Anonymous #2 17h

Yeah even if it was murder I still wouldn’t care lmao

4

Anonymous OP 17h

Yes you would, otherwise ppl wouldn’t be arguing so adamantly that it isn’t. If it’s murder it should be outlawed, or we should legalize all murder. Our society should be morally consistent, don’t you think?

-2

Anonymous #2 17h

I never argued that it wasn’t murder. And nope, still wouldn’t care. Abortion should always be legal. Be mad about it 🫶

5

Anonymous OP 17h

So you think it is murder but that it should be legal? Why do you think murder should be legal then?

-1

Anonymous #2 17h

Because it shouldn’t be the government’s business what a woman decides to do with something that physically can’t live outside of her body. She might have health reasons, family planning reasons, or whatever other reasons and that choice should be between her and her physician

2

Anonymous OP 16h

Do you think it should be the government’s business to give vulnerable human beings legal protection and to prevent them from being killed? Do you support the government prosecuting people for infanticide or child neglect? Because of you agree with the latter it makes no sense to support abortion. An infant can’t survive without support from its mother either, but it’s still the government’s business to protect infants.

-1

Anonymous #2 16h

Infanticide and child neglect are nowhere near the same as an abortion. Imagine if the government mandated organ donations because if not the person who needed it would die. You’d scream “my body my choice,” wouldn’t you? It’s essentially the same with abortion. No one should be forced to go through pregnancy (essentially the state forcing them to use their uterus to carry a fetus) if they don’t want to.

4

Anonymous #2 16h

If you want to talk to me about “protecting vulnerable beings” how about children already born into poverty? But I bet you don’t give a shit once it isn’t about controlling a woman’s body

4

Anonymous #2 16h

An infant can be cared for by another human being (i.e. adoption & surrogacy). There is no legal or ethical consensus on abortion before viability at the very least. We’re operating on a trolley problem situation where you’re using emotionally charged language such as murder to prove your point through disparagement of people with a different perspective. Only an estimated 40-60% of fertilized eggs make it to a live birth as opposed to 99.5% of infants in the us reaching their first birthday.

3

Anonymous OP 16h

The whole point of CPCs is to help women with that

-1

Anonymous #3 16h

1. What if it can’t? And are biological parents obligated to take care of an infant until it can be put up for adoption? Because I would say yes. I think you as a biological parent are obligated to take care of your child at least until it can be safely taken care of by someone else. Surrogacy is when another woman becomes pregnant with your child via IVF. If circumstances line up right an embryo can also be cared for by another human being in this analogy lol

-1

Anonymous #3 16h

2. Before modern medicine, about 40% of children didn’t make it past their fifth birthday. Does that mean until the early 20th century, the death of a child didn’t really matter because it was common, and once you became older you had a higher chance of survival? I don’t see what your point is with 40% of embryos not implanting.

-1

Anonymous OP 16h

Do you think that if I‘ve donated an organ, and someone else is using the organ I donated, that I have a right to kill them to get my organ back? Is that my body my choice as well?

-1

Anonymous #2 16h

That’s a bad faith comparison and you know it lmao. A more apt comparison would be like the one I used where you’re forced to give up an organ. Once you willingly consented to donate it then it lives outside of your body and it’s out of your control. Killing the recipient would be like killing a newborn (which btw if anyone tells you this is happening under “abortion rights” then they’re straight up lying lmao)

5

Anonymous #2 16h

Ok but a five-year-old or younger child can physically live outside of its biological mother’s body and can be taken care of by someone else. Horrible comparison

2

Anonymous #2 16h

We’re not going to start with the whataboutisms and hypotheticals here. That goes nowhere and is logically weak. Raising children is not the issue here because we have systems in place to outsource if necessary. There are no systems to transfer an established pregnancy. Even if you can’t find someone, the government can and you are only responsible for handing off to them.

5

Anonymous #2 16h

The end of a pregnancy is far more complex than the death of a 4 year old. I’m reluctant to stoop to your level with the hypotheticals and what-about-isms but if a 4 year olds natural death mimicked homicide in almost all cases, it would be very hard to prove without a reasonable doubt that it had been committed. I’m not saying everyone should go out and kill a 4 year old in that situation, but it might be dangerous to just start locking up everyone located near a dead 4 year old.

