The Abortion Debate Containment Thread - Put abortion sperging here.

It's expected. No sane doctor is going to irreversably impair normal bodily function without a damn good reason.
It is reversible, women who have it reversed have about a 60-80% chance of successful pregnancy, more with fertility treatments. The drop off is age. Doctors also do it all the time; and it's supposed to be easier to get for women in the UK than in it is for men to have a vasectomy due to the latter involving certain risks.
 
No 'baby' has ever been aborted except under the rarest circumstances. What's 'aborted' looks like a blood clot about 80% of the time.
And that blood clot was going to grow into a majestic Douglas Fir, I suppose. Or a Lamborghini. Abortion is supposed to prevent a baby from being born: what does this embryonic clump of cells have to do with that? You're supposed to be killing a baby, not excising a blood clot.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: FEETLOAF
I disagree.

Not with the necessary evil part; but the idea that nobody is 'for abortion'; if you advocate for allowing if then you 'for abortion'. I am 'for abortion' right now, but if we lived in some hypothetical utopia I'd be against it.
are you "for adultery" if you think it should be legally allowed
 
are you "for adultery" if you think it should be legally allowed
Yes, unless you are neutral on the position I think you are 'for' it. I am not 'for' or 'against' raw milk, I don't care about raw milk and I won't care if they ban or allow it. I care if the government interferes with what me and my partner, or others do with each other or others.

Do you think abortions should be banned?
 
  • Agree
Reactions: FEETLOAF
What I find telling is that one of the pro-choice people said that if for whatever reason she got pregnant and if for whatever reason she was unable to terminate, she would kill the child after it was born.

And not a single pro-choice person said that was going too far, that it was wrong, or that she at that point should consider adoption.
Because it's obvious that she was joking, you autist.
It's obvious that you struggle with analogies so I'll rephrase it for your sensibilities; what if somebody decides they just NEED to embezzle millions in public funds? Or they need your car to go for a joyride?

I'm trying to explain what laws are to you. I don't know what's complicated about the fact that laws necessarily constrain people's bodily autonomy all the time. But these laws apply to WOMXN (even though any man involved would be complicit) so it's totally different, right?
And it's still a stupid comparison.
Am I "demanding that someone else carry a child"?
Do you think that abortion should be outlawed?
If people consider Plan B abortion then yes. Otherwise, no. While it's in that stage, you don't even know you are pregnant yet.
But it is an embryo the majority of time. It doesn't even become a fetus until Week 9. That distinction is important.
 
She's already said she'd likely kill her child in some psychotic break if she ever had to have one on multiple occasions both in and out of this thread.
My offer still stands. Want me to help you get you laid? Maybe then you'll stop simping for fat old men and stop hating women that are having sex with men that aren't you
 
I find it really rich when people call pro-choice individuals misanthropes, because there is nothing more malignant and dehumanizing than demanding that someone else carry a child for nine months regardless of the circumstance of that child's creation, the capability of the parent to raise the child (or find a healthy substitute) or whether or not the person in question is even able to survive the birth.

I said it last night and deleted it because it was hat-rated, but I might as well bring it back; if your God actually gave a shit about babies maybe he should patch the bug in his reality that allow girls as young as fucking five years old the capacity to give birth. Maybe he should do something about the meth mommies who abuse and kill their kids because CPS is too overburdened with the population rates as-is. Maybe he should do something about rapists who get off on the idea of their victims carrying their kids so they can't just walk away from them forever.

If you want to live in a fantasy land of "the good old days" that never really existed because lead paint, child labor, and unstable/abusive parents existed (and still do for that matter) than that's your purview. But many pro-choice people live and acknowledge the reality that these things and many more are factors of human existence that are as old as time and that, sometimes, bringing a child into that circumstance is far more negligent and cruel than preventing them from being born in the first place.
Do you not realize there are atheists and agnostics who view murder for what it is, too?
 
Back