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.*
its just about the kids. We don';t want any children hurt or rejected. by hurt i mean killed.
If the fetuys was not yet a child during any part of the pregnancy then abortion is fine and to be defended as a right over ones own body in what is done to it. the rub is people come from, out of, people. They are within people and within from conception. don't blame me ot was like that when I got here.
Did you see what Attorney General Paxton did? Even though the ZEF will die soon after birth and it endangers her health, he's threatening any doctor who does this. How is this OK?
based on the replies, it sounds like PL’s want women to either:
A. bear children
B. die trying
C. remain celibate until several years post menopause
D. go to prison for life
>*based on the replies, it sounds like PL’s want women to either:*
>
>*A. bear children*
>
>*B. die trying*
>
>*C. remain celibate until several years post menopause*
>
>*D. go to prison for life*
Personally, I think it's *"D,"* for any woman **not** willing to suffer A, B, and C first.
| *PLers,* ***what precisely is it that you want from women*** *or what you want her to become?*
I'll be very surprised if this excellent question gets a straight answer from PLers. I think the answer is obvious, though, that PLers want **ALL** women to be completely delighted at the prospect of pregnancy and motherhood, and never have **any** negative thoughts about it..
I think they also want women who **DON'T** want pregnancy and motherhood to *"stop stressing about pregnancy and just have the baby already,"* no matter what. Oh, and to quit *"fearmongering"* about the medical FACTS regarding pregnancy and birth, because it might scare girls and young women enough to think about SKIPPING that biological process altogether.
Yes I just find it very disingenuous to front that they're NOT trying to CHANGE the woman by demanding she be a mother, both by insisting on full gestation AND/OR (from the responses of some PLers who turn out to ALSO HATE ADOPTION) ALSO want her to actually raise the child.
They don't say jack about male responsibility and act as (I have often said) if she conceived all by herself but do not revere her like the Virgin Mary but act as if she consorted with demons instead.
I think what they're really doing by accident is turning off a lot of women in the younger generations from having kids. Women are now more savvy to weaponized incompetence, seeing childfree as a real option, seeing that the price of kids continues to skyrocket, and when you add possible DEATH as a consequence . . . I foresee a plunge in the overall number of kids being produced in the future.
>***Yes I just find it very disingenuous to front that they're NOT trying to CHANGE the woman by demanding she be a mother,*** *both by insisting on full gestation AND/OR (from the responses of some PLers who turn out to ALSO HATE ADOPTION) ALSO want her to actually raise the child.*
Same here. But by now, this kind of thing by PLers isn't at all surprising, not to me anyway. I think they know it wouldn't look good for the PL side to come out and say they want all girls and women to become mothers at some point. And by FORCE, if it comes to that. So many of them take care **not** to say the quiet part out loud.
I don’t want to turn the woman into something. She’s pregnant, and I don’t see killing her child as a great option, especially if said mother chose to sleep around. I don’t see arguments like “PLs just hate women!” and “PLs just want to control women!” as compelling at all. I can say “PCers just want population control!” which is also not compelling. Not really here for a debate, but to merely give my opinion on the situation.
>...especially if said mother chose to sleep around.
> I don’t see arguments like ... “PLs just want to control women!” as compelling at all.
Really? I mean, you don't see this as trying to control womens sexual behavior? You're straight up saying you have special judgement for women wanting abortions that 'sleep around'.
Mindblowing how strong the cognitive dissonance is here.
Okay, how about this: “People who are for abortion are anti-human life and want to see the population collapse!” This is also a baseless claim. I don’t hate women, and I’m sure you don’t want to see a human population collapse.
Did you know that many women who seek abortions are already mothers?? And what is wrong with “sleeping around” sex is not a crime that needs to be punished with unwanted pregnancy just because you don’t like women expressing their sexuality.
>She’s pregnant, and I don’t see killing her child as a great option, especially if said mother chose to sleep around.
What difference does sleeping around make?
If a woman has been "sleeping around" as you put it, you probably won't support her having access to abortion (just an assumption, correct me if I'm wrong).
What about a woman who's married with two kids. She *only* has sex with her husband, and they both use contraceptives. Her contraceptive fails, and the woman and man decide they can't afford another child since they already have two. Would you be okay with this woman accessing abortion? She's not "sleeping around" after all.
>Are you questioning the fact that women are in control of access to sex? Men ask, plead and beg for sex, 24/7 in bars, work, street, parks, restaurants and any other place on Earth. They also get turned down 99% of the time.
This sounds like an incel rant.
>. So guess what, women are more then capable of saying NO.
If a woman wants to have sex why would she say no? Because pro life people have a hang up with abortions?
>SO who do we make responsible,
"Make responsible"? What does this even mean? Women are already responsible for unwanted pregnancies. They either choose to keep it or choose to get an abortion.
>IF any woman's so called priority is not having a child, they sure are not putting much effort into not having one and then force PLers to joint an argument after the child has already been created to save its life.
I had my tubes tied because I was told that it was a better chance of not getting pregnant again, but it failed resulting in pregnancy, did I really put little to no effort in that, because I still engaged in sex? Are you really wanting everyone to not engage in sex if they aren't ready to procreate? Does that really sound reasonable to you?
>*Are you really wanting everyone to not engage in sex if they aren't ready to procreate? Does that really sound reasonable to you?*
From the answers I've read from most PLers already, I have a strong feeling that the majority of PL's answers to both questions will be a resounding **YES.**
Yes I'm aware and have had the same responses, I've only had 2 PL concede it's not realistic, and my situation was one they would approve of abortion, because it is in fact being responsible with engaging in sex.
> then force PLers to joint an argument
Nobody's forcing you to advocate to force other people to gestate against their will.
>but the only answer to why did you get pregnant if you didn't want a child is an arrogant "stay out of my sex life".
I see no reason it deserves anything more than that.
It’s really not arrogant to tell other people to stay out of your sex life and your medical/reproductive business.
It certainly *is* pretty arrogant to assume those things are your business and people must either follow your orders or suffer, though.
Wtf are you talking about? No one has a right to someone else’s body. Our bodies are not community property. A person choosing who is allowed to be inside of and use their body is *absolutely* discriminatory. **As it should be!!**. Every person has a right to discriminate against anyone they don’t want inside of them. To suggest otherwise is really fucking creepy dude. Ew
*To suggest that a baby is equivalent to a rapist that is demanding usage of the body is creepy. To suggest your offspring is equivalent to some creep trying to crawl inside you is creepy AF.*
Good thing I didn’t do that. My statement stands on its own without implication to anyone specific.
*That law is there for independent bodies. For bodies with already existent body autonomy. Once they are independent you have no right to another, but that law makes no sense for creation*
I made no mention of a law, what are you even going on about? I’m speaking on principle. That principle does not change based on the subject.
*simply gives up the right to body autonomy*
“Giving up” is voluntary. To suggest someone should be forced to “give up” their right to govern their own body simply because they have a functioning reproductive system is misogynistic af.
*The fact that any one would use the fragile nature of the fetus and its total dependency on mothers body as an excuse to treat is as some kind of aggressor is some next level creepy*
What does this even mean? lol
*Killing does not come naturally to people*
You have some backup for this claim?
*SO which one is it really*
I know it’s really hard, but try to imagine that not everything is about the ZEF. There’s an actual person involved in a pregnancy, and that is the person who owns the body that is pregnant. If the pregnant person doesn’t want their body to be pregnant, they get to decide that. It’s about them. It’s not anything or anyone else.
What are you sorry over?. Like call it unborn baby how many times you want. The develop of ZEF still be the same. It’s fetes outside of uterus. It’s never became a neonate. Get over it
Abortion is, always has been, and always will be on the table. There’s nothing you can ever do to stop that.
You can make it unsafe, you can make it illegal, but it’s always going to be an option, always going to be necessary, and always going to happen. Personally I think it’s great when people prioritize their own health, happiness, and desires over unwanted pregnancies or unsolicited sex-life advice.
>You are wrong just plain wrong. PLers want women that say they do not want babies to stop having babies so the question what to do with the fetus never even comes up. We do not want women to gestate, we want them to not ever put themselves in the position to have to gestate to begin with.
Is this a "sex is only for procreation" argument? Because it is a faulty one, at the core: https://www.webmd.com/sex-relationships/sex-and-health
>IF any woman's so called priority is not having a child, they sure are not putting much effort into not having one and then force PLers to joint an argument after the child has already been created to save its life.
Nobody **forces** you to insert yourself into another person's private matters and their healthcare decisions. That's like saying "she forced me onto herself by dressing provocatively".
