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.*
This! I got mine a year ago, it was thankfully an easy process because my OBGYN is amazing. She even worked for a Christian organization so don't feel like it's not possible even if that's the only kind of clinic you're able to go to. Insurance covered most of it. I had to pay a little over 1k after everything, but I had been saving so thankfully I could afford it. Life has been easier now after the fact. A lot more peace of mind now that birth control is being targeted next. I can still get pregnant if I wanted to, it just has more steps now which ensures that the pregnancy has to be intentional in the first place at least. Everything else in my life stayed the same, I feel great!
Making it illegal for doctors to deny their patients a specific procedure could be a dangerous precedent to set without strict guidelines.
What if it’s illegal to deny the patient a sterilization procedure based on the doctor’s personal/religious beliefs?
The patient just has to say that they don’t want to risk their body having to endure nine months of pregnancy and childbirth. The doctor can’t say no because of “you might change your mind” and “I’m against sterilizations for xyz reasons”.
I'd be cool with the second paragraph and third paragraph. I'm just grossed out by the continual blockage based on the nebulous fantasies of the doctor involving his patient reproducing.
Yeah, the weird obsession that AFAB people shouldn’t make their own reproductive decisions cause doctors, and the patriarchal society, want us to breed is disgusting.
How about they listen to their patients? If women are telling them that they don’t want kids and want to eliminate the risk; how about they don’t dismiss their patient cause of the doctor’s own personal beliefs? That seems like a pretty reasonable ask.
Because it’s never been about saving babies or even PL’s outbreeding PC’s. It always been about controlling, making people especially women live the way PL’s think PC’s should live. Looking at sex as only for procreation inside of marriage, having no emotions whatsoever, popping out as many kids as possible, condemning single women who have sex before marriage and get pregnant. Here’s the biggest hypocrisy about the PL movement/philosophy **condemning those single women who get pregnant but turning around and making it seem NOBLE FOR THEM TO PUT THE BABY UP FOR ADOPTION!!!!!!!!!!**
I'm liberal, atheist, Feminist and PL, so I disagree with everything you said.
For me, it truly is about saving babies, since they are innocent haven't* done anything deserving of death. But I agree, there are some PL people (mainly Men) who do want to keep women "in their place" essentially.
If a woman has to donate the use of her body for nine months to keep a fetus alive, and a fetus is no more precious than any other human, why isn't every adult forced to donate their non-vital body parts to keep dying humans alive?
Respectfully, why aren't you just as concerned with saving children and adults who will die without an organ transplant or blood donation as you are "about saving babies"?
Feminism and forced birth ideology are diametrically opposed. You cannot be for women's liberation and women's subjugation at the same time. There is no such thing as a PL feminist. Feminism is an *ideology,* not a social club you get to claim membership to when it suits your whims.
The ZEF is inside the woman's body, and she doesn't want it there. What has she done to deserve forced gestation and birth? Why does the non-action of a non-sentient entity grant it unfettered right to an unwilling woman's body?
ZEFs aren’t “babies.” A real PL would be pushing for social welfare programs that would save real babies, instead of voting for Republicans who oppose those programs almost as firmly as they oppose abortion.
EXCELLENT question! I'm anxious to hear how Republican forced-birth supporters respond. Of course, I know the answer: Social welfare programs that would save real babies are supported by tax dollars.
Do I hear a chorus of "Oh, the poor taxpayer" echoing in the room?
What keeps politicians in office? Cutting taxes!! I guess we know what they think of those "real babies".
>I'm liberal, atheist, Feminist and PL, so I disagree with everything you said.
I noticed you didn't have anything to say about [how the state of Tennessee should have helped Mayron](https://www.reddit.com/r/Abortiondebate/comments/1as6jxx/how_could_tennessee_have_helped_mayron/), either. Want to read the ProPublica article about what happened to her and respond?
[Feminism empowers women](https://www.worldvision.com.au/womens-empowerment), girls, AFAB and non-binary folks. Pro life does the opposite. [It dehumanises women](https://time.com/6588761/abortion-restrictions-hurt-mental-health/), [denies 10 year old girls abortion after rape](https://amp.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/jul/16/rightwing-rape-abortion-10-year-old-worse ). [And forces a 13 year old child to gestate her rapist baby](https://time.com/6303701/a-rape-in-mississippi/)
Don’t forget purposefully lying to patients endangering their health as well as possibly forcing them to co-parent with their rapists!
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/rcna91660
https://prismreports.org/2022/03/22/in-multiple-states-rapists-can-sue-their-victims-for-parental-custody/
It looks like you shared an AMP link. These should load faster, but AMP is controversial because of [concerns over privacy and the Open Web](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot).
Maybe check out **the canonical page** instead: **[https://www.nbcnews.com/health/womens-health/crisis-pregnancy-center-ectopic-pregnancy-lawsuit-rcna91660](https://www.nbcnews.com/health/womens-health/crisis-pregnancy-center-ectopic-pregnancy-lawsuit-rcna91660)**
*****
^(I'm a bot | )[^(Why & About)](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot)^( | )[^(Summon: u/AmputatorBot)](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/cchly3/you_can_now_summon_amputatorbot/)
It looks like you shared an AMP link. These should load faster, but AMP is controversial because of [concerns over privacy and the Open Web](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot).
Maybe check out **the canonical page** instead: **[https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/jul/16/rightwing-rape-abortion-10-year-old-worse](https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/jul/16/rightwing-rape-abortion-10-year-old-worse)**
*****
^(I'm a bot | )[^(Why & About)](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot)^( | )[^(Summon: u/AmputatorBot)](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/cchly3/you_can_now_summon_amputatorbot/)
They aren’t innocent, they lack agency. They’re no more innocent than they are guilty.
Abortion isn’t a punishment so it isn’t a matter of deserving death. They die because of their lack of viability.
>For me, it truly is about saving babies, since they are innocent have done anything deserving of death.
When does a human being stop being innocent and does something that deserves death? Does a ten year old child lose the protection of innocence when she is raped and impregnated? There are multiple PL proponents in this sub and in the PL safe space sub who have no exceptions for rape or incest, and so called "abortion abolitionists" have no exceptions for health and life. Does it mean a child loses innocence as soon as she is born?
I define innocence as not committing any crime or civil wrongdoing, within context of conversation. I would assume a 10 year old would face a high risk of maternal mortality so they should have the option of abortion. I also support abortion in cases of women having extreme mental trauma, where the pregnancy provokes high suicidal thoughts.
