Anonymous #1 10w

Except it’s not really your or the government’s business why someone would choose to have an abortion

24

Anonymous #4 10w

Yeah it is lol, thats like saying murder isn't the government's business. Society gets to set the rules on when you can take a human life, you don't get to do so yourself all willy nilly.

-7

Anonymous #4 10w

I agree that the risk to the mother's life, rape, incest, etc can all justify an abortion however I do not think that the existence of these cases justifies all abortion.

-5

Anonymous #1 10w

what i don’t get is why ppl think it’s willy nilly when pregnancy is a long painful disruptive process it’s not at all trivial so it kinda can’t be willy nilly it’s a deliberately consequential decision

19

Anonymous #5 10w

I still think that it makes no sense, morally or practically, to kill a human over simple personal preference.

-5

Anonymous #5 10w

I've had to endure some terrible shit just to live but I'd do it ten times over to save any random person let alone my own child

-4

Anonymous #1 10w

“Simple personal preference” like having a kid you don’t want could completely derail your life. Maybe you would give up anything for a child your own or not but not everyone would and it’s stupid to force everyone to do that

22

Anonymous #4 10w

Every single state in America allows you to leave unwanted children at the hospital, and there are thousands of foster families who'd jump at the opportunity to raise a new kid. Simply put, that concern isn't worth a life.

-5

Anonymous #1 10w

I don’t think you’re considering that not many women wouldn’t want to go through something as physically demanding and potentially life threatening as pregnancy and child birth for a child they don’t want if they’re given the choice. Again, something that no one should be forced to go through with

25

Anonymous #3 10w

Look up the trump admin’s interference with Title X

17

Anonymous #4 10w

Excluding cases of rape, there is always a choice being made to make a child.

-5

Anonymous #4 10w

All it says is that theyre shifting away from helping people with unintended pregnancies and toward more family friendly things. Getting rid of dei, stuff like that. It says that they’re defunding title x about 10% bc these specific clinics aren’t complying with dei directives or illegal immigration rules.

-6

Anonymous #3 10w

oof. your first two sentences tells me you do not know what comprehensive sex education is supposed to be…

21

Anonymous #3 10w

i actually wrote a paper on this last year! sex ed is super important (as we can see from you calling birth control STI protection). a lot of people don’t know how contraceptives work, how to properly use them, the variety of methods available, and the risks and benefits of each. additionally, teen pregnancies have been known to be lower in places where sex ed is comprehensive opposed to abstinence only.

16

Anonymous #1 10w

Consent for sex ≠ consent for pregnancy It does irreversible changes on a body and hormones and brain chemistry, has potential for health complications (all pregnancies have risk), and completely consumes the body and mind for the entire gestational process LITERALLY. If I cannot revoke consent at any time for anything, then I never really needed to give consent in the first place bc clearly it’s not about consent…

20

Anonymous #1 10w

And if you really wanted abortions to be less common you would be a much bigger advocate for sex education and better access to birth control so that sex doesn’t always mean pregnancy for women

18

Anonymous #6 10w

You can't revoke consent to guiding someone skydiving mid-air, because you are responsible for another human life. Exact same issue here.

-5

Anonymous #4 10w

It's not that I want abortions to be less common, I wouldn't care if a person wasn't losing their life over it. It's that I want people to be more common.

-6

Anonymous #1 10w

Isn’t your whole stance that it should be mostly in cases where it’s either life or death or from rape? So you do essentially want abortions to be less common. Which can be done by the means I already mentioned

11

Anonymous #4 10w

Yes, but again not for the point of lacking abortion, for the point of more people.

-4

Anonymous #4 10w

More birth control also leads to less people

-4

Comment Deleted

0

Anonymous #1 10w

simple personal preference idk i feel like it’s more than a personal preference to not want to go through an unplanned pregnancy that shit sucks i feel like you may not know what pregnancy entails

17

Whether it counts as a PERSON is the legal issue. There is a wide scientific consensus that fetuses are living human beings.

0

Anonymous #1 10w

and it’s not a child it’s an unborn fetus

12

Anonymous #5 10w

also also how is not wanting kids a simple personal preference dawg that’s a choice that changes the trajectory of your entire life and even affects the lives of those around you 😭

14

Anonymous #1 10w

Yes, and? The only reason I can imagine anyone would care about that is because capitalism relies on infinite growth and a growing workforce is typically needed for that. But that’s just not sustainable on a planet that is already getting too populated. If you want population growth, make having kids an attractive option. Make the COL go down, make housing affordable, give parents ample resources to be able to support having children. Don’t force people to have them by stripping away choice

12

Anonymous #4 10w

*a planet with finite resources would probably be better wording, but the point still stands

12

Anonymous #4 10w

Taking a human life because it'd inconvenience you to keep it is not a choice you should be legally allowed to make

-3

Anonymous #1 10w

bro did you seriously just compare pregnancy to the occupational and contractual obligations of working as a skydiving instructor…? like damn if you’re just undereducated on sex education then just say that…

12

Anonymous #1 10w

Show me the “scientific consensus” please.

