This Man Asked A Simple Question Online That Shut Down The Whole Anti-Abortion Argument
2.6Mviews
One of the core arguments used by ‘pro-lifers’ in the fierce, contentious abortion debate is one we’ve all heard before – ‘life begins at conception.’ While scientists and lawmakers are still at odds over how exactly the ‘beginning of life‘ is determined, the biggest issue at hand remains that people feel entitled to tell others what to do with their bodies, without having much interest in dealing with the aftermath. Seriously, when we see pro-lifers adopting some of the disadvantaged children they so desperately wanted to be born, then we’ll talk about hearing out their side.
This idea of people claiming to be ‘pro-life,’ but actually only being pro-childbirth and pro-dominance-over-female-bodies, is central to a Twitter argument from The Ark Trilogy author Patrick S. Tomlinson that is currently going viral. In a thread of just 9 tweets, Tomlinson proposes a simple question that will leave any pro-lifer scrambling to assemble a coherent answer.
Scroll down to find out what he wrote, and let us know if you agree with his point of view in the comments.
More info: Twitter
This is Patrick S. Tomlinson, an author (The Ark Trilogy) who just shattered a key anti-abortion argument
In a thread of just 9 genius tweets, Tomlinson asks one simple question:
Of course, he was challenged, resulting in a few intense rebuttals
Others, however, completely supported his message
Do you think his argument was spot-on, or did it miss the mark? Tell us below!
2.6Mviews
Share on Facebook
Using birth control to prevent pregnancies in the first place, is better than abortions. It's cheaper, safer, and no one calls using a condom murder. If she somehow still got pregnant, an abortion is still better than a child dying, because its mother is not willing or not able to care for it.
That's true in the same way that not smoking that cigarette that accidentally burns your house down is better than calling the fire brigade to put out your burning house. No one uses abortions as a casual form of birth control, I think in hindsight everyone who has had to have an abortion would have used protection or not messed up in the using of said protection.
3,700 is a lot, but it figures to be about 2 in 10M women. Now, subtract rape, incest, mothers' endangerment, deformities. No woman in her right mind uses abortion as a form of birth control; that's an inane argument.
Monilip. If they are that stupid, should they really be forced to have babies? Would they be able to take care of a child and make sure it grows up to a well functioning adult?
Dear Anarkzie - Here's a question. The foundational position of the right to life is that human life begins at conception and deserves legal protection. If they are wrong when does a fetus deserve legal protection? (not when does it become human, or get a soul etc.) At what stage in the fetus development should the government step in and say, "No you cannot get an abortion?" If not Conception, Heartbeat, Brainwaves, viability, not until the fetus is out of the woman's body?" There has to be a legal barrier. What should it be! I am sincerely interested in your response. E-mail me johnlouis62@gmail.com.
This comment is hidden. Click here to view.
I am familiar with three women who have had multiple abortions and didn’t much care. It was more so just a hassle for them to take the abortion pill. You can take one up to ten weeks of pregnancy.
This comment is hidden. Click here to view.
". No one uses abortions as a casual form of birth control" - you would be surprised. Some people are really stupid (with all due respect to them, they just was told that abortion is nothing)
This comment is hidden. Click here to view.
No one uses abortions as casual birth control? I'm sorry but the statistics bear to differ. Over 3,700 abortions in this country every day. EVERY DAY. Seems pretty casual to me.
Excuse me Mr Rapist, can you put a condom on.....?
@Gale Lett Considering how there are 323 MILLION people in the US alone, that 3700 is very small, .001% as a matter of fact, not sure that makes an industry. This isn't a stance on what I believe in, just a pointing out of invalidness.
Alia Cloud - sadly that has been used in court to discredit rape victims, yes. But I would still try to get him to wear it. Unfortunately, rapists do not tend to be friendly men with your health and safety in mind.
No one is saying that a female has to carry the child of rape. The number of this occurence is so tiny that your comment is ludicrous.
