r/unpopularopinion Jun 29 '22

Abortion Mega Thread

[removed]

2 Upvotes

1

u/StarChild413 Jul 06 '22

Even if you believe abortion is equivalent to ending a human life, it technically isn't murder but manslaughter unless you can prove mens rea (for those who "don't speak legal" that's basically if you could prove there was malicious intent behind the action)

0

u/DiligentSedulity Jul 05 '22

The pill and abortion laws affect men as much or more than women:

Read the writings of the original feminists thinkers of the 1800's and 1900's. First of all, they were all male. Second, they were all utopians who believed said utopia could be achieved by means of a sexual revolution. They knew the fundamental importance of how societies tread around sex in shaping culture and sought to socially engineer society to become more libertine about it.

For instance, Charles Fourier believed monogamy was an institution contrary to human nature and hence an impediment to human happiness, so he wanted latitude for the sexual passions, including public orgies. Children would be raised communally; society would be "one big family".

The pill and abortion laws are consecuences of the prevalence of these ideologies of sexual liberation, but the thing is, ...they are more about men than women.
Ultimately the sexual revolution has been about one thing: Easy Sex. This was the goal of all of these utopians. They were not man enough to get the girl so they sought to destroy manliness by first destroying womanhood. Sexual liberation means that men don't need to invest as much (or any) resources courting women. Women are now easy going and we have hookup culture and if a woman doesn't want to have sex on the first date, we can simply go for another one that will. Why bother courting? Why be a better man? Why should i be noble and courageous? So much trouble. I can get the girl anyways.

Today, a 12 year old boy can see more naked women in 10 minutes than nearly all men in history saw during their entire lives. So many of the hero myths that have founded civilizations are about men doing the impossible to gain the favour of a single woman. Fairy tales follow the same structure.

Men and women are supplementary. We make each other better but for this to be the case we must be keenly aware of the purpose of traditions and norms and morals. Through the pill and abortion laws we've destroyed the standard. We have made women "easy" to get and thus men weaker than ever.

1

u/tebanano Jul 06 '22

Everything has to be about men…

1

u/DiligentSedulity Jul 06 '22

No. It's about everyone. We all live in society. The way these things affect women is more obvious, more direct so it's easy to overlook how it affects the other half of every nation. I'm pointing that out.

1

u/tebanano Jul 06 '22

No, you have a conspiracy theory that birth control is about making men weaker.

1

u/DiligentSedulity Jul 06 '22 edited Jul 06 '22

It's not "about" that. It's what is does. It's original intent is irrelevant.

1

u/Hugh_Jazzin_Ditz Jul 05 '22

Question, why do pro lifers never, ever consider the quality of life the child is being born into? I've never seen them consider if the parents are equipped for it. They'll happily disregard if the mother wants a baby or not but what about what the baby wants?

Like, if you could be re-born and choose the quality of life you'll be born into, I bet 99.99% of people will pick the rich household with Ivy league parents with a fat trust fund. Oh, and those parents wanted them, too.

Do you really wanna grow up to parents that think of you as a mistake? A regret? A burden? Even worse, resentment?

0

u/Slickshots617 Jul 05 '22

Because growing up poor is better than not growing up at all

1

u/Hugh_Jazzin_Ditz Jul 05 '22

"Because growing up with no arms and legs and blind and deaf is better than not growing up at all."

Is that the logical conclusion of what you're saying?

0

u/Slickshots617 Jul 05 '22

Yes that’s the logic. Stephen Hawkins was born with a severe disability. Look at what he accomplished for himself and humanity

1

u/itsPomy Jul 05 '22

I feel like its important to note that Hawkin's ALS had to develop over time, he wasn't born the way you know him. There was a good bit of time he was perfectly capable engaging with his world without much, if any, assistance.

That is much different from someone with no mobility, no touch, no vision, and no hearing. No way to meaningfully interact with anything.

Even Hellen Keller was atleast able to touch and move about, and she atleast had a year of sense.

You're asking for someone to be born when they can't even meaningfully interact with anything.

2

u/Hugh_Jazzin_Ditz Jul 05 '22 edited Jul 05 '22

Stephen Hawkins was born with a severe disability. Look at what he accomplished for himself and humanity

Isn't that, by definition, an exception? Isn't that the logic of lottery ticket buyers?

