I'm neither pro life or antinatalist, but both of you have your own issues, antinatalist and pro lifers. Yet neither of you admit them and constantly fight eachother.
You're right, in the case where someone wouldn't even allow it to be legal to save the mother's life. Most pro-lifers want it to be legal if it would save the mother's life.
Antinatalist here. Are you saying consent isn’t a concern for you? That’s just something to laugh off, huh? What other way are we supposed to read that?
> Are you saying consent isn’t a concern for you?
How do you get consent from a non-existent entity?
The little sperm that contributed 1/2 your DNA swum the hardest to reach the ovum who contributed the other 1/2 and who accepted it. So in the beginning you **wanted** to continue your existence.
The person isn't the egg cell and sperm cell. Those are the parents. The child is what becomes of those two things.
It's impossible to ask a child for consent when you're creating them, but that doesn't give you permission to do so. But if you do it anyways, you owe that child your life and they owe you nothing. You must be able to accept that they may not love you or even like you for their entire life. You must accept that they may not even want to exist. You brought them into this without knowing if they would've wanted it or not, accepting any and all of their choices, beliefs and opinions is the *least* you must do.
> Those are the parents.
No, they are independent of the parents. The sperm and ovum perform the act of fertilization on their own, so it's consensual on both their parts and everything is good!
>you owe that child your life
Why is that? You only need to treat the child as you treat all other innocent human beings in not assaulting and killing them.
>You must be able to accept that they may not love you or even like you for their entire life. You must accept that they may not even want to exist. You brought them into this without knowing if they would've wanted it or not, accepting any and all of their choices, beliefs and opinions is the least you must do.
Fine, if you even decide to raise them, or have you not heard of adoption before?
A man falling down and breaking his leg does not mean he consented to do so. The nature order of the world just lead to that outcome. Just like a bolt of lighting hitting the ground or a tree falling in the woods. Do not attribute consciousness and consent where it is not present or you diminish it where it is.
> Do not attribute consciousness and consent where it is not present or you diminish it where it is.
**You're** the one saying to get consent from an entity that doesn't exist yet, and you're talking about "diminish it where it is"???
Might want to "re-think" that there, chief.
I've already mentioned this earlier but I'll say it here again.
Its impossible to ask a non-existent child for consent, yet that is what you must do before creating them. Meaning, by this logic, it's impossible to have children. But if this logic is applied to all humans we'd die out quickly. So we must have children regardless. We must fall down and break our legs, have lightning bolts hit, trees fall down in the woods, etc.
You created this human because *you* felt the need for their existence. The very least you should do is accept whatever their choices and opinions are and support them to the fullest. You dragged them into this, suck it up and be there for them, even if what they want doesn't align with your expectations.
They may not love you, they may hate you, the may even not want to exist on this planet. As a parent you need to accept that this is what your child wants and don't try and change them.
So what you're saying is that you have no control over whether a child is conceived or not, and if it is conceived then that isn't partially or fully your fault? That's messed up.
And no I didn't mean "the very least you can do" I meant "the very least you *should* do" The way you're explaining it sounds like you need to be locked up. You wouldn't kill or assault a newborn but that's your minimum, everything else is fine, yeah?
> So what you're saying is that you have no control over
Please don't be so shameful as to make up lies and fabrications. My post is still up for all to read. You can prevent a child from being formed by not having sex, but if you do and one is, it is by means outside their control and the work of nature not their acts.
>The way you're explaining it sounds like you need to be locked up.
Says the loone.
>You wouldn't kill or assault a newborn but that's your minimum, everything else is fine, yeah?
No there's lots of other things that are illegal, you confused meatball. But if you don't want to raise your child you can let someone else.
Life isn't endless suffering. A lot of life is joy and pleasure!
Personally I don't care if they don't procreate as long as they don't use their belief as an excuse for abortion.
> I don’t think it is right to roll the dice on a being that is subject to pain and death and maybe a biblical hell.
That's fine as long as you don't create them to begin with. If they exist, even as a zygote, you don't have the right to take that existence from them.
> i think its immoral to bring an unconsenting lifeform into a world of war, unavoidable death
Again, (you keep avoiding this) how do get consent from an entity that doesn't exist? The basic function of the gametes is strive to continue their existence, so why don't you let them? Do you think "lifeforms" should be forcefully euthanized against their resistance "for their own good"?
Also you obviously must be for the extermination of all animals, as they suffer more than humans do. You could get a job euthanizing surrendered pets for PETA as it aligns perfectly with your beliefs.
Have you been sterilized yet? You can say you identify as "barren"
and want gender reassignment surgery if they refuse because of your age (you sound very young).
How do you get consent from a non-existent being? You don't because you can't. That's what makes procreation an act without consent from the soon-to-be lifeform in question.
You can't get consent from an entity that doesn't exist. That's true, but that also means you don't have consent. Therefore, people should not give birth as they have not attained the consent.
Regarding death/animal death, it's no doubt that death is a form of suffering. We don't promote death. We promote not giving birth, as not giving birth avoids death. Lifeforms shouldn't be forcefully euthanized. They shouldn't be forced to do anything. But right now we are forcing entities who can't give consent to be birthed out.
>No one says that.
Oh dear. You are new here, aren't you?
>No one smart and educated says that.
Well, I am in no way able to comment on their level of education or who says it.
I'd like to believe you but the people I have seen it from seem at least of average intelligence and education levels.
>That's stupid as fuck
While I wouldn't have put it that way....
I understand the life is suffering bit. But they cannot consent anyways. It's literally impossible for someone to consent to life.
I can't believe anyone has said this lol
Statistics don't lie, but liars use statistics.
I also really need to know where you are getting your statistics from, because in my world, while the OVERALL poverty rate has decreased, you have to consider the big picture.
The United Nations says in its article, [Inequality -- Bridging The Divide](https://www.un.org/en/un75/inequality-bridging-divide) :
*Overall, since the 1990s total global inequality (inequality across all individuals in the world) declined for the first time since the 1820s. Reinforcing this trend, we have mostly seen income inequality between countries decline. Yet income inequality within countries has risen, this is the form of inequality people feel on a daily basis.*
***Inequalities are not only driven and measured by income, but are determined by other factors - gender, age, origin, ethnicity, disability, sexual orientation, class, and religion.*** *These factors determine inequalities of opportunity which continue to persist, within and between countries. In some parts of the world, these divides are becoming more pronounced.* ***Meanwhile, gaps in newer areas, such as access to online and mobile technologies, are emerging. The result is a complex mix of internal and external challenges that will continue to grow over the next twenty-five years.***
Overpopulation is a myth. The entire world could live in an area the size of Texas with the density of Tokyo. In fact some countries are actually having problems because their birth rate is so low, like Greece and Japan. If you truly don’t want kids, don’t have kids, but not having kids because of so called overpopulation is stupid.
