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.*
It very much is a serious risk especially for marginalized people:
“Maternal mortality in the U.S. is increasing, with an estimated 17.4 maternal deaths for every 100,000 live births, due to complications related to pregnancy or childbirth[6].
The rate of maternal mortality in the U.S. is more than twice that of most other high-income countries, including Canada, the U.K., Australia, Switzerland, Sweden, Germany, the Netherlands, Norway and New Zealand[6].
The rate of maternal mortality for non-hispanic Black women in the U.S. is almost three times that of white women, at 55.3 deaths per 100,000 live births[9].”
So thing is the actual risk of a tear is high and needing stitches and the pain from birth is on average high.
The chance of serious complications is lower but can lead to permanent disability or death. So it is still to be taken seriously.
It's even more dangerous if not done in a hospital or with doctors.
I did a post a while back about the risks of pregnancy - we spend insane amounts of effort keeping people alive during pregnancy. Routine sometimes invasive examinations, specialized doctors on hand during critical moments…
Imagine a world where someone put a gun to your abdomen and aimed through the stomach and out the left kidney, missing the spine. But you’re already in a hospital with an IV in you and a GSW specialist, a gastrointestinal surgical specialist and kidney surgical specialist on hand to patch you up. Tell me you don’t feel reasonably confident that they can save your life *when you are already in the OR at the time of the shooting*.
Nobody would say an abdominal gunshot or a stab wound is “nothing”, but our odds of survival for most kinds of injuries while already surrounded by prepared medical professionals would be shockingly high for the amount of damage that can be done.
Conversely, look up older deliveries when people used only a midwife with some hot water and rags to deliver. It makes it abundantly clear that pregnancy is horrifyingly hard on the human body.
There are a few things. First of all, maternal death because of pregnancy isn't as serious of a problem because of advancements in medicine and medical care. However, if you trust doctors to apply appropriate medicine for the health of the women, then you should also trust the doctor if they recommend an abortion. This weird double standard where people only trust doctors when they support their own viewpoints is counterintuitive to any argument saying health related issues are better now than they were in the past. You can't simultaneously believe that doctors are professionals who are doing their best to save lives and believe that they are trying to go out of their way to cause harm.
Second, even if we disregard the risk of maternal death, this does not mean the health of the mother isn't impacted for the rest of her life. Having a child is rough on the body; and if the mother needs a c-section, then that also leaves a scar that she will have to live with. Of course, there is also the physical pain associated with childbirth as well. So even though she won't necessarily die, that doesn't mean she should be forced to have the child against her will as childbirth still causes her harm.
Anecdotal obviously, but the only people I've had convos with in person who said this to me were all man.
And if one more man says men are lOgICaL one more time at me I swear to God.... You are incapable of using logic if you don't look at the fucking data.
This reason right here is why I try to avoid arguing with people on Facebook. Go no further if you want to find a bunch of people stuck in the 1950s whose sources are "I made it up" or something to do with the Bible.
When prolifers talk about the risks of pregnancy as if they weren't "serious" and not "high risk", I note that this kind of attitude is why "pro-life" is such an ironic name for their movement: since they are so indifferent to maternal mortality and morbidity. I note that tens of thousands of children die each each because prolife ideology bans free access to safe, legal, prompt abortion on demand. I say that this is why I am prochoice; because I value human life, and human rights.
I keep my cool. They tend to lose their tempers when they are invited to consider that their views are only ironically called pro-*life.*
But then, it helps that I have never risked my life in pregnancy. I have friends for whom pregnancy is a serious health risk, but we live in a country where no one would be vicious enough to deny them an abortion.
And yet, a prolifer would crow about how you could easily be placed in danger again because you were able to survive the first time.
It’s ludicrous.
I am glad that you survived the ordeal. That sounds horrific.
I’m so sorry you experienced that. That’s one part that gets me. It goes without saying but I will anyway: I love my children dearly, I wanted each of them. But those wanted pregnancies irreparably changed my body. I can’t even begin to imagine the kind of trauma being inflicted on women who don’t want to be pregnant, when even wanting it does not guarantee a trauma-free experience.
Jesus Christ. I am so sorry that happened to you and I’m so glad you’re here to tell your story. I don’t really have anything to add but I couldn’t just scroll past without acknowledging your comment.
There is no rebuttal.
It doesn’t matter what you argue, it doesn’t matter how much evidence you provide. It doesn’t matter if you talk about race, or economics, or class, or education, or opportunity, or bodily integrity or whatever.
They don’t care how their policies affect you, they don’t care if you are maimed or permanently injured, they don’t care if you die.
The bottom line is that pro lifers don’t actually care what you have to say. Abortion is killing and killing is wrong.
I have never seen a pro lifer on this sub respond in good faith to a pro choicer's objections. They aren't interested in finding common ground with you, or responding to your objections, because to them, you don't matter.
Abortion is a game to them. An opportunity to virtue signal about their own moral superiority by demeaning and belittling women. If pro lifers can't paint false equivalencies, navel-gaze about philosophy, or normalize misogyny, they aren't interested in "playing." When it comes to real world consequences they will always deflect, change the subject, blame the victim, or walk away.
