Anonymous #2 3w

i’m prolife until you can prove to me that people are a separate species/not alive until their born, or that to have human right you have to be born/any other difference between fetuses and humans. OR that the fetus did something deserving of death.

-16

Anonymous #2 3w

between fetuses and born humans

-13

Anonymous #2 3w

personally i’d say the biggest difference between fetuses and humans is that a human being is able to survive physically independent of any other individual. when i say physically i mean literally unable to survive outside of the womb

51

Anonymous #2 3w

also like i’m a little high so bear with me lol but i really don’t care about making you believe anything other than you already do. if you want to be pro-life you can, my issue comes with believing your personal opinions should dictate what other people do to their bodies

65

Anonymous #2 3w

also this feels obvious but you kinda said it yourself… the thing that separates fetuses from born humans is birth (which coincidentally is also the moment you stop physically, biologically independent :D)

49

Anonymous #2 3w

How do you feel about people being charged/punished for having an abortion? Why? What about miscarriages should the same be applied to it? Both result from the loss of a life in your eyes

28

Anonymous OP 3w

hey so I think you misread my statement. I didn’t say point on the differences between a fetus and born humans, I said point out a difference that makes them worthy of being killed. The difference between you and me is I see all humans as having the same value, you fundamentally don’t see unborn humans as people. I think we should treat unborn humans the same way we treat everyone else.

-8

Anonymous #3 3w

this leads into your point, #3. How do you feel about a parent killing their toddler, vs a toddler dying from cancer under their parents care?

-10

Anonymous #2 3w

the baby didn’t ask to exist it has the same value of the mother. If they die, it’s sad but out of your control. If you take pills that starve them of nutrients until they die, or dismember them limb by limb and pull them out, then obviously I have a problem with that.

-8

Anonymous #2 3w

yeah the difference is that they’re biologically reliant on the mother. that’s the difference. i respect humans enough that i don’t want a single one to ever be forced through pregnancy. now you prove to me it’s worth committing war crimes against women by forcing them to stay pregnant

36

Anonymous #2 3w

a toddler is not physically dependent on either parent. any caregiver could step in and provide the necessary care. fetuses, on the other hand, cannot survive without using nutrients DIRECTLY from its mother’s body.

43

Anonymous #4 3w

ok what’s your argument

80

Anonymous OP 3w

the toddler is physically dependent on the mother. I don’t think circumstances change the morals, either. I think parents have the responsibility to care for their children. If a parent refuses to buy food for their toddler, they will be charged with child neglect. my friend had family that escaped from an east asian country that was trying to kill them. They had a young baby with them and were on a boat, but had to be totally quiet. When the baby started crying and giving away their position…

-9

Anonymous #2 3w

they threw her overboard. In this situation, the baby is stuck with them and totally dependent on them even though they’re born. There was no one to give the baby to. Dependency does not mean it is morally OK to kill though.

-6

Anonymous #2 3w

if you were stuck on a desert island with a 5 year old that can’t fend for themselves, it’s not moral to shoot them in the head. You can’t do whatever you want with a person just because they need you and there’s no one else to take care of them. In ancient cultures, people would leave newborns who they didn’t want on the sides of mountains and let them die. this practice, called exposure, is amoral, even when there is no one else to care for the babies.

-4

Anonymous #2 3w

but anyone else COULD have filled that role. the father/aunt/niece/uncle/grandfather/neighbor/whoever COULD buy food for the child. they COULD have been holding the baby. there is no physical dependence on the mother (ie, the woman’s body is not DIRECTLY literally using her own nutrients to build it)

25

Anonymous OP 3w

again, I could construct a situation in any way that would make it so that only you could take care of someone, you could maybe make the argument that you could refuse to feed the baby your breastmilk, but you definitely can’t kill them to free yourself. killing innocent humans is always wrong

-6

Anonymous #2 3w

ok maybe i’m really not explaining this but yes i agree with you. you shouldn’t kill toddlers. but a toddler does not DIRECTLY (again, LITERALLY USING A WOMAN’S NUTRIENTS DIRECTLY FROM HER BODY WHICH THEY LITERALLY NEED TO SURVIVE) receive nutrients from a woman. i’m really confused why you keep explaining to me why they’re different when that’s the example i used for the difference between humans and fetuses

27

Anonymous #2 3w

genuinely what are you talking about?

