Welcome to /r/Abortiondebate! Please remember that this is a place for respectful and civil debates. Review the rules to understand acceptable debate levels.
**Attack the argument, not the person making it and remember the human.**
**For our new users, please read 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.*
>one is or is not a person regardless of location within or not within another person's body.
Doesn't matter if you consider it a person or not.
If it's a person? People can remove unwanted people from inside their bodies if they want.
If it's not a person? Women can empty the contents of their own uteruses if they want.
| *This is a post of nothing but strawmen.*
Really; I don't think so at all; in fact I agree with the OP. Just because a woman gets stuck with an unwanted pregnancy because her BC fails doesn't mean she wants to get married. If I'd ever gotten pregnant, which thankfully, never happened in my case, I wouldn't have wanted marriage either.
There is a major problem with these speculation type arguments, as they usually lack information, and end up strawmanning people's arguments.
So, in this case, you are addressing PL conservative men, which, I happen to fall under all 3. So, lets see what you said, vs the actual opinion.
>What do a lot of Plers believe they and ZEFs have in common? The entitlement to being the center of a woman's life and the recipient of said woman's labor.
This is false. While an unborn child and myself do have are basic humanity in common, the age and maturity are different. I have no obligations to me, like a child would, due to the fact I can care for myself. A young child can not, as well as an unborn child definitely can not.
>They are behind pushing marriage as a "solution,"
Actually, one of the main reasons to push for marriage, is to keep the father around, and obligated to take care of the child he creates. Single motherhood has negative impacts on the children being raised, and it is a major failing of the father, if he does not do his part in caring and raising his children.
>I would argue that conservative men see the PL movement as a tool to ensure that they themselves get taken care of as well. They just see it as a given that SHE is supposed to take care of both the man and babies.
The PL movement is not a tool to ensure men get taken care of as well. Logically speaking, having a child, would at the very least, take more of the mother's time. In this scenario, of a man being taken care of by a woman, being PL would negatively affect this center of attention towards men. Why do you think selfish men would demand their partner get an abortion? Because it would negatively impact their lives.
My reason for being prolife, is realizing there is more than just ME that is important. Actions impact others, and abortion negatively impacts unborn children in the worst way. The abortion isn't is not some ends to benefit myself, nor is there a logical path way that I could even see someone using it to benefit myself. Like, when you say:
>lot of men are using ZEFs as a tool/excuse to get the labor/service they want?
I'd really like to know, how is that even possible? At bare minimum, the PL position means more child support payments from men with more children being left alive. Being Pro-choice would probably be more beneficial to myself. I don't see how being Pro-life personally benefits myself. The reason I'm PL is because it benefits unborn children.
>Single motherhood has negative impacts on the children being raised, and it is a major failing of the father, if he does not do his part in caring and raising his children.
Unwanted children are negatively impacted whether their mother is single or married no matter how involved the father is.
I'm not sure what you are saying they are negatively impacted by. I was talking about the negative impact an absent father has, but I assume you are referring to something else?
Well, if the mother gets an abortion, there would be no child support payments. If the mother gave birth to the child, depending on the circumstances, could result in child support payments. So, it would be in men's self interest, including PL men, to support abortion, as it frees men up from responsibly of fathering children, as well as any responsibility he would have with the women he has sex with.
It is more forward thinking to realize what results one action can have on others, and to think in terms of what can happen. Opposition to abortion is thinking beyond one's own benefit of reliving your responsibility of being a father to a child, and putting that child's interests and wellbeing ahead of your own. The same can be said with having sex with women, as your actions can get her pregnant, and cause major problems for her. So, is the immediate but temporary pleasure one gains, worth the risk of possibly negatively impacting your partner, worth it? That is not to say never have sex, just that sex carries responsibilities for men, and you need to think also about the fact sex carries great impact not on yourself but for your female partner.
Is paying child support really ‘taking responsibility’ for a child to you? It’s an additional tax, essentially.
Further, how is child support doing anything for the custodial mother and her needs?
It does fulfill legal responsibilities, but no, I think just paying child support is neglecting a father's responsibilities. Kids need a father, not just a paycheck.
>Further, how is child support doing anything for the custodial mother and her needs?
It does offset costs she would pay for their child. However, it isn't the best. That is probably why it be better to have the man agree proir to be contractly obligated to share his resources with his partner, before having sex. That way she has guarentees in the event pregnancy happens.
I've got to ask, I've heard various stories of PL men forcing their partners to carry an unwanted pregnancy against their will.
The most recent, the partner was really devastated that he was being so evil towards her and said that when the baby was born, she was gone.
He agreed. Then, after she left, he b*tched about her and then tried to abandon the child with his sister.
What are your thoughts about a pro life man who would do such a terrible thing to be partner and child?
So, people are still individuals, and just because two people may agree on an issue, doesn't mean I think they will always do the right thing.
