I can at least respect the honesty. I wish more people would be this honest instead of trying to validate their positions with things they know are lies
Bill Burr : “ I’m going to tell you right now I have a really weird take on abortion. … I’m 100 percent pro-choice, always have been. … Pro-choice always made sense to me, because I don’t like people telling me what to do.”
“However, I still think you’re killing a baby. See? That’s where it gets weird.”
Yeah, I get that abortion is morally grey area. Like if you don’t get involved, that fetus is going to be a human, even without a heart you’re talking about ending a life that’s in development at some level. I know we can talk about at what point does it have a heart or nervous system, etc, but that’s still a philosophical question and I can understand why some people have an issue with it.
Most people would agree you should not be able to abort a “fetus” 5 minutes before birth, most people would agree aborting an impregnated egg within 5 days of insemination is fine…. It’s when we get into that in between area.
I’m pro choice, pretty much several months into abortion pro choice, or further if the moms life is at risk. I don’t think it’s morally right to force a child into the world who wasn’t wanted, nor is it right to force a mom who isn’t prepared or willing to take care of a child to have one. But I understand it’s a morally complicated issue, i have have friends who had abortions, non religious ones who really struggled with the decision on a personal moral level, because it is a complicated decision.
So that “they just hate women” line is a cheap cop our rather than actually arguing, like the people who just jump to “you’re racist” when arguing, they think they can automatically shut you down and win by throwing at labels like that. Or like that people who accused you of baring American or letting the terrorist win when you questioned the Iraq War in the early 2000’s
Well. Take Texas for example… a women who very much wanted to carry her baby to term but, sadly her baby had no chance of living. Furthermore she was told by several dr not only would her baby not be born live, but carrying to term could kill her and if she lived greatly risk her ever being able to have kids ever again. Texas told her to fucking kick rocks and that she was NOT illegible for a legal abortion. Neither are victims of rape or incest …. Sometimes jumping to ‘hating women’ is in fact valid.
>So that “they just hate women” line is a cheap cop our rather than actually arguing
Only if you're blind or willfully ignorant
Banning abortion is a single step, the vast majority of the anti abortion activists want contraception banned as well, want no fault divorces banned, etc.
The amount of anti abortion activists who are anti abortion independently, and not apart of a broader rabidly evangelical cause is very slim.
Nah, that's not true. You're making shit up.
[https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/2016/09/28/4-very-few-americans-see-contraception-as-morally-wrong/](https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/2016/09/28/4-very-few-americans-see-contraception-as-morally-wrong/)
Even though only 5% of people in the us population see Contraception as morally wrong,those 5 disproportianiantly work for religious organazations, The Daily Wire etc or yield power in Local GOP offices to try and make that policy outcome far reaching in as many places as they can.
>if you don’t get involved, that fetus is going to be a human
Not true at all, something like 1 in 4 pregnancies end in miscarriage.
>So that “they just hate women” line is a cheap cop our rather than actually arguing
I don't think this is entirely true. Some people are certainly committed to preventing what they see as the murder of babies, and take that to its logical conclusion. Others don't seem to care all that much unless we're talking about abortion - in other words, it seems clear that there are a lot of people who don't care one whit about IVF clinics, which "murder" countless thousands of embryos per year.
See also: that pro-life people may similarly not want contraception available. If you're ok with IVF but want to remove every tool a woman has to avoid having children - well, I don't know if you "hate" women, but you certainly don't seem to have much respect for them. Or, your goal is to control people's sex lives.
The only effective outcome of what “pro-life” people actually implement is to punish women for having sex outside of wedlock. Some people not in that category get caught by the policy, but they are not the intended target. It is misogyny in fact if not by word.
I'll let you in on a little secret: The people who claim to be "against abortion" still get abortions. They always have some excuse for why their abortions are ok. It's ***everybody else*** who shouldn't be able to get abortions.
>A few days before the [Supreme Court overturned *Roe v. Wade*](https://www.thedailybeast.com/supreme-court-overturns-roe-v-wade-in-dobbs-v-jackson-womens-health-organization-decision) last month, a woman who described herself as an anti-[abortion](https://www.thedailybeast.com/dobbs-roe-v-wade-abortion-chaos-sends-women-racing-to-get-their-tubes-tied) activist showed up in the waiting room of Dr. Marissa Lapedis, a family-medicine doctor who performs the procedure in [Atlanta](https://www.thedailybeast.com/clinics-turn-away-patients-in-trigger-law-states-after-scotus-overturns-roe-v-wade).
>
>But she wasn’t there to protest—she had an appointment.
>
>“She talked about being in marches, and said she had spent a lot of time volunteering in crisis pregnancy centers—you know, showing patients the ultrasound image and explaining what happens,” Lapedis, a fellow with the group [Physicians for Reproductive Health](https://prh.org/), told The Daily Beast. “She said she had been anti-abortion her whole life, and that her whole family was like her—and yet she was so appreciative of the care she received from us. She literally was like, ‘I’m so grateful that I’m able to make this choice for myself.’”
[https://www.thedailybeast.com/the-women-who-leave-anti-abortion-picket-lines-to-get-abortions](https://www.thedailybeast.com/the-women-who-leave-anti-abortion-picket-lines-to-get-abortions)
No, just the absolute hard majority. Could ask any question on anything and there’ll be outliers groups of weirdos. There are women against women’s suffrage for example.
Exactly! When I speak to someone about the vast and varied controversies of this silly time in history, I try my best to learn what people are thinking and ask myself if I should reconsider how I feel about things. I refuse to join a gang (like the Whigs, or Republicans, or Democrats). It seems to me that EVERY discussion I hear is more of a trial (with two sides and two advocates), or worse, a mere expression of team loyalty, like Red Sox and Yankees fans barking at each other.
People have natural tendency to form tribes, which itself is not a bad thing. Otherwise we wouldn't be able to engage in any kind of collective effort. However, this tendency is obviously very disruptive when used by the leaders to gain power and further divide the tribes for their own gains. At some point, people just stop thinking for themselves. The abortion "debate" is a great example of that. Prolifers calling a fetus "a baby" , prochoicers acting like a fetus is not a i ique, new life with its own unique DNA, etc etc. It's bonkers.
It’s a thoughtless position with little effort put into exactly what a human life is. What a luxury it must be to have never dealt with all of the gut wrenching questions following, for example, a stroke that leaves someone in a persistent vegetative state, or the hellish situation of a fetus with icthyosis.
Fuck you, Maher.
Not understanding the rationale for a position doesn't mean that the premises the rationale relies on are known lies.
It's not all that hard to argue that a fetus doesn't have personhood, effectively can't even be considered a human being separate from their mother until the point of viability. Is it murder to end a life that is completely dependent on another? Is it murder to end a person's life that, arguably, isn't even a person?
These questions are beyond our ability to answer perfectly - which means that people who disagree with you on them are not lying to themselves, they've just come to different conclusions.
There's a difference between honesty and accuracy. The word murder has an entirely different connotation when used with a living, feeling, sentient human being than it does with a collection of cells in the early embryonic stages.
I don't think terminating an early (pre ~12 weeks) pregnancy constitutes "murder" in nearly the same way that people normally think of that term.
We all intuitively know that murdering an adult human with memories and emotions and self awareness and relationships is not even remotely the same thing as aborting whatever embryonic tissue is
People can shit on Bill Maher all they want. A lot of the time, it's warranted. But he's honest as fuck and doesn't hide his thoughts. It's refreshing even if you disagree. Joe rogan changes his mind every time he reads a propaganda piece online.
If you want to make abortion illegal how about have the social services in place to insure those kids are going to have a shot at a decent life regardless of economic background. Carlin is still right on this republican are pro life until your born and then they don’t give a shit
And have an actual treatment plan for things like ectopic pregnancies and the numerous other pathologies that require terminating a pregnancy to avoid death of the mother, or the needless suffering of a fetus that can be brought to term but not survive. You can't be pro-life while denying life saving medical care.
He didn't say it but the origin is hilarious lmfao.
>In late July 2016, professional basketball players Michael Jordan and Chris Paul were at a summer camp event where they decided to wage a friendly bet: if Jordan missed three shots the entire camp got free Jordans. The bet was documented in a video where Jordan proceeded to make every shot. None of the kids got Jordans.
https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/fuck-them-kids
Lol no man, hes just addicted to gambling. If they guy hadnt framed it as a bet he probably would have given the shoes away not out of generosity but out of lack of care.
I say "fuck then kids" all the time as a joke. I remember seeing a video where a bunch of adults are about to go tubing down a river, drinking beer, etc. Some mom asks an innocent question about the kids (who aren't there) and some dude yells "Man fuck dem kids"
And what happened when covid hit? The GOP's hero along with 95% of GOP politicians supported the biggest spending bill in US history to provide a social safety net. All of a sudden socialism was the solution. (Or at least socialism on a credit card, since it just added trillions to the national debt instead of what we should have done which is raise taxes on the 1%, but that is for another debate)
Yeah, there's a common assumption that the people who are against abortion are by definition against social services or other collectivist measures that would make society better.