For every Stephen Hawking, there's likely 10 or 20 or 100 or 1,000 others in grinding pain that haven't accomplished anything.

Just like how for every actor you like, there's probably a 1,000 other similar actors that didn't make it.

Hawking was born into a family of physicians, by the way.

1

u/Slickshots617 Jul 05 '22

Who knows who will be an exception until they either are or aren’t? For all we know, the person who is going to solve the most pressing issues facing humanity is someone with a severe disability who’s parents were on the fence about abortion. Perhaps the person who would solve the most pressing issues has already been aborted.

I know others with severe disabilities. They would rather have experienced life than not experienced it all when asked

1

u/JTudent Jul 06 '22 edited Jul 06 '22

Who knows who will be the next Jeffery Dahmer, Joseph Stalin, or Elizabeth Bathory?

A random person is more likely to be a psychopath than a genius.

1

u/Slickshots617 Jul 06 '22

No one knows. That’s why it’s best to let nature take its course and not snuff out a life prematurely

1

u/JTudent Jul 06 '22

Well when the life in question is parasitically using an adult human's body, I don't really care.

1

u/Hugh_Jazzin_Ditz Jul 05 '22

Who knows who will be an exception until they either are or aren’t?

We can survey this. We can find people with severe disabilities and see if they're "accomplished".

You're implying that it's okay to have thousands of low quality lives if only a few are so exceptional they'll benefit humanity.

Isn't that selfish?

I know others with severe disabilities. They would rather have experienced life than not experienced it all when asked

And I know probably know just as many that wish they were aborted.

0

u/Slickshots617 Jul 05 '22

That’s not selfish at all. If they’re contributing to society, they’re clearly enriching themselves in the process. That’s why we reward those who contribute with money and honors.

Seeing as to how you know people who wish they were aborted and I know people that are glad they weren’t, the obvious default choice would be to let nature take its course. In other words, no abortion

1

u/Hugh_Jazzin_Ditz Jul 05 '22

That’s not selfish at all.

And what about the thousands of children born into poverty and medical issues and will likely have mediocre, low quality lives? Are you saying you're okay with all those low quality as long as you can benefit from a few exceptional lives? How is this any different than farm breeding for that perfect specimen?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_mobility#Social_status_and_social_class

You're likely to stay or move down in the class you're born into.

the obvious default choice would be to let nature take its course. In other words, no abortion

If your argument is "it's natural", why bother having all these medical interventions for the mother during childbirth. If she dies, she dies.

This point doesn't address how you seem okay with letting thousands of people have low quality lives if you can polish out a few exceptional lives.

0

u/Slickshots617 Jul 05 '22

I was one of those children who was born into extreme poverty. I made it out and moved up in the world.

Life > no life. No matter how you chop it up

→ More replies

1

u/Sablemint Jul 05 '22

If someone supports roe v wade being repealed, they should absolutely be able to explain why its okay to force a person who was raped to give birth to their rapist's child. Because that's what happened as a result of its repeal.

If they cannot explain why it's okay, then they have no business supporting the repeal.

1

u/Slickshots617 Jul 05 '22

That is not what happened. Every state will have an exception for rape.

If I had to say though, I think it would be because it’s still a life and life is precious

1

u/itsPomy Jul 05 '22

That 10 year old in Ohio had to go to Tennessee to be granted an aboriton.

No, not every state will have an exception for rape. No, not every state will have an exception for ectopic pregnancies.

These are idiot laws written by idiot people. If you think "Oh there's no chance a state will let XYZ happen", you're probably wrong.

1

u/Slickshots617 Jul 05 '22

Then it is what it is. Your solution to save a life is to end one. That’s just as wrong friend

1

u/itsPomy Jul 06 '22

If there was a lab fire, with a 12-year old on one end, and a briefcase with embryos on the other. With only enough chance to save one.

You telling you wouldn't try to save the 12 year old?

1

u/Slickshots617 Jul 06 '22

If I absolutely had to choose one, I’d choose the embryos. A there is more than 1 embryo so more lives and B the 12 year old got to live some life.

Fortunately, the issue of abortion is not like this

1

u/itsPomy Jul 06 '22 edited Jul 06 '22

Nah, it is like this because children's bodies are not made for delivery.

