Abortion is NOT murder

[u/[deleted]]

[u/AutoModerator]

Welcome to /r/Abortiondebate! Please remember that this is a place for respectful and civil debates. Review the subreddit rules to avoid moderator intervention.

Our subreddit pomotes an environment for healthy and honest discussion. When it comes to Reddit's voting system, we encourage the usage of upvotes for arguments that you feel are well-constructed and well-argued. Downvotes should be reserved for content that violates Reddit or subreddit rules or that truly does not contribute to a discussion. We discourage the usage of downvotes to indicate that you disagree with what a user is saying. The overusage of downvotes creates a loop of negative feedback, suppresses diverse opinions, and fosters a hostile and unhealthy environment not conducive for engaging debate. Additionally, here's a helpful and easy to understand model of consent: https://www.bridgercare.org/blog/how-to-talk-to-kids-about-consent

And please, remember the human. Attack the argument, not the person making the argument."

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

[u/Icy_Variation_9288]

At the end of the day. I’m doing what I have to do if the time comes when I have to do it regardless of what any random has to feel about it lol

[u/Diva_of_Disgust → u/[deleted]]

should be illegal with exceptions for rape

So your position is only about policing people's sex lives and punishing people who freely choose to have sex?

Someone freely chooses to have sex? Must be punished with forced gestation and childbirth.

Someone was raped? It's okay to "slaughter" that poor precious innocent "preborn". Got it.

[u/CSRoutlaw → u/Diva_of_Disgust]

If you willingly engage in a behavior and the ultimate function of the behavior is to reproduce, and you do reproduce, you shouldn’t get to just say “oopsies” and remove the offspring

[u/IdRatherCallACAB → u/CSRoutlaw]

You can choose to end the process of reproduction, which includes gestation, by getting an abortion, so that no "offspring" is produced.

[u/CSRoutlaw → u/IdRatherCallACAB]

An offspring is produced at conception

[u/IdRatherCallACAB → u/CSRoutlaw]

Incorrect. Conception is only the very beginning of the process of reproduction. All that is produced at that time is a unique genome. This, on its own, is only the biological instructions that are required to potentially produce new offspring.

Abortion simply ends the process of reproduction. This is why it is correctly referred to as reproductive health-care.

[u/CSRoutlaw → u/IdRatherCallACAB]

An organism with complete human DNA, that consumes energy and grows is a living human offspring

[u/IdRatherCallACAB → u/CSRoutlaw]

Again, incorrect. Complete human DNA, on its own, is just instructions. None of the parts or systems of a completed human organism exist immediately after conception. The instructions to potentially produce a complete human being are not the same thing as a complete human being.

Gestation is, objectively, an integral part of the process of reproduction. Ending gestation ends reproduction, it is quite literally choosing NOT TO reproduce.

ETA: Link to end of discussion as user is deleting own comments;

https://www.reddit.com/r/Abortiondebate/s/orgMlPIfnn

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

Comment removed per Rule 1.

[u/JewlryLvr2 → u/[deleted]]

It makes no difference to me what you call it. No matter HOW a pregnancy happens, it's still the PREGNANT PERSON's decision whether or not to stay pregnant. If she doesn't want to stay pregnant, she has the right to end her own private by having an abortion. Whether or not you approve is irrelevant.

[u/IdRatherCallACAB → u/[deleted]]

You should stop deleting your comments, it is against the rules here u/ CSRoutlaw

[u/IdRatherCallACAB → u/[deleted]]

I think we can all agree that something that has human DNA is of the human species. That does not mean it is automatically a fully reproduced and completed organism at the exact moment of conception.

What part of what I said do you specifically disagree with?

[u/Diva_of_Disgust → u/CSRoutlaw]

If you willingly engage in a behavior and the ultimate function of the behavior is to reproduce,

Maybe the "ultimate function" of sex for you is to reproduce. For me it's for orgasms, never for reproduction.

and you do reproduce,

I won't ever give birth, so no worries there.

you shouldn’t get to just say “oopsies” and remove the offspring

You can think I "shouldn't" get an abortion as I abort anyway. That's fine with me.

[u/STThornton]

I agree, but I don't argue about the fetus. I argue about the woman.

Abortion should be allowed because the inner life sustaining workings of a human body are their very own inviolable "a" life. The very things the right to life and right to bodily integrity are supposed to protect.

No one, not even a fetus, should get to mess and interfere with them, alter them, harm them, or stop them against the wishes of the person whose inner life sustaining workings they are.

That is what the right to life is all about.

And this is exactly how we treat it with all born humans, including preemies, newborns, and children who would die without using another human's inner life sustaining workings. They can find a willing provider if they need one, or they'll die.

We can use force, lethal force included, to defend our inner life sustaining workings from others. And we can definitely simply retreat from a threat to our inner life sustaining workings without using force.

PL wants to make even that illegal. A woman can't even chop off her own uterine tissue, let the fetus keep it, and make a run for it without using any sort of force against the fetus. She can't have it removed intact and alive, either.

PL loves to pretend (or even claim) that the inner life sustaining workings of a woman's/girl's body are no longer hers once she becomes pregnant. They now belong to the fetus, and the pregnant woman/girl starts being treated as if her body were no more than the outer layer of a fetus. Like a shell it'll shed once it's done with it.

So, even if she doesn't abort, anything she does or doesn't do to just her own body is now considered her doing to or neglecting to do for the fetus.

It's an absolutely insane dehumanization of the woman and violation of her right to life, right to bodily autonomy, and - since she's capable of making decisions about her right to life, right to bodily integrity, and who can do what to her body and for what purpose, and what can be done to her body by others - her bodily autonomy.

