The cruelty and misogyny of forced birth politics

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP of this thread here and the forced birthers have amply proven the fatuousness of their arguments, basically arguing how many angels can dance on the head of a pin but missing the actual point which is:

You’re overjoyed to punish women. Like you’re clearly giddy about it. The hateful politics of forced birtherism - and yes, it has its roots in the patriarchy and organized, conservative religion - exist to punish women for existing, but especially to punish women for imagining that they should have some say what happens to their body.

Sepsis wards will be back. Children will be left motherless. Women will be maimed and made sterile and families who wanted to have more children will be broken. This is the real deal, not whether or not a zygote is a human.

The state cannot even compel someone to donate blood, yet here it is, compelling women to donate their body and life to a state they don’t want. If you say, “well, they chose to have sex!” I’m willing to play along in your Pollyanna world in which women and girls are always granted bodily autonomy (although your forced birth politics prove that they are not). It doesn’t matter. Humans get to say what happens to their bodies, especially something as life altering as pregnancy and birth.

Carry on with your cruelty though, but be aware that the game is up. No one believes you give a rat’s about life anymore. You just hate women.

You’re simply close minded. You think you know better than everyone else and have shut your mind to the possibility that the issue is NOT about a woman’s choice at all. It’s about something more fundamental… when does human life begin? But, go ahead and hate all men. That is your prerogative.

As far as the state … they can take peoples lives (death penalty) … they can put people in prison. They do this to a lot more men then women too, so does the state hate men too? No, the state is simply a reflection of the people and the people in some states are very religious and elect and vote upon those lines. It’s not because they hate women, it is because they believe an unborn fetus is a person and thou shalt not kill. Funny enough they also believe in an eye for an eye so they vote for the death penalty. Anyhow, you’ll continue to never convince anyone of your point of view due to your strong hatred of men and insistence that pro lifers are so because they hate women. Just a dumb argument.

This. I often see the argument from liberal pro-choice voters that the pro life crowd hates women. I disagree. I am pro-choice and a moderate but grew up in a very conservative, almost fundamentalist society. My impression is that this group of people thinks you’re killing a baby. If anything, the women are ignored. There isn’t anymore hatred of women than from the left. If anything, they think women should be worshipped and that their job of giving birth is an important one. There seemed to be almost an obsession with having babies and raising a family. I truly don’t think they hate women anymore than any other group hates women. If anything it’s just a strong opinion that the fetus is a baby.

I also don’t think that many liberal pro-choice voters understand how many people don’t support killing babies. My own husband is fairly liberal and after recent ultrasounds has talked about how he could never support a woman getting an abortion. That it’s cruel. Objectively, I support abortion fully but I also recognize and understand why people dislike it.

Yes, the pp who compared having an abortion to stepping on a cockroach or killing a mouse in your home…that’s the people that make me be pro-choice. Total disregard that a life is being taken. In an imperfect world, allowance has to be made for difficult decisions. But comparing a pre-born child ti a bug or rodent is just awful.

How about compared to a dog? Or a whale? How about a black person’s fertilized egg vs. a white person’s? I.e. making you think critically about the randomness of your choices makes you pro-choice? How odd. It sounds like you’re pro “your” choice and not other’s choices. What about the choice of one person to not allow another person to take a third “person’s” life? Is that not a valid choice? Or again, as I keep saying over and over: the only choice is to determine when something is in fact a “person.” Then prior to that time: do what you will with your body. After that time it is no longer just your body and therefore no longer just your choice. Why can’t you people comprehend this logic? I know why, because you’re conditioned to think based upon other’s opinions and culture and societal norms instead of thinking logically, emotionless, for yourselves based on science and fact. You inject BS like religion and men controlling women, and economics, and availability of clinics, and all this noise into a simple question: when is the entity a person and when is it not? To be or not to be, that IS the only question.

Pregnancy is a potentially dangerous and lethal condition. Women are human beings living in this world who should not be forced against their will to go through such a process that will change their body forever even if it doesn’t kill them.

Most pro-choice people are hypocrites. They only believe in a woman’s choice about her right to live / have a certain quality of life when it comes to pregnancy. They don’t really believe women or anyone else should have total control over their bodies and lives.

You're arguing that most pro-choice people are Republicans?