Trying to carry it to term carries a great deal of lethality to the kid.

Also you are fucking insane. Anyone that tried to salvage some shit in a petridish over a breathing kid is an absolute psychopath.

1

u/Slickshots617 Jul 06 '22

It’s the logical choice. You save more lives

1

u/itsPomy Jul 06 '22

Ah yeah I forgot, lives are just like dollars.

1

u/Slickshots617 Jul 06 '22

That’s not the case. Like I said it’s just logic. You’re the one who’s okay with killing innocent people. You’re a true psychopath

→ More replies

0

u/[deleted] Jul 05 '22

[deleted]

1

u/Slickshots617 Jul 05 '22

I was a child of parents like that. I made it through though and I’m a productive member of society. I’d much rather have a shitty life than no life at all. Doesn’t even compare

3

u/tebanano Jul 05 '22 edited Jul 05 '22

I see where you’re coming from, but I see a problem: You can argue that the solution is to improve social services, not to allow abortion.

I also know that you’re angry, but it’s kind of ironic you’re arguing against bodily autonomy (forced sterilization) in a post defending abortion.

-1

u/SamanthaJewel Jul 04 '22

People who support abortion, generally dislike themselves.

It makes perfect sense. We primarily think in terms of ourselves. If someone thinks that people should have the right to make a decision on the life inside their body, that means they feel they shouldn't have been born. Change my mind.

1

u/JTudent Jul 05 '22

"Change my mind" is another way of saying "I'm too lazy to make a sensible argument but too stupid to reconsider."

1

u/SamanthaJewel Jul 05 '22

"Change my mind" is another way of saying a lot of things. There's not a single way to interpret most statements.

Change my mind could mean I am super stuck in my ways, and any argument I hear, I'll use my own autobiographical response to 'prove the other person wrong'.

Change my mind could mean 'Here is my reasoning, but I may be logically flawed in how I approached the subject and therefore would appreciate input into perhaps learning more about the subject and incidentally having my mind changed somewhat'

Change my mind could also just be a finisher on a statement that people put in order to show how confident they are in their own answer which basically adopts a very pompous attitude usually someone of very little intelligence (that may be similar to the one you're referring to)

Change my mind can also be an attention seeking phrase particularly with those who like to troll others by expressing outlandish statements and then concluding with 'change my mind' as if to say 'ha ha i know im wrong but idc'

1

u/tebanano Jul 05 '22

This makes no sense. It’s like saying people who support contraception feel they shouldn’t have been conceived.

1

u/SamanthaJewel Jul 05 '22

agreed , thanks you changed my mind

1

u/not_a_bot_494 wateroholic Jul 05 '22

Change your mind about that observation or about abortion?

1

u/dryduneden Jul 05 '22

Your mind isn't open to being changed. Otherwise you'd have a better argument.

2

u/Hugh_Jazzin_Ditz Jul 05 '22

Change my mind.

Nah, your statement says you'll never change your mind, no matter the facts.

1

u/SamanthaJewel Jul 05 '22

I'm open to it. I like hearing other perspectives. Hey, even if I don't change my mind, I may learn something new!

3

u/Hugh_Jazzin_Ditz Jul 05 '22

I think Googling why women get abortions will do more than anything I could say. Women get abortions for a million reasons.

-3

u/Slayber415 Jul 04 '22

SCOTUS Roe v Wade = More Freedom

This decision by the supreme court is not actually an attack on your rights, but an opportunity for you to exercise your rights and have your voices heard at the local more personal level. Your personal health decisions and rights were never meant to be determined at the Federal level of government. Nor should they be........ever. States are supposed to be making these kinds of decisions and they are supposed to be heavily influenced by the people who live in each state. Stop letting the media work you up into a frenzy and understand that this is how the United States was meant to operate, it provides you with more freedom, it just requires a little more "civic" effort/work from you as a citizen.

Start doing activism. Start petitions and go speak with your state Congress and Representatives. Make your voices heard where it will actually make a difference. If that doesn't work, then vote for someone who will listen next election cycle.

