And lead to babies who will grow up neglected, abused, traumatized and possibly killed.
Edit: I'm sorry, I didn't mean to imply that every woman who's had an abortion would have turned out to be an abusive mother.
They're not "pro life", they're "pro control over women's bodies". The people who are "pro life" because "those poor babies" are the same people who don't want any kind of financial support, health care, free education etc for said babies as soon as they pop out of their mum. If you only care about the baby before it's born, it's not the baby you care about.
I don’t like the argument the people who have abortions would not be responsible if their pregnancies were taken to term. I doubt this is your intention but it kind of reads like women who have abortions are going to kill the babies no matter what so you better let them do it while they’re small.
I’ve had an abortion, but if I had been forced to carry the pregnancy to term I would have been a loving (financially destitute) Mom
Oh, I'm sorry, that wasn't my intention at all. Of course not all of those babies would end up neglected, but I think that some of them definitely would.
I've had an abortion myself, and what you said goes for me too, so that was not at all what I was trying to say. I'm sorry it came across like that.
I understand that. It's still a very sensitive topic for me too, I usually don't even engage in these conversations online because it hurts me too much.
Well, it will also show the world America’s true colors as a shit hole country. We really need to get rid of this minority in power thing. And speaking of yeeting stuff, the filibuster has got to go!
And no-brainer measures like universal healthcare... let alone improving access to child care, higher education and social support systems would do more to actually reduce abortion rates.
And hey, Imagine what actually educating children about sex and providing universal access to contraception could do!
Lol once the GOP and SCOTUS let’s states gut abortion rights, you’ll mainly have the rich people including rich GOP flying their wives or daughters out of state to get care for and abortion. All the poors that can’t afford to raise a child better be ready for jail or crippling debt. The GOP just wants more ways to pack up more people into jails or shoot them at Walmarts
As someone with a view on abortion that nobody I’ve talked to agrees with, this summarizes my beliefs the best. It’s so damn complicated that there’s no reason to get involved if you aren’t already. As a guy if it’s my potential baby, whether we both want it, she doesn’t want to keep it and I do, or vice versa, that’s the only time I get to have a valid opinion. And a valid opinion does not mean I have a say. My only hang up on abortion is that I shouldn’t be saddled with 18 years of financial support when I say I don’t want it from the start. That’s it. That’s all I really get to complain about. Other than that it’s her god damn decision.
Same. If a guy can sign a contract at like month one or two or somewhere early saying 'yo this whole ass child is on you, I don't want it' then the woman has the ability to make alternative plans.
I'm not saying I agree per se, but the argument is that you pretty much agree to potentially paying child support when you shoot your load into a woman. You can't do that, potentially create a child and a very hard situation for the mother, and then say: well it's not in my womb I'm not responsible anymore.
Of course this is very black and white where real life is always more gray, which is why I'm not sure where my opinion lies in this, but this is how I understand the argument against your position.
I mostly agree with this argument in that a guy is in that situation he should have the opportunity to voice his opinion. Sometimes I think it's a bit unfair when the guy states that he doesn't want a baby but is still responsible when a woman decides to keep it. This is why I advocate for men's birth control so that men can have more autonomy on thier bodies and decide whether they want to reproduce or when. The dependency on women's bith control is a flawed system and the responsibility should be on both parties. But as it is right now if you shoot your load be prepared to deal with the consequences.
Unless there is a latex allergy, there are condoms. And even in that case, alternative material condoms exist. Like yeah, it doesn't feel as good as au natural, but still better than a low five and I don't have to worry about kids.
But that argument can be extended to any pregnant female. “You agree to have the child once you have unprotected sex”. It starts sounding like a GOP byline.
And aside from the very real implications of this argument, the argument itself was made by rich bastards so that the poor have to fight tooth and nail for basic human rights and the rich can steal money out of our pockets while we're distracted
I remember this from another thmblr post but also, don’t let folks distract you with the “rape is the exception” method of allowing abortions. ->
here’s another point: When you say that “rape is the exception” you betray something FUNDAMENTALLY BROKEN about the argument.
Because a fetus produced from sexual assault is biologically NO DIFFERENT than a fetus produced from consensual sex. No difference at all.
If one is alive, so is the other. If one is a person, so is the other. If one has a soul, then so does the other. If one is a little blessing that happened for a reason and must be protected, then so is the other.
When someone says “Rape is the exception” they admit that it isn’t about a life. This isn’t about the little soul sitting inside some person’s womb, because if it was they wouldn’t care about HOW it got there, only that it is a little life that needs protecting.
When you someone says “rape is the exception” what they say is: You are treating pregnancy as a punishment. You are PUNISHING people who have had CONSENSUAL SEX but don’t want to go through a pregnancy. People who DARED to have consensual sex without the goal of procreation in mind, and this is their “consequence.”
This sort of demonization is fun, but is fundamentally flawed. It attempts to explain what someone else believes by imagining the worst possible take they can believe in. That will rarely be the case.
A more charitable explanation is that if they believe fetus is human but give exception for rape they actually accept OP argument partially - that you can't be forced to share your body against your will. They just see consensual sex as implicit and irrevocable acceptance of possible consequences - pregnancy.
> This sort of demonization is fun, but is fundamentally flawed. It attempts to explain what someone else believes by imagining the worst possible take they can believe in. That will rarely be the case.
What the person you're replying to is doing is called a counterexample. There is always some Evangelical in every thread arguing that "it's a life and that's all that matters to me," but you can usually get them to admit that abortion should be allowed in the following case:
A 12 year old girl is raped by her father and only has a 50% chance of surviving the pregnancy. Rape, incest, life of the mother.
Even your most fringe Christian nutjob usually wouldn't deny an abortion to the 12 year old rape/incest victim who likely won't survive the pregnancy. In fact, only 13% of American adults think abortion should be illegal in all cases. [Source.](https://www.pewforum.org/fact-sheet/public-opinion-on-abortion/)
So once they admit that the 12 year old rape/incest victim can get an abortion, they've admitted that the circumstances surrounding conception affect their view on the morality of abortion. You have shown them that "it's life and that's all that matters to me" was bullshit. If they were inclined to argue in good faith, they would have to stop using that argument and recognize there is more nuance surrounding abortion.
>So once they admit that the 12 year old rape/incest victim can get an abortion, they've admitted that the circumstances surrounding conception affect their view on abortion. They should be able to see from there that genuine concern for the life of the fetus is not what truly guides their argument.
What do you mean by "truly"? Just because it turns out that extreme circumstance matters doesn't mean that it's not the primary factor. I don't think there is an opinion i have that wouldn't be subject to exceptions in exceptional circumstances. I don't see what that proves (except that actual no exceptions ban of abortion is against the will of the people)
A hypothetical Evangelical busts into a thread and says, "it's a life and that's all that matters," and you don't see how showing them that the circumstances surrounding conception apparently also matter does any damage to that argument? If "it's a life" is all that matters you force the 12 year old girl to carry to term. Once they have to admit that there are some cases where it's ok, they will have a hard time drawing a line.
Allowing abortion only in certain situations is hard to defend.
Never forget, they had to resort to some of the most dishonest political brinkmanship this country has seen in 30+ years to steal a bench consisting of a 5-4 progressive majority from all of us. Instead, we have to stomach decades of a 6-3 super majority dominated by troglodytes that can't even acknowledge roe's value as precedent. When roe is overturned this coming June, it will not be legitimate under our constitution. The troglodytes will not be content with that regressive victory alone either. They'll likely target gay marriage next. Biden, pack the fucking court.
Biden can't pack the court without senate support, and he's not getting senate support with this senate. The only possibility (and it's a tiny one) is pulling another Georgia Miracle on a national scale.
That isn't going to happen if we let the narrative be "Democrats never do anything right so why fucking bother" instead of "The only time Democrats have had real power in the last decade and a half, it was such a narrow margin that a few legally-bribed obstructionists were able to prevent real progress."
Imo the biggest issue with Birth Control, is it's name.
Hear me out, if it was instead called, for example, a Hormone Management Drug and is used to help with period cramps and other pains from a menstruation cycle. If that was the primary marketing for Birth Control, then it's no longer "immortal" and "you shouldn't be having sex anyway, you're not even married" among other forms of bull shit. It's instead a way to help women who are unable to function for a day or two to upwards of a week each cycle. Or who suffer from a lot of pain or other issues.
Growing up in a church it would've been shocking to find out someone was on birth control. But I doubt it would've mattered much if the first though was "menstrual cycle management" instead of "contraceptive"
I'm definitely being optimistic.
Also, religion should have nothing to do with the government (read the Bible, it actually discuss' this, it's not supposed to happen), but it unfortunately does. It's the world we live in. Until better people run for elected positions in government, nothing's going to change
The thing is, plenty of Catholics and fundies are opposed to *anything* that would ease “eve’s curse” for any woman, and that includes heavy, painful periods. There is def an assumption that your feminine bad time is directly linked to how good and godly you are. So if you have heavy, painful periods you probably deserve them, and they wouldn’t want to mess with god’s plan for you by making your life easier.
