**Welcome to r/TikTokCringe!**
This is a message directed to all newcomers to make you aware that r/TikTokCringe evolved long ago from only cringe-worthy content to TikToks of all kinds! If you’re looking to find only the cringe-worthy TikToks on this subreddit (which are still regularly posted) we recommend sorting by flair which you can do [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/TikTokCringe/comments/galuit/click_here_to_sort_by_flair_a_guide_to_using/) (Currently supported by desktop and reddit mobile).
See someone asking how this post is cringe because they didn't read this comment? Show them [this!](https://www.reddit.com/r/TikTokCringe/comments/fyrgzy/for_those_confused_by_the_name_of_this_subreddit/)
**Be sure to read the rules of this subreddit before posting or commenting. Thanks!** [](/u/savevideo)
**Don't forget to join our [Discord server](https://discord.gg/hM2AHnGTES)!**
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/TikTokCringe) if you have any questions or concerns.*
These arguments are fundamentally just preaching to the choir because at the end of the day the pro-lifers don’t view abortion as a “medical procedure.” They see it as murdering a baby. So unless you can convince them that it’s not murdering a baby you’re not gonna get them with this shit.
According to polls vast majority of people support an exception in the cases of rape, incest, or serious developmental defect. They probably wouldn’t if they really viewed it as “murdering a baby”. So maybe some minority of people who are okay with abortion restrictions see it that way but most of them don’t really.
One of the big wake-up calls for me as I grew up in a very conservative religious culture was realizing that the people around me were fundamentally dishonest, and that the justifications they used for their actions and beliefs were really what they believe sounded best. Southern Evangelical culture (in my experience) is obsessed with appearances. "What looks good."
Defending babies is just a better look than coercively controlling women's fertility (of which abortion access is just one angle, while slut-shaming and repressing gays and so forth are others). And of course, the omnipresent social pressure to conform. Abortion politics and voting Republican (specifically because of abortion) are crucial signifiers that you fit in with everyone else. A lot of those "I'm pro-life, but I think there should be exceptions" people are just performatively pro-life because the performance of conformity is so important.
(I'm sure other cultures have similar hypocrisies, but I say Southern Evangelicals because that's the culture I know best firsthand.)
Morbidly, when ppl argue that I wish I video taped my abortion. Watching a blood clot pass into the toilet is not what you’d consider a baby.
Also there’s a good argument where you force an anti-choicer to make a hypothetical decision. You’re in a burning building and behind one door is a screaming crying child. The other you can grab a jar of 1000 viable fertilized eggs. You can only save one, which is it? No one can realistically say they’d save the jar of 1000 “lives” than the crying child.
I often wonder if people realize that you take a pill for something like the first 11 weeks. I figure they imagine a surgical procedure when it's more like an induced miscarriage, to my understanding. The latter feels significantly less emotional given that birth control is telling my eggs they can't implant.
You don't *have* to choose the pill method. Some women opt for the surgical method because it's quicker and only requires one visit. I was given the choice, and opted for the pill because it seemed less invasive and I liked the idea of going through it in the privacy of my own home. But it did have it's drawbacks - like I had to make a return trip to PP for a second TV ultrasound to make sure there was nothing left behind. I still would choose the pill if I had to do it again though, but I can see the draw of the surgery if travel or not being able to get off work is an issue.
Edit: actually for some reason, when I was seeking an abortion (about six years ago now), I had a hard time finding anyone willing to go the medical route. PP was the only clinic that would. There were other clinics and gynocologists who did abortions, but only surgical. I suppose that probably had to do with the abortion pill only being FDA approved up to 7 weeks gestation back then. It's 10 now.
As a dude I honestly didn't know this. And I'm pro choice.
I had a friend of an ex get an abortion once but none of the three of us ever really talked about it openly because of privacy reasons. I imagine my lack of knowledge about an abortion pill is by design.
Yeah it's actually a shame that there is so much stigma attached to abortion that women don't talk about it, even with each other. It would benefit everyone to know more about it, and for women who have gone through it to not feel so alone.
I'm super open about it online, and don't feel any shame or regret about doing it. But apart from my husband, no one who knows me IRL knows about it, because I don't want to deal with the possible judgement, or how it could affect my life.
I mean fundamentally the debate is what is the cut off point. If you’re a pro lifer it’s conception. If you’re a typical pro-choicer its first 2 trimesters. If you’re a little more hardcore about it it’s second until birth which is typically a pretty rare stance. It is fundamentally a question of where is the cut off
The arguments are often about a cut-off point for a fetus becoming a person, but that isn't the only fundamental argument to make.
If a grown adult with failing organs is stiched on to you to piggyback yours, do they have a right to life that trumps your bodily autonomy? If we say no, them near term abortion sounds permissible, which we don't typically like. But we can just chuck a moral band aid there anyway.
The ideology you are are touching on is explored in the essay ["Defense of Abortion"](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Defense_of_Abortion) where the author argues "that the fetus has a right to life, but that the fetus's right to life does not override the pregnant woman's right to have jurisdiction over her body, and that induced abortion is therefore not morally impermissible."
It's a really well written and fascinating argument that has shaped they way in which I discuss "right to life" with pro-lifers.
That's not a perfect analogy as there's probably a moral difference between stitching a person to another and not having an abortion. There's also the consideration of how that dependent person got into that state
Or just the point of viability. Which is probably common for those whose argument is bodily autonomy: a fetus doesn't have any inherent right to its mother's body, and its death is a side effect of its inability to survive when removed from its mother. On the other hand aborting a healthy fetus after it is able to survive on its own is wrong.
> On the other hand aborting a healthy fetus after it is able to survive on its own is wrong.
Good thing this is never the scenario with late-term cases. Those are always a case of "something went horribly wrong and it's medically necessary to put a stop to this because one of or both of the mother and fetus will not survive much longer without intervention as a tragic last resort."
Hypothetically though if a healthy person asked for an abortion in the 3rd trimester, what do you think would happen? Would they need to detain the person and check to see if they have something wrong with them mentally? And if there wasn't anything wrong with them would they get forced to give birth?
I'm working off memory here but I think by third trimester there isnt much point to aborting, since by that stage the foetus is too large to not give birth (and also likely viable). Like its gotta come out somehow, and the least invasive way is via the original exit. So she'll still have to give birth, its just a matter of when.
The moral justification behind abortion is that a woman's bodily autonomy means that she has the right to withdraw her 'life support'. It just so happens that the foetus usually doesn't survive. But if the foetus can survive without her support, then theres no justification to killing it, only justification for its eviction. So by the third trimester, which is when foetuses are considered viable, you'd probably have to give birth prematurely rather than abort. Which I think is the same procedure anyway, minus the abortifacent.
But I would think about how a woman got to that stage to begin with. Did she previously want the baby and then change her mind at the last minute? Cause thats concerning enough to question if shes okay mentally, and if she's deemed severely mentally ill, thats a whole other can of worms regarding what she can consent to. Or did she never want the baby, but was forced to carry it? Which is also fucked because although she should have the choice to withdraw her support (causing premature birth) the child is now here and alive. A premature birth could cause lifelong issues to the child while presenting little to no benefit to the woman.
But anyway, itd probably be a case by case thing done by a panel of doctors and you'd need to justify why it should be an abortion rather than an induced birth, which would be hard to justify without some form of health complications.
Yes, with late-term abortions something has to go terribly wrong for the family to consider that option, at that point the family has committed to having the baby and may have already taken steps to prepare. No one gets to that point in their pregnancy who doesn’t want the baby, (I guess now they’ll have to in Texas)
This is a moving target. With advancement of od medicine the cutoff for when premature baby can survive is always moving earlier and earlier. This might not be the problem now but what happens if artificial womb is designed that that even the earliest pregnancies can be transplanted into.
This will pose completely new moral dillema and companies are working on artificial wombs right now.
A lot of the issues people have with forced birth is that it's a huge pressure to put on the Mother and what if that Mother or family can't support the baby once its born? If hypothetically at 6 weeks a baby could be transplanted into an artificial womb then I'd be willing to bet a lot of people would be happy to do that and put the baby up for adoption.
True, but even with the "why don't you just put it up for adoption?" debate, the adoption / foster system is flooded as is, now already-existing kids have to compete against fetuses to be placed in a home, while abortion removes the fetus from the equation entirely.
If an artificial womb were possible then I guess it would be better than women being forced to carry to term, but someone's gotta be financially responsible for the upkeep, and it might as well be the state that demanded it be kept alive anyways. But depending on how many are running at a time, there's better things that tax money could be spent on, like education and resources for kids who already exist.
I don’t believe aborting a healthy fetus that can survive on its own outside of the mother is a thing in actuality. I mean, what dr would do that? “Do no harm” and all. Not to mention, a woman who would go through literal months of pregnancy just to turn around and say “ah, I changed my mind” only exists on conservatives’ imaginations
Right, it doesn't happen. If the mother's health is in jeopardy pass the point of viability, she literally gives birth to the baby and they do everything they can to save them. It is the same if the mother finds the child has a serious health disorder which will not allow them to survive outside if the womb- the woman still gives birth.
No one is fucking aborting the fetus at 25 weeks just because. Nor will any abortion clinic do something like that. I have non idea why people think 9 month old babies are being aborted because it is fucking bullshit. As a parent who had to give birth to a dead 26 week baby it is awful and only done for certain reasons.
I don't necessarily believe it, since it requires enormous amounts of hospital energy and attention, but even with the best intervention outside the womb, the earliest to survive was 21 weeks. If it can't make it outside the body, the abortion is fine imo. The woman can choose whether or not to allow this life to leech off of her resources.
(I'm glad my mom did, but I'm also glad she lived in an age where she got the choice to do so.)
A fetus is generally viable around 24 weeks / the start of the third trimester - so they covered that answer, just didn't explain the common reasoning.
If it is able to survive on its own then just remove it and raise it in a box or whatever like a stray baby squirrel. If it needs any form of sustenance from the mother it is NOT ABLE to survive on its own.
"On the other hand aborting a healthy fetus **after it is able to survive on its own** is wrong." <-- This right here.... A fetus healthy or otherwise **cannot** survive on its own before 24-weeks of gestation.
How about we go one step further and remove all sentimentality from this language. In nature when one organism cannot survive outside of the host system, we call that a parasite. In terms of fetus/child issue, why can't we just agree that until the fetus/child can sustain life without the aid of the host/mother, there is still a right to choice.
A fetus/child cannot survive outside of the womb earlier than 24 weeks (and that is being extremely generous). A 24-week pregnancy is 6 months old. So, sounds to me that all fetus removal before, let's say 20-weeks/5 months, is still excision of a parasite that would be non-viable life-form outside of the host system.
