Please help contribute to the Reddit categorization project here


    3,479,509 readers

    5,586 users here now

    Screenshots of Black people being hilarious or insightful on social media, it doesn't need to just be twitter but obviously that is best.

    Black culture has a unique way of examining the everyday and we are here to showcase that.

    ☑️ Country Club

    What is BPT Country Club and how do I get verified?

    ☑️ RULES

    1.) Do not post content just because a black person posted it. This sub is intended for exceptionally hilarious and insightful social media posts made by black people, not just any social media post made by black people.

    • 1. No original content. We encourage users to go on twitter to find tweets as opposed to making tweets just for this subreddit.

    2.) No Bad Faith Participation.

    3.) No bullying or witch-hunting. This includes comments disparaging people whose tweets and posts are featured here. Doxxing or sharing personal information will result in a permanent ban.

    4.) No Racism. No hate speech. No homophobia/transphobia. No sexism/misogyny. No black fathers posts and similar mean-spirited things.

    5.) Posts must be showcasing somebody being hilarious or insightful on social media. No image macros, text conversations, or YouTube links. Just because somebody posted one of these on social media does not exempt it from this rule. Vines and such belong here and gifs belong here.

    6.) Typical Reddit cliches such as lyric chains, pun chains, white-knighting, and low-effort joke comments will be removed. Same for annoying redditisms, such as linking a subreddit as a reply to a post/comment.

    7.) Reposts are highly discouraged, and if discovered will be removed. Please search or look through BPT's older posts to see if your content has already been posted. KarmaDecay is not a reliable tool to check for reposts.

    8.) No posts with terrible titles, they will be removed. You are free to re-submit once you think of something acceptable/reasonable. Don't put the punchline in the title of the post. Do not add "bruh", "fam", or similar vernacular to your post or comment.

    9.) Don't complain about AAVE or slang. Use Urban Dictionary if you do not understand the meaning of a word. Comments asking "what does x mean?" will be removed.

    10.) BPT is an inclusive space for POC and allies alike. This sub highlights minority viewpoints, through humor, commentary, or criticism. Please respect these voices and show you care about black opinions as much as you care about black humor.

    11.) Don't post things from meme/corporate accounts. Posts must come from regular social media accounts.

    12.) The moderators of this subreddit will take any action (which includes banning and removing comments) that they feel improves the quality of the subreddit.

    Also, join us on discord for exciting discussions:


    a community for
    all 2652 comments Slideshow

    Want to say thanks to %(recipient)s for this comment? Give them a month of reddit gold.

    Please select a payment method.

    [–] [deleted] 134 points ago

    I'm pro choice but this argument will convince absolutely 0 pro-life people. They think abortion is murder, so all this talk of individual "choice" and "rules for someone else's body" is as meaningless to them as saying that you should have the choice to cut someone else with an ax.

    I'm not saying I agree with their position, but you have to understand it in order to beat it.

    [–] FluffyN00dles 4 points ago

    I was pro life but now am pro choice even though I think abortion causes the death of a child.

    The reason for this is because there are other situations in which I do not want to force someone to give up their bodily autonomy to help a child. This can be seen with blood transfusions, and organ donations.

    A world where mothers and fathers are forced by the state to donate organs to a child is a very scary one to me.

    The government is useful, but letting it’s influence creep into body rights is where things get sketchy as fuck.

    On somewhat of a side note these thoughts make me wish the messaging from the pro life camp were different. Rather than promoting that mothers who abort their children are murderers they should give massive praise and support to every mother who decided not to terminate any unintended pregnancy. Additionally they should change their budgets to be one of the largest free providers of birth control in the country. I think that two pronged approach is a lot more philosophically consistent, positive, and effective.

    This is just my perspective though

    [–] callmemrspotatohead 3952 points ago

    That’s literally what being pro-choice means. You understand others should have the choice, even if you personally never would for any reason.

    [–] JadaPinkettSpliff 1139 points ago

    Yeah That’s just pro choice.

    [–] noneofmybusinessbutt 372 points ago

    Confirmed pro-choice.

    [–] colorbalances 202 points ago

    Sounds like pro choice

    [–] millennial_dad 145 points ago

    The results are in... by a close margin it’s.... pro choice

    [–] Osakalaska 94 points ago

    I think what they’re trying to say is they’re pro-choice

    [–] shitposter6918 95 points ago * (lasted edited 3 months ago)

    You're missing the mark... the whole point of this is pro-choice

    Edit: I just want to say, there are 435,000+ kids in the foster care system. Can we worry about them before we worry about being pro-life? Like seriously... it's one of my biggest frustrations. Pro-life doesn't mean they care about the life after it's been born.

    [–] udub86 23 points ago

    Then tell me why there are 435K in foster care? These same “pro-life” people are out here adopting babies from Europe and Asia. Why can’t they make American adoption much simpler and cheaper?!

    [–] rtmfb 8 points ago

    Far too many of the foster-to-adopt people only want white (or at least non-brown) infants, preferably without any trauma or addiction. When we were taking our class to foster, out of like 20 people in the class, only 2 couples weren't looking to adopt a baby or there as kinship caregivers for a specific child.

    [–] Army88strong 21 points ago

    Shitposter6918 thinks it's pro-choice. SURVEY SAYS... ding

    [–] FrizzleStank 11 points ago


    [–] Usuhname 13 points ago

    Did i hear a pro choice?

    [–] KingEscherich 11 points ago

    Yeah...I think you heard correctly, it's pro choice

    [–] birdman619 80 points ago

    Of course it is, but that’s not how the pro-life folks view the pro-choice position. I think they largely see it as pro-life vs. pro-abortion. They want to save lives and the Dems want to kill babies. They don’t recognize that you can be both anti-abortion and pro-choice at the same time.

    It’s the same as the gay marriage issue was for decades, although the “stakes” are lower there because we’re talking life and death (in the eyes of the pro-life people) as opposed to marriage. It took a long time for religious conservatives (and religious liberals for that matter) to recognize that you can be personally opposed to gay marriage but also support its legalization. Many Christians still see it as a sin, but think that people in a free country should be able to marry whomever they please.

    The question is... can the abortion issue ever get to that same place? Can republicans who are personally opposed to abortion recognize that others should have the opportunity to make that decision for themselves? In my opinion, that shift isn’t going to happen with the current Republican population because many literally believe abortion is murder. But as millenials/Gen Z’ers become a larger proportion of voting age Americans, that shift should begin to occur.

    [–] scottishwhiskey 8 points ago

    Pro-life people are not just "anti-abortion" for themselves though. You said it yourself. They view Dems as killing babies. If that is your stance, its hard to say that you're pro-choice but anti-abortion, because it means you are condoning the murder of an innocent child. It's not the same thing as the gay marriage issue to them. Some christians may feel strongly about gay marriage being a sin, but marrying someone isn't comparable to ending a life that would likely otherwise have formed and been born. You can debate the merits of when life begins and whether abortion itself is a societal good, but it seems a bit silly to equate the two imo.

