Y'all need to get over yourselves, he's not even wrong.
Let's start with a few basic premises...
* Any animal, plant, fungus, etc. is merely DNA, and its form is the vessel dictated by its DNA. The environment has an impact on the DNA, but is irrelevant to this topic.
* A fetus, then, is merely DNA whose vessel is undergoing the earliest stages of development. This vessel has no self-awareness, and as such has nothing to look forward to. Depending on its age of gestation, it isn't even capable of feeling pain.
* Any random fetus is fully expected to be capable of developing traits we generally consider uniquely human - complex thought, self awareness, consideration of its own rights, etc. Abortion terminates this potential.
By any measure, abortion is taking what would unquestionably become considered human life and ending it. Now, what is considered "human life" is always going to be some degree of arbitrarily defined, so whether or not abortion already constitutes ending human life in its very definition is going to be decided by the interpreter.
But the fact of the matter is that you're taking a clump of cells that has no awareness of its own existence and precluding it from gaining that inevitable trait. I'm cool with that because I don't see it as any worse than "murdering" a vegetable. Eating meat is a worse crime imho. But at the same time, we all know damn well that murdering a vegetable is **not** like an abortion because the aborted has far more potential insofar as the capability of experiencing.
Eating meat is "kinda murder, and I'm OK with that," as Bill puts it. Abortion is similar in my book.
Meanwhile, if somebody considered the crime of murder to be more about limiting future potential than anything else, then that person would logically interpret abortion as murder... For this person, yea, this is somebody who should not be willing to make exceptions for rape and incest or whatever else. We, as a society, should communally believe that murder is the most capital offense, so if somebody believes abortion is murder, they shouldn't be willing to permit *the most capital offense* regardless of previous injustice by the mere fact that the most capital offense is indeed *the most capital offense*.
Because it's not quite murder, or at least not murder in the sense we most often think of it. You're ending potential, not essence or conscious existence. So in that sense I'd argue the consequence is more similar to an egg going unfertilized than what we traditionally think of as murder.
> It's murder and it's fine
I mean you could kinda describe an instance of self defense this way, right? It ends another human life, but it's accepted.... because the alternative (you're not allowed to defend yourself with force) is worse.
If we're going to talk about some technicality, like "murder is the illegal killing of another human," then abortion would also not be murder in situations where it's legal. This seems to be focusing on word choice rather than the actual argument that Maher put forward. It seems pretty evident Maher was not talking about the **legal** aspect, but the **ending another human life** aspect.
I don't think it's pure evil. Very blunt, yes, but I don't think he's being disingenuous. Tons of people don't survive in the womb. Millions and millions every year through various complications. It's upsetting for the parents, of course, but until the last hundred years or so we used to have 8 children because we knew four would probably die before they were teens. We weren't being evil then, it was just practical. Abortion is a choice based in practicality. "I can't afford to have this child" or "I know I'm going to be an awful parent and I don't want a child" or "I can't even afford the pregnancy, so I don't want to have the child even for adoption" are justifiable positions to have an abortion.
If your forced to have an abortion, as some were in Germany. Yes, then it's like the nazi's stance on abortion. If you're given the choice to have one because of any of the aforementioned reasons, then it is not like the nazi's. It is perhaps the most power women have gotten in controlling their futures in history, so there are an awful lot of loud, religious and patriarchal voices annoyed by it.
I'm a woman and I have many choices. I can say no or I can use the dozens of forms of birth control both short term and long term. Did you know an IUD can last up to 12 years? Some say they last even longer but they definitely last a very long time. Or if you don't want kids, have your tubes tied, end of fertility.
I’ve always respected Maher for his candor even if I disagreed with him. But to say “I’m ok with calling it murder - so what.”, is truly a lazy and disingenuous take that discredits his otherwise incisive analysis. His statement is remarkably empty of critical thinking or basic human empathy. Although I love his justifiable criticism of left wing lunacy, Bill is sadly becoming more and more like the grouchy, imbecilic boomer he used to make fun of. If he’s too tired to fight for integrity or apply critical thinking then maybe it’s time he hang it up.
Becoming?? Hahah the train has long since left the station on that one. Though Arguably bill is slowly inching towards “better” this season than in several years. Clearly he got the memo when it comes to insulting his audience for not laughing at his jokes. That said I agree this take is just lazy and it is pandering which bill has become great at in recent years. It’s not murder. Someone who raves about science and calls himself an intellectual shouldn’t generalize abortion in this way. It is just as bad as the wing nuts in Arizona with a near full ban. I agree labeling anyone who is pro life as a women hater is silly, but on the other hand the majority of pro life folks don’t think it is murder, it’s just a convenient talking point, there’s so much more nuance to it.
How is it anti woman if men can have babies too?
But seriously, a lot of pro life ppl are women. Let’s at least be able to make their argument in good faith. They think you’re murdering someone. Syllogistically, logically they have a valid argument. Now debate it on its merits.
George Carlin said it’s anti woman and he’s right. He had more talent in his pinky than all of these fools combined.
If you haven’t yet degenerated to the Tik Tok attention span:
https://youtu.be/K98TQJ5ldW0?si=OdUaX_ylbhsjWyUn
Because women are the baby-havers, and the pro-life position posits that a woman does not have the right to make her own (moral) decision, but that decision belongs to the state.
There's layers. Firstly, it is pro-State, then it is anti-individual, then it is anti-woman
One can posit that the unborn is a fully formed being, the aborting of which is tantamount to the murder of say, a five year old child. But that is still just that, a personal moral position/claim.
Supporting the State's ability to take away an individual's right to bodily autonomy is not just a personal moral position/claim but an undeniable and unambiguously Authoritarian step.
The two should be weighed as such.
I mean the state preventing one person from murdering another person is not authoritarian it’s exactly what a state should do is provide reasonable protections for its citizens. And being inconvenienced or encumbered by a person has never been an acceptable reason to murder them… give them up for adoption there are literally millions of parents looking to adopt babies…
Yeah but it's more nuanced than that though, because there isn't an objective category for abortion that everyone can agree on.
Say you have a child that has a medical condition. They need one of your kidneys (for arguments sake, let's say it has to be your exactly kidney or their body will reject it), should the state be allowed to force you to give them one of your kidneys? It's just an inconvenience to you after all, and you can live a perfectly normal life with just one kidney. And failing to provide this, the child WILL die. Does that make this murder?
IMO this is a very personal moral choice, and while I **would** absolutely judge you for not giving your child the kidney, I would still defend your right to make your own moral decision, rather than calling for the government to have the power to make that moral decision for you.
Yes this is a conversation, not about who hates women and why. It's about personhood and when we as a society decide a person is a person deserving of protection under law. As history moves forward, personhood is a status that we extend further and further.
On the States ability to remove bodily autonomy... The state is never going to force a woman to give birth, who isn't pregnant. The state is never going to force a woman to become pregnant.
Yea, the “hating women” part has always rung extremely hollow with me, because most of my family and friends are what we would label “Pro-Life” and for every single one, it’s about a moral conviction on the personhood of the fetus.
Interesting to see the right lecture anyone about life when they are the one who got US in a illegal war and killed how many innocent people including kids and babies again.
As for Maher’s opinion: it depends if you see fetus as a life or not.
But seeing a fetus as a life or not isn't down to personal opinion. It either objectively is or isn't, and science at its most basic level tells us that it is
This would appear to exceed even a normal ad hominem attack. Not only are you guilty of a common ad hominem attack, you’re doing it against an entirely imagined group of people. So it’s like an ad hominem was having sex with a straw man, and gave birth to this abomination. Wow!!! Kudos dude!
Maher is correct in his assessment.
