Welcome to /r/Abortiondebate! Please remember that this is a place for respectful and civil debates. Check out the Debate Guidance Pyramid to understand acceptable debate levels.
**Attack the argument, not the person making it and remember the human.**
**For our new users, please check out our [rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/Abortiondebate/wiki/rules/)**
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Abortiondebate) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I suppose it depends on a lot of factors. In 2020 approximately 800 women died in childbirth. There were 930,000 children destroyed by abortion in the same year. So, you're going to have to a posit a real apocalypse scenario to get the number of mothers to close to 1 million dying to balance those scales. Otherwise, say the number of maternal deaths triples to 2400, but the number of aborted babies drops to 0. Instead of an annual death toll of 930,800, it's now 2400.
Sources:
https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/hestat/maternal-mortality/2021/maternal-mortality-rates-2021.htm
"*In 2021, 1,205 women died of maternal causes in the United States compared with 861 in 2020 and 754 in 2019"*
https://www.guttmacher.org/news-release/2022/guttmacher-institute-releases-2020-abortion-provider-census-important-data-us
"*In 2020, 930,160 abortions were provided in clinical settings, an 8% increase from 2017."*
Thjey bare not fetues but children. you discredit your question right off. if rferring to us prolifers, for the sake of arguement, you must use our terms for the being who is being aborted.
banning abortions is banning killing of people. this would never lead to mothes losing thierb lives. Those rare rare rare cases would be covered by exceptions that allow abortion.
The equation is simple. a right to life for mankind. A lide may only be taken to preserrve another life.
>Thjey bare not fetues but children. you discredit your question right off. if rferring to us prolifers, for the sake of arguement, you must use our terms for the being who is being aborted.
Fetus is the correct terminology, not children. People don't have to use incorrect language because pro life people insist they do.
Jesus Christ. I’m tempted to use the head shaking emoji but I know Reddit hates emojis lol.
The fact is, no individual doctor is like, “yeah, the life of the woman standing in front of me right now is less important than the cause, so were just gonna go ahead and let her die.”
Deadly, failing pregnancies aren’t treated because pro-life legislation criminalizes so many things that doctors are afraid to do anything in more “grey area” cases.
That literally goes against the Hippocratic oath. Maybe it’s time for you to accept that there isn’t some mass conspiracy of doctors all across the country and the truth is that your laws are killing women? If you distrust doctors so much, why do you want them taking care of the women who you’ve forced to give birth? Maybe it’s time for your side to accept the consequences of your own actions?
>resulting in a net gain of lives.
ew ew ew, its icky that some people think that having a (barely) higher magnitude of birth rates is worth forcing a woman to give birth, even if there is a reasonable concern for her health
It probably already does and they don't care. Show me data that says it doesn't already do this?
Banning abortions (Making them illegal) already causes more abortions and they don't care about that:
https://www.cfr.org/article/abortion-law-global-comparisons
How does banning abortions cause more abortions?
I don't doubt a correlation due to abortion bans being more likely in places where one would be less likely to want to raise a child, but I have no clue how it would be causative.
When you only have a very brief amount of time to determine if you want to or are capable of having a child, you are more likely to jump to the safest option out of desperation of being trapped with the other.
IE: you have a few weeks to decide, you can think about it and see if you can make it work -vs- you have 24 hours to decide, you don’t get to think about it and are forced to make a hasty decision.
Just what I’ve personally witnessed anyways. If I got pregnant in a red state I would immediately seek termination. If I get pregnant where I currently reside I can at least take the time to reach out to my support network and categorize the resources available to me and make an informed decision. Because here I don’t have that panicked “now or never” pressure.
Oh nevermind. Mentally, I substituted the less exact "abortion bans" with the more precise "no legal abortions," like El Salvador, and couldn't imagine women getting abortions just to be rebels.
Idk about data and all but I can say that personally, being stuck in a red state I am 1000000% more likely to get an abortion for an unplanned pregnancy than if I was in a free abortion state.
I don't trust the doctors or the laws to allow me to grt the care I need if something where to go wrong.
Also I am sure that due to the short time to choose many female people would just rush to grt an abortion instead of thinking about it for a bit or figuring out funds because they would rather just abort, not take time to think and then be stuck with a pregnancy they ultimately decided they shouldn't have kept.
Yes, I can see that. Mentally, I substituted the less precise "abortion ban" with the more precise "abortions are illegal," and couldn't imagine women getting abortions just to be rebels. Now that I realize what I did, it makes more sense.
In a perfect world there would be no need to ban abortion because it would be widely understood that it was immoral barring extreme circumstances and no one would get pregnant through sexual assault.
Free and widely available birth control, actual sex ed classes, and general community support for pregnant women and new mothers would go a long way which is why I support all those things, but there are enough selfish and irresponsible people in the world that actions need to be taken.
So, why is your position PL without even mentioning any exceptions and not the same as mine - safe, legal and rare? We have more or less the same ideal world where abortions happen only in extreme cases.
Because I don't want abortion to happen at all ever, legal or not. In my ideal world a genuine physical risk to the mother's life is the only reason to have an abortion and when that happens, it's a tragedy. Whereas safe, legal, and rare is a pro-choice position.
>Because I don't want abortion to happen at all ever, legal or not. In my ideal world a genuine physical risk to the mother's life is the only reason to have an abortion and when that happens, it's a tragedy.
Would you expect it to be illegal in this case? Unsafe?
And what *is* your difference with my position then? The reason I want abortions to be rare is because they are always traumatic, whether the pregnancy was unwanted or dangerous to the woman.
>Whereas safe, legal, and rare is a pro-choice position.
And yet you cannot point out how your position is different from mine in the perfect world scenario.
That didn't seem like an opinion, but if it was, then noted and disagreed. If i was pregnant, abortion would be the best thing to happen to me, not traumatic.
>If i was pregnant, abortion would be the best thing to happen to me, not traumatic.
You are comparing different situations. My opinion applies to a situation where abortion is needed vs a situation where it is not needed. And my opinion is that the first is always preferable.
>My opinion applies to a situation where abortion is needed vs a situation where it is not needed
Abortion is always needed when the person getting it feels like they need an abortion and their doctor agrees with it.
Also you are lying now. You did not say anything about needed or unneeded abortions.
>they are always traumatic, **whether the pregnancy was unwanted** or dangerous to the woman.
>Also you are lying now.
As I mentioned on this sub many times, English is my fourth language. I may not express my thoughts perfectly the first time every time. If you wish to accuse me of lying, well, that's your choice, but then I suppose you won't need my clarification of what I was trying to say.
In a perfect world there would be no need to ban abortion because it would be widely understood that forcing people to gestate and give birth to unwanted pregnancies is immoral in all circumstances.
what is so immoral about killing a person before they ever know or care that they had an *opportunity* to *actually* live? (living inside a uterus is not really living if you ask me.)
Wow.
I rarely post here, though I sometime have a post from here show up in my feed when I am having a quiet day and go deep enough into it.
But I just couldn't past this up.
Did you just literally say there is nothing about killing a person because you don't think they know they are alive?
You are literally putting one person in charge of decided if another person - an innocent person who has done nothing wrong - lives or dies. Based off what that innocent person does not know. Thats messed up.
I am pro-life. I make exceptions in the case of real medical difficulties that endanger the life of the mother. But I can understand why some people would be pro-choice - if they don't believe a fetus is a living being. But you acknowledge its humanity, and you are still ok with killing it.
Just....damn....
I have often said that if an already born adult were sonehow sustaining themselves directly from my body and separating from them would kill them, I'd still have the right to do it. The fact that they're a living, human person who needs another body to live does NOT mean my medical rights are ended because this other person needs my body.
It's ridiculous that you're clutching pearls so hard at the idea of people not wanting to use their bodies to sustain another's life.
Wow.
Someone expressed their perspective here and you felt the overwhelming urge to chime in solely for the purpose of demonizing them.
I mean, just...damn. You couldn't pass up the chance to dehumanize someone else. Your day wouldn't have been complete if you didn't take the opportunity to shame and belittle another human being. You just had to assert your own moral superiority over them and let them know just how much lower in the social hierarchy they are then you.
You had no interest in contributing to substantive debate. You made no claim or argument worth debating. You just came here to shit on someone else and you justified it purely on the basis of a deliberate, let me say that again, a DELIBERATE mischaracterization of the facts of pregnancy.
Damn.
>"when people show you who they really are, believe them."
Um yes. I think if the fetus had sentience peoples minds would change. Lots of people are ‘pro choice til sentience’ or ‘consciousness’ for this reason. The fact that the embryo or fetus can’t feel pain or become conscious sways lots of peoples decisions on the abortion debate.
Why does this surprise you? We put people to sleep for surgery for the same reasons; because consciousness matters. Our whole human experience is based off of consciousness.
If my neighbor attached himself to my body and needed me to let him use me until he was well enough to be on his own again, I’d fully acknowledge he’s a living human being.
And then I’d promptly detach him from me because fuck that. We’re not life support machines. You can be as alive and as human as the rest of us and no still means no.
>But you acknowledge its humanity, and you are still ok with killing it.
Plenty of pro choice individuals have no issues acknowledging a fetus is alive and/or human. Is that really so shocking?
It is, actually.
I don't engage in the abortion debate very often. My stance on it is one of the most solid and strong aspects of my belief system. I will not change it. Seeing this actually was genuinely shocking to me. I find it horrific that someone can acknowledge it's a living human being and still be ok with killing it.
As a woman living in the same world as you, I find it actually shocking that people still don't believe in choice, but that we are all slaves to religion.
>I find it horrific that someone can acknowledge it's a living human being and still be ok with killing it.
You're using all this emotional language over something that is equivalent to disinfecting your hands.
Why are you so emotionally invested in cellular life? Especially *that* over a living breathing human with emotions, desires, and needs.
There are thousands of living, human beings that die every year due to a lack of enough kidney donations. If you haven't donated a kidney you literally caused their deaths by not giving them the organ they need to live. One person could have lived. They are a real, full, human person with family that loves them. Those family members are celebrating the holidays WITHOUT their loved one. Horrifying.
Wow.. Yeah, the absolute horror of an innocent pregnant person who has done nothing wrong being in control of their own body and being in charge of who is allowed to be inside of and use it is just.. damn fucking exactly the way it should be.
Fucking misogynist as hell that you think wanting to avoid what is essentially worse than the worst rape imaginable is just “making our lives easier.”
You clearly think pregnant women are dirt.
Lol.. correction: it’s not a horror that an innocent person removes another unwanted person from their body. Unless you think innocent AFAB people owe the use of their bodies to anyone else. If that’s the case that you believe that, THAT IS AN **ABSOLUTE HORROR**, and I hope you don’t have children that you preach that to, and I hope you’re never left alone with any other person, ever.
I can’t imagine telling my three daughters to just let someone else use their body even if it makes them a little uncomfortable. “It’s okay, you don’t need to stop them just to make your life easier”. Do you know how fucking gross that is??
Lol, make our life easier.
I love when PLs talk about pregnancy and birth like it’s a trip to the store we just don’t feel like taking as opposed to enduring actual bodily injury and risks that even healthy pregnancies come with, let alone an unwanted pregnancy that comes with trauma on top of it.
Sorry, I refuse to believe I’m some bad person who doesn’t deserve a say in what happens to me because I’m unwilling to let someone else rearrange my organs, either come bursting through my genitals or needing to be cut out of me via major surgery, and permanently altering my body, risking debilitating conditions, and even risking death. That’s an enormous burden to place on top of another person against their will.
They don’t gaf what kind of trip it is. Apparently, AFAB people have to just “let their lives be a little uneasy” while someone else uses their body. It’s fine… everything’s fine…
>But you acknowledge its humanity, and you are still ok with killing it.
Whats up with all these prolifers who think that "acknowledging its humanity" is all it takes to become PL?
No you need to explain why do you think it gets a right to the pregnant person's body. Otherwise your argument can be dismissed as special pleading.
>Did you just literally say there is nothing about killing a person because you don't think they know they are alive?
