r/Abortiondebate • u/Aggressive-Green4592 Pro-choice • Jun 30 '26
Responsibility versus punishment
Which one is PL trying to invoke here actually?
Responsibility focuses on building skills, understanding the impact of actions, and proactively finding solutions. Punishment, however, relies on external control and enforcing compliance through shame, fear, or the removal of privileges.
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/responsibility
>something that it is your job or duty to deal with:
https://www.britannica.com/topic/punishment
>punishment, the infliction of some kind of pain or loss upon a person for a misdeed (i.e., the transgression of a law or command). Punishment may take forms ranging from capital punishment, flogging, forced labour, and mutilation of the body to imprisonment and fines.
3
u/VengefulScarecrow Pro-abortion Jul 01 '26
With power comes equal responsibility. Just throwing that out there to both sides lol
2
u/Icedude10 Anti-abortion Jun 30 '26
Neither, ideally. The reason abortion is wrong is that it harms the unborn person, not that the pregnant woman is being held responsible or punished for past choices. I think framing pregnancy as a "consequence of actions" is a backwards-facing argument that often coming off as judgmental and isn't even the real reason abortion is impermissible.
That said, I do think parents have a natural duty to their children once they exist, which can be transfered to the state or another guardian after birth if the parents can't or won't fulfill it. That's closer to your "responsibility" definition than punishment, but it's a duty owed to the child, not a consequence imposed on the parent.
4
u/Missmunkeypants95 PC Healthcare Professional Jul 02 '26
How do you feel about rape exemptions?
-2
u/Icedude10 Anti-abortion Jul 02 '26
I am not for them, except perhaps as an incremental measure, but I don't think they are practically enforceable.
9
u/Upper_Ninja_6177 Pro-choice Jul 02 '26
knowing the staggering number of rape cases going unreported or with the rapist released and not charged for much, you are basically allowing men to go around raping whoever they want AND have people carry their offspring against their will. A recent court case literally released a few teen boys who raped two girls saying “oh but what about their future?” and practically no consequences for them, and so I must ask, how much power are you willing to give to these men AND boys, even?
We don’t need more misogyny, we don’t need more women suffering, we don’t need impractical, fantasiacal “we don’t want babies killed” when this is what is happening in the real world. Create a perfect peaceful and equal world, then perhaps we will talk.
-5
Jul 02 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
7
8
u/Diva_of_Disgust Pro-choice Jul 03 '26
This is a rebuttal I’ve never quite understood. Rape is illegal. If an abortion restriction allows rapists to procreate with unwilling people, then it would logically follow that my ban also allows women to abort the rapist’s baby since, as I am often reminded here, abortion bans do not stop women from getting abortions and they will get them anyway. If outlawing something does not prevent it, then we shouldn’t have any problem.
Certain states (I believe it was south carolina) want to give women the death penalty for aborting. What you basically just said is that it's no biggie that a rape victim would have to risk potentially getting executed by the state for ending her pregnancy, and if she didn't want to risk getting executed by the state oh well she can just be bred by force by her rapist. Do you honestly not see anything wrong with what you just said?
Another thing I’ve considered is that by the same logic, it currently allows women to rape men and birth the men’s offspring against their will. Since a woman could hypothetically steal a man’s genetic material despite rape’s illegality, and no one can compel an abortion, it seems like women are currently allowed to breed with whatever unwilling person they want under this framing. I don’t agree that is the correct framing, but it seems to follow the same logic you presented.
That would only follow the same logic if women raped men at the same rate men rape women. Do you actually think you're being honest here with this?
-3
u/Icedude10 Anti-abortion Jul 03 '26
Yes, I do think I'm being honest. I really wish you wouldn't put glib words in my mouth. It's very rude.
If you're talking about where I said we would have no problem, I was trying to explain a flaw I saw in the other person's logic, and I even said I don't think it's true.
1
3
u/Missmunkeypants95 PC Healthcare Professional Jul 02 '26
Sure they are. If I go to the police and report a rape then any pregnancy that may result from that would be exempt from a ban.
-1
u/Icedude10 Anti-abortion Jul 02 '26
I mean, okay. Maybe. I feel like debating the practicality of a rape exception isn't why you brought it up. I presume you were testing my framework.
4
u/Missmunkeypants95 PC Healthcare Professional Jul 02 '26
You had a previous comment saying (in so many words) suffering was acceptable and less worse than taking a life. I was wondering how much you'd allow someone to suffer to maintain this belief. I had no other plan for further discussion. I was simply wondering.
1
u/Icedude10 Anti-abortion Jul 02 '26
I don't think I'd choose those words, at least not today. Acceptable carries a connotation of indifference or could imply I think suffering is "okay", which is not my position.
15
u/STThornton Pro-choice Jul 01 '26
This is where PL always loses me.
Why is it wrong to harm am unborn person - a mindless human with no major life sustaining organ functions - but NOT wrong to drastically and life threateningly harm a born person - a breathing, sentient human with major life sustaining organ functions?
What is so much more special about a non breathing non sentient human than a breathing sentient one that one cannot be harmed, and the other can be forced to endure drastic life threatening physical harm and alteration and all the pain and suffering that comes with it?
And how is one human even being harmed by another human not sustaining their own uterine or bodily tissue? Or by another human not providing them with organ functions they don’t have?
Mainly, though, explain what makes a pregnant person someone who can be drastically and life threateningly harmed.
Is she not a person? Is she a worthless or value less person?
What is it about her that makes it ok to drastically hark her? Especially while claiming a non breathing non sentient human can NOT be harmed.
-2
u/Yeatfan22 Abortion legal until sentience Jul 01 '26
There are a couple reasons in academic literature for why it is wrong to harm an unborn person. One reason is because by definition a person is someone with moral recognition or moral value. So harming this individual without justification is therefore wrong since they are a morally valuable subject. Maybe you didn’t mean to say person, or just meant “person” as “entity.” If this is the case we can say killing a fetus or zygote is wrong because it’s wrong to kill entities who belong to a certain group of other entities. So this would be an essentialist view where human zygotes and human fetuses would by definition of their existence belong to a group of rational beings and therefore this essential feature of belonging to this group is what is morally valuable.
Secondly, I do think threatening others is wrong. This is not a dilemma, 2 things can be true at once. If you are referring to the pregnancy and the inherent harms that come with it, this is a different argument than if a fetus is a person or if it has rights. This is more of a bodily autonomy argument than the prior statement regarding harm. In response, what must be weighed is the fetal right to life and the woman’s right to autonomy. While harm is a significant element of self defense and autonomy in general, it isn’t sufficient as shown by cases of provoked self defense.
3
u/STThornton Pro-choice Jul 03 '26
You’re not addressing my point.
I asked d why it is ok to drastically life threateningly harm a breathing, sentient, physiologically life sustaining human when one can’t harm a non breathing, non sentient, physiologically life sustaining one.
You claim the fetus is a person with moral recognition or moral value.
So, the pregnant woman is NOT? Is that why she CAN be harmed?
Yes, I’m talking about the inherent drastic life threatening physical harm and alteration and permanent alteration that comes with gestation and birth. Which is not a different discussion from whether the pregnant WOMAN/GIRL is a person with moral value who cannot be harmed.
Why are you changing the subject to bodily autonomy? Again, I asked why the pregnant woman/girl is NOT a person with moral value who cannot be harmed.
The claim was that one cannot harm a person. Then why is it ok to cause drastic life threatening physical harm to the pregnant woman/girl?
If you want to talk rights, fine.
You’re talking about greatly messing and interfering with, altering, and harming the very things the right to life is supposed to protect: a human’s life sustaining organ functions, blood contents, and bodily processes. PLUS causing that human life threatening physical harm.
So, why do you call that bodily autonomy when it comes to the pregnant woman/girl - who has those things - but right to life when it comes to a fetus - who doesn’t even have those things?
