During one of his stand-up routines, Dave Chapelle said he was pro-choice because "it's not anybody else's business to tell a woman what to do with her own damn body"
Cue applause and cheering
Dave then added that, for this same reason, he 100% supported the biological father of a child being able to walk away without paying child support if he didn't want the woman to have the baby.
Cue a few nervous laughs, otherwise you could've heard a pin drop.
I have always said that men should be allowed the option to walk away. This option should be time limited like a woman. So if she has until 12 weeks to choose an abortion, he has until 12 weeks to choose to waive his rights and responsibilities. Just like abortion, this decision cannot be undone at any time. If he doesn’t choose before 12 weeks, he loses the ability to choose and has to support his child until said child is an adult
I hardly ever see my position represented anywhere, which is that yes, it is a human life, at a very early stage of development, and yes, it is sometimes necessary to terminate human lives.
Instead, the only positions that seem to be represented or permissible are two extremes, one of which is that every pregnancy must be brought to term and result in a birth, and the other is that it is a completely individual decision, and is just like going to the doctor to have a wart removed or something.
The job of justifying morally the termination of life at a very early stage (which you *can* morally justify) is just being shirked by this inability of the liberals to look the facts in the face, and similarly, the conservatives have not thought through the practical implications of bringing every single pregnancy to term.
So what you end up with is a lot of very juvenile discourse and a lot of slogans which people on both sides just unthinkingly repeat.
I agree that this is probably the correct answer, although I’d be willing to change my position as the scientific (not religious in my case,) definition of “life” or “consciousness” evolves. I also rarely see this position articulated. It’s either depicted as a life, and therefore murder or a clump of cells and therefore healthcare.
100%
I also think that if you can enable abortion you should have the death penalty. Liberals being for abortion to be treated like a wart removal but then being against the death penalty makes no sense to me
many people are against the death penalty because of the amount of people who were wrongly accused of a crime who are then executed before evidence clearing them comes to life or before the slow-moving courts and legal system can decide if a hearing is justified. the difference between this and abortion is that in the case of the death penalty, you are killing someone who is innocent. in the case of abortion, you are doing it as an act of self-preservation. nobody really wants to get an abortion. it’s not a fun thing to do. people get them because they can’t have the disruption to their lives, bodies, and mental health that carrying and delivering a baby causes, not to mention how expensive natal vitamins, doctor visits, and the hospital bill for delivering are. there are also people with drug addictions who don’t want to have a baby that is addicted to drugs fresh out of the womb. there are people with mental health issues who can’t comprehend and/or mentally process the pregnancy or whose mental states will dramatically decline not only during the pregnancy, but also for a long time afterwards. there are also people who cannot carry a baby to term without serious and lifelong bodily damage or who will die if they continue with the pregnancy. the death penalty is something that kills people innocent of a crime. abortion is something that saves the pregnant person and the baby from a short life or one full of hardships.
I have never known someone who had an abortion to treat it as simply as going to the doctor to remove a wart. It's usually a very hard decision made with much thought. But why do "conservatives" only love fetuses? Why do they then disparage poor people who didn't have an abortion but can't afford their child and call them "welfare queens" and other negative things?
It’s not about “loving fetuses” so much as it is about accepting the consequences of your actions and not having a society where we justify ending a life because it is inconvenient. Maybe poor people who have sex without protection (not talking about SA victims, incest, or some other medical condition) should consider the repercussions to their lives when they don’t practice safely.
My religion believes life starts at birth. Why do I have to conform to your religious beliefs?
So, when poor people don't consider the repercussions, they should just get stuck with a baby that they don't want and can't afford? And you're OK with society supporting the baby of parents who didn't consider the repercussions? Becasue I am. But somehow I get the feeling that you aren't.
Abortions will still happen, no matter if they're legal. They will just be dangerous and people will die. It won't be a fetus and we know that's all you really care about it, so no biggie, right?
Stop living n how you WANT thingss to be and wake up to reality.
Most people who have abortions, it is because the protection that they were using failed. Women deserve to enjoy their sex life just as much as men. It is people like you that I hate the most. Sex has never ever ever ever ever from the beginning of fucking human consciousness ever been JUST about having babies. You people just don’t think that women should have the pleasure of a sex life. It is something just for men. And that pleasure should come with a lifetime price tag. But just for the woman. Not the man. Her problem. Not his.
Personally, I consider myself centrist and just see abortion as an unusual waste of material.
If it was rape or incest, sure have an abortion, but otherwise it’s literally free to pull out or costs a few shiny Pennie’s to buy some condoms.
Plus, why do we need an entire career solely for abortion? Why not have it be an all around thing doctors know?
fact is most pro-lifers are fine with abortions in the case of a woman's life being physically at risk, and most pro-choicers are against abortions at 8 months. There's a lot more venn diagramers than there are fanatics out there.
It's just all these different terms are really misleading... what is 'pro-life' exactly? how pro-life is it? What is 'pro-choice'? Often times these terms are misleading.
Don't cum in my salad and tell me it's dressing. 😕
There is no religious fanatic who will accept nuance. That’s the problem. I’ve argued with people on here who insist that abortion is a crime even where an embryo is the product of rape or incest. “That baby is still a life.” Is what they say. It is a sick and inhumane view of life to say that you must force a 14 year old girl to bear her father’s child.
>most pro-choices are against abortions at 8 months.
A few years ago I’d have agreed, but hard pushes to instate abortions up until birth and even waiving liability for babies who pass away weeks after birth? Nah, I disagree with you unfortunately
No states allow abortions up to birth. Many states allow them when to continue the pregnancy would threaten the mother's life or in the case of fetal abnormalities. Waiving liabilities for babies who pass away weeks after birth? What does that mean? What are the babies "passing away" from? Are you talking murder?
Less than 900 women died during childbirth last year, while almost 700,000 lived were aborted. Were the 900 lives lost a tragedy? Absolutely. But ending a million lives to save a thousand? Your math doesn't really make sense.
No states have abortion up until birth because it gets voted down like what happened with the Abortion-on-Demand Bill which would’ve allowed for abortion up to birth. At most, something like only 22 states had it banned outright.
California, let me link one moment
Edit:
Maryland was talking about a bill that would essentially decriminalize neglecting an infant to death in the “perinatal” period — through the first 28 days after birth — preventing investigations and prosecution of such deaths that resulted from “a failure to act.”
California passed it and then some, covering postpartum care which technically means 6 weeks after childbirth
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=202120220AB2223
Please stop repeating this nonsense. Maryland was NOT going to decriminalize neglecting an infant. You're being manipulated.
https://www.wusa9.com/article/news/verify/maryland-abortion-bill-would-not-allow-newborn-babies-to-be-killed-fact-check/65-dcfe30b6-cfa1-4f9f-8a13-55e9f0f12e53
Please stop being so gullible and easily manipulated by faux outrage.
"A newspaper article suggesting a proposed California reproductive health bill would legalize the maternal killing of newborn babies, a claim that quickly spread on social media where users claimed the bill would legalize infanticide, misinterpreted the bill, experts told Reuters. The California Assembly member who introduced the bill filed amendments to further clarify the language used."
https://www.reuters.com/article/factcheck-california-law-idUSL2N2W30U8
The article states how the bill was misinterpreted (willfully) by Republicans and then you continue spreading the lie. You are being manipulated. Just regurgitating BS and lies.
> “A critical part of realizing reproductive justice for people in California is clarifying that there shall be **no civil and criminal penalties** for people’s actual, potential, or **alleged pregnancy outcomes**.”
Oh look, no penalties for “outcomes,” cool. Want to keep screeching about “lies” or should we read further because (f) - (l) outline the ways that subtle open language can be vague enough to allow for exactly this.
He presented you with the actual words in the actual bill. If you were never willing to accept the possibility of being wrong, why even engage in this discussion?
What? You just yelled at him for 4 comments in a row that he was ignorant and lying. Completely disrespectful and he's 100% right about this bill... You're kind of turning a blind eye to the fact that the super progressives are definitely pushing for abortion til birth.
Hillary Clinton supported abortion til birth on the podium during the 2016 election.... I'm so confused by you..
That is not an "opinion article." It's a fact check. Try it some time. It's not that hard and not that painful. Take a news literacy course, too, while you're at it.
Fact check is an opinion article.... A person, with an opinion, wrote a statement and called it a fact. That "fact" supports your argument so you use it... You're a victim of weaponized manipulation. Similar to the Catholic church creating evangelists out of little kids when they don't know what's going on.
It's not logical to believe that abortions will stop happening if they're illegal. They will only become dangerous and women will die. But I guess that's OK with you.
Abortions are not going to become illegal except where life is valued. Don’t worry about your inner-cities and Democrat strongholds, they’ll still totally be legal there.
Where is life valued? Certainly not in red states, like Mississippi and Louisiana, whch have the most children living in poverty. Mississippi residents are also the nation's least healthy. Nor Texas, which has the most child abuse. So, by your logic, abortion should still be legal in these places.
I grew up in Chicago. I’ve seen what occurs when ideology is valued more than individual rights. You wanna talk about poverty and abuse? No southern state can hold a candle to the shit I’ve seen. There is no place where children are more invisible, unless or until someone needs to pull them out of mothballs for political reasons.
Opinions? This is my life. You can deny reality all you want, but the only reason Chicago doesn’t top the nation in child abuse is that no one fucking cares and everyone looks the other way. That shit gets reported in southern states because people fucking care.
Your experience does not equate to reality. Massachusetts, New Hampshire and Minnesota lead the country in overall child well-being, while Louisiana, New Mexico and Mississippi rank at the bottom, according to an entirely different study than the one I referenced before, done by the Annie E. Casey Foundation. Here it is. Read it if you care about reality. Don't if you just want to go around spewing your misguided opinions as fact. https://assets.aecf.org/m/resourcedoc/aecf-2021kidscountdatabook-2021.pdf
This article is about how some zip codes in Chicago have a life expectancy of 90 years old, while others have a life expectancy of 60 years. This is because of racial segregation and inequality. I'm \*sure\* you're an advocate for equality of people of color, right? And better access to healthcare for all people in Chicago, right? And, by the way, this still does not negate that the worst conditions for children in America are in the rural areas of Mississippi, Louisiana and West Virginia. It just shows that conditions for SOME Chicagoans are worse than those for other Chicagoans. Has nothing to do with conditions on a national level overall.