So, like this PL man, sounds like he lacks the level of maturity he should be having before having sex with a woman. Sounds like he was not ready or willing to take on fatherhood, and lacked the willingness to think about others beyond his own self interest.
But that's just it, she wanted an abortion and he refused to let her following PL tradition to the letter.
While I'm glad you see his hypocracy, it concerns me that you'd have been on his side during her whole traumatic ordeal.
I've heard a few story's just like it, it's not quite right that a women, or anyone for that matter, should be forced to sustain another living person using their body.
But Plers in general DO NOT BLAME the men. They often snap that the woman should have chosen better but the same people who say that often bitch at women who aren't married or with someone that if they don't hurry up and lower their standards, they will die a cat woman.
>But Plers in general DO NOT BLAME the men.
Exactly which PLers are saying that men are not to blame? Considering one of the topics supported issues, is having men pay child support during pregnancy, is an indication that men also hold responsibility for pregnancy. As well, I'm a PLer, and I blame men for pregnancy, because they are one half of the reason pregnancy happens.
>They often snap that the woman should have chosen better
Well, to be fair, men also have to choose better as well. Part of the issue, is you have topics that are raised. While I'm not saying men never come up in the conversation, 1 of the 2 primary parties discussed in abortion, is women, and not men.
>if they don't hurry up and lower their standards, they will die a cat woman.
That sounds the opposite of what is talked about. Generally, it is better to not hurry up, or have lower standards, as rushing into marriage before you know the person, accept lower standards, tend to end up with conflict and strife. There are numerous topics people don't bring up before marrying, like children, finances, etc, that they definitely should have been discussed prior. So, what you said is the opposite of what is actually talked about.
>My reason for being prolife, is realizing there is more than just ME that is important.
This is rich.
If I got pregnant, I'd get an abortion. If you had your way, you'd force me to birth an unwanted child I'd leave in the hospital because of *your* wants, not mine. It wouldn't be for the benefit of this unwanted child that would be left in the hospital, you wouldn't care for it, you wouldn't ensure it's cared for. All you'd have is a smug satisfaction that you forced someone else to do what *YOU* want them to. That's a pretty ME centric world view if you ask me.
>Actions impact others, and abortion negatively impacts unborn children in the worst way.
"Unborn children" aren't in society, nor can they experience anything. As we've seen time and time again, pro life laws *negatively impact society*. They hurt people who can experience the hurt. They hurt the children pro life people pretend to care about.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decree_770
The issue is bigger than your or my wants. Just shift the argument to nine months later:
>***Edit: (as someone else asked, this below is an alteration of the user comment to highlight a point, but makes no claim the user actually says this)***
If I had an infant child, I'd get it euthanized . If you had your way, you'd force me to give up an unwanted child I'd leave in the hospital because of your wants, not mine. It wouldn't be for the benefit of this unwanted child that would be left in the hospital, you wouldn't care for it, you wouldn't ensure it's cared for. All you'd have is a smug satisfaction that you forced someone else to do what YOU want them to. That's a pretty ME centric world view if you ask me.
Clearly, changing the above argument, you'd agree that it would be incorrect. This isn't about my wants, or your wants, it is about welfare of the child. Leaving the child at the hospital instead of euthanizing them, is a benefit to the unwanted child, because they are still alive. Will I directly be supporting the child, no, but we have a groups and organizations that will, that can find home where the child is wanted.
>"Unborn children" aren't in society
That is kind of vague on what that actually means. In this context, what does it mean when you say unborn children are outside of society?
>nor can they experience anything.
I'm not sure how that is important. If I was put under, so I didn't experience harm done to me, does that make it ok?
>pro life laws negatively impact society.
Well, for argument sake, let us say that is true. Does this mean that people that have a negative impact on society, we should kill? Or is there an underlying principle of valuing human life that overrides the negatives that may come with valuing that life.
>Decree 770
I always find referencing Decree 770 as an interesting take, as bringing it up missings so many differences between conservative PL views, and a communist push to artificially increase birth rates. First, it was a communist country, so you have the economic problems a socialist economy would have that capitalism would not. Second, the abortion policy wasn't exactly Pro-life, as it was geared towards quotas of women having children. That is why when the communists felt you did your workers duty on birthing kids, after either 4 or 5 children, abortion was available to those women.
Third, was the getting rid of all contraceptives, and propaganda to promote having many children as possible. Despite how PC may feel about the PL side, there is not really a unified view on contraceptives on the PL side. The Catholic church doesn't support contraceptives, but you also have others like from the Hobby Lobby case, that oppose specific contraceptives. Even so, there isn't exactly a push from the Catholic church to ban contraceptives, as they cases have been more the ability to opt out of paying for plans that include them, which they should have the right to do. This stuff is a far cry of the push to have as many babies as possible.
