Anonymous OP 3w

Yeah I really don’t want to believe this is true, it’s so incredibly upsetting 😢

2

Anonymous OP 3w

Theres articles and papers and videos of how life was pre roe v wade, of what healthcare workers saw, of women who died from botched abortions.

12

Anonymous #1 3w

It’s hard to bear but we need to know what happened in the past to make the best decisions going forward.

14

Anonymous #2 3w

Weigh the options. Would you rather kill an already born baby or allow a slightly pregnant woman to have a small procedure?

37

Anonymous #2 3w

Foster care is a bad system that leads to sexual exploitation of minors. It doesn’t matter what you suggest. Infanticide will rise.

24

Anonymous OP 3w

You’re assuming that they “need” to be killed regardless in this scenario.. they can also be adopted

-8

Anonymous #2 3w

See countless issues with foster care and adoption. Before you ban abortion entirely, the entire foster care and child care system would have to be overhauled and rewritten with stricter laws. Otherwise you’re just sticking kids in shittier and shittier situations.

18

Anonymous #2 3w

But yes in a hypothetical scenario where there are only 2 options, killing a microscopic underdeveloped baby would be better than one that is more developed

8

Anonymous OP 3w

Or people start seeing the humanity in their babies and keep them, there’s also that, like people used to

-6

Anonymous OP 3w

So if someone MAY have a hard life, bc it’s not guaranteed, then they are better off dead essentially? Everyone deserves a chance at life, life is a gift. Kids that are being adopted and in foster care currently are not better off dead. That’s a kinda dark argument tbh

-4

Anonymous #2 3w

Jesus fucking Christ I’m saying if a woman doesn’t want a baby she should be respected

21

Anonymous OP 3w

Also, it’s a sad suggestion that we should just kill babies until they’re wanted enough, which btw there’s 1 to 2 mil couples currently on the adoption waiting list, so seems like there are people that want them.

-4

Anonymous OP 3w

If she doesn’t want a baby, give it someone that does.. that’s what I’m saying

-2

Anonymous #2 3w

I’m saying no human should be forced to give birth (a process that changes your body and mind irreversibly) unless that is a decision they 100% want.

17

Anonymous #2 3w

You are right, that is a big issue that pro life people do care about as well, however, that doesn’t take away from the morality of the act of taking away someone’s life

-6

Anonymous OP 3w

If I don’t have to give up blood or an organ to donate to potentially save someone’s life, I don’t have to give up the autonomy of my uterus. Even if it means denying them that will cost their life. This is America. Land of the free 🦅

16

Anonymous OP 3w

You moved the goalpost, this is a convenience argument, not about the baby at all which we already knew about pro choice

-1

Anonymous #2 3w

I think it stands on its own as an argument for abortion.

19

Anonymous OP 3w

Pregnancy is not a disease and if it was, your argument would be sound. However, an act of abortion is literally just ending the life of a growing baby and removing it from your body. You’re just gonna admit that you are fine with ending the life of another bc you don’t want to be pregnant. Plus, morally your “rights” end when they impede on another, so you are arguing for justifying killing someone else as your “right” - but yes this argument is most relevant to later term abortions

0

Anonymous OP 3w

Ok well that’s an even worse take then 🤷‍♀️ killing is justifiable so I don’t have to be pregnant

1

Anonymous #2 3w

I mean it’s never a decision to be taken lightly but some women are in abusive situations or don’t have the money or already have too many kids or aren’t with the right guy. If you force all of these people to have a child when they’re not ready to, some of them aren’t going to be good parents. Some people also just don’t want to be parents. Some will find parenthood is a blessing, some will be dicks and abuse and endanger their children.

13

Anonymous #2 3w

Yes. Fetus removal in some instances is justifiable so people don’t have to be pregnant. I wholeheartedly agree. Im glad we worked this out.

14

Anonymous OP 3w

No, I was being sarcastic. That’s not a good take. You can call it “fetus removal” all you want, it’s literally just using different words to not make it seem as bad as it is.

1

Anonymous OP 3w

It’s not perfect. It’s not done easily. But it’s done by people in difficult situations who’ve decided it’s the best thing they can do at that time. People who are trapped in difficult situations get abortions. I’ve known two women who got abortions once. They still think about it often but don’t regret the decision they had to make. They were both too young at the time.

