Abortion

If you get a girl pregnant, she doesn't want it but you decide you'll be a man and raise the kid yourself instead and then find out she just killed (or aborted) it with no knowledge or control from your end... I think you'd sing a different tune than "well it's her body, her choice! so what if my unborn kid has been taken away from me?, wouldn't you?

 

In this scenario rightfully the woman should be the deciding factor. If she is not ready for it and doesn’t want the kid she shouldnt sacrefice her entire life and 9 months pregnancy just for the guy. Parenting is team work, not smth one should do on his own. Reverse the situation and lets say ur the pregnant one. How’d you feel about it then? Should someone force u to give birth?

 

What you said basically means "screw the man, all rights go to the woman".

It's still his kid also, he made it.

 

Or is it? ... screw the woman, and all the rights go to the woman.

Or is it ... why is abortion about the man? Because men have value too. We, I, value men. And sometimes there's a male involved. But who is this man? How many loving, ready, mature, fathers-to-be are out there having what they believe to be their baby on the way ....
aborted by the mother?

How many loving, unready, immature, mothers-to-be are out there without another option?

 

I mean this is a crazy debate. In one hand if you’re not ready you’re ruining the kids life in the other you’re murdwrig it eeh

 

She’s the one carrying for 9 months all he did was bust a nut

 

is that really your excuse... lol

no offense but that is stupid. If a mother wont care for a baby, there are literally thousands and thousands of parents in the US who are on waiting list to adopt children.

let's be real here, the left has moved so drastically on abortion that they no longer feel that it is just a medical procedure, but rather a sacrament, as if having the abortion is a good thing and shows that you aren't held down by the white male patriarchy or some bullshit..







again, the same person who embodies most of the left in america has some ridiculous views on men! ( like nearly every abortion advocate i have ever met)



^ also, one point she makes is that men make up most politican's, thus are making all of the laws. This shows how retarded she rewally is, because not all politicians are "making laws" and the 3 branches of government, only 1 "makes" laws and the rest are their to either enforce the law or determine if the law is withheld by the constitution as it is written. Another example how the Left see's "Inequity" as the same as "Inequality "...

Oh, and of the women who serve ion government, nearly 70% are registered Democrats... so much for "equality" and unbiased opinion's right. This is almost true in all countries. Women tend to be on the left because Women are much more easily persuaded and conduct their actions based on emotional appeal or their own personal feelings. This is why the Founders are BLM are women, the Founders of the "Refuges Welcome" are women just to give a few examples.





But that bring me to a whole new point. Doesn't the father have a say in the situtuation? I mean, scientifically the baby has (usually) 46 chromies, with 23 coming from the father. So by the lefts understanding of "its a woman's body" how does that not apply to a man? The Left's arguments are hypocritical at best.

also.....

here is a chart from the CDC which shows the development of a human fetus.







So by 8 weeks the baby has external genitals , before it is even a "fetus"


Also, most data shows that anywhere from 10% to 30% of all abortions are after the 1st trimester, which ends after 12 weeks.

Most abortions within the 1st trimester are not often before 4-5 weeks in the pregnancy.


So, if we take the lowest number of 10% of babies aborted after 12 weeks, that's about 125,000 babies that look like the baby in the 12 weeks being aborted every year.

There are about 3500 abortions each day in america, which is VERY high and it goes against the democrat's talking point of "safe and rare". Also, the Left loves to use the women's body argument, but what is funny is that the human baby literally isnt part of the mothers body, and is legally a seperate entity within the body, so the "its my body get your hands off my vagina" argument is so fucking stupid and misinformed.

 

God damn a wall of text. I cba reading it you are worse than bus lol.
Forcing a woman to give birth is wrong for the sake of the baby (which most likely will end up in a foster home) and on her. That is my opinion.

 

One thing I love about you. The time you put into each reply. I fucking respect you.

 

1. Giving birth cost roughly $3000-30000 in the USA
2. Pregnancy complications are the 6th most common cause of death of women
3. Carrying a baby for 9 months generally will cost also, while also obstructing work and the career of the mother.
4. An example of an abortion ban in Romania caused 150,000 newborns to be put in orphanages, of which alot now suffer from mental health issues.

