Strongman Suplex on teeny tiny lib

She's got a point tho killing a human isn't the same as killing a bunch of cells that'll eventually turn into a human. Meanwhile trump supporters are killing thousands by not wearing masks

All humans are a "bunch of cells". Human life doesn't begin when we develop. It begins when it begins.

Hah no way

Hah yes way

Lol

Even those who don't believe the baby is alive before it's born should recognize that if left unhindered it will live a life just like the rest of us, which makes ending its existence ending that future, which is tantamount to murder. That's just one of the reasons abortion is, and always will be, egregiously wrong.

Adoption exists, and if we overhauled the system and added necessary education support programs for those who become pregnant in school then we would have no reason whatsoever for an abortion.

Medical situations in which the life of the mother are at stake (E.G the embryo implants itself in the Fallopian tube rather than the uterus) are certainly the toughest call to make, but ethically an operation that intends to save both the child and mother, but will almost certainly result in the death of the embryo, are acceptable. The difference between those procedures and an abortion is those procedures are not intentionally killing the child to "solve" the problem, but accept that there is a chance we could save both.

amen

Zygote, Embro, Fetus, unborn child, they're all developmental stages of a human being. At the moment of conception an organism with a complete and unique human DNA code is formed. At three weeks a heartbeat begins.

Look, we've carried out over 60,000,000 abortions in the U.S since the adoption of Roe v. Wade. It is objective truth that the vast majority of those pregnancies would have resulted in a human being like us living a life like us. How many of those 60,000,000, if around today, would agree, "Oh sure, my life and my future never meant anything just because I was smaller and differently shaped than you guys. You should have aborted me."

I would bet anything that not one would do so.

Now as to 'forcing' the woman to carry the pregnancy to term; only 1.5% of abortions are for rape and incest, which is overwhelmingly the excuse for abortion.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2019/05/24/rape-and-incest-account-few-abortions-so-why-all-attention/1211175001/

That means 98.5% of abortions are carried out purely because of an unintended pregnancy. Destroying the future of the new life within the woman purely because she made a poor choice is unacceptable. Two wrongs never have, and never will, make a right.

Now, simply banning abortion in those cases is not a viable solution, because as you correctly noted we can't just force a woman to endure that alone. Legislation for mandated education and career assistance in the case of an unwanted pregnancy would absolutely have to be passed. Our education programs need an overhaul, because right now young people seem to think they're immortal with birth control and other preventative measures. Finally, adoption systems need to be overhauled, because that child should absolutely be given to a family who wants him/her rather than hoist her upon the mother who may very well not be able to care for it.

In summary, abortion right now is used as an easy out for people who overwhelmingly made bad choices that they couldn't afford to make at that time in life. It destroys a future, which everyone on earth deserves, and its defenders all too often set no limits on it. Where do YOU think an abortion should be allowed? First/Second/Third trimester? A month after birth, as some people seem to want?Just saying, "the woman is more developed than the child within her" does not give her a more important lease to life. Both are equally deserving of a future.

Yo im finna Copy paste this to a feminist post on instagram

Do it. I kind of bashed it together though, feel free to make it more of a clean argument.

"At three weeks a heartbeat begins."

I stopped at that point because that is simply not true. Cardiomyocytes "beat" in a petri dish. You can get them to beat in 10 days from differentiation from stem cells. But It's not a heart. It's not a heartbeat. Because there is no heart at three weeks. Far from it.

If you'd bothered to read my response to Octavia, you'd see that I acknowledged I was wrong due to a mixup in my mind.

“ And if her future doesn't include children, shouldn't she have a say in whether or not her pregnancy continues?”

Murder is illegal she wanna kill baby she murderer

Not saying it’s wrong or right but murder is murder

I'm going to respond to this in points, every -[insert response here] is to a rebuttal you made after quoting me. It should avoid any formatting confusion.