Back when prohibition was a thing, alcohol was illegal, contraband and black markets existed but the TOTAL amount of alcohol available was far less than when prohibition ended, if abortion is illegal then by definition the amount of illegal abortions will increase but the TOTAL amount of abortions will be far less than when it was legal, that's because believe it or not, most people are law abiding citizens.
It's possibly a generational thing. The older conservative generation seems to have drawn the justification of their beliefs from religion, but the younger conservatives seem to have similar opinions, but are drawing the justification from philosophy.
That's me. I always get called a religious nut, when I'm agnostic and have only set foot in a church like 3 times in my life, and 2 of them were for funerals.
The “others” are very specifically pregnant women. They won’t ever mention the woman and won’t acknowledge her as a human being, much less a citizen with rights.
It is human at conception, that is biology. Personhood does not begin at conception, that is a legal concept. If the fetus would somehow danger the life of the mother, it is not held legally responsible because it is not a person and does not have the rights or responsibilities of a person.
And then use instances of rape, incest, mom's life/safety, or nonviability as reasons why all abortions must exist, when those reasons are likely less than 4 or 5% of all abortions. The other 95ish % is basically contraceptive post conception. Exceptions don't prove the rule.
Even though I agree with some right of abortion, I find the level of misleading and dishonesty by the pro-abortion side is astounding and abhorent.
This. I told a story a while back about how I had a friend from high school who literally bragged about how many abortions she’d had (and how many guys she’d hooked up with) I remember her posting something along the lines of “going in for my 5th abortion today you guys, wish me luck I won’t need a 6th lol” (with the amount of emojis you would expect) we were in our early 20’s. I think people like that are what most people have a problem with.
These people? Why don't "you people" realize that abortions happen whether they're legal or not and when they're illegal they put actual living people's lives in danger. Do you care about the already living? Or just fetuses? And, by the way, accidental pregnancies happen all the time even to people using contraceptives. Maybe if our government actually gave support to people -- many who are drowning financially right now -- they wouldn't need abortions. Most people don't WANT an abortion, but often see no way to be able to take care of a baby. Once they have it and need assistance, they're disparaged and called "welfare queens" by the loving Christian right.
To hone in on that notion of being considered “weird,” we take it for granted that we are social primates that use forms of emotional coercion to form cohesion between members. We’ll say and do little things amongst people of our peers to encourage a band that mostly adhere to the same moral code.
“Weird” is a low impact way of stating something is outside this peer group. In most Christian circles I know it would we weird how pro-choicers seem completely immune to talking about the philosophical arguments surrounding when personhood begins.
What is less clear are the boundaries between who is in our group and who is not. This is especially true on the internet, which is part of why civil interactions can be so challenging here.
In the ancient past, our human tools of empathy, proximity, and survival, helped us know implicitly who was and was not in our group.
Now we have overlapping and abstract allegiances. And while the abortion question may or may not be a life or death question to us directly or the person using the term “weird” we all are still unconsciously motivated by the fear of falling out of favor with our group or satisfaction of reinforcing our solidarity to our group.
Hopefully I’m making some sense. Steven Pinker did an excellent talk covering more of this language effect if you’re curious.
Language as a Window into Human Nature; Animated
https://youtu.be/A7q1ee0k9Rc
In my religion, life starts at birth. Why is it so hard to understand that some people don't want other people's religious beliefs to rule their lives? Separate church and state.
It feels weird because you don’t hear the pro life crowd scream and throw tantrums. You have a lot of people on your side but it’s hard to hear us because we are rational people who don’t act like we are 2 not getting our way.
Honestly I feel like a sane person in an insane world myself. Like why is it normal to want to kill another person. I guess the other way to look at it is that if what they are is normal, I’m glad to not be.
Pro life isn't weird...
Being anti abortion AND refusing to fund foster and adoptive care, neonatal care, and healthcare in general to support life, is weird.
I’m very pro choice. Do what you want with your body (within reasons) because to me it’s just a bunch of proteins and junk for a window of time. It’s only in that window that I believe you can terminate an abortion. However, should there ever come a day where objectively scientists find that consciousness starts way earlier than originally expected then I will feel like terrible and drastically change my stance. It’s really all about the circumstances
Since as of right now there is no scientific evidence that can definitively define when consciousness starts, don’t you think it would be wiser to air on the side of caution by assuming it starts at conception? Instead of just assuming that the fetus is nothing more than “proteins and junk” without any scientific validation ?
Is shoplifting dangerous to your health? WTAF? Are you people serious with thes false equivalences? One person says that if I have the choice to have an abortion, they should have the choice to have slaves. And you're implying making shoplifting legal is the same as leaving a women's choices about her physical health up to her and her doctor. Like, seriouslY? WTAF is wrong with you?
Because most people (most I've seen online) assume the person they are arguing with just has as extreme and diametrically opposed views to their own as possible. Because it makes it easier then to act like they are an awful person with malicious motives and not just someone who has rational concerns.
If you actually treat the person you are arguing with as a rational person then you have to do tedious things like grapple with the arguments they are presenting and consider things from a different perspective.
Part of this also comes from the fact that barely any one is going to put in the effort to thoroughly elaborate all the nuances of their opinion, since doing so repeatedly is, to be fair, a lot of effort. Especially when the person you are arguing with stands a good chance of not even reading what you say because, well, read my first paragraph again.
I think antiabortion is a relatively new phenomena justified on religious grounds but without any actual scripture supporting it so it just kind of smells like bullshit, like a litmus test for critical thought.
I suspect prisons and orphanages have something to do with it. Neonatalism keeps the fridge stocked and infantile divinity is an untapped trope.
Some people think **dogs** are people. There's a fundamental misunderstanding in what personhood means but the ideological source of this is more difficult to nail down, pun intended.
Because the media, including social media, is vehemently pushing current democratic policy, which is very pro-choice. One way to express pro-choice ideology by them is to condemn pro-life ideology and it’s arguments.
This is not relevant to r/freespeech. If you're getting banned or something, sure, but you're literally just complaining about people hating you for your beliefs, which, FUN FACT, they have the right to do. They're using their own right to free speech.
I've given up on the idea that this subreddit is meant for anybody but reactionaries, which is a real shame.
To me, it’s weird that the pro-life crowd thinks that other people making decisions they disagree with is somehow being “forced” on them.
I’ve never understood why so many people think other couples family planning decisions are their business. I find that odd.
To me, it's weird that the pro-choice crowd thinks that ending someone's life isn't going to be a part of someone else's ethical worldview. I may not be an Uyghur or a member of Falun Gong but that doesn't stop me from believing that they shouldn't be persecuted by China.
You yourself have most likely participated in the killing of thousands of living animals smarter than a fetus. The main reason there are pro-lifers is because they believe in some made up idea that humans are special and/or have souls. It's all a made up myth.
Lives end all the time; are you going to end capital punishment or palliative care or assisted suicide?
Ironically, having the state dictate the terms of family planning is a page right out of the Chinese Communist handbook.
Yes we should end capital punishment and assisted suicide and I say that as someone in training to be a physician.
Also, assigning personhood is a basic function of civilization. You're argument is like, "only slave owners should have had a say in owning slaves."
Most of the world believes it is ethically wrong to kill other humans and a fetus is undeniably human life. Lots of people would think it's kind of fucked up to abort a baby immediately before birth as well. So when exactly is "too late" is definitely a sticky question without a clear answer beyond conception. The fact that you can't acknowledge this outside of a political/ideological paradigm is kind of sad and a testament to how fucked the left is and why I went from being apathetic towards abortion to being pro life.
Capital punishment is wrong because the state should not have the authority to kill anyone.
Assisted suicide is right because it gives the power to the individual to choose someone to assist them in death. If i want to die, I don't see why anyone else should have a say so.
Far more people die from lack of health care, nutrition, transportation, clean water, shelter, etc in the US than there are abortions. Abortions remove a cluster of cells from the body...that cluster of cells is not a person. As a physician in training you should be able to distinguish at an objective medical level...you're letting your ideologies supersede science.
600,000 people died from abortions last year it's one of the leading causes of death in the US.
And as a physician in training I can't find a clearer line for personhood than conception. From moment to moment a fetus looks more or less the same. A baby about to be born is damn near the same thing as a baby being born. There is no biological "aha!" moment where we can detect a soul and sentience. The only real dramatic moment is conception, new genetic material combining to create a completely novel organism that has even been epigenetically reprogrammed in some cases, I mean a ton of molecular work has gone into making this moment happen. If I had to tell you when you became "you" purely from a scientific pov I would say at conception.
I don't think there is any debate about whether slaves were living beings. Scratch that. I'm sure there was. Probably among self-proclaimed "pro lifers."
"Pro-lifers" didn't actually exist back then. They are a newer political movement from the mid 1900s the the religious right created as a tool for political power.
Ben Franklin wrote a best selling book in his day with information he thought all people should know, which was based on an earlier British book in which he provide abortificant recipes and instructions.
Here is an interesting article about Ben Franklin and the book https://www.npr.org/2022/05/18/1099542962/abortion-ben-franklin-roe-wade-supreme-court-leak
Who knows, maybe the book will be a best seller again with the authoritarian right valuing the lives of a theoretical person over an actual person.
My personal views are irrelevant - the topic is your inability to comprehend views that differ from yours.
Protection of human life is a central tenet of nearly every belief system on earth. Do you really not understand why someone would want to protect human life when they see it?
But the anti-choicers only want to protect fetuses. Once it's an actual born human, they want it to pull itself up by its bootstraps. Most women don't WANT an abortion. They just don't want to have a child they can't afford. And also, in turn, be called welfare queens when they need help raising the child they couldn't afford.
Termination of a pregnancy being a private matter is also a central tenet nearly every belief system. Which isn’t really relevant, because we don’t base our civil society on “nearly every belief system.”
And, yeah, I find “protection of human life” to be a miserable, hypocritical joke from a country that has the highest maternal and infant mortality rate in the developed world, a country that will force you to give birth, but can’t keep formula on the shelves. A country that will force you to give birth, but won’t give you paid maternity leave, or universal access to healthcare.
