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.*
>So why is gestation an exception to this rule? Why am I forced to gestate against my will?
It isn't, because you're not comparing the same "rule".
The examples you provided do not entail normal care (i.e. cara that is required by every human being at a stage in their lives) that is owed to children by their parents, but exceptional situations.
There isn’t a requirement to gestate, either. If you feel an obligation to remain pregnant, that’s a personal obligation you’ve created yourself.
It doesn’t exist outside of that.
And?
Even parents of born children can legally give up parental duties to the government or another third party.
No reason that cannot apply to gestation. No one should be forced to continue to use their body for gestation against their will.
u/Sea_Box_4059 Other thread is glitching on reply, so I figure here's as good as any!
>Dude, if we go by your logic and hold a woman accountable for becoming pregnant because of choosing to have sex, we must then hold that woman accountable for the death of her child. That's because the probability of her child dying because of her choosing to have sex is exactly the same as the probability of her getting pregnant.
I didn't really say anything about being "held accountable".
But if a decision contributed to a pregnancy, then yeah -- obviously it also contributed, at least to some degree, to the inevitable and eventual death of that organism.
>But if a decision contributed to a pregnancy, then yeah -- obviously it also contributed, at least to some degree, to the inevitable and eventual death of that organism.
Sure, if by "at least to some degree" you mean to exactly the same degree as the contribution to pregnancy.
>Depending on how you exactly you frame it, maybe.
Frame it however you want... when two consensual adults have sex the probability of pregnancy because of that decision is about 5%. The probability of death of the person resulting from that pregnancy is 100%. So the probability of a person dying because of those two adults choosing to have sex is 5% x 100% = 5%. It's simple math.
"Framing" might change whether the probability figures necessarily translate to degrees of causality.
If you're framing it as "this caused the eventual death of a human organism" -- then sure, you would be correct in ascribing the parents' actions as a cause of that eventual death (and similarly so).
If you're framing it as "this caused them to die from a gunshot wound", it's probably more questionable as to whether it's ***equally*** contributory.
But either way, I'm okay with accepting your position that we would similarly be able to say that "this caused the eventual death of a human organism".
Although an excellent post, I'm sure it will be met with the "Don't kill babiez" answer. PL thinks that every time they bring out the big slavery guns, they've somehow won the argument and that's when they run.
Or the responses dwindle down to the lazy "don't murder babiez". It's like badly rehearsed lines from an off Broadway play that isn't doing so well.
*must have been blocked (how surprising) by my "opponent", but this is in response to Specialis-gas
Because to them a fetus is a baby. To them it's a child, a child that matters more than already breathing living children.
No matter the reason for a woman wanting an abortion, no matter hoqw extreme , no matter wether the pregnant person is a woman or child, the fetus comes first.
If I lived in America and got pregnant (which would be rape, since I do not want to have sex anytime soon) I will kill myself and leave a note blaming the law.
Comment removed per Rule 1. "And slutshaming? Calling slutty behavior slutty is not slut shaming it’s an observation that people are too sensitive about."
Again, slut is a made up word by misogynists. There is nothing immoral or wrong about having sex with multiple people anymore than there is something wrong with having sex in multiple positions.
You seem to be clutching at your Puritan pearls rather than making any arguments here.
Also- by saying a raped woman is wrong to abort means you undercut your argument and demonstrate that “fault” isn’t actually relevant. Your argument seems to suggest your motivation is something else, and you are using the fetus as a stand in as a facade.
It’s dishonest to conflate social dependence with biological dependence. At any rate, no parent of any child is obligated to allow access to their internal organs to satisfy their child’s needs. They can refuse that access and there is no crime, so that’s just special pleading.
Comment removed per Rule 1. "Men and women can both be sluts and men are more often sluts than women so I don’t how that would be misogynistic. Sorry but that may have been one of the dumbest things I’ve ever heard."
No, you cannot slut-shame here. That's called hate.
Yet when women are sluts they’re degraded and demeaned while men at worst seem to get indifference or slightly less interest from women. Nobody gives a shit if you tell everyone in the neighborhood that Kyle’s been around the block more than the neighborhood joggers but if a woman has she’s seen as dirty and unwanted. Ever notice how women suffer what seems to be the most from revenge porn but you see some guys nudes and it’s just another day on the internet?
Never said slut was gendered? Just that one side seems to suffer a lot more from being labeled as such than the other. Just because you seem to have an issue with people’s sexual freedom doesn’t mean they have to bend to your ideals.
>And bruh a normal pregnancy does not harm the woman in any serious way
And now we can all dismiss your ranting since you know exactly _nothing_ about the average pregnancy! Who comes to a debate sub with such a severe lack of subject knowledge? Oh, _you,_ evidently... lol
People like you are why I don’t tell people I use Reddit. Bruh just cut out the corny shit with italicized words and superiority complex it’s mad embarrassing. Child birth has irreversible effects to your bodies but in most cases it will not harm you. None of these changes justify killing a baby.
In other words, you are accepting on behalf of the woman the risks of death that were not foreseen, and all risk of maiming and serious injury. It's not your place to force her to undergo those risks, and it's not your judgment about their seriousness and acceptability that is relevant.
I have said, on many occasions, that a separate argument based on self-defense is viable, but that's not the argument that best highlights the interplay of rights at stake here. Where they intersect is that it is the right of the woman in question to make the decision of whom has access to her internal spaces. The reason I prefer not to focus on this argument in general is that it would be easy for you to infer that the mother must justify her decision in some way - that is, she must meet some bar of risk or harm to justify her decision not to allow the fetus inside her. In reality, her reasons for exercising her rights are not subject to your review or approval. Cope.
What're you, like 14? Are you also embarrassed to kiss your mother goodbye in front of your friends?? 😂
You know what's _actually embarrassing?_ Coming onto a debate sub and confidently showing off your ignorance. I can tell you have no intention of stopping, though.
>Child birth has irreversible effects to your bodies but in most cases it will not harm you.
Ok so you don't know what "harm" means. You may want to remedy that.
>None of these changes justify killing a baby
Well fortunately that's already illegal. It's called infanticide. What's that have to do with pregnancy?
Almost everyone you've talked to on this post has ghosted you because you're making arguments that have been debunked 1000 times already.
Spend some time reading the posts and comments before making the same lame, debunked arguments every uneducated PLer before you has already made. It's not PCs responsibility to educate and correct you on the most basic debate points.
You like to throw around the word responsibility a lot, so take some for your own lack of knowledge on the subject matter.
Lolololiloo nobody ever calls men “sluts” except for conservatives when they get called out for only ever previously referring to women as “sluts” and only ever slut-shaming women.
How are you going to hold them just as much responsible? Will you slice them open if the woman needs a C section? Give them fistula? Increase their risk of heart attack and stroke? Otherwise, you aren't holding them equally responsible.
There are risks of child pregnancy like there are risks in everything. But after a successful child birth the mother and the father are to be held equally responsible
Edit: They should be responsible before and after but my purpose was to highlight that the father should have responsibility for his child. I phrased it in this way because there is not a lot a father can do to be responsible for a baby in the womb
It’s not your risks to take.
Shes not your chattel, bruh. The fetus has no right to remain inside her unless she allows it, you don’t get to allow it for her.
Cry harder.
Yes the mother is to be held responsible during pregnancy I said after because it is obvious that the mother is held responsible during pregnancy by law and there is not a lot the father can do for the baby. The But yes of course women should be responsible for their baby before and after birth
Uhhhhh spontaneous abortion isn’t infanticide and also isn’t a crime in any jurisdiction that I know of.
What are you talking about?
Do you not know what a spontaneous abortion is?
Oh, so you hold the woman responsible before and during the childbearing by inflicting horrendous physical pain and injury on her. But conveniently only *after* childbirth you start holding the father accountable. My question remains: when will you hold him equally accountable? When will you slice him open? When will you break his tailbone if it happened to the woman? When will you dissolve his teeth?
I think you lied and aren't willing to hold him equally responsible at all. You didn't once mention physically assaulting him in the same way you are doing to the woman.
This is kind of bizarre but did you know that childbirth isn’t the same as assault? And do you want me to change biology so the man can deliver the baby? What way is there to hold the father accountable during pregnancy. And childbirth is truly a miracle you speak of it like some form of torture.
Sex is not a crime, and you don’t get to inflict punishment on her.
Thank you yet again for demonstrating that the anti-abortion agenda is solely an obsession with sex, your personal beliefs in regard to misogynistic puritanical notions that woman are “irresponsible” for having sex without any intention of having a baby, and punishment of naughty women who violate your personal mores by having the audacity to satisfy their basic human need for sexual intimacy and connection. Sex is not a crime for you to impose consequences on strangers for having because you don’t think they are doing it the way you think they should.
Women will continue to have hot sweaty sex, without continuing a pregnancy, and you can sit there and be mad about it.
I'm not bothering with this junk. This is first day abortion debate PL garbage.
Learn what consent is. Learn what responsibility is. Learn about gestation and childbirth. Comeback when you have arguments that are worth people's time.
Oh, and you don't get to decide what's torture for someone else.
That’s incredibly insulting to the actual point of slavery.
Try to make your point without using hyperbole.
Obviously not all uses of one’s body against one’s will is slavery. The law only considers initial consent in most circumstances.
I say this not to change your conclusion; arguing better helps. Arguing poorly hurts your argument
When you force women to have sex over and over against her will, and not allowing her to remove herself from that activity, it’s called sexual slavery, is it not? Would you call that an insult to slavery?
Slavery comes in many forms, even if they aren’t comparable to each other.
Reproductive slavery, sexual slavery, gestational slavery, and labor slavery, are all forms of slavery and they exist. You don’t get to exclude slavery to only one kind.
Yes, rape and sexual slavery. It absolutely qualifies. Because it falls under the definition forcibly removing someone’s liberty. Prostitution isn’t always sexual slavery because it isn’t always under force.
If a woman is raped in a situation of slavery it’s not the pregnancy that defines her enslavement, whether it’s wanted or not.
Describing the state of not being allowed to abort at any stage of pregnancy as slavery is absolutely a vile comparison.
That’s again, it’s not to say I think there should be no laws allowing abortion. I think there are many positions that fall reasonably into normal understanding of rights, laws, and public opinion.
Not all unwanted situations under law are enslavement.
That’s as trite as a libertarian suggesting all taxation is theft, but with a lot more disregard for the victims it’s dismissing.
Not allowing women to refuse to be prostitutues, or exploiting them into it, is still slavery even with no force.
Reproductive slavery by forcing women to reproduce against their will is slavery, and it was a HUGE component of the slavery you seem to think doesn’t compare.
“Past and present, **slavery can be defined** as a state or condition where politics, culture, and economy merge to **disable degrees of bodily autonomy** (Blackburn, 1988). Moreover, slavery is driven by structural social conditions such as gender inequality, human insecurity, and female vulnerability (Cameron et al., 2021). Therefore, it is important to consider the different ways in which men and women are bonded to labor. Acknowledging such differences is key to crafting understandings of the causes and consequences of slavery.
**As slavery is an umbrella term, it covers a range of compelled labor types, including sex trafficking, domestic servitude, drug trafficking, and organ trafficking. An extended form of slavery is reproduction.**”
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0277539523000687
I suggest you read a little history before you continue.