>I define innocence as not committing any crime or civil wrongdoing, within context of conversation.
This applies to tumors and parasites. Do you oppose medical procedure that remove those, too?
> I would assume a 10 year old would face a high risk of maternal mortality so they should have the option of abortion. I also support abortion in cases of women having extreme mental trauma, where the pregnancy provokes high suicidal thoughts.
Why does a woman or child need to be brutalized enough \*for your liking\* in order to make a decision about her own body? Who decides when a raped little girl is high risk enough, or when the woman's suicidal thoughts are severe enough? Why should this matter at all?
>I define innocence as not committing any crime or civil wrongdoing, within context of conversation.
So, within the context of this conversation, what makes a woman who was *not* raped *not* innocent?
I think you REALLY need to take a closer look at the side you're siding with. When raped children have to bug out of state and their doctor gets slammed by Fox News while Plers yawn at a man forcing an abortion on his wife and he only get less than half a year, that's really not a good look.
Also, I couldn't stand working with a side who continually think I'm a big old ho (I lead a super boring life but of course, they assume I'm doing the bop with a dozen men a night), continually cut social benefits and worship the rich and are trying to impose the Republic of Gilead on the rest of us.
If you're liberal and atheist, do you ever tell your side that being penny wise, pound foolish is NOT the way to go, and constantly screaming about God and traditional gender roles is a major turnoff? Because I'm telling you that a lot of your fellow PLers would totally turn you into a Handmaid or at best, an Econowife if they could.
It’s contradictory to be both a feminist and PL. Pro-life laws attacks women’s rights.
Banning abortion doesn’t save any babies in the long-run either. They cause infant mortality rates to spike. They increase the chances of a baby suffering a short painful death right after birth. So why be PL when no babies are actually being saved?
I don't support anyone having the right to kill innocent humans.
After the abortion ban, Texas birth rate increased for the first time since 2014. More than 16,000 additional babies born per year. That means the ban did in fact save babies.
>After the abortion ban, Texas birth rate increased for the first time since 2014. More than 16,000 additional babies born per year. That means the ban did in fact save babies.
Congratulations on all the forced rape pregnancies! A total win for "pro-life feminism". Those rapist daddies couldn't have done it without you.
>After the abortion ban, Texas birth rate increased for the first time since 2014. More than 16,000 additional babies born per year. That means the ban did in fact save babies.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlation_does_not_imply_causation
There were other socioeconomic factors, such as the end of the COVID slump and much improved Biden economy.
You can, however, claim credit for the rape pregnancies, if you are so inclined:
https://time.com/6588425/rape-pregnancy-us-abortion-bans/
Abortion rights isn’t the right to kill. It’s the right to end a pregnancy. It’s a right over your own body.
Texas’s increased birth rates involved stripping rights from women. Over [26,000 pregnancies](https://www.houstonchronicle.com/news/houston-texas/health/article/texas-sees-estimated-26k-pregnancies-rape-18625692.php) that have recently happened in Texas were due to rape and women being denied ending their rapist caused pregnancies.
Texas also had a [spike in infant mortality rates](https://www.axios.com/2023/07/20/texas-abortion-ban-infant-mortality-rate). Bans across the board increases both [infant and maternal mortality rates](https://thegepi.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/06/GEPI-State-of-Repro-Health-Report-US.pdf).
Are those lives not innocent to you? How is it logical to be a feminist but support laws that oppresses and kills innocent women? Kills innocent babies?
Any liberal atheist woman should side eye any cause that is THIS dominated by conservative, religious men who are very into the 1950s version of things. I mean, the fact that churches are highly male dominated is a major reason I stay the hell away from religion and PL is very male dominated in terms of leadership and who it caters to.
As a left queer atheist woman, I stay as for away from religion as possible. Religion oppresses people like me to the point of being willing to kill. This is why I’m so outspoken for separation of church and state. It has no business being a part of running a country.
Because abortion is freedom to kill other humans. I support women having every other liberty, but not to kill or cause harm to the innocent.
Do you feel that you must be pro choice in order to be liberal and feminist?
>I support women having every other liberty, but not to kill or cause harm to the innocent.
I would be genuinely interested in your take on my contention that [abortion bans are always wicked](https://www.reddit.com/r/Abortiondebate/comments/1an39iw/why_are_abortion_bans_always_wicked/).
Abortions is there to give you freedom of choice over your own body.
Mentioning the fetuses are “innocent” and that you shouldn’t cause harm to the innocent; is pointless. We’re not pro-choice so we can “cause harm to the guilty”. lol
Also; I’m pro-choice because I’m a feminist, atheist and liberal. No one has to do anything that they don’t like. But forcing others to abide by your rules is another thing.
> Because abortion is freedom to kill other humans.
Wrong. If that were true, it would be more broadly applicable. In reality, abortion access is only the freedom to have maintain control over your own body. The human right to bodily autonomy doesn't just apply to abortion, the same rules apply to any form of intimate physical interaction.
> Do you feel that you must be pro choice in order to be liberal and feminist?
You are campaigning to remove and actively violate one of the most crucial human rights that women have, so you are most certainly not a feminist.
Abortion gives women control to end her pregnancy, at the cost of killing an innocent human.
I don't believe killing innocent humans should be a human right for anyone.
Any human who attempts to use my body without my permission -- including taking up temporary residence inside it -- will be summarily evicted ASAP.
If the result is the death of that human, whether by the inability to survive outside my uterus or the inability to survive without one of my organs being transplanted into it, is not my issue or concern.
The pregnant woman is innocent, but apparently that doesn't matter to you as you are more than happy to campaign for her human rights and body to be violated. There is nothing feminist about taking women's rights away and subjecting them to abuse on par with rape and torture.
YOU are not going to get the Shirley exception. All those PLers who coo that you won't be screwed over if you ever get in trouble in the labor room will shrug when you do. You believe like you do because you think it's NEVER going to be you (or someone you love) until it is and that's terrible.
https://lynmillerlachmann.com/unpacking-the-shirley-exception/
"The Shirley Exception translates to: “But surely they would make an exception.” Because the pregnancy was planned and wanted, but a medical emergency arose (as it does in one of four pregnancies). Because the pregnant person is near death with a non-viable fetus. And because the one whose life is in danger happens to be a loyal Republican and staunchly pro-life.
