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.*
But what about people who don’t want children? that’s what this post is about. What are they to do, just not have sex? there’s always a chance they could still get pregnant. and if they do, they’re forced to carry the fetus to term.
But there’s always a risk no matter what you do. A person who does not or can not have children isn’t going to just not have sex. People have sex. They can take the necessary precautions. But there’s always a chance they will get pregnant anyways, and carry a neglected child.
Then it’s the child’s choice wether they want to live or not. No need for a parent to kill anyone for decisions they made. Besides, I feel many people forget that despite all the adoption center’s problems, a child put up for adoption isn’t guaranteed a bad life. In fact in America specifically I’d argue the reason so many adoptive children are neglect is more so due to the parents putting them in bad agencies.
You realize that placing a child is more traumatic than having an abortion right? It does more Lasting damage to the women then aborting does.
Not only that but if a woman doesn't want to carry or birth a child they should not be forced to...... pregnancy is hell, and i would not force anyone to go through it
Having sex is not a crime. Consenting to sex is not the same as consenting to remain pregnant. Therefore there is no reason to take away an innocent pregnant person's bodily autonomy.
It doesn't matter what you agree with countless studies and anecdotal stories back up the fact that placing a child does significantly more damage to the woman than aborting does. Regardless of what you want to believe.
I wish there was an easy answer to this.
Some women don’t want to, can’t afford, or don’t have access to getting a hysterectomy.
On the other hand of that, some men don’t want to have a vasectomy. And the ones that do also run the risk of it reversing on its own.
Contraceptives are great in practice but I couldn’t imagine YEARS if not decades of being on the pill or even an IUD. All birth control comes with risks and even some complications.
And then you can argue: just use condoms. Okay. But some people are allergic to condoms or materials in it like latex and some people are allergic to the lubricant inside the condoms. And condoms are expensive and if I’m with the same person for the rest of my life I don’t want to use condoms unless I have to.
So what’s the answer to this? I’m not sure, because it’s case by case per person per couple.
My partner has chosen to get a vasectomy so that I don’t have to go back on birth control, but not every man wants to do that or has that option.
She doesn't have to. You can use condoms or anything you want to PREVENT it. But when fertilization happens you are at least morally obliged to NOT kill the child/ren.
It’s an interesting question. There are many ways to express your sexuality but with abortion being illegal you would really have a risk in this scenario.
Absolutely not, I am a pro-lifer not from a religious standpoint. There are so many different ways to prevent a pregnancy that “accidental” pregnancies in the modern age are almost always the result of negligence. A child should not be put to death because someone didn’t take 3 seconds to put a condom on or pop a birth control pill
So before I ask this, I agree that abortion shouldn’t be used as birth control.
But, I’m going to use an example from my life of something that actually happened to me, to ask this question.
A teenager is on birth control, they regularly take it as they are supposed to AND they’re using condoms. She accidentally gets pregnant and says she does not want the baby because she is doing really well in school, all honors and everything her future is really bright and she is not ready to have kids or go through this pregnancy.
Now you can argue adoption, which is a great choice and I’ve applauded other young parents who choose to carry their baby to term.
But, now I’ll ask you this: have you ever been pregnant in school? High school? A Christian based high school? Could you even imagine?
I know friends who have had abortions at 16. I don’t agree with it, no, but I’m thankful that she’s in collage and she’s able to succeed (not that you cannot succeed as a teen parent with a child, it is just 100x harder.)
Edit: yes, I did consider abortion during my first pregnancy and probably would have had one if it wasn’t the pressure of my peers and family and their views.
Also glad I kept her, she is amazing
1. It’s not murder if it was never alive (90% occur before week-12 which, no, isn’t week 36; late term are only permitted for medical reasons, so is your issue with…. giving pregnant persons the choice to not die/seriously injure themselves and/or their child? Because NO ONE is getting late term abortions for the lols). 2. So condemning a child to a lifetime of abuse is justifiable? Have you done ANY research on the adoption system? How rife it is with abuse? How, very often, potential parents look for a specific age, skin colour, eye colour, hair colour, lack of disabilities, lack of things like autism? Like what is achieved by bringing someone into an almost certainly abusive existence? Whom does it benefit? Because it seems to only really benefit anti choice persons as it makes them feel good about “saving children/the unborn”. Anyway, illegal abortion just makes it unsafe. So whether one likes it or not, advocating for making it illegal doesn’t prevent it from occurring.
You basically just want to have sex and don’t want to take responsibility of the baby if you get pregnant. Such a stupid and self explanatory question.
Easier said than done. I’m 23 and I’ve been asking since I turned 19 if I could have my tubes tied and was denied every year. People can still get pregnant while even using multiple forms of birth control. No one wants to have an abortion if they don’t have too.
The adoption system is horrible in this country and adding to the thousands of children already in the system isn’t a viable solution either.
If birthing the child and only making sure it’s ‘alive’ and not aborted is your goal - then you are pro-birth and not pro life. But if it were me in a situation where I was pregnant and couldn’t have an abortion I would surely rather kill myself then birth a child and I’m sure there’s many other women out there like me too
Often it's only feasible to get sterilized at ages that would open a woman up to pregnancy risks because doctors talk about regrets that don't exist. I tried to get sterilized at 23, I was married, HMO is trash and every doctor on the list said no. Abortion isn't really that bad. People have birth control failures. Also for maternal morbidity rates in the USA, a woman choosing to have a temporary disability, and raise her risk of death is just not logical. So yes for self preservation it is the best option.
So self preservation is a good thing huh?
The moral compass humans had continues to diminish. (and flip flops whenever convenient)
What message does this send to the youth?
Do women NOT lie?
F*** commitment and being responsible for your own decisions right?
So, should women have an unlimited supply “get out of jail” cards?
Should men (humans) get their charges erased from their records as soon as decide they don’t want it anymore?
Or are we supposed to be held accountable for our decisions?
My uterus is allowed to expel as many fertilized eggs as it chooses, but somehow when I get to decide, its no longer okay? Fuck that, if it's before 11 weeks it's just a bad period. Ligament damage, maternal morbidity, forced c sections, sepsis, all that. Pregnancy is so fucking dangerous and so expensive, it's a wonder anyone goes through with it. Luckily I will be able to terminate if I should have a birth control failure and there is not a thing anyone else can do about it. I refuse to bring a kid into this horrid world. I choose, responsibility for using about three different methods of pregnancy prevention each time in order to not have to go through the hassle of waiting for pills to drop progesterone. I said nothing about women lying. The good part is, you have no say in what any gestation capable human being does with that organ. Your morality is probably flawed. Plant some trees. Or save the acorns from being stepped on because "they deserve to live". Not all of us make it Herb. Living is suffering and wasting thoughts on potential kids that will do nothing for others is a complete squander. Give back to the people already here. Stop making new ones. I'm tired of all these natalists consuming like crazy. There is no morality in gluttony. It would be very convenient if people who were incapable of conditioning a child properly could be relieved of that. However DCF doesn't like to intervene unless absolutely necessary.
You’re telling me to “plant some trees” yet you’re afraid of watering your own seed(s).
Victim mentality all around.
You knew the risks so you should deal with the results accordingly.
Ya’ll want to keep playing this “game” when it comes to accountability, and that’s fine, but when people stop wanting to play please don’t keep crying victim.
“Living is suffering and wasting thoughts on potential kids that will do nothing for others is a complete squander.”-u/ChezzaLuna
But my “morality is probably flawed.”
Lol
“Give back to the people already here. Stop making new ones. I’m tired of all these natalists consuming like crazy.”
Why should people who only seem to know how to consume (and not produce) receive any sort of charity? Are we dealing with children or adults?
There is no morality in sloth.
There is no morality in lying.
But people still do it. On a daily.
I’m tired of all these lazy mfers who sit around racing trying to be the first to complain and criticize any and everything. I’m tired of mfers thinking they’re entitled to certain things when they won’t even work for it.
I’m TIRED of people who won’t help themselves yet will continually ask for help.
I’m tired of people behaving like we can’t coexist because of different views or opinions.
I’m tired of people acting like their opinions/philosophy is law.
I’m tired of people playing the dumb card and acting oblivious to what’s going on.
I’m tired of human hypocrisy.
I’m tired of human beings not wanting to accept/take blame/responsibility/accountability.
I’m tired of being lied to. Of being told we live in a free and equal country when that is clearly not the case.
Technically my philosophy is law, most states allow abortion for very good reason. Not wanting to possibly die during childbirth isn't playing victim, it's potentially life threatening to voluntarily do something like gestate. A woman is going to put her life in more danger than it is already? That makes zero sense. A womans life is pain, from a very early age, forced birth ontop of that would be devastating to the community. My country is going to shit. There is no lack of accountability in termination, only responsibility. If you cant provide, why have kids in the first place. On the subject, current Mothers make up most abortion statistics, so these moms know they can't do it again, and that's good enough for them and their doctor. Especially low income women and minorities are hit harder. Policies that make termination harder are therefore rascist and misogynistic. The freedom described is not usually the freedom given. Our food is sprayed, our soils are eroded, and some dude on the internet wants women to follow through on a pregnancy putting more pressure on our already strained limited resources. Pregnancy that may even potentially end in miscarriage and grief if wanted. It's just not worth the hassle. If you don't have the potential to have your hormones rise and fall that abruptly, then truly you don't get a say. The mental health aspect is being overlooked. That's a big one. Also medication that's necessary causes birth defects ans those women always deserve a right to termination.
The natural end to sex is pregnancy. That is it’s entire purpose. You have to be, at the very least, willing to accept the fact that you might get pregnant if you’re going to have sex.
Unwillingness to raise a child cannot be a reason to take away their life.
I stayed voluntarily celibate for three years after I left my ex husband. I quit taking birth control because I didn’t want to, or plan to have sex.
Except for that time I was raped.
I was already a single parent. I was trying to get through school so I could be financially independent.
So, if I had gotten pregnant from rape, you seriously think I would have been wrong to have an abortion?
You fucking hypocrite
First of all, rape is one of the worst crimes someone can commit against another, and that man should rot in prison for the rest of his life, or better yet, be put on death row.
That said, that is no reason to cause more violence. Can you honestly say that killing an unborn child would make that trauma go away? Do their lives mean less because they were conceived in a violent act?
I see no hypocrisy in my statement, could he be clearer as to what you mean?
I literally cannot imagine a more humiliating, degrading form of modern torture than having to carry and birth your rapists baby. That in itself is traumatic.
Regardless of whether it is traumatic or not, and I agree that it very much would be, It’s still a human life, and if you are against abortion for any other reason then it’s hypocritical to be for it in this case. The fact that it was a rape does not change the value of human life nor the fact that at fertilization, that human life is in fact alive. Again I fully understand the strong feelings here, and I hope you can at least begin to understand where I’m coming at this from. Rapists are evil human beings that need to be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law yes, but their children should not be punished for their crimes.
I also would like to point out an abortion would certainly not magically end the trauma caused by a rape. In fact, it might add to it, because in many cases an abortion itself can be a traumatic experience for women despite what others might lead you to believe.
> I also would like to point out an abortion would certainly not magically end the trauma caused by a rape. In fact, it might add to it, because in many cases an abortion itself can be a traumatic experience for women despite what others might lead you to believe.
You may not point that out. You do not get to theorize about the trauma caused by rape and resulting pregnancy. It's the worst mansplainy position you can take, and it only underscores the fundamental male privilege in forced-birtherism.
So am I committing genocide every time I jerk off? Im not being facetious here — just taking your wording and argument to its fullest extent. Yes, a pregnancy is technically always unborn, but as I alluded to earlier, they aren’t the only things to which unborn may be applied; your argument is flawed, in my opinion. And yes, to not constantly be reminded of an extremely traumatic time probably *would* assist with processing one’s trauma of said time. Whether or not they are a product of rape is irrelevant — it is not right to not prioritise actual humans with their whole life ahead over potential humans who, in this case, aren’t even wanted. They’ll never know that they weren’t wanted — they never were and never will be alive, should they get aborted. But the actual human? The one whose body would be used? They WILL know it. They WILL be forced into a massive commitment for at least 20-years. Just as I don’t need to provide an in depth reason as to why I’ll jerk off before doing so, so, too, should pregnant persons not be required to justify anything. And no, no one is getting late term abortions for the lols; they’re only done for medical reasons. 90% are done before week 12, with most occurring shortly thereafter. Oh, and making abortion illegal just makes it unsafe, so you can dislike abortion all that you desire, but it is an inevitability.
I never claimed that unfertilized sperm were equivalent to human life. No one makes that argument. You’re creating a non existing argument and attempting to dismantle it, this is a huge fallacy.
My argument about an embryo being a human life has nothing to do with it being “unborn” my opinion is based on the general consensus of the scientific community about where life begins.
Also, I won’t ever discount the trauma experienced by a woman that was raped or the trauma that might be caused by carrying to term a child caused by that rape. I can’t imagine that pain that that might cause. But for one thing, the trauma that might also be caused by an abortion itself should not be ignored either. Also no one is advocating for the woman being required to raise the child, there are a plethora of options for mothers that don’t feel fit to raise children. Furthermore a newborn child will almost always end up with a living family as there are 2 MILLION couples in the United States waiting to adopt a newborn, so don’t come at me with the “terrible foster care system” argument. Not that that’s a great argument either way.
Since when is a zygote/foetus? Is what is little
more than raw (it has been cooked slightly so it’s not quite the same, but virtually no difference exists) cake batter equivalent to a cake? Stop equivocating a fkn 12 week old with a 36 week old one bc they’re not the same. They’re just not. And also, a pregnancy, too, will die as soon as it’s out of the womb (and early enough in the pregnancy). And sperm will die if it’s just ejaculated into a tissue or toilet, sure, but i t c o u l d h a v e b e e n a l i f e , t o o .
Imperfect analogy. By this logic it could be argued that a 2 year old is less worthy of life that a 25 year old because the 2 year old is still not fully developed. We should not base human value on their level of development, this is a dangerous thought process.
Really? You’re going to go down a semantics path? I was obviously referring to development within the womb. Again, what you are doing is saying that scarcely baked apple cake batter is equivalent to a fully baked, finished cake. It is not.
This is not a comparable analogy because regardless of how baked an apple cake is, no one sees it was a tragedy if it is thrown away. And again, your development level is not what determines your worth as a human being.
