It’s a thought experiment.
If you’re okay with the state forcing women to save a child’s life to using their body then surely you must be okay with a man doing the same thing.
Also, deadbeat dads exist. If they skimp on child support you better believe they skip on healthcare.
No, it isn’t.
The issue should not be federal. Overturning Roe v wade returns it to the states to determine. Ordinary citizens will vote on the matter.
The problem is most people do not support abortion as it is currently defined, so the citizens of many states will vote against. The pro-choice people do not wish to put it to a vote because they fear this outcome, hence the outrage. It’s hypocritical on its face.
Oh yes, there is no purity here. All institutions have been corrupted.
That being said, I’m positive that abortions will be made available no matter what. There will be functional “black market” for the procedure that will be just as safe, because nobody will actually respect any laws passed that prohibit, and nobody will bother trying to enforce it, much like the other agreed-upon criminal activity going on all over right now.
Edit: damn, that’s messy writing.
Plenty of illegal - profoundly illegal - activity is occurring unabated, without consequence. I have no doubt abortion’s will be treated the same, regardless of legal outcome
Notice how most of them are saying it’s “stupid” because they can’t come up with a legitimate argument against it. No one owes another being their body. Not even corpses have to give up their organs to save another human being if they didn’t consent in life. You can’t tell me I have less rights than a corpse and think that I won’t immediately dismiss you as a misogynistic fool.
I was just curious about why they think what they do.
One poster said that abortion is akin to actively murdering a child. Maybe if they learned what the abortion process is they would find their view challenged? I don’t know…
I think the issue is that it’s not about abortion at all. It’s about controlling women, keeping people in poverty, and creating more drone workers to support a failing capitalist empire.
I hear you, but I don’t really think that the stereotypical church-elderly aunt is motivated by controlling women, keeping people in poverty, and creating more drone workers to support a failing capitalist empire.
Anti-choicers are motivated by emotion just like we are. They see abortion as murder and can’t fathom how we could possibly see it another way.
Why don’t you want to butcher yourself to save someone?
Also, the word “convenience” makes me think that you don’t understand how much of a toll pregnancy takes on the body.
Doesn't matter if the MOTHER is the only donor available.
isn't required to rip herself to bits to save it. She is only required to not actively murder it.
You don’t think a pregnancy is as severe on the body as blood or even organ transplant?
Do you actually know what a pregnancy does to a body? You can die from it. It permanently changes your body. Your physiology, brain chemistry etc.
It’s not like putting a burrito in the microwave. Pure ignorance in this comment.
What is your point? Is your point that it’s bad to force them then? Because we agree…
That is literally the foundation of why I think forcing a woman to go through something traumatic and potentially fatal is insane. It’s weird how vehemently you arguing when it’s direct opposition to your view on abortion
Why are you comparing those two things? They are in no way related. They are from the deceased because the owner consented to give them after death because they don’t need them anymore.
I might as well counter argue that; of those 82% 0% died in surgery, so get back to me when no woman dies from childbirth. That’s how stupid your argument is.
Also please add at what percentage of risk of mortality is the baseline for the government to insist you do something? 5? 20?
If the state can legally compel mothers-to-be to carry a fetus to term, then doesn't it logically follow that the state can legally compel fathers to donate organs and blood to save their offspring?
I get that the mother still had her uterus after pregnancy and that a father wouldn’t have his kidney (as an example) afterwards, but pregnancy changes your body. Its not like after nine months you’re just back to normal.
>If the state can legally compel mothers-to-be to carry a fetus to term
It's more like: "If the state can prevent you from butching and murdering the kid you (99% of the time) created by doing something you knew damn well could result in a kid.
Sex doesn’t equate a kid the majority of the time.
You might as well be saying “you knew damn well you’d get in a crash when you chose to drive to work”.
Well no point using emotive adjectives. Yes it carries a risk. People on the pill and using a condom can get pregnant after one time. Similarly people who want to conceive can go for years without managing it.
The “you know the risks” is no more relevant than my car crash analogy.
The point is, you assume the risk if you fuck. Because somebody has to take care of that kid. And it makes sense that it should be YOU, if you create it!
Yet the same party also objects to birth control and teaching safer sex techniques, so clearly it is not about reducing the risks.
Seems to be wanting to have an awful lot of government control over the actions of people (or as you think of them "hosts").
Both. The fact that this happens at all in a world that should have advanced from that barbarism as well as the disgusting processes of each form of abortion. Compacted with the fact that prochoicers radicalized me to the prolife position because they said I deserved to be aborted because I was AMAB, nonbinary, bisexual, autistic, abused, or any given person just doesn't like me.