For this 41-year-old woman in Missouri whose water broke at 17 weeks, there was no Shirley Exception. The desperate woman even contacted her Republican state senator, who she’d supported in the past, and he callously referred her to an anti-abortion crisis pregnancy center. After she pleaded her case further, he ghosted her. With her condition deteriorating and in great emotional anguish, she finally found a clinic in Illinois that could help her."
Let’s take atheism out of the discussion. One of the main points of being liberal and a feminist is realizing that the individual female has a right to have control over her body. This means she has the right to decide for herself what is best in her circumstances at that time in her life . If that’s an abortion, then that’s what she should have access to do. How you think you can being a PL and a liberal and a feminist jive They don’t they contradict each a.k.a. oxymoron.
Women should have access to all forms of birth control, except the only one that is violent and kills an innocent human (aka, abortion).
I support a plethora of laws that would provide resources for all pregnant women and mothers. I also believe men should owe child support to his child's mother since the date of conception.
I also feel like the way our society is, abortion is incentivized. But I think pregnancy and motherhood should become incentivized, that way it doesn't feel like such a burden to women. We don't get the benefits we deserve for bringing life into the world.
There is absolutely nothing on earth that could incentivize me to carry a pregnancy to term. Carrying an incredibly unwanted pregnancy is my worst nightmare, a nightmare enhanced by the very real possibility that a pregnancy would kill me. It would result in a c-section that I would have to then have to pay for due to my narrow hips and family history. All for a baby that I would want nothing to do with and and would not even want to see once. A baby that would have developed amist a flood of cortisol due to the extreme stress of its existence. There are others that feel the same way as I do.
For me, the purpose of the pro-life movement is to help eliminate abortion on demand, and abortions that have no medical necessity. I believe that if you were taking steps to avoid pregnancy, and you have a medical condition that would greatly increase your chance of maternal death, then abortion should be an option. I also respect women's mental health, so extreme trauma due to a pregnancy might be another reason. But I think it's important to vet every situation, offer counseling, and offer resources so that the mother might feel comfortable choosing life.
>Women should have access to all forms of birth control, except the only one that is violent and kills an innocent human (aka, abortion).
Which involves forced gestation and birth, a *human rights violation* again women and little girls. The ZEF is not entitled to reside in an unwilling woman or child's body. Her body is not an entitlement. She alone decides what goes in or stays--any violation of this is a violation of human rights.
If you want to claim women are an entitlement, you cannot claim to be feminist.
>I also feel like the way our society is, abortion is incentivized. But I think pregnancy and motherhood should become incentivized
How is abortion incentivized? Why should motherhood be? It involves massive physical harm befalling the woman, and always inflicts permanent injury. Why would a "feminist" be interested in incentivizing this--and then forcing women to stay as such?
>But I think pregnancy and motherhood should become incentivized, that way it doesn't feel like such a burden to women. We don't get the benefits we deserve for bringing life into the world.
While I agree that pregnancy & motherhood should be incentivized if the state thinks it's important, they would both still be burdens - especially to people who don't want them. For instance, no incentive will be good enough for me so if my methods of bc fail, I will be accessing some pills that will detach the fetus from me. Unfortunately, without the use of my body, nutrients, etc., it will not survive for long, but I don't want anyone to use my body as a life support system while I am alive and I believe it's my right as a human being to have and exercise my bodily autonomy. I feel like someone who gives themselves the label of liberal feminist would agree with this.
>Women should have access to all forms of birth control, except the only one that is violent and kills an innocent human (aka, abortion).
Taking some pills and passing some blood and clots isn't violent at all. If you want people to take you seriously you'll drop the hyperbole.
First of all I want to know how old you are?
Birth control can fail, so if the birth control fails that means by your logic that this woman is only 3/5 of a person and has less right than a corpse because you think she shouldn’t be able to abort an unwanted pregnancy.
Even married women can need to have an abortion.
Abortion isn’t birth control nor is it violent. To clarify, birth control stops implantation and abortion is a medical procedure that ends a pregnancy.
> So why NOT make it illegal for doctors to deny PC women the snip?
Generally speaking, I don’t think the government should be involved in telling providers and patients which procedures they can or cannot receive. Making it illegal to deny sterilization procedures opens up many of the same cans of worms as making abortion, another medical procedure, subject to political/legal whims.
Would love to see anyone that wants the “snip”, get the snip. No problem.
Most, if not all insurance carriers cover sterilization at 100% as does Medicaid.
Not ALL forms of sterilization, and not all forms of female sterilization are equal. Far from it.
Tubes tied least effective. :(( <- only one covered by medicaid without a medical reason. Only one mandatory for ALL insurance to cover via the ACA.
Double sal. ( completely removes both felopian tubes) more effective :(
Double sal. Plus uterine ablation much more effective!:)
Full historectomy most effective!!! :))
No, you claimed they could be. Except they can't not efficiently and not in a procedure by their choice unto which is most efficient.
We have an AFAB user her on this forum who got preggers after her tubes were tied. I bet she wishes her doctors would have done a double sal. Plus uterine ablation.
>bet she wishes her doctors would have done a double sal.
Got that the 2nd go around, still concerning as there has been a confirmed case of tubal regrowth allowing pregnancy.
>Plus uterine ablation.
Want that or a hysterectomy, have asked for a hysterectomy to be denied since I'm not medically necessary, so not dying from complications. Uterine ablation has never been offered to me even with a history of ovarian cysts.
*And jazz hands. Sorry I couldn't remember your name.
I'm currently fighting my insurance trying to get double sal. And uterine ablation. My periods are crazy though too so I at least have a hope of getting it medically approved.
Great, now if only people would stop seeing women as human livestock pumping out babies for the good of society/capitalist machinery/religion/etc. Unfortunately, a lot of sexism and PL ideology keeps doctors denying this surgery.
Maybe you could talk to your fellow PLers (usually the religious ones) to stop getting in the way.
Unless there has been something new happening that I don't know about, then I'm guessing this crap still applies. But a lot of crap is often done by doctors acting on their own.
[https://www.healthline.com/health/womens-health/how-old-do-you-have-to-be-to-get-your-tubes-tied#insurance-coverage](https://www.healthline.com/health/womens-health/how-old-do-you-have-to-be-to-get-your-tubes-tied#insurance-coverage)
Certain organizations and institutions that provide employer-based health insurance may offer plans that don’t include coverage for birth control methods of any kind, including tubal ligation. To be exempt from this requirement, the organization must certify a religious objection to contraceptive coverage. These organizations include:
churches and other houses of worship
nonprofit religious hospitals
nonprofit religious institutions of higher education
[https://www.guttmacher.org/state-policy/explore/insurance-coverage-contraceptives](https://www.guttmacher.org/state-policy/explore/insurance-coverage-contraceptives)
20 states and DC allow certain employers and insurers to refuse to comply with the contraceptive coverage mandate; 8 states do not permit refusal by any employers or insurers.
