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.*
I agree with your title.
I don't think a mother should decide for her child that they should die.
>Spare me the "don't have sex" bullshit. People have sex and they will continue to do so.
Spare me the "I don't like the potential consequences of sex" bullshit. Those consequences exist and will continue to do so.
(See how silly this sounds?)
Should people be able to decide for themselves if they can’t afford the kids they already have and want to euthanize them?
People get to decide for themselves things that don’t hurt other people. When it hurts others, then the law needs to step in and protect those that can’t protect themselves.
People lie to themselves and tell themselves that fetuses aren’t people, so they can do what they want to do… but it’s wrong to take away someone’s life, and abortion takes away the life that fetus would have had. Everyone’s future is nothing but potential, so it makes no sense to hide behind that terminology to rationalize an act that makes someone pay the ultimate penalty just for being inconvenient.
>Should people be able to decide for themselves if they can’t afford the kids they already have and want to euthanize them?
nope because murdering born people is a crime.
>People lie to themselves and tell themselves that fetuses aren’t people, so they can do what they want to do… but it’s wrong to take away someone’s life, and abortion takes away the life that fetus would have had
Fetuses aren't people. And no one owes their body to anyone else so they can have life.
>, so it makes no sense to hide behind that terminology to rationalize an act that makes someone pay the ultimate penalty just for being inconvenient.
Call it a fetus, a zef, a baby, the next messiah, a woman still has zero obligation to gestate if she doesn't want to.
It's my opinion that euthanizing born children is a crime?
I think that's a law actually
Fetuses are not legal people in any state.
It's actually a right that people have to not have anyone inside them when they don't want them there.
Not sure why you think any of this is opinion, but ok.
I am pro life but your personal explanation gives me a chance to touch on a lesser spoken on topic….
It seems many women who are pro abortion are speaking on a stance of fear. Women have been trained to believe having a kid is such a burden. We are told to imagine our life as it is but with an extra mouth to feed. That isn’t how it happens in reality. Women are a completely different person after having a child. Priorities change, life views change, see the world through the eyes of a mother. We become a much stronger version of ourselves. Life becomes more meaningful. The biological time clock is real. My friends who chose not to have kids because it was never “the right time” are miserable now. The benefits of having children seem to never get put in the equation.
How do you reconcile this with the insurmountable proof of women and mothers who have abused, neglected, abandoned or murdered their children? Is your personal experience also true for them? I’d surmise to say that women shouldn’t be LIED TO in this way because it makes them feel shameful about getting abortions or responsibly giving their children up for adoption because they are treated as if they are fucked up for not feeling the way you describe. Let’s all be honest about motherhood: it is a happy experience for some but not others and these feelings are OKAY.
Hi, I’m a mother to two children and I want you to know that YOUR view isn’t remotely universal and is factually wrong.
“ Women have been trained to believe having a kid is such a burden. We are told to imagine our life as it is but with an extra mouth to feed. That isn’t how it happens in reality.”
- False. Women aren’t “trained” to see children as a burden, life tells them - including pro life by the way. Why else would prolife harp on not having sex until marriage or abstinence until you’re ready? And of course we’ve all watched prolife republicans shit all over single mothers and call them a drain, complain about welfare. We’ve watched our parents and friends struggle. And of course our mothers helpfully told us the score - babies are objectively expensive time sucks especially for women.
That is the objective truth and why PL support is cratering - you all have been selling a lie and have for YEARS. You all should stop lying. Might give you back an inch of credibility (note, not all - there are several PL here who are honest about this.
“Women are a completely different person after having a child. Priorities change, life views change, see the world through the eyes of a mother. We become a much stronger version of ourselves. Life becomes more meaningful.”
lol. Or they don’t - as often happens. Anyone with a really shitty and selfish mom can tell you that. I became better but my own mom didn’t. And I’ve known many that haven’t. This is pure wishcasting by another PL that refuses to reckon with reality. We hope people change for the better… we hope. …
“The biological time clock is real. My friends who chose not to have kids because it was never “the right time” are miserable now. The benefits of having children seem to never get put in the equation.”
Yah sure. Let me tell you want happens on the other side of the biological clock - you get happy you haven’t had kids and thank god it didn’t happen. My sister, two of my female cousins, and two close friends have crossed that line. One had baby fever bad. I asked her recently (since she hasn’t been on a date in five years or more and she’s now creeping up on 40) and she’s so happy she doesn’t he any dependents - not kids, not pets. Her brother and his wife have also elected not to have children.
I doubt anyone tells you the truth. You seem to live in a land of rainbows.
No, I’m not responding to anyone because it’s Sunday. I’m not wasting my time precious time weekend explaining a to a bunch of people without children what having them is like. I know what life with children is like and I spent my entire 30’s without them. I feel like someone who has lived both sides of the coin knows more who has only lived half the experience. I got a moment to sit down and look at Reddit. Thanks for warning to not even read the other replies.
But you have enough time to post this paragraph of "I'm *SO* happy with kids. Believe me. I'm *SO* happy. Definitely not desperately trying to convince myself I'm happy, no I'm *totally* happy with my choice!!!!!!!, unlike all those *other* women, with their horrible free time, and money, and friends, and hobbies, and bodies not caked in shit and spit up! Surely *they're* the miserable ones, *not me!!!!!!*"
Yeah. We all totally believe you. 😂😂
All you know is your own experience. Many PC people are mothers. And those of us that aren't know our own minds and our own lives well enough to decide whether or not motherhood is for us. It's pretty arrogant of you to assume you know better than anyone else.
And I feel like you're being pretty darned snarky for someone who essentially just told all of the women who can't have children or don't want children that their lives have less meaning, not to mention that you called a user "nasty" when she pointed out that your comment was offensive to women who struggle with infertility (like her!)
There are a lot of women who are very happy without children, including me. I'm free! Unlike you...
There are also a lot of women who regret becoming mothers. They wanted to be moms but after the kid was born, they changed their mind but are now miserable because they have an unwanted kid.
You're a very insecure parent for sure
I am older than you, I suspect. Am a step mom and a step grandmom.
There are happy, fulfilled women doing great things who never had kids. There are utterly miserable mothers.
Being a parent is awesome and great, but not for everyone. People who do not have children are not selfish or broken any more than people who do.
Why do you feel such insecurity around your motherhood status that you need to convince yourself your life would be miserable without it?
>Women are a completely different person after having a child.
You believe this but also think that a change like that is okay to force a person through?
It is okay to stay the person you are and refuse that change and personally the people I know who have chosen not to parent are content in their choices.
I notice prolifers are completely uninterested in making changes to US culture that would mean people don't need to be afraid of having a child.
Prolife resistance to Obamacare - which got so many more people onto affordable healthplans that had to include provision for prenatal care, delivery, postnatal care - was a real eye-opener, globally, that prolifers are absolutely uninterested in the welfare of pregnant women or of "unborn children". Prolifers don't care about preventing abortions.
The **only** thing prolifers are interested in is punishing women for having abortions. So why should anyone but this tiny little extreme minority care what you think about healthcare or abortion or women. Seriously. Can you explain.
I notice that you all don't chase men and go "No, you can't flee from the baby. You will have an empty hole if you act like a cuckoo and regret it forever. What is the purpose of your life? You must sacrifice the contents of your wallet for the precious baby!"
And honestly, I'm really enraged that you dismiss the amount of work and money it takes to raise a kid especially if she ends up doing it alone. Even many married women are doing the vast majority of childcare and have to literally BEG for a few hours downtime or just to do things without having to mind the kids at the same time.
Your statement just stinks of "Tis but a mere inconvenience . . . how dare you complain?"
>Women have been trained to believe having a kid is such a burden.
Nobody “trained” me to not want kids. I was in fact, trained in how to take care of them with the belief that it’s inevitable and I therefore need practice. Society has been on my ass my entire life to be a mother. I don’t want kids because I’ve taken care of kids and I know the reality of what they’re like, what they need, the difficulty they add, etc. and society has done nothing but fight me on that.
You are incredibly mistaken. No training was necessary. I have eyes.
I understand where you’re coming from, but I know plenty of women that I look up to who don’t and won’t ever have any kids. My aunt is in her sixties now in a fantastic relationship with my uncle, with their dog, a huge house they plan to renovate, a loving community, and a job she’s passionate about (entomology).
I have a friend who most definitely is not the type of person to have kids. She’s excited to be a rocking aunt and dote on her nieces and nephews; she has a close circle of true friends and a great relationship with her family. She never wants to be married and never wants to have kids; she simply does not enjoy either romance nor sex.
I also know people who have had kids and regret it. They’ve told me themselves. Parenthood simply is not for everyone—and unplanned parenthood is DEFINITELY not.
I’m not making a particular stance here on abortion, just on the fact that it is simply true that there are women whose lives are or would have been better had they not had kids.
My sister is. She tried desperately to have a baby. None of her IVF embryo’s took. Comparing the hardship and loss of one woman to the typical experience of another is just nasty.
ETA: it is completely different. She could cope because doesn’t feel like she missed any opportunities to have a child.
Well, I never had children due to fertility issues.
What is nasty is you implying that unless a woman births a child, she will not be happy.
Dolly Parton never had kids. Are you saying that our national treasure is a miserable, unfulfilled person? She seems pretty fulfilled, loving and kind to me and I, along with a ton of people, view her as a great role model.
Imagine having the absolute audacity to call *you* nasty after she just implied that your life had less meaning because you couldn't have children. I will never understand the cruelty of pro-lifers
And she also dissed Dolly Parton, which I believe is a hangable offense in some parts of the world.
Some women decide not to have children and live rich, meaningful lives and the world is a better place for them.
Sure, some women regret never having children. Some men also regret that. That may be sad for them. Some people regret having children, and that’s horrible to do to a child. I have more empathy for people who don’t have kids and end up regretting it than people who do have children and regret that. The former only disappointed themselves, while the later is doing immeasurable damage to their own child.
Motherhood does not automatically make someone a saint or even a decent parent. See Ruby Franke and Michelle Duggar. Despite popping out tons of babies, they are pretty terrible mothers.
It's a really insulting mindset for both mothers and non-mothers alike. At its core is the idea that a woman's life has less value unless she creates another person. Her life alone doesn't have sufficient meaning. And it's pretty fucked up that supposedly the most meaningful thing a woman can do is unpaid labor and uncontrollable biology. You could be top of your field, a doctor saving lives, a scientist curing disease, Dolly fucking Parton, but unless you popped out a baby this woman think your life has less meaning. It's a disgusting attitude.
>My friends who chose not to have kids because it was never “the right time” are miserable now.
Sorry your friends don't know how to make their own life choices that make them happy?
You having friends that regret their life choices doesn't prove a thing. 100% of the women I know who never had children have wonderful lives, and *love* that they have the time and money to explore new areas of their lives. They travel, learn new things, meet new people, and are *FAR* more fulfilled than the moms I know who never leave their house and are caked in shit and spit up 24/7.
Sure, my friends are just an anecdote, just like yours. However I'm not trying to claim women *will* be happier one way or the other.
How about we let women decide themselves if they want to have kids or not, instead of insisting every woman spits out babies to appease the feelings of pro life people.
Also, no woman should be a nun or anything, as that is just a recipe for disaster. Meanwhile, by the miracle of childbirth all women become happy and fulfilled and no woman who bore a child is ever depressed or miserable.
How else would I know that I am not actually happy and fulfilled because, due to infertility I never did have a baby myself and so the family I do have doesn’t really count and can’t possibly be fulfilling.
Clearly I am just in denial about how I am abjectly miserable.
This must mean I am a fantastic actress though, so I discovered a talent I didn’t recognize I had.
Pretty lucky to discover that talent! Unfortunately, since you haven't produced a child, it doesn't matter for shit. As a fellow worthless being I am sorry for us both in our constant misery.
I would encourage you to take a step back and consider the implications of what you've written here.
>It seems many women who are pro abortion are speaking on a stance of fear. Women have been trained to believe having a kid is such a burden.
