Most conservatives are overwhelmingly Christian. Christians believe that the innocent and pure go straight to heaven. If fetuses haven't committed any sins and aren't even aware of the world yet, they're innocent and pure. So an aborted fetus goes straight to heaven. Big whoop, what's the deal? If anything atheists should hate abortions because that consciousness has no heaven to go to.
shareRegardless of political leanings. There are people out there who believe that killing a person isn't a solution just because they are posing a (perceived) problem for another. and if you ask me... that rings even more true when it's through no fault of their own.
shareA fetus isn't a person.
shareEvery person started as a fetus.
shareThey started as sunshine, cosmic rays, proteins and nutrients if you go back a little further. Irrelevant.
shareThe point of conception is relevant, the fetus is relevant. Your pointless rants are irrelevant ... as usual.
shareWomen should be convicted of murder every menstrual cycle, since they're killing 1,000-2,000 eggs per monthly period. After all, we all started as eggs and those eggs could've become doctors or lawyers! Not to mention all the guilty men who kill up to 39 million sperm, aka potential Christians, per ejaculation! We all started as sperm and it's pure evil to commit spermicide. Even Hitler didn't kill that many people. When will this atheist nightmare stop??? Haven't the liberals spread enough havoc?
shareLife starts at conception and your nonsensical rant has nothing to do with that.
shareBut why is that the marker? That's not where consciousness is born.
shareClearly because that is when the human life starts.
I'd argue life starts either with the sperm or when you're cognizant.
shareYou asked why conception as the mark. I gave you the answer, ie that is when the human life starts.
A sperm is not a life starting. Something REALLY big has to happen to that sperm before a new individual is created.
You would argue sperm. Because it supports your political position. But it doesn't make any sense.
"Cognizant" opens the door to legal murder if you catch your target asleep. If you look seriously at the position you would be arguing.
Here is the Truth you want to hide from. SEX is a lot more important than just getting your rocks off. It has potentially serious consequences.
That hottie that you would really love to have sex with, but omg, she's a hot mess that you would not want to have a life with?
DON'T HAVE SEX WITH HER, BECAUSE IF SHE GETS PREGNANT YOU MIGHT END UP BEING CONNECTED TO HER FOR LIFE.
Stop fucking around. Get serious. Grow up. You want an active sex life? Find the right partner and put a ring on it.
How can something that swims not be alive?
Fun fact. A sperm is a significantly better swimmer than either an unborn fetus or a newborn child.
Here is the Truth you want to hide from. SEX is a lot more important than just getting your rocks off. It has potentially serious consequences.
1. I didn't say it wasn't alive, I said it wasn't a life. The sperm is a part of you, that you might send out into the world. An egg is a whole new thing, different from it's father and it's mother. You know this. It is just inconvenient for you.
2. Actually my words were based on seeing men and women connected by children. Sometimes good, sometimes bad. I think back on some of the women I slept with and MY GOD, I dodged a bullet there, a couple of them in fact. I am SO INCREDIBLY LUCKY, with how things did worked out. If I knew then what I know now, I would NEVER have rolled some of those dice.
Bullshit.
Egg? Are you confusing an egg with a fetus now? An egg can determine if it will be fertilized by nearby sperm or not. It's just as much life as the sperm and the fetus it becomes. Fun Fact. The sperm stops swimming and the egg rests too once fertilisation occurs. Cells begin to divide instead. Arguable the fetus is less recongisable "alive" once fertilisation occurs.
We don't give a shit who you've slept with, whether it was good or not, and how you feel about it now. What the fuck has your choices got to do with dictating to all women that they must carry every pregnancy to term? It is totally irrelevant.
The reason you were carefree, then and now, was because abortion was available. Spare us your fake guilt at you and your former sexual partners having been free to do as you please and not have either your lives potentially ruined by consequences. Do you realise how fucking petty and hypocritical it is, no matter how pious you attempt to sound, to deny people freedoms that you enjoyed because you don't think that fucking those women was ultimately worth it? You're cukoo.
1. Sorry, yes, I meant a FERTILIZED EGG, ie after the moment of conception. That point was made in the context of a discussion about conception. a FERTILIZED EGG is a whole new thing.
