The Abortion Debate Containment Thread - Put abortion sperging here.

[Freya]

You know, it is possible to not like abortion, and be sympathetic towards women who are pregnant. Like it, or not, even with modern medicine, and science, pregnancy is still a very dangerous, uncomfortable, and painful thing to go through, and it's not like pregnant women are whining for no reason. They're literally growing another person inside them, and eventually have to push that person out of their cunt holes.

Their guts get moved around, they might become incontinent, their cunts usually tear, and they gotta be sewn up with vaginal stitches, and other shit, they're at risk of dying from infection, and other complications from the birthing process, and the possibility of the fetus miscarrying, and not passing through them, their hormones get thrown all out of whack, they're gotta deal with morning sickness, and the even worse version of that where they gotta be put on IVs and feeding tubes because they can't keep food down because they keep throwing because their always so nauseous, they risk getting postpartum depression, or even worse, postpartum psychosis and might do all thing horrific things that come with that like killing their children like Andrea Yates, or even fucking eating them like that other lady did on that infamous 911 call.

Look, my point is that while I don't like abortion, and think it should always be heavily regulated, claiming that women are just being whiny, spoiled cunts about being pregnant for no good reason when that's blatantly not true is just honestly a really fucking retarded, ignorant, naïve, and frankly incel-y thing to say.

Notice how he describes the issues with pregnancy as "these discomforts". He has no idea.

 

[Lemmingwise]

Like 90% of abortions in the US are done within the first trimester already.

Nobody is getting an abortion at 3 months just for shits and giggles. By that point there's usually a serious medical issue thats the reason

"Usually"

So not always.

I guess that's a no.

 

[Zero Day Defense]

You know, it is possible to not like abortion, and be sympathetic towards women who are pregnant.

Notice how he describes the issues with pregnancy as "these discomforts". He has no idea.

I have sympathy for pregnant women. I've rendered myself completely homebound because I don't want to risk exposing my apparently asthmatic pregnant sister-in-law to COVID. Multiple times a day, she finds herself lethargic and/or with headaches. It's been recently that she hasn't had the urge to vomit. I've witnessed enough births in the family to have witnessed most of the non-lethal (yet nevertheless troublesome) complications during pregnancy. I had a family member need to get her tubes tied because her uterus' thickness had declined to that of paper after her third child, according to her doctor. Not too long ago I had to tend to my SIL because she ended up collapsing from a no-shit multi-minute orthostatic syncope, and I was prepared to call the ambulance if the situation didn't improve. I've heard of miscarriage scares where the woman just bleeds profusely from her vagina-- sometimes the baby's still fine, sometimes it's a miscarriage. This person was fortunate. When I was much younger, one of my mother's friends had randomly died after a relatively simple birth to a healthy child.

On several occasions now, I've discussed wielding the power of the state (and perhaps I've also suggested merely involving the community) in supporting pregnant women as an alternative to abortion where it isn't absolutely necessary. I've recognized that even if children were to be given up for adoption, the system itself needs to be improved as to mitigate occasion for abuse.

I have sympathy for pregnant women who end up getting abortions because to continue the gestation is to invite certain or even likely death upon themselves, and I have sympathy for pregnant women who have to get an abortion because the fetus attached in an unsuitable place and there's zero chance that they'll be viable and a nonzero chance that the woman will suffer severe complications or die. It's not as though they're doing it because it never sunk in that sex causes pregnancy-- they can't actually have the baby under those circumstances, even though they wanted to.

Your problem is that you need whatever sympathies I have to prevent me from making a firm stance in the face of any argument regarding this topic, as though I can't recognize nuance and still come to a distinct and binary answer (and mine isn't even binary). That's the only purpose of the "sympathy" rebuke in Current Year + 6: to bully people into non-conviction and tacit agreement, rather than inspire the creation of thoughtful, comprehensive solutions.

I recognize the difficulties of pregnancy but where there aren't known imminent fatal risks, I value the continuance of the gestating life as well such that I seek to balance matters such that both lives can be sustained. I have witnessed, and have taken part in initiatives that seek to support pregnant women as much as a non-spouse and non-medical professional can such that abortion can be less considered. I have directly provided aid to pregnant women, and have sacrificed for their sakes, because that's what you do when it comes to welfare and human life.

