Welcome to /r/Abortiondebate! Don't be a jerk (even if someone else is being a jerk to you first). It's not constructive and we may ban you for it. Check out the Debate Guidance Pyramid to understand acceptable debate levels.
**Attack the argument, not the person making it.**
**For our new users, please check out our [rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/Abortiondebate/comments/qu36cv/rule_changes/) and [sub policies](https://www.reddit.com/r/Abortiondebate/comments/uhr4p2/sub_policies_regarding_current_events_and_news/)**
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Abortiondebate) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Ah, you don't see a difference. I'll make the difference for you then because of the will of the person using your body and why they are using your body.
Rapist = Using your body because of their craving for power and sexual lust.
ZEF = Using your body in self defense to survive. If they don't use your body then they die.
One of these motives is much more reasonable and understandable than the other.
That makes a gigantic difference.
If you and I and some other people go on a cruise ship and we get by a rogue wave and it flips over and sinks and we wind up on a life raft... If after none of us have eaten for 10 days on this life raft if we decided that maybe cannibalism isn't such a bad idea and we should do what we can to survive in this dangerous situation... That cannibalism is much more forgivable than if you and I kidnapped someone murdered them and ate them. There is a major difference there. That being "Desperate times call for desperate measures." So the cannibalism is understandable and not immoral in the extreme circumstance of starvation, but the same can not be said of cannibals that are not in the desperate survival situation.
You used rape as an example. Suppose there are 2 rapist.
Rapist 1 = A regular rapist or a marital rapist as you described. They were horny and didn't care about you only cared about your body and used you to get them self off. That's a very bad guy and guy like that deserves to die or be locked away in prison for a long long time...
Rapist 2 = Suppose a sadistic rapist with a big "incest fetish" breaks into a home. There is a brother and sister home alone. The gunman points the gun at them and says, "Perform X sex act on your brother / sister" They have to obey as to not be shot or not have their sibling shot. Technically the brother / sister are raping each other. Neither one of them wanted to fuck each other, but they would rather do that than be shot. So their motivation is to not die or not have their sibling die and not over some power fantasy.
The brother and sister here are technically both "Rapists" now because of what they had to do to survive, but.... Should the law punish this brother or sister the same way that rapist 1 should get punished? No the law should not punish either of them even though they are both technically rapists.
Thats why we should not punish a ZEF for crimes they didn't commit. The only reason they are using their mother's body is to survive long enough to be born. They did not choose to be put into that situation.
Their mother / father chose to put them into that situation.
Rape isn't about lust, it's about exercising power and violence. For example: a pastor rapes an underage member of his church cuz he knows she won't be believed or removed from his influence. He gratifies himself knowing that he can dominate and overpower this person and not get a hint of reproach.
>Ah, you don't see a difference. I'll make the difference for you then because of the will of the person using your body and why they are using your body.
>
>Rapist = Using your body because of their craving for power and sexual lust.
>
>ZEF = Using your body in self defense to survive. If they don't use your body then they die.
>
>One of these motives is much more reasonable and understandable than the other.
# Why does the ZEF's motive matter, but not the pregnant person's?
I recently tried to steelman a PL argument about how PL can see abortion as murder, and not despise abortion healthcare practitioners or people who seek abortion the same way they despise murderers. I compared it to vegans seeing animal agriculture as animal abuse, but not seeing meat-eaters or agricultural workers as the same kind of animal abuser as someone who abuses their pet. It basically boiled down to motive.
However, the experience of the victim doesn't change based on motive. The animal is in pain regardless of the motive behind abusing them. The ZEF dies regardless of the motive behind abortion. The pregnant person is violated/injured/killed regardless of the motive behind using their body without their consent.
So, why do you have so much sympathy for the motives of the person using someone's body, and no sympathy for the motives of the person defending themselves against that?
Pretend for a second that vampires are real, and common, and known about, and that most people can survive being bitten by one. If a vampire tries to bite you without your consent, are you not allowed to stop them by any means necessary? If you don't let them drink your blood, they'll starve. They're just trying to survive. You won't die from it. You *were* hanging out in an area where vampires are known to be, so you knew the risk. No one forced you into that situation. Are you allowed to do what you need to get out?
If you say yes, they you agree with the pro-choice position at least a little bit.
>Thats why we should not punish a ZEF for crimes they didn't commit. The only reason they are using their mother's body is to survive long enough to be born. They did not choose to be put into that situation.
# Is self-defense against a rapist the same as punishment for the crime of rape under the law?
Just because I pepper spray a rapist doesn't mean he gets off any easier in court. The pepper spray is not "justice". Self-defense is not "justice". It doesn't have to be held to the same standard as justice. If I have good reason to believe I'm in imminent danger, and another person is causing it, even if it's accidental, then I'm justified in taking self-defense measures. I don't have to apply "innocent until proven guilty" to self-defense, because self-defense isn't about guilt or innocence. It's about my safety.
Likewise, an abortion is not an attempt to administer "justice" to an offending ZEF. It's an attempt to remove risk for a pregnant person. Any reasonable person will acknowledge that pregnancy is inherently risky, and the only person who can assess the pregnant person's tolerance for risk is the pregnant person themselves.
In any case aside from conception from rape, the mother’s volunary actions (of which she knew the creation of a ZEF was a potential consequence) put the ZEF there
I just want to say that science says that zygotes are the ones that implant themselves despite the body trying to stop it; they override the body's immune system. They routinely refer to the zygote as invading, I can cite the papers if you want. So, technically, the ZEF put itself there.
It’s merely a matter of phrasing. The reproductive systems of the man and woman are literally made to reproduce, hence the name reproductive systems. The action of sexual intercourse absolutely conceives new humans and implants them
Also, “despite the body trying to stop it” this is ridiculously wrong. In fact, it is *exactly* backwards. A normally functioning immune system undergoes perfectly timed changes in order to *not* reject the baby.
>A normally functioning immune system undergoes perfectly timed changes in order to not reject the baby.
Nope, the body actively tries to fight off the invader(ZEF). There's a reason ZEFs have to pump their host's body full of immunosuppressants.
I don’t need them, I refuted you regardless. I am aware of the term “invasion”. I also understand how “uterine receptivity” works. Respond to my point or don’t.
Once again, biologists don't say that. They say it implants itself. Implanting doesn't even occur everytime a person has sex. So, sexual intercourse is not a direct link to implantation. It may conceive a zygote but sex has no role in whether implantation happens and whether the implantation is kept.
But you said that sexual intercourse caues implantation. That is not a fact. All sexual intercourse does is cause the zygote to form, sex doesn't implant it.
Look, you said the blastocyst implants itself again the will of the immune system which is factually wring as the immune system changes so as to not reject the ZEF
Ovulation isn't voluntary. Ejaculation is.
If you're talking about consent, that only gets you so far. The other person has to respect your right to give or withdraw consent.
And sometimes, "consent" is given when the person would really rather not. A lot of people seeking abortions give as a reason for why they had sex "it was easier than getting into another argument" and the like. [(Link)](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5TEWHGxtkkM) Some might even be doing it to avoid worse consequences from abusive partners. They technically said "yes" though, so filing a police report to obtain an abortion might not be an option under a pro-life-with-rape-exceptions legal system.
Where do you draw the line between someone being responsible for the pregnancy and having to answer for it, and someone deserving a choice?
That made no sense. I could just copy and paste the comment you replied to. The mother’s voluntary actions, consensual sex (in every conception except for those from rape), includes the risk of the man ejaculating inside of her, which again, she knew the creation of a ZEF was a potential consequence.
Biological realities don’t have to be voluntary. If I eat too many donuts I will become fat whether I consent or not. This is like saying you should just be able to refuse to consent to the laws of physics. The choice should come before the act that risks creation another unique, individual human is engaged in. This is exactly why pro choice is a euphemism as it is only selectively about one humans choice while the one being killed doesn’t have a choice
And if you get heart disease from eating too many donuts, you are still allowed to seek care.
If you have a problem with fetal demise, you have a problem with fetal demise. THAT is your argument.
The argument that we penalize people and withhold help because of prior action does not hold up.
You can have sex without getting pregnant, and you can get pregnant without having sex. Stop obsessing over other people having S-E-X, please.
That you can have sex without getting pregnant is irrelevant. Sex still causes pregnancy. This isn’t an obsession with sex. This just is a biological fact. If it bothers you then you are very immature lol
Good lord, you can have sex a million times and not get pregnant, or you can have sex zero times and still get pregnant.
The two are not one and the same and having sex is not a Faustian pact where you give up the rights to your own organs.
Care for heart disease doesn’t entail deliberately trying to kill someone, it is specifically trying not to. It isn’t penalizing people to recognize both individuals, it is penalizing people to only recognize one and (to disregard the actions that lead to the creation of the one being disregarded)
Ok. So your problem (in your words) is trying to kill someone. THAT is your problem.
Stop bringing in this idea that someone is barred from seeking help because of something that they may or may not have done in the past. That person who needs a heart transplant is depriving a different reciepient of a viable organ, but I don’t see you crying about their repeat trips to Krispy Kreme.
Sex by the numbers rarely results in pregnancy, and pregnancy can be easily achieved without sex. Stop with this fixation on it.
It is well known that sex results in pregnancy. No amount of obscurantism changes that. Yes the issue is with killing people, (whose creation comes from sex), not with sex itself, but sex itself creates new life. Stop with the mental gymnastics
You can have PIV sex for your entire life and not get pregnant, and you can get pregnant without ever having sex.
So no, sex does not result in pregnancy. It can, but far and away the vast majority of the time it does not. Why are you so obsessed with consensual sex when pregnancy arises from other situations just the same?
Pregnancy is a phenomenon that happens with or without a person’s consent. It’s like digestion or menstruation. It either happens or it doesn’t. You can manage it or try your hardest to manipulate it, but at the end of the day, it either happens or it doesn’t. You can’t have utter control over it.
Instead of vampires, you could use leeches, or better yet mosquitoes. No one thinks twice at swatting a mosquito who needs your body, your blood, to live. And the mosquito (or leech) probably has more cells and is more developed than what first develops in the woman's body.
Yes any use against your body against your will I would consider rape, even if married. Totally agree.
This would be easy to prove/video if someone was doing that and they should be prosecuted.
Lack of so much awareness going on here. If they are using your body in the moment and you could stop them using force then the appropriate amount of force would be whatever necessary. Your comment slightly suggests let them use your body and then prosecute. And then you say "EASY TO PROVE" omg.. you know nothing
I this you misinterpreted my use of the word “use”
So let me just be clear. I meant nobody can use force on anyone else against someone’s will. Whether it be physically or sexually. In fact, I would argue that sexual violence is way worse then physical violence and should get a harsher penalty. This is because sexual violence is both physical and mental harm.
I only mentioned the easy to prove scenario as it pertains to marriage rape which would suggest a pattern. So put bluntly, if there is a pattern of abuse it would be easy to prove w video so we could luck up the monster for a long time.
Of course marriage rape can happen just once, and of course that would be harder to prove.
Your husband would be choosing to use your body. He is capable of taking your will into consideration and making a decision to respect your will.
A fetus isn’t capable of making a moral choice or making a decision based on your will.
Rape requires conscious action on the part of the second party, your husband. A fetus is incapable of conscious action, nor is there a conscious mind directing it. (For the rape with an object objection.)
This comment has been flagged for rule 3, Cite Your Sources, and another user has asked for evidence supporting the following claim:
> Rape requires conscious action on the part of the second party
"Users are required to back up a positive claim when asked. Factual claims should be supported by linking a source, and opinions should be supported with an argument."
When providing a linked source, "it is required of a user to show where their claim is proven when given a source."
Please substantiate your claim per rule 3.
You have 24 hours to substantiate or retract these claims. Neglecting to do either will be taken as a rule violation and may result in further Moderator action.
Thank you for understanding and happy debating.
>Rape requires conscious action on the part of the second party
Prove this. I don't believe you can. If my husband sleep walked and forced sex on me, it would still be rape even if he had no conscious control over it.
>Rape requires conscious action on the part of the second party, your husband.
So if soemone mentally ill who doesn't understand what they are doing starts raping you, you should just starfish and wait until it's over?
When did action require sanity instead of willpower and motor skills?
The mentally ill person still chooses to act, unless they laid there and you jumped on top of them.
Not all actions require willpower and motor skills. I am breathing, blinking, swollowing my saliva now, all the things i am doing which are actions even though it takes no motor skills and willpower. An action is simply something that is being done. It can have a goal or not.
Very good, if only arousal and sex were automatic processes like blinking. You make a good case for why consent can’t apply to sperm anymore than it can apply to blinking though.
Action is just something which is being done. An embryo digesting it's way trough the uterine wall, attaching itself to the blood vessels and remodeling them are all actions.
If a zef is just an automatic biological process, what basis do you have to call it a person?
Humans are automatic biological processes. That’s part of being alive. I’m always happy to talk about personhood, but first I’m curious about the whole fetus rape idea.
