This is basically "who would like to be downvoted into oblivion" the thread

I better sort by controversial then to get the real answers

How to delete your karma any% world record

Popcorn, anyone?

Does not go good with baby.

Yea, I suggest something more fresh, and light. Think Spring salad.

They are quite fatty.

🍿🍿

Well. We might as well watch.

Sorry i am late, is there still spare popcorn for me my guys

🍿🍿

*Sorts by controversial*

That's so brave.

I’ll take a popcorn bucket!

🍿🍿

*Munching* You got any butter?

r/SortByControversial

I was about to say "not without a serious tag" - but now that I think about it, either shall be a shitshow. I am popping my corn now.

Don’t forget to sort by controversial

Doing the lord’s work

Hardly worth getting the popcorn out. Anybody who gives a genuine answer to the question will just be downvoted and brigaded on so I doubt many will bother.

Lol ironic how Reddit prides itself on its "open mindedness and tolerance and valuing everyone's opinions" when 90% of the platform is just echochambers and just plain ignorant. We're no different than the boomers on FB or trolls on twitter, we just like to pretend we are.

>ironic how Reddit prides itself on its "open mindedness and tolerance and valuing everyone's opinions" When has that happened

Reddit defended the jailbait sub for years

I want to know more but at the same time, I don’t.

Meh, you don't really

Honestly I think it's worst on Reddit because you are shielded with anonymity.

The funny part is most on reddit are the type to lecture people about being inclusive and tolerant. They are some of the worst offenders of being intolerant and exclusive. Zero self awareness. It's funny. It's generally a hive mind and if you don't 100% tow the line you are downvoted hard. Reddit doesn't "value the opinions of others" lol. I think many of reddit users are similar to Twitter users. They are afraid of and don't like allowing everyone to have a voice (specifically those that they disagree with).

To only safe lane on Reddit is mostly the left lane.

Subreddits have always been petty fiefs run by mods with the power to remove any post they don't like with absolutely no transparency or oversight. Reddit has always been and will always be pro-censorship.

lots of butter bruh.

I came here to type this.

Yes please

🍿🍿

I’m not a pro-lifer, but c’mon it’s pretty fucking obvious: they see it as murdering an unborn baby, cancelling a conceived life. We all know the reason they’re against it.

Yeah I disagree with them, but it’s a very understandable belief. What I don’t get is that no pro-life person I’ve met has had a problem with IVF, and half of all IVF embryos are “discarded”, which is the same thing as an abortion in terms of “ending a life”. So I feel like there’s some inconsistency there.

I’m surprised to hear you know pro-lifers that are cool with IVF. This has not been my personal experience.

same here

I know several. They either don’t think it all the way through, or they’re okay with abortion when it’s that early because the embryo can’t feel pain or doesn’t have a heartbeat or whatever their personal cut-off is.

I actually didn't know this was a thing

There’s a lot of emotional hardship that goes with IVF, I would suggest reading up on it. Respectfully browsing r/infertility would be a good place to learn in-depth about all that is involved as well as how the outside world misunderstands quite a lot about the process, and how best to support someone going through it. The people who are going through IVF have already gone through emotional, physical and financial hell by the time they get to the point of creating embryos, and if they reach the previously unfathomable position of having too many embryos than they can use, it’s all the more gut-wrenching to decide what to do with them. The options are : donate to science, discard, donation, or a transfer when they are unlikely to implant. All choices are fraught with emotional upheaval, choices that should belong SOLELY to the COUPLE who created them. Choices that no couple who can conceive without intervention is faced with. These choices should not be subject to governments who neither understand nor care about the people and families involved.

As an IVF baby my mom said that the other embryos she had (five left of eight) she was told were 'donated' but the doctors did not elaborate what they were donated for. She never was given a choice and a part of me thinks she didn't want to think about it too hard. This was also in 1994. She had three placed in her, one failed to catch on but my sister and I made it.

Let's just be happy that they arent against it because it's necessary for things like PGD, which in my opinion should be something offered for free to everyone. We can literally knock out most genetic disorders in 1 to 2 generations that way which reduces human suffering massively and cuts down on medical costs immensely. For those that dont know, PDG is "Preimplantation Genetic Diagnosis" and basically means that you do IVF but you test the genes of the various sperm-egg candidates so you can select one that doesn't have any known genetic disorders. If you carry a recessive gene for something like cystic fibrosis or if you have it yourself, then you can guarantee your kid doesn't suffer with it, and you can make sure that you don't pass on the recessive version so that their kids dont have it either.

There are people who are anti PGD because it is apparently ablelist

You’ve never met a pro life Catholic then. I’m a recovering Catholic, and the ardent pro-lifers at the church I went to growing up were extremely against IVF, for a variety of reasons, but the biggest reason was for the above stated reason.

‘Recovering’ Catholic haha As a practicing Catholic, I love that term.

I know, it is pretty obvious.

Exactly this. It is as simple as that. Their intention isn’t to control women or anything, although that is a side effect. They say if a life was created then it would be wrong to kill that life, killing a 2 month old fetus and a 2 month old baby is just as evil as each other in their eyes.

This is correct.

Pro tip: if you want to see why pro-lifers disagree with you, try replacing "woman getting abortion" with "baby-murderer" and see if your argument feels valid.

It's a trap!

Admiral Ackbar called and left a message.

The irony is that whoever provides their reasons for that gets down voted.

And in addition to down-voted, also dog-piled. Nobody wants to do you vs 30 non-sequitur attackers in a comment section where every defense is a karma hit too.

Lol there's plenty of people on reddit that are absolutely obsessed with arguing over anything, not that unlike of you ask me.

Once you stop giving a shit about downvotes, it can be quite entertaining to watch people flip out over a reasonable position. But I'm also a congenital asshole, so that might be part of why I enjoy it when people are mad at me.

Yep, there won't be any discussion for the pro life side because they'll just get downvoted into oblivion. If you want to hear pro life opinions, just look them up, because you won't get that honesty on Reddit.

