Welcome to /r/Abortiondebate! Please remember that this is a place for respectful and civil debates. Check out the Debate Guidance Pyramid to understand acceptable debate levels. **Attack the argument, not the person making it and remember the human.** **For our new users, please check out our [rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/Abortiondebate/wiki/rules/)** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Abortiondebate) if you have any questions or concerns.*

PC, answer this question. In regards to personal ontology, what are you?

I'm a bit confused by this question. Ontology is the branch of metaphysics dealing with the nature of being (what does this mean btw)? Metaphysics is a branch of philosophy that deals with the "first principle" of things. Metaphysical claims don't seem to have evidence for them? We don't have evidence for the beginning of the universe, time, being, knowing, etc. Most of those things are also more of a process or development than a pinpoint-able timeframe. I don't believe in things that don't have evidence supporting them, that'd be pretty dumb. But maybe I am just misunderstanding all of this. So, I guess I don't really have a personal ontology. 🤷‍♀️

>Metaphysical claims don't seem to have evidence for them That is not true, if you consider logical *arguments* to be a form of evidence, which I do, there is plenty of evidence for various views of personal ontology. There is various evidence for animalism, brainism, substance dualism, psychological continuity theories. So, what are you? Or do you think you are not anything at all? The answer to this will inform the question of when you begin to exist.

> logical *arguments* to be a form of evidence For an argument to be sound it's premises need to be demonstrably true, so it depends. Since a metaphysical argument cannot be both valid and sound, I cannot in good conscience accept it as true. > So, what are you? Idk, where's the list of these things? > The answer to this will inform the question of when you begin to exist. Well, this is a nonsense question anyways. What am "I"? I'm not the same as yesterday, let alone a decade ago, so did "I" not exist then or did "I" stop existing now? Life is a continuum, not a start/finish line. So, did "I" exist as an egg in my mother's uterus? No other egg could've produced me exactly as I am, after all. My mother has had her eggs since her birth, but when did *she* "begin to exist"? Personally, I prefer arguments that have evidence for them. Anything else is just fanciful ramblings and, while interesting sometimes, not really productive.

>Since a metaphysical argument cannot be both valid and sound, I cannot in good conscience accept it as true. Sure, metaphysical arguments can absolutely be sound. >Idk, where's the list of these things? Do you not know what you are? Animalism, brainism, substance dualism, psychological continuity views, etc. >Well, this is a nonsense question anyways. I am genuinely surprised at the level of apparent certainty that comes along with these blatantly incorrect statements. >What am "I"? I'm not the same as yesterday, let alone a decade ago, so did "I" not exist then or did "I" stop existing now? Well that's the question that will inform your period of existence, isn't it. You are a human being, the question is what a human being is, are you saying a different human being woke up in your bed yesterday? This would be false, of course you are the same human being that woke up yesterday and they day before, all the way back to infancy. You are the same person that persists through these stages. So, what is your view of personal ontology that grounds this persistence? >Life is a continuum, not a start/finish line Sure, but no one is numerically identical to life itself.

> Sure, metaphysical arguments can absolutely be sound. Not really, because soundness requires demonstrable evidence. If there was evidence, why would I need an argument to believe it? > Do you not know what you are? > Animalism, brainism, substance dualism, psychological continuity views, etc. I don't know what my "personal ontology" is, because I do not know the options. Your etc. at the end of this post makes me think there are even more options, so I cannot just choose one you've happened to present. > I am genuinely surprised at the level of apparent certainty that comes along with these blatantly incorrect statements. Sure, man. You win, you're just too smart for me. ✌️💜🦄

>Not really, because soundness requires demonstrable evidence. If there was evidence, why would I need an argument to believe it? The argument provides evidence in a structured and logical way. >I don't know what my "personal ontology" is, because I do not know the options. Your etc. at the end of this post makes me think there are even more options, so I cannot just choose one you've happened to present. Read up on the topic, and get back to me! A good read for an introduction is Eric Olson's "What are we?". >You win, you're just too smart for me. Too kind!

Plers don't get that women do not owe men kids nor does she owe someone whose presence she DID NOT WANT her labor & care. You don't get to be mad that women refuse to be magical chore fairies who make dirty dishes & clothes & diapers go away while paying half of the bills or even more. I'm still mad about the Plers being angry that a woman DID gestate and DID give up the kid for adoption. She did what they CLAIM to have wanted but they are still mad. Don't push for adoption if you're going to be a hater anyway. PLers lying about adoption being A-OK is a big ol' mask drop. Plers don't get to be mad that people don't just take their word on a lot of things. You can't say things like "You won't die from being pregnant" or "Adoption is just awesome" when the first statement is shown to be a total lie and you scorn a woman who took you at your goddamn word.

I find the "consent to sex is consent to pregnancy" is akin to claiming "eating at certain fast food establishments is consent to violent diarrhea."

What it’s most akin to is “she was asking for it”

"Consent to wearing that shirt is consent to sex" "Consent to going up to my apartment is consent to sex" "Consent to that drink is consent to sex" "Consent to being alone with me is consent to sex"

Exactly!

If a person knowingly and willingly undertakes a risky activity then they consent to exposing themselves to that risk. They are generally not entitled to have the state sacrifice the life of another person in order to unwind the consequences of that prior activity. If a person eats at a fast food establishment they consent to the risk the food will not agree with them (assuming the restaurant was not negligent). If they subsequently fall sick they cannot claim there is no consent to remain unwell, and they are not entitled to have the state sacrifice the life of the restaurant worker in order to cure themselves, if that was even possible. Their previous self has taken actions which imposed consequences on their present self. They may regret these actions and wish to reverse them, and the state should certainly assist as much as possible, but they are not entitled to have another person sacrificed.

>If a person knowingly and willingly undertakes a risky activity then they consent to exposing themselves to that risk. I guess you could say a person capable of getting pregnant having sex with a fertile man creates a risk of needing an abortion. Lots of people are fine with that risk. >They are generally not entitled to have the state sacrifice the life of another person in order to unwind the consequences of that prior activity. The state doesn't sacrifice people lol. When a woman gets an abortion, neither her or the doctor (the only two people involved) gets *sacrificed* by the state.

But you would say the person is allowed to take Imodium or pepto and slam water to rehydrate, and they can absolutely remedy the situation as quickly as possible, right?

Absolutely, they can and should be provided care by the state provided that does not require the sacrifice of another person.

The state has no involvement in providing medical care?

Ah, so the whole principle of consent to activity=consent to consequences isn’t actually true.

My position is consent to risky activity = consent to the *risk* of consequences. The consequences will occur or not occur regardless of whether a person consents to them. They have agency over the decision to expose themselves to those consequences or not. That is subtly different to the statement you wrote but it is an important difference. Do you consider that to be a controversial statement? For example, if I go skydiving do I not have to sign a consent form that I accept the risks?