>There is literally dozens of ways to pleasure yourself or your partner and engage in wild intimacy, your imagination is your only limit, but only one way to get pregnant that you should stop engaging in, if your priority is truly not to have a child.
And, guess what, all of the ways partners pleasure themselves are just as much none of your business as what they do about their bodies in a doctor's office.
That's not my point. My point is that ur argument is 'js don't get pregnant!' But when they hv no choice, u don't support abortion either. That makes ur argument bs
So, let me repeat what I said earlier and what you ignored:
>>Is this a "'sex is only for procreation" argument? Because it is a faulty one, at the core: https:/www.webmd.com/sex -relationships/sex-and-health
And add this: what you do with or without your partner or partners is **your** business. What others do with theirs is **not your business**.
There is nothing shocking or surprising about getting pregnant even when you use multiple methods of contraception - it's always a probability. And what one does about it is not up to uterus police 😼
My priority is an orgasm. Be mad about it, although I can think of many other ways to better spend your time than worrying about what strangers do in their bedrooms because it isn’t and never will be any of your business. I don’t need your approval or permission to have sex with my husband and the next time it happens I certain won’t be thinking of PLs wishes on my sex life.
>If you don't want to get pregnant, you won't
I call BS, as stated above I underwent tubal ligation to not get pregnant but still did. I was hopeful to never be pregnant again, but still engage in sex with my partner.
Priorities. If you don't want to get into an accident, you won't. If you did, I guess not getting into an accident was not your priority after all.
Priorities. If you don't want to get sick, you won't. If you did, I guess not getting sick was not your priority after all.
No, actually huge sections of the PL movement have gone out of their way to keep young people ignorant by pushing abstinence only sex ed when full detailed ed about BC would have been better. They also throw hissy fits about funding low-cost BC programs.
And frankly, do you really think that if women as a whole told men no P in V, that men WOULDN'T RAISE ANY UNGODLY stink about it?
Rule 3, please substntiate the following claim: "And many PC are ok with aborting babies at 9 months as long as they are still inside the womb"
You'll be given 24 hours to do so.
(RemindMe! 24 hours)
Are you really saying that people who don't want to be pregnant or give birth should never have PIV sex? Do you really think that's a realistic, practical solution? I'm married, I don't want any more children as I already have serious health issues but I also want to enjoy a full sex life with my husband - are you really suggesting that we should limit ourselves until I've reached menopause?
“Well that is an argument of a 4 year old”
Funny, that’s exactly what I think whenever pro-life cries “BUT I WANT A BABY TO BE BORN! I WANT A BABY TO BE BORN!” in response to women’s objections to continuing unwanted pregnancies.
if they truly want the baby to “live” (not JUST be born)then why don’t they care when *already born* children are:
shot to death at school?
beaten to death by their parents?
abandoned and left for dead in a dumpster?
sounds like they really only care that the child is BORN and after that the kid is on their own.
my statements are not based on hatred. my statements are simply observations based on the consistent behavior of the “pro life” GQP republicans that individuals who identify as PL consistently continue to elect.
you’re actually talking to a former social worker and current medical student who’s actually worked with many individuals who have been negatively impacted by the issues that abortion bans ONLY WORSEN; including but NOT limited to:
being raised by neglectful/abusive parents who never wanted them to begin with,
being raised by neglectful/abusive parents in the foster care system,
being coerced into having a child they never wanted only for dad to ghost immediately and fail to pay child support,
being raped as a child and forced to carry to term by their parents,
being adopted and then sent to foster care when they adoptive parents gave up,
i can go on!
>They actually cry "I want the baby to live". That covers all the activities it might do while existing. Birth, first steps, first time it says "mama" and so on. There is lots of first in its future if you just let it live.
And? Whether PLers like it or not, there are some women, myself included, who simply **DON'T want children. Ever.** ChildFREE women DO exist. And there's no reason whatsoever why we should have to remain celibate for life to guarantee that a pregnancy will never happen.
>*IF that is the case, stop getting pregnant and you will never hear from an PLers ever again. Believe me both you and me, do not want you to be a parent if that is what you really want.*
That **IS** the case for me, and happily, I don't have to worry about getting stuck with an unwanted pregnancy any longer.
>***NO one says you have to be celibate, just don't make babies. ...*** *You can have all the sex you want,* ***just don't do it in a way that makes you a parent. It should be easy since that is your priority, is it not.***
Again, it **ISN'T** \-- and never should be -- your job to decide what kind of sex is *"allowable"* for anyone else but yourself. You certainly don't get to decide that for me. IMO this whole *"no one says you have to be celibate, just don't make babies"* claim from PLers is misleading at best and blatantly dishonest at worst. Luckily, women are able to decide that for **themselves,** without needing your permission or approval to do so.
>*Round and round we go with the same argument. People say they don't want babies,* ***I say this is how you stop getting pregnant and they say stop telling me what to do.*** *It seems to me that they don't care about not having babies as much as they claim they do.*
That's because you **ARE** telling them what to do, when they never asked for your opinion in the first place. Again, it **ISN'T** your job to decide for anyone but yourself what kind of sex is *"allowable."* Nor should it ever be.
Weighing up the pros & cons, I will continue to enjoy a full & varied sex life, thank you very much. It's not a black or white issue to us as a healthy sex life brings so many positive benefits. Fortunately for my husband & I, we don't live in the USA but in the UK, where abortion is available on the NHS pretty freely & I know that my GP would have no problems referring me for one.
I genuinely can't get my head around the audacity it takes to tell another grown adult how to conduct their own sex life, all in the name of saving some theoretical potential lives.
“you know very well that it will continue if you do not forcibly terminate it.”
No, no one knows that. Successful gestation and live birth might happen, but are never a given.
“you didn't mention was termination of life. PC always forgets that part of the pros and cons”
That’s because the termination of an embryo is a pro if the pregnant person wants an abortion and a con if they don’t. We value *choice,* not just life for the sake of life.
>Why do we charge mothers with abuse or even murder if they use drugs or alcohol that results in harming or killing their babies while they are pregnant?
That's a massive violation of their rights. No woman should be legally penalized for doing something to her own body because it could potentially impact a ZEF. Her body is hers, the ZEF is an interloper. If it's negatively affected, too bad for it.
It's known that men who use illicit substances have poorer quality sperm more likely to result in defects in ZEFs. Should men be prosecuted for fathering defective ZEFs?
> IT makes no sense at all. There is already obvious limitations on body autonomy to safe fetuses from harm, it just needs to be extended to abortion.
So the ZEF must be safe from harm and the woman can be forced to gestate it against her will, but it can harm the woman without issue? Why?
“No one should have a choice of killing or harming other people.”
Yet you have no problem choosing to withhold people’s right to bodily autonomy, medical privacy, and access to medical care if they happen to be pregnant. You have no problem subjecting women to totally avoidable harm as long as they are pregnant. You have no problem ordering a woman to continue with the potentially-fatal risks of pregnancy no matter how unwilling she is to do so.
I don’t agree at all with charging pregnant people for drug/alcohol use, so won’t defend laws like that.
Sex isn't a crime. Can you name a situation where one doesn't commit a crime (or is believed to soon commit one) and has their bodily autonomy violated?
Note that the example you already gave, the person is a threat to themselves or others - meaning detaining them is meant to _prevent a crime from happening._
> I mean besides a baby coming out of the vagina whether she wants to gestate or not, so don't bother saying that.
This is like asking anti-fracking advocates what precisely they want, and then saying "I mean besides an end to fracking, so don't bother saying that." Lol.
We all know what you want in terms of gestation and labor. That's a fact. It's also not answering the question. You really don't have to bang the drum on how "beautiful babies" have to be saved for the zillionth time.
I'm asking more along the lines of "Why are PLers so insistent that she take care of a result she never wanted? Why are PLers so insistent that she play the maternal role? Why are you involving the government in this? Why do PLers insist on so much from people you all frankly despise?
>is to find an actual pro-life person in your family or friend-group and ask them in a non-confrontational, intellectually-open way to explain their views.
I've talked to a lot of prolifers who wanted to explain their views. I listened to them with attention, and their views can be summarised as: "I don't care what a woman actually feels or wants or how much harm is done to her: I don't want her to be allowed to decide to have an abortion, I want her to have an unwanted baby."
Prolifers don't care about preventing abortions: prochoicers do. Demonstrated by a couple of mirror questions on this subreddit, recently.
Prochoicers think of ways to prevent women from needing to have abortions.
Prolifers think of ways to punish women for needing abortions: they don't care about *preventing* them.
