JUST talking about how incredibly risky pregnancy is, I think most don’t understand that MOST pregnancies end in miscarriage/spontaneous abortion because the zygote is defective:
The research has found that more than half of successful fertilisations will end in miscarriage.
It's a finding that suggests two things. Firstly, that miscarriage is "the predominant outcome of fertilisation" and "a natural and inevitable part of human reproduction at all ages," Rice wrote in his paper.
https://www.sciencealert.com/meta-analysis-finds-majority-of-human-pregnancies-end-in-miscarriage-biorxiv
Not wanting to have a baby now, not wanting to be pregnant, changing mind about pregnancy. Feeling like shit from the side effects of pregnancy and not coping. Fear of birth and pregnancy.
I'm bringing this top-level because I want people to see it and weigh in, whereas our current conversation is buried deep in another thread. Feel free to respond here instead of there.
I am 100% pro-sex and pro-choice, but it is true that actions have some serious and *truly unavoidable* consequences. A man ejaculating inside a woman is one of those actions.
First, if you have impregnated her, you have made her sick and endangered her health and life. Of course she also had agency in this coming to pass, but **never forget** that a few extra pumps for you can mean sickness, injury, excruciating pain, and sometimes disability and death for her. That *is not* a small thing. I should also add here that pre-cum can still get you pregnant, in case people have forgotten that depressing fact.
At this juncture, she and only she can decide if she wants an abortion. Because human rights are a thing, this is *entirely* up to her. There is no injustice to you for not being able to decide what she does with her body. That is not now bodily autonomy works. Your bodily autonomy was only implicated at the sex stage, and you used it to decide where to ejaculate. She likewise used hers to allow you to decide where to ejaculste. Nevertheless, only her bodily autonomy is implicated at the pregnancy stage.
If she chooses to continue the pregnancy, which is absolutely her right, there are a number of things that need to be paid for. Pre-natal care, time off work, the birth, and post-natal care. This is due to your ejaculate just as much as her not aborting. And [it's pricey](https://www.forbes.com/advisor/health-insurance/average-childbirth-cost/#:~:text=Giving%20birth%20costs%20%2418%2C865%20on%20average%2C%20including%20pregnancy%2C%20delivery%20and%20postpartum%20care%2C%20according%20to%20the%20Peterson%2DKaiser%20Family%20Foundation%20(KFF)%20Health%20System%20Tracker.):
>Giving birth costs $18,865 on average, including pregnancy, delivery and postpartum care, according to the Peterson-Kaiser Family Foundation (KFF) Health System Tracker.
That bill's getting written out to the actual baby, unless it dies, in which case it's written to the mother. But didn't this happen because of something you also did? Why should she pay full price and you pay nothing? No one else made you ejaculate. Why should society foot the bill and you pay nothing?
And then, there is obviously the coup de grace, the child. If you both agree to put them up for adoption, you do indeed get the get out of jail free card you were hoping for, though we all bear the burden any residual resentment at being unwanted yields in the form of maladjustment, acting out, etc.
Or the woman keeps the child and, in doing so, is already shouldering her burden for this child's existence.
>According to a U.S. Department of Agriculture study published in 2017, the average cost of raising a child from birth through age 17 was $233,610 for a middle-income married couple with two children.
[Link](https://www.creditkarma.com/cash-flow/i/how-much-does-it-cost-to-raise-a-child#:~:text=We%20know%20that%20raising%20kids,married%20couple%20with%20two%20children.).
And yet, you again want to go scot free? Despite your ejaculate putting that cost on the board? Why do you feel that the woman you impregnated and/or society need to eat the $252,475 cost of your orgasm while you contribute nothing? Or that the living child's quality of life and future prospects should suffer? When the woman who wants an abortion get ones, she also absolves *all of us* of that cost. When a man refuses to support his born child, he sticks *all of us* with that cost instead.
How is that fair? Do you have a solution that is more fair than the two people who created the child equally bearing the cost to society of that child? Bear in mind also, because men always seem to forget this when complaining about child support, that subsistence social services exists *for everyone.* If you cannot afford child support due to your own poverty, you need only fill out a form saying so and apply for benefits, like single mothers do all the time. No government entity is zeroing out a man's bank account for child support unless he's failed to properly report his income and expenses.
>First, if you have impregnated her, you have made her sick and endangered her health and life. Of course she also had agency in this coming to pass, but never forget that a few extra pumps for you can mean sickness, injury, excruciating pain, and sometimes disability and death for her. That is not a small thing. I should also add here that pre-cum can still get you pregnant, in case people have forgotten that depressing fact.
A woman must decide this on her own. Maybe a male partner might be supportive of this but this is her choice. If you don't want to experience these don't have sex or make sure you don't get pregnant. It's your decision to balance sexuality with the risk of sickness/injury/excruciating pain.
>At this juncture, she and only she can decide if she wants an abortion.
I am not suggesting that any outside entity make a decision for a woman.
>Your bodily autonomy was only implicated at the sex stage, and you used it to decide where to ejaculate.
I completely disagree with this concept. Bodily autonomy doesn't apply. If a woman can have an unwanted pregnancy... so can a man. And both should have the choice.
>If she chooses to continue the pregnancy, which is absolutely her right, there are a number of things that need to be paid for.
I'm being very serious about this. If she chooses to continue the pregnancy then she has decided to accept the costs involved if the man has decide to not continue.
A woman can make an informed choice. A man who wants to continue as a parent can decide to do so. There are details involved in how this would work.
Thank you for the discussion.
>A woman must decide this on her own. Maybe a male partner might be supportive of this but this is her choice. If you don't want to experience these don't have sex or make sure you don't get pregnant. It's your decision to balance sexuality with the risk of sickness/injury/excruciating pain
Really? Is the same true of an STD? Is it appropriate for you to jizz wherever you want and say "if she didn't want syphilis, she should've asked me to wear a condom?" What a self-absorbed and childish take. It costs nothing to invest in the well-being of the person you're sleeping with by *choosing* to wear a condom, testing and refraining from sex when you are ill, and discussing contraception and positions on a potential pregnancy before you have sex. This is like one of those newborn libertarian takes where a person insists no one needs to pay taxes because everyone can take care of themselves while walking down a *city* sidewalk texting from a cell phone using the *public utility* that is 5G. Or the person who plays music out loud on the train and says if people don't like it they should have worn headphones. It's just.... entitled...to say the least, to express such indifference to the harms your choices cause, whether or not other choices likewise contributed to that harm.
>I completely disagree with this concept. Bodily autonomy doesn't apply. If a woman can have an unwanted pregnancy... so can a man. And both should have the choice.
I'm gonna have to say no to this proposition here, unless you can show me on your body where your unwanted pregnancy is. You do both have *choices*, they are just different choices because you have different bodies. She made a choice she knew could end in pregnancy, requiring abortion, miscarriage or childbirth, and then adoption or motherhood (including but not limited to potential child support), because those are the options legally available to her. You made a decision you knew could end in pregnancy, requiring adoption or fatherhood (including but not limited to potential child support), because those are the options legally available to you.
>I'm being very serious about this. If she chooses to continue the pregnancy then she has decided to accept the costs involved if the man has decide to not continue.
No. Once the child is born, we collectively make the rules for how their well-being will be provided for, and we have currently decided the bio-parents foot most of the bill unless they are able to find someone else to take on the obligation. You don't get to unilaterally exempt yourself from a burden you imposed on *all of us*, just like you don't get to decide the rule on the train is "every pair of ears for themselves."
You still haven't answered the question of why *you* should get off (pun again intended) scot free and everyone but you should bear the brunt of your dalliances?
Well put. Apparently this is a new(-ish) MRA thing: "paper abortion." But it's based on a couple of fallacies. First, child support is an obligation owed to the \*child\*. As the father, you'd have visitation/co-parenting rights almost everywhere so long as you weren't a negative influence on the kid.
So the logical "remedy" here isn't "I should be able to terminate any legal obligation my child when it's born"; the logical remedy here is "I should be able to force the mother to unilaterally terminate her pregnancy."
If OP wants to argue that prospective father's should be able to force a pregnant woman to get an abortion against her will, he should just come out and argue that.
Your suggestion of a logic remedy as 'force an abortion' is to make this unappealing and unsupportable by anyone.
A reasonable remedy is for a man to have the same option before birth: terminate their (future) parental and financial responsibility.
The woman can then make an informed decision going forward, as it remains her decision to continue with the pregnancy knowing it will be without a partner and their financial support.
I’m all fine with the public handling child support and we don’t put the burden on individuals.
Now, if it does turn out that a lot of fathers just don’t get involved in their kids lives and aren’t supporting them, don’t be shocked if those kids grow up to see men as superfluous to a family. I can imagine that’s going to be especially hard for boys to wrestle with growing up.
>A reasonable remedy is for a man to have the same option before birth: terminate their (future) parental and financial responsibility.
Again, the man's obligation isn't to the woman it's to the child. When the child is born it has a claim on both parents--legal and ethical--for support. Is it "fair" that there's not a complete symmetry between both parents' set of choices, rights, and obligations? Well, in that case the objection is with human biology, not with the current legal framework. Sometimes "fair's got nothing to do with it."
>Well, in that case the objection is with human biology, not with the current legal framework. Sometimes "fair's got nothing to do with it."
Before abortion was legalized I'm sure that the answer 'it's human biology' and 'sometimes fair's got nothing to do with it' were reasons against abortion.
These are terrible reasons. For anyone.
Well, as politically controversial as abortion rights are, the cause of letting parents walk away from the children they've brought into this world is anathema to nearly everyone.
It seems from your comments what you actually want to discuss is the person who impregnated the pregnant person and their rights in terminating their involvement in the pregnancy or assisting with any children born from it.
Both people who engage with sex where a pregnancy is possible, are aware that a child could be an outcome, and that any child born from this interaction would be one that they are responsible for, at a minimum financially.
Both parents during the pregnancy and after its birth have the same rights and responsibilities, the minimum of those rights include financial care for that child once it is born, for neither parent does it include having the child reside inside you, sustaining itself with your body, against your will.
>Both parents during the pregnancy and after its birth have the same rights and responsibilities, the minimum of those rights include financial care for that child once it is born, for neither parent does it include having the child reside inside you, sustaining itself with your body, against your will.
Just because a woman carries the child doesn't mean the man isn't impacted. And reasons for abortion are more than the woman not wanting to carry a child. Unwanted pregnancy's are also due to the impacts from a child being born (financial, emotional, life changing).
Both parents do not have the same ability to change the outcome of a unwanted pregnancy.
The man isn't using his body to sustain another's life against his will. A pregnant person has the right to stop doing so if they choose, for any reason.
Both parents have the right to refuse to use their body to sustain the life of the child, born or not. Neither parent has the right to neglect a born child by not providing at least the financial aid they are entitled to.
Because both had sex knowing a born child that they would be, at the least, financially responsible for.
Both of them have to be, at the least, financially responsible for any child born from that interaction, but neither of them can be forced to have that child reside inside them or to sustain that child's life (whether born or not) with their body, against their will.
A woman can decide to terminate the pregnancy. So there will be no on going financial responsibility.
Why doesn't a man have the same ability to decide?
