Let's talk about that federal abortion bill

[N7Kopper]

Damn, so many people are against babies' rights to choose. This must be how William Wilberforce felt when he was trying to abolish slavery in Britain. And then a few decades later, Britain declared war on slavery and slapped Europe and the USA around until they followed suit.

First you are ignored, then ridiculed, then opposed, then violently opposed, then some socialist revises history to paint you as the sole perpetrators of the crime you spent your empire fighting.

Abortions are not banned from being televised because people are squeamish about gore. It is because seeing the murdered babies and traumatised parents would make people so sick that the pro-aborts would never be able to paint themselves as pro-choice again.

What are you even talking about? The founding fathers established the constitution whilst taking into consideration the bullshit the consolidation of power to the top that they underwent under the british monarchy. It’s always been the case that you needed a vast majority of the legislator or states in favor to pass an amendment, it’s literally written into the constitution. And anyways, for the longest of time a states constitution superseded the federal constitution, it’s only until the courts again gave power to the top that this has been the norm. And please, explain to me how telling states that they can make their own laws on issues is fascism lmao. Y’all gaslight like no tomorrow.

The US Bill of Rights was actually an answer to the US Articles of Confederation, which gave states carte blanche to act as they wanted. This is why a third of the population rebelled against the government and fought for British rule - which was Constitutionally bound by the same documents it is today.

The Loyalists were largely pacified by it in 1787, and the war ended not long after. It established the federal government in much the same role as the Houses of Parliament - holding the States/Colonies accountable to the Constitution. (The Declaration of Independence was written and signed by the governments of the colonies - undermining the Right of Rebellion of the British Subject by taking it upon the governments of the 13 colonies - a major Loyalist complaint at the time)

But that doesn't change the fact that whoever called you a fascist is following Alinsky's Rules for Radicals - call your opponent what you yourself are. The modern federalisation push is - much like UK Republicans attacking the Crown - an effort to centralise unaccountable power.

 

[MariArch]

How long will that thing survive without the mother? As long as it's not autonomous it should not be placed over the bodily autonomy of the mother, period.

Bodily autonomy for every other person is absolute. If you don't want any part of your body used for any reason by a third party you are allowed to deny it. The government can't force you to donate blood, organs, or anything else to save another person's life, so why are we making an exception for woman and force them to donate their blood, womb, and potential well-being towards a clump of cells?

The uterus belongs to the mother absolutely, not the fetus.

Yes, I know the left doesn’t believe in being responsible for your own actions, but a human life with potential, especially that life being your own child, absolutely means that you are responsible for keeping it alive and healthy. You won’t convince any rational human otherwise that this isn’t a human.

Yes, a woman’s uterus belongs to them, but the child inside of them is a being in and of itself that deserves protection. Just because you were too stupid not to use protection, or not to use plan b, or not to have sex if you’re poor as hell, or any other number of excuses, doesn’t revoke a child’s right to life.

 

[MariArch]

Damn, so many people are against babies' rights to choose. This must be how William Wilberforce felt when he was trying to abolish slavery in Britain. And then a few decades later, Britain declared war on slavery and slapped Europe and the USA around until they followed suit.

First you are ignored, then ridiculed, then opposed, then violently opposed, then some socialist revises history to paint you as the sole perpetrators of the crime you spent your empire fighting.

Abortions are not banned from being televised because people are squeamish about gore. It is because seeing the murdered babies and traumatised parents would make people so sick that the pro-aborts would never be able to paint themselvesas pro-choice again.

Once these arguments go from stupid quips and light hearted euphemisms to actually showing the bodies that of the murdered, abortionists look really ugly really quick. If the media was honest, they’d show the dark side of this industry, but that of course is not the case, as they actively run cover for the ‘pro choice’ agenda

 

[Xzi]

The founding fathers established the constitution whilst taking into consideration the bullshit the consolidation of power to the top that they underwent under the british monarchy.

Correct, "consolidation of power" in the sense that the monarchy was more likely to strip away freedoms than expand them. Now conservatives want to do the same thing, and worship authoritarian dictators like Putin who exemplify modern fascism.

And please, explain to me how telling states that they can make their own laws on issues is fascism lmao.

The state interjecting itself into interpersonal relationships and/or a patient's private interactions with their doctor is absolutely fascism. "Making their own laws" does not inherently mean they have to be ethical/moral laws or even laws that uphold American values and ideals. Being anti-abortion means being pro-debt slavery, and supporting a police state to enforce such a policy is even more moronic.

 

[RAHelllord]

Yes, I know the left doesn’t believe in being responsible for your own actions, but a human life with potential, especially that life being your own child, absolutely means that you are responsible for keeping it alive and healthy. You won’t convince any rational human otherwise that this isn’t a human.

