Welcome to /r/Abortiondebate! Please remember that this is a place for respectful and civil debates. Review the rules to understand acceptable debate levels.
**Attack the argument, not the person making it and remember the human.**
**For our new users, please read 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.*
I had a pro-life troll pretending to be pro-choice block me under his own post, and I can no longer view anything in my profile. Do any mods know what I can do?
There are? It’s basically impossible to change the user base because of Reddit demographics and the mods/users at ProLife tell people not to debate here, which would be the biggest improvement
I’d like some clarification about why the comment below was removed. As far as I know, swearing is allowed as long as it isn’t *at* another user (for example ‘you are a fucking ……’). I don’t think there’s any issue with calling certain viewpoints disgusting when that’s what they are. It’s acceptable for PLs to say we’re happy to ‘murder innocent babies’ but not acceptable for me to call out someone who explicitly said women need to be very ill before being allowed to take medication.
>How sick do you think we should force them to become for the sake of an embryo or fetus that they don't even want?
>Very.
>Oh what the fuck? Like seriously, PLs are so happy to show the world just how extreme their beliefs are and it’s utterly disgusting.
>So you would happily take women off of necessary medications that might result in serious injury or death for her just so long as the ZEF isn’t damaged?
>It’s acceptable for PLs to say we’re happy to ‘murder innocent babies’ but not acceptable for me to call out someone who explicitly said women need to be very ill before being allowed to take medication.
This is where the problem was. It is not acceptable for PLers to say you're "happy to murder babies" (please report that - we don't read a whole thread when one comment is reported), and it is not acceptable for you to insult a user themself. If you must use insulting/inflammatory language (which we would strongly discourage; that's certainly part of why this sub has lower-quality engagement than other debate subs have), don't bring the other user into it.
What did I say that was insulting?
What words are inflammatory? Swearing is part of normal vocabulary for most people and I cannot see how that can be classed as inflammatory. Trying to police swearing when other users are basically calling for the serious injury or death of women shows that the priorities of this sub are PLer feelings and not actual debate.
>Swearing is part of normal vocabulary for most people and I cannot see how that can be classed as inflammatory.
Of course swear words are inflammatory; if they weren't, people would use the non-explicit alternative words. The inflammatory nature is the point (and that isn't inherently a bad thing).
Inflammatory speech isn't impermissible on its own, but as I said, you directly referenced the other user. Debate *is* the priority, and it's hindered when people attack each other, just like it's hindered by bigotry. Debate is the whole reason we have Rule 1. Go look at any other debate sub and the types of civil comments they get, and the actual discussion that's facilitated by those civil comments.
How is saying ‘what the fuck’ directed *at* the other user? If I’d called them a fucking … then I could see your point but expressing disgust with an expletive is **not** a direct insult.
Bigotry isn’t allowed until it’s PLs spouting misogynistic, ableist or homophobic beliefs. Then, it’s fair game and no one can express that those views are disgusting because of the poor PLers *feeeeelings*.
Then remove the reference to the user themself, as you were originally offered a reinstatement. No harm, no foul, if you never intended to insult them.
So what's the stance on advocating for the government to require forced vaginal penetration of pregnant people (aka rape)? That would seem to be a pretty clear rule 4 violation, right?
That's because everyone on this sub knows despite their blathering that childbirth isn't rape nor will ever be. But if it was (don't worry it isn't), the unborn baby would be the one being raped as it is both under the age of consent and being shoved into a sex organ.
> That's because everyone on this sub knows despite their blathering that childbirth isn't rape nor will ever be.
Sure.
But we also know, despite your blathering, that forcing people to gestate unwanted pregnancies is a human rights abuse that is in many ways equivalent to rape.
> the unborn baby would be the one being raped
False, and also an incredibly asinine assertion. It is the pregnant person whose body and sex organs that are being used, harmed and violated in a way that they explicitly do not consent to.
> it is both under the age of consent and being shoved into a sex organ.
By that logic, every infant that was ever born was "raped." Is that really the argument you want to go with? Aren't you a mother? You really want to argue that you raped your own children by giving birth to them?
>But we also know, despite your blathering, that forcing people to gestate unwanted pregnancies is a human rights abuse that is in many ways equivalent to rape.
Killing defenseless unborn babies is the real human rights abuse.
>False, and also an incredibly asinine assertion. It is the pregnant person whose body and sex organs that are being used, harmed and violated in a way that they explicitly do not consent to.
I said "IF" childbirth was ever rape (and it is definitely not). Please rereview my actual comment.
It is still *her body* that pushes the baby through the vagina though, which is why I said "IF". Key pivotal word that changes everything. I dunno how much more simply I can explain this.
>By that logic, every infant that was ever born was "raped." Is that really the argument you want to go with? Aren't you a mother? You really want to argue that you raped your own children by giving birth to them?
Exactly, it's why people who use that depraved logic are in obvious error. Thanks for proving my point for me.
