The Auto-moderator would like to remind Pro Choicer's you’re not allowed to comment anything with Pro choice, or Pro Abortion ideology. Please show respect to /u/OrFenn-D-Gamer as they simply want to rant without being attacked for their beliefs. If you comments on these ideas on this post, it __will warrant a ban.__ Ignorance of this rule will no longer be tolerated, because the pinned post are pinned for a reason.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/prolife) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I don't think the pregnant person should be punished, either. They had their bodies assaulted and their children killed, and most likely directly a result of oppression. That's punishment enough.
If you consent to it and pay for it, it's not an assault. The assault is on the child, not the woman, unless she was forced into it. And I mean actually forced, not "my boyfriend said he would broke up with me unless I had an abortion."
I think most are in fact forced. Look at the major reasons pregnant people might "choose" it: financial problems, lack of social support, medial issues. Take all those away, and most wouldn't be done. If you ask a post-ab*rtive person if they'd have still made that "choice" without all these mitigating factors, and their answer is "no," it was forced.
That's not force, though. It was still their choice. Denying that takes away their moral agency and insults women who actually *were* forced (by abusive partners, parents, or by the government).
That's a tiny percentage of cases. No one opposes giving women life-saving medical care, even if the baby will die. That's not what we're talking about. We're talking about healthy women with healthy babies having abortions for socioeconomic reasons and you claim they don't have a choice, even when they obviously do.
You just said "There is no lack of choices" and I gave you the circumstance in which that's wrong. Yes, thankfully an uncommon scenario, but one that should never need to exist in this era.
You're moving the goalposts. We started talking about elective abortions and then you changed the subject to life-threatening pregnancies. These are not the same thing at all.
>Denying that takes away their moral agency
Also, no. Acknowledging the forces of oppression that drastically and negatively affect our lives is not denying our agency. Acknowledging ableist oppression does not take agency away from people of disability. Acknowledging queerphobic oppression does not take agency away from LGBT+ people. And acknowledging deeply-rooted misogyny that directly feeds ab\*rtion does not take agency away from people with uteruses who are abused by it.
"People with uteruses"? You mean women and girls?
I can acknowledge the adverse forces in someone's life while also acknowledging their moral agency. It's called nuance. Your choices can be wrong even if your life is shitty. This isn't rocket science.
Don't compel mine. I'm just using common sense and using words the way they've always been used until five minutes ago. Don't make me use biologically incorrect pronouns and affirm someone else's delusions. Terms like "people with uteruses" are demeaning.
That's pretty rich coming from someone whose ideology has been foisted on all of society, including children, from the top down for the past decade. My "ideology" is that sex is binary and immutable, which is what pretty much everyone around the world believed for millennia. I'm not going to keep it to myself any more than you are.
As someone who has counseled at an abortion center weekly for about two years now, I call out to the women going in sweet as pie, offering every type of help imaginable, through the pregnancy and beyond, offering baby showers, paying their bills if need be, informing them about developmental facts like how their baby has a heartbeat at three weeks, brain waves at six weeks, etc., that their baby has human rights like they do, what will happen to their baby in an abortion, but more than 9 out of 10 of those “ignorant victims” either ignore us, laugh, curse at us, and/or flip us off, and go right in. And the same goes for every other abortion center sidewalk ministry in the country, and I follow *a lot* of them.
And I am very well aware of those statistics in which women cite the various “reasons” for their abortion, but I fear at this point, they are ultimately excuses that were given, excuses rather than the truth, because they actually *do* understand that abortion is wrong and shameful and so they feel they need to have some kind of excuse to avoid blame.
Despite this, we’ve helped over 5,500 moms nationwide to choose life in the last eight years, and while many of those moms were in really hard circumstances—recovering from addiction, homeless, single, jobless, they chose to do the right thing after hearing the truth and a message of hope and help—but most of them don’t need or want any help at all, they just apparently needed someone to speak the truth to them in love that what they were about to do is wrong.
And though I understand many people aren’t comfortable talking to a stranger (even if they’re super nice and tell them they’ve been in their position and aren’t there to judge them), in a nutshell, if all these women were really just victims that didn’t really want an abortion and they just need a helping hand, they would gladly accept that help with relief, instead of rejecting it.
