Anonymous #1 14w

what part of this post mentions the department of transportation?? or are you schizophrenic

2

Anonymous OP 14w

No. Because there was this own thing where this woman got pulled over for not having the correct number of ppl to be in the carpool lane but she was in a state that considered her unborn fetus to be a person. But the department of transportation said that they did not consider that to be a person even tho the state government did. So I think she ended up having to pay a fine

12

Anonymous #1 14w

okay… so you just wanted to share something with the class?

3

Anonymous OP 14w

Yes 🫣

15

Anonymous #3 14w

because if the parents intended on finishing the pregnancy, thats a loss of that planned life may i ask what motivates u most to be pro life? is it religion or?

1

Anonymous OP 14w

No I’m not religious. I believe that baby is a new life as soon as it’s conceived. They’re a living organism in the early stages of human development that should be entitled to at minimum the protection of said life

1

Anonymous #3 14w

so do you believe all living animals, plants, and cells should be protected? as living individuals with unique dna?

1

Anonymous OP 14w

They’re not a protected class in this society

1

Anonymous #3 14w

i thought we were talking about what you believed not what the law protects

1

Anonymous OP 14w

The law protects human life, a majority of us kill animals and plants then eat them. I don’t abide by God, these are just societal ethics. Humans have enough potential (if given) to be and do anything to where they’re protected to the point that it’s a double homicide when a baby in the womb and their mother are killed since. I believe all babies in utero should have the chance and shouldn’t get it stripped away just because we can’t see them in the flesh yet

1

Anonymous OP 14w

Just because the mom doesn’t want the baby to be there doesn’t mean the baby doesn’t want to be there

1

Anonymous #3 14w

the law doesnt require another human to use their body to grow/heal/support the life of another should you be required to give blood or donate organs to a dying person if youre the only match? what if you inadvertently put them in that position, shoukd the government legally require you to spend your body to help

1

Anonymous #3 14w

btw, its only double homicide in 38 states, so in the remaining 12 can there be abortion?

1

Anonymous #3 14w

within those 38 states is varries greatly as well. some states say the fetus has to be of a certain age, some give it a lesser charge than full manslaughter, some require that the “killer” had to have been intentionally ending the pregnancy

1

Anonymous OP 14w

No because it’s about respecting others’ rights to bodily autonomy. Requiring a person completely separated from the cause of why they’re dying or needing an organ donated doesn’t compare to a woman who will have no health issues when following through in a pregnancy. An abortion oftentimes isn’t lifesaving, either. The two situations don’t really compare, though not getting an abortion tends to be very lifesaving a majority of abortions are caused due to outside influences like money

1

Anonymous #3 14w

As a majority of abortions are caused*

1

Anonymous #3 14w

what if you accidentally caused that person to need to organ donation? say you had a medical episode, passed out while driving and hit a person accidentally? also the woman will have health issues after pregnancy… the abdominal muscles split apart which causes permanent complications with digestion, difficulty working out and soreness the pelvic floor gets fucked up 99% of the time, leading to loss of bladder control, and often pelvic prolapse. her reproductive organs can spontaniously

1

Anonymous OP 14w

fall out like what happened with my mom, she had a perfectly healthy pregnancy and birth, but after her uterus, ovaries, and cervix just started plummeting and she had to have emergency surgery and god forbid the woman has to have a c section (which is what most younger women have to have) and her list of permanent ailments tripplea also your teeth can randomly fall out, you can loose half ur head of hair, ur feet swell to twice their size and never shrink, you can tear thru the clit (imagine

1

Anonymous OP 14w

ur literal penis being ripped in half, cause thats what it is) and these things arent even uncommon. it is way more common that you’d think, and nothing i listed is considered an abnormal reaction to pregnancy. it doesnt all happen to everyone (besides the loss of bladder control, that almost always has to be repaired w PT) but it very easily can happen and is not rare

