Do you support the Texas abortion law?

[Anonymous]

Yes

Yes but it doesn't go far enough

Yes but it went too far

No

[Anonymous]

My answer is yes I do support it, but no it doesn't go far enough. The baby's body isn't their own, by the way. And the same hypocrites that haler it's their body it's their choice are the same narcissist hypocrites that want to force everyone else to wear masks and the mandates.

[BlackBeauty90]

So you're fine going to adopt all the babies born of incest & rape and give them a loving room when they're put for adoption? Are you going to help support someone whose child is severely disabled? Until you are what right have you to talk?

[Opinion Owner]

@BlackBeauty90 Yes in deed I would adopt them. How about changing the biased Marxist feminist laws against men so that I can adopt them?

[Halibut]

If an organism doesn't understand death and can't experience pain from death, death cannot harm the organism. This law forces parents to undergo needless struggle... and it forces children to undergo needless struggle.

There is very little difference between the abortion a fetus with downe syndrome, and the parent having another child later without downe syndrome, and a child being born with down syndrome and it being cured by some drug. See how tragic this law can be? It's essentially legalizing the government injecting genetic disorders into children against the will of their parents... and nobody realizes it because they're not skilled enough at thinking about abstract concepts.

If I changed your mind... spread the word please. If I haven't, I will be glad to talk to you, or anyone else, about this as long as you want. Society falsely assuming that death can harm organisms that don't understand it and can't experience pain could be responsible for immense amounts of tragedy if Roe vs Wade gets removed.

[Opinion Owner]

@Halibut A human being isn't a organism, a human being is a human being regardless birthed or not. God chooses how they are to be and mankind decided to play God. Deciding to abort children based on their disabilities is the slippery slope you don't want to go down, not roe v wade. Deciding that it's ok to murder any human being is exactly why millions have lost their lives after they were born. When they decide human life isn't valuable they just might take yours and your loved ones too. Think about that.

[Halibut]

@Opinion Owner

"A human being isn't a organism, a human being is a human being regardless birthed or not. God chooses how they are to be and mankind decided to play God. Deciding to abort children based on their disabilities is the slippery slope you don't want to go down, not roe v wade. Deciding that it's ok to murder any human being is exactly why millions have lost their lives after they were born. When they decide human life isn't valuable they just might take yours and your loved ones too. Think about that."

I'm not the one falling down the slippery slope... it's you. You're in sort of a reverse slippery slope in which you're avoiding all future risks by sacrificing present gains. Through that sort of thinking, people have gone all the way to wanting to ban morning after pills out of concern about sliding down a "slippery slope."

If God exists, so far as I can tell it rewards us for thinking creatively... for inventing vaccines and medicines and ignoring our instincts. I figure that's what I'm doing.

You're playing God just as much as I am. You're advocating forcing organisms into existence. I'm advocating forcing them to not exist. Either way the organism gets no choice in the matter.

I have stated before that I would like certain forms of supervised infanticide legal. However, my "slippery slope" will end completely with the understanding of death of the organism... or perhaps sooner, because once we start euthanizing people past that point society breaks down... and there will be progressively more and more disadvantages to euthanizing born children the higher up in age you go.

You got to admit, though, that if someone has some kind of brain cancer... even as a 2 year old, you could argue that euthanasia might be in their best interest if it's difficult enough to get rid of.

[Thegreendagger]

Baby's born from. oncest and rape are. Small percentage number. I can find the stats

[Opinion Owner]

Thanks for MHO!

[Opinion Owner]

For clarity, I don't accept it as Texas law. Abortion is against God and I accept God's law.

[Opinion Owner]

I was mistaken on my answer. No I don't accept Texas law on abortion because is still murder any any form at any time. So no I don't accept it. I will accept no form of abortion at all including Texas law.

[Opinion Owner]

I do not accept this law because not only is it still abortion aka still murder and additionally the number associated with it.

[Opinion Owner]

My answer is a FIRM NO, I do not accept this law.

[legalboxers]

hey blue annon. tell us how your 1/6 stunt went.. Lock whom up? build what wall? What was rigged? is it brokeback mountain with you and your boyfriend?