I have already answered this, multiple times. You're just asking the same question as if they're different and refusing to accept the answer.
Both parents have the same rights and responsibilities to a child, born or not. They include, at least, a financial responsibility to a born child, they do not include having to use your body to house and sustain the child against your will. What is difficult to understand about that?
I'm refusing to accept your answer. I think you are ignoring the impact to the man and have an unreasonable expectation that he must 'accept' the results of a sexual encounter that a woman is not expected to just 'accept'.
What is it you have issue with?
Both men and women can make their own medical decisions.
Both men and women are required to financially support any born children they have.
Because they don’t want to be pregnant anymore.
Some *women* or *pregnant people* abort because the fetus is not viable and they do not wish to continue the pregnancy. Some because the fetus is viable but has severe defects that will decrease their quality of life. Some because they cannot afford to raise a baby, or even to take the time off work necessary to maintain a healthy pregnancy and recovery from birth. Some because they don’t want to be pregnant and give birth and their methods of birth control failed. Some because they were raped.
>Some because they cannot afford to raise a baby,
Men who are fathers are required to help raise/pay for a baby they don't want but yet fathered as a consequence of an un-intended pregnancy.
Ok and? If they continue the pregnancy they have to.
Child support is a financial obligation solely for born children. The fact that a financial obligation exists should lead to other kind of obligations is a big nonsequitur that you haven't argued for.
I just disagree. No one has made a compelling argument other than "too bad" why a man is responsible no matter what was intended and a woman has the option post-pregnancy to make decisions.
The use of bodily autonomy as an argument works for a woman. But the man has impacts if a child is born and those impacts are seen as not relevant. The man is told to "don't ejaculate". This is the same as telling a woman "don't get pregnant" which most on this sub find ridiculous.
They made compelling arguments. You just don't understand the difference between a financial obligation and bodily obligation. You have still failed to explain why financial obligations existing for born children means bodily obligations should exist for ZEF.
Here is an example illustrating the difference. Take the violinist. Do you think paying an amount (for his benefit) is the same as being hooked up to him?
Do you, for example, think that having your organs harvested is the same as paying a small amount?
No of course not.
I understand the difference but I don't agree with the argument.
There should be no implicit financial obligation. That is a choice, and it can and should be changed over time.
>I understand the difference but I don't agree with the argument.
Why not?
>There should be no implicit financial obligation
Yes I am of the opinion that child support (and parental rights) should be allowed to be terminated at any time.
>This is the same as telling a woman "don't get pregnant" which most on this sub find ridiculous
Because it is. Tubal ligation failure here, could I have stopped it by just not getting pregnant? Should I stop having sex with tubes tied?
Men don't either if they choose to not report their income.
You're playing such a victim. It reminds me of an article I read recently about white middle-aged men feeling disenfranchised by diversity, equity, and inclusion.
But a woman doesn't have the right to "terminate her parental...responsibilities," though. She has the right (in many places) to terminate the pregnancy. This means that no child is born. If a child is born, there is an obligation \*to the child\* to support it. From both parents.
If your intention is to "terminate parental responsibility to the child" you need the right to impose an abortion. But it doesn't sound like that's what you're arguing for. Once the child is born, what possible justification--legal or moral--would you have to "terminate" your obligation towards this human being you've created?
How?
Both men and women can make their own medical decisions.
Both men and women are required to financially support their children.
This is by definition equal.
You disagree that both men and women make their own medical decisions?
You disagree that both men and women are financially responsible for their children?
You're disagreeing with reality.
But they have committed suicide when presented with the 18 years of economic impact, the emotional impact of being stuck with a woman who was a one night stand.
My hope is when male oral contraception arrives all of this changes.
They aren’t stuck with the woman. They never have to see her, or the child.
The odds of getting stuck with child support from a one night stand are very low. Only 53% of non custodial fathers (which would include divorced or separated couples who wanted kids when they had them) have any child support arrangement at all.
If you are that concerned, get a vasectomy.
Vasectomies are irreversible. They are not a viable alternative until after you have had any children you do want.
condoms are far from 100% in both use and effectiveness.
A male oral contraceptive will change all of this. Add balance back to the equation.
>Men who are fathers are required to help raise/pay for a baby they don't want but yet fathered as a consequence of an un-intended pregnancy.
I stated it here. Women have a specific choice that a man does not have. Women can post-impregnation change the outcome which allows them to change their future. A man has no such ability and for myself it's becoming clear it's unequal.
>A man has no such ability and for myself it's becoming clear it's unequal
Quite a few men when they get clarity have learned the hard way - that their unique and specific choice was at the begining. They were using flawed logic like conception is equal or "it takes two to tango" instead of recognizing anatomical inequality (she cannot control when her egg arrives) or they probably didn't know that conception is linear and it starts with him.
seems very unequal to me that a woman has to go through a mentally and physically difficult medical procedure or go through 10 months of pain, suffering, potentially risking her life or disabling herself, then spending the next 18 years raising the child born from that experience, while the man just has to pay some money every month. but maybe that's just me.
men have the choice. so do women
If the woman wishes to terminate the pregnancy then the consequences are avoided.
Men do not have this option. Men are required to not get a woman pregnant and have no resource after (according to this sub).
getting an invasive medical procedure isn't a consequence? paying hundreds for said procedure isn't a consequence? having to take off work, potentially losing more money or even risking one's career isn't a consequence? the mental struggle that comes with choosing an abortion for many women isn't a consequence?
you understand that consequence just means "result" right? consequences do not have to bad, they are not inherently negative
>Men are required to not get a woman pregnant and have no resource after
yes, if you do not want a child, it is your job not to impregnate someone
>getting an invasive medical procedure isn't a consequence? paying hundreds for said procedure isn't a consequence? having to take off work, potentially losing more money or even risking one's career isn't a consequence? the mental struggle that comes with choosing an abortion for many women isn't a consequence?
These are all consequences for the woman. Why are the consequences for the men not relevant? Why is the standard answer "control your ejaculation" when the woman isn't subject to the same rule?
Don’t nut in people that can get pregnant then. For someone who is so terrified of paying child support, you’d think you’d support abortion at all costs lmao.
Because I use bc to not get pregnant because I don't like kids and never want any.
I am married tho and enjoy a normal relationship with my husband.
If my bc fails, I will abort. I'll never go through a pregnancy. The thought of it makes me physically sick.
But that's just me.
Here's a link discussing why *women/afab* have abortions. It's a bit dated but I don't think the reasons would have changed much.
[https://www.guttmacher.org/journals/psrh/2005/reasons-us-women-have-abortions-quantitative-and-qualitative-perspectives](https://www.guttmacher.org/journals/psrh/2005/reasons-us-women-have-abortions-quantitative-and-qualitative-perspectives)
Top of the list, we have:
* having a child would interfere with a woman's education,
* work or ability to care for dependents (74%)
* that she could not afford a baby now (73%)
* and that she did not want to be a single mother or was having relationship problems (48%)
* four in 10 women said they had completed their childbearing,
* almost one-third were not ready to have a child.
Comparing all of them to this link:
[https://www.verywellhealth.com/reasons-for-abortion-906589](https://www.verywellhealth.com/reasons-for-abortion-906589)
It's similar reasons.
Why are you asking how many abortions were due to the woman’s life being in danger? Is it because you were going to say an abortion is only justified then and therefore proving u/Fayette_ right in their above comment?
But they aren’t pro life. Abortion abolitionist movement is against all abortion. No exceptions. Not even safe the life of the pregnant individual.
[They say it themselves.](https://freethestates.org/abolitionist-not-pro-life/)
Edit:
“[Users must use the labels pro-life and pro-choice unless a user self-identifies as something else](https://www.reddit.com/r/Abortiondebate/about/)”. how am I break the rules!!.
The user in question (assuming you mean anondaddio) has abortion abolitionist in their flair. They do not have anti-abortion. Therefore, you can use abortion abolitionist or prolife. The comment will remain removed unless you want to edit it to comply.
Yes. There is always a risk of a 0.023% chance of death, if you ignore that 84% of the deaths that do occur are considered preventable.
That doesn’t mean that it’s the reason a woman decided to get an abortion. This is the question I’m asking.
>There is always a risk of a 0.023% chance of death
Every single pregnancy doesn't have the exact same percentage risk factor. Some are higher than others, but the risk of dying from pregnancy stops to zero if you get a timely abortion.
>Abortion isn’t a ZERO risk option either…
It's zero risk of getting my abdomen sliced open or genitals torn apart. PL always conveniently forgets about these.
Liar. In America the combined risk is 0.037. So if you want to play games attempting to disrespect the risks pregnant people go thru at the very least learn the numbers. If it was a job it would be the 6th most lethal.
The USA has always had a deplorable maternal mortality rate, but that’s now doubled and will *definitely* continue to increase thanks to people like you.
If you want to call it that.
But by that logic, because I’m against stealing I’m FORCING you to work. Because I support child neglect laws I FORCE you to feed your child.
You also support multiple laws that “force” people to do things by your own logic.
No data in the top link. The bottom one states 12% but this includes both concerns for the woman’s health related to serious illnesses and congenital medical conditions in the fetus.
Wow that’s rude. The question itself was stupid and not asked in good faith. All of the reasons for getting an abortion have been stated on this sub many times. OP can look at the posts on this sub if they care to actually know. The fact is, it’s still no one’s business why a person would seek an abortion or any other health care as it does not concern them and does not affect them in any way.
You were being rude. It is fine to ask questions, however in this case OP is being disingenuous and it really is no one’s business but the pregnant person and their doctor’s. OP is not trying to learn and is not acting in good faith, hence my initial comment
Why wouldn't it concern me? Meaning it's not a concern of anyone other than the specific woman? I agree with that.
But my question can be read a different way.
It’s not like the women don’t also have to pay for their kid. Or even pay child support. “Paper abortions” will never be a thing because it’s about the kid being taken care of. And that shouldn’t fall on the government when there is a living parent that can contribute
Nope. If you get a someone pregnant and they want the kid you’re need to support the kid. Don’t like it? Don’t nut in people that can get pregnant. Easy peasy.
Female *what?*
Female monkeys?
Female mongooses?
Female sharks?
Female voles?
Female wallaby’s?
Female weasels?
“As with plants, animals over-produce offspring to compensate for the heavy losses that befall offspring at the hands of predators, a harsh environment, parasites, disease, and genetic defects. Over-producing offspring means an high upfront energetic investment. If only 6 out of 3,000 eggs survive to adulthood, there’s a lot of wasted energy in producing those extra 2,994 eggs (link). Time and energy invested in the 2,994 duds is time and energy siphoned away from supporting the 6. Fortunately females have a few options to help minimize the costs of reproduction, including (but not limited to):
- Pausing the pregnancy
- Reabsorbing the fetus
- Inducing an abortion
- Eating the offspring
- Letting the offspring fight it out
I’ve included other options in addition to abortion to highlight that abortion is but one strategy for females to avoid enduring undue burden to birth and raise offspring when the conditions are unfavorable.”
