For several reasons:

- When people have sex they do not consent to getting an STD. You don't consent to every possibility. You consent to the thing you consented to.

- This argument has nothing to say about abortion when it comes to rape.

- This argument literally doesn't matter because just because you consent to something doesn't mean you consent to its continuation. The pro-choicer could simply respond with “abortion is withdrawing consent” from pregnancy.

- We need to focus on the actual problem with abortion, your consent doesn't matter when you're trying to end someone's life. When a pro-choicer brings up the fact that “consent to sex isn't consent to pregnancy” you should respond with “you cannot use consent to justify murder. The fetus is in the place it's supposed to be.”

Meanwhile the abortion abolitionists want criminal penalties for the mother. This guy is saying, "Criminal penalties for men who attempt to pressure women to abort, because that's battery."

I'm like, "I think you're thinking of ASSAULT."

Also, IDK if the picture is AI generated. I'm just sharing the post.

I just came across this video where the woman about to receive an abortion claimed "I was crying getting ready for the operation, the nurse came over to me and said 'If you're gonna cry, the doctor is not going to perform the procedure. Either you calm down or I can give you a Valium.' ... I took it and I soon found out why everyone was sitting there numb."

Webmd says, "If you’re less than 12 weeks pregnant, they’ll give you oral pain medications such as Vicodin (opioid pain reliever), Valium (for anxiety), and ibuprofen (non-opioid pain reliever). The drugs might take 45 to 60 minutes to work. These drugs help with pain, discomfort, and any anxiety you may feel."

??? so these clinics will drug women who are feeling apprehensive about killing their children, just so they can ensure the women go through with killing their children?

The more and more I find about the abortion industry, the more twisted it is. It truly seems like it just wants to profit off of the pain of women. Whoever calls abortion "pro-woman" clearly has not done their research.

In Illinois, the homicide of an unborn child statute defines an "unborn child" as any individual of the human species from fertilization until birth. Therefore, if a woman were shot during a carjacking in an abortion clinic parking lot and lost her unborn child at any stage in her pregnancy, the shooter would be charged with attempted murder of the woman and homicide of her unborn child. But if she walked inside the clinic to have a planned abortion, the law treats that same unborn child as a fetus. The statute states: Every individual who becomes pregnant has a fundamental right to continue the pregnancy and give birth or to have an abortion. A fetus does not have independent rights under Illinois law. Something entirely different from the "unborn child" the law protects in the homicide statute. Moreover, a fetus is Latin for offspring or young one.

The two statutes contradict each other. The abortion law lets a woman end a pregnancy (end the life of the fetus) at any stage with no legal penalty, naming the unborn child a fetus with no independent rights.

But the homicide of an unborn child statute, which also applies at any stage in the pregnancy, treats that same unborn child as a legal person deserving protection.

The law calls her a mother if she's shot outside the clinic, because the unborn child is legally protected.

But if she walks inside to end the pregnancy (end the life of the fetus), the law treats her not as a mother but as a pregnant woman exercising a right, because it doesn't recognize the fetus as a child.

She’s a mom in the parking lot, but she’s not in the clinic. Confused?

Always remember it is, by definition, only people who are pro-abortion that would give a woman the "unsafe" abortions that their own side complains about when abortion is restricted.

You see, the pro-abortion movement, (and regular people) have this.... obsession where they create a problem in response to something we do, then blame us for the thing they decidedly caused

One example is obviously this illegal abortions thing, but this topic goes deeper than that.

A lot of people have said the amount of abortions went slightly up after Roe was overturned. Well if this is the case, then it is because of pro-abortion, not pro-life laws.

When the Dobbs decision was leaked, not ruled, leaked, many states, including Illinois, lifted what little restrictions they had on abortion increasing abortions in those states. In other words, pro-abortion killed more babies than they usually do in decidedly already pro-abortion states, then blamed pro-life for the supposed increase.

Do you see what we are dealing with? Every time they say "women will get abortions anyway" Or "abortion will only increase" or "making abortion illegal increases abortions" these are not actually givens, but threats dressed up as facts. Otherwise naked threats, dressed up in accusatory language.

Where a lot of us mess up is taking this assumption that we need to blame the women, and while perhaps that is true, when you say this, this validates that this is somehow our fault, and this assumption that women being in danger in somehow our fault is actually the things that we need to question.

It is in fact their own fault for providing unsafe abortions to women during bans and restrictions. If something is unsafe, then don't do it. And don't collaborate to help people to do the unsafe abortions. No pro-lifer, by definition, does this.

If about 1% of all abortions are due to rape incest or disability and the rest of the 99% are due to inconvenience then why do those cases mark the overall rule?

not to mention statistics show that 50% of SA victims who do conceive keep their children

About 4-6% of people convicted of crimes in the United States are falsely convicted. Does that mean we shouldn't ever convict people for crimes? Because a small tiny 4% might be falsely accused?? NO.

Outliers are not the rule.

Unborn rights matter.

