The opposite of Planned Parenthood is nothing other than forced parenthood. And it’s sickening.

Indiana and other states are literally looking at prosecuting women for abortions performed in other states, and not everyone can travel. This is entitled and tone deaf.

If we're going with the "not everyone ____" argument, not everyone lives in Indiana and the other states that punish women for abortion. Most states that punish women for getting abortions have fairly mild punishments. For example, an abortion in Alabama, a red state, is punishable with a 1,000 dollar fine, which is only 250 dollars more than the most expensive Planned Parenthood abortion. Allow me to clarify, the penalty for murdering a child in the womb is 1,000 dollars in a republican state.

Oh yeah, and your calling me entitled? What makes the majority of women that get abortions as a convenient way to cancel a life from ever happening and rejecting her own child from existence in this world less entitled than me?

What about the men who get these women pregnant, though?? Where is their responsibility in this? You keep saying "women this" and "women who" that. They don't get pregnant all by themselves. If life begins at conception then men should start paying child support at conception, no?

Being pregnant isn't a stroll in the park. There are doctor visits, maternity clothes to be bought, food to pay for pregnancy cravings. Who's going to slather coco butter on her belly to ward off stretch marks? Who's going to massage her swollen feet at night? Who's going to hold her hand and massage her forehead while she's trying to squeeze something the size of a watermelon out of an orifice the size of a freaking grape? After 6 or 7 months, it's difficult to work. Many are ordered bed rest by the doctor. Who's going to pay all their bills?

Men are out impregnating women and running back to their wives or their bachelor lives and forgetting about women all the time. Who's going to hold all these deadbeat dads responsible? Because no one is doing it now.

I've heard the "child support at conception" argument before, and it seems to assume that every man is leaving the women that the impregnate behind to go through the pregnancy, but putting that aside, I say sure, why not hold men accountable for their actions and make them pay for child support if they do leave the mother. Then again, not every single man is doing this. In fact, 86% of abortions are given to married women, according to an article from June of this year. Even among unmarried women, most didn't get abortions, with only 28% ending the pregnancy with an abortion. The biggest reason for abortion was "Not ready to have a child", which the CDC categorizes as a separate from "Couldn't afford the baby". In recent years, the vast majority of abortions was because selfish couples didn't want to go through a pregnancy and decided to kill the baby, instead of go alternatives like adoption. These couples knowingly ran the risk of getting pregnant, and they got pregnant.

"Most states that punish women for getting abortions have fairly mild punishments"

You're missing the point. There shouldn't be punishments in the first place. That's like saying "Saudi Arabia outlaws Christianity, but the punishment is fairly mild, so it's okay"

"Allow me to clarify, the penalty for murdering a child in the womb is 1,000 dollars in a republican state"

And I've heard conservatives who want prison time or worse for those "guilty" of getting an abortion

"What makes the majority of women that get abortions as a convenient way to cancel a life from ever happening and rejecting her own child from existence in this world less entitled than me?"

The fact that they have bodily autonomy, and what they choose for themselves isn't your business.

Not everybody can afford the trip, and not everybody works for a company that will pay the expenses for the trip. As much as you want to deny it, there will be many women in red states who won't have the means to access a legal abortion.

Also, if you're against abortion then you're essentially telling someone who gets pregnant that they should be forced to stay pregnant even if they don't want to. What makes you think it's your decision?

It’s not my decision. But it was her decision to engage in an act that would result in a pregnancy. As for women not having access to legal abortion, I see that as a good thing, as that would mean one less dead baby even though she’ll go through the pregnancy, a woman could still put the child up for adoption instead of have the fetus killed.

10 year Olds can't f**king consent to sex!

Wait really? I thought they were all giving people permission to get them pregnant. I am truly shocked.

Isn't that what the abortion ban is doing, though? They don't bother strengthening laws against r@pe or incest. In fact, a r@pist recently just got awarded custody of a girl who was the same age her mother was when he r@ped her. Then he went back and got child support from the mom. This is the world the GOP envision for America?