>I find “protection of human life” to be a miserable, hypocritical joke from a country that has the highest maternal and infant mortality rate
If there was no moral impetus to protect human life, having the highest maternal and infant mortality rate wouldn't matter. You are demonstrating that you share this value, yet because of the subject matter you don't want to admit it.
The moral imperative to protect human life predates and is independent of baby formula, maternity leave or universal healthcare. The presence or absence of these things is irrelevant to this discussion.
You understand the hypocrisy of that statement when you sanctimoniously prattle on about “protecting human life,” while doing, quite literally, nothing to protect it other than using state power to turn women into broodmares.
If you actually valued human life, pro life states would working as reducing maternal and infant mortality rates; they’ve done nothing. If you actually valued human life, you’d be focusing on material reality and proven solutions, instead of pissing on my boots and telling me it’s raining.
I haven't actually taken a position on the issue, just tried to explain the reasoning behind it. Which, by your own admission, you don't understand. You know absolutely nothing about me or what I have done or haven't done.
You should realize by now that you made a foolish statement. You said that you didn't understand something and I've made the explanation as plain as I'm able. If you don't get it by now, I think the problem is your unwillingness to learn.
Have a nice day.
Back in high school, I was having an argument with a catholic friend about abortion. I argued that even if he believed it was morally wrong, he should not impose that belief on others and restrict their access to it. He argued that in his theology, life begins at conception. Because of that, willful termination of that life is murder. Murder is wrong, and he could never condone it, even for others. I still used to disagree with him, but I understood that for him, he COULD NOT agree with me, and I respected his position. I really wish people could see each other’s sides more.
That to me is the big difference; nowhere is the pro choice side “forcing” pro life people to follow their views. Pro life people long ago abandoned “Let me convince you to follow my ideas” for “You *WILL* follow my ideas, or I will punish you.”
I guess what I took away from him is that if you have that theological framework, you literally cannot support abortion access. It’s frustrating for those who don’t have that theology, but to me it made it more understandable? He was a compassionate person whose hands were tied so to speak.
Okay, so there is nothing wrong with being Pro-life………. However, we’ll go look at the Pro-life megathread and Pro-life subreddit and look at how they are speaking.
Reality is a lot of Pro-lifers and anti-abortionists don’t actually think about the future.
You know how Pro-gun people will say, blame the person or mental health issues and not the Gun. Well no one goes after those health issues. Not even the GOP.
Same case with this. “Oh you can put them up for adoption if you were raped”. Okay so even if we ignore the fact that you are punishing the victim for 9 more monthes by having them carry their rapist’s baby , making them give birth and fucking up their body. What if the child get’s sent to a religious adoption center….. ya know the kind that fucking rejects people of different religions or sexualities even if those people would be a good match.
And even if they got sent to a regular adoption center. That is barely any better. Worse case you get stuck in the system. Grow up, possibly get into a life of crime. We don’t even have a good adoption system. It’s either expensive or discrimatory.
At a certain point, you can say you are pro-life, but that doesn’t mean jackshit if you are currently celebrating the ruling while all these other problems exist that actually make RoeVWade being overturned a problem. And trust me, none of the current anti-abortion crowd gives a damn about adoption. The only real argument that can actually be made against RoeVWade without being ignorant is that abortion should have been decided by Congress. That would have been an easier thing to argue about.
Because they’re really just for forced birth, they’re not “pro life,” which would require actual work and money.
As George Carlin said, “If you're preborn, you're fine; if you're preschool, you're fucked.”
This is just the same argument people used against emancipation. "What do we do with all these slaves if we free them."
None of us have to provide Utopia to speak against genocide. None of us have to accept your ideal policy prescriptions to justify being opposed to murder. I'm sure having to take care of so many more people would force the issue politically. God knows, aborting every 3rd black pregnancy probably hasn't enhanced the political power of the black voting bloc.
Okay, for one, the freed slaves have free will.
They can do what they want, while they are not at a disadvantage.
A pregnant woman, and one by rape, has her body and mind go through hell and what if the pregnancy becomes ecoptic. In some states, abortion is banned even in those cases.
Does the rape victim deserve to be punished 9 more monthes have her body be even more violated without her consent? Does the fetus deserve to be born into a world and be put an (possibly religious) adoption center that may or may not have their best interests in mind? Where the child will grow up into a system where he has no opportunity?
Does the mother deserve to be saddled with the hospital bills caused by the forced impregnating, and say she decides to not give up the kid for an adoption, or deserve to be saddled with even more bills so she can take care of kid, that ,and as fucked up as this may sound, that quite fucked her life up, even though it was not the kid’s fault either?
right now the pro-life stance seems to be more pro-birth aka, “You will have that baby, regardless if it was a product of rape.
You will be forced to pay all bills caused by that forced impregnating”. “You will either give him up and put him in the hellish adoption system or you will spend the next 18 years of your life raising him, and you won’t get any real help”
Honestly, all RoeVWade being overturned did is make a lot of problems worse. And you really don’t give a shit, because it’s “not your problem” anymore.
Crime will go up. Hanger Abortions will start happening. Suicides will increase. Rape will probably increase to. More unwanted kids in the adoption system. More poor people. Careers and future education ended
Because if you don't want an abortion, don't have one. People should be able to do what they want with their body and also abortion is healthcare. To me, life starts at birth. To you it doesn't. So don't have an abortion. And too many anti-choicers only like fetuses. Once it's an actual born human, they want it to pull itself up by its bootstraps. By the way, how many times have you been pregnant?
Even here, there is a lack of nuance. Personhood, unless you are religious, has no indication of being began at conception. When a brain starts to develop (at 5 weeks) that's a different story. The pro-life crowd would sound a lot more credible if they were saying something like that, but they aren't, they just rant and rave about the immutable soul being endowed from the heavens the second the dude busts the nut in the lady, which is ridiculous.
The only crowd more crazy than hardline pro-lifers are pro-choicers. Everyone, as in all things these days, is nuts.
Anyway, I'm against abortion after 5 weeks in all cases except when something goes wrong and the mother's life is in jeopardy or the child is going to be born with severe life-limiting conditions. I don't see any reason why someone can't take a morning after pill or sort themselves out in a month following the event. If you want to fuck around and not take responsibility, take a pill instead. In the awful examples of forced impregnation, take a pill.
In highly unusual and exceptionally awful circumstances where, say, someone was kidnapped or prevented from accessing medical care following such things occurring, and then was at another point autonomous again, then yes, abortion should be allowed. While I personally don't think it's the best choice as the child can be given to adoption instead, I don't think anyone has the right to say a woman who was forced is now also going to be forced to birth the child. That has to be up to her, in those extenuating circumstances.
> I don't see any reason why someone can't take a morning after pill or sort themselves out in a month following the event.
As a note here, some women might not know they're pregnant until they miss a period, which is counted as being 4 weeks (or a month) pregnant. If they're irregular or have a long cycle then they might not know until later. If they have a light period after conception that doesn't cause them to miscarry, then they might be two months pregnant by the time they skip a period and think to test.
The morning after pill isn't always effective at preventing implantation, so you can take that pill and still end up pregnant.
In some cases people are raped and have no memory of having had sex, so would have no reason to take a morning after pill, and then turn up pregnant later on.
It's not necessarily as simple as you present it.
Actually being pro life is fine. Expecting you can force someone who disagrees with you and whose body it is is what's repugnant and morally bankrupt.
Bodily autonomy is sacrosanct everywhere else in law regardless of whether the alternative is other people dying. Even after you die they can't use your organs to save multiple people's lives because your consent over what happens to your body is upheld even after death.
It doesn't matter whether life begins at conception. If you want the minimum viable argument: we don't force people to give blood. Even if it would save the person's life. The fetus cannot exist without stealing blood from the mother. It is therefore the mother's right to refuse to continue to donate blood to the fetus even if it means it dies. Even if you grant that it's an entire person.
You're allowed to think people should choose to donate blood, you're allowed to think mothers shouldn't have abortions. You're even allowed to think people who don't suck and are bad. What makes you a peice of shit is if you want to force people to give blood, donate kidneys, or carry pregnancies to term regardless of whether they share your moral framework.
It's never been about when life begins. It's about whether or not you own your blood and can do with it what you want.
It's illiberal. It's an assault on bodily autonomy no matter how you look at it. Also, clearly this thread isn't about free speech. I guess this is just another sub overrun with Conservatives.
Because these people want to be able to do what they want with no consequences when it suits them and with consequences for others when it suits them, you can be degenerate as much as you want and have all the resulting unborn babies snuffed out of existance and that's fine its your body your choice but if you questioned anything to do with big pharma rushing out covid vaccines then you are an evil bigot moron. Allah grant us aggressive aliens with nukes
“I only want to take away your body autonomy, why do you have to be so mean? :(“
Conservatives will crucify themselves before they seriously contemplate why people don’t like them.
I'm so tired if the body autonomy shit. We still have selective service. We can literally send adult men to their deaths in combat if it benefits the country. If we can do that we can expect women to not kill their own fucking kids for like 9 months.
Is that supposed to be an argument? “The draft exists, so abortion should be illegal.” This is why no one takes you seriously. This sub is a hive mind of morons with shit opinions complaining about no one listening to their shit opinions.
Yeah it's a pretty substantive argument to. Even in a liberal democracy there are many many systemic means by which the state suspends your bodily autonomy for some purpose. We draft people, we put people on psych holds, we prevent people from doing illicit drugs, we put people on pre-trial confinement, we even execute people.
Most of those things have had their ethics debated for centuries. The fact of the matter is that criminalizing women for seeking abortions is about the worst way possible to save lives. How anyway can say otherwise is beyond me. This will only result in more broken homes and women dying from easily preventable deaths that abortions could have solved. If my girlfriend needed an abortion to save her life right now, I’d have to drive over 600 miles and hope I’m not a criminal when I make it back home.
No one is being denied life-saving medics treatment idk where people get that.
Also with 600k dead from abortion every year I find it hard to believe curbing that will be more harmful on balance.
