[Abortion Thread] (YET ANOTHER POLL!) Taking measure.

[Thepeopl]

Well, let's break down this poor but workable analogy: it's possible to go to McDonalds and have salad every day, it's possible to take preventative action against obesity by having a small meal (fewer calories) and also exercising for an hour a day.

So, no, consenting to eating at McDonalds daily =/= consenting to become obese.

And, if you do, you can take abortive action, in the form of diet, healthy exercise and more invasive methods (as suggested and supervised by your doctor). You don't have to lump it and accept the health risks.

Killing a baby, going on a diet, basically the same thing.

It isn't a baby yet. It is a fetus.
Babies don't have a placenta.

[Crockerland]

Killing a baby, going on a diet, basically the same thing.

Well, most early abortions are performed by pill.

And you were the one comparing sex to eating McDonalds. Don't blame the person who takes your analogy to its obvious conclusion.

Things can be comparable and not be equivalent. For example, a car and a missile are both comparable in that they transport things in long distances, this does not mean they are equivalent.

EDIT: And a foetus is not a baby. No reputable medical organisation would call it such.

"Understanding Your Unborn Baby", article from the official website of the Woman's Hospital of Baton Rouge
"How to Cope When Your Unborn Baby is Diagnosed with a Birth Defect" article from the Children's Hospital of Philadelphia official website
"Fetal Echocardiography / Your Unborn Baby's Heart" article from the American Heart Association official website
"Since you brought it up... I know what it's like to actually be sleepy, especially after 18-hour surgeries and operating on babies in the womb." -Dr. Ben Carson, the first brain surgeon to successfully separate conjoined twins at the head

[The Alma Mater]

Well, let's break down this poor but workable analogy: it's possible to go to McDonalds and have salad every day, it's possible to take preventative action against obesity by having a small meal (fewer calories) and also exercising for an hour a day.

So, no, consenting to eating at McDonalds daily =/= consenting to become obese.

And, if you do, you can take abortive action, in the form of diet, healthy exercise and more invasive methods (as suggested and supervised by your doctor). You don't have to lump it and accept the health risks.

Killing a baby, going on a diet, basically the same thing.

Not killing. Refusing to keep alive.

As society we have decided those are very different things. Hence we do not jail you if you refuse to donate blood or kidneys to save another human.

[The Caleshan Valkyrie]

Well, most early abortions are performed by pill.

And you were the one comparing sex to eating McDonalds. Don't blame the person who takes your analogy to its obvious conclusion.

Things can be comparable and not be equivalent. For example, a car and a missile are both comparable in that they transport things in long distances, this does not mean they are equivalent.

EDIT: And a foetus is not a baby. No reputable medical organisation would call it such.

"Understanding Your Unborn Baby", article from the official website of the Woman's Hospital of Baton Rouge
"How to Cope When Your Unborn Baby is Diagnosed with a Birth Defect" article from the Children's Hospital of Philadelphia official website
"Fetal Echocardiography / Your Unborn Baby's Heart" article from the American Heart Association official website
"Since you brought it up... I know what it's like to actually be sleepy, especially after 18-hour surgeries and operating on babies in the womb." -Dr. Ben Carson, the first brain surgeon to successfully separate conjoined twins at the head

Ben Carson.

Bahaha.

[The Free Joy State]

Well, most early abortions are performed by pill.

And you were the one comparing sex to eating McDonalds. Don't blame the person who takes your analogy to its obvious conclusion.

Things can be comparable and not be equivalent. For example, a car and a missile are both comparable in that they transport things in long distances, this does not mean they are equivalent.

I wasn't saying they were equivalent. White there are some fatal health risks to obesity, there are many, many more to pregnancy -- some of which come without notice.

And it's invading the woman's bodily sovereignty.

Pregnancy is far more serious.

EDIT: And a foetus is not a baby. No reputable medical organisation would call it such.

