Dumb fuck hick calling everyone who is pro choice a nazi, when nazis were literally all about controlling people's bodies, when conservatives and Republicans have the closest ties to fascist and nazi groups in the US and this cunt thinks a clump of cells is the equivalent of a person

These scum can die in a fire

do you think ashley and andrew would have kids

(pre-emptive mentions for abortion and child abuse)

i've talked about this extensively with a friend and i'm very excited i can share this now actually!!! please let me answer this with basically a mini fanfic summary

two actually. it's incredibly fucked up lmao. ashley gets pregnant and her response is IMMEDIATLY oh yeah no fuck that i'm getting an abortion but because of all the demonic satanic shit that fetus has literally been influenced by otherworldly energy and it just doesn't take. like literally not. ashley goes to get an abortion and by the end the abortionist is dead, starts heavily drinking, at one point she just pays a guy to punch her as hard as he can in the stomach a few times but it doesn't work so anyways that's how their first kid is born! ashley fucking hates them and makes that clear every day of that probably future anti-christ's life. she pushes him down the stairs at one point and he's just in the couch unharmed afterwards, abandons him in the middle of nowhere on the interstate and when she gets home there he is watching tv. she just groans and just accepts this is life now and any attempt to get rid of this kid is gonna be thwarted by demonic looney toons bullshit.

she hates the fact this kid gets in the way of her time with her brother SO MUCH its unreal and probably tried using him as a tar soul for a demon offering once but it didn't work since he's also partially demon (she had a backup guy just in case though). at one point though he asks "hey can you make me a little brother or sister" and her response is "i fucking hate having you why the FUCK would i have a second one" to which he's like "if i have someone to play with i'll stop bothering you as much-" and that's when ashley stops taking birth control without telling andrew

she actually treats her daughter MUCH better because not only did she plan this one but she tries to spoil her to one-up mommy too. she tries to spoil her daughter just so she can one-up her mom's memory of being a shitty parent to her by heavily favoring her second-born instead. like if the first kid asked if she could drive them to the candy store her response would be "fuck off and die." her daughter does though? well she doesn't drive her but she does go "awww sorry kid, gonna go on a date with your dad soon- but here's an extra $20 if you wanna go walk, get yourself something nice ok?" her daughter is three things: yet another way to tether andy, a way to make her first kid shut up, and perhaps most importantly to her a way to one-up her mom's spirit in hell

andrew DOES try to be a good dad especially in the routes where he's more assertive but he still sucks shit lmao. it's pretty obvious he's also not equipped for this emotionally or mentally and his co-dependence with his sister takes priority over all. they both THINK they're better parents than mr. and mrs. graves but the apple failed to fall far from the tree it's just another awful generation of this family who themselves will probably just continue to perpetuate poison forever

tl;dr: yes they do and its awful. poison simply produces more poison in the end

Making sense of the "Abortion is bad"-Scene in Kamierabi because it doesn't leave my brain and I really don't want Yoko Taro to be an Anti-Abortionist

Why am I still trying to give the ugly show nobody but me watched the benefit of the doubt?

I don't know either. It has to be wishful thinking.

Okay, I know exactly why, it's the scene after all of the Lall BS where Ryo fcking 'kills' Ono and tells him that that's her wish and he doesn't get to grant it, that shit slapped and it singlehandedly keeps my hope alive that that whole previous scene was supposed to be bad so it can be 'debunked' in the next season.

Because if they actually thought Lall's monologue was it and they were spilling some hard truths about abortion being murder, women just shouldn't cheat and how society has gotten selfish bc evil evil smartphones then not only is whoever wrote that shit either downright evil or missing the forest for the trees - they're also a horrible writer.

Like Lall's whole thing is her tearfully boasting about how nobody there listened to other's wishes, how everybody else is just selfishly trying to become god for their own goals and that's why Ono Goro is so good and smart and different and deserves to become god.

But like - that's wrong. And it's wrong to an almost comical degree. Almost none of them are in this for themselves.

From what we've seen almost everybody wants to make the world a better place by becoming God - and sure we don't necesarily really know what they wished for, but from their actions and characters none of them really fight for themselves.

Sawa wants parents like hers to die because they literally killed her brother - she fights for her brother and not for herself. Akitsu literally let himself die so Goro could win and fix the world. The only thing we really know about Ama is that he is too good for this world. Chika fights for Ryo who fights for Kyo. Iyo is literally another guy who let his favorite Idol overwrite his entire existence.

Like typing this out I'm almost feeling stupid for even entertaining the thought that they could actually mean what Lall is saying - especially since Yoko Taros recent themes (that are also in kamierabi) just fly in the face of any conclusion like this - but to me the episode framed it just sympathetically enough that I'm just not all that sure.

this is literally that one crossroads meme but it's between "Kamierabi is criticizing the white savior complex" and "Kamierabi is an alpha podcast that thinks Abortion is murder, women should just stop being sluts and single mothers are ruining society by raising bad men" and it's going to take months until they finally reveal which one it is

(and i think part of my problem is that turning this into 'ono goro is just a white guy(tm) (yeah i know he's asian but you know what i mean, in his social sphere he's a white guy) who thinks only he can solve all of society's problems because he listened to a woman once' would make this a killer story. like that would make so much sense. they could bring the whole thing with him being the one good iyo stan back so we finally have an anime talking about how all oshi-ism is bad q_q but like. what if it isn't. what if these people just fully drank the alpha podcast cool-aid???)

As I examined that baby found at the lakeside, the first question I had to ask myself was not whether this was murder or manslaughter but whether the baby had died at all. Because a baby who has never lived cannot die. Nor be killed. And, in the legal sense, a child in the womb has not lived. Anti-abortionists may disagree, but that is the current practicality of the law. The underlying question for the pathologist in such circumstances is: when is a person not a person? And this is important because a person has rights, legal rights to inheritance or title, and human rights. Kill a person and you can be charged with murder or manslaughter. But not if the person never actually lived. Under English law, a dead newborn is assumed to have been stillborn. If murder or manslaughter is suspected, it is up to the pathologist for the prosecution to prove that the baby lived long enough to establish a separate existence. One breath is all it takes. Or a movement. Or a pulsation of the umbilical cord which indicates a heartbeat. And the baby must be completely out of the mother’s body: a baby born head first, as most are, can theoretically take breaths but still die before the rest of the body is free of the mother. In that case, there has been no separate existence and the baby cannot have been killed.