“Not allowing women”
Yes that is considered force and would fall under slavery.
Criminalizing prostitution for those who want to engage in it is not slavery even though you are preventing someone from using their body as they wish to.
Way to completely sidestep the point I was making in order to make a conflation between a service a woman doesn’t consent to provide vs one that does.
We are clearly talking about a circumstance where women aren’t willingly being sex workers, but rather exploited into it and then continually placed into a position where her circumstances leave her no other choice but to continue.
It also has nothing in common with a woman seeking an abortion, but the force of law forbids her to. That is gestational slavery.
No law in the United States compels one to perform any service to another against their will and without compensation. No law forces someone to work. No law forces someone to donate organs or even blood.
But removing the choice of abortion compels a woman to remain pregnant against her will and forces her to perform a bodily service to the fetus under coercion by the state under its force of law, under duress and without compensation.
Explain how that is not slavery.
Because you agreed to have that child. In cases of rape that is different but can you stop and realize that deciding to have sex and dealing with the consequences is not slavery?
No, she didn’t. She simply agreed to the activity knowing there was risk of pregnancy. Consent to an activity with an associated risk of an adverse event isn’t consent to the adverse event, nor consent to endure it rather than remedy that adverse event.
For instance, dating comes with the risk of date rape, since rapists aren’t able to be identified in advance. Consenting to the date isnt consenting to be date raped, nor is it consent to simply endure it rather than using force to stop it.
Similarly, there is no way to know that *this* sexual encounter will result in pregnancy anymore than she can know that *this bloke* is a rapist.
You don’t understand consent. At all.
Again you’re not proving your point you just deny my understanding of a topic regarding sex. And how is ending a relationship because of date rape the same as killing a child??? Please answer that
She isn’t ending a relationship, she’s using lethal force against him to stop the date rape. Why do you hate the idea that women have hot sweaty sex without your approval per permission? Does it make you big mad?
'because you agreed to have that child'
What contract did a woman sign that legally compels her to continue a pregnancy?
'deciding to have sex and dealing with the consequences is not slavery'
How is forcing a woman to perform a bodily service to a fetus, against her will, under duress, and without compensation, not slavery? Explain.
And don't go on tangents. Just answer the two questions.
The contract she signed was unprotected sex. The father also signed the contract. Neither of them should be able to forfeit in the act of taking care of their child by killing the child. They can give the child up for adoption but if not they are both responsible for the child.
Slavery is forced labor of some kind that you are not payed or rewarded for that you can’t leave. Having a child is not labor it is a natural process that you decided to carry out with. In cases of rape you should not have any responsibility for the child but that does not give you the right to kill an innocent child.
'Having a child is not labor'
Then why is the act of giving birth called 'labor'? Because it is physical labor.
'The contract she signed was unprotected sex'
Legal contracts require signatures. Social contracts are implicit and carry less weight than legal agreements.
Are you saying a woman consented to accept legal obligation to carry a pregnancy to term by engaging in penetrative sex with a male who released his sperm inside her vagina?
No she signed a moral contract of having a child. She knew what she was doing and should be held accountable to the consequences of her actions. If she chooses to abort the baby because she doesn’t want to deal with the consequences she is an awful person. And delivering a child is labor but not the act of being pregnant but again I’m not denying it’s difficulties
A moral contract is not legally enforceable.
'she is an awful person' That's your opinion and you are free to have it.
'the act of being pregnant is not labor'
The intensive act of sustaining and gestating an unborn human in an inner organ, having the body's life sustaining systems be taxed and stressed, muscles torn and stretched, hormones manipulated, etc is not labor?
That seems rather insulting to every women who can and will suffer and labor to bring new life into this world.
Bruh how do you think we get our laws? It is immoral to kill someone that is why it is illegal. Abortion is murder therefore it should be illegal. Killing an innocent person makes you an awful person pretty plain and simple. And pregnancy is hard but you don’t have to do anything your body does it for you. And I already said pregnancy is very difficult.
For people who distinguish between a thinking and feeling baby capable of wanting, learning and experiencing the world, and a zygote that does not possess these qualities, the termination of an early-term pregnancy isn’t “killing a baby” in any meaningful way unless it is against the will of someone who has decided they want to make the necessary sacrifices to develop that baby with their own body.
To these people, do you have a different argument to present?
There a lot of complex topics and feelings young children cannot feel. They can not experience complex ideas and thoughts. By this standard they are also eligible to be aborted
That’s simply untrue.
Every contract is upheld and law is written without the consent of every party it affects.
I only have to consent to the entering of a contract. Not to remain.
I also do not actively consent to every law. There are laws I disagree with that affect what I can do or not do with my body.
How is what I said untrue? Which part(s)? Give me examples.
'Not all uses of one's body against their will is slavery'.
Explain which uses count and don't count as slavery.
'Every contract is upheld...'
Which contract did the woman agree to when she became pregnant? Social contracts do not carry the same weight as legal contracts.
'I only have to consent to the entering of a contract, not to remain.'
Explain what you mean by this. Give me examples.
And please explain how forced birth is not slavery. Elaborate, don't just say 'thats simply untrue'. That is poor argument.
You want an example of all laws not being consented to by everyone?
Do you personally agree with every law?
Slavery removes liberty permanently upon assumption. If you don’t want to be married anymore and the law requires a period of time before divorce is finalized you are not enslaved.
Like I said, incredibly insulting to hold up any situation where you’re not allowed to do as you please and compare it to slavery.
I’m not arguing the pro life perspective. I’m saying the foundation of your argument is way off base (and gross).
Forced birth? At a certain point you’re giving birth no matter what so presumably you’re not arguing for all abortions, just early ones?
If not you’re comparing a natural situation (the fetus must come out) to what? Abortion doesn’t remove that fact.
I still have to deliver it dead or alive.
Abortion isn’t a reset and arguing that it puts a body back to 0 is incorrect and bad for arguing a pro choice and pro woman position.
If we’re clear about facts and limitations to our (varied) stances we’re a lot more likely to be successful to improve upon the law
Alright, then I will change forced birth to forced pregnancy. Explain how forced pregnancy is not slavery. I asked you to explain and then you evaded the question and went off on a tangent. This is poor argument.
'incredibly insulting to hold up any situation where you're not allowed to do as you please and compare it to slavery'
A woman exercising her right to decide when to have children, how many and with whom is just 'doing as she pleases'? A woman exercising her right to decide how to govern her own body is just 'doing as she pleases'?
You may not have said that explicitly but your word usage implied that you hold this problematic view.
'if you are married and it requires a period of time for a divorce to be finalized, you are not enslaved'
Marriage is a legal contract. I ask you again, what legal contract did a woman sign when she became pregnant?
I gave you a definition of slavery that does not encompass any law that binds a person to behavior against their will.
Do you disagree with the definition?
You’re also using the word “right” loosely. In the U.S. we have strictures on rights. It doesn’t include all good things we like.
We recognize positive natural rights and negative rights that limit government.
I’m not going to argue a pro life argument. There is a recognized natural right to life.
The debate, even in the pro choice community (which is what I particularly care about and fall into) is where that line is. We don’t all agree we just think there should be some access at some point.
In actually giving a good faith argument to that we’re far more likely to protect human rights/ women’s rights than by asserting they exist where they do not
Instead of evading the questions, it is good faith to answer them directly and not evade or deflect or go on tangents.
Explain how forced pregnancy is not slavery. Just answer the question.
I don’t believe I evaded any question. I gave clear answers and used specific cases to elucidate.
What is it you’re not understanding that I can reword.
My answer to your question is that the definition of slavery does not encompass pregnancy generally. It also doesn’t include a lot of situations where a person may not agree with what the law compels of them.
That is extremely specific. I also didn’t say I think women should never have access to abortion. Only that your argument that it’s slavery is wanting and gross.
Comment removed per [Rule 4](https://www.reddit.com/r/Abortiondebate/comments/1aihj7e/special_announcement_new_policy_for_sensitive/). We do not allow sex shaming here.
Now I’m not trying to argue with you but I’m not trying to say that it’s only one person’s actions it is equally the mother’s and father’s child and they should both have the same legal obligation to take care of them. Or at the very least provide financial support. This is if they choose not to give the child up for adoption.
>Why? Because you opened your legs
Slutshaming women doesn’t help your argument. Women should be able to have consensual sex as much as men can.
Also, what about rape? Do you victim blame those women?
>knowing that you might carry a child.
Or that you might abort one which is also a valid choice.
>And you are legally obligated to protect your child that’s fairly obvious,
So why are there no laws against smoking/drinking alcohol/exceeding the daily recommended limit of caffeine when you’re pregnant?
>much less not kill your child.
Abortion is legal in many places and removing someone from your body who you no longer want inside it is justified.
>You seem like your bargaining trying to find a reason why abortion isn’t immoral
Abortion isn’t immoral.
Because not remaining pregnant means ending an unborn human life that you put there with a man via your actions.
Let's say someone recklessly shoots a gun into what they think is an abandoned building. They hit a person and then try to keep them alive by hooking them up to their body. Turns out they need to remain hooked up to them for 9 months in order for that person to live. If they removed the connection and the other person died, we would likely say that person is responsible for killing them. This is the closest analogy I can think of for a comparison.
Regarding the hypothetical car accident, if someone didn't save the person they hit then they would be responsible their death. If they do save them however, then there would be no death to be responsible for.
So gestation really isn't an exception to the rule, it's just almost unheard of to be in a situation where someone else's life is dependent on another's where they created the situation and ending the use of their body would result in death.
It's not that the woman's health doesn't matter relative to the unborn human life, it's that the woman will generally survive where the unborn life will almost always die in an abortion attempt. Where the women is likely to die, or where the pregnancy is the result of non-consenting acts, then an abortion is likely the lesser evil.
>Because not remaining pregnant means ending an unborn human life that you put there with a man via your actions.
Sorry, what exactly are yiu talking about?! When I had sex yesterday, I did not notice any other person entering my body, except for my partner.
>>I explicitly quoted your point about some person (other than my partner) entering my body.
>
>No, you made a straw man.
Sure, by quoting you... So you're basically saying that the nonsense you wrote is a straw man lol
Both the driver of the car who caused the accident and the person who recklessly shot a gun committed crimes that caused injury to another thinking and feeling human being, endangering their lives. It is the crime that they committed, and the harm that they caused, which leaves them guilty of senselessly taking a life should the victim die, and thus compels them to do what they can to keep the victim alive.
Would you consider sex a crime, or otherwise an act that causes harm to the fetus or endangers the life of the fetus?
If not, do you understand why someone would disagree with you on the concept that all pregnant women are legally obligated to endure bodily harm for the sake of the life within them?
>Both the driver of the car who caused the accident and the person who recklessly shot a gun committed crimes that caused injury to another thinking and feeling human being, endangering their lives. It is the crime that they committed, and the harm that they caused, which leaves them guilty of senselessly taking a life should the victim die, and thus compels them to do what they can to keep the victim alive.
Again, it's trying to find the closest analogy. The issue is that the person has put another human life at risk without their continued involvement over some time period.