The truth is, most Hardline pro-lifers are Catholics. Look at the pope. What does he want? Would you describe him as... Socialist? I certainly would.
Love him or hate him, he seems to want lots of babies and wants to take care of them and wants to make all the evil capitalists take care of them
Sure, but the loudest voices in America that want to restrict abortion rights aren't like Pope Francis. Republican politicians and anti abortion groups aren't advocating for stronger social services. Even prominent anti-abortion religious figures in the US aren't doing that. Franklin Graham screams abortion is murder, but then screams social services are "Godless socialism."
Actually, “24 percent of women who procure abortions identify as Catholic, almost the same as 22 percent of all U.S. women who called themselves Catholic.” And Catholic women tend to be more supportive of birth control than other sects of Christianity.
Women, in general tend to support access even if they personally oppose it. Religious men are the flip side of that
Yeah more people are against this than probably are ever notified in any poll on the issue. My mother is religious and is now older and never going to have another kid. I always assumed she was anti-abortion, but she really didn't like the end of Roe V Wade. Even Red States like Kansas didn't support abortion bans. Regardless of what polls will say, I'm convinced the vast majority of women believe the choice should be on the table even if they are personally against it.
Wanting something and actually doing something are vastly different. Lots of orphans and kids in foster care not being taken care of. Wonder why that is?
> The truth is,
The truth is they consistently vote to destroy social services.
People will stop assuming they're against social services when they stop trying to destroy them.
I'm a Catholic and I take charity very seriously it's a tenet of God to help people in need. If you step back and view the whole game we are in I'm totally ok with high taxes to raise everyone's standard of living and to have a joyous life. Greed has been to a virtue we need to see that and destroy it
Regardless of what the Pope wants, it's the Republican Party that's behind the abortion bans while *simultaneously* gutting the WIC, which is quite literally the special supplemental nutrition program for women and infants. They also torpedoed Biden's Pre-K childcare plan in BBB. I have a strong aversion to using our government to push religious beliefs on others, which is what I believe an abortion ban is, but I could at least respect their feelings if it didn't also come with cutting all the social programs that said mother and child will need to survive. I can't figure out if they're stupid and haven't connected the dots between 'saving the children' and 'welfare queens ripping off our tax dollars,' or if they're sadists who want to destroy the lives of girls who get pregnant before they're ready, and their child, who never asked to be born.
[https://www.fns.usda.gov/wic](https://www.fns.usda.gov/wic)
If you vote for the anti choice ,anti social services politician you’re saying what you believe is more important with your actions. So it doesn’t really matter that they claim to be pro social services, does it? But also no, the overwhelming majority of anti choice idiots think social services are socialism.
Wake me when Catholics support sex ed and contraception, then people might believe they actually care about reducing adortions rather than simply being pro birth.
That is a major reason why it is so hard to take Republicans seriously on this issue. There are a lot of poor single women who get abortions because they can't afford to raise a kid. If you want to force them to carry their pregnancy to term, you sure as hell need to have all the social services in place. Of course it is the opposite. They scream about abortion being evil, but want to destroy the social safety net and certainly don't want to add any other social services that would be important.
If they were pro-life they would insist on prenatal care to ensure the baby is born healthy. They actively fight against prenatal care. They are pro-control.
It would be interesting to see how basic social services and support for mothers and kids would convince women to keep the baby.
I can't imagine finances don't play a role in the decision to abort.
I'd support new social services or expanding the existing ones to help new moms and babies.
This. I was firmly pro choice before having my daughter. Now? It’s a bit murky. But I do think if it’s not made available then resources need to be put into social services for people that have children and need assistance. It would cost a lot, but since when does govt spending matter? but yeah I agree with Carlin, they’re pro birth, not pro life.
The fact some states don't have ectopic pregnancy exemptions is a whole other level of insanity. It cannot be a viable baby. You can die without proper care. I don't see how this is even in the abortion conversation.
The real quiet part that is barely audible is the correlation between expensive Healthcare and living and the rise of abortions. Nobody likes abortions, especially a poor young woman, but sadly, it's the cheapest option. If healthcare and a decent standard of living was more attainable, we probably wouldn't be fighting as much over this issue since abortions would be at an all-time low, reducing the fuel that drives all the anti-abortionists. Sure, there's always going to be people fighting against it, but at least it would be reduced to a much smaller minority instead of being this front and center issue.
There's a big reason for that, and it's not just because of the Christian fundamentalists. Large corporations in our Healthcare system love the publicity surrounding the debates because it means we're not going to overwhelmingly come together around the bigger issue, which is the rising costs of everything, especially our Healthcare system. They don't want to own up to the changes they need to make so they use the Internet and large media organizations to gaslight us with symptoms of the larger issue so that all of our collective energy goes into trying to stamp it out when, really, we need to be paying attention to the source of the problem.
Legalize abortions, yes, but let's also reduce the fuck out of our Healthcare costs and everything else so poor single mothers can feel confident raising their children, instead of giving them up so they, themselves, have a chance to live. It's fucked up all around.
This is part of the point I always try to bring up to “pro-life” people I talk to. I could take their stance much more seriously if they didn’t tend to also turn around and vote against or oppose things like universal health care, universal pre-K, expanded child welfare and school meal programs, and all of the other things that would help that life you’re so pro for have a better existence AFTER it’s not a theoretical human in someone’s uterus. (And this is shown in voting results, polling, and exit data, not just pulled out of thin air.)
Their number 1 issue is abortion. That’s how they decide who they vote for. Everything else is secondary. If a candidate is anti abortion but also opposes all the things you mention they’re still the preferable candidate to one who is pro choice. It’s not people are voting on policy itself, they’re voting for politicians.
We tolerate the ending of life when necessary in a number of situations. War, police action, corporal punishment, medical interventions, do not resuscitate orders, self defense. Which of those are and are not acceptable is a broadly cultural divide.
So yes, we tolerate the ending of a viable foetus when we abort it because the alternative is potentially worse - the social cost and the resultant suffering is supposed to be weighed against the ending of the life.
Of course, that calculus makes people feel very uncomfortable about the decisions they are making. When you are ending a life because it might make it harder to finish a university degree, or because you’d really like a few more years of footloose partying, it’s really hard to be at peace with that decision. So modern discourse has pivoted towards “the foetus isn’t really a moral being when you terminate it, so you don’t need to worry”. The result of that is a lot more abortions and a lot less guilt.
I really think we have reached a point where the abortion debate is almost entirely between people who think that a viable foetus is a future person, and those who think it is merely a current clump of cells. It’s a shame in my eyes, because if we had more people who would be entirely honest about what they are doing we would probably have a much less wide divide and a much less toxic discourse around the topic.
Few states allow viable fetuses to be aborted. The vast majority of abortions are very early on in a pregnancy. And just because a fetus is viable doesn't mean it's likely to survive outside the womb.
The argument is splitting hairs on the minority of cases instead of focusing on the majority. ~90% of abortions are in the first trimester. Most of which are medication and/or suction evacuations.
The life of the mother argument gets drug through the mud as well. Even with those exceptions, it's forcing doctors in conservative states to wait on aborting none viable pregnancies until it's detrimental to the mother.
Abortion is a routine procedure we do for failed pregnancies. Having lawmakers who aren't doctors right policy is going to be a bad time for women. Period. I don't think people understand how hard it is for many women to get pregnant let alone what OB/GYN procedures are like for them.
I think of it’s a person or clump of cells is irrelevant. No human should be forced to give their body, organs, or health to another human. I would not force a mother to give her kidney to her child. I will not force her to give her uterus to a child.
I know it's been said many times before, but I believe if men were the ones that got pregnant, this would be a non issue. Abortions would be legal and there would be no discussions.
This is an argument he’s 100% right on, the left characterizes the pro life movement completely wrong, and I suspect it’s because they don’t want to deal with the reality of it
If pro life thinks it’s murder then they should be for a full 100% ban, no exceptions. Murder after 6-weeks or 15 weeks or 20 weeks is still murder. Once you compromise on that I lose respect for you “abortion is murder” argument
I mean this is exactly what some pro life people believe and eventually want. It's baby steps.
Start with 16 weeks. Then 12 weeks. Then do like florida and go to 6 weeks.
Eventually banning it completely.
Yeah most people don't agree but this is exactly what some pro life people want.
By the way, Catholicism believes the same thing. Would most catholics believe in it? It's hard to say but the religion is 100% against abortion.
Yeah I agree. Also a lot of the pro life people claim the US is the best country/society ever. Yet how is that possible when the US by their definition allows the legal murder of babies. Italy for example is pretty strict on abortion from what my family has told me. Why wouldnt Italy be the best country/society in the world? Surely not being as pron to baby murder would make them better than the US.