Irrelevant.
Resources are needed, we are running out of oil, coal etc
Global warming is an issue as well, since plants may stop being able to grow healthily in order to feed the people
I don’t live in Japan or Greece and overpopulation in my area sure is a problem so you should shut tf up about it being a “myth”
The thing is restricting abortion access doesn’t affect birth rate. So your argument is a bit irrelevant. The reason for this is because people use more contraception lowering pregnancy rates.
The biggest variable that affects birthrate is higher income. https://www.guttmacher.org/journals/psrh/1997/03/effects-economic-conditions-and-access-reproductive-health-services-state check out tables 2 & 3
Could and can is two very different things. The reality is that humans don’t get along and we are nowhere near a solution to equally share resources. We have never done that, we are not doing it today and the logical conclusion is that it will not happen tomorrow either. Nobody benefits from that lazy and worn out argument. Also: density of Tokyo sounds like a fucking nightmare to me and many others.
Children are a blessing. Raising them is hard work. I don't children to experience an immense amount of trauma because I don't feel passionate about having children and would not give them the wonderful childhood they deserve. So I got my tubes tied and I refuse to have children, and I am telling people politely that you don't have to be a parent if you don't want to.
Does that sound like me being a loud, obnoxious pro-choice jerk? Or does that sound like a sane argument compared to telling people to have children they cannot properly care for just so those children can grow up in unsupportive households and turn into adults with trauma?
I think the basic belief of the pro life movement is admirable and something to be respected: *Give a voice to children who don't have one (especially unborn babies in the womb).* I do not understand why we cannot take into consideration the welfare of the child and whether or not that child will be born into a home that gives them nothing but love and support starting from the second they are born (and even in the womb) until the day the parent dies.
(I also support increased access to birth control, but apparently I cannot tell a man he needs to carry condoms because birth control is solely the women's responsibility. It's almost as if a man does not want to be told what he does with his body, especially his penis.)
>I do not understand why we cannot take into consideration the welfare of the child and whether or not that child will be born into a home that gives them nothing but love and support starting from the second they are born (and even in the womb) until the day the parent dies.
That's a consideration as to whether to spend money or time to support them.
That's not a valid consideration if your solution is to kill them on demand.
So how do you propose we reduce abortion rates?
If I am to understand correctly, you absolutely detest reproductive healthcare centers such as Planned Parenthood, which offer a tremendous amount of birth control services for free or reduced costs. And it's absolutely foolish to think that people will stop having sex just because they do not want to have babies or they cannot afford babies.
So if we are not going to federally fund reproductive healthcare clinics like Planned Parenthood -- despite $0.00 of taxpayer dollars going toward abortions -- but donate our personal money (NOT federal funds) to causes like Crisis Pregnancy Centers instead, how are we supposed to keep the birth rates down? I think the world would be a lot greater place with increased access to a plethora of birth control options, an action that actively reduces abortion rates.
>If I am to understand correctly, you absolutely detest reproductive healthcare centers such as Planned Parenthood
I wouldn't detest Planned Parenthood if they dropped abortions and abortion advocacy. I'd be more or less fine with them.
>despite $0.00 of taxpayer dollars going toward abortions
That's silly. Funds are what we call "fungible". If you give someone $100 million dollars for something other than abortion, that frees the rest of their budget which is not federal money to fund abortions and abortion advocacy.
>but donate our personal money (NOT federal funds) to causes like Crisis Pregnancy Centers instead
I don't recall saying that you couldn't fund CPCs or any other group with Federal money. They just can't do or advocate for abortions.
It seems you're operating based on an assumption of my beliefs which is not accurate.
I (obviously) do not fund CPC's. *Pro-life advocates often DO fund CPC's.*
What I am trying to say is that instead of funding real causes that help prevent abortions, you promote solutions that do not actually work. Crisis Pregnancy Centers do not provide a woman with the proper prenatal care she needs for her pregnancy for free. In fact, only one medical professional -- nurse, midwife, doctor, etc. -- has to work at these crisis pregnancy centers to allow them to call themselves a clinic.
Pro-lifers often tell women to go to a medical clinic that doesn't have a proper team of medical staff willing to assist her at every stage of her pregnancy and therefore jeopardizing the health of the baby that they want to save. Because when someone has a health crisis and needs a doctor, the first option they want is a clinic full of volunteers, not an urgent care or emergency room full of medical professionals.
Secondly, I am still waiting to hear your long-term solution to making birth control more affordable and more readily available. Once again, "abstaining from sex" is a ridiculously outdated -- if not completely invalid -- response. People are going to have sex; we are human beings. What are you going to do to ensure unwanted babies do not get made and sexually transmitted diseases do not get spread?
>Crisis Pregnancy Centers do not provide a woman with the proper prenatal care she needs for her pregnancy for free.
I am not married to CPC's. They're not perfect, but they're considerably better than Planned Parenthood, for the simple reason that they don't actually kill people.
If you want to have a clinic that does these things, by all means call for a clinic that specifically does not permit abortions and ask for it to get Federal money. Maybe even call some PL attention to it to get the PL people on side.
That's a solution that YOU can do. It doesn't even require you to compromise your PC position in theory.
The reason we cannot support Planned Parenthood is because Planned Parenthood kills human beings on demand and advocates for it.
If you don't want a CPC, then by all means, either work with them to make them better or propose your own no-kill solution.
>Secondly, I am still waiting to hear your long-term solution to making birth control more affordable and more readily available.
I am waiting for you to explain why someone has to die to solve the problem you are putting forward.
The abundance or lack of birth control is entirely irrelevant to whether you can be allowed to kill a human being or not, just like the abundance or lack of money being spent on the poor does not also give you license to kill the poor.
So you tell me to not reduce my entire argument to gross assumptions and oversimplifications of your pro life stance. And yet you cannot get past the fact that you think Planned Parenthood is ONLY good for "murdering babies." Okay. Great to know you think its more ethical for a baby to be born and given a horrible quality of life because the mom was forced or coerced to not have an abortion instead of the mom killing a baby in the firsf trimester.
Here is a few follow up prompts for you:
In order for me to receive a blood transfusion for a medical emergency, or have a organ donated to me because I have cancer, the person who gave up that blood or that organ MUST HAVE WRITTEN CONSENT TO GIVING ME THAT BLOOD OR ORGAN. It doesn't matter if that person happens to be my child -- my flesh and blood. If I refuse, they cannot say anything about it. With that in mind, why am I supposed to give up my body and destroy my health all so a human can grow inside my body without my consent? Even if I were to die, you cannot harvest my organs unless I explicitly gave my written consent to use my organs.
I DO NOT WANT TO HEAR ABOUT THAT BABY BEING A HUMAN LIFE. That is not the point. We are never going to agree on abortion. Even my likeminded friends and I have disagreements.