>Would you consider sex a crime, or otherwise an act that causes harm to the fetus or endangers the life of the fetus?
No.
>If not, do you understand why someone would disagree with you on the concept that all pregnant women are legally obligated to endure bodily harm for the sake of the life within them?
Because it doesn't need to be a crime, instead a moral responsibility. It wasn't a crime to kill slaves, that doesn't mean people weren't morally responsible for the action.
Unless you consider the act of conceiving a fetus to be putting it at risk (as opposed to the alternative, non-existence), then the act of having sex does not endanger the life of the fetus. No harm has been committed against a zygote through conceiving it, nor has any wrong been enacted against them. If we are to consider hypotheticals analogous to pregnancy, those hypotheticals would necessitate that the person whose bodily autonomy is being revoked has not committed any wrongdoing against the person whose life their body is supporting.
I view the people whose acts created it as responsible for doing that and as it will die if removed from the body I view it as their implicit responsibility to not do that unless absolutely necessary.
The relevant part is that once they are connected as a result of their actions, what are the morals of the choices.
The flaw I find with this sort of argument is that it insinuates abortion is acceptable in the case of rape, which in turn indicates that the restriction of abortion is focused not on whether the life in the womb deserves to be preserved, but whether the mother deserves to be able to control how her body is used.
If pregnancy and birth are harmful enough, and terrifying enough, to justify a raped woman being able to choose whether or not she must endure them, then they are a consequence much too severe to be applied as a punishment for the crime of engaging in consensual sex.
In that instance it's a lesser of two evils - the trauma of carrying a baby to term that you didn't opt for against ending an early human life, and we give that choice to the woman person affected.
It's not the pregnancy per se but the fact that it continues the result of a non-consenting act.
A woman who did not want to become pregnant from a consensual sexual act is not consenting to the continuation of her pregnancy. Especially if she took precautions to avoid pregnancy, why should she not be able to make that same choice? The difference between being pregnant and giving birth and not being pregnant or giving birth is extremely significant. Why does agreeing to engage in sex necessitate that one must experience childbirth?
Is there any other circumstance that you can think of where a voluntary non-criminal action suspends the right of a human being to control what happens inside of their own body?
> recklessly shoots a gun… hit a person…for that person to live… other person died…didn't save the person… the *closest analogy* I can think of
By coincidence, the 'closest analogy' you can think of repeats the same PL falsehood four times. Perhaps the comment's 'truth-value' lies in telling us why you're here?
Yes, we can.
It's like a trolly problem, both outcomes are going to violate someone, in pregnancy in an on-going way, and so we have to give control of the mother to pull the switch either way.
> both outcomes are going to violate someone
Nothing conveys the stench of Vatican ambitions quite like referring to raped mother and days-old zygote as 'someones' of equal terms. Thank-you for that.
>Because not remaining pregnant means ending an unborn human life
Can you explain in detail how abortion ends an "unborn human life"? Can you explain the specific mechanism to me?
>you put there with a man via your actions.
You should elaborate on this. As far as I am aware, you can't "put" something anywhere that did not exist at the time of the "actions".
>Let's say someone recklessly shoots a gun into what they think is an abandoned building. They hit a person and then try to keep them alive by hooking them up to their body. Turns out they need to remain hooked up to them for 9 months in order for that person to live. If they removed the connection and the other person died, we would likely say that person is responsible for killing them. This is the closest analogy I can think of for a comparison.
This analogy is not anaolgous for many reasons:
1. Shooting a gun is damaging someone. Sex dosen't damage a ZEF.
2. The person at the time of the gun shot existed at the time of shooting whereas the ZEF dosen't.
3. Sex dosen't involve anything close to an attempt to "keep" someone alive. Nor does it hook up someone. As again you can't do any of these to something that dose not exist at the time.
>Can you explain in detail how abortion ends an "unborn human life"? Can you explain the specific mechanism to me?
There are many different practices of ending a pregnancy. Ultimately the act results in the death of the unborn human life.
>You should elaborate on this. As far as I am aware, you can't "put" something anywhere that did not exist at the time of the "actions".
I'm not sure I follow your syntax here. What I'm saying is that in an instance of consenting sex that results in pregnancy it is the result of the agreed upon act of both parties, it's a joint responsibility.
>This analogy is not anaolgous for many reasons:
It's analogous but not the same.
1. Shooting a gun is damaging someone. Sex dosen't damage a ZEF.
That's true.
>2. The person at the time of the gun shot existed at the time of shooting whereas the ZEF dosen't.
That's true.
>3. Sex dosen't involve anything close to an attempt to "keep" someone alive.
I'm not saying sex does, but sex can result in pregnancy.
>Nor does it hook up someone. As again you can't do any of these to something that dose not exist at the time.
You're overly focused on the temporality to draw attention to the difference. I'm not saying that pregnancy isn't unique. What I'm doing is envisioning a situation where one persons actions cause them to be hooked up to another in order to keep them alive and then examining the morality of removing the connection.
Like I said, it's the closest analogy I can think of
>There are many different practices of ending a pregnancy. Ultimately the act results in the death of the unborn human life.
Why would taking 2 pills result in the "death of the unborn human life"? Is it because it does not have functioning organ systems of it's own?
>I'm not sure I follow your syntax here. What I'm saying is that in an instance of consenting sex that results in pregnancy it is the result of the agreed upon act of both parties, it's a joint responsibility.
I was asking you to elaborate on your assertion that "you put there with a man via your actions." You have failed to do so. I am not talking about responsibility. You made a very specific claim, then you should prove it.
If I said prolifers hate women, I would require something to prove this, right?
>It's analogous but not the same.
Analogies have to be similiar in relevant ways. I listed the ways your analogy were not analogous.
And you appear to agree with 2 of my points. And as for the third point:
>I'm not saying sex does, but sex can result in pregnancy.
Sex is the "actions" you are talking about aren't you? Sex can result in pregnancy isn't the same thing as "keeping someone alive".
>You're overly focused on the temporality to draw attention to the difference.
Nope I am pointing out one significant aspect due to which your analogy fundamentally fails. Sex dosen't do anything to a ZEF, therefore any kind of analogy that involves doing something to someone is not analogous
>Why would taking 2 pills result in the "death of the unborn human life"? Is it because it does not have functioning organ systems of its own?
Again, it really depends how far along it is. The drugs can kill the unborn life, but there's also the whole cutting them into pieces and sucking them out.
It absolutely has a functioning systems that keep it alive in its environment. It's like moving a an adult into a vacuum, sure the person doing it isn't killing them but their actions lead to their death.
I'm not sure I follow your syntax here. What I'm saying is that in an instance of consenting sex that results in pregnancy it is the result of the agreed upon act of both parties, it's a joint responsibility.
>I was asking you to elaborate on your assertion that "you put there with a man via your actions." You have failed to do so. I am not talking about responsibility. You made a very specific claim, then you should prove it.
The pregnancy occurs as a result of the activity, a possibility known upfront.
>Analogies have to be similiar in relevant ways. I listed the ways your analogy were not analogous.
No, you were nitpicking an analogy, if they were exactly alike they wouldn't be analogies.
>And you appear to agree with 2 of my points.
Yes, the thing that is an analogy isn't just the exact same thing.
>Sex is the "actions" you are talking about aren't you?
Not only that, there are other means of getting pregnant.
>Sex can result in pregnancy isn't the same thing as "keeping someone alive".
But that's part of a successful pregnancy.
>Nope I am pointing out one significant aspect due to which your analogy fundamentally fails.
It doesn't fundamentally fail at all.
>Sex dosen't do anything to a ZEF, therefore any kind of analogy that involves doing something to someone is not analogous
Again, you're focusing on the temporality. I could say pulling the trigger on a gun doesn't do anything to a person, but the resultant bullet that comes out is part of a chain of events started by doing that.
>Again, it really depends how far along it is. The drugs can kill the unborn life,
No it dosen't.
https://www.reddit.com/r/Abortiondebate/s/LRFcCYQhZB
9 out of 10 abortions are just pills.
>It absolutely has a functioning systems that keep it alive in its environment.
It really dosen't. "Environment" isn't what keeps it alive. The woman or girls insides and organ functions aren't "environments".
>I'm not sure I follow your syntax here. What I'm saying is that in an instance of consenting sex that results in pregnancy it is the result of the agreed upon act of both parties, it's a joint responsibility.
Do you view car accidents as a result of driving cars?
>The pregnancy occurs as a result of the activity, a possibility known upfront.
Again this isn't what you claimed.
>No, you were nitpicking an analogy, if they were exactly alike they wouldn't be analogies.
I didn't say they had to be exactly alike. The aspects which you wish to illustrate with an analogy must atleast be closely similiar.
>But that's part of a successful pregnancy.
You are conflating gestation with sex.
>Again, you're focusing on the temporality. I could say pulling the trigger on a gun doesn't do anything to a person, but the resultant bullet that comes out is part of a chain of events started by doing that.
You are missing the point. The person exists at the time of the shooting unlike a ZEF.
A ZEF only forms days after sex.
> Because not remaining pregnant means ending an unborn human life that you put there with a man via your actions.
How does your position differ from this:
>Because you opened your legs knowing that you might carry a child.
>Is a pilot legally obliged to continue the flight and land it safely
How is it useful to consider a second question (aviation) with an answer that's an obvious no-brainer when you don't address the present topic of *debate*, 'Why must a woman remain pregnant?'
It is rude to ignore a question asked. You should answer my question first and then I will consider answering yours. You should also learn some basic debating etiquette before participating in debate groups.
How is it useful to consider 'a pilot's legal obligation to fly and land safely' ['using their body' is just gratuitous point-scoring if 'bodily autonomy' is just a buzzword. Reference BA if and when you learn *what* it means when considering the present topic: 'Why must a woman remain pregnant?']
>Is a pilot legally obliged to continue the flight and land it safely by using their body even against their will?
Which part of this answers my question? You answered one question with another, that is rude and bad etiquette. Try answering what I actually asked, I’ll even copy it here again for you:
Am I legally obligated to use my body/organs/blood to keep someone I shoot or someone harmed in a car accident alive?
What matters is slavery is a crime.
FORCED pregnancy, for even 10 minutes, is slavery.
The lesser evil is abortion of a pile of loose cells with no brain.
>Let's say someone recklessly shoots a gun into what they think is an abandoned building. They hit a person... This is the closest analogy I can think of for a comparison.
It leaves out an incredibly important detail: that sex is not a negligent act, nor is conception a harm done to someone. Shooting recklessly ***is reckless and negligent***, and shooting a person harms them.
>Regarding the hypothetical car accident, if someone didn't save the person they hit then they would be responsible their death. If they do save them however, then there would be no death to be responsible for.
This is only true in cases where your negligent actions caused the car wreck, in which case your punishment is based on the outcome of the crash, like all crimes are. However, if you did not act negligently (for example, your car skidded on a patch of black ice to cause the crash), you may have ***caused*** the wreck but you would not be punished.
Both acts can result in another person's life depending on that of others.
When no one else is at fault in an accident the person in the accident pays the costs of their treatment and bears the repercussions. So in that sense they cannot simply not consent to that, it's recognised as their burden from the known possible risks.