Unnatural Causes: The Life and Many Deaths of Britain’s Top Forensic Pathologist Unnatural Causes (Dr. Richard Shepherd)

Anthony’s Stupid Daily Blog (103): Fri 24th Jun 2022

Normally I don't get into politics because its not my forte but seeing some of the reactions to Rowe vs Wade being overturned prompted me to get involved. The thing that pisses me off the most is people saying that this is a win for science but that's bullshit because the guys elected to the Supreme Court who overturned the law were hardcore Christians so I think it's safe to say that science played no part in this ruling. The other thing I also find ridiculous is the notion that life begins at conception which is what the conservative Christian folks always trot out as an anti-abortion excuse. If they think that life begins at conception then that means that the pre-fertilization sperm is not "life" in which case how does it manage to swim to the egg to fertilize it? I don't see how they can say that a mixture of egg and sperm is life but sperm on it's own is not. The thing they're angry about is that with every abortion a potential life is extinguished because under the right circumstances that fetus will eventually become a human. Well this is also true of sperm, under the right circumstances it will also become human. Well, one of them will. Don't forget with each conception only one sperm fertilizes the egg while millions of others die. So why aren't these anti- abortionists concerned about the millions of other potential lives that are extinguished every time a child is conceived (or when someone jerks off). Also I find that the kind of people who are against abortion are also against their taxes going to fund universal healthcare so they can't claim to be pro-life since refusing to pay for universal health care means that some people will inevitably die due to not being able to afford the help they need.

I've decided to start watching Neighbours since in just over a month it will be going off the air. I haven't watched this show since 2005 but when I did watch it I really enjoyed it and I guess this is my way of paying my respect to the show. Man I don't know what it is but watching this show knowing that it's only got another month left is fucking creepy. I can't describe it but the whole time I was watching it there was a sense of doom looming over the show because I know it's winding down and it will be over soon. It's a bit like if you had the ability to travel back to the day before Mount Vesuvius erupted and although you could teleport out of Pompeii when the eruption happened and would be fine, you weren't allowed to tell any of the other residents what was about to happen and you just had to let the poor bastards go about their business not knowing the chaos that was about to hit them. Of all the characters who were in the show when I was watching back in 2005 only Paul Robinson, Karl Kennedy, Susan Kennedy and Toadie remain. I guess I can't expect that many characters to still be there but still I was expecting more than four. I did a bit of research and it turns out that no character that joined the show from 1998 - 2007 is still on the show which seems strange. Maybe these where the years the show went through a dip in quality and the actors decided to get the fuck out of there ASAP. Though I had no idea who the characters were the storylines were pretty decent. There was one character who had been kidnapped by a drug dealer and when he wasn't looking slipped some cocaine into his flask of water which is quite clever (Maybe Bill Cosby should have used this as an excuse. He should have said that the girls accusing him of rape had actually kidnapped him and he drugged them so he could escape). Then there was a remembrance ceremony for some kid who recently died name Hendrix who was the stepson of Susan and Karl. I'm sure that if I had any idea who the fuck this kid was it would have been more emotional but like I say I haven't watched in 15 years. I felt a bit like I had stumbled into the wrong funeral by mistake but didn't want to cause a scene by leaving so decided to stay and keep my head down. So while I don't get much out of watching the new cast members he final month of the show is going to feature cameos from past characters turning up to say goodbye so maybe I'll get something out of that. Kylie Minogue has turned down every past invitation she's received to make a cameo on the show every time it reaches a milestone but she's agreed to make a comeback for now that the show has been cancelled. I like the idea that maybe the show hasn't been cancelled but perhaps Channel 5 pretended it had just to get Kylie to come back.

Addressing the Dumbest Pro-Abortion Arguments

Not an exhaustive list.

1. If men could get pregnant, there would be abortion clinics on every corner. Then men would be women. There wouldn’t be a need for two distinct sexes in nature. It’s a moot point. It’s meaningless nonsense. And even if there was no male/female binary and we were all the same, it would still be morally abhorrent to deliberately destroy our own species.

2. Abortion = women’s rights/women’s equality. a. Without the right to life, all other rights are meaningless. The most basic right is the right to not be murdered. b. It’s not equality. It’s a special right to kill that can only be exercised by a pregnant woman and her abortionist. 

3. A fetus is not human. Then what is it? Canine? Feline? Equine? Lol. 

4. The world is overpopulated. There should be less people. That is not a road we want to go down. We should not kill humans in the name of saving humanity. Who decides who is “too many?” Who decides who should die to save the world? Besides, as global wealth and childhood survival rates increase, population growth is supposed to level out. 

5. An abortion basically happens every time you have your period.  No, it doesn’t, because gametes are not distinct human organisms. 

6. If abortion is murder, then blowjobs are cannibalism. See above.

7. An abortion is like removing a cancer. No, it isn’t, because it’s removing a distinct member of the human species, which exists because of a process that is supposed to occur if the mother’s body is working the way it’s supposed to. 

8. A fetus is a parasite. No, it isn’t, because it’s a member of the same species as the mother, and if allowed to develop, will grow to the point where it can exist independently of her.

9. Pro-lifers are just Republicans who want to keep people in poverty. There are a lot less convoluted ways to keep people in poverty if that’s really the goal. Most pro-life/anti-abortion arguments are based on a belief that an unborn human being has rights, and no pro-life arguments have to do with keeping people in poverty. There are many Democrats and people of various political and religious persuasions who consider themselves pro-life. Anyone who makes this argument is truly talking out of their ass. But keep alienating people who might have become sympathetic to your side, lefties. It’s fun to watch. 

10. Abortion is simply none of the government’s business.  Homicide is the government’s business and the number one thing government is instituted for. Unless one is an anarchist, believing that the government should completely ignore certain types of homicide is logically inconsistent and quite frankly inconsistent with most political philosophies. 

11. Abortion is just a religious issue.  It’s an issue of whether and when certain classes of human beings can be killed. It is not exclusively a religious issue. There are many atheists and agnostics who oppose abortion or believe it should be restricted. 

12. The fetus/embryo is just a clump of cells/blob of tissue and not really a life yet. Putting aside the fact that size shouldn’t determine a human being’s value, and that everyone is ultimately giant clumps of cells, If that’s the reason you’re in favor of abortion, you should be in favor of strict cutoff points where the fetus is developed enough to look recognizably human, is making movements, can feel pain, etc. Why do so many pro-choice people vehemently oppose restrictions on abortion after certain cutoff points like 15 or 20 weeks, when there’s no longer any plausible deniability that abortion ends a human life? P.S. try telling grieving parents who just went through a miscarriage that their baby wasn’t real or doesn’t matter because it was just a clump of cells; I’m sure that’ll go over well.

13. A fetus is just a part of a woman’s body and a person should be allowed to remove part of their own body. No, it is a distinct human organism with its own body. Also, removal of body parts is a serious procedure that is much more regulated than pro-choicers want abortion to be, just sayin’.

14. Abortion restrictions violate religious liberty. Even if some people’s religious beliefs do not prohibit abortion, it does not follow that abortion is a core part of their religious practice. Many people who claim this also might find that if they dug deeper into what their religion teaches, that it isn’t in favor of abortion except in grave circumstances such as preserving the life of the mother. Also, not all but many pro-choicers support forcing doctors to perform abortions, forcing religious hospitals to have abortion available, and forcing people to fund abortion, which is an actual violation of religious liberty. 