"Understanding Your Unborn Baby", article from the official website of the Woman's Hospital of Baton Rouge
"How to Cope When Your Unborn Baby is Diagnosed with a Birth Defect" article from the Children's Hospital of Philadelphia official website
"Fetal Echocardiography / Your Unborn Baby's Heart" article from the American Heart Association official website
"Since you brought it up... I know what it's like to actually be sleepy, especially after 18-hour surgeries and operating on babies in the womb." -Dr. Ben Carson, the first brain surgeon to successfully separate conjoined twins at the head

Those are layman's guides meant for excited mummies to be.

But foetuses are commonly described as a separate life stage to babies.
From the third source:

1. Conception
2. Zygote (first through third day).
[...]
4. Embryo (third through eighth week)
[...]
5. Fetus (9th week until birth)
[...]
d. "viability" = fetus can survive outside the mother; occurs at approximately the 24th week.
(By convention, "fetus" is sometimes used generically to refer to all the stages of pregnancy.)
6. Infant (birth until one year)
[..]
7. Child (ages 1 year to 12 years)

And the fourth:

Fetus: After the embryonic period, the developing human is called a fetus. The fetal period (ninth week to birth) is a period of maturation when many established organ systems develop further. The developmental changes that take place during the fetal period are not as dramatic as those that occur during the embryonic period, they are nevertheless very important.

[Crockerland]

Killing a baby, going on a diet, basically the same thing.

Not killing. Refusing to keep alive.

https://americanpregnancy.org/unplanned-pregnancy/surgical-abortions/
"A small incision is made at the base of the skull to allow a suction catheter inside. The catheter removes the cerebral material until the skull collapses. The fetus is then completely removed."
They drill a hole in the babies skull and then use a suction device to destroy its brain. You admit the baby is alive, if we can refuse to keep it alive, so I don't see how this could be construed as "not killing".

As society we have decided those are very different things. Hence we do not jail you if you refuse to donate blood or kidneys to save another human.

So you think a mother who refuses to feed her 2 year old and starves him to death should not be punished, correct? She isn't killing him, just refusing to keep him alive.

[The Caleshan Valkyrie]

Finally, consent to sex =/= consent to pregnancy.

I consented to eating at the McDonald's every day of the year for 3 years but not to being obese.

That could very well be so. Some folks could balance it out with a healthy jog, or some might get liposuction. The fact is they can engage in that activity, and address whatever ‘consequences’ might arise in any number of ways.

[The Alma Mater]

Not killing. Refusing to keep alive.

https://americanpregnancy.org/unplanned-pregnancy/surgical-abortions/
"A small incision is made at the base of the skull to allow a suction catheter inside. The catheter removes the cerebral material until the skull collapses. The fetus is then completely removed."
They drill a hole in the babies skull and then use a suction device to destroy its brain. You admit the baby is alive, if we can refuse to keep it alive, so I don't see how this could be construed as "not killing".

As society we have decided those are very different things. Hence we do not jail you if you refuse to donate blood or kidneys to save another human.

So you think a mother who refuses to feed her 2 year old and starves him to death should not be punished, correct? She isn't killing him, just refusing to keep him alive.

Fair enough, I should have guessed you'd pull this trick and should have added the bodily sovereignty part in the first post.

But do you think you belong in jail if you refuse to donate your blood, knowing that someone will die without it ?
What about a kidney ?

Why not ?

[The Free Joy State]

Not killing. Refusing to keep alive.

https://americanpregnancy.org/unplanned-pregnancy/surgical-abortions/
"A small incision is made at the base of the skull to allow a suction catheter inside. The catheter removes the cerebral material until the skull collapses. The fetus is then completely removed."
They drill a hole in the babies skull and then use a suction device to destroy its brain. You admit the baby is alive, if we can refuse to keep it alive, so I don't see how this could be construed as "not killing".

You are talking about an increasingly small percentage of abortions in a rather obvious attempt to score cheap emotional points. 90% of abortions occur before 13 weeks and almost 3/4 of all abortions are medical abortions (with pills or injections).

As society we have decided those are very different things. Hence we do not jail you if you refuse to donate blood or kidneys to save another human.

So you think a mother who refuses to feed her 2 year old and starves him to death should not be punished, correct? She isn't killing him, just refusing to keep him alive.

And that is something no-one has ever said.

