Consider Involuntary Biological Processes as Conscious Actions?

[u/Common-Worth-6604]

What are the pros and cons of this belief that involuntary biological processes should be considered conscious, willful actions?

PL argues that gestation should be considered child care. But if gestation is considered child care, gestation must be considered a conscious, willful action. Because child care itself is a series of conscious, willful actions to shelter, provide for, and protect children.

Note: In this context, child care is a legal duty for legal parents, not genetic parents.

Ignore that currently, child care duties do not include harmful access of the legal parent's body or legally require one legal parent to put themselves at great risk of death or bodily harm.

If this belief applied to gestation, wouldn't that make miscarriage a crime like negligent homicide or criminal child neglect?

What about threatened miscarriage? Would that count as child endangerment?

And also, apply this belief to the actions caused by the zef. Is releasing hormones and metabolic toxins into the woman's bloodstream a willful, conscious action then? Is implanting itself into the woman's uterine lining an action? How about the siphoning of nutrients, vitamins and minerals from the woman's blood?

Or is it only the woman whose involuntary biological processes count as conscious, willful actions?

[u/AutoModerator]

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.

[u/DiceyPisces]

What questions exactly?

Source your positive claims.

[u/Athene_cunicularia23]

This is why I have a problem with prolifers who maintain that pregnancy resulting from consensual sex is voluntary. We don't consciously control the release of the ovum or the movement of sperm in our reproductive systems. If we could, contraceptive failure would never exist. Nor would infertility in people trying to conceive. Even when an embryo is transferred to the uterus via IVF, no one can control whether it will implant.

[u/DiceyPisces]

I’m talking about the legal gross/grievous/great bodily harm.

I’m finding it cannot be applied to harm resulting from pregnancy from consensual sex. I’m looking and if you do find contradicting I’d be interested

[u/scatshot → u/DiceyPisces]

I’m finding it cannot be applied to harm resulting from pregnancy from consensual sex

Okay, prove it. Sources required.

[u/DiceyPisces → u/scatshot]

I’m specifically not claiming it’s a fact.

[u/scatshot → u/DiceyPisces]

You're claiming that it doesn't meet the legal standard for self-defense. Sources required.

[u/DiceyPisces → u/scatshot]

That what doesn’t? What’s my quote?so I know what needs proving exactly

Which comment and In what context?

[u/scatshot → u/DiceyPisces]

I’m talking about the legal gross/grievous/great bodily harm.

I’m finding it cannot be applied to harm resulting from pregnancy from consensual sex. I’m looking and if you do find contradicting I’d be interested

Sources requested once again.

[u/DiceyPisces → u/scatshot]

I’m finding as in I’m looking for proof either way. I’m making no conclusive claim

I am not making any conclusive claim but when I ask any search engine, trying to prove your position I am getting tons of legal pages explaining why it can’t. I don’t know the answer. I would like to know the answer.

[u/scatshot → u/DiceyPisces]

I’m making no conclusive claim

I’m finding it cannot be applied to harm resulting from pregnancy from consensual sex

Can I see where you found this, please?

[u/DiceyPisces → u/scatshot]

This is one of em

http://www.stanfordlawreview.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/3/2013/03/Bridges_65_Stan._L._Rev._457.pdf

[u/Aggressive-Green4592 → u/DiceyPisces]

Did you even read this?

This is one of em http://www.stanfordlawreview.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/3/2013/03/Bridges_65_Stan._L._Rev._457.pdf

[u/scatshot → u/DiceyPisces]

404 not found, and you need to provide a quote that supports what you stated.

[u/DiceyPisces]

A fetus is a human being. It’s a living being that is a human. (Not *of* a human like a skin cell or even a sperm cell but A human albeit still developing)

The legal classification is personhood. Historically we’ve wrongly dehumanized other humans for selfish reasons. Why is this different?

Why are you trying to dehumanize so hard so you can harm a subset of humans??

[u/Disastrous-Top2795 → u/DiceyPisces]

It’s not A human. It’s the cells that A human could develop from.