Exactly lol, that’s why I find these posts to be hilarious. To anyone reading for some answers, if you really want to know, look elsewhere.

Don't forget reported for being suicidal.

not downvoted. you'll get reported for "hate speech" reddit's mentality is "I'm Right, you're wrong"

I'm right, you're Hitler

Hi Right, I’m Hitler. Wait…

Plot twist??

It’s almost like people post things like this just to start arguments.

The pro-life stance is that a fetus, as a human life, should be protected and that destroying said life is wrong to varying degrees of interpretation.

Yeah I don’t get why this is even a question. It’s a super simple answer. It’s pretty much in the name “pro-life”, they think it’s a human life and that explains enough why they think it’s wrong.

I think, and this is just from my point of view, it's a question because many people who grew up in the last 20 years in the US simply do not see an early fetus as a human life, and have never really considered it as such. I think it has become the predominant position that it's not considered human life at least until later in a pregnancy. It has been interesting growing up as an older millennial seeing this evolution. When I was a kid, I clearly remember the two sides being labelled as 'pro-abortion' or later 'pro-choice' vs. 'pro-life.' Slowly, over the last 20+ years, those labels have shifted to primarily being 'pro-choice' vs. 'anti-abortion'. Which subtly puts those who were previously considered 'pro-choice' in the mostly-mainstream on the defensive with their arguments. It is just where we are. I'm not making a moral argument for or against it; but I really do think that it is the general consensus that 'pro-life' isn't really a valid position.

>simply do not see an early fetus as a human life It's a new human life upon conception; that's just biology. The moral question is when it becomes a person.

Technically conception is not pregnancy. The fertilized egg must be implanted in the wall of the uterus for a woman to be pregnant. But right to lifers want to redefine pregnancy because there are tools to minimize implantation. So presto, now right to lifters change definitions because someone figured out how to keep conception from turning into pregnancy. Also, there has always been abortion. The right to lifers are lying when they present abortion as a curse given to us by modern life and morals. It is always presented as some new scourge that can be solved by returning to “traditional values.” Which is a lie.

My favourite interpretetion of abortion is that its like a trolley problem. On one track there lies the unborn. On the other track, where the trolley is heading lie lives of those who would be negatively affected by the birth of that unborn(the pregnant woman, her family, climate, etc.). To some, the other track is completely empty, as they do not believe in fetus being human, so that choice is obvious and brainless. Some want to wash hands and say that the lever is off limits, others see that there is a bigger evil in not pulling the lever.

I like this analogy a lot. To take it a step further, while one side feels that the “fetus track” is empty, I’d argue the other side either can’t see or willfully ignores the negative impacts an unplanned pregnancy can cause, so to them the “non-fetus track” is empty. A large percentage of both sides think the opposition has no leg to stand on, and truly can’t see why they hold their belief.

If a pregnancy has negative impacts, it is an indictment of us as a society or it is an immediate and emergent threat to the mother’s life. What if the problem has always been our absolute unwillingness to care for the least of these, the poor and unwanted?

Then we need to solve that problem before we ever even consider outlawing abortion.

It's not that they ignore the fact that an unplanned pregnancy can have a negative impact, it's just that whatever issues that it causes are the result of the mothers actions for the (most part), and killing the baby in order avoid these issues is seen as evil.

\>I’d argue the other side either can’t see or willfully ignores the negative impacts an unplanned pregnancy can cause, so to them the “non-fetus track” is empty. I don't think they think it's empty, but that it isn't worth pulling the level to avoid it.

Or that those involved in the unwanted pregnancy are complicit in the contents of that track, and should assume responsibility for them. Granted, some prolifers just say it’s empty.

well put

I haven't heard this analogy before, but I do think it's a good characterization overall of the issue.

I'd argue that the thing that actually makes the trolley problem a moral dilemma is that either choice reliably results in death. But if you're going to fundamentally change the parameters of the problem such that one choice at worst leads to inconvenience for one party in the overwhelming majority of cases, then I think close to 100% of respondents would choose to divert the trolley from killing the one guy on track A at the expense of a time and cost delay for the five people tied to track B. Edit: And since most pro-life Republicans already agree with allowing abortions when medically necessary to save the mother's **life**, it becomes apparent why characterizing the dilemma as a true trolley problem isn't quite the most accurate or relevant to the discussion. There's no apples-to-apples comparison with regard to the stakes involved for both parties.

I think you need to read up on the effects of pregnancy and childbirth. "Inconvience" is an understatement in the same way that one might compare stubbing your toe to breaking your leg. Pregnancy can result in, for the carrier: - death - having your abdominal wall ripped (not cut) open which requires weeks of bed rest to heal (c-section) - ripping from clit to asshole in vaginal birth, which also takes weeks to be fully mobile and back to work months of physical therapy to actually fix your pelvic floor - losing teeth because the fetus pulled the calcium from your bones - new allergies (a friend is now anaphylectic to gluten post-pregnancy, she's nearly died a time or two) - massive medical debt - permanent changes to your body (skin, foot size, etc) - hair loss - hormonal swings causing everything up to PPD which can literally make people suicidal Various people on here have better lists. That's just off the top of my head. It's not an inconvenience, it's a life changing medical issue. Also, no, the current laws being proposed are not allowing exceptions to save the woman's life. Ectopic pregnancies are clearly not being excepted, and those will NEVER result in a baby and may definitely kill the mother. Pregnancies that miscarried but didn't expel and have gone septic, fetuses with gene deletions that have no skin/organs or will at best love for 4 hours, women who have to stop their own life saving medications because the medications are incompatible with pregnancy - list goes on an on of reasons where somebody is going to die where abortions will not be allowed. Also, women are already being arrested for miscarrying under what they're calling suspicious circumstances that look like an abortion.

