Beingpro-choicemeans that you believe the women, not thegovernment

beingpro-choicemeans that you believe the women, not thegovernment

Why should the government decide anything with my body?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtu.be/kv3MRyKfEHA
twitter.com/NSFWRedditGif

Im not paying for it with my taxes.

If a child isn't a person before its born, then kicking a woman in the stomach and causing an abortion should just be misdemeanor assault.

it's not your body pro-life people are concerned about, it's the child in it that you want to be allowed to murder

Pro-choice litteraly is the government deciding who reproduces!!! You faggots are so blind to the media my god.

This.
I don't give a shit either way, I just don't want to pay for it.

>Im not paying for it with my taxes.
a leaf.

And even if you were American abortions have never been covered by the government, the argument is about whether they should be legal or illegal

If you're responsible enough to make the choice to kill your child, you're responsible enough to pay for it

Drown in semen faggot

It's up to trump.

They are funded outside the US by the US tax-payer, well not anymore since Trump got in.

>Being pro-murder
>doesn't mean that you'd
>have an abortion.
>It just means you think the
>choice is YOURS,
>NOT the government's.
ftfy
Why do pro-choice people ignore all counterarguments and go straight to "evil republicans want to control womyn"? Is it because they're dishonest and their argument is flawed at best?
Oh, and guess who they'll blame if abortion gets banned?

>believe the women

I am fine with abortion. It's either that, or we end up paying for gibs for 18 years.

Plus, if you believe government should stay out of people's business, then it is only logical to be pro-choice.

Being pro-life suggests the government should meddle in people's lives and that opens up another can of worms. Just keep government out of it.

kek. You guys are too much

?

>i'm okay with the murder of children, if we didn't allow them to be murdered, i might be burdened financially!
jew detected

> if you believe government should stay out of people's business,
i believe the government should punish murderers, especially the ones who target children

This. If you want one, go to a private practitioner and pay for it. It should not be the government's job to pay for the murder of the unborn

What all those "deplorables" reproducing?

...

I'll let Cardinal Arinze explain it to you.

youtu.be/kv3MRyKfEHA

I wouldn't call it murder but I certainly don't want to pay for poor decision making.

>I wouldn't call it murder
murder: the unlawful (or immoral) premeditated killing of one human being by another.

the child in the womb is human (it's not feline)
it exists, therefore it's a human being

it has done no evil, therefore it is innocent
it is immoral to kill an innocent human being

therefore abortion is murder

do you see a flaw in my logic?
call a spade a spade

There is absolutely no evidence that an embryo qualifies as a human,

Religion, nothing in any texts state that the soul enters the body at conception.

Common law, a person is only a person once it's outside of the womb (birth).

Science, doesn't even have the resemble of thought til near the third trimester.

Govt shouldn't have to pay for it nor people. If it has to happen then privatized.

You realize not every one supports its, and I can understand why christians who feel violated into paying for it.

>There is absolutely no evidence that an embryo qualifies as a human
what about biology, science denier?
if a human embryo isn't human, then what species is it?

It isn't unlawful, and "immoral" is subjective so trying to argue that it's wrong because it's wrong doesn't get you very far. Sure, it's innocent, but so long as it's early pregnancy it isn't developed enough the be able to think or feel. It's barely more alive than dirt.

Strictly scientifically speaking, If an embryo has rights then every fucking animal does, a dolphin is far more resembles a cognistive being then an embryo.

>but god says only humans have rights
Then don't bring in science, base it off the texts of the book.

>There is absolutely no evidence that an embryo qualifies as a human,
Absolutely false. How about, oh I don't know, IT HAS HUMAN DNA! Pro-abortion people love to BS about science, as if it actually supported their position, when the opposite is true. That's when your personal DNA first appeared in the universe by the way; at conception.
And it's normal to identify an object at one time with one at another if they share the same worldline, which you and yourself-as-an-embryo in fact do.

See above post, why does DNA grant rights?

These gets will not go unchecked

Right, the government should stay out of the decision I've made to use my body (namely my hands) to strangle you to death.

>Tfw try to make logical argument for pro-choice but get blessed by Satan

>666
>"immoral" is subjective
even pretending that morality is subjective, i'd say
>it is immoral to kill an innocent human being
is pretty uncontroversial

morality being subjective or objective aside, you disagree with that statement?

