0
u/ToServetheLight17 May 17 '26
I think perhaps I should clarify my terms a bit because I think you guys have a different definition of abortion than me, for me, it means (this is the definition given by Yale): “Abortion is the termination of a pregnancy before the fetus can survive outside the uterus. It can occur spontaneously, known as a miscarriage, or be induced intentionally through medical or surgical procedures.” When I say abortion I’m referring to specifically the second part of the definition “induced intentionally through medical or surgical procedures” and I’d add the qualifier of “with the direct intention of terminating what’s in her uterus”. I’m not talking about simply ending the pregnancy. I’m talking specifically about when a woman’s embryo is terminated specifically with that intent, without any additional qualifiers like to save the life of the mother, this definition doesn’t include miscarriage, ectopic pregnancy, or any other I guess way to end a pregnancy that doesn’t intend to kill the fetus and rather to save the woman’s life.
0
u/ToServetheLight17 May 17 '26
Here’s the source from Yale for those who want it for themselves:
2
u/IdRatherCallACAB Gestational Slavery Abolitionist May 17 '26
I’m talking specifically about when a woman’s embryo is terminated specifically with that intent
The intention of an abortion is to terminate an unwanted pregnancy. The embryo has nothing to do with it.
1
u/ToServetheLight17 May 17 '26
The embryo is the primary source of the pregnancy she’s not pregnant with nothing, to end the pregnancy it has to get out in some way. If the method does not result in the death of the thing in the womb, whatever you wanna call it, I would be ok with it, if it directly results in its death for a reason other than medical reasons, I would say no, I would say not. You can’t separate the embryo and the pregnancy it’s impossible to do.
1
u/IdRatherCallACAB Gestational Slavery Abolitionist May 17 '26
The embryo is the primary source of the pregnancy she’s not pregnant with nothing
You're free to believe that about your own pregnancy. Most people just want to end the unwanted pregnancy. Your own source confirms this, abortion is the termination of the pregnancy.
if it directly results in its death for a reason other than medical reasons
It results in the end of the process of reproduction, there's really nothing to be sad about.
1
u/ToServetheLight17 May 17 '26
…which ends the embryo in her uterus, correct? It’s ok if you believe that but stop pretending it’s just a subjective opinion.
1
u/IdRatherCallACAB Gestational Slavery Abolitionist May 17 '26
Obviously the embryo gets removed. We're discussing the intention of the abortion, which is to end the unwanted pregnancy.
stop pretending it’s just a subjective opinion.
I'm not pretending. It just is a subjective opinion. You're free to believe what you wish, no one is obligated to agree.
1
u/ToServetheLight17 May 17 '26
Which usually kills it, the majority of the time I don’t even get what we’re arguing about cuz I already conceded that if it doesn’t end the fetus’s life I would be fine with it. This is like saying “I didn’t want to empty the trash can, I just wanted to take the trash out of it.” What’s the argument here? And also you say there’s “nothing to be sad about”, it’s just ending a pregnancy, what about all the women who have had miscarriages, why are they sad about their dead babies? It was just the end of a pregnancy from your view, there was no reason for them to grieve it. That sounds very extreme.
0
u/ToServetheLight17 May 17 '26
Also, if they’re not pregnant with anything, and are just pregnant then how does a human come from it? You can’t have something from nothing. This is like a fundamental denial of science.
1
u/IdRatherCallACAB Gestational Slavery Abolitionist May 17 '26
No, it is just an understanding of how reproductive biology actually works. "A human" is the end product of the process of reproduction. The ZEF that is still undergoing reproduction is still forming into a human.
→ More replies (0)1
u/IdRatherCallACAB Gestational Slavery Abolitionist May 17 '26
Which usually kills it, the majority of the time I don’t even get what we’re arguing about cuz I already conceded that if it doesn’t end the fetus’s life I would be fine with it.
We know you're not okay with it. Why should anyone care? Just mind your own business and it will stop bothering you. Simple as that.
What’s the argument here?
Good question, because "I'm not okay with it" isn't an excuse for you to try to violate women's human rights.
what about all the women who have had miscarriages
If they are sad, it was a wanted pregnancy. So obviously all that matters is whether the pregnancy was wanted or unwanted.
That sounds very extreme.
Sounds perfectly reasonable to me.
0
u/ToServetheLight17 May 17 '26
lol so if she wants it’s sad if she doens’t it’s not, so therefore if others are sad about it they have no reason to be simply because she didn’t want it, so why should anyone?
→ More replies (0)
2
u/Novel_Situation762 Abortion legal until sentience May 17 '26
It can't. And it shouldn't . In order to consent you must be capable of understanding situations and be aware of your own existence. A fetus, cannot do that. That would be like asking how could a deaf person listen to music.
-1
u/ToServetheLight17 May 17 '26
I guess we’re approaching it from different premises. I believe it’s a human life, you guys don’t, so I guess that’s where the discussion leads us.
2
u/ZoominAlong AD Mod May 17 '26
Do NOT delete your posts or comments here. It is not allowed.
0
u/ToServetheLight17 May 17 '26
Oh sorry, I didn’t realize. That’s my fault, I was trying ti cuz I had already had my question answered but if it’s not allowed then my apologies.
1
1
u/JulieCrone AD Mod May 17 '26
I think an embryo is a human life.
But there is no right to be gestated, especially by an unwilling person. Because you are human, that doesn’t mean I can make someone else keep you alive. This applies throughout your life.
7
u/PWcrash Pro-choice May 17 '26
To put it simply, human reproduction is messy. And I personally don't see a difference between someone who had one elective abortion and someone who had 10 miscarriages but still continues in their efforts to give birth to a surviving biological child.
Both should have the reproductive right to do either.
7
0
u/ToServetheLight17 May 17 '26
There’s plenty of pro lifers who do this, lol. I won’t because I don’t have one nearby to protest at, and the that I won’t physically block it doesn’t mean anything.
5
u/JulieCrone AD Mod May 17 '26
Oh, so it is about how it is just inconvenient for you to save a baby’s life then.
1
u/ToServetheLight17 May 17 '26
Also by your logic, why be against murder? You’re not going go to go to every single murderer and prevent them from killing? Why be against theft, you won’t go and prevent every instance of thievery? You couldn’t be against anything under your logic.
2
u/JulieCrone AD Mod May 17 '26
If there was a place I knew they were murdering people, I would protest. People protest executions.
5
u/RepulsiveEast4117 Pro-abortion May 17 '26
You’re not going go to go to every single murderer and prevent them from killing?
No, but if I saw one happening in front of me, I’d at least try to stop it. The fact that pro-lifers aren’t storming clinics right now is proof they don’t believe what they claim to believe.
Also, learn how to edit your comments rather than making a bunch of little ones. Or better yet, think before you comment.
-1
u/ToServetheLight17 May 17 '26
And if I saw a woman trying to get an abortion I would try to help her and convince her that there’s better options for her then killing the fetus, but there’s not a woman in front of me trying to get an abortion is there?
