Typically speaking, your average pro-choice member of the public will say, and probably believe, that the baby being removed is just a clump of cells or just a clump of fetal tissues. What does it actually look like?
As early as an abortion can be performed, the baby has to be reconstructed to be certain that it is all there. Now, think about that. Six weeks, they have to be sure that the little head is there, and that the little limbs are there. Yes, they may be paraffin-like, but they’re there, translucent, but they’re there–and you have to check. And as they get older and larger of course, muscle structure is much stronger, but at every level you have to be certain that every baby’s body part has been removed. And when they’re twelve weeks old, you reconstruct them. You reconstruct a baby and leave it on an under-pad right there to be certain that you got it all.
What was it like to actually see a baby after an abortion?
They’re always destroyed, the baby’s body parts are always destroyed. Unless they’re a second or third trimester abortion, then they’re so strong they won’t come apart.
I get that you find that disgusting and... Fair.
You'd also probably find modern slaughterhouses disgusting. Or iPhone factories.
The world is still the world and there are brutal aspects to it.
Bugs and wildlife are pure savages but there's no way you'll protest against it. "It's nature". Animals rip each other's guts out every day like it's nothing. We are still glorified animals and sterile society hasn't erased blood, gore and cruelty from existence.
You don't have to watch the brutal sides of reality to enjoy the benefits (like store-bought chicken breasts) If you're going to protest against brutality, you'll have to do it fairly across all aspects of life.
The baby has to be accounted for because if you leave a piece inside, it can seriously hurt the woman. It's like cutting out only half of a tumor.
Would you find abortion so unbearable if a 9 year old girl was raped and became pregnant? That's a medically dangerous endeavor for a child that age. The heartbreaking part is it happens all the time around the world, and yes it's cruel, brutal, disgusting and evil af.
It just triggers me because when I confront pro-life people about things like this, they usually throw up an objection based in religion, which makes me even sicker. It's like... So you believe in and condone a god that allows 9 year olds to be raped and you're fine with that cruelty, but you can't accept humans finding a solution that God gave them the brains to invent that would avoid the cruelty to the child-mother as well as the unborn child with higher health risks and no solid outlook for a stable future?
It's a parody but it misses the mark. If males having sex out of wedlock should be forced to be a eunuch. That would probably as close as you can get. The underlining question is, why are women punished for having unsafe sex when it takes two to tango?
The problem is what happens behind close doors between two consenting adults on one night is hard to prove. Then after one night of mutual consent changes into 9 months of non consent day after day. The responsibility is heavily on the pregnant women while the potential male has possible disability untill the 1990s with dna tests. But we still have middle-aged expectations for women rights. It's honestly crazy.
That sounds like something they'd legitimately do in California. You can't "parody" something, when every day in real life is Clown World and actual parodies are now more unbelievable than parody itself.
Opinion
16Opinion
Sounds like some pinko propaganda.
I think a similar bill was proposes in Alabama as some sort of clapback to their heartbeat bill was introduced in 2019 that ended up being a parody so I'm going to assume the same for this.
If not, I don't know why they think it's in anyway similar to being able to avoid the need for the procedure in question entirely by simply not having sex with people you don't intend on having children with.
It's just legal trolling.
America is at the cancer stage of it's fall. Other empires went through the same things. They expend more energy and time fighting each other and at home, than they did the real problems.
Eh, it's silly but also pointless since the law already rewards women with 18+ years of child support even if she admits to stealing a man's sperm out of a condom and using it to impregnate herself. These women already get way more than a fair deal.
It is about time somebody takes the population explosion seriously.
Everyone yaks about climate change and blames it on all sorts of things like cow farts. Nobody puts the blame where it belongs. There are too many people on the planet with finite recourses.
Every time a pro life bill gets passed, the left has to throw a temper tantrum and write one of these stupid bills. It’s political theater and a waste of taxpayer money.
@Ez-Bri-Z No..
@Ez-Bri-Z They just make the left look stupider than they are.
@Ez-Bri-Z So far many of them stand up in court. Some legislatures have a problem with you killing an unborn child.
@Ez-Bri-Z Do you understand that calling an unborn child a "clump of cells" is vile? It's right out of the genocidal playbook. Call a group of humans something else so then it's easier for you to justify killing it. But I've come to expect nothing less from the left.
@Ez-Bri-Z That's like saying the government is "forcing its will on me" when it makes rape illegal. How dare the government tell me what I can do with my body!!!
@Ez-Bri-Z kinda like you can't force your will on your unborn child?
@Ez-Bri-Z We've already shown that "clump of cells" is dehumanizing language used by psychopaths. And I guess you've never been around a newborn. Because they can't survive on their own.
