Literally The Dumbest Abortion Argument I've Ever Seen On The Internet (Abortion/Pro-Life)

[MCheetah]

So yet another stupid abortion argument on the internet. I know, I know... I said I would be done with this bullsh*t, but here we are.

I'm not going to say the name of this person here, but they are quite literally the dumbest person I've ever met on the internet. This MyTake is purely for me, as this deserves to be preserved, like in a museum or something. This high-functioning Autist is extremely pro-life, extremely anti-Left, and makes his entire identity online as being someone to mock the left. I've always knew he was dumb, but this takes the cake. I've made no mistake I think the Pro-Life argument is stupid for several reasons.

Why do both the political left and the political right love having the government control people's bodies so much?
Post-response to my question "Abortion: Is it Hypocritical to be Pro-Life without also being a Vegan"?
The Last Abortion and "Pro-Life is a Stupid Stance" Argument I Feel Like Having
The OTHER Last Abortion and "Pro-Life is Stupid" Argument I Feel Like Having

...But I can usually see another's point of view, even if I don't agree with them. But my God... This MF'er. It'll be a long time before I witness this level of idiocy on the internet. This user is in his forties, by the way. Beyond "manchild" level, in fact. I said I wouldn't go back into this IDIOTIC abortion argument. But here we are.

IF YOU'RE SUPER PRO-LIFE LIKE THIS GUY IS, THEN PREPARE TO BE ANGRY, CAUSE I AM NOT PRO-LIFE, NOR DO I AGREE WITH IT.

HIM:
Here’s the problem that neither you or the left want to hear, but need to hear. Most people are reasonable. The majority of people could agree that if continuing a pregnancy that a woman would die then it’s not reasonable to ask her to sacrifice her life. Most people would believe that in the case where the baby would never survive or has passed away in the womb that there’s a reasonable justification for abortion at that point.

Many people would probably agree that in the cases of incest and rape, it’s also acceptable to make exceptions to the ‘no abortion’ belief.

Even fewer, but many would believe that abortion 0-12 weeks (ironically where most of the liberal European countries make their laws) is acceptable.

Women still have “their rights”. The difference is whether you believe that right extends to killing someone else.

However, the left in the United States has gone outrageously extreme demanding abortions at will. They won’t even make a stand that abortion while the child is in the birth canal is wrong. They can’t bring themselves to make a moral stand. They call unborn children ‘parasites’, ‘inhuman’, and won’t recognize that almost 90% of abortions are purely for convenience.

It’s THEIR fault that this debate has gotten so polarized. When you become unreasonable, then you can expect equal push back.

(The basis of his argument isn't even bad. It's when he makes it about morality, despite everything that came before it, and tries to claim "abortions are immoral" and "done merely for convenience" does he invalidate everything beforehand. Remember this last line this guy said.)

ME (Paraphrasing):
"Most people are reasonable."
Also: "ABORTION IS JUST KILLIN' BABIES, blah, blah, blah..."

(He responds.)

HIM:
Thanks for proving my point.

(I respond.)

ME:
You talk about people being reasonable and then make an argument purely based on moral-fagging and subjective "morality," which ironically is exactly what the Left that you hate so much does. [You said "whether you believe that right extends to KILLING SOMEONE ELSE" and "90% of abortions are purely for CONVENIENCE."]

There is no "point" here in this post because the argument is based on pure emotional opinion and "morality," and no actual facts or science (the facts and science actually leaning towards pro-choice, but that's neither here nor there).

Which is why the abortion debate is so stupid, to begin with. There is no "right answer" here on either side, but the right is more guilty of "being polarizing" than the left because they're the ones who are more over-emotional and less logical about it. [They're the ones trying to force permanent life choices on others under arbitrary and made-up "moral reasons" when it's none of their damn business who becomes a mother or opts out of it.]

(He attempts to make the scientific argument.)

HIM:
No, there is objectively and scientifically a human child in a woman’s womb. Nothing else. That child has value, and a right to live. Period.

(Makes an argument based on science and "the right to live." So he's implying the science is on his side and that there is a human child inside a woman at all times after conception and that terminating it is "murder." I respond to this.)

ME:
Embryo:
Between 5 weeks and 2 months (8 weeks) in the womb. "An unborn human or animal in the earliest stages of growth when its basic structures are being formed." No brain activity.

Fetus:
Between 2 months and 6 months in the womb. "An unborn offspring of a mammal, in particular an unborn human baby more than eight weeks after conception." "The last stage of fetal development is organogenesis, when the organs are formed. Brain activity is minimal and only has basic life support." No cognitive thoughts. Essentially, it is a vegetable.

Unborn Human Baby:
Between 6 to 9 months in the womb. "Reaching week 27 of your pregnancy means you're now in the third and final trimester. While this trimester could end at week 40, in reality it ends whenever your baby is born. A baby is considered to have been born full-term if it is born in weeks 37 to 42 of pregnancy." Has cognitive thoughts and full brain function as a baby.

According to objective science, it isn't a "baby" until the third trimester, or six months into pregnancy. Anything before that is factually NOT a baby. [Hence the terms "embryo" and "fetus."] It has the POTENTIAL to become a healthy human baby if everything goes right, but it is an embryo or fetus and not fully capable of living outside of the womb, unlike a C-sectioned unborn baby can at the third trimester.

I looked this up within minutes on Google. But whatever. I'm not here to argue with emotional rants. Just pointing out the lack of science or facts in all the right-wing abortion virtue signaling pro-life BS. Now continue to explain how "reasonable" you are on this argument.

Here's an even simpler argument for you: Scrambled eggs are not chicken wings. Arguing any chicken egg can one day become a chicken and one day become chicken wings doesn't change the fact that scrambled eggs are still not chicken wings [and chicken eggs are not chickens].