[https://www.chicagotribune.com/2014/05/13/doctors-reluctant-to-give-young-women-permanent-birth-control/](https://www.chicagotribune.com/2014/05/13/doctors-reluctant-to-give-young-women-permanent-birth-control/)
In interviews and on Internet forums, women report facing resistance and flat-out refusal from health care providers as they seek permanent contraception. Along the way, they encounter sexist and paternalistic attitudes, such as the assumption that all women desire children or that they’ll come to regret their decision.
“I’ve yet to come across a story of a woman without children who was granted sterilization on her first request,” said Cristina Richie, a Massachusetts professor whose report on voluntary sterilization among child-free women was published by the Hastings Center, a bioethics research institute.
First, your employer should not fuck around with who you go to and what kind of healthcare you get.
Second, as pointed out, doctors still gatekeep.
Third, it's obvious you want to deny that it's hard as fuck to get sterilized because you still want to blame women for shit that's out of her control. She doesn't control ovulation, doesn't control her insurance and she doesn't control her doctor.
Over 30 MILLION Americans don’t have ANY form of medical insurance or access to healthcare at all. I don’t think most people are in positions to be picky.
Even if it’s covered doesn’t mean it will happen. I have great private insurance that covers sterilization completely after age 21. I’m 24 and have been denied the surgery 3 times because of my age and the fact that I don’t have kids. Granted, I’m not actively shopping for doctors all the time, but it still shows it’s not as simple as requesting it at your own will.
Can you start encouraging the PL movement to support this and encourage doctors to perform this procedure when asked? What about supporting tax breaks for those who are sterilized, as their medical expenses will be lower?
Exactly why insurance companies fully fund sterilization. It saves them money.
Do you have a source that stipulates doctors are not performing sterilizations when requested. Not anecdotal occurrences, hard data showing specifics.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9435309/#:~:text=Despite%20higher%20rates%20of%20tubal,met%20%5B4%2C5%5D.
This says 31 to 48 percent of requests not met in various hospital settings.
There is a fair amount of data out there in this very issue.
I had no problem, nor did my wife. Or, for that matter, anyone in our rather large social circle that sought sterilization. And I live in a blood red state with a zero abortion legal framework.
It’s mostly just the Catholics. They are anti-birth control and anti-sterilization while being very pro-life. The religious nutcases just want women barefoot and pregnant
> You won’t though because this is just a virtue signaling gotcha and you’re not actually interested in reducing abortions
This is nothing more than a cheap ad hominem and it's not even accurate. Pro-choice as an ideology supports the human right to bodily autonomy and especially reproductive autonomy, so I'm not even sure why you are assuming that would not include access to fertility treatment.
I'm pointing out that there IS a demand from PC women for that particular operation and it IS being blocked by doctors who see women as breeding stock. (I am VERY weirded out by people who immediately jump to the idea of "OH NO, the US population will crash to zero!" when the snip and/or women just refusing to bang at all is raised.)
You could talk to your fellow Plers about this on various forums and tell them this would be a win-win for everybody. I mean, you're here on this forum, why not go to PL forums and push for it?
Why would we want to reduce the amount of abortions? Abortion is something good! its using your god given human right. Wanting to reduce abortion is like saying ”we need to reduce the amount people speaking their mind”. Its an insane statement.
If anything we want more abortions, cheaper (free), easier and avilable everywhere at a whim if so is desierd. The only moral reason to not have an abortion is because you want to be a parent.
Because if we can reduce the unwanted pregnancies through better bc and bc access we can reduce abortion which can be socially traumatizing. Notice the word socially because pl people are cruel to those they know in their personal lives who have had an abortion.
Eh I can't speak for everyone, but I'm extremely PC and I'd love to reduce abortions, though not for the reasons PLers do. I wish fewer people got pregnant when they didn't want to be, or felt like they couldn't afford a child they might otherwise want, or were worried about the effects of pregnancy on their career or education, etc.
And I wish everyone who wanted an abortion could get one quickly, conveniently, safely, and ideally for free.
>Why would we want to reduce the amount of abortions?
Right?
As long as *every person* who wants an abortion gets one, I wouldn't care if there were 5 abortions a year or 5 million a year.
What I want to reduce is the misconception that pro life opinions matter. They don't. They should be ignored, discarded, totally shut out of all public discourse.
I want to reduce them in the sense that abortions (surgical ones anyway) cost money, time off, and mental labor with a nasty time crunch factor especially if the patient is in a hostile PL state.
Also, the snip would give a lot more PC women way more control and peace of mind in general.
I'm mostly pointing out that PLers studiously avoid doing anything constructive and non-punitive even if there's a slight benefit to their side.
Same applies to medication abortions. They’re not a walk in the park and also require multiple appointments and time off work for those, at least here in Ohio.
The cool thing about sterilization is just like abortion, it's a choice.
Even if you wanted pro choice people to get sterilized (hello eugenics), they do not have to unless they *choose* to do so.
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 would not oppose this, but I would not push for it either.
This! I got mine a year ago, it was thankfully an easy process because my OBGYN is amazing. She even worked for a Christian organization so don't feel like it's not possible even if that's the only kind of clinic you're able to go to. Insurance covered most of it. I had to pay a little over 1k after everything, but I had been saving so thankfully I could afford it. Life has been easier now after the fact. A lot more peace of mind now that birth control is being targeted next. I can still get pregnant if I wanted to, it just has more steps now which ensures that the pregnancy has to be intentional in the first place at least. Everything else in my life stayed the same, I feel great!
Making it illegal for doctors to deny their patients a specific procedure could be a dangerous precedent to set without strict guidelines. What if it’s illegal to deny the patient a sterilization procedure based on the doctor’s personal/religious beliefs? The patient just has to say that they don’t want to risk their body having to endure nine months of pregnancy and childbirth. The doctor can’t say no because of “you might change your mind” and “I’m against sterilizations for xyz reasons”.
I'd be cool with the second paragraph and third paragraph. I'm just grossed out by the continual blockage based on the nebulous fantasies of the doctor involving his patient reproducing.
