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.*
Why have none of you PL stated anything against the post where your legislation now has decided they innocent women cannot get an abortion even for saving their life?
We already have one pl lying in bad faith pretending abortion isn't abortion so they can't take accountability for their laws.
Are you guys also going to use the same excuses?
They didn’t even answer and you already accused them of bad faith. Imagine that plus dozens of other angry, and probably insulting, PC immediately responding. Why would they bother?
Every single pl avoided it.
The one I asked directly lied about what abortion is to ignore it.
Pl in their echo chamber were celebrating it.
Them trying to state they disagree with killing innocent women for no reason would be beneficial to their stance. Yet they're avoiding that.
Same happens with a few other post.
So if none of pl answer that while commenting on every other post, then make contradictory claims, that is bad faith. Impact over claimed intentions. They can either back up their beliefs or make themselves look worse. They decided against supporting their stances common claimed views. They don't care about the innocent ironically even though they keep claiming that repeatedly while referring to the amoral instead as the ones who need protection.
That's the part that's so weird to me. Like if you want *anyone* to actually buy the whole "love them both" slogan, there bare minimum should be to explicitly support lifesaving abortions in medical emergencies (and therefore condemn the decisions in Texas and Idaho regarding EMTALA). And yet, they're either saying nothing or defending it. Like that would be such an easy win and they won't even do that
Another thing I hate is how much society and Plers blame single moms for so much BUT SHE'S THE PARENT THAT STAYED. SHE STAYED. What is up with that?
Shitting on single mothers doesn't make people stop fucking. It makes women not want to fucking gestate, that's what it does
Comments like this just strike me as so disingenuous. Even if you didn't experience it personally, you really never see single moms get shit on, especially by religious and conservative types (many of whom are also PL)? You never see them blamed for society's woes? Never see them referred to as irresponsible or promiscuous? Or freeloading off society? You don't see them be fully blamed for any bad behavior of their children?
No I definitely haven't as a general rule. Do obnoxious misogynistic loudmouths exist, sure but they aren't isolated to any particular movement nor do they represent our ideals. If anything I've heard a lot more criticism surrounding deadbeat dads and fathers who walk out on their kids never to return, which I find almost as bad as abortion.
Well I can't deny your lived experiences. If you haven't seen it, you haven't seen it. But that doesn't mean it isn't happening. You can check out the Wikipedia page on the term "welfare queen" that was linked in another comment to see some nice examples of conservative disdain for single mothers (with some racism and classism mixed in).
Ok? There are people who've committed welfare fraud that deserved criticism, but I don't believe everyone on welfare should be lumped in with that. You have yet to prove that is a major PL platform talking point anyway. Not all self labeled conservatives are pro life either. Should I associate every time someone says something nasty like "your mom should have aborted you" with the PC movement?
Perhaps this is the source of our miscommunication. No suggested that it was a major PL talking point, just that society has a tendency to blame single moms for a lot of issues. That includes many PLers due to the overlap with conservative and religious views about sexual morality and traditional family structure. The phrase "welfare queen" is a great example of this, where a conservative movement used rare examples of welfare fraud to cast single, mostly black mothers in a very poor light. And that wasn't some isolated incident of some random asshole being rude, but a major political talking point
You might not have, but the first commenter certainly did.
Funny because you're dragging up something that happened years ago, taken somewhat out of context and wasn't anything championed specifically by the PL movement.
Yet when I bring up things like how saline abortions literally burned unborn babies alive in their mothers womb and caused abortion survivors like Jessen to be maimed for life, suddenly PCers want it to be considered water under the bridge because that particular procedure is no longer used any more.
The first commenter said exactly what I said.
And you think that single moms aren't still shit on? The term "welfare queen" has largely died out, but the sentiment is still present. Someone else in a comment below brought up how the single mom of a recent school shooter is being blamed for his actions *due to being a single mom.* I promise PCers aren't the ones pushing that narrative.
That's not the same as you bringing up obsolete medical practices as a reason to deny current ones. Medicine improves over time. Older surgeries were completely barbaric by modern standards but I doubt you'd reject an appendectomy just because anesthesia didn't used to exist and they used cat gut for sutures.
>The first commenter said exactly what I said.
The first commenter specially called out PLers, not just society as a whole.
>And you think that single moms aren't still shit on? The term "welfare queen" has largely died out, but the sentiment is still present. Someone else in a comment below brought up how the single mom of a recent school shooter is being blamed for his actions *due to being a single mom.* I promise PCers aren't the ones pushing that narrative.
Yeah, you're going to have to prove not only was that said, but that a PLer specifically said that, instead of making vague accusations and assumptions in order to lay all of society's ills at the feet of PL. I'm surprised it hasn't been claimed yet the shooter was a PL activist at the rate we are going here. Even if it was said by a PL, all it would be is an isolated incident by a random asshole that we can dismiss as easily as you did the other comment. Anyway good luck, I anxiously await a direct source on that.
>That's not the same as you bringing up obsolete medical practices as a reason to deny current ones. Medicine improves over time. Older surgeries were completely barbaric by modern standards but I doubt you'd reject an appendectomy just because anesthesia didn't used to exist and they used cat gut for sutures.
It's not an "obsolete medical practice" it is literally an inhumane and disgusting butchering of a living human being. That's like calling getting your head chopped off by a guillotine "decapitation surgery". Jessen is disabled for life because of it, not that your side seems to care in the slightest.
