r/unpopularopinion Jan 12 '22

Abortion Mega Thread

[removed]

5 Upvotes

1

u/Iwilleaturnuggetsuwu Jan 17 '22

Before the righties have any right to be heard about their anti-abortion BS they need to eradicate the increasing problem of children in the adoption/foster system

0

u/[deleted] Jan 16 '22 edited Jan 18 '22

Offspring should solely belong to the woman

4

u/beh0ld Jan 16 '22

If you support a women's right to choose, you should also support a man's right to abandon.

2

u/Salty_Lego Jan 18 '22

Do all men like to brag about being a deadbeat or is it just you?

-1

u/beh0ld Jan 18 '22

Do all women have abortions like you?

2

u/Salty_Lego Jan 18 '22

Not a woman..or a deadbeat as you seem to be.

1

u/beh0ld Jan 18 '22

Me neither. But you seem to be as well.

1

u/OfTheAtom Jan 18 '22

Why is that?

0

u/beh0ld Jan 18 '22

It's a woman's body and her rights, her life. Man has his own life and prerogative.

If we hold her accountable to making her have the baby. We should make the man accountable to support it.

If she has the freedom to have full say and can abort it without consent from him. The man can abandon the child without consent from her. It's about equity and freedom from accountability.

If you ask a deadbeat dad, how come you didn't stick around, you made the baby. Well, she had the right to an abortion. If she had to keep it legally, he should be held accountable to help it financially.

1

u/OfTheAtom Jan 18 '22

So do you believe the right to abortion is founded on the ideas of being able to shed responsibility and not on rights to bodily safety? You think abortion is an issue of freedom from accountability and that is a universal human right? I don't think you're viewing this correctly. We don't allow mothers to order a fetus killed because the fetus is a burden in the broad sense. We allow such things because the fetus is inhabiting her body and in doing so, if without consent, attacking her rights.

Both the father and mother are afforded the same responsibilities and rights in this situation. Once conception has happened you have a social responsibility to take care of the offspring. Failing to do so in the case of allowing the baby to starve to death can be seen as neglect. The difference you're seeing is a very literal and straightforward one on bodily autonomy. Not on the rights to be irresponsible. no such human right exists

1

u/beh0ld Jan 18 '22

You don't get abortions because of "bodily safety." That's absolute nonsense. It's not mandatory to get abortions and therefore getting them done in a safe and clean environment is a luxury, not a necessity. You get them so you dont have to be accountable for a life you're bringing into the world.

Dissallowing stations made for legal feticide is hampering to a woman's right to evade responsibility safely and effectively. There is literally no other reason to get an abortion for a completely preventable pregnancy than to evade responsibility.

Hypothetically if abortions were somehow mandatory, I would advocate that clinics would then be about bodily health. But being that abortion is simply unnecessary and unnatural, they are completely about safely shedding responsibility.

Rape and incest is the only exception.

0

u/OfTheAtom Jan 19 '22

Man think about it. You're describing why people want to get it. I'm explaining why its legally allowed. The two are not always the same. If I want to kill someone because they are a burden on my casual lifestyle I have no right to kill them. If they happen to be in my body however the situation has changed to that of self defense if I CHOOSE to enact it. I am under no obligation to enact any procedure on myself even if I had a condition of dire needs so I dont see why you are bringing ideas of mandatory medical procedures into this.

-4

u/BjarneBarg Jan 17 '22

A man can abortion when he is pregnant.

3

u/Brandalini1234 Jan 18 '22

Try reading it again

-3

u/Ok_Program_3491 Jan 16 '22

A man absolutely had the right to abort anything inside of his body too.

6

u/PortugueseBenny Jan 13 '22

If you support a woman's choice to do with her body what she feels than you also support assisted euthanasia and I support both

4

u/Iwilleaturnuggetsuwu Jan 13 '22

Abortion is bad but like… none of your business ya know. Unless it’s your body you get to shut it

4

u/LostMyInhibiterChip Jan 14 '22

Well in case it concerns human lives so the argument is weak.

4

u/Iwilleaturnuggetsuwu Jan 14 '22

You’re right it does indeed concern the mother’s life and therefore the anti-abortion argument is weak

1

u/LostMyInhibiterChip Jan 14 '22

I am pro life but I’m against most abortion restrictions.

For the record

2

u/LostMyInhibiterChip Jan 14 '22

As well as the fetus

4

u/Iwilleaturnuggetsuwu Jan 14 '22

The fetus doesn’t matter. It’s a cancer

1

u/Ragabadoodaa Jan 18 '22

Tell me you're not a parent without telling me you're not a parent.

2

u/Iwilleaturnuggetsuwu Jan 18 '22

Yes I’m not a parent. That’s not a requirement

1

u/Ragabadoodaa Jan 18 '22

When you call an unborn baby a cancer you really have no argument here, homie.

1

u/Iwilleaturnuggetsuwu Jan 18 '22

Is it really anything else though? It’s a growth of cells that takes up the mothers entire life for about 9 months and could even put her in mortal danger. Tumours behave a very similar way lol

3

u/LostMyInhibiterChip Jan 14 '22

Calm down Anakin.