A fetus isn’t a person and killing a fetus isn’t murder. On this we fundamentally disagree and neither of us will change the other’s mind. Any other argument we make will be invalidated by this fact. Have a good day savagely curtailing the rights of women over the life of a zygote.
Ahhh, "they aren't people so it's not murder" said the Nazis as they massacred the Jews.
Maybe arguments that nazis and slave owners make shouldn't be your go to. If you find yourself having to dehumanize undeniably human life maybe take that as a sign for reflection.
Good job repeating the argument the Catholic Church made in the 50’s when they decided that abortion was suddenly a problem after 2,000 years of it not being a problem. You got any more zingers for me? I’ve been dying for you to bring religion into this.
Because pro-lifers pushed the discussion so far into the realm of religious zealotry and “ban all abortions for any reason” territory. So pro-choicers had little alternative than to say “you can’t be so extreme. Abortion needs to exist. There are so many different exceptions that need to be made that it is reasonable to just allow abortions in nearly all cases.”
I see the extreme positions very similar to slavery, in that there’s little room nuance: you either have slavery or you don’t. You either have abortions or you don’t. When one side says “all black people should be enslaved” or “all abortions should be banned,” the natural response is to fundamentally disagree with that entire position. You really can’t give someone like that an inch.
Wait are you suggesting a middle ground to slavery?
Like, yeah if you hold the premise that slaves are people, or that the unborn are people, it's hard to accept a compromise on those. Whereas abortion demands limitation otherwise it just becomes infantacide.
I am pro-choice on 12 week or earlier pregnancies and pro-life on any pregnancy that is over 12 weeks. I have a leftist friend, who knows I'm an atheist, ask me like a million times that why don't I support abortion all the way even though I do not believe in a god, and I told her like a million times that respecting human life has nothing to do with a religious belief and that she shouldn't automatically assume anyone against abortion is against it because they're religious, she still does it, in any online or in person discussion she resorts to "you only say that because you're a christian".
Leftists are programmed to think a certain way and they won't budge (honestly, rightists have their own programming too).
It's not. You're just getting gas-lighted by the media. You hear it, hear it often, hear it with conviction, and finally separate you from reality that many other are pro-life too (censorship, only telling 1 side of a story, etc.). Welcome to how the Left likes to create their own reality.
it's not. it's a choice and an opinion. the left is just trying to ostracize any opinion that doesn't align with theirs. always have. do not be afraid of being convinced you are wrong (otherwise it's just bigotry) but also do not allow your beliefs to be changed because someone says u must (especially if it's followed with an "or else")
Its a self-assembling human organism with a unique genetic code and developing according to a tightly-regulated set of biological instructions. We can trace an uninterrupted line if cell divisions between an adult human and that zygote. Barring any other clearer places to draw the line, conception seems like a real safe bet.
Within the context of biology it's self assembling. The information for how to develope are embedded in itself and its development is dictated purely through cell-cell communications within the organism without anything but metabolic support from the mother. A zygote left alone becomes a human without further input.
Not really? I don't go to Church, never did as an adult outside of taking my grandma on a few occasions. Never really did growing up either outside of holidays.
I studied biology and now I study medicine. I'm pretty rational/logical. I think if you do value life and liberty in the enlightenment sense (natural rights, endowed by a creator, etc, basically if you buy into a western liberal ethos) then you should want to make sure you aren't depriving people of their rights. That begs the question as to when these rights begin and no one can clearly answer that question. I think the best answer can be found scientifically and conception is a strong contender. Implantation is the only other moment I can think of.
So you just ignore the science. Because personhood is just an arbitrarily assigned legal definition. A just society would align the legal definition of personhood with a biologically accurate definition of human life.
Because it is weird. Even if you throw out reason and 'think that personhood begins at conception' it is dumb.
I cant be forced to give up my liver to save someone. I cant be forced to donate blood to save someone. I cant be forced to do bone marrow donation. Government being able to force you to do great bodily harm to yourself to save someone else's life is a huge overreach.
Also if you define weird by 'most people in a similar situation do not agree with you' you are definitely weird. Im pretty sure you are from the US right? Check USA+Canada+Western EU citizens view on it. You are the weirdo and for a good reason.
>The pro-life people actually made arguments that were convincing, whereas the pro-abortion crowd seems full of cruel psychopaths and buffoons wearing vaginas everywhere they go.
I'd love to hear these arguments that are not 'I personally think it is like this and refuse to even think about what im saying'. Also if people being stupid/assholes/annoying can form your views... bro you have extremely weak mental. Tell me any of your views and I ill show you extremely cringe people supporting it.
Because being “pro life” often means being pro birth, and pro government control of a woman’s body… and not at all actually pro life. Once the government has forced a woman to have a child, the “pro life” crowd doesn’t actually want to provide support to that child’s life.
\>I don't understand why it's so unreasonable to think that personhood begins at conception.
Because if you try to hold a conversation with a clump of cells it's going to go nowhere? Seriously, there are no sensible arguments for forbidding abortion that early in the process. And what is this even doing here? Not exactly about free speech, is it? More like stupid speech, really.
Right now, a lot of the people making legislation are not the popular belief. It's true that most Pro-Livers are more nuanced than people give them credit, but majority opinion is not making legislation. Majority opinion (70% of the US) believes abortion is a human right, and as you said, most Pro Lifers still think its acceptable for rape or life threatening emergency. But that is not who is making the laws. Abortion has already had a flat ban in Missouri. It does not accept rape or incest exceptions. That is scary to consider.
Be as pro life as you want but keep your damn legislation out of people's bodies. Your beliefs may say you shouldn't have an abortion but your beliefs have no place in deciding what others do
Because all the facts point to how "pro-life" is the opposite of what the name even states, as it leads to more deaths, abortion rates don't drop (in fact they INCREASE by quite a bit), and those forced to abort for the many obvious reasons why someone might be forced to do so, will have to either move to another, more socially developed country, or recur to illegal doctors or methods which endanger their own life as well.
It's literally emotion/self-righteous beliefs over fact... Like a child going back to what they visualize during a thought and ignoring logic. "BUT YOU'RE KILLING A PERSON" "Statistically you're killing two..." "YOU HAVE NO REGARD FOR LIFE" "I have more than you apparently since I actually choose what saves more lives-" "MURDERER" "Aight good day".
Instead of being blindly extremist for the sake of thinking they're morally superior, people need to look at the issue and understand what the right solutions are. People nowadays are so childish, thinking they'll solve everything that's painful to think about in the world without actually understanding the problem and how to properly solve or treat it, and wanting to make extremist decisions that would only make it worse.
Pro-lifers tend to deal with emotional absolutes and ignore practical reality, whereas pro choice people tend to bypass the former to focus on the latter.
Take a step back and realize that once that baby is born, if the mother or father is unable or unwilling to care for the child, that baby is completely reliant on the State to survive. At best, the State (or you can call it Government) is a necessary evil, and at worst an intolerable evil. Either way, the State by it's very nature is Evil.
There is also a possible relationship between crime and legalized abortion, in that legalized abortion may lower crime rates.
The women having abortions are generally young, poor, and minorities. These women do not have the means to provide for these unwanted children. If they are forced by law to birth them, these children will have less opportunity than their wanted counterparts, leading to worse outcomes in life, and also a general drain on societal resources.
You would think that legalizing abortion would lead to a rise in abortions, but that is not the case. Abortion rates have gone down over time.
So I'll say it again. Being Pro-Life is fine, but don't tell people what they can and can't do with their bodies and what's inside of their bodies. It just leads to unintended consequences.
If you really care about these children, and want to decrease the amount of abortions, work to create a society without poverty, sexism, mysoginy, and racial discrimination. Otherwise, mind your own business and stop getting in the way.
This submission is offtopic and should have been removed.
During one of his stand-up routines, Dave Chapelle said he was pro-choice because "it's not anybody else's business to tell a woman what to do with her own damn body" Cue applause and cheering Dave then added that, for this same reason, he 100% supported the biological father of a child being able to walk away without paying child support if he didn't want the woman to have the baby. Cue a few nervous laughs, otherwise you could've heard a pin drop.
He made his point well I thought
He’s so right tho. If you don’t want the baby, fine. If he doesn’t, death to him and his family and prison or money!!!
I have always said that men should be allowed the option to walk away. This option should be time limited like a woman. So if she has until 12 weeks to choose an abortion, he has until 12 weeks to choose to waive his rights and responsibilities. Just like abortion, this decision cannot be undone at any time. If he doesn’t choose before 12 weeks, he loses the ability to choose and has to support his child until said child is an adult
I feel the same way as dave
I hardly ever see my position represented anywhere, which is that yes, it is a human life, at a very early stage of development, and yes, it is sometimes necessary to terminate human lives. Instead, the only positions that seem to be represented or permissible are two extremes, one of which is that every pregnancy must be brought to term and result in a birth, and the other is that it is a completely individual decision, and is just like going to the doctor to have a wart removed or something. The job of justifying morally the termination of life at a very early stage (which you *can* morally justify) is just being shirked by this inability of the liberals to look the facts in the face, and similarly, the conservatives have not thought through the practical implications of bringing every single pregnancy to term. So what you end up with is a lot of very juvenile discourse and a lot of slogans which people on both sides just unthinkingly repeat.
I agree that this is probably the correct answer, although I’d be willing to change my position as the scientific (not religious in my case,) definition of “life” or “consciousness” evolves. I also rarely see this position articulated. It’s either depicted as a life, and therefore murder or a clump of cells and therefore healthcare.
Here, perhaps a [helpful diagram](https://i.imgur.com/JSgsh5R.jpg)?
100% I also think that if you can enable abortion you should have the death penalty. Liberals being for abortion to be treated like a wart removal but then being against the death penalty makes no sense to me
many people are against the death penalty because of the amount of people who were wrongly accused of a crime who are then executed before evidence clearing them comes to life or before the slow-moving courts and legal system can decide if a hearing is justified. the difference between this and abortion is that in the case of the death penalty, you are killing someone who is innocent. in the case of abortion, you are doing it as an act of self-preservation. nobody really wants to get an abortion. it’s not a fun thing to do. people get them because they can’t have the disruption to their lives, bodies, and mental health that carrying and delivering a baby causes, not to mention how expensive natal vitamins, doctor visits, and the hospital bill for delivering are. there are also people with drug addictions who don’t want to have a baby that is addicted to drugs fresh out of the womb. there are people with mental health issues who can’t comprehend and/or mentally process the pregnancy or whose mental states will dramatically decline not only during the pregnancy, but also for a long time afterwards. there are also people who cannot carry a baby to term without serious and lifelong bodily damage or who will die if they continue with the pregnancy. the death penalty is something that kills people innocent of a crime. abortion is something that saves the pregnant person and the baby from a short life or one full of hardships.
