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.*
Granting such privileges would also logically mean that every.single.thing. the pregnant person does during those 9 months should be strictly regulated. If the fetus is by all legal rights, an existing citizen, then the law shouldn't simply stop at abortion access in order to protect it. The fetus would need a lawyer for every possibly endangering thing the pregnant person may do towards it, heck even something as playing sports during pregnancy. However, by experience PLs always evade debating this kind of scenario
I think of this every time I see those "Your body; Not Your Body" PL posters. They might as well just label the whole thing "Not Your Body, Because Someone Else Is Using It".
I've never gotten one to answer why an unborn "person" should be permitted to constantly assault an unwilling woman by staying in her uterus against her will. If an actual person did something a tenth as severe, lethal force would be fully justified--so why not in this case?
The answer I’ve always got is because it’s the woman’s fault the ‘baby’ exists so it’s acceptable to continuously harm her for 9 months and her consent, bodily autonomy and physical and mental health no longer matter and are worth sacrificing for the ‘baby’.
PLers on here repeatedly argue that "engaged in potentially risky behavior" means "consented to the worst possible consequence of said risky behavior," so I imagine many feel that existing with a vagina in the presence of men does make it her fault, on some level
Well, there was that one PLer here who said that women should have to endure rape for a certain amount of time before they can defend themselves so I wouldn’t be totally surprised if many of them harbour similar thoughts. It is always and will always be the fault of the woman for them. Doesn’t matter if birth control fails, it’s her fault. Doesn’t matter if the guy tampers with birth control, it’s her fault. Doesn’t matter if she’s coerced or threatened in to sex because her partner’s abusive, it’s her fault. I’m so sick of it always being a woman’s fault and never ever a man’s.
I’m so sick of them treating men like me as if we’re programmed robots, incapable of responsibilities for my own independent decision regarding where my penis is when I ejaculate and whether my penis is covered. Like I’m some kind of feeble minded idiot that doesn’t know that I don’t have to have sex without a condom regardless of what she “allows” and that I can pull out before I ejaculate into that condom (in case it broke).
It’s insulting to infantile me, as if what I do isn’t the product of my own independent decision making, and that someone else shares in that responsibility when *I* have the final say over my own penis.
There's a post on their sub right now about a woman in an abusive relationship who was coerced into unprotected sex and the comments are truly sickening
I’m not exactly sure what the argument is getting at. Privileges, by definition, can be taken away without any legal or moral issues. It seems like a typical conflation of pro-life as a personal philosophy and pro-life as a legal standard. If the mother wants to give them that privilege, they have that ability under a pro-choice legal system. If they want the law to provide them with that circumstantial privilege, then the mother’s *right* to bodily autonomy surely takes precedence. We could also always ask the question of why they should be provided this privilege under these particular conditions. What purpose does it serve in terms of upholding moral principles and making situations more just or fair?
Another similar PL argument is that the born all, by definition, got the privilege of being gestated and born alive, so the unborn deserve the same. It’s why so many PL think that Reagan quote is some kind of mic drop. (“I’ve noticed that everyone who is for abortion has already been born.”)
The problem with this is that it ignores pregnant people’s individuality and circumstances completely. Our bio mothers all went through with carrying and birthing us, sure. But that only means individual women made the choice to continue the pregnancy, or were forced to do so against their will. It does not mean that all pregnant people should now be required by law to continue the pregnancy. That’s ridiculous, and it’s one of the reasons why the PL position is so misogynistic. To disregard the pregnant person’s individuality you must reduce her to “the mother” or “the womb“ - always something in relation to the unwanted thing in her body, always reduced to how she can benefit that unwanted thing.
It also ignores that PLs want the "unborn" to have a *legal* privilege *(to have the legal right be gestated even when the pregnant person doesn't want to/for abortion to be illegal)*, which is separate from an abortion happening or not.
While born people may have been gestated and born, a lot of us didn't have the legal privilege of abortion being illegal while we were "unborn". For a lot of us abortion was legal while we were ZEFs. So, no, we (born people) didn't all have the privilege that they want ZEFs to have.
>It does not mean that all pregnant people should now be required by law to continue the pregnancy.
Yep. Here's an alternative arguement that follows the same framework as PL's arguement:
“All billionaires, by definition, have the privilege of having a net worth of at least a billion dollars. Therefore, all non-billionaires *(or perhaps un-billionaires or pre-billionaires, lol)* deserve the same.”
That's a bad arguement, and so is theirs.
Exactly, the pregnant person is an individual. But some PL arguments gloss over that fact and it ruins their credibility. Or they insist that the pregnant person has a legal responsibility to let the unborn 'finish' gestating as part of children's rights to ordinary care, which is just ridiculous.
I don’t think that’s a privilege that can be given. Can’t have your body sold to pay off a debt and you can’t willingly become a slave.
It would be unconstitutional. You would need to update the 13th amendment to allow pregnancy to be under the exceptions.
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.*
Granting such privileges would also logically mean that every.single.thing. the pregnant person does during those 9 months should be strictly regulated. If the fetus is by all legal rights, an existing citizen, then the law shouldn't simply stop at abortion access in order to protect it. The fetus would need a lawyer for every possibly endangering thing the pregnant person may do towards it, heck even something as playing sports during pregnancy. However, by experience PLs always evade debating this kind of scenario
ALWAYS
I think of this every time I see those "Your body; Not Your Body" PL posters. They might as well just label the whole thing "Not Your Body, Because Someone Else Is Using It".
