Anonymous #1 2d

YESSSS

19

Anonymous #4 2d

nobody pro-choice would want your ass anyway. whole point of this post 💀

32

Anonymous #3 2d

what are you talking about bro 😭

21

Anonymous #3 2d

By defending her choice 😭

24

Anonymous #4 2d

Thank you for telling us you wouldn’t defend our bodies 🙏🙏🥰

13

Anonymous #9 2d

this is kind of a quote that can fit a broad group of people though

5

Anonymous #9 2d

Yes. Taking quotes out of context is important to recognize. When MLK said he had a dream it was his black dreams that white people can’t understand or apply to their lives

-1

Anonymous OP 2d

I defend all bodies. Getting knocked up isn’t a death sentence

-1

Anonymous #4 2d

for a lot of people it is, but I suppose you’re just ragebaiting at this point 🫡

11

Anonymous #1 2d

Sad that this is the bare minimum, like the bar is literally in hell 😔

0

Anonymous #8 2d

260,000 women a year die in childbirth genius

6

Anonymous #1 2d

In the U.S., the rate is currently around 0.033% (33.6 per 100,000 live births) - you’re more likely to die in a car accident. Thanks for playing.

-3

Anonymous #4 2d

the statistic is in the world you dumb slug

6

Anonymous #1 2d

You’re right it makes a HUGE difference and extra impact calling me names Globally, about 0.197% (or 197 per 100,000) of live births result in maternal death.

-3

Anonymous #4 2d

Accidental Poisoning / Overdose: ~0.76% chance (1 in 130)Falls: ~0.58% chance (1 in 171)Car Accidents: ~0.33% chance (1 in 303)Assault by Firearm: ~0.32% chance (1 in 306)

-3

Anonymous #8 2d

well yeah, I never claimed it was exclusively applicable to black trans women. all I said is that anyone who shares this quote re: their own political struggles ought to be deliberate about allying themselves with the political struggles experienced by the woman they’re quoting

2

Anonymous #4 2d

why did my reply get such a defensive sarcastic response out of you 💀

8

Anonymous #9 1d

Because your comment was laughable political dribble. Truth is universal not dependent on experience or environment.

-2

Anonymous #4 1d

you’re arguing with things I didn’t say, homie. improving your reading comprehension could save you a lot of time & frustration

5

Anonymous #4 1d

least obvious transphobe rage baiter

6

Anonymous #4 1d

you’re more likely to die in a car accident than most things 💀

10

Anonymous #6 1d

So if you’re not anti-car are you out to kill me? Are you against my right to live?

-1

Anonymous #4 1d

you have the choice to not be in a car, dumbass

8

Anonymous #6 1d

You have the choice to have sex, dumbass

-2

Anonymous #4 1d

so you think people are anti-sex? because otherwise your analogy makes no sense lmao

7

Anonymous #6 1d

If you read the thread this started because I said don’t have sex with murderers. So yeah. I’m anti-murderer-sex

-2

Anonymous #4 1d

okay so? women, even if it’s a small enough percentage where YOU feel it’s negligible, do die from childbirth. not to even mention that those who don’t die can get very close to death.

5

Anonymous #8 1d

So hiding behind very small insignificant statistics to normalize at will MURDER of a population that can’t speak or defend maybe is the wrong side of history

-2

Anonymous #4 1d

Hey real quick because I think your argument is kind of clinically insane: children should not be a punishment. You are supposed to be joy when you have children. Punishing women for exploring their sexuality with an economic death sentence is actually crazy and the fact that you’re fine with that is nuts

12

Anonymous OP 1d

Thank you for acknowledging children are a joy. Where we disagree on what is clinically insane is the natural right to explore sexuality without consequence. Natures decides that, not you or me. STDs or mental issues or pregnancy can all result and we can’t overrule nature by committing murder to avoid natural (healthy) consequence.

-2

Anonymous OP 1d

“Economic death sentence” vs “literal human death sentence” shouldn’t even be in the same value proposition ballpark.

-2

Anonymous #4 1d

The problem with your argument is that it is not murder. A fetus could not survive on its own outside the womb.

7

Anonymous #4 1d

so speaking of cars and car accidents since you bring that up, do you also believe that people who get into harmful or fatal car accidents should be left to suffer with their injuries and/or die?