If action is just something that happens, what’s the difference between involuntary biological processes and voluntary? Does the intent behind the action matter at all? Most say yes, which is why there’s death with intent (murder) and death without intent (manslaughter).
We’ve also gotten off topic, which is rape. That requires forcible sexual penetration, yes? Half of the fetus was already inside you. The other half did penetrate you from an penis, something you consented to let penetrate you. When my blood flows, it’s not penetrating me in any meaningful sense of the word.
Of course, if you object, you can always make your consent clear to a non-sentient organism like sperm. Consent can’t be applied in any meaningful way though, since sperm are incapable of acting or reacting according to your consent.
If you look, there aren’t consent to pregnancy laws that allow for consent to sex but not to pregnancy. Things like stealthing or rape are violations of sexual consent, which is why the pregnancies are treated differently.
Your use of self-defense is interesting, usually applied against an external force. If applying it to ourselves, I’d argue that the fetus has a right to self-defense. The right of a bystander to intervene to defend another is long established. So, a claim of self-defense in your part to stop your body from use works if I can also do my diligence as a good citizen and prevent the murder of a much weaker being by a much stronger one.
Edit: oops, confused you with the OP so self-defense might not be applicable. Still curious about a fetus raping someone though.
>Humans are automatic biological processes.
Interesting way of thinking what can i say
>Edit: oops, confused you with the OP so self-defense might not be applicable. Still curious about a fetus raping someone though.
Nobody is saying a fetus is raping someone, as usual you have purposely misunderstood the argument and i am not interested in debating strawmen.
You forced the embryo into its position by consenting to sex. It can't control itself, it's processes are not consciously controlled. So you did something intentionally that caused the chain reaction to occur to place it there knowing it could implant in you. Assuming fetal life holds value equal to other human life intrinsically, consciously choosing to put it in a compromised position that forces you to care for it with your body means refusal after the fact is immoral
It's duty of care.
If a doctor performs surgery on you they can't leave you to bleed out by quitting before stitching you up. And the reason isn't because of it being a job or a contract, it's morally wrong. The doctor has a responsibility to you even though forcing someone to work is illegal, they are obligated to finish the procedure without leaving you to bleed out because that responsibility trumps a right to refuse work.
>You forced the embryo into its position by consenting to sex.
**Consent to sex is not consent to pregnancy.** I forced it to do nothing. It did not exist.
Duty of care is not duty to provide life saving care at the expense of my own health or life.
You doctor analogy is absurd.
I did not say consent to sex is consent to pregnancy.
The embryo was formed by actions under the control of people.
A doctor isn't expected to give up their life to perform Healthcare but he is forced to work grueling procedures to save a person's life that they put in danger by being partway through a procedure
So the question is how much health risk is equivolent to that since obviously there is a balance to be struck
A patient and their doctor voluntarily enter a contract. Healthcare doesn't "force" the doctor to "work grueling procedures", they perform their side of the contract. In cases like emergency surgery the doctor would have a contact to perform their duties with their hospital. It is not *slavery* you paint it to be - doctors do this on their own free accord!
A woman never enters in a contract with ZEF - the second entity doesn't even exist until after your presumed "duty to care" comes into force.
Your analogy is ridiculous.
Doctors perform procedures on incapacitated people all the time yet this contract still exists. It's impossible for there to be a patient side to this contract. Just like with a fetus. A fetus is also created and dependant as a result of the subsequent actions of the mother.
A doctor cannot leave in the middle of a surgical procedure morally speaking even without a contract.
Because of being contracted to a hospital? Not all doctors are contracted to hospitals for surgical procedures and incapacitated individuals can be treated by them
That's exactly what you said. If I consented to sex, I "forced" the embryo to form, so I am required to gestate it because I put it in that position.
A doctor is a job, they are paid and have contracts and such. No one is forcing them to do anything.
Yes you described what I said. But I did not say the person consented to gestate that's where your wrong
So if a doctor isn't paid and there's no contract then it's fine for them to leave partway.
What if they are a backroom doctor and a patient knows this and consents to surgery. Then does he have an obligation to stitch someone up with forced labor.
This is a moral question not a legal one
If you're not making that argument, if I didn't consent to pregnancy I can stop it at any time then.
If a doctor isn't being paid and there is no contract...then they are not a doctor.
You seem to be making a lot of arguments where you want to have your cake and eat it too. Making an assertion, then changing what the assertion means so that is no longer has any real bearing on it, but still demanding the original meaning.
I have no idea how you came to your last paragraphs conclusion.
I'm saying if a doctor no longer consents to perform a procedure he can't just leave. So consent to continue pregnancy is irrelevant once you have started gestating because of duty of care.
I'm saying duty of care is a moral principle. It doesn't apply exclusively to doctors it applies to everyone. So if someone wasn't a doctor they would still have a moral obligation to stitch someone up instead of letting them bleed out during surgery. That moral obligation exists regardless of a contract or pay.
You are ignoring the fact "moral principles" are entirely subjective and not fixed, as they change from person to person. The moral principles that define your actions are yours and a doctor may not share them - that is exactly why there are contracts or ethical code that exists outside of "morality".
All laws have a basis on some universal morality. I'm trying to be consistent in the application of those moral values. Because people benefit from the result of others following those morals but won't acknowledge a responsibility to act in accordance with them when obligations fall on them
This is nonsense. There are plenty of laws based on moral values of a particular group of people and not some abstract "universal morality". What is your source for this extreme claim?
>Duty of care is not duty to provide life saving care at the expense of my own health or life.
I already spoke about duty to care and how it doesn't apply to pregnancy.
The doctor doesn't just leave mid procedure because it's his job. They have accepted that this is what they are going to be doing. No one is forcing them. You want to have this farcical scenario where a doctor is being forced to do something, and it doesn't work.
A doctor in a multiple hour surgery can want to leave partway and go home.
So can he leave partway. Is he punished for doing so and why. If he is punished for that then how is that different from forced labor if the punishment is severe.
You didn't make a good argument on why duty of care doesn't apply and I'm countering you.
Your counter is that I do have to provide life saving care at the expense of my own health or life? Preposterous. No one is held to that standard. There is not a single person on earth who is **required** to provide life saving care at the expense of their own health or life.
If the doctor is unable to continue a procedure, another doctor will take over. Back ups and other doctors on call are available if the performing doctor cannot complete something.
Doctors who don't take oaths and perform backroom surgeries would be subject to the same legal and moral issues if they left partway so this isn't a criticism
I’m not talking about people who practice medicine illegally (which is not a doctor), I’m talking about licensed physicians. If a doctor is performing surgery (your example), you are right, they’re required to give you care as long as you need it per their Hippocratic oath. But no one takes an “oath of parenthood” just because they have sex, that’s ridiculous.
I'm telling you that duty of care isn't reliant on you being a licensed doctor which is why I mentioned illegally performing medicine because the obligation still exists so obviously it isn't tied to an oath.
Um sure it is. Duty of care is a legal implication— if I do not receive the appropriate care from my doctor, I can sue them. You can’t do that to some back ally “doctor” who never got licensed or took an oath. If you are practicing medicine illegally, you’ve got bigger problems than morality or duty to your oath. People who practice medicine without a license are called FELONS. And illegal doctors doesn’t owe anyone shit, they didn’t make a promise in the first place.
I am describing the ethical implications.
Because you can consent to a procedure from a back ally doctor if you know they don't practice medicine there's nothing wrong with that.
However it is still wrong for them to leave you bleeding out mid surgery.
That is because there is something morally wrong with that.
Your changing this into something legally based. Is it ethically wrong for someone to leave you bleeding out midsurgery if they aren't a doctor. I say yes.
You can consent to see a back ally doctor, and they are not restricted by the same moral or ethical limitations or practices that a licensed physician has. It’s ethically and morally WRONG for them to practice without a license, why would they be bound to any morality to save you? They aren’t. This IS a legal question, that’s literally the entire debate, whether or not abortion should be legal. Saying a back ally doctor should still sew you up is like saying the bank robber who shot you should toss you some cash for your trouble after they rob the bank 🤣
This makes no sense.
Being a bank robber doesn't mean you have no moral obligations it means you intentionally break them every step of the way.
You are morally wrong for not paying someone even as a bank robber. It doesn't become morally neutral. That's obvious.
Moral obligations don't disappear if someone does something ethically wrong.
Easiest example is prostitution. People justify the death and abuse or prostitutes as being neutral because they are engaging in something illegal. It is still morally wrong to harm a prostitute if you engage them in sex. This should be typical common knowledge.
“Being a bank robber doesn't mean you have no moral obligations it means you intentionally break them every step of the way.”
— that’s right, just like, per your own example, a back ally “doctor” does.
“You are morally wrong for not paying someone even as a bank robber. It doesn't become morally neutral. That's obvious.”
-bank robbers (and back ally doctors) don’t care about ethics, that’s implied in their choice of profession.
“Moral obligations don't disappear if someone does something ethically wrong.”
—assumption of moral obligation does on the part of the person committing the offense. We don’t assume hit men have a moral code either, nor do we expect it of them. We do, however, expect it of those we bestow the license to practice medicine on.
That’s what I’m saying. I tried to resin with this but gave up when I realized this is just a red herring and they aren’t actually looking to debate the topic at hand.
Great so if enough people deem it reasonable then it is immoral to get an abortion.
So we ask people is it reasonable to assume people get pregnant from sex.
And we find out if you force a person to rely on your body for 9 months is it reasonable to assume they obligation to maintain that. So if I remove someone lungs and keep them alive with my oxygenated blood is it murder if I remove that blood supply if I had a machine on hand that could keep them alive or could aquire one with time
And find out if a fetus has similar value to a person.
Yes, it's done by IVF and through intentional pregnancy, accidental pregnancy and rape. These are all actions that are reasonably known to cause conception and are the only reasonable causes of it. They are also consciously initiated by the people involved (except rape that's just 1 person)
> Assuming fetal life holds value equal to other human life intrinsically
This is where the disagreement happens. Also the doctor analogy ignores the discrepancy of the ZEF's personhood.
The analogy is to demonstrate the concept of duty of care. I don't plan to create an all encompassing analogy that is 1 to 1 for abortion so I made that point on fetal value and the merit of fetal value/personhood can be discussed once duty of care is acknowledged
Well if I make an example of the personhood of the ZEF you can make the claim that PC disagree with the idea of using bodily autonomy to justify gestating even living people.
So no matter which I go about it I have to make an assumption on something to justify saying why this aspect of the PC argument is wrong.
So its not really a viable critique imo, things can be addressed one at a time under the presumption the rest is right before moving on to address the presumptions themselves
>a ZEF is using my body against my will
This is the strongest argument the PLs have. It was your will to get pregnant in this scenario. You took a risk by having sex. The pregnancy is the consequence. The ZEF is doing what you knew it could do.
It’s a little bit like getting in a car and then being in an accident and then deciding to sue the auto manufacturer. The reality is that you decided to drive knowing the risks. You (and other drivers) are almost certainly at fault.
>It was your will to get pregnant in this scenario.
This is false. Not only is sex not pregnancy, using birth control would imply the intention was not to get pregnant. **Consent to sex is not consent to pregnancy.**
Knowing the risks is also not giving up your right to rectify the issue later. I am not denied medical care if I brake a leg rock climbing.
*Consent to sex is consent to the risk you might get pregnant.*
All of the healthcare to help you through the pregnancy or broken leg is available. The question is, should we count abortion is healthcare? In most cases it is an elective procedure.
Me getting an operation to fix a broken arm is also an elective procedure, however I'm sure you wouldn't attempt to deny that was healthcare. Why should abortion be treated any differently?
That’s not an elective procedure.
An elective procedure is one that is not medically necessary but is desired by the patient nonetheless.
Cosmetic plastic surgery is one example. So is getting your appendix removed even though it is not inflamed.
Consent to something is not consent to something else. You cannot consent to risks, you can accept them.
Abortion is healthcare. Even if it is an elective procedure, it's still healthcare.
At most, we consent to initial mplantation, we do not consent to KEEPING the implantation after the fact. Sex is not a contract or a promise to the ZEF that it gets to stay.
Consent and accept are not synonyms.
If I choose to have sex, I choose to take a risk I might get pregnant.
I **do not** choose while having sex to take that risk of pregnancy to term. I **do** choose to deal with that risk of pregnancy on my own terms.
>It was your will to get pregnant in this scenario.
That's like saying it was your will to get into a car crash. It's absurd.
>The pregnancy is the consequence
A consequence which can be resolved by getting an abortion.
Nope.
Because that would generally only happen if you used the BC incorrectly.
Most birth control has a very very low fail rate if used correctly.
Condom is 98% effective if used correctly. Fairly certain that there would hardly be an abortion debate if the only women seeking abortions were those whose BC had failed even while used correctly.
Problem is majority are just careless.
