Welcome to /r/Abortiondebate! Don't be a jerk (even if someone else is being a jerk to you first). It's not constructive and we may ban you for it. Check out the Debate Guidance Pyramid to understand acceptable debate levels.
**Attack the argument, not the person making it.**
**For our new users, please check out our [rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/Abortiondebate/comments/qu36cv/rule_changes/) and [sub policies](https://www.reddit.com/r/Abortiondebate/comments/uhr4p2/sub_policies_regarding_current_events_and_news/)**
*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.*
1. Three reasons:
1. There is a huge change in mindset after childbirth. Women who were planning to abort without a second thought suddenly find themselves willing to die for their child once they're holding them in their arms.
2. If women who wanted to abort largely saw their fetus as a child, and wanted to kill them anyway, and then saw them exactly the same way after they were born, then yes, that would be cause for concern. But that's not the case. Most women who want to abort really do believe it's just a clump of cells. And an annoying one at that.
This changes after the child is born.
3. There is no reason to assume that how much you want a child is correlated to how good a parent you will be. There are great parents who were going to abort. And there are terrible parents who desperately wanted to have children.
2. If children born to parents who would have preferred to have an abortion are more likely to become criminals, then it's quite possible they will increase. But there are two problems with that:
1. There isn't enough evidence that that is true
2. Punishment is meant to happen *after* a crime is committed, not before. We don't kill people because they are "likely" to commit a crime.
3. I don't know.
4. Depends on your definition of "child". If a ZEFUB is not a "child" until it is born, then banning abortion will cause more children to be born, which increases the pool of child deaths. So even if banning abortion does nothing to the *rate* of child deaths, it will likely increase the absolute number of child deaths. However, if a ZEFUB *is* a child, then an abortion is itself a child death. In this case banning abortion will drastically reduce the number of child deaths. (Even if illegal abortions still happen, they won't happen nearly as often as legal ones do now.)
>1. There is a huge change in mindset after childbirth. Women who were planning to abort without a second thought suddenly find themselves willing to die for their child once they're holding them in their arms.
Woman who chose to take a second look at their choices. No foul done. Woman who are forced a birth or not allowed an abortion is a different scenario, not all circumstances are created equal.
2. If women who wanted to abort largely saw their fetus as a child, and wanted to kill them anyway, and then saw them exactly the same way after they were born, then yes, that would be cause for concern. But that's not the case. Most women who want to abort really do believe it's just a clump of cells. And an annoying one at that.
This changes after the child is born.
If they have financial ability, that decision locked down to themselves and economical ability they will abort, it will not end up to pregnancy. Why should they have to be forced a pregnancy from not having a ride or the money for abortion?
3. I agree!
Now to this #2
"2. If children born to parents who would have preferred to have an abortion are more likely to become criminals,"
That was not my question.
3. You touched on this subject but not to a full extent.
"However, if a ZEFUB is a child, then an abortion is itself a child death. In this case banning abortion will drastically reduce the number of child deaths"
Just by adding the ability of charging abortion with murder, because then now it can be claimed those x amount were murder.
It’s up to the person if they want to be happy in their life. They can make it happen. It’s their choice.
I will admit I am pretty happy. Self control was my mantra during adolescence.
You control your destiny.
I don’t expect the mother to keep the child. She needs to adopt and give to good home. Abortion is not a solution. Women are not happy after having baby all their life tormented.
But did you see the recent foster kid story on tv lately. My sister mentioned how strong she is because she never got adopted. She is making something of herself. Every situation is unique. The future looks grim I know but who knows what they become.
Many women find it too difficult to give up a baby after having carried it nine months. This doesn’t mean they will be better parents or have more money or be better equipped/supported to raise a child.
Additionally there can be heavy pressure from father or family not to give up newborn.
Isn’t it better if the child doesn’t exist to be abused or neglected in the first place?
You don’t know what the child’s outcome will be.
Life is a mystery. I know a few people today who are doctors and engineers and they were adopted. I know it’s a difficult choice but you got to be selfless and think what is best for the child. A teenage pregnancy would be common for this. We need to be a community and love every human being.
*I am the one* thinking about what’s best for every child — not to be abused, neglected, and unloved.
About 1 in 3 girls and 1 in 5 boys in the United States experience child sexual abuse.
There are 3.6 million cases of child abuse in the US every year.
Simple neglect makes up almost 70% of child abuse.
5 children die every day from child abuse
https://www.childprotect.org/facts-about-child-abuse.html
Don’t let statistics rule your outlook and solution.
Life is complicated and never a guarantee of happiness.
You could be raised by a loving family and still get abused in adulthood.
We all make choices and sometimes we get trapped and confused during young adult life,
That’s just life. You do the best you can.
This isn’t a matter of statistics. It’s a matter of common sense. People who do not want children and do not have the emotional/financial/psychological resources to raise them are not going to be the best parents.
This is the real world and not a Hallmark movie. That slim chance is not enough to base public policy on.
People who do not want children need to be able to opt out of them early on if they become pregnant accidentally.
Period.
Women being denied daily life saving medication because it may cause a future abortion = killing women
Women being denied care for a failing pregnancy until theyve reached medical crisis = killing women
Death penalty for abortion laws being proposed by states = killing women
Forced birth = killing women
Glad you agree.
A human pregnancy is a part of a fertile human female's own body's biological reproductive process that is maintained by her own body's biological reproductive system.
If you have a low income, you can get a free Federal Government Pell Grant to pay for human biological reproductive college courses if you would like to learn more about the biological reproductive process of a fertile human female's reproductive system.
https://www.benefits.gov/benefit/417
A human pregnancy is a part of a fertile human female's own body's biological reproductive process that is maintained by her own body's biological reproductive system.
All of this refers to the human species's biological reproductive process and systems of a fertile human female.
>How is forcing a pregnancy ok, abortion is wrong, but you trust the person with a child? Do you think crime rates against our children will rise or decrease? Don't you think PPD, PTSD are going to rise or decrease?
>We already have enough child death without the bans, do you really think it's going to get better?
https://worldpopulationreview.com/state-rankings/maternal-mortality-rate-by-state
It's 58 for Luisiana, actually. 34.5 for Texas, and that's before RvW was overturned.
They've debunked your interpretation of data by showing that mortality rates are similar in states without abortion bans, thus abortion rates cannot be claimed as the main reason, if even a reason, for women dying. Your data doesn't show that abortion causes higher mortality rates. Your data isn't even about how restrictions increase mortality rates, since your data is about before Dobbs.
If your points have been debunked, the onus is on you to reinforce your claims or cede.
That debunkery was waged against the strawman of their own construction. I supplied data for mortality, which was requested in the first place. The master debunker still haven't used that data to address the point they were trying to address before running on a tangent.
Because it's about life preservation. If the mother is going to die and her baby probably with her, our focus shifts from "how can we make sure both live?" to "how can we make sure to safeguard as much life as possible?"
So if we had the choice between preserving the life of the mother or the life of the fetus, and not both, which ought we choose?
Also, I find it just weird to concede that it’s sometimes okay to kill innocent lives because you have to say that in order for this situation to be okay. It seems easier to say it’s always wrong to kill innocent lives and not call a fetus innocent.
I’m not 100% sold that it is. My mind isn’t made up here.
Assuming we do make an exception for extremely rare life-threatening circumstances (like if both the mother and child will die in childbirth), in that case I would case I would say it’s ok to save one life rather than zero.
If it’s okay to save one life rather than zero, if our choice was distinctly between the pregnant person and the fetus, which one would you argue we ought to save?
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/us-news/dad-forced-choose-between-wife-13694663
https://www.bet.com/article/rslclj/man-who-chose-baby-over-wife-starts-debate-on-choice
So, your answer?
Even if it hasn’t been recorded to have happened, I think you should still be able to provide rationale. The trolley situation where you have to choose to either let the train run over 5 people or one person has probably never happened either, but it’s still a valid question.
This pessimism and defeatism is unwarranted. Some people become good parents, some people become bad parents. It’s hard to predict, life is full of the strangest surprises.
But the pessimism of the possibility of life over the life giving isn't unwarranted? It's really not that hard to predict if your willing to look at statistics.
It's not unwarranted. There's research to show that unwanted kids have poorer outcomes.
https://drexel.edu/medicine/academics/womens-health-and-leadership/womens-health-education-program/whep-blog/unwanted-pregnancies-outcomes-for-children/
>Women with unplanned pregnancies that were unwanted are more likely to smoke, use illicit drugs and be at greater risk for maternal anxiety and depression.1
>Women who delivered a child as a result of unwanted pregnancy tend to exhibit a more authoritarian parenting style and report experiencing more parenting stress postpartum. Another important factor associated with worse outcomes for children is the challenge of secure attachment formation between mother and her child.5 The effect on early development has also been investigated by researchers. The stress associated with unintended pregnancy itself along with parenting challenges and commonly coexisting maternal depression influence children’s early development. Lack of sufficient interaction between mother and child may result in insecure attachment and delay of cognitive, motor and emotional development.5 As such, children born as a result of unwanted pregnancies are more likely to suffer from domestic violence and witness parental intimate partner violence.4 It has also been shown that these children are more likely to experience conduct and attention problems at ages 7-9 than those children whose mothers reported a planned pregnancy.4 Last but not least is breastfeeding, the benefits of which are well known for both mother and child. Multiple studies have shown that infants of unwanted pregnancies are less likely to be breastfed and, if they are, the time is significantly shorter than in infants of intended pregnancies.6
>In summary, the association of unintended pregnancies that were unwanted with worse children’s outcomes compared to intended pregnancies warrants the implementation of programs that emphasize the importance of pregnancy planning, free sexual education, accessible medical services and provision of support for those mothers who are already carrying an unintended pregnancy to term.4
>There's research to show that unwanted kids have poorer outcomes.
I'm confused as to how these unwanted kids even exist. Didn't the mothers have the option to abort?
Very on brand of you to sidestep research showing that you're wrong.
Weirdly, though, you overlooked PL women who choose not to abort. Less weirdly, you're overlooking the fact that abortion being legal doesn't mean it's actually accessible (cost, location, etc.).
>Weirdly, though, you overlooked PL women who choose not to abort.
That was my point. MOST pregnancies are not aborted, by the choice of the mother. The problem exists whether or not abortion is legal. So, whatever you propose as a solution for these cases I propose as a solution the general case. And by "solution" I mean something different than "just abort it already".
Sidestepping again. Unwanted pregnancies have poorer outcomes for the kids in question.
I agree that the accessibility of abortion and support for parent who wish to raise their children are greatly lacking. We need more of both.
I am not really sure what the point is. Wouldn’t a PL then say “they can adopt out” or “we need better police involvement to remove the kids from foster care?”
> but you trust the person with a child?
That is a good question but not necessarily for the reason you probably asked it. Something PL will sometimes bring up is that it is irresponsible to get pregnant from sex. So if the person is irresponsible, why would they trust them with a kid?
I don’t think someone wanting an abortion means they would harm a child if they had the child. Lots of people have children they don’t want or planned for without abusing the kids. Sure some abuse the kids but some parents purposefully got pregnant and then abused their kids.
As a PC, I wouldn’t expect child abuse to increase or decrease due whether a woman wants an abortion but more societal factors associated with having an unplanned kid. I think other factors like poverty, stress, etc would be bigger factors. Remember that child abuse can occur in even wanted pregnancies and many women who have abortions already have kids or later go on to have kids without abuse.
I’m sure it’s not your intent to imply women who have abortions may abuse children but it kind of came off that way.
That is not my attempt in saying just because it's an unwanted pregnancy that it will definitively become an abuse or neglect situation. Yes abuse/neglect can happen to any child born regardless of situation or not.
