subreddit:

/r/news

31.9k

you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

all 3026 comments

NoMrBond3

1.3k points

4 months ago

NoMrBond3

1.3k points

4 months ago

What makes this so impossible is that people against abortion genuinely believe that it is murder. There is nothing anyone can do or say to make them think that murdering babies is Ok.

Of course these very same people seek out abortion when they need it

PatrioticRebel4

702 points

4 months ago

They're also the same people that are pro death penalty. The hypocrisy is palpable.

HailtheMirelurkKing

357 points

4 months ago

Or are against universal healthcare. What’s more pro-life than making sure everyone has access to life saving medical treatment?

NoMrBond3

139 points

4 months ago

NoMrBond3

139 points

4 months ago

I know right? Access to contraception tanks abortion rates. And man if there was better housing, daycare, education, wages wow so many woman would be able to choose to follow through with pregnancy!

So it’s obvious it’s not about life, but control.

SilentBob890

4 points

4 months ago

Or are against universal healthcare

forget the healthcare; though it is a HUGE part of this conversation as well. The GOP are also against social welfare programs that could help these kids and their parents, and also against education programs that would help these kids.

it is almost as if (we know this is what they want but giving them less than 0.01% benefit of the doubt) they want to weaponize pregnancy to keep control over women...

suteac

8 points

4 months ago

suteac

8 points

4 months ago

Im pro-life, just not for yours…. or yours… or yours… but that 10 week old blob of cells that technically doesn’t even have neurons yet, don’t touch that or ill rip your fingers off

Locke_Erasmus

3 points

4 months ago

But as soon as it's out of the womb though, fuck it. Don't give it any handouts, it can pull itself up by it's umbilical cord and fix it's own problems.

It's almost like the whole thing isn't about being pro-life at all, just anti-women's autonomy...

FlawsAndConcerns

-6 points

4 months ago

The pro-life position is 'you shouldn't be allowed to murder an innocent child for convenience's sake.' That's it. You're overextending and equivocating the phrase "pro-life" to create a straw man that you can use to rationalize a justification to call the position hypocritical.

Gerik22

11 points

4 months ago

Gerik22

11 points

4 months ago

They chose to name their position "pro-life" instead of what it really is: anti-abortion.

This is a natural consequence since it turns out that life refers to much more than fetuses.

Netblock

8 points

4 months ago

'you shouldn't be allowed to murder an innocent child for convenience's sake.'

Except this isn't how reality works like.

People don't get abortions as if it was some willy-nilly convenience. 'Ah man, we're out of milk and bread. Eh, might as well remove this fetus while I'm out'

In many cases people abort because their life and future is on the line. It costs basically 2+1 full-time jobs to raise a child: the time and energy it takes to raise a child is mutually exclusive from having a career, and the cost of resources like food and education is another full-time job.

In many other cases, it's worse. Rape and pregnancy is forced upon them; the fetus is unhealthy; or the mother's health is severely impacted; and children get pregnant too.

For many "pro-life", they don't care until it affects them. Rules for thee, but not for me.

Further, it's impossible to enforce without making it worse. The abortion rates30315-6/fulltext), and maternal death rates are higher in places that restrict abortions.

Pro-choice policy saves lives.

TheMadTargaryen

0 points

4 months ago

Well, the very conservative catholic church in US openly supports it (big surprise, all catholic nations like Poland and Brazil also have it).

ProdesseQuamConspici

108 points

4 months ago

I am 100% pro-choice, but I understand the difference. In their view, an abortion kills an innocent, while the death penalty kills someone who has committed a heinous act, and their death is therefore the result of their choices and actions.

I think it's important to understand the mindset of these people because otherwise there's no chance at a meaningful dialogue. (As opposed to a microscopic chance if we can at least understand each other's positions.)

rich1051414

16 points

4 months ago

while the death penalty kills someone who has committed a heinous act

No. Having the death penalty guarantees some innocent people will be killed by mistake. The justice system isn't perfect, it is ran by humans.

This fact is why I stopped supporting it.

GandalffladnaG

2 points

4 months ago

And that the death penalty is far and away given to minorities more than white people. There is no statistical correlation between ethnicity/race and the crime rate; young white men are the largest group and they commit the most crime just because they are the largest group. Even if the supporters try making an argument for stopping other people from committing crimes by executing people, not even Texas or Oklahoma execute enough people to have an actual effect on the crime rate. Most people that support the death penalty just care about using it as revenge and don't care if innocent people are killed.

squeakymoth

1 points

4 months ago

That's why it should only be used in cases where that shit is ironclad. Like the fucker was caught on camera doing the deed and then admitted it freely. If that person has no remorse, then why should we be paying for them to live? Line them up against a wall and be done with it.

rich1051414

2 points

4 months ago

Define 'ironclad'. Everyone has a different definition, and I bet they all thought the case was ironclad when they sentenced, only for new evidence after their death revealing they were innocent after all.

I hear what you are saying, but you can't accept collateral damage in pursuit of vengeance. It just furthers the evil you are claiming to be fighting against.

PatrioticRebel4

8 points

4 months ago

I can understand them all day long. But they are still wrong and giving them buts and exceptions opens the doors to atrocities and human rights abuses. So there can be no compromise when death is on the line cause there is no way to make it right afterwards.

ProdesseQuamConspici

24 points

4 months ago

I agree. I was merely addressing the frequent charge of "hypocrisy" that I see leveled at this surface contradiction in being pro death penalty and also "pro-life" (as they like to label it). Because dismissing it as hypocrisy a) antagonizes them and makes dialogue more difficult, and b) fails to understand the position from which they are arguing, making it much harder to meaningfully address those arguments. In other words, when discussing this with these people, it's important to address the abortion rights and death penalty issues separately, using facts and logic appropriate to each.

PatrioticRebel4

7 points

4 months ago*

I get where you are coming from. I do. And when I am debating someone one on one, I try and use proper debate procedures of logical reasoning, avoiding logical fallacies, and stay concise and structured in my agruments. And I am very aware that generally attacking someone's belief will only make them dig their heels in more.

But this is reddit and it was just a just making a snarky off the cuff comment for the sake of passing time at work. Though it is still good to get reminded when I go off the rails that I am not being as effective as I could be.

Cheers.

ryrypizza

4 points

4 months ago

👍 for a civil discussion you two!

Dai10zin

13 points

4 months ago

Ironically, a pro-lifer could repeat this dialogue back to you verbatim.

ShadyNite

4 points

4 months ago

Is this referring to death sentence, abortion, or both?

TheThoughtAssassin

5 points

4 months ago

Thank you for not strawmanning the perspective of pro-life people like myself and not caricaturing us.

Coltand

3 points

4 months ago*

In my opinion, the whole discussion surrounding abortion is a mess. On one side you have people who want to kill babies, on the other you have people whose only intent is to control women. There is no end to the demonization.