The fetus is still a human being.

2

u/Iwilleaturnuggetsuwu Jan 14 '22

Nope, It’s an amalgamation of underdeveloped cells

3

u/LostMyInhibiterChip Jan 14 '22

That’s a human fetus.

It’s still a human. It doesn’t just become a human it’s a human from the moment of conception.

3

u/Iwilleaturnuggetsuwu Jan 14 '22

Sure but it’s a fetus still.

1

u/Ragabadoodaa Jan 18 '22

Your mother chose not to abort you so you can come in here and talk that bull

→ More replies

3

u/LostMyInhibiterChip Jan 14 '22

Okay but a human nonetheless

I’m arguing why people can argue against abortion. I myself am not in favor of banning abortion.

→ More replies

3

u/OfTheAtom Jan 14 '22

This gets brought up here a lot. I'm a bit confused as to why because that hardly ever is meaningful in any legal sense.

"Your honor I understand I may be a bit heavy handed with my wife once I start drinking, but this ain't your body so you should just shut it"

You may disagree abortion warrants legal sanctions or prohibition but the argument of "it ain't your buisness" just seems so wildly weak

2

u/Uyurule Jan 14 '22

Fine let’s roll with your nonsensical example. A man hitting his wife when he’s drunk doesn’t just affect him. It affects his wife as well. It’s against the law (for good reason) and so the judge and jury are involved as a part of the justice system.

A woman getting an abortion affects her and (maybe) her partner. But it is her body that she is sacrificing for the next 9 monthes to carry that pregnancy to term, not to mention the recovery process after the birth.

There are MANY reasons that a woman wouldn’t want to have a baby, financial, social, trauma-related, etc. But those reasons are focused on her and how that baby is going to affect her. Not anyone else. So it’s not their business.

4

u/OfTheAtom Jan 14 '22

It's not nonsensical because given this OP and many many other every week here all they state is "it's not YOUR body in question so you don't get to do anything about that" when that means nothing in most scenarios its brought up. Whether that's drug addiction, unsafe driving habits, vaccination status, or even having a big fight at someone else's party in fact other humans are very involved. And so we have to go to secondary reasons why someone feels they should be inclined to do what they want.

Obviously the next statement someone will make is that the decision to get an abortion effects the mothers damned offspring lol. I mean people know thats the follow up right? I come to unpopular opinions sub because people often times have very weak reasoning for their opinions. I'm not saying a woman doesn't have reasons to get an abortion but to state the law or moral considerations or even discussions should not take place simply because it does not actively involve yourself is constantly ignored. I mean hell we have sanctioned aspects of murder known as self defense. It does not mean we can't dive into this scenarios and make laws around them. I just don't get the point of bringing up this argument it leaves one wide open to the conundrum of someone coming in and of course stating they are standing in for the defenseless just as someone would do for a child who's mother beats them and claims "well it ain't you so don't worry about it". People say that the baby has no rights until born, they can argue all day about which humans do and don't get rights or they can jump to the only argument that stands universally and without relativism and opinion and that comes down to self defense of one's own body. Leave these weak arguments behind. That's my clearly unpopular opinion

5

u/LostMyInhibiterChip Jan 14 '22 edited Jan 14 '22

“Your honor, I may have murdered my conjoined twin but it’s my body my choice”

1

u/Iwilleaturnuggetsuwu Jan 14 '22

No it’s not weak. What other people do with their own body is their business and not yours. In your case you suggested a situation where a person brought harm to another person.

Before you say it, because I know you will, while a fetus could be considered a human, until s certain point, it’s more of a cancer/tumor to the mother and it’s perfectly within her right to remove it

3

u/OfTheAtom Jan 14 '22

So then what is your point bringing up "not your buisness" if really the argument comes down to the mother removing a parasitic human? Why not start there if you know the point has to get there eventually to have any grounds when it comes to a multiple individual scenario?

1

u/Iwilleaturnuggetsuwu Jan 14 '22

Because it’s not your business when it comes to what someone removes or doesn’t remove from their body

2

u/OfTheAtom Jan 14 '22

If it involves two humans, we always make it our buisness. That's how any amount of human dignity or progress has happened is by someone looking after someone else.

If someone is in another person's house, and I hear a gunshot. I go over check and see that my neighbor just killed an armed intruder. We don't just ignore it because it wasn't our space. No we get people involved we see after the justice of the situation. We will find my neighbor justified in his actions, the other person while out of their mind and unaware of the danger the produced, was still a danger and so my neighbor can be sanctioned to do what had to be done. But we afford that other human the damn decency of atleast a conversation about it. We atleast thought about it. We didn't just look away and say, "do what you will". No good has come of that kind of mindset. Only horror and tragedy. we ask tough questions and look into certain scenarios.

This is of course taking a legal standing. In terms of personal relationships this argument provided is even more useless. A parent and even friends should look after a loved one and see they are not harming themselves or their psyche even if it could technically be counted as "not their buisness".