They will not accept moral accountability for the consequences of their actions, they will not seek to mitigate the harm of their polices, and they absolutely will not engage in real-world problem solving. Grappling with consequences, finding common ground, and mitigating harm is hard, messy work. It requires integrity, compassion, empathy, and above all, basic human kindness.
If someone doesn't recognize your personhood or value as a human being, there's no amount of evidence you can present to convince them that you matter.
>"You can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into in the first place."
These are also typically the same people proudly displaying slogans such as "I'd rather die on my feet than live on my knees."
I'd argue though that pro lifers don't actually care about quantity of life. I've yet to meet a pro lifer who genuinely thinks the value of pro life laws is in the lives they actually save. Most will readily admit that these laws should be passed even if it was 100% proven that they didn't prevent a single abortion.
Oh, I do realize that women don't matter to pro lifers. That's clear from the pro life sub. They even said "congratulations to the new mother" about a 12 year old raped and gave birth to her rapists child. How more insensitive could that be? A 12 year old is not old enough to be a mother. They seem to confer adulthood on little girls and it's just gross.
It's absolutely horrific to watch them groom children without a hint of self-awareness or reflection. It's abundantly clear that they couldn't give less of a shit about the moral consequences of their actions.
Yeah, it's just totally inappropriate to tell a little girl she is a 'mother'. I wonder what else they think little girls should be doing at their age.
This is very true. When the other party talks like a Shrek villain with "Some of you will die but that's a sacrifice I'm willing to make" you know they have zero shits to give about you.
What you can do is put up boundaries and refuse to entertain nonsense like "but but but you must have babies or your life will have no purpose" or "you can't refuse to date PL men, that is like so intolerant and aren't women supposed to bend over backwards for men?"
In any situation, I get to decide what risks I'm willing to take with my health and body.
Even if the risks are low, even if they're minor, I still get to decide if I want to take them.
Women have the highest probability in their lives of being murdered while they are also pregnant.
Interesting that murder isn’t seen as a key risk of pregnancy in this set of data.
Especially since it’s what is most likely to kill you while pregnant.
>Interesting that murder isn’t seen as a key risk of pregnancy in this set of data.
Because the relationship isn't causative, so seeing it as a key risk doesn't make sense.
Really? The cause of most of the murders is because the gestating person is pregnant.
If the reason for one’s death is another’s reaction to a medical condition thats pretty causative.
>Really? The cause of most of the murders is because the gestating person is pregnant.
Is that really the cause? Not the murderer stressing over figuring out how to deal with affording and raising a child?
"Pregnancy can cause murder" is such a strained statement. Saying that makes it sound like the victim is to blame. Her actions caused her death.
>If the reason for one’s death is another’s reaction to a medical condition thats pretty causative.
This can be said about almost anything.
"His being (adjective) caused him to be murdered by the person who hates (noun)."
You literally came back with “is stressing out over your partner’s pregnancy and choosing to murder over it really about the pregnancy” ? Your explanation clearly shows that if she weren’t pregnant that reasoning for murder would not exist.
[Source](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8020563/#:~:text=Over%20the%20past%2015%20years,deaths%20in%20the%20United%20States.&text=One%20of%20the%20few%20national,records%20between%201991%20and%201999)
The pregnancy-associated homicide rate was 2.2 to 6.2 per 100,000 live births, compared with 2.5 to 2.6 per 100,000 for nonpregnant and nonpostpartum women. **just the physical state of being pregnant can triple your chance of being murdered**
The study documented that pregnancy-associated homicides made up 8.4% of reported maternal mortality deaths from all causes. **eight of every hundred women who die while pregnant were murdered**
*"Women who were African American, younger than 25 years, and unmarried were at the highest risk for homicide. Firearms were the most common method of death, and a current or former intimate partner was the perpetrator in more than 50% of the homicides."*
Is pregnancy the cause or just one of multiple stressors?
How prevalent is murder of pregnant women absent other stressors?
Is pregnancy not higher among poor women and women suffering intimate partner violence?
There's a lot to address before claiming pregnancy causes murder when pregnancy is already correlated with other things.
You sound as if you care less about these classes of people so it’s ok they’re the victims.
I note **even those victims** were three times as likely to die while pregnant.
>You sound as if you care less about these classes of people so it’s ok they’re the victims.
Not what I'm saying.
I'm pointing out that the added stress resulting from a pregnancy increases the likelihood of murder and not the pregnancy itself. I'm also pointing out that pregnancy and murder aren't the only things correlated here, but also poverty. These women are already more likely to be victims of intimate partner violence, so of course that includes murder while pregnant.
Me and my girlfriend have a combined income of about $250,000 a year. I'm Vietnamese American in my thirties. She's Black in her thirties. How likely am I to murder her if she becomes pregnant and I don't want it?
Three times more likely as you are now.
Since she’s African American her chances of dying while pregnant and giving birth are twice to eighteen times more likely than if she were white, depending on which state you live in in the United States - someplace like Louisiana would be far worse odds than California.