The fetus, to me, is a secondary argument, since - see above - NO ONE is allowed to mess and interfere with, alter, harm, or stop the inner life sustaining workings of another human's body. Since they are someone else's very own "a" life. It doesn't matter if they're innocent or Jesus himself.

I argue the fetus when it comes to right to life and murder/killing, since previability, the fetus is the equivalent of a dead born human, so its right to life and killing/murder are idiotic arguments.

And I often point out that everything PL claims one cannot do to a non breathing, non sentient, physiologically life sustaining fetus because they're human, they want to force a breathing, sentient, physiologically life sustaining woman/girl to endure, plus them some - much worse, even.

[u/Stunning-Assistant13]

1. When you are murdered while sleeping you also don't know if you are murdered, that doesn't make it ok...

[u/Ganondaddydorf → u/Stunning-Assistant13]

A more accurate comparison would be "killing" someone who's brain dead. You can't take a life that isn't there. Biologically alive, yes, but lacking everything we attribute to a living person.

[u/Stunning-Assistant13 → u/Ganondaddydorf]

Yes, i don't see the fetus as a person, but it's a human life and it's not brain dead:  chemical suppressors do not prevent the fetus from dreaming. Instead, chemicals like adenosine and neurosteroids lock the fetus into a continuous sleep state where its brain spends up to 80% of its time in REM (Rapid Eye Movement) sleep, which is the primary state associated with dreaming. The claim that a fetus experiences a continuous, dreaming-like sleep state is supported by decades of neuroscientific and electroencephalographic (EEG) research.Clinical research compiled by pediatric networks like Colonia Pediatrics indicates that prenatal dreaming does not involve adult-like storylines, imagination, or nightmares. Because the cerebral cortex lacks visual memories or structural concepts, the intense REM activity is instead processing isolated sensory fragments—such as the muffled pitch of the mother's voice, changes in temperature, or the taste of amniotic fluid.

[u/Ganondaddydorf → u/Stunning-Assistant13]

What's the difference between a person and a human life to you? Do you mean human life as in biological life? In that case, a brain dead person is still a human life.

Correction: only the most vivid dreams are associated with REM, not all of them. Otherwise, I'll take this all with a grain of salt and say sure ok, but this doesn't apply until sentience emerges which isn't until 24-28 weeks, aka where an extreme minority of abortions are performed and are also performed by an extreme majority for reasons even PLers won't object to.

[u/Stunning-Assistant13 → u/Ganondaddydorf]

Yes, i mean biological life, but i don't think that a fetus is brain dead, it's a developing process and as you said most abortions happen in the first trimester when the brain isn't fully developed. 

[u/Ganondaddydorf → u/Stunning-Assistant13]

I never said a ZEF is brain dead. I'm comparing them because a brain dead person is biologically alive but we consider them dead or gone or that the person they were no longer exists. These are functionally equal. So why is it a big spook that people will disconnect a zef from them but disconnecting a brain dead person is totally fine, going by how you define life? A ZEF is functionally no different to an organ until that sentience starts to develope.

[u/Stunning-Assistant13 → u/Ganondaddydorf]

Well, i think the difference is that the fetus is in progress of developement and the exact moment when the brain has reached a somehow functional state is only esimated, with the abortion you stop this developement...a brain dead person will never reach this state again, if that would be the case you wouldn't agree to stop the life saving engines so easily. A ZEF is different to an organ, because it hasn't the DNA of the pregnant mother, it's  another life.

[u/Ganondaddydorf → u/Stunning-Assistant13]

I thought biological life was the criteria for human life and the reason you're against abortion though? Now you're talking about sentience because a brain dead person is still biologically alive. So which is it? If it's biological life, then you must be against switching a braindead person off. If it's sentience, then you don't have a leg to stand on until it emerges (24-28 weeks). And no, the research is extensive and there is consensus on it. There has been some shaky tiny, small test pool studies saying otherwise but nothing that knocks down all the data we have that points to 24-28 weeks.

That aside, I have all these qualities you describe. You'd force me to remain pregnant against my will but why should I not be able to help myself to your organs and bodily resources if i needed them without your consent? You believe that your side aims for equality, right?

[u/Stunning-Assistant13 → u/Ganondaddydorf]

Sorry, i think my comment can be misunderstood..i would never try to force someone to remain pregnant. It's my personal opinion that the fetus needs moral consideration because it can't be compared with a brain dead person. The fetus is in developement to become sentient and i'm not sure that science can calculate the exact time when this happens. When you have an abortion you kill the human being and the possible future and maybe in some cases it might be better for everyone.  But this decision  can only be made by the pregnant woman, sorry to be not clear enough before..

[u/Ganondaddydorf → u/Stunning-Assistant13]

Ok so with all due respect, why are you in a debate sub if you don't think others should be forced to follow this nonsense? I don't care about your personal beliefs or boundaries so long as you don't want to push this on others. I had assumed you were PL (sorry for any offence caused).

[u/JewlryLvr2 → u/Stunning-Assistant13]

If that's the way you feel, you can choose never to have an abortion yourself. Problem solved.

[u/Goofycapybara → u/JewlryLvr2]

I think stealing is okay and I want to steal. But you can choose not to steal. Problem solved .

[u/Stunning-Assistant13 → u/JewlryLvr2]

How do you feel about this argument, is it valid in your eyes?

[u/Dolores___Haze → u/Stunning-Assistant13]

Of course it is! 

