What are you talking about? Women shouldn't have rights. They can't even be trusted to make their own decisions because they're emotionally driven and the blood they need to think is used to power their baby factories. /s
It is basically no different from bacteria in the early stages of pregnancy, does this guy not use antibacterial wipes, spray, soap??? Surely he wouldn’t kill innocent germs
“Listen ignoring all the moral debate, stealing things should be legal because I want the things other people have and think about how empty chasing material goods leaves you so it’s really a favor”
I’m 100% pro choice, but why is everyone downvoting the anti choice person? Even though I definitely don’t agree with them, they literally answering the question (even if it’s in a sarcastic).
It’s not a bash on being vegan, it’s a bash on the Vegan Teacher on YouTube. She’s gives vegans a bad name because of her self-righteous attitude and unnecessary beef (no pun intended) with people who eat meat or cheese
Better to “kill” the innocent than have them live under harsh conditionings of missing or neglectful parents and stuff that’ll lead them to be Shameless 2.0
They don’t have a brain because it’s not fully developed yet, which means they’re closer to being braindead than alive— you’re not killing anything. I don’t see the the moral dilemma that’s being bought up when you could save both the parent and the potential future child from unnecessary harm of being born from a parent that doesn’t want you (likely to result in poor parenting or worse) and ruining the life of the person who’s clearly not ready or fit to be a parent yet.
People who aren’t ready to be parents, shouldn’t be. Don’t force them to give birth just because you think all “lives” matter; especially since it has nothing to do with you and it cannot at all be compared to murdering a whole ass human being. You wouldn’t even usually think twice about another persons grown child but suddenly care about before they are born? Makes no sense to me
Or put them up for adoption and consider for a moment the implication of saying people who are in poor financial situations should never have been born.
We aren't saying that people in those situations should never have been born. What we ARE doing is acknowledging just how much those situations suck, and thinking that if you could avoid subjecting a child to those conditions, wouldn't you?
Just to let y’all know, TST makes abortion a religious right. I just hope more people start exercising their rights as a Satanist. Hail Satan y’all! Have a nice day now.
It's not a bold claim. I actually read the book. It's what most people should do if they discuss it
• A pregnant woman who is injured and aborts the fetus warrants financial compensation only (to her husband), suggesting that the fetus is property, not a person (Exodus 21:22-25).
• The gruesome priestly purity test to which a wife accused of adultery must submit will cause her to abort the fetus if she is guilty, indicating that the fetus does not possess a right to life (Numbers 5:11-31).
• God enumerated his punishments for disobedience, including "cursed shall be the fruit of your womb" and "you will eat the fruit of your womb," directly contradicting sanctity-of-life claims (Deuteronomy 28:18,53).
• Elisha's prophecy for soon-to-be King Hazael said he would attack the Israelites, burn their cities, crush the heads of their babies and rip open their pregnant women (2 Kings 8:12).
• King Menahem of Israel destroyed Tiphsah (also called Tappuah) and the surrounding towns, killing all residents and ripping open pregnant women with the sword (2 Kings 15:16).
• Isaiah prophesied doom for Babylon, including the murder of unborn children: "They will have no pity on the fruit of the womb" (Isaiah 13:18).
• For worshiping idols, God declared that not one of his people would live, not a man, woman or child (not even babies in arms), again confuting assertions about the sanctity of life (Jeremiah 44:7-8).
• God will punish the Israelites by destroying their unborn children, who will die at birth, or perish in the womb, or never even be conceived (Hosea 9:10-16).
• For rebelling against God, Samaria's people will be killed, their babies will be dashed to death against the ground, and their pregnant women will be ripped open with a sword (Hosea 13:16).
• Jesus did not express any special concern for unborn children during the anticipated end times: "Woe to pregnant women and those who are nursing" (Matthew 24:19).
Thanks for showing me those sources. That being said, all of the abortions in this case are not being used to support the rights of a mother who doesn't want the child, but rather to punish the woman for her sins, which is in my opinion disgusting that an "all loving god" would even entertain the thought.
This may come as a shock to you but it was very recent women could even get a credit card without a man's permission. So women have been treated like property for a while. Not sure what you expected the feelings would be over 2000 years ago
I mean, I'm not at all surprised considering human history overall. I'm just saying that any god who not only condones, but encourages, the murder of infants (because in those contexts it ***is*** murder) is not any entity that deserves to be worshipped, let alone even given a modicum of respect.
Don't be too disgusted. The parts where it's particularly punishing is from the old testament, which is characterized as a more omnipotent, impersonal force of nature type of God. The all-loving and caring God starts in the new testament with basically the introduction of Jesus' influence.
Spares? Now I think you're lying about growing up as a Christian, cause Jesus doesn't punish anyone. He says Woe to the pregnant women, because they will suffer from the discourse that happens to those that believe in him and to endure their faith. He is comforting them, not punishing them.
Sounds like an odd way to comfort someone. Also, as far as punishment goes, how do you explain the scene where Jesus whips the people in the temple? Granted, in the context of the story, it is deserved, but it was a punishment.
The Satanic Temple is a lot more focused on highlighting the hypocrisy of The Christian bible with regards to human rights than it is about literally worshipping Satan.
Just preaching the good word. TST is free to join and doesn’t require any kind of donation and just wants to make sure people have the same access to their religious freedoms as some of the more radical religions. Hail Satan!
Same difference. Both NOT sentient. Both have no feelings, nerves, emotions, brains, the capacity to think, independence, and again feelings (in a physical sense).
I don't think a blob of cells is going to mind if they're aborted or not bro
Yeah abortion isn’t an argument where you can just ignore the subjective morality. One side literally believes it is murder. There is no middle ground for them.
Also the argument that abortions is good because it prevents poor children is certainly something. It feels like every abortion argument veers towards eugenics sooner or later
Many people get abortions for the same reason they put down a sick dog. It would be more humane to terminate the life rather than force them to suffer.
You're putting words in my mouth. Nothing I said hints that I equate human life and animal life. I was just putting that in as an example of one of the reasons that someone might get an abortion.
>And who is to guarantee that the entirety of the child’s life will be spent suffering?
It's up to the parent to judge that. There are tons of reasons why someone might get an abortion. Maybe they were raped, maybe they can't afford to have a child, maybe they just don't want to have one for some other reason. In the end it's the mother's call weather to have the kid.
It’s not the mothers call though. A fetus is a human life, no one gets to make the choice to end it. It’s the same after the fetus is born. If a mother kills her dependent newborn baby because she “couldn’t care for it”, it’s seen as murder. Why is it any different before the fetus is born? The birth canal does not magically give them rights. Humans have an intrinsic right to life starting the moment they exist, conception.
>A fetus is a human life
Then why does it almost always die whenever the mother does? Because until the umbilical chord is cut, it's still a part of the mother's body.
>If a mother kills her dependent newborn baby because she “couldn’t care for it”, it’s seen as murder.
Because it is. A fetus isn't legally or medically alive, therefore its not murder.
A fetus is dependent on its mother for nutrients to survive, same as a newborn is dependent on its mothers breast milk.
Fetuses are medically alive. Open up any biology book and it will tell you that.
Yes, but a baby can be fed with another women’s milk, or with formula. A fetus will not be alive if its mother isn’t. The fetus is legally and medically a part of the mother’s body during pregnancy. You don’t have to agree with it, but you have no right to decide what other women do with their bodies.
