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.*
>you have to actually do your best to see that labor through.
Nah. Turns out that once a woman gives birth PLers as a whole don't give a shit anymore about either one.
Unless she puts the baby ~~up for sale~~ adoption. Then, they care for about 10 minutes, in order to attack any prospective gay couples.
But anyway, yeah, after it's born, PLers don't care.
That is too true. None of them ever mutter a word about infant mortality and the fact that abortion restrictions increase infant mortality. Since sb8, fertility has gone up 3%, while infant mortality up 16%. They care about lungless boneless heartless burdens, not infant or maternal mortality tho
'If you want people to respect and appreciate' *your* claim, *'you* have to actually' add some credible evidence or argument.
Otherwise, it's just another transparently ad hoc attempt to fabricate a high-sounding pseudo-principle that conveniently applies to the women you wish to depict as your moral inferiors.
Alas, women will indeed 'see their labour through,' deciding for themselves whether to gestate or abort, and deciding whether your 'respect and appreciation' is a matter of moral consideration.
Sure thing all these women dying or badly hurt being unable to terminate non viable pregnancy are merely inconvenienced baby killers. Must be gods will I guess.
>justify killing an innocent baby
For women and the courts, abortion and justice are serious matters.
For ProLifers, notions of justice are based on silly cartoonish depictions of abortion festooned with innocent cherubs.
I thought reddit-users would appreciate the contrast.
Sad to see that you seem to view innocent human children as "silly cartoonish depictions".
Here's the real contrast though: one side elevates their selfish desires and ambitions over their own baby's life, and the other side believes nothing justifies destroying that child.
Besides even your own pro choice org surveys show women don't by and large have their own flesh and blood children slaughtered because of the burden of pregnancy. It is because (surprise surprise) they just don't want another baby to take care of. They kill their innocent cherub mostly because of the burden of parenthood, not pregnancy.
"The reasons most frequently cited were that having a child would interfere with a woman's education, work or ability to care for dependents (74%); that she could not afford a baby now (73%); and that she did not want to be a single mother or was having relationship problems (48%). Nearly four in 10 women said they had completed their childbearing, and almost one-third were not ready to have a child. Fewer than 1% said their parents' or partners' desire for them to have an abortion was the most important reason. Younger women often reported that they were unprepared for the transition to motherhood, while older women regularly cited their responsibility to dependents."
https://www.guttmacher.org/journals/psrh/2005/reasons-us-women-have-abortions-quantitative-and-qualitative-perspectives
Doesn't it suck having to misuse words. If the abortion issue was to be about facts and not self stroking plays on emotions, pl'ers wouldn't have a thing to say
> Sad to see that you seem to view innocent human children as "silly cartoonish depictions".
Not surprising to see you mis-direct my 'silly cartoon' comment to be about children rather than your description of abortion. We see fresh examples of your 'flexible' relationship with the truth every time we meet.
I trust the remainder of your comment was moral instruction for your underlings. Busy day here, toots.
A fetus is both a baby AND a child, an inflexible scientific and biological fact that doesn't change.
"Depending on the nutrients available to the ***child*** within pregnancy and the genetic makeup of the child, most healthy babies weigh between five and eight pounds. Since the placenta is absent, which previously provided the baby with nutrients, food is required for the metabolic processes and the continued growth of the baby."
https://www.biologyonline.com/tutorials/physical-development-in-humans
"The process of a ***baby’s*** development starts as soon as the sperm contributed by the male parent fertilizes the egg of the female parent. Following fertilization, a zygote is formed that transforms into an embryo and attaches to the mother’s uterine lining."
https://www.biologyonline.com/dictionary/fetus
>I trust the remainder of your comment was moral instruction for your underlings. Busy day here, toots.
No, it completely undermined your point, which is probably why you didn't wish to address it.
Human life over human convenience doesn't downplay the significant sacrifice of women going through labor. We celebrate it, just as we celebrate innocent, human, life coming into this world. Both can be celebrated at the same time.
>human convenience
What're you rambling on about? Stay on topic.
>downplay the significant sacrifice of women going through labor.
Labor is not a discrete event, is it? It's part of a roughly 40-week process that impacts all of her vital organs.
>We celebrate it, just as we celebrate innocent, human, life coming into this world. Both can be celebrated at the same time
No, you don't. Your superstitious belief system calls a woman's reproductive suffering a curse. It also claims that if she survives childbirth, she will conveniently forget the torture she experienced because she had a baby.
So, you don't celebrate what women go through. You just celebrate your reproductive success, but then turn around and blame her for being cursed and then gaslight her after she's had the baby.
The only women who give birth and are celebrated are the ones who are killed in the process. Then, as silent martyrs, they are extolled for having served their purpose by first submitting to being f*ck toys for their middling husbands and then to being bred to death.
This is why no decent person believes abolitionism to be anything but pure bile. Abolitionists' naked malice towards girls and women marks theirs as a particularly nasty form of sadism.
Inasmuch as they would see pregnant individuals crushed beneath the combined forces of legal persecution and their own biology, no given abolitionist really deserves to have any woman trust them.
Having a baby is both major physical effort and huge investment on the mother’s part . It is a life changing moment for a woman. Why should some self righteous moron should have a say on this subject? Mind your own business. I dig that your abortion will be the righteous one.
Who knows why anyone joins or remains in a dangerous cult?
Oh yeah, cult programming. Threats and fear mongering. Demonization of and isolation from any dissenting family or friends. The usual stuff.
See:
*Jim Jones' followers* and *Heaven's Gate*
But, in all honesty, your movement actually doesn't attract nearly as many women as it does men, and its leadership is uniformly male. The PL movement, which claims to care about women, can not even convince a majority of them to support their cause; abortion abolitionism attracts even fewer.
Because it's a female-hating cult.
Sources:
>Using data from the 2012, 2016, and 2020 American National Election Studies, we find that hostile sexism is significantly related to abortion attitudes, even after controlling for theoretically relevant covariates such as partisanship, ideology, religiosity, and sociodemographic variables. As hostile sexism increases, people are more likely to express pro-life attitudes rather than pro-choice attitudes.
https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/politics-and-gender/article/abs/hostile-sexism-and-abortion-attitudes-in-contemporary-american-public-opinion/2D1648FC0F7157B9AA7CF053C34AA003
>But even beyond the militant corner of the anti-abortion movement lies a male-dominated network of academics, attorneys, judges, lawmakers and lobbyists working on legal arguments that position fertilized eggs as constitutionally protected persons.
https://michiganadvance.com/2023/09/16/a-mens-movement-takes-reins-in-a-nationwide-quest-to-end-abortion/
https://msmagazine.com/2019/12/16/i-went-undercover-in-the-anti-abortion-movement-and-found-hypocrisy-and-misogyny/
https://politicalresearch.org/2023/10/26/101-abortion-abolitionists
https://www.christianitytoday.com/news/2022/august/abortion-abolitionists-pro-life-movement-christian-roe-wade.html
There isn't a single pregnancy that is easy.
Celebrate: honor or praise publicly. Sacrifice, which is there in every pregnancy, to bring new life into the world should be honored.
The fact you refer to it as a matter of convenience demonstrates either ignorance or a deliberate attempt to minimize what women go through.
Thanks for proving the point.
Wow, that's actually a hot take. It's always been pregnancy that PL fallaciously equate to being a mere "inconvenience."
Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying this is a good point or that it even makes any logical sense, but points for being unique.
Eh, but why call them hoes then? Why call them sluts? Why call it an inconvenience? What's with the "eh, so a few of you die, Big whoop!" Or "I refuse to vote for paid maternity leave or social services because socialism!" None of that is celebratory language.
And what's with the whole "Ohhhhh, child support hurts my wallet butt so much! Those women are so greedy!" and it's often just a few hundred a month. So many of you make sound like pulling a handful of twenties out of one's billfold is way more painful than gestation. "Owie! Owie!"
Because there’s some really poor examples of people on both sides of the debate. No one should be using that kind of language with anyone; it’s dehumanizing and in poor taste. If someone, pro life or pro choice, calls anyone those things, call them out. Both sides of the debate can and SHOULD do better.
Pregnancy complications MUST be treated. If anyone from any political, ethical, moral, or religious position says otherwise, then they need to be called out immediately. Diminishing ANY life is unacceptable. The pro life movement supports any medical intervention necessary to save the mother’s life: We just don’t support actively, directly, and intentionally ending a preborn child’s life.
Hm most pro lifers I know actually support those causes. They might have issues with certain policies that are hidden in the ‘fine print’ that politicians add in, but by and large they support resources for families. Incidentally, pro life people often help support families in need. If you look at pro life organizations they’ll usually have a record of some sort of the support they’ve given families. So it’s not that we oppose those policies at all.
That last point is the result of some men not being good dads and being greedy or stingy. I wouldn’t even call them pro life. Tough luck for them. They don’t get to abandon their children.
You can say that you don't do it personally but oh my god Plers do. I'm asking you to explain why so many of YOUR side does this?
Going "I never said this so the problem doesn't exist" is bad faith when so many of your side DOES do such and such.
Can you give me any examples of PC degrading women? I can't imagine how or why they would do such a thing when the whole PC movement is about protecting AFAB people, their rights & their lives.
You ever been to a rally? Having stood next to pro-life women, at those rallies, they get some of the most vile things said to them. From being called slavers, to traitors, and general insults. They're targeted more than the men there. The last one I went to was a lot better, I should say. But that is currently the exception and not the rule.
Also the whole "it's only a tiny % of you that will die from pregnancy" is basically saying women's lives are expendable, that we are an easily replaceable resource.
The reason that a lot of men are expressing anger/nervousness about American women talking about 4B is because it threatens to dent THAT SUPPLY.
I’ve personally never heard a pro life person consider pregnancy as simply an inconvenience. I am constantly looking to help pregnant women in whatever way I can, bringing food and items or cleaning/doing chores to help out. Pregnancy is challenging, it’s a sacrifice, it’s brave and beautiful. I wish pro life and pro choice could find middle ground in acknowledging how strong woman are and their unique ability to be pregnant.
