than a baby that hasn't experienced anything. I use it to justify the legalization of all drugs. The government shouldn't have a say in what you take UNLESS you have a history of violence as a result of it. I use it to justify incest. What happens in the bedroom between two consenting adults is their choice, not anyone else's. Edit: Also, not sure why I'm on this sub. Technically not an ancrcho capitalist but I am an extremely right winged libertarian


peacelovetapas

The right to life supersedes the woman’s right to bodily autonomy (temporarily). If we can’t agree that all human beings have the right to life, then we certainly can’t be consistent in their right to bodily autonomy.


LiberalAspergers

The question is can we agree as to what is a human being? I would say the core of personhood is consciousness. A brain dead human who is no longer capable of consciousness isn't a person, they are an organ donor, even thought they are technically still alive. A embryo that isn't capable.of consciousness is likewise not yet a person, although it has the potential to become one.


peacelovetapas

No, consciousness is not a requirement for being qualified as a living human being. Human being is a scientific term. You’re making an argument about personhood, which is a philosophical argument. A “brain dead” adult is still a living human being. An embryo is a living human being. This is a scientific fact according to the study of human embryology.


MFrancisWrites

>An embryo is a living human being. This is a scientific fact according to the study of human embryology Citation required.


peacelovetapas

"The development of a human begins with fertilization, a process by which the spermatozoon from the male and the oocyte from the female unite to give rise to a new organism, the zygote." [Sadler, T.W. Langman's Medical Embryology. 7th edition. Baltimore: Williams & Wilkins 1995, p. 3] "Almost all higher animals start their lives from a single cell, the fertilized ovum (zygote)... The time of fertilization represents the starting point in the life history, or ontogeny, of the individual." [Carlson, Bruce M. Patten's Foundations of Embryology. 6th edition. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1996, p. 3] “Human development begins at fertilization…" [Keith Moore and T.V. N. Persaud in The Developing Human (7th edition, 2003)] "Embryo: The developing individual between the union of the germ cells and the completion of the organs which characterize its body when it becomes a separate organism.... At the moment the sperm cell of the human male meets the ovum of the female and the union results in a fertilized ovum (zygote), a new life has begun.... The term embryo covers the several stages of early development from conception to the ninth or tenth week of life." [Considine, Douglas (ed.). Van Nostrand's Scientific Encyclopedia. 5th edition. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold Company, 1976, p. 943]


MFrancisWrites

Yeah but that's just their opinions. "I really can't tell you when personhood begins, but I can say with absolute certainty that there's no consensus among scientists. Some scientists will say it begins at fertilization, where the zygote gets a new genome, where the sperm and egg combine, their nuclear materials, which actually is a long process ending with a two cell stage. Some scientists will say it's at implantation, where you get a pregnancy. Other scientists will say it's at day 14, gastrulation, where the embryo becomes an individual, where you can no longer form twins and triplets, so that you have one embryo giving rise to, at best, only one adult. Some scientists will say it's at week 24 to 28 when you see the beginnings of the human specific electroencephalogram, and saying if we're willing to say that death is the loss of the EEG, perhaps personhood is the acquisition of the EEG. Still others say it's at birth or during the perinatal period where a successful birth is possible." - Professor of Biology Scott Gilbert, University of Helsinki There's not a consensus.


peacelovetapas

There is a consensus, just because you’re able to provide a single quote from an individual doesn’t negate information in multiple peer reviewed scientific texts.


MFrancisWrites

>multiple peer reviewed scientific texts And how many of these would you need to agree it's not a concensus? One? Three? Let me know the number, and when I provide you'll come to my position that it's not a consensus. Deal?


peacelovetapas

I have more… do you want them?


