There was very little wrong with what Deck Knight is pointing out. It is pretty deplorable that y'all are seriously tolerating the killing of babies let alone when they're already born. I think it's very fairy to compare 21 weeks of premies being saved and being labeled as babies and 24 week old babies being aborted are simply fetuses. Go ahead, defend why those two things are somehow different. There's some serious hypocrisy and fallacy in this viewpoint, and I'd love to hear why this makes any logical sense that we're able to change the labels simply when we feel its convenient to. He's also very right that the support for abortion has become archaic, from "safe, legal, and rare," to "abortions anytime, anyplace, God bless abortions and God bless America." It's becoming a full-fledged support for literal infanticide and chopping up babies as late as straight before birth on the operating table. All of this, let alone the fact that as Deck Knight continued to point out, some states are bulldozing parental rights on the issue by letting minors get abortions without considering the rights of the parents. That's fair game to crititcize.
Additionally, there's is nothing okay with women feeling empowered because they killed a baby--if anything, a vast majority of women that have abortions tend come to some sort of hurt prior and following the procedure, because they deep down understand the value of what they just killed off. It's traumatic, and if anything, it makes the hurt of rape much worse because now two lives have been destroyed, not just one. Nowhere did Deck Knight equate women to baby-pumping factories either, you're creating fuss out of thin air. Once again, we're under the premise that babies should not be killed; it has nothing to do with controlling women, it has everything to do with saving lives.
Edit: I want to cover the rape scenario because this is also a point of contention, and there's more I want to respond to from Celever. Thank God for our law system right? Because the woman would be compensated for the expenses and thensome for emotional distress through criminal/civil lawsuits (for the sake of argument abortions/the baby's needs if kept alive), which can be taken up by the state. (And before someone says well what about those that are too scared to/are pressured not to, have you heard of saving the time, date, place of where an incident occurred? That would be a good start when stepping up to law enforcement who can protect you, on top of that fact that now you'd have biological DNA evidence from the baby to prove it. Isn't that what y'all wanted from #MeToo? Defending women and giving them the courage to put their abusers to justice?) I feel you on abusive relationships too, no baby deserves to live through that. So it's any better that they're killed off? Or it's not good enough for it to be adopted out to a loving family either? Two wrongs don't make a right.
Because it's a living, breathing, crying baby that's able to be saved. To those that are touting the sentience argument, by your own standards is that not sentient? Much of the shit you guys have been spouting out is that it's not a baby until its born. Anything before that point is a fetus. My question I'd like to pose is: is that truly your cut-off to determine babyhood from being a fetus? Personhood is determined by whether the baby passed through the vagina or not? I know termi you in particular pushed sentience as the point of life itself (which y'all have yet to back up other than differentiating being brain dead from being in a coma, once again fair my bad for misunderstanding), but where exactly is the limit for you people to where it is officially a baby and cannot be killed? So far its been up until birth for many of you, even though at 5 weeks a heartbeat and a development of brain function. In addition, you've yet to prove regardless of sentience, why it should be killed off if basic science tells us and has shown us that, if left to its own devices in the womb (for people that cannot discern any semblance of logic) will 99 out of 100 times develop into a full-fledged baby? (Other than convenience because the mother cannot provide a life for it/does not want it, we've already discussed rape/incest/the mother's life is in danger. Convenience is a shit argument that does not determine livelihood).i dont rly see what the moral difference is between successfully aborting a fetus immediately or having it be briefly alive outside the womb by accident and then letting it die, especially considering anti-abortionists already consider successful abortions to be infanticide. anyway cool that u hate women or whatever, im sure ur proud of urself
You're right that woman are completely entitled to autonomy....until you learn actual biology and realize a fetus is not a woman's body. As stated before, this is an entity with a completely different DNA code for starters. Unless all of the sudden women have 20 fingers and toes, 4 sets of eyes, and an extra set of ears, that is not the woman's body, and deceiving people into believing that blatant fiction is incredibly dishonest. No one here has yet to discern how a fetus is all the sudden a part of the women's body with all of that being considered.This is the most misogynistic statement I've ever read. You know that women are capable of having autonomy, right? They can choose not to have an abortion if they don't want one. Even 15 year old girls have autonomy and can choose not to have an abortion. If they want one then I'm glad that, in your scenario where the woman is only a teenager, they're not having to pay for it themselves. The narrative that men can command women into abortions ("take care of it") is only true in abusive relationships, which no child deserves to be born into.
There's also no causation between abortion being legal and rape victims not reporting the crimes that they're a victim of. If anything, it's the inverse. Perhaps if we empowered women by giving them autonomy over their bodies they would feel more capable of reporting their victimhood and getting your hypothetical perpetrator thrown in jail. And perhaps limiting women's autonomy socialises them into an otherhood that makes them feel lesser, and therefore more liable to be preyed upon by people such as your hypothetical rapist.
Your statement characterises women as obsequious baby factories and that's utterly revolting. If I were one of the legislators you were speaking to, I would have had you thrown out.
Additionally, there's is nothing okay with women feeling empowered because they killed a baby--if anything, a vast majority of women that have abortions tend come to some sort of hurt prior and following the procedure, because they deep down understand the value of what they just killed off. It's traumatic, and if anything, it makes the hurt of rape much worse because now two lives have been destroyed, not just one. Nowhere did Deck Knight equate women to baby-pumping factories either, you're creating fuss out of thin air. Once again, we're under the premise that babies should not be killed; it has nothing to do with controlling women, it has everything to do with saving lives.
Edit: I want to cover the rape scenario because this is also a point of contention, and there's more I want to respond to from Celever. Thank God for our law system right? Because the woman would be compensated for the expenses and thensome for emotional distress through criminal/civil lawsuits (for the sake of argument abortions/the baby's needs if kept alive), which can be taken up by the state. (And before someone says well what about those that are too scared to/are pressured not to, have you heard of saving the time, date, place of where an incident occurred? That would be a good start when stepping up to law enforcement who can protect you, on top of that fact that now you'd have biological DNA evidence from the baby to prove it. Isn't that what y'all wanted from #MeToo? Defending women and giving them the courage to put their abusers to justice?) I feel you on abusive relationships too, no baby deserves to live through that. So it's any better that they're killed off? Or it's not good enough for it to be adopted out to a loving family either? Two wrongs don't make a right.
Last edited: