Are you pro-choice or anti-abortion? And where do you lean on politically?

[InsecureLivesMatter]

If you're a centrist, round to right-wing (in school, kids are taught to round.5 to 1) because we live in a capitalistic society (depending on which country we are in).

Pro-choice, left

Pro-life, left

Pro-choice, right

Pro-life, right

[nightdrot]

Voted "Pro-choice, right."

However, I always, when I see this kind of question, have to put an asterisk over it. My conservatism is not what Americans typically call conservative. Because what Americans call conservative is, historically speaking, not conservatism but is, rather, classical liberalism.

My conservatism, which for convenience I will call classical or Tory conservatism, traces its intellectual pedigree through Aristotle, St. Thomas Aquinas - and probably most importantly - the 18th century British statesman and political philosopher, Edmund Burke, and also the British Prime Minsiters Benjamin Disraeli and Lord Salisbury.

Classical conservatives believe, unlike American conservatives and liberals, that the purpose of government is to answer Aristotle's first questions of politics, "How ought we to live? What kind of a people do we wish to be?"

To which classical conservatives respond that the purpose of government is to nurture civic virtue. To reinforce those habits and customs, legitimized by historical usage over time, that make a harmonious and stable social order possible.

Classical conservatives believe in the free market as a tool, rather than an end in itself. They recognize that it is a powerful wealth creator, efficient to some degree, and a guard against an overweening state. However, they believe, as Burke said, "The effect of liberty to individuals is that they may do what they please. We ought see what it will please them to do before we risk congratulations."

Here then, the nexus with the pro-life position.

A society that premises its law as "Choice"- to use the locution of abortion rights advocates - effectively leaves open the question of the value of human life. It becomes not a standing principle, but a subjective judgment to each individual. In such a society, human life becomes not an end in itself, but mere instrument. Life becomes not an object whose preservation is the highest standard, but rather a convenience to be maintained or not according to the satisfaction of another's will.

We shape our laws and then our laws shape us - see also the civil rights laws of the 1960s which have effected a revolution in race relations. (The idea that a black man and a white man cannot sit together at the same lunch counter is as alien to this generation as Neptune. Yet in 1965 it was pretty much the norm.)

Inherent then in the pro-choice argument is the idea that life has no value save that which each person chooses to attach to it. It denies society any authority to make a collective judgment on such questions. Therefore, in this view, the law may not afford protection to life except at some arbitrarily defined (and inherently subjective) point.

This then conduces to an assertion of power over rights. Life is maintained not as its own end, but according to the will of the person who, effectively, controls it because they can. An ethic of convenience is established and it is a slippery slope on which to build a culture and a legal edifice.

Such a society will not value life that sees life as not an end, but as a means to some other end. Indeed, that is why at about the same time as the culture began to shift on the abortion question we also saw a rise in child abuse, spousal abuse, divorce, out of wedlock births and other social pathologies. These were not unrelated phenomena.

To repeat, as Aristotle said, the first questions of politics are, "How ought we to live? What kind of a people do we wish to be?" The implicit answer of those who support abortion on demand is, in effect, that it is nobody's business. Predictable results follow. One cannot expect the society to absent itself from collective moral judgments on the value of life and then expect an ethical social order to result.

[bayoubob]

blah blah blah TL;DR

[nightdrot]

@bayoubob A highly educated response. You have given much serious thought to the topic.

[snowboarder720]

Fetuses don’t have fully developed senses; they don’t have a brain, they don’t have a fully developed heart, they don’t have arms, and they don’t have legs. They are not an individual human. Addressing them as humans like they have human rights isn’t constitutionally right.


Until men have been pregnant through rape, they cannot have a say in what should happen to women’s bodies as they have not experienced what it’s truly like.
I do not understand the reasoning why women choose to put down and degrade other women for a situation that they could not control and a situation that could change the rest of their lives. Whenever I hear a woman put down another woman from being raped it blows my mind and I’ll never understand it. Abortion can also be necessary for medical life threatening reasons too. A woman should choose abortion if the pregnancy could kill her.


If all the “pro life” people were truly “pro life” they would enforce safety laws, end homelessness, etc. but they only seem to care about fetuses. They want to cherry pick who they “pro life” for, Why? Because they only want to control what going on in other women’s vaginas.

[WhiteBoyChill]

“They don’t have arms, they don’t have legs”

Wtf?

[WhiteBoyChill]

Third trimester shouldn’t be off the table then I guess. You sick fck

[snowboarder720]

LOL @WhiteBoyChill read your name again but slower.

[bayoubob]

If you can prove rape? Do it. I don't expect rape victims to carry it out. Do you know where we are headed? Besides the LEFT wanting to make Pedophilia legal? Men or Trannies or what have you can now get "pregnant?" They can get pregnant now. They have "periods" too. They will start bitching about getting "raped" They will start a new phenomenon coming to a theater near you. They will indeed have "abortions" for their non existent child due to being raped.

[bayoubob]

Alright virtue signaler. When is life, life?

[snowboarder720]

@bayoubob you remind me of one of those guys that don’t hear “no” when they rape their girlfriend and then say “well she can’t prove she was raped” in court.

[WhiteBoyChill]

I haven’t said anything factually incorrect. You just choose to be wilfully ignorant

[snowboarder720]

@WhiteBoyChill I just don’t have patience to address anyone further who calls me a “sick fck”. You can continue to have your issues and I won’t pay attention to you any further.

[420Rachel]

I am pro-choice (pro-birth?) but not in the “my body, my choice” type of way. While I morally and ethically don’t agree with abortion it SHOULD NOT be illegal! Many times when women get abortions it isn’t just because “she wants to”. Oftentimes she feels like she doesn’t have a choice or has been abused or assaulted. Some women have genetic conditions they don’t want to pass to any children. Some pregnancies have abnormalities that would cause still-birth or death shortly after birth. Some women have medical illnesses in which a pregnancy could kill them. Ectopic pregnancies are always considered nonviable and must be surgically removed.


There are many, many reasons why a pregnancy may need to be terminated, and every story and circumstance is different. Ultimately that decision is between the patient and her doctor, and we should butt out of it.

[monorprise]

So your in favor of a law to protect the life of babies provided it makes exception for such cases?

The truth is there are a numerous valid reasons to kill even born people, we don't legalize all murders on the presumption that the killer would only kill for said reason precisely because there is nothing to stop them from killing for invalid reasons and claiming a valid one.

