Planned Infant-Dismemberment's own propaganda arm readily admits 98%+ of annual abortions are for primarily selfish reasons, either economic or vanity.
They might switch the narrative soon, because this propaganda was formed to entrench their victory of legalized infanticide. It might serve their narrative in a post-Roe world to pretend women's decisions are grounded in something less trivial.
Odd you decry these actions yet remain pro choice. Let me help you understand “safe, legal, rare” in the 50 years of roe v wade American women have killed over 60 million babies. Abortion is the highest death cause across the world without argument. More than war, homicide, suicide, and “pandemics” COMBINED. American women in 50 years have shown more unmistakable cruelty for self indulgence that every rape incest medical death baby is beyond deserved.
Well, slavery wasn't wrong because they didn't define them as persons. Therefore, killing a living being with human implications is always ok if I deny their humanity.
That's a real dumb fuck way to look at things and stinks of justifying your need to not be inconvenienced by your actions.
Again not an argument, you do not have a definition of when someone “is alive” because your perception is an abstract concept not a defining one. If I came to you and said x=y and .1x does not equal .1y is that a congruent statement?
Well, slavery wasn't wrong because they didn't define them as persons.
This really wasn't a particularly common opinion. It was more commonly justified by saying that freed blacks would be unproductive and fear that freed blacks would pull a Haiti.
Then by that same distinction he would have no argument of cells he has no conscious control over being removed from his own body as those cells are not part of a conscious body. These arguments are always so superfluous and idiotic. You can not believe in biology and abortion congruently. The argument that a unicellular organism isn’t human or alive is the same as saying that all humans do not meet the requirements of being human because humans are empirically all unicellular organisms at birth. Should we allow child murder because they can’t procreate? Should we allow the murder of old people because of cognitive decline? Your argument is sad and born from extreme cognitive dissonance.
The argument for brain death requires proof of no recovery. Every fetus is exempt from this by the same standard you just defined. Again you have no rational argument by any philosophical or empirical metric.
Planned Infant-Dismemberment's own propaganda arm readily admits 98%+ of annual abortions are for primarily selfish reasons, either economic or vanity.
They might switch the narrative soon, because this propaganda was formed to entrench their victory of legalized infanticide. It might serve their narrative in a post-Roe world to pretend women's decisions are grounded in something less trivial.
As opposed to aborting the baby for someone else's benefit? Like the father?
I mean what would be an unselfish abortion?
Ectopic pregnancy resolutions aren't really abortions. I don't think the medical field would count it as such. It's a different procedure.
Odd you decry these actions yet remain pro choice. Let me help you understand “safe, legal, rare” in the 50 years of roe v wade American women have killed over 60 million babies. Abortion is the highest death cause across the world without argument. More than war, homicide, suicide, and “pandemics” COMBINED. American women in 50 years have shown more unmistakable cruelty for self indulgence that every rape incest medical death baby is beyond deserved.
An artificial distinction.
Well, slavery wasn't wrong because they didn't define them as persons. Therefore, killing a living being with human implications is always ok if I deny their humanity.
That's a real dumb fuck way to look at things and stinks of justifying your need to not be inconvenienced by your actions.
Again not an argument, you do not have a definition of when someone “is alive” because your perception is an abstract concept not a defining one. If I came to you and said x=y and .1x does not equal .1y is that a congruent statement?
But friend, we all consider you a person. You don’t need to bring that self loathing talk here- it’s a safe and friendly place.
This really wasn't a particularly common opinion. It was more commonly justified by saying that freed blacks would be unproductive and fear that freed blacks would pull a Haiti.
Then by that same distinction he would have no argument of cells he has no conscious control over being removed from his own body as those cells are not part of a conscious body. These arguments are always so superfluous and idiotic. You can not believe in biology and abortion congruently. The argument that a unicellular organism isn’t human or alive is the same as saying that all humans do not meet the requirements of being human because humans are empirically all unicellular organisms at birth. Should we allow child murder because they can’t procreate? Should we allow the murder of old people because of cognitive decline? Your argument is sad and born from extreme cognitive dissonance.
The argument for brain death requires proof of no recovery. Every fetus is exempt from this by the same standard you just defined. Again you have no rational argument by any philosophical or empirical metric.
You will not convince me of anything. I understand life, and I understand choices.
You clearly understand neither because you have no empirical definition of either.
Nobody convinces anyone of anything in the abortion fights. It's one reason I usually don't engage on it.
So, is this that 'back alley abortions' we've hear so much about?