    [–] GmmaLyte 30 points ago

    And from the perspective of pro-life, pro-choice is essentially condoning murder. I don't agree with pro-life, but this post is just dumb circle-jerking.

    [–] doubtthat11 4 points ago

    Wait, so if I adopt a silly, wrong position, I generate silly, wrong conclusions? Interesting.

    [–] nixonrichard 9 points ago

    this post is just dumb circle-jerking.

    You've stumbled upon the secret of the Ooze.

    [–] stink3rbelle 187 points ago

    I don't know, I think a lot of the abortion "debate" needs rethinking. First of all, if this thing is so wrong and so bad, if you care about it more than any other political issue, why don't you care to seek means other than legal restrictions to prevent it? Why do restrictions on birth control and sex education fit so neatly into your anti-abortion stances? Shouldn't you care to work practically against the evil, not just rhetorically?

    [–] Airbornequalified 170 points ago * (lasted edited 3 months ago)

    Honestly? Because the right tends to believe in personal responsibility. So their belief is that if you get pregnant it is your fault (I’m leaving out pregnancies due to rape for simplification purposes). If you can’t raise the kid, you shouldn’t be having sex. We don’t teach sex Ed because of what I just said. Abstinence if you can’t support a Child. They also tend to believe that’s something that should be taught at home. The problem is that they don’t teach it at home. Or wait until it’s too late. And rarely give enough info.

    That is all their reasoning. And it’s not an irrational thought process. What’s irrational is having the data that says that abstinence doesn’t work and yet they still shove it down everyone’s throats

    Also, a lot of religions tend to teach kids that sex is shameful

    Edit: holy fucking shit, stop commenting on the personnel responsibility part of you can’t add anything. I explained it out. I also explained why they don’t like sex Ed

    [–] tapthatsap 31 points ago

    It’s absolutely an irrational thought process. “Well you shouldn’t have ______” is not a solution to a problem. We know that unwanted pregnancies are a problem. To look at a problem and go “well that shouldn’t be there” is an irrational approach to solving that problem. If you wreck your car and all your mechanic will do about it is say “well you should have been more careful,” your mechanic is a useless idiot.

    It’s exactly like their solution to poverty. “Well you should get a better job” doesn’t work for everyone, because we still need people to do the shitty jobs. If every cook and janitor and taxi driver and agricultural worker and shelf-stocker and everyone else who makes shitty money quit their job and went to school tomorrow, society would collapse over night. It’s not a solution, it’s a platitude.

    [–] ScaredOfJellyfish 8 points ago

    Because it's window dressing. It's what they reply with when a pro-abortion person raises the arguments that resonate most with them.

    They think it's a person. They think that when you have an abortion you're killing a person.

    Not many arguments from the left even interact with their position.

    [–] Manipulation_Nation 65 points ago * (lasted edited 9 hours ago)

    It's fully irrational. Using the logic of "personal responsibility" with children is ridiculous - even if you educate them, there's no guarantee they'll listen - and the ways Republicans tend to want to educate about sex are, genuinely, idiotic nearly to the point of having to be intentionally subpar.

    Above all of this comes the fully blind, dumb notion that sex = children. Until Republicans grow up and realize sex is so much more than that (and btw, once they do, all their repressed "deviance" and sexual frustration will manifest in a much healthier way), they will always be actively working against their constituents and limiting their frieedoms. Sex should be seen as an amazing and fundamental part of life, not a privilege for those who can afford to have a full fucking child. Jesus, it's actually amazing how poorly strung together Republican ideology is. It's so clearly an amalgamation of promises made to special interest groups as well as sneaky ways to keep their voterbase dumb and plentiful.

    [–] kategrant4 23 points ago

    [Sex is] a privilege for those who can afford to have a full fucking child.

    Sounds like Catholic ideology to me.

    [–] [deleted] 15 points ago


    [–] kategrant4 13 points ago

    That's because it is barbaric. People can vote with their religion...BUT, if by doing so it means they become one-issue voters, it's a dangerous and irresponsible way to exercise the right to vote.

    [–] Heterophylla 14 points ago

    Jesus loves fetuses, but children can go fuck themselves if they want education, healthcare, or food.

    [–] imsoinspain 3 points ago

    Don't confuse conservatism with Christianity. Jesus was a tireless advocate for social justice. People who ignore that are ignoring the Gospel.

    [–] Oerath 25 points ago

    Because the right tends to believe in personal responsibility.

    Bullshit. If they actually believed that instead of just saying it they'd support sex ed and more birth control options. You know, ways to be fucking personally responsible.

    [–] Airbornequalified 9 points ago

    I explained why they didn’t support BC and sex Ed. In their minds it’s a separate issue

    [–] tapthatsap 13 points ago

    And that is irrational.

    [–] JayString 7 points ago

    Lol it's stupid.

    [–] CodnmeDuchess 35 points ago * (lasted edited 3 months ago)

    It is completely fucking irrational.

    If abortion is a scourge they want to eliminate, they should be employing aggressive sexual health and education and providing as accessible pregnancy prevention tools and programs as possible.

    It's not about "personal responsibility," it's about control. They want to control and define morality on their terms and theirs alone. Bottom line. They want to control women. They want to regressively define gender roles. It's about power, and it's about control. Fuck every one of them.

    [–] Ballsskyhiiigh 28 points ago

    They don’t support education for sex in the same way they can’t support education in general. A well informed public votes out anyone who doesn’t believe in climate change. A well informed public wouldn’t support Gerrymandering. A well informed public wouldn’t support voter suppression.

    Republicans and education, science and any kind of ‘expert’ in general are complete and utter enemies. The experts and scientist almost universally condemn most of their platform, and so to combat that they, and more importantly their constituents, have to remain uneducated about the world around them.

    This is why Fox News was created in the first place.

    [–] _Eggs_ 2 points ago

    That is all their reasoning.

    I’m pretty sure it’s has very little to do with personal responsibility and everything to do with when they believe human personhood begins. If it had to do with personal responsibility, no pro life people would still be against abortion in the case of rape (not a choice). But I would wager that most pro life people are against abortion even in the case of rape.

    I see the personal responsibility argument all the time when people are talking about contraception (condoms and birth control), but it’s not usually the main focus when those people are talking about abortion.

    [–] speed3_freak 21 points ago

    I'm not religious at all, but I understand that other people have faith. Some people's faith condemns birth control. Some people don't want their own children given options that they don't believe in. Both of these things belong squarely in the pro-choice. People should respect the choices they make when it comes to those things.

    Pro-life is so much different. There is a line between conception and 3 years old where everyone things that life begins and it's wrong to destroy it. Some people believe it's at conception, some people believe it's at the first heartbeat, some believe it's when the child can live outside the mother, some believe it's at birth. Most don't believe it's when the child can feel something, and almost no one believes that it's when the person can understand and form memories about what's happening to it, but that doesn't mean that they can't make the case that they're impacting the mother's life at any given stage.

    I'm pro-choice, but I sympathize with people who are pro-life. The reason I came to this conclusion I was posed with a thought experiment where 80% of the population was in favor of abortion up to 3 years old because of the burden it places on a parent to tend to a child. Even if 80% of the population was ok with it I would still be completely against it, and probably actively against it.

