Wait where’s the soyjack? How am I supposed to know who I have to agree with here?!?




The real soyjack was you all along! :)




Based and I can't do gymnastics pilled


u/sasha3percent is officially based! Their Based Count is now 1. Rank: House of Cards Pills: [1 | View pills.](https://basedcount.com/u/sasha3percent/) This user does not have a compass on record. You can add your compass to your profile by replying with /mycompass politicalcompass.org url or sapplyvalues.github.io url. I am a bot. Reply /info for more info.


Good bot


You should.


Wait - where'd my scarecrow go?


i beat him to death! still beating! die! die!!


Traded it for a ectogenesis grow operation.


The issue is not a lack of logic on either side. It's the difference in the moral suppositions.


Based and actually understands the divide pilled.


u/GigglingBilliken's Based Count has increased by 1. Their Based Count is now 35. Congratulations, u/GigglingBilliken! You have ranked up to Sumo Wrestler! You are adept in the ring, but you still tend to rely on simply being bigger than the competition. Pills: [25 | View pills.](https://basedcount.com/u/GigglingBilliken/) This user does not have a compass on record. You can add your compass to your profile by replying with /mycompass politicalcompass.org url or sapplyvalues.github.io url. I am a bot. Reply /info for more info.


Good bot


The entire abortion issue is built on the deeply nuanced philosophical question of what constitutes humanity. Unfortunately, rather than turning to ethicists and philosophers, we devolved into a national divide of assuming the other side is literally evil. It is impossible to reach a compromise when you believe the other side’s platform is to kill humans, and that your platform is to save humans.


Saying your opponents are literal evil and dehumanizing them is the new meta tho. Makes thinking so much easier


To be fair, it's not exactly new. That shit been has been around since Moses wore short pants It may had a bit of a lull in modern mainstream American politics in terms of the last maybe 50 years or so, but it's certainty making a Jordan 95' level comeback


Based and Space Jam pilled


u/BrewCityBenjamin's Based Count has increased by 1. Their Based Count is now 5. Congratulations, u/BrewCityBenjamin! You have ranked up to Sapling! You are not particularly strong but you are at least likely to handle a steady breeze. Pills: [4 | View pills.](https://basedcount.com/u/BrewCityBenjamin/) This user does not have a compass on record. You can add your compass to your profile by replying with /mycompass politicalcompass.org url or sapplyvalues.github.io url. I am a bot. Reply /info for more info.


I mean 50 years ago we were doing it but the "evil" people were in another country.


Oh yeah, the last 50 years we've just found new scapegoats, but we're back to hating each other I'm just saying even in American history, look at political debates between like 1800-1940. Everyone was a villain to the other side. People got wild with shit. But then we put our beefs on hold when some true villains, the Nazis, appeared and we had a decent run of just hating other folks Seems like were heading back to those times. Thank god nothing terrible ever happened in the 1800s due to extreme political polarity


Yeah. Like people have been blaming the Jews for all their problem for millennia. Even the Japanese cult leader who orchestrated the subway nerve gas bombings back in the 90’s blamed the Jews for his failed attempt to gain a political position in the Japanese government.


Blaming Jews for Japanese politics is a new level of hilarious


Based and the Bulls are the GOAT dynasty pilled


its a product of FPTP. With only two parties, nuance has no value to political campaigners.


It's wild that people think a world this complicated only has 2 possible solutions to solve them


people don't think that, the political system forces that. Political campaigners work within that system and the propaganda they create encourages people to think like that. Take that system away and people will slowly be able to think differently under a marketplace of more ideas than just two.


While I agree with what you just said to some extent, you didn't really disagree with me People think this BECAUSE of propaganda and political campaigners working within systems. Sure, that's the explanation as to why, but it doesn't change the problem that they do think this And sure, take away that system and perhaps you are right about what will happen. But until that happens were just discussing unicorn farts


Give me Ranked Choice Voting or Give me Death.


I'm pretty sure dehumanising and demonising your opponent is older than democracy.


Media is totally op in the new meta. The "humans are retarded" patch changed everything. I can't wait to see what they try in season 2023. I already bought the season pass.