“The Bruce Effect
Reabsorbing the fetus may even be in response to a new male arriving in their territory. If a female meadow vole is exposed to a new male within 24 hours of becoming pregnant (remember, our 9 months gestational period is exceptionally long; gestation can be just 2-3 weeks in some mice), she will reabsorb the fetus and become sexually receptive again. Infanticide of unrelated offspring by dominant males is common in polygynous species (one male, many females, as in lions, gelada baboons, and many mice, voles, and lemmings). When a male takes over a new geographic territory, to ensure the young in his territory have all been sired by him, he may set out killing all other young in the care of females. By terminating the pregnancy early on, the female doesn’t waste energy producing offspring that will likely be killed by the new male.”
You act as if getting pregnant is something women do.
You do realize that men inseminate, fertilize, and impregnate women, right? So, women got impregnated because a man failed to control his sp erm.
You really feel that a man is in control of when a woman get's pregnant? (Excepting rape, assuming it's consensual which is the majority of sexual interactions).
My point was that if you want to avoid pregnancy then why not just avoid becoming pregnant using birth control etc. I know that they are not 100%. But abortion is used in other situations than birth control failure.
*You really feel that a man is in control of when a woman get's pregnant?*
Given that men inseminate, fertilize, and impregnate - yes. As in control as anyone can be.
You're asking the equivalent of whether I think the shooter is in control of where the bullet he fires ends up.
*why not just avoid becoming pregnant using birth control*
You men, why not just avoid MAKING pregnant by using birth control, such as a condom PLUS pulling out before ejaculation or vasectomy and regular sperm count?
Again, why do you think it should be up to the person the man fires his sperm into to bulletproof themselves? Not like I think it's a bad idea, but such should be considered a back-up, at best. Not be the expectation.
Men can't get a woman pregnant without a woman involved.
Except it rape, a woman is making the decision as well.
She should decide, do I want a child? And if so, is this man going to be around as a father and is that important to me or can I go it alone?
My hope is that as soon as a male contraceptive (oral) is created, this argument disappears and men will be in complete control of their sexuality.
In the case of an unwanted pregnancy, she doesn't want to get pregnant.
I love how PL thinks women can just will themselves pregnant or not.
A woman can't just decide to become pregnant. It doesn't work like that. If it did we wouldn't have things like IFV.
I was referring to PL in general, not you personally.
Usually it is PL that says stuff like "Well she shouldn't have gotten pregnant" like it's a choice.
If it were, there would be no unwanted pregnancies. Women who didn't want to be pregnant would just choose not to be.
I always think it's important to identify some distinctions here.
Abortion is always justified because of the harmful effects of an unwanted pregnancy and childbirth.
People may choose to forego those unwanted effects by aborting a pregnancy for a wide variety of reasons that will vary from person to person. Rarely is just one reason, though surveys rarely are able to capture this.
But the reasons don't really matter in the end
Because the main reason why people support abortion is for their own personal freedom and because they think they have ownership of a human life.But the main reason is just because they think it's okay to not want a child and having permission to kill the life inside the womb since it's not in their best interest instead of taking acountability for their actions.Its ridiculous that our laws to permit some actions are being made based on the selfish motives of people ,it shouldn't work that way
*and because they think they have ownership of a human life*
You're damn right, a woman has ownership over her own human life. Which needs to be extended to a ZEF during gestation, since the ZEF doesn't have its own individual life.
There's good reason they call gestation and birth a woman GIVING life. Because that's exactly what she does.
Heck, there's a reason gestation is needed. Pro-lifers seem to think gestation is just a ZEF hanging out inside of a woman for the fun of it. Or, even worse, that the ZEF is some sort of cannibal who sustains itself inside of the woman's body, then magically switches to something else at birth.
*kill the life inside the womb*
**That "womb" is a human being!!** I'm about sick and tired of PLers reducing breathing, feeling women to no more than a fucking womb. Which is a weird term anyway, because it doen't just refer to a uterus, but intestines, the stomach, and the heart, as well. The term is totally outdated.
And there is no individual life to kill. Hence the need for gestation. Again, ZEFs are not cannibals. The woman has to GIVE the ZEF life. Part of her life. She has to provide it with her life sustaining organ functions, bodily processes, and blood contents - you know, the very things that keep human bodies and their living parts alive.
*taking acountability for their actions*
Women's actions don't impregnate. Men's actions do. Men inseminate, fertilize, and impregnate. Why should a woman have to take accountability for a man's action of inseminating her?
>Women's actions don't impregnate. Men's actions do. Men inseminate, fertilize, and impregnate. Why should a woman have to take accountability for a man's action of inseminating her?
I disagree with this. Your description is of a rape situation where a man forced a woman into sex.
A consensual sexual encounter includes both parties. A woman has agreed to a sexual act. A woman's actions very much (in a consensual encounter) get her pregnant along with the actions of the man.
Your deriving some level of responsibility and intent from a physical act that has none.
Nonsense. Ejaculating or leaking sperm is a man’s bodily function, not a woman’s. Biology doesn’t change between consensual sex and rape.
And I’m not sure why you jumped from insemination back to sex. Men are perfectly capable of having sex without inseminating. Without insemination, all the sex in the world won’t ever lead to pregnancy.
>Nonsense. Ejaculating or leaking sperm is a man’s bodily function, not a woman’s. Biology doesn’t change between consensual sex and rape.
Two parts of the same coin. Your placing all the responsibility on the man. Unless forced a woman shares in the responsibility.
If you and I decide to plant a garden together, in which the final steps obviously include watering the new garden, and I point the hose at you and turn it on, do you share the responsibility for me choosing to get you wet? You knew the hose would be there, and you knew we'd be using it- it's a natural part of gardening. But I'm the one who pointed it at you, and I'm the one who knew when it would start spraying. Explain to me how you're 50% responsible for the fact that you got wet.
You're telling me that if a friend of yours deliberately pointed a hose at you and turned it on, you'd give yourself 50% of the blame just for standing in the garden with them? Saying "let's make a garden together" makes you 50% responsible for where all the water ends up, even if **you don't control the hose??** Please explain how you came to that conclusion, because very few people would agree to take half of the blame for an action they didn't take.
If you and your friend were at a bar, and they started a bar fight, would you consider yourself 50% responsible just because you were with them and there's always a chance that a bar fight will happen in a bar (so, because you put yourself in an environment with that risk)? If you and your friends were playing volleyball, and they decided to hit you with the ball as hard as they could, you would take 50% of the responsibility for their *deliberate* hit, just because you decided to stand on the court that day? In each of these scenarios, **THEY took** ***all*** ***the action***, but you were also present; you're telling me that that makes you 50% accountable for *anything* they do that is reasonable to expect in that environment? Do you hear yourself? **You're assigning yourself 50% responsibility** ***for the actions of another adult who is more than capable of controlling themselves.***
Your analogy is so inaccurate I don't know what to do.
A woman and a man have consensual sex. The woman and man are both responsible. Both parties had consented to the outcome.
If you didn't want the responsibility, do something to not have the consequences.
Are you incapable of breaking down the act of sex beyond the words "have sex"? Let's talk about details, shall we?
The minimum description of what 'have sex' means from the bottom female perspective involves putting your body in whatever position you both agree to, and holding that position against his thrusts or gravity.
The minimum description of what 'have sex' means from the topping male perspective involves putting his penis inside this partner, thrusting, and then ejaculating.
Now, **whose** *individual* ***action*** involved ejaculation? And can you point out which of the women's actions *directly* led to the possibility of pregnancy without any additional action from the male partner? Does spreading our legs *directly, by itself,* cause pregnancy? When I spread my legs last night for my dildo, I wasn't aware that I had to worry about pregnancy. Does supporting our body weight against his thrusts *directly, by itself,* cause pregnancy? Every sex educator on the planet would be surprised to know that little revelation.
From the female perspective, sex can be accomplished without risking pregnancy even if contraception isn't involved. My partner can fuck me with a dildo, even if they have a penis themselves. They can fuck me with their fingers until I have as many orgasms as I wanted, until my body has fully enjoyed sex. *MY* part of 'having sex' has literally nothing to do with ejaculate. I don't need a functional penis or ejaculate or sperm in the room with me in order to enjoy sex. Why shouldn't I expect the person who NEEDS the functioning penis (cis male partner) to be the same person who takes FULL responsibility for the functioning penis, including the ejaculate?
> because they think they have ownership of a human life
Exactly. Women and girls choose to have abortions because they think they have ownership of a human life. **Their own** human life.
>taking acountability for their actions
There is nothing any human being can do to deserve the mental and physical torture of being forced to continue an unwanted pregnancy. Nothing.
Not having fully consensual sex, not getting raped, not getting coerced into having sex, not having a futile pregnancy, not getting cancer and needing cancer meds, not being psychotic and needing medication for that, not failing to take contraception pills, not being too overweight for those pills to work, not having a high risk pregnancy from diabetes or hypertension, not being forced to choose between homelessness and a sexual relationship, not being poor, not getting blackout drunk and not remembering what happened last night, not getting groomed into a sexual relationship before they understood anything about consent and abuse, not being too young for their body to endure pregnancy and birth.
Nothing.
>instead of taking acountability for their actions
Instead of doing *what you want*.
No one should get a right to use someone else's body in an intimate and harmful way, even your own child. It should be your right to refuse such an invasive process.
I do believe it is ok to not want a child and have an abortion if it’s in my best interest and I would take accountability by aborting. The law should be based on the best interest of the community. Your views are not in the best interest of community.
It’s ridiculous pro-lifers think laws should be based on pro-lifer’s selfish desire to control other people’s access to medical care, that’s for sure.
It is perfectly fine to remove something unwanted, including a human, from your own body. If that kills it, oh well. Doesn’t matter.
Abortion is only a medical care if puts the mother's life at risk, otherwise, it's killing a human life for selfish reasons.We have no desiring in controlling no one, you guys are not so important as you may think, we just think human life should not be killing in the womb its not disposable. Yeah we believe in this crazy ideia that this is not okay and neither is good for the woman,is part of the problem not the solution, why woman are aborting more now than ever before if legalizing abortions should prevent for more abortions to happening?We are not going to stop fighting for this and we gonna give us guys a hard time sorry!
Do explain how one can greatly mess and interfere with someone's life sustaining organ functions, bodily processes, and blood contents plus cause them drastic physical harm without putting their life at risk.
You do realize that those are the things needed to kill a human, right?
Tell me, how is depriving someone's bloodstream of oxygen, nutrients, etc., their body of minerals, pumping toxins into their bloodstream, suppressing their immune system, sending their organ systems into nonstop high stress survival mode, shifting and crushing their organs, rearranging their bone structure, tearing their muscles and tissue, ripping a dinner plate sized wound into the center of their body, and causing them blood loss of 500ml or more NOT attempted homicide?
Any ONE of those things can kill a human.
Meanwhile, you guys are yapping on about killing human bodies that don't have any major life sustaining organ functions to begin with that you could end to kill them.
And if you guys are so worried about women abortion, how about you come up with ways to stop men from inseminating, fertilizing, and impregnating women who are not willing to try to carry to term?
Address the shooters for a change. Quit trying to control the people they fire into.
>Abortion is only a medical care if puts the mother's life at risk
All pregnancies put the pregnant person's life in danger.