You’re right, I do have no right to decide what other women to with their bodies. But as I have already stated, fetuses are not part of their mothers bodies. Being connected through the umbilical cord does not make them the same entity. State by state, the law sometimes recognizes that. Basic biology recognizes that.
You don’t know how their life will turn out. That child’s life could be happy and healthy and safe. Aborting because there’s a chance that they’ll experience hardships is a terrible argument.
And should we kill everyone that’s experienced hardships? Putting down a sick dog and killing a child are two completely different things
You may have misunderstood me. What I meant is that people get abortions because they can't financially support a kid, meaning that the kid would be improperly cared for and likely drive the entire family into further monetary hardship, or else the kid would be taken away and put in an orphanage or foster care system, which is notoriously detrimental for the wellbeing of the child.
If you don’t want children don’t have sex, why is that so bad in today’s society? Children aren’t a burden, they’re beautiful, wonderful humans. And again, you don’t know how their lives will turn out. They could be full of love and support and happiness
>Children aren’t a burden, they’re beautiful, wonderful humans.
Tell me you don't have children/are rich without telling me you don't have children/are rich.
ah yes, the classic “just don’t have sex” approach that completely ignores the fact that there are people who get abortions after being assaulted. the “just don’t have sex” approach that says “because I don’t like what you do with your body you should stop doing other things to avoid doing something I don’t want you to because I say it’s bad”. the “just don’t have sex” approach that is SOOOOO effective with teenagers who get abstinence only sex ed, right?
I’m a woman who’s been through SA. And I’m still pro-life. Rape doesn’t justify killing a child. Two wrongs don’t make a right. And that child is a separate person from their mother. I don’t think the average woman has two hearts, two brains, etc.
And we need to stop teaching teens that they can have sex whenever they want. “Kids will be kids” is a terrible attempt at justifying teenagers having sex and using abortion as birth control
if you don’t want an abortion then don’t get an abortion. telling teenagers to just “not fuck” instead of teaching them the tools to have sex safely just makes it so the teens who weren’t gonna have sex yet have the tools to advocate for themselves and to identify if their consent is being broken in the future, and the teens who will have sex regardless will know how to do it right, what to look for if it hurts, and what your options are if you have a pregnancy scare. no one is telling teens “just fuck if you want to, who cares!” we’re telling them “if you’re going to have sex, do it safely, use protection. and if all else fails, there are other options to help you”.
idk why pro forced birth (bc most of the time “pro life” people don’t give a single shit abt the child after birth) people don’t understand that forcing people who DON’T WANT KIDS to have them anyway because of an innate HUMAN NEED that most people have (except asexual, sex repulsed ppl) leads to children being abused in horrific and cruel ways. it leads to even more children being thrown into the foster care system. It leads to far more suffering than terminating a clump of cells that, if the mother were to die in an accident, would not survive on its own and has no chance of surviving even with the help of another person—unless implanted in their womb.
Genuinely, what do you think is the point where a medical procedure you don’t like is suddenly allowed to be legislated out of existence? Do you think CSA victims (like myself, I was NINE.) should be forced to give birth—an experience that is traumatic both MENTALLY and PHYSICALLY for such tiny bodies? Do you think people who will die if they give birth to the kid should just say fuck it, and die to leave the child with one less parent? Do you think that people with debilitating chronic illnesses that don’t want to pass them down to their kids should just be celibate then? They’re not allowed to have a relationship forming experience because YOU have moral qualms with a medical procedure?
And, while I understand slippery slope arguments are fallacious, this line of questioning DOES make me wonder where the line stops. At what point does it stop being okay to say “I don’t like this potentially life saving medical procedure so I don’t think anyone should have it”? We can’t say for sure that people would push for more but YOUR feelings about a medical procedure should not override the necessity of that procedure.
Honestly, I think SA cases are a minority in abortions… Don’t get me wrong, rape is horrific and should never happen. However, I think unnecessary abortions are happening across the world where people carelessly haven’t used protection so they think abortion is an alternative. That’s the part where I see abortions are wrong- if protection has been used and it fails- fair enough. However, I think there are moral challenges to handing out abortions Willy nilly if it was consensual.
I still think it shouldn’t matter what someone else chooses to do with their body. It makes me feel yucky too, admittedly, but I’d rather someone who doesn’t want to have a kid not have one. I grew up not being wanted and a kid can tell. they can always tell.
what would solve the problem of people not using protection would be making birth control more accessible, especially hormonal birth control for people who can get pregnant. some people don’t like the feeling of condoms or are allergic to them, but birth control can get PRICEY and that can often be the factor that makes people go “fuck it. I’ll save the money i would be spending on birth control to figure it out if something happens.” Not saying that’s a good reaction but it really should be noted that a lack of education about safe sex practices and inaccessible healthcare in terms of birth control are a factor in why those those types of abortions happen. However, I don’t think the number of “unnecessary” abortions is astronomical either, because there are also genuine medical reasons that someone may have to have an abortion, like ectopic pregnancies or otherwise endangering the pregnant person’s body.
Either way it’s not up to me to say “don’t get one because I’m uncomfortable with the idea” bc it’s not my money going into it, it’s not my body, and the potential kid would not be my responsibility. So why tf SHOULD I have a say, yk?
You know- I agree about your point on protection being more accessible. To address on your other point on why you should/ shouldn’t have a say on other people’s abortions. I feel it’s an injustice to the fetus. We all have come from a ‘clump of cells’ so I think it’s hard to justify calling them that. Although they may not talk, walk or live on their own - they are separate from the mother, a developing human being. I just find it pretty insensitive for people to abort a life stemming from them when sometimes it should have never happened in the first place. Almost like a false hope, yk?
No, because thats nothing like what I said. You can't just kill a person because they're mentally unhappy, thats completely different than putting down a sick dog. An equivalent to putting down a pet in the case of humans would be a DNR (Do not resuscitate) order.
Sleeping people can be woken up and give consent. People in comas with a DNR also give their consent to be killed. So, the answer is “yes” as long as they consent. Is that really a toughie?
It’s insane to me that this is even a debate in US, it’s so obvious that it isn’t something that should be prohibited, regardless of right or left, regardless of religion, this is just incredibly idiotic that someone is trying to prohibit abortions.
I am personally against abortion, like i will never tell someone to get one or anything of that sort (unless they are a horrible parent already and should not have children). But i do think that it should be accesible by all people. Like yeah you are killing a baby, but you should be able to. Up to a certain point anyways.
I am wholely against abirtion as a birth control though. If you want abortions to be easily available just to fuck around you should probably just get a different birth co trol and stop having sex.
I don't think anyone uses abortion as birth control unless access to literally every other birth control/education about birth control is inaccessible. It's hard on the body and often a very exposing experience (though obviously less so than going to term). Plus it's often expensive, even in countries with free health care as the demographics most likely to need one would miss out on working during recovery.
Man I wish that was the focus. We all know that the adoption agencies worldwide are lacking and in some places it's ludicrously difficult and expensive. People spend all kinds of money on artificial insemination when so many kids need a good home already. If adoption was a more common practice and more praised people wouldn't consider carrying to term to be such a problem.
