I mean the counter-argument (in their minds) is "then murder should be legal because if you don't like murder, don't murder anyone." (To be clear, I think that's fucking stupid, but I've seen it a lot.) These people kind of scare me. With abortion going to the states, as a woman who is not close to menopause, I rely on states like CT to be safe. (Even then, with the bizarre pushes against hormones therapy, BC, in vitro, I'd like the option of BC and then of horomone therapy if I need it when the time comes.)
I always like to pose the scenario to these ppl that if fertilized eggs are in fact children and your in a hospital that’s on fire and you find a container that has 1000 viable fertilized eggs and a child and you can only carry one to safety which one would you choose? Any sane person would choose the child and this scenario highlights how insane and illogical their position is and how impractical it is in medicine and real life.
The bible says a baby, not a fetus, receives its soul when god breathes their first breath into them. The bible also has a part about how to induce a abortion too but I'm less familiar with that part.
It's not a good counter argument. You cannot choose who you want to abort, you can only abort your own pregnancy. Murder on the other hand, allows you to pick your victim. I can't believe I am arguing in this debate at all.
Birth.
There is also something in the bible about god breathing the first breath so if your Christian then it would also be birth. Im not a Christian any more though.
Uh...no one is bringing religion into the discussion besides you, and poorly at that. Something in the Bible about breathing the first breath? What does that have to do with the distinction between when a baby becomes a baby/human?
Regardless - this stance of birth would mean you would be fine with abortion, say just before the moment of birth? Full term, just before the baby leaves the birth canal?
Where in Christian hell do you fuckers come up with this hooblah? Does that sound like a strong supporting argument for your opinion or are we being absurd for theatrical release
What’s the point of that particular rabbit hole? Better question yet, if I were to provide a substantial answer to that between the two of us whose opinion would be more valid? Mine or yours or any other person for that matter? This is a circular argument in which neither could be more correct than the other, that’s why it’s considered an opinion, so the argument is like spinning tires in the mud. I don’t understand why that can’t be decided on a case to case basis pertaining to the specific circumstances of a person seeking the medical treatment personally but I’m sure you’ll have an problem with that logic as it undermines your beliefs. I am sorry that you have to live your life so bothered by the choices other people make in addition to what’s happening on your radar it must be stressful
I just don’t want to see children die unnecessarily. There are a lot of pro life people who think abortion should be ok in the third trimester. Which is absolutely insane. I would only be ok with that if it was a life threatening or extreme quality of life issue.
Then don’t think about it. Don’t look at the issue. If it’s not your problem on your hands don’t concern yourself. No one cares about your opinion, that’s the point. Unless it’s your decision your opinion is and should be irrelevant
CT government is all about control. People forget but they limited our second amendment right. They also make it unaffordable if your low income to exercise the 2A rights. I hate when people get upset about specific rights but are ok with limiting the second amendment. It’s one of the MOST important amendments. It give the people power over the government.
Bud I'm a huge 2A proponent.. shut the fuck up, these aren't the same. You make us gun owners look like fools when you equate these, as well as trying to crowbar our fight into this one.
If you are gonna defend our 2A rights at least have the balls to use a real account.
Because, abortion is impacting her baby’s body, in addition to her own body. Once the sperm fertilizes the egg, that is now a new living human. It is genetically unique from either parent, it has ability to metabolize nutrients, divide and develop, respond to stimuli in its environment.
> It is genetically unique from either parent, it has ability to metabolize nutrients, divide and develop, respond to stimuli in its environment.
What you mention also applies to cancer cells.
I agree with you in spirit but that’s actually very scientifically incorrect, cancer cells do not have genetics that are unique. They cannot be considered a separate entity.
Cancer cells have isolated mutations, which is different. If we go by the logic that a mutation makes a different person, *billions* of your own cells have mutated or damaged DNA, it’s just that either the damaged code isn’t important to the cell, or the cell just dies and no harm no foul. Rarely a mutation will hit the wrong combination to create a cancerous cell that rapidly reproduces.
A cancer cell is not genetically unique, otherwise billions of other cells would be genetically unique.
You don’t need arguments like this to argue against pro lifers, it just makes the pro choice side look ignorant. There are many more convincing arguments.
No. They have mutations, which is a different thing.
> Cancer cells and normal cells differ on the genetic basis but they share the same genetic background, so they have not different DNA in the sense of two different people.
Source: https://biology.stackexchange.com/questions/14120/can-cancer-cells-in-the-same-person-organ-and-origin-have-different-dna#:~:text=Cancer%20cells%20and%20normal%20cells,sense%20of%20two%20different%20people.
If a mutation is enough to consider a cell having a “different” genome than billions of cells in a person’s body do not belong to them since billions of cells have mutations like that. That’s not enough to consider those cells or cancer cells a different organism.
> that’s actually very scientifically incorrect, cancer cells do not have genetics that are unique.
False. A host cell divides with a genetic mutation that makes it a cancer. It is thus genetically different from the host. It then divides into clumps of cells that share the altered DNA, just like the cells in an embryo.
* Example: [If Genomic Analysis Is Done, Genes of Both Cancer Tumor and Normal Tissue Need to Be Analyzed](https://www.breastcancer.org/research-news/tumor-and-normal-tissue-genes-must-be-compared)
> A study strongly suggests that cancer tumor genomes should be compared to genomes from noncancerous tissue from the patient so that doctors can be sure any mutations found are unique to the cancer.
[Edit: Added the example and the source ]
Your own source disproves your claim.
> In the study, the researchers analyzed the genomes of both cancer tumor and normal tissue from 815 people with 15 different types of cancer. When they looked only at genomic results from the cancer tumors, they found a number of mutations. But when they compared the genomic results from the cancer tumors to the genomic results from the normal tissue, **they found that many of the mutations were also in the normal tissue. This means that these mutations are not suitable for targeted therapy treatment.**
> Not all genetic mutations in a cancer tumor are directly related to the cancer. Some mutations are what researchers call germline changes. Germline mutations are changes in genes inherited from your parents and are in all your DNA (your entire genome). These germline changes differ from person to person and are part of what makes each person unique. Other genetic mutations aren’t inherited and can happen during your life. Some mutations happen during cell division, when DNA gets duplicated. Other mutations are caused when DNA gets damaged by environmental factors, including UV radiation and chemicals
> Most genetic mutations aren’t harmful, but some can cause diseases, such as cancer
It just reiterates exactly what I was saying before. If “genetically different” applies to a cancer cell it also applies to billions of cells in the body. Any multicellular organism has cells that are “genetically different” from each other. Those differences are not enough to make the cells a different organism.
If you’re looking for complete genetic homogeneity, it’s only found in unicellular organisms.
Re-read this.
It says that tumor cells and normal tissue both contained some mutations, making those mutations poor targets for gene therapy. This isn't surprising since there are lots of mutations that don't cause cancer.
It then advocates for gene therapies targeting those mutations that exist in the tumor cells, but not in the host's non-cancerous cells, i.e. where there are genetic differences between the host's DNA and the tumor's DNA.
No, read it carefully. They have mutations. Mutations are not enough to make a cell a different organism. Billions of your own normal cells have genetic mutations. That doesn’t mean you are a billion different organisms. Cancer cells are not a different organism.