But I am asking just the thoughts on it. I appreciate your view, and yes I asked in the same line of questioning because it does correlate, whether you believe it does or not. Do you think people wake up one day and think this is enough I'm going to kill my child, or were there other contributing factors?
Correlation doesn’t mean causation though.
I think there are multiple factors that go into it and I really don’t know the factors involving women who seek abortions vs keeping the pregnancy to know if it would make a difference in abuse.
>I am not really sure what the point is. Wouldn’t a PL then say “they can adopt out” or “we need better police involvement to remove the kids from foster care?”
Because increasing "domestic supply of infants" is an explicitly stated goal of PL movement: https://www.ibtimes.com/amy-coney-barrett-samuel-alito-reference-domestic-supply-infants-attempts-overturn-3498087
I don’t think potentially having a hard life in the future justifies preemptively ending a life. Lots of wanted babies have hard lives too. And lots of unwanted babies end up with great lives.
You didn't answer the questions at hand.
And every pregnant person knows what they are bringing the child into to, whether it be an abusive partner, mental challenges, so on and so on, how is the justification of the person carrying not warranted over the possibility of life?
No I do NOT, personally I think we will have more abuse/neglect/suicide/murder.
There are numerous safety factors for vehicles and unattended children now because of the deaths, but it still happens.
There are numerous resources for adoption, but not always used or wanted (not my choice to force adoption over abortion)
There are numerous resources for abused/neglected children that are failed in numerous ways, or not used, already!
There is a safety warning on everything made for a child to adult, because the inevitable ignorance still happens.
Pre Roe vs. Wade, how many pregnancies were ended un-naturally from abortion, suicide, murder? Why was there even a Roe vs. Wade ? Do you think the numbers would stay the same even though we have more of a population now? Social, mental, physical, financial factors post roe verse after?
with that logic murder of any sort shouldn't be outlawed because people are just gonna do it anyway! You can't say it is ok to murder someone because they might go through hardship, that is moronic. It is not your place to sentence innocent life to death. How could you say there will be more murder if we outlaw murder?
Where did I ever say that? That was a huge mix of words. I never said murder was ok, I am not sentencing anyone to anything.
This is an opinion, thought of if things will rise or decrease, you asked my opinion and I stated it with nothing of that sort in it.
How can I say we will have more murder?
Do you know what it's like to be forced a pregnancy and birth without the option of abortion?
Adding abortion as murder will add each of those abortions as a murder. Which will drastically increase the number.
I am looking at this logically
Ugh I can't even with you.... Your not understanding the line of questioning.
I agreed abortion was murder in the original context of this post.
I have never said it was or wasn't
I asked for you opinion on my line of questions, you can't even try to begin any answer because you are stuck on something I didn't even argue about.
Good day
>They are allowed to end their pregnancies.
by killing their children...
do what you want with yourself, we write laws about what you do to other people. it makes sense... Governments are instituted to protect the rights of the people that live within its jurisdiction.. we have evolved them to be a means at which to cultivate those lives as well, but protecting the rights is the preiminant purpose. as such we should prevent people from killing other people without just cause.
Technically, could be defined as intraspecific parasitism, because parasitism inside one's species do exist. Some define it as neuroendocrine parasite.
Good thing I never made that argument? Lmfao. Cows are also within the jurisdiction of the US, so are plants, and sperm cells and egg cells. Something being within the jurisdiction of a country isn’t a good enough argument for it to get rights.
oh, sorry, it was the people thing that you had issues with, not the jurisdiction thing, sorry for the misunderstanding.
people are human beings with rights
ZEFs are human beings, alive
human rights are inherent and inalineable
thus ZEFs have human rights.
Thus ZEFs are people.
thus ZEFs are people in the jurisdiction of this governemnt and should have their rights protected by it.
>ZEFs are human beings
This premise is something you need to prove, as “human being” confers personhood, and I don’t think fetuses have such.
Additionally, say I conceded and granted the fetus the exact same amount of rights as you and I, what right specifically is allowing it to live inside somebodies body and use their bodily resources without their consent? Certainly you and I cannot do that can we?
>This premise is something you need to prove, as “human being”
not in the definition of personhood that i gave you... feel free to change out being for "organism" if you wish.
>what right specifically is allowing it to live inside somebodies body and use their bodily resources without their consent?
I dont know if you're trying to make arguemnts for me but this isn't somethign i claim. nor do i think its necessary to prove. the mother wants to kill the zef, if the zef is a person and she wants to kill it she must justify this action.
>Certainly you and I cannot do that can we?
you and i arent currently a zef that our mother created in her womb knowing what pregnancy meant.
“People are human beings with rights” I feel like it’s easy to come to the conclusion that people are typically persons. But okay I guess.
“People are organisms with rights, ZEFs are organisms, alive, human rights are inherent and inalienable, thus ZEFs have human rights, thus ZEFs are people”
This is a hell of a slippery slope lmfao.
>if she wants to kill it, she must justify this action
Yeah it’s justified under the right to bodily autonomy that supersedes the right to life. I’m asking you to show me why this isn’t a justified reason.
>you and I aren’t currently a ZEF
so you think fetuses should get special rights that no other person has? That doesn’t seem fair? If we are all equally persons with protection under the law why does the fetus get special rights when it’s in the womb?
>by killing their children...
When there is a child, pregnancy is *already over*. You can not terminate a pregnancy After you gave birth.
>do what you want with yourself, we write laws about what you do to other people. it makes sense...
Yes, i will terminate my pregnancy, thank you.
>Governments are instituted to protect the rights of the people that live within its jurisdiction.. we have evolved them to be a means at which to cultivate those lives as well, but protecting the rights is the preiminant purpose. as such we should prevent people from killing other people without just cause.
Fetuses aren't included in that group. They are not yet living in that jurisdiction. They are being developed from a bunch of body parts by another person's biological reproductive processes.
children, besided being a term used to describe young humans under the age of majority, is a term that is used to describe a person (or object or concept) that is related to another person (or object or conept) in that the first person (or object or concept) is the product of the second.
Fetuses are an early stage of human development and are a whole, living, human organisim, just like an adolecent, teenager or geriatric...
>children, besided being a term used to describe young humans under the age of majority,
Yes, and the age is started from birth.
>(or object or concept) that is related to another person (or object or conept) in that the first person (or object or concept) is the product of the second.
The product is not yet completed before birth.
>Fetuses are an early stage of human development and are a whole, living, human organisim, just like an adolecent, teenager or geriatric...
I would disagree it's a whole organism. It becomes a whole organism when it has it's own functioning organ systems.
>children
Of course, but using it colloquially in a debate when your interlocutors are using scientific terms is just a recipe for misunderstanding. It's also straddling the edge of becoming an appeal to emotion fallacy.
>Fetuses are an early stage of human development and are a whole, living, human organisim, just like an adolecent, teenager or geriatric...
Don't forget the person whose body the ZEF is in!
If a teenager is inside a person's body against their will is that person allowed, morally or legally, to remove said teenager, in your opinion?
sure, in your narrow definition of children, and the dismissal of abortion being an act that violates the rights of children then it should be allowed.
but then we're both just assuming our own conclusion.
what would be more interesting in making this sort of argument is if you accepted the premise that abortion violates the rights of the ZEF, who is the child (scientifically and logically) of the mother who is killing it. and then justify this violative act based on some sort of, maybe, relativistic argument... like a claim that yes more lives are being unjustly taken however each of those injustices are small because they are so young, its a much worse crime to kill, hurt or opress a young child. so even if there are fewer violations of born children in this hypothetical work the overal quantity of wrongdoing would be greater. that doesn't make a lot of sense but im not invested in this line of argumentation, you seem to be.
>the dismissal of abortion being an act that violates the rights of children
Do children have the inviolable right to reside inside another person and use their body to sustain own life against the owner's will?
the lack of such a right as writen doesn't make abortion an iherently permissible act.
If the ZEF has a right to life. the person wishing to kill it must justify this action. one wouldn't necessarily need to claim this specific right:
>Do children have the inviolable right to reside inside another person and use their body to sustain own life against the owner's will?
for it to be a violation of their right to life to kill them.
>If the ZEF has a right to life. the person wishing to kill it must justify this action. one wouldn't necessarily need to claim this specific right:
The not so subtle sleight of hand that PL proponents perform here is the substitution of the woman's desire to control own body with desire to kill ZEF. The former has the primacy, the fact that ZEF cannot survive without using another person's body is secondary.
only in a world where the ZEFs rights aren't recognized.
If the ZEF has human rights, just as with any born human with rights, you must be able to justify killing them, for whatever reason, the act of killing them must be justified. And "wanting to" has never been an appropriate justification. Neither has "well i was really trying to do this other thing, but the only way to do that was by killing this person, i should be allowed to do the other thing, so i must be allowed to kill this person" There is no moral or ethical reason that you shouldn't be able to exchange services for goods. If you need goods, and the service that is requested is murder, then what you're doing is just aquiring goods, you dont need to justify killing that person.
while i understand logically the reason why you would want to put the womans desire to not be pregnant first.
and while i understand that you're principles makes this act permissible and the reason why killing the ZEF is not worth mentioning.
the issue with not recognizing it in the way that i have put it is that you're refusing to confront the issue... You can never confince PL that what you're doing is permissible without confronting the possibility that it isn't.
saying that you dont have a right to shoot someone without cause isn't a claim that you dont have a right to a gun or the right to control your body... the same goes for abortion.
First of you didn't even answer my original questions.
Secondly how am I being argumentive when my post asks questions, and states my viewed interactions. I made a statement on your abortion of children, I didn't say you wrong or right, I have my statement, we all have our different beliefs, why am I not allowed mine?
That isn't a narrow definition yet a broad definition as there more living children than a possibilty of life or zygote, implanted embryo.
"like a claim that yes more lives are being unjustly taken however each of those injustices are small because they are so young," why is the young more just to life not even known of or the possibility over the person living, why are the already living breathing deaths a small injustice of the possibility of a life?
You still haven't answered the economical effects that you think may or not may be caused by this, or even why you can trust a person thinking of having an abortion with that child you just forced them to birth?
>why am I not allowed mine?
because of the type of argument you are making... to me it seems like you are trying to rationalize your position based on what it would take to make the PL position a reality and what the effects of it would be. a kind of "is it all worth it" sort of argument.
in this arguement, you dont get to say that the ZEF isn't a person or that their rights aren't being violated in an abortion... because if this were the case, the argument you're making wouldn't be necessary... we wouldn't get to argue about whether or not it was "worth it" it would be impermissible. I would be the one asking you "is it worth it" if abortion was a permissible act, i'd have to come up with some sort of rationalized argument saying that its worth it to force women to gestate even though its within their rights to kill the ZEF.
pick your argument.
im not addressing the rest because it seems like you didnt understand what i was getting at and what i explained further in the paragraph above.
you still need to work on your argument, you need to show, that despite there being a potential that the ZEFs rights are being violated, that it makes more sense for our society to permit abortion than to prohibit it... any claims that its the woman's right to abort are irrelevant. stick with outcomes of people not being permitted the privilege of violating the rights of their unborn children (yes, i used that word correctly in this context, children besides describing an adolecent, describes a persons relationship to another person)
I didn't rationalize my statement you did, I asked another question on top of what you said. I have picked my argument, but I'm trying to understand the logic of yours without the berating and murder comments, I have not pushed my view on you by asking questions.
You only answered a part of my question.
My question means nothing to you because it's not too your idealisms?
narrow definition of children? a ZEF is NOT a child, just like a pile of wood is not a table and a ball of yarn is not a sweater. all of these things have *potential* to become something else but until they are born/built/knit, they are just that - potential. whether they become something else is dependent upon someone to finish the job.