11

Anonymous #4 1d

But a woman’s choice should be. Because thats the fucking point of freedom dumbfuck

6

Anonymous OP 1d

Freedom is the ability to do what you ought to do. Not the ability to do whatever you want to do. If you are smarter than me and my work decides to fire me and hire you, can I murder you for causing me an economic death sentence? Your logic is inherently flawed.

-3

Anonymous #4 1d

false analogy, you can get hired elsewhere & it’s not one person’s fault. try again

3

Anonymous #4 1d

I don’t have freedom because I chose to explore my sexuality by having unprotected sex and now I’m not allowed to murder a human to prevent it from costing me money… do you hear yourself?

-3

Anonymous #4 1d

hey #4 answer the car question

9

Anonymous #4 1d

have you ever heard of sexual assault orrr

10

Anonymous #4 1d

i'm also interested to know if you're pro vax, pro free school lunches, pro sex ed taught at every age (age appropriate of course), and pro birth control amongst other things

10

Anonymous #4 1d

That analogy is logically flawed in literally every possible way 🤦

5

Anonymous #5 1d

Providing health care is logically consistent with my stance. Protect both mother and child lives to the best of medical ability. It’s not acceptable to dismember a child… At worst you deliver early and perform life saving maneuvers but this statistically insignificantly happens it’s mostly elective abortion for convenience

0

Anonymous #1 1d

So it’s the child’s fault that they were conceived by assault and it’s okay to murder innocent because crime happened first. Again… do you hear yourselves?

-3

Anonymous #4 1d

Not a child, fetus. Don’t move the goal post. The distinction matters because they are fundamentally different biologically

10

Anonymous #4 1d

Btw your alternative is the woman is forced to have the child of her rapist. Do you hear yourself?? Now she has to be reminded of that experience AND support a child she didn’t want (for any reason that does not matter) and without a father around to help

6

Anonymous #4 1d

it's really interesting how you're ignoring my questions in favor of making these pointless and illogical appeals to emotion, it's almost like your argument(s) might not hold in logic OR moral consistency...

10

Anonymous #4 1d

anyway no, it's not the fetus's fault that it was conceived that way, but that doesn't mean someone should be forced to carry it if they don't want to for whatever reason. just like it's not an animal's fault if it ends up biting someone most of the time, but if/when necessary, we end up removing it from wherever it is and/or killing it, too.

15

Anonymous OP 1d

They’re not fundamentally different biologically. It is a unique organism with human DNA that is a human. There’s no other scientific definition only political ones for convenience

-1

Anonymous OP 1d

Yeah imagine that she can do some good and raise a child who will learn to never rape someone do something good can come from the situation. Children are a gift and if she doesn’t want the child or can’t raise it there’s millions waiting to adopt - it’s a false problem of an unwanted child. Guaranteed someone wants the child.

-1

Anonymous #4 1d

And still not justification to murder a human life

-1

Anonymous #5 1d

I’m not ignoring them I’m showing you how the basis of your points are completely devoid of reality

-1

Anonymous #5 1d

If I have a terrible machete accident that cuts your legs off (something bad and illegal happened) do you have the right to murder me and take my legs to avoid having to live without legs? Do you just get to do whatever selfishly makes it right for you regardless of the cost of life for anyone else?

-2

Anonymous #4 1d

again, killing or seriously maiming a fully grown human is different than aborting a fetus. A fetus is genuinely just clumps of cells. It can’t think, feel, or understand anything. All of your scenarios equate murder or bodily harm to the act of abortion when they are completely different things. You seem to be having a hard time wrapping your head around that.

6

Anonymous #4 1d

do you want to answer some of my questions first or do you want to just keep asking people about crazy and incomplete hypotheticals. like you couldn't even detail what the bad and illegal thing is or why specifically a machete, have a little more conviction my guy.

6

Anonymous #5 1d

the answer is no, by the way, because that would be a violation of your consent and bodily autonomy, which you have as a legal and moral right as an (i'm assuming) able bodied adult

10

Anonymous #5 1d

not to mention that's not at all how prosthetics work, i couldn't just attach your legs to mine and have them work, so it'd be needlessly harmful. but it's interesting that i can't/shouldn't forcibly take your legs for my own sake but a fetus can and should forcibly siphon off my body's nutrients amongst other things by default according to you.

