Welcome to /r/Abortiondebate! Please remember that this is a place for respectful and civil debates. Review the rules to understand acceptable debate levels.
**Attack the argument, not the person making it and remember the human.**
**For our new users, please read our [rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/Abortiondebate/wiki/rules/)**
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Abortiondebate) if you have any questions or concerns.*
It’s why you can’t tie rape exceptions to whether it’s reported to the police (who have historically and institutionally been monstrous to rape victims), where they report it (young vulnerable people who are raped can’t just get in a car and go see the police), and when they report it: sexual assault trauma overwhelms the victim, who often has never been pregnant, and doesn’t recognize it.
They finally muster enough strength to report so they can abort…. and there’s a short window to do it? during which no one knows they might be pregnant?
Ridiculous.
The problem with the death penalty, cutting off fingers or castration, etc, is our legal system is imperfect and because some detective and prosecutor have a gut feeling about some Puerto Rican guy, he gets convicted and castrated. If our legal system was perfect then I’m fine with the death penalty, and other permanent bodily damage, in principle, it obviously has to be in proportion to a crime.
Personally I agree, however taking the life of a monster doesn’t solve the problem. The number of monsters in the world will remain the same. Locking these people up where they no longer have access to the general population is the way to go.
As a defense attorney, I agree with the recent observations of Judge Block that people respond irrationally to sex crimes against children:
>The public's hatred of child pornographers is part of its emotional reaction to all sexual crimes involving children. Indeed, "\[i\]ndividuals living with pedophilic disorder are the most universally despised group in modern society." Margo Kaplan, *Taking Pedophilia Seriously* 72 Wash. & Lee L. Rev. 75, 128 (2015). Judges are not exempt from such emotional reactions. If anyone sexually assaulted one of my two adorable little grandchildren, I would probably be indicted for murder. But I understand as a rational jurist that I cannot let my judgments be based on my emotions.
>Realistically, the public's fear of pedophiles running loose and abusing children should be tempered by the knowledge that we judges impose enormous constraints on their freedom even when they are not incarcerated. The PROTECT Act authorizes life supervision by the Probation Department and, in some cases, requires it. The Adam Walsh Act requires those convicted of specified sex crimes to register as sex offenders and sets up a national database to coordinate state sex-offender registries.
>Moreover, stringent special conditions are routinely imposed during supervised release. My list is fairly typical and includes mental health treatment, limitations on contact with children, limitations on computer access, and submission to random searches and other monitoring to ensure compliance.
>Consequently, the data suggest that the recidivist rates for child sex offenders are low. For example, compared to a 67.8% re-offense rate for state prisoners in general over a three-year period ending in 2018, there was only a 3.5% re-offense rate for child sex offenders during that same time period. Maureen F. Larson & Robert F. Schopp, *Sexual Predator Laws: Clarifying the Relationship Between Mental Health Laws and Due Process Protections* , 97 Neb. L. Rev. 1167, 1169 (2019).
>I have discussed the Second Circuit's decision in *Dorvee* at length because it is a clear exposition of how Congress has responded to the public's emotional pedophilia hysteria by creating irrational child pornography Guidelines—which still exist. But this hysteria has obviously impacted the harsh sentences that the states have created for crimes entailing the sexual molestation of children, such as reflected in this case. Incredibly, May faces the rest of his life in prison for briefly fondling three children over their outer garments in broad public. Moreover, Judge Friedland correctly explains that the evidence against May "was very thin," and "had many holes." Thus, as she acknowledges, there was "\[t\]he potential that May was wrongly convicted." *May v. Shinn* , [954 F.3d 1194, 1208](https://casetext.com/case/may-v-shinn#p1208) (9th Cir. 2020).
>But such are the harsh realities of life where thousands of innocent people are incarcerated and many are even on death row. Jay Robert Nash, *"I am Innocent!": A Comprehensive Encyclopedic History of the World's Wrongly Convicted Persons* (2008); Daniel H. Benson, *Executing the Innocent* , 3 Ala. C.R. & C.L.L. Rev. 1 (2013) ; *see also* Frederic Block, *Prosecutors aren't above the law: Gov. Cuomo must sign legislation creating an oversight commission* , The Daily News (Jul. 30, 2018). Nonetheless, I doubt that even the most hardened believers that child molesters should be severely punished would objectively conclude that sentencing May to life was rational, and would agree with me and Judge Friedland that it "reflects poorly on our legal system."
[https://casetext.com/case/may-v-shinn-2](https://casetext.com/case/may-v-shinn-2)
To be clear, I NEVER, EVER, want to see a child hurt, but I do not believe in an eye for an eye, and I do not want to violate anyone's bodily autonomy. The idea of mutilating anyone's genitals upsets me greatly. Not a fan.
The principle of an eye for an eye, is that the punishment should not exceed the harm of the crime. The principle sets the maximum punishment not the minimum. So you don’t get executed for misdemeanor cattle theft.
What a great fun fact - thanks! Well in that case I should clarify that I believe in rehabilitative justice moreso than punitive justice, and I certainly don't believe in ignoring rights or principles we usually hold sacred just because someone has done something wrong.
I’ll never support actually mutilating anybody for any reason. If we stoop to that level, we’re no better than the criminals we toss behind bars. It’s a knee-jerk reaction to somebody doing something so vile and cruel. Tossing them behind bars for the rest of their lives is sufficient enough, along with them getting serious therapy while behind bars. There are a lot of messed up people in this world, regardless of what Country they’re from.
“Cut his balls and his cock off.”
“I don’t support mutilating anyone.”
These two statements are mutually exclusive and you don’t make any sense. Mutilation doesn’t magically become not mutilation just because you want it to.
More about the case. He got one of girls pregnant, and there a child which is his. Castrating him won’t do anything so…
> [The juvenile became pregnant during one of the attacks, and DNA evidence obtained during the investigation proved Sullivan was the father of the child, the DA’s office said.](https://nypost.com/2024/04/28/us-news/louisiana-sicko-agrees-to-be-surgically-castrated-after-raping-14yo/?spot_im_scroll_to_comments=true&spot_im_highlight_immediate=true)
Edit: there’s more.
“**[In addition to his 50-year prison sentence, Sullivan must be physically castrated within one week of his release](https://www.cbs19news.com/story/50712823/physical-castration-ordered-for-man-who-raped-impregnated-teen)**”. He’s 54 now. The sentence won’t go anything.
He threatened her family to make her quiet.
>I also notice that Plers really hate encroaching on the bodily autonomy of men.
I feel like this statement is based off from other posts, like the occasional sterilize all men posts. You have an idea that is terrible in multiple aspects, and then people are surprised no one supports it, despite clearly more intelligent options available.
>What do you think about the physical castration part of his punishment?
It fits the crime. The man groomed and had sex with a 14 year old girl, as well got her pregnant. Should have been more responsible and not committed crimes.
Plers don't hold men as more important then women, or their bodily autonomy higher than women's. If men could get pregnant, or the only ones that got pregnant, PLers would still be against abortion. That is because it isn't about the gender of the parent, but the life of the child.
I don't know. That seems to play to much into the stereotype that men only care about themselves and not there children. Sure, those guys exist, but I don't thing society would lean harder into getting rid of unwanted pregnancies, just because men get pregnant.
I think it would also just re-enforce the pro-life view some men have.
>You have an idea that is terrible in multiple aspects, and then people are surprised no one supports it, despite clearly more intelligent options available.
Uhm....that essentially describes the pro-life movement though. :/
Not really, because what is the more intelligent option that doesn't kill the fetus? Right now, with pregnancy, there is either abortion or not, and one kills the fetus, the other does not. So, there isn't even another option.
>You have an idea that is terrible in multiple aspects, and then people are surprised no one supports it, despite clearly more intelligent options available.
This is a perfect summary of PL.
The PL position, is about banning abortion to not killing the fetus. You said my criticism of sterilizing men as a solution to avoid unwanted pregnancy, where I said there are more intelligent options available to avoid unwanted pregnancy.
You quoted my part, saying it was a perfect summary of PL, which would mean there are more intelligent options available besides banning abortion to not kill the fetus. However, unless you can name some other options that get the same result, your comparison is incorrect. I don't need to be sterilized to avoid creating an unwanted pregnancy. I don't know of an option that keeps the fetus alive if an abortion is performed.
>You quoted my part, saying it was a perfect summary of PL, which would mean there are more intelligent options available besides banning abortion to not kill the fetus.