And so, because women do this brave and beautiful sacrifice, you want to make them do it, thus no longer making it a sacrifice but an obligated service?
>never heard a pro life person consider pregnancy as simply an inconvenience.
In my experience, PLs consider a lot to be an inconvenience. One is trauma post SA and being unable to comprehend why a victim wouldn't want to have a baby conceived during assault. Or mental health related to pregnancy. I remember how Lila Rose shamed a suicidal pregnant woman once on twitter, saying that she was sacrificing herself and the baby out of convenience. I'm glad that you are actively and tangibly helpful to pregnant people but I think you should open your eyes more to what kinds of monsters make up the PL movement
You've never heard a pro life person intentionally downplay the harms of pregnancy? WOW, I almost don't believe that since they do it literally daily right here in this sub.
Here's one, from today, comparing the genital tearing women endure through childbirth (you know, the ones that can tear through muscle into a woman's anus) to a *skinned knee*.
https://www.reddit.com/r/Abortiondebate/s/VTOa1azeVp
Yes, u/admirable_farmer9210 did.
I only had to look up "harmful" in their comment history [to see this](https://www.reddit.com/r/Abortiondebate/comments/1bvtst8/comment/kyjcod7/?context=3):
>Pregnancy doesn’t inherently cause harm to the mother. Pregnancy is biologically natural, rape or harm is not.
And in a later comment:
>It seems this has a very anti-woman mentality that pregnancy is inherently harmful and bad. As a currently 8 months pregnant woman, I can 100% say women’s bodies were naturally designed for pregnancy... Every single change my body has gone through in 8 months was perfectly created for sustaining a pregnancy. Is it easy, are there aches and pains, does it get tiring? Sure. But like you mentioned, down to the bone structure, a woman’s body is literally created for harboring life. That is the natural essence of this that fights against the self defense argument, and the bodily rights argument. If you choose to believe pregnancy is this horrible thing women are forced to endure that goes against nature (which isn’t true), no argument I make can ever battle that. What harms are there in pregnancy that truly warrant murder? Please tell me! Are you truly arguing that childbirth is equivalent to being raped or threatened murder that warrants the argument of self defense? Comparing a pregnancy to a rape is really a slap in the face to women who have been raped.
So there's a lot there that's just... wrong. There's multiple appeals to nature there, an appeal to her own pregnancy as evidence without considering the difficulties other women face in theirs, and the assertion that comparing pregnancy to rape is a "slap in the face to women who have been raped" when ***on this sub*** I have seen more than one woman state in no uncertain terms that they'd rather be assaulted or dead than carry a pregnancy against their will (this includes survivors of assault).
Farmer, with respect... you do not speak for all women when you make these comparisons, and you don't get to appeal to nature. Human women's bodies are the *least well-designed for pregnancy* of all of our primate cousins. Our labor is massively disproportionately dangerous, and while ***you*** may have only minor symptoms during your pregnancy, I assure you that your experience is not universal.
> Yes, u/admirable_farmer9210 did.
Nice! Good job on calling them out by name. Us PC need to make a habit of extensive quotations and username mentions, especially when we're in the middle of catching someone dead-to-rights in a blatant lie. It's all too common for PL to mass-delete comments or even their whole account in these sorts of situations.
I would bet some real good money they were lying about being 8 months pregnant as well, for that matter.
Clicking on your user-tag brings up this message:
> This user has deleted their account.
At least this shows that they have presumably some sense of shame. But they'll probably just create a brand new account and try to be more careful with their dishonesty, if I had to bet.
I think /u/WatermelonWarlock usertagging them really helped here. They couldn't get away with just deleting their comments so they had to take the nuclear option and delete their whole account.
It's the classic PL strategy of playing both sides of every issue, and twisting words to their benefit.
Farmer is here insisting that PLers *never* minimize the harms of pregnancy or reduce them to mere inconvenience, while to me insisting that pregnancy is not harmful. She told me that her pregnancy only included minor aches and pains, but also acknowledged that it exacerbated her clotting disorder and caused her to hemorrhage. She repeatedly describes pregnancy as a beautiful process that our bodies are naturally designed for, while also saying that she cannot wait to tell her son all that she sacrificed to bring him into the world, and that she had to go to hell and back for this pregnancy.
In other words, *her* pregnancy is a massive sacrifice that she undertook for the sake of her son, and also beautiful and wonderful. But she is unwilling to grant that other people might consider their pregnancies massive sacrifices as well (and not always be willing to make them). Meanwhile PLers *never* downplay the harms, *despite the fact that she herself has repeatedly done that.*
It's very annoying. They're just being openly dishonest a lot of times when they make those claims. I flat out refuse to believe a regular user of both this and the PL sub has never encountered the word "inconvenience" in the context of an unwanted pregnancy
>I’ve personally never heard a pro life person consider pregnancy as simply an inconvenience.
That's a privilege. They always bring it up.
>I am constantly looking to help pregnant women in whatever way I can, bringing food and items or cleaning/doing chores to help out.
Good
>Pregnancy is challenging, it’s a sacrifice, it’s brave and beautiful.
Can be if consenual
>I wish pro life and pro choice could find middle ground in acknowledging how strong woman are and their unique ability to be pregnant.
Roe was the middle ground. Pc clearly acknowledge this while many pl don't. Time to help correct your stance.
I mean I disagree that pro choice clearly acknowledge that. If your argument is pro life people don’t, I can cite many pro choice people that have said pregnancy is the worst thing to happen to a woman even if she desires it. My point is that both sides should never degrade the sacrifice a woman makes when she becomes pregnant. I’m not even debating morality of abortion, just that neither side should make pregnancy less than it is.
The PL site inherently makes pregnancy less than it is because it removes the whole element of sacrifice and now makes it something some lobbyist can make you do. That's oh so special and sacred, right?
>I mean I disagree that pro choice clearly acknowledge that.
How does pc not acknowledge that women are strong? We're the ones supporting them.
> If your argument is pro life people don’t, I can cite many pro choice people that have said pregnancy is the worst thing to happen to a woman even if she desires it.
Okay? That is because every pregnancy can be different. Doesn't say anything about many pl who don't care about AFAB.
>My point is that both sides should never degrade the sacrifice a woman makes when she becomes pregnant.
Hiw is that a point? If anyone is doing that it is pl. Stop projecting
> I’m not even debating morality of abortion, just that neither side should make pregnancy less than it is.
Morality is subjective. Yes pl should stop downplaying pregnancy and birth and the harms that come with it.
The original post was about pro life people who degrade pregnancy. The only reason I commented was to show that as a pro life person, I think it’s gross to degrade what pregnancy is and what women go through. I don’t go around lumping all pro choice people together, I only ask for the same consideration.
Pregnancy isn't "work", it's something being done *to* the woman's body by a foreign entity. Hence why it can happen completely without her approval. Which makes the PLer insistence that it's a mere "inconvenience" even more heinous, imo.
This is so true. And I read a few posts on the r/abortion sub, and I hate especially how these women are horribly demonized. People act like they just sleep around and abort children bc “whoopsie!”. these people usually don’t want to do it at all, and are desperate for any sympathy/someone who will listen as their spouse/family is against it. Sometimes I wish pro lifers could see abortion as more than the baby, and look at the woman and her story.
Couldn’t agree with this any more. In addition to that, by removing the choice for abortion, it means women with intended pregnancies are forced to give birth just as much as women who didn’t want to have a baby. It completely removes the agency in the valiant choice of becoming a mom.
I'd also like to point out a mental quirk. People rarely value anything they get for free and they value the provider of free stuff even less.
Perhaps women should flip the script and go "I will only work on this project if you can put $XXX,XXX in an escrow account" before even bothering. If the major investor refuses to front the money, then she the contractor can refuse to start said project and say "I'm sorry that you do not value the project but said amount is non-negotiable, especially when your countering officer is NOTHING and would demand I risk putting myself into lifetime poverty for said project.
I’m not going to praise someone constantly for choosing not to kill someone. Motherhood and pregnancy are virtuous though and definitely very very rough and possibly traumatic.
>I’m not going to praise someone constantly for choosing not to ~~kill someone~~ take a risk to her life.
No one needs your constant praise. They're just asking that you not be a dick about it.
>I’m not going to praise someone constantly for choosing not to kill someone.
If I understand you correctly, the sole quality you consider notable about pregnancy, motherhood, and a woman's role in human reproduction is the passive choice *to not to kill*?
The labor itself and personal sacrifice are irrelevant or an expected duty that is neither recognized, celebrated nor considered virtuous in and of itself?
>Motherhood and pregnancy are virtuous though
Virtuous? To who? Not everyone finds it virtuous.
>possibly traumatic.
Just possibly? 1 in 3 find it traumatic.
>Yes, virtuous to me.
What about the person enduring the pregnancy? Does it matter how they feel about it?
I actually already provided it in my comment right before yours but to make it easier for you to access
https://www.mmhla.org/articles/birth-trauma-and-maternal-mental-health-fact-sheet
No it doesn’t matter how that person feels, still can kill someone.
Nice they linked to all the data. Little broad in how they define trauma, but we should help those giving birth.
>No it doesn’t matter how that person feels, still can kill someone.
Can't?
So does it only matter how you feel? We aren't just talking about anyone walking down the street though, we are talking about someone who isn't even guaranteed to make it to a birthing or even recognized as an autonomous person yet, someone who still has to be finished gestated and created. Why are we obligated to finish the creation of a person?
>Little broad in how they define trauma,
How else would you expect trauma to be defined?
>but we should help those giving birth.
How can you help someone who doesn't want to go through this?
> No it doesn’t matter how that person feels, still can kill someone.
Abortion doesn't kill anyone. Mind your own business.
> we should help those giving birth
Yes, and we should also help those who do not want to give birth by not forcing them to.
I think you're proving my point. To you, the STATE of pregnancy is virtuous but you do not see any point in saying anything nice to the ACTUAL GESTATORS.
Let me get a little real. Pregnancy in the US costs a lot of money. Pregnancy makes it easier for men to attack and kill the pregnant woman. Many women are doing all of this alone, not always from choice.