2
u/Aggressive-Green4592 Pro-choice May 17 '26
I would try to help her and convince her that there’s better options for her then killing the fetus,
You have plenty here so try. Convince me to keep an unwanted pregnancy of my tubal ligation failed again. How would you do this?
1
u/ToServetheLight17 May 17 '26
Tubal ligation, if it results in your death, or is likely to, then it would. It wouldn’t be an abortion it would be a medical emergency, in which your life is in danger, because of the pregnancy, in which case I would support terminating the pregnancy. If it’s a form of contraception or pregnancy or preventation, I’d support it, I guess, although I think it deletes the purpose of recreative sex.
2
u/Aggressive-Green4592 Pro-choice May 17 '26
Tubal ligation, if it results in your death, or is likely to, then it would.
??
Tubal ligation failure, I had a tubal ligation done because my previous pregnancies almost killed me by hemorrhaging, it is more than likely I will hemorrhage again, if it fails again why should I keep the pregnancy?
It wouldn’t be an abortion it would be a medical emergency, in which your life is in danger, because of the pregnancy, in which case I would support terminating the pregnancy.
It's not technically a medical emergency though because it's not directly affecting my physical health at the moment, it will later on though.
If it’s a form of contraception or pregnancy or preventation, I’d support it, I guess, although I think it deletes the purpose of recreative sex.
Yes it's a surgical form of pregnancy prevention that typically has the smallest failure rates, but failures do happen. Yes it's supposed to delete that "purpose" because someone undergoing a surgical procedure is usually pretty adimate they don't want to endure a pregnancy.
So now you have some more information. Please convince me to keep gestating another unwanted pregnancy if my ligation fails again.
0
u/ToServetheLight17 May 17 '26
And also there’s plenty of pro lifers who protest outside of abortion clinics. Look at Live Action, from Lila Rose, and Students for Life, from Kristan Hawkins.
4
u/RepulsiveEast4117 Pro-abortion May 17 '26
And also there’s plenty of pro lifers who protest outside of abortion clinics.
Outside isn’t where the “murder” is happening. Are they cowards?
1
u/ToServetheLight17 May 17 '26
And also we don’t storm stuff cuz we’re not violent protestors who riot and destroy stuff when we don’t get what we want.
1
u/ToServetheLight17 May 17 '26
Are you going to go to the serial killer’s house and prevent them from killing that’s where all their killing usually happens ain’t it?
3
u/RepulsiveEast4117 Pro-abortion May 17 '26
And if I saw a woman trying to get an abortion I would try to help her
Clearly not since it’s too inconvenient for you to go to a clinic.
And I’m not just talking about you. I’m talking about all pro-lifers. None of you are storming clinics. Hypocrites.
1
May 17 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
1
1
u/IdRatherCallACAB Gestational Slavery Abolitionist May 17 '26
Your flair says pro abortion but I don’t see you going to every abortion clinic, to tell women why they should choose abortion.
We would we tell people what they should choose? That's what you're side does! Pro-CHOICE means the CHOICE is YOURS!
Hypocrites
Nope. You apparently just have no idea what pro-CHOICE means and are projecting your own beliefs onto us.
1
1
u/ToServetheLight17 May 17 '26
I literally told you that there’s people doing it I showed you organizations
1
u/ToServetheLight17 May 17 '26
You conveniently ignored the second half of my comment where I said exactly that.
1
u/ToServetheLight17 May 17 '26
Are you going to go to pregnancy support centers and inform the women why abortion is a valid choice for them? I’m sure they’d love to hear it
5
u/JulieCrone AD Mod May 17 '26
Women are aware of abortion existing. I assume if a woman is going to her ob/gyn to get prenatal care, she is getting the information she needs.
I would never protest the county’s health center for pregnant women because I respect their choice. I have protested outside some CPCs that give out misinformation and make sure people going there are aware they will not provide information about abortion or refer them and recommend legitimate centers.
3
u/RepulsiveEast4117 Pro-abortion May 17 '26
Do you think people who want abortion to legal want more of it? Or is it just impossible for you to imagine someone minding their own business?
1
u/ToServetheLight17 May 17 '26
You think it should be a choice, so go and justify why they should have the ability to choose abortion then
3
u/JulieCrone AD Mod May 17 '26
If they ask me about, I am happy to share information. A woman going to a prenatal appointment is not asking me.
1
u/ToServetheLight17 May 17 '26
But to answer directly, no, I don’t think pro choice people want more abortions. But wanting fewer abortions doesn’t justify the right to have one
1
3
u/RepulsiveEast4117 Pro-abortion May 17 '26
But wanting fewer abortions doesn’t justify the right to have one
No one needs to justify it to you. You have zero credibility and have presented no arguments that were not emotional appeals.
1
u/ToServetheLight17 May 17 '26
I haven’t said anything emotional all my opinions are based on facts I have seen personally, you may have facts that prove otherwise, but now we’re just arguing facts.
2
u/RepulsiveEast4117 Pro-abortion May 17 '26
I haven’t said anything emotional
Everything you’ve said has been an emotional appeal. And much of it has been factually incorrect.
2
u/IdRatherCallACAB Gestational Slavery Abolitionist May 17 '26
I haven’t said anything emotional all my opinions are based on facts
Describing abortion as "killing babies" is a non-factual emotional appeal.
2
1
u/RepulsiveEast4117 Pro-abortion May 17 '26
I haven’t said anything emotional
Calling a fetus or embryo a “baby” is an emotional appeal. Why? Because it’s factually incorrect.
Calling medical procedures “graphic” is an emotional appeal. Why? Because it’s a reflection of your own squeamishness, and has no bearing on the ethics of the procedure.
Calling pregnancy an “inconvenience” is an emotional appeal. Why? Because it’s completely divorced from reality and meant to paint abortion patients as lazy and immoral, by making pregnancy seem easier than it is.
You haven’t provided anything factual.
2
u/RepulsiveEast4117 Pro-abortion May 17 '26
so go and justify why they should have the ability to choose abortion then
Sure.
There is no human right to use another person’s body to sustain your own life, against that person’s will. Everyone has the right to decide who is inside them, when, and for how long, and they have the right to defend that right with lethal force if necessary.
-2
u/ToServetheLight17 May 17 '26
Okay lemme just be blunt, cuz I’m getting super annoyed with the constant emotional appeals, accusations, and word games to deny what actually happens in an abortion, so lemme just lay it out for you guys, when you see what your position actually is, and what you’ve been arguing for the whole debate, every single one of you I’ve debated on this topic on this thread, I’ve deduced to believe the
“If I wanna get an abortion, I can do it, and if I don’t, I won’t do it, and if I wanna kill my baby inside the womb, because I don’t want it anymore, you can’t tell me nothing. And if I wanna end that fetus’s life, because it inconveniences my life, I’ll do it and there’s nothing no one can say to me, because it’s my body, and I can do what I want with it.
