Abortion rights give women the right to murder a baby because it's "inconvenient". There are tons of programs that are dedicated to helping moms who are thinking about abortion. Adoption is one of the best options if you can't financially provide for the kid.

Plenty would disagree with the notion that abortion constitutes the killing of a baby — including the dictionary

So what does it do then? Put them to sleep and vacuum the body parts from the womb? I guess that's one way to put it.

Also, what does the definition of infant have to do with killing babies?

Note the word especially. Although you may interpret that to me that is the only meaning, it actually means that that's just the most common meaning, especially in colloquial language.

To *mean*... Man I hate typing on tiny phone keypads...

Okay, let me ask you this- suppose your mother would have kept the child she so tragically aborted. Suppose she had given birth. But then she decides the baby is putting too much emotional and financial strain on them. Should she be allowed to kill that child to alleviate those problems?

Gotta love your condescending tone

Anyway, what is it about birth that you think is so defining? Why is that the moment you choose?

Lol tits the only tone he has. He is used to mostly safe spaces where counter arguments aren’t allowed.

It's the language of leftists...

You might want to correct that typo though 😂

😂 ya I’ll probably get a timer

The dictionary definition you entered had nothing to do with what I was saying.

I never said it was infanticide, which is the definition you posted. Colloquially, the term "baby" some refer to any very young human, and that applies to fetuses as well. Of course, if we're going to be picky about the language we're using, fetus is a Latin word which means "little one." So either way you look at it, you are killing a young person.

Paragraph long condescending quips make your position just so persuasive... NOT.

*can

And while we're on the topic of the dictionary...

“Unborn baby” is a hilarious phrase, like an unbaked cake. What the hell is an unbaked cake? It looks something like this.

You would use a phrase like that in certain niche contexts in standard American English, like when you’re using words to describe other words. The Dictionary is full of awkward circumlocutions like this.

A fetus is a fetus. An “unborn baby” is a Republican-American English euphemism that describes state-enforced birth.

Well I'm glad you think it's a hilarious phrase. I think your comments are hilarious.

Anyway, it's still an acceptable phrase. But as I've said before, "fetus literally translates and "little one ", so you can't hide behind "it's a fetus!"
Abortion is a Democrat-American English euphemism for state-endorsed slaughter. Also, that's a strawman.

The egg is interesting though. The eggs we buy at the grocery store are not fertilized, which means they can never become chickens. A fetus, however, is a whole organism that grows and develops on it's own and, though it may not look like an adult, is still a human being. Eggs are not chickens, and acorns aren't oaks. All that means is that fetuses aren't adults. And that's correct! But that doesn't mean we get to kill them anymore than it means we can kill newborns because they are not adults.

It seems all your arguments are just lingual ad hominem instead of a persuasive point.

Also gotta love the "anti-choice." From now on I'll be referring to your movement as "pro-death."

Sounds good. I’m always trying to stay current on Republican-American English.

You don't say!

As I've already "baby" is a colloquial term used to describe any very young human, and that includes embryos and fetuses. But if we're going to be picky, "fetus" literally translates to "little one," so either way you look at it you are killing a little human being.

Well before I address your argument, let me point out the vast, vast majority of abortions are not due to rape or incest, but are elective.

Rape is a horrible situation. Rapists are very evil people, and we need to do more to stop them and to help women and girls who have been raped. We should also do more to help the child. He didn't ask to be conceived that way. It's not his fault his father was an a**hole.

In 2008, the supreme Court struck down a Louisiana statute allowing the death penalty for child rapists. Think about this, and think about its implications. In most places, it's illegal to kill the rapist, but A-Okay to kill the innocent child.

And by the way, we're not "sliming" them. We can recognize mistakes and be kind to people while still not condoning the actions they take. The people who defend abortion and defend its morality are pro-death, though.

Once the sperm and egg mix, it's actually a whole new organism - a human being. To pretend it is not is a denial of science.

As I've already *said*...

No productive debate can occur without agreement on definitions.

An abortion debate in which one party insists on defining all fetuses as “babies” will always end in the same place: With those like me who aren’t comfortable with the state forcing 13-year-old victims of rape and/or incest to carry and give birth to their rapist’s spawn being slimed as “baby-killers,” or “pro-death” (your term).

There is room for nuance in the abortion debate, but not when a two-minute-old mixture of sperm and egg fertilized against the woman’s wishes is given the same moral standing as a 5-year-old.

Speaking of the dictionary, perhaps you should read this definition https://www.dictionary.com/e/pop-culture/grammar-nazi/#:~:text=A%20grammar%20nazi%20is%20a,errors%20in%20speech%20or%20writing.

And a third thing- you did NOT answer my question.

Right so partial birth abortion because it’s still not a baby? How sick the left is,

Have you ever read Roe v. Wade? Actually read it?

States have always had the right to ban third-trimester abortions. Roe v. Wade *was* the compromise.

Partial-birth abortion is a total red herring. Y’all want to ban abortion from 2 minutes after conception. That’s the territory we’re fighting over.

Personally I could care less if you want to murder your babies. Better that you don’t pass on the genes. There are two problems. One of course is at some point it is murder of life. If it takes you more than three months tough titty you get a baby. The second is what about the man’s rights? He is held responsible if the woman decides to have it and yet has no say if she decides to abort. What about his rights?

Get with the times man men can get pregnant too, ya know! 😜

The right to an abortion is centered in the complex and utterly unique changes that take place in pregnancy — as well as the difficult, painful, sometimes deadly process of labor — a man doesn’t have “rights” to a body that isn’t his. He only has, as you say, the other r-word: Responsibilities.

