Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:so if you believe that fetal rights begin at heartbeat then what is your stance on abortion if it threatens the life of the mother? Does the rights of the fetus supersede the right of the mother's life?

Good question. The logic of the extreme anti-abortion faction (that the fetus is a legal person from conception) would suggest that the life & health of the mother isn't enough of a reason to kill the other person. There is such thing as self-defense, but only in cases where the other party is a violent aggressor.

I’m adamantly pro choice, but I’ve never understood maternal health or rape/incest exceptions from the anti choice side. If abortion is murder, then it’s still murder in those cases too. I’m glad they exist because while I think any woman should have the right to end a pregnancy, I think women who are rape/incest survivors and mothers whose pregnancies put them at risk are some of the most vulnerable people and should definitely have access to abortions. It just seems like a hypocritical stance. However, I feel like calling people out on it might paint them into a corner and make them push to stop having those exceptions.

Right? I mean if you decide a taped woman/girl has more rights over her body than the embryo/fetus inside her, but think the situation is reversed if the couple’s birth control failed or they didn’t use any, then you are basically making a judgment not on the intrinsic worth of the embryo/fetus but on the mode of conception, that is you are judging the woman for whether she was stupid, careless, or slutty. So when it comes down to it, you don’t really value the embryo.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:so if you believe that fetal rights begin at heartbeat then what is your stance on abortion if it threatens the life of the mother? Does the rights of the fetus supersede the right of the mother's life?

Good question. The logic of the extreme anti-abortion faction (that the fetus is a legal person from conception) would suggest that the life & health of the mother isn't enough of a reason to kill the other person. There is such thing as self-defense, but only in cases where the other party is a violent aggressor.

I’m adamantly pro choice, but I’ve never understood maternal health or rape/incest exceptions from the anti choice side. If abortion is murder, then it’s still murder in those cases too. I’m glad they exist because while I think any woman should have the right to end a pregnancy, I think women who are rape/incest survivors and mothers whose pregnancies put them at risk are some of the most vulnerable people and should definitely have access to abortions. It just seems like a hypocritical stance. However, I feel like calling people out on it might paint them into a corner and make them push to stop having those exceptions.

Anonymous wrote:so if you believe that fetal rights begin at heartbeat then what is your stance on abortion if it threatens the life of the mother? Does the rights of the fetus supersede the right of the mother's life?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Perfect - another person who would be fine with MUV since men shouldn’t be having sex unless they are married and ready to procreate

There's a reason that women were traditionally encouraged to get married first, so that they and children would be protected.

Again, what about the men? MUV would encourage them to get married first. Post Roe, states could even make marriage a condition of a successful application to reverse MUV and attempt procreation.

PP here. I agree about men's responsibility in not impregnating multiple women and then abandoning their responsibilities. Unfortunately, in more than a few families and communities, that concept doesn't seem to gain traction.

RACSIST!!!!!!

DP. If you can’t spell a word then don’t use it or better yet go away and let the adults chat. When 65% of children are raised in a single parent household despite the countless studies that detail the beneficial outcomes of a two parent home, then yes.....the African American community has an enduring and pernicious cultural and/or behavioral problem.

Countless generations of slavery and systematic racism wouldn’t have anything to do with that, huh?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:so if you believe that fetal rights begin at heartbeat then what is your stance on abortion if it threatens the life of the mother? Does the rights of the fetus supersede the right of the mother's life?

Good question. The logic of the extreme anti-abortion faction (that the fetus is a legal person from conception) would suggest that the life & health of the mother isn't enough of a reason to kill the other person. There is such thing as self-defense, but only in cases where the other party is a violent aggressor.