[Opinion Owner]

@legalboxers I see you are very assumptious. You think you know how everybody that don't approve of abortion watches Hoax News or voted for him? Got news for you. No I don't support him either because being forced to choose between two bad choices is still a bad choice which is the reason I can't and don't accept the new Texas law. Abortion is abortion no matter how they try to sugar coat it.

[Anonymous]

I don't care either way. I don't like feminist so I'm leaning towards I'm ok with it.

Epsiclaly since the left wanna push vaccinate mandates now talking about everyone safety.

Well what about the safety of the baby.

[Halibut]

Yeah... what about the safety of the baby? We need abortions specifically to protect the baby. Really, you could argue that we should have a society in which every child with serious birth defects or genetic disorders should be aborted. I would not advocate the formation of such a society for various reasons... but at least there would be some purpose to that kind of totalitarian controls, in the sense that it would protect children. It would protect the aborted, through aborting them.

This draconian limit on abortion both is pointlessly controlling and does not protect the baby. It is impossible to harm an organism if it doesn't understand death and can't experience pain. That's something nobody understands. The American College of Gynecologists and Obstricians says fetuses likely can't feel pain before 24 weeks. There is very little difference between getting an abortion of a fetus with down syndrome, and having another baby later without it, and a doctor inventing a cure for down syndrome and giving it to a baby... so this law, if not canceled out by Roe vs Wade, essentially means that the government will be injecting children with drugs that give them down syndrome against the will of their parents... in an abstract kind of way.

I wouldn't be surprised if we could expect assassination attempts due to that. I won't encourage that... but people are going to be pissed if this is not canceled out by Roe vs. Wade.

[Inexpensivefurniture]

Abortions are part of healthcare. No matter what, they will always be a necessary possiblity. Banning or limiting them only increases unsafe abortions. If people REALLY wanted to decrease abortions, they should start looking at WHY people need them.
Like the impossible costs of healthcare/school/daycare/all infant needs, the shitty sex ed in schools that doesn't properly teach teenagers how to use protection, lack of easy/free access to birth control, etc etc. Improve those things and watch as the need for abortions drop.

[Halibut]

It's horrible, pointless law made by people whose heart is in the right place... but they don't understand reality enough to figure out that such strict abortion laws actually harm children. Abortion protects the aborted fetuses, typically. That's a very abstract concept that's difficult for most people to understand... but we need to understand it.

If a life form can't experience pain, and doesn't understand death, death simply cannot harm that life form. That's how abortion typically protects the aborted. This fact needs to be understood by as much of society as possible.

[Anonymous]

men should not decide anything about women's bodies
I always thought the USA is the best democracy in the world and there is a separation from church and state but found that it has some common similarities with other religious freak countries that tell women what to do in the name of religion so id says religious Christians are no different from religious Muslims both love to control women in the name of religion.
if you wanna stop abortion coz it's sin in your religion then stop having sex before marriage you hypocrites its also a sin you don't shery and pick hahaha. ..
be against all sins then and live by your bible but i know you won't Lol

[sawno]

No, i am against abortion from a moral view. But the government controlling what you are and are not allowed to do to your body is even worse. The bill is ineffective at best, slippery slope at worst since its the kind of line that lead to forced vaccinations.

[zagor]

Hell no. Funny how many people who support this law, which (largely, though not completely) bans something that DOESN'T affect greater society but rather the individual involved, are AGAINST laws that require vaccination/masks for certain things like attending concerts, work, school, etc., laws which PROTECT greater society from selfish imbeciles who would spread disease because "it's their right".

[anylolone]

I'm not in favor of the law in this form, for me it's either first trimester or second trimester.

But I know women with experience aborting saying that you don't want to abort after 10 weeks because it's hell. So, if your cut is preventing negative impact on women, the law isn't all that bad. (not my argument, my argument is juridical consistency)

But I'm glad it triggers the progs.

[Halibut]

According to the American College of Gynecologists and Obstetricians fetuses can't experience pain before about 24 weeks. Therefore, it appears that before that point there are no noteworthy negatives to abortion.