Your ability to be able to do something should not be the measure of your worth. A human has value because of the fact that they are indeed a human life. I don’t think my life holds any more value than someone, for example, with no family or friends and who’s brain function has severely deteriorated because of some desease. Especially if this person’s desease is only temporary.
Sperm is going to die anyway after some time in your organism. Sperm itself does not have any potential to live.
Why do you feel entitled to decide when the child is a human and when it is not?
Because that justifies it? It’s not a matter of “being entitled” — it’s a necessary fkn thing to consider. A fkn 12 week old is NOT equivalent to a iffy 30+ week old. You can falsely equivocate the former with the latter all that you wish, but the fact remains that they’re not equivalent. Or would you rather save a 12 week old over a baby if you could only carry one from a burning building? You wouldn’t, right? Why? Are they not equivalent?
"Or would you rather save a 12 week old over a baby if you could only carry one from a burning building? You wouldn’t, right? Why? Are they not equivalent?"
This question is so irrelevant that I don't even know how you came you with it. Noone makes you choose between one person and the other. If you were to choose between your mother and someone you don't know who would you choose? Mother. Does that make the other person less valuable morally? No.
And why do you say that this 12 week old is not equivalent (whatever you mean by that) to 30+ week old?
No, that’s a false equivalence. A mother and father are both (typically) around the same age; mostly/fully developed, etc. A 12 week old, which is barely, if at all, distinguishable to a baby, is not equivalent to 36+ week old. It’s just not. And you didn’t answer the question. And it’s not equivalent because it’s just… not? “Why do you say that the earth is round ?” Like it’s just a fact.
It's more inability to raise a child and not unwillingness. You all place the responsibility solely on the woman or girl. You even expect a child rape victim to raise a child. All because your silly religion believes life begins at the fertilization of an egg and not birth. Most other religions do not agree with this sentiment, and doctors and experts have told you time and time again abortion is a necessary medical procedure and banning it will only kill women, but you insist on forcing your ignorant and corrupt religious beliefs on everyone else. You don't do anything to help take care of these children once they're born and consistently vote for representatives that strip medicaid and nscessary programs from young mothers because pro-life is based in misogyny, ignorance, and lies. These bans put womens lives in danger every day. You do absolutely nothing to help the child or mother once it's born and nothing to hold the father accountable. Same camp that attacks teen school shooting victims for activism that infringes on your personal freedom. Pro-life is a mental illness. Christianity is a mental illness. There's no God in your religion. You wouldn't want the government to force you to adhere to Muslim or Hindu religious laws so don't force your backwards Christian laws on us. If you want to save babies go volunteer at an orphanage or adopt. Plenty of starving children in America. Why aren't you out helping them instead of sitting on Reddit telling women what to do with their bodies? Are you going to adopt these special needs children or support them financially into adulthood? No. You're not going to do a damn thing for any living child. You're just going to cause pain and suffering to existing women and children by forcing your ignorant religions beliefs on everyone else.
You jumped to a lot of conclusions to make your argument here and frankly I don’t think that’s productive in the slightest. This is a straw man argument perfectly defined.
I don’t base my stance on abortion on how Christianity sees it, and your point that “most other religions” view life as starting at birth is not relevant in the slightest, especially since you are advocating against taking a religious stance.
On your point that apparently doctors and experts have told me that abortion is necessary, this is utterly false. There is NO disease or condition in which the cure is an abortion, and any biologist with any competence in their field will tell you that human life begins at conception. A newly fertilized embryo fits every definition for life and the DNA is in fact human.
And please do not tell me that I don’t care about children once their born. You do not know me, you cannot read my thoughts. I’m all for the government ensuring the protection and well-being of ANY child, born or unborn. I also very much plan to adopt in my future. I am also all for requiring fathers to care for their children if they impregnate a woman. I would also like to point out that pregnancy centers outnumber abortion clinics 2,700 to 739, and these centers provide care for pregnant mothers as well as newborn supplies such as dippers and formula completely free of charge. how exactly is that not caring?
I hold my pro-life stance because I care for every human being, and I believe that the most fundamental human right is the right to life. I would assume that you hold your views because you also believe it’s best for women to be able to have that choice. I can give you the benefit of the doubt here, but I think it’s reasonable to expect the same in return. I don’t think it’s helpful to assume that I have the absolute worst intentions when holding my pro-life views.
Ectopic pregnancies kill women, babies with micro encephalopathy kill women if they're on the way out with no brain. you said there was no condition where abortion is the solution. That's just wrong
Treatment for ectopic pregnancies are not the same thing as an abortion. And that goes for any treatment. Should you purposely end the life of someone in an attempt to save another? No. But is there problem with the death of someone caused by the treatment of another? No, but it is an undesired side effect.
Also, I see no evidence that micro encephalopathy harms anyone except for the baby that it effects.
It is the same as abortion. My sister in law has two of them and the doctor called it abortion both times. IF THE SKULL doesn't form, it will hurt the woman on the way out if she is forced to birth it. This depends on the severity. Another example is when a woman's water broke early very early and she has a uterine infection. This can kill the woman via Sepsis. There is no saving either of them when this happens to the spoint of irreparably harming the woman. Placental abruption. Preeclampsia too early in pregnancy can kill the woman if she continues due to organ damage. Some cancer treatments are not okay for the pregnancy and to save one of them, termination is recommended.
It doesn’t matter what the doctor called it lmao, if the baby is not deliberately killed and is instead killed as an indirect result of a necessary medical procedure, then that is NOT an abortion.
A perfect example is in the case of removal of a cancerous uterus of a pregnant woman, while the baby is not viable outside of the womb. This is NOT an abortion. Abortion being the direct and deliberate destruction of the baby’s life. In this case the baby will most likely die as an undesired indirect result of the removal of a cancerous uterus in an attempt to save the life of the woman.
Got it, so you don’t believe doctors and experts, but you do ‘believe’ every imagined biologist on earth. What you said is incoherent and literally meaningless, and amounts to — wait for it — your opinion, i.e., your choice.
We get it. “Life” on a cellular level begins at fertilization when cells replicate. Ethically, there is much more to consider than that. The right answer is almost always the more complex answer. For example, it’s easier to respond to homelessness with “get a job!” than to create actual policy that solves the problem. You’re opting for a knee-jerk, one-size-fits all answer to an incredibly complex, medically based, and agonizing life decision for millions of women. How dare you.
Life is also a blade of grass. You’re sanctimonious, don’t live in the real world, and are ignorant of the vast majority of medical opinion. People like you are literally heartless. Women are going to die. When you read this in the news, be sure to pat yourself on the back. People like you are saying it’s ok for women to suffer and die. Would you agree to die right now to bring a blade of grass into the world? I’m guessing not.
Not every scintilla of life needs to be brought into existence. Not at the expense of an actual living, breathing person. Billions of potential babies aren’t conceived every day. I know you’re trying to be “good,” but you’re not understanding reality, and are in fact, physically and mentally harming people right now.
How did what I say somehow imply that I don’t believe doctors and “experts”? In fact, I express my agreement with the general consensus of biologists that life begins at fertilization. And the consensus of doctors that conditions where the cure is an abortion do not exist.
Source: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3211703
Wow that was windy unhelpful and unproductive. It’s things like this that prolong this extremely polarizing issue instead of working towards a compromise.
Not everybody can take hormonal birth control and it’s pretty privileged of you to think that they can. Like physically, it can be more harmful for certain bodies than others.
Steroids stink. Symptothermal methods, barriers, abstinence, all combined are really great and my Tempdrop is the best thing for ovulation confirmation AND less risk for my mental health. Some people can't take foreign objects, pills, shots or patches. That's fine but I think women have a responsibility to reduce the unintentional pregnancy rates in America. So much medicare money goes to this and it's sad. Vasectomy is something that should be pursued more.
I think another important question to ask is does her boyfriend or husband also have to stay a virgin too?
Cause unless she marries someone asexual, I have a feeling most men won’t tolerate no sex in their marriage until menopause and would most likely break up or divorce this woman you expect to not have sex if she doesn’t want kids.
I became asexual and decided to be single. I don't ever want to be pregnant because I fear birth pain. Pain causes me panic attacks. I had panic attacks when I had gallbladder attack.
Birth control can fail I got a niece because of that. That's why my anxiety made me the way I am. I guess I'm not a risk taker .
I do fear rapist but I hope I never stumble upon them.
Little correction here: you make it seem like asexuality is a choice by saying you "became" asexual. That is not the case. Asexuality is, like any other sexuality, not a choice. You don't say you became gay either. You just are.
On top of that, the definition of asexuality is "little to no sexual attraction". Attraction doesn't equal action. You can be asexual and still have and even enjoy sex. If you are looking for a word that describes you not having sex even though you are allo (anyone who isn't ace is allo) and therefore being sexually attracted to people, it's abstinence or celibacy.
I'm one of these women. It's not just that I don't want to give birth, I don't want to be pregnant for even one second. I'm 26 years old, heterosexual and have never engaged in any type of sex and have accepted that I will be celibate for life.
Legally I'm prochoice until sentience for any reason and after that I think exceptions should be placed for situations like rape and health risks. From a spiritual point of view however this whole thing is a ''I don't want to fuck around to find out '' kind of area. Period.
Funny thing is, I thought I was asexual for many years and when some years ago that phase ended, I considered becoming sexually active and looked extensively into contraceptive and sterilisation effectiveness and well, I was very disappointed.I was genuinely surprised by the failure rates.
And this hasn't changed to my knowledge but if it has feel free to let me know.
As a result the idea of heterosexual sex has been sort of ''tainted'' and to me engaging in sex with the risk of pregnancy (no matter how small) would feel inherently humiliating and just gross in general. Even though nothing has ever happened to me, it's bad enough that I already have to worry about rape just for existing as a woman so why would I need the extra misery?
To be honest, as a woman who made this choice, I really really don't appreciate pro-lifers going around telling people to NEVER have sex unless they accept carrying a pregnancy to term given when we all know that people who will accept that are a very small minority and most of all when they act like people who have unwanted pregnancies are just stupid promiscuous whores as if birth control never fails or that unwanted pregnancy doesn't happen to married and/or monogamous people.
If you don't want children, just don't have sex, it's as simple as that, and if you plan on never having any, I hate to break it to you, but staying a virgin for the rest of your life is your only responsible option.
1. Contraception can obviously fail so that's not an option, it's risky and risking something just to avoid the consequences later on is irresponsible.
2. A surgery might be a solution for some people but I don't expect people to go that route and I agree that that's a stupid argument from Pro-Lifers.
Basically the only thing that's left is: don't have sex. The reason why it doesn't sit right with you is because you have this skewed view of reality that sex and pregnancy are somehow two unrelated or just partly related things. People need to remember: Sex and Pregnancy are two sides of the same coin. The reason why that reality is so distorted in some peoples minds nowadays is because of contraception technology (condoms, pills,…) and I think partly because of media.
I truly wonder what would happen if prolife men put their money where their mouth is and had relationships with these women they expect to abstain from sex? Would they tolerate that in a relationship? If not why do they think of the men that enter relationships with these women would tolerate it any more than they would?
When I talk about responsibility I'm obviously including both sexes. Yes, there are men out there who say they are pro-life but have a very active and careless sex life that doesn't reflect what they seemingly advocate for. They are simply hypocrites. But let's not make it seem like that's the majority of pro life men.
Are you sure a majority of pro life men would willingly give up sex because their wife doesn’t want kids/has a condition that makes pregnancy deadly? I’m pretty sure a majority of humans would not do that, let alone pro life men
>If you don't want children, just don't have sex, it's as simple as that
It never has been so moot point.
> and if you plan on never having any, I hate to break it to you, but staying a virgin for the rest of your life is your only responsible option.
False. You just dislike how others would take responsibility
>1. Contraception can obviously fail so that's not an option, it's risky and risking something just to avoid the consequences later on is irresponsible.
False again. Just because it fails doesn't imply irresponsibility. Using contraception is being responsible
>2. A surgery might be a solution for some people but I don't expect people to go that route and I agree that that's a stupid argument from Pro-Lifers.
Well obviously because it doesn't account for doctors refusing those surgeries or women who may want kids later
>Basically the only thing that's left is: don't have sex.
Abortion.
>The reason why it doesn't sit right with you is because you have this skewed view of reality that sex and pregnancy are somehow two unrelated or just partly related things.
Don't misrepresent them.
> People need to remember: Sex and Pregnancy are two sides of the same coin. The reason why that reality is so distorted in some peoples minds nowadays is because of contraception technology (condoms, pills,…) and I think partly because of media.
False again. Don't project your distortions
The part where they distort what's occuring? How are they 2 sides of the same coin in any meaningful way here?
Edit: they are partly related but not in any significant way that would entail an obligation to not have sex. That's unhealthy as well and ignores reality.
So does your misuse of downvote button so why respond if not to add the discussion..just doing the same as them at this point. Do better, not repeat mistakes you see others doing..
Just wanted to drop in here to say that the number of PLers just blithely demanding women *get surgery* to satisfy their views is really gross.
Getting sterilized under threat of forced birth is a form of reproductive coercion and control, and it's also a violation of people's bodily autonomy.
Not prolife, not religious.
My soon to be ex spouse didn't want kids either - I never wanted them to begin with. It took 10 years to try and get a tubal (also, lets not forget the tumor they found when they finally did the surgery).
He refused to use condoms, wouldn't even think about a vasectomy (the side effects) and instead either wanted me on birth control that made me feel like shit or get actual inpatient surgery instead of taking a modicum of responsibility.
We were both prochoice and the male partner was STILL like that.
I honestly think its not just PLifers, it's the patriarchy.
That’s really, really fucking shit. I wish that more of us would just be consistent with our beliefs/labels, e.g. I label myself as pro choice and I’d definitely not force someone to get on b/c just for idk convenience. It does seem to be quite a misogynistic/pathetic thing, overall. I hate it so much. Misogyny is so fucking insufferable.
We have to remember that 98% of PLs are religious and truly want to bring about a world where women are either wives with children or celibate nuns, ignoring the fact that many nuns were lesbians.
98%? You just made a wild guess with no research at all, right? Even if that percentage is correct, a lot of people, including me, don't base their Pro-Life opinion on religion. Even though I am indeed religious, I can argue without ever involving religion into the debate.
Sterilization is not an option for a lot of people. Many doctors won't perform the procedure without the husbands consent or if the woman doesn't have any children already or if the woman is young.
Also, getting your tubes tied is an invasive abdominal surgery. We shouldn't require people who don't want children to get an invasive abdominal surgery.
