TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

  • Subreddits

      Popular

    • /r/askTRP
    • /r/TheRedPill
    • /r/MarriedRedPill
    • /r/MensRights
    • /r/MGTOW
    • /r/PurplePillDebate
    • /r/WhereAreAllTheGoodMen
    • Other

    • /r/AllPillDebate
    • /r/AlreadyRed
    • /r/altTRP
    • /r/AntiFeminists
    • /r/askFDS
    • /r/askMRP
    • /r/askRPC
    • /r/becomeaman
    • /r/BlackPillScience
    • /r/Chadfish
    • /r/Divorce_Men
    • /r/EverydayMisandry
    • /r/ExRedPill
    • /r/FemaleDatingStrategy
    • /r/FeminismStopsWhen
    • /r/GEOTRP
    • /r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates
    • /r/MalePsychology
    • /r/Male_Studies
    • /r/MenSupportMen
    • /r/MGTOW2
    • /r/MuslimRedPill
    • /r/newTRP
    • /r/PussyPass
    • /r/PussyPassDenied
    • /r/RedPillBooks
    • /r/RedPillParenting
    • /r/RedPillWives
    • /r/RedPillWomen
    • /r/RedPillWorkplace
    • /r/RPChristians
    • /r/seduction
    • /r/ThankTRP
    • /r/TheRedPillStories
    • /r/trpGAME
    • /r/TRPOffTopic
    • /r/TrueBlackPillMGTOW
    • /r/WhereAllTheGoodMenAre
  • Blogs

      Popular

    • Dalrock
    • Heartiste
    • Illimitable Men
    • Return of Kings
    • Rian Stone
    • The Rational Male
    • Woujo
    • Other

    • Artful Prudence
    • A Voice for Men
    • Alpha Game
    • Black Label Logic
    • Caleb Jones
    • Captain Capitalism
    • Corporate Machiavelli
    • Days of Game
    • Deep Strength
    • Dicipres
    • Donal Graeme
    • Female Misogynist
    • Free Northerner
    • Gaming My Wife
    • Good Looking Loser
    • Hawaiian Libertarian
    • In Mala Fide
    • KillToParty
    • Kill Your Inner Loser
    • Krauser PUA
    • LaidNYC
    • Married Man Sex Life
    • NO MA'AM
    • Omega Virgin Revolt
    • Pook's Mill
    • Random Xpat Rantings
    • Red Pill Theory
    • Red Pill Wifery
    • RedPillDad
    • RedPillDoctor
    • Seasons of Tumult and Discord
    • Sigma Frame
    • The Feminine Woman
    • The Futurist
    • The Masculine Principle
    • The Modern Man
    • The New Modern Man
    • The Obsidian Files
    • The Power Moves
    • The Private Man
    • The Red Pill Room
    • The Red Quest
    • The Rules Revisited
    • The Spearhead
    • Troy Francis
    • Wintery Knight
    • Young Man Red Pill
  • Books
  • Dictionary
  • @TRParchive
  • Please help TheRedArchive stay alive

What is your opinion on the new Oklahoma abortion law.

Pr0X_JoshiGuy

April 7, 2022
91 upvotes
/r/MensRights

View Poll

Download the post

Want to save the post for offline use on your device? Choose one of the download options below:

PDF TXT EPUB
Share
Share Tweet Reddit Email
Post Information
Title What is your opinion on the new Oklahoma abortion law.
Author

Pr0X_JoshiGuy

Upvotes 91
Comments 487
Date April 7, 2022 10:56 AM UTC
(4 years ago)
Subreddit Posted in /r/MensRights
Original Link https://old.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/tyagtu/what_is_your_opinion_on_the_new_oklahoma_abortion/
Archive Link https://theredarchive.com/r/MensRights/what-is-your-opinion-on-the-new-oklahoma-abortion.1110925
https://theredarchive.com/post/1110925
Red Pill terms in post
feminism
Top posts by Pr0X_JoshiGuy

The ersased victims (credits: "TheTinMen" on Instagram)

718 upvotes
November 29, 2022
/r/MensRights

Im speechless

387 upvotes
November 26, 2022
/r/AntiFeminists

”When a partner isolates their spouce from friends, assiciates, and public places , it’s called domestic abusen. When it’s done to an entire gender, it’s called feminism.”

54 upvotes
November 19, 2021
/r/MensRights

I have no words for this

25 upvotes
November 18, 2022
/r/AntiFeminists

Why does he even have to ask this.

16 upvotes
December 28, 2021
/r/MensRights

They did it again they turned something into, We ArE ViCtImS, EvErYoNe HaTeS uS!

1 upvotes
January 27, 2022
/r/MensRights

This is a problem in my opinion. Why are people only asking the women if she okay. The men take an equally hard emotional hit. Btw I understand that the women went through birthing the dead child, but still

1 upvotes
January 21, 2022
/r/MensRights

oh no, now I don't want equal treatment.

1 upvotes
March 6, 2022
/r/MensRights

Comments

[–]turtleman2233 90 points91 points92 points 4 years ago* (198 children) | Copy Link

The abortion argument right now is like comparing apples to oranges. One side believes it is the women's choice, and the other side believes that the baby is human. The other side to "it's the woman's choice" is "it isn't the woman's choice. And the other side to "the baby is human" is "the baby isn't human."

Edit: I mispoke, I meant to say fetus. (Or baby, or whatever you see fit.)

Edit 2: I don't know what I'm saying, apparently.

[–]Zelda2hot 37 points38 points39 points 4 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

SpunkyDred is a terrible bot instigating arguments all over Reddit whenever someone uses the phrase apples-to-oranges. I'm letting you know so that you can feel free to ignore the quip rather than feel provoked by a bot that isn't smart enough to argue back.


SpunkyDred and I are both bots. I am trying to get them banned by pointing out their antagonizing behavior and poor bottiquette.

[–]here_for_a_fun_ride 11 points12 points13 points 4 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Reddit Wars: The Bot Wars

[–]eddboat112 2 points3 points4 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Revenge of the Mods

[–]SuninMyPalm 10 points11 points12 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

"orange is sweet AND sour so it is better"

"newton discovered gravity with an apple so it is better"

[–]18Apollo18 8 points9 points10 points 4 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

Edit: I mispoke, I meant to say fetus. (Or baby, or whatever you see fit.)

Fetus isn't even correct. The fetal stage starts at 8 weeks.

This bill prevents abortion at any stage including a zygote and embryo

[–]XandogxD 7 points8 points9 points 4 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Fetus is the Latin word for Baby lol

Just sayin!

[–]18Apollo18 2 points3 points4 points 4 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

First of all that's not even true.

Second of all, the original meaning of a word in Latin is pretty irrelevant. Most words borrowed adopt a new meaning only slightly related to the original meaning in Latin.

fētus (feminine fêta, neuter fêtum); first/second declension adjective

  1. pregnant, full of young

  2. fruitful, productive

  3. youthful, young

  4. of one who has recently given birth; nursing

fētus m (genitive fētūs); fourth declension

  1. A bearing, birth, bringing forth.

  2. Offspring, young, progeny.

  3. Fruit, produce.

  4. (figuratively) Growth, production.

https://en.m.wiktionary.org/wiki/fetus#Latin

[–]XandogxD 0 points1 point2 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

“Fetus was used to refer to a newborn child also in Latin: In Latin, fetus sometimes was transferred figuratively to the newborn creature itself, or used in a sense of "offspring, brood" (as in Horace's "Germania quos horrida parturit Fetus").”

Lol

“Of the one who has given birth, nursing.”

“A bearing, birth, bringing forth.”

“Offspring, young, progeny.”

I wonder what those are talking about…? I’ve been reading Latin and old English most of my life and went to college to not only learn more but also learn Medical Terminology as well.

We live in a world where people change the definition of words to define whatever they want because if you can’t change truth, you can change what that truth applies to.

Like the idea that “gender and sex are different things”. facepalm

New age thinking has given people a god complex and it’s absolutely ridiculous.

But in short, fetus means baby in Latin. The only reason we don’t use it is because if you outright call something a baby, people are a 100 times less likely to murder it.

Actually fun fact. Killers will try to distance themselves emotionally from their prey by using language to dehumanize them. Doing this allows them to better carry out their malicious intentions without the pause for conscious decisions and better justification of the evil act.

And guess what everyone is doing.

Using language to dehumanize unborn babies. They do this to earn a profit and to carry out malicious intent under the guise that “it’s not a baby it’s a FETUS”. To reduce conscious weight and to justify their evil.

[–][deleted] 7 points8 points9 points 4 years ago (26 children) | Copy Link

Nobody says the baby isn't human, scientific facts say the fetus isn't a sentient human yet. And religion disagreeing and talking about a soul owned by an old man in the sky should not be part of legal decisions.

[–]TrilIias 25 points26 points27 points 4 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

I don't think the pro-life position is dependent on religion.

[–]MusicallyManiacal 2 points3 points4 points 4 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

It absolutely is not. It has to do with whether you think a living human being is valuable or not. If you do, then you’re against killing it. If you don’t, you’re okay with killing it.

[–]KochiraJin 2 points3 points4 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

More specifically, it's about when the unborn qualify for the rights of people.

[–]turtleman2233 6 points7 points8 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I'm not talking about religion in any way here. (What does it have to do with my comment?) I also don't hear anyone saying "the baby/fetus isn't human", but that would contradict the statement "the baby/fetus (whatever you want to call it) is human." The argument "it is the woman's choice " does not contradict "the baby/fetus is human."

[–]haaappppyyy 4 points5 points6 points 4 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

“a soul owned by an old man in the sky should not be part of legal decisions.”?