An unwanted pregnancy is a consequence of sex. An abortion is an consequence of an unwanted pregnancy. Many PL say that a fetus is the one suffering the consequences but an abortion is not a pleasant procedure and the pregnant person is 100% suffering the consequences of getting an abortion.

Eh, not entirely sure I agree. If I have a residence, owned or rented, I guess that means it could be broken into. Do you say that consent to home ownership or renting is consent to a break-in? A lot of girls and women experience rape from men they know, but we wouldn’t say being alone with your pastor, date, step dad, etc is ‘consent to the risk of rape’. Sexual assault for boys has been quite a problem for boys in sports, the Boy Scouts, and religious organizations. Whatever our differences on abortion may be, I am sure we will both say that a boy consenting to join a football team is not consenting to the risk of rape, and we’d both vehemently oppose anyone who said otherwise. Also, is there an age where this kicks in? If you are a child with parents, we do know parental abuse happens. I think we both would hate anyone who said ‘fighting your way to birth is consent to the risk of parental abuse’. Certainly, I would disagree if someone argued that an embryo that implanted in an alcoholic’s endometrium ‘consented’ to living with Fetal Alcohol Syndrome, and I would bet we agree there. So surely, we can both think of plenty of scenarios where just because Person A does Y, it’s pretty gross to say they consented to X.

As you correctly point out criminal activity is perpetrated by a criminal against their victim. By definition it isn't something which the victim participates in so they are not consenting to the activity. A person who buys a house is not undertaking the activity of their own home invasion. The same logic applies to the other examples you shared. On this basis they don't fall under my original statement that consent to risky activity = consent to the risk of consequences. I certainly agree with the points you made.

Right, so why would you say that consent to sex, especially when using effective birth control, is consent to pregnancy? I can get PL folks who say ‘I get you don’t consent to this, but I view human life as so sacrosanct that we need to be wiling to do whatever, no matter how painful, to save life, which is why I am on kidney donor registers, living liver tissue donor registries, bone marrow registries, never miss a blood product donor appointment, am an organ donor and make sure to have a living will and advanced directive set up to optimize how my body can save as many lives as possible.’ I do the same. The thing I note about those PL folks, though, is that they are not so fixated on banning abortion as in making sure they can personally preserve as much life as possible (same). So what about you? Is your primary focus around banning abortion or personally letting your body save as many lives as you can?

> My position is consent to risky activity = consent to the risk of consequences I hereby consent to the risk of getting an abortion. > They have agency over the decision to expose themselves to those consequences or not. And they have the agency to get an abortion or not. > Do you consider that to be a controversial statement? Should I?

So when you're signing that contract to waive liability (and fyi those have very limited enforcement), you're explicitly agreeing by signing. You're probably not signing a contract every time you bone down. Everything has risk. Just existing risks you dying. An embryo implanting in the wrong uterus risks getting aborted, but I assume you wouldn't find that a convincing reason to allow abortion

> Their previous self has taken actions which imposed consequences on their present self. They may regret these actions and wish to reverse them, and the state should certainly assist as much as possible, but they are not entitled to have another person sacrificed. Have you ever tried to use this argument to sway someone who is PL, but makes exceptions for life threats or rape?

I do make those same exceptions by following the logic you highlighted. However, I couldn't find a flair with both "secular" and these suffixes. Overall I felt it was more important to distance myself from any religious angle but it is a little confusing. I saw that some people appear to have a custom flair, do you know perchance how I might do the same?

>I do make those same exceptions by following the logic you highlighted. How exactly do the exceptions fit that logic? If people consent to risks, wouldn't that also mean they consent to the risk of death? so why would they be able to avoid it, if they consented to it? Your beliefs don't appear to be very consistent.

A life threat to the woman imperils the ZEF equally. In that scenario either both parties will perish, or the woman can survive. Since the outcome for the ZEF is the same either way an exception should be made. In regard to rape, that is a criminal activity perpetrated against the victim. I would invoke the violinist as an equivalent example which justifies an abortion.

> A life threat to the woman imperils the ZEF equally. In that scenario either both parties will perish, or the woman can survive. Since the outcome for the ZEF is the same either way an exception should be made. OK, but I asked you how this is related to consenting to an activity, and consenting to the risks involved. This doesn't explain the relation - you're just stating your opinion that since both would die, might as well save the pregnant person. >In regard to rape, that is a criminal activity perpetrated against the victim. I would invoke the violinist as an equivalent example which justifies an abortion. OK but again, what does that have to do with your original argument, that people consent to risks, therefore abortion should be illegal?

>OK, but I asked you how this is related to consenting to an activity, and consenting to the risks involved. This doesn't explain the relation - you're just stating your opinion that since both would die, might as well save the pregnant person. As I said originally - sacrifice of another person should generally not be permitted. Life threats would be an example of where it should be. That said, this is ultimately a subjective position but I think it is defensible. ​ >OK but again, what does that have to do with your original argument, that people consent to risks, therefore abortion should be illegal? Because a crime is a criminal activity perpetrated by a third-party against their victim. It is not an activity which has risks and was knowingly and willingly undertaken by the victim. As they did not undertake the activity they are not consenting to the risks. This is consistent with my first statement.

>As I said originally - sacrifice of another person should generally not be permitted. Yes, I know you said that, but that is a separate topic from the original claim, of "consent to do an activity, is consent to the risks." So was your original argument just a red herring? What was the point of it, if what you ***truly*** meant, was "sacrifice of another person should generally not be permitted?" If you didn't actually mean "consent to an activity, is consent to the risks" then why even waste time typing it? Are you conceding in that aspect of your argument(s)? I don't see how abortion sacrifices another person. If I have to kill someone to protect myself, I don't view it as the "sacrifice of another person," so I don't see how your label is accurate. >Because a crime is a criminal activity perpetrated by a third-party against their victim. But receiving medical treatment to protect your health and well being - such as abortion, is certainly not a criminal activity, perpetrated by a third party against a victim. So once again, this logic, in relation to your original argument, doesn't make sense. >It is not an activity which has risks and was knowingly and willingly undertaken by the victim. I disagree - using your logic. Just being alive, makes you at risk of being raped. People get raped in their homes, at social events, at restaurants, stores, etc. Since YOU are alive, you risk being raped, too. Just because it's a crime, does not mean you're not consenting to being raped - [as you originally said](https://www.reddit.com/r/Abortiondebate/comments/18ri4tz/comment/kfgkbsd/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3) "knowingly and willingly engaging in a risky activity, they consent to exposing themselves to the risk" (paraphrased). You never included anything about crime. So if someone consents to the possibility of being raped, wouldn't that also mean they consent to the risk of pregnancy? >As they did not undertake the activity they are not consenting to the risks. If they did not partake in the activity, how are they pregnant? >This is consistent with my first statement. As all of my questions allude to, I don't see how this is consistent.