That you need me to be as agnostic as you are is why I can say this (emphasis added in post-- color coded, too!):

I've had it with this puerile "you just hate women!" retort-- it's compressed schizophrenia spawned from the eaten-up brains of sex-addled millennials and zoomers that never grew up past 14, along with their sycophants. It's one thing to say "this person is in a tough position in their life and our society has been developed such that the"best" option for them is to kill their child"-- it's absolute lunacy, however, to make arguments like "I won't nurture my own flesh and blood in my womb because I didn't consent for it to be there even though you totally did because you caused his conception by willingly doing the one thing that would cause that" or to say things like "I would drink hard enough to either kill my baby or ensure its being is so FUBAR that it dies minutes after birth because I'm just so mentally ill even though I can catch myself recognizing that this is egregiously fucked!" is at the height of lunacy.

and the only takeaway you have is "you sound like a naive incel!". I point out a specific type of personwho uses a specific argument in abortion discussions while excluding another kind of person posing another kind of argument, well after describing several potential solutions to combat the pressures of pregnancy in general as well as issues with "alternatives" to abortion, and your takeaway is that I'm shitting on all women. I can even specify that it's some-- not all, some women that make the arguments I've highlighted, and it doesn't make a damn difference, I'm still being represented as someone who thinks this of all women (or even all pro-choice proponents that are women) by someone who either has worse reading comprehension than Stevie Wonder or the situational awareness of an embryo.

Or maybe you're just juggling similar conversations on multiple forums and didn't check which site was which.

 

[Freya]

I have sympathy for pregnant women. I've rendered myself completely homebound because I don't want to risk exposing my apparently asthmatic pregnant sister-in-law to COVID. Multiple times a day, she finds herself lethargic and/or with headaches. It's been recently that she hasn't had the urge to vomit. I've witnessed enough births in the family to have witnessed most of the non-lethal (yet nevertheless troublesome) complications during pregnancy. I had a family member need to get her tubes tied because her uterus' thickness had declined to that of paper after her third child, according to her doctor. Not too long ago I had to tend to my SIL because she ended up collapsing from a no-shit multi-minute orthostatic syncope, and I was prepared to call the ambulance if the situation didn't improve. I've heard of miscarriage scares where the woman just bleeds profusely from her vagina-- sometimes the baby's still fine, sometimes it's a miscarriage. This person was fortunate. When I was much younger, one of my mother's friends had randomly died after a relatively simple birth to a healthy child.

On several occasions now, I've discussed wielding the power of the state (and perhaps I've also suggested merely involving the community) in supporting pregnant women as an alternative to abortion where it isn't absolutely necessary. I've recognized that even if children were to be given up for adoption, the system itself needs to be improved as to mitigate occasion for abuse.

I have sympathy for pregnant women who end up getting abortions because to continue the gestation is to invite certain or even likely death upon themselves, and I have sympathy for pregnant women who have to get an abortion because the fetus attached in an unsuitable place and there's zero chance that they'll be viable and a nonzero chance that the woman will suffer severe complications or die. It's not as though they're doing it because it never sunk in that sex causes pregnancy-- they can't actually have the baby under those circumstances, even though they wanted to.

Your problem is that you need whatever sympathies I have to prevent me from making a firm stance in the face of any argument regarding this topic, as though I can't recognize nuance and still come to a distinct and binary answer (and mine isn't even binary). That's the only purpose of the "sympathy" rebuke in Current Year + 6: to bully people into non-conviction and tacit agreement, rather than inspire the creation of thoughtful, comprehensive solutions.

I recognize the difficulties of pregnancy but where there aren't known imminent fatal risks, I value the continuance of the gestating life as well such that I seek to balance matters such that both lives can be sustained. I have witnessed, and have taken part in initiatives that seek to support pregnant women as much as a non-spouse and non-medical professional can such that abortion can be less considered. I have directly provided aid to pregnant women, and have sacrificed for their sakes, because that's what you do when it comes to welfare and human life.