8

Anonymous OP 3w

I understand those situations, however those don’t change the morality aspect of taking a persons life. Again, no one has to keep the child, they can surrender it in a public place. So we don’t even need to discuss the “bad parents” or “not wanting to be parents” stuff

0

Anonymous #2 3w

A doctor applies aspiration to the uterus to suck out the tissue. It’s literally a removal.

11

Anonymous #2 3w

Right, but before people are ever going to be willing to do that, foster care has to be fixed first. Way before abortion is ever restricted then. Also, some people are sick and carrying to term will kill them. Some people are drug addicts and not willing to get clean for the baby. Some people are minors. Some people have genetic conditions they don’t want to pass on.

8

Anonymous OP 3w

Yes and when the doctor crushes the skull and rips off each arm and leg in a larger term abortion and then sucks it out, that’s also a “removal”.. so what’s your point

0

Anonymous #2 3w

It’s again not so much as a skull and limbs that early on as a mass of tissue that has the potential to continue to grow into a human.

11

Anonymous OP 3w

I understand and why I don’t judge everyone that’s had one. However, I think it’s better that we not encourage them as a good thing or seemingly celebrate death and at least keep them rare

0

Anonymous #2 3w

No one is encouraging them as a good thing. No one is celebrating them. I promise. Sometimes it’s just a difficult decision someone has to make. It’s always a hard decision for everyone.

12

Anonymous OP 3w

Everyone who has an abortion has a reason for getting one. If I ever got one, it would be because I’m genetically disabled and refuse to pass this down to anyone. I can’t ethically create a human and give this disease to them. But it would still be hard and painful.

9

Anonymous OP 3w

I have seen and heard people do just that. If the pro choice movement didn’t, they wouldn’t be hit with such stark disagreement and pushback from pro life people. Just understand that is why pro life people mainly are ignited over the issue right now. As people normalize abortion and take away the humanity from babies, they worry about the slippery slope of someone killing born children since you could make the same arguments about not being ready to be a parent or being in an abusive situation

0

Anonymous #2 3w

No one does it lightly. And quite frankly, if someone is treating the abortion clinic like a place where you buy 9 get the 10th free, their mental headspace might not be conducive to a child. It’s an invasive painful procedure that people use when other options fail or circumstances change. And it needs to remain accessible.

14

Anonymous #2 3w

There’s a reason “slippery slope” is a fallacy. That’s not logic. You know who kills a fully born child? Someone who feels like they’re out of options. You know what abortion provides? Another option.

12

Anonymous OP 3w

Statistically most abortions are elective, meaning not necessarily for life threatening circumstances. Maybe you and others you know have a good reason, but many women are just using it as a last form of birth control. Even at this school I heard freshman girls who had multiple different guys in their rooms every weekend discussing their abortions in the bathroom without a second thought to change their behavior to not be in that situation in the first place

-1

Anonymous #2 3w

You have to admit it also creates a society where accountability is not necessary which is not good for other reasons for women, it also makes it so men don’t have to be accountable

-1

Anonymous #2 3w

You have a really weirdly casual view of how people treat abortion. They’re extremely traumatic. They don’t “remove accountability,” they provide a last resort

12

Anonymous #3 3w

Well it’s causal in that sex causes pregnancy so yeah.. you’re choosing to partake in something that causes something else and then trying to reverse it bc you don’t want it. And yes, they are traumatic party bc they’re also unnatural and creating physical trauma to your body. Pregnancy and labor can be traumatic in its own way, but is a natural bodily process. They can also “remove accountability” and “provide a last resort” at the same time.

-1

Anonymous #3 3w

Damn that’s an insane argument. You kinda proved my point tho.. you convinced yourself already that people that kill their kids that are alive did it bc they “had no other option” yet literally no one is holding a gun to their head to kill a baby, leave it at the hospital goodness. Your exact type of thinking is what pro life people worry about. You have become understanding of a person who would kill a born baby.. that’s scary. Very scary. Like actually think about someone who would do this

-1

Anonymous #3 3w

HAHAHAAAA hilarious you’re calling it “another option” man, you’re still killing it, just at a younger age 🤦‍♀️ you just call it by a different name

-1

Anonymous #2 3w

So people can’t sleep together unless they’re 100% sure they’re willing to have a child with this person at this stage in their life?

15

Anonymous #2 3w

Serious question, how old are you?

10

Anonymous OP 3w

What in particular are you proposing #2. Because it sounds like you have issues with abortion but aren’t against it as a whole. I’m struggling to see the solution you’re envisioning. Walk me through it.