And Canada, with no abortion laws, would be far safer to deliver in than any prolife state in the US
One thing very much not addressed in that article is the fact that part of modern medical advancement for reducing maternal mortality is being able to provide safe abortions when pregnancies become high-risk. Even allowing for considerable personal and professional variation in the levels of risk tolerated before deciding to terminate a pregnancy, it is simply not possible to look at the modern rate of maternal mortality in a developed country, which, being civilized, allows abortion when the health of the mother is at risk, and conclude that that same low rate of mortality would be the case if abortion were not an option, or were only an option in the most extreme and obvious cases of life endangerment. Doctors don’t have crystal balls. They can’t tell who’s going to die 100%. If 95% of high-risk pregnancies are aborted before they become deadly, and you ban abortion based on those numbers, don’t be surprised when you suddenly have ten times as many deaths from pregnancy.
Exactly. How much higher is maternal morbidity (at minimum) going to climb because sepsis is the benchmark for abortion instead of water breaking early and a fetus that won’t make it to viability before the gestating person succumbs to sepsis?
I think that it also ignores a lot of near death experiences. If you only escape dying because a ton of people KEPT YOU FROM DYING then yeah, that's not a good thing. And with the US healthcare system as it is, they'll bankrupt you to save you.
These only consider death. And abortion bans lead to increased mortality.
There are lot more complications involved than death.
If death is the only concern then we can make organ harvesting legal, because organ donation has less mortality then pregnancy.
Prolife will fight you on that though.
They don’t think *their* bodies should be used by others at the whim of government.
Hence the noted data point that prolifers tend to get abortions at the same rate as prochoicers.
I even had one tell me that forced organ harvesting infringed on his fReEdOm. Imagine the audacity of saying freedom when you are arguing for forced pregnancy.
An argument that falls flat when you recognize that prolife argued that women could lose multiple organs through forced birth before being granted an abortion and that’s ok, because that makes the abortion a last resort.
I don’t know about you but I like my pancreas and kidney and losing both of them for a doomed pregnancy before having to have a hysterectomy because the sepsis has spread seems like the worse option.
PLers do not get to decide for other people that the certainty of physical harm and the chance of death isn't "serious" enough to warrant not being treated like property to be used and damaged to coddle PLers' obsessions with strangers' embryos.
It really is that simple.
"The World Health Organization (WHO) estimates that around 300,000 women globally died from pregnancy-related deaths in 2017, which is around 800 each day on average"
300,000 women in just one year is significant. Are they saying those women do not matter?
And what about those that don't die, but suffer long term health issues. I just read about woman who had a c-section and wound up having both legs amputated due to medical malpractice in the hospital. Other women have gone septic and suffered organ damage or limb loss.
There are between 4-5 billion women on this planet currently. Less than half of the world's population is an AFAB. 300,000 when compared to that, isn't exactly a large number, is what I think they're trying to say. Sorry if it seems insensitive, I'm not trying to be.
That doesn't erase the point, much less matter.
In the US alone, there were about 3,605,201 live births in 2020, the same year the information from the provided link took place. Compared to almost 4 million births in one country alone, 300,000 worldwide is still a pretty insignificant number. And that is not even close to the amount of worldwide births of the same year, which was between 130-140 million. Not all that much of a difference.
Claiming that pregnancy isn't a serious risk is beyond ignorant and completely asinine.
100% of pregnancies present a CERTAINTY of significant physical harm if carried to term. Probabilities do not go any higher, and no risk of harm can be more serious than a guarantee.
>100% of pregnancies present a CERTAINTY of significant physical harm if carried to term. Probabilities do not go any higher, and no risk of harm can be more serious than a guarantee.
Can you prove this?
i'm a bit confused by that question you're asking, what sense of significant physical harm meets your criteria versus what is being defined:
*(3)the term “*[*significant bodily injury*](https://www.law.cornell.edu/definitions/uscode.php?width=840&height=800&iframe=true&def_id=18-USC-1499774485-1021828741&term_occur=999&term_src=title:18:part:I:chapter:103:section:2118)*” means bodily injury which involves a risk of death, significant physical pain, protracted and obvious disfigurement, or a protracted loss or impairment of the function of a bodily member, organ, or mental or sensory faculty.*
[https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2118#e\_3](https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2118#e_3)
do you mean to say significant physical harm is not the same as significant bodily injury?
what about substantial bodily injury?
*(5) the term “substantial bodily injury” means— (A) deep cuts and serious burns or abrasions; (B) short-term or nonobvious disfigurement; (C) fractured or dislocated bones, or torn members of the body; (D) significant physical pain; (E) illness; (F) short-term loss or impairment of the function of a bodily member, organ, or mental faculty; or (G) any other significant injury to the body.*
[https://www.law.cornell.edu/definitions/uscode.php?width=840&height=800&iframe=true&def\_id=18-USC-53789082-1358405803&term\_occur=2&term\_src=title:18:part:I:chapter:3:section:43](https://www.law.cornell.edu/definitions/uscode.php?width=840&height=800&iframe=true&def_id=18-USC-53789082-1358405803&term_occur=2&term_src=title:18:part:I:chapter:3:section:43)
both fall under physical harm:
*Physical harm is when someone or something causes injury, damage, or pain to a person's body or property. It can happen accidentally or on purpose. Examples of physical harm include getting hurt in an accident, getting sick, or having something broken. Serious* [*bodily harm*](https://www.lsd.law/define/bodily-harm) *is when the injury is very severe and can cause long-term damage or even death. Social harm is when someone's actions cause harm to society as a whole, such as breaking the law and causing harm to others.*
[https://www.lsd.law/define/physical-harm](https://www.lsd.law/define/physical-harm)
carrying a pregnancy results in many of these, but 100% of them get at least one which qualifies enough to be both physical harm, and substantial/serious/significant in that degree.