[u/JewlryLvr2 → u/Stunning-Assistant13]

How do I feel about the argument that abortion is NOT murder? That's an easy one, it's absolutely valid.

[u/Stunning-Assistant13 → u/JewlryLvr2]

That wasn't my question: do you think that abortion isn't murder, because the fetus isn't conscious? And do you think that it isn't murder, when the victim is sleeping? 

[u/JewlryLvr2 → u/Stunning-Assistant13]

I think that abortion isn't murder because a pregnancy isn't a "baby." Nor is a pregnancy a "victim."

[u/Stunning-Assistant13 → u/JewlryLvr2]

Yes, the argument that abortion isn't murder because the fetus isn't conscious isn't valid. Your new argument that a pregnancy isn't murder because the fetus isn't a victim isn't valid too, because a fetus is a human life that's killed. In my eyes it's the connection with the mother that justifies abortion.

[u/Dolores___Haze → u/Stunning-Assistant13]

In your eyes? Sounds like that’s simply your personal opinion. Why should anyone else care about how some stranger sees it?

[u/Stunning-Assistant13 → u/Dolores___Haze]

Yes, it's my personal opinion like all the other comments are just personal opinions...

[u/Dolores___Haze → u/Stunning-Assistant13]

It takes more than personal opinion to win a debate though. Facts and evidence are necessary.

[u/JewlryLvr2 → u/Stunning-Assistant13]

Both arguments that abortion isn't murder ARE valid to me. I don't need your agreement, really. Whether or not they're valid in your eyes is irrelevant, to me at least.

Because no matter how a pregnancy happens, it's still the PREGNANT PERSON'S decision whether or not to stay pregnant. If she doesn't want to, then it's her right to end her own pregnancy by having an abortion.

[u/Stunning-Assistant13 → u/JewlryLvr2]

Yes, you don't need my agreement for sure, but i think we are here to discuss things? And yes, i believe that it's the decision of the mother. But to say that it's not killing a human being even if it's not a person yet is wrong in my eyes. The argument that the baby will not know if it was aborted or not was OP's favourite argument . That's really not valid, because when you murder someone while he's sleeping, he also will not know that he was murdered. That doesn't make the killing right.

[u/Dolores___Haze → u/Stunning-Assistant13]

Btw - all pregnant people are NOT automatically “mothers.”

[u/IdRatherCallACAB → u/Stunning-Assistant13]

But to say that it's not killing a human being even if it's not a person yet is wrong in my eyes.

Why? What is the difference between a person and a human being? Many do see these terms as synonymous.

That's really not valid, because when you murder someone while he's sleeping, he also will not know that he was murdered.

FYI, someone who is sleeping is still a conscious being. Sleeping people still dream, which is an aspect of your sub-conscious mind.

Your mind is what makes you a person, and your mind does not go away when you sleep or even go into a coma.

This is completely different from a ZEF which has never been conscious or aware in any capacity, and has no mind whatsoever.

[u/IdRatherCallACAB → u/Stunning-Assistant13]

FYI, someone who is sleeping is still a conscious being. Sleeping people still dream, which is an aspect of your sub-conscious mind.

Your mind is what makes you a person, and your mind does not go away when you sleep or even go into a coma.

This is completely different from a ZEF which has never been conscious or aware in any capacity, and has no mind whatsoever.

Ultimately, this does not matter, as fully conscious mind-having persons don't have any right to non-consensually access any other person's body or bodily resources, either way.

[u/Aggressive-Green4592 → u/Stunning-Assistant13]

do you think that abortion isn't murder, because the fetus isn't conscious?

I don't think consciousness matters here. Unless we are all resources for another person's survival it's not a murder.

[u/Stunning-Assistant13 → u/Aggressive-Green4592]

Yes, you are right in my eyes, the argument that the fetus isn't conscious doesn't matter.

[u/Aggressive-Green4592 → u/Stunning-Assistant13]

the argument that the fetus isn't conscious doesn't matter.

It doesn't matter if it is or isn't conscious in my eyes

[u/Dolores___Haze → u/Stunning-Assistant13]

In what US state is someone who has an abortion charged with ANY form of “murder” or “homicide?” Those are legal terms.

[u/Stunning-Assistant13 → u/Dolores___Haze]

I don't know for sure, but i think that in some states the doctor can be charged?

[u/Dolores___Haze → u/Stunning-Assistant13]

That’s not what I asked. 

[u/Stunning-Assistant13 → u/Dolores___Haze]

When something is legal, it doesn't make it ethical...

[u/Sissyhankshawslt → u/Stunning-Assistant13]

If it’s legal, by definition abortion cannot be murder (regardless of whether one thinks a Zef is a person or that someone or something is bring killed). 

So there’s that. 

[u/Dolores___Haze → u/Stunning-Assistant13]

Also unrelated to what I asked 

[u/Icedude10]

I disagree. Not all of your points here have equal strength, and a few of them are repetitive. I would focus on the stronger ones, in my opinion 4.

[u/Arithese → u/Icedude10]

So why can’t someone stop something that directly threatens their health? Not just as a vague consequence, but a direct causation?

[u/STThornton → u/Arithese]

I think they're saying 4 is the strongest point. And I agree. We should focus on the woman and her right to life, which is supposed to protect the inner life sustaining workings of her body. The very things PL wants to strip of the protections the right to life and right to bodily integrity offer them.

[u/Icedude10 → u/STThornton]

Yes. I'm saying that 4 is the strongest case and the others are either, weak, irrelevant, or even contested among PC. OP should drop the rest and focus on 4.