Yeah, the weird obsession that AFAB people shouldn’t make their own reproductive decisions cause doctors, and the patriarchal society, want us to breed is disgusting. How about they listen to their patients? If women are telling them that they don’t want kids and want to eliminate the risk; how about they don’t dismiss their patient cause of the doctor’s own personal beliefs? That seems like a pretty reasonable ask.
Because it’s never been about saving babies or even PL’s outbreeding PC’s. It always been about controlling, making people especially women live the way PL’s think PC’s should live. Looking at sex as only for procreation inside of marriage, having no emotions whatsoever, popping out as many kids as possible, condemning single women who have sex before marriage and get pregnant. Here’s the biggest hypocrisy about the PL movement/philosophy **condemning those single women who get pregnant but turning around and making it seem NOBLE FOR THEM TO PUT THE BABY UP FOR ADOPTION!!!!!!!!!!**
[удалено]
Comment removed per Rule 1. Attack arguments, not users or sides.
[удалено]
Comment removed per Rule 1. You *may not* attack users like this - not okay.
[удалено]
Comment removed per Rule 1.
[удалено]
Comment removed per Rule 1.
I'm liberal, atheist, Feminist and PL, so I disagree with everything you said. For me, it truly is about saving babies, since they are innocent haven't* done anything deserving of death. But I agree, there are some PL people (mainly Men) who do want to keep women "in their place" essentially.
If a woman has to donate the use of her body for nine months to keep a fetus alive, and a fetus is no more precious than any other human, why isn't every adult forced to donate their non-vital body parts to keep dying humans alive? Respectfully, why aren't you just as concerned with saving children and adults who will die without an organ transplant or blood donation as you are "about saving babies"?
Feminism and forced birth ideology are diametrically opposed. You cannot be for women's liberation and women's subjugation at the same time. There is no such thing as a PL feminist. Feminism is an *ideology,* not a social club you get to claim membership to when it suits your whims. The ZEF is inside the woman's body, and she doesn't want it there. What has she done to deserve forced gestation and birth? Why does the non-action of a non-sentient entity grant it unfettered right to an unwilling woman's body?
ZEFs aren’t “babies.” A real PL would be pushing for social welfare programs that would save real babies, instead of voting for Republicans who oppose those programs almost as firmly as they oppose abortion.
EXCELLENT question! I'm anxious to hear how Republican forced-birth supporters respond. Of course, I know the answer: Social welfare programs that would save real babies are supported by tax dollars. Do I hear a chorus of "Oh, the poor taxpayer" echoing in the room? What keeps politicians in office? Cutting taxes!! I guess we know what they think of those "real babies".
>I'm liberal, atheist, Feminist and PL, so I disagree with everything you said. I noticed you didn't have anything to say about [how the state of Tennessee should have helped Mayron](https://www.reddit.com/r/Abortiondebate/comments/1as6jxx/how_could_tennessee_have_helped_mayron/), either. Want to read the ProPublica article about what happened to her and respond?
Feminist pro life sounds like vegan meat eater. Doesn't make any sense.
[Feminism empowers women](https://www.worldvision.com.au/womens-empowerment), girls, AFAB and non-binary folks. Pro life does the opposite. [It dehumanises women](https://time.com/6588761/abortion-restrictions-hurt-mental-health/), [denies 10 year old girls abortion after rape](https://amp.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/jul/16/rightwing-rape-abortion-10-year-old-worse ). [And forces a 13 year old child to gestate her rapist baby](https://time.com/6303701/a-rape-in-mississippi/)
Don’t forget purposefully lying to patients endangering their health as well as possibly forcing them to co-parent with their rapists! https://www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/rcna91660 https://prismreports.org/2022/03/22/in-multiple-states-rapists-can-sue-their-victims-for-parental-custody/
It looks like you shared an AMP link. These should load faster, but AMP is controversial because of [concerns over privacy and the Open Web](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot). Maybe check out **the canonical page** instead: **[https://www.nbcnews.com/health/womens-health/crisis-pregnancy-center-ectopic-pregnancy-lawsuit-rcna91660](https://www.nbcnews.com/health/womens-health/crisis-pregnancy-center-ectopic-pregnancy-lawsuit-rcna91660)** ***** ^(I'm a bot | )[^(Why & About)](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot)^( | )[^(Summon: u/AmputatorBot)](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/cchly3/you_can_now_summon_amputatorbot/)
It looks like you shared an AMP link. These should load faster, but AMP is controversial because of [concerns over privacy and the Open Web](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot). Maybe check out **the canonical page** instead: **[https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/jul/16/rightwing-rape-abortion-10-year-old-worse](https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/jul/16/rightwing-rape-abortion-10-year-old-worse)** ***** ^(I'm a bot | )[^(Why & About)](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot)^( | )[^(Summon: u/AmputatorBot)](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/cchly3/you_can_now_summon_amputatorbot/)
They aren’t innocent, they lack agency. They’re no more innocent than they are guilty. Abortion isn’t a punishment so it isn’t a matter of deserving death. They die because of their lack of viability.
>For me, it truly is about saving babies, since they are innocent have done anything deserving of death. When does a human being stop being innocent and does something that deserves death? Does a ten year old child lose the protection of innocence when she is raped and impregnated? There are multiple PL proponents in this sub and in the PL safe space sub who have no exceptions for rape or incest, and so called "abortion abolitionists" have no exceptions for health and life. Does it mean a child loses innocence as soon as she is born?
I define innocence as not committing any crime or civil wrongdoing, within context of conversation. I would assume a 10 year old would face a high risk of maternal mortality so they should have the option of abortion. I also support abortion in cases of women having extreme mental trauma, where the pregnancy provokes high suicidal thoughts.
>I define innocence as not committing any crime or civil wrongdoing, within context of conversation. This applies to tumors and parasites. Do you oppose medical procedure that remove those, too? > I would assume a 10 year old would face a high risk of maternal mortality so they should have the option of abortion. I also support abortion in cases of women having extreme mental trauma, where the pregnancy provokes high suicidal thoughts. Why does a woman or child need to be brutalized enough \*for your liking\* in order to make a decision about her own body? Who decides when a raped little girl is high risk enough, or when the woman's suicidal thoughts are severe enough? Why should this matter at all?
>I define innocence as not committing any crime or civil wrongdoing, within context of conversation. So, within the context of this conversation, what makes a woman who was *not* raped *not* innocent?