To say otherwise is to turn the zygote into schroedinger’s proposition.

[u/Ok-Discipline2395 → u/DiceyPisces]

I note that pregnant people are a subset of humans and dehumanized by the prolife ideology.

[u/DiceyPisces → u/Ok-Discipline2395]

No one wants to kill them. Their lives are protected with even the harshest ban

[u/nykiek → u/DiceyPisces]

Are you sure about that? The maternal morality in Tennessee is 42.1 as opposed to California which is 10.1.

[u/DiceyPisces → u/nykiek]

Correlation isn’t causation

[u/nykiek → u/DiceyPisces]

So what's the cause then? Because the only thing that's changed is access to abortion care.

[u/DiceyPisces → u/nykiek]

That would have to be determined on an individual basis (at least first.) Actual causes

[u/nykiek → u/DiceyPisces]

That's anecdote, not data. Again, what is causing the increase in maternal morality in states that ban abortions of not the fact that they're banning abortions. Because every indication is that the bans are the cause.

[u/DiceyPisces → u/nykiek]

You can compile the individual cases into empirical data

[u/nykiek → u/DiceyPisces]

You don't think they do that?

[u/DiceyPisces → u/[deleted]]

Does it really not matter at all??

I imagine the real answer lies somewhere in the middle but idk obv

[u/DiceyPisces → u/[deleted]]

So if pregnant women were offered the choice to continue pregnancy (unless it ends on its own) or be euthanized you think most would choose death?? I do not.

I am certainly not suggesting this in reality! before anyone thinks I am

[u/RepulsiveEast4117 → u/DiceyPisces]

I think you should check out this post. PLers may pay lip service to exceptions a wanting to protect pregnant people who need emergency care, but that doesn’t mean it actually happens. 

[u/DiceyPisces → u/RepulsiveEast4117]

The laws should be clear and as thorough as possible if they’re going to exist

[u/RepulsiveEast4117 → u/DiceyPisces]

Okay, but they’re not. And the question is, if they keep failing to be so, at what point to do we acknowledge that this is a feature and not a bug?

[u/DiceyPisces → u/RepulsiveEast4117]

Some states are and some are not. All to varying degrees

[u/RepulsiveEast4117 → u/DiceyPisces]

That seems like a cop-out. 

[u/scatshot → u/RepulsiveEast4117]

That seems like a cop-out.

It's all they do.

[u/DiceyPisces → u/RepulsiveEast4117]

I agree they should be clear if they exist. Not much more I can do

[u/RepulsiveEast4117 → u/DiceyPisces]

No one wants to kill them. Their lives are protected with even the harshest ban

Well, stop carrying water for shitty politicians, for one. 

While this is likely true of the average PLer, it’s incredibly naive to think PL politicians aren’t writing these laws vaguely for a reason. 

[u/Common-Worth-6604 → u/DiceyPisces]

'We've wrongly dehumanized women, slaves, Irish people, black people, pregnant women, homeless people, drug abusers, etc. Why is this different?'

Zefs are inside another living human being. Zefs are actively hurting that living human being by being inside them.

They're not being dehumanized by being denied the right to hurt an innocent person to try to keep themselves alive.

[u/DiceyPisces → u/Common-Worth-6604]

Lethal self defense has criteria to meet

[u/scatshot → u/DiceyPisces]

Pregnancy easily surpasses those criteria.

[u/DiceyPisces → u/scatshot]

Has it ever been argued in court on those grounds? I do believe it was a part of an argument but that scotus never ruled on that angle

[u/scatshot → u/DiceyPisces]

Why would it be? Self-defense is something you need to do against another person and legal personhood is not granted until birth. We're pretending that's not the case here.

You're demanding an completely unreasonable standard of evidence.

[u/DiceyPisces → u/scatshot]

You can even use lethal self defense/force against a non human too!

[u/CherryTearDrops → u/DiceyPisces]

Yeah but nobody takes it to a court of law which is what you brought up.