Yeah... it triggers the libs for good reason. This is basically no different than the government mandating that children be injected with drugs that give them downe syndrome, congenital heart defects, or other reasons people get abortions for. This just about completely makes it impossible to get an abortion due to birth defects.

If this isn't stopped by the Supreme Court... I wouldn't be surprised if we can expect numerous assassination attempts. I'm not advocating that. I'm just emphasizing that people want to protect their children, and abortion is a way to do that.

Nobody understands that death through abortion or morning after pills is a very real way to protect children. That lack of understanding is probably the greatest tragedy I can think of.

[anylolone]

@Halibut Nope, because progs (don't call progs libs, it's offensive to actual libs) are in favor of abortion to term, they don't care about the pain component at all.
They also are in favor of ruling the killing of featuses at any point against the mother's wishes as murder.

They also are pro censorship and lack any notion of internal consistency.

Also, I expect no extra infanticide, you can always give to adoption and the average woman that loses that deadline tend to either carry the baby to term and keep it or give to adoption.
The ones that don't are more likely to commit infanticide than abort that late, legal or otherwise.

[Halibut]

What's so bad about abortion "to term?" I think we should have that, as well as legalizing certain forms of infanticide after birth, if monitored by professionals.

Abortion, at most, means a finite period of pain. Not getting an abortion can lead to a potential lifetime of whatever disadvantages the parents were considering getting an abortion to avoid... and if the disadvantages are stuff like birth defects and incurable genetic disorders, abortion essentially acts as a potentially painless miracle cure that rids the child of those ailments. If the mother has another child later... that's essentially the same thing as the child being teleported into the future, into a body without those genetic disorders or birth defects, with, at most, a potential side effect of pain. Pain is generally perceived as an acceptable side effect of medical treatments.

[anylolone]

@Halibut You just contradicted yourself when it comes to pain.

There are several problems with abortion to term, it's basically a worst labor for the woman (which I do not care, I'm actually a liberal, so if they want to fuck themselves over it's their issue), but more importantly is that a third trimester baby is so human that they usually survive outside of the womb. Both of my cousins were born with 6 month pregnancies, and my sister was born with 7.

You can always just give to adoption.

[Halibut]

You say "You just contradicted yourself when it comes to pain." I'm not sure how.

You say, "You can always just give to adoption."
______________________________________________________________________________________

Giving birth to a child and giving it up for adoption could make some parents very happy. That said... you could also look at things like fewer children being given up for adoption means that more people will adopt from other countries or adopt older children... so if the goal is to minimize the number of children growing up in foster care, it would be at least a little more advantageous to not to that.

Regarding your statement about fetuses in the later stages being similar to born babies... I think that's a reasonable point. However, there is an equation to take into consideration to determine whether or not death can actually assist the organism more than it harms it. A fetus (and a born baby too) don't understand the nature of death. Death can only harm them through pain or other forms of unpleasantness. That said, the birthing process itself is presumably rather unpleasant, and people aren't going to get an abortion unless there is some negative circumstance that they get an abortion for, which typically will echo back to affect the child. Therefore, even in abortions that have resulted in pain, there still would have been some sort of negative circumstance that child would have been born into that might be argued to be worth the cost of the pain... for example, which is the greater hardship? Experiencing a finite period of pain (I don't know how much pain) or growing up in poverty? It's hard to say, but I think you could make an argument that experiencing the pain to avoid the poverty could be worth it.

[anylolone]

@Halibut So you are saying that ultimately, American children are a bad thing and that the only purpose of adoption is charity, not to experience parenthood.

"It can be a lifetime of pain" and now you are saying children are bad.

Here's the reality, on average, waiting to term is less pain in the long run than late term abortion, it's not a walk in the park and there's no way to make it a walk in the park. Even just a premature pregnancy is already traumatic even though the body is doing it on it's own.

[Halibut]

@anylolone You stated "So you are saying that ultimately, American children are a bad thing and that the only purpose of adoption is charity, not to experience parenthood.

"It can be a lifetime of pain" and now you are saying children are bad.

Here's the reality, on average, waiting to term is less pain in the long run than late term abortion, it's not a walk in the park and there's no way to make it a walk in the park. Even just a premature pregnancy is already traumatic even though the body is doing it on it's own."

