https://www.cdc.gov/reproductive-health/data-statistics/abortion-surveillance-findings-reports.html for the abortion numbers.
Probably good that nobody asks you
Why are you in this com?
To fight against your misleading propaganda.
Do these children live in happy, healthy homes?
…or are they resented every day by their parents that were forced to have them, slowly building up childhood trauma that, by all studies on the topic, will never be resolved and will always plague them?
…or are they forced into the already-overburdened foster system, where children are regularly abused and neglected? Oh, and just to be clear, you’re aware that Texas has among the most crowded systems in the country, right?
Ohhhh sorry, I forgot you’re all just pro-birth instead of pro-life.
So, what, kill everyone who can’t live in a healthy home?
This mindset is insane and it’s so weird that people who hold it act like they have the moral high ground or something.
I’m pretty sure he’s advocating for eugenics.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugenics
(…) set of beliefs and practices that aim to improve the genetic quality of a human population.
Does that definition appear to fit what you just read in that other comment ?
Do you not understand why eugenics is bad? You know what, here, this article does a better job of explaining it than I ever could. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC1129063/ And for good measure, a reddit post too, why not? https://www.reddit.com/r/philosophy/comments/mhk16/why_is_eugenics_wrong/
Thanks for the documentation, it’s always appreciated. Now you can try rereading my comment
IDK if eugenics is the word for it but he’s certainly advocating for…something interesting
They’re indirectly advocating for classism and suggesting that the “undesirables” aren’t worthy of life, and/or can’t attain personal or economic value.
It’s really fucking weird when you think about it. Like, pick a lane.
It’s weird, to be sure, and maybe I’m being pedantic, but genocide refers specifically to genetics and that doesn’t seem to be why most of the people here support abortion. Pro-abortion arguments are usually ageist or ableist rather than genocidal.
But forcing people to have kids they don’t want is a moral high ground?
Rape isn’t part of the pro life platform, nor is the abolition of the adoption process.
Truly disgusting that you think any women dying is acceptable, let alone a “damn good trade”.
Ironic.
But you’re okay with dead babies?
You literally posted a link to a story about a woman who was hoping to see her pregnancy through to the end. This woman didn’t want an abortion but I guarantee you she wanted to live. And here you are celebrating her death. That’s disgusting.
I bet you and I agree on a lot of things and about wanting to see less abortions. I think the answer is pretty easy. Better access to sex education. More access to contraceptives and family planning. And laws that don’t punish doctors for saving the lives of their patients.
We’re not celebrating her death. We’re celebrating the massive statistical success of the abortion laws.
I honestly just saw the article, went “just 3”? And posted it here. Turns out, abortion largely isn’t about saving lives, it’s using it as a psychopathic birth control.
Removed by mod
r1: Be Civil
Let me rephrase my previous post so I don’t offend the person calling the preventable deaths of the women “a good trade”.
You are being ignorant if you believe an abortion ban actually prevents all abortions from happening.
You are being ignorant if you think putting doctors in jail for trying to save their patients lives is a sustainable practice. Every time abortion laws regress, medical professionals leave the state and mortality rates increase.
You are being callous to people who maybe you consider to be strangers or worthless people because they sought to have an abortion. But I think you would be singing a different tune if it was your partner, your sister, your mother, who had a miscarriage while the doctors stood by and said, “here take this pill and pray god saves you, because I’m not legally allowed to help you anymore.”
For the record, I support abortion rights. It does make me a public outlier in the conservative community. In private, many conservatives support abortion rights. We can tell by when it goes up for a vote, even in red states, it wins by a larger majority than just if the Democrats voted for it.
I thought this would be the issue that caused the Republicans to lose the election, and I was shocked when it didn’t.
Congress, over the last 50 years, could have created a law to protect abortion rights, but they didn’t. That is where the angst should be with Congress for failing to do their job.
Apparently 50,000 people a year did use abortion as birth control.
Birth control isn’t 100% effective and not all pregnancies are viable, nevermind desirable. Texas doesn’t even allow abortions in case of rape you fucking ghoul.
So because someone raped someone, a completely innocent person should die? That’s your logic?