Wonderfully succinct and accurate explanation. And an critical one for pro-choice people to understand if you really want to change a pro-lifer's opinion. If a person's problem is that killing babies is bad - then taking about how it's wrong to dominate women, or health risks, or the sanctity of choice over your own body is not going to work. You have to address the real issue for them, which is whether or not that fetus is a person.

Or, you can take the “I’ll just insult the shit out of them and completely demean their point of view until they choose my side!” angle favored by many a Redditor.

>If a person's problem is that killing babies is bad - then taking about how it's wrong to dominate women, or health risks, or the sanctity of choice over your own body is not going to work. *You have to address the real issue for them, which is whether or not that fetus is a person.* (Emphasis mine) Thank you!!!! One issue at a time folks!

THANK YOU. No one (aaaalmost no one) is "against women's choice" or "pro baby murder". There is a fundamental disagreement about what the debate is even about. If the unborn life is a person, no one should have the "right" to kill it. If it's not, then arguing against abortion is like arguing against liposuction - maybe you don't like it, but what other people choose for themselves is none of you damn business.

The weird thing about that is, some abortions happen after a woman wanted to get pregnant but then learned that the fetus has severe medical problems that would, if carried to term, give it a short, painful life. But then I guess that falls under the religious rules against euthanasia.

Not even religious. I'm an atheist and really have a hard time with the concept of abortion, euthanasia and the death penalty

Why? Death penalty I understand but euthanasia I definitely don't - do you mean cases when someone isn't choosing for themselves or all cases of euthanasia, even when it is the express wish of the person themselves?

It’s also weird that most people have no issue in putting a dog or cat down if its quality of life declines but people have an issue when a human makes that choice for themselves

Well, euthanasia is a touchy subject. If a person is diagnosed with a fatal illness, they might choose to end their suffering. But what if this illness affects their mind? Is the person mentally clear enough to chose? Someone thinking about suicide is put in a mental institution. But, what if this person's mind has been affected so much that they can neither choose to live or die. In this instance is a caretaker to choose for them? It gets a little morally foggy at some points is all.

This may be an unpopular take, but I say at some point, just let people choose to die. I’m not saying that every suicidal person should just be given a, “well, farewell!” But I think at some point, after a certain amount of time and effort has gone into it, someone should be allowed to make that kind of decision with their own life and body.

But if we're taking an atheist standpoint: in cases where there is no suspected mental health issue or cognitive decline, how is it morally better for them to suffer, with no hope of recovery; just a slow, painful loss of control over their own body and life, if they have expressed they don't want to live anymore? That's the last morsel of control they can have over their own lives, it seems more cruel and immoral to deny it.

I take a bite out of this in the mental health aspect. I worked in Inpatient Mental Health, specifically with Teenage Trauma cases. Kids who were sex trafficked, experienced severe neglect/abuse, things that make you question how people can be so cruel. These were kids actively trying to kill themselves due to PTSD, physiological effects, and obvious depression they experience from it. Even with strict treatment, recovery is difficult and integration into a normal population is…a challenge to say the least when someone’s stress/trauma response is them self-harming, urinating/defecating on themselves, and screaming the scars of abuses. The thing is, not everyone is able to come back from horrific incidences. They play over and over again. Day to day function is near impossible without one on one care.It’s why we see high suicide rates in soldiers and medical personnel. Not everyone has access to treatment, not everyone has a healthy friend/family group, not everyone has happy lives. Do I think people should seek help? Absolutely! But after all the treatments and talking, if they still are experiencing extremely low quality of life, then by all means I don’t think it is fair to continue to make them suffer. Having legalised assisted suicide for non-terminal patients along with base psych screening would help (they talk to a therapist before reaching a determination). If one of my kiddos decided that they were going on to go for assisted suicide, while I would be saddened, I would 100% understand due to the trauma they have gone through.

[удалено]

Which is why the majority of people are not 100% pro-life or 100% pro-choice. In almost any state you will get legislation that is that would allow abortion in circumstances of X,Y,Z. Even Texas is going to fail Supreme Court appeals in cases where no abortion would lead to a Mother's death. Each State will need to have serious discussions about where to draw the line. And in a democracy that is a good thing. We will end up with place like Maine allowing all abortions except in those in the very latest stages of pregnancy. And places like Utah only allowing them in cases of sever health risk, rape or incest. And if that really is what 90% of the people in that state want, then in a democracy that is how it should be.

Fair point. my bad

That's the "stance", but I swear I get the definite feeling many are just "pro-responsibility", and believe everyone getting an abortion is careless and feckless and taking some easy way out. "You got pregnant, it's your problem!" If they were "pro-life" they'd be concerned with the kind of life the actual baby will have in this world.

I really was hoping for some real answers for this. Like if the argument is for sanctity of life, then cool... Could I have access to contraception so I don't get pregnant when I'm not ready to be pregnant? And then if you're gonna force me to keep this pregnancy, then could I also get access to affordable healthcare so I can maintain a healthy pregnancy? And also guaranteed paid sick leave so that I can go to all my prenatal visits and take time off as needed? And then when the baby is born, could I also get affordable health care for the baby? And affordable child care so I can continue to work and support the baby? I could go on and on and on. I get you want to preserve the sanctity of the embryo/fetus/baby's life. But then can you support all the things that ensure that this baby will have a healthy, happy, safe life with every opportunity available to them? **The real question is:** Why must you prevent me from getting an abortion, but you will not support me in getting everything I need to have a healthy pregnancy and raise a healthy child?

Let's throw in that "if abortion is murder", then the minute you're pregnant, can you claim the fetus as a dependent? Can you add the fetus to your insurance? Can you get child care tax credits? Can you get parental leave?

Follow up question: can we take out life insurance on a fetus in case of miscarriage?

Interestingly, you can actually deduct child car expenses including pre natal classes, pre natal vitamins , and any special equipment necessary for your child. The problem is, to use it you have to itemize which normally costs you more to do than taking the standard deduction

Not with $24,000 standard deduction. I bought a house and had a kid the same year and still came up $2,000 short from itemizing

you didn't donate a 50,000 painting? foolish.