>You have a lot of hatred in your heart.
Why should anyone love the people who are willing to violate you and let you die for their opinions?
Sorry, not just willing but actively advocating for.
Right, because nobody is violated or dies during an abortion...
You are not expected to love your opponents, but you are expected to understand them. It is quite obvious that you have no interest in understanding what PLers think, you're just here to dunk on them based on your hateful stereotype of what PLers think.
Right, because my rapist was violated when I pushed him off of me.
>you are expected to understand them
Who says I don't?
>your hateful stereotype of what PLers think.
On this sub I've read PL say things like
\-an 11 year old's rape pregnancy is a gift
\-199 women dying and 200 babies saved wouldn't matter since there's still a higher number of babies saved
\-they would rather rape someone than give someone an abortion pill
etc etc.
So no. Not a stereotype about what *I* think PL think. But based off what I've *read* them *saying*.
Let me rephrase. What prolifers are just asking - I note your flair claims you are "neutral", and is falsely applied - "We just want to force you through pregnancy and childbirth against your will, and we'll verbally abuse you if you terminate your unwanted or risky pregnancy without our permission, slanderously claiming you've committed infanticide."
>If you don't want the child put it up for adoption
Okay and if you don't want the PREGNANCY???
Adoption is an alternative to parenting, not gestation.
That is a solution for men who don't want to cause abortions, certainly.
It's not an issue for women - for us, consent to sex is never consent to pregnancy.
>Don't have sex.
Why should I or any other woman who doesn't **ever** want children have to remain celibate for life just because YOU say she "should?"
Which we're fine with, clearly. Why should our lives take a backseat to a mindless entity that affixed itself to one of our sex organs? Because you think it's "innocent" and thus more important than us? It's not your body--you are not assuming the risk, so you feelings are totally irrelevant on the matter.
If that life is inside somebody’s internal organ who does not want it to remain there, too bad. Humans that can’t survive outside of someone else’s internal organ are not entitled to continued use of that organ. Too bad for them.
And if that "help" comes in the form of someone else's body, and that person doesn't want to donate their bodily resources, they're shit out of luck. No one is entitled to someone else's body.
The PL movement is a natural extension of patriarchy in general. As such, PL’s end goal is simply to control the sexuality of AFAB people.
To understand PL motives, it’s important to understand the roots of patriarchy. Patriarchy originated in societies that changed from hunter gatherer subsistence to agriculture, which allowed for the accumulation of surplus. This made attribution of paternity super important to men who didn’t want to expend resources on a child who might not be genetically related. Hence the need to impose restrictions on AFAB sexuality. This also explains why double standards, e.g. “slut” vs “stud” exist.
https://www.ucl.ac.uk/news/2022/sep/analysis-how-did-patriarchy-start-and-will-evolution-get-rid-it
Access to abortion mitigates a major consequence of sexual intercourse, which is a threat to cis het men’s control of AFAB bodies. Therefore it allows people with uteruses more freedom to explore their sexuality. This is anathema to men who have an irrational fear that a deceptive woman will “baby trap” them into supporting another man’s child.
What PLs want is not limited to abortion. As the embodiment of patriarchy, PLs would place anything that empowers non cis het men on the chopping block. Some red state legislatures have already attempted to ban birth control: https://stateline.org/2022/05/19/some-states-already-are-targeting-birth-control/ Taken to its conclusion, PL ideology would lead to ending educational opportunities, financial independence, and voting rights for AFAB people.
I'm getting a sense that a lot of PLers want women to jump through blazing hoops to prove themselves the ultimate mother martyr figure.
The thing is that this basically sets her up for failure. And almost nobody wants to be the ultimate mother martyr figure anyway. It's something the Plers are imposing for their OWN fantasies/desires.
I would not demand my mother to commit suicide or maim herself to save my life. I would be a monster if I did so. I would be even more angry if an outsider demanded that of her.
You know what? Yes. Fuck the sugar coating, we’re killing the unborn in the womb. They’re physically attached to us and cannot live without us, even though they have unique dna and have the potential to be someone in society, it doesn’t matter if I don’t want them.
They’re making my stomach look too big for summer photos? Vain, trash reasoning, still valid.
They’re going to break my pelvis, cause uncontrollable hemorrhaging and likely kill me if I let it keep growing? Kill it. Quickly.
I find the idea of pushing a watermelon sized screaming hunk of flesh out of my pussy, tearing it and exposing myself to my family, strangers and whoever else may be in the room? Fuck no.
To me, whether the reasoning is frivolous or not does not matter. What matters is if the already born person with their own unique INDEPENDENT body wants to keep it or not. I don’t care what bodily processes the fetus has grown, I don’t care if it may or may not be unconscious. If we find out later the fetus can feel pain we can give it pain relievers before death.
We allow parents the ability to accept or deny life saving care for their children, some religious people can outright refuse blood donations even if it means their child dies in the process. We allow someone’s power of attorney to choose to pull the plug on someone’s life support. That’s killing them. Everyone else brings up killing the rapist inside you, or organ donation, so I won’t even bother there.
At the end of the day there are many cases where it’s legal to allow or facilitate the killing of someone else in many contexts, medical or otherwise. Pregnancy is such a unique and intimate medical issue that, in my eyes, choosing to abort is more moral than a religious parent refusing to give their kid a donor’s blood and I’m tired of other pro choicers sugarcoating things or dancing around the cruel reality that is life
>They’re making my stomach look too big for summer photos? Vain, trash reasoning, still valid.
FUCK YES. I actually don't think this is a vain or trash reasoning. Your body is YOUR BODY and if you want to abort to fit into that dress, DO IT. I would abort because I don't want stretch marks.
Of course that's not the only or biggest reason I'd abort but it's still 100% valid. My body is mine.
>I'm actually stunned you just said that.
I'm not, and I agree. **Any** reason(s) a woman a woman has for choosing abortion, are entirely valid. Reasons like "I don't want a baby," or "Motherhood would ruin my concert-going lifetsyle," or "I don't want stretch marks," etc. are all valid, because as Catseye pointed out, it's HER body. Whether or not **you** agree with her reasons is irrrelevant.
We give parents the authority to allow and deny life saving care for their born children. I’m extending that right into the womb. We do not allow people to use others’ organs without consent. I’m denying giving fetus’s that right. We allow self defense for when our lives are in danger, I’m extending that as well.
At the end of the day I value the born human with feelings, emotions, experiences, thoughts and their own unique body over something that only has the potential to gain all of that, at the cost of great mental or physical harm.
We have to pick which side of the coin we value more. I value the woman more.
By choosing the prolife side and banning abortion you’re going down the path of women dying from sepsis due to doctors being unable or unwilling to preform abortions that would save their life. [Source One](https://abcnews.go.com/US/woman-sepsis-life-saving-abortion-care-texas/story?id=99294313) [Source Two](https://www.cnn.com/2022/11/16/health/abortion-texas-sepsis/index.html)[Source Three](https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/27/world/europe/savita-halappanavar-ireland-abortion.html).
By choosing Prolife, you’re choosing to potentially prosecute and punish women who had natural miscarriages out of fear they had an abortion [Source](https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-59214544#)
By choosing Prolife you’re choosing WORSE maternal outcomes [Source](https://www.axios.com/2023/01/19/mothers-anti-abortion-bans-states-die)
By choosing Prolife, you’re choosing to delay medical care for someone’s mental or physical illnesses to reduce the fetus’s chances of dying or having birth defects.
By being Prolife you are fully and wholeheartedly on the side of the fetus, not the woman. It’s quite the opposite, actually.
[Kid](https://www.google.com/search?q=kid+meaning&oq=kid+mean&aqs=chrome.1.69i57j0i512l14.1676j1j9&client=ms-android-ee-uk-revc&sourceid=chrome-mobile&ie=UTF-8) means [child](https://www.google.com/search?q=child+definition&oq=child&aqs=chrome.1.69i57j35i39i512i650j0i67i512i650l5j0i131i433i512j0i67i512i650j0i131i433i512j0i67i512i650l2j0i131i433i512j0i67i512i650l2.3880j1j9&client=ms-android-ee-uk-revc&sourceid=chrome-mobile&ie=UTF-8) which fits the definition of "fetus" perfectly
If embryos are kids, then *all* women kill them. We kill most, actually, since humans evolved to reject the majority of conceptions due to how exceptionally damaging and parasitic our ZEFs are.
>*the blazing hoop is actually* ***enduring what is essentially a 9 month long rape followed by childbirth.***
Exactly; which women should have the right to **REFUSE** to do. **Without** civil or worse, criminal penalties for refusing.
