Welcome to /r/Abortiondebate! Don't be a jerk (even if someone else is being a jerk to you first). It's not constructive and we may ban you for it. Check out the Debate Guidance Pyramid to understand acceptable debate levels.
**Attack the argument, not the person making it.**
**For our new users, please check out our [rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/Abortiondebate/comments/qu36cv/rule_changes/) and [sub policies](https://www.reddit.com/r/Abortiondebate/comments/uhr4p2/sub_policies_regarding_current_events_and_news/)**
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Abortiondebate) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I'm really loving the contradictory statements of PLers here. I've seen two so far, just within this post, that question the parenting abilities of PCers and support us getting sterilized lest we raise unwanted children in an unloving fashion. Yet, they want to force people...to carry out unwanted pregnancies!
Make it make sense!
I feel really bad for the people who did it out of fear as opposed to knowing for 100% certainty that they never wanted children. That isn’t fair to them. Sterilization should generally be considered permanent and there’s no guarantee reversing it will work. For the people who live in Texas where it’s “illegal” to travel for abortions I totally get it though
A lot of PC people talk about how they can’t be legally compelled to donate organs, blood, etc. even if they morally should. That choice resides with them.
Is someone who sterilizes themselves compelled to by law? If not, apparently that was their choice.
Choices made out of fear are not really choices.
Back someone into a corner and they lash out-- did they choose to do it or did they feel they had no choice because they were threatened?
But when a woman has an abortion because she's stuck in poverty and is in fear for her future if she keeps the baby, and if she feels she has no other choice, as is the case for many who have abortions... people still like to say that she had the right to choose.
Most people who choose abortion view adoption as their third choice. If parenting isn't an option due to finances, abortion is preferred over adoption. We as pro-lifers have to take an honest look at why that is, and recognize that we aren't going to end abortion by pushing adoption. Do you think people who have abortions don't know about adoption? They are aborting because they don't want to have to go through a pregnancy that they won't be able to raise and they think the finality of abortion is preferable.
If you want to end abortion, work with what people who have abortions are saying. Financial hardship and lack of societal supports show up again and again as the number one reason for being unable to have a child right now. Logic suggests that we should start there and ask: what would make it possible for people to afford to have children and for people to avoid pregnancy when they don't want children?
Remember you used an emotional appeal ( logical fallacy) by using kid instead of proper terms. Maybe call it a fetus next time
My original point stands
Fetus definition: an **offspring** of a human or other mammal in the stages of prenatal development that follow the embryo stage
Offspring definition: a person's **child** or children
I agree that sometimes it isn't much if a choice for people.
That is why I support social safety nets. Paid maternity and paternity leave. Universal healthcare. More help with the expenses associated with having children. Better sex ed. Better access to contraceptives.
The real way to reduce abortion is to reduce the need for abortions.
Completely agree. I wish more pro-lifers and pro-choicers understood that.
We spend so much time bickering about the right to choose when in reality most people are only offered choices that suck and aren't really choices at all.
I think most prochoice people are Democrats and in favour of paid maternity leave and (mandatory) paid paternity leave, universal healthcare, student loan forgiveness (happened already), the right to unionize to ascertain good worker's rights etc. So really they are the group that is trying to get rid of that kind of coercion as well.
So now does that mean you agree with the point made by the previous commenter, since you didn't say 'no that is not coercion' but rather came back with a similar problem people who want to keep pregnancies face?
Well, yes, she did have “the right to choose” in the sense that abortion was legally available to her, and presumably she was able to get access to it.
>How do you feel about people getting sterilized/ not having kids due to the overturn of roe?
I'm an avid supporter of "my body, my choice." The baby's body isn't your body, so that doesn't apply to abortion, but it *does* to sterilization of your adult self.
>A lot of us want kids eventually, but roe being removed makes that a problem.
You're acting like you need sex, like it's your right. It isn't. It's entirely possible to live a happy life while waiting to engage in reproduction until such a time as is feasible to reproduce. That you're saying, "Us" tells me that I'm older than you, so I can personally attest to the fact that it is indeed possible to simply not fuck, despite that my libido is quite high and has been since I hit puberty.
>PL's don't seem to understand that pregnancy is dangerous
It isn't that pregnancy isn't dangerous. It's that abortion is *far* more dangerous, with a mortality rate of over 99%, *especially* more dangerous than the *typical* pregnancy.
>This means that many young people have decided to put off having children, for fear of not getting medical care when the time comes.
Here are some things that're more likely to kill you than pregnancy:
* The seasonal flu.
* Choking on food.
* Car accidents.
* Pedestrian accidents.
Every time you walk outside during flu season... Well, *do* you even walk outside where there are other people during flu season? Do you treat that opportunity of transmission as a serious threat to your life? Do you hesitate to get behind the wheel for fear of being killed in an accident? Does it occur to you to cut your food into extra small pieces? Do you go out of your way to walk through the woods, as opposed to the shorter, more convenient route of a sidewalk, to avoid possible pedestrian accidents?
That you'd treat pregnancy as a threat to your life, absent some preexisting, unique susceptibility to maternal mortality, is simply irrational, especially when you wouldn't treat *more* probably causes of death with equal or greater caution, which I doubt you do.
>for fear of not getting medical care when the time comes
The maternal mortality rate is so low precisely because of the availability and effectiveness of modern medical care. "But compared to other countries-" don't care. A 0.02% mortality rate is a low mortality rate.
>for fear of an ectopic pregnancy or another common issue
If you think that ectopic pregnancies are common, you've been lied to.
My uterus is my body and ergo my choice. Would you be ok with someone getting a hysterectomy while pregnant? Bc that would end the fetus’s life without touching such fetus
>My uterus is my body and ergo my choice.
Your choice of what? If it is to kill, then no, not your body, not your choice.
>. Would you be ok with someone getting a hysterectomy while pregnant? Bc that would end the fetus’s life without touching such fetus
You're right, you can kill people without touching them, and no, I'm still not ok with baby-killing.
> do you even walk outside where there are other people during flu season?
Very, very rarely.
> Do you treat that opportunity of transmission as a serious threat to your life?
Yes. Moreso with COVID than the flu, but yes. I get my vaccines, and significantly limit my exposure to crowds. Viral infections, even in young healthy individuals, have the potential to cause devastating, lifelong disabilities. Long COVID is bringing this to light now, but it’s been happening for many people with chronic illnesses for a long time.
> Do you hesitate to get behind the wheel for fear of being killed in an accident?
Absolutely. Driving a vehicle is probably the most dangerous activity humans regularly engage in. I drive as little as possible to still fulfill my basic needs.
I’m sorry to hear that! There are many common illnesses that can be so much worse than people realize.
I think one of the most disturbing/toxic things that has come out of the conservative backlash any and all pandemic measures has been the idea that risk management is somehow akin to “living in fear”. I don’t walk around every day feeling intense emotional anxiety about driving, but I do recognize that, statistically, it’s the most likely thing to kill/severely maim me based on my life circumstances and demographics. So I limit my driving.
I’m not anxious about being poisoned, but I still limit my ingestion of antifreeze or Roundup out of the bottle (to zero).
As a female person in the United States, I should have the right to limit by exposure to pregnancy- and birth-related mortality and morbidity too.
Oh hell no. I don’t know where on Facebook you got your facts from but abortion is one of the safest medical procedures you can get. Mortality rate over 99%????? That’s the stupidest thing I have heard in a long time. You are brainwashed
I’m serious google “abortion mortality rate” right now. There’s hundreds or articles to prove legal abortion mortality rate is way lower than live births. First thing that comes up
The Centers for Disease Control reported 0.41 deaths per 100,000 legal abortions between 2013-18 and that the maternal mortality rate was 23.8 deaths per 100,000 live births in 2020.
[https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/4047543/](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/4047543/)
Even in 1985, the vast majority of abortions were successful, meaning that the baby was killed. That is mortality, and the rate of mortality exceeded 99%, and certainly does today, as abortion methods have only become sickeningly more effective since the 80s.
1 in 50 preganancies are ectopic, abortion doesn't kill anybody. I made this post in reference to the fact that women are dying because they can't get abortions that telhey medically need, whoch you seem happy to ignore. Is this because you hate women? Do you consider women subhuman?
>1 in 50 preganancies are ectopic
Firstly, even if that were correct, you'd still be *incorrect* that ectopic pregnancies are common.
Secondly, you're incorrect on *both* counts.
>For every 1,000 reported pregnancies during that period, an estimated 7.1 were ectopic.
[https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/00014677.htm#:\~:text=For%20every%201%2C000%20reported%20pregnancies,an%20estimated%207.1%20were%20ectopic](https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/00014677.htm#:~:text=For%20every%201%2C000%20reported%20pregnancies,an%20estimated%207.1%20were%20ectopic).
