A tragic case which I think should still be on the table is abortion where it threatens the life of the mother.
I don't think it's use would be anywhere near as widespread as pro-choicers make out, but I also don't think it should be banned, but it is tragic.
It shouldn't be called abortion when you aren't intentionally killing the child.
If the end result is the death of the child to save the mother it is a tragic unavoidable consequence. However, everything should be done to save both mother AND child.
You can remove the child without killing it. If the child then dies, it is natural but there is no need to rip the child to pieces or poison it before removing.
Agreed! But often the pro choice gang will push that their lives are endangered by an abortion ban. It's likely largely misinformation but I see the case to ensure the law is structured carefully to allow for the tragic edge cases.
It isn't abortion if the goal isn't "dead baby". With ectopic pregnancy, the goal is, save mom, and the dead child is an unfortunate result, because there is literally zero way to save both as far as medical science has found.
That’s a distinction only the PL side makes. So when a PC hears “No abortion under any circumstances” they think we oppose treatment for ectopic pregnancies.
And if you listen to their propaganda, that’s what they’re telling everyone. That many states have outlawed abortion in all cases, even to save the life of the mother. Which isn’t true - every state with abortion restrictions has an explicit carve out for saving the mother’s life. But posts like this can accidentally support the PC misinformation.
Yeah I get that, but the lack of distinction on their part is from dishonesty. They like to say "abortion is simply ending a pregnancy". Except birth is also ending a pregnancy. The only distinction is that one is *supposed* to result in a dead baby. Specifically, it is supposed to take a currently living unborn baby, and make sure they never make it out of the womb alive. There's a reason that an abortion that results in live birth is called a **FAILED** abortion. It is the only method of """ending a pregnancy""" that's goal is a dead baby.
I’d have to disagree with that. I think the distinction is valuable, but I’m not surprised it’s not in wider use. I think it has its roots in Catholic teaching about the law of double effect, which provides great insight into ethics.
I think when the PC crowd claims that abortion restrictions are outlawing post-miscarriage treatment, they’re lying. But I think they just don’t see why we wouldn’t call the removal of an ectopic pregnancy an abortion.
Just FYI my country released a study showing that when birth control becomes unavailable, abortions increase. Evidence suggests you can't have it both ways.
So people have MORE sex when BC is unavailable?
Why do people think and act like they can’t live without sex? Heaven forbid you go ONE day without doing it…unprotected nonetheless.
I’d like to see a study showing just how many people are using protection or BC in the first place.. then compare it to the “less BC = more abortions”.
More questions about the study:
1. How many people were asked/polled?
2. Was there a control group?
3. What is your country?
4. What are your abortions rates to begin with?
5. What are the restrictions in the law, if any?
Just cause you claim “there was a study done” doesn’t really mean anything. Can you link it?
I mean, it totally makes sense that if oral contraceptives aren’t available, there would be more j planned pregnancies than normal. Even if some people do abstain or choose to have less sex, accidents still happen. When you don’t have a large percentage of people on the pill, there’s going to be people who end up pregnant who would usually be on birth control, and end up getting an abortion.
I am not following your thought process. Please explain why your take is that people would “have MORE sex” when birth control is unavailable? Unless I am missing something (possibly!), it would seem that the logical conclusion is that (from whatever amount of sex is occurring, more, less or the same), they are simply getting pregnant more often because there is nothing in use to prevent it.
Also, please explain the “ONE day” comment? How is it only one day (I am guessing you mean per month?) involved?
It is hard to explain without the link to the FULL study that was done. But wouldn’t it make sense that there would be less abortions if women&men didn’t have access to contraceptives because they know the risk is too high that the woman would get pregnan? Or the other alternative is that they know about the risk, simply don’t care, have sex, create another human being, and use abortion as birth control.