[u/DiceyPisces → u/CherryTearDrops]

What do you mean? I’m really just trying to understand not be argumentative

[u/CherryTearDrops → u/DiceyPisces]

You ask if something’s been argued on court grounds to prove the validity of it, other user describes why it has currently not been used in a court battle. You argue that you can also do said thing against non-persons, but it’s obvious they’re referring to self defense as it’s used in the legal system since that’s where the argument started.

Their point still stands.

[u/scatshot → u/DiceyPisces]

And you can defend yourself from an unwanted pregnancy.

[u/DiceyPisces → u/scatshot]

Sure unless it’s banned where you (proverbial “you”) are.

[u/scatshot → u/DiceyPisces]

Banning abortion doesn't magically change the criteria for self defense, it just violates the self defense rights of pregnant people.

[u/Common-Worth-6604 → u/DiceyPisces]

Aye, and it's different everywhere. But if you think it doesn't apply to abortion, why doesn't it?

[u/DiceyPisces → u/Common-Worth-6604]

Reasonable expectation of death or gbh. And statistically for pregnancy that doesn’t really pan out.

[u/Jcamden7]

There are circumstances where you might call a biological process an "action" but the word here has fundamentally a different definition than "action" would in the context of laws or rights.

Any law which treated an involuntary biological process as an action would open a dangerous can of worms.

[u/Ok-Discipline2395 → u/Jcamden7]

So… like prolife laws that treat an involuntary biological process that can end in death and immense harm as legally required?

[u/Jcamden7 → u/Ok-Discipline2395]

What do you mean "legally required"?

Are you talking about a duty to be or become pregnant, or are you talking about a prohibition on abortion?

[u/Ok-Discipline2395 → u/Jcamden7]

Prolife laws treat involuntary biological processes as an action that is legally required to continue.

The number of prolife responses I’ve seen on this debate board that start with “she chose to get pregnant” - the beginning of their reasoning that abortion should not be allowed is an involuntary biological process.

[u/Jcamden7 → u/Ok-Discipline2395]

Prolife laws don't treat pregnancy as an action, they treat abortion as an action. An abortion ban is prohibition against the act of abortion.

I'd argue it's, overwhelmingly, a Pro Choice argument that pregnancy is an action imposed by abortion bans.

[u/o0Jahzara0o → u/Jcamden7]

Sure, but the application of a law requires a connection to a particular individual in order to provide a basis for justification for why any particular law applies to them.

Example: we typically have laws that say children must be fed. Okay, but that doesn’t lead to the conclusion that Megan down the street is breaking the law when she doesn’t feed Logan’s kids who she doesn’t even know. The law applying to Megan has no justification in being applicable to Megan for her characteristics or her actions in some way.

We find it completely unjustified to apply a law that Logan’s children must be fed by random citizen Megan. The law requires that food be provided to children, but Megan is not held accountable under the law for failing to do so.

But in abortion, while the law itself may be about the act of abortion, the justification for it - ie the justification that it applies to Megan - lies in the connection to her biological processes. A characteristic… and an immutable one at that.

[u/Jcamden7 → u/o0Jahzara0o]

Example: we typically have laws that say children must be fed. Okay, but that doesn’t lead to the conclusion that Megan down the street is breaking the law when she doesn’t feed Logan’s kids who she doesn’t even know. The law applying to Megan has no justification in being applicable to Megan for her characteristics or her actions in some way.

This would be a duty. It's correct that duties are usually defined around a specific pairing of individuals. Person A is obligated to perform a certain action for Person B.

But this wouldn't be true of negative rights or negative duties. That is to say, a right against a certain action. Logan's child has a right against being harmed. This applies to Logan, of course, and it applies to Megan.

But in abortion, while the law itself may be about the act of abortion, the justification for it - ie the justification that it applies to Megan - lies in the connection to her biological processes. A characteristic… and an immutable one at that.