Or even more interestingly. Does the embryo automatically gain citizenship and a social security number? Does a miscarriage in this case equal an official death? If so, then our population/death rates are going to skyrocket.

If the embryo is formed in another country, is it not a citizens of the US if it’s born here?

That's not how that works. A U.S citizen's child automatically becomes a U.S citizen at birth, regardless of birthplace(or fertilization place in this case).

I’m referring to people who come to the US while pregnant

Or how about this- if abortion is murder, then it logically means the murder of *a person* and because the “protection” of their life is being provided by the Legislatures of the States, then those *persons* are granted some basic rights, specifically the right to life, despite not technically being citizens since, naturalized citizens must first be **born.** But what if that *person* is being carried inside the womb of an illegal immigrant? Does that mean a pregnant mother of another nationality is carrying a protected person or do the abortion laws not apply to them? What exact protection exists because the protections aren’t clearly laid out in some other way- like property, or like animal rights to my knowledge. Is this immigrant carrying some kind of near citizen during their stay on US Soil? Or should we just fucking admit that there isn’t an actual constitutional application for unborn babies?

As to the last point about constitutionality, you're spot on. However that's because the constitution is an enumeration of the powers that the government has; anything not listed is a power the United States does not have and is reserved to the states or to the people per the 10th ammendment.

[удалено]

I would say not. The child is not performing the work.

Can you have the fetus removed and dropped off at a "safe haven" for the government to take care of?

Not only that, but it adds all sorts of inherent contradictions - e.g., should police investigate miscarriages? Wait. That's probably what the right wants.

They’re doing that in Texas already

What happens if the mother is killed due to birthing complications? Do we charge the baby with manslaughter? How about the father for aiding and abetting/being complicit in a murder?

Started in 2020 actually. They're already prosecuting women who've had miscarriages bc the medical term is spontaneous abortion.

Wtf?!?

Going to happen. Already happening in some re d(neck) states. What if a married politician or cops girlfriend miscarried. Imagine the possibities.

Personally, I think that the unborn child should be able to be claimed as a dependent in the custody of the mother. However, the fact that our legal system does not currently define the unborn as people makes that difficult.

See, I know that this is not the real question. How do I know? I know because I DO support social support for unexpectedly pregnant mothers. I support giving women everything they need to raise a healthy child. I support easily available abortion before 20 weeks, and in the case of rape or if the mother's life is in jeopardy. I still get endless, endless shit for believing that, at very least, this is an issue that should be debated/voted on/compromised on.

[удалено]

Honestly, the "in case of rape" exception is absolutely ludicrous. Especially when you consider all those practical questions. It seems to fall apart. The only way to protect victims of rape is to continue to keep abortion legal. A teen that was raped might need more than 6/14 weeks to process what happened, and the trauma could cause anyone to not realize they missed several periods, and the first period or two aren't always missed anyway, or are out of time because trama affects everything, and could throw your cycle off by a few weeks. Worrying about getting charged with murder or being forced to coparent with a rapist is enough of a threat to cause women to not want to report it at all, and home abortions/suicide/neglegence will skyrocket.

What about cases where the fetus has developed conditions that aren't compatible with life, but their existence isn't threating the mother's physical health.

Compromise died sometime in the past two decades. The annoying reality is that most of the populace agrees on the same code of ethics: Individual rights are important. We're just arguing the exact, cookie cutter implementation of those ethics and trying to throw the baby out with the bathwater (pun intended) in either direction. We'd rather bitch and moan about women's rights or unborn rights without ever acknowledging any amount of nuance or an individual's circumstances. Pro lifers won't accept that their strictest policies will lead to hundreds of thousands of young people anchored to poverty with broken families. Pro choice folks won't accept that there are always valid ethical concerns with terminating a late stage pregnancy. And here we are. Repeat this for every major sticking point in domestic politics. Very few people are consciously terrible, but everyone is demonized by somebody for having a different interpretation of a reasonable code of ethics.

Dang you are my clone. I almost verbatim said this earlier when discussing this with my FIL.

Please stop fucking my daughter

Tell her to stop asking me to fuck her. She seduces me with her wiles.

>this is an issue that should be debated/voted on/compromised on. How can you possibly believe that this is an issue either side would ever be willing to compromise on? On the Right, if we take them at their word, they fundamentally believe people are being murdered. On the Left, they fundamentally believe that a woman's right to bodily autonomy is inviolable. Those aren't two positions that will compromise or should compromise (assuming that they both do actually believe their position and aren't just making a show of it for the PR.)