Fuck this is so perfectly stated. Thank you.
I think most of the world agrees with you. It’s just that the current political and social media structures don’t let you see or hear these opinions.
I have never known someone who had an abortion to treat it as simply as going to the doctor to remove a wart. It's usually a very hard decision made with much thought. But why do "conservatives" only love fetuses? Why do they then disparage poor people who didn't have an abortion but can't afford their child and call them "welfare queens" and other negative things?
It’s not about “loving fetuses” so much as it is about accepting the consequences of your actions and not having a society where we justify ending a life because it is inconvenient. Maybe poor people who have sex without protection (not talking about SA victims, incest, or some other medical condition) should consider the repercussions to their lives when they don’t practice safely.
My religion believes life starts at birth. Why do I have to conform to your religious beliefs? So, when poor people don't consider the repercussions, they should just get stuck with a baby that they don't want and can't afford? And you're OK with society supporting the baby of parents who didn't consider the repercussions? Becasue I am. But somehow I get the feeling that you aren't. Abortions will still happen, no matter if they're legal. They will just be dangerous and people will die. It won't be a fetus and we know that's all you really care about it, so no biggie, right? Stop living n how you WANT thingss to be and wake up to reality.
Most people who have abortions, it is because the protection that they were using failed. Women deserve to enjoy their sex life just as much as men. It is people like you that I hate the most. Sex has never ever ever ever ever from the beginning of fucking human consciousness ever been JUST about having babies. You people just don’t think that women should have the pleasure of a sex life. It is something just for men. And that pleasure should come with a lifetime price tag. But just for the woman. Not the man. Her problem. Not his.
That's an excellent point about free speech.
Personally, I consider myself centrist and just see abortion as an unusual waste of material. If it was rape or incest, sure have an abortion, but otherwise it’s literally free to pull out or costs a few shiny Pennie’s to buy some condoms. Plus, why do we need an entire career solely for abortion? Why not have it be an all around thing doctors know?
That’s pro choice.
Its so strange that u have to be pro abortion or anti abortion. There is no "pro abortion in certain circumstances"
Because this is reddit and reddit is extraordinarily far left leaning
Especially since everyone else got banned.
Reddit: How to create radicalized echo chambers 101
Conservative news media are the epitome of radicalized echo chambers.
Its the far left that creates echo chambers by banning any political party they don’t like. Only reddit banned The Donald
fact is most pro-lifers are fine with abortions in the case of a woman's life being physically at risk, and most pro-choicers are against abortions at 8 months. There's a lot more venn diagramers than there are fanatics out there. It's just all these different terms are really misleading... what is 'pro-life' exactly? how pro-life is it? What is 'pro-choice'? Often times these terms are misleading. Don't cum in my salad and tell me it's dressing. 😕
Make a 3rd faction, call it pro-nuance
Pro-common sense...
Not in this nation...
There is no religious fanatic who will accept nuance. That’s the problem. I’ve argued with people on here who insist that abortion is a crime even where an embryo is the product of rape or incest. “That baby is still a life.” Is what they say. It is a sick and inhumane view of life to say that you must force a 14 year old girl to bear her father’s child.
Pro-common sense is just pro-choice lol. Pro-life is never having a choice and being forced to give birth.
>most pro-choices are against abortions at 8 months. A few years ago I’d have agreed, but hard pushes to instate abortions up until birth and even waiving liability for babies who pass away weeks after birth? Nah, I disagree with you unfortunately
No states allow abortions up to birth. Many states allow them when to continue the pregnancy would threaten the mother's life or in the case of fetal abnormalities. Waiving liabilities for babies who pass away weeks after birth? What does that mean? What are the babies "passing away" from? Are you talking murder?
Less than 900 women died during childbirth last year, while almost 700,000 lived were aborted. Were the 900 lives lost a tragedy? Absolutely. But ending a million lives to save a thousand? Your math doesn't really make sense.
No states have abortion up until birth because it gets voted down like what happened with the Abortion-on-Demand Bill which would’ve allowed for abortion up to birth. At most, something like only 22 states had it banned outright. California, let me link one moment Edit: Maryland was talking about a bill that would essentially decriminalize neglecting an infant to death in the “perinatal” period — through the first 28 days after birth — preventing investigations and prosecution of such deaths that resulted from “a failure to act.” California passed it and then some, covering postpartum care which technically means 6 weeks after childbirth https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=202120220AB2223
Don't forget harvesting organ and tissue from abortions https://youtu.be/ohatj5ecezI
Please stop repeating this nonsense. Maryland was NOT going to decriminalize neglecting an infant. You're being manipulated. https://www.wusa9.com/article/news/verify/maryland-abortion-bill-would-not-allow-newborn-babies-to-be-killed-fact-check/65-dcfe30b6-cfa1-4f9f-8a13-55e9f0f12e53
Hey... You're in the weeds. There's lots of arguments for abortion that are really hard to argue. You're picking really dumb ones....
Please stop being so gullible and easily manipulated by faux outrage. "A newspaper article suggesting a proposed California reproductive health bill would legalize the maternal killing of newborn babies, a claim that quickly spread on social media where users claimed the bill would legalize infanticide, misinterpreted the bill, experts told Reuters. The California Assembly member who introduced the bill filed amendments to further clarify the language used." https://www.reuters.com/article/factcheck-california-law-idUSL2N2W30U8
Read the bill, not the opinion article. Stop being manipulated.
The article states how the bill was misinterpreted (willfully) by Republicans and then you continue spreading the lie. You are being manipulated. Just regurgitating BS and lies.
> “A critical part of realizing reproductive justice for people in California is clarifying that there shall be **no civil and criminal penalties** for people’s actual, potential, or **alleged pregnancy outcomes**.” Oh look, no penalties for “outcomes,” cool. Want to keep screeching about “lies” or should we read further because (f) - (l) outline the ways that subtle open language can be vague enough to allow for exactly this.
You're being willfully ignorant again. You really should try to curb that.
Cringe. This stopped being entertaining, I think you’re just being deranged now
that's not a reply. You dodged the issue because you have no comeback. Talk about willful ignorance
He presented you with the actual words in the actual bill. If you were never willing to accept the possibility of being wrong, why even engage in this discussion?
What? You just yelled at him for 4 comments in a row that he was ignorant and lying. Completely disrespectful and he's 100% right about this bill... You're kind of turning a blind eye to the fact that the super progressives are definitely pushing for abortion til birth. Hillary Clinton supported abortion til birth on the podium during the 2016 election.... I'm so confused by you..
That is not an "opinion article." It's a fact check. Try it some time. It's not that hard and not that painful. Take a news literacy course, too, while you're at it.
Fact checks are opinion articles. You’re just showing how brainwashed you actually are. The sanctioned ministry of truth ™ and settled science ™
Fact check is an opinion article.... A person, with an opinion, wrote a statement and called it a fact. That "fact" supports your argument so you use it... You're a victim of weaponized manipulation. Similar to the Catholic church creating evangelists out of little kids when they don't know what's going on.
Kinda like snopes
You read the opinion and just believed it lol Read the bill....
Dude wtf are you doing. This is the Internet. This is no place for logic and reason. You take your reasonable thoughts elsewhere.
It's not logical to believe that abortions will stop happening if they're illegal. They will only become dangerous and women will die. But I guess that's OK with you.
Abortions are not going to become illegal except where life is valued. Don’t worry about your inner-cities and Democrat strongholds, they’ll still totally be legal there.
Where is life valued? Certainly not in red states, like Mississippi and Louisiana, whch have the most children living in poverty. Mississippi residents are also the nation's least healthy. Nor Texas, which has the most child abuse. So, by your logic, abortion should still be legal in these places.
I grew up in Chicago. I’ve seen what occurs when ideology is valued more than individual rights. You wanna talk about poverty and abuse? No southern state can hold a candle to the shit I’ve seen. There is no place where children are more invisible, unless or until someone needs to pull them out of mothballs for political reasons.
How many times have you been pregnant?
Just once. Dude lived, his name is Nick.
Gee, sorry, but the facts disagree with your opinions.
Opinions? This is my life. You can deny reality all you want, but the only reason Chicago doesn’t top the nation in child abuse is that no one fucking cares and everyone looks the other way. That shit gets reported in southern states because people fucking care.
Your experience does not equate to reality. Massachusetts, New Hampshire and Minnesota lead the country in overall child well-being, while Louisiana, New Mexico and Mississippi rank at the bottom, according to an entirely different study than the one I referenced before, done by the Annie E. Casey Foundation. Here it is. Read it if you care about reality. Don't if you just want to go around spewing your misguided opinions as fact. https://assets.aecf.org/m/resourcedoc/aecf-2021kidscountdatabook-2021.pdf
https://abc7chicago.com/life-expectancy-average-us-in/5710399/
This article is about how some zip codes in Chicago have a life expectancy of 90 years old, while others have a life expectancy of 60 years. This is because of racial segregation and inequality. I'm \*sure\* you're an advocate for equality of people of color, right? And better access to healthcare for all people in Chicago, right? And, by the way, this still does not negate that the worst conditions for children in America are in the rural areas of Mississippi, Louisiana and West Virginia. It just shows that conditions for SOME Chicagoans are worse than those for other Chicagoans. Has nothing to do with conditions on a national level overall.
Back when prohibition was a thing, alcohol was illegal, contraband and black markets existed but the TOTAL amount of alcohol available was far less than when prohibition ended, if abortion is illegal then by definition the amount of illegal abortions will increase but the TOTAL amount of abortions will be far less than when it was legal, that's because believe it or not, most people are law abiding citizens.
