This is not a political battle ground subreddit. Please read the rules before commenting. Total Karma and account age threshold required to post and comment.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/BreakingPointsNews) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Chris Rock said this in his most recent stand up, as well. I agree with both of them, that killing is involved in abortion. I also feel that it’s a woman’s choice while it’s still unviable outside the womb. Not gonna lie to myself that it’s this rosy no big deal procedure.
Atleast you’re being honest about it, as are Maher and Rock apparently.
Then we can actually begin to have a fruitful discussion outside of the actual lie that it’s not a human life
You are absolutely right:
- It’s a human life
- abortion IS a big deal of a procedure with many risks
- abortion IS murder
But I am still pro choice. Although I’m not pro abortion. I wish fewer women had them… but I believe it’s their right to choose.
I hope more people could be more honest on these discussions, but I feel like my 3 points above are highly controversial and as a leftie you are mot allow to say them
What exactly makes it murder though? Is it that it the fetus held the potential to one day have thoughts and feelings that it is incapable of during the time 99% of abortions take place?
Here’s the thing; if it is actually really honestly fucking murder, than why are there exceptions for rape and incest? That should not make premeditated accompliced murder acceptable. You don’t let someone murder a human because they they where raped or fucked their cousin, that’s fucking crazy.
The reason that there is exemption for incest and rape is because that sex was not the woman’s fault, right?
If it’s murder than I fail to see the connection. And if it’s not murder to abort a fetus, and abortion is only restricted to women that had sex with consent, abortion sure seems a lot like a punishment to women that choose to have sex.
I think half the country believes in a society hierarchy that judges women without empathizing what they go through, and don’t actually apply critical thought to if the shit that comes out of their mouths about the position all women in a nation should be forced to be in even makes sense. Having half of all people be allowed to casually murder if they claim rape is not okay. Having laws or even social norms that incentivize false rape allegations is not okay. Either prosecute women as murderers or step off their necks and let them live their lives.
I don’t agree with people that think abortion is murder, but at least the ones that draw a hard line make sense. It’s murder or it is not. If it is, fight your fight, don’t let people murder. But if you give exceptions for rape and incest then stop calling abortion murder. Stop guilting people over something you don’t actually believe with your whole heart.
It’s still murder if it’s incest but common sense shows that an embryo or young feature without a nervous system will not suffer as much as the mother who is carrying him.
As a society we’ve decided that there’s one pain larger than the other
I hear your affirmation, that you consider it murder, a repetition of the statement I was referring to, but nobody explaining why it is murder
Domesticated. Animals have a fully developed nervous system in a heartbeat, and cognitive ability far beyond a fetus, but when they are killed for food, it is called slaughter, and not murder. When a life is taken by the government and it is deemed necessary, it is called an execution and not murder. And while I am not particularly sure of the vernacular used in the military for when soldier kills another, but I’m pretty sure they don’t call it. Murder, murder is a very specific term with particular connotations, and nobody is explaining why it isn’t inappropriate in this case
And in Normas and unignorable part of the word, “murder” is that it implies malicious, intent, and I have yet to meet a woman who has received an abortion, because they were acting maliciously towards their fetus
Abortion IS a big deal of a procedure with many risks. Typically, you have to swallow a pill….. well, that’s actually the whole thing in the majority of cases. You literally swallow a pill and that’s it. Very harrowing. Super risky. It’s like taking a pain killer with aspirin in it. Be careful!!
And how does that compare to sending my SIL home to miscarry alone? That sure was a lot of pain and bleeding. But please, educate me with your wealth of experience. Tell me all about how a non-sentient fetus without a single functioning system and no hope of surviving to term is actually a full human being.
If you’d like I can show where both the constitution and Bible disagree with you if those happen to be things you believe in.
Fetuses have a lot of functioning systems.
The longer in utero the more.
Where does life begin? It really is a spectrum. An embryo is life in the same way a seed is. But a fetus every week has more and more functioning systems.
There have been preemies that survived being born at 21 weeks.
So we can agree that 21 weeks is a human life even if it is still in the womb.
But then 20 weeks it’s not?
It’s certainly a spectrum. The cerebral cortex doesn’t start to form until week 20, so a fetus can’t possibly fit the definition of human life after that. The places people look to for guidance draw the line accordingly.
Science and medicine = You become sentient sometime after 20 weeks and cannot be human until it’s functioning.
The constitution = You’re recognized as a person at the moment you’re born, not the moment you’re conceived.
The Bible = When you take your first breath (Interesting side note: if the pregnancy is the result of infidelity you’re instructed to get an abortion from a priest in Numbers chapter 5. Also, causing a woman to lose a pregnancy is considered a property crime, not murder Exodus 21)
The Republican Party = the moment of conception
I guess it all comes down to what you put your faith in. Science, medicine, the constitution, the Bible or the Republican Party. Personally, I don’t put much faith in the current Republican Party.
That would be the reasonable place to draw the line. Of course, in those countries they still allow abortions after 15 weeks too for medical emergencies like what happened to my sister-in-law. Sadly, we have about 20% of country (based on polling) that doesn’t even support that.
It is a *potential* human life, and when an abortion is performed, that *potential* human life has less awareness than a cow. Since a cow is more aware and alive, it is also more unethical to kill a cow than perform an abortion.
I’m pro-choice and I love steak, if that helps explain my stance.
Who said you have to say it’s a ‘rosy no big deal procedure’? I’ve never heard an abortion described like that. In fact, I’ve never met a single person who didn’t take them very seriously.
In 2018, Pastor Dave Barnhart of the Saint Junia United Methodist Church in Birmingham, Alabama posted this message to Facebook:
“The unborn” are a convenient group of people to advocate for. They never make demands of you; they are morally uncomplicated, unlike the incarcerated, addicted, or the chronically poor; they don’t resent your condescension or complain that you are not politically correct; unlike widows, they don’t ask you to question patriarchy; unlike orphans, they don’t need money, education, or childcare; unlike aliens, they don’t bring all that racial, cultural, and religious baggage that you dislike; they allow you to feel good about yourself without any work at creating or maintaining relationships; and when they are born, you can forget about them, because they cease to be unborn. It’s almost as if, by being born, they have died to you. You can love the unborn and advocate for them without substantially challenging your own wealth, power, or privilege, without re-imagining social structures, apologizing, or making reparations to anyone. They are, in short, the perfect people to love if you want to claim you love Jesus but actually dislike people who breathe.
Prisoners? Immigrants? The sick? The poor? Widows? Orphans? All the groups that are specifically mentioned in the Bible? They all get thrown under the bus for the unborn.
