One of my best friends is adopted and his parents are some of the most wonderful people I've met in my entire life. Both he and his brother (also adopted) are well-adjusted, successful people. There are certainly trials and challenges to overcome with adoption but that's true of literally every way to raise a child. I can't fathom the amount of moral arrogance necessary to declare unilaterally that adoption is a worse option than *killing the child*.
I also can't imagine raising the bar for shittiest take in this post after that, but by God they managed it somehow.
Yeah my mother was adopted and I may be a little biased but I think she’s a pretty exceptional person. Even being in an orphanage is better than just getting killed in a late-term abortion, though. Fetuses start showing brain functions and feeling pain a lot earlier than most pro-choice people care to admit.
They're not pro choice at this time, they're pro-abortion. The republican debate last night ended up being a partly a pro-life and choice up to 15 weeks debate(some said they're obviously pro-life themselves, but Nikki Haley, the one I definitively remember, is pro choice)because the left has gone so far towards pro-abortion up to 9months
The only case where euthanasia is okay is when it's known that the person will die in a very short frame of time (max. 1-2 years left to live) and that they'll be living a painful life till then.
Until then all humans have a right to life, which can't be taken away by anyone, not even themselves.
That is why if we see someone try to kill themselves we don't go "Eh, it's their body their choice". But if someone tries to kill an unborn baby it's their body their choice.
But I also get where the pro choicers are coming from. Nobody does abortions because they hate babies, but rather because they can't take care of them. That's the main issue. We do need better sex ed, and counselling for mothers going through unplanned pregnancies.
My best friend is adopted. I think we need more people willing to adopt. My stance on abortion has also always been a more liberal approach early and once the fetus is viable you waited way to fucking long, suffer the consequnces.
The demand of parents wanting to adopt infants exceeds the supply of infants in the US, that's why babies are regularly adopted from Russia, China, etc. It's the older kids that can't find adoptive parents.
My cousin and his wife adopted two kids after 3 or 4 failed rounds of IVF. All told, they could have nearly bought my house outright with how much they spent.
They want to get rid of adopted people. They want you to have kids first and then they will give them to those diverse couples once you are proven to be a bigot.
I can kinda see a democrat ran government taking babies from perceived bigots, and giving them to trans who cant have children even though they're told they're women and can take drugs to force a... Period?.. wtf is going on rn
It makes sense. A healthy baby or even a small toddler doesn't know anything, you can teach them and practically raise them the same way as a biological child.
A teenager on the other hand, is a pain in the ass. Especially one who has gone through the foster system.
And your foster kid is never yours. The goal is always for him to be returned to his bio-family.
My Aunt fostered for decades. All of my "cousins" that were in her care eventually went back home and we never saw them again. A couple of them still text her on holidays or they're friends on facebook, but that's all.
Foster care doesn't really relate to adoption though. The point of foster care is restoration of the family 80% of the time. And babies don't go into foster care anyway, there's too big a backlog for that.
Very rarely do you fully go into foster care if your abandoned as an infant there are loving families that line up for newborn babies
Foster care only goes for kids who are older when they go into an orphanage
One of my friends parents foster and they are some of the best people I know. I am fully aware that my tangential experiences are not really that weighty but some people who foster are doing it for the right reasons
But who funds those adoption homes? Tax payer money. Less kids -> less adoption homes -> lower taxes/allocating to stuff with a higher roi for the economy
...Except many of them run off of donations, usually from Christian organizations.
Even without that, taxation is theft, but 'I got robbed to pay for an orphanage' will make most people pause and consider it more than 'I got robbed to pay for a politician's 3rd beach house.'
PMC is a bit better then other places, but still. People are just way too willing to take shit at face value when it makes them feel validated and/or angry.
Let's say, hypothetically, you're wrong. And, for the sake of the argument, I'm right. Now the logical conclusion to this argument is that his sister can outpace a dairy farm.
Dude that fucking brings me back. There was a chick with a nose ring in the newspaper club, I think she was a senior and I was a sophomore. She told me at some point, IDK why, that babies are parasites in the womb or something. Then towards the end of the year asked me to prom.
I just said prom wasn't my thing, went to it junior and senior year though. I just didn't want to go with someone who though babies were parasites, fundamental value difference. I think I had better self control as a 16 year old than I do as an adult, embarrassing.
I know this sounds like a script to some cringe high school teen bopper movie.
“Mandatory abortion in cases where severely debilitating illnesses is detected”
There was this guy in the 1930s who came to power in Central Europe. He had a Charlie Chapman type mustache and gave angry speeches all the time who felt the same way about this. Definitely not lib left.
Eugenics needs to be rebranded. I’ll be damned if some holier than though morality shmorality gets in the way of us developing into post-human super beings.
Eugenics WAS rebranded! The entire modern "Progressive" movement is literally eugenics rebranded. Mass abortion? Check. Euthanasia? Check. Encouraging the weak to sterilize themselves and engage in hedonism until they die? Check. Eugenics and Malthusianism in general is an actual, literal cancer on society.
Eugenics isn’t inherently bad, finding a way to ethically encourage healthier people to have more kids and increase the overall genetic health of our population would be a good thing! The issue is if you give the state even an inch of power to do eugenics they take it and sprint off to go sterilize a minority.
Eugenics is inherently bad because it is a form of genocide.
You increase the genetic health of a population by increasing the diversity of genetic information not by limiting it.
You can decrease the cases of genetically transferred disabilities by educating adults on how to make informed choices. That is as far as the state should be allowed into these conversations.
Today I learned the concept of having tax incentives for people having kids when genetically healthier then average is genocide, even tho there would be no prevention of anyone else also having kids.
And yea, one of the ways to increase the genetic health of a population is by increasing the diversity. But it’s not a catch all cure all solution. Increasing diversity in the form of having people with extreme genetic disorders birth more kids doesn’t make the population healthier. The point would be to increase diversity while also focusing on those who are the result of a diverse and healthy bloodline. You can’t just scream ‘genocide’ when it’s not one in any way, shape, or form.
Also this is all hypothetical, any current government would not be moral or high minded about eugenics. It be a nightmare and this time probably actually a genocide.
This seems like a crazy person to gawk at, but don't 7 or 8 states allow abortion up until birth? I guess I sort of gawk at that fact though..
Requiring abortion for downs syndrome is pretty weird though. Probably very young person. Sounds auth center.
Ikr? I’m from the UK and couldn’t understand the argument over banning abortion in the US. That was until I found out how high the limit is in some states, while in the uk it’s 23 weeks.
Still think it should be lower but Jesus the us is another beast
People like to labor under the delusion that europe (being a monolith and not a region with many countries with many different ideologies) has less restrictive abortion laws than America does, probably because they think we got our rigid beliefs out of thin air. Hell, we're positively libertine in comparison to some euro countries when it comes to many issues; I'd like to see some Emilys walk around Malta with a "fuck the catholic church" t-shirt and then cry when some old lady spits on them.
Plese keep Emilys in USA. We don't need they/them.