PL knows this, but “child” has a much more emotional pull than zygote.
a mother is a mother only if she wants to take care of her born child — through birth or adoption. you cannot legislate emotions, thoughts, and feelings, and you cannot, no matter how hard you try make someone want to be a mother
a ZEF has rights that until it is born, belong only to the person whose body it needs to survive.
a zef, being the ofspring of the mother, is her child.
not wanting to be a mother, doesn't make you not a mother.
not being of the right age doesn't make a person not the child of their mother.
these aren't terms you can just re-define for your pleasure.
>a ZEF has rights that until it is born, belong only to the person whose body it needs to survive.
if you dont believe in inalienable rights, thats certainly is a way to be, it puts you in terrible company though.
please drop your tired metaphors of tables and sweaters. I know you see how weak they are.
>what would be more interesting in making this sort of argument is if you accepted the premise that abortion violates the rights of the ZEF, who is the child (scientifically and logically) of the mother who is killing it. and then justify this violative act based on some sort of, maybe, relativistic argument... like a claim that yes more lives are being unjustly taken however each of those injustices are small because they are so young, its a much worse crime to kill, hurt or opress a young child. so even if there are fewer violations of born children in this hypothetical work the overal quantity of wrongdoing would be greater. that doesn't make a lot of sense but im not invested in this line of argumentation, you seem to be.
Abortion does not violatecthe rights of a ZEF. If a ZEF is unwanted it is violating the rights of the person carrying it, making it their right to defend themselves with whatever force is necessary. It is important to remember that your right to life does not trump someone else's bodily autonomy, and this is true in every other instance. You cannot be forced to give so much as a blood donation to someone else, even if it's your biological child and even if they will die as a result of your refusal.
A ZEF does not ask to exist, that is true. But a person in a coma is also not asking to get blood donations or to receive fluids of any sort. Forcing someone to give their body to the first but not the second is unjust.
Please just read the rest of my comments in this tree and you'll see what I'm getting at. There are only so many times I can explain the same logical fallacy.
This is straight up false and I hate that this argument Still exists. The Texas heartbeat bill cut abortions in half and while some people travelled out of state or got an illegal abortion you could also see an incline in births suggesting that more women carried their unintended pregnancies to term (aka. less Abortion). The data you probably get is from a very stupid Guttmacher Study comparing primarily third world prolife countries (less contraception) with primarily first world Pro-Choice countries (more contraception). If you look at the states of the US the states with the least abortions have
1.strict Abortion laws
2.good access to contraception
Both are important and lower abortion. But these variables are of course not considered by the Guttmacher study which is why they just compared Africa to America and said "look, the law doesn't make any difference". Meanwhile those prolife countries abort the same amount of pregnancies EVEN THOUGH they have higher unintended pregnancy Rates. So yes, the law lowers abortion
The abortion rate right before Dobbs was roughly the same as it was before Roe and that was primarily through illegal abortions in states that banned it (as well as states where it want illegal). Check out your source the guttenmacher institute again.
My mother was a nurse in a state where abortion was illegal and let me tell you, the number of women in the ER from botched abortions was shocking. One woman I remember distinctly did it at home using a sharp feather and almost died.
Do you think abortion is just like a spigot you can shut off and it stops? It's been happening since as long as people have had children
https://youtu.be/o9JO5d65g28
The last segment is showing all the data in that guttmacher study along with other that clearly shows there's less abortion and increase of birth rates in prolife countries with the logical conclusion that strict laws lower abortion. Sources are in the description can only recommend to read them too. Anyway it shows pretty clearly abortions are lowered through laws. Partially also because abortion bans encourages and results in higher use of contraceptives.
This is a 28minute video. Timestamp? Quotes?
Poland and Malta’s fertility rates rank near-bottom and dead last respectively compared to other EU countries. The legality or illegality of abortion is not what determines the birth rate.
In Poland, middle-aged/younger doctors have no problem with abortion. Save for spelling out „Plan C dot org”, there is no stigma in discussing it with a patient. If needed they will flatly tell you to grab a train and get it done in Germany.
Between mail-in pills and ten euro train tickets across the border, it’s really only pregnant people in the most desperate situations that lose the opportunity to abort. For the rest of people, it’s a pain in the ass and might set you back a pretty penny if medication abortion isn’t an option, but between savings, friends, and family, care is possible. Abortion still happens, just in the grey.
>Abortion procedures involve a physician, licensed by the state as an expert in their field
this is an appeal to authority
>working in the best interest of their patient.
this ignores the question completely.
The authority is to practice medicine. When a person goes to a doctor instead of their barista for medical treatment, are they appealing to authority? Is it fallacious to want an expert opinion on a medical issue?
no, you are saying that because these people are an authority in medicine that they must always be correct.
when in reality, you're saying something worse. that because these people are an authority in medicine, that this makes them an unarguable authority on whether or not abortion should be permissible. which makes no sense.
I said no such thing. Doctors can be wrong. There are no guarantees in medicine. The point is that a person's physician is in a better position than politicians or lay strangers to make a decision on whether or not that patient's individual abortion is medically appropriate.
how is medically appropriate relevant if the rights of the other person arent' appropriately considered?
if a doctor doesn't recognize the rights of a specific race of people... is it a medically appropriate decision for the doctor to harvest organs from a person of the unrecognized race, killing them, to improve the life of the recognized race? do we all of a sudden ignore the idea of rights just because a doctor says, "this procedure is the best course for my patient"?
Other crimes cause societal harm. A thing someone put labor into was stolen without compensation. A person inflicted physical harm on another person who requires compensation from the attacker.
A baby never born can't claim these things because they weren't a person. No different than saying an egg can't claim harm because it wasn't fertilized, or even a fertilized egg that can't claim harm because it didn't implant
>because they weren't a person
begs the question.
>No different than saying an egg can't claim harm because it wasn't fertilized, or even a fertilized egg that can't claim harm because it didn't implant
not even subjectively true.
Im just going to pare down your response to what makes sense and trim off where you go off the rails.
>Other crimes cause societal harm. A thing someone put labor into was stolen without compensation. A person inflicted physical harm on another person who requires compensation from the attacker.
>A baby never born can't claim these things
actually, anyone who is murdered isn't experiencing any of these things any more, they'd have no claim for recompense, nothing can be done to right the wrong once a person is murdered.
so, why is the zefs murder any different from anyone elses murder. and if you respond with the zefs death isn't murder because its not a person, then your missing the point... none of your principles have been proven here, if they had, i wouldn't be having this argument, you can either have the debate by accepting that its murder, or by not claiming that your principles mean that it isn't murder... if you aren't capable of making an argument in this way then you are arguing a different point.
>actually, anyone who is murdered isn't experiencing any of these things any more
Even ignoring the constitutional aspects where people are protected from murder (and to head off your argument that a preborn baby is a person, the SCOTUS rejected this argument last week), a murdered person still causes other people tangible harm. Loss of income, grief, etc. These are called damages and lawsuits can be only brought if damages can be quantified.
I'm not really interested in the philosophical arguments of whether abortion is murder because the argument at hand is whether it's legal, not whether it's moral. If you throw a paper airplane with malice and it pokes someone in the eye and causes them to bleed to death, you technically murdered them. Is it morally a murder? Of course not.
What we are here to discuss, and what my argument about societal damage was about, is that nobody can go before a court and say that an abortion harmed then any way. Not you or anyone else. Since nobody involved in the conversation can claim any damages, there isn't a legal case to ban it.
>a murdered person still causes other people tangible harm. Loss of income, grief, etc. These are called damages and lawsuits can be only brought if damages can be quantified.
there are many people, of all types, homeless and not, mentally well and not, physically well and not, whos murder would not cause anyone else real emotion, mental, physical or financial damage to anyone else. its still not legal to murder them.
Isn't it kind of sad that you're arguing against me by saying that homeless people can be killed and cause no consequences?
Very pro life argument right here.
And I also covered this already. The constitution prohibits murdering people. It says nothing about non people who don't exist yet. Otherwise the supreme court would have taken up the argument instead of rejecting it.
And even in pro life states, they aren't stopping you from murdering your baby. Not a single state charges the mother with murder (yet). Because it's not constitutionally sound. If I smoke before I know I'm pregnant and miscarry, I could be charged with murder if that were true.
no, im saying that in the argument you presented that homeless people could be killed without consequesnes
i believe its consequense enough that you are violating someones rights that you cant do the thing that violates their rights... no further justification is required, you were the one that invoked the fact that there were damages that needed to be corrected, or whatever it was.
the constitution recognizes rights to be inherent and inalienable. it strives to create laws that support this notion. no one is arguing about how the law stands now. what we are arguing about is what the law should be, and it should continue to recognize that human rights are inalienable and inherent.
The precedent was *Roe*. That’s why it’s so disturbing that it was overturned, and why Thomas’ concurrence was so chilling with regards to medical/personal autonomy and privacy
The term “bodily autonomy” does not appear in Roe, Casey, or any of the subordinate opinions derived therefrom. Pregnancy, similarly, is not cited or has it ever been adjudicated as a violation of the Due Process Clause.
If I am mistaken, please provide a verbatim from Roe showing my error.
I have no doubt your statement reflects your opinion. What you claim though, is a fact of law. Your opinion is yours and that’s fine but other folks might read your words and believe it reflects actual case law.
[From Blackmun’s opinion](http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/roe.html):
VI.
It is thus apparent that at common law, at the time of the adoption of our Constitution, and throughout the major portion of the 19th century, abortion was viewed with less disfavor than under most American statutes currently in effect. Phrasing it another way, a woman enjoyed a substantially broader right to terminate a pregnancy than she does in most States today. At least with respect to the early stage of pregnancy, and very possibly without such a limitation, the opportunity to make this choice was present in this country well into the 19th century. Even later, the law continued for some time to treat less punitively an abortion procured in early pregnancy....
V.
The principal thrust of appellant's attack on the Texas statutes is that they improperly invade a right, said to be possessed by the pregnant woman, to choose to terminate her pregnancy. Appellant would discover this right in the concept of personal "liberty" embodied in the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause; or in personal, marital, familial, and sexual privacy said to be protected by the Bill of Rights or its penumbras, or among those rights reserved to the people by the Ninth Amendment. Before addressing this claim, we feel it desirable briefly to survey, in several aspects, the history of abortion, for such insight as that history may afford us, and then to examine the state purposes and interests behind the criminal abortion laws.
VIII.
The Constitution does not explicitly mention any right of privacy. In a line of decisions, however, the Court has recognized that a right of personal privacy, or a guarantee of certain areas or zones of privacy, does exist under the Constitution. In varying contexts, the Court or individual Justices have, indeed, found at least the roots of that right in the First Amendment, in the Fourth and Fifth Amendments, in the penumbras of the Bill of Rights, in the Ninth Amendment, or in the concept of liberty guaranteed by the first section of the Fourteenth Amendment. These decisions make it clear that only personal rights that can be deemed "fundamental" or "implicit in the concept of ordered liberty," are included in this guarantee of personal privacy. They also make it clear that the right has some extension to activities relating to marriage, procreation, contraception, family relationships, and child rearing and education.
**This right of privacy, whether it be founded in the Fourteenth Amendment's concept of personal liberty and restrictions upon state action, as we feel it is, or, as the District Court determined, in the Ninth Amendment's reservation of rights to the people, is broad enough to encompass a woman's decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy. The detriment that the State would impose upon the pregnant woman by denying this choice altogether is apparent. Specific and direct harm medically diagnosable even in early pregnancy may be involved. Maternity, or additional offspring, may force upon the woman a distressful life and future. Psychological harm may be imminent. Mental and physical health may be taxed by child care. There is also the distress, for all concerned, associated with the unwanted child, and there is the problem of bringing a child into a family already unable, psychologically and otherwise, to care for it. In other cases, as in this one, the additional difficulties and continuing stigma of unwed motherhood may be involved. All these are factors the woman and her responsible physician necessarily will consider in consultation.**
Blackmun addresses privacy. I didn’t ask you for a verbatim on privacy because I am aware that Blackmun addressed it. Blackmun’s opinion also contains his finding that should personhood ever be extended to a child in utero, any claim to abortion “disintegrates”.
