Fetuses. . jima_ starr WHY DO FETUSES HAVE MORE RIGHTS THAN WOMEN Because they have 3 chance of becoming 3 man. DH SNAP. I'm pro choice, but seriously thinking you have less rights than a fetus, a fetus which is legal to terminate in many places... poor choice of words. rights fetuses Men women
Upload
Login or register
Hide Comments
Leave a comment Refresh Comments (181)
[ 181 comments ]
> hey anon, wanna give your opinion?
asd
User avatar #4 - pennydragon
Reply +113 123456789123345869
(06/26/2013) [-]
I'm pro choice, but seriously thinking you have less rights than a fetus, a fetus which is legal to terminate in many places... poor choice of words.
#8 to #4 - anon id: 488e5b24
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(06/27/2013) [-]
under certain circumstances there is legal to terminate people in more places than it is to have an abortion
User avatar #11 to #8 - pennydragon
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(06/27/2013) [-]
"Under certain circumstances" people are given the death penalty when they're convicted of crimes.

Have you ever seen a fetus be convicted of a crime that deserved the death penalty?
#28 to #11 - anon id: ec0b3ffa
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(06/27/2013) [-]
If it has chosen to form poorly and is physically mutated to the point where it will die shortly after birth (if not dying in the womb) and it's goal is to take the mother down with it via causing internal hemorrhaging. I suppose it is in the process of attempted murder.
User avatar #199 to #28 - pennydragon
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(06/27/2013) [-]
That's not the fetus' fault that it's a little mutant. And were well away from comparing rights of a fetus versus that of a person now.

Of course any serious and ethical person would want us to save a woman's life for sure, instead of saving a fetus that is almost certainly not going to survive despite it costing a woman's life.
#14 to #11 - wheresmymarbles
Reply -1 123456789123345869
(06/27/2013) [-]
Oh of course, they are an inconvenience to a woman. Therefore, they must die.
#84 to #14 - anon id: 7eb50ab8
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(06/27/2013) [-]
"to women"
So it has nothing to do with the man either?

Sexism.
User avatar #12 to #4 - foelkera
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(06/27/2013) [-]
I'm pro choice, meaning I believe you have the choice to either close your ******* legs or get some goddamn protection instead of ******* anyone who comes within 4 feet of you.

