A response to this post, since the cowardly anon erased it the first time. So now you've made me make this crap.
THE QUESTION
"Why are you pro-life/pro-choice?"
I am very much pro choice. I've explained this before, so I'll go over it again for jerks who want to push their emotional beliefs as "scientific facts."
"I'm a centrist/not on either side and Pro-choice because no one has the right to tell someone what they can and can't do with their body [especially some random asshole from Texas or Midwest America pontificating about controlling other people's bodies and lives and right to opt-out of parenthood or not, from their armchairs on the internet.]"
That is what I said on the last post about this, two days ago. Now to get into OP's stupid-ass post here.
"For those of you that believe it is only a clump of cells, how do you rationalize the chance that it might actually be a baby?"
It factually, scientifically, literally is NOT a baby! At all. That's why it's called an embryo. Or a fetus. It is in the process of becoming a baby, and won't be until around the six month mark, aka the third trimester. That is when its organs, heart, and brain are formed enough to be considered a "mostly complete" human baby. You trying to tell people they're "not allowed" to terminate a six-week embryo before it has even become a baby, is not only STUPID as hell, but unethical as well.
Using this same stupid logic as said above, sp*rm and sem*n are also "babies." Why don't pro-life people consider those to be "babies" too? Why isn't male m*sturbation "murdering babies" as well? "All those poor unborn babies that'll never get to reach an egg! We need to outlaw j*cking-off! IT'S MURDER!"
Why the hell is recreational s e x even allowed by pro-life logic? That'd also be "baby murder" as you're stopping the natural reproductive process, all the same. Condoms and no egg, and sp*rm and egg, is f*cking irrelevant! It's the same end-result, either way! No baby. It's all the same pants-on-head retard logic, so why the major distinction that life supposedly begins as soon as it hits the egg? It doesn't matter at all.
Another analogy I've used is a hardcore pro-lifer trying to call scrambled eggs 'fried chicken wings' using the logic that "an egg is basically a baby chicken anyway. Therefore, scrambled eggs are chicken wings!" Or trying to call pizza dough identical to pepperoni pizza. This is the lack of logic we're talking about here.
If you're pro-life for your own body or partner, that's fine. But as soon as you start trying to force away other people's lives and future's, you've completely crossed the line. Real living people, not imaginary children.
"98% of scientists believe life begins at conception."
Factually f*cking false. Literally only religious and logic-less idiots believe in that "life begins at conception" BS as being "a fact." You're fine to have that opinion, but it is in no way a factual statement. It has no basis in science at all and implying it does, is insulting. It's like saying "according to science, God is 100% real."
There IS no consensus on when human life begins, which is why abortion is so heavily debated, to begin with. If there was such a consensus, abortion would be banned worldwide and we wouldn't be having this retarded argument right now.
The only major consensus there is, is that a fetus becomes a baby somewhere around the third trimester, and thus, can survive outside the womb via C-section; typically because its organs are mostly formed by then (or will develop outside the womb) and the fetus begins to have cognitive brain function and thoughts by the sixth to seventh month; as it's a vegetable before then.
So arguing "it's a baby at conception" is like trying to argue if someone who is brain-dead "still has a soul," since embryos and fetuses have no higher brain function or sentience until the third trimester. But that's too inconvenient for some of you, so you'd rather go by the "heartbeat" logic, as if chickens and cows don't have hearts, too and yet you'll happily eat poussin, baby cows, and eggs without a problem. That's the level of emotional non-logic and "depth" we're dealing with, here.
"I’m not saying if it’s right or wrong..."
You, pink anon, are heavily implying that pro-choice is morally wrong, here. And you actually ARE saying "it is wrong to be pro-choice, but not wrong to force an unloved, unwanted child into existence who'll probably end up killing themselves by suicide anyway." And I hate this, because 1) it's based on PURE emotion and literally ZERO science or facts, and as I've said a million times before 2) it's none of your f*cking business who chooses to be a parent or not and you DO NOT get to make that choice for them! As if parenting is easy or any idiot can do a good job at it.
Imagine you are sitting at home, watching TV or YouTube and you get a knock on your door and it's federal government officials, and they hand you over a baby; a two month old Chinese newborn, and tell you you now have to raise that child until the age of 18 and you're not allowed to place it for adoption or give it away, and if you kill it, you will go to prison and face the death penalty for "murder." They then shove the baby into your arms for you to hold. As they turn around and leave, you try to object and tell them "I didn't sign up for this." They then glance at you from over their shoulder and say, "What, you think you're supposed to have a choice in the matter?"
If you're perfectly okay with that, then sure. Be pro-life all you want, but you still don't get to tell other people what to do. And if you're not okay with that, then you're a hypocrite and you can shut the f*ck up now.