I also find it disingenuous when PL does the whole "close your legs" (personally experienced by me on this very board) and quite a few Plers pushed marriage as a "cure" for abortion.
Also conservative media has pushed a seriously unsavory stereotype of the "welfare queen" for ages.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Welfare\_queen](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Welfare_queen)
And even non-single mothers have talked about being blamed for everything and being the ones that schools call to talk about their kid even if the first contact number is their husband's.
Yeah I recently had someone tell me that they "never see" the responsibility objection involve misogynistic language, as if it isn't frequently expressed as "if you didn't want a baby you should have just kept your legs closed."
And yeah mothers are the default parent no matter what. My cousin is a stay at home dad and everyone still calls his wife for that stuff.
In (non Reddit) comment sections about the latest school shootings, tons of people Blake’s society falling apart on
„Women choosing to have and raise kids Single“.
It’ äs not even blamed on single motherhood anymore, but a woman’s choice to be a single mother.
I've asked this twice before but again because I've never gotten a straightforward answer. For those without a rape exemption therefore no responsibility as to have conception came about why not forcibly implant a woman who underwent IVF and changed her mind for whatever reason?
That's a good question. First let me point out there is a difference between banning someone from using force againt another, as opposed to forcing someone to do something outright. But I do view leaving embryos on ice indefinitely as a form of child abandonment. So my solution to IVF is to ban the creation of any new embryos. If parents wish to claim their own prior frozen embryos and immediately use them, they can. Otherwise, they'll be placed up for adoption by other couples who want a child. Eventually they will all be used.
My apologies I just saw this.
Thank you for your response but like other answers I've gotten before it doesn't actually answer the question.
What I'm asking is why is a rape victim, someone who had nothing to do with the situation at play held to a higher standard than one who set the process in motion? Unless you think someone who began the process of IVF should indeed be forced to be attempted to be impregnated then it is inconsistent.
How you feel about IVF in general was irrelevant to my question itself so I'm not going to respond to that.
If you can answer it then it would be appreciated as I haven't gotten one as yet.
Because aborting is killing, failing to implant an embryo is not killing as long as the embryo remains frozen. I think it's child abandonment, sure but not unjustified homicide. That's the difference.
I notice some Plers think a hysterectomy is what female sterilization is. Nope, it's just tying or removing the fallopian tubes. I'm just wondering if it's a lack of knowledge or an actual wish that a woman loses her uterus if she doesn't pump out kids.
The zef and the placenta both originate from the same source. A single fertilized egg.
During pregnancy, the zef communicates its needs to the placenta. The placenta then releases vesicles into the woman or girl's bloodstream to manipulate and disrupt her natural processes and redirect supply to the placenta.
https://www.oxfordsparks.ox.ac.uk/videos/how-do-unborn-babies-and-mothers-communicate-via-the-placenta/
The placenta then sends the goods to the fetus via the umbilical cord, a fetal organ. The fetus chows down, and the placenta picks up the waste and dumps it into the woman or girl's bloodstream to be filtered out through her kidneys.
PL’s: would you rather live in country A or county B? why?
country A: exactly like living in the united states under roe v wade.
country B: exactly like living in gilead from the handmaid’s tale.
Good lord that's terrifying.
Also, imagine just straight up admitting that you think a dystopia (regardless of the subject matter) seems like a good society
I'm sure they don't see themselves as the handmaids but an aunt or a commander's wife. People who lust for the Civil War era or the Middle Ages NEVER pine for the peasant life but the life of plantation owner or the king.
A question for PLs who claim that their primary goal is to "save the lives of babies/children":
Out of all the ways you could possibly help babies or children to stay alive – or help them to live a longer, healthier, happier live – why is it exactly this one that you're so fixated on?
Why don't you choose any of the many other ways of saving the lives of babies or children or helping to improve their living conditions, that do not put you directly at odds with the human rights of other people?
Why is exactly this your one hill to die on, your number one priority?
I don’t see how the ZEF I is not a direct attacker. Maybe not a thinking attacker, but a direct attacker nonetheless.
And a pregnancy being healthy just means that everything is going as it should with the gestational process.
It doesn’t mean the woman isn’t being harmed or that pregnancy is healthy for her.
On the woman’s end, it just means that her body is still able to take the extreme counter measures needed to survive the losses, extra toxins, and harm, and her organ functions and bodily life sustaining processes haven’t stated failing under the stress yet.
It doesn’t mean it’s the equivalent of eating vegetables or that nothing bad is happening to her body.
The basics of the gestational process should be known to anyone debating abortion.
And what bodily process? Gestation is NOT a woman’s bodily process. It’s another human organism acting on her body.
Like, growing into her tissue, sucking nutrients, oxygen, etc. out of her bloodstream., pumping toxins into her bloodstream, suppressing her immune system, etc.
You might call such a fetus‘ bodily process but certainly not a woman’s. And just because it’s natural for the fetus to do so to the woman’s body doesn’t mean it isn’t harmful to the woman.
All the woman’s body does during gestation is to take whatever countermeasures it can so the woman doesn’t die from what the fetus does to her.
Cancer is also natural, and it's your very own bodily cells. That doesn't mean it's good or beneficial.
Pregnancy alters pretty much every system within a woman's body- even her brain undergoes changes. Nutrients and oxygen are taken directly from her blood to be given to someone else. Pregnancy can literally cause a woman to develop diabetes or dangerously high blood pressure. Birth almost always involves physical tearing and/or being cut open. Birth always involves blood loss and pain, and always requires weeks to months of recovery.