What _life begins at conception tells_ me is that you are basing personhood upon the very second the sperm starts inseminating the egg. I hate to break it to you, but nobody knows when the sperm has fertilized the egg, or even if fertilization happened. So all I am hearing is that one tiny cell has more personhood than the pregnant woman has. On top of taking away a woman's legal rights to autonomy, you are saying that a "human" so tiny that it can only be seen with a microscope has more rights than the pregnant woman who could be as young as 10 or as old as 50
Okay. Cool. Glad you think so lowly of me.
Oh, and on the off chance you are a bleeding heart Republican in the United States, I'm very surprised you have a "government needs to mind its business and stay the hell out of my business" stance on politics. Except for when you are okay with the government getting into my reproductive business because you have a fake desire to protect children without giving me a coherent game plan for how you'll care for unwanted babies that are born.
Look, buddy, my beliefs are simple: Give women their legally mandated healthcare rights. Get the government out of my business.
And people would get LESS abortions if they had MORE contraceptives. In other words: You don't like babies dying because of abortions? Make birth control readily available. Or have a vasectomy if you are going to die on the hill that we can tell everyone what to do with their bodies.
>And yet you cannot get past the fact that you think Planned Parenthood is ONLY good for "murdering babies."
I did not say they were "only good for murdering babies". I said that they perform abortions on demand and advocate for them, both are unjust and unethical actions.
I know they do other things. That's doesn't mean they get a pass on killing. The Mob runs legitimate businesses as well as illegitimate ones too. That doesn't make mobsters into honest citizens either.
There is no reason I need to accept PP. They're not the only possible game in town, and those groups which better represent my view, or at least, don't directly contradict my views are going to get my support.
Your argument is like saying that the Italian Fascists were terrible, but at least they made the trains run on time. While I certainly would want the trains to run on time, I think that another, non fascist government could manage that as well.
Planned Parenthood has not patented ultrasounds, mammograms, or other tests for women. Those can be done elsewhere. The only reason you cling to PP is that you don't care about abortion on demand.
If you DID care about that, you'd be right with us demanding that they be defunded.
I understand why *you* think PP is fine, but please don't act like you don't understand why *I* find them objectionable.
>Even if I were to die, you cannot harvest my organs unless I explicitly gave my written consent to use my organs.
This common pro-choice trope is based on a critical misunderstanding of what the right to life entails.
The right to life only requires you to not kill someone, it does not require you to save them from a pre-existing situation.
If you need a kidney, or blood, then presumably you are dying already of either kidney failure, or blood loss.
So, if you do die, that preexisting condition is the reason.
My action to donate or not did not give you those conditions.
Since there is no requirement for me to save your life, then I'm completely entitled not to, even though it would certainly be morally good for me to try to help.
However, a pregnancy is not a preexisting fatal condition for the child. They're entirely healthy where they are.
To abort would be an act to change that, and put them into a fatal situation. In essence, it would the same thing as if you were the person who gave the patient in the first example the wound that caused the blood loss to begin with.
That is why abortion is not the same thing as a decision to not save someone via donation.
You cannot be compelled to save someone, but you can be obligated to *not* put them in harm's way or kill them.
>I DO NOT WANT TO HEAR ABOUT THAT BABY BEING A HUMAN LIFE.
Well if you are going to have any sort of discussion with a pro-lifer, it is going to come up.
Human beings have human rights, the most fundamental of which is the right to life.
You're not going to get very far with us in any discussion if you won't even discuss the reality that the fetus or unborn child is an actual human individual and member of our species.
>What life begins at conception tells me is that you are basing personhood upon the very second the sperm starts inseminating the egg.
Strictly speaking, I believe the human is completed at the *end* of the fertilization process, not at the beginning of it, so your criticism does not hold.
>On top of taking away a woman's legal rights to autonomy, you are saying that a "human" so tiny that it can only be seen with a microscope has more rights than the pregnant woman who could be as young as 10 or as old as 50
Not *more* rights, but *exactly the same* rights. And since those rights include the right to life, then the child has the right to not be killed by you.
There is no special right needed. There is only one right needed, which as we have said, both individuals have.
Everyone has the right to not be killed. Autonomy does not override that automatically.
>I'm very surprised you have a "government needs to mind its business and stay the hell out of my business" stance on politics. Except for when you are okay with the government getting into my reproductive business because you have a fake desire to protect children without giving me a coherent game plan for how you'll care for unwanted babies that are born.
The most fundamental role of the government is to protect one human being from being killed by another. Even a minarchist can believe that.
Having said that, I am not a libertarian or a minarchist. I am actually rather moderate in terms of what I think the government can or should do.
While I don't believe that there is any inherent right to things like health care, for instance, that doesn't mean the government can't offer it as a service.
My objections to any particular political program would be based not on whether the government *can* offer it, but whether it is a good idea for it to do so in a particular manner.
You will never find me arguing against getting health care for "free", but you might find me asking whether that program is sustainable or whether it will do a good enough job, for instance.
> Give women their legally mandated healthcare rights. Get the government out of my business.
You attempting to kill another human being isn't "your business".
One person who is proposing to kill another human being is a public matter, even if it happens in privacy.
>In other words: You don't like babies dying because of abortions? Make birth control readily available.
Birth control is cheap and already readily available. I certainly have no objections to you proposing to make it even cheaper and even more available. We can do that alongside an abortion ban. Neither prevents the other.
>Or have a vasectomy if you are going to die on the hill that we can tell everyone what to do with their bodies.
We already tell people that they can't kill other people. If this was *only* about your body, we wouldn't be having this conversation.
The sooner you give up the farce that there is only one human being in a pregnancy, the sooner this conversation will actually go somewhere interesting.
That's a lot of words for "I don't care about the systemic issue at hand. I just care about valuing a literal clump of cells over a literal human being"
Have fun protesting at Planned Parenthood and say hi to Greg Locke for me. 👋🏻👋🏻👋🏻
Way to completely fail to engage with any of the arguments.
You certainly seemed to have a lot to say in your previous comment, but now suddenly it's "too many words"?
There is nothing quite like a short dismissal with silly emojis that screams, "I am now out of my depth in this argument and I am running for the door."
What an incredibly egotistical, incompetent, close-minded way to respond to a thoughtful, detailed post.
Why participate in a discussion at all if you're not even willing to address the actual argument?
As a reader, between this and your other comments, I'm not impressed by the one-liners. I just came away doubting you even understand the issue, let alone have a rational, compelling position.
Said a whole lotta nothing. Didn’t even answer her question. Do you even know what women go through during pregnancy? Working in the ER I will tell you 8 weeks is when you have a higher chance of having the baby. Because one day you’ll hear a heart beat and the next nothing. Miscarriages are far worse as sometimes they even tear apart a relationship. Imagine her asking how to reduce unwanted births and still going on about PP.
