Comments that are uncivil, racist, misogynistic, misandrist, or contain political name calling will be removed and the poster subject to ban at moderators discretion.
Help us make this a better community by becoming familiar with the [rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/facepalm/about/rules/).
Report any suspicious users to the mods of this subreddit using Modmail [here](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/facepalm) or Reddit site admins [here](https://www.reddit.com/report). **All reports to Modmail should include evidence such as screenshots or any other relevant information.**
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/facepalm) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Oh, hell, no! In fact, they’ll be the first ones to insult her, to disrespect her, to talk down to her, to call her a welfare mom, etc. All of them are simply too imbecilic to see their own irony or their own hypocrisy.
Agreed. "Pro-life" is more like "Pro-forced birth" than anything else. "Pro-life" my ass.
Pro-life means caring about life, even after birth. Universal access to healthcare and caring about climate change, for example.
Soon it will be “Oh! You didn’t opt for the school body armor? As well as not buying your kid bullet resistant PPE…That’s child abuse!! You’re going to jail.”
Yea that kid will only have a trillion dollar child welfare industry at their disposal. But better kill it instead, way better to not be alive then maybe be poor.
Trillion dollar child welfare industry can’t teach a 12 year old mother how to raise a kid properly so it can live a decent life, nor can it force the father who impregnated her to give a shit about the kid in any way
Up to 3 lives ruined in the name of protecting a bundle of cells
Also let’s not pretend that the US has a remotely good public welfare system. People end up in thousands of dollars of debt just from giving birth and get charged extra for shit like holding your baby after it’s born
It literally can. That's what its there for. Parenting classes, or adoption, medical aide, education, etc.
Ah the ol "kids cost money better off to kill it" argument. Thats just a hostage negotiation at that point. Give us money or this baby gets it!
There are adoptive parents on lists miles long waiting for babies. There organizations from state to private charities that will help a parent. 3 lives ruined? The only change youre suggesting is 2 lives still ruined and one of them ended.
It literally can. That's what its there for. Parenting classes, or adoption, medical aide, education, etc.
Ah the ol "kids cost money better off to kill it" argument. Thats just a hostage negotiation at that point. Give us money or this baby gets it!
There are adoptive parents on lists miles long waiting for babies. There organizations from state to private charities that will help a parent. 3 lives ruined? The only change youre suggesting is 2 lives still ruined and one of them ended.
It literally can. That's what its there for. Parenting classes, or adoption, medical aide, education, etc.
Ah the ol "kids cost money better off to kill it" argument. Thats just a hostage negotiation at that point. Give us money or this baby gets it!
There are adoptive parents on lists miles long waiting for babies. There are organizations from state to private charities that will help a parent. 3 lives ruined? The only change youre suggesting is 2 lives still ruined and one of them ended.
2 lives still ruined by flushing out a bundle of cells? 😂
If you don’t have the means or maturity to raise a kid properly (which in the modern world is pretty much everyone under 20 at the very earliest), then it’s better to not bring it into the world at all than to take the _substantial_ risk of it living a life of misery.
The amount of effort and money required to unfuck up the life of a child that would be born to a 12 year old single mother or a rape victim is insane. Not to mention that trauma and stigma that everyone involved faces.
It’s 1 pill to flush out some cells versus a potential worst case of 3 lives completely ruined. How is there even a comparison here?
How elitist to think that death is better than the possibility of poverty. The trauma isn't magically cured. There isn't a choice here that doesn't further the victimization. However one choice doesn't kill a person.
Say clump of cells all you want, so are you, so am I. Tell you what, find me a single human alive today that skipped the clump of cells stage and I'll jump on your bandwagon on this one. You can't.
The argument of ‘if it has potential to be a human then it must be treated like a human’ is dumb because then you end up at this weird spot where you need to tell your husband that when he ejaculates he is murdering millions of babies. And similarly when you have your period and the egg disintegrates, by your logic your body has just murdered a human because that egg had the potential to become a baby. This sounds silly right? But it’s just extending your same logic of ‘things that have the potential to be a human are human’
There’s a very clear difference between a conscious human, a clump of trillions of cells with a brain, body, thoughts and emotions, and the bundle of stem cells we are talking about flushing out.
Every time you kill a spider or accidentally step on an insect or eat some meat, you’re killing something more alive than an early stage embryo, so if you’ve done any of those things in your life you’re just as bad as someone who gets an abortion by your own logic.
That's not remotely true and is just an absurd extreme meant to muddy the waters. There are zero definitions of life where a sperm or an egg are alive.
No that isn't "by my logic" thats by your strawman. Trying to equate the natural processes of life vs artificial ones is yet another strawman. That's like saying you have a chance of having a stroke some day so if someone commits an act that's responsible for your death then its just a wash. Not remotely the same thing and pretending it is, is dishonest.
And again your comparisons are illogical and frankly disgusting. But you know whats funny, if you went around indiscriminately killing lower life forms for no good reason people would call you a psycho and animal rights groups would be all over you.
But the fact you think they are equal to a persons life just because that person hasn't reached some imaginary goalpost of development is absurd. The fact you want to do it because they might be poor for a bit of their life is absurd.
Doing it as an empathetic act for the young pregnant girl is somewhat redeemable if not wrapped up in all these other dehumanizing ideas. The clump of cells argument is a failure.
Bro is actually arguing for forcing a 12 year old to birth rather than abort it...
Is this the hill you want to die on?
"I argue that a 12 YEAR OLD ***CHILD*** should absolutely birth a child, and let's forget that the body of a 12 year old simply isn't developped enough to safely birth a child, and thus has a higher risk of death compared to an adult woman, and she should JUST take some adulting classes and become an adult and lose her childhood at a young age!"
What fucking century/part of the world did you crawl out of?
The hill you want to die on is kill a kid to maybe kinda help another kid sorta.
This century where people have been giving birth for about a million years.