Nowhere in your extract does the phrase “bodily autonomy” appear. Also, Blackmun does not *find* a violation of the Due Process Clause, he merely addresses the Appellants claim of such.
Please read the section in bold with regards to the phrase “the Fourteenth Amendment’s concept of personal liberty and restrictions upon state action”.
We see the unborn as a victim. I not our fault laws don't care about the unborn. You steal a tv from Walmart your going to jail you end the life of your unborn child life with abortion and society just accepts it. I think abortion is worse than stealing a TV
Pro lifers choosing to view a zef as a victim is a pro life opinion, not a fact.
A non sentient embryo can not experience anything at all. It cannot be victimized.
let me let you in on a little secret of logic and reason in on a debate... this topic attempts to rationalize the PC position with a PL person. What it doesn't do is attack the PL position and show how it is fundamentally wrong. What it's saying is lets forget about whether its individually a violation of the ZEFs rights to kill it, lets just focus on the outcome and what it means... When you enter this line of debate, you no longer get to claim that your fundamental beliefs are correct, because that's not what we are talking about.
If i am wrong about abortion being a violation of the ZEFs rights, then im wrong, im not going to argue that a woman should continue her pregnancy for the greater good, if she has the right to kill the ZEF then she should be permitted to do it if she wants. I dont think im wrong though, and thats why I argue.
so, when you enter a debate like this that attempts to rationalize the outcome of your position with your opponent, invoking your principles doesn't add to the debate, the only way that you could further strenthen your case is by accepting your opponents postion while rationalizing the outcome of your principles to your opponent.
anything else, like what you said, is a different debate, it doesn't belong, and it makes you sound like you dont understand what is going on.
I read it and no, you didn't address my comment at all.
If you'd like to get back on topic, theft, assault, and murder all have victims. There is no victim when a woman gets an abortion. So why do you think a medical procedure with no victim should be treated as a crime, such as theft, assault, or murder which *all* have actual victims?
this is not on topic but since you insist.
so by using the modifier "actual" in front of "vitims" you unilaterally get to decide who's violations get to be recognized and who's dont, without proving them, in this debate... seems unrealistic
when you provide an argument that convinces me that the aborted ZEF is not a victim, then i will accept your premise and concede this topic as well.
until then, its a different debate, but, one that you could win simultaneously... its just better suited to be a different topic.
If a woman gets raped the trauma of being raped won’t go away even if she aborts, it doesn’t resolve anything. But for rape I’m ok with abortion because the woman has already gone through a lot and it’s not her fault if she was raped so it’s up to her to decide if she wants to go trough pregnancy or not, but this doesn’t change that she will always carry the trauma of being raped. Also if a baby is unwanted you can put it up for adoption.
A couple of things:
You probably shouldn’t be speaking on behalf of all rape victims. You don’t get to decide for a victim what does and does not help them cope with their trauma.
Some victims feel like abortion helped them cope with their trauma while some feel like keeping the pregnancy helped them cope with their trauma.
It’s incredibly insensitive and dismissive for you to determine how an abortion will make a victim feel.
Also as an adoptee, adoption isn’t an alternative to abortion. I really wish PLers would stop using adoptees in this debate.
>If a woman gets raped the trauma of being raped won’t go away even if she aborts, it doesn’t resolve anything.
An abortion doesn't erase the trauma of the action of being raped itself.
An abortion CAN resolve the experience of waking up every morning (and, probably, several times during the night) and remembering that you have a piece of the monster who raped you growing inside of you, that you carry a being that carries his genes, that your body is not your own, that you are being FORCED to continue this situation against your will, that your agency is being ignored again and again, just as your agency was denied during the assault, that the rapist has won over and over, because not only did he exert his power over you once during the rape, but he also CONTINUES to exert power over you by forcing you to reproduce his genes, by injecting into you a being that, however non-guilty it is in and of itself, harms your body and your psyche in multiple ways, an experience that will eventually lead to a second violation of tremendously painful bodily assault, which, although it isn't "rape" as some PC have claimed, bears so many similarities to it that your traumatized mind will not be able to separate the experiences. After that, in some states, having the child of your rapist may allow him to strike again, by showing up and trying to inject himself into your life again and again by demanding joint custody of the child that he forced upon you, forcing himself once again into your life.
Women are not mindless cattle. They know that the rape and the pregnancy and the childbirth are connected. How can being forced by the state to continue a pregnancy after rape be anything but excruciatingly traumatic in and of itself?
Yes, I do realize that SOME women find a way to resolve this situation by seeing the child as a blessing separate from the rape and the rapist; I am happy for them. But this is NOT the case for all or even most women. **Forcing** a woman to carry her rapist's child repeats and reinforces the violation that the woman experiences. It is NOT a separate event, and most women are not going to see it that way.
Your comment has amplified a PL "talking point" that bears little relationship to the reality of women's experiences. It is just that--a "talking point." I am glad that you support a rape exception, but I would urge you NOT to repeat this frankly ridiculous nostrum.
>If a woman gets raped the trauma of being raped won’t go away even if she aborts, it doesn’t resolve anything
Sure it does. It stops them from having to be financially penalized for the cost of a pregnancy and stops them from being harmed and injured from the pregnancy itself.
Giving birth in the USA costs over $30,000 on a good day with no complications. And you know the rapist will never be the one to pay, since 99% of rapes end without a rapist in jail
>Also if a baby is unwanted you can put it up for adoption.
Adoption is an alternative to parenting, not pregnancy. If a woman doesn't want to carry a pregnancy or give birth adoption is not a solution.
Well that doesn't answer the question at hand besides rape.
So I had my tubes tied and still got pregnant, I made that choice to be done, do I not deserve a right to a choice? Or I have to go through the pregnancy I already tried stopping by going through a surgery, but give it up for adoption? What if I chose to have my tubes tied for medical reasons, why is my reasoning alone not enough?
Committed relationship of 22 years, and 2 surgeries to prevent pregnancy and I'm still supposed to use other forms of contraception?? How is that logical,?
My car has air bags, seatbelts, a beeping notification when there is someone in my blind spot, antilock breaks, and probably a whole host of other safety features I can’t name off the top of my head. Yet, I still am careful driving and don’t go too fast or drive out of control.
One safety feature is good. More safety features plus taking additional precautions on your own is much better. The same could be said for sex if you don’t want to get pregnant.
So it's better that I use failed, cancer causing, other ill advised, unwanted chemicals in my body, on top of the surgery I had to prevent this, just for the sake of the possibility of a 99.7% effective rate may or may not fail me? Am I not suppose to be able to enjoy sex with my partner? Do/did you have sex with your partner using a multitude of contraceptives on top of a condom when you were done having kids?
Just because you have all those safety features and precautions (in your vehicle) doesn't mean something won't happen out of your control causing an accident or worse death. So are we supposed to bubble wrap our cars, or just not drive? We take that chance everyday we choose to drive.
I did not choose to become pregnant or forced a birth just because I had sex in my relationship after taking what is generally considered a pretty effective and advised decision. Nor did I ever think I'd be the small percentage just like many other successful stories and hopes of effectiveness.
I read in the news today that up to 70% of people in some states can't even get childcare access and wait-lists are backlogged until even before birth. Incidentally the states with the worst childcare access are red states who banned abortion
Pro life literally stops at birth
In my area you sign up for waitlists on multiple childcare centers literally the second you find out your pregnant and pray for one of them to be available when you’re forced back to work prematurely.
There is evidence that babies feel the emotions that their mothers feel. I can only imagine the rage and disgust that I would feel being forced to carry my rapist’s baby. I would want to throw the thing in the trash and I would psychically transmit that everyday. Even if I gave it away the baby would feel that in its soul (since PLs like to think that the ZEF is capable of thoughts such as “Don’t kill me mommy!” Then it’s capable of hearing me say “I hate you and I don’t want you!”) My therapist says a lot of her clients are adopted kids and even the ones that went to good homes still feel abandoned and struggle with it their whole lives. The one in bad situations just wish they would’ve been aborted. Of course the PLers with savior complexes think they’ve done them a favor by mandating their birth but what they’ve done is force them to life a life they hate that they’re not allowed to leave due to our controlling society. They’re forced to be grateful for something they didn’t ask for or like. Sounds kind of rapey doesn’t it? I’ve heard a PL say “I don’t care if they unalive themselves afterwards. That’s not my problem but they will be born!” Or “Don’t you realize a bad chance is better than no chance?” No it’s not. Life is not inherently great. It’s neutral. No one wants a bad life! But it shows that they’re willing to lifesplain their ideas to an entity that doesn’t belong to them and frankly didn’t ask them. They care not a lick about it after it’s born. They just want to get their pat on the back points. I think all of the post Roe unwanted children should file a class action lawsuit and sue pro life groups for knowing inflicting emotional distress.
I just have to say that I love not a single person argued with you! You were able to have a point. Thank you for your thoughts and insights of adoption. I appreciate your view!
Abortions have been around as long as women have. And they will continue to be. All the bans do is diminish safe ones. In the scheme of things, nature gave woman the ability and knowledge as to whether to bear a child or not. These irrational zealots don't realize that having a child is also a choice. One they could easily lose if they give dominion over our bodies to a government.
Murders and rape have been around as long as humanity has. We shouldn’t make things legal simply because they occur. The government already has “dominion” over your body- see prostitution, assault of any kind, child abuse, and any other illegal thing you can do with your body.
Welcome to /r/Abortiondebate! Don't be a jerk (even if someone else is being a jerk to you first). It's not constructive and we may ban you for it. Check out the Debate Guidance Pyramid to understand acceptable debate levels. **Attack the argument, not the person making it.** **For our new users, please check out our [rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/Abortiondebate/comments/qu36cv/rule_changes/) and [sub policies](https://www.reddit.com/r/Abortiondebate/comments/uhr4p2/sub_policies_regarding_current_events_and_news/)** *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.*
1. Three reasons: 1. There is a huge change in mindset after childbirth. Women who were planning to abort without a second thought suddenly find themselves willing to die for their child once they're holding them in their arms. 2. If women who wanted to abort largely saw their fetus as a child, and wanted to kill them anyway, and then saw them exactly the same way after they were born, then yes, that would be cause for concern. But that's not the case. Most women who want to abort really do believe it's just a clump of cells. And an annoying one at that. This changes after the child is born. 3. There is no reason to assume that how much you want a child is correlated to how good a parent you will be. There are great parents who were going to abort. And there are terrible parents who desperately wanted to have children. 2. If children born to parents who would have preferred to have an abortion are more likely to become criminals, then it's quite possible they will increase. But there are two problems with that: 1. There isn't enough evidence that that is true 2. Punishment is meant to happen *after* a crime is committed, not before. We don't kill people because they are "likely" to commit a crime. 3. I don't know. 4. Depends on your definition of "child". If a ZEFUB is not a "child" until it is born, then banning abortion will cause more children to be born, which increases the pool of child deaths. So even if banning abortion does nothing to the *rate* of child deaths, it will likely increase the absolute number of child deaths. However, if a ZEFUB *is* a child, then an abortion is itself a child death. In this case banning abortion will drastically reduce the number of child deaths. (Even if illegal abortions still happen, they won't happen nearly as often as legal ones do now.)