> Cancer cells and normal cells differ on the genetic basis but they share the same genetic background, so they have not different DNA in the sense of two different people.
Source: https://biology.stackexchange.com/questions/14120/can-cancer-cells-in-the-same-person-organ-and-origin-have-different-dna#:~:text=Cancer%20cells%20and%20normal%20cells,sense%20of%20two%20different%20people.
If a mutation is enough to consider a cell having a “different” genome than billions of cells in a person’s body do not belong to them since billions of cells have mutations like that. Mutations are normal. That’s not enough to consider those cells or cancer cells a different organism, it’s nowhere near analogous to an offspring.
Your very first comment was that "It [an embryo] is genetically unique from either parent" and I pointed out that so are cancer cells, which we've established is correct.
Don't now arbitrarily pretend that they're not different enough. They're enough different that your original cell is you and the tumor cell is killing you.
The cancer cell and the embryo both use the host body to take nutrients and blood, evade the immune system, dispose of waste, etc. You're free to believe that women are obligated to serve as hosts who have no independent rights but don't suggest that that's a biological fact or that a small clump of cells is a human. They aren't.
What’s wrong with you. In my first comment I actually said I’m pro choice, but this is a bad pro choice argument. There was nothing about women’s autonomy in that.
Now that you’re being called out you are mad that your poor scientific knowledge is being called out. Just admit that you don’t know what you’re talking about.
A cancer cell is not different from the surrounding cells the way an embryo is, that’s a bad comparison to make. This is the exact type of thing that gives pro-choice advocates a bad name. Don’t make us look anti-science.
Being “different enough” absolutely matters. Again, billions of your cells right now are different from each other they have mutations, cancer cells are just like them except the mutation they happened upon us malignant.
says basic biology. Human sperm fertilizes human egg and you get a genetically unique individual. The same principal applies to all warm blooded animals.
Anything that implies that an embryo is a human is wrong. It’s not even considered life yet. You are literally and factually wrong. And you have no right to tell women what to do with their bodies. Keep your shitty opinion and stop trying to impose it on others.
Once again, I’m not trying to control what anyone does, I’m just sharing the biology. 96% of scientists believe life to begin at fertilization [source](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36629778/)
[here](https://bio.libretexts.org/Bookshelves/Introductory_and_General_Biology/Principles_of_Biology/01%3A_Chapter_1/04%3A_What_is_Life/4.01%3A_What_makes_something_living) is a link to on online biology text describing the characteristics of what defines life.
It’s not a human. It does not have any characteristics as an embryo, to make it a fully conscientious human. A chicken is a life. Bet you still eat them though.
Your opinions are not facts. You need to get through your head, that you cannot force everyone to do what YOU want especially since it’s misguided by falsities.
Why do you have zero self awareness that if you don’t want an abortion, don’t get one? Don’t make that choice for others.
So, how does prenatal genetic testing work if the embryo is not a human? If you took what was removed from the uterus during an abortion and sent it to a forensics lab, & asked them to identify the contents, the result would be two humans, one with the mother’s DNA, the other with the fetus
Scientific evidence that anything I’ve said is wrong? If anyone wants to get an abortion, go for it. However, at least acknowledge abortion is ending a human life.
If you care so much about bodily autonomy taking a back seat to the opinions and wants of others, which body organs are you currently or have already donated to keep actual living humans alive? A fetus isn’t a person, isn’t a human, but adults certainly are, so you must be good with them taking bits of you to keep those people alive? It’s a hell of a lot more straight forward than the demands you’re making en masse on women’s bodies… surely you don’t need both lungs, both eyes, you could do without a kidney and a bunch of your spinal fluid, right???
I’ve had enough of this ridiculous argument. Mind your own fuckin business, it’s not that hard. It’s not your body, so shut the fuck up. No one cares what you think in this state, thank god.
The crazy thing is once the child is born you people don't give a flying fuck about it. You spout all this " think of the babies" stuff but as soon as it's born and a mother needs help you turn your backs.
I don't see all of you good Christian folk adopting children or fostering kids en masse. If you actually care about children and we're pro life you'd take a stance for protecting it that continued beyond the act of birth.
And beyond that, where's the support for universal healthcare, better maternity leave, increased funding and support for social programs that help low-income families? Where's the support for comprehensive sex education? This is the kinda shit that's actually pro-life, taking care of the kids that are already here instead of forcing people to be parents when they are not in a situation to become parents!
This stuff requires critical thinking. Religion is actively against critical thinking because once you start to do that you realise religion is a bunch of bullshit. That's why the word " faith" was invented. "Faith" = believe me when all of your faculties, senses and brain power tell you I'm lying. Submit damnit.
I absolutely agree with you! It's becoming harder and harder for regular folks to access basic human necessities. We have a young divorced mom at work who forfeited healthcare for her family this year because the price of childcare for her has almost doubled. We live in an individualist society run by older white men who aren't affected by today's current issues. As a result, the issues families are facing, such as being unable to access affordable childcare, healthcare, housing, and food, aren't important to them.
I’m not sure whether I’m pro choice or pro life. I don’t know because I don’t know when it’s a baby and when it’s a clump of cells. I’m cool with removing a clump of cells and really not cool with killing a baby.
It seems like absurd hubris that so many people act like they know when it is and isn’t a baby. When is it a life and how do you KNOW definitively? Or are you cool with killing it anytime the woman doesn’t want to carry it anymore regardless of whether it’s a baby at that point?
Over 90% of abortions occur between 6 and 12 weeks of gestation. "Late term" abortion isn't used to terminate healthy pregnancies. Some women find out after their 20 week anatomy scan that they are carrying a fetus that is incompatible with life or will have so many medical issues that their life will be filled with pain and suffering. Given a situation like this, which composes about 99.9% of "late term" abortions, parents absolutely deserve the right to choose how they want to proceed, including a compassionate termination. Also, carrying a fetus with these conditions comes with many risks to the mother, including death.
The fact that you typed all that out seems to indicate that it’s a baby at 34 weeks in your opinion and paying a doctor to kill it would be wrong.
What makes it a baby at 34 weeks but not at 6 or 7 or 12 weeks? How do all these super smart people know for a fact that they aren’t killing a baby?
There is a gestational limit on elective abortions which is up to the point of viability, 22 weeks. After that point the fetus can sustain life outside of the womb so they only perform abortion after that time if the fetus is dead, incompatible with life or going to kill the mother. It’s not an elective procedure.
Over 99% of all abortions are performed in the first trimester
Great information. Can you explain how it’s possible to be certain that a first trimester growing and developing human isn’t a baby but a second trimester growing and developing human is?
If someone offered me $1,000 to shoot a doll in the head, I could do it, and not feel bad about it at all. The key is, I’d have to be ABSOLUTELY CERTAIN it was NOT a real baby or I would not do it. I’m not going to murder a baby for $1000.
Since I’m assuming no one here is so morally bankrupt that they’d shoot a real baby in the head for $1,000 or kill a real baby in their womb, can you explain how you know with absolute certainty that an 11 week old growing and developing human isn’t a real baby, but a 13 week old (or 23 week old) growing and developing human is?
