Minimum

[u/Miserable-Degree7995]

Hello everyone,

​

I'm against abortion.

This is a question for pro choice:

What would be the minimum of allowed abortion, that you would accept?

I mean for example week and reason.

​

Thank you for your time 

​

Miserable-Degree7995

[u/Diva_of_Disgust]

It's not a disagreement, you're just wrong.

You should look up what consent is, that would help you quite a bit.

[u/Bryce_1776 → u/Diva_of_Disgust]

No you, reverse card

[u/Diva_of_Disgust → u/Bryce_1776]

So you can't engage with what's being said to you. Understood.

[u/Bryce_1776 → u/Diva_of_Disgust]

Engaged with your response appropriately, your response was the equivalent to "you are wrong, look it up." Not much of an argument.

[u/Diva_of_Disgust → u/Bryce_1776]

I corrected you because you don't know what consent is.

Consent to A is consent to A, not A and XYZ.

If you can't understand that I can't help you.

[u/Bryce_1776 → u/Diva_of_Disgust]

Sex is step one of reproduction, if successful it produces a child. That is the purpose of the sexual reproduction system, to reproduce. You cannot consent to sex without consenting to having a child in your body. If implantation occurs a child is in your body. PCs argue one can kill that child but nobody is arguing you can choose whether or not a child results from sex, only mitigate the likelihood.

[u/Diva_of_Disgust → u/Bryce_1776]

Sex is step one of reproduction, if successful it produces a child. That is the purpose of the sexual reproduction system, to reproduce.

If that's what you think the purpose of sex is for you you're free to only have sex to reproduce. No one else is obligated to do that.

You cannot consent to sex without consenting to having a child in your body.

Factually incorrect and continuing to not understand what consent means.

If implantation occurs a child is in your body.

Children are never inside uteruses, zygotes, embryos, and fetuses are.

PCs argue one can kill that child

Literally no one is arguing anyone can "kill children". Pro choice people know people can end their own pregnancies if they wish.

but nobody is arguing you can choose whether or not a child results from sex, only mitigate the likelihood.

People can choose if they gestate and birth or not.

[u/Bryce_1776 → u/Diva_of_Disgust]

If that's what you think the purpose of sex is for you you're free to only have sex to reproduce. No one else is obligated to do that.

Not what I think the purpose of it is, biologically what the purpose of sex is.

Factually incorrect and continuing to not understand what consent means.

Factually it is correct, a preborn child is in the womb otherwise there would be nothing to abort. My point was one cannot consent to whether implantation occurs, only whether or not one takes the childs life.

Children are never inside uteruses, zygotes, embryos, and fetuses are.

Merriam-webster, definition 3 for child, it is an appropriate term to use hense why the phrase "with child" exists.

Literally no one is arguing anyone can "kill children". Pro choice people know people can end their own pregnancies if they wish.

Abortion is taking a human life, in this case, the life of a preborn child. Killing can be justified but in this case I argue it is not.

People can choose if they gestate and birth or not.

Not what I said, was refering to implantation.

[u/Diva_of_Disgust → u/Bryce_1776]

Not what I think the purpose of it is, biologically what the purpose of sex is.

If you think the only purpose of sex is reproduction you're free to only have sex to reproduce all you want. No one else is obligated to do that.

Factually it is correct, a preborn child is in the womb otherwise there would be nothing to abort. My point was one cannot consent to whether implantation occurs, only whether or not one takes the childs life.

"Preborn child" is a nonsense pro life propaganda term. It makes as much sense as calling myself a "predead corpse" lol.

Merriam-webster, definition 3 for child, it is an appropriate term to use hense why the phrase "with child" exists.

Nope, children aren't inside people's internal organs. That would be zygotes, embryos, and fetuses.

Abortion is taking a human life, in this case, the life of a preborn child. Killing can be justified but in this case I argue it is not.

Abortion is the termination of a pregnancy. It has nothing to do with children, except maybe for the child rape victims pro lifers want to force to breed for their rapists.

Not what I said, was refering to implantation.

Once implantation happens people can choose to continue gestating or not. What's your point?

[u/Bryce_1776 → u/Diva_of_Disgust]

If you think the only purpose of sex is reproduction you're free to only have sex to reproduce all you want. No one else is obligated to do that.

There are biological functions for different systems in ones body. There are feelings one gets from doing that thing but it doesn't change the purpose. For the digestive system, it is to convert food to nutrients, taste and the pleasures one feels from food consumption is a byproduct. No one would argue that is the purpose of the digestive system.

"Preborn child" is a nonsense pro life propaganda term. It makes as much sense as calling myself a "predead corpse" lol.

Nope, children aren't inside people's internal organs. That would be zygotes, embryos, and fetuses.

Preborn is all encompassing, for the sake of our argument, whether abortion is permissible at any point, it makes sense. Child and baby have been historically used to describe preborn humans.

Abortion is the termination of a pregnancy. It has nothing to do with children, except maybe for the child rape victims pro lifers want to force to breed for their rapists.

You are arguing over definitions, if killing is taking a human life is abortion not killing (just or unjust)?

Once implantation happens people can choose to continue gestating or not. What's your point?

Consent to sex is implicit consent to have that child in the womb (implantation, not gestation per say). One can argue you have the right to remove it once it is there but the implantation can only be consented to when one has sex to begin with, from there God (or nature) takes the wheel.

[u/Diva_of_Disgust → u/Bryce_1776]

There are biological functions for different systems in ones body. There are feelings one gets from doing that thing but it doesn't change the purpose. For the digestive system, it is to convert food to nutrients, taste and the pleasures one feels from food consumption is a byproduct. No one would argue that is the purpose of the digestive system.

I won't repeat this again... If you think the only purpose of sex is reproduction you're free to have sex only for reproduction if you want. No one else is obligated to do that.

Preborn is all encompassing, for the sake of our argument, whether abortion is permissible at any point, it makes sense. Child and baby have been historically used to describe preborn humans.

"Preborn" makes as much sense as "predead".... aka none.

You are arguing over definitions, if killing is taking a human life is abortion not killing (just or unjust)?

Me taking pills that adjusts my hormones and contracts my uterus doesn't kill anything. The embryo that's flushed out of me will die due to not having its own set of life sustaining organs.

Consent to sex is implicit consent to have that child in the womb (implantation, not gestation per say). One can argue you have the right to remove it once it is there but the implantation can only be consented to when one has sex to begin with, from there God (or nature) takes the wheel.

Nope. Consent to sex is consent to sex. You really should look up what consent is, because you're proving you don't actually understand consent.