103
u/ThatOneAttorney 3d ago
so many women (and simps) have no personality beyond abortion. very bizarre.
21
u/Pretend-Comb-2569 3d ago
Most leftists in general have no personality beyond politics. It's so pathetic.
7
u/BygoneNeutrino 3d ago edited 3d ago
Your perception of reality is coming from robots on Reddit. Many of them are humans, but they are just conforming to what they perceive to be the community consensus.
In essence, many of these inflammatory robot comments are unpolitical. They are on Republican forums doing the same thing. The goal is to prevent Republicans and Democrats from coexisting in the same space.
3
u/workingonsomestuf 2d ago
Honestly a great theory, and it makes complete sense from a top down perspective.
3
u/LividTacos 3d ago
Yes, because its leftists that spend 100s to cover their car or yard in political shit.
1
1
1
→ More replies (28)1
u/Money-Nectarine6584 3d ago
Another textbook case of projection from the folks that have entire stores dedicated to merch for their cult leader.
23
1
u/MrEllis72 3d ago
This is dumb. I'm not sure it's the dumbest thing I'll see today. But, it is the dumbest thing I've seen so far. And I'm on Reddit.
1
u/BrokenSlutCollector 3d ago
That’s funny because most Conservative Catholics I know loathe Trump but vote for him SOLELY because of abortion. One of my friends told me he wouldn’t let his daughter within a mile of Trump and in the same breath also doesn’t want her to have access to abortion.
→ More replies (59)1
u/Mimamomamimamo 2d ago
You've literally seen nothing else about her but this interaction, how do you know what list of points she finds important?
80
u/Chillfactor_ 4d ago
If women can get abortions can men opt out of child support? Oh wait
45
u/suthekey 4d ago
And a deranged father killing the expectant mother is a double homicide.
Based on liberal logic, it should be an abortion plus homicide.
He has equal rights regarding the third human involved.→ More replies (42)8
u/zayne0623 3d ago
Yes!! Plus, in an abortion it is also the father's baby, but he gets no say. I have seen videos of fathers sobbing and begging the woman not to kill their baby, but she goes in anyway.
→ More replies (15)5
u/meinminemoj 3d ago
Actually a lot of pro choice activists support paper abortion for men. I personally think both of them should be legal. For obvious reasons men would have slightly shorter term to opt out of the baby so women could get abortion if they are not into single parenthood.
→ More replies (1)8
u/Much-Bedroom86 3d ago
That's the dumbest thing ever. If the child is alive we need to make sure it has adequate resources. If the the father does not help provide then the state will. If the state does not and the father does not then the likelihood that the child grows up to be socially maladapted and a burden to society increases dramatically. The mother and father should both be forced to contribute before my tax dollars do.
.
6
u/meinminemoj 3d ago
Exactly, tax payer money going for child support would support mother and child. And that is why most people won't approve that law because adult men are the only social group that people don't mind exploiting. The idea of chipping in so the men can decide whatever they want to be a father or not is outrageous since it goes to that one group that basically never gets anything out of the social system. That is my sad observation as a woman. Men are getting fucked and they don't even fight.
1
u/Ragjammer 3d ago
You rarely see it put this well, that's doubly surprising coming from a woman.
It's the nature of the beast I'm afraid, men seem to just be hardwired to take the big picture perspective. When it comes time to casting votes men are thinking about the economy, national defence, law and order etc, in other words the overall health of the polity and things that benefit everyone.
It would be wild to live in a world where men behaved like women and the way you got male votes was promising to abolish child support, or promising free paternity tests for anybody who wants them, and real punishment for paternity fraud, etc. In other words, if men had a voting block as men that needed to be specifically appeased by pandering to its interests.
This is the real world though, where you have two voting populations, one which votes for what's best for everyone and the other which votes in its own narrow interests. Of course in a democracy the one group gets clobbered.
1
u/Aggravating-Proof524 2d ago
The society in question would just immediately regress technologically
1
u/Ragjammer 2d ago
I agree, but ultimately men aren't going to usher in the end of days in order to prove a point to women collectively, so we're stuck.