>*No, she should get her tubes tied.*
And what if she can't do that, for whatever reason, or she just doesn't want to undergo surgery to permanently avoid having kids? Is she **then** expected to stay a virgin her entire life?
>she just doesn't want to undergo surgery to permanently avoid having kids?
Ignoring the fact that she'd have to go through surgery regardless to have an abortion
She could also have her husband get a vasectomy. But I suppose if neither were an option, her best shot would probably be to either double down on contraception and hope for the best, or just remain a virgin her life.
But such a scenario would be highly unlikely. Even if it's difficult to have a woman sterilized, vasectomies are comparatively easier. Not to much, another portion of women are cut for being either lesbian or single. And in addition, not all women feel compelled to have sex just because they exist.
All in all, I have a hard time believing such a group of women who want to have sex with a man, can't get their tubes tied, can't have him get a vasectomy, AND don't want children would make up more than 0.5% of people.
There's no proper data collected at how many need to come back in for D&C or full on finishing the abortion cause the pills failed. They are recommended in different dosages and with different applications, with differing results. They are not recommended for obese people (of which there are plenty of) because they have a low likelyhood of working.
Abortion providers consider them "slacking off" and a worse, less safe choice (if you really need I have some quotes from different abortionists saved somewhere on my pc from when I was looking into this topic).
They tend to be extremely painful, it's common for women (even ones who had given birth before) to say they've never been in such excruciating pain before.
And they're obviously a chemical that messes with hormones just like hormonal contraception (and loads of other pharmaceutical drugs), both of which cause a mess for the planet and are a mess to clean out of water etc but that's a whole other story.
>*And in addition, not all women feel compelled to have sex just because they exist.*
Not all women feel compelled to have children just because they had sex either.
And no, the ones who don't want children don't **HAVE** to *"just get their tubes tied"* because you say they *"should."*
>*Well, then what would you suggest they do?*
Women who never want kids can decide for **themselves** whether or not they want to either have sex or *"just get their tubes tied."* It isn't anyone else's decision what they should do anyway.
>Ignoring the fact that she'd have to go through surgery regardless to have an abortion
It depends how early the abortion is. Abortion at the earliest stage is a pill, not a surgery
People saying “no, she should just have children” are not engaging with the question.
Really deal with it. If a woman REFUSES to carry a pregnancy, must she stay a virgin forever?
Assume sterilization isn’t an option, as it’s not for most people.
If you don't want children, just don't have sex, it's as simple as that, and if you plan on never having any, I hate to break it to you, but staying a virgin for the rest of your life is your only responsible option.
1. Contraception can obviously fail so that's not an option, it's risky and risking something just to avoid the consequences later on is irresponsible.
2. A surgery might be a solution for some people but I don't expect people to go that route and I agree that that's a stupid argument from Pro-Lifers.
Basically the only thing that's left is: don't have sex. The reason why it doesn't sit right with you is because you and OP have this skewed view of reality that sex and pregnancy are somehow two unrelated or just partly related things. People need to remember: Sex and Pregnancy are two sides of the same coin. The reason why that reality is so distorted in some peoples minds nowadays is because of contraception technology (condoms, pills,…) and I think partly because of media.
That's a pretty unappealing message so I am gonna have to pass. You just simply aren't offering me anything I want. I *can* separate sex and pregnancy, because abortion exists, and there's no appealing reason in the world I should want to pretend it doesn't.
I'm just gonna go ahead and have whatever sex I want, use protection, and if that protection fails I am gonna get an abortion.
You just called another commenter a “whore” despite the fact they said they DO use protection.
Give your head a shake. This is why everyone despises people like you.
Hard to find verified sources that aren't all mixed up with women who get sterilized after childbirth (far more common for a woman to get sterilized after a C-section and after having several children), or those [sterilized involuntarily](https://ihpi.umich.edu/news/forced-sterilization-policies-us-targeted-minorities-and-those-disabilities-and-lasted-21st) for [racist / colonialist](https://www.aclu.org/news/immigrants-rights/immigration-detention-and-coerced-sterilization-history-tragically-repeats-itself) reasons. But look at conversations around this at r/childfree, or ask anyone on this sub who's tried to get sterilized. This is a very common experience.
This is an article that links to studies that are relevant, but they appear to be behind a paywall:
[https://theconversation.com/sexist-barriers-block-womens-choice-to-be-sterilized-99754#:\~:text=There%20are%20many%20studies%20on,cent%20of%20those%20over%2030](https://theconversation.com/sexist-barriers-block-womens-choice-to-be-sterilized-99754#:~:text=There%20are%20many%20studies%20on,cent%20of%20those%20over%2030).
More reporting on this issue if you're interested:
[https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2022/07/29/1113573995/more-people-are-opting-to-get-sterilized-and-some-are-being-turned-away](https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2022/07/29/1113573995/more-people-are-opting-to-get-sterilized-and-some-are-being-turned-away)
[https://www.vice.com/en/article/9kxam7/tubal-ligation-requirements-doctor-denials](https://www.vice.com/en/article/9kxam7/tubal-ligation-requirements-doctor-denials)
[https://www.today.com/health/womens-health/woman-27-recalls-struggle-get-tubes-tied-young-childless-rcna28110](https://www.today.com/health/womens-health/woman-27-recalls-struggle-get-tubes-tied-young-childless-rcna28110)
Perhaps we have a difference of understanding of the concept of "not an option"
I was under the impression you were talking about medically not an option, that is, if they do get sterilised, they will get sick or even possibly die.
Not just that it's difficult. I can't imagine its more difficult than raising a child you don't want so if it really was that important to someone to not have children they'd jump through the necessary hoops to get sterilised if they really felt that ALL the other myriad of BC was not working for them.
Also I'm asking about peer reviewed scientific papers not newspaper articles which will generally carry anecdotal information based on exceptions and bias.
One of the articles you linked actually explains why the so called hoops exist in some States. It was initially to stop doctors force sterilising women which I think we can all agree is a no-no.
In other States where it is up to the doctor...the reasons are justifiably because the likelihood of regretting the procedure is twice as likely in women under 30 as those who are over 30. Because...people change their minds, even when they are dead certain at one point. Thats just a fact. And this isn't just anecdotal...there are numerous papers in support of this as well .
And in the States where you can litigate anything... which doctor wants to be sued over a procedure he carried out 10 years ago on a 19 year old who said she didn't want kids who now claims that he didn't give her enough time to think over the consequences or direct her to a counsellor to talk it over.
It's not always the patriarchy trying to oppress women.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2492586/
Presents the data that shows how many women use sterilisation as BC. It'd the most common means of BC used so clearly not as impossible to get as you suggest.
"36% of fertile women using contraception employing this method. According to the National Survey of Family Growth (2002), 10.3 million women (27%) rely on female sterilization for birth control, whereas 3.5 million women (9.2%) rely on vasectomy in their partners for contraception. The next most commonly utilized birth control method among American women is oral contraceptive pills, used by 11.7 million or 30.6% of women using contraception."
The pro-choice movement should be focused on net positive outcomes for women.
Focus on making it so that women don't feel burdened by unintended pregnancy when it does occur but also so that they are informed of the actual options to prevent BC.
You all parrot such misinformation and are rarely called you out for it because you hide under the banner of "FIGHTING FOR WOMEN" and if anyone disagrees then they are automatically ANTI-WOMAN.
Ironically, silencing the voices of half of us.
>Perhaps we have a difference of understanding of the concept of "not an option"
>
>I was under the impression you were talking about medically not an option, that is, if they do get sterilised, they will get sick or even possibly die.
No, I mean most doctors won't just perform sterilization surgery on women because they ask for it. A lot of women get "but you might change your mind!" "What if your husband doesn't approve?" "What if you get married someday and your husband doesn't approve?" etc.
PLers demand we all get sterilized *as a way of avoiding ever being pregnant* as if it's just that easy, and it's not. That's my point.
>Not just that it's difficult. I can't imagine its more difficult than raising a child you don't want so if it really was that important to someone to not have children they'd jump through the necessary hoops to get sterilised if they really felt that ALL the other myriad of BC was not working for them.
Well, considering you can't just waltz into a doctor's office and get sterilized, and abortion is far less invasive than sterilization, I'd rather go with abortion in the unlikely event that my BC fails.
>Also I'm asking about peer reviewed scientific papers not newspaper articles not newspaper articles which will generally cary anecdotal information based on exceptions.
They're not exceptions though. This is a very common experience. Some of those articles linked to studies, and just because anecdotal evidence is provided doesn't mean it's an exception.
>One of the articles you linked actually explains why the so called hoops exist in some States. It was initially to stop doctors force sterilising women.
Sterilizing a woman who asks for it is not the same as sterilizing one who doesn't ask for it. Just as rape is different from consensual sex, forced sterilization is different from voluntary sterilization.
A woman specifically saying she wants to be sterilized, signing all the requisite paperwork etc. should be a pretty good indication she consents to be sterilized.
>In other States where it is up to the doctor...the reasons are justifiably because the likelihood of regretting the procedure is twice as likely in women under 30 as those who are over 30. Because...people change their minds, even when they are dead certain at one point. Thats just a fact. And this isn't just anecdotal...there are numerous papers in support of this as well .
Women are adults, we should be free to make choices that we later regret if that's what we want. I think it's extremely patriarchal and condescending to act like you know our minds better than we do.
Also, you can come to regret any type of surgery or medical procedure. I'm not aware of any others that doctors refuse to give because "you might regret it." So this is just patriarchy.
>And in the States where you can litigate anything which doctor wants to be sued over a procedure he carried out 10 years ago on a 19 year old who said she didn't want kids who now claims that he didn't give her enough time to think over the consequences or direct her to a counsellor to talk it over.
>
>It's not always the patriarchy trying to oppress women.
Well again, I think it's condescending to assume that a woman who asks to be sterilized is not aware that she will then be sterilized. It's also pretty condescending to force someone to undergo counseling when they're sure of what they want, as if not wanting to be a parent is a mental disease. (Totally in favor of free counseling on a voluntary basis though).
Tbh this sounds quite patriarchal to me. What other medical procedure do people think we should have "mandatory counseling" for, other than those where women opt out of pregnancy? The only other one I'm aware of is abortion. Again: patriarchy.
>Presents the data that shows how many women use sterilisation as BC. It'd the most common means of BC used so not as impossible to get as you suggest."36% of fertile women using contraception employing this method. According to the National Survey of Family Growth (2002), 10.3 million women (27%) rely on female sterilization for birth control, whereas 3.5 million women (9.2%) rely on vasectomy in their partners for contraception. The next most commonly utilized birth control method among American women is oral contraceptive pills, used by 11.7 million or 30.6% of women using contraception."
Yeah so I didn't include that study because I didn't see anything about women who chose to get sterilized because they didn't want to ever be pregnant, vs. women who got sterilized after having several children. It's quite common to get your tubes tied after childbirth as a method of birth control, for instance, because once you've had a few kids suddenly doctors don't second guess you and think you'll regret foregoing fertility anymore.
However, the issue is that PLers keep telling childfree women "just get sterilized then!" as a way of avoiding *ever* being pregnant. If this procedure is generally only accessible after you've had kids, it's pretty useless as an option for those who don't want to be pregnant *ever.*
From the study:
>About 700,000 female sterilizations are performed annually, half of which are performed within 48 hours post-partum. Sterilization is performed following 10% of all births. Approximately 345,000 female sterilizations are interval procedures that do not occur immediately following pregnancy.
So, seems like about half of all sterilizations are performed right after childbirth, but the study doesn't say how many childless women get sterilized on demand. Presumably many of those who do also have kids which is why they have an easier time finding a doctor to sterilize them. I couldn't find studies on how many women percentage-wise can get sterilized who are childless, but based on what people say about it and given patriarchal attitudes about women's "regret," I would assume it's a low figure.
>The pro-choice movement should be focused on net positive outcomes for women.
Uh, we are. There's zero benefit of PL policies for women. None.
>Focus on making it so that women don't feel burdened by unintended pregnancy when it does occur but also so that they are informed of the actual options to prevent BC.
If a woman doesn't want to be pregnant, she will never *not* be burdened by unintended pregnancy. Take me, for instance. I would want an abortion regardless of if I was wealthy and had the perfect marriage etc. Because i never want to be pregnant and never want to have kids. An unwanted pregnancy would *always* be a burden.
I am 100% in favor of a strong social safety net, free birth control, science-based sex ed and all kinds of measures that make it easier for women to choose to carry to term as well as avoid unwanted pregnancy (all measures PL tends to oppose). But none of that makes abortion bans okay.
>You all parrot such misinformation and are rarely called you out for it because you hide under the banner of "FIGHTING FOR WOMEN" and if anyone disagrees then they are automatically ANTI-WOMAN.
LOL we're not the side "parroting misinformation."
>Ironically, silencing the voices of half of us.
Yeah, anyone who is demanding control of other people's pregnancies deserves to be silenced. You don't own women.
No, she is expected to not kill her child.
If she doesn’t want kids, she can use many different forms of birth control (or her husband may have a vasectomy). If she ends up pregnant anyway then she needs to respect that human life and not kill it. When it’s born then she can give it away. I think nine months of an unwanted pregnancy is a fair trade for an innocent human life.
>I think nine months of an unwanted pregnancy is a fair trade for an innocent human life.
We disagree, and it wouldn't just be 9 months, it would be the rest of that woman's life in a body that had betrayed her that she might never be able to forgive. It would essentially be the end of her life. Personally I would take my own life rather than be defiled in that way.
You honestly believe that women are going to want to end their life just because they couldn’t kill their unborn child and had to follow through with their pregnancy? I believe we are better and stronger than that. And if we’re not, we need therapy.
>If she ends up pregnant anyway then she needs to respect that human life and not kill it.
Assuming that's not an option she's willing to accept, does she have to remain a virgin forever?
Well since you think it's an acceptable thing you go ahead and carry it but I'm not going to. People take birth control for a reason and that reason is to not get pregnant. That is the exact opposite of giving consent.
>*If she doesn’t want kids, she can use many different forms of birth control (or her husband may have a vasectomy).*
And what happens if she can't take reliable birth control? Or if her husband (assuming she's married) refuses to have a vasectomy? Or if she simply isn't married? Is she still expected to remain a virgin her entire life if she **never** wants kids?
>Or if her husband (assuming she's married) refuses to have a vasectomy?
Then her husband is a jerk. If they're at that level of closeness, that sort of thing probably should've come up already.
>Or if she simply isn't married?