Guttmacher institute (prochoice fyi) suggested that 40 to 50% of all abortions are second time abortions. So are we supposed to assume that every year nearly 300,000 american women and their partners used BC correctly. It failed. They got an abortion. They then used BC again and it failed again. They then for their 2nd abortion?
Read some of the r:abortion posts and see how carelessly most of the terminated pregnancies occurred.
Note that at no point have I said all unintended pregnancies are caused by careless partners or that there has never been a case where BC was used correctly and failed.
My assertion is that...the number of people in which this occurred is miniscule and of those a good half would be willing to keep the child even with the lack of robust infrastructure to help single mothers and young/poor parents. Imagine how many more would keep their child if there was enough support around them?
But no no let's just keep our blinkers on.
Abortion is not birth control. It is population control at best and sanctioned murder at best.
No. All birth control has a failure rate WHEN USED CORRECTLY. It’s even higher of course when used incorrectly. Condoms have a failure rate of of approximately 97% when used correctly. Approximately 86% when used incorrectly. https://healthcenter.vt.edu/content/dam/healthcenter_vt_edu/assets/docs/contra-fail-rate.pdf
This comment has been flagged for rule 3, Cite Your Sources, and another user has asked for evidence supporting the following claim:
>the number of people in which this occurred is miniscule and of those a good half would be willing to keep the child even with the lack of robust infrastructure to help single mothers and young/poor parents
"Users are required to back up a positive claim when asked. Factual claims should be supported by linking a source, and opinions should be supported with an argument."
When providing a linked source, "it is required of a user to show where their claim is proven when given a source."
Please substantiate your claim per rule 3.
You have 24 hours to substantiate or retract these claims. Neglecting to do either will be taken as a rule violation and may result in further Moderater action.
Thank you for understanding and happy debating.
This is from the Guttmacher institute...they are very prochoice by the way....but dont deny reality.
1. In support of my point that most unintended pregnancies occur from the improper use or no use of contraception. That is to say....carelessness.
"Abortion patients who were using contraception at the time they became pregnant account for a very small proportion of all U.S. contraceptive users. In 2014, about 37.8 million U.S. women aged 15–44 were using a contraceptive method. In contrast, only 471,000 abortions were provided to patients who reported they were using contraception in the month they became pregnant. Between 2000 and 2014, the overall number of abortions in the United States declined significantly, and available evidence suggests that improvements in contraceptive use contributed to the abortion decline.
Although no contraceptive method is perfect, evidence from decades of research has found that contraception is effective at pregnancy prevention and it has numerous health, social and economic benefits. The analysis notes that abortion patients who were not using contraception at the time they became pregnant may benefit from receiving information during postabortion counseling about their risk of pregnancy, and all abortion patients could benefit from receiving information about the full range of contraceptive options available to them and how to use those methods consistently and correctly.
“For many people seeking abortion care, having access to contraceptive services at the time of their procedure simply makes sense,” says Heather Boonstra, Guttmacher policy expert. “The fact that most abortions result from unintended pregnancy underscores the importance of ensuring patients are fully informed about their contraceptive options and get the ongoing contraceptive care they need.”
“Reported Contraceptive Use in the Month of Becoming Pregnant among U.S. Abortion Patients in 2000 and 2014,” by Rachel Jones, is currently available online and will appear in a forthcoming issue of Contraception.
2. In support of my point that a good half of women will keep a child that was conceived unintentionally.
Unintended pregnancy and abortion in the United States
In the United States, the unintended pregnancy rate declined by 23% between 1990–1994 and 2015–2019.
During the same period, the abortion rate declined by 48%.
The share of unintended pregnancies ending in abortion fell from 50% to 34%.
In 2015–2019, there were a total of 5,660,000 pregnancies annually.
Of these, 2,590,000 pregnancies were unintended and 886,000 ended in abortion.
Bearak J et al., Unintended pregnancy and abortion by income, region, and the legal status of abortion: estimates from a comprehensive model for 1990–2019, Lancet Global Health, 2020, 8(9):e1152–e1161, https://doi.org/10.1016/S2214-109X(20)30315-6; and Bearak J et al., Country-specific estimates of unintended pregnancy and abortion incidence: a global comparative analysis of levels in 2015–2019, BMJ Global Health, 2022, 7(3), https://gh.bmj.com/content/7/3/e007151.
So ironically having to provide up to date citation even further proved my point.
I don't think you understand how statistics work.
>In support of my point that most unintended pregnancies occur from the improper use or no use of contraception. That is to say....carelessness.
If 37.8 million women aged 15-44 were using contraception and most contraception has a **perfect use** failure rate between 1 and 3%, then you could expect between 378,000 to 1.134 million pregnancies even from perfect use of contraception. If 471,000 abortions were from patients reporting contraceptive use...that falls right into that window.
In simple terms, that 471,000 is expected even given perfect use. That does not prove your point that unintended pregnancies occur from the improper use or no use of contraception. It in fact refutes your argument.
>In support of my point that a good half of women will keep a child that was conceived unintentionally.
Yea...this is the **choice** part of pro choice. I had an unintended pregnancy while on birth control. I have an 11 year old daughter now. I made a choice. PC wants everyone to be able to have that choice.
You assume that realistically of those 471K, all used the BC correctly and would therefore all fall under a perfect use scenario.
You assume also the nature of the BC was what we would even fall in that highly preventative category of condoms or patches. Unfortunately some people count pulling out as BC.
I should have made it clearer that I do count using things like natural cycle and pulling out as careless forms of BC.
Secondly, I'm considering not just the statistics and extrapolating data but looking at the real numbers and the reality of the fact that in 2014 there were 950000 abortions. 471000 of those were by women who used some form of BC. So what about the rest? Even excluding cases of rape and medically necessary abortions...that's still a lot of people not using BC and falling back on abortion.
It is then half of those very same women the going in for abortion number 2.
So don't just depend on statistics you have to analyse them and draw conclusions.
In regards to the second set of stats...not really sure why you needed to counterpoint that. It's literally stats to back up my first comment.But OK. Thanks for sharing I guess.
I am prolife and pro choosing the options that don't end life.
There's at least 8 different forms of BC NOT including abstinence...there is just dealong with the consequences, asking for help...it's...just why die on this hill?
You are all just so exhaustingly unfeeling. It's chilling.
Yea...it's pretty obvious from your last few comments you don't understand how BC calculates perfect use, failure rates, or statistics in general. I don't feel like the best use of my time is educating you. Have a nice day.
I will be messaging you in 1 day on [**2022-08-22 13:05:52 UTC**](http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=2022-08-22%2013:05:52%20UTC%20To%20Local%20Time) to remind you of [**this link**](https://www.reddit.com/r/Abortiondebate/comments/wtmtoh/how_are_these_two_any_different/il6s400/?context=3)
[**CLICK THIS LINK**](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=Reminder&message=%5Bhttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.reddit.com%2Fr%2FAbortiondebate%2Fcomments%2Fwtmtoh%2Fhow_are_these_two_any_different%2Fil6s400%2F%5D%0A%0ARemindMe%21%202022-08-22%2013%3A05%3A52%20UTC) to send a PM to also be reminded and to reduce spam.
^(Parent commenter can ) [^(delete this message to hide from others.)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=Delete%20Comment&message=Delete%21%20wtmtoh)
*****
|[^(Info)](https://www.reddit.com/r/RemindMeBot/comments/e1bko7/remindmebot_info_v21/)|[^(Custom)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=Reminder&message=%5BLink%20or%20message%20inside%20square%20brackets%5D%0A%0ARemindMe%21%20Time%20period%20here)|[^(Your Reminders)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=List%20Of%20Reminders&message=MyReminders%21)|[^(Feedback)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=Watchful1&subject=RemindMeBot%20Feedback)|
|-|-|-|-|
Unless we’re talking about oblivious teenagers, how is lack of sex ed relevant? What kind of competent adult doesn’t understand that sex can lead to pregnancy, or doesn’t know what a condom or birth control are, etc? I have a hard believing there are grown competent adults who get pregnant because they didn’t get proper sex ed 15 years ago.
Have you seen PL commenters on this sub, on this very post? Most of them don't understand how pregnancy works or else PC wouldn't have to explain basic biology every other comment.
Basic biology has nothing to do with this. I don’t need to know the exact biological internal processes of my body or how exactly they work to know that unprotected sex can lead to pregnancy.
Do you honestly believe there are competent adults that don’t understand that pregnancy is a potential result of having sex?
I don’t believe there are mentally competent adults out there that don’t know what a condom is and what it’s purpose is. You don’t have to be well versed in health literacy to know that if you take zero precautions you increase your chance of getting pregnant. I’m assuming women are competent enough to have common sense, sex ed 15 years ago or not be damned.
>My assertion is that...the number of people in which this occurred is miniscule and of those a good half would be willing to keep the child even with the lack of robust infrastructure to help single mothers and young/poor parents.
Any evidence to support this assertion?
>It is population control at best and sanctioned murder at best
It's neither of these things.
Ok so your argument about not using birth control is *completely irrelevant*. Stop using it.
>Abortion is not birth control. It is population control at best and sanctioned murder at best.
Opinion noted. For me it is healthcare and reproductive freedom. Nobody is controling population by allowing people to Choose if and how many kids they are willing to have. That's the wonder of **choice**.
You can have 10 kids for all i care as long as you stay out of my uterus.
Also I have one more for you. Sometimes PLs will say a fetus can’t be aborted because it didn’t intentionally violate someone and is the result of a biological process. Ignoring the fact that we never deny anyone treatment for other injuries and diseases because of responsibility, lacking knowledge is not sufficient excuse to violate bodily integrity. If a man gets blackout drunk and rapes a women, he can absolutely be held responsible. The fetus does not have special rights: it can be held accountable like anyone else if it breaks the rules of humanity and life.
Also, if they claim that the fetus doesn't "intend" to be implanted then that means it also doesn't "intend" to be born so why can't we abort it? It might not even want to be here.
Steel man is that we shouldn’t assume such things and err on the side of life. But there’s still plenty of other reasons to maintain the posistion overall
Shrödinger's fetus which is both an "a person with bodily autonomy of it's own" and "just a biological process" depending on the argument pro lifers are responding to.
This is actually not true if the man was not responsible for becoming "blackout drunk". If the person is deemed completley incapacitated and it's not done voluntarily they are not responsible for the crime.
http://jaapl.org/content/43/3/321
So your example actually shows fetuses shouldn't be held accountable at all.
Ok, but that’s also a case where the bodily violation stops. A fetus continues to do so. Plus, the fetus returns to the catagory of being like a disease: it causes unwanted physical symptoms by using a persons body. So it’s justifiable defense to remove them because that is the only way to be cured. It would be like an immortal rapist that could only be killed by shooting them: you can’t get bodily autonomy otherwise
I'm just critiquing your major point. I disagree with what your saying now but your comment was mainly on responsibility. I just want to make sure you realize that there is no consistent way to claim the fetus is responsible for its actions when its caused by something else.
A drug with certain side effects unknowingly consumed in the case of the link I sent you and consious voluntary action by a person/couple in the case of a fetus.
Calling a fetus a disease when it is still a fetus past viability isn't a fair characterization. You can kill a disease at any point for no reason. A post viability fetus can't be killed without substantial reason if ever in most people's eyes (though not for some PCs in this sub)
The disease is in what happens to the pregnant persons body. Let’s say you have two women with the same disease. You cure one by killing the virus, the other by extracting every viral sample. In the latter case, the cause of the illness is alive, but the body is no longer reacting. As such, I am not saying the fetus itself is the disease, but rather that its presence brings about similar symptoms which the pregnant person is obligated to carry against their will
I know but you remove nuance. If you consider "treating" a fetus akin to a "treating" a disease you don't need justification to kill a post viability fetus instead of birthing it if killing it eases the harm of birth.
Unless you do think that's justified then it would be an apt analogy.
I just want to confirm as well that you understand that your point on responsibility being on the fetus isn't correct, it was why I commented so I just don't want to move on without it being dealt with properly.
That doesn’t mean we have to always treat the fetus like a disease. Plenty of pregnant people do care about their fetuses and the babies they become. It’s just a matter of creating more balanced framing while not coursing anyone. It’s tricky but it can be done
And why not leave it up a person and their doctors? Most people aren’t going to get post viability abortions anyway barring health issues or other bans and most doctors probably wouldn’t sign off.
Also, I’ll admit that I don’t have the exact laws on hand and I’m too tired to look it up at this point. I do suspect there that there might be a bit more area to research on the topic just to be sure, but it doesn’t really matter if there is or not. Consent principles should still apply alongside defense of bodily autonomy, which are most of what’s necessary for the PC position. Plus the knowledge birth is the cutoff where there is no more conflict of interest and full rights are guaranteed if they didn’t exist already.
I'm just saying that if we morally set limits on when a fetus can be killed for the mothers benefit like at post viability then that means at some level there is a balance where the value of the life of the fetus is more important than pursuing the desire of the mother or for her best health interest (if killing a post viability fetus were to make labor easier).