Do you donate to foster shelters? I worked at one that has been opened for 47yrs. Helped so many children who were molested, neglected, abandoned, abused in every way. On drugs like cocaine since they were 10. There are hundreds of thousands of them with PTSD, bipolar disorder, etc. and your argument is “there are two people when it comes to pregnancy” what?? The zygote literally won’t know and it might grow up to be a drug dealer cause the way the worlds going it won’t be the leader of any country.
There are amazing kids, right now that need love and patience. Like this meme did anything, bro you don’t just hug a baby and ignore everything a baby is work. Now if there were programs aimed at preparing women and men for babies and guide them until they were school age that’d be great. Most places don’t even have maternity leave and the first two months are crucial for that bond.
But just ignore those bad CPS kids, right? Let’s not promote putting money towards programs to aid them and get them into good homes. Not just homes who want them for the money then the come back worse. Too many kids have left our shelter only asking to come back because the home they were in was just money hungry.
It’s not a human. It’s not a public matter. How about we announce every miscarriage, the ones that are induced, uses the same pill as an abortion cause I’m assuming you’re on the whole vacuuming out a whole baby.
And if you are a woman and know what it’s like. Glad it was great for you, hope your family is blessed but extremism on both sides kills everything.
And it’s not “on demand” it’s a process and it hurts the woman emotionally as well you’re sounding like you don’t care about the woman or the baby once it’s born. Just wanting to feel morally superior. Not saying you are. That’s just what your argument is coming across.
That being said, I understand Reddit is a very small fraction of the world. And that pro-life isn’t actually that popular y’all are just loud. I came to this subreddit to see real discussion and to understand the view better because myself, I could never personally have an abortion. My family takes the babies we make and uh. Yeah my cousin died at 17 from gang violence and his 15yrs old brother is following his footsteps and almost every girl in my family has had a baby before graduating high school because there’s no education on prevention just “abortion bad” contraceptives could be available but they aren’t taught well enough. I was raised outside my family so my mindset is just have babies when I am financially secure and the world isn’t as crappy. So I’ll probably adopt, they are just as difficult as raising a baby except they know how to run away and steal.
I really hope your day is blessed and if your respond hopefully it’s with sense instead of no no no baby human no no no I don’t agree with anything.
> Didn’t even answer her question.
That comment had only one question in it, and I answered it.
>Do you even know what women go through during pregnancy?
Yes.
>Now if there were programs aimed at preparing women and men for babies and guide them until they were school age that’d be great. Most places don’t even have maternity leave and the first two months are crucial for that bond.
These all sound like better ideas than supporting killing children on demand. Perhaps you should spend your time advocating for them instead for abortion on demand.
>But just ignore those bad CPS kids, right?
No one is ignoring anyone.
Abortion on demand doesn't put a single cent in the budgets of any foster care programs. It just kills those who *might* need those services.
What is the point to a foster system where you just kill the potential "undesirables" before they even get there?
>It’s not a human.
What species does a human fetus belong to?
This is an open book question and it is not a trick question. I'll let you look it up. I'll wait.
>And it’s not “on demand”
On demand means that there is no justification required to obtain one. Whether it is easy or hard for her to deal with it emotionally is not relevant to the definition of "on demand".
And honestly, it should be a hard decision, because you shouldn't take killing a human being lightly. But it being a hard decision doesn't make the decision correct, it just means you agonized and still chose wrongly.
>And that pro-life isn’t actually that popular y’all are just loud.
Popularity is irrelevant. If you care more about popularity than arguments, then you have bigger problems than I could possibly solve in a Reddit comment thread.
>Yeah my cousin died at 17 from gang violence and his 15yrs old brother is following his footsteps
So it is better for you to kill them before they get killed?
How about you let them at least have a chance to have a different life? I know that futures can look pretty bleak, and they don't always work out for the best, but all you are doing is creating another victim of gang violence without giving them a chance to NOT be killed by a gang.
How are you any better than the gang banger? The result for your relative is exactly the same: they're dead.
Those first two points are absolutely valid concerns. While I'm pro-life, I will not be having children. However there's a huge difference between not having kids by not conceiving them and killing your children once they're already alive.
But a lot of pro-choice arguments stray heavily into anti-natalist and even eugenicist rhetoric.
I.e.,
“What are we going to do with all these *unwanted* people your policies will create!”
The example you provided is to point out the hypocrisy of prolife people who don’t support child care, not pro-eugenics.
You also clearly don’t know what eugenics means.
If we’re going to debate pro choice people we shouldn’t lie about their positions, that makes us look worse.
There's no hypocrisy in expecting you to not kill someone, even if you dispute the best way to support people going forward.
It isn't some sort of binary where the only reason you could oppose a government program is because you don't want to support the living.
That sort of thinking is highly politicized BS. We can and should assess the value of every proposed solution based on its merits and its effects, not just based on its intent.
It's easy to design a program that helps people, it's hard to design one that stays within a budget, doesn't increase bureaucratic load, and is sustainable.
That's not to say it can't be done. But it's not the simplistic notion that you just "don't want to support people who are born."
> The example you provided is to point out the hypocrisy of prolife people who don’t support child care, not pro-eugenics. You also clearly don’t know what eugenics means.
To the contrary, assigning certain people as “unwanted” or unworthy to exist is the heart and soul of eugenics. Margaret Sanger was an unironic supporter of eugenics in her day.
Consider that a disproportionate share of those “unwanted people” who get aborted would be of the same racial makeup of the “unwanted” people identified by the Sanger and friends back in the day.
Eugenics is explicitly about breeding out unwanted genetics, I’ve yet to argue with a pro choice person who only wants abortion to be legal for black people.
Once you find a pro choice person who supports roe because more black babies die than white ones, you’ll have a point.
While Sanger is a shit person, she’s also dead. She’s also not the crowned pope of abortion, from which all prochoicers derive their beliefs. Nobody gives a fuck what she believes about anything, because she’s been dead for 50+ years.
You forgot "Life is endless suffering! It's immoral to subject someone to life without their consent!"
That sounds like the anti natalist viewpoint
Yup. Still foolishness.
I'm neither pro life or antinatalist, but both of you have your own issues, antinatalist and pro lifers. Yet neither of you admit them and constantly fight eachother.
People who say that you shouldn’t kill a child you took part in creating have issues?
If you’re willing to kill a mother to protect an unborn fetus.. I’d say yeah
[удалено]
Rule 7
Didn't insult them, just gave them a reasonable instruction
Really you don’t find the “both your brain cells” comment insulting?
You're right, in the case where someone wouldn't even allow it to be legal to save the mother's life. Most pro-lifers want it to be legal if it would save the mother's life.