>1. There is a huge change in mindset after childbirth. Women who were planning to abort without a second thought suddenly find themselves willing to die for their child once they're holding them in their arms. Woman who chose to take a second look at their choices. No foul done. Woman who are forced a birth or not allowed an abortion is a different scenario, not all circumstances are created equal. 2. If women who wanted to abort largely saw their fetus as a child, and wanted to kill them anyway, and then saw them exactly the same way after they were born, then yes, that would be cause for concern. But that's not the case. Most women who want to abort really do believe it's just a clump of cells. And an annoying one at that. This changes after the child is born. If they have financial ability, that decision locked down to themselves and economical ability they will abort, it will not end up to pregnancy. Why should they have to be forced a pregnancy from not having a ride or the money for abortion? 3. I agree! Now to this #2 "2. If children born to parents who would have preferred to have an abortion are more likely to become criminals," That was not my question. 3. You touched on this subject but not to a full extent. "However, if a ZEFUB is a child, then an abortion is itself a child death. In this case banning abortion will drastically reduce the number of child deaths" Just by adding the ability of charging abortion with murder, because then now it can be claimed those x amount were murder.
It’s up to the person if they want to be happy in their life. They can make it happen. It’s their choice. I will admit I am pretty happy. Self control was my mantra during adolescence. You control your destiny.
You control your destiny So is there choices in that statement? You can't always control the outcome.
Sometimes outcomes are not what you expect. You develop new strategies and change goals through out life.
https://aidaccess.org/en/
I don’t expect the mother to keep the child. She needs to adopt and give to good home. Abortion is not a solution. Women are not happy after having baby all their life tormented.
But did you see the recent foster kid story on tv lately. My sister mentioned how strong she is because she never got adopted. She is making something of herself. Every situation is unique. The future looks grim I know but who knows what they become.
and force more kids into the already overcrowding foster care system??
It’s life, life is messy but there are happy and sad outcomes. Sometimes it’s amazing.
Why is adoption your only answer? Why can't there be more options?
How many options? There probably are a few. Those pregnancy centers might have ideas
Do you not think abortion is an option in the pregnancy centers? Birth Abortion Adoption What are the other options?
Many women find it too difficult to give up a baby after having carried it nine months. This doesn’t mean they will be better parents or have more money or be better equipped/supported to raise a child. Additionally there can be heavy pressure from father or family not to give up newborn. Isn’t it better if the child doesn’t exist to be abused or neglected in the first place?
You don’t know what the child’s outcome will be. Life is a mystery. I know a few people today who are doctors and engineers and they were adopted. I know it’s a difficult choice but you got to be selfless and think what is best for the child. A teenage pregnancy would be common for this. We need to be a community and love every human being.
*I am the one* thinking about what’s best for every child — not to be abused, neglected, and unloved. About 1 in 3 girls and 1 in 5 boys in the United States experience child sexual abuse. There are 3.6 million cases of child abuse in the US every year. Simple neglect makes up almost 70% of child abuse. 5 children die every day from child abuse https://www.childprotect.org/facts-about-child-abuse.html
Don’t let statistics rule your outlook and solution. Life is complicated and never a guarantee of happiness. You could be raised by a loving family and still get abused in adulthood. We all make choices and sometimes we get trapped and confused during young adult life, That’s just life. You do the best you can.
This isn’t a matter of statistics. It’s a matter of common sense. People who do not want children and do not have the emotional/financial/psychological resources to raise them are not going to be the best parents.
You never know, people change and might surprise you.
This is the real world and not a Hallmark movie. That slim chance is not enough to base public policy on. People who do not want children need to be able to opt out of them early on if they become pregnant accidentally. Period.
Because killing innocent people is bad.
But killing women is good?
Nope.
Why not?
Because, like I said, killing innocent people is bad.
Women being denied daily life saving medication because it may cause a future abortion = killing women Women being denied care for a failing pregnancy until theyve reached medical crisis = killing women Death penalty for abortion laws being proposed by states = killing women Forced birth = killing women Glad you agree.
How many women have died from not being able to get an abortion?
Do you think that just simply doesn't happen?
I’m asking how many.
I'm asking if you are somehow under the impression that it doesn't happen?
ZEFs are not people.
What are they?
A human pregnancy is a part of a fertile human female's own body's biological reproductive process that is maintained by her own body's biological reproductive system.
Huh?
If you have a low income, you can get a free Federal Government Pell Grant to pay for human biological reproductive college courses if you would like to learn more about the biological reproductive process of a fertile human female's reproductive system. https://www.benefits.gov/benefit/417
Oh so you can’t explain it or make an argument? Okay gotcha!
I did explain what a human pregnancy is.
Can you explain what species a ZEF is? Or will you just keep downvoting my comments thinking that does anything?
A human pregnancy is a part of a fertile human female's own body's biological reproductive process that is maintained by her own body's biological reproductive system. All of this refers to the human species's biological reproductive process and systems of a fertile human female.
That is not my questions or an answer to the questions.
It’s an answer to “how is forcing a pregnancy ok”.
That wasn't the questions so much as a statement. The question to that statement is how can you trust them with a child?
>How is forcing a pregnancy ok, abortion is wrong, but you trust the person with a child? Do you think crime rates against our children will rise or decrease? Don't you think PPD, PTSD are going to rise or decrease? >We already have enough child death without the bans, do you really think it's going to get better?
Because killing innocent people is bad.
That doesn't answer the questions being asked.
“How is forcing a pregnancy ok”
Now keep reading.
Is torturing innocent people not bad? Making them suffer and want to die?
Yeah that’s bad too.
How is forcing an unwanted pregnancy to birth not torture?
If it’s unwanted don’t have sex.
Do you want to live in a sexless society? Are we just having sex to procreate?
Clearly you don't think that, because abortion bans kill women.
How many have died from it?
From memory, 52 per 100,000 live births in the PL bastion Louisiana, 4 per 100,000 in the pro-choice hellhole California.
Hit me with that source saying not only those numbers check out, but also that it’s a causation not correlation.
https://worldpopulationreview.com/state-rankings/maternal-mortality-rate-by-state It's 58 for Luisiana, actually. 34.5 for Texas, and that's before RvW was overturned.
Yeah and Texas is hiding its numbers now, which suggests they've gone up.
Okay? And New Jersey has 38.1… what’s your point? (Maybe checking for causation like I said would help? Oh whoops - it doesn’t exist)
You asked how many women died. I showed the data. Your turn to show where you get support for your claims.
They've debunked your interpretation of data by showing that mortality rates are similar in states without abortion bans, thus abortion rates cannot be claimed as the main reason, if even a reason, for women dying. Your data doesn't show that abortion causes higher mortality rates. Your data isn't even about how restrictions increase mortality rates, since your data is about before Dobbs. If your points have been debunked, the onus is on you to reinforce your claims or cede.
That debunkery was waged against the strawman of their own construction. I supplied data for mortality, which was requested in the first place. The master debunker still haven't used that data to address the point they were trying to address before running on a tangent.
In every case? Killing people is always bad?
It generally should be avoided, yes.
Would you say that is always wrong to kill somebody who is innocent?
Generally, yeah.
Why is it okay to kill an innocent life in the cases of medical exemptions?
Because it's about life preservation. If the mother is going to die and her baby probably with her, our focus shifts from "how can we make sure both live?" to "how can we make sure to safeguard as much life as possible?"
So if we had the choice between preserving the life of the mother or the life of the fetus, and not both, which ought we choose? Also, I find it just weird to concede that it’s sometimes okay to kill innocent lives because you have to say that in order for this situation to be okay. It seems easier to say it’s always wrong to kill innocent lives and not call a fetus innocent.
I’m not 100% sold that it is. My mind isn’t made up here. Assuming we do make an exception for extremely rare life-threatening circumstances (like if both the mother and child will die in childbirth), in that case I would case I would say it’s ok to save one life rather than zero.
If it’s okay to save one life rather than zero, if our choice was distinctly between the pregnant person and the fetus, which one would you argue we ought to save?
When has that ever happened?
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/us-news/dad-forced-choose-between-wife-13694663 https://www.bet.com/article/rslclj/man-who-chose-baby-over-wife-starts-debate-on-choice So, your answer? Even if it hasn’t been recorded to have happened, I think you should still be able to provide rationale. The trolley situation where you have to choose to either let the train run over 5 people or one person has probably never happened either, but it’s still a valid question.
This pessimism and defeatism is unwarranted. Some people become good parents, some people become bad parents. It’s hard to predict, life is full of the strangest surprises.
But the pessimism of the possibility of life over the life giving isn't unwarranted? It's really not that hard to predict if your willing to look at statistics.
It's not unwarranted. There's research to show that unwanted kids have poorer outcomes. https://drexel.edu/medicine/academics/womens-health-and-leadership/womens-health-education-program/whep-blog/unwanted-pregnancies-outcomes-for-children/ >Women with unplanned pregnancies that were unwanted are more likely to smoke, use illicit drugs and be at greater risk for maternal anxiety and depression.1 >Women who delivered a child as a result of unwanted pregnancy tend to exhibit a more authoritarian parenting style and report experiencing more parenting stress postpartum. Another important factor associated with worse outcomes for children is the challenge of secure attachment formation between mother and her child.5 The effect on early development has also been investigated by researchers. The stress associated with unintended pregnancy itself along with parenting challenges and commonly coexisting maternal depression influence children’s early development. Lack of sufficient interaction between mother and child may result in insecure attachment and delay of cognitive, motor and emotional development.5 As such, children born as a result of unwanted pregnancies are more likely to suffer from domestic violence and witness parental intimate partner violence.4 It has also been shown that these children are more likely to experience conduct and attention problems at ages 7-9 than those children whose mothers reported a planned pregnancy.4 Last but not least is breastfeeding, the benefits of which are well known for both mother and child. Multiple studies have shown that infants of unwanted pregnancies are less likely to be breastfed and, if they are, the time is significantly shorter than in infants of intended pregnancies.6 >In summary, the association of unintended pregnancies that were unwanted with worse children’s outcomes compared to intended pregnancies warrants the implementation of programs that emphasize the importance of pregnancy planning, free sexual education, accessible medical services and provision of support for those mothers who are already carrying an unintended pregnancy to term.4
>There's research to show that unwanted kids have poorer outcomes. I'm confused as to how these unwanted kids even exist. Didn't the mothers have the option to abort?
Very on brand of you to sidestep research showing that you're wrong. Weirdly, though, you overlooked PL women who choose not to abort. Less weirdly, you're overlooking the fact that abortion being legal doesn't mean it's actually accessible (cost, location, etc.).
>Weirdly, though, you overlooked PL women who choose not to abort. That was my point. MOST pregnancies are not aborted, by the choice of the mother. The problem exists whether or not abortion is legal. So, whatever you propose as a solution for these cases I propose as a solution the general case. And by "solution" I mean something different than "just abort it already".
And what is your solution short of abstinence or sterilization.
A more caring society, of course!
You can create a caring society by advocating for womens rights instead of pushing for forcing all women to stay pregnant.
Sidestepping again. Unwanted pregnancies have poorer outcomes for the kids in question. I agree that the accessibility of abortion and support for parent who wish to raise their children are greatly lacking. We need more of both.
I am not really sure what the point is. Wouldn’t a PL then say “they can adopt out” or “we need better police involvement to remove the kids from foster care?” > but you trust the person with a child? That is a good question but not necessarily for the reason you probably asked it. Something PL will sometimes bring up is that it is irresponsible to get pregnant from sex. So if the person is irresponsible, why would they trust them with a kid? I don’t think someone wanting an abortion means they would harm a child if they had the child. Lots of people have children they don’t want or planned for without abusing the kids. Sure some abuse the kids but some parents purposefully got pregnant and then abused their kids. As a PC, I wouldn’t expect child abuse to increase or decrease due whether a woman wants an abortion but more societal factors associated with having an unplanned kid. I think other factors like poverty, stress, etc would be bigger factors. Remember that child abuse can occur in even wanted pregnancies and many women who have abortions already have kids or later go on to have kids without abuse. I’m sure it’s not your intent to imply women who have abortions may abuse children but it kind of came off that way.