- It's entirely relevant. Defenders of abortion justify it either on the grounds that the mother's life is in danger, which I'll address below, or that it's not a human being because it's not as developed as we are, or even as a late-term fetus is. Since you acknowledged it's true, I'm going to assume you do believe a human being is present at all stages of a pregnancy, which then leads me to question how you can ignore that human being's basic rights and advocate for abortion at even the earliest stages of a pregnancy?

- Correct, I misspoke. A heartbeat is generally detected at 5-7 weeks, according to google . My bad.

- No it's not. As stated above, an embryo or fetus' less-developed status relative to us is the entire basis for the 'it's not a human being' argument.

- I'm not trying to say you made that claim. I used it as a way to show that the vast majority of abortions are made as a way to "rectify" a series of poor and uninformed decisions that a couple made up to that point. Destroying the newly-conceived child does not solve this problem.

- Yes, the pregnant woman absolutely deserves a future. Here's what you're not considering; her life will revert to relative normalcy after putting the child up for adoption (which absolutely has to be made an available recourse). Abortion permanently ends the life and the future of the unborn child. You and I were once voiceless and defenseless like those slated for abortion, but we lived our lives and were able to stake out positions and defend them. I consider it the height of hypocrisy to argue that we should use our survival to advocate for denying that future to others.

- This is about the summation of my knowledge on Savit's case:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/she-the-people/wp/2012/11/16/irish-abortion-debate-afte

- There are people advocating for a 'trial period' where they could kill a baby via lethal injection up to a month after birth. This was a particularly crazy lunatic I met on social media and I recognize that it does not reflect the majority view of abortion advocates, but it was such a jarring experience that I feel obligated to note that such a viewpoint does exist.
[Continued]

[Continued]

Her death was an avoidable tragedy, make no mistake about my stance there. I will fight to the end for an unborn's right to life and a future, but I believe we are all equal. Therefore that child's right to life does NOT supersede that of the mother's. If there was any medical procedure that could have been attempted that would have tried to save both the mother and the child, but the death of the child was a real possibility, it should have been undertaken in that situation. I'm no medical expert, but so long as the death of the child is not your intrinsic goal, then its death is nothing more than a regrettable side effect. In Savit's case it sounds as if the baby was dead within a window of time where the doctors could and should have removed it.

- Again I ask you: If we could ask every aborted human being whether they would acquiesce to their destruction, do you think they would have agreed?

Abortion is murder just go on with your life

Ah so I see you dwell among the politics stream, lol cool to see you. I honestly don't give a shit about abortion. If you don't want a child then don't be a dumbass and get pregnant. Under some circumstances you don't have a choice (rape) which is fine to get an abortion in my opinion. But overall you shouldn't be allowed to get abortions since you were f**king dumb enough to get pregnant.

What about adoption? Shouldn't that be offered instead of abortion?

Oh yeah I forgot, I guess so

I say it’s murder because your killing a life.

I’m not saying it’s a bad thing or a good thing but the bottom line is that it’s murder

Yes it is murder but it’s legal murder 😉

That's entirely dependent on the war...if a nation starts a war with no provocation then it is entirely culpable for the destruction it brings upon the world. If you want to accuse individual soldiers of murder, well, they've been forced into that situation by forces completely out of their control. They can be accused of war crimes (killing civilians, rape, looting, etc), but even the troops of an aggressor nation probably do not want to be in that situation.
In a defensive war a nation is fully justified in defending itself and its way of life. That may regrettably include killing.

Well I think that too, I just think that if you're not f**king dumb then you won't get pregnant when you don't wanna get pregnant.

What I meant by that is that it’s not a war crime to kill in war

I’ve seen females on Instagram say men should get vasectomy....

Why would mean have to pay for something we don’t care abt

But abortion is a healthy process. Shooting someone is a harmful and violent process.

Sucking a human being down a tube, essentially blending it into nothing but human pulp, and throwing it into a recycling facility isn't conducive towards that baby's right to a future life outside of the womb.

For posterity, all termination of a future, in any case, is murder. Knife, gun, or vacuum.