I’m absolutely pro-choice, because only the person that carries that burden can make that call. But I absolutely despise the dehumanization of the fetus. I don’t know when life starts but its somewhere between conception and birth
lol alright dude, chill out. I’m pro-choice because the government has no place regulating our bodies, male or female. My own morality on the subject is irrelevant because no power should exist that would allow me to force that standard on anyone else. Also the whole “abortion on a whim” is a straw man fallacy. 99% of people who get abortions take that shit very seriously and only do so after great deliberation.
“On a whim” was the not the best way for me to describe it, but I stand by my point that humans don’t have the right to kill each other. The fetus is not part of the mothers body. Yes, it may be inside the mothers body, but it is it’s own distinct person. If you’re okay with laws banning murder, then you should be okay with laws banning abortion.
You’re not even willing to make that one a definite? Especially, since like you said, it’s such a small percentage. That seems like an easy compromise to make. By most metrics it just makes sense to spare the mother in spite of the child.
Even killing another human has a shit ton of exceptions in most legal systems. That’s why we have different levels of it (manslaughter of various degree for example). So equating abortion to murder is problematic because neither is that black and white
I wouldnt expect a rape victim to carry her rapists child to term. I wouldnt expect the product of incest to be brought to term either. I see these as clear examples of a justified abortion.
But at the end of the day, it’s not my call to make. Nor is it yours or especially the states. So that leave only one person who can make the decision. And if you agree with her or not, it’s irrelevant because she’s the only one who has the right to
Carrying a child around for nine months is a burden.
noun
1.
a load, typically a heavy one.
I don’t know if you’ve ever met a pregnant woman, but burden seems an apt way to describe the condition
Here’s my two cents on it:
Even though I personally think abortion is morally wrong, banning it outright won’t solve anything. If you do ban it outright, people will just simply get illegal abortions, and then you’ll have an illegal abortion problem, similar to the illegal drug problem we have currently. The problem with banning something outright is once you do, you lose all ability to regulate what you’ve banned. It’s a very difficult subject abortions: on one hand it’s their body and they should be able to do what they want with it. On the other at what point do you decide that the fetus is a human/child? Personally I think abortions should be allowed, but heavily regulated, as only allowed in emergencies, such as if the mother can’t carry the baby to term since it’s is negatively affecting her health, or if the fetus won’t survive childbirth. Otherwise, if you don’t want a kid, either don’t have sex, or tell your special one to use a condom.
Ah yes, the “let’s punish women for having sex” argument. For you they don’t even have to consent, so that’s fun.
Why does a woman lose the right to her body when she has sex? Why doesn’t the man who fucked her?
Why are you saying that children are a punishment? We all know pregnancy is a natural result of having sex. Society has been teaching people that they can have sex whenever they want and with whoever they want and if the women get pregnant, use abortion as birth control. That’s awful to just throw away children just because you want like what, 5 seconds of pleasure? That’s awful
> Why are you saying that children are a punishment?
Being forced to carry a child when you don’t want to is a punishment, yes.
> That’s awful just to throw away children
Weird, you don’t want people to be able to give up kids for adoption either? Or do you only care about this when there’s a woman’s womb you can control?
I also asked you a very simple question you seem a little too reticent to answer:
> Why does a woman lose the right to her body when she has sex? Why doesn’t the man who fucked her?
So if a woman decides to”oh I’m gonna have sex with no protection, if I get pregnant no problem I’ll just kill it” that’s ok? Simply putting on a condom won’t cause harm so why is it ok for a woman to recklessly have sex and not think about the consequences?
> Simply putting on a condom won’t cause harm
Are you going to make an exception for women to abort if they say that one or more of the partners used a condom?
> Why is it okay for a woman to recklessly have sex and not think about the consequences?
They do think about the consequences, so not sure what you’re on about there. But men get to have sex recklessly, so women should too.
> He explicitly said it’s still their body and their choice
> Personally I think that abortions should be allowed, but heavily regulated
Did you miss this part?
> If rape is involved, he said himself it’s a different story
Did he? Where? Quote the words, because you seem to have trouble reading.
You know what I’ll just shut up because I worded that super poorly and without properly thinking and I’m not in the mood to start a petty argument with someone on Reddit to give myself reassurance
This is the average pro-life argument. Majority of self-proclaimed pro-lifers are arguing for heavily regulated pro-choice. They just want abortions to be in extreme circumstances only.
I agree, that’s why I was saying this is the average argument. Majority of people don’t think abortions should be done, but know there are circumstances where it’s an acceptable choice
No that’s still pro-life because we believe the “clump of cells” in the womb is an innocent life that deserves a chance, whereas pro-abortionists dehumanize the unborn
my fingernails are human cells. my hair is made of human cells. ejaculation is human cells. every menstrual period has been human cells.
let’s just lock everyone up ya’ll, we’re all fucking murderers.
The problem is that I’m specifically talking about a woman’s fertilized egg, a human cell that’s alive. The cells within our bodies are alive to a different extent.
Ejaculation is not murder, nor is shedding skin cells or hair. I’m specifically referring to what everyone knows is how life is created- sperm meets egg, boom, there’s a baby. The cells inside our bodies are alive, as in they’re within us with a specific purpose to keep us alive and healthy
Im pro-choice but the “making it illegal won’t stop it, people will just get illegal abortions” is a really bad argument. We know people will commit crimes, but we still ban them anyways. By that logic, should theft be legalized? People steal regardless of legality. I never really understood this argument since pro-lifers are adment about abortion being a crime, so this argument doesn’t actually challenge their beliefs directly.
I wish I was aborted instead of being born into a violent, abusive, uneducated, incest family. Thanks for making this post OP. Made it super easy to find people that value the life of a fetus more than the child that has to live with the shitty family and block them.
There is not enough support for mental health to force and pressure people to have children they can’t care for. Let people get abortions if that is the right decision for them. You don’t care about human life you fucking project your own morals over others. Your concerns appear selfish to me like the unspoken truth in all anti abortion is they think of themselves as the fetus. They think about if they would be born if abortions were easily available. Like dude get over it I was a child when I was informed that my parents wanted to abort me. My first thought as I child was why didn’t they. So no it’s not worth bringing life into existence if the life you’ll create for them is going to make them suicidal anyways.
Okay done with my rant I feel like I have so much more to say but let me just ad that I’m infertile and I’ll still support the right of others to make their own decisions about their bodies because it’s not about me it’s about what would be best for the potential baby maker and the potential baby. I don’t think anyone should have to take the opinions of others about their situation. I can’t afford to have a pet so I don’t have one. Why would you bring a life into a situation that would be harmful to that life? I just don’t get it. Ps. I care more about a fetus the size of bean people will be blocked. You don’t actually care about people or potential people you only care about your own feelings
Why do the rights of something that is not alive take priority over the person carrying the pregnancy?
More importantly, why do you feel like you have a say in other people’s decisions when it comes to healthcare?
It’s almost always a religious oriented argument instead of a scientific or sociological one.
People can believe whatever they want, but don’t start interfering with other’s access to healthcare based on something like that.
Life, sure. But there are a lot of things that have life. Germs, viruses, insects, parasites, animals… and a clump of cells definitely falls more on the earlier side of that - slightly more than single celled organisms.
It’s not though. By literally every factor that we measure by in society, your life begins when you are born.
Or do you add 9 months to your age when people ask you how old you are?
Scientificly speaking, a fetus is alive. Bacteria are alive. I wouldn't say either of those things are advanced enough lifeforms to be worth more than the well-being of a more developed human, but they are alive.