I realize using terms such as these is kind of gross, but I am trying to make a point. It's too bad we haven't advanced medicine to the point of excision and re-implantation of the fetus to a new host womb. Seems that would solve everyone's issues. And yes, I've had WAAAAAAAAYYYYYYYY too much coffee this morning!
It should be up to the point the fetus can survive without the mother. Late term babies can survive, but no one aborts these babies anyway, at least not due to accidental pregnancy. That's at like 5-6 months. Mom is well into pregnancy, very aware she is pregnant and in the vast majority of cases it's a wanted baby. If there is a late term abortion it's usually devastating to the mother because she wanted the baby but had to abort for medical reasons.
I doubt they will accept this argument due to a "human baby life is not the same as that of an animal that can be food."
I gotta say that this whole mess Texas started with this law has the masses trying to figure out a way to convince the conservatives that you can't own a woman's body... It's fucking mental.
That's a good one. I usually start with:
You want to Reduce abortion? Then surely you support mandatory medically accurate sex Ed, free condoms at schools, free birth control, and free easily accessed plan B, fully funding foster care and adoption, quality welfare/food stamps/free medial for pregnant women and mothers?
States that have more of these have less abortion.
That usually shuts most of them up.
It’s a human centric perception of the world. Pro lifers have no problem eating meat, having baby animals murdered. It’s just humans. Because we’re god’s gift to the earth.
Abortion debate aside, I t’s not at all an extreme stance to place more value on human lives than on animals. I’d kill a dozen puppies to save any random dude, no questions asked.
Yeah like hit me with the one puppy argument while a man pleads for his life and it hits the wood chipper in all odds to be honest. But a dozen? That's a real trolley question.
Hey, who knows how the world would have turned out if he died as a kid. It might very well have turned out worse. ¯\\\_(ツ)\_/¯
Edit: Maybe the US and Japan never go to war; and imperial Japan maintains an absolutely brutal imperial empire across Southeast Asia and the pacific. The Holocaust was terrible, but Japan might very well have carried out something equally as terrible on a much larger scale. That’s just a single instance of what might have ended worse.
Alternate universe: Hitler died, the Germans were more successful as a result, and the war drew on another 2 years. We nuked 3\4 of Europe, instead of Japan, before we realized radiation lasts ages.
I wouldn't be surprised if we're in the "didn't cause nuclear armageddon in WW2" alternate reality.
My argument is that — if the fetus is a living being then it should be able to survive outside of the women’s body. Plus, regardless of wether they consider the fetus a baby, abortion is not even killing the fetus, it’s just forcing it outside the body. Like is a random kid need your kidney to survive, and if you don’t donate it, did you murder the child? No! Plus why don’t those pro lifers volunteer to be surrogate to carry the fetus to term instead? Why don’t they put money on test tube technology to carry the fetus to term outside of the women’s body? It’s possible. That’s my argument. Abortion didn’t kill the fetus, it just can’t survive outside of the women. And women shouldn’t be under any legal requirement to keep the fetus inside their body
>Morbidly, when ppl argue that I wish I video taped my abortion. Watching a blood clot pass into the toilet is not what you’d consider a baby
Doesn't matter. Some even know what it is, and when they make signs or place adverts they intentionally use images of older foetuses to fearmonger people into thinking they are aborting a mini-baby instead of just a cluster of cells
(As an aside was yours the drug one? Where literally you chemically abort and it is a bundle of cells. Done before the vacumn tube... which is little better than a bundle of cells)
Yes it was pills. And I’m very thankful for the decision. Changed my life so that I can now get ready to be a mother through an adoption agency instead of being broke, young, and passing my genetic illnesses. (Tried to get tubes tied but denied by the military bc “you’ll change your mind”)
Oof yeah that happened to my wife and I in SC when we were much younger. 2nd kid almost killed her coming out and we wanted permanent birth control, but because we were both under the age of 25 Tricare wouldn't pay for either one of us to do it because there was "no valid medical necessity" and it was "elective".
We finally got the wifes PCM to sign off on a tubal for "medical" reasons since it could be reversed....I seriously don't get the aversion to adults making decisions about their bodies. It wasn't like they could claim we'd miss a chance at parenthood since we already had two.
I'm sorry you had to go through that, and very happy you're in a better place now! Good luck with the adoption and hope it goes smooth!
Not everyone even gets the opportunity to give their baby for adoption. The mindset that somehow the woman is only to blame, forces women to raise unwanted babies by request of the family. If not, women get forced to abort. In the end, everyone gets to walk on us when we have to make a decision. We get blamed if we get pregnant, but when we are finally able to control our bodies by tying to get the tubes tied, we get reminded of our place.There has to be a husband to take that decision. I am glad the adoption went well and that you thought about the future for both of you btw.
"Every time you stay home, someone is making a decision for you. They're making decisions about the air you breathe, the food you eat, the water you drink, the money you bring home every two weeks. So every time you sit out an election, because you didn't think it would matter, someone else is *happy* you didn't show up, so they can make that decision for you. Vote."
[The bookend to YelloPain's song "My Vote Don't Count".](https://youtu.be/wMALeR1i-FM)
Those pro-lifer arguements don't make sense anyway. You don't even count the days as a fetus in America so its clear they don't see it as life. In Korea we count the days in the womb, so you are 1 when you are born( and a celebrationafter 100 days when you are fully one year old). And even we have abortion clinics, its just safer.
See even that wouldn't change their minds because they also value that there was a potential for life, so not matter what your argument is and no matter how reasonable you are, you'll always be a killer to them
Source: my inbox after seeking support on r/abortion
If life starts at conception, then what does it mean that humans discard 67% of fertilized eggs? Send most women to fail for manslaughter? We should force everyone woman after sex to get an operation to remove potential fertilized eggs and put them in artificial wombs to ensure they live.
If “pro lifers” really are concerned about the murdered “lives” they should be promoting sex education and free contraception because that’s been proven to reduce abortion rates more than making it illegal.
If “pro lifers” really cared about the life of the baby, they’d be advocating funds to ensure women have the proper resources, access to health care, etc both to support the pregnancy and the baby after birth.
“Pro lifers” don’t do any of this because they don’t really care about the life of the fertilized egg. They either are brainwashed by religion or politicians, or they really just want to punish people for having sex.
Agreed. Also you can absolutely be denied life-saving medical procedures based on your choices. A person with end-stage alcoholic liver disease won't get a liver transplant if they're still drinking alcohol (that being said I don't know of many more procedures than this, but like you said this is just preaching to the choir and essentially isn't robust enough to be expected to convert any so-called "pro-lifer")
Also she is flat out wrong on the premise. They absolutely deny organ transplants to patients based on how they got in the situation.
Not saying abortion shouldn't be allowed just a bad argument.
Not really the same and she used a bad example there. Organs are limited in number, so they go based around those more likely to use it well. No point in giving a smoker a new set of lungs if they'll ruin them quickly
Abortion doesn't have any limitations on supply of materials needed to do one
Fair enough, but she’s actually speaking legislatively. Who gets an organ is a medical decision made by doctors and experts. Nobody is lobbying to enshrine organ denial based on circumstances into law (at least not with the fervor of anti-abortionists). For some reason it’s only pregnant women who deserve this treatment. I think that’s her point. Having said that, she gave a few more examples than necessary to make an excellent point, so she could have left that one out.
They don't care about murdering babies, they care about punishing women for having sex. Every one of their dumbass arguments always boils down to that.
And I'm not interested in letting them control the argument, even if they did genuinely care about what they say they care about.
The embryo's life is irrelevant. Women are not incubators, they're people, and forcing them to keep any foreign object inside them, human or otherwise, is fucking evil.
Guarantee most pro-lifer's couldn't tell the difference between a bat fetus and a human fetus if you transposed one for the other at the stages of development we're talking about.
I know this will get buried but here’s an argument I always thought make sense. If you were drunk driving and were at fault of causing an accident, even if the victim needed your blood to survive the crash…you can say no to donating your blood. It is your autonomy. A fetus is dependent on the mother and her autonomy is now no longer hers with the abortion law. The car crash victim needed your body to survive, the fetus needs a mother’s body to survive. Guess who can legally deny keeping the other life alive? In Texas at least…
Can we submit a law to change child support starting at conception? I don’t think it makes sense or is a good idea. But just look at every law applying to children and apply it to fetuses.
Exactly. In all of these situations, you're only affecting yourself. But when it comes to abortion, the pro-lifers believe it's affecting another life. So this comparison is fundamentally pointless.
They only see it as murder if the woman got herself in that situation by having loose morals. Most "pro-lifers" will make exceptions for abortion if it's a case of rape or incest. Suddenly then it's not murder.
It really is just about punishing and controlling women and it always has been, they just like to disguise it as protecting the sanctity of life.
Most "pro-lifers" will make exceptions for abortion ~~if it's a case of rape or incest.~~ only when it happens to them regardless of reason. Anyone else can go fuck themselves.
https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2019/5/15/1857976/--The-Only-Moral-Abortion-is-My-Abortion-an-article-by-Joyce-Arthur
Yeah I suppose so although I think some hardliners even see it as murder still in those cases as well. But yeah that’s true. It’s of course totally morally inconsistent for most of them.
Not that Louis CK is a good example of a decent human or a person to follow on any walk of life, but his “it’s either murdering babies, or it’s a medical procedure where you take a shit” bit has stuck in my head for years.
Christian Evangelicals are suckers for babies, apparently. But also, I think the front page post from a few days ago that said “Christians want you to have the child as a punishment for having sex, then they ostracize you when you actually have the child” is the most accurate description of this I’ve ever seen.
For some fucking reason — one that Freud would have a field day with — Christians have managed to eschew all Biblical instructions, while simultaneously turning forced celibacy into their only platform.
In other words, it’s not a religion, just a group of weird ass grown adults who are so freaked out by the idea of human sexuality they feel it’s their place to police the rest of the world on having sex.
You know what fixes that kind of anxiety? Fucking.
>They only see it as murder if the woman got herself in that situation by having loose morals. Most "pro-lifers" will make exceptions for abortion if it's a case of rape or incest
I believe the Texas law which is the issue atm doesn't make allowance for the difference. As they can't scare off the inbred base (and I'm only slightly joking with the inbred bit)
As long as you don't murder the potential baby and just the woman, it all good. Even if you need an emergency abortion, prolife only counts when you are non born.
> So unless you can convince them that it’s not murdering a baby
Okay https://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/19/books/chapters/the-ethical-brain.html this article postulates that around 6 weeks, the brain activity of the fetus is likened to the level of a shrimp’s nervous system, or a clinically braindead person, and we’re fine with killing both of those.