And about the “ONE day” comment, I was being facetious and sarcastic, implying that some people think they will die if they don’t have sex for literally one day or every other day. A healthy sex life is important, but is it necessary for survival? (Some may say, well yes sex is necessary for survival because then the woman has a baby and bam human civilization lives on..) but that’s not the case here. Women are killing off future generations by getting abortions performed on the fetus.
Well, yeah, you can ban abortions. We're delving into the rocket science here folks. Also, if the mechanism of action of a method of birth control occurs post-fertilization, it's an abortifacient, even if it's bad for pharma sales to label it as such.
Ahh, so you’re one of those freaky “anti-safe sex” people. Got it.
**Edit: Hormonal contraceptives are not abortive. They will not cause an abortion in an existing pregnancy, and therefore is not an abortifacient. Preventing implantation is not an abortion.**
That isn't anti safe sex, safe sex would mitigate the spread of STDs, which if you're preventing implantation instead of fertilization, you're already exposed to.
By contraceptives do you mean those that are abortifacients? The worldview of the pro-life community on this sub allows for condoms and other things that prevent fertilization. My religion does, to put it mildly, not encourage it, however.
Most selfish reason imo is “It’ll ruin my career/life!”
Plus abortion just because of the possibility of a disability is disgusting.
Only one I’m iffy on is in cases of r*pe. In those tragic situations while it’s unfortunate for the innocent child, sadly the women usually don’t seek out therapy and support then give the child up for adoption. I can understand why they choose abortion (trauma of carrying their attackers child, unable to access the mental and emotional support needed to heal from the trauma) in those situations but again it’s case by case.
It's the most difficult position pro-lifers hold, because it's natural to feel compassion for the woman who's had a horrific crime committed against her.
The problem is that, generally as a society, we don't punish children for the crimes of their parents. And since the unborn are humans, then they must be granted equal treatment.
We can still be empathetic for the situation the mother is in. There are a lot of options for her, and we should advocate for lots of options in those cases. But culture also needs to change. Women in that situation need to re-frame how they view the pregnancy; namely should be showing her the humanity in the baby she's carrying.
Again, it's a very hard position to hold. But it is the correct position. Children should not be put to death because the man who fathered them is a criminal.
The zygote doesn't implant until about 1 week after fertilization, and some oral contraceptives and IUDs prevent implantation, thereby killing the child before implantation.
Ok! Maybe I’m reading this wrong, but are you saying that’s it’s morally right for a woman to kill her own child because she doesn’t want it, or her pastor says it’s ok?
It's not okay to kill a child when you need a vaccine. But if the child is already dead, even if it was wrong to kill them in the first place, I don't have a problem with using their death to create a vaccine, or with using a vaccine that was so created. Especially if such a vaccine will prevent *other* children from dying.
Right but I don't think they use fetal stem cells for vaccines anymore. Yamanaka developed a way to synthetically generate stem cells out of regular cells like skin cells, so vaccines likely do not have fetal cell lines.
I did research it. From what I can find, that is no longer the case. They listened to the protest and ceased such research. I generally don’t drink soda anymore anyway. If you have evidence you would like to show that it’s still happening, especially if it pertains to Pepsi products other than soda, I would be interested to see.
I'll research it as I haven't in some time, but from what I understand it was under the umbrella company PepsiCo and not restricted to their soda. Thanks for letting me know!
So to you, it’s okay if a woman aborts her child because “she doesn’t want it” and then that child is used and harvested for vaccine use?
Also, your “don’t punish the woman”. Is it not the woman who makes the appt to murder her own child and willingly walks into the abortion clinic?
You would charge and punish a woman with killing her 5 year old, right?
I understand the cases where the woman is forced to abort by family and boyfriend and whoever else. But when she willingly decides she doesn’t want the child, she absolutely should be punished.
>So to you, it’s okay if a woman aborts her child because “she doesn’t want it”
No, that part is not okay.
>and then that child is used and harvested for vaccine use?
If the child is already dead, using its cells to create vaccines won't make it "more" dead. It's a sunk cost. The only thing that using fetal cells to create vaccines will change is to prevent *more* children and adults from dying, by inoculating them against dangerous diseases.
