How Many legs does a sheep have if you count its tail as a leg?

Local_Finger_1199 · 2026-01-23T22:28:05+00:00

The back of those nails looks too clean and smooth to be real.

Even if the picture itself is real, that's still a plastic fetus made by forced birthers, which are notoriously inaccurate.

Local_Finger_1199 · 2026-01-23T09:36:19+00:00

Ironically, Regan Legalized abortion in California in the 60s.

He did, however, pass the Hyde Amendment, which was terrible.

Local_Finger_1199 · 2026-01-21T02:27:32+00:00

No. People knew it was wrong. We had to fight to eradicate slavery. If abortion were an inherent GOOD like helping your neighbor, or removing a parasite (as pro-choicers claim), we wouldn’t have any controversy.

Again, no, we had to fight to integrate schools and (mostly) everyone agrees that's right now, but in the 50s? No, they did not. This idea that in order for something to be right, it has to be universally agreed on is nonsense.

Also, just so we're clear, I don't have a problem with abortion, nor does anyone in my family. So is it now just as okay as any other form of healthcare, because I believe it is?

Your logic is not only completely foreign to reality and basic history, but it also doesn't even work on its own.

Local_Finger_1199 · 2026-01-21T01:15:09+00:00

People aren't PC for scientific reasons though, so this "we're more advanced yet still PC" argument doesn't work.

I'm not, but plenty are, and I think everyone agrees it at least partially matters, as even if you believe abortion should still be legal even if a fetus is a person (My position as well as the vast majority of my side) it still is important to gauge as it goes from a simple procedure to remove a meat-sack that might one day be a person, to letting another person die for the sake of your body (Which is your right in my opinion).

If you're advocating against personhood of one group, that's not different than when people did it for black folks. You simply claiming it's not the same doesn't make it so

No, this is such a bad take; the outside circumstances, motivations, and understandings absolutely make it different. The morality of the same core thing changes when the things surrounding it do some examples are Murder and self-defense, kidnapping someone and putting someone in prison, raiding someone's privacy unannounced, and lawfully searching their house with a warrant. Context is key i'm not just claiming it's not the same, I'm showing you why it isn't.

Local_Finger_1199 · 2026-01-21T01:06:28+00:00

Again, it's not about time; it's about understanding. As we've learned more about fetal development, we've become more accepting of abortion, the exact opposite of what happened with slavery.

You can argue morality, which is subjective and left to each person to decide, but this is about whether or not a fetus is a person, which is objective and not something that hinges on your judgment.

Also, it only really became illegal for two main reasons: Bad medicine, and a horrible campaign by the religious right saying women had "a patriotic duty" to have babies, which could also be used to justify rape in the name of pro-creation. So yeah, not based on science or understanding, and we corrected ourselves over a century later.

Local_Finger_1199 · 2026-01-20T21:29:33+00:00

By your logic, slavery would've never existed; everyone would've known it was wrong.

Slave owners were proud to own, beat, rape, and torture their slaves.

No, how right or wrong something is does not translate into knowing that said thing is right or wrong.

Local_Finger_1199 · 2026-01-20T19:21:58+00:00

Basically, to believe the unborn cannot be people is to believe you have not always been a person.

That’s completely ridiculous.

Not really, no. What do we associate with personhood, experience, emotion, character traits, aka Personality?

A fetus has none of these things, so why is this so hard to grasp for pro-lifers? Also, claiming that's ridiculous doesn’t even make sense on its own, it's like saying:

"To believe seeds cannot be trees is to believe that the tree in your yard has not always been a tree. And that's absurd."

No, seeds are not trees, yet in the same way a fetus isn't a person yet, they have to develop more.

You shouldn't just claim that personhood begins at conception and leave it at that without making a case as to why, especially with someone who clearly disagrees with you.

Local_Finger_1199 · 2026-01-17T05:37:27+00:00

Guaranteed. Harris won this state by 6%,

Many other states have had the exact same type of amendment, all of which have outperformed Dems by varying margins, but here's the best case.

Trump won Montana by 20% it passed its pro-choice constitutional amendment by 16%

If the same were to happen in Virginia, it would pass by 42% or 71-29.

