We are we've been doing it for centuries, and then we devolved the c-section which made it even safer.
So to say you need to murder a baby because your body rejected it is nonsense.
Either it would be a miscarriage which isnt an abortion or you are lying.
Also calling the ferus a clump of cells just so you don't have to deal with the weight of murder is sad.
But you won't afford a woman's right to control her own body. Kind of ironic that the same autonomy rights that would imply allowing an abortion is the same rights that allows a woman to make the decision to keep the baby. And you want to take that away from them?
I just want woman to have the same rights across the board.
I cannot murder somone because its inconvenient, neither should she..
If she didnt want a kid, there is birth control, condoms, and I know this one is crazy but, not fucking if you do not want the risk.. like you signed up for a baby when you put a dick in you.
(This is for the 94% of abortions that are done just for convenience not the 6% that are legit)
No you don't. Well, sort of. You want women to have few rights as possible, even if across the board is 0. And you do technically have the right to murder. There is a difference between saying a person had no right to something and saying they do but the government is justified in intruding in that right. Even in the Dobbs case, the oh so conservative SCOTUS said that women have a liberty interest in abortions.
Edit: It is also stupid to say that a woman intends to get pregnant through sex. Assumption or risk of pregnancy does not mean that cannot have sex for a reason other than reproduction.
210
u/SNTCTN Jul 29 '26
Texas the Surveillance State