1

Anonymous OP 14w

We can say the same for parents whose children may even just cause them damage which they’re liable for their house let alone dealing with tantrums with hitting and screaming. Should we let the parents off the kids just because they’ve broken things in the house they’ll never get back or accidentally scratches their mom’s eye out? No, even in the worse extreme, no. The difference in the analogies you’re bringing is that even if I cause an injury, the law doesn’t let me be forcibly used to save

1

Anonymous OP 14w

Someone else. I may owe them in a way, or their family for compensation somehow due to the accident, but I’m not physically indebted to them. Yet in pregnancy, abortion isn’t just refusing to help, it’s actively ending a human life

1

Anonymous #3 14w

99% of elective abortions are done with a pill that simply removes the fetus from the uterine lining. it doesnt go in and kill the fetus, it gives the woman the hormone (that can be naturally produces during miscarriage and menstraution) that sheds the uterine wall. the fetus then dies after being “taken off life support”. in my analogy, i made the point that the government cannot require someone to use their body to save or create another life, even if theyre in some way responsible for

1

Anonymous OP 14w

putting that life in that position. you would not want the gov requiring u to give up ur bodily autonomy for a mistake, even if it means saving a life, so why require a woman to do it? to risk her life, and her permanent health, simply because she had sex so she must deserve it. its a situation you cannot imagine being in, i ask that you try, and to see the horrors of pregnancy and birth, and imagine telling a little girl she has to go thru that because she made a mistake

1

Anonymous OP 14w

That’s not life support, a mom isn’t just a machine for the baby. When taking the pill, it deprives the baby of oxygen, suffocating it before you squeeze it out of your vagina still, tearing it apart. It doesn’t matter what form you do it, it’s a pretty graphic and most often unnecessary death

1

Anonymous OP 14w

I am actually a woman🤦🏻‍♀️

1

Anonymous #3 14w

cutting life support often times is actually cutting the machine given oxygen… and theres nothing to suffocate, it cant breathe air til 24 weeks, its lungs arent developed enough til at least then and it doesnt get torn apart in 99% of elective abortions. when its in the first trimester (most are) its too small to even be seen. it comes out as a clump of blood or some spotting

1

Anonymous OP 14w

From afar it may look like that, but it was formed so now it may look like clumps but it certainly wasn’t and wouldn’t have been if it were given the chance to keep going

1

Anonymous OP 14w

Just because the human is tiny doesn’t mean it shouldn’t have any autonomy and right to life

1

Anonymous OP 14w

And a lot of times with life support, they at the very least 1) have lived a good life enough to where they are considering ending it now, 2) have the autonomy to let those around them know what they would want done when push comes to shove

1

Anonymous #3 14w

im saying it isnt squeezed out, town apart or suffocated. its simply detatched from the thing feeding it, breathing for it, and giving its cells and energy so that it can grow. i dont think anyone should be required to grow a person, just like the government cant require you to donate blood or an organ to save a life, even if youre responsible

1

Anonymous #3 14w

so then should all life be viewed that way? as sacred? should we worry about the potential joy and longevity of a farm animal, a mouse, a fly? what makes humans special?

1

Anonymous OP 14w

😭😂no we already had this conversation, humans are a protected class in society unlike animals and plant which we hunt and eat every day. Humans are special due to our ability to know things like the difference between pleasure and pain. Other animals can’t do that, they don’t have the cognitive awareness like we do. And a lot of that is due to us being a social species, that’s a big reason we outlasted our fellow hominids

1

Anonymous OP 14w

I don’t really want to keep repeating myself so I’m gonna get along with my day now

1

Anonymous #3 14w

it doesnt matter what the law is because the law varries for fetus protection by state…. it matters what you think is right, and i wanna know what makes human life more important than a plant

1

Anonymous #3 14w

and animals can tell the difference between pleasure and pain…. so can plants. a lot are social species too. so what makes us any better

1

Anonymous OP 14w

I guess the same argument could be made for other intelligent species, which we do attempt to protect. It’s illegal to hunt bald eagles and orangutans. It’s also more of an ethical question of, why would we as a social species kill our own when a lot of other species don’t even do that? Perhaps because we have the option of not seeing them and developing a relationship with them before killing them? Maybe we have been regressing for years but hopefully things change in the near future