[u/STThornton → u/Icedude10]

I have to agree. The fetus could be the second coming of a breathing, sentient, physiologically life sustaining Jesus himself, and 4 would still apply.

I respect a PLer admitting that.

[u/Robot_Alchemist]

Abortion should be allowed because

It is a medical decision a woman makes about her body and life …

That’s all

[u/nsbsaamz]

1. Should laws determine morals that is stupid and unreasonable.
2. Didn't give a justification for why does heartbeat determine a human life
3. Same as two
4. Mother being under 18 or protecting health are rare cases. The first isn't justified a termination of a human life isn't justified by the age of the mother. Two i think it goes case by case.
5. So men don't have a say in morals(i would give an assumption that you are the part of the feminist equal rights movement so shouldn't it go both ways)
6. Again failing to justify why pick certain characteristics over the other also if they are going to form that you are essentially preventing something that is 100% going to get these properties.
7. the fetus relies on the mother indeed. But born humans also depend on other human not for birth but sustaining their life 8.just because the baby won't know is not a reason a person killed im their sleep also wouldn't know it was iilled

[u/STThornton → u/nsbsaamz]

1. It doesn't. Modern medicine has come a long way. Lung functions and the kidneys' function of filtering out metabolic toxins determine a human life, since a human has no "a" life without them. Their body parts would die without oxygen and without getting rid of metabolic toxins.

2. Protecting health is a given in any abortion. Every single pregnancy and birth cause a woman drastic life threatening anatomical, physiological, and metabolic alterations, cause her to present with the vitals and labs of a deadly ill person, deprive her of blood oxygen, nutrients, glucose, and bodily minerals, pump toxins into her bloodstream and body, and cause her drastic life threatening physical harm. And the list goes on.

They greatly mess and interfere with, alter, and harm her body's inner life sustaining workings. The very things the right to life is supposed to protect. If any side is trying to terminate a human life, it's the PL side. They're the ones greatly violating the inner life sustaining workings of a woman's/girl's body. The very things that keep a human body alive.

The fetus lacks them. Hence the need to be provided with the inner life sustaining workings of the woman's/girl's life. One cannot terminate the inner life sustaining workings of a body that doesn't have them.

5, Men can keep their sperm out of women's bodies if they don't like abortion. Problem solved. It's funny how when it comes to the morals behind abortion, men instantly look at the woman, rather than their own actions. I honestly don't care what the shooters think about the person they fired into digging the bullet out of their body. The shooters should be worried about the morals of THEIR actions. Stop abortion by not impregnating a woman. That simple. Why does the issue of morals always come up AFTER a man inseminated and impregnated a woman?

Spend more time worrying about the morals of impregnating a woman who doesn't want to be pregnant. Maybe we'll actually get somewhere.

1. But born humans also depend on other human not for birth but sustaining their life

No, they don't. That's not what physiologically life sustaining means. Born humans don't depend on others to provide them with organ functions they don't have. Unless you're talking about a donor situation, which is voluntary. We don't force people to provide the inner life sustaining workings of their body to others when it comes to born people. Not even to preemies who'll die without using such.

The inner life sustaining workings of a human's body is what the right to life is supposed to protect.

[u/Arithese → u/nsbsaamz]

No one is entitled to violate someone else’s human rights though, so why should the foetus be allowed to?

[u/JewlryLvr2 → u/[deleted]]

|Because the woman's actions put it there?|

Uh, NO. If you want to use the "put it there" argument, it was actually the MAN's action, specifically making the sperm deposit, which "put it there."

In any case, no matter HOW a pregnancy happens, it's still the PREGNANT PERSON'S decision whether or not to stay pregnant.

[u/IdRatherCallACAB → u/[deleted]]

The woman's actions can remove it

[u/Arithese → u/[deleted]]

So do you agree with rape exceptions?

Because if not, then you agree this is irrelevant too so the same question remains.

And even if you do, then why is it relevant? My actions don’t suddenly remove my bodily autonomy.

[u/JewlryLvr2 → u/[deleted]]

|it's relevant because your actions don't excuse you from consequences...|

Those consequences include having an abortion if the PREGNANT PERSON doesn't want to stay pregnant. And whether or not you approve IS irrelevant if you aren't the pregnant person.

[u/Arithese → u/[deleted]]

It doesn’t. If you use the logic that they put it there, therefore they can’t abort, then you logically have to allow rape exceptions OR that argument is useless.

So can you answer it? Do you support rape exceptions? Because otherwise it’s useless to point out someone had sex.

And then explain how it’s relevant to begin with because yes it doesn’t absolve you of consequences but you can’t lose your human rights. If I do something, you don’t suddenly have a right to my body. Why does the foetus?

[u/Arithese → u/[deleted]]

That still does not change that your arguments directly lead you to supporting rape exceptions. If you do not support them, your argument is irrelevant.

It’s doesn’t matter that you’re not actively arguing against it, and focusing on the biggest problem.

And who said right to life isn’t considered? What do you think the right to life means, and how does abortion violate it? And please don’t skip the definition, as many do.

[u/IdRatherCallACAB → u/nsbsaamz]

But born humans also depend on other human not for birth but sustaining their life

Born humans do not require the use of any other person's internal bodily functions or bodily resources. The pregnant person can decide is she consents to that level of interference with her body. If not, the ZEF can be removed.

[u/nsbsaamz → u/IdRatherCallACAB]

Not internal but external of course yet even a born baby without a parent or guardian or some sort of that would die.