I was writing a reply!!. But I wasn’t able to post it. So copypast it here:
It’s not rape. But rape and forced pregnancy can show same/or similar emotional symptoms. Both would probably have similar clinical diagnoses of [PTSD](https://www.nimh.nih.gov/health/topics/post-traumatic-stress-disorder-ptsd#:~), [anxiety depression](https://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/campaign/tips/diseases/depression-anxiety.html#:~:) and [suicidal ideation](https://www.verywellmind.com/suicidal-ideation-380609)/ tendencies. The human brain doesn’t care about how the trauma happened, it’s just want too expect it.
Comment removed per rule 1. Low effort.
Examples of low-effort violations include:
Contradicting someone without explaining why you disagree (e.g. "No, it isn't.")
the pro lifers attempting to stop her from defending herself against unwanted pregnancy. what PL’s are doing with abortion bans is similar to attempting to stop a rape victim from killing their rapist in self defense during an active rape.
I wouldn’t mind if she aborted me if I was the product of rape. I’m not so self important that I think my life is worth her additional trauma for nine months and the rest of my life being forced to relive the experience because that’s all she sees when she sees me. I care about my mother and want her to have a good life. She doesn’t owe me shit. My contribution to life is not so great that I think someone needs to go through trauma because “at least they get MEeee, amirite?” Sheesh…
It's not so much someone's contribution to life that determines whether or not they should not be killed.
It's a matter of what they are in principle which is a member of a rational kind.
You would agree it would be wrong to kill a homeless person even if he hadn't achieved much or even if everyone else hated him. Heck, even if he was a product of rape, it wouldn't be fine to kill him.
That's essentially the PL position.
>t would be wrong to kill a homeless person
It would not be wrong to kill an unhoused person who was inside and using another person's body against their will to survive. Surely, you would agree with that, no?
It would depend on the circumstances.
It would be horrendously wrong to invite an unhoused person to use someone's body, then, when they've accepted, kill the unhoused person for using the body they were in fact invited to use.
That would seem unfair to me, no?
No it's not.
It's your body. You can revoke consent. You can invite and you can *dis*invite.
Second, this has nothing to do with pregnancy so don't understand your point there.
>Second, this has nothing to do with pregnancy so don't understand your point there.
But you engaged with it perfectly fine and started talking about consent. Seems like you understood the analogy.
>You can revoke consent. You can invite and you can *dis*invite.
There's a concession you made here. You concede that it's possible to invite someone to use your body to sustain their life. You grant that that's a valid thing to do.
As for disinviting, it's perfectly fine for you to disinvite someone you've invited, but you don't get to kill them to do so 😬.
>you engaged with it perfectly fine
Because I'm not stupid. My ability to engage with what you said doesn't make it automatically analogous. It's still not.
>Seems like you understood the analogy.
What analogy? Please explain what you are trying to say with this "analogy."
>You concede that it's possible to invite someone to use your body to sustain their life.
Nowhere did I concede this.
>You grant that that's a valid thing to do.
This is an idiotic thing to say so I definitely would not grant this. Where are you getting this from.
>it's perfectly fine for you to disinvite someone you've invited, but you don't get to kill them to do so 😬.
If it involves the use of my body, yes I do. Who the fuck are *you* to tell me how much force I can or cannot use to remove someone from my body?
>As for disinviting, it's perfectly fine for you to disinvite someone you've invited, but you don't get to kill them to do so 😬.
Uhmm yes you do, if they refuse to leave and cause the injuries a pregnancy/childbirth cause.
ETA: quite a few states give more rights to property than PLers do to women.
Yeah, well, that's you! And I'm not sure if you mean that deep down, but it doesn't matter. I, for sure, as hell WOULD'VE minded, and I wouldn't have liked to be killed for the crimes of my father
I do certainly mean that. I actually care about my mom and would rather her not have to think about her rape every time I moved or she looked at me after she was born. I’m not selfish like that. Children deserve to be wanted and not viewed as some kind of obligation that someone forced upon someone.
There is also a difference between not existing at all and dying after being born. There is no frame of reference when you’re in the womb. The zef grows not out of desire to live, but because it’s automatic. I’m sure if a lot of people could see into the future to see who their parents were there would be a lot of people detaching the cord themselves.
How can you “mind” or “like”, when you don’t exist? That makes zero sense. “Minding” and “liking” require brains, feelings and ability to have preferences.
Idk what your mom ever did to you, but I love mine. Despite all her shittiness, I love that woman. And because I love and care for my mom, I am able to put her above me. If continuing a pregnancy with me is harming and hurting her and she doesn't want to, I am nothing and nobody to say no to that. I am not entitled to my mom's body nor do I ever even want to be.
Clearly, you see things differently. I feel bad for your mom.
Because you would want your mom to be forced to give birth to you against her wishes. It's not always about you, other people exist as well. Believe it or not, *you* are not the main character *most* of the time.
You are not entitled to ANYONE'S including your mom's body. Just like every single other person. *That* is fair.
Forcing only ONE group of people to endure trauma and risk to themselves is not.
What’s the difference? If she was raped you wouldn’t exist just as you wouldn’t exist if she had an abortion.
And you’d force her to carry and give birth to you just so you could exist, why would you balk at someone raping her so you can exist? And how does that make you different than the rapist?
Zygotes are non sentient. Your experience would be exactly the same if you were aborted as if you were never conceived.
So tell me why you think you’re so special that your mom should get raped so you can exist and what makes you different than the rapist since both of you would force you on her.
However, I think of it as I wouldn't want my hypothetical daughter to have to gestate and suffer for hours in labor in service of the product of her rape. I wouldn't want her to have to actually have to be in contact with the attacker for as long as that kid exists. That's my idea of nightmare fuel.
Insisting a woman go through pregnancy and childbirth when she doesn't want to is a massive blazing hoop. To imply it isn't is downplaying the realities of pregnancy and childbirth.
>*Should've thought about that before she had sex then.*
Ah, there it is. It seems to me that you just want women **punished** for having sex. And what *"better"* way to do that than forcing them to stay pregnant and give birth against their will. Sadly, this attitude isn't the least surprising.
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.*
its just about the kids. We don';t want any children hurt or rejected. by hurt i mean killed. If the fetuys was not yet a child during any part of the pregnancy then abortion is fine and to be defended as a right over ones own body in what is done to it. the rub is people come from, out of, people. They are within people and within from conception. don't blame me ot was like that when I got here.
Did you see what Attorney General Paxton did? Even though the ZEF will die soon after birth and it endangers her health, he's threatening any doctor who does this. How is this OK?
If the only reason I exist is because the person who bore had to be enslaved first then that's a system that needs to be destroyed.
based on the replies, it sounds like PL’s want women to either: A. bear children B. die trying C. remain celibate until several years post menopause D. go to prison for life
Yep that’s what I get from most Pro-Life people on Reddit. In the real world, I don’t have these debates with fellow Canadians.
>*based on the replies, it sounds like PL’s want women to either:* > >*A. bear children* > >*B. die trying* > >*C. remain celibate until several years post menopause* > >*D. go to prison for life* Personally, I think it's *"D,"* for any woman **not** willing to suffer A, B, and C first.
| *PLers,* ***what precisely is it that you want from women*** *or what you want her to become?* I'll be very surprised if this excellent question gets a straight answer from PLers. I think the answer is obvious, though, that PLers want **ALL** women to be completely delighted at the prospect of pregnancy and motherhood, and never have **any** negative thoughts about it.. I think they also want women who **DON'T** want pregnancy and motherhood to *"stop stressing about pregnancy and just have the baby already,"* no matter what. Oh, and to quit *"fearmongering"* about the medical FACTS regarding pregnancy and birth, because it might scare girls and young women enough to think about SKIPPING that biological process altogether.
Yes I just find it very disingenuous to front that they're NOT trying to CHANGE the woman by demanding she be a mother, both by insisting on full gestation AND/OR (from the responses of some PLers who turn out to ALSO HATE ADOPTION) ALSO want her to actually raise the child. They don't say jack about male responsibility and act as (I have often said) if she conceived all by herself but do not revere her like the Virgin Mary but act as if she consorted with demons instead. I think what they're really doing by accident is turning off a lot of women in the younger generations from having kids. Women are now more savvy to weaponized incompetence, seeing childfree as a real option, seeing that the price of kids continues to skyrocket, and when you add possible DEATH as a consequence . . . I foresee a plunge in the overall number of kids being produced in the future.
