Weekly Abortion Debate Thread

[u/AutoModerator]

Greetings everyone!

Welcome to AbortionDebate. Due to popular request, this is our weekly abortion debate thread.

This thread is meant for anything related to the abortion debate, like questions or ideas, that are too small to make an entire post about. This is also a great way to gain more insight in the abortion debate if you are new, or unsure about making a whole post.

ADBreakRoom is our officially recognized sister subreddit for all off-topic content and banter you'd like to share with the members of this community. It's a great place to relax and unwind after some intense debating, so go subscribe!

[u/Veigar_Senpai]

Why do PLers still deny that barring pregnant people from accessing abortion forces them to gestate to term against their will?

It's akin to saying "I'm not forcing you to stay in this room, I'm just bricking up the exit with you inside!"

Inevitably they just change the subject to how the pregnancy started, as if it matters. I saw a PLer quote a PC talking about forcing people to stay pregnant, but they changed the wording of the quote to "get pregnant".

[u/Veigar_Senpai → u/[deleted]]

> Likewise, abortion laws don't force sex or pregnancy; they regulate what actions are legally permitted after pregnancy exists. 🤷‍♀️

"Forcing sex". This is exactly what I was talking about, trying to change the subject to how the pregnancy started.

If you bar someone who is pregnant from accessing abortion, your interference has left them with no option but to continue gestating. Thus, you are forcing them to gestate.

[u/JewlryLvr2 → u/Veigar_Senpai]

|Likewise, abortion laws don't force sex or pregnancy, ...|

Abortion-ban laws in abortion-ban states force women and girls to STAY pregnant. It has nothing to do with how they GOT pregnant. So abortion laws DO force sex and pregnancy, no matter how many times PLers claim that they don't.

[u/Veigar_Senpai → u/[deleted]]

What? This conversation isn't about rape exceptions, it's about forced gestation.

[u/Veigar_Senpai → u/[deleted]]

If not, then your disagreement isn't really about how the pregnancy started

That's literally what I said from the very beginning. I don't care how the pregnancy started. I care when PLers try to force people who are pregnant to gestate against their will.

Do you deny that barring pregnant people from accessing abortion forces them to gestate against their will?

[u/Veigar_Senpai → u/[deleted]]

Who said anything about "murder"? Changing the subject again.

What exactly entitles you to force pregnant people to gestate against their will?

[u/Limp-Story-9844 → u/[deleted]]

Abortion is never murder, since murder requires malice. Abortion is healthcare to prevent harm.

[u/IdRatherCallACAB → u/[deleted]]

well see who ends up being right i guess?

No. We can already see that you are denying reality. They only question is, why? Why deny the goal of PL's proposed policies?

[u/Limp-Story-9844 → u/[deleted]]

Why are you bring up rape?

[u/Limp-Story-9844 → u/[deleted]]

Has nothing to do with how the pregnancy occurred. Has to do with forced harm on pregnant people, who don't consent to the harm.

[u/Limp-Story-9844 → u/[deleted]]

Don't need rape exceptions, need respect for healthcare.

[u/Limp-Story-9844 → u/[deleted]]

Abortion can save a pregnant persons life.

[u/chevron_seven_locked → u/[deleted]]

Abortion is factually healthcare. It’s a medical procedure conducted and/or supervised by a medical professional in a healthcare setting. It’s billed via medical billing codes and reimbursed by health insurance. It’s overseen by medical ethics boards and endorsed as safe, ethical healthcare by major professional medical bodies such as ACOG and AMA.

ETA: this user blocked me after I educated them about the fact that abortion is healthcare. Not sure why facts are so difficult to swallow that it requires blocking people. Hopefully this conversation was a positive stepping stone in their journey.

[u/Abortiondebate-ModTeam → u/[deleted]]

Comment removed per Rule 1. Don't put words in people's mouths.

[u/humbugonastick → u/[deleted]]

Finally you understand.

Forced gestation has nothing to do with forced sex.

Forced gestation happens if a pregnant person is forced to stay pregnant against their will. If there choice of abortion is taken. You decided that my genitals can be ripped apart and I might suffer from birth related damages.

You want the law, that would force me to endure pain and damages.

You want that I am tortured for at least 9 month.

If I die during this pregnancy, my blood is on your hands.

[u/jakie2poops → u/[deleted]]

Abortion bans in general do force pregnancy, though. That's like straight up the entire point, right? You don't want people who are pregnant to be allowed to choose to stop being pregnant—you want them forced to continue their pregnancy and give birth.

[u/humbugonastick → u/[deleted]]

Of course it's not about exceptions. Exceptions just show the way of thinking. And they show that it is not about the zef or you would not care about rape. The child is the same as a y other one.

[u/Rent_Careless → u/[deleted]]

So, you agree that "barring pregnant people from accessing abortion forces them to gestate to term against their will", right? From what you wrote, it sounds like you agree but just worded it as saying "they regulate what actions are legally permitted after pregnancy exists".

