Picard Wtf

Nope!

Hands up, everyone who is both against people having access to abortion and capable of actually having one.

Yeah theres about 10 pro-choicer accounts... but only 2 people own them :P

Everybody sane is against killing babies.

You mean controlling women?

So telling women to pay taxes, not rob banks, not drive recklessly is likewise controlling women? Telling them not to murder their kids is pretty wise.

It's their bodies, and it's their choice, not some Christians yelling murder.

So women, with their bodies, can choose to put their hands around your throat and strangle you. Their body, their choice. Or do their choices end at the rights of another human being? Same thing with abortion. Their rights end at the murder of the other human life inside them.

End of discussion.

You are failing to understand an important distinction here by comparing the murder of an independent life to the termination of a fetus that is not yet capable of independence.
The person the fetus is inside is having their human rights ignored if they are forced to unwilling physical host.

As an additional point, making abortion illegal does not stop it from happening, it stops it from happening safely.

I'm failing nothing, clearly you are. You're failing to accept the scientific reality that life begins at conception and the preborn baby is human life with rights the same as anyone else of any age. once you accept that reality you accept the abortion is never justified...

And yes, people will kill their children even if it's illegal... but we should not make it legal just to make those few occurrences "safer"... Abortion is never safe for the innocent baby... So the reality is that outlawing abortion makes it factually safer as fewer will die.

That sounds contradictory, you are acknowledging that the fetus will die anyway, so how does people having access to safe abortion and being less likely to die equate to fewer deaths.

'Life begins at conception' are you serious?

Yes, if left unhindered, that clump of cells will become a person but they are not a person.

Talking about cells like they have hopes and dreams doesn't make it true.

I never said the "fetus will die anyway" or implied such. You need reading comprehension skills.

Once you dehumanize the baby, like Nazis did to Jews, it makes it easier to kill them... But still a baby. Still a human. Your science denying won't chance that reality.

Simple math simply explained for the pro-abortion simpleton:

With legal abortion, at least 1/2 of the patients die. Some of the "mothers", all of the children (and sometimes more than one child at a time)... Currently well over 1,000,000 per year die from abortion/murder.

With illegal abortion, fewer "mothers" will elect this procedure. And since the overwhelming majority of abortions are simple for convenience, women will be more careful with the reproduction and not get pregnant in the first place. So few abortions period. So for those fewer abortions, SOME of the mothers might sadly perish for taking such a foolish and risk action (their "choice")... but then clearly less babies will be killed as well.

So there is no disputing that with illegal abortions, fewer humans will die. Common sense.

"Women will be more careful with reproduction and not get pregnant in the first place."

Your entire focus here is on how responsible women are, you haven't mentioned the equal role of men once.

If you are going to demonise women for having unwanted pregnancies then you should also make it clear that you are demonising men.
Unless you are not and I am in fact right.

I've demonized no one, man or woman. Both participants are equally responsible for the pregnancy... and likewise should both have a say in the termination (which such a practice is legal)... You agree with that of course.

"Women will be more careful with reproduction"

Wow, way to absolve men of any reproductive responsibility!

Ah, you love misreading don't you?

"Wow, way to absolve men of any reproductive responsibility!"

wow... way to claim women are incompetent and helpless... (you're a twit)

Saying women will be more careful take no responsibility away from the man at all. You imagined that completely...

You show you cannot win the argument on facts since you so clearly just twist what the other person says to feign outrage. Pathetic.

Hah! Godwin's law; that didn't take long.

a real, factual example of what your tactic is... Dismissing the truth behind some internet label doesn't change the evil of your view.

You cannot win this argument, so stop trying. Science and facts are not on your side on this. And I've been defending life since before you mother chose not to murder you in the womb.

I agree, they shouldn't 'murder their kids', they should however be able to terminate a pregnancy.

Exact same thing, since, ya know, Abortion is the murder of a child.

If you think it’s ok to kill innocent children then you NEED to be controlled

If sperm aren't children then neither are zygotes.

And sanity is hard for you to come by

It's not just controlling women. It's also criminalizing doctors. They irony is this may increase the infant fatality rate as there will be less obstetricians. They'll be too busy trying to avoid the federal red tape that will be added to birthing laws to "protect" the unborn but may criminalize them if the birth, for any reason, fails to produce a living baby.