It is sad that such an interesting question gets lost when one side wishes to preserve rights, freedoms and lives, and the other side wishes to preserve rights, freedoms, and lives. Too bad those words mean completely different things.


The divide didn't happen by accident. It's very useful to the reptiles in charge to have an easy wedge issue they can roll out whenever they need to distract from how shitty they are at their jobs.


Surprisingly based from a righty. Those reptilians know exactly how to divide us.


Lol the reptilian conspiracy is a fun one but I just mean plain old psychopath "reptiles."


That sucks. Surprisingly, I still agree with you. Yea, the whole "Reptilians are controlling everything" is one of my favorite batshit conspiracies.


I'd suggest a better way to say it would be that it's the question of what constitutes *a person*. Using the term "humanity" can be a bit problematic when discussing the distinction between human tissue and "a human". Pretty much everyone agrees that somewhere along the continuum of conception to birth, a person is created. The root of the issue is simply that we do not agree on where that point is.


Yeah as an enjoyer of science myself, it ain’t the answer to this one


Precisely, science is great for raw data, the morality comes in when interpreting it.


Unless we are talking week 37 in the womb and could technically be born healthy. But you are correct. This debate is more about emotion than logic.




Babies can survive outside the womb as early as 21 weeks. Fetuses recognize their mother’s and father’s voice in utero and can even recognize the sounds of their pets. Brain activity first begins between 5-6 weeks. Please remind me how there’s no consciousness until week 37.


Consciousness should begin way before week 37 and maybe before week 20 as well, but week 5 electrical signals in the primitive nerve clusters forming the early brain is not the same as consciousness (which is higher level thought by a developed brain). There seems to be several different stages at different weeks of development where the fetus can be classified as having the following: 1) develops enough nerve cells to trigger electrical activity 2) develops enough nerves to respond to stimuli 3) develops enough organs to survive outside the womb 4) nerve cells develops into a functional brain and matures to a point that enables it to achieve higher thought processes such as consciousness and sentience At week 5, it is basicaly incoherent electrical signals firing in nerve cells that is even more primitive than nerve cells firing in a shrimp according to this article: "Even though the fetus is now developing areas that will become specific sections of the brain, not until the end of week 5 and into week 6 (usually around forty to forty-three days) does the first electrical brain activity begin to occur. This activity, however, is not coherent activity of the kind that underlies human consciousness, or even the coherent activity seen in a shrimp's nervous system. Just as neural activity is present in clinically brain-dead patients, early neural activity consists of unorganized neuron firing of a primitive kind. Neuronal activity by itself does not represent integrated behavior." ... "The frontal and temporal poles of the brain are apparent during weeks 12 to 16, and the frontal pole (which becomes the neocortex) grows disproportionately fast when compared with the rest of the cortex. The surface of the cortex appears flat through the third month, but by the end of the fourth month indentations, or sulci, appear. (These develop into the familiar folds of the cerebrum.) The different lobes of the brain also become apparent, and neurons continue to proliferate and migrate throughout the cortex. By week 13 the fetus has begun to move. Around this time the corpus callosum, the massive collection of fibers (the axons of neurons) that allow for communication between the hemispheres, begins to develop, forming the infrastructure for the major part of the cross talk between the two sides of the brain. Yet the fetus is not a sentient, self-aware organism at this point; it is more like a sea slug, a writhing, reflex-bound hunk of sensory-motor processes that does not respond to anything in a directed, purposeful way. Laying down the infrastructure for a mature brain and possessing a mature brain are two very different states of being." ... "Synapses-the points where two neurons, the basic building blocks of the nervous system, come together to interact-form in large numbers during the seventeenth and following weeks, allowing for communication between individual neurons. Synaptic activity underlies all brain functions. Synaptic growth does not skyrocket until around postconception day 200 (week 28). Nonetheless, at around week 23 the fetus can survive outside the womb, with medical support; also around this time the fetus can respond to aversive stimuli." https://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/19/books/chapters/the-ethical-brain.html


This is good info, quick get a flair before people start mass downvoting and ignoring everything you said


I was about to say the same, the unflaired scum smh


Thanks. I didn't realize comments can be flaired. I thought flairing was only for the person who posts the original subreddit article?