[420Rachel]

In an ideal world, every pregnancy would be wanted and every pregnancy would be healthy. But that’s simply not reality. And people will not simply stop having sex, EVERY time you have sex, no matter how small, there’s always a chance of getting pregnant, no matter what preventative measures you may take. Unless you are medically infertile or have surgery to render you infertile, there’s always a chance. Even if abortions were to be completely outlawed, outside of medically necessary abortions, desperate women would find unsafe and harmful ways of terminating their own pregnancy. Either that or they toss the baby like garbage only for them to end up in the horrific foster care system.

[WhiteBoyChill]

I’m sure you’ll find in a vast majority of cases, its just women being careless

[monorprise]

@420Rachel said: "In an ideal world, every pregnancy would be wanted and every pregnancy would be healthy. But that’s simply not reality."

The only way you could know a pregnancy would be very unsafe is if a doctor would have reason to tell you. In which case laws can and do make exception just as they make exception to get you off.

@420Rachel said: "And people will not simply stop having sex, "
Nor will people stop driving recklessly. Every time they get in that car there is a chance they could injure or kill someone. Should we exclude people from responsibility from said killing simply because they didn't think it would happen?

Unfortunately @WhiteBoyChill is right, the numbers show its almost exclusively women and men being careless just like one of the highest rates of death for the born (car accidents).

You wanted to have sex and drive a car both recklessly, you were told not to do it except when your prepared to have a child or under safe conditions but you did it anyway and it happened.

Someone's life was changed or ended because of it and you want us to agree they were a non-person and let you go on with the reckless behavior hurting other people.

[UCrayCray]

@WhiteBoyChill
Let’s be honest here. By the age of 22, you really should know that women don’t create pregnancies all by themselves.

[420Rachel]

@UCrayCray Yup! It takes TWO to tango… People loooove to act like it’s completely a woman’s fault

[UCrayCray]

@420Rachel
Yes, well…. accepting your contribution to a situation means admitting a level of personal responsibility that clearly eludes some of these guys. Why take the time to consider your actions when you can put the blame completely on someone else?
As far as I’m concerned, it’s really just an indication of the type of person your are interacting with.
I’m thankful these guys wear their stupidity on their sleeves. I just hope it clear enough for all women before they do something stupid.
Like allow them to breed. 😱

[monorprise]

@UCrayCray You are correct women are not exclusively to blame for careless sex just like careless driving. Their choice to participate does in fact make them entirely responsible just like the man's choice makes him entirely responsible. Both have a responsibility for any innocent life they have changed forever with their choice.

@WhiteBoyChill probably could have worded that better as not to make it seem so 1 sided.

@420Rachel It is the human condition that everyone is stupid until they have lived long to experience the truth. We today that we live in a world of lies as much as information.
People today go out of their way to sell ideas and values to benefit themselfs rather than the truth and this starts with the culture pushed by our reckless cultural leaders.
Many if not most of whom really just want to take advantage of as many women as possible and so favor values that leave them vulnerable to the same.

Regardless they choose to selectively promote and share said information as to push said values to get their way. and as such we are today more ignorant and taken advantage of than ever before simply because we start out knowing only what we are told by the same people who care only for themselfs and the lease for us.

[WhiteBoyChill]

It is the woman’s fault though when she’s unwilling to accept the consequences of her actions. Guys have no say over whether or not the fetus is aborted or lives on. That choice rests solely in the hands of the woman

[WhiteBoyChill]

And I’m still not understanding why a woman being pregnant is any responsibility of the man, when we don’t even have any say in the matter

[monorprise]

@WhiteBoyChill A man is responsible for his choice to create the baby just like the woman. A man's lack of choice in killing the baby just means he isn't legally responsible for the murder of said baby. He is like the woman responsible for its care and needs.

[WhiteBoyChill]

@monorprise Not really man. Its the woman’s use of birth control or insistence on the guy to wear a condom that determines whether or not one forms

[bayoubob]

So take responsibility. I have conditions I will not pass on. If finding out I did? I couldn't live with myself. I could do all the testing in the world, before deciding upon knocking up a woman. The medical community cannot guarantee I won't pass on my conditions. So, I won't pass it on. Not happening. It will not happen. Just close your legs, or take the necessary steps. It isn't hard. You have all sorts of choices. Make the correct ones. If you fuck up? That's upon you and your maker.

[WhiteBoyChill]

@bayoubob Exactly.

[Agape93]

Centrist libertarian. Clicked leaning right wing.

Pro choice without restriction. One cannot be pro freedom, pro small government and anti government interference in one's private life, and be anti choice. That's like being pro fire fighter and anti crime, whilst being a serial arsonist.

I don't care if one agrees with it or not. But nobody has a right to tell me what to do with my own body and my own reproductive choices. Not you, not my partner and certainly not some power hungry politician.

[RolandCuthbert]

I am not sure what could possibly be defined as centrist in this era. I am actually against abortion, but I do not support creating a law banning it. It should not be a government issue. It should be a moral or religious one. I would support government agencies that attempted to help/counsel women through the process with an emphasis on taking the pregnancy to term, then opting for adoption or some other option.

But trying to legislate when a fetus is viable is beyond silly to me. And I think this decision by the Supreme Court shows just how useless the government is in such situations. These questions are for medical professionals.

https://www.cnn.com/2022/11/16/health/abortion-texas-sepsis/index.html

Another woman has come forward with the harrowing details of how the Supreme Court’s decision four months ago to overturn Roe v. Wade put her life in danger.

CNN has told the stories of several women – including one from Houston, one from central Texas and one from Cleveland – and what they had to do to obtain medically necessary abortions.

Now, a woman from Austin, Texas, has come forward because she nearly died when she couldn’t get a timely abortion.

[RolandCuthbert]

@bayoubob How do you children get access to a computer without your parents knowing?

The only people who should be looking the medical reasons why a woman should abort is her and her doctor. Your dumb as fuck ass should be kept a million miles away. As for the baby being "innocent". There is nothing in the Constitution about a fetus. The Constitution itself says citizenship is only for those who are "born".

[monorprise]

If my religion tells me that people like you should not be allowed to live, would I be permitted to kill you?

The protection of the right to life is the first and most fundamental of all functions of a State Goverment. Said protection however is impossible if the State does not define what/where human life begins and where and how said protection is provided.

States did this from day 1 until a lawless handful of unaccountable Federal politician in black robes decided they could redraw said line with their own complex line nowhere written or agreed upon by the people.


Before that as continued to be after The states resolved this issue as they did every other kind of murder and medical procedure. Then like now not everyone agreed the arbitrary line of birth is acceptable, there is after all nothing special about birth. Most life on Earth is not even born at all. The only thing all life has in common is our being uniquely defined by our DNA.