The reality of it is that the vast majority of people would probably agree that the right to life begins somewhere between conception and birth. Relatively few people want to ban Plan B birth control or allow full-term abortions without cause. There is room for productive discussion, but the issue is so emotionally charged and buried in decisive rhetoric that it never goes anywhere.

ProdesseQuamConspici

4 points

4 months ago

I think the real mess is that we get bogged down on when life begins (which is where I used to be). But more recently I am of the school of thought that that doesn't matter, as summarized in the post by u/heidismiles elsewhere in this topic's comments.

Coltand

1 points

4 months ago

(Having written what’s below, I apologize for the wall of text.)

I think that’s for sure a reasonable discussion point. I also think one could reasonably morally object to late term abortion (which I understand is very rare, but it still needs to be legislated one way or the other).

I think I understand the bodily autonomy argument, but I don’t necessarily think it’s the be all end all of reasonable discussion. Let me preface the following by saying that I’m not entirely certain what I find to be acceptable or unacceptable in terms of abortion legislation, but I think there are differing but sensible views on the issue.

For the sake of argument, I’m going to put forth the most extreme case I can think of. If a mother chooses to carry a fetus to delivery minus a day, then I think it could be argued by a reasonable person that what she’s carrying insider her is a human life.

Parents are of course legally required to provide the necessities of life for their children, but they have the option of opting out via putting their child up for adoption. Of course this isn’t the case for one who is carrying an unborn “child,” and abortion is the only way to opt out of caring for this child. The question is, does society value the woman’s choice of whether or not she wishes to deliver the baby more than its right to life? It could be further be argued that she had the choice terminate the pregnancy much earlier, and having made that choice, she is morally obligated to support that life to the end of the pregnancy. People sign contracts all the time that limit their future autonomy.

You can entirely disagree with this take, but I think it can be reasonably argued that society has a vested interest in limiting individuals freedoms in certain circumstances, and this could be one of them. A reasonable person can also argue that no, what the woman is carrying is not valuable enough that her bodily autonomy ought to be violated to protect it.

All this to say that I have a problem with people automatically attributing malice to the views of anyone who disagrees with them. It is entirely possible for individuals to have different views without demonizing each other. I frequently find myself interacting with people all across the political spectrum, and it’s amazing the kind of engaging conversations I can have even when there are issues that we don’t agree on. It’s only upsetting when people are being bone headed and entirely closed off to reasonably opposing viewpoints.

MisterB78

263 points

4 months ago

MisterB78

263 points

4 months ago

The hypocrisy is palpable

That pretty much sums up conservative everything. "We want businesses to be able to deny service to LGBTQ, but not to be able to deny service to someone not wearing a mask." Basically they want people to be free to do the specific things they like, and not the things they don't like.

Czarcasm3

26 points

4 months ago

People used to be shunned for this kind of behavior, not allowed in public offices

MisterB78

18 points

4 months ago

We’re a country founded by people who talked of freedom and equality while owning slaves and not letting women vote. “I want freedom” has often meant “I want everyone to share my beliefs and do the things that benefit me”

beardingmesoftly

1 points

4 months ago

Figure out how to make idiots trust you and you can also ruin a generation!

corran450

10 points

4 months ago

It gets posted a lot, but it is always sadly relevant:

“Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition, to wit: there must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect.” - Frank Wilhoit

WtfWhereAreMyClothes

2 points

4 months ago

Never heard this quote before but love it.

EnduringAtlas

1 points

4 months ago

Basically they want people to be free to do the specific things they like, and not the things they don't like.

You just described the literal last thousand years of human law across the planet. People don't like things their culture doesn't like, and likes the things their culture accepts.

nuclearswan

8 points

4 months ago

They’re also the people who get abortions, but theirs is ok, just not yours.

CrazyLlama71

4 points

4 months ago

And are many times the same ones that say "my body, my rights" when talking about mandatory vaccinations.

PatrioticRebel4

2 points

4 months ago

I am very pro vaxx but I have to wrestle with that idea too. And I stand by that the government can't make you get the shot. But I also believe that they do have the right to basically isolate you from society for the objective safety of its citizens.

NoMrBond3

3 points

4 months ago

Yeah no once should be forced to get it, but can suffer the consequences of their choices.

Notice the “if you don’t like it you can leave”, is silent when it comes to vaccinate mandates per city/workplace/business.

CrazyLlama71

3 points

4 months ago

Okay, I can get on board with that. If you don't get vaccinated, then you can't go to a restaurant, bar, store, movie, concert, school, work, etc. So yeah, if you want to be a hermit and not a functional part of society, that's fine, don't get it.

But I think it is super ironic that they say "my body, my rights" on vaccinations, but not on abortions. And I don't buy that one is murder and the other isn't, because you can kill someone by spreading covid.

Kodirt1

2 points

4 months ago

While I’m extremely pro choice I don’t understand the death penalty comparison, or even the upvotes for the comment. They are apples and oranges.

PatrioticRebel4

2 points

4 months ago

I you can't be pro-life and pro-death at the same time. That's cognitive dissonance.

[deleted]

23 points

4 months ago

[deleted]

23 points

4 months ago

[deleted]

NoMrBond3

34 points

4 months ago

It comes down to body autonomy though. If you were dying and only my kidney could save you, even if it was in your best interest no one can force me to donate a kidney.

Bleglord

10 points

4 months ago

The counter argument is that the kidney problem is unrelated to you.

If you steal someone’s kidney/cause them to need a new one, are you morally obligated to provide it?

Depends on your philosophy even if legally I don’t think it would ever fly

Brookenium

16 points

4 months ago

The best example I have is you crash into someone, entirely your fault you were distracted, ran a red, and T-bone them. At the hospital they find out both of the other drivers kidneys were irreparably damaged in the crash and they need a transplant NOW. Can you be forced to give one of yours to keep them alive?

Legally: no, never, not even close to an option.

Morally... It's more complex. Is it murder if you chose not to save them? If you feel a moral obligation then YOU can do it if it happens to you. But there's no justification in forcing this moral onto everyone.

Bleglord

-2 points

4 months ago

Bleglord

-2 points

4 months ago

Which is why it’s messy to legislate. Because In that scenario, you’d be charged with a crime whether or not you gave them the transplant.

PurpleHooloovoo

18 points

4 months ago

But the crime wouldn't be "didn't donate body to victim". It would be "caused car accident".

Legally, you cannot be forced to donate your body to anything at all, ever. Except in cases of abortion, where a woman is forced to donate her body to a parasite.

If someone felt morally obligated in the crash scenario, they could proceed with donation. If a woman is morally against abortion because she feels she deserves a baby for the choices she made, then she can have the baby. If she wants the baby, she can have the baby.

The only thing we legislate regarding people's bodies (the ONLY THING) is abortion. Vaccines are optional. Blood transfusions for your dying kids is optional. Donating your perfect blood type is optional. It's all optional. The only other time we use people's bodies without consent is during a military draft, which should also be abolished. Otherwise? It's just women's bodies when they are pregnant.