Here's a question. The foundational position of the right to life is that human life begins at conception and deserves legal protection. If they are wrong when does a fetus deserve legal protection? (not when does it become human, or get a soul etc.) At what stage in the fetus development should the government step in and say, "No you cannot get an abortion?" If not Conception, Heartbeat, Brainwaves, viability, not until the fetus is out of the woman's body?" There has to be a legal barrier. What should it be! I am sincerely interested in your response. E-mail me johnlouis62@gmail.com.
While I have no problem with a woman aborting a rape pregnancy (or in the also rare case in this country of a birth being a death risk to the mother), I do have a problem with extrapolating that tiny percentage of abortions to mean that all abortions should be legal. It's not a valid argument for making abortion available on demand.
This comment is hidden. Click here to view.
I heard by asking your rapist to wear a condom you aren’t being raped because you have agreed to have sex
This comment is hidden. Click here to view.
Considering that over 3,700 abortions are performed every day in this country very few are a result of rape, incest or to save the life of the mother. Abortion has become an industry, and a very lucrative one at that. Not only do they charge the mother but they also sell the fetus's parts to laboratories. As I said, very lucrative.
There are a lot of "pro life" people who actually ARE anti-birth control (and amazingly enough, anti-sex ed). Lots of them.
Yes they're pro-guilt
Mikleo, they took away Planned Parenthood which dispensed contraceptives, which Trump just took away yesterday. So with no abortions, no contraceptives, no Planned Parenthood, and no Medicare for single moms, the Republicans seem to hate women. Is this what the New “Republicans” are all about?
Please do some homework. Your hyperbole makes you look stupid. Nothing you wrote is true.
And why automatically ‘mother not willing or able to care for said child? Why is it Mom not willing or able, what about Dad? Is the father excused from responsibility? Maybe if all men owned up to the responsibility of the seeds they sew there would be fewer unwanted or accidental pregnancies.
It's the mother who carries the child, it's her responsibility to take care of it - and she shouldn't be forced to do it. Get a man to carry the embryo then talk to me. Why should a woman be forced to have her body hijacked like this?
Yea right, like they were even told about it. We both know they can't care for a dead baby.
Actually the Catholic Church considers contraception and abortion to be equivalent (masturbation, too). It doesn’t explicitly call contraception “murder” but like abortion (and masturbation) it does go “against God’s plan." It’s easier to be noisy about abortion because “Life begins at ejaculation,” is much more difficult to build a political movement around.
Do you have any sources for Catholic Church’s stance on masturbation?
This comment is hidden. Click here to view.
Please show me where the church says "life begins at ejaculation." That is just ridiculous and a tremendous distortion and lie.
At one time some religions considered condoms offensive to "gods plan". And where banned. Condoms and birth control are not new inventions lol. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_and_birth_control
Birth control and human beings are not good partners in an emergency. There will always be unwanted pregnancies despite using birth control.
Nobody calls a condom "murder" because an individual sperm or egg (23 chromosomes each) is not a human being, but only half a human. A fertilized egg (46 chromosomes) is now a human being with a full complement of its own DNA distinct from either parent. <> An abortion IS a "child dying".
How about offering the baby for adoption instead of abortion so it has a chance to add something to the world, it could be the next Albert Einstein if given the chance.
Or the next Ted Bundy. There are 18 million orphans in the world, how many of them do you think will be adopted?
You can't use birth control if you're raped, unless you're like using birth control pills "in case someone rapes me". also accidents happen
No birth control is 100% effective. I've fallen pregnant twice while on birth control, once with the marina inserted, and I'm not the only person I know that its happened to.
This comment has been deleted.
People who beat their kids have the option to abort and choose not to. Abortion increases yearly and so does child abuse. Poor argument.
Ahum, how do you tell the rapist that he should put a condom on before the act?
Yes but abortions are also for people who were raped or unwillingly got pregnant as well :)
I agree with you but just keep in mind that some women and girls who are not in any sexual relationship and therefore do not use birth control end up getting pregnant by rape.