Was it, though? Did she get pregnant all by herself then?
* Estimated 500,000 r@pes occur every year.
* 35% are done by a partner who is trying to get their wife/gf pregnant against her will.
* 32% of r@pe victims don't know they're pregnant until the second trimester.
* The majority of pregnancies that occurred from rape were among adolescents and resulted from assault by a known, often related perpetrator.
* Over 35,000 pregnancies from r@pe happen every year.
So are all these adolescents supposed to carry their father, uncle, brother, step-father's child for 9 months? Then what??

Like I've previously stated, I believe that there can be exceptions for children. Do I think it's immoral? Yes. Do I think kids should go through pregnancy? No, I don't. This is where complications come in. As much of a shame as it is for babies to die because a child was assaulted, children don't have the capacity to safely give birth at such a young age. Despite this, a very low percentage of children are sexually abused, making up only 15%, second only to seniors. Women with the physical and mental capacity to go through a pregnancy, give birth, and move on from that point with whatever course of action she so chooses should not have access to abortions.

That's great that you don't think kids should give birth to kids. Unfortunately, lawmakers in red states disagree with you. Do you really think your "very low percentage" excuse is a good argument? Are we supposed to just ignore the thousands of kids who are impregnated by a relative every year because you've got bigger fish to fry?

How can you say what women do? You're not a woman. You have no idea what it's like to go through a pregnancy. You probably have no idea what it's like to get r@ped by a man and then get forced to carry a daily reminder of that life-ruining event around with you for the next 9 months. Most r@pists have a screw loose. Mental illness is hereditary. R@pe is the gift that keeps on giving.

A young girl in Mexico who was forced to carry her Uncle's child tried to commit suicide several times. Is it so easy to just ignore stories like this because you're so focused on what you imagine to be s**ts out there spreading their legs for every Tom, Dick, and Harry and then just getting abortions on a whim like you know what's going on in their lives?

"A young girl in Mexico who was forced to carry her Uncle's child tried to commit suicide several times. Is it so easy to just ignore stories like this because you're so focused on what you imagine to be s**ts out there spreading their legs for every Tom, Dick, and Harry and then just getting abortions on a whim like you know what's going on in their lives?"

I don't just assume that the majority of women are sleeping around and letting everyone impregnate her so she can get an abortion at her convenience, I base my opinion off of statistics, which show that it's mostly married women that get abortions after knowingly getting pregnant. And, as I said, I do think kids should have access to abortions.

"That's great that you don't think kids should give birth to kids. Unfortunately, lawmakers in red states disagree with you. Do you really think your "very low percentage" excuse is a good argument? Are we supposed to just ignore the thousands of kids who are impregnated by a relative every year because you've got bigger fish to fry?"

No, I do think we should do something about it, but what exactly would we do? For now, I think that it would be fine for children to have abortions as they are children that aren't physically or mentally mature enough to go through a pregnancy, birth, or motherhood.

"How can you say what women do? You're not a woman. You have no idea what it's like to go through a pregnancy. You probably have no idea what it's like to get r@ped by a man and then get forced to carry a daily reminder of that life-ruining event around with you for the next 9 months. Most r@pists have a screw loose. Mental illness is hereditary. R@pe is the gift that keeps on giving."

You're right. I'm sure that being sexually abused is very traumatic, but I doubt that your so called "daily reminder of a life ruining event" would stay a daily reminder for very long. Mothers are naturally inclined to love and care for your children, and as time goes on, she wouldn't look at her child with contempt. As for your first question, I can't tell women what to do. I just so happen to agree with a decision that the supreme court made that would protect babies form being killed.

In the future, yes, I'd love to adopt kids. I'm aware of the bad parents in the world, and that's why I stand by the adoption route instead of murder.