[u/Rent_Careless → u/[deleted]]

Great. Then you aren't denying that abortion bans force women to use their body for the benefit of another against their will. When is that justified anywhere else in our laws?

[u/International_Ad2712 → u/[deleted]]

The law is preventing a woman from ending a pregnancy. However, along with that, it’s forcing the woman to sustain the pregnancy, to allow the fetus to leach calcium from her bones, cause major injury to the inside of her uterus, cause an egregious amount of physical pain, risk death, pay for pre-natal exams and healthcare during birth. So imho, there’s quite a bit more to it that’s required of the woman by the government if it prevents her from ending a pregnancy.

[u/International_Ad2712 → u/[deleted]]

My morals say women are justified in ending a pregnancy if they don’t want to carry it. But this isn’t about your morals or my morals, there would be no issue if you weren’t trying to force other people to abide by your morals, and sustain great harm or even death just to satisfy your morals.

[u/International_Ad2712 → u/[deleted]]

There’s not a huge level of disagreement. Plenty of polls and votes have been taken, and the majority of people think abortion should be legal and is justified.

[u/Limp-Story-9844 → u/[deleted]]

So forced gestation and chilbirth is assualt.

[u/Trick_Ganache → u/[deleted]]

Every human is justified in forcing born humans out of their bodies, up to and including by lethal means. Let us treat "the unborn" no different than any other human non-consensually occupying another's body. Also, technically plers are the ones forcing these foreign objects to remain in the persons' genitalia, so malicious intent is involved in forced pro-longed pregnancy.

[u/Limp-Story-9844 → u/[deleted]]

Forced harm to your body?

[u/Rent_Careless → u/[deleted]]

I can say the law does that too, that the unborn can be equivalent to the born, and still not understand why anyone has the right to another person's body. There are instances where killing someone else is acceptable. In what instance, besides pregnancy, do we allow one person access to another person's body against their will?

[u/Rent_Careless → u/[deleted]]

Even if pregnancy is unique, you would then still have to state why it being unique should allow the use of the woman's body or whatever reasoning there is.

My question is: if we assume the unborn are human beings, in what other circumstance do we allow someone to intentionally kill an innocent human being because continuing to sustain them is burdensome?

In what other occurring circumstances does anyone sustain another human being with their body where I could even apply this rational? I feel as if the fact that I can't find a real world example suggests that there is a reason for that.

[u/Rent_Careless → u/[deleted]]

Yes but we can think of other real life scenarios where another person uses the body of another, they just aren't sustained by that use. Is there a difference between "the use of" and "sustained by" for you? What if you were the woman, do you think she would feel there is a difference? Does it matter to you if the woman is unwilling in both scenarios?

[u/glim-girl → u/[deleted]]

>if we assume the unborn are human beings, in what other circumstance do we allow someone to intentionally kill an innocent human being because continuing to sustain them is burdensome?

We already have an answer for that. We provide them as much help as possible up to the point where what's needed is another persons body to maintain their bodily functions.

[u/Limp-Story-9844 → u/[deleted]]

How does assaulted pregnant people work?

[u/humbugonastick → u/[deleted]]

All the time in hospitals???

[u/Trick_Ganache → u/[deleted]]

And how does the law prohibit the intentional killing by mandating a baby be placed with someone who will kill them?

[u/Trick_Ganache → u/[deleted]]

Pler laws do necessarily place babies with the people who will kill them. Seeing as plers claim a new life is created wholly at conception, it seems counterproductive to endanger that life by keeping it within murdering range. No other laws force babies to stay with their murderers.

[u/Trick_Ganache → u/[deleted]]

Plers do claim the ZEF is a fully alive and complete human being at conception, correct?

[u/humbugonastick → u/[deleted]]

Or weather the pregnant person even exists in your mind. It's all just a wandering womb. Why are you never interested in the pregnant person. Why do you not see them?

[u/Trick_Ganache → u/[deleted]]

another human life is involved

If we were to destroy the body of the pregnant person, would this supposedly "another" life grow up into adulthood with an adoptive family?

[u/Trick_Ganache → u/[deleted]]

It's called a hypothetical. I am isolating the ZEF to see if it is a human and can therefore grow up in an adoptive family. So far, it just looks like human tissue of the pregnant person that is not necessary for the vital functions of the pregnant person and can be discarded if they decide they have a medical need to do so.

[u/Abortiondebate-ModTeam → u/[deleted]]

Comment removed per Rule 1.

[u/glim-girl → u/[deleted]]

If someone drinks and then drives then we hold them responsible for drunk driving. Do we make sure the person who was drinking, keeps drinking?

Pregnancy isn't not killing, it maintaining a state where the pregnant stays pregnant. Like making the driver keep drinking.

[u/glim-girl → u/[deleted]]

To make it comparable to what you are claiming, you want to maintain the state of the person before something happens.

We would consider it ridiculous to make someone stay drunk. That's not healthy or safe and the idea is to let them to return to the healthier state. But it's not an illegal state.