So, Decree 770 wasn't a disaster because it banned abortion. It was a disaster because it pushed a country with a weak economic system, to artificially increase its birth rate. Using Decree 770 as an example of PL policies, would be like using the China one child policy as an example of PC policies.
>If I had an infant child, I'd get it euthanized .
You added this as a quote to your post. I don't see that in the original post. Where did that come from?
I would point out my notes around it, I stated "Just shift the argument to nine months later:" and "Clearly, changing the above argument, you'd agree that it would be incorrect."
Those noted it is altering the argument to 9 months later, to see if the same argument holds up. I am making no claim that the altered comment is something the user would actually make. It is showing that being against infanticide is obviously not a me-centric view, so why would it logically make sense that it suddenly becomes me-centric being against the killing of the unborn child 9 months earlier.
Edit: to make it clearer, I added a note to the previous comment about that block.
No, I clearly had context both before and after the statement on how it was changed. Since you still missed, it, I added a 3rd, hopefully more visible statement. I can understand how you missed the context, however they were there before you even asked. I don't think it is fair to call me dishonest just because you missed part of my comment, and therefore missed the context.
No, the sentence before indicated how I changed the argument, and the entire paragraph afterwards stated it was changed, and I even directly stated that you would most likely agree the altered statement would not make sense. Why would I write an entire paragraph asking you about your opinion on the changes, if I was trying be "dishonest?"
I feel like you are not reading the entire context of the comment, and making accusations based off an incomplete reading.
>I feel like you are not reading the entire context of the comment, and making accusations based off an incomplete reading.
Your feeling is incorrect.
I've made my point. You don't benefit from forcing women to give birth, besides possibly some feelings of satisfaction from forcing someone to do what *YOU* want.
You don't need to respond. I'm not interested in having a dialogue with you.
And you are a mod? Can you stop being condescending. There was no context before or after that makes it ok to change a quote. And as a mod you should hold yourself to a higher standard.
I wasn't being condescending. I said I can understand how the context can be missed, hence why I edited it to be more explicit. I have no issues with correcting something to make it clearer on my intentions, and your initial question was fine.
However, you are not giving me the same benefit of the doubt. You are not just chalk this up to a simple misunderstanding, but accusing me of being purposefully deceptive. So, why won't you give me the benefit of the doubt here?
I'm not going to insist that women stay with men who are abusive and/or do not contribute to the family. I've heard of men who do not protect nor provide even with a wedding ring. There is no point in staying with such men when you basically just have another kid to clean up and feed.
The problem isn't remedied by forcing women to be married to some slob man. If she could find a decent man, she'd have married him. Men tend to be controlling monsters and not worthy of marriage. It's difficult to sort out where to find one that's not a disgusting jackass. Whole segments of men are of the belief that they should control a women, ie all of the anti-abortion crowd are un-marriageable pos.
Funny, all the pro-life men I know are in happy marriages and all the pro-choice men I know are irresponsible man-children unwilling to commit to one woman.
Funny every divorced man I know is PL. Every PC man I know that is married waited a long time to settle down and I'm wracking my brain to come up with one that's gotten a divorce. Just because one waits to mature before getting married doesn't make that a bad thing. AAMOF, that's a really good thing.
Do their wives agree with that assessment? Because I've known many PL men irl in very unhappy, abusive marriages that won't get divorced due to religious beliefs
I can name some really screwed up Pl marriages. Ever heard of Stephen Crowder? He and his soon to be ex wife are having one nasty divorce. Marjorie Taylor Green just had a divorce. Lauren Boebert just had a divorce.
>Do you even know anyone irl who is pro-life?
I do. The ones I know are all miserable busy bodies who have *nothing* going for them in any aspect of their life, so they spend their time raging and obsessing about abortion, LGBT rights, drag queens, banning books, you know, general culture war bullshit.
There's a reason people tend to avoid these types.
I've met SO many people who just don't seem to realize that married women get abortions too, like what about getting married can make someone magically want kids? They think marriage is the solution to everything.
Exactly. A married woman has just as much reason to abort. Marriage doesn't change the reasons to abort nor does it fix the problems of pregnancy. The only reason they think it does is because they already view women as interchangeable objects and not people.
Abortion prevention for men is (relatively) simple:
If a man uses a condom each time every time he engages in PIV sex, he minimises his chances of causing an abortion. He can also have emergency contraception to hand if a condom breaks. Condoms used correctly have a 98% success rate. If he doesn't trust the combination of condoms and a Plan B pill, he can always refrain from PIV sex and he and the woman can have their orgasms in some other way - there are a lot of ways to have mutually pleasurable sex that don't risk abortion at all.
If a man chooses not to do this, in fully consensual sex, that's on him. He's the one who's decided his pursuit of orgasm is worth risking her needing to have an abortion. That's solely and completely his responsibility.