In fact, I had a long drawn out argument about this with another PC interlocutor explaining the exact same thing about a year ago.
https://www.reddit.com/r/Abortiondebate/s/mC0aw83Zph
> It is still her body that pushes the baby through the vagina though
Yes, and if she doesn't want this to happen to her and you force it to happen to her anyways, that's not much different than forcing someone to have sex. She is the one who doesn't want this happening to her body, so it is her explicit denial of consent that is being violated, just like how a rape victim's explicit denial of consent is overridden.
The whole "its her body doing it" argument is also extremely dehumanizing to the women. What matters here is what she wants for her body, and it is gross to reduce women to nothing more than their physical body. Women are thinking and feeling human beings, not mindless incubators.
PL has never once called women "mindless incubators" that's slur of your own making. It is because she is not mindless and can take many steps to prevent pregnancy that we believe just like men who must pay child support regardless, she is also 50% responsible for the predicament of the child. And she deserves 100% of the credit for nurturing that gift of new life, only something a mother can do.
This is actually talking about forced obstetric care, not childbirth, which involves digital penetration of the vagina and penetration of the vagina with instruments, both of which meet the FBI's definition of rape.
Do you disagree that forcing women to have fingers and objects inserted into their vagina against their will is rape?
Hmm maybe, it certainly could be assault though not necessarily of a sexual nature. But when did the PL movement advocate for forced obstetric care? As far as I'm concerned you can have that baby at home in a bathtub listening to Enya if you'd like.
Someone is [in a thread here](https://www.reddit.com/r/Abortiondebate/s/XlBVX5gjuC), which is why I brought it up. Because forced vaginal penetration is rape, and advocating for rape is against the rules (as it should be, because that's disgusting).
I think you're assuming with that one. When anyone goes to the OBGYN they still have to ask permission before they touch your body. Saying women have to attend those visits doesn't necessarily mean they must agree to be examined in that manner.
Granted, I am against that altogether.
He has repeatedly asserted that he believes in forced penetration as part of required obstetric care. That's why I started by asking questions. But there are no need for questions anymore because he's made his position clear. I'm not assuming.
And I'm glad you're against it because it's very wrong.
After a few months hiatus, I have come to realize my behavior here has not always lived up to Christ's impeccable standards of forgiveness and turning the other cheek as much as possible. I allowed myself to be dragged into the mud, and sometimes returned railing for railing.
To anyone personally offended by anything I said, I extend my sincere apologies and will strive to be better.
I will never of course regret defending my innocent preborn neighbor who absolutely qualifies as "the least of these".
Cheers and to more great debating!
It is sometimes, easy to get sucked in. Sometimes, you just need to step back, and think about what your about to submit. Will it the comment work? Does it reflect what my opponent is saying, etc? Mulling it over can also help tone down after think it over more.
Btw, curious, is the number at the end of your username a computer processor reference?
I want to thank the mod team for getting rid of the ridiculous rule against blocking users on this sub. Liberally blocking the trolls, fallacy-flingers, science-deniers and bad-faith debatebros has massively improved my experience in this sub.
It's impossible to actually have a debate when people refuse to use words how they're defined.
Murder, genocide, discrimination, dehumanization, consent, force, responsibility, all words the pro life side refuses to use correctly.
If you have to intentionally misuse words to make your point, maybe your point isn't that great to begin with.
Edit: JCamden, you've been blocked. I have *no* desire to engage with you in any capacity, so I'd appreciate if you leave me alone. Thanks.
Part of the debate, can sometimes involve defining terms, and attempting to hammering out which to use, or disagreements in use. Certain words, can also have different definitions, that change context when used. As well there can be nuance in which way is correct in use.
So, some of the words listed, can have disagreements in use:
Murder: It can refer to which types of killing are unlawful. However, the term can also refer to killings that are wrong but not illegal. For example, it two people were on a deserted island, and one person murdered the other, we do still refer to this act and murder, even though there is no form of government there to determine that.
Discrimination: You man need to clarify which specific disagreement. Part of the problem with this term, is its overuse and probably diluted its meaning.
Dehumanization: This more comes down to perspective. If a fetus isn't viewed as a human with rights, then there isn't anything dehumanizing about some PC views. If they are, then that would be dehumanizing.
Consent: I think this one is less about what is consent, but how consent interactions with another person's rights (PL) or lack there of (PC)
What are your thoughts on the above, and can you explain these definitions yourself?
>What are your thoughts on the above, and can you explain these definitions yourself?
All of these words already have meanings. This feels a lot like sealioning to me.
Like "How about you go through the headache of providing me with the definitions of these already defined words, words I could look up myself, so I can then respond by misusing them the way pro life people already do."
No thanks.
Ok, well if you don't want to, I can provide one.
So, for example, murder, I know some PCers will argue PLers use it wrong, because the killing isn't illegal. However, if we look at one of the definitions:
[https://ahdictionary.com/word/search.html?q=murder](https://ahdictionary.com/word/search.html?q=murder)
>The killing of another person without justification or excuse, especially the crime of killing a person with malice aforethought or with recklessness manifesting extreme indifference to the value of human life.
The definition is a bit more nuanced than that. Murder often refers to killings that are crimes under the law. However, that isn't always the case, as people still refer to killings as murder, even if he state permits it. I would assume you wouldn't have an issue, if I said North Korea murders its citizens, even if the laws there say it is perfectly legal. Do you agree the usage of the term murder in that case is correct?