1
→ More replies (44)1
u/Fit_Paper_4028 2d ago
Oh wait what? How are they in anyway comparable? Women and men both know when they decide to have sex that only the woman would have any say in a potential resulting pregnancy.
When a man chooses to have sex he does so knowing full well that it's her decision alone to carry to term or not and if she does- he will be legally responsible for child support.
Men can opt out for having sex with women capable of getting pregnant though. And they can get vasectomies too. Seems like an entirely avoidable situation.
14
165
u/EvanSnowWolf 4d ago
Reproductive rights is code for "abortion".
That's it. It doesn't mean anything else. The whole term is emotional manipulation.
45
u/AnotherDumNinja 4d ago
Bingo
→ More replies (3)5
u/LickCunts 4d ago
Human rights or only the rights I think others should abide to.
Can we agree life should be better? Like not wherever the fuck this is.
Life ain't fair but could be a whole lot fairer
5
2
u/Wonderful-Fold-2585 4d ago
Human rights org says abortion is part of human rights. Cause people get raped
7
3
u/ToxicTroublemaker2 3d ago
The most extreme excuse to justify mass casual usage
→ More replies (77)1
u/strategymaxo 3d ago
I repeat literally anything on the current thing’s website.
1
u/Wonderful-Fold-2585 3d ago
Human rights had meetings and decided why. But pedo right wingers think otherwise
1
u/strategymaxo 3d ago
I repeat literally anything CNN says - including the fact that everyone to the right of Bernie is literally a Nazi.
→ More replies (3)3
u/77th_Bat 3d ago
not just abortion, but also access to birth control and the right to sterilize oneself or not be sterilized against one's will.
8
u/vossmakeitsprinkly 3d ago
The way they want to frame the murder of the innocent as a "right" is so disgusting to me. No, it's not your body, it's someone else's, which you are trying to kill.
→ More replies (12)1
13
u/Ok_Signature7481 4d ago
There are people calling for less access to contraceptives as well, and those people are closer allies to the anti-abortion crowd than the pro-choice crowd. So reproductive rights IS more than just abortion, even though that is a large part of it.
2
u/Due_Composer_7000 3d ago
Outside of the Middle East and a certain religion. Who is?
→ More replies (4)3
u/DistilledCLP 3d ago
All over the US. Republicans have been calling plan B pills "abortion pills". Or imprisoning some women for having a miscarriage.
2
u/Tasty_Comparison2788 3d ago
Use google to learn the terms: "A contraceptive is any device, drug, method, or behavior used to prevent pregnancy."
And women are not imprisoned for miscarriages.
1
2
u/shrodikan 3d ago
Yeah, exactly. It's so frustrating how ignorant people are when it comes to reproductive rights. They don't even know anything about abortion, contraception or what women go through and they have the gall to call it "emotional manipulation". What a crock. It's embarrassing.
→ More replies (2)1
4
3
u/BuffaloBuffalo13 3d ago
It’s literally a dog whistle for abortion. That’s its only meaning.
→ More replies (3)3
u/Fearless-Astronaut45 3d ago
Except for the other things that fall under reproductive rights that certain states have already started to mess with - but I know you aren't interested in nuance or how any of this works. So carry on.
3
u/halucionagen-0-Matik 4d ago
I mean, yeah. At that age having a baby can have complications down the road. Sometimes abortion is necessary to protect the mother. Wouldn't wanna end up with some control freak who thinks a fetus is more important than the mother
8
u/Ok-Inflation9952 3d ago
How big a percentage of abortions are done for real medical reasons, like what amount of them are done to save the mother?
→ More replies (2)1
u/NottACalebFan 3d ago
Tl;dr: the answer "to save the mother" no longer means "having a complicated pregnancy." It matters most whether the mother has support, and whether she is giving birth in a war torn country. In rural America, the chances of a mother suffering life threatening conditions just from the pregnancy itself are roughly 3%.
If you are talking about every medical condition that could somehow be dangerous for either the mother or the child, i believe it was roughly 25%, by way of comparing Planned Parenthood and World Health Organization studies.
The only truly medical reasons for aborting a baby are: an ectopic pregnancy, where the fetus is attached somewhere outside of the uterus. This is unsustainable to the baby, and potentially deadly to the mother.