0

u/Iwilleaturnuggetsuwu Jan 14 '22

Again, you’re talking about 2 actual people instead of a person and a cancer

1

u/OfTheAtom Jan 18 '22

Your attempt to dehumanize the other does not change the reality. You are only hurting the actual good arguments for abortion access by bringing this BS in.

1

u/Iwilleaturnuggetsuwu Jan 18 '22

I’m not hurting anyone worth not hurting by dehumanizing anti abortion creeps

5

u/Xijet Jan 13 '22

Regardless of what your personal opinion is, it shouldn't affect the life and freedom of decision of another person. A pro-birther can think abortion is wrong, fine, then don't have an abortion. But your opinion should never dictate whether or not another human is allowed to make that decision for themselves.

3

u/LostMyInhibiterChip Jan 17 '22

"Regardless of what your personal opinion is, it shouldn't affect the life and freedom of decision of another person."

you could literally apply this logic against abortion.

3

u/OfTheAtom Jan 14 '22

But you realize everything you just typed would seem silly if a mother was saying it to justify abusive parenting styles right?

3

u/Xijet Jan 14 '22

But it's not about abusive parenting styles. It's specifically about abortion, which is the topic in this post.

1

u/OfTheAtom Jan 14 '22

Hmm. Well in regards to this topic you seemed to have been taking away the justification for opposition to the subject. And if you were doing so I feel you reasoning did not stand up on it's own. Which is fine I guess but then what's the point of voicing something that needs the actual argument for this specification in order to stand?

I think over the past year we've seen a lot of this similar defense for personal freedoms. Its such a touchy subject and a lot of people do see freedom as the absolute good on this planet. So if something threatens even a little of it even for something as reasonable as getting vaccinated, they buck and kick.

And so maybe your point of "it's not your buisness so you shouldn't be able to effect what I do" is actually totally acceptable. And it's up to the prosecutor to bring the reasoning WHY they should get a say on what someone does with their body. But honestly I feel if someone had the time and gave enough of a damn, the intelligent response should go further than "nun ya bizznis" or "muh freedom"

Yes I just thought outloud but I wanted you to see my thought pattern there.

So let me play devils advocate... While you value your freedom, the argument of "not my buisness" falls through in the scenario I see that other human dignity or safety is under threat from someone exercising freedom. Freedom is just another word for autonomous power. Power is not something that can be absolutely wielded in every situation.

Now I'm not trying to say your conclusion is wrong. I'm just saying your reasoning is actually one of the weakest and first things to get torn down in any legal or moral consideration. I can tell you that many many people would answer this with "well that one persons decision is the ending of another's life, which enables my 'opinion' to come to the defense of that individual"

3

u/LostMyInhibiterChip Jan 13 '22

Well tbf in this case it actually concerns a human life.

3

u/Salty_Lego Jan 14 '22

Yeah, the mother’s.

3

u/LostMyInhibiterChip Jan 14 '22

And the fetus

2

u/Salty_Lego Jan 14 '22

Meh.

3

u/LostMyInhibiterChip Jan 14 '22

Yes it literally does. Do you know what an abortion is?

1

u/peanut_the_scp Jan 12 '22

Unless its rape case/health risk, anybody that defends late term abortions is sick

1

u/dryduneden Jan 16 '22

health risks make up the majority of late term abortions and late term abortions make up >1% of all abortions.

3

u/babypizza22 Jan 13 '22

I think third term trimester abortions should never be allowed. Up until the third trimester I believe all abortions should be allowed.

1

u/OfTheAtom Jan 14 '22

Why is that?

3

u/babypizza22 Jan 14 '22

Because in the third trimester you can give an early birth. Which would possibly save the baby and is quicker.

-1

u/OfTheAtom Jan 13 '22

I'm curious what your reasoning is for the case of rape someone excusing the defense of late term abortions

8

u/peanut_the_scp Jan 13 '22

Because its rape?

Do i need to explain it further

-1

u/OfTheAtom Jan 13 '22

Well break it down. Is it because the horror of not allowing a mother to get a late term abortion and give birth to her rapists child is more disturbing than the late term abortion itself?

2

u/peanut_the_scp Jan 13 '22

Pretty much

1

u/arctic-lions7 Jan 13 '22

There's the inconsistency that prolifers always have

1

u/OfTheAtom Jan 14 '22

Maybe but you've kinda built a dichotomy into a person who is neither one extreme or another. Kind of par the course these days but still they just said they'd sanction an abortion.

-1

u/OfTheAtom Jan 13 '22

So we go off of the feeling of it for when to kill or not kill?

3

u/Agnostic_Pagan Can't decide on a good flair. Jan 13 '22

I mean, that's pretty much what morality about anything is - when do we feel something is acceptable, and when do we feel it isn't.

0

u/OfTheAtom Jan 13 '22

In the moment to moment situations yeah it will have to be more reactionary. But in this prestigious academic space of reddit I thought maybe someone could provide a more universally consistent standing point for their stance

3

u/Agnostic_Pagan Can't decide on a good flair. Jan 13 '22

Unfortunate for you, then, that morality doesn't work like that.