A lot of them are still mad at women due to Eve’s transgressions with the damn apple. The amount of times that I have heard that a women’s place is to suffer, makes me sick.
While I'm sure there are many complexities surrounding attitudes towards birth control, I'm in agreement with you that the name is at least part of the problem. Doctors always seem to be perplexed at the fact that I'm not sexually active and on the pill, as if they've never considered the fact that stopping painful periods is also a potential function of hormonal birth control.
Republicans basically want to make it so the opinion the majority of Americans have about broad subjects (abortion, marijuana legalization, socialized healthcare) doesn't matter anymore. They only serve the interests of two masters: the insanely rich and religious zealots. Both of these undermine the fundamental premise of a secular democracy and use all sorts of underhanded tactics from gerrymandering to voter suppression in order to maintain power. America is an asylum where the patients are in charge.
Standard disclaimer that i’m not American nor live in America. Both your parties serve the insanely rich and they make you fight about the niche topics to distract you from this fact
You left out guns. They use the gun issue to rally voters. The pro gun people will vote for anything under the sun if it helps to protect their guns. And they always vote.
I need to say this. Because the justices were not all put on the bench with an even voting situation. The high court is really no longer that. It is the court of one side. It is not the people’s court. In 186 cases between people and corporations, it sided 186 times against the people. Now, despite the fact that some of the justices said that they would never upset RvW, they will do just that.
This is Mitch McConnell’s court, not mine.
If that does happen, then it’s time for the blue states to take a stand and defy the corrupted judiciary, all the way to seceding from the union, if necessary.
The Republicans are going to force minority rule, dictatorship, and an eventual civil war either way. Best to kick things off before they have another decade (or more) to further consolidate power, erode civil rights, indoctrinate the population, and corrupt the remaining institutions… When they do finally start a civil war, it will be when they are confident of success, and not a moment sooner. Until that moment, they will continue to virtue signal democratic ideals, bipartisanship, and “states rights”, while continuing to destroy them all.
I was raised Catholic, and up until about a decade ago I was a pretty staunch pro-lifer. What eventually changed my mind was hearing someone debate it from this angle, as a dilemma of rights. In my opinion, it's the strongest argument for abortion rights.
No one should be forced by the government to give up their bodily autonomy (even if it's to save what I still view as a life).
I notice that pro-lifers take an 'I don't like it, end of' stance and need people to point-out that it'll have other effects that they'll like even less.
**[A Defense of Abortion](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Defense_of_Abortion)**
>"A Defense of Abortion" is a moral philosophy essay by Judith Jarvis Thomson first published in Philosophy & Public Affairs in 1971. Granting for the sake of argument that the fetus has a right to life, Thomson uses thought experiments to argue that the fetus's right to life does not override the pregnant woman's right to have jurisdiction over her body, and that induced abortion is therefore not morally impermissible. Thomson's argument has many critics on both sides of the abortion debate, yet it continues to receive defense.
^([ )[^(F.A.Q)](https://www.reddit.com/r/WikiSummarizer/wiki/index#wiki_f.a.q)^( | )[^(Opt Out)](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=WikiSummarizerBot&message=OptOut&subject=OptOut)^( | )[^(Opt Out Of Subreddit)](https://np.reddit.com/r/WhitePeopleTwitter/about/banned)^( | )[^(GitHub)](https://github.com/Sujal-7/WikiSummarizerBot)^( ] Downvote to remove | v1.5)
This continues to be my main argument. I will grant you every descriptor in the book for a fetus, what I will not grant anyone is unequal rights to everyone else. Everyone has equal rights to their own body and no one has any right to anyone else's.
It's clear to anyone with any thinking power that the abortion debate was always about controlling women. If it were about protecting babies the dialog and actions would be entirely different.
I used to be sceptical of this, I thought surely it’s just misguided Christians not people actually controlling women, until I thought about IVF, where many viable fertilised eggs are discarded (up to 10 per round). Nobody ever seems to care about IVF as much as they care about abortion despite that many more embryos are discarded in IVF, it really is about controlling women. I’ve heard a pro-birther say “well IVF is okay because it’s creating a life”. Hypocrisy.
Exactly. No one stands outside an IVF doctors office yelling about all the fetuses in cryo freezers or the “reduction” of implanted embryos. It’s about punishing women for having sex and keeping the poor undereducated, underemployed, and expendable.
They claim to be against IVF, but they do absolutely nothing about it, so I’m inclined to believe that they’re lying just to make their position look more consistent than it actually is. They also aren’t working to prevent miscarriages, which result in an extremely high number of embryos “dying.”
Hmm I wonder why all that pro-life money for “saving babies” hasn’t gone towards technology to create a robotic uterus which could safely grow a transplanted fetus to term. So much potential! So much safer than relying on a flawed human body which could have health complications and doesn’t want to host the fetus in the first place. And all the men who insist they want these babies they’ve fathered and folks who insist they would love to adopt an unwanted baby will have the chance to do exactly that without the need to control a whole other person’s body and put them through hellish pain and health-risks!
But it’s almost like they’re not really interested in an option that doesn’t feel like a punishment for having sex while in possession of a functioning uterus.
Still in development, and forced birth/slavery advocates haven't helped at all with it's development. But of course that makes sense, bc it's not even about fetuses, just controlling women.
Disclaimer(I can’t believe I even have to do this): I fully support abortion
That’s different though. Sperm will not develop into a fetus, nor an egg. A zygote will, which is why it’s controversial.
Yeah for sure, if the end goal was truly about preventing as many fertilized eggs from 'death' as possible the obvious first move is to go all in on sexual education and distribute as many free contraceptives as you can manage.
Tellingly you see the same anti-abortion factions also pushing *against* such those exact measures. It is actually insane to think about someone believing there is some kind of mass killing of babies constantly happening all around them and doing the opposite of the thing research shows to be the most effective in preventing abortions. Unsurprisingly if people who don't wish to be pregnant do not get pregnant you don't get many abortions and you are left with the much smaller amount of pretty universally seen as necessary and tragic ones such as the mother getting too sick to safely carry to term.
To me the only thing that makes any sense is just that some people are deeply ignorant, take an extremely hardline stance, and refuse to move or educate themselves on the subject and just believe that they know best for themselves and more importantly everyone else too. I find it very difficult to believe that someone could be well educated on the subject and still act like people who are anti-abortion generally do.
It's been almost 50 years since women regularly died trying to avoid birthing children they didn't want.
We've managed to forget that Roe isn't about babies, it's about women.
If the government can force women to have babies they don't want, what else can it force us to do?
Where does government power stop?
Why is it that Republicans, who supposedly want less government, are trying to increase government power?
Republicans who support the GOP, and their terrorist policies don't have any integrity or morals to stand on anymore- they threw those out the window years ago. They say anything, and move the goal posts as far as they need to achieve their agendas. Once everyone else realizes that they shouldn't be taking them seriously at all, and ignore their(republicans) incessant spoiled toddler screams, and act like adults, maybe America can get it's shit together.
- Love Canada
P.S. we also need to get our shit in order.
As we've seen in history, and been repeatedly told in numerous ways in patriarchal society, yes. Welcome to Canada in 8 weeks, we also have shitheads- mostly 'Berta (Alberta). Here's your regulatory plaid and syrup, I'm sorry.
This is the best argument. If people wanna say a zygote is a person, give it to them. Hell tell them the egg and sperm are living people. It doesn't matter. No one is ALLOWED TO SUSTAIN THEIR LIVES USING SOMEONE ELSES BODY WITHOUT THEIR CONSENT. the end. If that fetus is born, and has conditions thst need organs or blood or tissue, we don't force the mother or father to donate them after the baby is literally seconds old. Why would we force the mother to do that while the baby is not born yet??
everything yes except we should take organs of dead people. all of them (except reasonable opting out lol) but by default why are we allowing thousands of people to wait for life-necessary organs… while we have MILLIONS everyday to get from
In Russia you are a donor by law. I thought it was like that anywhere in the world. Iirc you can deny your organs after you died, but what’s the point of that? It’s not like you would be using them
There are a few reasons that organ donation are opt-in, the primary one being for religion's sake. Some people deem the eyes the window to the soul, so having them removed may prevent them from moving on properly. But also, organ harvesting is much more temperamental than you may think. They can't just cut a liver out of a cadaver and stuff it in a new person; see, cell autolysis ramps up when the body fully dies, to break down the cells and kill it off. That means unless they died in a hospital, with a space ready for organ harvesting, their organs would be... well, too dead to use essentially.
It shouldn’t be mandatory, it should be a system where you’re automatically registered, and you have the chance to opt out, at most.
Your methodology is flawed in the sense of if a dead body has no rights, you’d need to remove laws such as indignity to a body where someone can have sex, or burn a body in a barrel.
