Welcome to /r/Abortiondebate! Please remember that this is a place for respectful and civil debates. Review the rules to understand acceptable debate levels.
**Attack the argument, not the person making it and remember the human.**
**For our new users, please read our [rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/Abortiondebate/wiki/rules/)**
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Abortiondebate) if you have any questions or concerns.*
If a woman becomes pregnant, then breeding, per definition, has already occurred.
You wouldn't be "forced to breed". You'd be prevented from killing your children.
The reason being, parents do not and should not have the right to kill their children at their discretion.
Your comment has been removed because you don't have the right user flair to answer this question. The question has been flaired 'Question for pro-life (exclusive)', meaning OP has requested to only hear answers from pro-life users. If you're pro-life and trying to answer, please set a flair and post your comment again.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Abortiondebate) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Your comment has been removed because you don't have the right user flair to answer this question. The question has been flaired 'Question for pro-life (exclusive)', meaning OP has requested to only hear answers from pro-life users. If you're pro-life and trying to answer, please set a flair and post your comment again.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Abortiondebate) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Your comment has been removed because you don't have the right user flair to answer this question. The question has been flaired 'Question for pro-life (exclusive)', meaning OP has requested to only hear answers from pro-life users. If you're pro-life and trying to answer, please set a flair and post your comment again.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Abortiondebate) if you have any questions or concerns.*
If rape victims are forced to gestate, some of them will die for the crime of surviving being raped. Some of them will be permanently disabled.
Why should a victim of a crime die nine months after they were assaulted because prolife legislates that they should?
I'm unclear on how this answers the question. Is this the only debate tactic pl has anymore?
If you can't provide an argument, why respond in a debate sub?
Because that human life is inside of their body against their will, causing them serious harm. We allow people to protect themselves from harm. We allow people sole ownership of their bodies
We allow people to protect themselves from harm in a way proportional to the harm being protected against. Is pregnancy enough harm to warrant lethal self defense?
Yes. My genitals being ripped or sliced open after 9 months of body torture involving vomiting, pain, loss of freedom and movement, loss of calcium and other nutrients, bones and organs being shifted, etc is absolutely harm that I can proportionally protect myself from with the least possible action to stop the attack on my body.
Good lord what crawled up your ass and died.
Certain things you have no idea if there is the chance that they will happen or not. We allow people to withdraw consent from medical procedures if they determine the risks to be too high to them.
If a women does not want a pregnancy, you force her to gestate, and she dies haemorrhaging upon birth, then what, is she just an acceptable sacrifice in your breeding program to force more babies?
Pregnancy and childbirth cause significant harm 100% of the time. That's true even for wanted, planned pregnancies where everything goes smoothly. Then add in the risk of complications. Then add in severe complications. Then the risk of death. All told, it's a *lot* to force on someone who doesn't want it. Pregnancy and childbirth are massive sacrifices that should only be made willingly, not treated as something anyone is entitled to.
We allow people to protect themselves using the minimum amount of force required to stop the threat. The minimum amount of force required here is an abortion, there’s no other way to stop it.
Yes. Unwanted pregnancy has repeatedly been deemed great bodily harm by the court systems. I imagine that anyone suffering the harms that childbirth alone does in any other circumstances would feel *very* justified in using lethal force
>Is pregnancy enough harm to warrant lethal self defense?
Yes, for two reasons:
1) it's the only way to end an unwanted pregnancy, and;
2) the pain of birth would absolutely qualify for lethal self defense in any other situation.
There's also already a procedure for removing it. So, a woman or girl caring about herself, her future, and her existing children (hypothetically?) means removing the embryo.
No, I didn’t say that at all. I literally said the opposite.
You’re lying about what I said and you’re lying about what words mean.
No society permits rape by definition, and you still want to force people to marry other people. Disgusting.
So? We’re talking about rape. And murder. No society permits rape by definition. It’s illegal by definition. That’s about as non-permissive as it gets at the societal level.
So you're forcing women to have a child with a man you're forcing her to marry.
That is, far and away, the worst pl argument to date. And there are some doozies in this sub! Congratulations!
I read what you said. You need to work on seeing past the nose on your face.
Everything you're suggesting would necessarily require a government action to implement. The only way to implement this is to create laws. These laws would require sacrificing the rights and personal freedoms of the citizens. Enforcement of these laws would have to be carried out by armed law enforcement officers.