No... I am certainly not saying children are always a bad thing. I am not an anti-natalist (someone who believes people should no longer procreate) at all. It's just that I see few to no negatives to abortion. I am of the opinion that only parents who want children should be having them. I figure that's better for the parents, the children, and for society in general. I see few to no negatives to abortion. It appears painless before 24 weeks according to the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists and the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists in the U. K., and possibly painless later than that. After that... any pain has to be weighed against the unpleasantness of being born itself, and against whatever negatives the parents might have wanted to get an abortion for. So far as I can tell, there is no reason to bring new life into existence unless it assists existing life... so if we're honest with ourselves, we'll admit that we create new life for greedy reasons... and that's okay. I don't see that as a bad thing. I don't think it's a cruel thing to bring new people into existence unless their lives will be extremely unpleasant... but given that there is no reason to bring new life into existence unless it assists existing life, abortion will tend to be the best thing to do if parents don't want the child.

[anylolone]

@Halibut Well, you don't need to be anti-natalist to think children are a bad thing.
Just like one doesn't need to be anti-drugs to believe drugs are a bad thing.

"Only parents who want to have children" late term abortion doesn't make that number go down.

[Halibut]

@anylolone I'm definitely not anti-natalist. I view things like, at the beginning of time the decision of whether or not to create life was likely a neutral decision. You could just flip a coin and be ethically sound. Anti-natalists don't think human beings should procreate. I merely look at things like, there is no reason to procreate unless it assists existing organisms, which it often does.

[anylolone]

@Halibut A 5month old fetus is already a baby, it's viable outside the mother.
7 month fetuses were historically viable outside the mother.

It's already a baby and you think it's ok to kill it, traumatize the mother for life because even early abortions leave the woman feeling like she lost a baby, or killed one.
On top of that, you know it doesn't reduce the number of infanticides because if you kill that inside the womb, you will kill it outside, and if you kill a 7month premature baby, you'll kill a 1 year old child.

"... unless it assists existing organisms, which it often does." you know how fucked up that sounds, right?

[Halibut]

@anylolone #1. How "fucked up" my statement sounds is irrelevant. It's just the way things are.

#2. Don't you think it would be better to let the mother make her own decisions about what will and won't traumatize her, rather than you or I?

#3. What's so bad about killing a 1 year old child in certain contexts? We should probably legalize that too, if they're afflicted with certain severe enough of ailments that would arguably render their life better off un-lived... so long as it's supervised by medical professionals. They can't lose anything from the experience unless there's pain or other forms of suffering... and if they're already suffering, that cancels that out.

We might be able to go as high as 2 year old children... I don't know... I'm not sure when self-awareness begins. We'd (I think... for now) have to stop whenever the child might be able to be afraid of being killed when they get sick... probably well before that point. Otherwise we'll be creating lots of extensive fear just to improve things for a small minority of children through their euthanization... although maybe that would be acceptable and we could go even higher than 2.

[anylolone]

@Halibut 1. it's relevant, very relevant, "other living beings" means YOU. You are a slaver.

2. After 5 months, no, we could make the same argument for any other murder, you want to be able to murder and say it's just personal freedom, we, everyone else, won't let you.

3 The same as enslaving but worst.

Why not let me kill you right now because you are clearly hitler and I should be able to legally abort you by that logic?

[Halibut]

@anylolone

So I'm Hitler, huh? Okie dokey. Whatever you say. I don't think you're worth my time anymore then. Figure out this stuff yourself you lazy, narcissistic piece of trash. I'm not going to waste my time with people who insult me. I've had other conversations with people who haven't. I'll respond again if you apologize.

[anylolone]

@Halibut Well, you would clearly have been a nazi in weimar germany.
Your insults don't mean much, honestly, feels like you just threw random shit out, projecting what ever is worst in you.

And you never get time for any dialog, only to dictate, guess what, you can't dictate here.

[supercutebutt]

Nope.
Only BIG-government Taliban/QAnon types like it :(

[SlightlyEccentric]

Lol a liberal calling others "big government" is nothing short of hilarious.

[supercutebutt]

@SlightlyEccentric I am a moderate, you big government lover.