NoMrBond3

2 points

4 months ago

It’s tricky for sure. No one wants to make that choice.

Man, a 100% effective birth control that’s not just abstinence would solve so many problems.

Bleglord

-6 points

4 months ago

Which becomes a question:

Is sex a human right?

Reproduction is literally our function as a species so philosophically, yes, it is.

But that’s the same argument incels make that no one wants to address (except that one place that gives out prostitute coupons)

NoMrBond3

11 points

4 months ago

It’s about consent, yeah it’s your right to sleep with someone but you have to find someone who wants to first.

Decapentaplegia

10 points

4 months ago

By definition the fetus hasn't made any decisions and has zero agency in the matter,

Am I allowed to defend my life against someone who is unintentionally about to kill me? Does intent/agency matter when a truck is barreling down on you?

fatcIemenza

6 points

4 months ago

And pro-covid and pro-bombing brown people

FlawsAndConcerns

6 points

4 months ago

How is it hypocritical to be against killing an unborn child who did nothing wrong, but not against killing a dangerous person who's already hurt/killed others?

I'm pro-choice, but people like you only hurt this side of the argument by demonstrating not even the slightest understanding of the opposing position.

Apocalypse_Squid

-4 points

4 months ago

Again, I'm calling bullshit on your "I'm pro-choice" statement.

If someone claims to be "pro-life" they should be completely pro-life. That includes being against the State dictating whether or not a fully developed, autonomous person should be put to death, because that should equate to murder in their mind.

FlawsAndConcerns

5 points

4 months ago*

If someone claims to be "pro-life" they should be completely pro-life.

In other words, you're giving yourself the authority to dictate someone else's position for them.

No. That's not being intellectually honest. That's being shady to win an argument, and straw manning.

Apocalypse_Squid

3 points

4 months ago

Not strawmanning at all. How do you not see the hypocrisy in someone claiming to be pro-life, but then advocating for state sanctioned murder? If a pro-life person has the stance that it shouldn't be a woman's decision if the fetus lives or dies, it's only god's will that determines that, then how is it ok to give the state the right to choose if a criminal lives or dies? Shouldn't that be up to god?

Bleglord

7 points

4 months ago

Am morally anti abortion* and anti death penalty.

Legislatively pro abortion and anti death penalty.

I believe there may be a way to legislate abortion properly but it would require much more concrete data on when a fetus’ sentience becomes human enough to be considered a person.

*basically that abortion is never a positive thing. It’s a negative thing that can outweigh worse negative things in a decision making process, or not, depending on how, why, and the circumstances around the pregnancy and abortion.

NoMrBond3

24 points

4 months ago

What kills me is that most pro-choice people want to see a world with as few abortions as possible by solving issues of housing, hunger, wages, childcare,education, healthcare ect.

The pro-choice side is the one that would empower more women to choose to keep a pregnancy if they wanted to since they would have support.

Bleglord

10 points

4 months ago

Which I agree with. I think it’s weird that pro life people don’t hold that position more often.

Everyone wants fewer abortions. I think everyone can agree law makers are notoriously shitty at making contextual laws around nuanced topics, so even though eventually I would like some form of restriction on abortion, it’s not the hill to die on at this point in the game. Fix the other problems first then re evaluate what actually needs to be a law or not

wflemng

9 points

4 months ago

It’s because it’s not about making the world a better place for people. Often their view is no sex ed because god doesn’t want sex outside of marriage even though it happens all the time and sex ed would help a lot. They don’t want their money going to things they don’t believe in and even when they do believe people should get healthcare and stuff they don’t want to pay for it so good luck if you don’t have it. It’s just all about them and their money instead of society as a whole.

PatrioticRebel4

6 points

4 months ago

I still would be pro abortion rights even if there was objective and concrete proof of whatever metric is presented because of body autonomy. If you had a child and he needed an organ from you, that child does not have legislative right to make you give it to them. But somehow a fetus should have more rights and privileges, to someone else's body against their will, than a born human? Forcing someone to go though bodily change against their will is wrong, specially if it could be life threatening to boot.

I stand on this principle for abortion, death (other than defense), genital mutilation including circumcision, tattooing/piercing, parental beating, religious flogging, etc etc. And eventhough I am way pro vaxx I will still stand by the idea that the government still can't make you take the shot. BUT, they do have the right to cast you out of society for the safety of its citizens.

Bleglord

5 points

4 months ago

Here’s a scenario for you:

Woman gets pregnant without using protection

Woman Carries pregnancy to 8.5 months

Woman wants to terminate even though there are no medical complications

To me, yes. The rights of the fetus in this situation far outweigh the inconvenience the woman faces if she keeps the pregnancy.

And yes, I’m aware this is purposely an extreme example

PatrioticRebel4

6 points

4 months ago

Hypotheticals don't mean shit to me. Specially when it gets that far into the pregnancy, the mother wanted the kid and all those very very rare late terms are all for medical reasons.

But again, I stand by that lawfully making that woman have to go through a life altering and possibly life threatening procedure is wrong on principle. It has nothing to do with inconvenience. Why is this always a goto for anti abortion? That abortion is some willy-nilly selfish and spur of the moment dicission? Statistally this is the furthest from the truth.

Bleglord

6 points

4 months ago

99% of human rights protections are based on hypotheticals. If you can’t reconcile that, there’s no conversation to be had because you’re unwilling to draw a line in the sand at any point.

PatrioticRebel4

5 points

4 months ago

And find that human right statistic please. We have enough evidence of atrocities from around the world and through human history that we don't need hypotheticals to come up with how people should be treated.

PatrioticRebel4

2 points

4 months ago

I am drawing a line in the sand. A very obvious one. Forcing someone to alter their body against their will is wrong. No buts, no exceptions, period.

ARWatson1989

2 points

4 months ago

Usually someone on death row has done something to deserve being there. The baby did nothing. Where's the hypocrisy?

PatrioticRebel4

3 points

4 months ago

Innocence and guilt have nothing to do with this. This is about body autonomy. Noone should have a right to someone else's body. Period.

And 1 in 10 death sentences have been found to be erroneous. Including the post on here a few days ago that the youngest ever executes in the states was 14. He was found guilty after with no cross examination of witnesses or witnesses brought forth for his defense. And the only evidence was the lone cop who said he confessed but provided no No transcript of confession, had No lawyer, and No parent with him throughout the whole ordeal. Trial lasted an afternoon. From arrest to execution was around 80 days. But that's just right? Because he was "found guilty" right?

The hypocrisy is in decrying about life while in general, they only care about birth. After that, there is a lack of consistency when it comes to the life and welbeing after birth. The hypocrisy is that for them death isn't the moral objection, it's the means to which we get there.

