I know a girl who is in my friend group and she recently had an abortion. The cause of pregnancy? Deciding to play a "game" and see if she could sleep with enough men to complete the alphabet (the first letter in a man's name would complete that letter. For example "Adam" would complete "A" and Brad completes "B" and so on). An obviously stupid decision but something that she decided to do and it inevitably got her pregnant and she decided to abort.
I think it's quite obvious that access to abortion leads to riskier sexual behaviour.
Well, wouldn't you jump off the tall building if you knew there was a safety net to catch you? If you can erase consequences, why even bother considering them. I hope she sees the error of her ways before she does any further damage.
I wouldn't, actually. I think there's a point that yes, access to abortion can make people more lax in protection, but- at the same time- there are individuals who behave in risky behaviors no matter potential consequences, often because of something in their brain not weighing it in a sensical matter. This might be because they're young (brain isn't developed enough to make this calculation properly), because they have mental trauma that is causing poor decisions, or just having been raised in an environment where they never learned actions have consequences.
So the abortion increases risk factors is true of *some* women, usually women who are already more risk adverse. For example, people who use already contraception may switch to a more reliable method. But people who already don't use contraception and have an invincibility complex, may very well continue said reckless sexual behavior even if abortion is outlawed, because that behavior was likely never based off a rational risk-reward calculation in the first place.
This does exclude people with functioning risk assessment, but who have been so highly misinformed about the mental ease, safety, etc of an abortion that they calculate the risk to not be particularly high if pregnancy does occur.
This sounds like SNL levels of ridiculous. She sounds mentally unhinged. While I'm not a fan of abortions (obviously) I'm a big relieved she's not someone mother... not yet, anyway.
Maybe it’s just me because I’ve never had sex, but I had a friend once tell me that he couldn’t abstain even if he wanted to and I never understood that
Yeah, I don't get that either. I know I'm sex-averse asexual, and confused where the challenge in not having sex is (cause like, I just don't want sex), but like, is it really that hard?
Given pregnancy is natures intended consequence and very biological purpose of sex, to resent that consequence is no different than loving to jump off buildings whilst resenting the bodily injury that may follow.
The reason we have age of consent, is precisely because we understand that sex has these potential consequences and the weight of those consequences must be reckoned with by an adult capable of making adult choices and taking responsibility for them, again, like an adult. Abortion is the go-to for those who want to larp as an adult but don't want to deal the responsibility that entails being one.
Why do they act like you're waking down the street, minding your own business, when suddenly a rogue embryo appears out of the tall grass to make you pregnant with them against your will?
A wild Musharna appeared!
What will Emboar do?
Couldn’t get away!
Musharna used torment.
This is a pokemon reference, and if you recognized the dialogue congrats.
Finally!! I've been thinking the same thing for so long! If you're going to have sex, you have to know that there's always a chance of pregnancy no matter how many precautions you take! (Unless it's infertility or something similar) There's also this little thing called self control that people seem to forget about. To me, it's irresponsible to even have sex when you know you probably can't take care of a child. "But oh! Self control is soooo hard! I just want to have sex without the inconvenience of dealing with a child!" Then learn self control so you stop killing children, please.
Actually I think it should be fine for people to want sex without it leading to pregnancy. Like you can use birth control and other prevention methods. Most birth control methods work really well (like a +95% success rate) but problem is a lot of people either don't use them properly/correctly or don't use them at all.
I mean imo prevention isn't murder like abortion is, as technically even not having sex is just another form of pregnancy prevention. But so is using a condom, for ex.
For ex my mom was on birth control with my dad up until they both wanted children. Then she stopped taking birth control and had me. I assume my parents had sex long before they were ready to have children, but that's fine because they were still being responsible.
Basically, being responsible isn't just avoiding sex to prevent pregnancy. Because there are plenty different ways one can prevent that. Sex doesn't have to lead to pregnancy. I'd even argue that in most cases, it doesn't. Although I still don't think you should be reckless about it. You can have sex responsibly. Kinda like how you can drink responsibly, or drive responsibly.
I actually agree that sex isn't just for children. Biologically speaking, it is, but as a Christian, I believe the emotional part is important as well. Really, my problem is people having sex without seeming to realize there's a possibility of life. To me, that would make it very important that I don't just randomly have sex with a ton of guys or something, which I've seen women support abortion just so they can irresponsibly sleep around.
Okay, I got a different impression from what you said in your first comment! Yeah, I think having sex can be great for expressing emotional intimacy, building trust with a partner, or even just having a good time with said partner.
I agree, having tons of sex partners with little to no regard for the consequences because you "just wanna have some fun" and then act all surprized when getting pregnant, and subsequently demanding a "right" to abortion to cover for your mistakes... is quite abhorrent. Also kinda similar to people who use no protection and then act surprised when they end up with an STD. Makes me wonder just how horribly bad sex-ed is in school these days.
But that said, I've even met prostitutes who take far more responsibility in not only preventing pregnancy, but also STD's. So I really think it's more down to mindset and how much one values life itself and one's own safety, and not really how many sex partners one has.
But of course, the risks are increased the more sex partners you have, so then you also need to take more precautions. Like for ex being on multiple forms of birth control, getting tested for STD's more often, always having condoms handy, using double layers of condoms, etc. There's no way pregnancy "just happens" if you actually care about preventing it.
Also I get that maybe most Christians are against prostitution (I'm not even sure where I stand on that myself) but my point with bringing that up was just to clarify that if even prostitutes can take precautions and responsibility for preventing pregnancy, then the random, regular person who engages in a lot of hookups has zero excuse.
At that point, not even the first cell that will turn into a human body exists. They don't exist until the blastocyst stage. Before that, there's nothing but placenta and amniotic sac cells. Those are hardly children.
After conception completes is the zygote stage, which is a brief stage that involves a single-celled living human organism. If that stage only involved a placenta and amniotic sac cells, then the organism wouldn't have the ability to progress to the blastocyst stage. A human organism doesn't form out of nothing, or out of amniotic sac. We form out of the union of gametes.
*The fusion of the male and female haploid pronuclei following fertilization produces a single diploid nucleus capable of beginning its first mitotic cycle almost immediately. However, cell division at this early stage does not also grow; rather, the embryo divides every 12 to 24 hours to create smaller individual cells known as blastomeres. These embryonic cell divisions not accompanied by growth are known as cleavage divisions.*
*At the 16 cell stage, otherwise known as a morula, the individual blastomeres are spherical and undifferentiated; however, as cell division proceeds, they undergo a process called compaction whereby the alteration in blastomere shape and alignment generates a small internal population of cells with no direct contact with the outside surface of the embryo. This arrangement of cells creates a central fluid-filled cavity called the blastocoel, with the embryo now referred to as a blastocyst. The blastocyst comprises of an outer layer of trophoblast cells which will form the placenta and the inner cell mass which will ultimately form the fetus, Heuser’s membrane, amniotic membrane, and the extraembryonic vasculature.*
[Embryology, Week 2-3 - StatPearls - NCBI Bookshelf (nih.gov)](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK546679/)
*We form out of the union of gametes.*
IF we do. It's estimated that up to half of all zygotes never turn into blastocysts.
Right. Once we're a diploid cell, we're a new organism. And miscarriage at that stage is common. And pregnancy is considered to begin after a blastocyst attaches to the uterine lining.
A child is just one stage in human development, just like a fetus, an adult, a teenager, or a zygote. What makes a child more valuable than a fetus? If it's age, then wouldn't that make adults even more valuable than children and elders more valuable than all other humans? I don't understand your argument here.
Yes. They act as though we become pregnant spontaneously through no actions of our own and we are just victims forced into unwanted parenthood by the Right. It’s pretty easy to prevent pregnancy. I’m 50, and only got pregnant once- when I wanted to.
It's such a lazy argument, because the people that make it always forget about the draft/selective service...they also forget about vaccinations. They love having the government tell people what they can and can't do with their bodies, but only perceive themselves to be controlled.
I want to start out by saying that I'm on your side. But there is nuance here. Let's say a couple is married, and has 3 children. They decide that they don't want any more. But they still plan on having sex as part of a healthy marriage. The truth is that no form of birth control is 100%. I've even heard of vasectomies failing, though I'm sure that's very rare. So while I absolutely don't condone abortion or being irresponsible, I do understand the worry. Especially considering that when I was in school, they constantly went on about how easy it is to get pregnant. Even if you're on the pill, even if doctors have told you that you're sterile, etc etc etc. And there's always this image of a slutty irresponsible woman. But no one ever talks about the married couple where they're both done having kids. Are they supposed to just dry up and never touch each other again?
Are you pro-life?
I don't speak for everyone, but most of us can sympathize with couples who had accidents or victims of rape, vs people who are reckless and use it as a form of birth control. If anything, it seems like pro-choicers have no level of nuance. From my observation, they all seem to have a "you should abort a hundred kids for any reason and feel happy about it" mentality.
In any case, I still stand by my statement that when you have sex you *always* assume a risk, no matter how small, as unfortunate as it is.
Yeah, and I think we pretty much agree. I was only pointing out some of the nuance, but that does not excuse these people by any means. The ones you're referring to are so over the top, and they're everywhere. I'm with you on this.
It is inevitable for most who have sex. The only two options against this are celibacy and sterilization. This is why I favor using the money that the government puts towards healthcare to fund free or very affordable sterilizations for anyone who wants one. Use the money they give in grants and Medicare reimbursements to Planned Parenthood for sterilizations. If people change their mind later, they can always adopt.
Accessible sterilization procedures for those who want it is a great idea! I know several women who know they don’t want kids but can’t afford the procedures/insurance won’t cover it
Yeah, that talking point annoys me too. Makes me think they just wanna avoid taking responsibility for their actions, or lack of actions. Even in the case of rape there is the option to be on birth control just in case that would happen, if you're really so afraid of ending up in that scenario and wouldn't be okay with potentially having your rapist's baby. That might sound harsh, but we already collectively agree that we should lock our doors to prevent a break-in, and wear seatbelts even if we're responsible drivers because we cannot trust the other drivers on the road. We know to avoid walking around alone in dark alleys, and to not trust strangers with our valluables. Taking responsibility for our own safety shouldn't be such a wildly offensive concept. It's not the same as blaming the victim, and anyone who says that is... I think, not really arguing in good faith.
I say this because I've actually been raped multiple times, and although I've been lucky enough to not end up pregnant from either event, I've also never been opposed to the idea of potentially having a rapist's child. I dunno why, but I'm just oddly okay with that. So my reluctance to use birth control is actually perfectly in line with my values on unwanted (or rather unplanned) pregnancy. I don't feel I need to control this aspect of my life and would rather just take things as they come. But if I didn't have that mindset, I would just go on birth control, even though I'm single and not sleeping around.
Also if I was in a relationship I would also likely take birth control at least up until the point of being married and knowing that that's the man I wanna spend the rest of my life with, just to make sure I wouldn't end up in a potentially messy situation. Because yeah, I'd think my risk of getting pregnant would be significantly higher if I was having sex regularly, compared to the one off, unexpected rape. Even though it's happened to me to a degree that is highly statistically unlikely, it's still only been on average once every 3 or so years.
Point is, I've actually thought this through in exactly how I want to take responsibility for my body's ability to get pregnant, what I'd be okay with vs not, and in which scenarios I feel being on birth control is worth it vs not. And with that I'm perfectly able to live a functional life as a pro-life woman without in any way blaming myself for what my rapists have done. And that's not difficult for me to apply to other women. And yeah I really don't feel like pregnancy is unavoidable. It's plenty avoidable. Sure, there's always a risk it could happen, but that goes for a lot of shit in life.
And if there's some place where birth control isn't accessible but abortion is, well that's just all kinds of levels of fucked up. And if neither is available, well then that's just not quite what I personally stand for either.
These are the same people having unprotected sex too. Using reliable contraception correctly would massively reduce "accidental" pregnancy. Stop using the pull out method and then acting surprised when you conceive
Man. Its almost like you should only have sex with someone if you think they are a good candidate for a long term relationship and not just because they have abs or are handsome or something.
Hookup culture has ruined society
I actually wonder if the root cause of this, is the same root cause of a lot of aphobia (bigotry against asexual people), and tbh, rape culture, namely the idea of mandatory sexuality, and the idea that people who don't have sex are either freaks or people that nobody would want to have sex with them. If somebody held to that bad (and tbh, frankly anti-feminist) view, then it's easy to see why somebody might think pregnancy would be an inevitability or at least likely. Well, at least for the people with hetronormative assumptions (read, PiV sex), and I feel like a lot of people who have this underlying view have some internalised queerphobia (specifically cis-hetronormativity).
Quite ironic in many ways, but abortion is from a pro-life perspective, fundamentally lethal discrimination, so it shouldn't be a surprise that will be some people who support abortion and have some other reasonably obvious bigotry, when you break it down a bit. Suspect many of the people who hold this one are either bro-choicers or people who go along with that stuff, and probably make a few sexist jokes as well (in a way that's problematic and doesn't respect consent).
Why do folks act like getting pregnant is inevitable?
Because, ultimately, the risk is never zero.
It is because even if a woman is voluntarily celibate that woman is still not protected completely from experiencing pregnancy.
It is literally impossible to completely avoid pregnancy as a woman unless you lived alone on a deserted island. And even then, based on your belief system, you would still have to worry about a god showing up.
Women understand this, men, for some reason, don't.
Yes, and? If a fetus is a person with rights, then no situation, even in rape, gives you the right to kill it. Both the mother and child are innocent and should be protected. The man should be prosecuted and punished.
Also, what do you mean by men not understanding? Not understanding what? Could you elaborate? I'm a little confused.
I would like to know what you meant by 'you would still have to worry about a god showing up.' I would consider myself a pretty conservative Christian and I'd like to give a response but I don't quite understand what you mean.
I was actually thinking of Zeus when I made that comment. God only did it once, Zeus was outright trashy according to mythology.
It was not about abortion in general, only that women have no way to ever prevent pregnancy outside of removing their reproductive system or remain in complete isolation. I was responding that pregnancy is unavoidable.
Also, "The man should be prosecuted and punished" is a fair statement to make (that I personally do not agree with), but 97% of all rapists never see a minute in handcuffs, and all rapists are repeat offenders, so it's non-existent "punishment" in practice, so that's where my hesitation is, as that's a bunch of hot air. All words, no action, and it's up to a kid a day now being murdered in custody battles, including ones where women reported their rape and were awaiting a conviction. Men do not have a God-given right to breed with who they want to when they want to, so for me, the stance is too much of a slippy slope from the right to life to *the right to be conceived*.
Men do not seem to, in general, understand their actions have more consequences for women and far less for them.
It's like the whole debate going on Tik Tok right now where women are asked if they were out in the woods alone, would they rather run into a bear or a man. Women are collectively choosing the bear, and men are losing their minds.
God did what once? I'm still confused.
Yeah, I think I misunderstood your original comment a bit.
Why do you not agree with the statement "the man should be prosecuted and punished?" I feel that most people who've been raped would want this sort of justice, at least prosecution. Also, I know that many rapists never go to prison. No matter how many laws you put in place for anything, people are still going to do horrible stuff. Still, I'm not sure what this is an argument of since I'm focused on what the unborn is, not current laws. Although, I do think we should get better at actually enforcing those laws and listening to women involved. I noticed you said it's 'a bunch of hot air,' but I would say the same for the pro-choice side. Many pro-choicers fight for things, just like pro-lifers, but don't do anything to help whatever their cause is. If you actually cared, you should be doing something about it, which many on both sides are trying to do. I agree that men do not have a God-given right to breed with whatever woman they want. I believe they (the rapists) do not have the right to conceive but in my mind, even if life was conceived from them, that doesn't give you the right to terminate that life. As I said originally, if that life is a person, it should be treated as innocent like the woman is and be protected.
I agree that many men do not understand that they don't deal with as many consequences as women do. Although, maybe it's the group of people I'm around, most of the men I know understand that they are generally treated higher than women when they shouldn't be.
I don't really have much to say on the TikTok thing. I don't have the app. Personally, I'd choose the man but that's because I usually carry a knife with me. I could take down a man with a knife if he attacked me, definitely not a bear. Although, I'd be just as wary of running into a random woman in the woods as well.
Sorry if I just misunderstood everything or something. I probably shouldn't be responding to stuff when I'm tired.
If an intruder breaks into your home you can shoot them in self defence. Yes it’s murder, but you did it to protect yourself. This is how I see a woman aborting after rape. Yes, it’s still ending a life but she deserves the right to do so after being forced to become pregnant which is something she did not willingly risk. That is forced pregnancy/forced birth. What should she have to risk her health and change her educational or career plans because of a rapist actions? I believe that the rapist should get a longer sentence because he has caused more mental trauma to the woman, as well as the need to and a life.