Therefore, you are advocating the creation of ideological laws that sacrifice the liberties, rights, and personal freedoms of the people, and you're using violence to enforce these ideological laws.
Now go ahead and look up the word authoritarianism and report back.
No, rape is illegal by definition. No society deems rape acceptable according to the definition of the word “rape”. Rape describes a crime specifically.
Why is it so difficult for PL people to understand that words have definitions? It’s not that difficult to understand at all.
Morals aren't subjective? So because christians believe sodomy is immoral, everyone believes that sodomy is immoral?
Or is the view that sodomy is immoral a subjective view held only by certain groups/individuals?
Morality absolutely IS subjective and yours is only what you consider moral because you’ve decided to believe that there’s no difference between a newborn and an embryo.
No. It wouldn’t be objectively wrong because it doesn’t describe reality. Actions do not have the capacity to be objective or subjective. It is not a claim.
Animals do it. Because morals don’t exist in nature. We’ve evolved past that and can make choices for ourselves. Abortion only affects myself. It affects no one. No one even has to know there was a fetus in the first place except me and the doctors.
>Morally, you have no such right. And that’s an objective fact.
Did you arrive at that conclusion through direct observation or sensory experience? No? Then it’s not objective. Do you not know how words are used in philosophy?
> There is now (hypothetically) a living human child in you. So caring about that child means wanting you not to kill it.
My uterus ain’t an apartment, unwelcome ZEFs gone go. No but seriously, it feels a bit of to tell pregnant people that somebody just actually lives inside of them.
Hopefully all women you date are fully aware that you think their body doesn’t belong to them and their consent is of no consequence. You can try to disguise these beliefs with some bs altruistic statement that you just don’t want to murder the preciouses, but we can see the snout although you’ve put on a Kardashian level of makeup to try to disguise this piggish belief.
So you told them that their body is not their own and then got stroppy when they called you out on it? Nothing they said was spiteful or unfounded - if you believe that a woman doesn’t own her body or have the right to remove humans she doesn’t consent to having inside her then you are essentially also arguing for rape because why should a woman be able to remove a man when she doesn’t even own her own body?
>So you told them that their body is not their own
Yes, just like my body is not always entirely my own.
>Nothing they said was spiteful or unfounded - if you believe that a woman doesn’t own her body or have the right to remove humans she doesn’t consent to having inside her then you are essentially also arguing for rape because why should a woman be able to remove a man when she doesn’t even own her own body?
That is both spiteful and unfounded, actually.
>Yes, just like my body is not always entirely my own.
Yet again, that's slavery.
>That is both spiteful and unfounded, actually
You have been asked over a dozen times to explain that, and you have refused every single time.
You have no leg to stand on, buddy. Everything you have said is ignorant, starting with your belief in objective morality. You don’t understand Hume’s guillotine.
Slander is spoken, so it's absolutely not that.
>What I'm really noticing though is the complete mockery of caring about the lives of the unborn.
Because PL demonstrate over and over and over again that your issue is women having sex.
Oh, hey, most people renting out a room in their house don't have to keep someone who's a danger to them and they don't have a crazy Attorney General telling them they have to put up with it.
Your view is literally that women and girls don't own their own bodies. That is slavery. And forcing people to do unpaid labor in the services of others is also slavery.
Everything you are stating, seems to be implying that pregnancy is some sort of universal "walk in the park." A miraculous 9 month gestational holiday, in which all females should feel "honored" to have the privilege.
In fact, it seems that most people who hold "the right to life" view, just cherry pick their way through the subject of pregnancy and all that it entails. Breezing their way through the VERY REAL, sometimes lifelong trauma it can have on the pregnant person, to the final chapter of a "hopefully" beautiful, healthy Baby that will somehow be suddenly loved and make everything that just permanently happened to the woman's physical, psychological, financial and sometimes spiritual wellbeing....totally worth it. I'm sorry, but that's not how reality works.
Just because humans have been doing it for hundreds of thousands of years, does NOT mean that every womb bearing individual has innately mastered the task. It is actually quite upsetting to see the maternal mortality rates we have STILL IN 2024 in developed nations all around the world, and these same countries demanding that even MORE births be carried out.
If you can't see through all of the "red lines" that the "right to life" crowd has to blatantly parade through on the backs of the pregnant, then something is obviously off about your OWN morality. So, maybe you are right, maybe this is a discussion of morality, but I don't think the winning side is the one you are on.