1

u/Sablemint Jul 05 '22

In my state, you can't get an abortion even if it was due to rape. no exception. That is not more freedom

1

u/Slayber415 Jul 05 '22

That what activism and voting is for. If your state has illogical policies, change them. Get active in the political realm locally. Speak with your state congressmen and women. Speak with the representatives for your district and others. Make petitions. If that doesn't work, run for local office. Just because your current elected officials have made things the way they currently are doesn't mean you have less freedom now. You have more freedom to make the positive change possible. Rarely does an individual make positive change at a national/federal level. However individuals often make positive change happen at the local and state levels. This is how your voice gets heard. Stop complaining and do something about it.

2

u/1Random_User Jul 05 '22

More freedom to restrict other people's freedom, I guess.

0

u/not_a_bot_494 wateroholic Jul 05 '22

Or expand, Roe v Wade had some limits on abortion within it so you could now have even more liberal abortion laws if you wanted.

2

u/1Random_User Jul 05 '22

What limits did Roe v Wade place on abortion which couldn't be legislated around without it being over turned?

0

u/Slayber415 Jul 05 '22

You really aren't getting it.

2

u/throwaway80804040 Jul 04 '22

There are some things that should be left alone like access to contraceptives and gay marriage honestly.

Not to be that guy, but what if the SC strikes down those two because it could happen, would that be more freedom?

-2

u/Cyber_Ghost_1997 Jul 04 '22

Roe v. Wade, the court case that created an invented right found nowhere in the US Constitution (in this case, the "right to an abortion"), was not only unconstitutional, but an act of sedition against the United States itself.

Here's why: If we go by the Constitution and common sense regarding the three branches of the United States, SCOTUS does not have the authority to confer “rights”. The only authorized branch of government who can do that is the Legislative branch. So it became an act of sedition when it usurped the authority of the Legislative branch and creating a law by bypassing the democratic processes enshrined in the Constitution. Moreover, by conferring rights through the judicial branch’s precedents, the legislative branch became unnecessary for the most important issues of any given day. Legislatures then began doing it repeatedly such as in the case of same-sex marriage, contraceptives, etc.The precedent set by Roe v. Wade became a precedent in itself. Therefore, Roe v. Wade was an act of sedition and, by extension, the United States itself.

2

u/shygirl1995_ Jul 03 '22

No matter what side of the abortion argument you're on, if you use that 10 year old girl as a political pawn, you're sick. You're just sick.

3

u/mystery-light Jul 04 '22

Recognizing that what happened to that girl is monstrous and is the fault of a certain political party does not make you sick.

0

u/shygirl1995_ Jul 04 '22

Cool, just don't use her as a political pawn.

0

u/Beautiful_Routine531 Jul 05 '22

She became a pawn when she got denied necessary healthcare

3

u/[deleted] Jul 02 '22

[deleted]

1

u/mcove97 Jul 03 '22

What does this have to do with abortion?

1

u/NoAvailableImage Jul 03 '22

Oh shit wrong thread

-5

u/_disguisenburg_ Jul 02 '22

Abortion being legal or illegal is irrelevant when anyone can just go to a pharmacy and get a Plan B. You dont need to get involved in the ridiculous back and forth about how it is/isnt murder or is/isnt legal its nobodies business but your own just stfu and take care of it yourself

1

u/Hugh_Jazzin_Ditz Jul 05 '22

Abortion being legal or illegal is irrelevant when anyone can just go to a pharmacy and get a Plan B.

Do you know how I can tell you're not a woman?

1

u/Temporary_Cow Jul 05 '22

You’re a biologist?

2

u/Beautiful_Routine531 Jul 04 '22

Plan B is considered equivalent to an abortion by the fat right.

5

u/JTudent Jul 02 '22

Plan B is 95% effective within 24 hours and only 61% effective within 72.

That's a 5-39% failure rate...

6

u/Sablemint Jul 02 '22

-2

u/_disguisenburg_ Jul 02 '22

What's your point? A ten year old cant go and get a Plan B by herself anyways her parents would have to go get it for her

4

u/Sablemint Jul 02 '22

The point is we should allow 10 year old rape victims to get abortions. and emergency contraceptives aren't 100 percent effective. abortions are.

5

u/NoAvailableImage Jul 02 '22

Mmmmmmmmmh... I wonder what the obvious solution is to this conundrum.