"As for women not having access to legal abortion, I see that as a good thing, as that would mean one less dead baby"

Embryos aren't babies though

"even though she’ll go through the pregnancy, a woman could still put the child up for adoption instead of have the fetus killed"

And if she doesn't want to go through the pregnancy she doesn't have to. Why do you think an embryo has more rights than the person who's pregnant?

To counter all of your rebuttals here, I would like to inform you that an embryo is a human from the moment of conception. No matter what stage of the pregnancy you're in, so I believe that as a human, the embryo should have human rights, with one of which being the right to live.

That doesn't answer the question. Why do you think an embryo has more rights than the person who is pregnant?

An embryo is a human a human from the moment of conception, meaning that it has human rights, including the right to life. This right is infringed by women that want to take the lives of their child, so I would like to ask a similar question, what gives a woman the right to kill another human?

But women don't have the right to life once she becomes pregnant, does she? At that point she's just a vessel for what's about to come bursting out of her body. I mean who cares that she can die on the birthing bed? Have you even thought about the violence that a woman's body goes through in childbirth?

You're insinuating that a pregnant women is barely even human any more because she's carrying her child? Women around the world get pregnant and they are still given human rights. Saying that women don't have a right to life because their pregnant is nonsensical because they are more than a vessel. Women aren't octopi that that spontaneously die when they give birth. With modern medicine that we have in America, the chances of dying during or in the aftermath of labor are a mere 0.0238%. As for the "violence" of giving birth, I assume that you're referring to the pain of going through labor. Millions of mothers throughout the country have gone through labor and all the pain that went along with it, and are still alive and healthy. It's almost like giving birth is a natural and common occurrence.

Republicans are treating women like a vessel with no rights over their own bodies. Let's talk real numbers. 700 women die during childbirth every year. They can also die during pregnancy from high blood pressure and other ailments. None of that matters to Republicans. You're all willing to sacrifice women for the sake of an embryo that's not even fully formed yet, that can't breathe on its own, or has all of its organs. 700 women might not be a big enough of a number to you but it's about to go up dramatically. Now we're also going to see more pregnant adolescents dying as well.

The fact that you would talk about childbirth so cavalierly as if it's no big deal just proves that you don't care about what women have to go through with pregnancy and childbirth. It's natural and common, yeah, but it's not easy. Definitely not something anyone should be able to force someone to go through against their will.

"An embryo is a human a human from the moment of conception, meaning that it has human rights, including the right to life"

Then why doesn't the Constitution specify that?

"what gives a woman the right to kill another human?"

The fact that nobody has the right to use someone else's body without their consent for one, and I would also argue that a fertilized egg or embryo does not have human rights because it is not a person

Does the Constitution specify what is a human, at what stage, etc?

Oh wait, it DID.

A human - according to the Constitution - is as has been understood by their English forefathers, and that is, an adult Protestant British or Teutonic upper class land owning man of means.

Women, like slaves and also as children still today (including those unborn uterine 'cysts' women carry for 9 months prior to the stork bringing home baby) were chattle, and not bestowed any rights other than as property of the male head of the household.

Rights, obviously, as exemplified by their flexibility, are social constructs. Pretzelating semantics does not define or establish who they are granted to, upper class men decide if the lowly peons beneath them should be granted the worthiness to allow the extension of whatever 'rights' towards them.

If an unborn baby wasn't human or alive or not a person, then there'd be no need to abort it.
Abortion, btw, is an act that said unborn baby did not consent to, regardless if it is for (primarily, with certain rare exceptions) the convenience of the mother, and a violation of her biological imperative and primary function as a reproductive organism. If she believes she is not capable of being a mother, then she should opt for sterilization. And yes, this is not including cases of rape/incest and risks to her health. Same for the fathers. Heck, sterilize the masses and grant the 'right' to breed to only the less genetically weak. Humans are de-evolving at a rapid clip and most make awful parents. The time to do something about it was long ago.