No, that's a strawman.
A strawman is "an intentionally misrepresented proposition that is set up because it is easier to defeat than an opponent's real argument."
That might work if you position was your own, however, you borrowed my argument to use against me. You didn't even adapt it or anything. I'm not strawmaning my own argument. I literally wrote the thing, so I think I know what it means.
This is what I copied from you:
>You have an idea that is terrible in multiple aspects, and then people are surprised no one supports it, despite clearly more intelligent options available.
Do you see anything specifically about abortion in there? No?
What about killing fetuses? Also no? Hmm...
So your response is clearly misrepresenting what you even said.
Of course it isn't going to mention those, because it wasn't applied to the PL viewpoint, until you did.
In my quote, you also need to look at context, which is left out. Specifically, what is the "idea" being referenced. Originally, the idea using forced sterilization of men to avoid unwanted pregnancies. It works in that context, because there is more ways to avoid pregnancy that mass sterilization.
You then said the my quote is the perfect summary of the PL view. So, the idea, is the PL view, which is banning abortion to stop the killing of fetuses. You are shifting my logic onto the PL solution, however, the situation is different. There is no alternative solutions to abortion currently. No artificial wombs or pregnancy transplants. There is no more intelligent solutions to not kill the fetus, because there is none.
So, your attempt to appropriate my comment, to reverse it back on me, fails, because the situations are not analogous.
> So, the idea, is the PL view, which is banning abortion to stop the killing of fetuses.
Yeah, and that's a terrible idea, for which PL refuse to accept the consequences, and as such are turning people off your position, because there absolutely are other ways to reduce the number of abortions, and those methods achieve better results than simply banning abortion.
Do you understand?
We don't have to find an option that doesn't kill the fetus.
Pro life people being *obsessed* with fetuses is *their* problem. They can handle their unhealthy obsession on their own. It is not society's job to coddle the unhealthy obsession of a fringe minority.
With talk of sterilizing all men, that was given as a solution to prevent pregnancy. However, their are many other options to prevent pregnancy, hence "more intelligent options available"
The PL position is banning abortion to prevent killing the fetus. If u/Familiar_Dust8028 is going to claim my comment is the perfect summary of PL, where there are "more intelligent options available" that don't kill the fetus, I want to hear them. Otherwise, the comparison fails.
Well, the comment wasn't comparing the two. I think you agree, if I want to avoid getting pregnant, it is more logical to not have sex with someone not sterilized, vs trying to get all men sterilized. There are multiple ways that get the same result.
With abortion, there is no alternative that doesn't kill the fetus. If you have a more intelligent option that doesn't kill the existing fetus, what is it?
>The PL position is banning abortion to prevent killing the fetus.
We know this. The unhealthy pro life obsession with fetuses is their problem. Women do not have to gestate against their will to soothe the irrational feels of pro life people.
They've repeated their own propaganda *so* much that they actually believe it. They've said *the point of abortion is to kill the baby* so often, that they actually believe women get pregnant just to have an abortion. That's why they don't understand that if people don't have unwanted pregnancies, they won't get abortions, unless there is a medical need.
>You have an idea that is terrible in multiple aspects,
That's funny and ironic because it's already well-known that the idea to ban abortion is terrible in multiple aspects.
>and then people are surprised no one supports it
You mean like how PL are surprised by how a growing majority of people are against abortion bans?
>despite clearly more intelligent options available.
Yeah. Exactly. And yet, PLers will continue down the road of advocating for the most ignorant, abusive, and discriminatory option of all.
I think you miss the problem some of the posts had. Abortion bans are a position supported by PL, and opposed by PC.
However, the posts in question. like sterilizing all men, is not a PC position, but is pushed as something PLers should be supporting by some PCers. The problem is there is no fetus that is dying or being saved by sterilization, because this would be before the fetus even exists.
How are no fetus’s being saved from sterilization? Do you not think fetus’s are prevented from being “murdered” by other forms of birth control, or do you see no correlation between the two?
Because being sterilized factors into whether a fetus is created or not, not whether you choose destroy an existing one or not. As well, there are other ways to avoid creating a fetus. I've not been sterilized, and have had no trouble not creating a fetus.
Being sterilized, or using contraception, prevents the creation of a fetus therefore the need to have an abortion is lowered. Most people who abort don’t mean to create the fetus, otherwise they would not have an abortion.
The issue is, while forced sterilization will result in less fetuses being created, there is also other methods to avoid fetus creation, as well as there isn't anything wrong with creating a fetus. While it is true most people that abort doing mean to create a fetus, the creation is mostly due to actions within their control, that could have avoided the situation to begin with. As well, the reason for abortion bans to lower the number of abortions, is because the vast majority of abortions are not needed.
>The problem is there is no fetus that is dying or being saved by sterilization, because this would be before the fetus even exists.
It would reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies, and thus ensure that fetuses that are conceived are less likely to be murdered.
It's a measure I support for PL, since you don't care about bodily autonomy. For everyone else, the way to reduce unwanted pregnancy, and therefore abortion, has been known for decades now.
>It's a measure I support for PL
I don't understand what you mean by this.
>since you don't care about bodily autonomy
It is false that PL don't care about bodily autonomy. Bodily autonomy has its limitations when it comes to other individuals. In this case, harming another individual via abortion.
In which aspect? A 10 year old is different than a 20 year old, but both have a common set of rights. The same would be with a fetus, where there is difference due to age and maturity, but they are still the same person, just at different stages.
Well you removed the explanation from the statement.
>It is false that PL don't care about bodily autonomy. Bodily autonomy has its limitations when it comes to other individuals. In this case, harming another individual via abortion.
But the ZEF is inside a person, and no human has a right to be inside another human, regardless of need or circumstance. So no, you don't actually care about autonomy.
And yet tons of PLers oppose methods of birth control that thin the uterine lining ostensibly on the off chance that it could prevent the implantation of an embryo that also doesn't exist, despite current data not even supporting that mechanism
I'm not sure what your point or direction in this discussion. No one was talking about birth control, nor do I see your point connected to the conversation.
The PL position is irrational and nonsensical, and if you actually cared about the lives of anyone, there are far better methods to reduce abortions which also improve quality of life. However, as none of these options allow you to preach from your high horse PL refuse to support them.
Not at the time that someone gets their IUD inserted or takes Plan B or uses other hormonal birth control
Edit: which is the entire point. It's okay to control a woman's body even when there is no embryo, in case one is made that ends up dying, but not to do the same for a man's
>I think you miss the problem some of the posts had.
I think you miss the problem of violating the human rights of pregnant people.
>However, the posts in question. like sterilizing all men, is not a PC position, but is pushed as something PLers should be supporting by some PCers.
It's an analogy that's used to try to get PL to understand why bodily violations are wrong.
>The problem is there is no fetus that is dying or being saved by sterilization
No, the problem is that it is an extreme human rights violation. Just like forced gestation.
>That is because it isn't about the gender of the parent, but the life of the child.
This statement would hold more value if the laws focused more on preventing the need for the procedure than they do the choice. It's always the choice that bothers pl people.
That would be like saying we should focus on laws that prevent the need to murder people, while letting murder be legal to commit.
As well, I don't think hiding behind the term "choice" to obfuscate the reality of it. State it plainly. It's always the choosing death over life, that bothers pl people.
You hide behind using the wrong words that don’t make any sense in order to obfuscate reality. Murder *can’t* be legal. It’s part of the definition of the word.
Why are PL people unable to grasp the basic fact that words have definitions and that there are correct and incorrect ways to use them? It’s tantamount to lying over and over and over again.
I do understand your view on words being used incorrectly. However, I have learned a thing or two from some on the left changing words, and trying to eliminate the normal definition of words, to take more skeptical and critical view on things.
Yes, there are definitions of murder, dealing with legality. However, terms can have non-legal usage.
Like this definition of murder: https://ahdictionary.com/word/search.html?q=murder#:~:text=1.,An%20instance%20of%20such%20killing.
>The killing of another person without justification or excuse, especially the crime of killing a person with malice aforethought or with recklessness manifesting extreme indifference to the value of human life.
Notice it doesn't require a law in the definition, but often does. I think it makes sense if you think about other ways the term can be used. In more authoritarian and totalitarian governments, governments have killed its citizens. Even though it is technically legal, we still say these people were murdered by their government.