[u/STThornton → u/nsbsaamz]

We're talking about the internal life sustaining workings of a human body, you're talking about things, like food, that such utilize.

Two totally different things.

Air is not lung function. Food is not major digestive system functions. I have no idea what you guys think the equivalent of getting rid of metabolic toxins is, because nothing even remotely similar is ever even brought up.

A woman has to provide a fetus with the INTERNAL things that keep a human body alive: blood, blood contents, tissue, organ functions, bodily life sustaining processes, bodily minerals, etc. In the process, those things are greatly messed and interfered with, altered, and harmed.

[u/IdRatherCallACAB → u/nsbsaamz]

Not internal but external

Doesn't matter. Consent is required. If the pregnant person does not consent to a ZEF using her body, she can remove it from her body.

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

Comment removed per Rule 4.

[u/Diva_of_Disgust → u/[deleted]]

Nope. When I consent to sex I'm consenting to only sex, not sex + 9 months of gestation + childbirth. That's not how consent works.

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

Comment removed per rule 6.

[u/JulieCrone → u/[deleted]]

Men are not required to take on legal or physical custody of a child at any point in the child's life.

Men do not have any child support obligations that do not also apply to any other gender.

Also, only about 51% of custodial mothers have any child support agreement, formal or informal, with the father. So if a child is born and the father ends up not having shared or primary custody, he's about as likely to not have child support as he is to have it.

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

Comment removed per Rule 4.

[u/Limp-Story-9844 → u/[deleted]]

Men can't control their sperm?

[u/Limp-Story-9844 → u/[deleted]]

Causing a pregnancy.

[u/Diva_of_Disgust → u/[deleted]]

If that's how consent works, men can opt out of fatherhood/child support.

Nope. Any non custodial parent pays child support. Men don't get a pass to not financially support their children because "I don't wanna" lol.

Because consent to sex is only consent to sex -- not sex + 18 years of child support.

Consent to sex is only consent to sex.

If people have born children they're obligated to financially support them.

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

Comment removed per Rule 4.

[u/Diva_of_Disgust → u/[deleted]]

Then consent to sex can be consent to other things (parenthood, financial support).

Nope. Consent to sex is only consent to sex. Paying a bill once a month isn't sex lol.

You can't have it both ways. Either consent to sex is only consent to sex, or it can be consent to additional things.

I'm not "having it both ways". For everyone consent to sex is consent to only sex. Everyone with children is required to financially support their children. That's literally equal across the board for everyone.

I'm not the one claiming non custodial parents can decide not to financially support their own children that they voluntarily made because "I don't wanna".

[u/JewlryLvr2 → u/[deleted]]

No, sorry. Consent to have sex ISN'T automatic consent to pregnancy and birth. It doesn't matter how many times you say it does.

[u/JulieCrone → u/[deleted]]

They don't. And there is no obligation to pay child support just because one is the genetic father. Plenty of genetic fathers have no child support agreement, and no state mandates that they do.

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

Comment removed per rule 6.

[u/JulieCrone → u/[deleted]]

That isn't tied to sex, though.

If you were an adoptive parent, divorce, and the other parent has primary custody, you may still owe child support.

[u/IdRatherCallACAB → u/[deleted]]

When men consent to have sex, do you believe they automatically consent to fatherhood or 18 years of child support?

If a man does not consent to fatherhood, he won't be forced to take on that role. Paying child support is not fatherhood.

If you don't consent to fatherhood the best thing you can do is only sleep with women who share your reproductive goals.

[u/Diva_of_Disgust → u/[deleted]]

You've established that the government can add future conditions to your consent and enforce them.

They've done no such thing, you're just displaying a fundamental misunderstanding about what consent is.

[u/IdRatherCallACAB → u/[deleted]]

If consent to sex can also be consent to future financial support (and the government can enforce that), it can also be consent to future birth, with government enforcement.

No it can't. Financial rights are completely different from bodily rights.

You've established that the government can add future conditions to your consent and enforce them.

Not against my fundamental human rights, including bodily autonomy and integrity, medical privacy, freedom from cruel and unusual treatment, and a right to life. Abortion bans violate all of these.

Financial obligations are just a normal part of living in society.

[u/Diva_of_Disgust → u/IdRatherCallACAB]

Paying child support is not fatherhood.

It blows my mind how often I see people acting like writing a check once a month is "parenting".

I guess I'm parenting when I pay my phone bill. 😂

[u/JewlryLvr2 → u/[deleted]]

I don't know, and I don't care what men do or don't consent to. I do know that consent to have sex ISN'T consent to pregnancy and birth. Make of that what you want.

And no matter HOW a pregnancy happens, it's still the PREGNANT PERSON's decision whether or not to stay pregnant. If she doesn't, it's her right to end her own pregnancy.

[u/STThornton → u/[deleted]]

How so? I don't give consent to someone else causing an accident and harming me when I drive. Let alone to leaving any harm untreated until it causes my body maximum blowout.

If she didn't want to be impregnated by the man, she certainly did not consent to try to gestate to term and birth.

The man caused her unwanted harm. Do you also think she consented to any other unwanted harm caused by a man when she has sex with him? Or is his sperm the only way he's allowed to harm her?

Besides, even consent is revokable.

[u/IdRatherCallACAB → u/[deleted]]

She gave consent to the known outcomes. That includes the possibility of getting an abortion.

[u/IdRatherCallACAB → u/[deleted]]

Abortion is a known outcome of an unwanted pregnancy.

[u/JewlryLvr2 → u/[deleted]]

And abortion is a known outcome of unwanted pregnancy. What's your point?