2. You made a point based on your belief in what my position was based on. I was giving you what is is actually based on. YOU were the one that brought up the basis of my postion. I was responding to that. If you don't care I am happy to drop it.
3. THe reason I was carefree then, was I was inexperienced and did not consider the long term consequences. Your assumption that any unplanned pregnacies would have been aborted is... not true. The woman makes that call, not you. Your control is very limited.
1. Explain to me what's new about it and why that means it must be carried to full term.
What if you were able to take effective birth control after intercourse but before fertilisation? Like up to 90 seconds before the sperm meets the egg. What difference does that make in the context of a termination that occurs, say 9 hours after fertilisation had taken place?
2. Who a person sleeps with and what future you intended or don't intend or desire with them has ZERO relevance to imposing the completion of pregnancy to term on women.
3. You're insisting that abortion was actually irrelevant to whether or not you had sex with somebody. Then why are you also insistent that abortions not be available to people having sex in certain ways? This is really about the people you suspect of not having sex properly. As a reaction to your supposed guilt at having consequence free sex at one stage in your life. You couldn't be more transparently hypocritical and disingenuous.
People put far more thought and care into getting married than they do having sex. And yet when the marriage becomes undesirable, there's no law insisting you have to stay married just because it's a big decision and you shouldn't be allowed to back out of. Instead you get stuck with it to spite your lack of commitment.
1. What is new is that is has become a new being.
2. I didn't claim that it "must" be carried to term. The other poster asked a qeustion. I gave the answer.
3. Correct. My discussion of "who a person sleeps with" was in response to your counter point to my advice, not a justification for government policy.
4. Wow. The rest of your post, I dont know how to respond to. Sex in certain ways? No clue.
1. Define how it has become a "new being"
2. Then you don't understand abortion and the law.
3. So what exactly are you advocating regarding abortion and the law? Are you just using the thread as and excuse for broadcasting your acquired piety regarding people who have sex with people they have no plans to commit to or would not commit to?
4. You know exactly what I'm talking about. Sex in a way that assumes there can be no consequence that you can't mitigate or avoid with a termination.
1. THe fertilization process creates a new being. It has a biological sex and a new genetic code, new and distinct from it's parents.
2. We weren't discuss abortion or the law. THE question was about why conservatives care about the point of conception so much.
3. I wasnt advocating anything. I answered a simple question.
4. i have felt bad seeing men get fucked because they impregnated the wrong woman. I would like to see fewer men get fucked.
5. YOu can't assume that sex will not have consequences. That is a fool's game. It can ruin your life, the life of the woman, the lives of the children involved. Ect.
1. Oh
2. The law has everything to do with abortion.
3. It's not as simple as your answer.
4. What the fuck has that got to do with hating abortion
5. People can and do assume, rightly or wrongly, that sex can have no consequence. Have done for centuries. And when abortion wasn't available or legal.
2. Indeed. Of course we were discussing something else when you jumped in.
3. "it"? Depends what "it" is. The question was pretty simple and I answered it.
4. It is the cause of the problem that abortion is the supposed answer for.
5. And for all of that time, they were often proved WRONG, to the harm of them, and their children.
"It is the cause of the problem that abortion is the supposed answer for."
It works, None of the other shit works on its own. It's proven
So you don't actually hate abortion at all. You just think it should be used to dictate when other people should or shouldn't have sex, in your opinion. Which is something that abortion, or the lack of it, has never ever actually done.
It's the same fucking demented shit we hear about areas where contraception and sex education are frowned upon if not outright banned, in favour of promoting abstinence. The unwanted pregnancy rate there is sky fucking high. As is infant mortality and poverty.
5. That's just your baseless, pious opinion. It's actually well documented that prohibiting terminations does more harm in the bigger picture.
You seem emotionally invested in the practice of sex without consequences.
To that end you support abortion as an answer to the problem of children.
I want to be honest about the fact that sex without consequences is a fools game. ABORTION, which is your answer, is a serious issue, with some serious questions. The big one that you want to ignore is, when does a LIFE begin.
My motivation in this is not some weird desire to control others, as you insist, but on a desire to find the Truth, so that we can craft an answer to the good of the people involved and society as a whole.