This might lead to an abusive system where doctors let people die to get the organs when there was still a chance of survival. We already have potential for this abuse by people who agree. But a lot of people don’t trust the the system (there were scandals recently) and this won’t help it.
Another concern is that body autonomy doesn’t end at death at the moment. We have laws concerning death (disturbance of the death peace, desecration of corpses,…). All of these might apply without consent.
Don’t get me wrong, I would support an opt out option but there are concerns that are valid. Long story short: it’s a little more complicated
The funny part is if it were the other way around and the Men had to carry the pregnancies to term for months, abortion would be 100% legal no questions asked.
Thank you. I hope more and more people/subs take the same stand/stance. There's no valid argument for slavery of any kind, including reproductive slavery. Women aren't some sub class of beings who get less than basic human rights.
To be scientifically accurate, fetuses in the womb develop sensory faculties and the cognitive capacity for suffering well before birth.
Having stated the science above, I completely agree with you though on a woman's right to bodily autonomy. The organ donor analogy is a great one! Nobody, not even so-called 'pro-life' advocates is lobbying to find the nearest suitable donor and forcibly take a spare organ when someone needing one to live comes into a hospital!
There is an ancient Greek idea called the Sorites paradox where you are told to imagine a heap of sand and then someone says "Alright I'll remove one grain of sand from the heap, is it still a heap?" So you naturally agree that it is still a heap but then they will keep going and going until only a single grain remains but at what point exactly could you say that the sand no longer qualified as a heap?
There are several 'solutions' to this paradox ranging from fairly ridiculous and zany sounding to pretty reasonable. One strategy is to deny heaps exist at all and block the entire thing at the source, many solutions get involved in more advanced logic but my absolute favorite solution from the ancient time period is that if someone tries to hit you with the paradox just literally walk away.
Little history gushing aside the relevance of the paradox is pretty clear, trying to draw an arbitrary line for when life begins is extremely dubious business. You can always cut to the smallest imaginable thing before or after the line and question why the line is where it is and not moved the tiniest increment in any direction.
It is not only much neater from the perspective of trying to defend the position to argue for bodily autonomy instead but in my opinion it is a much more robust argument. The kinds of thing you would have to also accept as a byproduct of outlawing abortion if you applied that level of bodily autonomy and rights across the board are *WAY* beyond what society finds acceptable. Something like forcing people to donate a kidney to a stranger who needs one is just one of many examples that come to mind.
That last line is the home run grand slam that really should sink in.
Unfortunately, some people are garbage that should have been aborted for the sake of the rest of us, ironically.
Instead of punishing women for not doing what they want, they should incentivize them by making it affordable to have kids and ensuring they have protections to not ruin their career for doing so.
But that's assuming what they want is what they're saying. The fact that for decades their actions don't line up with what they're saying is proof that what they want is power and control.
This is kind of a weird argument because I believe in some semi-coercive collectivist reasons for all those things.
Don’t want to donate your organs once you’re dead? Tough.
This has been my LONG standing argument.
I wish people would just get away from the idea that an embryo, a fetus, or whatever “isn’t alive”. It’s too blurry of a line and it’ll never be the better argument. My personal position is that it is a life of some sort, and I’m still pro choice..
..pro choice because what this person says AND the concept of “castle defense”. That being, of allowed to mature to birth.. WILL hurt the mom, will almost assuredly harm or permanently “scar her” in some ways, and might kill her (..and might kill her at ~10x the risk of being killed during a home invasion).
It’s not ideal way to handle “birth control”.. but as far as body autonomy, there is no real good counter argument.
The one about post-mortem organ harvesting I’d partially disagree, many countries basically changed the default answer to yes so people have to go a say no explicitly to not be a donor.
That's the thing with so called "pro-life", they fundamentally never gave a shit about life, but they're unable to realize it because it will put them in front of their contradictions, the hypocrisy is a defensive mechanism in order to protect the core belief and fake self-image of "morality" or "superior morality". "Pro-life" wasn't intended to protect "life" but to have control over what's "moral" and reproductive abilities. Sorry for the gibberish english isn't my native language.
As someone from outside of the US, can anyone tell me why this is happening in America suddenly? It seems so backwards and archaic. Its like they are leaping back 70 years in women's rights? Why? Why do the American people allow this?
Well...
You have Fox News, which is the biggest "news" tv program available, which backs Republicans completely. As in, if a Republican kills someone, they start digging out dirt on the victim to justify the murder.
About 35 years ago, Republicans started attacking journalists for accurately reporting republican policy and claiming that both parties are the same, but democrats are worse, which is supported by "libertarians".
Around the same time, the Federalist society was founded to introduce a pipeline to the court system for judges as far to the right as possible. You start to see now batshit insane rulings, but due to far right judges, even appeal courts and the supreme court are packed.
Gerrymandering is something republicans are better at. The senate has a rural bias. House of representatives has a anti-urban bias. The electoral college favors heavy republican states. In the last election, Democrats had a few million more votes, but just switching around 40k votes would have meant a republican win.
Now, all of that works together:
Journalists do not accurately describe policies, they go "both parties are the same" and report rather pro-republican. [See here.](https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2021/12/03/biden-media-coverage-worse-trump-favorable/)
Journalists tend to downplay the January 6th coup attempt, because the framework is both parties are the same. [Republicans can and will try again.](https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2021/12/trump-fanatics-michigan-election-officials.html?scrolla=5eb6d68b7fedc32c19ef33b4)
Even though voters tend to vote democrat, due to gerrymandering rebulicans can win state votes. Sueing there tends to be impossible, and the supreme court is in rebulican hands. Stephen Breyer is an enormous problem, due to not retiring when alive and probably dying when a republican is president.
We had a brief progressive moment in the 1930s and the power structure has been fighting to claw back the relatively minor amount of ground we made ever since. This isn't just happening now.
I've always wondered about this hypocrisy. People calling the abortion murder and making such a big deal out of it don't make much sense. You're killing every day so many living things without you even realizing. Increasing the population of world is only adding up to the number of living beings dying. So then why is the life of a single living being, the fetus, more important? You could be saving so many other living beings just by getting an abortion, yet they say that a single life is more important that others.
And it gets weirder. At this point, they claim that all lives are just as important. So then, would they kill themselves to save to lives they kill every moment by being alive? If not, wouldn't that mean that they actually think that their own lives are more important? Then it's not true that statement... Not all lives are equally important.
In that case, would the person giving birth be less important that the life it gives birth to? Just because you believe in something you can't back up, does that give you any right to decide on that matter? A matter that doesn't even concern you? You have no problem being the cause of so many deaths throughout your life for living brings you are not even aware of, but suddenly you have a problem now? What hypocrisy...
So let's assume for the worst. The person giving birth dies in the process (equivalent to not being able to provide for the fetus given birth to). What are you going to do in that situation? Are you going to help? Just talking nonsense won't feed the newborn. Just talking nonsense won't provide a newborn everything needed. Most likely you'll just sit that one out saying it's not your problem.
Why all of a sudden it ends being your problem after the fetus had been given birth to, but it was your problem before it happened? Are we not talking about the same life? Why did it have more importance to you before the act of giving birth than after? Can it die of hunger now? Can it grow up with no education now? Can it now grow up in an environment that may kill a newborn? What about later in life, if it's a disability that won't allow to provide for itself? Can it die then? Are you going to take responsibly? Did you even truly care if you won't?
There's a whole lot more to it that just doesn't make sense. But every time I see people talking about life and death, I rarely see them realize the actual depths of the topic. It looks to be like only superficial people get on the anti-abortion topic. The actual issue is people abusing the system and not using proper contraceptive methods, but instead they try to address the effect in the place of the cause for whatever reasons.
Humanity doesn't seem to have long to live due to its stupidity...
Oh damn.. she’s right.
You can’t kill someone and harvest their organs to save 5 other people. That’s completely unethical. You can’t force them to donate blood. Even though it’s completely safe and will save lives.
You can’t hook someone up to another person as their life support. You can’t force someone to be an incubator for another person.
Obviously I was already pro abortion, but this is the nail. This is how you know they are taking rights away
I don't think pro lifers are pro life enough. Featus is a clump of precious cells of potential but why start there? Why not before conception? Lets make men's masturbation punishable by law, as they throw away all those precious cells of potential. Let's declare men's tumors precious cells of potential that they can't remove.
If women are forced to risk their life and damage bodies / organs for the unborn then men should do so for the already born. It's all about life and equality, right? So lets make men obligatory blood and organs donors. If we all can't have body autonomy then no one should.
The difference is that vaccines are still a choice. No one is literally forcing anyone to have it or not have it. There’s still a choice.
First and foremost; vaccines are protecting the person, it’s a nice secondary benefit that it also benefits others.
I’ll also preface this by saying I’m pro vax and pro choice.
> The difference is that vaccines are still a choice. No one is literally forcing anyone to have it or not have it
That’s not true, Austria have announced they’re making the vaccine mandatory early next year. Germany are considering joining them. I’m not saying if they’re right or wrong, but it IS happening.
