My two cents on abortion

I get that this post is basically begging to be trolled and spammed, but I recently had a realization about abortion, and I need somewhere to write it down so I don't forget it.

Anyways, the way I see it there are really 4 stages of comprehension in the abortion issue.

Stage 1 is the most simple: "Abortion is killing a living thing so it must be wrong!" 

Most dumb conservatives are here. This is the gut reaction when thinking about abortion, and lots of people get past it just by learning more about the actual science behind pregnancy, but some people stay here, either because they are dumb, or their scared the beyond here there is only liberal answers.

Stage 2: "A fetus is alive, sure. However it's not conscious, and it's really just a jumble of cells, so those cells shouldn't be given more rights than a human woman"

Most dumb Liberals get here, which sadly enough makes up a lot of the pro-choice movement and it's frustrating to see them stubbornly cling to a bad argument, just because they're afraid of reaching a conclusion that aligns more with conservatives. It sucks being associated with these people just because I am pro-choice.

Stage 3: "Okay, a fetus isn't alive in the same way we are, but it will be, and by killing it you deprive it of a future life it could have had."

A majority of conservatives decide on this one, even the mid-wits. I was here for a bit, but I think there is one more stage to this issue, and that discounts this argument.

Stage 4: This one is a lot longer and harder to explain, so bear with me here. The argument goes something like this: Yes, it would technically be a good thing for a mother to keep a pregnancy and raise the child, but it's an impossible thing for a government to mandate on people. By the same logic banning abortion, men shouldn't be allowed to masturbate, and ever drop of semin should, be put into a woman who will carry the baby to term. It's not killing anyone, but it's derpriving that sperm of future life. I also like to use the analogy of a kidney donor. You are doing an amazingly good thing by donating one of your kidneys, as are you when keeping a fetus. By your actions, someone will live a longer life. However, you aren't legally required to donate your kidney, that would be an extreme overreach of government power. Also, we don't get mad at people who don't donate kidneys, and we don't call them murderers while the action is basically the same: destroying your body so someone can have a life. To put it simply, the government can't mandate everything that is "good" and shouldn't"

There might be more to this topic, so please tell me. I find it frustrating that lots of people don't go through the stages in any argument, simply because they see that the next stage is opposite to their current beliefs. If they simply had the argument in their head, they would see that it leap-frogs, and there are better answers out there if you get through the ones you don't like first. 

Anyways, I just had to write some stuff down to get it out of my head, thanks for hearing me out.

I would love to dig into this with you, but I feel like you are misunderstanding stage 4. 

It's about depriving a future life to an already existing life. The sperms and the egg are types of life, but they aren't really a human life. It is only when they come together that they become a human life, and now you are depriving an actual human life of a future. 

Also you wanted somewhere to remember your Ideal. I reccomend the obsidian app. Also don't forget that you should be attacking your own arguments as hard as you can. Don't forget that you yourself are the easiest person to fool. 

What about samsung notes? They are good to write things down. Not sure if they work on non-samsung smartphones lol

I would write it down in Samsung notes and then transfer to obsidian. I sideloaded my phone so I use Matador but obsidian is preferred due to being able to interlink notes. I use about 5 hash tags on each note and connect as many as possible

How the abortion laws changed in the courts.

In January 1973, the Supreme Court issued a 7–2 decision in McCorvey's favor holding that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution provides a fundamental "right to privacy", which protects a pregnant woman's right to an abortion. It also held that the right to abortion is not absolute and must be balanced against the government's interests in protecting women's health and prenatal life.