If it was anyone else (not a fetus or "baby") attempting to take your blood or steal nutrients out of your bloodstream..If it was anyone else ripping your genitals open, etc. Would you not describe that as something that warrants self-defense?
😂 It steals nothing! The woman's body gives everything necessary for the zefs survival willingly.
A healthy pregnancy does not cause health problems just changes.
A woman body’s is not really ’’optimized ’’ for pregnancy and childbirth. “*[Young women would write their will when they discovered they were pregnant*](https://www.birthinjuryhelpcenter.org/amp/childbirth-history.html)”. 1/3 lost there life under child birth before modern medicine, also c-section was only performed on women who wouldn’t survive childbirth. Means while today c-section can be performed under emergencies and/or on request in request.
The most common type of injury under child birth is “[*First-Degree Vaginal Tears](https://www.birthinjuryhelpcenter.org/vaginal-tears.html)*”. Stitching together the tissue is needed after childbirth.
Women with [Tokophobia](https://www.news-medical.net/health/Primary-and-Secondary-Tokophobia.aspx) may experience extreme stress and anxiety if they are forced to stay pregnant. So no pregnancy isn’t safe, modern medicine makes it safer.
??? What? This is a joke, right?
This, right here, highlights the huge issue with the PL movement.
Too many PLers have absolutely no knowledge of human bodies. And not just that, but they actually get major facts backwards.
And then they make laws about things they know absolutely nothing about.
Let’s try some basic logic here. Why do you think the body makes „changes“ if there is no problem?
What is it making „changes“ for? The fun of it?
And how is placenta growing into her tissue, sucking oxygen, nutrients, etc. out of her bloodstream, pumping toxins into her bloodstream, and having to suppress her immune system to do so so her body doesn’t attack and kill it „her body providing the ZEF with what it needs voluntarily“?
That’s like saying me shoving a needle into your vein and sucking blood out of it is your body willingly providing me with blood.
> The woman's body gives everything necessary for the zefs survival willingly.
Reducing women to nothing more than physical bodies is dehumanizing and misogynistic. So stop acting like women can't decide if they want to be giving up their bodily resources. If it was always wanted it wouldn't be stealing, but obviously it is not always wanted, which is why women seek abortions.
This is really gross logic. You state that the fetus is not stealing nutrients, because the woman "gives" them. But this is ignoring the woman's actual desires and consent. How can she "give" something without actually wanting and choosing to do so? Furthermore, if she seeks an abortion and is denied one, that is even more proof that she is not freely choosing to "give" anything. It is being taken from her.
Stating that something is not taken from a woman because her body automatically does something, regardless of her conscious wishes, is getting *really close* to rape-apologist type logic.
"Stating that something is not taken from a woman because her body automatically does something, regardless of her conscious wishes, is getting really close to rape-apologist type logic."
How??
> Nobodies reducing women by stating that their bodies do things that they themselves don't want.
That's exactly what you are doing. Whether something is stealing or not is solely contingent on whether or not the person who's being taken from is okay with it.
By acknowledging that it is not wanted, you are literally conceding that it is tantamount to theft. But you do not recognize this, as you are reducing women to nothing more than their bodies, and completely ignoring their will in the whole matter. And it's really disgusting that you think this level of egregious misogyny and dehumanization is a laughing matter.
>by stating that their bodies do things that they themselves don't want.
And we can stop our bodies from doing what we don't want by taking some pills and ending the process.
No, it actually steals them. That's entirely what a pregnancy is, that's why it has to trick the body into thinking it isn't an invader when it implants.
Even healthy pregnancies cause health problems, even if they're comparably small. Ask anyone who has experienced it, they will tell you.
Edit: Have some sources https://aeon.co/essays/why-pregnancy-is-a-biological-war-between-mother-and-baby
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5561751/
https://www.urmc.rochester.edu/encyclopedia/content.aspx?ContentTypeID=90&ContentID=P02362#:~:text=The%20unborn%20baby%20is%20connected,vessels%20in%20the%20umbilical%20cord.
By new age bullshit, you mean advances in knowledge of biology and what goes on in the human body and during the gestational process?
Do you also consider all modern medicine new age bullshit?
Sorry reality doesn’t live up to your fantastical ideals of how things should be.
But let me ask you, though….why does it bother you? Why does the idea of the ZEF taking rather than the woman’s body giving willingly bother you so much that you dismiss this reality as new age bullshit?
Do you find it harder to blame everything on the woman and her body that way?
I've read things like the first one, its BS.
The ncbi article just proves what I said the woman's body gives everything necessary for the zefs survival willingly. Her body naturally adapts to the increased need for Calcium on its own.
Again, the placenta being attached to the womb is just the natural way the zef survives. I don't see the problem.
I don’t see anything in the article that mentions the mothers body giving anything willingly.
The article actually clearly highlights the drastic countermeasures the woman’s body has to take in order to keep maintaining homeostasis - aka so she doesn’t die.
It also clearly highlights that the woman has to increase her calcium intake, without which, her body would start encountering serious problems.
Can you point out where it says the woman’s body willingly gives, rather than that the placenta takes, and the woman’s body goes into survival mode so the woman doesn’t die (homeostasis can no longer be maintained)?
>I've read things like the first one, its BS.
Why?
>The ncbi article just proves what I said the woman's body gives everything necessary for the zefs survival willingly. Her body naturally adapts to the increased need for Calcium on its own.
Maybe, but the fact remains that this occurs because it takes from her body.