I'm all for abortion when it comes to rape/health problems tho
User avatar #35 to #12 - kiratheunholy
Reply +13 123456789123345869
(06/27/2013) [-]
What about broken condoms/complications? You think abortion is okay then? (I don't care one way or the other I'm just curious of your opinion since you shared it so avidly.)
User avatar #132 to #35 - ascarecrow
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(06/27/2013) [-]
I am with him on his point of view, so from what I am thinking, you know that there is a chance of a pill failing or a condom breaking. As long as it was consensual sex, I don't see a problem with having the baby and giving him/her up for adoption. Sorry if I offended, just wanting to get my point across.
User avatar #61 to #12 - srapture
Reply +2 123456789123345869
(06/27/2013) [-]
However, they do have the choice to correct their mistake before it becomes a concious being. We're all human and make mistakes. Means of rectifying those mistakes can be nothing but good, in my opinion.
#87 to #12 - anon id: 7eb50ab8
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(06/27/2013) [-]
What about when two people decide they do want a child but say... the father cheats and leaves the mother and she doesnt want to raise the child by herself because she knows she cant support it alone?
User avatar #90 to #87 - foelkera
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(06/27/2013) [-]
Why not just put it up for adoption? That way the mother would be able to take solace in the fact that her child is taken care of by the adoption facility/foster family
#117 to #90 - anon id: de6ecfa8
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(06/27/2013) [-]
There is not nearly enough potential adoptive parents now.
User avatar #109 to #90 - admiralen
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(06/27/2013) [-]
ignoring the fact that child birth is said to be one of the most painful experiences EVER
User avatar #133 to #109 - foelkera
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(06/27/2013) [-]
so is getting kicked in the testicles, but I'm not gonna get myself castrated because of that
User avatar #135 to #133 - admiralen
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(06/27/2013) [-]
what shes doing is basically putting on a susp
User avatar #138 to #135 - foelkera
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(06/27/2013) [-]
putting on a what?
User avatar #139 to #138 - admiralen
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(06/27/2013) [-]
a cup to protect your balls so it wont hurt
#156 to #4 - anon id: 74e38ff4
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(06/27/2013) [-]
You are pro murder.
#53 - spyisspy
Reply +73 123456789123345869
(06/27/2013) [-]
#5 - silvertongueddevil
Reply -15 123456789123345869
(06/27/2013) [-]
Comment Picture
#23 to #5 - anon id: fe85d800
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(06/27/2013) [-]
she got some awkward eyes
#51 to #23 - recio **User deleted account**
+3 123456789123345869
has deleted their comment [-]
#7 to #5 - hybridxproject
Reply +49 123456789123345869
(06/27/2013) [-]
Comment Picture
#16 to #7 - iamphoenix
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(06/27/2013) [-]
'That was rude but true.'
User avatar #6 - thepyras
Reply +39 123456789123345869
(06/27/2013) [-]
I'm not allowed to kill my neighbors, but that doesn't mean I have fewer rights than them.
#13 to #6 - wheresmymarbles
Reply -3 123456789123345869
(06/27/2013) [-]
An unborn baby's rights end where a woman's feelings begin.
#24 to #13 - anon id: ec0b3ffa
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(06/27/2013) [-]
An unborn baby is actually a parasitic being feeding off a host for 9 months until it bursts forth from her crotch (or stomach) and proceeds to feed off her and her mate emotionally, financially, and physically for the next 18 years. Hopefully by that time it will either have fed enough to leave the hosts and survive on it's own. Or it will choose to stay for another 20 years gorging itself on the essence of the hosts waiting for them to die before moving on to attempt mating to start the cycle over again. Of course the second option would lead to more difficulty finding a willing mate so the parasite usually dies alone with the empty husks of it's former hosts.
#69 - heartlessrobot
Reply +36 123456789123345869
(06/27/2013) [-]
This image has expired
Some chick was parading around how she was pro-life and how pro-choice people are "pro-murder", so I just started calling her "Anti-choice". You have no idea how mad people can get over a small phrase.
#1 - teranin
Reply +17 123456789123345869
(06/26/2013) [-]
Women have the right to execute fetuses... how exactly do they have more rights?
User avatar #142 to #1 - teoberry
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(06/27/2013) [-]
Are you pro-life?
User avatar #144 to #142 - teranin
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(06/27/2013) [-]
Nope
User avatar #153 to #144 - teoberry
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(06/27/2013) [-]
Ah. The wording made it seems like you were pro-life
User avatar #154 to #153 - teranin
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(06/27/2013) [-]
No I just think it's a ridiculous assertion to imply that women, the group that have the most rights of any group in modern western society, have less rights than fetuses, whom women are permitted to execute on a whim.
User avatar #2 to #1 - charpentier
Reply +20 123456789123345869
(06/26/2013) [-]
There are a lot of people who would like to take that right away.
#81 to #2 - anon id: 3c967141
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(06/27/2013) [-]
As if anyone could. Too many people thrive from it, that being our medical industry. You're an idiot if you think anyone can repeal such heavily supported laws, or you're just one of those people who likes to play the victim at every stance.
User avatar #82 to #81 - charpentier
Reply +5 123456789123345869
(06/27/2013) [-]
Or I'm just someone who wants to point out that there are actually people who would like to make abortion illegal again. Am I for it? Hell no! I'm a pro choice woman.
#18 to #2 - anon id: a079905a
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(06/27/2013) [-]
Good. Abortion is murder.
User avatar #3 to #2 - teranin
Reply -11 123456789123345869
(06/26/2013) [-]
that doesn't mean it isn't a right they currently have... so how, again, do fetuses have more rights than women, the group with the most rights in the western world, who the law grants absolute preference to in every field?
#25 to #3 - anon id: f09a019e
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(06/27/2013) [-]
there sure is quite a lot of pent up sexual frustration in this funnyjunker.
User avatar #37 - kiratheunholy
Reply +17 123456789123345869
(06/27/2013) [-]
I'm a man, but I'm pro-choice. Theoretically here, if someone were to give me instructions on what I can and can't do with my genitals I'd want to punch them in the face.

Don't tell me what I can and can't do with my privates they're MY privates for a reason. Not yours, not the world's, no the law's, not the government's.