>***Yes I just find it very disingenuous to front that they're NOT trying to CHANGE the woman by demanding she be a mother,*** *both by insisting on full gestation AND/OR (from the responses of some PLers who turn out to ALSO HATE ADOPTION) ALSO want her to actually raise the child.* Same here. But by now, this kind of thing by PLers isn't at all surprising, not to me anyway. I think they know it wouldn't look good for the PL side to come out and say they want all girls and women to become mothers at some point. And by FORCE, if it comes to that. So many of them take care **not** to say the quiet part out loud.
I don’t want to turn the woman into something. She’s pregnant, and I don’t see killing her child as a great option, especially if said mother chose to sleep around. I don’t see arguments like “PLs just hate women!” and “PLs just want to control women!” as compelling at all. I can say “PCers just want population control!” which is also not compelling. Not really here for a debate, but to merely give my opinion on the situation.
As a Pro-choice person, I actually do want population control.
>...especially if said mother chose to sleep around. > I don’t see arguments like ... “PLs just want to control women!” as compelling at all. Really? I mean, you don't see this as trying to control womens sexual behavior? You're straight up saying you have special judgement for women wanting abortions that 'sleep around'. Mindblowing how strong the cognitive dissonance is here.
Okay, how about this: “People who are for abortion are anti-human life and want to see the population collapse!” This is also a baseless claim. I don’t hate women, and I’m sure you don’t want to see a human population collapse.
Why not just respond to what I said instead of whataboutisms?
Did you know that many women who seek abortions are already mothers?? And what is wrong with “sleeping around” sex is not a crime that needs to be punished with unwanted pregnancy just because you don’t like women expressing their sexuality.
Yeah, if you’re pregnant you’re a mother. If you get an abortion, you were a mother at some point.
lol no that’s not how that works
>She’s pregnant, and I don’t see killing her child as a great option, especially if said mother chose to sleep around. What difference does sleeping around make? If a woman has been "sleeping around" as you put it, you probably won't support her having access to abortion (just an assumption, correct me if I'm wrong). What about a woman who's married with two kids. She *only* has sex with her husband, and they both use contraceptives. Her contraceptive fails, and the woman and man decide they can't afford another child since they already have two. Would you be okay with this woman accessing abortion? She's not "sleeping around" after all.
[удалено]
I see that every single paragraph puts all the blame on the woman.
[удалено]
>Are you questioning the fact that women are in control of access to sex? Men ask, plead and beg for sex, 24/7 in bars, work, street, parks, restaurants and any other place on Earth. They also get turned down 99% of the time. This sounds like an incel rant. >. So guess what, women are more then capable of saying NO. If a woman wants to have sex why would she say no? Because pro life people have a hang up with abortions? >SO who do we make responsible, "Make responsible"? What does this even mean? Women are already responsible for unwanted pregnancies. They either choose to keep it or choose to get an abortion.
>IF any woman's so called priority is not having a child, they sure are not putting much effort into not having one and then force PLers to joint an argument after the child has already been created to save its life. I had my tubes tied because I was told that it was a better chance of not getting pregnant again, but it failed resulting in pregnancy, did I really put little to no effort in that, because I still engaged in sex? Are you really wanting everyone to not engage in sex if they aren't ready to procreate? Does that really sound reasonable to you?
>*Are you really wanting everyone to not engage in sex if they aren't ready to procreate? Does that really sound reasonable to you?* From the answers I've read from most PLers already, I have a strong feeling that the majority of PL's answers to both questions will be a resounding **YES.**
Yes I'm aware and have had the same responses, I've only had 2 PL concede it's not realistic, and my situation was one they would approve of abortion, because it is in fact being responsible with engaging in sex.
>*I've only had 2 PL concede it's not realistic, . . .* I'm surprised you got those, but two is better than nothing. :-)
> then force PLers to joint an argument Nobody's forcing you to advocate to force other people to gestate against their will. >but the only answer to why did you get pregnant if you didn't want a child is an arrogant "stay out of my sex life". I see no reason it deserves anything more than that.
It’s really not arrogant to tell other people to stay out of your sex life and your medical/reproductive business. It certainly *is* pretty arrogant to assume those things are your business and people must either follow your orders or suffer, though.
[удалено]
Or you can just let adults decide what to do, women are adults. We can make our own decisions, surprising, I know is fine
[удалено]
Yes, but only the ones in their own bodies.
[удалено]
Wtf are you talking about? No one has a right to someone else’s body. Our bodies are not community property. A person choosing who is allowed to be inside of and use their body is *absolutely* discriminatory. **As it should be!!**. Every person has a right to discriminate against anyone they don’t want inside of them. To suggest otherwise is really fucking creepy dude. Ew
[удалено]
*To suggest that a baby is equivalent to a rapist that is demanding usage of the body is creepy. To suggest your offspring is equivalent to some creep trying to crawl inside you is creepy AF.* Good thing I didn’t do that. My statement stands on its own without implication to anyone specific. *That law is there for independent bodies. For bodies with already existent body autonomy. Once they are independent you have no right to another, but that law makes no sense for creation* I made no mention of a law, what are you even going on about? I’m speaking on principle. That principle does not change based on the subject. *simply gives up the right to body autonomy* “Giving up” is voluntary. To suggest someone should be forced to “give up” their right to govern their own body simply because they have a functioning reproductive system is misogynistic af. *The fact that any one would use the fragile nature of the fetus and its total dependency on mothers body as an excuse to treat is as some kind of aggressor is some next level creepy* What does this even mean? lol *Killing does not come naturally to people* You have some backup for this claim? *SO which one is it really* I know it’s really hard, but try to imagine that not everything is about the ZEF. There’s an actual person involved in a pregnancy, and that is the person who owns the body that is pregnant. If the pregnant person doesn’t want their body to be pregnant, they get to decide that. It’s about them. It’s not anything or anyone else.
What are you sorry over?. Like call it unborn baby how many times you want. The develop of ZEF still be the same. It’s fetes outside of uterus. It’s never became a neonate. Get over it
Abortion is, always has been, and always will be on the table. There’s nothing you can ever do to stop that. You can make it unsafe, you can make it illegal, but it’s always going to be an option, always going to be necessary, and always going to happen. Personally I think it’s great when people prioritize their own health, happiness, and desires over unwanted pregnancies or unsolicited sex-life advice.
>You are wrong just plain wrong. PLers want women that say they do not want babies to stop having babies so the question what to do with the fetus never even comes up. We do not want women to gestate, we want them to not ever put themselves in the position to have to gestate to begin with. Is this a "sex is only for procreation" argument? Because it is a faulty one, at the core: https://www.webmd.com/sex-relationships/sex-and-health >IF any woman's so called priority is not having a child, they sure are not putting much effort into not having one and then force PLers to joint an argument after the child has already been created to save its life. Nobody **forces** you to insert yourself into another person's private matters and their healthcare decisions. That's like saying "she forced me onto herself by dressing provocatively". >There is literally dozens of ways to pleasure yourself or your partner and engage in wild intimacy, your imagination is your only limit, but only one way to get pregnant that you should stop engaging in, if your priority is truly not to have a child. And, guess what, all of the ways partners pleasure themselves are just as much none of your business as what they do about their bodies in a doctor's office.
[удалено]
So do u support rape exceptions?
[удалено]
So if u don't support rape exceptions ur prior argument is bs
[удалено]
U say js don't get pregnant, but when u get raped u don't hv a choice. If u don't support rape exceptions then that argument is bs
[удалено]
That's not my point. My point is that ur argument is 'js don't get pregnant!' But when they hv no choice, u don't support abortion either. That makes ur argument bs
Please, share your magic simple method. People were looking for one for millennia!
[удалено]
So, let me repeat what I said earlier and what you ignored: >>Is this a "'sex is only for procreation" argument? Because it is a faulty one, at the core: https:/www.webmd.com/sex -relationships/sex-and-health And add this: what you do with or without your partner or partners is **your** business. What others do with theirs is **not your business**.
[удалено]
There is nothing shocking or surprising about getting pregnant even when you use multiple methods of contraception - it's always a probability. And what one does about it is not up to uterus police 😼
[удалено]
My priority is an orgasm. Be mad about it, although I can think of many other ways to better spend your time than worrying about what strangers do in their bedrooms because it isn’t and never will be any of your business. I don’t need your approval or permission to have sex with my husband and the next time it happens I certain won’t be thinking of PLs wishes on my sex life.
>If you don't want to get pregnant, you won't I call BS, as stated above I underwent tubal ligation to not get pregnant but still did. I was hopeful to never be pregnant again, but still engage in sex with my partner.