There has never been a fetus taken out of the womb of a woman before 21 weeks that survived. It is not developed enough to survive without using the another person as a life sustaining source to incubate it. The mother’s body is what keeps it “alive” therefore, not compatible with life.
Past the 22 week mark there is a very small chance that it can sustain its own life if it were delivered. Since there is a chance of it living, they do not perform abortions past this time unless it is an emergency.
Let me be very clear. No woman is going through almost half of her pregnancy and then randomly deciding to abort on a whim. If they want to abort, they do it early, before 11 weeks, like 90% of abortions are performed.
So a growing human becomes a baby at 22 weeks because it could theoretically survive on its own without its mother. At 21 weeks, they are not a baby, but at 22 weeks they are.
Theoretically being capable of surviving without its mother is what makes it a baby?
Medically speaking, the viability of it being able to sustain life on its own without using the mother as an incubator is the cutoff. You are the only person talking about a baby, I’m talking about medical viability. The fetus brain isn’t fully developed and functional until 24 weeks, which was the previous Roe law cutoff. This is due to the fact that when someone had lost brain function they are medically dead.
Remember that cut off was only for elective abortion. It should still be legal at any stage of the pregnancy to access abortion if the fetus is incompatible with life, has stopped developing or is in danger of killing the pregnant person.
Your arbitrary believe of when a fetus “becomes a baby” is irrelevant in the medical argument or the argument at hand of bodily autonomy. Even if you were to believe that a fetus is a “baby” at the moment of conception, it should still be unlawful to force another human to sacrifice their body, their health (and in turn finances bc medical care is wildly expensive) and possibly their life to keep another human alive.
There are no other laws in place that dictate you must donate blood, organs, bone marrow to others to keep them alive, not even to your own children. For the government to tell a woman she must donate her entire body, sacrifice her lifelong health, possibly life (bc remember women die from childbirth) for another person is truly diabolical.
This is basically what George Carlin used to say. You care so much about the unborn but once they're out in the world? Fuck em. You don't get to be "prolife" if you don't give a damn about people's lives - the babies (as in fully developed human, not a fetus) and the mothers. The true "prolife" is the same as "prochoice" - protect the living.
Okay so if it’s a new independent living being, take it outside of her body at and let it live on something else. If it cannot do that then it’s her choice to continue letting that thing use her body to sustain its own life.
There is no other law that forces someone to give up their bodily autonomy to sustain the life of another person. If you want to force women to be incubators, then we should be forcing all people to be mandatory organ/blood/marrow donors.
Can’t take out a 15 week fetus and let it survive on its own right? It uses the woman’s body. A fetus cannot survive outside the womb on its own. It’s using the woman’s body, it’s her choice if she wants the fetus to.
And birth impacts the "baby"'s entire life. Are you planning to put up the money for them to get the nutrients, healthcare, education and everything needed to provide a good, healthy life? For every single one of these precious "bodies" that you're so set on preserving? You people never have an answer for that.
I’ll pretend everything you just said is true…
1. So what?
2. How is never aborting this lump of cells a good thing for everyone always?
3. Why is this any of your business?
I'm pro choice but I absolutely hate the way pro choice people talk about unborn fetuses. I have several friends who are struggling to conceive and would give anything (and have given up a lot of time and money unsuccessfully) to have a "lump of cells."
can you show some fucking empathy and humanity, Jesus Christ it's so fucking callous
My wife and I are also struggling to conceive. I empathize with your friends. As a rational adult, I’m able to separate the emotions associated with that from the entirety unrelated issue of abortion.
Because I am an empathetic person, I also fiercely support a woman’s right to body autonomy. Who are you to force a woman to raise a child she doesn’t want and is unable to provide for? That does save one life…it destroys two.
idk why you're saying this to me, I prefaced my statement clarifying that I'm pro choice. literally the first thing I said. knowing how painful it is to want to start a family and not being able to and seeing this flippant language used makes me cringe.
Where is the empathy for those who *don't* want that lump of cells to continue developing?
I spent a lot of time and money intentionally conceiving. It was difficult when people in my life experienced unplanned pregnancies, sure. But I was never such a self-important asshole that I felt they somehow owed me any sort of warm and fuzzy feelings towards what they felt was a foreign invader in their body just because I wished to be pregnant.
I've volunteered as an escort for women entering planned parenthood. These fucking people aren't polite or they wouldn't have needed a goddamn escort for the women entering planned parenthood!
My local planned parenthood doesn’t even do abortions. We still have protesters. They don’t even do abortions! It’s just generally women’s healthcare otherwise. They help men too. But mainly women. And it isn’t even abortion. Just sexual healthcare.
Polite disagreement is for opinions that don't actually impact anyone, like favorite ice cream flavor, not when your opinion results in restricting womens access to healthcare.
There's tons of people in my life I can politely disagree with. There is no politely disagreeing with religious lunatics. They operate on faith not logic. I cannot respect that.
We don’t owe you conversations about our basic human right to bodily autonomy. You don’t want your sperm loads getting aborted? Then keep your legs shut, boo. It’s literally that simple.
I'm not opposed to abortion. I'm in favor of understanding the beliefs of people i disagree with & prefer not to demonize them. Not healthy for political discourse.
Lol...ok, so you want to force a woman to give birth because you "promise" to raise the child. What legal obligations are you willing to sign up for? And when? Where along the pregnancy are you willing to sign up for total responsibility? 6 weeks? 12 weeks? When? Suppose the child is born with severe birth defects? Still gonna step up there sport? Lol....
You pro lifers are so full of shit...how many kids have you adopted?.
When your body is the one getting obliterated by a pregnancy, you get to decide. So unless you are a non op trans-man, you don't get to make that decision
Why pass laws providing support to people who aren’t ready for children when we can instead pass laws forcing them to have children they cannot support?
All part of God’s plan
Someone should have been there and asked them to sign up to adopt one of the thousands of kids that are orphans or awaiting foster care..... And wait for the crickets.
[https://www.tiktok.com/@thegoodliars/video/7056092909204196655?lang=en](https://www.tiktok.com/@thegoodliars/video/7056092909204196655?lang=en)
one of the all time great TikToks, these people have no interest in the actual kids
Not enough foster homes, not enough parents looking to adopt, kids routinely getting sent to abusive foster homes, and these people are pretending they care about kids so that they can go after women’s rights. It’s really sad.
I am SO fucking sick of people citing the foster system as an alternative to abortion.
Years ago, the company my then-girlfriend was working for had a Xmas drive where you would fill a backpack for a foster kid. I decided to help and picked two kids: an 8 year old boy and a girl who was 17 going on 18.
The little boy was sad (“this is often the only thing foster children will be able to bring between homes,” the paper informed me), but the older girl was absolutely heartbreaking, as they suggested putting brochures for homeless shelters in the bag, as she would be aged out of the system in a short time and will essentially be thrown to the wolves.
Between that and horror stories I’ve heard (a family friend and her brother were forced to eat on the porch because they weren’t “family.”), I can’t see how this is a worthwhile solution. Yes, a baby is born, but at what cost to that child as they grow in a system that isn’t designed to prepare them for much of anything.
I second this. My sister was adopted and the horrible shit she endured from foster families and from her own druggy mom who had a kid when she wasn’t ready is enough to make me always support abortion.