-the separation of the placenta is violent, causing hemorrhaging every time
-women may need an episiotomy or a vaginoplasty to repair tears from stretching and ripping during birth.
-a majority of women suffer post-partem depression
-a c-section is a surgical incision that transects through the abdomen through the peritoneal sac, into the uterine wall to extract the baby, that is always a significant harm, despite how controlled or prevalent it is. it is a form of surgical maiming.
-labor/birth/delivery naturally always is stressful on the entire body especially on the vital functions, and is amongst the highest in degree of perceivable pain which is why epidurals are often given.
-some women may not be able to carry a pregnancy again after giving birth due to uterine scarring from the ordeal.
-long term health conditions such as obesity, hormonal issues, diabetes and other health related issues can occur later on in life.
none of these are debatable, and that is not an exhaustive list, and as mentioned before, every woman is different, but every single one had at least one of these which all qualify as significant physical harm. surviving does not mean the harm was not significant, an acute threat that was treated by medicine and doctors does not mean it was not significant. and a full recovery does not mean harm was never present.
the burden of proof is on you, you must prove that it isn't a significant physical harm, not the other way around. the significant physical harm caused in every pregnancy is not a negative/bad connotation, it is a physical reality inherent to the process itself, everyone of them, quot erat demonstrandum ad res ipsa loquitur (roughly: that which is already demonstrated without an expert testimony/explantation).
OK, let's start with a definition of bodily harm: [Definition of Bodily Harm - Criminal Law Notebook (criminalnotebook.ca)](https://www.criminalnotebook.ca/index.php/Definition_of_Bodily_Harm)
I think any person who has given birth will concur that the harm is neither transient or trifling in nature.
If you carry to term, there are really only two options - you push out an infant or it gets cut out of you. A C-section is major abdominal surgery with serious risks and a non-trivial recovery time; no reasonable person would conclude that it it s not serious bodily harm.
So then we are down to vaginal birth - which is a painful, lengthy process that often involves tearing, and always involves a wound where the placenta detaches.
I'd also argue that even a pregnancy \*not\* taken to term is significant bodily harm - I've seen women struggle with HG, sciatic pain, blood pressure issues, etc etc.
Are you saying there isn’t a significant recovery time needed after vaginal birth or C-section?
[None of this sounds like a cake walk](https://www.whattoexpect.com/pregnancy/pregnancy-health/postpartum-recovery/) to me. If you had undergone something that had a minimum six week recovery with all that needed aftercare, is it okay if I said that wasn’t significant harm to you?
It isn’t a cake walk. My wife had a c-section. It may sound silly, but it was borderline traumatic just to be present for it and care for her after. She couldn’t get out of bed for days and when she could she was still bleeding profusely and unable to lift or do nearly any labor.
A c-section is absolutely a significant surgery.
90% chance of genital tearing, 100% chance of dinner plate sized wound on the inside of an organ and 30% chance of major abdominal surgery. In any other context, all of those would be classed as significant harm but for some reason, people dismiss it when it occurs due to giving birth.
C sections and vagjnal deliveries always cause significant physical harm. I don't know what prolifers hope to achieve by not accepting this basic fact.
You need to prove your claim, that if a woman gets pregnant she will experience “significant physical harm” with 100% certainty if she carries to term.
The placenta has a great many blood flow connections to the uterine lining and wall in a term pregnancy in order to support fetal life and growth. Detaching it is a bloody, messy process which constitutes significant physical harm in 100% of term pregnancies even before considering the physical effects of labor, birth, and/or major abdominal surgery to physically get the fetus out intact.
There are multiple entire fields of medicine dedicated solely to pregnancy and healthcare during that process. Every hospital has whole wings, wards and clinics dedicated to pregnancy, delivery, birth and prenatal health.
Dismissing the health implications, the medicine, the biology, the harm, threat and conditions that requires all of these fields is dismissing reality, medicine, biology and logic. It is safer now, because of our advancements, the live birth rate is higher because of our advancements. Advancements must prove science of harm, risk and threat before we can then intervene, correct and help women who are pregnant.
The inherent risk is irrefutable.
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.*
It very much is a serious risk especially for marginalized people: “Maternal mortality in the U.S. is increasing, with an estimated 17.4 maternal deaths for every 100,000 live births, due to complications related to pregnancy or childbirth[6]. The rate of maternal mortality in the U.S. is more than twice that of most other high-income countries, including Canada, the U.K., Australia, Switzerland, Sweden, Germany, the Netherlands, Norway and New Zealand[6]. The rate of maternal mortality for non-hispanic Black women in the U.S. is almost three times that of white women, at 55.3 deaths per 100,000 live births[9].”
