mroseex:
When does it become okay to get an abortion? What makes that right? It is SELFISH and wrong. You are killing something because you couldn’t keep your legs closed, and don’t have the money to take care of it? Get off your ass and get a job then. It is a BABY your killing, a BABY. A helpless, defenseless, little baby. To the people who say it’s just “cells”, no sweetie those cells are what your BABY will develop organs and body parts. Which only takes about a few weeks. I can’t begin to understand how anyone could think it’s okay to kill something, whether or not you believe it’s a baby yet. Those “cells” will be SOMEONE someday. Those “cells” would grow up and have a family of their own someday. So you can’t sit there and tell me, because YOU wanted to have sex you can just kill something. But, for the girls getting raped, I understand why you wouldn’t want the baby… But other people do. People who can’t have babies, you can put it up for adoption. Or keep it yourself, just because someone took advantage of you doesn’t mean you have to kill a little baby.
I guess I’m done now. Judge me all you want, whatever.
The cell is the fundamental unit of life. All organisms are comprised of cells. When you put the word in quotation marks, you only reveal your ignorance of common, rudimentary scientific facts.
The reason that many people describe the embryo or fetus in an abortion as “a cluster of cells” is because the vast majority of abortions take place very early in pregnancy. 62% of abortions take place before the embryo even looks like this:
Keep in mind that this image is ridiculously magnified. At this point, the embryo is less than 20 mm long. That’s about three-quarters of an inch.
So in the majority of abortions, a mass of cells smaller than a U.S. quarter is removed from the uterus. Let’s see what that looks like:
At this point, I feel it would also be prudent to point out that the word “baby” is a colloquialism for the word “infant,” which is a medical term referring to a human between birth and one year of age. No “babies” are directly harmed by anyone’s reproductive choice (although 61% of abortions are for people who already have at least one child, and that child could certainly be hurt if their parent cannot care for another dependent).
And while we’re talking about who has abortions, would it surprise you to know that 69% of them are below 200% of the federal poverty line? That means that if they are a single person, they make less than $21,660 annually. And 42% are below 100% of the federal poverty level, which is $10,830 for a single person. And like I said before, most of these people already have at least one child to care for.
I’m not sure how you think all of these people are just going to get jobs, either. Right now, there are four unemployed people for every open job in the U.S. And it is incredibly difficult to find employment when one is pregnant, as employers are not happy to lose an employee to maternity leave. And most of these people who cannot afford a child are, in fact, employed, but still cannot afford a(nother) child. And how does one get a higher-paying job? Usually through education, which is made exponentially more difficult by having a(nother) child to care for.
So let me ask you, could you care for another human being while earning less money than is necessary to survive (which is the definition of poverty, btw)? And would you consider yourself to be selfish if you needed to ensure that you only had to care for the child(ren) you already are barely able to care for, and not an additional dependent?
You harp on about how an aborted embryo could grow up to be ~*~*~*~SOMEONE~*~*~*~, but fail to recognize that born SOMEONEs like you and I do not have the right to use another individual’s body without their consent. If my born child needed my kidney to survive, I am not legally or morally obligated to provide it. Why should an embryo incapable of surviving outside another’s body be granted rights that born humans do not have, solely because one day it may be born? Your logic does not follow.
Another inconsistency in your ill-informed rant is your failure to believe in an embryo’s sacred potential to be SOMEONE when the embryo is the product of rape. The fact that you conveniently support killing a precious, potential person when the pregnant person was raped tells me that you don’t actually give two shits about embryonic life- you care only for shaming sluts for having sex. And while you appear to have so much faux respect for embryonic “SOMEONEs,” you apparently have no respect for born SOMEONEs, as you expect people who are pregnant and don’t want to be to sacrifice their health, comfort, and livelihood to gestate a fetus for someone else who can’t be bothered to go adopt one of the nearly 200,000 adoptable children already born and sitting in foster care right now. You don’t care about SOMEONEs one bit.
And no, sweetie, when you bang out steaming piles of ignorance and tag them for everyone who cares about reproductive rights to see, you don’t get the right to rant in peace. You see, your anti-choice rhetoric is an attack on me and every other potentially pregnant person’s bodily autonomy and status as an independent human being. You aren’t just ranting- you are shaming us for being sexual, you are championing the removal of our rights, and you are sending the message that we are less deserving of human rights than a blastocyst. People like you are taking over, and you can be sure that people like me won’t go down without a fight.
Keep your ignorance to yourself.
^ Whoever you are, you fucking rock.