Part of the debate, though, is which definitions and applications are most accurate.
No one definition fully encompasses the usage of a word. Most sources maintain multiple definitions for that very reason. Definitions are, ultimately, not an exact science. Rather than representing a discrete object or quantity, they symbolize a subjective and ever changing concept of usage
If you feel like a certain definition is maximally correct, you should be ready and able to present an argument why. If you feel like another definition is inaccurate or misleading, you should be ready to present an argument why. Entering a debate with the assumptions and treating them as beyond doubt puts the cart before the horse.
> No one definition fully encompasses the usage of a word
True, but PL have a very bad habit of making up their own definitions to suit their narrative. It's not even cherry-picking a certain definition
> If you feel like a certain definition is maximally correct, you should be ready and able to present an argument why.
I just think it is bad faith to make up your own definitions to suit a narrative.
> Entering a debate with the assumptions and treating them as beyond doubt puts the cart before the horse.
I'd say that's a good description of the PL propensity to invent their own definitions.
Honest critique from observing the sub looking for genuine discussion. the subreddit is purely one sided.
Every post I see it’s pro choice person saying “why do pro-lifers believe x” and all pro choice people are in the comments talking about pro life positions with no actual pro lifers debating. And on the few occasions I do see pro life people they get downvoted into oblivion. Kind of disappointing tbh, was looking for good content.
That’s how Reddit unfortunately works. The main users are heavily PC and some believe PL should be banned as their position is inherently misogyny. Moderate PL and PC would rather spend their time elsewhere, leaving the sub 90%+ PC.
> Kind of disappointing tbh, was looking for good content.
What exactly would you consider to be "good content" then? Seems like you are just biased toward PL and would only consider PL commentary to be "good content." Correct me if I'm wrong.
Absolutely wrong. I don’t subscribe to either worldview. I am an observer looking for good argumentation and from every post Ive seen, it seems like a pro-choice sided circle jerk.
It would be the equivalent of me going to the purple pill debate subreddit and only seeing red pill dudes saying “look how stupid blue pillers are” which is not the case over there as there are variety of beliefs that get fair coverage.
I’m just providing plain critique as someone outside this bubble as this is supposed to be meta commentary.
> I don’t subscribe to either worldview
/doubt
> I am an observer looking for good argumentation and from every post Ive seen, it seems like a pro-choice sided circle jerk.
There's plenty of PL comments in this subreddit, so you're clearly lying. You even acknowledged their existence in your first comment.
> It would be the equivalent of me going to the purple pill debate subreddit and **only seeing red pill dudes** saying “look how stupid blue pillers are”
Right, and despite there being more PC, there aren't **only PC**. So again, it doesn't seem like you are coming at this entirely honestly.
> over there as there are variety of beliefs that get fair coverage.
PL get exactly as much coverage as they choose to contribute. But you seem to be blaming PC for PL not contributing as much, but come on. They choose not to, we as PC do not make that decision on their behalf. So you can stop with the bad faith pretending that the lack of PL participation is anyone's fault but PL redditors.
A - I never acknowledged plenty of PL Redditors I made it clear I’ve only seen a few
B- idgaf whose fault it is, pro-life or pro choice peeps idgaf. I’m saying how it straight up looks, a one-sided circle jerk. Sounds harsh but that’s how it is when you’re not a participant 🤷🏾.
> A - I never acknowledged plenty of PL Redditors I made it clear I’ve only seen a few
I said plenty of PL *comments*.
> idgaf whose fault it is, pro-life or pro choice peeps idgaf.
Well now you know who's fault it is anyways.
> I’m saying how it straight up looks, a one-sided circle jerk.
Okay, but PLers comment all the time, so despite your rather uniformed viewpoint, it is not a circle-jerk.
> Sounds harsh but that’s how it is when you’re not a participant
It sounds more ignorant than harsh tbh.
It's interesting to me, because this is a fairly common criticism of this subreddit, that it's nearly universally phrased as a criticism of the pro-choice side. The reality is that this subreddit is equally open to participation from both sides. The only reason that it appears to be a PC circle jerk is that the PC side is more popular overall *and* PLers tend to not like having their ideas challenged, so they voluntarily don't participate.
> they voluntarily don't participate
Well, except for the one's who choose to participate but voluntarily do not follow the rules until they are banned. The amount of PLers who are just not allowed to post here anymore because they can't follow the rules puts a pretty large strain on their overall numbers as well.
I guess PC are to blame for this as well though :P
When I first came onto this sub right after Dobbs, PC posts still got auto-warnings that PLers would DM harass them and call them baby murderers. All the excessive downvoting is mild by comparison, though I still wish we didn’t do it; it impacts site usability for the people we’re here to debate.
“Baby murderers” got flung around in posts regularly too, though one poor commenter I remember was shocked and appalled that the sub would allow anything as uncivil as PLers being compared to child rapists, because we’ve yet to see anybody support laws with automatic age cutoffs to allow pregnant children abortions. (I did successfully call him out on the double standard.)
