Abortion is murder!

This picture says it all... 😢

Amen, it's MURDER!!!👍

By your logic, masturbation is murder.

All Lives Matter.
Especially the helpless unborn.

Abortion is murder, suicide is a sin...yet while you're here we don't give a shit if you have a place to live, food in your belly, an education, or healthcare, or anything else for that matter...and we will bitch whine moan and treat you like human waste if you don't produce and consume like the system mandates.

I'm Pro-Life because I learned that there were people who wanted my mom to abort me because of health complications. But here I am. I defeated all of them and happy to be a very healthy person. 😀

Right on. I made this a while ago
31lhld.jpg (click to show)

Right on. I made this a while ago
31lhld.jpg (click to show)

Is it still considered double homicide? I don’t remember if it is or not. I sure hope so.

And what if a lady gets shot while on her way to the abortion clinic? Does the murderer only get convicted of 1 homicide?

its still double

Supporting abortion should not be called "pro-choice" because they do not support the choice of the baby being brutally torn apart.

It should as the baby should not be considered the highest priority if it is not yet a baby, endangers the health or wealth of the woman, or otherwise is the product of incest or rape. I do not support legislation that promotes incarcerating women and doctors who obviously play a very vital role in the growth of society.

I think, mostly, the way things are now are the most ideal for those who believe Abortion necessary and those who consider it murder.

Crossing that line in either direction will destabilize our society.

With pro-choice, you’re free to believe it murder.

With pro-life, you’re only advocating incarceration not choice. Neither to the mother nor the baby; if there even is one.

actually a very low percentage of abortions are rape or incest

And a very low percentage of pregnant women go through with abortions

so, whats your point?

"I think, mostly, the way things are now are the most ideal for those who believe Abortion necessary and those who consider it murder.

Crossing that line in either direction will destabilize our society."

how will it destabilize society?

Obviously allowing abortion to continue without restrictions will destabilize society because those who find it appalling will certainly not allow it to continue unregulated.

But I believe you mean how can banning abortion destabilize society. In some cases, it is necessary to perform an abortion as the child has died pre-born, the mother needs to be on treatment that could otherwise harm or fatally affect the child, increased legislation will cause the already shrinking field of ob/gyn doctors to disintegrate further why may inadvertently cause an increase in infant mortality rates. More women may be incarcerated for miscarriages which may be an underline medical condition and not the result of foul play. Higher incarcerates among doctors and mothers could also lead to a decrease in overall population.

Eventually, though we may actually see a decrease in infant mortality rates and unplanned pregnancies in the long run; we will see an overall decrease in pregnancies as well.

As the Republicans have been rightfully saying for a long time now, politics and medical science do not make good bedfellows. Especially when a majority of politicians are not medical doctors.

but hey if they are born and need food stamps, ef em right?

I am British. I am not as educated on some American topics.

He is saying that the political party that advocates banning abortion also advocates the withdraw of social programs that prevent children from starving in this country.

IF YOU DON´T WANNA GET PREAGNANT JUST USE A F**KING CONDOM! IS NOT THAT EXPENSIVE!

Condoms have 2% chance to fail and that is only if they aren’t old or cheap, otherwise that chance to fail increases quite a bit. Gamble responsibly, future daddy-o.

Condoms are immoral, but they should still be legal.

their body their choice
legalize abortion

Baby's body, baby's choice.

End abortion.

-_- the baby doesnt have a brain
how can they make the choice

Even if you believe that, it does not mean the foetus has no value or no rights. There are many living beings without human brains that have both value and rights: dogs, for example. A living being doesn't have to have a human brain in order to have moral value and rights. And why is it moral for the mother to end her foetus's life under any circumstance, and at any time in her pregnancy? It is only moral if we believe that the human foetus has no worth. But in most cases, nearly everyone believes that the human foetus has essentially infinite worth, but only when a pregnant woman wants to give birth. Only if a pregnant woman does not want to give birth, do many people regard the foetus as worthless. That does not seem to make sense to me. Either a human foetus has worth or it does not. On what moral grounds does the mother alone decide a foetus's worth? So, why does one person get to determine whether that being has any right to live? Supporters of abortion claim that a woman has the right to "control her body." That is entirely correct, but the foetus is not "her body". It is in her body, but it is a separate body. Virtually everyone agrees that the moment the baby comes out of the womb, killing the baby is murder. But deliberately killing the foetus a few months before birth is rarely considered to be morally problematic at all. That makes no sense to me. And if we look at when human life begins, we look at various characteristics which distinguish humans from every other form of life, but one of the best ways of doing that is through DNA, and at the moment of conception, every piece of genetic code that makes you uniquely human and uniquely you is present. At the point of conception, a new human has formed. And most abortions done every year are not done because of serious medical consequences the mother faces, and they're not done because of rape. They are done essentially because someone doesn't want to have the child, and the problem I have with that is when two people willingly engage in a physical activity they know can create a child, both people should have some obligation to at least make sure that that child can be born, and if necessary be given up for adoption. But I cannot see any justification for the destruction of innocent human life merely because someone finds it inconvenient.