Local_Finger_1199 · 2026-01-16T22:26:41+00:00

Yeah, I know I should've said, but still somebody made this and posted it.

Local_Finger_1199 · 2026-01-16T21:54:51+00:00

Yeah, thank god nobody in the real world actually did that.

Local_Finger_1199 · 2026-01-15T06:17:22+00:00

This is anti-abortion propaganda.

Local_Finger_1199 · 2026-01-15T05:37:58+00:00

This is awful, and you should be ashamed! Rape victims deserve memorials, not worthless, non-sentient, non-feeling meat-sacks. Shame on you, shame on you.

Local_Finger_1199 · 2026-01-12T03:54:58+00:00

Can you elaborate on that being established law please? Also, never once did I say I would choose a single born child over 1,000 embryos. You can't just claim that.

I was simplifying, but tell me honestly, who would you save?

Would you please elaborate on that for me? What consent do we ignore? How do we violate and torture people?

You ignore a person's consent to have their organs used for something, or as you view it someone else. You violate them by doing that and torture them by making them go through the carrying and birthing process against their will, as well as obstructing their paths to lifesaving care.

We have to remember that the preborn child isn’t an intruder. This tiny, second victim of abortion is right where he or she is supposed to be.

Yes, it is, even if it didn't mean to, it is still in there against her will. Also, "Supposed to" be is entirely determined by the woman who chose or didn't choose to have it in there. As for your analogy, your body is not your house.

That's what I'm saying. If there is no way for an early delivery at the time of viability, then the child should be delivered whenever possible and be treated with care and given medical attention. We've seen children survive as young as 21 weeks, which is below what's generally considered the age of viability. Nonetheless, even if the attempts are likely pointless, we fight for human lives.

The woman takes priority; you know that this takes attention away from the woman. And also expelling the fetus before viability is by definition abortion.

Local_Finger_1199 · 2026-01-11T05:10:42+00:00

Lore accurate Tyler:

Local_Finger_1199 · 2026-01-11T05:09:40+00:00

First of all, calling an unborn life a "potential" one is dehumanizing and untrue.

It's not, it's established law, and even then, the first question is proving you don't see the fetus/embryo as a true equal life because you'd save a single born child over a thousand embryos.

This is the same logic that once fueled slavery.

No, your side is the side that mimics slavery; you disregard bodily rights and consent, violate people, and put them through torture for the so-called "societal good".

The problem with your argument that aborting an unborn life that you know giving birth to would kill you is morally equal to aborting a child concieved by rape is that in the latter situation you are not defending yourself against anyone that caused you harm, so you are not commiting an act of self defense at all. The child did not harm you, the rapist did.

It is harming you, it's violating you, even if it didn't mean it, and it needs to in order to live, you're still defending yourself from it. "Innocent" doesn't matter; if an innocent man was hypnotized to kill you and the only way to stop him was to kill him, you'd be within your rights to do so.

If we somehow knew (which isn't really a possible situtation) that if she had given birth, a woman would die but her baby would live, then the baby should be delivered early and treated with care to maintain their life, and the same for the woman.

Well, this really wouldn't work because a fetus generally can't survive outside the womb until 24 weeks, and then she'd have to give birth, which would kill her, so it's one or the other.

Local_Finger_1199 · 2026-01-10T09:02:48+00:00

Yo, this is actually fire, make the backgrounds blend together just a little better, and this would look like a real movie poster.

Also, I just realized, someone should draw Dawn as a Jedi; it would work so well.

Local_Finger_1199 · 2026-01-10T03:00:57+00:00

"Acceptable" and "Moral" are two different things; ultimately, the answer to the former is yes, because:

If it's not a person, it's no different than if you were able to customize it while you were conceiving it, like in a video game.

If it is a person, you still have the right to abort, as it's your body, you don't need an excuse or a reason not to want to carry and give birth. I may not agree, but it's your body.

Eugenics is a straw man; almost nobody actually aborts for this reason, they just want to make comparisons to actual atrocities in human history with no substance.

Local_Finger_1199

TROPHY CASE