Nice try. "...the problem of children." Putting aside that it's a strawman for a second, I guess that means that you don't consider the prospect of having any child under any circumstances to be any kind of a problem. But that would only be if I was exceedingly disingenuous.
I oppose you imposing your BS sense of propriety about when people should be allowed to have sex without consequence, if ever. There's no rational justification for those motives. Purely emotional ones. Those should have no influence on the choices that are available to women to maintain or safeguard theirs and the potential child's quality of life.
Whether you like it or not, abortion is an answer and other people's sensibilities should have no input om it's availability or legality.
1. I am well aware that having a child can be a huge problem. Nothing I said justifies your strawman on that.
2. it is not my sense of propriety that is the problem with having sex without consequences. It is reality that is the problem. Every time you have sex you risk serious consequences. You are emotionally invested in pretending NOT, because you want to have lots of sex, and pretend it is not a big deal.
3. Abortion is an answer? Sure fine. When does a baby become a baby?
1. Bollocks. You put the words "..the problem of children" in my mouth. Which is at the least equally a straw man.
2. Human beings are not naturally composed to rationalise the consequences of when they are given the opportunity to have sex. They don't pretend anything. They just aren't naturally inclined to self denial based on consequences. None of this has anything to do with abortion since the conditions and the way people behave are no different with or without abortion.
Show me the study that proves that people were more discerning, more cautious and more mindful of the consequences due to the non availability of measures to mitigate those consequences. And that the health of mothers and children benefited as a result.
3. When it's in my phonebook.
1. Your arguments made that point. Abortion is the solution.
2. I agree that human beings do not want to think about the consequences when they have a chance to have sex. Especially if they are drunk. But that does not mean that the consequences are not real. The question is what should our response be. YOu want it to be abortion.
3.I understand why you are afraid to give a serious answer. Because the Truth will rain on your parade. I ask again, when does a baby become a baby?
1. It's a solution to lots of different potential problems. Like countless other medical conditions, the legality of the treatment should not be determined by the perceived fault of the patient in getting that way.
2. You make it sound like I promote abortion in order to enable people to behave a certain way. This is utterly false. But, as you continually manage to evade, the availability of abortion has no bearing whatsoever on the way people behave regarding having sex. You just want casual sex to be a bigger potential problem for people you believe are behaving improperly and wish to spite them with the burden that they didn't consider beforehand. Even if it is still avoidable. You're like the crackpot, loony schoolteachers I used to have who hated people using pencil erasers and would rather you were forced to hand in horrible error strewn and crossed out assignments so they could mock you for not getting it right first time. Just gratuitous martinet bullshit. But they didnt' come of with the notion that the people who tolerate pencil erasers WANT people to make errors and want erasing them to be "the" solution.
3. My answer is as good as any you are willing to give to that same question.
1. Like I said, you see Abortion as a solution. To the problem of children. So.... why the pushback?
2.You are promotiong abortion so that people can have sex without consequences.
3.You are being evasive, because you know that your actual position is hard to defend. Most lefties support abortion up to teh moment of birth. That is morally very hard to defend.
1. ".... the problem of children" is your vile strawman invention. Keep it to yourself. When somebody repeats something they've been told is in error enough times, they start to own it. IT starts to emerge that the reason you keep repeating it is because you endorse it. Do you wish to be the owner of "the problem of children" strawman stain.
2. I am not. Try taking English classes. Or honesty classes.
People have always had sex free of cognizance of consequences regardless of abortion's availability. You're confusing abortion with contraception.
3. Bullshit. You do not have any answer other than an arbitrary one that supports your determination that people, including the unborn child, must be subject to consequences they hadn't prepared for, purely out of spite for the parent's carefree behaviour.
You only care about unborn children until they are born. Then you want to eliminate programs that would directly benefit these unwanted children like SNAP, WIC, school lunches, medical care, housing, etc. How many unwanted children have you adopted or fostered? That would be none.
shareThe idea that a child is better off dead than alive, is...
nonsense.
This whole line of argument from lefties, only works because it is wedded to the attractive, fun idea of sex without consequnces.
So people with a vested interest in finding excuses for their behavior, pretend to find the above argument... compelling, when really, a single second serious consideration reveals it to be abject nonsense.