[supercutebutt]

@SlightlyEccentric Can you kindly apologize for the r-word & c-word? Thanks!

[SlightlyEccentric]

Can you kindly go fuck yourself with a knife?

[supercutebutt]

@SlightlyEccentric Another chance to apologize please? Thank you!

[exitseven]

I am not sure about the 6 weeks part of it. Just because there is a heartbeat does it mean the fetus has consciousness?

[Halibut]

The American College of Obstetricians claim that the fetus won't have the connections to experience pain until after 24 weeks. I forget what they said about consciousness... but it might not come until later, although consciousness is a tricky thing.

[exitseven]

@Halibut Maybe 24 weeks would be more appropriate. People have said the most women do not even know they are presgant at 6 weeks. I do not know if that is true.

[Halibut]

I would be grudgingly okay with abortion being banned at 24 weeks... so long as there were exceptions such as late-discovered birth defects, rape, and perhaps other important scenarios I haven't thought of yet. I think that ideally there would be no constraints on it... and it would be legal to have certain supervised forms of infanticide of born babies with certain sufficiently severe ailments. Death just doesn't harm an organism without self-awareness as much as an organism with it. We tend to personify every organism that doesn't think like us. In doing, we tend to forget that most life on earth has no conception of death, and so would not mind any part of death except for the pain... and the way I see it, that pain could be canceled out by some sufficiently unpleasant ailment.

[Celtero]

Sure. I know it's not permanent, but at least it makes the infanticidal cretins squirm for a bit.

[Halibut]

Abortion typically protects the aborted. See my posts for why.

[Celtero]

@Halibut As much as killing impoverished, disabled, depressed, or diseased people would be. You're saving them from all potential suffering, but all potential satisfaction and pleasure too.

[Halibut]

@celtero You say, "As much as killing impoverished, disabled, depressed, or diseased people would be. You're saving them from all potential suffering, but all potential satisfaction and pleasure too."

Yes... and presumably there's some line below which life is better off un-lived, and above which life is better off lived, for the already-living... but regardless of how much pleasure and lack of suffering is required to reach above or below that line, coming into existence cannot benefit an organism, because before the organism exists there is no one to be benefitted by that existence.

So, life can never be better than non-existence, if the organism is not yet alive, but it can be worse than non-existence, because of terrible experiences.

So, the only reason to create new life is to benefit existing life. If it's not doing that, and it's also not going to be brought into a good life, there's not much reason to bring the life into consciousness and self-awareness.

In this context, being a fetus is pretty much the same as not existing... because they lose nothing from death except potential pain, in the case of a painful death... so the above arguments apply to them to, in addition to non-existing life.

[Celtero]

@Halibut "coming into existence cannot benefit an organism, because before the organism exists there is no one to be benefitted by that existence."

Is that a coherent train of thought? Most people are happy they were born, most parents are happy that they had children, even if some of those kids were accidents. But mostly, I cannot see how "an organism doesn't benefit from being born because it doesn't benefit others" makes a lick of sense.

And really don't see how you've refuted the fact that your ideas about abortion also justify killing already living people. If non-existence is so great, we should strive to achieve as much death as possible.

Many people have kids and enjoy them. I have friends who have small children, and while there's moments of screaming and crying there's many happy moments too with playing and laughing and love.

So life and living, being born and birthing, in general is a good thing. If it wasn't suicide would be much more common, and our species would've decided to stop procreating a long time ago.

[Halibut]

@celtero good question... and thank you for thinking about this and posting your thoughts.

I disagree that most people are happy that they were born. I think it would be more accurate to say they're happy with their lives and they think they were happy they were born. If they were never born, there would have been no one to lose anything though. Therefore they would not have lost anything from not having been born.

Another way I think this can be shown is with a thought experiment. If the non-existent can lose something from not coming into existence... that means we have a moral obligation to create as many people as possible... but there would be no reason to create as many people as possible because before we existed there was no one to benefit from being brought into creation.

Only once you already exist can you benefit from life.

I think you're looking at "never having existed" as a type of death. It's not. It makes perfect sense for people to not want to die once they already exist... because then there's a person in existence to want to live.