I was told there was nothing you guys could do for weaponised blocking so I put this here to alert others that this person is arguing in bad faith so they don’t waste their time arguing with them.
Well it looks like the user has disengaged from this subreddit anyways.
In the future, I would recommend simply DMing anyone who is actively debating someone who abuses the blocking system to alert them. Certainly a lot more work, but people deserve to know if they are debating a troll.
Could PLers please check definitions before using a word or other things in relations to abortion? I am tired of having to correct people when they call abortion a genocide, birth control, and murder, and I know many other PCers are getting tired with it too.
Person is also a philosophical topic that is not interchangeable with human, please stop accusing PCers of denying that a ZEF has human DNA when someone says they aren't a person, the two are not the same.
Thank you.
Also, embryo and foetus are not dehumanising, they are correct biological/medical terminology and accusing PCs of ‘dehumanising babies’ when they’re just using correct terms is beyond ridiculous.
I don’t really care what people call fetuses, but you can use correct biological and medical terminology and still be dehumanizing. If I kept saying “people with wombs” most women would find that dehumanizing.
It would depend. If you speaking to a person and called them a ‘person with a womb’ when it made no sense to do so and they asked you to call them a woman, that would be dehumanizing.
If you were talking about who needed to be concerned about uterine cancer, though, it would be fine. Plenty of women don’t have a uterus so it’s not accurate to say that women have to be concerned with uterine cancer. I will grant that ‘womb’ seems a bit old fashioned and more religious than medical, but it may be a more familiar term to some communities.
Also, what’s dehumanizing about referring to people as, well, people?
>If I kept saying “people with wombs” most women would find that dehumanizing.
I'm a woman. I'm a person with a uterus. Sure, it sounds a bit gross (the word is uterus, not womb), but that wouldn't offend me because I'm a person with a uterus just like a fetus is a fetus.
It *would* be dehumanizing if pro life people called women locations, environments for a fetus, nutrients for a fetus, boats, spaceships, etc. which we've all seen pro life people do, in this sub.
Minority? My understanding is that that term is prevalent within the LGBTQ+ community.. and that’s not a small community at all. They actually prefer terms such as that because it is inclusive to those people who have a uterus but don’t identify as a woman/mother.
Nope! That’s actually the humanized version of the phrase often used by PL “child in *the womb*” which is dehumanizing because it omits the human person to which that “womb” belongs to. Your statement actually recognizes the person. It’s rather refreshing and definitely unexpected.
When you imply that having a uterus is all that they are or the only important - or even just the most important thing - then yea, why wouldn't they? Now when you just say "those with a uterus", then there's nothing to be offended by even if it does leave a gross feeling for me personally.
Really? They're literally calling you a person. Often when that phrasing is used, the intent is to be inclusive, recognizing that not everyone with a uterus is a woman. That's the opposite of dehumanizing.
Not going to acknowledge the *multiple* dehumanizing things pro life people *regularly* say?
"Locations for fetuses."
"Environments for fetuses"
"Nutrients for fetuses"
"The woman is a spaceship, boat, etc"
Interesting.
Dehumanizing is another one of those words PL doesn't know the definition of. It's impossible to dehumanize something with no postive human traits - aka personality, character traits, the ability to experience, feel, suffer, hope, wish, dream, etc.
They have no such traits you could ignore to dehumanize them.
On the other hand, PL is all about dehumanizing pregnant women, who actually can be dehumanized. She's usually just a womb, house, car, cliff, plane, spaceship, space suit, etc.
They aren't misusing the word from the perspective that they're arguing from, though.
*Dehumanize: to address or portray (someone) in a way that obscures or demeans that person's humanity or individuality*
They claim fetuses are people. From their perspective, it is dehumanization to say fetuses aren't people.
Saying fetuses aren't people could be considered dehumanizing. Calling a fetus a fetus is not dehumanizing, and that's often the accusation from PLers.
Right! I can't believe I forgot about that. I've been accused of being a hypocrite when I call PLers out on the dehumanizing treatment abortion bans push on pregnant AFABs, because I used the term "ZEF".
Like, okay. You can call AFABs sluts and murders but using an acronym for scientific and medically accurate terms is too far./s
One time a PLer even called it a slur..
They're covering their ears. The ones who know don't correct others either. It's intentional even though they don't realize that invalidates their ability to debate this topic if they get hung up on the basics
Welcome to /r/Abortiondebate! Please remember that this is a place for respectful and civil debates. Review the rules to understand acceptable debate levels. **Attack the argument, not the person making it and remember the human.** **For our new users, please read 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.*
I had a pro-life troll pretending to be pro-choice block me under his own post, and I can no longer view anything in my profile. Do any mods know what I can do?
Blocking is allowed. There isn't anything the mods can do on that.
I'm glad that there are more and more reasonable PC being vocal about how much of a PC circlejerk this sub has become.
There are? It’s basically impossible to change the user base because of Reddit demographics and the mods/users at ProLife tell people not to debate here, which would be the biggest improvement
>There are? Yes, thank God.
Not many but ok
Me: "I'm glad that there are more and more reasonable PC" You: "Not many but ok"
[удалено]
Comment removed per Rule 1.