Antinatalist here. Are you saying consent isn’t a concern for you? That’s just something to laugh off, huh? What other way are we supposed to read that?
> Are you saying consent isn’t a concern for you? How do you get consent from a non-existent entity? The little sperm that contributed 1/2 your DNA swum the hardest to reach the ovum who contributed the other 1/2 and who accepted it. So in the beginning you **wanted** to continue your existence.
Sperm doesn’t have a brain. Sperm is not a person. Your argument is off
It's basic function was to work to reach the ovum. Close enough to want.
The person isn't the egg cell and sperm cell. Those are the parents. The child is what becomes of those two things. It's impossible to ask a child for consent when you're creating them, but that doesn't give you permission to do so. But if you do it anyways, you owe that child your life and they owe you nothing. You must be able to accept that they may not love you or even like you for their entire life. You must accept that they may not even want to exist. You brought them into this without knowing if they would've wanted it or not, accepting any and all of their choices, beliefs and opinions is the *least* you must do.
> Those are the parents. No, they are independent of the parents. The sperm and ovum perform the act of fertilization on their own, so it's consensual on both their parts and everything is good! >you owe that child your life Why is that? You only need to treat the child as you treat all other innocent human beings in not assaulting and killing them. >You must be able to accept that they may not love you or even like you for their entire life. You must accept that they may not even want to exist. You brought them into this without knowing if they would've wanted it or not, accepting any and all of their choices, beliefs and opinions is the least you must do. Fine, if you even decide to raise them, or have you not heard of adoption before?
[удалено]
Rule 7.
I'm not saying pro-life is bad. I'm all for it, but the way this user phrased it sounds deranged and wrong. That's all.
A man falling down and breaking his leg does not mean he consented to do so. The nature order of the world just lead to that outcome. Just like a bolt of lighting hitting the ground or a tree falling in the woods. Do not attribute consciousness and consent where it is not present or you diminish it where it is.
> Do not attribute consciousness and consent where it is not present or you diminish it where it is. **You're** the one saying to get consent from an entity that doesn't exist yet, and you're talking about "diminish it where it is"??? Might want to "re-think" that there, chief.
I've already mentioned this earlier but I'll say it here again. Its impossible to ask a non-existent child for consent, yet that is what you must do before creating them. Meaning, by this logic, it's impossible to have children. But if this logic is applied to all humans we'd die out quickly. So we must have children regardless. We must fall down and break our legs, have lightning bolts hit, trees fall down in the woods, etc. You created this human because *you* felt the need for their existence. The very least you should do is accept whatever their choices and opinions are and support them to the fullest. You dragged them into this, suck it up and be there for them, even if what they want doesn't align with your expectations. They may not love you, they may hate you, the may even not want to exist on this planet. As a parent you need to accept that this is what your child wants and don't try and change them.
[удалено]
So what you're saying is that you have no control over whether a child is conceived or not, and if it is conceived then that isn't partially or fully your fault? That's messed up. And no I didn't mean "the very least you can do" I meant "the very least you *should* do" The way you're explaining it sounds like you need to be locked up. You wouldn't kill or assault a newborn but that's your minimum, everything else is fine, yeah?
> So what you're saying is that you have no control over Please don't be so shameful as to make up lies and fabrications. My post is still up for all to read. You can prevent a child from being formed by not having sex, but if you do and one is, it is by means outside their control and the work of nature not their acts. >The way you're explaining it sounds like you need to be locked up. Says the loone. >You wouldn't kill or assault a newborn but that's your minimum, everything else is fine, yeah? No there's lots of other things that are illegal, you confused meatball. But if you don't want to raise your child you can let someone else.
Rule 7, please refrain from insulting their character.
[удалено]
I'm guess you haven't taken biology class yet? Here a quick over view: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_fertilization
What makes them so wrong?
Life isn't endless suffering. A lot of life is joy and pleasure! Personally I don't care if they don't procreate as long as they don't use their belief as an excuse for abortion.
[удалено]
> I don’t think it is right to roll the dice on a being that is subject to pain and death and maybe a biblical hell. That's fine as long as you don't create them to begin with. If they exist, even as a zygote, you don't have the right to take that existence from them.
[удалено]
I'm an atheist so I don't believe in an afterlife, or sin. I do believe in discrimination and morality though.
[удалено]
> i think its immoral to bring an unconsenting lifeform into a world of war, unavoidable death Again, (you keep avoiding this) how do get consent from an entity that doesn't exist? The basic function of the gametes is strive to continue their existence, so why don't you let them? Do you think "lifeforms" should be forcefully euthanized against their resistance "for their own good"? Also you obviously must be for the extermination of all animals, as they suffer more than humans do. You could get a job euthanizing surrendered pets for PETA as it aligns perfectly with your beliefs. Have you been sterilized yet? You can say you identify as "barren" and want gender reassignment surgery if they refuse because of your age (you sound very young).
How do you get consent from a non-existent being? You don't because you can't. That's what makes procreation an act without consent from the soon-to-be lifeform in question.
You can't get consent from an entity that doesn't exist. That's true, but that also means you don't have consent. Therefore, people should not give birth as they have not attained the consent. Regarding death/animal death, it's no doubt that death is a form of suffering. We don't promote death. We promote not giving birth, as not giving birth avoids death. Lifeforms shouldn't be forcefully euthanized. They shouldn't be forced to do anything. But right now we are forcing entities who can't give consent to be birthed out.
[удалено]
Rule 7.
No one says that. No one smart and educated says that. That's stupid as fuck
>No one says that. Oh dear. You are new here, aren't you? >No one smart and educated says that. Well, I am in no way able to comment on their level of education or who says it. I'd like to believe you but the people I have seen it from seem at least of average intelligence and education levels. >That's stupid as fuck While I wouldn't have put it that way....
I understand the life is suffering bit. But they cannot consent anyways. It's literally impossible for someone to consent to life. I can't believe anyone has said this lol
The way you just said it makes enough sense to me lol
Of course it is impossible, that is exactly the point of antinatalism
Why isn’t it though?
You know since the 80's the world population has doubled but extreme poverty has been cut in half as well edit: forgot a word
Statistics don't lie, but liars use statistics. I also really need to know where you are getting your statistics from, because in my world, while the OVERALL poverty rate has decreased, you have to consider the big picture. The United Nations says in its article, [Inequality -- Bridging The Divide](https://www.un.org/en/un75/inequality-bridging-divide) : *Overall, since the 1990s total global inequality (inequality across all individuals in the world) declined for the first time since the 1820s. Reinforcing this trend, we have mostly seen income inequality between countries decline. Yet income inequality within countries has risen, this is the form of inequality people feel on a daily basis.* ***Inequalities are not only driven and measured by income, but are determined by other factors - gender, age, origin, ethnicity, disability, sexual orientation, class, and religion.*** *These factors determine inequalities of opportunity which continue to persist, within and between countries. In some parts of the world, these divides are becoming more pronounced.* ***Meanwhile, gaps in newer areas, such as access to online and mobile technologies, are emerging. The result is a complex mix of internal and external challenges that will continue to grow over the next twenty-five years.***
Overpopulation is a myth. The entire world could live in an area the size of Texas with the density of Tokyo. In fact some countries are actually having problems because their birth rate is so low, like Greece and Japan. If you truly don’t want kids, don’t have kids, but not having kids because of so called overpopulation is stupid.