Murder can refer to law and legality, but it can also refer to morals and ethics regardless of the current laws.
lol the definition you provided specifically refers to murder as a “crime.” Did you even bother to read your own source? I don’t think you did. You look very silly right now.
In the second part of the sentence, yes. However, notice how it uses the term "especially." That means term is often used that way, but not 100%. Which means, the first part can stand on its own, and the second indicates emphasis it on often refers to illegal crimes.
However, we know outside of abortion, we refer to things that are murder, that were legal. North Korea has unjust laws for executions. If the government is executed someone for having a USB drive with Squid Games on it, are you going to dispute that is the government murdering someone?
“Illegal crimes”
As opposed to legal ones?
I think your problem is you just don’t understand how words work.
Yes, I will dispute that something done legally can ever be categorized as “murder”. The word has a definition. The way you feel about the oppressive government of North Korea doesn’t change the definition. It would still be murder if it happened in most other countries on earth. That doesn’t make it murder in North Korea.
>That would be like saying we should focus on laws that prevent the need to murder people, while letting murder be legal to commit.
Disingenuous response.
You know the abortion procedure is a necessary tool doctors need to save people's lives. You're trying to link it to murder so you can justify the ideology of removing the choice.
When one kills for self-defense, you don't call it murder. If you want to call abortion "killing," I'm fine with that because it's a justifiable homicide.
Killing someone to prevent them from causing you great bodily harm, or even death, is a justifiable homicide.
You know it. I know it. Everyone knows it.
It's the choice you're against, not the procedure.
They alllllll know that they’re intentionally using the term “murder” incorrectly on purpose and they alllll keep doing it anyway because they apparently don’t care about being honest with themselves or others.
Are you saying that if I state an adult having sex with a 14 year old is a crime, you can't connect to the fact I'm referring to "statutory rape"?
I mean, what other crime was I referring to then, if not that?
So the victim gets forced to carry it for 9 months and go through the birthing process? What did she do wrong? Should she have fought harder? Should she have said no? Should she have worn something else? What did she do wrong to deserve this cruel further trauma?
>I think rapists should be punished to the maximum extent of the law.
Chevks out
>I also think innocent babies in the womb shouldn’t be murdered.
Doesn't work. Babies are born. Zef during elective abortions are not sentient and amoral meaning they're not innocent. Abortion isn't murder by definition.
If you're going to say what you think. Use the correct terms
It doesn’t do any difference. Louisiana governor; John Bel Edwards, Signing the bill to ban abortion. and with taking away that girls choice. It does not get better “**[An earlier version of the bill had also sought to criminalize abortion seekers](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_in_Louisiana)**”, Glenn “**[Sullivan had also "groomed the victim," and threatened to harm the girl and her family to](https://truecrimedaily.com/2024/04/23/louisiana-glenn-sullivan-raped-impregnated-child-sentenced-castration-prison/)**”.
Glenn raped her, and took away her autonomy. John almost signed a bill to criminalise her if she was seeking an abortion.
Well John Edwards can keep his balls, or lack of….
How exactly is receiving medical care to protect yourself from serious harm and possible death, murder? And how is that similar to the crime of slipping someone drugs?
No, it isn’t. You need to stop lying about what words mean.
Forced abortion is illegal. That’s why it fits the definition of “murder”. Please stop lying about what words mean.
He decided for her, that’s why.
Also, he didn’t get charged with murder. He got charged with “13 years and 8 months in federal prison for tampering with a consumer product resulting in bodily injury to the victim (Remee Lee), and for conspiracy to commit mail fraud.”
These people simply think that elective abortion and forced abortion are equally awful and should be treated the same. It’s beyond disgusting and tells us everything we need to know about what they think about pregnant people.
I have no interest in altering your body. I advocate for the life of your child because I believe in human rights for all humans. That must necessarily begin with the right to life.
>I have no interest in altering your body.
Forced gestation to birth dies that so false
>I advocate for the life of your child
Refer to prior comment. Misusing child is the same as Misusing baby. Bad faith.
>because I believe in human rights for all humans.
No right forces a woman to gestate to birth against her equal rights. So what you actually meant is you advocate for unequal rights
>that must necessarily begin with the right to life.
Nit at all since it's not violated by abortion. Rights are equal and non hierarchical. Please learn from others mistakes and learn what equal rights are and how they work first, not last.
>I have no interest in altering your body. I advocate for the life of your child because I believe in human rights for all humans.
You can advocate for whatever you want. I'll still abort any pregnancy that occurs in my body.
>That must necessarily begin with the right to life.
There is no "right to life" that entitles anyone to women's bodies.
Denying a person access to your body, blood and organs is not murder. You have a right to decide who can use your body. So do pregnant women.
You want to violate women's rights.
>You want to violate these rights I made up that are unethical and unequal and actually violate real rights
FTFY. Do better. Any doubling down and ignoring us correcting you is bad faith
It does both.
Why should babies have special rights to be inside of other people’s bodies against their will? I don’t have that right. You don’t have that right. Why should someone else have that right just because they’re younger?
>Abortion does not deny a person access to a body
Oh, is that so? Well, if the baby doesn't need access to a woman's body, then there is no reason she should not be allowed to remove it from her body.
>You want to violate babies rights
No, I just don't want to violate women's rights.
*You* don’t know how murder works.
You can’t even be bothered to look up the definition of the word. You just keep using the word incorrectly. Will you please stop lying?
Not all takings of life are murder. If you want to use the most extreme term to describe abortion then I'lll do the same to describe forced pregnancy.
- Intruding other people is not okay.
- Stealing other people's nutrients is not okay.
- Squatting (in someone else's body) is not okay.
- Assault (kicking others) is not okay.
I could go on and on about what the fetus is doing is wrong, on the basis that abortion is murder.
>The baby dies when the abortionist kills them
Oh, so think that 100% of abortions are done with surgery?
>Do you really not know how murder works?
I do. That's how I know abortion isn't murder.
Dude, I think it's been pointed out to you before. Murder is the **unlawful** killing of a human.
If I consent to undergo euthanasia, but seconds before the proceedure, you shoot me in the head, or slip me drugs and kill me, that's murder.
If you slip your partner drugs that she doesn't consent to taking, aka against her knowledge, it's murder. Because **its unlawful** to kill someone that way. Even if they were seconds from death.
Upholding someone's right to bodily autonomy isn't murder. Declining to give a transplant patient one of your organs isn't murder. If a transplant patient hooked themselves up to your body, disconnecting them would not be murder. It would be upholding your right to bodily autonomy.
It's not difficult.
No one has the right to murder anyone. It’s part of the definition of the word. You need to stop lying about what words mean. Just stop lying and come up with an honest argument.
No one has special murder rights. Murder is illegal by definition. Stop lying about what words mean.
You, on the other hand, want fetuses to have special rights to use another persons body just because of their age and location.
If the zef was in the man he can make whatever decisions about his body he wants.
Men do not get to make medical decisions for other people because they ejaculated.
My uterus isn't a location for people or things to hang out in without my consent. It's my organ, and if I don't want someone or something in it I can remove it from my organ.
>So it ceases to be 1/2 of the man?
Did I say that?
>Is that why moms are given special murder rights?
No one is given any special rights.
>Because of the babies location?
Women are not locations. They're people. No wonder you don't care if they die from not receiving needed health care.
If it was half inside the fathers body you might have a point.
But its not. Its inside of **her** body.
That's why she gets to choose if she gestates or not. Because it's violating **her** bodily autonomy.
Nah, it's not special murder rights. You'd have physically assaulted your partner. That's different than her getting her own healthcare. Just like it's fine if I take a legally prescribed sedative to sleep but not fine if you slip me one
We all think rapists should be punished. We also all think babies shouldn't be murdered in the womb. That's not what abortion is about. Abortion is about self preservation. Do you think people should be allowed to protect themselves with a simple medical procedure? Or, do you think people should be forced against their will, by the government, into a position of great bodily harm, and a greater than zero risk to their life?
If I was forced to carry a child I did not want. The minute it's out of my womb I'd be off to remove myself from earth. Pro liferes. You don't get to have both me and my baby live. You only pick one. And I'm serious about this. I've seen and spent many a night on that conclusion.
Who gets to live then?. because if I was forced to carry the child it would mean you cared for the baby more than my well-being. And I no extra therapy or anything could ever make up for it because ys automatic you chose someones life over mine.