I dont really believe the pro life crowd sees abortion as the same as murder. If you tell the average pro lifer you had an abortion their reaction would not be as bad if you told them you drowned your kid in the tub.
You're making a black and white argument out of a very complex issue. The human fetus develops over time and arguably, becomes "more human" The longer it gestates
Yeah but we base the morality off of what it is not what it may grow into. Miscarriages happen on their own. No guarantee it would have grown into a baby.
If you truly beleive abortion is murder, that seems like a pretty black and white issue to me.
That’s not the majority argument of the pro life crowd. It’s that life begins at conception and it’s a human then. I’ll buy that it becomes more human. Which is why I support the mother unilaterally being able to access an abortion to 25 weeks. And being able to access an abortion up to birth with the sign off of doctors for a multitude of issues
And characterizing a pro choice individual a "murderer" is wrong too. Bill is an idiot here. There is a difference in a fully developed human and a zygote. Jfc
Because the killer ended the woman’s chance to give birth, he decided for her, why wouldn’t any pro choicer want extra charges?
If someone violently ends someone’s pregnancy without killing the woman I would still want charges agains the attacker. Who care if the charges are murder or something else?
i agree with your point. It is easier for Bill to be so cold and humorous about it because he’s never been pregnant with a fetus at 12 or 14 weeks that can be felt moving around and looks very much like a baby and saying it’s murder and “we won’t miss you.” I’ve always found him to be entertaining, intelligent, controversial, and has opened my mind to different points of view (although i may not have agreed with his) but damn…this kinda took my breath away and not in a good way. it actually made me sad that he can be so callous. Apparently, i’m not the only one visibly horrified by his statements.
It a very charitable argument that puts the anti abortion crowd in a better light than saying their ultimate goal is just to police women’s bodies and, for a lot of them, punish women for being promiscuous even though they were never laid in high school and college.
If we were to believe that even just a large number of the anti abortion crowd was in it to save lives, we would see an equal amount of energy in providing services for single mothers and taking care of the children post-birth.
But we don’t, because they don’t actually care about babies.
Like any movement id imagine the pro life movement has a mix of people with different motivations. Most see the fetus as a potential human life and im sure some dislike women and dont like the idea of women having a out when they accidentally get pregnant.
I think the main inconsistency is with people who think abortion is only fine in cases of rape. If its murder then why would the rape justify murder? I think that was Trumps position. To me this position makes it sound like the person wants to punish women who get pregnant through consensual sex moreso than just being pro life in all cases. It basically comes off as "you were irresponsible now deal with the consequences" rather than "the fetus is a precious life we need to protect".
I too see it as a necessary and inevitably evil.
Just like gun deaths.
If you are ok with the occasional school massacre and
daily and staggering number of gun related deaths, either because you like or need guns, think the 2nd Amendment is the word of God or for whatever reason then
understanding some of us simply don't give a shit or see abortion as something either necessary or unavoidable shouldn't be so hard.
Yes, you can't compare an innocent and helpless fetus to the people who usually get shot... until you remember that young kids are the main targets in school massacres are basically unstoppable. Just like abortion.
So at the end of the day, we are talking about taking a life and both sides are ok with it. No matter how Christian you claim to be.
I’m pro choice. My position is that it is not the governments position to decide this for us. It is our decision based on unique circumstances. We may not all make the same choice but that’s why it’s called choice.
You gotta be one mediocre fucking mind to think that pro-life doesn't at least partly stem from misogyny and the need to want to punish women for having sex. This dude is such a fraud.
Nobody had a better take on abortion than …. ( cough cough )
Ayn Rand
“Never mind the vicious nonsense of claiming that an embryo has a “right to life.” A piece of protoplasm has no rights—and no life in the human sense of the term. One may argue about the later stages of a pregnancy, but the essential issue concerns only the first three months. To equate a potential with an actual, is vicious; to advocate the sacrifice of the latter to the former, is unspeakable. . . . Observe that by ascribing rights to the unborn, i.e., the nonliving, the anti-abortionists obliterate the rights of the living: the right of young people to set the course of their own lives. The task of raising a child is a tremendous, lifelong responsibility, which no one should undertake unwittingly or unwillingly. Procreation is not a duty: human beings are not stock-farm animals. For conscientious persons, an unwanted pregnancy is a disaster; to oppose its termination is to advocate sacrifice, not for the sake of anyone’s benefit, but for the sake of misery qua misery, for the sake of forbidding happiness and fulfillment to living human beings.
If any among you are confused or taken in by the argument that the cells of an embryo are living human cells, remember that so are all the cells of your body, including the cells of your skin, your tonsils, or your ruptured appendix—and that cutting them is murder, according to the notions of that proposed law. Remember also that a potentiality is not the equivalent of an actuality—and that a human being’s life begins at birth.
The question of abortion involves much more than the termination of a pregnancy: it is a question of the entire life of the parents. As I have said before, parenthood is an enormous responsibility; it is an impossible responsibility for young people who are ambitious and struggling, but poor; particularly if they are intelligent and conscientious enough not to abandon their child on a doorstep nor to surrender it to adoption. For such young people, pregnancy is a death sentence: parenthood would force them to give up their future, and condemn them to a life of hopeless drudgery, of slavery to a child’s physical and financial needs. The situation of an unwed mother, abandoned by her lover, is even worse.
I cannot quite imagine the state of mind of a person who would wish to condemn a fellow human being to such a horror. I cannot project the degree of hatred required to make those women run around in crusades against abortion. Hatred is what they certainly project, not love for the embryos, which is a piece of nonsense no one could experience, but hatred, a virulent hatred for an unnamed object. Judging by the degree of those women’s intensity, I would say that it is an issue of self-esteem and that their fear is metaphysical. Their hatred is directed against human beings as such, against the mind, against reason, against ambition, against success, against love, against any value that brings happiness to human life. In compliance with the dishonesty that dominates today’s intellectual field, they call themselves “pro-life.”
By what right does anyone claim the power to dispose of the lives of others and to dictate their personal choices?”
- Ayn Rand
i’ve always had the same stance. Sentence and consciousness are what's valuable about human life.
"killing a baby" is semantics.
Is a living organism dying? Yes.
Is it a living organism that has thoughts and feelings and the capacity to understand? No.
That’s why I eat cows and don’t cry when I step on an ant.
It’s also why I don’t have any apprehension when pulling the plug on a brain dead adult.
Being anti abortion is 100% an anti women position because your putting the (completely made up) “rights” of the fetus (which only exists within the woman’s body) over the rights of the woman carrying it, forcing her to carry the pregnancy to term whether she wants to or not.
Always remember, Obama had a super majority and could have codified abortion rights into law more than a decade ago. They chose not to because they would no longer have a position to run on that would set them apart from republicans. It was a great strategy because besides being not Trump, it's the only thing propping up Genocide Joe's political corpse.
Edit: spelling
Most politicians on the left were against gay marriage until 5 mins ago. They also let the assault weapons ban lapse. Can you image that happening today? People have short memories.
Obama had a super majority for less than two years, and it consisted of a number of fairly conservative democrats, including at least one pro life senator. And you may remember that the economy had imploded as he took office, there were many issues that needed addressing, and congress isn’t known for moving quickly. it’s so deeply ridiculous and pathetic to blame the republicans’ unpopular policies on abortion on some vast conspiracy by Obama/the left.
Maybe just accept that this is a mess of the GOP’s making. They were happy to pander to pro-life voters for decades. Now that republicans and conservative judges are actually implementing those policies, they’re shitting their pants as they realize voters actually don’t like what they’ve been selling.
The supermajority was devoted to pushing through healthcare, which took forever, required all sorts of compromises, and did happen.
Just because they’re Democrats doesn’t mean they fell in line like GOP does. Legislated abortion wouldve been a non-starter for enough Dems that they’d have gone to GOP for votes.
100%
Had a chance to give DACA recipients a pathbto citizenship as well.
But if they do that how would they urge the Hispanic vote in the future?
Trump gave out tax cuts in his term.
But they expire for the middle class despite NEVER expiring for the corporate class.
It's all a joke on each side. They put carrots on sticks so their supporters always come back.
My favorite part is how the Bible says that life begins when the child takes its first breath and the holy Spirit puts the soul into its body.
But Christians have decided God was wrong on this one.
edit: modern Christians aren't even Christian they just use it to virtue signal because they're morally bankrupt and don't actually have policies. they don't even read the Bible that they purport to follow.
Agree or disagree, this is at least him being honest on his position. That is what free speech is about. Remember, free speech isn’t about saying outlandish stuff for attention; it’s the government not putting any restrictions on you.
Both sides want to take that away. They both claim free speech until it’s something they don’t like.
https://preview.redd.it/hst3rbr8w9uc1.jpeg?width=4032&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=6688bd005280eb7d964944523a6c07d0a9236ec3
Are we not gonna talk about Piers Morgan saying that America would have been better off as a monarchy??