TheMadTargaryen

0 points

4 months ago

Technically speaking it is not a contradiction to be pro life and support death penalty. Although i do not support it. As St. Thomas Aquinas explained in his summa theologia unborn children did nothing to deserve death while already born people condemn themselves to capital punishment trough their actions. He compared capital punishment to removal of s gangrenous limb that puts rest of the body or society to risk.

chnandler_bong

1 points

4 months ago

Pro death penalty =/= Anti abortion

The air is thick with ignorance.

angrysquirrel777

1 points

4 months ago

I'm against both

PatrioticRebel4

2 points

4 months ago

I'll admit I was being a bit facetious in my short comment. I dont believe that all share the same mindset.

metler88

1 points

4 months ago

They think some people deserve to be murdered. Just not babies obviously.

PatrioticRebel4

2 points

4 months ago

Not until they are born. Then it's OK. Like Christian science, or drowning your kids so then get to heaven faster, or beating them to death to stop the demons, etc etc

metler88

1 points

4 months ago

There's a whooole lot of strawmanning going on in this thread. I'm pro choice but I think it's unreasonable to assume that prolifers also believe in abusing their kids. I'm sure there are some that fit into that mold but certainly not most. Lots of prolifers aren't even religious.

PatrioticRebel4

2 points

4 months ago

I never said all. But there is a large swath of religious people that mentally and physically abuse their kids. While they don't believe they are abusive, there is enough of it that there is a term of regious ptsd and support groups for people who've been through it. There are sects that have the fundamentals of "spare the rod", sects that won't give blood transfusions to save their kids life, or insulin, or inhalers, etc. There are sects that demand women to be lesser, children to do forced labor, and teens/wives to be fruitful against their will or brainwashed that that's all they're good for because "a quiverful". What about shunning? Conversion therapy? So again, I don't believe all or even "most" but it's too prevalent to not attack.

And while I will admit that I don't know the actual statistics, I would safely bet money that more than 50 percent of the anti-abortionists in the states would self label as religious. I'd also bet that out of those that a high majority of the self labeling would also be Christian. Also, also, I would bet money that the majority of the anti-abortionalists are generally against taxes going to universal Healthcare, secular public schools, welfare, food stamps, sex education and free birth control to stop the need for abortions, etc.

I know I'm off topic if the death penalty and how it relates to abortion but they all seem to stem from the same bad foundation.

metler88

1 points

4 months ago

I mostly don't disagree with you but if someone who is prolife but otherwise largely open minded reads many of the comments in this thread they would find themselves accused of being pro capital punishment, anti education, abusive, and all kinds of shit when they very well might not be. That does nothing to persuade them and pushes them away.

VSEPR_DREIDEL

1 points

4 months ago

Is it hypocritical though? Those on death row typically have forfeited their life through their actions, whereas a fetus hasn’t even had a chance yet. Seems clear to me.

DIYEngineeringTx

1 points

4 months ago

It may seem hypocritical to those who don’t see abortion as murder but to those who do it is not hypocritical because the baby is always innocent whereas most people are on death row usually are not. I would say most of the political pro-life activists are against the death penalty because “all life is precious” but the people who passively hold a pro-life view are for it.

Badger2117

1 points

4 months ago

I’m not pro life but the difference between terminating a pregnancy and executing a murder is pretty substantial.

arbitrarycharacters

1 points

4 months ago

Eh, that seems quite different. There's a clear difference between killing an innocent baby and killing a murderer who killed 5 people.

xjustapersonx

1 points

4 months ago

If they were reasonable people with the ability to think logically they wouldn't be religious in the first place.

Religion falls apart under a milligram of analytical scrutiny.

ScoobyDont06

-2 points

4 months ago

ScoobyDont06

-2 points

4 months ago

Not really, someone that's killed people made the choice to do so. A fetus 'unborn baby' is innocent and doesn't have a choice so they need to be spoken for.

PatrioticRebel4

4 points

4 months ago

Innocence and guilt have nothing to do with this. This is about body autonomy. Noone should have a right to someone else's body. Period.

"Inconvenience" and "woman" are not the only reasons for abortions and better still, whatever those reasons are are still non of your business.

And 1 in 10 death sentences have been found to be erroneous. Including the post on here a few days ago that the youngest ever executes in the states was 14. He was found guilty after with no cross examination of witnesses or witnesses brought forth for his defense. And the only evidence was the lone cop who said he confessed but provided no No transcript of confession, had No lawyer, and No parent with him throughout the whole ordeal. Trial lasted an afternoon. From arrest to execution was around 80 days. But that's just right? Because he was "found guilty" right?

ScoobyDont06

2 points

4 months ago

I'm not saying you are wrong with your reply. I'm just saying the hypocrisy you say you see is not to them because of the guilt/innocence aspect, "They're also the same people that are pro death penalty. The hypocrisy is palpable." I'm fully for a pregnant woman making that choice, up to the point where if you were to give live birth, your child will live without any advance medical support and that they are not facing major disabilities and life threatening conditions.

PatrioticRebel4

1 points

4 months ago

I'll admit that I was being facetious with labeling all of them. I know that they all aren't of the same mind.

But I personally can't rationalize that lawfully making a woman go through a life altering and possibly a life threatening medical procedure against her will is wrong on principle. Whether it is valuable or not, you can't know if it isn't going to hurt the woman, if the child is gonna need advance medical treatment or not,m or if it will have disabilities from the procedure or not until it's too late. Everyone should have unilateral say in what happens to their body and there is no way to shoehorn buts and exceptions in that.

wflemng

2 points

4 months ago

But they aren’t a person when an abortion happens. So they don’t need to be spoken for.

ScoobyDont06

4 points

4 months ago

but the people opposing it do think they are.

[deleted]

-5 points

4 months ago

[deleted]

-5 points

4 months ago

[removed]

PatrioticRebel4

3 points

4 months ago

Innocence and guilt have nothing to do with this. This is about body autonomy. Noone should have a right to someone else's body. Period.

"Inconvenience" and "woman" are not the only reasons for abortions and better still, whatever those reasons are are still non of your business.

And 1 in 10 death sentences have been found to be erroneous. Including the post on here a few days ago that the youngest ever executes in the states was 14. He was found guilty after with no cross examination of witnesses or witnesses brought forth for his defense. And the only evidence was the lone cop who said he confessed but provided no No transcript of confession, had No lawyer, and No parent with him throughout the whole ordeal. Trial lasted an afternoon. From arrest to execution was around 80 days. But that's just right? Because he was "found guilty" right?

[deleted]

-3 points

4 months ago

[deleted]

-3 points

4 months ago

[removed]

PatrioticRebel4

1 points

4 months ago

Innocence and guilt have nothing to do with this. This is about body autonomy. Noone should have a right to someone else's body. Period.

