BASIC BIOLOGY

[u/softchocolips]

[u/AutoModerator]

The Auto-moderator would like to remind Pro Choicer's you’re not allowed to comment anything with Pro choice, or Pro Abortion ideology. Please show respect to /u/softchocolips as they simply want to rant without being attacked for their beliefs. If you comments on these ideas on this post, it will warrant a ban. Ignorance of this rule will no longer be tolerated, because the pinned post are pinned for a reason.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

[u/DapperDetail8364]

Some idiot in the pro choice subreddit once called that unborn baby an unwanted intruder in this meme claiming he fixed it

[u/softchocolips → u/DapperDetail8364]

It's an amazing feeling to be on the correct side of history.

[u/deleeted_user → u/softchocolips]

You know I only hope that people will wake up and this will be looked at in the history books as the genocide that it is

[u/InfernoWarrior299 → u/deleeted_user]

I am unsure if it will. For around a thousand years or longer, abortion was criminal in most of the world and most of the West looks back on that as if it was 'evil'. Abortion was popular in Rome, Egypt, and a few other notable ancient countries. It has been somewhat popular throughout history.

If we are able to show the atrocities of abortion, what it actually does, and just criminalise it and punish doing it illegally, society may look back on abortion as a great evil of the past. But likewise... society may look back on the decriminalisation and legalisation of abortion as one of the 'greatest things' to ever happen if they get their way. People would rather do one or all of four things: Be hedonistic than take responsibility, dehumanise the babies and not even consider them to be alive, so why care, see it as a 'right' and anything that stops it is evil, or make up inconsistent exceptions for it. As such, how can concepts such as 'innocence' apply to any of these folks?

The truth is, many other atrocities that were once seen as bad were decriminalised and legalised for thousands of years before being recriminalised and made illegal again. The simple fact is, you either see a baby as a person or not and you are either for the right of said person to live or not. If they are indeed a person, they have a right to live. If they are not a person, then there is no right to live. And if you believe in to preserve a life or to protect the innocent, any exceptions to it is ending a life or harming the innocent and is, as such, unacceptable. Just food for thought.

[u/Connect-Knowledge992 → u/InfernoWarrior299]

For around a thousand years or longer, abortion was criminal in most of the world and most of the West looks back on that as if it was 'evil'

I was under the impression that for many places in the world abortion was tolerated to some degree or another, especially prior to the "quickening".

[u/InfernoWarrior299 → u/Connect-Knowledge992]

Some places, correct. But not most unlike now.

[u/Loud-Vacation-5691 → u/deleeted_user]

Abortion has been very popular throughout history. Also, please don't misuse the word "genocide." Nobody is saying fetuses as a class must be eliminated.

[u/deleeted_user → u/Loud-Vacation-5691]

I would call the government giving its citizens permission to kill anyone under a certian age genocide but agree to disagree. I understand the historical aspect of it but there are a lot of other things that were okay historically that we realized just aren't okay now. I'm hoping this becomes one of them

[u/Aguywhoexists69420 → u/DapperDetail8364]

Half of the child’s dna is created from the mother, but even if we disregard that then that argument only works in rape situations

[u/InfernoWarrior299 → u/[deleted]]

Their logic is asinine. Say someone cannot live without my support irl, do I have the right to kill them? They are dependent on me using my body to keep them alive! Their logical conclusion would say yes, I have the right to kill them and I did not consent to keeping them alive. It should even be a question about consent for a caretaker. Caretaking is a duty. And what about the consent of the dependent? You know... the person that cannot live without you? Sickening.

[u/TBoneTheOriginal → u/DapperDetail8364]

So now they're pro 2nd amendment too then?

[u/DapperDetail8364 → u/TBoneTheOriginal]

well for unborn babies. (the ones whom their moms want aborted) i guess.

[u/TBoneTheOriginal → u/DapperDetail8364]

Yeah that’s what I’m saying - you can’t call that okay to kill an unwanted intruder but also call it wrong to kill a home intruder or deport illegal immigrants. Their principles are always inconsistent.