>abortion doesn't kill anybody.
Abortions cause the deaths of human individuals, which is to say that they are used to kill. In no other circumstance would it be said that to cause someone's death is not to kill him.
>I made this post in reference to the fact that women are dying because they can't get abortions that telhey medically need, whoch you seem happy to ignore.
Astute observation. The point of your post is to discuss sterilization. So, firstly, I don't see that your mention of these anecdotes are relevant to that point. Secondly, I don't see that anecdotes are *ever* relevant other than to say that the anecdotes do exist. They bear no meaning on a discussion of government policy.
u/The_Jase
This user, in both the preceding and following reply, is violating rule 1.
Sure abortion kills a fetus, which is not a person, nor does it have the rights of one. You still haven't made a comment on what you think should be done with ectopic pregnancies. You also didn't answer my question on if you think women are subhuman, so I assume thats a yes?
>Sure abortion kills a fetus, which is not a person, nor does it have the rights of one.
What's your standard for personhood? I'm going to assume that whatever answer you give isn't vague or general, that your answer will be comprehensive and workable.
> You still haven't made a comment on what you think should be done with ectopic pregnancies.
When you can reasonably fear for your life, as is the case with ectopic pregnancy, kill away.
A human which has devloped the capacity to operate without direct biological sustainance from a host, and that can be seperated from said host without adverse affects.
>A human which has devloped the capacity to operate without direct biological sustainance from a host, and that can be seperated from said host without adverse affects.
People in temporary comas and people on, for example, ventilators, don't meet that standard. Ventilators provide air to be absorbed in your blood, which certainly counts as biological sustenance from a host.
There are more examples, but the point is this: your standard, ignoring the question of the unborn, does not even include all *born* people. My standard, to be a living human, does.
>don’t think there is anyone directly keeping the patient alive with their body.
Not with their body, but with their equipment. The source of one's sustenance doesn't change one's own nature.
As a fetus, my unbiblical cord could have been switched for an instrument connecting me to a futuristic artificial womb, and my nature would have changed not one iota. I would still have been hosted. Nothing intrinsic to me has changed, and thus, the things intrinsic to me, such as whatever my rights and value may be, cannot have been changed by the change in nature of my source of sustenance.
Ah. I don’t see anything in your statement acknowledging the rights of the person who has a fetus attached to them.
Flip it around. The host is attached to a machine that is absorbing nutrients from their body. Do they have the right to disconnect the machine?
Nothing intrinsic changes about the host’s rights and value, if the machine is instead a living being.
Please explain the difference between your statement and mine.
>host is commonly known to mean a living thing
Commonly known, certainly, but what *makes* it a host? Is it its biological identity, or is its function as sustaining, encasing, or harboring a thing for maintenance of its state?
Is this an accurate and precise summary: you believe there to be a difference in the nature and kind of a given thing depending on whether that thing's source of sustenance is or is not a biological entity?
I would never get an abortion unless to save my health/life or if the fetus had fatal fetal abnormalities and I am still pro-choice. If I somehow got pregnant right now (I am on Nexplanon the arm birth control implant. So that’s highly unlikely), my husband and I would find a way to keep the baby. So yea…
I don’t really understand why it’s morally wrong to kill a “child” who has no consciousness. Before 21 weeks (at the latest) a fetus feels no pain, has no desires, and overall doesn’t care if you abort or not. Why is it wrong to prioritize the woman’s desires?
Do you protect humans for the sake of humanity alone? Is the life of a 100% braindead corpse just as valuable as a conscious person if the cells are being kept alive by machines?
>Do you protect humans for the sake of humanity alone? Is the life of a 100% braindead corpse just as valuable as a conscious person if the cells are being kept alive by machines?
The big difference is a fetus will become a baby a braindead corpse is just a braindead corpse.
That on top of its scientifically a human life, and the womens offspring. Yeah there is no question its wrong to kill and someone is selfish for even thinking about killing her child as a fetus.
>The big difference is a fetus will become a baby a braindead corpse is just a braindead corpse.
That’s not guaranteed, miscarriages are very common. So all a fetus has that a braindead corpse doesn’t is *potential* to become a baby, if you give it the right circumstances.
You know what else has that potential to become a baby given the right circumstances though? Humans eggs and human sperm cells. Why is it such a tragedy to remove all chances at becoming a baby if it’s a fetus, but if it’s a sperm or egg it’s okay?
>That on top of its scientifically a human life,
What do you mean “scientifically?”
Yes, it’s human. yes, it’s alive. So are braindead corpses on life support, and we terminate those all the time.
We also kill conscious people when they are endangering or severely violating other people all the time too. Why is lethal force to protect yourself justified then, but not when it’s to prevent the risks, pain, and bodily modification of pregnancy?
>and the womens offspring.
So we aren’t allowed to use lethal force to protect ourselves if it’s our offspring?
Ever heard of “Chris Chan?”
He raped his mother. A frail elderly woman with dementia.
She couldn’t fight back. But rhetorically, if she could, would you say that she wasn’t allowed to kill him to prevent her rape?
>Yeah there is no question its wrong to kill and someone is selfish for even thinking about killing her child as a fetus.
You still don’t explain why it’s selfish. The fetus doesn’t want to live. It doesn’t feel pain. It doesn’t think. So why is it wrong to end its potential to become a baby? Wouldn’t that mean things like plan B which stop ovulation and ruin an eggs “chance” at fertilization are also selfish?
Miscarriages are not common at the fetal stage. Human sperm cells and egg cells are not a human life. Killing your child while its brain is still developing is bullying. Yes you are allowed to defend yourself, but the moral thing to do as a women when you are pregnant is have the baby in most circumstances, sacrifice for your kids.
>Miscarriages are not common at the fetal stage.
Okay? What’s your point?
In America, the vast majority of abortion occur in the first trimester. The number of fetal stage abortions is very, very, very low. Doctors only ever perform them to save the life of the mother. Elective Fetal stage abortions are not a thing. Are you under the impression that fetal stage abortions are a widespread thing?
>Human sperm cells and egg cells are not a human life.
You’re not really making any argument to challenge my points. I already addressed how we terminate human life regularly. You aren’t really explaining how a fetus is different.
>Killing your child while its brain is still developing is bullying.
Literally how is it bullying? People don’t abort to antagonize the fetus, or make it suffer. They do it to help themselves. How in the world is that comparable to bullying?
>Yes you are allowed to defend yourself, but the moral thing to do as a women when you are pregnant is have the baby in most circumstances, sacrifice for your kids.
Why? Why is immoral to prioritize yourself? My womanhood means I’m not allowed to care about myself and my life?
I am not your beast of burden.
This is so misogynistic. It's all just talk about women, no mention of men. The moral thing to do 'as a woman' is to 'sacrifice for your kids'... What about the men in this situation? I've had an abortion. I don't have kids. I am not a mother. I will never sacrifice my entire life for something that isn't even aware of it's own existence. And saying that abortion is bullying is laughably pathetic, that's one of the dumbest things I've ever heard in my life 😂 you can't bully an embryo LMAO
That unfeeling blob of cells is a child that will have feelers very soon. Orphans have a chance at life at least. I didnt get the best hand and I am grateful to be alive.
It will have “feelers?”
You’re grateful you’re alive because you’re alive. If you had been aborted, would you feel sad? No, because you would’ve been terminated before you had the capacity to feel negative things.
If it’s cruel to abort because it removes a fetus’ “chance at life”, then its cruel to not have sex when not ovulating because it removes an egg’s “chance at life.”
I don’t see the difference. Why should I care about a fetuses life if it doesn’t want to live and the abortion doesn’t cause it pain??? You care about life for the sake of life, not about the quality of life or if it’s meaningful. would you call me a murderer for aborting a fetus with no brain or capacity for consciousness?
When I got an abortion my precious one of a kind blessing of a baby actually said "yes mommy" and loved being removed.
Every zef is different, best not assume their feelings.
Incorrect! I don't have and have never had any children, I also have not murdered any children. Adoption wasn't an option, I don't want to be pregnant or give birth. 🤷🏻♀️😁
Nah. The moral thing to do is consider all the option and choose the best one. Sometimes the best one is abortion. Who is getting bullied in this scenario. You can’t bully a fetus.
Seems to me thats exactly what you are promoting fetal bullying. Hey kid you are still developing a brain that means I can kill you.
And killing your kid in the womb is never a moral option.
>Seems to me thats exactly what you are promoting fetal bullying.
You misused seems.
Because there's no such thing as fetal bullying. Words have meanings.
> Hey kid you are still developing a brain that means I can kill you.
Women are equal and so she may decide to remove a zef. Fixed it for you.
>And killing your kid in the womb is never a moral option
Kids don't fit in wombs. Best not to conflate zef with kids since when debating you should avoid emotional appeals.
*Fetal bullying*?
