And there's no thread on this?
Abortions can now be performed ANY TIME BEFORE BIRTH
Abortions can now be performed by NON-DOCTORS (literally anyone. You could do them)
Abortions can now be performed for ANY REASON ("I didn't want a boy")
Celebrated by corporate media
WTC lit up PINK (the colour of babies) in CELEBRATION
This is it you stupid fucking Yanks. The moderates are on your side with this one! Do you not see how this could turn the tide against progressive politics?
It really doesn't matter how you slice it, this is unequivocally the murder of children. Babies. Perfectly healthy, ready to be born, could have been born premature months ago and still be healthy, babies.
The rest of the civilised world is on your side here. You don't have to be Christian, conservative or even pro-life to see that this is pure abhorrence.
Only your progressive yank media are reporting it. The ball is in your park autists. This is your chance, and if you can't raise yourselves against the literal legal murder of perfectly healthy children, then you've failed already.
Kek be with you, you stupid fucking yanks.
OP - https://8ch.net/pol/res/12713069.html
view the rest of the comments →
[–] 16340919? ago
No one is being forced. A pregnant woman already carries a child by natural causes, no forceful act from the state is involved. We're just saying she should be punished for killing that child unless it was immediately threatening her. The lack of a third option does not make an evil action good.
Suppose there WAS a third option, and unborn children could be transferred to another woman or a machine or an animal, that carries them to term with an equal survival rate at a negligible cost. Anyone who requests abortion can get it with no blood on their hands. Would it then be evil for a woman to specifically request DEATH of her unborn child? After all, it's inside her body to do as she wishes, right? The more I learn about modern Feminism, the more I suspect the far left would defend that.
[–] 16343037? ago
This is always a shit argument.
Nobody forced the woman to have sex.
Always be with a man, or a herd of women who are all armed.
PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY
PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY
PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY
PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY
PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY
PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY
PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY
PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY
[–] 16343031? ago
Women regularly suffocated, drowned, or abandoned their babies to be eaten by wild animals. That is the type of person you are arguing with. They want the option to kill their children. It is why the state is involved in the first place.
[–] 16340927? ago
No, no it wouldn't. Blood of her own blood and what now, she should have the right to end it, as it had come out of her, undoubtedly so.
By not being given the freedom of abortion, they are being forced to carry them.
That is unfair for her.
Rightly so.
It doesn't matter, a woman is the master of her own destiny and fate.
[–] 16346976? ago
Why are liberals fundamentally retarded and anti-science & anti-reason?
[–] 16343150? ago
They do have the freedom of abortion. They are free to end their pregnancy. They are not free to intentionally kill an innocent human. The former implies the latter, but that is a limitation of technology, not morality. That is why we use the term "pro-life", not "pro-pregnancy". We really do not care that a pregnancy ends (in fact it would be strange if it did not), only that a human life was needlessly taken.
If you murder someone using a gun, the fact that you owned and fired a gun is not evil, only the murder part is evil.
[–] 16343078? ago
Its also the blood of the man, he also should have the right to end it
There is literally no reason to abort unless you were raped or of the child is a literal subhuman or if you could be killed but I would make an exception to you, I hope you try to get an abortion in Ireland atleast they would refuse
No its not, unless you are an irresponsible whore
The moment she was pregnant she stops having an excuse for being irresponsible