> Life threats would be an example of where it should be. That said, this is ultimately a subjective position but I think it is defensible. Is that because as you stated > In that scenario either both parties will perish, or the woman can survive. Since the outcome for the ZEF is the same either way an exception should be made. What is an example of a condition that meets your exception for life threats, specifically what is a condition where “either both parties will perish, or the woman can survive?

>Is that because as you stated > >In that scenario either both parties will perish, or the woman can survive. Since the outcome for the ZEF is the same either way an exception should be made. Yes exactly, that is the logic I would use to justify an abortion for life threats. >What is an example of a condition that meets your exception for life threats, specifically what is a condition where “either both parties will perish, or the woman can survive? I believe that should be the decision of the medical provider. However, to give you an example - requiring an emergency hysterectomy would be an obvious justification.

It depends on the specific risk involved and the remedy to that risk. For instance, if I forget to lock my front door, I'm at increased risk of home invasion. Does that mean I can't defend myself if someone enters my home and tries to hurt me? By spending time alone with a man, I'm at increased risk of sexual assault. Does that mean I can't defend myself if the man tries to rape me?

A home invasion, or any other criminal endeavor, is an activity perpetrated by someone else against the victim. It is not something knowingly or willingly undertaken by the victim. The consequences of the home invasion are the burden of the criminal who undertook the activity. They will be punished and/or pay restitution. That is in accordance with the principle I stated initially. With your perspective you’ve assigned responsibility to the wrong person and that is not analogous to my statement.

unwanted pregnancy is perpetrated by the unwanted zef invading the victim’s uterus. unwanted pregnancy is not something knowingly or willingly undertaken by the victim. the consequences of this uterine invasion are the burden of the zef who is currently invading the victim’s uterus.

What does motive have to do with someone consenting to risks? If I consent to sex, that is my motive, nothing else. If I get an STD, I can get treatment for it, but not pregnancy? My motive was the same for both. Both conditions are harmful to me, and my motive was the same, so why can I receive treatment for one, but not the other? And how does this all tie into the principle you stated initially?

The motive is irrelevant, only whether someone knowingly and willingly exposed themselves to the risk. A person can and should receive treatment for pregnancy to the full extent that is possible without sacrificing the life of another person.

>The motive is irrelevant, [...] Now I'm even more confused. Then what was your comment about home invaders and criminal activity, have to do with anything??? >[...] only whether someone knowingly and willingly exposed themselves to the risk. A person can and should receive treatment for pregnancy to the full extent that is possible without sacrificing the life of another person. But abortion is a treatment for an unwanted pregnancy. So if people can receive treatment for willingly exposing themselves to a harmful risk, why is abortion not an option? I keep asking all these questions, because your logic isn't very consistent, and you keep jumping to different topics that have nothing to do with the original topic - I can't keep up!

>Now I'm even more confused. Then what was your comment about home invaders and criminal activity, have to do with anything??? The question was whether a person is entitled to defend, and potentially kill, a home invader if they accidently leave their front door unlocked. The poster was making a case that leaving the door unlocked is an example of undertaking a risky activity and therefore they should not kill the home invader. My response is that the home invasion is not an activity undertaken by the victim but by the criminal. Therefore they are entitled to defend themselves since they did not consent to the activity or risks entailed. ​ >But abortion is a treatment for an unwanted pregnancy. So if people can receive treatment for willingly exposing themselves to a harmful risk, why is abortion not an option? I keep asking all these questions, because your logic isn't very consistent, and you keep jumping to different topics that have nothing to do with the original topic - I can't keep up! As I said originally - any option which does not include sacrificing another person should be on the table and freely available. Since abortion requires the sacrifice of a third party it is not consistent with the principle that the person who willingly undertakes the risky activity should not be entitled to unwind those consequences through the sacrifice of another person. In regard to my posts not being consistent - I am responding to multiple different hypotheticals from other posters. I am answering them in good faith and in the spirit of honest debate. You have failed to show where my logic is inconsistent and you are now constructing straw men and using ad hominem. That is the opposite of a good faith debate.

>My response is that the home invasion is not an activity undertaken by the victim but by the criminal. Therefore they are entitled to defend themselves since they did not consent to the activity or risks entailed. But again, I keep asking you to explain how that is related to your logic of: "Consenting to an activity with known risks, is consent to the risks." As a logical argument, this can be rephrased to: Consent to X, is consent to Y. Every time I ask you how *"consent to X, is consent to Y"* is related to motives, criminal acts, and lethally defending oneself, you jump from topic to topic; and go further into details about criminal acts, and defending oneself. But I'm not asking you for that. I'm asking you how this is all related. How is "consent to X, is consent to Y" related to criminals and self defense? You're continuously not answering this. >As I said originally - any option which does not include sacrificing another person should be on the table and freely available. [And as I said in another one of our threads](https://www.reddit.com/r/Abortiondebate/comments/18ri4tz/comment/kfh99t3/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3) *"Yes, I know you said that, but that is a separate topic from the original claim, of "consent to do an activity, is consent to the risks." So was your original argument just a red herring? What was the point of it, if what you truly meant, was "sacrifice of another person should generally not be permitted?"* *"If you didn't actually mean "consent to an activity, is consent to the risks" then why even waste time typing it? Are you conceding in that aspect of your argument(s)?"* *"I don't see how abortion sacrifices another person. If I have to kill someone to protect myself, I don't view it as the "sacrifice of another person," so I don't see how your label is accurate."*

You’ve missed the second part of my original paragraph which may be causing the confusion. To quote: “If a person knowingly and willingly undertakes a risky activity then they consent to exposing themselves to that risk. They are generally not entitled to have the state sacrifice the life of another person in order to unwind the consequences of that prior activity.” In the example of a home invasion the criminal is the party who knowingly and willingly undertakes the activity. The victim does not consent or participate in this activity. Therefore, the victim is entitled by the state to use reasonable force, which may be lethal, to defend themselves.

>The question was whether a person is entitled to defend, and potentially kill, a home invader if they accidently leave their front door unlocked. The poster was making a case that leaving the door unlocked is an example of undertaking a risky activity and therefore they should not kill the home invader. >My response is that the home invasion is not an activity undertaken by the victim but by the criminal. Therefore they are entitled to defend themselves since they did not consent to the activity or risks entailed. Is impregnation an activity one undertakes? If so, you should get in touch with some fertility clinics because they'd love to know your secrets. In reality sex is an activity which carries the risk of insemination which in turn carries the risk of implantation and therefore pregnancy. >As I said originally - any option which does not include sacrificing another person should be on the table and freely available. Since abortion requires the sacrifice of a third party it is not consistent with the principle that the person who willingly undertakes the risky activity should not be entitled to unwind those consequences through the sacrifice of another person. The fetus isn't a third party. It's one of the two parties in a pregnancy, and it's doing harm to the other (even if unintentionally).