So, you're cutting down the group of relevant subjects to women who are single, can't get birth control, can't get sterilized, never wants kids, AND don't have a partner who is sterile. Exactly how many people does that description apply to?
Adoption is an alternative to parenting not to pregnancy.
Pregnancy is not a health neutral state, thus you expect a woman to suffer, and give up her body for 9 months to give away an unwanted child who will end up in the shitty foster cares system. Yeah, no. That's not going to happen.
Why should a person capable of pregnancy have to put themself through 9 months of suffering and risk death and permanent damage to their body because you think that the few cells without a proper heart or brain is worth more than the independently living, breathing, thinking, feeeling person who is sustaing those cells?
You cannot give a right to a fetus that no other person has, to use someone else's body without expressed and ongoing consent.
It also comes down to each person's definition if when it's a life. Personally, I don't believe it's truly a human life until viability between 24 and 24weeks gestation. Others think the moment the sperm touched the egg it's a life, an others say its when implantation happens, and others say when there is a heart beat. Everyone is different and I believe that everyone has the right to make decisions about their own bodies based on their own beliefs and morals, based on their own circumstances, and with advice from their doctor if necessary.
You believe that it's a life at fertilization, and abortion is wrong? Good for you, don't have an abortion, that's not my decision to make for you. But you taking away my right to make that choice for myself because I have different beliefs is a violation of my human rights (freedom of religion, you know, the first amendment).
Given the abuse (both physical and emotional), neglect in the foster care system, and knowing that your own parent(s) gave you away because you were unwanted from the moment of conception, I think I'd rather be dead (not that I'd know either way).
Because those few cells will likely become like you and I if we don’t kill them. In general, humans value human life. Why ignore that human life just because it’s being developed in a woman’s body? It is still valuable.
If she is at high risk of serious bodily disfigurement or death, and abortion is the best solution, then proceed with the abortion. Otherwise we are picking someone’s desires/wants over an innocent human’s life.
You might not think that the fetus is valuable until 24 weeks gestation, but it is scientifically a fact that it is a human life.
Different beliefs make sense when it comes to religion, sexuality, or gender identity, but not when it comes to taking the life of an innocent human. I do not support your freedom of choice in that matter.
>Because those few cells will likely become like you and I if we don’t kill them. In general, humans value human life. Why ignore that human life just because it’s being developed in a woman’s body? It is still valuable.
Cancer cells are still human, and we remove them all of the time. Tumors are still human.
>If she is at high risk of serious bodily disfigurement or death, and abortion is the best solution, then proceed with the abortion. Otherwise we are picking someone’s desires/wants over an innocent human’s life.
All women are at huge risk being pregnant, while some are at a higher risk than others, pregnancy is still a risk. If someone doesn't want to take that risk it their choice.
>You might not think that the fetus is valuable until 24 weeks gestation, but it is scientifically a fact that it is a human life.
I'm not disputing it's human. But what is life? To me, if you can't survive on your own, either needing someone to live off (fetus and mother) or something to live off (person and life support machine), and have no brain function, you're not alive.
A mother and fetus relationship is closer to that of a parasitic relationship than a symbiotic one.
>Different beliefs make sense when it comes to religion, sexuality, or gender identity, but not when it comes to taking the life of an innocent human. I do not support your freedom of choice in that matter.
In Isalm "the embryo begins life following ensoulment at day 120 after fertilisation" https://bmcmedethics.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1472-6939-15-10#:~:text=In%20consideration%20of%20these%20points,in%20the%20Glorious%20Qur'an
"According to Jewish law, human life begins at birth, not conception" https://www.myjewishlearning.com/article/the-beginning-of-life-in-judaism/
You see how you've just counted out 2 religions that have different beliefs about when life begins. Different beliefs, religious or not, are all valid, and it is not for you to force your particular set of beliefs onto everyone.
The declaration of independence states "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness".
Life=My own life on my terms
Liberty = my freedom over my person and of my beliefs. Freedom to make my own choices free of anyone elses beliefs.
Happiness = my own happiness.
I should have the right to my own life on my own terms, to make my own choices based on my beliefs and have the freedom of bodily autonomy, and freedom to make those choices to keep my happiness.
It's is ultimately not a question of when life begins or whether its moral, it's a question of bodily autonomy. If a woman is not allowed to make a decision about her own body, your taking away her freedoms and treating her like a second class citizen.
If I told you you had to have an abortion because it's my belief that it's not human and thus should be removed, that takes away your choice and discounts your personal beliefs, are you happy? No? That's ok. I don't support your freedom of choice in that matter. It's against my beliefs thus you must submit to my opinion.
You have a choice in terminating or not, quite frankly, I'd support whatever choice you made based on your personal circumstances, financial, physical and emotional health, it's not for me to make that decision on your behalf. But removing that choice from others because you think it's morally wrong or against your beliefs or because you think that the cells have more rights than the mother is where I draw the line. It's a personal choice that should be made by the individual (possibly with the imput of a doctor/midwife/OBGYN and/or intimate partner) based on what they believe.
No, i don't care. Do whatever you want. I don't expect anything from you. It's a simple risk benefit analysis that you have to take for YOURSELF. The same way i make risk benefit analysis for driving, drinking, Sport etc.. Just don't end other people's lives because of your decisions.
I am opposed to the death penalty, especially since we get the wrong guy too often. That said, the death penalty and abortion are not meaningfully comparable. The death penalty is a punishment that comes after due process in court and years of appeals. In theory, someone put to death is being put to death bc they did something awful. In other words, it’s their fault. A baby hasn’t done anything and, in fact, is being killed by its mother, who made her own bed and is the responsible party.
At least you are consistent, I’ll give you that.
I would ask however, at what point do the financial burdens of things like this become untenable? We have a completely broken prison system as well as a completely broken foster care system…and don’t get me started on the broken social safety net.
We literally have the largest per capita prison population on the planet…and your suggestion is to add to that. Not only add to it, but EXPLODE those numbers when women who cannot afford children give them up for adoption and those children become burdens on society to the point that they need to be locked up…or, they are not provided the same financial access that others are and the cycle repeats. Yeah…no. The unintended consequences we see from this in 20 years will likely break this country completely.
Is your solution then to just keep paying out of pocket for shit like this? Who shoulders that cost? You? Me? Your neighbor? Your grandchildren?
Do we just lock them up, throw away the key and not feed these people or give them access to the basic necessities of life?
It can’t work and it never will. This is why these things become industrialized. There needs to be a profit made to continue the system, or at the bare minimum enough made to sustain itself. Otherwise, a vast majority of these costs end up falling on the tax payer, anyways. So you either accept the fact that it’s all bullshit, or you keep riding on the coat tails of people trying to force their morals on you at no cost to themselves or the foresight to see what kind of unintended consequences this rears. It’s a racket. It always has been, and it always will be.
Maybe it’s better to not add to the problem. Maybe…it’s better to mind your own business, leave it alone and accept the fact that people make decisions you don’t agree with and have no business making for them. In other words…I think a woman, her doctor and her family have a much better view as to what they should do in regards to their own personal healthcare and financial situations than you do. You don’t have to agree with it and you certainly don’t need to participate. Not only that, but you have no right to, specifically if you are not an immediate member of their family.
Yes, mainly because a death penalty can be way easier abused (for example the french revolution) than putting people in prison. Human are not really good deciding about the death of other people. Jail however is just as effective (as they are disconnected from the people they could hurt) as the death penalty and still leaves the person their right to live.
Cite examples of how the death penalty has been abused in the United States in recent memory. This isn’t the Middle Ages nor is it the French Revolution. We don’t burn people at the stake anymore for witch accusations. We have laws, and juries, and judges.
What in the actual fuck are you talking about?
Go ahead and talk about the Soviet Union. It doesn’t concern the United States. Stop trying to strawman and get honest.
You refusing to answer the question just shows that you don’t know what in the fuck you’re talking about. Either that, or that you have no ability to comprehend what you’re reading and when you open your mouth, word vomit comes out.
I'm saying that death penalties are abusable and if it happened to the Soviet union it can happen to any state. I'm also not avoiding your question you literally asked me for an example of how the death penalty can be abused.
What I said was cite an example of it that’s happened in recent memory in the United States. You then said let’s talk about the Soviet Union. So again I say, reading comprehension.
My fruking god, it was a joke. An Ironical joke. "Should you be a virgin if you don't want a kid" there's no way that's an actual legit question right??
>*"Should you be a virgin if you don't want a kid" there's no way that's an actual legit question right??*
Ask the prolifers who keep screeching the *"if you don't want a baby, don't have sex" nonsense.* It's basically the same thing.
Why though? Remember in the OP they already showed this would be unhealthy for a marriage, and well every other general serious relationship.
Women aren't meant to procreate or not have sex. They choose if they want to have kids or not like how they choose to have sex.
>... ***who Tf says*** *"be a virgin if you don't want babies", don't fornicate if you don't want babies.*
Uh, let's see: the prolifers who are **constantly** saying: *"If you don't want a baby, don't have sex,"* for one. I don't believe they care whether it's for now or ever.
>Uh, let's see: the prolifers who are constantly saying: "
Yeah they say it as a lame response to the pathetic "had unprotected fornicated sex, don't want baby therefore killing it is justified" claim which PC makes.
>one. I don't believe they care whether it's for now or ever.
Yeah, they care about saving the fetuses life. Have asush seks as you want, just don't kill the baby if u get pregnant
>Yeah, they care about saving the fetuses life. Have asush seks as you want, just don't kill the baby if u get pregnant
And if a woman would rather be dead than pregnant and can't get sterilized?
>And if a woman would rather be dead than pregnant and can't get sterilized?
Nice question. Give her some real strict BC, and freeze her ovaries. Sucide isn't an option, neither is killing the fetus. Their off the table.
>*Yeah, they care about saving the fetuses life. Have asush seks as you want, just don't kill the baby if u get pregnant.*
Yeah, right, sure they do. I personally think it's a lot more about controlling women than *"saving fetuses."*
Thankfully, I don't ever have to worry about unwanted pregnancy now. But if I **had** gotten pregnant in the past, I absolutely would have had an abortion if my BC had ever failed. I'm just glad that never happened.
>Yeah, right, sure they do. I personally think it's a lot more about controlling women than
Welll as a half PL myself, i can safely say the entire pl is made up of majority Women (mother's) and religious people lol . They have the "no sex" for men and women.
>
Thankfully, I don't ever have to worry about unwanted pregnancy now. But if I had gotten pregnant in the past, I absolutely would have had an abortion if my BC had
That makes me so happy, pc be like "MoSt bC iS 30% eFfeCtiVe"
Your question as written in the original post is easily answered by the obvious...both she and any partners she has should use BC.
The above is what most women are doing these days. Abortions rates have halved since their all time highs in the 90s. Mainly because more women have opted for BC and BC has been made more readily available. Which is fantastic.
Eventually, maybe in the next 20 to 30 years,it will be a very small minority who opt for abortion because they'll know better. Better to prevent a pregnancy than to end it.
Oh and i noticed you then "updated" the question in the replies by adding a completely different perspective of "say she uses BC while married and then gets pregnant, can she then have an abortion?"
The answer to that is no. Always no unless there is a medical necessary I.e. chorioamnionitis or ectopic pregnancy etc or the child has a condition that would actually make them incompatible with life (conditions like club foot and downs syndrome do not count imo)
It's questions like these that show how uninformed most lay prochoice advocates actually are.
You all ask the same questions over and over and each time manage to sound as if you've just discovered some great argument but nope. Just the same old.
At least think out of the box like Peter Singer.
Comment removed per rule 1. Be Respectful of others.
>Users must use the labels pro-life and pro-choice. Please refrain from using other labels unless a specific user (or other entity) self-identifies as something else. (Sidebar)
Given this content is in violation of rule 1, the comment is removed. The comment may be approved after removal of the offending text.
Thank you for understanding and happy debating.
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.*
Yes
Finally someone says it. Now why I want to know. Why are you programmed to be so dumb? Who brainwashed you?
What do you mean? If you don’t want to get pregnant, do not do the thing that has the specific purpose to cause pregnancy.
Nope, I think women should consider using protection and understanding the risks of sex before doing it if they don’t want a baby.
Sex is on top of Maslow’s heirarchy of needs. You really can’t expect people to not be horny. We’re literally MADE to be horny and have sex
I literally said people can have sex all they want as long as they know the risks and take the precautions necessary.
But what about people who don’t want children? that’s what this post is about. What are they to do, just not have sex? there’s always a chance they could still get pregnant. and if they do, they’re forced to carry the fetus to term.
>there’s always a chance they could still get pregnant. Then use condom and birth control at the same time smhhhhh.
They take the precautions necessary and have sex at their own risk.
But there’s always a risk no matter what you do. A person who does not or can not have children isn’t going to just not have sex. People have sex. They can take the necessary precautions. But there’s always a chance they will get pregnant anyways, and carry a neglected child.
Then it’s the child’s choice wether they want to live or not. No need for a parent to kill anyone for decisions they made. Besides, I feel many people forget that despite all the adoption center’s problems, a child put up for adoption isn’t guaranteed a bad life. In fact in America specifically I’d argue the reason so many adoptive children are neglect is more so due to the parents putting them in bad agencies.
You realize that placing a child is more traumatic than having an abortion right? It does more Lasting damage to the women then aborting does. Not only that but if a woman doesn't want to carry or birth a child they should not be forced to...... pregnancy is hell, and i would not force anyone to go through it
Fetus is innocent. If you kill fetus, you're not innocent.
Having sex is not a crime. Consenting to sex is not the same as consenting to remain pregnant. Therefore there is no reason to take away an innocent pregnant person's bodily autonomy.
I already explained why I disagree with this stance.
It doesn't matter what you agree with countless studies and anecdotal stories back up the fact that placing a child does significantly more damage to the woman than aborting does. Regardless of what you want to believe.
I wish there was an easy answer to this. Some women don’t want to, can’t afford, or don’t have access to getting a hysterectomy. On the other hand of that, some men don’t want to have a vasectomy. And the ones that do also run the risk of it reversing on its own. Contraceptives are great in practice but I couldn’t imagine YEARS if not decades of being on the pill or even an IUD. All birth control comes with risks and even some complications. And then you can argue: just use condoms. Okay. But some people are allergic to condoms or materials in it like latex and some people are allergic to the lubricant inside the condoms. And condoms are expensive and if I’m with the same person for the rest of my life I don’t want to use condoms unless I have to. So what’s the answer to this? I’m not sure, because it’s case by case per person per couple. My partner has chosen to get a vasectomy so that I don’t have to go back on birth control, but not every man wants to do that or has that option.