What does political party affiliation have to do with this??? I mean most pro-choice people are not in support of people who chose to end their own lives. They chalk that up to mental illness when somethings it is a rational decision based on one’s quality of life.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP of this thread here and the forced birthers have amply proven the fatuousness of their arguments, basically arguing how many angels can dance on the head of a pin but missing the actual point which is:

You’re overjoyed to punish women. Like you’re clearly giddy about it. The hateful politics of forced birtherism - and yes, it has its roots in the patriarchy and organized, conservative religion - exist to punish women for existing, but especially to punish women for imagining that they should have some say what happens to their body.

Sepsis wards will be back. Children will be left motherless. Women will be maimed and made sterile and families who wanted to have more children will be broken. This is the real deal, not whether or not a zygote is a human.

The state cannot even compel someone to donate blood, yet here it is, compelling women to donate their body and life to a state they don’t want. If you say, “well, they chose to have sex!” I’m willing to play along in your Pollyanna world in which women and girls are always granted bodily autonomy (although your forced birth politics prove that they are not). It doesn’t matter. Humans get to say what happens to their bodies, especially something as life altering as pregnancy and birth.

Carry on with your cruelty though, but be aware that the game is up. No one believes you give a rat’s about life anymore. You just hate women.

You’re simply close minded. You think you know better than everyone else and have shut your mind to the possibility that the issue is NOT about a woman’s choice at all. It’s about something more fundamental… when does human life begin? But, go ahead and hate all men. That is your prerogative.

As far as the state … they can take peoples lives (death penalty) … they can put people in prison. They do this to a lot more men then women too, so does the state hate men too? No, the state is simply a reflection of the people and the people in some states are very religious and elect and vote upon those lines. It’s not because they hate women, it is because they believe an unborn fetus is a person and thou shalt not kill. Funny enough they also believe in an eye for an eye so they vote for the death penalty. Anyhow, you’ll continue to never convince anyone of your point of view due to your strong hatred of men and insistence that pro lifers are so because they hate women. Just a dumb argument.

This. I often see the argument from liberal pro-choice voters that the pro life crowd hates women. I disagree. I am pro-choice and a moderate but grew up in a very conservative, almost fundamentalist society. My impression is that this group of people thinks you’re killing a baby. If anything, the women are ignored. There isn’t anymore hatred of women than from the left. If anything, they think women should be worshipped and that their job of giving birth is an important one. There seemed to be almost an obsession with having babies and raising a family. I truly don’t think they hate women anymore than any other group hates women. If anything it’s just a strong opinion that the fetus is a baby.

I also don’t think that many liberal pro-choice voters understand how many people don’t support killing babies. My own husband is fairly liberal and after recent ultrasounds has talked about how he could never support a woman getting an abortion. That it’s cruel. Objectively, I support abortion fully but I also recognize and understand why people dislike it.

Yes, the pp who compared having an abortion to stepping on a cockroach or killing a mouse in your home…that’s the people that make me be pro-choice. Total disregard that a life is being taken. In an imperfect world, allowance has to be made for difficult decisions. But comparing a pre-born child ti a bug or rodent is just awful.

How about compared to a dog? Or a whale? How about a black person’s fertilized egg vs. a white person’s? I.e. making you think critically about the randomness of your choices makes you pro-choice? How odd. It sounds like you’re pro “your” choice and not other’s choices. What about the choice of one person to not allow another person to take a third “person’s” life? Is that not a valid choice? Or again, as I keep saying over and over: the only choice is to determine when something is in fact a “person.” Then prior to that time: do what you will with your body. After that time it is no longer just your body and therefore no longer just your choice. Why can’t you people comprehend this logic? I know why, because you’re conditioned to think based upon other’s opinions and culture and societal norms instead of thinking logically, emotionless, for yourselves based on science and fact. You inject BS like religion and men controlling women, and economics, and availability of clinics, and all this noise into a simple question: when is the entity a person and when is it not? To be or not to be, that IS the only question.

Pregnancy is a potentially dangerous and lethal condition. Women are human beings living in this world who should not be forced against their will to go through such a process that will change their body forever even if it doesn’t kill them.