Completely ignorant and false argument. It's not criminalizing doctors except if they deliberately murder a child. Simple enough.

No, simple would be not having laws against abortion to protect the unborn. Not all unborn make it to full term and are delivered. Laws that protect these unborn that never had a chance and needlessly punish mothers and doctors are more dangerous than abortion. And people like you who think that these laws will only be used benevolently are woefully ignorant of how our justice system actually works.

Since I'm pro-life, I'm obviously not "ignorant"... that falls to the pro-aborts. Law protecting all human life are never wrong. Preborn children are still human life from the moment of conception. If a child dies in the womb, procedures exist to remove the remains -- that's not relevant to this discussion. Punishing the child with murder is far worse than imaginary punishment of the so-called mother.

So-called mother? Good luck populating the planet without them!

Ahh, the ignorant "immigrant"/"illegal immigrant" tactic...

We're talking so-called "mothers" who would kill their children. You're never going to populate anything with them.

Real mothers bear their young... They aren't being discussed here, you twisted sister.

I would be careful about who determines what is and isn't a real mother. Not every conception leads to fertilization. So when we start arresting women for not being 100% optimally fertile...

I really can't say what will happen on the doctor's side of things. From what I understand, most doctors have a basic understanding in delivering babies. That doesn't mean they're guaranteed to survive the process. So, I suppose it's not just specialists but perhaps the whole medical field will start shrinking when our government starts mandating how medical procedures, that they don't understand, are suppose to be handled. Perhaps we'll go back to clergy delivering babies. Then, they can say it was divine intervention when a baby dies before or during birth.

Again, the way the law works doesn't just punish women for not wanting to be pregnant. It's just another excuse for the government to arrest people to fill the prison industrial complex.

Stand by the reality of my statement... Again you're bringing up unrelated examples. A woman who would kill her baby is NOT a mother. Period. That's all that was said. Quit twisting it.

No, you're ignoring that the laws created to "protect" the unborn punishes more than just women for their unwanted pregnancies. It punishes anyone that the government conveniently finds incompetent or incapable of producing a successful birth.

There are plenty of your kind over in politicsTOO

yeah, but I want to see the bs the people in politics because they are usually less reasonable

No. There are plenty other idiots like you on imgflip.

No, not at all.

Hell, even Obama had the sense to ask if people could at least agree on trying to work together to minimize and prevent them :-/

Who said that you were a moderate?

Lefties call me fascist, righties call me commie. I've voted both, prefer Libertarian, and join no party. You do the math.

So, both major camps of thought have noticed you get extreme in some way?

Perspective. I call conservatives on their hypocrisy on gays or prayer in schools, I call lefties on their hypocrisy on burdening future generations in debt or the Bill of Rights. You as an act of desperation call that kind of internal consistency "extreme," I call it normal.

And I remind you you're just pissed because it was your "side" I called on its hypocrisy most recently. You lamely fabricate - without any plausibility - that that proves I must be an extremist.

Shut down.

Well, hang on, so who gets to call you on your lack of critical reasoning skills in your support of QAnon? Ain't no moderates saying that RBG was doctored on Supreme Court recordings.

Fallacy of the planted axiom in claiming they lack.

The inquiry into other things is specifically because they're not lacking.

But your original objection was that I dared to call the Dems' radical shift from decades of effective armistice between two polarize opinions - i.e. the move to open infanticide - even up to the age of two years after birth!!! - a non-moderate position.

But your ox was gored, so that can't possibly be a moderate objection.

The problem is, even when you explain to people that they've been shut down, they resist getting it.

If you have to have a simple concept like that explained to you, I consider this one done.

See, no, you're talking nonsense again.

Read the thread again. My original claim was that you are not a moderate - and you're not. It's easy to sit outside of politics saying everything you hear is wrong - ANYONE can do that - but it's the things you DO believe in and the things you DO agree with, indiscriminately and unquestioningly, that disqualifies you from moderate status.

The nonsense is yours.

The moderate claim was specifically in regard to the abortion issue. YOU can ignore it till the cows come home to distract off that point, but it stands unchallenged.

I've already proved my centrism. Dozens of people who know me know it too. If you willfully choose to ignore it for argumentative reasons, not my problem.