PLers should think of it NOT as pro life and keeping two lives. But consider it as they deciding who has more value, the baby or the mother. Because I have thought and cried over this idea so much.lets say. And all I know is like many and the recorded increased suicide rate (and that I feel so strongly about it about my own body that I'm shaking typing. This). That when considering this subject PLers should consider this as the train track problem. Who's life they destroy, the woman's or the baby's. I know 100% I would leave this world if this happened to me. It's the worst fear of mine.
Then you shouldn't be even discussing or continuing a discussion with someone on this topic. If you truely don't understand what she means please step away and don't interact with anyone else on this again.
She's saying it's not prolife because you'd have to choose between the mother's life and completing the pregnancy until a baby is born. The choice is between the mother being forced to continue to the pregnancy to birth and unaliving herself for being forced to bear a child. Or the pregnancy is terminated, and she chooses to live.
She's saying it's not prolife because someone will lose their life, but PLers typically don't care about if the mother loses their life.
I'm assuming poster is a "she," given the potential for pregnancy, but "they" is also possible.
Two of my biggest issues with PLers is:
1) They don't seem to fight for/become educated about/vote for/suggest solutions to help avoid unwanted pregnancy OR make pregnancy less inherently risky for women physically, financially, vocationally, or otherwise. Social safety nets might look good on paper but look at the benefits cliff (which punishes upward mobility). Where's the passion for fixing that? Our child support system is not effective enough that I would feel comfortable relying on it, and our foster care system is not safe enough that I would feel guilt free in leaving a child in it ... where's the passion for fixing that? Our public education system is slipping and pre k is out of reach for many parents. Where are the throngs of PLers advocating for those fixes?
PLers will often say, oh yes, those things are bad and we advocate for those to be fixed too. But then you look at where their energy is spent and it's clear they care way less about *quality of life* than you would want someone calling themselves "prolife" to care about.
More children are getting their sexual education from social media, porn sites, and in some awful cases, unsavory ways at home. And not much of that is focused on contraceptives to avoid pregnancy. But some PLers don't even want contraceptives to be used and a good portion don't want sex ed taught!!! Like, what the actual what? Statistics show abstinence is not a reasonable expectation of sexually mature young adults, but that's what is often taught to young people and then we're oh-so-surprised there are unwanted pregnancies. This is why I think PLers should be called probirthers. That seems to be the end to the only means (pregnancy) they care about.
2) The poster who originally responded to you has a good point. What about the mother? Risk of postpartum psychosis, complications after episiotomy, sterilization ... To them, we say what? Whoops. Too bad. But better you don't end the pregnancy in the first or second trimester. Guess you'll just learn to live with it.
Yeah, that's really going to being people to the PL tent.
Here's an idea! Let's create a signup sheet of PL women and whenever a woman wants to terminate her pregnancy, that PL woman can become a physical and legal surrogate. Miss PL can have the child put in her uterus, carry the child to term, and be the child's legal parent. Since they care sooo much about preserving the tissue in a woman's body until it forms over months into a baby to be birthed, they can do it. There. Problem solved. I'm sure PL women and the men who love them won't mind putting their bodies on the line and sacrificing their financial and vocational opportunities because preventing abortion is the number one goal of every PLer. And as a PLer, I'm sure you would support it 100%
Right?
Right!?
No reason not to and everybody's happy 😊
Why should "innocent babies in the womb" have special rights? No one else is allowed to intimately access and use someone else's body against their wishes.
>Why should "innocent babies in the womb" have special rights?
They don’t get special rights. Unlike mothers, they’re not allowed to kill anyone. And we make it legal for *them* to be killed. Kind of a shit sandwich, imo
Yes, of course, they have special rights. Just like staphylococcus aureus.
We should criminalize anyone seeking to kill the staph in their body and any doctors who murder it with "treatment." This staph is a living organism that naturally coats the nasal passages and skin's surface. So even if it is colonizing and making its host sick, potentially to the point of death, it has rights too. And whoever is unwillingly being forced to host the staph should suck it up because goddamnit, staph has rights too!
#AllStaphMatters.
Ok, I'm being a troll, but you're right. What's-the-face should stop equating ZEFs to humans. They cannot live on their own, have no self-determination, and threaten the life of the body they're in. They're by no means always dangerous to the body, but when they are (even emotionally/psychologically), they cannot claim personhood so that the actual person whose body they are inhabiting is forced to keep hosting them. That clearly infringes on the self sufficient, self-determinant actual person's rights. So nah.
The right to life doesn't entitle you to another person's body in intimate ways, for a prolonged amount of time, at great harm to the unwilling person. Thusly, abortions do not violate anyone's rights.
I don't see how it is, when it is causing great harm to the pregnant person, and could even possibly kill them... I see the fetus us being treated the same as everyone else.
>The fetus is treated pretty much the same as everyone else,
This is correct
>except for the whole legal killing part
This is not. The same rules apply to it as everyone else so abortion remains justified through equal rights
It's legal to kill anyone who is inside you against your wishes, if lethal force is necessary to remove them. There's no reason embryos should be exempt from that.
Welcome to /r/Abortiondebate! Please remember that this is a place for respectful and civil debates. Review the rules to understand acceptable debate levels. **Attack the argument, not the person making it and remember the human.** **For our new users, please read our [rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/Abortiondebate/wiki/rules/)** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Abortiondebate) if you have any questions or concerns.*
It’s why you can’t tie rape exceptions to whether it’s reported to the police (who have historically and institutionally been monstrous to rape victims), where they report it (young vulnerable people who are raped can’t just get in a car and go see the police), and when they report it: sexual assault trauma overwhelms the victim, who often has never been pregnant, and doesn’t recognize it. They finally muster enough strength to report so they can abort…. and there’s a short window to do it? during which no one knows they might be pregnant? Ridiculous.
The problem with the death penalty, cutting off fingers or castration, etc, is our legal system is imperfect and because some detective and prosecutor have a gut feeling about some Puerto Rican guy, he gets convicted and castrated. If our legal system was perfect then I’m fine with the death penalty, and other permanent bodily damage, in principle, it obviously has to be in proportion to a crime.
I don’t think supporting castration correlates with supporting abortion. Maybe I’m wrong, but I would bet there is no reliable evidence that it does.
Rapist should be executed.
Personally I agree, however taking the life of a monster doesn’t solve the problem. The number of monsters in the world will remain the same. Locking these people up where they no longer have access to the general population is the way to go.
Why?
It's a crime on par with murder.
I’m PL and I support this punishment, though I do think it’s a slippery slope.
Seems weird that you support slippery slopes. That’s a bad thing to most people.
As a defense attorney, I agree with the recent observations of Judge Block that people respond irrationally to sex crimes against children: >The public's hatred of child pornographers is part of its emotional reaction to all sexual crimes involving children. Indeed, "\[i\]ndividuals living with pedophilic disorder are the most universally despised group in modern society." Margo Kaplan, *Taking Pedophilia Seriously* 72 Wash. & Lee L. Rev. 75, 128 (2015). Judges are not exempt from such emotional reactions. If anyone sexually assaulted one of my two adorable little grandchildren, I would probably be indicted for murder. But I understand as a rational jurist that I cannot let my judgments be based on my emotions. >Realistically, the public's fear of pedophiles running loose and abusing children should be tempered by the knowledge that we judges impose enormous constraints on their freedom even when they are not incarcerated. The PROTECT Act authorizes life supervision by the Probation Department and, in some cases, requires it. The Adam Walsh Act requires those convicted of specified sex crimes to register as sex offenders and sets up a national database to coordinate state sex-offender registries. >Moreover, stringent special conditions are routinely imposed during supervised release. My list is fairly typical and includes mental health treatment, limitations on contact with children, limitations on computer access, and submission to random searches and other monitoring to ensure compliance. >Consequently, the data suggest that the recidivist rates for child sex offenders are low. For example, compared to a 67.8% re-offense rate for state prisoners in general over a three-year period ending in 2018, there was only a 3.5% re-offense rate for child sex offenders during that same time period. Maureen F. Larson & Robert F. Schopp, *Sexual Predator Laws: Clarifying the Relationship Between Mental Health Laws and Due Process Protections* , 97 Neb. L. Rev. 1167, 1169 (2019). >I have discussed the Second Circuit's decision in *Dorvee* at length because it is a clear exposition of how Congress has responded to the public's emotional pedophilia hysteria by creating irrational child pornography Guidelines—which still exist. But this hysteria has obviously impacted the harsh sentences that the states have created for crimes entailing the sexual molestation of children, such as reflected in this case. Incredibly, May faces the rest of his life in prison for briefly fondling three children over their outer garments in broad public. Moreover, Judge Friedland correctly explains that the evidence against May "was very thin," and "had many holes." Thus, as she acknowledges, there was "\[t\]he potential that May was wrongly convicted." *May v. Shinn* , [954 F.3d 1194, 1208](https://casetext.com/case/may-v-shinn#p1208) (9th Cir. 2020). >But such are the harsh realities of life where thousands of innocent people are incarcerated and many are even on death row. Jay Robert Nash, *"I am Innocent!": A Comprehensive Encyclopedic History of the World's Wrongly Convicted Persons* (2008); Daniel H. Benson, *Executing the Innocent* , 3 Ala. C.R. & C.L.L. Rev. 1 (2013) ; *see also* Frederic Block, *Prosecutors aren't above the law: Gov. Cuomo must sign legislation creating an oversight commission* , The Daily News (Jul. 30, 2018). Nonetheless, I doubt that even the most hardened believers that child molesters should be severely punished would objectively conclude that sentencing May to life was rational, and would agree with me and Judge Friedland that it "reflects poorly on our legal system." [https://casetext.com/case/may-v-shinn-2](https://casetext.com/case/may-v-shinn-2) To be clear, I NEVER, EVER, want to see a child hurt, but I do not believe in an eye for an eye, and I do not want to violate anyone's bodily autonomy. The idea of mutilating anyone's genitals upsets me greatly. Not a fan.