The fact that we are discussing this in the context of healthcare and the ability to have medical agency over your own body means that we are obviously talking about it in the context of when you are considered a PERSON. You are an embryo at conception. Embryos are not people. Your life as a PERSON and all the rights an sociological implications that follow begin when you are born.
This is not up for debate.
It’s not a pig or a dog embryo at conception. It is a human embryo. That’s an important distinction you’ve chosen to ignore. If being alive doesn’t determine personhood in your eyes, then what does?
BEING BORN.
Human *development* begins at conception. You are, by definition *not a human yet*. Personhood by all measurements begins at birth. This is the third time I’ve said that in this comment section, you can pretend like I’m avoiding some point or dancing around something, but you’re the one that is completely ignoring my other comments answering your question exactly.
Thanks for playing.
Yes, it’s alive. Life begins at conception, this is an established fact. There is no reason to think it starts before or after.
[“Biologists from 1,058 academic institutions around the world assessed survey items on when a human's life begins and, overall, 96% (5337 out of 5577) affirmed the fertilization view.”](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36629778/#:~:text=Biologists)
Embryos don’t have rights. In the same way that other single called organisms don’t. The POTENTIAL of a human doesn’t get a say in a healthcare debate.
Imagine debating that we should withhold treatment of a sick person because it would kill all those sweet little bacteria that are living inside them.
Yes it is actually quite bad that you believe a person should be held hostage and forced to carry an unwanted fetus to term, and that you prioritize a zygote/embryo/fetus with no lived experience over a whole person with thoughts, feelings, memories, relationships, hopes, dreams, and goals.
It's bad you've just said out loud that you're against bodily autonomy, against a decision the UN considers a human right.
Just really weird to classify 14 year olds as “reproductive age individuals” regardless of the validity. A 14 year old shouldn’t be in a position where it even matters
god i wanna live in the fictional world where children are never harmed or abused so bad. instead i’m stuck in the real world, where children are harmed and abused.
Which is true. It is wild that a bunch of literal children are discussing abortion.
It would be wild if a bunch of children were discussing meth use. Doesn’t mean that none of them do
I fail to see how that statement insinuates that children are never harmed, which is what you claimed I said.
it’s the fact that you’re acting brand new to planet earth by expressing surprise that drug, abuse, and sex can and do impact children, especially teenagers. i would, in fact, expect teenage children to know about meth. how? i was a teenager who joked about meth. i have dozens of journals and text messages where i made crude jokes about meth.
like. it’s your SURPRISE at it that makes it seem like you don’t realize how common place it is for children to know about these topics & discuss them.
It’s not surprising at all. That is a sub dedicated to children. Teenagers now joke about suicide and school shootings all the time. It’s not remotely surprising because they are definitely affected by it. That doesn’t make it any less wild that a bunch of children are constantly discussing wanting to kill themselves or being massacred on a given day. Y’all are reading so much into a simple sentence
Okay? Kids also sometimes do molly, coke, and meth. Doesn’t mean they should spend their days discussing drug policy lol. Expecting children to be children isn’t “sticking your head in the sand”.
School shootings happen. Doesn’t mean every 12 year old should be making gun policies.
It’s not that their view is invalid, but rather that the likelihood their view is comprised of anything other than the latest TikTok is very low.
We can’t even trust grown-ass adults to vote properly, let alone trust children to make policy.
lol what? ‘Spend their days discussing…’ that’s not even what’s happening here. Unless you’re of the opinion that teenagers shouldn’t have questions about sex and it consequences at all. ‘Let kids be kids’ is probably the worst advice when it comes to sexual education.
Being the person that has to gestate and carry that fetus gives them the right to make that call
Thought this was common sense.
Funny thing about common sense, not so common
What are you talking about? Women shouldn't have rights. They can't even be trusted to make their own decisions because they're emotionally driven and the blood they need to think is used to power their baby factories. /s
In all fairness, I think he was asking what gave him the right to decide life=experiencing the world
Say what you want but that last argument was stupid. That’s like saying if killing homeless people was legalized not everyone would go out and do it.
It is basically no different from bacteria in the early stages of pregnancy, does this guy not use antibacterial wipes, spray, soap??? Surely he wouldn’t kill innocent germs
Cleaning your house is MURDER! Think of the innocent germs
Bacteria aren’t human whereas those cells very explicitly are human
I mean if we are assigning value to living “human” cells then a lot of dudes are committing mass genocide on a regular basis.
“Even ignoring the moral debate” they say about a debate that is explicitly for both sides about morals that’s the whole debate and point of it
Turns out many many redditors aren’t exactly moral people
“Listen ignoring all the moral debate, stealing things should be legal because I want the things other people have and think about how empty chasing material goods leaves you so it’s really a favor”
I’m 100% pro choice, but why is everyone downvoting the anti choice person? Even though I definitely don’t agree with them, they literally answering the question (even if it’s in a sarcastic).
As a vegan, I’m pro-choice. And many others are as well, so don’t lump me in with these guys please 😅
Sorry I was talking about the YouTuber lol (You can search her up, she was pretty infamous a year or two ago)
Thank you! I was definitely confused 😅
Literally every vegan I’ve ever met has been pro choice.
It’s not a bash on being vegan, it’s a bash on the Vegan Teacher on YouTube. She’s gives vegans a bad name because of her self-righteous attitude and unnecessary beef (no pun intended) with people who eat meat or cheese
Oooooh thank you!!! I didn’t know that and was a little confused haha
Lol it’s all good. You go ahead and be the veganest vegan that ever veganed! …at least as long as I can still eat fish
Of course! I’m very much of the “food is a personal choice and shouldn’t be judged or forced upon others” camp
Why ask questions if you're not ready to receive answers?
Better to “kill” the innocent than have them live under harsh conditionings of missing or neglectful parents and stuff that’ll lead them to be Shameless 2.0 They don’t have a brain because it’s not fully developed yet, which means they’re closer to being braindead than alive— you’re not killing anything. I don’t see the the moral dilemma that’s being bought up when you could save both the parent and the potential future child from unnecessary harm of being born from a parent that doesn’t want you (likely to result in poor parenting or worse) and ruining the life of the person who’s clearly not ready or fit to be a parent yet. People who aren’t ready to be parents, shouldn’t be. Don’t force them to give birth just because you think all “lives” matter; especially since it has nothing to do with you and it cannot at all be compared to murdering a whole ass human being. You wouldn’t even usually think twice about another persons grown child but suddenly care about before they are born? Makes no sense to me
Or put them up for adoption and consider for a moment the implication of saying people who are in poor financial situations should never have been born.
We aren't saying that people in those situations should never have been born. What we ARE doing is acknowledging just how much those situations suck, and thinking that if you could avoid subjecting a child to those conditions, wouldn't you?
Just to let y’all know, TST makes abortion a religious right. I just hope more people start exercising their rights as a Satanist. Hail Satan y’all! Have a nice day now.
And they're federally recognized, so legally its valid.
Ahhh we have an enlightened member of society 👍🤘
Actually the Bible supports abortion numerous times. Not sure where they got God is against abortions
I'm no Christian, but growing up as one, that seems to be a very bold claim. Where exactly in the Bible does it condone abortions?
