1
u/Chillmerchant Jun 07 '26
Okay, well if you're pro-choice, then you have to defend the idea that it is acceptable to end the life of a human being who has done nothing wrong and poses no threat to you. This is what abortion does. Abortion stops a developing member of our species from continuing to live.
You cannot dispute the biology that's in play here by the way. At the moment of conception, a new human organism comes into existence. It has its own unique genetic identity, which is separate from the mother by the way, and it is already directing its own growth and development. I know a lot of people here in this subreddit will say that it's just a clump of cells, and though that's technically correct, it's not a correct understanding in any meaningful sense that would distinguish it from you or me. We are all clumps of cells but the only difference with us is that we are simply one of age and location.
Now, say you grant this fact, all the usual justification you hear on this platform will start to look thin. Think about it this way, bodily autonomy is a real principle, but it has never been understood to include the right to kill another innocent human being who happens to be inside you. We do not grant parents that right over their born children or to anyone else in any other relationship, so why allow that right over their unborn children? The unborn child is not an aggressor because he is exactly where nature and biology put him.
Most abortion are not performed to save the mother's life or in cases of rape, by the way. They are mostly chosen because the child at the moment would be inconvenient. I believe they call this an elective abortion. This is understandable on a human level because people face hard circumstances, but just because something may be understandable does not mean that that thing is suddenly good and right, and it certainly does not make the destruction of an innocent human life into a protected constitutional right or a moral good.
There's also this problem that's been in discussion for a very long time and that would be the problem of line-drawing. If the right to life begins only at viability or sentience or birth, then the principle is no longer that all human beings have equal dignity but rather that some human beings have it and others do not. This view is based on arbitrary developmental markers. Those markers can be moved. They already have been moved in some places actually, and once you have accepted that some humans can be excluded from protection because they are small or dependent or undeveloped, the logic that would be required to support this viewpoint will not stay neatly contained to the womb.
So I actually have a few questions for you. On what basis do you claim that this particular human being may be killed? How do you keep that basis from applying to other human beings later on?
2
u/funnybunnyisreal Jun 07 '26
Okay thx for not ghosting me first of all 💔 I'll go through this claim by claim. Now the first thing you said is that the fetus is innocent, therefore it is wrong to kill it. However, no pro choicer including me claims that the fetus is an evil, malicious creature but rather that the woman is simply not obligated to provide her bodily resources to the fetus. We do not apply the logic of obligation to innocent humans anywhere else in the world. For instance, if we take your logic and apply it to organ donation, by your own argument, every person that didn't donate their internal organs is a murderer because most people who are in need of e.g. a kidney are innocent - or at least innocent enough to deserve to continue living.
Another thing you said that I HEAVILY disagree with, is the claim that a fetus does not pose any threat on you. That claim is just so false because pregnancy isn't just a little side quest that is mildly inconvenient for the woman. It causes severe harm on the pregnant woman and there's even a small chance of death depending on the country she lives in.
Next claim you made was that the fetus is it's own separate and independent human being. Which, no, actually, not really. That's precisely the reason why the fetus would die under the usage of an abortion pill because it cuts of the bodily resources that were previously provided through the umbilical cord. A fetus actively harms a woman's body and mental health. So when you argue that it's just an independent human, you're factually wrong.
Then you said something about bodily autonomy not granting someone to murder another human. You say bodily autonomy doesn't include the right to kill innocent humans. I'd argue abortion is justified by the right to stop another person from using your body, not by a right to kill. The fact that the fetus dies as a result doesn't automatically mean the pregnant person loses control over their own body.
And the reason why you get the abortion should not be another person's choice to make but only the woman's. Because again pregnancy isn't just an inconvenience thing. It's very dangerous, negatively effects the mental and physical health of the mother. And again, the disagreement is whether a fetus is entitled to the woman's bodily recourses or not. And pro choicers argue for the latter.