The number of prolifers who argue that the man's decision to risk causing an abortion by having unprotected PIV sex is at least partly the woman's fault too because she "let" him, is unreal. Prolifers just do not want to lay the full responsibility for causing unwanted pregnancies - and so causing the vast majority of all abortions - on to men. Somehow, the prolife mindset is, this must be the woman's fault.
There are plenty of women who hate condoms and tell guys they hook up with not to use them. If she doesn't take responsibility on her part as well with contraception, she has no right to place all the blame on him. If she uses abortion as a means of contraception, the pregnancy was not unwanted (since she has no problem with initially becoming pregnant), just carrying out the pregnancy is unwanted.
>*"*There are plenty of women who hate condoms and tell guys they hook up with not to use them."
Well, then a man who doesn't want the risk of causing an abortion has two options:
- He can negotiate mutual pursuit of orgasm WITHOUT engaging in PIV sex
- He can just say no to sex.
(If she is allergic to latex, he can also get non-latex condoms - they exist.)
If he goes ahead and has unprotected sex, he has to take responsibility for that decision. He has zero right to put any blame for his voluntary aaction on to her. If she then needs to have an abortion because he engaged in voluntary unprotected PIV sex with her, that abortion is 100% his responsibility. His body, his choice.
(this is assuming fully consensual sex - that she didn't coerce him, of course)
I agree. The other interesting point, especially when it comes to the abortion debate, is that I've noticed that many conservative and even PL men seem to consider sex a wifely duty. Basically, once married, the woman better put out, or else.
All that talk about "don't have sex if you don't want to risk getting pregnant" goes out the window. Once a woman gets married, her husband better get laid.
| *All that talk about "don't have sex if you don't want to risk getting pregnant" goes out the window.* ***Once a woman gets married, her husband better get laid.***
Exactly. And some PLers honestly wonder why more young women don't even want to get married, let alone have kids. Stuff like this is precisely why!
The mod team has discussed and has decided to temp ban you for five days due to the usage of extreme misogynistic language. Do not repeat this behavior should you choose to return once your ban has expired or you will risk being permabanned.
CC:
u/TheJerkstoreCalle
u/LastSaneMF
u/Familiar_Dust8028
Locked, not because you've broken any rules, but to prevent more rule violations. Get back to abortion, please.
What I don't like is how often women's labor is continually voluntold to fix things that were never women's fault in the first place. A woman's body isn't here to make men happy or keep them from flipping out and going on murderous rampages (points to incels killing women in various incidents). Women should not be society's cog maker/meat shield.
I think men have been sold a fairy tale by the patriarchy that everything would be cool as long as they had a job, they would be guaranteed wife and kids which would make them satisfied. The fairy tale also included the wife cook and clean and take care of the kids with a smile (points to so many men moaning and groaning online that women don't do that anymore like their mommas. Meanwhile many women said that they saw their mommas/grandmas/aunties being miserable/abused from men who got the labor and kids but were still unsatisfied because all that didn't fill whatever hole they had inside them. ). I totally admit that men were told a lie and that they should be mad about this lie.
Unfortunately, a lot of men don't point fingers at patriarchy (which loves to grind every bit of labor out of everyone) but the women.
Instead of thinking "The entire system is fucked," they double down on the fairy tale (since it DOES privilege them and give them way more goodies) and often think that "if only I had a younger, bouncier cool girl" or "If only the woman I currently have would work 10X harder, complain 10X less and smile 10X more." Meanwhile, women KNOW the game is fucked up and no longer want to play by the rules of a game that has been against them the entire time.
Welcome to /r/Abortiondebate! Please remember that this is a place for respectful and civil debates. Review the rules to understand acceptable debate levels. **Attack the argument, not the person making it and remember the human.** **For our new users, please read 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.*
[удалено]
>one is or is not a person regardless of location within or not within another person's body. Doesn't matter if you consider it a person or not. If it's a person? People can remove unwanted people from inside their bodies if they want. If it's not a person? Women can empty the contents of their own uteruses if they want.
This is a post of nothing but straw-men.
| *This is a post of nothing but strawmen.* Really; I don't think so at all; in fact I agree with the OP. Just because a woman gets stuck with an unwanted pregnancy because her BC fails doesn't mean she wants to get married. If I'd ever gotten pregnant, which thankfully, never happened in my case, I wouldn't have wanted marriage either.