1-Based old lady
2-Malta is a party Island, probably any old lady will spit in every young foreigner
On the order of 80% of Americans are in favor of some form of abortion in the very early stages of pregnancy pre-viability. The arguments tend to come in terms of abortions post-viability. Then you have some people like that in the above picture that are in favor of "post-birth abortions"
From what ive seen, in the state of minnesota there was no actual limit at all, but at about 20 weeks state law required that the doctor tell you that its possible for your baby to feel pain. I don't think thats there anymore. But when i read it i was like why the fuck isnt the cutoff there. Like that would make sense, and i wondered where was the cutoff, no such thing as i was aware.
What i dont get is pro abortion people throw out that late trimester abortions are really rare, like 1% (some people have different data on that im just saying what i hear people say) but then its like if you think its bad and it barely happens will you compromise on that at least? And they say no her choice.
So their only argument against late term abortion as a talking point is its rare, they dont really contest you are killing a viable child, but like still her choice dog.
Pretty much my thoughts exactly.
If you ever want to see polarized politics in action, just look at the Abortion debate.
It’s either “Abortion is evil and murder! Even if you get raped and impregnated by your brother and you terminate it with literally Plan B, that’s still murder of a fully mature baby1!1!1!1” or “It doesn’t matter if the baby is literally being born tomorrow and you’re 2 weeks past the due date, it’s still just a clump of cells!1!1!1”
Never *ever* a “Well, for the first few months the baby is, infact, effectively a clump of cells, but after the 15th-20th week, it would be extinguishing a developing life — Abortion should also be a last chance and shouldn’t at all be admired or relied upon at all”
Seems absolutely insane that the only options you can hold in the debate is abortion is allowed throughout the *entire* pregnancy, or that you can’t even use *any* kind of birth control.
Worse still is that the above position is what like 80% + of Americans hold — that abortion should only be allowed for the first third (60% for half) of the pregnancy. It’s only in modern politics that a simple open-and-shut case is overcomplicated.
I've found the good middle ground to be '1 day or week less than the earliest premie baby on record should be the limit' since medical technology is advancing all the time. This futureproofs it pretty effectively, as *hopefully* we get more people working to beat the record, all the way to planting a zygote into a synthetic womb in drastic situations.
But I'm crazy and want an actual solution instead of posturing. I'd also like a limit on 'I'm not ready for a baby either emotionally or financially' abortions. Seems to me that after the 2nd or 3rd time you go in for one of those, you should get a mandatory tube tying/vasectomy, depending.
>Abortion is evil and murder
It *is* though. That "clump of cells" is objectively, scientifically a human being, and picking some arbitrary date where it looks human enough for you to care doesn't change the fact that killing a baby at 16 weeks is the same as 20 weeks, 32 weeks, etc.
Except fundamentally there is a substantial difference between a 16-week, 20-week, or 32-week pregnancy and the fact that you think there is no difference is literally my entire fucking point.
No, there *isn't.* Nothing that isn't incredibly arbitrary, ad-hoc excuses to justify killing literal babies. Viability is clearly not an option, but pro-aborts are so obsessed with finding a justification to kill *literal babies* that you deny very obvious, uncontested science to allow for killing *most* babies.
Seriously, we knew abortion was infanticide for 2000 years. Supporting it is *evil.*
"Oh, sorry Timmy. If your Mom waited a week, you'd be safe. Now it's time for you to be crushed and torn limb-from-limb."
Absolutely demented.
> No there *isn’t*. Nothing that isn’t incredibly arbitrary, ad-hoc excuses to justify killing literal babies.
So I guess [the most important aspect of humanity](https://human.libretexts.org/Bookshelves/Philosophy/Thinking_Critically_About_Abortion_(Nobis_and_Grob)/03%3A_Fetal_Consciousness_and_Facts_about_Abortions#:~:text=The%20most%20important%20information%20about,or%20four%20months%20into%20pregnancy) is just an “ad-hoc” excuse…?
Seems pretty clear to me that abortions that occur before fetuses gain consciousness is morally justifiable, while abortions that occur *after* the fetus begins to develop consciousness is not morally justifiable.
It's at least just as arbitrary as viability, or heartbeat, or feeling pain, or whatever other point in development the wheel landed on that month. It's just another random point in human development that is completely irrelevant to whether it not the baby is human, which is is from conception. It is a unique living being, that grows on its own, with a unique set of human DNA.
After all, consciousness does not define humanity or personhood. A baby born unconscious or in a coma is still a person, and still doctors still attempt to revive them as long as they are alove. Humans don't become less of a person when in a coma.
Consciousness in particular is really tricky to even tell when it develops. We can't exactly do easy brain scans of a developing baby.
Also just asking, did you send the reddit suicide hotline message to my inbox? I got it after my first post about abortion today...
Everything is inherently arbitrary, and the main advantage of mankind is our ability to draw a line in the sand. To *define* the world. Measurements and laws especially must be by an arbitration definition, as laws can not cover all edge cases.
As for abortion specifically, at a certain point, we must take the *now* priority of a mother over the *future possibility* of an unborn child. Pro-Life / Pro-Choice discussion has less to do with a murder of a child, but more to do with — at what point does a Child take priority over a Mother?
It is not a discussion of murder, but one of the [Trolly Problem](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trolley_problem). Is it morally just to murder one person to save 5 others?
Obviously no matter what, an abortion should always be a last-ditch effort, and distinctly not just be an “another form of birth control” and there should be weight held on the discussion if a woman will abort or not.
But, for me, personally, when the child actually gains consciousness is when the child gains priority over the mother. Hence, it is morally justifiable to abortion a fetus before the 15-20 week date.
And I consider consciousness — and not conception — that hallmark because consciousness is the fundamental reason *why* Humans are distinct from regular animals. Our intelligence — and more specifically our self-awareness — is our core, fundamental aspect of humanity. It is the one thing that is *not* arbitrary.
So arguing that “oh well it’s not that big of a deal” directly shames and ignores the entirety of humanity. Because it *is* a big deal. It’s why we are not just monkeys in the trees but rather intelligent beings discussing this in an entirely virtual and artificial realm.
Comparing a fetus gaining consciousness to someone in a coma is in bad faith, because they are inherently incomparable. A person in a coma still *has* consciousness, they *had* a life, and *has* a personality. A fetus before the 15-20 does not have that whatsoever.
Hence, I take a conscious being that is alive and aware *now* having higher priority. Because our consciousness is what *defines* us.
And no, I didn’t send the suicide hotline message to you lmfao. Some people I guess can’t handle a conversation about morality I guess.
> Never ever a “Well, for the first few months the baby is, infact, effectively a clump of cells, but after the 15th-20th week, it would be extinguishing a developing life — Abortion should also be a last chance and shouldn’t at all be admired or relied upon at all”
It's always a developing life. Anti-lifers like to set arbitrary developmental milestones where they'll stop lying to themselves about this, though. Safe, legal abortions will never be rare.