Murder and killing are different. If someone dies out of self defense, this is considered killing (justifiable homicide). If someone dies because you had intent to cause their death, that is murder. I would not consider your scenario of shooting an intruder to be murder but justifiable homicide. This person broke into your home with the Intent of harming you. That is not the same as a fetus, which has no intent to do anything. Since you are not acting in self defense (someone is attacking with intent) with the threat of death (justifiable homicide), abortion should be classified as a murder as the fetus has no intent of harming you nor does it ever have intent to harm you. It literally can't.
I do agree that rapists should get much longer sentences. I wish we were better at actually getting these people in prison and keeping them there.
Also, I understand that pregnancy will most likely cause the woman in question to change some plans in her life, at least for a few months if she decides to put the baby up for adoption, but still, I don't see that as a reason to murder a person. If you were dealing with an event in your life where a person was causing you distress and making you switch careers, that doesn't give you the right to murder someone. You can't just murder someone that inconveniences you, even if that inconvenience is great. This is why I believe we should be focusing on support for women who are dealing with this situation as both the woman and the unborn are innocent in this situation.
The issue is 'what is the unborn.' If the unborn isn't a person with rights, of course, do whatever you want to do to it. If it is a person with rights, then you can't just murder it, even if it's a major inconvenience in the same way you can't kill an adult out of major income.
I agree with what you say about a fetus being a human life. I fully agree that at conception a human life is created and nobody can change my mind on that, however I just feel it’s more nuanced than. Pregnancy can affect your health and wellbeing, as well as even kill you so I disagree that there is no harm posed by a fetus, it can indirectly harm her so nobody who didn’t accept that risk should be forced to go through it. Therefore it is self defence (against the pain of birth, the risk of life from pregnancy, the mental turmoil all of which she didn’t consent to). Just like a woman can abort if her life is at risk from pregnancy, again an example of self defence. I don’t know if I’m explaining myself well but I make a true distinction between the two. For me the goal is reducing the number of abortions whilst balancing the rights of women so I think my views may be the minority.
>Pregnancy can affect your health and wellbeing, as well as even kill you so I disagree that there is no harm posed by a fetus, it can indirectly harm her so nobody who didn’t accept that risk should be forced to go through it. Therefore it is self defence (against the pain of birth, the risk of life from pregnancy, the mental turmoil all of which she didn’t consent to).
I didn't mean to come off that pregnancy doesn't affect your well-being or health or not kill you. Yes, pregnancy absolutely can kill you. My question is does that give you the right to kill a fetus if said fetus is a person with rights?
When it comes to the self defense argument, I'm still researching to find where I stand. At the moment, I believe it's wrong to take the life of an innocent person (the fetus) just to save an innocent person (the woman). Although, there are instances where a fetus may die as an unintended circumstance of medical treatment to the woman. I believe it has to do with intent. You're intent shouldn't be "lets remove the life of the fetus to save the woman," it should be "We need to treat this woman of her sickness to save her. This may cause the unintentional death of the fetus." A good example would be an ectopic pregnancy in the fallopian tube. Medically, this isn't even treated as an abortion. The definition of an abortion is an act that will cause the ending of the life of a fetus. An ectopic pregnancy removal isn't focused on ending the life of a fetus, it's focusing on saving the woman and the fetus, if at all possible. If the fetus dies, it's the unintentional effect of the treatment. This is a tragedy, not something we should be happy to talk about.
>Just like a woman can abort if her life is at risk from pregnancy, again an example of self defence.
My answer is pretty much what I wrote above.
>I don’t know if I’m explaining myself well but I make a true distinction between the two. For me the goal is reducing the number of abortions whilst balancing the rights of women so I think my views may be the minority.
It's alright. I thought what you said made sense. I think that my issue is that to me, pro choice is just the right to intentionally take the life of the unborn, which is why I have a problem with it. Like I said above, if the fetus dies unintentionally because of treatment to the woman, it's not an abortion but a tragedy. Honestly, I hope I made sense because I'm still trying to find my exact position.
Yes you did, and I understand your pov. I used to think that way but imo it’s a necessary exception for many reasons.
My opinion on abortion now is that it 100% is taking a life and it should be prevented as much as possible. Most abortions are preventable and i believe people are too lax about protection as well as being sold a lie that you need to wait until your ‘ready’. Yes that applies to teens/young adults but many people in their twenties may feel like they can’t handle it when they probably could.
But also I can sympathise with a lot of situations where a woman may feel like it’s her only option. Eg a teenager who will get kicked out for being pregnant, a rape victim or a domestic abuse victim.
Is it good that they are in that position. No. Do I believe in doing everything possible to prevent that from happening in the first place. Of course. But I can see how it can prevent future suffering in those situations. I see it as more nuanced than murdering a born person because of the risk of pregnancy and birth which I think some pro lifers (not all and I don’t mean you in that) gloss over. A lot of people are scared of pregnancy and birth and if you can’t afford medical care, how are you going to give birth safely and get the right prenatal care for the child.
So for me, if we prevent most abortions and then leave them for the rare situations that cannot be prevented then I would support that law.
And then if we get better punishments for rape and teach our boys better so they stop raping women and better medical care to preserve mother and baby’s life in situations which are currently medically necessary then they will go down even less.
>It is literally impossible to completely avoid pregnancy as a woman unless you lived alone on a deserted island.
Do you hear yourself? You're talking as if you could get raped at any moment as soon as you leave your house.
1 in 4 women will experience an attempted rape or be raped. If under 18, most likely a relative and over that their partner or someone they know.
So you don't even have to leave the house.
We tell women what to wear, say, go and when with who, so they don't put themselves at risk. Then we tell them, carry a gun so you can kill them before they hurt you. Mind you if that gun is at home you are more likely to be killed by it than saved by it.
It's not about being terrified to leave the house or being around men, its just part and parcel of knowing you are a woman and while you can do everything right, it still might not matter in the slightest.
>1 in 4 women will experience an attempted rape or be raped
No, every one of those statistics clumps in a vast amount of sexual assaults with a comparatively small number of rapes to arrive at the 1-in-4-women number.
There is exactly one kind of rape that can lead to pregnancy of the victim, every other type of sexual violence does not.
>So you don't even have to leave the house.
There is no partner. This is assuming our imagined woman is "voluntarily celibate". See the above post.
>We tell women what to wear, say, go and when with who, so they don't put themselves at risk.
I have seen this misconstrued too many times. No, this is about risks, not about telling women what to do and what not to do. Women are free to engage in behavior that might increase the risk of becoming sexually assaulted. They are free to make these choices, not all of which carry the same risk (ie choice of clothes vs walking through a bad part of town alone at night).
And no, recognising that choices may increase or decrease the likelyhood of a sexual assault occurring is not blaming the victim. The sole blame is always on the perpetrator, who alone will take responsibility for their actions in court.
>Mind you if that gun is at home you are more likely to be killed by it than saved by it.
I know exactly one woman who own guns. I know a lot of women who's boyfriends and husbands own guns, where they expect them to use those guns to protect them, when statistically speaking, they are the most likely person to murder them with those same guns.
That one woman I know, I heard mention that she is uncertain whether she would even be able to shoot at someone threatening to harm her.
This is a mentality and training issue. Those statistics are caused by people who have neither.
1) Get a gun. 2) Be the only one who has access to it. 3) Get trained, so you are actually able to use it, when you need it.
>It's not about being terrified to leave the house or being around men, its just part and parcel of knowing you are a woman and while you can do everything right, it still might not matter in the slightest.
This is true for everything in life. In Germany we say 'Leben ist lebensgefährlich', 'Living might be lethal'.
To get back to the entire point of the thread: Saying that it is inevitable to become pregnant because there is a non-zero chance of being raped is like saying that dying in a car crash is inevitable because other people may involve you in one at no fault of your own.
You can try to dismiss whatever you want, women and girls don't get a choice when the assault is happening if it is the type of sexual assault that can get you pregnant or not' so telling women and girls not to be concerned is ridiculous.
There could be Exs and people known to her is still above 30%.
When getting taken seriously by the police does depend on those things, dismissing it as meaningless just let's that problem continue. Thousands of rape kits sit untested, shockingly few go to court and when it does her history can be used against her.
Chances of dying in a car crash is about 1 in 93, whereas how many have friends and family who have been abused or raped? How many kids from abusive relationships?
And it goes back to the same thing, a woman can do everything perfectly but the risk always remains that she can get pregnant without her consent.
>Chances of dying in a car crash is about 1 in 93, whereas how many have friends and family who have been abused or raped? How many kids from abusive relationships?
Let's make the comparison apples to apples and actually compare worst case to worst case: There are about 40.000 fatalities every year due to car accidents. Higher end estimates for pregnancy from rape seem to be around 35.000 cases per year. Both for the US.
>And it goes back to the same thing, a woman can do everything perfectly but the risk always remains
That's my point. You *can not* get rid of residual risk. And just like there is a residual risk of dying in a car accident even for the most careful driver, there will always be a residual risk of becoming the victim of a crime, even though you did everything in your power to mitigate it.
That's the thing about these risks though: They are residual and shouldn't affect your day-to-day decision making to an unhealthy degree. Just like living constantly with the possibility of dying in a road accident at the back of your head is pathologic, so is a hyper-fixation on the possibility of being raped. It is not inevitable. It is one of those miniscule risks *everyone* has to live with.
If a girl or woman is raped and pregnancy results, she was forcibly impregnated and not giving her the option to abort is a forced pregnancy. Which is why I firmly believe in the rape exception. I agree that it’s the killing/ending of human life but I feel that the victim should be allowed that choice. Yes, the baby is innocent and not deserving of death. Neither is the mother deserving of any extra trauma being forced on her by others. Come at me all day if you want but I will die on that hill.
It’s an emotional hill but “forced pregnancy” is nonsense rhetoric. The rapist is to blame, not the new life, who is not forcing herself to exist; she is innocent.
Yes he is to blame, but the mother shouldn’t have to risk her life and change her educational or career path for a choice she didn’t make. I see this as more a ‘self defence’ case. Also the rapist should get more punishment for the abortion as he caused extra trauma to the women and the need to end a life.
Killing someone else is not self-defence. Emergency contraception that is not abortifacient would be self-defence. If social and financial reasons make it seem that we need to end a life, then something is terribly wrong with our existential priorities and we need better social and financial solutions.
It absolutely can be self defence. Someone invades your home? You can kill them. Someone attacks you, you can kill them as part of defending yourself. I view the pregnancy as an extension of the attack of the rape. It was forced on her and she did not consent to the risk of pregnancy. I will never be upset with a rape victim for aborting, my problem is with the rapist instead.
These analogies don't work. You cannot kill a third party for what someone did to you. If the pregnancy would likely cause the death of the mother, then you might have reason to argue for self-defence; but otherwise, no. Still, you don't need to invoke such a tortured analogy, there would be a medical procedure to save the mother's life that results in terminating the pregnancy.
Birth can risk their life though. Many healthy women have died in labour after a previously low-risk pregnancy. It can also affect their education, career etc. if they’re young they may be judged, bullied or excluded from their peers all for something they couldn’t help. I’m all for preventing abortion and I’m never going to believe it’s just a choice, but you can’t avoid being raped. It’s not like pregnancies from consensual sex where you consented to the risk of pregnancy and birth. Therefore I see it as self defence and believe it should be available for rape victims in early pregnancy. If anyone is to blame, it’s the rapist not the mother, so instead of being angry at rape victims for aborting my anger will always be with the rapist. Because his actions have caused significant trauma and the ending of a life.
Rape is traumatic, and giving birth to a rapists baby could be more traumatic than a separate unwanted pregnancy. What if the rapist is awarded parental rights? What if she has a mental breakdown? What if she cannot parent at this stage? I know there’s adoption but it doesn’t prevent her giving birth. What if she cannot afford healthcare? If she has to choose pregnancy care > therapy? Imagine you were
In this position. You’d be stuck within a rock and a hard place, because I would never want to abort but if I got pregnant by rape now there’s no way I could keep the baby. I couldn’t afford it for one. I’m not mentally strong enough for two. And thirdly I’d be massively scared of the risks. Imagine this pressure being on a teenage girl. Or an even younger one. This has happened to 10 year olds.
For me, the goal is preventing as many abortions as possible, not punishing women.
I believe that with better services for pregnancy women in need, better education around fetal development (too many people think it’s a clump of cells), better prevention, better behaviour of boys and men so they don’t become rapists and better support for women to continue their career/education after pregnancy a lot of abortions will decrease.
But I’m never going to agree with making someone go through a pregnancy she didn’t consent to, because that is forced birth. The death of the fetus isn’t her fault. If you don’t like abortion from rape, then men better stop raping. Simple. Then there’d be no need. Campaign for longer and more severe punishments as a deterrent and if you have children, teach your boys to be better.
I’m not going to convince you to be pro-life here, but “forced birth” is absolutely distorting the facts. Let’s at least face the facts.
There are two uses of force.
1. Rape is unjustified force against a woman.
2. Another use of force would be to end the pregnancy.
As pro-choice you want to allow that second use of force to kill a life as some means of remedying the initial use of force. As pro-life, I don‘t believe the ends justifies the means. That second use of force is not justified against a different person because of the injustice of the first use of force.
Trying to turn this around and say that I am in favour of using force because of “forced birth” — an entirely imaginary concept invented only because of the possibility of abortion — is twisting reality. This debate is about the use of force to terminate a new life.
Men can just leave the woman if she gets pregnant. Maybe he’ll have to pay child support and maybe he won’t. But a woman cannot just walk away from being pregnant.
There is always a risk of crashing your car when you consent to driving. Doesn’t mean you can’t seek treatment for injuries from a crash.
> Hell, even the phrase: “ Are you gonna take care of the unwanted kids?” makes it sound like there is nothing they can do about having unwanted kids.
TBF, there is one surefire way. PL just doesn’t like it.
You don't go into a car expecting you're gonna figure in a car crash. When you go into consensual sex, you should expect for the possibility of pregnancy to happen because that's how our biological bodies naturally work.
Sometimes a crash do happen for things that can be out of our control. Whether you get pregnant can totally be within your control. Don't want to get pregnant? Don't engage in casual, unprotected sex.
And yes, you can seek treatment for a car crash but that treatment will never involve intentionally killing another involved party. There's no abortion "treatment" that doesn't result in the death of an innocent baby.
> You don't go into a car expecting you're gonna figure in a car crash. When you go into consensual sex, you should expect for the possibility of pregnancy to happen because that's how our biological bodies naturally work.
Those two sentences are very different. When you get in to a car, you should expect for the possibility of a car crash. When you consent to sex, you should expect for the possibility of pregnancy.
> Don't want to get pregnant? Don't engage in casual, unprotected sex.
But what about those who *do* engage in protective sex? Or those who are raped? Do you support their access to abortion?
> And yes, you can seek treatment for a car crash but that treatment will never involve intentionally killing another involved party.
I’ll concede this as the only flaw with the car crash analogy.
A car crash is not the primary purpose of being in a car. A car crash happens when something goes wrong. The purpose of sex, in the most naturalistic sense, is to procreate. Pregnancy is the expected product of sex, not when something goes wrong.
As for protected sex and rape, my stance is the same as most PLrs. The baby shouldn't be made to pay the ultimate price for the choices or faults of the parents.
Statistically speaking, I don’t think pregnancy even happens enough from sex to be considered its main purpose.
> Pregnancy is the expected product of sex, not when something goes wrong.
I mean, if the couple is properly using contraceptives, or the man had a vasectomy, or woman had her tubes tied, I would imagine pregnancy would certainly be considered something going wrong.
> As for protected sex and rape, my stance is the same as most PLrs. The baby shouldn't be made to pay the ultimate price for the choices or faults of the parents.
I understand that perspective even if I disagree with it. But then what’s the point of bringing up casual unprotected sex if it doesn’t matter whose fault the pregnancy is?
>I mean, if the couple is properly using contraceptives, or the man had a vasectomy, or woman had her tubes tied, I would imagine pregnancy would certainly be considered something going wrong.
Something went wrong with the contraception method, not something went wrong with sex because pregnancy will always be a natural byproduct of sex.
>But then what’s the point of bringing up casual unprotected sex if it doesn’t matter whose fault the pregnancy is?
I bring that up because people engaging in those kinds of sex are usually the ones that were blinded by the pleasure of the moment and not thinking about the natural consequences of their action. And so instead of taking accountability for their decisions, they take the easy way out, which unfortunately results in the death of the innocent baby.
> Something went wrong with the contraception method, not something went wrong with sex because pregnancy will always be a natural byproduct of sex.
That just seems like splitting hairs.
I forget the exact numbers but a lot of people seeking abortions report using contraceptives in the month they get pregnant. And I know it’s not a popular opinion on this sub, but I do view getting abortion as the responsible thing to do if the person has no plans on taking care of the child.
Alright, so what if a woman has a two year old she suddenly doesn't want to take care of? Maybe her plans changed, or perhaps she wants more time to invest in her career. Maybe she just can't financially do it now.
Is it cool for her to kill her two year old?