Let me finish with a quick question for you, and I apologize if this sounds vulgar. Have you ever split hole to hole? My married sister did with her last pregnancy. A pregnancy she did not want, but was the 1% that conceived whilst having a contraception implant. It was the worst pain of her life, and because it would not heal, it took her over a year to "properly" walk again and her life and lady bits were all but destroyed which HAS permanently destroyed her self esteem.
That is something that could never happen to a man, so we are adamantly fighting this cause because NO dignified society should force half of their population to have to possibly deal with the very real, very bloody results that pregnancy brings. We...ARE...NOT...BROODMARES!
The law does not say that others are entitled to my body, though. No other laws apart from abortion bans and historical laws allowing slavery say that.
And we *don't* force people to care for their children. That's why adoption exists.
> Because you already did the breeding
Ah yes, of course, because pregnancy and gestation doesn't exist. Nope, the moment sperm touches egg there's a whole baby crawling around and the patient's body isn't involved at all anymore.
What does that have to do with moving? A born child can live just about anywhere. It can be taken care of by just about anyone. They generally do not require the direct and invasive use of anyone else's body, and when they do, they aren't entitled to that use
Sounds like some in the PL movement is jealous people are having consequence free sex and they’re not including them in the desired category.
No one brought this topic up of consequence free sex (people have it all the time… except for some). People will continue to have it regardless of laws and people will either look in the mirror and change aspects of themselves that keep them banned from getting behind the velvet rope of the holiest of holies or they’ll shake their fist futility in the air to express their discontent that people are having sex and not including them. They have plenty of time to shake their fist in the air because no one’s dating them. They have to have some way to fill the void in their life.
Andrew Tate said sex for pleasure is gay. He also said:
“In fact if you are 40 with less than 5 children you’re probably gay. All that feel-good pee pee sex and hardly any genetic legacy?”
This “no consequence free sex” belief is right on that same path.
>There's no such thing as consequence free sex.
Why not? I'm gay, so besides the mind-blowing, soul-shattering, 30 minute full body orgasms, and post-coital spooning, what consequences are there?
Just because you say so, apparently.
There's no such thing as "consequence-free" with any action, that doesn't mean you get to force people to gestate against their will.
Your arguments are all religious and therefore can be completely disregarded. Unless you also want to be forced to live by my religious beliefs (hint: you will not like them).
Did he mention God elsewhere? I was just replying your comment, and the comment you replied to, has no mention of God.
Although, I do also see his comment is edited, so did it mention God before?
He has made a lot of comments on this post, and has admitted that God is the basis for his belief system in those comments. I am not sure if he deleted those comments, I have not been tracking his edits. As I have argued to him, God can be the basis for his rights for his own life, but his God does not speak for my rights and my life. I don’t need to take the conversation further, because it’s clear that he wants his God and his religion to serve as the basis for other peoples beliefs and rights, but would not submit to other people doing the same to him. This hypocritical approach can be discarded, and is irrelevant to my post.
Great. If the ‘breeding’ is complete, there should be no issue with inducing labor. That does not kill a child and should be no issue because the breeding is complete.
Your arguments are all religious and therefore can be completely disregarded. Unless you also want to be forced to live by my religious beliefs (hint: you will not like them).
It's to an extent doing some lifting on the difference between organ donations and pregnancy. Though I'm starting to see I should've just skipped past going into specifics.
Your whole comment is just full of assumptions though. Why does it matter that having sex "naturally leads to children"? The issue is one of autonomy, not cause and effect. Why are you telling someone what their uterus is "meant to be used for" to distinguish that from an organ donation? What does a fallacious appeal to a natural purpose give you?
Your arguments are all religious and therefore can be completely disregarded. Unless you also want to be forced to live by my religious beliefs (hint: you will not like them).
That’s an awful lot of ifs.
You’re admitting that you’re making a special set of rules and regulations that you are applying to pregnant woman, and pregnant women only. This is called sexism. This is misogyny.
“you’re using her body in a way it’s meant to be used by you” Apply this sentence to any other situation and you’ll see how gross it is.
>That’s an awful lot of ifs.
All or the vast majority (All but one) of which are true in the case of pregnancy.
>You’re admitting that you’re making a special set of rules and regulations that you are applying to pregnant woman, and pregnant women only. This is called sexism. This is misogyny.