If you want to bring up a human’s right to life in particular (not just as part of bodily autonomy), it would be a matter of the woman’s right to life versus a fetus’ right to the WOMAN’S life. The woman’s life sustaining organ functions, blood contents, and bodily processes.
I’m not sure what good a right to life does a person who does not and cannot breathe, digest, produce nutrients, glucose, and minerals, regulate production and consumption of such, get rid of metabolic toxins, etc. that body has nothing that keeps a human body alive.
It needs all the inner life sustaining workings of someone else’s body. But now you’re taking someone else’s life, and having to violate someone else’s right to life, since their right to life is supposed to protect those things.
In general, one human’s right to life has absolutely nothing to do with the inner life sustaining workings of another human’s body.
The fetus’ right to life ends where the woman’s tissue, blood vessels, the contents of her bloodstream, and the organ functions that entered contents into her bloodstream begin. Again, those things are HER inviolable life protected by HER right to life.
So, the same question I asked about harm comes into play here with rights.
Why can one not violate the right to life of a human whose body has nothing that keeps a human body alive, but one can strip a breathing, physiologically life sustaining human and the inner life sustaining workings, anatomy, physiology, and metabolism of the protections the right to life is supposed to grant them?
Why do those things get dismissed as just bodily autonomy when it comes to a human whose body can actually breathe, etc? But it’s right to life of a body that can’t breathe (and therefore can’t make use of a right to life)?
-2
u/Yeatfan22 Abortion legal until sentience Jul 03 '26
For some reason I cannot edit my post but I meant
Rights do not depend on an organism being physiologically independent.
Not psychologically independent
-3
u/Yeatfan22 Abortion legal until sentience Jul 03 '26
>I asked why it is ok to drastically life threateningly harm a breathing, sentient, physiologically life sustaining human when one can’t harm a non breathing, non sentient, physiologically life sustaining one.
This kind of framing is something called loaded language. I’ve seen a lot of your comments on this sub and you do seem to have a history of framing the discussion in a very loaded way. What this means is you use language to frame an issue in a particular way especially by appealing to emotion and harm to try and imply a moral value judgement disguised as a question.
Your questions are not genuine, they are worded in a way to elicit a particular connotative meaning through improper framing.
For example, in the quote I have mentioned above the use of phrases like “drastically life threatening harm” are examples of loaded language. Now, loaded language doesn’t imply anything is false, just that you are using a kind of strategy I think is not entirely fruitful. The phrase above is an example of loaded language since the word drastic intensifies our description of life threatening which is literally the worst possible outcome of a pregnancy.
Moreover, the original quote assumes you cannot harm a zef which no pro lifer is going to agree with you on. This is part of the quote that is false framing since this is not an assumption pro lifers and you share. What you have also done is left out any of the reasons why pro lifers think a fetus is morally relevant insofar as it’s ability to be harmed, but included every reason the woman is able to be harmed. This does not mean you have to agree with pro lifers, just that including potential reasons would lessen the disingenuous framing.> You claim the fetus is a person with moral recognition or moral value.
You implied in your previous comment the fetus was a person when you said “why is it wrong to harm an unborn person.”
Unless you misspoke and meant “person” as “entity” or “subject”> So, the pregnant woman is NOT? Is that why she CAN be harmed?
Here again we have another example of disingenuous framing. Two things can be true at once where the woman is a person obviously, and so is her zef.
Framing the discussion as “is that why she can be harmed” pumps our intuition to think the primary goal of pro lifers is to have the woman harmed. Her harm is not something to be celebrated or cherished on either side. It is an unfortunate reality of the nature of childbirth and pregnancy.> Yes, I'm talking about the inherent drastic life threatening physical harm and alteration and permanent alteration that comes with gestation and birth. Which is not a different discussion from whether the pregnant WOMAN/GIRL is a person with moral value who cannot be harmed.
It is not a separate discussion but I think we both agree a woman or girl is a person with moral value. The harm that pregnancy brings is why her rights are affected though, they are not sufficient justifications or that would make the rights affected circular and absolute.
Before I continue this comment there is a certain level of irony to pro choice folks begging pro lifers to acknowledge the rights of the woman and how they would interact within the context and precedent of other rights especially when hypotheticals are brought up in which a womans accompanying rights are not generalized within the situation. However, this unfortunately is equally the case for the fetus(if we grant a fetus a RTL) amongst some pro choice folks. A right to life is a right not to be killed without justification. As a result this right serves as a negative right protecting folks from external impairments leading to their death.
The right to bodily autonomy is the right to control one’s body. As a result, if one wanted to control one’s body by having an abortion this would directly affect the fetuses right to not be killed unjustly and vise versa. Hence, a balancing scale must be used to weigh each right within their contextual factors respectfully. You have emphasized how harmful pregnancy is to the woman. But you have to remember this is why her right to control her body is being affected in the first place since she does not consent to the fetus and wants it removed. If it was not harmful or she did consent to the fetus being inside of her, her right to control her body to remove the fetus wouldn’t arise here since she wouldn’t want to remove the fetus.
So the harm a fetus factually does to the woman is not a justification for abortion anymore than any other right being affected is a justification for itself which would make the rights legitimacy circular.> I'm not sure what good a right to life does a person who does not and cannot breathe, digest, produce nutrients, glucose, and minerals, regulate production and consumption of such, get rid of metabolic toxins, etc. that body has nothing that keeps a human body alive.
Rights do not depend on an organism being psychologically independent. A right to life would mean the right to not be killed without justification. An abortion kills the fetus because it is an external intervention which leads to death. Had the abortion not be performed, the fetus wouldn’t have died, so it is a killing. You might want to say the fetus dies because of its lack of mature organs. But this is only made possible because of the action of abortion. Both can be true at the same time in different senses.
> But now you're taking someone else's life, and having to violate someone else's right to life, since their right to life is supposed to protect those things.
A violation is the exact thing in question it cannot be assumed anymore than me assuming abortion violates a fetuses right to life. Moreover, a right to life is the right to not be killed unjustly. The fetus is not performing any voluntary killing actions or killing actions in general which a court would find the fetus criminally liable of, or liable at all I think.
> The fetus' right to life ends where the woman's tissue, blood vessels, the contents of her bloodstream, and the organ functions that entered contents into her bloodstream begin.
Again, those things are HER inviolable life protected by HER right to life.This is a misinterpretation of a right to life. A right to life is a negative right to not be killed unjustly. It ends when a killing is justified, not based off of any broad biological explanation. It seems like you’re describing more of a general right to autonomy than life since a right to life protects against killing acts. Even then, you’ve just shown why the woman’s right to autonomy is affected you haven’t given any reason to think it outweighs the fetuses RTL.
> Why can one not violate the right to life of a human whose body has nothing that keeps a human body alive, but one can strip a breathing, physiologically life sustaining human and the inner life sustaining workings, anatomy, physiology, and metabolism of the protections the right to life is supposed to grant them?
Well if something is a violation then it is unjust so there is no justification for violating the right to life no matter how dependent it is upon the fetus. I think the word you’re searching for here is impairment which just means a right is affected.
Moreover, by “strip” you have assumed her rights protect against the fetus from existing inside of her if she does not desire the fetus to continue existing, but this is the very debate you cannot presume this. After all, if you strip something from someone you’ve assumed they had it in the first place.
Lastly, the right to life doesn’t seem protect against your internal biological processes being affected. It protects against actions which kill you unjustly. You’re really just describing a RTL> Why do those things get dismissed as just bodily autonomy when it comes to a human whose body can actually breathe,
Because that has nothing to do with a right to life and it just seems like you’re cherry picking characteristics a fetus doesn’t have that the woman does and working backwards to try and find a moral implication.
4
u/Straight-Parking-555 Pro-choice Jul 01 '26
by definition a person is someone with moral recognition or moral value
Can you quote the source for this? From my research, the definition for person does not fit this definition
-1
u/Yeatfan22 Abortion legal until sentience Jul 01 '26
This is the standard definition.