Don’t want those responsibilities? As you might say: don’t have sex, it’s simple.

Absolving women of responsibility while telling men to do without sex is typical hypocrisy of the left.

No, it wasn't. That is nonsense.
Framing it as partisan or faux-deology also missing its point.

The recent decision was based on the technicality that the 1973 Roe vs Wade decision effectively created law rather than interpreted it, an action beyond the Supreme Court's powers as it is not a legislative body but a reviewer of such,,,

Oh, the horror of living in a society where women aren’t forced by the state to give birth to children of rapists or abusive husbands/boyfriends.

You seem confused about it so this is how it works.

In a free country, you get to control your body. Conversely, you don’t have rights to a body that isn’t yours. Ergo: You can’t regulate a woman’s womb by ejaculating in it any more than she can regulate your testes for the same reason. A conjugal encounter is just that, and can’t be made by anyone else, let alone the state, to define the rest of your life if you don’t want it to.

In such a society, if you want a baby, you’ll just have to do it the old-fashioned way: by being enough of a loving and responsible partner that you can convince your partner to bear your child.

And you only have to keep up the facade of being a decent person for 40 weeks! If you want to be a dick to her after she gives birth, she’s SOL, now she’s stuck with it, and if you want to abandon her, all you have to pay is some child support.

Partial-birth abortion is a red herring since states have always been free to ban that procedure as well as any third-trimester abortion.

Perhaps you should look closer at your fanfic case of 'Leftists vs Mississippi' and maybe look into utilizing other replies that don't always end with "because Leftists" because you keep saying the same thing even when it has nothing to do with anything.

Good gosh.

“Don’t want those responsibilities? As you might say: don’t have sex, it’s simple.”

Explain how this doesn’t apply to women? Don’t want to be in a position of unwanted pregnancy? don’t have sex, it’s simple. Didn’t know you were a Christian Conservative as I think that is their position. Very simple problem solved, right.

That would be all well and good if these abortion-banning bills included exceptions for rape, but they don’t.

And it actually *still wouldn’t be all well and good* because ***a woman can have sex at Time A intending to get pregnant but circumstances at Time B can then make the pregnancy unwanted.***

Simple examples:

—Wife has sex with husband, husband cheats on her and leaves her 2 months later. Wife can’t bear the thought of giving birth to her cheating husband’s child.

—Wife has sex with husband, recession hits 2 months later and they both lose their jobs. They want an abortion now but plan to have another child later when their finances stabilize.

—Wife has sex with husband, wife is diagnosed with terminal cancer, and if she gives birth, her child will be motherless past the age of 2 or 3. She doesn’t want that.

There are a million situations where a woman may have a “responsible sex life” but ends up needing an abortion anyway. It’s not S**ts vs. Holy Women.

The case of rape and abuse are the red herrings. The vast majority of abortions are not for those reasons. Keep trying to sell it chicken little.

Rape and abuse *would* be red herrings, *if* the laws banning abortion being passed right now provided for these common sense exceptions. But they’re not. So, it’s relevant unless and until it’s fixed.

We can’t say, “oh, it doesn’t happen all that often, so let’s just tell everyone to whom it does happen to f**k off.” A small percentage of a big number is still a big number.

Being impregnated against your will is one of the very worst fates I can possibly think of. The pro-life rationales of “just don’t have sex” or “just use birth control” fall apart when it comes to rape. These victims didn’t get a choice to have sex upfront, so they need a choice now.

The idea that we’re not going to give any consideration whatsoever to victims of this kind, here in the 21st-century, is mind-boggling. “Chicken little” my ass. Rape happens, it’s always happened, we’ve known about it for thousands of years, we need to design policy with rape victims in mind or else admit we’ve lost all connection with humanity.

Rape and incest don’t make up a preponderance or even a significant amount of the abortions performed. The majority are simply no precautions or contraception. So irresponsible behavior is the primary cause not rape. Not buying what your selling. Should have left it alone but you couldn’t because you had to have it all your way and it backfired, Bigly! 😂

The only thing that’s going to backfire is your own pro-life extremism.

Yeah, SCOTUS has allowed states to be as restrictive as they want. They’ve left no guardrails in place. SCOTUS didn’t say: “hey, not so fast, you can’t ban abortion for victims of rape, for victims of incest, for women under the age of 18.” Hell, SCOTUS didn’t even say, “you can’t ban abortion when the lives of the mother and/or fetus are at stake.” HELL, SCOTUS didn’t even say that you can’t jail a woman for having an abortion, or can’t prosecute her for murder, or can’t EXECUTE a woman for making decisions about her own womb.

So, as far as constitutional law goes, at this moment in time: states can ban abortion at all stages of pregnancy, and in every factual circumstance, and throw the entire criminal code at all women who transgress.

*Can*, as long as the voters are with it. Will they be?

The challenge now for the pro-life movement — those among it who are serious — is to wrestle with the consequences of putting their ardent beliefs into practice, now that the training wheels have come off.

MAGA devotees like yourself obviously don’t care. But independents do. Swing voters do. Be careful!

"In a free country, you get to control your body. Conversely, you don’t have rights to a body that isn’t yours."

Except that is an argument that can be used on behalf of the unborn offspring as well.

And I'm referring to specifically only that, not to address or negate the other points you have been making here.

The recent decision was before the court because of an appeal based on a state that placed restrictions on abortion after 15 weeks. That’s what opened Roe to review. So yes it was the arrogance of the left that placed the issue before the court once again.