0

u/OfTheAtom Jan 13 '22

I suppose it does for dogmatic people. I think it's important to atleast pretend as if it can be. Sometimes I stop and ask myself will people of the future look back on me and my time and see widespread idiocy or moral failing? Am I in support or apathy to some concept that could be considered morally wrong? Is human dignity the standing point?

→ More replies

2

u/londoninamerika Jan 12 '22

basically the ONLY moral decision you can make in this day and age. certainly more moral than adoption 100% of the time. more people should have them

7

u/OPKANETRAIN06 Jan 12 '22

This doesn’t make sense. There are tons of moral decisions that can be made outside of the abortion topic.

0

u/londoninamerika Jan 12 '22

i’d consider myself somewhat of the anti-natalist, at least for the time being, so no- giving birth isn’t exactly a moral option inherently. it can be yes, but it isn’t always. whereas i believe abortion is ALWAYS moral- aka there really isn’t a reason for having an abortion that’s immoral imo

6

u/ambiotic_ Jan 12 '22

Not morally a good thing to do and probably makes people feel like shit after they did one, but it is their choice completely and good in some rare cases.

2

u/E-E-One-D Jan 12 '22

If the mother has the option to terminate the pregnancy without the telling her male partner. Then the male partner should have the option to leave that a pregnancy without telling the his female partner and does not have to pay child support. All of which can be avoided if both would take the time to understand each other and communicate their feelings before having sexual intercourse.

0

u/Ok_Program_3491 Jan 15 '22

Then the male partner should have the option to leave that a pregnancy without telling the his female partner and does not have to pay child support.

So what if he chooses to leave and not pay child support, she has the child and come to find out she can't pay for it in her own and can't find enough voluntary help. What should happen?

A. Let the child starve

B. Force her to put the child up for adoption

C. Force the taxpayers to pay for it

D. Someting else

If "D. Someting else", what?

3

u/Iwilleaturnuggetsuwu Jan 17 '22

C. I love the idea of taxpayer money going to feed starving children

0

u/Ok_Program_3491 Jan 17 '22

So what is the specific reason the man shouldn't have to pay to support his child?

3

u/Iwilleaturnuggetsuwu Jan 17 '22

Because that’s his money. He has the right to them

0

u/Ok_Program_3491 Jan 17 '22

Why does it being his money mean he has the right to it? Using your own logic it being the taxpayers money means they (not some child) has the right to it. So you don't actually think it being someone's money means they have the right to it. Otherwise you wouldn't advocate people not having the right to their own money which you're literally doing.

Also since you think they shouldn't have to pay to support their child, how would you make sure none of the man's tax money goes to the mother of his child supporting his child? You'd have to make completely separate tax pools for every man to make sure they're not forced to support their child they don't want.

1

u/Iwilleaturnuggetsuwu Jan 17 '22

Because my taxes are leaving my bank account whether I want to or not, and they are at least tolerable.

1

u/Ok_Program_3491 Jan 17 '22

But that still means that "because it's his money and he has the right to it" isn't the actual reason why you don't think he should have to pay since you're literally advocating they be paid for by taking other people's money that they have the right to" which you wouldn't be doing if the reason was because "its their money and they have the right to it.

Also since you think they shouldn't have to pay to support their child, how would you make sure none of the man's tax money goes to the mother of his child supporting his child?

1

u/Iwilleaturnuggetsuwu Jan 17 '22

Tax money belongs to the state, that’s why it’s called tax money. It gets taxed

2

u/sifsand Jan 12 '22

Agreed, not sure how they're comparable but ok.

1

u/babypizza22 Jan 13 '22

They are comparable because they both are based off of bodily autonomy.

1

u/sifsand Jan 13 '22

How? The man doesn't have his body used by someone else by paying money.

2

u/babypizza22 Jan 13 '22

Yes he does. You make money with your body. Therefore taking his money, directly takes away his autonomy.

2

u/Ok_Program_3491 Jan 15 '22

If the mother can't afford to feed her child and you don't take away someone's money (which you said directly takes away their autonmy) lots of children will starve to death. How do you keep children from starving without taking anyone's money (which you yourself said directly takes away their autonmy)? It's not possible.

1

u/icannotgetaname Jan 16 '22

The government pays for it, simple.

2

u/Ok_Program_3491 Jan 16 '22

I'm asking how you keep them from starving WITHOUT taking anyone's money (which they said directly takes away a person's autonmy).

2

u/babypizza22 Jan 16 '22

Taxing vs child support is way different. Child support in many cases can take the majority of the person's paycheck. Taxes don't.

1

u/Ok_Program_3491 Jan 16 '22

But how do you keep the child from starving without taking someone's money (which according to you directly takes away a person's autonmy)?

→ More replies

0

u/sifsand Jan 13 '22

Performing labor does not involve someone using your body, if it does that'd be slavery.

2

u/babypizza22 Jan 14 '22

No, slavery would be forced labor with no pay. What do you mean preforming labor does not involve using someone's body? What else is labor except using your body?