In 2022, the Supreme Court overruled Roe in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization on the grounds that the substantive right to abortion was not "deeply rooted in this Nation's history or tradition", nor considered a right when the Due Process Clause was ratified in 1868, and was unknown in U.S. law until Roe.[

On June 24, 2022, the Supreme Court ruled 6–3 to uphold Mississippi's Gestational Age Act, and 5–4 to overrule Roe and Casey. Similar to the leaked draft opinion, the opinion of the court written by Justice Alito stated that Roe was "egregiously wrong from the start" and its reasoning "exceptionally weak". It also stated that Roe has "enflamed debate and deepened division" and that overruling it would "return the issue of abortion to the people's elected representatives".[339] The majority opinion relied on a constitutional historical view of abortion rights, saying, "The Constitution makes no reference to abortion, and no such right is implicitly protected by any constitutional provision."[340] The reasoning was that "abortion couldn't be constitutionally protected. Until the latter part of the 20th century, such a right was entirely unknown in American law. Indeed, when the Fourteenth Amendment was adopted, three quarters of the States made abortion a crime at all stages of pregnancy."[341] Some historians argued that this view is incomplete,[341] with Leslie J. Reagan saying that Alito "speciously claims" the truth of his assertions.[342] In their dissent, Justices Stephen Breyer, Elena Kagan, and Sonia Sotomayor jointly wrote, "The right Roe and Casey recognized does not stand alone. To the contrary, the Court has linked it for decades to other settled freedoms involving bodily integrity, familial relationships, and procreation. Most obviously, the right to terminate a pregnancy arose straight out of the right to purchase and use contraception. In turn, those rights led, more recently, to rights of same-sex intimacy and marriage. Either the mass of the majority's opinion is hypocrisy, or additional constitutional rights are under threat. It is one or the other."

This post is obviously spam is is most of their posts. https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/12173-my-two-cents-on-abortion?page=1&post_number=6

Can you guys do something about this. It's not even spamming due to being an immature retard like best Korea. It is spamming for the sake of spamming. 

Well, thanks. I appreciate the insults.

Just so you know, its not my fault, my brain stopped developing at age 13.

So you were a retard before being declared immature. Both not your fault. Whose fault was it?

How can it be my fault? Who would choose to be retarded?

But I have been working on my brain to fix it maybe, so I can become smart.

I will be praying for you to succeed.

Thank you.

Let me know if there is an improvement in your conditions.

I don't really have time to full articulate my opinion on abortion atm, but you are missing the point that the fetus at some point does obtain consciousness in the womb.

There is still an open debate about consciousness during pregnancy. It is widely believed that consciousness requires a thalamocortical structure, and this system develops at around 26 weeks of pregnancy, so it is unlikely that consciousness is present before that time.

Exactly my point, the original argument insinuates the fetus doesn't gain consciousness

While the op does say this is a bad argument, they don't criticize the facts presented, just the general quality

Are you saying even the Supreme Court of America got it wrong when it approved abortion in 1975 or 5 decades ago.

Since the high court's January 1973 decision in Roe v. Wade, which granted women the constitutional right to terminate their pregnancies.

Thanks for the recommendation, I’ve just been using apple notes up to this point. 

I agree with everything you said about when life begins, I still think it’s just a completely unreasonable thing to expect women to carry unwanted pregnancies to term. 

Is it technically “bad” to terminate a pregnancy, sure. However I’m not going to judge you, just as I don’t judge every non-kidney donor I meet. Likewise, it’s not the governments job to mandate Kidney donations, nor is it it’s place to mandate a woman to keep a pregnancy.

I had one of those IQ tests and it says my IQ is 120, which is too low.

I need to get it up to at least 140 if I am to be considered not retarded, even tho anyone under 150 IQ is technically a retard when compared to those who have 160 IQ.

Although I think my IQ is so low because I suck at understanding what is being implied.

I over simplified, it’s an area we know little about when it comes to medicine: www.nature.com/articles/pr200950

However, it still doesn’t really matter. See above for my analogy about the kidney donor. Keeping a pregnancy is  a morally good thing to, but it’s unrealistic to expect, much less mandate that of anyone.

Why the government is involved in abortion banning?

Seriously, are you a bot? That has nothing to do with what I said.

You said it was not the governments mandate to save pregnancy 

Which is the opposite of the governments position on women’s pregnancy.

Indeed I did, I said nothing about the racist history of the anti-abortion movement, explain the connection.