There are definately better ways to prevent unwanted pregnancies, but if both parties want to have an abortion (man and women) then it should be an option for them.

 

I'm far from a lefty but an anti-abortion stance is something that makes no sense to me. I can't think of a single non-religious reason to ban abortions. You mainly gave emotional reasoning here. What is your opinion on what the law should be regarding abortions?

For example:
1. Should it be illegal to remove a 3 day old human embryo (a blastocyst, a sphere made up of ~150 cells). If so, why? If this is considered murder because it is a potential human life then you are committing a holocaust every time you scratch your nose, given that every cell in the body has the potential for life.
2. Should a woman be forced to follow through with a pregnancy if it will likely or certainly result in her death? If so, why do you place a higher value on the life of the non-baby than the life of the pregnant woman? How do you determine this, and will your answer be consistent with all pregnant women or will it change depending on who the mother is? (Maybe the woman is on the verge of a medical breakthrough that will save millions, maybe it'll save 100, maybe it'll save 2). How do we objectively determine when they should be forced to follow through if 1 life does not have the same value as another?
3. If the above two scenarios are okay, are there other situations where you think abortion should be allowed? Do you have a cut-off point in mind?

The argument for most people isn't that abortion should be allowed, but that a line needs to be drawn somewhere. Some people (usually religious) put the line at conception. That's almost certainly wrong because I blow millions of babies into a sock rather frequently. Others put the line just before birth. This is also in my opinion wrong because you're seconds away from killing a new-born baby. So the question is, where between conception and birth do we draw the line? According to your chart if I'm reading it correctly a heart and CNS aren't developed until 3 weeks in, and a brain 12 weeks in. One of those two or somewhere in between seems like a good starting point for me, since suffering cannot exist without consciousness and as far as I know consciousness cannot exist without a CNS or brain. (I don't really know anything about how a fetus develops, I'm just going by the picture you posted, but it seems like a good starting point)

I'm having a hard time understanding your position because all I've gathered from your post is "10% of them look like babies" which seems like the exact kind of emotional response from the left that you criticize.

 

There's also a philosophical question here... is it equally wrong to steal $100 from someone who has only $100 or from somebody who has only $100 but isn't aware of having it. For example, they think they have $0 but in a dusty closet that they'd never visit you find a $100 bill. Victim A is fully aware of what they have to lose, while victim B would never know their loss and therefore never suffer because of it.

Now replace the $100 bill with human experience and see if your answer changes. If so, why?

 

I'm only going to respond to a few of these because good God, I can only handle so much.

What, what? Source?

Of course it's killing - nobody has ever said that abortion isn't killing. But what you're killing is a non-sentient clump of cells, why should anybody care whether it's due to laziness?

What about the father? You basically just said "her body, her right", and flipping the situation around = "his body, his right". Nobody has ever said that the father doesn't have a right to his own body.

I wouldn't use the word "murder", since that implies that the victim is sentient, but sure, why not?

~92% of abortions are performed within the first 13 weeks:

cdc.gov/reproductivehealth/data_stats/abortion.htm

Why would that be a stupid argument? If less than 2% of abortions are for rape (not sure why you put "rape" in quotation marks), why would that eliminate the need for abortions under those circumstances?

What, are you trying to gross us out? Who cares how messy it is?

Who cares if people are lined up waiting to adopt? What if you just don't want to be pregnant?

Fair enough. At what point do you think life begins?

That doesn't mean that abortion actually IS murder, it's just an inconsistency in the law.

If pregnancy is a health condition, why wouldn't abortion be a medical procedure that's covered?

Having an abortion IS taking responsibility for your actions.

If you're talking about the U.S., then that's completely false. The U.S. public welfare system is a farcical shitshow compared to most Western countries.

Sounds like an emotional reaction. We probably shouldn't base public policy on somebody's feelings.

 

to answer your question about law, it is simple.


Your wife is pregnant. I come up to her and kill her. I go to jail for double homicide in most states. Meanwhile, a woman pays a doctor to stick a clamp up the vagina and crush the babies skull isn't considered murder... hmmm

 

there is too many quotes here. I will have to take some time to reply to them all.