8

Anonymous #8 1d

Your language to dehumanize a living human just obfuscates the issue vs addressing the biological scientific reality that it is human life with feelings even

-2

Anonymous #5 1d

It doesn’t matter the means though is my point. Whether I commit assault or attempted murder with a machete isn’t the point it’s the response that matters. Fighting evil with evil never works. Making good despite evil is right. Apologies if I’m missing some questions it’s not intentional but there’s one of me and not one of you making multiple responses at different iterations. This is not a good mechanism for intelligent debate

-1

Anonymous #5 1d

And my point is what you call a clump of cells I call a human with the same consent and bodily autonomy that deserves protection. Mute people or people inc comas equally can’t talk to represent themselves but we still protect them because they’re humans as defined by their DNA which is uniquely theirs

-1

Anonymous #5 1d

And fine replace legs with kidney again you’re getting caught up in details that don’t matter. The point is wrong is not solved by more wrong - the ends don’t justify the means and the circumstance doesn’t grant additional freedom. Rape doesn’t mean you get to be a murderer and btw I’m also against the death penalty so it’s logically consistent that murder doesn’t even beget murder. We don’t get to murder you just because you murdered 2 people.

-1

Anonymous #4 1d

to the first half of your response: chopping off a fully grown human being's legs, or ripping out your kidneys is, again, different from terminating a fetus only weeks into a pregnancy, or simply removing the fetus from someone's body prematurely once it can somewhat survive outside the womb. a fetus is not sentient for a good while so it cannot experience pain or suffering the way you a fully grown human can.

6

Anonymous #4 1d

to the second half of your response: my point with the car accident thing is to counter your argument about "natural consequences." we as humans try to prevent and negate natural consequences all the time. you cannot cite the relatively low maternal—or infantile—mortality rate without acknowledging that it is that way now because of human scientific interventions which directly prevent the natural consequences of pregnancy itself, or genetic mutation, or disease, etc (1/2)

8

Anonymous #5 1d

so to say now that people are somehow wrong or immoral in preventing certain risks/conseuqnces of sex, such as STDs or pregnancy, is ridiculous, and as you've now finally admitted...not at all consistent. because you agree that just because someone gets into an accident doesn't mean that they should be left to die, even though getting into an accident is a risk people willingly take when they drive. (2/3)

7

Anonymous #5 1d

actually 2/2 i've not more to say on that point.

5

Anonymous #4 1d

re clump of cells: okay so let's say a clinic is on fire. there are 10 babies who have already been born, and 10 fertilized eggs in there. you can only save one group. are you saving the babies or are you saving the eggs? (1/2)

10

Anonymous #4 1d

also, mute people can obviously communicate in other ways—body language, sign language, etc. we kill people who are in comas or who are brain dead depending on the conditions. it's a tough choice to make but we make it. would you say a person who is financially strained by keeping their family member who has been in a coma for years with no change alive is wrong to pull the plug, lest they fall into debt or poverty? (2/2)

12

Anonymous #5 1d

Science does not support this conclusion about pain or sentience. The age of a human being does not change its value full stop. You can disagree with science on if it is a human being but if I’m right and it is then its age or utility or ability to communicate ought not add or remove protections

0

Anonymous #5 1d

If someone gets into a car accident we should provide them healthcare to heal them. If someone is having a medical emergency while pregnant we should provide them healthcare. Abortion is not healthcare. Delivering a baby and giving it medical care whether it’s likely to live or not is healthcare. Tearing it limb from limb and taking a blender to it in utero is a direct violation of the Hippocratic oath to do no harm. There are ethical ways to handle this that are not abortions.