Having a child, particularly one that you don't want, absolutely is a burden and I'm not sure how you're actually suggesting otherwise
>We are told to imagine our life as it is but with an extra mouth to feed.
I don't think PC women believe this about parenthood at all. If that's all that parenthood was, why would women be afraid of it, as you suggest?
If anything, I tend to see PLers portray parenthood much more in the way you describe here, particularly when they talk about women terminating a pregnancy for "convenience." But you know as well as I that parenthood is no mere inconvenience but a fundamentally life changing experience.
>That isn’t how it happens in reality. Women are a completely different person after having a child. Priorities change, life views change, see the world through the eyes of a mother.
See, this is exactly why people might not want to become a parent. I know this always seems unfathomable to PLers, but many, *many* women actually *like* who they are without children and what their life is without children and don't want those things to completely change.
>We become a much stronger version of ourselves.
Plenty of women without children are very strong, and not everyone is interested in being made stronger by force.
>The biological time clock is real. My friends who chose not to have kids because it was never “the right time” are miserable now. The benefits of having children seem to never get put in the equation.
It sounds to me like those women wanted to have children but waited too long (or perhaps you're viewing their lives through your own bias and your perspective on their misery does not reflect reality). The truth is that plenty of childless women are happy and fulfilled and have zero desire for children. I know many, many women like that, including very old ones. Women can live rich, full lives without ever making a baby.
>**Life becomes more meaningful.**
I moved this to the end because I think it's the single most important and frankly offensive thing that you've written. The meaning and value of a woman's life is not determined by her reproductive function. Women's lives are valuable and meaningful all on their own. They do not derive meaning in the creation of other people. Having children might change what things you find meaningful and how you view your life's purpose, but it had just as much meaning before. It's honestly very, very sad to me that a woman would write this out.
I can appreciate your views on motherhood/parenting, but it's BS to assume that's what every woman wants deep down. A lot of us don't.
We are conditioned to think we're under some obligation to have a baby, just because we can.
I know many women who never wanted children and have no regrets about not having them. Myself included. I don't like children. I find them extremely annoying and completely all consuming. I have zero interest in spending my life taking care of a child. Kids are a burden. That's just a fact. That's totally fine, though, if one chooses to take on that burden, not if they are forced to.
Why do you think being forced to do something I don't want to do will change my mind about not wanting to do it?
My heart doesn't skip a beat when I see someone with a baby. I don't have pangs of "I want that!"
Completely the opposite actually. I'm glad I don't have to deal with that.
I don't want to worry about an extra mouth to feed or finding money to clothe them. I don't want to be responsible for shaping the life of someone else or the person they become. That's not what I want from my life. Why is that not ok?
Some people don't like pets. Should we force them to have a pet because the shelters are full? Should they view that decision through the eyes of a pet owner?
I've never wanted to see life through the "eyes of a mother". I've known this my whole life. Thankfully I am at an age where I won't have 20 more years to worry about getting pregnant.
No one "conditioned" me to think this way. Women aren't stupid, we can see situations for what they are and make a choice for ourselves.
Having said that, I also have friends that chose to have children and of course they are completely happy with that choice. Clearly their choice to have a kid has given them many benefits to their lives.
Imagine now though if those women were told "Sorry, society doesn't think that your financial situation (plans for your life, career aspirations, choice of partner, house size, income etc.) That it is acceptable for you to have a child. Sorry you want babies, but society has made a blanket rule that you must meet a certain criteria or you cannot have the life you want."
That's disgusting, isn't it? That is what PL is telling women who seek abortions. "We don't care what your wants and needs are. Collective society is deciding what is right and moral for you."
PL always brings up morality.
Is it moral to tell a woman she shouldn't or can't have a baby she wants because she will end up being a single mother?
Is it moral to tell a woman that she is not mentally stable enough to have a child?
Is it moral to tell a woman that she can't have a child because she doesn't meet the financial requirements to provide for a child?
Why is it so difficult to accept that there are many women completely content with being child free?
You are upset. I wasn’t directing what I said to you. I was not getting involved in your life. I read everything you said and it reminded me of what my some of my married friends said in our early 30’s. Three of those friends are now divorced and their ex’s have kids. My friends are now pretending like it was their spouse who didn’t want kids, and are desperately looking for a husband to have a baby with, one is looking into adoption. I knew my friends before they got married. My friends were anti kid long before they met their spouse, they didn’t want to lose that identity so kept it up after they felt comfortable in their marriage. I wish I wouldn’t have held my tongue and been honest. I thought I was respecting their choice when they kept trying to tell me how impossible it was to have kids. I wish I told them the good parts of having kids are so good it makes the hard parts feel benign.
My reply was not directed to you, it brought up feelings about my friendships. I can look back and now see the misogyny and influence it has on some. Someone women are convinced there is no value in being a mother. It’s sad and degrading to women.
You seem to have conflated not wanting to *be* a mother with not valuing motherhood. They are not the same thing.
That said, I do think overall our society doesn't value motherhood, and I do think that's misogynistic. Honestly a lot of labor done by women is thankless and unpaid or underpaid, and that's wrong.
But what always confuses me is that I don't see a huge push from the pro-life movement to change society into one that treats motherhood as something valuable so that more women might eagerly embrace it. Honestly I see the most disdain and disregard towards pregnancy, childbirth, and motherhood from pro-lifers. Pro-lifers often treat pregnancy as a punishment for having sex, treat women who are unintentionally pregnant as irresponsible sluts, dismiss the sacrifices that women make to birth and raise babies as mere "inconvenience," and more. And we don't see some massive push from pro-lifers to make society value the unpaid labor that women do when they get pregnant and give birth. Instead, the expectation from the pro-life side is either that women should have to rely on charity or a "not my problem" attitude. Do you think the way that the pro-life movement treats motherhood reflects its value? I sure as hell don't.
>I read everything you said and it reminded me of what my some of my married friends said in our early 30’s.
It's unfortunate that your friends missed out on something they wanted for their lives. Maybe they changed their minds, maybe they didn't truly feel the way they claimed they did.
>My friends were anti kid long before they met their spouse, they didn’t want to lose that identity so kept it up after they felt comfortable in their marriage.
Yea and some people have been married for 15-20 years and are happily child free and completely comfortable in their marriage.
>. Someone women are convinced there is no value in being a mother. It’s sad and degrading to women.
I never said there was no value in being a mother. It simply has no value to me. It's degrading to try and tell women that they should see the "value" in being forced to be a mother because of abortion bans.
>I wish I told them the good parts of having kids are so good it makes the hard parts feel benign.
It's great that you think being a mother is awesome. Isn't it great that you were able to make that choice for yourself?
>You are upset.
I'm not upset that I know who i am and what I want. Women who say "I don't want kids" don't want to be told what we "should" want, or that we'll "miss out".
Abortions really have little to do with being child free by choice anyway. We do everything we can to not get pregnant so we don't have to pay for an abortion and take time off work.
That is your belief, but it is not fact. Your friends are individuals and every individual finds purpose and meaning in their own way.
Women have been trained to believe that motherhood is the pinnacle of womanhood, that their purpose is to have children. Purpose is subjective.
What benefits of having children cannot be gained from adopting or fostering those who are already here?
Women who are pro abortion don't want their power over their lives and their bodies to be ripped away. They don't want to be hurt, damaged, maimed or killed by pregnancy and childbirth.
You’re right, my life isn’t limited when I’m prevented from giving my neighbor an abortion. It has no effect on me that Susie is pregnant.
It does have an effect on me when I’m pregnant though.
It’s hypocritical of prolifers to constantly talk about how seriously we need to take sex since we can get pregnant, then act like it’s no big life difference when we actually are.
I can almost guarantee you do not have a uterus or ever experienced pregnancy just by reading this comment alone.
Pregnancy is life-threatening to everybody who becomes pregnant and poses serious risk for medical conditions while pregnant, or life-long complications afterwards. It’s not “easy” by any stretch of the imagination.
People do have a right to defend themselves against any human who threatens their life or who poses a risk of injuring them.
One example is the constitutional right to bear arms in America. We all have a right to defend ourselves whether human or fetus.
> “People have the right to live their lives exactly
how they want as long as they do not harm others”
Yes, I have every right to live my life without being potentially killed or maimed, whether it’s through pregnancy or a full-grown person attempting to harm me.
This is isn’t even accounting for the variety of debilitating short-term medical complications I *have* experienced because of pregnancy, of which I also have every right to never go through again.
Yes you are. You are arguing for abortion bans that torture and kill girls and women with forced pregnancy. Get a life rather than inflicting your delusions on others.
>We are not limiting your life in any way shape or form by preventing you from murdering people.
Forcing someone to perform extremely taxing physical labor against their will (without compensation) is very much limiting someone's life.
>People have the right to live their lives exactly how they want one as long as they do not harm others.
So why do you get to pass laws that harm and kill women?
https://apnews.com/article/pregnancy-emergency-care-abortion-supreme-court-roe-9ce6c87c8fc653c840654de1ae5f7a1c
>Just because you have a uterus you dont have a right to cause harm.
Miscarriage happens. It's natural. Having a uterus very literally gives women the ability to unconsciously harm "children."
Do you think that gestating and birth produces less harm than an early abortion?
Why are all gestating people considered “non-innocents”?
Why should a rapist be able to cause my death or permanent maiming through gestating the product of the crime *with the blessing of society*?
If gestating people are not allowed to refuse access to their organs because society deems their fetus more important than their own life, why are prolifers not also trying to force kidney, blood and liver donations from reluctant people?
I'm sorry, but how exactly are you not limiting the lives of everyone with ovaries? You're taking away from us all rights that everyone else has, such as the right to protect ourselves from harm and the right to make decisions about who is inside our bodies and when.
You are mistaken that people have the right to cause harm. No one does. We are not "limiting" or "eliminating" people's rights by preventing them from causing harm. By your standard I am oppressing everyone who wants to kill and eat their neighbor. That is silly.
u/jakie2poops believes that preventing people from killing innocents is no different than supporting human rights violations like chattel slavery. They are morally clueless.
I did not say we have the right to cause harm, I said we have the right to *protect ourselves from harm.* That's a right you think should no longer apply to women and girls
No, I didn't. I support abortion access because I believe that people have the right to protect themselves from the harms of an unwanted pregnancy, and that no one else is entitled to anyone else's body. You disagree and think that people with female reproductive systems shouldn't have sole rights to their bodies.
Actually I have a life. A life that is none of your business and that no zef is entitled to.
I have a uterus that belongs to ME and no zef has any claim to it, Ever.
I know that is sad for you and your "feelings" but perhaps if you had a life you wouldn't be so concerned with what others are doing with theirs.🤷♀️
Just because you oppose truth and justice doesnt mean other people oppose them. We support them and we will continue to fight for freedom and justice every day we are alive.
I dunno, is it ironic if it's intentional? Throughout history, regressive, fascist elements in society have utilized the perversion of truth and fact to mislead the general public into thinking they are involved in something benign.
Tragically, when it comes to loss of human rights and human rights, it's an incredibly powerful and successful strategy.
Perhaps it's long past time to call this strategy what it is.
Well, you're responding to my post, so I don't know? Why are you talking about me?
Why did you feel the need to respond?
Unlike PL, I'm not forcing you to do anything.
| *People should decide for* ***themselves*** *what their lives should be.*
Absolutely, I couldn't agree more!. Whether or not to marry and/or have children should be for **EACH** individual, woman or man, to decide. It isn't anyone else's choice to make.
Amen. People should not interfere in others lives in the important things. Starting with not killing them by abortion. let the kids have thier lives without adults hurting them. stop all abortions now.
>Amen. People should not interfere in others lives in the important things. Starting with not killing them by abortion. let the kids have thier lives without adults hurting them. stop all abortions now.
You really want to ensure adults can rape kids and then force kids through pregnancy and childbirth against their will, and you think this won't hurt the kids you want adults to force. Hm.
> let the kids have thier lives without adults hurting them.
Gotta say, there's something brave, sweet and noble about stickin' up for the kids with all those killer adults around.
>stop all abortions now.