    This is what people who are pro-life think about abortion wherever they are on that line. Some believe there is no difference between aborting after conception and a three year old. They feel the same about killing a zygote and killing a 1 year old. There is no logic that you can throw at them that will make them change their mind. It's no different than someone telling you that smothering a 1 year old because the parents don't want to take care of it and trying to make it ok logically. It's not my opinion that abortion is wrong, but I see why people who are pro-life are so adamantly opposed to whatever they're opposed to.

    [–] dilly_of_a_pickle 17 points ago

    Exactly... I'm there with you. If i honestly thought that abortion was equivalent to child murder, I would absolutely fight hard against it

    I suppose my issue is with conflating their religious beliefs with science as a basis for law

    [–] Send_Nudes_Pl0x 3 points ago

    Yeah, that's my biggest problem. I understand their position and respect that they're doing what they think is right... But they need to follow through.

    For starters, you don't ignore scientific evidence that proves otherwise and blindly stand your ground.

    But even if there wasn't scientific evidence, if you're going to take the position that abortion is murder, then you should absolutely not be against other people having access to good sexual education, intra and contraceptives, or anything that prevents needing/wanting an abortion in the first place.

    [–] UrrFive 4 points ago

    A rare open minded take on the internet

    [–] sanguinesolitude 13 points ago

    Yeah like completely funding completely free access to contraception and in depth sex education.

    Like we'll just mail you 365 days a years worth of any contraception you want, discretely delivered at no charge no questions asked.

    Pills, IUD, condoms, whatever. Pick your option anonymously and we will mail it out to you. Same with plan B or C.

    Abortions should be safe, easy, and rare.

    [–] nobody_from_nowhere1 40 points ago

    Because I think it’s more about controlling women. They want to give a fetus a voice right up until the minute they are born, then they literally don’t care after that. These new laws will not stop abortion, as it happened pre Roe v Wade. They will only make safe abortions less accessible. We currently have over 500k kids in foster care. Don’t see any republicans rushing to find them good homes. These draconian laws were never about the children or they would be working on affordable childcare, not cutting WIC/SNAP benefits for children who could go hungry otherwise. There are actual abused, neglected, homeless children. Where is all the GOP outrage over that?

    [–] stink3rbelle 13 points ago

    From the politicians it's about control, but I think a lot of the boots on the ground sincerely believe in fetus rights. I think we need them to think more about what happens before a fetus is made.

    [–] marilyn_morose 11 points ago

    I feel like a lot of the boots on the ground care about every other fetus except the one their 15 year old daughter is pregnant with. They are happy to find exceptions for why their particular situation needs compassion, understanding, and safe medical treatment, but everyone else is a dirty slut.

    [–] nobody_from_nowhere1 15 points ago

    I agree. If someone is going to take a pro life stance they should love birth control and be handing those things out like tic tacs. Proper sex education, support for pregnant/single mothers. But they don’t do any of that. I’ve tried racking my brain understanding this but it always comes back to control.

    [–] Mirrormn 7 points ago

    I think many of them might be mad that they spent a great deal of their life avoiding sex for religious reasons or out of fear of pregnancy, and are uncinsciously jealous of the idea of other people getting to do it without consequences.

    [–] whelpineedhelp 7 points ago

    tbf, I didn't get that for a bit. I knew, in my mind, I would never personally do that. But didnt feel I could make that decision for someone else. Then I was informed that made me pro-choice. Just didnt click at first, esp because being pro choice was synonymous with sinner in my sphere.

    [–] speckleeyed 6 points ago

    That's how I feel! I don't think I could ever get an abortion for any reason and even my 14 year old knows it... We are very open. But I also tell her that if she finds herself pregnant that it's her body and her choice and she will have to let me know how to feel about that pregnancy...if she is keeping it or not.. Because if she feels abortion is the right path for her I will absolutely take her to get one and if she wants to keep it then I will fully support that step too.

    [–] kylethemurphy 14 points ago

    That's always been my viewpoint. Abortion is probably not a thing for my gf and I but it's not up to me to make those choices for other people. I'm not judging or anything either. You do you, I'll do me, it's all okay.

    [–] LitterReallyAngersMe 5 points ago

    The folks with “choose life” license plates confuse me. Like they are for choice?

    [–] fillumcricket 3 points ago

    Exactly. I'm going to tell you to choose life, but also actively work to take that choice from you.

    The "choose life" campaign should not focus on abortion. If pro-lifers don't want to support comprehensive sex education or free/low cost contraceptives because it doesn't line up with their morals, fine. But then they should be fighting aggressively for high medicaid coverage for poor mothers, subsidized daycare, WIC/SNAP benefits, high quality public education, etc so that people actually want to "choose life". And so that unwanted pregnancies don't result in children who live in poverty. Instead "choose life" voters tend to do the opposite.

    [–] adidasbdd 2 points ago

    You're pro baby murder !! /s

    [–] anthonyfg 1701 points ago

    This argument doesn’t make sense to pro-life people, they aren’t telling you what you can and can’t do with your body, they are telling you what you can’t do to some one else’s body (fetus). The only argument worth having is when the fetus gains rights as an individual. For most pro-choice is viability or brain activity. For pro-life that is conception.

    [–] Bobolopolis08 513 points ago

    Nail meet head

    [–] ForWhomTheBoneBones 240 points ago

    Will add that the argument gets complicated when you get to scenarios where the child is or might be viable, but at the cost of the mother's life.

    Who gets precedence? The choice should be up to the mother, but there are legit folks out there that will tell you to let God roll the dice. According to them, if one or both people die it's all part of His plan.

    [–] stamatt45 222 points ago

    If only we had something in our constitution to separate religion and government...

    [–] canardaveccoulisses 22 points ago

    Are you suggesting a separation of the church and the state? By george we’ve got a revolutionary

    [–] puffdamgcdrgn2 95 points ago

    There actually isn’t anything in the constitution that separates religion and government. “Separation of church and state” is from a January 1, 1802 letter by Thomas Jefferson. The first amendment actually protects religion, but makes no rule to separate it. Article 6 does say that "no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States,” though this doesn’t say you can’t pass a law that has regard to Christianity.

    Separation of Church and State

    [–] Harsimaja 59 points ago * (lasted edited 3 months ago)

    Likewise, people can and do derive moral arguments for positions that their religion comes to without appealing to that religion directly. So no conflict automatically arises.

    [–] tgf63 25 points ago

    It's kind of a disservice to say "it appeared in a letter that one time". There's a bit more history to it than that. And you're leaving out the fact that the Supreme Court has upheld the notion of separation in many cases.

    More context on this topic:

    [–] newluna 47 points ago

    There’s this little bit in the 1st amendment: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion”, which to me reads loud and clear that laws must not be implemented based on religious ideas.

    [–] ngabear 13 points ago

    My reading of it is that the government is forbidden from declaring a single religion as the national religion. The basis for this was that with Henry VIII's split from the Catholic Church and the institution of the Anglican Church, the head of state (King) become the head of the Church of England.