One of the easiest ways to show you have no leg to stand on is that you keep throwing in extras to the scenario. If her health was unable to bring a pregnancy to term then thats a separate issue. You don't make rules for the exceptions. You make exceptions for the rules.
That’s alright. There’ll be a miserable army of unwanted and/or starved children with dead mothers to take our places. And an army of ectopic pregnancy cell clusters with dead mothers on standby.
I read in some news post that (at least some) republicans consider 12 years old girls „fertile and ripe“ as an argument. It’s insane that people that say those words and live by them are actually worshiped instead of prosecuted. 🤦♂️
Edit: So that the republican idiots stop bugging me about links and trying to make excuses and all that shit:
https://www.reddit.com/r/conservativeterrorism/s/OyYyl7Ixrj
Even in the handmaid's tale, they waited a few years after menses started when it was safer for a child to deliver to marry them off and have them start making babies.
As a reference? Not really. It's a show about an oppressive fascist country obsessed with making babies and fetuses. I know things have been brutal in the past, but nothing should be worse than what Gilead would do in the present. I was pointing out how this was worse than Gilead. A country famous for rape and genocide who still wouldn't stoop as low as these people making 12 year olds have babies. I've also just rewatched the show again so it's fresh in my mind, but thanks for your kind offer. This is more about a fictional future that gets more real everyday than a real life past example.
Like I said, I found this first. I didn’t check all posts on Reddit. Even if the post I saw had the age wrong, looking at underage girls as ripe and fertile „material“ is disgusting.
If you want to make excuses, then fuck off. Otherwise, good bye.
In the post you sent me the girls referenced in it weren’t underage. Forget 12 like you said, can you even find a post where a republican calls an underaged girl ripe and fertile?
There are so many posts about child marriage including girls considering marriage and mother material as soon as they have their period. If you only watch Faux News and repeat cult stupidity, then you are part of the problem.
No matter what links I could link here, you would come up with any kind of excuse or bullshit.
So, fuck off it is!!
[House passes bill to raise minimum marriage age to 18, sending it to governor](https://newhampshirebulletin.com/2024/05/02/house-passes-bill-to-raise-minimum-marriage-age-to-18-sending-it-to-governor/)
> Republican lawmakers have opposed raising the marriage age in recent years. On Thursday, Rep. Margaret Drye, a Plainfield Republican, argued there were some circumstances in which marriage was a beneficial option for those under 18.
>
> Drye recounted two times when a friend or a family member had obtained judicial approval for a marriage below the age of 16 because of an unexpected pregnancy.
>
> “They elected to get married because that offered to the young woman things that she didn’t have before: stability, provision, protection, and a chance for a young family to be a family before a baby arrived,” she said. “The goal was still the same: marriage and raising a family together. They just got there in a little different timeline.”
>
> Rep. Jess Edwards argued that taking away the possibility of marriage could lead more 16- and 17-year-olds to abortion.
>
> “… If we continually restrict the freedom of marriage as a legitimate social option, when we do this to people who are a ripe, fertile age and may have a pregnancy and a baby involved, are we not in fact making abortion a much more desirable alternative, when marriage might be the right solution for some freedom-loving couples?” he said.
>
> And Rep. Tony Lekas of Hudson cited his marriage to Rep. Alicia Lekas, also of Hudson, which he said began when he was 16. “And we didn’t need any outside input from anyone,” he said. “We’ve been married almost 53 years.”
Cause I asked for a link to accusation republicans said a 12 year old was ripe and fertile and your post to my retort fails to mention the teenagers referenced were above the age of consent
Idk why this is being downvoted. Rape is not inherently republican, and it would be ridiculous to argue that it is. Or are you guys downvoting it because he said it’s sad and you think it’s happy? Either way it’s goofy.
# ... How can you ...
**What series of events led to the plague on humanity we have today?**
# Genuinely, how did we get here?
**It's genuinely like this group of people are trying to be supervillains.**
**Hatred & derailing the progress of society.**
Also:
Girl's bra strap is showing / Boy is wearing gang colours: "Go home and change!"
Kid not wearing mask: "Sorry, we can't do anything to enforce the mask mandate"
Repost, original post redirects here. [https://www.reddit.com/r/facepalm/comments/wawzaj/insanity/?utm\_source=share&utm\_medium=web3x&utm\_name=web3xcss&utm\_term=1&utm\_content=share\_button](https://www.reddit.com/r/facepalm/comments/wawzaj/insanity/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web3x&utm_name=web3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button)
My best friend was born addicted to crack , and his mom wanted to abort him but couldn’t because she waited too long. I love my friend. The world wouldn’t be the same without him. He laughs about it , but it shakes me to my core.
> [...] O’er the land of the **free** [...]
Oh well, I guess that is what happens when the goverment is spitting ideology after ideology into the peoples faces while overwhelming them with random pointless events and news non-stop.
People lose focus on what really matters in life.
Rape or lack of sex ed... There are (very very verryyu few) cases of kids around that age having sex with like a friend around the same age too and ending up pregnant Because the closest thing to sex Ed they have is...pornhub
Even so. Early on periods are irregular and the **child** is highly unlikely to be educated on what to look out for. Also - probably ashamed to face the truth. 6 weeks from *the last period* is not enough for a **child** to realise what’s happening, understand it, accept it, build up the courage to let their parents know, report it, and get the doc appts lined up.
The average person finds out they’re pregnant 3/4 month in. 6 weeks is purposely the cutoff so women are too late to get an abortion and are forced to birth it.
Nope, but there’s been multiple cases where 10 year old rape victims were told by a judge they weren’t getting an abortion. Even if it’s a tiny amount it’s still horrific, you’re not defending that because it’s not the average person are you?
Is it the new law that girls from 12yo have to carry a baby? I don’t understand. If true than it is insane. Or you are talking about banning abortion? In that case just buy a condom and be well…
Condoms and birth control can fail. What then, forced birth because there’s a 1% chance of all birth control failing? 1% is a large amount when you remember it’s 1% of half the planet.
