Roe vs Wade Overturned?
- Thread starter TheAncientCenturion
- Start date
Except they aren't alive until they are born and have no sense of pain until the third trimester, which was the previous limitation on abortions in the US and where most countries with legal abortions draw the line anyway.
There's a difference between aborting a 6 month old foetus and a 2 week old clump of cells - the latter is no different to having a wank in terms of what you 'kill'. I must be a complete genocidal maniac! Have me arrested!
There's a difference between aborting a 6 month old foetus and a 2 week old clump of cells - the latter is no different to having a wank in terms of what you 'kill'. I must be a complete genocidal maniac! Have me arrested!
Yes look up the average age of those men in congress
[automerge]1656518538[/automerge]
It's a womens choice if she is 6 weeks pregnant and does not want to have a child.
The funnier part is when they are forced to have the child and need gov't assistance those same people tell those women to kick rocks... talk about ironic
[automerge]1656518538[/automerge]
It's a womens choice if she is 6 weeks pregnant and does not want to have a child.
The funnier part is when they are forced to have the child and need gov't assistance those same people tell those women to kick rocks... talk about ironic
What is extreme about my post?
All I had done is:
1. pointed out the logic doesn't slide if you apply it to other situations
2. provided a source and research from one of the biggest sexual health institutes in the world that show banning abortion is counterintuitive
3. pointed out that if it really is about the kids as most people anti-abortion argue, they should be campaigning for several if not hundreds of things absent in the US, and yet they aren't
They are three basic, principled arguments. If you have a problem with it, try and share your thoughts as to why you disagree.
[automerge]1656520489[/automerge]
And you realise most politicians that actually argue against this use Aristotle to support their argument and consider him more credible than scientifically backed research, right? He GUESSED (over 2300 years ago) an embryo is alive at 40 days pregnancy for males and a foetus is alive at 90 days for females...
All I had done is:
1. pointed out the logic doesn't slide if you apply it to other situations
2. provided a source and research from one of the biggest sexual health institutes in the world that show banning abortion is counterintuitive
3. pointed out that if it really is about the kids as most people anti-abortion argue, they should be campaigning for several if not hundreds of things absent in the US, and yet they aren't
They are three basic, principled arguments. If you have a problem with it, try and share your thoughts as to why you disagree.
[automerge]1656520489[/automerge]
And you realise most politicians that actually argue against this use Aristotle to support their argument and consider him more credible than scientifically backed research, right? He GUESSED (over 2300 years ago) an embryo is alive at 40 days pregnancy for males and a foetus is alive at 90 days for females...
Last edited:
deranged because I am angry about the fact people are okay with sending people (women) to death but not okay with sending people (reaaaaaaallly stretching the definition of a person) to "death?
most of whom that share this view do not consider any consequences or implications. The problem doesn't end at abortion or not.
Prove to me an early stage pregnancy, for a woman who wants or requires an abortion (to live, perhaps) would not see it that way? I am sure a foetus is significant to many but this is not my point. I would very much appreciate it if all of you could learn to read or at the very least improve your comprehension to understand that my point is that if a woman wants an abortion, she should be able to have one. If a woman doesn't want an abortion, that is okay too. If a person who opposes abortions is in a situation where an abortion is valid; choosing not to have one is still okay - the latter does not require a banning of abortions for everyone. If people don't want others having abortions, the subsequent implications must also be addressed (child safety, health services, aid in poverty, housing, food, population problems, fostering/adoption/homelessness etc.) - the fact they have not been addressed (pretty much ever, in the US at least) means that banning abortions, if that's what you believe in, is simply running before you can walk.
People should have agency to choose. Whether it is moral or not is not even the question - if it is the question you have or center your arguments around to begin with then you are entirely misguided.
most of whom that share this view do not consider any consequences or implications. The problem doesn't end at abortion or not.
Prove to me an early stage pregnancy, for a woman who wants or requires an abortion (to live, perhaps) would not see it that way? I am sure a foetus is significant to many but this is not my point. I would very much appreciate it if all of you could learn to read or at the very least improve your comprehension to understand that my point is that if a woman wants an abortion, she should be able to have one. If a woman doesn't want an abortion, that is okay too. If a person who opposes abortions is in a situation where an abortion is valid; choosing not to have one is still okay - the latter does not require a banning of abortions for everyone. If people don't want others having abortions, the subsequent implications must also be addressed (child safety, health services, aid in poverty, housing, food, population problems, fostering/adoption/homelessness etc.) - the fact they have not been addressed (pretty much ever, in the US at least) means that banning abortions, if that's what you believe in, is simply running before you can walk.
People should have agency to choose. Whether it is moral or not is not even the question - if it is the question you have or center your arguments around to begin with then you are entirely misguided.
pro-lifers point is about a new unique human life thats growing inside a womans body. Nothing you say here has anything to do with that.
Sentience is literally irrelevant to whether something is alive or not, at least biologically, and not everyone will care about any philosophical shit you might want to bring up.
Mostly agree here, but @bolded is usually a talking point of the right, isnt it?
Ok?
Pretty much agree here, but thats still missing the pro-life point. they argue your choice shouldnt be able to terminate the life of another human being, even if that human being is in the earliest developmental stages.
And abortions never have complications, right? spoiler: they do have complications.
and im pretty sure most pro-lifers are fine with exceptions in the case of rape or incest. The laws dont necessarily reflect on that tho.
Not sure you wanna go the route of children would be better off dead if they live in horrific and severely disadvantages circumstances. If that wasnt what you were trying to say, my bad, but it really does lowkey sound like that.
[automerge]1656521157[/automerge]
whats the point of this comment?
and scientific consensus is that life begins at fertilization btw.
Yeah we can tell by your post, which is why we're telling you to chill.
Talk to women in real life, I've said earlier in this thread but for most women abortion is a big deal. It's not as easy as eating as you literally alluded to.
If you're making deranged arguments against deranged people you're not doing much.
Talk to women in real life, I've said earlier in this thread but for most women abortion is a big deal. It's not as easy as eating as you literally alluded to.
If you're making deranged arguments against deranged people you're not doing much.