This is such a polarising issue, so many people get so heated up about it. Sad to see people so divided with no discussion on this.

Personally I'd say that as long as prevention is available I'm against abortions.

I don't particularly care about the issue itself, but the legal case that set the precedent that allowed the bopping of tadpoles was a sad case of judicial activism and should therefor be overturned.

Personally i don't see how you could force a woman to go through 9 months of an unwanted pregnancy. And if you are going to atleast make sure you the children have a decent upbringing.

Unless it was rape it was willing, it was her decision. She created another lifeform and then it is by definition not her body she is killing part of. She has to take responsibility for not using contraception.

If a woman has consentual sex, it does not mean a child is wanted.

If she has consentual sex without contraception (as easy to get as it is today) she is taking a massive risk of pregnancy. If a life is conceived she has to take the responsibility to take care of it. At worst she could put it up for adoption, would at least be better than killing it.

I would argue that this live is not worth protecting. If it was a cow everybody would agree that you could kill the cow. And this fetus is by no means as intelligent or as aware as a cow. So what is the difference between these two that makes the killing of one okay and the killing of the otger not.

Just like people who get upset for getting speeding tickets. They made the choice and have to live with it.

But in that case there is a good reason to ban speeding. I would argue thay protecting an entity with no counciousness and no concept of pleasure of pain is not a good enough reason to force that.

Heartbeat and brain activity = a fren is in there

And a fren is out there too. Acoording to US law you cant be forced to donate blood to a dying man, because of bodily atonamy. However you can be forced to keep your baby alive, i personally consider this a double standard.

Blood isn’t a living organism.

A cow is a living organism, the trait being a living organism is not what we as a society attach that much value to

there is multiple people who can donate blood to someone dying, but there is only one person who can keep the little fren alive

Fair enough, but even if it is the case that you're the only one who is able to donate, the government can't force you to.

this kind of hipothethical situation never happen

Okay. I have a different question for you then. What is the trait that makes it okay to kill animals (im assuming you're not a total veganist that is) but not this unconscious unaware fetus.

it's not okay to kill animals

If that is your position then i aplaud you. However i think that a lot of anti-abortion people wouldn't agree which makes them philosophically inconsistent.

Don't even try to argue with this guy dude. It's like talking to a brick wall.

killing little frens, should give the death peanlty

The government should not have the monopoly of legitimate bopping! No to boppe penalty!

I didn't realize this was the "no abortion" subreddit. Last time I checked it was frenworld.

That's funny because literally all you've done on this subreddit is debate abortion.

THIS IS A REPOST OF SOMETHING THAT'S ALREADY ON THE FRONT PAGE

I don't particularly care about the issue itself, but the legal case that set the precedent that allowed the bopping of tadpoles was a sad case of judicial activism and should therefor be overturned.

Personally i don't see how you could force a woman to go through 9 months of an unwanted pregnancy. And if you are going to atleast make sure you the children have a decent upbringing.