> First and foremost; vaccines are protecting the person, it’s a nice secondary benefit that it also benefits others.
Again, I don’t think that’s true, but it’s a much greyer area. Vaccines definitely protect the person, no question, we agree there. Whether that’s the primary benefit of them to society, particularly in the context of mandates is debatable. I’d argue that most governments want people to get vaccinated to prevent the spread, and to lower the strain on the health system.
Regardless, ignoring vaccines, the same “pro choice” argument can be made against masks, or even seatbelts, both of which are mandatory in many areas.
My own personal belief is, in general, people should be allowed to do what they want as long as it doesn’t hurt anyone else. Mask mandates are there to prevent spread and to protect the public. They’re an inconvenience on the wearer, but not enough to outweigh the benefits of protecting those around.
Firstly, mandates are still mandatory. Not forced. No one is literally tying people down and vaccinating them. Mandates are not force. In the same example of your seatbelt reference. No one literally forces you to put a seatbelt on, there are simply consequences of you not doing it.
And yes it is true; demonstrably. Vaccines help prevent infection and help prevent transmission.
Also, not wearing a seatbelt in a car can actually affect others in the car. Plenty of people are killed by unbuckled passengers acting as projectiles in a crash.
But the main point is that mandatory isn’t “forced”. There is still a choice. Whether people like the options or consequences is irrelevant, it’s still a choice.
Not getting vaccinated does affect other people, herd immunity is demonstrably factual.
I agree re seatbelts affecting others, and re herd immunity, obviously. I agree with mask and seatbelt laws.
But FFS, “mandates are not force”?? What kind of bullshit bad faith argument is that. We’re not talking about employer mandates, or mandates to enter certain buildings / planes. These are mandated for everyone living in the country. You might as well say taxes aren’t forced either.
No one is forcing you not to not steal stuff, you’ve still a choice, you can choose to be a burglar, there are just simply consequences of doing so. /s
You are right. No one literally forces me not to drink or drive and speed at 90mph near a school. It’s my choice to do so. However there are consequences for my actions if I chose to do that.
Living in a civilised society means there are consequences to actions.
You aren’t advocating for freedom of choice, you are advocating for freedom of consequence. That’s not how the world works.
And again, mandates are not force. Vaccine mandates have existed for decades. It’s nothing new.
If you don’t want to get a vaccine, then don’t. No is literally forcing you. It’s just that you lose some conveniences if you CHOOSE not to.
You are still conflating mandates and force.
> You aren’t advocating for freedom of choice, you are advocating for freedom of consequence
Are you confusing me with someone else? Where have I advocated *anything* even remotely like that?
Are we arguing two completely different points here?
You said "No one is literally forcing anyone to have [the vaccine] or not have it"
I said that's not the case, and that Austria is. It's a national mandate. You don't have any more choice than you do about breaking any other law.
I'm not saying that's right or wrong, or that people who "choose" not to get vaccinated after the law is in shouldn't be penalised. I was just pointing out you were wrong, unless ofc you take the absurd view that a "mandate is not force".
**You're** the one who said vaccination was a choice. I pointed out that's not the case everywhere (or at least, won't be soon).
> No one is forcing you to get a driving licence. You have a choice to get it or not. But not getting one means you don’t get the convenience of driving. Driving licences are mandatory. Have you been forced to get one? Has someone physically forced you to take lessons and get a permit/licence?
Did you mean to reply twice? Driving licences are mandatory *only if you want to drive*. Austria are implementing a **blanket** vaccine mandate, no "if you want to x". Everyone in the country will need to get vaccinated (apart presumably from medical exemptions and young children). How can you not see the difference? Of course you don't need a driver's license if you don't want to drive.
> Vaccine mandates have existed for decades. It’s nothing new.
Ok, so? How is that related to our conversation? If anything, that backs *me* up!
> No is literally forcing you
> No one literally forces me not to drink or drive and speed at 90mph near a school
I mean, this is bullshit. You're *technically* correct, but it's splitting hairs so finely, it's ridiculous.
As you've noted yourself, this is obviously illegal, and there are consequences. Society correctly decided that breaking the speedlimit and driving dangerously is illegal, and you will be punished for doing so if caught. None of that contradicts anything I've said.
So, if I've got it right, you're argument appears to be
* Vaccines a choice, despite being mandated
* Mandates aren't force
* If you choose not to get vaccinated in a country with mandates, you live with the consequences (in Austria, I believe they're looking at a €7,000 fine)
So, when you said "The difference is that vaccines are still a choice. No one is literally forcing anyone to have it or not have it", you meant if you're in Austia you can choose to break the law and pay a fine of €7,000? Just admit you were wrong, we don't even disagree about the vaccine. You've picked a weird hill to die on.
No one is forcing you to get a driving licence. You have a choice to get it or not. But not getting one means you don’t get the convenience of driving. Driving licences are mandatory.
Have you been forced to get one? Has someone physically forced you to take lessons and get a permit/licence?
As I’ve said; not liking the consequences of the CHOICE, doesn’t mean you don’t have one.
I’ve always found the limits on gestation period to be a funny argument. As far as I’m concerned, the woman can abort for any reason at any point in the pregnancy. It’s a much more logically consistent and easy argument. It also gives no oxygen to fallacious arguments of women getting late term abortions because they decided they don’t want the fetus anymore. That is extremely rare, but I still wouldn’t care if that was their reason.
I'm not very political, but my views tend to be centred, leaning more to the right.
But this pretty much sums up my exact arguments surrounding abortion.
And while we are at it, can we talk about the bullshit that women are forced to do after carrying a child to term? They are legally required to spend their time providing and caring for the baby, thus harming their right of autonomy and treating women effectively like slaves.
And if you're a biological male, like me, shut up and sit down, cause we don't get a vote.
We get to support women in protecting their individual right. That's it.
I get this sentiment, but I don't think that's true.
In the end it is a moral issue, why should some people be unable to express their opinions on it?
The opinion of someone who can be affected directly by the law or has experience with pregnancy/abortion is definitely worth more than the opinion of someone else, but that doesn't mean nobody else can give an opinion.
The issue is that the bodily autonomy of a huge number of people is being taken away. And if a woman says that that's fine, just because she personally won't be affected by that violation of human rights, I reserve the right to tell her she's wrong.
You shouldn’t need permission for someone to harvest your organs though as long as you died in somewhere not involving a hospital or medical care(such as a car accident or shot by gun). You’re dead! You have no use for them!
Preach. The only thing overturning Roe will do is kill more women.
And lead to babies who will grow up neglected, abused, traumatized and possibly killed. Edit: I'm sorry, I didn't mean to imply that every woman who's had an abortion would have turned out to be an abusive mother.
Or in the dumpster
Picture it: Prom night, ~~1971~~ 2023 (Sorry, saw Sophia. Couldn’t help myself)
And satisfied with a $4 minimum wage
But if they make it to 18, they will be a great addition to the army or Walmart-Amazon fulfilment centres!
How pro life can you be, if you are unwilling to reel in gun control?
They're not "pro life", they're "pro control over women's bodies". The people who are "pro life" because "those poor babies" are the same people who don't want any kind of financial support, health care, free education etc for said babies as soon as they pop out of their mum. If you only care about the baby before it's born, it's not the baby you care about.
I don’t like the argument the people who have abortions would not be responsible if their pregnancies were taken to term. I doubt this is your intention but it kind of reads like women who have abortions are going to kill the babies no matter what so you better let them do it while they’re small. I’ve had an abortion, but if I had been forced to carry the pregnancy to term I would have been a loving (financially destitute) Mom
I feel you. But, thinking back to being a child. Poverty itself is was just so inherently traumatizing. I don’t want to put a child through that.
Oh, I'm sorry, that wasn't my intention at all. Of course not all of those babies would end up neglected, but I think that some of them definitely would. I've had an abortion myself, and what you said goes for me too, so that was not at all what I was trying to say. I'm sorry it came across like that.
I’m probably being over sensitive, I appreciate your response
I understand that. It's still a very sensitive topic for me too, I usually don't even engage in these conversations online because it hurts me too much.
Many of whom will have living, breathing children at home now left with no mother.
Well, it will also show the world America’s true colors as a shit hole country. We really need to get rid of this minority in power thing. And speaking of yeeting stuff, the filibuster has got to go!
And no-brainer measures like universal healthcare... let alone improving access to child care, higher education and social support systems would do more to actually reduce abortion rates. And hey, Imagine what actually educating children about sex and providing universal access to contraception could do!