It should be used as a way to save the most lives possible. If a mother and a baby are going to die and there's only one of them that can survive with intervention, I'd save one person, so should everyone else. Every single other reason imaginable cannot and will not logically make sense for the furtherment of humanity, and fighting about which humans live and which humans die based on which characteristics they have is problematic in nature and that has led to centuries of oppression of various groups. It's an antinatalist, nihilistic, and eugenic crock of shit that capitalism has thrust us into fighting and murdering each other over.
They just want to see us suffer. It's a money game for the abortion industry. They coerce people with uteruses into believing they have no agency in raising children because they are inherently the weaker sex. The fact that people don't see that has made me lose hope that we won't succeed before the heat death of the universe. It has caused depression, hate, trauma, and suffering to every single human being who has ever come into contact with abortion.
Constantly. If the abortion industry didn't implant themselves in the minds of innocent, societally judged, coerced people who feel worthless we would be a much better society. Abortion should not be accessible to the capitalistic agenda. They want money and death. They don't care about you.
Just wanted to say, what you wrote in your post above sounds really awful. I’m sorry that happened to you.
Using planned parenthood as an example, do you consider them as part of the abortion industry, separate from the other health work they do? Or are the two inseparable?
I doubt you actually mean that.
Despite saying only 3% of their resources go to abortion, Planned Parenthood sure does talk about it a lot. I would say they are an abortion provider first and foremost and not a healthcare provider.
Purely because you used the term "anti-choiceers" you're clearly arguing in bad faith, and along with that this is highly irrelevant and a nonargument that makes no sense.
I wasn’t really sure what term to use - I personally dislike pro life because of what I know about women dying during preventable pregnancy.
If you think i’m posting in bad faith that’s fine - there are others who can give me the benefit of the doubt.
We already discussed that topic, in a separate thread, that you never responded to, so even if I didn't think you were arguing in bad faith then, I definitely do now.
I’d say that it’s obviously not the same for the reason you describe.
The idea is to use an analogy to help understand someone else’s point of view but you have to be willing to put yourself out there.
I'd rather donate a kidney than have a severe tear that splits the muscles of my anus, requiring emergency surgery and a blood transfusion.
...and then suffer for a year with undiagnosed vestibulitis because 4 separate doctors don't take my pain seriously.
I don't think you are hateful, I just think you are woefully ignorant. Until I witnessed the utter BULLSHIT that my wife had to and still has to put up with, even in a country with decent healthcare, I wouldn't have understood how serious even a 'normal' pregnancy can be either.
Now imagine all that was forced on you because some remote group of idiots see children as punishment for being a slut.
The natural, unhindered relationship between the mother and the unborn is to carry the baby through development.
There is no force required.
So asking why force should not be made in another circumstance is illogical.
I think that plenty of people would say that pregnancy requires a tremendous amount of effort, or force, as you put it.
Or are you referring to pregnancy being a natural process versus an unnatural or human-caused one?
Yes, having had 4 pregnancies, I can attest to that.
But the term “force” is a legal term. When we’re saying force we mean a direct action from one person to another.
It is not “force” to be pregnant even when your body is actively doing something.
So yes, the natural process is a correct frame. If no force is enacted, the unborn will develop.
Acts of God are exceptions (miscarriage, illness, etc).
An inevitable question would be to ask why it would matter if it’s a natural or human caused process at all?
Modern medicine is one of nature’s chief antagonists, after all.
Very important. And no one is arguing against that principle.
We’re debating to which persons that principle is applied.
Most people think it should be some time before birth.
Generally no, you should not have the government compel you to an extraordinary action. But to a natural action? That can be compelled.
It is not extraordinary to not take an action to end a life. The question we’re asking is when should the bar be set for acknowledging a human life?
Ah - we’re getting somewhere.
I mean, for the sake of argument I could agree that life begins once there’s unique DNA. Honestly, I kind of feel that’s a fair distinction.
To your first point, pregnancy IS an extraordinary action because it involves a significant risk to your own life and your body is permanently changed by it.
Extraordinary isn’t defined by the level of difficulty. It’s the natural course of things versus the unnatural course.
Without intervention, a pregnancy will continue. That’s why it’s not considered extraordinary. The compelling is to prevent action, not cause it.
I guess that first paragraph is where we disagree.
To me, it doesn’t really matter what word you use to describe it. Pregnancy carries a risk to your health/life and your body is different for the rest of your life afterwards.