On a subreddits home page, on the banners to the right, you can choose/make a user flair for that sub


Not comments, each account can choose their personal flair in the sidebar


Thanks, I see it now (eg. centrist, left, right, etc). Why does having a flair benefit over not having a flair? I thought telling people your political orientation (which probably doesn't match theirs) would make them more likely to disagree and downvote you than not.


it's just the etiquette for the subreddit at this point. pcm survives by ostensibly being a tongue-in-cheek meme subreddit, where people attack eachother ad-homenim for their political flair, flanderize the views of their own side, and larp as extremists. this pretense ironically allows people of radically different perspectives to have constructive debate with eachother in the comments without the whole sub being banhammered into a boring echo chamber. the flair system allows the sub to continue functioning and lets everyone take the piss out of eachother. it might also have something to do with avoiding brigading? basically if you stay unflaired people get mad. just pick gray centrist if you're not decided yet.


> larp as extremists Wait, you guys are larping?


>just pick gray centrist if you're not decided yet. That one hurt.


Interesting, thank you.


Very accurate assessment. I’m saving this comment just for when people ask what PCM is. Today I was called a white supremacist today for being a member cause people are so stupid


Nope. Sometimes even the best comments will get downvoted to shit because the user doesn't have a flair. It's just how the sub functions.


It’s the proper manners in the subreddit and we will mercilessly bully anyone who doesn’t have a flair until they comply


All fine and dandy that's why they mention "moral suppositions" In the US you can sue a neighbor if they sabotage your efforts to sell your house for the profit you were going to get, that means law recognizes "potential", at the same time killing a pregnant woman counts as 2 homicides, again "potential" There is also value, maybe is not the same as a complete baby but a fetus with a potential is in fact valuable.


This is definitely the kind of stuff our conversations about this issue should include, not “you literally just want to kill babies” and “you literally just hate women”. It does not remotely solve the philosophical debate of when exactly a fetus should be considered a person, but it gives us more information to consider in that debate instead of just hurling the same vitriol at each other over and over. Thanks for sharing.


Consciousness is debatable. It’s literally anywhere from [24 weeks gestation](https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/when-does-consciousness-arise/) to [5 months after birth](https://www.science.org/content/article/when-does-your-baby-become-conscious). That’s not even counting when they become self aware, which appears to be [after a year](https://www.parentingcounts.org/baby-begins-to-develop-self-awareness-15-24-months/) post birth.


Yeh, it's really not a good metric to use in this situation.


This. A 1 day old chicken has more conciusoness developement than a 1 month old infant. Its not that simple. Long term memory does not even form properly till 3.5 years.


I bet this is all very informative and a good read but I'm tired so could I get a TLDR lol


TLDR: Nobody really knows when higher level thought such as consciousness begins. It could be in the 20s-something weeks or maybe before 20 weeks in the mid to late teen-weeks. Also, we need to be careful and separate different stages of development that occurs at different weeks and not lump them all into one event/one thing: 1) develops enough nerve cells to trigger electrical activity 2) develops enough nerves to respond to stimuli 3) develops enough organs to survive outside the womb 4) nerve cells develops into a functional brain and matures to a point that enables it to achieve higher thought processes such as consciousness and sentience


I'm not certain that concousness starts by 20 years let alone weeks. In some ancient cultures no one was a person until they were an adult. If someone decided to kill their child that was their business.


Some cultures suck. If my dad tried to abort me when I was a teenager I’d kick him in the nuts.


My oldest daughter would move around during an ultrasound for my voice, but not the ultra sound technicians voice. I don't recall which visit, but I think some where around 16 weeks


Agreed. Therefore, keep government boot out of it.


Like most things fuck the government.


Based and actual libright pilled


Idk man once the fetus is viable there’s a pretty good argument of a right to live when it can survive outside the womb. And it gets ugly because the preciseness of when exactly a fetus is viable is tough to nail down. It’s really not something that can be dismissed as trivial.