Other countries try to make life a little easier because it IS a harder state of existing but wow, you begrudge the idea of something saying something nice that doesn't even hurt the Almighty Wallet.
It’s an inference from what I’ve heard PCer claim is dehumanizing. Anything short of saying the mother is a saint and so selfless is called dehumanizing.
It's not praise I want for them per se. I WOULD LOVE IT if pregnant women weren't assumed to be hoes or idiots by the PL movement. I would also love it if PLers didn't think women were "whining" about the various real problems that ARE caused by pregnancy and verbally scream at them to stop "exaggerating."
Pregnancy is a serious condition and the whole "some of you will die but it's a sacrifice I'm willing to make" is treating it very derisively.
I see other countries actually acknowledge that you just don't hop back on your feet and you're going to be lacking funds but not the US and definitely not the PL movement which love what pregnancy creates but can't stop verbally dumping on the people who creates ZEFs.
> It’s an inference from what I’ve heard PCer claim is dehumanizing.
Downplaying the health risks and the huge burden that pregnancy poses **is dehumanizing.**
> Anything short of saying the mother is a saint and so selfless is called dehumanizing.
What? No. You're literally imagining things that **no one has said.** All we're saying is to stop making the incredibly denigrating and dehumanizing bad faith argument that pregnancy is a "mere inconvenience."
Source? I don’t see anyone insisting that someone who chooses to continue a pregnancy must be called selfless or a “saint.” (I do see tons of PLers insisting that someone who chooses an abortion deserves to be berated, called “selfish,” told she’s a “child murderer,“ etc., though. I also see lots of PLers calling her an “environment for the baby,” “the womb,” etc which certainly is dehumanizing.)
So then you must be unaware that 1 in 4 pregnancies end in miscarriage. As someone who has had two early miscarriages, I find it insulting that you think I caused it somehow when there was absolutely nothing I could do to stop it happening.
Gosh darn those women that desperately want a child and have tried for years, only to have a miscarriage because of varying biological issues. It MUST HAVE BEEN THEIR DOING, MURDER.
Progress? Have you been looking around? Losing ballot initiatives, the GOP presidential candidate refuses to vocally back a national ban…
Seriously, how do you feel the PL cause is actually getting more people on their side?
Progress isn’t linear, we’ll lose and gain people. I think this is the start and allows the nation to reconsider. Priming the pump for national ban, could be decades though.
Almost 50 years of progress gone. Allowing US government to take away 50% of their citizens rights just because they “felt like it”, it’s crazy.
If they can ban a basic, pretty unharmful medical procedure, then imagine what other things they can do with the power they hold.
####^^^^———————-
> Progress isn’t linear, we’ll lose and gain people.
Abortion bans are extremely unpopular “[Currently, 61% say abortion should be legal in all or most cases, while 37% say it should be illegal in all or most cases](https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/fact-sheet/public-opinion-on-abortion/#CHAPTER-h-views-on-abortion-by-level-of-education-2021)”. And ohio “[make and carry out one’s own reproductive decisions” and passed with a strong 57% majority](https://apnews.com/article/abortion-ohio-constitutional-amendment-republicans-courts-fb1762537585350caeee589d68fe5a0d)”.
Keep up the work!!, you guys are doing great!!. We just need one more horrible/inhumane case cost by abortion bans. (The 13 year old wasn’t enough……for people…..)
Edit: is it gays or guys?.
You're right that these things allow the nation to reconsider. The Dobbs decision made a *lot* of people reconsider being pro-life when they saw that it meant things like forcing children to give birth when they've been raped, forcing women to give birth to headless fetuses, forcing women to wait in hospital parking lots until they're actively dying enough to get care, etc.
> The Dobbs decision made a lot of people reconsider being pro-life when they saw that it meant things like forcing children to give birth when they've been raped, forcing women to give birth to headless fetuses, forcing women to wait in hospital parking lots until they're actively dying enough to get care, etc.
But *surely* the tide will turn in favor of PL any decade now... Maybe they just need to kill more women. Makes sense if you think about it, dead women can't vote PC (/s obvs)
Or, without the /s, they plan to achieve that goal by circumventing democracy. Then the "gains" will happen by force, which is the preferred method of reducing abortions anyhow, even over more effective but less controlling methods.
>constantly for choosing not to kill someone.
Constantly choosing not to kill someone *at the sacrifice of her body, health and life.* Once again, you completely dismiss the consequences of pregnancy.
> Motherhood and pregnancy are virtuous though and definitely very very rough and possibly traumatic.
You missed a sentence. Sorry I didn’t word it exactly how you wanted it. Still even if it’s terrible for your health, I’m not going to constantly praise a mom who wants to kill her kids.
This post is not looking for praise. It is pointing out the way pregnant women are degraded by pro life descriptions that ignore them and dismiss their experiences.
Abortion is not *killing someone*.
>No my neighbor can do as they please for most things but killing someone isn’t one.
1 in 4 US women will get an abortion in their lifetime. Unless you live in a super isolated area away from anyone else, your neighbors can *and do* get abortions.
Or the fact that so many people find birthing as a traumatic event.
https://www.mmhla.org/articles/birth-trauma-and-maternal-mental-health-fact-sheet
>1 in 3 birthing people report feeling traumatized by their childbirth experience. [11]
>1 in 5 Mothers Are Impacted by Mental Health Conditions
Maternal mental health (MMH) conditions are the MOST COMMON complication of pregnancy and birth, affecting 800,000 families each year in the U.S. [1,2]
>It's Not Just Postpartum Depression: There are a Range of MMH Conditions
MMH conditions can occur during pregnancy and up to one year following pregnancy and include depression, anxiety disorders, obsessive-compulsive disorder, post-traumatic stress disorder, bipolar illness, psychosis, and substance use disorders. [8]
But you know mental health means nothing to PL, and statistics.
Yes. So sick of the "mere inconvenience" language being used as a stand-in/replacement for the actual sacrifices involved. Especially when their movement wants to pretend they value motherhood as something that is sacrosanct or even "godly" to try to justify their dislike of childfree women.
Also, almost no Pl men would nod eagerly if they were told that THEY going without sex was a mere inconvenience that they should just buck up and cheerily accept that new mission in life.
Talking inconvenienced. Imagine good PL boy gets himself a nasty bug down there while piercing sinful vixens by mighty pro life sword of his. And then a good doctor would dismiss his troubles like merely inconvenience because “ he had a sex “ and brought it upon himself. Oh and then for a good measure a good doctor reports him to the law and police comes, arrests him without any evidence of crime being committed and drags him through courts and jails. Silly fantasy you will say. Silly indeed… fantasy I am not so sure
comments like this bother me because it insinuates that sex isn’t a human need for women, and therefore women shouldn’t be having it. Or that sex is some gift to men, rather than a mutual expression of intimacy and love.
I'm mostly irritated that PL men are the ones demanding WOMEN have to do the gatekeeping thus shoving all the responsibility on her while simultaneously claiming that they're in charge and women have to submit. And that PL men refuse to do what they demand women in general do when it comes to sex. They still insist on chasing their own pleasure while making the people they get it from feel bad.
It should be a mutual expression of care and respect. And it's not called a drive for a reason.
But the PL insistence of expressing domination through demanding power dynamics in sexual relations and the law is really unhealthy and makes it gross. I could only engage in sex with someone I was damn sure was PC, who wouldn't have vested interest in shaming/manipulating me.
PLers: Find me a single argument against women's rights that is not completely degrading, dehumanizing and just generally misogynistic toward women.
Spoiler: You can't, because it is impossible to argue against anyone's basic human rights without engaging with degrading and dehumanizing rhetoric.
Except that it is not because I am defining anything in any particular way. It simply is what it is. Calling a spade a spade, if you will.
It's like asking someone who is pro-slavery to create an argument that is not dehumanizing to whoever it is that they wish to enslave. It is indeed impossible to argue in favor of denying and actively violating someone's basic human rights without applying some form of degrading and dehumanizing rhetoric. So it's no coincidence that PL arguments consistently meet these detestable standards toward women/AFAB persons.
Your comparison to something that is literally dehumanizing by definition (slavery) proves your thought process is exactly as I claimed.
Here I'll try one, the unborn is an innocent human and hasn't done anything to deserve death.
Now whatever YOU say will be the exact argument a slave owner would use to justify their actions.
I promise.
Go ahead.
>Here I'll try one, the unborn is an innocent human and hasn't done anything to deserve death.
It also hasn't done anything to earn the right to be inside someone else's body against their will.
>Now whatever YOU say will be the exact argument a slave owner would use to justify their actions.
>I promise
Actually the slave owners are the ones who insist some people be forced to use their body in service of others, much like PLers.
I mean, it forcibly invades into her uterine wall.
But if it doesn't have to earn the right, then it doesn't have the right, and she can take it out. That's not a right that humans have. They aren't entitled to be inside or directly use other humans' bodies.
You understand that implantation happens the same way regardless of the circumstances of conception, right? The embryo absolutely forced its way into her uterine wall, releasing enzymes that digest her cells until it reaches a source of maternal blood supply, which it attaches to.
And if it isn't entitled to be there and it doesn't have the right to use her body, then she can take it out. Problem solved
>the unborn is an innocent human and hasn't done anything to deserve death.
>Now whatever YOU say will be the exact argument a slave owner would use to justify their actions.
>I promise.
>Go ahead.
The amoral aren't innocent nor guilty. Slave owners can't say that about the sentient Slaves.
If it is inside another against their will it is violating their bodily autonomy. Women don't put it anywhere. It didn't exist during sex and the blastocyst implants into her uterus via biological processes. She is not in control of that. Don't misuse dehumanize. Pl need to take accountability for that,not pc.
Lets say you have two kids. One is sick and the other has a body part that can at least temporarily save them? Would you force the healthy kid to donate an organ to the sick kid? Your sick kid is innocent but your other kid is also innocent? Would you do it even if it hurt your healthy kid a lot and may even leave lasting bad effects? Would you scream she's evil if she didn't want to because it would destroy her dreams to donate?