Most pro-choice people are hypocrites. They only believe in a woman’s choice about her right to live / have a certain quality of life when it comes to pregnancy. They don’t really believe women or anyone else should have total control over their bodies and lives.

You're arguing that most pro-choice people are Republicans?

What does political party affiliation have to do with this??? I mean most pro-choice people are not in support of people who chose to end their own lives. They chalk that up to mental illness when somethings it is a rational decision based on one’s quality of life.

I should also add I’m not talking about people choosing to die who are deemed terminally ill. Everyone should have the right to die when they want regardless of health status.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What I don't understand is why people would want a society where mothers are forced to raise children they don't want. Like, that outcome is not good for the children and in turn, society. More poverty, more abuse, more crime, etc. It affects everyone eventually.

And don't give me the whole give them up for adoption excuse. We all know that a fraction of those children actually get adopted, and our foster system is a nightmare. Again, poverty, abuse, crime, etc.

It isn't the child's fault- they didn't choose to be born into such circumstances and they are the ones punished.

Should we issue licenses on who can have babies?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What I don't understand is why people would want a society where mothers are forced to raise children they don't want. Like, that outcome is not good for the children and in turn, society. More poverty, more abuse, more crime, etc. It affects everyone eventually.

And don't give me the whole give them up for adoption excuse. We all know that a fraction of those children actually get adopted, and our foster system is a nightmare. Again, poverty, abuse, crime, etc.

It isn't the child's fault- they didn't choose to be born into such circumstances and they are the ones punished.

So women who can’t abort, they neglect and abuse their own child and punish the child for being conceived? Do the mothers know that the child didn’t choose to be conceived? You make mothers/women sound awful. If they can’t abort their child, they abuse and neglect the child, who eventually turns out to be a criminal!

I am disgusted by the way women and babies are being painted by dcum in this thread. It sounds racist. It sounds like dcum thinks women are terrible people who will abuse their own child, and a baby who can’t be aborted will be a criminal. WTF!

Yes. I’ve seen it in multiple Catholic families.

The parents barely interact with the youngest kids. After the first few, the following kids were not wanted and were not treated well at all. One family actually gave away their youngest kid to friends because they just had too many kids.

In America, you can’t give children away.

You are naïve. Also, Nicole Richie might be an example of parents giving away their child to friends.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP of this thread here and the forced birthers have amply proven the fatuousness of their arguments, basically arguing how many angels can dance on the head of a pin but missing the actual point which is:

You’re overjoyed to punish women. Like you’re clearly giddy about it. The hateful politics of forced birtherism - and yes, it has its roots in the patriarchy and organized, conservative religion - exist to punish women for existing, but especially to punish women for imagining that they should have some say what happens to their body.

Sepsis wards will be back. Children will be left motherless. Women will be maimed and made sterile and families who wanted to have more children will be broken. This is the real deal, not whether or not a zygote is a human.

The state cannot even compel someone to donate blood, yet here it is, compelling women to donate their body and life to a state they don’t want. If you say, “well, they chose to have sex!” I’m willing to play along in your Pollyanna world in which women and girls are always granted bodily autonomy (although your forced birth politics prove that they are not). It doesn’t matter. Humans get to say what happens to their bodies, especially something as life altering as pregnancy and birth.

Carry on with your cruelty though, but be aware that the game is up. No one believes you give a rat’s about life anymore. You just hate women.

You’re simply close minded. You think you know better than everyone else and have shut your mind to the possibility that the issue is NOT about a woman’s choice at all. It’s about something more fundamental… when does human life begin? But, go ahead and hate all men. That is your prerogative.

As far as the state … they can take peoples lives (death penalty) … they can put people in prison. They do this to a lot more men then women too, so does the state hate men too? No, the state is simply a reflection of the people and the people in some states are very religious and elect and vote upon those lines. It’s not because they hate women, it is because they believe an unborn fetus is a person and thou shalt not kill. Funny enough they also believe in an eye for an eye so they vote for the death penalty. Anyhow, you’ll continue to never convince anyone of your point of view due to your strong hatred of men and insistence that pro lifers are so because they hate women. Just a dumb argument.