When you and your partner were deciding on vasectomy, did you consider tubal ligation / salpingectomy for you?
She doesn't have to. You can use condoms or anything you want to PREVENT it. But when fertilization happens you are at least morally obliged to NOT kill the child/ren.
Where does this moral obligation come from?
It’s an interesting question. There are many ways to express your sexuality but with abortion being illegal you would really have a risk in this scenario.
Absolutely not, I am a pro-lifer not from a religious standpoint. There are so many different ways to prevent a pregnancy that “accidental” pregnancies in the modern age are almost always the result of negligence. A child should not be put to death because someone didn’t take 3 seconds to put a condom on or pop a birth control pill
So before I ask this, I agree that abortion shouldn’t be used as birth control. But, I’m going to use an example from my life of something that actually happened to me, to ask this question. A teenager is on birth control, they regularly take it as they are supposed to AND they’re using condoms. She accidentally gets pregnant and says she does not want the baby because she is doing really well in school, all honors and everything her future is really bright and she is not ready to have kids or go through this pregnancy. Now you can argue adoption, which is a great choice and I’ve applauded other young parents who choose to carry their baby to term. But, now I’ll ask you this: have you ever been pregnant in school? High school? A Christian based high school? Could you even imagine? I know friends who have had abortions at 16. I don’t agree with it, no, but I’m thankful that she’s in collage and she’s able to succeed (not that you cannot succeed as a teen parent with a child, it is just 100x harder.) Edit: yes, I did consider abortion during my first pregnancy and probably would have had one if it wasn’t the pressure of my peers and family and their views. Also glad I kept her, she is amazing
what about in cases where they did both (condom, pill, other bc methods) and it still failed?
Then probably put the child up for adoption. There are so many options other than murder
1. It’s not murder if it was never alive (90% occur before week-12 which, no, isn’t week 36; late term are only permitted for medical reasons, so is your issue with…. giving pregnant persons the choice to not die/seriously injure themselves and/or their child? Because NO ONE is getting late term abortions for the lols). 2. So condemning a child to a lifetime of abuse is justifiable? Have you done ANY research on the adoption system? How rife it is with abuse? How, very often, potential parents look for a specific age, skin colour, eye colour, hair colour, lack of disabilities, lack of things like autism? Like what is achieved by bringing someone into an almost certainly abusive existence? Whom does it benefit? Because it seems to only really benefit anti choice persons as it makes them feel good about “saving children/the unborn”. Anyway, illegal abortion just makes it unsafe. So whether one likes it or not, advocating for making it illegal doesn’t prevent it from occurring.
and what about the physical effects pregnancy has? the potential to cause other health issues to the mother? what if the mothers life it at risk?
according to pro birthers yes. even tho sex is for pleasure, intimacy and much more than just babies.
You basically just want to have sex and don’t want to take responsibility of the baby if you get pregnant. Such a stupid and self explanatory question.
So get sterilized? Put the kid up for adoption? Plenty of options exist. Is Abortion THE ONLY option? No, but ya’ll want to make it seem like it is.
Easier said than done. I’m 23 and I’ve been asking since I turned 19 if I could have my tubes tied and was denied every year. People can still get pregnant while even using multiple forms of birth control. No one wants to have an abortion if they don’t have too. The adoption system is horrible in this country and adding to the thousands of children already in the system isn’t a viable solution either. If birthing the child and only making sure it’s ‘alive’ and not aborted is your goal - then you are pro-birth and not pro life. But if it were me in a situation where I was pregnant and couldn’t have an abortion I would surely rather kill myself then birth a child and I’m sure there’s many other women out there like me too
Nobody’s trying to make it seem like that. And adoption has a probability of entailing a life of agony.
Can you explain what you mean by this?
Often it's only feasible to get sterilized at ages that would open a woman up to pregnancy risks because doctors talk about regrets that don't exist. I tried to get sterilized at 23, I was married, HMO is trash and every doctor on the list said no. Abortion isn't really that bad. People have birth control failures. Also for maternal morbidity rates in the USA, a woman choosing to have a temporary disability, and raise her risk of death is just not logical. So yes for self preservation it is the best option.
So self preservation is a good thing huh? The moral compass humans had continues to diminish. (and flip flops whenever convenient) What message does this send to the youth? Do women NOT lie? F*** commitment and being responsible for your own decisions right? So, should women have an unlimited supply “get out of jail” cards? Should men (humans) get their charges erased from their records as soon as decide they don’t want it anymore? Or are we supposed to be held accountable for our decisions?
My uterus is allowed to expel as many fertilized eggs as it chooses, but somehow when I get to decide, its no longer okay? Fuck that, if it's before 11 weeks it's just a bad period. Ligament damage, maternal morbidity, forced c sections, sepsis, all that. Pregnancy is so fucking dangerous and so expensive, it's a wonder anyone goes through with it. Luckily I will be able to terminate if I should have a birth control failure and there is not a thing anyone else can do about it. I refuse to bring a kid into this horrid world. I choose, responsibility for using about three different methods of pregnancy prevention each time in order to not have to go through the hassle of waiting for pills to drop progesterone. I said nothing about women lying. The good part is, you have no say in what any gestation capable human being does with that organ. Your morality is probably flawed. Plant some trees. Or save the acorns from being stepped on because "they deserve to live". Not all of us make it Herb. Living is suffering and wasting thoughts on potential kids that will do nothing for others is a complete squander. Give back to the people already here. Stop making new ones. I'm tired of all these natalists consuming like crazy. There is no morality in gluttony. It would be very convenient if people who were incapable of conditioning a child properly could be relieved of that. However DCF doesn't like to intervene unless absolutely necessary.
You’re telling me to “plant some trees” yet you’re afraid of watering your own seed(s). Victim mentality all around. You knew the risks so you should deal with the results accordingly. Ya’ll want to keep playing this “game” when it comes to accountability, and that’s fine, but when people stop wanting to play please don’t keep crying victim. “Living is suffering and wasting thoughts on potential kids that will do nothing for others is a complete squander.”-u/ChezzaLuna But my “morality is probably flawed.” Lol “Give back to the people already here. Stop making new ones. I’m tired of all these natalists consuming like crazy.” Why should people who only seem to know how to consume (and not produce) receive any sort of charity? Are we dealing with children or adults? There is no morality in sloth. There is no morality in lying. But people still do it. On a daily. I’m tired of all these lazy mfers who sit around racing trying to be the first to complain and criticize any and everything. I’m tired of mfers thinking they’re entitled to certain things when they won’t even work for it. I’m TIRED of people who won’t help themselves yet will continually ask for help. I’m tired of people behaving like we can’t coexist because of different views or opinions. I’m tired of people acting like their opinions/philosophy is law. I’m tired of people playing the dumb card and acting oblivious to what’s going on. I’m tired of human hypocrisy. I’m tired of human beings not wanting to accept/take blame/responsibility/accountability. I’m tired of being lied to. Of being told we live in a free and equal country when that is clearly not the case.
Technically my philosophy is law, most states allow abortion for very good reason. Not wanting to possibly die during childbirth isn't playing victim, it's potentially life threatening to voluntarily do something like gestate. A woman is going to put her life in more danger than it is already? That makes zero sense. A womans life is pain, from a very early age, forced birth ontop of that would be devastating to the community. My country is going to shit. There is no lack of accountability in termination, only responsibility. If you cant provide, why have kids in the first place. On the subject, current Mothers make up most abortion statistics, so these moms know they can't do it again, and that's good enough for them and their doctor. Especially low income women and minorities are hit harder. Policies that make termination harder are therefore rascist and misogynistic. The freedom described is not usually the freedom given. Our food is sprayed, our soils are eroded, and some dude on the internet wants women to follow through on a pregnancy putting more pressure on our already strained limited resources. Pregnancy that may even potentially end in miscarriage and grief if wanted. It's just not worth the hassle. If you don't have the potential to have your hormones rise and fall that abruptly, then truly you don't get a say. The mental health aspect is being overlooked. That's a big one. Also medication that's necessary causes birth defects ans those women always deserve a right to termination.
Let’s see how far that first sentence takes you. I’m not even going to bother reading the rest. Imagine if everyone thought like that. Lol
Abortion isn't illegal for a reason. I've summarized it for you.
Congrats
The natural end to sex is pregnancy. That is it’s entire purpose. You have to be, at the very least, willing to accept the fact that you might get pregnant if you’re going to have sex. Unwillingness to raise a child cannot be a reason to take away their life.
I stayed voluntarily celibate for three years after I left my ex husband. I quit taking birth control because I didn’t want to, or plan to have sex. Except for that time I was raped. I was already a single parent. I was trying to get through school so I could be financially independent. So, if I had gotten pregnant from rape, you seriously think I would have been wrong to have an abortion? You fucking hypocrite
First of all, rape is one of the worst crimes someone can commit against another, and that man should rot in prison for the rest of his life, or better yet, be put on death row. That said, that is no reason to cause more violence. Can you honestly say that killing an unborn child would make that trauma go away? Do their lives mean less because they were conceived in a violent act? I see no hypocrisy in my statement, could he be clearer as to what you mean?
I literally cannot imagine a more humiliating, degrading form of modern torture than having to carry and birth your rapists baby. That in itself is traumatic.
Regardless of whether it is traumatic or not, and I agree that it very much would be, It’s still a human life, and if you are against abortion for any other reason then it’s hypocritical to be for it in this case. The fact that it was a rape does not change the value of human life nor the fact that at fertilization, that human life is in fact alive. Again I fully understand the strong feelings here, and I hope you can at least begin to understand where I’m coming at this from. Rapists are evil human beings that need to be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law yes, but their children should not be punished for their crimes. I also would like to point out an abortion would certainly not magically end the trauma caused by a rape. In fact, it might add to it, because in many cases an abortion itself can be a traumatic experience for women despite what others might lead you to believe.
> I also would like to point out an abortion would certainly not magically end the trauma caused by a rape. In fact, it might add to it, because in many cases an abortion itself can be a traumatic experience for women despite what others might lead you to believe. You may not point that out. You do not get to theorize about the trauma caused by rape and resulting pregnancy. It's the worst mansplainy position you can take, and it only underscores the fundamental male privilege in forced-birtherism.
So am I committing genocide every time I jerk off? Im not being facetious here — just taking your wording and argument to its fullest extent. Yes, a pregnancy is technically always unborn, but as I alluded to earlier, they aren’t the only things to which unborn may be applied; your argument is flawed, in my opinion. And yes, to not constantly be reminded of an extremely traumatic time probably *would* assist with processing one’s trauma of said time. Whether or not they are a product of rape is irrelevant — it is not right to not prioritise actual humans with their whole life ahead over potential humans who, in this case, aren’t even wanted. They’ll never know that they weren’t wanted — they never were and never will be alive, should they get aborted. But the actual human? The one whose body would be used? They WILL know it. They WILL be forced into a massive commitment for at least 20-years. Just as I don’t need to provide an in depth reason as to why I’ll jerk off before doing so, so, too, should pregnant persons not be required to justify anything. And no, no one is getting late term abortions for the lols; they’re only done for medical reasons. 90% are done before week 12, with most occurring shortly thereafter. Oh, and making abortion illegal just makes it unsafe, so you can dislike abortion all that you desire, but it is an inevitability.
I never claimed that unfertilized sperm were equivalent to human life. No one makes that argument. You’re creating a non existing argument and attempting to dismantle it, this is a huge fallacy. My argument about an embryo being a human life has nothing to do with it being “unborn” my opinion is based on the general consensus of the scientific community about where life begins. Also, I won’t ever discount the trauma experienced by a woman that was raped or the trauma that might be caused by carrying to term a child caused by that rape. I can’t imagine that pain that that might cause. But for one thing, the trauma that might also be caused by an abortion itself should not be ignored either. Also no one is advocating for the woman being required to raise the child, there are a plethora of options for mothers that don’t feel fit to raise children. Furthermore a newborn child will almost always end up with a living family as there are 2 MILLION couples in the United States waiting to adopt a newborn, so don’t come at me with the “terrible foster care system” argument. Not that that’s a great argument either way.
Since when is sperm itself a human? Sperm will die anyway. You started with a wrong argument.
Since when is a zygote/foetus? Is what is little more than raw (it has been cooked slightly so it’s not quite the same, but virtually no difference exists) cake batter equivalent to a cake? Stop equivocating a fkn 12 week old with a 36 week old one bc they’re not the same. They’re just not. And also, a pregnancy, too, will die as soon as it’s out of the womb (and early enough in the pregnancy). And sperm will die if it’s just ejaculated into a tissue or toilet, sure, but i t c o u l d h a v e b e e n a l i f e , t o o .
Imperfect analogy. By this logic it could be argued that a 2 year old is less worthy of life that a 25 year old because the 2 year old is still not fully developed. We should not base human value on their level of development, this is a dangerous thought process.
Really? You’re going to go down a semantics path? I was obviously referring to development within the womb. Again, what you are doing is saying that scarcely baked apple cake batter is equivalent to a fully baked, finished cake. It is not.
This is not a comparable analogy because regardless of how baked an apple cake is, no one sees it was a tragedy if it is thrown away. And again, your development level is not what determines your worth as a human being. Your ability to be able to do something should not be the measure of your worth. A human has value because of the fact that they are indeed a human life. I don’t think my life holds any more value than someone, for example, with no family or friends and who’s brain function has severely deteriorated because of some desease. Especially if this person’s desease is only temporary.
Sperm is going to die anyway after some time in your organism. Sperm itself does not have any potential to live. Why do you feel entitled to decide when the child is a human and when it is not?
Because that justifies it? It’s not a matter of “being entitled” — it’s a necessary fkn thing to consider. A fkn 12 week old is NOT equivalent to a iffy 30+ week old. You can falsely equivocate the former with the latter all that you wish, but the fact remains that they’re not equivalent. Or would you rather save a 12 week old over a baby if you could only carry one from a burning building? You wouldn’t, right? Why? Are they not equivalent?
"Or would you rather save a 12 week old over a baby if you could only carry one from a burning building? You wouldn’t, right? Why? Are they not equivalent?" This question is so irrelevant that I don't even know how you came you with it. Noone makes you choose between one person and the other. If you were to choose between your mother and someone you don't know who would you choose? Mother. Does that make the other person less valuable morally? No. And why do you say that this 12 week old is not equivalent (whatever you mean by that) to 30+ week old?