The born child is a human being with legal rights. The mother has other options. She can immediately surrender him to foster care, or leave him with her parents.

The pregnant woman has no option to immediately surrender her parental rights. And the foetus is not a person.

[Crockerland]

https://americanpregnancy.org/unplanned-pregnancy/surgical-abortions/
"A small incision is made at the base of the skull to allow a suction catheter inside. The catheter removes the cerebral material until the skull collapses. The fetus is then completely removed."
They drill a hole in the babies skull and then use a suction device to destroy its brain. You admit the baby is alive, if we can refuse to keep it alive, so I don't see how this could be construed as "not killing".


So you think a mother who refuses to feed her 2 year old and starves him to death should not be punished, correct? She isn't killing him, just refusing to keep him alive.

Fair enough, I should have added the bodily sovereignty part.

But do you think you belong in jail if you refuse to donate your blood, knowing that someone will die without it ?
What about a kidney ?

Why not ?

I'm banned from donating blood or organs by the government for my sexual orientation, but let's assume hypothetically that was not the case:
Let's say we have a person who is comatose with no kidneys, by donating blood every month for nine months, I can save him.

I think if I gave informed consent and signed a contract by which I would be obligated to give blood to this person every month, for nine months, and was able to do so consistently, then simply refused one day and he died as a result (or tore his brain out with a vacuum catheter), it would be justified for me to be charged with a crime for that action.

If I never consented to giving blood in the first place, or couldn't give informed consent then no, I don't think that'd be justified, similarly, rape victims should not be charged if they pursue an abortion. Personally, I believe if a rape victim kills her unborn child, the rapist should be charged under Felony Murder law, as it was his criminal action that lead to that death.

Similarly, if there was a medical emergency where I would die if I gave any more blood, I would not be blamed, and neither should women (or trans men) with ectopic pregnancies.


This is the same standard we hold for nurses and parents of born children. If you sign up to be a nurse at a hospital, and you simply let a patient who can't care for him/herself die, you will be charged with a crime, because it was your responsibility to care for that person. This is true even if the nurse did not specifically consent to caring for any given patient, the act of becoming a nurse in that hospital is enough to burden her with culpability for any harm that comes to the patient.


I predict your response will be that you don't believe sex is consent to having a child, in which case, I will have to return again to the question of whether a mother who lets her two year old starve should be free of any criminal penalty, since her only consent to having that child was the act of having sex.

[Thepeopl]

https://americanpregnancy.org/unplanned-pregnancy/surgical-abortions/
"A small incision is made at the base of the skull to allow a suction catheter inside. The catheter removes the cerebral material until the skull collapses. The fetus is then completely removed."
They drill a hole in the babies skull and then use a suction device to destroy its brain. You admit the baby is alive, if we can refuse to keep it alive, so I don't see how this could be construed as "not killing".

Yes after 16 weeks of gestation, dilation and extraction will be a possible method of removing a fetus.

Because the skull is too big to pass through the not yet softened pelvic opening.

The alternative would be either letting the woman give birth ( which will be extremely difficult because the pelvic bones haven't been softened enough)
Or a cesarean, which is a major surgical procedure with all possible complications thereof.

https://www.healthline.com/health/pregn ... an-section

And let's not forget the post operation recuperation time.

https://www.healthline.com/health/pregn ... t-recovery

[Crockerland]

https://americanpregnancy.org/unplanned-pregnancy/surgical-abortions/
"A small incision is made at the base of the skull to allow a suction catheter inside. The catheter removes the cerebral material until the skull collapses. The fetus is then completely removed."
They drill a hole in the babies skull and then use a suction device to destroy its brain. You admit the baby is alive, if we can refuse to keep it alive, so I don't see how this could be construed as "not killing".

You are talking about an increasingly small percentage of abortions in a rather obvious attempt to score cheap emotional points. 90% of abortions occur before 13 weeks and almost 3/4 of all abortions are medical abortions (with pills or injections).

In England and Wales?
81% of abortions in Italy are surgical.

I don't see what difference the popularity of one type of abortion over the other makes.

So you think a mother who refuses to feed her 2 year old and starves him to death should not be punished, correct? She isn't killing him, just refusing to keep him alive.