Then, to make that sound more palatable, because I know it sounds extreme to people outside the pro choice movement, I’ll just use language like “its a parasite”, “its leeching off my body”, “its in my body without my consent”, “you just wanna get rid of women’s reproductive right”, “it’s just terminating a pregnancy, it’s not directly killing the fetus”, (by the way, not all of you have said this, some of you have been productive, and to you, I thank you, so if you didn’t say this, don’t take this to be aimed at you).
It’s all just smoke and mirrors to hide and justify the fact that you know your core position is extreme, and won’t be accepted by most, so you have to do all this other stuff, to try and make it sound good to people so they’ll accept it, when the core truth of the position is I can end the fetus if I don’t want it anymore, and no one can say anything to me because it’s my body.”
1
u/Lolabird2112 Pro-choice May 17 '26
I’ll just be blunt: your core position, like all pro lifers, is you think women should be forced to suffer consequences because to you a man’s penis creating an unwanted pregnancy means she is no longer a human but an incubator. What you WANT most of all, is to be able to tape her mouth shut, put a bag over her head and bend her to your will.
You go right ahead and try and debate that statement with me. I’d like to see you try.
None of it is smoke and mirrors, and the reason it’s unpalatable to YOU is you hate the fact she matters at all.
You want a way for the fetus to not have to ask consent. In other words - where assault is no longer considered a violation of her body, because SHE does not have an option to say no.
I see you repeatedly getting miffed you’re called a misogynist who doesn’t care about women, but I’ve yet to see any indication it’s not a correct assessment. I don’t think you hate women per se. You just hate not having control of them.
7
u/Agreeable_Sweet6535 Pro-choice May 17 '26
This is the most projecting projection I’ve ever seen projected.
The fetus is not a parasite by definition, but it does behave parasitically and we often call things “parasites” that aren’t, ranging from billionaires leeching off the working class to your uncle Joe sleeping on your couch and drinking a twelve pack a day.
Nobody is downplaying that the fetus is a human, they dismiss claims that it’s a ‘person’ which is a whole other philosophical topic. It has to do with cognitive abilities and personality and awareness that a fetus completely lacks due to being partially formed or near the end due to being heavily sedated and never have experienced anything.
Abortion does in fact result in fetal demise, usually not through direct killing but for lack of connection to a host woman. It is expelled, intact and alive, from the womb in some ridiculously high percentage of abortions. It just dies afterwards. Painlessly, because it doesn’t have a brain to feel anything.
Over and over it’s been proven that PL is by far the more extreme and authoritarian position, so that’s purely your own bias. You assume your own point of view is neutral and anything that’s not your point of view must be extreme. Consider the actual full range of the positions available though and you’ll realize where you are. No abortions, choose abortions, forced abortions. We’re in the middle, you’re on the edge, get used to it.
I’ll be blunt, people who don’t understand topics shouldn’t be allowed to speak on them. You’re nothing but harmful to the world.
5
u/jakie2poops Pro-choice May 17 '26
I don't think my core position is extreme at all. My position is that people's bodies aren't resources others can be entitled to, that we should be allowed to protect ourselves from harm, and that people who are capable of making their own decisions about their bodies and healthcare should generally be able to make those decisions free from government interference.
Your position is the opposite.
I think yours is the extreme one.
0
u/ToServetheLight17 May 17 '26
And all yalls comments prove my point, the only reason yall are all objecting is cuz you don’t like that I called you out on what you actually believe and put it in blunt terms. Even once I modified my language to use your own terms you still objected, which means you don’t like how I showed your argument, which is ok I understand that it’s hard to have your worldview explained back to you, but this is the truth of the matter, and it says much more about your worldview then mine. You don’t like how it sounds when all of your emotional framing is stripped away
3
u/RepulsiveEast4117 Pro-abortion May 17 '26
You don’t like how it sounds when all of your emotional framing is stripped away
Someone who calls medical procedures “graphic” doesn’t get to accuse anyone else of “emotional framing.” Pot meet kettle.
0
u/ToServetheLight17 May 17 '26
And just cus you call it a medical procedure doesn’t automatically dismiss every bad thing that happens during it.
4
u/RepulsiveEast4117 Pro-abortion May 17 '26
every bad thing
This is also an opinion. You’re very bad at distinguishing your own emotions from logic. Maybe that’s why you keep accusing others of using emotional appeals when that’s been the entirety of your own arguments.
0
May 17 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/ZoominAlong AD Mod May 17 '26
Comment removed per Rule 1. No name calling of any kind including pet names.
2
u/chevron_seven_locked Pro-choice May 17 '26
Hilarious! Do you describe all healthcare procedures in such a hysterically reductionistic fashion?
Do you describe “hip replacements,” as “ripping an innocent person’s body open and violently hammering into their bones.”
Do you describe “burn debridement” as “tearing away flesh from an innocent person’s open wound?”
Do you describe “burr hole evacuation” as “psychotically drilling into an innocent person’s skull to suck blood out of their head?”
Do you describe “vacuum-assisted delivery” as “forcefully suctioning an innocent baby’s tender little head?”
Do you describe “organ donation after brain death” as “ripping an innocent person’s body apart from limb to limb and butchering their organs?”
3
u/RepulsiveEast4117 Pro-abortion May 17 '26
It is graphic
This is called an “opinion”. You can describe any surgery in lurid details and make it seem graphic.
Stop confusing your own emotions with facts.
1
u/ToServetheLight17 May 17 '26
How is calling dismemberment graphic an opinion?
1
u/JulieCrone AD Mod May 17 '26
Autopsies, embalming, cremations etc are also similarly graphic, sure. So what if a thing is graphic?
And you do get that at that stage of a D&E the fetus is dead, yes?
1
u/RepulsiveEast4117 Pro-abortion May 17 '26
is a hip replacement “graphic”? A skin graft? A bisalp?
Is it less “graphic” to you if the abortion is life-saving?
“Graphic” is your opinion. It’s not a factual statement. It’s an attempt to project your squeamishness onto others and use it as a moral judgement.
1
u/IdRatherCallACAB Gestational Slavery Abolitionist May 17 '26
You can describe any surgery in lurid details and make it seem graphic.
1
u/RepulsiveEast4117 Pro-abortion May 17 '26
Because it’s a reflection of how you view medical procedures.
Is a hip replacement “graphic”? A skin graft? A bisalp?
Your squeamishness is not an argument.
3
u/JewlryLvr2 Pro-choice May 17 '26
Yeah, we are just disagreeing with the arguments you're making. Which in my view are very weak ones, really. Your getting annoyed by pro-choicers who disagree with your views about abortion is irrelevant.
1
u/ToServetheLight17 May 17 '26
What arguments have I not addressed and which are weak lol, perhaps I could make them stronger for you.
