Comment Deleted

0

Well, Republicans don’t have abortions so they raise more Republican kids. Liberals policies contradict their interests 😉

-9

Anonymous #3 12w

Not if y’all keep being anti-vaxxers. Republican kids will pass from measles before they get a chance to vote.

25

Anonymous #3 12w

Believe it or not, not everyone follows their parents’ exact political ideology. I feel very bad for you if you’re someone who does.

27

Anonymous #3 12w

“My abortions ok, not yours” is something most republicans seem to believe though?

12

Anonymous #5 12w

Agree to disagree in that until the brain grows in there that’s a clump of cells with no sentience

59

Anonymous #8 12w

I mean I think human life has inherent value regardless of whether or not it is sentient.

10

Anonymous #5 12w

Fair enough

22

Anonymous #9 12w

Dude within the last 100 years we’ve had around 23 genocides, but yeah I’m sure gods disappointment in humanity will be abortions, that’s the straw that’s gonna break the camels back

26

Anonymous #8 12w

Funny enough, within the same century when we rejected the religious foundations of our society and turned to a godless humanism. It’s almost like when you boil people down to nothing more than clumps of matter, any kind of horror can and will follow.

-2

Anonymous #9 12w

I mean we can talk about mass murders committed in the name of our lord and savior if you want to, I would hope God wasn’t very happy with the crusades. The people living in Jerusalem sure weren’t. Not to blame Christianity, just that the followers of our lord aren’t exactly free from mass murdering

14

Anonymous #8 12w

That was a defensive war. Compare that to the hundreds of millions slaughtered by secularism.

-5

Anonymous #9 12w

Silence TradCath

27

Anonymous #5 12w

That’s insane why would u think that

3

Anonymous #11 12w

It’s honestly a pretty fundamental part of my belief system. I don’t see why it’s so insane tbh

13

Anonymous #5 12w

Because after a doctor pronounces someone dead, there is still “life” in the body; it continues to metabolize, but the conscious experience has ceased, or the “who” the person that we’re actually trying to protect. If u say human life is fundamental, and exists the moment unique dna is created at conception, why would u not draw a similarly motivated line for death, or, when final decomposition has occurred?

19

Anonymous #11 12w

I do draw a similarly motivated line for death. We still treat that body with respect after death in general. That’s why we have funerals for example.

5

Anonymous #5 12w

That respect is in regards to the living loved ones of the dead person, not in regards to the body itself. Corpses are not attributed rights in any way similar to what we call human rights

4

Anonymous #11 12w

Not exactly. We still respect the legal will of a dead person. Otherwise there would be no issue with the government seizing all of their stuff upon death.

6

Anonymous #5 12w

The thing we’re respecting there is living peoples ownership of property. When someone dies, their property is distributed to those named in the will, not because they are respecting the wishes of the writer, but the property rights of those named in the will. And those unnamed, the closed living relatives, is, again, a legal practice of honoring property rights. The violation that would occur in the government seizing the property u owned while alive when u die is living owners property rights

5

Anonymous #9 12w

Can I ask how civilian/POW massacre is part of a defense war?

19

Anonymous OP 12w

Nope! Magisterial Protestant

-7

Anonymous #8 12w

About 1/3 of Gen Z was lost due to abortions btw

-9

Anonymous #13 12w

Lmfao not this stupid talking point again 💀

24

Comment Deleted

0

Anonymous #13 12w

No. U can very easily celebrate the liberating thing that is the right to have an abortion, and the thus liberating action that is women exercising that right, while still acknowledging and being against emotional tolls when they occur

24

Anti-Choicers are so overdramatic 😂

20

Comment Deleted

0

Right because when we want to know what a thing is, we don’t look at what it is right now, or what it’s used for right now, we look a hundred years back at its conception. Good point dog

12

Anonymous #9 12w

It’s only immoral to brain dead religious groups like you

7

Anonymous #13 12w

Cry

1

Anonymous #11 12w

There’s a difference between celebrating the act and celebrating the right

-2

Anonymous #14 12w

About the emotional toll that making that decision has on mothers? Seems like there are a lot of worse things to cry about