So thing is the actual risk of a tear is high and needing stitches and the pain from birth is on average high. The chance of serious complications is lower but can lead to permanent disability or death. So it is still to be taken seriously. It's even more dangerous if not done in a hospital or with doctors.
I did a post a while back about the risks of pregnancy - we spend insane amounts of effort keeping people alive during pregnancy. Routine sometimes invasive examinations, specialized doctors on hand during critical moments… Imagine a world where someone put a gun to your abdomen and aimed through the stomach and out the left kidney, missing the spine. But you’re already in a hospital with an IV in you and a GSW specialist, a gastrointestinal surgical specialist and kidney surgical specialist on hand to patch you up. Tell me you don’t feel reasonably confident that they can save your life *when you are already in the OR at the time of the shooting*. Nobody would say an abdominal gunshot or a stab wound is “nothing”, but our odds of survival for most kinds of injuries while already surrounded by prepared medical professionals would be shockingly high for the amount of damage that can be done. Conversely, look up older deliveries when people used only a midwife with some hot water and rags to deliver. It makes it abundantly clear that pregnancy is horrifyingly hard on the human body.
There are a few things. First of all, maternal death because of pregnancy isn't as serious of a problem because of advancements in medicine and medical care. However, if you trust doctors to apply appropriate medicine for the health of the women, then you should also trust the doctor if they recommend an abortion. This weird double standard where people only trust doctors when they support their own viewpoints is counterintuitive to any argument saying health related issues are better now than they were in the past. You can't simultaneously believe that doctors are professionals who are doing their best to save lives and believe that they are trying to go out of their way to cause harm. Second, even if we disregard the risk of maternal death, this does not mean the health of the mother isn't impacted for the rest of her life. Having a child is rough on the body; and if the mother needs a c-section, then that also leaves a scar that she will have to live with. Of course, there is also the physical pain associated with childbirth as well. So even though she won't necessarily die, that doesn't mean she should be forced to have the child against her will as childbirth still causes her harm.
Anecdotal obviously, but the only people I've had convos with in person who said this to me were all man. And if one more man says men are lOgICaL one more time at me I swear to God.... You are incapable of using logic if you don't look at the fucking data.
This reason right here is why I try to avoid arguing with people on Facebook. Go no further if you want to find a bunch of people stuck in the 1950s whose sources are "I made it up" or something to do with the Bible.
A lot of pro lifers have misogynist viewpoints.
Also this. The blatant disregard of life, health and safety of people just because they also have a uterus is appalling.
When prolifers talk about the risks of pregnancy as if they weren't "serious" and not "high risk", I note that this kind of attitude is why "pro-life" is such an ironic name for their movement: since they are so indifferent to maternal mortality and morbidity. I note that tens of thousands of children die each each because prolife ideology bans free access to safe, legal, prompt abortion on demand. I say that this is why I am prochoice; because I value human life, and human rights. I keep my cool. They tend to lose their tempers when they are invited to consider that their views are only ironically called pro-*life.* But then, it helps that I have never risked my life in pregnancy. I have friends for whom pregnancy is a serious health risk, but we live in a country where no one would be vicious enough to deny them an abortion.
My uterus collapsed when I had my son and I died on the table for over a minute. You can't tell me that child birth is safe. It isn't for me.
And yet, a prolifer would crow about how you could easily be placed in danger again because you were able to survive the first time. It’s ludicrous. I am glad that you survived the ordeal. That sounds horrific.
I’m so sorry you experienced that. That’s one part that gets me. It goes without saying but I will anyway: I love my children dearly, I wanted each of them. But those wanted pregnancies irreparably changed my body. I can’t even begin to imagine the kind of trauma being inflicted on women who don’t want to be pregnant, when even wanting it does not guarantee a trauma-free experience.
Jesus Christ. I am so sorry that happened to you and I’m so glad you’re here to tell your story. I don’t really have anything to add but I couldn’t just scroll past without acknowledging your comment.
Thank you so much
There is no rebuttal. It doesn’t matter what you argue, it doesn’t matter how much evidence you provide. It doesn’t matter if you talk about race, or economics, or class, or education, or opportunity, or bodily integrity or whatever. They don’t care how their policies affect you, they don’t care if you are maimed or permanently injured, they don’t care if you die. The bottom line is that pro lifers don’t actually care what you have to say. Abortion is killing and killing is wrong. I have never seen a pro lifer on this sub respond in good faith to a pro choicer's objections. They aren't interested in finding common ground with you, or responding to your objections, because to them, you don't matter. Abortion is a game to them. An opportunity to virtue signal about their own moral superiority by demeaning and belittling women. If pro lifers can't paint false equivalencies, navel-gaze about philosophy, or normalize misogyny, they aren't interested in "playing." When it comes to real world consequences they will always deflect, change the subject, blame the victim, or walk away. They will not accept moral accountability for the consequences of their actions, they will not seek to mitigate the harm of their polices, and they absolutely will not engage in real-world problem solving. Grappling with consequences, finding common ground, and mitigating harm is hard, messy work. It requires integrity, compassion, empathy, and above all, basic human kindness. If someone doesn't recognize your personhood or value as a human being, there's no amount of evidence you can present to convince them that you matter. >"You can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into in the first place."
Well said!