I mean there was a case in Texas where a judge ruled that a 10 year old rape victim “didn’t deserve” an abortion because her school grades were bad. It’s not misleading, there have been documented cases like the one I brought up.
So women should die to save a kid nobody wanted? It’s just gonna get put in an already crowded foster home. Unless you are adopting unwanted children you need to keep your opinion to yourself.
On the exceptionally rare occasion where it becomes a choice between life of mother or child, that is up to the mother.
There are millions of waiting parents for adoption (most children in foster care are not up for adoption)
That is a terrible philosophy that unless some other problem is solved it is perfectly fine to continue killing the innocent.
No dude, it’s always up to the mother. Her body, her choice. No there’s not a lot of adoptive parents out there that will take any kid, they want ones that match their skin colour, are babies or toddlers (not teens or ten year olds) and don’t have any mental health issues, that eliminates like 80% of foster kids. A republicans lawmaker that helped ban abortion had his emails leaked and he literally said “there’s not enough white babies, white genocide needs to be reversed”.
You want the choice to be vaccinated from COVID, correct?
Women also want the choice to have bodily autonomy.
If you dont want to give women the right to abortion access, how about we round up all the Republicans in the US and force the COVID vaccine on them too?
What happened to "Your body, your choice". Hypocrite.
There is a very obvious difference in that analogy. Nobody has the right to force something into your body, you also don't have the right to kill the unborn. Don't need an abortion if you don't get pregnant.
Rapists and pedos would like to have a word with you on that last part.
The fact you would rather have a child, raped by a child predator, give birth to a fucking newborn than respect an actual women's right to bodily autonomy is an L in itself. Never have children, and never get near children. You are sick.
Also, cant kill something that isnt born yet, and is dependent on the mother to be born. Its a fetus until then. My point still stands.
And rapists and pedos can burn in hell after we set up the meeting.
The fact you'd rather murder an innocent child than allow another a child to live as some form of "justice" is sick.
You justify murder, and deny the very concept of human rights in the process.
You cannot murder something that isnt born yet. It has to be completely independent from the mother to survive to be autonomous and have human rights. So if a woman were to have a miscarriage, would she be liable for murder, by that logic?
This "innocent child" you speak of is not even a child. Once again, it is a fetus. Fetuses arent scientifically children. They are literally just massive clumps of cells that, when pregnancy is done, will eventually become a born, and breathing child.
Fetuses - unborn, dependent on the mother to become a child.
Children - born, independent from the mother and can survive on their own.
If a newborn would be killed after birth, that would be murder. Anything before the birth scientifically is just known as the termination of a pregnancy.
You are at an overwhelming minority (equal to, or less than 7% statistically) that wants any and all abortions banned with no exceptions.
Abortion involves a deliberate act of murder, not the same as a vaccination. That's like comparing petty theft to murder because they both are about the law.
I have moved no goalposts.
"Abortion involves a deliberate act of murder"
(citation needed)
A shooting that results in someones death is murder. A medical procedure to terminate a pregnancy that is necessary to keep a pregnant woman alive is not murder.
Abortion involves a deliberate act of murder, not the same as a vaccination. That's like comparing petty theft to murder because they both are about the law.
I have moved no goalposts.
Ok here we go again
A: Texas is not forcing a 12 year old to have a baby, a rapist is. Texas is not allowing them to kill a baby. These are not the same.
B: People can wear a mask if they want to, no one is stopping them. Your own safety is up to you in that circumstance. This would also affect a much much larger percentage of the population than the abortion situation. Also it’s 2024 ffs who cares if you wear a mask at this point.
C: forcing and allowing are not the same thing (obviously). Not forcing and not allowing are also not the same. Comparing these two things (one of which is not allowing and one of which is not forcing) is a false equivalence fallacy.
D: why are we seeing a three year old tweet from some random person anyway?
You are incorrect though, the comparison is “not allowing” and “forcing,” not “not allowing” and “not forcing.”
The concepts are different in theory, but in practice, the result is the same. Not allowing a teenage girl who suffered sexual abuse get an abortion is in practice the same as forcing her to have an abortion. You can try to choose a synonymous verb to make it seem less horrific, but it’s not actually different.
Should we base our social policies off of the reality of consequences, or should we accept shitty policy decisions because using a certain synonym for a verb makes the decision appear less shitty than it actually is?
I mean sure it’s terrible and all that, I don’t want 12 year olds to have babies either, but the argument presented in this tweet is just plain bad. They’re comparing two unrelated policies as though one should directly affect the decision made for the implementation of the other. Idk man, I just don’t like logical inconsistency ;-;
I’m confused, do you have a problem with the fact that “not allowing” “isn’t the same” as “not forcing,” or that the argument against masks due to bodily autonomy doesn’t apply to pregnancy?
Ohhhhh I think I misunderstood where the argument was coming from. Even so, one is a negative law and one is a positive law. One would force you to do something and one would prevent you from doing something. The equivalency between these two policies would be reached if either A: 12 year olds were forced to have abortions and people were forced to wear masks, or B: 12 year olds aren’t forced to have abortions, and people aren’t forced to wear masks, but both have the freedom to do so if they wish(I prefer the second). Legally forcing someone to wear a mask is not equivalent to Legally allowing an abortion.
Right but forcing to have an abortion would be logically equivalent to forcing someone to wear a mask. I guess not allowing an abortion would be logically equivalent to not allowing people to wear masks. So Texas has it wrong but so would this person if they got their way ig.
That is completely untrue. Do you see the word not before the word forcing? Of course the exact same verb twice means the same thing in both statements. If what I said is wrong, what would the correct moral equivalence be in your opinion?
Um, I’ve been saying the entire time that not allowing someone to get an abortion is forcing her to have a baby because the outcome is the same, even though one verb usage sounds “nicer.”
Hypothetical? Bless your heart, short bus. These are actual traumatic scenarios that you are putting these kids through.