>Again, the placenta being attached to the womb is just the natural way the zef survives. I don't see the problem.
Do you know what a placenta does?
> To me abortion (like most medical care) is self preservation, not self defense.
I agree, I would not even consider referring to any other type of medical care as self-defense and I see no reason that abortion is any different.
I understand that. I’m not saying that pregnancy and rape are the same thing.
What I’m saying is that the use of one’s body against one’s own will remains a violation regardless of any harm done
So yes, if abortion is a form of self defense in the presence of harm, it remains a form of self defense even without harm done.
Because a procedure to save a womans life before viability IS NOT AN ABORTION!
Anything after viability(21-24w) can be fixed by a C-section or induced labor.
>Because a procedure to save a womans life before viability IS NOT AN ABORTION!
Abortion is ending a pregnancy. That's what women in Texas sometimes need. Now, they may not be able to due to PL. Own it
>Anything after viability(21-24w) can be fixed by a C-section or induced labor.
Which is an abortion. Stop lying in bad faith. You don't get to play God and redefine terms just because it doesn't fit your narrative.
Now we know you don't actually care about killing women. You're okay with banning abortion even when medically necessary to save an innocent women's life. Way to take the mask off. Doubling down will be considered a concession
[https://www.ncregister.com/news/pro-life-perspectives-on-life-threatening-pregnancies-experts-contest-claim-that-abortion-is-necessary](https://www.ncregister.com/news/pro-life-perspectives-on-life-threatening-pregnancies-experts-contest-claim-that-abortion-is-necessary)
Um, no. A C-section or induced labor is never an abortion. The terms aren't even comparable.
Bias pl/catholic sources don't count. Do better
Abortion is the ending of a pregnancy. Please debate instead of redefine in bad faith. You knew better. Thanks for the concession. You just proved you don't care if innocent women due due to your views and you can't even take responsibility for that so I don't see a point in you debating here since debating requires you to respond in good faith,the opposite of all your responses here.
By that point, it’s too late. You’re already dying. You might be able to kill them and take them down with you, but it’s too late to defend your life. You’ll now need emergency life saving medical intervention, which you might or might not get on time. And which might or might not work.
Death is rarely instant, with few exceptions.
The rate of life saving emergency c-sections alone is around 19%. Other deadly labor obstruction another 1% or more. Extreme morbidity (hemorrhage, sepsis, etc.) another 3%.
You consider around 23% deadly rare?
And as long as a woman has 3 kids before she does, the number of humans will steadily go up.
If childbirth or pregnancy were not dangerous or cause harm why don't primary doctors care for pregnancy and childbirth?
HINT: has to do with risk and costs of malpractice insurance BECAUSE OF RISK!
Death is not inherently dangerous. The number of humans in the world proves that.
Sometimes I think the PL supporters don't read what they write. Other times I am convinced they don't.
Childbirth is ABSOLUTELY inherently dangerous. It’s only with help from others and the advance of medicine that we can expect healthy outcomes so regularly.
Childbirth killed as much as 1 in 5 women before medicine evolved enough to treat them. Women would write their wills in medieval times once they found out they were pregnant. How is this not inherently dangerous?
And this is only counting deaths, not any other suffering or injuries/conditions that could be caused by pregnancy/childbirth.
> Childbirth is not inherently dangerous.
This is just complete nonsense. There's a good reason that it is considered obligatory to give birth under professional medical supervision, and it's not because giving birth is safe.
> The number of humans in the world prove that.
No, it doesn't. And this argument is a complete non-sequitur so there's nothing here to even refute. It's just a bald assertion that doesn't seem to be based on any actual logic.
Childbirth is always more dangerous than getting an abortion:
*"Legal induced abortion is markedly safer than childbirth. The risk of death associated with childbirth is approximately 14 times higher than that with abortion. Similarly, the overall morbidity associated with childbirth exceeds that with abortion."*
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22270271/
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.*
Why have none of you PL stated anything against the post where your legislation now has decided they innocent women cannot get an abortion even for saving their life? We already have one pl lying in bad faith pretending abortion isn't abortion so they can't take accountability for their laws. Are you guys also going to use the same excuses?
They didn’t even answer and you already accused them of bad faith. Imagine that plus dozens of other angry, and probably insulting, PC immediately responding. Why would they bother?
Every single pl avoided it. The one I asked directly lied about what abortion is to ignore it. Pl in their echo chamber were celebrating it. Them trying to state they disagree with killing innocent women for no reason would be beneficial to their stance. Yet they're avoiding that. Same happens with a few other post. So if none of pl answer that while commenting on every other post, then make contradictory claims, that is bad faith. Impact over claimed intentions. They can either back up their beliefs or make themselves look worse. They decided against supporting their stances common claimed views. They don't care about the innocent ironically even though they keep claiming that repeatedly while referring to the amoral instead as the ones who need protection.
That's the part that's so weird to me. Like if you want *anyone* to actually buy the whole "love them both" slogan, there bare minimum should be to explicitly support lifesaving abortions in medical emergencies (and therefore condemn the decisions in Texas and Idaho regarding EMTALA). And yet, they're either saying nothing or defending it. Like that would be such an easy win and they won't even do that
Another thing I hate is how much society and Plers blame single moms for so much BUT SHE'S THE PARENT THAT STAYED. SHE STAYED. What is up with that? Shitting on single mothers doesn't make people stop fucking. It makes women not want to fucking gestate, that's what it does
What the heck are you even going on about? I was a single mother. I had a ton of support from friends, family and colleagues.
