Anonymous #2 1w

Kamala.

34

Anonymous OP 1w

Interesting. So you’re pro-choice?

-12

Anonymous #2 1w

Very. Why should it be a man’s power to decide what women do with their bodies?

41

Anonymous OP 1w

And I’m a man saying this.

39

Anonymous #2 1w

Pro life stances are inconsistent

31

Anonymous OP 1w

So you believe that the fetus is not a human being?

-13

Anonymous #3 1w

How are they inconsistent??

-12

Anonymous #2 1w

We can walk through that together. Are you pro life?

20

Anonymous #3 1w

Yes

-7

Anonymous #2 1w

Not until third trimester no. And let me be clear, I am against third trimester abortions unless it’s to save the life of the mother.

18

Anonymous OP 1w

I think this is a fair opinion, right?

11

Anonymous OP 1w

Interesting. So would your opinion change if our technology advances so much so that the babies are able to live in the first trimester??

-6

Anonymous #2 1w

Nope. Still a women’s body and she can decides how she wants to control it.

15

Anonymous #2 1w

So is it fair to assume that you want to prevent the deaths of any innocent lives, by “any means necessary”?

1

Anonymous OP 1w

So when does it become not the women’s body??

-2

Anonymous #3 1w

That is a very broad statement and can be used in many different ways, but for the sake of this convo here, my answer is yes

-2

Anonymous #2 1w

When I say any means necessary, I mostly mean just getting medically involved to save or prevent an innocent life from dying.

1

Anonymous #3 1w

Yes I do agree. Haha I might see where you’re going with this

0

Anonymous #2 1w

Great! Then I also assume you’re in favor of -Gender affirming care for both adults and minors -Going through the judicial process before executing criminals -Vaccinations for all available purposes for the general population. That’s safe to assume?

7

Anonymous #3 1w

Haha good job buddy. But no, the difference is if something is directly or indirectly related/caused. If a mother is dying in childbirth, and an abortion would save her life, then I believe that she has the right to decide what she wants to do. But none of those things that you listed would directly cause a death. Maybe indirectly.

-5

Anonymous #2 1w

No, we know that transgender youth and adults face higher rates of suicide and depression when restricted from gender affirming care. That’s a fact. We see those suicide rates drop when given access to those. But if you’re unwilling to intervene to prevent the suicides (deaths) of innocent people, even if in your view it’s indirect, then you’ve shown you don’t care about preventing the deaths of innocent people.

13

Anonymous #3 1w

Yes they do face higher rates of suicide and depression, but that does not directly cause their death

-3

Anonymous #2 1w

It’s the difference between indirect and direct.

-3

Anonymous #2 1w

It does not matter. You agreed we should intervene medically to prevent innocent deaths. Even if it’s an indirect consequence, we know that the rates decrease which means that inherently SOME lives would be saved with that access to care. You just don’t want that. The premise of saving innocent lives, is the only relevant premise that matters for the position you agreed you hold.

7

Anonymous #3 1w

So do you believe that if something indirectly causes a death then we should get rid of it?

0

Anonymous #3 1w

This is a dumb argument. You can tell if it is a dumb argument bc no scholar has ever taken this route before. Like the pro-life argument has gone on forever so at least have a good argument. Yours can be torn apart with simple counter arguments that makes it absurd

-1

Anonymous #2 1w

You’re misrepresenting my argument. I’m saying that factually speaking, those people who were given access saw lower suicide and depression rates. That inherently means that people who chose to use that accessible form of treatment, were less likely to commit suicide, saving a life. And if your goal is truly to prevent innocent deaths, the proximity does not matter. You’re not actually countering, you’re just adding a qualifier that justifies allowing suicide and depression rates to stay high

5

Anonymous #2 1w

I can tell I’ve gotten you into a corner too because instead of countering, you’ve just said “okay but here’s a new qualifier that makes me right and your argument is dumb” Which 1. isn’t what YOU agreed on 2. isn’t an argument, it’s a complaint

4

Anonymous #2 1w

A substantial body of evidence shows that when individuals are denied affirming care, they face higher rates of depression, anxiety, self-harm, and suicide, while access to appropriate, patient centered care is associated with improved mental health, stability, and overall well-being.