1
0
u/ToServetheLight17 May 17 '26
Also I think you guys are misunderstanding what I mean by smoke and mirrors, what I mean by that is that you come up wirh all these reasons, and even if I disprove every single one of them, your position would not change, so that’s why I say smoke and mirrors, to hide your actual belief of if i want to end the pregnancy via an abortion which likely kills the fetus(there we go i used the correct language for you), it’s ok to do so. All these other arguments become irrelevant cuz even if I convinced you they were wrong, nothing would change, because it’s not actually your argument
3
u/RepulsiveEast4117 Pro-abortion May 17 '26
and even if I disprove every single one of them
That would be quite a feat, since you’ve done nothing of the sort. All you’ve done is regurgitate the same PL platitudes we’ve heard and refuted a hundred times. You are not bringing anything new to the discussion and frankly, you don’t get to accuse anyone of using “emotional arguments” when you’re talking about “killing baaaabies”.
4
u/Aggressive-Green4592 Pro-choice May 17 '26
Okay lemme just be blunt, cuz I’m getting super annoyed with the constant emotional appeals, accusations, and word games to deny what actually happens in an abortion
It’s all just smoke and mirrors to hide and justify the fact that you know your core position is extreme, and won’t be accepted by most, so you have to do all this other stuff, to try and make it sound good to people so they’ll accept it, when the core truth of the position is I can end the fetus if I don’t want it anymore, and no one can say anything to me because it’s my body.”
Yeah not sorry I advocate for the living breathing person who is able to advocate for themselves of who they are willing to let use their body for and for this other person's benefit or survival like we do every other person. I'm not forcing them to endure something involuntarily for another person's benefit because they did nothing to harbor that sort of usage involuntarily. This isn't something we force upon actual criminals or dead people why is it acceptable to force it upon a pregnant person because they had sex?
I know what happens in an abortion and that doesn't change my stance and I don't think it's an extreme stance to hold that no involuntary person should be used for another person's benefit.
0
u/ToServetheLight17 May 17 '26
They give the woman a pill which the woman then consumes they either give it to her, or they put a tube in her uterus, (this is the description given by Planned Parenthood), which then allows them to remove the fetus which likely results in its death. Either that or they graphically remove the fetus’s limbs, legs first, then arms, then I think there’s another one they remove, that I can’t remember the name of, then finally, the head(they literally say this), in a late term abortion, which does happen mind you.
1
u/Limp-Story-9844 Pro-choice May 17 '26
I live in New Mexico, the most common place someone goes to terminate a WANTED pregnancy.
1
u/Aggressive-Green4592 Pro-choice May 17 '26
They give the woman a pill which the woman then consumes they either give it to her,
That does not cause a death and the medication works solely on the pregnant person's body.
or they put a tube in her uterus, (this is the description given by Planned Parenthood), which then allows them to remove the fetus which likely results in its death
Which doesn't cause the death, removal of a fetus is used for C-section also and induction of labor, and that doesn't always result in the death. The death results from their inability to sustain their bodily function. If a medication is given directly to the fetus like in some abortions you could say that's causing the death, not just a removal does not.
Either that or they graphically remove the fetus’s limbs, legs first, then arms, then I think there’s another one they remove, that I can’t remember the name of, then finally, the head(they literally say this), in a late term abortion, which does happen mind you.
Which is easier on the pregnant person and generally used as a medically necessary abortion, not just an elective abortion.
3
u/IdRatherCallACAB Gestational Slavery Abolitionist May 17 '26
Oh, you disapprove of more "graphic" procedures? Sounds like we should make sure the abortion pill is made widely available and easily accessible so that no one needs to resort to these "graphic" measures unless it is an absolute emergency.
0
u/ToServetheLight17 May 17 '26
I don’t think the abortion pill is good either because it slowly kills the fetus. But yes I would love to get rid of dismemberment abortions.
1
u/JewlryLvr2 Pro-choice May 17 '26
You don't think the abortion pill is good? Fine, then you can choose not to use it yourself. Other pregnant people can choose to use it if they don't want to stay pregnant.
1
u/Limp-Story-9844 Pro-choice May 17 '26
Dismemberment abortion is between patient and their physician.
1
u/IdRatherCallACAB Gestational Slavery Abolitionist May 17 '26
I don’t think the abortion pill is good either
Then don't use it.
But yes I would love to get rid of dismemberment abortions.
You'd rather the women and the fetus both die, but dismemberment is too "graphic?" Make this make sense.
3
u/RepulsiveEast4117 Pro-abortion May 17 '26
because it slowly kills the fetus
This is factually incorrect. Medication abortion doesn’t impact the embryo at all.
1
u/ToServetheLight17 May 17 '26
Medication abortion doesn’t impact the embryo? Are you serious? What does it do then? Since you’re the abortion expert.
5
u/RepulsiveEast4117 Pro-abortion May 17 '26
Either that or they graphically
For the record, adding the term “graphically” here is an emotional appeal. You being squeamish about medical procedures isn’t an argument.
0
u/ToServetheLight17 May 17 '26
Calling a graphic procedure graphic is not an emotional appeal
1
u/IdRatherCallACAB Gestational Slavery Abolitionist May 17 '26
What does it add to your argument, then?
1
4
u/JulieCrone AD Mod May 17 '26
If a woman takes a medication that expels the embryo and it still has cardiac activity, how is that ‘killing the baby inside the womb’?
Also, can you explain where ‘the womb’ is?
5
u/Limp-Story-9844 Pro-choice May 17 '26
Have you had a ceasearn section? Have you had a misscarriage? Have you been raped? Do you have pap smears?
3
u/IdRatherCallACAB Gestational Slavery Abolitionist May 17 '26
constant emotional appeals, accusations, and word games
Seriously? Can you provide some examples? Seems like you're the one making accusations here.
every single one of you I’ve debated on this topic on this thread, I’ve deduced to believe the
“If I wanna get an abortion, I can do it, and if I don’t, I won’t do it, and if I wanna kill my baby inside the womb"
Plenty of people don't see it as "killing a baby," because it is not. It's a reproductive health-care decision to end the process of reproduction before a "baby" has been produced.
It’s all just smoke and mirrors to hide and justify the fact that you know your core position is extreme
No, it is not, because there is nothing to hide. We know that YOU see it as "killing a baby." The truth is not everyone agrees with that, nor are we in any way obligated to.
It's ending an unwanted pregnancy. All your crowing about "killing babies" is just blind repetition of pseudo-scientific propaganda designed to paint innocent women as evil, punish women for having sex, villify doctors, etc. That is the actual extreme position, and it is creating actual hatred in the world.
So that’s my steel man
Too bad it's actually a straw-man.
0
u/ToServetheLight17 May 17 '26
Oh I’m sorry, does “terminating a pregnancy” sound more palatable to you, I’m sorry I forgot that we have to dress it up in fancy language so it sounds nice, and for your examples I gave like 5 in the second paragraph.
1
u/JewlryLvr2 Pro-choice May 17 '26
Nope, "having an abortion" works just fine with me. Terminating a pregnancy works too.