This. I often see the argument from liberal pro-choice voters that the pro life crowd hates women. I disagree. I am pro-choice and a moderate but grew up in a very conservative, almost fundamentalist society. My impression is that this group of people thinks you’re killing a baby. If anything, the women are ignored. There isn’t anymore hatred of women than from the left. If anything, they think women should be worshipped and that their job of giving birth is an important one. There seemed to be almost an obsession with having babies and raising a family. I truly don’t think they hate women anymore than any other group hates women. If anything it’s just a strong opinion that the fetus is a baby.

I also don’t think that many liberal pro-choice voters understand how many people don’t support killing babies. My own husband is fairly liberal and after recent ultrasounds has talked about how he could never support a woman getting an abortion. That it’s cruel. Objectively, I support abortion fully but I also recognize and understand why people dislike it.

Yes, the pp who compared having an abortion to stepping on a cockroach or killing a mouse in your home…that’s the people that make me be pro-choice. Total disregard that a life is being taken. In an imperfect world, allowance has to be made for difficult decisions. But comparing a pre-born child ti a bug or rodent is just awful.

How about compared to a dog? Or a whale? How about a black person’s fertilized egg vs. a white person’s? I.e. making you think critically about the randomness of your choices makes you pro-choice? How odd. It sounds like you’re pro “your” choice and not other’s choices. What about the choice of one person to not allow another person to take a third “person’s” life? Is that not a valid choice? Or again, as I keep saying over and over: the only choice is to determine when something is in fact a “person.” Then prior to that time: do what you will with your body. After that time it is no longer just your body and therefore no longer just your choice. Why can’t you people comprehend this logic? I know why, because you’re conditioned to think based upon other’s opinions and culture and societal norms instead of thinking logically, emotionless, for yourselves based on science and fact. You inject BS like religion and men controlling women, and economics, and availability of clinics, and all this noise into a simple question: when is the entity a person and when is it not? To be or not to be, that IS the only question.

Pregnancy is a potentially dangerous and lethal condition. Women are human beings living in this world who should not be forced against their will to go through such a process that will change their body forever even if it doesn’t kill them.

Most pro-choice people are hypocrites. They only believe in a woman’s choice about her right to live / have a certain quality of life when it comes to pregnancy. They don’t really believe women or anyone else should have total control over their bodies and lives.

You're arguing that most pro-choice people are Republicans?

What does political party affiliation have to do with this??? I mean most pro-choice people are not in support of people who chose to end their own lives. They chalk that up to mental illness when somethings it is a rational decision based on one’s quality of life.

Gonna need to see some stats on this. And some that say that anti-choice people are A-OK with it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://law.stanford.edu/publications/the-impact-of-legalized-abortion-on-crime-over-the-last-two-decades/

We estimate that overall crime fell 17.5% from 1998 to 2014 due to legalized abortion— a decline of 1% per year. From 1991 to 2014, the violent and property crime rates each fell by 50%. Legalized abortion is estimated to have reduced violent crime by 47% and property crime by 33% over this period, and thus can explain most of the observed crime decline.

Thank you for this. I am the PP who originally brought up poverty, abuse, and crime. These statistics are important and should be emphasized more.

So again, why can’t we kill babies that have a high likelihood of becoming criminals then? These stats are meaningless in a moral debate. If we are concerned so much about crime then let’s not pick and choose when we decide to “abort” those likely to commit them. “[…]

“We” aren’t deciding culturally to abort. Women who know they can’t rear a child decide to abort. So your bad satirical suggestion that “wHy DoN’t We JuSt KiLl FuTuRe CrImInAlS” just proves that forced birthers don’t know anything about anything.

+1 It’s amazing how they default to the authoritarian POV because it’s what they know and love.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What I don't understand is why people would want a society where mothers are forced to raise children they don't want. Like, that outcome is not good for the children and in turn, society. More poverty, more abuse, more crime, etc. It affects everyone eventually.

And don't give me the whole give them up for adoption excuse. We all know that a fraction of those children actually get adopted, and our foster system is a nightmare. Again, poverty, abuse, crime, etc.

It isn't the child's fault- they didn't choose to be born into such circumstances and they are the ones punished.

So women who can’t abort, they neglect and abuse their own child and punish the child for being conceived? Do the mothers know that the child didn’t choose to be conceived? You make mothers/women sound awful. If they can’t abort their child, they abuse and neglect the child, who eventually turns out to be a criminal!