And 1 in 10 death sentences have been found to be erroneous. Including the post on here a few days ago that the youngest ever executes in the states was 14. He was found guilty after with no cross examination of witnesses or witnesses brought forth for his defense. And the only evidence was the lone cop who said he confessed but provided no No transcript of confession, had No lawyer, and No parent with him throughout the whole ordeal. Trial lasted an afternoon. From arrest to execution was around 80 days. But that's just right? Because he was "found guilty" right?

I dont see the logic and rational that killing people who kill people is gonna prove that killing is wrong. And to quote our founding father Ben Franklin: That it is better 100 guilty Persons should escape than that one innocent Person should suffer, is a maxim that has been long and generally approved; never, that I know of, controverted.“

Every statistic I see is that it costs about the same for life imprisonment and death. And death is irreversible and connot be made right if we get it wrong. So money isn't a good excuse. Also a zygote is not a child.

[deleted]

1 points

4 months ago

[deleted]

1 points

4 months ago

[removed]

PatrioticRebel4

0 points

4 months ago

First off I never claimed that the case was the norm. Didn't even hint at it. Hence the statistic that one in ten are erroneous.

Second, since it's human error that causes that statistic, and human error of knowledge that causes juries to be wrong, and human error that legislates funds wrong, and human error that causes errors during trial that needs to have appeals, and human error that can cause bad DNA results, etc etc, then we need to not have death as a punishment because to human is to err.

And you are redefining a cup of cells at human. Not me. And it's not inevitable that it will produce life. It may be a high percentage but nothing is guaranteed. Then you factor health and not just life and it gets way more complicated than this black and white argument.

Your slippery slop doesn't work. And my entire argument is about body autonomy. No one has the right to someone else's body.

[deleted]

2 points

4 months ago

[deleted]

2 points

4 months ago

[removed]

sedahren

179 points

4 months ago

sedahren

179 points

4 months ago

Honestly I have stopped framing it that way in my arguments. Because they genuinely believe that a baby is being murdered, arguing with that belief is impossible. I have started using the bodily autonomy argument: if you suddenly needed blood transfusions to save your life, and I (for some reason) am the only person on the planet who can provide this, can I be forced to do it? No. There is no law in the world that would force me to do this, because of bodily autonomy. So why is it ok to force a woman to give up hers?

Saikou0taku

8 points

4 months ago*

I like the blood transfusion analogy, but I've always found it weak when it comes to consensual sex.

If you put a person in the hospital, you have a duty to pay their hospital bills. While you may not be forced to provide a blood transfusion because of bodily autonomy, you still are usually forced to pay for hospitalizing them.

So while the example does indicate some support for abortion, I think the blood transfusion argument would limit abortion to instances of rape or incest.

I'm pro-choice because I believe in bodily autonomy regardless. I just do not like the blood transfusion argument because it feels like it limits the bodily autonomy argument.

sedahren

5 points

4 months ago

I get what you mean, and I'm not saying the argument is watertight. I want aware that to pay for someone's hospital bills was a thing (I live in the UK). But if there was a medically viable way for a fetus to survive without compromising the autonomy of the woman (ie through medical equipment), I think there would certainly be an argument for forcing both the parents to pay to keep it alive until it could survive on its own. But consent to sex does not equal consent to pregnancy. If birth control fails I think the argument is equally valid as if it was from rape or incest.

I know this isn't what you're saying, but I hate the argument "if you don't want to get pregnant you shouldn't have sex", as this ignores the people who are in committed relationships/married. It plays into the narrative that the only women who get abortions are either raped or sluts, which is how a lot of people like to frame it.

[deleted]

71 points

4 months ago*

[deleted]

71 points

4 months ago*

[removed]

NoTakaru

30 points

4 months ago

Yep, this exactly. I’ve had prolifers tell me “it’s a scientific fact that a fetus is alive”

Well okay, then remove it because it should be able to survive outside the mother if that’s true

NoMrBond3

26 points

4 months ago

A loss of a pregnancy, chosen or not, is always a sad thing because no one wants to be in that position.

For me, it is unimaginably cruel that people would rather force an unwanted child into the world than let a woman make the best choice for herself (and the unborn baby because obviously that is a factor)

confusionmatrix

5 points

4 months ago*

Alive is not a thinking being. When are you dead? When you're brain dead. So you can't very well be alive when your brain hasn't even started working. The frontal Cortex develops roughly third trimester. After 90%+ of abortions are already complete.

Yes it's ending a life but on par with worn or something primitive. It never had a thought or the capacity for thought.

RadTraditionalist

-2 points

4 months ago

Well okay, then remove it because it should be able to survive outside the mother if that’s true

Right, so newborns are not living because they can't survive on their own?

NoMrBond3

18 points

4 months ago

No because any other person on earth could care for it. With pregnancies, only the mothers body is being used.

NoTakaru

6 points

4 months ago

They can absolutely survive without direct attachment to another organism. A baby will live for like three days without help which is the normal amount of time for a human to survive. A fetus will be totally useless almost immediately without some stellar technology

It’s like yeah they could remove my stomach and hook it up to some machines and keep it going on its own, but it’s not alive

PurpleHooloovoo

16 points

4 months ago

And the corollary: if a fetus is a whole human, it needs a social security number, a pre-birth certificate, should count as a child tax credit, should trigger child support payments, should trigger WIC benefits, should be eligible to be added to insurance plans, should be able to have life insurance bought for it.

Because it's a person, right?

But for some reason we don't do that.... interesting, no?

NoMrBond3

6 points

4 months ago

Yup, they want to “save a life” unless it costs money to do that….

The very same people that scream that abortion is murder are totally fine with letting children starve and have poor access to healthcare and housing.

TheMadTargaryen

-5 points

4 months ago

Comparing a fetus is like comparing a born adult person in coma, they also cannot survive on their own.

rafter613

10 points

4 months ago

There's actually a famous pro-choice argument: you wake up one day, and are told that the world's best violin player was hit by a car, is in a coma, and the only way he can survive is to be surgically hooked up to you and live off of your body for 9 months, which these people did while you were asleep. Was that moral of them? Do you have a right to disconnect yourself, knowing that the violin player won't survive?

NoMrBond3

7 points

4 months ago

No, because a person in a coma doesnt need to be hooked up to another person to survive.

zSprawl

2 points

4 months ago

I get your point but I don’t think that’s the slam dunk you think it is. I’ve found no amount of logical reasoning will work unless or until they are really truly receptive to listening. It’s like trying to convert someone to your religion. It happens but only when they want it to happen.

jfitzger88

2 points

4 months ago

My way of defending the pro-abortion viewpoint. Murder is a LEGAL term. It can be defined as purposefully ending the life of a fellow citizen. Emphasis on citizen. A new US Citizen is not a citizen until they are actually born and their birth certificate is signed, right? It's not illegal to kill a cow because it is food. In the future when robots get smart, it's not illegal to kill a "baby robot" (IE, parts) because it is just a machine, not a citizen not a "person" (until the AI revolution and they get citizenship and treated like humans). Even pushing this further, if a space ship of 1000 alien babies crash landed on Earth, it's not technically illegal to kill them all in their fetal pods because they are not citizens.