11

Anonymous OP 3w

I disagree with it being used as birth control mainly. I find most abortions to be unethical whether bc of the poor reasoning or stage of development. I don’t see abortion as a “right” but since it is already allowed, it should be discouraged and restricted.

-1

Anonymous #2 3w

Morally and if you get into the spirituality of it, it doesn’t seem right to end an innocent life even if it’s small/young. There’s just also that in the background of the debate

-1

Anonymous #2 3w

People aren’t using it as birth control. People who are 1. Joking 2. Lying. 3. Seriously mentally ill and not the majority. It is already discouraged and restricted. People are screaming about killing babies in front of planned parenthood. Women have to travel to different states to get abortions.

15

Anonymous #2 3w

People use abortion as a last resort to get out of a trapped situation, like an animal chewing off its own leg.

13

Anonymous OP 3w

You’re saying they’re not, I’m saying they are. When statistically 95% are elective abortions, kinda seems like they are. Yes and I agree with the restrictions.

-1

Anonymous #2 3w

How does an elective abortion imply they’re not in a difficult situation?

7

Anonymous OP 3w

Meaning not life threatening and that means you would also not know who is in bad situation then

-1

Anonymous #2 3w

What if the baby is conceived via rape? The pregnancy might not be life threatening, but it would be violation to the mother. Would she be able to elect into an abortion? Some percentage of women electing into abortions have been assaulted or trafficked or coerced or drugged.

6

Anonymous #2 3w

Also.. tbh in the US compared to the rest of the world, most people are too entitled to say they are truly in a situation bad enough to justify killing a baby plus like I’ve said there are just other options, you don’t have to raise the child if you don’t want to

-1

Anonymous OP 3w

Some elective abortions are still done because people are in bad and dangerous situations. Elective abortions allows them to access the resources they need safely at that time and meeting them where they are.

10

Anonymous #2 3w

By this logic, give up one of your kidneys. You don’t need both to live, another person can certainly use it. Do it. Put your money where your mouth is.

13

Anonymous #2 3w

You have a very immature perspective on all of this. I don’t think you grasp what it really means to have a child or an abortion. Those are both life changing outcomes, and you can end up needing to choose between them even when you use protection. You’re trivializing an experience that you very clearly don’t understand

16

Anonymous #2 3w

What if I’m on medication I’m not willing to get off of? What if someone is unwilling to stop using drugs during the pregnancy? Are they allowed an abortion? What if someone is a minor ? What if someone already has seven kids and can’t handle being pregnant again because she needs to be free to handle her children?

7

Anonymous OP 3w

I think that’s more of an understandable reason, but also consider that an abortion is a trauma like you said and it doesn’t take away a trauma that already happened. It doesn’t erase it. Many rape survivors are pro life, I’d encourage you to listen to their thoughts on it.

-1

Anonymous #2 3w

Did you ever consider that maybe keeping your assualter’s child might be more traumatizing?

7

Anonymous #2 3w

And some aren’t. It’s up to them. It’s a choice that should be entirely theirs. If they want the baby, that’s so totally cool. I’m not saying abortion needs to happen all the time. Im saying that if a woman wants an abortion, she should be able to get one.

5

Anonymous #3 3w

That’s your opinion. People with much more life experience also agree even women who have faced the scenario and kept their kids and didn’t get an abortion. Women have been having their children since the beginning of time and they didn’t always believe that they had to kill their children in order to get through life. That’s an immature perspective tbh. I’m not denying that it is a hard situation

-1

Anonymous #2 3w

But there are stories about women killing their children. That’s what we’re commenting under.

11

Anonymous ireallylikepancakes 3w

Not really relevant. I did not create the scenario in which I would be obligated to give someone my kidney and removing a kidney is not a natural process either whereas you created the child and the child developing is a natural result of something that you did and not an artificial invasive procedure

-1

Anonymous #2 3w

The women who want to keep their children CAN. That’s what we’re saying!

9

Anonymous #2 3w

What if they didn’t consent to the baby? They didn’t create the scenario in which the fetus was created.

6

Anonymous #2 3w

By being asked to give a kidney and refusing, you may as well be as culpable for the recipient’s death as the pregnant woman would be for their fetus. You had a choice to give life to another and, in this twisted logic, you refused.

7

Anonymous ireallylikepancakes 3w

For the millionth time, give the baby to the 1 to 2 million couples that want to adopt. You don’t “need to kill it,” those situations are very rare

-1

Anonymous OP 3w

Yes and someone who kills a baby is sadistic, give it up then. No one made them kill their babies. Come on, that’s obviously a sick person. If I were you trying to argue for pro choice, I would not use that as an example

0

Anonymous #2 3w

For the millionth and first time, I would rather abort my unborn child than give it up for adoption or put it in the foster care system. I don’t trust either of them and a lot of other people don’t either.