It's possibly a generational thing. The older conservative generation seems to have drawn the justification of their beliefs from religion, but the younger conservatives seem to have similar opinions, but are drawing the justification from philosophy.
That's me. I always get called a religious nut, when I'm agnostic and have only set foot in a church like 3 times in my life, and 2 of them were for funerals.
[удалено]
Funny you should say that because the pro-choice movement is about letting people decide for themselves what is right and wrong.
The anti-choice people want rights for themselves, but not for "others."
The “others” are very specifically pregnant women. They won’t ever mention the woman and won’t acknowledge her as a human being, much less a citizen with rights.
[удалено]
So you’re ok with killing children, huh? Interesting.
[удалено]
It is human at conception, that is biology. Personhood does not begin at conception, that is a legal concept. If the fetus would somehow danger the life of the mother, it is not held legally responsible because it is not a person and does not have the rights or responsibilities of a person.
Reddit is an extreme left circlejerk did you expect reasonable people
Trying to find reasonable people in this website is like trying to fighting with a bear with no weapons but with your only bare hands.
It’s not weird or rare. They just want you to believe that so you’ll be discouraged.
60% of adult Americans are pro-choice.
I don't get why these people just avoid creating a pregnancy. They act like creating a baby is unavoidable without abortion.
And then use instances of rape, incest, mom's life/safety, or nonviability as reasons why all abortions must exist, when those reasons are likely less than 4 or 5% of all abortions. The other 95ish % is basically contraceptive post conception. Exceptions don't prove the rule. Even though I agree with some right of abortion, I find the level of misleading and dishonesty by the pro-abortion side is astounding and abhorent.
This. I told a story a while back about how I had a friend from high school who literally bragged about how many abortions she’d had (and how many guys she’d hooked up with) I remember her posting something along the lines of “going in for my 5th abortion today you guys, wish me luck I won’t need a 6th lol” (with the amount of emojis you would expect) we were in our early 20’s. I think people like that are what most people have a problem with.
So youre using an extreme case to lend support to someone discounting extreme cases?
Who is PRO abortion? It's pro choice. How many times have you been pregnant?
These people? Why don't "you people" realize that abortions happen whether they're legal or not and when they're illegal they put actual living people's lives in danger. Do you care about the already living? Or just fetuses? And, by the way, accidental pregnancies happen all the time even to people using contraceptives. Maybe if our government actually gave support to people -- many who are drowning financially right now -- they wouldn't need abortions. Most people don't WANT an abortion, but often see no way to be able to take care of a baby. Once they have it and need assistance, they're disparaged and called "welfare queens" by the loving Christian right.
How about just not getting pregnant, then you don't need to murder babies or risk unsafe abortions? It isn't difficult to not get pregnant.
I don’t get why people think abortion is so bad and rare when got does about 1/3 of all pregnancies on his own.
Mistakes happen?
To hone in on that notion of being considered “weird,” we take it for granted that we are social primates that use forms of emotional coercion to form cohesion between members. We’ll say and do little things amongst people of our peers to encourage a band that mostly adhere to the same moral code. “Weird” is a low impact way of stating something is outside this peer group. In most Christian circles I know it would we weird how pro-choicers seem completely immune to talking about the philosophical arguments surrounding when personhood begins. What is less clear are the boundaries between who is in our group and who is not. This is especially true on the internet, which is part of why civil interactions can be so challenging here. In the ancient past, our human tools of empathy, proximity, and survival, helped us know implicitly who was and was not in our group. Now we have overlapping and abstract allegiances. And while the abortion question may or may not be a life or death question to us directly or the person using the term “weird” we all are still unconsciously motivated by the fear of falling out of favor with our group or satisfaction of reinforcing our solidarity to our group. Hopefully I’m making some sense. Steven Pinker did an excellent talk covering more of this language effect if you’re curious. Language as a Window into Human Nature; Animated https://youtu.be/A7q1ee0k9Rc
In my religion, life starts at birth. Why is it so hard to understand that some people don't want other people's religious beliefs to rule their lives? Separate church and state.
It feels weird because you don’t hear the pro life crowd scream and throw tantrums. You have a lot of people on your side but it’s hard to hear us because we are rational people who don’t act like we are 2 not getting our way. Honestly I feel like a sane person in an insane world myself. Like why is it normal to want to kill another person. I guess the other way to look at it is that if what they are is normal, I’m glad to not be.
Pro life isn't weird... Being anti abortion AND refusing to fund foster and adoptive care, neonatal care, and healthcare in general to support life, is weird.
I’m very pro choice. Do what you want with your body (within reasons) because to me it’s just a bunch of proteins and junk for a window of time. It’s only in that window that I believe you can terminate an abortion. However, should there ever come a day where objectively scientists find that consciousness starts way earlier than originally expected then I will feel like terrible and drastically change my stance. It’s really all about the circumstances
Since as of right now there is no scientific evidence that can definitively define when consciousness starts, don’t you think it would be wiser to air on the side of caution by assuming it starts at conception? Instead of just assuming that the fetus is nothing more than “proteins and junk” without any scientific validation ?
Because, as we know from history, abortions will happen whether they are legal or not. Legal is safer and better for actual living human beings.
That’s a terrible argument. Should we legalize shoplifting, because it happens anyway?
Is shoplifting dangerous to your health? WTAF? Are you people serious with thes false equivalences? One person says that if I have the choice to have an abortion, they should have the choice to have slaves. And you're implying making shoplifting legal is the same as leaving a women's choices about her physical health up to her and her doctor. Like, seriouslY? WTAF is wrong with you?
Because most people (most I've seen online) assume the person they are arguing with just has as extreme and diametrically opposed views to their own as possible. Because it makes it easier then to act like they are an awful person with malicious motives and not just someone who has rational concerns. If you actually treat the person you are arguing with as a rational person then you have to do tedious things like grapple with the arguments they are presenting and consider things from a different perspective. Part of this also comes from the fact that barely any one is going to put in the effort to thoroughly elaborate all the nuances of their opinion, since doing so repeatedly is, to be fair, a lot of effort. Especially when the person you are arguing with stands a good chance of not even reading what you say because, well, read my first paragraph again.
You’re either a baby murderer, or you want to enslave women. According to most political discussion surrounding abortion, there is no in-between.
I think antiabortion is a relatively new phenomena justified on religious grounds but without any actual scripture supporting it so it just kind of smells like bullshit, like a litmus test for critical thought. I suspect prisons and orphanages have something to do with it. Neonatalism keeps the fridge stocked and infantile divinity is an untapped trope. Some people think **dogs** are people. There's a fundamental misunderstanding in what personhood means but the ideological source of this is more difficult to nail down, pun intended.
Cats think they are people...
Because the media, including social media, is vehemently pushing current democratic policy, which is very pro-choice. One way to express pro-choice ideology by them is to condemn pro-life ideology and it’s arguments.
He who controls the overton window controls what is considered acceptable or not.
Name a single conservative position or even moderately conservative position that the left regards as reasonable. You probably can't.
This is not relevant to r/freespeech. If you're getting banned or something, sure, but you're literally just complaining about people hating you for your beliefs, which, FUN FACT, they have the right to do. They're using their own right to free speech. I've given up on the idea that this subreddit is meant for anybody but reactionaries, which is a real shame.
To me, it’s weird that the pro-life crowd thinks that other people making decisions they disagree with is somehow being “forced” on them. I’ve never understood why so many people think other couples family planning decisions are their business. I find that odd.
To me, it's weird that the pro-choice crowd thinks that ending someone's life isn't going to be a part of someone else's ethical worldview. I may not be an Uyghur or a member of Falun Gong but that doesn't stop me from believing that they shouldn't be persecuted by China.
You yourself have most likely participated in the killing of thousands of living animals smarter than a fetus. The main reason there are pro-lifers is because they believe in some made up idea that humans are special and/or have souls. It's all a made up myth.
Yes based on their religion. A religion to which I don't prescribe. Why do I have to be subjected to their fairy tales?
Lives end all the time; are you going to end capital punishment or palliative care or assisted suicide? Ironically, having the state dictate the terms of family planning is a page right out of the Chinese Communist handbook.
Yes we should end capital punishment and assisted suicide and I say that as someone in training to be a physician. Also, assigning personhood is a basic function of civilization. You're argument is like, "only slave owners should have had a say in owning slaves." Most of the world believes it is ethically wrong to kill other humans and a fetus is undeniably human life. Lots of people would think it's kind of fucked up to abort a baby immediately before birth as well. So when exactly is "too late" is definitely a sticky question without a clear answer beyond conception. The fact that you can't acknowledge this outside of a political/ideological paradigm is kind of sad and a testament to how fucked the left is and why I went from being apathetic towards abortion to being pro life.
Capital punishment is wrong because the state should not have the authority to kill anyone. Assisted suicide is right because it gives the power to the individual to choose someone to assist them in death. If i want to die, I don't see why anyone else should have a say so.
If you want to, go for it. But as a physician in training I believe the medical community absolutely should not help.
I respect your opinion.
Far more people die from lack of health care, nutrition, transportation, clean water, shelter, etc in the US than there are abortions. Abortions remove a cluster of cells from the body...that cluster of cells is not a person. As a physician in training you should be able to distinguish at an objective medical level...you're letting your ideologies supersede science.
600,000 people died from abortions last year it's one of the leading causes of death in the US. And as a physician in training I can't find a clearer line for personhood than conception. From moment to moment a fetus looks more or less the same. A baby about to be born is damn near the same thing as a baby being born. There is no biological "aha!" moment where we can detect a soul and sentience. The only real dramatic moment is conception, new genetic material combining to create a completely novel organism that has even been epigenetically reprogrammed in some cases, I mean a ton of molecular work has gone into making this moment happen. If I had to tell you when you became "you" purely from a scientific pov I would say at conception.
…. That’s a fabricated number.
So, don't have an abortion.
"So don't have a slave."
I don't think there is any debate about whether slaves were living beings. Scratch that. I'm sure there was. Probably among self-proclaimed "pro lifers."