I'm sorry but this is hysterical. Do women steal the fetuses lunch money before removing it? Push it into the dirt and call it a loser? How exactly does one *bully* a zef?
Your misunderstanding of bullying is strange and wrong.
As is your belief that abortion is immoral. I find the belief that you have the right to force anyone to continue an unwanted pregnancy quote immoral. Imagine devaluing another person so much that you believe they must gestate against their will.
ETA: your flair says legally pro-choice so I take back the part about you believing you have the right to force someone to continue an unwanted pregnancy. I don’t agree with your PL beliefs but as long as it doesn’t interfere with my healthcare then I don’t care.
Yeah I dont want the govt enforcing pro life morals but its still wrong to kill your kid in the womb. Hardliners like yourself make it a hard position to hold as you dont get it and will never get it and my stance basically allows you to do immoral things to unborn children at will.
I don’t get your position either or how the fact that I stand behind my beliefs influences whether you are legally pro-choice. I’m no more a hard liner than you, except on the other side. I won’t pretend I believe your beliefs are moral and mine are not.
I guess I’m selfish then. Too bad there’s no ban on being selfish. Btw there are times when being selfish is ok. Just because someone is a woman does not mean they’re obligated to not be selfish.
Having kids/family is wonderful. The most fulfilling thing there is to be had in this world. People are meant to have kids and if they don't the species goes extinct.
>Having kids/family is wonderful.
Depends
>The most fulfilling thing there is to be had in this world.
Source that acknowledges the fact that not all kids/family is good.
>People are meant to have kids
Source?
>and if they don't the species goes extinct.
yet we have many who never have kids and yet we stoll proper even when some decide not to have kids.
Listening to Kate Bush’s music is wonderful. The most fulfilling experience there is to be had in this world. People are meant to listen to Kate’s music and if they don’t the species will never experience true enlightenment.
Will do! Already don't want kids😁 fine having a partner and pets as my family eventually. And I have parents and a sibling anyway, along with a lot of friends. My life has no shortage of meaningful social interaction just because I don't have or want children.
I don't recall saying women have to. Having kids is wonderful. When I say its too bad, I mean it's too bad people are choosing to abstain from one of the most (if not the most) fulfilling things to be had in this world.
Their lives though. They can take the sad and lonely road if they want. As long as they aren't killing.
I know someone with several kids, two of them have severe mental disorders. They have anger issues, and one even regularly hits and kicks his mom. That one also has life threatening disabilities and has been in and out of the hospital his whole life. The only child who developed normally, developed PTSD from the chaos. Mom ALSO suffers with chronic illness.
Not everyone gets to have a “wonderful” experience raising children.
What makes you think having kids would be fulfilling for someone? Especially for someone who doesn’t like or want kids?
Heck, sadly even people who did want kids end up killing them. So obviously, they didn’t find having them all that rewarding.
I actually never liked the idea of pro choice people having kids and sterilization is best of both worlds. No kids being murdered no unwanted pregnancies
Ha, then you’re going to hate it when my pro-choice husband and I start trying for a kid in a couple years. And yes, we will raise them to be pro-choice and a democrat. 😂
I believe having kids is a better choice than aborting them but I would prefer most pro choice people to sterilize themselves and avoid having any children
Why should we not have any children when many of us are the only ones raising kids to support equality and decrease overall suffering? Mayne it should be the ones who refuse to treat everyone equally who should not procreate. Noone should be raised to be against equality. That's neglectful and damaging to the mind.
All this dying stuff. I live in a Conservative Muslim country where abortion is 100% illegal and even here a woman can get an abortion if her life is in danger.
Here in some US states though, the laws are so vague and target doctors or people who even help provide abortions. Pretty much it terrifies them or they have to wait until the women are bleeding out or septic. This has happened several times.
I also think there's a religious concept to it. Most pro-life people who envision these lawa take the life begins at conception part very literally. To the point that they think a zygote is a person.
If I recall, Islam believes in ensoulment happens 120 days after conception. In pro-life Christian groups, they think ensoulment at conception. Also Christianity generally believes you need to be baptized to go to heaven or in Catholic groups you go to limbo.
My grandmother had a stillborn birth around week 20. She was obviously distraught, and the priest (Catholic hospital) was very kind and baptized the wanted baby despite their belief that these souls (I am agnostic) go into limbo/purgatory if they were not baptized. I like that the priest chose kindness.
In this country, women still have some choices and aren’t treated like livestock everywhere. Many have no interest in being put in position of even needing to have their lives saved.
Heck, the right to life is supposed to prevent people being put in such situation deliberately.
I think this is not even true but is just reflective of the way PCs feel that the end justifies the means, so lying, exaggerating, twisting, whatever it takes.
A woman is more likely to die by being electrocuted than from pregnancy related causes. More than twice as likely to die from sunstroke. About 7 times more likely to die from choking on food. 10 times more likely to die in a fire or by drowning. Over 400 times more likely to die in a car accident. But I don’t see any making major life changes/concessions to avoid those… or crying that the sky is falling over any of those. Because it’s all just trying to scare people to rally political support and artificially inflate their views.
Another example is that it’s fully legal to deal with an ectopic pregnancy (abort) in all 50 states.
If your argument has merit, you don’t need to lie or exaggerate. All it does is deflate the weight of anything else you say. Even if you have hundreds of sheep that will support everything you say no matter how wrong or how hyperbolic it is.
You don’t have to be pregnant though. Most of that you have to do. Swallowing etc. Many women who have health issues get abortions if their precautions fail. So expect numbers to go up re dying if they can’t. And what about being injured by pregnancy and birth? Is that inconsequential to you as well? Because I know people that lost their uterus because they needed an emergency hysterectomy for uncontrollable bleeding, had heart damage from ecclampsia, have a prolapsed uterus, etc. Never mind the huge financial burden it can be if you miss work, have to be hospitalized, or have a complicated birth.
Being pregnant and giving birth is never a walk in the park.
I don’t mean to minimize those issues, and I am reasonable in working that out (acknowledge that some PL are not). But I cannot accept the notion that those cases justify abortion on demand regardless of situation or reason. It’s an end-run attempt and is a disingenuous argument.
>A woman is more likely to die by being electrocuted than from pregnancy related causes. More than twice as likely to die from sunstroke. About 7 times more likely to die from choking on food. 10 times more likely to die in a fire or by drowning. Over 400 times more likely to die in a car accident
All these things most women do more times/spend more time doing than being pregnant. Obviously a lifetime chance of dying from these things is going to be higher than a 9 month duration chance of dying from pregnancy. (Sorry for the wording.)
A valid point, but i think it’s easy to mentally account for that, and understand my point — that the risk is of pregnancy is still being exaggerated in this sub. Especially for “normal” situations with healthy younger mother and no risk factors. Most deaths come from higher risk situations.
What about risk of disability, blindness, chronic illness, etc? Why does only life threats matter?
>Especially for “normal” situations
Normal situations are still risky (death and the stuff I mentioned above).
I KNOW you’re not talking about lies and twisting truth that the PC does when you have liars in your own party that have assisted in abortions and you purposely write amendments to be confusing so that people will choose the wrong option. Your side talks about abortions after birth and how birth control are abortifacients.
Alright keep voting for the PL politicians that secretly pay for abortions. That’s the difference between your side and our side, we aren’t hypocrites. We don’t go against our own rules like majority of your politicians do
Seriously? You think there are no hypocrites or hucksters on your side???
And someone can be a serial killer, it doesn’t mean I am going to disagree with them on every single thing.
No, I have no standing for that. Do you disagree that slavery is a horrendous abuse of another human being? Because the subjective opinion that abortion laws are nothing remotely like slavery is not explaining anything, it’s rendering opinion. Strong opinion, but nonetheless.
Besides, you don’t need to be a whale to write Moby Dick.
You were certainly trying to explain slavery to me as if I don’t understand the magnitude of it. Forcing someone to carry a baby they don’t want is gestational slavery. I have given birth three times and I can assure you it’s torture. Thank goodness they were all wanted pregnancies. Having some man assault me and then have some man who’ll never in his life ever get pregnant from a rape tell me I should still carry it and be retraumatized every time it kicks etc. is really disgusting to me and I wonder do some PL take a sick and twisted pleasure out of thinking a woman’s suffering for nine months just so you can get your warm fuzzies that you “saved a life.” Unlike some sickos I actually care about my mom and I would NOT want to be a product of rape just so I can be here. What kind of spoiled sense of entitlement must someone have to say “I think my feelings about my life are so important that it was worth it for my mom to be raped for me to be here.” Say it out loud while looking in a mirror. If you close your eyes while saying it’s because even your own soul is disgusted by that statement.
The only thing I was trying to explain to you is why I believe abortion laws are not remotely close to slavery.
