Why is abortion controversial? most abortions are done early

why is abortion controversial? most abortions are done early

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=v7xgnWjr1Kg
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

Natalism. I'm not for it.

I think they shouldn't be killed, but if a mother doesn't want her baby, she shouldn't have to bare with it. I saw something earlier today that proposed taking the embryo out and putting it in an artificial womb instead of just straight up killing it, I think that's good.

What happens after they transfer the embryo to the artificial womb? There's no way it can keep developing, is there?

babies are massively over rated.

Just pure ego of humanity that thinks they are worth anything.

youtube.com/watch?v=v7xgnWjr1Kg

It does develop for a while. But it would need to be transferred into a natural womb at some point (my guess is at about 8 weeks, when it is officially classified as a fetus.) All of this is coming from my limited knowledge of test-tube babies.

Regardless of whether it's a being or not, the mere probability of it being a fully conscious sapient human should ensure its protection.

>why is abortion controversial?

Religiousfags want abortion to be illegal
so that the law basically acknowledges
something "special" happens at conception,
in other words, a soul.

It's another way for them to inject their religious beliefs into our laws.

Doesn't matter. Men commit genocidal abortion sometimes 5 times a day why does it matter. If anything you filth filled demons called humans only deserve death anyway. Please just an hero

Why must there be anything special happening? Left alone a fetus will become a fully developed human being, that alone is worth preserving. The destruction of such potential is morally wrong.

>but if a mother doesn't want her baby, she shouldn't have to bare with it.

Why?

I honestly think it all stems from lack of proper education on the reproductive system and religious upbringings clouding logical judgement

To some people, the moment the sperm enters the egg, it is a human with full human rights, but by that argument, a lotta woman are killers cuz plenty of spermed up' eggs pass through the uterus without attaching and they spill their monthly blood like normal.

>Stupidest story I've ever heard on abortion was a woman whom had been trying to get knocked up again for a while, and when she finally did, she found out the baby will come out in horrible pain and only live a few short hours and probably kill her in the birth process. Tried to get an abortion, but couldn't take the social pressures and hate from her formally accepting church, and went ahead and died with the baby. Church that outcast her for her abortion thoughts then cried at the funeral talking about how 'brave' she was to risk to her life for her child.

It's her body. Like if I shoot someone for no reason and that person needs a new kidney because of it- the state can never force me to give up mine. (Assuming it's a match, etc) Because I have bodily rights.

So the general argument is that if women have similar bodily autonomy, then they should be able to deny anyone, even a child and especially a not-yet-child, from using their body.

It's not like she had no choice in the process, by having sex and in particular unprotected sex, she is assuming the risk of becoming pregnant. How is casually creating and then destroying the potential for a human being to enter the world not disturbing?

I also had a choice to shoot someone or not in my analogy. But yes, many wouldn't have a whole lot of sympathy for me if I was straight merc-ing people without any rhyme or reason. Many would probably feel I should do anything to make it right, or that the state should take my organs to help those I hurt.

But on the other hand, it is quite scary and not altogether unreasonable to fear giving your government that much power. To have people in power tell individuals what they are going to do with your body. You can claim this power will only be used in X circumstance or against Y individuals, but we all know how that shit gets out of control.

I think somewhere in the middle is probably the best. Limiting late term abortions (or banning them outright). Allowing them but allowing society to actively discourage them.

Well, there's rape, and there's also sabotaged sex.

>To have people in power tell individuals what they are going to do with your body.

They wouldn't be telling people what they're going to do with their body. They going to be telling people what they won't do with their body.


Comparing not allowing a woman to murder her baby and the government forcibly taking your organs because you shot someone is quite ridiculous.

The problem with this is that by allowing the destruction of the earliest beginnings of a human being society is in fact cheaping the value of human life as a whole. I wish a compromise could be met. But how can government allow an act that by its very nature invalidates the worth of any being. It's a slippery slope to humans being treated as meat sticks.

Obviously, in cases of rape and threatening the life of the mother the option should be there. But even then it should be realized the potential human from that rape could do far more good than the suffering of that rape.

...

Abortion is murder. Just sell the babies to the black market where they'll serve a purpose as a living fleshlight

Greatly enjoyed this response user

We should never put that kind of power in the government's hands. It's like the whole stupid transgender bathroom deal, whether your for or against it, why are we allowing some old dude sitting behind a desk somewhere to tell us who can and can't use what bathrooms and when? Same goes for abortion. Nobody wants a bunch of faceless government officials making their decisions for them, especially not when it comes down to something of the magnitude of a pregnancy.

>They wouldn't be telling people what they're going to do with their body. They going to be telling people what they won't do with their body.
Is there a difference? I'm pretty sure that's some communist doublethink comrade.

Eh, maybe. Looking at statistics seems to suggest most women actually feel quite bad about getting abortions and take extra effort not to do it again.

Maybe as a society it could devalue us, but there's a lot of other ways we devalue each other all the time. You know, things to fix before we focus on something so politically explosive.

You go back to the fetus you cuck boi

>Is there a difference? I'm pretty sure that's some communist doublethink comrade.

>Implying forcing someone to do something is the same as refusing to do something

I guess that woman wasn't actually raped then comrade

When a woman gets an abortion but the state stops the doctor from performing the procedure, who is refusing to do anything? The state is telling one person what they can do to their body and another what their medical skills can be used for.

Obv I'm not for anything weird like government funded abortions or forcing doctors to do anything they find unethical.