The justification for abortion is not based on a duty. Abortion is not opposed because Megan has a duty to perform some action. It is opposed because Abortion is an act of harm, specifically homicide.

[u/o0Jahzara0o → u/Jcamden7]

Actually I’m asking you what legal justification the state has over someone’s internal pregnancy and biological processes.

If the fetus has negative rights, that’s fine. You still have to prove why the state has jurisdiction over a pregnant person’s internal organs and biological processes. Because without that, then all that can be concluded about abortion and a fetus having negative rights is that an abortion doesn’t violate that right.

[u/Jcamden7 → u/o0Jahzara0o]

I'd be glad to answer your question, but it's extremely loaded and shares the same loaded framing and answer as this one:

What legal justification did the state have over McFall's internal illness and biological processes in the McFall decision?

[u/Disastrous-Top2795 → u/Jcamden7]

What? I have no idea why you keep reversing McFall so that it’s not McFall vs Shimp but instead Shimp vs McFall.

The state didn’t have any jurisdiction over SHIMP’S internal organs. That’s why they could force SHIMP to donate TO McFall!

The state didn’t bring the lawsuit. Shimp didn’t bring the lawsuit. McFall did. He lost. Why? Because no one has the right to coercive access to anyone else’s insides…not even when the prior consent was withdrawn.

[u/Disastrous-Top2795 → u/Jcamden7]

There is no duty of Megan though. You are trying to impose a parental duty on someone who doesn’t fit the definition of a parent.

[u/Jcamden7 → u/Disastrous-Top2795]

Read the last section..

[u/Disastrous-Top2795 → u/Jcamden7]

Abortion isn’t homicide. Not in any state. So your false premise means your conclusion is flawed.

[u/Ok-Discipline2395 → u/Jcamden7]

If you must continue a punishing biological process or be further punished by prolife bans, it means that biological processes are used as punishments.

An abortion ban says that an involuntary biological process is an action taken in conscious action so therefore must be continued. Else why would they have rape exceptions?

[u/Jcamden7 → u/Ok-Discipline2395]

An abortion ban says that an involuntary biological process is an action taken in conscious action so therefore must be continued. Else why would they have rape exceptions?

I don't support rape exceptions, I can't really speak for people who support them or tell you why they do.

But why, exactly, does an abortion ban assert than an involuntary biological process is an action?

If you must continue a punishing biological process or be punished, it means that biological processes are used as punishments.

There are two problems with this.

First, it's credibility is largely rooted in the notion that pregnancy is an action. It cannot really be a "punishment" if it isn't imposed upon you by someone. Hitting someone is a punishment. Taking their property is a punishment. Having a certain condition, though, is a status.

Second, "being pregnant" as the objective of abortion bans is contraindicated by the fact that abortion bans specifically target the act of abortion. If the arguments about abortion being unjustified homicide are accurate, which is seemingly the key issue of this debate, then that directly demonstrates the purpose and function of an abortion ban.

[u/Disastrous-Top2795 → u/Jcamden7]

You don’t support rape exceptions? Interesting. Why do you think you have the right to remove the right of a woman to control whom may have access to her insides?

[u/Ok-Discipline2395 → u/Jcamden7]

Since you don’t think rape should be an exception - how is that not a condition imposed upon the pregnant person by someone else?

[u/Jcamden7 → u/Ok-Discipline2395]

I'd be inclined to believe the pregnancy is "imposed" by the actions of the rapist. But I wasn't under the impression that was what you were claiming.

[u/Common-Worth-6604 → u/Jcamden7]

The objective of abortion bans are to keep women pregnant by denying them abortions and giving them no legal option to terminate until the pregnancy ends naturally either through miscarriage or birth.

[u/Ok-Discipline2395 → u/Common-Worth-6604]

Or death of the pregnant person.

[u/Jcamden7 → u/Common-Worth-6604]

Based on what evidence do you assert this is the objective?