0

Anonymous #5 1d

This is a false narrative. I’d risk my life saving them all but ultimately it’s also an irresponsible problem there are somehow fertilized eggs in a clinic not in women’s bodies (don’t get me started on IVF thats a completely different topic with logically consistent ethics as well)

0

Anonymous #5 23h

Don’t get caught up on the mute nuance I should have known you’d get triggered and then troll me about it. You understood my intent. We have an obligation to let nature naturally play itself out. If we are going to extraordinary non-natural means to keep someone alive at great expense who is not showing signs of life or improvement it’s ethical to pull the plug and let nature take its course. That’s fundamentally different than interrupting a natural normal healthy process like pregnancy

-2

Anonymous #4 23h

We actually don’t have an obligation to do that. That’s the point of society. To remove the variable of natural selection to help as many individuals within our ability. The goal is to do away with the self destructive idea of “stand by and let die”

5

Anonymous #4 23h

first of all, science DOES support the conclusion on sentience. here's a source: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/when-does-consciousness-arise/ i don't disagree that it's a human—obviously it is. i just don't really care as much about it at an early stage as during a later stage. and i prioritize the life of the mother above the child up to a certain point. (1/2)

8

Anonymous #5 23h

the value of a human is subjective. it's not that i don't think humans aren't valuable but, again, i just don't value a tiny thing growing inside someone over the person themselves up to a point. once it's OUT of the womb then yes i agree utility, age, ability to communicate, etc. should not impact what rights and considerations it has but before that, with some limitations, it doesn't matter to me (2/3)

4

Anonymous #4 23h

and to be clear i think after a certain amount of weeks, when the fetus is capable of sentience, then it shouldn't be killed but simply removed from the womb while still alive. but that's still between the person carrying the baby and their doctor, not me. (3/3)

5

Anonymous #4 23h

girl this is so stupid i can't even be eloquent about it when i underwent surgery because my tonsils were fucking me up and they were slicing and dicing whatever they had to slice and dice in there, were they not harming me? in direct violation of the hippocratic oath as you say? when they had to cut me open to fix my hernia? when they performed the c-section for my birth were they not harming my mother? get serious

4

Anonymous #4 23h

this is also such a ridiculously outdated and propaganda ass image of abortion. there is no blender there are pills for the shit now and it just makes people have some heavy period and they're done. or they just remove the baby via c-section. people miscarry into their toilets and don't even realize it. (2/3)

4

Anonymous #5 23h

and again by your logic the people who got into a car accident should be left for dead because when they got in their car, they knew that getting into an accident was a risk, and now experiencing the consequences of having gotten into the car they just have to let nature play out and die.

5

Anonymous #4 23h

did you mean false dichotomy? LMFAO anyway no you don't get to squirm out of properly answering my hypothetical after asking several of your own. you can only SAVE ONE GROUP. WHO are you saving. be fucking honest.

5

Anonymous #4 23h

"troll" and it's addressing nonsense you stupidly decided to put in your response. maybe actually think about what you're saying instead of regurgitating nonsense and i won't have to "troll" you. you CANNOT talk about letting nature play out without acknowledging all the ways we violate "nature" every single day for our own benefit and convenience. or else you're saying we should let millions die of the common cold amongst other things we've developed cures and remedies for every single year

7

Anonymous #4 23h

cancer is just the rapid division of cells, a perfectly "natural" process. the older animals get, the more their dna degrades, the more likely it is to develop cancer. should we as humans let nature take its course, and let cancer kill even more?

4

Anonymous #4 23h

just and we me this. are you pro vaccination? pro free school lunches? pro universal liveable income? pro sex ed? pro birth control?

7

Anonymous #5 21h

Abortion isn’t healthcare. Treating people for the common cold is.

-1

Anonymous #5 21h

Cancer is a disease. A baby is not a disease.

-1

Anonymous #5 21h

I am pro vaccination pending they weren’t developed or manufactured using aborted children cells. I’m pro free school lunches I’m not pro universal livable income because it just inflates the value of money and disincentivizes hard work. I’m pro age appropriate sex ed but i favor full parental knowledge and allow their consent to control the message and do it themselves. I’m anti birth control because again interrupting natural healthy process for selfish ends and some contraceptive is abortion

-1

Anonymous #4 21h

at least you seem to slightly care about kids after they're actually born but you've got the UBI thing twisted, not surprised there. first of all one of the biggest reasons why people get abortions is because they don't feel financial ready to have a child. in making sure that people actually have money to live you ensure more people feel comfortable and ready to have children.