However I will reply to one now, and say that you are comparing apples to oranges when you compare healthcare systems in say, Denmark, Sweden, UK. It is a totally different ball game in the US. Sure it's not perfect, but the point I am trying to make is that although the world has become much better (generally) over the past 200 years, abortion rates are skyrocketing.

Also, abortions increase the chances of death in women. Some like to say, yeah well heart surgery increases your risk of death, but unlike triple bypass, a woman having a baby is much safer than a women having an abortion. I think it is funny how the Left wants to point at abortions are a regular health treatment, and down play the issue. People like Michelle Wolf said "Abortions should be like a McDonalds $1 Menu", not that her opinion matters, but her leftist crowd cheered of course..


Oh and the rape and incest argument is stupid because obviously is someone is raped they shouldn't be forced to birth the child, and rape AND incest combined make up less than 1% of all abortions. Why should we base tough decisions like these on the very small percentage of people who have a seemingly legitimate cause.

Post the videos not to "gross us out", but to shed some light on how an abortion works? You think the Sythe population knows the difference? The videos actually show a lot about abortions and how they are performed, so I mean... since this is an abortion discussion I think it should be welcomed. I'm glad you think its gross though. It is much more gross than the 99% accurate "Plan B" pill that cost nearly 1/1000 of an abortion.


Also, what pisses me off about what you said to @Laptop65 is that it is not in fact a "bundle of cells".... Lets take one of your arguments.. 92% of babies are aborted before 13 weeks.

here is another chart which will help you understand that this isnt just a "bundle of cells". Tons of college students love to make these arguments on campus but then get shut down the second a biology teacher says "oh but it has a heart beat at 5 weeks from conception.







By the way, most doctors don't think these unborn children are bundles of cells by the way. This is a misinformed leftist talking point that tries to help make abortions look more moral than they are. Why do I know this? Because the heads of PLan Parenthood have said it themselves. In fact, the main reason PP wants to keep your fetus is because baby eyes and lungs bring a very high mark up in the research business. The leader of planned parenthood even joked about buying a lambo if they abort more babies... which is what most are, not bundles of cells.

 

Also, funny that at 5:50 in this video, the doctor recommends Dygoxin so " there is no suffering" (implying the baby could suffer in the abortion, acknowledging that the baby cant not only feel pain, but is not a "bundle of cells".

Granted, this is a 2nd Trimester. It is still sad that if the baby comes out "whole" and "alive" they will still "put it down"... which is interesting, because if a woman had a early pregnancy, and the parents or doctor killed the baby once delievered, it would obviously be murder.

 

Okay. Why would life being generally better make a difference as to whether women can control their own bodies?

What relevance does the health effects of an abortion have on its morality?

I'm not sure why you're capitalizing "Left", but as I said in my previous post, if pregnancy is a health condition, why wouldn't abortion be a medical procedure that's covered?

Ah okay, fair enough.

I think most people know that an abortion kills the fetus, regardless of how it's done. We're discussing the morality of abortion, and describing how an abortion is performed doesn't really have any relevance.

Slaughtering a cow is gross, but I still eat beef. Why would something being gross have any relevance in a discussion of morality.

...A chicken has a heartbeat. So what? Why would a beating heart have any relevance?

Unborn children are literally bundles of cells. We're all bundles of cells. What matters is whether a particular bundle of cells is sentient.

Oh boy, I can't wait for you to share your non-biased source on this.

Well I'm not watching a combined ~16 minutes of video, so if you have a tl;dr, that'd be great.

Of course the baby can suffer! I never said that it can't! The question is, though, how much can it suffer? For example, a mouse can suffer - does that mean that killing a mouse is murder?

A newborn baby is barely sentient, why should killing a 2nd trimester baby be considered murder?

If you can tl;dr this, I'm happy to answer whatever arguments he makes.

 

Because a lot of the arguments are based upon not being able to afford a baby or effecting a person's life, but with the current conditions of our modern world, there are multiple government and private solutions for "not being able to afford" a child as one example.