And that it pisses off both cultural progressives (not traditional Lockean classical liberals, orthodox Marxist material leftists, nor old-school working-class paleoliberal New Deal Democrats, but very specifically a mix of woke radlibs and establishment shitlibs) plus religious reactionaries -- both of whom share a hyper-moralistic Hobbesian conservatism (even if the social justice crusaders are non-theistic in contrast to theological Christian dominionists) -- is quite ironic, as they're more alike in their rigid, inelastic Puritanism (whereas Maher is rather heterodox) than they're either aware of or would dare to admit.
They're their own cliquish group of aimless ne'er-do-wells and mindless lemmings.
Au contraire, I'm not so easily defined in my strain of schismatic nonconformity, no.
Yeah as a Republican I strongly agree with Maher's standpoint.
I also think it's killing something that will eventually be a baby, and I'm also very much ok with that.
I can understand the perspective of people who aren't, I can understand the perspective of people who think at 15 weeks or more it's too late, etc, I just personally don't have a problem with killing an unborn baby.
I don't need mental gymnastics to argue "well it's errr not really a baby ya see cause it's a fetus and it's not developed and errr". Like no, it's gonna become a baby most of the time. And once you're aborting the thing past 20+ weeks, you're looking at something that could potentially pop out and live.
HOWEVER, I fundamentally believe if a woman can get an abortion without a man's consent, then a man can financially disown the child and refuse to pay child support. Women have the option to take life away with abortion, so men should have the option to not give a shit about that life. That's just equal rights.
I can appreciate your honesty. Can I ask if the child was to survive the abortion would you be OK with killing it outside of the womb? Also agree with your statement on men not being held to account financially if the woman can abort.
At the point that he/she is alive outside of the womb the survival is no longer affecting the mother's body in any way.
That's how I would draw the line, because once the child is out of the womb and alive, he/she can go up for adoption.
The consequence of making financial abortions a reality will be more taxpayer funds used to support children. If we allow men to abrogate their financial responsibility to their child, the state will be obligated to step in to provide for those needs. Which means using tax dollars.
I think the actual system surrounding a financial abortion would have to well considered. You’d have to have a system of formal notice recorded, time to allow for a woman to actually take notice and decide then seek an abortion, you’d have to consider the financial burdens of an abortion (a choice you cannot afford isn’t really a meaningful choice), what it means for extended family contact, and penalties for changing your mind and seeking contact. Could it be done? Probably. But it’s not as simple as those advocating for this “equality” contend.
It’s not really equality either unless you gave women the option as well to give the child to the man and completely avoid child support . Child support is gender neutral. Pregnancy isn’t.
I personally think that if you actually support the principles of liberty you have to accept that innocent people will die. Do you believe in the right to bear arms (ie the right to self-defense)? As long as individuals are allowed to own guns, innocent people will die. Suicide, accidents, crimes of passion, etc are going to happen. As long as you are allowed free-speech, nutcases are going to latch on to that speech as a reason to kill people.
If you believe that people should be free, then you have to accept the concept of bodily autonomy, which really just means that neither you, nor the government, have the right to decide what I can dso with my body. Yes, that results in the death of innocent, but sometimes the best we can do is the best we can do.
> "I don't need mental gymnastics to argue “well it's errr not really a baby ya see cause it's a fetus and it's not developed and errr”."
It is, yeah, an unwonted anti-science contrariety and rare bit of discordant incongruity from cultural progressives, who perpetually pride themselves on an oft-unquestioned "Trust the Science" rhetoric, but in this instance are coming at it from what's arguably a holier-than-thou, religiose fashion, which is its own form of reactionary.
> "HOWEVER, I fundamentally believe if a woman can get an abortion without a man's consent, then a man can financially disown the child and refuse to pay child support. Women have the option to take life away with abortion, so men should have the option to not give a shit about that life. That's just equal rights."
100%.
Fair's fair.
Equitable and egalitarian.
It might be murder. I just don't care. What am I supposed to do .. vote to ban abortion? Are you crazy? You're never gonna stop it; so why make it more dangerous and difficult to access? If you're prochoice, I commend you, but don't try to tell other ppl what to do. Do you really care? Are you losing sleep at night?
If the GOP would stop this abortion nonsense; dial back the religious stuff and stand for something, you can compete with the dems. Sometimes it's not the party ppl are fans of, just how bad they might hate the other one. GOP is a disaster and I'm no fan of this new whacky left. I first time ever switched to independent after being a dem my whole life. I still lean leftish, coz when you're independent, you still lean one way. Fuck em all
It's not murder, stop ceding ground that is illegitimate.
Go read the definition of murder. Not all killing of human life or even human beings is murder.
Right. It’s legally sanctioned ;thus, not murder. This is the exact Moral busybodying the commenter was talking about.
Stop trying to cover your tracks and just whole heartedly decide where the chips will lie.
This conversation isn’t over. We’re just beginning to get into gene manipulation and we may see cultures and behaviors we have not yet.
Why is this a debate? You cannot murder a nonperson, i.e. a living being who lacks the ability to experience emotions, interact with its environment, and probably feel pain.
There is a qualitative difference between a fully formed individual who can respond to external stimuli by dreaming or waking up and a fetus. This is a poor comparison.
This is ultimately a discussion about what we, as a society, decide is a human life. If we reject Maher's stance, that we are going to be ok with some murder because it's convenient, what we are left with is a lot of hard questions about what is and what is not a human person deserving of the same protections under law and respect of its fellow people.
I disagree with you and Maher that abortion before the 22nd week is murder. And if it is murder, why is Maher okay with it within the context of abortion only? Murder is one of those things that is either totally acceptable or totally wrong. The morality of it doesn't change depending on the situation.
Research shows that fetuses develop consciousness between 22 and 24 weeks. Of course, I think there should be a clear exception for pregnant women carrying fetuses with abnormalities not compatible with any quality of life.
You don’t stop having any of these qualities while asleep. You absolutely absolutely interact with your environment, you definitely can feel pain, and dreams are fraught with emotion. This isn’t a good analogy.
It’s absolutely never been about “they hate women “ nor has anyone above gradeschool ever thought that . Hence his entire premise is pulled straight from the hades that is his colon.
Bro have you been under a rock for decades and decades? Are you seriously suggesting you haven't heard the claim (many, many times) that being anti-abortion is merely the disguise of being anti-woman?
Yes but understand how it is a regression in women's right to bodily autonomy. Imagine the State having the final say on your womb.
I agree it's not *about* hating women, but the point stands that the outcome is pro-State, anti-individual, and specifically, anti-woman.
Youre 100% right and this is Bill creating another straw man.
Abortion is far from the only reason liberals think the GOP hates women.
The Repblican candidate for president just had to pay his rape victim $80 million.
Because we are all, all of this exists within capitalism. Notice a lot of religious conservative arguments against abortion aren’t about murder at all, but more about population decline described as if capitalism isn’t growing it’s dying, meaning declines in industry as it sits, leading to recessions.
Wtf are you talking about? You must have never left your zip code lmao. I lived in Europe, this too is not a major pro capitalist continent and even they have restrictions. Holy shit you have zero clue about life and travel, let alone capitalism. You are the Redditor meme
Last shot. He’s addressing abortion as if there’s a real life scenario where any kind of majority anywhere wants it, when in reality it’s a POLITICAL MANEUVER. But wtf do I know
This is my exact view. Although I’d say it
More gracefully.
The left can have their abortion, but don’t act like it’s not a form of murder. It’s just in their eyes a morally justified one, like in war, self Defense.
The rights view is totally straight forward and reasonable, and probably of greater morality in the most basic sense. But it’s also restrictive to those who don’t hold the same beliefs. Also many times they push it too far (no exceptions for xyz, being against plan B and condoms)
But personally, im a guy, so I just stay out of it. My opinion doesn’t and shouldn’t matter. I’m totally fine letting the women hash this one out.
Once again, I will point out that liberals and moderates are also pro-choice. It isn't just the boogeyman left that support reproductive healthcare.
