If a womans stomach was glass

Ok dude I might not agree with abortion being such a common thing but it's getting fucking old seeing every third post be about it.

You're probably right tbh, but that's not saying anything really though, other than that people are inherently flawed in their judgements.

People are more emotional than logical, what they see and how it makes them feel has more of an effect on them than facts. For example, people value the lives of dogs/cats more than pigs, just because they're cute, despite the fact that pigs are more intelligent. They'll gladly support the mass slaughter of pigs but they'll trip over themselves to help a cute puppy.

They're also very quick to humanise anything that resembles a person, they can't help but to assign emotion onto them and have empathy for them, even if it's just an inanimate object. For example, humanoid robots. Many people would feel uneasy abusing a robot, but wouldn't think twice about squashing bugs, despite the fact that the bugs are actually far more intelligent.

And it's the same with foetuses. Because they physically resemble a baby, people erroneously equate them with babies. But foetuses don't have anywhere near the same level of consciousness as babies, they don't really have any at all. They just have automatic responses to certain stimuli, like plants or sponges, or insects at most. Yet when people see a picture of a foetus, zoomed in on the head, they automatically feel on a spiritual level that it must have some deep level of consciousness and emotion, and think it's something completely profound. It's so stupid, they wouldn't feel like that about a bug, but they should if they do about a foetus.

But that's how stupid and biased people are. It's human nature, but we should try to realise how flawed our human nature is, and try not to let it interfere when we decide upon important laws. We should try to use facts and logic instead.

I fully agree. I'm more sickened by people who support late term abortion that shit is straight up murder no matter what excuse they give.

Babies don't grow in the stomach, they grow in the womb. If it grew in the stomach she would have to poop the baby out through her anus. And that just ain't right!

I never said they were dead, they are alive in a biological sense, but that's not enough to grant them the right to life. Plants and mould are just as much alive as foetuses are.

I disagree with your second point. You can't end something if it doesn't exist yet, you're just preventing it from starting. And the person, to whom that consciousness would belong to, doesn't exist yet. They're just an imaginary person right now. So they can't be given any rights.

Idgaf

🙄🙄

When you punch it the glass would break and cut the baby. There's a reason it's made out of a squishy material.

I don't even understand how just the thought of abortion is even a thing

I think abortions should be on the list of banned topics

I don't understand what you mean by saying that this isn't the argument I think it is. Everything you said here in your first paragraph is exactly the point I was trying to make, and is a good argument against your initial point that "dead things don't grow". You said "dead things don't grow", as if implying that a foetus being technically alive is somehow significant. But this shows that it's not, because a foetus (or plants/mould) is as alive as a baby, but that doesn't mean it should have the same rights as one. So it's clearly consciousness that is significant to human rights, not just being alive.

You said in your initial reply "ending the consciousness that's bound to exist". If it's only bound to exist, then by definition it doesn't exist yet. That's what I was referring to when I said "You can't end something if it doesn't exist yet", the consciousness of the foetus, not the foetus itself.