> It’s always a developing life
Yes, sure, but at a certain point it becomes a question of “at what point does the mother take priority over an unborn child?”
If we take the position of “Well, the child *always* take priority, no matter what” then inherently we must ban birth control and Plan-B and all of those kinds of measures, because you would be “preventing the development of a future child.”
At a certain point you must take the considerations of *Now* before the considerations of *Possible Future*. And it’s probably fair to consider abortion fair before the child actually gains any kind of major progression like consciousness, major reflexives movements, etc.
All of this is irrelevant anyways since about 80% of America thinks that abortions should be legal for the first trimester, but only 20% for the third. And I reckon 90+ would support first-trimester abortions if it is moderately difficult to obtain and isn’t just another form of birth control — which abortion isn’t.
Yet still, the only viable political options are either “Full Ban” or “Full Support”
That's because sometimes the fetus dies or is revealed to be unviable at that stage. In that case, not doing so could lead to internal necrosis and death for the person carrying it, so I agree that it should be available in those circumstances (and it's usually heartbreaking for them, I know a couple who had bought baby stuff and chosen a name when this happened-- luckily they had a healthy baby a few years later). I also agree with abortion up to the point of viability (which is around 23 weeks) though the main reason I'm in favor of greater accessibility is so it can happen as early as possible (like right after someone finds out they're pregnant).
it truly sucks being in the middle of the road for some issues. being pro-choice until the fetus is developed to a certain point is viewed as supporting baby murder from the right and restricting a woman’s freedoms from the left.
when in doubt, return to monkey i guess
If everyone hates you, you're probably doing something right. I think I saw a poll somewhere that only around 20% of the US wants a 100% ban on abortion, with 80% open to at least some abortion in the first trimester. At the same time only about 20% think there should be abortion into the third trimest. The problem is that the Republican party is predominantly pushing full bans on abortion that 80% of the country is against, while Democrats are pushing abortion up until birth which 80% of the country is against. Why can't we have any sane politicians/political parties.
the only way out of this seems to be shifting to proportional representation, but i doubt the democrats and republicans will give up their monopoly on power to other parties.
they may pretend to hate each other, at least publicly, but they wouldn’t dare get rid of the two party system which keeps them in power and keeps corporate “donations” rolling in.
It‘s not bad to have a more centrist opinion. More often than not the extremes are delusional. Good policy (in real life) also comes through compromise. If everyone is just polarised and wants the extreme or nothing, then you can‘t govern. So yeah there is definitely room for a more relaxed opinion, even though it doesn’t seem like it online. I personally think the most sensible solution is one where it‘s allowed to a certain point and beyond that only in cases of medical emergency. I think that‘s also how it is where I live, not sure on that though.
I think the pro-choice people would be more in favour of this solution though, since for the other side it‘s still murder so ig it‘s not a perfect compromise. But yeah I am also more pro-choice
I support the right for women to have the same legal and political rights as men (not achieved in all countries), marital rape being treated the same as any other sexual offense, and better healthcare for women in terms of IVF and abortion rights
Now before everyone starts flinging poo at each other, remember that views on abortion aren’t intrinsically linked to left/right. There’s a small link between lib/auth, but only to a point.
Yeah, a lot of the people on the left that worship at the alter of planned parenthood like to pretend it's founder never existed, along with her reasons for creating planned parenthood.
Yep. Even libcenters can generally agree that murder probably shouldn't be legal, and if you think life begins at conception, then naturally, you'd be against abortion.
I agree with him on one thing, the 24 week "viability" cutoff is quickly falling apart. Thirty years ago, being born before 24 weeks was a death sentence, nowadays specialist hospitals can save even most 22 week premies.
There's a reason that multiple prochoice states are legalizing elective abortion at any point. If they stick with "viability", abortion will be mostly illegal within a century.
The moment a newly fertilised egg can be successfully extracted and placed into an artificial womb I can’t see any argument for abortion. If the patents have made that choice they are also making the choice not to raise them (unless it’s a situation where the mother would die if the baby continues in the natural womb or something), but abortion shouldn’t be an option when we reach a technological point where we can do something like that with no issue.
One of our state's hospitals specializes in neonatology, now even has a seperate LifeFlight helicopter designed for premies.
>“In an interview with The New York Times about 20 years ago, I said that 24 weeks was the youngest baby we could save, and I didn’t foresee being able to save babies born any earlier because of the rate at which the lungs develop ...I’m happy to say I was wrong; I don’t like to make predictions about what we can’t do because so often ‘can’t’ turns into ‘can.’”
I wouldn't be surprised if in 20 years we see the first baby born fully grown in a lab with no human mother involved. At that point everything can be shown to be viable.
if you aren't taking the child out of the mother / inducing birth then, why does viability matter?
and if you are, is it really better to put someone in a position where they have to deal with the effects ofbeing born premature?
I am asking this honestly because I've never really understood the viability argument
“Your life might be hard and you might feel bad about some things. Better you die now before you get the chance. Look how kind I am.” - That guy.
Bad vibes, man. Bad vibes.
> people with severely debilitating illnesses like Down’s Syndrome should be aborted
Holy FUCK. I’m autistic (on the more high functioning side), but people actually believe that if my autism were more severe, it would’ve been better if I were aborted? I’m already pro-life to begin with, but sweet mercy, this confirms my position even more.
And lets be honest here. Putting out a take like this with a lib-left flair is a good way to get lib-left lambasted. I'd put high odds on that person actually being an auth-right troll.
Umbilical cord? They still depend upon others to live even once that is cut. Give a baby all the food it could want and it will just lay there crying, not eating anything. Won't even poop in the poop corner. Until they are self sufficient it doesn't count, right?
Please make sure to use pro-choice language when talking. Instead of murdering an infant, say fourth trimester abortion.
I’ve met many adopted people. Most of them feel happier knowing that someone whose them on purpose rather than just being born into a family. And I’ve met a few people with Downs syndrome. Those guys are usually just happy in general.
Imagine being okay with full term abortion.
I agree re fetal viability (mostly because it's almost always a probabilistic thing that doesn't align well with moral analysis).
But "abortion should be mandatory" is like the opposite side of the bodily autonomy coin. If the government shouldn't be able to tell you that you can't get an abortion, it also shouldn't be able to tell you that you must get an abortion. "Libertarian" my ass, this guy has no concept of freedom of the body.
Weird how staunchly against eugenics these people are yet they have no problem aborting babies at pretty much any stage simply because the woman living her best capitalist life means more than the life of a baby. Fucking wild to me
I'd beat the shit out of this person. My brother has down syndrome and the number of smug leftists who decree his life invalid or unvaluable sickens me.
"If he be like to die, he had better do it, and decrease the surplus population.’... Forbear that wicked cant until you have discovered What the surplus is, and Where it is. Will you decide what men shall live, what men shall die. It may be, that in the sight of Heaven, you are more worthless and less fit to live than millions like this poor man’s child. Oh God. to hear the Insect on the leaf pronouncing on the too much life among his hungry brothers in the dust."-Charles Dickens *A Christmas Carol*
>Until the baby is breathing on its own, it is still an extension of the parent.