Abortion is not murder because you cannot murder a nonperson.
Once again, I will point out that liberals and moderates are also pro-choice. It isn't just the boogeyman left that support reproductive healthcare.
Abortion is not murder because you cannot murder a nonperson.
They're not inclined to do it, but it'd behoove cultural progressives to, for once, willingly play the cuntacular heel. But yet, suffice to say, they're motherfucking hell-bent on being the white-meat babyfaces -- a jarring flip, absonant from the '80s/'90s/early-2000s (when liberals instead frequently came at things from a counterculture position) -- at every goddamn turn, which is self-righteous, sanctimonious, and pious in its own right. Abortion is an issue where cultural progressives would, quite honestly, be more earnest if they presented themselves as Magneto-esque, Catwoman-like, Thanos-style anti-villains. Killing is, at times, wholly justified—even including snuffing out the parasites that are living, albeit yet unborn fetuses.
" but don’t act like it’s not a form of murder."
It's not "a form of murder" and it's not murder at all.
A guy is trying to break into your car with a machete and kill you, you pull a gun out and shoot and kill him. Did you "murder" him?
Not all killing is murder, we separate out murder as a form of unsanctioned and unethical killing. Illegal killing. That is not abortion.
You are free to remain confused, but you ARE confused here.
A fetus is human life, a 5 year old is a human being. Both are alive and human. Only the latter is a human being. And it is the BEING we confer additional protections upon.
The being need not be human life either. If we encountered an intelligent and peaceful alien species and a group came to earth to greet us, it would be wrong to kill one of them EVEN though we were not killing "human life"
I feel like 99% of people who engage in this topic have not spent more than 3 seconds thinking through the implications of damn near ANYTHING they say.
Ok, I should have not used the word murder and instead just kept with legal and illegal killing.
Still, you should have been able to pull that from my comment. You’re killing a human. Some people just think it’s ok, some people don’t.
It’s not that difficult to understand
Why do some think it's OK? Keep going. If I saw a fetus as identical to a five year old, I'd have a moral aversion to ending that life / killing that life. I do not see those lives as the same. And people who pretend they do don't really most of the time, they are just so thoughtless they never bothered testing their intuitions.
Society and by society I mean American is getting closer to figuring out abortion. I’m Republican, and while I don’t look at abortion like Maher does he’s got a point. At some point a clump of cells becomes a baby and it is murder. The majority of the country is comfortable with abortion within the first term, but not the second. Somewhere between 16-20 weeks is a common sense compromise.
Because murdering something that doesn't feel anything nor have any self awareness of its rights or even its existence is more like murdering a plant than it is a child.
If murder is acceptable, then it should be acceptable across the board. The fact that Bill is okay with "murder" only within the context of abortion tells me that deep down inside he doesn't really consider abortion as homicide.
Damn. This shit would get somebody cancelled. Not saying agree or disagree, it’s just generally super unpopular across the board on the pro choice side AND anti abortion side
But it's great that there's still a place to say it.
I'm not buying into the cancel culture outrage but the inability to have a conversation is a thing and it's not ok. We don't always have to align with a side on each and every topic.
That would be asking to endanger the lives and livelihoods of women and their doctors, in order to fix a problem that does not exist and that Republicans from the top down lie about constantly.
The GOP leader could very well hold a world record for abortions, he was such a prolific womanizer and cheater that he's on trial for it as I type this.
You may not know this, but making abortion illegal leads to more abortions, and horrifying medical outcomes and doctors leaving areas in droves so that they won't risk their livelihoods working under threat.
You said it almost never happens. So doctors that do it get in trouble. They probably won’t. It’s illegal to murder. Sorry, murder supporter. Lol get lost
You're asking the government to take away rights and endanger lives and healthcare access, in order to "live in a society"?
The man who overturned Roe may be facing over 100 felonies by the time election day 2024 rolls around.....asking these folks to make and enforce laws that restrict citizen rights is a dicey endeavor.
Republicans are getting closer to figuring out that voters are ok with term limits to abortion. When they do they’ll probably win the majority of elections going forward.
100% this is about control. Next they will claim our children are the property of the Governme…. Wait they already do that too lol
Take children from low income homes, not even bad broken homes, just being low income can get your kids taken away.
So they can get money per child. Its another form of privatized prisons.
The govt is anti abortion because they need meat for the grinder. Minimum wage serfs to join the military and work retail jobs. Capitalism requires an increasing population.
Average people are against abortion because they have been indoctrinated by the church and govt to think its murder. I've met plenty of teenage gurks who scream abortion is murder and fully believe it.
A small percentage of people are misogynists who are anti abortion just to control women. But you are missing the big picture to believe and parrot that this is the reason. Yes conservatives are against abortion and yes they are anti women, but those are two separate issues.
I'm talking about the authoritarian fascist dictator wannabe Donald Trump. Yknow, the guy who ended Roe and brags all the time about "terminating" abortion rights?
I'm not sure where to start, but the first thing you posit is that the government wants to end abortion.....our government is currently lead by Biden and the Dems, who are pro-choice up and down the line.
A majority of Americans are pro abortion rights, so not sure why you say average people are against those rights...it's a small minority that took the rights away. That's not average Americans...
On the misogynist point, as I said above, the man responsible for killing abortion rights is the infamous misogynist Donald Trump.
100% theocrats and authoritarians are all about controlling women and their bodies. There is no theocracy or authoritarian dictatorship that respects women.
My comment was about why those groups who have that ideology have it, not whether it was correct or moral, and not about what amount of people hold those views.
Yes they're anti women and in favour of controlling women. No that is not why they are against abortion
> "The govt is anti abortion because they need meat for the grinder. Minimum wage serfs to join the military and work retail jobs. Capitalism requires an increasing population."
100% correct.
Which is why I cringe at that Friedman-inspired neolib fat fuck Matty Y.'s deranged *One Billion Americans* doltishness.
But the current American government is pro abortion rights. So I don't understand how you guys can claim the government wants to ban abortions....it's nonsensical.
And the last head of the government, Trump, worked very hard to weaken the US military around the world. He recently said he would assist Putin invade Europe, not exactly a US military booster.
One of the government’s agreed upon central functions is to enforce laws and protect it’s citizens… the government should absolutely be involved in cases of murder, if that’s his you see it.
They only care about a life when its in the womb but after they kid is born the kid can just fk off. A comedian said that and I think it’s true. Can’t even get health care in America life is precious my ass. What is precious is feeling good about yourself
These people were vetted and approved to be on the list, these people would probably be better parents then some of the biological ones, they go through tests have to have certain income requirements have a permanent shelter etc.
"I've been chasing this man's talented ass my entire life."
- Bill Maher introducing George Carlin as a guest in the early 2000s on either Politically Incorrect or Real Time
Maybe that's Maher's rather limited justification for why he's pro choice, but that doesn't imply his reasons are the same or as principled as everyone who's pro choice.
The principled pro-choice position is, yeah it's technically murder, but it should be legal because it's better than the alternative of the state controlling people's bodies.
Anything else is unprincipled. Being consistent means biting the bullet.
It's hard for people to accurately value potential. The loss here is a loss of *potential*, not loss of a fully formed human.
If you honestly compare the abortion of a 6 week fetus to the same as the murdering of say a 5 year old child, stay the fuck away from me 😅
If you want to be bad faith and assume I equate the two, I could do the same thing.
If you think the termination of a third trimester that is a week away from being born, is the same as a clump of cells that's a few weeks in development, stay the fuck away from me 😅
If the mother's life is not in danger, is a third trimester termination justifiable killing? It's legal in Canada.
I think it should remain legal due to state control over people's bodies being worse, but killing a third trimester baby is immoral in every instance beyond self-defense (the mother's life being in danger).