@Sergio Bicerra @Bertha Garcia Kids don't get adopted soon (and that is very sad). Babies, only few months old - they get adopted very soon and potential foster parents have to wait for a baby.
You might want to readjust your thinking to include the whole world, not just your corner of it. Half of the world's population is in China and India. Have you seen the state of their orphanages recently? Or the amount of children living in the streets? I was born in South Africa - in the cities, every traffic light has half-a-dozen kids (I've seen TODDLERS there ffs!) begging for food/money. Nobody had any interest in adopting them after they were born.
"abortion is bedder than a child dying" A child does die during an abortion. That is what an abortion is intended to do.
how many children die a year in America because their mother couldnt care for them? Are you talking starvation? there are less than 3 of those a year....but over 1.5 million abortions....abortion is NEVER better for ANY reason from the aborted babies perspective....
Have you never heard the word ADOPTION? For every baby aborted there are two people out there who would love to become it's parents.
This comment has been deleted.
This comment is hidden. Click here to view.
Birth control, aka as contraceptives are covered in all prescription drug plans, free at most health department health clinics. and abortion can be added to any health care plan in or out of the marketplace. The problem with most of the liberal arguments is they have covered this ground already. It is in the ACA if you want it. Trust me the ACA is never going to be repealed by either party. So drop all the preconceived propaganda by both sides of the argument. You are all moving to a one payer system with a 65% tax on all income. Enjoy it while it lasts. It will be rationed, so will food, fuel, housing and anything that is a necessity.Except no one will have quality health care except the elites of the nation.
This comment is hidden. Click here to view.
just wondering does the semen a life?
This comment is hidden. Click here to view.
You say an abortion (murder of the unborn) is better than having a life of abuse. But you are not the one who has been aborted. By the way, there are adults who survived abortion attempts who would strongly disagree with you. And you are falling into the trap of picking "A" or "B". Such thinking is faulty. What about option "C" put the baby up for adoption? See, why murder the unborn simply because you think it will have a lousy life? Where do you draw the line? According to your thinking, it would be better for a 2 year old to be smothered in her sleep than to live a life of abuse. Really? Do you not value human life?
This comment is hidden. Click here to view.
Better for who? The child?
This comment is hidden. Click here to view.
But putting it up for adoption is even better than abortion because nobody dies.
Until the worldwide adoption rate is real close to 100%, that argument holds no water.
This comment is hidden. Click here to view.
Why "abortion is still better than a child dying"? Because fetus does not feel pain when being aborted? Check scientific sources, fetuses start to feel pain early. And why being dead is better then being if child house ("mother is not willing or not able to care for it.")? I say being alive is always better then being death, no matter if we have loveling parents or not.
I researched a bit, and I found out that the fetus is able to feel pain after about 20 weeks. https://www.livescience.com/54774-fetal-pain-anesthesia.html 89-92% of all abortions happen during the first trimester, prior to the 13th week of gestation (AGI/CDC). In 2013, 7.1% of all abortions occurred between 14-20 weeks' gestation; 1.3% occurred ≥21 weeks' gestation (CDC). http://abort73.com/abortion_facts/us_abortion_statistics/
This comment is hidden. Click here to view.
I agree. Because dead is dead but where there is life, there is hope.
This comment is hidden. Click here to view.
The fetus starts to feel pain after the first trimester which is about 12 weeks in.
This comment is hidden. Click here to view.
Have you ever heard of adoption? If mother does not want her child she can give him/her up to adoption. And tell me this - what is difference between killing just born baby and fetus at 20 weeks? Both can feel pain by this point, both are not self aware yet, both need her mother to survive. I think for them it is not diffence if they are killed after or before death. Both are terrible.Or you one from thee pro choice people who believe that abortion should be legal also after birth for few month?
If adoption was an easy way, there wouldn't be foster homes nor orphanats. Kids literally can live there for years.