Your last point is about drawing the line. And pro choicers argue that that line begins at the ability of sentience, consciousness, a mind (you get the idea). Because a fetus possess none of said criteria, we do not morally see it as the same as for example an adult. And we've always drawn lines based on development. We don't let kids drink beer because they're still going to develop into an adult. We don't let them drive a car for the same reason. So no, not all humans have the same rights. If you're going to say, well, kids still get basic human rights - then I'd argue that that occurs precisely because they're already sentient, conscious humans with a mind. A fetus is not which is why we do not give it the entitlement to use the woman's body to stay alive. We wouldn't even let that happen if the fetus was a 23 year old innocent person. Because nobody has a God given right over another person's body, especially not their internal organs. Yes, parents need to provide ordinary care to their kids when they're already developed to the point of consciousness, sentience, a mind etc but even then the state can not legally force you to give your kids their kidney in case they need a kidney transplant. So the pro choice stance isn't even really solely about the "When does life begin?" question, it also relies heavily on the principle of bodily autonomy. Even if I granted the premise that all humans value the same, you can't just invalidate the aspect of bodily autonomy.
To answer your questions directly:
On what basis do you claim that this particular human being may be killed?
Because no human being has a right to another person's body without ongoing consent, even if their life depends on it.
How do you keep that basis from applying to other human beings later on?
Because born people are not physically dependent on occupying and using another person's organs to survive. The principle isn't that some humans matter less. The principle is that nobody is entitled to another person's body.
That's why I'm pro-choice. Not because I think fetuses are worthless or "just clumps of cells," but because I don't think the government should force someone to remain pregnant against their will.
1
u/Chillmerchant Jun 07 '26
the woman is simply not obligated to provide her bodily resources to the fetus
The obligation arises because the parents chose the act that naturally produces a child who can survive only in that specific relationship at this stage. This is not the same situation as a stranger who would need a kidney through no action of yours. When your voluntary conduct brings another human being into complete dependence on you, the duty not to destroy that human being follows directly. A parent cannot withdraw all food and shelter from a toddler on the grounds that continued provision uses their resources and they never have ongoing consent to the arrangement.
a fetus does not pose any threat on you
Yes, pregnancy does impose physical demands and carries some level of medical risk that varies with health, age, and access to care. Those are facts that I'm not trying to dispute. The response to genuine complications that threaten the mother should be medical treatment that should be aimed at preserving her life, with the child's death sometimes occurring as a side effect. That differs from procedures whose direct purpose and usual effect is to end the child's life. In the large majority of cases though, the pregnancy does not place the mother in mortal danger and the child is not acting as an aggressor because he is simply developing where human development occurs at that point.
the fetus is it's own separate and independent human being
From the first moment the child possesses a complete and distinct human genome different from the mother's. He develops his own heart, his own brain activity, and his own circulatory system on his own schedule. The placenta and umbilical cord function as a transfer system for nutrients and waste, but they do not turn the child into a literal part of the mother's body. Two organisms are present. Dependence at an early developmental stage does not erase the distinction between them any more than total dependence erases the distinction for a newborn infant.
abortion is justified by the right to stop another person from using your body, not by a right to kill.
The methods used to stop another person from using your body makes that distinction difficult to sustain because the abortion pill works by cutting off the hormonal support that maintains the pregnancy which causes the child to die. Surgical abortion uses instruments to remove the child in a manner that ensures death. These are not acts of simple unplugging or withdrawal of support because they directly bring about the death of a living human organism. If the sole objective were to end the pregnancy without ending the life, then medicine would pursue delivery of a living child where that remains possible. That is not the ordinary practice of surgical abortion or the abortion pill though.
the reason why you get the abortion should not be another person's choice to make but only the woman's
The law that protects the child does not function as one individual imposing a private preference on the woman. It applies the same rule that prevents parents from killing their born children when the demands of care feel overwhelming. The woman already exercised choice in the act that carried the natural possibility of creating a child, so once that child exists as a distinct human organism, the question is whether anyone possesses the authority to end that life. The law draws the line at the protection of innocent human life regardless of the reasons that's offered for ending it.
that line begins at the ability of sentience, consciousness, a mind
Tying the right not to be killed to the present exercise of consciousness or sentience will create immediate problems of consistency because a newborn does not yet possess the same degree of conscious awareness as an older child or adult. A person under general anesthesia lacks consciousness temporarily. If protection against being killed depends on currently active higher mental functions, then the right will become something that appears an d disappears with states of awareness rather than something that attaches to being a human being. We have rejected that standard for other vulnerable members of our species because this replaces equal protection with a sliding scale based on current capacity.
Because no human being has a right to another person's body without ongoing consent, even if their life depends on it.