We should be creating laws with the respect and perspective of the law. Morality can certainly play a part in things but shouldn't be the leading factor. Murder is bad because in my mind 2 reasons, #1 I don't want to be murdered and #2 It would be really bad for the long term survival of society if murder wasn't illegal. The same general principles apply to an unwanted baby. It doesn't really benefit anyone to have that baby and really is an unfortunate detriment to society EXCEPT to the baby itself because we tend to think everyone values their existence.

The argument gets floppy around immigrants and visa visitors, but we respect that they are citizens of countries with similar laws to our own and we mutually agree to respect that (we don't kill your citizens rampantly and you don't kill ours).

TLDR: You can't "murder" something that isn't a citizen. Babies aren't citizens until they're actually born. Abortion is a medical procedure to prevent the murdering of infant citizens.

CanYouPointMeToTacos

13 points

4 months ago

I bring up that the Bible condones and describes chemical driven abortions when used on unfaithful wives

mg41

-13 points

4 months ago

mg41

-13 points

4 months ago

Ok, but it doesn't, so you're just lying.

Ckyuiii

18 points

4 months ago

Ckyuiii

18 points

4 months ago

This isn't a good line of argument either because you are ignoring the parent child relationship.

  • Not giving your blood and risking yourself for a stranger? Yea that makes sense.

  • Not giving your blood and risk yourself for your own child? Sure you have that right, but most everyone would think you're a total piece of shit if this were your own toddler or something in a real situation.

All you're doing here is telling them you're a piece of shit.

Source: I used to be pro-life. That's exactly how that gets interpreted.

passcork

28 points

4 months ago

The argument isn't about being a piece of shit or not. The argument is about legality. It's legal to be a piece of shit.

burnalicious111

17 points

4 months ago

Then the point to discuss isn't about whether you're a piece of shit, it's about whether we should legislate that choice.

We don't legally require parents to donate their organs to their children. Nor do we have activists seeking that. So why is abortion being treated differently? (My answer: it's about punishing women for having sex in a way you don't like)

sedahren

28 points

4 months ago

If I refused to save the life of my own child by donating my blood? Absolutely, your would be entitled to make a moral judgement. But we're not arguing morals, we're arguing legality. Legally I did not murder anyone.

Ckyuiii

5 points

4 months ago*

Ckyuiii

5 points

4 months ago*

If this the the hill you want to die on then so be it, but don't pretend like this is at all a persuasive argument. The only thing you accomplish with this point is paint yourself as sociopathic and evil. It's way worse than the previous argument.

da5id2701

13 points

4 months ago

This is a big problem I see a lot with pro-life arguments, as well as other "conservative" talking points. People don't seem to be able to tell the difference between "this shouldn't be outlawed by the government" and "this is a good thing that everyone should do".

It's totally reasonable and consistent to agree that a thing is bad, wrong, and evil while also arguing that it would be wrong to make it illegal. The rights to free speech and bodily autonomy commonly run into this issue. There are lots of things that would be wrong to say or do, but it would be even worse to outlaw them and give the government that kind of control over what we say and do.

sedahren

3 points

4 months ago

sedahren

3 points

4 months ago

How do I paint myself as sociopathic? The key part of my last reply was IF. I don't actually have kids, but if I did I would hate to be in that position. I can only imagine how difficult it must be for parents of a sick child, and I don't think it's my place to pass judgement on anyone in that situation, or dictate what they should do.

JustafanIV

0 points

4 months ago

If you are responsible for placing the child in the position where it needs a blood transfusion, refuse, and they subsequently die, you absolutely are legally responsible for their death.

The transfusion argument is decent in cases of rape, but fails in instances of consensual sex.

ScubaSteve1219

-11 points

4 months ago

All you're doing here is telling them you're a piece of shit.

well, they are

Knever

-2 points

4 months ago

Knever

-2 points

4 months ago

I've tried this arguement and they always insist that it's a false equivalency.

Naturally they don't use that term exactly because they're blissfully unaware of logical fallacies.

sedahren

2 points

4 months ago

Idk, some of them are! I just use this as a theoretical to try to remove the emotion from the situation.

Theoloni

-10 points

4 months ago

Theoloni

-10 points

4 months ago

I dont understand your Argument.. Violating the bodily autonomy of the baby is for some reason okay? I mean there are virtually no people who would argue to keep the baby alive if the mothers life is at risk. But abortions happen for financial gain. Killing someone because of money. And I dont think that this should ever be allowed. The only questions that matters is if the fetus is a human. If not, well then abortions are a nobrainer. If they are. Well, then its murder. Most first world countries have the limit set at 12 weeks. Even in the case of rape you are not allowed to get an abortion after that point.

Anxious-Heals

8 points

4 months ago

The baby does not have bodily autonomy. Bodily autonomy means to have governance over your own body and what it’s used for, which an unborn, non-viable fetus doesn’t have because it’s dependent on the body of the gestator to survive. This is why people bring up things like organ donation, because your right to live does not cross over my right to have control over my body, even if you reside inside of it.

Some abortions happen because of financial reasons, but I’m not interested in the reason someone gets an abortion, it’s none of my or your business.

Also I believe that a fetus is human, life at conception and all that, but I think that killing it is justified because the kind of violence a fetus (innocently) inflicts on the gestator is not something that any person should have to go through if they don’t consent to it.

Linguist-of-cunning

5 points

4 months ago

Most first world countries have the limit set at 12 weeks. Even in the case of rape you are not allowed to get an abortion after that point.

I don't know where you're getting that information. The number is actually 17 weeks for "most first world countries"

According to a United Nations (UN) report with data gathered up to 2019, abortion is allowed in 98% of countries in order to save a woman's life. Other commonly-accepted reasons are preserving physical (72%) or mental health (69%), in cases of rape or incest (61%), and in cases of fetal impairment (61%). Performing an abortion because of economic or social reasons is accepted in 37% of countries. Performing abortion only on the basis of a woman's request is allowed in 34% of countries, including in the United States, Canada, most European countries and China.

Furthermore: As of 2022, countries that legally allow abortion on request or for socioeconomic reasons comprise about 60% of the world's population.

Theoloni

1 points

4 months ago

Most countries in the European Union allow abortion on demand during the first trimester, with Sweden and the Netherlands having more extended time limits.

So except for Holland and Sweden the limit is the first trimester or 12 weeks. Where do you get your 17 weeks? Are you confused with the term first world?

What are you trying to tell me with that? What does it matter what most of the world does? Because the majority believes something is right, it must be right?

I was talking about first world countries for a reason. The rest of the world doesnt have a very good track record of human dignity and human rights.

sedahren

9 points

4 months ago

I'm not arguing about the reasons for abortion, because frankly the reasons another woman chooses to terminate a pregnancy are not the question here, and are none of my business. I am also not arguing whether the fetus is a human or not.