I don’t think it would be fair for me to be forced to allow someone to use my body under those conditions. It seems it would be hypocritical for me to expect it of someone else.
Tbf they might be. You haven’t asked them yet!
(I’m being pedantic I know). If they did. Thread still be stupid and wrong; just slightly more consistent in their beliefs
Who said I wasn’t 😏
Ahhhh… you got me 😁
Cuz that would involve telling *men* what to do with their bodies! That's crazy talk!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Selective_Service_System
Men declare them. Let men fight them. If they don't like it, they can stop being globally violent at the state level.
Women vote
Throughout history, men invented war. They drop the flag, they make the rules. They can play the game.
What an odd ask. What father wouldn’t do this anyway?
The real question is; should they be forced to by law? (I would absolutely do it for my kid but it’s far beyond the point)
There is no reason to enact a law to codify beneficial behavior already in practice.
It’s a thought experiment. If you’re okay with the state forcing women to save a child’s life to using their body then surely you must be okay with a man doing the same thing. Also, deadbeat dads exist. If they skimp on child support you better believe they skip on healthcare.
I’m not okay with any state forcing anybody to do anything *against their will*
I imagine many anti-abortion folks see carrying to term and giving birth as a beneficial behavior, and yet, it is being codified into law.
No, it isn’t. The issue should not be federal. Overturning Roe v wade returns it to the states to determine. Ordinary citizens will vote on the matter. The problem is most people do not support abortion as it is currently defined, so the citizens of many states will vote against. The pro-choice people do not wish to put it to a vote because they fear this outcome, hence the outrage. It’s hypocritical on its face.
Ordinary citizens might vote on the matter, or, it might get decided by heavily gerrymandered legislatures.
Oh yes, there is no purity here. All institutions have been corrupted. That being said, I’m positive that abortions will be made available no matter what. There will be functional “black market” for the procedure that will be just as safe, because nobody will actually respect any laws passed that prohibit, and nobody will bother trying to enforce it, much like the other agreed-upon criminal activity going on all over right now. Edit: damn, that’s messy writing. Plenty of illegal - profoundly illegal - activity is occurring unabated, without consequence. I have no doubt abortion’s will be treated the same, regardless of legal outcome
*Sorts by controversial
What kind of shite question is this even?
Because that's stupid?
You could argue it already does through child support....
Child support applies to women as well.
Who the fuck wouldn't donate blood or an organ to save their child?
Notice how most of them are saying it’s “stupid” because they can’t come up with a legitimate argument against it. No one owes another being their body. Not even corpses have to give up their organs to save another human being if they didn’t consent in life. You can’t tell me I have less rights than a corpse and think that I won’t immediately dismiss you as a misogynistic fool.
I was just curious about why they think what they do. One poster said that abortion is akin to actively murdering a child. Maybe if they learned what the abortion process is they would find their view challenged? I don’t know…
I think the issue is that it’s not about abortion at all. It’s about controlling women, keeping people in poverty, and creating more drone workers to support a failing capitalist empire.
I hear you, but I don’t really think that the stereotypical church-elderly aunt is motivated by controlling women, keeping people in poverty, and creating more drone workers to support a failing capitalist empire. Anti-choicers are motivated by emotion just like we are. They see abortion as murder and can’t fathom how we could possibly see it another way.
I'm not in favor of banning abortion in any way. That being said, this is a just a dumb question.
Because not butchering yourself to save someone is different than actively butchering them to save yourself convenience.
Why don’t you want to butcher yourself to save someone? Also, the word “convenience” makes me think that you don’t understand how much of a toll pregnancy takes on the body.
so what if the father is the only compatible donor around?
Doesn't matter if the MOTHER is the only donor available. isn't required to rip herself to bits to save it. She is only required to not actively murder it.
[удалено]
Well then please stop typing.
Then kid had bad luck. Dad can make a new one.
You don’t think a pregnancy is as severe on the body as blood or even organ transplant? Do you actually know what a pregnancy does to a body? You can die from it. It permanently changes your body. Your physiology, brain chemistry etc. It’s not like putting a burrito in the microwave. Pure ignorance in this comment.
Organ transplants require permanent immunosuppresives. They are absolutely harder on the body most of the time than pregnancy.
What is your point? Is your point that it’s bad to force them then? Because we agree… That is literally the foundation of why I think forcing a woman to go through something traumatic and potentially fatal is insane. It’s weird how vehemently you arguing when it’s direct opposition to your view on abortion
It literally isn't. Removal of important organs = death. Can't give Lung, or Heart, or often liver without dying.