I am disgusted by the way women and babies are being painted by dcum in this thread. It sounds racist. It sounds like dcum thinks women are terrible people who will abuse their own child, and a baby who can’t be aborted will be a criminal. WTF!

Yes. I’ve seen it in multiple Catholic families.

The parents barely interact with the youngest kids. After the first few, the following kids were not wanted and were not treated well at all. One family actually gave away their youngest kid to friends because they just had too many kids.

In America, you can’t give children away.

Unfortunately, safe haven laws are only two days in some places when they should be up to a year.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://law.stanford.edu/publications/the-impact-of-legalized-abortion-on-crime-over-the-last-two-decades/

We estimate that overall crime fell 17.5% from 1998 to 2014 due to legalized abortion— a decline of 1% per year. From 1991 to 2014, the violent and property crime rates each fell by 50%. Legalized abortion is estimated to have reduced violent crime by 47% and property crime by 33% over this period, and thus can explain most of the observed crime decline.

Thank you for this. I am the PP who originally brought up poverty, abuse, and crime. These statistics are important and should be emphasized more.

So again, why can’t we kill babies that have a high likelihood of becoming criminals then? These stats are meaningless in a moral debate. If we are concerned so much about crime then let’s not pick and choose when we decide to “abort” those likely to commit them. “That's barbaric and incomprehensible,” you’ll say. But you’ll be talking out of both sides of your mouth. What these statistics never comprehend are the number of aborted children that may have brought good upon the earth. But we get how inconvenient this truth may be for you. Again, pay attention and abort before 15 to 24 weeks, else take on your human parental responsibilities like everyone else. That means get a job. Stop taking drugs. Get fat. Spend more money on someone else. Live with the miracle, even if the miracle isn’t perfect. Do your duty as a human. Raise your child.

You think having an abortion is the same as killing a person. Most people (including those that want more restrictions on abortion) disagree. How do I know the latter? People will entertain exceptions to anti-abortion laws for the health of the mother or in cases of rape and incest...no one would for a live baby.

You're arguing from a premise few agree with and then asking absurd corollaries. I'm also not going to get into an argument with you about "Why don't we all just love underwater because we'll have more of the earth to inhabit?"...just because you've decided water and air are the same since they are both examples of fluids.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What I don't understand is why people would want a society where mothers are forced to raise children they don't want. Like, that outcome is not good for the children and in turn, society. More poverty, more abuse, more crime, etc. It affects everyone eventually.

And don't give me the whole give them up for adoption excuse. We all know that a fraction of those children actually get adopted, and our foster system is a nightmare. Again, poverty, abuse, crime, etc.

It isn't the child's fault- they didn't choose to be born into such circumstances and they are the ones punished.

Should we issue licenses on who can have babies?

"You know, Mrs. buckman, you need a license to buy a dog. You need a license to drive a car. Hell, you even need a license to catch a fish. But they'll let any butt-reaming asshole to be a father. (From the movie Parenthood)"

[Anonymous]

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

MFers.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What I don't understand is why people would want a society where mothers are forced to raise children they don't want. Like, that outcome is not good for the children and in turn, society. More poverty, more abuse, more crime, etc. It affects everyone eventually.

And don't give me the whole give them up for adoption excuse. We all know that a fraction of those children actually get adopted, and our foster system is a nightmare. Again, poverty, abuse, crime, etc.

It isn't the child's fault- they didn't choose to be born into such circumstances and they are the ones punished.

Should we issue licenses on who can have babies?

Again, to your statement "What I don't understand is why people would want a society where mothers are forced to raise children they don't want ... And don't give me the whole give them up for adoption excuse ". If you feel this way, then why not allow infanticide by the parents? Why is killing a new born so horrific and taboo, while killing a fetus is to be protected? Or - are you willing to concede to the "life starts at" argument, with a particular, scientifically established # of weeks as that point in time? Anytime before, not an issue and anytime after this ... murder (or under your proposal, the parents' choice inclduing and up to "X" number of days, weeks, months, or year POST-birth. I mean, if the baby is not wanted by its parents (or specifically by its mama) then by all means, let's kill the darn thing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What I don't understand is why people would want a society where mothers are forced to raise children they don't want. Like, that outcome is not good for the children and in turn, society. More poverty, more abuse, more crime, etc. It affects everyone eventually.