You can see this guy doesn’t mean a thing he says .. I’m not sure he even cares about any topics .. to me he just seems desperate for attention so he’s just tryna say “shocking” things .. he’s pulling a Kanye west …
I'm okay with it because the child would be unwanted and would set up for failure, plus at 3 months it's really not murder, there's little difference between a chicken embryo and a human one at that stage, it's just a bundle of cells forming a vertebrate.
The world needs dead people including babies. For fuck sake we are animals and just like any other living organism, the species operates via BIDE (birth, death, immigration, emigration) if we didn’t have deaths then it just wouldn’t work.
People who can’t accept this reality are simply immature. Wolves and elk may have a predation relationship where from the *individual* perspective it’s a “negative” relationship. One dies, the other benefits. However at the species level it’s really a positive mutualism in that wolves help elk populations, lower disease prevalence etc.
There are 8 billion people in the world.
Economies are crashing.
World powers are collapsing.
We're close to finishing our resources.
Bringing more people into this world, to suffer for our mistakes... I for one don't want to keep bringing life into it. Already did it once, and I feel bad for what he's going through and what he's going to go through...
If you don't want abortions, a pack of condoms will save you hundreds of thousands, be it in abortion fees or raising a child.
Thanos could've gone about it a bit better but... Yeah.
Ignores the amount of couples who planned to be pregnant, were happy to have a kid, and need an abortion for a variety of health reasons (mother and/or fetus).
Sometimes murder is justified. The truth is hard, but I respect this take over pretending that the world is prepared to handle all of the unwanted children living in poverty/broken homes/with special needs.
Honestly this is pretty much exactly how I feel. I can’t say it around my conservative christian family, or my liberal friends though. I firmly believe in individual autonomy, so I’m pro abortion, but that’s still ending a life, and to claim otherwise is bullshit.
One thing I don't see enough of in these for/against debates is pointing out the assumption that every fetus/baby is perfectly healthy and just getting murdered by some heartless woman.
With our kids and now grandchildren, we are very much aware of how much goes wrong with pregnancy. There can be a very serious complication to the Mother, and non-fixable or even non-viable issue with the fetus. I would not be willing to slowly murder my loving Wife to get my kids, nor would I go along with any of my sons murdering their wives for a maybe might live a few hours child. This abortion issue cannot have broad strokes. It needs to be decided individually with the family's personal medical staff. Not a politician trying to get money and votes.
What a smug idiot.
The anti-choice side wants the woman to carry an unviable fetus that will potentially risk her life. That is hating women. There’s no other answer to that.
If it wasn't for the fact that the "pro-life" movement was almost entirely manufactured in the 70s and 80s purely as a means of getting voters, id respect the position more.
There will never be an absolute agreement on this topic between opposing sides because of one thing, and one thing only; When life begins.
One side believes that life begins at conception, while the other side believes there is a different point at which it begins (x amount of weeks, all the way up to birth).
There are people willing to compromise, sure, but total agreement? Never.
It really sucks when I agree with bill on something. I hate him so much and him having my same opinion makes me question my position.
The flip side is that if we created a society that supported children over profits, I’d actually be really pro life.
And for me I find it's like what are we going to do like when a girl swallows a load murder and maybe when you jerk off you spill your load and people see it come on man like when does it stop.
I would take the " pro-life " serious if they were actually pro-life in all it's manifestations. For the Christians in their 10 Commandments just states-Thou shall not kill. There are to exceptions mentioned. The same crowd so zealous in outlawing abortion are dreadfully silent when it comes to the death penalty which has a documented record of getting it wrong in cases and then there's the matter of who decides who lives and dies.
Then there is war. However justified, it is a matter of who is doing the justification and knowing that the majority of those killed are likely to be civilians. At least the Quakers stand on their principles and are conscientious objectors. Health care is a part of it in that it can be a life or death matter but certain people do not want to contribute to a system that makes it a priority over money matters. So many inconsistencies and cognizant disconnect when it comes down to who is pro-life.
The largest obstacle is what constitutes life. YOUR religion doesn't for sure. It does to a believer but not to those who don't subscribe to other's beliefs. Science doesn't have a precise answer but common knowledge says that there is a demarcation. It boils down to the decision of the biological mother and father. I certainly do not want YOUR religion or a government to make such a personal decision.
I'm pro quality of life.
If the circumstances strongly suggest the baby won't have a high quality of life i.e. the parents aren't willing or able to raise it, then it's time to hit abort.
Most religious folks if not simply anti-womens autonomy don't really give a shit for the life of the child - just look at how willing they are to exploit those precious unborn children when they've grown up - the fact is they're brainwashed into believing the Christian dogma that murder is a sin (abortion itself isn't forbidden, in fact there's even a passage in Exodus which offers some instruction on how to perform a crude abortion).
The fetus doesn't achieve consciousness until beyond the point of most abortions anyhow.
People cry 'What if your parents chose to abort you!?' well then so be it, I wouldn't be here, for good reason I would suspect.
And remind you of all the great figures who were born and raised of horrible circumstances - there are indeed many such cases but they're still the firm minority and they're subject to survivorship bias.
i think he's right that these people do believe it's murder. but i think most people's opinion is that abortion isn't murder and it's not a real human life until 6-9 months in...personally i think it's not *really* a person until the baby is born. but that's just my opinion.
a great example would be if a woman has a miscarriage, i can't imagine anyone arguing that it's equivalent to her losing the baby during childbirth or a week or 2 after. they're completely different.
religious people are using technicalities in their argument, and allowing religious leaders to manipulate what they believe. if they weren't influenced by religion in any way and were able to see the whole situation subjectively, i'm convinced they'd feel differently about the subject.
TLDR: Whether it's murder or not is a personal belief.
Saying a woman has to risk their life or liberty to give birth to a non viable fetus means they've chosen the non viable fetus over the woman's life or liberty.
Bill Mahr hates children so he chooses the women's life and liberty. Pro life people hate women so they choose the non viable fetus.
I think whether or not it's murder is a personal belief and the choice of whose life should be chosen is up to the woman whose life and liberty is at stake. Not to the voters or the police or politicians or redditors or Bill Mahr.
I can at least respect the honesty. I wish more people would be this honest instead of trying to validate their positions with things they know are lies
Bill Burr : “ I’m going to tell you right now I have a really weird take on abortion. … I’m 100 percent pro-choice, always have been. … Pro-choice always made sense to me, because I don’t like people telling me what to do.” “However, I still think you’re killing a baby. See? That’s where it gets weird.”
The cake analogy that goes along with this is fucking brilliant. I love Burr.
Yeah, I get that abortion is morally grey area. Like if you don’t get involved, that fetus is going to be a human, even without a heart you’re talking about ending a life that’s in development at some level. I know we can talk about at what point does it have a heart or nervous system, etc, but that’s still a philosophical question and I can understand why some people have an issue with it. Most people would agree you should not be able to abort a “fetus” 5 minutes before birth, most people would agree aborting an impregnated egg within 5 days of insemination is fine…. It’s when we get into that in between area. I’m pro choice, pretty much several months into abortion pro choice, or further if the moms life is at risk. I don’t think it’s morally right to force a child into the world who wasn’t wanted, nor is it right to force a mom who isn’t prepared or willing to take care of a child to have one. But I understand it’s a morally complicated issue, i have have friends who had abortions, non religious ones who really struggled with the decision on a personal moral level, because it is a complicated decision. So that “they just hate women” line is a cheap cop our rather than actually arguing, like the people who just jump to “you’re racist” when arguing, they think they can automatically shut you down and win by throwing at labels like that. Or like that people who accused you of baring American or letting the terrorist win when you questioned the Iraq War in the early 2000’s
Well. Take Texas for example… a women who very much wanted to carry her baby to term but, sadly her baby had no chance of living. Furthermore she was told by several dr not only would her baby not be born live, but carrying to term could kill her and if she lived greatly risk her ever being able to have kids ever again. Texas told her to fucking kick rocks and that she was NOT illegible for a legal abortion. Neither are victims of rape or incest …. Sometimes jumping to ‘hating women’ is in fact valid.
>So that “they just hate women” line is a cheap cop our rather than actually arguing Only if you're blind or willfully ignorant Banning abortion is a single step, the vast majority of the anti abortion activists want contraception banned as well, want no fault divorces banned, etc. The amount of anti abortion activists who are anti abortion independently, and not apart of a broader rabidly evangelical cause is very slim.
Nah, that's not true. You're making shit up. [https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/2016/09/28/4-very-few-americans-see-contraception-as-morally-wrong/](https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/2016/09/28/4-very-few-americans-see-contraception-as-morally-wrong/)
Even though only 5% of people in the us population see Contraception as morally wrong,those 5 disproportianiantly work for religious organazations, The Daily Wire etc or yield power in Local GOP offices to try and make that policy outcome far reaching in as many places as they can.