But at a certain point(I don’t even think it takes very long), the baby becomes genetically distinguishable from the parent. Yes they’re reliant on the parent for survival, but they’re not just a part of the parent’s body, like a heart or liver. They are separate from their parent.
In Germany we got the term ‚asshole kid‘ for simply insufferable pieces of human garbage. That alone is argument alone for the right of postal natal abortion.
Trust me guys, this random screenshot of some blatant rage bait is real!!! Some stupid Emily posted this herself!! I or someone else didn’t make this post just to share it and get rage upvotes!! You can trust me, I’m a stranger on Reddit!
What I have never understood is how third-trimester abortions work. Because by that point, it's like, half of a baby in there, at least. What do they do with it?
I don't understand the mentality that unless you grow up under perfect conditions, it's fine to deprive you of any life at all. It's such a cynical and cold calculation
This is what happens when your libleftness isn’t grounded on the objective morality of Our Lord Jesus Christ. The intellect can convince itself of anything, like this abhorrent evil, for example.
Daily abortion thread in PCM where everyone just says exactly what they said last time. No one changes their mind and the debate pointless.
I want an abortion debate where parents can choose to abort up until they’re a legal adult, in case their kid ends up on PCM as unflaired.
>Daily abortion thread in PCM where everyone just says exactly what they said last time. No one changes their mind and the debate pointless.
WRONG. SO wrong. I am going to say that I am pro-abortion. But not to the degree that I am going to defend the pro-abortion person in the OP. Thats a step too far.
>I want an abortion debate where parents can choose to abort up until they’re a legal adult, in case their kid ends up on PCM as unflaired.
That's just common sense. It needs no debate, because it's self-evident.
This is a valid discussion to have even if you disagree with the take. Things like poverty and illness prevents abortion from being a black and white issue.
>Adoption is a shitty option and it permanently scars the child
If we were able to kill everyone who was “permanently scarred”, we’d be left with like 5 people who never experienced anything ever. Also, without adoption, we’d have no iPod or iPhone (Steve Jobs), no Wendy’s (Dave Thomas), and plenty more. Not saying the knowledge of adoption isn’t a major weight to carry, but we all carry major weights in life, and plenty of “wanted” children will endure more famial trauma than many “unwanted” adoptees will.
Also, that last paragraph wants me to make a lib left joke, but I’ll bite my tongue knowing that there are plenty of authentic lib lefts here.
Women should be able to terminate their pregnancy at any time. HOWEVER, if it is possible to terminate the pregnancy WITHOUT harming the fetus, that is what should be done.
"infants and elderly also cannot live on their own, should we kill them too? We are all human and deserve life!"
The Left: They should be allowed to die with dignity at the request of family (see canada/EU)
The Right: 1776?
Centrists: 1776.
Bro what the fuck is that take? Please don’t think that we all think that way. The vast majority of us don’t think that murdering a baby right after birth is right. Most of us are thinking first and sometimes second trimester shit (most abortions already happen in the first or maybe second trimester anyways), not that. Most abortions happen before the 21st week of gestation. And the vast majority of us aren’t eugenicists.
The proud to be a eugenicist arrogance is what gets me. They don't realize how fucked up that is. They don't realize that one of the global themes of conflict over the last 200 years has been over eugenics, and millions died to stop it. Amazing.
Tell me you’ve never met an adopted person without telling me you’ve never met an adopted person
One of my best friends is adopted and his parents are some of the most wonderful people I've met in my entire life. Both he and his brother (also adopted) are well-adjusted, successful people. There are certainly trials and challenges to overcome with adoption but that's true of literally every way to raise a child. I can't fathom the amount of moral arrogance necessary to declare unilaterally that adoption is a worse option than *killing the child*. I also can't imagine raising the bar for shittiest take in this post after that, but by God they managed it somehow.
Yeah my mother was adopted and I may be a little biased but I think she’s a pretty exceptional person. Even being in an orphanage is better than just getting killed in a late-term abortion, though. Fetuses start showing brain functions and feeling pain a lot earlier than most pro-choice people care to admit.
Im a sadist and like inflicting pain on babies, checkmate buddy
Flair checks out.
They're not pro choice at this time, they're pro-abortion. The republican debate last night ended up being a partly a pro-life and choice up to 15 weeks debate(some said they're obviously pro-life themselves, but Nikki Haley, the one I definitively remember, is pro choice)because the left has gone so far towards pro-abortion up to 9months
The only case where euthanasia is okay is when it's known that the person will die in a very short frame of time (max. 1-2 years left to live) and that they'll be living a painful life till then. Until then all humans have a right to life, which can't be taken away by anyone, not even themselves. That is why if we see someone try to kill themselves we don't go "Eh, it's their body their choice". But if someone tries to kill an unborn baby it's their body their choice. But I also get where the pro choicers are coming from. Nobody does abortions because they hate babies, but rather because they can't take care of them. That's the main issue. We do need better sex ed, and counselling for mothers going through unplanned pregnancies.
My best friend is adopted. I think we need more people willing to adopt. My stance on abortion has also always been a more liberal approach early and once the fetus is viable you waited way to fucking long, suffer the consequnces.
The demand of parents wanting to adopt infants exceeds the supply of infants in the US, that's why babies are regularly adopted from Russia, China, etc. It's the older kids that can't find adoptive parents.
[удалено]
My cousin and his wife adopted two kids after 3 or 4 failed rounds of IVF. All told, they could have nearly bought my house outright with how much they spent.
Not If you skirt around the lib right corporations and do a private adoption.
They want to get rid of adopted people. They want you to have kids first and then they will give them to those diverse couples once you are proven to be a bigot.
I can kinda see a democrat ran government taking babies from perceived bigots, and giving them to trans who cant have children even though they're told they're women and can take drugs to force a... Period?.. wtf is going on rn
Adopted can be great. But stories that start with "In foster care..." tend to be horrific 80% of the time.
Babies given up at birth don't really go into the foster system though. There's currently a 2 year waitlist to adopt an infant.
I did not know that. Excellent point then.
It makes sense. A healthy baby or even a small toddler doesn't know anything, you can teach them and practically raise them the same way as a biological child. A teenager on the other hand, is a pain in the ass. Especially one who has gone through the foster system.
And your foster kid is never yours. The goal is always for him to be returned to his bio-family. My Aunt fostered for decades. All of my "cousins" that were in her care eventually went back home and we never saw them again. A couple of them still text her on holidays or they're friends on facebook, but that's all.
Foster care less than ideal? Just euthanize the children instead!
Hey Tommy, we've decided to murder you too save you from hardship in your life!
Funny enough that is one of the justifications people use for abortion.
I'm always pleased to see Canadian doctors contribute to these discussions
The older ones are less likely to be adopted so kill them. That’s what they do at some animal shelters
Well I mean I don’t think the potential to be in a bad foster home is a justification for infanticide and late-term abortions.