>If an embryo has rights then every fucking animal does
we're a society of humans, not a society of "cognistive" animals
>but god
don't bring your religion into this
the only appeal to Christianity i make in my argumentation is to "thou shalt not murder"

most atheists (irrationally) agree that murder is morally wrong.

Am embryo is a unique human genome carrying out its instructions and in the absence of nuclear horror will remain working, unchanged, until death

Faggot

This is what I never understood about the argument.

Take this scenario for example.
A mugger stabs a woman in her stomach. She loses her baby. She lives. The mugger is caught.

Is he tried for murder ? Or no ?

>Unlawful

"Murder" is a very political term. Abortion is legal, therefore, it is not murder.

But the point is that it should be considered murder.

You want to murder your baby, that's on you.

Meanwhile, don't fund Planned Parenthood with my tax money.

You want to be free to choose? I shouldn't have to pay for your choice.

Its all about life choices until AFTER you decide to be a degenerate thot. I'm not paying taxes so drunk women can fuck chad without protection at a party with zero consequence every weekend.

Can you sell your kidney? No. Can you ride a motorcycle with no helmet? No. Government decides what you do with your body constantly. "muh body muh choice" is just s fucking meme

You're dishonestly changing the criteria. You started with the question of if an embryo qualifies as human, then when I made an argument for that, you pretended you're talking about a question regarding the granting of rights, which is really just a question about "where do any moral statements come from" which is another debate because it brings in atheism vs theism.

>Abortion is legal, therefore, it is not murder.
that's why i added
>(or immoral)
to clarify and avoid that silliness

even in an anarchic lawless society, if you premeditate and kill an innocent person, is that not murder?

All I see is a pair of nigger lovers, equating all "human life."

"Absent nuclear horror." Misscarges are a daily thing.

Same faggots that are going to argue that altering genetic defects is terrible.

It's not my fault for being popular among the mythological. What I'm saying here is that the barely developed don't count as people due to their brains not having anything that would give them any level of self. So long as the brain isn't developed, I don't see a big problem with aborting something that has no senses so long as I don't pay for it.

This argument is a slippery slope. You could say the same thing about a week old baby.

"Oh it doesn't do anything, it's not like it's a person."

Pro choice is retarded. Choose to not be such a whore next time.

Top kek

>Misscarges are a daily thing.
so what?
does the fact that people can die naturally mean that if someone murders someone else, that's okay?

Checked.
Also, pls stop giving me these 6's. It doesn't help.

>Misscarges are a daily thing.
And people dying is a daily thing. It's not wrong that people die, everyone will die, it's wrong when innocent people are intentionally killed. That's murder.

Omg so edgy.

Murder is a crime because you are taking a person's life away from their loved ones.

This is why abortion isn't a crime. An unborn fetus doesn't have any meaningful relationships. You aren't destroying or damaging any lives by aborting a fetus. It's a victimless crime, like killing a homeless guy.

All the an-cap memes are easily translatible to feminism.

Its like killing a shitposter.

>Murder is a crime because you are taking a person's life away from their loved ones.
that's absurd

what about some guy who has no friends or family, is it okay to murder him?

fucking this

it's also illegal to kill yourself but you don't see anyone protesting that en masse

Fuck feminism. This whole pro abortion thing is just a ploy to castrate men even further. Abortion is the killing of a child. A child is the offspring of a mother AND FATHER. These feminist women hate that fact. If you're a real man, you will be against a woman having total control over the fate and life of YOUR CHILD. Abortion is NOT about HER BODY. That is a CHILD, YOUR CHILD. A MAN'S CHILD. Fuck abortions and feminists.

Why are conservatives anti-abortion, anyway?

Ironically it seems like pro-life arguments are functionally identical to pro-refugee ones.

>It's a HUMAN BEING!
>Where's your humanity? Feel bad about disrespecting human life!
>It has human DNA so it's human! All humans are equal!

Liberals carry around posters with pictures of dead Syrians on them. Conservatives wave posters with dead fetuses on them. If American (((politics))) had any kind of internal consistency, conservatives would be pro-choice and liberals would be pro-life.