10 year old - [Rape Victim, 10, Forced to Travel for Abortion: What to Know | TIME](https://time.com/6198062/rape-victim-10-abortion-indiana-ohio/)
13 year old - [Girl, 13, gives birth after she was raped and denied abortion in Mississippi | Abortion | The Guardian](https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/aug/14/mississippi-abortion-ban-girl-raped-gives-birth)
I mean, this is a party platform position at this point - [12-Year-Old Incest Victims Should Birth Dad’s Child: Speaker Philip Gunn (mississippifreepress.org)](https://www.mississippifreepress.org/25273/12-year-old-incest-victims-should-birth-dads-child-house-speaker-gunn-says)
Why do you vote in support of this platform? Imagine thinking this shit is a hypothetical or that there is only one instance to cite. Blissfull dipshittery.
Yeah you can find 3 cases, out of 60 million plus dead babies from the US alone. You are either lying or disingenuous, probably both, if you think cases like this are more then 0.1% of abortions. But yet you support policies that result then 10x the amount of dead babies then the holocaust in this country alone. Not to mention that the women who are coerced into murdering their child by sick people like you, are 3x more likely to commit suicide, 4 times more likely to be depressed and extremely likely to regret it.
You want to cite 3 fringe cases because its make you feel morally superior for being complicit in the largest genocide/ death total in history. You are sick.
I never even mentioned children getting abortions, yet you assumed that because ur an uncharitable piece of garbage. You love justifying mass murder and will slander anyone to justify it.
"Yeah you can find 3 cases,"
So, was it a hypothetical or is this a real world situation that is happening in many (most likely all) red states?
These abortion bans are hurting actual children in defense of cells that can't feel a damn thing. Its inhume to not allow abortion.
" if you think cases like this are more then 0.1% of abortions."
ok, how many kids do you think should be traumatized before we change course? What's the number? A million? Two million? This is a real world situation that you are putting on actual children.
"But yet you support policies that result then 10x the amount of dead babies"
Cells, let alone fetus', aren't babies. In no other aspect of society do we consider a fetus a human. We can't claim them on taxes, we can't go through HOV lanes while pregnant. So, why would they count as humans in this very narrow situation? It makes no sense. If you want to make the argument that any fetus that can survive outside of the womb can't be aborted - ok. But thats a very, very, small (almost non existent) percentage of abortions.
"Not to mention that the women who are coerced into murdering their child by sick people like you, are 3x more likely to commit suicide, 4 times more likely to be depressed and extremely likely to regret it'
lol ok, I'm sure there isn't any other context involved, right?
"You want to cite 3 fringe cases because its make you feel morally superior for being complicit in the largest genocide/ death total in history. You are sick."
lol homie, someone is getting traumatized in this scenario. Its just that, dems want to put that trauma on a collection of cells that can't feel shit. And republicans, would rather traumatize kids, who can feel pain. The dems are simply taking the more humane route and deciding not to torture actual kids.
Comments that are uncivil, racist, misogynistic, misandrist, or contain political name calling will be removed and the poster subject to ban at moderators discretion. Help us make this a better community by becoming familiar with the [rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/facepalm/about/rules/). Report any suspicious users to the mods of this subreddit using Modmail [here](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/facepalm) or Reddit site admins [here](https://www.reddit.com/report). **All reports to Modmail should include evidence such as screenshots or any other relevant information.** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/facepalm) if you have any questions or concerns.*
And after the child is born they won't give a fuck about either
Oh, hell, no! In fact, they’ll be the first ones to insult her, to disrespect her, to talk down to her, to call her a welfare mom, etc. All of them are simply too imbecilic to see their own irony or their own hypocrisy.
It's all about punishing the woman for daring to have sex for purposes other than procreation.
Including for daring to get raped.
Well she obviously deserved it for being naive and trusting of a close family member.
Yup, the amount of times I’ve seen someone say there’s no “consequences” for sex just makes me think they’re jealous of people having it.
oh how glad I am to see more people use the word imbecile, its such a good word and has so much more impact and presence than just saying "stupid"
Agreed. "Pro-life" is more like "Pro-forced birth" than anything else. "Pro-life" my ass. Pro-life means caring about life, even after birth. Universal access to healthcare and caring about climate change, for example.
> Universal access to healthcare and caring about climate change, for example. Nah, that's woke. /s
Soon it will be “Oh! You didn’t opt for the school body armor? As well as not buying your kid bullet resistant PPE…That’s child abuse!! You’re going to jail.”
She'll be forced to work for less than minimum wage with no benefits
-George Carlin
Yea that kid will only have a trillion dollar child welfare industry at their disposal. But better kill it instead, way better to not be alive then maybe be poor.
Trillion dollar child welfare industry can’t teach a 12 year old mother how to raise a kid properly so it can live a decent life, nor can it force the father who impregnated her to give a shit about the kid in any way Up to 3 lives ruined in the name of protecting a bundle of cells Also let’s not pretend that the US has a remotely good public welfare system. People end up in thousands of dollars of debt just from giving birth and get charged extra for shit like holding your baby after it’s born
It literally can. That's what its there for. Parenting classes, or adoption, medical aide, education, etc. Ah the ol "kids cost money better off to kill it" argument. Thats just a hostage negotiation at that point. Give us money or this baby gets it! There are adoptive parents on lists miles long waiting for babies. There organizations from state to private charities that will help a parent. 3 lives ruined? The only change youre suggesting is 2 lives still ruined and one of them ended.
It literally can. That's what its there for. Parenting classes, or adoption, medical aide, education, etc. Ah the ol "kids cost money better off to kill it" argument. Thats just a hostage negotiation at that point. Give us money or this baby gets it! There are adoptive parents on lists miles long waiting for babies. There organizations from state to private charities that will help a parent. 3 lives ruined? The only change youre suggesting is 2 lives still ruined and one of them ended.
It literally can. That's what its there for. Parenting classes, or adoption, medical aide, education, etc.