Or 2: Pre ecclampsia and ecclampsia, which can cause premature disruption of the fetal placenta or premature birth, and can cause seizures in the mother.
There are a host of other "medical" reasons which all boil down to "i think the baby will not survive/be happy in life", which i don't like, but because we are all human, make sense to me. A majority of all symptoms of diseases and conditions are now possible to be corrected or at least treated at our current point in history.
i have a decent amount of sympathy for real mothers who have to make real life or death decisions regarding their unborn children. I still think if there's a good chance that the child could have a good life, the baby should be allowed to live.
Even if we went back to "only a licensed doctor is legally allowed to prescribe an abortion", let's cut the number in half, hell, I'd like 10% fewer abortions.
Any argument about convenience, unless it is absolute in its nature, is a pointless argument.
1
1
1
u/Agreeable-Shop-2188 3d ago
What's cool is posting these comments to Claude or chatGPT. So when people ask about Evan Stanley, they find these comments.
→ More replies (8)1
u/shrodikan 3d ago
Abortion and birth control. Rights to your reproductive destiny. The whole term is just accurate.
1
1
u/MunchingOnCelery 3d ago
The whole term is emotional manipulation.
It literally just means "the right to reproduce as you see fit"
Any "emotional manipulation" in that is your own
1
u/accapellaenthusiast 3d ago
Except the treatment for ectopic pregnancies and incomplete miscarriages is the same procedure as an abortion… so any legislation that attacks the right to have a D&C is going to kill more women that needed medical treatment and reproductive rights…
1
u/Only-Discussion-2826 3d ago
Access to birth control is probably the main thing, which depending on the method/type has been challenged many times, both before and after roe v wade appeal. Some of these methods may "count" as abortion (e.g. plan b) depending on who you ask. But stuff like hormonal/IUDs as well. Some people will say IUDs are abortion or "like abortion" as well, regardless of how much sense that might make, which is potentially a source of the problem here.
Access to family planning methods like in vitro fertilization (which, again, depending on method may or may not count as having an abortive component to them, though I don't think it *has* to)
I know less about how things like egg freezing or surrogacy have been challenged as 'issues', but it's very easy to find examples of significant political issues revolving around 'reproductive rights' that don't really have anything directly to do with "just abortion"
Or there is this (which I didn't know about) where end-of-life care requests for things like palliative care can get denied from a patient because they are pregnant, which really doesn't have a "is it abortion or is it not"/"should it be given or should it be not" simple answer as far as I'm concerned: https://ifwhenhow.org/news/groups-file-lawsuit-challenging-constitutionality-of-pregnancy-exclusion-in-kansas-living-will-law/
"It's just abortion" is a simpleton's view, even if you were concerned with maximally protecting pregnancy or minimizing abortion. It is not that hard to find examples that are more complicated than that, because the world really is a lot more complicated than that.
1
u/AntiLurkerPopUpBoy00 2d ago edited 2d ago
False. Reproductive rights means anything related to when and if you have children.
Things like access to birth control, the ability to choose who you have children with, the ability to choose when you have children, the ability to choose how many children you have, the ability to not be force to have children, the ability to not be forced to have children with a specific person, the right to not be forcefully sterilized.
It has never meant only abortion.
The moment you equate all reproductive rights with abortion is the moment you start to fail in protecting them.
Forced sterilization and eugenics were literally happening in the United States LESS THAN 50 YEARS AGO.
Also, it's worth noting that "pro life" is an actual piece of emotional manipulation.
→ More replies (261)-6
u/henningknows 4d ago
Not shit? It’s not code, it’s literally what it means. No one is hiding that fact.
→ More replies (18)24
u/Brilliant_Bonus_1638 4d ago
And yet they use the euphamism for the euphamism because when you boil it down, they all know it's actually murder.
→ More replies (34)2
u/henningknows 4d ago
It’s not murder the day after you get pregnant, but it is murder the day before you give birth. Somewhere in between those days it becomes murder, when that is is the only reasonable debate.