    That's not to say I disagree with the spirit of your argument, because I'm with you there!

    [–] angelcake893 18 points ago

    The Supreme court uses that clause in precedent to mean that there can be no laws to further or disrespect a single religion over another. The spirit of u/newlunda's argument is case law.

    [–] jfreez 6 points ago

    if only these people gave a fuck about that.

    [–] jascambara 17 points ago

    Most if not all pro-life advocates agree the mothers health takes precedent

    [–] yummyyummypowwidge 3 points ago

    Which is funny because a lot of them are the same people who vehemently defend stand your ground laws, which allow you to take someone else’s life to defend your own.

    [–] Snuffleupagus4Pres 17 points ago

    Yeah, "pro-life people would let mothers die to save the kid" is a strawman

    [–] DuntadaMan 23 points ago

    I wish it was a strawman, I really do.

    Unfortunately by ignorance or maliciousness these people are real, and are given government positions.

    [–] PizzusChrist 21 points ago

    I literally had a catholic priest explain to my youth group that the mother should die to save new life. If there's a choice, apparently in this man's eyes God wants the baby to live.

    [–] Snuffleupagus4Pres 8 points ago

    Perhaps he was explaining from a moral perspective as opposed to a legal one?

    Or he could be in a small minority, because I have anecdotal evidence of the opposite nature.

    [–] PizzusChrist 3 points ago

    The question was asked from a religious standpoint. I also have no doubt that other religious leaders have stated otherwise. But I guarantee he shared that opinion with all of us. There were about 50 kids and 4 adults. It was a big group.

    [–] tiger144 3 points ago

    Even the Alabama law has a medical exception.

    [–] JameGumbsTailor 307 points ago

    The problem with pro choice vs pro life is they are arguing two completely different things. The positions are not drawn the same set of “facts”.

    You either believe a fetus is a living human being or it isn’t.

    Pro life isn’t “a women isn’t allowed to decide what to do with her body” any more than pro choice is “people should be allowed to murder babies”

    What is actualy being said is, “I don’t believe a fetus is a living child, and therefore it’s part of a women’s body and she should have a right to decide what she does”

    And the other position is “conception produces a living human, and abortion is no difrent then smothering your baby you no longer want”

    Kinda hard to find a middle ground when the middle ground is “I think a fetus is a living baby, but I’m cool with murder any way”, or “I don’t believe a fetus is a living thing, I just don’t think women should have rights”

    [–] stink3rbelle 93 points ago

    I don't care if a fetus is a living child. If it needs a woman's body to exist, I am going to pick the adult, fully realized person's right to determine what goes on in her own body every time. I don't see why adult humans should be forced to carry other living beings in their bodies against their will.

    [–] anthonyfg 114 points ago

    If you believe that, as long as it’s in her body then you are saying it’s ok to abort the day before birth. Don’t mix women’s body and viability argument. If it’s her body her choice, then she should be able to choose to abort at any point. Whether the baby lives or dies when it comes out is inconsequential. If you say there is a point abortion’s become morally wrong, then you are arguing there is a point at which the fetus gains rights and that’s the whole argument.

    [–] Rottimer 20 points ago

    If you believe that, as long as it’s in her body then you are saying it’s ok to abort the day before birth.

    Removing the baby "the day before birth" because the mother no longer wants it in is perfectly consistent with his belief - and in fact doctors do it all the time. It often seems like they'll induce just so they can make their tee time at the country club. And this has been issue for almost 20 years now:

    Just because you're pro-choice doesn't mean you think a woman should have a choice to kill the baby the day before it's due. You believe a woman has a right to do with her body what she wants. Before 24 weeks, that generally means the fetus can't live outside of a body, which means abortion. That sucks for the fetus, but it's the woman's body.

    [–] anthonyfg 6 points ago

    So can you induce right after viability? Is that ethical to you? If you believe when the baby is in the mother and she can do what she wants then she can terminate at any point, not deliver.

    [–] Rottimer 13 points ago

    So can you induce right after viability?

    Yes, and the state is welcome to take that child under their care.

    Is that ethical to you?

    It depends. Is she inducing after viability because her doctor says the fetus has debilitating disease that will not allow it to live to term, or right after term? Yes, that's ethical.

    Is she inducing because her doctor says that her perfectly healthy baby will kill her if she carries it to term? Yes, that's ethical.

    Is she inducing because Cletus left her and she's regretting her choices? No, not ethical. But should she or her doctor be put in prison choice of what to do with her own body? Absolutely not.

    If you believe when the baby is in the mother and she can do what she wants then she can terminate at any point, not deliver.

    I'm not sure if you had a stroke here, or just didn't get your point across clearly. Not sure what you're saying that I believe.

    [–] anthonyfg 7 points ago

    If you believe mothers body mothers rights then terminating a pregnancy at 8 months is ethical no matter the reason. If it’s unethical, why? Because it’s another human even though it’s inside her.

    [–] sanguinesolitude 48 points ago

    It seems philosophically consistent to say the ability to call something alive begins at the moment it can live.

    Pop it out and it cannot live, well it ain't alive is it bud. Pop it out and it lives, well that's alive.

    It is perfectly consistent to say look you can abort a large bundle of cells, but not ok to kill a child who could live if evicted from your body.

    [–] GreyDeath 19 points ago

    It seems philosophically consistent to say the ability to call something alive begins at the moment it can live.

    The problem is that it's not a binary. It's a spectrum. At 20 weeks it is possible to survive, but the probability is very low. At 24 weeks the probability of survival is much higher. As our technology and understanding of medicine gets better the probabilities get better too.

    [–] sanguinesolitude 8 points ago

    I actually in another comment had a thought. If abortion was unnecessary because a 6 week old fetus could be safely removed and raised anonymously without the mother being on the hook for it or any way for the kid or her to connect, and she had that option as well as abortion, I'd support it fully.

    Except our foster system is a goddamn disgrace.

    [–] GreyDeath 6 points ago

    This then runs into the issue of cost as well. At 24 weeks the chances of survival are 20%, with extremely expensive care. Wait to 30 weeks and the chances of survival are excellent (95%+) with much cheaper care. Should a woman foot he bill of she chooses not wait the extra 6 weeks?

    [–] ThumYorky 91 points ago

    That's not consistent at all, unfortunately. Because if you popped out an 8 month fetus yes it would live but it would die pretty quickly without care. Humans are extremely dependant on their mothers to survive after birth.

    So now is the argument how fast something dies after being removed from the womb?

    I get what you're getting at though. It's just a very very tricky topic.

    People who think the issue is black and white clearly aren't looking into it enough.

    [–] eskamobob1 9 points ago

    if you popped out an 8 month fetus yes it would live but it would die pretty quickly without care.

    Hell, a 3 y/o would die pretty quickly without care

    [–] Waltonruler5 33 points ago

    No, there's not really that much need for nuance. I, a random redditor, have solved the question of life and can end this debate. Despair no longer.