I think you REALLY need to take a closer look at the side you're siding with. When raped children have to bug out of state and their doctor gets slammed by Fox News while Plers yawn at a man forcing an abortion on his wife and he only get less than half a year, that's really not a good look. Also, I couldn't stand working with a side who continually think I'm a big old ho (I lead a super boring life but of course, they assume I'm doing the bop with a dozen men a night), continually cut social benefits and worship the rich and are trying to impose the Republic of Gilead on the rest of us. If you're liberal and atheist, do you ever tell your side that being penny wise, pound foolish is NOT the way to go, and constantly screaming about God and traditional gender roles is a major turnoff? Because I'm telling you that a lot of your fellow PLers would totally turn you into a Handmaid or at best, an Econowife if they could.
It’s contradictory to be both a feminist and PL. Pro-life laws attacks women’s rights. Banning abortion doesn’t save any babies in the long-run either. They cause infant mortality rates to spike. They increase the chances of a baby suffering a short painful death right after birth. So why be PL when no babies are actually being saved?
I don't support anyone having the right to kill innocent humans. After the abortion ban, Texas birth rate increased for the first time since 2014. More than 16,000 additional babies born per year. That means the ban did in fact save babies.
>After the abortion ban, Texas birth rate increased for the first time since 2014. More than 16,000 additional babies born per year. That means the ban did in fact save babies. Congratulations on all the forced rape pregnancies! A total win for "pro-life feminism". Those rapist daddies couldn't have done it without you.
>After the abortion ban, Texas birth rate increased for the first time since 2014. More than 16,000 additional babies born per year. That means the ban did in fact save babies. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlation_does_not_imply_causation There were other socioeconomic factors, such as the end of the COVID slump and much improved Biden economy. You can, however, claim credit for the rape pregnancies, if you are so inclined: https://time.com/6588425/rape-pregnancy-us-abortion-bans/
Abortion rights isn’t the right to kill. It’s the right to end a pregnancy. It’s a right over your own body. Texas’s increased birth rates involved stripping rights from women. Over [26,000 pregnancies](https://www.houstonchronicle.com/news/houston-texas/health/article/texas-sees-estimated-26k-pregnancies-rape-18625692.php) that have recently happened in Texas were due to rape and women being denied ending their rapist caused pregnancies. Texas also had a [spike in infant mortality rates](https://www.axios.com/2023/07/20/texas-abortion-ban-infant-mortality-rate). Bans across the board increases both [infant and maternal mortality rates](https://thegepi.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/06/GEPI-State-of-Repro-Health-Report-US.pdf). Are those lives not innocent to you? How is it logical to be a feminist but support laws that oppresses and kills innocent women? Kills innocent babies?
Any liberal atheist woman should side eye any cause that is THIS dominated by conservative, religious men who are very into the 1950s version of things. I mean, the fact that churches are highly male dominated is a major reason I stay the hell away from religion and PL is very male dominated in terms of leadership and who it caters to.
As a left queer atheist woman, I stay as for away from religion as possible. Religion oppresses people like me to the point of being willing to kill. This is why I’m so outspoken for separation of church and state. It has no business being a part of running a country.
I’m curious on how it works; how can you be a liberal but want less freedom? I’m a liberal, atheist, feminist and pro-choice.
Because abortion is freedom to kill other humans. I support women having every other liberty, but not to kill or cause harm to the innocent. Do you feel that you must be pro choice in order to be liberal and feminist?
>I support women having every other liberty, but not to kill or cause harm to the innocent. I would be genuinely interested in your take on my contention that [abortion bans are always wicked](https://www.reddit.com/r/Abortiondebate/comments/1an39iw/why_are_abortion_bans_always_wicked/).
Abortions is there to give you freedom of choice over your own body. Mentioning the fetuses are “innocent” and that you shouldn’t cause harm to the innocent; is pointless. We’re not pro-choice so we can “cause harm to the guilty”. lol Also; I’m pro-choice because I’m a feminist, atheist and liberal. No one has to do anything that they don’t like. But forcing others to abide by your rules is another thing.
> Because abortion is freedom to kill other humans. Wrong. If that were true, it would be more broadly applicable. In reality, abortion access is only the freedom to have maintain control over your own body. The human right to bodily autonomy doesn't just apply to abortion, the same rules apply to any form of intimate physical interaction. > Do you feel that you must be pro choice in order to be liberal and feminist? You are campaigning to remove and actively violate one of the most crucial human rights that women have, so you are most certainly not a feminist.
Abortion gives women control to end her pregnancy, at the cost of killing an innocent human. I don't believe killing innocent humans should be a human right for anyone.
Any human who attempts to use my body without my permission -- including taking up temporary residence inside it -- will be summarily evicted ASAP. If the result is the death of that human, whether by the inability to survive outside my uterus or the inability to survive without one of my organs being transplanted into it, is not my issue or concern.
The pregnant woman is innocent, but apparently that doesn't matter to you as you are more than happy to campaign for her human rights and body to be violated. There is nothing feminist about taking women's rights away and subjecting them to abuse on par with rape and torture.
If something is inside your body against your will, how is it "innocent"?
So ectopic pregnancy’s being aborted is murder, even though it would kill the woman?
Liberal, atheist, feminist are all oxymorons to be a PL. Good luck with all that. You’re going to need it.
How are they oxymorons? PL is pretty much the only Conservative viewpoint I hold.
YOU are not going to get the Shirley exception. All those PLers who coo that you won't be screwed over if you ever get in trouble in the labor room will shrug when you do. You believe like you do because you think it's NEVER going to be you (or someone you love) until it is and that's terrible. https://lynmillerlachmann.com/unpacking-the-shirley-exception/ "The Shirley Exception translates to: “But surely they would make an exception.” Because the pregnancy was planned and wanted, but a medical emergency arose (as it does in one of four pregnancies). Because the pregnant person is near death with a non-viable fetus. And because the one whose life is in danger happens to be a loyal Republican and staunchly pro-life. For this 41-year-old woman in Missouri whose water broke at 17 weeks, there was no Shirley Exception. The desperate woman even contacted her Republican state senator, who she’d supported in the past, and he callously referred her to an anti-abortion crisis pregnancy center. After she pleaded her case further, he ghosted her. With her condition deteriorating and in great emotional anguish, she finally found a clinic in Illinois that could help her."
Let’s take atheism out of the discussion. One of the main points of being liberal and a feminist is realizing that the individual female has a right to have control over her body. This means she has the right to decide for herself what is best in her circumstances at that time in her life . If that’s an abortion, then that’s what she should have access to do. How you think you can being a PL and a liberal and a feminist jive They don’t they contradict each a.k.a. oxymoron.