A big problem with adoption is that the parent still has to live through the pregnancy and birth, which causes undue health complications. It causes the person pain, which I think is more important that a fetus, particularly since most abortions are performed very early on.
Have you seen the orphanages?
Answer the question: the box of embryos or the child?
Really Monilip? There's no difference between a clump of cells and a living, feeling, thinking being?
This comment is hidden. Click here to view.
* I think for them it is not diffence if they are killed after or before birth
the woman who said she wouldn't even notice embryos makes most sense, i would grab kid without thinking about my views as well
She was correct in that a petridish full of embryos are not viable unless implanted in a uterus. This is also a naturally occurrence when trying to conceive the embryo fails to implant and the woman never knew she was almost pregnant to begin with. You save the living child. Neurological developments begin at 7 weeks gestation. Technically theses embryos are potential human life. No different than donor sperm or donor eggs.
Potential Human Life and Human Life are 2 different things all together. Just like everyone has potential, but very seldom does that potential get realized. Potential Human Life is the possibility of life, it is not absolute. Human life on the other hand, IS an absolute.
Well said Deborah Denley
By the way, Troy is right, thumb him down all you want, but he gave a good and honest answer, and I guess that's not what some of you want.
Everyone read my lengthy rebuttal to that guy above.
Best answer so far !! I agree !! :)
So, frantic wheeling and spinning why an embryo in one place somehow 'isn't the same' as other places. Are there places where I can put a child, where it would be ok to kill them?
This comment is hidden. Click here to view.
Technically from a Christian perspective and a biological perspective as well, the embryo is a human life from conception. From a Christian perspective life begins at conception. From a biological perspective nothing is added to the embryo genetically to make it more or less human. Our humanity does not begin when we have a neurological development. It is genetic. That embryo will always result in a human baby being born unless something happens to it causing it to die. It is different than donor sperm or donor eggs in the fact that it is 100% genetically human. The eggs by themselves are not 100% genetically human nor are the sperm. It takes them combined to make that human life. If you let the egg be, it will never mature into a human baby without the sperm. Same in reverse. But the Embryo is a human life at conception.
Just avoidance of the issue. The question is a clear choice and indicate that that person being asked to make a choice knows about both options. Deflection... The weak weapon of a person who knows their arguments carries no water.
I KNEW you people wouldn't respond to my question, hypocrites.
I had a few typos, but the question still remains, point not lost.
This is an "A" or "B", question just lie that is, please pick your option to my loaded question. I have 45 in my left hand, and a 357 in the right, which one do you want to be shot to death with, note you can only pick one, only one gun get's to kill you. 45 is "A", and 247 is "B". Remember, you said it: "Just avoidance of the issue. The question is a clear choice and indicate that that person being asked to make a choice knows about both options. Deflection... The weak weapon of a person who knows their arguments carries no water."
Dear Magical Unicorn - Here's a question. The foundational position of the right to life is that human life begins at conception and deserves legal protection. If they are wrong when does a fetus deserve legal protection? (not when does it become human, or get a soul etc.) At what stage in the fetus development should the government step in and say, "No you cannot get an abortion?" If not Conception, Heartbeat, Brainwaves, viability, not until the fetus is out of the woman's body?" There has to be a legal barrier. What should it be! I am sincerely interested in your response. E-mail me johnlouis62@gmail.com.
John Louis, then why does government and pro lifers not want anything to do with the child once it's born? They always seem to say "well you shouldn't have gotten pregnant"? Not to mention, what about the hundreds of thousands of kids that are in foster homes just in the US alone? Why aren't pro lifers as worried about them as they are about one embryo?
This isn't about legal protection, it's about the most logical course of action. Regardless of your belief systems, it is not logical to save 1000 proto-life forms, which have not yet developed to the point of experiencing physical sensation, or even comprehending the danger they are in, while leaving a fully sentient being to die in agony. I do find the whole argument to be specious, not even worthy of debate.