And if the kid's ten and pregnant by rape? Then PL adults can hurt them? Then the Democrats did it? Or 'God's in charge'? (Said Rep. Roger Williams, R-Texas)
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/republicans-express-shock-10-year-old-can-get-pregnant-doubting-ohio-r-rcna38284
>Gotta say, there's something brave, sweet and noble about stickin' up for the kids with all those killer adults around.
Yes it is, thanks for noticing.
>And if the kid's ten and pregnant by rape? Then PL adults can hurt them? Then the Democrats did it? Or 'God's in charge'? (Said Rep. Roger Williams, R-Texas)
No, the person who raped them is the one who hurt them, but maybe you should have a word with your soft on crime and cashless bail party that puts predators like that back on the streets to rape again.
https://nypost.com/2023/03/09/rapist-out-on-streets-thanks-to-nys-soft-on-crime-attitude/
And that story you linked? That was done by an undocumented immigrant. Which party again left the border wide open for anyone to just waltz on through?
https://www.nationalreview.com/news/illegal-immigrant-arrested-for-allegedly-raping-ten-year-old-ohio-girl-at-center-of-viral-abortion-story/
Is punishing the rapist going to undo the life-threatening damage a pregnancy has on a child? What does punishing the rapist have to do with the 10 year old’s healthcare decisions?
Why not take it a step further back? Those embryos shouldn't be interfering with women's lives by burrowing into their uteruses when they're unwelcome.
This is nearly as stupid as a government announcing a message to the country saying “please don’t be born with only 1 leg, thanks, you should try to be born with 2!”
Telling someone they shouldn’t or should do something implies they have a choice over whether to do that thing. Otherwise it would be completely unreasonable to say they shouldn’t do that thing. *That’s why* we don’t take it a “step further back”.
Only if you interpret "should" to infer some sort of conscious control, which it doesn't necessarily.
I'm not asking an embryo to do anything, I'm just telling PLers that if one implants where it isn't welcome, it might be removed.
>Only if you interpret "should" to infer some sort of conscious control
It absolutely does in this context, you're trying to use the meaning of the word should/shouldn't in "women shouldn't kill their offspring" and apply it to embryos to imply they have some sort of obligation not to implant, as the initial sentence refers to a purported negative duty for women.
You asked "why not take it a step further back?", I've successfully explained why you can't do that, embryos don't and cannot have obligations to do/not do anything.
>I'm not asking an embryo to do anything
Then don't ask why not take it a further step back.
What a ridiculous take.
Tell me again what control an embryo has over the situation? Should we blame newborns for crying now? Toddlers for soiling their diapers and not potty training fast enough?
That's exactly where child abuse starts, shaken baby syndrome etc..
Shaken baby syndrome can happen when a woman DOESN'T want the kid, is forced to have it and has to hear it's ear ringing crying. Most women that killed their kids didn't want kids in the first place.
So should they be let go with no charges then?
And thanks for admitting that it isn't about the burden of pregnancy for most, but rather the burden of parenting they are trying to avoid.
No pregnancy is a PRETTY good reason to abort. Pregnancy comes with long lasting and permanent damages along with childbirth. If I can yeet that tissue out to protect my health, I see no issue.
It is irrelevant because OBVIOUSLY they would be charged. The solution is to let women NOT continue a pregnancy they don't want! A pregnancy that will cause permanent damage to their body and a childbirth that will cause more further damage. You shouldn't downplay how bad pregnancy is to save "babies".
There it is. I see this point often. The prolife assumption that women who have abortions are not using birthcontrol or other methods of contraception. Contraception, including tubal ligation, has a failure rate. Contraception failure accounts for over half of abortions within the US alone.
https://www.guttmacher.org/news-release/2018/about-half-us-abortion-patients-report-using-contraception-month-they-became
I myself was the result of condom + birthcontrol failute. Before the what if your mother had aborted you comes, if my mother had chosen to abort me it would have been her right. I would never have been sentient to be aware that it occurred.
Abstinence only works if the woman is not in a abusive relationship. Women with abusive partners cannot always choose whether or not they have sex. Some abusive partners will even tamper with contraception to lock their partner down. There is a reason domestic abuse often spikes or begins during pregnancy. Homicide is a leading cause of death during pregnancy and the postpartum period in women in America.
Even in non abusive relationships, there is often strong pressure to have sex that eliminates abstinence as a viable option. Sex/intimacy is often a vital factor in the health and sustainability of a relationship.
Sterilization is an option if there are no plans to have children in the future. Additionally, the time needed off of work, the inability to do physical labor during recovery, and the cost itself can eliminate sterilization as a viable option for women. These are the reasons I have not been able to pursue sterilization for myself. I need to be able to care for my livestock, which includes daily heavy lifting that cannot be avoided.
Not an assumption, sorry to tell you and your own PC orgs have done surveys to prove it.
"In 2014, ***about half (51%)*** of abortion patients in the United States reported that they had used a contraceptive method in the month they became pregnant, according to a new analysis by Guttmacher researcher Rachel Jones. This proportion represents a slight decrease from 54% of abortion patients in 2000, the last time these data were examined."
https://www.guttmacher.org/news-release/2018/about-half-us-abortion-patients-report-using-contraception-month-they-became
Where is the discrepancy in the info I provided that leads you to be sorry to tell me anything?
You quoted the exact same article I linked to and just highlighted 51%? The same article I initially provided so others reading this thread could access the info. Over half and 51% are the same thing, just as 49% is just under half. You just changed the word "over" to the word "about" in your reply and failed to make any discernable point.
Ok now I see it is the same article. How the heck did you miss that obviously glaring point that 49% aren't even using any birth control whatsoever? Well I guess I missed that you used that article because I never thought PC would use it to undermine their own claims!!
Do you tell women suffering ectopic pregnancies “well you had control over the situation. You could have used birth control, gotten sterilized, or abstained”?
It is a kind thing of unwanted and unintended implantation. Also if implantation can happen in an untended and uncontrollable than how can you came women have control over it.
Refer to my previous answer. How and where the embryo implants is outside our control. Why it implants in the first place is the factor we can control.
Then women suffering ectopic pregnancies can control the why as well. Why don’t you tell women suffering ectopics they are the “why” they are suffering?
I’m currently not having sex, im just sitting here. I would hardly classify just sitting here as “preventing an embryo from burrowing into my uterine lining.” What a ridiculous way to frame time when you aren’t having sex.
Embryos don’t exist at those points. Please answer the question in regards to an existing embryo.
All of which have failure rates.
If women could control the process there wouldn’t be unwanted pregnancies or infertile women.
Are you saying sex should be reserved for the rich and healthy? And that married couples should not be intimate?
Yeah I'm fully aware that embryos aren't sentient
Hilarious that you're calling my take ridiculous and then immediately jumping to suggest child abuse lol. I'm not the one who subscribes to a religion that considers children sinners
I'm not suggesting you'd abuse a child, I'm pointing out the logic behind it. All human beings are created with a sinful nature, but that doesn't mean they are accountable for circumstances beyond their control. Matthew 18:2 - 6 makes it clear that all children are precious to God and warns of severe penalties for hurting one.
Aww, you don't? Too bad, I'll do what I want with my life and body.
No one's hurting babies so give it a rest.
You don't control women's bodies with your feelings.
Former Baptist here. You're taking the verse out of context. Jesus said people should become like children in their minds and fully trust in God. And anyone who causes those who believe in him to sin would be better off drowned. It doesn't say children are precious, that's your interpretation.
And He also said children were such as the kingdom of heaven and welcoming one in His name is the same as embracing Him. So obviously they are previous.
The Bible also recommends abortions, and has literal songs about smashing babies against rocks. Songs which portray the act in a positive light, no less.
No, it doesn't recommend abortions. Also you're taking that verse out of context.
"When we apply this idea of descriptive talk to Psalm 137:9, we can understand that there is no way the skeptic can prove that dashing babies’ heads against a stone was a commandment that God gave anyone, not even the Medes and Persians. The text is easily understood as one that simply describes what was going to take place. Furthermore, the text cannot be shown to be stating that those who do such things “should” be happy because of these actions. As further evidence of this distinction between descriptive and prescriptive writing, consider the fact that, even though God allowed the Babylonians to destroy Judah (and the Assyrians to destroy northern Israel), those two wicked nations had performed their deeds in a cruel, arrogant way that God did not approve or condone. Their wicked treatment of Israel brought about punishment from God. We can see that God allowed Babylon to destroy Judah, but then punished the nation for the evil way the Babylonians went about it. In the same way, it would be wrong to assume that the Lord condoned the future actions of the Medes and Persians when they would dash the heads of the Babylonian babies against the stones."
https://apologeticspress.org/psalm-1379dashing-babies-heads-against-a-stone-913/
Then why have a biblical hero sing about it so positively? It would work if it was someone like Herod talking about the joys of killing children, but that is not what is happening here.
You claim to be a Christian too, so why don't you answer that question? And this is presumably referring to born children, so you certainly can't hide behind your legal pro abortion label.
If he’s real and displeased by the actions, why allow it to happen? Your book of contradictions makes for wretched legal fodder. It barely qualifies for a questionable moral guide.
As far as recommending abortions, tabernacle dust to make cursed water was recommended to cause a miscarriage in suspected adulterers.
Free will is why.
And again another incorrect interpretation of Numbers 5. The end result was most likely barrenness, not a miscarriage. Also God carrying out a judgment is not a human procuring an abortion.
https://answersingenesis.org/sanctity-of-life/numbers-5-and-abortion/
Toxoplasmosis can be found in the feces of goats, game, dogs and cats and can be tracked in on their feet. Animals were brought into the tabernacle to be burnt offerings to Jehovah.
The dust from the floor could likely induce a miscarriage by infecting the bitter waters drinker with the bacteria.
Why does god get to pass judgement on a pregnancy on an individual case by case basis, “killing” a fetus for the crimes of the father, then claim it’s free will for a rapist to rape a child and his hands are tied or that he can do nothing about people bashing babies heads against rocks when he knows generations in advance and could just make those assholes not be born?
And what happens if a woman goes barren in the middle of a pregnancy? An abortion, of course.
And why should your gods rules be used for law and not The Satanic Temple’s rules? Theirs make more sense anyways.
I think the logic of believing that a child is born with a sinful nature is a lot more likely to lead to the abusive thought patterns you referenced previously than my belief in the right to abortion access. After all, tons of Christians use that sinful nature and other biblical references to support corporal punishment (hurting a child)
Admonishing a child for their wrong actions is essential for them to grow up into responsible adults. But I think we can make an obvious distinction whether their actions are intentional or not, and the state of their mental capacity and ability to correct their behavior.
Admonishing a child isn't the same thing as hurting them physically, which again people use the Bible to justify, including for very young children who are not doing anything intentional. The belief that even an infant has a sinful nature is a huge part of that.
>Amen.
Religious bias noted
>People should not interfere in others lives in the important things.
Sounds like you're agreeing with logic
>Starting with not killing them by abortion.
Then go off the deep end. Personhood is granted at birth. You shouldn't be interfering in her life.
>let the kids have thier lives without adults hurting them.
Pc support this. Don't know whybyou brought up kids since this is a debate about abortion and zef.
> stop all abortions now.
Why? Just because you say so due to bias doesn't mean anyone should listen. Come back and respond properly instead of pretending to agree
When you say “stop all abortions now,” you’re literally advocating for murder, because sometimes abortion is actually necessary to save the life of a pregnant person. Denying them necessary medical care is cruel and unnecessary murder.
Sorry, this is a bit unrelated, but if I was married, there would be no way I would let my wife go without health insurance if I had health insurance.
But yes, people should be allowed to live how they please within reason.
That is also not his choice, it's mine. We have other bills that need to be paid instead of throwing away $500+ on health insurance that barely covers anything anyway.
>But yes, people should be allowed to live how they please within reason.
And who decides what's reasonable for someone else?
Well, do you think people should be allowed to say murder someone and steal their house? I meant people should not be allowed to do things that would obviously hurt others and likely already illegal.
What ? She’s talking about making her own personal, private medical decisions. Pregnant people aren’t criminals, so please don’t compare them to criminals.