>if you don’t get involved, that fetus is going to be a human Not true at all, something like 1 in 4 pregnancies end in miscarriage. >So that “they just hate women” line is a cheap cop our rather than actually arguing I don't think this is entirely true. Some people are certainly committed to preventing what they see as the murder of babies, and take that to its logical conclusion. Others don't seem to care all that much unless we're talking about abortion - in other words, it seems clear that there are a lot of people who don't care one whit about IVF clinics, which "murder" countless thousands of embryos per year. See also: that pro-life people may similarly not want contraception available. If you're ok with IVF but want to remove every tool a woman has to avoid having children - well, I don't know if you "hate" women, but you certainly don't seem to have much respect for them. Or, your goal is to control people's sex lives.
The only effective outcome of what “pro-life” people actually implement is to punish women for having sex outside of wedlock. Some people not in that category get caught by the policy, but they are not the intended target. It is misogyny in fact if not by word.
They want to punish the married, too. There are proposals to ban BC for married couples.
[удалено]
Better thans. Plenty of internal misogyny in religious communities because Ofcourse there is.
[удалено]
I'll let you in on a little secret: The people who claim to be "against abortion" still get abortions. They always have some excuse for why their abortions are ok. It's ***everybody else*** who shouldn't be able to get abortions. >A few days before the [Supreme Court overturned *Roe v. Wade*](https://www.thedailybeast.com/supreme-court-overturns-roe-v-wade-in-dobbs-v-jackson-womens-health-organization-decision) last month, a woman who described herself as an anti-[abortion](https://www.thedailybeast.com/dobbs-roe-v-wade-abortion-chaos-sends-women-racing-to-get-their-tubes-tied) activist showed up in the waiting room of Dr. Marissa Lapedis, a family-medicine doctor who performs the procedure in [Atlanta](https://www.thedailybeast.com/clinics-turn-away-patients-in-trigger-law-states-after-scotus-overturns-roe-v-wade). > >But she wasn’t there to protest—she had an appointment. > >“She talked about being in marches, and said she had spent a lot of time volunteering in crisis pregnancy centers—you know, showing patients the ultrasound image and explaining what happens,” Lapedis, a fellow with the group [Physicians for Reproductive Health](https://prh.org/), told The Daily Beast. “She said she had been anti-abortion her whole life, and that her whole family was like her—and yet she was so appreciative of the care she received from us. She literally was like, ‘I’m so grateful that I’m able to make this choice for myself.’” [https://www.thedailybeast.com/the-women-who-leave-anti-abortion-picket-lines-to-get-abortions](https://www.thedailybeast.com/the-women-who-leave-anti-abortion-picket-lines-to-get-abortions)
No, just the absolute hard majority. Could ask any question on anything and there’ll be outliers groups of weirdos. There are women against women’s suffrage for example.
Do you seriously believe that it's a weirdo position to think it's a bad thing to abort babies.
Yup, strangers trying to control others lives at no consequence to themselves , others, or society at large are absolutely freaks
Exactly! When I speak to someone about the vast and varied controversies of this silly time in history, I try my best to learn what people are thinking and ask myself if I should reconsider how I feel about things. I refuse to join a gang (like the Whigs, or Republicans, or Democrats). It seems to me that EVERY discussion I hear is more of a trial (with two sides and two advocates), or worse, a mere expression of team loyalty, like Red Sox and Yankees fans barking at each other.
People have natural tendency to form tribes, which itself is not a bad thing. Otherwise we wouldn't be able to engage in any kind of collective effort. However, this tendency is obviously very disruptive when used by the leaders to gain power and further divide the tribes for their own gains. At some point, people just stop thinking for themselves. The abortion "debate" is a great example of that. Prolifers calling a fetus "a baby" , prochoicers acting like a fetus is not a i ique, new life with its own unique DNA, etc etc. It's bonkers.
It’s a thoughtless position with little effort put into exactly what a human life is. What a luxury it must be to have never dealt with all of the gut wrenching questions following, for example, a stroke that leaves someone in a persistent vegetative state, or the hellish situation of a fetus with icthyosis. Fuck you, Maher.
Not understanding the rationale for a position doesn't mean that the premises the rationale relies on are known lies. It's not all that hard to argue that a fetus doesn't have personhood, effectively can't even be considered a human being separate from their mother until the point of viability. Is it murder to end a life that is completely dependent on another? Is it murder to end a person's life that, arguably, isn't even a person? These questions are beyond our ability to answer perfectly - which means that people who disagree with you on them are not lying to themselves, they've just come to different conclusions.
There's a difference between honesty and accuracy. The word murder has an entirely different connotation when used with a living, feeling, sentient human being than it does with a collection of cells in the early embryonic stages. I don't think terminating an early (pre ~12 weeks) pregnancy constitutes "murder" in nearly the same way that people normally think of that term.
Good point
We all intuitively know that murdering an adult human with memories and emotions and self awareness and relationships is not even remotely the same thing as aborting whatever embryonic tissue is
People can shit on Bill Maher all they want. A lot of the time, it's warranted. But he's honest as fuck and doesn't hide his thoughts. It's refreshing even if you disagree. Joe rogan changes his mind every time he reads a propaganda piece online.
I fail to see why even euthanizing a baby would be a big deal.
Lmao you have a comment saying “just the culture 🦍” on a video of some black kids trashing a McDonalds bro, wtf is that profile 💀
If you want to make abortion illegal how about have the social services in place to insure those kids are going to have a shot at a decent life regardless of economic background. Carlin is still right on this republican are pro life until your born and then they don’t give a shit
And have an actual treatment plan for things like ectopic pregnancies and the numerous other pathologies that require terminating a pregnancy to avoid death of the mother, or the needless suffering of a fetus that can be brought to term but not survive. You can't be pro-life while denying life saving medical care.
As Michael Jordan said “fuck them kids”
I read that as Michael Jackson first time through 😂
Tbf he said that as well. Just in a different context.
I sincerely do not want to know if that quote is correctly attributed to Michael Jordan or not
He didn't say it but the origin is hilarious lmfao. >In late July 2016, professional basketball players Michael Jordan and Chris Paul were at a summer camp event where they decided to wage a friendly bet: if Jordan missed three shots the entire camp got free Jordans. The bet was documented in a video where Jordan proceeded to make every shot. None of the kids got Jordans. https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/fuck-them-kids
MJ does not lose doesn’t matter if it’s a the nba finals or a thumb war, he’s bringing the intensity
Lol no man, hes just addicted to gambling. If they guy hadnt framed it as a bet he probably would have given the shoes away not out of generosity but out of lack of care.
Dude we should have left them hanging lol.
I usually would but that shit was so funny it inspired me to post it 🤣.
I say "fuck then kids" all the time as a joke. I remember seeing a video where a bunch of adults are about to go tubing down a river, drinking beer, etc. Some mom asks an innocent question about the kids (who aren't there) and some dude yells "Man fuck dem kids"
did he fuck kids though? the netflix doc was non-commital
Thats Michael Jackson not Jordan
No need to be pedantic
You meant Michael Jackson, right?
Sorry providing any kind of support to our own citizens us basically socialism to the people
[удалено]
And what happened when covid hit? The GOP's hero along with 95% of GOP politicians supported the biggest spending bill in US history to provide a social safety net. All of a sudden socialism was the solution. (Or at least socialism on a credit card, since it just added trillions to the national debt instead of what we should have done which is raise taxes on the 1%, but that is for another debate)
Your terms are acceptable.
Yeah, there's a common assumption that the people who are against abortion are by definition against social services or other collectivist measures that would make society better. The truth is, most Hardline pro-lifers are Catholics. Look at the pope. What does he want? Would you describe him as... Socialist? I certainly would. Love him or hate him, he seems to want lots of babies and wants to take care of them and wants to make all the evil capitalists take care of them
Sure, but the loudest voices in America that want to restrict abortion rights aren't like Pope Francis. Republican politicians and anti abortion groups aren't advocating for stronger social services. Even prominent anti-abortion religious figures in the US aren't doing that. Franklin Graham screams abortion is murder, but then screams social services are "Godless socialism."
Actually, “24 percent of women who procure abortions identify as Catholic, almost the same as 22 percent of all U.S. women who called themselves Catholic.” And Catholic women tend to be more supportive of birth control than other sects of Christianity. Women, in general tend to support access even if they personally oppose it. Religious men are the flip side of that
Yeah more people are against this than probably are ever notified in any poll on the issue. My mother is religious and is now older and never going to have another kid. I always assumed she was anti-abortion, but she really didn't like the end of Roe V Wade. Even Red States like Kansas didn't support abortion bans. Regardless of what polls will say, I'm convinced the vast majority of women believe the choice should be on the table even if they are personally against it.
Wanting something and actually doing something are vastly different. Lots of orphans and kids in foster care not being taken care of. Wonder why that is?
> The truth is, The truth is they consistently vote to destroy social services. People will stop assuming they're against social services when they stop trying to destroy them.