-3

Anonymous #13 12w

Abortion is a good thing. Celebrating the procedure that saves the lives of millions is good. Cry more if you think it’s somehow wrong to celebrate abortion

6

Anonymous #13 12w

Nobody ever said there wasn’t. It is very easy to abate the negative impact any “celebration” brings emotionally to anyone hearing, while reaping the positive impact of encouraging those who need encouragement and celebrating those who need celebration. U don’t acknowledge the second half of that, I acknowledge the first half, that’s why ur idea is worse

7

Anonymous #14 12w

If you’re talking about America, given that we’re in the US Politics thread, millions is a vast overstatement. The best-case framing of abortion is a necessary (in terms of availability) but psychologically taxing procedure to preserve financial, medical, and emotional wellbeing.

1

Anonymous #13 12w

Do you think abortions only benefit a singular person at a time? Entire families can be put under pressure once someone has a child. Regardless, cry more. I will celebration abortion because it is an amazing thing to do if it’s chosen, that people have the right to do

1

I mean how many people is half the Gen Z population

1

Anonymous #9 12w

Oh god you’re STUPID stupid

3

Anonymous #5 12w

Are you willing to financially emotionally and physically take care of the life then

1

Anonymous #19 12w

Are you saying whether or not someone has value and is worthy of being alive is determined by whether or not the parent or caretaker is able to provide for them?

6

Anonymous #8 12w

😂

1

Anonymous #19 12w

Yes personally if it were my child I would set aside everything to take care of them. But I understand that not everyone has the means or willingness to do that.

11

Anonymous #9 12w

Ignoring the many wars and genocides in a higher beings name, are we? You are exactly the kind of pompous sheepish prick that the delusion of modern religion thrives on

1

Anonymous #5 12w

Does it make you sad to bust a nut cause all the sperm are gonna die lol

1

Anonymous #8 12w

no, they don’t?

1

Anonymous #21 12w

No? Because I’m not dying when that happens. In an abortion an entire human dies.

1

Anonymous ireallylikepancakes 12w

As a woman, I would argue abortion should be restricted but not entirely forbidden. Like, if you're not being careful knowing what could happen and still get pregnant, that's on you, but if you get raped for example, then you can choose to get an abortion. There's many other reasons people get abortion but I'm not going through the list. And no, I'm not religious, so none of this is backed by religion

-1

Anonymous #23 12w

U need to do some actual investigation and figure out what u think. If abortion is wrong sometimes, why? Is it because there’s an actual person with rights that’s being killed? And if so, why does that suddenly become okay in ur mind in some circumstances? It sounds like u don’t really know wut u think

12

Anonymous #13 12w

and the other 2/3 should’ve been aborted, what’s ur point

1

Anonymous #24 12w

I think you’re larping, tough knuckles

0

Anonymous #11 12w

I know what I think. I personally would never get an abortion, but this all isn't black or white. A compromise between pro-choice and pro-life would be to allow it, but with limitations. No one knows how to compromise though, so everyone says "yes" or "no" without considering a compromise

0

Anonymous #23 12w

That’s because when it comes to “opinions” about abortion, encompassed within that is topics like “when does human biology correspond to a person with rights.” If you wouldn’t get an abortion because you think it’s murdering a baby, why would you adopt a la ze faire attitude when somebody else commits that murder? I could be u wouldn’t have an abortion for a different reason than thinking it’s murder, but u also said it should be restricted, and generally u need strong reasons to deny autonomy

1

Anonymous #23 12w

As someone with empathy. I value a living, thinking, independent adult over a loosely held together group of cells.

1

Anonymous ireallylikepancakes 12w

So does everyone. The question is whether there is also a living thinking independent child in the equation

1

Anonymous ireallylikepancakes 12w

The irony of feigning empathy and proceeding to dehumanize a literal human is laughable. You do realize that you are a loosely held together group of cells?