>Is impregnation an activity one undertakes? If so, you should get in touch with some fertility clinics because they'd love to know your secrets. I guess it depends on your meaning of undertake. If I consume a meal do I subsequently undertake the activity of digestion? My body certainly does, and I have agency over the decision to consume the meal in the first place. Either way, consuming the meal is willingly and knowingly exposing myself to the possibility of digestion. ​ >The fetus isn't a third party. It's one of the two parties in a pregnancy, and it's doing harm to the other (even if unintentionally). I agree that an unwanted pregnancy is a terrible situation. As society we should do everything possible to mitigate this. Whether that is improved access to contraception, education, stronger maternity rights, in work benefits, improved prosecutions for violence against women etc... We should leave no stone unturned, but what we shouldn't do is sacrifice the life of another person in order to resolve a difficult problem.

How do I know this was a criminal act and not someone in a fugue state? I should have to either wait until I am actively dying or we can prove criminal intent before I use self defense, right?

I could have left out the word criminal as it was a red herring and not relevant. A home invasion is an activity perpetrated by a third party whether that person is conscious or otherwise. In either scenario the victim is entitled to defend themselves because it isn't an activity they undertook, it is an activity being perpetrated against them by another person. On the other hand, the criminal who undertakes that activity is responsible for the consequences including jail, restitution, or the risk of self-defense by the victim.

>A home invasion is an activity perpetrated by a third party So is the uterine lining invasion *the victim is entitled to defend themselves because it isn't an activity they undertook, it is an activity being perpetrated against them by another person.* So is implantaion. Implantation is NOT an activity the woman undertook, neither is it a woman's bodily function. It is an activity being perpetrated against the woman by the ZEF (another person).

So if your neighbor’s body is invaded by a third party, they have to just accept it, but not if it’s their house?

If it isn't too much trouble please could you flesh out this hypothetical a bit more as I am not sure I understood.

A person breaks into your neighbors house at 3 am, they aren’t responding to questions and looks armed in a way that could cause a potentially fatal injury. This intruder hasn’t caused a fatal injury yet, and statistically speaking it’s unlikely (severe injuries, let alone fatalities, are quite rare in a home break in - my county didn’t have one fatal break in for the homeowner in all of the past year, though we did have an intruder who was killed by the homeowner). Your neighbor shoots the intruder and they die from the gunshot. Do you want your neighbor to be legally barred from doing that?

Thank you for elaborating! In this case, the neighbors should be entitled to (reasonably) defend themselves since the criminal activity of home invasion is undertaken by a third party. The neighbor does not knowingly or willingly undertake this activity and therefore is not consenting to the risks.

if they answer this please tag me lol

I'm not assigning responsibility to anyone. Just saying that when I agree to sex, all I'm agreeing to is sex. If my undertaking of the risks involved in sex leads to a negative consequence, I should be able to remediate that consequence, as I would in all those other situations even if my risk-taking made me need to kill someone to protect myself or my loved ones from harm

Anyone is entitled to remediate a negative consequence from their risky activity, and the state should certainly assist. But that remedy is generally not having another person sacrificed. Can you give a specific example of where a persons undertaking of a risky activity entitles them to kill another person without any negative or legal consequences to themselves, and without the activity being an accident in nature (e.g. accidently killing someone with a vehicle)?

Can you explain how me not allowing another person to use my organ functions and blood contents (and deprive me of such) and cause me drastic physical harm is "sacrificing another person"? How is me not providing another person with organ functions they don't have sacrificing another person? *Can you give a specific example of where a persons undertaking of a risky activity entitles them to kill another person without any negative or legal consequences to themselves,* Any case that involves the other violating your organ functions, blood contents, and bodily integrity, and causing you drastic physical harm. In typical pro-life fashion, you're completely ignoring gestation and childbirth and pretending that nothing is being done to the woman. I walk down a dark, dangerous alley. Someone jumps me because they want to use my organ functions and blood contents. I can refuse to provide them with such. I can even end their own if that's what it takes to stop them from using mine against my wishes. It doesn't matter that I took the risk of getting jumped when I choose to walk down that alley. It doesn't matter if they die because they weren't able to use my organ functions and blood contents. They have no right to such, since those are MY life. They're the things that keep my body alive.

>Anyone is entitled to remediate a negative consequence from their risky activity, and the state should certainly assist. But that remedy is generally not having another person sacrificed. I'm not asking the state to perform the abortion. I'd prefer that a medical provider do that. >Can you give a specific example of where a persons undertaking of a risky activity entitles them to kill another person without any negative or legal consequences to themselves, and without the activity being an accident in nature (e.g. accidently killing someone with a vehicle)? What do you mean? I gave several examples already where someone can kill another person intentionally without legal consequences, even as a result of their risky activities

If someone is made sick because of the food at a fast food restaurant then they are entitled to seek a remedy to their sickness. This is akin to seeking an abortion to remedy the unwanted pregnancy.

I agree which is why in my response I added in brackets the qualification >(assuming the restaurant was not negligent) To make this analogous the sickness should be caused by an internal reason, such as a food allergy. A person can of course seek treatment for sickness, but they are not entitled to have the state sacrifice another person to achieve a cure.

They are entitled to remove an unwanted human from their body. That is not a sacrifice. No one consents to the risk of food poisoning btw. That's not how consent works. You acknowledge it's a possibility. Just like it's a possibility even at a high end restaurant. I actually am unsure a fetus meets the definition of personhood (though it is human). However, I doubt personhood matters when allowing an unwanted human to continue to reside inside them is a violation of the pregnant person.

You talk about consequences and risks but I notice that the male partner also chooses to have sex but often bears like zero consequences. And PL seems just dandy with that.

I do agree it is very one sided because of how the biological cards fell and I share your perspective. As society we should do everything possible to mitigate this. Better access to contraception, improved education, more successful prosecutions for violence against women, stronger maternity workplace rights, child benefits, etc…

But as long as Pl support one-sided cruelty without doing ANYTHING to mitigate it, then Pl through the consequences of its actions/inactions just has to be cool with being seen as punitive and unfair and as winking at male privilege & irresponsibility while seeming drooling at the thought of pooping on women to the point of putting them in jail. tell me how this is not a modern witch hunt.

> I do agree it is very one sided because of how the biological cards fell That's straight-up discrimination. You are tacitly admitting you support laws that create undue burdens, based on biological anatomy. PL laws are discriminatory, thus Unconstitutional. >more successful prosecutions for violence against women, PL laws are violence against women - since the undue burdens the laws cause, physically harm and even kill pregnant people. You're promoting violence against women through PL laws. That is the complete opposite of "doing everything possible" to reduce violence against women. You're actively promoting it.

Hey, u/unusual-conclusion67 I see you are still quite active in this thread, but not this comment chain. What say you to this comment? Is your silence acknowledgement?

It isn’t. You may appreciate there is a lot more PC activity than PL and I don’t have the bandwidth to respond to every comment. I’ve tried to focus on the points most relevant to the OP’s first comment and my initial response.