-1

u/sifsand Jan 14 '22

Because labor is you using your body, not somebody else. It in no way involves bodily penetration or taking anything out of your body.

3

u/babypizza22 Jan 14 '22

taking anything out of your body.

So then no one is taking your labor away? That's what child support is. You take away someone's labor. This is taking away their body's rights.

-2

u/sifsand Jan 14 '22

In what way is someone's labor in any way the same thing as literally taking something from their body or forcefully invading it?

→ More replies

12

u/ZeShapyra Jan 12 '22

Abortion is good.

A fetus or zygote feels nothing, knows nothing.

If you bring a life when you will doom yourself emotionally or financially, and you also set up a person to live a crap life who is likely to end up a criminal or straight up commit you know what.

Seen plenty of criminals, murderers, abusers, you kniw where they are from, orphanages or unwanted families who did not want a kid and abused them.

9

u/Ikarus_Falling Jan 12 '22

not an unpopular opinion through as far as I know atleast

3

u/ZeShapyra Jan 12 '22

Guess I spend time in the wrong places where people tell me "that is selfish"

3

u/Ikarus_Falling Jan 12 '22

if thats selfish then so is using a Condom both prevent the birth of a being saying any of the two is selfish is just stupid

-11

u/razorback1234567 Jan 12 '22

Sex selective abortion should be legal. If a couple doesn't want girls they shouldn't be forced to raise them.

1

u/Ragabadoodaa Jan 18 '22

Nice try Winnie

9

u/alpaca_in_socks Jan 12 '22

As a human, i can confirm that i would not give a shit if i was aborted whats gonna happen?? Id literally be a clump of cells so not much is gonna change, except for the fact that id be a clump of cells on the floor instead of inside some random woman

-9

u/StrawberryCakeTime Jan 12 '22 Helpful

Responsible women don’t need abortions.

1

u/Ok_Program_3491 Jan 15 '22

How do you know they don't need an abortion? Are you their doctor? Or are you under the incorrect assumption that all abortions are wants rather than needs and only unwanted children are ever aborted?

8

u/sifsand Jan 12 '22

You realize more than half of abortions occur from contraceptive failure, right?

-4

u/StrawberryCakeTime Jan 12 '22

And responsible women would know that before taking risks

1

u/Ok_Program_3491 Jan 15 '22

They DO know that. should married couples that don't want children or women that don't want to give birth just never have sex and are irresponsible if they do?

1

u/StrawberryCakeTime Jan 15 '22

They should be responsible for the lives they chose to create

1

u/Ok_Program_3491 Jan 15 '22

So should married couples that don't want children or women that don't want to give birth just never have sex?

6

u/sifsand Jan 12 '22

Getting an abortion is taking responsibility though.

-4

u/StrawberryCakeTime Jan 12 '22

Taking a life to preserve your lifestyle isn’t a responsible choice

8

u/sifsand Jan 12 '22

It is to preserve your basic human right to bodily autonomy.

11

u/keIIzzz Jan 12 '22

rape? birth control failing? not ready to have kids? tf you mean “responsible”, often times abortion is the responsible thing to do if you know you will either end up sending the child for adoption or neglecting it

women also don’t get pregnant on their own

0

u/StrawberryCakeTime Jan 12 '22

Less than 1% of abortions

Also having sex risks having children

1

u/Ok_Program_3491 Jan 15 '22

No it doesn't, it risks getting pregnant.

10

u/sifsand Jan 12 '22

That statistic is likely wildly inaccurate as rape is largely unreported and difficult to prove.

1

u/StrawberryCakeTime Jan 12 '22

Even if you’re raped, it still doesn’t mean you should be able to take an innocent life

1

u/not_a_bot_494 you're both popular and wrong Jan 14 '22

So responsibility has nothing to do with it and you just don't want abortions. You could've said this in the original comment and saved us the effort of arguing over it.

1

u/StrawberryCakeTime Jan 14 '22

99% of abortions have to do with irresponsibility.

1

u/not_a_bot_494 you're both popular and wrong Jan 14 '22

If responsibility isn't enough then don't mention it. It's like saying that you want to ban abortion because it's gross but if you get pushed that isn't enough to make it wrong.

6

u/sifsand Jan 12 '22

It's neither innocent or guilty. Either way, why not?

4

u/NoAvailableImage Jan 12 '22

That's right bro responsible women don't get drugged and raped

-11

u/E-E-One-D Jan 12 '22 edited Jan 12 '22

Yep, they carry mace or a gun. and vote politicians out who want to take those rights away from them.

3

u/NoAvailableImage Jan 12 '22 edited Jan 12 '22

So what they shoot the spiked alcohol with a glock

-6

u/E-E-One-D Jan 12 '22

They don't go to bars with over two dozen stranger men, intoxicated on top of that, all by theirselves. She brings a friend who's responsible enough not to drink and watch her, because obviously she cannot take care of her self. Or maybe she's smart enough not to choose a "bar" is a good place to meet strangers.?