A fetus who can't experience pain yet and a non-existent, hypothetical person have, in common, the fact that neither loses anything from not being born. Neither understands death enough to fear it. Neither has complex dreams or relationships built up. You might be looking at things like, "Well... they would in the future and you're preventing them from that future by cutting off their existence." Yeah... but that's not taking anything from them, because those future hypothetical selves must exist before they can lose anything from not existing... and they don't yet. All that exists during the time of an abortion is an organism that doesn't understand death, and might be able to experience pain. If it doesn't experience pain, or some kind of negative sensation (of which I'd think pain is the big one) it can't be harmed by death.

[Celtero]

@Halibut We have no moral obligation to make every person, animal, or plant to survive or be born as much as possible, but it's generally wrong to kill things ourselves. We have no obligation to bring people into the world, but it's immoral to erase people who are destined to come into being, especially when they already exist in physical form. So once a zygote is created, that's a whole new timeline of a person that basically already exists within the next 100 years. Often, to kill a fetus is no different to kill an infant, as infants are incapable of memory and consciousness.

So why would it be moral to kill an unwanted fetus but not an unwanted infant if the infant could be killed painlessly in its sleep?

[Halibut]

@celtero

You say it's generally immoral to kill things ourselves. Why? There's the trolley problem in which you have the choice of doing nothing and running over five people, or turning the switch to run over one person... but in that event you'll be acting to run over a person. In that situation, I think the only rational route is to run over the one person rather than the five and whether we act to do that or not makes no difference, so far as I can tell... and as I see it that's how everything works. Whether we cause a death or not doesn't matter.

I'll say that in many contexts killing a fetus is similar to killing an infant. I think there are likely to be more negatives to ending the life of the infant though. The infant could given up for adoption. The birthing process is likely unpleasant for a fetus, so ending its life prevents it from having to endure that, especially if it's ended before pain can be experienced, whereas a born baby has already gone through the birthing process. Also, there's the idea of freedom of control over one's own body to consider. Limits on abortion mandate that the woman make major body changes she might not want to make.

That said, I'm glad you pointed out that there are many similarities between fetus and born babies... especially in that, if there is a way to painlessly euthanize a born baby, it would, arguably, not lose anything more from that than a fetus in the womb.

My response to your line of thought is to go the opposite route you seem to have went. You respond by thinking, "We have to draw a line in the sand or a slippery slope develops." My thought process is rather to advocate legalizing the euthanization of infants with certain severe ailments, when supervised by medical professionals. I figure we could extend that all the way up to when self-awareness begins. So long as the baby cannot understand death, it can't fear it, which means the only thing it loses from it is pain and other unpleasant sensations.

[rcljr]

Abortions are not healthcare and healthcare is not a right.

[Luopio27]

I think rape victims should get the freedom of choice to abortion at as early stage as possible. Same goes for teen pregnancies.

[Jackblue]

It is an ok start but the fight doesn't truly end until abortion everywhere exists only in history books.

[Halibut]

Abortion protects children. Read my other posts to see why, or if you want to discuss this, I'll gladly, and politely, discuss this with you.

[Jackblue]

@Halibut You are probably about to tell me that abortion is higher in countries where it is illegal, that is true some of the time, but it is often third world countries where many laws are "flexable" and exist only on paper.

[Halibut]

@Jackblue "You are probably about to tell me that abortion is higher in countries where it is illegal, that is true some of the time, but it is often third world countries where many laws are "flexable" and exist only on paper."

I think your point makes sense. I wasn't about to tell you that though. I am not interested in decreasing the amount of abortions that happen unless it decreases through safer sex. I don't really see much of a difference between safe sex and getting an early abortion.

[genericname85]

i don't know the particular stupilations, so i can't have a proper opinion.

[Kelly6]

Nope.

The governor is just showing that he loves to lick trump boot.🤣🤣🤣

[Sabretooth]

i find the act appalling... but this went too far... though, after Rittenhouse... this ain't surprising.