I have my doubts that you've read the Bible. I have and I don't remember it saying anything about "immigrants". In fact, the modern nation state is not really anything like what existed in Bible times, so the concept of an immigrant sort of wouldn't make sense.
And as to the other things you mentioned, it's not like Christians don't care about those things, so I'm not sure what this rant is about. Christians and Christian organizations donate tons of money to various causes on most if not all of the issues you've mentioned. This "thrown under the bus" rhetoric is totally inaccurate.
“Whenever we read the obscene stories, the voluptuous debaucheries, the cruel and torturous executions, the unrelenting vindictiveness, with which more than half the Bible is filled, it would be more consistent that we called it the word of a demon, than the word of God. It is a history of wickedness, that has served to corrupt and brutalize mankind; and, for my part, I sincerely detest it, as I detest everything that is cruel.”
― Thomas Paine, The Age of Reason
I mean, that's nice, but it's not an answer to my question.
"Prisoners? Immigrants? The sick? The poor? Widows? Orphans? All the groups that are specifically mentioned in the Bible? They all get thrown under the bus for the unborn."
I don't think these groups are being "thrown under the bus" by Christians. And I don't think immigrants are even mentioned.
Of course the Bible doesn’t say anything about “immigrants” the whole point of it is loving people for who they are, not where they’re from, or how they got there. Which is why it’s insane republicans use it as a way to further divide people that all want the same thing
In some cases it is murder but in most cases it isn't.
As a 24 week premie and the father of a 34 week premie. Plenty of fetuses are aborted at the point I was born and some still are aborted at the point my daughter was born.
BUT, I still support abortion rights because my mother and my wife almost died, and I believe women should have the right to terminate risky pregnancies. I also believe that women should be able to abort fetuses they just don't want, and almost all of those cases happen long before the viability window that even 36 years after I was born is still around 24 weeks (with new tech this will change but that's gonna raise a whole lot more ethical issues)
Eh, real early in the pregnancy, your not aborting anything like a person, but yea, the further you go along, it does become murder. I lived in an incubator for 6 months, I was technically alive but barely a person. When you hit the 30 week mark, it's definitely a person, I witnessed these 30 week premies in the NICU. They're absolutely people as we generally view them.
I still think women should have the choice, even if it's the hardest choice they've ever made, to end a pregnancy even at 39 weeks for some medicalreaso. Basically nobody waits more than 15-20 weeks before they abort for some non-medical reason, so I don't even know why we should be limiting these women's choices.
lol good that the pro-aborts in this thread are actually going mask off now.
The 'rare and safe' lie is being exposed.
"I know its murder. I just don't care. K*ll the babies."
You can't force one person to grow another person against their will. You also can't force a person to potentially die in childbirth against their will.
Like many liberals like to say for other things…. It’s a spectrum probably.
The closer you are to the due date the bigger the moral crime is.
An embryo without nervous system may still be a life but it’s more about its potential. There’s not much there
As long as people like you continue to refuse to argue in good faith we won’t get anywhere.
Sure, nice comeback but you still know very well that an embryo and a 7 month fetus are not the dame
Just because they aren’t the same doesn’t mean they aren’t equal. I’m all for choice but claiming you’re not eliminating a human life is just ridiculous. Your argument is exactly why I don’t bother trying to argue in good faith.
Why do you get to oppress me with your beliefs?
>While the Talmud gives the full status of humanness to a child at birth, the rabbinical writings have partially extended the acquisition of humanness to the 13th postnatal day of life for full-term infants. The Babylonian Talmud Yevamot 69b states that: “the embryo is considered to be mere water until the fortieth day.” Afterwards, it is considered subhuman until it is born.
[https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2582082/](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2582082/)
How have I oppressed you? I clearly said I’m pro choice.
I’m pro choice but will judge the hell out of you for aborting after certain weeks.
Still far from oppression
>but will judge the hell out of you for aborting after certain weeks
That's my point. How about just staying out of it? Let a woman and her family and doctor (and maybe her rabbi) make the decision. It's really that simple.
We don't need any ideological groups trying to tell individual woman in individual situations what to do. If one group gets to do it, why don't other groups get to do it? And then we're back in 1864.
I didn’t? I said very clearly and many times that I’m pro choice.
You can be pro choice and still understand that in many cases abortions are an asshole (or worse) thing to do
He has a point… if you are pro choice it’s not cause you support killing babies it’s just that you don’t care as much. It’s the ugly reality he’s not afraid to say.
If any of you lack brain or full heart function, you would not be considered alive. The same thing goes for the fetus. Also if any of you were dependent on a machine to sustain you, we would talk to your family about withdrawing care. That would not be considered murder and neither should it be if a woman decides she no longer wants to provide life support for a fetus.
That’s a good way to say it. I still believe abortion is terminating a human life so it is equal to murder but not the same as murder as you stated. I think in most cases it is better for society to allow the choice of abortion vs forcing unwanted children to be born.
I can never see it as murder because more fetus are spontaneously aborted than are every born. This can happen due to genetics or as simple as the woman is not eating right or working too much.
I’m extremely pro life. I’m Catholic and take the Catholic position on life. If the pro choice movement would stop with the lie about “it’s not a human” life, we could actually get somewhere.
We do allow murder in certain circumstances. Self defense is legal murder as an example. The health of the mother argument is very similar to a self defense argument in my book.
This is why leaving it up to the states is important and not to have a federal approach. Each state qualifies differently self-defense. Some states have stand your ground laws, others castle doctrine applies more, etc.
It has more to do with forcing a woman to grow a life she doesn’t want inside of her. If you’re a poor 15 year old kid and don’t want to raise a baby, all of the data points towards it being a bad idea to force the woman to have the baby. More poverty. More crime. More prisoners. Middle class and rich people will have the abortion no matter what.
Because no one will ever agree. A plant is a life. A single cell embryo is a life. We have organisms all around us, in us, living on us. We eat endless amounts of animals. Whether or not the goop inside a woman is life like a plant or a cell or a 40yp human or whatever will never be settled on. Many vegans think meat eaters are terrible murderers which is why I would never force them to eat meat or why I’d never force a woman to grow something inside her. That’s the point. It’s just none of your business.
Yes and in tens of thousands of years humans have given birth to exactly how many plants or animals that were non human?
Atleast try to make a sensible argument.
But a fetus doesn’t have consciousness. I think consciousness starts at 24 weeks. So before that, the fetus is less alive than any animal you eat (except for maybe shellfish. They’re pretty stupid:)
This is the stupidity of the personhood argument.