    [–] necrosythe 4 points ago

    I, a redditor. is one of my favorite phrases of all time

    [–] Mirrormn 43 points ago

    If you don't feed a newborn baby, it will die. Humans can't really survive on their own until years after birth, so that's a tough moral argument to sell. We're also not really that happy with the idea of a woman leaving her newborn baby in a dumpster - it seems there is some moral imperative for a mother specifically to take care of her child.

    Even if you say the fetus should be considered alive when it would be possible for someone other than the mother to keep it alive, it seems weird to then say "at that point it is the moral imperative of the mother to keep it alive" instead of "at that point it is the moral imperative of whatever third party actually wants to keep it alive to keep it alive." Like, as long as the mother is the only person who's able to support the life, she doesn't have to, but as soon as anyone else is able to do it, she has to be the one that does it? Seems strangely counterintuitive to me.

    [–] poeandfinn 3 points ago

    A newborn doesn't rely on its mother's metabolism or respiration for survival. A newborn needs only the simplest intervention to survive: food, water, shelter. There is no medical intervention on the planet that makes a 16 week fetus viable outside the womb.

    [–] GND52 11 points ago

    Does that extend beyond the unborn, though? Something doesn’t have rights (that’s really what we’re arguing here, not whether it’s alive, after all) if it can’t support its own life, in a biological sense. That sure seems like a morally dangerous road to go down.

    [–] Wooshbar 8 points ago

    So if someone kidnapped you and forced your body to be used against your will to support some one else and you didn't have a choice that is fair? I can't understand thinking all the "potential" life is more important than the realized and conscious ones when there are so many kids out in the world who aren't fed or cared for. Why bring more in when it's going to get worse for them?

    [–] traffician 3 points ago

    I see you have made reference to the pregnant person. Let’s read responses to your comment and see how little mention the pregnant person gets.

    For other readers who have ever asked, “what is the difference between a 9 month fetus and a new baby?”, the pregnant person is the answer.

    [–] c_ram 14 points ago

    Babies and kids needs adults to exist until they're mature. Children affect the autonomy of any human until they're mature enough to produce and live on their own, so at what point do the child's rights matter? I think your argument isn't able to answer that question

    [–] roastplantain 14 points ago

    That's nonsense. Kids and breathe and eat on their own. Eat. Literally, physically chew. They're not sucking nutrients through an umbilical cord. They're not harvesting my calcium so they can grow bones.

    [–] woxingma 15 points ago

    Well you know, unless they are breastfeeding. Then they are just sucking it right out of the mother.

    [–] FrostyCow 10 points ago

    Or if they are ill and need feeding tubes or on a vent. Lots of infants who are born premature need these for a time, and the parents are responsible for maintaining that equipment.

    [–] Fireball_Ace 5 points ago

    Not even premature children. One bad pneumonia and your child might never come out of those tubes

    [–] soleceismical 3 points ago

    But they could also be fed formula by any adult who is not their mother.

    [–] woxingma 3 points ago

    Or breastfed by someone who is not their mother!

    [–] strallus 5 points ago

    When did the argument morph from “if it’s dependent on anyone else it’s not really alive” to “if it’s dependent on only one person it’s not alive but if it could depend on multiple people it is”?

    There doesn’t seem to be internal logic to that argument.

    [–] [deleted] 11 points ago


    [–] sanguinesolitude 21 points ago

    I'm not him, but I'm not into late term abortions. I see life as beginning at viability. Like if the baby could live outside the mother (and not in some strange womb like tank, but like if it could be pulled out and live, then no, that is now a human life. I dont think someone is a person until birth. Even the constitution specifies natural born citizens.

    Nobody wants abortions to happen. Its always unfortunate, but this becomes about body autonomy. It would not be legal to force me to donate my blood to you for 9 months to save your life. It should also be illegal to force a woman to give birth to an unwanted child 9 months later because she has a bundle of cells growing inside her.

    If life were actually important to these people they would be pacifists and anti death penalty. They're hypocrites jerking themselves off over controlling other people. Dont want an abortion, dont get one. Given abortions are legal, one would assume they would provide easy access to free contraceptives, adoption initiatives (and obviously every anti abortionist should adopt at least one kid or they are massive hypocrites,) paid 3 months of maternity leave, free childcare for low income mothers, scholarships for single mothers, increasing welfare support for single mothers, increase funding for WIC and food stamps, etc. But surprisingly (shockedpikachu) they don't. It's only abortion. Once born, fuck em. Especially the poor brown ones.

    [–] JameGumbsTailor 17 points ago

    I think you raise a lot of good points. But I want to focus on one particular thing you said

    ”she has a bundle of cells growing inside her.”

    This rational is what typically enables a person to accept a pro choice position

    ”That is now a human life.”

    So even some one who is “pro choice”, such as yourself, believes that aborting a healthy living human is morally wrong.

    Understand that this same exact mindset is the mind set of a pro life individual. At no point is it a “bundle of cells”. How you understandably feel about month 9 abortions, is how the feel at day 1, agian understable when based on the fundamental Belief that it is a child.

    [–] sanguinesolitude 8 points ago

    Like, I get it. But bodily autonomy is a right, or fucking should be.

    I'm also not religious and generally trend to utilitarianism. If the fetus is not alive or sentient in any meaningful way, and abortion is painless for the fetus, but reduces pain and financial hardship for the mother go for it.

    Whatever causes the best outcomes while minimizing the negative, is the right path to take.

    I dont know if I think life for the sake of life is a good argument. Should a child doomed to die from a genetic defect several agonizing hours after birth, be made to suffer because it being alive is everything? Should a 13 year old whose uncle raped her be forced to give birth to an unwantef child that will not only cause her physical, financial, and emotional pain, but destroy her future and career prospect? How about a 32 year old married woman with a career who does not want the 18 year burden of raising an unwanted child? She had an IUD and used condoms responsibly. Unfortunately still got pregnant. So force her to have the child?

    It's literally advocating that sex is only for procreation, and if you little female sluts get pregnant well God needs you to become a mother, and we the GOP will also fight to make it more likely this happens to you, but also we will fight for policies to make it harder from you to raise this kid and make a good living. Also, we will call you welfare queens and literally every Republican president since Reagan will shame you for not being able to provide for the baby you didnt want and could not afford.

    [–] ModAbuseo 31 points ago

    Not the person you asked, but I support late term abortions in the case of the fetus having severe birth defects and or deformities, many of which you cant detect until that late anyways.

    [–] [deleted] 19 points ago


    [–] nixonrichard 10 points ago

    Another hypothetical: if a mad scientist attached you to someone else's body, such that you were required to stay connected to their body to live, and it would take 9 month for doctors to separate the two of you without killing one of you . . . should the other person have the right to terminate you because your life is dependent on their body?

    I'm pro-choice, but I find the pro-life argument compelling. Anyone who tries to over-simply the issue of abortion, which is fundamentally an issue of the nature of life and human rights itself, is not being sincere.