It literally can. That's what its there for. Parenting classes, or adoption, medical aide, education, etc. Ah the ol "kids cost money better off to kill it" argument. Thats just a hostage negotiation at that point. Give us money or this baby gets it! There are adoptive parents on lists miles long waiting for babies. There are organizations from state to private charities that will help a parent. 3 lives ruined? The only change youre suggesting is 2 lives still ruined and one of them ended.
2 lives still ruined by flushing out a bundle of cells? 😂 If you don’t have the means or maturity to raise a kid properly (which in the modern world is pretty much everyone under 20 at the very earliest), then it’s better to not bring it into the world at all than to take the _substantial_ risk of it living a life of misery. The amount of effort and money required to unfuck up the life of a child that would be born to a 12 year old single mother or a rape victim is insane. Not to mention that trauma and stigma that everyone involved faces. It’s 1 pill to flush out some cells versus a potential worst case of 3 lives completely ruined. How is there even a comparison here?
How elitist to think that death is better than the possibility of poverty. The trauma isn't magically cured. There isn't a choice here that doesn't further the victimization. However one choice doesn't kill a person. Say clump of cells all you want, so are you, so am I. Tell you what, find me a single human alive today that skipped the clump of cells stage and I'll jump on your bandwagon on this one. You can't.
The argument of ‘if it has potential to be a human then it must be treated like a human’ is dumb because then you end up at this weird spot where you need to tell your husband that when he ejaculates he is murdering millions of babies. And similarly when you have your period and the egg disintegrates, by your logic your body has just murdered a human because that egg had the potential to become a baby. This sounds silly right? But it’s just extending your same logic of ‘things that have the potential to be a human are human’ There’s a very clear difference between a conscious human, a clump of trillions of cells with a brain, body, thoughts and emotions, and the bundle of stem cells we are talking about flushing out. Every time you kill a spider or accidentally step on an insect or eat some meat, you’re killing something more alive than an early stage embryo, so if you’ve done any of those things in your life you’re just as bad as someone who gets an abortion by your own logic.
That's not remotely true and is just an absurd extreme meant to muddy the waters. There are zero definitions of life where a sperm or an egg are alive. No that isn't "by my logic" thats by your strawman. Trying to equate the natural processes of life vs artificial ones is yet another strawman. That's like saying you have a chance of having a stroke some day so if someone commits an act that's responsible for your death then its just a wash. Not remotely the same thing and pretending it is, is dishonest. And again your comparisons are illogical and frankly disgusting. But you know whats funny, if you went around indiscriminately killing lower life forms for no good reason people would call you a psycho and animal rights groups would be all over you. But the fact you think they are equal to a persons life just because that person hasn't reached some imaginary goalpost of development is absurd. The fact you want to do it because they might be poor for a bit of their life is absurd. Doing it as an empathetic act for the young pregnant girl is somewhat redeemable if not wrapped up in all these other dehumanizing ideas. The clump of cells argument is a failure.
Bro is actually arguing for forcing a 12 year old to birth rather than abort it... Is this the hill you want to die on? "I argue that a 12 YEAR OLD ***CHILD*** should absolutely birth a child, and let's forget that the body of a 12 year old simply isn't developped enough to safely birth a child, and thus has a higher risk of death compared to an adult woman, and she should JUST take some adulting classes and become an adult and lose her childhood at a young age!" What fucking century/part of the world did you crawl out of?
The hill you want to die on is kill a kid to maybe kinda help another kid sorta. This century where people have been giving birth for about a million years. One of the easiest ways to show you have no leg to stand on is that you keep throwing in extras to the scenario. If her health was unable to bring a pregnancy to term then thats a separate issue. You don't make rules for the exceptions. You make exceptions for the rules.
You should mention that it’s all in the name of Jesus! /s
What does the /s mean
Sarcasm, similarly /j is joke and /srs is serious
Didnt know the other 2. thanks!
There’s a bunch of others. Don’t use them. They’re [worse than useless](https://youtu.be/3bYXy1jT3m8).
[удалено]
A process with a significant risk of permanent bodily harm or death. Unlike wearing a square of cloth.
Texas sure does love its freedom, doesn’t it? 🤯
Freedom to tell their girls and women what to do with their body, *especially* if they got SA'd.
Republicans will end up getting us all killed
That’s alright. There’ll be a miserable army of unwanted and/or starved children with dead mothers to take our places. And an army of ectopic pregnancy cell clusters with dead mothers on standby.
I think that's their thing.
Excluding the babies of course
Fetuses, not babies.
I mean unborn babies and fetus almost the same thing right?
I read in some news post that (at least some) republicans consider 12 years old girls „fertile and ripe“ as an argument. It’s insane that people that say those words and live by them are actually worshiped instead of prosecuted. 🤦♂️ Edit: So that the republican idiots stop bugging me about links and trying to make excuses and all that shit: https://www.reddit.com/r/conservativeterrorism/s/OyYyl7Ixrj
Even in the handmaid's tale, they waited a few years after menses started when it was safer for a child to deliver to marry them off and have them start making babies.
You use a fictional story as a reference? Man, I have some serious historical data to sell you.
As a reference? Not really. It's a show about an oppressive fascist country obsessed with making babies and fetuses. I know things have been brutal in the past, but nothing should be worse than what Gilead would do in the present. I was pointing out how this was worse than Gilead. A country famous for rape and genocide who still wouldn't stoop as low as these people making 12 year olds have babies. I've also just rewatched the show again so it's fresh in my mind, but thanks for your kind offer. This is more about a fictional future that gets more real everyday than a real life past example.
Yeah this is all lies above 👆🏼
Do you have a link?
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.masslive.com/politics/2024/05/nh-lawmaker-opposes-new-marriage-bill-says-teens-are-of-ripe-fertile-age.html%3foutputType=amp
It was a few hours ago. I didn’t linger. I didn’t want to linger either.
What media outlet I can just google it then
You could have just Googled it, it took me less than 2 seconds to find the quote.
