Comments by "Debany Doombringer" (@debanydoombringer1385) on "Abortion The Liberty Debate" video.

@coryc9040 It's not based on "the characteristics of the fetus". It's based on if it needs the mother's body to live. If it doesn't, then it has rights of it's own and that's murder. No one can explain why the baby has to die at that point. It can simply be removed from the uterus and allowed to continue it's life without the woman. I can easily argue the other side of your stance. Why not carry the baby until it no longer requires the woman's body and then remove it? A lot of this boils down to people not understanding the reason there's a state to begin with. The primary role of the state is to protect the lives of it's citizens. That would include future ones. That's why even Roe recognized the interest of the state outweighs the bodily autonomy of the woman at a point. For men that's the draft, for women that's the future citizen inside them. If you really want your brain to explode, ask the pro abortion (because they want up to birth and even beyond now in some states), if the man can abort his rights to the baby. They'll spew prolife arguments at you left and right when you bring them into it, even though 1/2 the baby is their DNA.
5
@alxhiding I think it's because we've failed as a society to teach people the primary purpose of the state even existing is to protect the life of it's citizens. I'm not accusing Stossel of this, but more recent generations. They now believe the purpose of the state is to cater to their needs and wants. It's clear when you ask them a couple of simple questions. They've never bothered to even read Roe which plainly says the interest of the state outweighs the body autonomy of the woman at a point, and that point is for each state to decide just not past viability. It recognized that the states interest is in preserving life. While the majority supports abortion in the first trimester, if forced to choose between unrestricted and illegal, the majority pick illegal. The Democrats pushing to codify unrestricted abortion isn't a winning strategy for them. Edit: Two states are now trying to make it legal for post birth "abortions". I'm personally pro-choice with strict restrictions, but if this is where it leads to, outlaw it.
1
While you pointed out the percentage that have later term abortions, you failed to point out the percentage that has them due to r@pe, incest, and life of the mother. That's an even smaller number than have them late term. So they are also using an argument that only effects a tiny portion. I believe it's around 0.5%. The issue with late term abortion isn't how often it happens, it's that it's legal and unrestricted. If life of the mother accounts for a tiny portion of a tiny portion, then they are being performed for other reasons if the percentage of them is that high. That's the issue. Democrats are pushing to have unrestricted abortion federally and that's why it's being discussed.
1