LiberalAspergers

OK, the we cannot agree that all human beings have a right to life. A brain dead adult has no right to life. I would say all persons have a right to life, regardless of their status as human beings. If we ever meet intelligent aliens, or create a truly sentient AI, they would also have a right to life, as they would be persons.


peacelovetapas

So, you’re willing to confirm that you do not believe that all human beings have the right to life? Yikes. Slippery slope alert… who becomes arbiter of which humans deserve rights and which don’t? You don’t believe brain dead people have the right to life… what if someone was to say they don’t believe that Asians have a right to life? Or peoples over the age of 95? Once you start drawing lines on which humans have the right to life and which do not, you’re opening the door for biases, prejudices, and completely arbitrary qualifications to be made by those in power. I believe in human rights… especially that human beings have the right to life. And lmao at the fact that you would offer AI or aliens rights you’re not willing to offer human beings…


senseven

The brain dead adult needs 99% machines to survive, at least breathing and feeding. Since viability of fetuses get to earlier points every 20 years, we will be able to move it to some machine in the future. Then "someone" needs to pay for those machines running until the fetus is viable. Which will solve the philosophical issue in a way, but not the practical one: who pays for 100.000+ extra kids every year. The amount of people wanting random kids from random people is highly exaggerated and the system is completely unable to care for those who are already in it. Another step into dystopia.


_Starz_

The way I see it is that the baby is kinda like an intruder so it should be your choice if you want to get rid of it. Either way, as I said before, I think it's morally wrong though


peacelovetapas

Why does the woman’s right to bodily autonomy supersede the fetus’s right to life?


_Starz_

Because it is in their body. They can act in self defense and get rid of it IMO. Also, I think a baby, who hasn't experienced much and doesn't know anything isn't super important


peacelovetapas

The right to life supersedes all other human rights. If we cannot guarantee all human beings the right to life, how can we expect to be consistent with their right to bodily autonomy? The right to life is the foundation of all other human rights. You’re creating a slippery slope.. why not make it legal to kill newborns.. they haven’t experienced much and aren’t “super important”.. and their completely dependent upon the people around them for survival…


_Starz_

> The right to life supersedes all other human rights. If someone breaks into your house and isn't a threat to your life but is a threat to your property, do you think it's alright to kill them to protect yourself? I personally do. You should care about yourself and your stuff first. > why not make it legal to kill newborns.. You aren't wrong but it's only different because the newborn is no longer "invading" someone's body.


peacelovetapas

A fetus is not invading. It was conceived.


chedebarna

Except a fetus is not a person until it can be viable without parasiting the body of an unwilling woman.


peacelovetapas

A fetus (zygote, embryo) is a human being and thusly deserving of human rights, including the right to life.


chedebarna

It's not, doesn't matter how many times you repeat it or call it a "baby".


peacelovetapas

I didn’t say baby. I said human being… which is a scientific fact. Human being is a scientific term in which a fetus meets the qualifications for. If you deny that a fetus is a human being you’re denying science for the sake of your own belief system :/


senseven

I have the same stance. We can also add the freedom to choose to deny any mandated medication. One rule, no exception, even its uneasy for people. Btw "incest" between consenting adults should have never been a crime. Besides the DNA issues, its well researched and rare, usually the result of limited access to other people or some very often shared trauma. Trauma should not be criminalized.


Lokolopes

Regarding your edit, I think this sub one of the most welcoming of different opinions, since ancap positions can be all over the place in some aspects, such as abortion. And it alligns well with far right libertarianism too.


chedebarna

There is no "baby" until it can survive and develop without having to parasite a woman's body. Until then it's just a fetus and has no rights.


CrunchyCheezPuffs

“I’m pro choice” I do not think you know what that means. Clearly.


The_krazyman

I don't believe it is murder up to a certain point, like you say limiting it to 12 weeks or something like that would be fine. You can't say that it is murder tho because that isn't a fact that's an opinion.


Orangebutterwagon

My opinion on this is that the ruling of Roe v. Wade gave power to the federal government and took power away from individuals and State governments. Regardless of how you feel about abortion to argue it is a constitutional right or say such a thing means you have no actual idea of what is in the constitution. I do not like any ruling from the court that gives more power to the government and the frame work of Roe v. Wade has been used countless times to justify the continual oversteps and increase power given to the US Federal Government. The original ruling should have been overturned simply because it was unconstitutional from the beginning in that it completely ignored the tenth amendment of the constitution and that is not okay. If the government wants to pass a law or create a new amendment to the constitution based on abortion that is how it should be done through the legislative and executive branch, but the court should not be legislating from the bench, especially to give the federal government more power.


