#not even to mention that a fetus is literally by definition a parasite | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

beaversatemygrandma · 2 years

Text

What the hell is going on with politics this week? It’s as if they’re trying to ban Safe Sex. Like. Are you trying to have another baby boom and overflow adoption agencies and cause literally everybody in the country to suffer through unwanted childbirth and the sheer lack of money that comes with it? We have enough problems with money without that. Not to mention that I’m personally terrified if all of this actually happens. (Birth control only to married couples, no safe sex options, no abortions, etc.) Bc birth control can be used for things other than preventing babies (ex, endometriosis like I do personally) and ya know, preventing them while knowing you wouldn’t be able to physically survive that feat of giving birth. I’m fucking terrified they’ll get their way with this. And I know I’m not alone here.

Not to mention, this even goes outside of the more liberal side of politics (which should just be gotten rid of. Fuck these parties.) Like, I’ve noticed my very conservative family members actually agree with me: This Is Scary. Like i can say my extremely liberal statement about this and they’ll be like “Yeah, I wholly agree. This is fucked up.” And I know I’m not alone in this fear that being forced to go through this could potentially lead to my death. Especially with how absurdly hard it is to get procedures like getting your tubes tied or a hysterectomy. If you’re under 35, have no kids, unmarried, GOOD LUCK GETTING THAT. Because with the ways things are already, even without the current laws getting overturned, it’s near impossible.

Less than 30% of the country supports this. The only people who support it are the ultra-christian conservatives who seem to think that a ball of cells (further known as a fetus) is a living breathing human. When it’s not. That this parasitic cell mass has more rights to life than the one hosting it in their body. And it’s fucked up. If you support overturning this, you better be ready to take care of many many unwanted children yourself. On your dime. With your home and resources. But that’s already what goes on in those heavily Christian communities. I’ve heard of families with 10+ kids, over half of them adopted, in, usually, Mormon communities and if the kids don’t conform to their lifestyles, they’re cast out or abused. Nobody needs that unnecessary pain in their lives, for the potential mothers and for the children who couldn’t have a safe life in the first place. Even outside of those communities, there are already too many children in poverty, abusive homes, and stuck in foster homes to even consider something like this to happen.

Then one of these people pushing for this to happen had the audacity to say “If they really want an abortion, they can just go to Canada to get one.” Like. Fuck you. You may have the ability to drop everything and go to another country for medical tourism (which is already so painfully common), but most people can’t. They have jobs and families they can’t leave for the amount of time it takes to do that. They may not have a passport and god knows how long it takes to get one of those. Hell, they might not even have the ability to get a passport, whether it be legally or due to the lack of money. It may be an easy feat for those who are right along the country border up north, those who are able to take day trips up to Canada and already have the passports needed bc of just how common it is. But what about those in the other 95% of the country? Most of the places actively banning this are in the SOUTH. Imagine you’re in TX, found out you’re 8 weeks pregnant and have two weeks left to get your hands on one of those pills before it becomes an invasive surgical procedure. Your doctors tell you, “Canada can help you.” Canada is over a 12 hour drive north. That’s a two-three day trip even without considering the other issues it would take to get there. Then there’s money, and if you’re American, you’re definitely feeling awful about having to even go to the doctor bc it’s like three days’ work worth of money just for an appointment. Let alone the price of gas to get to the second place, or the money for a plane ticket, or even the money for a passport to even get through customs. And all within Two Weeks.

This is an attack on the poor. The rich will be able to hop about countries to skip the inhumane laws. All they want are more kids to grow up and be their army fodder and minimum wage workers now that they’ve noticed a slightly lower birth rate. Yes. Millennials and Gen Z aren’t having kids. There’s a reason we aren’t. We can barely afford to take care of ourselves, let alone a child. Which would cost $40k just to go to the hospital to give birth to, then hundreds, maybe thousands of dollars to feed, clothe, entertain these kids who weren’t wanted in the first place. And if they weren’t wanted in the first place, it’s likely the kids will end up in an abusive situation. And trust me, nobody wants that.

And now knowing that the actual vote to overturn Roe V Wade isn’t for another couple months is even more horrifying. The wait will be excruciating and filled with outrage. All it will do is increase anger and violence. You’ll yet again be forced to find out just who is supportive of those around them and who isn’t. People will be cast out, hurt, and arrested.

This isn’t okay. We aren’t okay.