15. Abortion is better for children because otherwise they would be abused or in foster care.  Not really true, again this is just people talking out of their asses. A lot of kids who go into foster care were born in places where abortion was easily accessible and where there were safe haven laws so their mothers could have easily given them up. For whatever reason, their mothers chose to keep them. In many cases, foster kids have a parent or parents who are trying to get them back, and  reunification is always the family court’s priority. Consider how insulting it is to say that those kids would be better off dead. Also, something that pro-choicers misunderstand or perhaps maliciously lie about is that giving a child up for adoption is not the same as putting a child in foster care. There are many agencies out there ready to place babies in permanent homes from day one.

***

This is just meant to address some of the very common NPC-level posts that go around whenever abortion is in the news. More nuanced and interesting arguments to be addressed in a later post. If you want to send one to me, go ahead; I guarantee I’ve seen it already and have an answer or that one of the pages I follow has a post on it. 

https://antiplondon.tumblr.com/post/678191397075042304/dodo-you-not-realize-how-many-people-die-from

Ugh the radfems are making idiotic pro abortion posts again, I thought I’d share in case you wanted to make a response. Your radfem responses are always the best and I live for them

Thank you babe. I'm, not even an anti abortion discourse blog, but since I orbit around a lot a rabid pro choice radfem I am very familiar with their argumentative loopholes lol

Right there, we have the stale "legal abortion is safer than illegal ones" when confronted to the objective dangerousness of abortion (legal or not it's still a heavy medical procedure that can go wrong) but the thing is.....they totally dismiss the fact that it is documented that anti abortion laws do decrease *total* abortion rates (not just legal abortion rates).

Abortionists talking points ALWAYS revolve aroung fearmongering and emotionalism, and unfortunately, many women are falling for these lies :/

That being said, that user is right about Catholics being less hypocrites in their pro life stance (i.e being anti death penalty and overall more inclined to social help/welfare) compared to the American Evangelists type who will be rabid pro life while feeling entitled to kill someone because they stole a can of soda.

How can you proclaim being pro life while being entitled to end the life of someone over any reason?

I have a question - do not send idiotic replies, I truly want to know your anti-abortion justification? - how can you anti-abortionists say you are pro life and in the same breath say you are proud of #texas #abortionban ? … banning does not END abortion - it puts women - a true LIFE in danger of death- most of whom have a family already or have huge future ahead of them. No matter their situation, they are a life- how can anyone be proud of making a medical resource illegal when illegal means death rates rise… legal means women don’t die. How are you prolife ?

And remember ABORTION IS NOT WRONG, abortion is not murder! Abortion is no “sin” and abortion isn’t wrong- abortion is a medical procedure recorded since history’s first written records.

I had to share this too. This is absolutely disgusting.

Oh but I bet that those anti-abortionists care a hell of a lot about that baby inside their 11 year old. So much so. They'd be glad if she destroyed her insides while giving it to the world. I bet they don't care that an 11 year old can die due to giving birth at such a young age due to trama. Surely that's more important than the 11 YEAR OLD MOTHER'S LIFE.

Question for pro-choicers cont

*previous post inserted since the poster has apparently blocked me from reposting.  Or maybe tumblr is acting up again….*

 pro-abortion-rights

You claim that abortion is murder and, in the same breath, that you intend no moral judgment about the intentionally cherry-picked most repugnant of the reasons people commit murder. How convincing! The joke is that you have the exact same moral hierarchy since you too believe that bodily autonomy may be exercised for bigoted reasons.

Imagine not understanding the concept of “for the sake of argument.”Pro-choicers don’t actually concede the point on fetal personhood, they assume it for the sake of argument with anti-abortionists because it doesn’t actually matter either way. It’s an argumentative tactic, not a concession, but keep imagining you’ve scored the point if it helps you feel better.

Lethal self-defense may be used to prevent death or great bodily harm. You want to talk about great bodily harm? I have a four-inch scar across my lower abdomen from a C-section to deliver the three-year-old that’s playing next to me right now. Earlier in my pregnancy I had a brief cancer scare whose treatment I was going to put off until after birth to avoid harming the fetus. And mine was a HEALTHY pregnancy–I was lucky enough that it wasn’t cancer, and I had no more than the “normal” symptoms in pregnancy. I worked out every day, climbing 15 flights of steps. I still had to write much of my Ph.D. thesis in bed because sitting up was so hard and when my due date came I was in labor for three days, feeling like I was being ground under a wheel the whole time, and in the end I had to get an emergency C-section. I had a hard time moving for weeks. And this was with all the latest technology available.

Great bodily harm? You bet your ass, son. I took on all of this willingly because I wanted a baby with all my heart and that was the only reason I could bear it. Forcing ANY of the above on someone who doesn’t want it when it can be safely prevented is fucking monstrous. “Imagined peril?” Yeah, right. I’m sure I’m imagining my entire pregnancy and birth and the kid. And mine was, again, a healthy pregnancy where almost everything went well and I had access to the best medical technology and humane medical care. No one can tell when something is going to go wrong in pregnancy and childbirth, and even if nothing goes “wrong” it is significantly taxing and injurious on the body.

Hmm soooo your analogy of abortion to putting a gun to someone’s head is total bullshit and you’re not okay with pregnant people changing or otherwise impacting their OWN bodies in order to end their pregnancies, either? So now you’re resorting to the intent to end the fetus’s life instead of the specific method used. Even if the primary intent is to end the pregnancy and the fetus’s death is a corollary to that, much like the person who refuses a blood or bone marrow donation, right? Does your back hurt to carry around the goalposts like that?

No, the people who use desperate and injurious means to try and end their pregnancies are distraught because people like you denied them a safe and dignified abortion. I’ve noticed before that anti-abortionists think women (while keeping the caveat that not all people who can get pregnant are women, not that most of your crowd admits it) have to be literally crazy not to want to have a baby and you’re sure that if we just knew the truth we wouldn’t do it. Nope, some of us just don’t want to have a baby, because some people with uteruses don’t! Get that through your head lol.

Also, self-defense doesn’t require the fetus be at blame in order to be justified, and here is where your fallacious and disingenuous conflation of conceding personhood for the sake of argument and actually conceding personhood does actual harm. We know, like anyone with the most basic understanding of the world knows, that the fetus does not mean harm and cannot mean to do anything. Their lack of intent does nothing to lessen the actual harm of pregnancy, however, because intent does not equal impact.