That's a hard distinction to draw, just like everything surrounding the abortion debate. The argument could be made that it's not viable *yet*, but does that mean we can also just yank people off life support if they would otherwise survive with just a few more weeks of medical care? There's very little about the debate that's easy. Honestly, the only easy part for me is that elective late-term abortions should be 100% illegal (all the usual exceptions for rape, incest, compatibility with life, health of the mother, etc. still apply).


Elective late term abortions are pretty much a non issue. Pregnant women aren't like, "I kept meaning to get around to having that abortion but stuff kept coming up." They're not all of a sudden changing their minds about wanting a kid. If they don't want to have a baby, why does anyone think they would carry a pregnancy for 8 months? The fact that it's not illegal in some states is irrelevant, they aren't being done.




Society in its entirety is dependent on technology. Remove it from the equation and you have mass starvation and death on an hitherto uknown scale. You can't put that genie back in the bottle.


That seems like a bad position to take. Either a) babies are being murdered, in which case the government should definitely get involved, or b) women's bodily autonomy is being violated, in which case the **federal** government should probably get involved as well. It's rather like, for instance, if some states were enslaving a bunch of people on the grounds that they believed them to lesser and that made it ok... sometimes your neighbour has a philosophy so awful you can't help but get involved. Although in that case the fed did try their best to avoid the issue for a long time.


Depends what "flavour" the baby is


They come in favors now?!? Do they come in chocolate chip cookie dough because if so I will take five please.


Well, it sounds like it’s a difference of alive versus conscious, and we don’t know what level of consciousness the living baby has. Plus, that would mean that unconscious people can be killed.. so anyone that’s sleeping or in a coma is potentially killable


Yeah the argument just boils down to: “when does this become murder?” For some it’s literally at conception(dumb), for some others it’s still totally fine for a healthy fetus in the 3rd trimester(dumber). But we’re not even having the debate of “when would be an acceptable cut-off date for an abortion’s legality, both sides just go for the nuclear option of “all are legal” or “none are legal”.


I suppose the difficulty is defining what a person is. We can't just track backwards from birth and find an exact second after which a fetus is suddenly not just a clump of cells. Its obvious to us that a baby 10 mins before delivery is alive and chilling and you can put sperm and egg together invitro and it isnt suddenly a person, but the definition of personhood is an issue currently beyond science and up for debate in philosophy.


Thank you for using the term "personhood". It's a very Star Trek way of looking at this. Is a "clump of cells" a human? What? Now we are getting into semantics. Those are human cells, because that's the name of our species. The debate is whether or not the rights of personhood apply to a developing human fetus. I think this is the fallout of weaponized language, often used by politicians and elite academics. They'll pretty much only use coded language and double speak as a "foot in the door" method, so they can hide their true intentions. So when people used the phrase, "do you believe in a woman's right *to choose*?" when I was 12 and didn't really know what an abortion was; I was simply confused. These methods aren't as sly these folks think they are. A lot of normal people can pick up on the notion of "hey, you're up to something. You're not telling us something." This is the case with school boards making seemingly reasonable arguments in favor of common core math or critical race theory, only for the result to be kids coming home crying because the teacher said they are bad. Don't get me wrong. I don't really have an issue with abortion. Take a lot of measures to prevent it, and don't brag about it. But the issue is when someone uses dishonest rhetorical tactics in support of their cause, they have just proven to me that I can't trust them (especially when it comes to *my issues*)


Sorites paradox, if you keep removing a grain of sand from a heap, when does it no longer become a heap. If you keep increasing the number of cells in a zygote, when does it become a human


The sides are the fringes. We need to cast off our chains and demand a proper middle ground stance.


They are fringes, but some states allow for abortion up to the point of birth, and we have had a governor advocate that it should extend until at least a little bit after birth. Yes it's not a winning electoral position, but it's a relatively mainstream position for one of our political parties that abortion until the end of the 3rd trimester should be legal regardless of viability or reason. This is the law in Colorado for example and pre-dates the supreme court ruling. For the vast majority of us hoping for a moderate stance, we have been offered only 2 extremes to choose from in a number of states. I don't think an outright ban makes sense, but given the choice between outright ban and abortion up to and including infanticide, I can only choose one without violating my own conscience.