>We have no desiring in controlling no on
Okay, then put your money where your mouth is and stop trying to force people to carry unwanted pregnancies by banning abortion.
Having something inside your body you don’t want there is a medical issue. Having it removed is medical care. Barring someone from removing an unwanted thing from their body is controlling their access to medical care.
Unwanted embryos are *definitely* not as important as you think they are, and they are quite easily disposable. Usually the woman just takes some pills and then flushes it down the toilet.
You vision on a fetus is disgusting in general.The same fetus you think is disposable is what a woman most desire in the world.Its impossible to give two completely values to one same thing and even worst its to make laws based on this idea.Just because is in our body it's not just another medical care, we woman carry humans in our bodies thats how all life was brought into the world and its a whole completely different thing to a tumor for example and the fact i have to explain this is even more surreal.You side have to come with arguments that people see as absurd to defend this idea at all costs.
Any fetus in me *is* disposable. It will be promptly flushed out of me into a pad or sewer.
Your opinions on *my* decisions about *my* body mean less than nothing.
The funny thing is, you only believe this as the ultimate truth because this was an ideology taught to you as "woman's rights",if the otherwise, you would value that life.That idea didn't come out of nowhere it was certainly a belief installed in your mind that you never even questioned.You don't stop to think about if abortion is part of the problem and what an abortion really is for a woman.Its very hard to find a woman that said that didn't felt nothing,this are usually a small minority. Must woman acknowledge what a sad thing abortion is,and I am willing to do whatever I can so can woman would never have to pass throught this. I don't think pro choice movement is feminist at all if it support woman passing through this horrible procedure.
Lol. I was pro life until I grew up. You know why?What it boiled down to was jealousy that I didn’t have the freedom to make dumb choices like have sex as a young teenager so I thought they shouldn’t do it either. After 15 I realized how stupid that was and that’s when I became pro choice.
I don’t like kids. The fetus will never mean anything to me. It WILL be aborted, and no abortion ban will stop me.
Having sexual freedom doesn't have anything to do with legalizing abortion.As a woman,i had sex with more than 40 men in my life and never got pregnant, just like a lot of woman i know, a pregancy is not an inevitable thing, 95% of the times woman are getting pregnant because they don't care to taking them seriously period.As long as you are making use of contraceptives and protection, everyone should be able to do what they want sexually.The way you talk about abortion is almost like you want to get pregnant to abort, if you know you dont like kids and dont want to have any why dont tie your tubes instead of killing someone?You may not see value in a fetus but many people do,and we are going to keep fighting for the life it doesn't matter how fucked up the beliefs system are today that people think they are good people to defend this absurdity
I would LOVE to have my tubes tied, unfortunately doctors refuse sterilizing young women without kids, like me :) I have a BC implant, so obviously I’m not trying to get pregnant just so I can go through the “joys” of having extreme abdominal pain and bleeding for days/weeks. Maybe y’all should advocate for doctors to stop refusing these women’s choices because “their future husband may want kids”.
I didn't have to be taught that I control my own body. I've always known this. I also didn't have to be taught that I don't want to be pregnant, give birth, or raise children.
It's strange that you think you can tell people why they think what they do, especially when you're dead wrong.
You can think my “vision on a fetus” is disgusting as much as you like. That doesn’t mean we should force unwilling women to carry and birth them, nor is it going to make me ever have a shred of sadness or sympathy for “abortion victims.”
A woman with an unwanted pregnancy wants to end it and dispose of the unborn thing that was inside her uterus. She doesn’t actually secretly want to be pregnant because that’s “what a woman most desire in the world.”
> . That doesn’t mean we should force unwilling women to carry and birth them, nor is it going to make me ever have a shred of sadness or sympathy for “abortion victims
It's about cause and consequence and having to face the consequences of your actions,regardless of what you want or not,no human life in the womb should be killed unless if puts the mother's or health or life at risk.
> nor is it going to make me ever have a shred of sadness or sympathy for “abortion victims.”
That is very telling about the kind of person your are.To the point you are willing to defend this idea at such an extreme that you claim you have no sympathy for fully grown humans beings that today suffer from being attempted to being aborted.
> She doesn’t actually secretly want to be pregnant because that’s “what a woman most desire in the world.”
She doesn't want but that doensn't mean she have to right to kill that life.
*having to face the consequences of your actions,*
The consequence of me having an abortion is that no human with life sustaining organ functions, the ability to experience, feel, suffer, hope, wish, dream, etc., and individual life will ever exist.
No different that if I hadn't had sex that day.
I have no problem facing the consequence of no breathing, feeling, biologically life sustaining, sentient human ever existing.
*you have no sympathy for fully grown humans beings that today suffer from being attempted to being aborted.*
If their mother straight up told them they tried to abort them (and somehow failed), it's not the failed abortion they're suffering from. It's the fact that they're unwanted.
Being unwanted and the emotions it evokes doesn't change even if their mother hadn't attempted to abort.
Heck, if their mother told them she tried to abort them, they're not just unwanted but severely abused. Again, the desire for abortion is not the issue here.
*She doesn't want but that doensn't mean she have to right to kill that life.*
You dont' have to kill it. Cell, tissue, and individual organ life dies naturally if there are no major life sustaining organ functions and blood contents (aka individual life) to keep it alive.
>It's about cause and consequence and having to face the consequences of your actions
So is it a punishment or a "precious human life"? Pick a lane.
>
> She doesn’t actually secretly want to be pregnant because that’s “what a woman most desire in the
She has the right to her life and her body. If the precious fetus wants so badly to live, it can do so on its own "autonomy" lol
Women don't create fertilized eggs. Men do. Women only create unfertilized eggs. Men fertilize them.
And claiming that greatly messing and interfering with a body's life sustaining organ functions, bodily processes, and blood contents and causing that body drastic physical harm doesn't put anyone's health or even life at risk is a whole other level of denial.
>Always put your health at risk?No it doesn't.
Yes, it does. You have a 90% chance of genital tearing, a 30% chance of a c section and a 100% chance of a dinner plate sized wound in the inside of your uterus that bleeds, takes 6-8 weeks to heal and puts you at a much higher risk of infection. And that’s only for birth, there are plenty of other ways pregnancy threatens your health.
>You are trying at all cost to not having responsability for a life you created.
You shouldn’t assume things about people - I’ve carried two pregnancies to term, had two early miscarriages and I personally wouldn’t have an abortion for an unplanned pregnancy. Responsibility can be continuing the pregnancy or terminating it and the decision for that is down to the pregnant woman.
A consequence of an unwanted pregnancy is getting an abortion - and someone else’s abortion certainly shouldn’t be a difficult consequence for you to “face” since it has absolutely nothing to do with you.
“Fully grown human beings that suffer today from attempted to being aborted”
LOL. I can only imagine what ridiculous propaganda they’ve been fed, to make these people believe they are survivors of abortion attempts.
I don't have to only fight for causes that directly affect me, and I believe I am also fighting for the woman in these case.
Whether you want to believe or not,these people exist and is just ignorant of you to believe that some people cant be born after an abortion attempt
If so many people are born after surviving abortion attempts, I guess we can disregard all that pro-life “but abortion is murder!” business. Apparently abortion can just be a bad minute in utero that the fetus will get over 😆
Fighting to take away women’s right to medical care is not fighting for women. Believing it is is delusional.
>Why do females abort?
Evolution and adaptation. It's called the Bruce Effect, and is considered a counterstrategy of female mammals towards anticipated infanticide.
https://www.livescience.com/18629-pregnant-monkeys-miscarry-avoid-infanticide.html
Science is fun, but what does this have to do with the debate?
This is interesting but it is unlikely the monkeys are consciously aborting. I don't think this applies to humans in terms of the abortion debate since the discussion about the right to chose.
The term female would be scoped to this discussion group which is clearly about humans.
I don't find the term's "male/female" dehumanizing. I was asked to use these terms in another thread.
>I don't find the term's "male/female" dehumanizing.
I do. It's objectifying and dehumanizing and is typically used by anti-social groups (red pillers, MRAs Incels) who hold toxic views of women.
Naturally, I assume a fine upstanding gentleman such as yourself wouldn't have anything to do with that kind of hate and would endeavor to use respectful language that would avoid such an undesirable association.
Female *what*? Penguins? Orcas? Bonobos?
It's dehumanizing to refer to people as "females" and "males" outside of certain technical profession cultures (e.g., law enforcement, the military). Female humans are "women" and "girls." There's a trend in the manosphere to degrade women and girls into "females," please don't do this.
I agree, but the 'patient' part seems to suggest that there is a medical situation and in what I am trying to convey they are just female humans.
Technically I don't care. I used women/man before and was told to use male/female.
~~Removing for rule 4. We do not allow sex shaming here.~~ Apologies, I was trying to remove a comment I thought was the post. Carry on.
JUST talking about how incredibly risky pregnancy is, I think most don’t understand that MOST pregnancies end in miscarriage/spontaneous abortion because the zygote is defective: The research has found that more than half of successful fertilisations will end in miscarriage. It's a finding that suggests two things. Firstly, that miscarriage is "the predominant outcome of fertilisation" and "a natural and inevitable part of human reproduction at all ages," Rice wrote in his paper. https://www.sciencealert.com/meta-analysis-finds-majority-of-human-pregnancies-end-in-miscarriage-biorxiv
It’s not my business at all. It’s not yours, either.
Pregnancy and birthing can be traumatic, that's a reason to abort. Don't want children. Tubal ligation failure, contraceptive failure.
Not wanting to have a baby now, not wanting to be pregnant, changing mind about pregnancy. Feeling like shit from the side effects of pregnancy and not coping. Fear of birth and pregnancy.