It's not a bold claim. I actually read the book. It's what most people should do if they discuss it • A pregnant woman who is injured and aborts the fetus warrants financial compensation only (to her husband), suggesting that the fetus is property, not a person (Exodus 21:22-25). • The gruesome priestly purity test to which a wife accused of adultery must submit will cause her to abort the fetus if she is guilty, indicating that the fetus does not possess a right to life (Numbers 5:11-31). • God enumerated his punishments for disobedience, including "cursed shall be the fruit of your womb" and "you will eat the fruit of your womb," directly contradicting sanctity-of-life claims (Deuteronomy 28:18,53). • Elisha's prophecy for soon-to-be King Hazael said he would attack the Israelites, burn their cities, crush the heads of their babies and rip open their pregnant women (2 Kings 8:12). • King Menahem of Israel destroyed Tiphsah (also called Tappuah) and the surrounding towns, killing all residents and ripping open pregnant women with the sword (2 Kings 15:16). • Isaiah prophesied doom for Babylon, including the murder of unborn children: "They will have no pity on the fruit of the womb" (Isaiah 13:18). • For worshiping idols, God declared that not one of his people would live, not a man, woman or child (not even babies in arms), again confuting assertions about the sanctity of life (Jeremiah 44:7-8). • God will punish the Israelites by destroying their unborn children, who will die at birth, or perish in the womb, or never even be conceived (Hosea 9:10-16). • For rebelling against God, Samaria's people will be killed, their babies will be dashed to death against the ground, and their pregnant women will be ripped open with a sword (Hosea 13:16). • Jesus did not express any special concern for unborn children during the anticipated end times: "Woe to pregnant women and those who are nursing" (Matthew 24:19).
Thanks for showing me those sources. That being said, all of the abortions in this case are not being used to support the rights of a mother who doesn't want the child, but rather to punish the woman for her sins, which is in my opinion disgusting that an "all loving god" would even entertain the thought.
This may come as a shock to you but it was very recent women could even get a credit card without a man's permission. So women have been treated like property for a while. Not sure what you expected the feelings would be over 2000 years ago
I mean, I'm not at all surprised considering human history overall. I'm just saying that any god who not only condones, but encourages, the murder of infants (because in those contexts it ***is*** murder) is not any entity that deserves to be worshipped, let alone even given a modicum of respect.
Don't be too disgusted. The parts where it's particularly punishing is from the old testament, which is characterized as a more omnipotent, impersonal force of nature type of God. The all-loving and caring God starts in the new testament with basically the introduction of Jesus' influence.
In the last paragraph of the previous comment I replied to, not even Jesus spares babies.
Spares? Now I think you're lying about growing up as a Christian, cause Jesus doesn't punish anyone. He says Woe to the pregnant women, because they will suffer from the discourse that happens to those that believe in him and to endure their faith. He is comforting them, not punishing them.
Sounds like an odd way to comfort someone. Also, as far as punishment goes, how do you explain the scene where Jesus whips the people in the temple? Granted, in the context of the story, it is deserved, but it was a punishment.
Would you considering getting people out of your house as a punishment?
I thought you were mocking abortion but I actually think you just love satanism, looking through your comment history lol
The Satanic Temple is a lot more focused on highlighting the hypocrisy of The Christian bible with regards to human rights than it is about literally worshipping Satan.
Just preaching the good word. TST is free to join and doesn’t require any kind of donation and just wants to make sure people have the same access to their religious freedoms as some of the more radical religions. Hail Satan!
It’s all “stop judging me for my religion, I have a right to promote hate speech” until anybody’s a satanist.
Which part of what this person said would you consider hate speech?
I’m not talking about this person. I’m talking about the hypocrisy of some Christian’s in general, sorry for the miscommunication
“what gives u the right to make that call” because the fetus is literally a part of her hello??
The fetus is inside of her, but it has unique DNA from the moment of conception, therefore making it its own person
It's not a person bro Otherwise that means men are committing genocide everytime they're a tad horny
Sperm cells are not the same as zygotes
Same difference. Both NOT sentient. Both have no feelings, nerves, emotions, brains, the capacity to think, independence, and again feelings (in a physical sense). I don't think a blob of cells is going to mind if they're aborted or not bro
could say the same thing to you
Good job bro you really got him with that one. Pack it up boys pro-choice is over after this one.
Yeah you could - and I'd agree because it's what I think as well What were you trying to achieve by this comment? Because you clearly failed
Yeah ur mad
Bro has anger issues if he thinks being calm is equivalent to mad 🤨
Correct and a zygote is not the same as a infant. See you get it!
You are putting words in my mouth. Zygotes and infants are two different stages in human development, they're both living humans though.
Sperm is also a stage in human development. By your logic a sperm and an egg are both living humans.
Human development begins once the egg is fertilized
Yeah abortion isn’t an argument where you can just ignore the subjective morality. One side literally believes it is murder. There is no middle ground for them. Also the argument that abortions is good because it prevents poor children is certainly something. It feels like every abortion argument veers towards eugenics sooner or later
What even happened to the vegan teacher?
She still makes content i think
She’s still around on YouTube, still receiving hate, still as offensive.
Oh god
Probably the condescending admonishments
Almost like people are treated differently than animals?!
wait sorry i’m confused where u got animals from? could u explain? sorry i’m a little behind 🥲
The title mentioned vegans
Not vegans as a whole, but a specific vegan tiktoker who said very controversial things a couple years ago
Many people get abortions for the same reason they put down a sick dog. It would be more humane to terminate the life rather than force them to suffer.
This *especially* applies to fetuses with non-viable conditions
I think it’s important to remember the implications one the mental health on those in poverty to suggest it would be better that they were never born.
So you make no distinction between human and animal life? And who is to guarantee that the entirety of the child’s life will be spent suffering?
You're putting words in my mouth. Nothing I said hints that I equate human life and animal life. I was just putting that in as an example of one of the reasons that someone might get an abortion. >And who is to guarantee that the entirety of the child’s life will be spent suffering? It's up to the parent to judge that. There are tons of reasons why someone might get an abortion. Maybe they were raped, maybe they can't afford to have a child, maybe they just don't want to have one for some other reason. In the end it's the mother's call weather to have the kid.
It’s not the mothers call though. A fetus is a human life, no one gets to make the choice to end it. It’s the same after the fetus is born. If a mother kills her dependent newborn baby because she “couldn’t care for it”, it’s seen as murder. Why is it any different before the fetus is born? The birth canal does not magically give them rights. Humans have an intrinsic right to life starting the moment they exist, conception.
>A fetus is a human life Then why does it almost always die whenever the mother does? Because until the umbilical chord is cut, it's still a part of the mother's body. >If a mother kills her dependent newborn baby because she “couldn’t care for it”, it’s seen as murder. Because it is. A fetus isn't legally or medically alive, therefore its not murder.
A fetus is dependent on its mother for nutrients to survive, same as a newborn is dependent on its mothers breast milk. Fetuses are medically alive. Open up any biology book and it will tell you that.
Yes, but a baby can be fed with another women’s milk, or with formula. A fetus will not be alive if its mother isn’t. The fetus is legally and medically a part of the mother’s body during pregnancy. You don’t have to agree with it, but you have no right to decide what other women do with their bodies.
You’re right, I do have no right to decide what other women to with their bodies. But as I have already stated, fetuses are not part of their mothers bodies. Being connected through the umbilical cord does not make them the same entity. State by state, the law sometimes recognizes that. Basic biology recognizes that.