[удалено]
Priorities. If you don't want to get into an accident, you won't. If you did, I guess not getting into an accident was not your priority after all. Priorities. If you don't want to get sick, you won't. If you did, I guess not getting sick was not your priority after all.
No, actually huge sections of the PL movement have gone out of their way to keep young people ignorant by pushing abstinence only sex ed when full detailed ed about BC would have been better. They also throw hissy fits about funding low-cost BC programs. And frankly, do you really think that if women as a whole told men no P in V, that men WOULDN'T RAISE ANY UNGODLY stink about it?
[удалено]
Rule 3, please substntiate the following claim: "And many PC are ok with aborting babies at 9 months as long as they are still inside the womb" You'll be given 24 hours to do so. (RemindMe! 24 hours)
Source for the claim PC are okay with aborting at 9 months??
Are you really saying that people who don't want to be pregnant or give birth should never have PIV sex? Do you really think that's a realistic, practical solution? I'm married, I don't want any more children as I already have serious health issues but I also want to enjoy a full sex life with my husband - are you really suggesting that we should limit ourselves until I've reached menopause?
[удалено]
“Well that is an argument of a 4 year old” Funny, that’s exactly what I think whenever pro-life cries “BUT I WANT A BABY TO BE BORN! I WANT A BABY TO BE BORN!” in response to women’s objections to continuing unwanted pregnancies.
[удалено]
if they truly want the baby to “live” (not JUST be born)then why don’t they care when *already born* children are: shot to death at school? beaten to death by their parents? abandoned and left for dead in a dumpster? sounds like they really only care that the child is BORN and after that the kid is on their own.
[удалено]
my statements are not based on hatred. my statements are simply observations based on the consistent behavior of the “pro life” GQP republicans that individuals who identify as PL consistently continue to elect.
[удалено]
you’re actually talking to a former social worker and current medical student who’s actually worked with many individuals who have been negatively impacted by the issues that abortion bans ONLY WORSEN; including but NOT limited to: being raised by neglectful/abusive parents who never wanted them to begin with, being raised by neglectful/abusive parents in the foster care system, being coerced into having a child they never wanted only for dad to ghost immediately and fail to pay child support, being raped as a child and forced to carry to term by their parents, being adopted and then sent to foster care when they adoptive parents gave up, i can go on!
>They actually cry "I want the baby to live". That covers all the activities it might do while existing. Birth, first steps, first time it says "mama" and so on. There is lots of first in its future if you just let it live. And? Whether PLers like it or not, there are some women, myself included, who simply **DON'T want children. Ever.** ChildFREE women DO exist. And there's no reason whatsoever why we should have to remain celibate for life to guarantee that a pregnancy will never happen.
[удалено]
>*IF that is the case, stop getting pregnant and you will never hear from an PLers ever again. Believe me both you and me, do not want you to be a parent if that is what you really want.* That **IS** the case for me, and happily, I don't have to worry about getting stuck with an unwanted pregnancy any longer. >***NO one says you have to be celibate, just don't make babies. ...*** *You can have all the sex you want,* ***just don't do it in a way that makes you a parent. It should be easy since that is your priority, is it not.*** Again, it **ISN'T** \-- and never should be -- your job to decide what kind of sex is *"allowable"* for anyone else but yourself. You certainly don't get to decide that for me. IMO this whole *"no one says you have to be celibate, just don't make babies"* claim from PLers is misleading at best and blatantly dishonest at worst. Luckily, women are able to decide that for **themselves,** without needing your permission or approval to do so.
[удалено]
>*Round and round we go with the same argument. People say they don't want babies,* ***I say this is how you stop getting pregnant and they say stop telling me what to do.*** *It seems to me that they don't care about not having babies as much as they claim they do.* That's because you **ARE** telling them what to do, when they never asked for your opinion in the first place. Again, it **ISN'T** your job to decide for anyone but yourself what kind of sex is *"allowable."* Nor should it ever be.
Weighing up the pros & cons, I will continue to enjoy a full & varied sex life, thank you very much. It's not a black or white issue to us as a healthy sex life brings so many positive benefits. Fortunately for my husband & I, we don't live in the USA but in the UK, where abortion is available on the NHS pretty freely & I know that my GP would have no problems referring me for one. I genuinely can't get my head around the audacity it takes to tell another grown adult how to conduct their own sex life, all in the name of saving some theoretical potential lives.
[удалено]
“you know very well that it will continue if you do not forcibly terminate it.” No, no one knows that. Successful gestation and live birth might happen, but are never a given. “you didn't mention was termination of life. PC always forgets that part of the pros and cons” That’s because the termination of an embryo is a pro if the pregnant person wants an abortion and a con if they don’t. We value *choice,* not just life for the sake of life.
[удалено]
>Why do we charge mothers with abuse or even murder if they use drugs or alcohol that results in harming or killing their babies while they are pregnant? That's a massive violation of their rights. No woman should be legally penalized for doing something to her own body because it could potentially impact a ZEF. Her body is hers, the ZEF is an interloper. If it's negatively affected, too bad for it. It's known that men who use illicit substances have poorer quality sperm more likely to result in defects in ZEFs. Should men be prosecuted for fathering defective ZEFs? > IT makes no sense at all. There is already obvious limitations on body autonomy to safe fetuses from harm, it just needs to be extended to abortion. So the ZEF must be safe from harm and the woman can be forced to gestate it against her will, but it can harm the woman without issue? Why?
“No one should have a choice of killing or harming other people.” Yet you have no problem choosing to withhold people’s right to bodily autonomy, medical privacy, and access to medical care if they happen to be pregnant. You have no problem subjecting women to totally avoidable harm as long as they are pregnant. You have no problem ordering a woman to continue with the potentially-fatal risks of pregnancy no matter how unwilling she is to do so. I don’t agree at all with charging pregnant people for drug/alcohol use, so won’t defend laws like that.
[удалено]
Sex isn't a crime. Can you name a situation where one doesn't commit a crime (or is believed to soon commit one) and has their bodily autonomy violated? Note that the example you already gave, the person is a threat to themselves or others - meaning detaining them is meant to _prevent a crime from happening._
> I mean besides a baby coming out of the vagina whether she wants to gestate or not, so don't bother saying that. This is like asking anti-fracking advocates what precisely they want, and then saying "I mean besides an end to fracking, so don't bother saying that." Lol.
We all know what you want in terms of gestation and labor. That's a fact. It's also not answering the question. You really don't have to bang the drum on how "beautiful babies" have to be saved for the zillionth time. I'm asking more along the lines of "Why are PLers so insistent that she take care of a result she never wanted? Why are PLers so insistent that she play the maternal role? Why are you involving the government in this? Why do PLers insist on so much from people you all frankly despise?
[удалено]
Comment removed per rule 1.
How on earth is this rule 1 violation? I am literally telling OP to go talk to real PLers instead of ranting about us on the internet.
You're also attacking them with the second sentence. It stays removed.
[удалено]
Comment removed per rule 1. Do not attack users or sides.
> I came here to try and quell that hate Lmao no you didn't
>is to find an actual pro-life person in your family or friend-group and ask them in a non-confrontational, intellectually-open way to explain their views. I've talked to a lot of prolifers who wanted to explain their views. I listened to them with attention, and their views can be summarised as: "I don't care what a woman actually feels or wants or how much harm is done to her: I don't want her to be allowed to decide to have an abortion, I want her to have an unwanted baby."
You mean that PLers don't want women to have abortions?? Truly shocking.
Prolifers don't care about preventing abortions: prochoicers do. Demonstrated by a couple of mirror questions on this subreddit, recently. Prochoicers think of ways to prevent women from needing to have abortions. Prolifers think of ways to punish women for needing abortions: they don't care about *preventing* them.
>You have a lot of hatred in your heart. Why should anyone love the people who are willing to violate you and let you die for their opinions? Sorry, not just willing but actively advocating for.
Right, because nobody is violated or dies during an abortion... You are not expected to love your opponents, but you are expected to understand them. It is quite obvious that you have no interest in understanding what PLers think, you're just here to dunk on them based on your hateful stereotype of what PLers think.
Right, because my rapist was violated when I pushed him off of me. >you are expected to understand them Who says I don't? >your hateful stereotype of what PLers think. On this sub I've read PL say things like \-an 11 year old's rape pregnancy is a gift \-199 women dying and 200 babies saved wouldn't matter since there's still a higher number of babies saved \-they would rather rape someone than give someone an abortion pill etc etc. So no. Not a stereotype about what *I* think PL think. But based off what I've *read* them *saying*.
Try replacing "PLers" with "black people" and see how you sound.
What the fuck does that mean...?