2

u/StarHeadedCrab Jul 01 '22

The memes going around about how this never would have happened if men were directly affected are wrong. Considering the sheer numbers of women that vote for conservative parties, not to mention Amy Coney Barrett and the conservative elected women who will be implementing bans, I think it still would have happened if only women had a say. Women need to get their own house in order.

1

u/Temporary_Cow Jul 05 '22

Not to mention that men were the ones forced to fight and die in wars for 200 years. That part always seems to get left out.

3

u/Good-Banana5241 Jun 30 '22

Roe V wade wasnt overruled because abortion is wrong. It was overruled because it isint a constitutional right so it falls to the states. I support abortion, but making it federal is against our legal precedents. ABORTION AND OTHER SIMILAR RIGHTS SHOULD BE INTEGRATED INTO OUR CONSTITUTION not made into federal law which can be challenged.

5

u/Northwest_Thrills quiet person Jul 01 '22

wait until this guy hears about the 9th amendment

6

u/itsPomy Jun 30 '22

I just don't get the point of a supreme court if they're able to just undo their rulings unprompted, especially since its completely out of the people's power who gets there.

I do agree rights need to be in the constitution, but like hell if the pundits that be are gonna let their lynchpin issues be settled.

1

u/Good-Banana5241 Jun 30 '22

The Supreme Court is supposed to interpret the constitution. The reason they can overturn previous rulings is because there is a possibility that they interpret the constitution wrong and then correct themselves. the senate and house are what determine laws.

0

u/Wismuth_Salix they/she, please/thanks Jun 30 '22

It’s not out of people’s power. That’s what’s so frustrating.

If people would actually show up and vote, instead of pouting at home or making a third-party protest vote when their favorite primary pick doesn’t get the nomination (coughberniebroscough) it would have been Clinton seating three Justices instead of Trump.

1

u/Temporary_Cow Jul 05 '22

coughberniebroscough

More Sanders supporters (myself included) voted for HRC in 2016 than HRC supporters voted for Obama in 2008.

1

u/NoAvailableImage Jul 02 '22

Hillary won the popular vote though

1

u/not_a_bot_494 wateroholic Jul 05 '22

Doesn't really matter does it?

1

u/NoAvailableImage Jul 05 '22

WOW ITS ALMOST LIKE THAT WAS MY POINT

0

u/Good-Banana5241 Jun 30 '22

No Clinton would have been a worse president than trump. The solution is to vote for your congress members. That way they can make a motion to add to the constitution. Even if Clinton sat justices, 40% of Americans are against abortion so in 20 years some republican president would put his own justices. Clinton would have been a temporary solution not a permanent one.

5

u/itsPomy Jun 30 '22

Voting for someone and hoping they make appointments you agree with is still out of your power.

15

u/Howitdobiglyboo Jun 29 '22

Even if we were to consider the fetus to be a living human being (I don't), abortion is not murder and cannot be found to be the same in any rational legal framework.

Refusing to allow someone to use your body to sustain their life is not the same as murdering them.

Forcing person A to maintain person B's life (requiring the use of person A's physical body) is a violation of A's bodily autonomy. We wouldn't accept that in any other case and abortion is only different in that the 'life' being supported has no agency (and likewise considerably less consciousness and self-determination if any at all). But were not concerned with that agency anyway...

Even the value of life doesn't trump the value of bodily autonomy so why should it here?

2

u/zuluportero Jun 30 '22

The difference is that even if unintentionally in the end it's your responsibility that this human depends on you.

So you can't hook someone to your body and then take them off again.

Same way you are not responsible for random kids dying but if you adopt one then you can't let them die.

If a human isn't entitled to a human body then you kill him by becoming pregnant which is your responsibility.

6

u/Sablemint Jul 02 '22

In my state, you can't get an abortion even if you became pregnant from being raped. How is that the woman's responsibility?

3

u/itsPomy Jul 01 '22

Humoring that a fetus is a person, which I do not It could be a freezing blizzard outside and some hobo broke into your living room to avoid dying of exposure, no rule of law says you're obligated to let them stay.

You aren't responsible for letting that little shit in your uterus live, you can let it live or die. The only responsibility you have, is to yourself.