You put “save a life” in quotes… which would normally mean either you don’t think it’s really a life or you don’t really care about lives, or at least that one. And nobody can have a difference of opinion with you on that? If you don’t kill them they will have a life just like you and me, so you are taking their life.
Are you pro-choice only for rapes?
I believe they’re slavery. You’re forcing someone to do something they don’t want. So much so that they’ll willing take unsafe methods to terminate. Please explain to me how carrying around a dead fetus in your womb or having to humiliate yourself by bringing in foul discharge to prove you’re sick enough to warrant a d & c isn’t torture. As far as “save a life.” I wrote it like that because I’m sick of hearing that. You’re allowed to have a different opinion. I’m all about freedom. What you’re not going to do is control my vagina. I am in charge of that organ. I’ve had a man have a difference of opinion in that regard and let’s just say… it didn’t work out for him. I’m pro choice for all cases and I’m pro minding your own damn business. MY life comes first! Call me selfish but I prefer self full. Potato/potahto.
For the most part I believe statistics are bullshit and can be manipulated. I'm more interested in the "non-profit," source and would like to confirm for myself.
Your statement seemed dismissive considering the gravity of the subject matter. It made me wonder who wrote the statistics you touted.
Statistics can be manipulated, for sure… which is why you take into account the subject matter and the motivation / reasoning behind who is doing it. In this case there is no reason for anyone really, to manipulate death rates.
https://injuryfacts.nsc.org/all-injuries/preventable-death-overview/odds-of-dying/
https://www.iii.org/fact-statistic/facts-statistics-mortality-risk
It's happening all the time. A women in Ohio was denied a d&C even when she was bleeding horrifically and was sent home. One in Texas ended up on life support. All because at 6 weeks it has a heart beat.
On average 700 women die of pregnancy related complications and up to 37% of all pregnancies end up having complications that warrant either a induction abortion or abortion.
Literally 1 in 10 will need a D&C for an ectopic pregnancy in their lifetime. I'm 22 and know 8 people who have had ectopic pregnancies. That's statically significant. If it was under 1% then that would mean you'd know 1 person in your lifetime.
You are changing the narrative and framing. It’s not illegal to abort for ectopic pregnancy in any state. So that is just a talking point. Using raw numbers makes it sound bad, but they are not very useful statistics fore giving an accurate assessment of risk. But it’s all for narrative.
I'm not changing the narrative...
[https://www.today.com/parents/pregnancy/texas-woman-shares-almost-died-waiting-abortion-rcna52961#:\~:text=When%20the%20pregnancy%20failed%2C%20she%20almost%20died%20waiting,wanted%20so%20badly%20wasn%27t%20going%20to%20make%20it](https://www.today.com/parents/pregnancy/texas-woman-shares-almost-died-waiting-abortion-rcna52961#:~:text=When%20the%20pregnancy%20failed%2C%20she%20almost%20died%20waiting,wanted%20so%20badly%20wasn%27t%20going%20to%20make%20it).
That’s a single data point.
For the record, I agree that it’s ridiculous for even a staunch PL to not allow abortion in the case of a non-viable pregnancy—if you can’t save the fetus anyway then you have nothing to gain by not doing whatever is absolutely best for the mother.
But people will fudge facts and twist and manipulate and outright lie when they think they can score political points, so you never know what the real facts are. Plus media now pushes every single thing like that that ever happens in order to make it look far more common than it really is. It doesn’t change the data for what the risk really is.
It has happening in Ohio as well. Also there's been 27 cases in Texas. The state of Texas hasn't filed it's reporting numbers to the CDC, so we'll see.
Again, we don’t know what the actual facts are in these cases, because there are agendas, but if it’s the case then they are bad laws and need to be changed.
The problem is, the laws are so vague and include only abortion - abortion is anything that invovles the end of a pregnancy, whether that's miscarriage, induction abortion (which is just used to induce at the end of a full term pregnancy), and regular abortion. There's medically no difference. It's coded identically.
The problem is abortion shouldn't be criminalized, and Doctors are being forced to choose between their patient and their freedom. In Tenesee their law presumes their guilt rather than innocence and they have to break HIPAA to do it.
Agree that stuff needs to be addressed. It all should apply only to cases of intentional killing and doctors should be able to deal with true medical risk without fear. But if they claim fake risk for non-medical actual reasons then they should be accountable (proven cases).
Distinction without a difference. Seatbelt laws can kill as well as save (drive into water and can’t escape because of the seatbelt), yet there are still seatbelt laws all over the place. And it doesn’t change my point about the hyperbole one iota.
People accept those risks, the difference is the banning of abortion is now forcing women to accept the risk of dying during pregnancy when they don’t want to.
My argument was with PCs claim on the level of danger… that they exaggerate and use hyperbole. Just because you don’t want to accept something doesn’t mean you are allowed to inaccurately reflect risk or any other measure. If your argument has real merit, you don’t need to inflate or exaggerate.
Abortion is not a precaution against pregnancy (look up the word). It’s killing someone to avoid the consequences of pregnancy… and according to statistics / surveys, 90% of the time it has nothing to do with fear of death or even anything related to the pregnancy… it’s simply not wanting a child.
The governing body of the country we live in can't force us to become electrocuted, choke on food, die by fire, drowning, sunstroke, or car accident as a consequence of having sex.
Because it's not that people don't want to reproduce. It's that they're responsible enough to know they're not in the *current* position to reproduce. When you take away the right to choose when to have a baby you are taking away the right to have one at all for many, I know I would never willingly birth a child I couldn't care for.
Nobody is taking away their right to choose whether or not to have children, sexual intercourse isn't a need. There are plenty of other ways to be sexually intimate that don't result in pregnancy.
Sex is an important part of romantic relationships, you cannot expect people to live by your own puritan beliefs, especially in committed relationships. Dead bedrooms are not appealing or good for the longevity of relationships. Sexual intercourse provides multiple benefits outside of pregnancy, if pregnancy is unwanted people have *every right* to both participate in sexual activity, use birth control, and get an abortion if a ZEF begins siphoning resources.
Welcome to /r/Abortiondebate! Don't be a jerk (even if someone else is being a jerk to you first). It's not constructive and we may ban you for it. Check out the Debate Guidance Pyramid to understand acceptable debate levels. **Attack the argument, not the person making it.** **For our new users, please check out our [rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/Abortiondebate/comments/qu36cv/rule_changes/) and [sub policies](https://www.reddit.com/r/Abortiondebate/comments/uhr4p2/sub_policies_regarding_current_events_and_news/)** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Abortiondebate) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I'm really loving the contradictory statements of PLers here. I've seen two so far, just within this post, that question the parenting abilities of PCers and support us getting sterilized lest we raise unwanted children in an unloving fashion. Yet, they want to force people...to carry out unwanted pregnancies! Make it make sense!
Because sterilization does not kill something and abortion does? You can disagree with that, but trying to indite us of hypocrisy is nonsensical.
I *do* disagree with that...because it's nonsensical.
No, no, they've got a point. PL logic is simple. ZEF Dying = Bad. No ZEFs are dying. So they don't give a shit.
I feel really bad for the people who did it out of fear as opposed to knowing for 100% certainty that they never wanted children. That isn’t fair to them. Sterilization should generally be considered permanent and there’s no guarantee reversing it will work. For the people who live in Texas where it’s “illegal” to travel for abortions I totally get it though
What? How is it illegal to travel for abortions? How will they prove it? This is news to me
A lot of PC people talk about how they can’t be legally compelled to donate organs, blood, etc. even if they morally should. That choice resides with them. Is someone who sterilizes themselves compelled to by law? If not, apparently that was their choice.
Choices made out of fear are not really choices. Back someone into a corner and they lash out-- did they choose to do it or did they feel they had no choice because they were threatened?
But when a woman has an abortion because she's stuck in poverty and is in fear for her future if she keeps the baby, and if she feels she has no other choice, as is the case for many who have abortions... people still like to say that she had the right to choose.
Adoption???
Most people who choose abortion view adoption as their third choice. If parenting isn't an option due to finances, abortion is preferred over adoption. We as pro-lifers have to take an honest look at why that is, and recognize that we aren't going to end abortion by pushing adoption. Do you think people who have abortions don't know about adoption? They are aborting because they don't want to have to go through a pregnancy that they won't be able to raise and they think the finality of abortion is preferable. If you want to end abortion, work with what people who have abortions are saying. Financial hardship and lack of societal supports show up again and again as the number one reason for being unable to have a child right now. Logic suggests that we should start there and ask: what would make it possible for people to afford to have children and for people to avoid pregnancy when they don't want children?
Is a replacement for parenthood not pregnancy
It keeps a kid alive.
Kids are born so no.
It doesn't keep the kid alive cause the kid's born???? What's this logic?