Thus conception where said DNA is put together for the first time is the most objective line of when your life began.

That leaves only the question of at what point does the state begin protecting your right to life.

[RolandCuthbert]

@monorprise Why are you arguing religion when we were talking about the law?

The government cannot decide when life begins. And furthermore cannot take away a mother's life because of your religious or superstitious beliefs.

But neither factored into the Supreme Court's reasoning for sending this back to the states. Because again, if the Supreme Court was so sure this was murder, then it would have outlawed it.

Obviously they disagree with your superstitious concerns.

There are only two states that have the ridiculous position that abortion should be banned at fertilization.

[monorprise]

Did you not say
@RolandCuthbert "it should not be a government issue. It should be a moral or religious one."

Abortion like it or not is killing anther human life. Our religion may tells us when humans are endowed with the right to life. Ultimately it is the state who MUST decide when it's protection of that right to life begins, as it has done since day 1 and continued to do so in every respect.

That is until a lawless 'court' of Federal politicians in the 1970s decided to write their own complex set of rules nowhere agreed to by we the people.

We can debate the reasoning of the Federal Supreme court judges but ultimately it hardly matters. They never had the ligitimate power to rule on the issue 1 way or the other.
Neither does congress outside of Federal Districts. Domesic goverment is the domain of the States they decide what is and is not murder.

[RolandCuthbert]

@monorprise In this nation, we have this concept called the "separation of Church and State".

Abortion, like it or not, is not killing another human life. Because our Constitution specifically states that rights are given to those who are born.

Your religion may have defined when a human life begins. That is for you and for those who share your religious values. Anyone can look at your religion by the way and reach vastly different conclusions.

And beyond that, there are other beliefs, other religions that must coexist in this society. Everyone has the same rights to their beliefs.

Ultimately, the state is unable to make such a determination. Only the medical profession can and should. And only the medical profession should make determinations about who's life is worth saving.

The Supreme court does not have the power, I agree. But that is because the government does not have the power.

[monorprise]

@RolandCuthbert claimed "In this nation, we have this concept called the "separation of Church and State"."

What nation? if your referring to the federal union called theses united States of America, where did we agree to that?
Its not in the Federal Constitution, in fact the 1st amendment of that same constitution explicitly forbids said Goverment for interfering in State established religions. A very common practice among the original states that remained popular for anther 80+ years.

One could say arguably many states retained some form of religious laws well into the 20th century.

@RolandCuthbert said: "Abortion, like it or not, is not killing another human life. Because our Constitution specifically states that rights are given to those who are born. "

Rights don't come from any goverment or person but originate from nature or Nature's God. You had them as a simple product of your existence in a state of nature. Governments only choose to protect or not protect said rights in accordance to their constitutional authority consented to by the people.

Entertaining your incorrect premise what Constitution are you speaking of?
Its not the U. S. federal constitution which says nothing on the subject of when the protection of the preexisting right to life

[monorprise]

@RolandCuthbert said: "Ultimately, the state is unable to make such a determination. Only the medical profession can and should. ."

So your saying the state can't determine who has the right to life but at the same time maintaining it does issue doctors the right to do the same via their licenses to kill also known a medical license.

Certainly not how it works in my state, nor any civilized state i know of. In every state I know of the elected legislator makes laws defining where and when their protection of people's rights begin and end.
Among said laws it can define certain people in certain situations the discretion to make a choice.

But in general the circumstances where you must choose 1 life or the other is permitted generally with exceptions in every state I know of. Generally referred to as self-defense.

@RolandCuthbert said: "The Supreme court does not have the power, I agree. But that is because the government does not have the power."
The federal Goverment does not have the power outside of its federal districts, but the state goverment most certantly have this foundational general domestic power to protect life and use it every single day.

[RolandCuthbert]

@monorprise Oh, you do not believe we are a nation. Well, again I don't share your belief. If your point is that Congress cannot pass a law, signed by the President and checked for Constitutionality by the Supreme Court then I would disagree with that belief.

I never said it was in the Constitution. I said it was a concept we had in this nation. Please go back and reread my post. If I have to repeat everything I post to you, we might as well end this discussion now. I didn't ask for your approval or agreement. I believe in that concept and many Americans share that belief.

There are lots of practices that were common that are no longer common. That is a simple fact of life.

Your following statement is nonsensical. You can have a belief that a single human cell has "rights", that does not make it so. You can believe in all manner of religious or superstitious nonsense. Those beliefs can not possibly be used as a foundation for building the framework for what we all consider to be our constitutional rights and freedoms. In order for your rights to be guaranteed, this society would have to recognize those rights. Otherwise, those rights would be denied. All one has to do is look at history book and read the story of humanity and the quest and struggle for human rights.

Our Constitution extends the rights and freedoms of citizenship to the all persons.

We already talked about this, I see no need to repost the excerpt.

[RolandCuthbert]

@monorprise The state simply cannot make the determination. Your claim that this somehow grants doctor's the right to kill is beyond nonsensical. Please stop with the hysterics. If you had a child, the state would hardly grant a doctor the right to come into your home, kill that child, and then go back to his life simply because he has medical expertise.

The fact is the medical profession would know best about the pregnancy. The odds for a successful pregnancy, danger to the mother, danger to the infant. . . etc.

Now using "you" as an analogy for the "state". You simply do not know. You have no expertise. And without consent, you should not be allowed anywhere near the decision making for what happens in someone you do not know. Maybe some people would love to invite you into the decision making process. That is their right. But people who wish to make this decision privately have that same right.

I really do not care what you consider to be civilized. In a civilized society extremist fanatical cultist beliefs cannot survive and thrive.

And the superstition that you know when life begins is one of those cultist extremist positions.

No, the state government cannot override the rights and freedoms defined in the Constitution. You are mistaken. There is a ton of case law supporting that.

[monorprise]

@RolandCuthbert There are many definitions of nations only a few of the most recently invented of which could apply to these united States as a whole. Most of the world see it as "In a broad sense, a race of people; an aggregation of persons of the same ethnic family, and speaking the same language or cognate languages." Which of course these united States do not apply at all.

Some of the founders felt the sharing a common goverment or history did the trick many others felt it was not at all the case instead recognizing separate histories and cultural differences as well as relative independence from each-other.

So no these united States are not a single nation by many if not most definitions, only really in having a single independent goverment sense. A concept we kind of already had the word empire for.