5

Anonymous #2 1w

From a pro-life perspective that values protecting life beyond birth, supporting gender-affirming care means reducing preventable suffering and death and affirming that all lives are worthy of care and protection

4

Anonymous #2 1w

When a policy predictably increases rates of severe distress, self-harm, and suicide by removing medically supported treatment, those outcomes are not incidental or remote, they are a KNOWN and documented result of the denial itself.

4

Anonymous #2 1w

Ethical reasoning and public health standards recognize responsibility not only for direct actions, but also for policies that foreseeably create conditions where people are harmed or die. It’s the same stance that misinformed/ uneducated people take on when they say vaccines are too dangerous

1

Anonymous #2 1w

If preserving life is the goal, it is inconsistent to dismiss preventable deaths and suffering as “indirect” simply because they happen through policy choices rather than immediate physical force.

4

Anonymous #3 1w

Oofta that’s a lot to respond to. I will try to address everything

0

Anonymous #2 1w

Take your time

1

Anonymous #3 1w

1. I think I need to back up and clarify my premise bc I did not know that I needed to clarify it to be only preventing the deaths of the innocent from things that directly cause death. I understand that ppl who have access to gender affirming care have lower depression but i think you’re missing the fact that it’s the depression that is leading them to suicide and not the fact that they didn’t have access to the care.

1

Anonymous #2 1w

Their survival is not directly linked to if they have access to the care but rather how the deal and manage the depression. There are 1000 ways to deal with depression that do not include medical intervention. I speak fm experience

1

Anonymous #3 1w

I’m sorry for calling the argument dumb, not super professional of me haha. But I just see if your argument is that everything that indirectly leads to death is bad, then shouldn’t we never eat sugar or drive or do anything that negatively affects our health?? By your argument shouldn’t divorce be illegal bc ppl with divorced parents tend to have more depression which leads to suicide?? Your argument gets absurd as soon as you start talking about other things. It’s inconsistent tbh

1

Anonymous #2 1w

Caring about protecting fetuses and not transgender children is certainly a choice.

11

Anonymous ireallylikepancakes 1w

Correct, it is a choice and I’d choose saving a life over a nonessential medical procedure every day

-2

Anonymous #2 1w

gender affirming care literally saves lives, just like abortion does.

13

Anonymous ireallylikepancakes 1w

Did you read the whole chain? Gender affirming care could indirectly save lives. The key word being indirectly

-1

Anonymous #2 1w

“There are 1000 ways to deal with depression that do not include medical intervention.” Aaaannnnddd you lost a lot of credibility there. There’s a hard difference between just being sad and actually having a depression diagnosis.

1

Anonymous #2 1w

You only care about saving lives when it’s direct? Don’t you wanna save lives in general?

9

Anonymous ireallylikepancakes 1w

Btw for some women, an abortion directly saves a life. So their argument is hypocritical

5

Anonymous OP 1w

That’s what I’m saying! Thank you!

2

Anonymous #2 1w

#2 lives in Falla-city if you catch my drift, wow.

3

Anonymous ireallylikepancakes 1w

Like how is something that doesn’t even have a sign of life have more of a right to live over a woman who can’t go through a pregnancy and IS alive?

5

Anonymous OP 1w

If you read back in the chain, I do believe that an abortion is ok if it would save the mother from certain death

1

Anonymous ireallylikepancakes 1w

And I do believe that there is a hard difference between being sad and depression. But that doesn’t mean that ppl with depression need medical intervention tho. Key word is need

1

Anonymous ireallylikepancakes 1w

And in all about saving lives in general, it’s just the discussion is more on mental health rather than receiving gender affirming care. The fact is that they will not die if they do not receive it, but their decreased mental health might lead them to kill themselves. It’s still indirect

0

Anonymous #2 1w

Okay, ignoring the fact that depression and gender dysphoria is entirely separate, how do you suggest someone suffering from gender dysphoria recovers without gender affirming care?