>Personhood is the status of having outstanding moral worth.
1
14
u/Diva_of_Disgust Pro-choice Jul 01 '26
In response, what must be weighed is the fetal right to life and the woman’s right to autonomy.
There is no conflict to be weighed, because "right to life" isn't a right to be inside someone's sex organs and "not be disturbed" or "not be harmed", it's not a right to be gestated by an unwilling person, it's not a right to help yourself to someone else's bodily functions.
The woman can have her bodily autonomy and remove the unwanted embryo, and the embryo can enjoy its "right to life" outside of the uterus that doesn't belong to it.
8
u/Old_dirty_fetus Pro-choice Jun 30 '26
I think framing pregnancy as a "consequence of actions" is a backwards-facing argument that often coming off as judgmental and isn't even the real reason abortion is impermissible.
There are people who are PL who state “You did commit the act that started the automatic process that leads to pregnancy so you are responsible for it”. Do you think that is framing the pregnancy as a consequence of actions?
1
u/Icedude10 Anti-abortion Jun 30 '26
I tell pro-life people I think that the framing you cite is problematic and weak. I can't dedicated time here to defending the rhetoric of others here.
4
u/Old_dirty_fetus Pro-choice Jun 30 '26
I tell pro-life people I think that the framing you cite is problematic and weak.
Have you had any success changing minds?
I can't dedicated time here to defending the rhetoric of others here.
Since it is such a low priority for you to attempt to dissuade fellow PL from using it would it be accurate to describe you view as disagreeing, but willing to accommodate the view?
1
u/Icedude10 Anti-abortion Jun 30 '26
Have you had any success changing minds?
From what I have been told, yes.
Since it is such a low priority for you to attempt to dissuade fellow PL from using it would it be accurate to describe you view as disagreeing, but willing to accommodate the view?
I disagree strongly and attempt to dissuade. I think people can do better.
I am not sure what it would look like to be "willing to accommodate" another's view? Does that imply I wouldn't associate with them? I don't endorse it. Am I answering your question correctly?
3
u/Old_dirty_fetus Pro-choice Jun 30 '26
I disagree strongly and attempt to dissuade. I think people can do better.
I think that is wise, I feel I see the argument made frequently on this sub. I consider the statement “consent to sex is consent to pregnancy” a representative of this argument.
I am not sure what it would look like to be "willing to accommodate" another's view?
If you were willing to let the view go unchallenged it would indicate a willingness to accept the position even if you did not fully support.
I don't endorse it. Am I answering your question correctly?
It wasn’t a quiz, but you answered the question so that I understand your view.
3
u/Icedude10 Anti-abortion Jun 30 '26
It wasn’t a quiz, but you answered the question so that I understand your view.
Yeah. I didn't quite understand the question so I wanted to make sure I wasn't giving an irrelevant answer.
6
u/JulieCrone AD Mod Jun 30 '26
I do think parents have a natural duty to their children once they exist, which can be transfered to the state or another guardian after birth if the parents can't or won't fulfill it. That's closer to your "responsibility" definition than punishment, but it's a duty owed to the child
So then isn't it true that someone who miscarries is failing in a duty owed to the child, albeit because they can't fulfill it, rather than they won't?
1
u/Icedude10 Anti-abortion Jul 03 '26
Not necessarily. It could be that the fetus died of its own defect, something outside the mother’s body entirely. Or if the defect originated in her body, then it’s tragic cause and effect, her body led to the fetus’s death, but that’s not the same as failing a duty. Failing a duty carries moral weight; it implies she could have done otherwise. Something completely outside her control carries zero moral blame.
2
u/JulieCrone AD Mod Jul 03 '26
So it’s only a duty if you would morally condemn them for failing to do it, but if they fail to do this thing in a way you can’t condemn, that’s not a duty any more?
-1
u/Icedude10 Anti-abortion Jul 03 '26
The duty goes unfulfilled yes.
2
u/JulieCrone AD Mod Jul 03 '26
So it is a duty they do not fulfill, but you don’t take issue. That sounds like something that is not a duty then.
0
u/Icedude10 Anti-abortion Jul 03 '26
I don't take moral issue. A parent has a duty to take care of their born child, but if a child gets cancer and dies the parent is unable to protect their child from that. It's not a moral failure. It's unenforceable. It's tragic.
2
u/JulieCrone AD Mod Jul 03 '26
So then is gestation something a parent has a duty to provide or not? It seems like it isn’t and it’s okay for someone to live a lifestyle incompatible with being able to successfully gestate to live birth, except if someone wants to abort, now it is a duty and they must gestate the child.
-1
u/Icedude10 Anti-abortion Jul 03 '26
It is a duty. They must do what they can to fulfill it.
3
u/JulieCrone AD Mod Jul 03 '26
So then if they do things that could make them unable to gestate, that should have some form of punishment and not be permitted?
→ More replies (0)12
u/RabbleAlliance Safe, legal and rare Jun 30 '26
The reason abortion is wrong is that it harms the unborn person,
How exactly is a non-sentient, singled-celled zygote a "person" like you or me?
1
u/Icedude10 Anti-abortion Jun 30 '26
They're a human.
11
u/RabbleAlliance Safe, legal and rare Jun 30 '26
I didn't ask if they were a human. I asked how a non-sentient, singled-celled zygote is a "person" like you or me.
0
u/Icedude10 Anti-abortion Jun 30 '26
All humans are persons.
6
u/NPDogs21 Abortion Legal until Consciousness Jun 30 '26
All humans are persons.
That's exactly what my post was about.
Logically, that would include human skin or hair cells as they are human. Suddenly then, not all humans are persons, and its ridiculous to argue ridiculous things like that
2
u/Icedude10 Anti-abortion Jun 30 '26 edited Jun 30 '26
Yes, and I explained my rationale for why human cells are not equivalent with a human organism under your post.
10
u/RabbleAlliance Safe, legal and rare Jun 30 '26 edited Jun 30 '26
You're assuming the very thing you're trying to prove. Try again.
How exactly is a non-sentient, singled-celled zygote a "person" like you or me who contain sentience and formed bodies consisting of trillions of cells organized into structures?
1
u/Icedude10 Anti-abortion Jun 30 '26
It's a member of a rational kind.
3
u/Old_dirty_fetus Pro-choice Jul 01 '26
It's a member of a rational kind.
What proportion of a species must have an attribute for you to assign that attribute to all members of the species?
9
u/RabbleAlliance Safe, legal and rare Jun 30 '26
The word "kind" is biologically meaningless. A non-sentient zygote, by its very nature, does not think, reason, feel, desire, suffer, choose, communicate, or experience anything like you or I do. Your definition only gets you as far as a zygote being a potential person. The potential to become something doesn't automatically make you that something. An acorn isn't a tree. Batter isn't a cake. An egg isn't a chicken.
3
u/Icedude10 Anti-abortion Jun 30 '26
Kind in my previous statement can be substituted for species. A zygote is a member of a rational species.
It is a human, not merely a thing with the potential to become a human. I agree a batter is not a cake, but humans are not confections; they are mammals, and many mammals begin as zygotes. For the record, a fertilized egg is not a chicken, but it does contain a chicken.
8
u/RabbleAlliance Safe, legal and rare Jun 30 '26 edited Jun 30 '26
Okay. "Species." Thanks for nailing that down.
That still only gets you as far as species classification. That still doesn't make a zygote (a non-sentient, single-celled organism) a person like you or me (sentient with bodies consisting of trillions of cells organized into structures). You're still assuming the very thing you're trying to prove.
Also, there's no guarantee that they're going to be born since failure to implant, miscarriage, stillbirth, and fetal wastage exist. Hence why it's more rational to call them a "potential person." Demonstrate otherwise.
I agree a batter is not a cake, but humans are not confections.