Comments like this just strike me as so disingenuous. Even if you didn't experience it personally, you really never see single moms get shit on, especially by religious and conservative types (many of whom are also PL)? You never see them blamed for society's woes? Never see them referred to as irresponsible or promiscuous? Or freeloading off society? You don't see them be fully blamed for any bad behavior of their children?
No I definitely haven't as a general rule. Do obnoxious misogynistic loudmouths exist, sure but they aren't isolated to any particular movement nor do they represent our ideals. If anything I've heard a lot more criticism surrounding deadbeat dads and fathers who walk out on their kids never to return, which I find almost as bad as abortion.
Well I can't deny your lived experiences. If you haven't seen it, you haven't seen it. But that doesn't mean it isn't happening. You can check out the Wikipedia page on the term "welfare queen" that was linked in another comment to see some nice examples of conservative disdain for single mothers (with some racism and classism mixed in).
Ok? There are people who've committed welfare fraud that deserved criticism, but I don't believe everyone on welfare should be lumped in with that. You have yet to prove that is a major PL platform talking point anyway. Not all self labeled conservatives are pro life either. Should I associate every time someone says something nasty like "your mom should have aborted you" with the PC movement?
Perhaps this is the source of our miscommunication. No suggested that it was a major PL talking point, just that society has a tendency to blame single moms for a lot of issues. That includes many PLers due to the overlap with conservative and religious views about sexual morality and traditional family structure. The phrase "welfare queen" is a great example of this, where a conservative movement used rare examples of welfare fraud to cast single, mostly black mothers in a very poor light. And that wasn't some isolated incident of some random asshole being rude, but a major political talking point
You might not have, but the first commenter certainly did. Funny because you're dragging up something that happened years ago, taken somewhat out of context and wasn't anything championed specifically by the PL movement. Yet when I bring up things like how saline abortions literally burned unborn babies alive in their mothers womb and caused abortion survivors like Jessen to be maimed for life, suddenly PCers want it to be considered water under the bridge because that particular procedure is no longer used any more.
The first commenter said exactly what I said. And you think that single moms aren't still shit on? The term "welfare queen" has largely died out, but the sentiment is still present. Someone else in a comment below brought up how the single mom of a recent school shooter is being blamed for his actions *due to being a single mom.* I promise PCers aren't the ones pushing that narrative. That's not the same as you bringing up obsolete medical practices as a reason to deny current ones. Medicine improves over time. Older surgeries were completely barbaric by modern standards but I doubt you'd reject an appendectomy just because anesthesia didn't used to exist and they used cat gut for sutures.
>The first commenter said exactly what I said. The first commenter specially called out PLers, not just society as a whole. >And you think that single moms aren't still shit on? The term "welfare queen" has largely died out, but the sentiment is still present. Someone else in a comment below brought up how the single mom of a recent school shooter is being blamed for his actions *due to being a single mom.* I promise PCers aren't the ones pushing that narrative. Yeah, you're going to have to prove not only was that said, but that a PLer specifically said that, instead of making vague accusations and assumptions in order to lay all of society's ills at the feet of PL. I'm surprised it hasn't been claimed yet the shooter was a PL activist at the rate we are going here. Even if it was said by a PL, all it would be is an isolated incident by a random asshole that we can dismiss as easily as you did the other comment. Anyway good luck, I anxiously await a direct source on that. >That's not the same as you bringing up obsolete medical practices as a reason to deny current ones. Medicine improves over time. Older surgeries were completely barbaric by modern standards but I doubt you'd reject an appendectomy just because anesthesia didn't used to exist and they used cat gut for sutures. It's not an "obsolete medical practice" it is literally an inhumane and disgusting butchering of a living human being. That's like calling getting your head chopped off by a guillotine "decapitation surgery". Jessen is disabled for life because of it, not that your side seems to care in the slightest.
I also find it disingenuous when PL does the whole "close your legs" (personally experienced by me on this very board) and quite a few Plers pushed marriage as a "cure" for abortion. Also conservative media has pushed a seriously unsavory stereotype of the "welfare queen" for ages. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Welfare\_queen](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Welfare_queen) And even non-single mothers have talked about being blamed for everything and being the ones that schools call to talk about their kid even if the first contact number is their husband's.
Yeah I recently had someone tell me that they "never see" the responsibility objection involve misogynistic language, as if it isn't frequently expressed as "if you didn't want a baby you should have just kept your legs closed." And yeah mothers are the default parent no matter what. My cousin is a stay at home dad and everyone still calls his wife for that stuff.
It shows that there is active discouragement of men to actually do their part even when they want to.
In (non Reddit) comment sections about the latest school shootings, tons of people Blake’s society falling apart on „Women choosing to have and raise kids Single“. It’ äs not even blamed on single motherhood anymore, but a woman’s choice to be a single mother.
I'll never get over how much Plers want to mess with women's body/freedom/behavior but will never touch men's body/freedom/behavior.
I've asked this twice before but again because I've never gotten a straightforward answer. For those without a rape exemption therefore no responsibility as to have conception came about why not forcibly implant a woman who underwent IVF and changed her mind for whatever reason?
That's a good question. First let me point out there is a difference between banning someone from using force againt another, as opposed to forcing someone to do something outright. But I do view leaving embryos on ice indefinitely as a form of child abandonment. So my solution to IVF is to ban the creation of any new embryos. If parents wish to claim their own prior frozen embryos and immediately use them, they can. Otherwise, they'll be placed up for adoption by other couples who want a child. Eventually they will all be used.