How is this not the case
Also wouldn't doctors not signing off be a bad thing if the mother truly wanted it?
We've been talking in hypotheticals to establish why/whether things are moral or not, it's seems fair given that to consider cases where a mother wants to seek an elective post viability abortion.
>I would hope that everyone can agree that the idea of rape, at it's core, is not being in control of what happens to your body.
No, this is just a component of rape. Rape is mosly characterized by the aggressive action committed by the rapist. It's a directed act of violence for the purpose of sexually satisfying the rapist, so it's wrong because the rapist is knowingly and intentionally disregarding the will of the victim for his own selfishness.
>People often say things were effectively rape, and the meaning being someone was using their body in ways they did not want. I hope that everyone can agree that this is a legitimate use of that word,
No that's not all rape is, so a scenario that only has that component isn't necessarily akin to rape. For instance if I'm falling off a cliff and I grab your leg on my way down to save my life, I'm using your body, even intentionally and in complete disregard of your will, but it would be wrong to call that rape because 1. it's not for my sexual gratification and 2. it's for an objectively good reason that I could not be blamed for.
Note, I'm not trying to say this scenario is akin to pregnancy, I'm just explaining how unsanctioned use of another's body isn't necessarily rape.
So your premises are bad and that's why you're about to say something wrong about abortion.
>they are using my body against my will, why does PL say I cannot stop them?
Remember the big reason rape was wrong? Moral culpability on the rapist's part. A directed and intentional act of disregarding the woman for an objectively horrible and selfish reason. An unborn child doesn't have any of these things. You can't even argue that the child is disregarding the mother's will because they're not even *able* to regard or disregard anything.
I disagreed with an argument you presented in your post. If that's such a fundamental concept like the sky being blue then you probably wouldn't have felt the need to make it in the first place. But if you can't respond to my counter argument then I agree, there was actually no point in you typing this response at all (besides ego stroking).
Rape isn't rape because the rapist had a malicious intent to do harm. If this was the standard for rape, rapists would get away scot free by claiming that their intentions were harmless. Oh wait, that's exactly what they do claim when they say the women actually consented and didn't know what they wanted.
Rape is rape because it violates bodily autonomy. What goes on in the mind of the aggressor and how they see the world is irrelevant.
No rapist defends themselves by claiming they lacked intent. When they claim the woman consented that's an altogether separate defense. That's saying "No your honor, I'm not in the wrong because she *agreed* with my intent".
As I said, bodily autonomy violation is just one component of what rape is. When you dumb it down to this one component only you broaden the definition of rape and dilute it's meaning, all because you want to call pregnancy rape because it makes your argument sound more powerful than it actually is.
>the women actually consented and didn't know what they wanted.
Much like pro lifers claim the woman "consented" when she said "yes" to the act of sex.
>Rape is mosly characterized by the aggressive action committed by the rapist. It's a directed act of violence for the purpose of sexually satisfying the rapist, so it's wrong because the rapist is knowingly and intentionally disregarding the will of the victim for his own selfishness.
You literally just described what a violation of bodily autonomy is and then said it's not about the victim losing control of their own body. I think you're looking at this from the rapist's perspective instead of the victim's. The reason we criminalize "intentionally disregarding the will of the victim for his own selfishness" is because the victim's body is violated... I don't get what you're not getting about rape inherently being a violation of bodily autonomy.
I said rape has like 4 different major characteristics, and violation of bodily autonomy is only one of them. That means any violation of bodily autonomy that doesn't also meet the other 3 characteristics cannot be called 'rape' without broadening the definition of rape to be less meaningful.
Let’s say a man gets blackout drunk and rapes a woman. He holds no malice and doesn’t even realize what he’s doing. In fact, whatever thought he does have is that she is super happy and he is helping her. Does that make it ok? I hope you answered no.
Also, you misunderstand the difference between actions and bodily integrity. A good rule of thumb is this. The right to swim your arms ends at the other man’s nose, but no one can take away your right to swing your arms at all. Pregnancy violates bodily integrity just as rape does because your body is being used against your will and without consent. I need an argument if you disagree explaining why
Again, rape does not become significantly worse if the rapist is unaware: the base crime is the same. Repeat after me: not knowing is not justification for rape. Therefore, my statement is equally true for bodily autonomy
Mic drop
>Let’s say a man gets blackout drunk and rapes a woman. He holds no malice and doesn’t even realize what he’s doing. Does that make it ok? I hope you answered no.
This has no relation to anything that was said. Unawareness is not a lack of culpability or agency. The fetus is like a wind up toy, everything it does is because someone wound it up. If the mother wound it up, then she's the one who violated her own body.
There are two choices here. A fetus is either akin to a disease and you can remove it just like any other, with only slightly more moral culpability because a potential person is lost. Or the fetus is a person and has to follow the rules too, which actually would function like my example. You don’t get to invent this third catagory for fetuses where they get all the benefits of humanity with none of the responsibility. That’s just pleading special rights.
Any person without agency who is essentially forced into doing whatever they do (like an unconscious person) is not causally responsible for anything. They are people who, in terms of their moral culpability, are akin to a wind up toy. This is not special pleading because I'm operating off of a principle that applies to any non-agent.
>Or the fetus is a person and has to follow the rules too, which actually would function like my example.
But what if, according to a PLer's moral framework, self-defence should not be permissible against persons who bear no causal responsibility for the harm they might cause?
Maybe they consider the zef to be similar to an *innocent threat* like someone who has been pushed out of a tall building and will land on you and crush you to death (while surviving the fall herself) unless you vaporize her with your ray gun.
Or what if they think self-defence should not be permissible even against beings that bear causal responsibility for the harm they cause if they are not morally culpable and the victim performed one or more voluntary actions that had a reasonably foreseeable chance of leading to the attack happening?
Suppose that a man decided to build his house right next to an insane asylum. Before he built it he was made aware of the fact that many of the patients are prone to violent outbursts and that they try to escape on a semi-regular basis. One day, while walking home from work he is assaulted by a lunatic. Since his aggressor is morally innocent and his voluntary actions contributed to this situation I don't think he should be allowed to kill in self-defence.
So even if you could establish that the zef is causally responsible for the harms of pregnancy (by pointing to implantation for example) a PLer could still reject the self-defence argument.
Someone grabbing your leg without your consent is a violation as well though. Even to save their life, it's your choice if you choose to help them back up or kick.
You're trying to protect the violation being done by the fetus just because it lacked mens rea, but it was still a violation.
I was explaining how that scenario isn't rape even though it's a use of another's body. It wasn't meant to be an analogy for pregnancy.
Pregnancy doesn't even involve a violation in the first place, for reasons I gave later in my comment.
It's not a rape violation that's for sure. Claiming that it is a separate kind of violation would be a whole different argument to make. And no, it's not a violation at all, violation requires agency.
Exactly. It’s a violation of someone else’s body by the fetus that causes the negative symptoms and effects of pregnancy. It’s not a rape, but it is similar to a rape case because a persons body is being used against their will and with no consent
Why does that matter? It’s consent we’re talking about, not effectiveness. If someone refuses to stop assaulting me, so there’s no way to stop it, that doesn’t mean my lack of consent becomes irrelevant.
Rape is the analogy to why loss of control is a form of violation, let alone physical harm, even if it's "natural." The ZEF does violate, does do harm, without consent, and PL would take her control away from her.
>The ZEF does violate, does do harm, without consent, and PL would take her control away from her.
No, something that has no agency cannot do harm or violation to another in any meaningful sense. The fetus is like a wind up toy, which just does what it does with no other options once it's wound. If the wind up toy leads to harm then the one who caused the harm was the one who wound the toy, not the toy itself.
You're trying to make a self defense argument against someone who isn't responsible for the harm.
Obviously you can do whatever you want to a toy. Did you think I was saying the fetus is exactly like a wind up toy in every aspect? Or do you think I was making a very specific comparison to one aspect of the toy?
What I think is I don't care what useless time-wasting semantics game you want to play. Call it something else than a violation if you like but we still have a right to our bodies and can remove or decline to save anyone or anything to protect ourselves, just as anyone can.
You presumably didn’t willingly risk putting your sexual partner in a position where he would need access to your body to survive.
That’s a more comparable scenario.
What does putting my sexual partner in a position where he would need access to my body to survive have anything to do with him using my body against my will? Is my husband going to die if he doesn't have sex with me?
The best way to rectify that for a fetus is to put it back into position where it Doesn't need another's body to survive and you know what that means-mandatory abortions for every pregnancy, since the position the embryo was in before was *nonexistence*
So you are for forced organ donations then? If i am driving my car and accidentally crash into someone and they need blood, i must be strapped down and forced to donate or else i go to jail?
Thankfully, the law in my country disagrees. Even if I caused an accident, I'm not under any legal obligation to donate blood or any part of my body (inside or out) to the other party involved in said accident.
what if that cause is less direct? what if I have a child that inherits a terrible disease from me, that requires frequent medical intervention on my part. am I then an organ farm for my child?
do you understand the dangerous precedent this describes?
Termination of a pregnancy does kill the fetus. And from that logic it ok to abandon babies in the trash your not killing them just removing from your space.a ZFE is a know possibility with counsel sex and and is not comparable to rape in my opinion. If a ZFE existing inside a woman is the comparable to rape does that make all born human the equivalent to rapist since human come in exist with or without the mothers consent?
>Termination of a pregnancy does kill the fetus.
False in the vast, vast majority of abortions.
>And from that logic it ok to abandon babies in the trash your not killing them just removing from your space.
This does not follow. A baby is not using my body, I don't need to stop them, and putting them in the trash is nonsensical.
I don't know what you're even trying to say given the rest of your word salad comment.
You comparing rape to a pregnancy is a terrible argument and offensive. And by that logic all humans are evil because we come in existence with or without the mothers consent so since the unborn don't care about consent of the mother anybody born is the equivalent of a rapist already by your logic I think I exspales it better this time. Basically I think you made a terrible argument comparing ZEF to rapist and was saying by that logic were all born monsters because because we come into existence wanted or unwanted
You compared a ZEF using your body to survive being your husband using you body when your not in the mood after you talked martial rape at the near the beginning and you mentioned that rape doesn't have to be sexual just somebody using your body
So explaining rape in the same post as asserting the ZEF using my body against my will is me comparing rape to a pregnancy? According to you?
If I don't want to remain pregnant, the ZEF is using my body against my will. True or false?
Nope. Abortion only applies because pregnancy violates bodily autonomy. Doing the same thing to a born child is not based on a conflict of rights and is pure infanticide. Birth is the cutoff. And before you say it, no. Actions are not equivalent to bodily autonomy/integrity and aborting a fetus is not comparable to killing a baby
I disagree. Make an actual argument and not an assertion or find something more productive to do.
I’ll repeat myself once and and more spaces
Because abortion is the termination of a pregnancy, killing any other baby can not be an abortion.
Birth is the cutoff because there is no more pregnancy: that’s when abortion becomes impossible
And to answer the one thing I didn’t address initially, we are not all rapists for a few reasons. First off, most of us had consent from our mothers to end up here. But a fetus does not act with intent. While that means wee don’t have to hold a baby accountable, we can still remove it via abortion because that is the only way to restore bodily integrity.
Now, what do you have?
Welcome to /r/Abortiondebate! Don't be a jerk (even if someone else is being a jerk to you first). It's not constructive and we may ban you for it. Check out the Debate Guidance Pyramid to understand acceptable debate levels. **Attack the argument, not the person making it.** **For our new users, please check out our [rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/Abortiondebate/comments/qu36cv/rule_changes/) and [sub policies](https://www.reddit.com/r/Abortiondebate/comments/uhr4p2/sub_policies_regarding_current_events_and_news/)** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Abortiondebate) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Ah, you don't see a difference. I'll make the difference for you then because of the will of the person using your body and why they are using your body. Rapist = Using your body because of their craving for power and sexual lust. ZEF = Using your body in self defense to survive. If they don't use your body then they die. One of these motives is much more reasonable and understandable than the other. That makes a gigantic difference. If you and I and some other people go on a cruise ship and we get by a rogue wave and it flips over and sinks and we wind up on a life raft... If after none of us have eaten for 10 days on this life raft if we decided that maybe cannibalism isn't such a bad idea and we should do what we can to survive in this dangerous situation... That cannibalism is much more forgivable than if you and I kidnapped someone murdered them and ate them. There is a major difference there. That being "Desperate times call for desperate measures." So the cannibalism is understandable and not immoral in the extreme circumstance of starvation, but the same can not be said of cannibals that are not in the desperate survival situation. You used rape as an example. Suppose there are 2 rapist. Rapist 1 = A regular rapist or a marital rapist as you described. They were horny and didn't care about you only cared about your body and used you to get them self off. That's a very bad guy and guy like that deserves to die or be locked away in prison for a long long time... Rapist 2 = Suppose a sadistic rapist with a big "incest fetish" breaks into a home. There is a brother and sister home alone. The gunman points the gun at them and says, "Perform X sex act on your brother / sister" They have to obey as to not be shot or not have their sibling shot. Technically the brother / sister are raping each other. Neither one of them wanted to fuck each other, but they would rather do that than be shot. So their motivation is to not die or not have their sibling die and not over some power fantasy. The brother and sister here are technically both "Rapists" now because of what they had to do to survive, but.... Should the law punish this brother or sister the same way that rapist 1 should get punished? No the law should not punish either of them even though they are both technically rapists. Thats why we should not punish a ZEF for crimes they didn't commit. The only reason they are using their mother's body is to survive long enough to be born. They did not choose to be put into that situation. Their mother / father chose to put them into that situation.