Also your coward’s way to wriggle out of the politically inexpedient specter of forcibly hospitalizing and jailing abortion clients is to infantilize and condescend to women instead of demonizing us. Lmaooooo because that’s so much humanizing. Not. This is what it looks like when you don’t have the strength of your own conviction and resort to sexism instead. Too bad, because your fellow “pro-lifers” are indeed jailing women for miscarriages and suicide attempts (link). I’m sure you’re upset by that because these women are just victims, right? Nah you’re not, you’re just out there electing the people who do this, who cut public support for women and babies (CPCs don’t count lmao like abortion scaremongering, diapers, and useless ultrasounds done by unlicensed personnel are enough support to have and raise a baby?? [link]), who make life precarious for families so fewer people will WANT to have babies, and making sure more women will be injured and die from unsafe abortions. Mission accomplished!

      “The joke is that you have the exact same moral hierarchy since you too believe that bodily autonomy may be exercised for bigoted reasons.”

And you got this from my post….how exactly?  No seriously, explain this.

“Pro-choicers don’t actually concede the point on fetal personhood, they assume it for the sake of argument with anti-abortionists because it doesn’t actually matter either way. It’s an argumentative tactic, not a concession, but keep imagining you’ve scored the point if it helps you feel better.”

Well since I’ve heard members of your group state outright that they know and accept (with no handy little “for argument’s sake” caveats included mind you) the unborn child is a person, etc, would kind of undermine that notion.  Unless you’re now saying you’re lying.  And of course, for your whole argument of self-defense to fly, they must be persons/actors as well to defend yourself against…  But sure, backpedal if it helps you feel better.

32 hour labor, followed by C-section as well, followed by infection and adhesions here.  High five, sister.  Yet I remind you, that your entire argument for self-defense involves criminalizing an unborn child.  A child that had no say in being where it was or what is happening to it.  A natural, biological process.  The vast majority of which were placed there consensually.  I know you always like to go to the extreme cases of rape, incest, medical emergencies etc to make your point, but those are a minuscule fraction of abortion cases.  I’m sorry, you do not get to say, “oops, I didn’t mean that to happen” and then use that, with the natural results of said actions to kill another person. No.  You don’t.  That is sick and perverse.  A life is in your hands because of your own choices.  You DO NOT have the right to kill it because you don’t like the consequences.  Does that mean discomfort, yes.  Does that even mean a chance of medical complications like we both faced?  Yes.  Life is hard. It means having to deal with the results of your actions, even when those involve pain and discomfort.  I don’t get to murder someone because there is a chance I might break my leg.  I’m sorry, I do not see murder—and I maintain it is murder, not self defense—as a viable option.  The fact you do, I find disturbing.

 “Hmm soooo your analogy of abortion to putting a gun to someone’s head is total bullshit and you’re not okay with pregnant people changing or otherwise impacting their OWN bodies in order to end their pregnancies, either? So now you’re resorting to the intent to end the fetus’s life instead of the specific method used. Even if the primary intent is to end the pregnancy and the fetus’s death is a corollary to that, much like the person who refuses a blood or bone marrow donation, right? Does your back hurt to carry around the goalposts like that?”

 I’m not okay with people taking actions to deliberately end their unborn child’s life.  No.  The specific method never mattered, only the outcome and intent.  I don’t see how I ever gave you reason to think I believed otherwise.  Where did I do so?  My goalposts have never moved.  Every example you gave was a deliberate attempt to kill their child.  It’s no different than whether someone chooses to burn or drown their child after birth.  The child ends up dead both ways, the means is secondary.  I honestly don’t understand the reasoning behind most of this paragraph.  “if the primary intent is to end the pregnancy and the fetus’s death is a corollary to that”  Ummm, if the primary intent is to end the pregnancy…that is literally the same thing as killing the fetus, not a corollary.  By definition.  Did you miss-type this?  

Unless you mean re: the gun analogy.  Okay then if so.  No, I do not think refusing a blood/marrow transfusion is the same as actively killing another life.  Is there a fine distinction?  Absolutely. Lack of action vs deliberate action. Ethics is hard, like life. There are grey areas.  Do I believe a person, capable of providing blood or marrow to help another person, should do so if they can?  Absolutely.  I’m listed as an organ donor, was a blood donor for years, and was recently tested to see if I could donate a kidney.  Do I feel the state has the right to force that?  No.  That is not the same as, “I don’t want the discomfort and difficulty this other life might bring me, because of actions I took, therefore I will make a conscious decision to end its life rather than deal with the known, understood consequences.”

 “No, the people who use desperate and injurious means to try and end their pregnancies are distraught because people like you denied them a safe and dignified abortion.”

 “A safe and dignified abortion.”  Wow.  Just...wow.  When you reach for the moon, you really go for it!  And no. You don’t get to pawn other people’s bad decisions, born of a whole spectrum of backstories and circumstances, onto the pro-life crowd.  That’s intellectually dishonest and you know it.  Their reasons are legion.  And I sincerely doubt any of those underlying issues would be solved by abortion. Please, can your brush get any broader before you need a crane to lift it?

 “Nope, some of us just don’t want to have a baby, because some people with uteruses don’t! Get that through your head lol.”

Then…simple solution…  Don’t take action that can result in the creation of another life.  Get that through your head lol.

“Also, self-defense doesn’t require the fetus be at blame in order to be justified… Their lack of intent does nothing to lessen the actual harm of pregnancy, however, because intent does not equal impact.”

I see.  So it gets to die because you were…scared/etc?  It’s not to blame, but you don’t like the consequences, so yup, it has to die. Yes.  That sounds so much better.  “intent does not equal impact.”  When your intent ends with another life’s ending, that’s a very real impact and a very real harm.  But that’s okay here because...you want it to be?  Who needs the self-defense argument more, I wonder?  The mother or the child?  Seems like the only rule here is the argument from power.  Where the person with power gets to determine what is right.  That’s a scary hill to take your stand on.

“Also your coward’s way to wriggle out of the politically inexpedient specter of forcibly hospitalizing and jailing abortion clients is to infantilize and condescend to women instead of demonizing us. Lmaooooo because that’s so much humanizing. Not.”

 Coming from someone whose position is to, in essence, demonize and dehumanize unborn children in order to justify killing them for the sake of your own convenience like every genocidal advocate ever, this rings a little hollow. Especially with the body count you’ve racked up so far.  Nice straw man though.

 And wow, one cherry-picked account of a terrible miscarriage of justice and a CA law to crack down on centers providing help and alternatives to abortion (though I do concede that using misleading, and deliberate lies to ‘fight the good fight’ is wrong, and any center that does it—“half” according to that article--should stop immediately.)  Wow, you got me there! /end sarcasm  

Yes, we’re people too, who also make mistakes, and we form a huge spectrum of views of what is acceptable and what is not in this cause, just like your side does.  If I cared to enter the mines, you know very well I could come up with plenty of counter cherry-picked examples from your camp. Women being lied to about their pregnant state, their options, the nature of their pregnancy and the very real medical risks of abortion, deliberately pushing abortions for monetary gain, husbands/boyfriends/parents forcing them to have abortions, and so on. Do I need to do so, or do you have the intellectual honestly to admit those happen too?  