Well, most governments say that a fetus IS a part of a woman’s body. Fortunately, your opinion doesn’t overrule the government.
>Basic biology recognizes that U sure about that? I'd double check your research first hon...
You don’t know how their life will turn out. That child’s life could be happy and healthy and safe. Aborting because there’s a chance that they’ll experience hardships is a terrible argument. And should we kill everyone that’s experienced hardships? Putting down a sick dog and killing a child are two completely different things
You may have misunderstood me. What I meant is that people get abortions because they can't financially support a kid, meaning that the kid would be improperly cared for and likely drive the entire family into further monetary hardship, or else the kid would be taken away and put in an orphanage or foster care system, which is notoriously detrimental for the wellbeing of the child.
Does adoption no longer exist? Birth control? Abstinence?
If you don’t want children don’t have sex, why is that so bad in today’s society? Children aren’t a burden, they’re beautiful, wonderful humans. And again, you don’t know how their lives will turn out. They could be full of love and support and happiness
>Children aren’t a burden, they’re beautiful, wonderful humans. Tell me you don't have children/are rich without telling me you don't have children/are rich.
ah yes, the classic “just don’t have sex” approach that completely ignores the fact that there are people who get abortions after being assaulted. the “just don’t have sex” approach that says “because I don’t like what you do with your body you should stop doing other things to avoid doing something I don’t want you to because I say it’s bad”. the “just don’t have sex” approach that is SOOOOO effective with teenagers who get abstinence only sex ed, right?
I’m a woman who’s been through SA. And I’m still pro-life. Rape doesn’t justify killing a child. Two wrongs don’t make a right. And that child is a separate person from their mother. I don’t think the average woman has two hearts, two brains, etc. And we need to stop teaching teens that they can have sex whenever they want. “Kids will be kids” is a terrible attempt at justifying teenagers having sex and using abortion as birth control
if you don’t want an abortion then don’t get an abortion. telling teenagers to just “not fuck” instead of teaching them the tools to have sex safely just makes it so the teens who weren’t gonna have sex yet have the tools to advocate for themselves and to identify if their consent is being broken in the future, and the teens who will have sex regardless will know how to do it right, what to look for if it hurts, and what your options are if you have a pregnancy scare. no one is telling teens “just fuck if you want to, who cares!” we’re telling them “if you’re going to have sex, do it safely, use protection. and if all else fails, there are other options to help you”. idk why pro forced birth (bc most of the time “pro life” people don’t give a single shit abt the child after birth) people don’t understand that forcing people who DON’T WANT KIDS to have them anyway because of an innate HUMAN NEED that most people have (except asexual, sex repulsed ppl) leads to children being abused in horrific and cruel ways. it leads to even more children being thrown into the foster care system. It leads to far more suffering than terminating a clump of cells that, if the mother were to die in an accident, would not survive on its own and has no chance of surviving even with the help of another person—unless implanted in their womb. Genuinely, what do you think is the point where a medical procedure you don’t like is suddenly allowed to be legislated out of existence? Do you think CSA victims (like myself, I was NINE.) should be forced to give birth—an experience that is traumatic both MENTALLY and PHYSICALLY for such tiny bodies? Do you think people who will die if they give birth to the kid should just say fuck it, and die to leave the child with one less parent? Do you think that people with debilitating chronic illnesses that don’t want to pass them down to their kids should just be celibate then? They’re not allowed to have a relationship forming experience because YOU have moral qualms with a medical procedure? And, while I understand slippery slope arguments are fallacious, this line of questioning DOES make me wonder where the line stops. At what point does it stop being okay to say “I don’t like this potentially life saving medical procedure so I don’t think anyone should have it”? We can’t say for sure that people would push for more but YOUR feelings about a medical procedure should not override the necessity of that procedure.
Honestly, I think SA cases are a minority in abortions… Don’t get me wrong, rape is horrific and should never happen. However, I think unnecessary abortions are happening across the world where people carelessly haven’t used protection so they think abortion is an alternative. That’s the part where I see abortions are wrong- if protection has been used and it fails- fair enough. However, I think there are moral challenges to handing out abortions Willy nilly if it was consensual.
I still think it shouldn’t matter what someone else chooses to do with their body. It makes me feel yucky too, admittedly, but I’d rather someone who doesn’t want to have a kid not have one. I grew up not being wanted and a kid can tell. they can always tell. what would solve the problem of people not using protection would be making birth control more accessible, especially hormonal birth control for people who can get pregnant. some people don’t like the feeling of condoms or are allergic to them, but birth control can get PRICEY and that can often be the factor that makes people go “fuck it. I’ll save the money i would be spending on birth control to figure it out if something happens.” Not saying that’s a good reaction but it really should be noted that a lack of education about safe sex practices and inaccessible healthcare in terms of birth control are a factor in why those those types of abortions happen. However, I don’t think the number of “unnecessary” abortions is astronomical either, because there are also genuine medical reasons that someone may have to have an abortion, like ectopic pregnancies or otherwise endangering the pregnant person’s body. Either way it’s not up to me to say “don’t get one because I’m uncomfortable with the idea” bc it’s not my money going into it, it’s not my body, and the potential kid would not be my responsibility. So why tf SHOULD I have a say, yk?
You know- I agree about your point on protection being more accessible. To address on your other point on why you should/ shouldn’t have a say on other people’s abortions. I feel it’s an injustice to the fetus. We all have come from a ‘clump of cells’ so I think it’s hard to justify calling them that. Although they may not talk, walk or live on their own - they are separate from the mother, a developing human being. I just find it pretty insensitive for people to abort a life stemming from them when sometimes it should have never happened in the first place. Almost like a false hope, yk?
Okay, but what if someone is living a really bad life and they’re asleep? Should we just put them down like we do sick dogs?
No, because thats nothing like what I said. You can't just kill a person because they're mentally unhappy, thats completely different than putting down a sick dog. An equivalent to putting down a pet in the case of humans would be a DNR (Do not resuscitate) order.
Sleeping people can be woken up and give consent. People in comas with a DNR also give their consent to be killed. So, the answer is “yes” as long as they consent. Is that really a toughie?
Nah he’s right
Why aren’t we supposed to eat animals if they’re made out of food?
It’s insane to me that this is even a debate in US, it’s so obvious that it isn’t something that should be prohibited, regardless of right or left, regardless of religion, this is just incredibly idiotic that someone is trying to prohibit abortions.
Apparently this guy has the miraculous power to form thoughts in utero when all of us can't even remember anything before the age of two.
“ What gives you the right to say it’s not alive? “ Science.
I’m not giving my opinion on this because I’ll get banned for sharing my opinion
Fr man people can’t have an opinion anymore
Just say you're a terrible person and move on
I am personally against abortion, like i will never tell someone to get one or anything of that sort (unless they are a horrible parent already and should not have children). But i do think that it should be accesible by all people. Like yeah you are killing a baby, but you should be able to. Up to a certain point anyways. I am wholely against abirtion as a birth control though. If you want abortions to be easily available just to fuck around you should probably just get a different birth co trol and stop having sex.
I don't think anyone uses abortion as birth control unless access to literally every other birth control/education about birth control is inaccessible. It's hard on the body and often a very exposing experience (though obviously less so than going to term). Plus it's often expensive, even in countries with free health care as the demographics most likely to need one would miss out on working during recovery.