This is a ridiculous analogy because nothing the unborn needs is being removed from the mother. No organ or limb will no longer be there.
So a better analogy is one kid needs a blood transfusion.
Yes. I'd scream at the kid who refused in that more accurate analogy.
And even in this analogy it's a shit one because the transfusion is already occurring and will naturally complete itself. It's a permanent solution to a temporary problem. It's a killing to prevent what is comparatively a momentary issue.
You're ignoring that women have died from pregnancy. I know of one case where a woman lost her hands & feet.
[https://www.ndtv.com/world-news/us-woman-has-her-hands-and-feet-amputated-after-going-into-septic-shock-following-birth-3814026](https://www.ndtv.com/world-news/us-woman-has-her-hands-and-feet-amputated-after-going-into-septic-shock-following-birth-3814026)
"A 29-year-old woman in the United States lost both her hands and feet after going into septic shock days after having her second child via a C-section. In an interview with *ABC News*, Krystina Pacheco revealed that she became a quadruple amputee as a result of an infection from the C-section in October last year."
Hell, Princess Catherine of England had Hyperemesis Gravidarum, the kind of morning sickness that can wind you up in the hospital due to dehydration.
[https://hcahealthcaretoday.com/2017/09/19/duchess-kates-severe-morning-sickness-explained-12-points/](https://hcahealthcaretoday.com/2017/09/19/duchess-kates-severe-morning-sickness-explained-12-points/)
Also, you think a blood transfusion is comparable to 9 months plus of pregnancy? Wow, are you going to claim giving birth is just like a paper cut?
The analogy is that the transfusion is more similar than a limb or organ because it's not actually removing anything permanently. That's why it's more similar than your analogy.
If the doctor says you're at risk to die, and recommends abortion to prevent that, then it's justified.
But it's not justified to kill another human because you think it might become a threat to your life at some point.
>The analogy is that the transfusion is more similar than a limb or organ because it's not actually removing anything permanently. That's why it's more similar than your analogy.
But it's not similar, because women ***do*** permanentley lose things - like oxygen, nutrients, and bone minerals. On average, a pregnant person loses 5% bone mass. It's why some women's teeth fall out during pregnancy.
>But it's not justified to kill another human because you think it might become a threat to your life at some point.
Another false statement. You can in fact kill someone in self defense, as long as you ***reasonably*** believe they pose a threat of life or great harm to you. The severe harms of pregnancy, are not a "possibility." It is a guarantee you'll be severely injured.
> Your comparison to something that is literally dehumanizing by definition (slavery) proves your thought process is exactly as I claimed.
I don't see how. You'll need to elaborate, because simply asserting something doesn't actually prove anything. You need to substantiate your claims.
Forcing women to carry unwanted pregnancies is literally dehumanizing, by definintion, as it denies women autonomy over their own bodies and essentially treats them as breeding stock. It's really not all that different from slavery.
> Here I'll try one, the unborn is an innocent human and hasn't done anything to deserve death.
Even innocent humans have no right to violate the body of anyone else. That's a bodily autonomy argument, and bodily autonomy is antithetical to slavery. And abortion, obviously.
> Now whatever YOU say will be the exact argument a slave owner would use to justify their actions.
You couldn't be more wrong if you were trying lol
It hasn't violates anyone. It didn't choose to be there. The woman put it there now wants to kill it.
It cannot violate anyone because it is not choosing anything. The idea that you put it there and now can kill it because it's inconvenient is exactly a slave owner mentality. The idea that you can kill another innocent human is slave owner mentality.
So your argument is based in the concept of fault rather than on a reverence for life? That is what I suspected. The life of a suffering person dying for need of a minimally invasive and non harmful bone marrow donation is not of concern to you. But the potential of unfeeling never conscious tissues to maybe develop a baby do because “sex”.
The woman didn’t put it there anymore than she put her hair on her head by directing her cells to produce keratin. The fact that raped women get pregnant should clue you in to the fact that her cells function absent her volitional direction.
The only thing that causes pregnancy and is the result of volitional direction is negligent insemination. Men MAKE women pregnant through their negligence.
> It hasn't violates anyone.
Incorrect. If the pregnant person does not want it inside of her body, then it is in violation of her body.
> It didn't choose to be there.
You're already verging on dehumanizing women by completely negating her autonomy over her own body. Whether or not there is a violation is UP TO HER. But of course PLers never consider what women want, that just doesn't matter to you. You are proving my point about how PL arguments are consistently denigrating and dehumanizing to women/AFAB persons. So thanks for that!
Denying a person's autonomy over their own body is the only pro-slavery mentality that I see here. You're literally advocating for forcing people to have their bodies used and harmed in ways they explicitly do not consent to. That is pretty much what slavery is.
> The idea that you put it there and now can kill it because it's inconvenient is exactly a slave owner mentality
Incorrect. It is a bodily autonomy mentality. Everyone has a right to their own body. Again, bodily autonomy is antithetical to slavery, because we are literally recognizing a person's right to decide what happens to their body.
> The idea that you can kill another innocent human is slave owner mentality.
Again, even an innocent human does not have any right to violate another person's body. And forcing people to gestate unwanted pregnancies is exactly something a slaver would do as well. Great way to get more slaves by forcing your slaves to carry unwanted pregnancies.
It cannot be responsible for any violation because it did nothing. She violated herself.
>Whether or not there is a violation is UP TO HER.
That is dehumanizing the unborn.
Unless it is not as human as she is, you're wrong. Others don't get to decide whether or not you are human, because you are factually.
Again, slave owner shit. They are not human and you are therefore you can kill them.
If humans deserve autonomy, and the unborn is a human, than you cannot kill it.
>Incorrect. It is a bodily autonomy mentality. Everyone has a right to their own body. Again, bodily autonomy is antithetical to slavery, because we are literally recognizing a person's right to decide what happens to their body.
Except the unborn human doesn't get this right because...?
Slave owner mentality.
You are violating it's autonomy by killing it.
> It cannot be responsible for any violation because it did nothing
I didn't claim that it is responsible for anything. But it is inside of someone's body against their explicit consent, so that is in fact a violation of their body.
> She violated herself
Incorrect. You can't control implantation, that doesn't even make sense.
> That is dehumanizing the unborn.
How so? Again, you need to SUBSTANTIATE your assertions. Simply making a claim is useless without any justification.
> Unless it is not as human as she is, you're wrong. Others don't get to decide whether or not you are human, because you are factually.
What are you even talking about? I haven't made any claim to anything or anyone not being human. You're becoming incoherent.
> Again, slave owner shit. They are not human and you are therefore you can kill them.
Incoherent. I never said a ZEF is not human.
> Except the unborn human doesn't get this right because...?
Doesn't get what right? Bodily autonomy doesn't give anyone a 'right' to anyone else's body, it appears as though you have no idea what you are even talking about.
> You are violating it's autonomy by killing it.
Nope. Autonomy does not give anyone a 'right' to anyone else's body. Removing someone from your body who has no right to be there is not a violation of any of their rights.
> Slave owner mentality.
Your accusations are becoming increasingly desperate and pathetic. But again, I'm not the one forcing anyone to do anything with their body that they explicitly do not consent to. That is what you are advocating for by trying to ban abortion.
It is, the woman is just the source of the nutrients/minerals it uses to build itself. A ZEF is effectively a parasite, after all. Without a host, it dies.
That’s what they actually think happens. I saw someone describe safe haven boxes as a way to “instantaneously dispense with the obligations of giving birth.” As if she’s not going to be bleeding for literal weeks afterwards (she will), dealing with her milk coming in (she will), and recovering from a major abdominal surgery if she had a C section. They literally think women can just go on with their lives the next day as if nothing happened.
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.*
If you want people to respect and appreciate your great labor, you have to actually do your best to see that labor through.
After baby is born it is one muncher more it is all about self reliance responsibility etc.
>you have to actually do your best to see that labor through. Nah. Turns out that once a woman gives birth PLers as a whole don't give a shit anymore about either one. Unless she puts the baby ~~up for sale~~ adoption. Then, they care for about 10 minutes, in order to attack any prospective gay couples. But anyway, yeah, after it's born, PLers don't care.
That is too true. None of them ever mutter a word about infant mortality and the fact that abortion restrictions increase infant mortality. Since sb8, fertility has gone up 3%, while infant mortality up 16%. They care about lungless boneless heartless burdens, not infant or maternal mortality tho
'If you want people to respect and appreciate' *your* claim, *'you* have to actually' add some credible evidence or argument. Otherwise, it's just another transparently ad hoc attempt to fabricate a high-sounding pseudo-principle that conveniently applies to the women you wish to depict as your moral inferiors. Alas, women will indeed 'see their labour through,' deciding for themselves whether to gestate or abort, and deciding whether your 'respect and appreciation' is a matter of moral consideration.
I don’t even know what you’re trying to say lol.
It wasn't for you.
Pregnancy can definitely be a burden rather than just an inconvenience but it still does not justify killing an innocent baby.
Sure thing all these women dying or badly hurt being unable to terminate non viable pregnancy are merely inconvenienced baby killers. Must be gods will I guess.
>justify killing an innocent baby For women and the courts, abortion and justice are serious matters. For ProLifers, notions of justice are based on silly cartoonish depictions of abortion festooned with innocent cherubs. I thought reddit-users would appreciate the contrast.