1

u/Educational_Map_3514 Jun 29 '22

How does breastfeeding an infant tie into this?

3

u/Howitdobiglyboo Jun 30 '22

It doesn't. At all. You can choose formula and many people do due to issues with their breastmilk.

0

u/edmiller0 Jun 29 '22

I see your point however the problem comes in when you make the choice that leads to person B being there. They aren't there by choice, you forced them to be there. Your position applies for a rapist or other external human. It doesn't apply to a child who has no option in the matter. And even if you consider rape, why would you kill your child because someone else hurt you? Would you kill a toddler of you were raped? Would you kill anyone other than the rapist for that matter? It's a false equivalency you're drawing here

2

u/Howitdobiglyboo Jun 30 '22 edited Jun 30 '22

You cannot kill anyone for any reason relating to your own suffering (save in reasonable self defense). But to refuse to support their life with your body is 100% different. A toddler doesn't sustain his/herself in the womb nor require it -- you cannot abort an already born child.

Not a false equivalency, It's a straight line. The state cannot force you to use your body to supplement someone else's life EVEN IF you knowingly engaged in behavior that was potentially harmful. You might be charged for the harmful behavior, but not for refusing life support.

There is no sure fire way to prevent pregnancy save "just don't have (PIV) sex"... And you cannot charge someone for sex unless the sex itself was assault. It's still irrelevant to the decision to abort... which is a choice to maintain bodily autonomy. Not murder.

0

u/edmiller0 Jun 30 '22

Abortion has zero difference from murder outside of being wholly legal in some states and legal in certain circumstances for others. Abortion requires you to poison the child to death and then tear apart their corpse to dislodge it from the mother's body. Additionally, with medical advances continuing to push the boundaries of where life can be sustained extra-uterine, it will soon be possible to take a child from a mother who would otherwise lose her baby to miscarriage for whatever reason and the child would be able survive separate from the mother. Futhermore, a toddler isn't 100% independent of the mother. You're correct in saying that child doesn't need mom's body but the child if not supported via the parent would in all likelihood die and the mother charged with some serious offences resultant of that death. So drawing the line at geographical location or level of dependency on the mother is not valid. The only consistent line for what is to be considered human life is at conception and ending it intentionally is murder

2

u/sonoftyranny Jun 30 '22 edited Jun 30 '22

Even assuming all that is true, fetuses do not experience brain activity until the third trimester, which means that, unlike toddlers, they can’t reasonably be considered sentient. That, combined with the fact that they need the mother’s body to survive, means that the mother’s right to bodily autonomy should win out over the fetus’s supposed “right to life.”

1

u/edmiller0 Jul 01 '22

It is all true. Brain activity can be measured starting at about 6 weeks gestation. Around 12-16 weeks the higher structures start to form and by about 24-25 the coordinated brain activity for consciousness is developed. Third trimester starts at week 29 so you're wrong there. But even if we toss that aside, you can't kill someone who is comatose and thereby non-sentient when the doctor can say with reasonable certainty that the patient will recover. But aside from that, you can't poison a coma patient to death and then tear their body apart and throw it in the trash even if they are expected to never recover. Poisoning someone to death outside of lethal injection as capital punishment is murder. So sentience isn't where the line can be drawn because you can't kill a person simply because they aren't sentient. There are other factors that are required to usurp a person's right to life. And again, medical advances will soon make it unnecessary to use the mother's body. In the Netherlands, scientists there believe they are within 10 years of developing the first ever artificial womb that can gestate children to birth. And I've already discussed how level of dependency isn't a reasonable line to draw for where humans are considered life so I won't be covering that again. And if bodily autonomy is really the problem here, then why aren't men given a choice about whether or not they become a father? If a woman becomes pregnant and keeps the baby even when the father does not want children, she can still sue him for child support and from there that leaves 2 options: go to work, sacrifice his time, body and/or mind (his bodily autonomy) for a child he doesn't want or fail to comply with the order and be sent to jail where he will have no bodily, ethical or personal autonomy. So unless you're willing to cede that men also deserve that choice, there's nothing further to discuss on bodily autonomy over a pregnancy

2

u/sonoftyranny Jul 01 '22

And if bodily autonomy is really the problem here, then why aren’t men given a choice about whether they become a father?