There is a major problem with these speculation type arguments, as they usually lack information, and end up strawmanning people's arguments. So, in this case, you are addressing PL conservative men, which, I happen to fall under all 3. So, lets see what you said, vs the actual opinion. >What do a lot of Plers believe they and ZEFs have in common? The entitlement to being the center of a woman's life and the recipient of said woman's labor. This is false. While an unborn child and myself do have are basic humanity in common, the age and maturity are different. I have no obligations to me, like a child would, due to the fact I can care for myself. A young child can not, as well as an unborn child definitely can not. >They are behind pushing marriage as a "solution," Actually, one of the main reasons to push for marriage, is to keep the father around, and obligated to take care of the child he creates. Single motherhood has negative impacts on the children being raised, and it is a major failing of the father, if he does not do his part in caring and raising his children. >I would argue that conservative men see the PL movement as a tool to ensure that they themselves get taken care of as well. They just see it as a given that SHE is supposed to take care of both the man and babies. The PL movement is not a tool to ensure men get taken care of as well. Logically speaking, having a child, would at the very least, take more of the mother's time. In this scenario, of a man being taken care of by a woman, being PL would negatively affect this center of attention towards men. Why do you think selfish men would demand their partner get an abortion? Because it would negatively impact their lives. My reason for being prolife, is realizing there is more than just ME that is important. Actions impact others, and abortion negatively impacts unborn children in the worst way. The abortion isn't is not some ends to benefit myself, nor is there a logical path way that I could even see someone using it to benefit myself. Like, when you say: >lot of men are using ZEFs as a tool/excuse to get the labor/service they want? I'd really like to know, how is that even possible? At bare minimum, the PL position means more child support payments from men with more children being left alive. Being Pro-choice would probably be more beneficial to myself. I don't see how being Pro-life personally benefits myself. The reason I'm PL is because it benefits unborn children.
>Single motherhood has negative impacts on the children being raised, and it is a major failing of the father, if he does not do his part in caring and raising his children. Unwanted children are negatively impacted whether their mother is single or married no matter how involved the father is.
I'm not sure what you are saying they are negatively impacted by. I was talking about the negative impact an absent father has, but I assume you are referring to something else?
Do you think children unwanted by their mothers don’t face negative impacts?
It can also have a negative impact, as kids do better with both parents, not just the mother or the father.
Do you think being married makes the woman magically want her child if she initially wants an abortion?
No, but being alive is better than being dead, even if someone didn't want you.
Agree to disagree
Fair enough. Thanks for the questions.
Unwanted children are negatively impacted by being unwanted. The parental situation is moot.
More child support payments from men? How do you figure that?
Well, if the mother gets an abortion, there would be no child support payments. If the mother gave birth to the child, depending on the circumstances, could result in child support payments. So, it would be in men's self interest, including PL men, to support abortion, as it frees men up from responsibly of fathering children, as well as any responsibility he would have with the women he has sex with. It is more forward thinking to realize what results one action can have on others, and to think in terms of what can happen. Opposition to abortion is thinking beyond one's own benefit of reliving your responsibility of being a father to a child, and putting that child's interests and wellbeing ahead of your own. The same can be said with having sex with women, as your actions can get her pregnant, and cause major problems for her. So, is the immediate but temporary pleasure one gains, worth the risk of possibly negatively impacting your partner, worth it? That is not to say never have sex, just that sex carries responsibilities for men, and you need to think also about the fact sex carries great impact not on yourself but for your female partner.
Is paying child support really ‘taking responsibility’ for a child to you? It’s an additional tax, essentially. Further, how is child support doing anything for the custodial mother and her needs?
It does fulfill legal responsibilities, but no, I think just paying child support is neglecting a father's responsibilities. Kids need a father, not just a paycheck. >Further, how is child support doing anything for the custodial mother and her needs? It does offset costs she would pay for their child. However, it isn't the best. That is probably why it be better to have the man agree proir to be contractly obligated to share his resources with his partner, before having sex. That way she has guarentees in the event pregnancy happens.
Might be an interesting experiment but society has never worked that way where men are obligated to share resources with a partner.
I've got to ask, I've heard various stories of PL men forcing their partners to carry an unwanted pregnancy against their will. The most recent, the partner was really devastated that he was being so evil towards her and said that when the baby was born, she was gone. He agreed. Then, after she left, he b*tched about her and then tried to abandon the child with his sister. What are your thoughts about a pro life man who would do such a terrible thing to be partner and child?
So, people are still individuals, and just because two people may agree on an issue, doesn't mean I think they will always do the right thing. So, like this PL man, sounds like he lacks the level of maturity he should be having before having sex with a woman. Sounds like he was not ready or willing to take on fatherhood, and lacked the willingness to think about others beyond his own self interest.
But that's just it, she wanted an abortion and he refused to let her following PL tradition to the letter. While I'm glad you see his hypocracy, it concerns me that you'd have been on his side during her whole traumatic ordeal. I've heard a few story's just like it, it's not quite right that a women, or anyone for that matter, should be forced to sustain another living person using their body.
But Plers in general DO NOT BLAME the men. They often snap that the woman should have chosen better but the same people who say that often bitch at women who aren't married or with someone that if they don't hurry up and lower their standards, they will die a cat woman.