And that is something no-one has ever said.

Yes, this is something everyone could agree is bad, that's the point.

The born child is a human being with legal rights.

They are both humans, the rest is an appeal to legality. I think they should both have legal rights, that's sort of the point of the entire pro-life v pro-choice debate.

The mother has other options. She can immediately surrender him to foster care, or leave him with her parents. The pregnant woman has no option to immediately surrender her parental rights.

So if these options were no longer present, it would be justified to starve a 2 year old child to death?

If the woman and child live in rural Nunavut and become unable to leave their home due to weather conditions during the winter, does she now have a right to withhold food from the child until the child starves? If not this entire line of argument is totally irrelevant and inconsistent.

[Thepeopl]

Fair enough, I should have added the bodily sovereignty part.

But do you think you belong in jail if you refuse to donate your blood, knowing that someone will die without it ?
What about a kidney ?

Why not ?

I'm banned from donating blood or organs by the government for my sexual orientation, but let's assume hypothetically that was not the case:
Let's say we have a person who is comatose with no kidneys, by donating blood every month for nine months, I can save him.

I think if I gave informed consent and signed a contract by which I would be obligated to give blood to this person every month, for nine months, and was able to do so consistently, then simply refused one day and he died as a result (or tore his brain out with a vacuum catheter), it would be justified for me to be charged with a crime for that action.

If I never consented to giving blood in the first place, or couldn't give informed consent then no, I don't think that'd be justified, similarly, rape victims should not be charged if they pursue an abortion. Personally, I believe if a rape victim kills her unborn child, the rapist should be charged under Felony Murder law, as it was his criminal action that lead to that death.

Similarly, if there was a medical emergency where I would die if I gave any more blood, I would not be blamed, and neither should women (or trans men) with ectopic pregnancies.


This is the same standard we hold for nurses and parents of born children. If you sign up to be a nurse at a hospital, and you simply let a patient who can't care for him/herself die, you will be charged with a crime, because it was your responsibility to care for that person. This is true even if the nurse did not specifically consent to caring for any given patient, the act of becoming a nurse in that hospital is enough to burden her with culpability for any harm that comes to the patient.


I predict your response will be that you don't believe sex is consent to having a child, in which case, I will have to return again to the question of whether a mother who lets her two year old starve should be free of any criminal penalty, since her only consent to having that child was the act of having sex.

You donate every month, which isn't possible/ advisable. Between full blood donations for men, should be 8 weeks.
Partial blood donation can happen every 6 weeks.

A fetus needs daily nourishment/ removal of waste.

So if you consented to have a 9 month long direct line to this patient, they go wherever you go, yes also when having sex/ taking a dump. That's pregnancy.

[Crockerland]

Killing a baby, going on a diet, basically the same thing.

It isn't a baby yet. It is a fetus.
Babies don't have a placenta.

Babies are born with a placenta to which they are attached by an umbilical cord. The umbilical cord remains attached for 3-10 days before falling off on its own, though in modern medical practice, the doctor, midwife, or one of the parents will usually cut the cord immediately after birth. Some mothers prefer a "lotus birth" where the baby's cord is not cut and simply left to fall off on its own.

Are you suggesting that newborns are not really babies until their cord is cut/falls off? That is not a metric I've heard before to deny unborn babies the title of "baby", but I suppose not any more arbitrary than other "It's not really a baby until..." arguments.

I'm banned from donating blood or organs by the government for my sexual orientation, but let's assume hypothetically that was not the case:
Let's say we have a person who is comatose with no kidneys, by donating blood every month for nine months, I can save him.

I think if I gave informed consent and signed a contract by which I would be obligated to give blood to this person every month, for nine months, and was able to do so consistently, then simply refused one day and he died as a result (or tore his brain out with a vacuum catheter), it would be justified for me to be charged with a crime for that action.

If I never consented to giving blood in the first place, or couldn't give informed consent then no, I don't think that'd be justified, similarly, rape victims should not be charged if they pursue an abortion. Personally, I believe if a rape victim kills her unborn child, the rapist should be charged under Felony Murder law, as it was his criminal action that lead to that death.