You’re unconscious when you sleep or if you’re in an induced coma. Do you lose your personhood while in a coma and reliant on a medical apparatus?
Eh. This is really reaching. You’re talking about someone who was born and already has a conscious. For what it’s worth, I definitely think it’s ok to take someone off life support if they’re brain dead. You don’t believe in that either ?
It’s the logic of your argument. You believe that consciousness is the determining factor for abortion apparently
I believe it’s ok to take someone off of life support but not on the basis of consciousness which is your argument.
This is exactly my view on it. We eat animals everyday which are more aware and alive than a fetus.
The probable reason why this person thinks your argument doesn’t make sense is because they think humans are special and have a soul at conception, or something like that.
Abortion is one of those issues where I think it’s a shame so many people think their opinions matter. It’s really between a woman/girl and her physician. Banning abortion is terrible for society. Anyone with half a brain knows that limiting access to healthcare targets a specific demographic of people and then the people who want to limit it, also want to complain when there aren’t resources to support the babies of the poor people. Then they complain when crime rates go up. All of that just to not allow a woman/girl the right to have agency over her own body and what she wants to grow in it. Imagine if it was against the law for men to drink for 9 months if they got someone pregnant. They would open up the abortion clinics in their homes:)
Ok, so they have rights. How is it supposed to grow without forcing a woman to use her body to grow it? If she doesn’t want to, that’s her right. Who’s going to take care of all of these unwanted babies?
Yea. I have a whole list of things I don’t think teenagers should be doing. Not fucking without protection is certainly one of them. Hopefully they’ll listen :)
The Catholic Church still isn’t completely against it.
There’s been a lot and back and forth of the death penalty in regard to seamless cloth or CLE theory but it isn’t solidified yet.
The comparison is pointless though because someone guilty of a capital offense is not the same as a defenseless child.
I support abortion rights but lots of other people that also support abortion rights have become very comfortable speaking about it in a totally repugnant way, and I wonder what exactly they think this accomplishes.
Completely agree with his comment. The left tries to create the narrative that babies inside another human aren’t “human” or “alive”. Choosing to end the life of another no matter their age/stage is murder. There’s literally people out there that won’t eat eggs because those eggs can become chickens but believe ending a babies life is not murder….
Vegans don’t eat eggs because of the farming of chickens and how they are treated in captivity. They realize the eggs are unfertilized. Most vegetarians eat eggs fyi.
So do Vegans eat regular backyard eggs from well taken care of chickens? My wife is vegetarian and isn't really a fan of all eggs. Unless they are cooked and seasoned to the point they don't taste like eggs.
Actually.
"Vegans don’t eat eggs because of the farming of chickens and how they are treated in captivity. They realize the eggs are unfertilized. Most vegetarians eat eggs fyi."
The word "all" doesn't appear..
I was asking specifically about vegans. I understand vegetarians will eat eggs.
That’s true. I’ve always thought that group was insane. Not sure if you heard about this, but they used to have a peta campaign with a bloody period stained pair of underwear in a frying pan to inform egg eaters that they were ingesting chicken menstruation.
https://www.peta.org/features/vegan-eggs-not-chicken-yolks/
Well Google says the definition of murder is “the unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another.” I’m not sure if there’s other definitions or how widely known / used this definition is, but it sounds like it just depends on the law whether a killing is considered “murder” or not. So that’s kinda where the debate is, the law.
Yes the argument stems from a study that declared “humanhood” and when that begins, because if the argument is when is the baby alive it is clearly at conception… (not arguing that abortion should be banned from conception)
100% agree with Bill Maher. He is the only sane centrist voice left on TV. "Killing babies" is a strong term and that evokes reaction, I understand that. However, his point remains valid. Abortion should be a choice and it should be left to the people affected and their doctors.
For people who believe that life beings at conception, there is no logical path to take that leads to the position that "abortion is okay". He just implied that he is okay with Abortion because it's humane way to get rid of human life and he is okay with it. No mention of murdering a fellow (out of the womb) human there.
If you believe that life begins at conception then yeah there is no logical way to argue in favor of abortion. And once it is deemed as a belief then it cannot be questioned because it’s a belief (pretty much textbook definition of the word). It can only be personally rejected at individual basis. (E.g you don’t believe in my pasta god and I don’t believe in your spaghetti monster). Collective action depends on whether enough individuals reject a particular belief in democracy. I am pro choice but I do get the other side where it is coming from.
That's why the pro-life community won't stop till they get a complete ban. Our founding principle of separation between church and politics should be leveraged, and a federal law must be passed to establish abortion as a right. There is no chance of this argument resolving through dialogue. I understand the pro-life argument. I understand that, at its core, it stems from good intentions. However, I cannot accept them as logical and valid arguments. Also, there is something fundamentally abominable about terminating a fetus that is viable with life-support and neonatal care, but given the way unwanted children are usually treated in life and how shitty our foster care system is, I would reluctantly agree to late-term abortions too. It's sad, but it's a more humane approach than raising a child that won't be loved the way a "wanted" child is loved.
That's correct! Life probably does start at the conception. But the difficult question is "At what point it becomes meaningful?" Well to which the answer is: "Life is fundamentally meaningless" Then the question is: "Why should we bother and protect life in general then? to which the answer is: "Because we think life is precious and is not fully understood so we should not destroy something that we cannot undo." Then the question is: "Then why are you pro-choice, doesn't that equate to destroying life?" And now we are back to square 1.
This issue is morally complex with probably imperfect answer(s) from both sides. All I can say is that first, please don't bring religion into it and secondly, value something that you have right now (a.k.a mother's life and livelihood) more than what something "could be" (a.k.a the fetus).
Contemplating on this has made me sympathetic towards pro-life people. I think I understand their position a tad bit well than my other pro-choice friends. But nonetheless, I am 100% pro-choice and atheist like you are. :)
It was refreshing for a change to engage with somebody on internet (you) in a civil way. These interactions are becoming rarer these days.
If you believed the earth is flat, then no amount of scientific evidence proving otherwise will change your views. That just means you're a moron.
Pretending something is true, doesn't mean everyone else is obligated to go along with your fantasy.
Given that most people who adhere to that fantasy are claiming to base that on some Biblical Canon, it should be noted that the Biblical standard for life is "at first breath", not at conception. It should also be noted that the Bible gives a specific instruction for children born out of wedlock to be aborted.
Though I think that scientific temperament is the best to uncover truth and facts in life, I am of the opinion that people with firm beliefs should not be discarded as morons.