Children separated from their immigrant parents at the border are humans, too. Where are their rights? How many have died or gotten abused in Trump's concentration camps? Where is the so-called "Christian right" when it comes to them? They no longer exist. Kids, once their born, no longer exist to right-wingers. They become someone else's problem.

Are they, though? Because the Indiana AG investigated the doctor who helped that 10 year old girl get the abortion. The girl missed the cutoff in Ohio by 3 days. They didn't care she got r@ped. They now say it might've actually been good for her to keep the baby. 10 freaking years old!
But too bad for him, the doctor did report it so they can't charge her with breaking the law. Truth is, they don't want females to go to another state to get abortions because that defeats their asinine purpose.

Yeah, that's screwed up. I don't think that people without the capacity to be a parent or properly even give birth should be restricted from abortions. The subject of abortion is a complicated one and there are nuances to be considered that make me think that a ten year old should be allowed to get an abortion. As for grown women, I don't think they should be allowed to get one.

I think that there should be certain situations where it could be legal, but other than that I believe that it is unreasonable and unnecessary.

That's why these anti-women laws are garbage. Women have a wide range of reasons for getting abortions. What gives people the right to judge women on their decisions over what to do with their own bodies? So-called Christians are outright judging women, even choosing to overlook the real victims in all of this, actual living, breathing children, just out of spite and animosity toward the women who's reasons for getting abortions aren't up to "Christian" standards.

Right, there are a lot of complications, but one of the biggest arguments is whether or not the fetus is a person, I just happen to think that it is.

Maybe sperm should be considered a person. They move with purpose and know where they're going and what their mission is.

Uh-huh. And when Republicans take over in 2024 and pass a national abortion ban, it will be “oh, you can still travel to Canada…”

No. You can’t farm out human rights to neighboring jurisdictions. If you ban it, you own it. Especially for 10-year-olds who can’t make a living and are 6 years away from even being able to drive.

Nothing's stopping people from immigrating to another country if they're so dead set on killing a fetus, and non consensual pregnancies are a very small minority of cases, though I would agree that a ten year old should be allowed to have an abortion that would likely be paid for by the parents.

Nothing’s stopping you from emigrating to a shithole theocratic country where women are thrown into the kitchen barefoot.

Just another way in which American conservatives have a lot more in common than they wish with radical Muslim countries

You seem to be having a hard time making points here and actually contributing to the conversation. At this point it seems like your scrambling to come up with comments resembling insults and wasting your time. With what little respect I have for you, I would suggest going to one of the other degenerate streams that you follow.

Lol literally all I did was take your own “move somewhere else!” logic and flipped it around.

You introduced that concept — you rightly recognize it as lazy and dismissive but only when you’re not the one doing it.

The only problem with your method is that you're suggesting that I move somewhere when I'm content where I am, while I suggested that you move somewhere that doesn't oppose your opinions and away from a place that you don't like the state of.

I prefer this country, which is heading towards a direction I like.

Well then that makes you one of the few people I know who would actually answer “yes” to that perennial question, “do you think the country is moving in the right direction?” when pollsters call.

I’ve always wondered who those folks were — darn near everyone else (Left, Right, or Center) is mad as hell.

Hope you’re sleeping better at night knowing life just got that much harder in our country for raped 10-year-olds and women of every stripe.

Ah yes, the emotional blackmail that you libs love so much. I’ve previously stated that under specific circumstances, some people, in this case young girls, should be allowed to have an abortion. A child can’t be expected by the state to have a child.

Do you live in a state that has provided exceptions for rape and/or underage girls? Do you know?

If not, and you’re happy about the state of the law anyway, then your theoretical objections don’t matter. You are supporting a policy of needless cruelty nonetheless.

I live in a state where everyone can get an abortion.

It’s a bit bold of you to assume though.

I didn’t assume, I asked.

Well then no raped children will be forced to make a humiliating out-of-state trip as a result of your vote — regardless of your apparent glee at the fact this is happening elsewhere

weird that I can't reply to your previous comment.