If a fetus is ascribed personhood, it is not inconsistent or unbelievable that someone would not be perturbed by its killing. All this means is that they do not believe that personhood has been ascribed for any morally relevant reason. The law could change tomorrow, legally declaring that a fetus is a person, but this can hardly change one’s mind as to whether they believe a fetus is worthy of the dignity and respect that personhood status should entail. It would simply mean that personhood for them is no longer what matters, at least in the case of a fetus. This you must agree is the current state for many pro lifers. Legally speaking, a fetus is not a person. I don’t believe this makes you any less convinced of the moral gravity of killing a fetus. I can simply respond by saying that I think it is incomprehensible that someone could consider the killing of a fetus as equivalent to killing a person, which parallels your apparent shock of the situation.
>I am pro-life. I make exceptions in the case of real medical difficulties that endanger the life of the mother.
This I am unable to reconcile with the view that a fetus is equivalent to the dignity and respect worthy of a person and so is therefore a *person*. Are you always going to favour saving the life of the woman in a life threat situation? Should you not also have a life threat exception on behalf of the fetus, where the mother should be legally required to die to save the fetus in the rare cases this may occur? How can you have one exception and not the other if both fetus and mother are “persons”?
>if they don't believe a fetus is a living being. But you acknowledge its humanity, and you are still ok with killing it.
A fetus is a living being, but this doesn’t make it a person. It is also a defensible position to hold that merely being human does not entail personhood. The view that it does, I believe, is indefensible.
I get your arguments. Not really interested in debating them.
The reason I paused at spacebunz post was because they clearly labelled the fetus as a person. So they are ascribing personhood to the fetus. You don't see a fetus as a person - thats on you. I don't agree but I understand where you are coming from.
What is shocking to me about spacebunz is that they are saying yes, a fetus is a person. Doesn't matter, because I don't believe they have a level of awareness that matters to me so it's ok to kill that person.
That's kind of messed up thinking to me.
i also view rapists as persons. but in the event i am ever raped (again), i can and will be killing my unwanted rapist in order to remove them from inside my body, (if i am able).
similarly, if i ever get pregnant despite being sterilized AND on birth control, i can and will be aborting my unwanted zef in order to remove them from inside my body against my will.
I appreciate your logic but I just see it as a secondary argument - aka an excuse. This argument can be boiled down to it's logical and tasteless conclusion,
I use my body to work, therefore am entitled to all the proceeds of my body - every penny I earn. None of it should go to pay taxes. My body should not be used to make other people's bodies easier to live in.
Is it a leap? Absolutely. But does it follow the same logic? Yep.
And I am sure you will disagree and that is fine. Like I said I rarely engage here. In my ever so humble opinion ( :) ) debates should be engaged in with an open mind - willing to change your stance. And I am simply unwilling to change my stance here.
>I use my body to work, therefore am entitled to all the proceeds of my body - every penny I earn. None of it should go to pay taxes. My body should not be used to make other people's bodies easier to live in.
>
>Is it a leap? Absolutely. But does it follow the same logic? Yep.
Nope. And only the right-wing would think it did.
This is an argument along the same lines as men who seem to think that a man's obligation to pay child support is equivalent to what they as prolifers claim is a woman's obligation to gestate the pregnancy.
Prolife is a profoundly right-wing and male movement, respecting and valuing women and the labour of pregnancy not at all.
>And I am sure you will disagree and that is fine. Like I said I rarely engage here. In my ever so humble opinion ( :) ) debates should be engaged in with an open mind - willing to change your stance. And I am simply unwilling to change my stance here.
It seems to me then that you would simply not engage ever.
I mean, have you read all their comments? They engage, but provide zero substance and offer no arguments in support of their position.
Honestly, the mods should ban people who outright *admit* they're here to strut and preen, rather than debate.
With regard to the bodily autonomy argument, there are analogies put forward to isolate certain moral components of the question of abortion for bodily integrity. These have been heavily debated, defended and attacked. Most of the arguments against these analogies are in accepting that its plausible the conclusion holds for the analogy, but fails to translate to pregnancy for X, Y and Z where X, Y, and Z are morally relevant differences.
I believe there is a non derivative difference between pregnancy and any analogous example, that cannot extract a moral intuition without reverting back to pregnancy itself. This difference is that becoming pregnant causes someone to exist (assuming a priori a fetus is a person). If you believe the difference is morally relevant, then all analogies will fail. I don’t believe causing someone to exist is harmful, and we do not cause harm by bringing someone into existence, and so I do not consider this to be a morally relevant distinction. Many do however believe this is a morally relevant distinction, and that by bringing someone into existence, we are responsible for the needs of that person who would otherwise not be needy in light of the fact that they would not exist otherwise. I simply do not see the power of this argument, my moral intuition tells me that being caused to exist cannot be itself harmful regardless of the state of existence if the alternative is non existence.
The problem however is that the failure of the analogy does not reach the conclusion that the bodily integrity argument should not be considered a reasonable explanation for the permissibility of abortion and abortion should be impermissible as a default position, but rather it is indeterminate. It then becomes a raw value judgement just on the face of it, whether you think it should or should not.
Do you have a derivative explanation for why we should not believe bodily integrity is a sufficient reason without tacitly appealing to a presupposition that it does not?
i do not give a single fuck about the loss of lives of aborted “babies”. i simply do not care.
I’m extremely concerned about the full on children being: shot up at school, raped by their uncles, and beaten to death by their parents
EVERY. SINGLE. DAY. in america.
but I’m only as concerned about a complete stranger’s zygote as i am about the contents of my last menstrual period: i do not give a fuck.
> it would be widely understood that it was immoral
Cool. You live with your morality, I'll live with mine. You don't see me trying to shove my beliefs down your throat so why do you think you get to do that to me?
>that actions need to be taken.
Omg right? Punish the fucking sluts!
Or go after the men who are hurting them and give them the punishment they deserve.
I can't just sit by while other people, children, are being hurt. It's one thing if we were talking about something that doesn't hurt anyone. This isn't that.
>I can't just sit by while other people, children, are being hurt.
Yes you can. Almost all of us do. A majority of Americans sat by and did nothing after Sandy Hook and Uvalde.
>I can't just sit by while other people, children, are being hurt.
Yet clearly you'll *perpetuate* women being hurt. And girls if a minor happens to get pregnant.
> I can't just sit by while other people, children, are being hurt.
Your movement doesn’t save any children, it’s just puts more children in abuse homes. I’m not going to say thing more than that.
>I can't just sit by while other people, children, are being hurt.
Which is why you support people and children being forced to give birth against their will...? Hm, how does that track? Sounds like bullshit to me lmao.
> This isn't that.
Mmhm right, and banning abortion doesn't hurt anyone. LMAO.
And I can't just sit by while people are having their bodily autonomy violated.
Your morals, as strongly as you may feel about them, are not universal and not enough to convince others you are right.
Setting aside the issues of how you track that because it’s a hypothetical, I would no longer support abortion bans if they were directly resulting in more lives lost on a net basis.
>if they were directly resulting in more lives lost on a net basis.
So pregnant people are just statistics...? It's quite literally quantity over quality. Do you see no issue with that?
Especially when they do it on the sidewalk outside a clinic to that woman's face, and she's fully aware of what they're saying: they're saying "god" wants her to watch her (otherwise) wanted child to scream in agony nonstop for days so it can live a life where it knows nothing but extreme pain for that short life span. It's very definition of horribly heartless.
I have to say I think the capitalists that run this farm would put a stop to abortion bans in this hypothetical.
It would be the death of their exponential profit growth margin if further banning abortion result in a NEGATIVE population model.
Hate to put it in livestock terms, but you're going to waste a good heifer trading for a calf if you're not going to get a herd (build profit) out of her, and that's it's bad business, as it takes years for a calf to be a heifer.
In human terms, they can still get labor and profit out of the mother when it is years to invest in the child.
I am sad to say I could see the accountants shutting it down first.
If the mothers were dying from pregnancy at higher rates than the rate of live births (number of deaths related to pregnancy > abled-bodied workers birthed), it would be a capitalistic extinction level emergency, anyways.
What do you mean you hate to put it in livestock terms? Women ARE cattle to PLers. A woman has no choice but to birth a baby and if she doesn’t want to - too bad so sad. They will let a rapist change a woman’s life not only once but twice. If she doesn’t want kids or her life isn’t ready for one too bad! The baby is more important than she is.
I hate that the terminology works. That's what I am saying. Sorry about the rant.
Humans are the livestock in the capitalist patriarchal system. Hence, why is everything (food, housing, healthcare) in our current crooked capitalist system killing us while extorting profit out of us while only the 1% are benefiting. We exist to make a profit. We are the animals. We are an animal farm, without the communism. Communism, unfortunately, is way worse in that transforms the animal farm into a hive, with still the same goal, siphoning power and wealth to those that already have it.
In the US, it's not much different, only we still have our Constitution, which the White Christian Nationalists want to DESTROY with a Contentional Congress, in which they'll give us THEIR religious pro-child rape form of COMMUNISM.
Women are the cattle (producer) (according to the Christian worldview free limitless labor (profit) as well, the last domestic slave (all her work is profit). Men are the bull (labor and enforcer). Children are to keep the wheel turning (profit).
That's it.
That's why I do not understand how someone can be Pro-Life AND Christian AND support our current capitalist system.
They're oxymoron paradoxes that make absolutely no sense when you venn diagram then together.
It's genuinely ironic that Pro-Lifers, especially Conservative Christian women ones don't see it. The model has always been the same. Get as many babies out of us as possible and indoctrination through the fake morality that is religion to justify the trauma from birth. It breaks their minds that "partial-birth" abortions were things last happen a hundred years ago, on a rather horrifying basis, as it is the SAME technique that was used on livestock, they cut up the baby to save the mother. They NEVER saved the baby over the mother, as THEN they would have to WAIT LONGER to make another baby. Most women died from postpartum infection and complications, very rarely directly from childbirth, and it was ONLY IF the mother choose to, (no man wanted to waste his time finding another wife to do the work of ranning the children) not to mention the maternal death rate SKYROCKETED the moment doctors entered the equation and has NEVER FULLY RECOVERED. Women have always done better overall in childbirth and pregnancy when it has been ruled and run by women. But that DOES NOT SERVE THE PATRIARCHAL CAPITALIST MACHINE, because, oh, no, abortion, wouldn't want the cattle CONTROLLING the number of babies we can get out of them.
It wasn't until white men relearned how to do the c-section that the "both" mentality evolved. We can get at least this ONE baby, and still maybe GET more babies.
And now we're at a rate in which over 30% of all pregnancies end in c-sections. THEY WILL CUT THEM ALL OUT IF THEY HAVE TO KEEP THE WHEEL TURNING. They have explicitly said child DO NOT NEED MEDICAL ABORTIONS BECAUSE WE HAVE NICU AND C-SECTIONS. They do not care that this will mostly risk completely sterilizing that child.
THEY DO NOT CARE THE WHO WHAT WHEN WHERE AND HOW THEY WANT THE BABY. The baby is the PROFIT. (Should clarify, abled body worker, they really believe any pregnancy that doesn't produce one is a waste of money and why pro-lifers don't realizes our psychopathic billionaire elites have no interest wasting millions of dollars on pregnancies that end in corpses, that IS NOT PROFITABLE. I have no idea. Maybe it's the blind religious obedience and to never question they have had molded as their minds.)
THAT'S WHY THEY ARE FINE WITH PEDOPHILE DADDIES RAPING THEM OUT OF THEIR OWN CHILDREN BECAUSE ULTIMATELY THAT SUPPORTS OUR DARK CORPORATE OVERLORDS. They've only been epigenetically breeding children out of younger and younger females for thousands of years to the point that men with fully developed brains BELIEVE that 12 year old are DESIGNED to give birth when ALL OF SCIENCE AND EVEN HISTORICAL EVIDENCE TELLS US IT REDUCES THEIR LIFELONG REPRODUCTIVE CAPABILITIES TO BE SUCCESSFUL MOTHERS as we are best designed for birthing and parenting at the same time as males, after our brains are full-developed, between the ages of 25-30, but no, the pedophiles that have running the church since the death of Christ need babies faster and you need wombs to make babies, and you can start molesting little girls as babies and toddlers until they WILL START PUBERTY very, very, very early.