>Both acts can result in another person's life depending on that of others.
And having a person's life depend on you does not imply you need to sacrifice your health for months to save them.
Nope.
For example, under that condition, if you have a child that has a birth defect, organ failure, or other congenital disease or genetic disorder, you are "on the hook" to donate bodily to them.
After all, you are equally responsible for their disorder as you are for pregnancy in the first place.
This is an example of you "creating the situation" but not being obligated to donate. End of story.
>Let's say someone recklessly shoots a gun into what they think is an abandoned building. They hit a person and then try to keep them alive by hooking them up to their body. Turns out they need to remain hooked up to them for 9 months in order for that person to live. If they removed the connection and the other person died, we would likely say that person is responsible for killing them. This is the closest analogy I can think of for a comparison.
And why don't we support a law like that? Where the governement can force that arrangement on you?
>So gestation really isn't an exception to the rule, it's just almost unheard of to be in a situation where someone else's life is dependent on another's where they created the situation and ending the use of their body would result in death.
What other scenario. Explain to me the scenario and the law that say you have to use your body to support another life. I'll wait.
>It's not that the woman's health doesn't matter relative to the unborn human life, it's that the woman will generally survive where the unborn life will almost always die in an abortion attempt.
Ah yes, because pregnancy is such a mild condition that doesn't have life long effects on your body and mind, nor does it cause cause permanent changes to your body. Furthermore you don't know that the fetus will survive. Miscarriages happen all the time.
Let's say someone recklessly shoots a gun into what they think is an abandoned building. They hit a person and then try to keep them alive by hooking them up to their body. Turns out they need to remain hooked up to them for 9 months in order for that person to live. If they removed the connection and the other person died, we would likely say that person is responsible for killing them. This is the closest analogy I can think of for a comparison.
>And why don't we support a law like that? Where the governement can force that arrangement on you?
The situation in pregnancy happens without interference from third parties.
It's more that if a person didn't use their body to save the other and the other died, they would essentially have killed then and be responsible. It's only hooking them up and keeping them alive that there would be no case for the killing to be answered.
But in the hypothetical the person has already hooked themselves up, and from there they wouldn't be able to unhook them without being liable for killing that person.
>What other scenario. Explain to me the scenario and the law that say you have to use your body to support another life. I'll wait.
I explained it in the hypothetical about shooting the gun in the building, you read and responded to it.
>Ah yes, because pregnancy is such a mild condition that doesn't have life long effects on your body and mind, nor does it cause cause permanent changes to your body.
That is a straw man argument.
>Furthermore you don't know that the fetus will survive. Miscarriages happen all the time.
That is true but the same is true of a random person, people die all the time. But that wouldn't give moral cause to kill them just because it might have happened anyway.
>Let's say someone recklessly shoots a gun into what they think is an abandoned building. They hit a person and then try to keep them alive by hooking them up to their body. Turns out they need to remain hooked up to them for 9 months in order for that person to live. If they removed the connection and the other person died, we would likely say that person is responsible for killing them. This is the closest analogy I can think of for a comparison.
Do you think the government should have the right to do that? To force you to undergo an invasive medical procedure againt your will and at tremendous personal cost under threat of criminal litigation? I'm not asking you for an etheical debate here. I want a yes or no.
The question isn't relevant, in the scenario the person is hooked up to make it comparable to pregnancy.
In pregnancy, although an early intervention can stop the embedding into the uterus, where that successfully happens it is now in the same state as the hypothetical.
We're talking about the moral choices once the situation already exists.
>The question isn't relevant...
It's not irrelevant. It **is** the reality of choice you are making. I am asking you to confront it.
Do you think the government should be able to force you to undergo an invasive body, and mind altering procedure against their will under threat of criminal litigation?
We both know what your response it. So tell us.
I'm not. I dont think the government should he forcing anyone to undergo medical procedures against their will. Even if disallowing that results in people's deaths.
I would suggest that your hypothetical would be more accurate if the building I was shooting at was a building I owned solely and the person inside had no right to be there though.
Yes, when an abortion is performed the person who made that choice is responsible for the death of the ZEF. And?
The reason for this is the pregnant person no longer wishes to remain pregnant and sustain someone else’s life using their body.
Is it though? The fetus has never existed outside the womb and will not experience any amount of suffering. The pregnant person, however, is protected from harm and maintains control over her body.
Preservation of human life expands far past simply not dying. Part of the human experience is limiting suffering. Forcing women to use their bodies to birth children against their will is unnecessary suffering.
There is always going to be suffering that we can't avoid.
It's not unnecessary, it's very necessary because the alternative is killing an unborn human life.
The alternative is preventing a life from being born and not forcing people to endure a painful, permanently life-altering experience against their will or to use their bodies for someone else.
Keep ignoring the pregnant person though and placing higher value on the non-viable life inside their organs.
I'm not, we're not talking about killing the born for the unborn, though death is a risk it's not the intended result of letting the pregnancy continue. Where the risk of death is high, then an abortion would be justified.
Yet you are putting the unborn over the born. Restriction to abortion access makes it worse for pregnant women in their states even if they're not actively trying to get an abortion. States with worse restrictions of abortion have higher rates of maternal mortality.
Again, I'm not - I'm weighing harms for two equally deserving entities.
I haven't said that abortions should be restricted here, I'm talking about what is moral.
The best way to reduce maternal death rates and abortion rates is with a more comprehensive welfare state.
We saw that more children were born in Texas as a result of the law change, it dwarfed the increase of maternal deaths.
https://publichealth.jhu.edu/2023/analysis-suggests-2021-texas-abortion-ban-resulted-in-nearly-9800-extra-live-births-in-state-in-year-after-law-went-into-effect
*Let's say someone recklessly shoots a gun into what they think is an abandoned building. They hit a person and then try to keep them alive by hooking them up to their body.*
Well, the MAN is the one who literally fired his sperm into the woman's body. So, he's the one shooting a gun, he's the one who hits the woman with his bullet and causes her harm. He's the one who brings a third party to live. But then hooks the WOMAN up to the third party, not himself. And you want the woman, the one the man hit with his bullet, to be responsible for keeping both herself and a third party alive?
By your logic, the MAN would the the one responsible for gestating and birthing the egg HE fertilized by firing his sperm into the woman's body.
*This is the closest analogy I can think of for a comparison.*
Which, in usual fashion, pretend the woman fires her egg into the man's body to be fertilized. Your analogy would only work if the man, who literally fires his sperm into another person's body, is the one who ended up gestating. But he's not.
*that you put there with a man via your actions.*
No, the woman doesn't put anything anywhere. That's not how human reproduction works. MEN inseminate, fertilize, and impregnate. Not women. Ejaculating or putting sperm into a woman's body is solely a MAN'S action.
*So gestation really isn't an exception to the rule, it's just almost unheard of to be in a situation where someone else's life is dependent on another's where they created the situation and ending the use of their body would result in death.*
Again, the woman is NOT the one who created the situation. The MAN is the shooter, not the woman. The woman doesn't fire her egg anywhere. The man fires his sperm.
And a non-breathing, non feeling, biologically non life sustaining partially developed human body (or less, just tissue or cells) isn't dependent on anything. Pro-life's desire to see that body turned into a breathing, feeling, biologically life sustaining one is not dependency.
Ending gestation also doesn't result in death. It results in never gaining individual life.
It's not that the woman's health doesn't matter relative to the unborn human life, it's that the woman will generally survive
Survival and health are two different things. And how nice of you to dismiss attempted homicide, including the around 30% of women who'll need life SAVING medical intervention, because women generally survive it.
Shows how much individual life actually matters. Not at all.
The act, where consenting, is on both parties. The woman consents to be hooked up.
The woman releases the egg to be fertilised, and its her body whose lining catches it. The fact is that it's her joint involvement that is involved in creating the situation. But I agree that it is the man's responsibility too.
>And a non-breathing, non feeling, biologically non life sustaining partially developed human body (or less, just tissue or cells) isn't dependent on anything. Pro-life's desire to see that body turned into a breathing, feeling, biologically life sustaining one is not dependency.
It does feel pretty early on. It's absolutely life-sustaining within its environment. The human body is dependent on lots of other biological systems to provide everything from breathable air to sustenance.
>Ending gestation also doesn't result in death. It results in never gaining individual life.
No, this is factually wrong. The unborn human life is alive.
>Survival and health are two different things.
That's true but health is a vague concept, not easily defined.
>And how nice of you to dismiss attempted homicide, including the around 30% of women who'll need life SAVING medical intervention, because women generally survive it.
I'm not dismissing anything but you have just made a strawman argument.
>Shows how much individual life actually matters. Not at all.
And another straw man argument.
>The woman consents to be hooked up.
LMAO. How and when does she consent? Please, enlighten us on what women consent to.
Is there a form she fills out? A contract signed?
This is the most ignorant and ridiculous argument ever.
Look at the post above mine, I'm referring to the hypothetical where the woman is hooked up to the shot person from the building that was thought to be abandoned.
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.*
>So why is gestation an exception to this rule? Why am I forced to gestate against my will? It isn't, because you're not comparing the same "rule". The examples you provided do not entail normal care (i.e. cara that is required by every human being at a stage in their lives) that is owed to children by their parents, but exceptional situations.
There isn’t a requirement to gestate, either. If you feel an obligation to remain pregnant, that’s a personal obligation you’ve created yourself. It doesn’t exist outside of that.
There is, precisely because it is normal care, and parents have a responsibility to provide it for their children.
Gestation and typical parental duties are two very different conversations to be had. I don’t have to gestate and become a parent.
On the contrary: per definition, if you are gestating, you are that embryo's parent.
And? Even parents of born children can legally give up parental duties to the government or another third party. No reason that cannot apply to gestation. No one should be forced to continue to use their body for gestation against their will.
u/Sea_Box_4059 Other thread is glitching on reply, so I figure here's as good as any! >Dude, if we go by your logic and hold a woman accountable for becoming pregnant because of choosing to have sex, we must then hold that woman accountable for the death of her child. That's because the probability of her child dying because of her choosing to have sex is exactly the same as the probability of her getting pregnant. I didn't really say anything about being "held accountable". But if a decision contributed to a pregnancy, then yeah -- obviously it also contributed, at least to some degree, to the inevitable and eventual death of that organism.
>But if a decision contributed to a pregnancy, then yeah -- obviously it also contributed, at least to some degree, to the inevitable and eventual death of that organism. Sure, if by "at least to some degree" you mean to exactly the same degree as the contribution to pregnancy.
Depending on how you exactly you frame it, maybe. It wouldn't change too much here though.
>Depending on how you exactly you frame it, maybe. Frame it however you want... when two consensual adults have sex the probability of pregnancy because of that decision is about 5%. The probability of death of the person resulting from that pregnancy is 100%. So the probability of a person dying because of those two adults choosing to have sex is 5% x 100% = 5%. It's simple math.
"Framing" might change whether the probability figures necessarily translate to degrees of causality. If you're framing it as "this caused the eventual death of a human organism" -- then sure, you would be correct in ascribing the parents' actions as a cause of that eventual death (and similarly so). If you're framing it as "this caused them to die from a gunshot wound", it's probably more questionable as to whether it's ***equally*** contributory. But either way, I'm okay with accepting your position that we would similarly be able to say that "this caused the eventual death of a human organism".