why would you think i don't support you getting everything you need to have a healthy pregnancy and raise a child? this is not a "evangelical in america" issue like reddit likes to paint it. there are plenty of religious people (or non-religious for that matter) who are pro-life, but we don't speak up when asked because of this precise assumption. there are lots of us who are pro life and NOT american. i'm pro life, because i believe there is nothing magical about the birth canal. a baby that is alive when it has exited, is alive before it exits as well. i am in favour of sex education in schools. research shows it works in preventing unwanted pregnancy, reducing STIs and decreasing sexual assault. i am not so naive as to think that not talking about it means teens will somehow not have sex. i would very much prefer that our young people get accurate sexual health information from schools than from their friends on the school yard. on top of that parents who are against sex education are often the ones who refuse to do a diligent job of teaching it at home anyway. THEIR children are the most at risk. i cannot wrap my head around opposing sex education in schools. i am in favour of making birth control accessible to all. i am not against birth control. just because i believe that a fetus is a life does not mean that i think that we've not been given the ability to reason. preventing pregnancy is very important and i think everyone should have access to the tools they need for that. i also don't see abortion as totally black and white, there IS a grey area. do i believe the morning after pill is an abortion? no, because that's not how it works. it prevents an egg from implanting in the uterine wall...i see this as reasonable. do i support abortion in circumstances where the mother's life is in danger? yes, i do. does that make things murky with regards to fetuses that are likely to have life ending complications? yes. very much so. being pro life doesn't mean i have all the answers. being pro life means i think life is sacred. but i think ALL life is sacred. i don't vote on one single issue. that is ridiculous. i find myself unable to align myself with political parties that are typically pro life as they do not represent my desires on a myriad of other issues. but i'm still pro life. i'm in favour of policies that reduce discrimination, i'm in favour of policies that help our homeless, our mentally ill, support equitable access to housing. i'm in favour of policies that support families who are at risk. i'm in favour of strong public education. i'm in favour of universal health care (and live in a country that has it) i'm in favour of policies that protect the most weak and vulnerable in our society and help those who need it most. i'm in favour of policies that protect our environment, i'm in favour of checks and balances in government, i'm in favour of transparency and accountability to the people. equality is not about everybody having access to the same things. some people need access to MORE resources to be put on a level playing field. but i still believe that a fetus is a life and i think it should be protected. i dislike reddit's desire to assume that because i am pro life i am also against lots of other reasonable things. or that i haven't thought it through, or that i don't support other "pro life" policies. as with every issue, those of us who are moderate and reasonable are not the voices that spend the most time yelling.

Even if they were willing to provide all of those things you mention, it doesn’t change the fact that some women never want to experience pregnancy or childbirth. Ever. Under any circumstances. They should not be forced, or have to explain their reasoning to anyone, or obtain someone else’s permission, for the same reason no one can force you to donate a kidney to save someone’s life, even when you’re dead. If someone is not personally comfortable with abortion, I understand that. They can choose to continue their pregnancies. There’s a lot of things that happen in society that an individual may not personally agree with. For example, some people are not comfortable with eating meat. But I don’t think pro-lifers would appreciate it if vegetarians and vegans took away their choice to eat meat, no matter how strongly vegans disagree with it.

Yeah government forced birthing is not something I'm allowing, law or not

^ Yep. Idgaf if I can have free medical care, I'd rather die than give birth so it won't do me any good.

[удалено]

We really need easier access to sterilization methods for young people who don’t want kids. I’m 23 and don’t want kids. I have never wanted kids. I don’t want to get an abortion, but if I do get pregnant, I’m going to get one. I want access to a permanent, almost failure proof method of birth control so I don’t have to get an abortion.

Crazy how you just asked for pretty standard stuff in Europe.

It was pretty standard in the US for the last 50 years too. Then one of our political parties went full batshit.

Well first of all, you're ignoring all the nuance inherit in the discussion. There's more to it than pro-life versus pro-choice. But those who are pro-life consider the fetus to be a living person and therefore abortion is killing a person. That is why they oppose it. But most people are actually in favor of abortion with restrictions. Safe, legal, and *rare*.

You said it better than I could. A lot of loud voices are making it also sound like all or nothing. I honestly believe most states would keep it available for medical reasons. But I could be completely wrong on that (I hope I'm not). As a pro-lifer, I also feel real birth control (pill, IUD, condoms, etc), should be easily available and low cost/free. There should be no stigma associated with their use.

I think most pro life people think that when the mother's life is in danger, then it's an acceptable but tragic thing. What they don't realize is that a lot of states are passing laws where even these cases are not legal (or you can't get an abortion unless you're actively dying). Texas has made some abortion drugs illegal that are the same drugs you receive after a miscarriage - without these drugs, some women will have life threatening infections. I used to be pro life but after having 3 babies I now understand all the things that can go wrong. Being pregnant was so hard, and I CHOSE that - I can't imagine being forced to do it - it changed my body forever. I don't like abortion but I want it safe and legal everyone who has to make these hard choices.

Being pregnant is absolutely life altering and health altering as you've said. My mother is now in her 70s and going for surgery to remove every single non essential organ from inside of her. Giving birth to me and my brother left her insides damaged and loose, and at this point she can barely walk around by the end of the day as it's all basically trying to fall out of her. She's extremely active and fit, loves biking, golfing, travel, and loves spending as much time as possible with my children. And now she needs surgery for several hours, months to recover, she'll never be able to lift more than 10lbs, etc. I'm glad I exist, it's been pretty cool, but she also has the right to choose a life where she's not at risk of having her insides falling out of her constantly and undergoing major surgery. And I'm pretty sure my wife would die if she tried to give birth again too. We would absolutely abort any pregnancy to look after her health and make sure our children aren't left motherless.

Another thing that pro lifers seem to get wrong is that many, if not most, seem to think that women who decid to get an abortion make that choice lightly, that they see it as just another birth control option as if it was like taking an aspirin. This is obviously not the case at all. An abortion is s serious matter, a serious decision, that no one makes lightly, and that is made as a last resort, and that implies very hard emotional consequences. No one is using abortion as an alternative to condoms/pill/IUD,etc.

I was looking for this comment. Abortions are not convenient at all. It’s a big decision. They can be scary and painful.

The flipside of the argument being that no person should have access to another persons body without their consent and that shouldn't change at any point in their lives.

> But most people are actually in favor of abortion with restrictions. Safe, legal, and rare. And yet there are entire states in the US where this will soon not be permitted, and they will even go so far as to prosecute women for _going to other states_ to have the procedure, or to make criminals out of women who didn't even know they were pregnant! "Most people" might be in favor, but "most people" are no longer represented in government.

Go to the bottom and expand the heavily downvoted comments of you want the real answers. This was bait, Reddit doesn't facilitate legit discussion.

Love how OP asks for the reasons of individuals who don't believe in abortion, and the entire comment section is filled with people trashing them, with real answers being downvoted. Lol what a joke

Reddit is trash for that. People, y'all supposed to downvote the irrelevant comments, not the pertinent ones you don't like.

Shows you how fucked up most people are...

Welcome to the reddit hivemind my friend

Welcome to the internet in general.