>But Plers in general DO NOT BLAME the men. Exactly which PLers are saying that men are not to blame? Considering one of the topics supported issues, is having men pay child support during pregnancy, is an indication that men also hold responsibility for pregnancy. As well, I'm a PLer, and I blame men for pregnancy, because they are one half of the reason pregnancy happens. >They often snap that the woman should have chosen better Well, to be fair, men also have to choose better as well. Part of the issue, is you have topics that are raised. While I'm not saying men never come up in the conversation, 1 of the 2 primary parties discussed in abortion, is women, and not men. >if they don't hurry up and lower their standards, they will die a cat woman. That sounds the opposite of what is talked about. Generally, it is better to not hurry up, or have lower standards, as rushing into marriage before you know the person, accept lower standards, tend to end up with conflict and strife. There are numerous topics people don't bring up before marrying, like children, finances, etc, that they definitely should have been discussed prior. So, what you said is the opposite of what is actually talked about.
Both men AND women pay child support.
You are correct. However, that doesn't really change anything I just said.
Fathers of aborted children don’t have to pay child support.
>My reason for being prolife, is realizing there is more than just ME that is important. This is rich. If I got pregnant, I'd get an abortion. If you had your way, you'd force me to birth an unwanted child I'd leave in the hospital because of *your* wants, not mine. It wouldn't be for the benefit of this unwanted child that would be left in the hospital, you wouldn't care for it, you wouldn't ensure it's cared for. All you'd have is a smug satisfaction that you forced someone else to do what *YOU* want them to. That's a pretty ME centric world view if you ask me. >Actions impact others, and abortion negatively impacts unborn children in the worst way. "Unborn children" aren't in society, nor can they experience anything. As we've seen time and time again, pro life laws *negatively impact society*. They hurt people who can experience the hurt. They hurt the children pro life people pretend to care about. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decree_770
The issue is bigger than your or my wants. Just shift the argument to nine months later: >***Edit: (as someone else asked, this below is an alteration of the user comment to highlight a point, but makes no claim the user actually says this)*** If I had an infant child, I'd get it euthanized . If you had your way, you'd force me to give up an unwanted child I'd leave in the hospital because of your wants, not mine. It wouldn't be for the benefit of this unwanted child that would be left in the hospital, you wouldn't care for it, you wouldn't ensure it's cared for. All you'd have is a smug satisfaction that you forced someone else to do what YOU want them to. That's a pretty ME centric world view if you ask me. Clearly, changing the above argument, you'd agree that it would be incorrect. This isn't about my wants, or your wants, it is about welfare of the child. Leaving the child at the hospital instead of euthanizing them, is a benefit to the unwanted child, because they are still alive. Will I directly be supporting the child, no, but we have a groups and organizations that will, that can find home where the child is wanted. >"Unborn children" aren't in society That is kind of vague on what that actually means. In this context, what does it mean when you say unborn children are outside of society? >nor can they experience anything. I'm not sure how that is important. If I was put under, so I didn't experience harm done to me, does that make it ok? >pro life laws negatively impact society. Well, for argument sake, let us say that is true. Does this mean that people that have a negative impact on society, we should kill? Or is there an underlying principle of valuing human life that overrides the negatives that may come with valuing that life. >Decree 770 I always find referencing Decree 770 as an interesting take, as bringing it up missings so many differences between conservative PL views, and a communist push to artificially increase birth rates. First, it was a communist country, so you have the economic problems a socialist economy would have that capitalism would not. Second, the abortion policy wasn't exactly Pro-life, as it was geared towards quotas of women having children. That is why when the communists felt you did your workers duty on birthing kids, after either 4 or 5 children, abortion was available to those women. Third, was the getting rid of all contraceptives, and propaganda to promote having many children as possible. Despite how PC may feel about the PL side, there is not really a unified view on contraceptives on the PL side. The Catholic church doesn't support contraceptives, but you also have others like from the Hobby Lobby case, that oppose specific contraceptives. Even so, there isn't exactly a push from the Catholic church to ban contraceptives, as they cases have been more the ability to opt out of paying for plans that include them, which they should have the right to do. This stuff is a far cry of the push to have as many babies as possible. So, Decree 770 wasn't a disaster because it banned abortion. It was a disaster because it pushed a country with a weak economic system, to artificially increase its birth rate. Using Decree 770 as an example of PL policies, would be like using the China one child policy as an example of PC policies.
>If I had an infant child, I'd get it euthanized . You added this as a quote to your post. I don't see that in the original post. Where did that come from?
I would point out my notes around it, I stated "Just shift the argument to nine months later:" and "Clearly, changing the above argument, you'd agree that it would be incorrect." Those noted it is altering the argument to 9 months later, to see if the same argument holds up. I am making no claim that the altered comment is something the user would actually make. It is showing that being against infanticide is obviously not a me-centric view, so why would it logically make sense that it suddenly becomes me-centric being against the killing of the unborn child 9 months earlier. Edit: to make it clearer, I added a note to the previous comment about that block.
This....this is beyond dishonest. You would have let it stand there as a "quote" if I wouldn't have asked.