(I didn't mention the egg was unfertilized, because that was clearly implied, and also wasn't the point. But he REALLY harps on it for some reason, not understanding what a metaphor is. The point was genetically, eggs are not chickens. Just like embryos are not fully-formed human beings. So it's dumb to compare an embryo and a fully-formed newborn as being "the same thing" - the Pro-life argument - just like it's dumb to compare a chicken egg - fertilized or not; that's not the point - or scrambled eggs to a living chicken or chicken wings. I thought the analogy was so simple, even a child could follow it. But no; he's beyond stupid and missed the point entirely.)

(Here's when it gets good and goes off the rails.)

HIM:
People in the 1800s had scientific evidence that black people weren’t as evolved as white people, so it was perfectly moral to enslave them. Germans in the 1930s had all sorts of scientific evidence that Jews weren’t human as well. As far back as the 1950s, it was perfectly ok to shove ice picks through the brains of mentally ill people because they were retards and couldn’t feel pain. People throughout the years have found “scientific” ways to dehumanize and abuse other human beings.

Scott Peterson was tried on two counts of homicide. Funny you’d do that if the baby wasn’t a human. So kindly fuck right off with your sanctimonious bullshit. [Fertilized chicken eggs you eat will] never be chickens. God damn, now you’re going full retard.

(Yes, he quite literally makes a "science is racist and oppressive" argument and my head explodes in disbelief. And as mentioned, missed the chicken and egg analogy entirely.)

ME:
Sounds pretty rational and reasonable to me. Not at all emotional...

We've already had this discussion before. There's nothing you can say here to sound intelligent or logical. It's an emotional argument based on nothing beyond feelings. So there's no point in continuing. I just felt the need to point out why you're wrong about your argument having any sense of reason or logic to it.

(Pretty much everything from here on out is him having nothing else to say but to call me "stupid" in various ways, despite him counterarguing nothing or proving why any of his pro-life claims have any scientific, reasonable, or moral merit. ...Not that I expected someone this stupid to be able to back up their claims.)

HIM:
This is the fucking best part. You pretend you follow “science and logic” but can’t tell me the difference between a fertilized chicken egg and an unfertilized one. You again, proved my point. You’re such a fucking retard you won’t even accept basic biological principles.

Thanks for proving you’re an idiot.

(At this point, he has nothing else even remotely relevant to say. So I start dismissing him.)

Me (Paraphrasing):
"Reeeeeeee!"
OK...

(Him...)

HIM:
lol. Keep trying.
(To OP) Sorry you had to read [his] stupidity.

Another person responded to the argument: This person is not the level of the original guy, though, but he makes this argument.

THIRD PARTY:
How about if we make slavery legal again?
If you don't like slavery, don't own one!
Why impose any type of morality on anyone who thinks differently than you?

(I respond to that.)

ME:
I already explained the abortion argument is stupid, no different than Liberals in their virtue signaling about LGBT stuff, and there's no point in arguing when idiots (not necessarily you) are going to say things like "only reasonable people agree with my straw-hat conservative morality" (the same right-leaning who people who believe shooting people in the face is okay cause the Second Amendment, but terminating a 5 week embryo is "murder") and "Science be racist!"

It truly is the conservative "there are more than two genders" argument. I'm done wasting time on arguments based purely on feelings and no science or logic.

(Him...)

HIM:
You truly are a retard.

(Keep in mind, this isn't the first time I've seen this person argue like this either. I've even argued with him before on an anonymous question. He ALWAYS does this. Makes an extremely stupid, subjective baseline argument. Then just claims "thanks for proving my point" without debating or debunking anything. Then just proceeds to call people names without disproving anything. He's done it to me before, he's done it to other far-right conservatives like him before. It's this guy's M.O. So this one argument is not unique. But this is worth preserving in a museum due to how stupid this argument was.)

To recap, this person, an extreme anti-leftist with about a 70 IQ:

1. Made a one-sided argument based on arbitrary subjective morality and the other side (pro-choice) were "being unreasonable," lazy, and irrational, for being denied the right to opt out of parenthood because some idiots who are right-leaning want to impose their fake morality on the lives of people they'll never meet.

2. Makes a "factual, scientific" claim that pregnant women are (always) carrying children inside them and that abortion (at any stage) is objectively murder and that embryos and fetuses have human rights.

3. Denounces science entirely and make a "science is racist" argument, further implying that science is anti-morality and that extreme cases of pseudo-science are the same thing as safe abortions for women who are mentally or socially unfit to be parents.

4. Spends a long time trying to deconstruct the chicken and the egg analogy like the dumbest idiot I've ever seen.

5. Argues for "biological principles" after JUST denouncing science as being anti-moral because of a few extreme cases, contradicting his own previous point.

6. Spends the next half hour just insulting me, having backed up none of his points whatsoever. Like, at all! Unless you count the "science is evil and oppressive" argument.

I don't usually do stuff like this. But the level of idiocy and pseudo-intellectualism here blows my mind. I'm dumbfounded. It actually amazes me people can be this stupid while trying to sound smart. This level of idiocy far surpasses what I thought was possible.

Don't go looking for this person on here, or attack them. Just know, I've NEVER met anyone this f*cking dumb in my life on the entire internet before.

By the way, I made my own argument on the original question regarding this idiotic abortion argument. Here's the abridged version.

ME:
"I think it's idiotic to be taking this seriously and just proves how those on the right are really no more intelligent than those on the left and that MOST human beings are really, really, REALLY dumb.

I'm pro-choice and don't agree with them essentially banning abortion in most of America for pointless, asinine, and retarded emotional reasons that don't affect any of those pro-life involved in ANY way, but I also get how easily manipulated people are by any stupid-ass hot button issue.