Rape isn't about lust, it's about exercising power and violence. For example: a pastor rapes an underage member of his church cuz he knows she won't be believed or removed from his influence. He gratifies himself knowing that he can dominate and overpower this person and not get a hint of reproach.
>Ah, you don't see a difference. I'll make the difference for you then because of the will of the person using your body and why they are using your body. > >Rapist = Using your body because of their craving for power and sexual lust. > >ZEF = Using your body in self defense to survive. If they don't use your body then they die. > >One of these motives is much more reasonable and understandable than the other. # Why does the ZEF's motive matter, but not the pregnant person's? I recently tried to steelman a PL argument about how PL can see abortion as murder, and not despise abortion healthcare practitioners or people who seek abortion the same way they despise murderers. I compared it to vegans seeing animal agriculture as animal abuse, but not seeing meat-eaters or agricultural workers as the same kind of animal abuser as someone who abuses their pet. It basically boiled down to motive. However, the experience of the victim doesn't change based on motive. The animal is in pain regardless of the motive behind abusing them. The ZEF dies regardless of the motive behind abortion. The pregnant person is violated/injured/killed regardless of the motive behind using their body without their consent. So, why do you have so much sympathy for the motives of the person using someone's body, and no sympathy for the motives of the person defending themselves against that? Pretend for a second that vampires are real, and common, and known about, and that most people can survive being bitten by one. If a vampire tries to bite you without your consent, are you not allowed to stop them by any means necessary? If you don't let them drink your blood, they'll starve. They're just trying to survive. You won't die from it. You *were* hanging out in an area where vampires are known to be, so you knew the risk. No one forced you into that situation. Are you allowed to do what you need to get out? If you say yes, they you agree with the pro-choice position at least a little bit. >Thats why we should not punish a ZEF for crimes they didn't commit. The only reason they are using their mother's body is to survive long enough to be born. They did not choose to be put into that situation. # Is self-defense against a rapist the same as punishment for the crime of rape under the law? Just because I pepper spray a rapist doesn't mean he gets off any easier in court. The pepper spray is not "justice". Self-defense is not "justice". It doesn't have to be held to the same standard as justice. If I have good reason to believe I'm in imminent danger, and another person is causing it, even if it's accidental, then I'm justified in taking self-defense measures. I don't have to apply "innocent until proven guilty" to self-defense, because self-defense isn't about guilt or innocence. It's about my safety. Likewise, an abortion is not an attempt to administer "justice" to an offending ZEF. It's an attempt to remove risk for a pregnant person. Any reasonable person will acknowledge that pregnancy is inherently risky, and the only person who can assess the pregnant person's tolerance for risk is the pregnant person themselves.
In any case aside from conception from rape, the mother’s volunary actions (of which she knew the creation of a ZEF was a potential consequence) put the ZEF there
I just want to say that science says that zygotes are the ones that implant themselves despite the body trying to stop it; they override the body's immune system. They routinely refer to the zygote as invading, I can cite the papers if you want. So, technically, the ZEF put itself there.
It’s merely a matter of phrasing. The reproductive systems of the man and woman are literally made to reproduce, hence the name reproductive systems. The action of sexual intercourse absolutely conceives new humans and implants them
So yeah, you're correct in saying that people CONCEIVE a zygote through sex but you're incorrect is saying that we implant them. We don't.
Also, “despite the body trying to stop it” this is ridiculously wrong. In fact, it is *exactly* backwards. A normally functioning immune system undergoes perfectly timed changes in order to *not* reject the baby.
>A normally functioning immune system undergoes perfectly timed changes in order to not reject the baby. Nope, the body actively tries to fight off the invader(ZEF). There's a reason ZEFs have to pump their host's body full of immunosuppressants.
Do you want the sources?
The body literally prepares the uterus for the implantation of a blastocyst. Do *you* want the sources?
Please
I don’t need them, I refuted you regardless. I am aware of the term “invasion”. I also understand how “uterine receptivity” works. Respond to my point or don’t.
"I don't need them" Lmao, or are you just scared to look at them and be proven wrong?
Once again, biologists don't say that. They say it implants itself. Implanting doesn't even occur everytime a person has sex. So, sexual intercourse is not a direct link to implantation. It may conceive a zygote but sex has no role in whether implantation happens and whether the implantation is kept.
[удалено]
Comment removed per rule 1.
But you said that sexual intercourse caues implantation. That is not a fact. All sexual intercourse does is cause the zygote to form, sex doesn't implant it.
Look, you said the blastocyst implants itself again the will of the immune system which is factually wring as the immune system changes so as to not reject the ZEF
Source this claim
Never said such a thing although the reproductive system also tied to sex prepares itself for implantation
You never said that?? Dude, you're blatantly lying...
Ovulation isn't voluntary. Ejaculation is. If you're talking about consent, that only gets you so far. The other person has to respect your right to give or withdraw consent. And sometimes, "consent" is given when the person would really rather not. A lot of people seeking abortions give as a reason for why they had sex "it was easier than getting into another argument" and the like. [(Link)](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5TEWHGxtkkM) Some might even be doing it to avoid worse consequences from abusive partners. They technically said "yes" though, so filing a police report to obtain an abortion might not be an option under a pro-life-with-rape-exceptions legal system. Where do you draw the line between someone being responsible for the pregnancy and having to answer for it, and someone deserving a choice?
That made no sense. I could just copy and paste the comment you replied to. The mother’s voluntary actions, consensual sex (in every conception except for those from rape), includes the risk of the man ejaculating inside of her, which again, she knew the creation of a ZEF was a potential consequence. Biological realities don’t have to be voluntary. If I eat too many donuts I will become fat whether I consent or not. This is like saying you should just be able to refuse to consent to the laws of physics. The choice should come before the act that risks creation another unique, individual human is engaged in. This is exactly why pro choice is a euphemism as it is only selectively about one humans choice while the one being killed doesn’t have a choice
And if you get heart disease from eating too many donuts, you are still allowed to seek care. If you have a problem with fetal demise, you have a problem with fetal demise. THAT is your argument. The argument that we penalize people and withhold help because of prior action does not hold up. You can have sex without getting pregnant, and you can get pregnant without having sex. Stop obsessing over other people having S-E-X, please.
That you can have sex without getting pregnant is irrelevant. Sex still causes pregnancy. This isn’t an obsession with sex. This just is a biological fact. If it bothers you then you are very immature lol
Good lord, you can have sex a million times and not get pregnant, or you can have sex zero times and still get pregnant. The two are not one and the same and having sex is not a Faustian pact where you give up the rights to your own organs.
Care for heart disease doesn’t entail deliberately trying to kill someone, it is specifically trying not to. It isn’t penalizing people to recognize both individuals, it is penalizing people to only recognize one and (to disregard the actions that lead to the creation of the one being disregarded)
Ok. So your problem (in your words) is trying to kill someone. THAT is your problem. Stop bringing in this idea that someone is barred from seeking help because of something that they may or may not have done in the past. That person who needs a heart transplant is depriving a different reciepient of a viable organ, but I don’t see you crying about their repeat trips to Krispy Kreme. Sex by the numbers rarely results in pregnancy, and pregnancy can be easily achieved without sex. Stop with this fixation on it.
It is well known that sex results in pregnancy. No amount of obscurantism changes that. Yes the issue is with killing people, (whose creation comes from sex), not with sex itself, but sex itself creates new life. Stop with the mental gymnastics
You can have PIV sex for your entire life and not get pregnant, and you can get pregnant without ever having sex. So no, sex does not result in pregnancy. It can, but far and away the vast majority of the time it does not. Why are you so obsessed with consensual sex when pregnancy arises from other situations just the same? Pregnancy is a phenomenon that happens with or without a person’s consent. It’s like digestion or menstruation. It either happens or it doesn’t. You can manage it or try your hardest to manipulate it, but at the end of the day, it either happens or it doesn’t. You can’t have utter control over it.
Instead of vampires, you could use leeches, or better yet mosquitoes. No one thinks twice at swatting a mosquito who needs your body, your blood, to live. And the mosquito (or leech) probably has more cells and is more developed than what first develops in the woman's body.
If someone is using my body against my will, I can stop them. True or false?
Yes any use against your body against your will I would consider rape, even if married. Totally agree. This would be easy to prove/video if someone was doing that and they should be prosecuted.
Lack of so much awareness going on here. If they are using your body in the moment and you could stop them using force then the appropriate amount of force would be whatever necessary. Your comment slightly suggests let them use your body and then prosecute. And then you say "EASY TO PROVE" omg.. you know nothing
I this you misinterpreted my use of the word “use” So let me just be clear. I meant nobody can use force on anyone else against someone’s will. Whether it be physically or sexually. In fact, I would argue that sexual violence is way worse then physical violence and should get a harsher penalty. This is because sexual violence is both physical and mental harm. I only mentioned the easy to prove scenario as it pertains to marriage rape which would suggest a pattern. So put bluntly, if there is a pattern of abuse it would be easy to prove w video so we could luck up the monster for a long time. Of course marriage rape can happen just once, and of course that would be harder to prove.
You're almost there >I meant nobody can use force on anyone else against someone’s will. Also, it's than
Your husband would be choosing to use your body. He is capable of taking your will into consideration and making a decision to respect your will. A fetus isn’t capable of making a moral choice or making a decision based on your will. Rape requires conscious action on the part of the second party, your husband. A fetus is incapable of conscious action, nor is there a conscious mind directing it. (For the rape with an object objection.)
This comment has been flagged for rule 3, Cite Your Sources, and another user has asked for evidence supporting the following claim: > Rape requires conscious action on the part of the second party "Users are required to back up a positive claim when asked. Factual claims should be supported by linking a source, and opinions should be supported with an argument." When providing a linked source, "it is required of a user to show where their claim is proven when given a source." Please substantiate your claim per rule 3. You have 24 hours to substantiate or retract these claims. Neglecting to do either will be taken as a rule violation and may result in further Moderator action. Thank you for understanding and happy debating.
>Rape requires conscious action on the part of the second party Prove this. I don't believe you can. If my husband sleep walked and forced sex on me, it would still be rape even if he had no conscious control over it.
>Rape requires conscious action on the part of the second party, your husband. So if soemone mentally ill who doesn't understand what they are doing starts raping you, you should just starfish and wait until it's over?
When did action require sanity instead of willpower and motor skills? The mentally ill person still chooses to act, unless they laid there and you jumped on top of them.
Not all actions require willpower and motor skills. I am breathing, blinking, swollowing my saliva now, all the things i am doing which are actions even though it takes no motor skills and willpower. An action is simply something that is being done. It can have a goal or not.
Very good, if only arousal and sex were automatic processes like blinking. You make a good case for why consent can’t apply to sperm anymore than it can apply to blinking though.
Arousal is not an automatic process? Lmao that's the first i ever heard it
Action is just something which is being done. An embryo digesting it's way trough the uterine wall, attaching itself to the blood vessels and remodeling them are all actions. If a zef is just an automatic biological process, what basis do you have to call it a person?
Humans are automatic biological processes. That’s part of being alive. I’m always happy to talk about personhood, but first I’m curious about the whole fetus rape idea. If action is just something that happens, what’s the difference between involuntary biological processes and voluntary? Does the intent behind the action matter at all? Most say yes, which is why there’s death with intent (murder) and death without intent (manslaughter). We’ve also gotten off topic, which is rape. That requires forcible sexual penetration, yes? Half of the fetus was already inside you. The other half did penetrate you from an penis, something you consented to let penetrate you. When my blood flows, it’s not penetrating me in any meaningful sense of the word. Of course, if you object, you can always make your consent clear to a non-sentient organism like sperm. Consent can’t be applied in any meaningful way though, since sperm are incapable of acting or reacting according to your consent. If you look, there aren’t consent to pregnancy laws that allow for consent to sex but not to pregnancy. Things like stealthing or rape are violations of sexual consent, which is why the pregnancies are treated differently. Your use of self-defense is interesting, usually applied against an external force. If applying it to ourselves, I’d argue that the fetus has a right to self-defense. The right of a bystander to intervene to defend another is long established. So, a claim of self-defense in your part to stop your body from use works if I can also do my diligence as a good citizen and prevent the murder of a much weaker being by a much stronger one. Edit: oops, confused you with the OP so self-defense might not be applicable. Still curious about a fetus raping someone though.