8

Anonymous ireallylikepancakes 1w

Idk if you’d like my real and unfiltered answer haha but to tone it down, they need a professional therapist to help them through why they feel that way and try to fix what has been “broken” for a lack of a better term. It is a mental illness and something is not right in their mind so they need to fix their mind. I am religious and would love to share more about that side of things but ppl generally aren’t open to hearing that and it’s a lot longer discussion

1

Anonymous #2 1w

What religion?

1

Anonymous ireallylikepancakes 1w

Catholic

1

Anonymous #2 1w

I’m also Catholic.

1

Anonymous #2 1w

Of course it is. Stop using Catholicism to justify your view of wanting to hurt women.

1

Anonymous OP 1w

Haha I haven’t used any religion tho haha

1

Anonymous ireallylikepancakes 1w

Interesting

2

Anonymous OP 1w

When have I ever used religion OP haha. Slow down and think first buddy

1

Anonymous #2 1w

Born and raised. And the Bible doesn’t actually condemn abortion, if not actually supports the reasoning behind it. It’s literally in exodus.

1

Anonymous ireallylikepancakes 1w

Tbh i have no clue what that passage means but i know that the Catholic Church does not support abortion. Like who and what has said that??

1

Anonymous #2 1w

Basically: Attack a pregnant person -> treated as damaging someone’s property Kill a pregnant person -> treated as murder It’s indicating that a fetus does not constitute as living in the same way the pregnant person is.

1

Anonymous ireallylikepancakes 1w

Bro I think you’re making this too complicated. Just google, does the Catholic Church support abortion

1

Anonymous #2 1w

“Tbh I have no clue what that passage means but I know that the Catholic Church does not support abortion.” The Catholic Church does a lot of things not supported by the Bible. Sorry if this ripped a proverbial bandaid off.

5

Anonymous ireallylikepancakes 1w

Hmm I just did some more research on this verse that you use to justify abortion and you should take a look!

1

Anonymous #2 1w

https://www.str.org/w/what-exodus-21-22-says-about-abortion

1

Anonymous #2 1w

https://www.biblegateway.com/verse/en/Exodus%2021%3A22

1

Anonymous ireallylikepancakes 1w

The verse you are referencing is not talking about killing the baby it is saying if it causes the women to give birth prematurely. Does not say anything about fetuses being property

6

Anonymous #2 1w

Looks like you are confused by the English translation. The original Hebrew word means to give birth prematurely and not miscarriage. You can see it in all the different translations in the Bible gateway

1

Anonymous #4 1w

If fetuses were considered alive, would that not contradict the very next verse?

1

Anonymous #2 1w

Eh, less justifying abortion and moreso that the Bible doesn’t claim that fetuses are alive before being born.

1

Anonymous ireallylikepancakes 1w

No because it never said anything about the baby dying

1

Anonymous #4 1w

I see, I’ll admit I haven’t looked at the Hebrew version.

1

Anonymous ireallylikepancakes 1w

What about the meeting of St John the Baptist and Jesus when they were both in their mother’s wombs??

1

Anonymous ireallylikepancakes 1w

Thank you for actually admitting fault. Not many people can do that

1

Anonymous #4 1w

I’m far from infallible.

9

Anonymous #2 1w

I don’t have a good answer for this outside of “it’s god’s son.” I’ll admit this has less legs to stand on than I previously thought.

1

Anonymous #2 1w

it’s already proven that you can’t “undo” gender dysphoria with therapy, the only thing that helps is gender affirming care

3

Anonymous #6 1w

Thank you!

1

Anonymous #2 1w

You still couldn’t pay me to be pro-life though.

1

Anonymous ireallylikepancakes 1w

Why not?? It sounds like you’ve realized that the Bible actually condones abortion and verifies that the fetus is a baby and alive. So I’m just wondering why else would you not want to be pro life?