#taks speaks #long post #yeah. im mad #and yep. I'm VERY SCARED #rant over tho #the only good news we've had was the FDA going ahead and saying 'k. these pills are available to mail out'#but the fact that even that would be illegal in some states #which would force you to go around acting as if you're ordering dangerous highly illegal drugs #when its necessary to have available #now comes my curiosity to see if i could qualify for a hysterectomy just by having an ovarian cyst #it's not cancerous or anything dangerous but it does cause endometriosis #which is fucking PAINFUL and causes my cycle to be chaotically unorganized even with the help of birth control pills #hell my period is a week late right NOW #and with the tracking on period tracker apps im nervous that might be something that could be used against me #like 'your period was a month and a half late around here so you had an abortion obviuosly'#when my cycle is literally just a fucking mess and sometimes i can go half a year without a period #funny thing is too that i haven't had sex since like last fuckin june #like yeah its late. there's evidence there. but how tf would i have even been pregnant #esp when i also use birth control paired with condoms which is like 99.9999% not gonna get pregnant #???? this is just??? ugh.#i need to find a tracker app that doesnt have fucking trackers #i have a feeling NC FL and the areas around here are next for these absurd laws to pass #not even the blue states are safe rn and being in an all swing state area with these atrocities in control is ugh #ik i always say i want to leave the country but leaving is so unconventional with the money i have and immigration requirements #as much as i want to leave i dont think i'll ever get the chance to with visa requirements #i can't even go across the country its so fucking big let alone another country #*sighs* this is just depressing man

8 notes · View notes

anamericangirl · 5 years

Text

Refuting some of the most common abortion arguments

Since abortion has been pretty much everywhere in the news recently what with the new bills in places like Alabama and Ohio, and because abortion is one of the most important topics to me, I decided to make one post that covers my responses to pretty much every argument for abortion that I have ever seen. If I miss an argument or you’ve heard one that I haven’t, feel free to add on to the list, or disagree with me or ignore it completely. I intend to add this post as time goes on with my responses to more abortion arguments as I want to a compile them all together. Be warned I am going to be as thorough as I can so this will be a rather lengthy post.

“My body, my choice”

This is probably the most common argument I see to try and justify abortion. This argument has always been used for abortion and continues to be used today even though it is a scientific fact that the unborn baby is not part of the woman’s body, it is a completely separate human body that is connected to the woman’s body through the umbilical cord. One of the main reasons that the umbilical cord exists is to connect the baby to the mother. The baby has its own DNA, its own heart, its own brain, its own nervous system, etc. all completely separate from the parent. To use the argument “my body, my choice” to fight for abortion, you literally have to deny science and it is astonishing to me that so many people are willing to do this in order to kill the unborn. I will examine this argument further under the “bodily autonomy” section.

“Abortion is a constitutional right”

No, it is not. It is not a right at all. A good indication that abortion is not a constitutional right is that it is not mentioned anywhere in the Constitution itself. If something is a constitutional right then chances are you will see that right specifically written into the document itself. People claim abortion is a constitutional right because of Roe v Wade, but Roe v Wade is actually about the right to privacy. What the courts decided was that the due process clause in the fourteenth amendment gives everyone the right to privacy and that the right to privacy means a woman can choose whether or not to have an abortion. But let’s look at this section of the amendment ourselves and see what it says.

Amendment XIV

Section 1.

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

The bolded part is the section that the Supreme Court decided meant that we have the right to privacy and that right to privacy gives the right to an abortion, but as we can see, it clearly does not give the right to an abortion. Allowing abortion actually violates that very right because the unborn are being legally deprived of life, liberty or property without due process and being denied equal protection of the laws and this is a much stronger argument for the fact that abortion is unconstitutional because we can actually see these very things protected in the Constitution.

Just because the Supreme Courts decides that something is a constitutional right does not make it so. Something being in the Constitution makes it a constitutional right. They just decided that particular section protects “the right” to an abortion, but it doesn’t because it was never meant to and a group of people deciding after the fact that they are going to use a section of the Constitution to pretend abortion is a right, does not mean that the Constitution gives that right. Like, if the Supreme Court decided that free speech was not a protected constitutional right any longer, they would be wrong because the protection of free speech is written into the Constitution and will always be a protected right regardless of what the Supreme Court says. You cannot read between the lines and stretch the amendments of the Constitution to add rights to it that are not in there. We cannot say “it says this one thing, but we’ve decided it means this other thing.” The rights are either in there or they are not and the entire Roe v Wade decision is unconstitutional.