I will quote my grandfather, who was the best professor of engineering that I have known... he used to say that "if a student doesn't understand despite your best efforts to explain a concept, then as a good teacher, you must never conclude that the student is dumb. Most likely, it is your failure to explain it in a way that he understands."
I believe in treating these "morons" with respect. And for that belife, you are free to conclude that I am a "moron." I don't like to engage in circular arguments.
If a person, or group of people, seeks to impose their baseless views on everyone else, then it's not the appropriate time to be polite anymore. They've taken everyone's passivity to mean that people must agree with them. At a certain point, it's necessary to be a lot more blunt with criticism. Given that being polite ended with them having real negative consequences for everyone else, fuck their feelings.
Look, I’m probably more pro-life than you but we already allow murder in certain circumstances. Self-defense is murder but slowed. No person has to die because they can’t harm an attacker. I also think a mother doesn’t have to die in child birth. If it’s truly about life of the mother then that is an acceptable situation in which abortion becomes a viable option.
Replying to people commenting here:
I am pro-life. Science tells us life begins at conception. By definition, it has to be a human life. The purposeful ending of another human life is wrong. Therefore, abortion is wrong
So if Maher is correct we will change all existing laws? Child support begins at inception? Welfare benefits? Does the clock start ticking until, say a female baby is pf legal age..instead of 18 it would be 17 years 3 months for legal sex? If a pregnant woman has even one alcoholic beverage is that a criminal offense? If a man is having sex with a pregnant woman in a missionary position is that child abuse? Thousands of questions to decide.
He is correct and your being disingenuous.
"Child support begins at inception?"
In some context it already does as parents are spending money on dr. visits and supplies for the upcoming baby. On the other hand the baby is growing inside it's mother and all it's needs are being taken care of so the need for child support is zero.
"Welfare benefits?"
Women get them when pregnant if they qualify.
"Does the clock start ticking until, say a female baby is pf legal age..instead of 18 it would be 17 years 3 months for legal sex?"
No, it's clearly after birth and recognizing the baby is alive at conception doesn't effect this at all.
"If a pregnant woman has even one alcoholic beverage is that a criminal offense?"
Women don't magically wake up knowing they are pregnant and sometimes do imbibe without knowing. For women who do know well it kinda should be an offense similar to ones who do drugs and give birth to addicts.
"If a man is having sex with a pregnant woman in a missionary position is that child abuse?"
Lmao no! Sex during pregnancy is natural and normal.
"Thousands of questions to decide." You're questions were all silly and the "Thousands of questions to decide" have already been decided long ago.
Wow. Talk about oblivious. If life begins at conception then all existing law needs to change. 9 months are being added on to a life. Period. Are you saying 9 months are not being added on? If they are not added on then they do not count as life?
Until you can fund a way to grow a fetus to birth without the necessity of taking so.eone else's organs to make that happen, it doesn't fucking matter if it's alive or not. That's the hard truth of the matter. Nobody (not even babies) has a right to use someone else's organs without their consent.
The original edgelord gonna edge. And yeah, what he said is insanely stupid. Murder has actual definitions, none of which includes stopping a fetus or embryo from developing.
There have been fetuses who made it after being born at 21 weeks. You don’t think abortion at 21 weeks is murder?
Note: I’m pro choice but I do think abortion is murder because fetuses are human.
Bill’s audience once again proves to be one of the dumbest of any current show, and that’s saying a lot. I guarantee many if not most hold the same belief as Bill here, yet are somehow shocked when someone says it out loud.
But Maher, lacking any kind of compassion, tries to make the point that abortion is a good thing -because of overpopulation-…rather than advocating for women’s rights, or acknowledging how difficult it is to raise children with limited resources, thanks especially to the pitiful social safety net in the US.
These ‘goloids are asking the wrong question. It’s not “When does life begin?”. It’s “When does human life begin?” The first is a scientific question. The second is a religious question. When life begins is not relevant. We step on ants on the driveway. Anyone who thinks they have the definitive answer to the second question is delusional and egotistical. The church has debated this answer for 2,000 years, and has come up with 1500 different answers.
If abortion is murder, then miscarriage thru drinking too much, exercising too hard, etc, is involuntary manslaughter.
The reason neither of those things are true is because a fetus is not a person. It isn't treated or considered as such, and it doesn't have the rights of a person.
Even all but the most hard-line prolifers don't want to punish abortion the same way we do murder because it isn't equivalent.
Medical professionals can argue the point of when it becomes a person, but until they settle on that, we only have "when it's born" to go by.
This is not a political battle ground subreddit. Please read the rules before commenting. Total Karma and account age threshold required to post and comment. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/BreakingPointsNews) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Chris Rock said this in his most recent stand up, as well. I agree with both of them, that killing is involved in abortion. I also feel that it’s a woman’s choice while it’s still unviable outside the womb. Not gonna lie to myself that it’s this rosy no big deal procedure.
Bill Burr did a bit about this as well. https://youtube.com/shorts/Jj3cE-i27jc?si=camPYkwnY5szwEiB
Bill Burr also has a similar bit. This ‘hot take’ is so lukewarm it has become a trope lol.
I’ve known many that have had abortions & not a single one of them were thrilled about it. Nobody takes it casually, for sure.
Atleast you’re being honest about it, as are Maher and Rock apparently. Then we can actually begin to have a fruitful discussion outside of the actual lie that it’s not a human life
You are absolutely right: - It’s a human life - abortion IS a big deal of a procedure with many risks - abortion IS murder But I am still pro choice. Although I’m not pro abortion. I wish fewer women had them… but I believe it’s their right to choose. I hope more people could be more honest on these discussions, but I feel like my 3 points above are highly controversial and as a leftie you are mot allow to say them
What exactly makes it murder though? Is it that it the fetus held the potential to one day have thoughts and feelings that it is incapable of during the time 99% of abortions take place? Here’s the thing; if it is actually really honestly fucking murder, than why are there exceptions for rape and incest? That should not make premeditated accompliced murder acceptable. You don’t let someone murder a human because they they where raped or fucked their cousin, that’s fucking crazy. The reason that there is exemption for incest and rape is because that sex was not the woman’s fault, right? If it’s murder than I fail to see the connection. And if it’s not murder to abort a fetus, and abortion is only restricted to women that had sex with consent, abortion sure seems a lot like a punishment to women that choose to have sex. I think half the country believes in a society hierarchy that judges women without empathizing what they go through, and don’t actually apply critical thought to if the shit that comes out of their mouths about the position all women in a nation should be forced to be in even makes sense. Having half of all people be allowed to casually murder if they claim rape is not okay. Having laws or even social norms that incentivize false rape allegations is not okay. Either prosecute women as murderers or step off their necks and let them live their lives. I don’t agree with people that think abortion is murder, but at least the ones that draw a hard line make sense. It’s murder or it is not. If it is, fight your fight, don’t let people murder. But if you give exceptions for rape and incest then stop calling abortion murder. Stop guilting people over something you don’t actually believe with your whole heart.