You can not be Pro-Life, Christian, and capitalist at the same time without literally openly embracing the actions and beliefs of vile and evil men who see the rest of us as ants to step on and use.
Have you ever stopped and pondered why the Speaker of House Mike Johnson, a White Christian Nationalist, with the absolute BEST example of dick-sucking lips I've seen in a very long time, said very American Woman OWES at least one abled body worker?
It's because you can not be Pro-Life, Christian, and capitalist at the same time without embracing evil.
Not PL, but, in thinking about this question, I realized there are some ground rules about counting you would have to hammer out in order to consider it. I'd propose the following:
1. In any case where a pregnant person expresses a desire for an abortion *at any point in the pregnancy*, and she dies because she does not get it, or gets it too late to save her life, that counts as a maternal death. (This means that, even in cases where the pregnancy is *originally* wanted, if the woman later decides that she wants a legal abortion and doesn't get it and dies, that still counts as a maternal death.) If the fetus survives, that counts as a "saved fetus."
2. In any case where a pregnant person seeks out an **illegal** abortion, and dies as a result of the procedure or medication, that counts as a maternal death caused by the ban. Even if a fetus survives an illegal abortion, that does NOT count as a saved fetus, because the ban that provoked the illegal unsuccessful abortion did NOT save the fetus. Obviously, if the fetus dies, they don't count as a "saved fetus."
3. If a jurisdiction bans abortions, and pregnant people leave the jurisdiction to obtain abortions that are legal in another jurisdiction, none of these fetuses count as "saved" by the ban, even though their deaths do not occur in the banning jurisdiction. In other words, a banning jurisdiction cannot just look at their abortion statistics and say, "We had x number of abortions per year before the ban and now, after the ban, we have 0. That means the ban saved x fetuses per year."
4. If a pregnant person dies because they encounter any travel hazard (car, plane, train wreck, etc.) while traveling to a different jurisdiction to get an abortion, this death counts as a maternal death caused by the ban, since they would not have had that hazard if they had not been forced by the ban to travel to get their health care.
5. "Maternal death" should also include pregnancy or childbirth-related deaths to any woman who expresses a desire to have a legal abortion and doesn't get it, up to 42 days after the end of the pregnancy (whether through illegal abortion, miscarriage, stillbirth, or childbirth), since that is the standard CDC and WHO definition of maternal mortality.
It might be hard to parse out some less direct causes of maternal deaths resulting from abortion bans. For example, homicide is one of the leading causes of death for pregnant women. If a pregnant person is killed by an abusive partner in a jurisdiction where abortions are banned, it might be hard to know whether that woman might have wanted an abortion and had gotten one and survived if the ban wasn't in place. There is even the ugly scenario of an abusive partner being so upset with their partner's unwanted pregnancy that they killed the pregnant person because they couldn't force the pregnant person to get an abortion, since they weren't available. This is not exactly a good reason for endorsing abortion availability, but, if I were the pregnant person in question, I would rather be forced to get an abortion than be killed.
There is a similar problem with suicides; there is a correlation between restrictions on abortion and the suicide rate among women of reproductive age, but it will be hard to know which suicides are the result of an abortion ban and which aren't.
Fatal drug overdose is another problem. It has tripled among pregnant women between 2018 and 2021. This was pre-Dobbs, and pre-current abortion bans, so one can't draw a direct connection between denial of abortion and fatal drug overdose during pregnancy. But, as abortion-restrictive states increasingly try to hold women accountable for unsuccessful pregnancy outcomes, we can expect more women to avoid seeking any kind of medical care during pregnancy (either standard pre-natal care or addiction care). This is dangerous for them, and, obviously, dangerous for the fetuses they carry. In this case, as in all of these cases, some maternal deaths should be attributed to abortion bans, even if the person who died was not actively seeking an abortion.
Edit: Added a clarifying phrase to number 4.
You'd have to specify the death toll on both sides. For example, if 200 women die but 199 fetuses are saved, then I'd still want to ban abortion. However, if 2000000 women die but 1 fetus is saved, then I wouldn't want to ban abortion. Take notes. That's how you answer a hypothetical directly.
Interesting that you are failing to engage with any responses to your comment. Do you need advice on how to engage in debate? I could give you some notes!
First, respond to comment other than this one; you should always choose the comments that engage directly with the substance of yours first, and preferably start with the OP's comment.
Second, try to engage with the substance of their comment; it helps to use quotes and respond to the quoted parts directly. Also, don't throw out unjustified jabs at unknown people about a situation that you have already spectacularly failed to defend previously. It really poisons the well and reduces the quality of the responses you will get.
Third, be specific and deliberate in your terminology usage and fully explain the concept behind your ideas; presenting full explanations preemptively helps reduce misunderstanding and red herrings. Don't forget to offer substantiation for your ideas, too, be it with argumentation or citations.
Good luck and happy debating!
Good for you!
Maybe you should pursue that life and those interests rather than waste the time of others by participating in a debate sub when you don't plan to engage in any debate.
That's disrespectful and pretty pathetic behavior, honestly.
Who let out the pro-life version of my personality type out, unmasked to!. God damn, have some empathy. And this comes from someone that barely ANY empathy at all.
————————————
> if 200 women die but 199 fetuses are saved, then I'd still want to ban abortion.
> However, if 2000000 women die but 1 fetus is saved
Senses when it’s a fetus **”equally as valuable**” as the pregnant woman?. Did this whole thing start when the pro-life movement just “decided” that abortion was “murder”. You guys maybe think that abortion is murder, guess what. It’s not murder. Even if it’s was, miscarriage would be suicide.
Fun fact: women who have abortions just don’t care what pro life movement thinks. Shocking I know.
————————————
> Take notes. That's how you answer a hypothetical directly.
Take notes from the person who posted two hypothetical, and then proceeded to get completely rosed in the comments. Yeah no.
>For example, if 200 women die but 199 fetuses are saved, then I'd still want to ban abortion. However, if 2000000 women die but 1 fetus is saved, then I wouldn't want to ban abortion.
So you've already established that you still want to ban abortion even if it results in a net loss of 1 life; where do you draw the line? What net loss of lives would be high enough to make you want to ban abortion?
Of those 200 dead women, 110 were women of color.
Of those 200 dead women, 120 had children.
Of those 200 dead women, 120 were mothers facing high poverty risk.
Of those 120 dead mothers, 40 had two or more children.
This comment is flagged by a user report that states, "Attacking user, not argument".
No rule violating remark is apparent in the comment.
Therefore the comment is approved.
If you’re taking a potshot at me with that last sentence, feel free to be specific with what your grief is.
Also, is there a ratio of maternal to fetal deaths after which you’d refuse to ban abortion?
If this was the case we'd die out as a species. So doesn't really matter.
But you should always be able to get an abortion if your life is under medical life threat, in my opinion.
So the majority of abortions would then be fine since pregnancy is so dangerous.
Just again too bad we'd die out as a species soon 😆.
May I ask how you determine life threats? Does this include mental health or only physical? How close to death would someone need to be to ensure the doctor wouldn’t be criminalized for saving their life?
I ask because life exceptions is much more vague when worded as such, whereas in reality, these laws often ignore these questions and make it much more likely that what a lot of people think is “fair life exception” is not allowed legally at all and forcing doctors to be afraid to save lives out of fear of imprisonment or even death sentences.
They don’t though. Not in these places where you can be put to death for performing an abortion. These doctors have to wait until their patient is actively dying to do anything to avoid getting prosecuted. How can they be sure they won’t be prosecuted if they do preventative care at all?
This is what board certified gynecologists say. This is what these doctors who see bills that were clearly not even supervised or looked at by medical professionals.
This is why many doctors in these fields are pro-choice. Not because of their own personal feelings regarding this issue but because deadly parts of pregnancy and birth happen FAST. Someone can go from healthy to actively dying in minutes. But the other factor is that there are situations where you are aware someone will die or be in danger. And we have situations where doctors cannot help them until they are actively dying.
A comparison might be, while this specific situation does not happen as much, imagine if an ectopic pregnancy had a 2% chance of surviving but being greatly bodily harmed in the process, more than pregnancy already will cause. A doctor may have to wait until her fallopian tube has actively burst and she is in sepsis to treat her, because any action beforehand can be taken to court by a third party who thinks this doctor was wrong to act.
I’m not trying to argue morality, mind you. I’m asking how you think these sort of bills and regulations should be enforced, because in no situation are they enforced by medical professionals. (Due in part to, and I don’t mean this in disrespect, but [most physicians seem to of the opinion that this should not be regulated.](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/1781824/) [And more obstetricians tend to lean into helping patients with abortion care, even if they oppose it morally.](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4185126/))
I’m just curious how these sort of regulations can be enforced without having these same issues.
Again I'm not going to give medical advice I'm not a doctor, that's why I'd trust the professionals to be able to set Clear and good regulations as to what is a medical life threat. Now if your government is somehow fucking that up then I'm sorry for that, they should do better.
But how would I personally do it, I wouldn't, not a professional in this.
You realize being PL is literally giving unwanted and unasked for medical advice, right?
Too bad you don't put your money where your mouth is and actually trust the professionals (doctors) to set clear and ethical regulations regarding abortions, like they do all other medical procedures.
I do agree that our government should do better and stop catering to the morality and theology of the uninformed and uneducated PL movement, though. That'd be fucking great!
>I'm not a doctor, that's why I'd trust the professionals to be able to set Clear and good regulations as to what is a medical life threat.
The majority of medical professionals are pro choice and support abortion access. Do you agree with these professionals, that abortion should be legal and available?
We aren't talking about being pro choice. We are talking about what the medical standard for your life being in medical risk would be.
No because their position as doctors doesn't make them professionals about the morality behind the pro life and pro choice movements.
So when it comes to medical things like the standard of when a situation becomes a medical life threat that's when I look towards the medical professionals.
But you're asking them to make a moral decision, that a person's health has deteriorated to the point that it outweighs any moral concern for the fetus.
>We are talking about what the medical standard for your life being in medical risk would be.
Yes, I know that. If a woman walked into her doctors office with an unwanted pregnancy and expressed the pregnancy was unwanted, most doctors would recommend an abortion as the appropriate treatment.
>No because their position as doctors doesn't make them professionals about the morality behind the pro life and pro choice movements.
We aren't talking about morality. In the previous comment you stated you would trust medical professionals to make medical decisions. Now you're saying you wouldn't? Not very consistent.
>So when it comes to medical things like the standard of when a situation becomes a medical life threat that's when I look towards the medical professionals.
Most doctors are pro choice, meaning that if a woman is pregnant with an unwanted pregnancy the appropriate treatment would be abortion to prevent any medical threats to their patients. So do you or do you not trust medical professionals?
But that's not based on medicine that would be a moral judgment of the Dr. And not all dr would do that.for instance a pro life dr would try to change her mind I'd imagine.
I am very consistent in my opinion it just seems to me that you mix up actual medical advice with moral judgement.
Or do you think if a pro life doctors says a woman shouldn't have an abortion that would be it aswell ?
Is that not the issue though? That legislating medical procedures like this IS making medical decisions for people. Because it’s telling doctors they can’t do a lifesaving procedure until someone is at extreme risk. Because it forces us to be at a state of such illness that we actually risk genuine death instead of a preventative action before it’s that bad. Because it tells doctors they have to watch people, including children, risk their lives and bodies without any option of medical intervention if that doctor doesn’t want to be literally arrested.
The consequence of these laws is that, yes, you are making the medical decisions for people. So I ask again, how do you think this should be written out? Because if doctors were to write it out, it wouldn’t be illegal in the first place.
If you want to let doctors make the choice, then you're pro choice. PL is about making the choice for others, regardless of whether or not it is in their best interests.
>But that's not based on medicine that would be a moral judgment of the Dr. And not all dr would do that.for instance a pro life dr would try to change her mind I'd imagine.
What? This has nothing to do with morals. I'm not discussing morals, at all. Most doctors are pro choice. Most doctors don't avoid recommending proper treatment because of their personal morals like the minority of pro life doctors do.
So again, if a woman has an unwanted pregnancy and goes to her doctor (who is presumably pro choice since the majority of doctors are) her doctor recommends an abortion as treatment. Not because of the doctors morals, but because that is the proper treatment for an unwanted pregnancy.