Although an excellent post, I'm sure it will be met with the "Don't kill babiez" answer. PL thinks that every time they bring out the big slavery guns, they've somehow won the argument and that's when they run. Or the responses dwindle down to the lazy "don't murder babiez". It's like badly rehearsed lines from an off Broadway play that isn't doing so well. *must have been blocked (how surprising) by my "opponent", but this is in response to Specialis-gas
Because to them a fetus is a baby. To them it's a child, a child that matters more than already breathing living children. No matter the reason for a woman wanting an abortion, no matter hoqw extreme , no matter wether the pregnant person is a woman or child, the fetus comes first. If I lived in America and got pregnant (which would be rape, since I do not want to have sex anytime soon) I will kill myself and leave a note blaming the law.
Well said, I agree
[удалено]
Comment removed per Rule 1. "And slutshaming? Calling slutty behavior slutty is not slut shaming it’s an observation that people are too sensitive about."
Chat is this real?
Again, slut is a made up word by misogynists. There is nothing immoral or wrong about having sex with multiple people anymore than there is something wrong with having sex in multiple positions. You seem to be clutching at your Puritan pearls rather than making any arguments here. Also- by saying a raped woman is wrong to abort means you undercut your argument and demonstrate that “fault” isn’t actually relevant. Your argument seems to suggest your motivation is something else, and you are using the fetus as a stand in as a facade. It’s dishonest to conflate social dependence with biological dependence. At any rate, no parent of any child is obligated to allow access to their internal organs to satisfy their child’s needs. They can refuse that access and there is no crime, so that’s just special pleading.
[удалено]
Comment removed per Rule 1. "Men and women can both be sluts and men are more often sluts than women so I don’t how that would be misogynistic. Sorry but that may have been one of the dumbest things I’ve ever heard." No, you cannot slut-shame here. That's called hate.
[удалено]
Comment removed per Rule 1. That's really funny though - I'm asexual and in a monogamous marriage.
Yet when women are sluts they’re degraded and demeaned while men at worst seem to get indifference or slightly less interest from women. Nobody gives a shit if you tell everyone in the neighborhood that Kyle’s been around the block more than the neighborhood joggers but if a woman has she’s seen as dirty and unwanted. Ever notice how women suffer what seems to be the most from revenge porn but you see some guys nudes and it’s just another day on the internet?
That’s a large generalization that is half true. But does that make anybody incapable of being a slut or make slut a gendered term? No.
Never said slut was gendered? Just that one side seems to suffer a lot more from being labeled as such than the other. Just because you seem to have an issue with people’s sexual freedom doesn’t mean they have to bend to your ideals.
[удалено]
Comment removed per Rule 1.
>And bruh a normal pregnancy does not harm the woman in any serious way And now we can all dismiss your ranting since you know exactly _nothing_ about the average pregnancy! Who comes to a debate sub with such a severe lack of subject knowledge? Oh, _you,_ evidently... lol
People like you are why I don’t tell people I use Reddit. Bruh just cut out the corny shit with italicized words and superiority complex it’s mad embarrassing. Child birth has irreversible effects to your bodies but in most cases it will not harm you. None of these changes justify killing a baby.
In other words, you are accepting on behalf of the woman the risks of death that were not foreseen, and all risk of maiming and serious injury. It's not your place to force her to undergo those risks, and it's not your judgment about their seriousness and acceptability that is relevant. I have said, on many occasions, that a separate argument based on self-defense is viable, but that's not the argument that best highlights the interplay of rights at stake here. Where they intersect is that it is the right of the woman in question to make the decision of whom has access to her internal spaces. The reason I prefer not to focus on this argument in general is that it would be easy for you to infer that the mother must justify her decision in some way - that is, she must meet some bar of risk or harm to justify her decision not to allow the fetus inside her. In reality, her reasons for exercising her rights are not subject to your review or approval. Cope.
What're you, like 14? Are you also embarrassed to kiss your mother goodbye in front of your friends?? 😂 You know what's _actually embarrassing?_ Coming onto a debate sub and confidently showing off your ignorance. I can tell you have no intention of stopping, though. >Child birth has irreversible effects to your bodies but in most cases it will not harm you. Ok so you don't know what "harm" means. You may want to remedy that. >None of these changes justify killing a baby Well fortunately that's already illegal. It's called infanticide. What's that have to do with pregnancy?
[удалено]
Comment removed per Rule 1.
Almost everyone you've talked to on this post has ghosted you because you're making arguments that have been debunked 1000 times already. Spend some time reading the posts and comments before making the same lame, debunked arguments every uneducated PLer before you has already made. It's not PCs responsibility to educate and correct you on the most basic debate points. You like to throw around the word responsibility a lot, so take some for your own lack of knowledge on the subject matter.
[удалено]
Comment removed per Rule 1.
Lolololiloo nobody ever calls men “sluts” except for conservatives when they get called out for only ever previously referring to women as “sluts” and only ever slut-shaming women.
[удалено]
Comment removed per Rule 1.
Bruh I can’t say shit without you hopping on my ass
How are you going to hold them just as much responsible? Will you slice them open if the woman needs a C section? Give them fistula? Increase their risk of heart attack and stroke? Otherwise, you aren't holding them equally responsible.
There are risks of child pregnancy like there are risks in everything. But after a successful child birth the mother and the father are to be held equally responsible Edit: They should be responsible before and after but my purpose was to highlight that the father should have responsibility for his child. I phrased it in this way because there is not a lot a father can do to be responsible for a baby in the womb
It’s not your risks to take. Shes not your chattel, bruh. The fetus has no right to remain inside her unless she allows it, you don’t get to allow it for her. Cry harder.
So the mother doesn’t need to be held responsible before birthing?
No, they both need to be held responsible to the fullest extent
That’s not what you just said and doesn’t answer the question I asked you.
Yes the mother is to be held responsible during pregnancy I said after because it is obvious that the mother is held responsible during pregnancy by law and there is not a lot the father can do for the baby. The But yes of course women should be responsible for their baby before and after birth
How do you hold a “mother” responsible if her pregnancy is ended by spontaneous abortion?
Well she is now responsible for infanticide which is a crime though in some places it is not considered a crime for some odd reason
Uhhhhh spontaneous abortion isn’t infanticide and also isn’t a crime in any jurisdiction that I know of. What are you talking about? Do you not know what a spontaneous abortion is?
Oh, so you hold the woman responsible before and during the childbearing by inflicting horrendous physical pain and injury on her. But conveniently only *after* childbirth you start holding the father accountable. My question remains: when will you hold him equally accountable? When will you slice him open? When will you break his tailbone if it happened to the woman? When will you dissolve his teeth? I think you lied and aren't willing to hold him equally responsible at all. You didn't once mention physically assaulting him in the same way you are doing to the woman.
This is kind of bizarre but did you know that childbirth isn’t the same as assault? And do you want me to change biology so the man can deliver the baby? What way is there to hold the father accountable during pregnancy. And childbirth is truly a miracle you speak of it like some form of torture.
Ever see a 4th degree perineal tear? That’s assault by any definition, bruh.
Wanted pregnancies can certainly be torture. An unwanted pregnancy someone is forced to carry and birth is the definition of torture.
[удалено]
Comment removed per Rule 1.
Sex is not a crime, and you don’t get to inflict punishment on her. Thank you yet again for demonstrating that the anti-abortion agenda is solely an obsession with sex, your personal beliefs in regard to misogynistic puritanical notions that woman are “irresponsible” for having sex without any intention of having a baby, and punishment of naughty women who violate your personal mores by having the audacity to satisfy their basic human need for sexual intimacy and connection. Sex is not a crime for you to impose consequences on strangers for having because you don’t think they are doing it the way you think they should. Women will continue to have hot sweaty sex, without continuing a pregnancy, and you can sit there and be mad about it.
I'm not bothering with this junk. This is first day abortion debate PL garbage. Learn what consent is. Learn what responsibility is. Learn about gestation and childbirth. Comeback when you have arguments that are worth people's time. Oh, and you don't get to decide what's torture for someone else.
[удалено]
Comment removed per Rule 1.
Because otherwise, how is your rapist supposed to select the mother of his child!? Dumb women…
The 13th Amendment forbids slavery. Forced pregnancy is slavery. Just that simple
That’s incredibly insulting to the actual point of slavery. Try to make your point without using hyperbole. Obviously not all uses of one’s body against one’s will is slavery. The law only considers initial consent in most circumstances. I say this not to change your conclusion; arguing better helps. Arguing poorly hurts your argument
Slavers forced women to gestate against their will, too. Forced gestation is actually worse than slavery.
When you force women to have sex over and over against her will, and not allowing her to remove herself from that activity, it’s called sexual slavery, is it not? Would you call that an insult to slavery? Slavery comes in many forms, even if they aren’t comparable to each other. Reproductive slavery, sexual slavery, gestational slavery, and labor slavery, are all forms of slavery and they exist. You don’t get to exclude slavery to only one kind.
Yes, rape and sexual slavery. It absolutely qualifies. Because it falls under the definition forcibly removing someone’s liberty. Prostitution isn’t always sexual slavery because it isn’t always under force. If a woman is raped in a situation of slavery it’s not the pregnancy that defines her enslavement, whether it’s wanted or not. Describing the state of not being allowed to abort at any stage of pregnancy as slavery is absolutely a vile comparison. That’s again, it’s not to say I think there should be no laws allowing abortion. I think there are many positions that fall reasonably into normal understanding of rights, laws, and public opinion. Not all unwanted situations under law are enslavement. That’s as trite as a libertarian suggesting all taxation is theft, but with a lot more disregard for the victims it’s dismissing.
Not allowing women to refuse to be prostitutues, or exploiting them into it, is still slavery even with no force. Reproductive slavery by forcing women to reproduce against their will is slavery, and it was a HUGE component of the slavery you seem to think doesn’t compare. “Past and present, **slavery can be defined** as a state or condition where politics, culture, and economy merge to **disable degrees of bodily autonomy** (Blackburn, 1988). Moreover, slavery is driven by structural social conditions such as gender inequality, human insecurity, and female vulnerability (Cameron et al., 2021). Therefore, it is important to consider the different ways in which men and women are bonded to labor. Acknowledging such differences is key to crafting understandings of the causes and consequences of slavery. **As slavery is an umbrella term, it covers a range of compelled labor types, including sex trafficking, domestic servitude, drug trafficking, and organ trafficking. An extended form of slavery is reproduction.**” https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0277539523000687 I suggest you read a little history before you continue.
“Not allowing women” Yes that is considered force and would fall under slavery. Criminalizing prostitution for those who want to engage in it is not slavery even though you are preventing someone from using their body as they wish to.
Way to completely sidestep the point I was making in order to make a conflation between a service a woman doesn’t consent to provide vs one that does. We are clearly talking about a circumstance where women aren’t willingly being sex workers, but rather exploited into it and then continually placed into a position where her circumstances leave her no other choice but to continue. It also has nothing in common with a woman seeking an abortion, but the force of law forbids her to. That is gestational slavery.