1

Anonymous #3 14w

its not illegal to hunt those things cause of their intelligence, its cause they’re endangered but either way, a fetus doesnt have intelligence, it cant react to its environment/feel pain til at minimum 12 weeks when the nervous system develops, even then, we arent sure the brains developed enough to actually register anything as pain yet and some animals can actually do abortions themselves. they can reabsorb the embryo if stressed, malnourished, or even if they smell an unfamiliar male ro—

1

Anonymous OP 14w

rodents, deer, bears, badgers, seals, and some primates all can. other animals eat certain plant to purposefully induce abortion: sheep, goats, cows, deer, and some primates have been observed spontaneously eating certain plants when birthing conditions arent favorable that then cause them to miscarry

1

Anonymous OP 14w

The two can coexist, but it’s also because they’re intelligent. We wouldn’t save dumb creatures from extinction in most cases because the dumbest can’t survive (okay but pandas are dumb and the most preserved~ that’s because they’re cute as HELL) And a child’s brain also isn’t completely developed, as well as their spine. Their bones have barely formed to where they’re basically jelly as a newborn. Development happens, and it’s our duty as parents to protect our kin so they can grow into their

1

Anonymous #3 14w

Into their full potential

1

Anonymous #3 14w

a child’s brain not being developed is an irrelevant comparison. im saying that the fetus (at the age most elective abortions occur) can not feel pain. so all youre doing “to it” is taking away its chance of complex life after birth. which one could suggest that male ejaculation or female ovulation does the same. takes away those living sperm and egg’s chance at life. but im curious what u think abt animals eating plants to have abortions. if they can do it in the natural world, why cant we

1

Anonymous OP 14w

Great so my comparison of a baby not having a formed bones to yours of an aborted baby not being formed when taking an abortion pill isn’t valid, but your straw mans. I never claimed no animals do abortions, I said “a lot of other species don’t”, and they’re not a very intelligent species if they do if they haven’t progressed to the point where they didn’t need to do that. I believe doing this act is inhumane. It makes sense it exists in nature due to us evolving from our more animalistic

1

Anonymous #3 14w

ancestors, but we’ve moved past the point of needing to kill young for purposes of survival. Like some animals will kill their young due to lack of resources, meaning all they have available to them is their own selves. We don’t kill our young to eat them, we kill them because of “financial reasons” when adoption is always an option

1

Anonymous #3 14w

ur first sentence makes no sense but maybe im not understanding it. my point is relevant because the fetus cause feel pain so its not suffering in this process. idc how undeveloped a baby is, my point wasnt to say its undeveloped, its to say it cant feel pain or react to its surroundings, which u said constitutes intelligent life

1

Anonymous OP 14w

It is going to be suffering from a very short life span when it had the potential to be a fully developed human once the dna was formed. And so many fully grown people would be walking with us on Earth had that not happened. Also yeah sorry my thoughts were a bit scrambled, I’m headed out soon

1

Anonymous #3 14w

how’s it suffering in that case? it is unaware of what it could have been. do u think a sperm or egg is sad when its wasted cause it mourns the life it could have had, had its owner been sexually active

1

Anonymous OP 14w

No, sperm and egg aren’t formed dna. A very silly example is as if a computer were made, but destroyed before it ever got to be used. Sure there’s a bunch of other computers, but the value of that computer never got to be shared with anyone. It could’ve been valuable to a family in poverty, like how a baby in the womb could be valuable to a family looking to adopt. Just because it wasn’t valuable to the person who destroyed it doesn’t mean it wouldn’t be valuable being in the world

1

Anonymous #3 14w

i dont think people argue that a fetus has no value unless the parents want it, the argument is that the fetus’s rights do not trump the woman’s rights to bodily autonomy. i will always be pro choice because the government should not ever tell a woman she has to go thru smth as traumatic as pregnancy/birth even if its to save (/grow) a life the moral argument is different. i wouldnt get an abortion past the first trimester now that im of age (i wouldnt expect a child to follow the same ideals