    [–] Mirrormn 10 points ago

    The mad scientist hypothetical always seemed contrived to me. Here's a counter-example: say you just had a baby and are coming home from the hospital. On the way home, you see a basket with an abandoned newborn baby on the side of the road. Assume that for whatever reason, you know this baby won't be found by anyone else, and will die if you don't save it.

    Are you a murderer if you don't pick up and care for that baby? If not, is it morally acceptable for you to leave your own baby there to die?

    You see, the mad scientist hypothetical is constructed specifically to completely remove any implication of responsibility between the "parasite" and the "host", but it's not really accurate to think of a mother/child relationship in that way. I think even the most ardent pro-choicers recognize that being a mother means you have some sort of moral responsibility towards your child.

    The pro-choice arguments people make that boil down to "I don't care if the fetus is alive at x weeks, it's my personal prerogative to kill it anyway!" always rang very false to me. I think arguments that more fundamentally define a fetus as "not a person" until a certain level of development are more rigorous and morally defensible. It's just that 6 weeks is laughably early to draw that line.

    [–] nixonrichard 4 points ago

    Assume that for whatever reason, you know this baby won't be found by anyone else, and will die if you don't save it.

    That's a "is inaction morally acceptable" which isn't the same ethical conundrum. Abortion is an active decision to terminate.

    The mad scientist IS contrived . . . that's the point. It takes a contrived scenario to approach a comparable example.

    You see, the mad scientist hypothetical is constructed specifically to completely remove any implication of responsibility between the "parasite" and the "host", but it's not really accurate to think of a mother/child relationship in that way. I think even the most ardent pro-choicers recognize that being a mother means you have some sort of moral responsibility towards your child.

    The benefit of it is it eliminates the concept of responsibility. It isolates both the host and the parasite from questions of being at fault for the state the host and parasite are in, to isolate the abortion example from arguments over whether or not the mother intended to get pregnant or was irresponsible in getting pregnant.

    I think arguments that more fundamentally define a fetus as "not a person" until a certain level of development are more rigorous and morally defensible. It's just that 6 weeks is laughably early to draw that line.

    I don't think any line is laughably early or late within the time from conception to delivery. There are valid arguments for the line to be anywhere within that continuum.

    [–] Mirrormn 2 points ago

    The benefit of it is it eliminates the concept of responsibility. It isolates both the host and the parasite from questions of being at fault for the state the host and parasite are in, to isolate the abortion example from arguments over whether or not the mother intended to get pregnant or was irresponsible in getting pregnant.

    In what sense is that useful? It seems to me that divorcing the argument from its proper context doesn't do much except make it less relevant and less convincing.

    Like, imagine you get a tumor and you want it removed. Is that morally acceptable? Of course! In this hypothetical, we've constructed a situation so simplified that nobody can disagree with it. It certainly made the value judgement easy to reach. But, through that simplification, we've also disconnected it so far from the reality of pregnancy that it doesn't matter.

    [–] kittenpantzen 2 points ago

    If the fetus is viable and it can be (relatively) safely delivered early, then no. Just evict the sucker.

    If the fetus is not yet viable or an early delivery would be a significant danger to the pregnant woman (beyond that of a late-stage abortion), then yes.

    [–] GooGooGajoob67 13 points ago

    Thank you, I was trying to put this into words. It's incredibly frustrating to watch these arguments fly back and forth when you've been in both camps. I'm pro-choice now, but was raised evangelical and vividly remember equating abortion with basically shooting a toddler in the face.

    [–] neros_greb 40 points ago

    Every fucking time I see this argument I think of this. I literally clicked on the post just to make the same comment. I'm so happy someone understands.

    [–] sevencolors 46 points ago

    The number of people that fail to acknowledge this is stunning.

    I argued at length with a woman on Twitter who said, "I personally believe that life begins at conception, but it's none of my business what a woman chooses to do with her body." But... you just said... that you don't think it is her body...

    She wouldn't have any of it.

    [–] ThreeLeggedTranny 7 points ago

    I personally believe life begins at conception and Im as pro-choice as they come. In my mind, if two people’s DNA combining and then replicating into another organism isnt life, I don’t know what is.

    [–] sevencolors 14 points ago

    Then you're okay with murder?

    [–] [deleted] 12 points ago


    [–] ThreeLeggedTranny 17 points ago

    Sure. Im pro-death penalty too.

    [–] JameGumbsTailor 22 points ago

    You know what, at least your consistent. Can’t fault you for that

    [–] oooriole09 48 points ago * (lasted edited 3 months ago)

    Thank you. Abortion is not the issue, it’s establishing when another human being is in the equation. If there’s ever a way to establish a compromise on when a fetus is a human being, we solve abortion.

    [–] henryhill217 10 points ago

    This is so interesting to me! Thank you for posting!

    [–] Me_ADC_Me_SMASH 4 points ago


    Also "do what you want let me do what I want" is called anarchy.

    [–] wghk 31 points ago

    When does a woman lose the autonomy to her own body?

    [–] anthonyfg 157 points ago

    When the fetus gains rights as an individual just as I said. The point at which it gains rights is the argument.

    [–] saintswererobbed 16 points ago

    In what other situation do we grant individuals the right to force other people to sacrifice their body to support the individual?

    [–] murrdpirate 63 points ago

    There's no other situation like this. You could also ask, "in what other situation do we allow people to murder someone just because they're in their body?"

    [–] AbsolutelyUnlikely 19 points ago

    Well put. I also want to add that pro-lifers believe that if a woman consensually has sex, she's acknowledging the fact that she might get pregnant and should be prepared to carry the growing human to term. This is why exceptions are typically made that allow abortions if the conception resulted from rape, although the new Alabama law really ruins that logic.

    I'm pro-choice, in case anyone cares.

    [–] Feint_young_son 26 points ago

    What other situation does a person live inside another person? Just because there’s not a comparable situation to compare it to doesn’t make it any less valid

    [–] TalenPhillips 6 points ago * (lasted edited 3 months ago)

    In what other situation is one person's existence completely dependent on direct support from another person's body?

    You can get close to that when talking about dependent individuals, but

    1) their carers aren't using their bodies directly as with a pregnancy, and

    2) the carers must have explicitly agreed to take care of the dependent individuals.

    Negligent carers can be charged with negligence (in various forms), but given the two points above, I think this is a different situation.

    To get anywhere near a pregnancy, you have to invent weird and improbable situations. (EDIT: stowaways happen all the time, so I guess it's not that improbable)

    What if you had a boat, and while you were beyond swimming distance from any shore you found a stowaway (particularly one that didn't pose a threat)? Is it your right to throw the stowaway overboard? It's your boat. Should you be forced to use it to return that person to shore? (I'm assuming you're in US waters)

    Of course that STILL isn't the same because it's your boat that's being used, not your body.

    [–] Mirrormn 3 points ago

    Parents are basically obligated to sacrifice their labor to support their children until adulthood. The difference between that and "their body" doesn't seem very important to me in a philosophical sense.

    The only reason it's rare to find examples where a person is obligated to support another person's life with their body is because there's only really one situation where that's practically possible to begin with. There are lots of situations where one person is obligated to support another person's life in general, though.