Sexism? Oh please. At least be original with your slogans.

But if you want to compare notes, only one of our sides is responsible for supporting and enabling 45.7 million dead babies between 1970 and 2015 in the US alone.  The body count is clearly in your favor.  And I know you can’t possibly be so naïve as to think diapers or those crisis centers are all the pro-life movement do.  Or do I really need to link to the lists of many many many other programs and help made possible by our side?  And what do you put your money to anyways?  Oh yeah, pink pussy hats and placards.  One side promotes and encourages life, one side promotes murder and death and spreads known lies about the “millions of babies killed in back-alley abortions!” (see https://www.hli.org/resources/doesnt-legal-abortion-save-women-filthy-back-alley-abortion-mills/  )   See!  I can use hyperbole and innuendo too! :D

Attack on Abortion

So, it finally has started. For the past...well 50 years really, the Right has been trying their hardest to do everything they can to fight abortion. Recently, they became a lot closer. So let’s talk about what’s happening.

Their most recent take has been Jim Crowing Abortion by making it stupid hard to get for women, regardless of state. In Mississippi for instance, there is one abortion clinic for the whole state. The whole entire state. And if you finally get there, you have to wait 72 hours before an actual procedure can be performed after you consultation.

I won’t get into every single detail of how this was done, but it was piece by piece, and in the name of protecting women.  These legislatures would draw up new regulations specifically for abortion clinics - which, by the way, are only not a part of hospitals because everyone is afraid to admit abortion is a useful and helpful medical procedure - after going and examining all of them. They then would come back with a plan that none of the clinics could abide all of the regulations of. You have to have walls that are certain distance apart (which doesn’t matter because surgical gurneys aren’t used in most, if any, abortions), you have to hospital admitting privileges (which is also not all that important because by the time the situation would reach that point the patient is probably already in a hospital), can’t be within a certain distance of a school (because all abortion-performing OB-GYNs are sex offenders, apparently). Literally every trick they could try to limit access to abortion without banning abortion or otherwise making it completely inaccessible because that would be illegal.

Honestly, I could go on for hours and hours on this topic, so I’ll try to keep it brief while still making the points I want to make. But the big thing to know is that while Roe V. Wade is still law of the land, it has since been...altered by Planned Parenthood vs. Casey. The law is now “Abortions must be accessible, buuuut you can make women jump through a few hoops to get them, I guess, as long as there aren’t too many.”

Which I’m not sure which part of that is more insulting, the fact that these idiots think that abortions are such a causal decision for women that a little inconvenience would discourage them from getting one, or the fact that these are the same standards for dog agility contests.

Let me be clear up front, right here, right now. Women don’t get abortions casually. It’s not like they’re sitting there 7 months into the hell that is pregnancy and suddenly decide “You know, maybe this just isn’t for me” and aborts. Mostly because that’s not what’s actually legal. Neither do they just fuck anyone they want and then decide “OOps, I got pregnant, better go get a quick aborch to fix this mistake laaaawal!”.

Let’s talk about what is actually allowed and what actually happens in an abortion.

So let’s say a woman has sex and the condom breaks. It’s an accident. She might go to the store and get an order of Plan B. Plan B is not an abortion. Plan B needs to be taken quickly, because what Plan B does is prevent the egg from implanting in the uterine wall - a process that begins the actual pregnancy. It’s possible for a fertilized egg to not make this, and when this happens it’s so minor it’s not even considered a miscarriage. If you believe that life begins at fertilization then you have to grapple with all these innocent babies that die without any fault of the mother.

Anyway, let’s say the woman doesn’t know the condom broke. Hey, it happens. It will take her at least a month to find out that she’s pregnant, because it turns out that unless you get a pregnancy test (which, you used a condom, why would you think you need one?) it’s more or less impossible for a woman to know she’s pregnant until she stops having her period. And keep in mind periods are fickle temperamental things that will change when they show up for whatever reason, so it might be 6 weeks before a woman even has a reason to suspect she’s pregnant if something went wrong. So she goes to the doctor and gets an abortion.

At this stage in development, the fetus is more or less vaguely human shaped, but incredibly tiny and really only has the rudiments of various organs. It’s not even aware yet because it doesn’t even have what could reasonably be called a brain.

So, the woman realizes - wisely - that she is not in a position to have a child despite being pregnant. Maybe she doesn’t have the financial resources, maybe she doesn’t have the time to dedicate to the consuming and difficult task of raising a child. Maybe she just isn’t emotionally capable of it. This is the part most anti-abortionists never think of - why might a woman want an abortion? Even if she puts the baby up for adoption (which is its own complicated and expensive process), she still has to go through the actual 9 months of pregnancy. Her entire life for nine months will be dominated by taking care of this thing. I don’t think anyone who hasn’t been pregnant understands what it’s like. There’s so much you can’t do or experience while pregnant. It’s like being hooked up to a life support machine for another person for nine months. And if you didn’t agree to it, well then, that’s a problem.

So, this lady goes to a doctor and gets an abortion. Within the first trimester, these procedures will nine times out of ten be either minor procedures of suction or even just taking a pill that will cause a miscarriage. No anesthetic required. The fetus at this point is unable to live on its own, of course, so it dies. At this stage you could freeze the damn thing and unfreeze it at a later point and it would theoretically still be viable if you could somehow implant it back in a woman. Which, Representative Smitherman, is not a thing, but whatever.

Most women who don’t want a pregnancy know they don’t want it and decide on an abortion before three months. Which, by the way, another one of those Jim Crow type laws that they liked to use was putting in weighting periods so that it’d be after the three month mark that it’s illegal to get an abortion for whatever reason.

See, without going into specifics, the further along in a pregnancy you are, the harder it is to get an abortion. Second trimester limitations basically mean you need a reason more complicated then “Nah, I just don’t want it” and it’s actually illegal to get an abortion in the third trimester if the baby isn’t a threat to the mother’s life. And that makes sense.

Most women who go through with a pregnancy that far willingly want the baby. They’ve been planning for it, they have a room set aside for it, they’ve bought cribs and toys and had baby showers. I haven’t ever met a woman in her third trimester who wasn’t excited for her child. So getting an abortion then is always a tragedy.

The only reason they get it is because the child is dying, if it’s even still alive. The baby could potentially survive outside the mother at this point with a bit of medical help, but that’s the thing. The baby isn’t going to survive at all. We’re talking skull deformations that collapse the brain in on itself, lungs that won’t ever form properly, hearts that half the size they need to be. These children are loved, they sometimes have names already, but tragically they’re just not going to make it. This is basically the only reason a woman gets an abortion in the third trimester, mostly because it’s more or less illegal to get an abortion at this point and most of them have made the decision by now.