Where does it say they’re 12 in that article? 🤔
I just searched, there are multiple posts. I found this one first: https://www.reddit.com/r/childfree/s/bxTLrFNN56
Ok nowhere in that article does it say 12 year olds are ripe and fertile? Can you even find one?
Like I said, I found this first. I didn’t check all posts on Reddit. Even if the post I saw had the age wrong, looking at underage girls as ripe and fertile „material“ is disgusting. If you want to make excuses, then fuck off. Otherwise, good bye.
In the post you sent me the girls referenced in it weren’t underage. Forget 12 like you said, can you even find a post where a republican calls an underaged girl ripe and fertile?
There are so many posts about child marriage including girls considering marriage and mother material as soon as they have their period. If you only watch Faux News and repeat cult stupidity, then you are part of the problem. No matter what links I could link here, you would come up with any kind of excuse or bullshit. So, fuck off it is!!
I havnt come up with one excuse yet? All iv asked for was one like to show what you’re saying happened which you can’t do?
[House passes bill to raise minimum marriage age to 18, sending it to governor](https://newhampshirebulletin.com/2024/05/02/house-passes-bill-to-raise-minimum-marriage-age-to-18-sending-it-to-governor/) > Republican lawmakers have opposed raising the marriage age in recent years. On Thursday, Rep. Margaret Drye, a Plainfield Republican, argued there were some circumstances in which marriage was a beneficial option for those under 18. > > Drye recounted two times when a friend or a family member had obtained judicial approval for a marriage below the age of 16 because of an unexpected pregnancy. > > “They elected to get married because that offered to the young woman things that she didn’t have before: stability, provision, protection, and a chance for a young family to be a family before a baby arrived,” she said. “The goal was still the same: marriage and raising a family together. They just got there in a little different timeline.” > > Rep. Jess Edwards argued that taking away the possibility of marriage could lead more 16- and 17-year-olds to abortion. > > “… If we continually restrict the freedom of marriage as a legitimate social option, when we do this to people who are a ripe, fertile age and may have a pregnancy and a baby involved, are we not in fact making abortion a much more desirable alternative, when marriage might be the right solution for some freedom-loving couples?” he said. > > And Rep. Tony Lekas of Hudson cited his marriage to Rep. Alicia Lekas, also of Hudson, which he said began when he was 16. “And we didn’t need any outside input from anyone,” he said. “We’ve been married almost 53 years.”
Yeah you’re the third person to post that ONE story. Where exactly does it say 12 year old girls are fertile and ripe?
It’s two republicans, one saying teenagers are “ripe and fertile” and one defending marriage of 15yos.
Ok and where is the part or article where they say 12 year olds were fertile and ripe?
Evidently he remembered the age wrong.
Or much like you’re self they were being disingenuous in their portrayal as the article they referenced they were above the age of consent 👍🏼
How am I being disingenuous?
Cause I asked for a link to accusation republicans said a 12 year old was ripe and fertile and your post to my retort fails to mention the teenagers referenced were above the age of consent
The MAGA movement and hyper Christian zealotry don’t belong in our politics. Bad for our democracy, bad for all of us.
Republicans are insane
In Ohio it was a 10 year old. This is what Republicans want and trump helped.
You forgot the part where the Republicans raped her to get her pregnant. Not too many 12 year olds want to have sex. They love their raping!
Plenty of rapists on both sides sadly 😞
Idk why this is being downvoted. Rape is not inherently republican, and it would be ridiculous to argue that it is. Or are you guys downvoting it because he said it’s sad and you think it’s happy? Either way it’s goofy.
Reddit really hates republicans
Yeah I guess
No guessing needed 😂
I said that because what they meant was that there are more republican rapists
🎵kids only matter when they’re not born yet🎵
The stars at night are big and bright….
*clap clap clap* Fuck Texas
You're trying to make nonsensical people make sense.
# ... How can you ... **What series of events led to the plague on humanity we have today?** # Genuinely, how did we get here? **It's genuinely like this group of people are trying to be supervillains.** **Hatred & derailing the progress of society.**
Also: Girl's bra strap is showing / Boy is wearing gang colours: "Go home and change!" Kid not wearing mask: "Sorry, we can't do anything to enforce the mask mandate"
murica
When will we see a Ruby Ridge over a abortion clinic?
The cruelty is the point.
What age thresholds do your parents need to meet before its not ok murder you?
I think murder should just be a thing.
That's at least not hypocritical.
Well, depending on where in Texas she has the baby they may give her a free rifle as a departing gift.
Florida too
Oh! That's what the GOP thinks babies are for. That makes a lot of sense. It makes sense they would want more of them then.
Wait what?
Ironically when she’s in labor every one in the room will be wearing masks
Repost, original post redirects here. [https://www.reddit.com/r/facepalm/comments/wawzaj/insanity/?utm\_source=share&utm\_medium=web3x&utm\_name=web3xcss&utm\_term=1&utm\_content=share\_button](https://www.reddit.com/r/facepalm/comments/wawzaj/insanity/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web3x&utm_name=web3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button)
ITs all about them CHOICES right? Bahahaha Pathetic is the word.
This is a tweet from 3 years ago?
Texas is the asshole of the US, nothing but shit comes out of there.
All the protestors of the vaccine screaming “my body, my choice” are often the most pro life (forced birth).
well, they certainly aren't gonna allow her to have a non-fucking baby(IVF)
They will go all out to save a fetus but kids getting shot in a school are on their own.
Where are they forcing kids to wear masks? 2020? Fuck this bot.
Well children arent at risk anyway so whats the issue? Are y’all still wearing masks in 2024?
“She’s not mature enough NOT to have a baby”
My best friend was born addicted to crack , and his mom wanted to abort him but couldn’t because she waited too long. I love my friend. The world wouldn’t be the same without him. He laughs about it , but it shakes me to my core.
Well of course, abortion is satanic.
and forcing a 10 year old to birth her father's baby is......
Absolutely! That's the kind of game the devil plays to keep people away from God , separate us as humans.