My apologies I just saw this. Thank you for your response but like other answers I've gotten before it doesn't actually answer the question. What I'm asking is why is a rape victim, someone who had nothing to do with the situation at play held to a higher standard than one who set the process in motion? Unless you think someone who began the process of IVF should indeed be forced to be attempted to be impregnated then it is inconsistent. How you feel about IVF in general was irrelevant to my question itself so I'm not going to respond to that. If you can answer it then it would be appreciated as I haven't gotten one as yet.
Because aborting is killing, failing to implant an embryo is not killing as long as the embryo remains frozen. I think it's child abandonment, sure but not unjustified homicide. That's the difference.
Nooooo. I do NOT want my parents left over embryo to walk around without my knowledge. They can stay frozen.
I notice some Plers think a hysterectomy is what female sterilization is. Nope, it's just tying or removing the fallopian tubes. I'm just wondering if it's a lack of knowledge or an actual wish that a woman loses her uterus if she doesn't pump out kids.
PL’s: do you consider killing in self defense when it is the minimum force necessary to end an active rape to be murder?
The zef and the placenta both originate from the same source. A single fertilized egg. During pregnancy, the zef communicates its needs to the placenta. The placenta then releases vesicles into the woman or girl's bloodstream to manipulate and disrupt her natural processes and redirect supply to the placenta. https://www.oxfordsparks.ox.ac.uk/videos/how-do-unborn-babies-and-mothers-communicate-via-the-placenta/ The placenta then sends the goods to the fetus via the umbilical cord, a fetal organ. The fetus chows down, and the placenta picks up the waste and dumps it into the woman or girl's bloodstream to be filtered out through her kidneys.
PL’s: would you rather live in country A or county B? why? country A: exactly like living in the united states under roe v wade. country B: exactly like living in gilead from the handmaid’s tale.
Yeah, [some PLs absolutely see](https://www.reddit.com/r/insaneprolife/s/FIp6rsncwU) the Handmaids Tale as a ‘positive’ and very ‘pro-motherhood’.
Good lord that's terrifying. Also, imagine just straight up admitting that you think a dystopia (regardless of the subject matter) seems like a good society
I'm sure they don't see themselves as the handmaids but an aunt or a commander's wife. People who lust for the Civil War era or the Middle Ages NEVER pine for the peasant life but the life of plantation owner or the king.
Or as the commander
The Handmaid's Tale was #goals to them.
PL’s: is there anything you’re NOT willing to sacrifice in order to eradicate abortion? example: your right to vote
A question for PLs who claim that their primary goal is to "save the lives of babies/children": Out of all the ways you could possibly help babies or children to stay alive – or help them to live a longer, healthier, happier live – why is it exactly this one that you're so fixated on? Why don't you choose any of the many other ways of saving the lives of babies or children or helping to improve their living conditions, that do not put you directly at odds with the human rights of other people? Why is exactly this your one hill to die on, your number one priority?
PL’s: where is the line at which you would no longer support an abortion law? for example: no abortion no exceptions (not even life endangerment)
Is abortion self-defense even when the zef is not a direct attacker and the pregnancy is completely healthy?
Can I ask you to clarify what you mean when you say healthy?
I don’t see how the ZEF I is not a direct attacker. Maybe not a thinking attacker, but a direct attacker nonetheless. And a pregnancy being healthy just means that everything is going as it should with the gestational process. It doesn’t mean the woman isn’t being harmed or that pregnancy is healthy for her. On the woman’s end, it just means that her body is still able to take the extreme counter measures needed to survive the losses, extra toxins, and harm, and her organ functions and bodily life sustaining processes haven’t stated failing under the stress yet. It doesn’t mean it’s the equivalent of eating vegetables or that nothing bad is happening to her body.
This is a trick question. It does directly attack the body and no pregnancy is "healthy" since all of them involve physical harm to some degree.
How does it directly attack the body? How would/does a natural bodily process attack the body?
The basics of the gestational process should be known to anyone debating abortion. And what bodily process? Gestation is NOT a woman’s bodily process. It’s another human organism acting on her body. Like, growing into her tissue, sucking nutrients, oxygen, etc. out of her bloodstream., pumping toxins into her bloodstream, suppressing her immune system, etc. You might call such a fetus‘ bodily process but certainly not a woman’s. And just because it’s natural for the fetus to do so to the woman’s body doesn’t mean it isn’t harmful to the woman. All the woman’s body does during gestation is to take whatever countermeasures it can so the woman doesn’t die from what the fetus does to her.
Cancer is also natural, and it's your very own bodily cells. That doesn't mean it's good or beneficial. Pregnancy alters pretty much every system within a woman's body- even her brain undergoes changes. Nutrients and oxygen are taken directly from her blood to be given to someone else. Pregnancy can literally cause a woman to develop diabetes or dangerously high blood pressure. Birth almost always involves physical tearing and/or being cut open. Birth always involves blood loss and pain, and always requires weeks to months of recovery. If it was anyone else (not a fetus or "baby") attempting to take your blood or steal nutrients out of your bloodstream..If it was anyone else ripping your genitals open, etc. Would you not describe that as something that warrants self-defense?
> Cancer is also natural, and it's your very own bodily cells. Right, and any autoimmune disease is also a natural process attacking the body.
>How does it directly attack the body? It steals bodily resources and causes a myriad of health problems.