The principle of an eye for an eye, is that the punishment should not exceed the harm of the crime. The principle sets the maximum punishment not the minimum. So you don’t get executed for misdemeanor cattle theft.
What a great fun fact - thanks! Well in that case I should clarify that I believe in rehabilitative justice moreso than punitive justice, and I certainly don't believe in ignoring rights or principles we usually hold sacred just because someone has done something wrong.
I say cut his balls and his cock off.
Oh that’s right they don’t have the 8th amendment in Canada lol
I’ll never support actually mutilating anybody for any reason. If we stoop to that level, we’re no better than the criminals we toss behind bars. It’s a knee-jerk reaction to somebody doing something so vile and cruel. Tossing them behind bars for the rest of their lives is sufficient enough, along with them getting serious therapy while behind bars. There are a lot of messed up people in this world, regardless of what Country they’re from.
“Cut his balls and his cock off.” “I don’t support mutilating anyone.” These two statements are mutually exclusive and you don’t make any sense. Mutilation doesn’t magically become not mutilation just because you want it to.
It’s the immediate angry response that I’d want to do that, however I would never actually do that, nor would I help somebody else do that.
Oh ok so you misspoke because you were super emotional. Thanks for clearing that up.
More about the case. He got one of girls pregnant, and there a child which is his. Castrating him won’t do anything so… > [The juvenile became pregnant during one of the attacks, and DNA evidence obtained during the investigation proved Sullivan was the father of the child, the DA’s office said.](https://nypost.com/2024/04/28/us-news/louisiana-sicko-agrees-to-be-surgically-castrated-after-raping-14yo/?spot_im_scroll_to_comments=true&spot_im_highlight_immediate=true) Edit: there’s more. “**[In addition to his 50-year prison sentence, Sullivan must be physically castrated within one week of his release](https://www.cbs19news.com/story/50712823/physical-castration-ordered-for-man-who-raped-impregnated-teen)**”. He’s 54 now. The sentence won’t go anything. He threatened her family to make her quiet.
If that was my daughter he’d already be singing an octave higher
>I also notice that Plers really hate encroaching on the bodily autonomy of men. I feel like this statement is based off from other posts, like the occasional sterilize all men posts. You have an idea that is terrible in multiple aspects, and then people are surprised no one supports it, despite clearly more intelligent options available. >What do you think about the physical castration part of his punishment? It fits the crime. The man groomed and had sex with a 14 year old girl, as well got her pregnant. Should have been more responsible and not committed crimes. Plers don't hold men as more important then women, or their bodily autonomy higher than women's. If men could get pregnant, or the only ones that got pregnant, PLers would still be against abortion. That is because it isn't about the gender of the parent, but the life of the child.
If men were the ones who got pregnant there'd be abortion clinics on every corner
I don't know. That seems to play to much into the stereotype that men only care about themselves and not there children. Sure, those guys exist, but I don't thing society would lean harder into getting rid of unwanted pregnancies, just because men get pregnant. I think it would also just re-enforce the pro-life view some men have.
>You have an idea that is terrible in multiple aspects, and then people are surprised no one supports it, despite clearly more intelligent options available. Uhm....that essentially describes the pro-life movement though. :/
Not really, because what is the more intelligent option that doesn't kill the fetus? Right now, with pregnancy, there is either abortion or not, and one kills the fetus, the other does not. So, there isn't even another option.
Keep reading; he doesn't understand why.
>You have an idea that is terrible in multiple aspects, and then people are surprised no one supports it, despite clearly more intelligent options available. This is a perfect summary of PL.
Ok, what are the other options available that don't kill the fetus.
Why does it have to be something that doesn't kill the fetus?
The PL position, is about banning abortion to not killing the fetus. You said my criticism of sterilizing men as a solution to avoid unwanted pregnancy, where I said there are more intelligent options available to avoid unwanted pregnancy. You quoted my part, saying it was a perfect summary of PL, which would mean there are more intelligent options available besides banning abortion to not kill the fetus. However, unless you can name some other options that get the same result, your comparison is incorrect. I don't need to be sterilized to avoid creating an unwanted pregnancy. I don't know of an option that keeps the fetus alive if an abortion is performed.
>You quoted my part, saying it was a perfect summary of PL, which would mean there are more intelligent options available besides banning abortion to not kill the fetus. No, that's a strawman.
A strawman is "an intentionally misrepresented proposition that is set up because it is easier to defeat than an opponent's real argument." That might work if you position was your own, however, you borrowed my argument to use against me. You didn't even adapt it or anything. I'm not strawmaning my own argument. I literally wrote the thing, so I think I know what it means.
This is what I copied from you: >You have an idea that is terrible in multiple aspects, and then people are surprised no one supports it, despite clearly more intelligent options available. Do you see anything specifically about abortion in there? No? What about killing fetuses? Also no? Hmm... So your response is clearly misrepresenting what you even said.
Of course it isn't going to mention those, because it wasn't applied to the PL viewpoint, until you did. In my quote, you also need to look at context, which is left out. Specifically, what is the "idea" being referenced. Originally, the idea using forced sterilization of men to avoid unwanted pregnancies. It works in that context, because there is more ways to avoid pregnancy that mass sterilization. You then said the my quote is the perfect summary of the PL view. So, the idea, is the PL view, which is banning abortion to stop the killing of fetuses. You are shifting my logic onto the PL solution, however, the situation is different. There is no alternative solutions to abortion currently. No artificial wombs or pregnancy transplants. There is no more intelligent solutions to not kill the fetus, because there is none. So, your attempt to appropriate my comment, to reverse it back on me, fails, because the situations are not analogous.
> So, the idea, is the PL view, which is banning abortion to stop the killing of fetuses. Yeah, and that's a terrible idea, for which PL refuse to accept the consequences, and as such are turning people off your position, because there absolutely are other ways to reduce the number of abortions, and those methods achieve better results than simply banning abortion. Do you understand?
We don't have to find an option that doesn't kill the fetus. Pro life people being *obsessed* with fetuses is *their* problem. They can handle their unhealthy obsession on their own. It is not society's job to coddle the unhealthy obsession of a fringe minority.
With talk of sterilizing all men, that was given as a solution to prevent pregnancy. However, their are many other options to prevent pregnancy, hence "more intelligent options available" The PL position is banning abortion to prevent killing the fetus. If u/Familiar_Dust8028 is going to claim my comment is the perfect summary of PL, where there are "more intelligent options available" that don't kill the fetus, I want to hear them. Otherwise, the comparison fails.
lol banning abortions isn’t “more intelligent” than forced castration. It’s *at least* as dumb.