This is where you get the rather horrible looking and graphic procedures that pro-deathers like to shove in your face - half of which are so graphic because the baby’s already dead, if they’re even real at all - and that’s more or less the story of how and why abortions happen.

So now that we established how the process of an abortion actually happens, let’s talk about these new laws.

Because these new laws that have been showing up in, say, Alabama, have a purpose too. While the Jim Crow Type laws were meant to try and skirt Planned Parenthood V Casey by making abortions as difficult to get as possible, these laws outright ban abortion.  And there’s a reason for that. With Trump loading the bench with people like Brent the Rapist Kavanaugh, suddenly there’s a chance that the Supreme Court may overturn Roe V. Wade.

That’s why these laws are stupid and draconian. When the 25 cis white heterosexual men who voted for the abortion ban voted for it, they were doing so with the full knowledge that even most Alabamians would find it disgusting because as it turns out most human beings have at least some understanding of sexual health enough to know why this is complete nonsense.

No, we have records of them specifically debating things like, say, whether or not they should include exceptions for rape and the safety of the mother, and deciding they shouldn’t because that wouldn’t guarantee a challenge. And that’s what they’re looking for. These fuckheads don’t care about this law coming into effect, they’re not interested in what the actual law says. The purpose of this law is so that it - and every other one of the heartbeat bills and such - can be used as a wedge to burst open the Supreme Court now that it’s stacked with people who hate abortion and don’t care about women and kill Roe V. Wade. But here’s the thing, the law is going to be upheld in the process.

I want you to look at this picture and remember these names and faces as I tell you this. IF the Supreme Court upholds the law, then until Alabama decides to change the law - and that’s a big if - then every woman in Alabama will be unable to get an abortion in the state of Alabama. She’ll have to leave the state, and to where? Well, we’ve already established that Mississippi is horrible to go to, and Louisiana and Georgia aren’t much better. I’m not sure about Florida’s abortion laws, but I’m willing to bet Kentucky isn’t exactly convenient to get one in either. That’s all the states touching Alabama, so at that point you’re looking into a road trip or a plane ticket.

You see the problem? Rich people can still get those abortions by leaving states and going somewhere else, but the poor people suddenly can’t. Now, one mistake is enough to condemn a poor woman to teenage motherhood. Meanwhile the rich bitches can go wherever they need to to get one done quick and cheap, away from any sound of a heartbeat bill.

And here’s the thing. A disproportionate number of those poor women are going to be black, because it’s Alabama and that’s just a thing there. So not only is this law sexist, an argument could be made that it’s racist too! But that’s not the half of it.

Some women are not capable of bringing life into this world. I don’t mean that physically, I mean that mentally. Some are too young, some don’t have the financial acumen, some have mental illnesses that just make it too hard. These women are condemned to motherhood. But it’s not just that.

Say what you will about what pregnancy actually is, you cannot deny it’s incredibly risky. Death is not an uncommon outcome, and increases in all manner of diseases are just a fact of it.

These men are willing to kill the poor black women of Alabama just so they can take rights away from women all over the United States. And that is disgusting.

The Argentinian feminist movement accomplished something unprecedented in the country this year: after submitting a bill to depenalize abortion---or Voluntary Interruption of Pregnancy---for the seventh year in a row to the Lower House of Congress, it finally passed last June. Unfortunately, the bill lost its battle two months later in the Senate, which means that women, especially those in marginalized situations, will continue to be condemned to unsafe abortion practices at least for another year. Still, the bill has forced the discussion into everyone’s table. Most media outlets talked about it. Talk show hosts asked their guests about it. Many, many professionals were given the space to dispel myths and support their arguments. It did little to change the minds of anti-choice crusaders, but to me, it was inspiring.

Yet something about the way some people argued in favor of supporting abortion left a sour taste in my mouth, and I realized what it was:

I’m tired of the discussion around abortion being framed as something that can only be tragic in a woman’s life. I’m tired of hearing that it’s a last resort, something a woman only considers after exhausting every other option. I’m tired of hearing that it’s something that will stay with the woman forever if she goes through with it, and so, it’s okay. You see, she’s suffering. She’s paying for the crime she’s committed. She really didn’t want to have to do it. Cut her some slack.

No. Okay? NO. We need to stop.

Those used to be my arguments, too, when trying to change the minds of those who deny a woman’s right over her own body. They already see you as a murderer, a baby-killer, someone who should never, ever, be trusted near a child (a campaign circulating in Facebook sometime after the Senate voting demanded that every celebrity who had been vocally pro-choice stepped down from a once-a-year nationally broadcasted event that collects massive donations for UNICEF. Ironic much?) Of course you want to grovel, you want to appeal to whatever shred of sympathy they might have. “This woman will DIE if she doesn’t get an abortion.” “She is a CHILD, you can’t possibly expect her to have a baby?” (The answer will surprise you.) “She needs to do it but she will SUFFER so much, she’ll live to regret it!”

Turns out, you can hardly change people’s minds in this subject, in most cases. They might do it on their own time, for their own reasons. It will not happen because you plead, and bargain, and ask how they can reconcile the idea of saving “both lives” with letting the mother die, or worse, calling for the blood of those hysterical feminists because “If they’re going to kill babies, we’re going to kill them!” Now THAT makes sense!

So, you know what? Because our words won’t sway them anyway, but they are going to be heard by someone, somewhere, we need to change them. It’s just not acceptable anymore that we keep framing the voluntary termination of a pregnancy as a social disgrace. Those feelings of encouraged shame only contribute to the clandestinity of the practice. They push women to carry pregnancies that will result in actual babies they will not be prepared or alive to care for.

Women may want to terminate a pregnancy for many reasons. That’s right: they are allowed to WANT an abortion. When I say “want”, understand that I mean it such as how I may want to have a dentist appointment or a beauty mark removed, not in the same way that I may want ice cream. It’s a medical procedure, after all---safe, when practiced by licensed doctors, but nonetheless uncomfortable. It is statistically less risky than giving birth and generally less painful (again, the caveat: when performed by professionals in a safe environment).

Studies have shown that there is no direct relation between having an abortion and developing a mental illness, such as depression, anxiety, and PTSD, something that anti-abortionists use as one of their battle cries. Relief is often the most common emotional response after an induced abortion, according to research. It’s almost as if “post-abortion syndrome” is a myth, and the feelings of guilt, regret and sadness women who have chosen to terminate a pregnancy experience are actually related to social shame and lack of support from their partners, family, and friends. By changing the way we talk about abortion, hopefully more women will get to experience that relief.