That you need me to be as agnostic as you are is why I can say this (emphasis added in post-- color coded, too!):

and the only takeaway you have is "you sound like a naive incel!". I point out a specific type of personwho uses a specific argument in abortion discussions while excluding another kind of person posing another kind of argument, well after describing several potential solutions in combat with the pressures of pregnancy in general as well as issues with "alternatives" to abortion, and your takeaway is that I'm shitting on all women. I can even specify that it's some-- not all, some women that make the arguments I've highlighted, and it doesn't make a damn difference, I'm still being represented as someone who thinks this of all women (or even all pro-choice proponents that are women) by someone who either has worse reading comprehension than Stevie Wonder or the situational awareness of an embryo.

Or maybe you're just juggling similar conversations on multiple forums and didn't check which site was which.

Nobody read that.

 

[Freya]

"Usually"

So not always.

I guess that's a no.

I knew you asked that question for dishonest purposes. Typical anti-choicer.

But guess what, why they have abortions is none of your business

 

[Android raptor]

This is already a thing. I'm not sure how much it varies from state to state, but at least in my state, you can go to your local health department and get your pelvic exam and birth control there. The costs are sliding scale, so for many (all? I'm not sure of the income cutoffs) low income women it would be free.

It's a lot less accessible in red States. I'm low income and my iud was 130. While I could afford it I'd imagine women who can't are shit outta luck. Poor people are less likely to have reliable transportation as well, and in red States public transit is shitty to non-existent. If you have no way to get to the health department it's hard to get birth control from them.

Ironically providing birth control to low income people is the bulk of what Planned Parenthood does, yet for some reason even prolifers that claim to support providing birth control to everyone are constantly trying to defund and terrorize PP.

 

[Lemmingwise]

I knew you asked that question for dishonest purposes. Typical anti-choicer.

But guess what, why they have abortions is none of your business

Typical personal attack when you can't talk about the issue.

What is dishonest about it?

It was an honest question, just as I believe the 100 embryo question was an honest question (which I answered).

I can elaborate on what happened after I read your post, if it helps.

First I thought 90% was high. I am aware of the laws being considerably different depending on country. There was also the earlier discussion 40 pages back where someone said that nobody wanted to extend legal right for abortion up to birth. Another person said that nobody wanted that and he was stupid to think so.

Then the evidence was produced that people did in fact tey to make that legal.

Ok so what was the evidence for the 90%? I looked at a couple of studies. There are subjects that I'm knowledgable about, and I'll say abortion is not (yet) one of them. I use threads like these to learn to understand the various sides and learn about it.

The studies I looked at made it look like 90% was accurate, even lowballing it a little, as it seems closer to 93%. So I learned something from that.

But what about the remaining 7% (or 10%)? You say "nobody does it for shits and giggles". You could say the same thing about a variety of crimes. Nobody steals for shits and giggles, nobody murders for shits and giggles. The statement demands that we put the person committing the act (crime or not) as the person that we empathise with.

But more importantly, you say that usually there is a serious medical condition. So not always. The point is a bit moot, because as I'm sure you know there are plenty of countries where getting an abortion is illegal, but they have exceptions when it seriously endangers the life of the mother.

You chose to say usually, not me. In your mind then, you knew it wasn't always the case. You assume it is for good reasons anyways, despite you not being able to look into their heads or lives to know for sure. As if it's suddenly impossible for people to be irresponsible when it comes to pregnancy.

Would for example "I forgot to schedule one earlier" be a good reason in your mind?

It's not a question just for you, it's for anyone who wants to defend late non-medical abortions.

 

[Freya]

Typical personal attack when you can't talk about the issue.

What is dishonest about it?

It was an honest question, just as I believe the 100 embryo question was an honest question (which I answered).

I can elaborate on what happened after I read your post, if it helps.

First I thought 90% was high. I am aware of the laws being considerably different depending on country. There was also the earlier discussion 40 pages back where someone said that nobody wanted to extend legal right for abortion up to birth. Another person said that nobody wanted that and he was stupid to think so.

Then the evidence was produced that people did in fact tey to make that legal.

Ok so what was the evidence for the 90%? I looked at a couple of studies. There are subjects that I'm knowledgable about, and I'll say abortion is not (yet) one of them. I use threads like these to learn to understand the various sides and learn about it.