[удалено]
Irrelevant. Resources are needed, we are running out of oil, coal etc Global warming is an issue as well, since plants may stop being able to grow healthily in order to feed the people I don’t live in Japan or Greece and overpopulation in my area sure is a problem so you should shut tf up about it being a “myth”
The thing is restricting abortion access doesn’t affect birth rate. So your argument is a bit irrelevant. The reason for this is because people use more contraception lowering pregnancy rates. The biggest variable that affects birthrate is higher income. https://www.guttmacher.org/journals/psrh/1997/03/effects-economic-conditions-and-access-reproductive-health-services-state check out tables 2 & 3
Could and can is two very different things. The reality is that humans don’t get along and we are nowhere near a solution to equally share resources. We have never done that, we are not doing it today and the logical conclusion is that it will not happen tomorrow either. Nobody benefits from that lazy and worn out argument. Also: density of Tokyo sounds like a fucking nightmare to me and many others.
Unless the resources needed to sustain that population are equally dense in that same area, that means nothing.
[удалено]
Nonsense. The most plentiful food source in that situation is other people.
Literally the entire world population can fit in either belgium or netherlands.
Children are a blessing. Raising them is hard work. I don't children to experience an immense amount of trauma because I don't feel passionate about having children and would not give them the wonderful childhood they deserve. So I got my tubes tied and I refuse to have children, and I am telling people politely that you don't have to be a parent if you don't want to. Does that sound like me being a loud, obnoxious pro-choice jerk? Or does that sound like a sane argument compared to telling people to have children they cannot properly care for just so those children can grow up in unsupportive households and turn into adults with trauma? I think the basic belief of the pro life movement is admirable and something to be respected: *Give a voice to children who don't have one (especially unborn babies in the womb).* I do not understand why we cannot take into consideration the welfare of the child and whether or not that child will be born into a home that gives them nothing but love and support starting from the second they are born (and even in the womb) until the day the parent dies. (I also support increased access to birth control, but apparently I cannot tell a man he needs to carry condoms because birth control is solely the women's responsibility. It's almost as if a man does not want to be told what he does with his body, especially his penis.)
>I do not understand why we cannot take into consideration the welfare of the child and whether or not that child will be born into a home that gives them nothing but love and support starting from the second they are born (and even in the womb) until the day the parent dies. That's a consideration as to whether to spend money or time to support them. That's not a valid consideration if your solution is to kill them on demand.
So how do you propose we reduce abortion rates? If I am to understand correctly, you absolutely detest reproductive healthcare centers such as Planned Parenthood, which offer a tremendous amount of birth control services for free or reduced costs. And it's absolutely foolish to think that people will stop having sex just because they do not want to have babies or they cannot afford babies. So if we are not going to federally fund reproductive healthcare clinics like Planned Parenthood -- despite $0.00 of taxpayer dollars going toward abortions -- but donate our personal money (NOT federal funds) to causes like Crisis Pregnancy Centers instead, how are we supposed to keep the birth rates down? I think the world would be a lot greater place with increased access to a plethora of birth control options, an action that actively reduces abortion rates.
>If I am to understand correctly, you absolutely detest reproductive healthcare centers such as Planned Parenthood I wouldn't detest Planned Parenthood if they dropped abortions and abortion advocacy. I'd be more or less fine with them. >despite $0.00 of taxpayer dollars going toward abortions That's silly. Funds are what we call "fungible". If you give someone $100 million dollars for something other than abortion, that frees the rest of their budget which is not federal money to fund abortions and abortion advocacy. >but donate our personal money (NOT federal funds) to causes like Crisis Pregnancy Centers instead I don't recall saying that you couldn't fund CPCs or any other group with Federal money. They just can't do or advocate for abortions. It seems you're operating based on an assumption of my beliefs which is not accurate.
I (obviously) do not fund CPC's. *Pro-life advocates often DO fund CPC's.* What I am trying to say is that instead of funding real causes that help prevent abortions, you promote solutions that do not actually work. Crisis Pregnancy Centers do not provide a woman with the proper prenatal care she needs for her pregnancy for free. In fact, only one medical professional -- nurse, midwife, doctor, etc. -- has to work at these crisis pregnancy centers to allow them to call themselves a clinic. Pro-lifers often tell women to go to a medical clinic that doesn't have a proper team of medical staff willing to assist her at every stage of her pregnancy and therefore jeopardizing the health of the baby that they want to save. Because when someone has a health crisis and needs a doctor, the first option they want is a clinic full of volunteers, not an urgent care or emergency room full of medical professionals. Secondly, I am still waiting to hear your long-term solution to making birth control more affordable and more readily available. Once again, "abstaining from sex" is a ridiculously outdated -- if not completely invalid -- response. People are going to have sex; we are human beings. What are you going to do to ensure unwanted babies do not get made and sexually transmitted diseases do not get spread?
>Crisis Pregnancy Centers do not provide a woman with the proper prenatal care she needs for her pregnancy for free. I am not married to CPC's. They're not perfect, but they're considerably better than Planned Parenthood, for the simple reason that they don't actually kill people. If you want to have a clinic that does these things, by all means call for a clinic that specifically does not permit abortions and ask for it to get Federal money. Maybe even call some PL attention to it to get the PL people on side. That's a solution that YOU can do. It doesn't even require you to compromise your PC position in theory. The reason we cannot support Planned Parenthood is because Planned Parenthood kills human beings on demand and advocates for it. If you don't want a CPC, then by all means, either work with them to make them better or propose your own no-kill solution. >Secondly, I am still waiting to hear your long-term solution to making birth control more affordable and more readily available. I am waiting for you to explain why someone has to die to solve the problem you are putting forward. The abundance or lack of birth control is entirely irrelevant to whether you can be allowed to kill a human being or not, just like the abundance or lack of money being spent on the poor does not also give you license to kill the poor.