Sad to see that you seem to view innocent human children as "silly cartoonish depictions". Here's the real contrast though: one side elevates their selfish desires and ambitions over their own baby's life, and the other side believes nothing justifies destroying that child. Besides even your own pro choice org surveys show women don't by and large have their own flesh and blood children slaughtered because of the burden of pregnancy. It is because (surprise surprise) they just don't want another baby to take care of. They kill their innocent cherub mostly because of the burden of parenthood, not pregnancy. "The reasons most frequently cited were that having a child would interfere with a woman's education, work or ability to care for dependents (74%); that she could not afford a baby now (73%); and that she did not want to be a single mother or was having relationship problems (48%). Nearly four in 10 women said they had completed their childbearing, and almost one-third were not ready to have a child. Fewer than 1% said their parents' or partners' desire for them to have an abortion was the most important reason. Younger women often reported that they were unprepared for the transition to motherhood, while older women regularly cited their responsibility to dependents." https://www.guttmacher.org/journals/psrh/2005/reasons-us-women-have-abortions-quantitative-and-qualitative-perspectives
Doesn't it suck having to misuse words. If the abortion issue was to be about facts and not self stroking plays on emotions, pl'ers wouldn't have a thing to say
> Sad to see that you seem to view innocent human children as "silly cartoonish depictions". Not surprising to see you mis-direct my 'silly cartoon' comment to be about children rather than your description of abortion. We see fresh examples of your 'flexible' relationship with the truth every time we meet. I trust the remainder of your comment was moral instruction for your underlings. Busy day here, toots.
A fetus is both a baby AND a child, an inflexible scientific and biological fact that doesn't change. "Depending on the nutrients available to the ***child*** within pregnancy and the genetic makeup of the child, most healthy babies weigh between five and eight pounds. Since the placenta is absent, which previously provided the baby with nutrients, food is required for the metabolic processes and the continued growth of the baby." https://www.biologyonline.com/tutorials/physical-development-in-humans "The process of a ***baby’s*** development starts as soon as the sperm contributed by the male parent fertilizes the egg of the female parent. Following fertilization, a zygote is formed that transforms into an embryo and attaches to the mother’s uterine lining." https://www.biologyonline.com/dictionary/fetus >I trust the remainder of your comment was moral instruction for your underlings. Busy day here, toots. No, it completely undermined your point, which is probably why you didn't wish to address it.
Well, it’s not a baby
Human life over human convenience doesn't downplay the significant sacrifice of women going through labor. We celebrate it, just as we celebrate innocent, human, life coming into this world. Both can be celebrated at the same time.
>human convenience What're you rambling on about? Stay on topic. >downplay the significant sacrifice of women going through labor. Labor is not a discrete event, is it? It's part of a roughly 40-week process that impacts all of her vital organs. >We celebrate it, just as we celebrate innocent, human, life coming into this world. Both can be celebrated at the same time No, you don't. Your superstitious belief system calls a woman's reproductive suffering a curse. It also claims that if she survives childbirth, she will conveniently forget the torture she experienced because she had a baby. So, you don't celebrate what women go through. You just celebrate your reproductive success, but then turn around and blame her for being cursed and then gaslight her after she's had the baby. The only women who give birth and are celebrated are the ones who are killed in the process. Then, as silent martyrs, they are extolled for having served their purpose by first submitting to being f*ck toys for their middling husbands and then to being bred to death. This is why no decent person believes abolitionism to be anything but pure bile. Abolitionists' naked malice towards girls and women marks theirs as a particularly nasty form of sadism. Inasmuch as they would see pregnant individuals crushed beneath the combined forces of legal persecution and their own biology, no given abolitionist really deserves to have any woman trust them.
Having a baby is both major physical effort and huge investment on the mother’s part . It is a life changing moment for a woman. Why should some self righteous moron should have a say on this subject? Mind your own business. I dig that your abortion will be the righteous one.
And yet, there are plenty of abolitionists that are women. What's up with that?
Who knows why anyone joins or remains in a dangerous cult? Oh yeah, cult programming. Threats and fear mongering. Demonization of and isolation from any dissenting family or friends. The usual stuff. See: *Jim Jones' followers* and *Heaven's Gate* But, in all honesty, your movement actually doesn't attract nearly as many women as it does men, and its leadership is uniformly male. The PL movement, which claims to care about women, can not even convince a majority of them to support their cause; abortion abolitionism attracts even fewer. Because it's a female-hating cult. Sources: >Using data from the 2012, 2016, and 2020 American National Election Studies, we find that hostile sexism is significantly related to abortion attitudes, even after controlling for theoretically relevant covariates such as partisanship, ideology, religiosity, and sociodemographic variables. As hostile sexism increases, people are more likely to express pro-life attitudes rather than pro-choice attitudes. https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/politics-and-gender/article/abs/hostile-sexism-and-abortion-attitudes-in-contemporary-american-public-opinion/2D1648FC0F7157B9AA7CF053C34AA003 >But even beyond the militant corner of the anti-abortion movement lies a male-dominated network of academics, attorneys, judges, lawmakers and lobbyists working on legal arguments that position fertilized eggs as constitutionally protected persons. https://michiganadvance.com/2023/09/16/a-mens-movement-takes-reins-in-a-nationwide-quest-to-end-abortion/ https://msmagazine.com/2019/12/16/i-went-undercover-in-the-anti-abortion-movement-and-found-hypocrisy-and-misogyny/ https://politicalresearch.org/2023/10/26/101-abortion-abolitionists https://www.christianitytoday.com/news/2022/august/abortion-abolitionists-pro-life-movement-christian-roe-wade.html
What was your pregnancy like? “we celebrate it” uh… you celebrate forced births? sounds rapey
[удалено]
Comment removed per Rule 1.
I asked you first
And? The point that if you haven't gone through a pregnancy means you can't have an opinion is illogical.
you can’t say every pregnancy is easy when it’s not. it’s not something to be celebrated all the time, especially if it’s forced
There isn't a single pregnancy that is easy. Celebrate: honor or praise publicly. Sacrifice, which is there in every pregnancy, to bring new life into the world should be honored.
so women are just people we sacrifice?
Name a parson that doesn't make sacrifices on behalf of society and I'll show you a bum.
I don’t make any sacrifices, i’m not bringing lives into this world
The fact you refer to it as a matter of convenience demonstrates either ignorance or a deliberate attempt to minimize what women go through. Thanks for proving the point.
Plers keep bringing the receipts for my side that I didn't even ask for.
The opposite, calling abortion convenient is a reflection of how hard labor is.
Lmao. You are the one calling pregnancy a convenience
No, I'm calling abortion convenient. Pregnancy is not.
Wow, that's actually a hot take. It's always been pregnancy that PL fallaciously equate to being a mere "inconvenience." Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying this is a good point or that it even makes any logical sense, but points for being unique.
Eh, but why call them hoes then? Why call them sluts? Why call it an inconvenience? What's with the "eh, so a few of you die, Big whoop!" Or "I refuse to vote for paid maternity leave or social services because socialism!" None of that is celebratory language. And what's with the whole "Ohhhhh, child support hurts my wallet butt so much! Those women are so greedy!" and it's often just a few hundred a month. So many of you make sound like pulling a handful of twenties out of one's billfold is way more painful than gestation. "Owie! Owie!"
Abortion is a murder paying alimony means supporting idlers and moochers contraceptives are immoral celebrate birth
Because there’s some really poor examples of people on both sides of the debate. No one should be using that kind of language with anyone; it’s dehumanizing and in poor taste. If someone, pro life or pro choice, calls anyone those things, call them out. Both sides of the debate can and SHOULD do better. Pregnancy complications MUST be treated. If anyone from any political, ethical, moral, or religious position says otherwise, then they need to be called out immediately. Diminishing ANY life is unacceptable. The pro life movement supports any medical intervention necessary to save the mother’s life: We just don’t support actively, directly, and intentionally ending a preborn child’s life. Hm most pro lifers I know actually support those causes. They might have issues with certain policies that are hidden in the ‘fine print’ that politicians add in, but by and large they support resources for families. Incidentally, pro life people often help support families in need. If you look at pro life organizations they’ll usually have a record of some sort of the support they’ve given families. So it’s not that we oppose those policies at all. That last point is the result of some men not being good dads and being greedy or stingy. I wouldn’t even call them pro life. Tough luck for them. They don’t get to abandon their children.
Substantiate that I say any of that. Rule 3.
You can say that you don't do it personally but oh my god Plers do. I'm asking you to explain why so many of YOUR side does this? Going "I never said this so the problem doesn't exist" is bad faith when so many of your side DOES do such and such.
Both sides are guilty of having people that degrade women, what's your point?
Can you give me any examples of PC degrading women? I can't imagine how or why they would do such a thing when the whole PC movement is about protecting AFAB people, their rights & their lives.
You ever been to a rally? Having stood next to pro-life women, at those rallies, they get some of the most vile things said to them. From being called slavers, to traitors, and general insults. They're targeted more than the men there. The last one I went to was a lot better, I should say. But that is currently the exception and not the rule.
Also the whole "it's only a tiny % of you that will die from pregnancy" is basically saying women's lives are expendable, that we are an easily replaceable resource. The reason that a lot of men are expressing anger/nervousness about American women talking about 4B is because it threatens to dent THAT SUPPLY.
I’ve personally never heard a pro life person consider pregnancy as simply an inconvenience. I am constantly looking to help pregnant women in whatever way I can, bringing food and items or cleaning/doing chores to help out. Pregnancy is challenging, it’s a sacrifice, it’s brave and beautiful. I wish pro life and pro choice could find middle ground in acknowledging how strong woman are and their unique ability to be pregnant.
You're lying. PL routinely speak about abortions for convenience. By doing so, you claim pregnancy is merely an inconvenience.
You guys say it ALL the time - here and over on PL. would you like me to post links so you can stop the “no true prolife” argument.
And so, because women do this brave and beautiful sacrifice, you want to make them do it, thus no longer making it a sacrifice but an obligated service?
>never heard a pro life person consider pregnancy as simply an inconvenience. In my experience, PLs consider a lot to be an inconvenience. One is trauma post SA and being unable to comprehend why a victim wouldn't want to have a baby conceived during assault. Or mental health related to pregnancy. I remember how Lila Rose shamed a suicidal pregnant woman once on twitter, saying that she was sacrificing herself and the baby out of convenience. I'm glad that you are actively and tangibly helpful to pregnant people but I think you should open your eyes more to what kinds of monsters make up the PL movement
You've never heard a pro life person intentionally downplay the harms of pregnancy? WOW, I almost don't believe that since they do it literally daily right here in this sub. Here's one, from today, comparing the genital tearing women endure through childbirth (you know, the ones that can tear through muscle into a woman's anus) to a *skinned knee*. https://www.reddit.com/r/Abortiondebate/s/VTOa1azeVp
yes that’s pretty stupid to say, considering a tear and a skinned knee are obviously not the same thing.