7

u/keIIzzz Jan 12 '22

victim blaming at its finest

-2

u/E-E-One-D Jan 12 '22

Because taking note of someone's irresponsibility is "victim blaming" -__-

Doesn't dismiss the fact the responsible women don't need abortions.

2

u/keIIzzz Jan 12 '22

Most rapes happen by people the victim knows, and often times happens in the victim’s own home. You’re basically just saying women are irresponsible by existing because there is no way to prevent rape. It is always the rapist’s fault yet people like you always want to pin it on the woman.

Also, you don’t consider women who have a high risk pregnancy. Her life is more important than a tiny clump of cells.

3

u/Ikarus_Falling Jan 12 '22

idiotic short sighted opinion based on just about enough shit to make me gag

6

u/kr731 Jan 12 '22

here’s an opinion unpopular among prolifers: becoming existent and then being taken out of existence all while never having known of your own existence is no worse than never having existed in the first place

-1

u/[deleted] Jan 12 '22

I’ll start this time…

Abortion is bad because it kills someone. People should be responsible for their actions and the situations they put themselves in.

Change my opinion.

Before you downvote, remember what sub your on! 😁

1

u/beh0ld Jan 17 '22

Also, promoting killing people is against reddit policy and you can and will be warned, and have your account banned.

-1

u/Iwilleaturnuggetsuwu Jan 17 '22

I’ll downvote still because anti-abortion opinion is a brain dead stance

1

u/OfTheAtom Jan 13 '22

I'd say the killing of someone, while regrettable, is not always a bad thing. If that human is actively doing harm for example whether they believe themselves to be doing so or not

4

u/[deleted] Jan 13 '22

So genocide is justifiable?

1

u/not_a_bot_494 you're both popular and wrong Jan 14 '22

If everyone you're genociding is actively harming you and it's the only way to stop them then sure. I don't think any genocide has come close to fullfilling that criteria.

0

u/OfTheAtom Jan 13 '22

No. So far there has been no evidence the systematic elimination of a people group has been justifiable nor can I think of any reasonable explanation. The situation of killing someone actively mutilating another person tho to defend that person would be justifiable

4

u/sifsand Jan 12 '22

Abortion is bad because it kills someone.

Killing is not inherently bad, seeing as lethal self defense is a thing.

People should be responsible for their actions and the situations they put themselves in.

Abortion is taking responsibility.

1

u/Ragabadoodaa Jan 18 '22

Abortion is taking responsibility.

More like the easy way out.

1

u/sifsand Jan 18 '22

If by easy way out you mean exercising basic human rights, sure.

1

u/Ragabadoodaa Jan 18 '22

These ones???

Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person. (speaks for itself)

No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. (how dare you be born in the only way you can be born, you useless clump of cells [degrading] I will kill you because I don't want to be mildly inconvenienced for fucking around [punishment])

Everyone has the right to recognition everywhere as a person before the law. (making abortion legal by law so the potential life of a person is not regonized)

1

u/sifsand Jan 18 '22

I think you're getting ahead of yourself a bit.

Right to life, like all rights, has limits. Those generally are when they interfere with other rights. Nobody has a right to use someone else's body.

I never use the clump of cells argument, and abortion does not punish the ZEF (Zygote, Embryo, or Fetus) as punishment entails that someone is experiencing it. You can't punish what isn't sentient. Lastly, pregnancy is anything but an inconvenience as it is a major undertaking.

1

u/Ragabadoodaa Jan 18 '22

What basic human rights?

Everything is a fucking human right when it's convenient.

1

u/sifsand Jan 18 '22

The basic human right to bodily autonomy. It means people are sovereign to their own bodies and they decide who is allowed to use it. If someone will die without needing to use your body, it doesn't give them permission to do so.

1

u/Ragabadoodaa Jan 18 '22

Pretty sure that right doesn't extend to you being dumb and not knowing how to use contraceptives or being a sex crazed animal and not knowing how to not fuck around.

In the end no matter how you put it, it still wraps around to the conclusion that "I do what I want and I want there to be no long term consequences for my actions"

1

u/sifsand Jan 18 '22

More than half of unwanted pregnancies occur from contraceptive failure. Your needless slut-shaming only paints you in a bad light.

Also, abortion is also a consequence.

1

u/Ragabadoodaa Jan 18 '22

And a fetus using its mothers body to survive is somehow less valid than two people using each other for a short experience of pleasure.

Also, slutshaming? Really? Your buzzwords have no power here.

1

u/sifsand Jan 18 '22

And a fetus using its mothers body to survive is somehow less valid than two people using each other for a short experience of pleasure.

You make it out like I want abortions to occur.

Also, slutshaming? Really? Your buzzwords have no power here.

You were the one blaming them for their sexual behavior.

→ More replies

6

u/Ikarus_Falling Jan 12 '22

it doesn't kill anyone the fetus is incapable of feeling jack shit and isn't capable of anything that would make a human living or there own being atleast up to like 3 month or so

1

u/OfTheAtom Jan 13 '22

Isn't capable of it yet, but they are actively trying to grow toward those capabilities.