The studies I looked at made it look like 90% was accurate, even lowballing it a little, as it seems closer to 93%. So I learned something from that.

But what about the remaining 7% (or 10%)? You say "nobody does it for shits and giggles". You could say the same thing about a variety of crimes. Nobody steals for shits and giggles, nobody murders for shits and giggles. The statement demands that we put the person committing the act (crime or not) as the person that we empathise with.

But more importantly, you say that usually there is a serious medical condition. So not always. The point is a bit moot, because as I'm sure you know there are plenty of countries where getting an abortion is illegal, but they have exceptions when it seriously endangers the life of the mother.

You chose to say usually, not me. In your mind then, you knew it wasn't always the case. You assume it is for good reasons anyways, despite you not being able to look into their heads or lives to know for sure. As if it's suddenly impossible for people to be irresponsible when it comes to pregnancy.

Would for example "I forgot to schedule one earlier" be a good reason in your mind?

It's not a question just for you, it's for anyone who wants to defend late non-medical abortions.

No woman is going to deal with months of pregnancy and pay thousands for a riskier procedure for absolutely no reason. I would think that would be obvious. You don't just forget to schedule that


I just said usually because it's prudent to avoid speaking in absolutes

 

[Lemmingwise]

No woman is going to deal with months of pregnancy and pay thousands for a riskier procedure for absolutely no reason. I would think that would be obvious.


I just said usually because it's prudent to avoid speaking in absolutes

"Every woman is responsible", sure sure, you girls shit gold. There has never been an irresponsible woman in the herstory of womankind.

My apologies.

So you do find even hypothetical non-medical late term abortions defendable. Do all the prochoicers agree on that or is there a difference of opinion there?

(Question not extended to those who have already stated they would murder their child post-birth)

 

[Freya]

"Every woman is responsible", sure sure, you girls shit gold. There has never been an irresponsible woman in the herstory of womankind.

You're just twisting my words now.

Fuck off incel.

 

[Lemmingwise]

You're just twisting my words now.

Fuck off incel.

Sometimes there are questions that ask us to face the contradictions in our thinking much like @Android raptor did to me with her question.

It really is a simple question. Defend non-medical late abortion or not?

Your contention is that they could never happen for an irresponsible reason, which would assume that every woman ever is responsible. Like not even 0.01% of women could be irresponsible? You know it is unreasonable.

That's why I think you're getting defensive suddenly.

 

[Freya]

Sometimes there are questions that ask us to face the contradictions in our thinking much like @Android raptor did to me with her question.

It really is a simple question. Defend non-medical late abortion or not?

Your contention is that they could never happen for an irresponsible reason, which would assume that every woman ever is responsible. Like not even 0.01% of women could be irresponsible? You know it is unreasonable.

That's why I think you're getting defensive suddenly.

I'm telling you to fuck off for twisting my words.

 

[Lemmingwise]

I'm telling you to fuck off for twisting my words.

Feel free to fuck off if you can't handle serious conversations.

What part do you think that I got wrong?

 

[Android raptor]

If a woman is willing to pay tens of thousands of dollars to fly across the country to have a painful proceedure that lasts days at a building that's under constant threat of terror attacks solely for shits and giggles, do you really think that's someone who needs to be caring for a kid? Seriously if the prolife strawman of a woman that gets late term abortions for funsies existed, is that someone you'd trust raising a child?

Personly I think late term abortions should be available everywhere because poor people shouldn't be forced to give birth to fucked up inside out brainless tard babies.

 

[Zero Day Defense]

If a woman is willing to pay tens of thousands of dollars to fly across the country to have a painful proceedure that lasts days at a building that's under constant threat of terror attacks solely for shits and giggles, do you really think that's someone who needs to be caring for a kid?

Adoption has already been discussed as an option, in the case the woman doesn't want to take care of the child herself.

 

[The Jokester]

I think everyone in this thread can agree to free birth control such as the morning after pill (it takes days for the egg to be fertilised after sex) and condoms. Personally, I have a strong stance on no sex before marriage because I never EVER wanted to have an abortion no matter what. But I think that our sexualised culture is massively to blame.