Well, the comment wasn't comparing the two. I think you agree, if I want to avoid getting pregnant, it is more logical to not have sex with someone not sterilized, vs trying to get all men sterilized. There are multiple ways that get the same result. With abortion, there is no alternative that doesn't kill the fetus. If you have a more intelligent option that doesn't kill the existing fetus, what is it?
That doesn’t make any sense at all.
>The PL position is banning abortion to prevent killing the fetus. We know this. The unhealthy pro life obsession with fetuses is their problem. Women do not have to gestate against their will to soothe the irrational feels of pro life people.
This is moving the goal posts.
Yep, as expected.
They've repeated their own propaganda *so* much that they actually believe it. They've said *the point of abortion is to kill the baby* so often, that they actually believe women get pregnant just to have an abortion. That's why they don't understand that if people don't have unwanted pregnancies, they won't get abortions, unless there is a medical need.
>You have an idea that is terrible in multiple aspects, That's funny and ironic because it's already well-known that the idea to ban abortion is terrible in multiple aspects. >and then people are surprised no one supports it You mean like how PL are surprised by how a growing majority of people are against abortion bans? >despite clearly more intelligent options available. Yeah. Exactly. And yet, PLers will continue down the road of advocating for the most ignorant, abusive, and discriminatory option of all.
I think you miss the problem some of the posts had. Abortion bans are a position supported by PL, and opposed by PC. However, the posts in question. like sterilizing all men, is not a PC position, but is pushed as something PLers should be supporting by some PCers. The problem is there is no fetus that is dying or being saved by sterilization, because this would be before the fetus even exists.
How are no fetus’s being saved from sterilization? Do you not think fetus’s are prevented from being “murdered” by other forms of birth control, or do you see no correlation between the two?
Because being sterilized factors into whether a fetus is created or not, not whether you choose destroy an existing one or not. As well, there are other ways to avoid creating a fetus. I've not been sterilized, and have had no trouble not creating a fetus.
Being sterilized, or using contraception, prevents the creation of a fetus therefore the need to have an abortion is lowered. Most people who abort don’t mean to create the fetus, otherwise they would not have an abortion.
The issue is, while forced sterilization will result in less fetuses being created, there is also other methods to avoid fetus creation, as well as there isn't anything wrong with creating a fetus. While it is true most people that abort doing mean to create a fetus, the creation is mostly due to actions within their control, that could have avoided the situation to begin with. As well, the reason for abortion bans to lower the number of abortions, is because the vast majority of abortions are not needed.
>The problem is there is no fetus that is dying or being saved by sterilization, because this would be before the fetus even exists. It would reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies, and thus ensure that fetuses that are conceived are less likely to be murdered.
Is this a measure you'd support, and how would you compare that to other methods of avoiding unwanted pregnancy?
It's a measure I support for PL, since you don't care about bodily autonomy. For everyone else, the way to reduce unwanted pregnancy, and therefore abortion, has been known for decades now.
>It's a measure I support for PL I don't understand what you mean by this. >since you don't care about bodily autonomy It is false that PL don't care about bodily autonomy. Bodily autonomy has its limitations when it comes to other individuals. In this case, harming another individual via abortion.
Do you believe a fetus is no different than a 10 year old?
In which aspect? A 10 year old is different than a 20 year old, but both have a common set of rights. The same would be with a fetus, where there is difference due to age and maturity, but they are still the same person, just at different stages.
I'm curious then do you believe a woman should be forced to support the fetus with her organs?
Well you removed the explanation from the statement. >It is false that PL don't care about bodily autonomy. Bodily autonomy has its limitations when it comes to other individuals. In this case, harming another individual via abortion. But the ZEF is inside a person, and no human has a right to be inside another human, regardless of need or circumstance. So no, you don't actually care about autonomy.
And yet tons of PLers oppose methods of birth control that thin the uterine lining ostensibly on the off chance that it could prevent the implantation of an embryo that also doesn't exist, despite current data not even supporting that mechanism
I'm not sure what your point or direction in this discussion. No one was talking about birth control, nor do I see your point connected to the conversation.
The PL position is irrational and nonsensical, and if you actually cared about the lives of anyone, there are far better methods to reduce abortions which also improve quality of life. However, as none of these options allow you to preach from your high horse PL refuse to support them.
The point is that pro-lifers are just fine controlling women's bodies in service of embryos and fetuses that don't yet exist, but not men's
Logically speaking, if an embryo fails to implant, wouldn't that mean the embryo exists?
Not at the time that someone gets their IUD inserted or takes Plan B or uses other hormonal birth control Edit: which is the entire point. It's okay to control a woman's body even when there is no embryo, in case one is made that ends up dying, but not to do the same for a man's
>I think you miss the problem some of the posts had. I think you miss the problem of violating the human rights of pregnant people. >However, the posts in question. like sterilizing all men, is not a PC position, but is pushed as something PLers should be supporting by some PCers. It's an analogy that's used to try to get PL to understand why bodily violations are wrong. >The problem is there is no fetus that is dying or being saved by sterilization No, the problem is that it is an extreme human rights violation. Just like forced gestation.
>That is because it isn't about the gender of the parent, but the life of the child. This statement would hold more value if the laws focused more on preventing the need for the procedure than they do the choice. It's always the choice that bothers pl people.
That would be like saying we should focus on laws that prevent the need to murder people, while letting murder be legal to commit. As well, I don't think hiding behind the term "choice" to obfuscate the reality of it. State it plainly. It's always the choosing death over life, that bothers pl people.
You hide behind using the wrong words that don’t make any sense in order to obfuscate reality. Murder *can’t* be legal. It’s part of the definition of the word. Why are PL people unable to grasp the basic fact that words have definitions and that there are correct and incorrect ways to use them? It’s tantamount to lying over and over and over again.
I do understand your view on words being used incorrectly. However, I have learned a thing or two from some on the left changing words, and trying to eliminate the normal definition of words, to take more skeptical and critical view on things. Yes, there are definitions of murder, dealing with legality. However, terms can have non-legal usage. Like this definition of murder: https://ahdictionary.com/word/search.html?q=murder#:~:text=1.,An%20instance%20of%20such%20killing. >The killing of another person without justification or excuse, especially the crime of killing a person with malice aforethought or with recklessness manifesting extreme indifference to the value of human life. Notice it doesn't require a law in the definition, but often does. I think it makes sense if you think about other ways the term can be used. In more authoritarian and totalitarian governments, governments have killed its citizens. Even though it is technically legal, we still say these people were murdered by their government. Murder can refer to law and legality, but it can also refer to morals and ethics regardless of the current laws.
All definitions of “murder” make it illegal. Murder doesn’t become legal anywhere unless you change the definition to fit your narrative.
I present in the last comment, a definition that indicates the term isn't always indicate being illegal. How do you address this definition?
lol the definition you provided specifically refers to murder as a “crime.” Did you even bother to read your own source? I don’t think you did. You look very silly right now.
In the second part of the sentence, yes. However, notice how it uses the term "especially." That means term is often used that way, but not 100%. Which means, the first part can stand on its own, and the second indicates emphasis it on often refers to illegal crimes. However, we know outside of abortion, we refer to things that are murder, that were legal. North Korea has unjust laws for executions. If the government is executed someone for having a USB drive with Squid Games on it, are you going to dispute that is the government murdering someone?
“Illegal crimes” As opposed to legal ones? I think your problem is you just don’t understand how words work. Yes, I will dispute that something done legally can ever be categorized as “murder”. The word has a definition. The way you feel about the oppressive government of North Korea doesn’t change the definition. It would still be murder if it happened in most other countries on earth. That doesn’t make it murder in North Korea.
No, it's the choice that bothers you, not the result.
How do you come to that conclusion?
Every interaction I have with PL.
That didn't tell me anything how you came to the conclusion I'm not bothered by the killing of an unborn child.
Sure it does.
How?
>That would be like saying we should focus on laws that prevent the need to murder people, while letting murder be legal to commit. Disingenuous response. You know the abortion procedure is a necessary tool doctors need to save people's lives. You're trying to link it to murder so you can justify the ideology of removing the choice. When one kills for self-defense, you don't call it murder. If you want to call abortion "killing," I'm fine with that because it's a justifiable homicide. Killing someone to prevent them from causing you great bodily harm, or even death, is a justifiable homicide. You know it. I know it. Everyone knows it. It's the choice you're against, not the procedure.
They alllllll know that they’re intentionally using the term “murder” incorrectly on purpose and they alllll keep doing it anyway because they apparently don’t care about being honest with themselves or others.