I believe that life starts when the fetus is viable outside of a womans body so around 22 weeks. So if you must abort it should be before this time. But I would add prevention is always better or even the morning after pill which is available.
John Louis, I agree that the foundational position of the right to life is that human life begins at conception. I have several concerns about this. First, it lays all sorts of burden on the woman to protect a life that she doesn't know she is carrying until later in the pregnancy. If something happens to that embryo (say, spontaneous abortions or very early miscarriages that happen all too frequently) does this make the woman a criminal for "allowing" that embryo to die? I imagine you'd say no, that's a ridiculous argument; but the fact is that if it CAN be done (which it can, by stating that a newly-fertilized egg is a human), then it's possible that it WILL be done at some point. Second, is there really any universal legal definition of human life? Is a strand of human DNA classified as human life? The point of your statement is that one point of view is that human life begins at conception; it's not a fact, but an opinion, and not a valid basis for a rational argument.
Saving either from a fire does not mean legal protection. If someone came to fertility clinic and had a chance to stop either mother "a" from killing her unwanted 5 year old child or mother b from killing her 1000 viable fetus' which would you stop? What if it was your 1 viable fetus someone was about to kill or someone else's 5 yo child? What if it was a convicted felon or 1000 viable fetus' which would you save?
NO LEGAL BARRIER - IT IS MY BODY - YOU DO NOT GET TO TELL ME WHAT TO DO WITH IT. CHILD OR NO CHILD. PERIOD.
At what stage should the government be able to strap you down and rip out a kidney, if someone needs it for their 'very life'? If they can't do that, then why should the uterus be up for grabs at a 'certain stage'?
As a man, you have no say in this. If you were a woman, and it were your body, you'd have the right to CHOOSE to keep your child. Until the baby is born it is a part of the mother's body. So the mom can do whatever the mom chooses
Still does not answer the question! He said Viable Embryos! Not sperm donations or egg donations. So you are deflecting & making it about sperm & eggs when he made it about the Viable Embryos you are calling human beings. SO would you save the child or the 1000 Viable Embryos?
Jess Asher, the question is why should we be as worried about it once i's born, you murderers can't legally kill it then. You had the sex and created the baby, why should it be our responsibility to bring it up? If I rob a bank, would you do time with me, no you wouldn't. You made your bed,then you got in it and had sex, now take responsibility for your actions.
This comment is hidden. Click here to view.
Jess Asher, first of all, many children do live in foster care. That is not to say they are not loved. And we don't end their lives simply because they are in foster care. Many are being adopted every year, but until they are adopted they have a care system. They are still alive and that is better than being murdered. Pro lifers are very much concerned about these children, that is why most foster children are cared for by pro lifer's than by pro choice people. But your failure is in thinking we cannot care about both groups. Life is valuable both as the unborn child and the born child. Again, it is not an either or situation.
This comment is hidden. Click here to view.
Eddie Smith "believes" life begins at about 22 weeks...but what foundation is her belief based? See, I believe I am a millionaire and a unicorn....no matter how sincere I believe these things they simply are not true. Life begins at conception. Genetically nothing is added to that human embryo that would magically change it into a human child. Just because the child cannot survive outside the womb does not mean it is not a human child. By the same means, I could say I believe a child is not human until it can feed itself. Does that make the infant not human simply because I think it should be able to survive on its own? Sorry Eddie Smith, but you are just trying to justify murdering innocent human babies all because they are defenseless. By the way, the morning after pill is a killing pill. It aborts the newly conceived human life. What kind of horrible human being selfishly seeks to destroy human life simply because it is defenseless against the environment?
This comment is hidden. Click here to view.
I think the idea that life begins at conception is pretty much universally accepted. After all, an egg is not a fetus yet. It takes the male sperm to make it such. The egg is simply a template. The traits of both the mother and father are infused into the egg at conception. That's is the beginning of a human being. Not too hard to understand.