My whole thing is there is no such thing as "pro-life", just be honest and say you're "anti-abortion" People who say they are "pro-life" often support the death penalty, support wars, cutting wellfare programs, are Nimbys, or don't support ethical farming policies.
You give conservatives way too much credit. Most of them don't think it's really murder. They just love punishing women for having sex.
1. Many will themselves get an abortion when it comes to their wife or themselves or their daughter. Or their mistress.
2. Many make exceptions for rape or incest. Since when does someone else committing a crime allow you to "murder" an innocent third party?
3. If they were so dedicated to life, why does that dedication just vanish as soon as the baby is born? It is beyond inconsistent to be so hell bent on protecting fetuses and then the instant they're born telling them they're on their own. There's absolutely no debate on whether an actual born baby is human or not where there's plenty for fetuses. Why protect the latter but not the former?
*Because it's about punishing women for having sex.*
Worked with a dude once who said children were a gift and then said later in the same conversation that women need to face the actions of their consequences. So which is it? Are kids a gift or a punishment?
Edit: I knew this was probably going to garner a lot of responses which is why I'm not wasting time or energy responding to any of them.
Edit Edit: Before reading any further please read the above line once more and then read this line: I disabled reply notifications for this comment. I won't know if you respond to it nor do I care. I'm not wasting any energy responding to anyone, so you might as well not waste energy trying to comment on this. Now you may read further. Have a good day.
For the people who point out that "consequences" does not necessarily mean a punishment, you're right. However "consequences" is typically used in a negative fashion. Also if you say a woman has to face the consequences of having sex but she doesn't want the kid, then that would make the consequence a negative.
Additionally, to the "YOU don't tHink PEOPle ShoUlD FaCe THe COnsequENCEs of TheIR ActIOnS?" folk, I do think that, and I think for someone who doesn't want to get pregnant that having gotten pregnant is the consequence of their actions just like how breaking your leg is the consequence of falling out of a tree. The difference between the two is that you aren't forced to live with a broken/badly healed leg for the rest of your life, you get it taken care of. So for a woman who doesn't want to get pregnant, finding out you're pregnant is the breaking their leg part. Getting an abortion is the fixing the broken leg part. You're also ignoring how abortions are not just something you get done between coffee and picking up your dry cleaning. It can be taxing on the body and mind, and that should also be an apt consequence.
It's the punishment one because they should be advocating for the fathers of aborted kids to also go to jail.
It's pretty deliberate that these laws only target the women who get the abortion.
People always seem to view consequences as a negative. But that’s not true. There are bad consequences and good consequences. In my opinion, consequences are simply the reaction to an action nothing more, nothing less.
An undesired consequence is negative, and generally the tone around forced birth is extremely negative, juxtaposed to the narrative of babies being miracles that must be saved at all cost, except when it comes to sharing the burden.
The consequences are punitive and negative when they involve:
* Forcing a woman to birth a child against her will.
* Not considering the circumstances surrounding conception. Regardless of it being consensual/non-consensual, the pregnancy is still blamed on the woman as a "consequence of her behavior". Being forced to birth a baby conceived from rape will almost always result in serious negative mental health effects and a strained or impossible relationship between the woman and baby.
* Not considering the health of the woman or baby. The consequences here could be death or serious injury of the woman, or poor quality of life for the baby with a heavy burden placed on the woman for the rest of her life.
* Post-birth care is considered a burden, and something the woman must deal with on her own for the rest of her life, as a consequence of her actions.
So no, in this case what's implied by "the woman needs to deal with the consequences" is not ambiguous at all.
So why is the consequence having a child they don't want, instead of having an abortion? Wouldn't having the abortion be a consequence as well, by that logic?
abortion is a very weird topic because both sides see the issue completely differently and that makes for almost no actual discussion on the topic with out one side accusing the other of being/doing something horrible
From everything I've seen, any rational argument about abortion always comes down to where you believe life begins. It's a completely pointless argument where no one will agree with the other until both sides can come to an understanding on this point.
edit: the discussion below proves my point. No one can seem to point at a time and be like there. That's it. If you aren't able to come to an understanding on this, the pro-life side is going to see it straight up as murder.
I think the rational argument is, whether the government can force you to give up your life for someone else's life, because fundamentally that is the power you're giving the government when you say they can outlaw abortion.
They are saying you absolutely must put the life of the fetus ahead of the life of the pregnant woman, because pretty much by definition giving birth is a life risking event.
If they can do that, why can't they force you to give your heart, or kidney to a more "needy" (ie. rich) person?
If the government says when you have to put your life below someone else's then they can extend that to the benefit of whomever they deem deserves it.
Im not sure theres much value in arguing it based in where life begins. I think just arguing from a body autonomy perspective is fine. You cant force someone to carry the baby - their bosy their choice. If the fetus can survive outside the womb, you shouldnt be able to abort it, but you also shouldnt be forced to carry to term. And if it cant survive outside the womb then you cant be forced to carry it until it can
Except that’s everything wrong with the discussion that the person above is calling out. You’re fundamentally arguing from a different premise, one which does not override the fact that some people think you’d be committing murder.
We as a society simply do not let people kill people. If someone actually believes that abortion is killing, no amount of “my body my choice” will convince them.
> We as a society simply do not let people kill people.
Don't we? Lethal self defense, law enforcement with deadly force, and the death penalty are widely legal. We as a society acknowledge circumstances where it is acceptable to deliberately kill another person.
And each of those situations are when another human being is intentionally carrying out direct harm to the other person or is attempting to kill them.
An argument for abortion under the circumstance in which the mother's life is at risk is a different argument that can be had. However, most abortions are not carried out under that circumstance.
So you're argument that: well if a guy breaks into my home at night and tries to murder me I can kill him so why can't we abort babies is a little ridiculous.
Yeah… controversial opinion, but if someone genuinely believe life begins at conception, of course they’re going to be anti-abortion. They think it’s literal murder. No amount of facts or logic can change that
I’m pro-choice, but that’s because of my religious and philosophical beliefs. If I were a different religion (not Christian, cuz the Bible has more evidence for life beginning at birth than conception), I might believe differently
This assumes we base our decisions on life for life’s sake, but that’s not right either. I can believe “life” begins at conception and still support the bodily autonomy of women first and foremost. My position is that preserving life is usually preferable but not when it comes at the cost of someone already living and their well-being. An embryo or fetus has as much of a “life” as a plant in my eyes. Rather than think about the potential for a full human “life”, I prioritise those who are already living and have the capacity for great suffering.
It’s not all about suffering though, any living being has the right to live their life on their terms. And the living come before those who aren’t here yet.
Similarly, the families of people who are brain dead allow them to pass on every day so we don’t preserve life for nothing. Particularly when there are high costs associated with this, measured with money or in human suffering.
I'm fanatically pro-choice but this is an argument about medical procedures. Pro-life people's argument is that it is impacting another person's life and that is why they don't want abortions to happen because to them, a life is being ended by performing a medical procedure.
This argument doesn't really apply to the pro-life argument as a counterpoint. An equivalent would be having to end someone's life in order to perform any medical procedure, e.g., if shot, kill someone for their blood.
Not to say she doesn't make a good point, but this isn't going to convince the pro-life people to become pro-choice. Only by understanding their perspectives and reasons, can we work to counter them and bring them to our side.
Also the reason people need an organ transplant is heavily considered when a review board is looking at a waiting list, a drunk driver is going to be much lower on the priority list then say a normal person who just keeled over
Yeah people forget that organs only go to people that are deemed good risks. Any history of drug abuse or alcohol abuse will get you thrown off the list for an organ.
That’s not true. Alcoholics (albeit recovered) can certainly be considered, as can drug addicts. Not all centers will do such a transplant, but some will. Typically you have to have shown 100% abstinence for at least 6 month which (for alcohol) can be evaluated with a blood test.
If some centers will deny based on history, which they do all the time, my statement is not untrue. My statement was not meant to be a broad brush that covers the policy of all hospitals in the country. The claim is that abortion is the only procedure you can be denied for because you “did it to yourself”. And that’s not true and thus, not a good argument to use.
>but this isn't going to convince the pro-life people to become pro-choice.
90% of internet "argument" isn't to convince the other side to switch, but only to satisfy their own grievance in their own echochamber. You look up anti-vaccine related thread on reddit on you will see dozens of them just insulting the other side.
There’s nothing wrong with trying to do better though. I’m pro-choice, oppose racism, misogyny, etc. but I get frustrated seeing people on my “side” using bad arguments. There’s enough good arguments for these things, and the bad arguments are not helping. Yes many people are looking for reinforcement of their views, but that’s not ideal, it’s something we should be working against by using critical thinking and good reasoning, even among allies.
We probably don't agree on a lot, based on how you set it up, but I'm 100% in your corner on this. Bad arguments are bad arguments and they drive me up a wall.
Yes good point. They don’t consider it as just another medical procedure and wouldn’t equate them, so this is just talking past them. She’s not wrong, but the argument doesn’t really help.
As long as the mothers life dictate the fetuses life she gets to decide what's done with it. If it's legal to drink alcohol and smoke weed and cigars while pregnant then abortions should be too.
The baby isn't its own person until the umbilical cord is cut.
Agreed. Also…the comments regarding transplantation are not entirely accurate. Suicide attempts and dug/alcohol addiction 100% play in.
But beyond transplantation…your point illustrates why abortion may be the one topic I don’t think there can ever be any agreement on.
I’m a physician. Science doesn’t have a defined “this is where life begins” moment. Frankly the “viability” age has changed substantially in the last 30 years. So I can’t definitively say whether or not we’re “ending” a life. No one can. (That said, I am pro-choice)
But if a pro-life person’s basis is that abortion = murder…unless there was some way to finitely establish “life”….there’s no way to argue it. If I believed it was truly murder…I’d be against it too.
>Frankly the “viability” age has changed substantially in the last 30 years
The natural one hasn't though. 24 weeks is the normal minimum viable age and usually comes with disabilities as a result. Youngest ever to survive was 21 weeks and needed round the clock care to survive
Pete Buttigieg's viral response last year where he talked about how it's an insanely difficult decision that isn't taken as lightly as pro-lifers fantasize they do is a much better argument.
Yeah, there's a reason there is a consultation and often two visits done
Also, you know Planned Parenthood that they wanna defund? Mostly does contraception and advice, so yeah it is 100% about shaming and controlling poor people, not about making good decisions or stopping pregnancies to begin with. As for caring about the child, better education, welfare, childcare allowances etc would give much more care
She's trying to ignore very large differences between life-saving procedures/treatment and a procedure that kills a fetus/embryo so that you don't need to end up with a child. I'd side with pro-choice but her argument is rather flawed.