My advice you go read more about the Abrahamic religions. You make it sound like believers in God don’t have logical and scientific reasons to believe in God.

I believe there’s evidence in scripture and in science and philosophy.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 4 years ago* (1 child) | Copy Link

My advice you go read more about the Abrahamic religions.

Eight years of reading it was enough.

There is not a single evidence to any higher power. Science describes how the world works around us, it cannot describe anything we've never observed. Even theoretical physics that really goes deep into quantum mechanics only describes how something we know for a fact exists could work at its core. Religious logic however falls into the "you cannot disprove it, so god exists" and "you cannot explain this, therefore it's god's work" categories, that's the opposite of a scientific argument.
Religious people can be scientists, there's plenty of them, but they have no evidence for anything and most of them aren't even trying to search for one. The rest aren't acknowledged by the scientific community as people doing scientific work and they often take apart what these "scientists" say and explain why it doesn't make sense.

[–]c4ptnh00k 2 points3 points4 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I agree that religion should have no part in the legislation process and I claim no religious affiliation.

With that out of the way, your argument overly generalized the basis that commenter was saying. There are in fact things that religious groups have been right about. Making religion and logic mutually exclusive is just lazy. There are a lot of things "science" or "religion" can't answer.

So yes stay curious and don't make "science" your replacement for a god. Theories are just that, theories. This idea of "more likely" will always just be an opinion.

[–]Rex9 -2 points-1 points0 points 4 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

I believe there’s evidence in scripture and in science and philosophy.

And you are part of the problem. The is zero part of reality in scripture. As long as people keep turning to fables for answers they're going to keep repeating the same mistakes.

[–]haaappppyyy 0 points1 point2 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I’m a Muslim. Have you read the holy Quran?

[–]EddPW 2 points3 points4 points 4 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

scientific facts say the fetus isn't a sentient human yet.

thats not a good enough reason to me

its a scientific fact youre not sentient while you sleep (at least for several periods of time) it doesnt mean i get to kill you

theres no consistent logic you can aply to justify abortion

and this is a side note but not to mention that if a person kills a pregnant woman they get charged for two murders so in the eyes of the law the fetus is only a person until its inconvenient

[–]chykin 1 point2 points3 points 4 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

its a scientific fact youre not sentient while you sleep (at least for several periods of time

Sorry what?

[–]EddPW 2 points3 points4 points 4 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

its right there buddy

[–]chykin 0 points1 point2 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

OK sure but do you have a source for that claim?

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

and talking about a soul owned by an old man in the sky should not be part of legal decisions.

We also believe murdering adults is wrong for this reason. But according to you, our morals shouldn't be part of legal decisions -- so I assume you'd be fine with legalized murder?

[–]18Apollo18 -2 points-1 points0 points 4 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Do you know what a fetus is?

The fetal stage starts at week 8.

At week 8 the central nervous system also starts developing.

A fetus therefore is capable of feeling pain and experiencing thoughts.

Fetuses by definition are sentiant.

Embryos and zygotes aren't though.

[–]According-Sock-9641 1 point2 points3 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Right? Triggered pro-abortionists downvoted you.

[+][deleted] -6 points-5 points-4 points 4 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

Don't care, Christ is King

[–]ChefButtes 1 point2 points3 points 4 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

Not my king

[+][deleted] -8 points-7 points-6 points 4 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

Accept Christ as your saviour, or suffer eternal punishment.

[–]ChefButtes 0 points1 point2 points 4 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Wrong! I'm pretty sure Jesus and I (if he was ever even real) would be pretty good buddies. I bet we'd frequently break bread together and gripe about the oppressive rich and discuss how to make life better for everyone.

I honestly have no fucking interest in worshipping anyone. I will be a good person on my own merits, and if God has a problem with that he can go fuck himself. I don't wanna be in a club where you gotta stroke off the leader to get into. I'm not religious, but I am not afraid even if there is a heaven or hell. I believe I live a righteous life and I treat those around me with the same respect I receive from them. If that doesn't get me into heaven, I bet hell is a cooler place anyway.

[–]TracyMorganFreeman 2 points3 points4 points 4 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Jesus was magic. It's easy to have those ideas when you can break the rules of reality.

You being rejected from heaven doesn't imply that makes hell a lot cooler, only more accepting.

I'm an atheist but I find most atheists haven't thought through their positions any more than the religious.

[–]Nightwynd 0 points1 point2 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

On your last point, I can only agree if we're considering atheists that we're always atheist. Those that have deconverted though have had to think about it a lot. I know I did.

[–]PikaDicc -2 points-1 points0 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I’ll one ticket to eternal damnation 🙋‍♂️

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I bet you use this excuse to justify ever shitty thing you’ve ever done.

[–]According-Sock-9641 -1 points0 points1 point 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Unborn babies are concious and have memories. Stop lying. They remember food they like, music they like, they recognize their mother's voice etc in the womb and even kick when they taste or hear something they like. When babies are born, they keep the same favorite foods and favorite music they had in the womb.  They respond better to their mother's voice because they remember it from when they were in the womb.

With your argument, people in comas should be murdered because they "aren't conscious or sentient".

[–]dcs577 5 points6 points7 points 4 years ago (52 children) | Copy Link

A fetus is human but killing it is not wrong. That’s the position pro-choice people such as myself should be taking.

[–]18Apollo18 6 points7 points8 points 4 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

A fetus is human

The fetal stage doesn't start until week 8.

This ban isn't banning abortion after week 8 but rather banning it completely.

[–][deleted] 4 points5 points6 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Stages of development like “fetus” vs embryo vs baby are just arbitrary designations. They don’t define the ontological essence of the conceptus from zygote forward, to wit: a human being.

[–]Cheddre 3 points4 points5 points 4 years ago (45 children) | Copy Link

Fr unless you're spouting shit you don't understand such as the argument that a fetus is "just a clump of cells!1!!1!" (yeah, that's what life is), no one actually argues that the fetus isn't human. The argument is that since the fetus is not developed enough to be conscious it is human, but not a person. Killing a fetus before it develops sentience is morally analogous to killing one of your organs or chopping up a carrot for dinner or something. And really, even a developed fetus acts very similarly to an organ (or tumor lol) until birth, but I still think the arbitrary line is drawn around the point when a fetus develops a substantial amount of nerve cells since we can't really tell when something becomes conscious

[–]dcs577 6 points7 points8 points 4 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

I’m being genuine. I agree but the position I always see in the media for pro-choice is more focused on bodily autonomy than why it’s okay to kill a fetus. It leaves the two sides arguing past each other. Pro-lifers chief concern seems to be that abortion is akin to murder. I think we have to engage on that point. Because if it is murder, then the bodily autonomy point isn’t going to supersede that.

[–]Cheddre 6 points7 points8 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Agreed 100% dude. Just wish people would educate themselves on not just the things they disagreed with but the things they agreed with too. Gotta be confirmation bias or smt like that

[–][deleted] -2 points-1 points0 points 4 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

Idk. Pro choice means giving people more power to fuck whatever and dump whatever. Perhaps too much power for a human. Population rates are in decline so i’d hate to see what ‘normalizing’ abortion can do. Perhaps keeping the law out of it, and letting family & society judge is the best route.

If the government stayed out of marriages & families that would be good too

[–]dcs577 3 points4 points5 points 4 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

Why is population growth decline a bad thing?

[–][deleted] -2 points-1 points0 points 4 years ago* (6 children) | Copy Link

If you want a 2nd generation to upkeep things, else expect more abandoned cities, failing infrastructure, obv shit.

Also the prospect of fighting a ground war against a nation that has 4x your population is strategically demoralizing.

You need people to compete and so long as others are not willing to participate in a population decline, you cannot afford to else your entire population is at risk to being dependent on another nation. This is happening today.

Some ideologues believe population growth is bad because the human race is like a ‘virus’ or something.

Not very fun at parties type of people and a resentment filled idea that probably needs therapy. The planet can handle us, has handled worse, and will continue to handle long after we’re gone. We have the tools and know how to sustain.

[–]dcs577 -1 points0 points1 point 4 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

Why are those bad things? (Failing Infrastructure and collapse and so on)?

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points1 point 4 years ago* (4 children) | Copy Link

Idk why is killing fetuses a good idea to you? If you’re going to ask rhetorical question after rhetorical question preceded by a downvote, i can respond in kind. Add to the conversation or gtfo kid.

Structures that fail cause death and chaos, as we’ve seen throughout history and recently in the US, you can see the worst affects in places like puerto rico, ukraine now, Liberia, to name a few. Pop collapse would destroy life if you take the easy approach and just “erm derp dis isn’t bad why have more population”. Stuff like this needs control and everyone needs to be on board

[–]dcs577 0 points1 point2 points 4 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

Seems well thought out.

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points1 point 4 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

So its OK to pull the plug on someone comatose with a >90% chance of waking up in 9 months?

Edit: No brain activity. Brain dead during that time. Just a clump of cells, now, right? Doesn't matter much that it would have had sentience, if i can just pull the plug now and not deal with it.

Edit2: and if i discover a new type of anesthesia that induces this state, do they lose all rights to life while they're under?

[–]Cheddre -1 points0 points1 point 4 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Ooh, I like this one! I don't think that's okay because the comatose human already has established relationships, possessions, whatever else that don't become void when they're unconscious. That's why I'd say they retain their personhood.

A fetus cannot establish relationships, cannot reason, is not conscious, and never was. Even if it does have the potential for this with time. That's why by killing it, you're not really taking anything away that was already there.

Just a clump of cells, now, right?