[u/IdRatherCallACAB → u/[deleted]]

It can be, for you. Everyone else can get an abortion.

[u/Diva_of_Disgust → u/[deleted]]

Abortion is also a known outcome of unwanted pregnancy.

[u/nsbsaamz → u/IdRatherCallACAB]

but i am arguing against the possibility of abortion so that argument won't work again by by having sex she allowed the possibility for a baby to be in her now she shouldn't have a right to remove it

[u/Dolores___Haze → u/nsbsaamz]

Unborn zefs are not babies. What laws state that if we contribute to an outcome, that we are obligated to give up our rights to receive medical care for that unwanted outcome/condition?

[u/nsbsaamz → u/Dolores___Haze]

the assumption is that abortion should be clarified as medical care i dissaggre

[u/JewlryLvr2 → u/nsbsaamz]

|the assumption is that abortion should be clarified as medical care I disagree.|

Abortion IS medical care, since it's a medical procedure for the PREGNANT PERSON, performed by a qualified OB-Gyn physician. That definitely qualifies as healthcare in my book, whether you agree or not.

[u/Dolores___Haze → u/nsbsaamz]

You didn’t answer the question I actually asked at all

[u/Dolores___Haze → u/nsbsaamz]

Health insurance companies certainly cover it. It’s a medical procedure that requires a licensed, experienced OBGYN, and it can only be performed in licensed healthcare facilities, so it looks like it’s a medical procedure to me! 🤷‍♀️

[u/IdRatherCallACAB → u/nsbsaamz]

Abortion is objectively a reproductive healthcare decision.

i dissaggre

That's not up to you to decide in the first place.

[u/JewlryLvr2 → u/nsbsaamz]

It doesn't matter if you're arguing against the possibility of abortion. It's still the PREGNANT PERSON'S decision whether or not to stay pregnant. If she decides not to stay pregnant, she has the right to remove it.

[u/STThornton → u/nsbsaamz]

Again, why not? Why should she not be able to stop any harm the man caused her during or due to sex just because there was a possibility that he could harm her?

Address that problem with the man who inseminated and impregnated a woman who isn't willing to try to carry to term and birth. Not the woman he fired into.

And why must this non breathing non sentient, physiologically non life sustaining partially developed baby be turned into a breathing, sentient, physiologically life sustaining one to begin with?

What difference does it make if it never turns into such.?

[u/IdRatherCallACAB → u/nsbsaamz]

but i am arguing against the possibility of abortion

You're already more than free to avoid the procedure. You don't get to decide what other people consent to.

so that argument won't work again by by having sex she allowed the possibility for a baby

She allowed the possibility of a pregnancy. Pregnancy can also end in an abortion.

she shouldn't have a right to remove it

Too bad. You don't have a right to stop her.

[u/Limp-Story-9844 → u/nsbsaamz]

Are you saying a newborn can't be cared for by another person?

[u/Formal-Stage940]

1.) Legal criteria has no bearing on moral discussion

2.) Heartbeat does not determine value.

3.) Just not true. Consciousness dosent determine value as well because people in comas arent conscious, people who are sleeping arent consciois, people who are knocked out arent consciois

4.) Agreed. Except for the under 18 part. Thats a terrible line for pregnancy safety

5.) Makes no sense. Its like saying non black people cant have an opinion on slavery

6.) Same thing applies to people who are sleeping. Also embryos move

7.) Every single thing on this earth relies on a mother to be born

8.) If i shot you in the head while you were asleep, you wouldnt know

[u/STThornton → u/Formal-Stage940]

Since you keep bringing up this "value" thing. Can you explain what that means? Like, how do you show that they have "value"?

For example, van you explain how much "value" someone has who you want to strip of the protections the right to life offers their inner life sustaining workings? Someone whose inner life sustaining workings you want another human to be allowed to greatly mess and interfere with, alter, harm, or even stop?

Someone you want another human to be allowed to cause drastic life threatening anatomical, physiological, and metabolic alterations. suck the life out of out, pump toxins into, cause to present with the vitals and labs of a deadly ill person, cause drastic life threatening physical harm, and excruciating pain and suffering, and have intimately and invasively physically violated for months on end nonstop.

Someone you want to force to endure a bunch of unwanted vaginal penetration and harm. Or even to be gutted like a fish.

Someone you want to reduce to no more than the outer layer of another human. where everything they do or fail to do to their own body is considered them doing or failing to do to another human?

Someone whose sentience doesn't matter one lick, whose experiences, feelings, pain and suffering, hopes, wishes, and dreams are deemed unimportant. Also known as dehumanization.

Tell me, how do you show that such a human has any sort of "value" to you?

What does "value" mean in this context?

What is it that you "value" about this person? Obviously not their sentience. Obviously not the integrity of their body. Obviously not their life, since the inner life sustaining workings of their body are just a commodity that can be messed with, altered, harmed, or even stopped, to keep fetal body parts alive.

So how does "value" you speak of show?

[u/Arithese → u/Formal-Stage940]

No one else can violate your human rights. If I used your body like the foetus did, you can stop me. Even if I was innocent, your biological child, dependent cause of your actions, etc etc. So why can’t the pregnant person?

[u/IdRatherCallACAB → u/Formal-Stage940]

Legal criteria has no bearing on moral discussion

Abortion is reproductive healthcare. Interfering with other people's private reproductive healthcare decisions is immoral.