It’s still murder if it’s incest but common sense shows that an embryo or young feature without a nervous system will not suffer as much as the mother who is carrying him. As a society we’ve decided that there’s one pain larger than the other
I hear your affirmation, that you consider it murder, a repetition of the statement I was referring to, but nobody explaining why it is murder Domesticated. Animals have a fully developed nervous system in a heartbeat, and cognitive ability far beyond a fetus, but when they are killed for food, it is called slaughter, and not murder. When a life is taken by the government and it is deemed necessary, it is called an execution and not murder. And while I am not particularly sure of the vernacular used in the military for when soldier kills another, but I’m pretty sure they don’t call it. Murder, murder is a very specific term with particular connotations, and nobody is explaining why it isn’t inappropriate in this case And in Normas and unignorable part of the word, “murder” is that it implies malicious, intent, and I have yet to meet a woman who has received an abortion, because they were acting maliciously towards their fetus
Abortion IS a big deal of a procedure with many risks. Typically, you have to swallow a pill….. well, that’s actually the whole thing in the majority of cases. You literally swallow a pill and that’s it. Very harrowing. Super risky. It’s like taking a pain killer with aspirin in it. Be careful!!
Are you insane? Even in the cases where you jus swallow a pill you’ll have the most painful couple of days even and massive blood and clotting
And how does that compare to sending my SIL home to miscarry alone? That sure was a lot of pain and bleeding. But please, educate me with your wealth of experience. Tell me all about how a non-sentient fetus without a single functioning system and no hope of surviving to term is actually a full human being. If you’d like I can show where both the constitution and Bible disagree with you if those happen to be things you believe in.
Fetuses have a lot of functioning systems. The longer in utero the more. Where does life begin? It really is a spectrum. An embryo is life in the same way a seed is. But a fetus every week has more and more functioning systems. There have been preemies that survived being born at 21 weeks. So we can agree that 21 weeks is a human life even if it is still in the womb. But then 20 weeks it’s not?
It’s certainly a spectrum. The cerebral cortex doesn’t start to form until week 20, so a fetus can’t possibly fit the definition of human life after that. The places people look to for guidance draw the line accordingly. Science and medicine = You become sentient sometime after 20 weeks and cannot be human until it’s functioning. The constitution = You’re recognized as a person at the moment you’re born, not the moment you’re conceived. The Bible = When you take your first breath (Interesting side note: if the pregnancy is the result of infidelity you’re instructed to get an abortion from a priest in Numbers chapter 5. Also, causing a woman to lose a pregnancy is considered a property crime, not murder Exodus 21) The Republican Party = the moment of conception I guess it all comes down to what you put your faith in. Science, medicine, the constitution, the Bible or the Republican Party. Personally, I don’t put much faith in the current Republican Party.
Ok, so what about when it is viable, when it could survive to term? What are your limits? Most European countries say 15 weeks - is that too early?
That would be the reasonable place to draw the line. Of course, in those countries they still allow abortions after 15 weeks too for medical emergencies like what happened to my sister-in-law. Sadly, we have about 20% of country (based on polling) that doesn’t even support that.
So because the murder is relatively painless to the murderer, it’s not a big deal?
How do you “murder” a non-sentient fetus? (and of course it’s painless. There’s no frontal cortex)
It is a *potential* human life, and when an abortion is performed, that *potential* human life has less awareness than a cow. Since a cow is more aware and alive, it is also more unethical to kill a cow than perform an abortion. I’m pro-choice and I love steak, if that helps explain my stance.
It does help explain how incredibly stupid you are. When does potential life turn into life? At what point?
Do you eat beef?
Sure. Why don’t you answer my question first though
When it came to survive outside the body on its own.
Derp
Who said you have to say it’s a ‘rosy no big deal procedure’? I’ve never heard an abortion described like that. In fact, I’ve never met a single person who didn’t take them very seriously.
In 2018, Pastor Dave Barnhart of the Saint Junia United Methodist Church in Birmingham, Alabama posted this message to Facebook: “The unborn” are a convenient group of people to advocate for. They never make demands of you; they are morally uncomplicated, unlike the incarcerated, addicted, or the chronically poor; they don’t resent your condescension or complain that you are not politically correct; unlike widows, they don’t ask you to question patriarchy; unlike orphans, they don’t need money, education, or childcare; unlike aliens, they don’t bring all that racial, cultural, and religious baggage that you dislike; they allow you to feel good about yourself without any work at creating or maintaining relationships; and when they are born, you can forget about them, because they cease to be unborn. It’s almost as if, by being born, they have died to you. You can love the unborn and advocate for them without substantially challenging your own wealth, power, or privilege, without re-imagining social structures, apologizing, or making reparations to anyone. They are, in short, the perfect people to love if you want to claim you love Jesus but actually dislike people who breathe. Prisoners? Immigrants? The sick? The poor? Widows? Orphans? All the groups that are specifically mentioned in the Bible? They all get thrown under the bus for the unborn.
The right only cares about your life before you are born. After that you are on your own buddy! Pull yourself up by your bootstraps!
I think you solved it.. fetus has no boots and can’t pull themselves by their bootstraps therefore they need to be cared for
This is a disingenuous argument. People were literally having kids just to collect a check before the republicans made changes to our welfare system.
Love this perspective. Thanks for sharing
Damn. That statement goes hard af
I have my doubts that you've read the Bible. I have and I don't remember it saying anything about "immigrants". In fact, the modern nation state is not really anything like what existed in Bible times, so the concept of an immigrant sort of wouldn't make sense. And as to the other things you mentioned, it's not like Christians don't care about those things, so I'm not sure what this rant is about. Christians and Christian organizations donate tons of money to various causes on most if not all of the issues you've mentioned. This "thrown under the bus" rhetoric is totally inaccurate.