Well yeah, but like I said this argument is dogshit. You and I are clumps of cells lol that's what life is.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 4 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

established relationships, possessions, whatever else that don't become void when they're unconscious

You make a lot of assumptions about the average redditor person 😂

That's why I'd say they retain their personhood.

This is the real issue. Personhood isn't up to you. The points where you as a human, and therefore a person, change to then not be you as a human are conception and death

Any other defining of "People" beyond that puts you in the same category as nazis, dictators, racists, slavers, and murderers. The group of people who work to exclude a section from the "People" category is full of assholes, and now is no different.

There are a bunch of other reasons to advocate for abortion. The only reason people are in such denial about when a persons life starts is because they don't want to feel guilty over something they were going to do anyway. It's a fucked up form of ego defense, and its stupid to allow it in rational discussions about public policy and law.


Edit: Also, i'd like to note you just equated someone's relationships, possessions, and other material things with their value as a person. All those lonely homeless people unpeople can just get fucked, huh? No people in that category (actually, given how they're treated, thats exactly what people seem to think...)


Edit2:

A fetus cannot establish relationships

Actually... i'm gonna challenge that one, too. Plenty of mothers and fathers are talking to the child from conception, and that is definitely part of building a relationship with the future child. And if that woman is murdered, it's treated as a double homicide.

Your line of logic with this is very disturbing. It's a tad too close to "If no one cares about them i can do whatever the fuck i want"

[–]DoppelGangHer88 -1 points0 points1 point 4 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

Look up the definition of "person," and get back to me.

[–]Cheddre 0 points1 point2 points 4 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

“A person is a being that has certain capacities or attributes such as reason, morality, consciousness or self-consciousness, and being a part of a culturally established form of social relations such as kinship, ownership of property, or legal responsibility.”

Aw, what's the matter? Did I not use the dictionary you wanted me to use? As it turns out, the definition of a person is something that has been highly debated in philosophy since before we started counting years upwards, but I wouldn't expect you to know that.

[–]DoppelGangHer88 -2 points-1 points0 points 4 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

Wikipedia is not a valid source, and it makes a distinction at the top rightly separating out the subjective description with the scientific one.

The definition of a person is a human being.

[–]Cheddre 0 points1 point2 points 4 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

...Really? The best you could do is “b-b-but Wikipedia isn't a valid source!!!!!1!!1!!1" Do you know why people say that beyond your teacher's textbook explanation of "Well, kids, anyone can edit Wikipedia!"

The definition you like is not the correct one. You learn this in pre-K. If you have an intellectual disability, please let me know and I'll go easier on you.

[–]DoppelGangHer88 -2 points-1 points0 points 4 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

It's not "the definition I like," its *the* standard, scientific and objective definition since the beginning of time. Just because some philosophers and eugenicists wanted to squabble about which humans deserved to be humans the most doesn't mean they were right to do so.

[–]Cheddre 0 points1 point2 points 4 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

It's not "the definition I like," its the standard, scientific and objective definition since the beginning of time.

Says who? LMFAO

Just because some philosophers and eugenicists wanted to squabble about which humans deserved to be humans the most doesn't mean they were right.

The only award you'll ever get is #1 prize for the world's most obvious straw man.

[–]DoppelGangHer88 -2 points-1 points0 points 4 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Just like Wikipedia isn't a valid source, that wasn't any kind of valid rebuttal.

I've made my point and you seem to have nothing else to contribute so, have a nice day. :)

[–]According-Sock-9641 -1 points0 points1 point 4 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Unborn babies are concious and have memories. Stop lying. They remember food they like, music they like, they recognize their mother's voice etc in the womb and even kick when they taste or hear something they like. When babies are born, they keep the same favorite foods and favorite music they had in the womb.  They respond better to their mother's voice because they remember it from when they were in the womb.

With your argument, people in comas should be murdered because they "aren't conscious".

[–]Cheddre 0 points1 point2 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Uh, I hate to be the one to inform you of this, but you need to have a brain to be conscious and form memories lmao. I hope you don't think your salad remembers and resents you for eating it.

Once a fetus has developed a brain, I along with most people don't think aborting it is ethical, despite what PragerU or whatever garbage you watch tells you.

Regarding comatose humans. People in comas are, in fact, not conscious.

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points1 point 4 years ago (20 children) | Copy Link

Newborn babies are not sentient, and you’re not sapient.

[–]Cheddre -1 points0 points1 point 4 years ago (19 children) | Copy Link

Ah, so you're one of those chimpanzees who think preforming surgery on a baby without anesthetics is ethical. You're a disgusting person.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 4 years ago (18 children) | Copy Link

What are you even talking about?! You’re the one who wants to kill babies in utero.

[–]Cheddre -1 points0 points1 point 4 years ago (17 children) | Copy Link

If newborn babies aren't sentient, then how are fetuses sentient?

Lmfao actually I shouldn't expect to hear logic from somebody who seriously believes humans aren't animals, lmfao. What a moron 😂

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points1 point 4 years ago (16 children) | Copy Link

Sentience has nothing to do with ontological essence as a human being who deserves legal protection. Babies are not sentient for quite some time after being born. So what’s your point? Shall we kill newborns because they lack sentience?

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points1 point 4 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

That makes you sound worse, actually, because now you are admitting it is human, but saying it's not wrong to kill it. As a pro-lifer, most of us would consider that proving our point.

[–]dcs577 0 points1 point2 points 4 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Your mistake is in the belief that it is always wrong to take a human life. Just being a member of the human species doesn’t automatically confer a certain level of moral significance. Is a fetus a member of our species? Obviously. Does it have the same characteristics as an average adult? No. It does not know it is alive, it doesn’t have a desire to go on living. It does not have plans for the future nor a conception of the finality of death. Depending on the stage of development, it doesn’t feel pain or equivalent pain. Why does it have the same moral significance as an adult? Do you really think killing a fetus is equivalent?

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 4 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Your mistake is in the belief that it is always wrong to take a human life.

Yes, there are instances where unfortunately someone might have to take another person's life. For example, if someone attacked you and you killed them in self defense. In regards to abortion, this is why I don't have a problem with a mother getting an abortion IF the pregnancy poses a serious danger to her physical health.

However, there is a difference between killing out of self-preservation/defense, and killing out of convenience. It's not "wrong" for me to kill my attacker to save my own life. However, that doesn't mean I can kill my toddler because taking care of them is inconvenient.

Does it have the same characteristics as an average adult? No.

Neither does a five-year-old. Or a ten-year-old. Or a fifteen-year-old. Of course it's not going to have the same characteristics of a fully grown adult -- that's a ludicrous argument.

It does not know it is alive, it doesn’t have a desire to go on living.

Actually that's incorrect -- it is very much aware that it's alive. It grows, it eats, it lives. It does have the desire to go on living. In fact, there are documented instances of a fetus contributing to the healing of the injuries of the mother. I would call that self-preservation.

Also, to again bring up this point, I seriously doubt a toddler would know what it is to be alive. Or a newborn, for that matter. How would you be able to tell if something "knows" it's alive?

It does not have plans for the future nor a conception of the finality of death.

I encourage you to ask a newborn what their plans are for their future. Also, the next four-year-old you see, ask them what death is. Surely since they aren't fetuses, they'll have the knowledge to explain it to you!

[–]dcs577 0 points1 point2 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Growing and eating are not evidence that something knows it’s alive. A tree grows and eats too. In fact trees heal themselves. What does it prove that a fetus heals? This had nothing to do with self awareness.

Again, you are being obtuse. Sure a newborn isn’t as aware as an adult. Human development is a spectrum…a process…these things don’t occur all at once or don’t you know that?

There is a legitimate argument to be had on where in the process to draw the line…when abortion shouldn’t be allowed or should have greater restrictions. I think it’s quite clear that that point is not conception…it’s sometime after that and before birth. Many people put it at viability…about 24 weeks. That’s more restrictive than I’d go with but it’s much more reasonable and thought out than this law were all talking about.

[–]DoppelGangHer88 3 points4 points5 points 4 years ago (25 children) | Copy Link

The baby being human isn't a belief it's a fact.

[–]bibkel 4 points5 points6 points 4 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

Devil's advocate, this time the opposite direction (I am FIRMLY pro choice).

​

You are correct in that a human is formed with a start of e"gg meets sperm".

​

The zygote/embryo/fetus/baby/human cannot be outside the mother's body and survive on it's own. Once it can have a chance of survival, even with medical intervention, it is a separate human.

​

So, when would a mother be allowed to terminate that life, or allow it to continue to grow? If it would create a hardship for the mother as she is already struggling to make ends meet, when is the responsible time to choose to not have another "burden" of a mouth to feed and diapers to change, clothes to buy, day care to obtain? (I am speaking purely clinically, rather than with emotions).

​

A miscarriage happens naturally, but if that embryo begins to grow and she now tests positive for growth hormones (which is getting easier, earlier than when I was younger) she has a window of time to decide a HUGE life changing decision. What is the earliest this would be acceptable and what is the latest? 4-6 weeks? maybe 12? 6 months? just before birth? Once born, it is a separate whole person and there is no guarantee it will be adopted, so let's assume she would keep the child. She planned ahead, was cautious and is in a long term committed relationship and never wanted children. She is perusing a degree, woking full time and attending graduate school 3/4 time. What would you say to her?

[–]EddPW 1 point2 points3 points 4 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

and survive on it's own.

it wont survive on its own regardless if its in the womb or not

when is the responsible time to choose to not have another "burden" of a mouth to feed and diapers to change, clothes to buy, day care to obtain? (I am speaking purely clinically, rather than with emotions).

when youre about to have sex

i dont understand why this is such a controversial topic if youre in a such precarious position that you cant have a child maybe you shouldnt be risking it by having sex

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 4 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

when youre about to have sex

THIS. THISSSSSSSSSS.