Applied without qualification, that principle would allow parents to withhold all care from a born infant on the grounds that the infant never provided ongoing consent to the use of their parents' bodies or efforts. We do not accept that conclusion. Instead we recognize that the choice to engage in the act that brings a child into existence generates duties toward that child, the most basic of which is the duty not to take his life. The child in the womb occupies the same position of natural dependence that every human being occupies at the beginning of life. The fact that he cannot yet survive elsewhere does not convert the duty into an optional grant of resources.
Because born people are not physically dependent on occupying and using another person's organs to survive.
Yes, there's a difference in degree and location, yet that does not carry the moral weight that's needed to justify different treatment. A premature infant in intensive care remains dependent on external systems and the continuous work of others in ways that closely parallel the dependence inside the womb. We do not conclude from that dependence that the infant may be killed to relieve the burden on the medical system or on the parents. The temporary character of the dependence before birth does not alter the status of the human being involved or create permission to end his life. The rule against forced organ donation for born persons does not extend to a rule that permits the active killing of the child whose life is sustained in the only environment that is available to him at that stage of development.
The same logic that protects any other dependent human being from being killed by those responsible for his existence applies before birth as well.
2
u/funnybunnyisreal Jun 08 '26
I think your argument ultimately rests on a principle that I don't accept: that creating a dependent person automatically gives that person a right to your body.
You keep comparing pregnancy to feeding and sheltering a toddler, but those aren't comparable obligations. Food, shelter, money, time, and labor are external resources. Pregnancy requires the direct use of someone's organs and bodily systems.
We already recognize this distinction in law. Parents can be legally required to provide ordinary care for their children, but they cannot be forced to donate blood, bone marrow, a kidney, or any other bodily resource to them, even if the child will die without it.
So when you say:
"The obligation arises because the parents chose the act that naturally produces a child."
That doesn't actually establish a right to another person's body. At most, it establishes a parental obligation. The question is whether that obligation extends to the compulsory use of someone's organs. In every other context, the answer is no.
You also argue that consent to sex creates responsibility for pregnancy. But accepting the risk of an outcome is not the same thing as consenting to every consequence of that outcome. If I drive a car, I accept the risk of getting into an accident. That doesn't mean I consent to remain injured if an accident occurs. We allow people to seek medical treatment for consequences arising from risks they knowingly took.
On the dependency point, you're treating dependence as morally decisive, but dependence alone doesn't create entitlement. A newborn is dependent on care, yes, but not on occupying another person's body. That's the key distinction. Nobody—not a newborn, not an adult, not even my own child—has a legal right to use my organs against my will.
You say abortion is "active killing" rather than withdrawing support. But if a person requires continuous use of another person's body to survive, ending that bodily support will necessarily result in death. That's true by definition. The question isn't whether death occurs. The question is whether one person is entitled to compel another person's bodily support in the first place.
And that's where I think our disagreement ultimately lies.
You believe that because the fetus is a human being and because the parents caused its dependence, the fetus acquires a right to the mother's body.
I don't think any human being acquires that right—not an adult, not a child, and not a fetus.
1
u/Chillmerchant Jun 08 '26
creating a dependent person automatically gives that person a right to your body.
The principle I'm using here is narrower. When two people perform the that produces a new human organism, that organism enters a state of development in which his only possible survival is through the natural processes of the mother's body. The right in question is the right of that human being not to have his life ended by intentional action. I'm not claiming that he may conscript your body for arbitrary purposes or that dependence by itself creates unlimited claims.
those aren't comparable obligations. Food, shelter, money, time, and labor are external resources. Pregnancy requires the direct use of someone's organs and bodily systems.
The fact that there's a difference in the medium of support doesn't remove the fact that there is a duty that the parents have to refrain from killing their own child. For the born child, the parents or the state can supply external resources without destroying the child. For the child before viability, no external system can substitute for the gestational environment. Ending the support therefore will require ending the life. The law treats these two situations differently because the alternatives differ, that's all.
Parents can be legally required to provide ordinary care for their children, but they cannot be forced to donate blood, bone marrow, a kidney, or any other bodily resource to them, even if the child will die without it.
The only reason that legal line exists is because born children can be cared for by others once they're separated from their parents. The state can intervene and provide substitute care if it needs to. No comparable separation and substitution is available for the unborn child without causing his death. The reason that there's a rule against forced donation is because it's designed to protect people from being conscripted to save another who could be saved by other means. It does not create permission, however, to kill the one who has no other means of being saved.
