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 
To many pro-lifers, being pro-life, isn't about controlling a woman's body, being pro-life is actually is about protecting the unborn and not wanting an innocent being to be killed because they are a "inconvenience".
Many pro-lifers aren't satisfied with having their own opinions. They aren't just satisfied to find a partner who shares their values.
They are zealots who want to pass laws to ban abortion. Laws = punishment. They want to enforce their values on others. So, in that sense, they do want to control women and prevent them from making decisions that deeply effect them, their potential offspring and others.
They say they are motivated by empathy for fetuses. But they have zero empathy for women. They don't even care about a child once it is born. They don't care if it lives in poverty or neglect. They'll just blame the mother. They say she can give it up for adoption, but how empathetic is that?
They don't respect women's ability to make rational decisions. Many of them don't respect women in general. And they use absurd arguments to justify their attitudes, pointing, for instance, at late term abortions while still opposing even early-term abortions.
They refuse to acknowledge that accidents can happen. They want to punish women and girls no matter the circumstances.
Those people are no better than supporters of gun-control or censorship or anti-religious freedom laws.
It would be perfectly fine if they just tried to convince others with logical or compassionate arguments. But supporting the use force goes against the very concept of liberty. Even harassing women at abortion clinics is hateful. And what about murdering doctors or blowing up clinics?
Nobody is a fan of abortions. Having one is an agonizing decision for most. But they are sometimes for the best. And if they are done within the first 12 weeks, no "babies" suffer... at all. They have no nervous system, brain or consciousness.
I am personally opposed to late term abortions unless there is a medical necessity. But they should still be up to the patient and her doctor.
That's the pro-birther's line, but that's not the real argument. The REAL discussion is about 2 things; 1) whether is a "life" yet or a developing set of cells that has the potential for life, and 2) not having a clear answer to #1, does the "state" or anyone have the right to decide FOR someone else.
If "protecting the unborn" were SO damn important to the pro-birthers, shouldn't they give a shit about happens to these "unborns" once they are born? Yeah, but they categorically do NOT care what happens after that. Instead, they say "well you should have thought about that before you got pregnant", while at the same time, they try and make contraception illegal.
That's absolutely NO doubt that the patriarchy wants to regain full control of a woman's body, their right to vote, their ability to be safe from domestic abuse, etc. The biggest impetus is coming from white, so called "Christian" nationalists. You can deny it and you'd be wrong. Just look at who's voting which laws into place, and the answer is clear.
To the right, Democrats seem to...
- Hate the unborn and want to kill them.
- If they are born they want to confuse and trans them starting in Kindergarten
- Then if they make it past that, they want to introduce them to gay porn and sexuality at a young age.
- Then "teachers" will exploit them sexually.
- Then they will get transed in high school so they can no longer have their own kids.
Argue with me if you like, but that's how the right sees you.
I agree that is how a) extreme right-wingers view the left and b) ignorant people of any political or non-political persuasion. I'm going to say what I believe many people, especially a sane, logical person capable of critical analysis thinks but doesn't say out loud: "If you seriously believe those things, you've got to be an idiot". And argue if you like, as you say, but that's what anyone even slightly left of center thinks about "the right". LOL
There are legitimate reasons for wanting an abortion. Being lazy and not using condoms and then using an abortion as a means of birth control is not one of them in my opinion.
There is a legitimate reason to kill almost anyone @daniela1982
We tend not to let anyone pick those reasons or nobody else's reasons for not being killed would matter.
Opinion
16Opinion
u For too many people in the US, if you challenge their ideas, they don't welcome a debate; they simply see it as an opportunity to attack the speaker.
They want the right to murder people, not the right to live free. The Declaration of Independence states:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
Pro-abortion people hate this country and they hate that people have a right to live. They want to be able to enslave people and choose if their slaves live or die at their own discretion without the government saying, Woah! Woah! Woah! Wait a minute every one is equal here and they have a right to liberty and happiness just as much as the next guy, you can't just kill them because it sounds fun to you.
Because they're trying use fear to get women out to vote. Democrats know they can't actually be honest about what they really want on this issue: full, unlimited abortion access. They can't be honest because they know that America won't go for that. The vast majority of Americans already agree that medically necessary and early term abortions should be accessible.
So the Dems try to pretend like they're protecting women's rights to essential care. The debate has nothing to do with essential care at this point.
@goaded The trans stuff was somewhat overblown, but the border stuff is absolutely real. Democrats are absolutely fear mongering about things that do not exist. What are you talking about?