“Pro-life is about men controlling women’s bodies”

This is incorrect and a good hint that we are not interested in controlling women’s bodies is that literally no one cares what you do with your body until there is another completely separate human life and body inside of you. If being pro-life was about controlling the bodies of women, we would be concerned about more than just abortion. We’re not interested in your body at all. Do whatever you want with any part of it. We are just trying to save the life of the baby growing inside you that is not part of your body. The body inside your body is the one we are concerned about.

Also, this is very important to know, there are a large number of pro-life women. I am one of them. Acting like all women are pro-choice is ignorant. Abortion is not a men vs women issue and the sooner you realize that the better. Besides, it was literally a group of men that decided Roe v Wade so try to be consistent with your beliefs.

“It’s not a [insert term here], it’s a fetus”

There are several variations of this argument. I’ve heard so many such as it’s not alive, it’s not a human, it’s not a person, it’s not a baby, it’s a fetus. The pro-choice side cannot seem to agree on what the fetus is or is not, they just know that it’s a fetus. And they are correct about that one point. After the eighth week of conception, the unborn baby is considered a fetus. But no pro-choice person I’ve ever spoken to has bothered to explain what they think a fetus is, even when asked. They seem to think that simply saying “it’s a fetus” is enough explanation as to why the unborn are not people, as if a fetus is a completely different life form or species than a human being, but that’s scientifically inaccurate.

If we look up the definition of a fetus, we get this: an unborn offspring of a mammal, in particular an unborn human baby more than eight weeks after conception.

So when pro-choice people argue that it’s just a fetus, that’s not a good argument for why a woman should be allowed to get an abortion because fetus just means it’s an unborn baby that is more than eight weeks after conception. Acknowledging it’s a fetus is not denying that it’s a living, breathing human being.

To deny that the fetus is not a person from conception is to, again, deny science. From the moment of fertilization, the baby’s genetic make-up is complete, including its sex. And once we get to the point of development where the baby is called a fetus the facial features, which have been developing since the first few weeks continue to develop, ears are beginning to form as are arms, legs, fingers, toes, and eyes. It also has a pretty well formed neural tube and bone is beginning to replace cartilage and the digestive tract and sensory organs are beginning to develop and by this time it typically has a distinguishable head and heartbeat. I do not know what else this could be other than a living person and no pro-choice argument I’ve ever heard has been able to explain why the fetus is not a person, or whatever they are going to claim it’s not.

“It’s a clump of cells/parasite”

Technically, it is correct that the fetus is a clump of cells. But it’s technically correct that we are all a clump of cells. They use this term to dehumanize the unborn and see it as just a random mass of cells that is just hanging out inside the woman’s uterus. But this is another denial of science from the pro-choice side. It is a clump of cells that is rapidly growing and developing as a human being and if left to develop will grow all the way into an adult.

I also have to address the argument that the fetus is nothing more than a parasite because that is an outrageous denial of science, but I should not be surprised at this point. Let’s look at the definition of parasite: an organism that lives in or on an organism of another species (its host) and benefits by deriving nutrients at the other's expense.

We can see right away that the fetus is in no way shape or form a parasite as a parasite is an organism that is on or in an organism of another species. The fetus is an organism that is the same species as the mother. Also, it does not derive nutrients at the expense of the mother so there is nothing parasitic about it. Whoever makes this claim knows either nothing about parasites, fetal development or both.

“Bodily autonomy”

Bodily autonomy or integrity is considered a right that we have to govern our own bodies and it is why people cannot be forced to donate blood or organs even if would save a person’s life. A person does not have to allow someone else to use their body without their continuous consent even once the person has died, which is why people on the pro-choice side often claim that a woman has “fewer rights than a corpse” and that the baby “needs consent” to use the woman’s body and, at face value, this does seem like a pretty solid argument for abortion, but let’s examine this right of bodily autonomy and see if it actually protects “the right” to an abortion. Spoiler alert: it doesn’t.

If we look in the Constitution, there is no such right mentioned. It, in fact, says nothing about a person’s right to their own body. Supreme court cases such as Griswold v Connecticut, Roe v Wade, and McFall v Shrimp are used to support this bodily autonomy claim. Griswold v Connecticut gave women the freedom to obtain birth control without marital consent, Roe v Wade said abortion was allowed under the right to privacy and McFall v Shrimp ruled that people could not be forced to donate blood, organs or tissue, even to save a life. So there is a theme of bodily autonomy here and bodily autonomy is something that people should definitely have, but this is not really an absolute right. There are several laws that infringe on this right to bodily autonomy such as forced blood tests, laws that require people to wear helmets and seat belts, laws that prevent euthanasia, drug use, etc. So bodily autonomy is not something that cannot be limited and is not always an applicable defense and it’s not applicable in abortion cases and there are several reasons why.