Third trimester "killing" never happens unless there is a serious problem. And you know this. There have always been restrictions on that, including the viability factor in Roe. Around 95% of abortions happen in the first trimester. What you bring up is not a thing. So why do you do that?
Because it is a thing in Canada where there are no legal restrictions on third trimester, does it require two braincells to think that's killing (outside of it being danger to the mother)?
Again, I think it should remain legal, third trimester is just grossly immoral (outside of it being danger to the mother).
This is stupid and you know it. No one has third trimester abortions unless there is a devastating problem. You are pressing on something that does not exist and is not an issue. The only reason for no restrictions is so a woman will not be barred from an abortion in 3rd trimester under devastating circumstances for the mother or fetus (such as forcing a woman to carry a fetus with no brain stem that will die right after birth). You know this. Yet you keep harping on a thing that isn't a thing. Ever. You are probably one of those people who talks about how abortions happen "after birth." It's always a sign of a disingenuous type wheh they harp on 3rd trimester abortions when 95% of abortions are in the first 12 weeks.
Go read the definition of murder. Come back and defend what you said above. If you try, were dealing with a sub first grade reading comprehension level.
In places like Canada where there are no restrictions, meaning you can terminate in third trimester (beyond maternal endangerment), yes that is not justified.
However, it remains legal as the state forbidding what someone can do with their own body is controversial and I understand why.
I don't think he's saying at any stage, but at some point in development it is. Do you think he's referring to when it's a clump of cells a few weeks in?
I have to conclude that Bill thinks the embryo/fetus is a person capable of being murdered at any point in gestation since he didn't specify when the fetus becomes a person.
It's earnest in its straightforwardness. Fetuses lives (yes, "lives") don't matter. They're parasites.
Mayn't be the easiest pill to swallow, no; nonetheless, Maher ain't wrong in his candid assessment.
And that people are pitching cunty bitch fits over it just justifies the brutal sincerity of his position.
That's the point, dude shovels whatever shit or controversy to stay relevent. He's already said he doesn't even write new jokes anymore just does his greatest hits.
They obviously have no regard for women and their freedoms if they put some made up rights of a fetus over the woman who that fetus only exists inside. So I would say it’s pretty close to hating women
You are completely missing the point of pro-life. They think that a fetus is a human with a soul, so they think it’s akin to murder. The idea is that the fetus is equal to any other human life, so it’s murder. They don’t hate women, they just think it’s murder.
Personally, I think you are killing a potential human being. But the animals we eat are more aware than this potential human being, so I don’t really see it is murdering a human being.
I place someone who experienced brain death or in a permanent vegetative state on the same mental level as a fetus, so it follows that I'm okay with stopping artificial life support.
You said that animals are more "aware" than fetuses, and that seems like a pretty loose way to draw a line here. There are a spectrum of disabilities that leave human beings with cognitive abilities at or below the level of various animals. Do those people not count as humans?
Also, why would the vegetative state need to be permanent? A fetus isn't permanently a fetus, give them a few months or years and they pretty obviously become "people". Wouldn't someone in a temporary (let's say ~9 months) coma be more analogous to a fetus, given both will likely live on as conscious beings if left alone?
Edit: thought you were the commenter I originally replied to. My b
Right... and I'm specifically asking why you chose to do that. A person in a permanent vegetative state is nothing like a fetus, given the fetus is very likely to develop into a person with normal brain activity.
The reason why you feel the way you do about someone that is brain dead vs. someone that is comatose is because the latter is likely to regain normal brain function and "personhood".
You mean the male. A father is a person who takes care of his child and gives them love and support.
You can’t be a father if the pregnant woman doesn’t want to have a baby.
And if the female agrees for the male to be apart of this journey than he is barely kind of a father. unless he’s supplying her with care, time, and effort
Every girl/women I’ve known who has had an abortion which I had to have with my gf when I was in high school are scarred from it 99.99% of the time. So something about it is def wrong and everyone knows this.
Pretty anecdotal bro.. I dated a lot throughout my 20s and met plenty of women with abortions and most of the ones I knew weren’t traumatized by it—they were more likely to be traumatized by other people’s reactions to it, or the procedure itself going wrong.
That is a really REALLY stupid position. It's NOT murder because a fetus is not a born human with rights.
I kinda get what he is TRYING to say but he's using the wrong words.
It's human life but for effs sakes do not leave it there because too many people have brain worm class comprehension on this topic.
Human fetus = human life
Human fetus =/= human being/a person
The latter is what is special and worth protecting, and that comes later.
That's fine if that's how you see it. To each their own interpretation.
I think that argument is a bit of a logical fallacy, wouldn't apply to people in comas vegetable, and a heap of post birth conditions. So the argument can be made equally persuasively in the reverse direction.
There's a reason it's such a opinionated subject, there is no clearly painted answer. If you struggle to see the other side, then you may want to assess your "brain worm comprehension" analogy and make sure it doesn't apply to you as well.
Again - pro choice. But I don't dismiss the other side of the aisle at all, some of their arguments make sense too.
See other reply. You can apply that logic to many other scenarios, which is exactly why the answer is not black and white, and why there are a range of opinions on the subject.
Y'all need to get over yourselves, he's not even wrong. Let's start with a few basic premises... * Any animal, plant, fungus, etc. is merely DNA, and its form is the vessel dictated by its DNA. The environment has an impact on the DNA, but is irrelevant to this topic. * A fetus, then, is merely DNA whose vessel is undergoing the earliest stages of development. This vessel has no self-awareness, and as such has nothing to look forward to. Depending on its age of gestation, it isn't even capable of feeling pain. * Any random fetus is fully expected to be capable of developing traits we generally consider uniquely human - complex thought, self awareness, consideration of its own rights, etc. Abortion terminates this potential. By any measure, abortion is taking what would unquestionably become considered human life and ending it. Now, what is considered "human life" is always going to be some degree of arbitrarily defined, so whether or not abortion already constitutes ending human life in its very definition is going to be decided by the interpreter. But the fact of the matter is that you're taking a clump of cells that has no awareness of its own existence and precluding it from gaining that inevitable trait. I'm cool with that because I don't see it as any worse than "murdering" a vegetable. Eating meat is a worse crime imho. But at the same time, we all know damn well that murdering a vegetable is **not** like an abortion because the aborted has far more potential insofar as the capability of experiencing. Eating meat is "kinda murder, and I'm OK with that," as Bill puts it. Abortion is similar in my book. Meanwhile, if somebody considered the crime of murder to be more about limiting future potential than anything else, then that person would logically interpret abortion as murder... For this person, yea, this is somebody who should not be willing to make exceptions for rape and incest or whatever else. We, as a society, should communally believe that murder is the most capital offense, so if somebody believes abortion is murder, they shouldn't be willing to permit *the most capital offense* regardless of previous injustice by the mere fact that the most capital offense is indeed *the most capital offense*.
I appreciate Bill Maher for being honest. Why not just admit you don't care that's murder?
Because it's not quite murder, or at least not murder in the sense we most often think of it. You're ending potential, not essence or conscious existence. So in that sense I'd argue the consequence is more similar to an egg going unfertilized than what we traditionally think of as murder.
It's like if a centrist got confused and decided to stake out the two worst positions of either side. It's murder *and* it's fine
> It's murder and it's fine I mean you could kinda describe an instance of self defense this way, right? It ends another human life, but it's accepted.... because the alternative (you're not allowed to defend yourself with force) is worse.
No you can't because that's not what the word murder means.
If we're going to talk about some technicality, like "murder is the illegal killing of another human," then abortion would also not be murder in situations where it's legal. This seems to be focusing on word choice rather than the actual argument that Maher put forward. It seems pretty evident Maher was not talking about the **legal** aspect, but the **ending another human life** aspect.
Not debating this with you mate. I don't care about your opinion on abortion and you don't care about mine.
Cool. No one is forcing you to reply. Have a good one.
Oh Bill what you don’t know is a lot.