25

Anonymous OP 3w

ok now we’re several years in the future. You’re now connected by tube to your toddler, who gets all their nutrients from you. There is no way to disconnect the tube. The only way to free yourself is to tear the toddler limb by limb. or stab a needle into their heart to stop it beating, drill into her head and suck her brain out, or by poisoning her. Just because that’s the only way to free yourself, doesn’t mean it’s moral to do that.

-7

Anonymous #2 3w

ok so just to be clear your best argument against abortion is a fictional scenario that has never and will never take place and also isn’t even an accurate comparison to an actual abortion? that’s your response? this is really the best rebuttal you have?

26

Anonymous OP 3w

no, to be clear, you have a more guttural response to killing a toddler, because you can’t relate to them more. it’s easy to excuse killing an unborn human because “they’re dependent on the mom for nutrients,” but really you just can’t muster a connection to that stage of human being where you can feel bad for killing them. I don’t see how “they’re dependent on the mother’s body for nutrients” makes it ok to kill them.

-5

Anonymous #2 3w

bro what the fuck are you on LMFAOOO

30

Anonymous #2 3w

just because a situation doesn’t exist yet, doesn’t mean it can’t construct a working analogy. Your point is “living inside the mom and being dependent on mom = moral to kill.” but if you were able to see that connection to a person right in front of you, like in my analogy, then that logic falls apart.

-5

Anonymous #2 3w

can relate to toddlers more*^^

-4

Anonymous #2 3w

so what happened to make toddlers need to do that? what biological and physiological change happened in humans that (i’m assuming, but please correct me if im wrong and it’s bc of something else) makes the umbilical cord stay attached for multiple years? what fitness advantage does this offer? what happens if the umbilical cord is damaged? does the toddler need to eat/drink anything itself? what evolutionary changes would need to happen for such a dramatic change in only a few years?

17

Anonymous OP 3w

only time will tell. JK. that wasn’t the point. the point was to show you that physical dependency does not = ok to kill.

-2

Anonymous #2 3w

look it’s really convenient to be able to not have kids when you don’t want to have them. Love birth control. But when birth control fails, it’s also really convenient to not have to deal with having a baby that is already growing inside you. I don’t discount the MAJOR advantages to moms to not have to go through a pregnancy when they don’t want to. But you can’t let that blind you to the fact that abortion is KILLING. human beings. stopping hearts.taking lives. in many later cases, causing pain

-1

Anonymous #2 3w

no im actually interested though bc i think if humans WERE attached for three years abortion would actually happen way more often. think about the mental and physical and emotionally strain of having to limit your activities and be controlled by the whims of a toddler for YEARS. the structure of society would have to change completely. maybe the first trimester would change to be the first nine months. maybe abortion laws would actually include up to 1.5 years instead of the typical 16 weeks

13

Anonymous #2 3w

there has to be a serious reason yo be able to do that to a person. I’m not really even ok with the death penalty, but throughout history the death penalty has been given out for much less- but even then, the fetus has done nothing wrong. Nothing deserving of this. it’s amoral, even if they’re dependent

2

Anonymous #2 3w

what if there was a test to prove if a fetus would grow up to be a murderer. or a dictator. like what if alongside the gestation period lasting 36 months, they also figured out how to tell a person’s future with 100% certainty. would that justify an abortion

8

Anonymous OP 3w

well, this is enlightening. I guess ancient habits die hard. So in a future or a civilization like that, where a child is attached for 3 years, we’ll just go ahead and slap on a rule that says it’s ok to kill them for the first 1/3 of that time. alright. now in this future, how would we be killing the 1.5 year old do you think? dismembering might be kinda hard. will the mom shoot the gun, or maybe a doctor will put her to sleep and do it for her?