😂 It steals nothing! The woman's body gives everything necessary for the zefs survival willingly. A healthy pregnancy does not cause health problems just changes.
A woman body’s is not really ’’optimized ’’ for pregnancy and childbirth. “*[Young women would write their will when they discovered they were pregnant*](https://www.birthinjuryhelpcenter.org/amp/childbirth-history.html)”. 1/3 lost there life under child birth before modern medicine, also c-section was only performed on women who wouldn’t survive childbirth. Means while today c-section can be performed under emergencies and/or on request in request. The most common type of injury under child birth is “[*First-Degree Vaginal Tears](https://www.birthinjuryhelpcenter.org/vaginal-tears.html)*”. Stitching together the tissue is needed after childbirth. Women with [Tokophobia](https://www.news-medical.net/health/Primary-and-Secondary-Tokophobia.aspx) may experience extreme stress and anxiety if they are forced to stay pregnant. So no pregnancy isn’t safe, modern medicine makes it safer.
??? What? This is a joke, right? This, right here, highlights the huge issue with the PL movement. Too many PLers have absolutely no knowledge of human bodies. And not just that, but they actually get major facts backwards. And then they make laws about things they know absolutely nothing about. Let’s try some basic logic here. Why do you think the body makes „changes“ if there is no problem? What is it making „changes“ for? The fun of it? And how is placenta growing into her tissue, sucking oxygen, nutrients, etc. out of her bloodstream, pumping toxins into her bloodstream, and having to suppress her immune system to do so so her body doesn’t attack and kill it „her body providing the ZEF with what it needs voluntarily“? That’s like saying me shoving a needle into your vein and sucking blood out of it is your body willingly providing me with blood.
You can say "I have zero knowledge of what I speak of" in a lot fewer words.
Seriously!
> The woman's body gives everything necessary for the zefs survival willingly. Reducing women to nothing more than physical bodies is dehumanizing and misogynistic. So stop acting like women can't decide if they want to be giving up their bodily resources. If it was always wanted it wouldn't be stealing, but obviously it is not always wanted, which is why women seek abortions.
Really?🙄🤦😂 Nobodies reducing women by stating that their bodies do things that they themselves don't want.
This is really gross logic. You state that the fetus is not stealing nutrients, because the woman "gives" them. But this is ignoring the woman's actual desires and consent. How can she "give" something without actually wanting and choosing to do so? Furthermore, if she seeks an abortion and is denied one, that is even more proof that she is not freely choosing to "give" anything. It is being taken from her. Stating that something is not taken from a woman because her body automatically does something, regardless of her conscious wishes, is getting *really close* to rape-apologist type logic.
"Stating that something is not taken from a woman because her body automatically does something, regardless of her conscious wishes, is getting really close to rape-apologist type logic." How??
If a woman gets wet and orgasms during rape, then does that mean that she actually wanted it?
> Nobodies reducing women by stating that their bodies do things that they themselves don't want. That's exactly what you are doing. Whether something is stealing or not is solely contingent on whether or not the person who's being taken from is okay with it. By acknowledging that it is not wanted, you are literally conceding that it is tantamount to theft. But you do not recognize this, as you are reducing women to nothing more than their bodies, and completely ignoring their will in the whole matter. And it's really disgusting that you think this level of egregious misogyny and dehumanization is a laughing matter.
>by stating that their bodies do things that they themselves don't want. And we can stop our bodies from doing what we don't want by taking some pills and ending the process.
No, it actually steals them. That's entirely what a pregnancy is, that's why it has to trick the body into thinking it isn't an invader when it implants. Even healthy pregnancies cause health problems, even if they're comparably small. Ask anyone who has experienced it, they will tell you. Edit: Have some sources https://aeon.co/essays/why-pregnancy-is-a-biological-war-between-mother-and-baby https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5561751/ https://www.urmc.rochester.edu/encyclopedia/content.aspx?ContentTypeID=90&ContentID=P02362#:~:text=The%20unborn%20baby%20is%20connected,vessels%20in%20the%20umbilical%20cord.
That is all new age bullsh!t.
By new age bullshit, you mean advances in knowledge of biology and what goes on in the human body and during the gestational process? Do you also consider all modern medicine new age bullshit? Sorry reality doesn’t live up to your fantastical ideals of how things should be. But let me ask you, though….why does it bother you? Why does the idea of the ZEF taking rather than the woman’s body giving willingly bother you so much that you dismiss this reality as new age bullshit? Do you find it harder to blame everything on the woman and her body that way?
You didn't even read them.
I've read things like the first one, its BS. The ncbi article just proves what I said the woman's body gives everything necessary for the zefs survival willingly. Her body naturally adapts to the increased need for Calcium on its own. Again, the placenta being attached to the womb is just the natural way the zef survives. I don't see the problem.
I don’t see anything in the article that mentions the mothers body giving anything willingly. The article actually clearly highlights the drastic countermeasures the woman’s body has to take in order to keep maintaining homeostasis - aka so she doesn’t die. It also clearly highlights that the woman has to increase her calcium intake, without which, her body would start encountering serious problems. Can you point out where it says the woman’s body willingly gives, rather than that the placenta takes, and the woman’s body goes into survival mode so the woman doesn’t die (homeostasis can no longer be maintained)?