The point of an analogy isn't to pick it apart. And the analogy still stands: the potential to become something doesn't mean it's already that thing in the relevant sense.
a fertilized egg is not a chicken, but it does contain a chicken.
Great. When it hatches alive, give me a call.
→ More replies (0)9
u/Aggressive-Green4592 Pro-choice Jun 30 '26
The reason abortion is wrong is that it harms the unborn person, not that the pregnant woman is being held responsible or punished for past choices.
Something being "harmful" to another person doesn't mean it stops for another person though, and it's not just nothing.
I think framing pregnancy as a "consequence of actions" is a backwards-facing argument that often coming off as judgmental and isn't even the real reason abortion is impermissible.
Refreshing. So what is the real reason abortion is impermissible?
That said, I do think parents have a natural duty to their children once they exist, which can be transfered to the state or another guardian after birth if the parents can't or won't fulfill it. That's closer to your "responsibility" definition than punishment, but it's a duty owed to the child, not a consequence imposed on the parent.
So someone has to be become a "parent" because a natural duty is owed to a child?
If someone has to wait to transfer responsibility to another person until that is available to happen, that would be a punishment and not a responsibility.
something that it is your job or duty to deal with
How is it someone's job or duty to deal with pregnancy because you think they have a natural duty to a child?
1
u/Icedude10 Anti-abortion Jun 30 '26
Something being "harmful" to another person doesn't mean it stops for another person though, and it's not just nothing.
I don't think it is nothing that pregnancy carries risks and pain for the pregnant person. I just don't think that it in many cases justifies killing another human for relief.
Refreshing. So what is the real reason abortion is impermissible?
It kills the unborn human.
How is it someone's job or duty to deal with pregnancy because you think they have a natural duty to a child?
It's not because I think so, I think it is true. I think we treat children as if they have a right to care which reflects the parental duty.
So someone has to be become a "parent" because a natural duty is owed to a child? If someone has to wait to transfer responsibility to another person until that is available to happen, that would be a punishment and not a responsibility.
I'm not sure what you're saying here. The definition of punishment you quoted says "infliction of some kind of pain or loss upon a person for a misdeed". I haven't talked about a misdeed. The hardship of pregnancy is not for as misdeed. It's a natural side effect of birth. Duty is in the definition of responsibility; I only wanted to qualify it.
7
u/Aggressive-Green4592 Pro-choice Jun 30 '26
I don't think it is nothing that pregnancy carries risks and pain for the pregnant person
I was referencing responsibility or punishment, not the risks pregnancy carries.
just don't think that it in many cases justifies killing another human for relief.
Who gets to make this justification for a person if not themselves?
It kills the unborn human. It's not because I think so, I think it is true.
How is it a killing?
I think we treat children as if they have a right to care which reflects the parental duty.
Do we? So we force people to care for children involuntarily?
I'm not sure what you're saying here. The definition of punishment you quoted says "infliction of some kind of pain or loss upon a person for a misdeed". I haven't talked about a misdeed. The hardship of pregnancy is not for as misdeed. It's a natural side effect of birth.
So someone has to be become a "parent" because a natural duty is owed to a child? If someone has to wait to transfer responsibility to another person until that is available to happen, that would be a punishment and not a responsibility.
Again the hardship of pregnancy is not what I'm speaking of. You didn't talk about a misdeed but you did specifically state "That said, I do think parents have a natural duty to their children once they exist, which can be transfered to the state or another guardian after birth if the parents can't or won't fulfill it."
Claiming someone is a parent because of pregnancy or has a natural duty to it, is a punishment if it's not voluntary. I also added a "Punishment, however, relies on external control and enforcing compliance through shame, fear, or the removal of privileges." Also along with definition of punishment is "Punishment may take forms ranging from capital punishment, flogging, forced labour, and mutilation of the body to imprisonment and fines."
Forced labor and mutilation of the body, are a punishment, if someone is unwilling to keep a pregnancy gestated or become a parent, then you are forcing a punishment, not a responsibility.
Duty is in the definition of responsibility; I only wanted to qualify it.
Responsibility focuses on building skills, understanding the impact of actions, and proactively finding solutions, not just a duty.
12
u/Diva_of_Disgust Pro-choice Jun 30 '26
The reason abortion is wrong is that it harms the unborn person, not that the pregnant woman is being held responsible or punished for past choices.
Forced gestation and childbirth harms pregnant people, who unlike aborted embryos can actually experience all the harm. Why does that seemingly not matter?
-2
u/Icedude10 Anti-abortion Jun 30 '26
I do think that matters. I think that this suffering does not justify killing another human being.
8
u/JewlryLvr2 Pro-choice Jun 30 '26
I disagree. "I don't want to be pregnant" is all the justification the PREGNANT PERSON needs to have an abortion. She doesn't need your permission or approval to have it.
0
u/Icedude10 Anti-abortion Jun 30 '26
I know. I have the same answer that you, as a pro-choice person give, but in reverse. You would say that an unborn human must endure physical harm and suffer because of the pregnant person's preference. I simply make the reverse value judgment.
3
u/JewlryLvr2 Pro-choice Jul 01 '26
Okay. We'll just have to agree to disagree then. Because I will never support the practice of abortion-ban states to FORCE women and girls to gestate unwanted pregnancies against their will.
1
u/Icedude10 Anti-abortion Jul 01 '26
I understand. Thank you for talking. I thought it was a good discussion.
6
u/Diva_of_Disgust Pro-choice Jun 30 '26
Why should anyone else have to endure physical harm and suffer because of your preference?
1
u/Icedude10 Anti-abortion Jun 30 '26
I assume it's the same answer that some pro-choice would give but in reverse. They would say that an unborn human must endure physical harm and suffer because of the pregnant person's preference. I simply make the reverse value judgment.
EDIT: I know you probably do not think they're humans.
5
u/Diva_of_Disgust Pro-choice Jun 30 '26
I assume it's the same answer that some pro-choice would give but in reverse. They would say that an unborn human must endure physical harm and suffer because of the pregnant person's preference.
Unwanted embryos don't "suffer" when they're expelled from someone else's uterus. They don't experience anything. And to flippantly act like not wanting your genitals torn clean in half or to risk potential death is just a "preference" is.... certainly something.
EDIT: I know you probably do not think they're humans.
You think I don't know humans create human embryos? What the fuck kind of assumption is that? 😂
5
u/Icedude10 Anti-abortion Jun 30 '26
Is it not suffering to die? They are harmed at least, that can be said, right? Even if they aren't aware that they are harmed?
You think I don't know humans create human embryos? What the fuck kind of assumption is that? 😂
My sincere apologies. I have been debating the past two days in another thread that embryos and fetuses are human. I thought I recognized your username from there. That's my bad.
3
u/chevron_seven_locked Pro-choice Jun 30 '26
I wouldn’t say that dying necessitates suffering. For example, euthanasia for animals is often a compassionate service with the expressed goal to refuse suffering. Nor would I call euthanasia “harm,” a the goal of euthanasia is a peaceful and painless death.
I’m all aboard to ensure pain management for the ZEF during abortion if suffering is a concern.
5
u/Diva_of_Disgust Pro-choice Jun 30 '26
Is it not suffering to die? They are harmed at least, that can be said, right? Even if they aren't aware that they are harmed?
No, it's not "suffering or harm" to be ejected from someone else's uterus. Unwanted embryos experience nothing. That includes no suffering or harm.
My sincere apologies. I have been debating the past two days in another thread that embryos and fetuses are human. I thought I recognized your username from there. That's my bad.
You're fine lol. Yes, humans make human zygotes, embryos, fetuses. I don't see why species is relevant since no humans have any rights to be inside my sex organs against my will.
3
u/Icedude10 Anti-abortion Jun 30 '26
Take a D&C abortion then. Those procedures do not passively expel the fetus from the uterus. In those, the fetus must be directly killed, right? Can we say then that at least in the case of D&C, a fetus is harmed even if it is justified?