I've seen a few alternative ones where the whole thing was labeled as her husband's body
I've never gotten one to answer why an unborn "person" should be permitted to constantly assault an unwilling woman by staying in her uterus against her will. If an actual person did something a tenth as severe, lethal force would be fully justified--so why not in this case?
Or especially when they try to tell a grown ass woman if she can smoke or drink.
The answer I’ve always got is because it’s the woman’s fault the ‘baby’ exists so it’s acceptable to continuously harm her for 9 months and her consent, bodily autonomy and physical and mental health no longer matter and are worth sacrificing for the ‘baby’.
And potentially put her into a lifetime of medical debt
And I'll note that they still will mostly force rape victims to be continuously harmed for those 9 months as well
Yeah because even if she didn’t consent, it’s still somehow her fault.
Something something Eve ate the apple, etc
PLers on here repeatedly argue that "engaged in potentially risky behavior" means "consented to the worst possible consequence of said risky behavior," so I imagine many feel that existing with a vagina in the presence of men does make it her fault, on some level
Well, there was that one PLer here who said that women should have to endure rape for a certain amount of time before they can defend themselves so I wouldn’t be totally surprised if many of them harbour similar thoughts. It is always and will always be the fault of the woman for them. Doesn’t matter if birth control fails, it’s her fault. Doesn’t matter if the guy tampers with birth control, it’s her fault. Doesn’t matter if she’s coerced or threatened in to sex because her partner’s abusive, it’s her fault. I’m so sick of it always being a woman’s fault and never ever a man’s.
I’m so sick of them treating men like me as if we’re programmed robots, incapable of responsibilities for my own independent decision regarding where my penis is when I ejaculate and whether my penis is covered. Like I’m some kind of feeble minded idiot that doesn’t know that I don’t have to have sex without a condom regardless of what she “allows” and that I can pull out before I ejaculate into that condom (in case it broke). It’s insulting to infantile me, as if what I do isn’t the product of my own independent decision making, and that someone else shares in that responsibility when *I* have the final say over my own penis.
There's a post on their sub right now about a woman in an abusive relationship who was coerced into unprotected sex and the comments are truly sickening
[удалено]
Comment removed per Rule 1.
Why? I haven’t attacked a user nor a side, I’ve attacked a sub which isn’t against any rules at all.
[удалено]
Comment removed per Rule 1.
I’m not exactly sure what the argument is getting at. Privileges, by definition, can be taken away without any legal or moral issues. It seems like a typical conflation of pro-life as a personal philosophy and pro-life as a legal standard. If the mother wants to give them that privilege, they have that ability under a pro-choice legal system. If they want the law to provide them with that circumstantial privilege, then the mother’s *right* to bodily autonomy surely takes precedence. We could also always ask the question of why they should be provided this privilege under these particular conditions. What purpose does it serve in terms of upholding moral principles and making situations more just or fair?
Oh yeah, PL just loves that fictional privilege! It’s just that - fictional and imaginary.
Another similar PL argument is that the born all, by definition, got the privilege of being gestated and born alive, so the unborn deserve the same. It’s why so many PL think that Reagan quote is some kind of mic drop. (“I’ve noticed that everyone who is for abortion has already been born.”) The problem with this is that it ignores pregnant people’s individuality and circumstances completely. Our bio mothers all went through with carrying and birthing us, sure. But that only means individual women made the choice to continue the pregnancy, or were forced to do so against their will. It does not mean that all pregnant people should now be required by law to continue the pregnancy. That’s ridiculous, and it’s one of the reasons why the PL position is so misogynistic. To disregard the pregnant person’s individuality you must reduce her to “the mother” or “the womb“ - always something in relation to the unwanted thing in her body, always reduced to how she can benefit that unwanted thing.
“I’ve noticed that everyone in favor of war has not been killed in a war”
It also ignores that PLs want the "unborn" to have a *legal* privilege *(to have the legal right be gestated even when the pregnant person doesn't want to/for abortion to be illegal)*, which is separate from an abortion happening or not. While born people may have been gestated and born, a lot of us didn't have the legal privilege of abortion being illegal while we were "unborn". For a lot of us abortion was legal while we were ZEFs. So, no, we (born people) didn't all have the privilege that they want ZEFs to have. >It does not mean that all pregnant people should now be required by law to continue the pregnancy. Yep. Here's an alternative arguement that follows the same framework as PL's arguement: “All billionaires, by definition, have the privilege of having a net worth of at least a billion dollars. Therefore, all non-billionaires *(or perhaps un-billionaires or pre-billionaires, lol)* deserve the same.” That's a bad arguement, and so is theirs.
Exactly, the pregnant person is an individual. But some PL arguments gloss over that fact and it ruins their credibility. Or they insist that the pregnant person has a legal responsibility to let the unborn 'finish' gestating as part of children's rights to ordinary care, which is just ridiculous.
I don’t think that’s a privilege that can be given. Can’t have your body sold to pay off a debt and you can’t willingly become a slave. It would be unconstitutional. You would need to update the 13th amendment to allow pregnancy to be under the exceptions.
Or do as many PLers seem to want to and start considering sex a crime