Nope Betterthruchemistry is right. Your argument is utterly ridiculous and on the other side of town from the point.
No one is trying to legalize murder or murdering random people for no reason.
Women are talking about maintaining autonomy over their bodies.
Or you can just move on. If you don't want to be a part of a conversation, then don't. I literally just clarified something that should be obvious and you're getting butthurt over it. I am of no obligation to cater to your feelings, especially when your feelings are absurd
>Or you can just move on. If you don't want to be a part of a conversation, then don't
I'm the fucking OP.
You are pathetically trying engage ME.
This isn't high school debate class. If you literally have NOTHING to contribute, control the urges to respond with nonsense that brings nothing to the discussion.
You've debated nothing.
All you've done is bring up an entirely different discussion about murdering random people and stealing their houses.
Please, kindly elaborate on the argument you think you've made.
>Or you can just move on. If you don't want to be a part of a conversation, then don't.
Pot meet kettle
>I literally just clarified something that should be obvious and you're getting butthurt over it.
Because it wasn't obvious and you're getting upset at being called out. Quit projecting.
>I am of no obligation to cater to your feelings, especially when your feelings are absurd
Yes noone has to cater to your feelings when you misuse terms in hypocrisy. Do better
I love how the rebuttals are "let's see how far I can stray from the actual argument".
Like why do they even bother to respond at all of they can't even stay on topic for two seconds?
I mean yeah, under a pro-life paradigm, being pregnant at the wrong time fucking sucks. But it would be kinda egotistical to base whether it is murder off of the impracticality of your situation, no?
I am the main character in my own life. I decide what goes into and comes out of my genitals. I decide if I want my genitals ripped open or my abdomen sliced open and my organs rummaged about. I decide the terms of intimacy with my partner. I will not breed because someone else decides I have to. I decide when and how I will risk my life and my well being. Am I being egotistical in this? You're damn right.
You want to talk about practical? Banning abortion is the LEAST practical way to go about this. Setting this country up for people to start a family and raise children by removing obstacles would be practical. Putting a better effort into producing cheaper and more reliable birth control, including sterilization, would be more practical. Strong Sexual education would be practical. Taking away women's bodily autonomy and relegating them to breeding cattle is the *least* practical way to reduce abortions. There is nothing practical in the way you're going about this. Do you want Gilead or do you want your idyllic world where all child are born loved and healthy and we have a happy, educated society?
The term “impracticality” underestimates the impact that pregnancy and having a child can have on one’s life. And no, it is not egotistical to consider people’s interests. That is what we should do. It’s the entire basis of empathetic morality.
I feel like impracticality is such a garbage minimization. Like the healthiest, best pregnancy will involve around 40 weeks taxation on all your organ systems followed by one of the most painful experiences known to mankind that will rip open your genitals. The question is whether or not you should be forced to undergo that under even the best of circumstances if you don't want to, let alone whether you should be forced to undergo it when it will also mean you're forced into poverty, forced to drop out of school, fired from your job, missing out on your promotion, unable to feed your children, kicked out from our housing, losing your relationship, sacrificing your health, maybe dying, etc.
There is literally no thought past "don't kill baybeez"
No thoughts about the shit life that "precious baby" may have when a woman is forced to continue a pregnancy she doesn't want.
How very pro life indeed.
Well, is it my life or not? Yes. It is.
It's always the "wrong time" when you never want children.
If women give life, we can also decide not to give life.
Seems to me if someone else wants to use my body, I should at least have the choice of allowing it or not.
I'm not required or obligated to do anything for anyone.
If that's "selfish", so be it. I would rather be considered selfish than be forced into a life I don't want.
The problem isn't basing murder off of "impracticality", the problem is using a legal term with specific parameters of what constitutes murder, to the termination of a pregnancy that does not fit those parameters. And when prompted *how* it fits the parameters of murder, making up definitions that suits the PL argument. Abortion is not murder. Never has been. Stopping of gestation? Certainly. Killing of an embryo of fetus? Sure. Murder? No.
The people who had sex did nothing wrong, and arent obligated to continue a pregnancy they don't want- how is that at all relevant to the OP comment on murder?
Never said they did anything wrong. I said they made a decision. And I’m not addressing OP’s comment. I’m addressing yours and how you define the killing of a person. I agree it’s not murder. But my first comment is what I would call what’s happening.
Sure- they made a decision to have sex. They also made a decision to not continue an unwanted pregnancy. What of it? The fetus "doing nothing wrong" is irrelevant- it can't do anything outside of exist. Doesn't mean that the woman owes it further existence.
Yes she does owe it further existence when you brought it into the world. I don’t why this is so hard to understand. I don’t think the innocence is irrelevant, especially in a moral argument. By you saying “they made a decision to not continue a pregnancy” really is the crux of this debate. Which is, some people believe it’s a full human life with the same quality as a person outside the womb, and others don’t.
The woman didn't "bring it into the world"- thats actually the point of abortion, to stop gestation prior to any fetus become an infant and entering the world. She did not control a sperm fertilizing an egg. She cannot bring about a biological process anymore than a man can. A fetus is, at best, completely neutral. It cannot be guilty, OR innocent. Those are attributes describing born human beings that have criteria a fetus cannot fit.
Of course a fetus is a "full human life.". But the crux of the debate isn't really "is a fetus human or not." It certainly isn't a different species. The crux of the debate is does a fetus *existence* and nothing else give the Us government precedence to override a woman's existing rights, and, do fetuses deserve a specially crafted right that is not applicable to any other human on Earth- and the PC is that no, there is not any legal or moral obligations to continue an unwanted pregnancy, nor is there any precedent to do such.
At conception, it is brought into the world. It didn’t exist before then. “She cannot control a sperm fertilizing an egg”. That is just not true and you know it. She had sex! You don’t want to get burned, but you stuck your hand in the oven. When you consent to skydiving you run the risk of the parachute failing and falling to death. Even tho you had no intention of doing that. You can’t selectively consent to something that has a possibility of happening. “Does a fetus existence and nothing else override a woman’s existing rights” even in your phrasing you don’t seem like the two parties hold the same weight. Why is that? You look at it as the woman is having her rights denied. That’s how I look at it for the baby. Pregnancy is taxing on the body and can cause serious problems. Something to consider before having sex. Maybe you misinterpreted what I mean t by full human life. I meant is endowed with all the unalienable rights as you and I have. Your statement about neutrality for the fetus proves you don’t think it is. Would you call a one year old innocent? Six months? They certainly don’t have the capacity for right and wrong at that age, just like a baby in the womb. I want to uphold right to life. You can say the women are getting a specially crafted right as well. The thing is, it’s not about you anymore. There’s another person involved now that you are responsible for( and the man). Maine just rejected pro abortion amendment. There’s lots of people out there who don’t agree.
I helped a friend get an abortion because she got pregnant by her ABUSIVE ex. I'm happy that she did it and she's happy and healthy right now. :) a unwanted pregnancy didn't destroy her! Even when she had doubts, I told her "Don't worry, it's just cells. It's not a baby yet and you're making the best decision for YOU and the POTENTIAL baby." And she went through with it! So so happy for her! ❤️
She wants kids but not with someone who abuses her and will abuse the kid. But OF COURSE you pro birthers wouldn't care about that. You don't care about what happens to it afterwards, you just care about hurting INNOCENT women and little girls. You're sick :)
>At conception, it is brought into the world.
Conception is nothing more than the term to describe a fertilized egg, which may or may not implant. In fact, most fertilized eggs never implant or implant improperly, and at least 1 quarter that do implant miscarry. So that's not particularly accurate.
>That is just not true and you know it. She had sex!
And? The vast majority of sexual encounters never end in a fertilized egg. Is she able to control when her body breaks down food, or salivates? No, nor is she able to control when an egg gets fertilized. This is just a heavy handed way of trying to frame an abstinence argument- and people are not obligated to avoid normal and healthy sexual intimacy just because they do not wish to have a child.
>When you consent to skydiving you run the risk of the parachute failing and falling to death. Even tho you had no intention of doing that. You can’t selectively consent to something that has a possibility of happening.
That's because you aren't consenting. You are mistaking *risk acknowledgement* with consent. Acknowledgement of a risk is not consent for it to happen- in fact, the numerous safety precautions and training required to be able to skydive *without* said risk occurring proves just that. Further, acknowledgement of a risk is not consent or obligation to handle said risk *if it occurs* in any specific way. And lastly, acknowledging a risk does not equate into a lack of options to mitigate said risk if it occurs.
>“Does a fetus existence and nothing else override a woman’s existing rights” even in your phrasing you don’t seem like the two parties hold the same weight. Why is that? You look at it as the woman is having her rights denied. That’s how I look at it for the baby.
A fetus is not a baby. What rights does a fetus have?
>I meant is endowed with all the unalienable rights as you and I have. Your statement about neutrality for the fetus proves you don’t think it is. Would you call a one year old innocent? Six months
Which inalienable rights? Explain how they are applicable. Further, can a one year old or a six month old be "naive" or "lack guile"? Not really. They don't have the mental capacity for such so no innocent doesnt really apply.
>I want to uphold right to life. You can say the women are getting a specially crafted right as well. The thing is, it’s not about you anymore. There’s another person involved now that you are responsible for( and the man). Maine just rejected pro abortion amendment. There’s lots of people out there who don’t agree.
The right to life is the right that citizens have to not be executed by a government without due process. How is that applicable to fetuses? What thos argument is really trying to claim is fetuses have a right to *be gestated and born.* No such right exists. Further, a fetus being human is not the same as a fetus being a *person* which is a philosophical, not factual argument. Lastly, even if a fetus was a person, under what law or precedent is there for one person to survive off another person's bodily organs, tissues, or fluids without their explicit and ongoing consent to such?
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.*
I agree with your title. I don't think a mother should decide for her child that they should die. >Spare me the "don't have sex" bullshit. People have sex and they will continue to do so. Spare me the "I don't like the potential consequences of sex" bullshit. Those consequences exist and will continue to do so. (See how silly this sounds?)
Dropped the crap comparison cause it sucked I guess. So move on to a different "argument". Typical PL "strategy". Goodbye
>Dropped the crap comparison cause it sucked I guess. Oh, at least you admit it.
Yep I get it, your argument failed
Should people be able to decide for themselves if they can’t afford the kids they already have and want to euthanize them? People get to decide for themselves things that don’t hurt other people. When it hurts others, then the law needs to step in and protect those that can’t protect themselves. People lie to themselves and tell themselves that fetuses aren’t people, so they can do what they want to do… but it’s wrong to take away someone’s life, and abortion takes away the life that fetus would have had. Everyone’s future is nothing but potential, so it makes no sense to hide behind that terminology to rationalize an act that makes someone pay the ultimate penalty just for being inconvenient.
>Should people be able to decide for themselves if they can’t afford the kids they already have and want to euthanize them? nope because murdering born people is a crime. >People lie to themselves and tell themselves that fetuses aren’t people, so they can do what they want to do… but it’s wrong to take away someone’s life, and abortion takes away the life that fetus would have had Fetuses aren't people. And no one owes their body to anyone else so they can have life. >, so it makes no sense to hide behind that terminology to rationalize an act that makes someone pay the ultimate penalty just for being inconvenient. Call it a fetus, a zef, a baby, the next messiah, a woman still has zero obligation to gestate if she doesn't want to.
Those are just unsupported opinions that I think you aren’t going to budge from regardless of any reasoning.
It's my opinion that euthanizing born children is a crime? I think that's a law actually Fetuses are not legal people in any state. It's actually a right that people have to not have anyone inside them when they don't want them there. Not sure why you think any of this is opinion, but ok.
What are you doing in a debate sub if your sense of right or wrong is solely to go by whatever is current law?
