If you think there’s anything resembling extremism on the left in the US, you’re as deluded as the fascists. Our “extremes” are “slightly left of center” and “Nazi”.

This comment is hidden. Click here to view.

There are many here who believe that abortion should be available on request up until full term. And that's an extreme position historically and societally.That's just an objective fact.

Bull fùcking shìt.

This comment is hidden. Click here to view.

Which part is BS?

"Full term abortion" is right wing propaganda bull$hit. I worked with OB-GYNs for over a decade. This has NEVER been a thing. Never! Doctors will not perform an abortion past the point of viability, unless the woman's life is in danger. Period.

Maybe we could abort a fetus at 78 years old??? He's not viable, brain damaged and souless. And orange too!

It's not being made available "upon request". No one with a full term, viable fetus is getting it aborted.

exactly. trump even said, OUT LOUD, "they are delivering babies and then saying we will figure out what to do with it later and set it aside and then abort it" Yes, he actually SAID THAT! NO DONALD, THAT'S CALLED MURDER, NOT ABORTION. And no one is murdering a newborn baby! WTAF

Citations please? If it is an "objective fact" then please prove and cite it.

I am not anti- abortion, but I used to be, so I'll try to answer. The biggest one, for me, was the belief that it is literal murder. A woman can do what she likes with her body, but it is quite literally not her body. My mind has changed for a number of reasons, but the biggest one for a lot of people is the murder thing.

"Murder" by definition, is the illegal taking of another's life. If abortion is legal, then it cannot be murder.

This comment is hidden. Click here to view.

Would have been nice for someone to address my points rather than simply downvote. This is why the debate is so toxic. Any nuance and you are instantly called misogynistic.

Downvoted for whining about downvotes.

This comment is hidden. Click here to view.

@XenoMurph — Looks like even if you agree on the main issue, refusing to blindly repeat the same five statements means you'd better just shut the ʞɔnɟ up. Not so long ago, this level of militant bigotry was exclusive to the religious far-right 😞

"Waaaaaaah, people disagreeing with my comments is BIGOTRY!" What a spoilt, privileged bleat that is.

That's not at all what I said, Eric, but you've proven with your previous comments that comprehension is not exactly your forte 😀

This comment is hidden. Click here to view.

Ok, here goes. And I'm ignoring some arguments for now due to space. Pregnant women have rights. "Her choice" But that does not apply for the full pregnancy. Most societies say that it cannot be aborted after a certain date, and it's CRIMINAL to do so, society takes away the choice. Why? It becomes a person. But if it cannot survive outside the womb it's not a person. After a certain numer of weeks it becomes a person with legal protection. But in different countries different dates are used. What defines a person? If a new treatment is developed, and we can sustain a life earlier, does that mean it becomes human earlier? What about foetuses aborted at that stage last decade, were they people now, but not then? If we define a person purely based on our medical skill, what about when we can support them from conception? Do the foetuses not deserve the same protection by law as their one day/week/month older sibling?

This comment is hidden. Click here to view.

2, Ok to deal with the points OneWith brought up. In the case of an unviable foetus or a pregnancy that may cause death, of course those medical decisions must be taken. It's heartbreaking, but it's a sad reality that pregnacy is dangerous and life choices must be made. As for the other situations, I refer you to my other answer. Despite the devastating events surrounding conception, If you protect those foetus at 36 weeks by law, because we feel it has "personhood", then there is a strong argument that it should also be protected earlier. If I can quote you: "Surely no one should be forced to carry a child...." yet you do believe a person should be forced to, unless you believe in abortion at 39weeks? What if she decides, quite rightly, at 30 weeks she doesn't want it, she can't cope, it's just too trerrible? Does she not have rights then? If society protects 39weeks, and accepts the foetus has rights, then why not 22 weeks? 20 weeks? Is it truly our medical ineptitude that decides?

This comment is hidden. Click here to view.