"So, why does one person get to determine whether that being has any right to live?"

Because it's growing in her body, she is the one both taking the risks and living with the physical and psychological consequences, many of which are irreversible.

"Supporters of abortion claim that a woman has the right to "control her body." That is entirely correct, but the foetus is not "her body". It is in her body, but it is a separate body."

Yes, but it is attached and reliant on nutrition from her.

"But deliberately killing the foetus a few months before birth is rarely considered to be morally problematic at all."

It is not a few months before unless there is a medical complication.
I made a meme explaining this.

"And most abortions done every year are not done because of serious medical consequences the mother faces, and they're not done because of rape. They are done essentially because someone doesn't want to have the child, and the problem I have with that is when two people willingly engage in a physical activity they know can create a child, both people should have some obligation to at least make sure that that child can be born, and if necessary be given up for adoption. But I cannot see any justification for the destruction of innocent human life merely because someone finds it inconvenient."

You don't actually know this, it is usual for rape not to be reported because it's such a gruelling process for the victim and so hard to secure a prosecution. It's highly likely that women wont say that that is the reason for the abortion.

There are a multitude of reasons that aren't just 'inconvenience', financial considerations are a big consideration. It's not as easy as just giving a child up for adoption.

You are ignoring the expense of pregnancy, the medical expenses, the physical and psychological repercussions, strain on the relationship etc

Every baby that enters the care system makes it harder for an older child to find a family.

People are going to have sex, we've been doing it forever. It isn't moral or immoral, it's nature.

Lots of people that get pregnant used contraception that failed.

Unwanted children shouldn't be brought into the world for the sake of it. Have you read stories about kids in the care system? Have you read appeals by kids pleading for families? It's not unusual for kids to be passed from carer to carer, never having a family or experiencing love, that kind of trauma is often lifelong.

"So it is better that the baby is brutally torn apart than be given the chance to live a life that might be considered unpleasant? You have very twisted logic."

No, that's not my logic. A fetus is not torn apart unless either it or the woman are going to die.

I have already said this several times.

"Because it's growing in her body, she is the one both taking the risks and living with the physical and psychological consequences, many of which are irreversible."

The consequences are far greater and more irreversible for the baby being brutally torn apart.

"Yes, but it is attached and reliant on nutrition from her."

So?

"There are a multitude of reasons that aren't just 'inconvenience', financial considerations are a big consideration. It's not as easy as just giving a child up for adoption."

And why should that be more important than the life of a human being?

"You are ignoring the expense of pregnancy, the medical expenses, the physical and psychological repercussions, strain on the relationship etc"

Indeed, because human life has infinitely more worth than that.

"Unwanted children shouldn't be brought into the world for the sake of it. Have you read stories about kids in the care system? Have you read appeals by kids pleading for families? It's not unusual for kids to be passed from carer to carer, never having a family or experiencing love, that kind of trauma is often lifelong."

So it is better that the baby is brutally torn apart than be given the chance to live a life that might be considered unpleasant? You have very twisted logic.

"Because it's growing in her body, she is the one both taking the risks and living with the physical and psychological consequences, many of which are irreversible."

"The consequences are far greater and more irreversible for the baby being brutally torn apart."

Really late-term term abortions, which is what you are referring to, are really rare and are only carried out if there is a severe threat to the life of the woman or the foetus has serious congenital problems.

What do you think should happen instead? Would it be more moral to let the woman die? If the baby has severe congenital problems, should the woman be forced to give birth to a baby that will suffer so she can likely watch it die? What would you do?

"There are a multitude of reasons that aren't just 'inconvenience', financial considerations are a big consideration. It's not as easy as just giving a child up for adoption."

"And why should that be more important than the life of a human being?"

Because it avoids unnecessary suffering.