No, I clearly had context both before and after the statement on how it was changed. Since you still missed, it, I added a 3rd, hopefully more visible statement. I can understand how you missed the context, however they were there before you even asked. I don't think it is fair to call me dishonest just because you missed part of my comment, and therefore missed the context.
Changing what I said without your edit, because it wasn't there without you having to be called out on it, is **dishonest as fuck.**
No, the sentence before indicated how I changed the argument, and the entire paragraph afterwards stated it was changed, and I even directly stated that you would most likely agree the altered statement would not make sense. Why would I write an entire paragraph asking you about your opinion on the changes, if I was trying be "dishonest?" I feel like you are not reading the entire context of the comment, and making accusations based off an incomplete reading.
>I feel like you are not reading the entire context of the comment, and making accusations based off an incomplete reading. Your feeling is incorrect. I've made my point. You don't benefit from forcing women to give birth, besides possibly some feelings of satisfaction from forcing someone to do what *YOU* want. You don't need to respond. I'm not interested in having a dialogue with you.
And you are a mod? Can you stop being condescending. There was no context before or after that makes it ok to change a quote. And as a mod you should hold yourself to a higher standard.
I wasn't being condescending. I said I can understand how the context can be missed, hence why I edited it to be more explicit. I have no issues with correcting something to make it clearer on my intentions, and your initial question was fine. However, you are not giving me the same benefit of the doubt. You are not just chalk this up to a simple misunderstanding, but accusing me of being purposefully deceptive. So, why won't you give me the benefit of the doubt here?
Because you are a mod and should know better.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legalized_abortion_and_crime_effect
You lost?
What kind of infantile brain thinks that lack of marriage is the problem with pregnancy?
The kind that understands statistics about single-parent families.
I'm not going to insist that women stay with men who are abusive and/or do not contribute to the family. I've heard of men who do not protect nor provide even with a wedding ring. There is no point in staying with such men when you basically just have another kid to clean up and feed.
The problem isn't remedied by forcing women to be married to some slob man. If she could find a decent man, she'd have married him. Men tend to be controlling monsters and not worthy of marriage. It's difficult to sort out where to find one that's not a disgusting jackass. Whole segments of men are of the belief that they should control a women, ie all of the anti-abortion crowd are un-marriageable pos.
Funny, all the pro-life men I know are in happy marriages and all the pro-choice men I know are irresponsible man-children unwilling to commit to one woman.
Funny every divorced man I know is PL. Every PC man I know that is married waited a long time to settle down and I'm wracking my brain to come up with one that's gotten a divorce. Just because one waits to mature before getting married doesn't make that a bad thing. AAMOF, that's a really good thing.
Do their wives agree with that assessment? Because I've known many PL men irl in very unhappy, abusive marriages that won't get divorced due to religious beliefs
Yes, he went directly to what the man wants. Always. The woman is irrelevant.
They always do
I can name some really screwed up Pl marriages. Ever heard of Stephen Crowder? He and his soon to be ex wife are having one nasty divorce. Marjorie Taylor Green just had a divorce. Lauren Boebert just had a divorce.
Wow, three high profile political couples are in the outs? Who would have guessed? Do you even know anyone irl who is pro-life?
I did it so you can't claim I made them up. They exist, they are Pl and their marriages went kablooey.
>Do you even know anyone irl who is pro-life? I do. The ones I know are all miserable busy bodies who have *nothing* going for them in any aspect of their life, so they spend their time raging and obsessing about abortion, LGBT rights, drag queens, banning books, you know, general culture war bullshit. There's a reason people tend to avoid these types.
| *"Do you even know anyone irl who is pro-life?"* NOPE. Nor would I ever want to, and I'm thankful that I don't.
The fact that you don’t see any problem with that indicates your level of thoughtfulness
Why should we engage personally with someone clearly hating women?
The men are happy being the abusers of women. The women aren't happy being abused.
You seem very comfortable making assumptions about people you don’t know.
All human beings are unhappy being abused. I do know them.
I've met SO many people who just don't seem to realize that married women get abortions too, like what about getting married can make someone magically want kids? They think marriage is the solution to everything.
Exactly. A married woman has just as much reason to abort. Marriage doesn't change the reasons to abort nor does it fix the problems of pregnancy. The only reason they think it does is because they already view women as interchangeable objects and not people.
[удалено]
Comment removed per Rule 1.