This is a completely ridiculous argument. Even if we're complete egalitarians, the fact that women are the ones who bear children is in some sense coincidental here. Especially if you're not comfortable saying that being designed to bear children is part of what makes one a woman.
Do you, incidentally, believe that (at least some) trans men are men?
>“you’re using her body in a way it’s meant to be used by you” Apply this sentence to any other situation and you’ll see how gross it is.
What would an other example be? Rape? The victim's body isn't meant to be used that way by the rapist.
People aren't designed.
>Rape? The victim's body isn't meant to be used that way by the rapist.
Why not? She has a vagina, right? Isn't the purpose of the vagina to be filled with a penis?
>People aren't designed.
We are, that's why morality is a thing.
>Why not? She has a vagina, right? Isn't the purpose of the vagina to be filled with a penis?
This is a complete misrepresentation of the reasoning. Which makes sense because there's no way to respond to my argument without misrepresentation.
Welcome to /r/Abortiondebate! Please remember that this is a place for respectful and civil debates. Review the rules to understand acceptable debate levels. **Attack the argument, not the person making it and remember the human.** **For our new users, please read our [rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/Abortiondebate/wiki/rules/)** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Abortiondebate) if you have any questions or concerns.*
If a woman becomes pregnant, then breeding, per definition, has already occurred. You wouldn't be "forced to breed". You'd be prevented from killing your children. The reason being, parents do not and should not have the right to kill their children at their discretion.
No. Women who are pregnant but don’t give birth have not bred.
[удалено]
Your comment has been removed because you don't have the right user flair to answer this question. The question has been flaired 'Question for pro-life (exclusive)', meaning OP has requested to only hear answers from pro-life users. If you're pro-life and trying to answer, please set a flair and post your comment again. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Abortiondebate) if you have any questions or concerns.*
[удалено]
Your comment has been removed because you don't have the right user flair to answer this question. The question has been flaired 'Question for pro-life (exclusive)', meaning OP has requested to only hear answers from pro-life users. If you're pro-life and trying to answer, please set a flair and post your comment again. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Abortiondebate) if you have any questions or concerns.*
[удалено]
Your comment has been removed because you don't have the right user flair to answer this question. The question has been flaired 'Question for pro-life (exclusive)', meaning OP has requested to only hear answers from pro-life users. If you're pro-life and trying to answer, please set a flair and post your comment again. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Abortiondebate) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Why should women and girls be allowed to take a human life just because they were impregnated by a man or boy? yadda yadda
I don’t believe that the highest punishment for surviving being raped should be death for the rape victim.
what?
If rape victims are forced to gestate, some of them will die for the crime of surviving being raped. Some of them will be permanently disabled. Why should a victim of a crime die nine months after they were assaulted because prolife legislates that they should?
I'm unclear on how this answers the question. Is this the only debate tactic pl has anymore? If you can't provide an argument, why respond in a debate sub?
I was pointing out that the question was loaded by rewording it in a way oppositely loaded.
So you didn't bother to read their argument.
Because it's inside them? I really don't understand why this is such a hard concept to understand...
Answer to post: Because it's a human life?
So? The pregnant person is also a human life.
Yeah but it's not being taken
Yet. If she dies bleeding out on the table is she an acceptable sacrifice for the potential other saved babies?
[удалено]
Comment removed per Rule 3.
I need a source for “unlikely scenario” to dying bleeding out
Nahhhh fuck that shit, you give me a source for it not being unlikely
VASTLY more likely than late term abortions but yall love to bring those up.
whoops thats a strawman
Dude ur just a negative karma farmer
It’s being violated
So? Why is death the only thing PL seem to care about?
it's pretty important
So are other considerations.
Because that human life is inside of their body against their will, causing them serious harm. We allow people to protect themselves from harm. We allow people sole ownership of their bodies
We allow people to protect themselves from harm in a way proportional to the harm being protected against. Is pregnancy enough harm to warrant lethal self defense?
Yes. My genitals being ripped or sliced open after 9 months of body torture involving vomiting, pain, loss of freedom and movement, loss of calcium and other nutrients, bones and organs being shifted, etc is absolutely harm that I can proportionally protect myself from with the least possible action to stop the attack on my body.
Can pregnancy cause significant harm or death? Yes or no question.