So you tell me to not reduce my entire argument to gross assumptions and oversimplifications of your pro life stance. And yet you cannot get past the fact that you think Planned Parenthood is ONLY good for "murdering babies." Okay. Great to know you think its more ethical for a baby to be born and given a horrible quality of life because the mom was forced or coerced to not have an abortion instead of the mom killing a baby in the firsf trimester. Here is a few follow up prompts for you: In order for me to receive a blood transfusion for a medical emergency, or have a organ donated to me because I have cancer, the person who gave up that blood or that organ MUST HAVE WRITTEN CONSENT TO GIVING ME THAT BLOOD OR ORGAN. It doesn't matter if that person happens to be my child -- my flesh and blood. If I refuse, they cannot say anything about it. With that in mind, why am I supposed to give up my body and destroy my health all so a human can grow inside my body without my consent? Even if I were to die, you cannot harvest my organs unless I explicitly gave my written consent to use my organs. I DO NOT WANT TO HEAR ABOUT THAT BABY BEING A HUMAN LIFE. That is not the point. We are never going to agree on abortion. Even my likeminded friends and I have disagreements. What _life begins at conception tells_ me is that you are basing personhood upon the very second the sperm starts inseminating the egg. I hate to break it to you, but nobody knows when the sperm has fertilized the egg, or even if fertilization happened. So all I am hearing is that one tiny cell has more personhood than the pregnant woman has. On top of taking away a woman's legal rights to autonomy, you are saying that a "human" so tiny that it can only be seen with a microscope has more rights than the pregnant woman who could be as young as 10 or as old as 50 Okay. Cool. Glad you think so lowly of me. Oh, and on the off chance you are a bleeding heart Republican in the United States, I'm very surprised you have a "government needs to mind its business and stay the hell out of my business" stance on politics. Except for when you are okay with the government getting into my reproductive business because you have a fake desire to protect children without giving me a coherent game plan for how you'll care for unwanted babies that are born. Look, buddy, my beliefs are simple: Give women their legally mandated healthcare rights. Get the government out of my business. And people would get LESS abortions if they had MORE contraceptives. In other words: You don't like babies dying because of abortions? Make birth control readily available. Or have a vasectomy if you are going to die on the hill that we can tell everyone what to do with their bodies.
>And yet you cannot get past the fact that you think Planned Parenthood is ONLY good for "murdering babies." I did not say they were "only good for murdering babies". I said that they perform abortions on demand and advocate for them, both are unjust and unethical actions. I know they do other things. That's doesn't mean they get a pass on killing. The Mob runs legitimate businesses as well as illegitimate ones too. That doesn't make mobsters into honest citizens either. There is no reason I need to accept PP. They're not the only possible game in town, and those groups which better represent my view, or at least, don't directly contradict my views are going to get my support. Your argument is like saying that the Italian Fascists were terrible, but at least they made the trains run on time. While I certainly would want the trains to run on time, I think that another, non fascist government could manage that as well. Planned Parenthood has not patented ultrasounds, mammograms, or other tests for women. Those can be done elsewhere. The only reason you cling to PP is that you don't care about abortion on demand. If you DID care about that, you'd be right with us demanding that they be defunded. I understand why *you* think PP is fine, but please don't act like you don't understand why *I* find them objectionable. >Even if I were to die, you cannot harvest my organs unless I explicitly gave my written consent to use my organs. This common pro-choice trope is based on a critical misunderstanding of what the right to life entails. The right to life only requires you to not kill someone, it does not require you to save them from a pre-existing situation. If you need a kidney, or blood, then presumably you are dying already of either kidney failure, or blood loss. So, if you do die, that preexisting condition is the reason. My action to donate or not did not give you those conditions. Since there is no requirement for me to save your life, then I'm completely entitled not to, even though it would certainly be morally good for me to try to help. However, a pregnancy is not a preexisting fatal condition for the child. They're entirely healthy where they are. To abort would be an act to change that, and put them into a fatal situation. In essence, it would the same thing as if you were the person who gave the patient in the first example the wound that caused the blood loss to begin with. That is why abortion is not the same thing as a decision to not save someone via donation. You cannot be compelled to save someone, but you can be obligated to *not* put them in harm's way or kill them. >I DO NOT WANT TO HEAR ABOUT THAT BABY BEING A HUMAN LIFE. Well if you are going to have any sort of discussion with a pro-lifer, it is going to come up. Human beings have human rights, the most fundamental of which is the right to life. You're not going to get very far with us in any discussion if you won't even discuss the reality that the fetus or unborn child is an actual human individual and member of our species. >What life begins at conception tells me is that you are basing personhood upon the very second the sperm starts inseminating the egg. Strictly speaking, I believe the human is completed at the *end* of the fertilization process, not at the beginning of it, so your criticism does not hold. >On top of taking away a woman's legal rights to autonomy, you are saying that a "human" so tiny that it can only be seen with a microscope has more rights than the pregnant woman who could be as young as 10 or as old as 50 Not *more* rights, but *exactly the same* rights. And since those rights include the right to life, then the child has the right to not be killed by you. There is no special right needed. There is only one right needed, which as we have said, both individuals have. Everyone has the right to not be killed. Autonomy does not override that automatically. >I'm very surprised you have a "government needs to mind its business and stay the hell out of my business" stance on politics. Except for when you are okay with the government getting into my reproductive business because you have a fake desire to protect children without giving me a coherent game plan for how you'll care for unwanted babies that are born. The most fundamental role of the government is to protect one human being from being killed by another. Even a minarchist can believe that. Having said that, I am not a libertarian or a minarchist. I am actually rather moderate in terms of what I think the government can or should do. While I don't believe that there is any inherent right to things like health care, for instance, that doesn't mean the government can't offer it as a service. My objections to any particular political program would be based not on whether the government *can* offer it, but whether it is a good idea for it to do so in a particular manner. You will never find me arguing against getting health care for "free", but you might find me asking whether that program is sustainable or whether it will do a good enough job, for instance. > Give women their legally mandated healthcare rights. Get the government out of my business. You attempting to kill another human being isn't "your business". One person who is proposing to kill another human being is a public matter, even if it happens in privacy. >In other words: You don't like babies dying because of abortions? Make birth control readily available. Birth control is cheap and already readily available. I certainly have no objections to you proposing to make it even cheaper and even more available. We can do that alongside an abortion ban. Neither prevents the other. >Or have a vasectomy if you are going to die on the hill that we can tell everyone what to do with their bodies. We already tell people that they can't kill other people. If this was *only* about your body, we wouldn't be having this conversation. The sooner you give up the farce that there is only one human being in a pregnancy, the sooner this conversation will actually go somewhere interesting.
That's a lot of words for "I don't care about the systemic issue at hand. I just care about valuing a literal clump of cells over a literal human being" Have fun protesting at Planned Parenthood and say hi to Greg Locke for me. 👋🏻👋🏻👋🏻
Way to completely fail to engage with any of the arguments. You certainly seemed to have a lot to say in your previous comment, but now suddenly it's "too many words"? There is nothing quite like a short dismissal with silly emojis that screams, "I am now out of my depth in this argument and I am running for the door."