The LOGICAL compromise would be to just make abortions legal up until the third trimester. As in, anything before five to six months is legal, but beyond that is unjustified (because you could just C-section it out by then and it's actually developed enough to call a "baby" by then and can survive outside the womb). But that would, you know, not involve most people being over-emotional assholes who can't put aside their arbitrary differences for the good of everyone. Everyone's gotta take one extreme or the other."

IF anyone out there is pro-life, then please, PLEASE argue why you think you personally believe YOU should have the right to force the government to control the lives of random people you will never meet or interact with...

And why you think you personally should be able to force women - irresponsible, reckless, foolish, stupid-decision-making women, by your own admission - to be mothers against their will, and potentially psychologically abuse and/or kill (actually kill) a child they were forced into raising based on your arbitrary subjective, feelings-based beliefs.

Please explain to me why your personal, feelings-based, straw-hat "morality" should be imposed onto others, in a lifelong permanent decision simply because you don't like it and you see an embryo as the same exact identical lifeform as a two year old baby boy and why no one else is allowed to have control over their own bodies and be able to opt out of parenthood, or painful labor, merely because you don't like it.

And please don't be a Libertarian, alcohol drinker, smoker, meat-eater, anti-vaxxer, or Second Amendment advocate while doing it. Lest you be a massive hypocrite and asshole. You don't want random Joe Bob in Arkansas or Karen in SoCal to tell you you're not allowed to drink or eat red meat, but want to force people across the country (that you deem to be foolish and irresponsible for accidentally getting pregnant to begin with) into lifelong parenthood instead of taking the more responsible route of not raising potential children they're unfit to raise.

If you can argue why you should be able to impose your arbitrary opinions onto others REAL, ACTUAL lives and explain why you want more government - federal or state - control over people's lives and bodies without using "feelings over facts" bullsh*t, or self-righteous pseudo-morality, I'm all ears. Just PLEASE don't be as autistic as the last guy.

I've been anti-government and "banning things cause feelings" since day one. Or more specifically, I'm anti-government-control over our daily lives. I'm not a Libertarian though; I'm just not stupid enough to support such madness!

I'm not a "no vaccine mandates, but let's ban abortions" hypocrite. I'm not a "Let's make something illegal just because I don't like it" asshole. I f*cking HATE marijuana and stoner culture, but do you see me trying to ban it everywhere? I'd even vote for it to be legal everywhere, despite me hating weed. I'm also not trying to ban OnlyFans as well, even though I despise that and think its a blight on society, too. I wish women didn't do that, but I'm not going to ban it just because I, one person, don't like it.

Why? Because I'm all about that freedom life. I'm not a selfish f*cking asshole. It's not hard to not be one. I don't just say sh*t on the internet and then try to act like an authoritarian asshole to get sh*t banned whenever there's something I don't like.

And the fact both the left, and especially the right when it comes to abortion, have to resort to this childish "I'm gonna go tell mom and dad and get you in trouble" selfishness and refusal to just LET PEOPLE LIVE AS THEY WANT TO F*CKING LIVE, is exactly why America is losing more rights and freedoms, everyday.

The elitists know how to control you all, and while you're all fighting over utterly STUPID nonsense like abortion, they're stripping away all your rights, all while you believe you're making "progress" just because your one side got one minor victory while both of you are losing the war.

If both the left and right keep gaining "victories" to ban or impose things on the other side merely because they have a personal disagreement with them, then who exactly keeps gaining more and more power each time? It's not you, the people. Think about it... Especially if you're slow to catch on.

This whole idiotic pro-life argument makes me seem like a Liberal or Progressive and I hate that. I dislike both sides of Western politics. This is why I don't call myself a "Conservative, Republican, Liberal, or Democrat" and you should stop taking sides and joining the political clubs too. But once again, I digress.

At 18,540 characters, this is probably one of my longest MyTakes. But the TL;DR is:

Stop being an oppressive, authoritarian asshole because you didn't get your way and let people live as they want, if it ain't hurting you or anyone else. (This means people who are actually alive, not hypothetical "what if?" babies.)

[Twalli]

I like your egg being a potential chicken argument. I use a similar one with a tadpole and a frog. We don't eat tadpole legs, yet we acknowledge they are potential frogs. Given time, they will be frogs. Given time a fertilized human egg will be a person given the same rights all people have, but at the time they are a potential person. We don't give right or privileges based on future possibility, otherwise we wouldn't have a drinking age.

[IceCreamSandwich]

Weird. So I guess if he had only been pro life for the 3rd trimester then it would have been fair to say the unborn baby is a person?

[MCheetah]

I don't even support third trimester abortions, but both sides are on the extreme end, especially the right. Either "It's magically a 'baby' the very second the sperm touches the egg and terminating it is the same thing as shooting a toddler in the face." Or "We should be allowed to terminate eight months into pregnancy," although I've heard very few liberals actually say anything like that.

[schittywok]

@mcheetah Both sides are extreme is true. It wreaks more havoc division wise of the country. The LEFT is far more extreme. They tried and failed to have abortion up to and including the day of birth. It was in a bill that didn't pass. To say hey "the left don't want that" is stupidity upon itself. They do everything in their power to keep supporting Libtardism that they turn a blind eye. Then you come up with this college essay of a dissertation bashing the right. You know which side is more EVIL. Then the dumbass thing of a chickens egg, blah blah blah, hell we eat eggs, we eat chickens, we eat cows, we eat everything that moves, so long it isn't a monkey or a dog or cat. But who is to say that eating anything other than Humans is not right?