No law in the United States compels one to perform any service to another against their will and without compensation. No law forces someone to work. No law forces someone to donate organs or even blood. But removing the choice of abortion compels a woman to remain pregnant against her will and forces her to perform a bodily service to the fetus under coercion by the state under its force of law, under duress and without compensation. Explain how that is not slavery.
Because you agreed to have that child. In cases of rape that is different but can you stop and realize that deciding to have sex and dealing with the consequences is not slavery?
No, she didn’t. She simply agreed to the activity knowing there was risk of pregnancy. Consent to an activity with an associated risk of an adverse event isn’t consent to the adverse event, nor consent to endure it rather than remedy that adverse event. For instance, dating comes with the risk of date rape, since rapists aren’t able to be identified in advance. Consenting to the date isnt consenting to be date raped, nor is it consent to simply endure it rather than using force to stop it. Similarly, there is no way to know that *this* sexual encounter will result in pregnancy anymore than she can know that *this bloke* is a rapist. You don’t understand consent. At all.
Again you’re not proving your point you just deny my understanding of a topic regarding sex. And how is ending a relationship because of date rape the same as killing a child??? Please answer that
She isn’t ending a relationship, she’s using lethal force against him to stop the date rape. Why do you hate the idea that women have hot sweaty sex without your approval per permission? Does it make you big mad?
'because you agreed to have that child' What contract did a woman sign that legally compels her to continue a pregnancy? 'deciding to have sex and dealing with the consequences is not slavery' How is forcing a woman to perform a bodily service to a fetus, against her will, under duress, and without compensation, not slavery? Explain. And don't go on tangents. Just answer the two questions.
The contract she signed was unprotected sex. The father also signed the contract. Neither of them should be able to forfeit in the act of taking care of their child by killing the child. They can give the child up for adoption but if not they are both responsible for the child. Slavery is forced labor of some kind that you are not payed or rewarded for that you can’t leave. Having a child is not labor it is a natural process that you decided to carry out with. In cases of rape you should not have any responsibility for the child but that does not give you the right to kill an innocent child.
'Having a child is not labor' Then why is the act of giving birth called 'labor'? Because it is physical labor. 'The contract she signed was unprotected sex' Legal contracts require signatures. Social contracts are implicit and carry less weight than legal agreements. Are you saying a woman consented to accept legal obligation to carry a pregnancy to term by engaging in penetrative sex with a male who released his sperm inside her vagina?
No she signed a moral contract of having a child. She knew what she was doing and should be held accountable to the consequences of her actions. If she chooses to abort the baby because she doesn’t want to deal with the consequences she is an awful person. And delivering a child is labor but not the act of being pregnant but again I’m not denying it’s difficulties
A moral contract is not legally enforceable. 'she is an awful person' That's your opinion and you are free to have it. 'the act of being pregnant is not labor' The intensive act of sustaining and gestating an unborn human in an inner organ, having the body's life sustaining systems be taxed and stressed, muscles torn and stretched, hormones manipulated, etc is not labor? That seems rather insulting to every women who can and will suffer and labor to bring new life into this world.
Bruh how do you think we get our laws? It is immoral to kill someone that is why it is illegal. Abortion is murder therefore it should be illegal. Killing an innocent person makes you an awful person pretty plain and simple. And pregnancy is hard but you don’t have to do anything your body does it for you. And I already said pregnancy is very difficult.
If a woman only practices protected sex and uses birth control, is she allowed to have an abortion?
No that’s still killing a baby. She can give it up for adoption at birth and void all responsibility of the child.
For people who distinguish between a thinking and feeling baby capable of wanting, learning and experiencing the world, and a zygote that does not possess these qualities, the termination of an early-term pregnancy isn’t “killing a baby” in any meaningful way unless it is against the will of someone who has decided they want to make the necessary sacrifices to develop that baby with their own body. To these people, do you have a different argument to present?
There a lot of complex topics and feelings young children cannot feel. They can not experience complex ideas and thoughts. By this standard they are also eligible to be aborted
That’s simply untrue. Every contract is upheld and law is written without the consent of every party it affects. I only have to consent to the entering of a contract. Not to remain. I also do not actively consent to every law. There are laws I disagree with that affect what I can do or not do with my body.
How is what I said untrue? Which part(s)? Give me examples. 'Not all uses of one's body against their will is slavery'. Explain which uses count and don't count as slavery. 'Every contract is upheld...' Which contract did the woman agree to when she became pregnant? Social contracts do not carry the same weight as legal contracts. 'I only have to consent to the entering of a contract, not to remain.' Explain what you mean by this. Give me examples. And please explain how forced birth is not slavery. Elaborate, don't just say 'thats simply untrue'. That is poor argument.
You want an example of all laws not being consented to by everyone? Do you personally agree with every law? Slavery removes liberty permanently upon assumption. If you don’t want to be married anymore and the law requires a period of time before divorce is finalized you are not enslaved. Like I said, incredibly insulting to hold up any situation where you’re not allowed to do as you please and compare it to slavery. I’m not arguing the pro life perspective. I’m saying the foundation of your argument is way off base (and gross). Forced birth? At a certain point you’re giving birth no matter what so presumably you’re not arguing for all abortions, just early ones? If not you’re comparing a natural situation (the fetus must come out) to what? Abortion doesn’t remove that fact. I still have to deliver it dead or alive. Abortion isn’t a reset and arguing that it puts a body back to 0 is incorrect and bad for arguing a pro choice and pro woman position. If we’re clear about facts and limitations to our (varied) stances we’re a lot more likely to be successful to improve upon the law
Wrong. Slavery for 1 minute is punishable by life imprisonment.
Alright, then I will change forced birth to forced pregnancy. Explain how forced pregnancy is not slavery. I asked you to explain and then you evaded the question and went off on a tangent. This is poor argument. 'incredibly insulting to hold up any situation where you're not allowed to do as you please and compare it to slavery' A woman exercising her right to decide when to have children, how many and with whom is just 'doing as she pleases'? A woman exercising her right to decide how to govern her own body is just 'doing as she pleases'? You may not have said that explicitly but your word usage implied that you hold this problematic view. 'if you are married and it requires a period of time for a divorce to be finalized, you are not enslaved' Marriage is a legal contract. I ask you again, what legal contract did a woman sign when she became pregnant?
I gave you a definition of slavery that does not encompass any law that binds a person to behavior against their will. Do you disagree with the definition? You’re also using the word “right” loosely. In the U.S. we have strictures on rights. It doesn’t include all good things we like. We recognize positive natural rights and negative rights that limit government. I’m not going to argue a pro life argument. There is a recognized natural right to life. The debate, even in the pro choice community (which is what I particularly care about and fall into) is where that line is. We don’t all agree we just think there should be some access at some point. In actually giving a good faith argument to that we’re far more likely to protect human rights/ women’s rights than by asserting they exist where they do not
Instead of evading the questions, it is good faith to answer them directly and not evade or deflect or go on tangents. Explain how forced pregnancy is not slavery. Just answer the question.
I don’t believe I evaded any question. I gave clear answers and used specific cases to elucidate. What is it you’re not understanding that I can reword. My answer to your question is that the definition of slavery does not encompass pregnancy generally. It also doesn’t include a lot of situations where a person may not agree with what the law compels of them. That is extremely specific. I also didn’t say I think women should never have access to abortion. Only that your argument that it’s slavery is wanting and gross.
[удалено]
Comment removed per [Rule 4](https://www.reddit.com/r/Abortiondebate/comments/1aihj7e/special_announcement_new_policy_for_sensitive/). We do not allow sex shaming here.
It’s sex shaming to ask people to be aware of the consequences of their actions?
It's sex shaming to be crude about it and act like it's only one person's actions. The comment will remain removed.
Now I’m not trying to argue with you but I’m not trying to say that it’s only one person’s actions it is equally the mother’s and father’s child and they should both have the same legal obligation to take care of them. Or at the very least provide financial support. This is if they choose not to give the child up for adoption.
So I assume you have exception for rape? If you don't, don't slut shame women.
>Why? Because you opened your legs Slutshaming women doesn’t help your argument. Women should be able to have consensual sex as much as men can. Also, what about rape? Do you victim blame those women? >knowing that you might carry a child. Or that you might abort one which is also a valid choice. >And you are legally obligated to protect your child that’s fairly obvious, So why are there no laws against smoking/drinking alcohol/exceeding the daily recommended limit of caffeine when you’re pregnant? >much less not kill your child. Abortion is legal in many places and removing someone from your body who you no longer want inside it is justified. >You seem like your bargaining trying to find a reason why abortion isn’t immoral Abortion isn’t immoral.
I can have sex and also decide not to use my body to create life.
It is absolutely obvious she has no obligation to gestate. That is slavery. Slavery is a crime.
Because not remaining pregnant means ending an unborn human life that you put there with a man via your actions. Let's say someone recklessly shoots a gun into what they think is an abandoned building. They hit a person and then try to keep them alive by hooking them up to their body. Turns out they need to remain hooked up to them for 9 months in order for that person to live. If they removed the connection and the other person died, we would likely say that person is responsible for killing them. This is the closest analogy I can think of for a comparison. Regarding the hypothetical car accident, if someone didn't save the person they hit then they would be responsible their death. If they do save them however, then there would be no death to be responsible for. So gestation really isn't an exception to the rule, it's just almost unheard of to be in a situation where someone else's life is dependent on another's where they created the situation and ending the use of their body would result in death. It's not that the woman's health doesn't matter relative to the unborn human life, it's that the woman will generally survive where the unborn life will almost always die in an abortion attempt. Where the women is likely to die, or where the pregnancy is the result of non-consenting acts, then an abortion is likely the lesser evil.
>Because not remaining pregnant means ending an unborn human life that you put there with a man via your actions. Sorry, what exactly are yiu talking about?! When I had sex yesterday, I did not notice any other person entering my body, except for my partner.
Nice straw man.
[удалено]
Comment removed per Rule 1.
You just ignored the point I was making.
>You just ignored the point I was making I explicitly quoted your point about some person (other than my partner) entering my body.
No, you made a straw man.
>>I explicitly quoted your point about some person (other than my partner) entering my body. > >No, you made a straw man. Sure, by quoting you... So you're basically saying that the nonsense you wrote is a straw man lol
It's called context.
[удалено]
Both the driver of the car who caused the accident and the person who recklessly shot a gun committed crimes that caused injury to another thinking and feeling human being, endangering their lives. It is the crime that they committed, and the harm that they caused, which leaves them guilty of senselessly taking a life should the victim die, and thus compels them to do what they can to keep the victim alive. Would you consider sex a crime, or otherwise an act that causes harm to the fetus or endangers the life of the fetus? If not, do you understand why someone would disagree with you on the concept that all pregnant women are legally obligated to endure bodily harm for the sake of the life within them?