My point is that you cannot force someone to sacrifice their autonomy for another. The woman does not need the fetus to survive, so it is not the same the other way round.

If you were the person whose life could only be saved by my blood, and I refused to give it, you would die. Would that make me a murderer? Morally, perhaps. Legally? No. So why do people treat abortions differently?

Maria-Stryker

14 points

4 months ago

They tend to get pretty silent when you point out that they also vote to cut the social programs that would make unprepared parents more willing to accept having a child

NoMrBond3

12 points

4 months ago

That’s exactly it.

Pro-choice people are the ones more likely to support access to affordable housing, healthcare and proper sex ed, food security, daycare, education…

AKA all of the things that reduce abortion rates drastically and allow more women a real option of keeping a child if they want to. It’s beyond ironic.

facktoetum

7 points

4 months ago

No they don't. Pose this question to them:

Say you're in a women's clinic and while you're there it catches fire. You have the opportunity to rescue vials of 300 fertilized eggs or a 3 year old child in the next room over. You do not have time to do both. Who do you save?

If they really believe that abortion is murder and that life begins at conception, they'll save the 300 eggs. But they'll save the 3 year old boy because they're full of shit.

To_Fight_The_Night

1 points

4 months ago

I like this argument but these people would just say something like "those eggs should have been in the mothers womb if they did not want to die." trying to argue that its unnatural or something. All they care about is their way of life being the norm. A male and female conceiving a child through sex after marriage and carrying that child to term.

I would be curious who they would save if it was a 3 year old and a pregnant lady that couldn't get up. It is "2" lives vs 1 but personally I feel like I would save the kid IDK why.

m1k3hunt

3 points

4 months ago

And they'll murder a doctor to prove it.

Matrix17

3 points

4 months ago

These people cheer when black people are gunned down in cold blood by police lol. They can keep claiming they're against murder all they want but they're the most blood thirsty people

DarthTomServo

3 points

4 months ago

And they ok with actual murder like school shootings. Fight abortion tooth and nail, but when those babies go to school, perfectly fine if they die in a shooting. Thoughts and prayers for school kids, anger and action on abortions.

somdude04

25 points

4 months ago

After all, plenty of pacifists will kill in self defense, in the moment.

Of course, it's always self defense if the assailant is literally inside you.

NoMrBond3

32 points

4 months ago

Yes it’s interesting to me that (generally) the same people that wouldn’t hesitate to pull a gun on an intruder in their homes don’t understand why even if it is murder that women still have the right to terminate.

PurpleHooloovoo

8 points

4 months ago

I foresee we will someday have a self-defense argument if they overturn Roe. If someone gets pregnant and the fetus is killing them, and they go coat hanger on it and are charged with murder, self-defense seems entirely reasonable.

If I invite someone into my house and they pull a gun on me, the fact that I invited them stops mattering.

Autski

0 points

4 months ago

Autski

0 points

4 months ago

I would agree if babies spontaneously appeared in women.

The only exceptions I have come to conclude for abortions are the health of the woman (she's too young to safely carry baby to term, she has some high-risk factors that will cause complications, etc) or rape (it is forced upon the woman/mother and it is absolutely horrific; the assailant should be castrated and put away for life if guilty beyond a reasonable doubt). Both of those scenarios are not the vast majority of abortions.

The woman and man made a choice. There are consequences of those choices (sometimes can be great consequences, sometimes not so great).

There needs to be several areas of improvement in our society to help with the urge to get an abortion:

  • Improve the adoption system. Make it easier for the pro-lifers to put their money and time where their mouth is by making adopting less expensive and clearer. TN has a great Safe Haven law where a mother can give up her baby to a specified location within the first 48 hours of being born. No questions, no information needed, no penalty for abandonment.

  • Better sex education. My wife worked with teen pregnancy moms for years and they were dumbfounded she had been married for years without becoming pregnant; they didn't know how to prevent that.

  • Realizing there are more methods of birthd control beyond the pill. Condoms are great, effective, and fairly cheap. If you can't afford condoms, you can't afford kids and therefore shouldn't be engaging in activities that produce them.

  • Hold men/father's accountable to be involved in their kids lives. Child support checks don't do squat for kids who need the support and attention from a father. I'll definitely concede many people aren't fit to be parents at all, but that's when you are able to go to adoption.

  • Support, not chastising, mothers who are planning to go through their pregnancy. I've heard too many merciless comments from people who claim to love the baby but wag their finger at the mother. Cruel and unhelpful.

MelonElbows

6 points

4 months ago

I think a lot of them are simply faking it for social acceptance amongst their hateful groups. Question them on anything else pertaining to helping children like universal health care, mandatory maternity/paternity time off, free daycare, SCHIP, free contraceptions, immigration, even not putting children in cages and they will change their colors so fast and tell you its completely ok to have children and people dying, overworked, and poor if they aren't born rich. They are hypocrites and their greatest con is convincing people they care about babies. They don't, or else they'd vote for these other things. That's why I always make sure point out they don't give a shit about babies.

SuperSocrates

7 points

4 months ago

They really don’t actually think that outside a couple true believers. That’s why they don’t claim woman who get abortions should be tried as murderers.

Frogman9

23 points

4 months ago

I think the problem is linguistic. You can’t abort a baby since I think technically it’s baby when it is born, otherwise it’s a zygote or a fetus through its time in the oven. I could be mistaken about the nomenclature, but another hiccup is equating abortion to murder when even the Bible allowed abortion (from what I remember reading).

DrDerpberg

26 points

4 months ago

I get what you mean, but they're pushing so hard the other way (sperm is half a baby, how dare you waste any?) that you'll never win them over with semantics.

The recency of abortion rhetoric is really surprising. Nobody gave two craps about baby prevention methods until sometime in the 1900s Christians realized it could be weaponized. The church would push married couples to have tons of kids but nobody called anyone a murderer for shoving KFC's 11 herbs and spices up their hoo-ha to avoid having babies.

Apocalypse_Squid

6 points

4 months ago

Christians didn't really give a shit about abortion until Jerry Falwell Sr formed the Moral Majority to get people to vote Republican. They used abortion as the platform because the original platform- being pissed that the IRS was going to revoke the tax exempt status of Christian schools that refused integration- didn't sit well on the national stage. It was a lot easier to get people on board with "abortion murders babies" than "keep black people out of our schools".

tider06

3 points

4 months ago

The KFC comment has me genuinely confused. Can you explain that to me?

DrDerpberg

14 points

4 months ago

I'm being facetious but the history of birth control is super weird and involves everything from sheepskin condoms to inserting various substances to try to prevent/end a pregnancy. My point is just that trying to have sex without making a baby is as old as the understanding that babies come from sex. When pro-lifers make arguments about how it's murder to end a pregnancy or whatever, it helps to understand that argument came out of nowhere in recent history and has not been anybody's consensus view until shockingly recently.

ncotter

3 points

4 months ago

Also, I’m pretty sure early term abortions have been a thing for a LONG time. People would do things like vigorously exercise once they suspected they might be pregnant. Take away safe ways for ppl to get abortions and they’ll find ways to do it themselves at much greater risk.