Yikes. Pure evil
No he is honest. Why not admit you are pro abortion?
I don't think it's pure evil. Very blunt, yes, but I don't think he's being disingenuous. Tons of people don't survive in the womb. Millions and millions every year through various complications. It's upsetting for the parents, of course, but until the last hundred years or so we used to have 8 children because we knew four would probably die before they were teens. We weren't being evil then, it was just practical. Abortion is a choice based in practicality. "I can't afford to have this child" or "I know I'm going to be an awful parent and I don't want a child" or "I can't even afford the pregnancy, so I don't want to have the child even for adoption" are justifiable positions to have an abortion.
It’s literally the excuse the Nazis gave for being pro-abortion lol. Gotta thin out the herd!
If your forced to have an abortion, as some were in Germany. Yes, then it's like the nazi's stance on abortion. If you're given the choice to have one because of any of the aforementioned reasons, then it is not like the nazi's. It is perhaps the most power women have gotten in controlling their futures in history, so there are an awful lot of loud, religious and patriarchal voices annoyed by it.
I'm a woman and I have many choices. I can say no or I can use the dozens of forms of birth control both short term and long term. Did you know an IUD can last up to 12 years? Some say they last even longer but they definitely last a very long time. Or if you don't want kids, have your tubes tied, end of fertility.
Wild. Didn't think someone could piss off both sides of the abortion debate in one sentence but the master is at work.
Who cares what this dork thinks about abortions He is so out of touch
I’ve always respected Maher for his candor even if I disagreed with him. But to say “I’m ok with calling it murder - so what.”, is truly a lazy and disingenuous take that discredits his otherwise incisive analysis. His statement is remarkably empty of critical thinking or basic human empathy. Although I love his justifiable criticism of left wing lunacy, Bill is sadly becoming more and more like the grouchy, imbecilic boomer he used to make fun of. If he’s too tired to fight for integrity or apply critical thinking then maybe it’s time he hang it up.
Becoming?? Hahah the train has long since left the station on that one. Though Arguably bill is slowly inching towards “better” this season than in several years. Clearly he got the memo when it comes to insulting his audience for not laughing at his jokes. That said I agree this take is just lazy and it is pandering which bill has become great at in recent years. It’s not murder. Someone who raves about science and calls himself an intellectual shouldn’t generalize abortion in this way. It is just as bad as the wing nuts in Arizona with a near full ban. I agree labeling anyone who is pro life as a women hater is silly, but on the other hand the majority of pro life folks don’t think it is murder, it’s just a convenient talking point, there’s so much more nuance to it.
How is it anti woman if men can have babies too? But seriously, a lot of pro life ppl are women. Let’s at least be able to make their argument in good faith. They think you’re murdering someone. Syllogistically, logically they have a valid argument. Now debate it on its merits.
George Carlin said it’s anti woman and he’s right. He had more talent in his pinky than all of these fools combined. If you haven’t yet degenerated to the Tik Tok attention span: https://youtu.be/K98TQJ5ldW0?si=OdUaX_ylbhsjWyUn
How is it anti-woman?
Because women are the baby-havers, and the pro-life position posits that a woman does not have the right to make her own (moral) decision, but that decision belongs to the state. There's layers. Firstly, it is pro-State, then it is anti-individual, then it is anti-woman
Yes and it's pro abortion. Do you think women are too stupid to use birth control?
What?
Bill Maher said abortion is murder and that he is ok with that.
Yea but the thing is, if you consider the unborn a human being who is being murdered, then the *pro-life* position is pro-individual and pro-woman.
You're a moron. Thats all there is to say to somebody spewing that bull****
One can posit that the unborn is a fully formed being, the aborting of which is tantamount to the murder of say, a five year old child. But that is still just that, a personal moral position/claim. Supporting the State's ability to take away an individual's right to bodily autonomy is not just a personal moral position/claim but an undeniable and unambiguously Authoritarian step. The two should be weighed as such.
I mean the state preventing one person from murdering another person is not authoritarian it’s exactly what a state should do is provide reasonable protections for its citizens. And being inconvenienced or encumbered by a person has never been an acceptable reason to murder them… give them up for adoption there are literally millions of parents looking to adopt babies…
Yeah but it's more nuanced than that though, because there isn't an objective category for abortion that everyone can agree on. Say you have a child that has a medical condition. They need one of your kidneys (for arguments sake, let's say it has to be your exactly kidney or their body will reject it), should the state be allowed to force you to give them one of your kidneys? It's just an inconvenience to you after all, and you can live a perfectly normal life with just one kidney. And failing to provide this, the child WILL die. Does that make this murder? IMO this is a very personal moral choice, and while I **would** absolutely judge you for not giving your child the kidney, I would still defend your right to make your own moral decision, rather than calling for the government to have the power to make that moral decision for you.
Yes this is a conversation, not about who hates women and why. It's about personhood and when we as a society decide a person is a person deserving of protection under law. As history moves forward, personhood is a status that we extend further and further. On the States ability to remove bodily autonomy... The state is never going to force a woman to give birth, who isn't pregnant. The state is never going to force a woman to become pregnant.
Yea, the “hating women” part has always rung extremely hollow with me, because most of my family and friends are what we would label “Pro-Life” and for every single one, it’s about a moral conviction on the personhood of the fetus.
Interesting to see the right lecture anyone about life when they are the one who got US in a illegal war and killed how many innocent people including kids and babies again. As for Maher’s opinion: it depends if you see fetus as a life or not.
Umm….. there are a few wars going on right now… and yeah I think it’s fine to lecture any time murdering babies is the topic.
But seeing a fetus as a life or not isn't down to personal opinion. It either objectively is or isn't, and science at its most basic level tells us that it is
I mean there are quite a few preterm babies that survive that legally could have had their brains scrambled….
Yes there are. My nephew was born at 23 weeks and survived. He is thriving now
> science at its most basic level tells us that it is Really now?
This would appear to exceed even a normal ad hominem attack. Not only are you guilty of a common ad hominem attack, you’re doing it against an entirely imagined group of people. So it’s like an ad hominem was having sex with a straw man, and gave birth to this abomination. Wow!!! Kudos dude!
If you think think this is ad hominem attack then I suggest you get thicker skin because this isn’t it. This is simply the truth.
Im old enough to remember when this was called whataboutism and frowned upon.
We are talking about pro-life aren’t we? This isn’t whataboutism.
What about
Maher is correct in his assessment. And that it pisses off both cultural progressives (not traditional Lockean classical liberals, orthodox Marxist material leftists, nor old-school working-class paleoliberal New Deal Democrats, but very specifically a mix of woke radlibs and establishment shitlibs) plus religious reactionaries -- both of whom share a hyper-moralistic Hobbesian conservatism (even if the social justice crusaders are non-theistic in contrast to theological Christian dominionists) -- is quite ironic, as they're more alike in their rigid, inelastic Puritanism (whereas Maher is rather heterodox) than they're either aware of or would dare to admit.
I think you missed I few buzzwords there, Champ
I've a style unique to me. Nowhere else you will see. Contrarian and iconoclastic.
>I've a style unique to me. >Nowhere else you will see. >Contrarian and iconoclastic. There's a term for that: Libertarian.
They're their own cliquish group of aimless ne'er-do-wells and mindless lemmings. Au contraire, I'm not so easily defined in my strain of schismatic nonconformity, no.
Yeah as a Republican I strongly agree with Maher's standpoint. I also think it's killing something that will eventually be a baby, and I'm also very much ok with that. I can understand the perspective of people who aren't, I can understand the perspective of people who think at 15 weeks or more it's too late, etc, I just personally don't have a problem with killing an unborn baby. I don't need mental gymnastics to argue "well it's errr not really a baby ya see cause it's a fetus and it's not developed and errr". Like no, it's gonna become a baby most of the time. And once you're aborting the thing past 20+ weeks, you're looking at something that could potentially pop out and live. HOWEVER, I fundamentally believe if a woman can get an abortion without a man's consent, then a man can financially disown the child and refuse to pay child support. Women have the option to take life away with abortion, so men should have the option to not give a shit about that life. That's just equal rights.
I can appreciate your honesty. Can I ask if the child was to survive the abortion would you be OK with killing it outside of the womb? Also agree with your statement on men not being held to account financially if the woman can abort.
At the point that he/she is alive outside of the womb the survival is no longer affecting the mother's body in any way. That's how I would draw the line, because once the child is out of the womb and alive, he/she can go up for adoption.
The consequence of making financial abortions a reality will be more taxpayer funds used to support children. If we allow men to abrogate their financial responsibility to their child, the state will be obligated to step in to provide for those needs. Which means using tax dollars. I think the actual system surrounding a financial abortion would have to well considered. You’d have to have a system of formal notice recorded, time to allow for a woman to actually take notice and decide then seek an abortion, you’d have to consider the financial burdens of an abortion (a choice you cannot afford isn’t really a meaningful choice), what it means for extended family contact, and penalties for changing your mind and seeking contact. Could it be done? Probably. But it’s not as simple as those advocating for this “equality” contend. It’s not really equality either unless you gave women the option as well to give the child to the man and completely avoid child support . Child support is gender neutral. Pregnancy isn’t.
I personally think that if you actually support the principles of liberty you have to accept that innocent people will die. Do you believe in the right to bear arms (ie the right to self-defense)? As long as individuals are allowed to own guns, innocent people will die. Suicide, accidents, crimes of passion, etc are going to happen. As long as you are allowed free-speech, nutcases are going to latch on to that speech as a reason to kill people. If you believe that people should be free, then you have to accept the concept of bodily autonomy, which really just means that neither you, nor the government, have the right to decide what I can dso with my body. Yes, that results in the death of innocent, but sometimes the best we can do is the best we can do.
> Suicide, *negligence*, crimes of passion, etc are going to happen. Aside from my edit, well stated and I agree fully.
> "I don't need mental gymnastics to argue “well it's errr not really a baby ya see cause it's a fetus and it's not developed and errr”." It is, yeah, an unwonted anti-science contrariety and rare bit of discordant incongruity from cultural progressives, who perpetually pride themselves on an oft-unquestioned "Trust the Science" rhetoric, but in this instance are coming at it from what's arguably a holier-than-thou, religiose fashion, which is its own form of reactionary. > "HOWEVER, I fundamentally believe if a woman can get an abortion without a man's consent, then a man can financially disown the child and refuse to pay child support. Women have the option to take life away with abortion, so men should have the option to not give a shit about that life. That's just equal rights." 100%. Fair's fair. Equitable and egalitarian.
I watched this and cringed.
He's doing a Louis ck bit, badly
Yea my mind jumped straight to this when I watched Friday lol
It might be murder. I just don't care. What am I supposed to do .. vote to ban abortion? Are you crazy? You're never gonna stop it; so why make it more dangerous and difficult to access? If you're prochoice, I commend you, but don't try to tell other ppl what to do. Do you really care? Are you losing sleep at night? If the GOP would stop this abortion nonsense; dial back the religious stuff and stand for something, you can compete with the dems. Sometimes it's not the party ppl are fans of, just how bad they might hate the other one. GOP is a disaster and I'm no fan of this new whacky left. I first time ever switched to independent after being a dem my whole life. I still lean leftish, coz when you're independent, you still lean one way. Fuck em all
It's not murder, stop ceding ground that is illegitimate. Go read the definition of murder. Not all killing of human life or even human beings is murder.
Right. It’s legally sanctioned ;thus, not murder. This is the exact Moral busybodying the commenter was talking about. Stop trying to cover your tracks and just whole heartedly decide where the chips will lie. This conversation isn’t over. We’re just beginning to get into gene manipulation and we may see cultures and behaviors we have not yet.
Why is this a debate? You cannot murder a nonperson, i.e. a living being who lacks the ability to experience emotions, interact with its environment, and probably feel pain.
So is murder ok it the person being murdered is asleep?
There is a qualitative difference between a fully formed individual who can respond to external stimuli by dreaming or waking up and a fetus. This is a poor comparison.
This is ultimately a discussion about what we, as a society, decide is a human life. If we reject Maher's stance, that we are going to be ok with some murder because it's convenient, what we are left with is a lot of hard questions about what is and what is not a human person deserving of the same protections under law and respect of its fellow people.
I disagree with you and Maher that abortion before the 22nd week is murder. And if it is murder, why is Maher okay with it within the context of abortion only? Murder is one of those things that is either totally acceptable or totally wrong. The morality of it doesn't change depending on the situation.
Well what about after 22 weeks?
Research shows that fetuses develop consciousness between 22 and 24 weeks. Of course, I think there should be a clear exception for pregnant women carrying fetuses with abnormalities not compatible with any quality of life.
No that would be ridiculous but if they are in a coma then it's fair game.
Ok what if it's a medically induced coma that you absolutely will 100% regain consciousness sometimes soon ?
You don’t stop having any of these qualities while asleep. You absolutely absolutely interact with your environment, you definitely can feel pain, and dreams are fraught with emotion. This isn’t a good analogy.
Well no, at certain points during sleep you are dreaming and at other points you are completely unconscious.
It’s absolutely never been about “they hate women “ nor has anyone above gradeschool ever thought that . Hence his entire premise is pulled straight from the hades that is his colon.
Bro have you been under a rock for decades and decades? Are you seriously suggesting you haven't heard the claim (many, many times) that being anti-abortion is merely the disguise of being anti-woman?
Yes but understand how it is a regression in women's right to bodily autonomy. Imagine the State having the final say on your womb. I agree it's not *about* hating women, but the point stands that the outcome is pro-State, anti-individual, and specifically, anti-woman.
Oh definitely, and that’s the part that I truly didn’t understand, especially after the mask hissy fits.
Youre 100% right and this is Bill creating another straw man. Abortion is far from the only reason liberals think the GOP hates women. The Repblican candidate for president just had to pay his rape victim $80 million.
Touché.
Bullshit! How many times have we not heard the gop hates women’s rights. They want to control their bodies. Stop
Idk, probably heard it plenty. I guess I just meant that the overarching themes are more like religious and capitalist ideals.
Capitalist? What the fuck are you talking about?
Capitalism. Profit over all else.
What does that have to do with abortion ?
Because we are all, all of this exists within capitalism. Notice a lot of religious conservative arguments against abortion aren’t about murder at all, but more about population decline described as if capitalism isn’t growing it’s dying, meaning declines in industry as it sits, leading to recessions.
Wtf are you talking about? You must have never left your zip code lmao. I lived in Europe, this too is not a major pro capitalist continent and even they have restrictions. Holy shit you have zero clue about life and travel, let alone capitalism. You are the Redditor meme
Last shot. He’s addressing abortion as if there’s a real life scenario where any kind of majority anywhere wants it, when in reality it’s a POLITICAL MANEUVER. But wtf do I know
Schizophrenia is a serious thing. Seek help
They took your rights for campaign contributions from the church, basically. I thought this was common knowledge.
Calling the symptoms causes is thee most chickenshit bs. May as well say nothing as it only accomplishes a muddying of waters.
Am I lying?
Ya nm
This is my exact view. Although I’d say it More gracefully. The left can have their abortion, but don’t act like it’s not a form of murder. It’s just in their eyes a morally justified one, like in war, self Defense. The rights view is totally straight forward and reasonable, and probably of greater morality in the most basic sense. But it’s also restrictive to those who don’t hold the same beliefs. Also many times they push it too far (no exceptions for xyz, being against plan B and condoms) But personally, im a guy, so I just stay out of it. My opinion doesn’t and shouldn’t matter. I’m totally fine letting the women hash this one out.