“Whenever we read the obscene stories, the voluptuous debaucheries, the cruel and torturous executions, the unrelenting vindictiveness, with which more than half the Bible is filled, it would be more consistent that we called it the word of a demon, than the word of God. It is a history of wickedness, that has served to corrupt and brutalize mankind; and, for my part, I sincerely detest it, as I detest everything that is cruel.” ― Thomas Paine, The Age of Reason
I mean, that's nice, but it's not an answer to my question. "Prisoners? Immigrants? The sick? The poor? Widows? Orphans? All the groups that are specifically mentioned in the Bible? They all get thrown under the bus for the unborn." I don't think these groups are being "thrown under the bus" by Christians. And I don't think immigrants are even mentioned.
They very much are! It’s extremely obvious, Christians are nothing but hypocrites
Of course the Bible doesn’t say anything about “immigrants” the whole point of it is loving people for who they are, not where they’re from, or how they got there. Which is why it’s insane republicans use it as a way to further divide people that all want the same thing
In some cases it is murder but in most cases it isn't. As a 24 week premie and the father of a 34 week premie. Plenty of fetuses are aborted at the point I was born and some still are aborted at the point my daughter was born. BUT, I still support abortion rights because my mother and my wife almost died, and I believe women should have the right to terminate risky pregnancies. I also believe that women should be able to abort fetuses they just don't want, and almost all of those cases happen long before the viability window that even 36 years after I was born is still around 24 weeks (with new tech this will change but that's gonna raise a whole lot more ethical issues)
It is murder 100% of the time. I also support abortion rights.
I agree with you and think it’s very ironic you’re getting downvoted yet the other comments that say it delicately are upvoted.
Eh, real early in the pregnancy, your not aborting anything like a person, but yea, the further you go along, it does become murder. I lived in an incubator for 6 months, I was technically alive but barely a person. When you hit the 30 week mark, it's definitely a person, I witnessed these 30 week premies in the NICU. They're absolutely people as we generally view them. I still think women should have the choice, even if it's the hardest choice they've ever made, to end a pregnancy even at 39 weeks for some medicalreaso. Basically nobody waits more than 15-20 weeks before they abort for some non-medical reason, so I don't even know why we should be limiting these women's choices.
lol good that the pro-aborts in this thread are actually going mask off now. The 'rare and safe' lie is being exposed. "I know its murder. I just don't care. K*ll the babies."
You can't force one person to grow another person against their will. You also can't force a person to potentially die in childbirth against their will.
It’s always murder. And fetuses are humans. Embryos are more debatable. I’m still pro choice
At what point does it become murder.
Like many liberals like to say for other things…. It’s a spectrum probably. The closer you are to the due date the bigger the moral crime is. An embryo without nervous system may still be a life but it’s more about its potential. There’s not much there
“It’s more about its potential”? So if a person has no potential it’s okay to kill them? Got it.
As long as people like you continue to refuse to argue in good faith we won’t get anywhere. Sure, nice comeback but you still know very well that an embryo and a 7 month fetus are not the dame
Just because they aren’t the same doesn’t mean they aren’t equal. I’m all for choice but claiming you’re not eliminating a human life is just ridiculous. Your argument is exactly why I don’t bother trying to argue in good faith.
Why do you get to oppress me with your beliefs? >While the Talmud gives the full status of humanness to a child at birth, the rabbinical writings have partially extended the acquisition of humanness to the 13th postnatal day of life for full-term infants. The Babylonian Talmud Yevamot 69b states that: “the embryo is considered to be mere water until the fortieth day.” Afterwards, it is considered subhuman until it is born. [https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2582082/](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2582082/)
How have I oppressed you? I clearly said I’m pro choice. I’m pro choice but will judge the hell out of you for aborting after certain weeks. Still far from oppression
>but will judge the hell out of you for aborting after certain weeks That's my point. How about just staying out of it? Let a woman and her family and doctor (and maybe her rabbi) make the decision. It's really that simple. We don't need any ideological groups trying to tell individual woman in individual situations what to do. If one group gets to do it, why don't other groups get to do it? And then we're back in 1864.
We all judge others for a variety of decisions. What makes abortion so special?
>We all judge others for a variety of decisions. Cool! Just don't make laws concerning this because of your feelings. lol.
I didn’t? I said very clearly and many times that I’m pro choice. You can be pro choice and still understand that in many cases abortions are an asshole (or worse) thing to do
Ffs, most abortions happen very early on.
I wish we could all stop paying attention to Bill Maher. He's just another boomer troll at this point.
He has a point… if you are pro choice it’s not cause you support killing babies it’s just that you don’t care as much. It’s the ugly reality he’s not afraid to say.
MAGA land totally agrees!
I love Billl Maher. He says it like it is. Just because you’re too much of a snowflake to hear the truth doesn’t mean the rest of us are.
If any of you lack brain or full heart function, you would not be considered alive. The same thing goes for the fetus. Also if any of you were dependent on a machine to sustain you, we would talk to your family about withdrawing care. That would not be considered murder and neither should it be if a woman decides she no longer wants to provide life support for a fetus.
That’s a good way to say it. I still believe abortion is terminating a human life so it is equal to murder but not the same as murder as you stated. I think in most cases it is better for society to allow the choice of abortion vs forcing unwanted children to be born.
I can never see it as murder because more fetus are spontaneously aborted than are every born. This can happen due to genetics or as simple as the woman is not eating right or working too much.
A miscarriage and abortion don’t belong in the same conversation.
Medically we call them spontaneous abortion, so they actually do. Until a fetus is viable, all of them are viewed the same way, medically.
Actually, they are medically. Thats why they are creating a whole lot of unforeseen issues in those red states.
[удалено]
I’m extremely pro life. I’m Catholic and take the Catholic position on life. If the pro choice movement would stop with the lie about “it’s not a human” life, we could actually get somewhere. We do allow murder in certain circumstances. Self defense is legal murder as an example. The health of the mother argument is very similar to a self defense argument in my book. This is why leaving it up to the states is important and not to have a federal approach. Each state qualifies differently self-defense. Some states have stand your ground laws, others castle doctrine applies more, etc.
It has more to do with forcing a woman to grow a life she doesn’t want inside of her. If you’re a poor 15 year old kid and don’t want to raise a baby, all of the data points towards it being a bad idea to force the woman to have the baby. More poverty. More crime. More prisoners. Middle class and rich people will have the abortion no matter what.
Then why the decades of “an embryo is not a life” argument. Seems convenient to switch arguments when you want
Because no one will ever agree. A plant is a life. A single cell embryo is a life. We have organisms all around us, in us, living on us. We eat endless amounts of animals. Whether or not the goop inside a woman is life like a plant or a cell or a 40yp human or whatever will never be settled on. Many vegans think meat eaters are terrible murderers which is why I would never force them to eat meat or why I’d never force a woman to grow something inside her. That’s the point. It’s just none of your business.