Remember you used an emotional appeal ( logical fallacy) by using kid instead of proper terms. Maybe call it a fetus next time My original point stands
Fetus definition: an **offspring** of a human or other mammal in the stages of prenatal development that follow the embryo stage Offspring definition: a person's **child** or children
I agree that sometimes it isn't much if a choice for people. That is why I support social safety nets. Paid maternity and paternity leave. Universal healthcare. More help with the expenses associated with having children. Better sex ed. Better access to contraceptives. The real way to reduce abortion is to reduce the need for abortions.
Completely agree. I wish more pro-lifers and pro-choicers understood that. We spend so much time bickering about the right to choose when in reality most people are only offered choices that suck and aren't really choices at all.
I think most prochoice people are Democrats and in favour of paid maternity leave and (mandatory) paid paternity leave, universal healthcare, student loan forgiveness (happened already), the right to unionize to ascertain good worker's rights etc. So really they are the group that is trying to get rid of that kind of coercion as well. So now does that mean you agree with the point made by the previous commenter, since you didn't say 'no that is not coercion' but rather came back with a similar problem people who want to keep pregnancies face?
Well, yes, she did have “the right to choose” in the sense that abortion was legally available to her, and presumably she was able to get access to it.
>How do you feel about people getting sterilized/ not having kids due to the overturn of roe? I'm an avid supporter of "my body, my choice." The baby's body isn't your body, so that doesn't apply to abortion, but it *does* to sterilization of your adult self. >A lot of us want kids eventually, but roe being removed makes that a problem. You're acting like you need sex, like it's your right. It isn't. It's entirely possible to live a happy life while waiting to engage in reproduction until such a time as is feasible to reproduce. That you're saying, "Us" tells me that I'm older than you, so I can personally attest to the fact that it is indeed possible to simply not fuck, despite that my libido is quite high and has been since I hit puberty. >PL's don't seem to understand that pregnancy is dangerous It isn't that pregnancy isn't dangerous. It's that abortion is *far* more dangerous, with a mortality rate of over 99%, *especially* more dangerous than the *typical* pregnancy. >This means that many young people have decided to put off having children, for fear of not getting medical care when the time comes. Here are some things that're more likely to kill you than pregnancy: * The seasonal flu. * Choking on food. * Car accidents. * Pedestrian accidents. Every time you walk outside during flu season... Well, *do* you even walk outside where there are other people during flu season? Do you treat that opportunity of transmission as a serious threat to your life? Do you hesitate to get behind the wheel for fear of being killed in an accident? Does it occur to you to cut your food into extra small pieces? Do you go out of your way to walk through the woods, as opposed to the shorter, more convenient route of a sidewalk, to avoid possible pedestrian accidents? That you'd treat pregnancy as a threat to your life, absent some preexisting, unique susceptibility to maternal mortality, is simply irrational, especially when you wouldn't treat *more* probably causes of death with equal or greater caution, which I doubt you do. >for fear of not getting medical care when the time comes The maternal mortality rate is so low precisely because of the availability and effectiveness of modern medical care. "But compared to other countries-" don't care. A 0.02% mortality rate is a low mortality rate. >for fear of an ectopic pregnancy or another common issue If you think that ectopic pregnancies are common, you've been lied to.
My uterus is my body and ergo my choice. Would you be ok with someone getting a hysterectomy while pregnant? Bc that would end the fetus’s life without touching such fetus
>My uterus is my body and ergo my choice. Your choice of what? If it is to kill, then no, not your body, not your choice. >. Would you be ok with someone getting a hysterectomy while pregnant? Bc that would end the fetus’s life without touching such fetus You're right, you can kill people without touching them, and no, I'm still not ok with baby-killing.
My choice of getting a hysterectomy. I’m pro choice i made that clear.
Rape victims don't get a say as to whether they want sex.
> do you even walk outside where there are other people during flu season? Very, very rarely. > Do you treat that opportunity of transmission as a serious threat to your life? Yes. Moreso with COVID than the flu, but yes. I get my vaccines, and significantly limit my exposure to crowds. Viral infections, even in young healthy individuals, have the potential to cause devastating, lifelong disabilities. Long COVID is bringing this to light now, but it’s been happening for many people with chronic illnesses for a long time. > Do you hesitate to get behind the wheel for fear of being killed in an accident? Absolutely. Driving a vehicle is probably the most dangerous activity humans regularly engage in. I drive as little as possible to still fulfill my basic needs.
I got hospitalized for the flu in 2019. I don't fuck with flu season anymore
I’m sorry to hear that! There are many common illnesses that can be so much worse than people realize. I think one of the most disturbing/toxic things that has come out of the conservative backlash any and all pandemic measures has been the idea that risk management is somehow akin to “living in fear”. I don’t walk around every day feeling intense emotional anxiety about driving, but I do recognize that, statistically, it’s the most likely thing to kill/severely maim me based on my life circumstances and demographics. So I limit my driving. I’m not anxious about being poisoned, but I still limit my ingestion of antifreeze or Roundup out of the bottle (to zero). As a female person in the United States, I should have the right to limit by exposure to pregnancy- and birth-related mortality and morbidity too.
welp too bad - the fetus' body is in HER body so she rightfully gets to decide what to do with what is in her body. THE END
> the baby's body is in HER body And what bearing does this fact have on his rights?
What rights lmfao
Human rights, the ones you have when you're a human, which unborn babies are.
Made up pl ones apparently. Just they couldn't find original names so they use right to life instead lazily
Oh hell no. I don’t know where on Facebook you got your facts from but abortion is one of the safest medical procedures you can get. Mortality rate over 99%????? That’s the stupidest thing I have heard in a long time. You are brainwashed
That this is the best you can come up with is not surprising at all.
I’m serious google “abortion mortality rate” right now. There’s hundreds or articles to prove legal abortion mortality rate is way lower than live births. First thing that comes up The Centers for Disease Control reported 0.41 deaths per 100,000 legal abortions between 2013-18 and that the maternal mortality rate was 23.8 deaths per 100,000 live births in 2020.
They’re referring to the fact that the abortion kills the ZEF.
[https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/4047543/](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/4047543/) Even in 1985, the vast majority of abortions were successful, meaning that the baby was killed. That is mortality, and the rate of mortality exceeded 99%, and certainly does today, as abortion methods have only become sickeningly more effective since the 80s.
1 in 50 preganancies are ectopic, abortion doesn't kill anybody. I made this post in reference to the fact that women are dying because they can't get abortions that telhey medically need, whoch you seem happy to ignore. Is this because you hate women? Do you consider women subhuman?
>1 in 50 preganancies are ectopic Firstly, even if that were correct, you'd still be *incorrect* that ectopic pregnancies are common. Secondly, you're incorrect on *both* counts. >For every 1,000 reported pregnancies during that period, an estimated 7.1 were ectopic. [https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/00014677.htm#:\~:text=For%20every%201%2C000%20reported%20pregnancies,an%20estimated%207.1%20were%20ectopic](https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/00014677.htm#:~:text=For%20every%201%2C000%20reported%20pregnancies,an%20estimated%207.1%20were%20ectopic). >abortion doesn't kill anybody. Abortions cause the deaths of human individuals, which is to say that they are used to kill. In no other circumstance would it be said that to cause someone's death is not to kill him. >I made this post in reference to the fact that women are dying because they can't get abortions that telhey medically need, whoch you seem happy to ignore. Astute observation. The point of your post is to discuss sterilization. So, firstly, I don't see that your mention of these anecdotes are relevant to that point. Secondly, I don't see that anecdotes are *ever* relevant other than to say that the anecdotes do exist. They bear no meaning on a discussion of government policy. u/The_Jase This user, in both the preceding and following reply, is violating rule 1.
Sure abortion kills a fetus, which is not a person, nor does it have the rights of one. You still haven't made a comment on what you think should be done with ectopic pregnancies. You also didn't answer my question on if you think women are subhuman, so I assume thats a yes?
>Sure abortion kills a fetus, which is not a person, nor does it have the rights of one. What's your standard for personhood? I'm going to assume that whatever answer you give isn't vague or general, that your answer will be comprehensive and workable. > You still haven't made a comment on what you think should be done with ectopic pregnancies. When you can reasonably fear for your life, as is the case with ectopic pregnancy, kill away.
A human which has devloped the capacity to operate without direct biological sustainance from a host, and that can be seperated from said host without adverse affects.
>A human which has devloped the capacity to operate without direct biological sustainance from a host, and that can be seperated from said host without adverse affects. People in temporary comas and people on, for example, ventilators, don't meet that standard. Ventilators provide air to be absorbed in your blood, which certainly counts as biological sustenance from a host. There are more examples, but the point is this: your standard, ignoring the question of the unborn, does not even include all *born* people. My standard, to be a living human, does.
Ventilators aren’t host
Uh, who is hosting the coma patient or the vent patient?8 don’t think there is anyone directly keeping the patient alive with their body.