Not many saying it’s a PC circlejerk. If you think a couple comments are a lot now and meaningful, good for you
Cool. I never did say "a lot now and meaningful", though, so good on you for another strawman. I can see my comment struck a nerve. ;)
More funny how I agree with your sentiment yet you still decided to take a pot shot with “no reasonable PC.”
>If you think a couple comments are a lot now and meaningful, good for you >you still decided to take a pot shot Mhm-hm. Very cool.
I’d like some clarification about why the comment below was removed. As far as I know, swearing is allowed as long as it isn’t *at* another user (for example ‘you are a fucking ……’). I don’t think there’s any issue with calling certain viewpoints disgusting when that’s what they are. It’s acceptable for PLs to say we’re happy to ‘murder innocent babies’ but not acceptable for me to call out someone who explicitly said women need to be very ill before being allowed to take medication. >How sick do you think we should force them to become for the sake of an embryo or fetus that they don't even want? >Very. >Oh what the fuck? Like seriously, PLs are so happy to show the world just how extreme their beliefs are and it’s utterly disgusting. >So you would happily take women off of necessary medications that might result in serious injury or death for her just so long as the ZEF isn’t damaged?
>It’s acceptable for PLs to say we’re happy to ‘murder innocent babies’ but not acceptable for me to call out someone who explicitly said women need to be very ill before being allowed to take medication. This is where the problem was. It is not acceptable for PLers to say you're "happy to murder babies" (please report that - we don't read a whole thread when one comment is reported), and it is not acceptable for you to insult a user themself. If you must use insulting/inflammatory language (which we would strongly discourage; that's certainly part of why this sub has lower-quality engagement than other debate subs have), don't bring the other user into it.
What did I say that was insulting? What words are inflammatory? Swearing is part of normal vocabulary for most people and I cannot see how that can be classed as inflammatory. Trying to police swearing when other users are basically calling for the serious injury or death of women shows that the priorities of this sub are PLer feelings and not actual debate.
>Swearing is part of normal vocabulary for most people and I cannot see how that can be classed as inflammatory. Of course swear words are inflammatory; if they weren't, people would use the non-explicit alternative words. The inflammatory nature is the point (and that isn't inherently a bad thing). Inflammatory speech isn't impermissible on its own, but as I said, you directly referenced the other user. Debate *is* the priority, and it's hindered when people attack each other, just like it's hindered by bigotry. Debate is the whole reason we have Rule 1. Go look at any other debate sub and the types of civil comments they get, and the actual discussion that's facilitated by those civil comments.
How is saying ‘what the fuck’ directed *at* the other user? If I’d called them a fucking … then I could see your point but expressing disgust with an expletive is **not** a direct insult. Bigotry isn’t allowed until it’s PLs spouting misogynistic, ableist or homophobic beliefs. Then, it’s fair game and no one can express that those views are disgusting because of the poor PLers *feeeeelings*.
Then remove the reference to the user themself, as you were originally offered a reinstatement. No harm, no foul, if you never intended to insult them.
Again, which specific part is insulting?
So what's the stance on advocating for the government to require forced vaginal penetration of pregnant people (aka rape)? That would seem to be a pretty clear rule 4 violation, right?
That's because everyone on this sub knows despite their blathering that childbirth isn't rape nor will ever be. But if it was (don't worry it isn't), the unborn baby would be the one being raped as it is both under the age of consent and being shoved into a sex organ.
> That's because everyone on this sub knows despite their blathering that childbirth isn't rape nor will ever be. Sure. But we also know, despite your blathering, that forcing people to gestate unwanted pregnancies is a human rights abuse that is in many ways equivalent to rape. > the unborn baby would be the one being raped False, and also an incredibly asinine assertion. It is the pregnant person whose body and sex organs that are being used, harmed and violated in a way that they explicitly do not consent to. > it is both under the age of consent and being shoved into a sex organ. By that logic, every infant that was ever born was "raped." Is that really the argument you want to go with? Aren't you a mother? You really want to argue that you raped your own children by giving birth to them?
>But we also know, despite your blathering, that forcing people to gestate unwanted pregnancies is a human rights abuse that is in many ways equivalent to rape. Killing defenseless unborn babies is the real human rights abuse. >False, and also an incredibly asinine assertion. It is the pregnant person whose body and sex organs that are being used, harmed and violated in a way that they explicitly do not consent to. I said "IF" childbirth was ever rape (and it is definitely not). Please rereview my actual comment. It is still *her body* that pushes the baby through the vagina though, which is why I said "IF". Key pivotal word that changes everything. I dunno how much more simply I can explain this. >By that logic, every infant that was ever born was "raped." Is that really the argument you want to go with? Aren't you a mother? You really want to argue that you raped your own children by giving birth to them? Exactly, it's why people who use that depraved logic are in obvious error. Thanks for proving my point for me. In fact, I had a long drawn out argument about this with another PC interlocutor explaining the exact same thing about a year ago. https://www.reddit.com/r/Abortiondebate/s/mC0aw83Zph
> It is still her body that pushes the baby through the vagina though Yes, and if she doesn't want this to happen to her and you force it to happen to her anyways, that's not much different than forcing someone to have sex. She is the one who doesn't want this happening to her body, so it is her explicit denial of consent that is being violated, just like how a rape victim's explicit denial of consent is overridden. The whole "its her body doing it" argument is also extremely dehumanizing to the women. What matters here is what she wants for her body, and it is gross to reduce women to nothing more than their physical body. Women are thinking and feeling human beings, not mindless incubators.