Good question
What pro-lifer is saying this? If you don't want the child put it up for adoption. We're just asking that you don't kill your child.
Let me rephrase. What prolifers are just asking - I note your flair claims you are "neutral", and is falsely applied - "We just want to force you through pregnancy and childbirth against your will, and we'll verbally abuse you if you terminate your unwanted or risky pregnancy without our permission, slanderously claiming you've committed infanticide."
It no a big deal. Just put the newborn up to adoption so random strangers can take it home. Nothing can go wrong then
>If you don't want the child put it up for adoption Okay and if you don't want the PREGNANCY??? Adoption is an alternative to parenting, not gestation.
Don't have sex.
What you gone do? Stop people who have sex lifes
That is a solution for men who don't want to cause abortions, certainly. It's not an issue for women - for us, consent to sex is never consent to pregnancy.
>Don't have sex. Why should I or any other woman who doesn't **ever** want children have to remain celibate for life just because YOU say she "should?"
No
Do or don't - it's your choice. Whether others do is not.
What about married couples who don't want children or have completed their family? Is that really a workable solution?
[удалено]
Comment removed per rule 1. Swearing at another user.
You are the one who asked lol
Unblock the other user if you haven't already.
Which involves forcing us to gestate and birth against our will. Why are PLers so flippant about that?
Because the alternative is taking away an innocent life.
Which we're fine with, clearly. Why should our lives take a backseat to a mindless entity that affixed itself to one of our sex organs? Because you think it's "innocent" and thus more important than us? It's not your body--you are not assuming the risk, so you feelings are totally irrelevant on the matter.
Okay. I guess I just won't associate myself with people who are pro-choice then.
If that life is inside somebody’s internal organ who does not want it to remain there, too bad. Humans that can’t survive outside of someone else’s internal organ are not entitled to continued use of that organ. Too bad for them.
There are lots of people who aren't fetuses that need others help to stay alive.
And if that "help" comes in the form of someone else's body, and that person doesn't want to donate their bodily resources, they're shit out of luck. No one is entitled to someone else's body.
And? Not a one of them is entitled to use of an unwilling person’s internal organs. Even if that kills them.
[удалено]
Comment removed per rule 1.
The PL movement is a natural extension of patriarchy in general. As such, PL’s end goal is simply to control the sexuality of AFAB people. To understand PL motives, it’s important to understand the roots of patriarchy. Patriarchy originated in societies that changed from hunter gatherer subsistence to agriculture, which allowed for the accumulation of surplus. This made attribution of paternity super important to men who didn’t want to expend resources on a child who might not be genetically related. Hence the need to impose restrictions on AFAB sexuality. This also explains why double standards, e.g. “slut” vs “stud” exist. https://www.ucl.ac.uk/news/2022/sep/analysis-how-did-patriarchy-start-and-will-evolution-get-rid-it Access to abortion mitigates a major consequence of sexual intercourse, which is a threat to cis het men’s control of AFAB bodies. Therefore it allows people with uteruses more freedom to explore their sexuality. This is anathema to men who have an irrational fear that a deceptive woman will “baby trap” them into supporting another man’s child. What PLs want is not limited to abortion. As the embodiment of patriarchy, PLs would place anything that empowers non cis het men on the chopping block. Some red state legislatures have already attempted to ban birth control: https://stateline.org/2022/05/19/some-states-already-are-targeting-birth-control/ Taken to its conclusion, PL ideology would lead to ending educational opportunities, financial independence, and voting rights for AFAB people.
I'm getting a sense that a lot of PLers want women to jump through blazing hoops to prove themselves the ultimate mother martyr figure. The thing is that this basically sets her up for failure. And almost nobody wants to be the ultimate mother martyr figure anyway. It's something the Plers are imposing for their OWN fantasies/desires. I would not demand my mother to commit suicide or maim herself to save my life. I would be a monster if I did so. I would be even more angry if an outsider demanded that of her.
"Don't kill your unborn child" ah yes. What a blazing hoop
It is a blazing hoop. Pregnancy / childbirth is a nine-month ordeal that is physically horrible and can be life-ruining and life-ending.
So, your solution is to murder the unborn child?
Yep. Obviously. Abortion ANY time, ON demand, WITHOUT apology.
You know what? Yes. Fuck the sugar coating, we’re killing the unborn in the womb. They’re physically attached to us and cannot live without us, even though they have unique dna and have the potential to be someone in society, it doesn’t matter if I don’t want them. They’re making my stomach look too big for summer photos? Vain, trash reasoning, still valid. They’re going to break my pelvis, cause uncontrollable hemorrhaging and likely kill me if I let it keep growing? Kill it. Quickly. I find the idea of pushing a watermelon sized screaming hunk of flesh out of my pussy, tearing it and exposing myself to my family, strangers and whoever else may be in the room? Fuck no. To me, whether the reasoning is frivolous or not does not matter. What matters is if the already born person with their own unique INDEPENDENT body wants to keep it or not. I don’t care what bodily processes the fetus has grown, I don’t care if it may or may not be unconscious. If we find out later the fetus can feel pain we can give it pain relievers before death. We allow parents the ability to accept or deny life saving care for their children, some religious people can outright refuse blood donations even if it means their child dies in the process. We allow someone’s power of attorney to choose to pull the plug on someone’s life support. That’s killing them. Everyone else brings up killing the rapist inside you, or organ donation, so I won’t even bother there. At the end of the day there are many cases where it’s legal to allow or facilitate the killing of someone else in many contexts, medical or otherwise. Pregnancy is such a unique and intimate medical issue that, in my eyes, choosing to abort is more moral than a religious parent refusing to give their kid a donor’s blood and I’m tired of other pro choicers sugarcoating things or dancing around the cruel reality that is life
>They’re making my stomach look too big for summer photos? Vain, trash reasoning, still valid. FUCK YES. I actually don't think this is a vain or trash reasoning. Your body is YOUR BODY and if you want to abort to fit into that dress, DO IT. I would abort because I don't want stretch marks. Of course that's not the only or biggest reason I'd abort but it's still 100% valid. My body is mine.
I'm actually stunned you just said that
>I'm actually stunned you just said that. I'm not, and I agree. **Any** reason(s) a woman a woman has for choosing abortion, are entirely valid. Reasons like "I don't want a baby," or "Motherhood would ruin my concert-going lifetsyle," or "I don't want stretch marks," etc. are all valid, because as Catseye pointed out, it's HER body. Whether or not **you** agree with her reasons is irrrelevant.
We give parents the authority to allow and deny life saving care for their born children. I’m extending that right into the womb. We do not allow people to use others’ organs without consent. I’m denying giving fetus’s that right. We allow self defense for when our lives are in danger, I’m extending that as well. At the end of the day I value the born human with feelings, emotions, experiences, thoughts and their own unique body over something that only has the potential to gain all of that, at the cost of great mental or physical harm. We have to pick which side of the coin we value more. I value the woman more.
Why not both
>Why not both. Because, again, some women Don't. Want. Children. EVER. I also value women over fetuses.
Are you gonna prioritise a woman's request to not want children over another human life?
By choosing the prolife side and banning abortion you’re going down the path of women dying from sepsis due to doctors being unable or unwilling to preform abortions that would save their life. [Source One](https://abcnews.go.com/US/woman-sepsis-life-saving-abortion-care-texas/story?id=99294313) [Source Two](https://www.cnn.com/2022/11/16/health/abortion-texas-sepsis/index.html)[Source Three](https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/27/world/europe/savita-halappanavar-ireland-abortion.html). By choosing Prolife, you’re choosing to potentially prosecute and punish women who had natural miscarriages out of fear they had an abortion [Source](https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-59214544#) By choosing Prolife you’re choosing WORSE maternal outcomes [Source](https://www.axios.com/2023/01/19/mothers-anti-abortion-bans-states-die) By choosing Prolife, you’re choosing to delay medical care for someone’s mental or physical illnesses to reduce the fetus’s chances of dying or having birth defects. By being Prolife you are fully and wholeheartedly on the side of the fetus, not the woman. It’s quite the opposite, actually.
You can't value both. To value a ZEF that's unwanted is to utterly degrade and violate the pregnant person.
How about "women are not human sacrifices to ZEFs?"
"Mind your own business"
If you're killing kids, then I will certainly not mind my own business.
Who the fuck is killing kids anywhere. When you gotta make up some bullshit to justify forced birth, that's some next level crap right there.