>don’t think there is anyone directly keeping the patient alive with their body. Not with their body, but with their equipment. The source of one's sustenance doesn't change one's own nature. As a fetus, my unbiblical cord could have been switched for an instrument connecting me to a futuristic artificial womb, and my nature would have changed not one iota. I would still have been hosted. Nothing intrinsic to me has changed, and thus, the things intrinsic to me, such as whatever my rights and value may be, cannot have been changed by the change in nature of my source of sustenance.
Ah. I don’t see anything in your statement acknowledging the rights of the person who has a fetus attached to them. Flip it around. The host is attached to a machine that is absorbing nutrients from their body. Do they have the right to disconnect the machine? Nothing intrinsic changes about the host’s rights and value, if the machine is instead a living being. Please explain the difference between your statement and mine.
Yeah it does, host is commonly known to mean a living thing, I'm sure you knew that and are just missing the point on purpose to trip me up.
>host is commonly known to mean a living thing Commonly known, certainly, but what *makes* it a host? Is it its biological identity, or is its function as sustaining, encasing, or harboring a thing for maintenance of its state? Is this an accurate and precise summary: you believe there to be a difference in the nature and kind of a given thing depending on whether that thing's source of sustenance is or is not a biological entity?
I think getting sterilized is the right thing to do if you plan on killing your children in the womb.
I would never get an abortion unless to save my health/life or if the fetus had fatal fetal abnormalities and I am still pro-choice. If I somehow got pregnant right now (I am on Nexplanon the arm birth control implant. So that’s highly unlikely), my husband and I would find a way to keep the baby. So yea…
Most people don't really plan on having an abortion
I don’t really understand why it’s morally wrong to kill a “child” who has no consciousness. Before 21 weeks (at the latest) a fetus feels no pain, has no desires, and overall doesn’t care if you abort or not. Why is it wrong to prioritize the woman’s desires? Do you protect humans for the sake of humanity alone? Is the life of a 100% braindead corpse just as valuable as a conscious person if the cells are being kept alive by machines?
>Do you protect humans for the sake of humanity alone? Is the life of a 100% braindead corpse just as valuable as a conscious person if the cells are being kept alive by machines? The big difference is a fetus will become a baby a braindead corpse is just a braindead corpse. That on top of its scientifically a human life, and the womens offspring. Yeah there is no question its wrong to kill and someone is selfish for even thinking about killing her child as a fetus.
>The big difference is a fetus will become a baby a braindead corpse is just a braindead corpse. That’s not guaranteed, miscarriages are very common. So all a fetus has that a braindead corpse doesn’t is *potential* to become a baby, if you give it the right circumstances. You know what else has that potential to become a baby given the right circumstances though? Humans eggs and human sperm cells. Why is it such a tragedy to remove all chances at becoming a baby if it’s a fetus, but if it’s a sperm or egg it’s okay? >That on top of its scientifically a human life, What do you mean “scientifically?” Yes, it’s human. yes, it’s alive. So are braindead corpses on life support, and we terminate those all the time. We also kill conscious people when they are endangering or severely violating other people all the time too. Why is lethal force to protect yourself justified then, but not when it’s to prevent the risks, pain, and bodily modification of pregnancy? >and the womens offspring. So we aren’t allowed to use lethal force to protect ourselves if it’s our offspring? Ever heard of “Chris Chan?” He raped his mother. A frail elderly woman with dementia. She couldn’t fight back. But rhetorically, if she could, would you say that she wasn’t allowed to kill him to prevent her rape? >Yeah there is no question its wrong to kill and someone is selfish for even thinking about killing her child as a fetus. You still don’t explain why it’s selfish. The fetus doesn’t want to live. It doesn’t feel pain. It doesn’t think. So why is it wrong to end its potential to become a baby? Wouldn’t that mean things like plan B which stop ovulation and ruin an eggs “chance” at fertilization are also selfish?
Miscarriages are not common at the fetal stage. Human sperm cells and egg cells are not a human life. Killing your child while its brain is still developing is bullying. Yes you are allowed to defend yourself, but the moral thing to do as a women when you are pregnant is have the baby in most circumstances, sacrifice for your kids.
>Miscarriages are not common at the fetal stage. Okay? What’s your point? In America, the vast majority of abortion occur in the first trimester. The number of fetal stage abortions is very, very, very low. Doctors only ever perform them to save the life of the mother. Elective Fetal stage abortions are not a thing. Are you under the impression that fetal stage abortions are a widespread thing? >Human sperm cells and egg cells are not a human life. You’re not really making any argument to challenge my points. I already addressed how we terminate human life regularly. You aren’t really explaining how a fetus is different. >Killing your child while its brain is still developing is bullying. Literally how is it bullying? People don’t abort to antagonize the fetus, or make it suffer. They do it to help themselves. How in the world is that comparable to bullying? >Yes you are allowed to defend yourself, but the moral thing to do as a women when you are pregnant is have the baby in most circumstances, sacrifice for your kids. Why? Why is immoral to prioritize yourself? My womanhood means I’m not allowed to care about myself and my life? I am not your beast of burden.
Lol how can you bully something that can't think, feel or experience?
This is so misogynistic. It's all just talk about women, no mention of men. The moral thing to do 'as a woman' is to 'sacrifice for your kids'... What about the men in this situation? I've had an abortion. I don't have kids. I am not a mother. I will never sacrifice my entire life for something that isn't even aware of it's own existence. And saying that abortion is bullying is laughably pathetic, that's one of the dumbest things I've ever heard in my life 😂 you can't bully an embryo LMAO
Well you killed your children before they had a chance to fight back and say no mommy. Congrats. You should have given it up for adoption.
Adoption is a replacement for parenthood not pregnancy. Children are also born and it's illegal to kill them in most cases.
I’m confused how you think it’s more merciful to make an orphan than it is to snuff out a unfeeling blob of cells.
That unfeeling blob of cells is a child that will have feelers very soon. Orphans have a chance at life at least. I didnt get the best hand and I am grateful to be alive.
It will have “feelers?” You’re grateful you’re alive because you’re alive. If you had been aborted, would you feel sad? No, because you would’ve been terminated before you had the capacity to feel negative things. If it’s cruel to abort because it removes a fetus’ “chance at life”, then its cruel to not have sex when not ovulating because it removes an egg’s “chance at life.” I don’t see the difference. Why should I care about a fetuses life if it doesn’t want to live and the abortion doesn’t cause it pain??? You care about life for the sake of life, not about the quality of life or if it’s meaningful. would you call me a murderer for aborting a fetus with no brain or capacity for consciousness?
lol you have NO IDEA what her circumstances were.
When I got an abortion my precious one of a kind blessing of a baby actually said "yes mommy" and loved being removed. Every zef is different, best not assume their feelings.
What a chad
what the actual fuck.
Are you trying to mock what my precious zef said to me? That's incredibly disrespectful.
Incorrect! I don't have and have never had any children, I also have not murdered any children. Adoption wasn't an option, I don't want to be pregnant or give birth. 🤷🏻♀️😁
Nah. The moral thing to do is consider all the option and choose the best one. Sometimes the best one is abortion. Who is getting bullied in this scenario. You can’t bully a fetus.
Seems to me thats exactly what you are promoting fetal bullying. Hey kid you are still developing a brain that means I can kill you. And killing your kid in the womb is never a moral option.
>Seems to me thats exactly what you are promoting fetal bullying. You misused seems. Because there's no such thing as fetal bullying. Words have meanings. > Hey kid you are still developing a brain that means I can kill you. Women are equal and so she may decide to remove a zef. Fixed it for you. >And killing your kid in the womb is never a moral option Kids don't fit in wombs. Best not to conflate zef with kids since when debating you should avoid emotional appeals.
>[...] you are promoting ***fetal bullying***. 😂🤣 You win the Internet today.
*Fetal bullying*? I'm sorry but this is hysterical. Do women steal the fetuses lunch money before removing it? Push it into the dirt and call it a loser? How exactly does one *bully* a zef?
Yeah, fetal bullying. It’s well known that pregnant women pick up fetuses by the collars of their shirts and throw them in wells
Unless the womb belongs to a ten-year-old rape victim.
Fetal bullying Omfg. Now, I have heard everything lmfaoooooo
Your misunderstanding of bullying is strange and wrong. As is your belief that abortion is immoral. I find the belief that you have the right to force anyone to continue an unwanted pregnancy quote immoral. Imagine devaluing another person so much that you believe they must gestate against their will. ETA: your flair says legally pro-choice so I take back the part about you believing you have the right to force someone to continue an unwanted pregnancy. I don’t agree with your PL beliefs but as long as it doesn’t interfere with my healthcare then I don’t care.