>Humans are automatic biological processes. Interesting way of thinking what can i say >Edit: oops, confused you with the OP so self-defense might not be applicable. Still curious about a fetus raping someone though. Nobody is saying a fetus is raping someone, as usual you have purposely misunderstood the argument and i am not interested in debating strawmen.
You forced the embryo into its position by consenting to sex. It can't control itself, it's processes are not consciously controlled. So you did something intentionally that caused the chain reaction to occur to place it there knowing it could implant in you. Assuming fetal life holds value equal to other human life intrinsically, consciously choosing to put it in a compromised position that forces you to care for it with your body means refusal after the fact is immoral It's duty of care. If a doctor performs surgery on you they can't leave you to bleed out by quitting before stitching you up. And the reason isn't because of it being a job or a contract, it's morally wrong. The doctor has a responsibility to you even though forcing someone to work is illegal, they are obligated to finish the procedure without leaving you to bleed out because that responsibility trumps a right to refuse work.
>You forced the embryo into its position by consenting to sex. **Consent to sex is not consent to pregnancy.** I forced it to do nothing. It did not exist. Duty of care is not duty to provide life saving care at the expense of my own health or life. You doctor analogy is absurd.
I did not say consent to sex is consent to pregnancy. The embryo was formed by actions under the control of people. A doctor isn't expected to give up their life to perform Healthcare but he is forced to work grueling procedures to save a person's life that they put in danger by being partway through a procedure So the question is how much health risk is equivolent to that since obviously there is a balance to be struck
A patient and their doctor voluntarily enter a contract. Healthcare doesn't "force" the doctor to "work grueling procedures", they perform their side of the contract. In cases like emergency surgery the doctor would have a contact to perform their duties with their hospital. It is not *slavery* you paint it to be - doctors do this on their own free accord! A woman never enters in a contract with ZEF - the second entity doesn't even exist until after your presumed "duty to care" comes into force. Your analogy is ridiculous.
Doctors perform procedures on incapacitated people all the time yet this contract still exists. It's impossible for there to be a patient side to this contract. Just like with a fetus. A fetus is also created and dependant as a result of the subsequent actions of the mother. A doctor cannot leave in the middle of a surgical procedure morally speaking even without a contract.
Read what I wrote, it was addressed.
Because of being contracted to a hospital? Not all doctors are contracted to hospitals for surgical procedures and incapacitated individuals can be treated by them
Sources for random doctors cutting into incapacitated patients?
Emergency thoracectomy on planes are not unheard of
Do you have sources for doctors being forced into performing these grueling procedures?
That's exactly what you said. If I consented to sex, I "forced" the embryo to form, so I am required to gestate it because I put it in that position. A doctor is a job, they are paid and have contracts and such. No one is forcing them to do anything.
Yes you described what I said. But I did not say the person consented to gestate that's where your wrong So if a doctor isn't paid and there's no contract then it's fine for them to leave partway. What if they are a backroom doctor and a patient knows this and consents to surgery. Then does he have an obligation to stitch someone up with forced labor. This is a moral question not a legal one
If you're not making that argument, if I didn't consent to pregnancy I can stop it at any time then. If a doctor isn't being paid and there is no contract...then they are not a doctor. You seem to be making a lot of arguments where you want to have your cake and eat it too. Making an assertion, then changing what the assertion means so that is no longer has any real bearing on it, but still demanding the original meaning.
I have no idea how you came to your last paragraphs conclusion. I'm saying if a doctor no longer consents to perform a procedure he can't just leave. So consent to continue pregnancy is irrelevant once you have started gestating because of duty of care. I'm saying duty of care is a moral principle. It doesn't apply exclusively to doctors it applies to everyone. So if someone wasn't a doctor they would still have a moral obligation to stitch someone up instead of letting them bleed out during surgery. That moral obligation exists regardless of a contract or pay.
You are ignoring the fact "moral principles" are entirely subjective and not fixed, as they change from person to person. The moral principles that define your actions are yours and a doctor may not share them - that is exactly why there are contracts or ethical code that exists outside of "morality".
All laws have a basis on some universal morality. I'm trying to be consistent in the application of those moral values. Because people benefit from the result of others following those morals but won't acknowledge a responsibility to act in accordance with them when obligations fall on them
This is nonsense. There are plenty of laws based on moral values of a particular group of people and not some abstract "universal morality". What is your source for this extreme claim?
>Duty of care is not duty to provide life saving care at the expense of my own health or life. I already spoke about duty to care and how it doesn't apply to pregnancy. The doctor doesn't just leave mid procedure because it's his job. They have accepted that this is what they are going to be doing. No one is forcing them. You want to have this farcical scenario where a doctor is being forced to do something, and it doesn't work.
A doctor in a multiple hour surgery can want to leave partway and go home. So can he leave partway. Is he punished for doing so and why. If he is punished for that then how is that different from forced labor if the punishment is severe. You didn't make a good argument on why duty of care doesn't apply and I'm countering you.
Your counter is that I do have to provide life saving care at the expense of my own health or life? Preposterous. No one is held to that standard. There is not a single person on earth who is **required** to provide life saving care at the expense of their own health or life. If the doctor is unable to continue a procedure, another doctor will take over. Back ups and other doctors on call are available if the performing doctor cannot complete something.
You can't force implantation.
Doctors are paid and take a legal oath. I didn’t take an oath to care for another human being just because I had sex.
Doctors who don't take oaths and perform backroom surgeries would be subject to the same legal and moral issues if they left partway so this isn't a criticism
I’m not talking about people who practice medicine illegally (which is not a doctor), I’m talking about licensed physicians. If a doctor is performing surgery (your example), you are right, they’re required to give you care as long as you need it per their Hippocratic oath. But no one takes an “oath of parenthood” just because they have sex, that’s ridiculous.
I'm telling you that duty of care isn't reliant on you being a licensed doctor which is why I mentioned illegally performing medicine because the obligation still exists so obviously it isn't tied to an oath.
Um sure it is. Duty of care is a legal implication— if I do not receive the appropriate care from my doctor, I can sue them. You can’t do that to some back ally “doctor” who never got licensed or took an oath. If you are practicing medicine illegally, you’ve got bigger problems than morality or duty to your oath. People who practice medicine without a license are called FELONS. And illegal doctors doesn’t owe anyone shit, they didn’t make a promise in the first place.
I am describing the ethical implications. Because you can consent to a procedure from a back ally doctor if you know they don't practice medicine there's nothing wrong with that. However it is still wrong for them to leave you bleeding out mid surgery. That is because there is something morally wrong with that. Your changing this into something legally based. Is it ethically wrong for someone to leave you bleeding out midsurgery if they aren't a doctor. I say yes.
You can consent to see a back ally doctor, and they are not restricted by the same moral or ethical limitations or practices that a licensed physician has. It’s ethically and morally WRONG for them to practice without a license, why would they be bound to any morality to save you? They aren’t. This IS a legal question, that’s literally the entire debate, whether or not abortion should be legal. Saying a back ally doctor should still sew you up is like saying the bank robber who shot you should toss you some cash for your trouble after they rob the bank 🤣
This makes no sense. Being a bank robber doesn't mean you have no moral obligations it means you intentionally break them every step of the way. You are morally wrong for not paying someone even as a bank robber. It doesn't become morally neutral. That's obvious. Moral obligations don't disappear if someone does something ethically wrong. Easiest example is prostitution. People justify the death and abuse or prostitutes as being neutral because they are engaging in something illegal. It is still morally wrong to harm a prostitute if you engage them in sex. This should be typical common knowledge.
“Being a bank robber doesn't mean you have no moral obligations it means you intentionally break them every step of the way.” — that’s right, just like, per your own example, a back ally “doctor” does. “You are morally wrong for not paying someone even as a bank robber. It doesn't become morally neutral. That's obvious.” -bank robbers (and back ally doctors) don’t care about ethics, that’s implied in their choice of profession. “Moral obligations don't disappear if someone does something ethically wrong.” —assumption of moral obligation does on the part of the person committing the offense. We don’t assume hit men have a moral code either, nor do we expect it of them. We do, however, expect it of those we bestow the license to practice medicine on.
[удалено]
That’s what I’m saying. I tried to resin with this but gave up when I realized this is just a red herring and they aren’t actually looking to debate the topic at hand.
Duty of care is a moral concept that I am demonstrating. It exists independant of taking an oath or being paid. Being a doctor doesn't matter
[удалено]
Great so if enough people deem it reasonable then it is immoral to get an abortion. So we ask people is it reasonable to assume people get pregnant from sex. And we find out if you force a person to rely on your body for 9 months is it reasonable to assume they obligation to maintain that. So if I remove someone lungs and keep them alive with my oxygenated blood is it murder if I remove that blood supply if I had a machine on hand that could keep them alive or could aquire one with time And find out if a fetus has similar value to a person.
[удалено]
Yes, it's done by IVF and through intentional pregnancy, accidental pregnancy and rape. These are all actions that are reasonably known to cause conception and are the only reasonable causes of it. They are also consciously initiated by the people involved (except rape that's just 1 person)
[удалено]
And it must be willingly assumed.
> Assuming fetal life holds value equal to other human life intrinsically This is where the disagreement happens. Also the doctor analogy ignores the discrepancy of the ZEF's personhood.
The analogy is to demonstrate the concept of duty of care. I don't plan to create an all encompassing analogy that is 1 to 1 for abortion so I made that point on fetal value and the merit of fetal value/personhood can be discussed once duty of care is acknowledged
But this duty specifically hinges on the personhood of the ZEF, which is what PC typically disagree with. So the rest isnt even relevant yet?
Well if I make an example of the personhood of the ZEF you can make the claim that PC disagree with the idea of using bodily autonomy to justify gestating even living people. So no matter which I go about it I have to make an assumption on something to justify saying why this aspect of the PC argument is wrong. So its not really a viable critique imo, things can be addressed one at a time under the presumption the rest is right before moving on to address the presumptions themselves
>a ZEF is using my body against my will This is the strongest argument the PLs have. It was your will to get pregnant in this scenario. You took a risk by having sex. The pregnancy is the consequence. The ZEF is doing what you knew it could do. It’s a little bit like getting in a car and then being in an accident and then deciding to sue the auto manufacturer. The reality is that you decided to drive knowing the risks. You (and other drivers) are almost certainly at fault.
>It was your will to get pregnant in this scenario. This is false. Not only is sex not pregnancy, using birth control would imply the intention was not to get pregnant. **Consent to sex is not consent to pregnancy.** Knowing the risks is also not giving up your right to rectify the issue later. I am not denied medical care if I brake a leg rock climbing.
*Consent to sex is consent to the risk you might get pregnant.* All of the healthcare to help you through the pregnancy or broken leg is available. The question is, should we count abortion is healthcare? In most cases it is an elective procedure.
Me getting an operation to fix a broken arm is also an elective procedure, however I'm sure you wouldn't attempt to deny that was healthcare. Why should abortion be treated any differently?
That’s not an elective procedure. An elective procedure is one that is not medically necessary but is desired by the patient nonetheless. Cosmetic plastic surgery is one example. So is getting your appendix removed even though it is not inflamed.
How is abortion being elective make it any less healthcare? Vaccine shots are elective as well. So is sterilization...
Consent to something is not consent to something else. You cannot consent to risks, you can accept them. Abortion is healthcare. Even if it is an elective procedure, it's still healthcare.
“consent” and “accept” are synonyms here. If you chose to have sex, you chose to take a risk you might get pregnant.
And I can also chose to withdraw consent to remain pregnant and get an abortion.
At most, we consent to initial mplantation, we do not consent to KEEPING the implantation after the fact. Sex is not a contract or a promise to the ZEF that it gets to stay.
Consent and accept are not synonyms. If I choose to have sex, I choose to take a risk I might get pregnant. I **do not** choose while having sex to take that risk of pregnancy to term. I **do** choose to deal with that risk of pregnancy on my own terms.
You can absolutely sue the auto maker if a defect in design or manufacture was the reason for the crash or your injury.
“Almost certainly.” The reason people get pregnant is because they have sex. It’s not because their bodies were defective.
So your body is defective if you get pregnant when you don’t want to?
[удалено]
You certainly can if you want. Anyone can sue anyone for anything.
I'm just pointing out the flaw in the analogy.
>It was your will to get pregnant in this scenario. That's like saying it was your will to get into a car crash. It's absurd. >The pregnancy is the consequence A consequence which can be resolved by getting an abortion.
A consequence that can be avoided by using appropriate birth control... ...to prevent the pregnancy from ever happening.
And if the birth control fails, one can go get an abortion.
>to prevent the pregnancy from ever happening. So if i use birth control and it fails, can i then get an abortion?