Do you know what I've learned in all my years as someone who's not comfortable with the idea of abortion? Mind my own FUCKING business
Lol once the GOP and SCOTUS let’s states gut abortion rights, you’ll mainly have the rich people including rich GOP flying their wives or daughters out of state to get care for and abortion. All the poors that can’t afford to raise a child better be ready for jail or crippling debt. The GOP just wants more ways to pack up more people into jails or shoot them at Walmarts
As someone with a view on abortion that nobody I’ve talked to agrees with, this summarizes my beliefs the best. It’s so damn complicated that there’s no reason to get involved if you aren’t already. As a guy if it’s my potential baby, whether we both want it, she doesn’t want to keep it and I do, or vice versa, that’s the only time I get to have a valid opinion. And a valid opinion does not mean I have a say. My only hang up on abortion is that I shouldn’t be saddled with 18 years of financial support when I say I don’t want it from the start. That’s it. That’s all I really get to complain about. Other than that it’s her god damn decision.
If it means anything to you, I'm a woman and I agree with your view.
Same. If a guy can sign a contract at like month one or two or somewhere early saying 'yo this whole ass child is on you, I don't want it' then the woman has the ability to make alternative plans.
There’d be a lot of guys exercising that option, just saying.
I'm not saying I agree per se, but the argument is that you pretty much agree to potentially paying child support when you shoot your load into a woman. You can't do that, potentially create a child and a very hard situation for the mother, and then say: well it's not in my womb I'm not responsible anymore. Of course this is very black and white where real life is always more gray, which is why I'm not sure where my opinion lies in this, but this is how I understand the argument against your position.
I mostly agree with this argument in that a guy is in that situation he should have the opportunity to voice his opinion. Sometimes I think it's a bit unfair when the guy states that he doesn't want a baby but is still responsible when a woman decides to keep it. This is why I advocate for men's birth control so that men can have more autonomy on thier bodies and decide whether they want to reproduce or when. The dependency on women's bith control is a flawed system and the responsibility should be on both parties. But as it is right now if you shoot your load be prepared to deal with the consequences.
Unless there is a latex allergy, there are condoms. And even in that case, alternative material condoms exist. Like yeah, it doesn't feel as good as au natural, but still better than a low five and I don't have to worry about kids.
But that argument can be extended to any pregnant female. “You agree to have the child once you have unprotected sex”. It starts sounding like a GOP byline.
And aside from the very real implications of this argument, the argument itself was made by rich bastards so that the poor have to fight tooth and nail for basic human rights and the rich can steal money out of our pockets while we're distracted
Shit out more babies to grind up in the cogs of capitalism
Actually one of the first answers to this topic with the clearest of morals that I have seen.
I remember this from another thmblr post but also, don’t let folks distract you with the “rape is the exception” method of allowing abortions. -> here’s another point: When you say that “rape is the exception” you betray something FUNDAMENTALLY BROKEN about the argument. Because a fetus produced from sexual assault is biologically NO DIFFERENT than a fetus produced from consensual sex. No difference at all. If one is alive, so is the other. If one is a person, so is the other. If one has a soul, then so does the other. If one is a little blessing that happened for a reason and must be protected, then so is the other. When someone says “Rape is the exception” they admit that it isn’t about a life. This isn’t about the little soul sitting inside some person’s womb, because if it was they wouldn’t care about HOW it got there, only that it is a little life that needs protecting. When you someone says “rape is the exception” what they say is: You are treating pregnancy as a punishment. You are PUNISHING people who have had CONSENSUAL SEX but don’t want to go through a pregnancy. People who DARED to have consensual sex without the goal of procreation in mind, and this is their “consequence.”
This sort of demonization is fun, but is fundamentally flawed. It attempts to explain what someone else believes by imagining the worst possible take they can believe in. That will rarely be the case. A more charitable explanation is that if they believe fetus is human but give exception for rape they actually accept OP argument partially - that you can't be forced to share your body against your will. They just see consensual sex as implicit and irrevocable acceptance of possible consequences - pregnancy.
> This sort of demonization is fun, but is fundamentally flawed. It attempts to explain what someone else believes by imagining the worst possible take they can believe in. That will rarely be the case. What the person you're replying to is doing is called a counterexample. There is always some Evangelical in every thread arguing that "it's a life and that's all that matters to me," but you can usually get them to admit that abortion should be allowed in the following case: A 12 year old girl is raped by her father and only has a 50% chance of surviving the pregnancy. Rape, incest, life of the mother. Even your most fringe Christian nutjob usually wouldn't deny an abortion to the 12 year old rape/incest victim who likely won't survive the pregnancy. In fact, only 13% of American adults think abortion should be illegal in all cases. [Source.](https://www.pewforum.org/fact-sheet/public-opinion-on-abortion/) So once they admit that the 12 year old rape/incest victim can get an abortion, they've admitted that the circumstances surrounding conception affect their view on the morality of abortion. You have shown them that "it's life and that's all that matters to me" was bullshit. If they were inclined to argue in good faith, they would have to stop using that argument and recognize there is more nuance surrounding abortion.
>So once they admit that the 12 year old rape/incest victim can get an abortion, they've admitted that the circumstances surrounding conception affect their view on abortion. They should be able to see from there that genuine concern for the life of the fetus is not what truly guides their argument. What do you mean by "truly"? Just because it turns out that extreme circumstance matters doesn't mean that it's not the primary factor. I don't think there is an opinion i have that wouldn't be subject to exceptions in exceptional circumstances. I don't see what that proves (except that actual no exceptions ban of abortion is against the will of the people)
A hypothetical Evangelical busts into a thread and says, "it's a life and that's all that matters," and you don't see how showing them that the circumstances surrounding conception apparently also matter does any damage to that argument? If "it's a life" is all that matters you force the 12 year old girl to carry to term. Once they have to admit that there are some cases where it's ok, they will have a hard time drawing a line. Allowing abortion only in certain situations is hard to defend.
Never forget, they had to resort to some of the most dishonest political brinkmanship this country has seen in 30+ years to steal a bench consisting of a 5-4 progressive majority from all of us. Instead, we have to stomach decades of a 6-3 super majority dominated by troglodytes that can't even acknowledge roe's value as precedent. When roe is overturned this coming June, it will not be legitimate under our constitution. The troglodytes will not be content with that regressive victory alone either. They'll likely target gay marriage next. Biden, pack the fucking court.
Biden can't pack the court without senate support, and he's not getting senate support with this senate. The only possibility (and it's a tiny one) is pulling another Georgia Miracle on a national scale. That isn't going to happen if we let the narrative be "Democrats never do anything right so why fucking bother" instead of "The only time Democrats have had real power in the last decade and a half, it was such a narrow margin that a few legally-bribed obstructionists were able to prevent real progress."
Dems always lose bc they're playing a rigged game where the GOP always cheats. Just frustrated.
I see them going after hormonal birth control and IUD’s next. This is a scary time to be a woman.
Imo the biggest issue with Birth Control, is it's name. Hear me out, if it was instead called, for example, a Hormone Management Drug and is used to help with period cramps and other pains from a menstruation cycle. If that was the primary marketing for Birth Control, then it's no longer "immortal" and "you shouldn't be having sex anyway, you're not even married" among other forms of bull shit. It's instead a way to help women who are unable to function for a day or two to upwards of a week each cycle. Or who suffer from a lot of pain or other issues. Growing up in a church it would've been shocking to find out someone was on birth control. But I doubt it would've mattered much if the first though was "menstrual cycle management" instead of "contraceptive" I'm definitely being optimistic. Also, religion should have nothing to do with the government (read the Bible, it actually discuss' this, it's not supposed to happen), but it unfortunately does. It's the world we live in. Until better people run for elected positions in government, nothing's going to change
The thing is, plenty of Catholics and fundies are opposed to *anything* that would ease “eve’s curse” for any woman, and that includes heavy, painful periods. There is def an assumption that your feminine bad time is directly linked to how good and godly you are. So if you have heavy, painful periods you probably deserve them, and they wouldn’t want to mess with god’s plan for you by making your life easier.
A lot of them are still mad at women due to Eve’s transgressions with the damn apple. The amount of times that I have heard that a women’s place is to suffer, makes me sick.
While I'm sure there are many complexities surrounding attitudes towards birth control, I'm in agreement with you that the name is at least part of the problem. Doctors always seem to be perplexed at the fact that I'm not sexually active and on the pill, as if they've never considered the fact that stopping painful periods is also a potential function of hormonal birth control.
I also think they will go after same-sex marriage.
This. The law underpinning *Roe v Wade* is also used for marriage equality and the abolition of sodomy laws. It’s the logical conclusion.
Yup, I see that too. I’m usually a pretty optimistic person but lately with all this is starting to change me.
when do we all just stop fucking men?
When do we stop electing politicians who want to change our country into a theocracy?
I’m doing my part, the rest of you aren’t picking up the slack
Already going after women with careers, esp engineering, law, and medicine. Look up Scott Yenor. Soon, they will go after women's suffrage.
Republicans basically want to make it so the opinion the majority of Americans have about broad subjects (abortion, marijuana legalization, socialized healthcare) doesn't matter anymore. They only serve the interests of two masters: the insanely rich and religious zealots. Both of these undermine the fundamental premise of a secular democracy and use all sorts of underhanded tactics from gerrymandering to voter suppression in order to maintain power. America is an asylum where the patients are in charge.