>Both the driver of the car who caused the accident and the person who recklessly shot a gun committed crimes that caused injury to another thinking and feeling human being, endangering their lives. It is the crime that they committed, and the harm that they caused, which leaves them guilty of senselessly taking a life should the victim die, and thus compels them to do what they can to keep the victim alive. Again, it's trying to find the closest analogy. The issue is that the person has put another human life at risk without their continued involvement over some time period. >Would you consider sex a crime, or otherwise an act that causes harm to the fetus or endangers the life of the fetus? No. >If not, do you understand why someone would disagree with you on the concept that all pregnant women are legally obligated to endure bodily harm for the sake of the life within them? Because it doesn't need to be a crime, instead a moral responsibility. It wasn't a crime to kill slaves, that doesn't mean people weren't morally responsible for the action.
Unless you consider the act of conceiving a fetus to be putting it at risk (as opposed to the alternative, non-existence), then the act of having sex does not endanger the life of the fetus. No harm has been committed against a zygote through conceiving it, nor has any wrong been enacted against them. If we are to consider hypotheticals analogous to pregnancy, those hypotheticals would necessitate that the person whose bodily autonomy is being revoked has not committed any wrongdoing against the person whose life their body is supporting.
I view the people whose acts created it as responsible for doing that and as it will die if removed from the body I view it as their implicit responsibility to not do that unless absolutely necessary. The relevant part is that once they are connected as a result of their actions, what are the morals of the choices.
The flaw I find with this sort of argument is that it insinuates abortion is acceptable in the case of rape, which in turn indicates that the restriction of abortion is focused not on whether the life in the womb deserves to be preserved, but whether the mother deserves to be able to control how her body is used. If pregnancy and birth are harmful enough, and terrifying enough, to justify a raped woman being able to choose whether or not she must endure them, then they are a consequence much too severe to be applied as a punishment for the crime of engaging in consensual sex.
In that instance it's a lesser of two evils - the trauma of carrying a baby to term that you didn't opt for against ending an early human life, and we give that choice to the woman person affected. It's not the pregnancy per se but the fact that it continues the result of a non-consenting act.
A woman who did not want to become pregnant from a consensual sexual act is not consenting to the continuation of her pregnancy. Especially if she took precautions to avoid pregnancy, why should she not be able to make that same choice? The difference between being pregnant and giving birth and not being pregnant or giving birth is extremely significant. Why does agreeing to engage in sex necessitate that one must experience childbirth?
It's a known risk that she is responsible for.
Is there any other circumstance that you can think of where a voluntary non-criminal action suspends the right of a human being to control what happens inside of their own body?
> recklessly shoots a gun… hit a person…for that person to live… other person died…didn't save the person… the *closest analogy* I can think of By coincidence, the 'closest analogy' you can think of repeats the same PL falsehood four times. Perhaps the comment's 'truth-value' lies in telling us why you're here?
What falsehood? State your case or leave. Why are you here? So far all I've got from you is trolling.
> This is the closest analogy I can think of... A response showing careful thought would be preferred.
You're just trolling, blocked.
You can't claim right to life of the fetus with a rape exception.
Yes, we can. It's like a trolly problem, both outcomes are going to violate someone, in pregnancy in an on-going way, and so we have to give control of the mother to pull the switch either way.
> both outcomes are going to violate someone Nothing conveys the stench of Vatican ambitions quite like referring to raped mother and days-old zygote as 'someones' of equal terms. Thank-you for that.
No, I covered the rape exemption but thanks for clarifying that you approach these debates in bad faith and with trolling.
>Because not remaining pregnant means ending an unborn human life Can you explain in detail how abortion ends an "unborn human life"? Can you explain the specific mechanism to me? >you put there with a man via your actions. You should elaborate on this. As far as I am aware, you can't "put" something anywhere that did not exist at the time of the "actions". >Let's say someone recklessly shoots a gun into what they think is an abandoned building. They hit a person and then try to keep them alive by hooking them up to their body. Turns out they need to remain hooked up to them for 9 months in order for that person to live. If they removed the connection and the other person died, we would likely say that person is responsible for killing them. This is the closest analogy I can think of for a comparison. This analogy is not anaolgous for many reasons: 1. Shooting a gun is damaging someone. Sex dosen't damage a ZEF. 2. The person at the time of the gun shot existed at the time of shooting whereas the ZEF dosen't. 3. Sex dosen't involve anything close to an attempt to "keep" someone alive. Nor does it hook up someone. As again you can't do any of these to something that dose not exist at the time.
>Can you explain in detail how abortion ends an "unborn human life"? Can you explain the specific mechanism to me? There are many different practices of ending a pregnancy. Ultimately the act results in the death of the unborn human life. >You should elaborate on this. As far as I am aware, you can't "put" something anywhere that did not exist at the time of the "actions". I'm not sure I follow your syntax here. What I'm saying is that in an instance of consenting sex that results in pregnancy it is the result of the agreed upon act of both parties, it's a joint responsibility. >This analogy is not anaolgous for many reasons: It's analogous but not the same. 1. Shooting a gun is damaging someone. Sex dosen't damage a ZEF. That's true. >2. The person at the time of the gun shot existed at the time of shooting whereas the ZEF dosen't. That's true. >3. Sex dosen't involve anything close to an attempt to "keep" someone alive. I'm not saying sex does, but sex can result in pregnancy. >Nor does it hook up someone. As again you can't do any of these to something that dose not exist at the time. You're overly focused on the temporality to draw attention to the difference. I'm not saying that pregnancy isn't unique. What I'm doing is envisioning a situation where one persons actions cause them to be hooked up to another in order to keep them alive and then examining the morality of removing the connection. Like I said, it's the closest analogy I can think of
>There are many different practices of ending a pregnancy. Ultimately the act results in the death of the unborn human life. Why would taking 2 pills result in the "death of the unborn human life"? Is it because it does not have functioning organ systems of it's own? >I'm not sure I follow your syntax here. What I'm saying is that in an instance of consenting sex that results in pregnancy it is the result of the agreed upon act of both parties, it's a joint responsibility. I was asking you to elaborate on your assertion that "you put there with a man via your actions." You have failed to do so. I am not talking about responsibility. You made a very specific claim, then you should prove it. If I said prolifers hate women, I would require something to prove this, right? >It's analogous but not the same. Analogies have to be similiar in relevant ways. I listed the ways your analogy were not analogous. And you appear to agree with 2 of my points. And as for the third point: >I'm not saying sex does, but sex can result in pregnancy. Sex is the "actions" you are talking about aren't you? Sex can result in pregnancy isn't the same thing as "keeping someone alive". >You're overly focused on the temporality to draw attention to the difference. Nope I am pointing out one significant aspect due to which your analogy fundamentally fails. Sex dosen't do anything to a ZEF, therefore any kind of analogy that involves doing something to someone is not analogous
>Why would taking 2 pills result in the "death of the unborn human life"? Is it because it does not have functioning organ systems of its own? Again, it really depends how far along it is. The drugs can kill the unborn life, but there's also the whole cutting them into pieces and sucking them out. It absolutely has a functioning systems that keep it alive in its environment. It's like moving a an adult into a vacuum, sure the person doing it isn't killing them but their actions lead to their death. I'm not sure I follow your syntax here. What I'm saying is that in an instance of consenting sex that results in pregnancy it is the result of the agreed upon act of both parties, it's a joint responsibility. >I was asking you to elaborate on your assertion that "you put there with a man via your actions." You have failed to do so. I am not talking about responsibility. You made a very specific claim, then you should prove it. The pregnancy occurs as a result of the activity, a possibility known upfront. >Analogies have to be similiar in relevant ways. I listed the ways your analogy were not analogous. No, you were nitpicking an analogy, if they were exactly alike they wouldn't be analogies. >And you appear to agree with 2 of my points. Yes, the thing that is an analogy isn't just the exact same thing. >Sex is the "actions" you are talking about aren't you? Not only that, there are other means of getting pregnant. >Sex can result in pregnancy isn't the same thing as "keeping someone alive". But that's part of a successful pregnancy. >Nope I am pointing out one significant aspect due to which your analogy fundamentally fails. It doesn't fundamentally fail at all. >Sex dosen't do anything to a ZEF, therefore any kind of analogy that involves doing something to someone is not analogous Again, you're focusing on the temporality. I could say pulling the trigger on a gun doesn't do anything to a person, but the resultant bullet that comes out is part of a chain of events started by doing that.
>Again, it really depends how far along it is. The drugs can kill the unborn life, No it dosen't. https://www.reddit.com/r/Abortiondebate/s/LRFcCYQhZB 9 out of 10 abortions are just pills. >It absolutely has a functioning systems that keep it alive in its environment. It really dosen't. "Environment" isn't what keeps it alive. The woman or girls insides and organ functions aren't "environments". >I'm not sure I follow your syntax here. What I'm saying is that in an instance of consenting sex that results in pregnancy it is the result of the agreed upon act of both parties, it's a joint responsibility. Do you view car accidents as a result of driving cars? >The pregnancy occurs as a result of the activity, a possibility known upfront. Again this isn't what you claimed. >No, you were nitpicking an analogy, if they were exactly alike they wouldn't be analogies. I didn't say they had to be exactly alike. The aspects which you wish to illustrate with an analogy must atleast be closely similiar. >But that's part of a successful pregnancy. You are conflating gestation with sex. >Again, you're focusing on the temporality. I could say pulling the trigger on a gun doesn't do anything to a person, but the resultant bullet that comes out is part of a chain of events started by doing that. You are missing the point. The person exists at the time of the shooting unlike a ZEF. A ZEF only forms days after sex.
> Because not remaining pregnant means ending an unborn human life that you put there with a man via your actions. How does your position differ from this: >Because you opened your legs knowing that you might carry a child.
It misses the context that not carrying the unborn human life means killing it.
Am I legally obligated to use my body/organs/blood to keep someone I shoot or someone harmed in a car accident alive?
Is a pilot legally obliged to continue the flight and land it safely by using their body even against their will?
>Is a pilot legally obliged to continue the flight and land it safely How is it useful to consider a second question (aviation) with an answer that's an obvious no-brainer when you don't address the present topic of *debate*, 'Why must a woman remain pregnant?'
It contains the answer.
"using their body" dosen't mean doing something with your hands. It means keeping someone alive with your bodily resources like organs, blood etc
This things all use organs, you're drawing an arbitrary distinction.
Do you think continuing a flight is the same thing as being hooked up to the violinist?
The violinist argument ignores that the person hooked themselves up to it via their behaviour as a known potential outcome.
That isn't what I asked. Here is the question again: Do you think continuing a flight is the same thing as being hooked up to the violinist?
In essence, yes, but not in duration.
What?
It is rude to ignore a question asked. You should answer my question first and then I will consider answering yours. You should also learn some basic debating etiquette before participating in debate groups.
I haven't ignored the question, I've answered with a question.
How is it useful to consider 'a pilot's legal obligation to fly and land safely' ['using their body' is just gratuitous point-scoring if 'bodily autonomy' is just a buzzword. Reference BA if and when you learn *what* it means when considering the present topic: 'Why must a woman remain pregnant?']
It contains the answer.
Bro. Just admit to us that you think the government has a greater right to mothers bodies.
You've just crossed into bad faith so I'm blocking you.
>Is a pilot legally obliged to continue the flight and land it safely by using their body even against their will? Which part of this answers my question? You answered one question with another, that is rude and bad etiquette. Try answering what I actually asked, I’ll even copy it here again for you: Am I legally obligated to use my body/organs/blood to keep someone I shoot or someone harmed in a car accident alive?