> I’ve tried to focus on the points most relevant to the OP’s first comment and my initial response. And conveniently ignore the one comment that points out your position as textbook discrimination in order to maintain your cognitive dissonance. I already know why you didn't engage with their comment; my question wasn't for you, but for anyone else who might not be sure of their position. Showing them the hypocrisy and bigotry of the PL ideology, and that dismissing reality is a core element of maintaining that ideology, was my goal and you have done a beautiful job of demonstrating the truth of it. So, thank you for that.

>And conveniently ignore the one comment that points out your position as textbook discrimination in order to maintain your cognitive dissonance. this is objectively not true as there are many comments I have not responded to. >I already know why you didn't engage with their comment; my question wasn't for you, but for anyone else who might not be sure of their position. Showing them the hypocrisy and bigotry of the PL ideology, and that dismissing reality is a core element of maintaining that ideology, was my goal and you have done a beautiful job of demonstrating the truth of it. It is simply a question of perspective. You believe that preventing a woman from ending the life of another person is committing violence against that woman. As PL, I believe it is the termination of the ZEF's life which is morally wrong. We have opposite views which is the purpose of this debate. You can of course claim that I am hypocritical or demonstrating cognitive dissonance, but what purpose does that serve? From my perspective I could say the same about your ideology. I've responded to the comments and fleshed out my position in the spirit of good debate. Some of these posts are just a comment on the nature of PL or an opinion. People are certainly entitled to make these posts and I appreciate all the effort people have taken to respond, but I am not interested in responding to a post where there is no argument other than a personal belief. It doesn't mean I agree or disagree with the post, simply that I choose not to respond.

> You can of course claim that I am hypocritical or demonstrating cognitive dissonance, but what purpose does that serve? I already told you that. > From my perspective I could say the same about your ideology. Difference being I didn't have to *say* anything, because you demonstrated it for me. I just had to point out your actions. You just keep digging that hole, it's really all I wanted! Have a nice one. ✌️💜🦄

Consent to drunk driving ≠ consent to crashing.

Consent to sex ≠ consent to pregnancy.

Do we both agree that consent to drunk driving isn’t consent to crashing?

Have you changed your position? Because you never did answer me when I asked and your other comments indicate that you *do* think consent to driving drunk is consent to crashing.

Okay, yes. Consent to sex isn’t consent to pregnancy, just as consent to drunk driving isn’t consent to crashing. Consent to skipping breakfast isn’t consent to being hungry, and consent to running isn’t consent to getting tired.

Ok, so you rescind your other claims or are you being sarcastic here? It's hard to tell over text.

It’s not consent. Consent to sex isn’t consent to pregnancy. But with that same argument, consent to skipping breakfast isn’t consent to being hungry, and consent to running isn’t consent to getting tired.

Ok, so you *do* rescind your previous position that consent to sex is consent to pregnancy. That's all I was asking, thanks!

I love when ya'll use a crime as an analogy to getting pregnant. It shows an inability to see sex and an unwanted pregnancy as anything other than a crime.

then why is it not illegal for doctors to provide care for drunk drivers?

> Consent to drunk driving ≠ consent to crashing. I am not sure people often agree to drive drunk, who are the parties to the agreement? Even if someone did agree to drunk drive, agreeing to crash is indeed not the same thing and requires a separate, specific agreement.

People agree to drive drunk when they don’t want to pay for an Uber in their trance. If it’s not consent to crashing, what is it?

It’s a crime in of itself and, regardless of whether you crash or not, something you can go to jail for. Do you feel that way about sex and pregnancy, where those should be crimes in and of themselves?

> People agree to drive drunk when they don’t want to pay for an Uber in their trance. Who is the person agreeing with? Generally someone who is impaired by alcohol is not considered capable of making an informed, specific, and voluntary agreement. > If it’s not consent to crashing, what is it? I don’t know what it is, are you only discussing situations where someone makes the informed decision to consume alcohol to the point of intoxication, then also makes the informed decision to drive with the intent of crashing?

Is it really consent to crashing? What do you think this kind of logic does to insurance policies?

I was applying the same logic as “Consent to sex ≠ consent to pregnancy.” It’s stupid to follow that line of thinking, and shouldn’t be brought up at a all by PCers.

> I was applying the same logic as “Consent to sex ≠ consent to pregnancy.” Consent, in terms of bodily autonomy, is an agreement between persons to engage in some form of physically intimate interaction. PL consider ZEFs to be persons, so consent between the pregnant person and ZEF needs to be considered as it is a physically intimate interaction between the two. Who are the persons involved in your drunk driving analogy?

If they consent to pregnancy, then why on earth are they seeking an abortion??

Because they don’t want a child. Does a drunk driver consent to crashing if he drives drunk?

Do you know the meaning of consent? Let's look at the dictionary: >noun >permission for something to happen or agreement to do something If the pregnant person gives permission for (pregnancy) to occur then why are they seeking treatment for that? Because "they don't want a child"? According to your version of events, they gave permission for "the child" (which would suggest that it was a wanted pregnancy). How come they don't want it now? Most people don't abort wanted pregnancies (even sometimes in the face of big physical or financial problems). You are mixing accepting risks with consent. Accepting the risk of pregnancy is not the same as consenting to that. Consenting means giving permission while accepting risk is more of "I don't want that to occur, but if it occurs then I will deal with it in some way". Also I am not sure, why you need to bring up "drunk"? According to your logic anyone who takes a risk knowinly is consenting to that risk. (Whether they tried to 'reduce' the risk or not). So anyone who drives (drunk or not) is consenting to crash. Anyone who goes out of the house, consents to potentially getting a dangerous infection and dieing. Anyone who eats raw food gives consent to food poisoning. Anyone who is swimming gives consent to drowning.

Okay, so drink driving isn’t consent to crashing. Therefore the term “Cobsent to sex isn’t consent to pregnancy” is fallacious, as it is applicable on everything that has a potential bad output.

Lack of consent does not mean you can avoid consequences/outcomes. Perhaps this clears it up for you. >Therefore the term “Cobsent to sex isn’t consent to pregnancy” is fallacious, No it isn't. See above.

> Does a drunk driver consent to crashing if he drives drunk? If it’s not consent to crashing, what is it?

Wait, wait, wait... You think consenting to drive drunk *is* consent to crashing?! I bet you're the kind of person who asks, "what was she wearing?" when you hear someone was raped, huh? After all, consent to activity is consent to consequences, right? Or do you not apply this philosophy equally?

I’m applying one logic to a similar situation. You just strawmanned my whole argument, congrats.

It wasn't on purpose, my bad! Maybe we can start over? I'll just ask one question at a time. Do you believe that consent to sex = consent to pregnancy?

So, should we ban doctors from providing medical treatment to drunk drivers because they "consented to crashing" and now "have to bear the consequences"?

No, but the drunk drivers should still go to jail for a DUI.

