Just Abortion theory

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Those 650,000 aborted fetuses would have had a horrific quality of life.

Because women are child abusers? Women physically and emotionally abuse their own children?

Women who don’t want to be mothers do.

Why does a mother physically abuse a child when the child isn’t at fault?

So you excuse women who abuse and/or kill their own children after the children are born? Why should living, breathing boys and girls be killed or abused?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:All that matters is warm bodies. Quality of life be damned.

Also, women are not to be trusted, and can’t make their own decisions.

Just a hole and vessel. Nothing more.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Those 650,000 aborted fetuses would have had a horrific quality of life.

Because women are child abusers? Women physically and emotionally abuse their own children?

Women who don’t want to be mothers do.

Why does a mother physically abuse a child when the child isn’t at fault?

So you excuse women who abuse and/or kill their own children after the children are born? Why should living, breathing boys and girls be killed or abused?

If you can’t differentiate between a fetus and a child then you have issues.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Humans are not a “person” until they are born alive.

Human embryos and fetuses are potential people.

It is dangerous when people in power are free to determine whether other, less powerful lives are meaningful.

There is nothing about birth that makes a baby essentially different than he was before birth.

Once we grant that the unborn are human beings, it should settle the question of their right to live.

You’re correct; it is dangerous when people assume that the lives of young, innocent, childbearing women are meaningless.

Both the mother and the baby are important.

The comparison between a baby’s rights and a mother’s rights is unequal. What is at stake in abortion is the mother’s lifestyle, as opposed to the baby’s life.

Yeah her “lifestyle” of making a living & going to school. How dare her!

Any civilized society restricts the individual’s freedom to choose whenever that choice would harm an innocent person.

The one-time choice of abortion robs someone else of a lifetime of choices and prevents him from ever exercising his rights.

Early feminists were prolife, not prochoice.

Yes, Susan B. Anthony Was Pro-Life
She and Elizabeth Cady Stanton railed against abortion in the pages of their paper.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/susan-b-anthony-was-pro-life-elizabeth-cady-stanton-roe-abortion-dobbs-decision-11655151459

In fact, it’s the pro-choice groups that have it wrong. During their lifetimes, both women vociferously condemned abortion. They certainly wouldn’t have embraced the use of their names to promote what they termed “foeticide.”

Stacy Schiff wrote, "There is no question that [Anthony] deplored the practice of abortion, as did every one of her colleagues in the suffrage movement.

“No matter what the motive, love of ease, or a desire to save from suffering the unborn innocent, the woman is awfully guilty who commits the deed. It will burden her conscience in life, it will burden her soul in death.”
– Susan B Anthony

And banning abortion robs women of their bodies, dignity & ability to make a living for an extended period of time.

And robs an unborn girl or boy of their very lives. It takes their ability to make choices about their lives- not one choice will they ever make, because they were killed by their mother.

The suicide rate is significantly higher among women who have had abortions than among those who haven’t.

It is demeaning to a woman’s body and self-esteem to regard pregnancy as an unnatural, negative, and “out of control” condition.

The unborn’s status should be determined on an objective basis, not on subjective or self-serving definitions of personhood.

What is the suicide rate for unwanted children, born into poverty or abuse?

There is a difference between an unwanted pregnancy and an unwanted child. “Unwanted” describes not a condition of the child, but an attitude of adults. Child abuse has not decreased since abortion was legalized, but has dramatically increased.

Imagine growing up knowing that you weren’t wanted. With a parent who can’t or won’t care for you. Why inflict that on someone? Not to mention the harm it does to their mother.

And access to abortion REDUCES child abuse/neglect.
“Our findings suggest that abortion legaliza- tion lowered rates of child abuse and neglect, based on total reports of child maltreatment.”
https://www.economics.uci.edu/files/docs/faculty_review/bitler-zavodny-aer-pap-2002.pdf

Most abused children were wanted by their parents.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Those 650,000 aborted fetuses would have had a horrific quality of life.

Because women are child abusers? Women physically and emotionally abuse their own children?

Women who don’t want to be mothers do.

Why does a mother physically abuse a child when the child isn’t at fault?

So you excuse women who abuse and/or kill their own children after the children are born? Why should living, breathing boys and girls be killed or abused?

Because she doesn’t want to be a mother and has not been exposed to alternative disciplinary techniques.

No child deserves to abused, which is why women having abortions who know they wouldn’t make good mothers should be applauded for their self-awareness & personal responsibility. If you deny them that option, don’t be surprised if they abuse their kids.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Those 650,000 aborted fetuses would have had a horrific quality of life.

Because women are child abusers? Women physically and emotionally abuse their own children?

A lot of women do. A lot of women are stuck with an abusive partner.

Why do you think kids end up in foster care?

+1

I trust women. If a woman knows she’s not in a good place to carry a pregnancy or raise a child, I believe her.

That’s not something you force on someone else.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Those 650,000 aborted fetuses would have had a horrific quality of life.