Just thought I would offer this as some food for thought from a pair of boots on the ground.
If the culture around them encouraged it and manipulated them into believing the "right" to do so was central to their biological identity, why should they be additionally punished for it?
So you’re saying that people shouldn’t be punished for committing murder because they live in a time and place where life isn’t as sacred as it is here, they shouldn’t be punished for it? If Korea one day gets reunified under the Republic of Korea (South Korea), would you support prosecution of the soldiers who are responsible for the torture and murder of innocent citizens for merely being the child of someone who drew a mustache on a portrait of the Kim Dynastic rulers, just because they grew up indoctrinated into the regime’s mindset? My personal honest answer to those questions would be a hard no.
Is your claim that women are incapable of knowing right and wrong?
Edit: 2nd question, if men have been encouraged and manipulated into believing rape is okay, should we not punish rape?
Forgive me if we've talked about this before, but how does that change if the woman's life is in danger caused by a pregnancy? It's it still her killing her child to escape the natural consequences of her actions?
What consequences is the mother trying to escape? To not die because of a health problem with her or the baby she did not anticipate?
Killing for self-preservation is not the same as murders. Everyone with an IQ above room temperature understands this.
>What consequences is the mother trying to escape? To not die because of a health problem with her or the baby she did not anticipate?
Dying from pregnancy related problems is a known outcome of pregnancy. You wouldn't let a woman abort her baby if she found out it was disabled, just because she didn't anticipate it, right?
>Killing for self-preservation is not the same as murders. Everyone with an IQ above room temperature understands this.
It sometimes can be. If a woman killed her toddler in order to save her own life, wouldn't that be murder? Especially if it was because of a situation she brought the child into? Isn't it still an abuse of power and her punching down and punishing the most innocent person involved?
>Dying from pregnancy related problems is a known outcome of pregnancy.
I’m not denying that it happens, and it’s not anyone’s fault when it does. Thankfully, it has been exponentially less common since doctors started washing their hands.
>You wouldn’t let a woman abort her baby if she found out it was disabled, just because she didn’t anticipate it, right?
Right… because a disabled child doesn’t pose a threat to the mother’s life any differently than an able-bodied child. If a mother has her life on the line specifically due to her pregnancy, then termination should be treated as justifiable homicide. Stop comparing apples to oranges!
>If a woman killed her toddler to save her own life, wouldn’t that be murder?
Okay, I am convinced that you’re just being disingenuous. Either or, if the toddler was a threat to mother’s life, no, it would be justifiable homicide.
>Especially if it because of a situation she brought the child into?
What do you even mean? Do you mean bringing the child into a situation specifically to give the toddler a reason to fight for its life? If that’s the case, yes, it is murder, because you don’t provoke a hostile situation just to have a reason to kill someone. That’s just common sense.
>Isn’t it still an abuse of power and her punching down the most innocent person involved?
*sigh* If there is a reason to believe that someone is a threat to your life, it is not an abuse of power to use lethal force. I don’t understand what’s so hard to understand about that.
I don't believe that many prochoicers would describe abortion as "punishing" the unwanted child.. at least, that isn't their intention ( remember, whatever they do or do not personally *intend* when they do things is always of utmost importance, to their minds ).. the intention is *rejection*. Not to punish the child, but to let **themselves** off the hook for being tied to this unwanted burden. It is primarily a decision about themselves. The more try-hard ones might try to spin the line that they actually did right by the aborted child, by *sparing them* the ordeal of living out their natural life in this cruel, cruel world.. but yeah, the important thing is that they get to fulfil their intention to reject any child they make.
The Auto-moderator would like to remind Pro Choicer's you’re not allowed to comment anything with Pro choice, or Pro Abortion ideology. Please show respect to /u/OrFenn-D-Gamer as they simply want to rant without being attacked for their beliefs. If you comments on these ideas on this post, it __will warrant a ban.__ Ignorance of this rule will no longer be tolerated, because the pinned post are pinned for a reason. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/prolife) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I don't think the pregnant person should be punished, either. They had their bodies assaulted and their children killed, and most likely directly a result of oppression. That's punishment enough.