Of course that's my opinion, some people may be O.K. with telling someone what they can and can't do with the growth in their vag.
#115 to #37 - powerfapping
Reply -4 123456789123345869
(06/27/2013) [-]
This is the most bastardized version of the "Her body, her choice" argument, which is already pretty easy to shoot down. Of course nobody can tell you what to do with your body as long as you're not affecting anybody else. However, a pregnant woman has not only her body to consider, but the newly formed body of her child. People who are pro-life aren't taking away the rights to one's body, they're protecting the rights of a human child.
#47 to #37 - anon id: e2a2ef4b
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(06/27/2013) [-]
what the ****? Fine, go ******* fap. Jesus
#94 to #47 - zackvee
Reply +4 123456789123345869
(06/27/2013) [-]
you log in and say that like a man you damn coward
#91 to #47 - danilawleit
Reply +2 123456789123345869
(06/27/2013) [-]
You're making a fool of yourself again, anon.
You're making a fool of yourself again, anon.
#97 to #37 - anon id: f7399e53
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(06/27/2013) [-]
Seriously! If there was a human in my balls I'd ******* kill it! Let alone a pre-human.
#85 to #37 - alltipswelcome
Reply +2 123456789123345869
(06/27/2013) [-]
Comment Picture
#95 to #37 - zackvee
Reply +3 123456789123345869
(06/27/2013) [-]
a true gentleman
#75 to #37 - barteleiff
Reply +4 123456789123345869
(06/27/2013) [-]
YES!
YES!
#65 - internetknight
Reply +13 123456789123345869
(06/27/2013) [-]
Perhaps a pro-life advocate could disabuse me of my notation, but I have always found it juvenile to take up moral absolutism.

In the case of pro-life.
- "I am against abortions. Abortions are murder."

This is of course a perfectly okay stance to take up, but let's break it down. You are against abortions because an abortion constitutes murder to you. By extension you should be against:

1. Death penalty
2. War
3. Condoms/Birth Control
4. Meat industry - depending on if you constitute the harvesting of animals as murder

You would be for:

1. Gun control
2. Advancements in medical science
3. Accessible medical treatment for all
4. Accessible medical treatment for animals - again, depending on if you value animals in that regard.

However, if you disagree with any of these then you don't really subscribe to the pro-life stance, you believe in moral relativism. You believe that you can choose when to apply moral principles to a situation - you believe in choice.

My friend, that makes you pro-choice.
#112 to #65 - sniperfumbles
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(06/27/2013) [-]
"You have opinion X, X loosely correlates to opinion Y, therefore your also for Y! X is loosely the opposite of opinion Z, therefore you're against opionion Z! I know this becuase my worldview dictates that because I interpret everything in black and white, that everyone else does!"

(Note, I'm not supplying an opinion one way or the other for the issue at hand, just calling out ********)
#116 to #65 - teenytinyspider
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(06/27/2013) [-]
I am pro-life and the points have already been argued about and stuff but I'm going to put in my two cents.

Each side will have to give and take. I once read about a hospital who had these "boxes" that mothers could put their unwanted children into. The box would keep the baby warm and alert the hospital like a minute or five minutes after the mother left so that she could remain anonymous. People went ******* over it.

That was what pissed me off. If pro-lifers are going to strike down abortion, we need more options for those who do end up with a child they didn't want. Things happen, condoms break, birth control fails, and people aren't going to stop having sex. That's just how it is. We need alternatives BESIDES adoption. Yes, people will abuse this system because they just did not want their kid, like in Utah, I think it was, that opened a sanctuary for unwanted children and a mother dropped off a 14-year-old and other children there. That was wrong.

Another thing the U.S. needs to fix is the adoption system. As it stands, the biological mother can stop proceedings at ANY time to retrieve her child. It has made foster parents and potential adopters too scared to adopt in the U.S. which is why they are adopting outside of the country. That needs to be fixed too.

tl;dr: Fix adoption systems and provide options for unwanted kids if we're going to keep abortions illegal(except in terms of health problems, like if having the child could be dangerous to either or both)
#202 to #116 - internetknight
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(06/27/2013) [-]
Great points, and I agree 100% with on the adoption system and it's effect on pro-life/pro-choice debate.
#130 to #65 - anon id: eab02757
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(06/27/2013) [-]
One could easily clarify by saying "I'm against murdering innocents"

Gun Control, "science", Medical treatment for all people and animals does not equal no murder.