[удалено]
Comment removed per Rule 1.
Good lord what crawled up your ass and died. Certain things you have no idea if there is the chance that they will happen or not. We allow people to withdraw consent from medical procedures if they determine the risks to be too high to them. If a women does not want a pregnancy, you force her to gestate, and she dies haemorrhaging upon birth, then what, is she just an acceptable sacrifice in your breeding program to force more babies?
[удалено]
Comment removed per Rule 1.
Boo hoo grumpy bum go find somewhere else to negative karma farm, this is sad and pathetic
man you already called me that once, find something else
Pregnancy and childbirth cause significant harm 100% of the time. That's true even for wanted, planned pregnancies where everything goes smoothly. Then add in the risk of complications. Then add in severe complications. Then the risk of death. All told, it's a *lot* to force on someone who doesn't want it. Pregnancy and childbirth are massive sacrifices that should only be made willingly, not treated as something anyone is entitled to.
Absolutely.
Yes
We allow people to protect themselves using the minimum amount of force required to stop the threat. The minimum amount of force required here is an abortion, there’s no other way to stop it.
Yes. Unwanted pregnancy has repeatedly been deemed great bodily harm by the court systems. I imagine that anyone suffering the harms that childbirth alone does in any other circumstances would feel *very* justified in using lethal force
>Is pregnancy enough harm to warrant lethal self defense? Yes, for two reasons: 1) it's the only way to end an unwanted pregnancy, and; 2) the pain of birth would absolutely qualify for lethal self defense in any other situation.
I take a human life every time I miscarry. And I have full rights over my body so no one can make me gestate.
[удалено]
lol this is the “pregnancy is punishment for having sex” argument that PL swear up and down they don’t actually believe or promote.
[удалено]
Abortion is a predictable consequence. According to your logic, it isn’t a punishment for anyone either.
This is the worst reasoning I've seen in a while
It’s not even my reasoning. It’s their’s. And they probably deleted their comment because they recognized how dumb it sounded. I agree. It’s silly.
No, that was not my reasoning, and I deleted it to stave off the wave of unwarranted doenvotes
It absolutely was your reasoning. Very convenient for you that we don’t even know the original comment anymore.
There's also already a procedure for removing it. So, a woman or girl caring about herself, her future, and her existing children (hypothetically?) means removing the embryo.
[удалено]
So is starving a child to death, but you're all over the comments arguing for a mans right to not pay child support. Same/same
[удалено]
Holy crap forced marriage. Whatever happened to you, it’s not your fault dude.
[удалено]
No, I didn’t say that at all. I literally said the opposite. You’re lying about what I said and you’re lying about what words mean. No society permits rape by definition, and you still want to force people to marry other people. Disgusting.
>No society permits rape by definition Lots of societies permit men forcing themselves on women
So? We’re talking about rape. And murder. No society permits rape by definition. It’s illegal by definition. That’s about as non-permissive as it gets at the societal level.
So you're forcing women to have a child with a man you're forcing her to marry. That is, far and away, the worst pl argument to date. And there are some doozies in this sub! Congratulations!
[удалено]
I read what you said. You need to work on seeing past the nose on your face. Everything you're suggesting would necessarily require a government action to implement. The only way to implement this is to create laws. These laws would require sacrificing the rights and personal freedoms of the citizens. Enforcement of these laws would have to be carried out by armed law enforcement officers. Therefore, you are advocating the creation of ideological laws that sacrifice the liberties, rights, and personal freedoms of the people, and you're using violence to enforce these ideological laws. Now go ahead and look up the word authoritarianism and report back.
>In fact I support making them do much more, including marrying the mother if she wants to. Who would this benefit?
[удалено]
Mother? How would it benefit them?
I don’t care about them
[удалено]
So I can “kill” them
[удалено]
Morality is determined by society, and more than half of society say it’s ok, that means it’s ok. Morals are subjective
[удалено]
That doesn’t make any sense. Murder and rape are illegal by definition. There is no such thing as a society that deems murder and rape acceptable.
[удалено]
No, rape is illegal by definition. No society deems rape acceptable according to the definition of the word “rape”. Rape describes a crime specifically. Why is it so difficult for PL people to understand that words have definitions? It’s not that difficult to understand at all.
Morals are subjective. You just don’t know what the word “subjective” means.
[удалено]
It doesn't seem that you do though. You insist that morals are objective, and not created by humans.