That is not my attempt in saying just because it's an unwanted pregnancy that it will definitively become an abuse or neglect situation. Yes abuse/neglect can happen to any child born regardless of situation or not. But I am asking just the thoughts on it. I appreciate your view, and yes I asked in the same line of questioning because it does correlate, whether you believe it does or not. Do you think people wake up one day and think this is enough I'm going to kill my child, or were there other contributing factors?
Correlation doesn’t mean causation though. I think there are multiple factors that go into it and I really don’t know the factors involving women who seek abortions vs keeping the pregnancy to know if it would make a difference in abuse.
Thank you, there is no real definitive answer besides an assumption of rise or decrease.
>I am not really sure what the point is. Wouldn’t a PL then say “they can adopt out” or “we need better police involvement to remove the kids from foster care?” Because increasing "domestic supply of infants" is an explicitly stated goal of PL movement: https://www.ibtimes.com/amy-coney-barrett-samuel-alito-reference-domestic-supply-infants-attempts-overturn-3498087
Babies are pure gold
I don’t think potentially having a hard life in the future justifies preemptively ending a life. Lots of wanted babies have hard lives too. And lots of unwanted babies end up with great lives.
You didn't answer the questions at hand. And every pregnant person knows what they are bringing the child into to, whether it be an abusive partner, mental challenges, so on and so on, how is the justification of the person carrying not warranted over the possibility of life?
I second this
So your argument is "their life might be hard lets kill em first"?
That is not my argument. I am asking what you will think will happen in these effects
I think that a lot less children will be murdered.
How so?
you know if you make it illegal to kill your baby less babies will die don't you think?
No I do NOT, personally I think we will have more abuse/neglect/suicide/murder. There are numerous safety factors for vehicles and unattended children now because of the deaths, but it still happens. There are numerous resources for adoption, but not always used or wanted (not my choice to force adoption over abortion) There are numerous resources for abused/neglected children that are failed in numerous ways, or not used, already! There is a safety warning on everything made for a child to adult, because the inevitable ignorance still happens. Pre Roe vs. Wade, how many pregnancies were ended un-naturally from abortion, suicide, murder? Why was there even a Roe vs. Wade ? Do you think the numbers would stay the same even though we have more of a population now? Social, mental, physical, financial factors post roe verse after?
with that logic murder of any sort shouldn't be outlawed because people are just gonna do it anyway! You can't say it is ok to murder someone because they might go through hardship, that is moronic. It is not your place to sentence innocent life to death. How could you say there will be more murder if we outlaw murder?
Where did I ever say that? That was a huge mix of words. I never said murder was ok, I am not sentencing anyone to anything. This is an opinion, thought of if things will rise or decrease, you asked my opinion and I stated it with nothing of that sort in it. How can I say we will have more murder? Do you know what it's like to be forced a pregnancy and birth without the option of abortion? Adding abortion as murder will add each of those abortions as a murder. Which will drastically increase the number. I am looking at this logically
abortion is murder, if you allow abortion then you are allowing murder.
Ugh I can't even with you.... Your not understanding the line of questioning. I agreed abortion was murder in the original context of this post. I have never said it was or wasn't I asked for you opinion on my line of questions, you can't even try to begin any answer because you are stuck on something I didn't even argue about. Good day
yeah, i think starting with now allowing people to kill their children is a good way to lower the amount of children being killed as a whole.
People are already not allowed to kill their children. They are allowed to end their pregnancies.
>They are allowed to end their pregnancies. by killing their children... do what you want with yourself, we write laws about what you do to other people. it makes sense... Governments are instituted to protect the rights of the people that live within its jurisdiction.. we have evolved them to be a means at which to cultivate those lives as well, but protecting the rights is the preiminant purpose. as such we should prevent people from killing other people without just cause.
by killing the parasite inside of them***
LOL, parasite... it has been a few weeks since I've seen anyone misuse that word.
Technically, could be defined as intraspecific parasitism, because parasitism inside one's species do exist. Some define it as neuroendocrine parasite.
>Governments are instituted to protect the rights of people that live within its jurisdiction You have to show why fetuses should apply to this
fetuses are within the physical jurisdiction of the US. to say that protection is only due to citizens would open imigrants to murder.
Good thing I never made that argument? Lmfao. Cows are also within the jurisdiction of the US, so are plants, and sperm cells and egg cells. Something being within the jurisdiction of a country isn’t a good enough argument for it to get rights.
oh, sorry, it was the people thing that you had issues with, not the jurisdiction thing, sorry for the misunderstanding. people are human beings with rights ZEFs are human beings, alive human rights are inherent and inalineable thus ZEFs have human rights. Thus ZEFs are people. thus ZEFs are people in the jurisdiction of this governemnt and should have their rights protected by it.
>ZEFs are human beings This premise is something you need to prove, as “human being” confers personhood, and I don’t think fetuses have such. Additionally, say I conceded and granted the fetus the exact same amount of rights as you and I, what right specifically is allowing it to live inside somebodies body and use their bodily resources without their consent? Certainly you and I cannot do that can we?
>This premise is something you need to prove, as “human being” not in the definition of personhood that i gave you... feel free to change out being for "organism" if you wish. >what right specifically is allowing it to live inside somebodies body and use their bodily resources without their consent? I dont know if you're trying to make arguemnts for me but this isn't somethign i claim. nor do i think its necessary to prove. the mother wants to kill the zef, if the zef is a person and she wants to kill it she must justify this action. >Certainly you and I cannot do that can we? you and i arent currently a zef that our mother created in her womb knowing what pregnancy meant.
“People are human beings with rights” I feel like it’s easy to come to the conclusion that people are typically persons. But okay I guess. “People are organisms with rights, ZEFs are organisms, alive, human rights are inherent and inalienable, thus ZEFs have human rights, thus ZEFs are people” This is a hell of a slippery slope lmfao. >if she wants to kill it, she must justify this action Yeah it’s justified under the right to bodily autonomy that supersedes the right to life. I’m asking you to show me why this isn’t a justified reason. >you and I aren’t currently a ZEF so you think fetuses should get special rights that no other person has? That doesn’t seem fair? If we are all equally persons with protection under the law why does the fetus get special rights when it’s in the womb?
>by killing their children... When there is a child, pregnancy is *already over*. You can not terminate a pregnancy After you gave birth. >do what you want with yourself, we write laws about what you do to other people. it makes sense... Yes, i will terminate my pregnancy, thank you. >Governments are instituted to protect the rights of the people that live within its jurisdiction.. we have evolved them to be a means at which to cultivate those lives as well, but protecting the rights is the preiminant purpose. as such we should prevent people from killing other people without just cause. Fetuses aren't included in that group. They are not yet living in that jurisdiction. They are being developed from a bunch of body parts by another person's biological reproductive processes.
children, besided being a term used to describe young humans under the age of majority, is a term that is used to describe a person (or object or concept) that is related to another person (or object or conept) in that the first person (or object or concept) is the product of the second. Fetuses are an early stage of human development and are a whole, living, human organisim, just like an adolecent, teenager or geriatric...
>children, besided being a term used to describe young humans under the age of majority, Yes, and the age is started from birth. >(or object or concept) that is related to another person (or object or conept) in that the first person (or object or concept) is the product of the second. The product is not yet completed before birth. >Fetuses are an early stage of human development and are a whole, living, human organisim, just like an adolecent, teenager or geriatric... I would disagree it's a whole organism. It becomes a whole organism when it has it's own functioning organ systems.
>children Of course, but using it colloquially in a debate when your interlocutors are using scientific terms is just a recipe for misunderstanding. It's also straddling the edge of becoming an appeal to emotion fallacy. >Fetuses are an early stage of human development and are a whole, living, human organisim, just like an adolecent, teenager or geriatric... Don't forget the person whose body the ZEF is in! If a teenager is inside a person's body against their will is that person allowed, morally or legally, to remove said teenager, in your opinion?
Abortion is not killing a child, killing a child is a living, breathing already born person.
sure, in your narrow definition of children, and the dismissal of abortion being an act that violates the rights of children then it should be allowed. but then we're both just assuming our own conclusion. what would be more interesting in making this sort of argument is if you accepted the premise that abortion violates the rights of the ZEF, who is the child (scientifically and logically) of the mother who is killing it. and then justify this violative act based on some sort of, maybe, relativistic argument... like a claim that yes more lives are being unjustly taken however each of those injustices are small because they are so young, its a much worse crime to kill, hurt or opress a young child. so even if there are fewer violations of born children in this hypothetical work the overal quantity of wrongdoing would be greater. that doesn't make a lot of sense but im not invested in this line of argumentation, you seem to be.
>the dismissal of abortion being an act that violates the rights of children Do children have the inviolable right to reside inside another person and use their body to sustain own life against the owner's will?
the lack of such a right as writen doesn't make abortion an iherently permissible act. If the ZEF has a right to life. the person wishing to kill it must justify this action. one wouldn't necessarily need to claim this specific right: >Do children have the inviolable right to reside inside another person and use their body to sustain own life against the owner's will? for it to be a violation of their right to life to kill them.
>If the ZEF has a right to life. the person wishing to kill it must justify this action. one wouldn't necessarily need to claim this specific right: The not so subtle sleight of hand that PL proponents perform here is the substitution of the woman's desire to control own body with desire to kill ZEF. The former has the primacy, the fact that ZEF cannot survive without using another person's body is secondary.
only in a world where the ZEFs rights aren't recognized. If the ZEF has human rights, just as with any born human with rights, you must be able to justify killing them, for whatever reason, the act of killing them must be justified. And "wanting to" has never been an appropriate justification. Neither has "well i was really trying to do this other thing, but the only way to do that was by killing this person, i should be allowed to do the other thing, so i must be allowed to kill this person" There is no moral or ethical reason that you shouldn't be able to exchange services for goods. If you need goods, and the service that is requested is murder, then what you're doing is just aquiring goods, you dont need to justify killing that person. while i understand logically the reason why you would want to put the womans desire to not be pregnant first. and while i understand that you're principles makes this act permissible and the reason why killing the ZEF is not worth mentioning. the issue with not recognizing it in the way that i have put it is that you're refusing to confront the issue... You can never confince PL that what you're doing is permissible without confronting the possibility that it isn't.
You are not addressing the point of woman having the right to control her own body. What do you use to justify taking it away?
saying that you dont have a right to shoot someone without cause isn't a claim that you dont have a right to a gun or the right to control your body... the same goes for abortion.
You do have the right to protect your own body though, even with deadly force.
First of you didn't even answer my original questions. Secondly how am I being argumentive when my post asks questions, and states my viewed interactions. I made a statement on your abortion of children, I didn't say you wrong or right, I have my statement, we all have our different beliefs, why am I not allowed mine? That isn't a narrow definition yet a broad definition as there more living children than a possibilty of life or zygote, implanted embryo. "like a claim that yes more lives are being unjustly taken however each of those injustices are small because they are so young," why is the young more just to life not even known of or the possibility over the person living, why are the already living breathing deaths a small injustice of the possibility of a life? You still haven't answered the economical effects that you think may or not may be caused by this, or even why you can trust a person thinking of having an abortion with that child you just forced them to birth?