"You are ignoring the expense of pregnancy, the medical expenses, the physical and psychological repercussions, strain on the relationship etc"

"Indeed, because human life has infinitely more worth than that."

So a drug-addicted woman, rather than have an abortion in the first few weeks by taking a pill, should continue with her pregnancy. Eventually giving birth to a drug addicted baby, screaming in agony from withdrawal symptoms, brain damaged from alcohol damage?
If the baby survives, if will be abused and beaten by the Mother and her boyfriend for screaming, it will be starving and malnourished from neglect.
Even in the unlikely event of rescue, the child, brain damaged and traumatized, will be passed from home to home by people who cannot cope with their needs.

The woman did the right thing though, right?
Even if the child is damaged and traumatized and unbearably starved of love and affection, likely eventually taking their own life. They had value, nobody recognized it or appreciated it, but they had value, and according to you, that's what's important?

This is not written from a place of anger, I am perfectly calm, it is written from an informed perspective. I have friends who are foster parents, I've seen programmes about drug addict Mothers and heard the disturbing screams of newborns in heroin withdrawal.
I've read accounts of foster parents who talk about how deeply damaged children within the care system are.

"Really late-term term abortions, which is what you are referring to, are really rare and are only carried out if there is a severe threat to the life of the woman or the foetus has serious congenital problems."

In England, only 35% of late-term abortions are done to save the life of the mother, or if the foetus has serious congenital problems.

"What do you think should happen instead? Would it be more moral to let the woman die? If the baby has severe congenital problems, should the woman be forced to give birth to a baby that will suffer so she can likely watch it die? What would you do?"

If there is extensive proof that both the mother and baby will definitely not survive the pregnancy, then the abortion should be carried out. It is better that one dies than two.

"Because it avoids unnecessary suffering."

So you want to prevent that "suffering" by tearing the baby apart? You have very twisted logic.

"So a drug-addicted woman, rather than have an abortion in the first few weeks by taking a pill, should continue with her pregnancy. Eventually giving birth to a drug addicted baby, screaming in agony from withdrawal symptoms, brain damaged from alcohol damage?
If the baby survives, if will be abused and beaten by the Mother and her boyfriend for screaming, it will be starving and malnourished from neglect.
Even in the unlikely event of rescue, the child, brain damaged and traumatized, will be passed from home to home by people who cannot cope with their needs.

The woman did the right thing though, right?
Even if the child is damaged and traumatized and unbearably starved of love and affection, likely eventually taking their own life. They had value, nobody recognized it or appreciated it, but they had value, and according to you, that's what's important?"

That is a bizarre and strangely detailed scenario, but life is always better than death. If someone were struggling in life, would you encourage that person to commit suicide? If your logic were consistent, that would be the case.

"This is not written from a place of anger, I am perfectly calm, it is written from an informed perspective."

Whatever you want to tell yourself.

"Because it avoids unnecessary suffering."

"So you want to prevent that "suffering" by tearing the baby apart? You have very twisted logic."

No, I already told you, a fetus is only 'torn apart' if either it's or the woman's life is at risk.

"That is a bizarre and strangely detailed scenario, but life is always better than death. If someone were struggling in life, would you encourage that person to commit suicide? If your logic were consistent, that would be the case."

I wouldn't encourage anyone to do anything, I don't encourage people to have abortions, decisions like that are personal. People dealing with unbearable suffering do decide to end their lives, have you not heard of euthanasia? Do you think you know them better than they know themselves too, are you against people having access to euthanasia?

"Whatever you want to tell yourself."

If you think that you know me better than I know myself then you must concede that I know you better than you know yourself.

The alternative is that you think you have superpowers.

Oh wait, you have a pug, right?

Of course you don't care about suffering, in fact, you actively support it.
Who cares if a dog has been bred to have abnormally large eyes and no snout, you thinking it's cute is the important thing, isn't it?

Who cares if it struggles to breathe and regulate it's own temperature, if it's vulnerable to a host of skin problems and diabetes. Who cares if it's prone to spinal problems.

None of this matters because you think it's cute.

Why would you care about the suffering of babies when you don't care about the suffering of animals, in fact, you support it.

It sounds a lot like rather than being anti-abortion, you are pro-suffering.

I bet you're a Tory! hah

"No, I already told you, a fetus is only 'torn apart' if either it's or the woman's life is at risk."

No, 99.31% of all abortions are performed because the life of a human being is seen as "inconvenient".