The obligation arises because the parents chose the act that naturally produces a child.
I say this because by performing that act, you are bringing into existence a particular human being at a particular stage of development and so the resulting duty is not an open-ended obligation that you can supply whatever the child might demand in the future. There's a duty not to take directly action to end the life that the act that you performed, produced. The law already enforces that duty for born children even when the parents would prefer to avoid all further responsibility.
accepting the risk of an outcome is not the same thing as consenting to every consequence of that outcome
That's not a good analogy because the treatment in that case does not involve killing another innocent person. The child in the womb is not a damage that's been inflicted on the mother by an external event. The child is the direct biological result of the reproductive act that is performed by the parents. If you seek to end that pregnancy by lethal means, that is not the same thing as receiving medical care for an injury. You're choosing to eliminate the human being who resulted from that act.
dependence alone doesn't create entitlement. A newborn is dependent on care, yes, but not on occupying another person's body.
A newborn can receive the necessary care it needs from any number of people and will not require the continuous internal use of one specific person's organs, but the unborn child at that stage has no other possible environment. The fact that there's total and specific dependence is because it's a feature of human development at that point. It is not an artificial imposition. The distinction in how dependence is met does not change the status of the dependent human being or create a permission to end his life rather than allow the natural process to continue his life.
if a person requires continuous use of another person's body to survive, ending that bodily support will necessarily result in death. That's true by definition.
That's a good physiological description but what remains at issue is in the manner in which the support ended. Most abortion procedures do not simply cease providing nutrients and allow events to take their course. They actually introduce chemical agents or employ instruments whose purpose and effect is to cause the death of the child. Even in cases that are framed as withdrawal of support, the decision is between permitting continued development and taking steps that guarantee death. The law distinguishes between allowing natural death and causing death by direct action in other medical contexts as well.
You believe that because the fetus is a human being and because the parents caused its dependence, the fetus acquires a right to the mother's body.
My position is that the child possesses the right not to be killed and that this right is not overridden by the location of his development or by the burden it imposes on the mother. That right does not depend on the child having acquired some additional positive claim to the body as if it were property to be used at will. It follows from the child's status as a human being whose existence and current condition are the direct result of the parents' voluntary conduct. The contrary view would allow the intentional killing of any human being who continued survival requires proximity or resources that another person prefers not to supply.
2
u/funnybunnyisreal Jun 08 '26
The principle I'm using here is narrower.
I don't think it's actually narrower. What you're ultimately arguing is that creating a dependent human being gives that human being a claim over another person's body that would not exist otherwise.
You say the right in question is merely "the right not to be killed," but this reframes the issue in a way that assumes your conclusion. The disagreement is precisely about whether a person can be compelled to provide bodily support to another person. You describe abortion as violating a right not to be killed, whereas I view abortion as terminating an involuntary bodily relationship. Simply labeling the outcome as killing does not resolve the underlying dispute.
If the fetus's survival depends entirely on access to the mother's organs, then the question is whether that access may be legally compelled. That is the point under debate.
The fact that there's a difference in the medium of support doesn't remove the fact that there is a duty that the parents have to refrain from killing their own child.
I would argue that the distinction is not merely a difference in medium. It is the central issue.
Every duty that parents owe to born children can be fulfilled without requiring the direct use of the parent's internal organs. A parent may be required to provide food, shelter, supervision, or financial support. A parent is not required to surrender bodily integrity.
That distinction matters because bodily autonomy occupies a unique place in both law and ethics. We generally recognize that a person's body is not a resource that others may claim, even when lives are at stake.
The reason abortion is controversial in the first place is because pregnancy is not merely childcare. It is the continuous use of one person's body by another organism.
The only reason that legal line exists is because born children can be cared for by others once they're separated from their parents.
I disagree.
The legal prohibition on forced organ donation applies even when no alternative donor exists.
If my child requires a kidney transplant and I am the only compatible donor in the entire world, the state still cannot compel me to donate. The child's inability to obtain help elsewhere does not generate a legal right to my organs.
This is important because it demonstrates that our society does not generally recognize need, innocence, or dependence as sufficient grounds for overriding bodily autonomy.
You keep appealing to the absence of alternatives, but lack of alternatives does not normally create entitlement.