11

Anonymous #3 10w

Comprehensive sex education is one of the number one ways to decrease unplanned and teen pregnancies. States with abstinence only sex education without fail have the highest rates of both of these.

13

Anonymous #2 10w

Idk man one side was pretty pissed that foreign aid got cut last year

17

Anonymous #3 10w

it sounds like you need sex education

23

Anonymous #8 10w

Jacobs, Steven Andrew. "The Scientific Consensus on When a Human's Life Begins." Issues in Law & Medicine, vol. 36, no. 2, Fall 2021, pp. 221-233. PubMed, pmid: 36629778.

0

Anonymous #1 10w

It’s funny how yall only give a fuck about unborn fetuses, aka potential people who have no ability to ask for demands, while blatantly ignoring every single other person living on the planet, including said unborn fetus once they leave the womb. Yall aren’t slick, you don’t give a fuck about life, fetuses, or abortion; you give a fuck about regulating women and weaponizing you stance against others who actually do give a fuck about others.

13

Anonymous #12 10w

Its funny that you need to strawman my argument to be something that I don't believe at all to argue against it

-4

Anonymous #1 10w

otherwise, comprehensive childcare and family services would be a fundamental part of the “pro life” (more accurately, anti abortion) platform, yet it’s nowhere to be found. stop pretending like you give a fuck about anyone but yourself.

12

Anonymous #12 10w

I think they should be

-2

Anonymous #1 10w

straw manning your position isn’t “needed”, hence why you cowardly refused to respond to #5, yet instantly responded to me when it seemed like you could land a “gotcha”. my comment is meant to emphasize the disgusting hypocrisy and maliciousness behind ideological beliefs like yours.

9

Anonymous #1 10w

and yet, regulating women’s bodies is your top priority.

9

Anonymous #12 10w

I just responded now because I noticed the notification, I'll respond to #5 too if it makes you feel better

-2

Anonymous #5 10w

Its a simple choice of personal preference because you just make a yes or no decision based on what you prefer

-3

Anonymous #12 10w

No, but this post isn't about how to improve child services, it's about abortion.

-3

Anonymous #1 10w

it’d be nice if you acknowledged the absolute insane comparison of consent to be a skydiving instructor being contractually responsible for the safety of a person who paid for your services to the consent to be pregnant… because that was fucking nuts dude

16

Anonymous #1 10w

also child services and abortion are not mutually exclusive. they’re actually heavily involved, tbh.

10

Anonymous #1 10w

the issue is you can’t comprehend that while you may have a “personal preference”, you have no right to enforce said personal preference onto others; especially on the topic of abortion in which you’re woefully unaffected. and if you are someone able to give birth, then your individual perspective on the topic does not outweigh everyone else’s, and you still do not have the right to enforce your views onto everyone else.

11

Anonymous #12 10w

if you claim to care about unborn fetuses, your focus should be on curating a world in which babies, once born, do not go hungry and die. it’s laughable to call yourselves “pro-life” when you don’t give a fuck about anyone who’s actually alive. You only give a fuck about fetuses while they’re in someone’s uterus as a means of controlling the person who’s pregnant.

9

Anonymous #1 10w

and a discussion about abortion is fundamentally a discussion about child services. This is my point, you utter ghoul. “pro-life” my fucking ass, these scumbags are just age-old wanna-be patriarchs and misogynists hiding behind a fetus.

9

Anonymous #12 10w

While connected, they are not the same subject.

-3

Anonymous #1 10w

damn so by that logic, i guess talking about the respiratory system has nothing to do with oxygen, right?

6

Anonymous #6 10w

Can you read? Genuine question. My last comment explains that they are in fact connected.

-2

Anonymous #1 10w

According to figure 2 of this paper, only 74.9% of respondents agreed that fertilization marks the beginnings of a human’s life. This does not actually meet the most common definition of “consensus”.

6

Anonymous #1 10w

see how you’re fighting tooth and nail to avoid discussing a topic that actually impacts the livelihoods of newborn children and their families, instead trying to remain fixated on your hateful prejudice against women? let me guess, you’re one of the tater tots aren’t you?

12

Anonymous #8 10w

Thats not what figure 2 says, but I understand that mistaking 96% for 74.9% happens a lot.