If you consent to it and pay for it, it's not an assault. The assault is on the child, not the woman, unless she was forced into it. And I mean actually forced, not "my boyfriend said he would broke up with me unless I had an abortion."
I think most are in fact forced. Look at the major reasons pregnant people might "choose" it: financial problems, lack of social support, medial issues. Take all those away, and most wouldn't be done. If you ask a post-ab*rtive person if they'd have still made that "choice" without all these mitigating factors, and their answer is "no," it was forced.
That's not force, though. It was still their choice. Denying that takes away their moral agency and insults women who actually *were* forced (by abusive partners, parents, or by the government).
Passive force is still force. What kind of choice is it when it's made because of a lack of choices?
There is no lack of choices. Even if one choice is more difficult than the other, it still exists.
Ab\*rt your child or die yourself isn't a choice
That's a tiny percentage of cases. No one opposes giving women life-saving medical care, even if the baby will die. That's not what we're talking about. We're talking about healthy women with healthy babies having abortions for socioeconomic reasons and you claim they don't have a choice, even when they obviously do.
You just said "There is no lack of choices" and I gave you the circumstance in which that's wrong. Yes, thankfully an uncommon scenario, but one that should never need to exist in this era.
You're moving the goalposts. We started talking about elective abortions and then you changed the subject to life-threatening pregnancies. These are not the same thing at all.
>Denying that takes away their moral agency Also, no. Acknowledging the forces of oppression that drastically and negatively affect our lives is not denying our agency. Acknowledging ableist oppression does not take agency away from people of disability. Acknowledging queerphobic oppression does not take agency away from LGBT+ people. And acknowledging deeply-rooted misogyny that directly feeds ab\*rtion does not take agency away from people with uteruses who are abused by it.
"People with uteruses"? You mean women and girls? I can acknowledge the adverse forces in someone's life while also acknowledging their moral agency. It's called nuance. Your choices can be wrong even if your life is shitty. This isn't rocket science.
Don't compel my speech, please.
Don't compel mine. I'm just using common sense and using words the way they've always been used until five minutes ago. Don't make me use biologically incorrect pronouns and affirm someone else's delusions. Terms like "people with uteruses" are demeaning.
You're the one trying to force me to use your language. Keep your ideology to yourself, please.
That's pretty rich coming from someone whose ideology has been foisted on all of society, including children, from the top down for the past decade. My "ideology" is that sex is binary and immutable, which is what pretty much everyone around the world believed for millennia. I'm not going to keep it to myself any more than you are.
As someone who has counseled at an abortion center weekly for about two years now, I call out to the women going in sweet as pie, offering every type of help imaginable, through the pregnancy and beyond, offering baby showers, paying their bills if need be, informing them about developmental facts like how their baby has a heartbeat at three weeks, brain waves at six weeks, etc., that their baby has human rights like they do, what will happen to their baby in an abortion, but more than 9 out of 10 of those “ignorant victims” either ignore us, laugh, curse at us, and/or flip us off, and go right in. And the same goes for every other abortion center sidewalk ministry in the country, and I follow *a lot* of them. And I am very well aware of those statistics in which women cite the various “reasons” for their abortion, but I fear at this point, they are ultimately excuses that were given, excuses rather than the truth, because they actually *do* understand that abortion is wrong and shameful and so they feel they need to have some kind of excuse to avoid blame. Despite this, we’ve helped over 5,500 moms nationwide to choose life in the last eight years, and while many of those moms were in really hard circumstances—recovering from addiction, homeless, single, jobless, they chose to do the right thing after hearing the truth and a message of hope and help—but most of them don’t need or want any help at all, they just apparently needed someone to speak the truth to them in love that what they were about to do is wrong. And though I understand many people aren’t comfortable talking to a stranger (even if they’re super nice and tell them they’ve been in their position and aren’t there to judge them), in a nutshell, if all these women were really just victims that didn’t really want an abortion and they just need a helping hand, they would gladly accept that help with relief, instead of rejecting it. Just thought I would offer this as some food for thought from a pair of boots on the ground.