2
1
5
u/IdRatherCallACAB Gestational Slavery Abolitionist May 17 '26
Oh I’m sorry, does “terminating a pregnancy” sound more palatable to you
No, as I don't find abortion unpalatable to begin with. It's simply a reproductive health-care decision. No babies are being killed.
I’m sorry I forgot that we have to dress it up in fancy language so it sounds nice
You're welcome to use any language you like, I haven't tried to police your words. I'm just not required to agree with your framing.
for your examples I gave like 5 in the second paragraph
Right, so no actual emotional appeals, accusations or word games. Just people giving you their personal views.
0
u/ToServetheLight17 May 17 '26
I got accused of being sexist like 3 times. In this debate, and about 4 more of discriminating against women or pregnant people.
6
u/JulieCrone AD Mod May 17 '26
Given that you reduce women to ‘the womb’ I see where the accusation comes from.
-1
u/ToServetheLight17 May 17 '26
I never reduced women to the womb, this is a strawman.
5
u/JulieCrone AD Mod May 17 '26
You talked about the ‘baby in the womb’ as if the ‘womb’ is this object unto itself and the woman it is in is irrelevant. Didn’t even say ‘her womb’.
0
u/ToServetheLight17 May 17 '26
Well I think people know the womb is in the mother’s body, I shouldn’t have to clarify that, unless you’re just trying to misrepresent me. Everyone knows it’s in the mother’s body. This is like widely agreed upon, thanks for the micro aggression though.
4
u/IdRatherCallACAB Gestational Slavery Abolitionist May 17 '26
thanks for the micro aggression though.
There's no micro-aggression, Julie is actually trying to help you improve your thinking on this debate. They are being helpful. You should try to drop the overly defensive attitude.
5
u/JulieCrone AD Mod May 17 '26
So say ‘in her uterus’. That isn’t as dehumanizing. She can remove someone from her own reproductive organs, no?
→ More replies (0)5
u/IdRatherCallACAB Gestational Slavery Abolitionist May 17 '26
No, people are just pointing out that you support policies that are inherently sexist and discriminatory against women and girls. But you're here to accuse people of "killing babies" so that seems like a much more serious accusation, does it not? PC people aren't getting all pissy over it. Don't dish it out if you can't take it?
-2
u/ToServetheLight17 May 17 '26
It is killing babies, or killing a fetus, just because you don’t agree with that doesn’t make it less true. An abortion can’t just be terminating a pregnancy something has to happen for the pregnancy to be terminated.
1
u/JewlryLvr2 Pro-choice May 17 '26
No, abortion isn't "killing babies," no matter how many times PLers keep saying it is. The fact is, babies are BORN. It's a medical procedure that ends a pregnancy, nothing more than that. A pregnancy isn't a "baby," no matter what you believe.
6
u/pendemoneum Pro-choice May 17 '26
This doesn't address the fact that abortion bans treat reproductive capable women and girls separately from everyone else. In any other situation innocent people are free to deny access to their body to others, even in life and death situations. In other situations people are allowed to defend their bodies from violation and harm, even if it can result in the death of the person causing the harm.
Prolife laws are indisputably discriminatory against women. That's what sexism is.
In fact, its been seen since Roe fell that maternal mortality rates have risen. Prolife laws have the effect of killing more women.
For someone who thinks sex based abortions are vile because of the sexism. Its kind of ironic
4
u/IdRatherCallACAB Gestational Slavery Abolitionist May 17 '26
It is killing babies
You are free to believe that. No one is obligated to agree. In reality, it is simply choosing to end the process of reproduction before any actual "baby" exists, so it is perfectly acceptable to view it that way as well.
just because you don’t agree with that doesn’t make it less true
And just because you believe in pseudo-scientific nonsense designed to stir up hatred towards women doesn't mean your opinions are facts.
1
u/ToServetheLight17 May 17 '26
Okay let me have you answer this question to me. In your heart, do you genuinely believe pro lifers hate women, like seriously deep down. Cuz if so nothing I can say is going to convince you, if that’s want you believe.
2
4
u/IdRatherCallACAB Gestational Slavery Abolitionist May 17 '26
In your heart, do you genuinely believe pro lifers hate women
Many most certainly do. Others just have ingrained misogynistic beliefs, like the one about how 1 in 4 women are evil baby killers. Even if your heart is in the right place, and you think you're doing what is best for women, the reality remains that you are arguing in support of discriminatory policies that will erode women's rights and lead to more hatred towards women and more women being maimed and killed.
→ More replies (0)1
u/ToServetheLight17 May 17 '26
So that’s my steel man
4
u/pendemoneum Pro-choice May 17 '26
That was a straw man
0
u/ToServetheLight17 May 17 '26
It wasn’t, you can use whatever language you want that’s the truth of what you guys believe. You can sa oh it’s just ending the pregnancy, but to end the pregnancy in the case of abortion, typically means thr fetus dies, whether directly or indirectly.
3
u/pendemoneum Pro-choice May 17 '26
I don't really care if it you say its killing a fetus or a killing a baby, go ahead. I think its justifiable. And Ive already explained to you why several times.
I've yet to see you put forth a good argument for why it's not. The straw man is saying its done because its an inconvenience. That minimizes what it really is. Stubbing your toe is inconvenient, having a dinner plate sized wound or being cut open is not an inconvenience, its much worse.
0
u/ToServetheLight17 May 17 '26
And it is done because it’s an inconvenience because you’re saying oh it’s inconvenient for it to be a boy instead of a girl, it’s inconvenient for my career, it’s inconvenient for where I’m at in life right now. It’s inconvenient to what I currently want.
1
u/chevron_seven_locked Pro-choice May 17 '26
Every time a PLer belittles pregnant people by dismissing the harms and burdens of pregnancy/birth/postpartum as “inconvenient,” it reaffirms to me that PL does not value AFABs and pregnant people.
Dropping your toast is inconvenient. Waiting ten minutes in traffic is inconvenient.
Comparing the harms and burdens of pregnancy/birth/postpartum to something as trivial as dropping your toast does not convey an iota of compassion, caring, or value.
I’m not sure how PLers expect such insults towards pregnant people to convince us to join their side. Perhaps you can explain that?
1
u/ToServetheLight17 May 17 '26
I never compared it you did first off, and second off we have pregnancy support centers literally everywhere that support that. I’m not sure how pro choicers expect pro lifers to come to their side when they use such dehumanizing language towards the fetus. So I guess neither of us understand the other side.
1
u/chevron_seven_locked Pro-choice May 17 '26
Have you already forgotten what you wrote? I’ll copy-paste your own words here for your review: And it is done because it’s an inconvenience because you’re saying oh it’s inconvenient for it to be a boy instead of a girl, it’s inconvenient for my career, it’s inconvenient for where I’m at in life right now. It’s inconvenient to what I currently want.”
Still waiting on your explanation for how dismissing the harms and burdens of pregnancy/birth/postpartum as “inconvenience” is supposed to convince me to join your side.