1

Anonymous OP 15h

You’re the one who made the analogy of donating organs. It isn’t analagous because you’re not forced to become pregnant either. In pregnancy someone is already using your uterus, so in organ donation it’s only analagous if someone else is already using your organ. If I‘m forced to give up my organ and it’s given to someone else, do I have a right to kill them to get my organ back? Or is that still murder?

-1

Anonymous OP 15h

Then wtf was ur point with „well 40-60% of unborn babies die“? A breastfeeding infant can’t live away from its mothers body. It’s dependent on breast milk, so for most of human history a younger child WAS dependent on its biological mothers body.

0

Anonymous #2 15h

You can’t have a consistent argument if you can’t keep who said what straight my guy.

4

Anonymous #3 15h

I‘m just responding to the arguments you make. You brought up surrogacy. You brought up adoption. Don’t make these arguments then. Are you responsible for taking care of your child until you can safely hand it off to the government? Yes or no? Do you think biological parents are obligated to take care of their children even if they’re from a time and place where government structures are too unstable for systems to outsource raising a child if necessary?

-1

Anonymous #3 15h

If you respond to me responding to someone else, I will assume you agree with the person I‘n responding to, as otherwise there’s no pointy

-1

Anonymous #2 15h

Also we’re talking about the present day. You’re dwelling too hard on what-about-isms here. There’s absolutely no point in debating medieval times when we live in the 21st century.

4

Anonymous #2 15h

I’m disagreeing with you dawg. That’s the primary point here.

3

Anonymous #3 15h

I‘m sorry, if your argument is „well embryos fail to implant 40% of the time thus their lives don’t matter“ it isn’t a „whataboutism“ to point to other groups who had similar mortality rates, where you obviously wouldn’t agree with the argument you made. You have to be logically consistent with your arguments. It also isn’t a hypothetical. It’s just historical reality.

-1

Anonymous #2 15h

You’re the one talking about medieval times because you know you have no logical ground to stand on. I brought those up to disprove the illogical point that a baby can’t survive if it’s not breastfeeding on its mother for a year and a half after birth so you must be ok with infanticide. It’s a straight up straw man and that’s all you know how to argue.

4

Anonymous #2 15h

You can’t apply medieval times to today and expect that to be relevant in a contemporary argument. We also used to use spells to cast away demons during history but now that we have medicine it isn’t relevant. We can’t make policies today based on what happened 500 years ago when it’s no longer relevant.

6

Anonymous #3 15h

Anyway there are multiple situations where cause of death might be hard to identify. If a child dies due to malnutrition/starvation is that because of poverty or neglect, for example. There are lots of ways to kill someone where it’s difficult to distinguish I‘m not saying we lock everybody with a dead fetus up? I‘m not sure where you got that from. But you would agree that even if cause of death is hard to identify, intentionally causing the death of someone else should be illegal, right?

-1

Anonymous #2 15h

You’re also straw manning again. I never said “their lives don’t matter” because of that argument. I’m saying that there are distinct, fundamental differences between the loss of a fetus and the death of an infant. At least learn to argue with the points presented to you

1

Anonymous #2 15h

Genuinely if you can’t argue coherently I think I’d rather troll. That or we can play trolley problem because that’s all you have here.

1

Anonymous #3 15h

Except your argument is „well this group of people dies 40% of the time so their lives don’t matter“. So yes past mortality rates are relevant unless you’re saying their lives didn’t matter at the time

-1

Anonymous #3 15h

Your original comment was simply „Only an estimated 40-60% of fertilized eggs make it to a live birth as opposed to 99.5% of infants in the us reaching their first birthday.“ you didn’t elaborate past that

-1

Anonymous #3 15h

Let‘s take a step back. Do you believe all human beings deserve human rights, including legal protections that would make it illegal to kill them? Yes or no?

-1

Anonymous #3 15h

Fine then, actually explain your position clearly then if you think I‘m misinterpreting you. You say there are fundamental differences between the death of a fetus and the death of an infant. Okay, which differences do you think explain why one should be allowed to be killed and not the other?

-1

Anonymous #2 15h

I’m assuming that means you want to play trolley problem then correct? Because if I’m on a magical trolley and there are 5 fertilized eggs on one track, a living person of any age on the other, and the only option is for everyone on one side of the track to die, I would prefer to hit the 5 fertilized eggs.