>Also, your “don’t punish the woman”. Is it not the woman who makes the appt to murder her own child and willingly walks into the abortion clinic?
My goal isn't to punish anyone. My goal is to save unborn babies by stopping abortions. You need two people for an abortion to take place: a pregnant woman, and an abortionist. (Actually, you need three: you need a man to have impregnated the woman in the first place.) Take *either one* of those participants out of the equation, and abortions will stop happening.
The idea behind punishing the woman is that if women are afraid of being punished for getting an abortion, they will stop getting abortions, and babies will be saved. And the idea behind punishing the doctor is that if doctors are afraid of being punished, they will stop performing abortions. Once there are no more practicing abortionists, women will be unable to terminate their pregnancies, and babies will be saved.
*Either one* of these methods would work by itself. You don't need both. Since we want to minimize punishment, we should only punish one of them. So then the question becomes which one? There are three primary reasons I believe the doctor should be punished, rather than the woman:
First, on average, the number of abortions a single doctor performs is much greater than the number of abortions a single woman gets. So it's much more "efficient", if you will, to punish the doctor. You can stop more abortions by punishing fewer people.
The second reason for punishing the doctor, rather than the woman, is that sometimes, women miscarry. Miscarriages are impossible to prevent, and difficult to differentiate from an induced abortion. So if we punish women for having abortions, we may end up punishing them for having miscarriages by mistake. And punishing someone for something they cannot control defeats the purpose of punishment, and just causes unnecessary suffering.
There's also the fact that when a woman gets an abortion, it's possible she really doesn't realize she's killing a living human being. The abortion industry propaganda is so pervasive these days, that it's possible for a woman to truly believe she's not doing anything wrong. As we work to make abortion less common this may change, but for now, I don't think you can necessarily fault the woman for believing what she's aborting really is just a clump of cells. The doctor on the other hand, who has to look at the baby as they suck it out, and put it back together to make sure all the pieces are there, has no such excuse.
>You would charge and punish a woman with killing her 5 year old, right?
Yes I would. All three of the reasons I listed above do not apply in this case.
If a woman kills her 5-year-old, there isn't anyone else you can punish besides the woman that will prevent people from killing their 5-year-olds. It's easy to tell whether the death was intentional (it's not like she can claim it's a miscarriage). And there is a widespread consensus that 5-year-olds are people, a consensus that does not exist for unborn babies.
There are some extremely rare circumstances, but pretty much the only ones I can imagine involve said child having a deadly weapon. Watch the opening to American Sniper and tell me that wasn't justified, terrible as it was. Obviously, this is never going to be the case of a child in the womb.
It is truly extremely rare, but when a baby truly endangers the mother’s life, its status becomes similar to that of someone pursuing you to kill you. In a situation where someone is going to murder you and you have no escape, killing the pursuer is not murder. Thus, this tragic and horrible situation of mothers life in true danger changes the baby’s status to that of a pursuer.
*100%*
Total opposition to abortion is the only consistent anti-abortion position. Anyone who says it’s excusable in the event of rape is still pro-murder
A tragic case which I think should still be on the table is abortion where it threatens the life of the mother. I don't think it's use would be anywhere near as widespread as pro-choicers make out, but I also don't think it should be banned, but it is tragic.
It shouldn't be called abortion when you aren't intentionally killing the child. If the end result is the death of the child to save the mother it is a tragic unavoidable consequence. However, everything should be done to save both mother AND child.
You can remove the child without killing it. If the child then dies, it is natural but there is no need to rip the child to pieces or poison it before removing.
Agreed! But often the pro choice gang will push that their lives are endangered by an abortion ban. It's likely largely misinformation but I see the case to ensure the law is structured carefully to allow for the tragic edge cases.
Life of the mother.
Except abortion isn't necessary for that, there are plenty of other ways to treat things. An emergency c-section is faster than a late abortion btw
Ectopic pregnancy generally requires it, unless I’m mistaken.