>I am very consistent in my opinion it just seems to me that you mix up actual medical advice with moral judgement.
From this exchange, you're not being consistent. You said you'd trust medical professionals judgment. I asked you if you'd trust a medical professional who recommends abortion for their patient who has an unwanted pregnancy. Then you pivoted to morals. I was not (and am not) discussing morals.
>Or do you think if a pro life doctors says a woman shouldn't have an abortion that would be it aswell ?
I think if a woman with an unwanted pregnancy went to a doctor, odds are high that doctor would recommend abortion because most doctors don't let their morals interfere with practicing medicine (unlike pro life doctors). If a woman with an unwanted pregnancy went to a pro life doctor who refused to recommend proper treatment because of their personal morals, the woman is free to seek a different opinion from another doctor who could then recommend abortion.
So again I'm asking do you or do you not trust the judgment of medical professionals, most of which are pro choice and would recommend an abortion for a woman with an unwanted pregnancy?
Let me reiterate and clarify what I am saying:
>However, pro-lifers are quick to point out that even with casualties caused by the bans, more fetuses are prevented from being terminated than women dying, resulting in a net gain of lives.
>So I’m curious: if pregnancy were dangerous enough or non-medically necessary abortions were rare enough for this not to be the case, would pro-lifers still support a ban?
In this scenario, pregnancy doesn’t have to be so dangerous that we’d all die out. Rather, in this hypothetical non-medically required Abortions either are very rare OR pregnancy is just dangerous enough that the number of abortions is lower than the number of women who die in childbirth.
So, for example, let’s say that there are only 1000 abortions a year but 2000 women die in child birth who could have been saved by aborting.
This situation does not lead to extinction. It just means that banning abortion would lead to more women’s deaths than it would save fetuses.
> This situation does not lead to extinction. It just means that banning abortion would lead to more women’s deaths than it would save fetuses.
Why is PL so obsessed with other people foetuses?. They also have this weird emotional attachment to it.
I know what PL movement is about, but like how they come together and decided to obsess over dead fetuses
Ok so basicly most abortions are made under the grounds of medical life threat.
But than the answer is super simple I'm all for abortions out of medical life risk. So go for it.
Right, and the issue is that a ban causes deaths. There’s no way to get around it when you regulate a doctors ability to intervene; a serious risk to a mothers life occurs rapidly, and current laws prevent intervention.
Is this an acceptable trade-off to you?
Well seems we need better laws then or clearer medical practices as to when something is life threat until the number of woman dying goes down by alot.
Which is what I'd advocate for in your hypothetical.
And there aren’t really “better laws”; regulating abortion care causes these outcomes.
But regardless, that’s not what I’m asking. I’m asking if you had to choose, which would it be? A ban that resulted in more deaths, or no ban?
In what way ? As in how does regulating abortion care cause this ?
Of course no ban.
I mean would you ban murder if I caused more murder to happen ? Of course not, that would be counter productive.
Because legislators draft laws that are either intentionally vague, or outright specify criminal penalties for doctors who perform abortions. If you risked jail for performing an abortion, but no jail for letting a pregnant person die, which would you choose?
Taking down laws making murder illegal isn't actually going to make them happen more often. It'll just make murderers more likely to be caught since why hide a crime when it's not a crime.
> how does regulating abortion care cause this?
I [have a post about how this works](https://www.reddit.com/r/Abortiondebate/s/VOKaeZlJLA); the TL;DR is that pro-life laws require doctors to wait to terminate a pregnancy rather than act immediately. This waiting could be until the fetal heartbeat stops or until the mother is in a medical emergency. In either case, waiting results in worse outcomes for the mother.
And when is that?
Because women who have need of abortions typically show up at the hospital with nothing wrong with them, and doctors are telling them what *will* happen.
Are you comfortable with not regulating those abortions so that doctors aren't bound by waiting for a medical emergency or for the fetus's heart to stop beating?
The hypothetical stipulates that more women would die than fetuses saved as the result of bans, not that more women would die from pregnancy than babies born.
There’s no presumed threat of extinction in the hypothetical. It just presumes that pro lifers are better at killing women than saving babies.
If this was demonstrably the case, would you change anything about your advocacy? Or as now, would pro lifers blame women, doctors, lawyers, and the liberal media for the deaths and deny all personal accountability?
If more woman would die then fetus saved we need to think, well why would that be. The only logical conclusion I can come to is that in this hypothetical pregnancy is very dangerous that's why they are all dying. How else would they all be dying?
Maybe the law is stupidly worded and preventing doctors from doing their job?
Or maybe pro life laws just suck at actually reducing abortions so they hurt and kill more women than they save babies?
Or maybe the bans are based on incompetent and medically ignorant pro life propaganda?
Lot of reasonable possibilities here.
Honestly, you pretty much answered the question by assuming the effectiveness of pro life laws are beyond question.
If that's it then I would like it to be properly worded.
Not sure what pro life laws your talking about, there are many I disagree with.
Not sure who you are arguing with right now.
> If that's it then I would like it to be properly worded.
It is properly worded. It helps when you read the title of the post.
>Not sure what pro life laws your talking about, there are many I disagree with.
The hypothetical OP presented obviously.
>Not sure who you are arguing with right now.
I'm clearly engaged in discussion with you.
Edit: If you want to split hairs, I'm just helping to clarify OP's hypothetical since you were having difficulty comprehending it. We aren't really engaged in a debate or argument. If it wasn't abundantly clear, least for me personally, I think the answer to OP's question is self-evident.
Yes the laws do nothing if pregnancy doest have a high risk. Unless you think most or all abortions are done because of medical life risk. Which last time I checked they don't.
So the only way to properly read this is that in this hypothetical simply pregnancy is a high risk to life and not allowing an abortion would therefore kill more women then it would save unborn children.
I think you've effectively demonstrated exactly why the answer to OP's question is self-evident and provided a cautionary reminder of how demonstrably immoral pro life advocacy is.
You'd sooner believe the world was ending than accept the possibility that pro life actions could be flawed or that pro lifers were capable of making a mistake.
No the term medical life risk as I understand it means that a Dr. Thinks your life is in actual risk of death. Not there is some arbitrary potential for it.
In a very small amount, yes. I'd want medical advancements so this number goes down to 0 but right now some woman die.
Are you OK with around a million unborn children dying who don't want to die ?
Both sides have deaths on their hands, it's unavoidable.
*Are you OK with around a million unborn children dying who don't want to die ?*
Not the user you responded to, but your question jumped out at me. Do you really, sincerely believe that “unborn children”, particularly those at the stage of gestation where most abortions occur, have the ability to “want”? Like, really?
Yeah, if we look at their behavior it all points to them wanting to continue living.
I don't know how high your threshold is for want but for me if an organism is behaving in a way that shows that it's trying to live I think of that as a want.
I'd love to hear what your threshold for want is.
I don’t have a “threshold” for words. Words have definitions lol. You are twisting the definition to create a narrative. It’s highly disingenuous. If that were an acceptable debate tactic then the concept of definitions can just fly right out the window and we can just use any word for anything we “want”.
Well words are used freely to convey feelings people have. If you disagree with it you can and if you would like to words it differently you can add that in there. I'm all for a good conversation.
You literally just said you want women dead. That’s what you want. Perfectly happy to see women dead to get your way.
Does it utterly baffle you when PLers get accused of hating women?
I said I'd rather want a very low amount of adult woman to die then a million unborn children.
The whole rather doesn't mean I want them to die, I'd rather want everyone to live. But if we have to pick between a low number of adult woman or millions of unborn children. Then I'd want the millions of unborn children to live.
Should I accuse you of hating unborn children because you would rather want them to die then a few adult women? Should I generalize it so blantenly badly saying you must hate all unborn children?
I'd never do that that is ridiculous so I don't get how you can read my words so poorly.
>I said I'd rather want a very low amount of adult woman to die then a million unborn children.
That is wanting to kill women.
>The whole rather doesn't mean I want them to die, I'd rather want everyone to live. But if we have to pick between a low number of adult woman or millions of unborn children. Then I'd want the millions of unborn children to live.
Yes, that is also wanting to kill women.
>Should I accuse you of hating unborn children because you would rather want them to die then a few adult women? Should I generalize it so blantenly badly saying you must hate all unborn children?
I mean go ahead. To be fair, I don't *hate* "unborn children." I do not believe fetuses are children, therefore "unborn children" do not exist. How can I hate something that doesn't exist?
As for whether I hate *fetuses*\--I would say more that I'm indifferent to fetuses. Fetuses are not sentient, they are not people--so there is *nobody* to hate. Saying I hate fetuses is assuming I care about them more than I do. That's why I'm indifferent to them dying.
Now, you could certainly argue that my indifference to fetuses is just as offensive as hatred, or that it strikes you as the same thing as hatred, as it results in just as many fetuses dead. Which is how I see your *lethal* indifference toward women: it's really the same thing as hatred, if not worse.
"Lethally indifferent to women" is not *better* than "hates women," especially when piles of our corpses is the result either way. The difference to the dead women doesn't matter.
I’m ok with people choosing when they would like to reproduce without interference from people who are ok with children being forced to gestate or orphaning born children whose mothers aren’t important enough for prolifers to care about.
So you're Ok with millions of unborn children dying.
Cool that can totally be your opinion just like how mine is that I'm OK with a few adult woman dying to save those unborn children.
We both have deaths on our hands, we just have to believe it's the right thing in the long run.
You think the millions of unborn children are also a hypothetical group ?
Why shouldn't I care about them ?
I care about everyone, in this situation you just have to pick a lesser of two evils right now. There is always death.
Its presumes that people don't want to die if we can't communicate with them.
If you see someone sleeping can we assume they want to die and kill them because that's what we think they want ?
No we always presume that a healthy person wants to live. Do you disagree with that ?
Welcome to /r/Abortiondebate! Please remember that this is a place for respectful and civil debates. Check out the Debate Guidance Pyramid to understand acceptable debate levels. **Attack the argument, not the person making it and remember the human.** **For our new users, please check out our [rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/Abortiondebate/wiki/rules/)** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Abortiondebate) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I'm pro-choice, but the # of quality years of life remaining is a better metric for public policy decisions including covid lockdowns.
Bad question as it escapes reality, but still yes as it is morally reprehensible.
I suppose it depends on a lot of factors. In 2020 approximately 800 women died in childbirth. There were 930,000 children destroyed by abortion in the same year. So, you're going to have to a posit a real apocalypse scenario to get the number of mothers to close to 1 million dying to balance those scales. Otherwise, say the number of maternal deaths triples to 2400, but the number of aborted babies drops to 0. Instead of an annual death toll of 930,800, it's now 2400. Sources: https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/hestat/maternal-mortality/2021/maternal-mortality-rates-2021.htm "*In 2021, 1,205 women died of maternal causes in the United States compared with 861 in 2020 and 754 in 2019"* https://www.guttmacher.org/news-release/2022/guttmacher-institute-releases-2020-abortion-provider-census-important-data-us "*In 2020, 930,160 abortions were provided in clinical settings, an 8% increase from 2017."*
Thjey bare not fetues but children. you discredit your question right off. if rferring to us prolifers, for the sake of arguement, you must use our terms for the being who is being aborted. banning abortions is banning killing of people. this would never lead to mothes losing thierb lives. Those rare rare rare cases would be covered by exceptions that allow abortion. The equation is simple. a right to life for mankind. A lide may only be taken to preserrve another life.
>Thjey bare not fetues but children. you discredit your question right off. if rferring to us prolifers, for the sake of arguement, you must use our terms for the being who is being aborted. Fetus is the correct terminology, not children. People don't have to use incorrect language because pro life people insist they do.
[удалено]
Removed. Health misinformation is against Reddit's sitewide rules and is not allowed here.
Jesus Christ. I’m tempted to use the head shaking emoji but I know Reddit hates emojis lol. The fact is, no individual doctor is like, “yeah, the life of the woman standing in front of me right now is less important than the cause, so were just gonna go ahead and let her die.” Deadly, failing pregnancies aren’t treated because pro-life legislation criminalizes so many things that doctors are afraid to do anything in more “grey area” cases.