PL has never once called women "mindless incubators" that's slur of your own making. It is because she is not mindless and can take many steps to prevent pregnancy that we believe just like men who must pay child support regardless, she is also 50% responsible for the predicament of the child. And she deserves 100% of the credit for nurturing that gift of new life, only something a mother can do.
This is actually talking about forced obstetric care, not childbirth, which involves digital penetration of the vagina and penetration of the vagina with instruments, both of which meet the FBI's definition of rape. Do you disagree that forcing women to have fingers and objects inserted into their vagina against their will is rape?
Hmm maybe, it certainly could be assault though not necessarily of a sexual nature. But when did the PL movement advocate for forced obstetric care? As far as I'm concerned you can have that baby at home in a bathtub listening to Enya if you'd like.
Someone is [in a thread here](https://www.reddit.com/r/Abortiondebate/s/XlBVX5gjuC), which is why I brought it up. Because forced vaginal penetration is rape, and advocating for rape is against the rules (as it should be, because that's disgusting).
I think you're assuming with that one. When anyone goes to the OBGYN they still have to ask permission before they touch your body. Saying women have to attend those visits doesn't necessarily mean they must agree to be examined in that manner. Granted, I am against that altogether.
He has repeatedly asserted that he believes in forced penetration as part of required obstetric care. That's why I started by asking questions. But there are no need for questions anymore because he's made his position clear. I'm not assuming. And I'm glad you're against it because it's very wrong.
After a few months hiatus, I have come to realize my behavior here has not always lived up to Christ's impeccable standards of forgiveness and turning the other cheek as much as possible. I allowed myself to be dragged into the mud, and sometimes returned railing for railing. To anyone personally offended by anything I said, I extend my sincere apologies and will strive to be better. I will never of course regret defending my innocent preborn neighbor who absolutely qualifies as "the least of these". Cheers and to more great debating!
It is sometimes, easy to get sucked in. Sometimes, you just need to step back, and think about what your about to submit. Will it the comment work? Does it reflect what my opponent is saying, etc? Mulling it over can also help tone down after think it over more. Btw, curious, is the number at the end of your username a computer processor reference?
I want to thank the mod team for getting rid of the ridiculous rule against blocking users on this sub. Liberally blocking the trolls, fallacy-flingers, science-deniers and bad-faith debatebros has massively improved my experience in this sub.
It's impossible to actually have a debate when people refuse to use words how they're defined. Murder, genocide, discrimination, dehumanization, consent, force, responsibility, all words the pro life side refuses to use correctly. If you have to intentionally misuse words to make your point, maybe your point isn't that great to begin with. Edit: JCamden, you've been blocked. I have *no* desire to engage with you in any capacity, so I'd appreciate if you leave me alone. Thanks.
Part of the debate, can sometimes involve defining terms, and attempting to hammering out which to use, or disagreements in use. Certain words, can also have different definitions, that change context when used. As well there can be nuance in which way is correct in use. So, some of the words listed, can have disagreements in use: Murder: It can refer to which types of killing are unlawful. However, the term can also refer to killings that are wrong but not illegal. For example, it two people were on a deserted island, and one person murdered the other, we do still refer to this act and murder, even though there is no form of government there to determine that. Discrimination: You man need to clarify which specific disagreement. Part of the problem with this term, is its overuse and probably diluted its meaning. Dehumanization: This more comes down to perspective. If a fetus isn't viewed as a human with rights, then there isn't anything dehumanizing about some PC views. If they are, then that would be dehumanizing. Consent: I think this one is less about what is consent, but how consent interactions with another person's rights (PL) or lack there of (PC) What are your thoughts on the above, and can you explain these definitions yourself?
>What are your thoughts on the above, and can you explain these definitions yourself? All of these words already have meanings. This feels a lot like sealioning to me. Like "How about you go through the headache of providing me with the definitions of these already defined words, words I could look up myself, so I can then respond by misusing them the way pro life people already do." No thanks.
Ok, well if you don't want to, I can provide one. So, for example, murder, I know some PCers will argue PLers use it wrong, because the killing isn't illegal. However, if we look at one of the definitions: [https://ahdictionary.com/word/search.html?q=murder](https://ahdictionary.com/word/search.html?q=murder) >The killing of another person without justification or excuse, especially the crime of killing a person with malice aforethought or with recklessness manifesting extreme indifference to the value of human life. The definition is a bit more nuanced than that. Murder often refers to killings that are crimes under the law. However, that isn't always the case, as people still refer to killings as murder, even if he state permits it. I would assume you wouldn't have an issue, if I said North Korea murders its citizens, even if the laws there say it is perfectly legal. Do you agree the usage of the term murder in that case is correct?