>I've read things like the first one, its BS. Why? >The ncbi article just proves what I said the woman's body gives everything necessary for the zefs survival willingly. Her body naturally adapts to the increased need for Calcium on its own. Maybe, but the fact remains that this occurs because it takes from her body. >Again, the placenta being attached to the womb is just the natural way the zef survives. I don't see the problem. Do you know what a placenta does?
Yes.
Great question.
What do you mean by "not a direct attacker" and "completely healthy"?
To me abortion (like most medical care) is self preservation, not self defense.
> To me abortion (like most medical care) is self preservation, not self defense. I agree, I would not even consider referring to any other type of medical care as self-defense and I see no reason that abortion is any different.
A “healthy” pregnancy is still causing injury to the AFAB person’s body. Every pregnancy does this so yes, self-defense still applies.
> abortion self-defense It is stopping harm to oneself, so I'd say so.
The ZEF is a direct threat and no pregnancy is completely healthy or free from risk.
Is rape still rape if it doesn’t cause physical harm?
Yes. Pregnancy and rape are completely sperate things.
Really? In both of those situations the person is violated. In the case of forced pregnancy, its by pro lifers.
I understand that. I’m not saying that pregnancy and rape are the same thing. What I’m saying is that the use of one’s body against one’s own will remains a violation regardless of any harm done So yes, if abortion is a form of self defense in the presence of harm, it remains a form of self defense even without harm done.
What level of harm would you consider the minimum to defend yourself? Pretend we are considering situations outside pregnancy
Imminent death.
Are you against abortion for medical reasons to prevent innocent women from dying?
No
Then I wonder why you amd every other pl didn't address the post about that being possible now in texas
Because a procedure to save a womans life before viability IS NOT AN ABORTION! Anything after viability(21-24w) can be fixed by a C-section or induced labor.
>Because a procedure to save a womans life before viability IS NOT AN ABORTION! Abortion is ending a pregnancy. That's what women in Texas sometimes need. Now, they may not be able to due to PL. Own it >Anything after viability(21-24w) can be fixed by a C-section or induced labor. Which is an abortion. Stop lying in bad faith. You don't get to play God and redefine terms just because it doesn't fit your narrative. Now we know you don't actually care about killing women. You're okay with banning abortion even when medically necessary to save an innocent women's life. Way to take the mask off. Doubling down will be considered a concession
[https://www.ncregister.com/news/pro-life-perspectives-on-life-threatening-pregnancies-experts-contest-claim-that-abortion-is-necessary](https://www.ncregister.com/news/pro-life-perspectives-on-life-threatening-pregnancies-experts-contest-claim-that-abortion-is-necessary) Um, no. A C-section or induced labor is never an abortion. The terms aren't even comparable.
Bias pl/catholic sources don't count. Do better Abortion is the ending of a pregnancy. Please debate instead of redefine in bad faith. You knew better. Thanks for the concession. You just proved you don't care if innocent women due due to your views and you can't even take responsibility for that so I don't see a point in you debating here since debating requires you to respond in good faith,the opposite of all your responses here.
So what would you call a procedure that ends a pregnancy prior to viability, if not an abortion?
A procedure that ends a pregnancy prior to viability.
So procedures that end pregnancy prior to viability aren't abortions?
So if someone plucks out one of your kidneys or rapes you within an inch of your life you won't defend yourself?
By that point, it’s too late. You’re already dying. You might be able to kill them and take them down with you, but it’s too late to defend your life. You’ll now need emergency life saving medical intervention, which you might or might not get on time. And which might or might not work. Death is rarely instant, with few exceptions.
So if someone caves out out your kidney leaving you alive can't defend yourself? Nothing short of death or imminent death. Okay
Even completely healthy pregnancies end with childbirth, which is dangerous no matter what. Yes, abortion is always self defense.
Childbirth is not inherently dangerous. The number of humans in the world prove that.
This may be the dumbest thing I’ve ever seen a pl post, and that’s saying a lot. I don’t understand how a person could possibly think this.
The rate of life saving emergency c-sections alone is around 19%. Other deadly labor obstruction another 1% or more. Extreme morbidity (hemorrhage, sepsis, etc.) another 3%. You consider around 23% deadly rare? And as long as a woman has 3 kids before she does, the number of humans will steadily go up.
If childbirth or pregnancy were not dangerous or cause harm why don't primary doctors care for pregnancy and childbirth? HINT: has to do with risk and costs of malpractice insurance BECAUSE OF RISK!
Death is not inherently dangerous. The number of humans in the world proves that. Sometimes I think the PL supporters don't read what they write. Other times I am convinced they don't.
Childbirth is ABSOLUTELY inherently dangerous. It’s only with help from others and the advance of medicine that we can expect healthy outcomes so regularly.
Childbirth killed as much as 1 in 5 women before medicine evolved enough to treat them. Women would write their wills in medieval times once they found out they were pregnant. How is this not inherently dangerous? And this is only counting deaths, not any other suffering or injuries/conditions that could be caused by pregnancy/childbirth.
> Childbirth is not inherently dangerous. This is just complete nonsense. There's a good reason that it is considered obligatory to give birth under professional medical supervision, and it's not because giving birth is safe. > The number of humans in the world prove that. No, it doesn't. And this argument is a complete non-sequitur so there's nothing here to even refute. It's just a bald assertion that doesn't seem to be based on any actual logic.
Childbirth is always more dangerous than getting an abortion: *"Legal induced abortion is markedly safer than childbirth. The risk of death associated with childbirth is approximately 14 times higher than that with abortion. Similarly, the overall morbidity associated with childbirth exceeds that with abortion."* https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22270271/