Will get back to this in another quote below

If you are trying to make the argument that insurance should cover abortions is ridiculous, or at least to force a private insurance company, or to force american tax payers to fund abortion clinics.. which is currently happening. Unlike a surgery to get rid of a cancer, or a operation to fix a broken hip, the operation to stick a stick into a mothers vagina and literally chop up and the vacume a baby ( which by the way would be born the next day because it is not uncommmon for babies to be born upwards or 3 months early) is not legit in my opinion, and that is mostly because a lot of the time, the abortion isn't "destroying a bundle of cells", it is literally killing a child who has not left the mother's body yet. Michelle wolf said "abortions aren't murdering a baby, its just stopping it from happening", which is totally wrong since most of the time, there is literally a baby inside.

The process of an abortion proves a lot about how your argument of "a bundle of cells" is bullshit, which I will get to in the quotes below.

I'm not trying to prove that abortions should be illegal because they are gross and never made the argument.

A baby is not a chicken... a chicken has no real purpose but to lay an egg that we ultimately eat. To compare the heart beat of a chicken to a babies heart beat is ridiculous lol.

Unborn children are not a bundle of cells. If you want to say "we are a bundle of cells" why cant I kill you? I mean seriously. You first say its okay to kill a child because "its a bundle of cells" ( which is not true and no doctor on the planet would agree with your statement because they know its not a "bundle of cells"), then you go on to say that "we are a bundle of cells", which is true on the very technical level, but if you see humans are nothing more than a bundle of cells then I am not too sure why murder is illegal by the situation you are painting.

It's your choice. The fact you wont take time to educate yourself about how Planned parent hood head doctors said they would use "Less destructive measures" to "increase profits" and said, "I want a lambo"... You see, what you dont understand is that abortion clinics like planned parenthood want to say that they do not profit from abortions and are only giving them to people ( many of which are subsidized by the Federal Government ) to help them because they care, when in reality abortion and baby organ harvesting to Big Pharma is a HUGE business. In fact, researchers will pay upwards of $30,000 for a child's eyes, but no you are right... its just a bundle of cells.

Comparing the suffering of a mouse to the suffering of a baby is wrong and you are making yourself look very stupid here. Yeah and notice how you called it a "baby", implying it is a child and not a bundle of cells. I think you should be careful there.

But to answer your question, no mudering a mouse is not murder, but if you murder a baby, its murder. Whats really sad is that If I murder a baby who was born 2 months early, I go to jail, but If a mother kills her baby 1 month before birth, or even 2 months ( making the baby about the same in terms of development) it is not only "not murder" but is possibly free and easy to do.... So my question to you is, if a baby is born at 28 weeks, and a baby is aborted at 28 weeks, would you agree that the abortion is a murder, or do you think its not murder because the baby hasn't left the mother's body. If you think that it is not abortion because it is still in the mother's body, then that makes no sense.

Also, if a woman is preg, and I kill her, I will get tried for double homicide.

If a new born baby is barely sentient, why not kill the baby? Your logic makes no sense first say a newborn is barely sentient, then ask whats wrong with killing a barely sentient 2nd trimester baby. Its just a stupid argument im sorry.

You could take 3 minutes out your day to just watch a video instead of being confined to your own thoughts and feelings.

 

I see. I never made that argument though.

You haven't answered the question. If abortion is a medical procedure, why wouldn't it be covered?

I think people posting here know that this is a thread about the ethics of abortion. Again, why would a video showing the details of how it's performed have any relevance?

Good! Your links made me think otherwise, but I'm glad we agree on this.

Well, you brought up the fact that a fetus has a heartbeat quite early, so I'm trying to see why you think that's relevant.

I have never said that it's okay to kill a child because it's a bundle of cells. I'm correcting you, because we're all literally bundles of cells.

There's a big difference between an adult "bundle of cells" and a fetal "bundle of cells".

My dude, I don't watch videos that others link because it's incredibly time consuming. Again, if you can post a tl;dr, I'll happily discuss that with you.

I never equivocated the two - I asked a question about relative suffering. I thought my language was very clear.

The law does not equal morality. I fully agree that here, the law is inconsistent.

There's no need to be sorry, that's the logical extension of my argument. I don't think there's anything wrong with killing a baby.

I'm sorry, it's a rule of mine. I don't argue with people who can't come up with their own arguments, but instead use others.