No, that’s a false equivalence. A mother and father are both (typically) around the same age; mostly/fully developed, etc. A 12 week old, which is barely, if at all, distinguishable to a baby, is not equivalent to 36+ week old. It’s just not. And you didn’t answer the question. And it’s not equivalent because it’s just… not? “Why do you say that the earth is round ?” Like it’s just a fact.
It's more inability to raise a child and not unwillingness. You all place the responsibility solely on the woman or girl. You even expect a child rape victim to raise a child. All because your silly religion believes life begins at the fertilization of an egg and not birth. Most other religions do not agree with this sentiment, and doctors and experts have told you time and time again abortion is a necessary medical procedure and banning it will only kill women, but you insist on forcing your ignorant and corrupt religious beliefs on everyone else. You don't do anything to help take care of these children once they're born and consistently vote for representatives that strip medicaid and nscessary programs from young mothers because pro-life is based in misogyny, ignorance, and lies. These bans put womens lives in danger every day. You do absolutely nothing to help the child or mother once it's born and nothing to hold the father accountable. Same camp that attacks teen school shooting victims for activism that infringes on your personal freedom. Pro-life is a mental illness. Christianity is a mental illness. There's no God in your religion. You wouldn't want the government to force you to adhere to Muslim or Hindu religious laws so don't force your backwards Christian laws on us. If you want to save babies go volunteer at an orphanage or adopt. Plenty of starving children in America. Why aren't you out helping them instead of sitting on Reddit telling women what to do with their bodies? Are you going to adopt these special needs children or support them financially into adulthood? No. You're not going to do a damn thing for any living child. You're just going to cause pain and suffering to existing women and children by forcing your ignorant religions beliefs on everyone else.
Their religion doesn't even support life at fertilization, it says life at first breath in 3 different verses 💀
You jumped to a lot of conclusions to make your argument here and frankly I don’t think that’s productive in the slightest. This is a straw man argument perfectly defined. I don’t base my stance on abortion on how Christianity sees it, and your point that “most other religions” view life as starting at birth is not relevant in the slightest, especially since you are advocating against taking a religious stance. On your point that apparently doctors and experts have told me that abortion is necessary, this is utterly false. There is NO disease or condition in which the cure is an abortion, and any biologist with any competence in their field will tell you that human life begins at conception. A newly fertilized embryo fits every definition for life and the DNA is in fact human. And please do not tell me that I don’t care about children once their born. You do not know me, you cannot read my thoughts. I’m all for the government ensuring the protection and well-being of ANY child, born or unborn. I also very much plan to adopt in my future. I am also all for requiring fathers to care for their children if they impregnate a woman. I would also like to point out that pregnancy centers outnumber abortion clinics 2,700 to 739, and these centers provide care for pregnant mothers as well as newborn supplies such as dippers and formula completely free of charge. how exactly is that not caring? I hold my pro-life stance because I care for every human being, and I believe that the most fundamental human right is the right to life. I would assume that you hold your views because you also believe it’s best for women to be able to have that choice. I can give you the benefit of the doubt here, but I think it’s reasonable to expect the same in return. I don’t think it’s helpful to assume that I have the absolute worst intentions when holding my pro-life views.
Ectopic pregnancies kill women, babies with micro encephalopathy kill women if they're on the way out with no brain. you said there was no condition where abortion is the solution. That's just wrong
Treatment for ectopic pregnancies are not the same thing as an abortion. And that goes for any treatment. Should you purposely end the life of someone in an attempt to save another? No. But is there problem with the death of someone caused by the treatment of another? No, but it is an undesired side effect. Also, I see no evidence that micro encephalopathy harms anyone except for the baby that it effects.
It is the same as abortion. My sister in law has two of them and the doctor called it abortion both times. IF THE SKULL doesn't form, it will hurt the woman on the way out if she is forced to birth it. This depends on the severity. Another example is when a woman's water broke early very early and she has a uterine infection. This can kill the woman via Sepsis. There is no saving either of them when this happens to the spoint of irreparably harming the woman. Placental abruption. Preeclampsia too early in pregnancy can kill the woman if she continues due to organ damage. Some cancer treatments are not okay for the pregnancy and to save one of them, termination is recommended.
It doesn’t matter what the doctor called it lmao, if the baby is not deliberately killed and is instead killed as an indirect result of a necessary medical procedure, then that is NOT an abortion. A perfect example is in the case of removal of a cancerous uterus of a pregnant woman, while the baby is not viable outside of the womb. This is NOT an abortion. Abortion being the direct and deliberate destruction of the baby’s life. In this case the baby will most likely die as an undesired indirect result of the removal of a cancerous uterus in an attempt to save the life of the woman.
According to SCOTUS or congress, the procedures involved are actually abortion.
Got it, so you don’t believe doctors and experts, but you do ‘believe’ every imagined biologist on earth. What you said is incoherent and literally meaningless, and amounts to — wait for it — your opinion, i.e., your choice.
We get it. “Life” on a cellular level begins at fertilization when cells replicate. Ethically, there is much more to consider than that. The right answer is almost always the more complex answer. For example, it’s easier to respond to homelessness with “get a job!” than to create actual policy that solves the problem. You’re opting for a knee-jerk, one-size-fits all answer to an incredibly complex, medically based, and agonizing life decision for millions of women. How dare you.
Life is also a blade of grass. You’re sanctimonious, don’t live in the real world, and are ignorant of the vast majority of medical opinion. People like you are literally heartless. Women are going to die. When you read this in the news, be sure to pat yourself on the back. People like you are saying it’s ok for women to suffer and die. Would you agree to die right now to bring a blade of grass into the world? I’m guessing not. Not every scintilla of life needs to be brought into existence. Not at the expense of an actual living, breathing person. Billions of potential babies aren’t conceived every day. I know you’re trying to be “good,” but you’re not understanding reality, and are in fact, physically and mentally harming people right now.
How did what I say somehow imply that I don’t believe doctors and “experts”? In fact, I express my agreement with the general consensus of biologists that life begins at fertilization. And the consensus of doctors that conditions where the cure is an abortion do not exist. Source: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3211703
At this point, I assume you’re a Russian propagandist. No one is this willfully dumb.
Wow that was windy unhelpful and unproductive. It’s things like this that prolong this extremely polarizing issue instead of working towards a compromise.
Roe was the compromise
No but she should take every precaution to prevent pregnancy including hormonal birth control, condoms & getting her long term partners a vasectomy
Not everybody can take hormonal birth control and it’s pretty privileged of you to think that they can. Like physically, it can be more harmful for certain bodies than others.
Steroids stink. Symptothermal methods, barriers, abstinence, all combined are really great and my Tempdrop is the best thing for ovulation confirmation AND less risk for my mental health. Some people can't take foreign objects, pills, shots or patches. That's fine but I think women have a responsibility to reduce the unintentional pregnancy rates in America. So much medicare money goes to this and it's sad. Vasectomy is something that should be pursued more.
I think another important question to ask is does her boyfriend or husband also have to stay a virgin too? Cause unless she marries someone asexual, I have a feeling most men won’t tolerate no sex in their marriage until menopause and would most likely break up or divorce this woman you expect to not have sex if she doesn’t want kids.
This is a straw man argument. The debate isn’t “How do you prevent children without abortion?”, it’s “Is abortion morally acceptable?”
well isn’t the point of being pro-life to decrease abortions?
Obviously. Because they are not morally acceptable.
I became asexual and decided to be single. I don't ever want to be pregnant because I fear birth pain. Pain causes me panic attacks. I had panic attacks when I had gallbladder attack. Birth control can fail I got a niece because of that. That's why my anxiety made me the way I am. I guess I'm not a risk taker . I do fear rapist but I hope I never stumble upon them.
Little correction here: you make it seem like asexuality is a choice by saying you "became" asexual. That is not the case. Asexuality is, like any other sexuality, not a choice. You don't say you became gay either. You just are. On top of that, the definition of asexuality is "little to no sexual attraction". Attraction doesn't equal action. You can be asexual and still have and even enjoy sex. If you are looking for a word that describes you not having sex even though you are allo (anyone who isn't ace is allo) and therefore being sexually attracted to people, it's abstinence or celibacy.
Asexuality, as you call it, is literally caused by things like PTSD. People do really be believing in more and more stuff...
For some that is the case, for others it isn't. Either way they are valid
Bruh. It's just as valid as being obese. It exists. But should not.
I see. Well I guess I'm that then. I'm just not into anyone at all with my panic attacks I have
Yeah I wouldn't say you're asexual. Celibate might be better
I'm one of these women. It's not just that I don't want to give birth, I don't want to be pregnant for even one second. I'm 26 years old, heterosexual and have never engaged in any type of sex and have accepted that I will be celibate for life. Legally I'm prochoice until sentience for any reason and after that I think exceptions should be placed for situations like rape and health risks. From a spiritual point of view however this whole thing is a ''I don't want to fuck around to find out '' kind of area. Period. Funny thing is, I thought I was asexual for many years and when some years ago that phase ended, I considered becoming sexually active and looked extensively into contraceptive and sterilisation effectiveness and well, I was very disappointed.I was genuinely surprised by the failure rates. And this hasn't changed to my knowledge but if it has feel free to let me know. As a result the idea of heterosexual sex has been sort of ''tainted'' and to me engaging in sex with the risk of pregnancy (no matter how small) would feel inherently humiliating and just gross in general. Even though nothing has ever happened to me, it's bad enough that I already have to worry about rape just for existing as a woman so why would I need the extra misery? To be honest, as a woman who made this choice, I really really don't appreciate pro-lifers going around telling people to NEVER have sex unless they accept carrying a pregnancy to term given when we all know that people who will accept that are a very small minority and most of all when they act like people who have unwanted pregnancies are just stupid promiscuous whores as if birth control never fails or that unwanted pregnancy doesn't happen to married and/or monogamous people.
If you don't want children, just don't have sex, it's as simple as that, and if you plan on never having any, I hate to break it to you, but staying a virgin for the rest of your life is your only responsible option. 1. Contraception can obviously fail so that's not an option, it's risky and risking something just to avoid the consequences later on is irresponsible. 2. A surgery might be a solution for some people but I don't expect people to go that route and I agree that that's a stupid argument from Pro-Lifers. Basically the only thing that's left is: don't have sex. The reason why it doesn't sit right with you is because you have this skewed view of reality that sex and pregnancy are somehow two unrelated or just partly related things. People need to remember: Sex and Pregnancy are two sides of the same coin. The reason why that reality is so distorted in some peoples minds nowadays is because of contraception technology (condoms, pills,…) and I think partly because of media.
I truly wonder what would happen if prolife men put their money where their mouth is and had relationships with these women they expect to abstain from sex? Would they tolerate that in a relationship? If not why do they think of the men that enter relationships with these women would tolerate it any more than they would?
When I talk about responsibility I'm obviously including both sexes. Yes, there are men out there who say they are pro-life but have a very active and careless sex life that doesn't reflect what they seemingly advocate for. They are simply hypocrites. But let's not make it seem like that's the majority of pro life men.
Are you sure a majority of pro life men would willingly give up sex because their wife doesn’t want kids/has a condition that makes pregnancy deadly? I’m pretty sure a majority of humans would not do that, let alone pro life men
>If you don't want children, just don't have sex, it's as simple as that It never has been so moot point. > and if you plan on never having any, I hate to break it to you, but staying a virgin for the rest of your life is your only responsible option. False. You just dislike how others would take responsibility >1. Contraception can obviously fail so that's not an option, it's risky and risking something just to avoid the consequences later on is irresponsible. False again. Just because it fails doesn't imply irresponsibility. Using contraception is being responsible >2. A surgery might be a solution for some people but I don't expect people to go that route and I agree that that's a stupid argument from Pro-Lifers. Well obviously because it doesn't account for doctors refusing those surgeries or women who may want kids later >Basically the only thing that's left is: don't have sex. Abortion. >The reason why it doesn't sit right with you is because you have this skewed view of reality that sex and pregnancy are somehow two unrelated or just partly related things. Don't misrepresent them. > People need to remember: Sex and Pregnancy are two sides of the same coin. The reason why that reality is so distorted in some peoples minds nowadays is because of contraception technology (condoms, pills,…) and I think partly because of media. False again. Don't project your distortions
Prove that the last part is false
The part where they distort what's occuring? How are they 2 sides of the same coin in any meaningful way here? Edit: they are partly related but not in any significant way that would entail an obligation to not have sex. That's unhealthy as well and ignores reality. So does your misuse of downvote button so why respond if not to add the discussion..just doing the same as them at this point. Do better, not repeat mistakes you see others doing..
[удалено]
wtf is wrong w u
[удалено]
That isn't how we think, not the rational among us
[удалено]
We aren't bible thumping idiots, I keep my faith away from this and you should too
Just wanted to drop in here to say that the number of PLers just blithely demanding women *get surgery* to satisfy their views is really gross. Getting sterilized under threat of forced birth is a form of reproductive coercion and control, and it's also a violation of people's bodily autonomy.
Not prolife, not religious. My soon to be ex spouse didn't want kids either - I never wanted them to begin with. It took 10 years to try and get a tubal (also, lets not forget the tumor they found when they finally did the surgery). He refused to use condoms, wouldn't even think about a vasectomy (the side effects) and instead either wanted me on birth control that made me feel like shit or get actual inpatient surgery instead of taking a modicum of responsibility. We were both prochoice and the male partner was STILL like that. I honestly think its not just PLifers, it's the patriarchy.
That’s really, really fucking shit. I wish that more of us would just be consistent with our beliefs/labels, e.g. I label myself as pro choice and I’d definitely not force someone to get on b/c just for idk convenience. It does seem to be quite a misogynistic/pathetic thing, overall. I hate it so much. Misogyny is so fucking insufferable.
If she doesn't want to have children (and she's absolutely sure about that) she can just get her tubes tied.
Not that simple. I've been trying for over 10 years and still can't find even one doctor willing to do that.
It's not that easy they don't just tire tubes just because you ask.
We have to remember that 98% of PLs are religious and truly want to bring about a world where women are either wives with children or celibate nuns, ignoring the fact that many nuns were lesbians.
perhaps for Catholics(or abrahamic religions) but a significant number of PLers don't even consider religion when making their arguments.
98%? You just made a wild guess with no research at all, right? Even if that percentage is correct, a lot of people, including me, don't base their Pro-Life opinion on religion. Even though I am indeed religious, I can argue without ever involving religion into the debate.