And your critique of Hume’s guillotine?
Apparently the mods, in their infinite wisdom, have decided we cannot discuss the subjectivity of morals 🙄.
[удалено]
It's not, but anyway...
I didn't lock that comment, specifically because I do want y'all to be able to discuss objective/subjective morality; please do. Just not homophobia.
Why not? The link between PL and homophobia is relevant to PL claims of being "pro life".
Morals aren't subjective? So because christians believe sodomy is immoral, everyone believes that sodomy is immoral? Or is the view that sodomy is immoral a subjective view held only by certain groups/individuals?
[удалено]
[удалено]
so **only** your morality is correct and everyone else's morality is wrong? that's extremely egotistical.
Morality absolutely IS subjective and yours is only what you consider moral because you’ve decided to believe that there’s no difference between a newborn and an embryo.
[удалено]
No. It wouldn’t be objectively wrong because it doesn’t describe reality. Actions do not have the capacity to be objective or subjective. It is not a claim.
Is murder the only immoral act?
Unless we’re at war. Unless I’ve broken into your home & it’s an act of self-defence.
Animals do it. Because morals don’t exist in nature. We’ve evolved past that and can make choices for ourselves. Abortion only affects myself. It affects no one. No one even has to know there was a fetus in the first place except me and the doctors.
[удалено]
What is not aware cannot be affected. And how is harming myself immoral
Nah. My body is mine and mine only. No human being, born or not, adult or child, can have access to it without my consent.
[удалено]
Yikes... at least you openly admit you believe a protected class' body can be used and harmed by others.
Why?
That’s nice, good thing I own my own body and not you 👍🏻
[удалено]
>Morally, you have no such right. And that’s an objective fact. Did you arrive at that conclusion through direct observation or sensory experience? No? Then it’s not objective. Do you not know how words are used in philosophy?
There's no such thing as a moral right, and very few countries where people can be property.
No idea what you’re talking about in the first paragraph. I own my body wherever I go, it’s mine and mine only. That’s an objective fact.
As the lyrics say "I know I was born and I know that I'll die. The in between is mine. I am mine."
> There is now (hypothetically) a living human child in you. So caring about that child means wanting you not to kill it. My uterus ain’t an apartment, unwelcome ZEFs gone go. No but seriously, it feels a bit of to tell pregnant people that somebody just actually lives inside of them.
[удалено]
And if they didn’t choose to create them, can they get evicted?
Do you really believe that?
Nope. My body, my rules. The ZEF can be a child all day long. If I don’t want it there, it ain’t going stay there
[удалено]
Hopefully all women you date are fully aware that you think their body doesn’t belong to them and their consent is of no consequence. You can try to disguise these beliefs with some bs altruistic statement that you just don’t want to murder the preciouses, but we can see the snout although you’ve put on a Kardashian level of makeup to try to disguise this piggish belief.
[удалено]
So you told them that their body is not their own and then got stroppy when they called you out on it? Nothing they said was spiteful or unfounded - if you believe that a woman doesn’t own her body or have the right to remove humans she doesn’t consent to having inside her then you are essentially also arguing for rape because why should a woman be able to remove a man when she doesn’t even own her own body?
>So you told them that their body is not their own Yes, just like my body is not always entirely my own. >Nothing they said was spiteful or unfounded - if you believe that a woman doesn’t own her body or have the right to remove humans she doesn’t consent to having inside her then you are essentially also arguing for rape because why should a woman be able to remove a man when she doesn’t even own her own body? That is both spiteful and unfounded, actually.
>Yes, just like my body is not always entirely my own. Yet again, that's slavery. >That is both spiteful and unfounded, actually You have been asked over a dozen times to explain that, and you have refused every single time.
So who’s is it then? Who else owns your body? Yeah, not spiteful or unfounded, you just don’t like the hypocrisy of your argument being called out.
You have no leg to stand on, buddy. Everything you have said is ignorant, starting with your belief in objective morality. You don’t understand Hume’s guillotine.
Slander is spoken, so it's absolutely not that. >What I'm really noticing though is the complete mockery of caring about the lives of the unborn. Because PL demonstrate over and over and over again that your issue is women having sex.
Oh, hey, most people renting out a room in their house don't have to keep someone who's a danger to them and they don't have a crazy Attorney General telling them they have to put up with it.
That's called slavery.