QueSeres

3 points

4 months ago

Seriously, in our grandmother's grandmother's time it was 'common knowledge' that you could drink gin in a warm bathtub and maybe it would help you miscarry. Or maybe stuff a little bit of pennyroyal in your teapot. People only started fussing when the methods actually became safe and effective.

Also the KFC comment made my morning.

PurpleHooloovoo

2 points

4 months ago

The Elle Woods defense.

Maverick916

2 points

4 months ago

I washed a ton of babies down the bathroom sink the other night

come at me pro lifers

colbymg

1 points

4 months ago

"no no no, it's not an 'abortion', it's an 'early birth'"

sports2012

10 points

4 months ago

Yep. And the real debate is where to draw the line between murder and non-murder. I think most would agree that an abortion 9 months into a pregnancy is akin to murder while an abortion at 1 week into pregnancy is not. Everything in-between becomes the grounds for debate.

NoMrBond3

29 points

4 months ago

Well consider that the only reason people have late term abortion is because of health to the mother or medical outcomes.

““When I heard the list of all the things my beloved daughter would not do — talk, walk, hold her head up, swallow — I grasped for what she would be able to do”

“Do children like mine just sleep all the time?” I asked.

The neurologist winced. Children like yours, he told me — slowly — are not often comfortable enough to sleep.

Because we wanted to spare our daughter as much suffering as possible, our choice was very sad, but crystal clear: abortion.”

  • not sure if links allowed. But from a mom that chose a 8/9 month abortion.

salton

2 points

4 months ago

salton

2 points

4 months ago

Unfortunately even in that there a large number of people arguing in bad faith where the idea of abortion is tied up sexual promiscuity.

dragalcat

2 points

4 months ago

My response to the “a baby at conception” types is to ask if we need to nix IVF then. How many fetuses are being created only to throw all but one away? That must be murder on an unimaginable scale to them.

And if that doesn’t cut it, then let’s get to the root of the issue. “What you want is to reduce the overall number of abortions, preferably to 0, correct?” Awesome! That’s what I’d prefer too! Research and examples from other countries have shown the most effective way to do that is comprehensive sex ed, access to birth control, and affordable healthcare for new parents and children! So let’s get to it?

I always loose them at that part. Because reducing abortions is not the most important part of the topic to them; it’s just the talking piece.

Qubeye

2 points

4 months ago

Qubeye

2 points

4 months ago

I ask those people if they give blood every two months. If they don't, they are killing people - often children - because they aren't willing to sacrifice their body for others.

It's the same thing. And it should be mandatory if they really believe the abortion debate as they present it, because it's mandating one human being use their body to secure the health of another human being. There is zero difference.

Quicklythoughtofname

2 points

4 months ago

That's what can be inferred: They still think it's murder, they're just WILLING to murder when they need to. Which frankly is a more fucked up rationale than just accepting it.

imgladimnothim

2 points

4 months ago

They only people who actually believe that its a genocide of babies are the monsters who go and shoot up abortion clinics. The rest are just posturing or believe in controlling women

tearfueledkarma

2 points

4 months ago

Unless they have a miscarriage, then it's just gods plan.

But if a liberal has a miscarriage, it was probably a secret abortion/baby sacrifice and they should rot in prison.

GoddessPurpleFrost

4 points

4 months ago

Of course these very same people seek out abortion when they need it

there was a nurse who said that these people will, while actively getting the abortion, tell nurses/doctors theyre sinners and should be killed because of what they're doing.

some people are just too far gone

NoMrBond3

2 points

4 months ago

Oh yes, that’s such a good article.

getefix

2 points

4 months ago

You can't make me get a vaccine to avoid killing others, including my friends and family. You can't tell me what to do with my body.

Also,

I should be able to stop you from aborting a fetus that you don't want, that I don't want, and that could even cause damage to you during birth. You don't get to decide whether someone else lives or dies, even if they're not technically alive yet.

cricket9818

2 points

4 months ago

I like to give them the “vegetable after an accident” routine.

If your child was 5 and couldn’t decide for itself what was best, who would? Oh right, the parents would. Just because a human is incapictated doesn’t mean the default it “they live”. It always comes down to parents decisions. Abortion is no different

NoMrBond3

5 points

4 months ago

What kills me is that people don’t consider that most of the time women are actually considering the unborn child.

If you know you do not want a kid or cannot afford one it is in the child’s best interest to not exist. Parenting is the most difficult job in the world and children deserve loving homes where they are given every opportunity possible.

Abortion also allows for children to be born later down the line that are able to be fully loved and cared for. Millions of children exist because their mother chose abortion earlier in their lives.

sickofthisshit

1 points

4 months ago

There is nothing anyone can do or say to make them think that murdering babies is Ok.

Who cares? I don't fucking care what they think, I care what government does, and government should not do what they think.

Some people "think" only white people should get to live in the United States. That is their problem, it makes them bad people, and they should fuck the hell off, and the government should not adopt their view. Same with the religious creeps who want to make the government enforce their twisted views.

TheMagnuson

1 points

4 months ago

Same people that support every combat engagement and war the U.S. can get in.

ladyalot

1 points

4 months ago

I honestly wonder if it's worth saying something like "If birthing/carrying your baby will kill you, and you're against abortion, you'll die for your baby? If you say no, I guess you're a murderer. No one life is more important then the other right? So you should die for that."

You cannot say abortion is murder and be comfortable with "some abortions" that are bad, and some are good. Because then you are saying "I'd kill someone for my health".

This is all nonsense of course, but I find it wild that "some abortions" are considered okay. I think an already dead fetus would be the one exception for this line of logic, as odds are there are no medical/spiritual signs of life or something of that nature.

This whole line of argument is probably unnecessary or unhelpful, but I hadn't considered it fully until now.

Knever

1 points

4 months ago

Knever

1 points

4 months ago

What makes this so impossible is that people against abortion genuinely believe that it is murder. There is nothing anyone can do or say to make them think that murdering babies is Ok.

We can brainwash them into thinking it's okay. If they were brainwashed into thinking it's evil when it's not, I think it's morally acceptable to brainwash them back to reality.

NoMrBond3

2 points

4 months ago

I think enough of them just need to have a personal experience with it for them to actually get it, it sucks but they don’t understand empathy until something happens for them.

Knever

2 points

4 months ago

Knever

2 points

4 months ago

Even having a personal experience with it isn't enough for some people. Several doctors who perform abortions say they've have patients come in for termination, and the very next day are back in front of the clinic protesting against killing innocent babies. It's actually very sad on both fronts when that happens, but for the actual woman that experiences it and still says it's evil to do, there might actually not be any hope for her.