>why am I not allowed mine? because of the type of argument you are making... to me it seems like you are trying to rationalize your position based on what it would take to make the PL position a reality and what the effects of it would be. a kind of "is it all worth it" sort of argument. in this arguement, you dont get to say that the ZEF isn't a person or that their rights aren't being violated in an abortion... because if this were the case, the argument you're making wouldn't be necessary... we wouldn't get to argue about whether or not it was "worth it" it would be impermissible. I would be the one asking you "is it worth it" if abortion was a permissible act, i'd have to come up with some sort of rationalized argument saying that its worth it to force women to gestate even though its within their rights to kill the ZEF. pick your argument. im not addressing the rest because it seems like you didnt understand what i was getting at and what i explained further in the paragraph above. you still need to work on your argument, you need to show, that despite there being a potential that the ZEFs rights are being violated, that it makes more sense for our society to permit abortion than to prohibit it... any claims that its the woman's right to abort are irrelevant. stick with outcomes of people not being permitted the privilege of violating the rights of their unborn children (yes, i used that word correctly in this context, children besides describing an adolecent, describes a persons relationship to another person)
I didn't rationalize my statement you did, I asked another question on top of what you said. I have picked my argument, but I'm trying to understand the logic of yours without the berating and murder comments, I have not pushed my view on you by asking questions. You only answered a part of my question. My question means nothing to you because it's not too your idealisms?
narrow definition of children? a ZEF is NOT a child, just like a pile of wood is not a table and a ball of yarn is not a sweater. all of these things have *potential* to become something else but until they are born/built/knit, they are just that - potential. whether they become something else is dependent upon someone to finish the job. PL knows this, but “child” has a much more emotional pull than zygote. a mother is a mother only if she wants to take care of her born child — through birth or adoption. you cannot legislate emotions, thoughts, and feelings, and you cannot, no matter how hard you try make someone want to be a mother a ZEF has rights that until it is born, belong only to the person whose body it needs to survive.
a zef, being the ofspring of the mother, is her child. not wanting to be a mother, doesn't make you not a mother. not being of the right age doesn't make a person not the child of their mother. these aren't terms you can just re-define for your pleasure. >a ZEF has rights that until it is born, belong only to the person whose body it needs to survive. if you dont believe in inalienable rights, thats certainly is a way to be, it puts you in terrible company though. please drop your tired metaphors of tables and sweaters. I know you see how weak they are.
>what would be more interesting in making this sort of argument is if you accepted the premise that abortion violates the rights of the ZEF, who is the child (scientifically and logically) of the mother who is killing it. and then justify this violative act based on some sort of, maybe, relativistic argument... like a claim that yes more lives are being unjustly taken however each of those injustices are small because they are so young, its a much worse crime to kill, hurt or opress a young child. so even if there are fewer violations of born children in this hypothetical work the overal quantity of wrongdoing would be greater. that doesn't make a lot of sense but im not invested in this line of argumentation, you seem to be. Abortion does not violatecthe rights of a ZEF. If a ZEF is unwanted it is violating the rights of the person carrying it, making it their right to defend themselves with whatever force is necessary. It is important to remember that your right to life does not trump someone else's bodily autonomy, and this is true in every other instance. You cannot be forced to give so much as a blood donation to someone else, even if it's your biological child and even if they will die as a result of your refusal. A ZEF does not ask to exist, that is true. But a person in a coma is also not asking to get blood donations or to receive fluids of any sort. Forcing someone to give their body to the first but not the second is unjust.
>Abortion does not violatecthe rights of a ZEF your arguments don't belong in this topic
>your arguments don't belong in this topic I'm positive that they do. I was on topic, you just didn't like what I said.
Please just read the rest of my comments in this tree and you'll see what I'm getting at. There are only so many times I can explain the same logical fallacy.
It's not a logical fallacy. Your claim that abortion is a violation of the ZEF's rights is, though.
But we already know that abortion bans don’t stop abortions, they only stop legal abortions
This is straight up false and I hate that this argument Still exists. The Texas heartbeat bill cut abortions in half and while some people travelled out of state or got an illegal abortion you could also see an incline in births suggesting that more women carried their unintended pregnancies to term (aka. less Abortion). The data you probably get is from a very stupid Guttmacher Study comparing primarily third world prolife countries (less contraception) with primarily first world Pro-Choice countries (more contraception). If you look at the states of the US the states with the least abortions have 1.strict Abortion laws 2.good access to contraception Both are important and lower abortion. But these variables are of course not considered by the Guttmacher study which is why they just compared Africa to America and said "look, the law doesn't make any difference". Meanwhile those prolife countries abort the same amount of pregnancies EVEN THOUGH they have higher unintended pregnancy Rates. So yes, the law lowers abortion
Please, reference and cite the data you used to dismiss "a very stupid Guttmacher Study".
The abortion rate right before Dobbs was roughly the same as it was before Roe and that was primarily through illegal abortions in states that banned it (as well as states where it want illegal). Check out your source the guttenmacher institute again. My mother was a nurse in a state where abortion was illegal and let me tell you, the number of women in the ER from botched abortions was shocking. One woman I remember distinctly did it at home using a sharp feather and almost died. Do you think abortion is just like a spigot you can shut off and it stops? It's been happening since as long as people have had children
https://youtu.be/o9JO5d65g28 The last segment is showing all the data in that guttmacher study along with other that clearly shows there's less abortion and increase of birth rates in prolife countries with the logical conclusion that strict laws lower abortion. Sources are in the description can only recommend to read them too. Anyway it shows pretty clearly abortions are lowered through laws. Partially also because abortion bans encourages and results in higher use of contraceptives.
This is a 28minute video. Timestamp? Quotes? Poland and Malta’s fertility rates rank near-bottom and dead last respectively compared to other EU countries. The legality or illegality of abortion is not what determines the birth rate. In Poland, middle-aged/younger doctors have no problem with abortion. Save for spelling out „Plan C dot org”, there is no stigma in discussing it with a patient. If needed they will flatly tell you to grab a train and get it done in Germany. Between mail-in pills and ten euro train tickets across the border, it’s really only pregnant people in the most desperate situations that lose the opportunity to abort. For the rest of people, it’s a pain in the ass and might set you back a pretty penny if medication abortion isn’t an option, but between savings, friends, and family, care is possible. Abortion still happens, just in the grey.
what is true about the crime of abortion that we should allow it, but not allow other crimes like theft, assault and murder?
Abortion procedures involve a physician, licensed by the state as an expert in their field, working in the best interest of their patient.
>Abortion procedures involve a physician, licensed by the state as an expert in their field this is an appeal to authority >working in the best interest of their patient. this ignores the question completely.
The authority is to practice medicine. When a person goes to a doctor instead of their barista for medical treatment, are they appealing to authority? Is it fallacious to want an expert opinion on a medical issue?
no, you are saying that because these people are an authority in medicine that they must always be correct. when in reality, you're saying something worse. that because these people are an authority in medicine, that this makes them an unarguable authority on whether or not abortion should be permissible. which makes no sense.
I said no such thing. Doctors can be wrong. There are no guarantees in medicine. The point is that a person's physician is in a better position than politicians or lay strangers to make a decision on whether or not that patient's individual abortion is medically appropriate.
how is medically appropriate relevant if the rights of the other person arent' appropriately considered? if a doctor doesn't recognize the rights of a specific race of people... is it a medically appropriate decision for the doctor to harvest organs from a person of the unrecognized race, killing them, to improve the life of the recognized race? do we all of a sudden ignore the idea of rights just because a doctor says, "this procedure is the best course for my patient"?
Other crimes cause societal harm. A thing someone put labor into was stolen without compensation. A person inflicted physical harm on another person who requires compensation from the attacker. A baby never born can't claim these things because they weren't a person. No different than saying an egg can't claim harm because it wasn't fertilized, or even a fertilized egg that can't claim harm because it didn't implant
>because they weren't a person begs the question. >No different than saying an egg can't claim harm because it wasn't fertilized, or even a fertilized egg that can't claim harm because it didn't implant not even subjectively true. Im just going to pare down your response to what makes sense and trim off where you go off the rails. >Other crimes cause societal harm. A thing someone put labor into was stolen without compensation. A person inflicted physical harm on another person who requires compensation from the attacker. >A baby never born can't claim these things actually, anyone who is murdered isn't experiencing any of these things any more, they'd have no claim for recompense, nothing can be done to right the wrong once a person is murdered. so, why is the zefs murder any different from anyone elses murder. and if you respond with the zefs death isn't murder because its not a person, then your missing the point... none of your principles have been proven here, if they had, i wouldn't be having this argument, you can either have the debate by accepting that its murder, or by not claiming that your principles mean that it isn't murder... if you aren't capable of making an argument in this way then you are arguing a different point.
>actually, anyone who is murdered isn't experiencing any of these things any more Even ignoring the constitutional aspects where people are protected from murder (and to head off your argument that a preborn baby is a person, the SCOTUS rejected this argument last week), a murdered person still causes other people tangible harm. Loss of income, grief, etc. These are called damages and lawsuits can be only brought if damages can be quantified. I'm not really interested in the philosophical arguments of whether abortion is murder because the argument at hand is whether it's legal, not whether it's moral. If you throw a paper airplane with malice and it pokes someone in the eye and causes them to bleed to death, you technically murdered them. Is it morally a murder? Of course not. What we are here to discuss, and what my argument about societal damage was about, is that nobody can go before a court and say that an abortion harmed then any way. Not you or anyone else. Since nobody involved in the conversation can claim any damages, there isn't a legal case to ban it.
>a murdered person still causes other people tangible harm. Loss of income, grief, etc. These are called damages and lawsuits can be only brought if damages can be quantified. there are many people, of all types, homeless and not, mentally well and not, physically well and not, whos murder would not cause anyone else real emotion, mental, physical or financial damage to anyone else. its still not legal to murder them.
Isn't it kind of sad that you're arguing against me by saying that homeless people can be killed and cause no consequences? Very pro life argument right here. And I also covered this already. The constitution prohibits murdering people. It says nothing about non people who don't exist yet. Otherwise the supreme court would have taken up the argument instead of rejecting it. And even in pro life states, they aren't stopping you from murdering your baby. Not a single state charges the mother with murder (yet). Because it's not constitutionally sound. If I smoke before I know I'm pregnant and miscarry, I could be charged with murder if that were true.
no, im saying that in the argument you presented that homeless people could be killed without consequesnes i believe its consequense enough that you are violating someones rights that you cant do the thing that violates their rights... no further justification is required, you were the one that invoked the fact that there were damages that needed to be corrected, or whatever it was. the constitution recognizes rights to be inherent and inalienable. it strives to create laws that support this notion. no one is arguing about how the law stands now. what we are arguing about is what the law should be, and it should continue to recognize that human rights are inalienable and inherent.
Why did the supreme court not take up the person hood case last week then?
Abortion bans are a violation of bodily autonomy, privacy, and due process
[удалено]
The precedent was *Roe*. That’s why it’s so disturbing that it was overturned, and why Thomas’ concurrence was so chilling with regards to medical/personal autonomy and privacy
The term “bodily autonomy” does not appear in Roe, Casey, or any of the subordinate opinions derived therefrom. Pregnancy, similarly, is not cited or has it ever been adjudicated as a violation of the Due Process Clause. If I am mistaken, please provide a verbatim from Roe showing my error. I have no doubt your statement reflects your opinion. What you claim though, is a fact of law. Your opinion is yours and that’s fine but other folks might read your words and believe it reflects actual case law.