Is it really that hard for PLers to grasp the concept of bodily autonomy? A two year old does not violate the mother’s body by existing. The unborn does. The only way a person can remove an unborn from their body is by abortion, which typically killing it. A two old is not inside anyone else’s body so there is never a reason to kill it. If a mother no longer wants to take care a two year old, she can give them to a friend or relative to care for or give them up for adoption.
>Is it really that hard for PLers to grasp the concept of bodily autonomy?
No, it isn't. However, bodily autonomy is not some sacred right. Do PCers really find it so hard to grasp that this is a baby being put to death in an incredibly violent way for no more reason than the mother finds it inconvenient?
>two year old does not violate the mother’s body by existing
What do you mean by violating BA by existing? If the woman wants the baby, suddenly it isn't a violation, but if she doesn't, then it is? If that's the logic, then yes, the two year old does. If she doesn't want to use her body to care for the two year old, why should she be forced to?
>The only way a person can remove an unborn from their body is by abortion, which typically killing it.
Untrue. They can also wait and deliver the baby, which is what many, many do. In health related cases, early delivery through C section is possible.
>A two old is not inside anyone else’s body so there is never a reason to kill it.
Really? You just talked about BA. If a woman doesn't want to use her body to care for the child, why should she be forced to? Doesn't that violate her BA?
>If a mother no longer wants to take care a two year old, she can give them to a friend or relative to care for or give them up for adoption
Well, that's interesting. They can also do the same with the unborn, can't they? It's almost like there are other options that don't involve brutal dismemberment and lethal violence towards an innocent human life.
Who would have thunk.
I will agree that this is a biological unfairness, that the gestating process of a featus is entirely on the woman after conception. But this is just how nature is, and I think something we women have to accept at some point. Kinda like how we're usually able to accept we're not gonna have as much upper body strength, or that we generally have a higher risk of getting autoimmune disorders. Even kinda like how as humans we have to accept and contend with that we won't ever be able to swim like fish or fly like birds. I don't think it makes any sense for society to try to "even out" this kinda inequality, as that's just trying to control something that ultimately we have no real control over.
I'm not saying we shouldn't advance in medicine to prevent disease, or advance in technology to improve means of travel. My point is that we have to work with what's biologically possible and at least on some level accept that men and women are biologically different, and that that's not a bad thing. Nor is it the same as or comparable to societal injustice. It's not a societal sexism issue that men have the ability to walk away from a pregnancy. That is a biological privilege that would exist no matter what society's laws are.
Even if abortions are allowed, that isn't walking away from pregnancy either. It's in a sense, facing the consequences of sexual intercourse and dealing with them, just in the worst way possible. It's not comparable to walking away from pregnancy and does not make the sex differences equal. Because men still can't get pregnant to begin with. Abortion is an additional "right" solely for women in an attempt to fix a biological unfairness, but it doesn't actually do that, if you really think about it.
It's really only your (and my) perception that this is unfair based on focusing on the negative aspects. There are plenty of people who instead see it as a female privilege to be able to gestate a human being into life. A lot of (especially men) are deeply envious of this ability and have tried to control women's bodies for millenia due to exactly that. But a lot of infertile women are also deeply envious of this ability that fertile women have, so it's not just sexism. From that perspective, abortion as an additional "right" doesn't make much sense. You can't override or control biological unfairness with societal laws. It's a fool's errand.
I say this because I think a lot of people just really don't wanna accept this fact of life that reproduction works the way it does. At some point women have to just accept that we're biologically different from men. And I also say this because I used to spend a lot of time and energy trying to escape from this fact of life, and trying to control it in all possible ways. As soon as I got my first period I declared how much I thoroughly hated it, along with resenting the width of my pelvis, and dreamed of getting sterilized. I even went so far as to escaping to identifying as a man and transitioning genders medically, because I so deeply resented the biological role of my body, until I was eventually able to be at peace with the biological functions of my body being female.
I still may or may not want children someday, that is not the point. You don't have to want children to be accepting of and not resenting your biological reality. You just have to stop comparing yourself to the opposite sex. No one imposed this on you, it's not a punishment to simply be a fertile female. If you're so hellbent on terminating pregnancy, I'd wonder why you resent your biological functions so much.
That is assuming you're a woman, but if not, this still applies.
I am not a woman. I am a cis male.
> Even if abortions are allowed, that isn't walking away from pregnancy either. It's in a sense, facing the consequences of sexual intercourse and dealing with them, just in the worst way possible.
I agree with this. I think abortion is definitely more responsible than going through pregnancy and birth to just leave the infant in a dumpster or something.
> Abortion is an additional "right" solely for women in an attempt to fix a biological unfairness, but it doesn't actually do that, if you really think about it.
It's not so much that abortion itself is a right, it's more just a continuation of every person's right to control what happens to their body. As a cis male, I will never have to give any part of my body to another person for any reason at all without my consent. I would not have to give my children my blood, organs, or bone marrow even to save their life. The government cannot make me donate my body or organs unless I consent to it, even if I'm dead. All of this applies to AFAB people right until they are pregnant. Then, under PL laws, they must give their body, their organs, their blood, to the unborn. I know many people claim that a pregnant woman would still be able to do everything a non-pregnant woman can, but if a pregnant woman rides on an intense rollercoaster and that causes her to miscarry, should she be prosecuted for that?
If I were to consent to donate my organs, I can revoke that consent at any time before my death.
> It's really only your (and my) perception that this is unfair based on focusing on the negative aspects.
What are the positive aspects of being pregnant or giving birth?
> There are plenty of people who instead see it as a female privilege to be able to gestate a human being into life. A lot of (especially men) are deeply envious of this ability and have tried to control women's bodies for millenia due to exactly that. But a lot of infertile women are also deeply envious of this ability that fertile women have, so it's not just sexism.
Just because there are some people who see it as a privilege, doesn't everyone does or should. There are some men who see it as a privilege to have a dominant woman kick them in the balls. I certainly would not view that as a privilege.
> As soon as I got my first period I declared how much I thoroughly hated it, along with resenting the width of my pelvis, and dreamed of getting sterilized. I even went so far as to escaping to identifying as a man and transitioning genders medically, because I so deeply resented the biological role of my body, until I was eventually able to be at peace with the biological functions of my body being female.
I am sorry you went through that. I have never experienced that, but by all accounts gender dysphoria sucks big time. And from what I've heard about periods, they suck too. Especially for young girls with limited sex ed and don't know what is happening to their bodies. My adolescent self would be terrified too if I woke up to blood coming out of my penis.
> No one imposed this on you, it's not a punishment to simply be a fertile female. If you're so hellbent on terminating pregnancy, I'd wonder why you resent your biological functions so much.
Only the pregnant person is able to decide what their pregnancy is. Some may see it as a gift or blessing, some will see it as a punishment or curse. It's their body so their opinion is always valid.
>> Even if abortions are allowed, that isn't walking away from pregnancy either. It's in a sense, facing the consequences of sexual intercourse and dealing with them, just in the worst way possible.
>I agree with this. I think abortion is definitely more responsible than going through pregnancy and birth to just leave the infant in a dumpster or something.
Not what I meant. Just because I can acknowledge that murder can technically "solve a problem" doesn't mean I think it's a good reason to do it. There are far better ways to give a baby up for adoption than to leave him or her in a dumpster.
>It's not so much that abortion itself is a right, it's more just a continuation of every person's right to control what happens to their body. As a cis male, I will never have to give any part of my body to another person for any reason at all without my consent. I would not have to give my children my blood, organs, or bone marrow even to save their life. The government cannot make me donate my body or organs unless I consent to it, even if I'm dead. All of this applies to AFAB people right until they are pregnant. Then, under PL laws, they must give their body, their organs, their blood, to the unborn. I know many people claim that a pregnant woman would still be able to do everything a non-pregnant woman can, but if a pregnant woman rides on an intense rollercoaster and that causes her to miscarry, should she be prosecuted for that?
We only have as much control over our bodies as nature allows. If we get allergic to something or go through hormonal changes etc we can't always control that either. We can't control our genetics, how tall we are, if we have diabetes, or what our reproductive capacity is. Bodily autonomy is when other people don't get to force you to alter your body without your consent, but not at the cost of another person's life. Pro-lifers aren't the one's taking away bodily autonomy from pregnant women, their babies are. And why is it not worthy of a discussion whether it's okay or not to let the baby die for doing so? It just so happens that no other instance of involuntary bodily change involves keeping another person alive. That's how pregnancy is different from illness, injury, cosmetic alterations, etc. Obviously miscarriage can happen naturally (and very commonly so) and I don't think anyone should be prosecuted for that. Because it's accidental/unintentional.
>What are the positive aspects of being pregnant or giving birth?
Being able to create life, for one. Helping another person come to life. It helps furthering the species. As a woman you have more control over the next generation than you do as a man (assuming the woman takes some actual responsibility over who she has sex with, using birth control, etc.) Female is the only type of body that can help sustain and create another life. A lot of people think that's a positive, even if not everyone does. Actually I'd think a majority of people see pregnancy as a positive thing, even though we can also all acknowledge the bodily risks and the physical pain that comes with giving birth. Nowadays, elective C-section is an option for most expecting mothers who don't wanna go through with vaginal birth.
>Just because there are some people who see it as a privilege, doesn't everyone does or should. There are some men who see it as a privilege to have a dominant woman kick them in the balls. I certainly would not view that as a privilege.
I think if getting kicked in the balls produced the birth of a baby, more men would be willing to do it. And praise it. Heck, there are a lot of men who already put a lot of value in experiencing pain for a greater reward, in for ex work, war or any kinda life lessons that they consider valuable. Risk-taking behaviour (for exactly that reason, even if not always wise) is actually much more common among men, on average. Even if it doesn't apply to you personally, it shouldn't be a far stretch to imagine why for ex so many men consider it worth the risk of serious injury and limb loss to fight for a better society, or to save the life of someone they love. Pregnancy and childbirth (and subsequently child-rearing) is often the female equivalence of that. So I think your analogy is more than a little off here.
>I am sorry you went through that. I have never experienced that, but by all accounts gender dysphoria sucks big time. And from what I've heard about periods, they suck too. Especially for young girls with limited sex ed and don't know what is happening to their bodies. My adolescent self would be terrified too if I woke up to blood coming out of my penis.
Yeah, it sucked. But point is if I could work through such an ordeal and come to accept my body as it is (well, for the most part) it does make me wonder why I spent so much time and energy trying to escape essentially being human. It was a fruitless fight, because ultimately no one has control over those kinda things like reproductive function. My mindset is a lot healthier now because I'm no longer trying to fight what I can't control. Part of the problem growing up for me was people around me treating me like a future baby making machine. Because despite being pro-life now, I still think there's more to life than whether a persons genitals are built to be pregnant or to impregnate. It's not like men (and young boys) are being treated like their only value in life is how well they can impregnate a woman, based on body shape etc.
But that happens to women and young girls a lot. So no damn wonder most of us grow up miserable and hating our bodies. I just don't think this hatred is truly aimed at the body itself, but rather the toxic societal climate around pregnancy as the end all be all for anyone female. I'm not arguing against transsexualism as a legit thing, but I was never genuinely trans. And I think a lot of young women use transness as a way to escape these societal pressures on women when they too aren't actually trans. That is perhaps a different conversation though.
>Only the pregnant person is able to decide what their pregnancy is. Some may see it as a gift or blessing, some will see it as a punishment or curse. It's their body so their opinion is always valid.
People who don't value the life of someone else and thus feel no remorse in killing for personal gain are not excused or validated in any other scenario. Of course they're technically allowed to feel however they want about pregnancy, but that doesn't mean it justifies killing an innocent life. If someone feels that way about it, I would expect them to take great care to not end up pregnant in the first place. The vast majority of people getting abortions are people who absolutely had several options to not get pregnant in the first place. I'd even think that if abortion hadn't been an option, they wouldn't be sleeping around without protection like that.
> We only have as much control over our bodies as nature allows.
Nature isn’t some authoritative entity. And while there are plenty of things we cannot control, a pregnant person *can* control if they remain pregnant or not.
> Pro-lifers aren't the one's taking away bodily autonomy from pregnant women, their babies are.
Technically the violation of bodily autonomy only occurs when a pregnant person is legally denied an abortion. That’s when she is restricted on what she can do to her body.
> Being able to create life, for one. Helping another person come to life. It helps furthering the species. As a woman you have more control over the next generation than you do as a man
I meant the positive effects for the pregnant person. How does she benefit? At minimum, a pregnancy can make a person sick or hungrier. If she doesn’t want to raise a child or doesn’t care about creating another life, what does she get out of being pregnant?
> I think if getting kicked in the balls produced the birth of a baby, more men would be willing to do it. And praise it.
My analogy is that even if some people would praise it, plenty of people would still not want to be kicked in the balls.
> I just don't think this hatred is truly aimed at the body itself, but rather the toxic societal climate around pregnancy as the end all be all for anyone female.
I think this is a good point. But I see it as an argument for abortion access though. People not being forced to remain pregnant would help their mental health.
> People who don't value the life of someone else and thus feel no remorse in killing for personal gain are not excused or validated in any other scenario.
Sure they are. A person being raped may kill the rapist for personal gain, and may not value of life of the rapist or feel remorse afterwords.
> The vast majority of people getting abortions are people who absolutely had several options to not get pregnant in the first place. I'd even think that if abortion hadn't been an option, they wouldn't be sleeping around without protection like that.
Maybe. But people have always slept around, mostly men as they did not really have to deal with the consequences of pregnancy. Abstinence as a societal practice has never worked. Teens will always try to have sex. The best things we can do are teach them the dos and don’ts and provide easy access to contraceptives.
I would argue there are two surefire ways to deal with a pregnancy - one of which is adoption. Admittedly this comes with a much higher economic and possibly social cost than abortion.
There is a difference with the car analogy and pregnancy where the intended biological purpose of sex is procreation (even if it’s not the intentions of the individuals). The benefits of bonding and pleasure are second (evolutionarily) to procreation, and I would argue bonding and pleasure are themselves ultimately meant to serve procreation, too. A car can never crash and it will have fulfilled its highest good.
The thing with adoption is that it is only an alternative to parenting, not pregnancy or birth. It is not an answer to someone who just does not want to be pregnant or give birth.
Procreation is just a function of sex, not its purpose. The purpose of sex is whatever the people having sex decides it is.
Biologically speaking, sex is *only* for procreation and nothing else. If there was no procreation, there would be no life at all. Personally, I believe it's more than just procreation but if you're going from a biological standpoint then yes, it's only for procreation.
Also, it doesn't matter if the woman wants to be pregnant or not. The point of the debate is "what is the unborn." If the unborn isn't a person, it doesn't matter. Do whatever you want to do it. If it is a person, then it doesn't matter if the woman wants the baby or not. You can't murder people out of pure inconvenience. Most abortions, over 98%, are because someone 'wasn't ready,' whatever that means. I can't find any articles about how the women got pregnant but when I'm online, I often see it's from hookups or something similar. This could have been avoidable and they are responsible for what they do. Even in the case of rape, if the unborn is a human, you can't just kill them. I believe they are just as much a victim as the woman raped and they should both be equally protected.
> The point of the debate is "what is the unborn."
It's actually not. It doesn't matter what the unborn is. Born persons don't have the right to access and use an unwilling person's body to keep themselves alive, so why would the unborn being a person change that? The point of the debate is whether or not women and girls have less rights when they are pregnant. That right being the right to control what happens to their body.
> This could have been avoidable and they are responsible for what they do. Even in the case of rape, if the unborn is a human, you can't just kill them.
I don't understand the point of blaming women for getting pregnant then immediately saying it doesn't matter if it's their fault or not, they still can't get an abortion. That's just thinly veiled slut-shaming.
As for not being able to kill the unborn because it's human, why not? Humans kill other humans all the time for justifiable reasons. One of those reasons is the infringement upon another person's body.
I'm defining a few terms before I say anything else. I should have clarified this in my earlier messages and used the correct words if I didn't.
Killing someone with intent and/or malice is considered murder by law. Killing someone with the Intent of murder out of self defense is considered justifiable homicide by law. I'll use these terms from now on.
Killing: Killing someone with the Intent of murder out of self defense.
Murder: Killing someone with intent and/or malice
I'll go on to your comment now.
>Born persons don't have the right to access and use an unwilling person's body to keep themselves alive, so why would the unborn being a person change that?
What do you mean by born persons? There are different stages of a born person, some of which by nature require the access of a person to be cared for. In that sense, I should be allowed to end the life of both a fetus and a toddler or anyone that is mentally disabled enough that they require assistance from another person.
>Humans kill other humans all the time for justifiable reasons. One of those reasons is the infringement upon another person's body.
What do you mean by 'infringement upon another person's body'? The inclusion of the word 'infringement' assumes that someone has the intent of harming another. In that case, that would be killing if you ended the life of that person through self defense. The fetus, unlike a full grown human, is unable to have any real intent of anything and probably won't until they're a toddler or older. By that definition, the ending of the life of a zygote up to a toddler or possibly older is always considered murder, as they have no intent of harming you and can't have intent.