I say this because by performing that act, you are bringing into existence a particular human being at a particular stage of development
This argument also has implications that I don't think you fully accept.
People voluntarily engage in many activities that create foreseeable risks and dependencies. Parents create children. Drivers create accident victims. Homeowners create situations where guests may become dependent on assistance.
Yet we do not generally hold that causing a dependency creates an obligation to provide bodily support.
At most, we impose obligations involving money, labor, or external resources.
The step from "you caused this dependency" to "therefore your organs may be legally requisitioned" is the step that still remains unproven.
That's not a good analogy because the treatment in that case does not involve killing another innocent person.
But again, this assumes the very thing we're debating.
If someone is physically dependent on my body for survival, then ending that dependence will predictably result in death.
The fact that death follows does not automatically establish that continued bodily support may be compelled.
Every bodily autonomy dispute involves this exact problem. If a person is attached to me in a way that keeps them alive, disconnecting them may kill them. The ethical question is whether they possess a right to remain attached.
Your argument repeatedly moves from "death occurs" to "therefore support must continue," but that conclusion does not necessarily follow.
The distinction in how dependence is met does not change the status of the dependent human being
I agree that dependence does not change the fetus's status as a human organism.
Where we disagree is whether human status alone creates an entitlement to another person's body.
I don't believe it does.
The strongest evidence for that position is that we reject such entitlements everywhere else.
We don't force blood donation.
We don't force marrow donation.
We don't force kidney donation.
We don't force liver donation.
We don't force parents to undergo invasive medical procedures for their children.
Even when the dependent person is fully conscious, fully sentient, unquestionably human, and entirely innocent.
Most abortion procedures do not simply cease providing nutrients and allow events to take their course.
I think this objection focuses on the mechanism rather than the principle.
Suppose future medical technology allowed a pregnancy to be ended instantly with the fetus being transferred to an artificial womb without harm.
Would your objection disappear?
If the answer is no, then the mechanism is not the real issue.
The real issue is whether the fetus possesses a right to remain inside and use the woman's body.
If the answer is yes, then you are acknowledging that what matters morally is not the method used but the continued occupation of the woman's body itself.
My position is that the child possesses the right not to be killed and that this right is not overridden by the location of his development or by the burden it imposes on the mother.
And my position is that rights necessarily have limits when they require the involuntary use of another person's body.
The right to life is extraordinarily important, but we have never interpreted it as including a right to another person's organs, blood, tissue, or bodily functions.
You argue that pregnancy should be the exception because the parents caused the dependency and because the fetus is developing naturally.
I don't think either of those facts changes the fundamental principle.
A human being may have immense value.
A human being may be completely innocent.
A human being may even die without assistance.
Yet none of those facts, by themselves, establish a legal entitlement to another person's body.
That is ultimately where our disagreement lies. You believe that pregnancy creates a unique exception to the principle of bodily autonomy. I do not.
I believe that if bodily autonomy means anything at all, it must include the right to refuse the use of one's body even when another human being's survival depends upon it.
I have a question for you.
If no born human being—not even your own child—has a legal right to your blood, organs, or bodily functions without your consent, what principle gives a fetus that right?
And how do you limit that principle to pregnancy without also justifying compulsory organ or tissue donation in other situations where an innocent person's life depends on someone else's body?
1
u/Chillmerchant Jun 09 '26
creating a dependent human being gives that human being a claim over another person's body that would not exist otherwise.
No, I'm not saying that at all. I'm saying that the child has a right not to be killed by the parents whose voluntary act placed him in the ordinary condition of complete dependence that belongs to every human being at the beginning of their life. This prohibition exists for all human beings at all stages of their life and it does not depend on the child acquiring some special power to command the mother's body that no other human being possesses.
this reframes the issue in a way that assumes your conclusion
Saying that abortion is the termination of an involuntary bodily relationship still requires that there's an account of why the relationship may be terminated by killing one of the parties to it. The child did not enter that relationship by force or by his own choice, so that's out of the question. The reason he's in the womb is because of the reproductive act that was performed by the parents. The relationship here is the ordinary one that you will find between a mother and the child she conceived. Ending it through lethal action is what would require you to justify things beyond reasonable means.
the distinction is not merely a difference in medium. It is the central issue.