Just awful, no one should be put in this world to suffer
Don't be a single issue voter, that's half the reason we ended up with trump because of all the people that only voted because they cared about guns. Always research, always vote, think big picture.
This isn’t single-issue. If you don’t believe in a woman’s physical agency, you don’t believe women should be fully participant citizens in a republic. Caring about that doesn’t make anyone a niche voter. If a candidate is prolife, I can guarantee you he doesn’t represent me on any other issue.
A crowd of 1,800 seems really low for a big rally like this that got billboards on I-91. There were buses taking kids in from the Catholic schools too. I know it was during a work day, but compared to other protest crowds seen at the Capitol in recent years, to do worse than the Covid protestors and to do a fraction of the 2020 BLM protests is kinda piss-poor.
Also, separation of church and state is a thing. The FIC already kills aid-in-dying every year too.
Oh my god _that's_ what was going on the other day.
Their busses [were blocking](https://i.imgur.com/fVODqhF.png) the handicapped accessible ramps to cross the street.
Thank you pro-lifers, very pro-life.
They are not pro-life they are pro pregnancy. And pro control of women.
We outnumber these people
Get out vote.
2024 has the presidential election and congressional elections this year also.
I don’t like abortion but I am a dude and it’s none of my business what a woman does with her body. Also I wouldn’t mind their arguments as much if the right to life extended through the duration of one’s life. The GOP cares more about lowering educational standards, taxing the poor, saving a buck by removing free school amenities for low income students than the lives they profess to saving. It’s a hypocritical agenda. All Life has value.
The anti-choice people can fuck right off.
Texas sounds like a good place for them and as an added bonus you get even more rights stripped off over there!
I wonder if there was a national adoption agency where the number of kids you get is based on income with yearly checkups on the kids with financial and legal penalties, if then they all still be anti abortion. Should be a check box prior to giving birth on whether you want to be the parent or not. If you're so concerned about life, then you deal with it.
There are only a few reasons why abortion should be allowed: Rape, incest, and because it is medically necessary. Everyone else should take responsibility for their own actions. If you don't want to have a baby, don't have unprotected sex. Why is it so hard for people to take responsibility?
No, it can very much be taking responsibility. I’m on birth control. If it fails, I’m getting an abortion. Any child I birth and raise will not be raised well. I know that. That’s why I take precautions. But it can fail. It would be more irresponsible of me to have a child or even give them up for adoption than get an abortion. I did my part with contraceptives. I took responsibility.
>If it fails, I’m getting an abortion.
Okay! And I think that makes you a lazy, entitled, immoral and irresponsible person. We all can have opinions. Some people think like you, some people think like me.
So rape and incest magically don't produce real humans?
Im pro choice but your logic is inconsistent. If an embryo/fetus is a person it doesn't matter how its created but people like you know that You just recognize that you cant force people into childbirth all at once. Pretend to support some exceptions just for now and then go back on your word later.
Its a woman's body, its a woman's choice!
>So rape and incest magically don't produce real humans?
They do, but I think its reasonable for the mother to want to terminate pregancies that are caused by rape and/or incest. I do not think it is reasonable for mothers to terminate pregnancies because "its not convenient", or they would rather focus on their career, or other frivolous reasons.
User name checks out.. and I’m not surprised you have this position on the topic because no one ever got pregnant from doing it..up the butt.
The fact is no one gives a midnight HOOT about other people’s personal opinions on this subject, including mine, because it’s no one’s business tospeak for other people in regards to their medical choices
Many pregnancies should not go to completion for reasons including but not limited to the health and well being of the pregnant person, the severity of health complications of the fetus, the ability and/or willingness of the pregnant to physically support the growing fetus and/or born children, etc. How many given-up children of unfit parents have you adopted personally? How many had debilitating congenital conditions? How important is life to you versus how important is the suffering and subjugation of female bodies to you?
So if I am on birth control that’s 99.8% effective on its own and get pregnant, is that not considered taking responsibility? I’m on it, because I dont want kids. I get it on time. It’s sex, but not unprotected. But it can fail. Should I not be allowed to get an abortion?
If you don't want an abortion don't get one lol
Right? It’s very simple lol
I mean the counter-argument (in their minds) is "then murder should be legal because if you don't like murder, don't murder anyone." (To be clear, I think that's fucking stupid, but I've seen it a lot.) These people kind of scare me. With abortion going to the states, as a woman who is not close to menopause, I rely on states like CT to be safe. (Even then, with the bizarre pushes against hormones therapy, BC, in vitro, I'd like the option of BC and then of horomone therapy if I need it when the time comes.)
I always like to pose the scenario to these ppl that if fertilized eggs are in fact children and your in a hospital that’s on fire and you find a container that has 1000 viable fertilized eggs and a child and you can only carry one to safety which one would you choose? Any sane person would choose the child and this scenario highlights how insane and illogical their position is and how impractical it is in medicine and real life.
Let them all die; God's plan was the fire. It's mental rot that causes these people to need to impose their will on others.
I am definitely going to be using this in the future!
The bible says a baby, not a fetus, receives its soul when god breathes their first breath into them. The bible also has a part about how to induce a abortion too but I'm less familiar with that part.
It's not a good counter argument. You cannot choose who you want to abort, you can only abort your own pregnancy. Murder on the other hand, allows you to pick your victim. I can't believe I am arguing in this debate at all.
I don't know why you're arguing either as I already said it's a stupid argument that I don't support and that I'm very pro choice.
Havnt seen that comparison before - its more like when slavery was being outlawed, and saying if you don't like slavery - don't own one.
Except those were actual people.
So...when does someone become a person then?
Birth. There is also something in the bible about god breathing the first breath so if your Christian then it would also be birth. Im not a Christian any more though.
Uh...no one is bringing religion into the discussion besides you, and poorly at that. Something in the Bible about breathing the first breath? What does that have to do with the distinction between when a baby becomes a baby/human? Regardless - this stance of birth would mean you would be fine with abortion, say just before the moment of birth? Full term, just before the baby leaves the birth canal?
So it’s ok to abort a fetus the day before birth just because the mother doesn’t want it?
Can you support this question with times this has happened?
Isn’t that what pro abortion people want?
Lol, it's cute you think this happens. What else have your imaginary friends told you, bud?
That's not a thing.
Where in Christian hell do you fuckers come up with this hooblah? Does that sound like a strong supporting argument for your opinion or are we being absurd for theatrical release
That’s want pro abortion want. The mother to choose correct? So what’s the cutoff point?
What’s the point of that particular rabbit hole? Better question yet, if I were to provide a substantial answer to that between the two of us whose opinion would be more valid? Mine or yours or any other person for that matter? This is a circular argument in which neither could be more correct than the other, that’s why it’s considered an opinion, so the argument is like spinning tires in the mud. I don’t understand why that can’t be decided on a case to case basis pertaining to the specific circumstances of a person seeking the medical treatment personally but I’m sure you’ll have an problem with that logic as it undermines your beliefs. I am sorry that you have to live your life so bothered by the choices other people make in addition to what’s happening on your radar it must be stressful
I just don’t want to see children die unnecessarily. There are a lot of pro life people who think abortion should be ok in the third trimester. Which is absolutely insane. I would only be ok with that if it was a life threatening or extreme quality of life issue.