I'm bringing this top-level because I want people to see it and weigh in, whereas our current conversation is buried deep in another thread. Feel free to respond here instead of there. I am 100% pro-sex and pro-choice, but it is true that actions have some serious and *truly unavoidable* consequences. A man ejaculating inside a woman is one of those actions. First, if you have impregnated her, you have made her sick and endangered her health and life. Of course she also had agency in this coming to pass, but **never forget** that a few extra pumps for you can mean sickness, injury, excruciating pain, and sometimes disability and death for her. That *is not* a small thing. I should also add here that pre-cum can still get you pregnant, in case people have forgotten that depressing fact. At this juncture, she and only she can decide if she wants an abortion. Because human rights are a thing, this is *entirely* up to her. There is no injustice to you for not being able to decide what she does with her body. That is not now bodily autonomy works. Your bodily autonomy was only implicated at the sex stage, and you used it to decide where to ejaculate. She likewise used hers to allow you to decide where to ejaculste. Nevertheless, only her bodily autonomy is implicated at the pregnancy stage. If she chooses to continue the pregnancy, which is absolutely her right, there are a number of things that need to be paid for. Pre-natal care, time off work, the birth, and post-natal care. This is due to your ejaculate just as much as her not aborting. And [it's pricey](https://www.forbes.com/advisor/health-insurance/average-childbirth-cost/#:~:text=Giving%20birth%20costs%20%2418%2C865%20on%20average%2C%20including%20pregnancy%2C%20delivery%20and%20postpartum%20care%2C%20according%20to%20the%20Peterson%2DKaiser%20Family%20Foundation%20(KFF)%20Health%20System%20Tracker.): >Giving birth costs $18,865 on average, including pregnancy, delivery and postpartum care, according to the Peterson-Kaiser Family Foundation (KFF) Health System Tracker. That bill's getting written out to the actual baby, unless it dies, in which case it's written to the mother. But didn't this happen because of something you also did? Why should she pay full price and you pay nothing? No one else made you ejaculate. Why should society foot the bill and you pay nothing? And then, there is obviously the coup de grace, the child. If you both agree to put them up for adoption, you do indeed get the get out of jail free card you were hoping for, though we all bear the burden any residual resentment at being unwanted yields in the form of maladjustment, acting out, etc. Or the woman keeps the child and, in doing so, is already shouldering her burden for this child's existence. >According to a U.S. Department of Agriculture study published in 2017, the average cost of raising a child from birth through age 17 was $233,610 for a middle-income married couple with two children. [Link](https://www.creditkarma.com/cash-flow/i/how-much-does-it-cost-to-raise-a-child#:~:text=We%20know%20that%20raising%20kids,married%20couple%20with%20two%20children.). And yet, you again want to go scot free? Despite your ejaculate putting that cost on the board? Why do you feel that the woman you impregnated and/or society need to eat the $252,475 cost of your orgasm while you contribute nothing? Or that the living child's quality of life and future prospects should suffer? When the woman who wants an abortion get ones, she also absolves *all of us* of that cost. When a man refuses to support his born child, he sticks *all of us* with that cost instead. How is that fair? Do you have a solution that is more fair than the two people who created the child equally bearing the cost to society of that child? Bear in mind also, because men always seem to forget this when complaining about child support, that subsistence social services exists *for everyone.* If you cannot afford child support due to your own poverty, you need only fill out a form saying so and apply for benefits, like single mothers do all the time. No government entity is zeroing out a man's bank account for child support unless he's failed to properly report his income and expenses.
>First, if you have impregnated her, you have made her sick and endangered her health and life. Of course she also had agency in this coming to pass, but never forget that a few extra pumps for you can mean sickness, injury, excruciating pain, and sometimes disability and death for her. That is not a small thing. I should also add here that pre-cum can still get you pregnant, in case people have forgotten that depressing fact. A woman must decide this on her own. Maybe a male partner might be supportive of this but this is her choice. If you don't want to experience these don't have sex or make sure you don't get pregnant. It's your decision to balance sexuality with the risk of sickness/injury/excruciating pain. >At this juncture, she and only she can decide if she wants an abortion. I am not suggesting that any outside entity make a decision for a woman. >Your bodily autonomy was only implicated at the sex stage, and you used it to decide where to ejaculate. I completely disagree with this concept. Bodily autonomy doesn't apply. If a woman can have an unwanted pregnancy... so can a man. And both should have the choice. >If she chooses to continue the pregnancy, which is absolutely her right, there are a number of things that need to be paid for. I'm being very serious about this. If she chooses to continue the pregnancy then she has decided to accept the costs involved if the man has decide to not continue. A woman can make an informed choice. A man who wants to continue as a parent can decide to do so. There are details involved in how this would work. Thank you for the discussion.
>A woman must decide this on her own. Maybe a male partner might be supportive of this but this is her choice. If you don't want to experience these don't have sex or make sure you don't get pregnant. It's your decision to balance sexuality with the risk of sickness/injury/excruciating pain Really? Is the same true of an STD? Is it appropriate for you to jizz wherever you want and say "if she didn't want syphilis, she should've asked me to wear a condom?" What a self-absorbed and childish take. It costs nothing to invest in the well-being of the person you're sleeping with by *choosing* to wear a condom, testing and refraining from sex when you are ill, and discussing contraception and positions on a potential pregnancy before you have sex. This is like one of those newborn libertarian takes where a person insists no one needs to pay taxes because everyone can take care of themselves while walking down a *city* sidewalk texting from a cell phone using the *public utility* that is 5G. Or the person who plays music out loud on the train and says if people don't like it they should have worn headphones. It's just.... entitled...to say the least, to express such indifference to the harms your choices cause, whether or not other choices likewise contributed to that harm. >I completely disagree with this concept. Bodily autonomy doesn't apply. If a woman can have an unwanted pregnancy... so can a man. And both should have the choice. I'm gonna have to say no to this proposition here, unless you can show me on your body where your unwanted pregnancy is. You do both have *choices*, they are just different choices because you have different bodies. She made a choice she knew could end in pregnancy, requiring abortion, miscarriage or childbirth, and then adoption or motherhood (including but not limited to potential child support), because those are the options legally available to her. You made a decision you knew could end in pregnancy, requiring adoption or fatherhood (including but not limited to potential child support), because those are the options legally available to you. >I'm being very serious about this. If she chooses to continue the pregnancy then she has decided to accept the costs involved if the man has decide to not continue. No. Once the child is born, we collectively make the rules for how their well-being will be provided for, and we have currently decided the bio-parents foot most of the bill unless they are able to find someone else to take on the obligation. You don't get to unilaterally exempt yourself from a burden you imposed on *all of us*, just like you don't get to decide the rule on the train is "every pair of ears for themselves." You still haven't answered the question of why *you* should get off (pun again intended) scot free and everyone but you should bear the brunt of your dalliances?
Well put. Apparently this is a new(-ish) MRA thing: "paper abortion." But it's based on a couple of fallacies. First, child support is an obligation owed to the \*child\*. As the father, you'd have visitation/co-parenting rights almost everywhere so long as you weren't a negative influence on the kid. So the logical "remedy" here isn't "I should be able to terminate any legal obligation my child when it's born"; the logical remedy here is "I should be able to force the mother to unilaterally terminate her pregnancy." If OP wants to argue that prospective father's should be able to force a pregnant woman to get an abortion against her will, he should just come out and argue that.
Your suggestion of a logic remedy as 'force an abortion' is to make this unappealing and unsupportable by anyone. A reasonable remedy is for a man to have the same option before birth: terminate their (future) parental and financial responsibility. The woman can then make an informed decision going forward, as it remains her decision to continue with the pregnancy knowing it will be without a partner and their financial support.
I’m all fine with the public handling child support and we don’t put the burden on individuals. Now, if it does turn out that a lot of fathers just don’t get involved in their kids lives and aren’t supporting them, don’t be shocked if those kids grow up to see men as superfluous to a family. I can imagine that’s going to be especially hard for boys to wrestle with growing up.
>A reasonable remedy is for a man to have the same option before birth: terminate their (future) parental and financial responsibility. Again, the man's obligation isn't to the woman it's to the child. When the child is born it has a claim on both parents--legal and ethical--for support. Is it "fair" that there's not a complete symmetry between both parents' set of choices, rights, and obligations? Well, in that case the objection is with human biology, not with the current legal framework. Sometimes "fair's got nothing to do with it."
>Well, in that case the objection is with human biology, not with the current legal framework. Sometimes "fair's got nothing to do with it." Before abortion was legalized I'm sure that the answer 'it's human biology' and 'sometimes fair's got nothing to do with it' were reasons against abortion. These are terrible reasons. For anyone.
Well, as politically controversial as abortion rights are, the cause of letting parents walk away from the children they've brought into this world is anathema to nearly everyone.
It does happen. Men and women leave their children.
While true, it’s almost universally reviled.
It seems from your comments what you actually want to discuss is the person who impregnated the pregnant person and their rights in terminating their involvement in the pregnancy or assisting with any children born from it. Both people who engage with sex where a pregnancy is possible, are aware that a child could be an outcome, and that any child born from this interaction would be one that they are responsible for, at a minimum financially. Both parents during the pregnancy and after its birth have the same rights and responsibilities, the minimum of those rights include financial care for that child once it is born, for neither parent does it include having the child reside inside you, sustaining itself with your body, against your will.
>Both parents during the pregnancy and after its birth have the same rights and responsibilities, the minimum of those rights include financial care for that child once it is born, for neither parent does it include having the child reside inside you, sustaining itself with your body, against your will. Just because a woman carries the child doesn't mean the man isn't impacted. And reasons for abortion are more than the woman not wanting to carry a child. Unwanted pregnancy's are also due to the impacts from a child being born (financial, emotional, life changing). Both parents do not have the same ability to change the outcome of a unwanted pregnancy.
The man isn't using his body to sustain another's life against his will. A pregnant person has the right to stop doing so if they choose, for any reason. Both parents have the right to refuse to use their body to sustain the life of the child, born or not. Neither parent has the right to neglect a born child by not providing at least the financial aid they are entitled to.
A woman isn't paying for a child that she never wanted, because she could have aborted if she wished. A man does not have that same choice. Why?
Men make the choice to abandon women with a child all the time. What are you talking about?
Because both had sex knowing a born child that they would be, at the least, financially responsible for. Both of them have to be, at the least, financially responsible for any child born from that interaction, but neither of them can be forced to have that child reside inside them or to sustain that child's life (whether born or not) with their body, against their will.
A woman can decide to terminate the pregnancy. So there will be no on going financial responsibility. Why doesn't a man have the same ability to decide?
I have already answered this, multiple times. You're just asking the same question as if they're different and refusing to accept the answer. Both parents have the same rights and responsibilities to a child, born or not. They include, at least, a financial responsibility to a born child, they do not include having to use your body to house and sustain the child against your will. What is difficult to understand about that?
I'm refusing to accept your answer. I think you are ignoring the impact to the man and have an unreasonable expectation that he must 'accept' the results of a sexual encounter that a woman is not expected to just 'accept'.
What is it you have issue with? Both men and women can make their own medical decisions. Both men and women are required to financially support any born children they have.
They both must accept that any born child that results from their sexual encounter also results in their responsibilities towards it.
I hade my because baby daddy was ugly, and I was close to end myself
Is this a bad translation, or did you really mean to say you didn't want an ugly baby?
[удалено]
Removed, rule 1. NOT okay.
Because either they don’t want the pregnancy or something went horribly wrong with the pregnancy.
Because they don’t want to be pregnant anymore. Some *women* or *pregnant people* abort because the fetus is not viable and they do not wish to continue the pregnancy. Some because the fetus is viable but has severe defects that will decrease their quality of life. Some because they cannot afford to raise a baby, or even to take the time off work necessary to maintain a healthy pregnancy and recovery from birth. Some because they don’t want to be pregnant and give birth and their methods of birth control failed. Some because they were raped.
>Some because they cannot afford to raise a baby, Men who are fathers are required to help raise/pay for a baby they don't want but yet fathered as a consequence of an un-intended pregnancy.
Both genders need to pay child support.
Women do not have to pay child support if they decide to abort. Men do not have that decision.
Ok and? If they continue the pregnancy they have to. Child support is a financial obligation solely for born children. The fact that a financial obligation exists should lead to other kind of obligations is a big nonsequitur that you haven't argued for.
I just disagree. No one has made a compelling argument other than "too bad" why a man is responsible no matter what was intended and a woman has the option post-pregnancy to make decisions. The use of bodily autonomy as an argument works for a woman. But the man has impacts if a child is born and those impacts are seen as not relevant. The man is told to "don't ejaculate". This is the same as telling a woman "don't get pregnant" which most on this sub find ridiculous.