You cannot fairly compare abortion to organ donation because they are two very different things. No right that we have gives us the right to actively end another person’s life. Not donating an organ is not actively killing someone even if the person ends up dying as a result. With an abortion, you are actively and intentionally ending the life of a perfectly healthy person that would have lived without your interference. This is comparing apples and oranges because one is a case of not donating an organ to someone and the other is a case of intentionally ending the life of a perfectly healthy person. Hopefully, you can see the difference there.

There is also the fact that ownership rights are not absolute. This bodily autonomy argument that it is your body and therefore, you can do whatever you want with it or anything in it is technically seen as “property rights”. Mary Anne Warren, a pro-choice philosopher actually explains why this is not a strong argument for abortion in her work “On the Moral and Legal Status of Abortion”, which she was actually writing to say abortion should be permissible in all cases. However, she explains the flaws of the “my body, my choice” argument by saying:

These arguments are typically of one of two sorts. Either they point to the terrible side effects of the restrictive laws, e.g., the deaths due to illegal abortions, and the fact that it is poor women who suffer the most as a result of these laws, or else they state that to deny a woman access to abortion is to deprive her of her right to control her own body. Unfortunately, however, the fact that restricting access to abortion has tragic side effects does not, in itself, show that the restrictions are unjustified, since murder is wrong regardless of the consequences of prohibiting it; and the appeal to the right to control ones body, which is generally construed as a property right, is at best a rather feeble argument for the permissibility of abortion. Mere ownership does not give me the right to kill innocent people whom I find on my property, and indeed I am apt to he held responsible if such people injure themselves while on my property. It is equally unclear that I have any moral right to expel an innocent person from my property when I know that doing so will result in his death.

On this point, Warren is absolutely correct. Using the bodily autonomy argument is a very weak argument because of the fact that there are limitations to this right and these limitations are present when another body is involved. You do not have an absolute right to do anything you want to someone just because you possess ownership of the area in which they are located.

The idea that the baby must have consent is nonsense as well. The rules of consent are different when one of the people involved is incapable of consent. Consent is given when you choose to engage in acts that the biological function of is to create human life. A baby does not invade the uterus, it is made and placed there by two people who chose to take the risk of creating it. You cannot revoke consent once the action has happened. You can revoke consent to sex before you have it, but not after. You can revoke consent to organ donation before the transplant, but not after. You cannot revoke consent to pregnancy once you are pregnant and the baby exists because to do so, you have to actively and intentionally kill a human being which you have absolutely no right to do.

Almost done here, but I want to touch on the question of rights because this point is founded on the idea that people have a right to bodily autonomy. The baby inside the mother is also a person and, as a person, it has rights. To say that you believe in the right to bodily autonomy and then in the same breath are willing to deny that right to the baby, shows that you do not actually value this right. You are just trying to justify abortion. If you claim that you are concerned about human rights but deny all rights that the baby has as a living person, then you don’t care about human rights. Period. The baby, like all human beings, has the right to life and that is a right that we can actually see is explicitly protected in the Constitution and it is the most important human right because, without it, you can have no other rights. And without question, it trumps the right to bodily autonomy. You cannot use your own rights to violate the rights of another person.

Last point on this topic: think about the fact that it is considered harmful for women to smoke or ingest drugs or alcohol while pregnant because of the damage it can do to the baby and if we believe that knowingly harming the baby while in utero is wrong, then knowingly killing it is even worse.

“The fetus cannot feel pain”

This has not been proven scientifically and is definitely not true throughout the entire pregnancy. There is scientific evidence to suggest that the fetus is able to experience pain by 26 weeks gestation, which is the last week of the second trimester and fetuses have been seen reacting negatively to painful stimuli so to just state that it cannot feel pain as if this is a scientific fact is incredibly ignorant as this has not been proven to be true.

However, this entire claim does nothing against pro-life arguments because our position is not that you shouldn’t kill innocent people unless it will be a painless procedure for them, our position is you shouldn’t kill innocent people regardless of whether they can feel pain or not.