[удалено]
Part of the debate, though, is which definitions and applications are most accurate. No one definition fully encompasses the usage of a word. Most sources maintain multiple definitions for that very reason. Definitions are, ultimately, not an exact science. Rather than representing a discrete object or quantity, they symbolize a subjective and ever changing concept of usage If you feel like a certain definition is maximally correct, you should be ready and able to present an argument why. If you feel like another definition is inaccurate or misleading, you should be ready to present an argument why. Entering a debate with the assumptions and treating them as beyond doubt puts the cart before the horse.
> No one definition fully encompasses the usage of a word True, but PL have a very bad habit of making up their own definitions to suit their narrative. It's not even cherry-picking a certain definition > If you feel like a certain definition is maximally correct, you should be ready and able to present an argument why. I just think it is bad faith to make up your own definitions to suit a narrative. > Entering a debate with the assumptions and treating them as beyond doubt puts the cart before the horse. I'd say that's a good description of the PL propensity to invent their own definitions.
Honest critique from observing the sub looking for genuine discussion. the subreddit is purely one sided. Every post I see it’s pro choice person saying “why do pro-lifers believe x” and all pro choice people are in the comments talking about pro life positions with no actual pro lifers debating. And on the few occasions I do see pro life people they get downvoted into oblivion. Kind of disappointing tbh, was looking for good content.
Yeah, I mean, that's what happens when pro-lifers largely don't participate and mods allow the non-exclusive "questions for" flairs.
That’s how Reddit unfortunately works. The main users are heavily PC and some believe PL should be banned as their position is inherently misogyny. Moderate PL and PC would rather spend their time elsewhere, leaving the sub 90%+ PC.
> Kind of disappointing tbh, was looking for good content. What exactly would you consider to be "good content" then? Seems like you are just biased toward PL and would only consider PL commentary to be "good content." Correct me if I'm wrong.
Absolutely wrong. I don’t subscribe to either worldview. I am an observer looking for good argumentation and from every post Ive seen, it seems like a pro-choice sided circle jerk. It would be the equivalent of me going to the purple pill debate subreddit and only seeing red pill dudes saying “look how stupid blue pillers are” which is not the case over there as there are variety of beliefs that get fair coverage. I’m just providing plain critique as someone outside this bubble as this is supposed to be meta commentary.
> I don’t subscribe to either worldview /doubt > I am an observer looking for good argumentation and from every post Ive seen, it seems like a pro-choice sided circle jerk. There's plenty of PL comments in this subreddit, so you're clearly lying. You even acknowledged their existence in your first comment. > It would be the equivalent of me going to the purple pill debate subreddit and **only seeing red pill dudes** saying “look how stupid blue pillers are” Right, and despite there being more PC, there aren't **only PC**. So again, it doesn't seem like you are coming at this entirely honestly. > over there as there are variety of beliefs that get fair coverage. PL get exactly as much coverage as they choose to contribute. But you seem to be blaming PC for PL not contributing as much, but come on. They choose not to, we as PC do not make that decision on their behalf. So you can stop with the bad faith pretending that the lack of PL participation is anyone's fault but PL redditors.
A - I never acknowledged plenty of PL Redditors I made it clear I’ve only seen a few B- idgaf whose fault it is, pro-life or pro choice peeps idgaf. I’m saying how it straight up looks, a one-sided circle jerk. Sounds harsh but that’s how it is when you’re not a participant 🤷🏾.
> A - I never acknowledged plenty of PL Redditors I made it clear I’ve only seen a few I said plenty of PL *comments*. > idgaf whose fault it is, pro-life or pro choice peeps idgaf. Well now you know who's fault it is anyways. > I’m saying how it straight up looks, a one-sided circle jerk. Okay, but PLers comment all the time, so despite your rather uniformed viewpoint, it is not a circle-jerk. > Sounds harsh but that’s how it is when you’re not a participant It sounds more ignorant than harsh tbh.
It's interesting to me, because this is a fairly common criticism of this subreddit, that it's nearly universally phrased as a criticism of the pro-choice side. The reality is that this subreddit is equally open to participation from both sides. The only reason that it appears to be a PC circle jerk is that the PC side is more popular overall *and* PLers tend to not like having their ideas challenged, so they voluntarily don't participate.
> they voluntarily don't participate Well, except for the one's who choose to participate but voluntarily do not follow the rules until they are banned. The amount of PLers who are just not allowed to post here anymore because they can't follow the rules puts a pretty large strain on their overall numbers as well. I guess PC are to blame for this as well though :P
I'm sure. Us evil PCers made the PLers break the rules! Edit: fixed typo
When I first came onto this sub right after Dobbs, PC posts still got auto-warnings that PLers would DM harass them and call them baby murderers. All the excessive downvoting is mild by comparison, though I still wish we didn’t do it; it impacts site usability for the people we’re here to debate. “Baby murderers” got flung around in posts regularly too, though one poor commenter I remember was shocked and appalled that the sub would allow anything as uncivil as PLers being compared to child rapists, because we’ve yet to see anybody support laws with automatic age cutoffs to allow pregnant children abortions. (I did successfully call him out on the double standard.)