Yes, a woman’s uterus belongs to them, but the child inside of them is a being in and of itself that deserves protection. Just because you were too stupid not to use protection, or not to use plan b, or not to have sex if you’re poor as hell, or any other number of excuses, doesn’t revoke a child’s right to life.

The child has every right to life, but that does not exceed the woman's right to decide over her own body. If the fetus can't survive outside of the mother's uterus that is the problem of the fetus, not the mother's.
This is exactly how it is with every other instance of two people, if a person can't survive without an organ transplant or blood transfusion then that is not the problem of any other person that would be a viable organ or blood donor. Even in death a person's autonomy can not be infringed on by taking viable organs against their will.

Also putting the well being of a potential person above the well being of an actual person is perverse to the maximum, which is exactly what this is for you, the woman is less of a person than a clump of cells that might not ever make it to being a real person in the first place. Yet it is somehow worth more to you than an actual person. Disgusting logic by you so called "pro-lifers".

 

[MariArch]

Correct, "consolidation of power" in the sense that the monarchy was more likely to strip away freedoms than expand them. Now conservatives want to do the same thing, and worship authoritarian dictators like Putin who exemplify modern fascism.


The state interjecting itself into interpersonal relationships and/or a patient's private interactions with their doctor is absolutely fascism. "Making their own laws" does not inherently mean they have to be ethical/moral laws or even laws that uphold American values and ideals. Being anti-abortion means being pro-debt slavery, and supporting a police state to enforce such a policy is even more moronic.

… no, they split off because they weren’t being legislated on by a parliament and king that were across the damn ocean and didn’t take into account the needs of them as a single entity. If anything, the recent conservative decision is strengthening the system of federalism that our country was based upon by giving more control to people to decide their own laws in their own states. Idaho and Utah can make their own laws on abortion whilst California and New York can make their own laws.

No. Sorry. But protecting an innocent humans right to life is absolutely the job of the rule of law. I could give a damn about a woman’s private affairs with their doctor… unless they’re conspiring to murder someone that doesn’t have any protections themselves whilst being vulnerable.

As for this pro debt slavery bullshit. That is a purely economical eugenics/anti personal responsibility argument that I will not indulge. Pure stupidity. We can have a conversation about providing support to families in need all day, but when you suggest that killing the child is the proper solution… no

 

[Xzi]

Damn, so many people are against babies' rights to choose.

This is why the anti-abortion argument falls apart so easily. If fetuses had the faculties and all the information necessary to make such a decision, a lot of them would choose to go back to the void/heaven/whatever instead of dealing with neglectful or abusive parents who never intended to become pregnant in the first place. Not to mention our foster care system is even worse than that.

You want more people to give birth to babies that come from accidental/unwanted pregnancies? Ensure they can fucking afford it, simple as that. Nah though, y'all wanna keep minimum wage at $7.25 and ensure people can't even afford housing instead, because "SoCiAliSM ScAwY." Playing right into every billionaire's hands, including the ones you claim to hate like George Soros.

 

[MariArch]

This is why the anti-abortion argument falls apart so easily. If fetuses had the faculties and all the information necessary to make such a decision, a lot of them would choose to go back to the void/heaven/whatever instead of dealing with neglectful or abusive parents who never intended to become pregnant in the first place. Not to mention our foster care system is even worse than that.You want more people to give birth to babies that come from accidental/unwanted pregnancies? Ensure they can fucking afford it, simple as that. Nah though, y'all wanna keep minimum wage at $7.25 and ensure people can't even afford housing instead, because "SoCiAliSM ScAwY." Playing right into every billionaire's hands, including the ones you claim to hate like George Soros.

This is pure stupidity lmao.

 

[Xzi]

… no, they split off because they weren’t being legislated on by a parliament and king that were across the damn ocean and didn’t take into account the needs of them as a single entity.

So you continue to make my case for me. You're trying to take choices away from the individual and allow the state to force a single option on everybody, just as the kings of old did.

We can have a conversation about providing support to families in need all day, but when you suggest that killing the child is the proper solution… no

A fetus is not a child, and if you can't understand the distinction from a biological standpoint, you really have no business voicing your ignorant opinion on this matter at all.

 

[MariArch]

The child has every right to life, but that does not exceed the woman's right to decide over her own body. If the fetus can't survive outside of the mother's uterus that is the problem of the fetus, not the mother's.
This is exactly how it is with every other instance of two people, if a person can't survive without an organ transplant or blood transfusion then that is not the problem of any other person that would be a viable organ or blood donor. Even in death a person's autonomy can not be infringed on by taking viable organs against their will.

Also putting the well being of a potential person above the well being of an actual person is perverse to the maximum, which is exactly what this is for you, the woman is less of a person than a clump of cells that might not ever make it to being a real person in the first place. Yet it is somehow worth more to you than an actual person. Disgusting logic by you so called "pro-lifers".