I don't think anyone would think it humiliating for a young girl that was raped to make a trip to get an abortion. I didn't vote on the decision regarding abortion laws, and I feel no sense of joy knowing anyone is being harmed, let alone little kids being impregnated. I treat it as a solemn subject that should be lamented. Again, you're assuming things about me, thinking I'm some sadist that's happy that children need to get abortions. You also keep piling on the emotional blackmail.

As for the country’s current state, it’s not great, but between Roe v Wade being overturned and the change of New York gun laws, things seem to be improving

Oh! So it's ok to kill a human life form if the mother is 10 years old? That's not how these backward ass states feel. They want to force young girls to carry a baby to term and then give birth, when they're not even done growing yet themselves. Most likely she'll have to have a cesarean because her birth canal is too small to allow a full grown baby to pass through it. Oh and forget about welfare because they're trying to cut that off for people. Adoption? As if there aren't too many kids aging out of foster care who never get adopted. Great plan, guys. @@

62% of babies get adopted withing the first two months of their lives in Texas alone.

Before SCOTUS overturned Roe v Wade:
More than 23,000 children aged out of the US foster care system every year.
After reaching the age of 18, 20% of the children who were in foster care became instantly homeless.
Only 1 out of every 2 foster kids who aged out of the system had some form of gainful employment by the age of 24.
There was less than a 3% chance for children who have aged out of foster care to earn a college degree at any point in their life.
7 out of 10 girls who aged out of the foster care system became pregnant before the age of 21.
The percentage of children who aged out of the foster care system and still suffered from the direct effects of PTSD: 25%.

Get ready for the foster kid explosion that's about to happen to the system and, as usual, Republicans have no plan in place whatsoever to deal with it.

What do you mean when you say before the Supreme Court overturned Roe v Wade? Are you referring to when it was first established in 1973, or do you mean more recently? Though I do think it's helpful of you to include actual data, the examples that you give make it seem like you believe foster kids are better off dead than ever living at all.

Telling someone that they're better off never being born is pretty messed up to say the least.

I'm just giving facts about a situation that Republicans are about to create with these anti-abortion laws. You all care so much about kids UNTIL they're born, but haven't even taken the time to think about what's going to happen to all these kids you're forcing women to give birth to.

These are recent statistics from 2021. 35,000 victims of r@pe get pregnant every year. But the law will embolden r@pists because now they know they can create offspring through their act of violence. That gives them even more power over their victim, an opportunity to be present in their lives for at least the next nine months, possibly the next 18 years.

And how many more disabled will be born? What are we doing to prepare for the special ed explosion that's about to happen? I'll tell you what: not a damn thing. The system is failing already because they don't pay teachers enough. Now they're going to have to hire even more.

Republicans aren't forcing these women to get pregnant, rapists are, so I think that as the country hopefully moves towards an abortion free country we should make drastic efforts to minimize or fully eradicate rapists (I don't know how yet, but I'm sure we'll find a way eventually). I realize that mental illness is often hereditary, but according to an assessment by the Indian Journal of Psychiatry, most rapists are not mentally disordered, though people with schizophrenia or related illnesses may be susceptible to committing sexual assault.

And again, you seem to be saying that another group of people would be better off dead, this time about disabled people, and that's ableist.

We're NOT going to do that. This is about stripping womens' rights. Giving men more rights over women. That's all this is.

I didn't say it was going to improve a man's life. That's what a lot of people are thinking though. I'm saying this is about taking power away from women over their own bodies. It's also not just about an abortion free country. It's also about depriving people of birth control. Soon they're going to try to ban contraceptives. They're going to try to give women no other option. This gives men power over their wives.

Ever heard the term reproductive coercion? You mentioned married women getting abortions. Many wives are r@ped by their own husbands and impregnated against their will. This is not a right that men have just because they're married, contrary to conservative beliefs.

How does this improve a man’s life? Earlier I was presented with the argument that men should pay child support from conception, and I agreed.