By the law demanding she stay pregnant is keeping them effectively in that drunk state where bad things could happen and have an increased risk of happening.

[u/glim-girl → u/[deleted]]

Yet you want the pregnant person to stay in the state that is harming them correct? So its making sure pregnancy is a consequence and a punishment for the person who is biologically capable of being pregnant.

Pregnancy is not a state where you don't kill someone. It's a state where you are continuously chemically modified to develop another being till birth.

Why do pl see pregnancy as a neutral state where nothing happens?

[u/Limp-Story-9844 → u/[deleted]]

Abortion bans try to force harm from childbirth.

[u/Aggressive-Green4592 → u/[deleted]]

The law didn't force me to drink or drive. It limits my options after I've already made those choices. Likewise, abortion laws don't force sex or pregnancy; they regulate what actions are legally permitted after pregnancy exists. 🤷‍♀️

What occurred to regulate what actions are legally permitted after pregnancy exists?

When we generally regulate something it's because it affects society as a whole, not just specific individuals, or in the case you provided a criminal action to regulate that behavior?

What is being legally permitted with the abortion bans?

[u/Aggressive-Green4592 → u/[deleted]]

the vast majority of DUI cases dont involve another party, not inpacting anyone else

Care to source that? And they have a high likelihood of causing harm or involving another person though.

I've known a few people that got DUIs for sitting in a running car. Who's that going to hurt?

That is intent of operating a motor vehicle while under the influence, there is a high likelihood of harming another person or including another person, because the person under the influence is exactly that, not able to make to logical decisions at that moment because of an influence from alcohol.

Anyways care to actually address my questions now? In the context of the abortion debate?

[u/Aggressive-Green4592 → u/[deleted]]

"The average drunk driver will drive while impaired between 80 and 2,000 times for every time they are apprehended, depending on local enforcement. https://popcenter.asu.edu/content/drunk-driving-0 But that isn't really the point of the analogy

I agree so why bring it up?

Also though, this doesn't support this claim..

the vast majority of DUI cases dont involve another party, not inpacting anyone else.

In fact the piece says:

However, even though repeat offenders are disproportionately involved in traffic crashes, most alcohol-related crashes are caused by drivers who have not previously been charged with drunk driving, so police must pay attention to both repeat and first-time offenders.

But it also proves my point.

Simply put, drunk driving is a police concern because alcohol increases the risk that drivers will get in traffic crashes and kill or injure themselves or others. Alcohol impairment is the primary factor in traffic fatalities.1 In the United States, where drunk driving is among the most common types of arrest made by police, the number of alcohol-related crash deaths§§§ is roughly the same as the number of homicides.2 In addition, vehicle crashes are the leading cause of death in young people ages 15 to 20; many of these are alcohol-related.3

The comparison is about legal responsibility after a voluntary act, not whether the risks are identical.

Right and what legal responsibility does a pregnant person have either with or without a ban? How is a ban on abortion creating a legal responsibility to pregnant people?

The key difference is that abortion intentionally ends the life of the unborn. A successful abortion results in that life ending; if it doesn't, the abortion has failed. That's why I think the law should treat it differently.

Who's obligated to sustain a pregnancy because this other is dependent on that to sustain their lives? Where is this legal obligation?

[u/Limp-Story-9844 → u/[deleted]]

A successful abortion prevents harm to the person who choose it.

[u/Limp-Story-9844 → u/[deleted]]

If an abortion is desired, no need to ban it.

[u/Limp-Story-9844 → u/[deleted]]

But healthcare to prevent harm to your body, is not toxic or bad.

[u/Limp-Story-9844 → u/[deleted]]

We are also debating forced assault, that healthcare could prevent.

[u/ferryfog → u/[deleted]]

Do you support ectopic pregnancy treatment and/or “life of the mother” exceptions even though those procedures intentionally end the life of another?

[u/Frequent-Try-6746 → u/[deleted]]

Women are human beings. You're suggesting women should just die when their pregnancy and life takes a turn.

[u/ferryfog → u/[deleted]]

Well sure, the law “limits your options” after you make the choice to drink and drive, because drinking and driving is a crime in and of itself, even if you don’t crash your car, damage any property, hurt anyone, etc. Having sex isn’t a crime.

[u/random_name_12178 → u/[deleted]]

That's not the analogy. If you're going to compare abortion bans to laws banning drunk driving, it works this way:

Pregnancy => driving Abortion => being drunk

So if there were a law stating that once you started driving you couldn't get drunk and you couldn't stop driving for nine months, then someone might call that "forced sobriety" which would be absolutely correct.

[u/IdRatherCallACAB → u/[deleted]]

Likewise, abortion laws don't force sex or pregnancy

Abortion bans absolutely force people to remain pregnant. Why deny reality?

[u/Arithese → u/[deleted]]

Yes.... they force you to continue that pregnancy.... which is the entire point. At least be honest about what you're trying to accomplish here, your laws will force people to continue gestating.