Okay, well, let's play this game in that case.
No, people don't owe you a justification for getting an abortion.
"Murdering people is wrong."
"No, it's wrong to murder someone."
^ That's what you are doing here. Just repeating the same thing again in the hope that it would work. It doesn't.
Again, when you are talking about killing another human being, you owe everyone a justification. That's how law works. Even if you kill someone in self-defense, you'd still have to attend a trial.
So I am curious as to what your reasoning is here.
And perhaps you're confusing me for "frothing at the mouth" because pro-choicers are sick and tired of having the same conversation over and over again.
Oh, so are we. We are tired of people like you making us out to be mustache-twirling monsters who seem to have materialized from a Disney villain. You (as in pro-choicers in general) know that it's not true, but you parrot the same "arguments" anyway.
Yes, people are allowed to get abortions "for convenience." Nobody gives a single fuck if you don't like that. Again, you're not that important.
Great! So you are admitting that people get it just for convenience. That's a good start, because in my experience PCers just clutch their pearls and mutter something about "It's not a decision that is taken lightly!"
And unfortunately, no. Murdering someone just for your convenience is not acceptable. The whole pro-choice movement lies on extreme narcissism, and the "right" for women to murder their own children. For their own convenience, as you have admitted.
Also, just to dissect one line here:
Nobody gives a single fuck if you don't like that.
"Oh, you are against murder? Nobody gives a fuck, so shut your mouth."
That's how silly it sounds. You are offering no actual arguments. It's just an ad hominem attack. Do better.
What pro-lifers like you like to do is tell women (not men, but women) not to have sex if they don't want to get pregnant and then turn around and justify forcing someone who was forced to have sex to carry to term against their will. (And yes, if you are blocking someone who was assaulted from having an abortion, you are quite literally forcing someone to carry to term.) When pro-choice people point this out, pro-lifers bitch and moan about how "it's only 1%" when it comes to victims. You do not care about victims of sexual abuse. What you do care about is blaming women for having consensual sex and then forcing the ones who didn't to carry to term anyway. That's what pro-choicers are criticizing.
Well, this is exactly what I meant by frothing at the mouth. Your very first response while reblogging was to shriek and rage and clutch at your pearls. Yes, how dare you say that it's wrong to murder children. How dare you call me a narcissist because I want to kill my own child? That's so wrong.
It's hard to individually dissect what you are doing here since you seem to be attempting to use Gish Galloping, but let's do that.
What pro-lifers like you like to do is tell women (not men, but women) not to have sex if they don't want to get pregnant and then turn around and justify forcing someone who was forced to have sex to carry to term against their will. (And yes, if you are blocking someone who was assaulted from having an abortion, you are quite literally forcing someone to carry to term.)
That's because "don't have sex if you don't want to get pregnant" applies for, like, 98% of cases. It's not hard to understand. For most people, that reasoning works perfectly well.
(And yes, if you are blocking someone who was assaulted from having an abortion, you are quite literally forcing someone to carry to term.)
That's where you are wrong. There's no law saying women have to give birth. We are not interested in whether child is born or not (although it's good if he/she is, of course). All that we care about is that the child doesn't get killed.
No one wants to punish people for miscarriages or if the child dies a natural death. I don't care if the child gets carried to term. What I want is for the child to not get killed.
There's a significant difference.
When pro-choice people point this out, pro-lifers bitch and moan about how "it's only 1%" when it comes to victims. You do not care about victims of sexual abuse. What you do care about is blaming women for having consensual sex and then forcing the ones who didn't to carry to term anyway. That's what pro-choicers are criticizing.
No, it's not what you are doing.
Here's how the "discussion" always goes:
Pro-lifer: Abortion is wrong.
Pro-choicer: What about rape?
Pro-lifer: That makes up only around 1% of cases. Would you be fine with criminalizing the remaining 98-99%?
See how that works? You bring up rape as if to talk about how you care about survivors, when you actually want to take advantage of them by using them as a proxy in order to justify the remaining 98%.
So, no, you don't care about them.
PLers, on the other hand, do care. What we disagree with is the idea that you have to kill the child in order to care for the mother. Both of them an equal right to live. One act of evil does not justify another. The child is entirely innocent and did not rape the mother, and so killing him/her is wrong.