Your entire post was one giant logical fallacy. You don't just pick out things that you think have an equivalency because it suits your agenda.
#173 to #65 - anon id: 6244cfdd
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(06/27/2013) [-]
I agree except for the Condoms / Birth control part. The problem with abortions is that it is actually killing something that has already started to form. With condoms / birth control you are just preventing the process of a life forming. So it's not murder, because you aren't killing something. In this rare case I agree with President Obama. We should allow abortions, but try to reduce the frequency of them.
User avatar #151 to #65 - chucknorrisTHEGAME
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(06/27/2013) [-]
Well thought argument, but I'd like to respond to it. Probably not as well as durkadurka already has, but adding my viewpoint.

Everyone has a right to live. And all of my stances on these issues are based around that.
I'm not actually sure where I stand on death penalty, I lean towards no, but I'll leave that point for now because of it.
I'm not for war as in "yeah, let's go kill people!" However, I do see war as necessary when it can protect more lives than it takes. I still don't like it, but I understand the need sometimes.
I would basically be repeating durka on condoms. I personally wouldn't use them, but that's more personal religion and choice that not everyone follows.
I don't put animals on par with humans. Again, we must eat, it is nature.

On gun control, I'm not for random shootings (obviously). But again, I am for sparing lives, so if a gun is necessary to prevent harm coming to more people, I'm for it. Everyone has the right to defend themselves.
Advancements in medical science, as long as we're not killing people and practicing on their bodies, of course I'd be for it.
Accessible medical treatment for all, yes. However, I don't equate that completely with universal health care, because I live in a country with universal health care, and the quality of the health care very often is absolute ****. I completely support people having access to genuine and good health care, I just don't know how that's achievable.
User avatar #96 to #65 - durkadurka
Reply +4 123456789123345869
(06/27/2013) [-]
Let me take a stab at this:

1. Death penalty: There's a difference between someone who has used their life to harm others and a life that has done nothing to anyone. Sometimes we as a society recognize someone as a threat to other people's rights and liberties.
2. War: Find me someone who actually likes war. Sometimes it is necessary, but no one ever wants war.
3. Condoms/Birth Control: A sperm or egg by itself is not the same as a fetus or zygote. Preventing the two from meeting is not equivalent to murder.
4. Meat: Only PETA is putting animals on the same level as people. We must eat, it is nature.
5. Gun control: You have a right to arm and defend yourself. There's no real correlation between strict gun control and lower gun crime (The correlation seems to be between crime and poverty + poor education.). We already have a degree of gun control.
6. Advancements in medical science: Of course. This kind of goes without saying. Don't really know what you're getting at here.
7. Accessible medical treatment for all: I THINK you're referring to universal healthcare here. We already do not deny necessary care, regardless of ability to pay. We already have massive systems that are supposed to be helping those who need it. It's not necessary to advocate for universal insurance to cover colds, therapists, and whatnot.
#106 to #96 - internetknight
Reply +2 123456789123345869
(06/27/2013) [-]
Thank you for responding, and those are all good points. This gets us back to the core idea - that there is moral relativism which you showed by justifying each point and moral absolutism which states that murder is wrong, no matter what.

I prefer the stance of pro choice because it provides moral relativism in that an abortion, while murder, is not always wrong. The intent of my little rant wasn't to berate pro-life advocates, but to point out the flaws of moral absolutism and that one would need a better argument then, "Abortion is wrong because murder is wrong".

I am however very interested in some of your answers, so I will just run through them very quickly and respond to them, since you responded to me.

1. Agreed. Terminating a person who threatens the lives of others should a policy.
2. Take caution not to equate liking with supporting. Nobody likes war, but we can support it.
3. Interesting view point, but I disagree. I believe that by using protection you prevent a process that would create life. The key comptent here is that you have to take action - it is deliberate and planned.
4. Agreed.
5. Agreed, I especially like that you include the correlation.
6. --
7. I did not want to use the term universal healthcare, the definition use to be much broader.
User avatar #107 to #106 - durkadurka
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(06/27/2013) [-]
I look at things through the concept of natural rights and liberties. The challenge comes with trying to keep people's rights from conflicting or trumping each other.