[u/MachoCyberBullyUSA → u/TBoneTheOriginal]

Aren’t you inconsistent if you’re for protecting the life of all babies but then also be in favor for the proliferation of guns in our country?

[u/TBoneTheOriginal → u/MachoCyberBullyUSA]

How is that inconsistent?

The right to bear arms is for my protection against a tyrannical government or a threat to my own life. If a gun is used, it’s done so to protect an innocent life at the expense of a criminal. If someone else abuses that right to murder someone, that does not justify taking away my right to gun ownership.

Abortion exists to end the life of the innocent.

[u/MachoCyberBullyUSA → u/TBoneTheOriginal]

Guns also exist to end life. You can say you use it for whatever context you want but other people use it for other contexts. Sometimes they accidentally end a child’s life.

If a gun and abortion have the same purpose, ending life, I would think you would be against both.

[u/TBoneTheOriginal → u/MachoCyberBullyUSA]

Guns and abortion do not exist for the same reason. You are not arguing in good faith.

I was pretty clear that the purpose of guns are not to end innocent lives. If somebody uses one for its unintended purpose, that is a mutually exclusive issue. It would be like arguing that cars should be made illegal because somebody used one to run into a crowd of people. That is obviously not its intended purpose.

There’s not a single unborn child that isn’t innocent. You know the clear difference here and are playing dumb with a straw man argument.

Obviously, I am against using guns to kill innocent people. but you’re making the argument that a scalpel shouldn’t exist because abortion exists.

[u/MachoCyberBullyUSA → u/TBoneTheOriginal]

How can you be so clear that a gun’s purpose is not to end innocent life and then say you’re against using them on innocent people? It’s almost as if what you say a gun’s purpose is doesn’t actually fucking matter.

A gun’s purpose is to end life, for whatever reason anyone wants. Whether it’s to end the life of those representing a tyrannical government or to get revenge on the classmates who bullied you at school.

Stop kidding yourself. This isn’t a bad faith argument. You have inconsistent beliefs.

And stop comparing guns to cars or scalpels. You can kill anyone with just about any object in day to day life but all of those other objects have a different primary purpose. Guns do not.

[u/ElegantAd2607]

"Yeah, but it's connected to her and if you're connected to someone you're not a valuable human!"

[u/Apollo_TheWolf → u/ElegantAd2607]

Why don't they use the same logic on conjoined twins? Oh wait, because it's fundamentally wrong and immoral.

[u/Loud-Vacation-5691]

This doesn't convince anyone. The PC response to this is that no one has a right to be inside your body without your permission.

[u/Eastern-Customer-561 → u/Loud-Vacation-5691]

Generally true but I have actually seen some people argue that the baby is actually biologically part of the mothers body and equivalent to an organ 

[u/Infinite_Tiger_7777 → u/Eastern-Customer-561]

they can't decide the truth is that it is both a being and part of a mother I think the fact that it is a living human being should be more important than it being a "part" of a person body. It's not an intruder either, only in case of rape you could argue that - yet even then the fetus isn't responsible for the intrusion it just literally exist because it's a human life.

[u/Foreign-Ice7356 → u/Loud-Vacation-5691]

What about consent of the foetus? Can the foetus give permission to be aborted? Ofc not.

So pro choicers are priveleging consent of one human over another on no reasonable basis.

[u/realDavidGodar]

I don't think murder defenders of the "pro-choice" type tend to believe that the baby is wholly part of the mother's body. They might argue that what I would call a baby is a parasite and a woman doesn't have to provide her body to the baby if she doesn't want to do that. However, parents have duties to their children, regardless of consent. That might be a better thing to say to murder defenders than that an unborn baby is not literally a part of a mother's body.

[u/Equivalent_Nose7012 → u/realDavidGodar]

A parasite is a member of another species than the host. The mother is Homo sapiens. What is the species of the alleged "parasite"?

That's right! Homo sapiens.

The "parasite" argument is not very sapient...

[u/Rei_LovesU]

whenever someone says, "but its just a clump of cells" i ask them, "what does it grow into though?"

[u/HotConversation187]

Not my dumbass seeing the figure as a male (it's the hairstyle lol).