“The fetus is not viable”

A pregnancy before 22 weeks is considered a “non-viable” pregnancy, where the baby would not be able to survive if delivered. But we don’t generally use viability as a justification for killing people and it should not be used here, either. Depending on someone else for survival does not make it okay to kill that person. A newborn baby is completely dependent on its parents and will die on its own and we don’t think it’s okay to kill them. Viability is not a determination of human worth and is not a justification for ending human life, especially when we know that the life will be viable if left to grow and develop naturally.

“What about rape and incest?”

I rarely have a debate on abortion without the pro-choice person bringing this up. With how often the pro-choice crowd uses this argument, you would think that abortions from rape and incest account for a substantial amount of abortion cases. However, this is not the case. I% of abortions are because of rape and .05% are due to incest. The two leading reasons given for obtaining an abortion were that having a baby would dramatically change the woman’s life and that they couldn’t afford a baby at the moment.

So the fact that pro-choicers resort to using the minority of cases to argue for the whole is incredibly fallacious. It is very easy to figure out that rape and incest are not their real concern with abortion and they are just using this argument to get you to say abortion is okay, if you say to them, “If I agree in those cases that abortion is okay, will you agree that all other abortions are not okay?” And then you really see what they are doing because they will never agree to that because to them all abortions are okay and they are trying to get you to be okay with all abortions because 1% of them are due to rape. It’s an incredibly weak and transparent argument that is very easy to knock down because if they were really arguing for all abortion to be okay, they would not be using the 1% of cases to justify it.

But to answer this question, no, I don’t think abortion is okay in cases of rape or incest. We’ve already established that the unborn is a living, breathing human being from conception and the way it was conceived does not change this fact. In cases of rape, the rapist should be caught and thrown into prison for the rest of their life and the woman should be given all the help and support she can get. Abortion does not take away the trauma of rape and what it essentially being done here is a baby is being killed because their mother got raped. Even the life of a person conceived through rape is valuable. There are multiple resources available for women who have gone through the traumatic experience of rape and I think she should be helped through this experience. The answer to trauma is not getting rid of whatever induces the trauma. You’ll never get better that way. The goal should be helping the person be no longer traumatized.

And I see no reason why it should be acceptable to kill someone just because they are the product of incest.

“Without access to abortion women will die”

There is a term for this kind of argument and that is called fearmongering. It’s also an incredibly hypocritical argument for any pro-choice person to make because, in order to do so, they have to outright ignore the millions of babies, a good number of which are female, die every year because of abortion. In November of 2018, the last available data of abortion statistics was for 2015 and in the US alone there were nearly 640,000 abortions performed. That is 640,000 dead babies and it’s estimated that there are around 40-50 million abortions performed worldwide every year. So this argument is literally saying “we have to make it legal to kill babies because otherwise, some women might die due to illegal abortions.” And, not surprisingly, there is no credible statistical evidence that shows that the death rate of women increases without access to legal abortion.

In an article from the Atlantic, where they are actually arguing for abortion rights, they acknowledge that even when abortion is illegal, women rarely die. They cite statistics from the Guttmacher Institute that looked at countries where abortion is illegal and found that 8-11% of maternal deaths were caused by botched abortions.

Abortion rates increased significantly after Roe v Wade, which implies that the majority of women are not seeking illegal abortions when abortion is not legal. This is, again, a fallacious argument where they are using a minority of cases to argue for the whole.

“What about if the mother will die without an abortion?”

There are hardly any cases where abortion is medically necessary but the majority of pro-life people, myself included, say that in cases where the mother will die abortion should be allowed because, usually, that means the baby is already dead or if it’s not, if the mother doesn’t live, then the baby won’t either. I don’t think I’ve seen a single pro-life person say abortion should not be allowed if the mother is going to die. This usually doesn’t satisfy the pro-choice crowd, though, because that still means we are against most abortions because that’s not a very common occurrence. They want to make the rule based on the exception and that’s not how the world works.

“If you’re pro-life, you should be against the death penalty and for gun control”

Being pro-life means that I believe every person has the right to live their life until they die a natural death or forfeit that right based on their own choices. The way you forfeit your right to life is by murdering another human being. The death penalty is typically reserved for people who commit first-degree murder and if you take someone else’s life unjustly, you forfeit your own right to life.