If a survivor of assault wants to carry to term after their experience, fine.
That decision is not be made by people like you.
Period.
Mm. So you cannot make any proper arguments at all (yet again).
I might as well say "If people want to ban abortions, that's fine. You don't get any say in it. Period."
Also, this is literally what you said:
"But they won't accept it because the real reason they want it to be legal is so they can avoid all the consequences of their own actions. That's all there is to it."
I mean... yes? What are you trying to say here?
"The pro-life position is based on wanting to accord equality for every human being."
No. It's not. There's a reason why forced pregnancy is not considered "equality for every human being." No matter what flowery language you use, forcing someone to carry an unwanted pregnancy (which includes creating political and legal situations in which they are forced to do so) is not treating someone with equality. That's just the truth. I don't make the rules
"When you have been privileged, equality feels like oppression."
It's not the truth. It's you bitching and moaning about "bodily autonomy", which essentially just translates to "I am a narcissist who wants to kill my own children." It's what you get when individualism is taken to its extreme in a culture.
It's equality because it ensures that everyone has a right to life: both the mother and the child. The parent isn't allowed to murder the child, and if you think it's not equality to say that you cannot kill someone else, you are just lying.
I would like to know where are all the rape victims who have been able to get abortions in abortion-prohibitive states because of exemptions in abortion-prohibitive policy in the US. Show me one.
I'll wait. Spoiler: You won't find one.
Not sure I understand what you are trying to say here. Maybe try rephrasing it.
The real reason why anti-choice politicians carve out "exceptions" is because pro-lifers in government know their policies are unpopular, so they try to soften their position in order to appear more humane.
I mean... yes? That's what we are doing? You cannot do it in one fell swoop even if we wanted to. Baby steps first (pun definitely intended). Although the life-threat exception is a valid position borne out of the need to recognize that both the mother and child have equal rights to life, so that doesn't apply here.
Oh, and by the way: you mean "anti-choice when it comes to killing children."
The truth is that exceptions are to anti-abortion law what 'separate but equal' is to segregation.
Just projection on your part (again).
But since you care so much about "sexual responsibility," let's actually look at the states with the abstinence-only sex ed and see how they're doing in terms of preventing unwanted pregnancies, especially in young people.
States with the highest teen birth rates for 2024: Mississippi, Arizona, Louisiana, Kentucky, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Alabama, Texas, West Virginia and New Mexico.
States which emphasize abstinence-only sexual education in 2024: Arizona, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Indiana, Kentucky, Louisiana, Michigan, Minnesota and Missouri.
Even despite differences in population density, there is clearly a pattern here. If the argument is that "abstinence works 100%," please explain to @cryptozoologic and I why a majority of the states with the most unwanted planned pregnancies for the age group that needs sexual education the most are run by people who think like you? We'll wait.
Ah, now this is a classic example of creating a strawman.
I don't have to answer your question, because again, I don't care about abstinence. It's the least of my concerns. So maybe you should go ask some Catholic about that instead.
Again, no one cares if you have sex. Just don't kill the child that results from it.
Although I imagine that there's a simple answer to your question: abstinence is taught, but no one wants to abide by it. That's not a problem with the idea itself: the issue lies with the people.
While you're pulling together an argument for that, I'd invite you to actually research the correlation between teaching sexual abstinence and the elevated amount of pregnancy which follow. Here are a couple of articles to get you started, which speak on states that are extremely conservative or more moderate in terms of sexual education.
Abstinence-Only Education Is Ineffective And Unethical, Report Argues
With Roe v. Wade Gone, Would Better Sex Ed Help Avert Unwanted Pregnancies?
Spending on abstinence-only education not tied to fewer teen births
Again, no one cares if you have sex. Just don't kill the child.
So no, whether you feel that someone else was reckless with their womb, for which your feelings about someone else's vagina are totally irrelevant - just telling people not to fuck is precisely why there are elevated levels of unwanted pregnancies across the United States in the first place.
... or maybe the problem is that the people don't want to listen?
Oh, that and pro-lifers peddling misinformation about various contraceptive methods, such as IUDs, and blocking guaranteed access to them.
Honestly, I don't care about contraceptives either way unless they prevent implantation.