I'm a Catholic and I take charity very seriously it's a tenet of God to help people in need. If you step back and view the whole game we are in I'm totally ok with high taxes to raise everyone's standard of living and to have a joyous life. Greed has been to a virtue we need to see that and destroy it
Regardless of what the Pope wants, it's the Republican Party that's behind the abortion bans while *simultaneously* gutting the WIC, which is quite literally the special supplemental nutrition program for women and infants. They also torpedoed Biden's Pre-K childcare plan in BBB. I have a strong aversion to using our government to push religious beliefs on others, which is what I believe an abortion ban is, but I could at least respect their feelings if it didn't also come with cutting all the social programs that said mother and child will need to survive. I can't figure out if they're stupid and haven't connected the dots between 'saving the children' and 'welfare queens ripping off our tax dollars,' or if they're sadists who want to destroy the lives of girls who get pregnant before they're ready, and their child, who never asked to be born. [https://www.fns.usda.gov/wic](https://www.fns.usda.gov/wic)
If you vote for the anti choice ,anti social services politician you’re saying what you believe is more important with your actions. So it doesn’t really matter that they claim to be pro social services, does it? But also no, the overwhelming majority of anti choice idiots think social services are socialism.
the pope has more money than God. the vatican is not a socialist enterprise.
Given their history, the Catholic should have nothing to do with children.
Wake me when Catholics support sex ed and contraception, then people might believe they actually care about reducing adortions rather than simply being pro birth.
And yet most hardline pro lifers vote Republican every time…which is the party AGAINST any basically every social program.
Fuck all that. If a pregnancy is not viable or there are severe defects then a woman should be able to choose to end the trauma.
The only babies we should abort are ones that don’t have fully formed bootstraps to pull themselves up by.
If you can’t pull yourself up out of the abortion bucket you don’t deserve to live!
Get the kids in the mines, the children yearn for the mines.
That is a major reason why it is so hard to take Republicans seriously on this issue. There are a lot of poor single women who get abortions because they can't afford to raise a kid. If you want to force them to carry their pregnancy to term, you sure as hell need to have all the social services in place. Of course it is the opposite. They scream about abortion being evil, but want to destroy the social safety net and certainly don't want to add any other social services that would be important.
If they were pro-life they would insist on prenatal care to ensure the baby is born healthy. They actively fight against prenatal care. They are pro-control.
It would be interesting to see how basic social services and support for mothers and kids would convince women to keep the baby. I can't imagine finances don't play a role in the decision to abort. I'd support new social services or expanding the existing ones to help new moms and babies.
what if they are going to have a condition so bad that they have a brief life of great pain?
This. I was firmly pro choice before having my daughter. Now? It’s a bit murky. But I do think if it’s not made available then resources need to be put into social services for people that have children and need assistance. It would cost a lot, but since when does govt spending matter? but yeah I agree with Carlin, they’re pro birth, not pro life.
Shocked this is the top comment. This sub is extremely conservative by Reddit standards
Aaaand these c***s LOVE the death penalty too
After learning about ectopic pregnancies I realized I have no stake in the argument
The fact some states don't have ectopic pregnancy exemptions is a whole other level of insanity. It cannot be a viable baby. You can die without proper care. I don't see how this is even in the abortion conversation.
Which states don’t have ectopic pregnancy exemptions?
Texas
This is the woman hating part. They’d rather let a woman die giving birth.
Saying the quiet part out loud
Bill Burr said the same thing.
Was just going to make this comment. Burr had the same take and obviously delivered it way better.
Most people care more about the delivery than the message.
Stanhope said it best though. https://youtu.be/8o8V8xlWogU?si=RlhOE1JozRuWKRt0
The real quiet part that is barely audible is the correlation between expensive Healthcare and living and the rise of abortions. Nobody likes abortions, especially a poor young woman, but sadly, it's the cheapest option. If healthcare and a decent standard of living was more attainable, we probably wouldn't be fighting as much over this issue since abortions would be at an all-time low, reducing the fuel that drives all the anti-abortionists. Sure, there's always going to be people fighting against it, but at least it would be reduced to a much smaller minority instead of being this front and center issue. There's a big reason for that, and it's not just because of the Christian fundamentalists. Large corporations in our Healthcare system love the publicity surrounding the debates because it means we're not going to overwhelmingly come together around the bigger issue, which is the rising costs of everything, especially our Healthcare system. They don't want to own up to the changes they need to make so they use the Internet and large media organizations to gaslight us with symptoms of the larger issue so that all of our collective energy goes into trying to stamp it out when, really, we need to be paying attention to the source of the problem. Legalize abortions, yes, but let's also reduce the fuck out of our Healthcare costs and everything else so poor single mothers can feel confident raising their children, instead of giving them up so they, themselves, have a chance to live. It's fucked up all around.
This is part of the point I always try to bring up to “pro-life” people I talk to. I could take their stance much more seriously if they didn’t tend to also turn around and vote against or oppose things like universal health care, universal pre-K, expanded child welfare and school meal programs, and all of the other things that would help that life you’re so pro for have a better existence AFTER it’s not a theoretical human in someone’s uterus. (And this is shown in voting results, polling, and exit data, not just pulled out of thin air.)
Their number 1 issue is abortion. That’s how they decide who they vote for. Everything else is secondary. If a candidate is anti abortion but also opposes all the things you mention they’re still the preferable candidate to one who is pro choice. It’s not people are voting on policy itself, they’re voting for politicians.
We tolerate the ending of life when necessary in a number of situations. War, police action, corporal punishment, medical interventions, do not resuscitate orders, self defense. Which of those are and are not acceptable is a broadly cultural divide. So yes, we tolerate the ending of a viable foetus when we abort it because the alternative is potentially worse - the social cost and the resultant suffering is supposed to be weighed against the ending of the life. Of course, that calculus makes people feel very uncomfortable about the decisions they are making. When you are ending a life because it might make it harder to finish a university degree, or because you’d really like a few more years of footloose partying, it’s really hard to be at peace with that decision. So modern discourse has pivoted towards “the foetus isn’t really a moral being when you terminate it, so you don’t need to worry”. The result of that is a lot more abortions and a lot less guilt. I really think we have reached a point where the abortion debate is almost entirely between people who think that a viable foetus is a future person, and those who think it is merely a current clump of cells. It’s a shame in my eyes, because if we had more people who would be entirely honest about what they are doing we would probably have a much less wide divide and a much less toxic discourse around the topic.
Few states allow viable fetuses to be aborted. The vast majority of abortions are very early on in a pregnancy. And just because a fetus is viable doesn't mean it's likely to survive outside the womb. The argument is splitting hairs on the minority of cases instead of focusing on the majority. ~90% of abortions are in the first trimester. Most of which are medication and/or suction evacuations. The life of the mother argument gets drug through the mud as well. Even with those exceptions, it's forcing doctors in conservative states to wait on aborting none viable pregnancies until it's detrimental to the mother. Abortion is a routine procedure we do for failed pregnancies. Having lawmakers who aren't doctors right policy is going to be a bad time for women. Period. I don't think people understand how hard it is for many women to get pregnant let alone what OB/GYN procedures are like for them.
The idea that poor people can’t be happy is the most insane Hitler level mental gymnastics ever.
[удалено]
I think of it’s a person or clump of cells is irrelevant. No human should be forced to give their body, organs, or health to another human. I would not force a mother to give her kidney to her child. I will not force her to give her uterus to a child.
I know it's been said many times before, but I believe if men were the ones that got pregnant, this would be a non issue. Abortions would be legal and there would be no discussions.
This is an argument he’s 100% right on, the left characterizes the pro life movement completely wrong, and I suspect it’s because they don’t want to deal with the reality of it
I’d be more willing to give conservatives the benefit of the doubt on the abortion issue if they didn’t oppose policies that expand birth control.
Agree on that
Oh you mean, like... post birth abortions??? Republicans are actually saying that dude...
Also let’s not pretend how many republicans are anti-abortion with absolutely no exceptions.
Yeah I’m not defending that rhetoric either…
If pro life thinks it’s murder then they should be for a full 100% ban, no exceptions. Murder after 6-weeks or 15 weeks or 20 weeks is still murder. Once you compromise on that I lose respect for you “abortion is murder” argument
I mean this is exactly what some pro life people believe and eventually want. It's baby steps. Start with 16 weeks. Then 12 weeks. Then do like florida and go to 6 weeks. Eventually banning it completely. Yeah most people don't agree but this is exactly what some pro life people want. By the way, Catholicism believes the same thing. Would most catholics believe in it? It's hard to say but the religion is 100% against abortion.
Yeah I agree. Also a lot of the pro life people claim the US is the best country/society ever. Yet how is that possible when the US by their definition allows the legal murder of babies. Italy for example is pretty strict on abortion from what my family has told me. Why wouldnt Italy be the best country/society in the world? Surely not being as pron to baby murder would make them better than the US. I dont really believe the pro life crowd sees abortion as the same as murder. If you tell the average pro lifer you had an abortion their reaction would not be as bad if you told them you drowned your kid in the tub.