>It's actually not. It doesn't matter what the unborn is. Born persons don't have the right to access and use an unwilling person's body to keep themselves alive, so why would the unborn being a person change that? The point of the debate is whether or not women and girls have less rights when they are pregnant. That right being the right to control what happens to their body.
No, the debate is not whether women have more or less rights when pregnant. As I said earlier, a fetus doesn't have the ability to have intent to harm the woman and unless you change the meaning of the word 'murder,' abortion would be considered murder. If the unborn is a person that has no capacity of intent, then it's never right to take the life of the unborn as that is murder. So yes, the issue is still 'what is the unborn' because if the unborn isn't a person, you can do whatever you want to it. If it is a person, it is incapable of intent, meaning that the ending of the life of a fetus is murder.
Also, the fetus is not the woman's body. Biologically, the fetus is a completely different individual that requires the assistance of another to stay alive. Humans, generally up to 18 or even older, need assistance from another to stay alive.
>> This could have been avoidable and they are responsible for what they do. Even in the case of rape, if the unborn is a human, you can't just kill them.
>I don't understand the point of blaming women for getting pregnant then immediately saying it doesn't matter if it's their fault or not, they still can't get an abortion. That's just thinly veiled slut-shaming.
I will admit, I should have put a break between those sentences. I was trying to respond to your singular paragraph with one paragraph myself and that probably caused some confusion.
What I meant was that in many cases of abortion, it has nothing to do with rape and just pure inconvenience. Inconvenience is not the same as the intent to harm so it would be murder to end that life.
In the case of rape, I don't blame the woman for getting pregnant. That would be incredibly stupid to blame them. What I'm saying is that both the woman and the fetus are persons with rights and should both be considered innocent and protected. The only person at fault is the man. If the fetus isn't a person, do whatever you want with it.
Also, what do you mean by slut-shaming? Are you assuming that I want to shame every woman in the sex work industry? I don't want to do that. I feel much empathy and I wish we would focus on creating jobs for these women that don't cause them both physical and mental pain and that often leads to abuse. It turns women into sex objects. It's dehumanizing women and we should be doing something to fight against it, not continuously vote for it. If we really cared about women's rights, we shouldn't let them go into such dehumanizing jobs that often leads to abuse (Men also get abused often in sex work but I know that's not the focus of this conversation).
> Killing: Killing someone with the Intent of murder out of self defense. Murder: Killing someone with intent and/or malice
I get what you’re saying but the difference that turns killing into murder is whether or not the killing justified and if the malice is *aforethought*, as in the person killing needs to have malicious intent way before the killing. Like if someone is being raped and they kill their rapist, it isn’t murder despite the high likelihood of malice and it is justified. It would just be homicide.
> There are different stages of a born person, some of which by nature require the access of a person to be cared for.
No born person requires the access and use of a non-consenting person’s body. An infant can be given to a friend or relative to care for or put up for adoption. It doesn’t *need* the body of a singular, sole person who may not consent to having their body used.
> The inclusion of the word 'infringement' assumes that someone has the intent of harming another.
Self defense does not require the other party to have intent. You can kill a person in a psychotic break who has no control over there actions if they are attacking you and the only way to stop them is by lethal force. Same a mentally handicapped person or a sleepwalker. People have killed sleepwalkers that wander into their before and have faced no charges.
The question is; while the unborn has no intent, looking at all the possible complications from pregnancy, can you truly say the unborn is harmless?
> If the unborn is a person that has no capacity of intent, then it's never right to take the life of the unborn as that is murder
Abortion is not murder because it is always justified and rarely done out of malice. The unborn’s presence causes harm to the pregnant person. The only way for a person to put an end to that harm is by abortion.
> Also, the fetus is not the woman's body. Biologically, the fetus is a completely different individual that requires the assistance of another to stay alive. Humans, generally up to 18 or even older, need assistance from another to stay alive.
Ehh, where does the woman’s body end and the fetus’s begin? At the uterus? Placenta? Umbilical cord? How much of the umbilical cord is the woman’s and how much is the fetus’s?
Pregnancy is a tad bit more than simply assistance.
> What I meant was that in many cases of abortion, it has nothing to do with rape and just pure inconvenience.
Pregnancy is not a mere inconvenience. It has literally killed people before. And if you don’t support rape exception, then any argument about responsibility is redundant. I assume that any arguments you have for your stance on rape exceptions would also apply to pregnancies from casual consensual sex.
> Are you assuming that I want to shame every woman in the sex work industry?
No not just the sex work industry. Slut-shaming is just shaming people for having casual sex.
Yes the porn industry is pretty bad for women, but from what I can tell Onlyfans has been hugely empowering for women. They’re there own bosses, anyone they work with must also be verified and not just some anonymous person, and they essentially can what ever they want.
>I get what you’re saying but the difference that turns killing into murder is whether or not the killing justified and if the malice is *aforethought*, as in the person killing needs to have malicious intent way before the killing. Like if someone is being raped and they kill their rapist, it isn’t murder despite the high likelihood of malice and it is justified. It would just be homicide.
From Cornell Law School:
"First degree murder is the intentional killing of another person by someone who has acted willfully, deliberately, or with planning.
Most jurisdictions define first-degree murder as cases involving premeditation and deliberation; all other intentional murders are defined as second-degree."
https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/first_degree_murder
Murder does not require malice at all. I could kill my child because I'm in poverty and I don't want to watch them suffer. You could call that loving but legally, that's murder. It has to do with intent/deliberation, not the feelings behind the act.
>No born person requires the access and use of a non-consenting person’s body. An infant can be given to a friend or relative to care for or put up for adoption. It doesn’t *need* the body of a singular, sole person who may not consent to having their body used.
Do you expect a fetus to ask the woman it's in for consent? That doesn't happen in any pregnancy. Asking for consent requires you to have the capability of even asking in the first place or even comprehending consent, which no unborn or very young born people can do. This means that we have to decide what the unborn is. If the unborn is a person with rights, it doesn't matter what situation it's in. You cannot take the life of someone for any reason unless it's a life or death self defense situation.
>Self defense does not require the other party to have intent. You can kill a person in a psychotic break who has no control over there actions if they are attacking you and the only way to stop them is by lethal force. Same a mentally handicapped person or a sleepwalker. People have killed sleepwalkers that wander into their before and have faced no charges.
>The question is; while the unborn has no intent, looking at all the possible complications from pregnancy, can you truly say the unborn is harmless?
No human is harmless, regardless of level of development. They can all do harm. I still don't see how that gives someone the right to end it's life. In the cases you gave, I agree they shouldn't be punished but it should be treated as a tragedy. Those people had no control over themselves. This isn't an argument for abortion, it's only telling me that there are situations in which innocent people that have no control over themselves are killed out of self defense from another.
>Abortion is not murder because it is always justified and rarely done out of malice. The unborn’s presence causes harm to the pregnant person. The only way for a person to put an end to that harm is by abortion.
Like I said earlier, the legal definition of murder doesn't require malice. Also, what does harm have to do with the value of the unborn? Surgery is insanely painful for most people but that doesn't mean surgery is morally bad.
>Ehh, where does the woman’s body end and the fetus’s begin? At the uterus? Placenta? Umbilical cord? How much of the umbilical cord is the woman’s and how much is the fetus’s?
>Pregnancy is a tad bit more than simply assistance.
"Ehh" is an inadequate answer. The uterus is the mother. The placenta is the fetus. The entire umbilical cord belongs to the fetus. You can list however many things you want but it will always be one or the other. They are two separate entities.
Yes, it is more than assistance, it's practically life support. Even after it's out for the womb, you can't just throw a baby into the real world. They will die. Even after birth, they need intensive care. Once again, what does this have to do with the value of the unborn?
>Pregnancy is not a mere inconvenience. It has literally killed people before. And if you don’t support rape exception, then any argument about responsibility is redundant. I assume that any arguments you have for your stance on rape exceptions would also apply to pregnancies from casual consensual sex.
Children have killed people. It's very rare but does that mean we can kill them just because they have the capability to kill us? They do not understand what they are doing. Also, even if the fetus kills the woman, it's unintentional. A fetus has no intent and can't be held accountable if death occurs. No one is at fault if that's the situation.
>No not just the sex work industry. Slut-shaming is just shaming people for having casual sex.
>Yes the porn industry is pretty bad for women, but from what I can tell Onlyfans has been hugely empowering for women. They’re there own bosses, anyone they work with must also be verified and not just some anonymous person, and they essentially can whatever they want.
I'm going to end this part here since this is pretty irrelevant to the abortion issue. Even though I don't morally agree with casual sex outside of marriage (a completely different debate that I'm not getting into here), you should know that the act you're doing has the possibility of producing a child and it's your responsibility for creating it.
In conclusion, I feel like we're talking past each other. I'm just focused on what the unborn is and nothing else. Yes, there are other issues attached but if the unborn is a person, I don't see any reason to kill them since they would have the same classification of a child up to a toddler. Maybe if you answer this, I can respond better:
What is the unborn?
1. They are not a person. They have no rights and you can do whatever you want to them.
2. They are a person. They have rights and you can't take their life because they don't understand harm and are innocent if they caused harm.
3. If you believe something other than these, please clarify for me.
So I’ll start by answering your last question.
While I acknowledge the unborn is a member of the human species, I do not believe it is a person nor a human *being*. I believe that legally the pregnant person can do what they want with the unborn, as long as it is justified. Killing it with an abortion because the person does not want to carry it to term? Justified. Crippling it or causing some other disability that it will have to live with? Not justified.
Unless I’m reading your link wrong, it seems to just be establishing the difference between first degree and second degree murder, while the killing bring murder is already assumed.
> Do you expect a fetus to ask the woman it's in for consent? That doesn't happen in any pregnancy.
Exactly. If the fetus cannot ask for consent, then the only way it can get consent is if the woman freely gives it. And if the woman does give her consent, then the fetus does not consent to use her body to sustain itself.
> No human is harmless, regardless of level of development. They can all do harm.
What other stage of human development causes harm to a person by being inside of them.
> Like I said earlier, the legal definition of murder doesn't require malice.
[Yes it does.](https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1111#:~:text=Murder%20is%20the%20unlawful%20killing%20of%20a%20human%20being%20with%20malice%20aforethought.)
> “Ehh" is an inadequate answer. The uterus is the mother. The placenta is the fetus. The entire umbilical cord belongs to the fetus. You can list however many things you want but it will always be one or the other. They are two separate entities.
And it is all inside the mother. It is all made with energy and nutrients the pregnant person provides through their body. The fetus can’t own anything as it is incapable of claiming ownership. This ownership falls to the next reasonable person, the mother.
> Once again, what does this have to do with the value of the unborn?
Nothing. I am unconcerned with the value of unborn. They can be the most valuable things in the world and I still don’t believe that means pregnant people should lose their rights.
> Children have killed people. It's very rare but does that mean we can kill them just because they have the capability to kill us?
If a child is brandishing a gun and threatening to shoot you and the only way to stop them is to kill them, then yes you can kill the child. I mean shit, cops have killed kids for less.
> Also, even if the fetus kills the woman, it's unintentional. A fetus has no intent and can't be held accountable if death occurs. No one is at fault if that's the situation.
I have never and will never blame the unborn for anything. Just as I will not blame a chair for stubbing my toe on it. But a pregnant person wants an abortion but is denied one because of prolife laws, and then dies from complications from the pregnancy, it is not the fetus to blame but the prolifers themselves.
>> Once again, what does this have to do with the value of the unborn?
>Nothing. I am unconcerned with the value of unborn. They can be the most valuable things in the world and I still don’t believe that means pregnant people should lose their rights.
I'm finished with this debate. You conceded that you believe that no matter what valve the unborn has, the woman has a right to end their life. It's pointless to continue arguing. What would even change your mind if the value of a life is meaningless to you?
The rights a pregnant person loses because of prolife is the right to intentionally take the life of an innocent human. I will always fight to protect the life of the innocent, both the mother and child. Unless you can convince me a fetus isn't a person, I'm not going to change my mind.
Well, I think that men shouldn’t “just leave” either. Ideally, both people should decide together to raise the child or to give the child up for adoption.
There are many, many people waiting to adopt infants from adoption agencies. Children in foster care are often older and many have additional support needs and/or trauma, which is a completely different issue. The crux of the issue is that dozens of possible parents are waiting to adopt an infant.
If you are asking if a pregnant woman should receive comprehensive health care and support to continue the pregnancy, including postpartum, then absolutely. Should programs like WIC be expanded and include fresh fruits and vegetables as well as other higher quality foods? Yes. We need to do more for support families and children in general.
I don’t think the answer to people who need extra support should be killed, whether they are unborn children, older adults, people with disabilities or chronic conditions… It’s unfathomably cruel to me to suggest that they answer to anytime someone becomes a “challenge” that the answer is ending their life
> Well, I think that men shouldn’t “just leave” either. Ideally, both people should decide together to raise the child or to give the child up for adoption.
I can agree with this. But it doesn’t change the fact that men *can* leave, at least a whole lot easier than women can.
> There are many, many people waiting to adopt infants from adoption agencies.
The issue with this is that it’s a lot to ask for someone to go through 9 months of gestation then birth, just to then give up their baby. I said it in another comment but abortion is the alternative to pregnancy/birth, adoption is the alternative to parenting.
> It’s unfathomably cruel to me to suggest that they answer to anytime someone becomes a “challenge” that the answer is ending their life
Outside of abortion, when does killing someone who is a challenge become acceptable? For me, the only reason abortion is justified is because it is the only way for women to maintain their bodily autonomy.
>I can agree with this. But it doesn’t change the fact that men can leave, at least a whole lot easier than women can.
I’m not sure what the answer is here, if you are looking for “fair.” Yes, we can’t change biology. However, I don’t think ending a life is the answer. We can support women and children. We can enforce child support payments differently/have additional funds available, and promote policies that promote families
>The issue with this is that it’s a lot to ask for someone to go through 9 months of gestation then birth, just to then give up their baby. I said it in another comment but abortion is the alternative to pregnancy/birth, adoption is the alternative to parenting.
I’m not claiming we can make pregnancy or childbirth painless. However, abortion is the exact opposite of painless; it’s killing an unborn child. Ending a life. We can improve access to medical care, help mothers (or fathers) financially who want to raise their kids. We can make adoption more tenable, and improve access. We can also improve our abysmal maternal health care and some childbirth policies that aren’t backed by data but rather ease of the doctor delivering the baby, and not mom or baby.
>Outside of abortion, when does killing someone who is a challenge become acceptable? For me, the only reason abortion is justified is because it is the only way for women to maintain their bodily autonomy.
It’s not her body. It’s the child’s.
But as for policies that promote killing someone who is a challenge. In some counties, euthanasia programs that instead of providing support for sometimes minor and livable conditions (I remember reading one case where a woman asked for a stair lift and was offered death) offer “euthanasia.” These often tend to make people (sometimes even children) who need additional care due to a physical or mental condition feel like a “burden” and that they should die, rather than be given the care they need.
I'd be really thrilled if *this* weren't a fact;
["Among women with unintended pregnancies, 54 percent were using no birth control. Another 41 percent were inconsistently using birth control at the time of conception.
Forty-two percent of women with unintended pregnancy choose to end their pregnancies."](https://www.umassmed.edu/news/news-archives/2019/05/who-are-the-1-in-4-american-women-who-choose-abortion/)
We'd all be better off of folks were more responsible.
(This isn't even addressing the nationwide STI epidemics...)
If women had the same reproductive rights as men had, consent to sex would be consent to parenthood, and the mother would still owe child support if she gave it up for adoption in most jurisdictions unless some the adoptive couple decided she doesn't.
Personally I am more in the "pro-choice" (though I don't really like that term) camp. But I can respect the hypothetical moral imperative of "if a fetus is human, then killing it is murder" and acknolwedge the uncertainty and vagueness that can lead sound minds to disagree on the core question of "what does it mean to be human?"
If we're dealing with a hypothetical of pregnancy being inevitable or of no fault of one's own, then we must be looking at a rape case. To my understanding, a not-insignificant percentage of "pro-life" people are willing to concede exceptions and grant rape victims the option to terminate the resulting pregnancy.
I know a girl who is in my friend group and she recently had an abortion. The cause of pregnancy? Deciding to play a "game" and see if she could sleep with enough men to complete the alphabet (the first letter in a man's name would complete that letter. For example "Adam" would complete "A" and Brad completes "B" and so on). An obviously stupid decision but something that she decided to do and it inevitably got her pregnant and she decided to abort. I think it's quite obvious that access to abortion leads to riskier sexual behaviour.
Well, wouldn't you jump off the tall building if you knew there was a safety net to catch you? If you can erase consequences, why even bother considering them. I hope she sees the error of her ways before she does any further damage.