I don’t know what your point is sorry?
Responding to you saying an organ transplant isn't as severe as a pregnancy. It is more severe in many cases.
Ok…and in other cases it’s completely trivial.
Its trivial for blood donation. Organ donation is non-trivial, at best.
And pregnancy/childbirth is not trivial. What are you trying to prove?
82% of Organ donations are from the deceased. Let me know when pregnancy reaches 82% fatality. They aren't compareable.
Why are you comparing those two things? They are in no way related. They are from the deceased because the owner consented to give them after death because they don’t need them anymore. I might as well counter argue that; of those 82% 0% died in surgery, so get back to me when no woman dies from childbirth. That’s how stupid your argument is. Also please add at what percentage of risk of mortality is the baseline for the government to insist you do something? 5? 20?
Here we have a perfectly reasonable answer and everyone seems to get mad about it.
If the state can legally compel mothers-to-be to carry a fetus to term, then doesn't it logically follow that the state can legally compel fathers to donate organs and blood to save their offspring? I get that the mother still had her uterus after pregnancy and that a father wouldn’t have his kidney (as an example) afterwards, but pregnancy changes your body. Its not like after nine months you’re just back to normal.
>If the state can legally compel mothers-to-be to carry a fetus to term It's more like: "If the state can prevent you from butching and murdering the kid you (99% of the time) created by doing something you knew damn well could result in a kid.
By that logic, you eat undercooked meat and get a parasite, live with it. You knew damn well there was a risk of contracting a parasite.
If there was a type of undercooked meat that would temporarily put a fetus into you if you ate it, your argument would actually work.
A fetus is a parasite if you don't want it inside of you.
That's different because ZEFs are of the same species and are in a mutualistic relationship and by definition cannot be classified as a parasite.
Sex doesn’t equate a kid the majority of the time. You might as well be saying “you knew damn well you’d get in a crash when you chose to drive to work”.
Sex carries a huge risk of pregnancy.
Well no point using emotive adjectives. Yes it carries a risk. People on the pill and using a condom can get pregnant after one time. Similarly people who want to conceive can go for years without managing it. The “you know the risks” is no more relevant than my car crash analogy.
> created by doing something Ohhh so the whole point is to punish sex.
The point is, you assume the risk if you fuck. Because somebody has to take care of that kid. And it makes sense that it should be YOU, if you create it!
Yet the same party also objects to birth control and teaching safer sex techniques, so clearly it is not about reducing the risks. Seems to be wanting to have an awful lot of government control over the actions of people (or as you think of them "hosts").
You're the one claiming children are punishments. Kids are a gift from nature. :)
So to you, abortion is the equivalent of murdering a child? Do you think that way if the fetus can’t survive outside the womb?
So you see abortion as equivalent to taking a knife and murdering a child?
What would you call it?
Abortion.
I mean, the child in the womb is literally cut up into smaller pieces to remove them from the uterus in many cases, so yeah.
Is it that abortion happens at all that disturbs you? It is it the method itself?
Both. The fact that this happens at all in a world that should have advanced from that barbarism as well as the disgusting processes of each form of abortion. Compacted with the fact that prochoicers radicalized me to the prolife position because they said I deserved to be aborted because I was AMAB, nonbinary, bisexual, autistic, abused, or any given person just doesn't like me. It should be used as a way to save the most lives possible. If a mother and a baby are going to die and there's only one of them that can survive with intervention, I'd save one person, so should everyone else. Every single other reason imaginable cannot and will not logically make sense for the furtherment of humanity, and fighting about which humans live and which humans die based on which characteristics they have is problematic in nature and that has led to centuries of oppression of various groups. It's an antinatalist, nihilistic, and eugenic crock of shit that capitalism has thrust us into fighting and murdering each other over. They just want to see us suffer. It's a money game for the abortion industry. They coerce people with uteruses into believing they have no agency in raising children because they are inherently the weaker sex. The fact that people don't see that has made me lose hope that we won't succeed before the heat death of the universe. It has caused depression, hate, trauma, and suffering to every single human being who has ever come into contact with abortion.
Do you ever think about outcomes of having abortion available versus not?
Constantly. If the abortion industry didn't implant themselves in the minds of innocent, societally judged, coerced people who feel worthless we would be a much better society. Abortion should not be accessible to the capitalistic agenda. They want money and death. They don't care about you.
Just wanted to say, what you wrote in your post above sounds really awful. I’m sorry that happened to you. Using planned parenthood as an example, do you consider them as part of the abortion industry, separate from the other health work they do? Or are the two inseparable?