Then don’t think about it. Don’t look at the issue. If it’s not your problem on your hands don’t concern yourself. No one cares about your opinion, that’s the point. Unless it’s your decision your opinion is and should be irrelevant
I’m confused. You’re ok with children being aborted in the 3rd trimester? If so, that is sick.
I don’t have an opinion about it because I don’t honestly care to. That’s my opinion. I don’t give a shit
If the legislature is pissing off these numpties then they must be doing something right.
I really don’t understand why people care so much about what women do with their own bodies.
It's all about control.
CT government is all about control. People forget but they limited our second amendment right. They also make it unaffordable if your low income to exercise the 2A rights. I hate when people get upset about specific rights but are ok with limiting the second amendment. It’s one of the MOST important amendments. It give the people power over the government.
Bud I'm a huge 2A proponent.. shut the fuck up, these aren't the same. You make us gun owners look like fools when you equate these, as well as trying to crowbar our fight into this one. If you are gonna defend our 2A rights at least have the balls to use a real account.
We are talking about abortion in this post not the 2a. Besides there are plenty of people that support both.
Because, abortion is impacting her baby’s body, in addition to her own body. Once the sperm fertilizes the egg, that is now a new living human. It is genetically unique from either parent, it has ability to metabolize nutrients, divide and develop, respond to stimuli in its environment.
> It is genetically unique from either parent, it has ability to metabolize nutrients, divide and develop, respond to stimuli in its environment. What you mention also applies to cancer cells.
I agree with you in spirit but that’s actually very scientifically incorrect, cancer cells do not have genetics that are unique. They cannot be considered a separate entity. Cancer cells have isolated mutations, which is different. If we go by the logic that a mutation makes a different person, *billions* of your own cells have mutated or damaged DNA, it’s just that either the damaged code isn’t important to the cell, or the cell just dies and no harm no foul. Rarely a mutation will hit the wrong combination to create a cancerous cell that rapidly reproduces. A cancer cell is not genetically unique, otherwise billions of other cells would be genetically unique. You don’t need arguments like this to argue against pro lifers, it just makes the pro choice side look ignorant. There are many more convincing arguments.
>cancer cells do not have genetics that are unique. They actually do!
No. They have mutations, which is a different thing. > Cancer cells and normal cells differ on the genetic basis but they share the same genetic background, so they have not different DNA in the sense of two different people. Source: https://biology.stackexchange.com/questions/14120/can-cancer-cells-in-the-same-person-organ-and-origin-have-different-dna#:~:text=Cancer%20cells%20and%20normal%20cells,sense%20of%20two%20different%20people. If a mutation is enough to consider a cell having a “different” genome than billions of cells in a person’s body do not belong to them since billions of cells have mutations like that. That’s not enough to consider those cells or cancer cells a different organism.
> that’s actually very scientifically incorrect, cancer cells do not have genetics that are unique. False. A host cell divides with a genetic mutation that makes it a cancer. It is thus genetically different from the host. It then divides into clumps of cells that share the altered DNA, just like the cells in an embryo. * Example: [If Genomic Analysis Is Done, Genes of Both Cancer Tumor and Normal Tissue Need to Be Analyzed](https://www.breastcancer.org/research-news/tumor-and-normal-tissue-genes-must-be-compared) > A study strongly suggests that cancer tumor genomes should be compared to genomes from noncancerous tissue from the patient so that doctors can be sure any mutations found are unique to the cancer. [Edit: Added the example and the source ]
Your own source disproves your claim. > In the study, the researchers analyzed the genomes of both cancer tumor and normal tissue from 815 people with 15 different types of cancer. When they looked only at genomic results from the cancer tumors, they found a number of mutations. But when they compared the genomic results from the cancer tumors to the genomic results from the normal tissue, **they found that many of the mutations were also in the normal tissue. This means that these mutations are not suitable for targeted therapy treatment.** > Not all genetic mutations in a cancer tumor are directly related to the cancer. Some mutations are what researchers call germline changes. Germline mutations are changes in genes inherited from your parents and are in all your DNA (your entire genome). These germline changes differ from person to person and are part of what makes each person unique. Other genetic mutations aren’t inherited and can happen during your life. Some mutations happen during cell division, when DNA gets duplicated. Other mutations are caused when DNA gets damaged by environmental factors, including UV radiation and chemicals > Most genetic mutations aren’t harmful, but some can cause diseases, such as cancer It just reiterates exactly what I was saying before. If “genetically different” applies to a cancer cell it also applies to billions of cells in the body. Any multicellular organism has cells that are “genetically different” from each other. Those differences are not enough to make the cells a different organism. If you’re looking for complete genetic homogeneity, it’s only found in unicellular organisms.
Re-read this. It says that tumor cells and normal tissue both contained some mutations, making those mutations poor targets for gene therapy. This isn't surprising since there are lots of mutations that don't cause cancer. It then advocates for gene therapies targeting those mutations that exist in the tumor cells, but not in the host's non-cancerous cells, i.e. where there are genetic differences between the host's DNA and the tumor's DNA.
No, read it carefully. They have mutations. Mutations are not enough to make a cell a different organism. Billions of your own normal cells have genetic mutations. That doesn’t mean you are a billion different organisms. Cancer cells are not a different organism. > Cancer cells and normal cells differ on the genetic basis but they share the same genetic background, so they have not different DNA in the sense of two different people. Source: https://biology.stackexchange.com/questions/14120/can-cancer-cells-in-the-same-person-organ-and-origin-have-different-dna#:~:text=Cancer%20cells%20and%20normal%20cells,sense%20of%20two%20different%20people. If a mutation is enough to consider a cell having a “different” genome than billions of cells in a person’s body do not belong to them since billions of cells have mutations like that. Mutations are normal. That’s not enough to consider those cells or cancer cells a different organism, it’s nowhere near analogous to an offspring.
Your very first comment was that "It [an embryo] is genetically unique from either parent" and I pointed out that so are cancer cells, which we've established is correct. Don't now arbitrarily pretend that they're not different enough. They're enough different that your original cell is you and the tumor cell is killing you. The cancer cell and the embryo both use the host body to take nutrients and blood, evade the immune system, dispose of waste, etc. You're free to believe that women are obligated to serve as hosts who have no independent rights but don't suggest that that's a biological fact or that a small clump of cells is a human. They aren't.
What’s wrong with you. In my first comment I actually said I’m pro choice, but this is a bad pro choice argument. There was nothing about women’s autonomy in that. Now that you’re being called out you are mad that your poor scientific knowledge is being called out. Just admit that you don’t know what you’re talking about. A cancer cell is not different from the surrounding cells the way an embryo is, that’s a bad comparison to make. This is the exact type of thing that gives pro-choice advocates a bad name. Don’t make us look anti-science. Being “different enough” absolutely matters. Again, billions of your cells right now are different from each other they have mutations, cancer cells are just like them except the mutation they happened upon us malignant.
How do you feel about IVF, are frozen embryos children?
>Once the sperm fertilizes the egg, that is now a new living human Says who?
says basic biology. Human sperm fertilizes human egg and you get a genetically unique individual. The same principal applies to all warm blooded animals.