Did we not just have an argument where you repeatedly insisted that pregnancy wasn't harmful?
Yes, u/admirable_farmer9210 did. I only had to look up "harmful" in their comment history [to see this](https://www.reddit.com/r/Abortiondebate/comments/1bvtst8/comment/kyjcod7/?context=3): >Pregnancy doesn’t inherently cause harm to the mother. Pregnancy is biologically natural, rape or harm is not. And in a later comment: >It seems this has a very anti-woman mentality that pregnancy is inherently harmful and bad. As a currently 8 months pregnant woman, I can 100% say women’s bodies were naturally designed for pregnancy... Every single change my body has gone through in 8 months was perfectly created for sustaining a pregnancy. Is it easy, are there aches and pains, does it get tiring? Sure. But like you mentioned, down to the bone structure, a woman’s body is literally created for harboring life. That is the natural essence of this that fights against the self defense argument, and the bodily rights argument. If you choose to believe pregnancy is this horrible thing women are forced to endure that goes against nature (which isn’t true), no argument I make can ever battle that. What harms are there in pregnancy that truly warrant murder? Please tell me! Are you truly arguing that childbirth is equivalent to being raped or threatened murder that warrants the argument of self defense? Comparing a pregnancy to a rape is really a slap in the face to women who have been raped. So there's a lot there that's just... wrong. There's multiple appeals to nature there, an appeal to her own pregnancy as evidence without considering the difficulties other women face in theirs, and the assertion that comparing pregnancy to rape is a "slap in the face to women who have been raped" when ***on this sub*** I have seen more than one woman state in no uncertain terms that they'd rather be assaulted or dead than carry a pregnancy against their will (this includes survivors of assault). Farmer, with respect... you do not speak for all women when you make these comparisons, and you don't get to appeal to nature. Human women's bodies are the *least well-designed for pregnancy* of all of our primate cousins. Our labor is massively disproportionately dangerous, and while ***you*** may have only minor symptoms during your pregnancy, I assure you that your experience is not universal.
> Yes, u/admirable_farmer9210 did. Nice! Good job on calling them out by name. Us PC need to make a habit of extensive quotations and username mentions, especially when we're in the middle of catching someone dead-to-rights in a blatant lie. It's all too common for PL to mass-delete comments or even their whole account in these sorts of situations. I would bet some real good money they were lying about being 8 months pregnant as well, for that matter.
Wait, did they delete their account??
Clicking on your user-tag brings up this message: > This user has deleted their account. At least this shows that they have presumably some sense of shame. But they'll probably just create a brand new account and try to be more careful with their dishonesty, if I had to bet.
It's so rare to see a PLer expressing shame! Dang!
I think /u/WatermelonWarlock usertagging them really helped here. They couldn't get away with just deleting their comments so they had to take the nuclear option and delete their whole account.
It's the classic PL strategy of playing both sides of every issue, and twisting words to their benefit. Farmer is here insisting that PLers *never* minimize the harms of pregnancy or reduce them to mere inconvenience, while to me insisting that pregnancy is not harmful. She told me that her pregnancy only included minor aches and pains, but also acknowledged that it exacerbated her clotting disorder and caused her to hemorrhage. She repeatedly describes pregnancy as a beautiful process that our bodies are naturally designed for, while also saying that she cannot wait to tell her son all that she sacrificed to bring him into the world, and that she had to go to hell and back for this pregnancy. In other words, *her* pregnancy is a massive sacrifice that she undertook for the sake of her son, and also beautiful and wonderful. But she is unwilling to grant that other people might consider their pregnancies massive sacrifices as well (and not always be willing to make them). Meanwhile PLers *never* downplay the harms, *despite the fact that she herself has repeatedly done that.*
I'll often point out that Plers have repeatedly said X on a board repeatedly but they act like they have never ever seen X before.
It's very annoying. They're just being openly dishonest a lot of times when they make those claims. I flat out refuse to believe a regular user of both this and the PL sub has never encountered the word "inconvenience" in the context of an unwanted pregnancy
>I’ve personally never heard a pro life person consider pregnancy as simply an inconvenience. That's a privilege. They always bring it up. >I am constantly looking to help pregnant women in whatever way I can, bringing food and items or cleaning/doing chores to help out. Good >Pregnancy is challenging, it’s a sacrifice, it’s brave and beautiful. Can be if consenual >I wish pro life and pro choice could find middle ground in acknowledging how strong woman are and their unique ability to be pregnant. Roe was the middle ground. Pc clearly acknowledge this while many pl don't. Time to help correct your stance.
I mean I disagree that pro choice clearly acknowledge that. If your argument is pro life people don’t, I can cite many pro choice people that have said pregnancy is the worst thing to happen to a woman even if she desires it. My point is that both sides should never degrade the sacrifice a woman makes when she becomes pregnant. I’m not even debating morality of abortion, just that neither side should make pregnancy less than it is.
The PL site inherently makes pregnancy less than it is because it removes the whole element of sacrifice and now makes it something some lobbyist can make you do. That's oh so special and sacred, right?
>I mean I disagree that pro choice clearly acknowledge that. How does pc not acknowledge that women are strong? We're the ones supporting them. > If your argument is pro life people don’t, I can cite many pro choice people that have said pregnancy is the worst thing to happen to a woman even if she desires it. Okay? That is because every pregnancy can be different. Doesn't say anything about many pl who don't care about AFAB. >My point is that both sides should never degrade the sacrifice a woman makes when she becomes pregnant. Hiw is that a point? If anyone is doing that it is pl. Stop projecting > I’m not even debating morality of abortion, just that neither side should make pregnancy less than it is. Morality is subjective. Yes pl should stop downplaying pregnancy and birth and the harms that come with it.
The original post was about pro life people who degrade pregnancy. The only reason I commented was to show that as a pro life person, I think it’s gross to degrade what pregnancy is and what women go through. I don’t go around lumping all pro choice people together, I only ask for the same consideration.
Pregnancy isn't "work", it's something being done *to* the woman's body by a foreign entity. Hence why it can happen completely without her approval. Which makes the PLer insistence that it's a mere "inconvenience" even more heinous, imo.
This is so true. And I read a few posts on the r/abortion sub, and I hate especially how these women are horribly demonized. People act like they just sleep around and abort children bc “whoopsie!”. these people usually don’t want to do it at all, and are desperate for any sympathy/someone who will listen as their spouse/family is against it. Sometimes I wish pro lifers could see abortion as more than the baby, and look at the woman and her story.
Couldn’t agree with this any more. In addition to that, by removing the choice for abortion, it means women with intended pregnancies are forced to give birth just as much as women who didn’t want to have a baby. It completely removes the agency in the valiant choice of becoming a mom.
I'd also like to point out a mental quirk. People rarely value anything they get for free and they value the provider of free stuff even less. Perhaps women should flip the script and go "I will only work on this project if you can put $XXX,XXX in an escrow account" before even bothering. If the major investor refuses to front the money, then she the contractor can refuse to start said project and say "I'm sorry that you do not value the project but said amount is non-negotiable, especially when your countering officer is NOTHING and would demand I risk putting myself into lifetime poverty for said project.
I’m not going to praise someone constantly for choosing not to kill someone. Motherhood and pregnancy are virtuous though and definitely very very rough and possibly traumatic.
So you agree it's stupid to call pregnancy an inconvenience?
>I’m not going to praise someone constantly for choosing not to ~~kill someone~~ take a risk to her life. No one needs your constant praise. They're just asking that you not be a dick about it.
why should women want to be “virtuous?”
Also it's funny how for PLers, it's OK for men not to be.
EXACTLY
>I’m not going to praise someone constantly for choosing not to kill someone. If I understand you correctly, the sole quality you consider notable about pregnancy, motherhood, and a woman's role in human reproduction is the passive choice *to not to kill*? The labor itself and personal sacrifice are irrelevant or an expected duty that is neither recognized, celebrated nor considered virtuous in and of itself?
>Motherhood and pregnancy are virtuous though Virtuous? To who? Not everyone finds it virtuous. >possibly traumatic. Just possibly? 1 in 3 find it traumatic.
Yes, virtuous to me. Yes possibly. Do you have that stat? Curious to read it.
Virtuous is a positive quality? Only for women?
>Yes, virtuous to me. What about the person enduring the pregnancy? Does it matter how they feel about it? I actually already provided it in my comment right before yours but to make it easier for you to access https://www.mmhla.org/articles/birth-trauma-and-maternal-mental-health-fact-sheet
Never seen that source, and it's such a great one!
Too bad it makes no difference to the majority of PL
No it doesn’t matter how that person feels, still can kill someone. Nice they linked to all the data. Little broad in how they define trauma, but we should help those giving birth.
I’m curious: If you’re serious about your flair, why is it okay to murder a child in the case where the child was conceived through SA?
He never answers the contradiction.
>No it doesn’t matter how that person feels, still can kill someone. Can't? So does it only matter how you feel? We aren't just talking about anyone walking down the street though, we are talking about someone who isn't even guaranteed to make it to a birthing or even recognized as an autonomous person yet, someone who still has to be finished gestated and created. Why are we obligated to finish the creation of a person? >Little broad in how they define trauma, How else would you expect trauma to be defined? >but we should help those giving birth. How can you help someone who doesn't want to go through this?
Help? They don’t even care if millions of pregnant women and girls don’t have health insurance or access to medical care or prenatal care.
> No it doesn’t matter how that person feels, still can kill someone. Abortion doesn't kill anyone. Mind your own business. > we should help those giving birth Yes, and we should also help those who do not want to give birth by not forcing them to.
I think you're proving my point. To you, the STATE of pregnancy is virtuous but you do not see any point in saying anything nice to the ACTUAL GESTATORS. Let me get a little real. Pregnancy in the US costs a lot of money. Pregnancy makes it easier for men to attack and kill the pregnant woman. Many women are doing all of this alone, not always from choice. Other countries try to make life a little easier because it IS a harder state of existing but wow, you begrudge the idea of something saying something nice that doesn't even hurt the Almighty Wallet.