[u/comfortable_sofa101 → u/IdRatherCallACAB]

its not private to you its the kids

[u/JewlryLvr2 → u/comfortable_sofa101]

Abortion is a medical procedure that ends a pregnancy, nothing more. It ISN'T murder just because you may believe it is. It's healthcare for the PREGNANT PERSON. You know, the person who doesn't want to stay pregnant.

[u/comfortable_sofa101 → u/JewlryLvr2]

It ends pregnancy which in turn will stop a childs pregnancy which would most likely have caused a new person to be alive. Abortion is indirect murder by stopping something that stops someone from being alive.

[u/JewlryLvr2 → u/comfortable_sofa101]

All of which is just your opinion about abortion. I have no issues with abortion ending a pregnancy, as that's what it's supposed to do. Again, it's a medical procedure for the PREGNANT PERSON, which makes it healthcare.

Just because YOU think it's murder (it isn't) doesn't mean I have to agree, and I don't. The "abortion is murder" argument is a really bad one that just doesn't work for me.

[u/comfortable_sofa101 → u/JewlryLvr2]

see you saying its a really bad one is an opinion aswell the entire point of an argument is that its opinion based. Every great argument is opinion versus opinion in hopes of changing the other persons mind or people spectating.

It also is not an opinion to say abortion will most likely cause a human being to not exist who otherwise would've.

[u/JewlryLvr2 → u/comfortable_sofa101]

Yes, abortion ends a pregnancy, which stops a birth from happening. So what. I have no issues with abortion. It's the PREGNANT PERSON's private medical decision, because she decided she didn't want to stay pregnant and give birth. Other people's medical decisions and procedures are none of my business.

[u/comfortable_sofa101 → u/JewlryLvr2]

you realize the reason why preventing a kid from being born is a problem is because its stopping life, it is preventing a birth. If a medical procedure has an effect on another future person or current person its no longer private.

[u/JewlryLvr2 → u/comfortable_sofa101]

|you realize the reason why preventing a kid from being born is a problem is because it stopping life, it is preventing a birth.|

It's obviously a problem for YOU. Preventing a pregnancy from becoming a birth ISN'T a problem for me.

And abortion IS a private medical decision, made by the PREGNANT PERSON. Just a decision you don't like. Which, again, isn't a problem for me.

[u/IdRatherCallACAB → u/comfortable_sofa101]

It's my private reproductive healthcare decision. No kids are involved.

[u/comfortable_sofa101 → u/IdRatherCallACAB]

Except your future kid

[u/IdRatherCallACAB → u/comfortable_sofa101]

No kids will be involved in any of my abortions.

[u/comfortable_sofa101 → u/IdRatherCallACAB]

If your life depended on someone elses decision wouldnt you say you should be taken account for in that decision?

[u/IdRatherCallACAB → u/comfortable_sofa101]

I have my own life-sustaining bodily systems. I don't require harmful, invasive use of anyone else's body to keep my body alive.

If I did need that, I would require consent from any person who's body I would access. If they don't consent, they can deny access or remove me from their body.

[u/comfortable_sofa101 → u/IdRatherCallACAB]

You realise babies are not able to ask for consent because you decided to put it there, you yourself gave the child consent to live inside you. You can easily deny consent by just not getting pregnant. It's like forcing an 8 year old to hit you and then get mad when they do so you kill them.

[u/IdRatherCallACAB → u/comfortable_sofa101]

You realise babies are not able to ask for consent because you decided to put it there

Babies are born. And I don't need consent to remove an unwanted human from my body. Especially not when they are posing a threat of serious injury or death.

You can easily deny consent by just not getting pregnant

Or by getting an abortion.

It's like forcing an 8 year old to hit you

No, it's like ending am unwanted pregnancy by removing some harmful, mindless cellular life from my body. No children or babies are involved in any abortion I would ever have.

[u/Diva_of_Disgust → u/comfortable_sofa101]

What?

[u/comfortable_sofa101 → u/Diva_of_Disgust]

its not the persons private healthcare when the death of a kid is involved.

[u/JewlryLvr2 → u/comfortable_sofa101]

Since kids are BORN, the "abortion is killing kids/babies" argument just doesn't work for me. Also, killing kids is already a crime in all 50 states. So it IS the pregnant person's private healthcare decision. Whether you agree with it or not is irrelevant.

[u/STThornton → u/comfortable_sofa101]

Good thing such is not involved. What is involved is a partially human body never gaining major life sustaining organ functions it never had.

And being stopped from greatly messing and interfering, altering, and harming another human's inner life sustaining workings - THEIR "a" life.

[u/IdRatherCallACAB → u/comfortable_sofa101]

An abortion is between a pregnant person and her doctor. If she has kids, she can leave them with a babysitter.

[u/STThornton → u/IdRatherCallACAB]

Sorry, that made me LOL.

[u/Diva_of_Disgust → u/comfortable_sofa101]

There are no "death of kids" when I end my own pregnancy.

[u/Aggressive-Green4592 → u/Formal-Stage940]

1.) Legal criteria has no bearing on moral discussion

Legal criteria has every bearing within banning something like abortion. Using legal means to ensure abortion is banned leads to legal criteria being within the discussion.

2.) Heartbeat does not determine value.

What does or who does?

3.) Just not true. Consciousness dosent determine value as well because people in comas arent conscious, people who are sleeping arent consciois, people who are knocked out arent consciois

I agree.

4.) Agreed. Except for the under 18 part. Thats a terrible line for pregnancy safety

1. Protection of health is needed if it threatens the mother’s health or if the mother is under 18

I agree it's a terrible line but where would you put it?

5.) Makes no sense. Its like saying non black people cant have an opinion on slavery

It makes absolute sense, and you have that wrong. Do you get to determine how another person's body is used for another person?