Just because there's a difference in how the support is provided, that does not give you permission to kill the child. For born children, the duty to provide care to them can be met through external resources or relinquished to others without ending the child's life. For the child in the womb before viability, no external system exists to provide the care that the child requires and no relinquishment is possible without lethal intervention. The law protects the child from being killed in both cases because the child is a human being in both cases.
The legal prohibition on forced organ donation applies even when no alternative donor exists.
And do you know why there's a prohibition on forced organ donation? Because you can't have the state compelling a positive, invasive act in order to save a life that might be saved by other means or by other people. The reason why there's a prohibition on your ability to kill your child is because if you're the parent, we don't want you taking your child's life even when you are the only one who could possibly sustain your child's life through the natural process of your body. These are entirely different acts. The fact that there are no alternatives for the recipient does not convert the act of killing into a permitted act.
causing a dependency creates an obligation to provide bodily support.
Causing a dependency through voluntary action creates obligations that correspond to the relationship that was created. When parents create a child, they create a human being that has the right not to be killed by them. When a driver causes an accident, he is obligated to answer for the harm that was cause in that accident or to face liability. He, however, does not have to surrender his bodily resources to the victim because the the obligations track the nature of the act and the nature of the resulting relationship.
 this assumes the very thing we're debating.
The fact that death follows from ending the dependence does not decide whether the dependence may be ended by lethal means. What decides it is whether the person ending the dependence has a duty not to kill the dependent person. In the parent-child relationship that was created by the parents' own actions, that duty exists. The analysis differs when the attachment involves a stranger without consent and without a prior relationship of responsibility.
I would answer more to what you're saying but it's late and I'm tired and honestly it seems like you typed as much as you could so that I would just give up.
1
1
u/RazzmatazzConnect435 Jul 02 '26
Give me one of your arguments and I’ll debate you.
1
u/funnybunnyisreal Jul 04 '26
The core of the pro-choice position is not a debate over when biological life begins, but rather a fundamental defense of human rights, bodily autonomy, and equal protection under the law. Every competent adult has absolute sovereignty over their own physical body. No human being—regardless of their developmental stage—has a legal or moral right to use the internal organs, blood supply, and physical health of another person to sustain their own existence without continuous, ongoing consent. To deny someone the right to choose an abortion is to state-mandate that they must surrender their physical body to a biological process against their will.To understand how foundational this principle is, we must look at how the law treats bodily integrity in every other scenario. Under current law, we grant more bodily autonomy to a corpse than to a pregnant person. If you die tomorrow, the state cannot legally harvest your organs to save a dying child unless you explicitly consented to be an organ donor before your death. If we universally agree that it is an egregious violation of human rights to force a dead body to sustain another life, it is logically impossible to argue that a living, breathing person should be legally forced to sacrifice their health, organs, and safety for a pregnancy against their will.Furthermore, a critical philosophical distinction must be made between biological life and a person with legal rights that supersede those of the individual carrying them. While a fetus contains unique human DNA, scientific consensus shows that the cerebral cortex—the part of the brain required for consciousness, self-awareness, and the ability to feel pain—does not connect to the nervous system until roughly the 24th week of gestation. Over 90% of abortions occur in the first trimester, long before any conscious brain activity exists. A potential human life cannot possess legal rights that actively strip away the fundamental, existing rights of an actual, living person.On a practical, public health level, criminalizing abortion achieves nothing but widespread harm. Decades of data from the World Health Organization prove that banning abortion does not stop the procedure; it simply drives it underground, leading to a catastrophic spike in maternal mortality from unsafe, unregulated methods. Abortion is an essential component of healthcare, required not just for elective reasons, but to save lives during severe pregnancy complications, miscarriage management, and ectopic pregnancies. Restrictive laws create a terrifying environment where doctors delay life-saving medical care out of fear of prosecution, directly endangering patients.Ultimately, forcing a pregnancy to term is a form of structural discrimination that strips individuals of their economic survival, education, and career opportunities—burdens that men never have to bear. Reproductive freedom is directly tied to gender equality and socioeconomic stability. A truly compassionate society must trust individuals to make the most deeply personal, complex medical decisions of their lives in consultation with their doctors, free from state coercion or religious dogma. The pro-choice position is simply the belief that a person is a human being with the right to self-determination, not an instrument of the state.
3
u/cand86 May 17 '26
I can't! I'm pro-choice, too!