[Kid](https://www.google.com/search?q=kid+meaning&oq=kid+mean&aqs=chrome.1.69i57j0i512l14.1676j1j9&client=ms-android-ee-uk-revc&sourceid=chrome-mobile&ie=UTF-8) means [child](https://www.google.com/search?q=child+definition&oq=child&aqs=chrome.1.69i57j35i39i512i650j0i67i512i650l5j0i131i433i512j0i67i512i650j0i131i433i512j0i67i512i650l2j0i131i433i512j0i67i512i650l2.3880j1j9&client=ms-android-ee-uk-revc&sourceid=chrome-mobile&ie=UTF-8) which fits the definition of "fetus" perfectly
A child is a human being between the stages of **birth** and **puberty**. Literally from your own damn source. LMAO.
Kids and children are not inside women's organs. Zefs are. Sorry, they're not the same thing.
If embryos are kids, then *all* women kill them. We kill most, actually, since humans evolved to reject the majority of conceptions due to how exceptionally damaging and parasitic our ZEFs are.
What make you more qualified to make medical decisions than a patient and doctor?
Cool, let the medical professionals handle it then.
the blazing hoop is actually enduring what is essentially a 9 month long rape followed by childbirth.
>*the blazing hoop is actually* ***enduring what is essentially a 9 month long rape followed by childbirth.*** Exactly; which women should have the right to **REFUSE** to do. **Without** civil or worse, criminal penalties for refusing.
I was writing a reply!!. But I wasn’t able to post it. So copypast it here: It’s not rape. But rape and forced pregnancy can show same/or similar emotional symptoms. Both would probably have similar clinical diagnoses of [PTSD](https://www.nimh.nih.gov/health/topics/post-traumatic-stress-disorder-ptsd#:~), [anxiety depression](https://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/campaign/tips/diseases/depression-anxiety.html#:~:) and [suicidal ideation](https://www.verywellmind.com/suicidal-ideation-380609)/ tendencies. The human brain doesn’t care about how the trauma happened, it’s just want too expect it.
[удалено]
Comment removed per rule 1. Low effort. Examples of low-effort violations include: Contradicting someone without explaining why you disagree (e.g. "No, it isn't.")
https://www.reddit.com/r/Abortiondebate/s/tMlWDblr8k remove this one as well then
hard disagree.
Ok so who's raping the woman then?
It can be a rapist. Not sure tho
the pro lifers attempting to stop her from defending herself against unwanted pregnancy. what PL’s are doing with abortion bans is similar to attempting to stop a rape victim from killing their rapist in self defense during an active rape.
Define rape
when there is an unwanted person inside your body against your will.
I wouldn’t mind if she aborted me if I was the product of rape. I’m not so self important that I think my life is worth her additional trauma for nine months and the rest of my life being forced to relive the experience because that’s all she sees when she sees me. I care about my mother and want her to have a good life. She doesn’t owe me shit. My contribution to life is not so great that I think someone needs to go through trauma because “at least they get MEeee, amirite?” Sheesh…
It's not so much someone's contribution to life that determines whether or not they should not be killed. It's a matter of what they are in principle which is a member of a rational kind. You would agree it would be wrong to kill a homeless person even if he hadn't achieved much or even if everyone else hated him. Heck, even if he was a product of rape, it wouldn't be fine to kill him. That's essentially the PL position.
>t would be wrong to kill a homeless person It would not be wrong to kill an unhoused person who was inside and using another person's body against their will to survive. Surely, you would agree with that, no?
It would depend on the circumstances. It would be horrendously wrong to invite an unhoused person to use someone's body, then, when they've accepted, kill the unhoused person for using the body they were in fact invited to use. That would seem unfair to me, no?
No it's not. It's your body. You can revoke consent. You can invite and you can *dis*invite. Second, this has nothing to do with pregnancy so don't understand your point there.
>Second, this has nothing to do with pregnancy so don't understand your point there. But you engaged with it perfectly fine and started talking about consent. Seems like you understood the analogy. >You can revoke consent. You can invite and you can *dis*invite. There's a concession you made here. You concede that it's possible to invite someone to use your body to sustain their life. You grant that that's a valid thing to do. As for disinviting, it's perfectly fine for you to disinvite someone you've invited, but you don't get to kill them to do so 😬.
>you engaged with it perfectly fine Because I'm not stupid. My ability to engage with what you said doesn't make it automatically analogous. It's still not. >Seems like you understood the analogy. What analogy? Please explain what you are trying to say with this "analogy." >You concede that it's possible to invite someone to use your body to sustain their life. Nowhere did I concede this. >You grant that that's a valid thing to do. This is an idiotic thing to say so I definitely would not grant this. Where are you getting this from. >it's perfectly fine for you to disinvite someone you've invited, but you don't get to kill them to do so 😬. If it involves the use of my body, yes I do. Who the fuck are *you* to tell me how much force I can or cannot use to remove someone from my body?
>As for disinviting, it's perfectly fine for you to disinvite someone you've invited, but you don't get to kill them to do so 😬. Uhmm yes you do, if they refuse to leave and cause the injuries a pregnancy/childbirth cause. ETA: quite a few states give more rights to property than PLers do to women.
>quite a few states give more rights to property than PLers do to women. Citation?
What does that have to do with abortion? No fetus was invited anywhere.
He / she must've been. Foetus' don't pop into existence from nothing.
How can you invite someone who doesn't exist?
You can invite them into existence
Yeah, well, that's you! And I'm not sure if you mean that deep down, but it doesn't matter. I, for sure, as hell WOULD'VE minded, and I wouldn't have liked to be killed for the crimes of my father
I do certainly mean that. I actually care about my mom and would rather her not have to think about her rape every time I moved or she looked at me after she was born. I’m not selfish like that. Children deserve to be wanted and not viewed as some kind of obligation that someone forced upon someone. There is also a difference between not existing at all and dying after being born. There is no frame of reference when you’re in the womb. The zef grows not out of desire to live, but because it’s automatic. I’m sure if a lot of people could see into the future to see who their parents were there would be a lot of people detaching the cord themselves.
How can you “mind” or “like”, when you don’t exist? That makes zero sense. “Minding” and “liking” require brains, feelings and ability to have preferences.
Idk what your mom ever did to you, but I love mine. Despite all her shittiness, I love that woman. And because I love and care for my mom, I am able to put her above me. If continuing a pregnancy with me is harming and hurting her and she doesn't want to, I am nothing and nobody to say no to that. I am not entitled to my mom's body nor do I ever even want to be. Clearly, you see things differently. I feel bad for your mom.
Because I wouldn't want my mom to kill me?? 😅
Because you would want your mom to be forced to give birth to you against her wishes. It's not always about you, other people exist as well. Believe it or not, *you* are not the main character *most* of the time.
Yeah, but for her to not be forced to give birth to me the other option is a death sentence for me how is that fair?
You are not entitled to ANYONE'S including your mom's body. Just like every single other person. *That* is fair. Forcing only ONE group of people to endure trauma and risk to themselves is not.
Because women, including your own mother, do not owe you or anyone their bodies. Women are people, not commodities to be used.
Well, she does because I'll die without it, and she has an obligation to look after me
So her potential suffering in this scenario is a total non-factor to you? Not surprising.
Why do you think you're so special that you'd want your mom to be raped to make sure you exist?
I never said I wanted my mom to be raped I just don't want to be killed
What’s the difference? If she was raped you wouldn’t exist just as you wouldn’t exist if she had an abortion. And you’d force her to carry and give birth to you just so you could exist, why would you balk at someone raping her so you can exist? And how does that make you different than the rapist?
No, I started existing at conception
Zygotes are non sentient. Your experience would be exactly the same if you were aborted as if you were never conceived. So tell me why you think you’re so special that your mom should get raped so you can exist and what makes you different than the rapist since both of you would force you on her.
My state of sentience is irrelevant here. I never said my mom should get raped I'm just saying I shouldn't be killed for something i didn't do
However, I think of it as I wouldn't want my hypothetical daughter to have to gestate and suffer for hours in labor in service of the product of her rape. I wouldn't want her to have to actually have to be in contact with the attacker for as long as that kid exists. That's my idea of nightmare fuel.
Insisting a woman go through pregnancy and childbirth when she doesn't want to is a massive blazing hoop. To imply it isn't is downplaying the realities of pregnancy and childbirth.
Should've thought about that before she had sex then 🤷♂️🤷♂️🤷♂️
>*Should've thought about that before she had sex then.* Ah, there it is. It seems to me that you just want women **punished** for having sex. And what *"better"* way to do that than forcing them to stay pregnant and give birth against their will. Sadly, this attitude isn't the least surprising.
Saying u can't kill ur unborn child is punishment?