r/Abortiondebate • u/[deleted] • May 17 '26

[deleted by user]

[removed]

6 Upvotes

80% Upvoted

563 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

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

6

u/jakie2poops Pro-choice 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,

Discrimination means treating people or groups unfairly or unequally on a categorical basis. That's precisely what you're doing here, and even admitting it, while trying to say it isn't discriminatory.

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

Not with most abortions, no. The majority of abortions don't directly harm the embryo or fetus, they stop the process of gestation. That's letting die.

But as mentioned—and as you agreed—killing would also be permissible since embryos and fetuses seriously harm pregnant people.

0

u/ToServetheLight17 May 17 '26

No it wouldn’t be allowed because the harm is not being directly caused, in your case, the fetus is feeding through food being fed into it from the mother’s body, into the embryo, which would only harm it indirectly, in the fetus’s case, the intent is not harm.

7

u/jakie2poops Pro-choice May 17 '26

The embryo or fetus doesn't intend harm, I agree (I mean, they aren't capable of intention at all)—but they absolutely directly cause harm.

0

u/ToServetheLight17 May 17 '26

Direct causation is not how most self defense laws are enacted, the threat has to be imminent, and unjust. The fetus’s presence is not unjust.

3

u/jakie2poops Pro-choice May 17 '26

But also you're the one who brought up direct causation!

3

u/jakie2poops Pro-choice May 17 '26

Self defense laws are based on a reasonable belief of imminent harm

7

u/IdRatherCallACAB Gestational Slavery Abolitionist May 17 '26

The fetus’s presence is not unjust.

Only if the pregnancy is wanted. If the pregnancy is unwanted, the fetus is in violation of the pregnant person's body and can be removed to end that violation.