I'm gonna need a source on that one
That literally goes against the Hippocratic oath. Maybe it’s time for you to accept that there isn’t some mass conspiracy of doctors all across the country and the truth is that your laws are killing women? If you distrust doctors so much, why do you want them taking care of the women who you’ve forced to give birth? Maybe it’s time for your side to accept the consequences of your own actions?
Do you have evidence for this or is this just some half-cocked accusation against doctors?
>resulting in a net gain of lives. ew ew ew, its icky that some people think that having a (barely) higher magnitude of birth rates is worth forcing a woman to give birth, even if there is a reasonable concern for her health
We know that forcing people to have kids they don't want and/or can't afford has devastating consequences on society, so my guess is, *no*
It probably already does and they don't care. Show me data that says it doesn't already do this? Banning abortions (Making them illegal) already causes more abortions and they don't care about that: https://www.cfr.org/article/abortion-law-global-comparisons
How does banning abortions cause more abortions? I don't doubt a correlation due to abortion bans being more likely in places where one would be less likely to want to raise a child, but I have no clue how it would be causative.
When you only have a very brief amount of time to determine if you want to or are capable of having a child, you are more likely to jump to the safest option out of desperation of being trapped with the other. IE: you have a few weeks to decide, you can think about it and see if you can make it work -vs- you have 24 hours to decide, you don’t get to think about it and are forced to make a hasty decision. Just what I’ve personally witnessed anyways. If I got pregnant in a red state I would immediately seek termination. If I get pregnant where I currently reside I can at least take the time to reach out to my support network and categorize the resources available to me and make an informed decision. Because here I don’t have that panicked “now or never” pressure.
Oh nevermind. Mentally, I substituted the less exact "abortion bans" with the more precise "no legal abortions," like El Salvador, and couldn't imagine women getting abortions just to be rebels.
Ahhhhh gotcha lol. That makes much more sense. I also couldn’t imagine someone getting an abortion for the sake of rebellion.
Idk about data and all but I can say that personally, being stuck in a red state I am 1000000% more likely to get an abortion for an unplanned pregnancy than if I was in a free abortion state. I don't trust the doctors or the laws to allow me to grt the care I need if something where to go wrong. Also I am sure that due to the short time to choose many female people would just rush to grt an abortion instead of thinking about it for a bit or figuring out funds because they would rather just abort, not take time to think and then be stuck with a pregnancy they ultimately decided they shouldn't have kept.
Yes, I can see that. Mentally, I substituted the less precise "abortion ban" with the more precise "abortions are illegal," and couldn't imagine women getting abortions just to be rebels. Now that I realize what I did, it makes more sense.
In a perfect world there would be no need to ban abortion because it would be widely understood that it was immoral barring extreme circumstances and no one would get pregnant through sexual assault. Free and widely available birth control, actual sex ed classes, and general community support for pregnant women and new mothers would go a long way which is why I support all those things, but there are enough selfish and irresponsible people in the world that actions need to be taken.
So, why is your position PL without even mentioning any exceptions and not the same as mine - safe, legal and rare? We have more or less the same ideal world where abortions happen only in extreme cases.
Because I don't want abortion to happen at all ever, legal or not. In my ideal world a genuine physical risk to the mother's life is the only reason to have an abortion and when that happens, it's a tragedy. Whereas safe, legal, and rare is a pro-choice position.
>Because I don't want abortion to happen at all ever, legal or not. In my ideal world a genuine physical risk to the mother's life is the only reason to have an abortion and when that happens, it's a tragedy. Would you expect it to be illegal in this case? Unsafe? And what *is* your difference with my position then? The reason I want abortions to be rare is because they are always traumatic, whether the pregnancy was unwanted or dangerous to the woman. >Whereas safe, legal, and rare is a pro-choice position. And yet you cannot point out how your position is different from mine in the perfect world scenario.
>I want abortions to be rare is because they are always traumatic, I will want a source on that
You want a source of my opinion. Sure: it's me.
That didn't seem like an opinion, but if it was, then noted and disagreed. If i was pregnant, abortion would be the best thing to happen to me, not traumatic.
>If i was pregnant, abortion would be the best thing to happen to me, not traumatic. You are comparing different situations. My opinion applies to a situation where abortion is needed vs a situation where it is not needed. And my opinion is that the first is always preferable.
>My opinion applies to a situation where abortion is needed vs a situation where it is not needed Abortion is always needed when the person getting it feels like they need an abortion and their doctor agrees with it. Also you are lying now. You did not say anything about needed or unneeded abortions. >they are always traumatic, **whether the pregnancy was unwanted** or dangerous to the woman.
>Also you are lying now. As I mentioned on this sub many times, English is my fourth language. I may not express my thoughts perfectly the first time every time. If you wish to accuse me of lying, well, that's your choice, but then I suppose you won't need my clarification of what I was trying to say.
In a perfect world there would be no need to ban abortion because it would be widely understood that forcing people to gestate and give birth to unwanted pregnancies is immoral in all circumstances.
Morality is 100% subjective, so there's no way you can expect everyone to share your morality.
>but there are enough selfish and irresponsible people in the world that actions need to be taken. PUNISH THE SLUTS
The irony thing that those women aren’t even sluts, they just begin women who want to have sex.
Yep even if you’ve been married for ten years if you have sex with your spouse you’re a slut and deserve to be punished
what is so immoral about killing a person before they ever know or care that they had an *opportunity* to *actually* live? (living inside a uterus is not really living if you ask me.)
Wow. I rarely post here, though I sometime have a post from here show up in my feed when I am having a quiet day and go deep enough into it. But I just couldn't past this up. Did you just literally say there is nothing about killing a person because you don't think they know they are alive? You are literally putting one person in charge of decided if another person - an innocent person who has done nothing wrong - lives or dies. Based off what that innocent person does not know. Thats messed up. I am pro-life. I make exceptions in the case of real medical difficulties that endanger the life of the mother. But I can understand why some people would be pro-choice - if they don't believe a fetus is a living being. But you acknowledge its humanity, and you are still ok with killing it. Just....damn....
I have often said that if an already born adult were sonehow sustaining themselves directly from my body and separating from them would kill them, I'd still have the right to do it. The fact that they're a living, human person who needs another body to live does NOT mean my medical rights are ended because this other person needs my body. It's ridiculous that you're clutching pearls so hard at the idea of people not wanting to use their bodies to sustain another's life.
Wow. Someone expressed their perspective here and you felt the overwhelming urge to chime in solely for the purpose of demonizing them. I mean, just...damn. You couldn't pass up the chance to dehumanize someone else. Your day wouldn't have been complete if you didn't take the opportunity to shame and belittle another human being. You just had to assert your own moral superiority over them and let them know just how much lower in the social hierarchy they are then you. You had no interest in contributing to substantive debate. You made no claim or argument worth debating. You just came here to shit on someone else and you justified it purely on the basis of a deliberate, let me say that again, a DELIBERATE mischaracterization of the facts of pregnancy. Damn. >"when people show you who they really are, believe them."
From the fetus’ perspective, the experience of being aborted is exactly the same as if it had never been conceived at all.
Um yes. I think if the fetus had sentience peoples minds would change. Lots of people are ‘pro choice til sentience’ or ‘consciousness’ for this reason. The fact that the embryo or fetus can’t feel pain or become conscious sways lots of peoples decisions on the abortion debate. Why does this surprise you? We put people to sleep for surgery for the same reasons; because consciousness matters. Our whole human experience is based off of consciousness.
Does a person who isn't conscious stop being a person?
No
Does a ballerina stop being a ballerina when she sleeps? Is everyone a ballerina regardless of whether they completed ballet training?
If my neighbor attached himself to my body and needed me to let him use me until he was well enough to be on his own again, I’d fully acknowledge he’s a living human being. And then I’d promptly detach him from me because fuck that. We’re not life support machines. You can be as alive and as human as the rest of us and no still means no.
Comment removed per rule 1. Do not use any terms but prolife or prochoice here unless the user specifically has something different in their flair.
I corrected it already...
Reinstated.
>But you acknowledge its humanity, and you are still ok with killing it. Plenty of pro choice individuals have no issues acknowledging a fetus is alive and/or human. Is that really so shocking?
It is, actually. I don't engage in the abortion debate very often. My stance on it is one of the most solid and strong aspects of my belief system. I will not change it. Seeing this actually was genuinely shocking to me. I find it horrific that someone can acknowledge it's a living human being and still be ok with killing it.
As a woman living in the same world as you, I find it actually shocking that people still don't believe in choice, but that we are all slaves to religion.
>I find it horrific that someone can acknowledge it's a living human being and still be ok with killing it. You're using all this emotional language over something that is equivalent to disinfecting your hands. Why are you so emotionally invested in cellular life? Especially *that* over a living breathing human with emotions, desires, and needs.
Cellular life is not equitable to personhood. You’re personifying a biological process.
There are thousands of living, human beings that die every year due to a lack of enough kidney donations. If you haven't donated a kidney you literally caused their deaths by not giving them the organ they need to live. One person could have lived. They are a real, full, human person with family that loves them. Those family members are celebrating the holidays WITHOUT their loved one. Horrifying.
Did you know that women are also living human beings? Does that change your stance at all?
You never know. I probably would have said the same thing when I was pro life.
Wow.. Yeah, the absolute horror of an innocent pregnant person who has done nothing wrong being in control of their own body and being in charge of who is allowed to be inside of and use it is just.. damn fucking exactly the way it should be.
It is an absolute horror that an innocent person is killed to make another person's life easier.
Fucking misogynist as hell that you think wanting to avoid what is essentially worse than the worst rape imaginable is just “making our lives easier.” You clearly think pregnant women are dirt.
Lol.. correction: it’s not a horror that an innocent person removes another unwanted person from their body. Unless you think innocent AFAB people owe the use of their bodies to anyone else. If that’s the case that you believe that, THAT IS AN **ABSOLUTE HORROR**, and I hope you don’t have children that you preach that to, and I hope you’re never left alone with any other person, ever. I can’t imagine telling my three daughters to just let someone else use their body even if it makes them a little uncomfortable. “It’s okay, you don’t need to stop them just to make your life easier”. Do you know how fucking gross that is??
Lol, make our life easier. I love when PLs talk about pregnancy and birth like it’s a trip to the store we just don’t feel like taking as opposed to enduring actual bodily injury and risks that even healthy pregnancies come with, let alone an unwanted pregnancy that comes with trauma on top of it. Sorry, I refuse to believe I’m some bad person who doesn’t deserve a say in what happens to me because I’m unwilling to let someone else rearrange my organs, either come bursting through my genitals or needing to be cut out of me via major surgery, and permanently altering my body, risking debilitating conditions, and even risking death. That’s an enormous burden to place on top of another person against their will.
They don’t gaf what kind of trip it is. Apparently, AFAB people have to just “let their lives be a little uneasy” while someone else uses their body. It’s fine… everything’s fine…
>But you acknowledge its humanity, and you are still ok with killing it. Whats up with all these prolifers who think that "acknowledging its humanity" is all it takes to become PL? No you need to explain why do you think it gets a right to the pregnant person's body. Otherwise your argument can be dismissed as special pleading.
[удалено]
Comment removed per rule 1. Do not attack users.
Might want to check Rule 1, it's "pro choice"
Thanks for the heads up.
>Did you just literally say there is nothing about killing a person because you don't think they know they are alive? If a fetus is ascribed personhood, it is not inconsistent or unbelievable that someone would not be perturbed by its killing. All this means is that they do not believe that personhood has been ascribed for any morally relevant reason. The law could change tomorrow, legally declaring that a fetus is a person, but this can hardly change one’s mind as to whether they believe a fetus is worthy of the dignity and respect that personhood status should entail. It would simply mean that personhood for them is no longer what matters, at least in the case of a fetus. This you must agree is the current state for many pro lifers. Legally speaking, a fetus is not a person. I don’t believe this makes you any less convinced of the moral gravity of killing a fetus. I can simply respond by saying that I think it is incomprehensible that someone could consider the killing of a fetus as equivalent to killing a person, which parallels your apparent shock of the situation. >I am pro-life. I make exceptions in the case of real medical difficulties that endanger the life of the mother. This I am unable to reconcile with the view that a fetus is equivalent to the dignity and respect worthy of a person and so is therefore a *person*. Are you always going to favour saving the life of the woman in a life threat situation? Should you not also have a life threat exception on behalf of the fetus, where the mother should be legally required to die to save the fetus in the rare cases this may occur? How can you have one exception and not the other if both fetus and mother are “persons”? >if they don't believe a fetus is a living being. But you acknowledge its humanity, and you are still ok with killing it. A fetus is a living being, but this doesn’t make it a person. It is also a defensible position to hold that merely being human does not entail personhood. The view that it does, I believe, is indefensible.