Similarly, if there was a medical emergency where I would die if I gave any more blood, I would not be blamed, and neither should women (or trans men) with ectopic pregnancies.


This is the same standard we hold for nurses and parents of born children. If you sign up to be a nurse at a hospital, and you simply let a patient who can't care for him/herself die, you will be charged with a crime, because it was your responsibility to care for that person. This is true even if the nurse did not specifically consent to caring for any given patient, the act of becoming a nurse in that hospital is enough to burden her with culpability for any harm that comes to the patient.


I predict your response will be that you don't believe sex is consent to having a child, in which case, I will have to return again to the question of whether a mother who lets her two year old starve should be free of any criminal penalty, since her only consent to having that child was the act of having sex.

You donate every month, which isn't possible/ advisable.
Between full blood donations for men, should be 8 weeks.
Partial blood donation can happen every 6 weeks.

As I stated, gay men cannot donate blood at all. It's a hypothetical.

A fetus needs daily nourishment/ removal of waste.

So if you consented to have a 9 month long direct line to this patient, they go wherever you go, yes also when having sex/ taking a dump. That's pregnancy.

Sounds pretty awful, then, so does having a born baby and having to change diapers, get woken up in the middle of the night by screaming, etc. I don't think either justifies ending a life.

[The Free Joy State]

You are talking about an increasingly small percentage of abortions in a rather obvious attempt to score cheap emotional points. 90% of abortions occur before 13 weeks and almost 3/4 of all abortions are medical abortions (with pills or injections).

In England and Wales?
81% of abortions in Italy are surgical.

I don't see what difference the popularity of one type of abortion over the other makes.

It matters when you are deliberately distorting the nature of abortion, also, in your own source, titled: "Vast Majority of Abortions in High-Income Countries Happen Before 13th Week of Pregnancy"

In the Nordic countries of Finland, Sweden and Norway, the rates of medical abortions were highest, at 97 percent, 93 percent and 88 percent, respectively. Meanwhile Southern Europe saw the biggest variation in types of procedures. In Italy, 81 percent of abortions were surgical, while 71 percent in Portugal were medical.
[…]
A number of factors can affect how many weeks into pregnancy an abortion is carried out and by which method, including mandatory waiting periods. For instance, while women in Scotland must wait 28 hours, those in France can wait up to seven. At the same time, a medical abortion must be carried out by Day 49 of gestation in France. If this overlaps with the waiting period, it can mean a woman must have a surgical abortion.

Leaps forward in technology allowing a fetus to be detected likely explain the rise in abortions before the ninth week of pregnancy, the authors wrote.

Data from specific countries also provided insight into the different outcomes of the different laws. The Netherlands has no fetus age limit for abortions, but only 5 percent of Dutch women had an abortion after 13 weeks in 2015. Most people seeking abortions past 13 weeks in the Netherlands were nonresidents, at 12.6 percent in 2015.

Women have died in Italy when denied an abortion. Safe to say, there can be trouble getting it there. Which supports your source:

In Italy, where conscientious objection is high among physicians, there is a shortage of abortion providers, with the procedure available in only 60 percent of hospitals. This could delay women's abortions, leading them to travel elsewhere or seek backstreet terminations, the authors said.

And that is something no-one has ever said.

Yes, this is something everyone could agree is bad, that's the point.

The born child is a human being with legal rights.

They are both humans, the rest is an appeal to legality. I think they should both have legal rights, that's sort of the point of the entire pro-life v pro-choice debate.

The mother has other options. She can immediately surrender him to foster care, or leave him with her parents. The pregnant woman has no option to immediately surrender her parental rights.

So if these options were no longer present, it would be justified to starve a 2 year old child to death?

If the woman and child live in rural Nunavut and become unable to leave their home due to weather conditions during the winter, does she now have a right to withhold food from the child until the child starves? If not this entire line of argument is totally irrelevant and inconsistent.

So, your argument is that I cannot be pro-choice, unless I accept some increasingly bizarre hypothetical that has been extended beyond all realms of reality to try and justify this silly argument?