[Red-Blaze]

Let me start with who I am becouse it seems that matters to you
I am not from the US, I lean more to the right (where I live), but for the most part belive in mesure someone on each belife over clamping them as "right" or "left" as you may have diffrent options on each subject

Over all I have to put it out there from just reading your (pretty reptitive) post here, that something is missing, or I have to say you dont seem better in the argument then him
Just for one point on this the egg, did you ask if he eats eggs and/or its adult form? becouse if he eats both that point is pointless, like a veggitren will not eat an egg

Saying science agree with me, is just silly, abortion argument is not about science and science dose not take a moralty into account, and murder and abortion is completely a moralty qruestion, and science can assiest on adding data to use, but it dose of not "agree" with anyone

To that end
Shuld a contry be allowed to fource not to drive drunk if you drive on an empty road?
Shuld a contry be able to fource you tonwear a seatbelt?
Can it fource to you to not go in a red light?

Where dose the power of a goverment come from? what is it? what shuld it be?
I belive the answers are
The power from the pepole
A goverment is a body meant to assiest its pepole to live at there best
It shuld be a body setting its rules and laws by what its pepole want and will are

In the US abortion where nog made ilegal they where taken down to each state to decide, to each smaller commuinty to pick there objective moralty

Both sides of the argument have merit
And for my self lean more to pro-life I guess life for the baby and the mother, if it risk the mother I am completely on the side of dont let it happen, a potital life is not worth to greatly risk life of outher
On the outher side if someone is to go by abortion I do belive they shuld make it a over all hard process, as in let them talk to pepole that regret it, and pepole that accept it, make sure they really know what there doing (free or part of the abortion price so ut dose not become unavaible)

I do not think its an easy so or dont
Potintal in the end is in a way reality, an unborn baby is a potintial life, that you decide to end early
I can't remmber who said it but they put it really nicely
"Is disconnecting a vegtible human from a breathing machine murder or not?
What if his kids agrees?
What if his kids agrees but we know for 98% chance that the man will recover in 9 mouths is it then murder or not?"

Is taking the life of a baby after birth ok? what makes it diffrent? where we say its murder and when is it the parants choise?

[JDavid25]

Well the thing that fails here is how you define abortions.. Is it relieving the human being of it's human rights, or is it relieving the mother of her human rights? Also the "You can't be a 2A advocate and pro-life, or a meat eater" logic also kinda stumps me.. Because that same logic can be applied if you believe that murdering is wrong yet you love meat.. Being an advocate for humans to own weapons to define themselves from tyranny or even other people is not even in the same league as believing that an unborn human deserves to live.. I don't identify as a Conservative anymore, but the argument that the right wants to control women's bodies is also faulty logic because it's the body inside that people are arguing about.. The baby is half the father's DNA, if the father fought to keep the woman from having an abortion, he doesn't necessarily care about her body but the body of what is also his child.. I usually agree a lot with you, but this right here.. Not so much..

[MCheetah]

"Is it relieving the human being of it's human rights, or is it relieving the mother of her human rights?"
Being pro-life is the belief that a hypothetical would-be baby's "rights" supersede a living woman's rights.

"You can't be a pro-life advocate and a meat eater" logic also kinda stumps me."
It's simple: You can't advocate for the government controlling you and what you're allowed to do with your body while also enjoying freedoms that the government cold easily control or restrict you from doing. The vegan argument that eating meat is more logical than the stupid "an embryo has human rights" logic. And I don't even like vegans; it just has actual logic to it, where as the pro-life argument doesn't.

"Being an advocate for humans to own weapons to define themselves from tyranny or even other people is not even in the same league as believing that an unborn human deserves to live."
Again, pure emotional opinion with no basis of logic or reason to it. How is it NOT tyrannical to have the government control if you're allowed to be a parent or not? Should they also control whether or not we're allowed to eat meat or charge us for drinking water too? People seem to be missing the whole TYRANNY part here, and letting their emotions blind them to that, merely because they're anti-abortion (not "pro-life" but just anti-abortion).

[MCheetah]

"the argument that the right wants to control women's bodies is also faulty logic"
No. See my first point. Again, how TF is it ANYONE else's rights to determine who TF gets to be a parent or not. It's literally no one's business. If you're fine with that, then you're also fine with the government taking away your guns, controlling what you're allowed to eat and drink, and controlling YOU outright. You can't have it both ways and no emotional pleas about imaginary what-if children changes that.

"The baby is half the father's DNA..."
You're getting into a father's parental rights here, which is a whole other argument. And I agree with father's having more rights to their children or being able to opt out of parenthood (like women can with abortion), but that's a different argument.

[JDavid25]

"Being pro-life is the belief that a hypothetical would-be baby's "rights" supersede a living woman's rights."
Again, faulty logic.. Pregnancy is natural.. It's the natural results of intercourse.. Abortion is not.. Pro-lifers believe abortion is can killing.. It's that plain and simple.. It's a human life.. Also, it's the father's DNA too.. The woman is just holding that extra DNA. Why should a woman have the sole power in determining what happens to another being that happens to the baby, just because she is a vessel? She shouldn't..

"It's simple: You can't advocate for the government controlling you and what you're allowed to do with your body while also enjoying freedoms that the government could easily control and restrict you from doing"
Except, that doesn't really apply to abortion.. As it's about the baby's body and not the woman's.. Outside of the baby, if she wanted to cut her arm off, nobody can stop her, if she wants to continue to have reckless sex, nobody can stop her.. It's funny how if you kill a pregnant woman, it's considered a double homicide, but with abortion it's just a woman's right to get rid of the pregnancy.. 🤔.. I don't know where the logic fails to you with pro-life also.. So far I haven't really seen the logic of your pro-choice argument.. Or I have, they just are not too strong..

"Again, pure emotional opinion with no basis of logic or reason to it. How is it NOT tyrannical to have the government control if you're allowed to be a parent or not."