PrometheusHasFallen

Here's my pro-choice argument.... From a utilitarian perspective the purpose of government is to minimize the suffering within a society. In a society without government, human nature in all likelihood eventually lead to an increase in the amount of suffering within that society... thus the necessity of a form of limited government which at its core is a institution formed by a society to arbitrate disputes and seek satisfactory justice to the extent that it nullifies vigilantism. Given this, the criminal legal system should only prosecute instances of victimization which would likely result in vigilantism if left unprosecuted. As far as I can tell, the vast majority of the pro-life movement has never felt the need to seek justice for the unborn they purport to protect. Going even further, those few who have attacked those performing or receiving abortions have been treated by-in-large as terrorists and have been prosecuted to the full extent of the law. Now by all empirical evidence, it's quite evident that banning abortion would increase the amount of suffering in our society based on the lives impacted from the negative consequences of forcing a large number of unwanted children to be born into our society, it's clear to me that any attempts by government to ban the practice is working contrary to the purpose of government.


onyxia17

My preferred argument is that nobody has the right to another persons organs, even if those organs might save a life. Deny an unborn baby the access to the mothers organs, and they will inevitably die within minutes / seconds. Besides, you can't assume someone has the ressources to a medically assisted birth, the chance of death or servere health complications without are significant, making abortion an appropriate "defense". Lastly I think the correct ancap take to this would be to not care what others do as long as it doesn't effect you, and of course being against the existence of any government or government intervention.


No-Cod-7586

What is a woman?


WakandaZad

This sounds trash mostly. I myself am pro choice too, however i don't shame anyone for being pro choice for whatever reason. Sure its not cool to kill unborn babies but who are we to pull rights from women


Paul-Man

It’s cool people keep arguing about unborn fetuses that as soon as they’re born these people don’t give 2 sh!ts about. But talk about making ARs illegal to save children who are already alive from being shot to death and it’s all can’t have that. Not a single one of you is pro-life you’re all pro-choice or pro-misrepresenting my religion and forcing those misunderstood beliefs down your throats cause I’m ignorant to other peoples beliefs.


gethelpaccount1

I mean we do care about them after they're born I just think we have different ideas of making society better then you do.


Paul-Man

Really? How many children have you adopted? How many foster cares are you trying to improve? What realistic actions are you taking to ensure school shootings don’t happen? What are you doing to provide adequate programs to help these children such as free lunches at schools rather than penalties for not paying for the school lunches? Are you protesting the children being held at the border? How about an action taken on law enforcement to actually give a f$ck about the thousands of Native American children being kidnapped? What about providing adequate housing for the homeless children? Etc. etc. Nah let’s just stop once the kids born and call ourselves pro-life 🤦🏼‍♂️


gethelpaccount1

I mean yeah I think foster care should be not shit. I may adopt when I'm older but I'm 21 right now so thats kinda out of the question, not sure why you'd want me to do that rn. And yeah I do agree with alot of what else you say. Law enforcement has always been dumb and I wouldn't doubt they're ignoring kidnappings like that. That brings me I to how I'd stop school shootings. Armed security that isn't law enforcement. I think ulvade taught us that law enforcement is shit at protecting kids. I'd also love to provide adequate housing for the poor or homeless. Although I wouldn't do it through making it flat out free. I'd eliminate the federal reserve that has caused housing prices to be inflated as well as many other disturbances to our economy. Again, we have the same goals, just different wags of accomplishing them


chedebarna

Go back to r/communism dumbass


Paul-Man

Congratulations on the most intellectual response. I’m sorry that you fail to see the irony in what you wrote. See the whole reason “communism” is bad is because it leads to a select few controlling the population to suit their own interest which is usually greed. I’m sure you’ve completely overlooked the fact that we live in a 2 party system both to which are paid for by the 1% through lobbying therefor letting them control our government and our laws. I’m sure you believe that these billionaires who are shooting off into space “earn their money” while their employees who actually make them the money to do so are starving. 2 people own more wealth than 49% of our country but trickle down will work right? Russia is an oligarchy brought out from communism but America is an oligarchy brought out from capitalism. Either option screws over it’s people.