People literally act like I'm the devil and somehow "oppressing" women when I mention abstinence. Yet somehow they accept the same logic easily when applied to other decisions.

If you don't want to risk getting drunk, then don't drink. If you don't want to risk an OD, don't do drugs. If you don't want to risk getting arrested, don't break the law.

It really shows how many people would rather just kill a living being than restrain themselves in any way. Contrary to societal belief, sex is not a requirement of a relationship. You literally don't have to have sex, ever -- you just choose to.

[–]bibkel -1 points0 points1 point 4 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

So, you are saying that in a marriage that is 20 years old, and they have chosen to remain childless for whatever reason, they should never have sex because it could result in a pregnancy-even with modern medicine and a vasectomy, BC pills and condom use the pregnancy could happen (although the chance is super slim) and that would be considered a normal, healthy marriage?

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

and that would be considered a normal, healthy marriage?

"Normal"? Probably not by society's definition, no, but it certainly doesn't have to be. Healthy? If they love each other, yes. Sex is and never has been a requirement for a healthy relationship. Shocking, I know.

Alternatively they could use multiple forms of protection. Yes, vasectomies have that super slim chance of failing. But a vasectomy, and a condom, while she's on birth control? Do you have any idea how astronomically non-existent the odds of causing a pregnancy are? Even if by slim chance one of them fail -- two, even -- there's still a backup.

[–]bibkel 0 points1 point2 points 4 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

The rest of "survive on it's own" was omitted or ignored. I mentioned outside the mother's womb and even if medical intervention is needed. A 6 week old fetus cannot survive outside the womb (barring test tube babies) and a fetus that is 24 weeks (iirc, or whatever medical NICU can manage) has a fighting chance.

​

It will survive if the fetus is developed enough, and it will need medical help. An infant also needs help to survive-that isn't my point at all. We are only talking about from conception to birth.

​

As I asked the other commenter, if a couple is in a marriage for 20 years, and has chosen to be child free, do you think it is normal and healthy to never have sex in that relationship? Even if they have had a vasectomy, use BC pills and wear a condom every time? Because there is that small minuscule chance of conception, they should abstain for the entirety of their lives?

[–]EddPW 0 points1 point2 points 4 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

The rest of "survive on it's own" was omitted or ignored.

because it adds nothing a new born cannot survive on its own

An infant also needs help to survive-that isn't my point at all. We are only talking about from conception to birth.

if i understood correctly your point was that fetus should be considered a separate entity when it has a fighting chance outside the womb

and i think for all intents and purpose thats a horrible way to look at it its not a consistent train of thought

by all means the fetus is a separate human from the mother from the moment its conceived

, if a couple is in a marriage for 20 years, and has chosen to be child free, do you think it is normal and healthy to never have sex in that relationship? Even if they have had a vasectomy, use BC pills and wear a condom every time? Because there is that small minuscule chance of conception, they should abstain for the entirety of their lives?

i think its up to them

sex for all intents and purpose exists to make babies if they want to have sex its up to them but every time they do so they are knowingly accepting the risk of pregnancy

and if it happens well too bad im not for killing another human being just because two people decided to have sex

as far as i see it theres only three times an abortion makes sense

in case the mothers life is in danger the baby has serious health problems or the mother was raped

anything else i dont see why another human being has to pay the price for what two consenting adults did

´maybe im being unreasonable but thats the way i see it

[–]bibkel 0 points1 point2 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

So, if the fetus has serious health problems it’s ok to abort? What about downs? What about cerebral palsy? Lots of others as well…I know of a few people (personally, not ones in the news) that suffer from health issues such as these. My step daughter is special needs. Those would be ok to abort?

A child of rape, who didn’t have anything to do with the rape, is ok to abort?

It also is very relevant in that a zygote cannot survive no matter how much help it is given, but a 24 week developed fetus can survive outside the womb, given the right care. So, I see that as extremely relevant to my point.

[–]DoppelGangHer88 1 point2 points3 points 4 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

No person should have the unilateral power to deprive another human being of their natural rights; which include the right to life.

It is a separate and whole human being from conception and simple geography or reliance on another to survive doesn't negate its inherent humanity. If anyone's rights are being violated, it would be those of of the fetus, since it is forced into being by its creators and then deprived of its human rights.

Actions have consequences. Despite your appeal to not include emotion, you sure have included a lot of spurious information designed to tug on the heart strings when it comes to the mother. It's irrelevant. None of that negates human rights.

[–]bibkel 0 points1 point2 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Interesting take.

​

I wanted to make it a challenge, rather than the result of a one night stand. Having background, and the clear intention to NOT create a new life, yet finding oneself in a position to make the biggest decision of their life, I wonder if she should halt her progression in her life to care for a child that began unwanted. Should the mother simply stop her life because she is with child? She cannot sustain a full time job, school and etc as she did prior to taking on the responsibility of another life. One suggested that she never have sex, to avoid this. Imagine being married/committed to a life partner for ten plus years and never having sex for fear of procreating. Would that be a healthy, sustainable relationship?

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

"Time to (wo)man up. You made a baby with that girl boy and now you're going to take care of it"

Oh... sorry. That's not the equality you were looking for, is it?

[–]18Apollo18 -1 points0 points1 point 4 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link

A zygote isn't anymore of a human than the sperm cell and egg cells men and women release all the time.

It's literally just an egg cell and a sperm cell.

An early embryo isn't any more a human than the dead skin you loose everyday.

It's literally just a cluster of cells.

The embryo doesn't even start slightly resembling a human until 5 weeks.

A heart beat can be detected around 6-7 weeks.

The fetal stage starts at week 8, at the point the brain and central nervous system start to develop.

At minimum it would take until week 6 to where you could consider the embryo a human if not week 8.

[–]DoppelGangHer88 1 point2 points3 points 4 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

From the point of conception, it is a human being, by definition. Being a zygote or a "cluster of cells" as you so crassly put it, is part of the human life cycle.

What you're describing is your personal political belief system, not anything with a scientific, objective or moral basis.

[–]Le_ed -2 points-1 points0 points 4 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

How is a single cell a human? Or a small cluster of undifferentiated cells a human? Having human DNA doesn't make it a human, or, as OP said, your skin cells could be considered human. If you amputate a finger, does if mean you are killing millions of humans? After all, there were millions of living cells with human DNA in your finger. If you transplant stem cells (which are also undifferentiated), does that mean you are taking humans from inside another human and putting them inside a third human?

In absolutely no way a zygote is a human form conception, "by definition". You are just wrong.

[–][deleted] 3 points4 points5 points 4 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

Alright kiddo, since you're having a hard time wrapping your mind around it.

YOU (i assume) are a human.

At some point you were not human.

There was a point that you moved from not human to human.

That point is conception, because there is no other singular point in your life that could be described as this way. It is literally when you began.

Which is why we would say, about your life, that when you started you were just a single cell at the time. That single cell is as important as the rest of you, or you at 2, or you at 20, or you at 200. They're all just different stages of 'you' that are all made of completely different matter than the others and pretending it was never the case because you don't like the implications is just childish denial of reality.

[–][deleted] 4 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Pretty sure you might be

[–]Le_ed -3 points-2 points-1 points 4 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Do you to think that talking in a condescending way makes you right? Not only are your arguments wrong, your method of delivering them shows blatant lack of intelectual maturity.

Your argument is wrong because of the fundamental assumption that there needs to be a single point where you weren't human before it, and after it you were. It is a fundamental misunderstanding. Going from a zygote to a human is a continuous process, and your trying to interpret it as being a discrete one is just forcing your own assumptions into it.

And even if there needed to be a single point between human and not human (which is not the case, but whatever), your logic for it being the zygote is enterely cicular. You are just saying that that point is you because it is you. You are starting from the assumption that the zygote is a human and coming to the conclusion that the zygote is a human.

You can make various better arguments for a point in fetal development where a fetus turns into a human. You can say that having a heart beat is fundamental to "humanness", you can say that having a complex brain is what makes a human a human, or many other arguments. Any of these would be a better argument than you made, and yet no sound argument supports a zygote as being human.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Do you to think that talking in a condescending way makes you right? Not only are your arguments wrong, your method of delivering them shows blatant lack of intelectual maturity.

No, talking in a condescending way indicates the level of ability of the person i believe i'm talking to, thank you for proving me right.

there needs to be a single point where you weren't human before i

Doesn't "need to be", is

it being the zygote is enterely cicular.

You made a claim of a logical fallacy by changing my argument. The unique pattern of the DNA in that first cell is you because that is the point when we move backwards when you suddenly become not you.

You're the one who doesn't have any logic in this argument, so maybe stop trying to use things you don't understand?

You can make various better arguments for a point in fetal development where a fetus turns into a human.

You can say that having a heart beat is fundamental to "humanness"

Didn't realize humingbirds were more human than me (oh, are we at the point were we can throw in arbitrary conditions that only support my point? Ok, well, you're a human at conception because i chose fuzzy socks today)

Seriously. The lack of self awareness is astounding. Funny thing is, i'm not even specifically pro-life. I just have a real issue with every fucker who tries to define people out of the "People" group and into a "This isn't a person which makes it ok to kill" group. Historically full of assholes.