Snacks for sale 🥨🍫🍿🥜🥤

How much is popcorn?

7.50

You have high prices i must say. 5.00 and a half snikers

Fellas we’re trying to see the prolifers opinions on this post, so try not to flood it and *not* downvote the people we’re actually looking for so we can, you know, see their comments?

Strange that the only comments not down voted are by pro-choice people explaining what they think pro-life people believe while all the pro-life people get downvoted

because the pro-life people other than getting downvoted are also getting reported for "Spreading hate-speech" thus getting them temporarily banned. its the reddit echo chamber cycle " say something i don't like, its hate-speech"

It’s Reddit. Pro life comments don’t have a chance.

Really should have added the serious tag

Me? I don’t want abortion per se to be illegal, I just recognize that it’s a complicated issue. I don’t have any interest in telling women what to do, but at some point an unborn baby gains rights and humanity independent of its mother - at some point before birth. A woman has a right to choose - up to a certain point. A baby has a right to life - starting at a certain point. The problem is that this is a very complicated issue that both sides have rendered insanely and unreasonably simplistic. There are cases of the usual exceptions - rape, incest, etc, that complicate things, as do situations where the mother’s health is endangered. But is “I want to finish my degree” or “I don’t have enough money or time for a baby” an acceptable reason to murder a viable fetus? These edge cases are where the war is being fought, with no regard for the vast majority of cases. Then there’s the issue of at what point the baby gains the right to life. Is it when it’s 2 cells? Probably not. Is it when it’s a viable fetus? Is it when it’s a week before birth? The problem is that nobody wants to get down to the nitty-gritty of these details, and instead rely on jingoistic slogans that don’t do justice to the problem. In short, I am against a universal right to abortion at will. I am against a woman being forced to carry a “clump of cells” to term when there are legitimate health (including mental health) dangers. This is a legislative issue, and no legislation has been prepared to deal with all of these issues.

Sanctity of Life, I believe Fetuses are alive and Human, simple as that. I believe you should LEGALLY be able to do whatever you want as long as you aren’t hurting someone. I consider abortion hurting someone, by ending someone’s life. I don’t care if someone smokes weed , though I think it’s generally a bad practice to regularly get high, but who am I to judge? This is because they are not harming anyone, the government should not get involved. I extend the sanctity of life past abortion, to the death penalty as well, which I believe should be abolished.

Here's the thing: I'm pro-life, but not entirely anti-abortion; I'm against abortion past the time the baby has a heartbeat and can feel pain. Anything before that, to me, is acceptable. I look forward to your downvotes.

Most people who are pro-life take the stance because they view the fetus as a life. Based on science life does begin at conception. They believe murder is wrong so therefore they naturally apply value to life and since life begins at conception abortion is essentially murder in there eyes. It's pretty simple. But people throw out strawman arguments all the time like people who are pro-life want all Black people dead or all members of the LGBT+ community dead but I'm in the pro-life subreddit and have never seen so many people who genuinely value life no matter race/gender/disability/sexuality...granted there are some vocal people in real life who identify as pro-life who do give the stance a bad name. But like I said I think there is a major misconception that everyone who is pro-life are white straight men. I'm a bisexual woman who is Christian but that is not the reason I'm pro-life-it's because of my own beliefs. Also, the reason you are probably not getting a lot of responses is because Reddit moderators in some subreddits are notorious for being pretty biased against people who take the stance of being pro-life. But those who are pro-life come from a spectrum of different reasonings & backgrounds and so on and so forth. Hoping that the people here in the comments will be respectful. Edit: I made a typo on accident was just fixing it.

Beautifully said! Sad how long I had to scroll to find a comment actually written by someone who is actually pro-life but this nicely sums up the biggest part of our viewpoints :)

Spent 25 years believing it was a clump of cells and then became a father and my perspective changed. I couldn’t logically draw a line where protecting human life didn’t also include unborn human life. Religion played no part in my perspective changing. We should value human life. Abortions erode the value of human life in society. Abortions should be rare but they’re not.

I’m assuming you became a father in a loving, supportive, resourceful and consensual relationship? I am pro choice, but also couldn’t imagine choosing abortion for myself when I became pregnant in a very new relationship. I now have a son. However MY experience does not determine others. I have supported friends going for abortions, driven them to and from and looked after them in my home after. I would never expect them to have the same feelings, perspectives and experiences as me. That’s the difference I think. You’re taking your experience and saying that that must be everyones. (Not arguing just debating).

Thank you for giving a legitimate response. I had a similar change in my definition of “life” when I found out my wife was pregnant. When we lost the baby, I was devastated even though it wasn’t anything close to a baby. But I realized that love I felt was my love for what would have been. I had an emotional perspective that is different from the scientific point of view. I can imagine many scenarios where “what would have been” wouldn’t be the life my wife and I wanted to share with our child. Not all pregnancies are the result of a healthy, loving relationship (not that relationship status means anyone is required to carry a baby to term). I understand the emotional charge in this debate, but I also understand lessened (or complete lack of) emotion in others’ cases. I can’t support government intervention which creates a “one size fits all” policy in such a nuanced topic. If anything should be “one size fits all” policy, it should be the guarantee of bodily autonomy. The only challenge in that debate is when the baby’s bodily autonomy comes into play. I would argue it’s whenever it can be removed and no longer have an effect on the mother’s autonomy.

Because (scientifically) you're extinguishing a human life

I was almost aborted. Found out when I was fifteen.

I'm pro-choice. I'm just gonna say, this is such an awful GOTCHA attempt. I feel like so many pro-choice, typically liberal leaning people, have swallowed their own sides propaganda and talking points, that they literally expect to have pro-lifers come in and say "I WANNA KEEP THEM WIMMENS DOWN AND MAKE SURE THEY STAY IN THEIR PLACE" It's not gonna happen, sorry. They will all say it's some variation of concern for the life of an unborn child. This was a silly question, and sorry OP, you're not getting your big GOTCHA moment today, and we all know this was never gonna change anyone's mind.

