Two Bodies

No it doesn't, neither does it have the ability to make decisions or survive outside of the person it's growing in.

The idea that people should be forced to be unwilling hosts and for their bodies to experience irreversible, potentially dangerous changes is as abhorrent to people that care about human rights as abortion is to you.

The fetus does not get priority, if cisgender men got pregnant, I doubt this argument would even happen.
The person who already has an established life does, there are a myriad of reasons why they might have ended up pregnant, contraception doesn't always work.

There are a myriad of reasons why they might need to end the pregnancy, judging and shaming helps nobody.

It's easy to argue against abortion if you are never going to be in the position of having to make the choice.

Abortion, abstinence, pulling out, watching the cycle of the month, are all effective methods of killing Gods greatest gift of life. Don't be a hypocrite just because you've learned the magic word that lets you sleep at night, "conception".

lmao!

>:)

More free advice!

This is fun

They are not safe...If you don't believe that there is a baby who is getting killed, then surely you have to believe how much pain (and often) injury she goes thru.

https://i.imgflip.com/3s6g6o.gif

It is!

It is fun watching you embarrass yourself on every Meme you comment on.

Yup. That's how babies happen folks, you open your legs and if you have a womb they fly in and continue growing there, whether you like it or not.

Pregnancy is caused by the position of your legs!

Please remain aware of the position of your legs at all times.

Practice safe leg positioning!

Act responsibly.

Hah! I'm good for sex and sarcasm, thanks.
'Many failings'? That's hilarious.

You need to work on your horoscopes...

There are women are against abortion too. You have other valid points, but your referring to cis-gendered men in your arguement lost you a fair amount of credibility.

I know there are women against abortion, the argument is relevant to them because they can be in the position of having to decide whether or not to continue with a pregnancy.

Cis-gendered men don't experience pregnancy, it's a relevant point.

So you are saying that leave women's problems to women, and should be decided by women?
Did you know that in 1973, when Roe V Wade was decided, the entire supreme court was male? Not one single female was on the supreme court. That means, that Roe V Wade should be immediately overturned because it was not decided by women.

Your logic has many consequences.

No, I didn't say that. I said it's easy to argue against something that you'll never be in the position to need.

You are using Roe V Wade, an example of women being underrepresented, to argue against me pointing out that cis-male voices are drowning out the voices of people with wombs in abortion arguments?

You are making assumptions, drawing conclusions from them and then claiming that you used my logic.

No, I am not. You explained that since the normal man cannot give birth (there are uterus transplants btw), then they should stay out of a women's issue, AND SHOULD NOT DECIDE FOR A WOMAN.

Roe V Wade should be overturned because women did not decide it!

And yes, I did use your logic.

"The fetus does not get priority, if cisgender men got pregnant, I doubt this argument would even happen.
The person who already has an established life does, there are a myriad of reasons why they might have ended up pregnant, contraception doesn't always work."

That statement explains that women should be the voices and not men.

By the way, if you are such an ardent feminist, then why don't you support unborn feminists? It seems like you are a fake feminist.

"Normal"? Care to explain?

You do know that feminism means men and women having equal rights, right?

How can a fetus understand the concept of feminism, that seems like a pretty ridiculous thing to suggest.

You just aren't listening, I'm honestly not sure how much point there is in explaining again.

Men fighting for equality - 👍
Men fighting for women to have autonomy over their bodies-👍
Men seeking consent - 👍
Men fighting for women to be fairly represented - 👍
Men fighting for all women to be accepted regardless of race, sexuality, etc - 👍

Men fighting against these things - 👎

Does that clear things up?

"Men fighting for women to have autonomy over their bodies" 566gcu.jpg [image not found]

You know what a normal man is!!

Feminism is (in the simplest terms) vouching for women's rights, or just advocating for women.

All men and women should be fighting for these things!! Are you perverted, or something?!
My issue is that you keep saying "Men fighting for women to have autonomy over their bodies-👍," I believe this is right, women should. So, why not all women? You are a fake feminist is you believe that only born women should have humans rights.

By 'normal man' do you mean someone assigned male at birth?

Yeah, exactly, advocating for women's rights to achieve equality.
Of course all men and women should be fighting for these things!

Am I perverted? My sexual inclinations are neither relevant or your business, what an odd thing to ask.

So you're saying a true feminist can't be pro-choice?

Yes.

Feminists should be fighting for each other. Abortion kills many women and men.

If you are fighting for the rights of the fetus, you are ignoring the rights of the pregnant person.

You are a fake feminist.

What rights (of the pregnant person)?

"if cisgender men got pregnant, I doubt this argument would even happen."
My point is that this arguement would clearly still happen.
You're attempting to use identity politics to divert attention from the actual topic. You may not even realize it because it's become such a common practice overall. But identity politics annoy me because it basically says you're not allowed to have opinions on certain topics because you're the wrong gender, color, religion, etc. Its an attempt to silence discourse.

I'm not saying that you're not allowed to have an opinion, but it's a valid point that a cis-gender man would be having an opinion (and potentially changing laws) about something that will never affect his body.

It's not about silencing cis-men, it's about making sure that the people that can actually get pregnant have their voices heard and are not drowned out by those who can't.