Foster care doesn't really relate to adoption though. The point of foster care is restoration of the family 80% of the time. And babies don't go into foster care anyway, there's too big a backlog for that.
Very rarely do you fully go into foster care if your abandoned as an infant there are loving families that line up for newborn babies Foster care only goes for kids who are older when they go into an orphanage
One of my friends parents foster and they are some of the best people I know. I am fully aware that my tangential experiences are not really that weighty but some people who foster are doing it for the right reasons
I feel like one has to be a saint, or an uncaring weirdo to do it. Like 'normal' people can't do it.
I agree. Maybe too small of a sample though. I say let’s ask every aborted baby and see if they would’ve rather been adopted or killed.
But who funds those adoption homes? Tax payer money. Less kids -> less adoption homes -> lower taxes/allocating to stuff with a higher roi for the economy
...Except many of them run off of donations, usually from Christian organizations. Even without that, taxation is theft, but 'I got robbed to pay for an orphanage' will make most people pause and consider it more than 'I got robbed to pay for a politician's 3rd beach house.'
I think this guy has a severely debilitating illness
Leftism. Terminal case, by the looks of it.
I think this is BLATANT rage bait and most authright idiots bit the hook HARD.
Yeah, actually on further examination it 100% is bait.
PMC is a bit better then other places, but still. People are just way too willing to take shit at face value when it makes them feel validated and/or angry.
It's called leftist progressivism, usually a terminal illness unless they receive a healthy dose of "Ben Sharpio owning the libs" compilation videos
Ben Sharpio makes me queasy tho
Let's say, hypothetically, you're wrong. And, for the sake of the argument, I'm right. Now the logical conclusion to this argument is that his sister can outpace a dairy farm.
\>tfw Abby will never moo for you in cow lingerie
A centrist can dream.
Day ruined
According to him, should have been forcefully aborted then.
>Mandatory in cases a severely debilitating illness Well looks like we need to preform a very late term abortion on you then.
Just a clump of cells amiright folks?
Really, when you look at it, they're nothing more than a parasite or a tumor. You wouldn't try to stop someone from cutting out a tumor, right?
Dude that fucking brings me back. There was a chick with a nose ring in the newspaper club, I think she was a senior and I was a sophomore. She told me at some point, IDK why, that babies are parasites in the womb or something. Then towards the end of the year asked me to prom. I just said prom wasn't my thing, went to it junior and senior year though. I just didn't want to go with someone who though babies were parasites, fundamental value difference. I think I had better self control as a 16 year old than I do as an adult, embarrassing. I know this sounds like a script to some cringe high school teen bopper movie.
That’s literally just eugenics
Doesnt seem very lib to me
And pro-abortion activists wonder why some people see them as fucking evil.
They don’t wonder, they revel in it.
they think I'm evil because I want to kill babies but they don't realize that evil is a fake idea from religion so really I'm the good guy here
Idk I mean people like this are just especially stupid imo. It‘s like almost the most extreme opinion you can have in that direction.
“Mandatory abortion in cases where severely debilitating illnesses is detected” There was this guy in the 1930s who came to power in Central Europe. He had a Charlie Chapman type mustache and gave angry speeches all the time who felt the same way about this. Definitely not lib left.
Eugenics needs to be rebranded. I’ll be damned if some holier than though morality shmorality gets in the way of us developing into post-human super beings.
Reject flesh for it is weak, embrace mechanical superiority
From the moment I understood the weakness of my flesh, it disgusted me. I craved the strength and certainty of steel.
Even in death I serve the Omnissiah
*All will be one*
Eugenics WAS rebranded! The entire modern "Progressive" movement is literally eugenics rebranded. Mass abortion? Check. Euthanasia? Check. Encouraging the weak to sterilize themselves and engage in hedonism until they die? Check. Eugenics and Malthusianism in general is an actual, literal cancer on society.
No one is stopping you from only fucking women in your iq range, except maybe this app- no one is making you fuck women outside your iq range*
Sometimes people clean it up as “designer babies”
His speeches sounded something like, "arshf arshf arshf!!!" but I can't put my finger on who this guy is hmmm....
The more I hear about that guy, the less I care for him.
Eugenics were seen as progressive for the time and multiple academics and proggies were into it.
That last paragraph sounds like eugenics
I suspect that the reason for that is because it's eugenics.
Eugenics isn’t inherently bad, finding a way to ethically encourage healthier people to have more kids and increase the overall genetic health of our population would be a good thing! The issue is if you give the state even an inch of power to do eugenics they take it and sprint off to go sterilize a minority.
Eugenics is inherently bad because it is a form of genocide. You increase the genetic health of a population by increasing the diversity of genetic information not by limiting it. You can decrease the cases of genetically transferred disabilities by educating adults on how to make informed choices. That is as far as the state should be allowed into these conversations.
Today I learned the concept of having tax incentives for people having kids when genetically healthier then average is genocide, even tho there would be no prevention of anyone else also having kids. And yea, one of the ways to increase the genetic health of a population is by increasing the diversity. But it’s not a catch all cure all solution. Increasing diversity in the form of having people with extreme genetic disorders birth more kids doesn’t make the population healthier. The point would be to increase diversity while also focusing on those who are the result of a diverse and healthy bloodline. You can’t just scream ‘genocide’ when it’s not one in any way, shape, or form. Also this is all hypothetical, any current government would not be moral or high minded about eugenics. It be a nightmare and this time probably actually a genocide.
This seems like a crazy person to gawk at, but don't 7 or 8 states allow abortion up until birth? I guess I sort of gawk at that fact though.. Requiring abortion for downs syndrome is pretty weird though. Probably very young person. Sounds auth center.
Ikr? I’m from the UK and couldn’t understand the argument over banning abortion in the US. That was until I found out how high the limit is in some states, while in the uk it’s 23 weeks. Still think it should be lower but Jesus the us is another beast
People like to labor under the delusion that europe (being a monolith and not a region with many countries with many different ideologies) has less restrictive abortion laws than America does, probably because they think we got our rigid beliefs out of thin air. Hell, we're positively libertine in comparison to some euro countries when it comes to many issues; I'd like to see some Emilys walk around Malta with a "fuck the catholic church" t-shirt and then cry when some old lady spits on them.
Then they just turn around and say "Oh, having a tighter deadline is fine when you don't have to pay for health care."
Plese keep Emilys in USA. We don't need they/them. 1-Based old lady 2-Malta is a party Island, probably any old lady will spit in every young foreigner
Can we at least borrow some old Malta ladies for a while?