Because women are child abusers? Women physically and emotionally abuse their own children?

Women who don’t want to be mothers do.

Why does a mother physically abuse a child when the child isn’t at fault?

So you excuse women who abuse and/or kill their own children after the children are born? Why should living, breathing boys and girls be killed or abused?

Sheltered AF. Go foster a kid & talk to its parents on visits.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Humans are not a “person” until they are born alive.

Human embryos and fetuses are potential people.

It is dangerous when people in power are free to determine whether other, less powerful lives are meaningful.

There is nothing about birth that makes a baby essentially different than he was before birth.

Once we grant that the unborn are human beings, it should settle the question of their right to live.

You’re correct; it is dangerous when people assume that the lives of young, innocent, childbearing women are meaningless.

Both the mother and the baby are important.

The comparison between a baby’s rights and a mother’s rights is unequal. What is at stake in abortion is the mother’s lifestyle, as opposed to the baby’s life.

Yeah her “lifestyle” of making a living & going to school. How dare her!

Any civilized society restricts the individual’s freedom to choose whenever that choice would harm an innocent person.

The one-time choice of abortion robs someone else of a lifetime of choices and prevents him from ever exercising his rights.

Early feminists were prolife, not prochoice.

Yes, Susan B. Anthony Was Pro-Life
She and Elizabeth Cady Stanton railed against abortion in the pages of their paper.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/susan-b-anthony-was-pro-life-elizabeth-cady-stanton-roe-abortion-dobbs-decision-11655151459

In fact, it’s the pro-choice groups that have it wrong. During their lifetimes, both women vociferously condemned abortion. They certainly wouldn’t have embraced the use of their names to promote what they termed “foeticide.”

Stacy Schiff wrote, "There is no question that [Anthony] deplored the practice of abortion, as did every one of her colleagues in the suffrage movement.

“No matter what the motive, love of ease, or a desire to save from suffering the unborn innocent, the woman is awfully guilty who commits the deed. It will burden her conscience in life, it will burden her soul in death.”
– Susan B Anthony

And banning abortion robs women of their bodies, dignity & ability to make a living for an extended period of time.

And robs an unborn girl or boy of their very lives. It takes their ability to make choices about their lives- not one choice will they ever make, because they were killed by their mother.

The suicide rate is significantly higher among women who have had abortions than among those who haven’t.

It is demeaning to a woman’s body and self-esteem to regard pregnancy as an unnatural, negative, and “out of control” condition.

The unborn’s status should be determined on an objective basis, not on subjective or self-serving definitions of personhood.

What is the suicide rate for unwanted children, born into poverty or abuse?

There is a difference between an unwanted pregnancy and an unwanted child. “Unwanted” describes not a condition of the child, but an attitude of adults. Child abuse has not decreased since abortion was legalized, but has dramatically increased.

Imagine growing up knowing that you weren’t wanted. With a parent who can’t or won’t care for you. Why inflict that on someone? Not to mention the harm it does to their mother.

And access to abortion REDUCES child abuse/neglect.
“Our findings suggest that abortion legaliza- tion lowered rates of child abuse and neglect, based on total reports of child maltreatment.”
https://www.economics.uci.edu/files/docs/faculty_review/bitler-zavodny-aer-pap-2002.pdf

Most abused children were wanted by their parents.

Obviously, because that’s how math works. At least before the religious nutters started taking away women’s rights.

Now that more women will be forced to carry and deliver unwanted fetuses in red states, the rate of child abuse and neglect will sadly go up.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think it’s cute how forced-brothers think that a woman who doesn’t want to be pregnant, but is, is going to abstain from alcohol or drugs, exercise, take prenatal vitamins or not eat Shrimp.

They also think she’s going to gleefully surrender the baby at it’s birth to a white, straight, married Christian couple rather than flush the baby down a toilet, throw it in a sewer, throw it in a dumpster, leave it in a “safe haven box,” or attempt to raise it until it gets taken by CPS into foster care.

If I were forced to give birth I would find a Black gay male atheist Communist couple to raise my white baby. Just to make the Christians gnash their teeth.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:David Boonin, author of A Defense of Abortion, writes, “Perhaps the most straightforward relation between you and me on the one hand and every human fetus on the other is this: all are living members of the same species, Homo sapiens. A human fetus after all is simply a human being at a very early stage in his or her development” (p. 20).

So it’s perfectly rational to believe that it is always wrong to intentionally kill an innocent biological human being. And since the unborn are innocent biological human beings, it follows that it is wrong to kill them.

Pro-choice and pro-life advocates agree that there is a special class of beings called “persons” who have a right to life. We agree that we are persons.

Infants and mentally disabled adults—are still persons.

You, me, infants, and disabled humans would all be persons because our personhood would depend not on our current functional abilities (or what we can do), but on our innate capacity for certain functional abilities (or what we are).