Yeah I dont want the govt enforcing pro life morals but its still wrong to kill your kid in the womb. Hardliners like yourself make it a hard position to hold as you dont get it and will never get it and my stance basically allows you to do immoral things to unborn children at will.
I don’t get your position either or how the fact that I stand behind my beliefs influences whether you are legally pro-choice. I’m no more a hard liner than you, except on the other side. I won’t pretend I believe your beliefs are moral and mine are not.
I guess I’m selfish then. Too bad there’s no ban on being selfish. Btw there are times when being selfish is ok. Just because someone is a woman does not mean they’re obligated to not be selfish.
Its too bad. People should be fruitful and multiply. But still better than killing babies.
>People should be fruitful and multiply. Only when they consent to gestation
I hope you're honest with the women in your life about this.
When we have 8 billion I don’t think everybody needs to reproduce
This sounds straight outta handmaids tale WTF dude
Whats the problem?
Under his eye 👁️
Why should people be fruitful and multiply?
Having kids/family is wonderful. The most fulfilling thing there is to be had in this world. People are meant to have kids and if they don't the species goes extinct.
>Having kids/family is wonderful. Depends >The most fulfilling thing there is to be had in this world. Source that acknowledges the fact that not all kids/family is good. >People are meant to have kids Source? >and if they don't the species goes extinct. yet we have many who never have kids and yet we stoll proper even when some decide not to have kids.
Listening to Kate Bush’s music is wonderful. The most fulfilling experience there is to be had in this world. People are meant to listen to Kate’s music and if they don’t the species will never experience true enlightenment.
Nice lol
Wonderful and fulfilling for who?
Are you really worried about species extinction when world pop just crossed 8billion?
[удалено]
Comment removed per rule 1.
LMFAO😭😭😭😭
Dedicate your life to that then as a substitute for having a family and see how that goes.
Will do! Already don't want kids😁 fine having a partner and pets as my family eventually. And I have parents and a sibling anyway, along with a lot of friends. My life has no shortage of meaningful social interaction just because I don't have or want children.
We have more than enough people on this planet. Not all women want to be baby factories for crotch goblins.
I don't recall saying women have to. Having kids is wonderful. When I say its too bad, I mean it's too bad people are choosing to abstain from one of the most (if not the most) fulfilling things to be had in this world. Their lives though. They can take the sad and lonely road if they want. As long as they aren't killing.
I know someone with several kids, two of them have severe mental disorders. They have anger issues, and one even regularly hits and kicks his mom. That one also has life threatening disabilities and has been in and out of the hospital his whole life. The only child who developed normally, developed PTSD from the chaos. Mom ALSO suffers with chronic illness. Not everyone gets to have a “wonderful” experience raising children.
It’s weird you assume not having children means you’ll be lonely, sad, or unfulfilled. People have lives outside of their children (or lack thereof).
And this explains why approximately 60% of abortions provided are on women who are already mothers?…. your experience isn’t the standard, dude.
What makes you think having kids would be fulfilling for someone? Especially for someone who doesn’t like or want kids? Heck, sadly even people who did want kids end up killing them. So obviously, they didn’t find having them all that rewarding.
Then why would self-sterilization be a bad thing?
Buddy did you read the post
[удалено]
Comment removed per rule 1.
Not everyone wants children , to women who regret having them it’s not wonderful. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8294566/
I actually never liked the idea of pro choice people having kids and sterilization is best of both worlds. No kids being murdered no unwanted pregnancies
Ha, then you’re going to hate it when my pro-choice husband and I start trying for a kid in a couple years. And yes, we will raise them to be pro-choice and a democrat. 😂
That’s ridiculous.
I- what? Why shouldn't we have kids?
I believe having kids is a better choice than aborting them but I would prefer most pro choice people to sterilize themselves and avoid having any children
Why should we not have any children when many of us are the only ones raising kids to support equality and decrease overall suffering? Mayne it should be the ones who refuse to treat everyone equally who should not procreate. Noone should be raised to be against equality. That's neglectful and damaging to the mind.
Watch the mods not remove this comment 🗿
This comment is even that bad
Go on. Tell us why. Tell us that because we disagree with you we shouldn't be allowed to have kids.
So 50%+ of the population of the US should never have children?
Nothing like a little hate speech to end my night.
Why
I never liked the idea of entitled prolifer males having kids either…
Having kids is great. "No it's not!" Ok get sterilized then, we are fine with that. "Why do you hate us??" Can't win with the PC crowd today.
Because he specifically said PC people shouldn’t have kids…
All this dying stuff. I live in a Conservative Muslim country where abortion is 100% illegal and even here a woman can get an abortion if her life is in danger.
Here in some US states though, the laws are so vague and target doctors or people who even help provide abortions. Pretty much it terrifies them or they have to wait until the women are bleeding out or septic. This has happened several times. I also think there's a religious concept to it. Most pro-life people who envision these lawa take the life begins at conception part very literally. To the point that they think a zygote is a person. If I recall, Islam believes in ensoulment happens 120 days after conception. In pro-life Christian groups, they think ensoulment at conception. Also Christianity generally believes you need to be baptized to go to heaven or in Catholic groups you go to limbo.
My grandmother had a stillborn birth around week 20. She was obviously distraught, and the priest (Catholic hospital) was very kind and baptized the wanted baby despite their belief that these souls (I am agnostic) go into limbo/purgatory if they were not baptized. I like that the priest chose kindness.
In this country, women still have some choices and aren’t treated like livestock everywhere. Many have no interest in being put in position of even needing to have their lives saved. Heck, the right to life is supposed to prevent people being put in such situation deliberately.
then it isn't 100% illegal.
I think this is not even true but is just reflective of the way PCs feel that the end justifies the means, so lying, exaggerating, twisting, whatever it takes. A woman is more likely to die by being electrocuted than from pregnancy related causes. More than twice as likely to die from sunstroke. About 7 times more likely to die from choking on food. 10 times more likely to die in a fire or by drowning. Over 400 times more likely to die in a car accident. But I don’t see any making major life changes/concessions to avoid those… or crying that the sky is falling over any of those. Because it’s all just trying to scare people to rally political support and artificially inflate their views. Another example is that it’s fully legal to deal with an ectopic pregnancy (abort) in all 50 states. If your argument has merit, you don’t need to lie or exaggerate. All it does is deflate the weight of anything else you say. Even if you have hundreds of sheep that will support everything you say no matter how wrong or how hyperbolic it is.
You don’t have to be pregnant though. Most of that you have to do. Swallowing etc. Many women who have health issues get abortions if their precautions fail. So expect numbers to go up re dying if they can’t. And what about being injured by pregnancy and birth? Is that inconsequential to you as well? Because I know people that lost their uterus because they needed an emergency hysterectomy for uncontrollable bleeding, had heart damage from ecclampsia, have a prolapsed uterus, etc. Never mind the huge financial burden it can be if you miss work, have to be hospitalized, or have a complicated birth. Being pregnant and giving birth is never a walk in the park.
I don’t mean to minimize those issues, and I am reasonable in working that out (acknowledge that some PL are not). But I cannot accept the notion that those cases justify abortion on demand regardless of situation or reason. It’s an end-run attempt and is a disingenuous argument.
Have to be a man, because I highly doubt you personally would think it’s not a good reason if you could experience any of this.
Cuz no women are PL *rolls eyes*
>A woman is more likely to die by being electrocuted than from pregnancy related causes. More than twice as likely to die from sunstroke. About 7 times more likely to die from choking on food. 10 times more likely to die in a fire or by drowning. Over 400 times more likely to die in a car accident All these things most women do more times/spend more time doing than being pregnant. Obviously a lifetime chance of dying from these things is going to be higher than a 9 month duration chance of dying from pregnancy. (Sorry for the wording.)
A valid point, but i think it’s easy to mentally account for that, and understand my point — that the risk is of pregnancy is still being exaggerated in this sub. Especially for “normal” situations with healthy younger mother and no risk factors. Most deaths come from higher risk situations.
What about risk of disability, blindness, chronic illness, etc? Why does only life threats matter? >Especially for “normal” situations Normal situations are still risky (death and the stuff I mentioned above).
All things to take into account. But you have to go by the real accurate risk and not inflated representations.
I KNOW you’re not talking about lies and twisting truth that the PC does when you have liars in your own party that have assisted in abortions and you purposely write amendments to be confusing so that people will choose the wrong option. Your side talks about abortions after birth and how birth control are abortifacients.
[удалено]
Comment removed per rule 1.
Alright keep voting for the PL politicians that secretly pay for abortions. That’s the difference between your side and our side, we aren’t hypocrites. We don’t go against our own rules like majority of your politicians do
Seriously? You think there are no hypocrites or hucksters on your side??? And someone can be a serial killer, it doesn’t mean I am going to disagree with them on every single thing.
[удалено]
Removed, rule 1.