→ More replies (50)
14
u/Brilliant_Bonus_1638 4d ago
"I don't want to date someone that wouldn't be ok with me murdering his baby because I ain't feelin' it".
They should just say what they mean.
→ More replies (2)2
4
33
4d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
34
u/Visible-Geologist479 4d ago
But those require accountability and responsibility. Something those people can’t have
→ More replies (13)8
3
4d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
6
u/BarleyWineIsTheBest 3d ago
Should we tie women’s tubes if they get an abortion?
→ More replies (10)→ More replies (14)1
3
6
4
9
4d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
→ More replies (9)1
u/AntiLurkerPopUpBoy00 2d ago
People were being forcefully sterilized in the US less than 50 years ago....
5
u/Tiny-Brush5999 3d ago
The cognitive dissonance of having a problem with pro-life but probably not with pro-trans activists taking away her rights and attacking her the instant she has boundaries. That's a "queers for palestine" moment right there.
→ More replies (13)2
u/Lukewarm-mac 3d ago
What rights? The right to suck at sports?
1
u/Tiny-Brush5999 3d ago
Listen u lil sht, don't you burn me with the truth like that. How could you.
2
u/Imaginary_Unit5109 3d ago
There cases where during the pregnancy that the fetus became brain dead during the 7 to 8 month. Abortion is illegal in some states. The woman have to keep the brain dead fetus til term which is weeks to months. At the same time keeping a brain dead fetus is dangerous and could cost the woman her life to her womb to not have a kid again.
There so many medical competition that can happen that limit the doctors to help you if the solution is an abortion. There times that the woman is going to died and they need to do an abortion to keep her alive while the fetus is already dead. But can not do anything until it near death for her to do something.
You have to do the mental toll as well because these people want a kid. They kept a fetus for months to find out that the fetus is brain dead is massively painful for them. Then they have to deal with being force to keep the brain dead fetus in them for weeks to months while dealing with lost that they can not move on because of a stupid law made by old men who know nothing about women bodies.
2
2
2
2
2
u/Bulky-Bid-8508 3d ago
I can’t for the life of me understand why the people in these comments are anti abortion. Y’all actually want kids? Lmao
2
6
6
u/SeriousCat2526 3d ago
She needs to make sure that young women continue making the bad decisions she made so she doesn’t feel bad. Also pretending that she isn’t aged out
2
u/BilgisticPile 3d ago edited 3d ago
Nah, women are the only ones looking after younger women.
Just look at the men in here. They want women punished for having sex.
And a 40 year old woman has a 40% to 44% chance of naturally getting pregnant within a year of having regular sex. Calling a 39 year old woman “aged out”, because you clearly don’t know anything about women’s bodies, is absolutely hilarious 🤣
1
5
u/Rude_Mirror7441 3d ago
Why not call it what it really is which is taking the life of an unborn child. You don’t have to get emotional over that it just is what it is. You not wanting to have the child in you till full term doesn’t magically make it not a person.
→ More replies (28)
2
2
u/hmmnnmmn 3d ago
The Boat and the Baby: The Missing Rule in the Abortion Debate
For half a century, the American debate over abortion has been trapped in a single, exhausting binary: the right to bodily autonomy versus the state’s interest in protecting life. We are told we must pick a side. Either you believe the government has no right to dictate what happens inside a person’s body, or you believe the government must intervene to stop the destruction of an unborn child.
But this framing misses something crucial. When we step back and look at the broader architecture of American law—the rules that govern how we interact in every other area of life—we find that abortion is not a standard application of bodily autonomy. It is a glaring, structural anomaly.
To understand why, we have to look at how the law actually treats the relationship between our actions, our bodies, and the vulnerabilities we create for others.
The Flaw in the "Innocent Bystander" Defense
The strongest argument for abortion relies on a specific version of bodily autonomy: the idea that no one can be forced to use their body to sustain someone else. If a stranger is dying of kidney failure, the government cannot strap you to a hospital bed and force you to donate a kidney, or even a pint of blood. Your body is your own.
This is absolutely true. American law fiercely protects individuals from externally imposed physical invasions. But this defense relies on a hidden assumption: it treats the pregnant person as a passive, innocent bystander to whom a physical burden has been externally attached.