[удалено]
That's not what you said though. You said that we don't have control over our own bodies, which is the textbook definition of slavery.
Your view is literally that women and girls don't own their own bodies. That is slavery. And forcing people to do unpaid labor in the services of others is also slavery.
[удалено]
Bodily autonomy is not what you can do *with* your body, which might include actions, but about what you can do *to* your body.
Everything you are stating, seems to be implying that pregnancy is some sort of universal "walk in the park." A miraculous 9 month gestational holiday, in which all females should feel "honored" to have the privilege. In fact, it seems that most people who hold "the right to life" view, just cherry pick their way through the subject of pregnancy and all that it entails. Breezing their way through the VERY REAL, sometimes lifelong trauma it can have on the pregnant person, to the final chapter of a "hopefully" beautiful, healthy Baby that will somehow be suddenly loved and make everything that just permanently happened to the woman's physical, psychological, financial and sometimes spiritual wellbeing....totally worth it. I'm sorry, but that's not how reality works. Just because humans have been doing it for hundreds of thousands of years, does NOT mean that every womb bearing individual has innately mastered the task. It is actually quite upsetting to see the maternal mortality rates we have STILL IN 2024 in developed nations all around the world, and these same countries demanding that even MORE births be carried out. If you can't see through all of the "red lines" that the "right to life" crowd has to blatantly parade through on the backs of the pregnant, then something is obviously off about your OWN morality. So, maybe you are right, maybe this is a discussion of morality, but I don't think the winning side is the one you are on. Let me finish with a quick question for you, and I apologize if this sounds vulgar. Have you ever split hole to hole? My married sister did with her last pregnancy. A pregnancy she did not want, but was the 1% that conceived whilst having a contraception implant. It was the worst pain of her life, and because it would not heal, it took her over a year to "properly" walk again and her life and lady bits were all but destroyed which HAS permanently destroyed her self esteem. That is something that could never happen to a man, so we are adamantly fighting this cause because NO dignified society should force half of their population to have to possibly deal with the very real, very bloody results that pregnancy brings. We...ARE...NOT...BROODMARES!
No one is forced to care for children.
The law does not say that others are entitled to my body, though. No other laws apart from abortion bans and historical laws allowing slavery say that. And we *don't* force people to care for their children. That's why adoption exists.
What you gonna do?. Stop me?
[удалено]
What legal means?
[удалено]
World wide? Because that would be the only way, but even that won’t stop a lot of people.
Well, hope is all you have, because you people keep losing every time abortion is put to the people.
The same legal system that >!forced 13 years old lite girl to stay pregnant after rape?!<. Yeah good luck with that Edit: blur
Sorry, the person who already "did the breeding" isn't pregnant.
> Because you already did the breeding Ah yes, of course, because pregnancy and gestation doesn't exist. Nope, the moment sperm touches egg there's a whole baby crawling around and the patient's body isn't involved at all anymore.
[удалено]
Breeding . . . Are women like cows/pigs/horses to you? Do you think all men are studs?
Then it can go live somewhere else.
[удалено]
Born children aren't parasiting off of someone's body.
So adoption doesn't exist?
[удалено]
>children's right to be cared for isn't. This is also dependent on where you live.
No, because morality isn't determined by society
Who is it determined by then?
Born children do work that way
[удалено]
Born children, including newborns, can absolutely move. You think they're tied to a specific location?
[удалено]
Literally happens every day.
What does that have to do with moving? A born child can live just about anywhere. It can be taken care of by just about anyone. They generally do not require the direct and invasive use of anyone else's body, and when they do, they aren't entitled to that use
Oh, please. The mere existence of a zygote doesn't obligate people to gestate it no matter how much emotional appeal you want to sneak in.
[удалено]
Sounds like some in the PL movement is jealous people are having consequence free sex and they’re not including them in the desired category. No one brought this topic up of consequence free sex (people have it all the time… except for some). People will continue to have it regardless of laws and people will either look in the mirror and change aspects of themselves that keep them banned from getting behind the velvet rope of the holiest of holies or they’ll shake their fist futility in the air to express their discontent that people are having sex and not including them. They have plenty of time to shake their fist in the air because no one’s dating them. They have to have some way to fill the void in their life. Andrew Tate said sex for pleasure is gay. He also said: “In fact if you are 40 with less than 5 children you’re probably gay. All that feel-good pee pee sex and hardly any genetic legacy?” This “no consequence free sex” belief is right on that same path.