IDGAF if you think its Ok for a woman to have an abortion or not or when. I give lots of fucks when people try to devalue the lives of others because they personally gain from it. People could make plenty of arguments for abortion while respecting the life of the baby as well, but they don't, because they're too cowardly to admit they might be wrong on any points

[–]DoppelGangHer88 0 points1 point2 points 4 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

A human is defined as being a member of the species Homo sapien. So, if a human zygote isn't a human, what species is it and when and how does it magically change species to become Homo sapien?

[–]Le_ed -3 points-2 points-1 points 4 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

It is not an individual of any species, it is a zygote for the species homo sapiens.

And let me ask you a question, is a seed a tree? If I eat a bunch of grain am I causing an ecological disaster? Do I need a license to cut an acorn, the same way I would need for a tree? Try going around saying that a seed is a tree and see how many people would agree.

A zygote becomes a human when it has developed enough complexity to be a human. The same way that a seed becomes a tree after it has developed enough complexity. It is a continuous process, so no specific point can be said to be the tipping point. Think of it like a gradient from white to black. At what point does it stops being white, and starts being black? There is no unique answer, you can only get an estimation on where the tipping point "is".

But if you need it to be a discrete process, you can say that it is when the brain has developed the cerebral cortex. You can make other sound arguments about a point where there is enough complexity for the fetus to be considered a human, but there is absolutely not enough complexity in a zygote. That's because a zygote has as much complexity as any other cell in your body, none of which are considered as a whole human by themselves.

[–]DoppelGangHer88 4 points5 points6 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

An oak "seed" is the beginning stage of the life-cycle of the genus Quercus, while the "tree" is a different stage in the life-cycle of the genus Quercus; but it's still the same species.

What a ridiculous comment, that's like asking if a toddler is an adult. No, but they're both human beings (which is defined as being a members of the species Homo sapien) and they're both people (which is defined as being a human being); that's the point.

Any subjective value placed on "consciousness" is meaningless. If human rights matter at all, they matter regardless of geography or stage in a life-cycle. The only objective standard is conception. Anything else is political.

[–]bibkel -1 points0 points1 point 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

It was entirely scientific, it just lacks objective and moral basis.

[–]According-Sock-9641 0 points1 point2 points 4 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

If it's not human... then what is it then? Enlighten me.

[–]denyjunctionfunction 0 points1 point2 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

They don’t understand words. They mean person.

[–]slightlyabrasive 2 points3 points4 points 4 years ago (27 children) | Copy Link

Thats where you are wrong. This is about bodily autonomy. If you believe that people shoudlent have bodily autonomy you are simply wrong.

[–]bibkel 16 points17 points18 points 4 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

Devil's advocate. (I am FIRMLY pro-choice).

​

The baby/fetus/embryo has no bodily autonomy as it is reliant on the mother allowing it to live. So, how does the newly formed human have bodily autonomy if literally the only one who can help it live takes away that bodily autonomy? When should the baby/fetus/embryo have that right to live? 6 weeks? 12? 6 months cooked? or after birth?

[–][deleted] 5 points6 points7 points 4 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

We charge a parents with neglect if they aren't constantly putting in effort to keep a child alive after its born. People don't seem to have an issue with that. (well, most people, there are some crazy cunts that think abortion should be available until the kid is 18)

[–]bibkel -1 points0 points1 point 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Not often enough, and there are plenty of parents that never should have become parents. It's a sad state of affairs, but I am asking prior to birth-there is plenty of issues after the baby pops out.

[–]XandogxD 3 points4 points5 points 4 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

If an abortion is the termination of a fetus, then the fetus dies, the fact that you HAVE to describe it separately from the mothers body is PROOF that it is not.

Mothers aren’t aborted, the fetus is. And if the fetus is terminated, then does the mother as well? Cause there are other medical terms for the death of an organ or body part. But termination is in direct alignment with the conscious ending of a living beings life.

If it is a woman’s body then we need to stop referencing the fetus as a separate entity. We need to reference the mother as 3,6 or 9 months along. Not the fetus. Because at that point you are allocating a determined age to a body part. We don’t do the same for other “organs”, yet we recognize that the fetus has its own physical growth regardless of the mother.

The fetus has is own body, growing, but it owns. We recognize this, we act on this, but we don’t TALK about this!

I here so often something along the lines of, “the fetus was 4 and 1/2 months along, and so at that point we decided to abort.”

First of all you recognized it as an entity SEPARATE of the mother, you give it an at age for which to estimate it’s growth and potential growth, and you reference terminating it in a way as the mother is not terminated.

If you REALLY believe that a fetus, excuse me, BABY, is really apart of the mothers body you need to talk about the mother as the subject, the conscious being, talk about the fetus as an organ, use dialogue that expresses its removal in a medical way without the context of a living breathing human as being murdered, and to talk about its growth as a factor of the mothers pregnancy, not it’s age.

[–]bibkel 1 point2 points3 points 4 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

Interesting argument, thank you. it's what I wanted.

​

It used to be, I believe, not a child until it is pushed out. Once science started realizing and documenting that a 16 week fetus (a pregnancy that is 16 weeks along if you will) it has hands and feet etc. Then it was studied more, discovering these little parts developed earlier and earlier, until we have today's understanding of what is going on inside the womb, week by week. What to Expect When You are Expecting is an excellent book that details exactly what mom's womb is doing and what is happening to the little body that is growing and changing in there.

​

Now that we know more because science, where does life begin? Do we go old school and assume it isn't a separate being until it is removed from the mother? Or, is it a growing separate being from the start? Once conception happens, it's a life, or it's an organ? When does it cease being an organ and start being a person?

​

On another note-It is interesting that to murder a pregnant person it counts as two murders. But a pregnant woman driving in the commute lane only counts as one person. Anyone know of any time that wasn't the case? share, please! Maybe I just am not aware of it.

[–]XandogxD 0 points1 point2 points 4 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Very interesting points!! Thank you for sharing!!

It is pretty rough to determine where life starts because anything we determine inside the womb also affects the outside as well.

We couldn’t define consciousness as a factor because there are plenty of people in comas who are alive.

We can’t use a heartbeat as a determining factor because there are actually people in this world without hearts who are alive.

We can’t define it’s dependence on the mother as a factor because almost all children are dependent on the mother and there are some extreme cases where children are actually fused to the mom and therefore dependent. (Crazy stuff)

We can’t define it as the exiting of the womb because there are some ectopic pregnancies where they were never born in the womb and never birthed through the birth canal and where instead extracted due to a C-Section.

The ONLY way to reliably define the start of life is at conception. It’s the only point at where every birth begins that we can define without defining another life outside the womb.

At conception the mothers and fathers DNA are conjoined to create new cells. These cells then grow to become a human. The thing is that this new cell has DNA that the mother CANNOT produce. It’s impossible. These new specialized cells don’t contain all the DNA of the mother, and have DNA from an outside source. This destroys the idea that the fetus is just an organ. Because it has its OWN DNA. It is possible to get an organ transplant and have an organ that has different DNA from your own, but a fetus has HALF the mothers and HALF the fathers. No organ can do that. Organ transplants don’t get half your DNA when you get them.

The start of life begins at conception where new cells begin with new DNA that determines the person it’ll grow to be.

[–]bibkel 1 point2 points3 points 4 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

I do want to point out an ectopic pregnancy can kill the mother and needs to be moved to the womb, it cannot fully form in the Fallopian tube. Even with a c section, it grows in the womb, getting nourishment from mom until birth, whatever form.

The DNA point is interesting, I’m not sure if it is 50/50 or not. I have very little understanding of the famed double helix.

I don’t consider the growing “thing” to be an organ, but I have heard of cases where an extra ear is grafted and grown to install later. Organ donation recipients must take drugs the rest of their life to avoid rejection, and this suppresses their immune system which generally will shorten their life.

Back to baby, you bring up good points. I think they may have locked the thread preventing further discussion-at least on my opposite argument thread.

[–]slightlyabrasive -4 points-3 points-2 points 4 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Im talking about the mother. The mother has bodily autonomy.

[–]bibkel 0 points1 point2 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I realize that. I am asking what of the zygote/embryo/fetus/baby? do they not have bodily autonomy? Why or why not?

[–]Le_ed 6 points7 points8 points 4 years ago (16 children) | Copy Link

Although I am pro-choice, I think the argument of bodly autonomy is irrelevant when it comes to abortion exactly because of what OP said. The point is not that you can't do whatever you want with your body, the point is that, if you believe the fetus to be a human, it's not just your body anymore, so bodly autonomy doesn't apply here.

In this scenario, abortion would be equivalent to killing your child, which you just can't do as a parent. If a mother decided she didn't want to breastfeed her baby, and then let it starve to death, she would be arrested. Even though it is her body, she has the obligation as a parent to take care of her child. This obligation as a parent to your child's well being overules bodly autonomy. When it comes to taking care of your child, you can't just say "my body my choice" and kill your child.

If you believe that a fetus is not a human however (which I do), then the argument of bodly autonomy is perfectly valid.

[–]sparetosser2018 5 points6 points7 points 4 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

I'm not going to lie, it's extremely refreshing to see someone who is pro choice actually understand why I am not pro choice. For me, and a lot of others, it's not about telling a woman what she can and can't do with her body, but rather that we believe that it's killing a baby. I can understand people being pro choice if they believe that it's not a separate human. I will always disagree, but I do understand. Honestly, if it wasn't for the fact that I believe it to be a separate being from the mother, and a human with its own set of rights, then I would also be pro choice. I do strongly believe that people should be able to do whatever they want with their own bodies, but I will always be against killing babies.

[–][deleted] 4 points5 points6 points 4 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

Which is why I'm excited for artificial wombs.

Remove the woman's bodily autonomy from the equation entirely, see how their arguments change then.