None of the arguments you made are very logical and are actually more emotional than you claim pro-life is..

[JDavid25]

How is that statement even a resemblance of emotion? It's simple, many pro-lifers define abortion as murder, and we all agree that murder is not a human right.. We believe that the fetus is a human being and if it's not necessary shouldn't be terminated just because it will be an inconvenience.. There's the logic behind it.. You just don't agree with it, which is fine.. Nothing emotional about it. Saying that it's a woman's right is a very emotional argument with little logical basis behind it.. Calling arguments "dumb" is also not logical and very emotional.. Sooo..

"No. See my first point. Again, how TF is it ANYONE else's rights to determine who TF gets to be a parent or not. It's literally no one's business."
Except once again faulty logic and emotional response.. The government is not deciding who gets to be parents.. They are saying the killing a live developing human is not a right, and can be akin to murder.. If the mother wanted to give the baby up for adoption she could.. Like I mentioned you are projecting because most of your arguments are in fact emotional and have little facts and logic behind them. There's a lot of assumptions on pro-lifers too.. You keep going on the assumption that abortion is about controlling what a woman does with her body which is a really selfish way to look at a complicated issue..

[JDavid25]

"You're getting into a father's parental rights here, which is a whole other argument."
It's very relevant here because people get into women's rights, when the father has less legal rights than the mother.. If she wants to put him on child support whether he wants it or not, the government can force him to pay. If she doesn't want the baby, there's nothing he can say about it.. But if she has the baby, whether he wanted it or not she can force him to take financial care of it. He doesn't even have to sign the birth certificate. The mother can keep the father away from the kids etc.. If you want to talk about rights and government "tyranny".. Which restrictions on abortions is not..
Now with all that being said.. Even though I am pro-life, I do believe that the matter should be between the parents and a doctor or a medical professional and not the government or the state. I just think that abortion should be highly discouraged in a societal level.. This is me speaking as a right leaning Libertarian..

[MCheetah]

"Pregnancy is natural.. It's the natural results of intercourse."

And if all pro-life people also never used condoms, never had recreationally sex, and never had sex whatsoever outside of conceiving a child, then that statement would actually hold water. Other than that, they're the biggest hypocrites of all if they're having sex "for fun", using condoms, pulling out, or otherwise "aborting the natural results of intercourse." Which is why I said I can respect the "no sex until marriage" pro-lifers more, because their logic is actually consistent and they're not massive hypocrites.

But like I said, the pro-life side is arguing that a living woman's rights are null and void and that she has none, compared to the lump of cells that make up an embryo, and that that embryo, which they treat the same as a newborn, healthy baby, supersedes all rights to the woman who is pregnant. And then also act like that isn't being extremely selfish, somehow. Random pro-lifer has more parental rights and say-so to the embryo than the pregnant mom because 'reason,' I guess. Or random government officials have more parental rights and say-so to the embryo than the pregnant mom. Cause 'reasons,' I guess.

"Pro-lifers believe abortion is killing"

And pro-choice people believe it isn't. Which makes this a moral/emotional argument with no clear "right answer" other than a case-by-case basis, like I said. Which makes laws formed around it A REALLY F*CKING BAD PRECEDENT, like I said! Which makes pro-lifers no different than the "feelings over facts" liberals who do the same thing, like I said.

[MCheetah]

"Why should a woman have the sole power in determining what happens to another being that happens to the baby, just because she is a vessel?"

I don't even agree that she should, so this is getting into another argument, like I told you before. Fathers having no parental rights, and I agree it is unfair and something should be done about it. But that's a different conversation.

I will say this: A "two out of three vote" would make the most sense. Let's give the pro-life side a bone here and assume the embryo would always vote Yes to keep itself alive. Now you have mom and dad. If dad wants an abortion and mom wants to keep it, the baby stays. If mom wants an abortion and dad wants to keep it, the baby stays. However, if both parents want to abort it, the baby is aborted. How is that not fair?

What pro-life is arguing though, is "the government says the baby stays, f*ck mom and dad; they don't control their own life, we do." THAT is what pro-lifers are fighting for, and somehow think they're not the assholes here. So yeah, if you want to talk about fathers having parental rights, then let's talk about the mother and father having no rights at all and instead, the government controls your life and future...

"Except, that doesn't really apply to abortion"

You can't just say "f*ck the mom; she does what we tell her to and that's it." So no. You don't get to say "that doesn't really apply to abortion" just because you simply don't want it to.

[MCheetah]

"It's funny how if you kill a pregnant woman, it's considered a double homicide"

Only in red/pro-life states. Not everywhere. Even ignoring this point though that so many pro-life people are bringing up, you're missing the lack of consent. The mother CHOOSES not to be a mother, and no one should be allowed to force her to. A woman doesn't choose to be killed by a murderer. So the ASSUMPTION is, the pregnant woman would not have aborted. But that doesn't mean she wouldn't possibly have. So THAT is an actual faulty argument here.

"I haven't really seen the logic of your pro-choice argument"

That isn't my fault if you can't after the giant book I just wrote above. The logic is simple: You, nor anyone else, has the right to tell people they cannot be a parent or opt out of parenthood, nor is it any of their business. Pro-choice people do not see an embryo or fetus as being the same identical thing to a healthy newborn child anymore than a logical person sees a chicken egg and living chicken as being the same identical thing. An embryo that will one day become a baby 6-9 months later, does not make it an actual baby. But terminating it or not is an emotional argument. And the pro-life side denying people the choice to be a parent or not has zero logic or reason to it; it's pure feelings and (fake) morality and nothing more.

[MCheetah]

"None of the arguments you made are very logical and are actually more emotional than you claim pro-life is."

If you say so. I don't need people's validation to argue what I believe is very logical and easy to understand.