As someone wise said, birth control isn’t 100% effective. Best case is 99%, usually a bit less on average. Texas has >30 million people. Assuming 1% have sex once that’s 300,000. If they all use birth control that’s 3,000 potential babies they didn’t want. And I think we can agree these numbers are EXTREMELY conservative.
Getting pregnant doesn’t mean you didn’t try to prevent it.
Heinous to use someone’s tragic image and story beside your headline.
Also, “just” 3 deaths we know of. If you have read literally anything about abortions pre-Roe, I guarantee you that you’re potentially missing at least one and maybe 2 zeros behind that. This also doesn’t account for women who have been irreversibly harmed from attempting to access or perform off-the-books abortion care, or those who have to carry to term a child when pregnancy might harm them.
Also, “only” 3 deaths is still a tragedy. Those people had families. They had friends, coworkers, and lives. At least one of them was literally still a child. Trying to play a numbers game between people dead because of a law and the number of “babies saved” is ghoulish behavior.
So by your hypothetical count with zero support behind it, you could only come up with 300 dead potentially in the absolute worst case scenario vs 50,000 saved. So 49700 lives net.
Why do you want to kill babies? Are you just an evil person?
Let me turn that around: why are you OK with letting an 18 year old bleed to death, painfully, from what is an absolutely treatable condition because nobody would perform care that was too legally close to an abortion? Why are you OK with women dying and being harmed irreparably?
And on the subject, why are YOU ok with killing babies?
255 more deaths. Compared to 50,000 babies saved, I’d take it.
Why do you think 255 babies should be saved over 50,000 babies?
Fetuses, not babies.
Where are you getting that 50k number from? Is it based on the number of abortions performed in 2021? You don’t, perhaps, think that women might be getting abortions out of state, or relying on better birth control methods, or are resorting to smuggling in Plan B? You think it’s really a 1-to-1?
Birth control is not murder.
I’m sure there’s probably been a couple out of state abortions, but they’d have to drive for 16 hours for it. It’s banned in Louisiana and Oklahoma. Arkansas only allows it in emergencies. So you’re talking about a hell of a drive and getting a hotel for a night or two. If you can’t be bothered with a pill, are you really going to be bothered to road trip?
Oh look another disgusting take on reducing women to bargaining chips while also neglecting to acknowledge that infant mortality is on the rise.
Shame on you OP.
Oh look, a lefty that supports murdering babies! What could we do without lefties murdering babies?
Completely ignoring the infant mortality rates going up have you? What’s the matter? Doesn’t fit your narrative?
255 more dead infants vs 50,000 saved. Magnitudes more have been saved than those lost.
Fits my narrative pretty good.
And yet zero discussions on how to improve the quality of life of those 50,000 babies. How to make sure they are healthy and grow up to be functioning adults.
You don’t care about the babies. You care about control. You’re disgusting.
So you think if life isn’t perfect, we should murder them? Do you not understand how evil that is?
You never cared about them. Don’t talk to me about evil. You’re pathetic.
Of course he doesn’t, he just follows the talking points. Gotta have those unwanted babies to grow up and fill those unwanted jobs what with the mass deportation and all. It was never about caring for children or they would support programs that actually help children, like education, TANF, food stamps, free school lunches, Medicare, all the things that help these children survive. They don’t even bother questioning why their politicians get hung up on abortion but neglect the other things. /rant
Pathetic? Says the guy who thinks 255 is a bigger number than 50,000. You should go back to kindergarten.
What are your thoughts on sacrificing an individual for their organs? Could save 5+ lives with one sacrifice.
Good trade? Any other moral issues beyond the math here?
No babies are murdered.
It’s only considered as a baby once it’s born.
Until then it’s a fetus.
I can’t wait for a portion of these 50k babies to be blamed for increase in crime, drug use and poverty.
Anything to justify murdering them I guess
Do you support the death penalty, or are you too thick to understand the difference between murder and abortion?
I do, I just don’t pretend that fetuses do anything worthy of being put to death.
Edit: bonkers response lol, these are like the worst abortion arguments I’ve heard in my life. If y’all are gonna advocate for murdering babies at least be better at it lollllllll
How many foster kids have you taken in? How many unwanted children have you adopted?