I do believe abortion should be legal, but the oversimplified "pro-choice vs. pro-life" debate makes nuanced discussion almost impossible. There is a crucial ethical and philosophical question about when exactly we consider it to be two lives instead of one. Does it begin at conception, with the romantic notion of the first heartbeat, at the onset of brain activity, or only at birth? What are the legal and human rights implications of these perspectives? How significant is the role of education and healthcare in this issue, and what can we learn from international experiences? These are all important questions that are overshadowed by the polarized, binary nature of the American football-style debate, which has become tiresome without moving us any closer to a resolution.

NO woman ever 'wants' to have an abortion! Circumstances dictate the desirability of giving birth to that potential baby, simple. I will defend and assist any woman who NEEDS to have an abortion; it is an horrific emotional experience for them.. They would not do it if it were not necessary.

Personally I think it's simple - it's two lives when both can survive without the other

This comment is hidden. Click here to view.

@Jill Rhodry — Wouldn't that make conjoined twins legally considered one person? I fully support abortion rights, but biological dependency can't be used as a defining factor here. It's not "simple" at all.

This comment is hidden. Click here to view.

This comment has been deleted.

Exactly this... they would refer to force that d**g addicted women, to have the baby... and then they would sit back and spend years complaining about what a horrible mother she is and how awful the child "turned out". WTF. Probably doesn't help that wherever she lives, there's a GOP Governor that refuses to provide lunch to poor, underprivileged GRADE SCHOOL CHILDREN. "PRO-LIFE" ? - I call B******T! If you call yourself pro-life, then you better give a s**t about that life once its born. (AND ALL LIVES FFS!)

The truly sick part is that they aren't even interested in the mother's faith, only that the child may grow to be a soldier in their army of god. Our entire system relies on christian faith. Ever notice that all our figure heads claim that faith? Sure we can freely speak in most regions, but free speakers aren't decision makers.

This comment is hidden. Click here to view.

I'm not advocating for any particular "crowd", rather I aimed to initiate an adult and nuanced discussion. I understand that you're not interested and would prefer to stick with the "us vs. them" perspective tho.

Adult and nuanced discussion is not possible when one side insists on dealing in bad faith. There is plenty of nuance and adult discussion among the people advocating for human rights. The “thou shalt not” crowd ignore that, ignore reality, and draw a completely insane line in the sand. It’s a complete waste of time trying to have a rational discussion with willfully irrational people.

This comment is hidden. Click here to view.

I’m happy to discuss this further and understand your stance in detail. As I support the legalization of abortion, I’m sure we’d agree on many points. It would be interesting to hear which international policies you find desirable for protecting and regulating abortion, and why. If you just need to vent about right-wingers, that’s fine too, but I won’t participate 😉

This comment is hidden. Click here to view.

QED Graham.

This comment is hidden. Click here to view.

As I mentioned, I fully support legalizing abortion. What's with all the downvotes?🤨

This comment is hidden. Click here to view.

I agree @Cat Chat. As soon as we recognize it as an individual, it should be granted all the rights and benefits afforded to any other child.

This comment is hidden. Click here to view.

Don't be fooled into thinking your view is the real world. But if they can fool you on that they can fool you into thinking the party that just used and abused the nomination process actually cares about you.

So nominating a successor is a democratic transgression, whereas attempting to overturn a democratic election shows you care about the people. What sort of leotard do you wear to engage in these mental gymnastics?

Do random strangers get a vote on other people’s decisions regarding brain dead relatives?

This comment is hidden. Click here to view.

Nobody gets a vote. It's not a competition. You are really bad at attempting to prove a discourse.

This comment is hidden. Click here to view.

I don't think that analogy holds. Because the context here is that they *already* believe it's murder (it's not). Given *their premise* is that it's murder (it's not) then choosing not to condemn it seems really weird.

If they condemn murder then, for religious reasons, more than likely they also condemn suicide as a sin. The analogy works perfectly fine.