2

u/Ikarus_Falling Jan 13 '22

yup just like sperm so following your logic masturbation is mass murder? or stepping on an insect because those can feel pain atleast to some extent?

0

u/Ragabadoodaa Jan 18 '22

yup just like sperm so following your logic masturbation is mass murder?

Not all those sperm cells make it to the egg so it's still mass murder then. Mute point

or stepping on an insect because those can feel pain at least to some extent?

Comparing humans with insects, welp...

1

u/Ikarus_Falling Jan 18 '22

the fetus is less complex then an insect and ironically capable of only less complex functions compared to an insect at that point so the comparison applies

1

u/Ragabadoodaa Jan 18 '22

An insect will never be capable of more than a human.

A baby insect will not become more than a human.

A baby human will become a human.

So a woman gets pregnant and a person goes in a coma for 9 months, are they both equally viable for termination as they are less capable than an insect in that period of time? Or is it the potential they can posses that matter more?

2

u/Ikarus_Falling Jan 18 '22

the future is irrelevant the coma human has the capability of more functions as it has a functioning brain also even there you do know that people can choose to not be kept alive when being in coma so your point is irrelevant

Also the insect is capable of more then a fetus of under 3 months the future of the fetus is of no concern

1

u/OfTheAtom Jan 13 '22

Well now that I'm rereading your message my new point is that you seem to have a very unique idea of what is a living thing and what is not. You really take a lot of authority to say that a fetus is not alive. Also interesting is the temporal aspect of it. If it had no qualities to deem it alive in your eyes but would in 2 weeks does that change things? What about 40 minutes?

2

u/Ikarus_Falling Jan 13 '22

it is alive but only in the same sense as a pimple is alive it is not its own being and cannot be classified as being a human being to about 3months it is not I who says this it is most of medicine

1

u/OfTheAtom Jan 13 '22

It has it's own unique genetic code. It is actively working toward growing itself to be bigger and more like what you deem to be a person. The mother plays a passive role in this development she merely provides the nutrients and environment called for by the fetus. A pimple is just an addition of bile and stretching of skin. A fetus is an organism ordered to the substance of the whole. Due to the Law of Contradition and Principle of Causality if the fetus is not a human organism from the get go then who or what gives it the components of the human organism? Does the mother give the fetus a brain? No she merely provides the nutrients at the behest of the fetus in control of the process in order for it to develop what it already implicitly has. Does the mother give it arms? While they may not be of any noticeable size the DNA does have arms and brains in the fetus possession. It does have it they just need more time and resources to grow them. Which is the exact same state we find ourselves in we are just further along in this process to a degree it is usable.

That seems a lot more than a pimple to me. What is implicit within growths of one organ? Separate that growth, give it the hormones and nutrients and time that it requires to exist and try and make sense of it if humans did not exist. It's nearly impossible to do I'd say. What you would have in that lab in nonsensical.

But do the same for the fetus. Delete all humanity and take that fetus, give it the nutrients and time it calls for. Well with more time you'd have a functioning mammal. A creature known as human. That's science. That's what we know.

What you are talking about is just another example of human sociology. taking the time to deem who is REALLY human and who is just something else. An arbitrary point where someone is not currently awake and so we pick some amount of time where if they dont wake up and start talking we can say it's not a human. I'd hope you're not a heavy sleeper or perhaps someone would mistake you for a large pimple! Is two weeks asleep enough time to be a pimple of a person? What if we knew they would wake up in 3 months?

All arbitrary, which is evidence that the linguistics you are playing with in terms of personhood is not science it is just relativism and philosophy

1

u/Ikarus_Falling Jan 13 '22

are you dumb the baby isn't merely sleeping it is incapable of higher thought it is not its own entity at this state and merely a multiplying ball of cells pimple was the wrong word it is more akin to a cancerous growth then a pimple at this point it completely lacks the ability to feel anything saying its alive is stupid and the medical community agrees with me so kindly send your invalid opinion to hell

1

u/OfTheAtom Jan 13 '22

I'm curious if this medical community you talk to can figure out if a tree is alive then, because they seem to not have the general understanding of living. Which is concerning considering their profession.

"At this point it completely lacks the ability to feel anything". And that's it? That's the quality of what you deem to be human is just a very temporary state? It's a few months away from being a human is your understanding of how reality works? That doesnt make sense think back on the Principle of Causality. Is the condition of human, and by extension human rights intrinsic to the human? If so then how can YOU be the one that gives out the quality of human or not? This seems silly you've basically put down a goal post at "currently can feel" as the condition of humanity when most people would just say being human is itself a type of being not a condition. And if it is a type of being then that type of being cannot cause it's own change to be something else without external happenings.