I have 2 kids of my own. I would never have an abortion myself. I dont personally agree with them, but here is the thing; I dont have to. It's a woman's choice if she wants to give up her body to let those clump of cells (a fetus if it makes you feel better) form into a child.
When I say survive on their own I mean do they have a functioning brain and heart that can keep them alive, independent of my body? I clearly didn't mean feeding themselves or getting a job.
@Ez-Bri-Z If you had kids you'd know how long it takes before they'd be capable of keeping themselves alive. Brain and heart function only keep you alive for so long.
@Ez-Bri-Z IT's not an extension of her body. It has its own DNA.
Technically cancer has altered DNA structures as well but I dont see you fighting people from getting radiation treatments.
*shrug* agree to disagree though. If at 6 weeks it can be removed from her womb and survive on it's own then I'll back you 100%
If at 6 weeks, it can be implanted and carried by the father instead using any new medical science that comes along then sure, knock yourself out.
Until then, we retain the right to our own bodies including clumps of cells growing within it using our resources.
@Ez-Bri-Z It's an unborn child, not a clump of cells you psychopath.
@Ez-Bri-Z It really is. It's not cancer, it's not a dog, it's not a cat, it's not a tree, it's not any living thing other than a human.
Well, if you are that concerned about living things I need you to go adopt as many kids as possible maybe like 8 or 9 because your heart is just so big that you want to take care of them all.
If not and your level of concern ends at birth, then please just keep quiet on the subject because you obviously have no compassion for the mother or the child. You just want to punish a woman for having sex whether she asked for it or not.
@Ez-Bri-Z And if you're going to be a proponent of abortion, I need you to go in with a pair of forceps and rip the limbs off a developing human then suck their brains out with a tube.
@Ez-Bri-Z That's semantics
@Ez-Bri-Z I'll make your analogy more relevant. "I don't personally want a slave, but support someone else's right to own a slave"
But nice try going for shock value. If you were better at doing it then you might actually have a point.
Let's do it this way if we want to play that game.
You are perfectly ok sentencing a woman to unnecessary body modifications against her will, sentencing both her and her child to a lifetime of potential misery and starvation/neglect, sentencing tax payers to support a child when we are already stretched thin as it is, and sentencing a man to financial ruin for his lifetime... just so you can feel better from the comfort of your recliner that you "saved a life".
No, sir, you just helped ruin many many more
@Ez-Bri-Z This is where you start the fantasy that women just end up pregnant out of thin air and there's absolutely no way to prevent it.
Slavery was absolutely legal for thousands of years. That doesn't mean it was moral.
Oh there are lots of ways to prevent it. So you are on board with men having vasectomies until they are ready to have children, yes?
Oh, but then there are those guys who just force the issue and rape a woman against her will. You aren't making exceptions for those women either are you?
This isn't about the morality of abortion. This is about the rights of a person to their own body.
And before you say it, no... they aren't legally.
Is a fetus a legal person?
The Supreme Court held in Roe that a fetus, even when viable, is not a person under the Fourteenth Amendment. Id. at 158. It held further that a woman's right to choose, in consultation with her physician, whether or not to terminate her pregnancy is protected by the constitutional right to privacy.
@Ez-Bri-Z "rape and incest" are strawmen arguments. While they do result in pregnancies, they're the vast minority. So if you want to play that game. Fine. Abortions for Rape and incest can be legal but all others can not.
A vasectomy is not 100%, and not 100% reversible. So how is it any better than currently available birth control?
Ohhhhh so you are ok with murdering innocent babies some of the time just not ALL of the time.
Way to hold the line there on your morals. Slippery slope isn't it?
Sorry to break it to you, all abortions defined by roe vs wade are currently legal by federal standards.
And no it isn't but neither is a condom or birth control, but hey using all 3 in tandem really helps now doesn't it? See, I think of you are on board with permanently modifying a persons body by forcing them to carry a child and give birth that you should be perfectly on board with forcing all guys to have a vasectomy done until they sign a document and contribute money to a fund to prepay for any childcare costs associated to child support. Once they reach a certain amount, then they can have it reversed and go out and have kids. We could use any interest accumulated on those accounts to pay for additional programs.
See, if you want to punish people for having sex, then let's make sure we do it right. We can punish them before and after having sex. Oh though if you are opposed then that makes you a hippocrit and a sexist. You just want to punish a woman for it.
@Ez-Bri-Z No, I just called your bluff on your red herring "rape and incest" bs.
Roe vs. wade did not "legalize abortion" what it did was grant that a woman getting an abortion was covered under the privacy clause 14th amendment.