Regarding the law making process I do not disagree each of them could do such thing simply that the court is not the only one with the power and responsibility to enforce the limits of the Constitution. Nor that their self-interest failure to enforce the limits of said Constitution means whatever act they stamped approval on is constitutional.

That said you are correct you didn't say separation of church and state was constitutional but i took that as your meaning in saying we have this concept in this country. I apologize.

As for the subject of rights I was referring to a unique lifeforms as defined by formation of DNA

Regarding rights, as crime demonstrates regularly their protection is not guarantee regardless of society recognizing them. this does not change the fact that they are rights. Nor that many of them are not only unceeded but worth defending.

[RolandCuthbert]

@monorprise Yes, but I don't really care about what you define as a "nation". That is a semantics debate. I only care about fact. I stated those facts. If you agree to those facts, that is all I need.

Again, you are allowed your beliefs regarding when life begins. Those beliefs are not shared by everyone. No civilized society can exist for very long on the foundation of forced obedience to what most consider to be extremism.

I guess you misunderstood the point. We have laws, that's where our definition of crime comes from. It is just a limitation of our physical world that bills signed and passed into law do not necessarily guarantee protection from crime.

I am not certain why this needed to be stated.

But no one can receive justice unless as a society, we have determined a law was broken and a crime was committed.

[monorprise]

@RolandCuthbert Now we are allowed our believes on the issue of abortion that the unaccountable federal politicians in black robes have returned the issue to the States to be voted on.

The fact that soo many have outlawed the barbaric baby killing practice proves it is NOT extreme point of view. In fact when the same lawless tyrants first wrote their law on the subject their opinion was in the small minority. A fact they unfairly change via forced acceptance in the culture over the forgoing decades.

Unfortunately partly because of that fact there is no reason to be concerned about Civilized society failing to exist long on the foundation of forced obedience seeing as our "civilized society" is demographically and legals already on the way out the door.

You cannot have any civilized society at all without stable children to carry it forward. Lacking that our "society" increasingly does not exist.
To forestall the collapse our goverment is repalcing us with forign cultures who don't share theses self-destructive values. While at the same time rely upon an ever more oppressive state to control the population who for want of a father never learned to control themselfs.

There is no future for this "society" certantly not as it is currently killing itself off like this.
If any part of it is to be preserved it must return to its non-self-destructive ways of family formation and retention and soon. Otherwise every part of it that does not will cease to exist much sooner than you want to think.

[monorprise]

@RolandCuthbert said: "The state simply cannot make the determination. Your claim that this somehow grants doctor's the right to kill is beyond nonsensical. "

Both of theses positions cannot be true for the State cannot deny said right if it cannot make said determination on which to deny it.

@RolandCuthbert said "If you had a child, the state would hardly grant a doctor the right to come into your home, kill that child, and then go back to his life simply because he has medical expertise."

Here you are acknowledging that the State IS making the determining of when the right to life begins by NOT allowing the doctor to kill that child.

This of course is true of my State but not of many other states which do in fact allow a doctor to go into a home and kill a child. In fact the Biden Administration just recurrently had the FDA clear a drug to enable pharmacist to do it too. This does not make the practice anymore right or legal than using any other weapon to kill a most tiny, helpless. and innocent person.

@RolandCuthbert said: "The fact is the medical profession would know best about the pregnancy. The odds for a successful pregnancy, danger to the mother, danger to the infant. . . etc."

Its true the medical processionals know better than Goverment agents, and state law makers can leverage their 3rd party opinion in crafting exceptions to laws which allow for self-defense.
Just because there are legitimate reasons to kill does not mean killing should be legal absence said reasons.

@RolandCuthbert said: "No, the state government cannot override the rights and freedoms defined in the Constitution. "
There are few if any rights and freedoms defined in any but the State's own constitution. The Federal Constitution is designed to limit and define the power of the Federal NOT state Governments.
Among the infinite domain of power retained by the people and ceded to their state is the right to outlaw murder.

[RolandCuthbert]

@monorprise You were always allowed your beliefs. Why do you pretend that was never the case? The issue is whether or not a woman could legally get an abortion. Why is there any reason to state a concept that is so simplistic?

More hysterics, just because you believe the moment a sperm fertilizes an egg, means it is a "baby" does not mean everyone else agrees with you. And it is alarming to pretend that most people believe this is "baby killing".

Why can't extremists simply admit that they are extremists?

You think their view was in the small minority? So you are so unhinged, you believe the vast majority of people believe that life begins at conception?

I mean at this point, you are not posting anything resembling rational thought. So now, there no children being born to stable families? How does forcing women to have children whether they are in stable environment or not give us anything resembling a stable society?

Ah, so why didn't just reveal that you were a batshit insane racist who believes in replacement theory in the first place?

Why take me through all this nonsense, pretending to be a rational thinking person?

There is nothing I can do with insanity, other than promise I will do everything in my power to fight against you, and the extremist racist theocratic state you wish to build.

[RolandCuthbert]

@monorprise There is no reason for you to pretend to be a rational debater any longer. All of this is disingenuous. Because the foundation of your position isn't a concern about life. It is the nonsense of race and replacement theory.

Why did you make this disingenuous argument for days, when your whole point is to force the "women of your culture" to have more babies, because you feel you are being "replaced"?

[monorprise]

@RolandCuthbert That I beleive it is wrong to intentionally kill a human life and that the state should take equal measures to protect that life from said murder from conception is reflected by the people of the state in which I live.

If I did beleive in the legitimacy of the 14th amendment and its applicably in spesfic circumstances i would point out that that such unequal application of the laws protecting the right to life is a clear violation thereof.

I am not however of that opinion and am instead simply insisting on the basic provable reality that states DO define when their protection of the right to life begins.

You seem to be holding contradictory positions in your effort to define where you think said protection should begin while trying to evade the notion that you are defining it. This is why you can can claim a Doctor (or anyone else) cannot be allowed by the state to simply kill your child while at the same time claiming they must have the only right to kill your child.

[monorprise]

@RolandCuthbert said: "There is no reason for you to pretend to be a rational debater any longer. All of this is disingenuous. Because the foundation of your position isn't a concern about life. It is the nonsense of race and replacement theory."

So the discussion which repeatedly talks about the unavoidable requirement of a state defining when the protection of the right to life begins. Never mentioning anything beyond the human nature of said life is somehow about race now?

You will have to explain your racist logic for that leap. It seems to me rather counter productive were that the motivate for my state to pass a law which will disproportional save the lives of said minorities. When we could simply emphasis no-abortion among our own kin.