"It's simple, many pro-lifers define abortion as murder, and we all agree that murder is not a human right..."

And I never even said people couldn't be pro-life. I don't care one bit if people are pro-life and neither does anyone else who is pro-choice. The ISSUE here, is forcing someone's emotional opinions onto people's real actual lives. Just like I stated how many wouldn't like it if vegans banned all meat consumption by human beings, just because they see it as a moral issue. And I also pointed out that vegans' argument of actually murdering animals makes more sense than pretending an embryo is a fully formed, thinking, speaking human with rights and terminating it is no different than stabbing a 30 year old to death with a knife.

In short: People can be pro-life and have whatever feelings they want on it. The issue is when they start forcing their feelings onto people's actual real existence. A selfish and tyrannical decision made purely out of emotion and fake morality.

You can believe that's somehow "faulty logic" all you want. We can just agree to disagree, if that's the case.

[MCheetah]

"They are saying the killing a live developing human is not a right, and can be akin to murder."

Which I said several times, is fine as a belief, but insane as an actual law. Especially since it's a mother choosing to opt out of parenthood, and not a malicious killing of an actual developed human being.

And I explained several times how only SOME people see an embryo as being identical to a newborn baby, and that their opinions have no basis in controlling - if not outright ruining - one or more people's lives.

Banning abortion can't happen, anyway. All you're doing is banning SAFE abortions. And it's not as if pro-life people are even happy with the blue states that will allow it. Ideally, they'd want it banned worldwide. They aren't "Pro-life, but only in Georgia."

I said in another comment here, all this will do is lead to more women dying or having back-alley abortions. Or, if the few women don't want to go through that, they're just going to have a f*cked up child that they hate and resent for existing because some random conservatives forced them to give up their life to raise this child.

These women make reckless sex decisions and get pregnant, and then pro-life people expect them to also be good or safe mothers, too? Especially when forced by government to be one, as if they won't be resentful of that? Are you kidding me?

"Like I mentioned you are projecting because most of your arguments are in fact emotional and have little facts and logic behind them."

'K. If that's what you want to believe...

[MCheetah]

"You keep going on the assumption that abortion is about controlling what a woman does with her body"

It is literally about random strangers controlling what a woman does what her body, and being self-righteous to think their opinions should force unfit, irresponsible women (who are probably young and/or stupid) into a lifelong decision, while they sit hundreds of miles away, not being affected by it in the slightest.

I keep asking, why is it you or anyone else's business who opts out of parenthood or not? If you were arguing about a parent abusing an actual, living child, that'd be one thing. But since so many of us can't even agree on an embryo being identical to a baby or five year old child, it makes even less sense to impose the (fake) morality and (very fake) "concern" onto people without their will, and to strip them of all choice about their own life and bodies. ... Especially if someone is a pro-lifer who sleeps around and is "aborting" babies left and right via their condom, every time they do it anyway, which also makes them a hypocrite.

"[father's parental rights] very relevant here"

And I already said the "two-out-of-three votes" compromise here can apply. What does that have to do with both parents wanting to abort, though? Or both parents wanting to abort, but having some random pro-lifers force them into a miserable, resentful lifelong parenthood anyway (including the labor of childbirth) out of self-righteous, emotion-and-moral based reasons?

[MCheetah]

"Even though I am pro-life, I do believe that the matter should be between the parents and a doctor or a medical professional and not the government or the state. I just think that abortion should be highly discouraged in a societal level."

...🤷‍♂️
Why would you say ALL of this beforehand, then? We're on the same side, then!
I even stated I am *personally* against third-trimester abortions. And I also stated that my personal beliefs on things, whether that be marijuana or OnlyFans, should not interfere in people's freedoms to enjoy them (even if I wished they weren't a thing).

Yes, I think abortion should be highly discouraged in a societal level. Yes, I'm going to think a woman who's had more than two abortions in her life is probably a scumbag or a horrible, reckless person. What I am saying is, it is none of my business to try to oppress her, or anyone else, based on my own personal ethics on the matter.

The short version is this: I wish everyone was a grown, responsible, reliable adult. But clearly people aren't. This world is sh*tty enough as it is with 8 billion people on it. We're struggling for resource's and energy, as it is. Adding another quarter-billion into the world, for illogical, emotion, and straw-hat moral reasons, is beyond foolish to me. Especially if you have to use government tyranny to do it.

Do I think abortions are fun or a decision to take lightly? Hell no!

Do I think not bringing more people into this world with unfit, irresponsible parents who don't love them and are likely to psychologically abuse them is the right decision? Absolutely.

Do I think rolling the dice on the already-broken abortion system is a bad idea? 100%.

Do I think denying people bodily autonomy through virtue signaling is a horrible precedent that's going to backfire and not just "stop at abortion" cause that's not how government power tends to work? You bet your ass I do.

[NYCQuestions1976]

You most definitely put a lot of work into this Take. You deserve to have it highlighted by the site (better late than never). Well done. 👍

For full disclosure and for the record, under "normal" circumstances, I'm morally pro-life, legally pro-choice, and anti-late-term and third trimester abortion. I recognize the importance of having a choice, but it shouldn't take a normal reasonable logical person under normal circumstances more than 20 weeks to make a decision. I believe that's a reasonable opinion.

If the goal is for liberals is national unfettered late-term and third trimester abortions under the mantra "my body, my choice", then "my wallet" needs to be added to that mantra. I agree that the federal government has absolutely no business interfering in anyone's personal medical decisions, but it's the epitome of hypocrisy to have that same federal government PAY for those personal medical decisions via others' tax dollars. My body, my choice, my wallet. Your body, your choice, your wallet. Again, I believe that's more than reasonable.