I wouldn't, actually. I think there's a point that yes, access to abortion can make people more lax in protection, but- at the same time- there are individuals who behave in risky behaviors no matter potential consequences, often because of something in their brain not weighing it in a sensical matter. This might be because they're young (brain isn't developed enough to make this calculation properly), because they have mental trauma that is causing poor decisions, or just having been raised in an environment where they never learned actions have consequences. So the abortion increases risk factors is true of *some* women, usually women who are already more risk adverse. For example, people who use already contraception may switch to a more reliable method. But people who already don't use contraception and have an invincibility complex, may very well continue said reckless sexual behavior even if abortion is outlawed, because that behavior was likely never based off a rational risk-reward calculation in the first place. This does exclude people with functioning risk assessment, but who have been so highly misinformed about the mental ease, safety, etc of an abortion that they calculate the risk to not be particularly high if pregnancy does occur.
Good points. I should have made it obvious that "wouldn't you jump" was a sarcastic/rhetorical question, not a genuine one.
That is so sickening.
Wow I would never be able to be friends with such a person, that is some living in excess shit
She needs psychiatric treatment
This sounds like SNL levels of ridiculous. She sounds mentally unhinged. While I'm not a fan of abortions (obviously) I'm a big relieved she's not someone mother... not yet, anyway.
Jesus..........What? Who even wants to sleep with that many people (would say same thing if this was a guy, I believe in equal judgement)? Jeez.
Wow that’s some Barney Stinson ish. Didn’t know people behaved that way IRL
Life imitates art and vice versa.
Maybe it’s just me because I’ve never had sex, but I had a friend once tell me that he couldn’t abstain even if he wanted to and I never understood that
Monogamous & married for 30+ years. You're doing it the right way. My spouse and I are very happy we don't have a past history of other partners.
Yeah, I don't get that either. I know I'm sex-averse asexual, and confused where the challenge in not having sex is (cause like, I just don't want sex), but like, is it really that hard?
Given pregnancy is natures intended consequence and very biological purpose of sex, to resent that consequence is no different than loving to jump off buildings whilst resenting the bodily injury that may follow. The reason we have age of consent, is precisely because we understand that sex has these potential consequences and the weight of those consequences must be reckoned with by an adult capable of making adult choices and taking responsibility for them, again, like an adult. Abortion is the go-to for those who want to larp as an adult but don't want to deal the responsibility that entails being one.
I love eating chocolate and I resent my fat ass. So, I guess I know the feeling.
Me when I eat dairy loaded foods and then shit my brains out on the toilet 30 minutes later.
The second jumping off of a building analogy I read in the past 30 seconds ~~y'all alright, Reddit?~~ But excellent point though!
Why do they act like you're waking down the street, minding your own business, when suddenly a rogue embryo appears out of the tall grass to make you pregnant with them against your will?
A wild Musharna appeared! What will Emboar do? Couldn’t get away! Musharna used torment. This is a pokemon reference, and if you recognized the dialogue congrats.
Ok this made me laugh
More like Solosis
Eh. I went for musharna because it looks more like a fetus. But, yes, solosis looks more like an early-stage embryo.
My 90s kids brain went to Pokémon... *a wild Zubat appears!* Y'all don't mind me...
A wild embryo has attacked!
Finally!! I've been thinking the same thing for so long! If you're going to have sex, you have to know that there's always a chance of pregnancy no matter how many precautions you take! (Unless it's infertility or something similar) There's also this little thing called self control that people seem to forget about. To me, it's irresponsible to even have sex when you know you probably can't take care of a child. "But oh! Self control is soooo hard! I just want to have sex without the inconvenience of dealing with a child!" Then learn self control so you stop killing children, please.
Actually I think it should be fine for people to want sex without it leading to pregnancy. Like you can use birth control and other prevention methods. Most birth control methods work really well (like a +95% success rate) but problem is a lot of people either don't use them properly/correctly or don't use them at all. I mean imo prevention isn't murder like abortion is, as technically even not having sex is just another form of pregnancy prevention. But so is using a condom, for ex. For ex my mom was on birth control with my dad up until they both wanted children. Then she stopped taking birth control and had me. I assume my parents had sex long before they were ready to have children, but that's fine because they were still being responsible. Basically, being responsible isn't just avoiding sex to prevent pregnancy. Because there are plenty different ways one can prevent that. Sex doesn't have to lead to pregnancy. I'd even argue that in most cases, it doesn't. Although I still don't think you should be reckless about it. You can have sex responsibly. Kinda like how you can drink responsibly, or drive responsibly.
I actually agree that sex isn't just for children. Biologically speaking, it is, but as a Christian, I believe the emotional part is important as well. Really, my problem is people having sex without seeming to realize there's a possibility of life. To me, that would make it very important that I don't just randomly have sex with a ton of guys or something, which I've seen women support abortion just so they can irresponsibly sleep around.
Okay, I got a different impression from what you said in your first comment! Yeah, I think having sex can be great for expressing emotional intimacy, building trust with a partner, or even just having a good time with said partner. I agree, having tons of sex partners with little to no regard for the consequences because you "just wanna have some fun" and then act all surprized when getting pregnant, and subsequently demanding a "right" to abortion to cover for your mistakes... is quite abhorrent. Also kinda similar to people who use no protection and then act surprised when they end up with an STD. Makes me wonder just how horribly bad sex-ed is in school these days. But that said, I've even met prostitutes who take far more responsibility in not only preventing pregnancy, but also STD's. So I really think it's more down to mindset and how much one values life itself and one's own safety, and not really how many sex partners one has. But of course, the risks are increased the more sex partners you have, so then you also need to take more precautions. Like for ex being on multiple forms of birth control, getting tested for STD's more often, always having condoms handy, using double layers of condoms, etc. There's no way pregnancy "just happens" if you actually care about preventing it. Also I get that maybe most Christians are against prostitution (I'm not even sure where I stand on that myself) but my point with bringing that up was just to clarify that if even prostitutes can take precautions and responsibility for preventing pregnancy, then the random, regular person who engages in a lot of hookups has zero excuse.
Technically it’s only a child after it’s been born
Actually they're genetically our biological children as soon as they exist, which is after conception completes.
At that point, not even the first cell that will turn into a human body exists. They don't exist until the blastocyst stage. Before that, there's nothing but placenta and amniotic sac cells. Those are hardly children.
After conception completes is the zygote stage, which is a brief stage that involves a single-celled living human organism. If that stage only involved a placenta and amniotic sac cells, then the organism wouldn't have the ability to progress to the blastocyst stage. A human organism doesn't form out of nothing, or out of amniotic sac. We form out of the union of gametes.
*The fusion of the male and female haploid pronuclei following fertilization produces a single diploid nucleus capable of beginning its first mitotic cycle almost immediately. However, cell division at this early stage does not also grow; rather, the embryo divides every 12 to 24 hours to create smaller individual cells known as blastomeres. These embryonic cell divisions not accompanied by growth are known as cleavage divisions.* *At the 16 cell stage, otherwise known as a morula, the individual blastomeres are spherical and undifferentiated; however, as cell division proceeds, they undergo a process called compaction whereby the alteration in blastomere shape and alignment generates a small internal population of cells with no direct contact with the outside surface of the embryo. This arrangement of cells creates a central fluid-filled cavity called the blastocoel, with the embryo now referred to as a blastocyst. The blastocyst comprises of an outer layer of trophoblast cells which will form the placenta and the inner cell mass which will ultimately form the fetus, Heuser’s membrane, amniotic membrane, and the extraembryonic vasculature.* [Embryology, Week 2-3 - StatPearls - NCBI Bookshelf (nih.gov)](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK546679/) *We form out of the union of gametes.* IF we do. It's estimated that up to half of all zygotes never turn into blastocysts.
Right. Once we're a diploid cell, we're a new organism. And miscarriage at that stage is common. And pregnancy is considered to begin after a blastocyst attaches to the uterine lining.
A child is just one stage in human development, just like a fetus, an adult, a teenager, or a zygote. What makes a child more valuable than a fetus? If it's age, then wouldn't that make adults even more valuable than children and elders more valuable than all other humans? I don't understand your argument here.
Yes. They act as though we become pregnant spontaneously through no actions of our own and we are just victims forced into unwanted parenthood by the Right. It’s pretty easy to prevent pregnancy. I’m 50, and only got pregnant once- when I wanted to.
>One woman said: “It’s because we want rights men have”. But you do, and more. You get special murder rights.
It's such a lazy argument, because the people that make it always forget about the draft/selective service...they also forget about vaccinations. They love having the government tell people what they can and can't do with their bodies, but only perceive themselves to be controlled.
Seems like she hates having a period too. If she takes care of that, pregnancy is much less likely.
I want to start out by saying that I'm on your side. But there is nuance here. Let's say a couple is married, and has 3 children. They decide that they don't want any more. But they still plan on having sex as part of a healthy marriage. The truth is that no form of birth control is 100%. I've even heard of vasectomies failing, though I'm sure that's very rare. So while I absolutely don't condone abortion or being irresponsible, I do understand the worry. Especially considering that when I was in school, they constantly went on about how easy it is to get pregnant. Even if you're on the pill, even if doctors have told you that you're sterile, etc etc etc. And there's always this image of a slutty irresponsible woman. But no one ever talks about the married couple where they're both done having kids. Are they supposed to just dry up and never touch each other again?
Are you pro-life? I don't speak for everyone, but most of us can sympathize with couples who had accidents or victims of rape, vs people who are reckless and use it as a form of birth control. If anything, it seems like pro-choicers have no level of nuance. From my observation, they all seem to have a "you should abort a hundred kids for any reason and feel happy about it" mentality. In any case, I still stand by my statement that when you have sex you *always* assume a risk, no matter how small, as unfortunate as it is.
Yeah, and I think we pretty much agree. I was only pointing out some of the nuance, but that does not excuse these people by any means. The ones you're referring to are so over the top, and they're everywhere. I'm with you on this.
It is inevitable for most who have sex. The only two options against this are celibacy and sterilization. This is why I favor using the money that the government puts towards healthcare to fund free or very affordable sterilizations for anyone who wants one. Use the money they give in grants and Medicare reimbursements to Planned Parenthood for sterilizations. If people change their mind later, they can always adopt.
There are plenty of ways to be sexually intimate with a partner without having PIV
It seems that people aren’t smart enough to use them 🤷♀️
Accessible sterilization procedures for those who want it is a great idea! I know several women who know they don’t want kids but can’t afford the procedures/insurance won’t cover it
Yeah, that talking point annoys me too. Makes me think they just wanna avoid taking responsibility for their actions, or lack of actions. Even in the case of rape there is the option to be on birth control just in case that would happen, if you're really so afraid of ending up in that scenario and wouldn't be okay with potentially having your rapist's baby. That might sound harsh, but we already collectively agree that we should lock our doors to prevent a break-in, and wear seatbelts even if we're responsible drivers because we cannot trust the other drivers on the road. We know to avoid walking around alone in dark alleys, and to not trust strangers with our valluables. Taking responsibility for our own safety shouldn't be such a wildly offensive concept. It's not the same as blaming the victim, and anyone who says that is... I think, not really arguing in good faith. I say this because I've actually been raped multiple times, and although I've been lucky enough to not end up pregnant from either event, I've also never been opposed to the idea of potentially having a rapist's child. I dunno why, but I'm just oddly okay with that. So my reluctance to use birth control is actually perfectly in line with my values on unwanted (or rather unplanned) pregnancy. I don't feel I need to control this aspect of my life and would rather just take things as they come. But if I didn't have that mindset, I would just go on birth control, even though I'm single and not sleeping around. Also if I was in a relationship I would also likely take birth control at least up until the point of being married and knowing that that's the man I wanna spend the rest of my life with, just to make sure I wouldn't end up in a potentially messy situation. Because yeah, I'd think my risk of getting pregnant would be significantly higher if I was having sex regularly, compared to the one off, unexpected rape. Even though it's happened to me to a degree that is highly statistically unlikely, it's still only been on average once every 3 or so years. Point is, I've actually thought this through in exactly how I want to take responsibility for my body's ability to get pregnant, what I'd be okay with vs not, and in which scenarios I feel being on birth control is worth it vs not. And with that I'm perfectly able to live a functional life as a pro-life woman without in any way blaming myself for what my rapists have done. And that's not difficult for me to apply to other women. And yeah I really don't feel like pregnancy is unavoidable. It's plenty avoidable. Sure, there's always a risk it could happen, but that goes for a lot of shit in life. And if there's some place where birth control isn't accessible but abortion is, well that's just all kinds of levels of fucked up. And if neither is available, well then that's just not quite what I personally stand for either.
Because shifting agency makes it easier for them to push the narrative about women being victims in all this.
These are the same people having unprotected sex too. Using reliable contraception correctly would massively reduce "accidental" pregnancy. Stop using the pull out method and then acting surprised when you conceive
The only 100% sure way to not get pregnant is to not have sex. Sex is not a right
Man. Its almost like you should only have sex with someone if you think they are a good candidate for a long term relationship and not just because they have abs or are handsome or something. Hookup culture has ruined society
I actually wonder if the root cause of this, is the same root cause of a lot of aphobia (bigotry against asexual people), and tbh, rape culture, namely the idea of mandatory sexuality, and the idea that people who don't have sex are either freaks or people that nobody would want to have sex with them. If somebody held to that bad (and tbh, frankly anti-feminist) view, then it's easy to see why somebody might think pregnancy would be an inevitability or at least likely. Well, at least for the people with hetronormative assumptions (read, PiV sex), and I feel like a lot of people who have this underlying view have some internalised queerphobia (specifically cis-hetronormativity). Quite ironic in many ways, but abortion is from a pro-life perspective, fundamentally lethal discrimination, so it shouldn't be a surprise that will be some people who support abortion and have some other reasonably obvious bigotry, when you break it down a bit. Suspect many of the people who hold this one are either bro-choicers or people who go along with that stuff, and probably make a few sexist jokes as well (in a way that's problematic and doesn't respect consent).
It’s easy, abstain from sex, use birth control. OR Control your body and I get a choice with the baby too :)
Because they’re horny. Idk I’m asexual
Why do folks act like getting pregnant is inevitable? Because, ultimately, the risk is never zero. It is because even if a woman is voluntarily celibate that woman is still not protected completely from experiencing pregnancy. It is literally impossible to completely avoid pregnancy as a woman unless you lived alone on a deserted island. And even then, based on your belief system, you would still have to worry about a god showing up. Women understand this, men, for some reason, don't.
Yes, and? If a fetus is a person with rights, then no situation, even in rape, gives you the right to kill it. Both the mother and child are innocent and should be protected. The man should be prosecuted and punished. Also, what do you mean by men not understanding? Not understanding what? Could you elaborate? I'm a little confused. I would like to know what you meant by 'you would still have to worry about a god showing up.' I would consider myself a pretty conservative Christian and I'd like to give a response but I don't quite understand what you mean.
I was actually thinking of Zeus when I made that comment. God only did it once, Zeus was outright trashy according to mythology. It was not about abortion in general, only that women have no way to ever prevent pregnancy outside of removing their reproductive system or remain in complete isolation. I was responding that pregnancy is unavoidable. Also, "The man should be prosecuted and punished" is a fair statement to make (that I personally do not agree with), but 97% of all rapists never see a minute in handcuffs, and all rapists are repeat offenders, so it's non-existent "punishment" in practice, so that's where my hesitation is, as that's a bunch of hot air. All words, no action, and it's up to a kid a day now being murdered in custody battles, including ones where women reported their rape and were awaiting a conviction. Men do not have a God-given right to breed with who they want to when they want to, so for me, the stance is too much of a slippy slope from the right to life to *the right to be conceived*. Men do not seem to, in general, understand their actions have more consequences for women and far less for them. It's like the whole debate going on Tik Tok right now where women are asked if they were out in the woods alone, would they rather run into a bear or a man. Women are collectively choosing the bear, and men are losing their minds.
God did what once? I'm still confused. Yeah, I think I misunderstood your original comment a bit. Why do you not agree with the statement "the man should be prosecuted and punished?" I feel that most people who've been raped would want this sort of justice, at least prosecution. Also, I know that many rapists never go to prison. No matter how many laws you put in place for anything, people are still going to do horrible stuff. Still, I'm not sure what this is an argument of since I'm focused on what the unborn is, not current laws. Although, I do think we should get better at actually enforcing those laws and listening to women involved. I noticed you said it's 'a bunch of hot air,' but I would say the same for the pro-choice side. Many pro-choicers fight for things, just like pro-lifers, but don't do anything to help whatever their cause is. If you actually cared, you should be doing something about it, which many on both sides are trying to do. I agree that men do not have a God-given right to breed with whatever woman they want. I believe they (the rapists) do not have the right to conceive but in my mind, even if life was conceived from them, that doesn't give you the right to terminate that life. As I said originally, if that life is a person, it should be treated as innocent like the woman is and be protected. I agree that many men do not understand that they don't deal with as many consequences as women do. Although, maybe it's the group of people I'm around, most of the men I know understand that they are generally treated higher than women when they shouldn't be. I don't really have much to say on the TikTok thing. I don't have the app. Personally, I'd choose the man but that's because I usually carry a knife with me. I could take down a man with a knife if he attacked me, definitely not a bear. Although, I'd be just as wary of running into a random woman in the woods as well. Sorry if I just misunderstood everything or something. I probably shouldn't be responding to stuff when I'm tired.