7

Anonymous #2 3w

Do you actually trust the foster care system???

5

Anonymous #2 3w

They were forced to carry to term and knew they couldn’t handle or afford another child. Mothers have been doing what they have to do since the big bang. This is the dark side of what happens when abortion is criminalized. We don’t like to think that people are capable of that but moms will do anything for their kids.

11

Anonymous OP 3w

Okay so then let’s say that the foster care system and adoption were perfect, would you give up on being pro choice then?

-1

Anonymous #2 3w

If you think a fetus goes through more pain during an abortion than a child does in this mismanaged, underfunded foster care system, you have no idea what you’re talking about. Stop screaming from the top of your ivory tower, you’re not saying anything of substance.

8

Anonymous #2 3w

No. Because women would still be forced to carry their rapists baby to term in this situation. Some would rather kill themselves.

9

Anonymous #2 3w

Pregnancy on its own is traumatic af, you’re still not considering that.

11

Anonymous ireallylikepancakes 3w

And no I am highly critical of it. That is another thing I also talk about. If pro life and pro choice want to meet in the middle and fix that, then let’s do that. Things like that won’t ever be perfect and what point would you be able to say okay now we’re good to not kill babies? Their lives aren’t predetermined just bc they’re in foster care.

-1

Anonymous ireallylikepancakes 3w

I didn’t make that claim and you are very right about foster care being managed horribly. Maybe both pro choice and pro choice talk past each other to the point of neither actually addressing that issue.

0

Anonymous #2 3w

If I’m being honest, I just think the choice aspect of this issue is absolute. The woman should always have the final say. Everything else I can usually find something to agree on.

15

Anonymous ireallylikepancakes 3w

I understand your perspective, but I don’t think it’s absolute. I am going to an extreme here, but why couldn’t a woman say that she killed her 2 year old bc her life was too hard or bc she was with an abusive partner?

-1

Anonymous #2 3w

For one, the 2 year old pretty clearly feels pain.

8

Anonymous ireallylikepancakes 3w

Yeah but a fetus can as early as 12 weeks. Also the woman could kill the 2 year old in a painless way and that still wouldn’t be right

-1

Anonymous #2 3w

The 2 year old isn’t attached to the mother anymore and isn’t *solely* dependent on her for survival. The 2 year old has bodily autonomy in this manner.

9

Anonymous ireallylikepancakes 3w

A 2 year old is still dependent on her for survival bc a 2 year old wouldn’t survive by itself. Even if not, what does that matter though? If a baby in the womb is a separate being, why would it not get to be respected as such?

-1

Anonymous #2 3w

I don’t think you understood my comment. I said “solely” because at least a 2 year old can be cared for by someone besides the mother. Unless some way of sharing pregnancies was recently discovered.

5

Anonymous #2 3w

The “baby” in the womb is not a separate being prior to birth, that’s the point I’m trying to make.

9

Anonymous ireallylikepancakes 3w

Okay I get your point about solely, but a baby is definitely a separate being. It has its own DNA, like it’s not an organ of the mother’s body. Yes it is dependent on the mother until it is born, but that can also be before 40 weeks, like even 23 weeks technically

-1

Anonymous ireallylikepancakes 3w

No, you’re not. You created and gave life through an action that you did, and then now that life is dependent on you for a period of time. I would have to have somehow created the circumstance for the person needing the kidney so then to be obligated to give mine to them. That just isn’t an equivalent scenario and I think you know it. Idk how we’ve become so detached from our own potential children, like they’re not some random stranger.

-1

Anonymous #2 3w

I’m trying to go to sleep soon, but I’ll just say that that was me trying to demonstrate how stupid it is to try and demand someone give up their bodily autonomy for a person (in this scenario) that they’ve never met.

8

Anonymous #2 3w

If you want to use the “it has its own dna” argument, remember tumors also have their own distinct dna. So if you’re not allowed to remove a tissue from your body because it has its own distinct dna then we’re not allowed to treat cancer anymore. Or parasites I mean they’re distinct dna and they require the host body as well. I guess you shouldn’t have gone outside because you provide life to that parasite and cancer and now you have to deal with it 😔

6

Anonymous OP 3w

it's not a human tho so what's the big deal

1