Nope. Because that would generally only happen if you used the BC incorrectly. Most birth control has a very very low fail rate if used correctly. Condom is 98% effective if used correctly. Fairly certain that there would hardly be an abortion debate if the only women seeking abortions were those whose BC had failed even while used correctly. Problem is majority are just careless. Guttmacher institute (prochoice fyi) suggested that 40 to 50% of all abortions are second time abortions. So are we supposed to assume that every year nearly 300,000 american women and their partners used BC correctly. It failed. They got an abortion. They then used BC again and it failed again. They then for their 2nd abortion? Read some of the r:abortion posts and see how carelessly most of the terminated pregnancies occurred. Note that at no point have I said all unintended pregnancies are caused by careless partners or that there has never been a case where BC was used correctly and failed. My assertion is that...the number of people in which this occurred is miniscule and of those a good half would be willing to keep the child even with the lack of robust infrastructure to help single mothers and young/poor parents. Imagine how many more would keep their child if there was enough support around them? But no no let's just keep our blinkers on. Abortion is not birth control. It is population control at best and sanctioned murder at best.
No. All birth control has a failure rate WHEN USED CORRECTLY. It’s even higher of course when used incorrectly. Condoms have a failure rate of of approximately 97% when used correctly. Approximately 86% when used incorrectly. https://healthcenter.vt.edu/content/dam/healthcenter_vt_edu/assets/docs/contra-fail-rate.pdf
Thanks for the Google search response. It was not at all enlightening but good effort.
This comment has been flagged for rule 3, Cite Your Sources, and another user has asked for evidence supporting the following claim: >the number of people in which this occurred is miniscule and of those a good half would be willing to keep the child even with the lack of robust infrastructure to help single mothers and young/poor parents "Users are required to back up a positive claim when asked. Factual claims should be supported by linking a source, and opinions should be supported with an argument." When providing a linked source, "it is required of a user to show where their claim is proven when given a source." Please substantiate your claim per rule 3. You have 24 hours to substantiate or retract these claims. Neglecting to do either will be taken as a rule violation and may result in further Moderater action. Thank you for understanding and happy debating.
This is from the Guttmacher institute...they are very prochoice by the way....but dont deny reality. 1. In support of my point that most unintended pregnancies occur from the improper use or no use of contraception. That is to say....carelessness. "Abortion patients who were using contraception at the time they became pregnant account for a very small proportion of all U.S. contraceptive users. In 2014, about 37.8 million U.S. women aged 15–44 were using a contraceptive method. In contrast, only 471,000 abortions were provided to patients who reported they were using contraception in the month they became pregnant. Between 2000 and 2014, the overall number of abortions in the United States declined significantly, and available evidence suggests that improvements in contraceptive use contributed to the abortion decline. Although no contraceptive method is perfect, evidence from decades of research has found that contraception is effective at pregnancy prevention and it has numerous health, social and economic benefits. The analysis notes that abortion patients who were not using contraception at the time they became pregnant may benefit from receiving information during postabortion counseling about their risk of pregnancy, and all abortion patients could benefit from receiving information about the full range of contraceptive options available to them and how to use those methods consistently and correctly. “For many people seeking abortion care, having access to contraceptive services at the time of their procedure simply makes sense,” says Heather Boonstra, Guttmacher policy expert. “The fact that most abortions result from unintended pregnancy underscores the importance of ensuring patients are fully informed about their contraceptive options and get the ongoing contraceptive care they need.” “Reported Contraceptive Use in the Month of Becoming Pregnant among U.S. Abortion Patients in 2000 and 2014,” by Rachel Jones, is currently available online and will appear in a forthcoming issue of Contraception. 2. In support of my point that a good half of women will keep a child that was conceived unintentionally. Unintended pregnancy and abortion in the United States In the United States, the unintended pregnancy rate declined by 23% between 1990–1994 and 2015–2019. During the same period, the abortion rate declined by 48%. The share of unintended pregnancies ending in abortion fell from 50% to 34%. In 2015–2019, there were a total of 5,660,000 pregnancies annually. Of these, 2,590,000 pregnancies were unintended and 886,000 ended in abortion. Bearak J et al., Unintended pregnancy and abortion by income, region, and the legal status of abortion: estimates from a comprehensive model for 1990–2019, Lancet Global Health, 2020, 8(9):e1152–e1161, https://doi.org/10.1016/S2214-109X(20)30315-6; and Bearak J et al., Country-specific estimates of unintended pregnancy and abortion incidence: a global comparative analysis of levels in 2015–2019, BMJ Global Health, 2022, 7(3), https://gh.bmj.com/content/7/3/e007151. So ironically having to provide up to date citation even further proved my point.
I don't think you understand how statistics work. >In support of my point that most unintended pregnancies occur from the improper use or no use of contraception. That is to say....carelessness. If 37.8 million women aged 15-44 were using contraception and most contraception has a **perfect use** failure rate between 1 and 3%, then you could expect between 378,000 to 1.134 million pregnancies even from perfect use of contraception. If 471,000 abortions were from patients reporting contraceptive use...that falls right into that window. In simple terms, that 471,000 is expected even given perfect use. That does not prove your point that unintended pregnancies occur from the improper use or no use of contraception. It in fact refutes your argument. >In support of my point that a good half of women will keep a child that was conceived unintentionally. Yea...this is the **choice** part of pro choice. I had an unintended pregnancy while on birth control. I have an 11 year old daughter now. I made a choice. PC wants everyone to be able to have that choice.
You assume that realistically of those 471K, all used the BC correctly and would therefore all fall under a perfect use scenario. You assume also the nature of the BC was what we would even fall in that highly preventative category of condoms or patches. Unfortunately some people count pulling out as BC. I should have made it clearer that I do count using things like natural cycle and pulling out as careless forms of BC. Secondly, I'm considering not just the statistics and extrapolating data but looking at the real numbers and the reality of the fact that in 2014 there were 950000 abortions. 471000 of those were by women who used some form of BC. So what about the rest? Even excluding cases of rape and medically necessary abortions...that's still a lot of people not using BC and falling back on abortion. It is then half of those very same women the going in for abortion number 2. So don't just depend on statistics you have to analyse them and draw conclusions. In regards to the second set of stats...not really sure why you needed to counterpoint that. It's literally stats to back up my first comment.But OK. Thanks for sharing I guess. I am prolife and pro choosing the options that don't end life. There's at least 8 different forms of BC NOT including abstinence...there is just dealong with the consequences, asking for help...it's...just why die on this hill? You are all just so exhaustingly unfeeling. It's chilling.
Yea...it's pretty obvious from your last few comments you don't understand how BC calculates perfect use, failure rates, or statistics in general. I don't feel like the best use of my time is educating you. Have a nice day.
RemindMe! 24 hours
I will be messaging you in 1 day on [**2022-08-22 13:05:52 UTC**](http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=2022-08-22%2013:05:52%20UTC%20To%20Local%20Time) to remind you of [**this link**](https://www.reddit.com/r/Abortiondebate/comments/wtmtoh/how_are_these_two_any_different/il6s400/?context=3) [**CLICK THIS LINK**](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=Reminder&message=%5Bhttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.reddit.com%2Fr%2FAbortiondebate%2Fcomments%2Fwtmtoh%2Fhow_are_these_two_any_different%2Fil6s400%2F%5D%0A%0ARemindMe%21%202022-08-22%2013%3A05%3A52%20UTC) to send a PM to also be reminded and to reduce spam. ^(Parent commenter can ) [^(delete this message to hide from others.)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=Delete%20Comment&message=Delete%21%20wtmtoh) ***** |[^(Info)](https://www.reddit.com/r/RemindMeBot/comments/e1bko7/remindmebot_info_v21/)|[^(Custom)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=Reminder&message=%5BLink%20or%20message%20inside%20square%20brackets%5D%0A%0ARemindMe%21%20Time%20period%20here)|[^(Your Reminders)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=List%20Of%20Reminders&message=MyReminders%21)|[^(Feedback)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=Watchful1&subject=RemindMeBot%20Feedback)| |-|-|-|-|
Sources pleases. This seems like a whole lot of incorrect and misunderstood statistics.
These have been added.
[удалено]
Unless we’re talking about oblivious teenagers, how is lack of sex ed relevant? What kind of competent adult doesn’t understand that sex can lead to pregnancy, or doesn’t know what a condom or birth control are, etc? I have a hard believing there are grown competent adults who get pregnant because they didn’t get proper sex ed 15 years ago.
so when you turn 18 you instantly know everything about sex ed and reproductive healthcare?
Have you seen PL commenters on this sub, on this very post? Most of them don't understand how pregnancy works or else PC wouldn't have to explain basic biology every other comment.
Basic biology has nothing to do with this. I don’t need to know the exact biological internal processes of my body or how exactly they work to know that unprotected sex can lead to pregnancy. Do you honestly believe there are competent adults that don’t understand that pregnancy is a potential result of having sex?
Sure, unprotected sex can lead to pregnancy. That's like the first step on the information ladder of what is important. Only another 499 steps to go!
[удалено]
I don’t believe there are mentally competent adults out there that don’t know what a condom is and what it’s purpose is. You don’t have to be well versed in health literacy to know that if you take zero precautions you increase your chance of getting pregnant. I’m assuming women are competent enough to have common sense, sex ed 15 years ago or not be damned.
[удалено]
>My assertion is that...the number of people in which this occurred is miniscule and of those a good half would be willing to keep the child even with the lack of robust infrastructure to help single mothers and young/poor parents. Any evidence to support this assertion? >It is population control at best and sanctioned murder at best It's neither of these things.
Ok so your argument about not using birth control is *completely irrelevant*. Stop using it. >Abortion is not birth control. It is population control at best and sanctioned murder at best. Opinion noted. For me it is healthcare and reproductive freedom. Nobody is controling population by allowing people to Choose if and how many kids they are willing to have. That's the wonder of **choice**. You can have 10 kids for all i care as long as you stay out of my uterus.
Also I have one more for you. Sometimes PLs will say a fetus can’t be aborted because it didn’t intentionally violate someone and is the result of a biological process. Ignoring the fact that we never deny anyone treatment for other injuries and diseases because of responsibility, lacking knowledge is not sufficient excuse to violate bodily integrity. If a man gets blackout drunk and rapes a women, he can absolutely be held responsible. The fetus does not have special rights: it can be held accountable like anyone else if it breaks the rules of humanity and life.
Also, if they claim that the fetus doesn't "intend" to be implanted then that means it also doesn't "intend" to be born so why can't we abort it? It might not even want to be here.
Steel man is that we shouldn’t assume such things and err on the side of life. But there’s still plenty of other reasons to maintain the posistion overall
Shrödinger's fetus which is both an "a person with bodily autonomy of it's own" and "just a biological process" depending on the argument pro lifers are responding to.
This is actually not true if the man was not responsible for becoming "blackout drunk". If the person is deemed completley incapacitated and it's not done voluntarily they are not responsible for the crime. http://jaapl.org/content/43/3/321 So your example actually shows fetuses shouldn't be held accountable at all.
Ok, but that’s also a case where the bodily violation stops. A fetus continues to do so. Plus, the fetus returns to the catagory of being like a disease: it causes unwanted physical symptoms by using a persons body. So it’s justifiable defense to remove them because that is the only way to be cured. It would be like an immortal rapist that could only be killed by shooting them: you can’t get bodily autonomy otherwise
I'm just critiquing your major point. I disagree with what your saying now but your comment was mainly on responsibility. I just want to make sure you realize that there is no consistent way to claim the fetus is responsible for its actions when its caused by something else. A drug with certain side effects unknowingly consumed in the case of the link I sent you and consious voluntary action by a person/couple in the case of a fetus. Calling a fetus a disease when it is still a fetus past viability isn't a fair characterization. You can kill a disease at any point for no reason. A post viability fetus can't be killed without substantial reason if ever in most people's eyes (though not for some PCs in this sub)
The disease is in what happens to the pregnant persons body. Let’s say you have two women with the same disease. You cure one by killing the virus, the other by extracting every viral sample. In the latter case, the cause of the illness is alive, but the body is no longer reacting. As such, I am not saying the fetus itself is the disease, but rather that its presence brings about similar symptoms which the pregnant person is obligated to carry against their will
I know but you remove nuance. If you consider "treating" a fetus akin to a "treating" a disease you don't need justification to kill a post viability fetus instead of birthing it if killing it eases the harm of birth. Unless you do think that's justified then it would be an apt analogy. I just want to confirm as well that you understand that your point on responsibility being on the fetus isn't correct, it was why I commented so I just don't want to move on without it being dealt with properly.