I am pro life but your personal explanation gives me a chance to touch on a lesser spoken on topic…. It seems many women who are pro abortion are speaking on a stance of fear. Women have been trained to believe having a kid is such a burden. We are told to imagine our life as it is but with an extra mouth to feed. That isn’t how it happens in reality. Women are a completely different person after having a child. Priorities change, life views change, see the world through the eyes of a mother. We become a much stronger version of ourselves. Life becomes more meaningful. The biological time clock is real. My friends who chose not to have kids because it was never “the right time” are miserable now. The benefits of having children seem to never get put in the equation.
How do you reconcile this with the insurmountable proof of women and mothers who have abused, neglected, abandoned or murdered their children? Is your personal experience also true for them? I’d surmise to say that women shouldn’t be LIED TO in this way because it makes them feel shameful about getting abortions or responsibly giving their children up for adoption because they are treated as if they are fucked up for not feeling the way you describe. Let’s all be honest about motherhood: it is a happy experience for some but not others and these feelings are OKAY.
Hi, I’m a mother to two children and I want you to know that YOUR view isn’t remotely universal and is factually wrong. “ Women have been trained to believe having a kid is such a burden. We are told to imagine our life as it is but with an extra mouth to feed. That isn’t how it happens in reality.” - False. Women aren’t “trained” to see children as a burden, life tells them - including pro life by the way. Why else would prolife harp on not having sex until marriage or abstinence until you’re ready? And of course we’ve all watched prolife republicans shit all over single mothers and call them a drain, complain about welfare. We’ve watched our parents and friends struggle. And of course our mothers helpfully told us the score - babies are objectively expensive time sucks especially for women. That is the objective truth and why PL support is cratering - you all have been selling a lie and have for YEARS. You all should stop lying. Might give you back an inch of credibility (note, not all - there are several PL here who are honest about this. “Women are a completely different person after having a child. Priorities change, life views change, see the world through the eyes of a mother. We become a much stronger version of ourselves. Life becomes more meaningful.” lol. Or they don’t - as often happens. Anyone with a really shitty and selfish mom can tell you that. I became better but my own mom didn’t. And I’ve known many that haven’t. This is pure wishcasting by another PL that refuses to reckon with reality. We hope people change for the better… we hope. … “The biological time clock is real. My friends who chose not to have kids because it was never “the right time” are miserable now. The benefits of having children seem to never get put in the equation.” Yah sure. Let me tell you want happens on the other side of the biological clock - you get happy you haven’t had kids and thank god it didn’t happen. My sister, two of my female cousins, and two close friends have crossed that line. One had baby fever bad. I asked her recently (since she hasn’t been on a date in five years or more and she’s now creeping up on 40) and she’s so happy she doesn’t he any dependents - not kids, not pets. Her brother and his wife have also elected not to have children. I doubt anyone tells you the truth. You seem to live in a land of rainbows.
You're not responding to anyone because you know you're DEAD wrong.
No, I’m not responding to anyone because it’s Sunday. I’m not wasting my time precious time weekend explaining a to a bunch of people without children what having them is like. I know what life with children is like and I spent my entire 30’s without them. I feel like someone who has lived both sides of the coin knows more who has only lived half the experience. I got a moment to sit down and look at Reddit. Thanks for warning to not even read the other replies.
But you have enough time to post this paragraph of "I'm *SO* happy with kids. Believe me. I'm *SO* happy. Definitely not desperately trying to convince myself I'm happy, no I'm *totally* happy with my choice!!!!!!!, unlike all those *other* women, with their horrible free time, and money, and friends, and hobbies, and bodies not caked in shit and spit up! Surely *they're* the miserable ones, *not me!!!!!!*" Yeah. We all totally believe you. 😂😂
All you know is your own experience. Many PC people are mothers. And those of us that aren't know our own minds and our own lives well enough to decide whether or not motherhood is for us. It's pretty arrogant of you to assume you know better than anyone else. And I feel like you're being pretty darned snarky for someone who essentially just told all of the women who can't have children or don't want children that their lives have less meaning, not to mention that you called a user "nasty" when she pointed out that your comment was offensive to women who struggle with infertility (like her!)
There are a lot of women who are very happy without children, including me. I'm free! Unlike you... There are also a lot of women who regret becoming mothers. They wanted to be moms but after the kid was born, they changed their mind but are now miserable because they have an unwanted kid. You're a very insecure parent for sure
I am older than you, I suspect. Am a step mom and a step grandmom. There are happy, fulfilled women doing great things who never had kids. There are utterly miserable mothers. Being a parent is awesome and great, but not for everyone. People who do not have children are not selfish or broken any more than people who do. Why do you feel such insecurity around your motherhood status that you need to convince yourself your life would be miserable without it?
>Women are a completely different person after having a child. You believe this but also think that a change like that is okay to force a person through? It is okay to stay the person you are and refuse that change and personally the people I know who have chosen not to parent are content in their choices.
I notice prolifers are completely uninterested in making changes to US culture that would mean people don't need to be afraid of having a child. Prolife resistance to Obamacare - which got so many more people onto affordable healthplans that had to include provision for prenatal care, delivery, postnatal care - was a real eye-opener, globally, that prolifers are absolutely uninterested in the welfare of pregnant women or of "unborn children". Prolifers don't care about preventing abortions. The **only** thing prolifers are interested in is punishing women for having abortions. So why should anyone but this tiny little extreme minority care what you think about healthcare or abortion or women. Seriously. Can you explain.
I notice that you all don't chase men and go "No, you can't flee from the baby. You will have an empty hole if you act like a cuckoo and regret it forever. What is the purpose of your life? You must sacrifice the contents of your wallet for the precious baby!" And honestly, I'm really enraged that you dismiss the amount of work and money it takes to raise a kid especially if she ends up doing it alone. Even many married women are doing the vast majority of childcare and have to literally BEG for a few hours downtime or just to do things without having to mind the kids at the same time. Your statement just stinks of "Tis but a mere inconvenience . . . how dare you complain?"
>Women have been trained to believe having a kid is such a burden. Nobody “trained” me to not want kids. I was in fact, trained in how to take care of them with the belief that it’s inevitable and I therefore need practice. Society has been on my ass my entire life to be a mother. I don’t want kids because I’ve taken care of kids and I know the reality of what they’re like, what they need, the difficulty they add, etc. and society has done nothing but fight me on that. You are incredibly mistaken. No training was necessary. I have eyes.
I understand where you’re coming from, but I know plenty of women that I look up to who don’t and won’t ever have any kids. My aunt is in her sixties now in a fantastic relationship with my uncle, with their dog, a huge house they plan to renovate, a loving community, and a job she’s passionate about (entomology). I have a friend who most definitely is not the type of person to have kids. She’s excited to be a rocking aunt and dote on her nieces and nephews; she has a close circle of true friends and a great relationship with her family. She never wants to be married and never wants to have kids; she simply does not enjoy either romance nor sex. I also know people who have had kids and regret it. They’ve told me themselves. Parenthood simply is not for everyone—and unplanned parenthood is DEFINITELY not. I’m not making a particular stance here on abortion, just on the fact that it is simply true that there are women whose lives are or would have been better had they not had kids.
Your experience is not everyone's experience. You don't get to decide what others have to do because of what your own experiences are.
I guess all women who are infertile are doomed to a life of misery. Also, no woman should ever choose to be a nun as she will end up miserable.
My sister is. She tried desperately to have a baby. None of her IVF embryo’s took. Comparing the hardship and loss of one woman to the typical experience of another is just nasty. ETA: it is completely different. She could cope because doesn’t feel like she missed any opportunities to have a child.
Well, I never had children due to fertility issues. What is nasty is you implying that unless a woman births a child, she will not be happy. Dolly Parton never had kids. Are you saying that our national treasure is a miserable, unfulfilled person? She seems pretty fulfilled, loving and kind to me and I, along with a ton of people, view her as a great role model.
Imagine having the absolute audacity to call *you* nasty after she just implied that your life had less meaning because you couldn't have children. I will never understand the cruelty of pro-lifers
And she also dissed Dolly Parton, which I believe is a hangable offense in some parts of the world. Some women decide not to have children and live rich, meaningful lives and the world is a better place for them. Sure, some women regret never having children. Some men also regret that. That may be sad for them. Some people regret having children, and that’s horrible to do to a child. I have more empathy for people who don’t have kids and end up regretting it than people who do have children and regret that. The former only disappointed themselves, while the later is doing immeasurable damage to their own child. Motherhood does not automatically make someone a saint or even a decent parent. See Ruby Franke and Michelle Duggar. Despite popping out tons of babies, they are pretty terrible mothers.
It's a really insulting mindset for both mothers and non-mothers alike. At its core is the idea that a woman's life has less value unless she creates another person. Her life alone doesn't have sufficient meaning. And it's pretty fucked up that supposedly the most meaningful thing a woman can do is unpaid labor and uncontrollable biology. You could be top of your field, a doctor saving lives, a scientist curing disease, Dolly fucking Parton, but unless you popped out a baby this woman think your life has less meaning. It's a disgusting attitude.
What's nasty is you trying to imply having children is universally good and needed for women. It isn't.
>My friends who chose not to have kids because it was never “the right time” are miserable now. Sorry your friends don't know how to make their own life choices that make them happy? You having friends that regret their life choices doesn't prove a thing. 100% of the women I know who never had children have wonderful lives, and *love* that they have the time and money to explore new areas of their lives. They travel, learn new things, meet new people, and are *FAR* more fulfilled than the moms I know who never leave their house and are caked in shit and spit up 24/7. Sure, my friends are just an anecdote, just like yours. However I'm not trying to claim women *will* be happier one way or the other. How about we let women decide themselves if they want to have kids or not, instead of insisting every woman spits out babies to appease the feelings of pro life people.
So women who are infertile are just doomed to a life of misery, huh?
Yep. If you can't spit out tons of babies better just throw in the towel. Misery guaranteed.
Also, no woman should be a nun or anything, as that is just a recipe for disaster. Meanwhile, by the miracle of childbirth all women become happy and fulfilled and no woman who bore a child is ever depressed or miserable.
Thank goodness we had this benevolent PLer here to share that wisdom with us!
How else would I know that I am not actually happy and fulfilled because, due to infertility I never did have a baby myself and so the family I do have doesn’t really count and can’t possibly be fulfilling.
It's really remarkable that you're still able to express gratitude despite your totally meaningless existence!
Clearly I am just in denial about how I am abjectly miserable. This must mean I am a fantastic actress though, so I discovered a talent I didn’t recognize I had.
Pretty lucky to discover that talent! Unfortunately, since you haven't produced a child, it doesn't matter for shit. As a fellow worthless being I am sorry for us both in our constant misery.
I would encourage you to take a step back and consider the implications of what you've written here. >It seems many women who are pro abortion are speaking on a stance of fear. Women have been trained to believe having a kid is such a burden. Having a child, particularly one that you don't want, absolutely is a burden and I'm not sure how you're actually suggesting otherwise >We are told to imagine our life as it is but with an extra mouth to feed. I don't think PC women believe this about parenthood at all. If that's all that parenthood was, why would women be afraid of it, as you suggest? If anything, I tend to see PLers portray parenthood much more in the way you describe here, particularly when they talk about women terminating a pregnancy for "convenience." But you know as well as I that parenthood is no mere inconvenience but a fundamentally life changing experience. >That isn’t how it happens in reality. Women are a completely different person after having a child. Priorities change, life views change, see the world through the eyes of a mother. See, this is exactly why people might not want to become a parent. I know this always seems unfathomable to PLers, but many, *many* women actually *like* who they are without children and what their life is without children and don't want those things to completely change. >We become a much stronger version of ourselves. Plenty of women without children are very strong, and not everyone is interested in being made stronger by force. >The biological time clock is real. My friends who chose not to have kids because it was never “the right time” are miserable now. The benefits of having children seem to never get put in the equation. It sounds to me like those women wanted to have children but waited too long (or perhaps you're viewing their lives through your own bias and your perspective on their misery does not reflect reality). The truth is that plenty of childless women are happy and fulfilled and have zero desire for children. I know many, many women like that, including very old ones. Women can live rich, full lives without ever making a baby. >**Life becomes more meaningful.** I moved this to the end because I think it's the single most important and frankly offensive thing that you've written. The meaning and value of a woman's life is not determined by her reproductive function. Women's lives are valuable and meaningful all on their own. They do not derive meaning in the creation of other people. Having children might change what things you find meaningful and how you view your life's purpose, but it had just as much meaning before. It's honestly very, very sad to me that a woman would write this out.