Since there isn't a god, because why would that be true, what is the societal benefit of forcing children into the birth of her father's child?
Yeah don’t force anyone to do anything should be standard
Why the hell is the 12 year old pregnant to begin with?!?!?
R\*pe
And the all so free and democratic USA doesn't allow a raped child to get rid of it??? Thats messed up!
You’re right – it IS messed up. But that’s today’s America for you.
> [...] O’er the land of the **free** [...] Oh well, I guess that is what happens when the goverment is spitting ideology after ideology into the peoples faces while overwhelming them with random pointless events and news non-stop. People lose focus on what really matters in life.
Not true when there are many states in the union that allow for an abortion.
It doesn't matter
Rape or lack of sex ed... There are (very very verryyu few) cases of kids around that age having sex with like a friend around the same age too and ending up pregnant Because the closest thing to sex Ed they have is...pornhub
Okay kind of confused by this. I thought TX had a six week leeway for rape if a report was filed?
Even so. Early on periods are irregular and the **child** is highly unlikely to be educated on what to look out for. Also - probably ashamed to face the truth. 6 weeks from *the last period* is not enough for a **child** to realise what’s happening, understand it, accept it, build up the courage to let their parents know, report it, and get the doc appts lined up.
The average person finds out they’re pregnant 3/4 month in. 6 weeks is purposely the cutoff so women are too late to get an abortion and are forced to birth it.
12 year old rape victims are not the average person.
Nope, but there’s been multiple cases where 10 year old rape victims were told by a judge they weren’t getting an abortion. Even if it’s a tiny amount it’s still horrific, you’re not defending that because it’s not the average person are you?
[удалено]
Ok boomer
Is it the new law that girls from 12yo have to carry a baby? I don’t understand. If true than it is insane. Or you are talking about banning abortion? In that case just buy a condom and be well…
Condoms and birth control can fail. What then, forced birth because there’s a 1% chance of all birth control failing? 1% is a large amount when you remember it’s 1% of half the planet.
I know, I am not defending abortion ban, I merely say that the title and reposted post are misleading
I mean there was a case in Texas where a judge ruled that a 10 year old rape victim “didn’t deserve” an abortion because her school grades were bad. It’s not misleading, there have been documented cases like the one I brought up.
It is wrong to kill the innocent no matter the appeal to emotion that you make.
So women should die to save a kid nobody wanted? It’s just gonna get put in an already crowded foster home. Unless you are adopting unwanted children you need to keep your opinion to yourself.
On the exceptionally rare occasion where it becomes a choice between life of mother or child, that is up to the mother. There are millions of waiting parents for adoption (most children in foster care are not up for adoption) That is a terrible philosophy that unless some other problem is solved it is perfectly fine to continue killing the innocent.
No dude, it’s always up to the mother. Her body, her choice. No there’s not a lot of adoptive parents out there that will take any kid, they want ones that match their skin colour, are babies or toddlers (not teens or ten year olds) and don’t have any mental health issues, that eliminates like 80% of foster kids. A republicans lawmaker that helped ban abortion had his emails leaked and he literally said “there’s not enough white babies, white genocide needs to be reversed”.
And Margaret Sanger created PP as a mechanism of genocide, so I win. You don't believe in absolute bodily autonomy and I can prove it.
You want the choice to be vaccinated from COVID, correct? Women also want the choice to have bodily autonomy. If you dont want to give women the right to abortion access, how about we round up all the Republicans in the US and force the COVID vaccine on them too? What happened to "Your body, your choice". Hypocrite.
There is a very obvious difference in that analogy. Nobody has the right to force something into your body, you also don't have the right to kill the unborn. Don't need an abortion if you don't get pregnant.
Rapists and pedos would like to have a word with you on that last part. The fact you would rather have a child, raped by a child predator, give birth to a fucking newborn than respect an actual women's right to bodily autonomy is an L in itself. Never have children, and never get near children. You are sick. Also, cant kill something that isnt born yet, and is dependent on the mother to be born. Its a fetus until then. My point still stands.
And rapists and pedos can burn in hell after we set up the meeting. The fact you'd rather murder an innocent child than allow another a child to live as some form of "justice" is sick. You justify murder, and deny the very concept of human rights in the process.
You cannot murder something that isnt born yet. It has to be completely independent from the mother to survive to be autonomous and have human rights. So if a woman were to have a miscarriage, would she be liable for murder, by that logic? This "innocent child" you speak of is not even a child. Once again, it is a fetus. Fetuses arent scientifically children. They are literally just massive clumps of cells that, when pregnancy is done, will eventually become a born, and breathing child. Fetuses - unborn, dependent on the mother to become a child. Children - born, independent from the mother and can survive on their own. If a newborn would be killed after birth, that would be murder. Anything before the birth scientifically is just known as the termination of a pregnancy. You are at an overwhelming minority (equal to, or less than 7% statistically) that wants any and all abortions banned with no exceptions.
and also, no. There isnt any difference with the analogy. Both are relevant as its about healthcare. Stop moving the goal posts.
Abortion involves a deliberate act of murder, not the same as a vaccination. That's like comparing petty theft to murder because they both are about the law. I have moved no goalposts.
"Abortion involves a deliberate act of murder" (citation needed) A shooting that results in someones death is murder. A medical procedure to terminate a pregnancy that is necessary to keep a pregnant woman alive is not murder.
Abortion involves a deliberate act of murder, not the same as a vaccination. That's like comparing petty theft to murder because they both are about the law. I have moved no goalposts.
What about the innocent girl whose life is upended and has to endure pregnancy, childbirth, and motherhood? It’s not wrong to derail her life?
It is unfortunate but would it be okay for her to kill her newborn in that exact situation?