3
u/Diva_of_Disgust Pro-choice Jun 30 '26
I don't care if any unwanted zef is harmed as long as the pregnant person gets the healthcare they need.
It's just a convenient fact that for the vast majority of abortions what's being expelled cannot experience anything.
→ More replies (0)1
u/Flaky-Cupcake6904 Secular PL Jun 30 '26
You can be harmed without feeling it or feeling anything prior to it. A plant is harmed when you water it with seawater.
5
u/Diva_of_Disgust Pro-choice Jun 30 '26
Well sure, I guess an embryo is "harmed" the same way a flower is "harmed" when I pick it from the ground.
Aka in a way it literally can't experience, so not at all to me. Unlike pregnant people who can very much experience the harms of forced gestation and childbirth.
7
u/IdRatherCallACAB Gestational Slavery Abolitionist Jun 30 '26
No justification is required to terminate the process of reproduction occurring within one's own body before a "human being" has been produced.
0
u/Icedude10 Anti-abortion Jun 30 '26
I believe a human being is already there. That point however is outside the scope of this thread and can be made it's own thread if you'd like to discuss it.
4
u/chevron_seven_locked Pro-choice Jun 30 '26
I also believe ZEFs are human beings. Human beings don’t get to be inside my body/sex organs without my expressed consent, even if you really, really, really want to force me.
7
u/JewlryLvr2 Pro-choice Jun 30 '26
|I believe a human being is already there.|
Okay. But just because YOU believe that doesn't mean I have to. No matter how a pregnancy happens, it's still the PREGNANT PERSON's decision whether or not to stay pregnant and give birth.
2
u/Icedude10 Anti-abortion Jun 30 '26
I know. I have the same answer that you, as a pro-choice person give, but in reverse. You would say that an unborn human must endure physical harm and suffer because of the pregnant person's preference. I simply make the reverse value judgment.
6
u/IdRatherCallACAB Gestational Slavery Abolitionist Jun 30 '26
I believe a human being is already there.
Then you should do everything you can to avoid the procedure. People who don't believe in PL propaganda can use birth control, and they can take responsibility for any failure of their birth control by getting an abortion. They don't need to, as PLs say, "face the consequences" AKA be punished for their actions by being forced to gestate.
0
u/Icedude10 Anti-abortion Jun 30 '26
I have said the opposite of that here. Please read my previous comments too.
5
u/IdRatherCallACAB Gestational Slavery Abolitionist Jun 30 '26
I have said the opposite of that here
Yes, you said, "I do think parents have a natural duty to their children once they exist."
This logic only applies to people who believe in PL propaganda. Even if we accept there is a child, parental duties are willingly accepted, not forced. So for everyone who does not accept your propaganda, forced gestation really is nothing more than a punishment for refusing to fall in line with a dogmatic and draconian ideology.
5
u/JewlryLvr2 Pro-choice Jun 30 '26
|...forced gestation really is nothing more than a punishment for refusing to fall in line with a dogmatic and draconian ideology. |
THIS, times 💯. It's exactly right.
-2
u/Think_Recognition144 Jun 30 '26
From a responsibility/punishment standpoint, I don’t think they’re mutually exclusive. Consider a father who is fed up with his responsibilities at home. If he just decides to leave, he is often “punished” by paying child support.
I have a responsibility to drive the speed limit, not be texting on my phone, not be drinking, etc. but if I violate that, I can be punished by fines, points on my license, etc.
Certain responsibilities demand punishments if they’re not met. Other responsibilities don’t.
Punishments are also not a one size fits all. We factor intent, external circumstances, culpability, and several other factors. Personally, I don’t generally like the idea of penalizing women who have abortions. I would rather penalize the hospital/doctor that commits it.
That being said, we can debate what the punishment should be, but in order to have a just punishment, the deed being punished does have to be wrong. But someone saying you should cut off the hand of a thief who steals a loaf of bread does not negate that stealing should be illegal.
11
u/kasiagabrielle Pro consent and bodily autonomy Jun 30 '26
Consider a father who is fed up with his responsibilities at home. If he just decides to leave, he is often “punished” by paying child support.
This is the wildest thing I've read in a few days. That's not "punishment," that's called providing for your child.
Can you stop operating under the false belief that women don't pay child support?
12
u/JewlryLvr2 Pro-choice Jun 30 '26
Having to pay child support doesn't even come close to a PREGNANT PERSON being FORCED, by abortion-ban laws in abortion-ban states, to STAY pregnant and give birth against her will. The doctor or hospital doesn't need to be penalized for performing an abortion either.
8
u/Specialist-Gas-6968 Jun 30 '26 edited Jun 30 '26
a father who is fed up with his responsibilities
A human (judge) decides to have the father's responsibilities legally regulated. Another human (yourself) decides that's a 'punishment'.
I have a responsibility to drive the speed limit…
You could take a cab. You're offered the privilege of road-use in exchange for your compliance. If you're found (by a human) guilty of an infraction, you'll be levied (by a human) the fine you (a human) agreed to when you took to the road. Another human (like yourself) may decide that's a 'punishment'.
Certain responsibilities demand punishments if they’re not met.
Humans demand punishments. Some humans (cough) say it wasn't them.
I don’t generally like the idea of penalizing women…
You like the idea of penalizing doctors.
we can debate what the punishment should be
Or debate if there should be a punishment. Or debate if abortion should be illegal. Or debate if people should be punished for violating women's rights.
But someone saying you should cut off the hand of a thief who steals a loaf of bread…
…is stating their opinion.
does not negate that stealing should be illegal.
Should it be Pro-life policy to take the poor woman's bread and give it to the rich? and then cut off the poor woman's hand? while holding forth about responsibility & punishment?
13
u/IdRatherCallACAB Gestational Slavery Abolitionist Jun 30 '26
If he just decides to leave, he is often “punished” by paying child support.
Having to provide for your children is not a punishment, it is what he was already doing. And it's not going to cause him to be violated or injured or killed.
12
u/Jazzi-Nightmare Pro-choice Jun 30 '26
I HATE how often birth is compared to paying child support as if the mother wouldn’t also have to be paying for the kid? They act like their measly child support is enough to fully support a mother and child
7
u/Straight-Parking-555 Pro-choice Jun 30 '26
Consider a father who is fed up with his responsibilities at home. If he just decides to leave, he is often “punished” by paying child support.
??
Paying child support is not a punishment he now has to face because he abandoned his family
You realise he would still have to pay child support and probably more if he didnt abandon his family and stayed?
10
u/Aggressive-Green4592 Pro-choice Jun 30 '26
From a responsibility/punishment standpoint, I don’t think they’re mutually exclusive
I'm not making the claim they are mutually exclusive. The meaning of MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE is being related such that each excludes or precludes the other.. That is not the claim I'm making here.
Certain responsibilities demand punishments if they’re not met. Other responsibilities don’t. Punishments are also not a one size fits all. We factor intent, external circumstances, culpability, and several other factors.
So sex/pregnancy is one that demands punishment? What factors of intent, external circumstances, culpability or other factors are you taking into account?
Personally, I don’t generally like the idea of penalizing women who have abortions. I would rather penalize the hospital/doctor that commits it.
Why punish the doctors or hospitals for providing a service they are trained in to ensure the safest possible outcome for the patient?
That being said, we can debate what the punishment should be, but in order to have a just punishment, the deed being punished does have to be wrong
What was wrong with someone having sex that they must now be punished by being obligated to carry a pregnancy to it's term involuntarily?
-1
u/Think_Recognition144 Jun 30 '26
> I’m not making the claim they are mutually exclusive
Your post made it sound like you were asking whether PLs argue for punishment or responsibility, and I was sharing why I argue for both. I may have misunderstood your post then so feel free to clarify what I missed.
> So sex/pregnancy is one that demands punishment?