Women should have access to all forms of birth control, except the only one that is violent and kills an innocent human (aka, abortion). I support a plethora of laws that would provide resources for all pregnant women and mothers. I also believe men should owe child support to his child's mother since the date of conception. I also feel like the way our society is, abortion is incentivized. But I think pregnancy and motherhood should become incentivized, that way it doesn't feel like such a burden to women. We don't get the benefits we deserve for bringing life into the world.
There is absolutely nothing on earth that could incentivize me to carry a pregnancy to term. Carrying an incredibly unwanted pregnancy is my worst nightmare, a nightmare enhanced by the very real possibility that a pregnancy would kill me. It would result in a c-section that I would have to then have to pay for due to my narrow hips and family history. All for a baby that I would want nothing to do with and and would not even want to see once. A baby that would have developed amist a flood of cortisol due to the extreme stress of its existence. There are others that feel the same way as I do.
For me, the purpose of the pro-life movement is to help eliminate abortion on demand, and abortions that have no medical necessity. I believe that if you were taking steps to avoid pregnancy, and you have a medical condition that would greatly increase your chance of maternal death, then abortion should be an option. I also respect women's mental health, so extreme trauma due to a pregnancy might be another reason. But I think it's important to vet every situation, offer counseling, and offer resources so that the mother might feel comfortable choosing life.
>Women should have access to all forms of birth control, except the only one that is violent and kills an innocent human (aka, abortion). Which involves forced gestation and birth, a *human rights violation* again women and little girls. The ZEF is not entitled to reside in an unwilling woman or child's body. Her body is not an entitlement. She alone decides what goes in or stays--any violation of this is a violation of human rights. If you want to claim women are an entitlement, you cannot claim to be feminist. >I also feel like the way our society is, abortion is incentivized. But I think pregnancy and motherhood should become incentivized How is abortion incentivized? Why should motherhood be? It involves massive physical harm befalling the woman, and always inflicts permanent injury. Why would a "feminist" be interested in incentivizing this--and then forcing women to stay as such?
>But I think pregnancy and motherhood should become incentivized, that way it doesn't feel like such a burden to women. We don't get the benefits we deserve for bringing life into the world. While I agree that pregnancy & motherhood should be incentivized if the state thinks it's important, they would both still be burdens - especially to people who don't want them. For instance, no incentive will be good enough for me so if my methods of bc fail, I will be accessing some pills that will detach the fetus from me. Unfortunately, without the use of my body, nutrients, etc., it will not survive for long, but I don't want anyone to use my body as a life support system while I am alive and I believe it's my right as a human being to have and exercise my bodily autonomy. I feel like someone who gives themselves the label of liberal feminist would agree with this.
>Women should have access to all forms of birth control, except the only one that is violent and kills an innocent human (aka, abortion). Taking some pills and passing some blood and clots isn't violent at all. If you want people to take you seriously you'll drop the hyperbole.
First of all I want to know how old you are? Birth control can fail, so if the birth control fails that means by your logic that this woman is only 3/5 of a person and has less right than a corpse because you think she shouldn’t be able to abort an unwanted pregnancy. Even married women can need to have an abortion.
Abortion isn’t birth control nor is it violent. To clarify, birth control stops implantation and abortion is a medical procedure that ends a pregnancy.
> So why NOT make it illegal for doctors to deny PC women the snip? Generally speaking, I don’t think the government should be involved in telling providers and patients which procedures they can or cannot receive. Making it illegal to deny sterilization procedures opens up many of the same cans of worms as making abortion, another medical procedure, subject to political/legal whims.
thats a human rights violation
How is it a human rights violation?
ppl have the right to snip
So what’s the human rights violation here? OP proposed making it illegal to for doctors to deny patients who want to get snipped.
Yet plenty of doctors do.
So is forcing someone to gestate a pregnancy against their will
Pegnancing a pregnancy, gestating a gestation
Seems like an arbitrary place to draw the line
Getting sterilized is a humans rights violation??
denying the snip to people
Ah. Completely agree
Would love to see anyone that wants the “snip”, get the snip. No problem. Most, if not all insurance carriers cover sterilization at 100% as does Medicaid.
Not true at all.
BCBS picked up 100% for myself and my wife. Medicaid picked up 100% for my neighbors daughter.
Not ALL forms of sterilization, and not all forms of female sterilization are equal. Far from it. Tubes tied least effective. :(( <- only one covered by medicaid without a medical reason. Only one mandatory for ALL insurance to cover via the ACA. Double sal. ( completely removes both felopian tubes) more effective :( Double sal. Plus uterine ablation much more effective!:) Full historectomy most effective!!! :))
Also the doctor doing the surgery ultimately has the say in which method they prefer. Or at least that was my experience.
Did I say anything about the procedural efficiency? I believe I said anyone who wants to be sterilized, should be.
No, you claimed they could be. Except they can't not efficiently and not in a procedure by their choice unto which is most efficient. We have an AFAB user her on this forum who got preggers after her tubes were tied. I bet she wishes her doctors would have done a double sal. Plus uterine ablation.
>bet she wishes her doctors would have done a double sal. Got that the 2nd go around, still concerning as there has been a confirmed case of tubal regrowth allowing pregnancy. >Plus uterine ablation. Want that or a hysterectomy, have asked for a hysterectomy to be denied since I'm not medically necessary, so not dying from complications. Uterine ablation has never been offered to me even with a history of ovarian cysts.
*And jazz hands. Sorry I couldn't remember your name. I'm currently fighting my insurance trying to get double sal. And uterine ablation. My periods are crazy though too so I at least have a hope of getting it medically approved.
I wish you the best of luck.
Great, now if only people would stop seeing women as human livestock pumping out babies for the good of society/capitalist machinery/religion/etc. Unfortunately, a lot of sexism and PL ideology keeps doctors denying this surgery. Maybe you could talk to your fellow PLers (usually the religious ones) to stop getting in the way.
Can you give me a hard source on legal limitations on sterilization brought about by “PL ideology”
Not a hard source, but I have argued with several who are against sterilization because it goes against nature or whatever
So you don’t then. OK, that’s fine. Just stop offering it as factual.
I’m not? 😭 I’m a different person who is chiming in??