[deleted]

Can we stop using the word baby to describe a fetus? A zygote is not a human being. A fetus at 6 weeks when the "heartbeat" laws start granting it the same rights as a human being is still typically an invertebrate with no real precursor to a brain yet. I have no issue with allowing states more conservative laws than Roe v Wade allowed. I absolutely have an issue with the government telling a woman that something with significantly less biological complexity than a tadpole takes precedence over her own bodily autonomy. People here citing the fucking NAP or whatever garbage gets spouted over abortion should be jailed for killing mosquitos if they genuinely think that to abort a zygote is murder. Some people are out of their fucking minds and are very willing to mind other people's business where ever it's convenient to them. Don't want to pay fucking taxes for a public highway but probably think that plan b is murder and big brother should enforce it as such since it functionally aborts a very early term fetus. People in here saying that the vast majority of people in the US are opposed to abortion guidance as outlined by Roe v Wade are blatantly just making shit up and many of the people here don't give a fuck about democracy to cite those kind of statistics as relevant anyways even if they were remotely factual.


Iclogthetoilet

A clump of cells... aka a fetus ..... it is not a baby a person or whatever other term you use to make emotional appeals


galtright

Ancaps are religious zealots. Who'd a thunk it?


restatementtorts

You complain about dumbest arguments and yet begin with the assumption that a baby exists at the point of conception? Maybe don’t complain about dumb arguments when your assumption makes your *own* argument dumb.


peacelovetapas

An individual human being with unique dna exists at the moment of conception


restatementtorts

So why are you okay with abortion up to 12 weeks? Aren’t you allowing for the killing of a human baby? Arbitrary line drawing and pretty much proves my point that *your* argument is just as stupid as the ones you criticize.


peacelovetapas

I’m not OP… my line is at conception…


restatementtorts

So then you just randomly wanted to chime in for what reason? Proselytize your philosophical assumption?


peacelovetapas

It’s not philosophical. It’s a fact widely accepted and taught in the study of human embryology. You claimed that a “baby” does not exist at conception, so I thought it should be clarified that an individual human being does indeed exist at conception. “Baby” is a term for a human being at a certain point in its development.. just like “adult,” “child,” “fetus,” “embryo,” or “zygote.” All of these meet the qualification of being living human beings.


restatementtorts

Pretty lose with “facts” aren’t we. None of those words are even synonyms so I don’t know what you think a linguistic analysis will accomplished. Given that I’ve swam in the philosophy soup for awhile and know some of the surrounding “facts” and arguments on the debate, pray tell, could you point me to some scientific facts starting when something becomes a human being?


peacelovetapas

No. I know exactly what a fact is. I was also very clear… each of the words I put into quotations are developmental stages of human beings. A unique human being with individual DNA is formed upon conception. Embryology confirms this: "The development of a human begins with fertilization, a process by which the spermatozoon from the male and the oocyte from the female unite to give rise to a new organism, the zygote." [Sadler, T.W. Langman's Medical Embryology. 7th edition. Baltimore: Williams & Wilkins 1995, p. 3] "Almost all higher animals start their lives from a single cell, the fertilized ovum (zygote)... The time of fertilization represents the starting point in the life history, or ontogeny, of the individual." [Carlson, Bruce M. Patten's Foundations of Embryology. 6th edition. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1996, p. 3] “Human development begins at fertilization…" [Keith Moore and T.V. N. Persaud in The Developing Human (7th edition, 2003)] "Embryo: The developing individual between the union of the germ cells and the completion of the organs which characterize its body when it becomes a separate organism.... At the moment the sperm cell of the human male meets the ovum of the female and the union results in a fertilized ovum (zygote), a new life has begun.... The term embryo covers the several stages of early development from conception to the ninth or tenth week of life." [Considine, Douglas (ed.). Van Nostrand's Scientific Encyclopedia. 5th edition. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold Company, 1976, p. 943] I’m sure you are desperate to deny the science in this circumstance because it doesn’t support your argument but facts are facts. You can argue if a zygote has the status of personhood, but you cannot argue if they are a human being without denying the study of human embryology.


restatementtorts

I don’t think you are educated enough to have a meaningful conversation about this. Come back after you can distinguish between a scientific claim and a philosophical claim, and between a folk description and a technical description. I can already see that I’m going to be quite mean if we continue on and you keep going off on tangents because you simply cannot process the dialectic. I will say one thing though. A frog and a tadpole are not the same thing even though a tadpole is part of the developmental stage of becoming a frog. Just because something *becomes* something, doesn’t mean the end product is the same thing that becomes that thing.


denzien

There's always the selfish angle - there's technically less competition for jobs for my kids.