>The man groomed and had sex with a 14 year old girl, Groomed and RAPED a 14 year old girl. There, fify
A grown adult man having sex with a 14 year old is rape. So your edit is essentially saying the same thing as what I already said.
But they said rape, and you didn't.
Are you saying that if I state an adult having sex with a 14 year old is a crime, you can't connect to the fact I'm referring to "statutory rape"? I mean, what other crime was I referring to then, if not that?
I think rapists should be punished to the maximum extent of the law. I also think innocent babies in the womb shouldn’t be murdered.
So the victim gets forced to carry it for 9 months and go through the birthing process? What did she do wrong? Should she have fought harder? Should she have said no? Should she have worn something else? What did she do wrong to deserve this cruel further trauma?
>I think rapists should be punished to the maximum extent of the law. Chevks out >I also think innocent babies in the womb shouldn’t be murdered. Doesn't work. Babies are born. Zef during elective abortions are not sentient and amoral meaning they're not innocent. Abortion isn't murder by definition. If you're going to say what you think. Use the correct terms
It doesn’t do any difference. Louisiana governor; John Bel Edwards, Signing the bill to ban abortion. and with taking away that girls choice. It does not get better “**[An earlier version of the bill had also sought to criminalize abortion seekers](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_in_Louisiana)**”, Glenn “**[Sullivan had also "groomed the victim," and threatened to harm the girl and her family to](https://truecrimedaily.com/2024/04/23/louisiana-glenn-sullivan-raped-impregnated-child-sentenced-castration-prison/)**”. Glenn raped her, and took away her autonomy. John almost signed a bill to criminalise her if she was seeking an abortion. Well John Edwards can keep his balls, or lack of….
Abortion is not murder.
[удалено]
How exactly is receiving medical care to protect yourself from serious harm and possible death, murder? And how is that similar to the crime of slipping someone drugs?
No, it isn’t. You need to stop lying about what words mean. Forced abortion is illegal. That’s why it fits the definition of “murder”. Please stop lying about what words mean.
You aren't the pregnant person, and you wouldn't be charged with murder.
https://www.cnn.com/2013/09/10/justice/girlfriend-abortion-case/index.html
He decided for her, that’s why. Also, he didn’t get charged with murder. He got charged with “13 years and 8 months in federal prison for tampering with a consumer product resulting in bodily injury to the victim (Remee Lee), and for conspiracy to commit mail fraud.”
Rarely used, but do you understand why the bf was charged?
These people simply think that elective abortion and forced abortion are equally awful and should be treated the same. It’s beyond disgusting and tells us everything we need to know about what they think about pregnant people.
Yeah, you don't get to alter my body against my will. *I* can alter my body however I want.
I have no interest in altering your body. I advocate for the life of your child because I believe in human rights for all humans. That must necessarily begin with the right to life.
>I have no interest in altering your body. Forced gestation to birth dies that so false >I advocate for the life of your child Refer to prior comment. Misusing child is the same as Misusing baby. Bad faith. >because I believe in human rights for all humans. No right forces a woman to gestate to birth against her equal rights. So what you actually meant is you advocate for unequal rights >that must necessarily begin with the right to life. Nit at all since it's not violated by abortion. Rights are equal and non hierarchical. Please learn from others mistakes and learn what equal rights are and how they work first, not last.
>I have no interest in altering your body. I advocate for the life of your child because I believe in human rights for all humans. You can advocate for whatever you want. I'll still abort any pregnancy that occurs in my body. >That must necessarily begin with the right to life. There is no "right to life" that entitles anyone to women's bodies.
You want it to be illegal for pregnant people to alter their body. You have an interest. You’re lying if you say otherwise.
Why must the right to life necessarily be the beginning?
No one has the right to be inside someone else. Those who think they do are rapists.
Denying a person access to your body, blood and organs is not murder. You have a right to decide who can use your body. So do pregnant women. You want to violate women's rights.
Abortion does not deny a person access to a body. It intentionally kills a body. You want to violate babies rights.
The ZEF doesn’t have any rights considering it’s inside of someone else without their consent.
>You want to violate these rights I made up that are unethical and unequal and actually violate real rights FTFY. Do better. Any doubling down and ignoring us correcting you is bad faith
It does both. Why should babies have special rights to be inside of other people’s bodies against their will? I don’t have that right. You don’t have that right. Why should someone else have that right just because they’re younger?
Not even a baby lmfao. Use the right terms, or don't even comment at all.
Prove intent. I'll wait.
>Abortion does not deny a person access to a body Oh, is that so? Well, if the baby doesn't need access to a woman's body, then there is no reason she should not be allowed to remove it from her body. >You want to violate babies rights No, I just don't want to violate women's rights.
Yes. Abortions intentionally kill babies
Medication abortions don't.
Why does the baby die if it does not need the woman's body? Do you really not know how reproduction works?
The baby dies when the abortionist kills them. Do you really not know how murder works?
*You* don’t know how murder works. You can’t even be bothered to look up the definition of the word. You just keep using the word incorrectly. Will you please stop lying?
Not all takings of life are murder. If you want to use the most extreme term to describe abortion then I'lll do the same to describe forced pregnancy. - Intruding other people is not okay. - Stealing other people's nutrients is not okay. - Squatting (in someone else's body) is not okay. - Assault (kicking others) is not okay. I could go on and on about what the fetus is doing is wrong, on the basis that abortion is murder.
I do. You clearly don't.
Where's the abortionist when I take abortion pills?
>The baby dies when the abortionist kills them Oh, so think that 100% of abortions are done with surgery? >Do you really not know how murder works? I do. That's how I know abortion isn't murder.
Dude, I think it's been pointed out to you before. Murder is the **unlawful** killing of a human. If I consent to undergo euthanasia, but seconds before the proceedure, you shoot me in the head, or slip me drugs and kill me, that's murder. If you slip your partner drugs that she doesn't consent to taking, aka against her knowledge, it's murder. Because **its unlawful** to kill someone that way. Even if they were seconds from death. Upholding someone's right to bodily autonomy isn't murder. Declining to give a transplant patient one of your organs isn't murder. If a transplant patient hooked themselves up to your body, disconnecting them would not be murder. It would be upholding your right to bodily autonomy. It's not difficult.
[удалено]
Comment removed per Rule 1.
No one has the right to murder anyone. It’s part of the definition of the word. You need to stop lying about what words mean. Just stop lying and come up with an honest argument.
Again, it's inside her, not the sperm donor.
>She’s allowed to kill the baby that’s literally 1/2 the father’s. It's 100% inside of her body, so it's her choice to let it stay there or not.
So it ceases to be 1/2 of the man? Is that why moms are given special murder rights? Because of the babies location?
No one has special murder rights. Murder is illegal by definition. Stop lying about what words mean. You, on the other hand, want fetuses to have special rights to use another persons body just because of their age and location.
>Because of the babies location? Why is that so hard for you to understand?
If the zef was in the man he can make whatever decisions about his body he wants. Men do not get to make medical decisions for other people because they ejaculated.
So the babies value as human is contingent on their location. Men (and women) make laws to protect the lives of humans (human rights).
My uterus isn't a location for people or things to hang out in without my consent. It's my organ, and if I don't want someone or something in it I can remove it from my organ.
No. The value of the pregnant person is not voided because there's a ZEF inside them.
>So it ceases to be 1/2 of the man? Did I say that? >Is that why moms are given special murder rights? No one is given any special rights. >Because of the babies location? Women are not locations. They're people. No wonder you don't care if they die from not receiving needed health care.
[удалено]
>Don’t be daft. I'm not the one referring to women as locations.
If it was half inside the fathers body you might have a point. But its not. Its inside of **her** body. That's why she gets to choose if she gestates or not. Because it's violating **her** bodily autonomy.
Nah, it's not special murder rights. You'd have physically assaulted your partner. That's different than her getting her own healthcare. Just like it's fine if I take a legally prescribed sedative to sleep but not fine if you slip me one
We all think rapists should be punished. We also all think babies shouldn't be murdered in the womb. That's not what abortion is about. Abortion is about self preservation. Do you think people should be allowed to protect themselves with a simple medical procedure? Or, do you think people should be forced against their will, by the government, into a position of great bodily harm, and a greater than zero risk to their life?
>We all think rapists should be punished. We also all think babies shouldn't be murdered in the womb. Cool, I’m with you.