"This whole line of argument from lefties, only works because it is wedded to the attractive, fun idea of sex without consequences."
Blatantly incorrect. That's what condom is for, far less expensive than an abortion.
We are clearly just dealing with someone who is enamored by their owned stated principle on how seriously people should think about the consequences of their actions. They have no basis in reality. No statistics to back up the assumed cause and effect.
They continually warn that there can be serious consequences of having children. But then they attempt to weaponise their strawman concept of "the problem of children."
I made a point. Your response did not address my point at all.
So.... THanks for playing.
"The idea that a child is better off dead than alive, is..."
Just another one of your disgusting strawmen. Only you and you alone have entertained the idea of making children dead. In fact you encourage it by preferring the higher infant mortality and pregnancy related deaths that are ensured when abortion is prohibited. Purely because you think you are teaching people to think more seriously about the consequences. Something that has been proven to have never happened ever when abortion as not available.
It's like saying safety belts should not be mandatory or available because drivers should think more seriously about the consequences of driving a car and having an accident, Completely ignoring that crash survivability rates were terrible when seatbelts weren't mandatory.
Robotcat's point was based on that. I addressed it, seriously and honestly.
You refuse to face the reality of the situation becasue you are emotionally invested in the status quo.
1. Not interesting in word games. I referenced your position. Save your drama for someone else.
2. You're trying to pivot away from consequences to cognizance of consequences.
The point is, that sex is much more serious than we want to pretend, and that every sex act has the potential of serious consequences.
3. See even if that were true, which it isn't, that does not explain why you are afraid of the question, ie when does a baby become a baby.
Our CURRENT society is built on the pretense that the baby becomes a baby when it is born. Which is clearly silly. Which is why you were afraid to say that that is what you believe.
I DO have an answer, other than "spite", but it is not a sentence or two. Not something we can really get into while you are still stonewalling on the primary question.
1. You referenced your own obscene strawman.
2. You're pivoting away from any meaningful or coherent understanding of the English language. You're demanding that people be cognizant of the consequences before having sex. So why you're objecting to me mentioning it is a mystery. Unless you have a gap in comprehension.
The point is, that sex is much more serious than we want to pretend, and that every sex act has the potential of serious consequences.
You pretend if you want to. Your claim that people "pretend" like there are no consequences is your own fantasy. It has no bearing on how people actually behave.
I think you are pretending to know about actual human relationships.
3. I've answered your question. I don't give a shit how brave you think I've been. And I don't care who sophisticated your answer is that it excuses you from disclosing itn here.
1. It's clearly your position. Sorry if you don't like my phrasing. And by sorry, I mean, not sorry.
2. YOur position is that they are just not "cognizance" of the
consequences. YOUR position is that that is normal and cannot be changed.
Yes, I do want people and society to be more serious about the consequences of sex and committ acts and craft society to seriously deal with that.
3. You said when it was in your phone book. In that case, if that was a serious answer, then "abortion" could be done anytime up till when the child gets their own phone. AND gives their number. SO, really, the vast majority of the earth could be legally "aborted" if your answer was serious. lol.
IN the real world, on some level you know that your current position is not defensible. So you are evasive.
I understand that being serious and honest about this issue, could cause you problems in your life, as your peer group is probably almost completely NOT THAT.
1. and 2. Have some dignity. I realise you feel you must respond with non-sequiturs and willfully speaking at crossed purposes to enable you to shoehorn in your strawman arguments. But it just makes you sound like a bigger idiot than you already do. Please don't think you will scandalise me by accusing me of ad hominems and attacking you. I AM knowingly mocking the contents of your posts and the pious hypocrisy of them. I wish you to feel insulted and for everyone here to see it.
3. See 1 and 2.
I don't see the point of being totally serious and honest with some pious prig who is stupidly trying to appear righteous by promoting a policy that is proven to do the opposite of what you claim to want.
I understand. YOu know that your position on this important issue cannot stand up to close scrutiny so you are shutting down the discussion.
It is... hard to face hard choices. The consequences of sex can take something you thought was a harmless bit of fun and blow up your life.
It is very human to want to have an "out" available if that happens.