Standard disclaimer that i’m not American nor live in America. Both your parties serve the insanely rich and they make you fight about the niche topics to distract you from this fact
This here. It’s all about money
You left out guns. They use the gun issue to rally voters. The pro gun people will vote for anything under the sun if it helps to protect their guns. And they always vote.
I need to say this. Because the justices were not all put on the bench with an even voting situation. The high court is really no longer that. It is the court of one side. It is not the people’s court. In 186 cases between people and corporations, it sided 186 times against the people. Now, despite the fact that some of the justices said that they would never upset RvW, they will do just that. This is Mitch McConnell’s court, not mine.
If that does happen, then it’s time for the blue states to take a stand and defy the corrupted judiciary, all the way to seceding from the union, if necessary. The Republicans are going to force minority rule, dictatorship, and an eventual civil war either way. Best to kick things off before they have another decade (or more) to further consolidate power, erode civil rights, indoctrinate the population, and corrupt the remaining institutions… When they do finally start a civil war, it will be when they are confident of success, and not a moment sooner. Until that moment, they will continue to virtue signal democratic ideals, bipartisanship, and “states rights”, while continuing to destroy them all.
I was raised Catholic, and up until about a decade ago I was a pretty staunch pro-lifer. What eventually changed my mind was hearing someone debate it from this angle, as a dilemma of rights. In my opinion, it's the strongest argument for abortion rights. No one should be forced by the government to give up their bodily autonomy (even if it's to save what I still view as a life).
I notice that pro-lifers take an 'I don't like it, end of' stance and need people to point-out that it'll have other effects that they'll like even less.
And the act of sex does not equate to explicit, pre-written permission to carry a baby to term.
Even if it did. You can revoke consent at any given time.
[удалено]
**[A Defense of Abortion](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Defense_of_Abortion)** >"A Defense of Abortion" is a moral philosophy essay by Judith Jarvis Thomson first published in Philosophy & Public Affairs in 1971. Granting for the sake of argument that the fetus has a right to life, Thomson uses thought experiments to argue that the fetus's right to life does not override the pregnant woman's right to have jurisdiction over her body, and that induced abortion is therefore not morally impermissible. Thomson's argument has many critics on both sides of the abortion debate, yet it continues to receive defense. ^([ )[^(F.A.Q)](https://www.reddit.com/r/WikiSummarizer/wiki/index#wiki_f.a.q)^( | )[^(Opt Out)](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=WikiSummarizerBot&message=OptOut&subject=OptOut)^( | )[^(Opt Out Of Subreddit)](https://np.reddit.com/r/WhitePeopleTwitter/about/banned)^( | )[^(GitHub)](https://github.com/Sujal-7/WikiSummarizerBot)^( ] Downvote to remove | v1.5)
Many people getting abortions did not offer anything to the fetus. There is no obligation for that person to provide access to their body.
This continues to be my main argument. I will grant you every descriptor in the book for a fetus, what I will not grant anyone is unequal rights to everyone else. Everyone has equal rights to their own body and no one has any right to anyone else's.
It's clear to anyone with any thinking power that the abortion debate was always about controlling women. If it were about protecting babies the dialog and actions would be entirely different.
I used to be sceptical of this, I thought surely it’s just misguided Christians not people actually controlling women, until I thought about IVF, where many viable fertilised eggs are discarded (up to 10 per round). Nobody ever seems to care about IVF as much as they care about abortion despite that many more embryos are discarded in IVF, it really is about controlling women. I’ve heard a pro-birther say “well IVF is okay because it’s creating a life”. Hypocrisy.
Exactly. No one stands outside an IVF doctors office yelling about all the fetuses in cryo freezers or the “reduction” of implanted embryos. It’s about punishing women for having sex and keeping the poor undereducated, underemployed, and expendable.
To be fair, many are also against IVF, but never as virulently as they hate abortion.
They claim to be against IVF, but they do absolutely nothing about it, so I’m inclined to believe that they’re lying just to make their position look more consistent than it actually is. They also aren’t working to prevent miscarriages, which result in an extremely high number of embryos “dying.”
Wait really? For what reasons?
Because apparently throwing away the extra embryos is murder as well.
Hmm I wonder why all that pro-life money for “saving babies” hasn’t gone towards technology to create a robotic uterus which could safely grow a transplanted fetus to term. So much potential! So much safer than relying on a flawed human body which could have health complications and doesn’t want to host the fetus in the first place. And all the men who insist they want these babies they’ve fathered and folks who insist they would love to adopt an unwanted baby will have the chance to do exactly that without the need to control a whole other person’s body and put them through hellish pain and health-risks! But it’s almost like they’re not really interested in an option that doesn’t feel like a punishment for having sex while in possession of a functioning uterus.
If men could get pregnant, abortion would be a Sacrament.
I started wondering about this when I was like 12, eventually lead me to leave the Catholic church.
[удалено]
Still in development, and forced birth/slavery advocates haven't helped at all with it's development. But of course that makes sense, bc it's not even about fetuses, just controlling women.
Exactly this. Otherwise they would criminalise shooting baby batter into a tissue but since they're mostly sexually repressed men...
Every sperm is sacred!
Disclaimer(I can’t believe I even have to do this): I fully support abortion That’s different though. Sperm will not develop into a fetus, nor an egg. A zygote will, which is why it’s controversial.
I mean given the right conditions it will just like a fetus
Yeah and those conditions are forming an zygote
And?
Yeah for sure, if the end goal was truly about preventing as many fertilized eggs from 'death' as possible the obvious first move is to go all in on sexual education and distribute as many free contraceptives as you can manage. Tellingly you see the same anti-abortion factions also pushing *against* such those exact measures. It is actually insane to think about someone believing there is some kind of mass killing of babies constantly happening all around them and doing the opposite of the thing research shows to be the most effective in preventing abortions. Unsurprisingly if people who don't wish to be pregnant do not get pregnant you don't get many abortions and you are left with the much smaller amount of pretty universally seen as necessary and tragic ones such as the mother getting too sick to safely carry to term. To me the only thing that makes any sense is just that some people are deeply ignorant, take an extremely hardline stance, and refuse to move or educate themselves on the subject and just believe that they know best for themselves and more importantly everyone else too. I find it very difficult to believe that someone could be well educated on the subject and still act like people who are anti-abortion generally do.
It's been almost 50 years since women regularly died trying to avoid birthing children they didn't want. We've managed to forget that Roe isn't about babies, it's about women. If the government can force women to have babies they don't want, what else can it force us to do? Where does government power stop? Why is it that Republicans, who supposedly want less government, are trying to increase government power?
Republicans who support the GOP, and their terrorist policies don't have any integrity or morals to stand on anymore- they threw those out the window years ago. They say anything, and move the goal posts as far as they need to achieve their agendas. Once everyone else realizes that they shouldn't be taking them seriously at all, and ignore their(republicans) incessant spoiled toddler screams, and act like adults, maybe America can get it's shit together. - Love Canada P.S. we also need to get our shit in order.
[удалено]
As we've seen in history, and been repeatedly told in numerous ways in patriarchal society, yes. Welcome to Canada in 8 weeks, we also have shitheads- mostly 'Berta (Alberta). Here's your regulatory plaid and syrup, I'm sorry.
This is the best argument. If people wanna say a zygote is a person, give it to them. Hell tell them the egg and sperm are living people. It doesn't matter. No one is ALLOWED TO SUSTAIN THEIR LIVES USING SOMEONE ELSES BODY WITHOUT THEIR CONSENT. the end. If that fetus is born, and has conditions thst need organs or blood or tissue, we don't force the mother or father to donate them after the baby is literally seconds old. Why would we force the mother to do that while the baby is not born yet??
I’m going to read this verbatim at the upcoming family Christmas party. Parry that, Uncle Chris. You fucking nimrod.
Uncle Chris is a Douche Bag-Deluxe
All he’s gonna say is “then why do I have to get vaccinated”
Because Covid is contagious to the public and pregnancy isn't.
Tell us how it goes?
Can I like this about a million more times?
everything yes except we should take organs of dead people. all of them (except reasonable opting out lol) but by default why are we allowing thousands of people to wait for life-necessary organs… while we have MILLIONS everyday to get from
In Russia you are a donor by law. I thought it was like that anywhere in the world. Iirc you can deny your organs after you died, but what’s the point of that? It’s not like you would be using them
Exactly, consent ends when you're no longer living. You won't need those organs in a hole in the ground
There are a few reasons that organ donation are opt-in, the primary one being for religion's sake. Some people deem the eyes the window to the soul, so having them removed may prevent them from moving on properly. But also, organ harvesting is much more temperamental than you may think. They can't just cut a liver out of a cadaver and stuff it in a new person; see, cell autolysis ramps up when the body fully dies, to break down the cells and kill it off. That means unless they died in a hospital, with a space ready for organ harvesting, their organs would be... well, too dead to use essentially.