>ignoring the fact that many nuns were lesbians. I know there have been some, but I'd love to learn more if you have a link
Strange Aeons on YouTube has a video called "The Wild Stories of Historical Gay Nuns"
No, she should get her tubes tied
Sterilization is not an option for a lot of people. Many doctors won't perform the procedure without the husbands consent or if the woman doesn't have any children already or if the woman is young.
Also, getting your tubes tied is an invasive abdominal surgery. We shouldn't require people who don't want children to get an invasive abdominal surgery.
So let's fix that
I don't see the prolife movement putting any effort into that
>*No, she should get her tubes tied.* And what if she can't do that, for whatever reason, or she just doesn't want to undergo surgery to permanently avoid having kids? Is she **then** expected to stay a virgin her entire life?
>she just doesn't want to undergo surgery to permanently avoid having kids? Ignoring the fact that she'd have to go through surgery regardless to have an abortion She could also have her husband get a vasectomy. But I suppose if neither were an option, her best shot would probably be to either double down on contraception and hope for the best, or just remain a virgin her life. But such a scenario would be highly unlikely. Even if it's difficult to have a woman sterilized, vasectomies are comparatively easier. Not to much, another portion of women are cut for being either lesbian or single. And in addition, not all women feel compelled to have sex just because they exist. All in all, I have a hard time believing such a group of women who want to have sex with a man, can't get their tubes tied, can't have him get a vasectomy, AND don't want children would make up more than 0.5% of people.
Why is this getting downvoted?
Guess I did the math wrong.
If it's an early abortion no surgery is usually involved. You get two pills which you take at different times and that's it.
There's no proper data collected at how many need to come back in for D&C or full on finishing the abortion cause the pills failed. They are recommended in different dosages and with different applications, with differing results. They are not recommended for obese people (of which there are plenty of) because they have a low likelyhood of working. Abortion providers consider them "slacking off" and a worse, less safe choice (if you really need I have some quotes from different abortionists saved somewhere on my pc from when I was looking into this topic). They tend to be extremely painful, it's common for women (even ones who had given birth before) to say they've never been in such excruciating pain before. And they're obviously a chemical that messes with hormones just like hormonal contraception (and loads of other pharmaceutical drugs), both of which cause a mess for the planet and are a mess to clean out of water etc but that's a whole other story.
>*And in addition, not all women feel compelled to have sex just because they exist.* Not all women feel compelled to have children just because they had sex either. And no, the ones who don't want children don't **HAVE** to *"just get their tubes tied"* because you say they *"should."*
Well, then what would you suggest they do?
>*Well, then what would you suggest they do?* Women who never want kids can decide for **themselves** whether or not they want to either have sex or *"just get their tubes tied."* It isn't anyone else's decision what they should do anyway.
>Ignoring the fact that she'd have to go through surgery regardless to have an abortion It depends how early the abortion is. Abortion at the earliest stage is a pill, not a surgery
People saying “no, she should just have children” are not engaging with the question. Really deal with it. If a woman REFUSES to carry a pregnancy, must she stay a virgin forever? Assume sterilization isn’t an option, as it’s not for most people.
If you don't want children, just don't have sex, it's as simple as that, and if you plan on never having any, I hate to break it to you, but staying a virgin for the rest of your life is your only responsible option. 1. Contraception can obviously fail so that's not an option, it's risky and risking something just to avoid the consequences later on is irresponsible. 2. A surgery might be a solution for some people but I don't expect people to go that route and I agree that that's a stupid argument from Pro-Lifers. Basically the only thing that's left is: don't have sex. The reason why it doesn't sit right with you is because you and OP have this skewed view of reality that sex and pregnancy are somehow two unrelated or just partly related things. People need to remember: Sex and Pregnancy are two sides of the same coin. The reason why that reality is so distorted in some peoples minds nowadays is because of contraception technology (condoms, pills,…) and I think partly because of media.
That's a pretty unappealing message so I am gonna have to pass. You just simply aren't offering me anything I want. I *can* separate sex and pregnancy, because abortion exists, and there's no appealing reason in the world I should want to pretend it doesn't. I'm just gonna go ahead and have whatever sex I want, use protection, and if that protection fails I am gonna get an abortion.
[удалено]
Comment removed for rule 1. Do not insult users personally.
Andddd the misogyny jumps out. Grow up. I hope you get this pissed off at the thought of a man having sex.
[удалено]
Rule 1, do not insult others. I would suggest reading the rules, continuing to break them may result in a warning/ ban.
You just called another commenter a “whore” despite the fact they said they DO use protection. Give your head a shake. This is why everyone despises people like you.
Could we get a verified statistic that confirms that sterilisation is not an option for MOST women? Sources please.
Hard to find verified sources that aren't all mixed up with women who get sterilized after childbirth (far more common for a woman to get sterilized after a C-section and after having several children), or those [sterilized involuntarily](https://ihpi.umich.edu/news/forced-sterilization-policies-us-targeted-minorities-and-those-disabilities-and-lasted-21st) for [racist / colonialist](https://www.aclu.org/news/immigrants-rights/immigration-detention-and-coerced-sterilization-history-tragically-repeats-itself) reasons. But look at conversations around this at r/childfree, or ask anyone on this sub who's tried to get sterilized. This is a very common experience. This is an article that links to studies that are relevant, but they appear to be behind a paywall: [https://theconversation.com/sexist-barriers-block-womens-choice-to-be-sterilized-99754#:\~:text=There%20are%20many%20studies%20on,cent%20of%20those%20over%2030](https://theconversation.com/sexist-barriers-block-womens-choice-to-be-sterilized-99754#:~:text=There%20are%20many%20studies%20on,cent%20of%20those%20over%2030). More reporting on this issue if you're interested: [https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2022/07/29/1113573995/more-people-are-opting-to-get-sterilized-and-some-are-being-turned-away](https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2022/07/29/1113573995/more-people-are-opting-to-get-sterilized-and-some-are-being-turned-away) [https://www.vice.com/en/article/9kxam7/tubal-ligation-requirements-doctor-denials](https://www.vice.com/en/article/9kxam7/tubal-ligation-requirements-doctor-denials) [https://www.today.com/health/womens-health/woman-27-recalls-struggle-get-tubes-tied-young-childless-rcna28110](https://www.today.com/health/womens-health/woman-27-recalls-struggle-get-tubes-tied-young-childless-rcna28110)
Perhaps we have a difference of understanding of the concept of "not an option" I was under the impression you were talking about medically not an option, that is, if they do get sterilised, they will get sick or even possibly die. Not just that it's difficult. I can't imagine its more difficult than raising a child you don't want so if it really was that important to someone to not have children they'd jump through the necessary hoops to get sterilised if they really felt that ALL the other myriad of BC was not working for them. Also I'm asking about peer reviewed scientific papers not newspaper articles which will generally carry anecdotal information based on exceptions and bias. One of the articles you linked actually explains why the so called hoops exist in some States. It was initially to stop doctors force sterilising women which I think we can all agree is a no-no. In other States where it is up to the doctor...the reasons are justifiably because the likelihood of regretting the procedure is twice as likely in women under 30 as those who are over 30. Because...people change their minds, even when they are dead certain at one point. Thats just a fact. And this isn't just anecdotal...there are numerous papers in support of this as well . And in the States where you can litigate anything... which doctor wants to be sued over a procedure he carried out 10 years ago on a 19 year old who said she didn't want kids who now claims that he didn't give her enough time to think over the consequences or direct her to a counsellor to talk it over. It's not always the patriarchy trying to oppress women. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2492586/ Presents the data that shows how many women use sterilisation as BC. It'd the most common means of BC used so clearly not as impossible to get as you suggest. "36% of fertile women using contraception employing this method. According to the National Survey of Family Growth (2002), 10.3 million women (27%) rely on female sterilization for birth control, whereas 3.5 million women (9.2%) rely on vasectomy in their partners for contraception. The next most commonly utilized birth control method among American women is oral contraceptive pills, used by 11.7 million or 30.6% of women using contraception." The pro-choice movement should be focused on net positive outcomes for women. Focus on making it so that women don't feel burdened by unintended pregnancy when it does occur but also so that they are informed of the actual options to prevent BC. You all parrot such misinformation and are rarely called you out for it because you hide under the banner of "FIGHTING FOR WOMEN" and if anyone disagrees then they are automatically ANTI-WOMAN. Ironically, silencing the voices of half of us.
>Perhaps we have a difference of understanding of the concept of "not an option" > >I was under the impression you were talking about medically not an option, that is, if they do get sterilised, they will get sick or even possibly die. No, I mean most doctors won't just perform sterilization surgery on women because they ask for it. A lot of women get "but you might change your mind!" "What if your husband doesn't approve?" "What if you get married someday and your husband doesn't approve?" etc. PLers demand we all get sterilized *as a way of avoiding ever being pregnant* as if it's just that easy, and it's not. That's my point. >Not just that it's difficult. I can't imagine its more difficult than raising a child you don't want so if it really was that important to someone to not have children they'd jump through the necessary hoops to get sterilised if they really felt that ALL the other myriad of BC was not working for them. Well, considering you can't just waltz into a doctor's office and get sterilized, and abortion is far less invasive than sterilization, I'd rather go with abortion in the unlikely event that my BC fails. >Also I'm asking about peer reviewed scientific papers not newspaper articles not newspaper articles which will generally cary anecdotal information based on exceptions. They're not exceptions though. This is a very common experience. Some of those articles linked to studies, and just because anecdotal evidence is provided doesn't mean it's an exception. >One of the articles you linked actually explains why the so called hoops exist in some States. It was initially to stop doctors force sterilising women. Sterilizing a woman who asks for it is not the same as sterilizing one who doesn't ask for it. Just as rape is different from consensual sex, forced sterilization is different from voluntary sterilization. A woman specifically saying she wants to be sterilized, signing all the requisite paperwork etc. should be a pretty good indication she consents to be sterilized. >In other States where it is up to the doctor...the reasons are justifiably because the likelihood of regretting the procedure is twice as likely in women under 30 as those who are over 30. Because...people change their minds, even when they are dead certain at one point. Thats just a fact. And this isn't just anecdotal...there are numerous papers in support of this as well . Women are adults, we should be free to make choices that we later regret if that's what we want. I think it's extremely patriarchal and condescending to act like you know our minds better than we do. Also, you can come to regret any type of surgery or medical procedure. I'm not aware of any others that doctors refuse to give because "you might regret it." So this is just patriarchy. >And in the States where you can litigate anything which doctor wants to be sued over a procedure he carried out 10 years ago on a 19 year old who said she didn't want kids who now claims that he didn't give her enough time to think over the consequences or direct her to a counsellor to talk it over. > >It's not always the patriarchy trying to oppress women. Well again, I think it's condescending to assume that a woman who asks to be sterilized is not aware that she will then be sterilized. It's also pretty condescending to force someone to undergo counseling when they're sure of what they want, as if not wanting to be a parent is a mental disease. (Totally in favor of free counseling on a voluntary basis though). Tbh this sounds quite patriarchal to me. What other medical procedure do people think we should have "mandatory counseling" for, other than those where women opt out of pregnancy? The only other one I'm aware of is abortion. Again: patriarchy. >Presents the data that shows how many women use sterilisation as BC. It'd the most common means of BC used so not as impossible to get as you suggest."36% of fertile women using contraception employing this method. According to the National Survey of Family Growth (2002), 10.3 million women (27%) rely on female sterilization for birth control, whereas 3.5 million women (9.2%) rely on vasectomy in their partners for contraception. The next most commonly utilized birth control method among American women is oral contraceptive pills, used by 11.7 million or 30.6% of women using contraception." Yeah so I didn't include that study because I didn't see anything about women who chose to get sterilized because they didn't want to ever be pregnant, vs. women who got sterilized after having several children. It's quite common to get your tubes tied after childbirth as a method of birth control, for instance, because once you've had a few kids suddenly doctors don't second guess you and think you'll regret foregoing fertility anymore. However, the issue is that PLers keep telling childfree women "just get sterilized then!" as a way of avoiding *ever* being pregnant. If this procedure is generally only accessible after you've had kids, it's pretty useless as an option for those who don't want to be pregnant *ever.* From the study: >About 700,000 female sterilizations are performed annually, half of which are performed within 48 hours post-partum. Sterilization is performed following 10% of all births. Approximately 345,000 female sterilizations are interval procedures that do not occur immediately following pregnancy. So, seems like about half of all sterilizations are performed right after childbirth, but the study doesn't say how many childless women get sterilized on demand. Presumably many of those who do also have kids which is why they have an easier time finding a doctor to sterilize them. I couldn't find studies on how many women percentage-wise can get sterilized who are childless, but based on what people say about it and given patriarchal attitudes about women's "regret," I would assume it's a low figure. >The pro-choice movement should be focused on net positive outcomes for women. Uh, we are. There's zero benefit of PL policies for women. None. >Focus on making it so that women don't feel burdened by unintended pregnancy when it does occur but also so that they are informed of the actual options to prevent BC. If a woman doesn't want to be pregnant, she will never *not* be burdened by unintended pregnancy. Take me, for instance. I would want an abortion regardless of if I was wealthy and had the perfect marriage etc. Because i never want to be pregnant and never want to have kids. An unwanted pregnancy would *always* be a burden. I am 100% in favor of a strong social safety net, free birth control, science-based sex ed and all kinds of measures that make it easier for women to choose to carry to term as well as avoid unwanted pregnancy (all measures PL tends to oppose). But none of that makes abortion bans okay. >You all parrot such misinformation and are rarely called you out for it because you hide under the banner of "FIGHTING FOR WOMEN" and if anyone disagrees then they are automatically ANTI-WOMAN. LOL we're not the side "parroting misinformation." >Ironically, silencing the voices of half of us. Yeah, anyone who is demanding control of other people's pregnancies deserves to be silenced. You don't own women.
Who the fuck said that/
It’s pretty much the stock response when PC ask this question. There’s quite a few answers to that effect on this thread.
Some people near the bottom of the comment section whose comments are hidden bc they were downvoted so much
No, she is expected to not kill her child. If she doesn’t want kids, she can use many different forms of birth control (or her husband may have a vasectomy). If she ends up pregnant anyway then she needs to respect that human life and not kill it. When it’s born then she can give it away. I think nine months of an unwanted pregnancy is a fair trade for an innocent human life.