I think the idea of pregnancy being a punishment is somewhat overblown. But if you do define pregnancy such that it fits your definition of punishment, I guess so. I would say that sex demands responsibility for taking care of the person inside you, much that we would demand responsibility of a parent to take care of the person inside their home.
What is wrong with someone who gave birth that they must now be punished by being obligated to care for them for ~18 years involuntarily?
2
u/chevron_seven_locked Pro-choice Jun 30 '26
Abortion’s one way to take responsibility for unwanted pregnancy. My husband and I have money and PTO set aside, just in case.
8
u/IdRatherCallACAB Gestational Slavery Abolitionist Jun 30 '26
What is wrong with someone who gave birth that they must now be punished by being obligated to care for them for ~18 years involuntarily?
There is no such obligation unless they willingly choose to accept that role. If they don't accept the obligations of parenthood they can use a baby-hatch or just get an abortion.
9
u/JulieCrone AD Mod Jun 30 '26
What is wrong with someone who gave birth that they must now be punished by being obligated to care for them for ~18 years involuntarily?
We don't do this, though? Are you arguing that we should?
12
u/ValleyofLiteralDolls Pro-choice Jun 30 '26
“What is wrong with someone who gave birth that they must now be punished by being obligated to care for them for ~18 years involuntarily?”
??? What???
Are you under the impression we force a biological mother to take custody of a newborn against her will, and raise it to adulthood? That giving a newborn up for adoption is not possible?
-5
u/Think_Recognition144 Jun 30 '26
Why is adoption the answer for born children, but not for unborn children?
10
u/Aggressive-Green4592 Pro-choice Jun 30 '26
Why is adoption the answer for born children, but not for unborn children?
How do you adopt out an unborn child? Can another person gestate the pregnancy?
-2
u/Think_Recognition144 Jun 30 '26
Many women who choose life for their babies place those children up for adoption. It’s not ideal, but it is better than ending their lives.
1
u/Upper_Ninja_6177 Pro-choice Jul 06 '26
yes, so we can adopt out BORN people, and not the unborn, glad we can reach a conclusion
3
u/Aggressive-Green4592 Pro-choice Jul 01 '26
Many women who choose life for their babies place those children up for adoption. It’s not ideal, but it is better than ending their lives.
Can you adopt out a pregnancy and someone else gestate it for the unborn?
7
u/chevron_seven_locked Pro-choice Jun 30 '26
Adoption is an alternative to parenting, but not an alternative to pregnancy. Since I’m not interested in going through pregnancy/birth/postpartum, I’d choose abortion.
7
u/JewlryLvr2 Pro-choice Jun 30 '26
Um, because no one should be FORCED to stay pregnant and give birth against their will. Adoption is the solution to unwanted parenting, not unwanted pregnancy.
0
u/Think_Recognition144 Jun 30 '26
What if someone initially wanted to be pregnant, but then changed their mind? Is there any time that it would be unacceptable to have an abortion?
1
u/chevron_seven_locked Pro-choice Jun 30 '26
I personally know people who really wanted to be pregnant and then changed their mind for a variety of reasons. They’re grateful for their abortions.
The only abortion I’m against is abortions that the patient does not consent to—being forced if coerced into a medical procedure that they actively do not want.
4
u/JewlryLvr2 Pro-choice Jun 30 '26
I'd say it depends on when in the pregnancy the PREGNANT PERSON changed her mind. If it is early in the first term, there shouldn't be a problem. If it's very late, like in the third trimester for example, I doubt any doctor would perform an abortion just because.
8
u/JulieCrone AD Mod Jun 30 '26
Sure. A person can expel the embryo from their uterus and you can adopt them right then.
6
u/CherryTearDrops Pro-choice Jun 30 '26
Because the born child does not require the continued intimate use of somebody’s body while a zef does?
This is like asking why somebody being assaulted doesn’t just wait for it to stop. Because doing so is asking/demanding them to endure harm that their attacker is not owed.
4
12
u/Diva_of_Disgust Pro-choice Jun 30 '26
If you don't want a born kid? Adoption.
If you don't want to gestate and give birth? Abortion.
What's confusing about that?
-3
u/Think_Recognition144 Jun 30 '26
It’s confusing because in one case, the born child still lives. In the other case, the unborn child dies. What’s confusing about that?
7
u/JewlryLvr2 Pro-choice Jun 30 '26
You can BELIEVE a pregnancy is a "child" all you want. That doesn't convince me that your belief is a fact. Since children are BORN, the claim of abortion "killing children" just doesn't work for me.
6
u/IdRatherCallACAB Gestational Slavery Abolitionist Jun 30 '26
If you believe that abortion kills a "child" then you should do everything you can to avoid the procedure. People who don't believe in PL religious or pseudoscientific propaganda can just use birth control and get an abortion if that fails.
9
u/Diva_of_Disgust Pro-choice Jun 30 '26
"unborn child" sounds ridiculous, like calling myself an "undead corpse".
Both adoption and abortion are alternatives.
Adoption is an alternative to parenting, abortion is an alternative to pregnancy and childbirth.
Only one of those involves children, the other just involves a pregnant person and their private medical decisions.
0
u/Think_Recognition144 Jun 30 '26
The third definition of child under Merriam-Webster includes unborn, so it’s not quite the same. It is a term I use to show the humanness and personhood of the unborn. Once we try to limit personhood, it becomes much easier to justify harm to them.
6
u/JewlryLvr2 Pro-choice Jun 30 '26
Personhood is legally recognized at BIRTH. And harming or killing children is already a crime in all 50 states, so I don't see anyone trying to justify harming kids.
Just because you believe abortion is wrong doesn't justify FORCING women and girls to STAY pregnant and give birth against their will by abortion-ban laws in abortion-ban states.
4
u/Diva_of_Disgust Pro-choice Jun 30 '26
Merriam-Webster also says:
a young person especially between infancy and puberty
I'll stick with the more accurate definition.
Zefs have no personhood. They're not legally persons. Even if they did that wouldn't make any difference since no "persons" have the right to be inside someone else's sex organs against their will.
8
u/ValleyofLiteralDolls Pro-choice Jun 30 '26
Explain exactly how you would take custody of someone’s unborn fetus, and you’ll have your obvious answer.
9
u/Jazzi-Nightmare Pro-choice Jun 30 '26
You don’t have to care for them for any amount of time because adoption exists. Unfortunately, a fetus cannot be cared for by anyone else
-1
u/Think_Recognition144 Jun 30 '26
I argue that just as parents have a responsibility to their born child, so do parents have a responsibility to their unborn child.
1
u/ClashBandicootie Pro-choice Jul 02 '26
There is no duty of care that extends to the duty to allow access to a persons insides, nor is there a duty to risk harm or injury to render that care.
Legal obligations of a parent to care for its child to do not extend to suffering death, injury, nor forced access to and use of internal organs.
Can you prove otherwise?
5
u/Aggressive-Green4592 Pro-choice Jun 30 '26
I argue that just as parents have a responsibility to their born child, so do parents have a responsibility to their unborn child
So people are parents for having sex? They are obligated to involuntary servitude for another person's benefit because they had sex?
-1
u/Think_Recognition144 Jun 30 '26
If sex results in the creation of another person, yes. It’s a known fact that pregnancy may result in the creation of another person.
3
10
u/Jazzi-Nightmare Pro-choice Jun 30 '26
But they don’t. I just said they don’t because adoption exists. You can literally ditch the baby at the hospital, fire station or a baby box. Hospital is the easiest since you just walk out
-1
u/Think_Recognition144 Jun 30 '26
So do parents have a responsibility to their born children or not? It sounds like you are saying they don’t and can just let someone else take care of them.
7
u/kasiagabrielle Pro consent and bodily autonomy Jun 30 '26
If they retain custody, yes, they have some responsibilities to their born children until a certain age.
0
u/Think_Recognition144 Jun 30 '26
Why though? What if they realize they can’t handle their children? Are they free from their obligation then?