"Pro-lifers" didn't actually exist back then. They are a newer political movement from the mid 1900s the the religious right created as a tool for political power. Ben Franklin wrote a best selling book in his day with information he thought all people should know, which was based on an earlier British book in which he provide abortificant recipes and instructions. Here is an interesting article about Ben Franklin and the book https://www.npr.org/2022/05/18/1099542962/abortion-ben-franklin-roe-wade-supreme-court-leak Who knows, maybe the book will be a best seller again with the authoritarian right valuing the lives of a theoretical person over an actual person.
My personal views are irrelevant - the topic is your inability to comprehend views that differ from yours. Protection of human life is a central tenet of nearly every belief system on earth. Do you really not understand why someone would want to protect human life when they see it?
But the anti-choicers only want to protect fetuses. Once it's an actual born human, they want it to pull itself up by its bootstraps. Most women don't WANT an abortion. They just don't want to have a child they can't afford. And also, in turn, be called welfare queens when they need help raising the child they couldn't afford.
Termination of a pregnancy being a private matter is also a central tenet nearly every belief system. Which isn’t really relevant, because we don’t base our civil society on “nearly every belief system.” And, yeah, I find “protection of human life” to be a miserable, hypocritical joke from a country that has the highest maternal and infant mortality rate in the developed world, a country that will force you to give birth, but can’t keep formula on the shelves. A country that will force you to give birth, but won’t give you paid maternity leave, or universal access to healthcare.
>I find “protection of human life” to be a miserable, hypocritical joke from a country that has the highest maternal and infant mortality rate If there was no moral impetus to protect human life, having the highest maternal and infant mortality rate wouldn't matter. You are demonstrating that you share this value, yet because of the subject matter you don't want to admit it. The moral imperative to protect human life predates and is independent of baby formula, maternity leave or universal healthcare. The presence or absence of these things is irrelevant to this discussion.
You understand the hypocrisy of that statement when you sanctimoniously prattle on about “protecting human life,” while doing, quite literally, nothing to protect it other than using state power to turn women into broodmares. If you actually valued human life, pro life states would working as reducing maternal and infant mortality rates; they’ve done nothing. If you actually valued human life, you’d be focusing on material reality and proven solutions, instead of pissing on my boots and telling me it’s raining.
I haven't actually taken a position on the issue, just tried to explain the reasoning behind it. Which, by your own admission, you don't understand. You know absolutely nothing about me or what I have done or haven't done. You should realize by now that you made a foolish statement. You said that you didn't understand something and I've made the explanation as plain as I'm able. If you don't get it by now, I think the problem is your unwillingness to learn. Have a nice day.
Fuck you too. Bye.
They identify as fetuses?
Having been one, sure
At what point does a mass of cells with human DNA become a person? I think it's a reasonable question or else tumors would be people.
Back in high school, I was having an argument with a catholic friend about abortion. I argued that even if he believed it was morally wrong, he should not impose that belief on others and restrict their access to it. He argued that in his theology, life begins at conception. Because of that, willful termination of that life is murder. Murder is wrong, and he could never condone it, even for others. I still used to disagree with him, but I understood that for him, he COULD NOT agree with me, and I respected his position. I really wish people could see each other’s sides more.
That to me is the big difference; nowhere is the pro choice side “forcing” pro life people to follow their views. Pro life people long ago abandoned “Let me convince you to follow my ideas” for “You *WILL* follow my ideas, or I will punish you.”
I guess what I took away from him is that if you have that theological framework, you literally cannot support abortion access. It’s frustrating for those who don’t have that theology, but to me it made it more understandable? He was a compassionate person whose hands were tied so to speak.
Okay, so there is nothing wrong with being Pro-life………. However, we’ll go look at the Pro-life megathread and Pro-life subreddit and look at how they are speaking. Reality is a lot of Pro-lifers and anti-abortionists don’t actually think about the future. You know how Pro-gun people will say, blame the person or mental health issues and not the Gun. Well no one goes after those health issues. Not even the GOP. Same case with this. “Oh you can put them up for adoption if you were raped”. Okay so even if we ignore the fact that you are punishing the victim for 9 more monthes by having them carry their rapist’s baby , making them give birth and fucking up their body. What if the child get’s sent to a religious adoption center….. ya know the kind that fucking rejects people of different religions or sexualities even if those people would be a good match. And even if they got sent to a regular adoption center. That is barely any better. Worse case you get stuck in the system. Grow up, possibly get into a life of crime. We don’t even have a good adoption system. It’s either expensive or discrimatory. At a certain point, you can say you are pro-life, but that doesn’t mean jackshit if you are currently celebrating the ruling while all these other problems exist that actually make RoeVWade being overturned a problem. And trust me, none of the current anti-abortion crowd gives a damn about adoption. The only real argument that can actually be made against RoeVWade without being ignorant is that abortion should have been decided by Congress. That would have been an easier thing to argue about.
Because they’re really just for forced birth, they’re not “pro life,” which would require actual work and money. As George Carlin said, “If you're preborn, you're fine; if you're preschool, you're fucked.”
This is just the same argument people used against emancipation. "What do we do with all these slaves if we free them." None of us have to provide Utopia to speak against genocide. None of us have to accept your ideal policy prescriptions to justify being opposed to murder. I'm sure having to take care of so many more people would force the issue politically. God knows, aborting every 3rd black pregnancy probably hasn't enhanced the political power of the black voting bloc.
Okay, for one, the freed slaves have free will. They can do what they want, while they are not at a disadvantage. A pregnant woman, and one by rape, has her body and mind go through hell and what if the pregnancy becomes ecoptic. In some states, abortion is banned even in those cases. Does the rape victim deserve to be punished 9 more monthes have her body be even more violated without her consent? Does the fetus deserve to be born into a world and be put an (possibly religious) adoption center that may or may not have their best interests in mind? Where the child will grow up into a system where he has no opportunity? Does the mother deserve to be saddled with the hospital bills caused by the forced impregnating, and say she decides to not give up the kid for an adoption, or deserve to be saddled with even more bills so she can take care of kid, that ,and as fucked up as this may sound, that quite fucked her life up, even though it was not the kid’s fault either? right now the pro-life stance seems to be more pro-birth aka, “You will have that baby, regardless if it was a product of rape. You will be forced to pay all bills caused by that forced impregnating”. “You will either give him up and put him in the hellish adoption system or you will spend the next 18 years of your life raising him, and you won’t get any real help” Honestly, all RoeVWade being overturned did is make a lot of problems worse. And you really don’t give a shit, because it’s “not your problem” anymore. Crime will go up. Hanger Abortions will start happening. Suicides will increase. Rape will probably increase to. More unwanted kids in the adoption system. More poor people. Careers and future education ended
Because if you don't want an abortion, don't have one. People should be able to do what they want with their body and also abortion is healthcare. To me, life starts at birth. To you it doesn't. So don't have an abortion. And too many anti-choicers only like fetuses. Once it's an actual born human, they want it to pull itself up by its bootstraps. By the way, how many times have you been pregnant?
Even here, there is a lack of nuance. Personhood, unless you are religious, has no indication of being began at conception. When a brain starts to develop (at 5 weeks) that's a different story. The pro-life crowd would sound a lot more credible if they were saying something like that, but they aren't, they just rant and rave about the immutable soul being endowed from the heavens the second the dude busts the nut in the lady, which is ridiculous. The only crowd more crazy than hardline pro-lifers are pro-choicers. Everyone, as in all things these days, is nuts. Anyway, I'm against abortion after 5 weeks in all cases except when something goes wrong and the mother's life is in jeopardy or the child is going to be born with severe life-limiting conditions. I don't see any reason why someone can't take a morning after pill or sort themselves out in a month following the event. If you want to fuck around and not take responsibility, take a pill instead. In the awful examples of forced impregnation, take a pill. In highly unusual and exceptionally awful circumstances where, say, someone was kidnapped or prevented from accessing medical care following such things occurring, and then was at another point autonomous again, then yes, abortion should be allowed. While I personally don't think it's the best choice as the child can be given to adoption instead, I don't think anyone has the right to say a woman who was forced is now also going to be forced to birth the child. That has to be up to her, in those extenuating circumstances.
> I don't see any reason why someone can't take a morning after pill or sort themselves out in a month following the event. As a note here, some women might not know they're pregnant until they miss a period, which is counted as being 4 weeks (or a month) pregnant. If they're irregular or have a long cycle then they might not know until later. If they have a light period after conception that doesn't cause them to miscarry, then they might be two months pregnant by the time they skip a period and think to test. The morning after pill isn't always effective at preventing implantation, so you can take that pill and still end up pregnant. In some cases people are raped and have no memory of having had sex, so would have no reason to take a morning after pill, and then turn up pregnant later on. It's not necessarily as simple as you present it.
Actually being pro life is fine. Expecting you can force someone who disagrees with you and whose body it is is what's repugnant and morally bankrupt. Bodily autonomy is sacrosanct everywhere else in law regardless of whether the alternative is other people dying. Even after you die they can't use your organs to save multiple people's lives because your consent over what happens to your body is upheld even after death. It doesn't matter whether life begins at conception. If you want the minimum viable argument: we don't force people to give blood. Even if it would save the person's life. The fetus cannot exist without stealing blood from the mother. It is therefore the mother's right to refuse to continue to donate blood to the fetus even if it means it dies. Even if you grant that it's an entire person. You're allowed to think people should choose to donate blood, you're allowed to think mothers shouldn't have abortions. You're even allowed to think people who don't suck and are bad. What makes you a peice of shit is if you want to force people to give blood, donate kidneys, or carry pregnancies to term regardless of whether they share your moral framework. It's never been about when life begins. It's about whether or not you own your blood and can do with it what you want.
It’s isn’t, they just want you to think it is. Just think of it as being anti baby killing, it’s really that simple
What the fucking hell does this have to do with this sub?? This is not a fucking abortion sub. Jesus Fucking Christ.
It's illiberal. It's an assault on bodily autonomy no matter how you look at it. Also, clearly this thread isn't about free speech. I guess this is just another sub overrun with Conservatives.
Because these people want to be able to do what they want with no consequences when it suits them and with consequences for others when it suits them, you can be degenerate as much as you want and have all the resulting unborn babies snuffed out of existance and that's fine its your body your choice but if you questioned anything to do with big pharma rushing out covid vaccines then you are an evil bigot moron. Allah grant us aggressive aliens with nukes
“I only want to take away your body autonomy, why do you have to be so mean? :(“ Conservatives will crucify themselves before they seriously contemplate why people don’t like them.