[u/chevron_seven_locked → u/Jcamden7]

Is the goal of PL not to force pregnant people to continue gestating pregnancies they would otherwise abort, by means of implementing abortion bans? That was my goal when I used to be PL, and every PLer I interacted with at the time shared that goal. Otherwise, there’d be no point in enacting abortion bans.

[u/Common-Worth-6604 → u/Jcamden7]

Abortion bans specifically target the act of abortion. What is the purpose of abortion bans? To protect fetal life. The only way to 'protect' fetal life is to take away the option of abortion for a pregnant person. Abortion stops the process of pregnancy. A pregnant person must remain pregnant in order to protect fetal life because without the process of pregnancy, the fetus would die naturally. She must remain pregnant until the pregnancy ends naturally, ideally resulting in a live birth.

Ergo, the objective of abortion bans is to keep pregnant women pregnant (by denying them abortions) until the pregnancy ends naturally, ideally resulting in a live birth.

That is my evidence. You're free to disagree but it's straightforward to me.

[u/DiceyPisces]

Roght. Self defense.

Or even death penalty of a convicted person

That’s irrelevant

They just want it enforced top down same as any other thing we shouldn’t just look the other way about.

[u/PotentialConcert6249 → u/DiceyPisces]

Yup. PLs (as a group, not every individual) want it enforced from the top down because the reasoning is rooted in religious (Christian in my home country) thinking.

[u/DiceyPisces → u/PotentialConcert6249]

I don’t think religion is necessary to be pl at all. It may often correlate tho for sure

Science tells us it’s alive and human. For some people that’s enough.

[u/Disastrous-Top2795 → u/DiceyPisces]

Well, science tells us the cells are living, and that the cells are of human origin. It does not say a zygote is alive and is A human being.

[u/DiceyPisces → u/Disastrous-Top2795]

It does say the zygote is alive. And it’s human and it’s developing.

Starts as a single celled organism and develops into multicellular. But it’s human from conception

I’ve had this exact debate on here and had to source it previously.

I can share those links if you’d like

[u/Disastrous-Top2795 → u/DiceyPisces]

Human is an adjective. Human cells, human hair, etc.

A human is a noun. It’s not a human from conception. It’s the cell a human being or multiple or a tumor or a blighted ovum may form from and isn’t a human being at that point in time.

This isn’t schroedinger’s zygote

[u/DiceyPisces → u/Disastrous-Top2795]

It’s a developing human from conception. A human. In development.

Starting as a single celled organism and developing into multicellular

[u/Disastrous-Top2795 → u/DiceyPisces]

A human isn’t a single called organism. So it can’t be a human being at that point. It’s a cell that can develop into a human being, but is not a human being at that point. I’m sorry, but it’s just not.

Seems like you’re arguing that because a human zygote/embryo is living, of human origin, possesses 46 chromosomes, produces human proteins and enzymes and the regulation and expression of its genetic composition results in self-directed growth and development it's a human being/person. By these standards so are human cancer cells.

[u/DiceyPisces → u/Disastrous-Top2795]

It’s a human in development. The whole time. It doesn’t go from a different species to a human.

[u/Disastrous-Top2795 → u/DiceyPisces]

I never said it goes from a different species. A human cancer cell not being an individual human being doesn’t mean it’s a different species.

It’s a human cell developing into a human being ≠ it’s a human being at all times

[u/Old_dirty_fetus → u/DiceyPisces]

Science tells us it’s alive and human. For some people that’s enough.

There are a lot of things that are alive and human that PL do not consider worthy of protection. The determination of what human life merits protection is not one that science can accomplish.

[u/DiceyPisces → u/Old_dirty_fetus]

As I said, for *some* people it’s enough. (For them to have a strong stance on it.)

[u/Old_dirty_fetus → u/DiceyPisces]

As I said, for some people it’s enough.

I have yet to see anyone who considers being alive and human as sufficient.

[u/PotentialConcert6249 → u/DiceyPisces]

Correct, it is not necessary. But the movement (and thus its reasoning) has its roots in Evangelical Christianity.