As I said, it's a harmful false binary. We need to dust these chumps and elect cooler heads.


yep but also the question of abortion doesnt really have a good anwser, its based on morals so there never really is an agreement possible (since pro life can never accept any concessions and any concessions for pro choice feel like having their freedom of belief and some of the rights being restricted) ​ Tbf that is partialy i think that this in itself is a reason why people should decide for themselves but lets not make this "agenda comment"


Which is why things like referendums exists in Europe, ballot measures should be the norm in all states, given that it seems most Americans prefer a republic to a full democracy.


"Hey, want to come into my house?" *shoots them after coming into the house*


And they call me the loot drop, idiot just walked right in.


"But the other side is mendacious and evil!! Only my side acts in good faith!"


A life is worth more than another, that is an absolute truth, but who’s to decide it? I say the GOD EMPEROR OF MANKIND CAN, KILL THE HERETICS AND XENOS


Why yes I do simp for a 14 foot immortal golden racist, how could you tell 💪


He’s not racist, race is a distinguishing feature between humans, and the god-emperor is a human supremacist for all races Hes a specieist




I call being the first of the Adeptus Custodes.


Let’s go and gen-engineer the thunder warriors to finally unify the world UNDER HIS RULE


"Would that make us AuthRights if we sacrificed our individualism for the Emperor?" Fuck it man, at least we get to be super-soldiers.


Just become an ancap emperor


You mean Supreme McCEO


And after we finish our mission we’ll get to become the Custodes, right?


Custodes NUTS




I say let them decide it in a duel. Whoever wins gets to live


You know something weird I noticed about this? In these past few days, whenever people I saw talk about abortion, not *one time* did I ever see them treating early term and late term abortions like they're two different things It's like your only two acceptable positions are "why yes a 7 month old fetus is still not a person" or "a blastocyst with 4 cells is a human life that's worth more than yours and so help me God if you do anything to it" with *absolutely* no in-between


I think it boils down to three things: * Most of the people trying to argue this point are people who feel strongly about it. The person thinking "yeah early abortions are fine I guess but later ones make me uncomfortable" is probably not the most active debater. * On the pro-life side, not arguing for the extreme version (life begins at conception) means having to admit the line at which someone becomes a person is arbitrary. * On the pro-choice side, a frequent argument is bodily autonomy rather than fetal personhood, because bodily autonomy is what speaks in favor of abortion as a *right* rather than just something that is fine to have legal. The bodily autonomy argument allows for late term abortions, because the bodily autonomy argument means that fetal personhood does not matter.




It's weird because not only the current transitive state of a rapidly growing organism matters here, but also the context given by the stage of growth. Someone who's 7 months into a pregnancy doesn't randomly look to abort because they've gotten cold feet, there's clearly something very wrong going that has led them to make that choice, usually supported by a health expert.


Around 1% of abortions happen after 21 weeks and even then it's almost entirely medically required for the woman's survival, or the child has an extreme birth defect which could significantly impede on its survival, so yeah late term abortions are a bit of an irrelevant argument.


But then the far-right wouldn’t have as many strawmen!


I think late term abortions are a bit of a nonsense point in the debate. They are extraordinarily rare, and usually only done in the case of severe complications or deformity or risk to the mother. Sometimes, abortion procedures are an alternative to laboring to deliver a pregnancy that will certainly be stillborn, which is obviously psychologically difficult for a mother losing a wanted baby. For those reasons, it seems like they should still be accessible. I really don't think anyone is being pregnant for many months and then suddenly deciding they don't want it. An abortion should be done as early as possible. It is safer for the mother, let alone the other considerations.


We are sith, we deal only in absolutes


Based and rational arguments pilled. Thank you for helping keep PCM intact and not devolving into a "my side is best side" shitfest.


Yeah that’s basically the modern side of politics


Dude politics has always been like that


The intensity of it does fluctuate though often as a result of social unrest and/or social engineering by various entities. Right now I'd say it's about the worst it's been in my life-time.


Probably not THIS bad. I feel like the internet contributed to this though.


https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caning_of_Charles_Sumner there’s absolutely plenty of WAY older examples, but this always comes to mind


“Wait nuanced political discussion has already been killed before?!” “Always has been” Shit.