Anonymous wrote: The Ohio state legislator who thinks that ectopic pregnancies can be re-implanted in the uterus is doubling down on his idiocy.
https://amp.cincinnati.com/amp/3671253002?__twitter_impression=true

Anonymous wrote:so if you believe that fetal rights begin at heartbeat then what is your stance on abortion if it threatens the life of the mother? Does the rights of the fetus supersede the right of the mother's life?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Perfect - another person who would be fine with MUV since men shouldn’t be having sex unless they are married and ready to procreate

There's a reason that women were traditionally encouraged to get married first, so that they and children would be protected.

Again, what about the men? MUV would encourage them to get married first. Post Roe, states could even make marriage a condition of a successful application to reverse MUV and attempt procreation.

PP here. I agree about men's responsibility in not impregnating multiple women and then abandoning their responsibilities. Unfortunately, in more than a few families and communities, that concept doesn't seem to gain traction.

RACSIST!!!!!!

DP. If you can’t spell a word then don’t use it or better yet go away and let the adults chat. When 65% of children are raised in a single parent household despite the countless studies that detail the beneficial outcomes of a two parent home, then yes.....the African American community has an enduring and pernicious cultural and/or behavioral problem.

Anonymous wrote:so if you believe that fetal rights begin at heartbeat then what is your stance on abortion if it threatens the life of the mother? Does the rights of the fetus supersede the right of the mother's life?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Perfect - another person who would be fine with MUV since men shouldn’t be having sex unless they are married and ready to procreate

There's a reason that women were traditionally encouraged to get married first, so that they and children would be protected.

Again, what about the men? MUV would encourage them to get married first. Post Roe, states could even make marriage a condition of a successful application to reverse MUV and attempt procreation.

PP here. I agree about men's responsibility in not impregnating multiple women and then abandoning their responsibilities. Unfortunately, in more than a few families and communities, that concept doesn't seem to gain traction.

RACSIST!!!!!!

DP. If you can’t spell a word then don’t use it or better yet go away and let the adults chat. When 65% of children are raised in a single parent household despite the countless studies that detail the beneficial outcomes of a two parent home, then yes.....the African American community has an enduring and pernicious cultural and/or behavioral problem.

Countless generations of slavery and systematic racism wouldn’t have anything to do with that, huh?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Perfect - another person who would be fine with MUV since men shouldn’t be having sex unless they are married and ready to procreate

There's a reason that women were traditionally encouraged to get married first, so that they and children would be protected.

Again, what about the men? MUV would encourage them to get married first. Post Roe, states could even make marriage a condition of a successful application to reverse MUV and attempt procreation.

PP here. I agree about men's responsibility in not impregnating multiple women and then abandoning their responsibilities. Unfortunately, in more than a few families and communities, that concept doesn't seem to gain traction.

RACSIST!!!!!!

DP. If you can’t spell a word then don’t use it or better yet go away and let the adults chat. When 65% of children are raised in a single parent household despite the countless studies that detail the beneficial outcomes of a two parent home, then yes.....the African American community has an enduring and pernicious cultural and/or behavioral problem.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Perfect - another person who would be fine with MUV since men shouldn’t be having sex unless they are married and ready to procreate

There's a reason that women were traditionally encouraged to get married first, so that they and children would be protected.

Again, what about the men? MUV would encourage them to get married first. Post Roe, states could even make marriage a condition of a successful application to reverse MUV and attempt procreation.

PP here. I agree about men's responsibility in not impregnating multiple women and then abandoning their responsibilities. Unfortunately, in more than a few families and communities, that concept doesn't seem to gain traction.

RACSIST!!!!!!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Perfect - another person who would be fine with MUV since men shouldn’t be having sex unless they are married and ready to procreate

There's a reason that women were traditionally encouraged to get married first, so that they and children would be protected.

Again, what about the men? MUV would encourage them to get married first. Post Roe, states could even make marriage a condition of a successful application to reverse MUV and attempt procreation.

PP here. I agree about men's responsibility in not impregnating multiple women and then abandoning their responsibilities. Unfortunately, in more than a few families and communities, that concept doesn't seem to gain traction.

RACSIST!!!!!!