So you just admitted that the child is in fact a person. With that nomenclature, I have one response to you: a mother has a duty to protect their child, I could give two damns if you have to be uncomfortable for 9 months, it doesn’t give you the right to kill your child.

 

[Xzi]

This is pure stupidity lmao.

It's pure stupidity to believe a fetus has any opinion whatsoever on "wanting to be born." It instinctively feeds on the nutrients its mother provides, and that's all.

 

[LainaGabranth]

Abortion is based tbh.

 

[Xzi]

Let's be straight here: Christian conservatives who have never even read the bible want to try to force the morals and ethics they pulled out of their asses on everybody else. If they had actually read the bible, they'd know the Old Testament has a how-to guide for performing abortions, and the New Testament provides no opinion on it whatsoever. Abortions were common during the era it was written, so we can only presume your god thinks they're just fine and dandy.

Oh, and let's not forget that Jesus was Jewish, which would doubly imply that abortion should be both permitted and sanctioned by anyone who actually follows Christ's teachings instead of only being a poser.

 

[TraderPatTX]

welp get ready to experience a whole new level of hell. most fetal defects can only get checked at 18/20 weeks, and PLENTY of them can make the life of the mothers and child a litteral living hell. just look at the lady who had to fly to NY to abort her skull-less child. sure the mothers life wasn't in danger, but the child has no skull, there is no saving it. there are thousands of other examples and women are going to suffer. OBGYNs are going to start quitting, women are going to go get back ally abortions, and the maternal mortality rate will sky rocket. I can't wait to see the mom who needs to CRUSH HER CHILDS ACTUAL HEAD during childbirth because it has no skull, or they take it out and watch it's head flop until the brain crushes itself under it's own weight anyways. you people are monsters.

The left always have to use edge cases that happen in 0.01% of pregnancies for their argument for abortion on demand. I miss the days when the argument was to make it legal but rare, but the left has gone so extreme that nobody is buying it anymore so you have to search high and low for anecdotal evidence to push the narrative. I actually used to be pro-choice until the left went off the deep end.

 

[TraderPatTX]

The child has every right to life, but that does not exceed the woman's right to decide over her own body. If the fetus can't survive outside of the mother's uterus that is the problem of the fetus, not the mother's.
This is exactly how it is with every other instance of two people, if a person can't survive without an organ transplant or blood transfusion then that is not the problem of any other person that would be a viable organ or blood donor. Even in death a person's autonomy can not be infringed on by taking viable organs against their will.

Also putting the well being of a potential person above the well being of an actual person is perverse to the maximum, which is exactly what this is for you, the woman is less of a person than a clump of cells that might not ever make it to being a real person in the first place. Yet it is somehow worth more to you than an actual person. Disgusting logic by you so called "pro-lifers".

The right to life supersedes all other rights. What would be the purpose of free speech if you are not alive? Not much of a point to having the right to a speedy trial if you are already dead. Smh

 

[sombrerosonic]

It really depeneds on when you think the baby is alive. do you think it happens with conception or when its out of the womb. So.... what do you all think? Out of the womb or when conception happens

 

[RAHelllord]

So you just admitted that the child is in fact a person. With that nomenclature, I have one response to you: a mother has a duty to protect their child, I could give two damns if you have to be uncomfortable for 9 months, it doesn’t give you the right to kill your child.

Sorry, I was using words you'd understand since I have a feeling you wouldn't grasp the differences between zygote, embryo, fetus, and child, so I used a simple word for you.

And no, the mother doesn't. If a child that was born is about to die and can only be rescued by a transplant from the mother the mother has every right to say no, it's literally part of the US law. Your entire argument is one of ignorance and exploitation.

The right to life supersedes all other rights. What would be the purpose of free speech if you are not alive? Not much of a point to having the right to a speedy trial if you are already dead. Smh

Then I am betting you are in favor of making organ donations mandatory, for example everyone can live a happy and fulfilled life with only one kidney, yet people die regularly because no viable donor is willing to part with one.

It really depeneds on when you think the baby is alive. do you think it happens with conception or when its out of the womb. So.... what do you all think? Out of the womb or when conception happens

The moment the fetus is able to survive outside of the womb on its own (not withstanding medical help like helping it breathe, that's obviously fine). Before that marker it's no more than a parasite that requires a host to exist.

 

[Glyptofane]

Not this shit again...

 

[Xzi]

Not this shit again...

This shit will go on forever, because without fake moral outrage, Republicans have absolutely nothing to campaign on. Other than the Southern Strategy, anyway, but they generally want to pretend that doesn't exist.

 

[LainaGabranth]

This shit will go on forever, because without fake moral outrage, Republicans have absolutely nothing to campaign on. Other than the Southern Strategy, anyway, but they generally want to pretend that doesn't exist.

As long as there is someone who doesn't like being oppressed, the Republicans will exist and drum up excuses as to why they should be.