0

Anonymous #15 12w

My cells are held together pretty well, aren’t yours? You should get that checked out.

3

Anonymous #15 12w

I mean this is an equally pointless attack obviously the question is whether the thing is “dehumanizing” is a “literal human” he disagrees with u that it is, so this doesn’t land

10

Anonymous #11 12w

I mean it’s not subjective it is in every sense of the human species

0

Anonymous #15 12w

If everything with human DNA (which is what I think you’re implying by that?) then bleeding should count as manslaughter.

5

Anonymous #15 12w

But we don’t seem to value human life, we value the human conscious experience. That is why we declare a person dead when that conscious experience has irrevocably ceased, even though there is still “life” in the body—metabolization, etc. the brain parts we associate with this experience seem to form around 20-24 weeks, therefore abortion up to 20, afterward ur killing a person

0

Anonymous #11 12w

Yet we still consider it human, but it is no longer living.

1

Anonymous ireallylikepancakes 12w

Blood is incomparable to a fertilized egg, that would just be dishonest

1

Anonymous #15 12w

It is human, and there is life, past when we say the person is dead, therefore, it is not human life that we value, but something that human life brings about, or, the human conscious experience

1

Anonymous #11 12w

This was never about consciousness or sentience. It has been about whether or not a functional human, in whatever stage that it is in, is worthy to have the moral considerations that one would apply to a baby or something already born.

1

Anonymous #15 12w

Wrong. The question is what makes it worth giving the moral rights to any type of person, and when we talk about a “who” not a “what” we seem to refer to the emanating conscious experience, or whatever qualia is, or whatever metaphor u prefer. If u were to begin experiencing the world thru a different body, and someone asked, should I stab the body u used to experience thru, or this new one, u would say the new one

1

Anonymous #11 12w

I think we’re on completely different wavelengths here. You’re going off in some direction and I’m going in another.

1

Anonymous #15 12w

Tru I agree ur definitely careening lemme bring us back: the question at hand is when does human life, ie. human biological matter with life, deserve rights? Well, we say some is “dead,” or, no longer deserving of rights when their conscious experience has ceased, so to say someone’s deserving of life, it’s prolly when that experience begins. The parts of the brain we associate with consciousness form around 20-24 weeks

1

Anonymous #11 12w

When someone is dead it is part of a natural process which they cannot return from. Your worldview that is conscious-based is not one that I hold. My moral basis for human rights exists from the fertilized egg to the old man dying. I do not base human rights on what developmental stage or on the biological characteristics of that human.

1

Anonymous #15 12w

My issue is that your moral basis requires forcing people to non-consensual irreversible changes to their bodies.

1

Anonymous ireallylikepancakes 12w

The fetus, under my moral basis undergoes the same thing, but has no control and no ability to consent. Your point?

1

Anonymous #15 12w

Right but when u say “the old man dying” u mean “the old man’s conscious experience ceasing” so u hold conscious experience as the bar for taking away moral value, but u point to the moment the first human cell exists as the bar for giving moral value, instead of the gaining of conscious experience. If u were consistent, u would say life ends when the final human cell has decomposed and is carbon and constituent elements

1

Anonymous #15 12w

The fetus, as far as modern science can currently discern, cannot discern its own existence. Meanwhile the adult can, there’s a difference in how the two organisms experience pregnancy. You’re trying to equate two fundamentally incompatible notions.

1

Anonymous ireallylikepancakes 12w

I simply do not base human value on consciousness or discernment. I think I already said this.

1

Anonymous #15 12w

So, you’re okay with forcing people to undergo months of pain to give birth to a kid they didn’t even want?

1

Anonymous #15 12w

How do you determine when a person is dead, then, or, no longer deserving of moral consideration

1

Anonymous #11 12w

When the brain indefinitely ceases function to the point that it is no longer capable of sapience, also known as brain death.

1

Anonymous #20 12w

Fire I assume, given u look to the cessation of conscience experience for when a person loses rights, u look to the beginning of that experience for when they gain them. U and me on the same page

1