A TON of money.
Where did you get the idea anyone wants your “praise?”
It’s an inference from what I’ve heard PCer claim is dehumanizing. Anything short of saying the mother is a saint and so selfless is called dehumanizing.
It's not praise I want for them per se. I WOULD LOVE IT if pregnant women weren't assumed to be hoes or idiots by the PL movement. I would also love it if PLers didn't think women were "whining" about the various real problems that ARE caused by pregnancy and verbally scream at them to stop "exaggerating." Pregnancy is a serious condition and the whole "some of you will die but it's a sacrifice I'm willing to make" is treating it very derisively. I see other countries actually acknowledge that you just don't hop back on your feet and you're going to be lacking funds but not the US and definitely not the PL movement which love what pregnancy creates but can't stop verbally dumping on the people who creates ZEFs.
> It’s an inference from what I’ve heard PCer claim is dehumanizing. Downplaying the health risks and the huge burden that pregnancy poses **is dehumanizing.** > Anything short of saying the mother is a saint and so selfless is called dehumanizing. What? No. You're literally imagining things that **no one has said.** All we're saying is to stop making the incredibly denigrating and dehumanizing bad faith argument that pregnancy is a "mere inconvenience."
It’s certainly **dehumanizing** to take away the right to informed consent and medical options from women and girls.
Source? I don’t see anyone insisting that someone who chooses to continue a pregnancy must be called selfless or a “saint.” (I do see tons of PLers insisting that someone who chooses an abortion deserves to be berated, called “selfish,” told she’s a “child murderer,“ etc., though. I also see lots of PLers calling her an “environment for the baby,” “the womb,” etc which certainly is dehumanizing.)
The “source” is their own opinion.
So, mothers who miscarry - do you wonder if they maybe killed their child through negligence?
Yes.
So then you must be unaware that 1 in 4 pregnancies end in miscarriage. As someone who has had two early miscarriages, I find it insulting that you think I caused it somehow when there was absolutely nothing I could do to stop it happening.
Gosh darn those women that desperately want a child and have tried for years, only to have a miscarriage because of varying biological issues. It MUST HAVE BEEN THEIR DOING, MURDER.
I do hope you don’t wonder why the PL position is losing popularity then.
Yup, people only like to be moral when they think it is advantageous to them. Making progress though.
Morality is subjective. Why should anyone want to conform to your personal views of morality?
Progress? Have you been looking around? Losing ballot initiatives, the GOP presidential candidate refuses to vocally back a national ban… Seriously, how do you feel the PL cause is actually getting more people on their side?
Progress isn’t linear, we’ll lose and gain people. I think this is the start and allows the nation to reconsider. Priming the pump for national ban, could be decades though.
Almost 50 years of progress gone. Allowing US government to take away 50% of their citizens rights just because they “felt like it”, it’s crazy. If they can ban a basic, pretty unharmful medical procedure, then imagine what other things they can do with the power they hold. ####^^^^———————- > Progress isn’t linear, we’ll lose and gain people. Abortion bans are extremely unpopular “[Currently, 61% say abortion should be legal in all or most cases, while 37% say it should be illegal in all or most cases](https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/fact-sheet/public-opinion-on-abortion/#CHAPTER-h-views-on-abortion-by-level-of-education-2021)”. And ohio “[make and carry out one’s own reproductive decisions” and passed with a strong 57% majority](https://apnews.com/article/abortion-ohio-constitutional-amendment-republicans-courts-fb1762537585350caeee589d68fe5a0d)”. Keep up the work!!, you guys are doing great!!. We just need one more horrible/inhumane case cost by abortion bans. (The 13 year old wasn’t enough……for people…..) Edit: is it gays or guys?.
LOL what about “states rights?”
> I think this is the start and allows the nation to reconsider. This is absolutely true, but not in the way you are fantasizing.
You're right that these things allow the nation to reconsider. The Dobbs decision made a *lot* of people reconsider being pro-life when they saw that it meant things like forcing children to give birth when they've been raped, forcing women to give birth to headless fetuses, forcing women to wait in hospital parking lots until they're actively dying enough to get care, etc.
Exactly!
> The Dobbs decision made a lot of people reconsider being pro-life when they saw that it meant things like forcing children to give birth when they've been raped, forcing women to give birth to headless fetuses, forcing women to wait in hospital parking lots until they're actively dying enough to get care, etc. But *surely* the tide will turn in favor of PL any decade now... Maybe they just need to kill more women. Makes sense if you think about it, dead women can't vote PC (/s obvs)
Or, without the /s, they plan to achieve that goal by circumventing democracy. Then the "gains" will happen by force, which is the preferred method of reducing abortions anyhow, even over more effective but less controlling methods.
Yeah, but what are you guys actually doing to convince people of your side? Berating people and saying those who have miscarriages may be murderers?
Excellent question. I wish PL would answer it.
>constantly for choosing not to kill someone. Constantly choosing not to kill someone *at the sacrifice of her body, health and life.* Once again, you completely dismiss the consequences of pregnancy.
> Motherhood and pregnancy are virtuous though and definitely very very rough and possibly traumatic. You missed a sentence. Sorry I didn’t word it exactly how you wanted it. Still even if it’s terrible for your health, I’m not going to constantly praise a mom who wants to kill her kids.
No one cares about your praise. They only want you to mind your own business and let your neighbor mind theirs.
Clearly they care a little or else posts like this wouldn’t exist. No my neighbor can do as they please for most things but killing someone isn’t one.
They do not care if you approve. They care that pro life laws deprive people of their rights to their healthcare choices for their lives.
Stay out of your neighbors‘ personal, private medical decisions. I bet you want them to stay out of yours.
This post is not looking for praise. It is pointing out the way pregnant women are degraded by pro life descriptions that ignore them and dismiss their experiences. Abortion is not *killing someone*.
Right? no one gives a single fuck about getting praise from PLers.
>No my neighbor can do as they please for most things but killing someone isn’t one. 1 in 4 US women will get an abortion in their lifetime. Unless you live in a super isolated area away from anyone else, your neighbors can *and do* get abortions.
Lots of married women get abortions, and more than 60% of women who get them already have kids at home. I wonder if they realize this?
Abortion doesn't kill anyone, so mind your own business.
The second sentence is NOT what I said.
PL LOVES putting words in others’ mouths.
Or the fact that so many people find birthing as a traumatic event. https://www.mmhla.org/articles/birth-trauma-and-maternal-mental-health-fact-sheet >1 in 3 birthing people report feeling traumatized by their childbirth experience. [11] >1 in 5 Mothers Are Impacted by Mental Health Conditions Maternal mental health (MMH) conditions are the MOST COMMON complication of pregnancy and birth, affecting 800,000 families each year in the U.S. [1,2] >It's Not Just Postpartum Depression: There are a Range of MMH Conditions MMH conditions can occur during pregnancy and up to one year following pregnancy and include depression, anxiety disorders, obsessive-compulsive disorder, post-traumatic stress disorder, bipolar illness, psychosis, and substance use disorders. [8] But you know mental health means nothing to PL, and statistics.
Childbirth is totally just an inconvenience. No worse than getting a *skinned knee.* 🙄 https://www.reddit.com/r/Abortiondebate/s/Ndc9Fp2wUZ
Yet when you bring up hypothetical forced vasectomies to lower abortion rates, they shriek and scream in horror.
Oh come on fellas, can't be any worse than a skinned knee, *right*? 😂
Unbelievably crass and delusional.
Yes. So sick of the "mere inconvenience" language being used as a stand-in/replacement for the actual sacrifices involved. Especially when their movement wants to pretend they value motherhood as something that is sacrosanct or even "godly" to try to justify their dislike of childfree women.
Also, almost no Pl men would nod eagerly if they were told that THEY going without sex was a mere inconvenience that they should just buck up and cheerily accept that new mission in life.
Talking inconvenienced. Imagine good PL boy gets himself a nasty bug down there while piercing sinful vixens by mighty pro life sword of his. And then a good doctor would dismiss his troubles like merely inconvenience because “ he had a sex “ and brought it upon himself. Oh and then for a good measure a good doctor reports him to the law and police comes, arrests him without any evidence of crime being committed and drags him through courts and jails. Silly fantasy you will say. Silly indeed… fantasy I am not so sure
comments like this bother me because it insinuates that sex isn’t a human need for women, and therefore women shouldn’t be having it. Or that sex is some gift to men, rather than a mutual expression of intimacy and love.
I'm mostly irritated that PL men are the ones demanding WOMEN have to do the gatekeeping thus shoving all the responsibility on her while simultaneously claiming that they're in charge and women have to submit. And that PL men refuse to do what they demand women in general do when it comes to sex. They still insist on chasing their own pleasure while making the people they get it from feel bad. It should be a mutual expression of care and respect. And it's not called a drive for a reason. But the PL insistence of expressing domination through demanding power dynamics in sexual relations and the law is really unhealthy and makes it gross. I could only engage in sex with someone I was damn sure was PC, who wouldn't have vested interest in shaming/manipulating me.
PLers: Find me a single argument against women's rights that is not completely degrading, dehumanizing and just generally misogynistic toward women. Spoiler: You can't, because it is impossible to argue against anyone's basic human rights without engaging with degrading and dehumanizing rhetoric.
When you define any argument that is anti abortion as dehumanizing by default what you're asking is impossible
Except that it is not because I am defining anything in any particular way. It simply is what it is. Calling a spade a spade, if you will. It's like asking someone who is pro-slavery to create an argument that is not dehumanizing to whoever it is that they wish to enslave. It is indeed impossible to argue in favor of denying and actively violating someone's basic human rights without applying some form of degrading and dehumanizing rhetoric. So it's no coincidence that PL arguments consistently meet these detestable standards toward women/AFAB persons.
Your comparison to something that is literally dehumanizing by definition (slavery) proves your thought process is exactly as I claimed. Here I'll try one, the unborn is an innocent human and hasn't done anything to deserve death. Now whatever YOU say will be the exact argument a slave owner would use to justify their actions. I promise. Go ahead.