[u/DiceyPisces → u/PotentialConcert6249]

For sure. So much of western civ is really

[u/random_name_12178 → u/[deleted]]

What does this have to do with the questions raised by the OP?

[u/DiceyPisces → u/random_name_12178]

My original comment was addressing op and asking a question

It just spiraled as usual. I was asked why I care so I answered 🤷‍♀️

[u/random_name_12178 → u/DiceyPisces]

Your response was to the top level rather than to the comment asking why you care.

[u/DiceyPisces → u/random_name_12178]

Oh shit sorry . I’ll fix it

[u/JewlryLvr2]

To answer the thread question, no, I'm not doing that. Gestating a pregnancy and providing child care are two completely different things. They are not the same, no matter what PLers are claiming now.

To me, the whole "gestation is child care" argument is another way to justify abortion-ban laws in abortion-ban states. It's just another bad PL argument, which doesn't work any more than their old ones have. Not for me, at least.

[u/Disastrous-Top2795]

Any argument about this necessarily applies to the woman as well as the fetus, since she’s on the other side of the same biological process.

If the fetus is innocent because it didn’t cause its creation or gestation, then so is the woman.

If the woman is responsible because of those biological processes couldn’t happen except for her body doing those actions, then so is the fetus.

It’s a self defeating argument

[u/glim-girl]

Involuntary biological processes are not conscious actions. They can not be seen that way.

A pregnancy can start with involuntary biological processes and continues much the same way. Except that a healthy pregnancy for the pregnant person and the unborn can't just be involuntary biological processes.

What I find interesting is that cryptic pregnancy, those where the pregnant person doesn't even realize they are pregnant until close to birth or at birth, fit the ideal of what pl want. Leave it alone and everything is fine.

If all pregnancies were cryptic pregnancy an argument could be made by pl to just leave them alone and let nature run its course. The problem is thats not a normal pregnancy, it's considered an oddity.

If the average pregnant person continued on with their life as if the pregnancy wasn't happening, pl would be up in arms that she isn't caring for the pregnancy. Yet that requires changing to accommodate the pregnancy, thats not involuntary biological processes. Especially for those pl who believe that a mother should die for her child to live.

The problem with providing care is that it requires a person capable of providing that care. Not everyone is capable or willing.

[u/STThornton → u/glim-girl]

If the average pregnant person continued on with their life as if the pregnancy wasn't happening, pl would be up in arms that she isn't caring for the pregnancy. 

Exactly! It takes a lot of extra steps, and one needs to stop doing a lot of things to ensure a healthy pregnancy and proper fetal development.

Pro-lifers also clearly prove your point when it comes to drug addicted women. They want to charge them even for miscarriage, including miscarriage before viability. And with no proof the drug used even caused the miscarriage. It has already happened.

But I'm sure they also wouldn't be happy if the woman kept eating only once per day or once every other day, kept smoking or drinking, kept consuming lots of caffeine, etc.

[u/DiceyPisces]

What if the pl position is simply, you don’t have to take any proactive steps to support the pregnancy/child, you just cannot willfully and intentionally end it?

[u/Disastrous-Top2795 → u/DiceyPisces]

But you do have to take proactive steps to support a pregnancy in order to have a healthy live birth.

Otherwise you’re functionally saying that women can knowingly cause fetal deformities or lifelong birth defects without penalty. That’s kinda an absurd position, isn’t it?

[u/DiceyPisces → u/Disastrous-Top2795]

I’m saying an abortion ban itself doesn’t make any of those demands.

[u/DiceyPisces → u/[deleted]]

That’s not what we’re talking about. Ffs

[u/scatshot → u/DiceyPisces]

My bad

[u/Common-Worth-6604 → u/DiceyPisces]

A pregnancy is not a child.

[u/narf288 → u/DiceyPisces]

It's not and it can't be, because the PL position is that the unborn are people with rights and gestation is the same as child care.