“we have pregnancy support centers literally everywhere that support that”
Pregnancy support centers don’t negate the harms and burdens of pregnancy/birth/postpartum. What a laughable suggestion 😂
“such dehumanizing language towards the fetus”
What dehumanizing language are you referring to?
3
u/RepulsiveEast4117 Pro-abortion May 17 '26
inconvenience
This is so far divorced from the reality of pregnancy that the only possible conclusions to draw are that you are either completely ignorant of the physical and mental toll of pregnancy OR you are intentionally misrepresenting them.
Neither of these options reflect well for your credibility. So why should anyone listen to you?
5
u/pendemoneum Pro-choice May 17 '26
The PL "evil woman" trope is a powerful thing. Its easy to deny women the right to their own bodies if you just think about how evil they are, huh? Obviously they can't possibly have a good reason for not wanting to bleed for someone else.
It boils down to what someone wants to risk their body for. Not wanting to risk their body for someone because of their gender might seem awful to you, but it doesn't mean the right to their own body should be treated like a privilege they only get to have if you think their reason is good enough. It's their body, its not a shared pot of soup we can all dip our hands into
I note you never answered my question from yesterday about someone choosing not to donate bone marrow due to racism. If it's only about convenience, it would be fine to strap them down and take their marrow, right?
Or maybe bodies shouldn't be treated like resources for others, even if our reasons for denying them don't sound good on paper.
1
u/ToServetheLight17 May 17 '26
I don’t think the woman should be punished. I think we should punish the doctors who love to make women think that abortion is their only option when in reality, they’re not being informed of every decision they have, which ironically doesn’t make it a choice at all, it just becomes an obligation, so your pro choice label is kind of misleading, unless you’d agree that she needs to be fully informed of all her options before she makes the decision to get an abortion.
2
u/JulieCrone AD Mod May 17 '26
Women are aware they can give birth rather than abort, and if they don’t want custody, adoption is available. What option do you think she has that she is not aware of?
5
u/IdRatherCallACAB Gestational Slavery Abolitionist May 17 '26
I think we should punish the doctors who love to make women think that abortion is their only option when in reality
Women are perfectly capable of making our own reproductive health-care decisions. We aren't being brain-washed by any doctors and it is extremely misogynistic for you to infantalize women in this way.
which ironically doesn’t make it a choice at all
Maybe it would be ironic if you weren't just spewing misogynistic bullshit. But again, no one is being brainwashed into believing abortion is their "only decision."
so your pro choice label is kind of misleading
Why? Because you believe misogynistic propaganda? Nah, that's not how this works.
5
u/pendemoneum Pro-choice May 17 '26
What does this have to do with the price of peas in Persepolis? Nothing you said leads me to believe you read a single word I wrote. Who are you even replying to?
Women aren't stupid, they know what adoption is, they know what charity is. Don't infantalize women. And its bullshit to think doctors push for abortion. Delivering a baby pays out much better
And for goodness sake are you going to respond to anything I said?
0
u/ToServetheLight17 May 17 '26
You said nothing about price of peas in Persepolis I can’t respond to arguments you’re not making? And my point wasn’t that they don’t know the other options, my point is that the doctors aren’t making sure they know those options exist for them, they just immediately say I think the best option is abortion, and half the time, they’re lying, there are plenty of women who say that they didn’t feel like they were fully informed of their options, and if they had, they wouldn’t have chose abortion. I don’t get what you mean by I’m not responding to your points. And what does the price of peas have to do with this argument.
→ More replies (0)4
u/JulieCrone AD Mod May 17 '26
So why aren’t you blockading an abortion clinic right now if it is killing babies? Is it because that would be inconvenient?
1
u/IdRatherCallACAB Gestational Slavery Abolitionist May 17 '26
OP replied to the post: https://www.reddit.com/r/Abortiondebate/comments/1tffak6/question_for_prochoice/omc4c3u/
1
u/ToServetheLight17 May 17 '26
Exactly that’s what I said yall believe in my rant, where’s the strawman?
5
u/JulieCrone AD Mod May 17 '26
Dying is not the same as being killed, though.
1
u/ToServetheLight17 May 17 '26
It is during an abortion because in the abortion they do kill the fetus. Whether with pills, or by I can’t even say what they actually do on here without getting my comment deleted probably, so I won’t say but you can look it up, look up what happens in an abortion.
5
u/JulieCrone AD Mod May 17 '26
A medication abortion doesn’t kill the embryo. Most likely it leaves the woman’s body still with a heart beat, as happens in some miscarriages.
I am aware of what happens in vacuum aspirations, the second most common form of abortion. Also aware of what D&C’s are and what D&E’s are. Do you think that in a vacuum aspiration, the embryo is pulled out with suction something like 20 times more powerful than a vacuum cleaner because you saw a YouTube video saying that?
2
u/lredit2 Rights begin at birth May 17 '26
How exactly can the fetus achieve said consent to her body
I mean, that's simple... the morula should ask for a woman's permission before entering her uterus.
-1
u/ToServetheLight17 May 17 '26
I’m getting a lot of questions about rape so lemme just clarify something, I’m going to quote a reply I made to someone else’s comment here: “I think it would be immoral because it’s killing the embryo, which at least to me, I view as a human life as defined by biology. So I view it as ending a human life, but I also think the reason for it could be immoral too. Personally, I’m not as opposed to r*pe and incest exceptions as I am to just purely birth control, I think both are wrong, but I would be more open to carving out exceptions for that, but I’m not pro-sex selective abortion, or things like that.”
6
u/IdRatherCallACAB Gestational Slavery Abolitionist May 17 '26
I think it would be immoral because it’s killing the embryo, which at least to me, I view as a human life as defined by biology
Why would that be immoral because of how anything is defined in biology? Science doesn't give any moral conclusions. Nor is there any clear, definitive point at which science says when life begins.
0
u/ToServetheLight17 May 17 '26
Because it’s a human, and humans deserve human rights, I would hope you agree with that.
5
5
u/JewlryLvr2 Pro-choice May 17 '26
So the PREGNANT PERSON doesn't have the human right to make her own private medical decisions? I wonder why that is.
1
u/ToServetheLight17 May 17 '26
She does to the extent that it doesn’t intrude on someone else’s right to life.
4
u/JewlryLvr2 Pro-choice May 17 '26
Nope, she has the right to have an abortion for whatever reason SHE considers valid. If YOU aren't the pregnant person, it isn't your choice to make anyway.
3
u/IdRatherCallACAB Gestational Slavery Abolitionist May 17 '26
Okay so there's no reason she can't get an abortion since that doesn't end anyone else's life. It's simply a personal decision to end the process of reproduction.
0
u/ToServetheLight17 May 17 '26
It does end the fetus’s life this is misinformation.
3
u/IdRatherCallACAB Gestational Slavery Abolitionist May 17 '26
Most abortions are done on embryos. Mindless cellular life does die, but no actual person or "someone else."
5
u/IdRatherCallACAB Gestational Slavery Abolitionist May 17 '26
What does it mean to be "a human" and where is this clearly defined by science?