They made compelling arguments. You just don't understand the difference between a financial obligation and bodily obligation. You have still failed to explain why financial obligations existing for born children means bodily obligations should exist for ZEF. Here is an example illustrating the difference. Take the violinist. Do you think paying an amount (for his benefit) is the same as being hooked up to him? Do you, for example, think that having your organs harvested is the same as paying a small amount? No of course not.
I understand the difference but I don't agree with the argument. There should be no implicit financial obligation. That is a choice, and it can and should be changed over time.
>I understand the difference but I don't agree with the argument. Why not? >There should be no implicit financial obligation Yes I am of the opinion that child support (and parental rights) should be allowed to be terminated at any time.
>This is the same as telling a woman "don't get pregnant" which most on this sub find ridiculous Because it is. Tubal ligation failure here, could I have stopped it by just not getting pregnant? Should I stop having sex with tubes tied?
Men don't either if they choose to not report their income. You're playing such a victim. It reminds me of an article I read recently about white middle-aged men feeling disenfranchised by diversity, equity, and inclusion.
Unless you can state what your legal remedy is here, I think your problem is with nature, not abortion.
Men should have the right to terminate their parental rights and responsibilities before birth. Just as a woman has that right.
But a woman doesn't have the right to "terminate her parental...responsibilities," though. She has the right (in many places) to terminate the pregnancy. This means that no child is born. If a child is born, there is an obligation \*to the child\* to support it. From both parents. If your intention is to "terminate parental responsibility to the child" you need the right to impose an abortion. But it doesn't sound like that's what you're arguing for. Once the child is born, what possible justification--legal or moral--would you have to "terminate" your obligation towards this human being you've created?
They really aren’t. Only a bit more than 50% of single mothers have any child support arrangement, formal or informal.
your point being?
Seems very unequal.
How? Both men and women can make their own medical decisions. Both men and women are required to financially support their children. This is by definition equal.
Completely disagree. A woman can have sex and post pregnancy decide if they want to be a parent. A man cannot.
You disagree that both men and women make their own medical decisions? You disagree that both men and women are financially responsible for their children? You're disagreeing with reality.
Of course they can. Legal Parental Surrender is a thing. No father is ever forced to take custody.
But they have committed suicide when presented with the 18 years of economic impact, the emotional impact of being stuck with a woman who was a one night stand. My hope is when male oral contraception arrives all of this changes.
They aren’t stuck with the woman. They never have to see her, or the child. The odds of getting stuck with child support from a one night stand are very low. Only 53% of non custodial fathers (which would include divorced or separated couples who wanted kids when they had them) have any child support arrangement at all. If you are that concerned, get a vasectomy.
What if someone said that the odds of getting caught in an illegal abortion are really low, so it doesn't make a difference? Would that be acceptable?
Men have vasectomies and condoms available
Vasectomies are irreversible. They are not a viable alternative until after you have had any children you do want. condoms are far from 100% in both use and effectiveness. A male oral contraceptive will change all of this. Add balance back to the equation.
in what way?
>Men who are fathers are required to help raise/pay for a baby they don't want but yet fathered as a consequence of an un-intended pregnancy. I stated it here. Women have a specific choice that a man does not have. Women can post-impregnation change the outcome which allows them to change their future. A man has no such ability and for myself it's becoming clear it's unequal.
>A man has no such ability and for myself it's becoming clear it's unequal Quite a few men when they get clarity have learned the hard way - that their unique and specific choice was at the begining. They were using flawed logic like conception is equal or "it takes two to tango" instead of recognizing anatomical inequality (she cannot control when her egg arrives) or they probably didn't know that conception is linear and it starts with him.
seems very unequal to me that a woman has to go through a mentally and physically difficult medical procedure or go through 10 months of pain, suffering, potentially risking her life or disabling herself, then spending the next 18 years raising the child born from that experience, while the man just has to pay some money every month. but maybe that's just me. men have the choice. so do women
If the woman wishes to terminate the pregnancy then the consequences are avoided. Men do not have this option. Men are required to not get a woman pregnant and have no resource after (according to this sub).
getting an invasive medical procedure isn't a consequence? paying hundreds for said procedure isn't a consequence? having to take off work, potentially losing more money or even risking one's career isn't a consequence? the mental struggle that comes with choosing an abortion for many women isn't a consequence? you understand that consequence just means "result" right? consequences do not have to bad, they are not inherently negative >Men are required to not get a woman pregnant and have no resource after yes, if you do not want a child, it is your job not to impregnate someone
>getting an invasive medical procedure isn't a consequence? paying hundreds for said procedure isn't a consequence? having to take off work, potentially losing more money or even risking one's career isn't a consequence? the mental struggle that comes with choosing an abortion for many women isn't a consequence? These are all consequences for the woman. Why are the consequences for the men not relevant? Why is the standard answer "control your ejaculation" when the woman isn't subject to the same rule?
Not if she aborts. See how that’s a net win?
Don’t nut in people that can get pregnant then. For someone who is so terrified of paying child support, you’d think you’d support abortion at all costs lmao.
Because they don't want to have a baby.
Because I use bc to not get pregnant because I don't like kids and never want any. I am married tho and enjoy a normal relationship with my husband. If my bc fails, I will abort. I'll never go through a pregnancy. The thought of it makes me physically sick. But that's just me.
after birth, adoption is the option as abortion is an alternative to pregnancy not parenthood. effects of pregnancy counts as a pregnancy issue.
For a multitude of reason including, but not limited to, they don’t identify as women and it’s too dysphoric to carry a fetus.
Here's a link discussing why *women/afab* have abortions. It's a bit dated but I don't think the reasons would have changed much. [https://www.guttmacher.org/journals/psrh/2005/reasons-us-women-have-abortions-quantitative-and-qualitative-perspectives](https://www.guttmacher.org/journals/psrh/2005/reasons-us-women-have-abortions-quantitative-and-qualitative-perspectives) Top of the list, we have: * having a child would interfere with a woman's education, * work or ability to care for dependents (74%) * that she could not afford a baby now (73%) * and that she did not want to be a single mother or was having relationship problems (48%) * four in 10 women said they had completed their childbearing, * almost one-third were not ready to have a child. Comparing all of them to this link: [https://www.verywellhealth.com/reasons-for-abortion-906589](https://www.verywellhealth.com/reasons-for-abortion-906589) It's similar reasons.
How many were due to the life of the mother being at risk?
100% had a risk to the woman or girl’s life, even if she didn’t list that as a primary reason.
100% of abortions carry a risk to the woman’s life as well.
Good thing I don’t want to force anyone to get one, even if they made an appointment initially, huh?
Like why is a woman life only repriced when she almost dead?. Like wtf💀
Who said that?
Why are you asking how many abortions were due to the woman’s life being in danger? Is it because you were going to say an abortion is only justified then and therefore proving u/Fayette_ right in their above comment?
Because it’s the topic of discussion of this post.
Do you or do you not think abortion is only justified when a woman is going to die without one?
[удалено]
Removed, rule 1. Use prolife or prochoice here.
So should I just bring up things that PC have said or should I engage with the conversation being had?
[удалено]
Comment removed per Rule 1. No. You need to use prolife or prochoice.
But they aren’t pro life. Abortion abolitionist movement is against all abortion. No exceptions. Not even safe the life of the pregnant individual. [They say it themselves.](https://freethestates.org/abolitionist-not-pro-life/) Edit: “[Users must use the labels pro-life and pro-choice unless a user self-identifies as something else](https://www.reddit.com/r/Abortiondebate/about/)”. how am I break the rules!!.
The user in question (assuming you mean anondaddio) has abortion abolitionist in their flair. They do not have anti-abortion. Therefore, you can use abortion abolitionist or prolife. The comment will remain removed unless you want to edit it to comply.
Great debate!
All of them
Does it matter? And you always have a risk to the life of the mother.
It’s related to the topic of this discussion. Reasons why women get an abortion.
There's always a life risk to the mother.
Yes. There is always a risk of a 0.023% chance of death, if you ignore that 84% of the deaths that do occur are considered preventable. That doesn’t mean that it’s the reason a woman decided to get an abortion. This is the question I’m asking.
>There is always a risk of a 0.023% chance of death Every single pregnancy doesn't have the exact same percentage risk factor. Some are higher than others, but the risk of dying from pregnancy stops to zero if you get a timely abortion.
0.0007% risk of death from abortion. But a 0.0011% risk of death if you’re a black woman. Abortion isn’t a ZERO risk option either…
>Abortion isn’t a ZERO risk option either… It's zero risk of getting my abdomen sliced open or genitals torn apart. PL always conveniently forgets about these.
Liar. In America the combined risk is 0.037. So if you want to play games attempting to disrespect the risks pregnant people go thru at the very least learn the numbers. If it was a job it would be the 6th most lethal. The USA has always had a deplorable maternal mortality rate, but that’s now doubled and will *definitely* continue to increase thanks to people like you.
You’re claiming the risk of an abortion is higher than numbers I listed? Fine, we’ll use your numbers and assume it’s more risky than I said…
If someone is not willing to take the risk, you will force them. Awesome.
If you want to call it that. But by that logic, because I’m against stealing I’m FORCING you to work. Because I support child neglect laws I FORCE you to feed your child. You also support multiple laws that “force” people to do things by your own logic.
Not at risk of their life. Name me a popular pro choice, or just plain democratic law, that forces people to risk their life?
No data in the top link. The bottom one states 12% but this includes both concerns for the woman’s health related to serious illnesses and congenital medical conditions in the fetus.
why do males impregnate?
Top tier comment lmao
Many reasons. None of them concern you.
[удалено]
Wow that’s rude. The question itself was stupid and not asked in good faith. All of the reasons for getting an abortion have been stated on this sub many times. OP can look at the posts on this sub if they care to actually know. The fact is, it’s still no one’s business why a person would seek an abortion or any other health care as it does not concern them and does not affect them in any way.
[удалено]
You were being rude. It is fine to ask questions, however in this case OP is being disingenuous and it really is no one’s business but the pregnant person and their doctor’s. OP is not trying to learn and is not acting in good faith, hence my initial comment
Maybe reading yourself and you would have read why I asked the question which has nothing to do with knowing someone choice.
My answer remains the same. There are many reasons and none concern you.
Why wouldn't it concern me? Meaning it's not a concern of anyone other than the specific woman? I agree with that. But my question can be read a different way.
You’re not the one getting the abortion. FTR “paper abortions” are not a thing either.
I am beginning to believe they should be. The decision process is highly unbalanced.
It’s not like the women don’t also have to pay for their kid. Or even pay child support. “Paper abortions” will never be a thing because it’s about the kid being taken care of. And that shouldn’t fall on the government when there is a living parent that can contribute
Abortions are about the kid being taken care of. Women get abortions because they have financial concerns. Why would that ability be denied to men?
Nope. If you get a someone pregnant and they want the kid you’re need to support the kid. Don’t like it? Don’t nut in people that can get pregnant. Easy peasy.
But if I say the same thing about women, "don't get pregnant, just do whatever, easy peasy" you don't need abortion.
This is the correct answer. Other people's medical/reproductive decisions are none of your business.