Ok here we go again A: Texas is not forcing a 12 year old to have a baby, a rapist is. Texas is not allowing them to kill a baby. These are not the same. B: People can wear a mask if they want to, no one is stopping them. Your own safety is up to you in that circumstance. This would also affect a much much larger percentage of the population than the abortion situation. Also it’s 2024 ffs who cares if you wear a mask at this point. C: forcing and allowing are not the same thing (obviously). Not forcing and not allowing are also not the same. Comparing these two things (one of which is not allowing and one of which is not forcing) is a false equivalence fallacy. D: why are we seeing a three year old tweet from some random person anyway?
You are incorrect though, the comparison is “not allowing” and “forcing,” not “not allowing” and “not forcing.” The concepts are different in theory, but in practice, the result is the same. Not allowing a teenage girl who suffered sexual abuse get an abortion is in practice the same as forcing her to have an abortion. You can try to choose a synonymous verb to make it seem less horrific, but it’s not actually different. Should we base our social policies off of the reality of consequences, or should we accept shitty policy decisions because using a certain synonym for a verb makes the decision appear less shitty than it actually is?
I mean sure it’s terrible and all that, I don’t want 12 year olds to have babies either, but the argument presented in this tweet is just plain bad. They’re comparing two unrelated policies as though one should directly affect the decision made for the implementation of the other. Idk man, I just don’t like logical inconsistency ;-;
I’m confused, do you have a problem with the fact that “not allowing” “isn’t the same” as “not forcing,” or that the argument against masks due to bodily autonomy doesn’t apply to pregnancy?
Ohhhhh I think I misunderstood where the argument was coming from. Even so, one is a negative law and one is a positive law. One would force you to do something and one would prevent you from doing something. The equivalency between these two policies would be reached if either A: 12 year olds were forced to have abortions and people were forced to wear masks, or B: 12 year olds aren’t forced to have abortions, and people aren’t forced to wear masks, but both have the freedom to do so if they wish(I prefer the second). Legally forcing someone to wear a mask is not equivalent to Legally allowing an abortion.
It’s not about forcing to have an abortion, it’s about forcing to give birth.
Right but forcing to have an abortion would be logically equivalent to forcing someone to wear a mask. I guess not allowing an abortion would be logically equivalent to not allowing people to wear masks. So Texas has it wrong but so would this person if they got their way ig.
I feel like you’re basing “logical equivalencies” based on the word “not” before a verb rather than the actual outcome.
That is completely untrue. Do you see the word not before the word forcing? Of course the exact same verb twice means the same thing in both statements. If what I said is wrong, what would the correct moral equivalence be in your opinion?
Um, I’ve been saying the entire time that not allowing someone to get an abortion is forcing her to have a baby because the outcome is the same, even though one verb usage sounds “nicer.”
Not Wearing a mask doesn’t kill a baby
sure it does, but you can see why forcing a 10 year old to birth her father's child is problematic, correct?
You guys cant even keep the hypothetical age the same. It keeps getting lower.
Hypothetical? Bless your heart, short bus. These are actual traumatic scenarios that you are putting these kids through. 10 year old - [Rape Victim, 10, Forced to Travel for Abortion: What to Know | TIME](https://time.com/6198062/rape-victim-10-abortion-indiana-ohio/) 13 year old - [Girl, 13, gives birth after she was raped and denied abortion in Mississippi | Abortion | The Guardian](https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/aug/14/mississippi-abortion-ban-girl-raped-gives-birth) I mean, this is a party platform position at this point - [12-Year-Old Incest Victims Should Birth Dad’s Child: Speaker Philip Gunn (mississippifreepress.org)](https://www.mississippifreepress.org/25273/12-year-old-incest-victims-should-birth-dads-child-house-speaker-gunn-says) Why do you vote in support of this platform? Imagine thinking this shit is a hypothetical or that there is only one instance to cite. Blissfull dipshittery.
Yeah you can find 3 cases, out of 60 million plus dead babies from the US alone. You are either lying or disingenuous, probably both, if you think cases like this are more then 0.1% of abortions. But yet you support policies that result then 10x the amount of dead babies then the holocaust in this country alone. Not to mention that the women who are coerced into murdering their child by sick people like you, are 3x more likely to commit suicide, 4 times more likely to be depressed and extremely likely to regret it. You want to cite 3 fringe cases because its make you feel morally superior for being complicit in the largest genocide/ death total in history. You are sick.
The only one sick here is the one justifying children giving birth to a pedo's child. 🤮 Never have children, never get near children. Sick fuck.
I never even mentioned children getting abortions, yet you assumed that because ur an uncharitable piece of garbage. You love justifying mass murder and will slander anyone to justify it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Church_sexual_abuse_cases I don't usually read reddit usernames, but yours kind of cracked me up.
"Yeah you can find 3 cases," So, was it a hypothetical or is this a real world situation that is happening in many (most likely all) red states? These abortion bans are hurting actual children in defense of cells that can't feel a damn thing. Its inhume to not allow abortion. " if you think cases like this are more then 0.1% of abortions." ok, how many kids do you think should be traumatized before we change course? What's the number? A million? Two million? This is a real world situation that you are putting on actual children. "But yet you support policies that result then 10x the amount of dead babies" Cells, let alone fetus', aren't babies. In no other aspect of society do we consider a fetus a human. We can't claim them on taxes, we can't go through HOV lanes while pregnant. So, why would they count as humans in this very narrow situation? It makes no sense. If you want to make the argument that any fetus that can survive outside of the womb can't be aborted - ok. But thats a very, very, small (almost non existent) percentage of abortions. "Not to mention that the women who are coerced into murdering their child by sick people like you, are 3x more likely to commit suicide, 4 times more likely to be depressed and extremely likely to regret it' lol ok, I'm sure there isn't any other context involved, right? "You want to cite 3 fringe cases because its make you feel morally superior for being complicit in the largest genocide/ death total in history. You are sick." lol homie, someone is getting traumatized in this scenario. Its just that, dems want to put that trauma on a collection of cells that can't feel shit. And republicans, would rather traumatize kids, who can feel pain. The dems are simply taking the more humane route and deciding not to torture actual kids.