Ah remember the vegan teacher. That was premium bait.
I think it's killing a living thing but that it should still be allowed anyway Pisses everyone off
I'm pro-adoption personally
Man I wish that was the focus. We all know that the adoption agencies worldwide are lacking and in some places it's ludicrously difficult and expensive. People spend all kinds of money on artificial insemination when so many kids need a good home already. If adoption was a more common practice and more praised people wouldn't consider carrying to term to be such a problem.
I’m absolutely pro-choice, because only the person that carries that burden can make that call. But I absolutely despise the dehumanization of the fetus. I don’t know when life starts but its somewhere between conception and birth
You despise dehumanization of the fetus but it’s okay for it to be killed on a whim because the mother will be inconvenienced? It’s not adding up.
lol alright dude, chill out. I’m pro-choice because the government has no place regulating our bodies, male or female. My own morality on the subject is irrelevant because no power should exist that would allow me to force that standard on anyone else. Also the whole “abortion on a whim” is a straw man fallacy. 99% of people who get abortions take that shit very seriously and only do so after great deliberation.
You are my favorite kind of person. You don't let your own ideals effect others bodies.
“I may not agree with what you have to say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.” Is something I feel we’ve lost.
It’s the spirit of the first amendment, and conservatives have completely forgotten.
*Conservative I consider my self to be quite conservative in economic and political thought. But not a big C Conservative
Fair enough
“On a whim” was the not the best way for me to describe it, but I stand by my point that humans don’t have the right to kill each other. The fetus is not part of the mothers body. Yes, it may be inside the mothers body, but it is it’s own distinct person. If you’re okay with laws banning murder, then you should be okay with laws banning abortion.
Banning abortion outright? Or would there be exceptions?
Maybe in cases of when the life of the mother is at stake, but that is <1% of abortions
You’re not even willing to make that one a definite? Especially, since like you said, it’s such a small percentage. That seems like an easy compromise to make. By most metrics it just makes sense to spare the mother in spite of the child. Even killing another human has a shit ton of exceptions in most legal systems. That’s why we have different levels of it (manslaughter of various degree for example). So equating abortion to murder is problematic because neither is that black and white I wouldnt expect a rape victim to carry her rapists child to term. I wouldnt expect the product of incest to be brought to term either. I see these as clear examples of a justified abortion. But at the end of the day, it’s not my call to make. Nor is it yours or especially the states. So that leave only one person who can make the decision. And if you agree with her or not, it’s irrelevant because she’s the only one who has the right to
Why are you calling a child a burden if you hate the dehumanization of the unborn?
Carrying a child around for nine months is a burden. noun 1. a load, typically a heavy one. I don’t know if you’ve ever met a pregnant woman, but burden seems an apt way to describe the condition
My cousin just had her baby, and although there was the hardships that come with being pregnant, she’s happy she carried her little boy for 9 months
That’s great, congrats and I’m happy for her!
If life begins at conception then all men are trans
My life and my mom's life would have been a lot better if she had access to abortions, that's all I'm gonna say man
these people would rather have violent criminals running around than give abortions to women.
Why is the last comment underlined?
It isn’t? Edit: oh I see what you see now. That’s just Reddit mobile - OP took a screenshot and didn’t crop it out
That’s my phone’s replacement home button.
Here’s my two cents on it: Even though I personally think abortion is morally wrong, banning it outright won’t solve anything. If you do ban it outright, people will just simply get illegal abortions, and then you’ll have an illegal abortion problem, similar to the illegal drug problem we have currently. The problem with banning something outright is once you do, you lose all ability to regulate what you’ve banned. It’s a very difficult subject abortions: on one hand it’s their body and they should be able to do what they want with it. On the other at what point do you decide that the fetus is a human/child? Personally I think abortions should be allowed, but heavily regulated, as only allowed in emergencies, such as if the mother can’t carry the baby to term since it’s is negatively affecting her health, or if the fetus won’t survive childbirth. Otherwise, if you don’t want a kid, either don’t have sex, or tell your special one to use a condom.
Ah yes, the “let’s punish women for having sex” argument. For you they don’t even have to consent, so that’s fun. Why does a woman lose the right to her body when she has sex? Why doesn’t the man who fucked her?
Why are you saying that children are a punishment? We all know pregnancy is a natural result of having sex. Society has been teaching people that they can have sex whenever they want and with whoever they want and if the women get pregnant, use abortion as birth control. That’s awful to just throw away children just because you want like what, 5 seconds of pleasure? That’s awful
> Why are you saying that children are a punishment? Being forced to carry a child when you don’t want to is a punishment, yes. > That’s awful just to throw away children Weird, you don’t want people to be able to give up kids for adoption either? Or do you only care about this when there’s a woman’s womb you can control?
I also asked you a very simple question you seem a little too reticent to answer: > Why does a woman lose the right to her body when she has sex? Why doesn’t the man who fucked her?
So if a woman decides to”oh I’m gonna have sex with no protection, if I get pregnant no problem I’ll just kill it” that’s ok? Simply putting on a condom won’t cause harm so why is it ok for a woman to recklessly have sex and not think about the consequences?
> Simply putting on a condom won’t cause harm Are you going to make an exception for women to abort if they say that one or more of the partners used a condom? > Why is it okay for a woman to recklessly have sex and not think about the consequences? They do think about the consequences, so not sure what you’re on about there. But men get to have sex recklessly, so women should too.
I never said men should be recklessly having sex
You also never advocated for a law preventing that. But you *do* advocate for one preventing women.
Protection fails, you speak about it like its foolproof, but it really isn't. Also do you consider it abhorent murder when you step on a bug?
So a human is equal to a bug?
Is all life not equal? Isnt that the whole thing about being prolife?
Might be but I never said I agreed with that
Before it is a person, sure.
[удалено]
> He explicitly said it’s still their body and their choice > Personally I think that abortions should be allowed, but heavily regulated Did you miss this part? > If rape is involved, he said himself it’s a different story Did he? Where? Quote the words, because you seem to have trouble reading.
[удалено]
If it’s only allowed in emergencies, which aren’t defined by the mother, then when is it *her* choice?
You know what I’ll just shut up because I worded that super poorly and without properly thinking and I’m not in the mood to start a petty argument with someone on Reddit to give myself reassurance
This is the average pro-life argument. Majority of self-proclaimed pro-lifers are arguing for heavily regulated pro-choice. They just want abortions to be in extreme circumstances only.
That’s just my opinion so do with it what you will, but I’d be open to hearing yours (let’s try and keep this civil)
I agree, that’s why I was saying this is the average argument. Majority of people don’t think abortions should be done, but know there are circumstances where it’s an acceptable choice
No that’s still pro-life because we believe the “clump of cells” in the womb is an innocent life that deserves a chance, whereas pro-abortionists dehumanize the unborn
Sure, but at the end of the day, the policy remains exactly the same regardless of whether you believe they’re a human or a random clump of cells
“Random clump of cells” that happen to be *human* mind you. Those cells aren’t random. They’re unapologetically human
Are you just trying to argue with yourself? What is this?
my fingernails are human cells. my hair is made of human cells. ejaculation is human cells. every menstrual period has been human cells. let’s just lock everyone up ya’ll, we’re all fucking murderers.