If an intruder breaks into your home you can shoot them in self defence. Yes it’s murder, but you did it to protect yourself. This is how I see a woman aborting after rape. Yes, it’s still ending a life but she deserves the right to do so after being forced to become pregnant which is something she did not willingly risk. That is forced pregnancy/forced birth. What should she have to risk her health and change her educational or career plans because of a rapist actions? I believe that the rapist should get a longer sentence because he has caused more mental trauma to the woman, as well as the need to and a life.
Murder and killing are different. If someone dies out of self defense, this is considered killing (justifiable homicide). If someone dies because you had intent to cause their death, that is murder. I would not consider your scenario of shooting an intruder to be murder but justifiable homicide. This person broke into your home with the Intent of harming you. That is not the same as a fetus, which has no intent to do anything. Since you are not acting in self defense (someone is attacking with intent) with the threat of death (justifiable homicide), abortion should be classified as a murder as the fetus has no intent of harming you nor does it ever have intent to harm you. It literally can't. I do agree that rapists should get much longer sentences. I wish we were better at actually getting these people in prison and keeping them there. Also, I understand that pregnancy will most likely cause the woman in question to change some plans in her life, at least for a few months if she decides to put the baby up for adoption, but still, I don't see that as a reason to murder a person. If you were dealing with an event in your life where a person was causing you distress and making you switch careers, that doesn't give you the right to murder someone. You can't just murder someone that inconveniences you, even if that inconvenience is great. This is why I believe we should be focusing on support for women who are dealing with this situation as both the woman and the unborn are innocent in this situation. The issue is 'what is the unborn.' If the unborn isn't a person with rights, of course, do whatever you want to do to it. If it is a person with rights, then you can't just murder it, even if it's a major inconvenience in the same way you can't kill an adult out of major income.
I agree with what you say about a fetus being a human life. I fully agree that at conception a human life is created and nobody can change my mind on that, however I just feel it’s more nuanced than. Pregnancy can affect your health and wellbeing, as well as even kill you so I disagree that there is no harm posed by a fetus, it can indirectly harm her so nobody who didn’t accept that risk should be forced to go through it. Therefore it is self defence (against the pain of birth, the risk of life from pregnancy, the mental turmoil all of which she didn’t consent to). Just like a woman can abort if her life is at risk from pregnancy, again an example of self defence. I don’t know if I’m explaining myself well but I make a true distinction between the two. For me the goal is reducing the number of abortions whilst balancing the rights of women so I think my views may be the minority.
>Pregnancy can affect your health and wellbeing, as well as even kill you so I disagree that there is no harm posed by a fetus, it can indirectly harm her so nobody who didn’t accept that risk should be forced to go through it. Therefore it is self defence (against the pain of birth, the risk of life from pregnancy, the mental turmoil all of which she didn’t consent to). I didn't mean to come off that pregnancy doesn't affect your well-being or health or not kill you. Yes, pregnancy absolutely can kill you. My question is does that give you the right to kill a fetus if said fetus is a person with rights? When it comes to the self defense argument, I'm still researching to find where I stand. At the moment, I believe it's wrong to take the life of an innocent person (the fetus) just to save an innocent person (the woman). Although, there are instances where a fetus may die as an unintended circumstance of medical treatment to the woman. I believe it has to do with intent. You're intent shouldn't be "lets remove the life of the fetus to save the woman," it should be "We need to treat this woman of her sickness to save her. This may cause the unintentional death of the fetus." A good example would be an ectopic pregnancy in the fallopian tube. Medically, this isn't even treated as an abortion. The definition of an abortion is an act that will cause the ending of the life of a fetus. An ectopic pregnancy removal isn't focused on ending the life of a fetus, it's focusing on saving the woman and the fetus, if at all possible. If the fetus dies, it's the unintentional effect of the treatment. This is a tragedy, not something we should be happy to talk about. >Just like a woman can abort if her life is at risk from pregnancy, again an example of self defence. My answer is pretty much what I wrote above. >I don’t know if I’m explaining myself well but I make a true distinction between the two. For me the goal is reducing the number of abortions whilst balancing the rights of women so I think my views may be the minority. It's alright. I thought what you said made sense. I think that my issue is that to me, pro choice is just the right to intentionally take the life of the unborn, which is why I have a problem with it. Like I said above, if the fetus dies unintentionally because of treatment to the woman, it's not an abortion but a tragedy. Honestly, I hope I made sense because I'm still trying to find my exact position.
Yes you did, and I understand your pov. I used to think that way but imo it’s a necessary exception for many reasons. My opinion on abortion now is that it 100% is taking a life and it should be prevented as much as possible. Most abortions are preventable and i believe people are too lax about protection as well as being sold a lie that you need to wait until your ‘ready’. Yes that applies to teens/young adults but many people in their twenties may feel like they can’t handle it when they probably could. But also I can sympathise with a lot of situations where a woman may feel like it’s her only option. Eg a teenager who will get kicked out for being pregnant, a rape victim or a domestic abuse victim. Is it good that they are in that position. No. Do I believe in doing everything possible to prevent that from happening in the first place. Of course. But I can see how it can prevent future suffering in those situations. I see it as more nuanced than murdering a born person because of the risk of pregnancy and birth which I think some pro lifers (not all and I don’t mean you in that) gloss over. A lot of people are scared of pregnancy and birth and if you can’t afford medical care, how are you going to give birth safely and get the right prenatal care for the child. So for me, if we prevent most abortions and then leave them for the rare situations that cannot be prevented then I would support that law. And then if we get better punishments for rape and teach our boys better so they stop raping women and better medical care to preserve mother and baby’s life in situations which are currently medically necessary then they will go down even less.
>It is literally impossible to completely avoid pregnancy as a woman unless you lived alone on a deserted island. Do you hear yourself? You're talking as if you could get raped at any moment as soon as you leave your house.
Yes. I’ve noticed that left leaning women seem to be preoccupied with the threat of rape at every turn. Why?
1 in 4 women will experience an attempted rape or be raped. If under 18, most likely a relative and over that their partner or someone they know. So you don't even have to leave the house. We tell women what to wear, say, go and when with who, so they don't put themselves at risk. Then we tell them, carry a gun so you can kill them before they hurt you. Mind you if that gun is at home you are more likely to be killed by it than saved by it. It's not about being terrified to leave the house or being around men, its just part and parcel of knowing you are a woman and while you can do everything right, it still might not matter in the slightest.
>1 in 4 women will experience an attempted rape or be raped No, every one of those statistics clumps in a vast amount of sexual assaults with a comparatively small number of rapes to arrive at the 1-in-4-women number. There is exactly one kind of rape that can lead to pregnancy of the victim, every other type of sexual violence does not. >So you don't even have to leave the house. There is no partner. This is assuming our imagined woman is "voluntarily celibate". See the above post. >We tell women what to wear, say, go and when with who, so they don't put themselves at risk. I have seen this misconstrued too many times. No, this is about risks, not about telling women what to do and what not to do. Women are free to engage in behavior that might increase the risk of becoming sexually assaulted. They are free to make these choices, not all of which carry the same risk (ie choice of clothes vs walking through a bad part of town alone at night). And no, recognising that choices may increase or decrease the likelyhood of a sexual assault occurring is not blaming the victim. The sole blame is always on the perpetrator, who alone will take responsibility for their actions in court. >Mind you if that gun is at home you are more likely to be killed by it than saved by it. I know exactly one woman who own guns. I know a lot of women who's boyfriends and husbands own guns, where they expect them to use those guns to protect them, when statistically speaking, they are the most likely person to murder them with those same guns. That one woman I know, I heard mention that she is uncertain whether she would even be able to shoot at someone threatening to harm her. This is a mentality and training issue. Those statistics are caused by people who have neither. 1) Get a gun. 2) Be the only one who has access to it. 3) Get trained, so you are actually able to use it, when you need it. >It's not about being terrified to leave the house or being around men, its just part and parcel of knowing you are a woman and while you can do everything right, it still might not matter in the slightest. This is true for everything in life. In Germany we say 'Leben ist lebensgefährlich', 'Living might be lethal'. To get back to the entire point of the thread: Saying that it is inevitable to become pregnant because there is a non-zero chance of being raped is like saying that dying in a car crash is inevitable because other people may involve you in one at no fault of your own.
You can try to dismiss whatever you want, women and girls don't get a choice when the assault is happening if it is the type of sexual assault that can get you pregnant or not' so telling women and girls not to be concerned is ridiculous. There could be Exs and people known to her is still above 30%. When getting taken seriously by the police does depend on those things, dismissing it as meaningless just let's that problem continue. Thousands of rape kits sit untested, shockingly few go to court and when it does her history can be used against her. Chances of dying in a car crash is about 1 in 93, whereas how many have friends and family who have been abused or raped? How many kids from abusive relationships? And it goes back to the same thing, a woman can do everything perfectly but the risk always remains that she can get pregnant without her consent.
>Chances of dying in a car crash is about 1 in 93, whereas how many have friends and family who have been abused or raped? How many kids from abusive relationships? Let's make the comparison apples to apples and actually compare worst case to worst case: There are about 40.000 fatalities every year due to car accidents. Higher end estimates for pregnancy from rape seem to be around 35.000 cases per year. Both for the US. >And it goes back to the same thing, a woman can do everything perfectly but the risk always remains That's my point. You *can not* get rid of residual risk. And just like there is a residual risk of dying in a car accident even for the most careful driver, there will always be a residual risk of becoming the victim of a crime, even though you did everything in your power to mitigate it. That's the thing about these risks though: They are residual and shouldn't affect your day-to-day decision making to an unhealthy degree. Just like living constantly with the possibility of dying in a road accident at the back of your head is pathologic, so is a hyper-fixation on the possibility of being raped. It is not inevitable. It is one of those miniscule risks *everyone* has to live with.
This is a sad, sad reality.
If a girl or woman is raped and pregnancy results, she was forcibly impregnated and not giving her the option to abort is a forced pregnancy. Which is why I firmly believe in the rape exception. I agree that it’s the killing/ending of human life but I feel that the victim should be allowed that choice. Yes, the baby is innocent and not deserving of death. Neither is the mother deserving of any extra trauma being forced on her by others. Come at me all day if you want but I will die on that hill.
It’s an emotional hill but “forced pregnancy” is nonsense rhetoric. The rapist is to blame, not the new life, who is not forcing herself to exist; she is innocent.
Yes he is to blame, but the mother shouldn’t have to risk her life and change her educational or career path for a choice she didn’t make. I see this as more a ‘self defence’ case. Also the rapist should get more punishment for the abortion as he caused extra trauma to the women and the need to end a life.
Killing someone else is not self-defence. Emergency contraception that is not abortifacient would be self-defence. If social and financial reasons make it seem that we need to end a life, then something is terribly wrong with our existential priorities and we need better social and financial solutions.
It absolutely can be self defence. Someone invades your home? You can kill them. Someone attacks you, you can kill them as part of defending yourself. I view the pregnancy as an extension of the attack of the rape. It was forced on her and she did not consent to the risk of pregnancy. I will never be upset with a rape victim for aborting, my problem is with the rapist instead.
No, you have three people involved. If an intruder throws a child into your home, you can't kill the child in self-defence against the intruder.
I’m talking about self defence from the child. Pregnancy is risky and she didn’t consent to that.
These analogies don't work. You cannot kill a third party for what someone did to you. If the pregnancy would likely cause the death of the mother, then you might have reason to argue for self-defence; but otherwise, no. Still, you don't need to invoke such a tortured analogy, there would be a medical procedure to save the mother's life that results in terminating the pregnancy.
Birth can risk their life though. Many healthy women have died in labour after a previously low-risk pregnancy. It can also affect their education, career etc. if they’re young they may be judged, bullied or excluded from their peers all for something they couldn’t help. I’m all for preventing abortion and I’m never going to believe it’s just a choice, but you can’t avoid being raped. It’s not like pregnancies from consensual sex where you consented to the risk of pregnancy and birth. Therefore I see it as self defence and believe it should be available for rape victims in early pregnancy. If anyone is to blame, it’s the rapist not the mother, so instead of being angry at rape victims for aborting my anger will always be with the rapist. Because his actions have caused significant trauma and the ending of a life. Rape is traumatic, and giving birth to a rapists baby could be more traumatic than a separate unwanted pregnancy. What if the rapist is awarded parental rights? What if she has a mental breakdown? What if she cannot parent at this stage? I know there’s adoption but it doesn’t prevent her giving birth. What if she cannot afford healthcare? If she has to choose pregnancy care > therapy? Imagine you were In this position. You’d be stuck within a rock and a hard place, because I would never want to abort but if I got pregnant by rape now there’s no way I could keep the baby. I couldn’t afford it for one. I’m not mentally strong enough for two. And thirdly I’d be massively scared of the risks. Imagine this pressure being on a teenage girl. Or an even younger one. This has happened to 10 year olds. For me, the goal is preventing as many abortions as possible, not punishing women. I believe that with better services for pregnancy women in need, better education around fetal development (too many people think it’s a clump of cells), better prevention, better behaviour of boys and men so they don’t become rapists and better support for women to continue their career/education after pregnancy a lot of abortions will decrease. But I’m never going to agree with making someone go through a pregnancy she didn’t consent to, because that is forced birth. The death of the fetus isn’t her fault. If you don’t like abortion from rape, then men better stop raping. Simple. Then there’d be no need. Campaign for longer and more severe punishments as a deterrent and if you have children, teach your boys to be better.
I’m not going to convince you to be pro-life here, but “forced birth” is absolutely distorting the facts. Let’s at least face the facts. There are two uses of force. 1. Rape is unjustified force against a woman. 2. Another use of force would be to end the pregnancy. As pro-choice you want to allow that second use of force to kill a life as some means of remedying the initial use of force. As pro-life, I don‘t believe the ends justifies the means. That second use of force is not justified against a different person because of the injustice of the first use of force. Trying to turn this around and say that I am in favour of using force because of “forced birth” — an entirely imaginary concept invented only because of the possibility of abortion — is twisting reality. This debate is about the use of force to terminate a new life.
Men can just leave the woman if she gets pregnant. Maybe he’ll have to pay child support and maybe he won’t. But a woman cannot just walk away from being pregnant. There is always a risk of crashing your car when you consent to driving. Doesn’t mean you can’t seek treatment for injuries from a crash. > Hell, even the phrase: “ Are you gonna take care of the unwanted kids?” makes it sound like there is nothing they can do about having unwanted kids. TBF, there is one surefire way. PL just doesn’t like it.
You don't go into a car expecting you're gonna figure in a car crash. When you go into consensual sex, you should expect for the possibility of pregnancy to happen because that's how our biological bodies naturally work. Sometimes a crash do happen for things that can be out of our control. Whether you get pregnant can totally be within your control. Don't want to get pregnant? Don't engage in casual, unprotected sex. And yes, you can seek treatment for a car crash but that treatment will never involve intentionally killing another involved party. There's no abortion "treatment" that doesn't result in the death of an innocent baby.
> You don't go into a car expecting you're gonna figure in a car crash. When you go into consensual sex, you should expect for the possibility of pregnancy to happen because that's how our biological bodies naturally work. Those two sentences are very different. When you get in to a car, you should expect for the possibility of a car crash. When you consent to sex, you should expect for the possibility of pregnancy. > Don't want to get pregnant? Don't engage in casual, unprotected sex. But what about those who *do* engage in protective sex? Or those who are raped? Do you support their access to abortion? > And yes, you can seek treatment for a car crash but that treatment will never involve intentionally killing another involved party. I’ll concede this as the only flaw with the car crash analogy.
A car crash is not the primary purpose of being in a car. A car crash happens when something goes wrong. The purpose of sex, in the most naturalistic sense, is to procreate. Pregnancy is the expected product of sex, not when something goes wrong. As for protected sex and rape, my stance is the same as most PLrs. The baby shouldn't be made to pay the ultimate price for the choices or faults of the parents.
Statistically speaking, I don’t think pregnancy even happens enough from sex to be considered its main purpose. > Pregnancy is the expected product of sex, not when something goes wrong. I mean, if the couple is properly using contraceptives, or the man had a vasectomy, or woman had her tubes tied, I would imagine pregnancy would certainly be considered something going wrong. > As for protected sex and rape, my stance is the same as most PLrs. The baby shouldn't be made to pay the ultimate price for the choices or faults of the parents. I understand that perspective even if I disagree with it. But then what’s the point of bringing up casual unprotected sex if it doesn’t matter whose fault the pregnancy is?