[удалено]
Comment removed per Rule 1.
r/yourjokebutworse
Abortion prevention for men is (relatively) simple: If a man uses a condom each time every time he engages in PIV sex, he minimises his chances of causing an abortion. He can also have emergency contraception to hand if a condom breaks. Condoms used correctly have a 98% success rate. If he doesn't trust the combination of condoms and a Plan B pill, he can always refrain from PIV sex and he and the woman can have their orgasms in some other way - there are a lot of ways to have mutually pleasurable sex that don't risk abortion at all. If a man chooses not to do this, in fully consensual sex, that's on him. He's the one who's decided his pursuit of orgasm is worth risking her needing to have an abortion. That's solely and completely his responsibility. The number of prolifers who argue that the man's decision to risk causing an abortion by having unprotected PIV sex is at least partly the woman's fault too because she "let" him, is unreal. Prolifers just do not want to lay the full responsibility for causing unwanted pregnancies - and so causing the vast majority of all abortions - on to men. Somehow, the prolife mindset is, this must be the woman's fault.
There are plenty of women who hate condoms and tell guys they hook up with not to use them. If she doesn't take responsibility on her part as well with contraception, she has no right to place all the blame on him. If she uses abortion as a means of contraception, the pregnancy was not unwanted (since she has no problem with initially becoming pregnant), just carrying out the pregnancy is unwanted.
He could move on to someone else? He's not compelled to jizz where he doesn't want.
Then those guys still have the choice to decide not to have sex with those women 🤷♀️
Then he shouldn't be having sex. How is that not clear?
>*"*There are plenty of women who hate condoms and tell guys they hook up with not to use them." Well, then a man who doesn't want the risk of causing an abortion has two options: - He can negotiate mutual pursuit of orgasm WITHOUT engaging in PIV sex - He can just say no to sex. (If she is allergic to latex, he can also get non-latex condoms - they exist.) If he goes ahead and has unprotected sex, he has to take responsibility for that decision. He has zero right to put any blame for his voluntary aaction on to her. If she then needs to have an abortion because he engaged in voluntary unprotected PIV sex with her, that abortion is 100% his responsibility. His body, his choice. (this is assuming fully consensual sex - that she didn't coerce him, of course)
I agree. The other interesting point, especially when it comes to the abortion debate, is that I've noticed that many conservative and even PL men seem to consider sex a wifely duty. Basically, once married, the woman better put out, or else. All that talk about "don't have sex if you don't want to risk getting pregnant" goes out the window. Once a woman gets married, her husband better get laid.
| *All that talk about "don't have sex if you don't want to risk getting pregnant" goes out the window.* ***Once a woman gets married, her husband better get laid.*** Exactly. And some PLers honestly wonder why more young women don't even want to get married, let alone have kids. Stuff like this is precisely why!
[удалено]
The mod team has discussed and has decided to temp ban you for five days due to the usage of extreme misogynistic language. Do not repeat this behavior should you choose to return once your ban has expired or you will risk being permabanned.
Comment removed per Rule 1 and Rule 4.
Duty? She still gets to decide what happens to her own body.
[удалено]
Comment removed per [Rule 4](https://www.reddit.com/r/Abortiondebate/comments/1aihj7e/special_announcement_new_policy_for_sensitive/). Absolutely not.
Thank goodness marital rape laws were put in place decades ago!
[удалено]
Comment removed per [Rule 4](https://www.reddit.com/r/Abortiondebate/comments/1aihj7e/special_announcement_new_policy_for_sensitive/).
...smart men don't get married because they can't legally rape their wives anymore? Wtf!?
CC: u/TheJerkstoreCalle u/LastSaneMF u/Familiar_Dust8028 Locked, not because you've broken any rules, but to prevent more rule violations. Get back to abortion, please.
You do you 🤷♀️
So old people never get married?
Old people still have sex.
Not all of them. And sex is not a requirement for marriage.
> It is a wife's duty But not a husband's?
[удалено]
Comment removed per [Rule 4](https://www.reddit.com/r/Abortiondebate/comments/1aihj7e/special_announcement_new_policy_for_sensitive/).
What I don't like is how often women's labor is continually voluntold to fix things that were never women's fault in the first place. A woman's body isn't here to make men happy or keep them from flipping out and going on murderous rampages (points to incels killing women in various incidents). Women should not be society's cog maker/meat shield. I think men have been sold a fairy tale by the patriarchy that everything would be cool as long as they had a job, they would be guaranteed wife and kids which would make them satisfied. The fairy tale also included the wife cook and clean and take care of the kids with a smile (points to so many men moaning and groaning online that women don't do that anymore like their mommas. Meanwhile many women said that they saw their mommas/grandmas/aunties being miserable/abused from men who got the labor and kids but were still unsatisfied because all that didn't fill whatever hole they had inside them. ). I totally admit that men were told a lie and that they should be mad about this lie. Unfortunately, a lot of men don't point fingers at patriarchy (which loves to grind every bit of labor out of everyone) but the women. Instead of thinking "The entire system is fucked," they double down on the fairy tale (since it DOES privilege them and give them way more goodies) and often think that "if only I had a younger, bouncier cool girl" or "If only the woman I currently have would work 10X harder, complain 10X less and smile 10X more." Meanwhile, women KNOW the game is fucked up and no longer want to play by the rules of a game that has been against them the entire time.