1

Anonymous #2 1w

Because it’s immoral?

1

Anonymous #6 1w

I’d like to hear more on this too. Bc if this is true then wouldn’t it also be true that no one can ever “undo” anorexia, body dismorphia, depression or anything else without medical intervention?? Like they’re all mental disorders

1

Anonymous ireallylikepancakes 1w

Wait what? What is immoral?

1

Anonymous #2 1w

So… not all mental illnesses are 1:1

3

Anonymous #2 1w

Being prolife is immoral. Forcing a woman to undergo pregnancy when she doesn’t want to is immoral.

1

Anonymous ireallylikepancakes 1w

Nobody forced her to get pregnant

1

Anonymous #4 1w

People often don’t have a “choice” to get pregnant. Even when you take every birth control imaginable, there’s still a chance at pregnancy.

1

Anonymous ireallylikepancakes 1w

By having sex, you make that choice

6

Anonymous #2 1w

So no one’s allowed to have sex unless they’re trying for a baby? That’s pretty draconian of you.

1

Anonymous ireallylikepancakes 1w

No it’s just biology bro haha. Are you still Catholic?

1

Anonymous ireallylikepancakes 1w

Not necessarily, but people know risks of having sex and they’re still making that decision

1

Anonymous #2 1w

What’s just biology?

1

Anonymous #2 1w

Agreed with #4 to clarify my confusing reply there. My b

1

Anonymous OP 1w

Voting for a woman that was complicit in the ethnic cleansing of a population 🥀

1

Anonymous #8 1w

Because look at all the damage he’s done to this country and all the people’s lives he’s destroyed. And literally what he just said about Rob Reiner.

13

Anonymous OP 1w

I believe he's done mostly good so far, but I completely agree he shouldn't have said that about Rob. Trump is his own biggest fan though we know this. Not all conservatives think like this though, I personally felt terrible when I heard what happened to Rob and his wife.

-4

Anonymous #7 1w

How much has Trump sent to Israel, again?

1

Anonymous #2 1w

So, hypothetical: Someone drives a car, does everything right, and still gets in a wreck. Breaks their arm. Would you refuse to allow them to get medical care on that grounds that “by getting in the car, they made that choice” or would you just let them go to a hospital?

1

Anonymous ireallylikepancakes 1w

That medical care doesn’t harm another life

3

Anonymous #4 1w

Neither does abortion. But that doesn’t seem to stop y’all.

7

Anonymous ireallylikepancakes 1w

It literally kills the baby…

1

Anonymous #4 1w

If we’re really getting into scientific definitions, baby is only used post-birth.

0

Anonymous ireallylikepancakes 1w

Fine, it kills a human life

1

Anonymous #4 1w

Fine, let’s play devil’s advocate. Even if fetuses were considered human: You can’t force a person to donate organs. Even if their refusal would kill another human. So why is it different for a pregnant person???

3

Anonymous #2 1w

so gender dysphoria is not classified under the same groups as the disorders you mentioned! it’s not an eating, mood, or trauma related disorder. i think you should read up more on psychology if you want a clearer idea of what gender dysphoria is

1

Anonymous ireallylikepancakes 1w

You’re not obligated to save someones life but you are obligated to not take a life

2

Anonymous #4 1w

A) the Bible is a millennia old book B) what verses?

7

Anonymous #9 1w

Luke 1:41-44

1

Anonymous #4 1w

"There's plenty" *NAMES THE VERSE WHERE THE LITERAL FUCKING SON OF GOD WHO IS ALSO THE EMBODIMENT OF GOD HIMSELF COMMUNICATING TELEPATHICALLY* If this verse is your smoking gun, I expect every young child to be able to turn water into wine and every aborted fetus to rise from the dead.

1

Anonymous #2 1w

So you have no interest in preventing indirect deaths? (Despite a direct correlation to poor mental health and suicide existing)

5