I want women to know that it’s okay to want to terminate an unwanted pregnancy for ANY reason you might have. It’s okay to be scared of pregnancy and birth (which are often romanticized and the risks and discomforts dismissed with “But you’ll have a baby!!”). It’s okay to not ever want to have children of your own. It’s okay to not want children right now because it gets in the way of your studies, your career, your goals, your relationships. It’s okay to not want children because your financial situation is not great, or your house is too small, or you don’t have a car. It’s okay to want to terminate a pregnancy that will put you in danger---because you don’t identify with your assigned gender, because you’re in an abusive situation, because you have a medical condition. It’s okay to terminate a pregnancy that resulted from sexual assault. It’s okay. I want it to be okay. And in order to do that, we need to stop falling into the same language traps that the anti-choice movement relies on.

Let’s start referring to voluntarily induced abortions for what they are: a choice that will make a woman’s life quality better.

If you need information or support on abortion, please visit https://prochoice.org/ in the US and http://socorristasenred.org/ in Argentina.

Did any of my fellow atheists ever read the book of Ecclesiastes ? via /r/atheism

Did any of my fellow atheists ever read the book of Ecclesiastes ?

So to make a long story short this is the book of the bible in one picture:

https://imgur.com/a/bFnTK9b

There is even a free audio book version here

https://www.biblegateway.com/audio/mclean/niv/Eccl.1

It is truly an interesting read. And the "WTF !" or "I can literally not believe an atheist did not write this !" book of the bible.

It has these gems like:

Humans are like animals

Great thing to quote when a christian says that humans are not like the animals or not animals.

And

Humans and animals die and have no afterlife

Truly comedy gold to remember and quote back at a christian.

And before the christian tries to use JW style games of body resurrection only Ecclesiastes literally says that NO ONE WHO DIED WILL EVER LIVE AGAIN !!!

The book also says that human life is meaningless (it was obviously written by someone who is extremely depressed) and has comedy gold like:

It is better to be dead then alive

and

The unborn and miscarried children are the lucky ones saved from having to live the torture that is life

Something to obviously write on your anti abortion poster or to remind anti-abortionists that the aborted children by gods word himself are better off aborted then being born.

The book is so out of whack that it smells like the gods logic meme, why on earth would a god write this down ?

Also fun fact when the pharisees where arguing with jesus that there is no afterlife they where referring to this book.

Reading this book and writing down the best lines is endless fun when in a debate with any christian.

Christian:

WE will all be judged after we die

YOU:

The bible says NO !

Christian:

There is heaven and hell

YOU:

The bible says NO !

Christian:

WE will all live again

YOU:

The bible says NO !

Christian:

My family is in heaven

YOU:

The bible says NO !

Submitted November 15, 2021 at 03:03PM by Tom_Topaz (From Reddit https://ift.tt/3ozEdkd)

Chickenshit tumblr

@saucinsaucin reblogged my post, then while responding to it, deleted it so I couldn’t reblog it.  After accusing me of not having a CONVERSATION because he had a DIFFERENT OPINION.

Chickenshit hypocrite.

I at least copied my response when tumblr wouldn’t let me reblog.

Here it is:

Let me see if I got this right.  You used an opinion piece (note the word Commentary from CNSnews)

It’s quite funny to read this.  He does a lot of what you do, a lot of accusing of many things yet not much substance.  Let’s look into this.

You:

a mistake that is only offensive to sensitive liberals

you wouldn’t know anything about that

You only research what you want to know,  not what you don’t want to, as do all leftists.

all leftists only ARGUE and NEVER even have a CONVERSATION

I’d love to see your argument on gun control

So, all but the last are know as ad hominem attacks (the last being a red herring, I’ll get to that later).  Instead of continuing the “conversation” with someone of who has a “different opinion,” you attacked me, even going so far as to accuse me of doing what you just did (”NEVER even hav[ing] a CONVERSATION.”  Now, you’ve gone and “researched” using an opinion piece that starts out with:

“Many of them cannot find it within themselves to condemn this sordid moment.”

Now, this assumes immediately nefarious motives because Sanger talked to a group of racists.  (This is s group that today supports Trump, so what does that say about Trump - who really didn’t reject it - and conservatives in general? Note that the source is from the UK, which does not have a vested interest, i.e. biased, in US politics.  Where as you’ve sourced a bias pundit.)  Mind you, she found the experience “one of the weirdest experiences I had in lecturing.”  But she did call them “a good group.”  What exactly did she mean by that?  Well, to you and all anti-abortionists that means she endorsed racism.  But you’re misinterpreting things from your biased perspective and not hers.  She looked to provide birth control to women, she didn’t care about race of creed, it was a health issue.  In those days it was still fairly common for women to die in childbirth, because, you see, how advanced as are today in medicine, we weren’t back then.  It was common for children to die in childhood from many diseases we immunize against today, just as it was more common to die during childbirth.  This would disproportionately affect the poor the worst, often resulting in children going into foster care or orphanages, which were horrid back then.  They were often run by the catholic church, and as have found out in recent time, they were abused sexually, mentally, and physically by the very people who were “caring” for the children.

But moving on...

CNSNews.com was founded by Media Research Center which claims a liberal media bias.  This ignores the massive number of conservative pundits and other sources like Fox News, The Wall Street Journal, New York Post, National Review, The Washington Times, the Federalist, Drudge Report, Blaze, The Hill and a many, many more.  

Media Research Center’s mission is to “ neutralizing left-wing bias in the news media and popular culture has influenced how millions of Americans perceive ‘so-called’ objective reporting.”  This sounds noble.  I’m all for countering bias in the news.  But I’m all for countering all bias in the news.  Your sourcing a group that is for countering some bias in the news, but not others.  MRC is not, nor has never been, about accurate unbiased reporting.

Which is possible.  There are good sources out there on both the left and the right that are reputable (WSJ, Bloomberg), but many that are not (Fox News, Alternet, CNN).  But when someone sets out to counter a single thing (left bias in the news), they have a huge blind spot, which is known as the Right-wing.

But, now that I have a sense of who and what I’m dealing with, let’s move on...

After reading the account, since the author was kind enough to post directly from Sanger’s 1939 biography (I’ll assume it wasn’t altered, and believe I am correct), I’m not sure what the author’s point was.  He brings out attention to the words “hysteria”, “aroused,” and “weirdest.”  He states, “ those words (I believe) actually further make the case against Sanger.“  Strange. And, “ They demonstrate that she knew that this was an extreme group. She clearly is intimidated somewhat. In fact, note Sanger’s comment about letting her family know that she hadn’t been thrown into the river. This suggests she understood that this was a rather violent group, right? What gave her that hint? The illuminated crosses? The KKK’s history of lynching black people? “

Now let’s look at this.  She’s dealing with an isolated group.  It is a weird encounter, they are an extreme group.  Hysteria could mean a lot back then.  Women who enjoyed sex were considered hysterical.  Overall, the encounter doesn’t support the argument that Sanger was racist.  She spoke to a group in the simplest terms to convey her message.  This is known as educating people.  But Dr. Paul Kengor either misses this point of Sanger’s strange encounter or thinks that educating people is wrong, which would be ironic from a professor.