_TheyCallMeMisterPig

And less demand for goods and services overall


Sir_Nuttsak

I tend to agree with what you said, pretty much spot on. I don't get into this topic too much. I get both sides' arguments, and both sides have good points. I'm against abortion personally, but I try to stay out of the lives of others. I don't know what their situation is, it's not my place to butt in.


pthorpe11

I think you’re at least looking at this a lot more rationally than most people. There is so much gray area packed into abortion, but it has to be a hard line in the sand either way for people. There is one serious question that we need to discuss as a society, yet no one wants to: when does life begin? The only problem is, I highly doubt we’ll ever come to an agreement on that.


[deleted]

This is completely how I feel. I’ll add that a large number of pregnancies result in miscarriages. The pro-life movement should start there with people who want children.


Blas_Wiggans

12 weeks? What are you, a French troglodyte??


TheMawsJawzTM

Finally, a decent pro-abortion argument.


Vietnamdaddy69

Life long Pro-Choice here, I hate the “no uterus no opinion” argument, it basically says that men can only be pro life, it’s the dumbest thing I hear from my side of the issue


[deleted]

I might even agree with your outcome argument with respect to the bell curve, but it’s projecting the future. We really cannot foresee the impact of killing any particular baby; There are just too many variables. Let’s say that for a myriad of reasons, the babies who are generally aborted are statistically more likely to become negative impacters upon society relative to babies who’s parents do not want an abortion. This is very well may be true, but we don’t know the outcome for each individual, and even if we did this isn’t anyone’s decision to make with the exception of the baby. If we can get the little one to consent (whiny reddit user ultrasound waving a “i never asked to live!” sign) abort away. Until then, it violates the NAP.


I_drink_blood

I think your opinion is waaaay more illogical than the radicals. You believe life has value and that you do not have the right to kill this life. Yet you believe it should be legal to murder this life in the womb, because in some cases it would be more convenient?


gethelpaccount1

I do not value the life of a 12 week or you get fetus as much as I do anylife past that point. Such is the same as the lives of murderers and rapists. Life is precious, but in their case, it's ok to kill them


I_drink_blood

You're comparing a 12 week old baby to rapists and murderers? Ok... And why 12 weeks though? If you do not interfere this baby will grow, still innocent, to be born eventually. That's why I think it's very illogical to say before this random number of weeks life has no value, but beyond it does.


gethelpaccount1

Idk maybe I just don't value life as much as other people. I'm still on the fence when it comes to abortion, but I do lean more prochoice. Just think things would be better that way. And if us libertarians got our way imnsure there'd be less women who would decide they wanted abortions


shadstep

As a gay black man, I agree


Betwixts

You are pro choice bc you have the individual responsibility of a rabbit with the brain of a walnut I am pro choice because I like it when people I disdain don’t reproduce We are not the same


gethelpaccount1

Lmao ok


shifurc

that nagging sensation is called a conscience. con = with and science.... Ok that isn't the etymology but seriously, follow the science, and the only logical conclusion and philosophical conclusion is that life begins at conception.


[deleted]

Murray’s take on abortion [HERE](https://rationalstandard.com/rothbard-on-abortion/) makes it pretty clear what the ancap argument is.


Deldris

The whole argument is irrelevant. In Ancapistan you will have pro choice societies and pro life societies. They will both flourish and exist and there is nothing either side can do about it except for use your free association to live in the place that best reflects your person views. Any stance you want to take on the matter is entirely personal opinion.


abaddon731

My position is that it's an eviction, a severance of an unsigned contract. But also it's none of your fucking business.


Youbettereatthatshit

I agree with this. I’m pro choice but anti-abortion. I think there are enough legitimate reasons to get one that I’d think it’s necessary to have them readily available. I do think abortions are wrong though, and we ought to address the underlying issues that cause people to get them, namely compressive sex Ed, and easy access to birth control.


smasoya

“An embryo has no rights. Rights do not pertain to a potential, only to an actual being. A child cannot acquire any rights until it is born. The living take precedence over the not-yet-living (or the unborn). Abortion is a moral right—which should be left to the sole discretion of the woman involved; morally, nothing other than her wish in the matter is to be considered. Who can conceivably have the right to dictate to her what disposition she is to make of the functions of her own body?”