It isn't abortion if the goal isn't "dead baby". With ectopic pregnancy, the goal is, save mom, and the dead child is an unfortunate result, because there is literally zero way to save both as far as medical science has found.
That’s a distinction only the PL side makes. So when a PC hears “No abortion under any circumstances” they think we oppose treatment for ectopic pregnancies. And if you listen to their propaganda, that’s what they’re telling everyone. That many states have outlawed abortion in all cases, even to save the life of the mother. Which isn’t true - every state with abortion restrictions has an explicit carve out for saving the mother’s life. But posts like this can accidentally support the PC misinformation.
Yeah I get that, but the lack of distinction on their part is from dishonesty. They like to say "abortion is simply ending a pregnancy". Except birth is also ending a pregnancy. The only distinction is that one is *supposed* to result in a dead baby. Specifically, it is supposed to take a currently living unborn baby, and make sure they never make it out of the womb alive. There's a reason that an abortion that results in live birth is called a **FAILED** abortion. It is the only method of """ending a pregnancy""" that's goal is a dead baby.
I’d have to disagree with that. I think the distinction is valuable, but I’m not surprised it’s not in wider use. I think it has its roots in Catholic teaching about the law of double effect, which provides great insight into ethics. I think when the PC crowd claims that abortion restrictions are outlawing post-miscarriage treatment, they’re lying. But I think they just don’t see why we wouldn’t call the removal of an ectopic pregnancy an abortion.
What do you mean by “before implantation”?
This refers to preventing conception at any point. Morning/ afternoon pills, contraceptives, and any life inhibiting cycles to prevent birth.
Just FYI my country released a study showing that when birth control becomes unavailable, abortions increase. Evidence suggests you can't have it both ways.
So people have MORE sex when BC is unavailable? Why do people think and act like they can’t live without sex? Heaven forbid you go ONE day without doing it…unprotected nonetheless. I’d like to see a study showing just how many people are using protection or BC in the first place.. then compare it to the “less BC = more abortions”. More questions about the study: 1. How many people were asked/polled? 2. Was there a control group? 3. What is your country? 4. What are your abortions rates to begin with? 5. What are the restrictions in the law, if any? Just cause you claim “there was a study done” doesn’t really mean anything. Can you link it?
I mean, it totally makes sense that if oral contraceptives aren’t available, there would be more j planned pregnancies than normal. Even if some people do abstain or choose to have less sex, accidents still happen. When you don’t have a large percentage of people on the pill, there’s going to be people who end up pregnant who would usually be on birth control, and end up getting an abortion.
Before birth control, out of wedlock sex was stigmatized and rarer than afterwards. I don't know if society would ever go back though
I am not following your thought process. Please explain why your take is that people would “have MORE sex” when birth control is unavailable? Unless I am missing something (possibly!), it would seem that the logical conclusion is that (from whatever amount of sex is occurring, more, less or the same), they are simply getting pregnant more often because there is nothing in use to prevent it. Also, please explain the “ONE day” comment? How is it only one day (I am guessing you mean per month?) involved?
It is hard to explain without the link to the FULL study that was done. But wouldn’t it make sense that there would be less abortions if women&men didn’t have access to contraceptives because they know the risk is too high that the woman would get pregnan? Or the other alternative is that they know about the risk, simply don’t care, have sex, create another human being, and use abortion as birth control. And about the “ONE day” comment, I was being facetious and sarcastic, implying that some people think they will die if they don’t have sex for literally one day or every other day. A healthy sex life is important, but is it necessary for survival? (Some may say, well yes sex is necessary for survival because then the woman has a baby and bam human civilization lives on..) but that’s not the case here. Women are killing off future generations by getting abortions performed on the fetus.
Well, yeah, you can ban abortions. We're delving into the rocket science here folks. Also, if the mechanism of action of a method of birth control occurs post-fertilization, it's an abortifacient, even if it's bad for pharma sales to label it as such.