We can show that since it is wrong to kill us now, it is always wrong to kill us, and since we used to exist in the womb, it was wrong to kill us in the womb. This kind of argument is based on personal identity and can be laid out as follows:

If an organism that once existed has never died, then this organism still exists.
I am an organism.
Therefore, I am the organism that once existed in my mother’s womb.
Generally speaking, it is always wrong to kill me.
Since I existed in my mother’s womb, it was wrong to kill me at that time.
What is true about killing me is true for everyone else.
Therefore, it is wrong to kill anyone else who lives or has lived in his mother’s womb.

Killing anything is wrong is because it deprives that thing of a valuable future, or a “future-like-ours.” You and I, infants, and nearly every embryo and fetus does have a FLO, and so if this is what makes killing wrong, then it is wrong to kill nearly every human embryo and fetus because it has a FLO.

It is wrong to kill biological human beings like the unborn.
The unborn are persons with a right to life.
You and I were once embryos, and it always wrong to kill us.
Abortion deprives the unborn of a future-like-ours.

I really don’t give two shits about any of this. I didn’t want to have kids, and I exercised my legal right to terminate. All this religious gobbledygook and bleating about innocent babies and sacred life is to me like when adults talk in the Peanuts cartoons—“wah wah wah wah.”

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:David Boonin, author of A Defense of Abortion, writes, “Perhaps the most straightforward relation between you and me on the one hand and every human fetus on the other is this: all are living members of the same species, Homo sapiens. A human fetus after all is simply a human being at a very early stage in his or her development” (p. 20).

So it’s perfectly rational to believe that it is always wrong to intentionally kill an innocent biological human being. And since the unborn are innocent biological human beings, it follows that it is wrong to kill them.

Pro-choice and pro-life advocates agree that there is a special class of beings called “persons” who have a right to life. We agree that we are persons.

Infants and mentally disabled adults—are still persons.

You, me, infants, and disabled humans would all be persons because our personhood would depend not on our current functional abilities (or what we can do), but on our innate capacity for certain functional abilities (or what we are).

We can show that since it is wrong to kill us now, it is always wrong to kill us, and since we used to exist in the womb, it was wrong to kill us in the womb. This kind of argument is based on personal identity and can be laid out as follows:

If an organism that once existed has never died, then this organism still exists.
I am an organism.
Therefore, I am the organism that once existed in my mother’s womb.
Generally speaking, it is always wrong to kill me.
Since I existed in my mother’s womb, it was wrong to kill me at that time.
What is true about killing me is true for everyone else.
Therefore, it is wrong to kill anyone else who lives or has lived in his mother’s womb.

Killing anything is wrong is because it deprives that thing of a valuable future, or a “future-like-ours.” You and I, infants, and nearly every embryo and fetus does have a FLO, and so if this is what makes killing wrong, then it is wrong to kill nearly every human embryo and fetus because it has a FLO.

It is wrong to kill biological human beings like the unborn.
The unborn are persons with a right to life.
You and I were once embryos, and it always wrong to kill us.
Abortion deprives the unborn of a future-like-ours.

Forcing a woman to endure an unwanted pregnancy deprives her of the future she wanted.

If men had to endure pregnancy, abortion would be free and available on every street corner.

[Anonymous]

Get ready for a sharp increase in postpartum suicides, infanticides & child abandonment as abortion access continues to be restricted. Do not be at all shocked or confused by that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Get ready for a sharp increase in postpartum suicides, infanticides & child abandonment as abortion access continues to be restricted. Do not be at all shocked or confused by that.

That doesn’t include increased maternal and infant mortality for wanted pregnancies in red states that have driven off ob/gyn physicians.

But maybe that’s a bonus win for Republicans.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Those 650,000 aborted fetuses would have had a horrific quality of life.

Because women are child abusers? Women physically and emotionally abuse their own children?

Women who don’t want to be mothers do.

Why does a mother physically abuse a child when the child isn’t at fault?

So you excuse women who abuse and/or kill their own children after the children are born? Why should living, breathing boys and girls be killed or abused?

Because she doesn’t want to be a mother and has not been exposed to alternative disciplinary techniques.

No child deserves to abused, which is why women having abortions who know they wouldn’t make good mothers should be applauded for their self-awareness & personal responsibility. If you deny them that option, don’t be surprised if they abuse their kids.

So, you believe in burning down the house to get rid of the termites? Interesting way to go through life.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Those 650,000 aborted fetuses would have had a horrific quality of life.

Because women are child abusers? Women physically and emotionally abuse their own children?

Women who don’t want to be mothers do.

Why does a mother physically abuse a child when the child isn’t at fault?

So you excuse women who abuse and/or kill their own children after the children are born? Why should living, breathing boys and girls be killed or abused?

Because she doesn’t want to be a mother and has not been exposed to alternative disciplinary techniques.

No child deserves to abused, which is why women having abortions who know they wouldn’t make good mothers should be applauded for their self-awareness & personal responsibility. If you deny them that option, don’t be surprised if they abuse their kids.

So, you believe in burning down the house to get rid of the termites? Interesting way to go through life.

Non-sequiter.