But then again democrats are abscessed with race it is the means of keeping minorities voting against their own interest in service of the far-left for decades. The fear of a suppose boogy man in the other camp. Nevermind what has happened to black communities in all that time under their "Wise" leftist master rules. Never-mind the decades of progress that was halted and even reversed when this happened.

Its not like the left invented this kind of political propaganda and entrapment stragity either. Its well known the best way to control a population and get them to do things against their own interest is focus them on an external enemy.

[bayoubob]

@RolandCuthbert Another situation where you replied to something that got banned and removed. I can't see what I said. Anyways, there is nothing in the Constitution that says Abortions are legal. The primary reason the Supreme Court ruled against Roe v Wade in the first place. Why it must be left up to the States. Abortion is not a right. Once again. Your quote "As for the baby being "innocent." Why do you continue to call it a "baby"? Why do you continue to want Whamen to make the decision? If she says she wants it, it's a baby. She can be murdered whilst pregnant, and it's a double homicide. She can say she wants it, and she wants the Courts to grant her child support. If you want to continue to go down this road, the man simply has the right to say, he doesn't want it. It's his wallet. His choice.

[bayoubob]

@RolandCuthbert In the event the woman wants to keep it, the man should have equal rights to go to Court to mandate she gets the abortion. It's his sperm. So, do something for the rest of us. Stop being stupid and take the time to know that fucking has repercussions. Take responsibility.

[bayoubob]

@RolandCuthbert Close the legs for one. Pretty simple (it works both ways for Female or Male. Two, use contraceptives. Three practice abstinence. Four "gasp" keep the damn child!

[bayoubob]

@RolandCuthbert If after everything fails. Drop the "baby" off. No questions asked, at any ER or Fire Department. Just don't scrape it out with a coat hanger, or carry it to term and place it in a garbage can. Don't sensationalize wanton fucking without responsibility. It's not the 1500's anymore for fucks sake (when it comes to the "mother" being in danger). The main argument for your types is that it's a parasite. Well guess what? Even after it is born, it's still a parasite. It is because it needs milk from it's mothers teats. So you must agree that even after being born, you have the right to off it.

[RolandCuthbert]

@monorprise Why lie to me? I don’t believe that you are lying to yourself. I think you truly know what you are concerned about. It is just that you lie to me to make it look like you have a legitimate concern.

You don’t care about life. The life of the child, the mother, or any of the above. You care about replacement theory. I don’t understand why you have made such a disingenuous argument. To argue for days making claims about how precious life is when in fact, your whole argument is about some other groups you don’t approve of, having more babies than “your group”.

You have mentioned this flawed logic on the 14th Amendment several times in the past. And again, the Constitution states exactly who it considers to be a person. But all of this is neither here nor there. Since you are lying about your concerns about the amendment.

Your concern is about being “replaced”.

[monorprise]

@bayoubob A right is anything you could do in a State of nature without other people's interfrence. Thus any form of killing is a right just not one we retained under any of the state's constitution nor mentioned in the Federal Constitution at all.

Best not to confuse the written law with rights. Even the Federal "bill of rights" does not define our rights but rather what the Federal Goverment cannot do to us. State "bills of rights" tend to be very much the same thing.
This is because as the writers of said constitutions recognizes rights are an infinite spectrum that cannot be comprehensible enumerated..

[monorprise]

@RolandCuthbert

Do you want to talk about the law or your random contracitory, and debunked hypothses of what you think I must somehow be thinking.

There really isn't any point is discussing my thoughts as the only evidence you have of my thoughts are:
1: by policy positions.
2: my reasoning.
3: my stated goals.

Since all 3 of them refute your current racist conspiracy theory there really isn't anything to be discussed. even if this was the form. Frankly I don't like talking about what other people may or may not think as is unknowable and really doesn't matter even if it was.

We are here to discuss what we do know and what we can reason, why someone knows or reasons anything is ultimately not relevant as that is a question of their judgement and values not their information.

[RolandCuthbert]

@bayoubob Dude, I don't know why you are even in this conversation. It isn't like this is a worry you have, right?

[RolandCuthbert]

@monorprise
There is nothing contradictory at all. You lied.

You pretended that this was a conversation about the law. You even pretended that you had religious concerns.

None of that mattered. You are concerned that you will be replaced.

And that is insane.

I didn’t quote some nonsensical conspiracy theory. You did that. Own it.

[monorprise]

@RolandCuthbert
You appear to be nuts with this suddenly random and unrelated theory about anther person's motivations

[RolandCuthbert]

@monorprise You stated your real motivations after days of debating principles you neither care about nor believe in. And this conversation goes back months. You can end all future conversations with rational beings, by simply stating this first.

"To forestall the collapse our goverment is repalcing us with forign cultures who don't share theses self-destructive values."

Because to keep pretending you have other concerns is just wasting your time and theirs.

But I do want to understand, what benefits are there to being disingenuous? You are not even arguing your real concerns. So why pretend this strategy will yield the desired result?

[monorprise]

@RolandCuthbert Stating the fact that the U. S. Goverment is FORCED to use immigration from alien cultures to replace the people our own domestic culture is no longer working well enough to produce due to said "Values" has nothing to do with race.

Every race on earth operating under modern western cultural "values" has being poisoned equally to the extent they accept them. This includes every ethicist living in America just like every ethicist in Asia, Europe, Latin America, and Africa.

Everyone who accepts theses particular cultural ideas is being poisoned the same by them.

[bayoubob]

If the government can't decide when life begins, why is murder a thing? It's supposed to be up to any given individual to decide when life begins? So, we have the argument when is life, life? It begins somewhere. The LEFT states a human fetus is a parasite. It's a parasite beyond being born in that definition. I mean, technically in your minds, you can kill humans not just up to the day of birth, not just years, but until they can move out of the house and fend for themselves. What age would you define that as? Is that when we are supposed to define when murder should be a thing?

[bayoubob]

@RolandCuthbert Why do you want to send untold billions of dollars to Ukraine for a proxy war? Those dollars should be spent here. America first asshole. If you want Globalism, admit it. If you want to find intelligent life where they are floundering? Why would you even entertain the thought that we can't send resources there? When he have problems "here", that must be addressed. How many tens of trillions of dollars in debt do you not understand? It's okay though. We must give Ukraine the same money, that we don't have? Fuck them. Let them print their own money. GASP, they are so helpless they can't print their own money that means nothing? Fuck me, and Call me Sally.

[bayoubob]

Also call me a Sally for not putting in the worst president that ever existed in our History. 40 years, 40 years. Who was the last worst President in these times? Jimmy Carter. Beyond that? The worst in history. The swamp. Will it be drained? Just like the Mafia. It has to be drained. You don't get there by being a liberal fucking douche bag.

