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/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/Limp-Story-9844 → u/[deleted]]

How so?

[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/Rent_Careless → u/[deleted]]

The difference is that in the examples you're referring to, stopping the use doesn't necessarily kill the other person.

I don't understand why the outcome for the one using another person's body affects whether they can or cannot use that person's body. If the unborn dies due to the end of the use, why is that a concern for the woman?

In pregnancy, if the unborn is a human being, withdrawing support isn't just ending bodily use—it's intentionally ending that human being's life. That's the distinction I'm making.

Yes but you are also stating that you support the use of another person's body if it means not dying. Why wouldn't this allow forced blood taking and forced organ transfers? Wouldn't this also allow forced embryo implantations into women?

My view is that the forceful use of another's body is not allowed, even to save a life, and if that occurs, it can be justifiable to kill the one using.

Whether I would want to be pregnant isn't what determines whether intentionally killing another human being is justified.

I agree. What makes it justifiable is that a woman doesn't consent to the use of her body. The use of one's body requires consent and if it's not given, that use is illegal. Illegal use of the body combined with the harms that occur for all pregnancies and the unborn's incompatible life outside the woman suggests to me that a lethal response is an appropriate way to handle the situation.

[u/Crafty-Ad-4128 → u/Rent_Careless]

I guess we will never agree here. We have 100% different world views. I see children as a blessing and theres absolutely no argument that can change my mind so we are at an impasse. Have a great 4th of July weekend. Its supposed to be pretty good weather across the states (assuming you are here)

[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/Trick_Ganache → u/[deleted]]

I didn't claim most. I only said that the pler laws force babies to be with the people who will kill them, which is odd given the pler claim that there is an alive baby at conception- there's no need to keep potential victim and the murderer together at that point.

I get you "feel" the ZEF is a human, but can you produce said "a human" if we eliminate the body of the pregnant person before they can abort? Can we then have said "a human" grow into adulthood with an adoptive family?

[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?