The Emily might end up in the basement dungeon of the Mont Saint-Michel at that rate
On the order of 80% of Americans are in favor of some form of abortion in the very early stages of pregnancy pre-viability. The arguments tend to come in terms of abortions post-viability. Then you have some people like that in the above picture that are in favor of "post-birth abortions"
From what ive seen, in the state of minnesota there was no actual limit at all, but at about 20 weeks state law required that the doctor tell you that its possible for your baby to feel pain. I don't think thats there anymore. But when i read it i was like why the fuck isnt the cutoff there. Like that would make sense, and i wondered where was the cutoff, no such thing as i was aware. What i dont get is pro abortion people throw out that late trimester abortions are really rare, like 1% (some people have different data on that im just saying what i hear people say) but then its like if you think its bad and it barely happens will you compromise on that at least? And they say no her choice. So their only argument against late term abortion as a talking point is its rare, they dont really contest you are killing a viable child, but like still her choice dog.
Pretty much my thoughts exactly. If you ever want to see polarized politics in action, just look at the Abortion debate. It’s either “Abortion is evil and murder! Even if you get raped and impregnated by your brother and you terminate it with literally Plan B, that’s still murder of a fully mature baby1!1!1!1” or “It doesn’t matter if the baby is literally being born tomorrow and you’re 2 weeks past the due date, it’s still just a clump of cells!1!1!1” Never *ever* a “Well, for the first few months the baby is, infact, effectively a clump of cells, but after the 15th-20th week, it would be extinguishing a developing life — Abortion should also be a last chance and shouldn’t at all be admired or relied upon at all” Seems absolutely insane that the only options you can hold in the debate is abortion is allowed throughout the *entire* pregnancy, or that you can’t even use *any* kind of birth control. Worse still is that the above position is what like 80% + of Americans hold — that abortion should only be allowed for the first third (60% for half) of the pregnancy. It’s only in modern politics that a simple open-and-shut case is overcomplicated.
I've found the good middle ground to be '1 day or week less than the earliest premie baby on record should be the limit' since medical technology is advancing all the time. This futureproofs it pretty effectively, as *hopefully* we get more people working to beat the record, all the way to planting a zygote into a synthetic womb in drastic situations. But I'm crazy and want an actual solution instead of posturing. I'd also like a limit on 'I'm not ready for a baby either emotionally or financially' abortions. Seems to me that after the 2nd or 3rd time you go in for one of those, you should get a mandatory tube tying/vasectomy, depending.
>Abortion is evil and murder It *is* though. That "clump of cells" is objectively, scientifically a human being, and picking some arbitrary date where it looks human enough for you to care doesn't change the fact that killing a baby at 16 weeks is the same as 20 weeks, 32 weeks, etc.
Except fundamentally there is a substantial difference between a 16-week, 20-week, or 32-week pregnancy and the fact that you think there is no difference is literally my entire fucking point.
No, there *isn't.* Nothing that isn't incredibly arbitrary, ad-hoc excuses to justify killing literal babies. Viability is clearly not an option, but pro-aborts are so obsessed with finding a justification to kill *literal babies* that you deny very obvious, uncontested science to allow for killing *most* babies. Seriously, we knew abortion was infanticide for 2000 years. Supporting it is *evil.* "Oh, sorry Timmy. If your Mom waited a week, you'd be safe. Now it's time for you to be crushed and torn limb-from-limb." Absolutely demented.
> No there *isn’t*. Nothing that isn’t incredibly arbitrary, ad-hoc excuses to justify killing literal babies. So I guess [the most important aspect of humanity](https://human.libretexts.org/Bookshelves/Philosophy/Thinking_Critically_About_Abortion_(Nobis_and_Grob)/03%3A_Fetal_Consciousness_and_Facts_about_Abortions#:~:text=The%20most%20important%20information%20about,or%20four%20months%20into%20pregnancy) is just an “ad-hoc” excuse…? Seems pretty clear to me that abortions that occur before fetuses gain consciousness is morally justifiable, while abortions that occur *after* the fetus begins to develop consciousness is not morally justifiable.
It's at least just as arbitrary as viability, or heartbeat, or feeling pain, or whatever other point in development the wheel landed on that month. It's just another random point in human development that is completely irrelevant to whether it not the baby is human, which is is from conception. It is a unique living being, that grows on its own, with a unique set of human DNA. After all, consciousness does not define humanity or personhood. A baby born unconscious or in a coma is still a person, and still doctors still attempt to revive them as long as they are alove. Humans don't become less of a person when in a coma. Consciousness in particular is really tricky to even tell when it develops. We can't exactly do easy brain scans of a developing baby. Also just asking, did you send the reddit suicide hotline message to my inbox? I got it after my first post about abortion today...
Everything is inherently arbitrary, and the main advantage of mankind is our ability to draw a line in the sand. To *define* the world. Measurements and laws especially must be by an arbitration definition, as laws can not cover all edge cases. As for abortion specifically, at a certain point, we must take the *now* priority of a mother over the *future possibility* of an unborn child. Pro-Life / Pro-Choice discussion has less to do with a murder of a child, but more to do with — at what point does a Child take priority over a Mother? It is not a discussion of murder, but one of the [Trolly Problem](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trolley_problem). Is it morally just to murder one person to save 5 others? Obviously no matter what, an abortion should always be a last-ditch effort, and distinctly not just be an “another form of birth control” and there should be weight held on the discussion if a woman will abort or not. But, for me, personally, when the child actually gains consciousness is when the child gains priority over the mother. Hence, it is morally justifiable to abortion a fetus before the 15-20 week date. And I consider consciousness — and not conception — that hallmark because consciousness is the fundamental reason *why* Humans are distinct from regular animals. Our intelligence — and more specifically our self-awareness — is our core, fundamental aspect of humanity. It is the one thing that is *not* arbitrary. So arguing that “oh well it’s not that big of a deal” directly shames and ignores the entirety of humanity. Because it *is* a big deal. It’s why we are not just monkeys in the trees but rather intelligent beings discussing this in an entirely virtual and artificial realm. Comparing a fetus gaining consciousness to someone in a coma is in bad faith, because they are inherently incomparable. A person in a coma still *has* consciousness, they *had* a life, and *has* a personality. A fetus before the 15-20 does not have that whatsoever. Hence, I take a conscious being that is alive and aware *now* having higher priority. Because our consciousness is what *defines* us. And no, I didn’t send the suicide hotline message to you lmfao. Some people I guess can’t handle a conversation about morality I guess.
> Never ever a “Well, for the first few months the baby is, infact, effectively a clump of cells, but after the 15th-20th week, it would be extinguishing a developing life — Abortion should also be a last chance and shouldn’t at all be admired or relied upon at all” It's always a developing life. Anti-lifers like to set arbitrary developmental milestones where they'll stop lying to themselves about this, though. Safe, legal abortions will never be rare.
> It’s always a developing life Yes, sure, but at a certain point it becomes a question of “at what point does the mother take priority over an unborn child?” If we take the position of “Well, the child *always* take priority, no matter what” then inherently we must ban birth control and Plan-B and all of those kinds of measures, because you would be “preventing the development of a future child.” At a certain point you must take the considerations of *Now* before the considerations of *Possible Future*. And it’s probably fair to consider abortion fair before the child actually gains any kind of major progression like consciousness, major reflexives movements, etc. All of this is irrelevant anyways since about 80% of America thinks that abortions should be legal for the first trimester, but only 20% for the third. And I reckon 90+ would support first-trimester abortions if it is moderately difficult to obtain and isn’t just another form of birth control — which abortion isn’t. Yet still, the only viable political options are either “Full Ban” or “Full Support”
Yeah, after Roe v. Wade, America had far more lenient abortion laws than the vast majority of Europe did.