[monorprise]

@bayoubob That is indeed the problem with the people arguing against overturning Roe V. wade as @RolandCuthbert has.

The state does define when the protection of their laws begin. They must do this to be a state, and no it is not agreed when it should happen nor how said laws should be applied. There is a range of different values and exceptions on the issue always has been.

Indeed the Romans considered the families oldest male the owner of the family with the right to abort (kill) the members thereof.

Historically many American States have protected life from the point they could identify it be it at birth or conception with varying exceptions and degrees.

We of course know @RolandCuthbert wants the state only to protect human life starting at "birth" an increasingly irreverent concept. He simply doesn't wish to admit to that fact for he knows other people in other states have other opinions which they have since day 1 had the right to vote on.

[RolandCuthbert]

@monorprise I am sorry, I thought we were done. Those are not facts.

1. We live on stolen land. The original inhabitants have constantly reminded us of that.

2. Alien cultures? Everyone that immigrates to is a member of the human race. Therefore culturally related to you and yours, whether you acknowledge that or not. The fact is, almost everyone who is here now, originally came from someplace else. Our nation, factually and famously was not created as a ethnic state. It was unlike every other nation on this planet at the time of its creation, because it was created on the basis of an idea.

3. There is no such thing as race. But even if you could define it objectively or scientifically, that definition would not in any way be related to culture.

You are insane.

And you should have divulged these insane ideas from the minute we began talking. An unstable mind, has unstable thoughts, which lead to unstable ideas and beliefs. You take superstitions and assumptions and make the insane claim that this mythology is factual.

Without one shred of scientific or objective fact.

[RolandCuthbert]

@bayoubob Dickweed, I am done with you. You are not worth the calories I burned typing these letters.

You are nothing but a child throwing insults on the net. So going forward, I won't even make the effort to block you. You are just a little gnat buzzing at my ear.

[monorprise]

@RolandCuthbert
1: There are few people on earth who don't live on "Stolen land" fewer still if any that have any contact with the original owners.

You may be among those people But I am not. The prior owners of my land were anther European empire, and before them an anther and before them an industrialist tribe before them anther Indian tribe before them still more tribes constantly warring and moving just as every other human population on earth did.

We have no idea whom the first people to discover and claim this land were, just that they were almost certantly unrelated and affiliated to any of the people we do know. The same story is true of just about every other place on Earth.

2: There is a difference between culture and race/ethicist. Culture is only what you learn in your head growing up. Race what you are in your body. Beyond your ability to learn and inclination toward aspects of said culture there is nothing human about your culture.

The union as a whole was not created as an ethnic-state of course. This is not true of every state nor forign states many if not most of them as a historic fact were, such is the global definition of "Nation".

I am not stating an opinion on the desirability of an "ethnic-state" merely the definition of the word 'nation' when communicating with a global audience such as is the present forum.
I think we might agree more on the subject of its desirability, although baring forced segregation creating an ethnic-state is unavoidable.

3: It is certantly true under the scientific definition of 'race' there are no longer any other human 'races' on earth. Culturally, more minor physical adaptations to environment are refereed to as 'races' incorrectly.

[RolandCuthbert]

@monorprise
1. You are not responding to the point. What you believe is irrelevant. You claimed some grievance about being replaced. From the viewpoint of the Indigenous, they have been replaced. And with the argument you have made, you have provided it would seem to help their the legal basis for their claims. Because unlike others, they actually have a legal claim to this land and can prove the U. S. government lied and reneged on treaties and agreements. Such as;

In 1980, the Supreme Court ruled that the Black Hills were illegally confiscated, and awarded the Sioux more than $100 million in reparations. Sioux leaders rejected the payment, saying the land had never been for sale.

So the issue isn’t one about your emotions and your feelings. They have actual signed legal agreements with the United States government. And they can prove the government reneged on those agreements.

2. You tell me these definitions just like I have not explained them a million and one times over. Race is nonexistent. It is your subjective opinion. But you make the statement like you understand this to be some undeniable objective fact. If I need an objective assessment of commonality, I would ask experts proficient in the field of genetics. Because scientific data does not care about emotions or feelings. It isn’t biased. What is scientific fact is the same no matter what society you are in or culture you think you are a part of. I am not sure where you are going with this nonsense of an ethno-state being unavoidable. There are plenty of multi-ethnic states on the planet. But none were created on the basis of an idea. Russia is one such state. We only think Russia is populated by only Russians. In truth. . . well. . ?

[RolandCuthbert]

@monorprise
3. Race never existed. And what you are referring to is a very recent classification system, based upon a society’s need to create a way to classify its citizens into groups for exploitation, etc. There were plenty of other systems before that, that did the same thing. Serfs, peasants, the aristocracy, monarchies, etc.

[bayoubob]

@RolandCuthbert We do indeed live on stolen lands. Florida swamp woman from a Florida bog is 7,000 years old. Science tells us she was 7,000 years old. She was 70 years old? Science. But the warring of Indians and their tribes means nothing? They massacre themselves something fierce. But it's okay if they do it. They have slaves? They do. We need to get beyond a point, where we can't erase history.

[MCheetah]

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, so I guess, according to you, I'd be Option C. But I'm really not right-wing.

Why do both the political left and the political right love having the government control people's bodies so much?

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

[monorprise]

By no one I presume your excluding mothers and doctors when you claim they have the right to tell a unborn baby they can't have a body at all.

[MCheetah]

@monorprise
By "no one," I mean no one else but the person who has the child, but this includes non-abortion reasons, such as forcing vaccines on people without their consent as well. And no, I'm not getting into the retarded "murdering babies" argument again; that BS pisses me off.

[monorprise]

@MCheetah What exactly is possession of a child, and at what point does the child have it's own independent right to life in your opinion?

As life is defined it begins at conception when its unique DNA is formed for the first time, thereafter like every other life form on this earth it needs merely acquitted food and shelter to survive.

A human embryo is human by virtue of its human DNA, but is regardless alive and like it or not you are killing that life-form when you abort it. So how is that act of intentionally killing anther human NOT murder?

[MCheetah]

Nope. Not happening, pal.