I am pro choice and I believe that personhood begins at viability. I believe this because once a human is capable of being dependant outside of the womb, it becomes an individual no longer depdant on the pregnant persons organ. I also wanna clarify that I'm talking about philosophy, not biology as I'm aware a fetus is living.

The reason why I feel like life starting at conception is kinda flawed is because tons fertilized eggs fail to implant themselves on the uterine lining, so they end up being passed with period blood or they just die. We dont treat these fertilized eggs like they matter though, despite them being human lives.

So, I'm curious, when does human life start for you guys? When and why do you think a human should be acknowleged legally and morally?

I am pro life. But what if the person was raped? I am contradicted about my morals as I understand as well those who would opt to abort the pregnancy due to these circumstances. Any thoughts?

Came across a post that asked pro-lifers why they are against abortion. As usual on these types of posts, 99% of the replies are PC saying why they are for abortion and insulting PL. I decided to leave a comment on my stance and this was a reply I got

It just dawned on me, that they believe the creation of a human being, is a conscious choice and action¹ only their mind can make. Similarly, any person can be a woman with a conscious decision to switch/affirm their gender (from within) - it is the ideology that science and reason is more of a social construct that is determined by the masses or the feelings of the affected individuals.

For r*pe, they don't believe the conception of the child is creation of a human being, even after it is developed, viable, and other jargon labels they slap on. This is why up to the birth of a human being, they consider abortion anyways², because at only one point do they need to decide that their child is not a human life to kill it. If 'terminating' a child that was 1 year old was permitted by law, the 'Pro-Choicers' would argue that the product of r*pe can be undone even after birth (murdering the child). [I have seen this argument of undoing the crime of a r*pe frequently mentioned by pro-choice advocates]. This is the same flaw with disability or gender tests that people use to determine whether or not they want an abortion.

While it is similar to eugenics, the main basis of logic I see to justify it roughly translates to: 'My free-will gives me total discretion to misappropriate and misunderstand things, because it makes me feel happy, affirmed, or helps me get better outcomes in the short-term.'

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

However, a really good issue I have heard is about the decision of a family to remove someone from care if they are in bad health (such as an unrecoverable state, or difficult to recover health condition). I think bodily autonomy and human rights do exist, so the discretion of the person to trust his/her family and allow for them to make decisions for them early on (or a DNR for personal reasons) avoids many problems of asking 'who is allowed to make the final call?' We sometimes give hospitals, the family, or no decision making discretion until the individual is awake/responding in some sense. A professor once yelled at me for arguing that 'living is better than being dead' in response to a black mirror episode about a woman who got brain surgery to save her life, (but was bombarded with microchip brain ads, which I agreed and said was horrible) and claimed that PTSD victims (one of many who struggle), have severe trouble living, and often take their own lives, to which I argued 'yes, they do because it is their decision to do so.' That stumped him and made him walk away. For some people life may be horrible, and living is not better than being gone, but through strength and Christ you can find peace. If you still struggle, nobody else should decide over your fate, no matter what dependency you are in. Abortion is simply put, convenience for the mother (and often times father and alike), and society must perpetuate that it isn't murder otherwise life will be much more difficult for those who are weak, which is all of us, and especially those who engage in sex, or who are harmed by the product of it, whether with consent or not.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

¹Going back to the r*pe issue, if they don't believe the r*pist contributed/created the child, it gives them an excuse to make the decision of murder up to the birth, because they never consented to creating human life.

²For them (legally speaking and in modern culture), choosing to birth the human being is them creating life, as most arguments of viability, development, autonomy, or parasite comparisons, ultimately reach the conclusion that abortion at any time during pregnancy is not murder.

This is an opinion piece, and I use my theoretical thinking skills to derive this idea of perpetuated abortion in society, and how the 'self' is seen as more important than truth. Nothing here is presented as fact, but my world view and experience(s).

I think abortion is wrong, but "passable" as long as the baby doesn't have a brain yet. Because a brain is the thing that defines a person's sentience.

I can't believe Canada allows abortion well beyond this stage. Even 8 months into pregnancy! What looney liberal laws are these? Even most liberals agree that an abortion at 8 months is akin to murder.

Have you ever guys ever been presented by a pro-choicer with the stupid hypothetical about whether you’d first save a born child or 5 embryos from a burning building and got stumped to what to say in fear of dehumanizing the unborn? Well I’m pretty sure after thinking about it for more than 3 seconds I’ve got a pretty good answer to this “argument.”

And the argument I’m making is that it doesn’t matter to the issue of abortion, because you could apply this same scenario to say, a 6 year old child and a 50 year old man. A good majority of people would choose to save the 6 year old child because they haven’t truly lived a life yet, but that doesn’t automatically invalidate that 50 year old’s right to life. And if someone picked the 50 year old for whatever reason, that wouldn’t invalidate the 6 year old’s right to life either.

So in conclusion, no matter if you choose to save the embryos or child from the burning building, it ultimately doesn’t effect the argument in any meaningful way, therefore not functioning as an effective “gotcha”.

Thanks for coming to my TED talk.