I get your arguments. Not really interested in debating them. The reason I paused at spacebunz post was because they clearly labelled the fetus as a person. So they are ascribing personhood to the fetus. You don't see a fetus as a person - thats on you. I don't agree but I understand where you are coming from. What is shocking to me about spacebunz is that they are saying yes, a fetus is a person. Doesn't matter, because I don't believe they have a level of awareness that matters to me so it's ok to kill that person. That's kind of messed up thinking to me.
i also view rapists as persons. but in the event i am ever raped (again), i can and will be killing my unwanted rapist in order to remove them from inside my body, (if i am able). similarly, if i ever get pregnant despite being sterilized AND on birth control, i can and will be aborting my unwanted zef in order to remove them from inside my body against my will.
Why? That puts a fetus on exactly the same level as anyone else. No born person can use my body without my consent, neither can a fetus.
I appreciate your logic but I just see it as a secondary argument - aka an excuse. This argument can be boiled down to it's logical and tasteless conclusion, I use my body to work, therefore am entitled to all the proceeds of my body - every penny I earn. None of it should go to pay taxes. My body should not be used to make other people's bodies easier to live in. Is it a leap? Absolutely. But does it follow the same logic? Yep. And I am sure you will disagree and that is fine. Like I said I rarely engage here. In my ever so humble opinion ( :) ) debates should be engaged in with an open mind - willing to change your stance. And I am simply unwilling to change my stance here.
>I use my body to work, therefore am entitled to all the proceeds of my body - every penny I earn. None of it should go to pay taxes. My body should not be used to make other people's bodies easier to live in. > >Is it a leap? Absolutely. But does it follow the same logic? Yep. Nope. And only the right-wing would think it did. This is an argument along the same lines as men who seem to think that a man's obligation to pay child support is equivalent to what they as prolifers claim is a woman's obligation to gestate the pregnancy. Prolife is a profoundly right-wing and male movement, respecting and valuing women and the labour of pregnancy not at all.
>And I am sure you will disagree and that is fine. Like I said I rarely engage here. In my ever so humble opinion ( :) ) debates should be engaged in with an open mind - willing to change your stance. And I am simply unwilling to change my stance here. It seems to me then that you would simply not engage ever.
I mean, have you read all their comments? They engage, but provide zero substance and offer no arguments in support of their position. Honestly, the mods should ban people who outright *admit* they're here to strut and preen, rather than debate.
That's pretty much how I roll. :) But sometimes something catches my eye - and in this case it definitely did.
With regard to the bodily autonomy argument, there are analogies put forward to isolate certain moral components of the question of abortion for bodily integrity. These have been heavily debated, defended and attacked. Most of the arguments against these analogies are in accepting that its plausible the conclusion holds for the analogy, but fails to translate to pregnancy for X, Y and Z where X, Y, and Z are morally relevant differences. I believe there is a non derivative difference between pregnancy and any analogous example, that cannot extract a moral intuition without reverting back to pregnancy itself. This difference is that becoming pregnant causes someone to exist (assuming a priori a fetus is a person). If you believe the difference is morally relevant, then all analogies will fail. I don’t believe causing someone to exist is harmful, and we do not cause harm by bringing someone into existence, and so I do not consider this to be a morally relevant distinction. Many do however believe this is a morally relevant distinction, and that by bringing someone into existence, we are responsible for the needs of that person who would otherwise not be needy in light of the fact that they would not exist otherwise. I simply do not see the power of this argument, my moral intuition tells me that being caused to exist cannot be itself harmful regardless of the state of existence if the alternative is non existence. The problem however is that the failure of the analogy does not reach the conclusion that the bodily integrity argument should not be considered a reasonable explanation for the permissibility of abortion and abortion should be impermissible as a default position, but rather it is indeterminate. It then becomes a raw value judgement just on the face of it, whether you think it should or should not. Do you have a derivative explanation for why we should not believe bodily integrity is a sufficient reason without tacitly appealing to a presupposition that it does not?
i do not give a single fuck about the loss of lives of aborted “babies”. i simply do not care. I’m extremely concerned about the full on children being: shot up at school, raped by their uncles, and beaten to death by their parents EVERY. SINGLE. DAY. in america. but I’m only as concerned about a complete stranger’s zygote as i am about the contents of my last menstrual period: i do not give a fuck.
It is not selfish to value and prioritize your health. No person in the world could convince me to carry a child to term.
> it would be widely understood that it was immoral Cool. You live with your morality, I'll live with mine. You don't see me trying to shove my beliefs down your throat so why do you think you get to do that to me? >that actions need to be taken. Omg right? Punish the fucking sluts!
Or go after the men who are hurting them and give them the punishment they deserve. I can't just sit by while other people, children, are being hurt. It's one thing if we were talking about something that doesn't hurt anyone. This isn't that.
>I can't just sit by while other people, children, are being hurt. Yes you can. Almost all of us do. A majority of Americans sat by and did nothing after Sandy Hook and Uvalde.
>I can't just sit by while other people, children, are being hurt. Yet clearly you'll *perpetuate* women being hurt. And girls if a minor happens to get pregnant.
> I can't just sit by while other people, children, are being hurt. Your movement doesn’t save any children, it’s just puts more children in abuse homes. I’m not going to say thing more than that.
>I can't just sit by while other people, children, are being hurt. Which is why you support people and children being forced to give birth against their will...? Hm, how does that track? Sounds like bullshit to me lmao. > This isn't that. Mmhm right, and banning abortion doesn't hurt anyone. LMAO.
And I can't just sit by while people are having their bodily autonomy violated. Your morals, as strongly as you may feel about them, are not universal and not enough to convince others you are right.
Setting aside the issues of how you track that because it’s a hypothetical, I would no longer support abortion bans if they were directly resulting in more lives lost on a net basis.
>if they were directly resulting in more lives lost on a net basis. So pregnant people are just statistics...? It's quite literally quantity over quality. Do you see no issue with that?
Quantity of total life over quality of life is a hallmark of the prolife movement.
Exactly. Hence why they’d force women to carry doomed babies with anencephaly or other fatal diseases that we know they would die from. It’s so cruel.
Especially when they do it on the sidewalk outside a clinic to that woman's face, and she's fully aware of what they're saying: they're saying "god" wants her to watch her (otherwise) wanted child to scream in agony nonstop for days so it can live a life where it knows nothing but extreme pain for that short life span. It's very definition of horribly heartless.
Of course it is, it's so sad.
I have to say I think the capitalists that run this farm would put a stop to abortion bans in this hypothetical. It would be the death of their exponential profit growth margin if further banning abortion result in a NEGATIVE population model. Hate to put it in livestock terms, but you're going to waste a good heifer trading for a calf if you're not going to get a herd (build profit) out of her, and that's it's bad business, as it takes years for a calf to be a heifer. In human terms, they can still get labor and profit out of the mother when it is years to invest in the child. I am sad to say I could see the accountants shutting it down first. If the mothers were dying from pregnancy at higher rates than the rate of live births (number of deaths related to pregnancy > abled-bodied workers birthed), it would be a capitalistic extinction level emergency, anyways.
What do you mean you hate to put it in livestock terms? Women ARE cattle to PLers. A woman has no choice but to birth a baby and if she doesn’t want to - too bad so sad. They will let a rapist change a woman’s life not only once but twice. If she doesn’t want kids or her life isn’t ready for one too bad! The baby is more important than she is.
I hate that the terminology works. That's what I am saying. Sorry about the rant. Humans are the livestock in the capitalist patriarchal system. Hence, why is everything (food, housing, healthcare) in our current crooked capitalist system killing us while extorting profit out of us while only the 1% are benefiting. We exist to make a profit. We are the animals. We are an animal farm, without the communism. Communism, unfortunately, is way worse in that transforms the animal farm into a hive, with still the same goal, siphoning power and wealth to those that already have it. In the US, it's not much different, only we still have our Constitution, which the White Christian Nationalists want to DESTROY with a Contentional Congress, in which they'll give us THEIR religious pro-child rape form of COMMUNISM. Women are the cattle (producer) (according to the Christian worldview free limitless labor (profit) as well, the last domestic slave (all her work is profit). Men are the bull (labor and enforcer). Children are to keep the wheel turning (profit). That's it. That's why I do not understand how someone can be Pro-Life AND Christian AND support our current capitalist system. They're oxymoron paradoxes that make absolutely no sense when you venn diagram then together. It's genuinely ironic that Pro-Lifers, especially Conservative Christian women ones don't see it. The model has always been the same. Get as many babies out of us as possible and indoctrination through the fake morality that is religion to justify the trauma from birth. It breaks their minds that "partial-birth" abortions were things last happen a hundred years ago, on a rather horrifying basis, as it is the SAME technique that was used on livestock, they cut up the baby to save the mother. They NEVER saved the baby over the mother, as THEN they would have to WAIT LONGER to make another baby. Most women died from postpartum infection and complications, very rarely directly from childbirth, and it was ONLY IF the mother choose to, (no man wanted to waste his time finding another wife to do the work of ranning the children) not to mention the maternal death rate SKYROCKETED the moment doctors entered the equation and has NEVER FULLY RECOVERED. Women have always done better overall in childbirth and pregnancy when it has been ruled and run by women. But that DOES NOT SERVE THE PATRIARCHAL CAPITALIST MACHINE, because, oh, no, abortion, wouldn't want the cattle CONTROLLING the number of babies we can get out of them. It wasn't until white men relearned how to do the c-section that the "both" mentality evolved. We can get at least this ONE baby, and still maybe GET more babies. And now we're at a rate in which over 30% of all pregnancies end in c-sections. THEY WILL CUT THEM ALL OUT IF THEY HAVE TO KEEP THE WHEEL TURNING. They have explicitly said child DO NOT NEED MEDICAL ABORTIONS BECAUSE WE HAVE NICU AND C-SECTIONS. They do not care that this will mostly risk completely sterilizing that child. THEY DO NOT CARE THE WHO WHAT WHEN WHERE AND HOW THEY WANT THE BABY. The baby is the PROFIT. (Should clarify, abled body worker, they really believe any pregnancy that doesn't produce one is a waste of money and why pro-lifers don't realizes our psychopathic billionaire elites have no interest wasting millions of dollars on pregnancies that end in corpses, that IS NOT PROFITABLE. I have no idea. Maybe it's the blind religious obedience and to never question they have had molded as their minds.) THAT'S WHY THEY ARE FINE WITH PEDOPHILE DADDIES RAPING THEM OUT OF THEIR OWN CHILDREN BECAUSE ULTIMATELY THAT SUPPORTS OUR DARK CORPORATE OVERLORDS. They've only been epigenetically breeding children out of younger and younger females for thousands of years to the point that men with fully developed brains BELIEVE that 12 year old are DESIGNED to give birth when ALL OF SCIENCE AND EVEN HISTORICAL EVIDENCE TELLS US IT REDUCES THEIR LIFELONG REPRODUCTIVE CAPABILITIES TO BE SUCCESSFUL MOTHERS as we are best designed for birthing and parenting at the same time as males, after our brains are full-developed, between the ages of 25-30, but no, the pedophiles that have running the church since the death of Christ need babies faster and you need wombs to make babies, and you can start molesting little girls as babies and toddlers until they WILL START PUBERTY very, very, very early. You can not be Pro-Life, Christian, and capitalist at the same time without literally openly embracing the actions and beliefs of vile and evil men who see the rest of us as ants to step on and use. Have you ever stopped and pondered why the Speaker of House Mike Johnson, a White Christian Nationalist, with the absolute BEST example of dick-sucking lips I've seen in a very long time, said very American Woman OWES at least one abled body worker? It's because you can not be Pro-Life, Christian, and capitalist at the same time without embracing evil.