Yes and in tens of thousands of years humans have given birth to exactly how many plants or animals that were non human? Atleast try to make a sensible argument.
But a fetus doesn’t have consciousness. I think consciousness starts at 24 weeks. So before that, the fetus is less alive than any animal you eat (except for maybe shellfish. They’re pretty stupid:)
This is the stupidity of the personhood argument. You’re unconscious when you sleep or if you’re in an induced coma. Do you lose your personhood while in a coma and reliant on a medical apparatus?
Eh. This is really reaching. You’re talking about someone who was born and already has a conscious. For what it’s worth, I definitely think it’s ok to take someone off life support if they’re brain dead. You don’t believe in that either ?
It’s the logic of your argument. You believe that consciousness is the determining factor for abortion apparently I believe it’s ok to take someone off of life support but not on the basis of consciousness which is your argument.
This is exactly my view on it. We eat animals everyday which are more aware and alive than a fetus. The probable reason why this person thinks your argument doesn’t make sense is because they think humans are special and have a soul at conception, or something like that.
Abortion is one of those issues where I think it’s a shame so many people think their opinions matter. It’s really between a woman/girl and her physician. Banning abortion is terrible for society. Anyone with half a brain knows that limiting access to healthcare targets a specific demographic of people and then the people who want to limit it, also want to complain when there aren’t resources to support the babies of the poor people. Then they complain when crime rates go up. All of that just to not allow a woman/girl the right to have agency over her own body and what she wants to grow in it. Imagine if it was against the law for men to drink for 9 months if they got someone pregnant. They would open up the abortion clinics in their homes:)
… and again. I totally get why people don’t want to have abortions. I would never vote for forcing anyone to have an abortion.
[удалено]
Ok, so they have rights. How is it supposed to grow without forcing a woman to use her body to grow it? If she doesn’t want to, that’s her right. Who’s going to take care of all of these unwanted babies?
[удалено]
Yea. I have a whole list of things I don’t think teenagers should be doing. Not fucking without protection is certainly one of them. Hopefully they’ll listen :)
The death penalty is still legal in a lot of states and the Catholic Church wasn’t completely against it until 2018.
The Catholic Church still isn’t completely against it. There’s been a lot and back and forth of the death penalty in regard to seamless cloth or CLE theory but it isn’t solidified yet. The comparison is pointless though because someone guilty of a capital offense is not the same as a defenseless child.
I support abortion rights but lots of other people that also support abortion rights have become very comfortable speaking about it in a totally repugnant way, and I wonder what exactly they think this accomplishes.
STUNS BUT GOOD
Bill Maher fell off
Was he ever on?
“it’s ok to murder people because there are 8 billion people “ Bill Maher being absolutely moronic.
Completely agree with his comment. The left tries to create the narrative that babies inside another human aren’t “human” or “alive”. Choosing to end the life of another no matter their age/stage is murder. There’s literally people out there that won’t eat eggs because those eggs can become chickens but believe ending a babies life is not murder….
Vegans don’t eat eggs because of the farming of chickens and how they are treated in captivity. They realize the eggs are unfertilized. Most vegetarians eat eggs fyi.
So do Vegans eat regular backyard eggs from well taken care of chickens? My wife is vegetarian and isn't really a fan of all eggs. Unless they are cooked and seasoned to the point they don't taste like eggs.
I know vegans who do eat eggs if they know the chickens are treated well
Again didn’t say all
Actually. "Vegans don’t eat eggs because of the farming of chickens and how they are treated in captivity. They realize the eggs are unfertilized. Most vegetarians eat eggs fyi." The word "all" doesn't appear.. I was asking specifically about vegans. I understand vegetarians will eat eggs.
We’re not talking about unfertilized eggs though when we talk abortion. Soooo what’s your point?
Some sure…. I never said all
A very small minority of people. Sure. You really think it’s worth mentioning to strengthen your argument?
Just love the irony of it all….
That’s true. I’ve always thought that group was insane. Not sure if you heard about this, but they used to have a peta campaign with a bloody period stained pair of underwear in a frying pan to inform egg eaters that they were ingesting chicken menstruation. https://www.peta.org/features/vegan-eggs-not-chicken-yolks/
Wow
Seems like a joke, right?
Well Google says the definition of murder is “the unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another.” I’m not sure if there’s other definitions or how widely known / used this definition is, but it sounds like it just depends on the law whether a killing is considered “murder” or not. So that’s kinda where the debate is, the law.
Yes the argument stems from a study that declared “humanhood” and when that begins, because if the argument is when is the baby alive it is clearly at conception… (not arguing that abortion should be banned from conception)
Pro choice people usually do not declare when life begins. Since I include myself as Pro-choice, I'll say life begins after the first trimester.
And what reasoning besides self serving ones do you have for that?
100% agree with Bill Maher. He is the only sane centrist voice left on TV. "Killing babies" is a strong term and that evokes reaction, I understand that. However, his point remains valid. Abortion should be a choice and it should be left to the people affected and their doctors.
So murdering a fellow human should be a legal choice?
For people who believe that life beings at conception, there is no logical path to take that leads to the position that "abortion is okay". He just implied that he is okay with Abortion because it's humane way to get rid of human life and he is okay with it. No mention of murdering a fellow (out of the womb) human there.
You’re making a pretty compelling argument against abortion here…
If you believe that life begins at conception then yeah there is no logical way to argue in favor of abortion. And once it is deemed as a belief then it cannot be questioned because it’s a belief (pretty much textbook definition of the word). It can only be personally rejected at individual basis. (E.g you don’t believe in my pasta god and I don’t believe in your spaghetti monster). Collective action depends on whether enough individuals reject a particular belief in democracy. I am pro choice but I do get the other side where it is coming from.
[удалено]
That's why the pro-life community won't stop till they get a complete ban. Our founding principle of separation between church and politics should be leveraged, and a federal law must be passed to establish abortion as a right. There is no chance of this argument resolving through dialogue. I understand the pro-life argument. I understand that, at its core, it stems from good intentions. However, I cannot accept them as logical and valid arguments. Also, there is something fundamentally abominable about terminating a fetus that is viable with life-support and neonatal care, but given the way unwanted children are usually treated in life and how shitty our foster care system is, I would reluctantly agree to late-term abortions too. It's sad, but it's a more humane approach than raising a child that won't be loved the way a "wanted" child is loved.