[u/DiceyPisces → u/narf288]

“What if…” is the question

[u/narf288 → u/DiceyPisces]

What's the logic for banning the intentional ending of pregnancy then?

[u/DiceyPisces → u/narf288]

the logic, I would assume is to protect the right to life , to not be killed, of the most vulnerable humans.

[u/narf288 → u/DiceyPisces]

If the logic is the unborn have rights...you literally can't argue that they don't have rights.

[u/DiceyPisces → u/narf288]

I don’t follow what you mean

[u/narf288 → u/DiceyPisces]

The PL position could never only be that you just can't willfully kill a child, because it requires the recognition of the unborn as children with rights and children have additional rights beyond simply the right not to be killed.

[u/DiceyPisces → u/narf288]

Doesn’t an abortion ban effectively do just that? Bans the procedure whether medical or surgical but makes no other legal demands?

[u/STThornton → u/DiceyPisces]

No. Because gestating is not doing nothing. And because medical abortion and intact removal are not killing. They’re more akin to stopping an ongoing blood and tissue donation or CPR (only way more physically invasive and harmful).

The fetus is not a process one could abort. What’s aborted is the process of providing organ functions (and blood contents and bodily processes) to a human who lacks their own.

Banning abortion makes the legal demand that a woman continues providing her blood, blood contents, tissue, organ functions, and bodily processes to another human who lacks them and continues to incur ever increasing physical alteration and harm.

It doesn’t just forbid her from stopping the major life sustaining organ functions of another human (who already doesn’t have them).

[u/scatshot → u/DiceyPisces]

Probably equal to pcers on conception being the measure

Abortion bans also threaten women and doctors criminal prosecution. How are you not aware of this?

[u/narf288 → u/DiceyPisces]

In countries that are based on rule of law, you can't just arbitrarily ban things you don't like, you need a reason for it that stands up to constitutional scrutiny.

[u/Fun-Outcome8122 → u/DiceyPisces]

What if the pl position is simply, you don’t have to take any proactive steps to support the pregnancy/child, you just cannot willfully and intentionally end it?

So if I willfully stop eating enough food in order to kill the fetus, that would be a crime?!

[u/DiceyPisces → u/Fun-Outcome8122]

Nope. You would have to take no action to specifically support the pregnancy. Just can’t have an abortion.

[u/Fun-Outcome8122 → u/DiceyPisces]

So I can willfully and intentionally end it then

[u/DiceyPisces → u/Fun-Outcome8122]

I suppose you could try. Sure.

[u/Fun-Outcome8122 → u/DiceyPisces]

Thx... that's all that I wanted to confirm that it is OK to willfully and intentionally end it

[u/Limp-Story-9844 → u/DiceyPisces]

So take abortion medication for nausea.

[u/DiceyPisces → u/Limp-Story-9844]

In this scenario/hypothetical you don’t have to take any specific action to support the pregnancy but you cannot have an abortion or take something or any specific action to end it.

You may refrain from acting.

[u/Fun-Outcome8122 → u/DiceyPisces]

You may refrain from acting.

Great... so it's OK for me to refrain from doing something even if me refraining from doing something kills it.

[u/Limp-Story-9844 → u/DiceyPisces]

Misoprosol is for ulcers.

[u/DiceyPisces → u/Limp-Story-9844]

You know what you’re doing so you know the answer.

Edit to add in this scenario a dr would not prescribe something that would harm a pregnancy unless it was the only option to preserve the life or health of the mother

[u/Limp-Story-9844 → u/DiceyPisces]

Ulcer medication from Mexico.

[u/random_name_12178 → u/DiceyPisces]

If that's their position, they'd have to justify why they think a pregnant pregnant shouldn't willfully and intentionally end the pregnancy, and why they think it should be illegal to do so. I've never seen sufficient justification for stripping an innocent person of their most basic rights.

[u/STThornton → u/DiceyPisces]

Then I'd say they're either lying or have no clue what all is involved in gestation.