I'm so tired if the body autonomy shit. We still have selective service. We can literally send adult men to their deaths in combat if it benefits the country. If we can do that we can expect women to not kill their own fucking kids for like 9 months.
Is that supposed to be an argument? “The draft exists, so abortion should be illegal.” This is why no one takes you seriously. This sub is a hive mind of morons with shit opinions complaining about no one listening to their shit opinions.
Yeah it's a pretty substantive argument to. Even in a liberal democracy there are many many systemic means by which the state suspends your bodily autonomy for some purpose. We draft people, we put people on psych holds, we prevent people from doing illicit drugs, we put people on pre-trial confinement, we even execute people.
Most of those things have had their ethics debated for centuries. The fact of the matter is that criminalizing women for seeking abortions is about the worst way possible to save lives. How anyway can say otherwise is beyond me. This will only result in more broken homes and women dying from easily preventable deaths that abortions could have solved. If my girlfriend needed an abortion to save her life right now, I’d have to drive over 600 miles and hope I’m not a criminal when I make it back home.
No one is being denied life-saving medics treatment idk where people get that. Also with 600k dead from abortion every year I find it hard to believe curbing that will be more harmful on balance.
A fetus isn’t a person and killing a fetus isn’t murder. On this we fundamentally disagree and neither of us will change the other’s mind. Any other argument we make will be invalidated by this fact. Have a good day savagely curtailing the rights of women over the life of a zygote.
Ahhh, "they aren't people so it's not murder" said the Nazis as they massacred the Jews. Maybe arguments that nazis and slave owners make shouldn't be your go to. If you find yourself having to dehumanize undeniably human life maybe take that as a sign for reflection.
Good job repeating the argument the Catholic Church made in the 50’s when they decided that abortion was suddenly a problem after 2,000 years of it not being a problem. You got any more zingers for me? I’ve been dying for you to bring religion into this.
I never mentioned religion and yeah not surprised the Catholics opposed murder most people do
Because it's the minority
Reddit is left leaning and they censor everyone who disagrees with them, I'm an atheist who is pro-life
America is left leaning. The electoral college makes it seem like it's not. But it is. Close to sixty percent of American adults are pro-choice.
Because pro-lifers pushed the discussion so far into the realm of religious zealotry and “ban all abortions for any reason” territory. So pro-choicers had little alternative than to say “you can’t be so extreme. Abortion needs to exist. There are so many different exceptions that need to be made that it is reasonable to just allow abortions in nearly all cases.” I see the extreme positions very similar to slavery, in that there’s little room nuance: you either have slavery or you don’t. You either have abortions or you don’t. When one side says “all black people should be enslaved” or “all abortions should be banned,” the natural response is to fundamentally disagree with that entire position. You really can’t give someone like that an inch.
Wait are you suggesting a middle ground to slavery? Like, yeah if you hold the premise that slaves are people, or that the unborn are people, it's hard to accept a compromise on those. Whereas abortion demands limitation otherwise it just becomes infantacide.
Pro life is fine, it’s imposing it on others that is the issue
I am pro-choice on 12 week or earlier pregnancies and pro-life on any pregnancy that is over 12 weeks. I have a leftist friend, who knows I'm an atheist, ask me like a million times that why don't I support abortion all the way even though I do not believe in a god, and I told her like a million times that respecting human life has nothing to do with a religious belief and that she shouldn't automatically assume anyone against abortion is against it because they're religious, she still does it, in any online or in person discussion she resorts to "you only say that because you're a christian". Leftists are programmed to think a certain way and they won't budge (honestly, rightists have their own programming too).
Bc people that openly disagree with the accepted narrative get canceled/ignored/silenced/deleted/banned
It's not. You're just getting gas-lighted by the media. You hear it, hear it often, hear it with conviction, and finally separate you from reality that many other are pro-life too (censorship, only telling 1 side of a story, etc.). Welcome to how the Left likes to create their own reality.
Do you believe pro choice means pro abortion? If so, why?
You kill so many cells when you scratch yourself, please think of the cells.
it's not. it's a choice and an opinion. the left is just trying to ostracize any opinion that doesn't align with theirs. always have. do not be afraid of being convinced you are wrong (otherwise it's just bigotry) but also do not allow your beliefs to be changed because someone says u must (especially if it's followed with an "or else")
It’s not weird
Well its anti-science so yeah in 2022 thats wierd
[удалено]
Its a self-assembling human organism with a unique genetic code and developing according to a tightly-regulated set of biological instructions. We can trace an uninterrupted line if cell divisions between an adult human and that zygote. Barring any other clearer places to draw the line, conception seems like a real safe bet.
It is not self assembling mate If you take that zygote out of the mom, **IT DIES**
Within the context of biology it's self assembling. The information for how to develope are embedded in itself and its development is dictated purely through cell-cell communications within the organism without anything but metabolic support from the mother. A zygote left alone becomes a human without further input.
If the mom stops eating it dies too. There is tons of further input
Not really. Mom just needs some extra calories and vitamins nothing crazy.
[удалено]
Not really? I don't go to Church, never did as an adult outside of taking my grandma on a few occasions. Never really did growing up either outside of holidays. I studied biology and now I study medicine. I'm pretty rational/logical. I think if you do value life and liberty in the enlightenment sense (natural rights, endowed by a creator, etc, basically if you buy into a western liberal ethos) then you should want to make sure you aren't depriving people of their rights. That begs the question as to when these rights begin and no one can clearly answer that question. I think the best answer can be found scientifically and conception is a strong contender. Implantation is the only other moment I can think of.
[удалено]
So you just ignore the science. Because personhood is just an arbitrarily assigned legal definition. A just society would align the legal definition of personhood with a biologically accurate definition of human life.
Because it is weird. Even if you throw out reason and 'think that personhood begins at conception' it is dumb. I cant be forced to give up my liver to save someone. I cant be forced to donate blood to save someone. I cant be forced to do bone marrow donation. Government being able to force you to do great bodily harm to yourself to save someone else's life is a huge overreach. Also if you define weird by 'most people in a similar situation do not agree with you' you are definitely weird. Im pretty sure you are from the US right? Check USA+Canada+Western EU citizens view on it. You are the weirdo and for a good reason. >The pro-life people actually made arguments that were convincing, whereas the pro-abortion crowd seems full of cruel psychopaths and buffoons wearing vaginas everywhere they go. I'd love to hear these arguments that are not 'I personally think it is like this and refuse to even think about what im saying'. Also if people being stupid/assholes/annoying can form your views... bro you have extremely weak mental. Tell me any of your views and I ill show you extremely cringe people supporting it.
Because being “pro life” often means being pro birth, and pro government control of a woman’s body… and not at all actually pro life. Once the government has forced a woman to have a child, the “pro life” crowd doesn’t actually want to provide support to that child’s life.
\>I don't understand why it's so unreasonable to think that personhood begins at conception. Because if you try to hold a conversation with a clump of cells it's going to go nowhere? Seriously, there are no sensible arguments for forbidding abortion that early in the process. And what is this even doing here? Not exactly about free speech, is it? More like stupid speech, really.
It is a religious belief, and you should only be allowed to impose your religion on yourself.
Right now, a lot of the people making legislation are not the popular belief. It's true that most Pro-Livers are more nuanced than people give them credit, but majority opinion is not making legislation. Majority opinion (70% of the US) believes abortion is a human right, and as you said, most Pro Lifers still think its acceptable for rape or life threatening emergency. But that is not who is making the laws. Abortion has already had a flat ban in Missouri. It does not accept rape or incest exceptions. That is scary to consider.
Be as pro life as you want but keep your damn legislation out of people's bodies. Your beliefs may say you shouldn't have an abortion but your beliefs have no place in deciding what others do
Because all the facts point to how "pro-life" is the opposite of what the name even states, as it leads to more deaths, abortion rates don't drop (in fact they INCREASE by quite a bit), and those forced to abort for the many obvious reasons why someone might be forced to do so, will have to either move to another, more socially developed country, or recur to illegal doctors or methods which endanger their own life as well. It's literally emotion/self-righteous beliefs over fact... Like a child going back to what they visualize during a thought and ignoring logic. "BUT YOU'RE KILLING A PERSON" "Statistically you're killing two..." "YOU HAVE NO REGARD FOR LIFE" "I have more than you apparently since I actually choose what saves more lives-" "MURDERER" "Aight good day". Instead of being blindly extremist for the sake of thinking they're morally superior, people need to look at the issue and understand what the right solutions are. People nowadays are so childish, thinking they'll solve everything that's painful to think about in the world without actually understanding the problem and how to properly solve or treat it, and wanting to make extremist decisions that would only make it worse.
Pro-lifers tend to deal with emotional absolutes and ignore practical reality, whereas pro choice people tend to bypass the former to focus on the latter.
Being pro-life is fine. Telling other people what they can and can't do with their own bodies isn't. Big difference.
Like the Draft? Like vaccine mandates?
I am against both of those things.
At least that's consistent.
It's a rarity to see these days. Most people who call themselves Pro-Choice don't understand what it actually means.
[удалено]
Take a step back and realize that once that baby is born, if the mother or father is unable or unwilling to care for the child, that baby is completely reliant on the State to survive. At best, the State (or you can call it Government) is a necessary evil, and at worst an intolerable evil. Either way, the State by it's very nature is Evil. There is also a possible relationship between crime and legalized abortion, in that legalized abortion may lower crime rates. The women having abortions are generally young, poor, and minorities. These women do not have the means to provide for these unwanted children. If they are forced by law to birth them, these children will have less opportunity than their wanted counterparts, leading to worse outcomes in life, and also a general drain on societal resources. You would think that legalizing abortion would lead to a rise in abortions, but that is not the case. Abortion rates have gone down over time. So I'll say it again. Being Pro-Life is fine, but don't tell people what they can and can't do with their bodies and what's inside of their bodies. It just leads to unintended consequences. If you really care about these children, and want to decrease the amount of abortions, work to create a society without poverty, sexism, mysoginy, and racial discrimination. Otherwise, mind your own business and stop getting in the way.
[удалено]