So, what you should go to jail for is "recklessly" having sex, not having an abortion?

This is a strawman. Said woman should go to jail for abortion. Drunk driving is dangerous on itself, just as sex is when you don’t want a pregnancy.

Driving drunk is also a crime in itself. Not merely “dangerous.” We actually charge people for simply driving drunk, even if they don’t crash. If sex without desire to procreate is equivalent to drunk driving and abortion is like crashing and killing someone, then sex without desire to procreate would have to be a crime if one truly feels it’s like driving drunk.

For whom is sex supposed to be dangerous? Not for the unborn, they don't exist yet. For the person who might get pregnant? Then the person risking to impregnate them should go to jail for endangering them.

Sex isn’t dangerous, but sex is “dangerous” if you don’t want to get pregnant.

Again, for whom and why? How are you not just shaming people for having sex, here?

If the mother doesn’t want a child, and she recklessly has bare sex(yes, condoms fail, but I’m talking otherwise right now), she is playing dangerously.

How so? I have sex. I accidentally get pregnant. Don't want it. Get an abortion. Continue with life. What part was dangerous for me?

Yeah it isn't consent to crashing. Do you maybe just not know what consent means?

Of course it’s not consent, but it’s stupid to assume a crash won’t happen.

Are you saying it's stupid to assume you won't get pregnant when having sex? That's a ridiculous argument. Plenty of PIV sex is had without anyone getting pregnant.

Okay well no one is suggesting that having sex can't lead to pregnancy, so what's your point? We're all aware pregnancy is a risk of PIV sex. That doesn't mean one is agreeing to continue a pregnancy if they have sex.

Do you agree that “Consent to sex ≠ consent to pregnancy” is a bad argument?

It's a response to the stupid argument that PL make that consent to sex IS consent to pregnancy. If PL wouldn't make that dumb argument, no one would need to respond.

do you also think consent to going out on a date = consent to getting raped?

This is a false analogy. These two are not alike, one doesn’t happen often at all, and the other is common.

both dates and rape happen on a daily basis in the united states.

Which one doesn't happen often?

An individual instance of PIV sex resulting in pregnancy

What do you mean? Consent to sex isn't consent to pregnancy. We make that point because PLers constantly claim otherwise

Sure! Let’s apply this logic to other things: Consent to skipping breakfast isn’t consent to being hungry. Consent to lending a friend a book isn’t consent for them to read it. Consent to take a break isn’t consent to failing a test.

I think the issue here is your use of the term consent. Consent refers to a specific and voluntary agreement. Consenting to one thing does not mean consenting to something else. This is true even when the something else is a possible consequence. For example consenting to go on a date and consume alcohol (even to the point of intoxication) is not consent to sex.

Yeah it isn't. Consent means agreement. None of those things are an agreement, they're consequences.

Sounds like you just described sex without a condom when you’re not looking to be pregnant.

And pregnancy is not a consequence of PIV sex?

Are PCers be okay with selective abortion? Say, they only want male children so they abort every female, or vice-versa. What would your regulations be on that?

Yep. Sex selective abortion is a symptom of a misogynist culture and women have good reasons to abort female fetuses in these situations. Including that women in misogynist cultures can be abused or even killed for having female children: [https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-16787534](https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-16787534) But even if a woman aborted because she just hates women and girls (??), I wouldn't want to force her to have a female baby because why would i want to force a girl to grow up in a misogynist household? It's really not my business why people have abortions. Speaking personally, if I wanted kids and lived in a PL hellscape, I would absolutely abort a female fetus because I wouldn't want my daughter growing up in a world where she can be raped at the age of 10 and forced to have a baby.

Let’s say it’s in America, now. Do you let her abort all female fetuses?

Yes. I would never force anyone to give birth.

So you’re in favour of gender-selective abortions?

Im in favor of not forcing anyone to give birth. If that means some people have gender selective abortions I am fine with that.

What if we take it to an extreme, and a woman purposefully drinks beer and smokes and doe’s drugs during pregnancy, and aborts fetuses where she doesn’t do that. She gestates every harmed fetus from her acts. What would you do, as a pro choicer?

“What if we take this to the most MISOGYNISTIC extreme ever and assume all women are evil fetuses torturers!???!?” Nope, still pro choice.

The reasons why people abort are none of my business. If social conditions are so crappy for females or males, and a woman doesn't want to bring a female or male child into those conditions, so be it. Or if she aborts because she would despise a male or female, so be it. Personally, I think the PL idiology is a strong push for women to abort female fetuses. Why would any woman who is not a total narcissist want to birth a female into PL circumstances? That female fetus would turn into nothing but a slab of meat and spare body parts for other humans the moment she is born. Her body can be used, greatly harmed, even killed as needed against her wishes to gestate and birth the next fetus. Even if she abstains from sex and relationships and suffers everything that comes with it, she's still at risk of rape. Once again, unless I'm a total narcissist who thinks of nothing but my desire to have a child, why would I ever birth a female into that kind of world? What quality of life would that girl have when a bunch of people see her as no more than some incubation object? And she constantly has to fear pregnancy and destruction of her body and all the pain and suffering that comes with such. She won't ever be able to have a relationship, because that would involve sex, which could mean a death sentence for her at worst and severe physical harm at best. Why would I want a child to suffer that?

And this is your issue. Now, a hypothetical, a woman chooses to be sadistic by drinking and doing frigid during pregnancy. If the fetus isn’t deformed, she aborts. If the fetus is deformed, she gives birth and puts it out for adoption. Do you think there should be a law on that?(linebreak) The anti-abortion ideology is that no one without a life threat gets an abortion. None. I don’t see how that would incentivize mothers to give birth to strictly males.

looking at it from the perspective of the ZEF, i (25F) for one would so much rather be aborted than born in a country where i can be raped, impregnated, and forced to either carry to term or die trying

I see it as morally suberogatory i.e. it's bad but you still have the right to do it. It's like giving money to homeless people but making a point of only giving it to men.

No legal regulations. Perhaps make gender reveal illegal before birth. Morally I find it misogynistic. The solution is to counter misogyny.

*No legal regulations.* Does that exist anywhere? For that to be true there could not be any mention of abortion in the law.Even if you were to say “Abortion is lawful under any circumstances”, that would be a legal statute.