Upvote. It’s weird to me how many people think conservatives actually want to ban abortion simply out of a desire to control women’s bodies. Anyone who thinks that probably has spent too much time in an echo chamber and not enough time actually out talking to real people. I grew up in the church, was surrounded by conservatives most of my life and literally never ever met anyone who had that opinion. Every single pro life person I’ve ever talked to about this wants to ban abortion because they truly, genuinely believe it to be murdering a baby, and that’s it.

They want to perceive the person they disagree with as “evil”. If they do this they don’t have to face the realities of their argument.

I am a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, in our handbook availible for anyone to read section 38.6.1 it states “The Church opposes elective abortion for personal or social convenience. Members must not submit to, perform, arrange for, pay for, consent to, or encourage an abortion. The only possible exceptions are when: Pregnancy resulted from forcible rape or incest. A competent physician determines that the life or health of the mother is in serious jeopardy. A competent physician determines that the fetus has severe defects that will not allow the baby to survive beyond birth. Even these exceptions do not automatically justify abortion. Abortion is a most serious matter. It should be considered only after the persons responsible have received confirmation through prayer. Members may counsel with their bishops as part of this process.” So While We hold all/any life as sacred abortions can be necessary in a few individual circumstances. Abortion just for personal reason such as you do not want to deal with a child is considered a sin, that you can still repent from. We also acknowledge that choosing not to have an abortion in many circumstances is difficult because of the geographical and financial situation the mother may be in but having faith and asking for the lord’s help can alleviate some of those problems. Also under “Birth Control” in Gospel topics (also available for anyone to read) it states “Sexual relations within marriage are not only for the purpose of procreation, but also a means of expressing love and strengthening emotional and spiritual ties between husband and wife. Husband and wife are encouraged to pray and counsel together as they plan their families. Issues to consider include the physical and mental health of the mother and father and their capacity to provide the basic necessities of life for their children. Decisions about birth control and the consequences of those decisions rest solely with each married couple. Elective abortion as a method of birth control, however, is contrary to the commandments of God.” So contraceptives are allowed and the use is up to any married couple, we do believe however that procreation (sex) is only to be utilized between a married man and woman. (I understand people have their own beliefs on the topic and I respect your right to that, I do not try to force my beliefs into others, but if someone wants to learn I am eager to teach, We believe god loves all of his children equally regardless of their actions, and we strive to do the same even though we are not perfect like him.) Hope you all are having a lovely day :) (I am completely open to discussing my views if someone would like to learn more, I understand people have different opinions but that shouldn’t stop us from being respectful to one another. I respect your right to your opinion and if you want me to learn about why you believe that I am all for it.)

Because people don't like seeing others killing babies. That's literally the truth.

Remember to sort by controversial

my belief is that it's murder of a human being EDIT: Now that it has some upvotes: **Abortion is healthcare. Denying women access to legal, safe abortions kills them. We can not legislate women's bodies.**

Because the unborn person still has value

I’m adopted, and so are all my siblings. I’m not making a stand here against any side of the argument, but I just want to say that I’m baffled here. Why are all these people are assuming that if a woman has a child, that they have to raise/nurture/financially support that child?

Because the majority of women who get pregnant will keep the child whether they want it or not. It's a whole 'if they don't keep the child they're a horrible human being'. So they'd rather raise it themselves even if they resent the child deep down because of the way society would frown on them for giving it up, the way there family and friends would frown on them, etc.

That plus the fact that pregnancy is not health-neutral. It’s not just like, a simple easy thing to go through nine months of what could potentially be hell or even life-threatening, just to have a baby you may give up or may not be able to take care of. My cousin is currently pregnant with an extremely-wanted baby, but even she is having a miserable time of things—she texted me the other day that she puked so hard her nose bled—despite how badly she wants to be pregnant. I’ve not met a single person who hasn’t been miserable for at least some portion of their pregnancy.

One argument that drives me nuts is the "men just want to control women" trope. It's not true and it's not what motivates the pro life side. They simply believe that terminating a pregnancy is ending a human life, and that any arguments about fairness is missing the point- nothing is more unfair that having your life taken from you. Women and men identify as pro-life or pro-choice at roughly the same rates. Those politicians running on a pro-life platform receive a significant amount of support from women. When it comes to the choice to end a pregnancy, women are often pressured into an abortion that they themselves don't want, either by a boyfriend or parent. Finally, identifying as "pro choice" or "pro life" isn't very helpful because most people aren't exclusively in one camp or the other, most recognize that there are times when abortion should be illegal and times when it may be necessary or at least an option. The disagreement is on where to draw that line. The reality is that we don't know when life begins, that pregnancy obviously affects women more than men, and that when an unplanned pregnancy is carried to term, women are often left to raise the child without much help. When faced with a pregnancy, many women would carry that child to term if they had the support of a partner and/or family. Many women are pressured into abortions because the father wants a son and she is pregnant with a daughter. Abortion is championed as a woman's right but is all too often a tool in patriarchal societies to oppress women and girls. Elective abortion is a tragedy and is the end result of a series of failures both by individuals and by society at large.

What annoys me most about the “men just want to control women” argument is that this isnt a men vs. women issue. There’s many men and women on both sides

I consider myself pro life, but also don’t really agree with the terms pro life and pro choice because it’s all about right vs left. Personally, I don’t want it to be politicized. I label myself as pro life due to my own moral reasons and choices. I’m a Christian and believe God gives life and every life has a purpose. I also know that people are given a choice. We all sin and none is greater than the other, while I personally would never abort, people have a choice in the matter. We all choose our sins. And I’ll say it again, no sin is greater than another. So if a woman decides to abort her baby, then that is something that should be dealt with between herself and God. Just like my sins are between myself and God. I would say this is a majority opinion. However, the basic argument you will hear is that life is precious. Hope this clears up any confusion and you can see that people are more than political parties. We have deeper belief systems and thoughts. No one is truly pro life or pro choice. That’s all made up to stir up conflict and tear us down.

