I have solved the abortion debate

>concede life begins at conception
>develop technology to either freeze or carry embryos/fetuses to tern in-vitro
>women who don't want babies give up embryos/fetuses for adoption
>taxpayers fund this since dems love paying tax and repubs love baby life enough that they should pay for it too

Other urls found in this thread:

bible.knowing-jesus.com/words/Breath
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

>Technology is super expensive to maintain
>People having abortions don't give two shits about the fetuse's life anyway

At the instant the sperm fertilizes the egg, there is a visible flash of light. Think about that. Then think about what it means that you can see light.
There is only one conclusion. Abortion is murder.

that's the cost of life bro - gotta pay for it somehow and killing them isn't an acceptable option for many!

How about this: since leftist's claim a constitutional right for a woman to reject her bodily functions as an incubator/milk dispenser (unscientific, I know), then a man has the constitutional right to his sperm and it's functions (meaning fertilization). So, if a woman can kill a baby, then man can kill the woman for killing his half of the baby. That's equality under the law.

Well done!

Flash of light is due to chemical reaction

But the man doesn't bare the burden of carrying the child

creating life
creating jobs
#maga

a man should be able to decide not to be financially responsible for a baby he decided not to keep in the abortion time frame

if women reject that because he could have chose not to have sex, then so should we reject her right to abortion since she never had to have sex either

i think that is perfectly logical yet when mens rights guys say it women go nuts as if it makes no sense

Why not just use protection instead of being retarded.

>light = life
>my flashlight is alive
really makes you think

that's understood.. protection > give up embryo for adoption

one prevents life, one saves it = no killing and everyone's happy

If you theistfags could at least concede early abortions, this whole thing would be much less of an issue.
The embryo isn't called a fetus until ~9 weeks. This could give women a good window to find out that they're pregnant and abort if they want to.
The cut off point is a bit arbitrary. But you gotta give them some kind of window.

The child is half his genetic makeup. Just because the woman incubates and later breastfeeds doesn't automatically give her full custody.

That seems odd. He owns half the genetic makeup of that child. If he didn't want to create a life with a woman, he shouldn't impregnate her in the first place.

If he wants to sterilize himself beforehand then that's his business. Or if he refused to fertilize her, that's also his business. If she Jack's his sperm, messes with the birth control, or outright rapes him - then that's theft and she should face a harsh penalty. Afterwards, he can decide to keep the child, or place for adoption.

The child does not deserve the death penalty for something the child did not commit. That's injustice.

but the woman never had to have sex either, so why she be allowed an abortion, but he not a financial abortion?

Does the father have to give consent to an abortion?

Woman would disagree.

Its THEIR child before its OUR child.

What if the father doesnt want the baby, where is his choice?

Kek

Fake news bro

>and killing them isn't an acceptable option for many!
It's an acceptable option for the ones that are the ones that get an abortion, user.

Where's the video of that flash of light?

>concede life begins at conception
Why such a radical moving of the goalposts?

Birth has been the rock-solid starting point of life for thousands of years. All of our law, language, religion, culture and science is based on the Miracle of Birth.

It hasn't been law. If you kill a pregnant woman you are charged as killing two people.

>So, if a woman can kill a baby,
A fetus is not a baby. A fat lady with little doggies can say they're her "babies" and that makes about the same sense.

>then man can kill the woman for killing his half of the baby.
The wisdom of Solomon with the bone-jarring retardedness of a potato.

>If you theistfags could at least concede early abortions, this whole thing would be much less of an issue.

The problem is for all their braggadacio, they've never actually read their bibles. God says over and over and over that life=breath and breath=life:

bible.knowing-jesus.com/words/Breath

>The child is half his genetic makeup
A fetus can up to 90% either parent depending on the dominant/recessive genes

>It hasn't been law. If you kill a pregnant woman you are charged as killing two people.
(1) Those are only very recent laws
(2) They apply only to a near term viable fetus
(3) Abortions are legal. Murder is not abortions

The Jack O' Lantern