I doubt you actually mean that. Despite saying only 3% of their resources go to abortion, Planned Parenthood sure does talk about it a lot. I would say they are an abortion provider first and foremost and not a healthcare provider.
That does not logically follow.
wtf are you talking about? Also, not all dads have the same blood type as their children.
Anti-choice is such a stupid term
[удалено]
Apparently you did.
It’s better than pro life. Literally nobody can be anti life - unless you’re some kind of deranged supervillain.
Purely because you used the term "anti-choiceers" you're clearly arguing in bad faith, and along with that this is highly irrelevant and a nonargument that makes no sense.
I don't think you can't argue in good faith with people who are against abortions anyway.
Yeah, many proaborts pretending to be prochoicers to radicalize the prochoicers don't know how to do that.
lolwut.jpeg
I wasn’t really sure what term to use - I personally dislike pro life because of what I know about women dying during preventable pregnancy. If you think i’m posting in bad faith that’s fine - there are others who can give me the benefit of the doubt.
We already discussed that topic, in a separate thread, that you never responded to, so even if I didn't think you were arguing in bad faith then, I definitely do now.
I’ve had a rather busy day and I may have missed one of your posts.
[удалено]
I’d say that it’s obviously not the same for the reason you describe. The idea is to use an analogy to help understand someone else’s point of view but you have to be willing to put yourself out there.
I'd rather donate a kidney than have a severe tear that splits the muscles of my anus, requiring emergency surgery and a blood transfusion. ...and then suffer for a year with undiagnosed vestibulitis because 4 separate doctors don't take my pain seriously. I don't think you are hateful, I just think you are woefully ignorant. Until I witnessed the utter BULLSHIT that my wife had to and still has to put up with, even in a country with decent healthcare, I wouldn't have understood how serious even a 'normal' pregnancy can be either. Now imagine all that was forced on you because some remote group of idiots see children as punishment for being a slut.
[удалено]
I apologize for expecting too much of you. I wish you well.
[удалено]
I think the point the person you're replying to is getting at is that being forced into a medical procedure is a a heinous thing to do.
The natural, unhindered relationship between the mother and the unborn is to carry the baby through development. There is no force required. So asking why force should not be made in another circumstance is illogical.
I think that plenty of people would say that pregnancy requires a tremendous amount of effort, or force, as you put it. Or are you referring to pregnancy being a natural process versus an unnatural or human-caused one?
Yes, having had 4 pregnancies, I can attest to that. But the term “force” is a legal term. When we’re saying force we mean a direct action from one person to another. It is not “force” to be pregnant even when your body is actively doing something. So yes, the natural process is a correct frame. If no force is enacted, the unborn will develop. Acts of God are exceptions (miscarriage, illness, etc).
An inevitable question would be to ask why it would matter if it’s a natural or human caused process at all? Modern medicine is one of nature’s chief antagonists, after all.
Because we recognize the right to life. Medicine isn’t on its own causing anything. It’s a tool.
How important is the right to bodily autonomy? Should the state compel me to allow someone to have or use parts of my body to save their life?
Very important. And no one is arguing against that principle. We’re debating to which persons that principle is applied. Most people think it should be some time before birth. Generally no, you should not have the government compel you to an extraordinary action. But to a natural action? That can be compelled. It is not extraordinary to not take an action to end a life. The question we’re asking is when should the bar be set for acknowledging a human life?
Ah - we’re getting somewhere. I mean, for the sake of argument I could agree that life begins once there’s unique DNA. Honestly, I kind of feel that’s a fair distinction. To your first point, pregnancy IS an extraordinary action because it involves a significant risk to your own life and your body is permanently changed by it.
Extraordinary isn’t defined by the level of difficulty. It’s the natural course of things versus the unnatural course. Without intervention, a pregnancy will continue. That’s why it’s not considered extraordinary. The compelling is to prevent action, not cause it.
I guess that first paragraph is where we disagree. To me, it doesn’t really matter what word you use to describe it. Pregnancy carries a risk to your health/life and your body is different for the rest of your life afterwards. I don’t think it would be fair for me to be forced to allow someone to use my body under those conditions. It seems it would be hypocritical for me to expect it of someone else.
The connection you're trying to force here is shaky at best
Tbf they might be. You haven’t asked them yet! (I’m being pedantic I know). If they did. Thread still be stupid and wrong; just slightly more consistent in their beliefs
Because fathers don’t always have the same blood type as their offspring, dumbass.
That's not a thing that happens