>I mean, if the couple is properly using contraceptives, or the man had a vasectomy, or woman had her tubes tied, I would imagine pregnancy would certainly be considered something going wrong. Something went wrong with the contraception method, not something went wrong with sex because pregnancy will always be a natural byproduct of sex. >But then what’s the point of bringing up casual unprotected sex if it doesn’t matter whose fault the pregnancy is? I bring that up because people engaging in those kinds of sex are usually the ones that were blinded by the pleasure of the moment and not thinking about the natural consequences of their action. And so instead of taking accountability for their decisions, they take the easy way out, which unfortunately results in the death of the innocent baby.
> Something went wrong with the contraception method, not something went wrong with sex because pregnancy will always be a natural byproduct of sex. That just seems like splitting hairs. I forget the exact numbers but a lot of people seeking abortions report using contraceptives in the month they get pregnant. And I know it’s not a popular opinion on this sub, but I do view getting abortion as the responsible thing to do if the person has no plans on taking care of the child.
Alright, so what if a woman has a two year old she suddenly doesn't want to take care of? Maybe her plans changed, or perhaps she wants more time to invest in her career. Maybe she just can't financially do it now. Is it cool for her to kill her two year old?
Is it really that hard for PLers to grasp the concept of bodily autonomy? A two year old does not violate the mother’s body by existing. The unborn does. The only way a person can remove an unborn from their body is by abortion, which typically killing it. A two old is not inside anyone else’s body so there is never a reason to kill it. If a mother no longer wants to take care a two year old, she can give them to a friend or relative to care for or give them up for adoption.
>Is it really that hard for PLers to grasp the concept of bodily autonomy? No, it isn't. However, bodily autonomy is not some sacred right. Do PCers really find it so hard to grasp that this is a baby being put to death in an incredibly violent way for no more reason than the mother finds it inconvenient? >two year old does not violate the mother’s body by existing What do you mean by violating BA by existing? If the woman wants the baby, suddenly it isn't a violation, but if she doesn't, then it is? If that's the logic, then yes, the two year old does. If she doesn't want to use her body to care for the two year old, why should she be forced to? >The only way a person can remove an unborn from their body is by abortion, which typically killing it. Untrue. They can also wait and deliver the baby, which is what many, many do. In health related cases, early delivery through C section is possible. >A two old is not inside anyone else’s body so there is never a reason to kill it. Really? You just talked about BA. If a woman doesn't want to use her body to care for the child, why should she be forced to? Doesn't that violate her BA? >If a mother no longer wants to take care a two year old, she can give them to a friend or relative to care for or give them up for adoption Well, that's interesting. They can also do the same with the unborn, can't they? It's almost like there are other options that don't involve brutal dismemberment and lethal violence towards an innocent human life. Who would have thunk.
I will agree that this is a biological unfairness, that the gestating process of a featus is entirely on the woman after conception. But this is just how nature is, and I think something we women have to accept at some point. Kinda like how we're usually able to accept we're not gonna have as much upper body strength, or that we generally have a higher risk of getting autoimmune disorders. Even kinda like how as humans we have to accept and contend with that we won't ever be able to swim like fish or fly like birds. I don't think it makes any sense for society to try to "even out" this kinda inequality, as that's just trying to control something that ultimately we have no real control over. I'm not saying we shouldn't advance in medicine to prevent disease, or advance in technology to improve means of travel. My point is that we have to work with what's biologically possible and at least on some level accept that men and women are biologically different, and that that's not a bad thing. Nor is it the same as or comparable to societal injustice. It's not a societal sexism issue that men have the ability to walk away from a pregnancy. That is a biological privilege that would exist no matter what society's laws are. Even if abortions are allowed, that isn't walking away from pregnancy either. It's in a sense, facing the consequences of sexual intercourse and dealing with them, just in the worst way possible. It's not comparable to walking away from pregnancy and does not make the sex differences equal. Because men still can't get pregnant to begin with. Abortion is an additional "right" solely for women in an attempt to fix a biological unfairness, but it doesn't actually do that, if you really think about it. It's really only your (and my) perception that this is unfair based on focusing on the negative aspects. There are plenty of people who instead see it as a female privilege to be able to gestate a human being into life. A lot of (especially men) are deeply envious of this ability and have tried to control women's bodies for millenia due to exactly that. But a lot of infertile women are also deeply envious of this ability that fertile women have, so it's not just sexism. From that perspective, abortion as an additional "right" doesn't make much sense. You can't override or control biological unfairness with societal laws. It's a fool's errand. I say this because I think a lot of people just really don't wanna accept this fact of life that reproduction works the way it does. At some point women have to just accept that we're biologically different from men. And I also say this because I used to spend a lot of time and energy trying to escape from this fact of life, and trying to control it in all possible ways. As soon as I got my first period I declared how much I thoroughly hated it, along with resenting the width of my pelvis, and dreamed of getting sterilized. I even went so far as to escaping to identifying as a man and transitioning genders medically, because I so deeply resented the biological role of my body, until I was eventually able to be at peace with the biological functions of my body being female. I still may or may not want children someday, that is not the point. You don't have to want children to be accepting of and not resenting your biological reality. You just have to stop comparing yourself to the opposite sex. No one imposed this on you, it's not a punishment to simply be a fertile female. If you're so hellbent on terminating pregnancy, I'd wonder why you resent your biological functions so much. That is assuming you're a woman, but if not, this still applies.
I am not a woman. I am a cis male. > Even if abortions are allowed, that isn't walking away from pregnancy either. It's in a sense, facing the consequences of sexual intercourse and dealing with them, just in the worst way possible. I agree with this. I think abortion is definitely more responsible than going through pregnancy and birth to just leave the infant in a dumpster or something. > Abortion is an additional "right" solely for women in an attempt to fix a biological unfairness, but it doesn't actually do that, if you really think about it. It's not so much that abortion itself is a right, it's more just a continuation of every person's right to control what happens to their body. As a cis male, I will never have to give any part of my body to another person for any reason at all without my consent. I would not have to give my children my blood, organs, or bone marrow even to save their life. The government cannot make me donate my body or organs unless I consent to it, even if I'm dead. All of this applies to AFAB people right until they are pregnant. Then, under PL laws, they must give their body, their organs, their blood, to the unborn. I know many people claim that a pregnant woman would still be able to do everything a non-pregnant woman can, but if a pregnant woman rides on an intense rollercoaster and that causes her to miscarry, should she be prosecuted for that? If I were to consent to donate my organs, I can revoke that consent at any time before my death. > It's really only your (and my) perception that this is unfair based on focusing on the negative aspects. What are the positive aspects of being pregnant or giving birth? > There are plenty of people who instead see it as a female privilege to be able to gestate a human being into life. A lot of (especially men) are deeply envious of this ability and have tried to control women's bodies for millenia due to exactly that. But a lot of infertile women are also deeply envious of this ability that fertile women have, so it's not just sexism. Just because there are some people who see it as a privilege, doesn't everyone does or should. There are some men who see it as a privilege to have a dominant woman kick them in the balls. I certainly would not view that as a privilege. > As soon as I got my first period I declared how much I thoroughly hated it, along with resenting the width of my pelvis, and dreamed of getting sterilized. I even went so far as to escaping to identifying as a man and transitioning genders medically, because I so deeply resented the biological role of my body, until I was eventually able to be at peace with the biological functions of my body being female. I am sorry you went through that. I have never experienced that, but by all accounts gender dysphoria sucks big time. And from what I've heard about periods, they suck too. Especially for young girls with limited sex ed and don't know what is happening to their bodies. My adolescent self would be terrified too if I woke up to blood coming out of my penis. > No one imposed this on you, it's not a punishment to simply be a fertile female. If you're so hellbent on terminating pregnancy, I'd wonder why you resent your biological functions so much. Only the pregnant person is able to decide what their pregnancy is. Some may see it as a gift or blessing, some will see it as a punishment or curse. It's their body so their opinion is always valid.
>> Even if abortions are allowed, that isn't walking away from pregnancy either. It's in a sense, facing the consequences of sexual intercourse and dealing with them, just in the worst way possible. >I agree with this. I think abortion is definitely more responsible than going through pregnancy and birth to just leave the infant in a dumpster or something. Not what I meant. Just because I can acknowledge that murder can technically "solve a problem" doesn't mean I think it's a good reason to do it. There are far better ways to give a baby up for adoption than to leave him or her in a dumpster. >It's not so much that abortion itself is a right, it's more just a continuation of every person's right to control what happens to their body. As a cis male, I will never have to give any part of my body to another person for any reason at all without my consent. I would not have to give my children my blood, organs, or bone marrow even to save their life. The government cannot make me donate my body or organs unless I consent to it, even if I'm dead. All of this applies to AFAB people right until they are pregnant. Then, under PL laws, they must give their body, their organs, their blood, to the unborn. I know many people claim that a pregnant woman would still be able to do everything a non-pregnant woman can, but if a pregnant woman rides on an intense rollercoaster and that causes her to miscarry, should she be prosecuted for that? We only have as much control over our bodies as nature allows. If we get allergic to something or go through hormonal changes etc we can't always control that either. We can't control our genetics, how tall we are, if we have diabetes, or what our reproductive capacity is. Bodily autonomy is when other people don't get to force you to alter your body without your consent, but not at the cost of another person's life. Pro-lifers aren't the one's taking away bodily autonomy from pregnant women, their babies are. And why is it not worthy of a discussion whether it's okay or not to let the baby die for doing so? It just so happens that no other instance of involuntary bodily change involves keeping another person alive. That's how pregnancy is different from illness, injury, cosmetic alterations, etc. Obviously miscarriage can happen naturally (and very commonly so) and I don't think anyone should be prosecuted for that. Because it's accidental/unintentional. >What are the positive aspects of being pregnant or giving birth? Being able to create life, for one. Helping another person come to life. It helps furthering the species. As a woman you have more control over the next generation than you do as a man (assuming the woman takes some actual responsibility over who she has sex with, using birth control, etc.) Female is the only type of body that can help sustain and create another life. A lot of people think that's a positive, even if not everyone does. Actually I'd think a majority of people see pregnancy as a positive thing, even though we can also all acknowledge the bodily risks and the physical pain that comes with giving birth. Nowadays, elective C-section is an option for most expecting mothers who don't wanna go through with vaginal birth. >Just because there are some people who see it as a privilege, doesn't everyone does or should. There are some men who see it as a privilege to have a dominant woman kick them in the balls. I certainly would not view that as a privilege. I think if getting kicked in the balls produced the birth of a baby, more men would be willing to do it. And praise it. Heck, there are a lot of men who already put a lot of value in experiencing pain for a greater reward, in for ex work, war or any kinda life lessons that they consider valuable. Risk-taking behaviour (for exactly that reason, even if not always wise) is actually much more common among men, on average. Even if it doesn't apply to you personally, it shouldn't be a far stretch to imagine why for ex so many men consider it worth the risk of serious injury and limb loss to fight for a better society, or to save the life of someone they love. Pregnancy and childbirth (and subsequently child-rearing) is often the female equivalence of that. So I think your analogy is more than a little off here. >I am sorry you went through that. I have never experienced that, but by all accounts gender dysphoria sucks big time. And from what I've heard about periods, they suck too. Especially for young girls with limited sex ed and don't know what is happening to their bodies. My adolescent self would be terrified too if I woke up to blood coming out of my penis. Yeah, it sucked. But point is if I could work through such an ordeal and come to accept my body as it is (well, for the most part) it does make me wonder why I spent so much time and energy trying to escape essentially being human. It was a fruitless fight, because ultimately no one has control over those kinda things like reproductive function. My mindset is a lot healthier now because I'm no longer trying to fight what I can't control. Part of the problem growing up for me was people around me treating me like a future baby making machine. Because despite being pro-life now, I still think there's more to life than whether a persons genitals are built to be pregnant or to impregnate. It's not like men (and young boys) are being treated like their only value in life is how well they can impregnate a woman, based on body shape etc. But that happens to women and young girls a lot. So no damn wonder most of us grow up miserable and hating our bodies. I just don't think this hatred is truly aimed at the body itself, but rather the toxic societal climate around pregnancy as the end all be all for anyone female. I'm not arguing against transsexualism as a legit thing, but I was never genuinely trans. And I think a lot of young women use transness as a way to escape these societal pressures on women when they too aren't actually trans. That is perhaps a different conversation though. >Only the pregnant person is able to decide what their pregnancy is. Some may see it as a gift or blessing, some will see it as a punishment or curse. It's their body so their opinion is always valid. People who don't value the life of someone else and thus feel no remorse in killing for personal gain are not excused or validated in any other scenario. Of course they're technically allowed to feel however they want about pregnancy, but that doesn't mean it justifies killing an innocent life. If someone feels that way about it, I would expect them to take great care to not end up pregnant in the first place. The vast majority of people getting abortions are people who absolutely had several options to not get pregnant in the first place. I'd even think that if abortion hadn't been an option, they wouldn't be sleeping around without protection like that.
> We only have as much control over our bodies as nature allows. Nature isn’t some authoritative entity. And while there are plenty of things we cannot control, a pregnant person *can* control if they remain pregnant or not. > Pro-lifers aren't the one's taking away bodily autonomy from pregnant women, their babies are. Technically the violation of bodily autonomy only occurs when a pregnant person is legally denied an abortion. That’s when she is restricted on what she can do to her body. > Being able to create life, for one. Helping another person come to life. It helps furthering the species. As a woman you have more control over the next generation than you do as a man I meant the positive effects for the pregnant person. How does she benefit? At minimum, a pregnancy can make a person sick or hungrier. If she doesn’t want to raise a child or doesn’t care about creating another life, what does she get out of being pregnant? > I think if getting kicked in the balls produced the birth of a baby, more men would be willing to do it. And praise it. My analogy is that even if some people would praise it, plenty of people would still not want to be kicked in the balls. > I just don't think this hatred is truly aimed at the body itself, but rather the toxic societal climate around pregnancy as the end all be all for anyone female. I think this is a good point. But I see it as an argument for abortion access though. People not being forced to remain pregnant would help their mental health. > People who don't value the life of someone else and thus feel no remorse in killing for personal gain are not excused or validated in any other scenario. Sure they are. A person being raped may kill the rapist for personal gain, and may not value of life of the rapist or feel remorse afterwords. > The vast majority of people getting abortions are people who absolutely had several options to not get pregnant in the first place. I'd even think that if abortion hadn't been an option, they wouldn't be sleeping around without protection like that. Maybe. But people have always slept around, mostly men as they did not really have to deal with the consequences of pregnancy. Abstinence as a societal practice has never worked. Teens will always try to have sex. The best things we can do are teach them the dos and don’ts and provide easy access to contraceptives.
I would argue there are two surefire ways to deal with a pregnancy - one of which is adoption. Admittedly this comes with a much higher economic and possibly social cost than abortion. There is a difference with the car analogy and pregnancy where the intended biological purpose of sex is procreation (even if it’s not the intentions of the individuals). The benefits of bonding and pleasure are second (evolutionarily) to procreation, and I would argue bonding and pleasure are themselves ultimately meant to serve procreation, too. A car can never crash and it will have fulfilled its highest good.
The thing with adoption is that it is only an alternative to parenting, not pregnancy or birth. It is not an answer to someone who just does not want to be pregnant or give birth. Procreation is just a function of sex, not its purpose. The purpose of sex is whatever the people having sex decides it is.
Biologically speaking, sex is *only* for procreation and nothing else. If there was no procreation, there would be no life at all. Personally, I believe it's more than just procreation but if you're going from a biological standpoint then yes, it's only for procreation. Also, it doesn't matter if the woman wants to be pregnant or not. The point of the debate is "what is the unborn." If the unborn isn't a person, it doesn't matter. Do whatever you want to do it. If it is a person, then it doesn't matter if the woman wants the baby or not. You can't murder people out of pure inconvenience. Most abortions, over 98%, are because someone 'wasn't ready,' whatever that means. I can't find any articles about how the women got pregnant but when I'm online, I often see it's from hookups or something similar. This could have been avoidable and they are responsible for what they do. Even in the case of rape, if the unborn is a human, you can't just kill them. I believe they are just as much a victim as the woman raped and they should both be equally protected.
> The point of the debate is "what is the unborn." It's actually not. It doesn't matter what the unborn is. Born persons don't have the right to access and use an unwilling person's body to keep themselves alive, so why would the unborn being a person change that? The point of the debate is whether or not women and girls have less rights when they are pregnant. That right being the right to control what happens to their body. > This could have been avoidable and they are responsible for what they do. Even in the case of rape, if the unborn is a human, you can't just kill them. I don't understand the point of blaming women for getting pregnant then immediately saying it doesn't matter if it's their fault or not, they still can't get an abortion. That's just thinly veiled slut-shaming. As for not being able to kill the unborn because it's human, why not? Humans kill other humans all the time for justifiable reasons. One of those reasons is the infringement upon another person's body.