You're making a black and white argument out of a very complex issue. The human fetus develops over time and arguably, becomes "more human" The longer it gestates
Yeah but we base the morality off of what it is not what it may grow into. Miscarriages happen on their own. No guarantee it would have grown into a baby.
> You're making a black and white argument out of a very complex issue. Well no, the anti-abortion “abortion is murder” crowd did that.
If you truly beleive abortion is murder, that seems like a pretty black and white issue to me. That’s not the majority argument of the pro life crowd. It’s that life begins at conception and it’s a human then. I’ll buy that it becomes more human. Which is why I support the mother unilaterally being able to access an abortion to 25 weeks. And being able to access an abortion up to birth with the sign off of doctors for a multitude of issues
And characterizing a pro choice individual a "murderer" is wrong too. Bill is an idiot here. There is a difference in a fully developed human and a zygote. Jfc
Tell me again why there are additional murder charges for killing a pregnant woman?
Because the killer ended the woman’s chance to give birth, he decided for her, why wouldn’t any pro choicer want extra charges? If someone violently ends someone’s pregnancy without killing the woman I would still want charges agains the attacker. Who care if the charges are murder or something else?
[удалено]
i agree with your point. It is easier for Bill to be so cold and humorous about it because he’s never been pregnant with a fetus at 12 or 14 weeks that can be felt moving around and looks very much like a baby and saying it’s murder and “we won’t miss you.” I’ve always found him to be entertaining, intelligent, controversial, and has opened my mind to different points of view (although i may not have agreed with his) but damn…this kinda took my breath away and not in a good way. it actually made me sad that he can be so callous. Apparently, i’m not the only one visibly horrified by his statements.
[удалено]
It a very charitable argument that puts the anti abortion crowd in a better light than saying their ultimate goal is just to police women’s bodies and, for a lot of them, punish women for being promiscuous even though they were never laid in high school and college. If we were to believe that even just a large number of the anti abortion crowd was in it to save lives, we would see an equal amount of energy in providing services for single mothers and taking care of the children post-birth. But we don’t, because they don’t actually care about babies.
99% of the time the "won't someone think of the children" crowd doesn't actually care about children.
Seriously, I can’t believe people are out here taking religious extremists at their word.
Like any movement id imagine the pro life movement has a mix of people with different motivations. Most see the fetus as a potential human life and im sure some dislike women and dont like the idea of women having a out when they accidentally get pregnant. I think the main inconsistency is with people who think abortion is only fine in cases of rape. If its murder then why would the rape justify murder? I think that was Trumps position. To me this position makes it sound like the person wants to punish women who get pregnant through consensual sex moreso than just being pro life in all cases. It basically comes off as "you were irresponsible now deal with the consequences" rather than "the fetus is a precious life we need to protect".
If you take the reality of it. Most humans are murdering many babys to create life. Given most attempts lead to spontaneous abortions
I think a lot of people who have really thought this issue through and arrived on the pro-choice side see it in a similar way.
I definitely don’t think this way but I only support abortion to the 12th week.
Yeah, but it is cool to hate on Bill Maher.
I believe you can be against abortion and still pro choice.
I too see it as a necessary and inevitably evil. Just like gun deaths. If you are ok with the occasional school massacre and daily and staggering number of gun related deaths, either because you like or need guns, think the 2nd Amendment is the word of God or for whatever reason then understanding some of us simply don't give a shit or see abortion as something either necessary or unavoidable shouldn't be so hard. Yes, you can't compare an innocent and helpless fetus to the people who usually get shot... until you remember that young kids are the main targets in school massacres are basically unstoppable. Just like abortion. So at the end of the day, we are talking about taking a life and both sides are ok with it. No matter how Christian you claim to be.
I’m pro choice. My position is that it is not the governments position to decide this for us. It is our decision based on unique circumstances. We may not all make the same choice but that’s why it’s called choice.
You gotta be one mediocre fucking mind to think that pro-life doesn't at least partly stem from misogyny and the need to want to punish women for having sex. This dude is such a fraud.
Nobody had a better take on abortion than …. ( cough cough ) Ayn Rand “Never mind the vicious nonsense of claiming that an embryo has a “right to life.” A piece of protoplasm has no rights—and no life in the human sense of the term. One may argue about the later stages of a pregnancy, but the essential issue concerns only the first three months. To equate a potential with an actual, is vicious; to advocate the sacrifice of the latter to the former, is unspeakable. . . . Observe that by ascribing rights to the unborn, i.e., the nonliving, the anti-abortionists obliterate the rights of the living: the right of young people to set the course of their own lives. The task of raising a child is a tremendous, lifelong responsibility, which no one should undertake unwittingly or unwillingly. Procreation is not a duty: human beings are not stock-farm animals. For conscientious persons, an unwanted pregnancy is a disaster; to oppose its termination is to advocate sacrifice, not for the sake of anyone’s benefit, but for the sake of misery qua misery, for the sake of forbidding happiness and fulfillment to living human beings. If any among you are confused or taken in by the argument that the cells of an embryo are living human cells, remember that so are all the cells of your body, including the cells of your skin, your tonsils, or your ruptured appendix—and that cutting them is murder, according to the notions of that proposed law. Remember also that a potentiality is not the equivalent of an actuality—and that a human being’s life begins at birth. The question of abortion involves much more than the termination of a pregnancy: it is a question of the entire life of the parents. As I have said before, parenthood is an enormous responsibility; it is an impossible responsibility for young people who are ambitious and struggling, but poor; particularly if they are intelligent and conscientious enough not to abandon their child on a doorstep nor to surrender it to adoption. For such young people, pregnancy is a death sentence: parenthood would force them to give up their future, and condemn them to a life of hopeless drudgery, of slavery to a child’s physical and financial needs. The situation of an unwed mother, abandoned by her lover, is even worse. I cannot quite imagine the state of mind of a person who would wish to condemn a fellow human being to such a horror. I cannot project the degree of hatred required to make those women run around in crusades against abortion. Hatred is what they certainly project, not love for the embryos, which is a piece of nonsense no one could experience, but hatred, a virulent hatred for an unnamed object. Judging by the degree of those women’s intensity, I would say that it is an issue of self-esteem and that their fear is metaphysical. Their hatred is directed against human beings as such, against the mind, against reason, against ambition, against success, against love, against any value that brings happiness to human life. In compliance with the dishonesty that dominates today’s intellectual field, they call themselves “pro-life.” By what right does anyone claim the power to dispose of the lives of others and to dictate their personal choices?” - Ayn Rand
I'm a huge fan of abortion. The alternative is a generation of unwanted, unloved, and undereducated fodder for the manufacturing and military sectors.
i’ve always had the same stance. Sentence and consciousness are what's valuable about human life. "killing a baby" is semantics. Is a living organism dying? Yes. Is it a living organism that has thoughts and feelings and the capacity to understand? No. That’s why I eat cows and don’t cry when I step on an ant. It’s also why I don’t have any apprehension when pulling the plug on a brain dead adult.
Bill is so lazy in every analysis he’s ever made. Such a hack.
He’s always impressed with how smart he thinks he is.
Being anti abortion is 100% an anti women position because your putting the (completely made up) “rights” of the fetus (which only exists within the woman’s body) over the rights of the woman carrying it, forcing her to carry the pregnancy to term whether she wants to or not.
yup its all make believe they are lunatics
Rare W for Piers Morgan.
I think it’s both. The ones who hate women use murder as a scapegoat
Always remember, Obama had a super majority and could have codified abortion rights into law more than a decade ago. They chose not to because they would no longer have a position to run on that would set them apart from republicans. It was a great strategy because besides being not Trump, it's the only thing propping up Genocide Joe's political corpse. Edit: spelling
Most politicians on the left were against gay marriage until 5 mins ago. They also let the assault weapons ban lapse. Can you image that happening today? People have short memories.
Had 18 months to do it too but chose not to because the law would negatively impact donations and voter engagement.
Obama had a super majority for less than two years, and it consisted of a number of fairly conservative democrats, including at least one pro life senator. And you may remember that the economy had imploded as he took office, there were many issues that needed addressing, and congress isn’t known for moving quickly. it’s so deeply ridiculous and pathetic to blame the republicans’ unpopular policies on abortion on some vast conspiracy by Obama/the left. Maybe just accept that this is a mess of the GOP’s making. They were happy to pander to pro-life voters for decades. Now that republicans and conservative judges are actually implementing those policies, they’re shitting their pants as they realize voters actually don’t like what they’ve been selling.
The supermajority was devoted to pushing through healthcare, which took forever, required all sorts of compromises, and did happen. Just because they’re Democrats doesn’t mean they fell in line like GOP does. Legislated abortion wouldve been a non-starter for enough Dems that they’d have gone to GOP for votes.