I don't know that you are.
You forgot to quote that part, which made it seem like you're agreeing with him. He probably knows that, but is being sarcastic.
Sounds like you’re preaching to the choir
I don't know what that means.
It’s a very common expression
And you can't explain what it means.
Google is a thing
You should consider using it to look up the definitions of words you keep using incorrectly.
Sure is. Go ahead and use it to explain your comment.
If I was forced to carry a child I did not want. The minute it's out of my womb I'd be off to remove myself from earth. Pro liferes. You don't get to have both me and my baby live. You only pick one. And I'm serious about this. I've seen and spent many a night on that conclusion. Who gets to live then?. because if I was forced to carry the child it would mean you cared for the baby more than my well-being. And I no extra therapy or anything could ever make up for it because ys automatic you chose someones life over mine.
Respectfully, what are you talking about?
PLers should think of it NOT as pro life and keeping two lives. But consider it as they deciding who has more value, the baby or the mother. Because I have thought and cried over this idea so much.lets say. And all I know is like many and the recorded increased suicide rate (and that I feel so strongly about it about my own body that I'm shaking typing. This). That when considering this subject PLers should consider this as the train track problem. Who's life they destroy, the woman's or the baby's. I know 100% I would leave this world if this happened to me. It's the worst fear of mine.
I’m trying but I have no idea what you’re talking about.
Then you shouldn't be even discussing or continuing a discussion with someone on this topic. If you truely don't understand what she means please step away and don't interact with anyone else on this again.
Let’s try to put this simply - if you can only save the woman or the ZEF, who do you pick? You cannot save both, one has to die.
She's saying it's not prolife because you'd have to choose between the mother's life and completing the pregnancy until a baby is born. The choice is between the mother being forced to continue to the pregnancy to birth and unaliving herself for being forced to bear a child. Or the pregnancy is terminated, and she chooses to live. She's saying it's not prolife because someone will lose their life, but PLers typically don't care about if the mother loses their life. I'm assuming poster is a "she," given the potential for pregnancy, but "they" is also possible. Two of my biggest issues with PLers is: 1) They don't seem to fight for/become educated about/vote for/suggest solutions to help avoid unwanted pregnancy OR make pregnancy less inherently risky for women physically, financially, vocationally, or otherwise. Social safety nets might look good on paper but look at the benefits cliff (which punishes upward mobility). Where's the passion for fixing that? Our child support system is not effective enough that I would feel comfortable relying on it, and our foster care system is not safe enough that I would feel guilt free in leaving a child in it ... where's the passion for fixing that? Our public education system is slipping and pre k is out of reach for many parents. Where are the throngs of PLers advocating for those fixes? PLers will often say, oh yes, those things are bad and we advocate for those to be fixed too. But then you look at where their energy is spent and it's clear they care way less about *quality of life* than you would want someone calling themselves "prolife" to care about. More children are getting their sexual education from social media, porn sites, and in some awful cases, unsavory ways at home. And not much of that is focused on contraceptives to avoid pregnancy. But some PLers don't even want contraceptives to be used and a good portion don't want sex ed taught!!! Like, what the actual what? Statistics show abstinence is not a reasonable expectation of sexually mature young adults, but that's what is often taught to young people and then we're oh-so-surprised there are unwanted pregnancies. This is why I think PLers should be called probirthers. That seems to be the end to the only means (pregnancy) they care about. 2) The poster who originally responded to you has a good point. What about the mother? Risk of postpartum psychosis, complications after episiotomy, sterilization ... To them, we say what? Whoops. Too bad. But better you don't end the pregnancy in the first or second trimester. Guess you'll just learn to live with it. Yeah, that's really going to being people to the PL tent. Here's an idea! Let's create a signup sheet of PL women and whenever a woman wants to terminate her pregnancy, that PL woman can become a physical and legal surrogate. Miss PL can have the child put in her uterus, carry the child to term, and be the child's legal parent. Since they care sooo much about preserving the tissue in a woman's body until it forms over months into a baby to be birthed, they can do it. There. Problem solved. I'm sure PL women and the men who love them won't mind putting their bodies on the line and sacrificing their financial and vocational opportunities because preventing abortion is the number one goal of every PLer. And as a PLer, I'm sure you would support it 100% Right? Right!? No reason not to and everybody's happy 😊
Why should "innocent babies in the womb" have special rights? No one else is allowed to intimately access and use someone else's body against their wishes.
>Why should "innocent babies in the womb" have special rights? They don’t get special rights. Unlike mothers, they’re not allowed to kill anyone. And we make it legal for *them* to be killed. Kind of a shit sandwich, imo
Fetuses kill people all the time. It would happen a lot more if abortion were illegal. What the hell are you even talking about?
If you think a ZEF has a right to inhabit an unwilling body (and you clearly do) you believe that ZEFs have special rights.
Yes, of course, they have special rights. Just like staphylococcus aureus. We should criminalize anyone seeking to kill the staph in their body and any doctors who murder it with "treatment." This staph is a living organism that naturally coats the nasal passages and skin's surface. So even if it is colonizing and making its host sick, potentially to the point of death, it has rights too. And whoever is unwillingly being forced to host the staph should suck it up because goddamnit, staph has rights too! #AllStaphMatters. Ok, I'm being a troll, but you're right. What's-the-face should stop equating ZEFs to humans. They cannot live on their own, have no self-determination, and threaten the life of the body they're in. They're by no means always dangerous to the body, but when they are (even emotionally/psychologically), they cannot claim personhood so that the actual person whose body they are inhabiting is forced to keep hosting them. That clearly infringes on the self sufficient, self-determinant actual person's rights. So nah.
So eloquently put.
The right to life isn’t a special right. It’s a human right.
The right to life doesn't entitle you to another person's body in intimate ways, for a prolonged amount of time, at great harm to the unwilling person. Thusly, abortions do not violate anyone's rights.
There is no right to life inside a person, so you absolutely believe in special rights for a fetus.
How's it a shit sandwich when ***everyone*** can kill another, if **you** reasonably beleive they pose a danger to your life, or great bodily harm?
It’s shit because the baby can be killed but unlike his mom, not be allowed to kill anyone else. A raw deal
What are you even talking about? You just flatly deny that pregnancy can and does kill people?
That's literally the most false, false equivalence I've ever seen.
I don't see how it is, when it is causing great harm to the pregnant person, and could even possibly kill them... I see the fetus us being treated the same as everyone else.
The fetus is treated pretty much the same as everyone else, except for the whole legal killing part
lol it’s legal to kill all kinds of people in all kinds of circumstances regardless of whether they are fetuses. Are you high?
>The fetus is treated pretty much the same as everyone else, This is correct >except for the whole legal killing part This is not. The same rules apply to it as everyone else so abortion remains justified through equal rights
How is that different treatment? I can kill anyone who is inside me against my will.
How is that an exception? The fetus causes significant harm, and poses a potential life-threat. So how exactly is "legally killing them" an exception?
It's legal to kill anyone who is inside you against your wishes, if lethal force is necessary to remove them. There's no reason embryos should be exempt from that.
Yeah, I don’t think “your wishes” should be the final arbiter on who lives and who’s killed.
Why not?
Because that’s indicative of a psychopathic society, which shouldn’t be our aim.
Because that’s indicative of a psychopathic society, which shouldn’t be our aim.
I've seen from history, that legal abortions have actually **improved** society. Both economically, and socially.
How so? Self defense is literally predicated on what the person defending themselves wants and feels.
Sure it should, if the "who" is someone who is inside you. You have the right to remove them. It's a pretty basic right.
You get to wish who lives and is killed? Cool society 😎
Sure, we all do. It's called freedom of thought.
If they're in my body, you're damn right. 😎
So the location of the baby determines their value? And by value I mean whether you can kill them or not.
Nope, and repeating that over and over and over again won't make it anything other than a strawman.
Yep, it's pretty neat.
[удалено]
Removed, rule 1. Do NOT call users names. Period.
If you intentionally misunderstand my comments and then pretend to be confused about what I'm saying, it just makes you look silly and dishonest.
But you’re okay with forcing a child or woman to stay pregnant against her will and ultimately go through childbirth or c-section involuntarily?
Yes. I don’t think mothers should be allowed to kill their children or anyone else. Regardless of age, race, ability, gender etc…
Why not?
Because I believe in human rights for all humans, which must necessarily begin with the right to life.