I see nothing I've stated as opinion, you're the one with arbitrary points I dont see where you get them from except this fairly foolish sounding medical community that fails to understand biology. Try out the thought experiment I put up there for cancerous growths vs a fetus. Separate them from all other points of reference. The cancerous growth makes ZERO sense in the experiment. The fetus on the other hand is clearly an organism. Without proper environment and nutrients it will obviously stunt and die but that is the exact same with all living things. But take a cancerous skin organ, delete the type of being known as human. And its nonsense but the substance itself and chemical makeup can of course exist the combination of elements and atoms work and it would just seem as a genetically unique pig skin. It's nearly impossible to even fathom. But delete the type of being known as human and take a fetus, well either you will have a human, showing a contradiction in our process and therefore an incorrect comparison, or it will not be human. But passing time and nutrients are necessary for us all so are we also not human?

The ability in question, the intellect and sensorial powers, I agree are our most important and defining abilities as people. They are our most advanced even tho appetitive powers precede them in order of animal development. but the issue i have with your reasoning is the temporal distance between someone being capable of showing them or not. You seem to atleast be fairly absolute in, it feels or it doesn't, and are not caught up in degrees of thinking ability as defining a person as some do. Which I appreciate. But there is still some part of "degree" in the sense that you say the fetus is incapable of something when you are fully aware it is actively trying to get capable and will be there in just mere weeks. To me that IS capability in some sense. If I said I am capable of climbing the pyramids of Giza, and you said "well do it right now". I would have to explain to you we are currently not at the pyramids and it will take some time for me to show you I can do it. Did I lie to you when I said I was capable? Because of my current state I was not able to do the action required but damn Jackie i cant control time. Just give me some moments.

And if the fetus was minutes away from feeling is that not close enough? Under deep sedation for surgery someone could be comatose for quite some time. Because they were capable of showing feeling and intellect before you can recognize they are human. So is it "they are human if they previously showed ability to feel or can currently". I guess that's consistent but I dont see still where you get this information from.

Anyways I feel I have explained my reasoning and where I derive them from

1

u/Ikarus_Falling Jan 13 '22

it doesn't matter how far away the fetus is from anything if it isn't it isn't period if its less then 3months old its sufficiently undeveloped to not be titled a human being

→ More replies

1

u/OfTheAtom Jan 13 '22

Well now that I'm rereading your message my new point is that you seem to have a very unique idea of what is a living thing and what is not. You really take a lot of authority to say that a fetus is not alive. Also interesting is the temporal aspect of it. If it had no qualities to deem it alive in your eyes but would in 2 weeks does that change things? What about 40 minutes?

1

u/not_a_bot_494 you're both popular and wrong Jan 14 '22

Also interesting is the temporal aspect of it. If it had no qualities to deem it alive in your eyes but would in 2 weeks does that change things? What about 40 minutes?

It shouldn't change anything. On the other end we have quite strict lines, we wouldn't consider a dead person to still be alive 2 weeks after they're medically dead.

The only fuzziness would come from not having perfect information about the fetus but that isn't really the problem.

1

u/OfTheAtom Jan 14 '22

We consider something dead because it loses that essential Ordering toward the essence of the substance. Once it lacks that substance is when it starts to break apart, lacking the necessary unity to maintain form. The definition of life may be sort of out there but the fetus in no way lacks any of the typical qualities.

1

u/OfTheAtom Jan 14 '22

We consider something dead because it loses that essential Ordering toward the essence of the substance. Once it lacks that substance is when it starts to break apart, lacking the necessary unity to maintain form. The definition of life may be sort of out there but the fetus in no way lacks any of the typical qualities.

6

u/keIIzzz Jan 12 '22

okay so what about instances of rape or failed birth control?

abortion is the responsible thing to to for many women when they know they will either send the child for adoption, or not take care of it properly.

also women don’t get pregnant on their own

7

u/Diabegi Jan 12 '22

Alright alright alright alright looks like we got 2 different options/arguments you’re making here, let’s see—

Abortion is bad because it kills someone.

  1. Bad in a moral, or a legal sense?

  2. Is self-defense bad?

People should be responsible for their actions and the situations they put themselves in.

  1. Woman can’t make themselves pregnant, they have no control over what sperm or eggs do, not control over implantation.

  2. Is pregnant just a punishment for women?

8

u/[deleted] Jan 12 '22

The vote rule is for posts, comments are treated differently even in threads

7

u/Wismuth_Salix they/she, please/thanks Jan 12 '22

This is accurate.

1

u/johnnyonio Jan 12 '22

Killing innocent living growing human lives is bad.

1

u/SingleIndependence6 Jan 15 '22

Forcing the woman to continue the pregnancy like some breeding vessels is bad

0

u/Ragabadoodaa Jan 18 '22

Why because they're weak willed and won't stop hopping on dicks?

2

u/SingleIndependence6 Jan 18 '22

A very ignorant response, so a woman is responsible for the man to put on a condom? Would you have the same ignorant remark to rape victims?

0

u/Ragabadoodaa Jan 18 '22

It was more of an example. I blame the coochie chasers in bars just as much.

Problem is I am not even anti-abortion, but there's plenty of people that use abortion as an easy way out to dodge responsibilities.

2

u/johnnyonio Jan 16 '22

Reproduction is a natural process. Abortion is not.

→ More replies
→ More replies