32 ms·

To anyone reading this thread and thinking pro-lifers aren't really this extreme, yes, they really truly are. Many absolutely want the death penalty for aborti

To anyone reading this thread and thinking pro-lifers aren't really this extreme, yes, they really truly are. Many absolutely want the death penalty for abortion, or at least murder level prison sentence. No amount of logic and reasoning gets to them. No arguments about the value of the mother's life. No arguments about the legal protections of bodily autonomy, and the slippery slope of setting precedent to violate that. No education about the inherent messiness of pregnancy and difficulty to actually tell the difference between a natural miscarriage (medically termed 'spontaneous abortion') and an intentional abortion. No nuance on the chilling effect for doctors who will start to refuse to give women the treatment they need when it risks unintentionally causing a miscarriage. These people have an extremely underdeveloped concept of morality and ethics, where everything is black and white. And they pose an immense danger of ripping us as a society back into the dark ages of justice. I say this as someone who was raised deeply religious and ravenously prolife. I marched in protest with life tape over my mouth and in front of abortion clinics as a child. This is really how these people think. Wake up.

realjhol 4y ago
- anonporridge 4y ago
  At what point in a pregnancy do you believe personhood begins?
  - realjhol 4y ago
    It doesn't matter what I think. Now states can decide for themselves without having the federal government force them. Because everyone is pro-life beyond a certain threshold - its just a question of when.
    - anonporridge 4y ago
      Why is state the right level to decide? There's a ton of variety of opinions within states. Why not leave the decision to the county level? Why does the state get to force their decision on counties? Then again, there's a ton of variety of opinion within counties. Rural and urban areas are often starkly opposed. So why does the majority opinion of the whole county get forced on everyone? Then again, there's a ton of variety between households in any locality. Why should the larger locality get to force it's majority opinion on dissenting households? Then again, there's variety of opinion between individuals in a household. Why does the majority opinion of the household get forced on dissenting individuals? The weird obsession with states rights isn't a genuine argument. It's just the level of authority that allows your particular opinion to get maximum power over people, because it can't win at the federal level. If you actually cared about overbearing government on this issue, you would argue to leave the decision up to the people directly affected, and be pro-choice.
      - realjhol 4y ago
        anonporridge 4y ago
        Thank you for confirming my point. You don't actually care about states rights. That's just a talking point. You care about power and control to enforce your personal moral code over people, however you can make it happen.
        realjhol 4y ago
      - josephcsible 4y ago
        > you would argue to leave the decision up to the people directly affected Sure, let's do this. Just make sure you require unanimous consent, count the baby as one of the people directly affected, and don't treat a lack of a clear, conscious response as "yes, I'm okay with being killed".
DeathArrow 4y ago
>No arguments about the legal protections of bodily autonomy, It's not about your body autonomy, it's about taking the life of an unborn child, who clearly does not not belong to your body as he has a different DNA. If you want body autonomy, you can pull a tooth or cut a finger.
- andsoitis 4y ago
  If an unborn child is really independent of the mother's body, then you should be able to take it out - it is independent after all! If it doesn't belong to my body, what responsibility do I have for it?
  - realjhol 4y ago
    He didn't say it was independent- no child is independent and would survive without adults to depend upon until that child is maybe 16 years old. He said the child is distinct from its mother's body from conception. Which is correct.
- anonporridge 4y ago
  Do you support the idea of removing the embryo or fetus alive, where child protective services can then try to keep it alive until it can be adopted? Because that's what we do with born children when their parents don't want them.
  - realjhol 4y ago
    - anonporridge 4y ago
      So you're holding the well being of poor children (whom everyone agrees are people with rights) hostage for the sake of not yet viable or autonomous fetuses? That seems unbelievably evil.
      - 4y ago

realjhol 4y ago

anonporridge 4y ago
At what point in a pregnancy do you believe personhood begins?
- realjhol 4y ago
  It doesn't matter what I think. Now states can decide for themselves without having the federal government force them. Because everyone is pro-life beyond a certain threshold - its just a question of when.
  - anonporridge 4y ago
    Why is state the right level to decide? There's a ton of variety of opinions within states. Why not leave the decision to the county level? Why does the state get to force their decision on counties? Then again, there's a ton of variety of opinion within counties. Rural and urban areas are often starkly opposed. So why does the majority opinion of the whole county get forced on everyone? Then again, there's a ton of variety between households in any locality. Why should the larger locality get to force it's majority opinion on dissenting households? Then again, there's variety of opinion between individuals in a household. Why does the majority opinion of the household get forced on dissenting individuals? The weird obsession with states rights isn't a genuine argument. It's just the level of authority that allows your particular opinion to get maximum power over people, because it can't win at the federal level. If you actually cared about overbearing government on this issue, you would argue to leave the decision up to the people directly affected, and be pro-choice.
    - realjhol 4y ago
      - anonporridge 4y ago
        Thank you for confirming my point. You don't actually care about states rights. That's just a talking point. You care about power and control to enforce your personal moral code over people, however you can make it happen.
        realjhol 4y ago
    - josephcsible 4y ago
      > you would argue to leave the decision up to the people directly affected Sure, let's do this. Just make sure you require unanimous consent, count the baby as one of the people directly affected, and don't treat a lack of a clear, conscious response as "yes, I'm okay with being killed".

DeathArrow 4y ago

>No arguments about the legal protections of bodily autonomy, It's not about your body autonomy, it's about taking the life of an unborn child, who clearly does not not belong to your body as he has a different DNA. If you want body autonomy, you can pull a tooth or cut a finger.

andsoitis 4y ago
If an unborn child is really independent of the mother's body, then you should be able to take it out - it is independent after all! If it doesn't belong to my body, what responsibility do I have for it?
- realjhol 4y ago
  He didn't say it was independent- no child is independent and would survive without adults to depend upon until that child is maybe 16 years old. He said the child is distinct from its mother's body from conception. Which is correct.
anonporridge 4y ago
Do you support the idea of removing the embryo or fetus alive, where child protective services can then try to keep it alive until it can be adopted? Because that's what we do with born children when their parents don't want them.
- realjhol 4y ago
  - anonporridge 4y ago
    So you're holding the well being of poor children (whom everyone agrees are people with rights) hostage for the sake of not yet viable or autonomous fetuses? That seems unbelievably evil.
    - 4y ago