“Oh really, you hate the Nazis? How many Jews have you taken in to live with you?”
…that is not the gotcha you think it is… in fact you just made their point for them with that comment.
Sure buddy
It will justify their slave labor in prisons. Shame they’re parents had sex without thinking of the consequences.
And all of those babies are in loving caring homes that can afford to take care of them? None of the families were forced to keep them?
I hear your argument, but I also wonder what percentage of people think back and say, “My childhood wasn’t ideal, I wish I had never been born at all.”
A lot. Childhood trauma, more often than not, never goes away.
TBF yeah we don’t hear those people complain because they just kill themselves. But even then, they should be given that choice rather than being murdered before birth.
I think that’s a poor argument for pretty much the exact same reason. Self preservation is very strong among all living creatures. It doesn’t take quality of life or society into consideration.
If we lived in a utopia, it’d be a better argument. We don’t. And forcing those who don’t have the financial capacity to take care of someone, to take care of someone, is just going to force them to make terrible decisions in order to survive. You know, because of self preservation. And that’s only one potential deficit someone could have. Maybe they don’t have the emotional capacity. Maybe they have genetics they don’t want to pass along. Maybe the kid will be disabled. Maybe, whatever million other reasons someone could think of.
Why force someone into a life of hardship from the get go?
You’re obviously looking for a reaction by using the phrase “a damn good trade” when referring to dead women. That is very weird.
Yet another ignorant fool thinks he knows better than scientific consensus…
Life doesn’t begin at conception, you dunce. You can stop say an abortion is equal to “saving babies” anytime now. That is a ridiculous untruth.
When does “the science” say life begins?
It doesn’t. Life is a continuum, it doesn’t care what artificial labels we try to put on things. A fertilized egg is just as alive as an unfertilized one, or a sperm cell, by any scientific definition of life, highlights how useless it is to try and use that definition to argue about abortion.
A fertilized egg is just as alive as an unfertilized one
Source?
From the National Institute for Health
In biology, it is generally agreed that organisms that possess the following seven characteristics are animate or living beings and thus possess life: the ability to respire, grow, excrete, reproduce, metabolize, move, and be responsive to the environment
The article as a whole elaborates that even trying to pin down a single definiton of life is a bit of a fool’s errand, much less trying to use such a definition to support arguments about when life starts or stops.
From the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (which actually is just re-quoting an entirely different article, one of many discussed within)
We propose to define living systems as those that are: (1) composed of bounded micro-environments in thermodynamic equilibrium with their surroundings; (2) capable of transforming energy to maintain their low-entropy states; and (3) able to replicate structurally distinct copies of themselves from an instructional code perpetuated indefinitely through time despite the demise of the individual carrier through which it is transmitted.
From a University of Minnesota Introduction to Biology course
All groups of living organisms share several key characteristics or functions: order, sensitivity or response to stimuli, reproduction, adaptation, growth and development, regulation, homeostasis, and energy processing. When viewed together, these characteristics serve to define life.
In short, there really isn’t any unified definition of life. Comparing different definitions, there’s common themes that emerge, but nothing that supports saying conception is when it starts. If you’re going to use that definition, you can’t support it by saying that “science” defines it that way.
I guess my thing is those descriptors don’t apply to unfertilized embryos.
The definitions you provided exclude both egg and sperm from being classified as a living organism. They can not reproduce or replicate themselves.
And you think embryo can reproduce/replicate itself? Lol
Yes an embryo does replicate. How do you think an embryo goes from one cell to multiple cells?
Considering those quotes talk about defining “living systems” or “groups of organisms”, as opposed to individual cells (and again, elaborated on even moreso within the full linked articles), I’m gonna have to say “no, they’re not really excluded at all.” Their entire purpose is to meet up and initiate replication. An egg and sperm cell are each one small part of a much larger system of ongoing life. The same can be said for a fertilized egg, an embryo, and so on for most stages of development in a womb.