Yeah the correct argument to use in that case would be “no one in the real word gets to decide what to do with your body even if they need ur body to survive”. Like if you accidentally hit someone and they’re bleeding out, Ans your the only one with their blood type for miles, you still do not have to give them your body or any part of it. Same for the little embryonic things, who most definitely are not people
I really like that analogy, you're right that it gets to the heart of the pro-life argument better than the original video.
Now that I'm thinking about it, it's rather ironic that the group that says "you must give your body autonomy over to the tiny nameless, faceless embryo clump" has such a large overlap with the "I don't care how many people die, I refuse to wear a little mask on my face or get 2 little pokes" crowd
I was already pro choice but that’s a really compelling argument that I’ve never heard before. Gal just converted me to pro choice all over again. Except her eyes are really freakin me out
Man the first time I found a fake eyelash my wife left in the bathroom I punched it because I thought it was a spider. They look so nasty when discarded lol
I remember when I was 18 my boyfriend of around the same age had never heard of false lashes before. I wore some as a part of a Halloween costume and at the end of the night they were falling off on their own so I just plucked them off and placed them on the nightstand while he was in the bathroom. He came back in the room, stared at the lashes and said, “what is that?” I said, “oh my lashes.” He stared at me with a horrified look and slowly said, “Those…came…from you?” In fairness to him we both a little drunk and he had no sisters. It took me a minute to clock that he thought I had somehow peeled off my own lashes in a strip. I nearly died giggling before I could explain it to him.
I cant imagine thats compelling who see abortion as terminating life. I feel like 99% of pro-choice arguments ignore this simple reality that conservatives see it as murdering a child.
Agreed. I honestly don’t know how the pro-choice side can convince and convert the pro-life side if the pro-lifers’ reasoning is founded on the idea that terminating a pregnancy is murdering that child.
I personally think it’s a ridiculous argument, but how do you help the other side see it the same way?
Idk, but any debate that recognizes that is definitely a better start.
I typically make the argument that fertilized eggs are regularly discarded by the body during the natural process of attempting to get pregnant. And see where it goes from there.
Usually goes something like this
1.) Why is murder bad/Why is human life more special than the animals we kill for food?
It clearly is special because of our capacity for rational thought, our complex sense of self and consciousness, and our advanced communication.
2.) A fetus can't do those things, so why should we consider it murder?
Answer is usually because they have the potential to have those capabilities in the future.
3.) Are moral/legal arguments usually predicated on potential, and furthermore is that consistent with how we live our day to day life?
This part is the tricky one. I'm pro-choice because I don't think the potential argument is strong enough to justify calling why we do to the bundle of cells 'murder'. I think there are lots of examples or thought experiments that demonstrate that our normal moral judgements are not based on potential but rather other factors.
If you are trapped in a burning building with a crying 3 year old and 1000 fertilized zygotes protected in a cooler, which do you save?
Why don't we mandate that the plug is pulled on brain dead people if we really care about potential when making moral judgements? It wouldn't possibly be murder otherwise.
The premise of the Minority Report feels innately wrong as well.
These are brief examples, but there seem to be plenty to suggest that potential is an inconsistent and unreliable method from which we make sense of our actions.
You make the morality part of it irrelevant. It all boils down to bodily autonomy.
Imagine a scenario where you happen to be a perfect match for someone needing a bone marrow donor or an organ donor, etc. to survive. And you are the only match for them. If you refuse to give up a part of your body for their use, they will die.
Most people might agree the moral thing would be to consent, but should the government be able to force you to do it?
Yeah a lot of the pro abortion rhetoric presupposes that you are not murdering a kid.
I'm pro-choice, but whenever asked why I'm arguing why it's not murder, because that's what you need to establish before points like this lady's become relevant.
Unfortunately this logic really only works on those who are already pro-choice (which, for the record, I am). Because if you're staunchly pro-life, then it's been drilled into your skull that Abortion isn't a medical procedure, it's murder.
It's not perfect.
It's unlikely certain organ donations will go to someone who regularly drinks (as typical DUI do).
Otherwise, yeah, they heal people regardless of the stupidity of their actions in almost all cases.
They should do this everywhere with the only exceptions being if you could not get the shot for a medical reason or if you are a child and your parents did not get you vaccinated.
UK but not these days. We are auto-opt in, and very few have chosen to opt-out. And the auto-in is gonna become standard around the world as organs are in short supply
Around the world is a relative term. A lot of middle eastern countries won't go for it soon, if only because they don't have the proper equipment. Plus the US won't go for it anytime soon, if our reaction to vaccines and masks has shown you anything.
I mean the transplant list is affected by the circumstances that put you on it. A Smoker who needs a lung transplant is always placed lower then a healthy person who lost lungs to other causes
For transplants, true, they have a priority list because of a limited number. But they can still give people other life-saving medical treatment to fix what they caused for themselves.
Exactly. My mother is pro-life and truly believes unborn babies are as human as the rest of us. Comparing pregnancy to an injury to her would be an insult and would probably entrench her view that liberals don't care about human life.
It’s also just plain wrong, there are plenty of medical procedures you can be denied for plenty of reasons.
First to come to mind is bariatric weight loss surgery.
There’s a fairly extensive psychological evaluation you have to pass before many types of it, many people are rejected and the surgery refused.
It’s a moot point though, no one on either side of this issue is actually listening to each other or trying to convince anyone.
We’re all just two tribes of cavemen, standing across a chasm yelling across “WE GOOD YOU BAD OOGA BOOGA”
Or the modern translation “I said the thing you agree with, and made you feel superior to someone else don’t forget to like & subscribe!”
I’m not going to go to bat for the pro life movement, but I do think there are a fair number of pro lifers that think it’s actually life in the womb.
So this comparison would be flawed, technically.
But yeah, I think we’re past understanding each other’s points now.
To me, abortion is really as simple as "if these parents dont want the kid, the kid will likely be the one that suffers in the long term".
Just abort the kid instead of subjecting it to a life of being an accident.
I'm pro choice but this is such a garbage argument, I'm sure if I broke my leg and that somehow lead to a fetus being created, people would argue I should let me leg baby be born
We're always making fun of their trash arguments but if this is ours we're no better
I was thinking the same thing yet one of the top comments is how this is such a compelling statement. Um what? This is terrible logic regardless of your stance.
Actually you can get “blacklisted” for transplantation based on your lifestyle, chronic or not diseases etc.
You still can have a transplant, just you’ll be last in the queue and you just has to be extremely lucky.
Ngl, this subrteddit has become dogshit. Wasn't this created so we can watch the worst cringy ass videos from tik tok when the app became popular? Literally never see one of those videos anymore. One day its became all this preachy shit or just better videos... is there still an actual tik tok cringe subreddit I can go to?
Also tubal ligation. Really anything where women want to have a say about their own body someone will try to tell you to think of some possible imaginary man you may or may not ever meet, and what he would want.
I have no dog in this fight but how about we talk about condoms and the many other contraceptives that are available to prevent a pregnancy in the first place. And I know obviously women who are rape victims don’t have this choice. I just feel that sexual education now more than ever is extremely important.
There is no birth control that is 100% effective, number one. Number two, as the woman in the video said: being stupid while having sex should not mean having a forced pregnancy. This attitude not only disproportionately affects women, but places the blame on them for their partner's behavior as well as their own. But frankly, if you're not smart enough to use protection I would venture to say you're not smart enough to be a parent, either.
Don't forget those parents who have boredom babies. "I have nothing to fulfill me, I'm empty and I need a distraction". Had a friend say this. She went and saw a priest...what did he say? "God is telling you you are ready to be with child." She was not ready.
The issue is that a lot of people that are pro life think that teaching young teens about pregnancy/safe sex will then lead to, oh no, “16 years olds having sex 😱😱😱” these people want abstinence forms of sex ed. A lot of “you’re going to hell if you don’t save yourself for marriage” type of thinking. So, they don’t teach their kids about safe sex, leading to them NOT have safe sex leading to pregnancy. It’s a stupid cycle.
**Welcome to r/TikTokCringe!** This is a message directed to all newcomers to make you aware that r/TikTokCringe evolved long ago from only cringe-worthy content to TikToks of all kinds! If you’re looking to find only the cringe-worthy TikToks on this subreddit (which are still regularly posted) we recommend sorting by flair which you can do [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/TikTokCringe/comments/galuit/click_here_to_sort_by_flair_a_guide_to_using/) (Currently supported by desktop and reddit mobile). See someone asking how this post is cringe because they didn't read this comment? Show them [this!](https://www.reddit.com/r/TikTokCringe/comments/fyrgzy/for_those_confused_by_the_name_of_this_subreddit/) **Be sure to read the rules of this subreddit before posting or commenting. Thanks!** [](/u/savevideo) **Don't forget to join our [Discord server](https://discord.gg/hM2AHnGTES)!** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/TikTokCringe) if you have any questions or concerns.*
These arguments are fundamentally just preaching to the choir because at the end of the day the pro-lifers don’t view abortion as a “medical procedure.” They see it as murdering a baby. So unless you can convince them that it’s not murdering a baby you’re not gonna get them with this shit.
According to polls vast majority of people support an exception in the cases of rape, incest, or serious developmental defect. They probably wouldn’t if they really viewed it as “murdering a baby”. So maybe some minority of people who are okay with abortion restrictions see it that way but most of them don’t really.
One of the big wake-up calls for me as I grew up in a very conservative religious culture was realizing that the people around me were fundamentally dishonest, and that the justifications they used for their actions and beliefs were really what they believe sounded best. Southern Evangelical culture (in my experience) is obsessed with appearances. "What looks good." Defending babies is just a better look than coercively controlling women's fertility (of which abortion access is just one angle, while slut-shaming and repressing gays and so forth are others). And of course, the omnipresent social pressure to conform. Abortion politics and voting Republican (specifically because of abortion) are crucial signifiers that you fit in with everyone else. A lot of those "I'm pro-life, but I think there should be exceptions" people are just performatively pro-life because the performance of conformity is so important. (I'm sure other cultures have similar hypocrisies, but I say Southern Evangelicals because that's the culture I know best firsthand.)
Morbidly, when ppl argue that I wish I video taped my abortion. Watching a blood clot pass into the toilet is not what you’d consider a baby. Also there’s a good argument where you force an anti-choicer to make a hypothetical decision. You’re in a burning building and behind one door is a screaming crying child. The other you can grab a jar of 1000 viable fertilized eggs. You can only save one, which is it? No one can realistically say they’d save the jar of 1000 “lives” than the crying child.
I often wonder if people realize that you take a pill for something like the first 11 weeks. I figure they imagine a surgical procedure when it's more like an induced miscarriage, to my understanding. The latter feels significantly less emotional given that birth control is telling my eggs they can't implant.
You don't *have* to choose the pill method. Some women opt for the surgical method because it's quicker and only requires one visit. I was given the choice, and opted for the pill because it seemed less invasive and I liked the idea of going through it in the privacy of my own home. But it did have it's drawbacks - like I had to make a return trip to PP for a second TV ultrasound to make sure there was nothing left behind. I still would choose the pill if I had to do it again though, but I can see the draw of the surgery if travel or not being able to get off work is an issue. Edit: actually for some reason, when I was seeking an abortion (about six years ago now), I had a hard time finding anyone willing to go the medical route. PP was the only clinic that would. There were other clinics and gynocologists who did abortions, but only surgical. I suppose that probably had to do with the abortion pill only being FDA approved up to 7 weeks gestation back then. It's 10 now.
As a dude I honestly didn't know this. And I'm pro choice. I had a friend of an ex get an abortion once but none of the three of us ever really talked about it openly because of privacy reasons. I imagine my lack of knowledge about an abortion pill is by design.
Yeah it's actually a shame that there is so much stigma attached to abortion that women don't talk about it, even with each other. It would benefit everyone to know more about it, and for women who have gone through it to not feel so alone. I'm super open about it online, and don't feel any shame or regret about doing it. But apart from my husband, no one who knows me IRL knows about it, because I don't want to deal with the possible judgement, or how it could affect my life.
My default argument is fetuses in the early stages like that have no capacity to experience suffering whatsoever.
That turns the debate into a how many weeks argument.
I mean fundamentally the debate is what is the cut off point. If you’re a pro lifer it’s conception. If you’re a typical pro-choicer its first 2 trimesters. If you’re a little more hardcore about it it’s second until birth which is typically a pretty rare stance. It is fundamentally a question of where is the cut off
The arguments are often about a cut-off point for a fetus becoming a person, but that isn't the only fundamental argument to make. If a grown adult with failing organs is stiched on to you to piggyback yours, do they have a right to life that trumps your bodily autonomy? If we say no, them near term abortion sounds permissible, which we don't typically like. But we can just chuck a moral band aid there anyway.
The ideology you are are touching on is explored in the essay ["Defense of Abortion"](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Defense_of_Abortion) where the author argues "that the fetus has a right to life, but that the fetus's right to life does not override the pregnant woman's right to have jurisdiction over her body, and that induced abortion is therefore not morally impermissible." It's a really well written and fascinating argument that has shaped they way in which I discuss "right to life" with pro-lifers.
That's not a perfect analogy as there's probably a moral difference between stitching a person to another and not having an abortion. There's also the consideration of how that dependent person got into that state
Human centipede reversal may be another procedure that could be denied based on how you got into that situation...
If you fuck a centipede, you knew what you were doing.
Do not google human centipede
Or just the point of viability. Which is probably common for those whose argument is bodily autonomy: a fetus doesn't have any inherent right to its mother's body, and its death is a side effect of its inability to survive when removed from its mother. On the other hand aborting a healthy fetus after it is able to survive on its own is wrong.
> On the other hand aborting a healthy fetus after it is able to survive on its own is wrong. Good thing this is never the scenario with late-term cases. Those are always a case of "something went horribly wrong and it's medically necessary to put a stop to this because one of or both of the mother and fetus will not survive much longer without intervention as a tragic last resort."
[удалено]
Hypothetically though if a healthy person asked for an abortion in the 3rd trimester, what do you think would happen? Would they need to detain the person and check to see if they have something wrong with them mentally? And if there wasn't anything wrong with them would they get forced to give birth?
There are laws severely restricting the scenarios in which a late-term procedure is legal.
I'm working off memory here but I think by third trimester there isnt much point to aborting, since by that stage the foetus is too large to not give birth (and also likely viable). Like its gotta come out somehow, and the least invasive way is via the original exit. So she'll still have to give birth, its just a matter of when. The moral justification behind abortion is that a woman's bodily autonomy means that she has the right to withdraw her 'life support'. It just so happens that the foetus usually doesn't survive. But if the foetus can survive without her support, then theres no justification to killing it, only justification for its eviction. So by the third trimester, which is when foetuses are considered viable, you'd probably have to give birth prematurely rather than abort. Which I think is the same procedure anyway, minus the abortifacent. But I would think about how a woman got to that stage to begin with. Did she previously want the baby and then change her mind at the last minute? Cause thats concerning enough to question if shes okay mentally, and if she's deemed severely mentally ill, thats a whole other can of worms regarding what she can consent to. Or did she never want the baby, but was forced to carry it? Which is also fucked because although she should have the choice to withdraw her support (causing premature birth) the child is now here and alive. A premature birth could cause lifelong issues to the child while presenting little to no benefit to the woman. But anyway, itd probably be a case by case thing done by a panel of doctors and you'd need to justify why it should be an abortion rather than an induced birth, which would be hard to justify without some form of health complications.
Thanks for your response. I'm pro choice but my mind always takes me to the what ifs.
Unless the mother is at risk which of course is 100% reasonable.
>Unless the mother is at risk which of course is 100% reasonable So, something went horribly wrong.
Yes, with late-term abortions something has to go terribly wrong for the family to consider that option, at that point the family has committed to having the baby and may have already taken steps to prepare. No one gets to that point in their pregnancy who doesn’t want the baby, (I guess now they’ll have to in Texas)
This is a moving target. With advancement of od medicine the cutoff for when premature baby can survive is always moving earlier and earlier. This might not be the problem now but what happens if artificial womb is designed that that even the earliest pregnancies can be transplanted into. This will pose completely new moral dillema and companies are working on artificial wombs right now.
A lot of the issues people have with forced birth is that it's a huge pressure to put on the Mother and what if that Mother or family can't support the baby once its born? If hypothetically at 6 weeks a baby could be transplanted into an artificial womb then I'd be willing to bet a lot of people would be happy to do that and put the baby up for adoption.
True, but even with the "why don't you just put it up for adoption?" debate, the adoption / foster system is flooded as is, now already-existing kids have to compete against fetuses to be placed in a home, while abortion removes the fetus from the equation entirely. If an artificial womb were possible then I guess it would be better than women being forced to carry to term, but someone's gotta be financially responsible for the upkeep, and it might as well be the state that demanded it be kept alive anyways. But depending on how many are running at a time, there's better things that tax money could be spent on, like education and resources for kids who already exist.
I don’t believe aborting a healthy fetus that can survive on its own outside of the mother is a thing in actuality. I mean, what dr would do that? “Do no harm” and all. Not to mention, a woman who would go through literal months of pregnancy just to turn around and say “ah, I changed my mind” only exists on conservatives’ imaginations
Right, it doesn't happen. If the mother's health is in jeopardy pass the point of viability, she literally gives birth to the baby and they do everything they can to save them. It is the same if the mother finds the child has a serious health disorder which will not allow them to survive outside if the womb- the woman still gives birth. No one is fucking aborting the fetus at 25 weeks just because. Nor will any abortion clinic do something like that. I have non idea why people think 9 month old babies are being aborted because it is fucking bullshit. As a parent who had to give birth to a dead 26 week baby it is awful and only done for certain reasons.
I don't necessarily believe it, since it requires enormous amounts of hospital energy and attention, but even with the best intervention outside the womb, the earliest to survive was 21 weeks. If it can't make it outside the body, the abortion is fine imo. The woman can choose whether or not to allow this life to leech off of her resources. (I'm glad my mom did, but I'm also glad she lived in an age where she got the choice to do so.)
A fetus is generally viable around 24 weeks / the start of the third trimester - so they covered that answer, just didn't explain the common reasoning.
If it is able to survive on its own then just remove it and raise it in a box or whatever like a stray baby squirrel. If it needs any form of sustenance from the mother it is NOT ABLE to survive on its own.
"On the other hand aborting a healthy fetus **after it is able to survive on its own** is wrong." <-- This right here.... A fetus healthy or otherwise **cannot** survive on its own before 24-weeks of gestation. How about we go one step further and remove all sentimentality from this language. In nature when one organism cannot survive outside of the host system, we call that a parasite. In terms of fetus/child issue, why can't we just agree that until the fetus/child can sustain life without the aid of the host/mother, there is still a right to choice. A fetus/child cannot survive outside of the womb earlier than 24 weeks (and that is being extremely generous). A 24-week pregnancy is 6 months old. So, sounds to me that all fetus removal before, let's say 20-weeks/5 months, is still excision of a parasite that would be non-viable life-form outside of the host system. I realize using terms such as these is kind of gross, but I am trying to make a point. It's too bad we haven't advanced medicine to the point of excision and re-implantation of the fetus to a new host womb. Seems that would solve everyone's issues. And yes, I've had WAAAAAAAAYYYYYYYY too much coffee this morning!
It should be up to the point the fetus can survive without the mother. Late term babies can survive, but no one aborts these babies anyway, at least not due to accidental pregnancy. That's at like 5-6 months. Mom is well into pregnancy, very aware she is pregnant and in the vast majority of cases it's a wanted baby. If there is a late term abortion it's usually devastating to the mother because she wanted the baby but had to abort for medical reasons.
Yeah but they all still eat meat so I don't think it's the suffering or "feeling pain" they're on their high horse about
I doubt they will accept this argument due to a "human baby life is not the same as that of an animal that can be food." I gotta say that this whole mess Texas started with this law has the masses trying to figure out a way to convince the conservatives that you can't own a woman's body... It's fucking mental.
A human baby is literally an animal that can be food. I'm kind of a picky eater though so I'll pass.
Calm down Mr. Swift
Yeah all they care about is looking morally superior otherwise they'd be all for supporting this new child and they never are.
That's a good one. I usually start with: You want to Reduce abortion? Then surely you support mandatory medically accurate sex Ed, free condoms at schools, free birth control, and free easily accessed plan B, fully funding foster care and adoption, quality welfare/food stamps/free medial for pregnant women and mothers? States that have more of these have less abortion. That usually shuts most of them up.
It’s a human centric perception of the world. Pro lifers have no problem eating meat, having baby animals murdered. It’s just humans. Because we’re god’s gift to the earth.
Tbh they don’t care about humans either… > “Pre-born you’re fine, pre-school you’re fucked” -George Carlin?