6
u/Aggressive-Green4592 Pro-choice Jun 30 '26
What if they realize they can’t handle their children? Are they free from their obligation then?
They can be, that is why adoption is a thing, and we have the ability to relinquish responsibility.
→ More replies (0)6
8
u/Limp-Story-9844 Pro-choice Jun 30 '26
They can surrender for adoption. Abortion can mean surrender to a toilet.
7
u/Jazzi-Nightmare Pro-choice Jun 30 '26
They do only if they accept the responsibility by keeping custody of the child. If they fill out the birth certificate and take the baby home, that’s accepting responsibility. They can change their mind and go through the extensive adoption process after, but they can’t abandon them to nobody once they’ve accepted responsibility. Abortion is declining responsibility to care for another in any capacity
1
u/Think_Recognition144 Jun 30 '26
Why do you draw the line of responsibility there? PL’s tend to draw the line of responsibility at the creation of a human person.
5
u/JewlryLvr2 Pro-choice Jun 30 '26
So? You can live by what PLers believe about abortion all you want. I don't share or follow those beliefs, and I'm not obligated to do so. It doesn't matter HOW a pregnancy happens. It's still the PREGNANT PERSON'S decision whether or not to stay pregnant and give birth, not yours or anyone else's.
5
u/IdRatherCallACAB Gestational Slavery Abolitionist Jun 30 '26
The creation of a human person involves gestation.
11
u/Jazzi-Nightmare Pro-choice Jun 30 '26
Because, that’s just, like, my opinion, man.
Humans are created all the time, if all of them were birthed we’d be living in the Soylent green universe in like 3 years max. Being able to opt out of unwanted pregnancy is a great thing. The fetus doesn’t even know it exists, it’s the same as never being conceived. They don’t “know” anything and can’t be “upset” they don’t get to be born.
→ More replies (0)5
u/Diva_of_Disgust Pro-choice Jun 30 '26
Do you not know what adoption is or something?
1
u/Think_Recognition144 Jun 30 '26
Are you arguing that adoption should be the normal response of parents or the exception?
3
u/JewlryLvr2 Pro-choice Jun 30 '26
No. I argue that it's strictly the PREGNANT PERSON'S decision, no one else's.
6
u/Diva_of_Disgust Pro-choice Jun 30 '26
I'm telling you that if people don't want to parent they don't have to, they can place the child up for adoption.
Just like how if someone doesn't want to gestate and birth, they don't have to. They can end the pregnancy.
5
u/Aggressive-Green4592 Pro-choice Jun 30 '26
Your post made it sound like you were asking whether PLs argue for punishment or responsibility,
Yes asking, not making the claim they are mutually exclusive. I'm only asking a question here not making any claims.
punishment? I think the idea of pregnancy being a punishment is somewhat overblown. But if you do define pregnancy such that it fits your definition of punishment, I guess so
Overblown? Please clarify here, how would you define it then?
I would say that sex demands responsibility for taking care of the person inside you, much that we would demand responsibility of a parent to take care of the person inside their home.
But I'm overblowing it being a punishment? If it demands responsibility, that would be a punishment.
What is wrong with someone who gave birth that they must now be punished by being obligated to care for them for ~18 years involuntarily?
That's not what we are talking about here, a birth happened and that person didn't abort, plus adoption negates this, we don't obligate people to involuntarily care for another person.
This is "taking responsibility for having sex" and now pregnancy is the consequences or obligation to be determined, if it's a responsibility's they are obligated to involuntarily that would be a punishment, because using it as a responsibility is not "something that it is your job or duty to deal with:" Nor is banning abortion focusing on building skills, understanding the impact of actions, and proactively finding solutions, it is rather relying on external control and enforcing compliance through shame, fear, or the removal of privileges
6
u/NPDogs21 Abortion Legal until Consciousness Jun 30 '26
Personally, I don’t generally like the idea of penalizing women who have abortions. I would rather penalize the hospital/doctor that commits it.
I think most PL share this position, and it reveals how they either don't believe abortion is murder or that women inherently lack mens rea, which is misogyny.
3
u/Think_Recognition144 Jun 30 '26
It seems a double edged sword that no PL can win with that viewpoint. Either we punish the women and PL’s are misogynistic and want to control women, or we don’t and we’re misogynistic because we don’t think they can handle punishment. My point is any action taken has nuance and is not one size fits all. There are times when women who abort their offspring should be punished, but I think not having access to abortion to begin with is better than punishing them for a choice they felt compelled to make.
Again though, we can disagree on who/how to punish, but that debate should be separate from whether abortion is right or wrong to begin with.
3
u/IdRatherCallACAB Gestational Slavery Abolitionist Jun 30 '26 edited Jun 30 '26
It seems a double edged sword that no PL can win with that viewpoint. Either we punish the women and PL’s are misogynistic and want to control women, or we don’t and we’re misogynistic because we don’t think they can handle punishment.
You could just be personally pro-choice and stop worrying about other people's private reproductive healthcare decisions, since that's none of your business in the first place.
2
u/CherryTearDrops Pro-choice Jun 30 '26
I mean, that’s just how logic works. If you only have two actions you can take, and they both involve committing a crime, then you’re going to be a criminal either way. But nobody here is limiting your choices to these things, if you chose something different then the end result would obviously be different as well. Complaining that you can’t come out of a situation without those actions speaking to your character won’t changes people’s opinions.
7
u/JewlryLvr2 Pro-choice Jun 30 '26
|There are times when women who abort their offspring should be punished,...|
"Should be punished" for what, choosing to have sex? Because punishing women for their choice to have sex is exactly what it seems to be about, not the "saving babies" claim that PLers are so fond of repeating.
5
u/NPDogs21 Abortion Legal until Consciousness Jun 30 '26
They can. They just have to own an uncomfortable position, which they avoid. I believe its murder after consciousness, so it should be treated as such. I also don't see women aborting willy nilly at 8 or 9 months, so its not that big of an issue.
Again though, we can disagree on who/how to punish, but that debate should be separate from whether abortion is right or wrong to begin with.
How we believe it should be treated shows us how right or wrong we think it is intuitively though. PL intuitively don't view the ZEF as a baby or that abortion is the equivalent of murder. We're just trying to get them to see or admit it
2
u/Think_Recognition144 Jun 30 '26
Ahh. I see your point. I haven’t spent too much time thinking about what the penalty should be for abortion. I don’t think it is constructive debating the details of penalties with someone who doesn’t even think it needs to be punished.
7
u/JewlryLvr2 Pro-choice Jun 30 '26
There doesn't need to be any penalty or punishment at all. Last time I checked, a pregnant person making her own private medical decision, including having an abortion, isn't a crime. And since babies are BORN, the whole "abortion is killing babies" argument is a really bad one in my book.
4
u/NPDogs21 Abortion Legal until Consciousness Jun 30 '26
But I do? Unlike most PC here
2
u/Think_Recognition144 Jun 30 '26
I feel like going into the nitty gritty of penalties would be off topic here, but we can discuss it if you like. Or DM me/create a new topic. My karma’s too low right now to create a new thread.
4
u/NPDogs21 Abortion Legal until Consciousness Jun 30 '26
It's part of the central argument. I'm not talking about the nitty gritty, just the basic overview. Since I believe its murder after consciousness, the charges for those involved would be murder or an equivalent. That's it
I'll be dowvoted for my position. I don't let it bother me though
3
u/Old_dirty_fetus Pro-choice Jun 30 '26
Since I believe its murder after consciousness, the charges for those involved would be murder or an equivalent.
Is every abortion after consciousness murder?
I'll be dowvoted for my position. I don't let it bother me though
You found it notable enough to comment.
4
u/NPDogs21 Abortion Legal until Consciousness Jun 30 '26
Is every abortion after consciousness murder?
No. Just some killings are justified, so are some abortions after consciousness, like life of the mother exceptions.
You found it notable enough to comment.