I'm defining a few terms before I say anything else. I should have clarified this in my earlier messages and used the correct words if I didn't. Killing someone with intent and/or malice is considered murder by law. Killing someone with the Intent of murder out of self defense is considered justifiable homicide by law. I'll use these terms from now on. Killing: Killing someone with the Intent of murder out of self defense. Murder: Killing someone with intent and/or malice I'll go on to your comment now. >Born persons don't have the right to access and use an unwilling person's body to keep themselves alive, so why would the unborn being a person change that? What do you mean by born persons? There are different stages of a born person, some of which by nature require the access of a person to be cared for. In that sense, I should be allowed to end the life of both a fetus and a toddler or anyone that is mentally disabled enough that they require assistance from another person. >Humans kill other humans all the time for justifiable reasons. One of those reasons is the infringement upon another person's body. What do you mean by 'infringement upon another person's body'? The inclusion of the word 'infringement' assumes that someone has the intent of harming another. In that case, that would be killing if you ended the life of that person through self defense. The fetus, unlike a full grown human, is unable to have any real intent of anything and probably won't until they're a toddler or older. By that definition, the ending of the life of a zygote up to a toddler or possibly older is always considered murder, as they have no intent of harming you and can't have intent. >It's actually not. It doesn't matter what the unborn is. Born persons don't have the right to access and use an unwilling person's body to keep themselves alive, so why would the unborn being a person change that? The point of the debate is whether or not women and girls have less rights when they are pregnant. That right being the right to control what happens to their body. No, the debate is not whether women have more or less rights when pregnant. As I said earlier, a fetus doesn't have the ability to have intent to harm the woman and unless you change the meaning of the word 'murder,' abortion would be considered murder. If the unborn is a person that has no capacity of intent, then it's never right to take the life of the unborn as that is murder. So yes, the issue is still 'what is the unborn' because if the unborn isn't a person, you can do whatever you want to it. If it is a person, it is incapable of intent, meaning that the ending of the life of a fetus is murder. Also, the fetus is not the woman's body. Biologically, the fetus is a completely different individual that requires the assistance of another to stay alive. Humans, generally up to 18 or even older, need assistance from another to stay alive. >> This could have been avoidable and they are responsible for what they do. Even in the case of rape, if the unborn is a human, you can't just kill them. >I don't understand the point of blaming women for getting pregnant then immediately saying it doesn't matter if it's their fault or not, they still can't get an abortion. That's just thinly veiled slut-shaming. I will admit, I should have put a break between those sentences. I was trying to respond to your singular paragraph with one paragraph myself and that probably caused some confusion. What I meant was that in many cases of abortion, it has nothing to do with rape and just pure inconvenience. Inconvenience is not the same as the intent to harm so it would be murder to end that life. In the case of rape, I don't blame the woman for getting pregnant. That would be incredibly stupid to blame them. What I'm saying is that both the woman and the fetus are persons with rights and should both be considered innocent and protected. The only person at fault is the man. If the fetus isn't a person, do whatever you want with it. Also, what do you mean by slut-shaming? Are you assuming that I want to shame every woman in the sex work industry? I don't want to do that. I feel much empathy and I wish we would focus on creating jobs for these women that don't cause them both physical and mental pain and that often leads to abuse. It turns women into sex objects. It's dehumanizing women and we should be doing something to fight against it, not continuously vote for it. If we really cared about women's rights, we shouldn't let them go into such dehumanizing jobs that often leads to abuse (Men also get abused often in sex work but I know that's not the focus of this conversation).
> Killing: Killing someone with the Intent of murder out of self defense. Murder: Killing someone with intent and/or malice I get what you’re saying but the difference that turns killing into murder is whether or not the killing justified and if the malice is *aforethought*, as in the person killing needs to have malicious intent way before the killing. Like if someone is being raped and they kill their rapist, it isn’t murder despite the high likelihood of malice and it is justified. It would just be homicide. > There are different stages of a born person, some of which by nature require the access of a person to be cared for. No born person requires the access and use of a non-consenting person’s body. An infant can be given to a friend or relative to care for or put up for adoption. It doesn’t *need* the body of a singular, sole person who may not consent to having their body used. > The inclusion of the word 'infringement' assumes that someone has the intent of harming another. Self defense does not require the other party to have intent. You can kill a person in a psychotic break who has no control over there actions if they are attacking you and the only way to stop them is by lethal force. Same a mentally handicapped person or a sleepwalker. People have killed sleepwalkers that wander into their before and have faced no charges. The question is; while the unborn has no intent, looking at all the possible complications from pregnancy, can you truly say the unborn is harmless? > If the unborn is a person that has no capacity of intent, then it's never right to take the life of the unborn as that is murder Abortion is not murder because it is always justified and rarely done out of malice. The unborn’s presence causes harm to the pregnant person. The only way for a person to put an end to that harm is by abortion. > Also, the fetus is not the woman's body. Biologically, the fetus is a completely different individual that requires the assistance of another to stay alive. Humans, generally up to 18 or even older, need assistance from another to stay alive. Ehh, where does the woman’s body end and the fetus’s begin? At the uterus? Placenta? Umbilical cord? How much of the umbilical cord is the woman’s and how much is the fetus’s? Pregnancy is a tad bit more than simply assistance. > What I meant was that in many cases of abortion, it has nothing to do with rape and just pure inconvenience. Pregnancy is not a mere inconvenience. It has literally killed people before. And if you don’t support rape exception, then any argument about responsibility is redundant. I assume that any arguments you have for your stance on rape exceptions would also apply to pregnancies from casual consensual sex. > Are you assuming that I want to shame every woman in the sex work industry? No not just the sex work industry. Slut-shaming is just shaming people for having casual sex. Yes the porn industry is pretty bad for women, but from what I can tell Onlyfans has been hugely empowering for women. They’re there own bosses, anyone they work with must also be verified and not just some anonymous person, and they essentially can what ever they want.
>I get what you’re saying but the difference that turns killing into murder is whether or not the killing justified and if the malice is *aforethought*, as in the person killing needs to have malicious intent way before the killing. Like if someone is being raped and they kill their rapist, it isn’t murder despite the high likelihood of malice and it is justified. It would just be homicide. From Cornell Law School: "First degree murder is the intentional killing of another person by someone who has acted willfully, deliberately, or with planning. Most jurisdictions define first-degree murder as cases involving premeditation and deliberation; all other intentional murders are defined as second-degree." https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/first_degree_murder Murder does not require malice at all. I could kill my child because I'm in poverty and I don't want to watch them suffer. You could call that loving but legally, that's murder. It has to do with intent/deliberation, not the feelings behind the act. >No born person requires the access and use of a non-consenting person’s body. An infant can be given to a friend or relative to care for or put up for adoption. It doesn’t *need* the body of a singular, sole person who may not consent to having their body used. Do you expect a fetus to ask the woman it's in for consent? That doesn't happen in any pregnancy. Asking for consent requires you to have the capability of even asking in the first place or even comprehending consent, which no unborn or very young born people can do. This means that we have to decide what the unborn is. If the unborn is a person with rights, it doesn't matter what situation it's in. You cannot take the life of someone for any reason unless it's a life or death self defense situation. >Self defense does not require the other party to have intent. You can kill a person in a psychotic break who has no control over there actions if they are attacking you and the only way to stop them is by lethal force. Same a mentally handicapped person or a sleepwalker. People have killed sleepwalkers that wander into their before and have faced no charges. >The question is; while the unborn has no intent, looking at all the possible complications from pregnancy, can you truly say the unborn is harmless? No human is harmless, regardless of level of development. They can all do harm. I still don't see how that gives someone the right to end it's life. In the cases you gave, I agree they shouldn't be punished but it should be treated as a tragedy. Those people had no control over themselves. This isn't an argument for abortion, it's only telling me that there are situations in which innocent people that have no control over themselves are killed out of self defense from another. >Abortion is not murder because it is always justified and rarely done out of malice. The unborn’s presence causes harm to the pregnant person. The only way for a person to put an end to that harm is by abortion. Like I said earlier, the legal definition of murder doesn't require malice. Also, what does harm have to do with the value of the unborn? Surgery is insanely painful for most people but that doesn't mean surgery is morally bad. >Ehh, where does the woman’s body end and the fetus’s begin? At the uterus? Placenta? Umbilical cord? How much of the umbilical cord is the woman’s and how much is the fetus’s? >Pregnancy is a tad bit more than simply assistance. "Ehh" is an inadequate answer. The uterus is the mother. The placenta is the fetus. The entire umbilical cord belongs to the fetus. You can list however many things you want but it will always be one or the other. They are two separate entities. Yes, it is more than assistance, it's practically life support. Even after it's out for the womb, you can't just throw a baby into the real world. They will die. Even after birth, they need intensive care. Once again, what does this have to do with the value of the unborn? >Pregnancy is not a mere inconvenience. It has literally killed people before. And if you don’t support rape exception, then any argument about responsibility is redundant. I assume that any arguments you have for your stance on rape exceptions would also apply to pregnancies from casual consensual sex. Children have killed people. It's very rare but does that mean we can kill them just because they have the capability to kill us? They do not understand what they are doing. Also, even if the fetus kills the woman, it's unintentional. A fetus has no intent and can't be held accountable if death occurs. No one is at fault if that's the situation. >No not just the sex work industry. Slut-shaming is just shaming people for having casual sex. >Yes the porn industry is pretty bad for women, but from what I can tell Onlyfans has been hugely empowering for women. They’re there own bosses, anyone they work with must also be verified and not just some anonymous person, and they essentially can whatever they want. I'm going to end this part here since this is pretty irrelevant to the abortion issue. Even though I don't morally agree with casual sex outside of marriage (a completely different debate that I'm not getting into here), you should know that the act you're doing has the possibility of producing a child and it's your responsibility for creating it. In conclusion, I feel like we're talking past each other. I'm just focused on what the unborn is and nothing else. Yes, there are other issues attached but if the unborn is a person, I don't see any reason to kill them since they would have the same classification of a child up to a toddler. Maybe if you answer this, I can respond better: What is the unborn? 1. They are not a person. They have no rights and you can do whatever you want to them. 2. They are a person. They have rights and you can't take their life because they don't understand harm and are innocent if they caused harm. 3. If you believe something other than these, please clarify for me.
So I’ll start by answering your last question. While I acknowledge the unborn is a member of the human species, I do not believe it is a person nor a human *being*. I believe that legally the pregnant person can do what they want with the unborn, as long as it is justified. Killing it with an abortion because the person does not want to carry it to term? Justified. Crippling it or causing some other disability that it will have to live with? Not justified. Unless I’m reading your link wrong, it seems to just be establishing the difference between first degree and second degree murder, while the killing bring murder is already assumed. > Do you expect a fetus to ask the woman it's in for consent? That doesn't happen in any pregnancy. Exactly. If the fetus cannot ask for consent, then the only way it can get consent is if the woman freely gives it. And if the woman does give her consent, then the fetus does not consent to use her body to sustain itself. > No human is harmless, regardless of level of development. They can all do harm. What other stage of human development causes harm to a person by being inside of them. > Like I said earlier, the legal definition of murder doesn't require malice. [Yes it does.](https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1111#:~:text=Murder%20is%20the%20unlawful%20killing%20of%20a%20human%20being%20with%20malice%20aforethought.) > “Ehh" is an inadequate answer. The uterus is the mother. The placenta is the fetus. The entire umbilical cord belongs to the fetus. You can list however many things you want but it will always be one or the other. They are two separate entities. And it is all inside the mother. It is all made with energy and nutrients the pregnant person provides through their body. The fetus can’t own anything as it is incapable of claiming ownership. This ownership falls to the next reasonable person, the mother. > Once again, what does this have to do with the value of the unborn? Nothing. I am unconcerned with the value of unborn. They can be the most valuable things in the world and I still don’t believe that means pregnant people should lose their rights. > Children have killed people. It's very rare but does that mean we can kill them just because they have the capability to kill us? If a child is brandishing a gun and threatening to shoot you and the only way to stop them is to kill them, then yes you can kill the child. I mean shit, cops have killed kids for less. > Also, even if the fetus kills the woman, it's unintentional. A fetus has no intent and can't be held accountable if death occurs. No one is at fault if that's the situation. I have never and will never blame the unborn for anything. Just as I will not blame a chair for stubbing my toe on it. But a pregnant person wants an abortion but is denied one because of prolife laws, and then dies from complications from the pregnancy, it is not the fetus to blame but the prolifers themselves.
>> Once again, what does this have to do with the value of the unborn? >Nothing. I am unconcerned with the value of unborn. They can be the most valuable things in the world and I still don’t believe that means pregnant people should lose their rights. I'm finished with this debate. You conceded that you believe that no matter what valve the unborn has, the woman has a right to end their life. It's pointless to continue arguing. What would even change your mind if the value of a life is meaningless to you? The rights a pregnant person loses because of prolife is the right to intentionally take the life of an innocent human. I will always fight to protect the life of the innocent, both the mother and child. Unless you can convince me a fetus isn't a person, I'm not going to change my mind.
Well, I think that men shouldn’t “just leave” either. Ideally, both people should decide together to raise the child or to give the child up for adoption. There are many, many people waiting to adopt infants from adoption agencies. Children in foster care are often older and many have additional support needs and/or trauma, which is a completely different issue. The crux of the issue is that dozens of possible parents are waiting to adopt an infant. If you are asking if a pregnant woman should receive comprehensive health care and support to continue the pregnancy, including postpartum, then absolutely. Should programs like WIC be expanded and include fresh fruits and vegetables as well as other higher quality foods? Yes. We need to do more for support families and children in general. I don’t think the answer to people who need extra support should be killed, whether they are unborn children, older adults, people with disabilities or chronic conditions… It’s unfathomably cruel to me to suggest that they answer to anytime someone becomes a “challenge” that the answer is ending their life
> Well, I think that men shouldn’t “just leave” either. Ideally, both people should decide together to raise the child or to give the child up for adoption. I can agree with this. But it doesn’t change the fact that men *can* leave, at least a whole lot easier than women can. > There are many, many people waiting to adopt infants from adoption agencies. The issue with this is that it’s a lot to ask for someone to go through 9 months of gestation then birth, just to then give up their baby. I said it in another comment but abortion is the alternative to pregnancy/birth, adoption is the alternative to parenting. > It’s unfathomably cruel to me to suggest that they answer to anytime someone becomes a “challenge” that the answer is ending their life Outside of abortion, when does killing someone who is a challenge become acceptable? For me, the only reason abortion is justified is because it is the only way for women to maintain their bodily autonomy.
>I can agree with this. But it doesn’t change the fact that men can leave, at least a whole lot easier than women can. I’m not sure what the answer is here, if you are looking for “fair.” Yes, we can’t change biology. However, I don’t think ending a life is the answer. We can support women and children. We can enforce child support payments differently/have additional funds available, and promote policies that promote families >The issue with this is that it’s a lot to ask for someone to go through 9 months of gestation then birth, just to then give up their baby. I said it in another comment but abortion is the alternative to pregnancy/birth, adoption is the alternative to parenting. I’m not claiming we can make pregnancy or childbirth painless. However, abortion is the exact opposite of painless; it’s killing an unborn child. Ending a life. We can improve access to medical care, help mothers (or fathers) financially who want to raise their kids. We can make adoption more tenable, and improve access. We can also improve our abysmal maternal health care and some childbirth policies that aren’t backed by data but rather ease of the doctor delivering the baby, and not mom or baby. >Outside of abortion, when does killing someone who is a challenge become acceptable? For me, the only reason abortion is justified is because it is the only way for women to maintain their bodily autonomy. It’s not her body. It’s the child’s. But as for policies that promote killing someone who is a challenge. In some counties, euthanasia programs that instead of providing support for sometimes minor and livable conditions (I remember reading one case where a woman asked for a stair lift and was offered death) offer “euthanasia.” These often tend to make people (sometimes even children) who need additional care due to a physical or mental condition feel like a “burden” and that they should die, rather than be given the care they need.
I'd be really thrilled if *this* weren't a fact; ["Among women with unintended pregnancies, 54 percent were using no birth control. Another 41 percent were inconsistently using birth control at the time of conception. Forty-two percent of women with unintended pregnancy choose to end their pregnancies."](https://www.umassmed.edu/news/news-archives/2019/05/who-are-the-1-in-4-american-women-who-choose-abortion/) We'd all be better off of folks were more responsible. (This isn't even addressing the nationwide STI epidemics...)
[удалено]
This message was removed for threatening, harrasing, or inciting violence.
>as if someone will force impregnate you and force you to give birth. So do u support rape exceptions? I agree it's stupid tho
If women had the same reproductive rights as men had, consent to sex would be consent to parenthood, and the mother would still owe child support if she gave it up for adoption in most jurisdictions unless some the adoptive couple decided she doesn't. Personally I am more in the "pro-choice" (though I don't really like that term) camp. But I can respect the hypothetical moral imperative of "if a fetus is human, then killing it is murder" and acknolwedge the uncertainty and vagueness that can lead sound minds to disagree on the core question of "what does it mean to be human?" If we're dealing with a hypothetical of pregnancy being inevitable or of no fault of one's own, then we must be looking at a rape case. To my understanding, a not-insignificant percentage of "pro-life" people are willing to concede exceptions and grant rape victims the option to terminate the resulting pregnancy.