0

Anonymous #12 10w

Im just bored of trying to unclog my 3d printer tbh, but I think I'm gonna go watch a youtube video instead of giving you the attention you're desperate for

-1

Anonymous #1 10w

is that a minimal hint of self awareness masked by a layer of projection I sense?

8

Anonymous #12 10w

No? Do you even have a 3d printer?

-1

Anonymous #1 10w

Yeah. The respiratory system and oxygen are also connected but not the same subject. Except… the whole point of the respiratory system is to process oxygen. The whole point of abortion is for medical need, but was also recognized since 1973 that childcare, pediatric care, education, and other child services are completely absent or out of reach (geographic distance, financial constraints). Pregnancy = tens of thousands of dollars worth of medical bills and prenatal care for the mother…

8

Anonymous #1 10w

I’m talking about you… just 🤦 but yes.

6

Anonymous #6 10w

I'm not against government funded child services, but thats not even an argument at question. #12 just assumed that I am, and when I said I'm not, asked why we weren't putting that issue first and foremost. Its because thats not what we are discussing

0

Anonymous #12 10w

Tryna share a nozzle cleaning needle with a brotha in arms

-1

Anonymous #1 10w

because this topic is utterly pointless, aside from the topic of childcare services. the hyperfixation on abortion is purely a wedge issue intended to 1. Distract from the material conditions we all live under, and 2. Incite hate and violence towards specific demographics, revitalizing age old systems of oppression that have existed in our world for centuries. it’s the same reason why they’re also revitalizing white supremacists.

7

Anonymous #1 10w

…figure 2 is the figure above that dumbass. It even says “As shown in Figure 3 BELOW”

5

Anonymous #12 10w

Idk how being against abortion is a point against marginalized groups, women need to be born too and minority ethnic groups are more likely to get abortions

-2

Anonymous #12 10w

the issue is most of you can’t comprehend that as you refuse to engage in the slightest sense of self reflection. hence why you just adopt age-old hateful ideological views, acting like you’re some “free thinker”. it’s laughable at best, and dangerous at worst.

9

Anonymous #1 10w

Here’s a helpful diagram. Above and below is such a confusing distinction. Happens a lot.

5

Anonymous #1 10w

do you recognize how women have been marginalized throughout history? there’s a reason why the term “patriarchy” exists…

9

Anonymous #12 10w

Why else would I list women under marginalized groups?

0

Anonymous #1 10w

That’s my misunderstanding then, so I apologize. do you see the point I’m trying to make though?

3

Anonymous #12 10w

I see the point that generally the anti abortion movement may be that way, but you're trying to ascribe those beliefs to me when its just not the case

0

Anonymous #8 10w

You're right, I apologize for being arrogant. Still, the conclusion in the paper is that 96% of biologists support the fertilization view of when human life starts.

1

Anonymous #1 10w

Apology accepted. However, you’re still misinterpreting the paper. The 96% figure is the proportion of biologists who affirmed at least one statement from the questionnaire (section 2.1) of which the authors deliberately designed to go from broad questions about life, to mammals, to humans. When considering the questions about the start of specifically HUMAN life at fertilization (questions 4 and 5) only 74.9% of respondents indicated agreement.

9

Anonymous #1 10w

in all honesty then I apologize for casting that onto you, my main intention behind doing so was not as much a personal condemnation, but more so a critique of the anti abortion movement itself if that makes sense; especially on the topic of being a wedge issue it’s the same underlying reason as to why so many politicians target us trans folk: creating a scapegoat out of other people or topics to avoid addressing the actual issues that affect all of us, yk?

3

Anonymous #1 10w

I apologize if my focusing on the abortion vs childcare topic muddied the point I was trying to make, I did get a bit off topic.

2

Anonymous #8 10w

You're lacking there by not accepting the fact that we are biologically mammals, and by proxy, the fact that anything said about mammals categorically can be applied to ourselves.

0

Anonymous #12 10w

Well thank you, and yes I agree that child care is an important part of the abortion debate as well as seeing your point.

0

Anonymous #1 10w

Making that statement in this context is flawed since it substitutes explicit answers about the consensus of biologists in regards to when HUMAN life begins in favor of an extrapolation from cherrypicked datapoints. Said another way, you’re trying to extrapolate an answer about human life from broad answers about all mammals. But since the respondents already explicitly answered questions about humans specifically, you can’t do that.