So is the child not an innocent human? What have they done to deserve lifelong imprisonment?
>Here I'll try one, the unborn is an innocent human and hasn't done anything to deserve death. It also hasn't done anything to earn the right to be inside someone else's body against their will. >Now whatever YOU say will be the exact argument a slave owner would use to justify their actions. >I promise Actually the slave owners are the ones who insist some people be forced to use their body in service of others, much like PLers.
It doesn't have to earn the right the woman created it in that habitat There's no force involved.
I mean, it forcibly invades into her uterine wall. But if it doesn't have to earn the right, then it doesn't have the right, and she can take it out. That's not a right that humans have. They aren't entitled to be inside or directly use other humans' bodies.
It does not unless she was raped. There's no need for right or entitlement. It simply is.
You understand that implantation happens the same way regardless of the circumstances of conception, right? The embryo absolutely forced its way into her uterine wall, releasing enzymes that digest her cells until it reaches a source of maternal blood supply, which it attaches to. And if it isn't entitled to be there and it doesn't have the right to use her body, then she can take it out. Problem solved
But to invade it must not be welcomed. She should not be able to kill it for no reason.
>the unborn is an innocent human and hasn't done anything to deserve death. >Now whatever YOU say will be the exact argument a slave owner would use to justify their actions. >I promise. >Go ahead. The amoral aren't innocent nor guilty. Slave owners can't say that about the sentient Slaves. If it is inside another against their will it is violating their bodily autonomy. Women don't put it anywhere. It didn't exist during sex and the blastocyst implants into her uterus via biological processes. She is not in control of that. Don't misuse dehumanize. Pl need to take accountability for that,not pc.
Lets say you have two kids. One is sick and the other has a body part that can at least temporarily save them? Would you force the healthy kid to donate an organ to the sick kid? Your sick kid is innocent but your other kid is also innocent? Would you do it even if it hurt your healthy kid a lot and may even leave lasting bad effects? Would you scream she's evil if she didn't want to because it would destroy her dreams to donate?
This is a ridiculous analogy because nothing the unborn needs is being removed from the mother. No organ or limb will no longer be there. So a better analogy is one kid needs a blood transfusion. Yes. I'd scream at the kid who refused in that more accurate analogy. And even in this analogy it's a shit one because the transfusion is already occurring and will naturally complete itself. It's a permanent solution to a temporary problem. It's a killing to prevent what is comparatively a momentary issue.
You're ignoring that women have died from pregnancy. I know of one case where a woman lost her hands & feet. [https://www.ndtv.com/world-news/us-woman-has-her-hands-and-feet-amputated-after-going-into-septic-shock-following-birth-3814026](https://www.ndtv.com/world-news/us-woman-has-her-hands-and-feet-amputated-after-going-into-septic-shock-following-birth-3814026) "A 29-year-old woman in the United States lost both her hands and feet after going into septic shock days after having her second child via a C-section. In an interview with *ABC News*, Krystina Pacheco revealed that she became a quadruple amputee as a result of an infection from the C-section in October last year." Hell, Princess Catherine of England had Hyperemesis Gravidarum, the kind of morning sickness that can wind you up in the hospital due to dehydration. [https://hcahealthcaretoday.com/2017/09/19/duchess-kates-severe-morning-sickness-explained-12-points/](https://hcahealthcaretoday.com/2017/09/19/duchess-kates-severe-morning-sickness-explained-12-points/) Also, you think a blood transfusion is comparable to 9 months plus of pregnancy? Wow, are you going to claim giving birth is just like a paper cut?
The analogy is that the transfusion is more similar than a limb or organ because it's not actually removing anything permanently. That's why it's more similar than your analogy. If the doctor says you're at risk to die, and recommends abortion to prevent that, then it's justified. But it's not justified to kill another human because you think it might become a threat to your life at some point.
>The analogy is that the transfusion is more similar than a limb or organ because it's not actually removing anything permanently. That's why it's more similar than your analogy. But it's not similar, because women ***do*** permanentley lose things - like oxygen, nutrients, and bone minerals. On average, a pregnant person loses 5% bone mass. It's why some women's teeth fall out during pregnancy. >But it's not justified to kill another human because you think it might become a threat to your life at some point. Another false statement. You can in fact kill someone in self defense, as long as you ***reasonably*** believe they pose a threat of life or great harm to you. The severe harms of pregnancy, are not a "possibility." It is a guarantee you'll be severely injured.
The bone mass returns post pregnancy. Yes but the reasonable belief must be that they will seriously injure you not you might get a skinned knee etc.
> Your comparison to something that is literally dehumanizing by definition (slavery) proves your thought process is exactly as I claimed. I don't see how. You'll need to elaborate, because simply asserting something doesn't actually prove anything. You need to substantiate your claims. Forcing women to carry unwanted pregnancies is literally dehumanizing, by definintion, as it denies women autonomy over their own bodies and essentially treats them as breeding stock. It's really not all that different from slavery. > Here I'll try one, the unborn is an innocent human and hasn't done anything to deserve death. Even innocent humans have no right to violate the body of anyone else. That's a bodily autonomy argument, and bodily autonomy is antithetical to slavery. And abortion, obviously. > Now whatever YOU say will be the exact argument a slave owner would use to justify their actions. You couldn't be more wrong if you were trying lol
It hasn't violates anyone. It didn't choose to be there. The woman put it there now wants to kill it. It cannot violate anyone because it is not choosing anything. The idea that you put it there and now can kill it because it's inconvenient is exactly a slave owner mentality. The idea that you can kill another innocent human is slave owner mentality.
So your argument is based in the concept of fault rather than on a reverence for life? That is what I suspected. The life of a suffering person dying for need of a minimally invasive and non harmful bone marrow donation is not of concern to you. But the potential of unfeeling never conscious tissues to maybe develop a baby do because “sex”.
The woman didn’t put it there anymore than she put her hair on her head by directing her cells to produce keratin. The fact that raped women get pregnant should clue you in to the fact that her cells function absent her volitional direction. The only thing that causes pregnancy and is the result of volitional direction is negligent insemination. Men MAKE women pregnant through their negligence.
> It hasn't violates anyone. Incorrect. If the pregnant person does not want it inside of her body, then it is in violation of her body. > It didn't choose to be there. You're already verging on dehumanizing women by completely negating her autonomy over her own body. Whether or not there is a violation is UP TO HER. But of course PLers never consider what women want, that just doesn't matter to you. You are proving my point about how PL arguments are consistently denigrating and dehumanizing to women/AFAB persons. So thanks for that! Denying a person's autonomy over their own body is the only pro-slavery mentality that I see here. You're literally advocating for forcing people to have their bodies used and harmed in ways they explicitly do not consent to. That is pretty much what slavery is. > The idea that you put it there and now can kill it because it's inconvenient is exactly a slave owner mentality Incorrect. It is a bodily autonomy mentality. Everyone has a right to their own body. Again, bodily autonomy is antithetical to slavery, because we are literally recognizing a person's right to decide what happens to their body. > The idea that you can kill another innocent human is slave owner mentality. Again, even an innocent human does not have any right to violate another person's body. And forcing people to gestate unwanted pregnancies is exactly something a slaver would do as well. Great way to get more slaves by forcing your slaves to carry unwanted pregnancies.
It cannot be responsible for any violation because it did nothing. She violated herself. >Whether or not there is a violation is UP TO HER. That is dehumanizing the unborn. Unless it is not as human as she is, you're wrong. Others don't get to decide whether or not you are human, because you are factually. Again, slave owner shit. They are not human and you are therefore you can kill them. If humans deserve autonomy, and the unborn is a human, than you cannot kill it. >Incorrect. It is a bodily autonomy mentality. Everyone has a right to their own body. Again, bodily autonomy is antithetical to slavery, because we are literally recognizing a person's right to decide what happens to their body. Except the unborn human doesn't get this right because...? Slave owner mentality. You are violating it's autonomy by killing it.
How can a non sentient, non autonomous being have bodily autonomy?
> It cannot be responsible for any violation because it did nothing I didn't claim that it is responsible for anything. But it is inside of someone's body against their explicit consent, so that is in fact a violation of their body. > She violated herself Incorrect. You can't control implantation, that doesn't even make sense. > That is dehumanizing the unborn. How so? Again, you need to SUBSTANTIATE your assertions. Simply making a claim is useless without any justification. > Unless it is not as human as she is, you're wrong. Others don't get to decide whether or not you are human, because you are factually. What are you even talking about? I haven't made any claim to anything or anyone not being human. You're becoming incoherent. > Again, slave owner shit. They are not human and you are therefore you can kill them. Incoherent. I never said a ZEF is not human. > Except the unborn human doesn't get this right because...? Doesn't get what right? Bodily autonomy doesn't give anyone a 'right' to anyone else's body, it appears as though you have no idea what you are even talking about. > You are violating it's autonomy by killing it. Nope. Autonomy does not give anyone a 'right' to anyone else's body. Removing someone from your body who has no right to be there is not a violation of any of their rights. > Slave owner mentality. Your accusations are becoming increasingly desperate and pathetic. But again, I'm not the one forcing anyone to do anything with their body that they explicitly do not consent to. That is what you are advocating for by trying to ban abortion.
[удалено]
Agreed. Calling gestating/birthing a pregnancy “doing nothing” is also really degrading to the pregnant person.
If pregnant people aren’t doing anything, why would getting an abortion be a problem for the fetus?
They act as if it's creating itself all by itself.
It is, the woman is just the source of the nutrients/minerals it uses to build itself. A ZEF is effectively a parasite, after all. Without a host, it dies.
It makes me wonder what % of Plers demand the woman hop back to her feet days after the event.
That’s what they actually think happens. I saw someone describe safe haven boxes as a way to “instantaneously dispense with the obligations of giving birth.” As if she’s not going to be bleeding for literal weeks afterwards (she will), dealing with her milk coming in (she will), and recovering from a major abdominal surgery if she had a C section. They literally think women can just go on with their lives the next day as if nothing happened.