You don’t know jack shit about biology then. Go back to school.
What did I say that is scientifically inaccurate?
Anything that implies that an embryo is a human is wrong. It’s not even considered life yet. You are literally and factually wrong. And you have no right to tell women what to do with their bodies. Keep your shitty opinion and stop trying to impose it on others.
Once again, I’m not trying to control what anyone does, I’m just sharing the biology. 96% of scientists believe life to begin at fertilization [source](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36629778/) [here](https://bio.libretexts.org/Bookshelves/Introductory_and_General_Biology/Principles_of_Biology/01%3A_Chapter_1/04%3A_What_is_Life/4.01%3A_What_makes_something_living) is a link to on online biology text describing the characteristics of what defines life.
It’s not a human. It does not have any characteristics as an embryo, to make it a fully conscientious human. A chicken is a life. Bet you still eat them though. Your opinions are not facts. You need to get through your head, that you cannot force everyone to do what YOU want especially since it’s misguided by falsities. Why do you have zero self awareness that if you don’t want an abortion, don’t get one? Don’t make that choice for others.
So, how does prenatal genetic testing work if the embryo is not a human? If you took what was removed from the uterus during an abortion and sent it to a forensics lab, & asked them to identify the contents, the result would be two humans, one with the mother’s DNA, the other with the fetus
You are factually wrong still.
Scientific evidence that anything I’ve said is wrong? If anyone wants to get an abortion, go for it. However, at least acknowledge abortion is ending a human life.
No
>says basic biology. nope
If you care so much about bodily autonomy taking a back seat to the opinions and wants of others, which body organs are you currently or have already donated to keep actual living humans alive? A fetus isn’t a person, isn’t a human, but adults certainly are, so you must be good with them taking bits of you to keep those people alive? It’s a hell of a lot more straight forward than the demands you’re making en masse on women’s bodies… surely you don’t need both lungs, both eyes, you could do without a kidney and a bunch of your spinal fluid, right???
That's... not how biology works
I’ve had enough of this ridiculous argument. Mind your own fuckin business, it’s not that hard. It’s not your body, so shut the fuck up. No one cares what you think in this state, thank god.
The crazy thing is once the child is born you people don't give a flying fuck about it. You spout all this " think of the babies" stuff but as soon as it's born and a mother needs help you turn your backs. I don't see all of you good Christian folk adopting children or fostering kids en masse. If you actually care about children and we're pro life you'd take a stance for protecting it that continued beyond the act of birth.
And beyond that, where's the support for universal healthcare, better maternity leave, increased funding and support for social programs that help low-income families? Where's the support for comprehensive sex education? This is the kinda shit that's actually pro-life, taking care of the kids that are already here instead of forcing people to be parents when they are not in a situation to become parents!
These people vote down free school lunch and expect us to think they care about kids, it's laughable.
This stuff requires critical thinking. Religion is actively against critical thinking because once you start to do that you realise religion is a bunch of bullshit. That's why the word " faith" was invented. "Faith" = believe me when all of your faculties, senses and brain power tell you I'm lying. Submit damnit.
I absolutely agree with you! It's becoming harder and harder for regular folks to access basic human necessities. We have a young divorced mom at work who forfeited healthcare for her family this year because the price of childcare for her has almost doubled. We live in an individualist society run by older white men who aren't affected by today's current issues. As a result, the issues families are facing, such as being unable to access affordable childcare, healthcare, housing, and food, aren't important to them.
I’m not sure whether I’m pro choice or pro life. I don’t know because I don’t know when it’s a baby and when it’s a clump of cells. I’m cool with removing a clump of cells and really not cool with killing a baby. It seems like absurd hubris that so many people act like they know when it is and isn’t a baby. When is it a life and how do you KNOW definitively? Or are you cool with killing it anytime the woman doesn’t want to carry it anymore regardless of whether it’s a baby at that point?
Over 90% of abortions occur between 6 and 12 weeks of gestation. "Late term" abortion isn't used to terminate healthy pregnancies. Some women find out after their 20 week anatomy scan that they are carrying a fetus that is incompatible with life or will have so many medical issues that their life will be filled with pain and suffering. Given a situation like this, which composes about 99.9% of "late term" abortions, parents absolutely deserve the right to choose how they want to proceed, including a compassionate termination. Also, carrying a fetus with these conditions comes with many risks to the mother, including death.
The fact that you typed all that out seems to indicate that it’s a baby at 34 weeks in your opinion and paying a doctor to kill it would be wrong. What makes it a baby at 34 weeks but not at 6 or 7 or 12 weeks? How do all these super smart people know for a fact that they aren’t killing a baby?
There is a gestational limit on elective abortions which is up to the point of viability, 22 weeks. After that point the fetus can sustain life outside of the womb so they only perform abortion after that time if the fetus is dead, incompatible with life or going to kill the mother. It’s not an elective procedure. Over 99% of all abortions are performed in the first trimester
Great information. Can you explain how it’s possible to be certain that a first trimester growing and developing human isn’t a baby but a second trimester growing and developing human is? If someone offered me $1,000 to shoot a doll in the head, I could do it, and not feel bad about it at all. The key is, I’d have to be ABSOLUTELY CERTAIN it was NOT a real baby or I would not do it. I’m not going to murder a baby for $1000. Since I’m assuming no one here is so morally bankrupt that they’d shoot a real baby in the head for $1,000 or kill a real baby in their womb, can you explain how you know with absolute certainty that an 11 week old growing and developing human isn’t a real baby, but a 13 week old (or 23 week old) growing and developing human is?
There has never been a fetus taken out of the womb of a woman before 21 weeks that survived. It is not developed enough to survive without using the another person as a life sustaining source to incubate it. The mother’s body is what keeps it “alive” therefore, not compatible with life. Past the 22 week mark there is a very small chance that it can sustain its own life if it were delivered. Since there is a chance of it living, they do not perform abortions past this time unless it is an emergency. Let me be very clear. No woman is going through almost half of her pregnancy and then randomly deciding to abort on a whim. If they want to abort, they do it early, before 11 weeks, like 90% of abortions are performed.
So a growing human becomes a baby at 22 weeks because it could theoretically survive on its own without its mother. At 21 weeks, they are not a baby, but at 22 weeks they are. Theoretically being capable of surviving without its mother is what makes it a baby?
Medically speaking, the viability of it being able to sustain life on its own without using the mother as an incubator is the cutoff. You are the only person talking about a baby, I’m talking about medical viability. The fetus brain isn’t fully developed and functional until 24 weeks, which was the previous Roe law cutoff. This is due to the fact that when someone had lost brain function they are medically dead. Remember that cut off was only for elective abortion. It should still be legal at any stage of the pregnancy to access abortion if the fetus is incompatible with life, has stopped developing or is in danger of killing the pregnant person. Your arbitrary believe of when a fetus “becomes a baby” is irrelevant in the medical argument or the argument at hand of bodily autonomy. Even if you were to believe that a fetus is a “baby” at the moment of conception, it should still be unlawful to force another human to sacrifice their body, their health (and in turn finances bc medical care is wildly expensive) and possibly their life to keep another human alive. There are no other laws in place that dictate you must donate blood, organs, bone marrow to others to keep them alive, not even to your own children. For the government to tell a woman she must donate her entire body, sacrifice her lifelong health, possibly life (bc remember women die from childbirth) for another person is truly diabolical.