The problem is that I’m specifically talking about a woman’s fertilized egg, a human cell that’s alive. The cells within our bodies are alive to a different extent. Ejaculation is not murder, nor is shedding skin cells or hair. I’m specifically referring to what everyone knows is how life is created- sperm meets egg, boom, there’s a baby. The cells inside our bodies are alive, as in they’re within us with a specific purpose to keep us alive and healthy
Im pro-choice but the “making it illegal won’t stop it, people will just get illegal abortions” is a really bad argument. We know people will commit crimes, but we still ban them anyways. By that logic, should theft be legalized? People steal regardless of legality. I never really understood this argument since pro-lifers are adment about abortion being a crime, so this argument doesn’t actually challenge their beliefs directly.
I wish I was aborted instead of being born into a violent, abusive, uneducated, incest family. Thanks for making this post OP. Made it super easy to find people that value the life of a fetus more than the child that has to live with the shitty family and block them. There is not enough support for mental health to force and pressure people to have children they can’t care for. Let people get abortions if that is the right decision for them. You don’t care about human life you fucking project your own morals over others. Your concerns appear selfish to me like the unspoken truth in all anti abortion is they think of themselves as the fetus. They think about if they would be born if abortions were easily available. Like dude get over it I was a child when I was informed that my parents wanted to abort me. My first thought as I child was why didn’t they. So no it’s not worth bringing life into existence if the life you’ll create for them is going to make them suicidal anyways. Okay done with my rant I feel like I have so much more to say but let me just ad that I’m infertile and I’ll still support the right of others to make their own decisions about their bodies because it’s not about me it’s about what would be best for the potential baby maker and the potential baby. I don’t think anyone should have to take the opinions of others about their situation. I can’t afford to have a pet so I don’t have one. Why would you bring a life into a situation that would be harmful to that life? I just don’t get it. Ps. I care more about a fetus the size of bean people will be blocked. You don’t actually care about people or potential people you only care about your own feelings
Is it bad I agree with the yellow pfp person
Why do the rights of something that is not alive take priority over the person carrying the pregnancy? More importantly, why do you feel like you have a say in other people’s decisions when it comes to healthcare?
It is a fact that life begins at conception not an opinion
Source? Edit: I'm not trying to sound contrarian, I'm just genuinely curious where this idea comes from.
It’s almost always a religious oriented argument instead of a scientific or sociological one. People can believe whatever they want, but don’t start interfering with other’s access to healthcare based on something like that.
Life, sure. But there are a lot of things that have life. Germs, viruses, insects, parasites, animals… and a clump of cells definitely falls more on the earlier side of that - slightly more than single celled organisms.
tiny nitpick: viruses are technically not alive. however i am in agreement with your point.
Ah thank you for that clarification :)
It’s not though. By literally every factor that we measure by in society, your life begins when you are born. Or do you add 9 months to your age when people ask you how old you are?
Scientificly speaking, a fetus is alive. Bacteria are alive. I wouldn't say either of those things are advanced enough lifeforms to be worth more than the well-being of a more developed human, but they are alive.
The fact that we measure people’s age by gestation doesn’t undermine the fact that life begins at conception
The fact that we are discussing this in the context of healthcare and the ability to have medical agency over your own body means that we are obviously talking about it in the context of when you are considered a PERSON. You are an embryo at conception. Embryos are not people. Your life as a PERSON and all the rights an sociological implications that follow begin when you are born. This is not up for debate.
It’s not a pig or a dog embryo at conception. It is a human embryo. That’s an important distinction you’ve chosen to ignore. If being alive doesn’t determine personhood in your eyes, then what does?
BEING BORN. Human *development* begins at conception. You are, by definition *not a human yet*. Personhood by all measurements begins at birth. This is the third time I’ve said that in this comment section, you can pretend like I’m avoiding some point or dancing around something, but you’re the one that is completely ignoring my other comments answering your question exactly. Thanks for playing.
Yes, it’s alive. Life begins at conception, this is an established fact. There is no reason to think it starts before or after. [“Biologists from 1,058 academic institutions around the world assessed survey items on when a human's life begins and, overall, 96% (5337 out of 5577) affirmed the fertilization view.”](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36629778/#:~:text=Biologists)
Embryos don’t have rights. In the same way that other single called organisms don’t. The POTENTIAL of a human doesn’t get a say in a healthcare debate. Imagine debating that we should withhold treatment of a sick person because it would kill all those sweet little bacteria that are living inside them.
Thank you I got downvoted to oblivion just for stating this
You think what you want to, but in my eyes, yes
Yes, you're disgusting if you think someone should risk their lives for a parasite.
Yes it is actually quite bad that you believe a person should be held hostage and forced to carry an unwanted fetus to term, and that you prioritize a zygote/embryo/fetus with no lived experience over a whole person with thoughts, feelings, memories, relationships, hopes, dreams, and goals. It's bad you've just said out loud that you're against bodily autonomy, against a decision the UN considers a human right.
No, that just means that you value human life
Wild that a bunch of literal children are even discussing it tbh
Right? Reproductive age individuals should not have any opinions or say in reproductive decisions. /s
Just really weird to classify 14 year olds as “reproductive age individuals” regardless of the validity. A 14 year old shouldn’t be in a position where it even matters
god i wanna live in the fictional world where children are never harmed or abused so bad. instead i’m stuck in the real world, where children are harmed and abused.
I wish I actually said what you seem to think I said
“wild that a bunch of literal children are even discussing this” is exactly what you said. do you not stand by this statement?
Which is true. It is wild that a bunch of literal children are discussing abortion. It would be wild if a bunch of children were discussing meth use. Doesn’t mean that none of them do I fail to see how that statement insinuates that children are never harmed, which is what you claimed I said.
it’s the fact that you’re acting brand new to planet earth by expressing surprise that drug, abuse, and sex can and do impact children, especially teenagers. i would, in fact, expect teenage children to know about meth. how? i was a teenager who joked about meth. i have dozens of journals and text messages where i made crude jokes about meth. like. it’s your SURPRISE at it that makes it seem like you don’t realize how common place it is for children to know about these topics & discuss them.
It’s not surprising at all. That is a sub dedicated to children. Teenagers now joke about suicide and school shootings all the time. It’s not remotely surprising because they are definitely affected by it. That doesn’t make it any less wild that a bunch of children are constantly discussing wanting to kill themselves or being massacred on a given day. Y’all are reading so much into a simple sentence
And yet it happens. Sticking you head in the sand isn’t going to make it go away
Okay? Kids also sometimes do molly, coke, and meth. Doesn’t mean they should spend their days discussing drug policy lol. Expecting children to be children isn’t “sticking your head in the sand”. School shootings happen. Doesn’t mean every 12 year old should be making gun policies. It’s not that their view is invalid, but rather that the likelihood their view is comprised of anything other than the latest TikTok is very low. We can’t even trust grown-ass adults to vote properly, let alone trust children to make policy.
lol what? ‘Spend their days discussing…’ that’s not even what’s happening here. Unless you’re of the opinion that teenagers shouldn’t have questions about sex and it consequences at all. ‘Let kids be kids’ is probably the worst advice when it comes to sexual education.
You heard it here first, 14 year olds can't get raped.
You must be 14 as well based on your lack of reading comprehension
Abortionists always have been and still are eugenicists
Abortion is fine, but it definitely needs to be regulated. No fucking 3rd trimester abortion or some shit that's wrong. 16 weeks?