BTW, I'm not a cis-man. I'm a cis-woman who has had two pregnancies and has two kids. So I never assumed you were trying to silence ME.

I didn't assume your gender.

"No it doesn't, neither does it have the ability to make decisions or survive outside of the person it's growing in."

Wow, look at that two illogical ramblings and factually incorrect statements combined.

Having the ability to make decisions to does not confer or revoke a being's right to life. Elderly are declared mentally incompetent, does that mean we can revoke their right to life? Obviously not. So how is this a rational thought?

A baby cannot survive outside the womb? Well at what stage? I would hope you have heard of premature birth? Somehow those children survive.

I could continue going through your poorly thought out post, but what would be the point?

So you are saying that human value is founded on how dependant a person is on another person. If you are a teenager, then you are dependant on your parents to provide you with everything. If you are dependant on insulin, pacemaker, and breathe machines, you are dependant on something else to live. Would you allow that person to be killed because they are entirely dependant on someone else?

Forced? What are you talking about? With sex, comes a baby! There is no force or mystery there!

The baby does have an established life. It has a heartbeat, a brain, a separate DNA, 10 toes, ten fingers, different sets of organs, etc. Did you know a baby even sneezes in the mother's womb?

There is no logical or truth based argument that would allow you to kill a baby, financial prosperity is definitely not one.

The saying "My body, my choice," I agree with. The mother should be able to make any choice she wants, as long as it does not violate the life or safety of the other life inside her.

Hint: You can cross off the liberal bloc, obviously they won’t be of any help to you

Where are all your charts and graphs, Links to your biased sites? I want one graph, Specifically from your favorite talking point on another topic... Japan. What is their abortion rate? When do the Japanese leaders say life begins? Can't find a graph, No problem, Show me a graph on the abortion rate from any other country. Tell me when any other country says life begins.

Tell me why every scientist on earth says a microbe found on another planet denotes life, But you liberals believe cells growing in a womb doesn't.

Here's my go-to graph on this topic showing what Americans actually think about this. Those who think abortion should be banned in all cases are in a small minority (21%). Not sure what Japan has to do with anything this time.

If the science is as strong as you say it is, then it should be easy to convince the 5 conservative Supreme Court justices to just overturn Roe v. Wade.

But they haven't yet, and in my opinion, they aren't going to. Why? Maybe this issue is not quite as simple as what constitutes "life."

Short answer: Because there's another life involved here, and that is the mother's.

I didn't ask for what Americans think about abortion,I specifically asked for a graph on Japan's abortion rate. You're attempting to move the goalpoasts to deflect. Typical from you when you refuse to answer any questions that don't fit your narrative.

You totally skipped over my question: Why every scientist on earth says a microbe found on another planet denotes life, But you liberals believe cells growing in a womb doesn't. You don't have talking points to prop up your failed argument.

No one cares about your opinion, The fact you think anyone does makes you a narcissist.

Science, and medical evidence agree life begins when a fertilized egg successfully implants in the uterus and develops into a healthy embryo. Now you'll deflect again & Move the goalpoasts again.

Funny, You say the science is indisputable when you babble about climate change, But science is debatable when it comes to life.

Short answer, Because there's another life involved here you're ignoring, The baby's

Life does not equate to a person.

The only person involved in an abortion decision is the person whose body the life is growing in because, and I cannot emphasise this enough, it is in their fricking body!

Yeah, they always ignore that. Conservatives are not big fans of women having bodily autonomy.

It's almost like they are deeply insecure and are trying to control women because they can't cope with the idea of equal relationships or something.

Life begins at conception.
Sincerely, Science.

So you're saying neither the sperm nor egg are alive?

Just wait until Trump gets another appointment

One foot, and a nap away!

Trump struck out twice: but third time could always be the charm!

Then you'd have one of nine

Struck out twice? Is that why Democrats lost their shit over Gorsuch and went full scorched Earth over Kavanaugh?

I don't think you know what "struck out" means.

Not every liberal is as sanguine as I am about Roe v. Wade never being overturned

Not everyone is a lawyer who reads Supreme Court opinions

Not sure how that common sense statement explains your previous statement which was devoid of common sense.

With Gorsuch and Kavanaugh, the GOP didn't "strike out" twice on other conservative causes, perhaps. But on this one? Yeah. Neither one is an anti-abortion SJW.

I see no indication we're any closer to Roe v. Wade being overturned than we were with Breyer and Kennedy on the bench.

Although Gorsuch and Kavanaugh would both support lesser abortion restrictions that fall short of that.

Well, just curious, but if abortion was limited to cases of rape or incest, would you consider that an overturning of Roe v Wade? I could both men supporting limiting abortion, but not outright banning it.

It would be an overturning of Roe v. Wade: because the right to privacy is a right everyone enjoys regardless of how they came to be pregnant.

The state cannot tell you what to do with your womb until approximately the third trimester. At that stage of pregnancy, states can impose abortion restrictions: some have, some haven't.

Okay so now we are getting somewhere by explaining what you mean by "overturning". Again, I can see both men limiting abortion to certain instances and expanding the period of protection to conception.

That's how you define "overturning"...which may not be how they will see it.

No, I don't see them doing that, because that would be overturning it.