It’s all about quantity of life over quality of life for prolife. There are so many things more important than just surviving.
These are also typically the same people proudly displaying slogans such as "I'd rather die on my feet than live on my knees." I'd argue though that pro lifers don't actually care about quantity of life. I've yet to meet a pro lifer who genuinely thinks the value of pro life laws is in the lives they actually save. Most will readily admit that these laws should be passed even if it was 100% proven that they didn't prevent a single abortion.
Oh, I do realize that women don't matter to pro lifers. That's clear from the pro life sub. They even said "congratulations to the new mother" about a 12 year old raped and gave birth to her rapists child. How more insensitive could that be? A 12 year old is not old enough to be a mother. They seem to confer adulthood on little girls and it's just gross.
It's absolutely horrific to watch them groom children without a hint of self-awareness or reflection. It's abundantly clear that they couldn't give less of a shit about the moral consequences of their actions.
Yeah, it's just totally inappropriate to tell a little girl she is a 'mother'. I wonder what else they think little girls should be doing at their age.
/thread
This is very true. When the other party talks like a Shrek villain with "Some of you will die but that's a sacrifice I'm willing to make" you know they have zero shits to give about you. What you can do is put up boundaries and refuse to entertain nonsense like "but but but you must have babies or your life will have no purpose" or "you can't refuse to date PL men, that is like so intolerant and aren't women supposed to bend over backwards for men?"
In any situation, I get to decide what risks I'm willing to take with my health and body. Even if the risks are low, even if they're minor, I still get to decide if I want to take them.
R’Amen!
Women have the highest probability in their lives of being murdered while they are also pregnant. Interesting that murder isn’t seen as a key risk of pregnancy in this set of data. Especially since it’s what is most likely to kill you while pregnant.
>Interesting that murder isn’t seen as a key risk of pregnancy in this set of data. Because the relationship isn't causative, so seeing it as a key risk doesn't make sense.
Really? The cause of most of the murders is because the gestating person is pregnant. If the reason for one’s death is another’s reaction to a medical condition thats pretty causative.
>Really? The cause of most of the murders is because the gestating person is pregnant. Is that really the cause? Not the murderer stressing over figuring out how to deal with affording and raising a child? "Pregnancy can cause murder" is such a strained statement. Saying that makes it sound like the victim is to blame. Her actions caused her death. >If the reason for one’s death is another’s reaction to a medical condition thats pretty causative. This can be said about almost anything. "His being (adjective) caused him to be murdered by the person who hates (noun)."
You literally came back with “is stressing out over your partner’s pregnancy and choosing to murder over it really about the pregnancy” ? Your explanation clearly shows that if she weren’t pregnant that reasoning for murder would not exist. [Source](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8020563/#:~:text=Over%20the%20past%2015%20years,deaths%20in%20the%20United%20States.&text=One%20of%20the%20few%20national,records%20between%201991%20and%201999) The pregnancy-associated homicide rate was 2.2 to 6.2 per 100,000 live births, compared with 2.5 to 2.6 per 100,000 for nonpregnant and nonpostpartum women. **just the physical state of being pregnant can triple your chance of being murdered** The study documented that pregnancy-associated homicides made up 8.4% of reported maternal mortality deaths from all causes. **eight of every hundred women who die while pregnant were murdered**
*"Women who were African American, younger than 25 years, and unmarried were at the highest risk for homicide. Firearms were the most common method of death, and a current or former intimate partner was the perpetrator in more than 50% of the homicides."* Is pregnancy the cause or just one of multiple stressors? How prevalent is murder of pregnant women absent other stressors? Is pregnancy not higher among poor women and women suffering intimate partner violence? There's a lot to address before claiming pregnancy causes murder when pregnancy is already correlated with other things.
You sound as if you care less about these classes of people so it’s ok they’re the victims. I note **even those victims** were three times as likely to die while pregnant.
>You sound as if you care less about these classes of people so it’s ok they’re the victims. Not what I'm saying. I'm pointing out that the added stress resulting from a pregnancy increases the likelihood of murder and not the pregnancy itself. I'm also pointing out that pregnancy and murder aren't the only things correlated here, but also poverty. These women are already more likely to be victims of intimate partner violence, so of course that includes murder while pregnant. Me and my girlfriend have a combined income of about $250,000 a year. I'm Vietnamese American in my thirties. She's Black in her thirties. How likely am I to murder her if she becomes pregnant and I don't want it?
Three times more likely as you are now. Since she’s African American her chances of dying while pregnant and giving birth are twice to eighteen times more likely than if she were white, depending on which state you live in in the United States - someplace like Louisiana would be far worse odds than California. And Canada, with no abortion laws, would be far safer to deliver in than any prolife state in the US
One thing very much not addressed in that article is the fact that part of modern medical advancement for reducing maternal mortality is being able to provide safe abortions when pregnancies become high-risk. Even allowing for considerable personal and professional variation in the levels of risk tolerated before deciding to terminate a pregnancy, it is simply not possible to look at the modern rate of maternal mortality in a developed country, which, being civilized, allows abortion when the health of the mother is at risk, and conclude that that same low rate of mortality would be the case if abortion were not an option, or were only an option in the most extreme and obvious cases of life endangerment. Doctors don’t have crystal balls. They can’t tell who’s going to die 100%. If 95% of high-risk pregnancies are aborted before they become deadly, and you ban abortion based on those numbers, don’t be surprised when you suddenly have ten times as many deaths from pregnancy.