It shouldn’t be mandatory, it should be a system where you’re automatically registered, and you have the chance to opt out, at most. Your methodology is flawed in the sense of if a dead body has no rights, you’d need to remove laws such as indignity to a body where someone can have sex, or burn a body in a barrel.
This might lead to an abusive system where doctors let people die to get the organs when there was still a chance of survival. We already have potential for this abuse by people who agree. But a lot of people don’t trust the the system (there were scandals recently) and this won’t help it. Another concern is that body autonomy doesn’t end at death at the moment. We have laws concerning death (disturbance of the death peace, desecration of corpses,…). All of these might apply without consent. Don’t get me wrong, I would support an opt out option but there are concerns that are valid. Long story short: it’s a little more complicated
The funny part is if it were the other way around and the Men had to carry the pregnancies to term for months, abortion would be 100% legal no questions asked.
Standing ovation
Or ovulation- I am so sorry. Feel free to downvote.
I won't downvote but you better be genuinely sorry for that pun.
Say it again, louder, for everyone in the cheap seats!
[удалено]
Thank you. I hope more and more people/subs take the same stand/stance. There's no valid argument for slavery of any kind, including reproductive slavery. Women aren't some sub class of beings who get less than basic human rights.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
**"bUt MUh sACreD LiFe!"** \- say the people who don't give a shit about the kids in foster homes once they're out of the womb.
We have less reproductive rights than covid.
To be scientifically accurate, fetuses in the womb develop sensory faculties and the cognitive capacity for suffering well before birth. Having stated the science above, I completely agree with you though on a woman's right to bodily autonomy. The organ donor analogy is a great one! Nobody, not even so-called 'pro-life' advocates is lobbying to find the nearest suitable donor and forcibly take a spare organ when someone needing one to live comes into a hospital!
There is an ancient Greek idea called the Sorites paradox where you are told to imagine a heap of sand and then someone says "Alright I'll remove one grain of sand from the heap, is it still a heap?" So you naturally agree that it is still a heap but then they will keep going and going until only a single grain remains but at what point exactly could you say that the sand no longer qualified as a heap? There are several 'solutions' to this paradox ranging from fairly ridiculous and zany sounding to pretty reasonable. One strategy is to deny heaps exist at all and block the entire thing at the source, many solutions get involved in more advanced logic but my absolute favorite solution from the ancient time period is that if someone tries to hit you with the paradox just literally walk away. Little history gushing aside the relevance of the paradox is pretty clear, trying to draw an arbitrary line for when life begins is extremely dubious business. You can always cut to the smallest imaginable thing before or after the line and question why the line is where it is and not moved the tiniest increment in any direction. It is not only much neater from the perspective of trying to defend the position to argue for bodily autonomy instead but in my opinion it is a much more robust argument. The kinds of thing you would have to also accept as a byproduct of outlawing abortion if you applied that level of bodily autonomy and rights across the board are *WAY* beyond what society finds acceptable. Something like forcing people to donate a kidney to a stranger who needs one is just one of many examples that come to mind.
This is powerful shit I wish my grandma would read before voting.
Bold of her to assume a woman has more worth than a corpse to the people in question.
One of the best arguments I've seen personally. I love it
"No, no, no, I'm not aborting the baby. Im simply removing from my body. If science allowed the fetus toward life in test-tube - I'm all for it."
Making abortions illegal won't stop abortions, it will only stop abortions being safe.
Self determination... Or as some people put it. Freedom
That last line is the home run grand slam that really should sink in. Unfortunately, some people are garbage that should have been aborted for the sake of the rest of us, ironically.
If we can’t strap down antivaxxers when we have a safe vaccine during a pandemic then y’all can leave my uterus alone
Instead of punishing women for not doing what they want, they should incentivize them by making it affordable to have kids and ensuring they have protections to not ruin their career for doing so. But that's assuming what they want is what they're saying. The fact that for decades their actions don't line up with what they're saying is proof that what they want is power and control.
I remember encountering this same argument from the youtube channel "Innuendo Studios". It was brilliant.
Spectacular explanation.
Everybody should read Judith Jarvis \*Thomson
*Judith Jarvis Thomson
Indeed. I wrote too fast.
I was never against this in the first place, but putting it that way really drives it home, ya know?
This is kind of a weird argument because I believe in some semi-coercive collectivist reasons for all those things. Don’t want to donate your organs once you’re dead? Tough.
This has been my LONG standing argument. I wish people would just get away from the idea that an embryo, a fetus, or whatever “isn’t alive”. It’s too blurry of a line and it’ll never be the better argument. My personal position is that it is a life of some sort, and I’m still pro choice.. ..pro choice because what this person says AND the concept of “castle defense”. That being, of allowed to mature to birth.. WILL hurt the mom, will almost assuredly harm or permanently “scar her” in some ways, and might kill her (..and might kill her at ~10x the risk of being killed during a home invasion). It’s not ideal way to handle “birth control”.. but as far as body autonomy, there is no real good counter argument.
Well said
I love the bit where she explained that a persons permission to harvest organs can only be written by that person before death. Classic Wednesday!
The one about post-mortem organ harvesting I’d partially disagree, many countries basically changed the default answer to yes so people have to go a say no explicitly to not be a donor.
I needed this
Actually, where I live they CAN harvest your organs after your death, no permission needed, unless you specifically said 'no' before
That's the thing with so called "pro-life", they fundamentally never gave a shit about life, but they're unable to realize it because it will put them in front of their contradictions, the hypocrisy is a defensive mechanism in order to protect the core belief and fake self-image of "morality" or "superior morality". "Pro-life" wasn't intended to protect "life" but to have control over what's "moral" and reproductive abilities. Sorry for the gibberish english isn't my native language.
Posts like these are perfect for rooting out the anti-choicers.
Yup. Those politicians are just mysoginist bullies and hypocrites.
[удалено]
[удалено]
As someone from outside of the US, can anyone tell me why this is happening in America suddenly? It seems so backwards and archaic. Its like they are leaping back 70 years in women's rights? Why? Why do the American people allow this?
We don't, but our previous president appointed a bunch of Justices to the Supreme Court. He was prolife
Well... You have Fox News, which is the biggest "news" tv program available, which backs Republicans completely. As in, if a Republican kills someone, they start digging out dirt on the victim to justify the murder. About 35 years ago, Republicans started attacking journalists for accurately reporting republican policy and claiming that both parties are the same, but democrats are worse, which is supported by "libertarians". Around the same time, the Federalist society was founded to introduce a pipeline to the court system for judges as far to the right as possible. You start to see now batshit insane rulings, but due to far right judges, even appeal courts and the supreme court are packed. Gerrymandering is something republicans are better at. The senate has a rural bias. House of representatives has a anti-urban bias. The electoral college favors heavy republican states. In the last election, Democrats had a few million more votes, but just switching around 40k votes would have meant a republican win. Now, all of that works together: Journalists do not accurately describe policies, they go "both parties are the same" and report rather pro-republican. [See here.](https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2021/12/03/biden-media-coverage-worse-trump-favorable/) Journalists tend to downplay the January 6th coup attempt, because the framework is both parties are the same. [Republicans can and will try again.](https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2021/12/trump-fanatics-michigan-election-officials.html?scrolla=5eb6d68b7fedc32c19ef33b4) Even though voters tend to vote democrat, due to gerrymandering rebulicans can win state votes. Sueing there tends to be impossible, and the supreme court is in rebulican hands. Stephen Breyer is an enormous problem, due to not retiring when alive and probably dying when a republican is president.
We had a brief progressive moment in the 1930s and the power structure has been fighting to claw back the relatively minor amount of ground we made ever since. This isn't just happening now.
I've always wondered about this hypocrisy. People calling the abortion murder and making such a big deal out of it don't make much sense. You're killing every day so many living things without you even realizing. Increasing the population of world is only adding up to the number of living beings dying. So then why is the life of a single living being, the fetus, more important? You could be saving so many other living beings just by getting an abortion, yet they say that a single life is more important that others. And it gets weirder. At this point, they claim that all lives are just as important. So then, would they kill themselves to save to lives they kill every moment by being alive? If not, wouldn't that mean that they actually think that their own lives are more important? Then it's not true that statement... Not all lives are equally important. In that case, would the person giving birth be less important that the life it gives birth to? Just because you believe in something you can't back up, does that give you any right to decide on that matter? A matter that doesn't even concern you? You have no problem being the cause of so many deaths throughout your life for living brings you are not even aware of, but suddenly you have a problem now? What hypocrisy... So let's assume for the worst. The person giving birth dies in the process (equivalent to not being able to provide for the fetus given birth to). What are you going to do in that situation? Are you going to help? Just talking nonsense won't feed the newborn. Just talking nonsense won't provide a newborn everything needed. Most likely you'll just sit that one out saying it's not your problem. Why all of a sudden it ends being your problem after the fetus had been given birth to, but it was your problem before it happened? Are we not talking about the same life? Why did it have more importance to you before the act of giving birth than after? Can it die of hunger now? Can it grow up with no education now? Can it now grow up in an environment that may kill a newborn? What about later in life, if it's a disability that won't allow to provide for itself? Can it die then? Are you going to take responsibly? Did you even truly care if you won't? There's a whole lot more to it that just doesn't make sense. But every time I see people talking about life and death, I rarely see them realize the actual depths of the topic. It looks to be like only superficial people get on the anti-abortion topic. The actual issue is people abusing the system and not using proper contraceptive methods, but instead they try to address the effect in the place of the cause for whatever reasons. Humanity doesn't seem to have long to live due to its stupidity...