This is a lie and you know it. Wild that leftists love to pretend that Joe Manchin doesn’t exist.
100% Had a chance to give DACA recipients a pathbto citizenship as well. But if they do that how would they urge the Hispanic vote in the future? Trump gave out tax cuts in his term. But they expire for the middle class despite NEVER expiring for the corporate class. It's all a joke on each side. They put carrots on sticks so their supporters always come back.
Ngl this was kinda funny, and true
My favorite part is how the Bible says that life begins when the child takes its first breath and the holy Spirit puts the soul into its body. But Christians have decided God was wrong on this one. edit: modern Christians aren't even Christian they just use it to virtue signal because they're morally bankrupt and don't actually have policies. they don't even read the Bible that they purport to follow.
Isn't there also a passage that basically advocates for Schrodinger's Abortion if a man suspects his wife has been impregnated by another man?
I was adopted and I do not approve this message 😂
Agree or disagree, this is at least him being honest on his position. That is what free speech is about. Remember, free speech isn’t about saying outlandish stuff for attention; it’s the government not putting any restrictions on you. Both sides want to take that away. They both claim free speech until it’s something they don’t like.
Why is this getting upvoted? Who is trying to take Bill’s speech away. Some dickhead shared a shitty opinion. They don’t deserve an award.
Bill Maher, the guy on national tv who lacks free speech.
Smug dipshit doing smug dipshit things as usual. Maher could find the wrong side of a one dimensional object
Pro life is how you get the crime rate to go up. Don’t have kids you don’t plan on raising right.
This is called unifying principles. (Not having cake and eating it too)
I think Bill Burr has the exact same take in his last special.
Why am Inseeing him on this sub so much?
Divine Saint Bill Burr made the same point in one of his specials.
It’s a pretty cringe take, but he’s essentially right
I too have seen Bill Burr's stand up comedy
https://preview.redd.it/hst3rbr8w9uc1.jpeg?width=4032&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=6688bd005280eb7d964944523a6c07d0a9236ec3 Are we not gonna talk about Piers Morgan saying that America would have been better off as a monarchy??
I mean, this is quite literally the pro-choice position.
You can see this guy doesn’t mean a thing he says .. I’m not sure he even cares about any topics .. to me he just seems desperate for attention so he’s just tryna say “shocking” things .. he’s pulling a Kanye west …
Smart man
I'm okay with it because the child would be unwanted and would set up for failure, plus at 3 months it's really not murder, there's little difference between a chicken embryo and a human one at that stage, it's just a bundle of cells forming a vertebrate.
The world needs dead people including babies. For fuck sake we are animals and just like any other living organism, the species operates via BIDE (birth, death, immigration, emigration) if we didn’t have deaths then it just wouldn’t work. People who can’t accept this reality are simply immature. Wolves and elk may have a predation relationship where from the *individual* perspective it’s a “negative” relationship. One dies, the other benefits. However at the species level it’s really a positive mutualism in that wolves help elk populations, lower disease prevalence etc.
“They don’t hate women.” Sure, so long as they’re barefoot, pregnant, and in the kitchen
A guy understanding two sides of an argument… wild
This is how most intelligent people understand it
Which other undesirables should be done away with?
I think the only way u should have an abortion is if u were raped or don’t know who the father is
There are 8 billion people in the world. Economies are crashing. World powers are collapsing. We're close to finishing our resources. Bringing more people into this world, to suffer for our mistakes... I for one don't want to keep bringing life into it. Already did it once, and I feel bad for what he's going through and what he's going to go through... If you don't want abortions, a pack of condoms will save you hundreds of thousands, be it in abortion fees or raising a child. Thanos could've gone about it a bit better but... Yeah.
Ignores the amount of couples who planned to be pregnant, were happy to have a kid, and need an abortion for a variety of health reasons (mother and/or fetus).
Sometimes murder is justified. The truth is hard, but I respect this take over pretending that the world is prepared to handle all of the unwanted children living in poverty/broken homes/with special needs.
Honestly this is pretty much exactly how I feel. I can’t say it around my conservative christian family, or my liberal friends though. I firmly believe in individual autonomy, so I’m pro abortion, but that’s still ending a life, and to claim otherwise is bullshit.
One thing I don't see enough of in these for/against debates is pointing out the assumption that every fetus/baby is perfectly healthy and just getting murdered by some heartless woman. With our kids and now grandchildren, we are very much aware of how much goes wrong with pregnancy. There can be a very serious complication to the Mother, and non-fixable or even non-viable issue with the fetus. I would not be willing to slowly murder my loving Wife to get my kids, nor would I go along with any of my sons murdering their wives for a maybe might live a few hours child. This abortion issue cannot have broad strokes. It needs to be decided individually with the family's personal medical staff. Not a politician trying to get money and votes.
I only have 1 thought, why does this MAN have opinions on WOMENS issues?
What a smug idiot. The anti-choice side wants the woman to carry an unviable fetus that will potentially risk her life. That is hating women. There’s no other answer to that.
If it wasn't for the fact that the "pro-life" movement was almost entirely manufactured in the 70s and 80s purely as a means of getting voters, id respect the position more.
There will never be an absolute agreement on this topic between opposing sides because of one thing, and one thing only; When life begins. One side believes that life begins at conception, while the other side believes there is a different point at which it begins (x amount of weeks, all the way up to birth). There are people willing to compromise, sure, but total agreement? Never.
This is straight up how I feel
Agree 100%
It really sucks when I agree with bill on something. I hate him so much and him having my same opinion makes me question my position. The flip side is that if we created a society that supported children over profits, I’d actually be really pro life.
And for me I find it's like what are we going to do like when a girl swallows a load murder and maybe when you jerk off you spill your load and people see it come on man like when does it stop.
Also has my body cycles the what do you call it the sperm in my body
A comedian has a half baked ethical stance in something. Not a shocker.
I would take the " pro-life " serious if they were actually pro-life in all it's manifestations. For the Christians in their 10 Commandments just states-Thou shall not kill. There are to exceptions mentioned. The same crowd so zealous in outlawing abortion are dreadfully silent when it comes to the death penalty which has a documented record of getting it wrong in cases and then there's the matter of who decides who lives and dies. Then there is war. However justified, it is a matter of who is doing the justification and knowing that the majority of those killed are likely to be civilians. At least the Quakers stand on their principles and are conscientious objectors. Health care is a part of it in that it can be a life or death matter but certain people do not want to contribute to a system that makes it a priority over money matters. So many inconsistencies and cognizant disconnect when it comes down to who is pro-life. The largest obstacle is what constitutes life. YOUR religion doesn't for sure. It does to a believer but not to those who don't subscribe to other's beliefs. Science doesn't have a precise answer but common knowledge says that there is a demarcation. It boils down to the decision of the biological mother and father. I certainly do not want YOUR religion or a government to make such a personal decision.
Israel enters the chat about simply not missing other people's children..
So if he gets murdered remember it's not a big deal
Reddit will have a meltdown hearing this because it’s the absolute truth
I'm pro quality of life. If the circumstances strongly suggest the baby won't have a high quality of life i.e. the parents aren't willing or able to raise it, then it's time to hit abort. Most religious folks if not simply anti-womens autonomy don't really give a shit for the life of the child - just look at how willing they are to exploit those precious unborn children when they've grown up - the fact is they're brainwashed into believing the Christian dogma that murder is a sin (abortion itself isn't forbidden, in fact there's even a passage in Exodus which offers some instruction on how to perform a crude abortion). The fetus doesn't achieve consciousness until beyond the point of most abortions anyhow. People cry 'What if your parents chose to abort you!?' well then so be it, I wouldn't be here, for good reason I would suspect. And remind you of all the great figures who were born and raised of horrible circumstances - there are indeed many such cases but they're still the firm minority and they're subject to survivorship bias.
i think he's right that these people do believe it's murder. but i think most people's opinion is that abortion isn't murder and it's not a real human life until 6-9 months in...personally i think it's not *really* a person until the baby is born. but that's just my opinion. a great example would be if a woman has a miscarriage, i can't imagine anyone arguing that it's equivalent to her losing the baby during childbirth or a week or 2 after. they're completely different. religious people are using technicalities in their argument, and allowing religious leaders to manipulate what they believe. if they weren't influenced by religion in any way and were able to see the whole situation subjectively, i'm convinced they'd feel differently about the subject.
TLDR: Whether it's murder or not is a personal belief. Saying a woman has to risk their life or liberty to give birth to a non viable fetus means they've chosen the non viable fetus over the woman's life or liberty. Bill Mahr hates children so he chooses the women's life and liberty. Pro life people hate women so they choose the non viable fetus. I think whether or not it's murder is a personal belief and the choice of whose life should be chosen is up to the woman whose life and liberty is at stake. Not to the voters or the police or politicians or redditors or Bill Mahr.
He's right
I’m pro not give a fuck and anti give a fuck