This comment is hidden. Click here to view.
That's dancing around the point of the scenario, not answering the question. If a viable human embryo=1 human life, and you choose to save the child over the embryos, you are choosing 1 life over 1000 lives! The point is that it is a ludicrous argument to make a viable human embryo is not a human, in no way. To explain it as not noticing this, and not noticing that is irrelevant. It's deflecting from answering the question at hand, because it ruins the "pro-life" argument of a viable human embryo=1 human life! That's like saying an boxed cake is the same as a made cake. Then claiming I took the made cake, because it was easier than taking the boxed cakes while equal and more compact... Kinda sounds silly to me!
This comment is hidden. Click here to view.
No, it's a stupid question from a stupid Man that thinks he is clever giving a loaded question, well I myself have a loaded question for you. This is an "A" or "B", question just like that is, please pick your option to my loaded question. I have 45 in my left hand, and a 357 in the right, which one do you want to be shot to death with, note you can only pick one, only one gun get's to kill you. 45 is "A", and 357 is "B".
This comment is hidden. Click here to view.
It's specifically stated that you do notice the embryos in this scenario.
This comment is hidden. Click here to view.
Yeah this scenario has gaping holes in it.
It's a thought experiment; being nitpicky about the details is pedantic. It doesn't matter how you get there, the point is what would you do.
I'm again abortion, but I also think that everyone should have a choice of what they want to do, we are all different, nobody should force they're beliefs on others, they should live they're own life and not somebody's else.
we write laws all the time preventing one from infringing upon the right of others. we just have a problem determining to what extent an "other" deserves rights. you argument completely ignores the debate of, in this case, "how do we define the unborn. is it an other or something pre other. if its a human it has rights. if its just a mass of cells it doesnt.
It's not a person until it's born and the US Constitution ONLY applies to persons. As such, an unborn child has no rights. It IS just a mass of cells until birth.
So you are, in fact, pro choice. nice one! It doesnt matter whether I am for or against abortion, what matters is that I dont deny someone else the right to decide what is right for them and their circumstance
Thats fine - Live your life without anyone else's interference.. but that also should mean, Pay for Your Life - Yourself?
Some people want to beat on their kids. Some people want to have kids to increase their welfare check. Some people want to steal rather than work. I don't believe people should beat their kids and will always step out of my own life and interfere. BTW I'm an atheist, so spare me the Christian BS.
Really? Let's try that differently, shall we? "'m again [murder], but I also think that everyone should have a choice of what they want to do, we are all different, nobody should force they're beliefs on others, they should live they're own life and not somebody's else." Except for, you know, the baby murdered. Let's try that yet another way: "I'm again [wife beating], but I also think that everyone should have a choice of what they want to do, we are all different, nobody should force they're beliefs on others, they should live they're own life and not somebody's else." So, if you passed a couple on the street, and the man was beating the woman, you'd just shrug and say "I should just live my own life, not somebody else's?" Your argument presupposes that the right of self determination is so great that it eliminates the higher right: the right to life.
At The Cube Cat...I respectfully disagree. If they were for freedom, then the topic of abortion would be a dead issue. The law says women have the right to choose yet pro lifers insist on meddling it something that is absolutely NONE of their business.
This comment is hidden. Click here to view.
Don't your FEAR God? Murdering another Human Being, a Human being who has NO VOICE...Is Wrong....A child is a GIFT from God and No woman has a Right to MURDER what God has created. It is an enormous SIN...God's Wrath will come down on you 10-Fold.
Then I should have a choice NOT to fund someone’s else’s abortion or their birth control with MY tax money against my conscious !!
As you have the choice to not pay road-building with your taxes, if you don't drive a car or leave your house? As you have the choice to not pay for education with your taxes if you don't have children (and won't ever get them)? As you have the choice to not pay for war and weapons with your taxes? As you have the choice to not pay for police with taxes if nothing ever happens to you or your property? Religion and Government are two separate things, you should probably spend a bit more time on the education of yourself if you weren't aware of that.