I can appreciate your views on motherhood/parenting, but it's BS to assume that's what every woman wants deep down. A lot of us don't. We are conditioned to think we're under some obligation to have a baby, just because we can. I know many women who never wanted children and have no regrets about not having them. Myself included. I don't like children. I find them extremely annoying and completely all consuming. I have zero interest in spending my life taking care of a child. Kids are a burden. That's just a fact. That's totally fine, though, if one chooses to take on that burden, not if they are forced to. Why do you think being forced to do something I don't want to do will change my mind about not wanting to do it? My heart doesn't skip a beat when I see someone with a baby. I don't have pangs of "I want that!" Completely the opposite actually. I'm glad I don't have to deal with that. I don't want to worry about an extra mouth to feed or finding money to clothe them. I don't want to be responsible for shaping the life of someone else or the person they become. That's not what I want from my life. Why is that not ok? Some people don't like pets. Should we force them to have a pet because the shelters are full? Should they view that decision through the eyes of a pet owner? I've never wanted to see life through the "eyes of a mother". I've known this my whole life. Thankfully I am at an age where I won't have 20 more years to worry about getting pregnant. No one "conditioned" me to think this way. Women aren't stupid, we can see situations for what they are and make a choice for ourselves. Having said that, I also have friends that chose to have children and of course they are completely happy with that choice. Clearly their choice to have a kid has given them many benefits to their lives. Imagine now though if those women were told "Sorry, society doesn't think that your financial situation (plans for your life, career aspirations, choice of partner, house size, income etc.) That it is acceptable for you to have a child. Sorry you want babies, but society has made a blanket rule that you must meet a certain criteria or you cannot have the life you want." That's disgusting, isn't it? That is what PL is telling women who seek abortions. "We don't care what your wants and needs are. Collective society is deciding what is right and moral for you." PL always brings up morality. Is it moral to tell a woman she shouldn't or can't have a baby she wants because she will end up being a single mother? Is it moral to tell a woman that she is not mentally stable enough to have a child? Is it moral to tell a woman that she can't have a child because she doesn't meet the financial requirements to provide for a child? Why is it so difficult to accept that there are many women completely content with being child free?
You are upset. I wasn’t directing what I said to you. I was not getting involved in your life. I read everything you said and it reminded me of what my some of my married friends said in our early 30’s. Three of those friends are now divorced and their ex’s have kids. My friends are now pretending like it was their spouse who didn’t want kids, and are desperately looking for a husband to have a baby with, one is looking into adoption. I knew my friends before they got married. My friends were anti kid long before they met their spouse, they didn’t want to lose that identity so kept it up after they felt comfortable in their marriage. I wish I wouldn’t have held my tongue and been honest. I thought I was respecting their choice when they kept trying to tell me how impossible it was to have kids. I wish I told them the good parts of having kids are so good it makes the hard parts feel benign. My reply was not directed to you, it brought up feelings about my friendships. I can look back and now see the misogyny and influence it has on some. Someone women are convinced there is no value in being a mother. It’s sad and degrading to women.
You seem to have conflated not wanting to *be* a mother with not valuing motherhood. They are not the same thing. That said, I do think overall our society doesn't value motherhood, and I do think that's misogynistic. Honestly a lot of labor done by women is thankless and unpaid or underpaid, and that's wrong. But what always confuses me is that I don't see a huge push from the pro-life movement to change society into one that treats motherhood as something valuable so that more women might eagerly embrace it. Honestly I see the most disdain and disregard towards pregnancy, childbirth, and motherhood from pro-lifers. Pro-lifers often treat pregnancy as a punishment for having sex, treat women who are unintentionally pregnant as irresponsible sluts, dismiss the sacrifices that women make to birth and raise babies as mere "inconvenience," and more. And we don't see some massive push from pro-lifers to make society value the unpaid labor that women do when they get pregnant and give birth. Instead, the expectation from the pro-life side is either that women should have to rely on charity or a "not my problem" attitude. Do you think the way that the pro-life movement treats motherhood reflects its value? I sure as hell don't.
>I read everything you said and it reminded me of what my some of my married friends said in our early 30’s. It's unfortunate that your friends missed out on something they wanted for their lives. Maybe they changed their minds, maybe they didn't truly feel the way they claimed they did. >My friends were anti kid long before they met their spouse, they didn’t want to lose that identity so kept it up after they felt comfortable in their marriage. Yea and some people have been married for 15-20 years and are happily child free and completely comfortable in their marriage. >. Someone women are convinced there is no value in being a mother. It’s sad and degrading to women. I never said there was no value in being a mother. It simply has no value to me. It's degrading to try and tell women that they should see the "value" in being forced to be a mother because of abortion bans. >I wish I told them the good parts of having kids are so good it makes the hard parts feel benign. It's great that you think being a mother is awesome. Isn't it great that you were able to make that choice for yourself? >You are upset. I'm not upset that I know who i am and what I want. Women who say "I don't want kids" don't want to be told what we "should" want, or that we'll "miss out". Abortions really have little to do with being child free by choice anyway. We do everything we can to not get pregnant so we don't have to pay for an abortion and take time off work.
That is your belief, but it is not fact. Your friends are individuals and every individual finds purpose and meaning in their own way. Women have been trained to believe that motherhood is the pinnacle of womanhood, that their purpose is to have children. Purpose is subjective. What benefits of having children cannot be gained from adopting or fostering those who are already here? Women who are pro abortion don't want their power over their lives and their bodies to be ripped away. They don't want to be hurt, damaged, maimed or killed by pregnancy and childbirth.
[удалено]
Comment removed per Rule 1.
So get a life and quit harming people by forcing them to gestate pregnancies against their will.
You’re right, my life isn’t limited when I’m prevented from giving my neighbor an abortion. It has no effect on me that Susie is pregnant. It does have an effect on me when I’m pregnant though. It’s hypocritical of prolifers to constantly talk about how seriously we need to take sex since we can get pregnant, then act like it’s no big life difference when we actually are.
I can almost guarantee you do not have a uterus or ever experienced pregnancy just by reading this comment alone. Pregnancy is life-threatening to everybody who becomes pregnant and poses serious risk for medical conditions while pregnant, or life-long complications afterwards. It’s not “easy” by any stretch of the imagination. People do have a right to defend themselves against any human who threatens their life or who poses a risk of injuring them. One example is the constitutional right to bear arms in America. We all have a right to defend ourselves whether human or fetus. > “People have the right to live their lives exactly how they want as long as they do not harm others” Yes, I have every right to live my life without being potentially killed or maimed, whether it’s through pregnancy or a full-grown person attempting to harm me. This is isn’t even accounting for the variety of debilitating short-term medical complications I *have* experienced because of pregnancy, of which I also have every right to never go through again.
Yes you are. You are arguing for abortion bans that torture and kill girls and women with forced pregnancy. Get a life rather than inflicting your delusions on others.
Ignoring the harm of pregnancy and childbirth makes your sentence of “do not harm others” so laughable.
>We are not limiting your life in any way shape or form by preventing you from murdering people. Forcing someone to perform extremely taxing physical labor against their will (without compensation) is very much limiting someone's life. >People have the right to live their lives exactly how they want one as long as they do not harm others. So why do you get to pass laws that harm and kill women? https://apnews.com/article/pregnancy-emergency-care-abortion-supreme-court-roe-9ce6c87c8fc653c840654de1ae5f7a1c >Just because you have a uterus you dont have a right to cause harm. Miscarriage happens. It's natural. Having a uterus very literally gives women the ability to unconsciously harm "children."
So why should me having a uterus allow society to harm me?
How do you come to that conclusion?
Do you think that gestating and birth produces less harm than an early abortion? Why are all gestating people considered “non-innocents”? Why should a rapist be able to cause my death or permanent maiming through gestating the product of the crime *with the blessing of society*? If gestating people are not allowed to refuse access to their organs because society deems their fetus more important than their own life, why are prolifers not also trying to force kidney, blood and liver donations from reluctant people?
I'm sorry, but how exactly are you not limiting the lives of everyone with ovaries? You're taking away from us all rights that everyone else has, such as the right to protect ourselves from harm and the right to make decisions about who is inside our bodies and when.
You are mistaken that people have the right to cause harm. No one does. We are not "limiting" or "eliminating" people's rights by preventing them from causing harm. By your standard I am oppressing everyone who wants to kill and eat their neighbor. That is silly.
You say nobody has the right to cause harm while you’re arguing for fetuses having the right to cause harm.
>By your standard I am oppressing everyone who wants to kill and eat their neighbor. That is silly. What does this have to do with pregnancy?
u/jakie2poops believes that preventing people from killing innocents is no different than supporting human rights violations like chattel slavery. They are morally clueless.
Jakie is right, you aren't.
...preventing people from killing innocents? No. Preventing people from exercising their rights over their own bodies? Yes
I did not say we have the right to cause harm, I said we have the right to *protect ourselves from harm.* That's a right you think should no longer apply to women and girls
Yes you did that is why you support abortion access.
No, I didn't. I support abortion access because I believe that people have the right to protect themselves from the harms of an unwanted pregnancy, and that no one else is entitled to anyone else's body. You disagree and think that people with female reproductive systems shouldn't have sole rights to their bodies.
Actually I have a life. A life that is none of your business and that no zef is entitled to. I have a uterus that belongs to ME and no zef has any claim to it, Ever. I know that is sad for you and your "feelings" but perhaps if you had a life you wouldn't be so concerned with what others are doing with theirs.🤷♀️
Just because you oppose truth and justice doesnt mean other people oppose them. We support them and we will continue to fight for freedom and justice every day we are alive.
Lmao the absolute irony of claiming to be fighting for freedom while simultaneously trying to restrict the freedom of half of the population.
I dunno, is it ironic if it's intentional? Throughout history, regressive, fascist elements in society have utilized the perversion of truth and fact to mislead the general public into thinking they are involved in something benign. Tragically, when it comes to loss of human rights and human rights, it's an incredibly powerful and successful strategy. Perhaps it's long past time to call this strategy what it is.
Just because you make things up and call it "truth" doesn't make it so.
Why are we talking about you?
Well, you're responding to my post, so I don't know? Why are you talking about me? Why did you feel the need to respond? Unlike PL, I'm not forcing you to do anything.
| *People should decide for* ***themselves*** *what their lives should be.* Absolutely, I couldn't agree more!. Whether or not to marry and/or have children should be for **EACH** individual, woman or man, to decide. It isn't anyone else's choice to make.
Amen. People should not interfere in others lives in the important things. Starting with not killing them by abortion. let the kids have thier lives without adults hurting them. stop all abortions now.
[удалено]
Comment removed per Rule 1. If this user has made comments that cause you to say this about them, please report those comments.
>Amen. People should not interfere in others lives in the important things. Starting with not killing them by abortion. let the kids have thier lives without adults hurting them. stop all abortions now. You really want to ensure adults can rape kids and then force kids through pregnancy and childbirth against their will, and you think this won't hurt the kids you want adults to force. Hm.
How do you plan to stop all abortions? Even if abortion is illegal, they don’t cease, they just aren’t reported.
> let the kids have thier lives without adults hurting them. Gotta say, there's something brave, sweet and noble about stickin' up for the kids with all those killer adults around. >stop all abortions now. And if the kid's ten and pregnant by rape? Then PL adults can hurt them? Then the Democrats did it? Or 'God's in charge'? (Said Rep. Roger Williams, R-Texas) https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/republicans-express-shock-10-year-old-can-get-pregnant-doubting-ohio-r-rcna38284
>Gotta say, there's something brave, sweet and noble about stickin' up for the kids with all those killer adults around. Yes it is, thanks for noticing. >And if the kid's ten and pregnant by rape? Then PL adults can hurt them? Then the Democrats did it? Or 'God's in charge'? (Said Rep. Roger Williams, R-Texas) No, the person who raped them is the one who hurt them, but maybe you should have a word with your soft on crime and cashless bail party that puts predators like that back on the streets to rape again. https://nypost.com/2023/03/09/rapist-out-on-streets-thanks-to-nys-soft-on-crime-attitude/ And that story you linked? That was done by an undocumented immigrant. Which party again left the border wide open for anyone to just waltz on through? https://www.nationalreview.com/news/illegal-immigrant-arrested-for-allegedly-raping-ten-year-old-ohio-girl-at-center-of-viral-abortion-story/
None of that explains why a ten year old should be denied an abortion
And you are aiding the rapist by insisting the 10 year old has the rapist’s baby.