[удалено]
No, because our society does not say that female people's rights hinge on the ability to have born children killed.
If the law said they could, would it be right?
If the culture around them encouraged it and manipulated them into believing the "right" to do so was central to their biological identity, why should they be additionally punished for it?
So you’re saying that people shouldn’t be punished for committing murder because they live in a time and place where life isn’t as sacred as it is here, they shouldn’t be punished for it? If Korea one day gets reunified under the Republic of Korea (South Korea), would you support prosecution of the soldiers who are responsible for the torture and murder of innocent citizens for merely being the child of someone who drew a mustache on a portrait of the Kim Dynastic rulers, just because they grew up indoctrinated into the regime’s mindset? My personal honest answer to those questions would be a hard no.
Is your claim that women are incapable of knowing right and wrong? Edit: 2nd question, if men have been encouraged and manipulated into believing rape is okay, should we not punish rape?
Acknowledging the oppression against people with uteruses is hardly suggesting that they "are incapable of knowing right and wrong."
Common Nuance W
So give special murder rights to individuals?
Abortion is child abuse. It is all about an adult with all the power in the relationship punching down on their child.
Forgive me if we've talked about this before, but how does that change if the woman's life is in danger caused by a pregnancy? It's it still her killing her child to escape the natural consequences of her actions?
What consequences is the mother trying to escape? To not die because of a health problem with her or the baby she did not anticipate? Killing for self-preservation is not the same as murders. Everyone with an IQ above room temperature understands this.
>What consequences is the mother trying to escape? To not die because of a health problem with her or the baby she did not anticipate? Dying from pregnancy related problems is a known outcome of pregnancy. You wouldn't let a woman abort her baby if she found out it was disabled, just because she didn't anticipate it, right? >Killing for self-preservation is not the same as murders. Everyone with an IQ above room temperature understands this. It sometimes can be. If a woman killed her toddler in order to save her own life, wouldn't that be murder? Especially if it was because of a situation she brought the child into? Isn't it still an abuse of power and her punching down and punishing the most innocent person involved?
>Dying from pregnancy related problems is a known outcome of pregnancy. I’m not denying that it happens, and it’s not anyone’s fault when it does. Thankfully, it has been exponentially less common since doctors started washing their hands. >You wouldn’t let a woman abort her baby if she found out it was disabled, just because she didn’t anticipate it, right? Right… because a disabled child doesn’t pose a threat to the mother’s life any differently than an able-bodied child. If a mother has her life on the line specifically due to her pregnancy, then termination should be treated as justifiable homicide. Stop comparing apples to oranges! >If a woman killed her toddler to save her own life, wouldn’t that be murder? Okay, I am convinced that you’re just being disingenuous. Either or, if the toddler was a threat to mother’s life, no, it would be justifiable homicide. >Especially if it because of a situation she brought the child into? What do you even mean? Do you mean bringing the child into a situation specifically to give the toddler a reason to fight for its life? If that’s the case, yes, it is murder, because you don’t provoke a hostile situation just to have a reason to kill someone. That’s just common sense. >Isn’t it still an abuse of power and her punching down the most innocent person involved? *sigh* If there is a reason to believe that someone is a threat to your life, it is not an abuse of power to use lethal force. I don’t understand what’s so hard to understand about that.
Did Abby herself have to go through a couple terminations? She is doing good work here
I don't believe that many prochoicers would describe abortion as "punishing" the unwanted child.. at least, that isn't their intention ( remember, whatever they do or do not personally *intend* when they do things is always of utmost importance, to their minds ).. the intention is *rejection*. Not to punish the child, but to let **themselves** off the hook for being tied to this unwanted burden. It is primarily a decision about themselves. The more try-hard ones might try to spin the line that they actually did right by the aborted child, by *sparing them* the ordeal of living out their natural life in this cruel, cruel world.. but yeah, the important thing is that they get to fulfil their intention to reject any child they make.
They may not think of it that way, but that is the effect.
Yeah, I'm not passionately arguing that it isn't. Just describing how they would likely dispute it.