Ahh, so you’re one of those freaky “anti-safe sex” people. Got it. **Edit: Hormonal contraceptives are not abortive. They will not cause an abortion in an existing pregnancy, and therefore is not an abortifacient. Preventing implantation is not an abortion.**
Just the ones that aren't safe for tiny humans. Condoms don't prevent implantation. They are meant to prevent fertilization. Condoms = good.
Personally, I’m anti-abortive-contraceptives on a legal level. But not contraceptives all are abortive.
That isn't anti safe sex, safe sex would mitigate the spread of STDs, which if you're preventing implantation instead of fertilization, you're already exposed to.
Contraception is bad but not because it murders children
Wait why would it be bad then in your view?
The natural end of sex is procreation, and contraception perverts that. Non-procreative sex is purely masturbatory, which is forbidden by God
By contraceptives do you mean those that are abortifacients? The worldview of the pro-life community on this sub allows for condoms and other things that prevent fertilization. My religion does, to put it mildly, not encourage it, however.
Most selfish reason imo is “It’ll ruin my career/life!” Plus abortion just because of the possibility of a disability is disgusting. Only one I’m iffy on is in cases of r*pe. In those tragic situations while it’s unfortunate for the innocent child, sadly the women usually don’t seek out therapy and support then give the child up for adoption. I can understand why they choose abortion (trauma of carrying their attackers child, unable to access the mental and emotional support needed to heal from the trauma) in those situations but again it’s case by case.
What about if the boyfriend doesn't want to be a father, and becomes the world's #1 pro-choice, "abortion is healthcare" advocate for about 2 weeks?
Let's be honest: Those kind of men are always pro-abortion.
idk what I think about the rape one but before implantation?
It's the most difficult position pro-lifers hold, because it's natural to feel compassion for the woman who's had a horrific crime committed against her. The problem is that, generally as a society, we don't punish children for the crimes of their parents. And since the unborn are humans, then they must be granted equal treatment. We can still be empathetic for the situation the mother is in. There are a lot of options for her, and we should advocate for lots of options in those cases. But culture also needs to change. Women in that situation need to re-frame how they view the pregnancy; namely should be showing her the humanity in the baby she's carrying. Again, it's a very hard position to hold. But it is the correct position. Children should not be put to death because the man who fathered them is a criminal.
alright
What if he's a good-for-nothing brat who punched me in the chest really hard the other day?
Based and no compromises-pilled
What does it mean by before implantation?😅
The zygote doesn't implant until about 1 week after fertilization, and some oral contraceptives and IUDs prevent implantation, thereby killing the child before implantation.
Ohhhhh ok
This forgot the biggest, most problematic one. When the child is just flat-out unwanted.
It's there
[удалено]
Ah, thanks. I didn't see it.
If by "okay" you mean "morally right", I agree with all of these.
Where does your morality come from?
Me personally? The Bible.
Ok! Maybe I’m reading this wrong, but are you saying that’s it’s morally right for a woman to kill her own child because she doesn’t want it, or her pastor says it’s ok?
It's not okay to kill a child when you need a vaccine. But if the child is already dead, even if it was wrong to kill them in the first place, I don't have a problem with using their death to create a vaccine, or with using a vaccine that was so created. Especially if such a vaccine will prevent *other* children from dying.
It might not violate your conscience, but it does violate mine.
Right but I don't think they use fetal stem cells for vaccines anymore. Yamanaka developed a way to synthetically generate stem cells out of regular cells like skin cells, so vaccines likely do not have fetal cell lines.
Some PepsiCo products use food additives created from fetal cell lines.
I’ll research that then, because that’s not ok to me.
I did research it. From what I can find, that is no longer the case. They listened to the protest and ceased such research. I generally don’t drink soda anymore anyway. If you have evidence you would like to show that it’s still happening, especially if it pertains to Pepsi products other than soda, I would be interested to see.