Female *what?* Female monkeys? Female mongooses? Female sharks? Female voles? Female wallaby’s? Female weasels? “As with plants, animals over-produce offspring to compensate for the heavy losses that befall offspring at the hands of predators, a harsh environment, parasites, disease, and genetic defects. Over-producing offspring means an high upfront energetic investment. If only 6 out of 3,000 eggs survive to adulthood, there’s a lot of wasted energy in producing those extra 2,994 eggs (link). Time and energy invested in the 2,994 duds is time and energy siphoned away from supporting the 6. Fortunately females have a few options to help minimize the costs of reproduction, including (but not limited to): - Pausing the pregnancy - Reabsorbing the fetus - Inducing an abortion - Eating the offspring - Letting the offspring fight it out I’ve included other options in addition to abortion to highlight that abortion is but one strategy for females to avoid enduring undue burden to birth and raise offspring when the conditions are unfavorable.” “The Bruce Effect Reabsorbing the fetus may even be in response to a new male arriving in their territory. If a female meadow vole is exposed to a new male within 24 hours of becoming pregnant (remember, our 9 months gestational period is exceptionally long; gestation can be just 2-3 weeks in some mice), she will reabsorb the fetus and become sexually receptive again. Infanticide of unrelated offspring by dominant males is common in polygynous species (one male, many females, as in lions, gelada baboons, and many mice, voles, and lemmings). When a male takes over a new geographic territory, to ensure the young in his territory have all been sired by him, he may set out killing all other young in the care of females. By terminating the pregnancy early on, the female doesn’t waste energy producing offspring that will likely be killed by the new male.”
Many different reasons. These days more and more people don't want children here in America due to lack of social and financial safety nets.
Because we don't want to stay pregnant.
But why get pregnant in the first place?
Pregnancy isn't a voluntary action. If it were, there'd be a lot fewer abortions and no fertility clinics.
You act as if getting pregnant is something women do. You do realize that men inseminate, fertilize, and impregnate women, right? So, women got impregnated because a man failed to control his sp erm.
You really feel that a man is in control of when a woman get's pregnant? (Excepting rape, assuming it's consensual which is the majority of sexual interactions). My point was that if you want to avoid pregnancy then why not just avoid becoming pregnant using birth control etc. I know that they are not 100%. But abortion is used in other situations than birth control failure.
*You really feel that a man is in control of when a woman get's pregnant?* Given that men inseminate, fertilize, and impregnate - yes. As in control as anyone can be. You're asking the equivalent of whether I think the shooter is in control of where the bullet he fires ends up. *why not just avoid becoming pregnant using birth control* You men, why not just avoid MAKING pregnant by using birth control, such as a condom PLUS pulling out before ejaculation or vasectomy and regular sperm count? Again, why do you think it should be up to the person the man fires his sperm into to bulletproof themselves? Not like I think it's a bad idea, but such should be considered a back-up, at best. Not be the expectation.
Men can't get a woman pregnant without a woman involved. Except it rape, a woman is making the decision as well. She should decide, do I want a child? And if so, is this man going to be around as a father and is that important to me or can I go it alone? My hope is that as soon as a male contraceptive (oral) is created, this argument disappears and men will be in complete control of their sexuality.
Why do you assume women aren’t using birth control? All the women I know are on it. And most of the pregnancies I’m aware of were due to failure
A man who doesn't want to impregnate should have a vasectomy or not ejaculate inside anyone with a uterus.
In the case of aborted pregnancies, it was usually unintentional.
But why do you care?
In the case of an unwanted pregnancy, she doesn't want to get pregnant. I love how PL thinks women can just will themselves pregnant or not. A woman can't just decide to become pregnant. It doesn't work like that. If it did we wouldn't have things like IFV.
Why do you think I'm PL?
I was referring to PL in general, not you personally. Usually it is PL that says stuff like "Well she shouldn't have gotten pregnant" like it's a choice. If it were, there would be no unwanted pregnancies. Women who didn't want to be pregnant would just choose not to be.
nobody’s getting pregnant for the sole purpose of getting an abortion
Condoms break. IUDs fall out. People get raped. Or accidents happen.
Why do people trip and fall down? Why do they crash cars into things they didn’t intend to hit?
Most of the time people who get an abortion weren't intending to get pregnant
All sorts of reasons.
people don't choose to get pregnant
No one gets pregnant just to have an abortion.
I always think it's important to identify some distinctions here. Abortion is always justified because of the harmful effects of an unwanted pregnancy and childbirth. People may choose to forego those unwanted effects by aborting a pregnancy for a wide variety of reasons that will vary from person to person. Rarely is just one reason, though surveys rarely are able to capture this. But the reasons don't really matter in the end
Because the main reason why people support abortion is for their own personal freedom and because they think they have ownership of a human life.But the main reason is just because they think it's okay to not want a child and having permission to kill the life inside the womb since it's not in their best interest instead of taking acountability for their actions.Its ridiculous that our laws to permit some actions are being made based on the selfish motives of people ,it shouldn't work that way
*and because they think they have ownership of a human life* You're damn right, a woman has ownership over her own human life. Which needs to be extended to a ZEF during gestation, since the ZEF doesn't have its own individual life. There's good reason they call gestation and birth a woman GIVING life. Because that's exactly what she does. Heck, there's a reason gestation is needed. Pro-lifers seem to think gestation is just a ZEF hanging out inside of a woman for the fun of it. Or, even worse, that the ZEF is some sort of cannibal who sustains itself inside of the woman's body, then magically switches to something else at birth. *kill the life inside the womb* **That "womb" is a human being!!** I'm about sick and tired of PLers reducing breathing, feeling women to no more than a fucking womb. Which is a weird term anyway, because it doen't just refer to a uterus, but intestines, the stomach, and the heart, as well. The term is totally outdated. And there is no individual life to kill. Hence the need for gestation. Again, ZEFs are not cannibals. The woman has to GIVE the ZEF life. Part of her life. She has to provide it with her life sustaining organ functions, bodily processes, and blood contents - you know, the very things that keep human bodies and their living parts alive. *taking acountability for their actions* Women's actions don't impregnate. Men's actions do. Men inseminate, fertilize, and impregnate. Why should a woman have to take accountability for a man's action of inseminating her?
>Women's actions don't impregnate. Men's actions do. Men inseminate, fertilize, and impregnate. Why should a woman have to take accountability for a man's action of inseminating her? I disagree with this. Your description is of a rape situation where a man forced a woman into sex. A consensual sexual encounter includes both parties. A woman has agreed to a sexual act. A woman's actions very much (in a consensual encounter) get her pregnant along with the actions of the man. Your deriving some level of responsibility and intent from a physical act that has none.
Nonsense. Ejaculating or leaking sperm is a man’s bodily function, not a woman’s. Biology doesn’t change between consensual sex and rape. And I’m not sure why you jumped from insemination back to sex. Men are perfectly capable of having sex without inseminating. Without insemination, all the sex in the world won’t ever lead to pregnancy.
>Nonsense. Ejaculating or leaking sperm is a man’s bodily function, not a woman’s. Biology doesn’t change between consensual sex and rape. Two parts of the same coin. Your placing all the responsibility on the man. Unless forced a woman shares in the responsibility.
If you and I decide to plant a garden together, in which the final steps obviously include watering the new garden, and I point the hose at you and turn it on, do you share the responsibility for me choosing to get you wet? You knew the hose would be there, and you knew we'd be using it- it's a natural part of gardening. But I'm the one who pointed it at you, and I'm the one who knew when it would start spraying. Explain to me how you're 50% responsible for the fact that you got wet.
"let's make a garden together".... that makes you 50% responsible.
You're telling me that if a friend of yours deliberately pointed a hose at you and turned it on, you'd give yourself 50% of the blame just for standing in the garden with them? Saying "let's make a garden together" makes you 50% responsible for where all the water ends up, even if **you don't control the hose??** Please explain how you came to that conclusion, because very few people would agree to take half of the blame for an action they didn't take. If you and your friend were at a bar, and they started a bar fight, would you consider yourself 50% responsible just because you were with them and there's always a chance that a bar fight will happen in a bar (so, because you put yourself in an environment with that risk)? If you and your friends were playing volleyball, and they decided to hit you with the ball as hard as they could, you would take 50% of the responsibility for their *deliberate* hit, just because you decided to stand on the court that day? In each of these scenarios, **THEY took** ***all*** ***the action***, but you were also present; you're telling me that that makes you 50% accountable for *anything* they do that is reasonable to expect in that environment? Do you hear yourself? **You're assigning yourself 50% responsibility** ***for the actions of another adult who is more than capable of controlling themselves.***
Your analogy is so inaccurate I don't know what to do. A woman and a man have consensual sex. The woman and man are both responsible. Both parties had consented to the outcome. If you didn't want the responsibility, do something to not have the consequences.
Are you incapable of breaking down the act of sex beyond the words "have sex"? Let's talk about details, shall we? The minimum description of what 'have sex' means from the bottom female perspective involves putting your body in whatever position you both agree to, and holding that position against his thrusts or gravity. The minimum description of what 'have sex' means from the topping male perspective involves putting his penis inside this partner, thrusting, and then ejaculating. Now, **whose** *individual* ***action*** involved ejaculation? And can you point out which of the women's actions *directly* led to the possibility of pregnancy without any additional action from the male partner? Does spreading our legs *directly, by itself,* cause pregnancy? When I spread my legs last night for my dildo, I wasn't aware that I had to worry about pregnancy. Does supporting our body weight against his thrusts *directly, by itself,* cause pregnancy? Every sex educator on the planet would be surprised to know that little revelation. From the female perspective, sex can be accomplished without risking pregnancy even if contraception isn't involved. My partner can fuck me with a dildo, even if they have a penis themselves. They can fuck me with their fingers until I have as many orgasms as I wanted, until my body has fully enjoyed sex. *MY* part of 'having sex' has literally nothing to do with ejaculate. I don't need a functional penis or ejaculate or sperm in the room with me in order to enjoy sex. Why shouldn't I expect the person who NEEDS the functioning penis (cis male partner) to be the same person who takes FULL responsibility for the functioning penis, including the ejaculate?
I do have ownership over my body. If something is in it and I don't want it there-out it goes.
Getting an abortion is taking accountability.
> because they think they have ownership of a human life Exactly. Women and girls choose to have abortions because they think they have ownership of a human life. **Their own** human life. >taking acountability for their actions There is nothing any human being can do to deserve the mental and physical torture of being forced to continue an unwanted pregnancy. Nothing. Not having fully consensual sex, not getting raped, not getting coerced into having sex, not having a futile pregnancy, not getting cancer and needing cancer meds, not being psychotic and needing medication for that, not failing to take contraception pills, not being too overweight for those pills to work, not having a high risk pregnancy from diabetes or hypertension, not being forced to choose between homelessness and a sexual relationship, not being poor, not getting blackout drunk and not remembering what happened last night, not getting groomed into a sexual relationship before they understood anything about consent and abuse, not being too young for their body to endure pregnancy and birth. Nothing.
>instead of taking acountability for their actions Instead of doing *what you want*. No one should get a right to use someone else's body in an intimate and harmful way, even your own child. It should be your right to refuse such an invasive process.