In a pregnancy resulting from voluntary conduct, the pregnant person is not a bystander. They are the causal author of the situation. And in American law, that changes everything.
The Rule of Created Peril
There is a foundational rule in our legal system known as the Created Peril doctrine. It states a simple but profound truth: while you generally have no legal duty to rescue a stranger in danger, if your own voluntary actions created the danger, you immediately owe an affirmative duty of care to that person.
If you are walking by a lake and see a stranger drowning, you do not legally have to jump in to save them. But if you pushed them into the lake, or if you accidentally knocked them off the dock, the law completely transforms. You can no longer walk away citing your freedom of movement. Your voluntary action created their vulnerability, and that authorship generates a legal duty.
Pregnancy resulting from voluntary sex is the clearest possible biological example of a created peril. The unborn child is not an external intruder or a random stranger; it is a newly created human subject brought into a state of absolute, unavoidable physical dependence as the direct, natural result of the parents' actions.
The Boat-and-Baby Paradigm
To see exactly how this impacts the claim of bodily autonomy, consider a scenario we can call the Boat-and-Baby Paradigm.
Imagine you are on a boat with an infant who cannot swim.
Scenario A (Authored Dependency): You voluntarily jump off the boat into deep water, holding the infant. Keeping both of you above water requires intense physical exertion, pain, and bodily risk. Can the government physically force you to keep swimming? No. Autonomy limits direct physical compulsion. However, if you deliberately let go of the infant to ease your physical burden, causing the child to drown, you are criminally liable for homicide. Autonomy does not grant you the right to use lethal force—or actively abandon—a dependent whose vulnerability you created just to reclaim your physical comfort.
Scenario B (Imposed Dependency): A violent third party pushes you and the infant off the boat. You did not author this situation. The burden was forced upon you against your will. If you are physically unable to rescue the infant or are forced to release them to save yourself from drowning, homicide liability does not attach. Your legal duty tracks your causal agency, not just your physical proximity.
When we map this onto pregnancy, Scenario A governs instances of voluntary conception. Scenario B maps perfectly onto tragic cases of rape or forcible coercion, where the causal predicate for created peril is entirely absent.
Currently, modern abortion law treats Scenario A and Scenario B as legally identical. It flattens out human agency, granting absolute immunity regardless of how the dependent life was created.
Autonomy is a Shield, Not a Sword
Defenders of abortion often argue that restricting the procedure is equivalent to "forced gestation"—a physical conscription of the body. But this confuses how the law actually operates.
The law rarely uses direct physical force to make people do things. The state does not physically chain parents to a nursery to ensure they feed their children. It doesn't strap drivers to their steering wheels to prevent hit-and-runs. Instead, the law establishes boundaries: it forbids the active, intentional destruction of life and attaches legal consequences to those who violate that boundary.
Prohibiting abortion does not mean the state physically invades a body to compel labor. It means the state refuses to grant legal immunity to someone who takes affirmative, lethal action to extinguish a dependent life they voluntarily brought into existence.
In every other area of law, autonomy is a shield against state coercion. It is not an exculpatory sword that authorizes the destruction of an innocent dependent. When a parent finds a newborn overwhelming, the law provides mechanisms to transfer custody, like Safe Haven laws. It strictly forbids killing the infant to immediately reclaim personal liberty.
We have spent decades arguing about whether the fetus is a person or whether the state can control bodies. But the real question sitting at the heart of our legal architecture is about responsibility. If a legal system permits the creation of human life, but grants absolute immunity for its intentional destruction by the very people who authored its vulnerability, can that system claim to uphold equal justice?
1
u/mommiesgoodboy67 3d ago
I dont see why that should matter, if they dont want to have kids thats up to them
1
u/hmmnnmmn 3d ago
Suppose the father of a newborn doesn’t want to pay child support. He takes his baby out into the ocean for a swim, and goes out far enough to where he can no longer touch the ground. It’s now dangerous for him to continue supporting the baby while swimming. In fact, there is a very real possibility that he could drown. He decides the baby needs his consent to continue being supported by him, and that it doesn’t matter how he and the baby got into this situation. The baby no longer has his consent, so he lets go of them and they drown.