[CateM]

I've seen all these men bitch about women taking advantage of their slightest shred of their bodily autonomy and don't even mention the baby. This proves to me that they don't give a shit about the baby, they want control over women's bodies. How much do you wanna bet they're only saying this because they can't get pregnant or give birth? How much do you wanna bet all they'll do is piss and moan if all of a sudden, men were the ones carrying the children? That they still won't understand that we're not "just bitching about everything"? That they'll hate being slut-shamed for having sex with one or more people? I hear them say all women do is complain, all the while, they're complaining too. The only reason we complain "too much" is because men have given us things to complain about living in a patriarchy. Pro-choice left, by the way

[msmissydc]

'But women have all the rights and men are oppressed and I can't even rape someone without beeing called rapist so stop complaining about pAtRiArChY!!! ' /s
Obvious sarcasm!!!
@CateM I totally agree with you and it needs to be said as often and long as its not accepted!! some dont want to hear it but as long as rights beeing taken away from women is seen as 'freedom' we need it. All around the world! If you have it better than someone else dont stop complaining until everyone has it as good as you and in the process work on different problems. Others may not even have the chance to speak about their problems lets be loud for them as well!

[Luopio27]

If its rape, the man should not have any choice in the matter. If abortion is done as soon as its discovered, like few weeks after the rape, it hasn't grown much. So its nit much different than letting millions os spermcells die on a womans face or mouth or tits or asshole.


But as for accidental pregnancies, I am in favor of pro prevention standards upping a few notches. Higher quality standards for anti pregnancy pills, capsules, surgeries, condoms etch.


Overall, I will lean on pro choice because unwanted kids... Overpopulation. Im a heartless bustard.

[bayoubob]

Obviously rape victims should not be expected to carry out pregnancy. Rape must be proven though. Overpopulation? The same question alludes Pro Choice. When is life, life? When is murder, murder? Technically speaking, we could just say New York City or Los Angeles needs a thorough combing through and we should wipe out millions of inhabitants. But we don't. The butt hurt LEFT tells you, during pandemic times, stay in your basement, wear your mask, if you don't get the experimental vaxx and 18 update jabs, they see you as evil, simply because you are putting their lives and family members at risk for COVID? That's major irony. The regular flu vaccine is not effective for fucks sake. They try to predict what will happen, but even that vaccine is not effective, they get it wrong all the time.

[bayoubob]

The LEFT wants the borders open during the most "deadliest" times. But they don't want these people invading their space. More irony, more hypocrisy, more virtue signaling.

[genericname85]

i consider myself to be a centrist. maybe slightly to the right. and i think abortion should be generally outlawed of course with some exceptions to it. for example in case of pregnancies in rape cases or in rare medical cases where the mothers life could be in danger through the pregnancy.

i agree with "your body your choice". it's your choice to be pregnant. so if you don't wanna be pregnant, don't get pregnant. but as soon as a tiny growing human is inside you, that's not about "your body" anymore.

[Lliam]

Pro-choice but neither right nor left. I don't wear labels anymore.

I guess, at my core, I have what I consider to be 60s-70s liberal values (peace, love, liberty, freedom, open-mindedness, tolerance, respect for nature and all living things, distrust and resentment of authority, and anti-war/imperialism) but I don't recognize what passes for liberalism any more. I'm more in agreement with conservatives than liberals these days.

[Alchemizt]

In a case of rape, molestation something like that? Then yeah, understandable. Otherwise I don't support. I once saw one guy on GAG talking about how he doesn't use a condom because in case if his girl gets pregnant she can simply get an abortion. I don't support such douchebag ideas.

[WhiteBoyChill]

Abortion is just like getting up in the morning to most women. “My body my choice”

[Alchemizt]

@WhiteBoyChill Yeah, I can't believe how normalized it has become. The most horrible part is many of them who support the "My body my choice" thing do not like to accept that they are taking away someone's life. To be more specific, they're taking away their own child's life.

[LiamJHayden]

I would hope that women would always choose life when possible, but I would never trust the wannabe totalitarians in government with the power necessary to enforce any ban. I am mostly libertarian except most of the "official party" ones support open borders and I do not. That is why I got this score on a political leanings test.

[InsecureLivesMatter]

@bayoubob So do you support free speech or not?

[InsecureLivesMatter]

@bayoubob Do you know difference of opinion is protected by the First Amendment?

[monorprise]

@LiamJHayden Why even have a Goverment if your not going to trust it to protect the right to life?

We might as well live in anarchy if anyone can kill anyone for any reason. What point is there to any other law?

[bayoubob]

@monorprise Once again. They don't get it. Government is their God. It's not our God. I don't have a God personally. However, I know I can't do anything I please and not see the repercussions for it. The same thing applies for fucking wantonly and not taking the responsibility for doing so.

[bayoubob]

Huh? Is that out of Left Field, or did GAG remove a comment I can't see that resulted in this question? Of course I believe in free speech. Free speech and the right to bear arms are the most important amendments we have. I will die for those two amendments.

[PainusNdeeAnus]

I’m Anti-Rape

Because unless you were raped and became pregnant the choice to do an act that could lead to pregnancy was 100% the woman’s

I believe those pro-murder people are so selfish they would kill a 1 year old if it meant they would have liberation from their responsibilities as a parent

[UCrayCray]

“…the choice to do an act that could lead to pregnancy was 100% the woman’s”
I bet if you burn your tongue on a spoon of soup, you blame your mama for making it so hot, dontcha?

[PainusNdeeAnus]

@UCrayCray no I blame her for being so poor that she has to feed her child soup

[UCrayCray]

But your tongue will still be burnt and you’ll still be looking to blame someone else, regardless of how cheap your mom was when picking the can to feed you.

[PainusNdeeAnus]

@UCrayCray nah I rather be adopted by a rich mommy who can buy me McDonald’s

[PainusNdeeAnus]

@UCrayCray this was a stupid analogy so whatever your point is you should just come out with it

Because children have sensitive tongues no child should be served piping hot soup they need warm soup or else they won’t be able to eat it that is also 100% the moms fault

[AviatorTom]

I believe that government does not have the right to get involved in an individual's very personal decisions. I'm not pro-choice or anti-abortion.

[InsecureLivesMatter]

Then you're pro-choice. Whether you realize it or not.

[AviatorTom]

@InsecureLivesMatter No I am not! Pro-choice people believe that everyone has the right to an abortion. I don't believe that. Rather, I support those who decide to have an abortion, and also support those who decide to not have an abortion.

[bayoubob]

@AviatorTom Then you're pro-choice. Whether you realize it or not.

[monorprise]

@AviatorTom How is killing anther person a "personal decision", and not everything else?

If you want laws against murder you have to define where the right to life begins, this is under our Constitutional system the job of the State Governments who define and protect all such rights.

It is perfectly legitimate if anther state draws the arbitrary line somewhere else. There is nothing special about birth, the only really special point is when your own DNA is first formed at conception.