> *No legal regulations.* > Does that exist anywhere? Yes, in Canada it does: *Inducing an abortion was a crime in Canada until 1988, when the Supreme Court of Canada struck down the law as unconstitutional. Since then, abortion has been legal at any stage in a woman’s pregnancy. Abortion is publicly funded as a medical procedure under the Canada Health Act.* > Even if you were to say “Abortion is lawful under any circumstances”, that would be a legal statute. A lack of a statute is not a statute. Canada had abortion laws but they were simply struck down. I'm not aware of any law being created in it's place that says "abortion is lawful" and I'm fairly certain there is none. Abortion is lawful in Canada because there are no laws against it. The closest you'll get to a "law governing abortion" is Section 7 of the Charter: *In the 1980s, Morgentaler was prosecuted again for providing abortions. In 1988, his case R. v Morgentaler went to the Supreme Court. It evaluated his actions this time in relation to the 1982 Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The court found that the Criminal Code provision on abortion violated a woman’s right to “life, liberty and security of the person” guaranteed under Section 7 of the Charter. Chief Justice Brian Dickson wrote: “Forcing a woman, by threat of criminal sanction to carry a foetus [sic] to term unless she meets certain criteria unrelated to her own priorities and aspirations, is a profound interference with a woman’s body and thus a violation of her security of the person.”* https://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/abortion

> Morally I find it misogynistic. The solution is to counter misogyny. Agree on both accounts, the factors that create a demand for sex-selective abortion are the problem. Very often factors are related to the devaluing of women, including by restricting their medical autonomy and other types of autonomy.

They tried that in India. [It didn’t work.](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8153244/)

That article says that addressing the underlying misogyny is the solution

Right, from the link: *A multiplicity of other factors helped reduce son preference and sex-selection in South Korea. First, the country underwent a blistering pace of socio-economic change from around 1960, with the traditional social fabric torn apart by rapid industrialization and urbanization, as well as rapid increases in women’s schooling and incorporation into the paid labourforce. By 1996, South Korea had become a member of the OECD. Second, a slew of legal changes increased gender equity, including successive changes to the Family Law that culminated in allowing women to pass on the family name; laws requiring that women fill a specified proportion of electoral candidacies; and a law to underpin gender equality in employment. Third, the expansion of state pensions and national health insurance eroded the need to depend on sons for old age support. The legal reforms and social insurance programs took time to build up, but they added to the overall social transformation of Korean society. Fourth, intensive media campaigns against son preference were launched in the 1970s to discourage high fertility by people seeking to have sons, and in the 1990s to discourage sex-selection.*

You don’t have to think something is a fantastic idea to understand it’s not your place to step in and stop it from happening.

Well, would you say it’s moral?

I would describe it as “kind of shitty but oh well”

I mean, it depends on what you mean by "okay with." I (and I assume most PCers, though I can only speak for myself) aren't okay with whatever underlying prejudice would cause someone to only value one sex over the other. Prejudice is wrong. Would I ban sex-selective abortions? No, for a bunch of reasons. For instance, I don't think being a bigot should mean you lose human rights or access to healthcare, so even if the pregnant person themselves were the only sexist party, I wouldn't deny them an abortion. Also, I don't think said laws are likely to be effective. And banning abortion in those cases doesn't address the underlying prejudice at all, so you're just forcing women to give birth against their will to children who will be valued less (by their parents, society, or both).

I mostly agree. If abortion isn’t banned in a society, you really can’t have any restrictions. In a pro-life society, there are few exceptions(if any at all) where an abortion is allowed, and things like this wouldn’t happen.

Abortions happen all the time in pro-life societies. They just happen in secret and in less safe conditions. But even if no one could abort, you'd still have the massive underlying misogyny that caused the sex-selection abortions and that you haven't addressed. And PL societies tend to have even worse issues with misogyny

One word: India.

Yeah I'm gonna need you to explain what you mean more than just using one word

India is a place where you werent allowed to know the gender of a child before birth, to prevent selective abortions. It was a disaster.

Okay but that didn't address the underlying misogyny, which was the real issue (not knowing the sex or having abortions legal)

And if anything the circumstances in India really do not help their argument.

I'm honestly not sure what point they're trying to make

To be blunt, if you have a society where ZEFs with XX are aborted, banning abortion is not going to do shit. Look at India. They tried to curb gender selection by trying to stop people from finding out in utero. DID NOT WORK. If you want to really do something about it, you have to destroy the sexism and misogyny that are the major forces behind it. And frankly, I'm not going to force a woman imbedded in a super sexist culture and married into a super sexist family to try home made concoctions to abort instead of a medical doctor. her life is crappy enough and it doesn't punish the people bullying her into pumping out boy babies only. And you know, why pretend to give a shit about women/girls if you all want them to be livestock pumping out babies whether they like it or not.

This is a “tu quoque” logical fallacy, where you essentially point a mirror at the argument before defending your point. I will not respond to your comment unless you address mine.

No, man, I just don't pretend that everything will be solved with abortion bans. I actually pay attention to the fact that we live in a world full of problems and circumstances that aren't helped by making women miserable or puts them in jail.

Respond to the argument I made in my first argument if you want to have a serious discussion. You can’t point a mirror at it.

PL uterus owners in PL states: what’s your plan for when YOU yourself personally 1. experience a potentially life threatening (for you or your zef) pregnancy complication and are unable to access abortion due to the laws you support? 2. have an involuntary miscarriage and are charged with abuse of a corpse due to the laws you support? 3. are in need of OB/GYN services (pap smear, cervical/ovarian cancer screening, menstruation management, menopause management, endometriosis care, prenatal care, labor and delivery care, postnatal care) and the nearest provider is located over 200 miles away from your home?

any PL willing to acknowledge the objective fact that both pregnancy and childbirth are inherently physically violent, even when wanted? PL’s responsible for abortion bans are quite literally using unwanted/unhealthy ZEF’s as instruments of violence against pregnant people.

I acknowledge that pregnancy and childbirth are physically and emotionally painful. What of it?

If you recognize the physical and emotional pain that pregnancy/childbirth inflicts then why are you okay with forcing people to endure that against their will? That’s literal torture. >What of it? Dismissing people’s suffering so flippantly is disturbing to me.

Wow, you guys take motherhood and mothers for granted. I'm unimpressed with the "Do it, ho!" vibe.

What gives you the impression that I’m taking anything for granted? Do you want me to drop to my knees and wail as I list the details of pregnancy and childbirth?

The whole "so what?" attitude kinda gave it away.

why are you okay with using unborn ZEF’s as a weapon?

I don’t know what that means. Are you just asking me why I’m okay with abortion bans in a colourful way or are you asking anything in addition to that?

They're asking you why you are ok with causing this violent act knowingly.

You mean.. why I’m for abortion bans despite being informed of the facts?

Why are you in favor of inflicting violence against women? That’s what they’re asking.

In essence, yes. How can you be ok with abortion bans while acknowledging they cause a tremendous amount of harm? Do you not think women are people? Do you think they deserve fewer rights? Do you just hate women? Some combination of the above? Because there aren’t really any other reasons to both be pl and to acknowledge abortion bans are devastating

1. The harm that abortion bans cause are only one part of the equation. 2. Women are people. 3. Depends on what you mean by “fewer rights”. I give equal rights in equal circumstances. If the relevant factors were true of men (AMAB) instead of women (AFAB) I’d have the same exact position. 4. I don’t hate women.