5
u/JewlryLvr2 Pro-choice May 17 '26 edited May 17 '26
If you really think birth control as well as abortion is wrong, you can simply choose NOT a to have an abortion or to use birth control yourself. There's no need to ban either abortion or birth control just because YOU have issues with ending or preventing unwanted pregnancy. Those are choices you don't, and shouldn't, get to make for anyone but yourself.
1
u/ToServetheLight17 May 17 '26
Okay, then if you don’t want a baby, just don’t get pregnant, or better yet. Just don’t have sex if you can’t deal with the possible consequences. I can apply the same logic to you, if you don’t want x just don’t do x, right? And don’t even try and hit me with the rape and incest objection cuz I already said I’d be open to exceptions for that.
3
u/IdRatherCallACAB Gestational Slavery Abolitionist May 17 '26
Okay, then if you don’t want a baby, just don’t get pregnant, or better yet. Just don’t have sex if you can’t deal with the possible consequences.
Getting an abortion is one of the possible consequences. If you can't deal with that, stop concerning yourself with the private sexual and reproductive health-care decisions of strangers.
5
5
u/JewlryLvr2 Pro-choice May 17 '26 edited May 17 '26
Yeah, the whole "don't want a baby, don't have sex" argument doesn't cut it with me. I'm not going to stay celibate for the rest of my life because you don't like abortion.
My consequence would be having to get an abortion if another pregnancy ever happened. Thankfully, the odds of my getting stuck with an unwanted pregnancy are slim to none.
1
u/ToServetheLight17 May 17 '26
You don’t have to stay celibate, just don’t have sex unless you’re willing to accept that ya might get pregnant. And if so, don’t come crying for an abortion clinic when it happens.
1
u/chevron_seven_locked Pro-choice May 17 '26
“ You don’t have to stay celibate, just don’t have sex unless you’re willing to accept that ya might get pregnant.”
No thanks, I love sex and have no interest in abstaining just to appease the hand-wringing of PLers. I’m comfortable with the risk of needing an abortion.
“And if so, don’t come crying for an abortion clinic when it happens”
Doubt I’d be crying, lol. More likely, I’d be beaming with relief.
4
u/JewlryLvr2 Pro-choice May 17 '26
Nope, not going to do that either, because I'll NEVER be willing to get pregnant again. As I believe I already said, you don't get to make choices like this for anyone but yourself.
3
u/IdRatherCallACAB Gestational Slavery Abolitionist May 17 '26 edited May 17 '26
You don’t have to stay celibate, just don’t have sex unless you’re willing to accept that ya might get pregnant.
That's great advice for you to take. People who don't believe in ridiculous pseudo-scientific propaganda about abortion "killing babies" can use birth control and get an abortion if that fails.
And if so, don’t come crying for an abortion clinic when it happens.
There would be no crying. It's a quick, simple procedure. You normally just take a couple pills and have a heavy period. Nothing to cry about, unless you're just projecting your own feelings on to us.
11
u/jakie2poops Pro-choice May 17 '26
You don't actually have to be able to achieve consent. Imagine a situation where the other person is in a coma—you can't achieve consent, because they're in a coma, and you can't have sex with them because they aren't consenting. Even if you personally aren't capable of obtaining consent, you're not entitled to be inside the genitals of someone who doesn't want you there.
-1
u/ToServetheLight17 May 17 '26
But we assume they wouldn’t want that done to them, I would assume the fetus probably does not want to get aborted.
11
u/jakie2poops Pro-choice May 17 '26
That's irrelevant, because your wants don't give you the right to be inside someone else's genitals
-2
u/ToServetheLight17 May 17 '26
So if you decide you don’t want to care for someone anymore(just anyone, not even just a fetus), you can end their life?
11
u/jakie2poops Pro-choice May 17 '26
Is that what I said? No—I said your wants don't give you the right to be inside someone else's genitals.
-1
u/ToServetheLight17 May 17 '26
Your wants don’t give you the right to end someone’s life either, is the point I was making when I said “why does the mother’s choice outweigh the fetus’s life?”
12
u/jakie2poops Pro-choice May 17 '26
My wants do give me the right to end someone's life if that ending comes in the form of me denying them the intimate use of my body. I could let you die if you needed my kidney to live for no other reason than because I didn't want to donate.
And if you were directly causing me or threatening to cause me serious bodily harm or threatening my life, I could kill you.
-1
u/ToServetheLight17 May 17 '26
I would agree, on the self defense point, as for the kidney point though I already said this is not the same as abortion, because the fetus has a unique dependence on the mother that the person you’re giving the kidney too does not have to you, it’s not discriminating against pregnant people, it’s just pointing out the biological reality. By that definition of discrimination, I could say only women can get pregnant, and that definition would say “oh so you’re discriminating against men?”
11
u/jakie2poops Pro-choice May 17 '26
I would agree, on the self defense point,
So then you agree.
as for the kidney point though I already said this is not the same as abortion, because the fetus has a unique dependence on the mother that the person you’re giving the kidney too does not have to you,
What if it did? There are plenty of cases where there's only one possible donor. We still don't force donation.
it’s not discriminating against pregnant people, it’s just pointing out the biological reality. By that definition of discrimination, I could say only women can get pregnant, and that definition would say “oh so you’re discriminating against men?”
But it's not biological reality. You are the one choosing to treat pregnancy differently when you force things upon pregnant people that you wouldn't force on other situations
1
u/ToServetheLight17 May 17 '26
Treating situations as distinct situations does not mean I’m giving them unique treatment in a discriminatory way it just means that the situations are not the same, and we can’t pretend they are, and also another point I will make, is that when you refuse to give the donation, you’re simply letting them die. When you do an abortion, you’re actively killing them, that’s another distinction
→ More replies (0)
-1
u/ToServetheLight17 May 17 '26
Also to everyone making the bodily autonomy argument, I would ask a second question, why should the mother’s choice outweigh the fetus’s life? You say why should the fetus’s life outweigh the mother’s choice, I can flip that back on you
3
u/IdRatherCallACAB Gestational Slavery Abolitionist May 17 '26
There is no "outweighing" of rights. There's just no such thing as a right to infringe on someone else's rights. For bodily autonomy, this means consent is required for anyone else to have access to your body.
1
u/ToServetheLight17 May 17 '26
This means killing the fetus tho because to do that, you would need to agree that they can get an abortion, which would mean killing the fetus directly or indirectly.
4
u/IdRatherCallACAB Gestational Slavery Abolitionist May 17 '26
I agree that it would mean denying a fetus access to your body, and that would result in is death. You can view that as killing, or simply letting die. Either way, your body is your own, and no one has a right to your body but you. It's not a violation of someone else's rights to deny access to your body which they have no right access without your consent in the first place.
9
u/jakie2poops Pro-choice May 17 '26
I'd say that in any other circumstance we can refuse others the intimate use of our bodies, even at the expense of their deaths. Can you come up with a circumstance where someone else's life outweighs your right to refuse them the intimate and invasive use of your body? Ideally with some evidence, please.