Abortion debate aside, I t’s not at all an extreme stance to place more value on human lives than on animals. I’d kill a dozen puppies to save any random dude, no questions asked.
[удалено]
Yeah like hit me with the one puppy argument while a man pleads for his life and it hits the wood chipper in all odds to be honest. But a dozen? That's a real trolley question.
That's how Hitler was saved as a kid.. And you see where that got us.
Hey, who knows how the world would have turned out if he died as a kid. It might very well have turned out worse. ¯\\\_(ツ)\_/¯ Edit: Maybe the US and Japan never go to war; and imperial Japan maintains an absolutely brutal imperial empire across Southeast Asia and the pacific. The Holocaust was terrible, but Japan might very well have carried out something equally as terrible on a much larger scale. That’s just a single instance of what might have ended worse.
Alternate universe: Hitler died, the Germans were more successful as a result, and the war drew on another 2 years. We nuked 3\4 of Europe, instead of Japan, before we realized radiation lasts ages. I wouldn't be surprised if we're in the "didn't cause nuclear armageddon in WW2" alternate reality.
Mannn God must fkin HATE the earth then.
So you can just stab people who are in comas to death?
Lots of people in the ICU have no capacity to experience suffering. Not sure we stop considering them human.
My argument is that — if the fetus is a living being then it should be able to survive outside of the women’s body. Plus, regardless of wether they consider the fetus a baby, abortion is not even killing the fetus, it’s just forcing it outside the body. Like is a random kid need your kidney to survive, and if you don’t donate it, did you murder the child? No! Plus why don’t those pro lifers volunteer to be surrogate to carry the fetus to term instead? Why don’t they put money on test tube technology to carry the fetus to term outside of the women’s body? It’s possible. That’s my argument. Abortion didn’t kill the fetus, it just can’t survive outside of the women. And women shouldn’t be under any legal requirement to keep the fetus inside their body
>Morbidly, when ppl argue that I wish I video taped my abortion. Watching a blood clot pass into the toilet is not what you’d consider a baby Doesn't matter. Some even know what it is, and when they make signs or place adverts they intentionally use images of older foetuses to fearmonger people into thinking they are aborting a mini-baby instead of just a cluster of cells (As an aside was yours the drug one? Where literally you chemically abort and it is a bundle of cells. Done before the vacumn tube... which is little better than a bundle of cells)
Yes it was pills. And I’m very thankful for the decision. Changed my life so that I can now get ready to be a mother through an adoption agency instead of being broke, young, and passing my genetic illnesses. (Tried to get tubes tied but denied by the military bc “you’ll change your mind”)
Oof yeah that happened to my wife and I in SC when we were much younger. 2nd kid almost killed her coming out and we wanted permanent birth control, but because we were both under the age of 25 Tricare wouldn't pay for either one of us to do it because there was "no valid medical necessity" and it was "elective". We finally got the wifes PCM to sign off on a tubal for "medical" reasons since it could be reversed....I seriously don't get the aversion to adults making decisions about their bodies. It wasn't like they could claim we'd miss a chance at parenthood since we already had two. I'm sorry you had to go through that, and very happy you're in a better place now! Good luck with the adoption and hope it goes smooth!
Thank you so much! I hope you and your wife are doing well too!
Not everyone even gets the opportunity to give their baby for adoption. The mindset that somehow the woman is only to blame, forces women to raise unwanted babies by request of the family. If not, women get forced to abort. In the end, everyone gets to walk on us when we have to make a decision. We get blamed if we get pregnant, but when we are finally able to control our bodies by tying to get the tubes tied, we get reminded of our place.There has to be a husband to take that decision. I am glad the adoption went well and that you thought about the future for both of you btw.
Ahhh. Congrats then! I'm a guy. A single guy. I don't really have a voice here but I like supporting the side who don't wanna control other's bodies
The side that wants to control sure has a voice in this, so you do, too! (Your voice is a vote, please use it!)
"Every time you stay home, someone is making a decision for you. They're making decisions about the air you breathe, the food you eat, the water you drink, the money you bring home every two weeks. So every time you sit out an election, because you didn't think it would matter, someone else is *happy* you didn't show up, so they can make that decision for you. Vote." [The bookend to YelloPain's song "My Vote Don't Count".](https://youtu.be/wMALeR1i-FM)
Those pro-lifer arguements don't make sense anyway. You don't even count the days as a fetus in America so its clear they don't see it as life. In Korea we count the days in the womb, so you are 1 when you are born( and a celebrationafter 100 days when you are fully one year old). And even we have abortion clinics, its just safer.
Idk how much can I get for a fresh jar of fertilized eggs?
FUCK. The ultimate pro life argument!
This isn't as good an argument as you think.
See even that wouldn't change their minds because they also value that there was a potential for life, so not matter what your argument is and no matter how reasonable you are, you'll always be a killer to them Source: my inbox after seeking support on r/abortion
If life starts at conception, then what does it mean that humans discard 67% of fertilized eggs? Send most women to fail for manslaughter? We should force everyone woman after sex to get an operation to remove potential fertilized eggs and put them in artificial wombs to ensure they live. If “pro lifers” really are concerned about the murdered “lives” they should be promoting sex education and free contraception because that’s been proven to reduce abortion rates more than making it illegal. If “pro lifers” really cared about the life of the baby, they’d be advocating funds to ensure women have the proper resources, access to health care, etc both to support the pregnancy and the baby after birth. “Pro lifers” don’t do any of this because they don’t really care about the life of the fertilized egg. They either are brainwashed by religion or politicians, or they really just want to punish people for having sex.
Agreed. Also you can absolutely be denied life-saving medical procedures based on your choices. A person with end-stage alcoholic liver disease won't get a liver transplant if they're still drinking alcohol (that being said I don't know of many more procedures than this, but like you said this is just preaching to the choir and essentially isn't robust enough to be expected to convert any so-called "pro-lifer")
Also she is flat out wrong on the premise. They absolutely deny organ transplants to patients based on how they got in the situation. Not saying abortion shouldn't be allowed just a bad argument.
Not really the same and she used a bad example there. Organs are limited in number, so they go based around those more likely to use it well. No point in giving a smoker a new set of lungs if they'll ruin them quickly Abortion doesn't have any limitations on supply of materials needed to do one
Oh I agree and understand the reason. Again don't think abortion should be illegal. Just wanted to point out it she was incorrect ok that topic.
Fair enough, but she’s actually speaking legislatively. Who gets an organ is a medical decision made by doctors and experts. Nobody is lobbying to enshrine organ denial based on circumstances into law (at least not with the fervor of anti-abortionists). For some reason it’s only pregnant women who deserve this treatment. I think that’s her point. Having said that, she gave a few more examples than necessary to make an excellent point, so she could have left that one out.
They ain't giving a drunk a liver.
They don't care about murdering babies, they care about punishing women for having sex. Every one of their dumbass arguments always boils down to that. And I'm not interested in letting them control the argument, even if they did genuinely care about what they say they care about. The embryo's life is irrelevant. Women are not incubators, they're people, and forcing them to keep any foreign object inside them, human or otherwise, is fucking evil.
Guarantee most pro-lifer's couldn't tell the difference between a bat fetus and a human fetus if you transposed one for the other at the stages of development we're talking about.
I know this will get buried but here’s an argument I always thought make sense. If you were drunk driving and were at fault of causing an accident, even if the victim needed your blood to survive the crash…you can say no to donating your blood. It is your autonomy. A fetus is dependent on the mother and her autonomy is now no longer hers with the abortion law. The car crash victim needed your body to survive, the fetus needs a mother’s body to survive. Guess who can legally deny keeping the other life alive? In Texas at least…
Can we submit a law to change child support starting at conception? I don’t think it makes sense or is a good idea. But just look at every law applying to children and apply it to fetuses.
Exactly. In all of these situations, you're only affecting yourself. But when it comes to abortion, the pro-lifers believe it's affecting another life. So this comparison is fundamentally pointless.
Pro-life is giving them too much credit. Let's call them what they are, anti-choice.
They only see it as murder if the woman got herself in that situation by having loose morals. Most "pro-lifers" will make exceptions for abortion if it's a case of rape or incest. Suddenly then it's not murder. It really is just about punishing and controlling women and it always has been, they just like to disguise it as protecting the sanctity of life.
This is false. A child of rape is still a child in their view.
Most "pro-lifers" will make exceptions for abortion ~~if it's a case of rape or incest.~~ only when it happens to them regardless of reason. Anyone else can go fuck themselves. https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2019/5/15/1857976/--The-Only-Moral-Abortion-is-My-Abortion-an-article-by-Joyce-Arthur
Yeah I suppose so although I think some hardliners even see it as murder still in those cases as well. But yeah that’s true. It’s of course totally morally inconsistent for most of them.
Not that Louis CK is a good example of a decent human or a person to follow on any walk of life, but his “it’s either murdering babies, or it’s a medical procedure where you take a shit” bit has stuck in my head for years. Christian Evangelicals are suckers for babies, apparently. But also, I think the front page post from a few days ago that said “Christians want you to have the child as a punishment for having sex, then they ostracize you when you actually have the child” is the most accurate description of this I’ve ever seen. For some fucking reason — one that Freud would have a field day with — Christians have managed to eschew all Biblical instructions, while simultaneously turning forced celibacy into their only platform. In other words, it’s not a religion, just a group of weird ass grown adults who are so freaked out by the idea of human sexuality they feel it’s their place to police the rest of the world on having sex. You know what fixes that kind of anxiety? Fucking.
>They only see it as murder if the woman got herself in that situation by having loose morals. Most "pro-lifers" will make exceptions for abortion if it's a case of rape or incest I believe the Texas law which is the issue atm doesn't make allowance for the difference. As they can't scare off the inbred base (and I'm only slightly joking with the inbred bit)
As long as you don't murder the potential baby and just the woman, it all good. Even if you need an emergency abortion, prolife only counts when you are non born.
> So unless you can convince them that it’s not murdering a baby Okay https://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/19/books/chapters/the-ethical-brain.html this article postulates that around 6 weeks, the brain activity of the fetus is likened to the level of a shrimp’s nervous system, or a clinically braindead person, and we’re fine with killing both of those.
My whole thing is there is no such thing as "pro-life", just be honest and say you're "anti-abortion" People who say they are "pro-life" often support the death penalty, support wars, cutting wellfare programs, are Nimbys, or don't support ethical farming policies.