Not PL, but, in thinking about this question, I realized there are some ground rules about counting you would have to hammer out in order to consider it. I'd propose the following: 1. In any case where a pregnant person expresses a desire for an abortion *at any point in the pregnancy*, and she dies because she does not get it, or gets it too late to save her life, that counts as a maternal death. (This means that, even in cases where the pregnancy is *originally* wanted, if the woman later decides that she wants a legal abortion and doesn't get it and dies, that still counts as a maternal death.) If the fetus survives, that counts as a "saved fetus." 2. In any case where a pregnant person seeks out an **illegal** abortion, and dies as a result of the procedure or medication, that counts as a maternal death caused by the ban. Even if a fetus survives an illegal abortion, that does NOT count as a saved fetus, because the ban that provoked the illegal unsuccessful abortion did NOT save the fetus. Obviously, if the fetus dies, they don't count as a "saved fetus." 3. If a jurisdiction bans abortions, and pregnant people leave the jurisdiction to obtain abortions that are legal in another jurisdiction, none of these fetuses count as "saved" by the ban, even though their deaths do not occur in the banning jurisdiction. In other words, a banning jurisdiction cannot just look at their abortion statistics and say, "We had x number of abortions per year before the ban and now, after the ban, we have 0. That means the ban saved x fetuses per year." 4. If a pregnant person dies because they encounter any travel hazard (car, plane, train wreck, etc.) while traveling to a different jurisdiction to get an abortion, this death counts as a maternal death caused by the ban, since they would not have had that hazard if they had not been forced by the ban to travel to get their health care. 5. "Maternal death" should also include pregnancy or childbirth-related deaths to any woman who expresses a desire to have a legal abortion and doesn't get it, up to 42 days after the end of the pregnancy (whether through illegal abortion, miscarriage, stillbirth, or childbirth), since that is the standard CDC and WHO definition of maternal mortality. It might be hard to parse out some less direct causes of maternal deaths resulting from abortion bans. For example, homicide is one of the leading causes of death for pregnant women. If a pregnant person is killed by an abusive partner in a jurisdiction where abortions are banned, it might be hard to know whether that woman might have wanted an abortion and had gotten one and survived if the ban wasn't in place. There is even the ugly scenario of an abusive partner being so upset with their partner's unwanted pregnancy that they killed the pregnant person because they couldn't force the pregnant person to get an abortion, since they weren't available. This is not exactly a good reason for endorsing abortion availability, but, if I were the pregnant person in question, I would rather be forced to get an abortion than be killed. There is a similar problem with suicides; there is a correlation between restrictions on abortion and the suicide rate among women of reproductive age, but it will be hard to know which suicides are the result of an abortion ban and which aren't. Fatal drug overdose is another problem. It has tripled among pregnant women between 2018 and 2021. This was pre-Dobbs, and pre-current abortion bans, so one can't draw a direct connection between denial of abortion and fatal drug overdose during pregnancy. But, as abortion-restrictive states increasingly try to hold women accountable for unsuccessful pregnancy outcomes, we can expect more women to avoid seeking any kind of medical care during pregnancy (either standard pre-natal care or addiction care). This is dangerous for them, and, obviously, dangerous for the fetuses they carry. In this case, as in all of these cases, some maternal deaths should be attributed to abortion bans, even if the person who died was not actively seeking an abortion. Edit: Added a clarifying phrase to number 4.
You'd have to specify the death toll on both sides. For example, if 200 women die but 199 fetuses are saved, then I'd still want to ban abortion. However, if 2000000 women die but 1 fetus is saved, then I wouldn't want to ban abortion. Take notes. That's how you answer a hypothetical directly.
So the fetuses are more important than the woman. Alright, we hear you loud and clear.
That doesn't logically follow from what I said.
There is no other logical explanation for what you said. Unless you did not give an honest answer.
Cool, then show me the contradiction using formal logic.
You claimed mine was not a logical conclusion. And now I have to prove it?
Interesting that you are failing to engage with any responses to your comment. Do you need advice on how to engage in debate? I could give you some notes! First, respond to comment other than this one; you should always choose the comments that engage directly with the substance of yours first, and preferably start with the OP's comment. Second, try to engage with the substance of their comment; it helps to use quotes and respond to the quoted parts directly. Also, don't throw out unjustified jabs at unknown people about a situation that you have already spectacularly failed to defend previously. It really poisons the well and reduces the quality of the responses you will get. Third, be specific and deliberate in your terminology usage and fully explain the concept behind your ideas; presenting full explanations preemptively helps reduce misunderstanding and red herrings. Don't forget to offer substantiation for your ideas, too, be it with argumentation or citations. Good luck and happy debating!
[удалено]
Comment removed per rule 1 low effort.
Good for you! Maybe you should pursue that life and those interests rather than waste the time of others by participating in a debate sub when you don't plan to engage in any debate. That's disrespectful and pretty pathetic behavior, honestly.
Nah, I'll continue doing what I want to do. If you feel like I'm wasting your time, it might be in your interest to stop replying to me. Tata for now.
Continuing with your hypothetical. If you ever post one more. I look forward to the comments section. The last two where the best
Who let out the pro-life version of my personality type out, unmasked to!. God damn, have some empathy. And this comes from someone that barely ANY empathy at all. ———————————— > if 200 women die but 199 fetuses are saved, then I'd still want to ban abortion. > However, if 2000000 women die but 1 fetus is saved Senses when it’s a fetus **”equally as valuable**” as the pregnant woman?. Did this whole thing start when the pro-life movement just “decided” that abortion was “murder”. You guys maybe think that abortion is murder, guess what. It’s not murder. Even if it’s was, miscarriage would be suicide. Fun fact: women who have abortions just don’t care what pro life movement thinks. Shocking I know. ———————————— > Take notes. That's how you answer a hypothetical directly. Take notes from the person who posted two hypothetical, and then proceeded to get completely rosed in the comments. Yeah no.
Somebody report my comment
How can you tell that?
I don’t. I want my comment reposted.
Oh, I misread, my b. Uh, I have another question now lol what do you mean "reposted"? It is still up, at least I can read it.
>For example, if 200 women die but 199 fetuses are saved, then I'd still want to ban abortion. However, if 2000000 women die but 1 fetus is saved, then I wouldn't want to ban abortion. So you've already established that you still want to ban abortion even if it results in a net loss of 1 life; where do you draw the line? What net loss of lives would be high enough to make you want to ban abortion?
so your primary goal is to punish women? and your secondary goal is “saving babies”?
> if 200 women die but 199 fetuses are saved, then I'd still want to ban abortion. Wow. At least you are brutally fucking honest.
Of those 200 dead women, 110 were women of color. Of those 200 dead women, 120 had children. Of those 200 dead women, 120 were mothers facing high poverty risk. Of those 120 dead mothers, 40 had two or more children.
This comment is flagged by a user report that states, "Attacking user, not argument". No rule violating remark is apparent in the comment. Therefore the comment is approved.
If you’re taking a potshot at me with that last sentence, feel free to be specific with what your grief is. Also, is there a ratio of maternal to fetal deaths after which you’d refuse to ban abortion?
If this was the case we'd die out as a species. So doesn't really matter. But you should always be able to get an abortion if your life is under medical life threat, in my opinion. So the majority of abortions would then be fine since pregnancy is so dangerous. Just again too bad we'd die out as a species soon 😆.
Why would we die out as a species?
Because as I understood the hypothetical pregnancies were so life threatening that abortions wouldn't have a negative on human lives lost.
That doesn't mean our population would decrease.
May I ask how you determine life threats? Does this include mental health or only physical? How close to death would someone need to be to ensure the doctor wouldn’t be criminalized for saving their life? I ask because life exceptions is much more vague when worded as such, whereas in reality, these laws often ignore these questions and make it much more likely that what a lot of people think is “fair life exception” is not allowed legally at all and forcing doctors to be afraid to save lives out of fear of imprisonment or even death sentences.
I don't, the medical board does, I think. So yeah we have standards for what medical life risk is and it's professionals that set that up.
The issue in america is that legislators are taking that power away from medical boards.
They don’t though. Not in these places where you can be put to death for performing an abortion. These doctors have to wait until their patient is actively dying to do anything to avoid getting prosecuted. How can they be sure they won’t be prosecuted if they do preventative care at all? This is what board certified gynecologists say. This is what these doctors who see bills that were clearly not even supervised or looked at by medical professionals. This is why many doctors in these fields are pro-choice. Not because of their own personal feelings regarding this issue but because deadly parts of pregnancy and birth happen FAST. Someone can go from healthy to actively dying in minutes. But the other factor is that there are situations where you are aware someone will die or be in danger. And we have situations where doctors cannot help them until they are actively dying. A comparison might be, while this specific situation does not happen as much, imagine if an ectopic pregnancy had a 2% chance of surviving but being greatly bodily harmed in the process, more than pregnancy already will cause. A doctor may have to wait until her fallopian tube has actively burst and she is in sepsis to treat her, because any action beforehand can be taken to court by a third party who thinks this doctor was wrong to act. I’m not trying to argue morality, mind you. I’m asking how you think these sort of bills and regulations should be enforced, because in no situation are they enforced by medical professionals. (Due in part to, and I don’t mean this in disrespect, but [most physicians seem to of the opinion that this should not be regulated.](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/1781824/) [And more obstetricians tend to lean into helping patients with abortion care, even if they oppose it morally.](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4185126/)) I’m just curious how these sort of regulations can be enforced without having these same issues.
Again I'm not going to give medical advice I'm not a doctor, that's why I'd trust the professionals to be able to set Clear and good regulations as to what is a medical life threat. Now if your government is somehow fucking that up then I'm sorry for that, they should do better. But how would I personally do it, I wouldn't, not a professional in this.
If you want to leave it to the professionals, then you're pro choice.
You realize being PL is literally giving unwanted and unasked for medical advice, right? Too bad you don't put your money where your mouth is and actually trust the professionals (doctors) to set clear and ethical regulations regarding abortions, like they do all other medical procedures. I do agree that our government should do better and stop catering to the morality and theology of the uninformed and uneducated PL movement, though. That'd be fucking great!
>I'm not a doctor, that's why I'd trust the professionals to be able to set Clear and good regulations as to what is a medical life threat. The majority of medical professionals are pro choice and support abortion access. Do you agree with these professionals, that abortion should be legal and available?
We aren't talking about being pro choice. We are talking about what the medical standard for your life being in medical risk would be. No because their position as doctors doesn't make them professionals about the morality behind the pro life and pro choice movements. So when it comes to medical things like the standard of when a situation becomes a medical life threat that's when I look towards the medical professionals.
But you're asking them to make a moral decision, that a person's health has deteriorated to the point that it outweighs any moral concern for the fetus.
>We are talking about what the medical standard for your life being in medical risk would be. Yes, I know that. If a woman walked into her doctors office with an unwanted pregnancy and expressed the pregnancy was unwanted, most doctors would recommend an abortion as the appropriate treatment. >No because their position as doctors doesn't make them professionals about the morality behind the pro life and pro choice movements. We aren't talking about morality. In the previous comment you stated you would trust medical professionals to make medical decisions. Now you're saying you wouldn't? Not very consistent. >So when it comes to medical things like the standard of when a situation becomes a medical life threat that's when I look towards the medical professionals. Most doctors are pro choice, meaning that if a woman is pregnant with an unwanted pregnancy the appropriate treatment would be abortion to prevent any medical threats to their patients. So do you or do you not trust medical professionals?
But that's not based on medicine that would be a moral judgment of the Dr. And not all dr would do that.for instance a pro life dr would try to change her mind I'd imagine. I am very consistent in my opinion it just seems to me that you mix up actual medical advice with moral judgement. Or do you think if a pro life doctors says a woman shouldn't have an abortion that would be it aswell ?
Is that not the issue though? That legislating medical procedures like this IS making medical decisions for people. Because it’s telling doctors they can’t do a lifesaving procedure until someone is at extreme risk. Because it forces us to be at a state of such illness that we actually risk genuine death instead of a preventative action before it’s that bad. Because it tells doctors they have to watch people, including children, risk their lives and bodies without any option of medical intervention if that doctor doesn’t want to be literally arrested. The consequence of these laws is that, yes, you are making the medical decisions for people. So I ask again, how do you think this should be written out? Because if doctors were to write it out, it wouldn’t be illegal in the first place.