[Brammer54]

-I am not going to read this massive wall of text because I have already concluded what the rest of it is about based on the first 2 paragraph that I have read.

-The guy's point can be summarized to "Can we just go back to Safe, Legal and Rare?" A point which I and the vast majority of people 100% agree with. The current left has absolutely lost it's mind. They went from "Abortion is very horrible and it is a tragedy that it has to be a choice" to "Shout your abortion!!" , "Abortion is a moral thing to do" , "I'll bring this child to term and then kill it (yes this is what some prominent pro-abortion activists are saying)". This lunacy is what contributed to the overturning of Roe V Wade.

-The VAST MAJORITY of people agree that there MUST be exceptions made when it comes to rape, incest and if mother's life is in danger.

-One point I noticed repeated a lot in your book is that "Government should not regulate our bodies". You seem to not understand that this isn't about YOU, it's about the child that is growing inside you.

-Lastly, unless there is an agreement on the fundamental point that what is inside the womb is a living being, there will never be a common ground (aside from the one on edge cases) on the abortion debate.

[Zeus_66]

Wow. Let's just hit the major points. The federal government is no longer in a woman's uterus. SCOTUS stayed out of ensuring the court won't legislate from the bench. Very good.

The People can now choose their officials that will script bills that support the killing of children. Pro-choice and pro-abortion folks should be screaming with joy that they can now get their killing fix in with laws being passed.

Abortions aren't illegal in the United States. That damn, pesky Constitution, 10th Amendment, etc. How dare states make their own laws? Hahaha. What a joke. You can get a driver's permit in Texas at 15. But not in New York. Where are all the protests about that? After all, driving is the number one cause of deaths in America for 16-24 year olds. So just late term abortions... Besides, go to Kalifornia or the People's RepubliK of New YorK and abort away. What's the issue? I don't wanna hear about financial woes. Stop buying $300 Air Jordan's and buy some condoms if you don't wanna be burdened.

Last, abortion equals eugenics. Simple as that. Rich, white, liberal, leftist women in menopause leading the march for black and brown babies to be killed wantonly throughout America. Why are they dictating the deaths of so many minority babies and aiding with the oppression of minority women? Simple. Power. Brought to you by the same political party that brought you the KKK and arms white supremacists and neo-nazis in Ukraine... The DemoKKKrats

[MCheetah]

You're missing the point. The point is, the government can CONTROL your reproductive rights. Which ANYONE with common sense should be able to determine how f*cked up that is. It doesn't matter if it's the federal government or not. I'm nowhere near a feminist or Leftist, but it baffles me how people think letting the government control their bodily autonomy is a good thing. That's why I put the other arguments like the second amendment and eating meat. You CANNOT advocate for being about freedom if you want the government to enforce who gets to be a parent or not.

Furthermore, like I said several times before, who TF cares what some random conservative thinks about a woman's bodily autonomy from across the country. It is literally no one else's business. If you're fine with the government forcing childhood on a person - let alone keeping that child alive and not just killing it or abandoning it post-birth - then you're fine with the government controlling what you're allowed to eat, drink, see, say, hear, do, and own (including guns). You cannot be for government tyranny and control when it benefits you and no government tyranny when it doesn't.

I'm not even a female or left-leaning and I can clearly see how much of an AWFUL F*CKING IDEA this is. Yet, so many others cannot because they let their emotions and fake "morality" blind them to what should be obvious.

[MCheetah]

"Pro-choice and pro-abortion folks should be screaming with joy that they can now get their killing fix in with laws being passed."

So you're going with a bad faith argument here? Okay. Then should we ban the second amendment in half to two-thirds of the country as well. "Pro-guns and pro-mass-shooting folks should be screaming with joy that they can now get their killing fix in with laws being passed."
See how that works. And I am pro Second, by the way. I just also happen to be consistent with my logic.

"Abortions aren't illegal in the United States..." Just half or more of the United States.

"Last, abortion equals eugenics." That argument is so stupid, I'm not even going to touch that. So I suppose vaccines, surgeries, and modern medicine equals eugenics too, right? They also change and alter the body, too.

I've also never seen a right-leaning social justice warrior before. Just to point it out.

Again: How is it any of YOUR business who gets to be a parent and who doesn't? You can talk about the hypothetical rights of imaginary children and sperm all you want, but why should you get to enforce your rule over women who are unfit to be parents? Why should anyone give a f**k what your opinion is on raising their children or not? And I don't specifically mean you, but anyone. It doesn't concern you. But if you want a tyrannical United States, but the tyrants just being at the state level (although they really take orders from the federal level), then that's exactly what you are advocating for, here.

[Zeus_66]

To both responders. Guess you felt the same way about forced vaccinations for COVID that have left our nation less safe, harder to get around, higher unemployment, etc. Cool. Our bodies, our choices, right? Yeah, didn't think so.

Glad you aren't touching the eugenics piece. You have nothing worthy to say about it anyway. If you did, you wouldn't have responded the way you did. Margaret Sanger would be proud.

Abortion was NEVER a right like the right to bear arms. You show me where in the Constitution it says women have a right to abortion and I'll give you a dollar.

Live where you can abort away. Sick and tired of people like you being upset about "the government" being involved. How so? Did the government make people have unprotected sex? No. And if you bring up the ultra rare rape/incest, etc. situations, then go to Kalifornia and abort.

Both of you think you're much smarter than you are. It shines through. But you ain't. You're belief in "government involvement" is flawed. States, like the People, have rights. Now it DOES say that in the Constitution. Abortion? Still lookong6and can't find no matter how many times I try.

Funny thing too. You both must think I'm so hardline conservative. Nope! I'm pro choice myself. With liberty comes great responsibility. And decency. So if women wanna be pro choice over their bodies, they better think twice about riding a man (excuse me, non birthing person) bareback.