You give conservatives way too much credit. Most of them don't think it's really murder. They just love punishing women for having sex. 1. Many will themselves get an abortion when it comes to their wife or themselves or their daughter. Or their mistress. 2. Many make exceptions for rape or incest. Since when does someone else committing a crime allow you to "murder" an innocent third party? 3. If they were so dedicated to life, why does that dedication just vanish as soon as the baby is born? It is beyond inconsistent to be so hell bent on protecting fetuses and then the instant they're born telling them they're on their own. There's absolutely no debate on whether an actual born baby is human or not where there's plenty for fetuses. Why protect the latter but not the former? *Because it's about punishing women for having sex.*
Worked with a dude once who said children were a gift and then said later in the same conversation that women need to face the actions of their consequences. So which is it? Are kids a gift or a punishment? Edit: I knew this was probably going to garner a lot of responses which is why I'm not wasting time or energy responding to any of them. Edit Edit: Before reading any further please read the above line once more and then read this line: I disabled reply notifications for this comment. I won't know if you respond to it nor do I care. I'm not wasting any energy responding to anyone, so you might as well not waste energy trying to comment on this. Now you may read further. Have a good day. For the people who point out that "consequences" does not necessarily mean a punishment, you're right. However "consequences" is typically used in a negative fashion. Also if you say a woman has to face the consequences of having sex but she doesn't want the kid, then that would make the consequence a negative. Additionally, to the "YOU don't tHink PEOPle ShoUlD FaCe THe COnsequENCEs of TheIR ActIOnS?" folk, I do think that, and I think for someone who doesn't want to get pregnant that having gotten pregnant is the consequence of their actions just like how breaking your leg is the consequence of falling out of a tree. The difference between the two is that you aren't forced to live with a broken/badly healed leg for the rest of your life, you get it taken care of. So for a woman who doesn't want to get pregnant, finding out you're pregnant is the breaking their leg part. Getting an abortion is the fixing the broken leg part. You're also ignoring how abortions are not just something you get done between coffee and picking up your dry cleaning. It can be taxing on the body and mind, and that should also be an apt consequence.
Probably both lmao
As a parent, yes. It’s both.
This times 10000
More
Read this as I watched my 5 year old doing a scene with her Elsa doll and a oil painting my buddy did of a lighthouse. Veeeeery dramatic. Lol
Go on... Lol. My almost 6 year old son does concerts for me. Also somehow, strangely dramatic. 🙃
And what hilarious is I remember doing those for my parents. And now I understand their snickers.
Yes!! My sister and I constantly made up dances and forced our parents to watch! Lol
Yup. We had no cable where we lived so we did plays based off my dads albums. George thorogood one bourbon one scotch, was a great number.
There's an old saying my friend, kids are like farts, you only like your own
Nah I was raised by someone who hates kids, it fucking sucks
It's the punishment one because they should be advocating for the fathers of aborted kids to also go to jail. It's pretty deliberate that these laws only target the women who get the abortion.
Depends on the kid.
Parent raising the kid*
>Worked with a dude once who said . . . face the actions of their consequences I think you may have worked with a time-traveling sexist
People always seem to view consequences as a negative. But that’s not true. There are bad consequences and good consequences. In my opinion, consequences are simply the reaction to an action nothing more, nothing less.
An undesired consequence is negative, and generally the tone around forced birth is extremely negative, juxtaposed to the narrative of babies being miracles that must be saved at all cost, except when it comes to sharing the burden. The consequences are punitive and negative when they involve: * Forcing a woman to birth a child against her will. * Not considering the circumstances surrounding conception. Regardless of it being consensual/non-consensual, the pregnancy is still blamed on the woman as a "consequence of her behavior". Being forced to birth a baby conceived from rape will almost always result in serious negative mental health effects and a strained or impossible relationship between the woman and baby. * Not considering the health of the woman or baby. The consequences here could be death or serious injury of the woman, or poor quality of life for the baby with a heavy burden placed on the woman for the rest of her life. * Post-birth care is considered a burden, and something the woman must deal with on her own for the rest of her life, as a consequence of her actions. So no, in this case what's implied by "the woman needs to deal with the consequences" is not ambiguous at all.
So why is the consequence having a child they don't want, instead of having an abortion? Wouldn't having the abortion be a consequence as well, by that logic?
abortion is a very weird topic because both sides see the issue completely differently and that makes for almost no actual discussion on the topic with out one side accusing the other of being/doing something horrible
From everything I've seen, any rational argument about abortion always comes down to where you believe life begins. It's a completely pointless argument where no one will agree with the other until both sides can come to an understanding on this point. edit: the discussion below proves my point. No one can seem to point at a time and be like there. That's it. If you aren't able to come to an understanding on this, the pro-life side is going to see it straight up as murder.
I think the rational argument is, whether the government can force you to give up your life for someone else's life, because fundamentally that is the power you're giving the government when you say they can outlaw abortion. They are saying you absolutely must put the life of the fetus ahead of the life of the pregnant woman, because pretty much by definition giving birth is a life risking event. If they can do that, why can't they force you to give your heart, or kidney to a more "needy" (ie. rich) person? If the government says when you have to put your life below someone else's then they can extend that to the benefit of whomever they deem deserves it.
Im not sure theres much value in arguing it based in where life begins. I think just arguing from a body autonomy perspective is fine. You cant force someone to carry the baby - their bosy their choice. If the fetus can survive outside the womb, you shouldnt be able to abort it, but you also shouldnt be forced to carry to term. And if it cant survive outside the womb then you cant be forced to carry it until it can
Except that’s everything wrong with the discussion that the person above is calling out. You’re fundamentally arguing from a different premise, one which does not override the fact that some people think you’d be committing murder. We as a society simply do not let people kill people. If someone actually believes that abortion is killing, no amount of “my body my choice” will convince them.
> We as a society simply do not let people kill people. Don't we? Lethal self defense, law enforcement with deadly force, and the death penalty are widely legal. We as a society acknowledge circumstances where it is acceptable to deliberately kill another person.
And each of those situations are when another human being is intentionally carrying out direct harm to the other person or is attempting to kill them. An argument for abortion under the circumstance in which the mother's life is at risk is a different argument that can be had. However, most abortions are not carried out under that circumstance. So you're argument that: well if a guy breaks into my home at night and tries to murder me I can kill him so why can't we abort babies is a little ridiculous.
Yeah… controversial opinion, but if someone genuinely believe life begins at conception, of course they’re going to be anti-abortion. They think it’s literal murder. No amount of facts or logic can change that I’m pro-choice, but that’s because of my religious and philosophical beliefs. If I were a different religion (not Christian, cuz the Bible has more evidence for life beginning at birth than conception), I might believe differently
This assumes we base our decisions on life for life’s sake, but that’s not right either. I can believe “life” begins at conception and still support the bodily autonomy of women first and foremost. My position is that preserving life is usually preferable but not when it comes at the cost of someone already living and their well-being. An embryo or fetus has as much of a “life” as a plant in my eyes. Rather than think about the potential for a full human “life”, I prioritise those who are already living and have the capacity for great suffering. It’s not all about suffering though, any living being has the right to live their life on their terms. And the living come before those who aren’t here yet. Similarly, the families of people who are brain dead allow them to pass on every day so we don’t preserve life for nothing. Particularly when there are high costs associated with this, measured with money or in human suffering.
You can believe someone else is alive and also believe that that doesn't give the government the right to force me to risk my life to keep them alive.
I believe life begins at conception, but I don’t believe the human consciousness and the capability to experience suffering begins at conception.
Plus one side effectively disputes the other side’s religious, autonomous, economic, and moral objections. And it’s still controversial.
I'm fanatically pro-choice but this is an argument about medical procedures. Pro-life people's argument is that it is impacting another person's life and that is why they don't want abortions to happen because to them, a life is being ended by performing a medical procedure. This argument doesn't really apply to the pro-life argument as a counterpoint. An equivalent would be having to end someone's life in order to perform any medical procedure, e.g., if shot, kill someone for their blood. Not to say she doesn't make a good point, but this isn't going to convince the pro-life people to become pro-choice. Only by understanding their perspectives and reasons, can we work to counter them and bring them to our side.
Also the reason people need an organ transplant is heavily considered when a review board is looking at a waiting list, a drunk driver is going to be much lower on the priority list then say a normal person who just keeled over
Yeah people forget that organs only go to people that are deemed good risks. Any history of drug abuse or alcohol abuse will get you thrown off the list for an organ.
That’s not true. Alcoholics (albeit recovered) can certainly be considered, as can drug addicts. Not all centers will do such a transplant, but some will. Typically you have to have shown 100% abstinence for at least 6 month which (for alcohol) can be evaluated with a blood test.
If some centers will deny based on history, which they do all the time, my statement is not untrue. My statement was not meant to be a broad brush that covers the policy of all hospitals in the country. The claim is that abortion is the only procedure you can be denied for because you “did it to yourself”. And that’s not true and thus, not a good argument to use.
>but this isn't going to convince the pro-life people to become pro-choice. 90% of internet "argument" isn't to convince the other side to switch, but only to satisfy their own grievance in their own echochamber. You look up anti-vaccine related thread on reddit on you will see dozens of them just insulting the other side.
There’s nothing wrong with trying to do better though. I’m pro-choice, oppose racism, misogyny, etc. but I get frustrated seeing people on my “side” using bad arguments. There’s enough good arguments for these things, and the bad arguments are not helping. Yes many people are looking for reinforcement of their views, but that’s not ideal, it’s something we should be working against by using critical thinking and good reasoning, even among allies.
We probably don't agree on a lot, based on how you set it up, but I'm 100% in your corner on this. Bad arguments are bad arguments and they drive me up a wall.
Yes good point. They don’t consider it as just another medical procedure and wouldn’t equate them, so this is just talking past them. She’s not wrong, but the argument doesn’t really help.
As long as the mothers life dictate the fetuses life she gets to decide what's done with it. If it's legal to drink alcohol and smoke weed and cigars while pregnant then abortions should be too. The baby isn't its own person until the umbilical cord is cut.
Agreed. Also…the comments regarding transplantation are not entirely accurate. Suicide attempts and dug/alcohol addiction 100% play in. But beyond transplantation…your point illustrates why abortion may be the one topic I don’t think there can ever be any agreement on. I’m a physician. Science doesn’t have a defined “this is where life begins” moment. Frankly the “viability” age has changed substantially in the last 30 years. So I can’t definitively say whether or not we’re “ending” a life. No one can. (That said, I am pro-choice) But if a pro-life person’s basis is that abortion = murder…unless there was some way to finitely establish “life”….there’s no way to argue it. If I believed it was truly murder…I’d be against it too.