Once we see that, we'll get a lot more attention to how "unfair" it is to hold a parent responsible for a child they didn't want.

Imo most people using the bodily autonomy argument don't really believe that, and will also argue for a woman's right to mutilate their children's genitals. Its more about "Her choice" than anything that has to do with ethics or autonomy.

[–]mountain_rivers34 -2 points-1 points0 points 4 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

I disagree. I think for a lot of people, the right to what happens to their bodies is incredibly important. We saw it with the Covid vaccine. People don't fuck around with forced medical procedures. Forcing a woman to "donate" her uterus to a fetus is the same as forcing you to donate a kidney to an adult to save their life. Nobody should get an opinion on your medical choices besides you.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 4 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

… after the woman “donating” her uterus created the situation where someone needs a kidney.

Yea, she shouldn’t be forced to donate. She should also face the consequences of the situation she created, but instead society bends over backwards to tell her she’s empowered instead

[–]mountain_rivers34 -2 points-1 points0 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

The difference in how the situation occurs has no bearing on the legality of the situation. At what point does the sovereignty you have over your body trump someone else's right to live? The argument with bodily autonomy is that you own the rights to all of your organs. You want women to have less rights than dead people do over their organs and tissues.

[–]y2kjanelle 0 points1 point2 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

It’s not that pro-choice people don’t understand why you are not pro-choice. We do get it.

The frustrating thing is to have people throw in your face “Well we’re not focusing on your bodily autonomy!” And then fight to take it away.

That IS what you are arguing, even if you do not want to. Even if your main argument is something else. You believe in laws that tell a woman what to do with her body and force her through trauma. And that’s your decision to make, and yours only, but I would like to see pro-life people to admit that.

Whether you agree with that part or not, being pro-life means that you are arguing for the loss of bodily autonomy for women.

Now, my position is actually kind of different. I think the abortion argument really is for individuals who aren’t that interested in society.

I am what I call pro-prevention.

I think it is appalling that men are just now getting birth control and that we don’t put efforts into sex education, advancement in birth control, and access to birth control.

I also work in family services and am aware of what happens when children are unwanted and unloved. Everyday I see abuse cases of children and it’s very sad.

It’s not just a matter of aborting a fetus but if we are going to force women through the trauma of birth, have the hospital bills of birth, and 9 months of having a parasitic being impact your life, then we damn sure better at least have a system where that child can grow up in a healthy environment.

But we don’t.

Instead these children are sent to a broken system. Social workers are overworked and underpaid. Foster children are significantly more likely to experience sexual and physical snd verbal abuse, 20% of children spend at least 5 years in foster care and a handful age out with no money, little resources and are expected to just know how to navigate their lives without any real parental guidance.

These are ALL pieces of the abortion argument that people actively ignore. Fighting for one aspect of the pro-life argument affects each of these pieces and that is why I am pro-choice.

I don’t think it is legal to force someone to be pregnant and deal with those costs as well as the trauma of birth as well as the hospital bills and lose their bodily autonomy. I don’t think any more children should be subjected to the terrible system of foster care. Black children are adopted at such little rates that agencies do what they can to cut the “cost” of adoption for them. And adoption is expensive and not easy.

It IS about bodily autonomy. It IS about forcing women through trauma. It IS about what happens to the child after birth. It IS about that woman being a parent for life even if she never wanted the child. That child may look for her later on as well as the father and want a connection with them that was never wanted.

I’m not coming at you, I’m just providing a perspective because people don’t see the big picture of what pro-life v pro-choice really means for society. It cannot be reduced to whether it’s a human being or baby or not. It will affect women and children in multiple aspects.

[–]slightlyabrasive 0 points1 point2 points 4 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

Im speaking about the mother having bodily autonomy. Its still her body if you want to say no traditional abortion bevause it 'killing a baby' fine but if the mother wants an umbilicalcordectomy thats totally fine.

A mother isnt required to breastfeed for one. Formula is an option despite 'breast is best'. And once its born its a viable human than yes it is murder but prior to that no

To battle the prolifers when does this invasion of bodily autonomy end? Lets say you give birth to a baby with blood disease does the mother now need to provide blood transfusions for life?

[–]EddPW 2 points3 points4 points 4 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

And once its born its a viable human

why is it only a viable human when its born

[–]slightlyabrasive -1 points0 points1 point 4 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Alright to be fair yes about 2-3 months prior to birth it is viable to live on its own. No ones arguing against 3rd trimester abortions really... but quite honestly theres already to many people im not 100% against them either

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

but quite honestly theres already to many people im not 100% against them either

I don't think you quite realize how bad that sounds. That's literally akin to me saying, "Hmm, I can't take care of my dog right now. But there's already too many dogs anyway, so why would I give it to a shelter when I could just shoot it."

Other than complications that put the mother's life in serious danger, there is absolutely no excuse for a 3rd trimester abortion.

[–]denyjunctionfunction 0 points1 point2 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I’ve heard plenty of people call for unrestricted access to abortions. That inherently means they are arguing for allowing abortions 2-3 months prior to birth as you put it. That’s how words work.

When people ask about third trimester abortions they deflect and say that doesn’t happen unless woman’s life is in danger, but that abortion should be unrestricted. Idiots don’t understand words.

[–]Le_ed 0 points1 point2 points 4 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

A mother isnt required to breastfeed for one. Formula is an option despite 'breast is best'. And once its born its a viable human than yes it is murder but prior to that no

But there are no alternatives like Formula for an uterus. If the only option was the mother's breast, than she would be obligated to breastfeed, regardless of her bodily autonomy. And you said that it is a viable human after it is born, but that is exactly the point that pro-lifers argue. That it is already a human at conception. If you believe that, than abortion is murder.

To battle the prolifers when does this invasion of bodily autonomy end? Lets say you give birth to a baby with blood disease does the mother now need to provide blood transfusions for life?

No, but BOTH parents would be required to provide (within their financial capabilities) for their child's medical needs until their child is mature. So they don't necessarily need to give blood transfusions, but if they don't treat the child and let it die it would be criminal neglect.

[–]slightlyabrasive -1 points0 points1 point 4 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Your beliefs do not dictate laws end of story. But for the sake of argument if its a human at conception every miscarrige is child neglect by the mother and every abortion that is done to save the mothers life is also murder which is insane of course.

And no it wouldent be criminal neglect. There are multiple conditions where legit only one in a million blood could be used for transfusions so it bascially has to be sourced from mother or father.

[–]Le_ed 0 points1 point2 points 4 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Your beliefs do not dictate laws

What a shit argument lol. No, the law dictates the law, and it says that a parent has to care for their child's well being, within their means. End of story.

And miscarriages are unintentional you dumb fuck. "Intentional miscarriages" are called abortions, which is exactly the issue here. And abortions are federally legal exactly because fetuses are only considered human after viability. And killing yourself for your child clearly falls outside the "within their means" part.

And those absurdly rare occasions that you cited of rare blood is only not illegal because of how absurdly rare and specific they are. If every child needed blood from their parents, like say, every child needs food, it would be the parents obligation to provide it.

[–]XandogxD 0 points1 point2 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

If an abortion is the termination of a fetus, then the fetus dies, the fact that you HAVE to describe it separately from the mothers body is PROOF that it is not.

Mothers aren’t aborted, the fetus is. And if the fetus is terminated, then does the mother as well? Cause there are other medical terms for the death of an organ or body part. But termination is in direct alignment with the conscious ending of a living beings life.

If it is a woman’s body then we need to stop referencing the fetus as a separate entity. We need to reference the mother as 3,6 or 9 months along. Not the fetus. Because at that point you are allocating a determined age to a body part. We don’t do the same for other “organs”, yet we recognize that the fetus has its own physical growth regardless of the mother.

The fetus has is own body, growing, but it owns. We recognize this, we act on this, but we don’t TALK about this!

I here so often something along the lines of, “the fetus was 4 and 1/2 months along, and so at that point we decided to abort.”

First of all you recognized it as an entity SEPARATE of the mother, you give it an at age for which to estimate it’s growth and potential growth, and you reference terminating it in a way as the mother is not terminated.

If you REALLY believe that a fetus, excuse me, BABY, is really apart of the mothers body you need to talk about the mother as the subject, the conscious being, talk about the fetus as an organ, use dialogue that expresses its removal in a medical way without the context of a living breathing human as being murdered, and to talk about its growth as a factor of the mothers pregnancy, not it’s age

[–]Tolga1991 -2 points-1 points0 points 4 years ago* (8 children) | Copy Link

Human embryos and fetuses aren't sentient or conscious. In that sense, abortion is similar to discontinuing life support for humans in permanent vegetative state.

https://thebrainbank.scienceblog.com/2012/12/04/what-can-science-add-to-the-abortion-debate/

https://www.livescience.com/54774-fetal-pain-anesthesia.html

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1440624/

[–]DoppelGangHer88 0 points1 point2 points 4 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

There's a huge difference between making the tragic decision of ending the life of someone who's suffered irreparable harm without the chance of healing out of compassion and ending the life of someone who's just begun life just because that life is inconvenient.

Extremely disingenuous.

[–]Tolga1991 -1 points0 points1 point 4 years ago* (6 children) | Copy Link

Comparing isn't equating. An embryo/fetus isn't "someone". It doesn't make sense to grant personhood to a being that doesn't have sentience or consciousness.

[–]DoppelGangHer88 0 points1 point2 points 4 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

Go look up the definition of "person," and get back to me.

[–]Tolga1991 -1 points0 points1 point 4 years ago* (4 children) | Copy Link

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Person

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personhood

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beginning_of_human_personhood

[–]DoppelGangHer88 -1 points0 points1 point 4 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

Wikipedia is not a valid source and it makes a distinction at the top separating out "human persons."