4

Anonymous #2 15h

Nah, you’re too dumb to argue with and this is yikyak. I’d much rather troll, it’s much more fun.

1

Anonymous #3 15h

The trolley problem isn't relevant here. It doesn't prove whose lives deserve to be protected. Let's say the choice is between a 93 year old with terminal cancer, and a perfectly healthy toddler. Would you choose to save the toddler? I would. Does that mean we should legally be allowed to kill elderly patients with terminal cancer? No? Then how does you or me not saving the embryos prove abortion, which intentionally kills a human being, should be legal?

-1

Which room are you calling? I think the gay room might be fun but the (boy) wife kitchen is also pretty intriguing, so I’ll give you first dibs ❤️

1

Anonymous #3 15h

It’s funny you think pro lifers are somehow old fashioned. Abortion, and the opposition to abortion, is very recent relative to many other movements. Anyway I thought we were pro choice, why are you mad at people encouraging mothers to choose life and providing them with resources is a bad thing?

-1

Anonymous #3 15h

I‘m bi so probably the gay room?

-1

Anonymous #2 15h

You’re so right! Here’s a free pack of diapers, 🧷 and an episiotomy ✂️! Have fun out there mama! 🥳🥹🍼👼🤰 And if you use that EBT card 🪪 on soda 🥤 we will find you 😡🤬😳

6

Anonymous #3 15h

Which pro life org performs episiotomies today?

-1

Anonymous #2 15h

You thinking I’m being serious in the slightest rn ⬇️

1

Anonymous #2 15h

Ew that’s nasty. You’re demoted to the weed smoking patio. If you behave yourself, I’ll let you back inside in the sex before marriage lounge.

1

Anonymous #3 15h

That’s actually quite biphobic of you

-1

Anonymous #3 15h

Oh, I thought your joke was trying to reference something. As a good joke would

0

Anonymous #2 15h

Bisexuality is for pussies. Get on my level loser 💪💪💪💪

0

Anonymous #2 14h

….do you not know samantha fulnecky?

1

Anonymous #3 14h

I never thought I’d get biphobia on YikYak of all places

0

Anonymous #3 14h

Yeah but I didn’t know she got an episiotomy

0

Anonymous #2 14h

Aww i’m sowwy. Did the big bad homosexual make yew fewl wike you didn’t bewong because they put you on da weed smowking patiow 😢

0

Anonymous #2 14h

…the joke is that youre stupid bc you don’t know i’m fucking with you…

1

Anonymous #2 14h

It’s ok, I’ll let you bring the fetus for some company ❤️ See the community wuvs you! Just stay out of my room 🤬

0

Anonymous #3 14h

Fine then I‘ll take the boy wife kitchen

1

Anonymous #3 14h

Damn that’s crazy

1

Anonymous #2 14h

Hmmm…Fine, but the fetus has to stay outside.

1

Anonymous #3 14h

Well I can‘t help but notice there’s no bi or pan or ace room. It is a little bit exclusionary

0

Anonymous #3 14h

It’s ok… we’re used to it…

1

Anonymous #3 14h

We‘re not being very inclusive at all rn

1

Anonymous #3 14h

No fetuses and no bisexuals in the gay room… wow. So much for the tolerant left

0

Anonymous #2 14h

Well the ace people can just stay out of the sex before marriage lounge, the pan people go in the (boy) girl kitchen, and the bisexuals are let in on a case by case basis since you aren’t allowed to bring your emotional support fetus inside the house

1

Anonymous #2 14h

Would you rather the fetus go into the abortion closet? I thought you conservatives didn’t want us to trans the kids or make them gay. Unless you’re trying to put them in the sex before marriage lounge in which I’m going to have to ask you to leave the premises 🙅

1

Anonymous #3 14h

Are you insinuating the child would be unsafe in the gay room or trans bathroom? Wow. I bet you wouldn’t say that if it was the straight bathroom. So much for progressivism 🙄

1

Anonymous #2 14h

A child wouldn’t be unsafe. They could drop by for drag queen story hour, but beyond that they’d cramp the style. Feti are not welcome though because they’d ruin drag story hour by floating around looking like this ⬇️ and creeping everyone out. I could compromise though and let them in the (boy) girl kitchen after the abortion room bc I’m starting to feel quite peckish and I have a hunger only a roasted fetus can satisfy 😔

1