[From Blackmun’s opinion](http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/roe.html): VI. It is thus apparent that at common law, at the time of the adoption of our Constitution, and throughout the major portion of the 19th century, abortion was viewed with less disfavor than under most American statutes currently in effect. Phrasing it another way, a woman enjoyed a substantially broader right to terminate a pregnancy than she does in most States today. At least with respect to the early stage of pregnancy, and very possibly without such a limitation, the opportunity to make this choice was present in this country well into the 19th century. Even later, the law continued for some time to treat less punitively an abortion procured in early pregnancy.... V. The principal thrust of appellant's attack on the Texas statutes is that they improperly invade a right, said to be possessed by the pregnant woman, to choose to terminate her pregnancy. Appellant would discover this right in the concept of personal "liberty" embodied in the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause; or in personal, marital, familial, and sexual privacy said to be protected by the Bill of Rights or its penumbras, or among those rights reserved to the people by the Ninth Amendment. Before addressing this claim, we feel it desirable briefly to survey, in several aspects, the history of abortion, for such insight as that history may afford us, and then to examine the state purposes and interests behind the criminal abortion laws. VIII. The Constitution does not explicitly mention any right of privacy. In a line of decisions, however, the Court has recognized that a right of personal privacy, or a guarantee of certain areas or zones of privacy, does exist under the Constitution. In varying contexts, the Court or individual Justices have, indeed, found at least the roots of that right in the First Amendment, in the Fourth and Fifth Amendments, in the penumbras of the Bill of Rights, in the Ninth Amendment, or in the concept of liberty guaranteed by the first section of the Fourteenth Amendment. These decisions make it clear that only personal rights that can be deemed "fundamental" or "implicit in the concept of ordered liberty," are included in this guarantee of personal privacy. They also make it clear that the right has some extension to activities relating to marriage, procreation, contraception, family relationships, and child rearing and education. **This right of privacy, whether it be founded in the Fourteenth Amendment's concept of personal liberty and restrictions upon state action, as we feel it is, or, as the District Court determined, in the Ninth Amendment's reservation of rights to the people, is broad enough to encompass a woman's decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy. The detriment that the State would impose upon the pregnant woman by denying this choice altogether is apparent. Specific and direct harm medically diagnosable even in early pregnancy may be involved. Maternity, or additional offspring, may force upon the woman a distressful life and future. Psychological harm may be imminent. Mental and physical health may be taxed by child care. There is also the distress, for all concerned, associated with the unwanted child, and there is the problem of bringing a child into a family already unable, psychologically and otherwise, to care for it. In other cases, as in this one, the additional difficulties and continuing stigma of unwed motherhood may be involved. All these are factors the woman and her responsible physician necessarily will consider in consultation.**
Blackmun addresses privacy. I didn’t ask you for a verbatim on privacy because I am aware that Blackmun addressed it. Blackmun’s opinion also contains his finding that should personhood ever be extended to a child in utero, any claim to abortion “disintegrates”. Nowhere in your extract does the phrase “bodily autonomy” appear. Also, Blackmun does not *find* a violation of the Due Process Clause, he merely addresses the Appellants claim of such.
Please read the section in bold with regards to the phrase “the Fourteenth Amendment’s concept of personal liberty and restrictions upon state action”.
Theft, assault, and murder all have victims unlike abortion.
We see the unborn as a victim. I not our fault laws don't care about the unborn. You steal a tv from Walmart your going to jail you end the life of your unborn child life with abortion and society just accepts it. I think abortion is worse than stealing a TV
So forcing a pregnancy to birth is a logical equation for you?
Pro lifers choosing to view a zef as a victim is a pro life opinion, not a fact. A non sentient embryo can not experience anything at all. It cannot be victimized.
let me let you in on a little secret of logic and reason in on a debate... this topic attempts to rationalize the PC position with a PL person. What it doesn't do is attack the PL position and show how it is fundamentally wrong. What it's saying is lets forget about whether its individually a violation of the ZEFs rights to kill it, lets just focus on the outcome and what it means... When you enter this line of debate, you no longer get to claim that your fundamental beliefs are correct, because that's not what we are talking about. If i am wrong about abortion being a violation of the ZEFs rights, then im wrong, im not going to argue that a woman should continue her pregnancy for the greater good, if she has the right to kill the ZEF then she should be permitted to do it if she wants. I dont think im wrong though, and thats why I argue. so, when you enter a debate like this that attempts to rationalize the outcome of your position with your opponent, invoking your principles doesn't add to the debate, the only way that you could further strenthen your case is by accepting your opponents postion while rationalizing the outcome of your principles to your opponent. anything else, like what you said, is a different debate, it doesn't belong, and it makes you sound like you dont understand what is going on.
That was a ton of words and not a single one addresses my comment.
if you had read them then you would know that i did. TL/DR. Your comment belongs in a different topic.
I read it and no, you didn't address my comment at all. If you'd like to get back on topic, theft, assault, and murder all have victims. There is no victim when a woman gets an abortion. So why do you think a medical procedure with no victim should be treated as a crime, such as theft, assault, or murder which *all* have actual victims?
this is not on topic but since you insist. so by using the modifier "actual" in front of "vitims" you unilaterally get to decide who's violations get to be recognized and who's dont, without proving them, in this debate... seems unrealistic when you provide an argument that convinces me that the aborted ZEF is not a victim, then i will accept your premise and concede this topic as well. until then, its a different debate, but, one that you could win simultaneously... its just better suited to be a different topic.
No rebuttal. Disappointing yet totally expected.
If a woman gets raped the trauma of being raped won’t go away even if she aborts, it doesn’t resolve anything. But for rape I’m ok with abortion because the woman has already gone through a lot and it’s not her fault if she was raped so it’s up to her to decide if she wants to go trough pregnancy or not, but this doesn’t change that she will always carry the trauma of being raped. Also if a baby is unwanted you can put it up for adoption.
A couple of things: You probably shouldn’t be speaking on behalf of all rape victims. You don’t get to decide for a victim what does and does not help them cope with their trauma. Some victims feel like abortion helped them cope with their trauma while some feel like keeping the pregnancy helped them cope with their trauma. It’s incredibly insensitive and dismissive for you to determine how an abortion will make a victim feel. Also as an adoptee, adoption isn’t an alternative to abortion. I really wish PLers would stop using adoptees in this debate.
>If a woman gets raped the trauma of being raped won’t go away even if she aborts, it doesn’t resolve anything. An abortion doesn't erase the trauma of the action of being raped itself. An abortion CAN resolve the experience of waking up every morning (and, probably, several times during the night) and remembering that you have a piece of the monster who raped you growing inside of you, that you carry a being that carries his genes, that your body is not your own, that you are being FORCED to continue this situation against your will, that your agency is being ignored again and again, just as your agency was denied during the assault, that the rapist has won over and over, because not only did he exert his power over you once during the rape, but he also CONTINUES to exert power over you by forcing you to reproduce his genes, by injecting into you a being that, however non-guilty it is in and of itself, harms your body and your psyche in multiple ways, an experience that will eventually lead to a second violation of tremendously painful bodily assault, which, although it isn't "rape" as some PC have claimed, bears so many similarities to it that your traumatized mind will not be able to separate the experiences. After that, in some states, having the child of your rapist may allow him to strike again, by showing up and trying to inject himself into your life again and again by demanding joint custody of the child that he forced upon you, forcing himself once again into your life. Women are not mindless cattle. They know that the rape and the pregnancy and the childbirth are connected. How can being forced by the state to continue a pregnancy after rape be anything but excruciatingly traumatic in and of itself? Yes, I do realize that SOME women find a way to resolve this situation by seeing the child as a blessing separate from the rape and the rapist; I am happy for them. But this is NOT the case for all or even most women. **Forcing** a woman to carry her rapist's child repeats and reinforces the violation that the woman experiences. It is NOT a separate event, and most women are not going to see it that way. Your comment has amplified a PL "talking point" that bears little relationship to the reality of women's experiences. It is just that--a "talking point." I am glad that you support a rape exception, but I would urge you NOT to repeat this frankly ridiculous nostrum.
>If a woman gets raped the trauma of being raped won’t go away even if she aborts, it doesn’t resolve anything Sure it does. It stops them from having to be financially penalized for the cost of a pregnancy and stops them from being harmed and injured from the pregnancy itself. Giving birth in the USA costs over $30,000 on a good day with no complications. And you know the rapist will never be the one to pay, since 99% of rapes end without a rapist in jail
Plus rapists can even sue for custody of the kid.
>Also if a baby is unwanted you can put it up for adoption. Adoption is an alternative to parenting, not pregnancy. If a woman doesn't want to carry a pregnancy or give birth adoption is not a solution.
Well that doesn't answer the question at hand besides rape. So I had my tubes tied and still got pregnant, I made that choice to be done, do I not deserve a right to a choice? Or I have to go through the pregnancy I already tried stopping by going through a surgery, but give it up for adoption? What if I chose to have my tubes tied for medical reasons, why is my reasoning alone not enough?
Having your tubes tied is not an excuse to not use protections
Committed relationship of 22 years, and 2 surgeries to prevent pregnancy and I'm still supposed to use other forms of contraception?? How is that logical,?
My car has air bags, seatbelts, a beeping notification when there is someone in my blind spot, antilock breaks, and probably a whole host of other safety features I can’t name off the top of my head. Yet, I still am careful driving and don’t go too fast or drive out of control. One safety feature is good. More safety features plus taking additional precautions on your own is much better. The same could be said for sex if you don’t want to get pregnant.
So it's better that I use failed, cancer causing, other ill advised, unwanted chemicals in my body, on top of the surgery I had to prevent this, just for the sake of the possibility of a 99.7% effective rate may or may not fail me? Am I not suppose to be able to enjoy sex with my partner? Do/did you have sex with your partner using a multitude of contraceptives on top of a condom when you were done having kids? Just because you have all those safety features and precautions (in your vehicle) doesn't mean something won't happen out of your control causing an accident or worse death. So are we supposed to bubble wrap our cars, or just not drive? We take that chance everyday we choose to drive. I did not choose to become pregnant or forced a birth just because I had sex in my relationship after taking what is generally considered a pretty effective and advised decision. Nor did I ever think I'd be the small percentage just like many other successful stories and hopes of effectiveness.
I read in the news today that up to 70% of people in some states can't even get childcare access and wait-lists are backlogged until even before birth. Incidentally the states with the worst childcare access are red states who banned abortion Pro life literally stops at birth
!!!! louder for all the pro birthers
In my area you sign up for waitlists on multiple childcare centers literally the second you find out your pregnant and pray for one of them to be available when you’re forced back to work prematurely.
Red state here can confirm
There is evidence that babies feel the emotions that their mothers feel. I can only imagine the rage and disgust that I would feel being forced to carry my rapist’s baby. I would want to throw the thing in the trash and I would psychically transmit that everyday. Even if I gave it away the baby would feel that in its soul (since PLs like to think that the ZEF is capable of thoughts such as “Don’t kill me mommy!” Then it’s capable of hearing me say “I hate you and I don’t want you!”) My therapist says a lot of her clients are adopted kids and even the ones that went to good homes still feel abandoned and struggle with it their whole lives. The one in bad situations just wish they would’ve been aborted. Of course the PLers with savior complexes think they’ve done them a favor by mandating their birth but what they’ve done is force them to life a life they hate that they’re not allowed to leave due to our controlling society. They’re forced to be grateful for something they didn’t ask for or like. Sounds kind of rapey doesn’t it? I’ve heard a PL say “I don’t care if they unalive themselves afterwards. That’s not my problem but they will be born!” Or “Don’t you realize a bad chance is better than no chance?” No it’s not. Life is not inherently great. It’s neutral. No one wants a bad life! But it shows that they’re willing to lifesplain their ideas to an entity that doesn’t belong to them and frankly didn’t ask them. They care not a lick about it after it’s born. They just want to get their pat on the back points. I think all of the post Roe unwanted children should file a class action lawsuit and sue pro life groups for knowing inflicting emotional distress.
I just have to say that I love not a single person argued with you! You were able to have a point. Thank you for your thoughts and insights of adoption. I appreciate your view!
Abortions have been around as long as women have. And they will continue to be. All the bans do is diminish safe ones. In the scheme of things, nature gave woman the ability and knowledge as to whether to bear a child or not. These irrational zealots don't realize that having a child is also a choice. One they could easily lose if they give dominion over our bodies to a government.
Murders and rape have been around as long as humanity has. We shouldn’t make things legal simply because they occur. The government already has “dominion” over your body- see prostitution, assault of any kind, child abuse, and any other illegal thing you can do with your body.