Pretty sure brutally tearing apart a baby isn't a "healthy process".

The Thicc in his name refers to his skull apparently there isn't much room for a brain.

You believe in conversion therapy so I don't think I should waste my time telling you how backwards this comment

Wait a minute...this conversation was about ABORTION. Where did this talk about homosexuality come up?

Oh I said that I didn't want to argue about the science of abortion with someone who believes that pseudoscientific conversion therapy works

But how did you know he believes that stuff?

hes posted about it and he says so in his comments

So you think conversion therapy doesn't exist?

Oh no I believe it is homophobic pseudoscience created by religious extremists

Good for you.

that is a weird response

Says the same libturd who called conversion therapy "homophobic pseudoscience created by religious extremists".

So you think it works? are you one of those homophobic extremists

Homosexuality is not a disease. Why do people think it can be "cured"

I believe it exist but I don’t hate gays

Homosexuality is certainly unnatural. You are either a kiddy diddler pushing this BS or wholly ignorant of what they do. Amazing in 2020 still many straights are clueless, think it's just some "genetic predisposition" or "choice between consenting adults". Most if not all were sodomized at an early age. Ask them if you know any and you will know the truth. In frank discussion they themselves will admit that their behavior is disgusting.

Cretinous newspeak word with no real meaning. The word "homophobia" is used inaccurately to describe any person who objects to homosexual behaviour on moral or religious grounds. It actually describes a person who has an irrational fear of homosexuality. Principled disagreement, therefore, cannot be labeled as "homophobia".

I'm glad I wasn't indoctrinated into believing in a vengeful god that teaches people to hate those who are born gay.

The suffix phobia also can mean hatred. It does not just mean fear

How can someone "disagree" with homosexuality it is a natural thing that can't be changed.

Christianity does not teach hate; it teaches love.

It teaches to kill gay men. It teaches that those who choose to recognize science instead of pseudoscience will be subjected to eternal torture.

yes, but it doesn't seem like you're being super good at that rn.

You might want to read your Bible more carefully.

Many conversion therapists are only trying to help homosexuals and save them from harming their soul.

They feel that way because they have been indoctrinated into thinking that gays need to be "saved" from homosexuality.

I do not hate anyone either, since I am a practicing Sedeplenist Traditional Roman Catholic.

Than how can you justify conversion therapy. Hating homosexuality is hating homosexuals.

Okay. So what?

So believing in conversion therapy is hating gay people.

So if you believe that conversion therapy exists, you automatically hate homosexuals?

No. If you believe that it works and you believe that it "cures" homosexuality you hate homosexuals

The old covenant says that, which is no longer relevant. Christians believe in the new covenant.

Do you even know that +90% if not all of gay people are not "born that way" because of some "gay gene" (now THAT is pseudo-science) but because they were sodomized, usually at a young age and as their first sexual experience? Do you even know any gay people and their behavior? Supporting "gay rights" means supporting anal rape of minors. And in over a thousand years no gays have ever apologized for this behavior.

It is completely natural but it is not hereditary. What you just said might be the stupidest and most factually inaccurate thing I have read in my entire life

calling me a kiddy diddler I'm not the catholic here lol

It is unnatural not bad but it is unnatural

Conversion therapy is completely optional. The homosexuals that take part in it do so by choice.

Surely not because they live in a society that tells them it's wrong. Not because they were raised by people who tell them it's wrong. Or have loved ones who tell them it's wrong. Or because they were picked on in school or beat up by bigots. COME ON!

Most people who experience conversion therapy are forced into it by their parents. If people want to be "cured" of homosexuality then they are being taught to hate themselves by, guess who: the church, the preachers, and people like you.

They are only practicing their religious beliefs.

Yes but they are doing so in a way that is harmful to other people

How is conversion therapy "hating homosexuals"?

By nature conversion therapy is trying to stamp out homosexuality

Pretty sure it’s not healthy and many health specialty say that constantly aborting causes negative impacts

There's only real risk of complications if it's a very late term abortion