A condom and birth control pill are as close to 100% effective as you can get. Also, no one has a constitutional right to have sex. If you're really in a position where you can't afford a child, you can avoid pregnancy. It's really not that hard to do.
It's not a bluff at all. Abortion is legal in any situation currently covered in roe vs wade. I said you wouldn't even support it in those cases and it turns out you did which means you are ok with abortions, you just want to punish women for having sex. That's the goal of that scenario. No bluff, just calling out your hypocrisy and you put it out there for all to see. You don't give a sh*t about babies, you just want to make a woman suffer for getting pregnant despite the multitude of reasons it may have happened outside of rape or incest.
Let me give you another example, a woman is married to a man and ends up pregnant with his child. He ends up leaving her for another woman. She doesn't want to carry his child, but you just told her too bad and punished her for something that wasn't her fault.
You are right that it isn't hard to do so again I welcome you to get on board with forcing body modifications to men to help prevent those births from occurring by getting a vasectomy. I mean just a few minutes ago you said a vasectomy wasn't 100%, but a condom which are not always put on properly or used by a man and birth control (which hey there is that forced body modification thing again), are as close to 100%.
See every solution you provided is forcing a woman to change something in her body whether it be chemically or otherwise, but the only solution you have for a man is a condom.
Nuh uh. It takes two to make a baby. Own up to modifying men's bodies too so that we can further prevent the chances of pregnancy or stop dictating to women what we can do with ours.
@Ez-Bri-Z I'm not going to entertain your nonsense. You created a scenario of feminist nonsense.
@Ez-Bri-Z lol, no. The second you start with "you just want to punish women's bodies", you've just gone to saying stupid shit and you're not worth my time.
Whatever makes you feel better about yourself 😊
You called me a psychopath and I didn't get all whiny about it like you are here.
You ran out of argument its fine. It happens. Just don't act like it was me calling you out on your hypocrisy that was the problem.
You started bending on your position and then when called out on that you tried to dismiss that that too. When you are cornered in an argument you just end up lashing out. It's typical behavior I suppose, but disappointing nonetheless.
@Ez-Bri-Z lmao... keep telling yourself that.
@Ez-Bri-Z and you're full of shit.
Then prove me wrong. Come up with more to your argument besides "feminist nonsense".
Everytime you've been backed into a corner you just try weak insults. So go ahead if you think you have more left in the tank. Stand up for your morals. Stand up for your narrative.
If not, take the loss and move on.
@Ez-Bri-Z I stood up for it pretty clearly. An unborn fetus is a human child. Abortion is murdering that child. These stupid performance art bills introduced by democrats are nothing more than political theater and not only will never get passed, they're never even really the same analogy (a sperm isn't a child). It's easy to not get pregnant if you don't want a child.
That's not standing up for it.
Legally, as I've already pointed out, a fetus and embryo are not considered people. For example, I can't claim them on my taxes as a dependent even though they are VERY much dependent on my body to live.
Abortion is murder? Ok... so in that case anytime a woman is killed and it can be proven she had sex in the last week, that person should be charged with double homicide regardless because it is a person at the point of conception according to you. We can't confirm she was definitely pregnant but we can't rule it out either.
In fact, even if a man kills a woman in self defense, he should still be charged with homicide because the baby was innocent and that man took it's life, not giving that baby a choice. According to you, that baby, even if it is just a few days post conception could have lived a full life because it is it's own person.
You also want to talk about performance bills. This happens every single time the democrats are in office. The Republicans will start throwing a ton of local laws in place just to get a visible talking point with their base to get them motivated to vote. They honestly don't give a sh*t about those embryos and in reality they hope their laws get denied by the Supreme Court because it gives them the same rehashed argument and talking points every election cycle.
It is easy to avoid pregnancy and again, I welcome you to encourage men to have the necessary forced medical procedure to ensure women don't become pregnant.
@GaryBacon in my opinion? When the baby can become viable outside the womb.
Legally I believe the receive rights of a person upon birth, but they have a separate set of rights called fetal rights before then.
@Ez-Bri-Z funny you brought up a pregnant woman being killed because the perpetrator is certainly charged with double homicide. You stepped in that one.
And I am clipped. I had two children when I wanted to have them and was able to afford them. Personal responsibility is a wonderful thing. You should try advocating for it.
No I didn't, reread the scenario. I'm fully aware they are tried if a positive pregnancy test is in place, but that doesn't come until sometimes after a first missed period. Texas law says your pregnant from the point of your last period.