At that point you are a unique living thing for the first time in history. After that you just need appropriate food and shelter to live.

[bayoubob]

@monorprise They don't get it. They can bitch and moan about "whamen's rights", they can bitch about the Government telling them what they can or cannot do. But at the same, murder is a thing. If they can't come to a conclusion as to where life starts, you can't define when Murder becomes a thing. It's mental. Ask them when life starts. They can't answer it. They can throw up arbitrary numbers all day long when it comes to how many weeks, months, this that or the other thing. So, what they must all agree upon whether they know it or not, is that they absolutely agree that babies can be killed up to and including the day of birth. Everyone knows that isn't right. But, like I say, they have no answer for when a life is a life.

[bayoubob]

It comes down to a 7 inch birth canal. If a premature kid is on life support. It is life? Not in their minds. It's still a clump of cells.

[bayoubob]

This is what they have to come to grips with. They have to. And it is pure evil.

[Guy13]

I can not support anything where the protector of a life within a life makes a first kill of a defenseless being. Premeditated murder is wrong as it was with Putin and Hitler.

[Cassie88]

I selected "pro-life left", but that's not entirely accurate because an issue like this is horribly complex, and something may happen to make me change my mind.

[bayoubob]

These numbers speak for themselves. They always do. Detailed results show women are the most liberal. Yet the AI bot choice, and Most Helpful do not correlate. I wonder why?

[BCRanger10]

Pro-life, anti-abortion, anti-choice, call it whatever you want to call it. I oppose the killing of unborn children in the womb.

[ShovelheadSpringer]

I'm prolife but ultimately I don't think anyone should be able to decide if a child should or shouldn't be born. Life starts in the womb and destroying a life is murder

[petitedollbabee]

Pro choice, and I have no clue whether I’m right or left because I don’t pay attention to politics.

[Snakeyes7]

I think abortion is immoral but allowing the state to get involved will be a big mistake.

I chose C

[Revvl6pro]

You stole my answer! lol
It's like debating Coke vs Pepsi, and keep debating it for 1,000 years.

[monorprise]

@Snakeyes7 Why is allowing the same Governments which define all other forms of murder and medical procedures define where the right to life begin a mistake?

They seemed to do it perfectly fine in the prior 200 years.

@Revvl6pro On what question in politics would you expect a diverse population to agree and not to keep debating/fighting over it for 1,000? Sending it back to the States allows said population to at least sort themselfs geographically to avoid said debate.

Otherwise you basically have to legalize murder if you can't let states define where their protection of the right to life begins, as they did from day 1 and continued to do every day after the Federal court allowed it in defining all exceptions to murder.

[Revvl6pro]

I meant that the federal government shouldn't be involved.

[Snakeyes7]

@monorprise 1. Banning it is as useless as banning guns, alcohol and drugs. There are back alley abortions and countless ways to induce miscarriages. Making something illegal isn't going to stop people from trying, especially in the time of its banning.

2. In the cases of the mother being in high risk of dying during birth, there would have to be a process proving she needs the abortion and the government never acts fast. By the time they answer, the mother would have likely already either died or had the abortion to survive.

3. The pro-abortion people are the same type who are constantly on the hunt for things to complain about and the state loves to kiss their ass no matter how stupid their demands are. Some politicians might actually go through with their vasectomy bills as a way of getting back while claiming that their constituents are further "opressed" by not being allowed to kill their children.

4. History has proven countless times that if you give the state an inch, they WILL take a mile, several actually. Even if the bad things I said before don't happen, they will find ways to make everyone's lives miserable under the guise of morality or safety and there will always be the morons who will pretend it's not happening and keep voting for it. It's better to not have it in the first place.

I think the best solution is to teach women that it is better to not get pregnant in the first place. I understand that is WAY harder because for the past 50 years or more, women have been taught that they never had any agency over getting pregnant and that is a total lie, if anything, they have more agency over it than men do, getting over that indoctrination will be difficult. If women take that message to heart, good. If not and then they get an abortion because they got careless and feel miserable, they can't say they weren't warned, at least not with any confidence.

[monorprise]

1: So your saying we shouldn't bother banning any other form of murder simply because people will kill other people anyway? The propose of banning an action is to make it more difficult and thus unusual. To expect that anything or action will cease to exist is nonsense.

There is also a difference between banning an Item and an action. Items do not after all commit crimes and therefore lack victims to see to it they are punished for said crime.

2: Its true, but that is why we have laws which are enforced in the breach after the fact.
You would have a very difficult time doing anything at all if you had to ask a goverment official anytime it involved a law.
So in the case of abortion even in the strictest states they allow doctors to preform the procedure if the mother's life is at stake.

3: Seeing as all men are naturally free to do whatever they want the State must justify its intrusion upon that freedom. In the case of abortion its to protect the life of anther individual from being murdered. Do not decide a matter on the basis of who holds a position but rather on what position you think is most appropriate. You have your own judgement and interest and political factions should work for you NOT you for them.

4: Defining when the protection of the right to life begin is arguably the first inch the State took, and you really couldn't have much of a state with out ceding the right to kill under it.

That you simply prefer that definition to be at your arbitrary point in life cycles rather than someone else's is a policy dispute based upon either the opinions of those you most agree or we should hope your own personal point of view and interest.

[Snakeyes7]

@monorprise No, I am saying that people have considered the practice moral for a very long time and banning it will not show those who aren't willing to accept it is wrong why that is. If anything, they are claiming that they are more opressed than ever. Not to mention that these fetuses don't have a SSN until they are born so tracking these down would be a nightmare for the state or it would be a nightmare for us because constant surveillance would be the only way to enforce that.

2. Ok so how would these doctors prove that the mother was in danger for what little time they have to not die giving birth? Stuff like that is not fast.

3. We literally went through a pandemic in where the government did far more damage to the lives of the people than the actual disease did. They supposedly did all that for our safety. How are we to trust that they won't do something like this again?

4. See answer 1. Because of an insane amount of people already convinced that it is moral and is such a common practice already, along with a lack of an SSN. It's going to be difficult to enforce.

[Becky316]

I can't support abortion, not with condoms and pills, IUD and all the birth control methods. I don't hate or try to throw shade at others for their choices. This is just how I feel in my case

[ShadezMcgee]

Anti abortion, Libertarian. However I believe people should be able to have body autonomy

[orangecherry]

If I am being honest I am pro life because I would never get an abortion and I don't think anyone else should. But I keep this to myself mostly and don't tell anyone or discuss it.