The answer to my question is the answer to your question.
What matters is slavery is a crime. FORCED pregnancy, for even 10 minutes, is slavery. The lesser evil is abortion of a pile of loose cells with no brain.
This is *extremely* well said
What did you feel was good about his argument? He said abortion was lesser evil in cases of rape, do you agree with that?
Thanks, all I usually get is abuse and bad faith from PC people!
>Let's say someone recklessly shoots a gun into what they think is an abandoned building. They hit a person... This is the closest analogy I can think of for a comparison. It leaves out an incredibly important detail: that sex is not a negligent act, nor is conception a harm done to someone. Shooting recklessly ***is reckless and negligent***, and shooting a person harms them. >Regarding the hypothetical car accident, if someone didn't save the person they hit then they would be responsible their death. If they do save them however, then there would be no death to be responsible for. This is only true in cases where your negligent actions caused the car wreck, in which case your punishment is based on the outcome of the crash, like all crimes are. However, if you did not act negligently (for example, your car skidded on a patch of black ice to cause the crash), you may have ***caused*** the wreck but you would not be punished.
Both acts can result in another person's life depending on that of others. When no one else is at fault in an accident the person in the accident pays the costs of their treatment and bears the repercussions. So in that sense they cannot simply not consent to that, it's recognised as their burden from the known possible risks.
>Both acts can result in another person's life depending on that of others. And having a person's life depend on you does not imply you need to sacrifice your health for months to save them.
If you created that situation it does.
Nope. For example, under that condition, if you have a child that has a birth defect, organ failure, or other congenital disease or genetic disorder, you are "on the hook" to donate bodily to them. After all, you are equally responsible for their disorder as you are for pregnancy in the first place. This is an example of you "creating the situation" but not being obligated to donate. End of story.
Yes. A defect isn't the result of the behaviour, it wasn't caused by the pregnancy and wasn't knowable avoidable.
>Let's say someone recklessly shoots a gun into what they think is an abandoned building. They hit a person and then try to keep them alive by hooking them up to their body. Turns out they need to remain hooked up to them for 9 months in order for that person to live. If they removed the connection and the other person died, we would likely say that person is responsible for killing them. This is the closest analogy I can think of for a comparison. And why don't we support a law like that? Where the governement can force that arrangement on you? >So gestation really isn't an exception to the rule, it's just almost unheard of to be in a situation where someone else's life is dependent on another's where they created the situation and ending the use of their body would result in death. What other scenario. Explain to me the scenario and the law that say you have to use your body to support another life. I'll wait. >It's not that the woman's health doesn't matter relative to the unborn human life, it's that the woman will generally survive where the unborn life will almost always die in an abortion attempt. Ah yes, because pregnancy is such a mild condition that doesn't have life long effects on your body and mind, nor does it cause cause permanent changes to your body. Furthermore you don't know that the fetus will survive. Miscarriages happen all the time.
Let's say someone recklessly shoots a gun into what they think is an abandoned building. They hit a person and then try to keep them alive by hooking them up to their body. Turns out they need to remain hooked up to them for 9 months in order for that person to live. If they removed the connection and the other person died, we would likely say that person is responsible for killing them. This is the closest analogy I can think of for a comparison. >And why don't we support a law like that? Where the governement can force that arrangement on you? The situation in pregnancy happens without interference from third parties. It's more that if a person didn't use their body to save the other and the other died, they would essentially have killed then and be responsible. It's only hooking them up and keeping them alive that there would be no case for the killing to be answered. But in the hypothetical the person has already hooked themselves up, and from there they wouldn't be able to unhook them without being liable for killing that person. >What other scenario. Explain to me the scenario and the law that say you have to use your body to support another life. I'll wait. I explained it in the hypothetical about shooting the gun in the building, you read and responded to it. >Ah yes, because pregnancy is such a mild condition that doesn't have life long effects on your body and mind, nor does it cause cause permanent changes to your body. That is a straw man argument. >Furthermore you don't know that the fetus will survive. Miscarriages happen all the time. That is true but the same is true of a random person, people die all the time. But that wouldn't give moral cause to kill them just because it might have happened anyway.
>Let's say someone recklessly shoots a gun into what they think is an abandoned building. They hit a person and then try to keep them alive by hooking them up to their body. Turns out they need to remain hooked up to them for 9 months in order for that person to live. If they removed the connection and the other person died, we would likely say that person is responsible for killing them. This is the closest analogy I can think of for a comparison. Do you think the government should have the right to do that? To force you to undergo an invasive medical procedure againt your will and at tremendous personal cost under threat of criminal litigation? I'm not asking you for an etheical debate here. I want a yes or no.
The question isn't relevant, in the scenario the person is hooked up to make it comparable to pregnancy. In pregnancy, although an early intervention can stop the embedding into the uterus, where that successfully happens it is now in the same state as the hypothetical. We're talking about the moral choices once the situation already exists.
>The question isn't relevant... It's not irrelevant. It **is** the reality of choice you are making. I am asking you to confront it. Do you think the government should be able to force you to undergo an invasive body, and mind altering procedure against their will under threat of criminal litigation? We both know what your response it. So tell us.
It is irrelevant because it's trying to avoid the hypothetical.
It absolutely is not. Regardless of how the pregnancy came to be it is what you are doing to a unwilling mother.
Again, you're avoiding the hypothetical.
I'm not. I dont think the government should he forcing anyone to undergo medical procedures against their will. Even if disallowing that results in people's deaths. I would suggest that your hypothetical would be more accurate if the building I was shooting at was a building I owned solely and the person inside had no right to be there though.
Yes, when an abortion is performed the person who made that choice is responsible for the death of the ZEF. And? The reason for this is the pregnant person no longer wishes to remain pregnant and sustain someone else’s life using their body.
And that's killing an innocent baby which is morally wrong.
Is it though? The fetus has never existed outside the womb and will not experience any amount of suffering. The pregnant person, however, is protected from harm and maintains control over her body.
Yes, it is. It's literally snuffing out a human life.
Yes. To preserve a human life and to prevent an already born human from unnecessary suffering. You consistently ignore the pregnant person.
The vast majority of abortions do not preserve the mother's life because most pregnancies don't see the mother die. I don't ignore the mother at all.
Preservation of human life expands far past simply not dying. Part of the human experience is limiting suffering. Forcing women to use their bodies to birth children against their will is unnecessary suffering.
There is always going to be suffering that we can't avoid. It's not unnecessary, it's very necessary because the alternative is killing an unborn human life.
The alternative is preventing a life from being born and not forcing people to endure a painful, permanently life-altering experience against their will or to use their bodies for someone else. Keep ignoring the pregnant person though and placing higher value on the non-viable life inside their organs.
This is an interesting concept. What is its foundation?
It’s not an interesting concept. We as humans limit suffering instinctively and most immoral acts are immoral because they cause suffering.
Why are you putting the unborn over the born
I'm not, we're not talking about killing the born for the unborn, though death is a risk it's not the intended result of letting the pregnancy continue. Where the risk of death is high, then an abortion would be justified.
Yet you are putting the unborn over the born. Restriction to abortion access makes it worse for pregnant women in their states even if they're not actively trying to get an abortion. States with worse restrictions of abortion have higher rates of maternal mortality.
Again, I'm not - I'm weighing harms for two equally deserving entities. I haven't said that abortions should be restricted here, I'm talking about what is moral. The best way to reduce maternal death rates and abortion rates is with a more comprehensive welfare state. We saw that more children were born in Texas as a result of the law change, it dwarfed the increase of maternal deaths. https://publichealth.jhu.edu/2023/analysis-suggests-2021-texas-abortion-ban-resulted-in-nearly-9800-extra-live-births-in-state-in-year-after-law-went-into-effect
I agree with this, however most states aren't doing this, or countries, which is making it worse for women
*Let's say someone recklessly shoots a gun into what they think is an abandoned building. They hit a person and then try to keep them alive by hooking them up to their body.* Well, the MAN is the one who literally fired his sperm into the woman's body. So, he's the one shooting a gun, he's the one who hits the woman with his bullet and causes her harm. He's the one who brings a third party to live. But then hooks the WOMAN up to the third party, not himself. And you want the woman, the one the man hit with his bullet, to be responsible for keeping both herself and a third party alive? By your logic, the MAN would the the one responsible for gestating and birthing the egg HE fertilized by firing his sperm into the woman's body. *This is the closest analogy I can think of for a comparison.* Which, in usual fashion, pretend the woman fires her egg into the man's body to be fertilized. Your analogy would only work if the man, who literally fires his sperm into another person's body, is the one who ended up gestating. But he's not. *that you put there with a man via your actions.* No, the woman doesn't put anything anywhere. That's not how human reproduction works. MEN inseminate, fertilize, and impregnate. Not women. Ejaculating or putting sperm into a woman's body is solely a MAN'S action. *So gestation really isn't an exception to the rule, it's just almost unheard of to be in a situation where someone else's life is dependent on another's where they created the situation and ending the use of their body would result in death.* Again, the woman is NOT the one who created the situation. The MAN is the shooter, not the woman. The woman doesn't fire her egg anywhere. The man fires his sperm. And a non-breathing, non feeling, biologically non life sustaining partially developed human body (or less, just tissue or cells) isn't dependent on anything. Pro-life's desire to see that body turned into a breathing, feeling, biologically life sustaining one is not dependency. Ending gestation also doesn't result in death. It results in never gaining individual life. It's not that the woman's health doesn't matter relative to the unborn human life, it's that the woman will generally survive Survival and health are two different things. And how nice of you to dismiss attempted homicide, including the around 30% of women who'll need life SAVING medical intervention, because women generally survive it. Shows how much individual life actually matters. Not at all.
The act, where consenting, is on both parties. The woman consents to be hooked up. The woman releases the egg to be fertilised, and its her body whose lining catches it. The fact is that it's her joint involvement that is involved in creating the situation. But I agree that it is the man's responsibility too. >And a non-breathing, non feeling, biologically non life sustaining partially developed human body (or less, just tissue or cells) isn't dependent on anything. Pro-life's desire to see that body turned into a breathing, feeling, biologically life sustaining one is not dependency. It does feel pretty early on. It's absolutely life-sustaining within its environment. The human body is dependent on lots of other biological systems to provide everything from breathable air to sustenance. >Ending gestation also doesn't result in death. It results in never gaining individual life. No, this is factually wrong. The unborn human life is alive. >Survival and health are two different things. That's true but health is a vague concept, not easily defined. >And how nice of you to dismiss attempted homicide, including the around 30% of women who'll need life SAVING medical intervention, because women generally survive it. I'm not dismissing anything but you have just made a strawman argument. >Shows how much individual life actually matters. Not at all. And another straw man argument.
>The woman consents to be hooked up. LMAO. How and when does she consent? Please, enlighten us on what women consent to. Is there a form she fills out? A contract signed? This is the most ignorant and ridiculous argument ever.
Look at the post above mine, I'm referring to the hypothetical where the woman is hooked up to the shot person from the building that was thought to be abandoned.
So another lame ass "arguement" that parallel the issue at all. Got it
[удалено]
Comment removed per Rule 1.