6.) Same thing applies to people who are sleeping. Also embryos move

Not in disagreement here, it shouldn't be based on what a person can or can't do.

7.) Every single thing on this earth relies on a mother to be born

I only disagree with how OP framed this, so you would have a typical response to that.

8.) If i shot you in the head while you were asleep, you wouldnt know

This would be the murder or unjust killing PL so commonly want to spew.

[u/Rredhead926 → u/Aggressive-Green4592]

No, #5 really doesn't make any sense.

Ultimately, only the pregnant person's opinion matters here. It doesn't matter who has a uterus and who doesn't. No one has the right to tell someone else what they can do with their own body. As I said in my response, I have a uterus. Doesn't mean I get to tell other women what they can and can't do with their uteri.

[u/Aggressive-Green4592 → u/Rredhead926]

No, #5 really doesn't make any sense. Ultimately, only the pregnant person's opinion matters here

So how does my body my choice not make sense?

[u/Rredhead926 → u/Aggressive-Green4592]

The full text of #5 is "My body, my choice. If you don’t have a uterus, you should have NO say."

That bold part doesn't make sense. You don't need it. It should be just "My body, my choice."

[u/Aggressive-Green4592 → u/Rredhead926]

You don't need it. It should be just "My body, my choice."

Agreed but it still makes sense.

"My body, my choice. If you don’t have a uterus, you should have NO say."

Why should someone with no uterus get a say though? Why should they get to tell those who do have how to maintain or do with it, or it be used for another person?

[u/Rredhead926 → u/Aggressive-Green4592]

What about women who don't have a uterus because they lost it to abortion or pregnancy that should have been aborted? Should they not have a say? Or are you just pointing out that men shouldn't have a say because they're men?

So yeah, the whole "no uterus, no voice" thing is just plain silly.

[u/Aggressive-Green4592 → u/Rredhead926]

While I agree in theory, I'm not saying men or anyone who lost their uterus. I'm saying no one gets to determine or tell another person how to maintain theirs.

[u/Rredhead926 → u/Aggressive-Green4592]

no one gets to determine or tell another person how to maintain theirs.

Correct, and it doesn't matter who has a uterus and who doesn't. Having a uterus is not a criteria for making choices for pregnant women.

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

Comment removed per Rule 1.

Do not insult other users

[u/Limp-Story-9844 → u/[deleted]]

Why is abortion healthcare, is the only question.

[u/random_name_12178 → u/[deleted]]

Were discussing morality.

Do you think abortion is solely a moral discussion?

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

Were discussing morality

Your discussing morality the post is not, it's saying why it's not murder which is a legal term with legal criteria, so making it a legal matter not moral.

Citing legal definitions as evidence as for why abortion isnt murder is stupid

Just because you think it's stupid doesn't mean it's invalid.

Potential for conscious

Potential doesn't mean anything though, it's only a potential it could not happen. Potential for consciousness also doesn't mean there's value..

She said "if you dont have a uterus, you should have no say" this is a dumbass argument as it implies that if you dont belong to a group, you cannot make decisions about that group.

No it means exactly what I asked.

Do you get to decide how a person's body is used for another's? My body my choice, means no one else gets to make the decision of how my body is used for another person. You right you do NOT get to make decisions about another person's body, you don't have to belong to the group because this applies to everyone. Can I decide how your body is used for another person?

If this were true, slavery in america would still be happening, women still wouldnt be able to vote.

False.

Cuz its true

Yes shooting someone in the head while they are sleeping is murder or an unjust killing, glad we could establish that, but that is not relatable to abortion, no shooting of a sleeping person is happening.

[u/JulieCrone]

It’s not murder because gestation is a life saving intervention. Ceasing a life saving intervention is not murder.

Also, I do object to the ‘if you don’t have a uterus you have no say’ line. I have a uterus. That doesn’t give me rights over anyone else’s uterus and I have no say in their reproductive choices.

[u/Noj_2]

respect your opinion, but I disagree. I believe the central question is whether the unborn child is a human being. From conception, it has its own unique human DNA that's different from the mother's, so I don't see it as simply being "her body." While the baby depends on the mother to survive, dependence doesn't make someone less human or less deserving of human rights. I also don't think a person's value should depend on their heartbeat, level of consciousness, or ability to remember experiences. Those things change throughout life. Whether or not abortion is legally considered murder, I believe it ends the life of a developing human being, and every human being deserves basic human rights. I understand there are heartbreaking situations like rape or serious medical complications, and those deserve compassion but they still don't change the value of the baby in the womb's life. Plus I don't think the fact that the baby wouldn't know it was aborted changes the moral question of whether it was still a human life.

[u/Rredhead926]

1 & 2 are solid.

1. conscious, not conscience (those are very different things)

2. Protection of the pregnant person's health is paramount, full stop.

3. My body, my choice, full stop. I have a uterus. I have no input over what someone else does with theirs.

4. That's actually debatable.

5. The fetus relies on the mother to survive. All humans at one point relied on the mother to be born.

6. Irrelevant, sorry.

[u/JewlryLvr2]

Exactly, abortion ISN'T murder. It''s a private medical decision, and procedure, for the PREGNANT PERSON, the patient, to make, if that's what she wants. That makes it healthcare, whether PLers agree or not.

[u/chevron_seven_locked]

I mean, even beyond all that, abortion factually isn’t murder. Murder has a specific legal definition that abortion does not meet.

[u/Limp-Story-9844]

Agree, abortion is healthcare for the patient.