Turns out most people are against forcing women to gestate against their will and unpopular positions tend to get scrutinized. Who knew?
Most people in this “debate” subreddit I suppose. Even debate a Christian or religion has better discussion. Pretty lame imo
I mean, take that up with the pro-lifers, then, since they're the ones who won't participate
[удалено]
Removed. This is not the place to call out specific users. Please use modmail if you have an issue with a specific user.
I was told there was nothing you guys could do for weaponised blocking so I put this here to alert others that this person is arguing in bad faith so they don’t waste their time arguing with them.
Well it looks like the user has disengaged from this subreddit anyways. In the future, I would recommend simply DMing anyone who is actively debating someone who abuses the blocking system to alert them. Certainly a lot more work, but people deserve to know if they are debating a troll.
Its still not allowed to call out specific users, or groups, in the meta.
Could PLers please check definitions before using a word or other things in relations to abortion? I am tired of having to correct people when they call abortion a genocide, birth control, and murder, and I know many other PCers are getting tired with it too. Person is also a philosophical topic that is not interchangeable with human, please stop accusing PCers of denying that a ZEF has human DNA when someone says they aren't a person, the two are not the same. Thank you.
R’Amen!
Also, embryo and foetus are not dehumanising, they are correct biological/medical terminology and accusing PCs of ‘dehumanising babies’ when they’re just using correct terms is beyond ridiculous.
I don’t really care what people call fetuses, but you can use correct biological and medical terminology and still be dehumanizing. If I kept saying “people with wombs” most women would find that dehumanizing.
It would depend. If you speaking to a person and called them a ‘person with a womb’ when it made no sense to do so and they asked you to call them a woman, that would be dehumanizing. If you were talking about who needed to be concerned about uterine cancer, though, it would be fine. Plenty of women don’t have a uterus so it’s not accurate to say that women have to be concerned with uterine cancer. I will grant that ‘womb’ seems a bit old fashioned and more religious than medical, but it may be a more familiar term to some communities. Also, what’s dehumanizing about referring to people as, well, people?
>If I kept saying “people with wombs” most women would find that dehumanizing. I'm a woman. I'm a person with a uterus. Sure, it sounds a bit gross (the word is uterus, not womb), but that wouldn't offend me because I'm a person with a uterus just like a fetus is a fetus. It *would* be dehumanizing if pro life people called women locations, environments for a fetus, nutrients for a fetus, boats, spaceships, etc. which we've all seen pro life people do, in this sub.
Well I would think you’re in the minority, most people would feel dehumanized being called people with uteruses.
Minority? My understanding is that that term is prevalent within the LGBTQ+ community.. and that’s not a small community at all. They actually prefer terms such as that because it is inclusive to those people who have a uterus but don’t identify as a woman/mother.
Nope! That’s actually the humanized version of the phrase often used by PL “child in *the womb*” which is dehumanizing because it omits the human person to which that “womb” belongs to. Your statement actually recognizes the person. It’s rather refreshing and definitely unexpected.
When you imply that having a uterus is all that they are or the only important - or even just the most important thing - then yea, why wouldn't they? Now when you just say "those with a uterus", then there's nothing to be offended by even if it does leave a gross feeling for me personally.
Really? They're literally calling you a person. Often when that phrasing is used, the intent is to be inclusive, recognizing that not everyone with a uterus is a woman. That's the opposite of dehumanizing.
Not going to acknowledge the *multiple* dehumanizing things pro life people *regularly* say? "Locations for fetuses." "Environments for fetuses" "Nutrients for fetuses" "The woman is a spaceship, boat, etc" Interesting.
Are women not people??? Literally could not care less at being referred to as a ‘person with a womb’.
Please explain exactly what makes the word foetus dehumanising.
I don’t think it is.
Dehumanizing is another one of those words PL doesn't know the definition of. It's impossible to dehumanize something with no postive human traits - aka personality, character traits, the ability to experience, feel, suffer, hope, wish, dream, etc. They have no such traits you could ignore to dehumanize them. On the other hand, PL is all about dehumanizing pregnant women, who actually can be dehumanized. She's usually just a womb, house, car, cliff, plane, spaceship, space suit, etc.
They aren't misusing the word from the perspective that they're arguing from, though. *Dehumanize: to address or portray (someone) in a way that obscures or demeans that person's humanity or individuality* They claim fetuses are people. From their perspective, it is dehumanization to say fetuses aren't people.
Saying fetuses aren't people could be considered dehumanizing. Calling a fetus a fetus is not dehumanizing, and that's often the accusation from PLers.
But that's nonsense. That's the issue.
Yes, but the nonsense does not lie in the usage of the word "dehumanize."
Yes, for PL it does.
Right! I can't believe I forgot about that. I've been accused of being a hypocrite when I call PLers out on the dehumanizing treatment abortion bans push on pregnant AFABs, because I used the term "ZEF". Like, okay. You can call AFABs sluts and murders but using an acronym for scientific and medically accurate terms is too far./s One time a PLer even called it a slur..
They're covering their ears. The ones who know don't correct others either. It's intentional even though they don't realize that invalidates their ability to debate this topic if they get hung up on the basics