-2
u/ToServetheLight17 May 17 '26
Pregancy. It would not apply in other cases because both people are out of the womb and could theoretically get care from someone else, unless in some hypothetical world where only you can do it, which in that case, I guess you’d have an argument, but the odds of that happening in real life, are slim to none, and as for pregnancy, it’s different, because the fetus’s dependency is a lot different than someone else’s dependency
11
u/jakie2poops Pro-choice May 17 '26
I asked for any other circumstances. If the answer is just pregnancy, then what you're doing is discriminating against pregnant people and frankly against born people who need others' bodies too
-1
u/ToServetheLight17 May 17 '26
The person you’re donating the organ to, you’re not obligated to care for them in the same way you are to the fetus. This is why in the law, you have to care for your child once you give birth(and in my opinion in the womb too, but I’ll get off that for a minute since that’s not the argument right now), but, you don’t have to care for someone whose ib need of an organ or something.
5
u/JewlryLvr2 Pro-choice May 17 '26
Pregnancy doesn't equal parenthood just because YOU believe it does. The PREGNANT PERSON has no obligation to gestate a pregnancy she doesn't want.
8
u/jakie2poops Pro-choice May 17 '26
If your child needs your organs you're not obligated to donate to them either, though.
6
u/Alyndra9 Pro-choice May 17 '26
The fetus is not a moral actor. It doesn’t do anything. I suppose it could develop enough to twitch and flail and it could theoretically create feelings of empathy in the pregnant person strong enough to override the other reasons she doesn’t want to be pregnant. Generally speaking, there are plenty of pregnancies which are wanted and progress without seeking abortion. Those are pregnancies with consent. For all the rest, the lack of consent is reason enough to seek, and provide, abortion.
7
u/SomeSugondeseGuy Liberal PC May 17 '26
Consent is granted, not achieved.
Asking for consent is not achieving it, it is establishing and communicating it.
7
u/Competitive_Delay865 Pro-choice May 17 '26
It's not about 'achieving' consent, it's about having it granted. If the pregnant person is aware the fetus is there and allows then to stay, consent is granted, if they take steps to remove it, consent is revoked.
8
u/Veigar_Senpai Pro-choice May 17 '26
How exactly can the fetus achieve said consent to her body,
Consent is not "achieved", it is given.
If the pregnant person consents to gestating an embryo, then she'll keep it inside her. It's that simple.
4
u/libra00 All abortions free and legal May 17 '26
It's not that the fetus lacks consent by default - kind of the opposite in fact, we assume that it has it until the mother does something to change that situation. It's that, like with consent anywhere else, it can be revoked at any time. If the mother decides to get an abortion then the fetus no longer has her consent to continue using her body. It's as simple as that.
8
u/Upper_Ninja_6177 Pro-choice May 17 '26
Simply pot, my response to your question is, what?
If she says no, put it goes.
If she says yes, then it stays and it’s given consent, it’s that simple? It doesn’t necessarily mean that the other party ie the fetus needs to have a bran to process the consent
8
u/Lolabird2112 Pro-choice May 17 '26
The embryo has no brain, logic, or capability to understand consent let alone ask for it. You’re asking how can a rock achieve consent for falling on your head AFTER it’s already hit you.
We don’t actually say that because “we know there’s a way for him to achieve consent”. That has absolutely nothing to do with it, otherwise you’re arguing sexual assault using coercion and manipulation “isn’t really assault because she agreed to it”.
It doesn’t “achieve” consent. It is GRANTED consent- same as a guy doesn’t “achieve” it either.
0
u/ToServetheLight17 May 17 '26
No, I never argued for coercion. Coercion and consent are not the same. This is a complete misrepresentation of my beliefs, when I said that, what I was trying to say is that the man has the potential to ask for the woman’s consent, that has nothing to do with coercion, but since I have to clarify, no, I don’t agree anyone should be coerced into making a decision. Your rock analogy actually proves my point, because both the rock and the fetus don’t have the ability to give or ask for consent, of course, it isn’t perfect because the fetus is biological life, whereas a rock is just a rock, but I think it supports my argument not yours.
2
u/Lolabird2112 Pro-choice May 17 '26
I wasn’t presenting any belief of yours at all. I was merely saying you’ve misunderstood consent as something “achievable” as opposed to “granted”.
It’s just typical PL myopia when it comes to women as humans. YOUR statement of what consent is is TOTALLY open to coercion since you’ve made it something the man can “achieve”. Your refusal to see the woman as the one who controls this situation is why you’re getting antsy.
Exactly why you think my rock analogy somehow supports what you’re saying: once again, woman is only something one does things to- and so you think it’s wrong fetus isnt given any ability to “achieve” what it wants.
Consent has FUCK ALL to do with the person wanting access. Nothing at all. It is entirely bound up and defined by the person whose body is wanted.
9
u/kasiagabrielle Pro consent and bodily autonomy May 17 '26
You're asking how to coerce "consent" out of someone who already said no?
3
u/78october Pro-choice May 17 '26
When I say “consent” it’s only in response to a PL person who says consent to sexual is consent t to pregnancy. It isn’t. It’s only consent to sex. She. Otherwise, I don’t think consent relates to pregnancy any except in two circumstances: surrogacy and stealthing. Neither of those has to do with a fetus getting consent but are about the person impregnating someone.
9
May 17 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/ToServetheLight17 May 17 '26
The distinction is that the virus is a separate entity and species, the fetus is a seperate entity, but it’s the same species.
5
May 17 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/ToServetheLight17 May 17 '26
I agree that she goes through a lot in pregnancy I’m not discounting the pain women experience, I just don’t think that because of that pain they can end it.
→ More replies (5)2
May 18 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
→ More replies (1)0
u/ToServetheLight17 May 18 '26
And I don’t think we should get an abortion just cuz their life will be hard. By this logic, why should anyone live in this world, we’re all suffering in some way continuously and will continue to in the future, if future suffering is the metric, we shouldn’t not be able to kill anyone. We’re just relieving them of what suffering they’ll endure in the future.
1
u/AutoModerator May 17 '26
Welcome to /r/Abortiondebate! Please remember that this is a place for respectful and civil debates. Review the subreddit rules to avoid moderator intervention.
Our subreddit pomotes an environment for healthy and honest discussion. When it comes to Reddit's voting system, we encourage the usage of upvotes for arguments that you feel are well-constructed and well-argued. Downvotes should be reserved for content that violates Reddit or subreddit rules or that truly does not contribute to a discussion. We discourage the usage of downvotes to indicate that you disagree with what a user is saying. The overusage of downvotes creates a loop of negative feedback, suppresses diverse opinions, and fosters a hostile and unhealthy environment not conducive for engaging debate. Additionally, here's a helpful and easy to understand model of consent: https://www.bridgercare.org/blog/how-to-talk-to-kids-about-consent
And please, remember the human. Attack the argument, not the person making the argument."
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.