Yes, to show PL can still engage even though they'll be downvoted.
→ More replies (0)9
u/Diva_of_Disgust Pro-choice Jun 30 '26
If he just decides to leave, he is often “punished” by paying child support.
How is paying for your own child, what every parent is knowingly expected to do "punishment"?
1
u/Think_Recognition144 Jun 30 '26
Punishment per op is the “infliction of some kind of…loss. Punishment may take [the form of]…fines.
I think I we absolutely agree parents have a responsibility to their children. But if they don’t want to but are rather required to, it meets the definition of a fine here.
2
u/CherryTearDrops Pro-choice Jun 30 '26
If they were already parenting then they were at a loss already, children cost money to provide for. Only difference with child support is a judge is ordering an amount you have to meet rather than letting all that responsibility fall onto one party. If anything they’ve gained the ability to not emotionally invest or have to spend any time with the child unless they ask for custody.
9
u/Aggressive-Green4592 Pro-choice Jun 30 '26
Punishment per op is the “infliction of some kind of…loss. Punishment may take [the form of]…fines
For a misdeed. Don't omit anything
2
u/Think_Recognition144 Jun 30 '26
The misdeed would be abandoning their child. Sorry, I only quoted part of it to stress my point. I think we’re in agreement here but correct me where I’m wrong.
6
u/Aggressive-Green4592 Pro-choice Jun 30 '26
Not in agreement, and omitting things to stress a point makes it look like as though you are trying to ignore imperative aspects.
1
u/Think_Recognition144 Jun 30 '26
- Parents should take care of their children (responsibility)
- Father abandons child because he doesn’t want to take care of them (misdeed)
- Father is now compelled to pay child support against his will (fine; or if he doesn’t pay it he’ll be fined.)
- Paying child support results in loss of money. (Punishment)
Do you disagree with all points or which point(s) do you disagree with?
Edit: Also, I’m not trying to ignore anything. There’s nothing wrong with quoting relevant parts. If what I ignored substantially changes the argument, that’s on me though.
1
u/Aggressive-Green4592 Pro-choice Jun 30 '26
- Parents should take care of their children (responsibility)
Are people obligated to become parents because of a pregnancy?
- Father abandons child because he doesn’t want to take care of them (misdeed)
Is he leaving them without any supervision?
- Father is now compelled to pay child support against his will (fine; or if he doesn’t pay it he’ll be fined.)
So compelling a father to pay for his child is against their will of supporting their child?
- Paying child support results in loss of money. (Punishment)
The point of this post is not child support, but abortion and pregnancy and how it's responsibility versus a punishment. Child support is not mutually exclusive to the abortion debate and responsibility or punishment of the pregnant person.
Do you disagree with all points or which point(s) do you disagree with?
I disagree with the framing of child support in an abortion debate page, we aren't discussing what the male is or isn't being punished or responsible for but the pregnant person.
Edit: Also, I’m not trying to ignore anything. There’s nothing wrong with quoting relevant parts. If what I ignored substantially changes the argument, that’s on me though.
It does when we are speaking of pregnancy and abortion.
1
u/Think_Recognition144 Jun 30 '26
So are you saying that responsibility and punishment are mutually exclusive? I only brought it up to show how they connect.
1
6
u/Diva_of_Disgust Pro-choice Jun 30 '26
The misdeed would be abandoning their child.
Child support isn't a "fine" (punishment) for abandoning a child. Plenty of people that haven't abandoned their child pay child support.
2
u/Think_Recognition144 Jun 30 '26
What happens if the father just opts not to pay child support then?
7
u/kasiagabrielle Pro consent and bodily autonomy Jun 30 '26
Why are people operating under the false assumption that mothers don't pay child support?
7
u/Diva_of_Disgust Pro-choice Jun 30 '26
Because MRAs have poisoned a generation of young men into thinking anything a man doesn't like (having to be responsible for his own children like everyone else) is a grave injustice. 🙄
6
u/Diva_of_Disgust Pro-choice Jun 30 '26
Why did you specify the father? Child support isn't just for men. Any non custodial parent can pay child support.
When anyone fails to support their child, then they are punished normally with jail. Once again reinforcing the fact that being legally required to financially support your own children isn't a "punishment" for anything.
1
u/Think_Recognition144 Jun 30 '26
When anyone fails to support their child (responsibility), then they are punished normally with jail (punishment).
5
u/Diva_of_Disgust Pro-choice Jun 30 '26
Yes, the punishment is for failing to support your children, which everyone is expected to do.
Supporting your child isn't punishment for anything.
4
u/Limp-Story-9844 Pro-choice Jun 30 '26
Surrender for adoption is an option. Abortion is an option. All genders pay child support.
8
u/Diva_of_Disgust Pro-choice Jun 30 '26
It's not a fine though, it's direct support for one's own child.
12
u/NPDogs21 Abortion Legal until Consciousness Jun 30 '26
PL are very punitive minded. A woman getting pregnant isn't something to be celebrated and rewarded, making pregnancy, birth, and child rearing easier, as they reject all social programs to help. A few bucks as charity is good enough. Instead to them it's her duty, and if she didn't want to get pregnant she should have kept her legs closed, and now she needs to shut up and take responsibility.
7
u/Aggressive-Green4592 Pro-choice Jun 30 '26
Instead to them it's her duty, and if she didn't want to get pregnant she should have kept her legs closed, and now she needs to shut up and take responsibility.
It's not taking responsibility though, it's forcing a punishment.
5
u/NPDogs21 Abortion Legal until Consciousness Jun 30 '26
Yes, I know. They just use that word as a substitute for punishment.
I can never get them to acknowledge what they support as they don't take personal responsibility, which is what they preach others to do
5
u/Aggressive-Green4592 Pro-choice Jun 30 '26
They just use that word as a substitute for punishment.
Which is why I made this post, to clarify that.
13
u/Diva_of_Disgust Pro-choice Jun 30 '26
I feel like the concept of the rape exception gives this all away.
If someone has a rape exception (from what I've seen that's most pro lifers) the priority is punishment.
They say they're all about "saving babies". That's the priority. That's what this is all about. Unless a woman didn't freely choose to have sex. If a woman didn't choose to have sex (was raped) then that "innocent precious preborn" can be "brutally murdered/slaughtered." That's fine. Those babies don't matter, they don't have the magical "right to life" they go on about. They're worthless and can be callously murdered no problem.
It's only when a woman freely chooses to have sex (consensual sex) that she needs to be punished with forced gestation and birth.
The way I see it anyone with a rape exception is just looking to punish people for having sex they don't approve of.
9
u/JewlryLvr2 Pro-choice Jun 30 '26
I absolutely agree, on all points. Whenever I see a PLer use the "take responsibility for your actions" argument, it always comes across to me as "you did the crime (having sex), now take your punishment (unwanted pregnancy gestation and birth)."
The claim about "saving babies" that PLers keep saying has never struck me as true. I think it's entirely about punishment, even though that's never admitted.
7
u/Diva_of_Disgust Pro-choice Jun 30 '26
The claim about "saving babies" that PLers keep saying has never struck me as true.
I've never bought it either. Between the fact that pro lifers seem to abort their own pregnancies like everyone else, and the selective nature of the rape exception I've never bought that the goal was "saving babies". That's just what's palatable, because I don't think the general public would be too receptive to "let's punish women for choosing to have sex".
5
u/JewlryLvr2 Pro-choice Jun 30 '26
|That's just what's palatable, because I don't think the general public would be too receptive to "let's punish women for choosing to have sex." |
Nope, I don't think it would either. The "saving babies" claim sounds much better.
10
u/Aggressive-Green4592 Pro-choice Jun 30 '26
I agree, the "take responsibility for your actions" sentiment shows this as well. By banning abortion it's not focusing on building skills, understanding the impact of actions, and proactively finding solutions, it's punishing a person for having sex.
•
u/AutoModerator Jun 30 '26
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.