|
|
|
|
|
|
by MathCodeLove
1453 days ago
|
|
|
It's incredible that when you disagree with someone, your assumption is that they lack life experience and have a naive worldview. Because surely if they were wiser, they'd agree with you, right? If you truly have a good response to the things I mentioned, I'd like to hear them. Your current behaviour truly is incredibly condescending. |
|
|
>99% of would be abortions are preventable by just practicing safe sex.
Non-substantial and uncited statistic. 99% of pregnancy is prevented by safe sex.
>Yes I know there's the 1%, but let's talk about the overwhelming majority here.
Unsubstantiated ratio. Assumption that safe-sex is universally possible. It’s a privilege that not all get to enjoy, and abortion is the edge-case of human behavior that addresses those situations.
>If you can't afford children, be a responsible adult and don't have them.
Assumption of full reproductive autonomy.
>Again, 9 months of gestation is absolutely not more an invasion of autonomy than the following 18 years of care.
Moral hazard.
>In most abortions the aborted fetus would have developed into a healthy, functioning human being had you not prevented it. That's murder. You're taking away a humans opportunity for life.
In law we call this “but-for” analysis. Essentially, “but for” someone aborting a fetus, the fetus “would have developed into a healthy, functioning human being.”
Everything else up to this point was fine but the last point is where the “bless your heart” materialized in my soul. Would that we could guarantee the health and functioning of humans, simply by not aborting them.
They say “If you want to make God laugh, tell him your plans,” but in your case it’s “If you want to make God laugh, tell him his plans.”