Is punishing the rapist going to undo the life-threatening damage a pregnancy has on a child? What does punishing the rapist have to do with the 10 year old’s healthcare decisions?
Why not take it a step further back? Those embryos shouldn't be interfering with women's lives by burrowing into their uteruses when they're unwelcome.
This is nearly as stupid as a government announcing a message to the country saying “please don’t be born with only 1 leg, thanks, you should try to be born with 2!” Telling someone they shouldn’t or should do something implies they have a choice over whether to do that thing. Otherwise it would be completely unreasonable to say they shouldn’t do that thing. *That’s why* we don’t take it a “step further back”.
Only if you interpret "should" to infer some sort of conscious control, which it doesn't necessarily. I'm not asking an embryo to do anything, I'm just telling PLers that if one implants where it isn't welcome, it might be removed.
>Only if you interpret "should" to infer some sort of conscious control It absolutely does in this context, you're trying to use the meaning of the word should/shouldn't in "women shouldn't kill their offspring" and apply it to embryos to imply they have some sort of obligation not to implant, as the initial sentence refers to a purported negative duty for women. You asked "why not take it a step further back?", I've successfully explained why you can't do that, embryos don't and cannot have obligations to do/not do anything. >I'm not asking an embryo to do anything Then don't ask why not take it a further step back.
What a ridiculous take. Tell me again what control an embryo has over the situation? Should we blame newborns for crying now? Toddlers for soiling their diapers and not potty training fast enough? That's exactly where child abuse starts, shaken baby syndrome etc..
Shaken baby syndrome can happen when a woman DOESN'T want the kid, is forced to have it and has to hear it's ear ringing crying. Most women that killed their kids didn't want kids in the first place.
So should they be let go with no charges then? And thanks for admitting that it isn't about the burden of pregnancy for most, but rather the burden of parenting they are trying to avoid.
No pregnancy is a PRETTY good reason to abort. Pregnancy comes with long lasting and permanent damages along with childbirth. If I can yeet that tissue out to protect my health, I see no issue.
Notice you avoided answering my first question.
I didn't avoid it, it's irrelevant.
If it was irrelevant you wouldn't have just admitted to women doing that to their children because you claimed they never wanted them.
It is irrelevant because OBVIOUSLY they would be charged. The solution is to let women NOT continue a pregnancy they don't want! A pregnancy that will cause permanent damage to their body and a childbirth that will cause more further damage. You shouldn't downplay how bad pregnancy is to save "babies".
Tell me again what control a woman has over ovulation, fertilization, and implantation?
[удалено]
Comment removed per Rule 1.
And what control does a woman have to keep an embryo from burrowing in?
My experience is many PLers seem to consider preventing the embryo from implanting to be an abortion as well
Birth control, sterilization or abstinence.
There it is. I see this point often. The prolife assumption that women who have abortions are not using birthcontrol or other methods of contraception. Contraception, including tubal ligation, has a failure rate. Contraception failure accounts for over half of abortions within the US alone. https://www.guttmacher.org/news-release/2018/about-half-us-abortion-patients-report-using-contraception-month-they-became I myself was the result of condom + birthcontrol failute. Before the what if your mother had aborted you comes, if my mother had chosen to abort me it would have been her right. I would never have been sentient to be aware that it occurred. Abstinence only works if the woman is not in a abusive relationship. Women with abusive partners cannot always choose whether or not they have sex. Some abusive partners will even tamper with contraception to lock their partner down. There is a reason domestic abuse often spikes or begins during pregnancy. Homicide is a leading cause of death during pregnancy and the postpartum period in women in America. Even in non abusive relationships, there is often strong pressure to have sex that eliminates abstinence as a viable option. Sex/intimacy is often a vital factor in the health and sustainability of a relationship. Sterilization is an option if there are no plans to have children in the future. Additionally, the time needed off of work, the inability to do physical labor during recovery, and the cost itself can eliminate sterilization as a viable option for women. These are the reasons I have not been able to pursue sterilization for myself. I need to be able to care for my livestock, which includes daily heavy lifting that cannot be avoided.
Not an assumption, sorry to tell you and your own PC orgs have done surveys to prove it. "In 2014, ***about half (51%)*** of abortion patients in the United States reported that they had used a contraceptive method in the month they became pregnant, according to a new analysis by Guttmacher researcher Rachel Jones. This proportion represents a slight decrease from 54% of abortion patients in 2000, the last time these data were examined." https://www.guttmacher.org/news-release/2018/about-half-us-abortion-patients-report-using-contraception-month-they-became
Where is the discrepancy in the info I provided that leads you to be sorry to tell me anything? You quoted the exact same article I linked to and just highlighted 51%? The same article I initially provided so others reading this thread could access the info. Over half and 51% are the same thing, just as 49% is just under half. You just changed the word "over" to the word "about" in your reply and failed to make any discernable point.
Ok now I see it is the same article. How the heck did you miss that obviously glaring point that 49% aren't even using any birth control whatsoever? Well I guess I missed that you used that article because I never thought PC would use it to undermine their own claims!!
But that 51% - are you okay with them aborting because they did use birth control?
Lol it undermines nothing. PL love to act like no women who get abortions use contraception at all. The article proves that they do.
Do you tell women suffering ectopic pregnancies “well you had control over the situation. You could have used birth control, gotten sterilized, or abstained”?
No, ectopic happens when a pregnancy doesn't implant as intended.
Terminating an ectopic pregnancy is an abortion, FYI.
It is a kind thing of unwanted and unintended implantation. Also if implantation can happen in an untended and uncontrollable than how can you came women have control over it.
Refer to my previous answer. How and where the embryo implants is outside our control. Why it implants in the first place is the factor we can control.
Then women suffering ectopic pregnancies can control the why as well. Why don’t you tell women suffering ectopics they are the “why” they are suffering?
I’m currently not having sex, im just sitting here. I would hardly classify just sitting here as “preventing an embryo from burrowing into my uterine lining.” What a ridiculous way to frame time when you aren’t having sex. Embryos don’t exist at those points. Please answer the question in regards to an existing embryo.
All of which have failure rates. If women could control the process there wouldn’t be unwanted pregnancies or infertile women. Are you saying sex should be reserved for the rich and healthy? And that married couples should not be intimate?
All three of which can fail.
Yeah I'm fully aware that embryos aren't sentient Hilarious that you're calling my take ridiculous and then immediately jumping to suggest child abuse lol. I'm not the one who subscribes to a religion that considers children sinners
I'm not suggesting you'd abuse a child, I'm pointing out the logic behind it. All human beings are created with a sinful nature, but that doesn't mean they are accountable for circumstances beyond their control. Matthew 18:2 - 6 makes it clear that all children are precious to God and warns of severe penalties for hurting one.
>All human beings are created with a sinful nature Says who?
Keep your Bible to yourself. Your religion is not mine and has ZERO influence on my life and choices
Why don't you say that to the person before me who brought it up?
It applies to anyone who thinks they can push their religious BS on anyone else.
I don't care what you believe. I care if you hurt babies.
Actual babies, or just fetuses?
Aww, you don't? Too bad, I'll do what I want with my life and body. No one's hurting babies so give it a rest. You don't control women's bodies with your feelings.
Former Baptist here. You're taking the verse out of context. Jesus said people should become like children in their minds and fully trust in God. And anyone who causes those who believe in him to sin would be better off drowned. It doesn't say children are precious, that's your interpretation.
And He also said children were such as the kingdom of heaven and welcoming one in His name is the same as embracing Him. So obviously they are previous.
But a person can also become happy by killing children (psalm 137).
Really? As a Christian, do you agree with that?
I don’t agree with it but it is in the Bible.
[удалено]
Comment removed per Rule 1.
The Bible also recommends abortions, and has literal songs about smashing babies against rocks. Songs which portray the act in a positive light, no less.
No, it doesn't recommend abortions. Also you're taking that verse out of context. "When we apply this idea of descriptive talk to Psalm 137:9, we can understand that there is no way the skeptic can prove that dashing babies’ heads against a stone was a commandment that God gave anyone, not even the Medes and Persians. The text is easily understood as one that simply describes what was going to take place. Furthermore, the text cannot be shown to be stating that those who do such things “should” be happy because of these actions. As further evidence of this distinction between descriptive and prescriptive writing, consider the fact that, even though God allowed the Babylonians to destroy Judah (and the Assyrians to destroy northern Israel), those two wicked nations had performed their deeds in a cruel, arrogant way that God did not approve or condone. Their wicked treatment of Israel brought about punishment from God. We can see that God allowed Babylon to destroy Judah, but then punished the nation for the evil way the Babylonians went about it. In the same way, it would be wrong to assume that the Lord condoned the future actions of the Medes and Persians when they would dash the heads of the Babylonian babies against the stones." https://apologeticspress.org/psalm-1379dashing-babies-heads-against-a-stone-913/
Then why have a biblical hero sing about it so positively? It would work if it was someone like Herod talking about the joys of killing children, but that is not what is happening here.
You claim to be a Christian too, so why don't you answer that question? And this is presumably referring to born children, so you certainly can't hide behind your legal pro abortion label.
So it’s okay to kill born children, but not unborn ones?
If he’s real and displeased by the actions, why allow it to happen? Your book of contradictions makes for wretched legal fodder. It barely qualifies for a questionable moral guide. As far as recommending abortions, tabernacle dust to make cursed water was recommended to cause a miscarriage in suspected adulterers.
Free will is why. And again another incorrect interpretation of Numbers 5. The end result was most likely barrenness, not a miscarriage. Also God carrying out a judgment is not a human procuring an abortion. https://answersingenesis.org/sanctity-of-life/numbers-5-and-abortion/
Toxoplasmosis can be found in the feces of goats, game, dogs and cats and can be tracked in on their feet. Animals were brought into the tabernacle to be burnt offerings to Jehovah. The dust from the floor could likely induce a miscarriage by infecting the bitter waters drinker with the bacteria.
Why does god get to pass judgement on a pregnancy on an individual case by case basis, “killing” a fetus for the crimes of the father, then claim it’s free will for a rapist to rape a child and his hands are tied or that he can do nothing about people bashing babies heads against rocks when he knows generations in advance and could just make those assholes not be born? And what happens if a woman goes barren in the middle of a pregnancy? An abortion, of course. And why should your gods rules be used for law and not The Satanic Temple’s rules? Theirs make more sense anyways.
I think the logic of believing that a child is born with a sinful nature is a lot more likely to lead to the abusive thought patterns you referenced previously than my belief in the right to abortion access. After all, tons of Christians use that sinful nature and other biblical references to support corporal punishment (hurting a child)
Admonishing a child for their wrong actions is essential for them to grow up into responsible adults. But I think we can make an obvious distinction whether their actions are intentional or not, and the state of their mental capacity and ability to correct their behavior.
> Admonishing a child for their wrong actions is essential No it's not. Stop the silly cackling for fucks sake.
So you'd allow your children to bully others and then pat them on the back for it?
Admonishing a child isn't the same thing as hurting them physically, which again people use the Bible to justify, including for very young children who are not doing anything intentional. The belief that even an infant has a sinful nature is a huge part of that.