It is not inconsistent to respect the rights of two legal, individual, born human beings (the mother and the born child). Once someone is born, they have inalienable rights that cannot be revoked (including from the woman while pregnant).

[The Grims]

You are talking about an increasingly small percentage of abortions in a rather obvious attempt to score cheap emotional points. 90% of abortions occur before 13 weeks and almost 3/4 of all abortions are medical abortions (with pills or injections).

In England and Wales?
81% of abortions in Italy are surgical.

I don't see what difference the popularity of one type of abortion over the other makes.

And that is something no-one has ever said.

Yes, this is something everyone could agree is bad, that's the point.

The born child is a human being with legal rights.

They are both humans, the rest is an appeal to legality. I think they should both have legal rights, that's sort of the point of the entire pro-life v pro-choice debate.

The mother has other options. She can immediately surrender him to foster care, or leave him with her parents. The pregnant woman has no option to immediately surrender her parental rights.

So if these options were no longer present, it would be justified to starve a 2 year old child to death?

If the woman and child live in rural Nunavut and become unable to leave their home due to weather conditions during the winter, does she now have a right to withhold food from the child until the child starves? If not this entire line of argument is totally irrelevant and inconsistent.

The answer to your last question seems to be yes. You are not legally required to feed kids in Africa and it is not murder when you let them starve. White kids are not worth more.

[Thepeopl]

It isn't a baby yet. It is a fetus.
Babies don't have a placenta.

Babies are born with a placenta to which they are attached by an umbilical cord. The umbilical cord remains attached for 3-10 days before falling off on its own, though in modern medical practice, the doctor, midwife, or one of the parents will usually cut the cord immediately after birth. Some mothers prefer a "lotus birth" where the baby's cord is not cut and simply left to fall off on its own.

Are you suggesting that newborns are not really babies until their cord is cut/falls off? That is not a metric I've heard before to deny unborn babies the title of "baby", but I suppose not any more arbitrary than other "It's not really a baby until..." arguments.

As they promote this type of "postpartum behaviour " a prolonging of birthing period/ gentler transition for the fetus/ baby. I kinda assume they believe this isn't a fully baby yet .

That said, eewww! Don't! All mammals remove the placenta after birth of the placenta as quickly as possible ( most by eating it.)

If you let the placenta attached to the baby for 3-10 days, that's 3-10 days bacteria can better enter the babe. And 3-10 days of rotting of said placenta.

I have had the experience when the babe was born but the placenta still attached to the womb, where the babe still received the nutrients/ oxygen. That lasted 30 minutes . In my birth journal (written by the midwife, not me) she noted: [name] still attached to placenta for 30 minutes, after birth. As soon as the contractions started again, to remove the placenta, they cut the umbilical cord.

As I stated, gay men cannot donate blood at all. It's a hypothetical.

A fetus needs daily nourishment/ removal of waste.

So if you consented to have a 9 month long direct line to this patient, they go wherever you go, yes also when having sex/ taking a dump. That's pregnancy.

Sounds pretty awful, then, so does having a born baby and having to change diapers, get woken up in the middle of the night by screaming, etc. I don't think either justifies ending a life.

Being pregnant was worse for me.
The changes in hormone levels were brutal. I was nauseous (24/7, not only morning) for: 5 months, 4,5 months, 4 months and 3 months . I was emotionally unstable every pregnancy, I had belly ache, back ache. All first trimesters I was exhausted. Could sleep for 20 hours a day. (Which wasn't possible, work and other kids)
Constipation, fluid retention, changes in taste ( not liking coffee, bacon, oranges etc.)
And my pregnancies were normal, healthy ones.

[Estanglia]

3. Stop concerning yourself with how people have sex. This attitude of "fuck you, you deserved what you got" is unbelievably toxic in any application, especially when talking about pregnancy.

Pretty much this.

It's why I hate the "pregnancy is a punishment for sex" and the "It encourages irresponsibility" arguments. It just reeks of an absolute lack of compassion. It tells me that you couldn't care less about the woman if she does something she is well within her rights to do but you don't like, that you don't oppose abortion on the basis of actual morality but on the basis of "I don't like what you did" (because "killing is evil" is millions of times stronger than "I don't like your lifestyle choices"/"you deserve it").