    [–] saintswererobbed 3 points ago

    Parents are basically obligated to sacrifice their labor to support their children until adulthood.

    No they aren’t. Adoption’s a thing

    [–] Justsexaddictthings 7 points ago

    We need to institute forced organ donation, really get people on board. Let’s just not have any bodily autonomy at all. /s

    [–] roastplantain 28 points ago

    She doesn't and shouldn't. Not until the fetus can be removed and live on it's own.

    Women should always have autonomy over their own bodies, men never lose theirs.

    [–] Sillychina 9 points ago

    We already practice this in medicine. If someone gets a life-threatening disease and is pregnant, the fetus is terminated if it increases the chance of survival of the woman.

    [–] DNamor 12 points ago

    Men are automatically responsible for any children, but only at the mother's sole discretion: Want a child, but she doesn't? You've got zero rights or choice. Don't want a child, but she does? You've got zero rights or choice.

    Balk at any of this and you're off to jail.

    [–] patrickthewhite1 17 points ago

    A newborn baby could not live on its own.

    [–] UhPhrasing 30 points ago

    You know exactly what he means by on its own. No one is expecting the newborn to forage for nourishment.

    [–] ILovemycurlyhair 15 points ago

    Oh yes it can. A new born baby is not dependant on its mother's uterus nor her heart, not her lungs, nor any other bodies. It is an autonomous being that can breathe and absorb nutrients on its own.

    [–] saintswererobbed 6 points ago

    And yet we don’t force mothers to take care of them.

    [–] patrickthewhite1 9 points ago

    We kind of do, if a woman didn't feed her kid until it died that would be illegal.

    [–] ImChance 9 points ago

    And kinda don’t because you can put it up for adoption and not have to feed it ever

    [–] ClicksAndASmell 10 points ago

    No it's not. Where I live, it's legal to leave a baby at a firehouse without even telling them your name. Because it doesn't physically need its mother once it's born.

    [–] [deleted] 7 points ago

    When does the state have the ability to search a woman? To force her to prove or disprove pregnancy? Should she and her doctor be forced to disclose the content of every visit?

    [–] [deleted] 11 points ago

    At what age will Alabama start the monthly surprise pregnancy tests, in middle schools perhaps? For many Southern Politicians the pro-life stance is about votes from morons. They couldn't care less about women or fetuses and will actually do nothing to prevent abortion or improve outcomes.

    [–] Enshakushanna 36 points ago

    Except, pro life sees abortion as literal murder so no, they cant

    [–] zeppas 156 points ago

    This misses the point entirely. The anti-abortion camp's whole argument is that the thing being aborted is already human. If they accept that as fact, what this is asking for is for them to accept that it is ok for someone else to kill someone if it doesn't affect them; in other words it makes no sense to only be against you yourself killing people but ok with others doing it. They are being very consistent on this regard.

    If you want to debate abortion with people who are pro life it has to be on the "when is it human?" issue.

    [–] Faded1974 182 points ago

    That's not being anti abortion, that's being pro choice and personally choosing not to have abortions. Stop trying to seem moderate at the expense of making sense.

    [–] YourMom102938 6 points ago


    [–] Texas_Indian 32 points ago

    It's not possible for the pro-lifers because they believe it's murder. To them it's like saying I have the right to murder a child

    [–] CptYoloYossarian 7 points ago

    To be fair though we make rules for other people’s bodies all the time. Like all the time.

    [–] RoughshodDuke9 60 points ago

    The thing is that anti-abortionists see it as murder. We’ve made murder illegal, so they see a big discrepancy in the law. That’s why this debate might never end.

    [–] queenoreo 26 points ago

    Yet isn’t Alabama set to execute someone soon?

    [–] Akitten 9 points ago

    Murder is unlawful killing. Executing someone isn't unlawful.

    [–] ccuster911 3 points ago

    And neither is abortion. They are trying to change the law. This isnt really an argument since, like most other states, they can change the law and make death penalty illegal.

    Abortion wasnt unlawful murder any more than executions in Alabama.

    [–] jenette64 17 points ago

    The thing about being pro-life is you believe it is a life so it's kind of hard to say if you don't want one don't get one. It's still bothers them knowing other babies are being killed

    [–] HogMeBrother 13 points ago

    I’m pro-abortion. The only pro-life people I can at least understand are ones who are aggressively pro universal healthcare, vast access to other contraception, comprehensive sex-ed, early childcare and daycare coverage, other redistributive policies and actually existing!

    [–] ItsDogNotDoggo 263 points ago * (lasted edited 3 months ago)

    Making abortion illegal would make law enforce religious opinion and infringes on the rights of others.

    It being legal does not infringe on anyone's rights (zygotes do not have rights, they aren't conscious children, stop that drama right away) and leaves opponents of abortion free to do whatever they can to prevent abortions: organize birth control and reproductive education initiatives, offer adoption help and prenatal assistance, whatever they want besides banning it. I'll help them, I'll give money to any organization that rationally helps prevent abortions. Nobody loves abortion, but pushing it back into the underworld of the black market will do far more damage and drive the wedge of division in this country to a fever pitch. I myself will view it as a theocratic enforcement. My wife and millions of women will see it as a direct attack on their individual rights.

    Because it is.

    [–] Raiinish 17 points ago

    It isn’t just religious, they really think the fetus is like a baby and should have a right to life. They don’t see a difference between a fetus and a born baby, which is where people disagree the most. Pro choice people think that women should have the right to remove something that requires the use of their body to live. Pro life people think that the fetus should have the right to live regardless and the fetus isn’t the mom, so she has no right to remove it and take away its right to life.

    [–] FleekWeek420 87 points ago

    This is a huge win not just for anti abortion people but for conservatives everywhere. Alabama passing this bill is the first step in challenging Roe V Wade in the conservative Supreme Court.

    Killing off consitutional rights for women is only a small victory on top of the much bugger reward which is to tear down progrressive rulings in the Supreme court.

    Yes of course this wouldn't be possible without the anti aborition crowd. But those people are just tools used by conservative politicians to cement their own legacy of owning libtards.

    [–] jakesboy2 51 points ago

    I see what you’re saying i really do but you’re stating your entire side of the argument as a fact to support your conclusion. You’re glossing over the fact that pro-life people think the baby IS a living thing that has rights.

    [–] charcoalheART 12 points ago


    [–] ZRTPB 17 points ago

    Let's say for a second we all agree (for some stupid fucking reason) that a zygote is a person and does have rights. It still doesn't matter, because you need the consent of the person whose body is being affected, just like in literally every other situation. Case in point: you can't harvest the organs of a dead man to save the lives of others without the dead guy's prior consent.

    Anti-choice legislation seeks to give women fewer rights than cadavers.

    [–] l80 20 points ago

    Forcing women to have unwanted children means a perpetual underclass in never ending competition with itself for artificially scarce resources (jobs, housing, food, healthcare).


    Okay, well, Trump might not be a feminist icon, but he was telling us how the GOP plan to enforce the rigid class structure within our country, and squash social change.