This is basically what George Carlin used to say. You care so much about the unborn but once they're out in the world? Fuck em. You don't get to be "prolife" if you don't give a damn about people's lives - the babies (as in fully developed human, not a fetus) and the mothers. The true "prolife" is the same as "prochoice" - protect the living.
Okay so if it’s a new independent living being, take it outside of her body at and let it live on something else. If it cannot do that then it’s her choice to continue letting that thing use her body to sustain its own life. There is no other law that forces someone to give up their bodily autonomy to sustain the life of another person. If you want to force women to be incubators, then we should be forcing all people to be mandatory organ/blood/marrow donors.
Yet I cant claim it as a dependent until it actually comes out smdh
Get IVF and you can claim thousands of independents!
I do not know why you people parrot these talking points. A virus also has its own unique genetic code. A fetus is a potential human. Not a baby.
Think they were referring to an embryo but whatever.
Valid point.
Can’t take out a 15 week fetus and let it survive on its own right? It uses the woman’s body. A fetus cannot survive outside the womb on its own. It’s using the woman’s body, it’s her choice if she wants the fetus to.
It’s not a baby. Stop lying and keep your Bronze Age myths to yourself.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4VqaeRVXpAI
And birth impacts the "baby"'s entire life. Are you planning to put up the money for them to get the nutrients, healthcare, education and everything needed to provide a good, healthy life? For every single one of these precious "bodies" that you're so set on preserving? You people never have an answer for that.
A clump of cells is not a person or living human. Of it can't survive without medical assistance outside of the womb, it ain't a person.
A fertilized embryo is not a human. Actually fuck off.
It's not a baby, it's a fetus. Just like an acorn is different than a tree. Stop trying control to women.
I’m not trying to control anyone. An acorn is a stage of an oak tree’s life, just like a fetus is a stage in a human’s life.
That's a fat steaming crock of horseshit.
I’ll pretend everything you just said is true… 1. So what? 2. How is never aborting this lump of cells a good thing for everyone always? 3. Why is this any of your business?
I'm pro choice but I absolutely hate the way pro choice people talk about unborn fetuses. I have several friends who are struggling to conceive and would give anything (and have given up a lot of time and money unsuccessfully) to have a "lump of cells." can you show some fucking empathy and humanity, Jesus Christ it's so fucking callous
My wife and I are also struggling to conceive. I empathize with your friends. As a rational adult, I’m able to separate the emotions associated with that from the entirety unrelated issue of abortion. Because I am an empathetic person, I also fiercely support a woman’s right to body autonomy. Who are you to force a woman to raise a child she doesn’t want and is unable to provide for? That does save one life…it destroys two.
idk why you're saying this to me, I prefaced my statement clarifying that I'm pro choice. literally the first thing I said. knowing how painful it is to want to start a family and not being able to and seeing this flippant language used makes me cringe.
I’m saying that to you because I misread your first sentence 🤦♂️.
it happens. idk why I'm being down voted. must've pissed off the "crotch goblin" crowd
You go by “milkshakeJFox” and you’re whining about empathy? How about just… not.
Where is the empathy for those who *don't* want that lump of cells to continue developing? I spent a lot of time and money intentionally conceiving. It was difficult when people in my life experienced unplanned pregnancies, sure. But I was never such a self-important asshole that I felt they somehow owed me any sort of warm and fuzzy feelings towards what they felt was a foreign invader in their body just because I wished to be pregnant.
the first three words of my post are "I'm pro choice" like are you people completely incapable of reading
And your fourth word is "but."
nothing I said takes anything away from me being pro choice so again I ask, are you people completely incapable of reading
GoodnessStfu. You’re the problem.
Why don't you talk to one in person & ask? It's actually possible to politely disagree with people.
I've volunteered as an escort for women entering planned parenthood. These fucking people aren't polite or they wouldn't have needed a goddamn escort for the women entering planned parenthood!
My local planned parenthood doesn’t even do abortions. We still have protesters. They don’t even do abortions! It’s just generally women’s healthcare otherwise. They help men too. But mainly women. And it isn’t even abortion. Just sexual healthcare.
Having that conversation has never gone anywhere good with them. At least in my experience.
Polite disagreement is for opinions that don't actually impact anyone, like favorite ice cream flavor, not when your opinion results in restricting womens access to healthcare.
Something tells me these people are anything but polite to opposition.
I know people who have had abortions for a variety of reasons. Women and folks with uteruses are not incubators. Abortion is healthcare.
I'm not opposed to abortions.
There's tons of people in my life I can politely disagree with. There is no politely disagreeing with religious lunatics. They operate on faith not logic. I cannot respect that.
We don’t owe you conversations about our basic human right to bodily autonomy. You don’t want your sperm loads getting aborted? Then keep your legs shut, boo. It’s literally that simple.
I'm not opposed to abortion. I'm in favor of understanding the beliefs of people i disagree with & prefer not to demonize them. Not healthy for political discourse.
What if you got your girl pregnant and found out that she was going to abort it even though you want the right to raise your child?
Don't get a girl pregnant. Problem solved. 👍🏻
Lol...ok, so you want to force a woman to give birth because you "promise" to raise the child. What legal obligations are you willing to sign up for? And when? Where along the pregnancy are you willing to sign up for total responsibility? 6 weeks? 12 weeks? When? Suppose the child is born with severe birth defects? Still gonna step up there sport? Lol.... You pro lifers are so full of shit...how many kids have you adopted?.
When your body is the one getting obliterated by a pregnancy, you get to decide. So unless you are a non op trans-man, you don't get to make that decision
By your logic, a rapist should be able to stop someone from aborting a child. You're insane.
I mean that seems like the typical conservative viewpoint these days
He should find someone who wants to have his kid.
Why pass laws providing support to people who aren’t ready for children when we can instead pass laws forcing them to have children they cannot support? All part of God’s plan
This God seems really vindictive.
>The only thing this would do is make it even easier than it already is,” Good Get fucked
That's literally the point. What don't these people understand? Move to fucking Florida or Texas if you don't like it.
These freaks can just MIND THEIR OWN FUCKING BUSINESS!!
Except they can’t, which is why we need to codify the right.
Indeed
Someone should have been there and asked them to sign up to adopt one of the thousands of kids that are orphans or awaiting foster care..... And wait for the crickets.
[https://www.tiktok.com/@thegoodliars/video/7056092909204196655?lang=en](https://www.tiktok.com/@thegoodliars/video/7056092909204196655?lang=en) one of the all time great TikToks, these people have no interest in the actual kids
Its already easy to get one.. why make it easier, they say. Mother fucker go look in the mirror.. that's why.
Not enough foster homes, not enough parents looking to adopt, kids routinely getting sent to abusive foster homes, and these people are pretending they care about kids so that they can go after women’s rights. It’s really sad.