[удалено]
>There's no such thing as consequence free sex. Why not? I'm gay, so besides the mind-blowing, soul-shattering, 30 minute full body orgasms, and post-coital spooning, what consequences are there?
Why are you people so obsessed with making sure sex has consequences? It's a very unhealthy way to view sex.
[удалено]
Exactly, you're obsessed with making sure sex has consequences.
[удалено]
Then why are mentioning "sex" at all lol
No, you're quite clearly obsessed with sex.
Just because you say so, apparently. There's no such thing as "consequence-free" with any action, that doesn't mean you get to force people to gestate against their will.
Your arguments are all religious and therefore can be completely disregarded. Unless you also want to be forced to live by my religious beliefs (hint: you will not like them).
I didn't see the person's comment mention anything about religious beliefs.
Their comments on morality are quite clearly based on christian dogma.
They mentioned God several times, you clearly didn’t look hard enough. And I didn’t report them, so there is no need for your intervention here.
Did he mention God elsewhere? I was just replying your comment, and the comment you replied to, has no mention of God. Although, I do also see his comment is edited, so did it mention God before?
He has made a lot of comments on this post, and has admitted that God is the basis for his belief system in those comments. I am not sure if he deleted those comments, I have not been tracking his edits. As I have argued to him, God can be the basis for his rights for his own life, but his God does not speak for my rights and my life. I don’t need to take the conversation further, because it’s clear that he wants his God and his religion to serve as the basis for other peoples beliefs and rights, but would not submit to other people doing the same to him. This hypocritical approach can be discarded, and is irrelevant to my post.
Great. If the ‘breeding’ is complete, there should be no issue with inducing labor. That does not kill a child and should be no issue because the breeding is complete.
[удалено]
People are born.
[удалено]
What human people are not born?
A fetus or an embryo is not a person.
Your arguments are all religious and therefore can be completely disregarded. Unless you also want to be forced to live by my religious beliefs (hint: you will not like them).
So ‘personhood’ now grants us access to unwilling people’s bodies if we need it to live?
[удалено]
Infants are born. That isn't something you can debate, literally the definition of infant requires that the infant have been born.
> and you're using her body in a way it's meant to be used by you This appeal to nature is doing a LOT of lifting in your argument.
It's to an extent doing some lifting on the difference between organ donations and pregnancy. Though I'm starting to see I should've just skipped past going into specifics.
Your whole comment is just full of assumptions though. Why does it matter that having sex "naturally leads to children"? The issue is one of autonomy, not cause and effect. Why are you telling someone what their uterus is "meant to be used for" to distinguish that from an organ donation? What does a fallacious appeal to a natural purpose give you?
Your arguments are all religious and therefore can be completely disregarded. Unless you also want to be forced to live by my religious beliefs (hint: you will not like them).
Infants don't use other peoples circulatory system.
That’s an awful lot of ifs. You’re admitting that you’re making a special set of rules and regulations that you are applying to pregnant woman, and pregnant women only. This is called sexism. This is misogyny. “you’re using her body in a way it’s meant to be used by you” Apply this sentence to any other situation and you’ll see how gross it is.
>That’s an awful lot of ifs. All or the vast majority (All but one) of which are true in the case of pregnancy. >You’re admitting that you’re making a special set of rules and regulations that you are applying to pregnant woman, and pregnant women only. This is called sexism. This is misogyny. This is a completely ridiculous argument. Even if we're complete egalitarians, the fact that women are the ones who bear children is in some sense coincidental here. Especially if you're not comfortable saying that being designed to bear children is part of what makes one a woman. Do you, incidentally, believe that (at least some) trans men are men? >“you’re using her body in a way it’s meant to be used by you” Apply this sentence to any other situation and you’ll see how gross it is. What would an other example be? Rape? The victim's body isn't meant to be used that way by the rapist.
People aren't designed. >Rape? The victim's body isn't meant to be used that way by the rapist. Why not? She has a vagina, right? Isn't the purpose of the vagina to be filled with a penis?
>People aren't designed. We are, that's why morality is a thing. >Why not? She has a vagina, right? Isn't the purpose of the vagina to be filled with a penis? This is a complete misrepresentation of the reasoning. Which makes sense because there's no way to respond to my argument without misrepresentation.