8

Anonymous #4 21h

comprehensive sex ed allows for people to make informed decisions about sex, including knowing if/when they're ready to have children. and finally birth control ranging from condom usage to IUDs can help prevent a child from being conceived in the first place. no sperm meeting egg or at least, if/when that happens, it's cut off real quick, before any rational person would consider that an actual child

6

Anonymous #4 21h

also just because something is natural does not at all mean it's healthy or not incredibly dangerous. it's natural for me to get a fever when i'm particularly sick, but we all know if a fever lasts a long time or is very high, it is UNhealthy, and can result in damage to my body and even death. so i take a fever reducer so that i'm more comfortable and also so i don't die. that's the interruption of a natural process, isn't it? you're gonna say that's wrong?

6

Anonymous #5 21h

More money doesn’t solve the problem it just artificially raises the threshold but I’m frankly tired of this conversation because it’s not addressing the fundamental disagreement on human life or not. That’s all this boils down to is a definition of when something is human and deserves protection. The rest is just icing on the cake. I’m grateful one of you acknowledged it’s human. Thanks for engaging in mostly classy debate

-1

Anonymous #4 21h

then you have something as nutty as pregnancy—which you've already yourself admitted people DIE from—and all the different ways it can absolutely fuck your body up not just during those 9 months but years afterwards for most if not all those who give birth...and you want to blanket call it a healthy process? the vomiting? the headaches? the fibroids? the tearing?

6

Anonymous #4 21h

both my mom and i nearly DIED during my delivery. that's "healthy" to you? like

9

Anonymous #4 21h

yeah we're never gonna agree because you are not being good faith. you know you would save actual living children first before you'd save some fertilized eggs. you know you would look ridiculous if you tried to claim that a man jerking off and coming in a tissue is an act of genocide, even though on the cellular level, that about what we're talking about here. that's fine dude you're right it's a rather arbitrary line to draw

4

Anonymous #4 21h

but you just shouldn't be letting it get to the point where you're letting women and children get fucked up and/or killed because you think some little goop baby is worth more than them in this life. no one is forcing you to have an abortion you shouldn't force anyone else to Not have abortions. you should advocate for the actual things that would lower the amount of abortions. which is making sure people are doing more than making ends meet and making the future actually look brighter

8

Anonymous #4 20h

bro is anti birth control come on man 😭 you just have to be trolling or genuinely stupid at this point

5

Anonymous #8 20h

my vote is stupid unfortunately

5

Anonymous #5 14h

You’re accusing me of not good faith and you’re projecting I would say releasing sperm is genocide. Sperm is not a unique human life with its own DNA. Life begins at conception. Not engaging #5 anymore.

0

Anonymous #8 14h

It’s less evil than abortion but I think people underestimate the harm it’s causing our women to socially pressure them into acts they don’t want to perform under the guise of protection against pregnancy but not always 100% if you don’t take this pill at exactly the same time every day that oh by the way will increase your weight and destroy your hormones and give you acne and maybe cancer someday. Anxiety and depression are rampant and I don’t think birth control is helping at all.

-1

Anonymous #4 11h

You do know that birth control isn’t always used as a form of protection against pregnancy…. right? People that have issues with their periods being irregular or too heavy take it to regulate them. People that have PCOS, endometriosis, or severe cramping take it to relieve pain that otherwise would be debilitating.

4

Anonymous #4 11h

bros pro life talking about the harms of socially pressuring women into doing things they don't want to. okay then advocate for more condom use advocate for more temp vasectomies and for more research to go into making male birth control or healthier female birth control hell, advocate for better healthcare for women altogether.

8

Anonymous #8 8h

There are likely medical reasons where it’s beneficial vs the risks and side effects. You framed it in terms of “birth control” and that’s what I was addressing.

0

Anonymous #4 8h

it is ALL called birth control bro 😭 birth control is the NAME of the pill are you stupid?? the same pill that helps prevent pregnancy is the same pill with medical uses that HELP women. it’s the same pill. You can’t demonize it one way without demonizing the other uses.

4

Anonymous #8 8h

not to even mention YOU brought up birth control. I was replying to you.

4

Anonymous #8 4h

But to your point just because it’s called birth control doesn’t mean its only purpose is to control fertilization probabilities. A gun used in self defense is not the same as a gun used to rob a bank. Context matters.

0