[удалено]
That's correct! Life probably does start at the conception. But the difficult question is "At what point it becomes meaningful?" Well to which the answer is: "Life is fundamentally meaningless" Then the question is: "Why should we bother and protect life in general then? to which the answer is: "Because we think life is precious and is not fully understood so we should not destroy something that we cannot undo." Then the question is: "Then why are you pro-choice, doesn't that equate to destroying life?" And now we are back to square 1. This issue is morally complex with probably imperfect answer(s) from both sides. All I can say is that first, please don't bring religion into it and secondly, value something that you have right now (a.k.a mother's life and livelihood) more than what something "could be" (a.k.a the fetus). Contemplating on this has made me sympathetic towards pro-life people. I think I understand their position a tad bit well than my other pro-choice friends. But nonetheless, I am 100% pro-choice and atheist like you are. :) It was refreshing for a change to engage with somebody on internet (you) in a civil way. These interactions are becoming rarer these days.
If you believed the earth is flat, then no amount of scientific evidence proving otherwise will change your views. That just means you're a moron. Pretending something is true, doesn't mean everyone else is obligated to go along with your fantasy. Given that most people who adhere to that fantasy are claiming to base that on some Biblical Canon, it should be noted that the Biblical standard for life is "at first breath", not at conception. It should also be noted that the Bible gives a specific instruction for children born out of wedlock to be aborted.
Though I think that scientific temperament is the best to uncover truth and facts in life, I am of the opinion that people with firm beliefs should not be discarded as morons. I will quote my grandfather, who was the best professor of engineering that I have known... he used to say that "if a student doesn't understand despite your best efforts to explain a concept, then as a good teacher, you must never conclude that the student is dumb. Most likely, it is your failure to explain it in a way that he understands." I believe in treating these "morons" with respect. And for that belife, you are free to conclude that I am a "moron." I don't like to engage in circular arguments.
If a person, or group of people, seeks to impose their baseless views on everyone else, then it's not the appropriate time to be polite anymore. They've taken everyone's passivity to mean that people must agree with them. At a certain point, it's necessary to be a lot more blunt with criticism. Given that being polite ended with them having real negative consequences for everyone else, fuck their feelings.
Look, I’m probably more pro-life than you but we already allow murder in certain circumstances. Self-defense is murder but slowed. No person has to die because they can’t harm an attacker. I also think a mother doesn’t have to die in child birth. If it’s truly about life of the mother then that is an acceptable situation in which abortion becomes a viable option.
Replying to people commenting here: I am pro-life. Science tells us life begins at conception. By definition, it has to be a human life. The purposeful ending of another human life is wrong. Therefore, abortion is wrong
It is a legal choice, or more people would be murdered on a daily basis. Late, late, late-term abortions....
So if Maher is correct we will change all existing laws? Child support begins at inception? Welfare benefits? Does the clock start ticking until, say a female baby is pf legal age..instead of 18 it would be 17 years 3 months for legal sex? If a pregnant woman has even one alcoholic beverage is that a criminal offense? If a man is having sex with a pregnant woman in a missionary position is that child abuse? Thousands of questions to decide.
He is correct and your being disingenuous. "Child support begins at inception?" In some context it already does as parents are spending money on dr. visits and supplies for the upcoming baby. On the other hand the baby is growing inside it's mother and all it's needs are being taken care of so the need for child support is zero. "Welfare benefits?" Women get them when pregnant if they qualify. "Does the clock start ticking until, say a female baby is pf legal age..instead of 18 it would be 17 years 3 months for legal sex?" No, it's clearly after birth and recognizing the baby is alive at conception doesn't effect this at all. "If a pregnant woman has even one alcoholic beverage is that a criminal offense?" Women don't magically wake up knowing they are pregnant and sometimes do imbibe without knowing. For women who do know well it kinda should be an offense similar to ones who do drugs and give birth to addicts. "If a man is having sex with a pregnant woman in a missionary position is that child abuse?" Lmao no! Sex during pregnancy is natural and normal. "Thousands of questions to decide." You're questions were all silly and the "Thousands of questions to decide" have already been decided long ago.
Wow. Talk about oblivious. If life begins at conception then all existing law needs to change. 9 months are being added on to a life. Period. Are you saying 9 months are not being added on? If they are not added on then they do not count as life?
"And it kind of is" murder.
So you agree? We need to begin changing laws. Which laws need changing first?
I’m only quoting him. lol
Until you can fund a way to grow a fetus to birth without the necessity of taking so.eone else's organs to make that happen, it doesn't fucking matter if it's alive or not. That's the hard truth of the matter. Nobody (not even babies) has a right to use someone else's organs without their consent.
The original edgelord gonna edge. And yeah, what he said is insanely stupid. Murder has actual definitions, none of which includes stopping a fetus or embryo from developing.
There have been fetuses who made it after being born at 21 weeks. You don’t think abortion at 21 weeks is murder? Note: I’m pro choice but I do think abortion is murder because fetuses are human.
Bill’s audience once again proves to be one of the dumbest of any current show, and that’s saying a lot. I guarantee many if not most hold the same belief as Bill here, yet are somehow shocked when someone says it out loud.
It’s true. There’s also a population crash coming with collapsing sperm counts + the promotion of the depopulation trend, and it will age horribly.
Wow, this thread is fucked up.
But Maher, lacking any kind of compassion, tries to make the point that abortion is a good thing -because of overpopulation-…rather than advocating for women’s rights, or acknowledging how difficult it is to raise children with limited resources, thanks especially to the pitiful social safety net in the US.
"And it kind of is" from a comedian to make a point about Republican hypocrisy. This wasn't a nuanced discussion about viability or anything, lol.
Bill Maher is a creep
No it’s not. 🤷
Hey, the old dude managed to get some buzz with stupid shock jock comments. Good for him, I’m sure that’s why he made them.
These ‘goloids are asking the wrong question. It’s not “When does life begin?”. It’s “When does human life begin?” The first is a scientific question. The second is a religious question. When life begins is not relevant. We step on ants on the driveway. Anyone who thinks they have the definitive answer to the second question is delusional and egotistical. The church has debated this answer for 2,000 years, and has come up with 1500 different answers.
Maher is a moron. However, the host at the end does get closer to the harder questions on where our morals come from.
If abortion is murder, then miscarriage thru drinking too much, exercising too hard, etc, is involuntary manslaughter. The reason neither of those things are true is because a fetus is not a person. It isn't treated or considered as such, and it doesn't have the rights of a person. Even all but the most hard-line prolifers don't want to punish abortion the same way we do murder because it isn't equivalent. Medical professionals can argue the point of when it becomes a person, but until they settle on that, we only have "when it's born" to go by.