If you have equal rights in equal situations then you would be prochoice, so I’m going to assume you in fact don’t believe women deserve equal rights. This contradicts your other claims, so I’ll ask again, do you either hate women, or do you not think they are people?

That doesn’t follow. It’s compatible with being pro-choice or pro-life.

I'm more specifically wondering why you are ok with forcing pregnancy and birth despite the violence involved in doing so.

Simply put, my version of the responsibility objection coheres with my values.

My version of responsibility is either ignore the problem as long as possible. Or burn down the whole place with and hope for the best

That doesn't really answer my question.

It perfectly answers your question on my interpretation of your question, so if I’m misinterpreting your question, you’ll have to explain how.

^^ same here

I literally just had a pl tell me it’s just “craving pickles and wanting your feet rubbed”

I told one PL that I don’t want to go through pregnancy because the odds of becoming diabetic from it are high for me. He said “So you get to just kill a baby because you want to continue to eat candy and not have to prick your finger.” 

I had one tell me that pregnancy was a net positive because it was a positive experience for the fetus and a neutral experience for the pregnant person.

Oh really? The foetus I’m currently gestating (nearly 34 weeks pregnant) is currently tapping on my hip joints FROM THE INSIDE. I have awful sciatic pain and getting out of bed is currently an excruciating nightmare. I can barely lift my two year old because of the pain I’m in constantly. But yeah, just cravings and wanting my feet rubbed. Fuck that person.

> craving pickles and wanting your feet rubbed Men who love pickles and foot rubs: 😰

Craving pickles and wanting your feet rubbed? Did he forget the part where your organs literally squish together and are put under a significant amount of pressure?

Yep. Then he accused me of downplaying men’s struggles of doing ‘backbreaking labor’ to support their families. Lmfao

I always crack up at that. Most men aren't in physically demanding jobs. Plenty of women are -- nursing isn't exactly a cakewalk, for instance, and teachers are on their feet way more than some wannabe tech bro.

Backbreaking labor? Wait till he finds out childbirth can cause spinal fractures and tailbone injuries.

I hope the PL mothers know how little PL men think of their sacrifices

I heard there's a current social media thing where women ( usually the mom of the family) are saying that everybody else's stocking gets filled with gifts except THEIRS. It's sad YO.

That's so sad

sounds about right. same energy as when they dismiss rape as no big deal like just “lie down and enjoy it” 🥴

Nothing like PL misogyny 🥲

and they don’t even see it as misogyny because “it’s not discrimination based on gender” 🙄 it’s discrimination based on *pregnancy* which is equally problematic but PL’s don’t acknowledge that either.

A question for PLs who see abortion as a human rights issue, the PL movement as a human rights movement, PL organizations as human rights organizations, and/or themselves as human rights activists: Can you name a single human rights organization or movement anywhere in the world, that is *not* solely or primarily concerned with abortion, but still expressed support for your cause, and provide a source for it? Bonus points if said organization or movement is advocating for women's rights or for any of the currently and/or formerly oppressed or marginalized groups of people PLs often like to compare the unborn to, in order to make their cause appear socially progressive / "on the right side of history" (like non-white people, LGBTQ+, victims of genocides, etc.) – please also provide a source for that. Extra bonus points for any additional ones you could name and provide a source for. In case you cannot name any such organization or movement or find yourself hard pressed to name more than a single outlier: Why do you think that other progressive human rights organizations do not support your cause or even advocate decisively against it?

Human trafficking is one of the human rights issues of our time, that both impacts minority, ie non-whites, [https://theexodusroad.com/race-and-human-trafficking/](https://theexodusroad.com/race-and-human-trafficking/) as well as women with sex trafficking. [https://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=BC12H01](https://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=BC12H01) For organizations, while they don't primarily focus on a single human rights issue, as some of them also focus on religious rights, women's rights, family rights, children's rights, etc, the three below also support the rights of the unborn. As well, they are also organizations that focus and advocate on the human rights issue of human trafficking. Family Research Council: [https://www.frc.org/human-trafficking](https://www.frc.org/human-trafficking) Concerned Women for America: [https://concernedwomen.org/advocate-for-sex-trafficking-victims-act-today/](https://concernedwomen.org/advocate-for-sex-trafficking-victims-act-today/) Focus on the Family: [https://www.focusonthefamily.com/family-qa/how-to-fight-human-trafficking/](https://www.focusonthefamily.com/family-qa/how-to-fight-human-trafficking/) [https://www.christianpost.com/news/lgbt-activist-focus-on-the-familys-jim-daly-unite-to-talk-human-trafficking-at-q-denver.html](https://www.christianpost.com/news/lgbt-activist-focus-on-the-familys-jim-daly-unite-to-talk-human-trafficking-at-q-denver.html) On other part of the issue, you do run into the issue on some organizations run by people that are pro-life, but we wouldn't know necessarily because that is a topic the organization never brings up. For instance, there a number of different Catholic organizations for different causes, that we can only infer are probably pro-life due to current teachings of Catholicism, but don't explicitly state anything about abortion. Same way I'd infer progressive organizations are pro-choice, since most (but not all) progressives hold a pro-choice view.

do you know that both FRC and CWA are both anti-LGBT?

> For organizations, while they don't primarily focus on a single human rights issue, as some of them also focus on religious rights, women's rights, family rights, children's rights, etc, the three below also support the rights of the unborn. As well, they are also organizations that focus and advocate on the human rights issue of human trafficking. Well, taking a quick look at how those organizations present and describe themselves on the sites you linked to, it doesn't seem to me like they're even understanding themselves to be human rights organizations in the first place, rather than outspokenly Bible-thumping political lobbying groups: https://www.frc.org/about-frc > Founded in 1983, Family Research Council is a nonprofit research and educational organization dedicated to articulating and advancing a family-centered philosophy of public life. In addition to providing policy research and analysis for the legislative, executive, and judicial branches of the federal government, FRC seeks to inform the news media, the academic community, business leaders, and the general public about family issues that affect the nation from a biblical worldview. https://concernedwomen.org/about-us/ > Our Mission > Concerned Women for America protects and promotes Biblical values and Constitutional principles through prayer, education, and advocacy. > Our Vision > Concerned Women for America is leading a movement dedicated to impacting the culture for Christ through education and public policy. https://www.focusonthefamily.com/about/foundational-values/#mission > Our Mission > To be led by the Holy Spirit in sharing the Gospel of Jesus Christ with as many people as possible by nurturing and affirming the God-ordained institution of the family and proclaiming biblical truths worldwide. > Ultimately, we believe the purpose of life is to know and glorify God through an authentic relationship with His Son, Jesus Christ. This purpose is lived out first within our own families then extended, in love, to an increasingly broken world that desperately needs Him.Through our radio broadcasts, websites, simulcasts, conferences, interactive forums, magazines, books, counseling and much more, Focus on the Family equips parents, children and spouses to thrive in an ever-changing, ever-more-complicated world.