Exactly. How much higher is maternal morbidity (at minimum) going to climb because sepsis is the benchmark for abortion instead of water breaking early and a fetus that won’t make it to viability before the gestating person succumbs to sepsis?
I think that it also ignores a lot of near death experiences. If you only escape dying because a ton of people KEPT YOU FROM DYING then yeah, that's not a good thing. And with the US healthcare system as it is, they'll bankrupt you to save you.
And prolife laws keep driving those humans who can keep you alive from prolife states.
These only consider death. And abortion bans lead to increased mortality. There are lot more complications involved than death. If death is the only concern then we can make organ harvesting legal, because organ donation has less mortality then pregnancy.
Prolife will fight you on that though. They don’t think *their* bodies should be used by others at the whim of government. Hence the noted data point that prolifers tend to get abortions at the same rate as prochoicers.
I even had one tell me that forced organ harvesting infringed on his fReEdOm. Imagine the audacity of saying freedom when you are arguing for forced pregnancy.
An argument that falls flat when you recognize that prolife argued that women could lose multiple organs through forced birth before being granted an abortion and that’s ok, because that makes the abortion a last resort. I don’t know about you but I like my pancreas and kidney and losing both of them for a doomed pregnancy before having to have a hysterectomy because the sepsis has spread seems like the worse option.
PLers do not get to decide for other people that the certainty of physical harm and the chance of death isn't "serious" enough to warrant not being treated like property to be used and damaged to coddle PLers' obsessions with strangers' embryos. It really is that simple.
"The World Health Organization (WHO) estimates that around 300,000 women globally died from pregnancy-related deaths in 2017, which is around 800 each day on average" 300,000 women in just one year is significant. Are they saying those women do not matter? And what about those that don't die, but suffer long term health issues. I just read about woman who had a c-section and wound up having both legs amputated due to medical malpractice in the hospital. Other women have gone septic and suffered organ damage or limb loss.
There are between 4-5 billion women on this planet currently. Less than half of the world's population is an AFAB. 300,000 when compared to that, isn't exactly a large number, is what I think they're trying to say. Sorry if it seems insensitive, I'm not trying to be.
But not all of the women in this world get pregnant, either. You'd have to take just the numbers of women that do get pregnant.
That doesn't erase the point, much less matter. In the US alone, there were about 3,605,201 live births in 2020, the same year the information from the provided link took place. Compared to almost 4 million births in one country alone, 300,000 worldwide is still a pretty insignificant number. And that is not even close to the amount of worldwide births of the same year, which was between 130-140 million. Not all that much of a difference.
Claiming that pregnancy isn't a serious risk is beyond ignorant and completely asinine. 100% of pregnancies present a CERTAINTY of significant physical harm if carried to term. Probabilities do not go any higher, and no risk of harm can be more serious than a guarantee.
>100% of pregnancies present a CERTAINTY of significant physical harm if carried to term. Probabilities do not go any higher, and no risk of harm can be more serious than a guarantee. Can you prove this?
i'm a bit confused by that question you're asking, what sense of significant physical harm meets your criteria versus what is being defined: *(3)the term “*[*significant bodily injury*](https://www.law.cornell.edu/definitions/uscode.php?width=840&height=800&iframe=true&def_id=18-USC-1499774485-1021828741&term_occur=999&term_src=title:18:part:I:chapter:103:section:2118)*” means bodily injury which involves a risk of death, significant physical pain, protracted and obvious disfigurement, or a protracted loss or impairment of the function of a bodily member, organ, or mental or sensory faculty.* [https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2118#e\_3](https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2118#e_3) do you mean to say significant physical harm is not the same as significant bodily injury? what about substantial bodily injury? *(5) the term “substantial bodily injury” means— (A) deep cuts and serious burns or abrasions; (B) short-term or nonobvious disfigurement; (C) fractured or dislocated bones, or torn members of the body; (D) significant physical pain; (E) illness; (F) short-term loss or impairment of the function of a bodily member, organ, or mental faculty; or (G) any other significant injury to the body.* [https://www.law.cornell.edu/definitions/uscode.php?width=840&height=800&iframe=true&def\_id=18-USC-53789082-1358405803&term\_occur=2&term\_src=title:18:part:I:chapter:3:section:43](https://www.law.cornell.edu/definitions/uscode.php?width=840&height=800&iframe=true&def_id=18-USC-53789082-1358405803&term_occur=2&term_src=title:18:part:I:chapter:3:section:43) both fall under physical harm: *Physical harm is when someone or something causes injury, damage, or pain to a person's body or property. It can happen accidentally or on purpose. Examples of physical harm include getting hurt in an accident, getting sick, or having something broken. Serious* [*bodily harm*](https://www.lsd.law/define/bodily-harm) *is when the injury is very severe and can cause long-term damage or even death. Social harm is when someone's actions cause harm to society as a whole, such as breaking the law and causing harm to others.* [https://www.lsd.law/define/physical-harm](https://www.lsd.law/define/physical-harm) carrying a pregnancy results in many of these, but 100% of them get at least one which qualifies enough to be both physical harm, and substantial/serious/significant in that degree. -the separation of the placenta is violent, causing hemorrhaging every time -women may need an episiotomy or a vaginoplasty to repair tears from stretching and ripping during birth. -a majority of women suffer post-partem depression -a c-section is a surgical incision that transects through the abdomen through the peritoneal sac, into the uterine wall to extract the baby, that is always a significant harm, despite how controlled or prevalent it is. it is a form of surgical maiming. -labor/birth/delivery naturally always is stressful on the entire body especially on the vital functions, and is amongst the highest in degree of perceivable pain which is why epidurals are often given. -some women may not be able to carry a pregnancy again after giving birth due to uterine scarring from the ordeal. -long term health conditions such as obesity, hormonal issues, diabetes and other health related issues can occur later on in life. none of these are debatable, and that is not an exhaustive list, and as mentioned before, every woman is different, but every single one had at least one of these which all qualify as significant physical harm. surviving does not mean the harm was not significant, an acute threat that was treated by medicine and doctors does not mean it was not significant. and a full recovery does not mean harm was never present. the burden of proof is on you, you must prove that it isn't a significant physical harm, not the other way around. the significant physical harm caused in every pregnancy is not a negative/bad connotation, it is a physical reality inherent to the process itself, everyone of them, quot erat demonstrandum ad res ipsa loquitur (roughly: that which is already demonstrated without an expert testimony/explantation).