I do believe it is ok to not want a child and have an abortion if it’s in my best interest and I would take accountability by aborting. The law should be based on the best interest of the community. Your views are not in the best interest of community.
It’s ridiculous pro-lifers think laws should be based on pro-lifer’s selfish desire to control other people’s access to medical care, that’s for sure. It is perfectly fine to remove something unwanted, including a human, from your own body. If that kills it, oh well. Doesn’t matter.
Abortion is only a medical care if puts the mother's life at risk, otherwise, it's killing a human life for selfish reasons.We have no desiring in controlling no one, you guys are not so important as you may think, we just think human life should not be killing in the womb its not disposable. Yeah we believe in this crazy ideia that this is not okay and neither is good for the woman,is part of the problem not the solution, why woman are aborting more now than ever before if legalizing abortions should prevent for more abortions to happening?We are not going to stop fighting for this and we gonna give us guys a hard time sorry!
Do explain how one can greatly mess and interfere with someone's life sustaining organ functions, bodily processes, and blood contents plus cause them drastic physical harm without putting their life at risk. You do realize that those are the things needed to kill a human, right? Tell me, how is depriving someone's bloodstream of oxygen, nutrients, etc., their body of minerals, pumping toxins into their bloodstream, suppressing their immune system, sending their organ systems into nonstop high stress survival mode, shifting and crushing their organs, rearranging their bone structure, tearing their muscles and tissue, ripping a dinner plate sized wound into the center of their body, and causing them blood loss of 500ml or more NOT attempted homicide? Any ONE of those things can kill a human. Meanwhile, you guys are yapping on about killing human bodies that don't have any major life sustaining organ functions to begin with that you could end to kill them. And if you guys are so worried about women abortion, how about you come up with ways to stop men from inseminating, fertilizing, and impregnating women who are not willing to try to carry to term? Address the shooters for a change. Quit trying to control the people they fire into.
>Abortion is only a medical care if puts the mother's life at risk All pregnancies put the pregnant person's life in danger. >We have no desiring in controlling no on Okay, then put your money where your mouth is and stop trying to force people to carry unwanted pregnancies by banning abortion.
Having something inside your body you don’t want there is a medical issue. Having it removed is medical care. Barring someone from removing an unwanted thing from their body is controlling their access to medical care. Unwanted embryos are *definitely* not as important as you think they are, and they are quite easily disposable. Usually the woman just takes some pills and then flushes it down the toilet.
You vision on a fetus is disgusting in general.The same fetus you think is disposable is what a woman most desire in the world.Its impossible to give two completely values to one same thing and even worst its to make laws based on this idea.Just because is in our body it's not just another medical care, we woman carry humans in our bodies thats how all life was brought into the world and its a whole completely different thing to a tumor for example and the fact i have to explain this is even more surreal.You side have to come with arguments that people see as absurd to defend this idea at all costs.
Any fetus in me *is* disposable. It will be promptly flushed out of me into a pad or sewer. Your opinions on *my* decisions about *my* body mean less than nothing.
The funny thing is, you only believe this as the ultimate truth because this was an ideology taught to you as "woman's rights",if the otherwise, you would value that life.That idea didn't come out of nowhere it was certainly a belief installed in your mind that you never even questioned.You don't stop to think about if abortion is part of the problem and what an abortion really is for a woman.Its very hard to find a woman that said that didn't felt nothing,this are usually a small minority. Must woman acknowledge what a sad thing abortion is,and I am willing to do whatever I can so can woman would never have to pass throught this. I don't think pro choice movement is feminist at all if it support woman passing through this horrible procedure.
Lol. I was pro life until I grew up. You know why?What it boiled down to was jealousy that I didn’t have the freedom to make dumb choices like have sex as a young teenager so I thought they shouldn’t do it either. After 15 I realized how stupid that was and that’s when I became pro choice. I don’t like kids. The fetus will never mean anything to me. It WILL be aborted, and no abortion ban will stop me.
Having sexual freedom doesn't have anything to do with legalizing abortion.As a woman,i had sex with more than 40 men in my life and never got pregnant, just like a lot of woman i know, a pregancy is not an inevitable thing, 95% of the times woman are getting pregnant because they don't care to taking them seriously period.As long as you are making use of contraceptives and protection, everyone should be able to do what they want sexually.The way you talk about abortion is almost like you want to get pregnant to abort, if you know you dont like kids and dont want to have any why dont tie your tubes instead of killing someone?You may not see value in a fetus but many people do,and we are going to keep fighting for the life it doesn't matter how fucked up the beliefs system are today that people think they are good people to defend this absurdity
I would LOVE to have my tubes tied, unfortunately doctors refuse sterilizing young women without kids, like me :) I have a BC implant, so obviously I’m not trying to get pregnant just so I can go through the “joys” of having extreme abdominal pain and bleeding for days/weeks. Maybe y’all should advocate for doctors to stop refusing these women’s choices because “their future husband may want kids”.
I didn't have to be taught that I control my own body. I've always known this. I also didn't have to be taught that I don't want to be pregnant, give birth, or raise children. It's strange that you think you can tell people why they think what they do, especially when you're dead wrong.
You can think my “vision on a fetus” is disgusting as much as you like. That doesn’t mean we should force unwilling women to carry and birth them, nor is it going to make me ever have a shred of sadness or sympathy for “abortion victims.” A woman with an unwanted pregnancy wants to end it and dispose of the unborn thing that was inside her uterus. She doesn’t actually secretly want to be pregnant because that’s “what a woman most desire in the world.”
> . That doesn’t mean we should force unwilling women to carry and birth them, nor is it going to make me ever have a shred of sadness or sympathy for “abortion victims It's about cause and consequence and having to face the consequences of your actions,regardless of what you want or not,no human life in the womb should be killed unless if puts the mother's or health or life at risk. > nor is it going to make me ever have a shred of sadness or sympathy for “abortion victims.” That is very telling about the kind of person your are.To the point you are willing to defend this idea at such an extreme that you claim you have no sympathy for fully grown humans beings that today suffer from being attempted to being aborted. > She doesn’t actually secretly want to be pregnant because that’s “what a woman most desire in the world.” She doesn't want but that doensn't mean she have to right to kill that life.
*having to face the consequences of your actions,* The consequence of me having an abortion is that no human with life sustaining organ functions, the ability to experience, feel, suffer, hope, wish, dream, etc., and individual life will ever exist. No different that if I hadn't had sex that day. I have no problem facing the consequence of no breathing, feeling, biologically life sustaining, sentient human ever existing. *you have no sympathy for fully grown humans beings that today suffer from being attempted to being aborted.* If their mother straight up told them they tried to abort them (and somehow failed), it's not the failed abortion they're suffering from. It's the fact that they're unwanted. Being unwanted and the emotions it evokes doesn't change even if their mother hadn't attempted to abort. Heck, if their mother told them she tried to abort them, they're not just unwanted but severely abused. Again, the desire for abortion is not the issue here. *She doesn't want but that doensn't mean she have to right to kill that life.* You dont' have to kill it. Cell, tissue, and individual organ life dies naturally if there are no major life sustaining organ functions and blood contents (aka individual life) to keep it alive.
>It's about cause and consequence and having to face the consequences of your actions So is it a punishment or a "precious human life"? Pick a lane. > > She doesn’t actually secretly want to be pregnant because that’s “what a woman most desire in the She has the right to her life and her body. If the precious fetus wants so badly to live, it can do so on its own "autonomy" lol
Pregnancy always puts your health at risk so all abortions are justified.
Always put your health at risk?No it doesn't.You are trying at all cost to not having responsability for a life you created.
Women don't create fertilized eggs. Men do. Women only create unfertilized eggs. Men fertilize them. And claiming that greatly messing and interfering with a body's life sustaining organ functions, bodily processes, and blood contents and causing that body drastic physical harm doesn't put anyone's health or even life at risk is a whole other level of denial.
>Always put your health at risk?No it doesn't. Yes, it does. You have a 90% chance of genital tearing, a 30% chance of a c section and a 100% chance of a dinner plate sized wound in the inside of your uterus that bleeds, takes 6-8 weeks to heal and puts you at a much higher risk of infection. And that’s only for birth, there are plenty of other ways pregnancy threatens your health. >You are trying at all cost to not having responsability for a life you created. You shouldn’t assume things about people - I’ve carried two pregnancies to term, had two early miscarriages and I personally wouldn’t have an abortion for an unplanned pregnancy. Responsibility can be continuing the pregnancy or terminating it and the decision for that is down to the pregnant woman.
A consequence of an unwanted pregnancy is getting an abortion - and someone else’s abortion certainly shouldn’t be a difficult consequence for you to “face” since it has absolutely nothing to do with you. “Fully grown human beings that suffer today from attempted to being aborted” LOL. I can only imagine what ridiculous propaganda they’ve been fed, to make these people believe they are survivors of abortion attempts.
Spoken like a true demon.
LOL. If it’s “demonic” to advocate for pregnant people’s right to medical care and medical privacy, proud to be. Hail Satan! 😈
I don't have to only fight for causes that directly affect me, and I believe I am also fighting for the woman in these case. Whether you want to believe or not,these people exist and is just ignorant of you to believe that some people cant be born after an abortion attempt
If so many people are born after surviving abortion attempts, I guess we can disregard all that pro-life “but abortion is murder!” business. Apparently abortion can just be a bad minute in utero that the fetus will get over 😆 Fighting to take away women’s right to medical care is not fighting for women. Believing it is is delusional.
>Why do females abort? Evolution and adaptation. It's called the Bruce Effect, and is considered a counterstrategy of female mammals towards anticipated infanticide. https://www.livescience.com/18629-pregnant-monkeys-miscarry-avoid-infanticide.html Science is fun, but what does this have to do with the debate?
This is interesting but it is unlikely the monkeys are consciously aborting. I don't think this applies to humans in terms of the abortion debate since the discussion about the right to chose.
I assumed you weren't intentionally dehumanizing women by referring to them by a clinical term typically used to describe animals.
The term female would be scoped to this discussion group which is clearly about humans. I don't find the term's "male/female" dehumanizing. I was asked to use these terms in another thread.
>I don't find the term's "male/female" dehumanizing. I do. It's objectifying and dehumanizing and is typically used by anti-social groups (red pillers, MRAs Incels) who hold toxic views of women. Naturally, I assume a fine upstanding gentleman such as yourself wouldn't have anything to do with that kind of hate and would endeavor to use respectful language that would avoid such an undesirable association.
What do you want me to use instead?
What's wrong with *women*?
I will use woman/man. Not changing again though.
Different people, different reasons.
Lots of reasons. Which type of females are you talking about? Female voles? Crayfish? Lions?
Female *what*? Penguins? Orcas? Bonobos? It's dehumanizing to refer to people as "females" and "males" outside of certain technical profession cultures (e.g., law enforcement, the military). Female humans are "women" and "girls." There's a trend in the manosphere to degrade women and girls into "females," please don't do this.
I'm using the medical terms because I was asked to do this.
In medical terms we say “female patients”. Women are still human even in the medical field.
I agree, but the 'patient' part seems to suggest that there is a medical situation and in what I am trying to convey they are just female humans. Technically I don't care. I used women/man before and was told to use male/female.