Gun control does not save lives and there is no reason that a person who is pro-life should support gun control. It’s ironic that anyone who argues that abortion is a constitutional right would try to use this argument because the right to bear arms is literally a constitutional right that you can actually find listed in the Constitution, unlike abortion. With a person’s right to life comes the right to protect their life, and the best way to do that with a gun. Statistics show that defensive gun use saves up to 3 million lives per year which is 80 times more often then they are used to take lives so knowing this, I find it hard to believe that anyone would want to unarm people and make it nearly impossible to defend themselves from an attack on their lives. It makes perfect sense for a pro-life person to oppose gun control laws.

Instead of making it a whole separate point, I’m going to throw in here that I’ve seen a ton of pro-choice people use an argument like “if you’re pro-life you would support universal healthcare, welfare programs, etc.”, which is just them setting up a poor premise that states that if you don’t agree with them about all politics, then you can’t really be pro-life and that, of course, is pure nonsense.

“What if the child will be poor/disabled/abused”

The fact that someone would even think to make this argument sickens me, but it is quite a common one. A person’s life is not worth less because they are poor, have a disability, or suffering from abuse. You cannot stop people from suffering, everyone will face hardship and it is not merciful to kill people instead of letting them live, even if they are going to deal with poverty or disability. Who are you to decide that it’s better for a child to be dead than poor? You don’t get to decide that someone else’s life isn’t worth living. Children who are poor can get out of poverty. Some of the world’s most successful people had poverty stricken childhoods. Some of the world’s most successful people have disabilities. Some of the world’s most successful people have suffered abuse. The solution to these issues is not killing people who might go through them. This is not a sympathetic, merciful argument to make, it’s disgusting.

“No child should be born unwanted”

I can definitely agree with this sentiment, but using it as a justification for abortion is another sickening argument. You can pretend that it’s a moral argument on your side where you want all children to be loved and cared for, but you are literally saying that if a child isn’t wanted, that child should be killed. The child should be placed with people who want it, not killed.

“The adoption/foster system is broken and lots of kids aren’t adopted”

The thing about this argument that really bothers me is that their position is instead of fixing a broken system, we kill children so they don’t have to go through it and that’s somehow better. Why is killing the kids always the solution to these problems? Lots of kids aren’t adopted it’s true, but a lot of kids are also adopted. And in many instances, there are literally waiting lists of people who are looking to adopt babies. Chances are if you don’t want your child, there is someone else who does.

The adoption/foster system isn’t perfect, it’s true, but I think the solution to that is making the system better, not killing children.

“You’re only pro-life until the baby is born/gay/trans/etc.”

I find it funny that the “would you be pro-life if the fetus was gay?” is considered to be such a gotcha question when I’ve never heard a single pro-life person say they would support abortion if the baby was going to be gay. In fact, I will only consider this a valid argument deserving of a response when the person making the argument can give at least one example of a pro-life person being okay with aborting a baby if they knew it would be gay. So far, that hasn’t happened.

As for the idea that we are only pro-life until the baby is born, that is utter nonsense. The people who make this argument are trying to tell us that if we don’t think it’s okay to kill someone, then we should assume responsibility for that person. It’s the most pathetic attempt at virtue signaling because at the same time that they are trying to assert that we only care about the lives of these kids until they are born they are not caring about them at all and are advocating for a mother to be able to kill them. It’s laughable that you think you’re the morally superior one when you make this argument. You’re telling me I don’t care about certain people while you are literally saying it should be legal to kill them. How does me wanting to save their lives and you wanting it to be legal to take their lives mean you care about them and I don’t?

“Don’t like abortion, don’t have one”

Generally, the idea presented here is one I agree with. We all are free to do as we like and if you don’t like something, the solution is not to do it yourself, not prevent other people from doing it. This argument ceases to work, however, when the thing in question is harming another human being, which is what abortion does. It is the goal of abortion to kill someone and genocide of unborn babies is not something that I will shrug my shoulders about and act like it’s not my business just because I’m not going to have one killed. Using that argument to justify abortion is exactly like using it to argue for other things that are harmful to people. Here are some examples:

“Don’t like slavery, don’t own slaves.”

“Don’t like murder, don’t murder anyone.”

When the lives or well-being of other people are directly threatened by your actions, then it becomes a societal issue and not a personal one.

Anyway, I know this is long and there are plenty of arguments I didn’t address. I just wanted to address the ones that I encounter most often. Abortion is inarguably the killing of a human being and to say anything else is a denial of science and that human life deserves to be protected, which is why I am pro-life. These arguments for abortion are all flawed and based on scientific and factual inaccuracies and they need to be addressed so that people know they need to stop using them.

#abortion #pro life #long post

99 notes · View notes