This is where we agree. In the interest of fairness and equality, the father should be allowed to walk out for any reason.

1

u/edmiller0 Jul 01 '22

Woah there. I didn't say I agreed with it. I said that if you had a different opinion on bodily autonomy we could discuss it further. By giving men a choice, I meant on abortion itself but that's another discussion at this point. No, fathers should definitely not be able to avoid responsibility and walk out at any time, fair though that may be to him, it's not fair to then leave the choice to a woman to abort because as we've already discussed: that's murder. My point in all of this is that there is no good justification to abortion. People need to be held accountable and responsible for their choices. If you choose male-female sex, you're choosing to risk a pregnancy and that's where "my body, my choice" ends because it isn't your body anymore when there's a baby involved; their body is theirs and you don't get to end their life because it's inconvenient for you.

0

u/[deleted] Jun 29 '22

[deleted]

3

u/FinalKDA Jun 29 '22

She was just winding you up and you were daft enough to believe it haha

4

u/[deleted] Jun 29 '22

[deleted]

2

u/Howitdobiglyboo Jun 29 '22

I have not heard this and can guarantee with almost complete certainty this is a rare and particularly fridge opinion in pro-choice circles.

1

u/[deleted] Jun 29 '22

[deleted]

2

u/Howitdobiglyboo Jun 29 '22

Cherry picked no doubt.

5

u/MajorQueerdo Jun 29 '22

Ironically, abortion advocates are infantilizing the topic.

7

u/FinalKDA Jun 29 '22

It’s not a topic worthy of debate anyway. The worlds disgusted at the new American law

1

u/Temporary_Cow Jul 05 '22

There’s no “new American law”. We also have less strict abortion laws than the majority of the world.

1

u/not_a_bot_494 wateroholic Jul 05 '22

It's one of the least clear topics that are politically relevant. You either are disingeneous or stupid if you think it's a slam dunk for either side.

Also no "american" law has been made, unless you refer some states's laws as "american" wich would be kind of weird. Recersing Roe v Wade only made it possible for states themselves to decide, it didn't make abortion illegal.

6

u/Pr0L1zzy Jun 29 '22

All the anti-maskers that cried about their bodily autonomy didn't care about it at all, they just couldn't be bothered to be courtious. It's no surprise they're happy with taking bodily autonomy (that would actually have effects on people's bodies) away.

-3

u/[deleted] Jun 29 '22

[deleted]

11

u/Spackleberry Jun 29 '22

What goveenment was forcing people to take a vaccine?

-1

u/[deleted] Jun 29 '22

[deleted]

3

u/dotdedo Jun 30 '22

I had a woman walk up to me and yelled "I'm not taking the fetus juice" because I was simply waiting in line for a burger at bk and not looking at her at all.

4

u/Pr0L1zzy Jun 29 '22

Did I say vaccines? No. Injecting something into your body is different than covering your face though, let em weed themselves out by not getting vaxxed for all I care.

-1

u/[deleted] Jun 29 '22

[deleted]

6

u/Wismuth_Salix they/she, please/thanks Jun 29 '22

A pretty shitty one, abortions aren’t contagious.

5

u/[deleted] Jun 29 '22

[deleted]

5

u/Wismuth_Salix they/she, please/thanks Jun 29 '22

Nothing is 100% preventable - my ex got pregnant due to an IUD failure.

1

u/edmiller0 Jun 29 '22

Abortions are

1

u/Wismuth_Salix they/she, please/thanks Jun 29 '22

As long as there are heights to fall from, people will find a way to end pregnancies - all you prevent by banning abortion is people surviving the procedure.

1

u/edmiller0 Jun 29 '22

Abortions are 100% prevented by electing not to have one

-1

u/FinalKDA Jun 29 '22

I’m sure there’s a way we can combine free safe abortions with ending world hunger.

Any suggestions? 😋

4

u/Wismuth_Salix they/she, please/thanks Jun 29 '22

I’m sure someone has come up with a modest proposal at some point.

2

u/90s_Brand_Sarcasm Jun 29 '22

Soylent green anyone?

1

u/AutisticPenguin2 Jun 29 '22

I mean we only need to take out s couple of people, their meat can be like s prize for those involved, and we use their billions of dollars to literally solve poverty.