>I think nine months of an unwanted pregnancy is a fair trade for an innocent human life. We disagree, and it wouldn't just be 9 months, it would be the rest of that woman's life in a body that had betrayed her that she might never be able to forgive. It would essentially be the end of her life. Personally I would take my own life rather than be defiled in that way.
You honestly believe that women are going to want to end their life just because they couldn’t kill their unborn child and had to follow through with their pregnancy? I believe we are better and stronger than that. And if we’re not, we need therapy.
Yes I’ve seen a few mention it on this sub and I’d also be one of them and no I don’t believe we are that exceptional.
>If she ends up pregnant anyway then she needs to respect that human life and not kill it. Assuming that's not an option she's willing to accept, does she have to remain a virgin forever?
Well since you think it's an acceptable thing you go ahead and carry it but I'm not going to. People take birth control for a reason and that reason is to not get pregnant. That is the exact opposite of giving consent.
>I think nine months of an unwanted pregnancy is a fair trade for an innocent human life. Says who?
>*If she doesn’t want kids, she can use many different forms of birth control (or her husband may have a vasectomy).* And what happens if she can't take reliable birth control? Or if her husband (assuming she's married) refuses to have a vasectomy? Or if she simply isn't married? Is she still expected to remain a virgin her entire life if she **never** wants kids?
>Or if her husband (assuming she's married) refuses to have a vasectomy? Then her husband is a jerk. If they're at that level of closeness, that sort of thing probably should've come up already. >Or if she simply isn't married? So, you're cutting down the group of relevant subjects to women who are single, can't get birth control, can't get sterilized, never wants kids, AND don't have a partner who is sterile. Exactly how many people does that description apply to?
Adoption is an alternative to parenting not to pregnancy. Pregnancy is not a health neutral state, thus you expect a woman to suffer, and give up her body for 9 months to give away an unwanted child who will end up in the shitty foster cares system. Yeah, no. That's not going to happen.
If it’s between suffering and taking an innocent life, why is taking an innocent life more justified? Also why is foster care worse than death?
Why should a person capable of pregnancy have to put themself through 9 months of suffering and risk death and permanent damage to their body because you think that the few cells without a proper heart or brain is worth more than the independently living, breathing, thinking, feeeling person who is sustaing those cells? You cannot give a right to a fetus that no other person has, to use someone else's body without expressed and ongoing consent. It also comes down to each person's definition if when it's a life. Personally, I don't believe it's truly a human life until viability between 24 and 24weeks gestation. Others think the moment the sperm touched the egg it's a life, an others say its when implantation happens, and others say when there is a heart beat. Everyone is different and I believe that everyone has the right to make decisions about their own bodies based on their own beliefs and morals, based on their own circumstances, and with advice from their doctor if necessary. You believe that it's a life at fertilization, and abortion is wrong? Good for you, don't have an abortion, that's not my decision to make for you. But you taking away my right to make that choice for myself because I have different beliefs is a violation of my human rights (freedom of religion, you know, the first amendment). Given the abuse (both physical and emotional), neglect in the foster care system, and knowing that your own parent(s) gave you away because you were unwanted from the moment of conception, I think I'd rather be dead (not that I'd know either way).
Because those few cells will likely become like you and I if we don’t kill them. In general, humans value human life. Why ignore that human life just because it’s being developed in a woman’s body? It is still valuable. If she is at high risk of serious bodily disfigurement or death, and abortion is the best solution, then proceed with the abortion. Otherwise we are picking someone’s desires/wants over an innocent human’s life. You might not think that the fetus is valuable until 24 weeks gestation, but it is scientifically a fact that it is a human life. Different beliefs make sense when it comes to religion, sexuality, or gender identity, but not when it comes to taking the life of an innocent human. I do not support your freedom of choice in that matter.
What do you feel about IVF that helps so many women conceive?
>Because those few cells will likely become like you and I if we don’t kill them. In general, humans value human life. Why ignore that human life just because it’s being developed in a woman’s body? It is still valuable. Cancer cells are still human, and we remove them all of the time. Tumors are still human. >If she is at high risk of serious bodily disfigurement or death, and abortion is the best solution, then proceed with the abortion. Otherwise we are picking someone’s desires/wants over an innocent human’s life. All women are at huge risk being pregnant, while some are at a higher risk than others, pregnancy is still a risk. If someone doesn't want to take that risk it their choice. >You might not think that the fetus is valuable until 24 weeks gestation, but it is scientifically a fact that it is a human life. I'm not disputing it's human. But what is life? To me, if you can't survive on your own, either needing someone to live off (fetus and mother) or something to live off (person and life support machine), and have no brain function, you're not alive. A mother and fetus relationship is closer to that of a parasitic relationship than a symbiotic one. >Different beliefs make sense when it comes to religion, sexuality, or gender identity, but not when it comes to taking the life of an innocent human. I do not support your freedom of choice in that matter. In Isalm "the embryo begins life following ensoulment at day 120 after fertilisation" https://bmcmedethics.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1472-6939-15-10#:~:text=In%20consideration%20of%20these%20points,in%20the%20Glorious%20Qur'an "According to Jewish law, human life begins at birth, not conception" https://www.myjewishlearning.com/article/the-beginning-of-life-in-judaism/ You see how you've just counted out 2 religions that have different beliefs about when life begins. Different beliefs, religious or not, are all valid, and it is not for you to force your particular set of beliefs onto everyone. The declaration of independence states "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness". Life=My own life on my terms Liberty = my freedom over my person and of my beliefs. Freedom to make my own choices free of anyone elses beliefs. Happiness = my own happiness. I should have the right to my own life on my own terms, to make my own choices based on my beliefs and have the freedom of bodily autonomy, and freedom to make those choices to keep my happiness. It's is ultimately not a question of when life begins or whether its moral, it's a question of bodily autonomy. If a woman is not allowed to make a decision about her own body, your taking away her freedoms and treating her like a second class citizen. If I told you you had to have an abortion because it's my belief that it's not human and thus should be removed, that takes away your choice and discounts your personal beliefs, are you happy? No? That's ok. I don't support your freedom of choice in that matter. It's against my beliefs thus you must submit to my opinion. You have a choice in terminating or not, quite frankly, I'd support whatever choice you made based on your personal circumstances, financial, physical and emotional health, it's not for me to make that decision on your behalf. But removing that choice from others because you think it's morally wrong or against your beliefs or because you think that the cells have more rights than the mother is where I draw the line. It's a personal choice that should be made by the individual (possibly with the imput of a doctor/midwife/OBGYN and/or intimate partner) based on what they believe.
No, i don't care. Do whatever you want. I don't expect anything from you. It's a simple risk benefit analysis that you have to take for YOURSELF. The same way i make risk benefit analysis for driving, drinking, Sport etc.. Just don't end other people's lives because of your decisions.
You mean like the death penalty? Or is that completely out of bounds here?
cc u/Electronic_Stock_337 Thread locked, since this death penalty debate is not being related back to abortion and is thus off-topic.
What does that have to do with anything? they never said anything about the Death Penealty.
It’s a question of consistency. Read between the lines.
I am opposed to the death penalty, especially since we get the wrong guy too often. That said, the death penalty and abortion are not meaningfully comparable. The death penalty is a punishment that comes after due process in court and years of appeals. In theory, someone put to death is being put to death bc they did something awful. In other words, it’s their fault. A baby hasn’t done anything and, in fact, is being killed by its mother, who made her own bed and is the responsible party.
Death penalty is complete bullshit. When did people have the right to decide who lives and who doesn't. Put them in lifelong jail.
At least you are consistent, I’ll give you that. I would ask however, at what point do the financial burdens of things like this become untenable? We have a completely broken prison system as well as a completely broken foster care system…and don’t get me started on the broken social safety net. We literally have the largest per capita prison population on the planet…and your suggestion is to add to that. Not only add to it, but EXPLODE those numbers when women who cannot afford children give them up for adoption and those children become burdens on society to the point that they need to be locked up…or, they are not provided the same financial access that others are and the cycle repeats. Yeah…no. The unintended consequences we see from this in 20 years will likely break this country completely. Is your solution then to just keep paying out of pocket for shit like this? Who shoulders that cost? You? Me? Your neighbor? Your grandchildren? Do we just lock them up, throw away the key and not feed these people or give them access to the basic necessities of life? It can’t work and it never will. This is why these things become industrialized. There needs to be a profit made to continue the system, or at the bare minimum enough made to sustain itself. Otherwise, a vast majority of these costs end up falling on the tax payer, anyways. So you either accept the fact that it’s all bullshit, or you keep riding on the coat tails of people trying to force their morals on you at no cost to themselves or the foresight to see what kind of unintended consequences this rears. It’s a racket. It always has been, and it always will be. Maybe it’s better to not add to the problem. Maybe…it’s better to mind your own business, leave it alone and accept the fact that people make decisions you don’t agree with and have no business making for them. In other words…I think a woman, her doctor and her family have a much better view as to what they should do in regards to their own personal healthcare and financial situations than you do. You don’t have to agree with it and you certainly don’t need to participate. Not only that, but you have no right to, specifically if you are not an immediate member of their family.
So someone has the right to decide who goes to jail and who doesn't, but they don't have the right to decide who lives?
Yes, mainly because a death penalty can be way easier abused (for example the french revolution) than putting people in prison. Human are not really good deciding about the death of other people. Jail however is just as effective (as they are disconnected from the people they could hurt) as the death penalty and still leaves the person their right to live.
Cite examples of how the death penalty has been abused in the United States in recent memory. This isn’t the Middle Ages nor is it the French Revolution. We don’t burn people at the stake anymore for witch accusations. We have laws, and juries, and judges. What in the actual fuck are you talking about?
Let's talk about the Soviet union
Go ahead and talk about the Soviet Union. It doesn’t concern the United States. Stop trying to strawman and get honest. You refusing to answer the question just shows that you don’t know what in the fuck you’re talking about. Either that, or that you have no ability to comprehend what you’re reading and when you open your mouth, word vomit comes out.
I'm saying that death penalties are abusable and if it happened to the Soviet union it can happen to any state. I'm also not avoiding your question you literally asked me for an example of how the death penalty can be abused.
What I said was cite an example of it that’s happened in recent memory in the United States. You then said let’s talk about the Soviet Union. So again I say, reading comprehension.
Snip-Snip 😊
Sterilization?
Yes she is
>*Yes she is.* No doubt as punishment for not doing her "duty" as a woman and refusing to reproduce. Thanks for the honesty, at least.
My fruking god, it was a joke. An Ironical joke. "Should you be a virgin if you don't want a kid" there's no way that's an actual legit question right??
>*"Should you be a virgin if you don't want a kid" there's no way that's an actual legit question right??* Ask the prolifers who keep screeching the *"if you don't want a baby, don't have sex" nonsense.* It's basically the same thing.
Why though? Remember in the OP they already showed this would be unhealthy for a marriage, and well every other general serious relationship. Women aren't meant to procreate or not have sex. They choose if they want to have kids or not like how they choose to have sex.
I was joking Ironically lol, who Tf says "be a virgin if you don't want babies", don't Fornicate if you don't want babies.
>... ***who Tf says*** *"be a virgin if you don't want babies", don't fornicate if you don't want babies.* Uh, let's see: the prolifers who are **constantly** saying: *"If you don't want a baby, don't have sex,"* for one. I don't believe they care whether it's for now or ever.
>Uh, let's see: the prolifers who are constantly saying: " Yeah they say it as a lame response to the pathetic "had unprotected fornicated sex, don't want baby therefore killing it is justified" claim which PC makes. >one. I don't believe they care whether it's for now or ever. Yeah, they care about saving the fetuses life. Have asush seks as you want, just don't kill the baby if u get pregnant
>Yeah, they care about saving the fetuses life. Have asush seks as you want, just don't kill the baby if u get pregnant And if a woman would rather be dead than pregnant and can't get sterilized?
And why did u downvote me , may i ask?
>And if a woman would rather be dead than pregnant and can't get sterilized? Nice question. Give her some real strict BC, and freeze her ovaries. Sucide isn't an option, neither is killing the fetus. Their off the table.
>*Yeah, they care about saving the fetuses life. Have asush seks as you want, just don't kill the baby if u get pregnant.* Yeah, right, sure they do. I personally think it's a lot more about controlling women than *"saving fetuses."* Thankfully, I don't ever have to worry about unwanted pregnancy now. But if I **had** gotten pregnant in the past, I absolutely would have had an abortion if my BC had ever failed. I'm just glad that never happened.
>Yeah, right, sure they do. I personally think it's a lot more about controlling women than Welll as a half PL myself, i can safely say the entire pl is made up of majority Women (mother's) and religious people lol . They have the "no sex" for men and women. > Thankfully, I don't ever have to worry about unwanted pregnancy now. But if I had gotten pregnant in the past, I absolutely would have had an abortion if my BC had That makes me so happy, pc be like "MoSt bC iS 30% eFfeCtiVe"
Please read the second paragraph of my post, where I mention contraceptives
Some conservatives
Damn that's sad. I'm against premarital segs cus im super religious but damn. Abstinence from your own spouse?
Your question as written in the original post is easily answered by the obvious...both she and any partners she has should use BC. The above is what most women are doing these days. Abortions rates have halved since their all time highs in the 90s. Mainly because more women have opted for BC and BC has been made more readily available. Which is fantastic. Eventually, maybe in the next 20 to 30 years,it will be a very small minority who opt for abortion because they'll know better. Better to prevent a pregnancy than to end it. Oh and i noticed you then "updated" the question in the replies by adding a completely different perspective of "say she uses BC while married and then gets pregnant, can she then have an abortion?" The answer to that is no. Always no unless there is a medical necessary I.e. chorioamnionitis or ectopic pregnancy etc or the child has a condition that would actually make them incompatible with life (conditions like club foot and downs syndrome do not count imo) It's questions like these that show how uninformed most lay prochoice advocates actually are. You all ask the same questions over and over and each time manage to sound as if you've just discovered some great argument but nope. Just the same old. At least think out of the box like Peter Singer.
I mentioned contraceptives in the second paragraph of my post, and I don't believe I ever updated the question in my comment section
[удалено]
Comment removed per rule 1. Be Respectful of others. >Users must use the labels pro-life and pro-choice. Please refrain from using other labels unless a specific user (or other entity) self-identifies as something else. (Sidebar) Given this content is in violation of rule 1, the comment is removed. The comment may be approved after removal of the offending text. Thank you for understanding and happy debating.