1

Anonymous OP 14w

And I believe it’s morally comparable to offing your newborn baby due to the baby still being in its early stages of development. I think a parent’s rights to autonomy certainly has no effect of the baby’s rights to autonomy. If there was a way to keep the baby alive outside of the mother’s womb, I’d be all for it. But there’s not, so I believe it’s a duty to at least keep mothers in check for keeping at this point a whole other autonomous being alive

1

Anonymous #3 14w

its not parents right to autonomy its a persons right to bodily autonomy in the eyes of the government. its a scary precedent to allow the government to force a woman to carry a child to term. if some maniac kidnapped and forcibly impregnated a woman as a means to ensure he has a kid, should the government force that woman into 9 months of agony with a constant reminder of the worst thing that happened to her?

1

Anonymous OP 14w

3 of these people were conceived in rape. Can you tell who?

1

Anonymous #3 14w

no but they can tell. do you know how traumatic the foster care system is? and those adoptions you see in movies where the family finds the young pregnant girl and gets the baby right after theyre born is not as simple as it seems. the process is grueling and the woman has to know where to go to get in contact with these families. they usually have to live local and the fetus has to be completely healthy

1

Anonymous #3 14w

if a mad man captured you and surgically attached a person to your body, who’s draining your energy to keep them alive, and the doctors say they cant remove the person until their body is stable enough to recover in 9 months. should you be legally obligated to risk further injury to yourself, give 9 months of support that weakens and can permenantly disable or disfigure you, because your body’s energy is needed to help that person recover?

1

Anonymous OP 14w

You have no relation to this individual and like I said, if there was a way that we could make it to where the fetus didn’t need the mother to develop during the first 9 months, that’d be fine. Also yeah I’ve nearly been put up for adoption and had to get a restraining order against my mom. Luckily my grandpa got me and I’m sure many other abortees’ family members would also happy help out but when the mom takes that choice away, all there is is death. I’d argue death is more traumatic

1

Anonymous #3 14w

It’s more traumatic than going through the foster system. We’re getting rid of children who could’ve been standing in that photo, but aren’t due to medically unnecessary abortions

1

Anonymous #3 14w

death cant be experienced. life before the nervous system cant even be experienced

1

Anonymous #3 14w

if everyone that’s ever been conceived in this world was born, we’d be a miserable fucking place. majority of people would grow up unloved or unsupported, women’s lives would end the moment they got pregnant, and the adoption and foster care systems would be absolutely unimaginable

1

Anonymous OP 14w

The ought to have been a living human that had full stages of development, until something (being abortion) cut that full life short which in any case is murder. The killing of a human life is murder, and isn’t a fetus a living human organism with a new code of dna?

1

Anonymous OP 14w

Or we could’ve taken them for who they are and developed a way more positive and optimistic attitude than that. Because even with abortions, people have been complaining about all those issues anyway

1

Anonymous #3 14w

murder (in the eyes of the law, at least when we had roe v wade) is the killing of someone with a paper record (wether birth certificate, or visa etc). if theyre a resident of the US, our courts handle it, if they reside in another country, they will have a part in the case. we have laws against murder to keep society safe, so people dont settle disputes with violence. women that get abortions arent a danger to society

1

Anonymous #3 14w

but in curious, do you believe in any exceptions like for rape, incest, to save the womans life, or if the she is underage?

1

Anonymous OP 14w

Row v wave has been overturned for a reason. There’s a whole set of society that have been unsafe because of women that get abortions, and those the babies in the womb. They’re finally getting some protection and recognition lately. And no I believe we’ve gone through this a bit. You can’t tell the difference between a baby from rape and one not from rape. They’re both equally valuable in society, and we shouldn’t put their value aside because of the mothers trauma which she will always have

1

Anonymous #3 14w

Regardless on whether or not she gives birth to the baby. And if she “can’t bear to be around the child”, put the child up for adoption

1

Anonymous OP 14w

To save the woman’s life, most times c-sections will do that actually. There are very very rare times that a medical abortion is necessary and at that point I don’t think it’s even considered an abortion since it’s not a willing end of the babies life

1

Anonymous #3 14w

Roe* sorry for any spelling/grammar errors

1

Anonymous #3 14w

what about a cryptic pregnancy? can those be aborted?