To that end, pretending that the baby is not really a baby, works for you.
Oh, and of course, you need an excuse to ignore the voices of those that speak the Truth.
Calling me a "pious prig"?
You do not, you cannot know, how funny you are.
The only person pretending here is you. To have a brain.
shareIt's likely because in order to be pro-abortion you have to be, like...born...first?
sharebecause it kills a human being.
shareNot sure if a fetus counts as a human, but either way wouldn't it go straight to heaven?
shareUltimately, that's for God to decide. But based on the laws, the baby would need to be baptized first.
share"Not sure if a fetus counts as a human"
leftist logic. 🤦♂️
A human breaths air and sustains itself with energy admitted orally. Does that sound like a fetus to you?
shareWas about to say, "found the leftist!"
It's eerie how disconnected they are from reality, and how deep their hatred goes.
One could very well turn the title of this thread around and say "Why Do Liberals Love Abortion So Much" aside from it being the new form of Birth Control, but whatever
shareAbortions are still considered a very last ditch solution for extreme situations. I can't think of a single person in my personal life who has had an abortion besides a distant aunt who was told she would likely die during labor if she had the baby...and she's a Trump supporter who lives in rural west Texas! Do conservatives actually think liberals take monthly visits to the abortion clinic everytime they don't use a condom?
shareThat's pretty much what I think for as often as they're going on and on over this, YES
shareThe idea is that the threat of dying during labor is still something that happens more often then you'd think. I mean before modern medicine it was incredibly common and it can still be observable in the animal kingdom too. It should be an option that's available. imagine if you had a fatal heart condition but the law was trying to ban heart surgeries because the heart is "the center of love" and it's "immoral to alter the heart." What? Stupid. Nobody wants a heart surgery unless it's for a serious concern.
But to be fair I don't think many of the trailer trash mentally ill people who pump out babies a year should be having those kids, even if the abortion would be for a non-fatal concern. One of my childhood friends had his first kid at 16 and since has 4 kids and a 5th on the way, but he's an absolute bum with no job or education, not a car and lives in disgusting 3rd world conditions. Even without kids, he would not be able to take care of himself, but now he's got 4 children to fend for. His wife is equally as bad. They've recently resulted to porn and prostitution to pay the bills. It's also turned out that they've been illegally not enrolling their children in school and their oldest daughter, who is 8, has a 10-word vocabulary. One of their daughters got taken away by CPS for neglect and here soon they all will be, rightfully so. Those kids shouldn't have been born into this world.
I think conservatives would be satisfied with being against abortion but concede every reasonable exception which is already in practice and available, so long as they can appear to oppose people they can slander as promoting and advocating abortion but who are actually just adamant that existing rights which conservatives tacitly tolerate should be protected from conservatives incessantly exploiting it for populist agitation. No matter what they will continually make out that a whole political demographic's lifestyle and ideology is propped up on abortions. Meanwhile their sense of well being and spurious righteousness is propped up on unwanted pregnancies and potentially hellish futures for people they will never know. And at a cost they couldn't imagine how to calculate.
shareI think some of the responses show that for some, they imagine that it's an ideological struggle where one side is blase and thinks "Hey. There's no need to be responsible, take precautions or for self denial. That's what abortions are for. Abortions are great. Let's use em." They ignore the reality of unwanted pregnancy rates. And the infant mortality rates. Child poverty rates. Despite the fact that lack of access to terminations categorically and demonstrably does not make people consider the serious consequences of having sex. Has never done so historically. They seem to insist on unwanted pregnancies purely to spite people less responsible than they clearly are. To make them feel superior and/or to make the reluctant parents feel chastened. Can't see any other plausible reason to take that stance.
shareIt's indeed pretty eye-opening that a lot of people seem to think an expensive, heavily traumatic process is just a cure for reckless unprotected sex. There are dozens and dozens of different ways to have safe sex. But this is what happens when an entire side paints sex as morally irrepressible and shameful.
shareBecause murder is wrong.
Why can't liberal women figure out the many birth control methods available to them? Are they stupid? They only seem able to realize how babies are made after they get pregnant. Then BOOM! Gotta get an abortion because there were no other options available. 🙄
You know sometimes condoms and birth control do fail, right?
share