Anyway, Democrats have spoken openly about wanting open borders for decades. I remember them talking about it in the late 90s. And I'm sure I'd remember it from earlier than that if I had been older than 5.
@goaded The proposed bill tried to dump billions more into Ukraine, I suspect that was part of the issue. But the reality is that the proposed bill wouldn't have had any teeth. thehill.com/.../
Because democrats always project their fears and crimes on other people.
As it happens Democrats rarely if ever accuse anyone of anything they are not doing themselfs, although usually they are less obvious about it.
As this accusation is hypocritical both because of their vaccine mandate and because of what they are doing to the babies body just under 50% of which are also female.
Abortion is murder plain and simple, which is why you can only ever justify abortion in you or them self-defense.
To try to frame abortion any other way is to try and dehumanize someone for your personal convenience. In this your murdering an innocent person to avoid taking responsibility for your OWN actions, and their natural results.
Frankly its the most savage form of murder possible, there being no greater a betrayal of any less innocent a victim.
@goaded Indeed it is that is what we all look like week 1.
You don't have the right to kill someone simply because they don't look like you racist.
@goaded If that is not a living person then neither are you for you too looked very much like that when you were 1 week old. If you want to dehumanize people because the way they look keep your eugenics ideas in Germany.
No life takes precedence over anther one which is why you have the right to self-defense, and what your Germans ancestors did to enforce their ideas on eugenics was morally reprehensible.
That however mean that unless your life is in real danger for which you have no other option you don't have the to kill someone else.
That is the law as written in my state, and it is the only reasonable position that ensures equal application and justice under the law.
@goaded
They are a living human person. I figured that particular photo might not be human its rather difficult to tell at that age, which is why I kept saying "looked like" that.
That's just your opinion. It's 100% not a living, breathing person, not until viability, which was a perfectly reasonable compromise. Your religion or beliefs might say a cluster of cells is a person, but yours isn't the only religious belief and so you're trying to have the government impose your religion on the fetus, which is against the first amendment.
Meantime, women are dying because they're being refused a procedure that was never considered an abortion, letting their fetus rot inside them.
@goaded It is not merely my opinion but a scientific fact that human embryos are both human and living. The fact that they do not currently breath as you do does not make them any less human or deserving of being murdered than countless other humans particularly during COVID who were similarly not breathing.
Should we dehumanize and kill them all too just so countless women can continue to avoid any personal or social responsibility to anyone else and act like whores sleeping around with endless men for personal pleasure all while failing to produce even enough children for our civilization to sustain itself?
Just because Germany is ok with killing itself to i presume your temporary benefit does not mean it is not just a highly immoral act of murder but an insane civic practice that has to stop at some point less civilization will cease to exist.
We have proven in the 50+ years since birth control & abortion was invented we humans did not evolve to handle this kind of power responsibility.
It's also a fact that a bunch of cells is not a person, and that women and babies are dying because of ridiculously strict anti-abortion laws.
"From 2019 to 2022, the rate of maternal mortality cases in Texas rose by 56%, compared with just 11% nationwide
“There’s only one explanation for this staggering difference in maternal mortality,” said Nancy L. Cohen, president of the GEPI. “All the research points to Texas’ abortion ban as the primary driver of this alarming increase.”"
www.nbcnews.com/.../texas-abortion-ban-deaths-pregnant-women-sb8-analysis-rcna171631
@goaded Everyone is a bunch of cells all of us at one point and sometimes again in a similar condition as those you would dehumanize and kill.
Women only die for want of an abortion in the very rare case of an entrophic pregnancy. The increase death rate is due to Joe Biden dropping the before and after Ultrasound requirements of the abortion pill in 2021, and women's illegal use of the same in said states.
That requirement existed to verify they didn't have an entrophic pregnancy or more commonly that the murder victim's body fully evacuated their woman's womb before become septic. in either case the woman dies without further medical intervention.
Basically the murder was killed by the corps of their tiny victim. Something that is extremely unlikely to happen if they really were using the pill at a more legally accepted stage. So blame Joe Biden and unethical abortion clinics for that.
More ignorance: "Women only die for want of an abortion in the very rare case of an entrophic pregnancy."
You're pulling the usual bullshit, pretending that all abortions are late term and not just a ball of cells with no more humanity than a shrimp. There's an argument to be had about when personhood starts, but it's ridiculously extreme to claim it's when a sperm meets and egg.