If you want to insist on a definition that says egg and sperm cells aren’t alive, or aren’t an organism, you’re gonna have a hard time saying that a fertilized egg or an embryo are. They don’t replicate on their own, either, not without a very specific environment and set of stimuli.
Also, sperm cells DO replicate, to an extent. They undergo forms of mitosis and meiosis, during their growth. And an egg cell absolutely replicates. Like any other type of cell replication, it needs certain stimuli to initiate it. I.E. it needs to be fertilized.
If you want to insist on a definition that says egg and sperm cells aren’t alive, or aren’t an organism, you’re gonna have a hard time saying that a fertilized egg or an embryo are. They don’t replicate on their own, either, not without a very specific environment and set of stimuli.
An embryo goes from a single cell to multiple genetically identical cells, that is replication. Sperm cells do not replicate into more identical sperm cells, eggs do not replicate into more identical eggs.
Also, sperm cells DO replicate, to an extent. They undergo forms of mitosis and meiosis, during their growth. And an egg cell absolutely replicates. Like any other type of cell replication, it needs certain stimuli to initiate it. I.E. it needs to be fertilized.
I would argue that the mitosis process sperm cells undergo splits the cell into two genetically different cells and the genetic difference ia not a mutation so it’s not replication. Egg cells don’t replicate they don’t copy their DNA, they fuse with sperm at which time they become an embryo and start to replicate.
I think one of the problems is women who die because they have a miscarriage and can’t get medical support. This is something completely avoidable, but the laws are catching these people in the crossfire.
True, but when you compare the numbers, just 3 women have died. 50783 babies have been saved. So a net of 50780 lives have been saved.
Are you a troll?
50,000 unwanted babies = plenty very angry adults in 30 years. I would know as a child of teen pregnancy. Having a 16 year old mom with nothing to offer me but Ramen and horror movies living under the thumb of a mad woman who made it her lifes work to undermine my mother really did wonders for moms mental health.
Just look at the argumentative, insulting and provocative discussion style. OP is absolutely a troll of some sort, although it’s difficult to distinguish that from a typical deluded and fanatical conservative.
Too bad republicans don’t even remotely give a fuck about making sure those babies have decent lives and support after they’re born.
Well it’s literally impossible (without being evil) to argue against the moral principal that killing babies is bad. That’s because killing babies is bad.
So according to this new baby accounting morality, the hamas attack on Israel killed only 37 children, 2 of which were babies. So that’s good. But according to oxfam, more than 11,000 children were killed by Israeli military in the last year, that’s bad. Of course many women were killed also, likely some pregnant ones, that’s bad.
According to UNICEF, 2000 children have been killed in Ukraine, that’s bad. I can’t find any record or report of Ukraininan military killing any Russian children, so that’s good.
So I’d like to see as much effort put into reducing the deaths of Palestinian babies and Ukrainian babies instead of encouraging those baby murdering israelis and baby murdering ruzzians.
Edit: Oh, nobody agrees with me? Huh. Maybe it never was about the babies, but about control, subjugation and punishment.
Edit 2: Ah so someone does agree with me. It’s pretty clear, from a strictly anti-child-killing standpoint who the good guys and bad guys are: hamas and Ukraine are the good guys, Israel and ruzzia are the bad guys.
Interestingly, abortion has been legal in Israel since 1977, but but under Palestinian law, abortion is illegal. So why support the baby killers and supply bombs to be dropped on the baby protectors?
I’m curious what your relationship with abortion is. Do you know anyone who has had one or even considered one? People aren’t waking up and casually deciding “well, I guess I’m going to go kill a baby today!”. Every single one is a complex decision weighing the risks and benefits of everyone involved. Ignoring tens of thousands of people suffering through what is one of the most difficult emotional events I can imagine and reducing it to a game of numbers doesn’t seem fair.
OP should have as many kids as possible. What are they waiting for?
Wow! I’m honestly surprised to hear that so many lives are being saved to quickly. This is wonderful news!
Why not a Compromise? A more flexible Abortion Ban, but free Morning after Pill and Condoms. Or highly subsidized BirthControl and Classes with the Topic prevention. Target would be smaller number of Abortion because smaler number of Tennie prec. Please overlook my Bad english.