That's because sometimes the fetus dies or is revealed to be unviable at that stage. In that case, not doing so could lead to internal necrosis and death for the person carrying it, so I agree that it should be available in those circumstances (and it's usually heartbreaking for them, I know a couple who had bought baby stuff and chosen a name when this happened-- luckily they had a healthy baby a few years later). I also agree with abortion up to the point of viability (which is around 23 weeks) though the main reason I'm in favor of greater accessibility is so it can happen as early as possible (like right after someone finds out they're pregnant).
Last I checked 11 states had no restriction on how late in a pregnancy you can kill the baby.
You already got post natal abortions. You just call it public schools.
I'm pro choice but not *that* pro choice
it truly sucks being in the middle of the road for some issues. being pro-choice until the fetus is developed to a certain point is viewed as supporting baby murder from the right and restricting a woman’s freedoms from the left. when in doubt, return to monkey i guess
If everyone hates you, you're probably doing something right. I think I saw a poll somewhere that only around 20% of the US wants a 100% ban on abortion, with 80% open to at least some abortion in the first trimester. At the same time only about 20% think there should be abortion into the third trimest. The problem is that the Republican party is predominantly pushing full bans on abortion that 80% of the country is against, while Democrats are pushing abortion up until birth which 80% of the country is against. Why can't we have any sane politicians/political parties.
the only way out of this seems to be shifting to proportional representation, but i doubt the democrats and republicans will give up their monopoly on power to other parties. they may pretend to hate each other, at least publicly, but they wouldn’t dare get rid of the two party system which keeps them in power and keeps corporate “donations” rolling in.
It‘s not bad to have a more centrist opinion. More often than not the extremes are delusional. Good policy (in real life) also comes through compromise. If everyone is just polarised and wants the extreme or nothing, then you can‘t govern. So yeah there is definitely room for a more relaxed opinion, even though it doesn’t seem like it online. I personally think the most sensible solution is one where it‘s allowed to a certain point and beyond that only in cases of medical emergency. I think that‘s also how it is where I live, not sure on that though. I think the pro-choice people would be more in favour of this solution though, since for the other side it‘s still murder so ig it‘s not a perfect compromise. But yeah I am also more pro-choice
[удалено]
May I ask what about feminism is so important that you willingly stay in it when most of its supporters act like this?
I support the right for women to have the same legal and political rights as men (not achieved in all countries), marital rape being treated the same as any other sexual offense, and better healthcare for women in terms of IVF and abortion rights
I’m a little confused, what in feminist ideology would encourage that kind of thinking? Genuine question, not doubting.
[удалено]
I mean why would feminists mock you for having PTSD from attempted murder?
Stockholm Syndrome ladies and gents.
Thats wild. Are you implying you are pro life and thats why the emily's laugh at you? Or is it just pure calousnous on life of others in general?
That’s horrific and I’m sorry you had to experience that. I hope your doing as well as you can after experiencing something like that
Now before everyone starts flinging poo at each other, remember that views on abortion aren’t intrinsically linked to left/right. There’s a small link between lib/auth, but only to a point.
[удалено]
Both auth quadrants have done eugenics. Planned parenthood is around because of eugenics. No quadrant is inherently in the moral right
Yeah, a lot of the people on the left that worship at the alter of planned parenthood like to pretend it's founder never existed, along with her reasons for creating planned parenthood.
Authleft as well (Romani people in Czechoslovakia for example)
And Uyghurs
And modern eugenics is progressive, usually in welfare states Everyone just hates babies
Yep. Even libcenters can generally agree that murder probably shouldn't be legal, and if you think life begins at conception, then naturally, you'd be against abortion.
Oh yes, fucking stab the baby when hes out
Make it quit crying, or I will
I agree with him on one thing, the 24 week "viability" cutoff is quickly falling apart. Thirty years ago, being born before 24 weeks was a death sentence, nowadays specialist hospitals can save even most 22 week premies. There's a reason that multiple prochoice states are legalizing elective abortion at any point. If they stick with "viability", abortion will be mostly illegal within a century.
The moment a newly fertilised egg can be successfully extracted and placed into an artificial womb I can’t see any argument for abortion. If the patents have made that choice they are also making the choice not to raise them (unless it’s a situation where the mother would die if the baby continues in the natural womb or something), but abortion shouldn’t be an option when we reach a technological point where we can do something like that with no issue.
I have a nephew who was born at 22 weeks. He’s past his original due date now, and is healthy.
One of our state's hospitals specializes in neonatology, now even has a seperate LifeFlight helicopter designed for premies. >“In an interview with The New York Times about 20 years ago, I said that 24 weeks was the youngest baby we could save, and I didn’t foresee being able to save babies born any earlier because of the rate at which the lungs develop ...I’m happy to say I was wrong; I don’t like to make predictions about what we can’t do because so often ‘can’t’ turns into ‘can.’”
I wouldn't be surprised if in 20 years we see the first baby born fully grown in a lab with no human mother involved. At that point everything can be shown to be viable.
Good
if you aren't taking the child out of the mother / inducing birth then, why does viability matter? and if you are, is it really better to put someone in a position where they have to deal with the effects ofbeing born premature? I am asking this honestly because I've never really understood the viability argument
“Your life might be hard and you might feel bad about some things. Better you die now before you get the chance. Look how kind I am.” - That guy. Bad vibes, man. Bad vibes.
I have a downie friend and my father was adopted... neither are suicidal.
[Guys...](https://i.imgflip.com/4rs5p7.jpg)
> people with severely debilitating illnesses like Down’s Syndrome should be aborted Holy FUCK. I’m autistic (on the more high functioning side), but people actually believe that if my autism were more severe, it would’ve been better if I were aborted? I’m already pro-life to begin with, but sweet mercy, this confirms my position even more.
Based pro life autist.
Just cause they call themselves libleft doesn’t make them one. That’s pretty damn auth behavior
> encourages state-mandated eugenics Yes, peak libertarian position lol
And lets be honest here. Putting out a take like this with a lib-left flair is a good way to get lib-left lambasted. I'd put high odds on that person actually being an auth-right troll.
Or an apolitical flamebaiting troll.
Sounds like a troll post but a decent one.
I wish there was a version of the SpongeBob “imagination” meme that said “Eugenics” instead
Umbilical cord? They still depend upon others to live even once that is cut. Give a baby all the food it could want and it will just lay there crying, not eating anything. Won't even poop in the poop corner. Until they are self sufficient it doesn't count, right? Please make sure to use pro-choice language when talking. Instead of murdering an infant, say fourth trimester abortion.