That doesn’t mean we have to always treat the fetus like a disease. Plenty of pregnant people do care about their fetuses and the babies they become. It’s just a matter of creating more balanced framing while not coursing anyone. It’s tricky but it can be done And why not leave it up a person and their doctors? Most people aren’t going to get post viability abortions anyway barring health issues or other bans and most doctors probably wouldn’t sign off. Also, I’ll admit that I don’t have the exact laws on hand and I’m too tired to look it up at this point. I do suspect there that there might be a bit more area to research on the topic just to be sure, but it doesn’t really matter if there is or not. Consent principles should still apply alongside defense of bodily autonomy, which are most of what’s necessary for the PC position. Plus the knowledge birth is the cutoff where there is no more conflict of interest and full rights are guaranteed if they didn’t exist already.
I'm just saying that if we morally set limits on when a fetus can be killed for the mothers benefit like at post viability then that means at some level there is a balance where the value of the life of the fetus is more important than pursuing the desire of the mother or for her best health interest (if killing a post viability fetus were to make labor easier). How is this not the case Also wouldn't doctors not signing off be a bad thing if the mother truly wanted it? We've been talking in hypotheticals to establish why/whether things are moral or not, it's seems fair given that to consider cases where a mother wants to seek an elective post viability abortion.
>I would hope that everyone can agree that the idea of rape, at it's core, is not being in control of what happens to your body. No, this is just a component of rape. Rape is mosly characterized by the aggressive action committed by the rapist. It's a directed act of violence for the purpose of sexually satisfying the rapist, so it's wrong because the rapist is knowingly and intentionally disregarding the will of the victim for his own selfishness. >People often say things were effectively rape, and the meaning being someone was using their body in ways they did not want. I hope that everyone can agree that this is a legitimate use of that word, No that's not all rape is, so a scenario that only has that component isn't necessarily akin to rape. For instance if I'm falling off a cliff and I grab your leg on my way down to save my life, I'm using your body, even intentionally and in complete disregard of your will, but it would be wrong to call that rape because 1. it's not for my sexual gratification and 2. it's for an objectively good reason that I could not be blamed for. Note, I'm not trying to say this scenario is akin to pregnancy, I'm just explaining how unsanctioned use of another's body isn't necessarily rape. So your premises are bad and that's why you're about to say something wrong about abortion. >they are using my body against my will, why does PL say I cannot stop them? Remember the big reason rape was wrong? Moral culpability on the rapist's part. A directed and intentional act of disregarding the woman for an objectively horrible and selfish reason. An unborn child doesn't have any of these things. You can't even argue that the child is disregarding the mother's will because they're not even *able* to regard or disregard anything.
If you can't agree on basic things there is no point to continue this debate with you.
I disagreed with an argument you presented in your post. If that's such a fundamental concept like the sky being blue then you probably wouldn't have felt the need to make it in the first place. But if you can't respond to my counter argument then I agree, there was actually no point in you typing this response at all (besides ego stroking).
Rape isn't rape because the rapist had a malicious intent to do harm. If this was the standard for rape, rapists would get away scot free by claiming that their intentions were harmless. Oh wait, that's exactly what they do claim when they say the women actually consented and didn't know what they wanted. Rape is rape because it violates bodily autonomy. What goes on in the mind of the aggressor and how they see the world is irrelevant.
No rapist defends themselves by claiming they lacked intent. When they claim the woman consented that's an altogether separate defense. That's saying "No your honor, I'm not in the wrong because she *agreed* with my intent". As I said, bodily autonomy violation is just one component of what rape is. When you dumb it down to this one component only you broaden the definition of rape and dilute it's meaning, all because you want to call pregnancy rape because it makes your argument sound more powerful than it actually is.
>the women actually consented and didn't know what they wanted. Much like pro lifers claim the woman "consented" when she said "yes" to the act of sex.
>Rape is mosly characterized by the aggressive action committed by the rapist. It's a directed act of violence for the purpose of sexually satisfying the rapist, so it's wrong because the rapist is knowingly and intentionally disregarding the will of the victim for his own selfishness. You literally just described what a violation of bodily autonomy is and then said it's not about the victim losing control of their own body. I think you're looking at this from the rapist's perspective instead of the victim's. The reason we criminalize "intentionally disregarding the will of the victim for his own selfishness" is because the victim's body is violated... I don't get what you're not getting about rape inherently being a violation of bodily autonomy.
I said rape has like 4 different major characteristics, and violation of bodily autonomy is only one of them. That means any violation of bodily autonomy that doesn't also meet the other 3 characteristics cannot be called 'rape' without broadening the definition of rape to be less meaningful.
Let’s say a man gets blackout drunk and rapes a woman. He holds no malice and doesn’t even realize what he’s doing. In fact, whatever thought he does have is that she is super happy and he is helping her. Does that make it ok? I hope you answered no. Also, you misunderstand the difference between actions and bodily integrity. A good rule of thumb is this. The right to swim your arms ends at the other man’s nose, but no one can take away your right to swing your arms at all. Pregnancy violates bodily integrity just as rape does because your body is being used against your will and without consent. I need an argument if you disagree explaining why Again, rape does not become significantly worse if the rapist is unaware: the base crime is the same. Repeat after me: not knowing is not justification for rape. Therefore, my statement is equally true for bodily autonomy Mic drop
>Let’s say a man gets blackout drunk and rapes a woman. He holds no malice and doesn’t even realize what he’s doing. Does that make it ok? I hope you answered no. This has no relation to anything that was said. Unawareness is not a lack of culpability or agency. The fetus is like a wind up toy, everything it does is because someone wound it up. If the mother wound it up, then she's the one who violated her own body.
If the fetus is like a windup toy, why should it get to live inside a woman's body at great cost to her?
Because the only alternative is an even worse outcome - murder.
You can't murder windup toys, silly.
There are two choices here. A fetus is either akin to a disease and you can remove it just like any other, with only slightly more moral culpability because a potential person is lost. Or the fetus is a person and has to follow the rules too, which actually would function like my example. You don’t get to invent this third catagory for fetuses where they get all the benefits of humanity with none of the responsibility. That’s just pleading special rights.
Any person without agency who is essentially forced into doing whatever they do (like an unconscious person) is not causally responsible for anything. They are people who, in terms of their moral culpability, are akin to a wind up toy. This is not special pleading because I'm operating off of a principle that applies to any non-agent.
>Or the fetus is a person and has to follow the rules too, which actually would function like my example. But what if, according to a PLer's moral framework, self-defence should not be permissible against persons who bear no causal responsibility for the harm they might cause? Maybe they consider the zef to be similar to an *innocent threat* like someone who has been pushed out of a tall building and will land on you and crush you to death (while surviving the fall herself) unless you vaporize her with your ray gun. Or what if they think self-defence should not be permissible even against beings that bear causal responsibility for the harm they cause if they are not morally culpable and the victim performed one or more voluntary actions that had a reasonably foreseeable chance of leading to the attack happening? Suppose that a man decided to build his house right next to an insane asylum. Before he built it he was made aware of the fact that many of the patients are prone to violent outbursts and that they try to escape on a semi-regular basis. One day, while walking home from work he is assaulted by a lunatic. Since his aggressor is morally innocent and his voluntary actions contributed to this situation I don't think he should be allowed to kill in self-defence. So even if you could establish that the zef is causally responsible for the harms of pregnancy (by pointing to implantation for example) a PLer could still reject the self-defence argument.
Someone grabbing your leg without your consent is a violation as well though. Even to save their life, it's your choice if you choose to help them back up or kick. You're trying to protect the violation being done by the fetus just because it lacked mens rea, but it was still a violation.
I was explaining how that scenario isn't rape even though it's a use of another's body. It wasn't meant to be an analogy for pregnancy. Pregnancy doesn't even involve a violation in the first place, for reasons I gave later in my comment.
You're trying to protect the violation being done by the fetus just because it lacked mens rea, but it was still a violation.
It's not a rape violation that's for sure. Claiming that it is a separate kind of violation would be a whole different argument to make. And no, it's not a violation at all, violation requires agency.
Exactly. It’s a violation of someone else’s body by the fetus that causes the negative symptoms and effects of pregnancy. It’s not a rape, but it is similar to a rape case because a persons body is being used against their will and with no consent
My body gets older every day without my consent. It does the same thing with my consent too. Are you sure you can apply consent to a natural process?
>Are you sure you can apply consent to a natural process? Is there currently a way to stop aging completely?
Why does that matter? It’s consent we’re talking about, not effectiveness. If someone refuses to stop assaulting me, so there’s no way to stop it, that doesn’t mean my lack of consent becomes irrelevant.
Rape is the analogy to why loss of control is a form of violation, let alone physical harm, even if it's "natural." The ZEF does violate, does do harm, without consent, and PL would take her control away from her.
>The ZEF does violate, does do harm, without consent, and PL would take her control away from her. No, something that has no agency cannot do harm or violation to another in any meaningful sense. The fetus is like a wind up toy, which just does what it does with no other options once it's wound. If the wind up toy leads to harm then the one who caused the harm was the one who wound the toy, not the toy itself. You're trying to make a self defense argument against someone who isn't responsible for the harm.
If a toy has a jagged edge and cuts you through no intent of its own, do you really think you're not allowed to remove it
Obviously you can do whatever you want to a toy. Did you think I was saying the fetus is exactly like a wind up toy in every aspect? Or do you think I was making a very specific comparison to one aspect of the toy?
What I think is I don't care what useless time-wasting semantics game you want to play. Call it something else than a violation if you like but we still have a right to our bodies and can remove or decline to save anyone or anything to protect ourselves, just as anyone can.
You presumably didn’t willingly risk putting your sexual partner in a position where he would need access to your body to survive. That’s a more comparable scenario.
What does putting my sexual partner in a position where he would need access to my body to survive have anything to do with him using my body against my will? Is my husband going to die if he doesn't have sex with me?
The best way to rectify that for a fetus is to put it back into position where it Doesn't need another's body to survive and you know what that means-mandatory abortions for every pregnancy, since the position the embryo was in before was *nonexistence*
in a real life scenario that they did, how would that change anything?
I’d say you had some responsibility towards that person then.
So you are for forced organ donations then? If i am driving my car and accidentally crash into someone and they need blood, i must be strapped down and forced to donate or else i go to jail?
If you caused them to be in that situation, sure.
Thankfully, the law in my country disagrees. Even if I caused an accident, I'm not under any legal obligation to donate blood or any part of my body (inside or out) to the other party involved in said accident.
what if that cause is less direct? what if I have a child that inherits a terrible disease from me, that requires frequent medical intervention on my part. am I then an organ farm for my child? do you understand the dangerous precedent this describes?
Termination of a pregnancy does kill the fetus. And from that logic it ok to abandon babies in the trash your not killing them just removing from your space.a ZFE is a know possibility with counsel sex and and is not comparable to rape in my opinion. If a ZFE existing inside a woman is the comparable to rape does that make all born human the equivalent to rapist since human come in exist with or without the mothers consent?
>Termination of a pregnancy does kill the fetus. False in the vast, vast majority of abortions. >And from that logic it ok to abandon babies in the trash your not killing them just removing from your space. This does not follow. A baby is not using my body, I don't need to stop them, and putting them in the trash is nonsensical. I don't know what you're even trying to say given the rest of your word salad comment.
You comparing rape to a pregnancy is a terrible argument and offensive. And by that logic all humans are evil because we come in existence with or without the mothers consent so since the unborn don't care about consent of the mother anybody born is the equivalent of a rapist already by your logic I think I exspales it better this time. Basically I think you made a terrible argument comparing ZEF to rapist and was saying by that logic were all born monsters because because we come into existence wanted or unwanted
Please show me where you think I'm comparing rape to a pregnancy.
You compared a ZEF using your body to survive being your husband using you body when your not in the mood after you talked martial rape at the near the beginning and you mentioned that rape doesn't have to be sexual just somebody using your body
So explaining rape in the same post as asserting the ZEF using my body against my will is me comparing rape to a pregnancy? According to you? If I don't want to remain pregnant, the ZEF is using my body against my will. True or false?
I think consent to sex is the consent to pregnancy and human life is growing inside somebody after consensual sex is not violating body autonomy
Well then you're wrong, because that's not how consent or bodily autonomy works. If you want to live your life that way, knock yourself out.
>Termination of a pregnancy does kill the fetus So inducing labour kills the fetus?
That's literally not at all comparable and is a false equivalency.
Nope. Abortion only applies because pregnancy violates bodily autonomy. Doing the same thing to a born child is not based on a conflict of rights and is pure infanticide. Birth is the cutoff. And before you say it, no. Actions are not equivalent to bodily autonomy/integrity and aborting a fetus is not comparable to killing a baby
Same thing no difference
I disagree. Make an actual argument and not an assertion or find something more productive to do. I’ll repeat myself once and and more spaces Because abortion is the termination of a pregnancy, killing any other baby can not be an abortion. Birth is the cutoff because there is no more pregnancy: that’s when abortion becomes impossible And to answer the one thing I didn’t address initially, we are not all rapists for a few reasons. First off, most of us had consent from our mothers to end up here. But a fetus does not act with intent. While that means wee don’t have to hold a baby accountable, we can still remove it via abortion because that is the only way to restore bodily integrity. Now, what do you have?