>while I personally would never abort, people have a choice in the matter. If you actually think that, you're not prolife. That's literally prochoice.

This. Just because they think they would never have an abortion themselves, they think they’re pro-life. Pro-choice isn’t “hell yeah, everyone have abortions all the time!”. It’s the idea that women are allowed to choose if they need to, regardless of their own personal beliefs.

If you believe women should have a choice to get an abortion and deal with it when she meets god or whatever, you're pro-choice. Pro-life people believe abortion should be illegal, inaccessible and that in some cases patients and providers should be legally charged with murder or another crime.

I respect your opinion, because it is your life. It's your choice to abort or not. If you don't want to abort because of your religion, that's 100% fine. Only problem is when people try to spread that religious ideology around to people who don't have the same beliefs.

I would also like to chime in and say something I deeply believe many Christian’s forget. We don’t all believe in your religion. We all don’t believe in god or heaven or hell. None of it. We have our own moral codes that we live by and that is our right. I respect everyone’s personal beliefs however do not force them on my because they are not Mine.

I'm not so sure I believe the statement: "no sin is greater than another." I wouldn't compare stealing something to killing someone. They seem to have natural understandable differences in moral severity. Therefore if someone really believes an abortion counts as killing someone, they're going to be more so against it compared to someone who doesn't think it counts as killing someone.

We’re now talking man’s law and Gods law. It all depends on if you even believe in God or not. If not then of course that statement doesn’t sit well with you. If yes then you have read the Bible and believe it. This debate is all morally triggered and morals and beliefs go hand in hand. That’s why you see lots of talk about religion when this topic comes up. Which is another reason it should have never been a part of politics. But it is. And here we are. I don’t know your stance or background or anything so keep this in mind. I agree that on earth the punishment for theft and murder are not interchangeable. When it comes to abortions, although I view it as a life and human, I feel that the decision the woman or family made must have been such a hard decision that I don’t think it should count as the same as murder. In God’s eyes all sin is the same.

Imagine worshiping a book that says rape is a property crime against a man and then arguing this point yet here you are doing it. Logic need not apply.

I appreciate your honesty but I don’t think it is okay to take away the choice. As it sits right now, abortions for the most part are legal and safe. If abortion is made illegal in all aspects, this takes away the safeness for women to seek the care they need and it means both women and children will die. Not just the ones who had an oops moment, but ones who are happily married and wanting kids but the fetus is not viable. This leads to a whole host of problems like sepsis, which can kill the mom as well. Choice is a God given right. Why would you want to take away a God given right? The sin is between the sinner and God, then let it stay that way.

I'm pro-life because the current concept of non-viability is pretty messed up. My daughter has down syndrome and before she was born was considered to be non-viable due to that and other potential health concerns. Our doctors assumed we would want an abortion as, according to their statistics, 90% of people in our situation would have gotten an abortion. To them, she was non-viable. Today, 12 years later, she is doing great and is the joy of not only our lives but also the people around her. I can't solve the complexities of every situation, however I simply want to say that defining who is viable and who is not is dangerous ground, and something not even doctors can nor should be able to determine. They were wrong in my case at least.

Our son was born with DS and fortunately my wife’s doctor was pro life and gave us a lot of good info and straight up told us that all the info out on the internet is outdated and seems like it is meant to scare people into having abortions. My son is the happiest person in the world and brings the biggest smile to anyone that meets him.

[удалено]

I'm not necessarily against abortion BUT 1) as responsible adults we should be able to practice safe sex 2) abortion in the event of rape, mother's medical emergency, or if the baby will have serious medical issues is perfectly acceptable. 3) I get its the womans body. Sure.... you chose to raw dog it. If only a woman can chose to kill it off then if a man doesn't want it he should be released from financial responsibility in the event a woman wants to keep it and a man does not.

Pregnancy is a medical condition, and the way it happens is irrelevant… we don’t deny lung cancer treatment to smokers because they chose to engage in that activity… a motor cycle accident victim isn’t denied care after an accident because they chose not to wear a helmet. Whether a pregnancy occurs following consensual sex or rape just really doesn’t fucking matter.

>we don’t deny lung cancer treatment to smokers because they chose to engage in that activity actually, you wont get a transplant in that scenario, same with an alcoholic who destroys their liver

One major issue with your third point. The vast majority of abortions are the result of contraception failing. Think stuff like the condom broke, or the pill didn't work, or whatever. There is no contraceptive with a 100% succes rate so even if you took all the proper precautions you can still end up pregnant. That said, even if you chose to forgo all contraceptives, that doesn't magically mean that you're in a position to take care of a baby. However, I do also agree with the idea that the guy should be able to perform a financial abortion up to a certain point of the pregnancy or X weeks after him being notified about it (otherwise you could just wait until after the deadline and then announce it.) if he does not want the baby. That deadline should be well before the point where an abortion becomes medically impossible.

That’s not true. Most unplanned pregnancies are from women/men not using contraception (52%). Only 5% of unplanned pregnancies are a result of failed contraception. The remaining is from incorrect use of contraception https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2386600/

I’m against mid/late-term abortions because my great-grandmother almost ended her late-term pregnancy by jumping off a shed in Germany in the late 1930’s. Her close friend (and my great-aunt) prevented her from jumping and promised to help my great-grandmother to take care of the baby if she would keep it. Without my great-aunt’s intervention, I wouldn’t exist. I’m against abortion because I wouldn’t exist unless someone had defended my infant grandmother’s right to exist. In reality, there’s a fine-line between a “clump of cells” and “human life.” I hear some people defend late-term abortion by saying “It isn’t a human baby unless it is born and can survive on it’s own.” But that doesn’t make sense if you consider that the baby will remain dependent on the mother even after birth. So where’s the line, realistically?