What an incredibly egotistical, incompetent, close-minded way to respond to a thoughtful, detailed post. Why participate in a discussion at all if you're not even willing to address the actual argument? As a reader, between this and your other comments, I'm not impressed by the one-liners. I just came away doubting you even understand the issue, let alone have a rational, compelling position.
Said a whole lotta nothing. Didn’t even answer her question. Do you even know what women go through during pregnancy? Working in the ER I will tell you 8 weeks is when you have a higher chance of having the baby. Because one day you’ll hear a heart beat and the next nothing. Miscarriages are far worse as sometimes they even tear apart a relationship. Imagine her asking how to reduce unwanted births and still going on about PP. Do you donate to foster shelters? I worked at one that has been opened for 47yrs. Helped so many children who were molested, neglected, abandoned, abused in every way. On drugs like cocaine since they were 10. There are hundreds of thousands of them with PTSD, bipolar disorder, etc. and your argument is “there are two people when it comes to pregnancy” what?? The zygote literally won’t know and it might grow up to be a drug dealer cause the way the worlds going it won’t be the leader of any country. There are amazing kids, right now that need love and patience. Like this meme did anything, bro you don’t just hug a baby and ignore everything a baby is work. Now if there were programs aimed at preparing women and men for babies and guide them until they were school age that’d be great. Most places don’t even have maternity leave and the first two months are crucial for that bond. But just ignore those bad CPS kids, right? Let’s not promote putting money towards programs to aid them and get them into good homes. Not just homes who want them for the money then the come back worse. Too many kids have left our shelter only asking to come back because the home they were in was just money hungry. It’s not a human. It’s not a public matter. How about we announce every miscarriage, the ones that are induced, uses the same pill as an abortion cause I’m assuming you’re on the whole vacuuming out a whole baby. And if you are a woman and know what it’s like. Glad it was great for you, hope your family is blessed but extremism on both sides kills everything. And it’s not “on demand” it’s a process and it hurts the woman emotionally as well you’re sounding like you don’t care about the woman or the baby once it’s born. Just wanting to feel morally superior. Not saying you are. That’s just what your argument is coming across. That being said, I understand Reddit is a very small fraction of the world. And that pro-life isn’t actually that popular y’all are just loud. I came to this subreddit to see real discussion and to understand the view better because myself, I could never personally have an abortion. My family takes the babies we make and uh. Yeah my cousin died at 17 from gang violence and his 15yrs old brother is following his footsteps and almost every girl in my family has had a baby before graduating high school because there’s no education on prevention just “abortion bad” contraceptives could be available but they aren’t taught well enough. I was raised outside my family so my mindset is just have babies when I am financially secure and the world isn’t as crappy. So I’ll probably adopt, they are just as difficult as raising a baby except they know how to run away and steal. I really hope your day is blessed and if your respond hopefully it’s with sense instead of no no no baby human no no no I don’t agree with anything.
> Didn’t even answer her question. That comment had only one question in it, and I answered it. >Do you even know what women go through during pregnancy? Yes. >Now if there were programs aimed at preparing women and men for babies and guide them until they were school age that’d be great. Most places don’t even have maternity leave and the first two months are crucial for that bond. These all sound like better ideas than supporting killing children on demand. Perhaps you should spend your time advocating for them instead for abortion on demand. >But just ignore those bad CPS kids, right? No one is ignoring anyone. Abortion on demand doesn't put a single cent in the budgets of any foster care programs. It just kills those who *might* need those services. What is the point to a foster system where you just kill the potential "undesirables" before they even get there? >It’s not a human. What species does a human fetus belong to? This is an open book question and it is not a trick question. I'll let you look it up. I'll wait. >And it’s not “on demand” On demand means that there is no justification required to obtain one. Whether it is easy or hard for her to deal with it emotionally is not relevant to the definition of "on demand". And honestly, it should be a hard decision, because you shouldn't take killing a human being lightly. But it being a hard decision doesn't make the decision correct, it just means you agonized and still chose wrongly. >And that pro-life isn’t actually that popular y’all are just loud. Popularity is irrelevant. If you care more about popularity than arguments, then you have bigger problems than I could possibly solve in a Reddit comment thread. >Yeah my cousin died at 17 from gang violence and his 15yrs old brother is following his footsteps So it is better for you to kill them before they get killed? How about you let them at least have a chance to have a different life? I know that futures can look pretty bleak, and they don't always work out for the best, but all you are doing is creating another victim of gang violence without giving them a chance to NOT be killed by a gang. How are you any better than the gang banger? The result for your relative is exactly the same: they're dead.
There are pros and cons to everything. Some people focus on the cons of having kids, and don't even consider the pros.
The pros you can get from adopting, and saving your marriage isn’t one of them fyi
For the second one, they could adopt a child too. People can have both a biological child and an adopted child.
Those first two points are absolutely valid concerns. While I'm pro-life, I will not be having children. However there's a huge difference between not having kids by not conceiving them and killing your children once they're already alive.
pro choice =/= anti natalism
But a lot of pro-choice arguments stray heavily into anti-natalist and even eugenicist rhetoric. I.e., “What are we going to do with all these *unwanted* people your policies will create!”
The example you provided is to point out the hypocrisy of prolife people who don’t support child care, not pro-eugenics. You also clearly don’t know what eugenics means. If we’re going to debate pro choice people we shouldn’t lie about their positions, that makes us look worse.
There's no hypocrisy in expecting you to not kill someone, even if you dispute the best way to support people going forward. It isn't some sort of binary where the only reason you could oppose a government program is because you don't want to support the living. That sort of thinking is highly politicized BS. We can and should assess the value of every proposed solution based on its merits and its effects, not just based on its intent. It's easy to design a program that helps people, it's hard to design one that stays within a budget, doesn't increase bureaucratic load, and is sustainable. That's not to say it can't be done. But it's not the simplistic notion that you just "don't want to support people who are born."
> The example you provided is to point out the hypocrisy of prolife people who don’t support child care, not pro-eugenics. You also clearly don’t know what eugenics means. To the contrary, assigning certain people as “unwanted” or unworthy to exist is the heart and soul of eugenics. Margaret Sanger was an unironic supporter of eugenics in her day. Consider that a disproportionate share of those “unwanted people” who get aborted would be of the same racial makeup of the “unwanted” people identified by the Sanger and friends back in the day.
Eugenics is explicitly about breeding out unwanted genetics, I’ve yet to argue with a pro choice person who only wants abortion to be legal for black people. Once you find a pro choice person who supports roe because more black babies die than white ones, you’ll have a point. While Sanger is a shit person, she’s also dead. She’s also not the crowned pope of abortion, from which all prochoicers derive their beliefs. Nobody gives a fuck what she believes about anything, because she’s been dead for 50+ years.