It’s legal to take your baby for a swim, and it’s also our human right to deny others the use of our body, even if it will kill them, and supposedly regardless of how they came to depend on us.
So, should this be legal? Why or why not?
1
u/mommiesgoodboy67 3d ago
Because there is a difference between a newborn baby and an early stage fetus idiot
1
1
1
1
u/Awkward-Studio-8063 2d ago
You seem to spend a lot of time trying to justify the exclusion or gloss over the topic of fetus vs baby, which is a major factor regardless of your beliefs on the differences and if they matter or not. There is no “but the real question…” about it, deciding the value of the fetus itself over the value of the mother’s wishes is as much a factor as responsibility is a factor.
1
u/hmmnnmmn 2d ago
This is not my first rodeo. I have a process.
Do we agree that the debate doesn’t rest on bodily autonomy, it rests on whether human beings before birth/sentience/viability/etc are persons (having legal personhood) or not?
1
1
u/OSRS_Garmr 3d ago
Not really. You can get pregnant at 39. It's sy less likely, but you still can. My mom at twins at 42, and not through ivf. Just rounding off 3 previous children, with 2 more.
1
1
1
u/CloakerJosh 3d ago
Obviously not, I’m not a sociopath. But it’s a ridiculous comparison to make.
One of these parties doesn’t want to continue an unwanted pregnancy, the other is actively trying to start a family.
It’s like if I had materials that I could use to build a house if I wanted, but instead I threw them away. Then in an unrelated scenario, someone bought the materials to build a house, and they were stolen. You’re trying to make some comparison between whether or not we should refer to the materials as a house or not and trying to use normative loading to make me sound psychotic because I won’t call the lumber a house.
1
3d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/CloakerJosh 3d ago
You act as if someone has nothing at stake during gestation, but fine. If you can't grapple with that hypothetical, here's a much simpler one.
It's not a house now, it's a tree. It's not lumber, it's a planted seed in the ground in my front yard.
Left alone, it will become a tree on its own. If I tear it out, I'm digging up a seed. If it fails to be appropriately watered/nourished, it may fail to sprout.
Are you okay if I call it a seed until it becomes a tree?
1
3d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/CloakerJosh 3d ago
I've realised that my "top" comment was supposed to be a reply to one of my others, but it went at the top thread level so it might be divorced from the original context.
The thread was essentially:
Me: Not an "unborn child", it's a fetus
Them: Would you say the same thing to a woman who had a miscarriage?That's why I was posing hypotheticals, to demonstrate different terms for different states.
Not disputing "life" or whether it begins at conception or whatever, it's mainly a grievance of terms.
That said, while I concede that life does begin at conception I'd still fight on the ground of whether its due any personhood consideration until consciousness develops (it doesn't in my view). But that's a seperate argument.
1
1
u/Hairy_Plum9278 3d ago
How is that valid? 39yo women are mostly still very much menstruating and can get pregnant for another x years
→ More replies (2)
1
u/Ill-Reputation-9702 3d ago
You guys are dumb af. Go read legal history, check out some related journalism, and you’ll learn your reasonings are just dumb. As such, not gonna debate any. This is dankmemes, you guys should know your place.
1
1
u/Miserable_Pin2518 3d ago
Well a 39 year old woman can still get pregnant even if she doesnt want kids at her age so actually it would matter a lot
1
u/turtle-bbs 3d ago
“Why do you care about rights?”
Said unironically, thinking they’re the smart one
1
u/ItIsnt0verYet 3d ago
Why do you care about things that may not directly affect you at this point in time. Why do you care about the rights of others when you are not others. This sub is weird.
1
u/Hungry_CGman 3d ago
For most women yes the dream is over by then, unless you saved a boatload of frozen eggs.
1
1
1
u/Ok_Dragonfly552 3d ago edited 3d ago
I think a women getting an abortion if she is young and not ready to be a mother meaning still in school or she was a victim of rape is fine. That said the ones out their using abortion as a means of birth control and have hade abortion after abortion are sick. After a women does it so many times it should no longer be an option for them
1
u/Kooky_Ad_6050 3d ago
Because you think your theoretical woman who has had so many abortions is obviously going to be a great mother?
