Anonymous #2 4w

you just don’t give up, do you? empathy be damned, empiricism be damned, objectivity be damned. Hell, everyone be damned aside from yourself, right?

0

Anonymous #1 4w

Not at all. I believe that children should not be damned. I believe both abortion and cutting charities that help them damn children that my point. You also believe in damming people who cut charities who help kids. So we both condemn/damn whatever you want to call it.

0

Anonymous #2 4w

And it’s because I have empathy for the most vulnerable that I damn/condemn both these things

0

Anonymous #2 4w

I didn’t know an abortion could happen to a child, considering children aren’t in the womb. it may seem like semantics, but in topics like this we need to be careful about our rhetoric, to ensure we’re using accurate language. I think you knew that though, since you sound exactly like the person I’ve been explaining that too for the last hour.

5

Anonymous #1 4w

That to*

2

Anonymous #1 4w

No I haven’t had replies on here related to abortion

2

Anonymous #2 4w

90%+ biologists agree life begins in the womb, the difference is pro-choice believes that it doesn’t matter

-1

Anonymous #2 4w

Ahhh I’m so sorry for the assumption then, and the sarcastic tone! Only take the analysis regarding rhetoric seriously from that comment, I’ve fallen guilty do the age old saying “assumptions make an ass…” yada yada

7

Anonymous #2 4w

Bottom line, yes I condemn/damn what Trump did, you originally seemed to think pro-lifers supported it. I can’t soak fro all pro lifers but I do not like Trump did that

0

Anonymous #2 4w

I feel as if that’s a pretty malicious misrepresentation. the conversation isn’t about the initial point of life, and it never has been, hence why roe v wade originally had language regarding viability (the point in which a fetus is viable to survive without its mother, while in development). The issue here, is many anti-abortionists believe that life beginning in the womb, OUTWEIGHS existing life already born into the world, regardless of the viability of the aforementioned fetus.

6

Anonymous #1 4w

I agree if the mother will die because of a falopian tube implantation, I am fine with abortion. Or if a child is raped they can get one. But, I want an abortion just because I am healthy and had consensual sex is wrong IMO

0

Anonymous #1 4w

So you agree with roe vs wade it least that’s somewhat moderate even if I disagree. But some states allow it for any reason up to birth.

0

Anonymous #2 4w

honestly that’s an absolutely valid take! personally I would extend the conditions to including a genuine belief that one couldn’t support a child, because if one genuinely and truly believes they have no way to provide for a child or give it a stable life, I don’t think we should *force* a fetus to continue development in those scenarios; but that just comes down to individual perspective imo

7

Anonymous #2 4w

I was talking with someone earlier who viewed all abortions as a form of murder, and when asked about miscarriages they straight up ignored the murder condemnation and said “god gives life god takes life” as if it don’t matter lol, so I do apologize for coming into this conversation a bit pre-heated in a sense

5

Anonymous #2 4w

I did agree w roe tbh, but honestly I don’t think that any state legally was capable of allowing abortion in the third trimester for any reason other than what roe lined out, as far as I’m aware. like I know roe v wade had a limit at the line of viability, but it also made exceptions for stuff like you lined out: late-term miscarriages, rape&SA, and if the mothers life would be at risk continuing the pregnancy.

5

Anonymous #2 4w

I’m sure it probably happened, and there’s always been backdoor abortions (especially when there’s a lack of accessibility to the procedure itself), but I don’t think it was legally permitted if that makes sense, even if a state tried to outright legalize it due to the supremacy clause

6

Anonymous #1 4w

(Ofc I might be wrong though!! That’s just off the top of my head for context)

4

Anonymous #1 4w

7 blue states allow if up to birth. Virginias former governor Ralph Northam joked it should be allowed after birth if they don’t want it. But he never did anything he just said it.

0

Anonymous #2 4w

Oh shit, do you happen to have any names of the states? I wanna look into this bc that’s kinda wild, but it also makes me wonder why the supremacy clause wouldn’t be enforced in that case bc roe v wade already had that limitation in place on a federal level? like technically the SC already covered that part, so I’m curious

4

Anonymous #2 4w

I mean technically the only limits that exist now are those that dobbs imposed, if any, since dobbs eliminated the viability standard. in all fairness, third trimester abortions account for less than 1% of all abortions in the US per year, and are overwhelming due to circumstances such as maternal or fetal health risks, or instances of rape and SA

1

Anonymous #1 4w

I don’t think the immensely rare possibility of someone abusing the framework that used to be in place was justification for throwing it all out the door yk? now we’re more dangerous overall, with a higher likelihood of backdoor abortions which highly risk the mothers life, as well as some states even criminalizing both mothers and doctors!

1

Anonymous #1 4w

I will say though, I was not aware of the nature of third trimester abortion availability in these states, but I don’t necessarily see it as a bad thing as I’d argue it’s a form of expansive accessibility to medical care

1

Anonymous #1 4w

We’ll agree to disagree. But yeah I don’t like what that other person who you thought I was said. I see both sides to this and your concerns are valid.

1

Anonymous #2 4w

hey that’s absolutely valid, as are yours, and I appreciate the conversation with you!! IMO it was pleasantly productive, a refreshing break from how my experience with these types of “high-stakes” conversations normally go! I hope you have a great day!

1