1

Anonymous OP 14w

Absolutely not, especially because they usually don’t know until the babies being born. If they weren’t concerned they were pregnant, why be concerned right before birth?? You clearly did “the act” consensually at that point if you weren’t worried enough for 9 months to take a pregnancy test. And I don’t like to use the idea of sex as a reason, but for real it just doesn’t make sense why they’d be worried now 9 months later. And even outside of the sex element, are there any states that even

1

Anonymous OP 14w

Have abortion up to 9 months?

1

Anonymous #3 14w

even if they cant find someone to adopt them? and they go into the foster system likely to face abuse? what about ectopic pregnancies? what about if the fetus is gonna be born with a condition that makes them in pain all the time? what if the condition wont allow them to live past their first birthday?

1

Anonymous OP 14w

Ectopic pregnancies are a serious medical complication which at that point isn’t really the optional killing of a human. Most conservatives are on the same wavelength that it’s medically necessary for those pregnancies to be treated by removing the fetus via a laparoscopy. It can’t even be handled the same way because it’s anywhere outside of the inner lining of the uterus. It’s very different. All these “what ifs”. Yes, people can and should be born if they always experience pain because

1

Anonymous #3 14w

They could have an equally high sense of pleasure. You shouldn’t write another persons life out just because they may have some discrepancies that are hard to deal with. That’s how the eugenics conversation comes up. Even children who won’t live past their first birthday should be given the chance to life, hell there was a birth in my family recently where we seriously didn’t think the baby would make it and had to spend over 50 days in the NICU but it’s perfectly healthy. Humans are so

1

Anonymous #3 14w

So resilient. And we can make lemonade out of lemons, we shouldn’t just judge the lemon because it seems sour. When there is support (sugar) added in, it can be something amazing

1

Anonymous #3 14w

oh. so you really are just a life-freak out of principle. you don’t care about the ethics of the conversation or the quality of a persons life, you want them born and then theyre out of ur mind. u think if theyre resilient enough they’ll make good of their life anyway, and to hell with them if they cant

1

Anonymous OP 14w

No I’m saying that people aren’t valuing human lives and are making presumptions of how terrible the life that has yet to be born will be. There is no quality of life for aborted babies and I think that’s sickening

1

Anonymous #3 14w

you cant experience death. theres no feeling of loss for the life they could have lived. it just wasnt in the cards, same way it wouldnt be in the cards if they were never conceived or were miscarried. for there to be a loss thats mourned, there has to have *been* something. before a fetus has a nervous system, it cannot feel or respond to the outside world. it cant feel anything. its still existing as nothingness, returning to nothingness (a lack of feeling) is not bothersome to them

1

Anonymous #3 14w

i believe it is worse to bring then unconsentually into a hard, unsupported or unloved life. thats a permanent decision u make for someone. god forbid they rlly do have some ailment that makes them in pain all the time, if they dont have love to counteract that, id say its cruel as fuck to make someone take on that life

1

Anonymous OP 14w

It’s not in the same way at all. The lack of feeling means nothing, because it took something and someone to take that life rather than it being taken naturally. It’s like saying an elderly person died naturally of old age when in reality a nurse drugged and killed him purposefully for something like financial profit which had happened in the past with live-in nurses drugging their patients over time until they die and stealing their items in the mean time

1

Anonymous OP 14w

It’s a choice for it to be unsupported or unloved. They would be supported and loved if given the chance to be adopted and if the family really tried to find a good home for them because there’s so many people out there looking for families. But instead, they don’t get any love at all. Just death, when they had the potential to not only be loved but love back

1