Alot of women and men believe that they can have it all and do what they want without concentrating the consequences. If you are a young woman who fucks around and even if you are very very good with your pills and condoms, there is still a small possibility for you to get pregnant. That's nature. Nature makes sex feels good because it has a job to do. If sex felt like shit nobody would do it.

Also, I've noticed pro choice people talk about how cruel it is to bring a child into the world if they have a genetic disease. That's a fair point. But it's also dangerous to think like that. Currently Nordic countries have the lowest number of children born with Downs. They have tests that can detect Down's syndrome early on. Women abort these children after being persuaded by their doctors

I'm not being cruel when I say doctors were telling their patients to abort their children. In the documentary that I saw on this issue interviewed mothers in the UK who had children with Down's and one of them was a nurse who already had a daughter with Down's and the doctor tried to tell her how horrible her unborn's life would be. The nurse told the presenter (who also has a child with Down's) that she told her doctor that she already had a child with Down's and loved her dearly and told the doctor that what they were doing was disgusting.

What I'm trying ask is when does abortion go from allowing a woman to chose to selective breeding?

Years ago on the radio, women were proudly saying hoe they lied to their doctors to have abortions because they found put that were having sons and wanted daughters. So they aborted their unborn children who were already developing sex organs to try and breed themselves a daughter like they were soft resetting for a shiny pokemon starter.

With how advanced our genetic testing is getting, what is stopping some nutters from trying breed themselves the perfect child? Don't get me wrong, not every women is so cruel or coldly methodical to do this. But somebody will and probably has. It's a bit mad.

If a woman is willing to pay tens of thousands of dollars to fly across the country to have a painful proceedure that lasts days at a building that's under constant threat of terror attacks solely for shits and giggles, do you really think that's someone who needs to be caring for a kid? Seriously if the prolife strawman of a woman that gets late term abortions for funsies existed, is that someone you'd trust raising a child?

Personly I think late term abortions should be available everywhere because poor people shouldn't be forced to give birth to fucked up inside out brainless tard babies.

What are you talking about? I said that NOBODY does it for entertainment. Abortion isn't fun for anyone. That was my point. It is a horrible process to go through. It can not only damage a woman physically, possibly destroying her cervix and uterus and making her infertile but it can damage a woman psychologically.

Sorry the double posting

 

[Lemmingwise]

I think everyone in this thread can agree to free birth control such as the morning after pill (it takes days for the egg to be fertilised after sex) and condoms. Personally, I have a strong stance on no sex before marriage because I never EVER wanted to have an abortion no matter what. But I think that our sexualised culture is massively to blame.

I don't think you can get such an over sexualised culture without birth control.

In essence, I think you've got cause and effect backward. I could elaborate on that, and I probably will someday soon when I've fully collected my thoughts on the matter.

And no, I don't support a blanket "free birth control". I'd require quite a bit more specifics. I suppose I'm not against some tax money going to the spread of condoms, even though I don't use them anymore and am subsidizing other people's entertainment.

What I'm trying ask is when does abortion go from allowing a woman to chose to selective breeding?

I don't think there is a line seperating the two.

 

[The Jokester]

I don't think you can get such an over sexualised culture without birth control.

In essence, I think you've got cause and effect backward. I could elaborate on that, and I probably will someday soon when I've fully collected my thoughts on the matter.

And no, I don't support a blanket "free birth control". I'd require quite a bit more specifics. I suppose I'm not against some tax money going to the spread of condoms, even though I don't use them anymore and am subsidizing other people's entertainment.

In an ideal world, I would agree. The best conception is keeping your legs crossed and waiting fir the right moment. But I'm too much of a realist. People ARE going to fuck and are going to it under the worse situations. I just think it's better than seeing more children be aborted.

 

[Freya]

What part do you think that I got wrong?

Not tonguing my anus with enough enthusiasm

 

[FEETLOAF]

In an ideal world, I would agree. The best conception is keeping your legs crossed and waiting fir the right moment. But I'm too much of a realist. People ARE going to fuck and are going to it under the worse situations. I just think it's better than seeing more children be aborted.

If your morals can be compromised by practical concerns and "realism" then you don't have any morals.