It depends, does he have a job?

If he does; then I'd say it's a lesser degree of murder. Maybe second degree murder? I mean it's not like anyone will miss him. He's replaceable. So who exactly is the victim here?

It's apples and oranges.

Because a baby is not your body, but rather a new life. Even a kid can understand this.

Yes

The word "person" as applied to statutes, is only for the purposes of acknowledging legal rights and duties, not to define species. A fetus in a woman's womb is indeed a human life. Whether that human fetus has rights as a "person" before the state, is another question. But nobody can deny the fetus inside a woman's womb is the offspring of a homo sapien mother and father, thus a human child.

>man knocks up woman and leaves
>woman cant afford abortion/ is not legally allowed to abort
>has child and lives in poverty
>spends 18 years living off foodstamps and welfare
is 10000x more expensive to taxpayers than
>man knocks up woman
>woman gets abortion, subsidized so that she is not bankrupt
>has children when shes with a stable man
>does not have to rely on food stamps, welfare, government handouts
18 years plus of foodstamps and welfare, or a 1 time surgery that costs less than $400. plus, why do we need more bastard children anyways? its simple math if youre not retarded, but alas, the good people of pol prefer whatever is incorrect. taxes for a wall is a great idea, but tax money for anything else productive is against muh rights

>Ironically it seems like pro-life arguments are functionally identical to pro-refugee ones.
Babies and refugees are, indeed, both human. We're against killing innocent refugees too.

Somewhere in your mind's confusion, you're equivocating between killing someone and not letting them in to your country. I hope upon further reflection, you'll be able to tell the functional difference.

If the argument you make for your ideas works just as well if you substitute your idea with "rape", "murder", "theft" or drug abuse, it probably isn't a very good argument.

No other argument is more important than the economic one.

>OP - 1 Post By ID

OP - 1 Post By ID
>OP - 1 Post By ID

OP - 1 Post By ID
>OP - 1 Post By ID

OP - 1 Post By ID
>OP - 1 Post By ID

OP - 1 Post By ID
>OP - 1 Post By ID

OP - 1 Post By ID
>OP - 1 Post By ID

OP - 1 Post By ID
>OP - 1 Post By ID

OP - 1 Post By ID
>OP - 1 Post By ID

OP - 1 Post By ID

the problem is
>man knocks up woman and leaves
>has child and lives in poverty
>decides to murder her toddler
>does not have to rely on food stamps, welfare, government handouts
is the exact same as your 2nd scenario

murder ought not to be allowed, regardless of the economic benefits

So your idea is that a person's value comes only from the value other people extract from them. That sounds like a good idea at first, but if you think about it a while, you'll see that it is then okay to kill off a pair of people if they only care about each other, because there are no external people who care about either of them. And extending it further, you can kill off a group of 10 that only care about other members of the group, and so on. If fact, your idea requires that fundamentally, no-one has any value, and all are liable to be killed.

>tfw you think the government should decide who reproduces

Not the current government, mind.

The answer to free abortions

please explain. if a woman can have a child when shes ready, she may not live in poverty and rely on taxpayer handouts. a $400 procedure is much cheaper.
>murder ought not be allowed
ahahahaha right. look at the morally correct guy on pol, on his morally correct pedestal.

exactly, this guy gets it. an abortion is the cheaper method in the long run. youd have to be retarded to think a simple surgery costs more than two decades of welfare

i acknowledge that there is potentially an economic benefit to murdering the child in all 3 cases for the mother,
but she shouldn't do it, nor should the state aid her in doing so, because it's wrong to murder innocent children

also:
>Sup Forums is one person

>she shouldn't do it

> because it's wrong

>wrong to murder innocent children
>literally valuing a fertilized egg as human life
>hoping an 'innocent child' is born into poverty to a woman not ready to be a mother
i dont know how far up your ass your head must be for you to believe this. but since you do, then you must agree that it would be even more economically and ethically beneficial to provide women and men with subsidized birth control, right?

>an abortion is the cheaper method in the long run. youd have to be retarded to think a simple surgery costs more than two decades of welfare
Except that abortions are part of the culture which shirks responsibility and seeks its own pleasure. By supporting that culture, and subsidizing its activities, you inevitably lead to more of it. Or did you really think this woman who has her baby chopped up so she can keep sleeping around with whoever is going to become financially responsible because she doesn't have a baby to look after?!