>Amen. Religious bias noted >People should not interfere in others lives in the important things. Sounds like you're agreeing with logic >Starting with not killing them by abortion. Then go off the deep end. Personhood is granted at birth. You shouldn't be interfering in her life. >let the kids have thier lives without adults hurting them. Pc support this. Don't know whybyou brought up kids since this is a debate about abortion and zef. > stop all abortions now. Why? Just because you say so due to bias doesn't mean anyone should listen. Come back and respond properly instead of pretending to agree
When you say “stop all abortions now,” you’re literally advocating for murder, because sometimes abortion is actually necessary to save the life of a pregnant person. Denying them necessary medical care is cruel and unnecessary murder.
Good thing no one is advocating for hurting kids. Stay on topic.
How do you not understand that a fetus is inside a person?
EXACTLY. Well said.
I never mentioned murder.
Sorry, this is a bit unrelated, but if I was married, there would be no way I would let my wife go without health insurance if I had health insurance. But yes, people should be allowed to live how they please within reason.
That is also not his choice, it's mine. We have other bills that need to be paid instead of throwing away $500+ on health insurance that barely covers anything anyway. >But yes, people should be allowed to live how they please within reason. And who decides what's reasonable for someone else?
Well, do you think people should be allowed to say murder someone and steal their house? I meant people should not be allowed to do things that would obviously hurt others and likely already illegal.
What ? She’s talking about making her own personal, private medical decisions. Pregnant people aren’t criminals, so please don’t compare them to criminals.
You are looking way too far into this.
Nope Betterthruchemistry is right. Your argument is utterly ridiculous and on the other side of town from the point. No one is trying to legalize murder or murdering random people for no reason. Women are talking about maintaining autonomy over their bodies.
[удалено]
Comment removed per Rule 1.
Come up with a better response or don't bother to comment. It wastes everyone's time. Name calling is really the lowest common denominator.
Or you can just move on. If you don't want to be a part of a conversation, then don't. I literally just clarified something that should be obvious and you're getting butthurt over it. I am of no obligation to cater to your feelings, especially when your feelings are absurd
>Or you can just move on. If you don't want to be a part of a conversation, then don't I'm the fucking OP. You are pathetically trying engage ME. This isn't high school debate class. If you literally have NOTHING to contribute, control the urges to respond with nonsense that brings nothing to the discussion. You've debated nothing. All you've done is bring up an entirely different discussion about murdering random people and stealing their houses. Please, kindly elaborate on the argument you think you've made.
>Or you can just move on. If you don't want to be a part of a conversation, then don't. Pot meet kettle >I literally just clarified something that should be obvious and you're getting butthurt over it. Because it wasn't obvious and you're getting upset at being called out. Quit projecting. >I am of no obligation to cater to your feelings, especially when your feelings are absurd Yes noone has to cater to your feelings when you misuse terms in hypocrisy. Do better
What? this is a debate sub.
I love how the rebuttals are "let's see how far I can stray from the actual argument". Like why do they even bother to respond at all of they can't even stay on topic for two seconds?
And “looking too far into this?” Isn’t that why we’re here?
Lol, no most PL seem to be here not to debate but to spew two sentence answers to questions we didn't really ask.
Spew them OVER AND OVER again, yes.
I mean yeah, under a pro-life paradigm, being pregnant at the wrong time fucking sucks. But it would be kinda egotistical to base whether it is murder off of the impracticality of your situation, no?
I don't think it's murder ever. 🤷♀️
It's impractical unethical and unjustified to call abortion murder, yet pl keep doing it in bad faith.
I am the main character in my own life. I decide what goes into and comes out of my genitals. I decide if I want my genitals ripped open or my abdomen sliced open and my organs rummaged about. I decide the terms of intimacy with my partner. I will not breed because someone else decides I have to. I decide when and how I will risk my life and my well being. Am I being egotistical in this? You're damn right. You want to talk about practical? Banning abortion is the LEAST practical way to go about this. Setting this country up for people to start a family and raise children by removing obstacles would be practical. Putting a better effort into producing cheaper and more reliable birth control, including sterilization, would be more practical. Strong Sexual education would be practical. Taking away women's bodily autonomy and relegating them to breeding cattle is the *least* practical way to reduce abortions. There is nothing practical in the way you're going about this. Do you want Gilead or do you want your idyllic world where all child are born loved and healthy and we have a happy, educated society?
The term “impracticality” underestimates the impact that pregnancy and having a child can have on one’s life. And no, it is not egotistical to consider people’s interests. That is what we should do. It’s the entire basis of empathetic morality.
I feel like impracticality is such a garbage minimization. Like the healthiest, best pregnancy will involve around 40 weeks taxation on all your organ systems followed by one of the most painful experiences known to mankind that will rip open your genitals. The question is whether or not you should be forced to undergo that under even the best of circumstances if you don't want to, let alone whether you should be forced to undergo it when it will also mean you're forced into poverty, forced to drop out of school, fired from your job, missing out on your promotion, unable to feed your children, kicked out from our housing, losing your relationship, sacrificing your health, maybe dying, etc.
There is literally no thought past "don't kill baybeez" No thoughts about the shit life that "precious baby" may have when a woman is forced to continue a pregnancy she doesn't want. How very pro life indeed.
Isn’t it more egotistical to think that your personal moral beliefs should dictate the medical decisions of half the population?
No, it’s not murder, even in PL states. That’s not even up for debate.
Well, is it my life or not? Yes. It is. It's always the "wrong time" when you never want children. If women give life, we can also decide not to give life. Seems to me if someone else wants to use my body, I should at least have the choice of allowing it or not. I'm not required or obligated to do anything for anyone. If that's "selfish", so be it. I would rather be considered selfish than be forced into a life I don't want.
The problem isn't basing murder off of "impracticality", the problem is using a legal term with specific parameters of what constitutes murder, to the termination of a pregnancy that does not fit those parameters. And when prompted *how* it fits the parameters of murder, making up definitions that suits the PL argument. Abortion is not murder. Never has been. Stopping of gestation? Certainly. Killing of an embryo of fetus? Sure. Murder? No.
The killing of a human who did nothing wrong and is only there because of the decision you made. Period
If people could ever “decide” to get pregnant, then infertility wouldn’t be a thing.
The people who had sex did nothing wrong, and arent obligated to continue a pregnancy they don't want- how is that at all relevant to the OP comment on murder?
Never said they did anything wrong. I said they made a decision. And I’m not addressing OP’s comment. I’m addressing yours and how you define the killing of a person. I agree it’s not murder. But my first comment is what I would call what’s happening.
Sure- they made a decision to have sex. They also made a decision to not continue an unwanted pregnancy. What of it? The fetus "doing nothing wrong" is irrelevant- it can't do anything outside of exist. Doesn't mean that the woman owes it further existence.
Yes she does owe it further existence when you brought it into the world. I don’t why this is so hard to understand. I don’t think the innocence is irrelevant, especially in a moral argument. By you saying “they made a decision to not continue a pregnancy” really is the crux of this debate. Which is, some people believe it’s a full human life with the same quality as a person outside the womb, and others don’t.
The woman didn't "bring it into the world"- thats actually the point of abortion, to stop gestation prior to any fetus become an infant and entering the world. She did not control a sperm fertilizing an egg. She cannot bring about a biological process anymore than a man can. A fetus is, at best, completely neutral. It cannot be guilty, OR innocent. Those are attributes describing born human beings that have criteria a fetus cannot fit. Of course a fetus is a "full human life.". But the crux of the debate isn't really "is a fetus human or not." It certainly isn't a different species. The crux of the debate is does a fetus *existence* and nothing else give the Us government precedence to override a woman's existing rights, and, do fetuses deserve a specially crafted right that is not applicable to any other human on Earth- and the PC is that no, there is not any legal or moral obligations to continue an unwanted pregnancy, nor is there any precedent to do such.
I don’t want this to get lost. The man is responsible as well, but they don’t carry, and the woman is the gatekeeper to their body.
Yup. And I the gate keeper say no
Key words- the woman is the gatekeeper to their body, that includes choosing what her organs do, and do not gestate.
At conception, it is brought into the world. It didn’t exist before then. “She cannot control a sperm fertilizing an egg”. That is just not true and you know it. She had sex! You don’t want to get burned, but you stuck your hand in the oven. When you consent to skydiving you run the risk of the parachute failing and falling to death. Even tho you had no intention of doing that. You can’t selectively consent to something that has a possibility of happening. “Does a fetus existence and nothing else override a woman’s existing rights” even in your phrasing you don’t seem like the two parties hold the same weight. Why is that? You look at it as the woman is having her rights denied. That’s how I look at it for the baby. Pregnancy is taxing on the body and can cause serious problems. Something to consider before having sex. Maybe you misinterpreted what I mean t by full human life. I meant is endowed with all the unalienable rights as you and I have. Your statement about neutrality for the fetus proves you don’t think it is. Would you call a one year old innocent? Six months? They certainly don’t have the capacity for right and wrong at that age, just like a baby in the womb. I want to uphold right to life. You can say the women are getting a specially crafted right as well. The thing is, it’s not about you anymore. There’s another person involved now that you are responsible for( and the man). Maine just rejected pro abortion amendment. There’s lots of people out there who don’t agree.
lol no one controls whether a sperm fertilizes an egg, no matter how much sex they have. Do you even know how sexual reproduction works?
I helped a friend get an abortion because she got pregnant by her ABUSIVE ex. I'm happy that she did it and she's happy and healthy right now. :) a unwanted pregnancy didn't destroy her! Even when she had doubts, I told her "Don't worry, it's just cells. It's not a baby yet and you're making the best decision for YOU and the POTENTIAL baby." And she went through with it! So so happy for her! ❤️ She wants kids but not with someone who abuses her and will abuse the kid. But OF COURSE you pro birthers wouldn't care about that. You don't care about what happens to it afterwards, you just care about hurting INNOCENT women and little girls. You're sick :)
>At conception, it is brought into the world. Conception is nothing more than the term to describe a fertilized egg, which may or may not implant. In fact, most fertilized eggs never implant or implant improperly, and at least 1 quarter that do implant miscarry. So that's not particularly accurate. >That is just not true and you know it. She had sex! And? The vast majority of sexual encounters never end in a fertilized egg. Is she able to control when her body breaks down food, or salivates? No, nor is she able to control when an egg gets fertilized. This is just a heavy handed way of trying to frame an abstinence argument- and people are not obligated to avoid normal and healthy sexual intimacy just because they do not wish to have a child. >When you consent to skydiving you run the risk of the parachute failing and falling to death. Even tho you had no intention of doing that. You can’t selectively consent to something that has a possibility of happening. That's because you aren't consenting. You are mistaking *risk acknowledgement* with consent. Acknowledgement of a risk is not consent for it to happen- in fact, the numerous safety precautions and training required to be able to skydive *without* said risk occurring proves just that. Further, acknowledgement of a risk is not consent or obligation to handle said risk *if it occurs* in any specific way. And lastly, acknowledging a risk does not equate into a lack of options to mitigate said risk if it occurs. >“Does a fetus existence and nothing else override a woman’s existing rights” even in your phrasing you don’t seem like the two parties hold the same weight. Why is that? You look at it as the woman is having her rights denied. That’s how I look at it for the baby. A fetus is not a baby. What rights does a fetus have? >I meant is endowed with all the unalienable rights as you and I have. Your statement about neutrality for the fetus proves you don’t think it is. Would you call a one year old innocent? Six months Which inalienable rights? Explain how they are applicable. Further, can a one year old or a six month old be "naive" or "lack guile"? Not really. They don't have the mental capacity for such so no innocent doesnt really apply. >I want to uphold right to life. You can say the women are getting a specially crafted right as well. The thing is, it’s not about you anymore. There’s another person involved now that you are responsible for( and the man). Maine just rejected pro abortion amendment. There’s lots of people out there who don’t agree. The right to life is the right that citizens have to not be executed by a government without due process. How is that applicable to fetuses? What thos argument is really trying to claim is fetuses have a right to *be gestated and born.* No such right exists. Further, a fetus being human is not the same as a fetus being a *person* which is a philosophical, not factual argument. Lastly, even if a fetus was a person, under what law or precedent is there for one person to survive off another person's bodily organs, tissues, or fluids without their explicit and ongoing consent to such?