@goaded You are alleging personhood is what you can currently do rather than what you are. As a shrimp does not have human DNA nor will it ever become anything more capable, as you will when you recover or wake up.
This brutish understanding of rights on the basis of what you can defend hardly needs a state at all and puts in jeopardy everyone on the account of what they can't do while asleep, injured, or sick.
I'm saying personhood is what you currently are, not what you might some day become. An acorn is not an oak tree. Nor is a sapling, for that matter.
You can't tell the difference between a cow and a human at early stages, but you think a collection of cells should have rights that trump those of the person carrying it. You couldn't force someone to act as a life support system for another person for months on end, no matter how important that person was, it would have to be a personal choice. It's the same with fetuses, at least until ending a pregnancy would cause more suffering than continuing it.
@goaded An acorn is an infant version of an Oak tree, the only distinction is the age. Likewise if you wish to redefine "personhood" to reflect that distinction be it in age or capabilities as I suggested you were attempting, then that words has no bearing on the nature of their right to exist.
We have agreed to respect your right to exist on the basis that you are a human not on whether or not you have any particular capabilities or have reached any particular age. We believe both age and capability only reflect what we trust you to do.
The fact that I like many others cannot tell under certant conditions from what little i can see the different between a human and a cow speaks more of what I can see than what they are. For I can just as much not tell the difference between a bush and a man in camouflage at a distance.
That does not mean knowing there is a man there I am free to run over him with my car.
So an acorn is an oak tree, that's what you're saying?
10/10 for consistency, minus several million for common sense.
I'm not "redefining" personhood, it always meant a person, not a fetus, and certainly not a fertilised human ovum. It's religious extremists that are attempting to redefine it against all logic and common sense.
Lack of a better rebuttal, mostly. One could simply say "I believe that forcing an expectant mother to carry a baby to term is a bigger infringement than killing said baby", but that's not a rebuttal- and their mindset feels a need to not make it a matter of opinion, but of "right" and "wrong". Allowing for genuine, good faith disagreement, while deeply frowned on by Republicans these days, is straight-up anathema to modern Democrats.
This how you get "keep your laws off my body" and "the government should pay for my healthcare" within the same political platform.
Abortion is a very personal topic. Some Democrats, Republicans and Independents are pro-lifers and some are pro-choice. It's wrong to generalize, which carried a step further, it's wrong to blame people for their deep-seated opinions on an extremely controversial topic.
You don't get to harm other people and call it "personal". @AviatorTom
Abortion is very much killing a completely innocent person to whom you had a natural liability, if you want to justify that killing you best do it as them or you self-defence.
@monorprise You have the right to your opinion, and to voice it, but to force that on others who have different opinions is wrong.
Indeed you do have a right to your opinion @AviatorTom
But it is not your opinion we are disputing but the physical ass ult upon other people for which nobody in a free state has a right to.
If you want to claim someone else isn't a person fine, your words are harmless but you take a knife to cut their throat and you have crossed the line from which neither of you can come back and no freedom can exist.
Dismissing any reasons a woman might have as nothing more than an “inconvenience” probably has something to do with it.
Getting pregnant because your raped is different then getting pregnant pregnant because you weren't cautious during consensual sex. And getting an abortion because you weren't careful during sex is considered an "inconvenience".
There are many reason why a woman may decide to get an abortion. You have, again, dismissed any reason she may have as an “inconvenience.”
You reduce her concern as insignificant, as if unworthy of consideration, then ask why some may see you as evil.
Kind of self evident really.
If she had a legitimate reason for the murdering of her own kids @rainbowmarinade it would at a minimum need to be accepted and recognized by the community. Just like every other lawful reason for killing, otherwise nobody has a right to life.
@monorprise
Nobody is murdering their children.
If you need to rely on hyperbole to make your point, it isn’t much of a point, is it?
So your telling me your not killing your biological children @rainbowmarinade Because I thought we were talking about abortion?
that isn't hyperbole its a basic imperial fact that abortion is the act of killing your children. The fact that you refuse to recognize they are alive by the standards of ALL OTHER LIFE ON EARTH.
Does not entitled you to impose that dehumanizing believe upon them with their death.
Unless you want to claim you somehow "communed" with them and got their consent for killing them that is called murder.
These are the basic definitions of theses words.
@monorprise
“These are the basic definitions of theses (sic) words.”
Exactly.
Define murder? And make sure you include all the words.
Then get back to me
Vilify your those with differing political opinions is pretty common these days.