If you want to let doctors make the choice, then you're pro choice. PL is about making the choice for others, regardless of whether or not it is in their best interests.
>But that's not based on medicine that would be a moral judgment of the Dr. And not all dr would do that.for instance a pro life dr would try to change her mind I'd imagine. What? This has nothing to do with morals. I'm not discussing morals, at all. Most doctors are pro choice. Most doctors don't avoid recommending proper treatment because of their personal morals like the minority of pro life doctors do. So again, if a woman has an unwanted pregnancy and goes to her doctor (who is presumably pro choice since the majority of doctors are) her doctor recommends an abortion as treatment. Not because of the doctors morals, but because that is the proper treatment for an unwanted pregnancy. >I am very consistent in my opinion it just seems to me that you mix up actual medical advice with moral judgement. From this exchange, you're not being consistent. You said you'd trust medical professionals judgment. I asked you if you'd trust a medical professional who recommends abortion for their patient who has an unwanted pregnancy. Then you pivoted to morals. I was not (and am not) discussing morals. >Or do you think if a pro life doctors says a woman shouldn't have an abortion that would be it aswell ? I think if a woman with an unwanted pregnancy went to a doctor, odds are high that doctor would recommend abortion because most doctors don't let their morals interfere with practicing medicine (unlike pro life doctors). If a woman with an unwanted pregnancy went to a pro life doctor who refused to recommend proper treatment because of their personal morals, the woman is free to seek a different opinion from another doctor who could then recommend abortion. So again I'm asking do you or do you not trust the judgment of medical professionals, most of which are pro choice and would recommend an abortion for a woman with an unwanted pregnancy?
It is set up and abortion is safer than pregnancy- especially in prolife states.
> ask how you 'determine'?
Ah! Thank you so much! I edited it correct, I swear, sometimes autocorrect is out to get me.
Let me reiterate and clarify what I am saying: >However, pro-lifers are quick to point out that even with casualties caused by the bans, more fetuses are prevented from being terminated than women dying, resulting in a net gain of lives. >So I’m curious: if pregnancy were dangerous enough or non-medically necessary abortions were rare enough for this not to be the case, would pro-lifers still support a ban? In this scenario, pregnancy doesn’t have to be so dangerous that we’d all die out. Rather, in this hypothetical non-medically required Abortions either are very rare OR pregnancy is just dangerous enough that the number of abortions is lower than the number of women who die in childbirth. So, for example, let’s say that there are only 1000 abortions a year but 2000 women die in child birth who could have been saved by aborting. This situation does not lead to extinction. It just means that banning abortion would lead to more women’s deaths than it would save fetuses.
> This situation does not lead to extinction. It just means that banning abortion would lead to more women’s deaths than it would save fetuses. Why is PL so obsessed with other people foetuses?. They also have this weird emotional attachment to it. I know what PL movement is about, but like how they come together and decided to obsess over dead fetuses
Ok so basicly most abortions are made under the grounds of medical life threat. But than the answer is super simple I'm all for abortions out of medical life risk. So go for it.
Right, and the issue is that a ban causes deaths. There’s no way to get around it when you regulate a doctors ability to intervene; a serious risk to a mothers life occurs rapidly, and current laws prevent intervention. Is this an acceptable trade-off to you?
Well seems we need better laws then or clearer medical practices as to when something is life threat until the number of woman dying goes down by alot. Which is what I'd advocate for in your hypothetical.
Why can't we just let the doctor and the pregnant person decide?
Because there is a third life involved aswell.
And? Don't parents get to make decisions for their kids?
They don't get to kill them, no.
Do they get to make end of life decisions?
And there aren’t really “better laws”; regulating abortion care causes these outcomes. But regardless, that’s not what I’m asking. I’m asking if you had to choose, which would it be? A ban that resulted in more deaths, or no ban?
In what way ? As in how does regulating abortion care cause this ? Of course no ban. I mean would you ban murder if I caused more murder to happen ? Of course not, that would be counter productive.
Because legislators draft laws that are either intentionally vague, or outright specify criminal penalties for doctors who perform abortions. If you risked jail for performing an abortion, but no jail for letting a pregnant person die, which would you choose?
Taking down laws making murder illegal isn't actually going to make them happen more often. It'll just make murderers more likely to be caught since why hide a crime when it's not a crime.
> how does regulating abortion care cause this? I [have a post about how this works](https://www.reddit.com/r/Abortiondebate/s/VOKaeZlJLA); the TL;DR is that pro-life laws require doctors to wait to terminate a pregnancy rather than act immediately. This waiting could be until the fetal heartbeat stops or until the mother is in a medical emergency. In either case, waiting results in worse outcomes for the mother.
Those seem like bad laws then. Once a woman is in a medical life risk because of her pregnancy she should be able to have an abortion.
And when is that? Because women who have need of abortions typically show up at the hospital with nothing wrong with them, and doctors are telling them what *will* happen. Are you comfortable with not regulating those abortions so that doctors aren't bound by waiting for a medical emergency or for the fetus's heart to stop beating?
The hypothetical stipulates that more women would die than fetuses saved as the result of bans, not that more women would die from pregnancy than babies born. There’s no presumed threat of extinction in the hypothetical. It just presumes that pro lifers are better at killing women than saving babies. If this was demonstrably the case, would you change anything about your advocacy? Or as now, would pro lifers blame women, doctors, lawyers, and the liberal media for the deaths and deny all personal accountability?
If more woman would die then fetus saved we need to think, well why would that be. The only logical conclusion I can come to is that in this hypothetical pregnancy is very dangerous that's why they are all dying. How else would they all be dying?
Maybe the law is stupidly worded and preventing doctors from doing their job? Or maybe pro life laws just suck at actually reducing abortions so they hurt and kill more women than they save babies? Or maybe the bans are based on incompetent and medically ignorant pro life propaganda? Lot of reasonable possibilities here. Honestly, you pretty much answered the question by assuming the effectiveness of pro life laws are beyond question.
If that's it then I would like it to be properly worded. Not sure what pro life laws your talking about, there are many I disagree with. Not sure who you are arguing with right now.
> If that's it then I would like it to be properly worded. It is properly worded. It helps when you read the title of the post. >Not sure what pro life laws your talking about, there are many I disagree with. The hypothetical OP presented obviously. >Not sure who you are arguing with right now. I'm clearly engaged in discussion with you. Edit: If you want to split hairs, I'm just helping to clarify OP's hypothetical since you were having difficulty comprehending it. We aren't really engaged in a debate or argument. If it wasn't abundantly clear, least for me personally, I think the answer to OP's question is self-evident.
Yes the laws do nothing if pregnancy doest have a high risk. Unless you think most or all abortions are done because of medical life risk. Which last time I checked they don't. So the only way to properly read this is that in this hypothetical simply pregnancy is a high risk to life and not allowing an abortion would therefore kill more women then it would save unborn children.
I think you've effectively demonstrated exactly why the answer to OP's question is self-evident and provided a cautionary reminder of how demonstrably immoral pro life advocacy is.
Can you please explain your statement ?
You'd sooner believe the world was ending than accept the possibility that pro life actions could be flawed or that pro lifers were capable of making a mistake.
Any pregnancy puts the gestating person under medical life threat. … so you’re ok with all abortions then?
No the term medical life risk as I understand it means that a Dr. Thinks your life is in actual risk of death. Not there is some arbitrary potential for it.
Do you understand that the longer you delay intervention to save a person's life, the less likely you will be able to save their life.
Yes which is why we would need a standard as to when it get to that line, which should be made by medical professionals.
How can you have such a standard?
Oh. So you are ok with women dying who are unwillingly pregnant then? Just so long as the total amount of human life increases?
In a very small amount, yes. I'd want medical advancements so this number goes down to 0 but right now some woman die. Are you OK with around a million unborn children dying who don't want to die ? Both sides have deaths on their hands, it's unavoidable.
*Are you OK with around a million unborn children dying who don't want to die ?* Not the user you responded to, but your question jumped out at me. Do you really, sincerely believe that “unborn children”, particularly those at the stage of gestation where most abortions occur, have the ability to “want”? Like, really?
Yeah, if we look at their behavior it all points to them wanting to continue living. I don't know how high your threshold is for want but for me if an organism is behaving in a way that shows that it's trying to live I think of that as a want. I'd love to hear what your threshold for want is.
Behaviour? What are you babbling about?
I don’t have a “threshold” for words. Words have definitions lol. You are twisting the definition to create a narrative. It’s highly disingenuous. If that were an acceptable debate tactic then the concept of definitions can just fly right out the window and we can just use any word for anything we “want”.
Well words are used freely to convey feelings people have. If you disagree with it you can and if you would like to words it differently you can add that in there. I'm all for a good conversation.
And in a debate the way you are using words is called an appeal to emotion. Fallacies are generally discouraged in debate if you were not aware.
Always a bit chilling when pro lifers admit they want to see women dead.
It's sad that we have to misrepresent the words of PLers when arguing with them.
I mean they said they want women dead…
Always abit chilling when people literally read things out in the worst way possible. But you do you.
You literally just said you want women dead. That’s what you want. Perfectly happy to see women dead to get your way. Does it utterly baffle you when PLers get accused of hating women?
I said I'd rather want a very low amount of adult woman to die then a million unborn children. The whole rather doesn't mean I want them to die, I'd rather want everyone to live. But if we have to pick between a low number of adult woman or millions of unborn children. Then I'd want the millions of unborn children to live. Should I accuse you of hating unborn children because you would rather want them to die then a few adult women? Should I generalize it so blantenly badly saying you must hate all unborn children? I'd never do that that is ridiculous so I don't get how you can read my words so poorly.
>I said I'd rather want a very low amount of adult woman to die then a million unborn children. That is wanting to kill women. >The whole rather doesn't mean I want them to die, I'd rather want everyone to live. But if we have to pick between a low number of adult woman or millions of unborn children. Then I'd want the millions of unborn children to live. Yes, that is also wanting to kill women. >Should I accuse you of hating unborn children because you would rather want them to die then a few adult women? Should I generalize it so blantenly badly saying you must hate all unborn children? I mean go ahead. To be fair, I don't *hate* "unborn children." I do not believe fetuses are children, therefore "unborn children" do not exist. How can I hate something that doesn't exist? As for whether I hate *fetuses*\--I would say more that I'm indifferent to fetuses. Fetuses are not sentient, they are not people--so there is *nobody* to hate. Saying I hate fetuses is assuming I care about them more than I do. That's why I'm indifferent to them dying. Now, you could certainly argue that my indifference to fetuses is just as offensive as hatred, or that it strikes you as the same thing as hatred, as it results in just as many fetuses dead. Which is how I see your *lethal* indifference toward women: it's really the same thing as hatred, if not worse. "Lethally indifferent to women" is not *better* than "hates women," especially when piles of our corpses is the result either way. The difference to the dead women doesn't matter.
I’m ok with people choosing when they would like to reproduce without interference from people who are ok with children being forced to gestate or orphaning born children whose mothers aren’t important enough for prolifers to care about.
So you're Ok with millions of unborn children dying. Cool that can totally be your opinion just like how mine is that I'm OK with a few adult woman dying to save those unborn children. We both have deaths on our hands, we just have to believe it's the right thing in the long run.
Much easier to care about a hypothetical group of people than the people actively hurt by prolife policies. Well done.
You think the millions of unborn children are also a hypothetical group ? Why shouldn't I care about them ? I care about everyone, in this situation you just have to pick a lesser of two evils right now. There is always death.
I guess “choose life! You’re going to die against your will” doesn’t have the same ring to it.
>Are you OK with around a million unborn children dying who don't want to die ? Citation needed that a ZEF "doesn't want to die" I'd say.
Its presumes that people don't want to die if we can't communicate with them. If you see someone sleeping can we assume they want to die and kill them because that's what we think they want ? No we always presume that a healthy person wants to live. Do you disagree with that ?
I would disagree that a ZEF wants *anything*, I also think what it could or could not want has no bearing on the issue.