3

Anonymous #1 10w

I’d argue childcare *IS* the debate, arguing over abortion and even going as far as to criminalize it is merely a wedge issue intended to distract from the underlying issue of childcare, and the material conditions in which we live under. just for clarification: I’m saying that the abortion discussion is pointless, that’s a topic for a doctor and their patient, and those two parties alone; all this does in effect is cause people to be criminalized and punished;

6

Anonymous #8 10w

I'd argue that the only reason you would say its untrue about human life while saying its true about a broader "mammal life" is that you believe we should view human life differently from a moral, legal, or philosophical viewpoint. From a scientific perspective, all of the 96% answered that human life begins at conception.

-2

Anonymous #12 10w

While never actually reducing the frequency of abortion in society. As legal frameworks for abortion disappear, all we see is “back alley” abortions rise in frequency, which puts more lives at risk. That was a major part in abortion becoming legalized as well: ensuring they’re done in a safe and sterile manner by medical professionals since they’re going to happen regardless. the only true way to reduce abortion, if that’s your goal, is to reduce the need for abortion; not to criminalize it.

11

Anonymous #12 10w

Similar to guns, bans on abortion are without teeth unless enacted nationwide. Of course there is no political environment to allow for this but ideals can be ideals and realities can be realities.

-4

Anonymous #12 10w

that reduction in need would look like expanding sex education for everyone in America, and I’d include adults in that (considering how poorly educated most Americans are on the topic of consent); expanded access to contraceptives (and I’d even say expand social programs to utilize tax dollars to cover the cost of contraceptives (condoms and such), since people are going to have sex anyway, might as well ensure it’s safe), reinvesting in local communities, especially ones below the poverty line

9

Anonymous #12 10w

The much more frequent case than the back alley abortion with bans however is illegal interstate travel to get abortions elsewhere

-3

Anonymous #12 10w

I don't think handing out heavy birth control is the only scenario where we could effectively reduce elective abortion, I think if we had effective child services and normalized them in society than it wouldn't be an issue of having to prevent the contraception

-1

Anonymous #1 10w

no. even a nationwide ban on abortion is meaningless towards “lowering abortion”. Studies show that when legal avenues for abortion disappear, they still occur merely in more dangerous conditions. the only thing a nationwide abortion ban will do is lead to the arrest of millions of people seeking an abortion, and medical professionals partaking in one.

15

Anonymous #12 10w

Furthermore this wouldn't be nearly as needed in a society where we had also normalized healthy, long lasting parental relationships with your significant other prior to engaging in conduct that can lead to a child.

-3

Anonymous #1 10w

the abortions will still happen, one way or another. hence why I listed off ways to invest in your community that can reduce one’s need for an abortion; and if this is actually about abortion, that’s what we should be considering. the reason why many of us criticize anti-abortionists as merely being misogynists, is because most refuse to consider such ways to effectively reduce the need for abortion, and would instead wish to violently criminalize others for seeking *medical care*.

11

Anonymous #12 10w

Well if it's medically necessary or because of rape, incest, etc then imo any ban should not affect it. I don't think that elective abortions would happen as much if we got rid of the factors causing them (lack of money, poor parental relationships, lack of support from the government)

-2

Anonymous #1 10w

do you want to reduce the need for abortion, or do you just want to complain and moan about it out of some seemingly religious bullshit? (Even though is argue the underlying belief regarding abortion is as such) there are people with single parents, there are people who do not get married, there are people who do not want children whatsoever. you cannot dictate how other want to live their lives, just so we get this out there first and foremost. The reason why we offer those contraceptives is

12

Anonymous #1 10w

because there are over 300 million different people in this country, and only a fraction of them live according to the beliefs and lifestyle you’re listing. there are people with nymphomania in this country, and ensuring they have contraceptives helps towards the overall issue. contraceptives isn’t only for pregnancy, they help towards reduce the spread of sexually transmitted infections and diseases; which is necessary…

11

Anonymous #1 10w

Exactly. And since ultimately, the consensus of where life begins is an OPINION, there can be a lack of a consensus on where human life begins while there is one on mammalian life. It can be contradictory. You’ve acknowledged that the question as to where life begins is largely philosophical, and are trying to argue that because of this fact, the opinions of the most informed experts is the one we should base policy decisions on. That’s honestly a very solid framework to stand on.

8

Anonymous #8 10w

Hence me using the phrase "scientific consensus" instead of "scientist's moral/philosophical/legal consensus"

-1

Anonymous #1 10w

Lastly, what about households that have that long lasting parental relationship, but with abusive parents? Or just one abusive parent and the rest are abused? The thing about government is it needs to account for everyone; not just the ideals of a few. what about people who have no home? the government needs to look after everyone, that’s something we need to remember

11

Anonymous #8 10w

If it's just a matter of them having authority on science, and not their actual scientific opinions, why not ask an astrophysicist what they think? I'm sure NDT would love to butt in on this.