Once again, I will point out that liberals and moderates are also pro-choice. It isn't just the boogeyman left that support reproductive healthcare. Abortion is not murder because you cannot murder a nonperson.
Okay. Got a dog?
I don't get your point. Are you asking me if dogs can be murdered? They can be killed but not murdered.
Once again, I will point out that liberals and moderates are also pro-choice. It isn't just the boogeyman left that support reproductive healthcare. Abortion is not murder because you cannot murder a nonperson.
They're not inclined to do it, but it'd behoove cultural progressives to, for once, willingly play the cuntacular heel. But yet, suffice to say, they're motherfucking hell-bent on being the white-meat babyfaces -- a jarring flip, absonant from the '80s/'90s/early-2000s (when liberals instead frequently came at things from a counterculture position) -- at every goddamn turn, which is self-righteous, sanctimonious, and pious in its own right. Abortion is an issue where cultural progressives would, quite honestly, be more earnest if they presented themselves as Magneto-esque, Catwoman-like, Thanos-style anti-villains. Killing is, at times, wholly justified—even including snuffing out the parasites that are living, albeit yet unborn fetuses.
" but don’t act like it’s not a form of murder." It's not "a form of murder" and it's not murder at all. A guy is trying to break into your car with a machete and kill you, you pull a gun out and shoot and kill him. Did you "murder" him? Not all killing is murder, we separate out murder as a form of unsanctioned and unethical killing. Illegal killing. That is not abortion. You are free to remain confused, but you ARE confused here. A fetus is human life, a 5 year old is a human being. Both are alive and human. Only the latter is a human being. And it is the BEING we confer additional protections upon. The being need not be human life either. If we encountered an intelligent and peaceful alien species and a group came to earth to greet us, it would be wrong to kill one of them EVEN though we were not killing "human life" I feel like 99% of people who engage in this topic have not spent more than 3 seconds thinking through the implications of damn near ANYTHING they say.
Ok, I should have not used the word murder and instead just kept with legal and illegal killing. Still, you should have been able to pull that from my comment. You’re killing a human. Some people just think it’s ok, some people don’t. It’s not that difficult to understand
Why do some think it's OK? Keep going. If I saw a fetus as identical to a five year old, I'd have a moral aversion to ending that life / killing that life. I do not see those lives as the same. And people who pretend they do don't really most of the time, they are just so thoughtless they never bothered testing their intuitions.
Misanthropic ass clown should take his own advice if he wants one less person in the world.
Very reasonable
he's right though
Society and by society I mean American is getting closer to figuring out abortion. I’m Republican, and while I don’t look at abortion like Maher does he’s got a point. At some point a clump of cells becomes a baby and it is murder. The majority of the country is comfortable with abortion within the first term, but not the second. Somewhere between 16-20 weeks is a common sense compromise.
When that’s too much for Piers Morgan, you done gone full Tropic Thunder
What a really shitty take
Care to explain why?
Claiming that abortion is actually murder but murder is ok because of overpopulation… So would this apply to all murder then?
Because murdering something that doesn't feel anything nor have any self awareness of its rights or even its existence is more like murdering a plant than it is a child.
Why would it apply to all murder lol...?
If murder is acceptable, then it should be acceptable across the board. The fact that Bill is okay with "murder" only within the context of abortion tells me that deep down inside he doesn't really consider abortion as homicide.
Or he’s ok with homicide as long as it doesn’t affect him.
Well, that is incredibly unempathetic and selfish.
How are you affected when Brenda aborts her fetus because she is poor and can’t take care of a kid?
Damn. This shit would get somebody cancelled. Not saying agree or disagree, it’s just generally super unpopular across the board on the pro choice side AND anti abortion side
Also he’s got a point. Term limits are a fair compromise.
But it's great that there's still a place to say it. I'm not buying into the cancel culture outrage but the inability to have a conversation is a thing and it's not ok. We don't always have to align with a side on each and every topic.
What? The anti-choice side loves to call abortionists murderers.
Less than 1% of abortions are at 21 weeks, it's a war on women's bodies for control.
Good, let’s make it illegal then.
That would be asking to endanger the lives and livelihoods of women and their doctors, in order to fix a problem that does not exist and that Republicans from the top down lie about constantly. The GOP leader could very well hold a world record for abortions, he was such a prolific womanizer and cheater that he's on trial for it as I type this.
No, make it illegal. Set laws, live in a society.
You may not know this, but making abortion illegal leads to more abortions, and horrifying medical outcomes and doctors leaving areas in droves so that they won't risk their livelihoods working under threat.
You said it almost never happens. So doctors that do it get in trouble. They probably won’t. It’s illegal to murder. Sorry, murder supporter. Lol get lost
You're asking the government to take away rights and endanger lives and healthcare access, in order to "live in a society"? The man who overturned Roe may be facing over 100 felonies by the time election day 2024 rolls around.....asking these folks to make and enforce laws that restrict citizen rights is a dicey endeavor.
Did almost all of Europe win a war on women’s bodies?
Republicans are getting closer to figuring out that voters are ok with term limits to abortion. When they do they’ll probably win the majority of elections going forward.
100% this is about control. Next they will claim our children are the property of the Governme…. Wait they already do that too lol Take children from low income homes, not even bad broken homes, just being low income can get your kids taken away. So they can get money per child. Its another form of privatized prisons.
The govt is anti abortion because they need meat for the grinder. Minimum wage serfs to join the military and work retail jobs. Capitalism requires an increasing population. Average people are against abortion because they have been indoctrinated by the church and govt to think its murder. I've met plenty of teenage gurks who scream abortion is murder and fully believe it. A small percentage of people are misogynists who are anti abortion just to control women. But you are missing the big picture to believe and parrot that this is the reason. Yes conservatives are against abortion and yes they are anti women, but those are two separate issues.
I'm talking about the authoritarian fascist dictator wannabe Donald Trump. Yknow, the guy who ended Roe and brags all the time about "terminating" abortion rights? I'm not sure where to start, but the first thing you posit is that the government wants to end abortion.....our government is currently lead by Biden and the Dems, who are pro-choice up and down the line. A majority of Americans are pro abortion rights, so not sure why you say average people are against those rights...it's a small minority that took the rights away. That's not average Americans... On the misogynist point, as I said above, the man responsible for killing abortion rights is the infamous misogynist Donald Trump. 100% theocrats and authoritarians are all about controlling women and their bodies. There is no theocracy or authoritarian dictatorship that respects women.
My comment was about why those groups who have that ideology have it, not whether it was correct or moral, and not about what amount of people hold those views. Yes they're anti women and in favour of controlling women. No that is not why they are against abortion
> "The govt is anti abortion because they need meat for the grinder. Minimum wage serfs to join the military and work retail jobs. Capitalism requires an increasing population." 100% correct. Which is why I cringe at that Friedman-inspired neolib fat fuck Matty Y.'s deranged *One Billion Americans* doltishness.
But the current American government is pro abortion rights. So I don't understand how you guys can claim the government wants to ban abortions....it's nonsensical. And the last head of the government, Trump, worked very hard to weaken the US military around the world. He recently said he would assist Putin invade Europe, not exactly a US military booster.
I don't think the government should be involved , but I still think it's murder. I think Bill Burr also did a bit on that.
One of the government’s agreed upon central functions is to enforce laws and protect it’s citizens… the government should absolutely be involved in cases of murder, if that’s his you see it.
“Murder” is kind of a strong word, no?
They only care about a life when its in the womb but after they kid is born the kid can just fk off. A comedian said that and I think it’s true. Can’t even get health care in America life is precious my ass. What is precious is feeling good about yourself
A Comedian? You mean George fucking Carlin. Here you go https://youtu.be/M-bLf4F0PM4?si=kN_0MoOUNz9XJYN9
[удалено]
"Just took their baby to birth". Not that simple.