And don't give me the whole give them up for adoption excuse. We all know that a fraction of those children actually get adopted, and our foster system is a nightmare. Again, poverty, abuse, crime, etc.

It isn't the child's fault- they didn't choose to be born into such circumstances and they are the ones punished.

Should we issue licenses on who can have babies?

Again, to your statement "What I don't understand is why people would want a society where mothers are forced to raise children they don't want ... And don't give me the whole give them up for adoption excuse ". If you feel this way, then why not allow infanticide by the parents? Why is killing a new born so horrific and taboo, while killing a fetus is to be protected? Or - are you willing to concede to the "life starts at" argument, with a particular, scientifically established # of weeks as that point in time? Anytime before, not an issue and anytime after this ... murder (or under your proposal, the parents' choice inclduing and up to "X" number of days, weeks, months, or year POST-birth. I mean, if the baby is not wanted by its parents (or specifically by its mama) then by all means, let's kill the darn thing.

Stop being stupid.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What I don't understand is why people would want a society where mothers are forced to raise children they don't want. Like, that outcome is not good for the children and in turn, society. More poverty, more abuse, more crime, etc. It affects everyone eventually.

And don't give me the whole give them up for adoption excuse. We all know that a fraction of those children actually get adopted, and our foster system is a nightmare. Again, poverty, abuse, crime, etc.

It isn't the child's fault- they didn't choose to be born into such circumstances and they are the ones punished.

Should we issue licenses on who can have babies?

Again, to your statement "What I don't understand is why people would want a society where mothers are forced to raise children they don't want ... And don't give me the whole give them up for adoption excuse ". If you feel this way, then why not allow infanticide by the parents? Why is killing a new born so horrific and taboo, while killing a fetus is to be protected? Or - are you willing to concede to the "life starts at" argument, with a particular, scientifically established # of weeks as that point in time? Anytime before, not an issue and anytime after this ... murder (or under your proposal, the parents' choice inclduing and up to "X" number of days, weeks, months, or year POST-birth. I mean, if the baby is not wanted by its parents (or specifically by its mama) then by all means, let's kill the darn thing.

Thousands of IVF embryos are destroyed each year. So do you think that's murder or not?

Because how is it different from infanticide?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://law.stanford.edu/publications/the-impact-of-legalized-abortion-on-crime-over-the-last-two-decades/

We estimate that overall crime fell 17.5% from 1998 to 2014 due to legalized abortion— a decline of 1% per year. From 1991 to 2014, the violent and property crime rates each fell by 50%. Legalized abortion is estimated to have reduced violent crime by 47% and property crime by 33% over this period, and thus can explain most of the observed crime decline.

Thank you for this. I am the PP who originally brought up poverty, abuse, and crime. These statistics are important and should be emphasized more.

So again, why can’t we kill babies that have a high likelihood of becoming criminals then? These stats are meaningless in a moral debate. If we are concerned so much about crime then let’s not pick and choose when we decide to “abort” those likely to commit them. “That's barbaric and incomprehensible,” you’ll say. But you’ll be talking out of both sides of your mouth. What these statistics never comprehend are the number of aborted children that may have brought good upon the earth. But we get how inconvenient this truth may be for you. Again, pay attention and abort before 15 to 24 weeks, else take on your human parental responsibilities like everyone else. That means get a job. Stop taking drugs. Get fat. Spend more money on someone else. Live with the miracle, even if the miracle isn’t perfect. Do your duty as a human. Raise your child.

You think having an abortion is the same as killing a person. Most people (including those that want more restrictions on abortion) disagree. How do I know the latter? People will entertain exceptions to anti-abortion laws for the health of the mother or in cases of rape and incest...no one would for a live baby.

You're arguing from a premise few agree with and then asking absurd corollaries. I'm also not going to get into an argument with you about "Why don't we all just love underwater because we'll have more of the earth to inhabit?"...just because you've decided water and air are the same since they are both examples of fluids.

Possibly the dumbest response ever. Underwater? Just a dumb analogy. I understand few may agree with it, then again few thought the world was round and revolved around the sun at one time too.