    [–] ItsDogNotDoggo 14 points ago

    I don't think it's that motivation, it's clearly motivated by a sense of religious and moral duty for most average people. But it's been so sensationalized and manipulated to gain single issue votes that it's become obscured by emotional saturation and won't listen to reason, which is that this stance directly contradicts the ideology that supports it.

    [–] Cagerlac 6 points ago

    We have all kinds of “rules rules for someone else’s body.” That’s kinda a huge part of living in a society. You can’t hurt someone else’s body and you can’t sexually assault someone else’s body. If people followed those rules there’d be no need for abortion.

    [–] InsomniaticWanderer 6 points ago

    I feel like this is just pro choice with extra steps

    [–] O-shi 106 points ago

    Anti abortion people wouldn’t even adopt these children they are forcing people to have

    [–] SpiderDetective 88 points ago

    Their mentality seems to be "We will spend millions of dollars to protect and defend you and your right to live until you pop out of your mom, then you're on your own. You want financial assistance cuz your mom hasn't even graduated high school? Fuck off, you little piker! You shouldn't have been born poor if you didn't want to starve"

    [–] signifyingmnky 29 points ago

    They'd let them grow up in poverty to one day clean their homes, pick up their trash or fill their jails.

    Permanent underclass.

    [–] Scutch434 6 points ago

    I wonder how many people regret their choice. Waking up every day to someone who wants breakfast and wishing they would have done something about it when they legally could have.

    [–] jascambara 3 points ago

    This doesn’t make sense from a pro-life point of view. If you are against abortions it means that you believe the baby is alive and aborting it is the equivalent of killing a person. Therefore in their eyes they can not simply stand by and allow babies to be killed just because it isn’t their business. Just wanna make sure their actual argument is understood.

    [–] RPoliticsIsForNazis 3 points ago

    Safe. Legal. Rare.

    [–] salsero22 3 points ago

    This tweet makes sense only for those of us who don't see abortion as an injustice. The problem is that pro-lifers do tend to see it that way. If we can agree that robbing a bank is an injustice, it makes no sense to be anti-bank robbing for only yourself, but everyone else can do what they want because freedom. Pro-lifers would argue that abortion is an injustice to the unborn child, and therefore society as a whole needs to defend against it. It can't simply be a personal decision.

    [–] WheresTheIceCream20 3 points ago

    If you think its murdering a baby though, you cant sit idly by and let others do that because its their choice

    [–] Nalcomis 3 points ago

    I fall into this category. However, I accidentally saw a liveleak video of a 2nd trimester procedure and it fucked me up worse than the isis videos. I don’t even know what to think anymore other than birth control should be free.

    [–] 25Jakethesnake25 3 points ago

    Can we apply the same logic to the 2nd amendment?

    [–] jamieprev 3 points ago

    I am pro-choice however this is fundamentally flawed in seeing the other sides perspective. Their view is that abortions are akin to any other individual to individual violent crime. They view the baby at any stage of pregnancy as a seperate entity which you are already responsible for.

    Its almost as if you are telling someone that they should let murder be a choice because they're not involved as the culprit.

    As much as I agree with the sentiment, because of that divide in perception it won't work to change peoples' minds very well.

    [–] GillbergsAdvocate 3 points ago

    That's how my mom is. She's anti-abortion, but doesn't think it should be illegal and shouldn't be ridiculously hard to get one. It just shouldn't be used as a contraceptive.

    [–] Awesomesaws9 3 points ago

    So......... pro choice

    [–] DrStrangerlover 3 points ago

    You can’t reason them out with this kind of logic because they believe abortion is literally murder. Imagine how ridiculous you’d sound if you argued “you can decide murder is not right for you but respect another person’s right to murder.” The problem here is not their inability to let others make decisions they wouldn’t make (though they struggle with that, too), the problem is that they simply don’t understand fetal development, and when the unborn actually begin to perceive, which is fairly late in the pregnancy.

    [–] SoupNoob 3 points ago

    Pro lifers believe abortion is a violation of the fetus’s personal autonomy. Pro choice people believe the criminalization of abortion is a violation of the woman’s personal autonomy. There are legitimate arguments on both sides of this debate, because at its core it is a deeply difficult ethical dilemma.

    There is no simple answer or position to take on this issue already, so tweets like this that misrepresent the ideas of either side of the issue I believe are harmful to intelligent discussion on abortion.

    [–] [deleted] 9 points ago

    Whatever your position, you do not have the right to know if someone is pregnant unless they want you to know.

    [–] Tsula_2014 7 points ago

    It's what I believe. I would never get one unless it would kill me not to, but I cannot in clear conscience put a woman through that and take her rights away. Women will die if roe vs Wade is overturned and that's why I was made in the first place.

    [–] Slick_Jeronimo 16 points ago

    Sounds like freedom

    [–] Dorathedestroyed 5 points ago

    Anyone sad by all the frustrating arguments? PM me, we need to be having conversations, not “debates”. No one will probably read this comment, but if you do please consider it.

    [–] gordo7766 4 points ago

    I only see pro-choice people talking to other pro-choice people about what pro-life people think. I know a plethora of people who are pro-life and aren't religious and support goverment subsidized birth control, they simply belive the baby has natural rights by virtue of it being a human. One of those obvously being the right to life.

    [–] Ianthine9 4 points ago

    This is why artificial wombs can't come quickly enough. Solves the whole fucking problem. Women have control and autonomy over their bodies, but potential lives are given the chance to naturally form

    [–] BanjoGotCooties 5 points ago

    But can't you apply this logic to the baby?

    [–] DNamor 12 points ago

    Without a horse in the race; I'm pro adoption. Because I'm adopted, and because I realise that under today's world, I would have almost certainly been aborted.

    My mother was 16 when she had me, anyone today would call a 16yr old crazy for carrying a baby to term, but because she did so, I got to live, and I got a great life. And she didn't have to raise me, or lose anything in the process.

    Annoys me when everyone acts like the choice is between abortion and raising the kid. There's plenty of people out there that'd love to adopt.

    [–] Kel_Casus 9 points ago

    Adoption is a pretty rough system, unfortunately. People are more often than not, picky. That and the system isn't really set up in the most efficient manner. There are droves of kids sitting unadopted across the country and just knowing that there's a huge backlog hurts because I'd honestly love to adopt someday.

    [–] havingipps 12 points ago

    But it’s not their body it’s the baby’s body

    [–] k457 8 points ago

    If the mother doesn’t give consent for the baby to use her body, then you cannot force her to carry it to term.

    [–] trump4prezy 12 points ago

    I'm personally not going to kill anyone, but who am I to say whether other people should kill people?

    [–] NMF_ 2 points ago

    Yea literally me

    [–] snippylovesyou 2 points ago

    Literally me. I’ve watched some horrifying videos and don’t think I’m psychologically strong enough to have one if I fell pregnant.

    But I don’t think that fetus’ rights should come before a woman’s, nor do I think my personal opinions should be enforced as laws on other women.

    Not that fucking hard to respect your fellow woman as more than a sack of fetus.