-2

Anonymous #2 3w

im ngl yeah if humans had evolved to have a pregnancy last 3 years, with the majority of it spent outside the womb then abortion probably would be legal for the same amount of time as it currently is (which i think is like 16-20 weeks in most places) like genuinely yeah we probably would be asking questions like that

13

Anonymous #2 3w

now can you answer my question pleaseeeeee would knowing a toddler in your strange alternate reality earth grows up to be a dictator be enough to justify an abortion

7

Anonymous OP 3w

uh. no. 😭 if we’re making an intervention to kill then we can make other interventions to prevent. future guilt does not equal present guilt

-3

Anonymous #2 3w

no like it’s 100% certain no matter what they’re going to become a dictator. i had to pretend like toddler were connected by umbilical cords you can pretend like this could happen too

12

Anonymous OP 3w

present guilt does not equal future guilt. in a society like ours, where you can’t know, it’s even more important not to kill when there is no present guilt, because you can’t know. the difference between our analogies is that mine actually pertains to the bodily dependency = ok to kill, while yours really doesn’t. A prolife person could make the argument that maybe killing is ok, because they’ll kill others. but that’s obviously not the case here

0

Anonymous #2 3w

no my analogy pertains to you bc you said you could only justify abortion if the reason was serious enough. so what’s serious enough for you to be able to justify it if not eliminating a future dictator and again. i played into your impossible umbilical cord analogy like it could ACTUALLY happen. you can’t do the same for mine? :(

7

Anonymous #2 3w

now, i really want to know if you're going to double down on this dependency thing. with you're future 1 yr old attached to you, do you think you'd be able to kill them, or would you hire a doctor to smash their head in for you while you slept? Let me include a picture of a 28-30wk abortion, so you can get an idea of what that would look like.

-3

Anonymous #2 3w

no genuinely i think if humans evolved to be attached for multiple years abortion going into after the baby (or fetus ig in this world) exited the womb would be commonplace. im not totally sure how they’d do it bc tbh im not too knowledgable on euthanasia but like. yeah. i think it’d happen and id be okay with it just like im okay with abortion now

11

Anonymous OP 3w

wow, that picture got removed fast. guess you’ll talk a lot about how it’s ok to kill them but for some reason a picture of it bothers you? The world your describing lowkey did exist in ancient times. babies nursed for years and if you were on your own, they were totally depended on your body. ancient people would just kill their infants if they were too inconvenient. I’m very glad that infanticide is no longer normalized though.

-3

Anonymous #2 3w

i need you to know rn there’s no situation or hypothetical you could pose that wouldn’t make me okay with an abortion. i don’t believe any living creature is required to use its own body and nutrients to directly sustain another, and independent survival is the point between fetus and human for me but im pretty sure i already said that lol

7

Anonymous #2 3w

it probably got auto removed the same way any other surgical picture would be. i didn’t even see it lol

6

Anonymous #2 3w

ok lowkey that’s the world abortion is preventing. when women are given bodily autonomy they aren’t forced to have children they don’t want/can’t take care of

10

Anonymous #2 3w

like genuinely if you’re thankful infanticide isn’t normal anymore thank abortion

11

Anonymous OP 3w

feel free to look them up. i’m sorry your so detached from you’re humanity, I was hoping a picture of the cruelty might jar your brain into realizing that a broad moral code of dependent on body = ok to kill is crazy when you start justifying smashing in a 1 yr olds head. It might be too late for you though

-3

Anonymous OP 3w

i’m thankful infanticide isn’t a thing because i’m glad that type of murder is less societally ok (it still happens often though). that doesn’t make me happy that another kind of murder is ok.

-3

Anonymous #2 3w

youre*

-3

Anonymous #2 3w

although honestly I kinda applaud you doubling down on your rule. Usually when I get to that part of the argument people just start saying I hate women and they hope I die and other obscenities rather than face the fact that they think some humans are ok to kill and others aren’t.

