Anonymous #1 22h

So putting a child into an orphanage to rot away feeling unwanted and often in pretty bad conditions is better than sparing them a horrible life?

24

Anonymous #1 20h

So remove the other person from their body if they don’t want to house it. Seems simple.

8

Anonymous #2 19h

For one don’t act like you would abort for the child’s sake you’re doing it purely for yourself. Also why don’t you ask every kid whose ever been in the foster system if they wish their mother would’ve slayed them before they ever saw daylight

-3

Anonymous #3 19h

Let’s learn about the concept of liability, let’s say I’m playing baseball at the park and I really fuck up a throw and hit a bitch square in the face, I’d be liable for nursing them back to health, in 99.9% of cases this is done financially. However, in the case of an unwanted pregnancy you’re liable for creating the life, the fact that the child isn’t sufficient out of the womb is your own doing, you created the injury, so you are liable to care for that baby.

-1

Anonymous #3 19h

Id be down if u could put the kid in some kind of chamber to keep him alive but it’d be at your expense

-2

Anonymous #1 19h

And if I wasn’t liable? What if I did everything right, contraception wise, but got raped and pregnant. What then.

6

Anonymous #3 19h

Then you’re not liable and have the right to abort

-3

Anonymous #1 19h

What if I couldn’t prove it to the court? Would I be forced then?

5

Anonymous #3 19h

Even if you used contraceptives but still conceived from voluntary sex you still bare partial liability

-3

Anonymous #3 19h

Yes, if you couldn’t prove it based on a preponderance of the evidence as is done in civil court you would have to carry the pregnancy to term. It’s a terrible situation but courts fuck up every day for far worse consequences. Faith in courts is a tenant of democracy, in order to enforce the rule of course there needs to be a burden of proof, it’s not an ideal situation in any sense but a handful of rape babies is well worth it to save millions of people

-3

Anonymous #1 19h

You people are so crazy and remind me to hurry up and schedule my hysterectomy. We get it, you just love the clump of non sentient cells over women.

3

Anonymous #1 19h

This has to be rage bait cause wth do you mean a handful of “rape babies” is worth it?? And who exactly are the millions of people being saved in this situation? What about the millions of women and CHILDREN that would be negatively impacted because they were forced to carry to term?? I feel like this is just naivety, thinking that everyone would be happy in the end no matter what

4

Anonymous #3 19h

If you don’t plan on having children I would strongly recommend a hysterectomy or vasectomy, I’m already snipped but it’s the absolute best way to avoid an unwanted pregnancy and thus an abortion

0

Anonymous #3 19h

Also I really don’t get where your getting that I’m prioritizing the infants life over the women’s convenience but I would prioritize the women’s life over the infants in a child birth complication, so that’s clearly not true

0

Anonymous #4 19h

Too many people are trying to make life altering decisions for others when it has no impact on them no matter the decision

2

Anonymous #1 19h

You’re clearly not valuing a woman’s bodily autonomy, which is a human right we even give to corpses, even in cases to save lives. They are not “infants” they are fetuses. These terms are not interchangeable.

3

Anonymous #4 19h

When did I ever say everyone would be happy? First of all let’s talk numbers 1.15 million babies were aborted last year while 30,000 babies were conceived in rape. Let’s say the court had a zero percent success rate and all thirty thousand have to give birth, terrible absolutely but to save 1.1 million lives? It’s not even a question

0

Anonymous #1 19h

It’s always quantity over quality with you people

0

Anonymous #3 19h

You are liable for creating the life, then you are liable for carrying it to term

4

Anonymous #4 18h

1.1 million dead people doesn’t affect me any more than Gaza or starvation in Africa, doesn’t mean I’m not allowed to care

0

Anonymous #1 18h

Congrats on not actually addressing a single point I made. Let’s try a hypothetical. Let’s say you were drunk driving and hit another car. You were responsible, but you die and nearly kill a kid in the other car. He needs a kidney, a rare type that only you can provide him. Can the government require the doctors to remove your kidney to give to that child, even if it went against your express wishes to? Or would that be illegal?

0

Anonymous #3 18h

There is no “quality” in people, all people are created equal, all people will die equal in the eyes of the law, nothing will ever change that

1

Anonymous #3 18h

Very extraneous and rare circumstances but yes, I believe that I should legally obligated to fork over the kidney. Now that’s so rare and the logistics and timeline are so messy while unwanted pregnancy is common but yes in a perfect world

0

Anonymous #1 18h

Then you’re disagreeing with every law we have about bodily autonomy and idk how to help you. I agree with number 4, this is either rb or you’re too far gone to help.

1

Anonymous #3 18h

In that scenario you’d still be civilly liable anyway, so under that framework you laid down in our current system abortion would make you liable for wrongful death

1

Anonymous #1 18h

Those abortions were had for a reason, whether it be that they didn’t feel ready or were not in a secure enough place in their lives to support another child. Whatever the reason was by eliminating the choice of having an abortion you can’t guarantee a safe place for said child. Now I’m not saying that those who chose to have children are all safe spaces but I feel like it’s better to be safe than sorry no?

2

Anonymous #4 18h

I can’t guarantee a safe place if course but I can secure a place, being bad off is a hell of a lot better than being dead. The whole “they’re better off” argument could be used to just kill any person facing hardship

1

Anonymous #1 17h

Correct me if I’m wrong but I think that our opposing views of when life actually starts is really the driving factor behind both of our arguments so we can just agree to disagree atp however I still believe that taking the choice away from those in need of those options is not a good idea

2

Anonymous #4 17h

You just can’t tell me life begins at birth, that’s just not scientific to me. Also it’s not at all about removing options, it’s simply about protecting the unborn.

1

Anonymous #1 7h

People 10000% abort children because they wouldn't be able to take care of them

1