This comment is hidden. Click here to view.
Anne, No One should have a RIGHT to kill a child.....If you dont want to get pregnat then keep your damn legs closed....God sees everything you do! Murduring another Human Being is WRONG in God's eyes.. It's MURDER!..God's wrath will surely come down on you 10 times greater. That is the problem in today's society...People feel that they can do what ever they please with their bodies and completly turning there back on God.....For every choice you make there is a Consequence...God judges us all for the choices we make ....Your choices define your character.....Your either going to follow the narrow road in Life that leads to the light of Christ or the Dark Broad road that leads to Destruction and Death...Again I say that NO ONE HAS A RIGHT TO KILL ANOTHER HUMAN BEING....It is WRONG and EVIL.
God disagrees Deuteronomy 21:18–21 “If a man has a stubborn and rebellious son who will not obey the voice of his father or the voice of his mother, and, though they discipline him, will not listen to them, then his father and his mother shall take hold of him and bring him out to the elders of his city at the gate of the place where he lives, and they shall say to the elders of his city, ‘This our son is stubborn and rebellious; he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton and a drunkard.’ Then all the men of the city shall stone him to death with stones."
Also God thinks life begins with the first breath: Genesis And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.
Pregnancy is either a blessing or a punishment for women who have sex life. It can't be both. Pick one.
This comment is hidden. Click here to view.
I will not contribute to mommy killing baby.
This comment is hidden. Click here to view.
Nobody should force their beliefs on others? Really? You are against abortion, why? IS it because you think abortion is taking a human life? Is that not murder? If you are against murder but don't think you should force your beliefs on others, then if I murder your child you should be okay with it...after all, maybe I don't see taking your child's life as murder. Sorry, but either we stand for what is right or we give in to the world's evil and wrong ways.
This comment is hidden. Click here to view.
Choice? What choice does the fetus have? Women claim it's their body, their right. But you do not have the right to takes rights away from an entirely separate, unique individual who cannot speak for themselves. Not just your body, but the body of another human being. How about making the choice to not become pregnant in the first place? How about exercised self control and not having sex until you're ready to care for a child? There was some wisdom in the proposal of not having sex until marriage. But since the sexual revolution that was thrown out the window. Now it's do what you want with whomever you want and go your merry way. People have lost their ability to govern themselves.
Most abortions happen beofre the foetus has developed a brain or nervous system. Its not a person, its a mass of cells that has the potential to become a baby. If a woman doesnt want to endanger herself by going through with the pregnancy (and pregnancy is very taxing on a woman's body), that's her choice. You don't get to take away a woman's right to her own body autonomy, a foetus doesn't have more rights to her body and she does. As for not having sex until marriage, that's a very outdated concept. What about people who never want to become parents or never want to marry? Pregnancy can't be both a blessing and a punishment for women who have a sex life. Pick one.
Unfortunately, it's not always that the girl or woman can make the choice to not become pregnant in the first place. Have you thought about rape victims who got pregnant, especially those who got raped by their own grandfather, father, uncle or any male relative? Yes sure, it is not the baby's fault but what happens then in the future if the baby asks who his/her father is, how will he/she understand or accept it? How about the mother who is reminded about what happened to her by looking at the child? Give the child away? Will pro-lifers volunteer to raise that child as their own or at least consistently fund the orphanage that the child will live?
Your comment assumes that all women want children at some point. Many of us never want an ankle biter or to get married. You are entitled to live your life as you please but you do not get to force your personal morals on others. Perhaps you can explain why the majority of you pro forced birthers are also anti birth control? Abortion rates are currently the lowest they have ever been, yet the Orange Goblins administration is actively sabotaging women's access to birth control in every way possible, thus ensuring that the need and demand for abortion will go back up. So, methinks this is not really about abortion at all. It's about controlling women, and those of you with internalized misogyny are happy to help the patriarchy oppress your sisters .