[The Alma Mater]

I am against abortion but I see the need for some mothers to do so. I believe that if there is a heartbeat you should not be able to have an abortion. This leaves approximately three weeks after fertilization. People who chose to have unprotected sex are giving themselves the risk of having a child.

1. A heartbeat should not determine the beginning of life, much as how the cessation of it isn't what determines death.

2. As another person already said, nobody would know they're pregnant until about 5 weeks into a pregnancy

3. Stop concerning yourself with how people have sex. This attitude of "fuck you, you deserved what you got" is unbelievably toxic in any application, especially when talking about pregnancy.

4. Do not feel the need to be a subhuman piece of shit and participate in "walks for life" and such; of which the only purpose is act like a superior cunt towards women who had to make a very difficult decision.

[Greater vakolicci haven]

1. A heartbeat should not determine the beginning of life, much as how the cessation of it isn't what determines death.

2. As another person already said, nobody would know they're pregnant until about 5 weeks into a pregnancy

3. Stop concerning yourself with how people have sex. This attitude of "fuck you, you deserved what you got" is unbelievably toxic in any application, especially when talking about pregnancy.

4. Do not feel the need to be a subhuman piece of shit and participate in "walks for life" and such; of which the only purpose is act like a superior cunt towards women who had to make a very difficult decision.

I'm sure many of the people who go on to murder people who live outside their bodies find it a difficult decision also. We still don't give them much in the way of mercy, they still get locked up for a long long time.

[The Free Joy State]

I'm sure many of the people who go on to murder people who live outside their bodies find it a difficult decision also. We still don't give them much in the way of mercy, they still get locked up for a long long time.

Murder is an unlawful, pre-meditated killing of one human being by another.

Abortion cannot be murder. It is lawful and the foetus is not a human being (human =/= "human being"; that requires it to be born).

[Estanglia]

4. Do not feel the need to be a subhuman piece of shit and participate in "walks for life" and such; of which the only purpose is act like a superior cunt towards women who had to make a very difficult decision.

I'm sure many of the people who go on to murder people who live outside their bodies find it a difficult decision also. We still don't give them much in the way of mercy, they still get locked up for a long long time.

Good thing no person is being murdered in abortion, then.

I guess we should give them sympathy and mercy then.

[Greater vakolicci haven]

I'm sure many of the people who go on to murder people who live outside their bodies find it a difficult decision also. We still don't give them much in the way of mercy, they still get locked up for a long long time.

Murder is an unlawful, pre-meditated killing of one human being by another.

Abortion cannot be murder. It is lawful and the foetus is not a human being (human =/= "human being"; that requires it to be born).

The fact it is lawful is regrettable and should be changed.

[The Free Joy State]

Murder is an unlawful, pre-meditated killing of one human being by another.

Abortion cannot be murder. It is lawful and the foetus is not a human being (human =/= "human being"; that requires it to be born).

The fact it is lawful is regrettable and should be changed.

Why? The legality of abortion is the default position.

If you wish to alter the legal position, it behoves pro-life advocates to explain why it ought to change -- despite all the legal and scientific precedent that currently supports abortion law (the vital priority of bodily sovereignty, even if upholding it leads to the death of another; all the serious health risks of pregnancy to the woman; that a foetus feels no pain and is insentient before the third trimester; that it cannot survive before 22 weeks, just for an example). And "I personally find it icky-pants" doesn't count.

[Greater vakolicci haven]

The fact it is lawful is regrettable and should be changed.

Why? The legality of abortion is the default position.

If you wish to alter the legal position, it behoves pro-life advocates to explain why it ought to change -- despite all the legal and scientific precedent that currently supports abortion law (the vital priority of bodily sovereignty, even if upholding it leads to the death of another; that a foetus feels no pain and is insentient before the third trimester; that it cannot survive before 22 weeks, just for an example). And "I personally find it icky-pants" doesn't count.

What is 'bodily sovereignty?' It's always confused me honestly, I've read several journal articles all about it but it still seems to be an amorphous and poorly-argued concept with no basis in fact.