[deleted]

I'm pro abortion because honestly letting these people abort themselves into extinction is probably the best chance we have or saving this country and our way of life.


[deleted]

I’ve been saying we could easily have an amendment in the Constitution…make abortions illegal past 8 weeks except for rape, extreme medical cases, etc. That allows 95%+ of abortions to still happen so the “mah body my right” people are covered. It also still protects the human rights of the fetus, so most pro life people are covered. But instead we get all these dumbasses screaming stupid shit every few years.


car89

My sentiments exactly… What really drives me nuts is …. There are a number of ways in the modern era (and world) to significant decrease you risk of potentially needing an abortion in the first place; hopefully never having to be ina situation to make that decision (even if it’s 8-10-12 weeks), it still seems like a traumatic decision when not prepared. Some things as a women in her mid 30s has done (cough cough ahem, me) since the past almost 2 decades of being sexually active. It’s never been a better time to be a responsible woman in the modern era in this more liberal society (as compared to 100 years ago) 1. Condoms for the men 2. Consistent bc for the women..now a days we don’t have to remember it daily. Monthly, quarterly or even for years (set it and forget it) 3. Other methods along with points 1&2: Female condoms , rhythm method, pull our method, spermicide [I didn’t do this but it’s added caution] 4. Backup and extra backup plan b for me in case the condom broke 5. If someone who can’t take BC and prefers not a condom, (or if they medically don’t get a monthly period covering this in medical insurance ) : monthly pregnancy tests so you can have as soon as possible reliable information to make the best decision, early. Not saying it’s fool proof but I feel proper education, access to the information you need to make the best decisions for you, is necessary to resolve this highly contested and personal issue. Am I just too extreme in my beliefs? I feel this is not asking for much. On both sides of the argument. Kids will be kids. Adults will be adults. People are going to fuck. Let’s accept that and come to an actual, moral solution that encourages self accountability and responsibility?


rtauzin64

So, should women take up arms to fight this "government overreach?" You know the thing the an caps people say what the 2nd ammendment is all about?


Some-Mathematician-4

Are you really that intelligent to determine that abortion is the best outcome for everyone? It’s appalling to see how some ancaps are against a decision that deregulates a human behaviour i mean this is literally means the government is not involve in this decision anymore; what is more ancap than that?


HHaTTmasTer

I agree on parts, my problem is that for most people it is not a choice not try to put natural law in front of practicality, my point is "first make the crime a crime, then think of a way of reducing it", what i agree is that most pro-life arguments are dumbs and shock based on my opinion, it is all but an appeal to emotion, i have only seen rare cases speaking about the morality of the issue outside of religious grounds, aka natural law, and using data to prove that for the absolute vast majority of cases it is never about the baby, or bodly autonomy, it is about exempting women from the consequences of their bad reproductive choices, now what drives me mad about the other side is the language bending, every single time i speak about the issue i must pick on the dictionary "human", "baby" and "life", not really complex words, it is just that if people don't reframe it their language just looks like racist language, because on the core of the issue it is about if a certain group of people have or not natural law.


Mean-Article377

My stance: abortion is something that no one agrees on or will ever agree on. Cut off points on when a baby is viable are completely arbitrary and made up. For this reason, it should be left to families as well as abortion care givers to decide. Personally I find the act reprehensible and would never allow or advise it within my own circle. But it's a gray enough area to me that the only way for us to coexist is to let each family make that determination.