I'm pro life myself but believe it should be left with the consciences of people.
If anyone can kill other people according to their "consciences" then anyone can kill and be killed. @gwendoline
That's the problem with people judgement including but not limited to their "conscience" they tend not to agree on justifications and a lot of people. tend to find anything justifiable if they think it is in their immediate interest.
This is why we have laws, not to protect people from themselfs but from others. In this case that baby is anther person by the definition of science and long established religions. Consistent with the definition of all other life on this planet.
The majority of which never even goes beyond the single cell after conception, and nearly all of the rest are never born. All of that life is defined as starting at conception when their own unique DNA is formed for the first time.
Democrats are Control freaks that can’t stand any opposition to their extreme positions.
@goaded Actually yes, if hypothetically I were to go and kill a pregnant woman, I'd get murder charges for both the women and her unborn child.
Not if it hasn't implanted yet. Anyway, not every state and not every crime. Those laws have usually been passed by Republicans as a step towards exactly what we see you doing 20 years later - making abortion illegal by declaring a bunch of cells a legal person. (Democrat John Kerry had it precisely right in the 2004 election campaign.) It turns out that if you stack the supreme court with idealogues who are willing to lie during their confirmations (and block FBI investigations into their backgrounds to do so) you don't need that intermediate step.
Do you believe in souls? Does a fertilised human ovum immediately have a soul?
Because you want to stop women having control over whether or not to remain pregnant and they’re the ones that have to grow the child. It’s their bodies. They feel that they should have a say in it. I would personally have an abortion if I got pregnant. I know I couldn’t cope with being a single mum when I can’t work because I’m always tired from severe depression and the child would be in danger with my medication.
Here is an idea @moonface2 : have you tried giving up the child for adoption, or maybe simply not doing that thing which nature intends to create the child in the first place?
Children don't just happen @moonface2 In the act of sex you agreed to assume that risk with full knowledge. Just like you agree to assume risks when you drive a car. You don't get to just kill everyone else on the road to avoid liability of them being injured as a result of your actions while driving.
Nor do you get to dehumanize them to make their killing for your own personal convenes more palatable. If that is the rules we are following then you yourself should and eventually will be killed by someone under them for the same reason.
If you want society to have the least amount of abortions you give people access to birth control and sex education. This includes available abortions because shit happens.
If these laws actively make abortions worse even to all the hypothetical unborn what's the actual point of them?
Got a weird new simily I personally haven't processed yet. So hear me out.
Is it like how you should never point the end of a gun at anything you dont intend to shoot even with 100% certainty of being unloaded or inoperable. Just the first step of the act should be taboo enough preventing harm?
That's the strongest longest olive branch i got to give to reach with. So help me out here.
For what I've got of an opinion sex isn't and will never reach expected responsibly as gun ownership not that guns are even that high of a bench mark. Ultimately the conversation goes should sex be higher responsibly then gun ownership and with that we loop back around women autonomy.
So I'm lost in the weeds again saying ya it's going to regardless of intention reducing women as an object or obstacle.
Where is the reality people have sex and the efficacy of wanting the least amount of abortions? My answer is available birth control including abortion access and sex education.
I 100% agree this is very odd comparison but we need some kind of arbitrary bearing where we start with the situation we are now going into our humanitarian end goal.
Because DemonRats are anti-Christ, and they want to keep their freedom to sin. They don't see an unborn baby as a viable human life. They will do ANYTHING to demonize those who try to spoil their "party". They have been handed over to a reprobate mind.
because pro-abortionists wanna project their own evil onto pro-lifers
as annoying as some pro-lifers may be, pro-abortionists are far worse with their violent protests, rioting, looting, teaming up with BLM and ANTIFA, sending death threats, sending rape threats, false rape accusations, sending FBI to arrest pro-lifers for made up "crimes", cancel culture and these days assassination attempts
All they can do is grasp at loose threads and try to weave an entire carpet out of them.
So you're saying it's OK to pass laws to outlaw something as long as you really believe it's for the greater good? How about killing witches (something that happens to this day in Africa because of evangelical Christians, often from the US)?
Because by "protecting innocent lives" you are killing women who already have lives.
Because they hide their true motives. They want fewer people alive in order to “save the planet” and you can either go along with their plan by voting them in or get slandered by them.
They also think that fewer people means more money for everyone, and easier to manage populations.
Many women just use abortion as a form of birth control.
Because they are lunatics.
Eighty-ninety percent are !!!
You can also add your opinion below!