0

Anonymous #1 10w

dude, it will happen in alleyways, in bedrooms, in bathtubs, anywhere. you’re talking about criminalizing a medical operation for the most part, while forgetting that miscarriages are also classified as abortions. please just sit and think about everything being said to you. this isn’t protecting life, it’s endangering it.

13

Anonymous #1 10w

But the experts indicated that when it comes to HUMAN life, there is no consensus on where it begins. The argument that the experts believe that there’s a difference between life, broadly speaking, and human life specifically is solid, but that’s all you can really say on the matter. The statistics clearly say that biologists don’t have a consensus on whether fertilization is where human life starts.

3

Anonymous #1 10w

Throwing that out in favor of twisting other datapoints to make the conclusion you want true is considered actual fraud in academic science. People have done it and lost their jobs and credibility because of it.

12

Anonymous #1 10w

you are not a biologist and not a medical professional in an OBGYN department, so I think you need to learn way more before you can speak on the subject of abortion at length like this… otherwise you’re just being an ultracrepidarian, which is embarrassing.

11

Anonymous #8 10w

Because it draws in the philosophical, legal, and moral debates. Biologically, we know when life starts.

0

Anonymous #1 10w

Looping back around to the top, do you have any research that supports that statement? Because what you cited does not show that, it only shows the opinions of scientists. You cannot claim that there is an objective biological truth about when life begins and then cite subjective opinion to support it. The logical foundation just isn’t there.

11

Anonymous #1 10w

i am begging you to please stop saying “biologically” and deferring to biology when it is so damn clear that you ARE NOT educated on the subject in a manner that makes you qualified to have an opinion on when abortion is appropriate.

18

Anonymous #8 10w

Yes, and I already gave it to you. It is a group of biologists scientific consensus.

-2

Anonymous #1 10w

a group of biologists ≠ the entire scientific community biologists ≠ reproductive healthcare professionals one study ≠ a discipline-wide conclusion on the research topic

11

Anonymous #1 10w

…but there isn’t a consensus that human life begins at fertilization. The data in Figure 2 is clear that only 74.9% of them agree on that. And I’d really like to impress upon you that you cannot disregard that data. You also can’t throw out that their answers to the last 2 questions because of suspicions of bias while still saying that their answers to the first 3 are still valid without some sort of methodological control. Otherwise it’s just cherrypicking.

9

Anonymous #1 10w

I’m not trying to be a dick here, and I’m being 100% genuine, but I think you should take a class on logic and another on academic research. I know that sounds easy, but those classes are typically pretty challenging because being able to override the shortcuts your brain takes to think scientifically is a learned skill that most people don’t have. I know it because I went through it. Again, not trying to be a dick and I want to impress upon you that I mean this with respect.

9

Anonymous #8 10w

as a graduate student in Biology and Education, i am so glad you’re exploring the source that was provided. Statistical significance levels (p<0.05 vs p<0.0001) and recognizing bias in qualitative research studies (leading questions in surveys, etc.) is such a great skill that people are often oblivious to lacking. Yet, they still assume their untrained brain can make sense of it. It’s so frustrating.

11

Anonymous #6 10w

Fun fact: I’m also a graduate student, just in Molecular Biology. Unfortunately, I think the average layperson may not have the same skillset as we do, but that’s why it’s important to inform people about it when we can!

8

Anonymous #8 10w

I've taken a good few classes regarding mathematical and computational logic but never anything addressing philosophical logic, I'll check it out.

0

Anonymous #10 10w

Ding ding ding!!

1

Anonymous #1 10w

wait so you're anti birth control? please explain how that helps LITERALLY anyone

4

Anonymous #13 10w

I'm against the government paying for it, I don't think it should be illegal or unavailable

-1

Anonymous #13 10w

I also don't think anti birth control is the way I would put it

-1

Anonymous #1 10w

why are you against the government paying for it? are you against the government paying for healthcare in general?

5

Anonymous #13 10w

Preventing contraception shouldn't be a priority, a nation can't sustain that

-2

Anonymous #1 10w

"preventing contraception" can you define contraception for me because you are arguing against your own point rn

5

Anonymous #13 10w

i think they are confusing the term “contraception” with the term “conception” this should be a skit atp

8

Anonymous #1 10w

mate, as I explained above, this is exactly why we call you antiabortionists just purely and overwhelmingly misogynistic. you’re intentionally disregarding the methods of systemically reducing the *need* for medical abortion, and instead insisting on the one route that ends in criminalizing women and healthcare workers. like, come the fuck on…

5