[MCheetah]

Why would you assume I would be a hypocrite like so many others on the left and right? I provided a link speaking how I DON'T support that, so way to show off your ignorance here and assuming things that I already proved to be wrong.
Why do both the political left and the political right love having the government control people's bodies so much? ↗
I'm not a Leftist, like you're possibly assuming here. But the way you're getting hostile and making hard assumptions and passive aggressive jabs at me must mean you have nothing of value left to say and are starting to resort to name calling and ad hominems.

I could say a lot about eugenics, but this isn't an eugenics discussion and I assume you'd be over-emotional and self-righteous with that, too.

Arguing "abortion was never a right" is like arguing freeing the slaves was never a right: Stupid and irrelevant. The constitution is about life and liberty! This includes the life of women who don't want to be forced into lifelong parenthood because random people in the Bible Belt have a problem with it, and the liberty to live how you want and not because said people believe imaginary babies supersedes living people's rights.

The whole point of the constitution is about protecting American citizens from government oppression or tyranny. And here you are, arguing for government oppression and tyranny cause "them babies" or some sh*t. And using a technicality to try to prove your point. I can do that too: "Abortion was never NOT a right in the Constitution. You show me where in the constitution it says the government can control your reproductive rights and ability to be a parent or opt out of parenthood and I'll give you $10 million." See how easy that was? And how much of a non-argument you make?

[MCheetah]

For as much as pro-life people virtue signal about said babies, they sure don't give a f*ck about the mother involved, do they? I'll tell you 100% legit: If I was a female and forced to raise a baby I was unfit to take care of, I'd either get a back-alley abortion or just commit suicide.

Being pro-life isn't just banning abortions; it's only banning SAFE abortions. All so a few people who don't give a damn about others whatsoever can feel morally righteous for a minute or so before going back to beating their kids and abusing their wife. (And no, that isn't a statement on all pro-life people or conservatives; just many people who claim to be "pro-life.")

Most human beings don't give a damn about each other. But they love their moral high-horses, anyway. People will be anti-abortion, but then stop giving a single damn once that child is born. Welfare, health concerns, keeping the mother employed, making sure the kid stays safe... All filed under "not my problem." I even talked about this before on GAG. EVERY single pro-lifer just said "Not my problem. Grow up and be an adult." THIS is the "pro-life" crowd, though. The people who care so much about a few clumps of cells they see as being "murdered" at the 6 week mark.

Nobody here ever answered how it's any of your business who gets to be a parent and who opts out of it, or how that negatively affects any pro-lifers life in any way, shape, or form. But I didn't expect them to.

[MCheetah]

And I also said I agree with most conservatives over these women being irresponsible and reckless. Which is why it's so utterly retarded to them force them into lifelong parenthood, while also damn near guaranteeing the child will be f*cked up, in the process. Not aborting a 6 week embryo is "murder," but forcing a life of abuse and neglect on a human being is justified somehow? "Dere sur will b a lot of hapy babys out dere now! :)" says the braindead idiots not understanding how reality works or how even two-parent households don't commonly produce happy, well-adjusted children nowadays.

And then they want to add in 50 million more people like that into population, while not lifting a finger to reduce their luxurious middle-class lifestyles or paying more in taxes, as if resources are infinite. People always want to virtue signal into it starts affecting their lives personally and they have to start paying more for gas and food. Only THEN do they want to bitch and complain at everyone else but themselves for supporting this outcome to begin with.

TL;DR: Adding more unhappy, f*cked up people into the world is going to cost the current people more money and sacrifices. And most pro-life people don't even support welfare or safe baby programs, which further shows their hypocrisy.

... Not that forcing others into parenthood is any their business, to begin with.

[Zeus_66]

I'm hostile, eh? Did you just read your rants? Triggered much?

[NightmareWasOpen]

its... its a damn LIVING HUMAN ffs like if its gonna die you could stop it from going through suffering like people do with dogs sometimes tho. people dont understand how humans and animals are very different. we evolved to have children, and also we evolved to eat other animals.

[MCheetah]

I already pointing out how illogical appeals to emotion is no different than the "more than two genders" argument or trans argument the left makes.

en.wikipedia.org/.../Appeal_to_emotion

I also pointed out the scientific, objective difference between what is considered to be a baby, fetus, and embryo. Buy your own logic, any recreational sex as well as masturbation, should be illegal as well, as those are also "killing human life" and condoms are the same thing as abortion: preventing human preproduction from happening.

Yet for some INSANELY ILLOGICAL reason, pro-life people are fine with casual sex, the morning after pill, and condoms, despite it being the same logic as "killing babies." I'd respect the pro-life argument if it wasn't so half-assed and all over the place. At least the (FEW) pro-life people who remain virgins until marriage and inly plan to have sex to conceive children have actual consistent logic and ethics in what they say and do.

[MCheetah]

*pointed out how illogical
*By your own logic
*preventing human reproduction from happening
*only plan to have sex to conceive children

[king34]

I get that your being thorough Bruh this was too long, abortions are wrong period, you can do whatever you want with your body just not murder someone especially kids, and it's not a "hypothetical what if babies" is an actual living child. That's not an opinion it's an existing human life, not potential, not hypothetical, not fucking imaginary, it's not made of damn cheese itz,

y'all pro abortion niggas ain't shit, rather kill kids then control your sexual urges and make good choices

[MCheetah]

@king34
'K.

[king34]

Yup 🥂

[Guy__]

Mind control is a form of slavery, and it has been legal the whole time.

[globetrotter22]

You should work on being an author. You out a lot of time and thought into this.

[msc545]

TL; DR You seem to have spent a LOT of time on this. Why?

[Joker_]

where's the TLDR

[Joker_]

found it