I don't look at abortion with the "murder is always wrong" stance. That position is kind of crude. I instead take the position that generally that life has a right to exist.
User avatar #98 to #96 - durkadurka
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(06/27/2013) [-]
8. Accessible medical treatment for animals: Again, not sure what you're hitting on here.
User avatar #26 - WATCHAGUNADOBOUTIT
Reply +12 123456789123345869
(06/27/2013) [-]
Can someone explain to me why this fetus rights crap is coming up recently? And why it is also all directed towards pro life? I don't understand how anyone believes fetus's should be 'saved' in this day and age and why they think they have rights. Both legally and morally speaking there is no logical reasoning behind protecting such things and seeing people getting themselves so emotionally involved in such subjects baffles my mind. Then again, I never understood why people got in other people's business.
User avatar #29 to #26 - ronyx
Reply -6 123456789123345869
(06/27/2013) [-]
Logic or morality, pick one.
#36 to #29 - WillJi
Reply +13 123456789123345869
(06/27/2013) [-]
Both. Morality guided by logic. Example:

Moral: It is wrong to kill an innocent, sentient being.
Logic: Embryos do not have fully functional brains or personality, so they are technically not sentient.

Conclusion: It is not immoral to terminate embryos.

A little basic, does not account for rare, extreme cases, but you get the idea.
User avatar #38 to #36 - ronyx
Reply -2 123456789123345869
(06/27/2013) [-]
Sentience is the last issue i heard about groups against abortion.
#40 to #38 - WillJi
Reply +7 123456789123345869
(06/27/2013) [-]
That's because those groups are usually against it for religious reasons. Their idea is that "life begins at conception" because that's when their soul is made. Hence by aborting, you are technically killing them.

Souls don't exist. What defines us is our brains, which is practically non existent in the first trimester. No harm done. In fact, harm was probably avoided by not bringing an extra person into the overpopulated world to be taken care of by unprepared parents and likely limiting the potential of said parents. That's why I subscribe to "morality guided by rationality", because it makes sense.
User avatar #30 to #29 - WATCHAGUNADOBOUTIT
Reply -2 123456789123345869
(06/27/2013) [-]
Logic and morality go hand and hand. It's logical to feel bad for killing someone, or from stealing...
User avatar #31 to #30 - ronyx
Reply -2 123456789123345869
(06/27/2013) [-]
Not when it comes to this subject.
User avatar #33 to #31 - WATCHAGUNADOBOUTIT
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(06/27/2013) [-]
It shouldn't be this hard to understand the logic, but I hear you. **** humans and their inconsistent behaviors. Pisses me off, nothing should be this hard to agree on. I don't understand how killing a random fetus offends anybody. It's not like genocide.
#34 to #26 - anon id: ec0b3ffa
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(06/27/2013) [-]
A fetus is a parasite that lives in a woman for 9 months before bursting bloody from her crotch or belly. I don't understand pro-life. I'd rather not have Alien-esk creatures protected. Once the pro-lifers protect this parasite, they'll move on to tape worms or something else equally as life sucking.
#46 to #26 - anon id: e2a2ef4b
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(06/27/2013) [-]
it's coming up because of the recently overturned Texas SB 5 bill. The bill would have the power to make it illegal to have an abortion following the onset of the 20th week of pregnancy. It would also force doctors to have admitting privileges at closely located hospitals (would not benefit rural areas in Texas AT ALL) and restrict abortions conducted in state surgical centers (so 37/42 abortion clinics in Texas would have been shut down, thus safe abortion procedures given in sterile environments by trained professionals would greatly diminish.)
#49 to #46 - anon id: e2a2ef4b
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(06/27/2013) [-]
would have had*
User avatar #160 to #26 - KINGOFTHESTARS
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(06/27/2013) [-]
People usually end up in peoples business because someone starts bitching.
The women started bitching (pun)
The gays started bitching(pun)
People who feel threatened by guns started bitching

Then someone who has an opposing opinion finds out and shares their opinion and then the party that bitched in the first place bitches even more and possibky says something to trigger an all out media-based struggle from the other party

Kinda like if i started bitching that despite me being an all american, i didnt go d-1. No one knew and no one cared.
#63 - anon id: 7beb4d71
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(06/27/2013) [-]
anyone who supports abortion should be shot right in fron of his/her family.

abortion is murder you know
#111 to #63 - anon id: 6f364389
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(06/27/2013) [-]
Murder is murder you know.
#93 to #63 - zackvee
Reply +8 123456789123345869
(06/27/2013) [-]
its not in support of abortion, its in support of a woman's choice of the matter
its not in support of abortion, its in support of a woman's choice of the matter