The definition of a person, according to any given dictionary is a "human being."

[–]Tolga1991 0 points1 point2 points 4 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Do your research on the concept of personhood regarding the abortion debate.

[+]CEBA_nol -6 points-5 points-4 points 4 years ago (45 children) | Copy Link

Whatever you see fit seems anti-science and very selfish

[–]dcs577 -1 points0 points1 point 4 years ago (44 children) | Copy Link

It seems anti-science to ignore the biological differences between human adults and human fetuses.

[–]18Apollo18 1 point2 points3 points 4 years ago (23 children) | Copy Link

What biological difference are there ???

The fetal stage is actually one of the last stages of development.

By this point the central nervous system, brain and all major internal organs are already developed

[–]dcs577 -2 points-1 points0 points 4 years ago (22 children) | Copy Link

Lol you really need me to explain the differences between a fetus and an adult?!

[–]18Apollo18 0 points1 point2 points 4 years ago (21 children) | Copy Link

You said biological differences.

Other than size, can you please tell me what these biological differences are??

[–]dcs577 -2 points-1 points0 points 4 years ago (20 children) | Copy Link

One is able to exist independently of the other, for one. If that werent obvious enough, it is also quite obvious that a fetus lacks self awareness. It is not aware it is alive nor can it express the desire to go on living. It does not have hopes and wishes for the future - this is related to the biology of the brain development obviously.

[–]DoppelGangHer88 -1 points0 points1 point 4 years ago (19 children) | Copy Link

Those sorts of differences don't negate their inherent humanity nor the fact that they're unique human beings with human rights.

[–]dcs577 -2 points-1 points0 points 4 years ago (18 children) | Copy Link

Based on those qualities it would be equally wrong to kill an ant. There is nothing inherently more valuable about a human life over an ant…if these qualities don’t matter.

[–]18Apollo18 -1 points0 points1 point 4 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Nice try but I also think it's also wrong to kill an animal outside of self defense.

*Note: killing predatory insects like mosquitos, ticks, etcetera would count as self defense

[–]DoppelGangHer88 -1 points0 points1 point 4 years ago (15 children) | Copy Link

So, you don't believe in human rights. Let these people talk long enough and they tell on themselves.

[–]TracyMorganFreeman -2 points-1 points0 points 4 years ago (19 children) | Copy Link

Except the part where abortion is a moral question, not a scientific one.

[–]dcs577 2 points3 points4 points 4 years ago (18 children) | Copy Link

Except scientific data can inform our morals. It’s not mutually exclusive. “Hmm we did some tests and found out a human fetus feels excruciating pain at 2 weeks. Guess abortion is unethical after all.”

[–]TracyMorganFreeman -1 points0 points1 point 4 years ago (17 children) | Copy Link

No it can't.

You morally decide what the conditions for allowable and non allowable behavior are. Science can't answer what those conditions are or should be.

[–]dcs577 0 points1 point2 points 4 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

What you base those moral decisions on can be based on evidence that includes science my friend. It became unethical to expose workers and people to lead and asbestos when we found out - scientifically - how dangerous they are.

[–]TracyMorganFreeman -1 points0 points1 point 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

The moral basis isn't science.

The fact lead and asbestos are dangerous is why it was deemed immoral: whether something is dangerous or not.

Science doesn't tell you whether it's immoral to subject someone to something dangerous or not.

[–]dcs577 0 points1 point2 points 4 years ago (14 children) | Copy Link

You’re suggesting moral decisions are arbitrary but the people in this very thread hold different moral positions based on science…such as when a fetus feels pain or gains self awareness.

[–]TracyMorganFreeman -1 points0 points1 point 4 years ago (13 children) | Copy Link

That isn't holding the position based on science.

Whether pain or self awareness exists is the dimension of choice, and that was arbitrary.

[–]ProphetOfChastity 140 points141 points142 points 4 years ago (64 children) | Copy Link

Philosophically I am pro-choice. However in recent years I have decided that I will not advocate or speak in favour of the availability of abortion. Two reasons for this:

  1. I won't support women's legal ability to obtain an abortion unless or until men have a similar legal capacity. By that I mean men should be able to have "paper abortions" and sign a binding document which terminates all paternal rights and responsibilities (child support etc.). This right to have a paper abortion should exist for the same period of time that a woman can have her abortion. It is equality. That way no one becomes a parent unwillingly. And if a man is told "too bad, no paper abortion for you, if you didn't want to have a child then you shouldn't have had sex" then women get the same response.

  2. In the last two years of covid I have witnessed virtually every pro choice, pro bodily autonomy person I know turn into ruthless authoritarians about covid lockdowns and vax/mask mandates. It has become apparent to me that the much vaunted value of autonomy isn't really the driver for pro choice sentiment since autonomy gets thrown out the window so harshly in other cases. As such, while I personally think personal autonomy is am important value philosophically, I won't treat it like a significant value in political policy debates since it seems to have become an cheap rhetorical device/excuse which is only selectively invoked.

[–]FastFourierTerraform 46 points47 points48 points 4 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

That pretty much sums up my views. Well said.

I'll just add that the rallying cry of the authoritarians is "it's not about your body, it's about taking care of the weak and vulnerable in society"... and the irony is utterly lost on them.

[–]AnnaisElliesMom 0 points1 point2 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Stop being selfish, do this thing to protect the vulnerable people who need protecting the most!!!

​

"Oh, you mean like outlawing abortion to prevent completely innocent babies from being torn apart in the womb?"

No, not them, I don't care about them, that's 99% of the time a result of my own actions but they completely ruin my plans so just kill them. I'm not selfish btw, you are!!!"

[–][deleted] 33 points34 points35 points 4 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

Yeah my support for women’s bodily autonomy went out the window the first time a pro choice womansplained how male genital mutilation was nothing like what happened to girls and just fine to do to boys

Hypocritical fucks

[+]amscraylane -16 points-15 points-14 points 4 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

I am totally against circumcision, and advocate for its end, but a man is still able to have an orgasm even being cut, even though it is less than. Female circumcision removes the entire clitoris. No clitoris = no orgasm.

[–][deleted] 14 points15 points16 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

That is blatant misinformation.

infant genital mutilation exists on a spectrum for both genders. From a pinprick for a drop of blood on the penis, to subscision in africa where they split the penis in half down the middle.

For girls across the world, its the same way. The type you describe is only the worst, and didn't even exist in the USA when it, and all other forms of FGM including that pinprick, were banned.

And sexists like you left boys out of it with "its not the saaaaaaaame" bullshit while defending the sexual abuse of children.

Kindly fuck off.

[–]Lethal-Procedure 5 points6 points7 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I’ve read interviews with women who were circumcised where they found the notion that they couldn’t enjoy sex or climax amusing. Which doesn’t mean it affects everyone the same (a common error in evaluating almost anything) but it seems to be something of a myth.

[–]BrickDaddyShark 3 points4 points5 points 4 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

Whats your opinion on vaccine/mask mandates? I have a very in the middle opinion on it and I won’t judge, just curious.

[–]DefiantDepth8932 1 point2 points3 points 4 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

I personally don't mind vaccine mandates. Vaccines are passive in nature. You get your dose and you can continue living your life the exact way you were living before. Just like all the other vaccines and shots.

But fuck masks. Fuck having to keep them on. They're so goddamn uncomfortable. And the rules surrounding masks were absolutely senseless. One of the most insane rules regarding masks I've experienced is wearing it in between bites of food.

Also I hate how soo many people's businesses were destroyed by covid laws and the politicians who made these laws never followed them. Literally every single politician who made/supported extreme Covid measures and destroyed people's lives over it.. all of these politicians grossly violated these laws for shitty reasons like haircuts, parties and stuff like that. They also gave special exemptions to Hollywood celebrities in California as if they aren't the most privileged pieces of shit without the government's help already.

[–]AnnaisElliesMom 1 point2 points3 points 4 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

>I personally don't mind vaccine mandates. Vaccines are passive in nature. You get your dose and you can continue living your life the exact way you were living before. Just like all the other vaccines and shots.

​

Yeah cause throughout history the government has totally shown time and time again that our health is what they're most concerned about..... Btw free donuts, pizza and diabetes when you get this shot thats supposed to keep you healthy! Not underlying intent here!

[–]DefiantDepth8932 0 points1 point2 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I get your point. Yes the government may have terrible intentions and a lot of the vaccine rules are fucking ridiculous. But I find vaccine mandates much less disruptive to my life. They don't bother me in my day to day life as much as mask mandates. And the rules/laws regarding vaxx mandates aren't as ridiculous senseless and re**rded as mask mandates and all the business shutdowns.

[–]DefiantDepth8932 -1 points0 points1 point 4 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

I personally don't mind vaccine mandates. Vaccines are passive in nature. You get your dose and you can continue living your life the exact way you were living before. Just like all the other vaccines and shots.

But fuck masks. Fuck having to keep them on. They're so goddamn uncomfortable. And the rules surrounding masks were absolutely senseless. One of the most insane rules regarding masks I've experienced is wearing it in between bites of food.

Also I hate how soo many people's businesses were destroyed by covid laws and the politicians who made these laws never followed them. Literally every single politician who made/supported extreme Covid measures and destroyed people's lives over it.. all of these politicians grossly violated these laws for shitty reasons like haircuts, parties and stuff like that. They also gave special exemptions to Hollywood celebrities in California as if they aren't the most privileged pieces of shit without the government's help already.