Tbf my side is best side. We have grills.


Your side is not a side. It’s in the center, so technically it’s not a side.


Ok, then my side of the center is the best.


Depends. Which side of the center is yours?


Shouldn't point 2 say so it doesn't have personhood? Clearly a fetus is a human. its not a dog or a cat. But stating it doesn't have personhood totally makes sense.


By what definition of personhood? No rational nature? They do in potency. Even a lack of personhood doesn't necessarily mean someone lacks rights, people with very severe mental disabilities can lack personhood (as in individual consciousness) and still have rights.


Its not a position I agree with it. But its not a position that relies upon denying reality. One could argue that until your brain "turns on" and moves past sentience to sapience you don't have personhood. which would probably allow abortion up to 12-16 weeks. Again, not my position, but one grounded in reality.


Can I claim an unborn child as a dependent on my taxes?


No, the child has to have a SSN to be claimed as a dependent. To get a SSN, you need a record of the child's birth. But IRS rules represent their own reality that's only vaguely tethered to the real world.


\>IRS is only vaguely tethered to the real world \>don't pay your taxes \>people point vague guns at your face and put you in jail \>lose all your real assets \>have a bad time in vague jail because it feels like real jail


I was thinking that sounded more lib right, but then I remembered lib rights don’t pay taxes


Based and understanding-both-sides pilled


Both are valid arguments. I just hate screaming babies so I’m pro-choice. No one should have to suffer screaming babies against their will.


So we’re all wrong. The only solution to this? I don’t know


Based and none of us know how to solve this nuanced problem pilled


This meme is great, but the fact remains… one side is convinced they are defending their rights while the other side is convinced they are defending babies. If radicalism takes root, this could be the very issue we fight another civil war over. 😞


Now if only there was a system were different laws could effect different areas based around the general opinion of its constituents.


Or! Even better, we let individual people make nuanced decisions based on their very nuanced circumstances!


A fetus does become conscious before birth though, so there needs to at least be a deadline.


You wish, foetus can live an entire life without starting to be conscious, look at politicians


Lol. Fucking based.


Unfathomably based


Average person: “Haha politicians are so dumb” Average politician: proceeds to successfully make the average person their bitch, rip them off and get away with it




Maybe we should abort the politicians then


In France you can avort before 3 months, after that the embryo become a fœtus and it starts getting harder to accept it, but in germany or spain they accept until 4 months, so many people go there to avoid France’s law, I think it’s a good compromise. I don’t understand why it should one far side or the other one, ban avorting after 3/4 months so the person has the time to choose, but if the person takes too long than she is too much hesitant to not have it


> so many people go there to avoid France’s law, I absolutely cannot justify partial-birth abortion under any circumstance short of a legitimate danger to the woman. If you let someone squat on some property of yours for 8+ months, you don't have the right to kick them off overnight.


If we’re applying squatters rights, then do babies that go over term have ‘more’ of a right to go back in?


The big issue is Europe on average does about 14 weeks before you can’t abort. America has on average 28 weeks, and sometimes even more. So you have the *fun* phenomenon where some people want no abortions ever, or some who want to have abortions literally up to birth, like (I believe) Oregon.


>starts killing people who are asleep because they are unconscious


>sorry, you can't force someone to provide for another human being **Pulls the plug on your grandma*


Yes the fetus is a human, I simply don't care


Based and "I don't give a shit" pilled


this is actually my take on it. we already kill plenty of people, what's a few babies added to the mix.


Based and understanding viewpoints pilled


Having sex with a women in a coma is rape . Consciousness is not relative to rights .


So is taking someone off of life support is murder?


If you knew that the person would come out of the coma in 9 months, then yes


It literally can be yes lmao


Consented murder yes because ot is a choice by the person . ie the living will or a person who has medical power of attorney .


Are we conflating consciousness and wakefulness?


Coma is literally a state of *un*consciousness. If you're unawake, but conscious, it is definitionally not a coma.


I’m seeing a lot of left wing for once, probably the is the only post on this sub about us that isn’t “hAha lIBlEFt stoOOpiiD bECauSe emIlY!”