The scenario says if a woman had sex in the last week, she could technically be pregnant and if it is a human at conception then they should be charged with double homicide even without the pregnancy test. See, if a woman being pregnant can be counted against her from a time before she even had sex than it should work the other way too, right?
I too waited for children, but I am advocating for it. I've clearly said multiple times all men should have a vasectomy until ready to have children and an account set up to prepay for child support is set up. Thats the ultimate personal responsibility set up.
@Ez-Bri-Z You advocate for vasectomies because you want to punish men's bodies. Let's go for tubal ligations since you think surgeries are rational.
@Ez-Bri-Z oh, so here we go. the bitching about birth control. God, do all you feminists read the same playbook?
You have at your disposal:
1) IUD
2) Pill
3) Shot
4) Vag ring
5) Patch
6) female condoms
7) diaphram
8) sponge
9) cervical cap.
10) Abstinence.
11) Taking it up the ass
12) Blowjobs
13) Handjobs
14) Titty fucking
15) foot jobs (if you're coordinated enough)
At the end of the day, you're responsible for things that happen to you. You're ultimately the one who gets pregnant. I'd think you'd want to ensure you're covered and not trust anyone else.
Well, I included Texas because that's where I live and that is the major law that is being contested on the matter. They limited abortions to 6 weeks which in reality is like less than 2 weeks for a woman to possibly know, make a decision, schedule an appointment and be seen.
If you are talking about the physical location of the embryo/fetus/or baby in relation to the mothers body, then yes. That is clearly what determines it.
Yes it will and at that point we won't need abortion will we? Instead we can have the cells removed, placed in some sort of medical device and the child can grow up still unwanted, but fully a ward of the state and a burden on the financial stability of this country.
@joeldalton so basically proving my point, all things that prevent pregnancy (except abstinence) involving invasive items where men get a condom.
Also some of those are mostly for his pleasure at the end, not hers.
But hey, if you want to keep making my point for me, feel free. 😊
@Ez-Bri-Z then maybe you'd better get off your ass and make a male BC pill.
@Ez-Bri-Z it's surgery. It's not equivalent. it's also not 100% reversible. You just hate that you have to take responsibility for yourself.
Do you drive? When you drive, aren't you taught that ultimately you're responsible for keeping yourself safe? Sure, every other driver should follow the rules of the road, but if they don't... aren't you responsible for driving to keep yourself and your passengers alive?
And in the ultimate irony, you can go get an abortion without my consent or knowledge, but my wife had to sign a consent form for me to get a vasectomy. So there's that.
Lmao I hate that I have to take responsibility for myself? Did it hurt pulling that thought out of your ass? Im advocating for both sides to take responsibility. I've clearly said multiple times that used in tandem things would be extra safe.
Also... that sounds incredibly dumb and your wife should have no say in the matter.
@Ez-Bri-Z It's not a big enough deal to pout about it and write some dumb law that has no chance of passing.
@Ez-Bri-Z No. Not at all.
@Ez-Bri-Z guess we need mandatory blowjob lessons for women.
@Ez-Bri-Z Don't worry we do.
@Ez-Bri-Z The legality of abortion in the US hangs on a 5-4 supreme court decision which is likely to change, because that is the supreme court's prerogative. Advocating for forced sterilization is simply vile. It places you morally speaking in the same camp as the Nazi Party that actually did perform mass forced sterilizations. The Texas abortion law is consistent with many laws that regulate abortion in other western countries.
Ooh a new playmate!
Well, yes and no. The Supreme Court just will decide on the legality of it. They are only one part of the process.
If you'd like to play this game and go dramatic, then you advocating for taking away women's right to choose her own medical care is on par with countries where women are seen as second class citizens. It morally places you as a sexist at best and more realistically a sadist who desires women to become slaves to your whims. So I guess that puts you in a slaveowner mentality. That makes you pretty vile in my opinion too. Me saying that men should take some real responsibility in the process seems to have scared you and other men. I wonder why.
We are supposed to be a world leader but you wish to relegate us to a spot where women have less control over their health care? We are supposed to be leading the way not saying "well everyone else is wrong so let's do that too"
@Ez-Bri-Z
First of all the question at hand is the right of a child to live. Murder is wrong. Being prohibited from murdering children does not make you a second class citizen.
Second of all men already take responsibility for their children in the form of child support. Which is vastly inflated in all 50 states and they can be placed in prison for non payment.
Third of all there is no justification for punishing all men in your state for an action that another state has done. By this logic you could justify sterilizing all men in the US because we allowed the Taliban to take over Afghanistan.
Not covering this part again. I've already discussed my thoughts on viability and when a child is no longer just a part of a woman's body. Please read my previous posts on that. Im going to assume you are also against murder of inmates, self defense, euthanasia of sick animals, hunting, eating meats in general, pest control, just basically anything living.