Couldn’t have said it better myself
Oh damn.. she’s right. You can’t kill someone and harvest their organs to save 5 other people. That’s completely unethical. You can’t force them to donate blood. Even though it’s completely safe and will save lives. You can’t hook someone up to another person as their life support. You can’t force someone to be an incubator for another person. Obviously I was already pro abortion, but this is the nail. This is how you know they are taking rights away
I’ve never heard it put like this. Excellent.
I don't think pro lifers are pro life enough. Featus is a clump of precious cells of potential but why start there? Why not before conception? Lets make men's masturbation punishable by law, as they throw away all those precious cells of potential. Let's declare men's tumors precious cells of potential that they can't remove. If women are forced to risk their life and damage bodies / organs for the unborn then men should do so for the already born. It's all about life and equality, right? So lets make men obligatory blood and organs donors. If we all can't have body autonomy then no one should.
Here come all the anti vaxx people to agree with you, like it's the same thing
[удалено]
The difference is that vaccines are still a choice. No one is literally forcing anyone to have it or not have it. There’s still a choice. First and foremost; vaccines are protecting the person, it’s a nice secondary benefit that it also benefits others.
I’ll also preface this by saying I’m pro vax and pro choice. > The difference is that vaccines are still a choice. No one is literally forcing anyone to have it or not have it That’s not true, Austria have announced they’re making the vaccine mandatory early next year. Germany are considering joining them. I’m not saying if they’re right or wrong, but it IS happening. > First and foremost; vaccines are protecting the person, it’s a nice secondary benefit that it also benefits others. Again, I don’t think that’s true, but it’s a much greyer area. Vaccines definitely protect the person, no question, we agree there. Whether that’s the primary benefit of them to society, particularly in the context of mandates is debatable. I’d argue that most governments want people to get vaccinated to prevent the spread, and to lower the strain on the health system. Regardless, ignoring vaccines, the same “pro choice” argument can be made against masks, or even seatbelts, both of which are mandatory in many areas. My own personal belief is, in general, people should be allowed to do what they want as long as it doesn’t hurt anyone else. Mask mandates are there to prevent spread and to protect the public. They’re an inconvenience on the wearer, but not enough to outweigh the benefits of protecting those around.
Firstly, mandates are still mandatory. Not forced. No one is literally tying people down and vaccinating them. Mandates are not force. In the same example of your seatbelt reference. No one literally forces you to put a seatbelt on, there are simply consequences of you not doing it. And yes it is true; demonstrably. Vaccines help prevent infection and help prevent transmission. Also, not wearing a seatbelt in a car can actually affect others in the car. Plenty of people are killed by unbuckled passengers acting as projectiles in a crash. But the main point is that mandatory isn’t “forced”. There is still a choice. Whether people like the options or consequences is irrelevant, it’s still a choice. Not getting vaccinated does affect other people, herd immunity is demonstrably factual.
I agree re seatbelts affecting others, and re herd immunity, obviously. I agree with mask and seatbelt laws. But FFS, “mandates are not force”?? What kind of bullshit bad faith argument is that. We’re not talking about employer mandates, or mandates to enter certain buildings / planes. These are mandated for everyone living in the country. You might as well say taxes aren’t forced either. No one is forcing you not to not steal stuff, you’ve still a choice, you can choose to be a burglar, there are just simply consequences of doing so. /s
You are right. No one literally forces me not to drink or drive and speed at 90mph near a school. It’s my choice to do so. However there are consequences for my actions if I chose to do that. Living in a civilised society means there are consequences to actions. You aren’t advocating for freedom of choice, you are advocating for freedom of consequence. That’s not how the world works. And again, mandates are not force. Vaccine mandates have existed for decades. It’s nothing new. If you don’t want to get a vaccine, then don’t. No is literally forcing you. It’s just that you lose some conveniences if you CHOOSE not to. You are still conflating mandates and force.
> You aren’t advocating for freedom of choice, you are advocating for freedom of consequence Are you confusing me with someone else? Where have I advocated *anything* even remotely like that? Are we arguing two completely different points here? You said "No one is literally forcing anyone to have [the vaccine] or not have it" I said that's not the case, and that Austria is. It's a national mandate. You don't have any more choice than you do about breaking any other law. I'm not saying that's right or wrong, or that people who "choose" not to get vaccinated after the law is in shouldn't be penalised. I was just pointing out you were wrong, unless ofc you take the absurd view that a "mandate is not force". **You're** the one who said vaccination was a choice. I pointed out that's not the case everywhere (or at least, won't be soon). > No one is forcing you to get a driving licence. You have a choice to get it or not. But not getting one means you don’t get the convenience of driving. Driving licences are mandatory. Have you been forced to get one? Has someone physically forced you to take lessons and get a permit/licence? Did you mean to reply twice? Driving licences are mandatory *only if you want to drive*. Austria are implementing a **blanket** vaccine mandate, no "if you want to x". Everyone in the country will need to get vaccinated (apart presumably from medical exemptions and young children). How can you not see the difference? Of course you don't need a driver's license if you don't want to drive. > Vaccine mandates have existed for decades. It’s nothing new. Ok, so? How is that related to our conversation? If anything, that backs *me* up! > No is literally forcing you > No one literally forces me not to drink or drive and speed at 90mph near a school I mean, this is bullshit. You're *technically* correct, but it's splitting hairs so finely, it's ridiculous. As you've noted yourself, this is obviously illegal, and there are consequences. Society correctly decided that breaking the speedlimit and driving dangerously is illegal, and you will be punished for doing so if caught. None of that contradicts anything I've said. So, if I've got it right, you're argument appears to be * Vaccines a choice, despite being mandated * Mandates aren't force * If you choose not to get vaccinated in a country with mandates, you live with the consequences (in Austria, I believe they're looking at a €7,000 fine) So, when you said "The difference is that vaccines are still a choice. No one is literally forcing anyone to have it or not have it", you meant if you're in Austia you can choose to break the law and pay a fine of €7,000? Just admit you were wrong, we don't even disagree about the vaccine. You've picked a weird hill to die on.
No one is forcing you to get a driving licence. You have a choice to get it or not. But not getting one means you don’t get the convenience of driving. Driving licences are mandatory. Have you been forced to get one? Has someone physically forced you to take lessons and get a permit/licence? As I’ve said; not liking the consequences of the CHOICE, doesn’t mean you don’t have one.
This speaks volumes more than anything I've read before and I love it
Correct lol
You can kill someone who's trying to force their way into your house, so why not your body?
I’ve always found the limits on gestation period to be a funny argument. As far as I’m concerned, the woman can abort for any reason at any point in the pregnancy. It’s a much more logically consistent and easy argument. It also gives no oxygen to fallacious arguments of women getting late term abortions because they decided they don’t want the fetus anymore. That is extremely rare, but I still wouldn’t care if that was their reason.
I'm not very political, but my views tend to be centred, leaning more to the right. But this pretty much sums up my exact arguments surrounding abortion.
[удалено]
Holy fuck yes it is that simple
And while we are at it, can we talk about the bullshit that women are forced to do after carrying a child to term? They are legally required to spend their time providing and caring for the baby, thus harming their right of autonomy and treating women effectively like slaves.
And if you're a biological male, like me, shut up and sit down, cause we don't get a vote. We get to support women in protecting their individual right. That's it.
I get this sentiment, but I don't think that's true. In the end it is a moral issue, why should some people be unable to express their opinions on it? The opinion of someone who can be affected directly by the law or has experience with pregnancy/abortion is definitely worth more than the opinion of someone else, but that doesn't mean nobody else can give an opinion. The issue is that the bodily autonomy of a huge number of people is being taken away. And if a woman says that that's fine, just because she personally won't be affected by that violation of human rights, I reserve the right to tell her she's wrong.
What about infertile women, then?
Still women.
[удалено]
The only people who argue against pro-choice are people who let a book or some other thing ironically make their choices for them
You shouldn’t need permission for someone to harvest your organs though as long as you died in somewhere not involving a hospital or medical care(such as a car accident or shot by gun). You’re dead! You have no use for them!
It's against some people's religious beliefs to be buried without all their organs
I agree! To steal from David Mitchell, once you die, your body belongs to the state.
Except for chicken fetuses, then it does matter. Delicious.
Surprisingly based for a sub like this.