Emily and her fellow oranges are not libleft Libleft frequently does good things Orange almost always does bad things


Agreed. And orange is inherently authoritarian. Definitely not a libertarian stance.


There's a reason why you can't select orange flair in PCM. Orange lib-left are everyone's whipping bitch. Are there real "Emily" persons out there? Sure, but they're probably extremely loud and fairly rare, and they hopefully grow up and catch a clew or two. > Emily and her fellow oranges are not libleft


The "Emilys" are why I don't say I'm a feminist anymore. I'm all for equality, but the "3rd generation feminist" started the whole man hating thing. That's not equality.


Its mostly orange that people don't understand is not libleft


Libright can be pro choice too smh


Yea, was wondering how this was a left vs right issue. More like authoritarian vs liberal issue.


Hell, so can authright. Not everyone is on the extreme edges of the compass.


Based and my opponent isn’t a retard and I can understand their line of thinking pilled


Why the fuck is this getting downvoted ?


Because nuance is scary


Arguing it isn’t human is dumb. It’s human. That said there are occasions where it is reasonable to end the life of another human. If the other human is actively going to end your life if you do not kill them first, that is a legitimate reason. If you fucked up a simple task, that is not a legitimate reason to end someone’s life.


This is all there is to it. I'm fucking sick and tired of all the retarded analogies that everyone makes about abortion to try and demonize or justify it. There are NO other animals with value comparable to a human. That's why we outlaw slavery. There are NO other relationships between two beings that are remotely comparable to the relationship between a mother and a fetus growing inside her. "Human" life is and always has been a purely philosophical manner. There has never been and will never be a purely scientific explanation for it.


Based and just want to grill pilled.


I once heard a pro lifer ask… What makes the passage though a vagina be the difference between “A clump of cells” and “A human Being”? I for one actually believe that abortion should be allowed very early on, but I’m honestly willing to ask the same question to anyone who supports Late Term Abortions (abortions during the third trimester).


Tbh anyone that supports late term abortions either doesnt know what he is talking about, has no compassion or is bandwagoning. Except of course If the mothers life is in danger




You get 15 weeks which is par for the course in Europe if not more liberal. Take it or leave it.


>You get 15 weeks which is par for the course in Europe if not more liberal 0 weeks from some politicians, 6 weeks being proposed and pushed through in several states. Don't forget the ones calling for a ban on Plan B and other shit.


Let's take the potential contraceptives bans to their logical conclusion and just make it illegal to not have sex with me


Kill the baby and repeal the 19th amendment 🗿


A fetus is HUMAN…the fuck y’all think it is? A duck? 😂


“A clump of cells” yea that’s literally what every living thing ever is.


I’m clump of cells, Greg. Can you abort me?


Yes, but not legally (Yes I get the reference)


Wait, it’s not a duck? Damnit!


Ducks are clumps of cells.


The only difference between ducks and humans is that the ducks at the park are free, you can take them home, I have 458 ducks. This does not work with humans, because humans are not free.


That's missing the point. There's more to being human that just being a featherless biped, and the argument is that fetuses don't have that yet.


In my opinion, best way would be to fully legalize abortion up to 12-18th week, and make it legal but with several steps up till 24th as barely any preterm borns survive at 26th. After that, things would get kinda difficult...


Even simpler: under all circumstances; allow abortion up to the first trimester. After the first three months, only allow when the life of the mother is in danger/if the mother was raped/if the mother is a minor/if the fetus is harming the mother or vice-versa.


I wouldn't be opposed to this myself, with two adjustments: * An exemption if the foetus has a medical condition, similar to things someone would reasonably euthanise a dog for. The mother should be able to make quality-of-life decisions. * Pregnancies that are diagnosed late get a 2 week period to make a decision.




Funny how I’m like 5 comments a lot of people came to a reasonable limitation on abortion that the general population cannot agree on after 50 years. Wild.


Agreement would dissolve vote generating theatrics for both parties, hence perpetuating strawman arguments and promoting reactionary speech has been the name of the game.


Yes, yes, very good


Based and completely acceptable terms pilled


The concurring opinion in the case was actually that Roe should be replaced with exactly this, which is kinda based aside from the fact that it’s not their job to make laws like that.