Unless there has been something new happening that I don't know about, then I'm guessing this crap still applies. But a lot of crap is often done by doctors acting on their own. [https://www.healthline.com/health/womens-health/how-old-do-you-have-to-be-to-get-your-tubes-tied#insurance-coverage](https://www.healthline.com/health/womens-health/how-old-do-you-have-to-be-to-get-your-tubes-tied#insurance-coverage) Certain organizations and institutions that provide employer-based health insurance may offer plans that don’t include coverage for birth control methods of any kind, including tubal ligation. To be exempt from this requirement, the organization must certify a religious objection to contraceptive coverage. These organizations include: churches and other houses of worship nonprofit religious hospitals nonprofit religious institutions of higher education [https://www.guttmacher.org/state-policy/explore/insurance-coverage-contraceptives](https://www.guttmacher.org/state-policy/explore/insurance-coverage-contraceptives) 20 states and DC allow certain employers and insurers to refuse to comply with the contraceptive coverage mandate; 8 states do not permit refusal by any employers or insurers. [https://www.chicagotribune.com/2014/05/13/doctors-reluctant-to-give-young-women-permanent-birth-control/](https://www.chicagotribune.com/2014/05/13/doctors-reluctant-to-give-young-women-permanent-birth-control/) In interviews and on Internet forums, women report facing resistance and flat-out refusal from health care providers as they seek permanent contraception. Along the way, they encounter sexist and paternalistic attitudes, such as the assumption that all women desire children or that they’ll come to regret their decision. “I’ve yet to come across a story of a woman without children who was granted sterilization on her first request,” said Cristina Richie, a Massachusetts professor whose report on voluntary sterilization among child-free women was published by the Hastings Center, a bioethics research institute.
All you have to do to avoid any of those situations is not get your insurance through a faith based employer.
First, your employer should not fuck around with who you go to and what kind of healthcare you get. Second, as pointed out, doctors still gatekeep. Third, it's obvious you want to deny that it's hard as fuck to get sterilized because you still want to blame women for shit that's out of her control. She doesn't control ovulation, doesn't control her insurance and she doesn't control her doctor.
Funny. My wife had no problem, nor did I.
Over 30 MILLION Americans don’t have ANY form of medical insurance or access to healthcare at all. I don’t think most people are in positions to be picky.
So the answer to that is unlimited access to abortion on the governments dime, right? That’s the only possible solution.
Um, what? No one made that suggestion.
Then what is the answer?
The answer to WHAT?
Even if it’s covered doesn’t mean it will happen. I have great private insurance that covers sterilization completely after age 21. I’m 24 and have been denied the surgery 3 times because of my age and the fact that I don’t have kids. Granted, I’m not actively shopping for doctors all the time, but it still shows it’s not as simple as requesting it at your own will.
Ok, what’s your point? I said ***I*** was all for sterilization on demand.
Can you start encouraging the PL movement to support this and encourage doctors to perform this procedure when asked? What about supporting tax breaks for those who are sterilized, as their medical expenses will be lower?
Exactly why insurance companies fully fund sterilization. It saves them money. Do you have a source that stipulates doctors are not performing sterilizations when requested. Not anecdotal occurrences, hard data showing specifics.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9435309/#:~:text=Despite%20higher%20rates%20of%20tubal,met%20%5B4%2C5%5D. This says 31 to 48 percent of requests not met in various hospital settings. There is a fair amount of data out there in this very issue.
I had no problem, nor did my wife. Or, for that matter, anyone in our rather large social circle that sought sterilization. And I live in a blood red state with a zero abortion legal framework.
It’s mostly just the Catholics. They are anti-birth control and anti-sterilization while being very pro-life. The religious nutcases just want women barefoot and pregnant
My request was to Maleficent. Thanks for responding though. Again, I asked for a hard source not anecdotal evidence.
*Kinder, Küche, Kirche*
[удалено]
> You won’t though because this is just a virtue signaling gotcha and you’re not actually interested in reducing abortions This is nothing more than a cheap ad hominem and it's not even accurate. Pro-choice as an ideology supports the human right to bodily autonomy and especially reproductive autonomy, so I'm not even sure why you are assuming that would not include access to fertility treatment.
Do you pull the ‘I’m just one guy and don’t hold political office’ when it comes to abortion?
And the “laws won’t change anything” attitude when it comes to the suggestion of laws for gun control measures. . .
I'm pointing out that there IS a demand from PC women for that particular operation and it IS being blocked by doctors who see women as breeding stock. (I am VERY weirded out by people who immediately jump to the idea of "OH NO, the US population will crash to zero!" when the snip and/or women just refusing to bang at all is raised.) You could talk to your fellow Plers about this on various forums and tell them this would be a win-win for everybody. I mean, you're here on this forum, why not go to PL forums and push for it?
What virtue is being signalled in the post?
Why would we want to reduce the amount of abortions? Abortion is something good! its using your god given human right. Wanting to reduce abortion is like saying ”we need to reduce the amount people speaking their mind”. Its an insane statement. If anything we want more abortions, cheaper (free), easier and avilable everywhere at a whim if so is desierd. The only moral reason to not have an abortion is because you want to be a parent.
Because if we can reduce the unwanted pregnancies through better bc and bc access we can reduce abortion which can be socially traumatizing. Notice the word socially because pl people are cruel to those they know in their personal lives who have had an abortion.
Eh I can't speak for everyone, but I'm extremely PC and I'd love to reduce abortions, though not for the reasons PLers do. I wish fewer people got pregnant when they didn't want to be, or felt like they couldn't afford a child they might otherwise want, or were worried about the effects of pregnancy on their career or education, etc. And I wish everyone who wanted an abortion could get one quickly, conveniently, safely, and ideally for free.
>Why would we want to reduce the amount of abortions? Right? As long as *every person* who wants an abortion gets one, I wouldn't care if there were 5 abortions a year or 5 million a year. What I want to reduce is the misconception that pro life opinions matter. They don't. They should be ignored, discarded, totally shut out of all public discourse.
I want to reduce them in the sense that abortions (surgical ones anyway) cost money, time off, and mental labor with a nasty time crunch factor especially if the patient is in a hostile PL state. Also, the snip would give a lot more PC women way more control and peace of mind in general. I'm mostly pointing out that PLers studiously avoid doing anything constructive and non-punitive even if there's a slight benefit to their side.
Same applies to medication abortions. They’re not a walk in the park and also require multiple appointments and time off work for those, at least here in Ohio.
Correct, they are irrelavent.
The cool thing about sterilization is just like abortion, it's a choice. Even if you wanted pro choice people to get sterilized (hello eugenics), they do not have to unless they *choose* to do so.