"I wouldn't encourage anyone to do anything, I don't encourage people to have abortions, decisions like that are personal. People dealing with unbearable suffering do decide to end their lives, have you not heard of euthanasia? Do you think you know them better than they know themselves too, are you against people having access to euthanasia?"

Euthanasia is immoral.

"Why would you care about the suffering of babies when you don't care about the suffering of animals, in fact, you support it."

Incorrect. What twisted logic made you come to that bizarre conclusion? Just because I own a Pug does not mean that I support the selective breeding Pugs went through.

"I bet you're a Tory! hah"

Not really. I have only ever reluctantly supported the Tories.

Toby: "Just because I own a Pug does not mean that I support the selective breeding Pugs went through."

"Genetic defects as fashion
So what's their cutest feature? Is it their squashy little faces? Their grunting pants (like tiny little obese people!)? Their double-curled tails?

That coiled tail is possibly less endearing when you know it's a purpose-bred genetic defect, which in its most serious forms leads to paralysis. And their squished noses? That's been selectively bred to become ever shorter and smaller, making it difficult for the dogs to breathe and eat, causing trickle down effects like cardiovascular stress, eye prolapses, overheating (dogs don't sweat, so they need to pant to expel heat through evaporation), weight gain because of that sedentary overheated lifestyle, dental crowding, soft-palate collapse, and skin-fold dermatitis. More of an "anatomical disaster" than the patron saint of cuteness."

Toby: "I have only ever reluctantly supported the Tories."

"Former Conservative Party campaign manager spared jail over indecent images of children
A court hears "disgraced" Mark Lerigo had some images showing babies, with others involving bestiality and torture."

So, you own a deformed dog and you support a party that has driven disabled people to suicide and contains prosecuted pedophiles but you are fighting pedophilia?

I have no idea how you you haven't exploded with the pressure of all that hypocritical bullshit. What a feat of science.

"No, I already told you, a fetus is only 'torn apart' if either it's or the woman's life is at risk."

"No, 99.31% of all abortions are performed because the life of a human being is seen as "inconvenient".

It is not the case that 99.31% of fetuses are torn apart, they are not developed enough, there is nothing to tear apart. The woman takes a pill and passes it like a period. What you are describing is an extremely rare late-term abortion, I've already explained this several times, you are perfectly aware (or very stupid).

"Euthanasia is immoral."

Forcing someone to suffer against their consent is immoral.
Everyone's life is their own.

"When I shall be dead, the principles, of which I am composed, will still perform their part in the universe, and will be equally useful in the grand fabric, as when they composed this individual creature. The difference to the | whole will be no greater than betwixtbetween my being in a chamber and in the open air. The one change is of more importance to me than the other; but not more so to the universe."

Hume

"Incorrect. What twisted logic made you come to that bizarre conclusion? Just because I own a Pug does not mean that I support the selective breeding Pugs went through."

You really need that explained?

Even if your pug is a rescue, which many are, people abandon them because they can't afford the vet bills for all their health issues; by walking around with one, you are encouraging the 'trend' and making it more likely that other people will spend money buying them.

"I bet you're a Tory! hah"

Not really. I have only ever reluctantly supported the Tories."

Hah!! I knew it!

"It is not the case that 99.31% of fetuses are torn apart, they are not developed enough, there is nothing to tear apart. The woman takes a pill and passes it like a period. What you are describing is an extremely rare late-term abortion, I've already explained this several times, you are perfectly aware (or very stupid)."

But since life begins at the point of conception, that is murder. I've already explained this several times, you are perfectly aware (or very stupid).

"Forcing someone to suffer against their consent is immoral."

No, murdering people is immoral, and you support euthanasia and abortion, which is murder. And isn't abortion forcing someone to suffer against their consent?

"Even if your pug is a rescue, which many are, people abandon them because they can't afford the vet bills for all their health issues; by walking around with one, you are encouraging the 'trend' and making it more likely that other people will spend money buying them."

So pugs should not be adopted anymore, and they should all be left to fend for themselves in the wild? You have very twisted logic.

"So, you own a deformed dog and you support a party that has driven disabled people to suicide and contains prosecuted pedophiles but you are fighting pedophilia?"

My dog is not deformed. And I do not support the Tories anymore. I have only ever reluctantly supported them. I've already explained this twice now, you are perfectly aware (or very stupid).

I suppose if a vaccine is proven detrimental to human life or health, then wouldn't be. Not an expert, just my guess on the subject.