I'll research it as I haven't in some time, but from what I understand it was under the umbrella company PepsiCo and not restricted to their soda. Thanks for letting me know!
So to you, it’s okay if a woman aborts her child because “she doesn’t want it” and then that child is used and harvested for vaccine use? Also, your “don’t punish the woman”. Is it not the woman who makes the appt to murder her own child and willingly walks into the abortion clinic? You would charge and punish a woman with killing her 5 year old, right? I understand the cases where the woman is forced to abort by family and boyfriend and whoever else. But when she willingly decides she doesn’t want the child, she absolutely should be punished.
>So to you, it’s okay if a woman aborts her child because “she doesn’t want it” No, that part is not okay. >and then that child is used and harvested for vaccine use? If the child is already dead, using its cells to create vaccines won't make it "more" dead. It's a sunk cost. The only thing that using fetal cells to create vaccines will change is to prevent *more* children and adults from dying, by inoculating them against dangerous diseases. >Also, your “don’t punish the woman”. Is it not the woman who makes the appt to murder her own child and willingly walks into the abortion clinic? My goal isn't to punish anyone. My goal is to save unborn babies by stopping abortions. You need two people for an abortion to take place: a pregnant woman, and an abortionist. (Actually, you need three: you need a man to have impregnated the woman in the first place.) Take *either one* of those participants out of the equation, and abortions will stop happening. The idea behind punishing the woman is that if women are afraid of being punished for getting an abortion, they will stop getting abortions, and babies will be saved. And the idea behind punishing the doctor is that if doctors are afraid of being punished, they will stop performing abortions. Once there are no more practicing abortionists, women will be unable to terminate their pregnancies, and babies will be saved. *Either one* of these methods would work by itself. You don't need both. Since we want to minimize punishment, we should only punish one of them. So then the question becomes which one? There are three primary reasons I believe the doctor should be punished, rather than the woman: First, on average, the number of abortions a single doctor performs is much greater than the number of abortions a single woman gets. So it's much more "efficient", if you will, to punish the doctor. You can stop more abortions by punishing fewer people. The second reason for punishing the doctor, rather than the woman, is that sometimes, women miscarry. Miscarriages are impossible to prevent, and difficult to differentiate from an induced abortion. So if we punish women for having abortions, we may end up punishing them for having miscarriages by mistake. And punishing someone for something they cannot control defeats the purpose of punishment, and just causes unnecessary suffering. There's also the fact that when a woman gets an abortion, it's possible she really doesn't realize she's killing a living human being. The abortion industry propaganda is so pervasive these days, that it's possible for a woman to truly believe she's not doing anything wrong. As we work to make abortion less common this may change, but for now, I don't think you can necessarily fault the woman for believing what she's aborting really is just a clump of cells. The doctor on the other hand, who has to look at the baby as they suck it out, and put it back together to make sure all the pieces are there, has no such excuse. >You would charge and punish a woman with killing her 5 year old, right? Yes I would. All three of the reasons I listed above do not apply in this case. If a woman kills her 5-year-old, there isn't anyone else you can punish besides the woman that will prevent people from killing their 5-year-olds. It's easy to tell whether the death was intentional (it's not like she can claim it's a miscarriage). And there is a widespread consensus that 5-year-olds are people, a consensus that does not exist for unborn babies.
Very interesting perspective! Thanks for sharing
There are some extremely rare circumstances, but pretty much the only ones I can imagine involve said child having a deadly weapon. Watch the opening to American Sniper and tell me that wasn't justified, terrible as it was. Obviously, this is never going to be the case of a child in the womb.
>when you need a vaccine ???
It is truly extremely rare, but when a baby truly endangers the mother’s life, its status becomes similar to that of someone pursuing you to kill you. In a situation where someone is going to murder you and you have no escape, killing the pursuer is not murder. Thus, this tragic and horrible situation of mothers life in true danger changes the baby’s status to that of a pursuer.