And no, don't even try the "having s e x was their choice" BS, because by pro-life logic, all forms of contraception, as well as any version of recreational s e x, should also be against the logic of canceling human reproduction. And it's also hypocritical and goes against the "life is scared" position, as if condoms and morning-after pills aren't also forms of "abortion." Abortion is the mother's ethical choice, because they are admitting they are unfit, or unready, to be parents and aren't going to let a future hypothetical child suffer due to their negligence and recklessness in the bedroom. Hence the term "pro-choice."
Just because you may not like their choice, does not give you the right to ruin both their life, and a would-be future child's if it is actually born. No one gives a flying f*ck what you - or I - think in regards to THEIR role in parenthood. Being a parent is NOT F*CKING EASY!
Stop trivializing parenthood, as if it is so damn easy, anyone can be Parent of the Year. Especially if your lazy-ass won't even put your money where your f*cking mouth is for welfare programs, job placement programs for single mothers, and government subsidized free daycare programs and other taxes to support these babies' continued existence, cause it's not like being a parent is cheap, either. More unwanted people in the world, means more taxes and resources, genius!
You don't get to hold a gun to a pregnant woman in the delivery room until the child pops out of her and go "Well I stopped an abortion today! Good luck keeping that thing alive for the next 18+ years! My work here is done!" before walking off into the sunset like an asshole. Yes, children continue existing after birth! I don't need to be a parent to know that's actually the hard part!
"if you are wrong as someone who is pro-choice, every time a woman makes the choice to abort; a baby is murdered."
In your opinion, you mean. Solely in your fact-less, emotion-based, virtue signaling opinion, pink anon.
Look at how many messed-up people there are in society, and these jackasses want to bring more messed-up emotionally and psychologically damaged people into the world, and then sit on their armchairs and whine about "taxes being too high" and how "welfare is theft!"
Shut the f*ck up! If you're not going to do anything in real life to help these ACTUAL kids you're forcing into existence, physically or financially, then worry about your own f*cking life and stay out of other people's lives!
This is why this pisses me off so much. I'm showing a little emotion myself here. The fact of the matter is, the world already has real people, really suffering right now, and certain right-wing retards want to moral-fag and virtue signal about "imaginary, what-if children" more than real people in real life that they don't give a flying f*ck about at this very second.
Either put up or shut up. You either actually care about imaginary kids and your actions and receipts prove it, OR YOU DON'T. And if you do, then pay up, pay-pig. Kids ain't cheap! You can't even stop abortions anyway; all you can do is ban safe abortions through government force, as if these same people weren't bitching in 2021 and 2022 about mandatory COVID vaccinations (which I also strongly disagree with.) An asshole will always try to run to the government to force their ideology onto people, which is why this is hardly a "left vs right wing" thing. Tyrants are all the same, whether they rep blue or red assholes in Washington.
CONCLUSION
Now my thoughts on this, is that yes, these women and men creating "oopsies!" pregnancies are reckless. And probably are stupid people too, and very likely don't have their own lives in order, at all. Thus, they likely aren't suitable to properly raise a child, especially in today's woke climate where p*dophiles and m*lesters are teaching your kids gl*ry h*les in the second grade. So no, these idiots should NOT be raising children!
I also don't think abortion is something that should be taken lightly or "celebrated." An abortion ideally should be a once-in-a-lifetime thing for certain women and that the father has the right to be notified and spoken to about the sake of his would-be child, as well. It is a very serious matter, and frankly, if a woman has had two or more abortions in her life, she probably shouldn't be allowed to have any children at all, in my opinion.
I also believe that first-trimester abortions should be free or subsidized for any woman with the father's written consent, the first time, and cost a hefty-but-affordable fee every other time, like $2,000 to $6,000 after the first one. Those would be actual consequences for having more than one abortion in your life, but still do-able and still not bringing unwanted children into the world who'll suffer from negligent, unloving parents who never wanted these children to begin with, and we'll have less Casey Anthonys in the world, too.
That's all my personal opinion though, and you don't see me trying to force it into actual law.
Lastly, I don't believe abortions past the second trimester is ethical or right. It is a formed baby by the third trimester and no longer a fetus, and it can survive out of the womb via C-section. Again however, these are my personal beliefs, and I'm not going to force that onto anyone, especially if a mother finds out seven months in that her baby has severe medical conditions, or something like sickle-cell, and will suffer for most of its entire life, and that she couldn't afford the medical care to keep it alive anyway. That is a messed-up situation for anyone to have to go through, and even a really stupid person would not make the heavy decision to abort by then easily or effortlessly.
But in general, no, I don't believe in abortions past the second trimester. It just isn't any of my business to tell others if they can't or can be a parent or not. Nor is it yours. We've got enough problems with actual living people in this world, as it is.
PREVIOUSLY:
Literally The Dumbest Abortion Argument I've Ever Seen On The Internet (Abortion/Pro-Life)
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
Most Helpful Opinions