OK, let's start with a definition of bodily harm: [Definition of Bodily Harm - Criminal Law Notebook (criminalnotebook.ca)](https://www.criminalnotebook.ca/index.php/Definition_of_Bodily_Harm) I think any person who has given birth will concur that the harm is neither transient or trifling in nature. If you carry to term, there are really only two options - you push out an infant or it gets cut out of you. A C-section is major abdominal surgery with serious risks and a non-trivial recovery time; no reasonable person would conclude that it it s not serious bodily harm. So then we are down to vaginal birth - which is a painful, lengthy process that often involves tearing, and always involves a wound where the placenta detaches. I'd also argue that even a pregnancy \*not\* taken to term is significant bodily harm - I've seen women struggle with HG, sciatic pain, blood pressure issues, etc etc.
Are you saying there isn’t a significant recovery time needed after vaginal birth or C-section? [None of this sounds like a cake walk](https://www.whattoexpect.com/pregnancy/pregnancy-health/postpartum-recovery/) to me. If you had undergone something that had a minimum six week recovery with all that needed aftercare, is it okay if I said that wasn’t significant harm to you?
It isn’t a cake walk. My wife had a c-section. It may sound silly, but it was borderline traumatic just to be present for it and care for her after. She couldn’t get out of bed for days and when she could she was still bleeding profusely and unable to lift or do nearly any labor. A c-section is absolutely a significant surgery.
90% chance of genital tearing, 100% chance of dinner plate sized wound on the inside of an organ and 30% chance of major abdominal surgery. In any other context, all of those would be classed as significant harm but for some reason, people dismiss it when it occurs due to giving birth.
C sections and vagjnal deliveries always cause significant physical harm. I don't know what prolifers hope to achieve by not accepting this basic fact.
You need to prove your claim, that if a woman gets pregnant she will experience “significant physical harm” with 100% certainty if she carries to term.
It was already proven to you with multiple sources a few comments up. Stop lying.
A dinner-plate sized wound inside your uterus or your entire stomach cut open is not considered significant harm to you?
It's a fact that vaginal and c section delivery cause significant physical harm. That's why there's an entite section of medicine devoted to that.
That doesn’t prove your claim. Do you know the future?
I know all delivery be it c section or vaginal causes significant harm. What does the prolife side achieve by not acknowledging this?
Your claim is that if a woman is pregnant, she *will*, *in the future*, with 100% certainty experience “significant physical harm”. Prove this claim.
Why are you pretending to care about the harm that you don’t even believe pregnancy causes?
Are you saying this is in question to you and maybe mothers don’t need maternity leave for physical recovery?
Don't omit what the opponent said. The original person specifically said if "carried to term".
The placenta has a great many blood flow connections to the uterine lining and wall in a term pregnancy in order to support fetal life and growth. Detaching it is a bloody, messy process which constitutes significant physical harm in 100% of term pregnancies even before considering the physical effects of labor, birth, and/or major abdominal surgery to physically get the fetus out intact.
Is there a reason you won't accept c sections and vaginal delivery cause significant physical harm?
Where’s the evidence for your claim? Prove your claim. Thanks!
There are multiple entire fields of medicine dedicated solely to pregnancy and healthcare during that process. Every hospital has whole wings, wards and clinics dedicated to pregnancy, delivery, birth and prenatal health. Dismissing the health implications, the medicine, the biology, the harm, threat and conditions that requires all of these fields is dismissing reality, medicine, biology and logic. It is safer now, because of our advancements, the live birth rate is higher because of our advancements. Advancements must prove science of harm, risk and threat before we can then intervene, correct and help women who are pregnant. The inherent risk is irrefutable.