This comment is hidden. Click here to view.
"It's not a person, its a mass of cells that has the potential to become a baby." This is called Begging The Question.
Using birth control to prevent pregnancies in the first place, is better than abortions. It's cheaper, safer, and no one calls using a condom murder. If she somehow still got pregnant, an abortion is still better than a child dying, because its mother is not willing or not able to care for it.
That's true in the same way that not smoking that cigarette that accidentally burns your house down is better than calling the fire brigade to put out your burning house. No one uses abortions as a casual form of birth control, I think in hindsight everyone who has had to have an abortion would have used protection or not messed up in the using of said protection.
3,700 is a lot, but it figures to be about 2 in 10M women. Now, subtract rape, incest, mothers' endangerment, deformities. No woman in her right mind uses abortion as a form of birth control; that's an inane argument.
Monilip. If they are that stupid, should they really be forced to have babies? Would they be able to take care of a child and make sure it grows up to a well functioning adult?
Dear Anarkzie - Here's a question. The foundational position of the right to life is that human life begins at conception and deserves legal protection. If they are wrong when does a fetus deserve legal protection? (not when does it become human, or get a soul etc.) At what stage in the fetus development should the government step in and say, "No you cannot get an abortion?" If not Conception, Heartbeat, Brainwaves, viability, not until the fetus is out of the woman's body?" There has to be a legal barrier. What should it be! I am sincerely interested in your response. E-mail me johnlouis62@gmail.com.
This comment is hidden. Click here to view.
I am familiar with three women who have had multiple abortions and didn’t much care. It was more so just a hassle for them to take the abortion pill. You can take one up to ten weeks of pregnancy.
This comment is hidden. Click here to view.
". No one uses abortions as a casual form of birth control" - you would be surprised. Some people are really stupid (with all due respect to them, they just was told that abortion is nothing)
This comment is hidden. Click here to view.
No one uses abortions as casual birth control? I'm sorry but the statistics bear to differ. Over 3,700 abortions in this country every day. EVERY DAY. Seems pretty casual to me.
Excuse me Mr Rapist, can you put a condom on.....?
@Gale Lett Considering how there are 323 MILLION people in the US alone, that 3700 is very small, .001% as a matter of fact, not sure that makes an industry. This isn't a stance on what I believe in, just a pointing out of invalidness.
Alia Cloud - sadly that has been used in court to discredit rape victims, yes. But I would still try to get him to wear it. Unfortunately, rapists do not tend to be friendly men with your health and safety in mind.
No one is saying that a female has to carry the child of rape. The number of this occurence is so tiny that your comment is ludicrous.
Here's a question. The foundational position of the right to life is that human life begins at conception and deserves legal protection. If they are wrong when does a fetus deserve legal protection? (not when does it become human, or get a soul etc.) At what stage in the fetus development should the government step in and say, "No you cannot get an abortion?" If not Conception, Heartbeat, Brainwaves, viability, not until the fetus is out of the woman's body?" There has to be a legal barrier. What should it be! I am sincerely interested in your response. E-mail me johnlouis62@gmail.com.
While I have no problem with a woman aborting a rape pregnancy (or in the also rare case in this country of a birth being a death risk to the mother), I do have a problem with extrapolating that tiny percentage of abortions to mean that all abortions should be legal. It's not a valid argument for making abortion available on demand.
This comment is hidden. Click here to view.
I heard by asking your rapist to wear a condom you aren’t being raped because you have agreed to have sex
This comment is hidden. Click here to view.
Considering that over 3,700 abortions are performed every day in this country very few are a result of rape, incest or to save the life of the mother. Abortion has become an industry, and a very lucrative one at that. Not only do they charge the mother but they also sell the fetus's parts to laboratories. As I said, very lucrative.
There are a lot of "pro life" people who actually ARE anti-birth control (and amazingly enough, anti-sex ed). Lots of them.
Yes they're pro-guilt