Note that educating people regardless of affiliation doesn’t make you one of them, neither does talking to them.  They invited her to learn what she had to say.  She doesn’t use the word abortion, she talks around it, in order to get her message across without arousing a negative reaction.

He then later goes on to support his argument by using the opinion (key word) of other people including Martin Luther King Jr’s niece.

But not Martin Luther King himself, who accepted an award from Planned Parenthood.  Do you not find that strange?  I put more weight into the actions of Martin Luther King Jr than the opinion of his niece.

“Was Sanger plotting to eliminate all blacks? Of course, not.”  At least he understands this, you don’t seem to. “But she was plotting to control the reproduction of blacks and of the human race generally.”  Now we come to the heart of his bias.  He claims this is about racial control.  While ignoring that Sanger “started the Negro Project to bring birth-control information and clinics to impoverished southern African-Americans,” but totally missing the point that it was a health issue.  Women were dying and being more and more impoverished due to out of control birth rates.

Dr. Paul Kengor, so smart, yet so dumb.

Planned Parenthood Exposed appears to be down.  I went to the Internet Archive and saw that the last snapshot was 11 July.

Again.  Another biased source.  Given the problem with the fake fetus for sale tactic, I’m rather dubious of this source or anything it has to say.  I would require independent outside verification of any information you wish to show from them.

I’ve given you over an hour and a half.  Now, making me late for work.  But I will finish with the...

Red Herring

Red herrings are often used to distract from the actual argument, but also to twist the conversation in some fashion.

As for my argument on gun control:

May 25, 2018:  Noblesville West Middle School shooting

May 18, 2018:  Mount Zion High School,  Santa Fe High School shooting

May 16, 2018:  Dixon High School

May 11, 2018:  Highland High School

April 20, 2018:  Forest High School

April 12, 2018: South Middle School

And hundreds of other school shootings (This does not include non-school shootings)   Not every school shooting makes the news.

Hundreds upon hundreds of dead children.  If that isn’t enough to get you to understand that we need a better balance between gun ownership and gun responsibility, then nothing can convince you.  I’d be wasting my time just as I did researching and responding to your tripe.

Is it ironic to save a child’s life from abortion only to hand them a gun so they can shoot and kill another non-aborted child?

I'm honestly not trying to be mean here, but I wanted to talk to you about your recent post regarding your opinion on abortion. I get that it's your opinion, but I'm just curious about why your anti-abortion. Like, is it because of religious reasons or do you believe that a fetus counts as life? Also, what about situations where a women has been raped or if, from a medical standpoint, being pregnant is putting her life at risk? Once again, not trying to be condescending or mean, just curious.

You’re literally not being mean in the slightest; you can ask me all you like, I feel justified in my beliefs; I don’t mind ^.^

I’ve actually talked about this a few times before but bc I’m lazy and cbf to go find the old answers, I’ll just retell it. 

It’s not for religious reasons. I am not a religious person, despite being raised in a fairly religious family. So, it’s not because of that. 

I do feel that it counts as life. I believe in that once sperm reaches as egg and starts the process, I see it as living. And yes, I do believe that it’s a little baby and that it’s alive, regardless of how far along it is. Even if it’s the next morning, I believe it’s a little life in there so I don’t agree with abortion. Despite science and all the shit out there going against this, I still believe what I believe and that is that life is there from the start. 

I’m against abortion for that reason because I feel like termination is stopping any chance of a child being born and giving no chance at life at all.As for your second question, this is why I see myself as a somewhat relaxed anti-abortion believer purely because for reasons such as that where it is the result of rape, then of course it’s understandable that a woman would want an abortion; why would she possibly want a reminder of something so traumatic?

And it’s a no brainer that if it’s a medical standpoint, if it will harm the mother’s life then of course it would be better to get an abortion because it’s highly like that the child would possibly die if the woman carrying it was at risk or dies from the pregnancy as well. 

I think it’s important to note, my beliefs aren’t black and white. I see abortion in this way for me personally. I’m not about to judge others for getting an abortion and it certainly doesn’t have to be from either of those two reasons. If a young girl is unable to or if they don’t want a child or if financially, someone isn’t capable of caring for a child then, by all means. At the end of the day, it is the individual’s choice; it’s their life that gets affected. 

I don’t judge people who have abortions but, throwing back to my post, I just think it’s wrong to have multiple and constant abortions. If you don’t want a child, get a contraceptive that fucking works. Like, I get it completely if you have used a condom and it broke or the pill has failed but don’t keep using contraception that doesn’t work then and using abortion as the answer. Be responsible, go to your doctor and see what will work to protect you from unwanted pregnancies; don’t just keep going and getting abortions. They’re not chocolate bars.

But, like I said and I can’t stress enough that this is my view for me. I have always felt abortion is wrong for me and I would much rather carry a child and then give it to a family who would care for it, rather than abort it. Neither would be an easy option and also come with a hard choice but I would rather do the former than the latter. 

Obviously, I can’t really make a proper decision until the situation fell upon me but I’d like to think if I fell into this predicament of being pregnant and not wanting it, I would give it up for adoption rather than abortion. 

As I say, I’m not one of these fanatical anti-abortionists like if someone went to get a termination who was a friend or family member, I wouldn’t judge them and I would never force my own belief onto them because that’s just an asshole move. 

But, yeah, I’m against it... for me personally. 

Sometimes I think there's no point in talking to anti-abortion people because some of them really seem to believe that a pregnant person has less bodily autonomy/rights than a corpse corpse & an embryo/fetus has a right no born person has. Then I think about how their lies (lie that banning abortion will stop it) end pregnant people's lives (abortion ban cause unsafe abortion) Should prochoicers go in a conversation trying to change an antiabortion person's mind? Also, best prochoice arguments?

Sometimes, anti-abortion people are set in their ways. However, it’s important for people to see the pro-abortion/pro-choice side being vocal. If you only hear one side, that’s what you internalize.

I’m not sure if there’s “best prochoice arguments.” Try to steer clear from demanding the opposing side use certain terminology, like fetus. As long as you all understand, the words used don’t matter. (Though it is frustrating that they rely on emotional connotation, but I usually just keep using “fetus” while they use “baby.”)

The abortion debate sometimes derails into focusing on personhood for a fetus or when life begins. Always try to focus back on the actual issue: Pregnant people deserve the right to decide what healthcare is the best for themselves, without interference.

This sometimes involves having to remind people that not all healthcare choices result in life for someone else. People can choose whether or not to donate organs or blood, regardless of whether the person in need is going to die. This even extends to the dead; we don’t raid the recently deceased for working body parts.

Are anti-abortionists ready to have everyone be forced to donate blood or organs, to make sure others live? If that leaves a bad taste in their mouth - as it should - then they should realize that’s what they’re expecting of pregnant people when they wage war against safe, legal abortion.