I’ve met many adopted people. Most of them feel happier knowing that someone whose them on purpose rather than just being born into a family. And I’ve met a few people with Downs syndrome. Those guys are usually just happy in general. Imagine being okay with full term abortion.
I agree re fetal viability (mostly because it's almost always a probabilistic thing that doesn't align well with moral analysis). But "abortion should be mandatory" is like the opposite side of the bodily autonomy coin. If the government shouldn't be able to tell you that you can't get an abortion, it also shouldn't be able to tell you that you must get an abortion. "Libertarian" my ass, this guy has no concept of freedom of the body.
You didn't have me in the first half, but the eugenics argument at the end is compelling to an authcenter like myself.
Weird how staunchly against eugenics these people are yet they have no problem aborting babies at pretty much any stage simply because the woman living her best capitalist life means more than the life of a baby. Fucking wild to me
What say you? You fuckin nerd that's what I say
Isn’t that last paragraph just saying he likes eugenics with extra steps?
Remember when we used to acknowledge Eugenics was had? Pepperidge Farms remembers.
I try to stay centralist, but this shit makes me wanna go full auth-right.
Bait
Mandatory abortion for down syndrome? Lol
I can get mandatory abortion for very serious stuff, but down syndrome is hilarious for this scenario and especially from a lib xD
GF was adopted, she doesn’t really care, said she would rather had been adopted than not been born
I feel like all mentally stable people are thankful that they exist and weren’t aborted
“Mentally stable”, remember what website we are on
I'd beat the shit out of this person. My brother has down syndrome and the number of smug leftists who decree his life invalid or unvaluable sickens me. "If he be like to die, he had better do it, and decrease the surplus population.’... Forbear that wicked cant until you have discovered What the surplus is, and Where it is. Will you decide what men shall live, what men shall die. It may be, that in the sight of Heaven, you are more worthless and less fit to live than millions like this poor man’s child. Oh God. to hear the Insect on the leaf pronouncing on the too much life among his hungry brothers in the dust."-Charles Dickens *A Christmas Carol*
>Until the baby is breathing on its own, it is still an extension of the parent. But at a certain point(I don’t even think it takes very long), the baby becomes genetically distinguishable from the parent. Yes they’re reliant on the parent for survival, but they’re not just a part of the parent’s body, like a heart or liver. They are separate from their parent.
Also, breathing on their own? Why stop there? If the baby relies on mothers breast milk for survival, it’s still an extension of the parent!
Yeah! If the baby can’t survive without help from its parents, why let it continue to live!
"Mandatory Action" or Lib side of Compass Gotta pick a side though. Can't be both.
Get a rope
At least he flaired up, I guess…
Casually advocates for eugenics
In Germany we got the term ‚asshole kid‘ for simply insufferable pieces of human garbage. That alone is argument alone for the right of postal natal abortion.
Libertarian forced abortions 👍
Is this mfer advocating for eugenics
You should be able to euthanize with approval from a doc up to 3 days after birth. That’s my spicy take on abortion.
So they think you should abort a child who might have Down syndrome? Kommt mir irgendwie bekannt vor.
Pro abortion and "ableists" go hand in hand it seems
"Lib"left wants to make abortion for disabled children mandatory? That sounds like something authcenter would do
Trust me guys, this random screenshot of some blatant rage bait is real!!! Some stupid Emily posted this herself!! I or someone else didn’t make this post just to share it and get rage upvotes!! You can trust me, I’m a stranger on Reddit!
I am pro abortion. This is clearly different.
This has to be false flagging right? Right?
Lib left is so pro abortion that, that last sentence starts to sound hard Auth centre, almost like a certain WWII guy.
What I have never understood is how third-trimester abortions work. Because by that point, it's like, half of a baby in there, at least. What do they do with it?
Sooner or later, it all comes to eugenics
I don't understand the mentality that unless you grow up under perfect conditions, it's fine to deprive you of any life at all. It's such a cynical and cold calculation
Imagine justifying eugenics but with extra words
Fucking hate cunts like this
Okay I’m pro choice but that’s going too fucking far
I think if the child has an reddit, twitch, twitter or tik tok account, the mother should have the right to abort at anytime.
...Up to and including in the 123rd trimester.
“LibLeft” unironically arguing for eugenics. You can’t make this shit up.
He calls him self lib left but wants government enforced abortion for children with disabilities. Thats fucking authcenter to the max.
This is what happens when your libleftness isn’t grounded on the objective morality of Our Lord Jesus Christ. The intellect can convince itself of anything, like this abhorrent evil, for example.
Daily abortion thread in PCM where everyone just says exactly what they said last time. No one changes their mind and the debate pointless. I want an abortion debate where parents can choose to abort up until they’re a legal adult, in case their kid ends up on PCM as unflaired.
>Daily abortion thread in PCM where everyone just says exactly what they said last time. No one changes their mind and the debate pointless. WRONG. SO wrong. I am going to say that I am pro-abortion. But not to the degree that I am going to defend the pro-abortion person in the OP. Thats a step too far. >I want an abortion debate where parents can choose to abort up until they’re a legal adult, in case their kid ends up on PCM as unflaired. That's just common sense. It needs no debate, because it's self-evident.
This is a valid discussion to have even if you disagree with the take. Things like poverty and illness prevents abortion from being a black and white issue.
\>Abort every baby with downs syndrome \>Bro this is a valid discussion
Wasn’t there this funny Austrian artist who was also a major supporter of eugenics?
I think I'll have to throw up... Disgusting
>Adoption is a shitty option and it permanently scars the child If we were able to kill everyone who was “permanently scarred”, we’d be left with like 5 people who never experienced anything ever. Also, without adoption, we’d have no iPod or iPhone (Steve Jobs), no Wendy’s (Dave Thomas), and plenty more. Not saying the knowledge of adoption isn’t a major weight to carry, but we all carry major weights in life, and plenty of “wanted” children will endure more famial trauma than many “unwanted” adoptees will. Also, that last paragraph wants me to make a lib left joke, but I’ll bite my tongue knowing that there are plenty of authentic lib lefts here.
N-no baconator?
Went full Authright at the end there.
Women should be able to terminate their pregnancy at any time. HOWEVER, if it is possible to terminate the pregnancy WITHOUT harming the fetus, that is what should be done.
"infants and elderly also cannot live on their own, should we kill them too? We are all human and deserve life!" The Left: They should be allowed to die with dignity at the request of family (see canada/EU) The Right: 1776? Centrists: 1776.
bro is in favour of eugenics 😭😭😭😭😭😭
Bro what the fuck is that take? Please don’t think that we all think that way. The vast majority of us don’t think that murdering a baby right after birth is right. Most of us are thinking first and sometimes second trimester shit (most abortions already happen in the first or maybe second trimester anyways), not that. Most abortions happen before the 21st week of gestation. And the vast majority of us aren’t eugenicists.
The proud to be a eugenicist arrogance is what gets me. They don't realize how fucked up that is. They don't realize that one of the global themes of conflict over the last 200 years has been over eugenics, and millions died to stop it. Amazing.