This.

Are they shirking responsibility if they're paying for their abortion?

>literally valuing a fertilized egg as human life
because a fertilized egg is a human life, by definition
>hoping an 'innocent child' is born into poverty to a woman not ready to be a mother
rather than being murdered, yes!

it's better to be dealt a shitty hand in life than to be killed, especially in america, the land of opportunity

>birth control
different subject, i'm not really well versed in the topic so i'm not going to voice my opinion one way or the other, it's less of a pressing issue than 1,000,000+ children being murdered every year in america

Being pro-murder doesn't mean that you'd commit a murder. It just means that you think the choice is Tyrone's, not the government's.

The child's body is not your body. Unjustified abortion is infanticide.

women dont get abortions for fun. i speak from experience because i knocked up my friend with benefits due to a broken condom when i was 18. she knew it was the right thing to do, and she still felt guilty and cried for several weeks afterwards. if it werent for my parents helping pay for the procedure, i would still be working a fast food job to pay for a child i didnt love, not graduate and work in advertising, and i wouldnt have a child today with my wife, and the FWB would not be happily married to someone else with her own child on the way

>i conspired and succeeded in having my child murdered and now my life is great
congratulations, i guess
you should be getting raped in prison in a just world though

>Are they shirking responsibility if they're paying for their abortion?
Yes, dodging the known consequences of your actions is pretty much the definition of irresponsibility. (Though a little less than if it was government funded.) They slept with some guy, and were surprised to find out that THE ENTIRE PURPOSE OF WHICH IS THE PRODUCTION OF CHILDREN, then tried to kill off the result so they would have less burden in their life.

Who said an abortion was a party? But it is "funner" for you guys than the alternative of raising your child. No one held a gun to you and your whore's head and told you to do it. You murdered someone to dodge a negative outcome; a common reason for murdering adults as well, as it turns out.

There you have it. The devil blesses abortion fanatics.

>what are adoptions

yee-haw pardner, giddyup off your high horse. you can pretend to be the righteous one here but at the end of the day, if i were holding a 2 month old baby or a petri dish with a fertilized egg and was about to drop both, it would not be a tough decision on which one you would try and catch. unless you really are this retarded in which case it would be an impossible decision, they are both innocent human life

>Consequences
... are subjective and based on the circumstances. The circumstances allow for abortions, and so the consequences of -not- getting an abortion are greater.

Pls no bully

I'm pro choice, the government should not tell me I can't beat the shit out of you and leave your ass bleeding on floor.

That's an argument grasping for straws. The analogy doesn't fit. The same could be said of a 99 year old man and a 14 year old kid. It's a moot argument, and thus ivalid counter argument.

my horse doesn't have to be very high to look down my nose at child murderers

>they are both innocent human life
stunning admission

you weren't placed in a situation where you had to choose to kill one or the other, you just killed one, one you admitted is an innocent human life

That's really bad reasoning. So you set up a fictional dilemma in which no matter what you do, someone innocent dies; then you point out that whatever choice you make, someone innocent will die, and so the reader must be as bad as the people who intentionally kill their children.

Or maybe, the reader doesn't want either to die, and thus isn't a murderer no matter which one they choose to save?

>unless you really are this retarded in which case it would be an impossible decision
woe is me. my child, my precious child, murdered at the hands of my own greed. O what a monster i am. why did the government give me the freedom to defy god

i think ive had enough pol for one night, thank you for reminding me just what ilk of sociopath i share this board with

So if I hypothetically punch a pregnant woman and cause a miscarriage I shouldn't be charged with murder, only assault, correct?

Now who is looking down on who? Face it. You got told.

Being pro-life doesn't mean that I think you shouldn't have the government tell you what you can and can't do with your body. It just means that I consider ending the life a child in the womb to be murder and I believe murder should be illegal.

So, you want the choice to have a doctor kill baby?

Feminists demanded free contraceptives and abortions - paid by the taxpayer. You wanted government to make decisions for you.

And now, babykiller, you have to deal with all the consequences of murder.

Can you edit that image to show a coat hanger instead of a woman?