[Halibut]

It's not appalling. Read my other posts to figure out why. Society must understand that death can assist the organism that dies. That's just the way reality works. People will say that's barbaric... but it's not. The lack of understanding of that fact is what results in true barbarism... like this horrible law. What we need to do is nationally mandate that abortion be legal all the way way up to, maybe, 23 weeks of that 24 week point at which fetuses might be capable of experiencing pain according to the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. Nobody understand, though, that if an organism can't experience pain from death, and doesn't understand death... death cannot harm that organism.

[Sabretooth]

@Halibut you're aborting life. if not murder... what would be a lighter and more appropriate term? it's callus how people go through hoops to justify anyway they can.

[Halibut]

Thank you for discussing this with me. You ask "If not murder what would be a lighter and more appropriate term." My answer is... the same term we give to the killing of any other organism, or cell, that can't experience pain and doesn't understand the concept of death and therefore can't be harmed by it in any relevant way.

That is to say, there is no term for it... because there doesn't need to be one. The reason why "murder" is illegal is because it causes immense harm. Murder leads to pain. Murder can lead to the theft of my future dreams. Legalizing murder would lead to the breakdown of society because nobody could be sure they wouldn't be murdered so nobody would make long term plans.

Deer hunting is closer to murder than abortion... because at least in that instance an organism can feel pain from it.

[Sabretooth]

@Halibut i hate when people go the the legal route, i mean, slavery was legal point... were it today, you'd argue that it was wrong--that it was inhuman and immoral. most children don't understand the concept. do ever consider that abortion robs ''the organism'' the right (or choice) to have any dreams at all?

[Sabretooth]

''slavery was legal at one point''.

[Halibut]

You ask "do ever consider that abortion robs ''the organism'' the right (or choice) to have any dreams at all?"

You have a misconception of how the world works. A fetus does not care about such dreams. Now... their hypothetical future self would... but they don't exist yet, so their wants don't matter. They're just fine not-existing yet. They would gain nothing from being brought into existence. The only reason to create new life is to assist existing life... because life gains nothing from being brought into exist, because before they existed there was no one to gain anything from being brought into existence.

[Sabretooth]

@Halibut ''Now... their hypothetical future self would.'' which is robbed. frankly, you sound very callus.

[Sabretooth]

i believe that there's a difference between simply killing someone or destroying them.

[Halibut]

@Sabretooth ''Now... their hypothetical future self would.'' which is robbed. frankly, you sound very callus."

I do indeed sound quite callus. However... I think a similar form of callousness could be found in the urgings of the first people who found out quarantines worked. Back during the bubonic plague, for example, people would have to choose whether to let their loved ones die alone, or risk dying with them by caring for them in their last days. That's the type of world we live in, and I think in both this, and that, instance, callousness can be the most caring way of going about things possible... just like with surgeons who ignore that they're damaging a human being, so as to save their life. Certain types of callousness are the only way we can perceive the world clearly and help as many people as possible, so far as I can tell.

[Sabretooth]

@Halibut that's true... But deflection. That sounds like a way to be yourself comfort.

[Halibut]

@Sabretooth I have no need of comforting myself... and I don't see how anything I've stated is deflection. In my opinion, I've gone strait to the heart of the issue, as openly and honestly as can be.

[EnglishEuropean]

No, and this doesn't end well for the GOP. This is only going to hurt them in 2022.

[Anonymous]

I support it since all it really does is make murdering unborn babies harder to do.

[Halibut]

Abortion isn't murder. It typically is done for the benefit of the aborted. Read my other posts to see why.

[MzAsh]

No. They’re trying to be tyrants.

[SlightlyEccentric]

Mirror, mirror on the wall...

[MzAsh]

Ha. Ha.

[chocolatesprinkIes]

Texas should be aborted

[legalboxers]

ahh 3 downraters.. sorry BOOT LICKERS!

[chocolatesprinkIes]

can't say I’m surprised 🤪

[legalboxers]

NO.. AND FUCK NO.
COME AT ME TRUMP TWATS!

[legalboxers]

also I dont support their VOTER SUPPRESSION BILL EITHER

[Agape93]

No, it's fucked up

[SaoirseS]

Nope.

[Anonymous]

No, abortion is a right

[BarryLiverstone]

Fuck no

[moonpie89]

No..

[annie420to]

Yes I do

[Slim57]

Yass

[Anonymous]

Yes, I do.