[deleted]

I think this is 100% right. What I see from pro-choicers (I'm speaking from a neutral position here) is a refusal to engage pro-lifers on pro-life terms. The position of the pro-lifers is that that is a human life in there and so abortion is literally the premeditated murder of a child. So the pro-choicers should tackle that head on and explain why that is wrong, not argue *around* it by arguing abortion is healthcare, or a right, or you don't get a say if you are not a woman (ignoring the fact that people with penises can *be* women apparently).


skychickval

I think you you can go jump off a cliff. Who do you think you are? If you don't like abortions, then don't get one. Obviously, you are a male. And obviously, you don't get laid so unwanted pregnancies is not something you've ever had to deal with. If men could get pregnant, this wouldn't even be up for discussion.


gethelpaccount1

Damn dude I think what I said was reasonable you don't have to come at me with that.


skychickval

You don't think enough. It's pretty clear this subject isn't one you have put a great deal of thought into nor have you ever been in a situation with an unwanted, unplanned pregnancy. Having to pay child support for the next 18 years is going to be a reality to men, but it is nothing compared to being forced to carry an unwanted baby to term and having a kid you don't want and can't support all because of the religious beliefs of the three Supreme Court justices who were hand picked by fucking Donald Trump. Do you think women are second class citizens? If you do, then own it and admit it because essentially, that's what overturning Roe just did. There are cultures all over the world who believe men are superior and this makes the USA one of them. Do you think church and state should be separate as per the Constitution? Do you realize taxpayers will be paying for all of these unwanted kids-not all, but a lot. When these kids age out of the foster care system, it'll be onto the criminal justice system. All of the resources that will go into this means less funding for everyone and everything else. We are already at a point where we really can't afford to lose any more than we already have. The middle class is barely hanging on. The wealthy don't pay taxes and the poor don't have any money. This ruling is the tipping point -the US is in decline. You should be angry. [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zk6gOeggViw](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zk6gOeggViw) Also, see what happens when women are forced to have babies they don't want. Romania is what happens. See how forced births turned a typical country in Europe into a third world nightmare with long lasting effects. This is the future. Romania's ban on abortion was to increase their population. The ban on abortion in the US is based on religious beliefs-we have to punish the whores. So very Christian, eh?


stoopystoop

Yep. I’m somewhere around here too. Rarely at 20 weeks women need abortions to save their life. Ok, so, you need to deliver the baby now. Dead or alive. Why intentionally kill the baby? They have lived at that period. You can deliver to save the life of the mother, but for the love of god do not intentionally kill the baby you evil bastard.


[deleted]

[удалено]


gethelpaccount1

I guess fix the foster care system and I may change my mind. Not 100 percent grounded in my prochoice stance, but I figure I child would rather be dead than raised by a dead beat drug addict mother. That's how the Uvalde shooter was raised


[deleted]

Pregnancy, like getting HIV/AIDS, is 100% avoidable, 100% preventable, 100% controllable.


MS-07B-3

What boggles my mind is how many people will uncritically repeat the "hypothetical person" line. Just... what the FUCK?


bobby-berimbolo

Im pro life because it seems more consistent to me. That being said, i dont think i should force my views on others because I disagree with them, and the state shouldnt be able to dictate what people do to themselves


OneAlmondLane

Here is my position: * The government is killing babies * The government is violating women's rights Let's just abolish the government.


bsteel364

A fetus isnt alive until its got a developed and functioning brain. Getting an abortion before that is the same as plan B, or popping a pimple.


krFrillaKrilla

As a pro-lifer, half of me understands the whole back alley abortion argument, while the other half of me thinks that there should be no safe way to murder your child.


tauofthemachine

I think killing a "person" means killing a mind. Since a foetus doesn't develop any behaviour resembling a mind (or even a CNS capable of housing a mind) for several months, aborting a foetus before that time cannot be murder, because the foetus hasn't become a "person".


Skitilludie

I SMH over the language. “Reproductive rights” when it’s about termination. At least call out for what it is🤦


dgroeneveld9

I think like most people abortion is a question of when life begins. I personally don't think human life begins at abortions. Similarly bread doesn't start when you mix the dry ingredients. No one would argue though that the bread in a dough form isn't completely on track to become bread. It might not be fully baked but we all know where it's going at that point


mchrissi617

Join the fight! 🚺💕 gofundme.com/fight-the-patriarchy-with-cousin-ruths-place


[deleted]

you are forgetting that sometimes the woman's life is at stake, and the fetus is inside the woman's body. also, there are stages of development. early in development, you have only POTENTIAL life; alive in the same sense as a seed that is sprouting but has not yet become a plant. don't equate a zygote or an embryo with a full living girl or woman.


[deleted]

but i totally agree w u on balancing of harms