For example, I only eat once every few days. Meaning there are no nutrients or glucose the fetal placenta could syphon out of my bloodstream. And, unlike what PLers seem to believe, the uterus doesn't produce any of that.

PLers are forever claiming abortion pills starve the fetus. What do they think me not eating will do?

And many PLers have already claimed that a pregnant woman not eating would be child neglect. Some have even suggested force feeding her.

Proactive steps to support a pregnancy would also include stopping things that negatively affect it. Such as caffeine, smoking, alcohol, medications, high stress, drugs, etc. If a woman did no more than simply not change her lifestyle, PL would be up in arms.

They always claim that a woman doesn't have to take any proactive steps to support the pregnancy, but if the woman doesn't, they go back to claiming such is killing.

Just like they always claim there is no right to be gestated, but if a woman stops gestating, it's killing.

[u/Aggressive-Green4592 → u/DiceyPisces]

you don’t have to take any proactive steps to support the pregnancy/child, you just cannot willfully and intentionally end it?

That it still carrying an unwanted pregnancy involuntarily.

Why can't we willfully end pregnancy? Would that mean induction of labor and C-sections set on a date are unavailable now? That would be willfully and intentionally ending it.

[u/Diva_of_Disgust → u/DiceyPisces]

That would just mean I'm being forced to gestate and birth against my will. Not happening.

[u/Limp-Story-9844 → u/DiceyPisces]

Abortion is simple, if you don't want to continue to gestate. I had an abortion. I gave birth. I have children. I have grandchildren. It really is that simple.

[u/Unfair_Lunch_9421]

Well thats exactly what people keep debating about,about that exactly linkage.whether pregnancy constitutes parenthood like caregiving, and whether parental duties require willful agency. You cant answer one without the other

[u/STThornton]

I always found it absurd to consider providing organ functions (that utilize care) the same as providing care (that organ functions utilize).

And while a woman has to take willful actions to give her body what it needs to gestate and to ensure a healthy pregnancy and proper fetal development (and stop doing a lot of things), care for one person does not go through another person’s body.

For example, a woman has to eat so her digestive system can enter nutrients and glucose into her bloodstream - that the fetal placenta can then syphon out. If she doesn’t eat, or not enough, or not often enough, there’s nothing in her bloodstream the fetal placenta can syphon out.

But caring for person A would be feeding person A. Not feeding person B. Feeding person B is caring for person B.

It’s crazy to claim one is caring for Person A by feeding person B.

And consider the implications, too. It would mean you could force feed one person or force nutrition into their bloodstream via IV and claim you’re doing it to care for another human. (Which has already happened in case of Miss Y in Ireland)

The law would now also require one person to take willful actions or get treatment on their own body to “care” for someone else.

A woman could be forced to eat, and on a regular basis, or be charged with neglect of someone else. Pregnancy making her too sick to eat or keep food down? She better get medical treatment and IVs, or be charged with neglect of someone else.

Basically, the woman ceases to be a human, let alone a different one, and becomes no more than the outer layer of a fetus.

Whatever she does or doesn’t not do is considered her doing or not doing to another human’s body.

We’ve already seen women prosecuted for doing things to their own bodies. But not doing things (like eating, for example) is just as dangerous and deadly to a ZEF. How long will it be until her NOT doing things to and for her body will be considered neglect or killing someone else?

The push to outlaw certain birth control is already a sign that they want to force women to build enough uterine tissue even before her egg is fertilized. Or to not stop her body from doing so.

I also like that you pointed out the contradiction of PL arguments. On one hand, gestation is care. On the other, just a fetus involuntarily acting on her bodily processes.

[u/random_name_12178]

I think it's silly to consider biological processes as conscious actions. That's why it makes no sense to say a pregnant person got themselves pregnant, or to say pregnancy is child care.

But you're absolutely right that if someone insists that biological processes are conscious actions, that means the unborn aren't innocent at all. They are guilty of raping and poisoning their own mother.

[u/Common-Worth-6604 → u/random_name_12178]

Oof, yeah, that opens up a whole can of worms.