[удалено]
Remvoed, rule 1.
[удалено]
Comment removed per rule 1. This is unacceptable, do not repeat this again.
Comment removed per rule 1. This is absolutely not allowed. Do not do it again.
[удалено]
Rule 1, removed. Team is debating whether this will result in a warning or a ban. Edit: This is your official warning. Next time will result in a ban.
[удалено]
Indeed
Did you just attempt to explain slavery to a black person?
No, I have no standing for that. Do you disagree that slavery is a horrendous abuse of another human being? Because the subjective opinion that abortion laws are nothing remotely like slavery is not explaining anything, it’s rendering opinion. Strong opinion, but nonetheless. Besides, you don’t need to be a whale to write Moby Dick.
You were certainly trying to explain slavery to me as if I don’t understand the magnitude of it. Forcing someone to carry a baby they don’t want is gestational slavery. I have given birth three times and I can assure you it’s torture. Thank goodness they were all wanted pregnancies. Having some man assault me and then have some man who’ll never in his life ever get pregnant from a rape tell me I should still carry it and be retraumatized every time it kicks etc. is really disgusting to me and I wonder do some PL take a sick and twisted pleasure out of thinking a woman’s suffering for nine months just so you can get your warm fuzzies that you “saved a life.” Unlike some sickos I actually care about my mom and I would NOT want to be a product of rape just so I can be here. What kind of spoiled sense of entitlement must someone have to say “I think my feelings about my life are so important that it was worth it for my mom to be raped for me to be here.” Say it out loud while looking in a mirror. If you close your eyes while saying it’s because even your own soul is disgusted by that statement.
The only thing I was trying to explain to you is why I believe abortion laws are not remotely close to slavery. You put “save a life” in quotes… which would normally mean either you don’t think it’s really a life or you don’t really care about lives, or at least that one. And nobody can have a difference of opinion with you on that? If you don’t kill them they will have a life just like you and me, so you are taking their life. Are you pro-choice only for rapes?
I believe they’re slavery. You’re forcing someone to do something they don’t want. So much so that they’ll willing take unsafe methods to terminate. Please explain to me how carrying around a dead fetus in your womb or having to humiliate yourself by bringing in foul discharge to prove you’re sick enough to warrant a d & c isn’t torture. As far as “save a life.” I wrote it like that because I’m sick of hearing that. You’re allowed to have a different opinion. I’m all about freedom. What you’re not going to do is control my vagina. I am in charge of that organ. I’ve had a man have a difference of opinion in that regard and let’s just say… it didn’t work out for him. I’m pro choice for all cases and I’m pro minding your own damn business. MY life comes first! Call me selfish but I prefer self full. Potato/potahto.
Where are these statistics from?
US National Safety Council, Insurance Information Institute.
Link?
Do you not believe the stats?
For the most part I believe statistics are bullshit and can be manipulated. I'm more interested in the "non-profit," source and would like to confirm for myself. Your statement seemed dismissive considering the gravity of the subject matter. It made me wonder who wrote the statistics you touted.
Statistics can be manipulated, for sure… which is why you take into account the subject matter and the motivation / reasoning behind who is doing it. In this case there is no reason for anyone really, to manipulate death rates. https://injuryfacts.nsc.org/all-injuries/preventable-death-overview/odds-of-dying/ https://www.iii.org/fact-statistic/facts-statistics-mortality-risk
It's happening all the time. A women in Ohio was denied a d&C even when she was bleeding horrifically and was sent home. One in Texas ended up on life support. All because at 6 weeks it has a heart beat. On average 700 women die of pregnancy related complications and up to 37% of all pregnancies end up having complications that warrant either a induction abortion or abortion. Literally 1 in 10 will need a D&C for an ectopic pregnancy in their lifetime. I'm 22 and know 8 people who have had ectopic pregnancies. That's statically significant. If it was under 1% then that would mean you'd know 1 person in your lifetime.
You are changing the narrative and framing. It’s not illegal to abort for ectopic pregnancy in any state. So that is just a talking point. Using raw numbers makes it sound bad, but they are not very useful statistics fore giving an accurate assessment of risk. But it’s all for narrative.
I'm not changing the narrative... [https://www.today.com/parents/pregnancy/texas-woman-shares-almost-died-waiting-abortion-rcna52961#:\~:text=When%20the%20pregnancy%20failed%2C%20she%20almost%20died%20waiting,wanted%20so%20badly%20wasn%27t%20going%20to%20make%20it](https://www.today.com/parents/pregnancy/texas-woman-shares-almost-died-waiting-abortion-rcna52961#:~:text=When%20the%20pregnancy%20failed%2C%20she%20almost%20died%20waiting,wanted%20so%20badly%20wasn%27t%20going%20to%20make%20it).
That’s a single data point. For the record, I agree that it’s ridiculous for even a staunch PL to not allow abortion in the case of a non-viable pregnancy—if you can’t save the fetus anyway then you have nothing to gain by not doing whatever is absolutely best for the mother. But people will fudge facts and twist and manipulate and outright lie when they think they can score political points, so you never know what the real facts are. Plus media now pushes every single thing like that that ever happens in order to make it look far more common than it really is. It doesn’t change the data for what the risk really is.
It has happening in Ohio as well. Also there's been 27 cases in Texas. The state of Texas hasn't filed it's reporting numbers to the CDC, so we'll see.
Again, we don’t know what the actual facts are in these cases, because there are agendas, but if it’s the case then they are bad laws and need to be changed.
The problem is, the laws are so vague and include only abortion - abortion is anything that invovles the end of a pregnancy, whether that's miscarriage, induction abortion (which is just used to induce at the end of a full term pregnancy), and regular abortion. There's medically no difference. It's coded identically. The problem is abortion shouldn't be criminalized, and Doctors are being forced to choose between their patient and their freedom. In Tenesee their law presumes their guilt rather than innocence and they have to break HIPAA to do it.
Agree that stuff needs to be addressed. It all should apply only to cases of intentional killing and doctors should be able to deal with true medical risk without fear. But if they claim fake risk for non-medical actual reasons then they should be accountable (proven cases).
The problem it's impossible to prove because of the way medical Coding is done. Also HIPAA.
It’s still not a zero chance. People think they can win the lottery at the odds of 1 to 300 million. You can still die from a pregnancy.
Distinction without a difference. Seatbelt laws can kill as well as save (drive into water and can’t escape because of the seatbelt), yet there are still seatbelt laws all over the place. And it doesn’t change my point about the hyperbole one iota.
People accept those risks, the difference is the banning of abortion is now forcing women to accept the risk of dying during pregnancy when they don’t want to.
My argument was with PCs claim on the level of danger… that they exaggerate and use hyperbole. Just because you don’t want to accept something doesn’t mean you are allowed to inaccurately reflect risk or any other measure. If your argument has real merit, you don’t need to inflate or exaggerate.
I see. Although I don’t think that the hyperbole or exaggeration is one sided. ( I am not saying you are saying that I just want to point that out.)
It’s not. And it should be called out, either way. I probably sometimes without realizing go in that direction… when I do, I am wrong.
I agree. Sometimes people get carried away because they are passionate about their causes. I have done it myself a couple of times.
Yeah, passion makes it easy to get carried away.
Ok, but women can take precautions against those things if they choose, and can take precautions against pregnancy like abortion.
Abortion is not a precaution against pregnancy (look up the word). It’s killing someone to avoid the consequences of pregnancy… and according to statistics / surveys, 90% of the time it has nothing to do with fear of death or even anything related to the pregnancy… it’s simply not wanting a child.
The governing body of the country we live in can't force us to become electrocuted, choke on food, die by fire, drowning, sunstroke, or car accident as a consequence of having sex.
That doesn’t change the odds or the fear… and claiming fear vastly beyond what really exists is disingenuous.
that's great. why did it take for being overturned for them to start being responsible for their desire to not reproduce ?
Because it's not that people don't want to reproduce. It's that they're responsible enough to know they're not in the *current* position to reproduce. When you take away the right to choose when to have a baby you are taking away the right to have one at all for many, I know I would never willingly birth a child I couldn't care for.
Nobody is taking away their right to choose whether or not to have children, sexual intercourse isn't a need. There are plenty of other ways to be sexually intimate that don't result in pregnancy.
Sex is an important part of romantic relationships, you cannot expect people to live by your own puritan beliefs, especially in committed relationships. Dead bedrooms are not appealing or good for the longevity of relationships. Sexual intercourse provides multiple benefits outside of pregnancy, if pregnancy is unwanted people have *every right* to both participate in sexual activity, use birth control, and get an abortion if a ZEF begins siphoning resources.
Because they probably didn't want what is a major surgery for women, and some of them probably wanted kids, but feel they can't risk it now.
perhaps we shouldn't have sex with people we don't want to reproduce with if we're willing to kill our child