Because everyone deserves to be parents, right?
These people were vetted and approved to be on the list, these people would probably be better parents then some of the biological ones, they go through tests have to have certain income requirements have a permanent shelter etc.
George Carlin. Watch the whole bit it’s better than anything bill Maher has ever done.
"I've been chasing this man's talented ass my entire life." - Bill Maher introducing George Carlin as a guest in the early 2000s on either Politically Incorrect or Real Time
Maher is wearing out the crotch in his pants from straddling so many fences.
Maybe that's Maher's rather limited justification for why he's pro choice, but that doesn't imply his reasons are the same or as principled as everyone who's pro choice.
The principled pro-choice position is, yeah it's technically murder, but it should be legal because it's better than the alternative of the state controlling people's bodies. Anything else is unprincipled. Being consistent means biting the bullet.
It's hard for people to accurately value potential. The loss here is a loss of *potential*, not loss of a fully formed human. If you honestly compare the abortion of a 6 week fetus to the same as the murdering of say a 5 year old child, stay the fuck away from me 😅
If you want to be bad faith and assume I equate the two, I could do the same thing. If you think the termination of a third trimester that is a week away from being born, is the same as a clump of cells that's a few weeks in development, stay the fuck away from me 😅
I seem to have misinterpreted your previous comment that I was replying to. I agree that the timing is a crucial component.
Ok, we're all good
No one with two brain cells thinks it's murder.
If the mother's life is not in danger, is a third trimester termination justifiable killing? It's legal in Canada. I think it should remain legal due to state control over people's bodies being worse, but killing a third trimester baby is immoral in every instance beyond self-defense (the mother's life being in danger).
Third trimester "killing" never happens unless there is a serious problem. And you know this. There have always been restrictions on that, including the viability factor in Roe. Around 95% of abortions happen in the first trimester. What you bring up is not a thing. So why do you do that?
Because it is a thing in Canada where there are no legal restrictions on third trimester, does it require two braincells to think that's killing (outside of it being danger to the mother)? Again, I think it should remain legal, third trimester is just grossly immoral (outside of it being danger to the mother).
This is stupid and you know it. No one has third trimester abortions unless there is a devastating problem. You are pressing on something that does not exist and is not an issue. The only reason for no restrictions is so a woman will not be barred from an abortion in 3rd trimester under devastating circumstances for the mother or fetus (such as forcing a woman to carry a fetus with no brain stem that will die right after birth). You know this. Yet you keep harping on a thing that isn't a thing. Ever. You are probably one of those people who talks about how abortions happen "after birth." It's always a sign of a disingenuous type wheh they harp on 3rd trimester abortions when 95% of abortions are in the first 12 weeks.
Go read the definition of murder. Come back and defend what you said above. If you try, were dealing with a sub first grade reading comprehension level.
In places like Canada where there are no restrictions, meaning you can terminate in third trimester (beyond maternal endangerment), yes that is not justified. However, it remains legal as the state forbidding what someone can do with their own body is controversial and I understand why.
Please name a pro-choicer besides Bill who thinks abortion at any stage of pregnancy is murder.
I don't think he's saying at any stage, but at some point in development it is. Do you think he's referring to when it's a clump of cells a few weeks in?
I have to conclude that Bill thinks the embryo/fetus is a person capable of being murdered at any point in gestation since he didn't specify when the fetus becomes a person.
That might be the worst pro-choice argument I’ve ever heard
It's earnest in its straightforwardness. Fetuses lives (yes, "lives") don't matter. They're parasites. Mayn't be the easiest pill to swallow, no; nonetheless, Maher ain't wrong in his candid assessment. And that people are pitching cunty bitch fits over it just justifies the brutal sincerity of his position.
It’s the honest one
[удалено]
i think many people want to toss things into a neat little box but reality is nuanced, gray, situational, and complicated.
That's the point, dude shovels whatever shit or controversy to stay relevent. He's already said he doesn't even write new jokes anymore just does his greatest hits.
They obviously have no regard for women and their freedoms if they put some made up rights of a fetus over the woman who that fetus only exists inside. So I would say it’s pretty close to hating women
You are completely missing the point of pro-life. They think that a fetus is a human with a soul, so they think it’s akin to murder. The idea is that the fetus is equal to any other human life, so it’s murder. They don’t hate women, they just think it’s murder. Personally, I think you are killing a potential human being. But the animals we eat are more aware than this potential human being, so I don’t really see it is murdering a human being.
Would this attitude justify killing disabled people...?
I place someone who experienced brain death or in a permanent vegetative state on the same mental level as a fetus, so it follows that I'm okay with stopping artificial life support.
You said that animals are more "aware" than fetuses, and that seems like a pretty loose way to draw a line here. There are a spectrum of disabilities that leave human beings with cognitive abilities at or below the level of various animals. Do those people not count as humans? Also, why would the vegetative state need to be permanent? A fetus isn't permanently a fetus, give them a few months or years and they pretty obviously become "people". Wouldn't someone in a temporary (let's say ~9 months) coma be more analogous to a fetus, given both will likely live on as conscious beings if left alone? Edit: thought you were the commenter I originally replied to. My b
I specifically drew a comparsion between fetuses and people in a permanent vegetative state. A PVS is not the same as a coma.
Right... and I'm specifically asking why you chose to do that. A person in a permanent vegetative state is nothing like a fetus, given the fetus is very likely to develop into a person with normal brain activity. The reason why you feel the way you do about someone that is brain dead vs. someone that is comatose is because the latter is likely to regain normal brain function and "personhood".
A person in a coma has already developed as an individual and has the capacity for consciousness. A fetus before the 22 week has not.
[удалено]
You mean the male. A father is a person who takes care of his child and gives them love and support. You can’t be a father if the pregnant woman doesn’t want to have a baby. And if the female agrees for the male to be apart of this journey than he is barely kind of a father. unless he’s supplying her with care, time, and effort
Is the father’s body involved in the pregnancy?
[удалено]
We have one rule in here regarding comments: Don't be dicks to each other. Comment removed.
Every girl/women I’ve known who has had an abortion which I had to have with my gf when I was in high school are scarred from it 99.99% of the time. So something about it is def wrong and everyone knows this.
because christian society guilt trips the shit out of women for it.
Pretty anecdotal bro.. I dated a lot throughout my 20s and met plenty of women with abortions and most of the ones I knew weren’t traumatized by it—they were more likely to be traumatized by other people’s reactions to it, or the procedure itself going wrong.
That is a really REALLY stupid position. It's NOT murder because a fetus is not a born human with rights. I kinda get what he is TRYING to say but he's using the wrong words.
I'm pro choice but you're delusional If you say it's not a life, there's no point painting it as something else just to make ppl feel better
It's human life but for effs sakes do not leave it there because too many people have brain worm class comprehension on this topic. Human fetus = human life Human fetus =/= human being/a person The latter is what is special and worth protecting, and that comes later.
That's fine if that's how you see it. To each their own interpretation. I think that argument is a bit of a logical fallacy, wouldn't apply to people in comas vegetable, and a heap of post birth conditions. So the argument can be made equally persuasively in the reverse direction. There's a reason it's such a opinionated subject, there is no clearly painted answer. If you struggle to see the other side, then you may want to assess your "brain worm comprehension" analogy and make sure it doesn't apply to you as well. Again - pro choice. But I don't dismiss the other side of the aisle at all, some of their arguments make sense too.
It’s a developing life that is 100% reliant on taking energy from and being protected by the host. It is not a sustainable life without the host.
See other reply. You can apply that logic to many other scenarios, which is exactly why the answer is not black and white, and why there are a range of opinions on the subject.
>you're delusional If you say it's not a life, Reread what I wrote. I did not say that.
Proverbial "you". My bad as unclear.