-3

Anonymous #2 3w

okay i’ll say this again slowly but if you get rid of abortion you’re going to see more infanticide. you’re also going to see a lot more dead women. and a lot more orphans. like you can feel however you want about it but abortion is genuinely the reason why that’s not happening as often now

12

Anonymous #2 3w

and AGAIN… yes in this hypothetical world we would likely view a 1 year old (though idk if we’d even call it a 1 year old bc we only start counting years AFTER biological independence happens but ok) as still being in the first/second trimester. so the majority of abortions would happen within this time frame tbh

9

Anonymous OP 3w

genuinely, murder is murder is murder. I don’t have to be ok with murder because it’s preventing future suffering. if that’s the only solution I’m offered, then no thank you. I’d much rather freaking fix a society that makes infanticide necessary, and has such a terrible social safety net then to mask the symptoms by killing literal children.

-3

Anonymous #2 3w

abortion did fix that. it fixed women being forced to have children they didn’t want and weren’t able to care for

12

Anonymous OP 3w

babe you can call it whatever you want, 1 yr old, first trimester-er, 5th-mester feto-baby, it’s just semantics. killing is killing is killing is killing whether it’s a baby, a fetus, a senior, a toddler, a black person, a white person, a disabled person, man women intersex idc. killing is killing.

-3

Anonymous OP 3w

it “fixed” it by killing their children before they’re born. I wouldn’t call that solution. it masks the symptoms of a diseased society by committing even more atrocities.

-5

Anonymous #2 3w

you’re free to call it whatever you want, i just don’t believe any living thing has the right to force another into physically sustaining it using its own body. we don’t force organ transplants. we don’t force blood donations. idk why we’d force pregnancy

11

That sounds like an excuse to not sound like a weirdly controlling person who doesn’t wanna admit that their beliefs stem from men (whether through religion or otherwise) caring more about controlling women’s bodies than having genuine worry about “the children”

57

this is the funniest response you could have given thank you so much

42

Anonymous OP 3w

Glad you think so :)

-16

Anonymous #4 3w

ewww how could u as a woman not care about the things that restrict YOUR RIGHT to access basic healthcare liieekkkkk 🫩🫩

26

Anonymous #2 3w

Hi! I have a degree in biology and am getting my masters in Physicians Assistant Studies right now, would love to chat more with you about this using fact based peer reviewed research. Let me know if you want to talk about it more and I can provide some information with sources

10

Anonymous #9 3w

Also one thing i love about my religion islam is that it allows abortions before the 4 months mark if you have a genuine and serious reason to not being able to keep it.

-3

Anonymous #10 3w

-ultimately wrong. I will say though, if a woman has unprotected sex or is careless, gets pregnant, and has an abortion, I'd consider that morally wrong. I still think she should have the legal right, as her body will be heavily impacted by giving birth, but still morally wrong and irresponsible to stop a baby from living just because you wanted to be "crazy🤪"

0

Anonymous #2 3w

You reach so far not even elastigirl could do that. Congratulations? 😭

3

Anonymous #9 3w

What you don’t seem to understand and what people with your opinion don’t seem to understand is that anyone who gets an abortion late on in the pregnancy is getting it because there is something wrong with the baby, whether it’s something like their brain didn’t develop or it’s just straight up dead. Nobody is waiting 24 weeks to have an abortion. People who get late term abortions WANTED a baby but something awful happened where they needed to have it removed.

6

Anonymous #2 3w

Ngl I’m not even reading ur comments I’m just downvoting all your shit automatically

3

Anonymous #10 3w

also can someone elaborate on why they disagree with this stance bc ppl are downvoting im down to have an actual discussion💀

1

Anonymous #12 3w

I understand what you mean and that is a really awful thing to happen. If the baby has severe conditions and you find out later on youre allowed to abort it, especially if its already dead :)

0

Anonymous #12 3w

Also id like to clarify again that idccc if you abort after 4 months because i personally hate when people shove their opinions down my throat lmao. I see people downvoted the religion part, i was just simply saying a small fact since not alot of people know about it i wasnt trying to be a freak about it, sorry if it sounded otherwise lol.

0