No? Oh I guess that makes you a hypocrit too.
Think about it this way. You are ok with sacrificing the life of one for another or maybe even both. You are ok with the idea this child may suffer for its entire life both emotionally and physically. So torture is cool in your book, just make sure they don't die from it.
Also I'm just sick of this argument of men take responsibility BS. It is a part of a paycheck. Women still also have to contribute financially to this child plus give up her body, plus her time in raising the child. Boohoo for a guy not being able to buy a newer car or a new video game. His part of the contribution into creating a life must be so miserable because he is out some money when a woman has to give that up too plus way more. If a woman neglects her child she would go to jail too so save me the sob story on having to pay child support. It's the LEAST you can do. How about take responsibility and don't expect the woman to have to do it for you. Overgrown children who claim to be men do that. Actual men take real responsibilities before sex and if a pregnancy happens, then after as well.
@Ez-Bri-Z Sorry I don't accept viability as a justification for murder. And murder would be defined as any action you take to kill the new life. Second of all adoption without any recourse in terms of time or money is also an option in all 50 states. So we are talking about the inconvenience of carrying a pregnancy to term after it has been determined to be alive. Sorry everyone must accept the consequences of their actions.
The Father's consequence is child support or seeing his child sent out for adoption without his consent.
The Mother's consequence is carrying the living child to term and signing away the baby.
Ah adoption. Leaving children without a family for years and in some cases, never.
How long does the average child spend in the foster care system? More than 60% of children in foster care spend two to five years in the system before being adopted. Almost 20% spend five or more years in foster care before being adopted. Some never get adopted.
Its even worse if you are a child of color or male.
And yes, we all pay a financial cost for the adoption route. States pay for those kids to be adopted. Who do you think pays for that? All of us.
Also you are incorrect. A mother cannot put her child up for adoption without the fathers consent.
@Ez-Bri-Z 1. Yes she can. www.dfps.state.tx.us/.../baby_moses.asp
2. You are conflating overall foster care numbers with adoption as an infant. Children adopted as an infant have better overall outcomes than the regular population. Over 60% of children put up for adoption are adopted within 2 months.
¹) no she can't and your link doesn't even mention a father's rights. Lemme help you out with the law on it.
www.aimadoptions.org/.../
²) There are 107,918 foster children eligible for and waiting to be adopted. In 2014, 50,644 foster kids were adopted — a number that has stayed roughly consistent for the past five years. The average age of a waiting child is 7.7 years old and 29% of them will spend at least three years in foster care.
The average child waits for an adoptive family for more than three years. 11 percent spend 5 years or more waiting for a family (43,083 children). The average age of children waiting for an adoptive family is 8.
Unlike you, I'll even post my sources for my numbers.
adoptionnetwork.com/.../
@Ez-Bri-Z Okay she needs to inform him in Texas. She does not need to take care of the baby she can legally relinquish her rights and responsibilities to the child. He gets the choice to take care of the baby if he wishes. Again what is the problem? After birth the woman can walk away.
@Ez-Bri-Z
adoption-alliance.com/.../
Just the previous 9 months that wreck her body and affect her health where he suffers no ill consequences if he chooses to sign his rights away too. Doesn't seem like a fair trade off for either of them whe. He could have also taken an extra step to preventing a pregnancy or he could have also just said no, but again, you keep insisting this falls on the woman to control.
Of course they do and I promise even more would get adopted if people would get hella cool about same sex couples because we really want to start families ourselves.
It's further proof that misandry is endemic in our society. Not being able to abort a fetus is in no way equal to forced sterilization.
Should be mandatory the better the human race die out the better
Any man who is being "forced sterilised" is allowed to burn the entire village and slaughter every blue hat, in minecraft of course
All the brothers in Philly about to get snipped snipped...
Every day it seems I hear news that makes me so glad I don't live in USA.
It’s a parody bill. Nothing serious about it.
Sounds like a DiCKtatorship to me!!
I hope that it is only for poor people
That's disgusting.
It's bull.
That is Fascism.
You can also add your opinion below!
Girl's Behavior 
Guy's Behavior 
Flirting 
Dating 
Relationships 
Fashion & Beauty 
Health & Fitness 
Marriage & Weddings 
Shopping & Gifts 
Technology & Internet 
Break Up & Divorce 
Education & Career 
Entertainment & Arts 
Family & Friends 
Food & Beverage 
Hobbies & Leisure 
Other 
Religion & Spirituality 
Society & Politics 
Sports 
Travel 
Trending & News 