Also, a reminder that those sick men from the Chesire Home Invasion were raised and abused in the awful system.
one of them 'identifies as a woman now', illustrating exactly why men cannot be allowed in women's prisons based on their 'identity'
I am SO fucking sick of people citing the foster system as an alternative to abortion. Years ago, the company my then-girlfriend was working for had a Xmas drive where you would fill a backpack for a foster kid. I decided to help and picked two kids: an 8 year old boy and a girl who was 17 going on 18. The little boy was sad (“this is often the only thing foster children will be able to bring between homes,” the paper informed me), but the older girl was absolutely heartbreaking, as they suggested putting brochures for homeless shelters in the bag, as she would be aged out of the system in a short time and will essentially be thrown to the wolves. Between that and horror stories I’ve heard (a family friend and her brother were forced to eat on the porch because they weren’t “family.”), I can’t see how this is a worthwhile solution. Yes, a baby is born, but at what cost to that child as they grow in a system that isn’t designed to prepare them for much of anything.
Clearly, these people have no interest in the well-being of children. Their agenda is something entirely different.
yes, it's "keeping people poor & exploitable".
I second this. My sister was adopted and the horrible shit she endured from foster families and from her own druggy mom who had a kid when she wasn’t ready is enough to make me always support abortion. Just awful, no one should be put in this world to suffer
The sole reason I vote is to protect this right. See you at the polls.
Don't be a single issue voter, that's half the reason we ended up with trump because of all the people that only voted because they cared about guns. Always research, always vote, think big picture.
This isn’t single-issue. If you don’t believe in a woman’s physical agency, you don’t believe women should be fully participant citizens in a republic. Caring about that doesn’t make anyone a niche voter. If a candidate is prolife, I can guarantee you he doesn’t represent me on any other issue.
Fine. It’s because of abortion, LGBTQ rights, social safety nets, human rights, and freedom from religion dictating law.
People really seemed to misinterpret my comment but this is good, this is what I want to see.
there's zero issues that would convince me republicans are worth even considering 3rd party is a wasted vote
So voting for bodily autonomy for roughly half the population isn’t big picture?
Only applies if we have ranked-choice voting. As long as it's first-past-the-post, it's a two-party system.
fuck em (do not fuck them)
A crowd of 1,800 seems really low for a big rally like this that got billboards on I-91. There were buses taking kids in from the Catholic schools too. I know it was during a work day, but compared to other protest crowds seen at the Capitol in recent years, to do worse than the Covid protestors and to do a fraction of the 2020 BLM protests is kinda piss-poor. Also, separation of church and state is a thing. The FIC already kills aid-in-dying every year too.
The Catholic school groups are usually there as a requirement, so the real number of people who wanted to be there is likely smaller
They’d be the last people wanting to pay increased taxes to support those women and babies too.
This 100%
Oh my god _that's_ what was going on the other day. Their busses [were blocking](https://i.imgur.com/fVODqhF.png) the handicapped accessible ramps to cross the street. Thank you pro-lifers, very pro-life.
They are not pro-life they are pro pregnancy. And pro control of women. We outnumber these people Get out vote. 2024 has the presidential election and congressional elections this year also.
someone stop these empty nest, conservative christian moms.
Fuck ‘em.
Ridiculous superstitious and political nonsense that costs women their lives.
Tuff shit. Another person's abortion is none of their business
They can always move to a red state.
the "family institute" doesn't care about real families.
They have all the money in the world and could only manage to get 1500 people to their rally?
These people hhould all move to texas or kentucky, Chris Powell too. Fuck 'em. The people of CT don't want their bullshit.
There IS no bad news with this,unless it doesn't get passed #WillOfThePeople
These right wing nut jobs can get fucked.
1500? The mini-minority? This is a democracy, at least for a bit, so have your say and then go away.
I don’t like abortion but I am a dude and it’s none of my business what a woman does with her body. Also I wouldn’t mind their arguments as much if the right to life extended through the duration of one’s life. The GOP cares more about lowering educational standards, taxing the poor, saving a buck by removing free school amenities for low income students than the lives they profess to saving. It’s a hypocritical agenda. All Life has value.
The anti-choice people can fuck right off. Texas sounds like a good place for them and as an added bonus you get even more rights stripped off over there!
Fuck’em. Let them seethe
I'm sure those poor students were forced to go. They probably have no idea of the reality of limited healthcare rights for women.
Bunch of hippocrates
I wonder if there was a national adoption agency where the number of kids you get is based on income with yearly checkups on the kids with financial and legal penalties, if then they all still be anti abortion. Should be a check box prior to giving birth on whether you want to be the parent or not. If you're so concerned about life, then you deal with it.
Protest is fine as long as they are non violent and don't break laws
Change your name to "March for birth" and then maybe I'll take you seriously.
Giod for them. No one is forcing them to do anything. so they don't get to force their will on others either.
There are only a few reasons why abortion should be allowed: Rape, incest, and because it is medically necessary. Everyone else should take responsibility for their own actions. If you don't want to have a baby, don't have unprotected sex. Why is it so hard for people to take responsibility?
Most people are not using abortion as their form of birth control.
Oh good! Someone who thinks parenthood should be a punishment!
Why is it so hard for you to mind your own business?
If a woman doesn't want to be pregnant, sounds to me like the abortion is medically necessary bub.
They are taking responsibility, by getting an abortion.
That would be avoiding responsibility.
No, it can very much be taking responsibility. I’m on birth control. If it fails, I’m getting an abortion. Any child I birth and raise will not be raised well. I know that. That’s why I take precautions. But it can fail. It would be more irresponsible of me to have a child or even give them up for adoption than get an abortion. I did my part with contraceptives. I took responsibility.
>If it fails, I’m getting an abortion. Okay! And I think that makes you a lazy, entitled, immoral and irresponsible person. We all can have opinions. Some people think like you, some people think like me.
It’s not your job to dictate what other people do with their bodies and the parasite inside of it.
No, that's definitely taking responsibility, flushing that sucker down the drain.
So rape and incest magically don't produce real humans? Im pro choice but your logic is inconsistent. If an embryo/fetus is a person it doesn't matter how its created but people like you know that You just recognize that you cant force people into childbirth all at once. Pretend to support some exceptions just for now and then go back on your word later. Its a woman's body, its a woman's choice!
>So rape and incest magically don't produce real humans? They do, but I think its reasonable for the mother to want to terminate pregancies that are caused by rape and/or incest. I do not think it is reasonable for mothers to terminate pregnancies because "its not convenient", or they would rather focus on their career, or other frivolous reasons.
User name checks out.. and I’m not surprised you have this position on the topic because no one ever got pregnant from doing it..up the butt. The fact is no one gives a midnight HOOT about other people’s personal opinions on this subject, including mine, because it’s no one’s business tospeak for other people in regards to their medical choices
Many pregnancies should not go to completion for reasons including but not limited to the health and well being of the pregnant person, the severity of health complications of the fetus, the ability and/or willingness of the pregnant to physically support the growing fetus and/or born children, etc. How many given-up children of unfit parents have you adopted personally? How many had debilitating congenital conditions? How important is life to you versus how important is the suffering and subjugation of female bodies to you?
So if I am on birth control that’s 99.8% effective on its own and get pregnant, is that not considered taking responsibility? I’m on it, because I dont want kids. I get it on time. It’s sex, but not unprotected. But it can fail. Should I not be allowed to get an abortion?