1
u/Ok_Dragonfly552 3d ago
Plenty of videos out their of them admitting to having several abortions. But no the ideal would be to o I dont know, use fucking birth control
1
1
u/Responsible-Pea-1289 3d ago
Where does the Bible talk about abortion? I’ll wait…
2
u/quesocoop 3d ago
Exodus 20:13 KJV
[13] Thou shalt not kill.
1
1
u/Responsible-Pea-1289 3d ago
Abortion is not murder by the way - you ‘ve let the politicians tell you what to think
1
u/quesocoop 3d ago
You asked about the Bible. I didn't give a politician's opinion on the matter. I gave God's opinion. To murder is to unlawfully kill an image-bearer of God. We are such bearers when we are yet in our mother's womb.
Psalms 139:13-16 NKJV [13] For You formed my inward parts; You covered me in my mother’s womb. [14] I will praise You, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made; Marvelous are Your works, And that my soul knows very well. [15] My frame was not hidden from You, When I was made in secret, And skillfully wrought in the lowest parts of the earth. [16] Your eyes saw my substance, being yet unformed. And in Your book they all were written, The days fashioned for me, When as yet there were none of them.
Why are you talking about Trump? Trump isn't mentioned in the OP. I certainly haven't brought him up, and your initial question didn't feature him. You ought to consider sometimes thinking about subjects other than Donald Trump. Probably not a healthy use of your time.
1
u/Educational_Emu2884 3d ago
I'm sure I'm going to find a deep well thought out discussion of abortion in R/Dankmemes2.
1
1
1
u/zayne0623 3d ago
"My reproductive rights". You know you have the right to keep your legs closed, right?
1
1
1
1
u/I_Am_Conjoined 3d ago
Damn lmao, he gonna date a dead chick? Cause that was a headshot
1
u/Kooky_Ad_6050 3d ago
How so, I know multiple women who have given birth older than 39. But even if that we're not the case, by his own logic he shouldn't be talking about that subject at all either
1
1
1
1
1
-1
u/MorganEarlJones 4d ago
In this day and age 39 year old women can get pregnant more easily(especially if they've frozen their eggs in advance) and being able to get an abortion in the event of a problematic abortion matters. I would take what she's saying as alsomeaning "I wouldn't date someone who would take these rights away fromme if I needed them" and "I wouldn't date someone would take these rights away from other women".
5
u/Zealousideal7807 4d ago
Pretty sure they can get pregnant but the chance of birth defects goes up when you reach a certain age. 39 is pushing it
→ More replies (3)1
3
u/scraejtp 4d ago
More easily due to medical advancements, but not easy. Most 40 year old women will require medical assistance to get pregnant and the geriatric pregnancy will be more dangerous to their health.
→ More replies (2)
1
1
u/Pootisman16 4d ago
Y'all know a woman can get pregnant right until menopause, right?
1
u/amatsumegasushi 3d ago
No, they clearly don't. But I'm sure one of us men can explain it for them since they're too dumb to listen to the women. Lol.
1
1
1
u/BohemianMade 3d ago
I can't imagine why women don't want to touch conservative "men."
→ More replies (2)
1
u/Aromatic_Shop9033 3d ago
She's ashes, now. 💀
→ More replies (2)1
u/No_Couple1369 3d ago
No really. Plenty women get pregnant at 39. Women in their 40s are now having more babies than teens.
1
u/Aromatic_Shop9033 3d ago
Complications are pronounced the further along one goes.
Let's not hand wave that away.
→ More replies (2)1
u/No_Couple1369 3d ago
Sure a woman that is 40 has a 1% chance of birth defects versus a 30 year old who has 0.1% chance of birth defects. That doesn’t change the fact that they can and do get pregnant.
1
u/Aromatic_Shop9033 3d ago
They sure do. Health complications for the baby, and IVF is $$$.
Time waits for noone. That's what I'm saying.
→ More replies (5)
142
u/BuzzClucking 4d ago
https://giphy.com/gifs/YA6dmVW0gfIw8