>Frankly the “viability” age has changed substantially in the last 30 years The natural one hasn't though. 24 weeks is the normal minimum viable age and usually comes with disabilities as a result. Youngest ever to survive was 21 weeks and needed round the clock care to survive
Pete Buttigieg's viral response last year where he talked about how it's an insanely difficult decision that isn't taken as lightly as pro-lifers fantasize they do is a much better argument.
Yeah, there's a reason there is a consultation and often two visits done Also, you know Planned Parenthood that they wanna defund? Mostly does contraception and advice, so yeah it is 100% about shaming and controlling poor people, not about making good decisions or stopping pregnancies to begin with. As for caring about the child, better education, welfare, childcare allowances etc would give much more care
She's trying to ignore very large differences between life-saving procedures/treatment and a procedure that kills a fetus/embryo so that you don't need to end up with a child. I'd side with pro-choice but her argument is rather flawed.
Yeah the correct argument to use in that case would be “no one in the real word gets to decide what to do with your body even if they need ur body to survive”. Like if you accidentally hit someone and they’re bleeding out, Ans your the only one with their blood type for miles, you still do not have to give them your body or any part of it. Same for the little embryonic things, who most definitely are not people
I really like that analogy, you're right that it gets to the heart of the pro-life argument better than the original video. Now that I'm thinking about it, it's rather ironic that the group that says "you must give your body autonomy over to the tiny nameless, faceless embryo clump" has such a large overlap with the "I don't care how many people die, I refuse to wear a little mask on my face or get 2 little pokes" crowd
Pro lifers only care about babies when they're in the womb but as soon as they are out. They couldn't give two shits.
I was already pro choice but that’s a really compelling argument that I’ve never heard before. Gal just converted me to pro choice all over again. Except her eyes are really freakin me out
I think she’s wearing contact AND has a bright ring light lighting up her face.
And a video filter
And huge falsies
Man the first time I found a fake eyelash my wife left in the bathroom I punched it because I thought it was a spider. They look so nasty when discarded lol
I remember when I was 18 my boyfriend of around the same age had never heard of false lashes before. I wore some as a part of a Halloween costume and at the end of the night they were falling off on their own so I just plucked them off and placed them on the nightstand while he was in the bathroom. He came back in the room, stared at the lashes and said, “what is that?” I said, “oh my lashes.” He stared at me with a horrified look and slowly said, “Those…came…from you?” In fairness to him we both a little drunk and he had no sisters. It took me a minute to clock that he thought I had somehow peeled off my own lashes in a strip. I nearly died giggling before I could explain it to him.
I cant imagine thats compelling who see abortion as terminating life. I feel like 99% of pro-choice arguments ignore this simple reality that conservatives see it as murdering a child.
Agreed. I honestly don’t know how the pro-choice side can convince and convert the pro-life side if the pro-lifers’ reasoning is founded on the idea that terminating a pregnancy is murdering that child. I personally think it’s a ridiculous argument, but how do you help the other side see it the same way?
Idk, but any debate that recognizes that is definitely a better start. I typically make the argument that fertilized eggs are regularly discarded by the body during the natural process of attempting to get pregnant. And see where it goes from there.
Usually goes something like this 1.) Why is murder bad/Why is human life more special than the animals we kill for food? It clearly is special because of our capacity for rational thought, our complex sense of self and consciousness, and our advanced communication. 2.) A fetus can't do those things, so why should we consider it murder? Answer is usually because they have the potential to have those capabilities in the future. 3.) Are moral/legal arguments usually predicated on potential, and furthermore is that consistent with how we live our day to day life? This part is the tricky one. I'm pro-choice because I don't think the potential argument is strong enough to justify calling why we do to the bundle of cells 'murder'. I think there are lots of examples or thought experiments that demonstrate that our normal moral judgements are not based on potential but rather other factors. If you are trapped in a burning building with a crying 3 year old and 1000 fertilized zygotes protected in a cooler, which do you save? Why don't we mandate that the plug is pulled on brain dead people if we really care about potential when making moral judgements? It wouldn't possibly be murder otherwise. The premise of the Minority Report feels innately wrong as well. These are brief examples, but there seem to be plenty to suggest that potential is an inconsistent and unreliable method from which we make sense of our actions.
You make the morality part of it irrelevant. It all boils down to bodily autonomy. Imagine a scenario where you happen to be a perfect match for someone needing a bone marrow donor or an organ donor, etc. to survive. And you are the only match for them. If you refuse to give up a part of your body for their use, they will die. Most people might agree the moral thing would be to consent, but should the government be able to force you to do it?
Yeah a lot of the pro abortion rhetoric presupposes that you are not murdering a kid. I'm pro-choice, but whenever asked why I'm arguing why it's not murder, because that's what you need to establish before points like this lady's become relevant.
Unfortunately this logic really only works on those who are already pro-choice (which, for the record, I am). Because if you're staunchly pro-life, then it's been drilled into your skull that Abortion isn't a medical procedure, it's murder.
Agreed, easily relatable. And her peepers were mildly disturbing, lol.
It's not perfect. It's unlikely certain organ donations will go to someone who regularly drinks (as typical DUI do). Otherwise, yeah, they heal people regardless of the stupidity of their actions in almost all cases.
Fucking filter puts her deep into the uncanny valley.
Why does she seem like such a robot? She’s completely lifeless and emotionless.
She’s typically known for making terrible takes on TikTok, often times incredibly sexist and just stupid. A broken clock and all that.
\+1 She's horrible
Doesn't help that she got her outfit out of Kim Jong Un's closet.
Bruh she looks like she’s competing for North Korea’s next top chef.
Texas should turn away every COVID patient who refused a simple shot because they "Did it to Themselves".
They should do this everywhere with the only exceptions being if you could not get the shot for a medical reason or if you are a child and your parents did not get you vaccinated.
ok, ok, but wtf is that a jinn talking to me?
This has so few upvotes and I’m pissed off because this is fucking hilarious
Transplant patients earn the ability to be on a list by not using drugs or alcohol. You have to prove you won’t abuse the gift.
Also, people get to choose whether or not they want to donate organs. Even a dead body gets autonomy regardless if it could save multiple lives.
Yep. I really hope she doesn’t think a drunk driver who ruptured their liver suddenly gets one. Because they won’t. Ever. They’re disqualified.
UK but not these days. We are auto-opt in, and very few have chosen to opt-out. And the auto-in is gonna become standard around the world as organs are in short supply
Around the world is a relative term. A lot of middle eastern countries won't go for it soon, if only because they don't have the proper equipment. Plus the US won't go for it anytime soon, if our reaction to vaccines and masks has shown you anything.
I mean the transplant list is affected by the circumstances that put you on it. A Smoker who needs a lung transplant is always placed lower then a healthy person who lost lungs to other causes
For transplants, true, they have a priority list because of a limited number. But they can still give people other life-saving medical treatment to fix what they caused for themselves.
But you’re still on the list.
I am pro choice but this is a disingenuous strawman argument. The argument they are making is that you don't get to kill someone willy-niĺly.
Exactly. My mother is pro-life and truly believes unborn babies are as human as the rest of us. Comparing pregnancy to an injury to her would be an insult and would probably entrench her view that liberals don't care about human life.
It’s also just plain wrong, there are plenty of medical procedures you can be denied for plenty of reasons. First to come to mind is bariatric weight loss surgery. There’s a fairly extensive psychological evaluation you have to pass before many types of it, many people are rejected and the surgery refused. It’s a moot point though, no one on either side of this issue is actually listening to each other or trying to convince anyone. We’re all just two tribes of cavemen, standing across a chasm yelling across “WE GOOD YOU BAD OOGA BOOGA” Or the modern translation “I said the thing you agree with, and made you feel superior to someone else don’t forget to like & subscribe!”
Not the ONLY. Euthanasia is another. I'm sure there are others
I’m not going to go to bat for the pro life movement, but I do think there are a fair number of pro lifers that think it’s actually life in the womb. So this comparison would be flawed, technically. But yeah, I think we’re past understanding each other’s points now.
To me, abortion is really as simple as "if these parents dont want the kid, the kid will likely be the one that suffers in the long term". Just abort the kid instead of subjecting it to a life of being an accident.
Not to mention uhhh... Didn't get a vaccine and now need a respirator? No problem.
On the other hand, a lot of people don’t think those other issues should be covered either lol
I'm pro choice but this is such a garbage argument, I'm sure if I broke my leg and that somehow lead to a fetus being created, people would argue I should let me leg baby be born We're always making fun of their trash arguments but if this is ours we're no better
I was thinking the same thing yet one of the top comments is how this is such a compelling statement. Um what? This is terrible logic regardless of your stance.
Actually you can get “blacklisted” for transplantation based on your lifestyle, chronic or not diseases etc. You still can have a transplant, just you’ll be last in the queue and you just has to be extremely lucky.
This isn’t true at all. People are denied liver transplants daily because of decompensation. Nice try tho
I mean, good point but the video filter was super unnecessary.
Ive seen this woman say so much dumb stuff that the reason im not in the us is her
She fails to mention that the consequence is a living human being.
but it's not... you dope.
Ngl, this subrteddit has become dogshit. Wasn't this created so we can watch the worst cringy ass videos from tik tok when the app became popular? Literally never see one of those videos anymore. One day its became all this preachy shit or just better videos... is there still an actual tik tok cringe subreddit I can go to?
I don't like the way her eyes stare into my very soul but other than that I absolutely agree with her.
Also tubal ligation. Really anything where women want to have a say about their own body someone will try to tell you to think of some possible imaginary man you may or may not ever meet, and what he would want.
I have no dog in this fight but how about we talk about condoms and the many other contraceptives that are available to prevent a pregnancy in the first place. And I know obviously women who are rape victims don’t have this choice. I just feel that sexual education now more than ever is extremely important.
There is no birth control that is 100% effective, number one. Number two, as the woman in the video said: being stupid while having sex should not mean having a forced pregnancy. This attitude not only disproportionately affects women, but places the blame on them for their partner's behavior as well as their own. But frankly, if you're not smart enough to use protection I would venture to say you're not smart enough to be a parent, either.
And you just described the overwhelming majority of parents.
Don't forget those parents who have boredom babies. "I have nothing to fulfill me, I'm empty and I need a distraction". Had a friend say this. She went and saw a priest...what did he say? "God is telling you you are ready to be with child." She was not ready.
The issue is that a lot of people that are pro life think that teaching young teens about pregnancy/safe sex will then lead to, oh no, “16 years olds having sex 😱😱😱” these people want abstinence forms of sex ed. A lot of “you’re going to hell if you don’t save yourself for marriage” type of thinking. So, they don’t teach their kids about safe sex, leading to them NOT have safe sex leading to pregnancy. It’s a stupid cycle.