[–]BrickDaddyShark 1 point2 points3 points 4 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Hell yeah. I totally agree, we had to wear masks during exercise, sats, and lunch at my school, even after the majority of the student population was vaccinated. Nobody seems to take a common sense approach to it like this. Maybe it would have helped in the beginning of the pandemic but at this point its been 2 years so we need compromise.

[–]DefiantDepth8932 0 points1 point2 points 4 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Yeah vaccine mandates are usually fine for me. But miss me with those goddamn masks.

My gym has fucking ridiculous mask rules. I'd be using a machine.. then I'd have to wear a mask while I'm walking towards the machine 20 feet away.. then remove it to workout. How do people not see that this doesn't make any sense at all

[–]BrickDaddyShark 0 points1 point2 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Not to mention the carbon dioxide thing. People were so dogmatic about masks that they called it fake science, but its a real effect seen often in motorcycle accidents and classrooms.

I get that it will basically not affect you if you are just lazing around or doing office work, but if you are working out, using higher level comprehension skills, trying to learn, or operating heavy machinery, you should be able to be at your full mental capacities.

[–]amscraylane 8 points9 points10 points 4 years ago (21 children) | Copy Link

With men having the right to the paper abortion, what if they do not want the woman to have an abortion, we are still in the same place as before.

[–]Rob__T 14 points15 points16 points 4 years ago (16 children) | Copy Link

Unfortunately that's the nature of bodily autonomy, it's something we're gonna have to just accept as reality.

[–]BrickDaddyShark 4 points5 points6 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Based. Always love to see how nuanced everyone here is with their opinions.

[–]DoppelGangHer88 -3 points-2 points-1 points 4 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link

The baby's body does not equal to the mother's body. It has its own bodily autonomy.

[–]Rob__T 4 points5 points6 points 4 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

Read up case law and rulings on how this works in contexts regarding abortion and ones that don't regard abortion.

The tl;dr is that dependency on another person to live effectively amounts to infringing on the personal autonomy of the person being depended on, even in circumstances where the person being depended on caused the dependency. Your statement is a red herring and not valid.

[–]DoppelGangHer88 -2 points-1 points0 points 4 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

Appealing to authority doesn't confer objective validity. Slavery and eugenics had basis in law too but it didn't make it justified.

The fact is that the baby was forced into being in the first place by its parents, it was the original victim of infringement.

[–]Rob__T 0 points1 point2 points 4 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

Appealing to authority doesn't confer objective validity.

Uh, you might want to look up what the appeal to authority fallacy is.

Bodily autonomy is a right, rights are granted by governments, courts are a branch of government. It's not a fallacy.

Your argument doesn't have a basis in reality. It's just how you personally feel and want it to be. That's not relevant.

[–]DoppelGangHer88 -2 points-1 points0 points 4 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

That's where you're wrong. Rights are not granted by governments; rights are natural.

The government doesn't confer onto you your right to life, you naturally have that right; the government doesn't confer onto you your right to liberty or property or freedom, you naturally have those rights. In a state of nature in which no government existed, those rights would still exist. If a lion tried to eat you, you would have the right to defend yourself, if another person tried to take your land, it would be within your right to defend yourself. Natural rights are what the entire American Constitution is based off of.

What you're describing makes up the basis of all man-made atrocities ever committed. The state doesn't own you and it's dangerous to believe so.

[–]Rob__T 0 points1 point2 points 4 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

That's where you're wrong. Rights are not granted by governments; rights are natural.

False. We as a society recognize rights and have governments that grant and enforcement. The fact that you don't have the same rights when you travel to different countries alone just disproves your position.

What you're describing makes up the basis of all man-made atrocities ever committed. The state doesn't own you and it's dangerous to believe so.

Nobody said the state owns you. But the reality of the situation is that all places have their own sets of rights and ideas of what those rights entail and how they're enforced.

[–]DoppelGangHer88 0 points1 point2 points 4 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

We have societies that recognize natural rights we already possess and it's the role of government to defend those rights; they're not granted by those governments.

The fact that some states and countries violate human rights doesn't make it justified or morally correct. They should be overthrown and discarded not blindly followed. We're human beings not sheep.

[–]EddPW -3 points-2 points-1 points 4 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

is that dependency on another person to live effectively amounts to infringing on the personal autonomy of the person being depended on, even in circumstances where the person being depended on caused the dependency.

so does that mean a mother can kill a todler since the baby is dependent on her?

[–]Rob__T 2 points3 points4 points 4 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

You do realize that this pro birther red herring isn't an actual argument that addresses the issue of bodily autonomy, correct?

[–]amscraylane -5 points-4 points-3 points 4 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Reality is a man will never have to deal with it, but want have the opinion and the one thing they bring to the table to counter is their money, as if women do not have financial hardships too.

[–]AnnaisElliesMom 0 points1 point2 points 4 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

>Reality is a man will never have to deal with it

​

Somehow, to you, paying 18 years of child support is not "dealing with it" ?

[–]amscraylane 0 points1 point2 points 4 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

As if the man solely pays and the woman also doesn’t not have any financial hardships.

What is one thing during pregnancy that is equal.

[–]Le_ed 7 points8 points9 points 4 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

In this scenario the woman should be allowed to have an abortion, in my opinion. I think it is immoral for someone to either force or prohibit an abortion for another person. So if the guy wants an abortion but the woman doesn't, than he has his paper abortion and the woman raises the child as a single parent. If it is the other way around, then the woman's body autonomy overules the man's desire to be a father, and she should be allowed to have the abortion.

[–]amscraylane 9 points10 points11 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Yes! I can agree with this! I also think there needs to be a paternity test done at birth to ensure paternity regardless if the woman refuses.

Most recently there was a video of a woman who heard her baby daddy got a $400 raise. She took him to court. She actually stated she refused to work even though the child was 11. She literally said, “I can work, but I don’t want to”.

Really funny to watch her fuck around and find out when the monthly amount was lowered.

[–]DoppelGangHer88 -2 points-1 points0 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

You're missing that the woman had almost unilateral power over whether the baby was conceived (women are the arbiters of sex and reproduction) or born in the first place, and after birth she can choose to completely opt-out of parenthood, while the man cannot.

[–]B_Boi04 -3 points-2 points-1 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I agree that nobody can force a woman to force an abortion, most of the time.

When both parents agreed to have a child then both parents have to consent to an abortion, as a woman you shouldn’t be able to just back out after telling a man they are going to be a dad.

If a woman chances their mind they should make it clear in advance, if the couple can’t work it out after a week or so then we default to the woman’s decision. If both parents agree to an abortion, or if the dad was not aware and will never become aware in hindsight without being told, then it should be fine.

Both parties have a say that way, but if the woman wants an abortion we default to it only after they can’t come to an agreement, and if the man wants an abortion they can opt out of financial responsibility as long as they decide it within the same timeframe as for an actual abortion

[–]DefiantDepth8932 1 point2 points3 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I couldn't have worded my feeling nearly as well as you did

[–]Drezzzire 1 point2 points3 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

The first point is exactly how I feel. Hadn’t given much thought to the second point, but it is just as valid.

[–]biff64gc 8 points9 points10 points 4 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

Agree with point 1, but at the risk of many downvotes I have to disagree with point 2. 1st, a women getting an abortion doesn't impact you where you refusing to where a mask or get vaccinated impacts everyone you walk by on a daily basis. You can argue it impacts the fetus, but then you get into a debate of when life starts and viability to survive without the mother which is a whole nother debate.

2nd. It's not picking and choosing what we want for arbitrary reasons, it's how those decisions impact the community. Restricting abortion access negatively impacts society.

Where with masks and vaccines it's worse for the community to allow open freedom of choice because personal decisions will negatively impact everyone around and strain the community in other ways because as we've seen, people are very willing to make stupid selfish decisions at the risk of those around them.

Kind of the same idea behind helmet and seat-belt laws. Yeah, it should be a personal decision, but by restricting the freedom we reduce the burden on society by discouraging people from acting like idiots.

[–]umockdev 10 points11 points12 points 4 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

a women getting an abortion doesn't impact you

Except that it does. You as a man have no authority over the unborn child. So whether you become a father or not solely depends on the woman? Oh what are you going to do about it if you don't agree with the choice? Divorce? And get completely screwed over in divorce court?

Compare that to vasectomy regulations where your wife can veto your decision on getting a vasectomy.

It's simply not fair.

[–]B_Boi04 2 points3 points4 points 4 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Wait wait wait a wife can deny you a vasectomy? Why have I never come across that in these discussions, this completely invalidates the bodily autonomy argument

[–]umockdev 2 points3 points4 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

At least in my country a married man needs consent of the wife to get a vasectomy.

[–]dcs577 3 points4 points5 points 4 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Divorce? You know you don’t have to be married to have a kid right?

[–]umockdev 2 points3 points4 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Yeah but having a kid without being married is even worse

[–]DaddyDock 4 points5 points6 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

lol @ #2. So correct.

[–]Ariliescbk 2 points3 points4 points 4 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

In the last two years of covid I have witnessed virtually every pro choice, pro bodily autonomy person I know turn into ruthless authoritarians about covid lockdowns and vax/mask mandates.

This makes absolutely no sense. You're conflating an issue of something that is (potentially) a health risk to the person vs. an immediate health risk to the wider community. Sure, your body your choice. But if your choice impacts my health, then of course I'm going to be pissed. A woman having an abortion affects the community by a factor of 0.

[–]Rivershots -3 points-2 points-1 points 4 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

"your choice" directly murders someone by their standard. the other gets them sick with a small potential for death. that is their view. and I don't think its outlandish

[–]13rokendreamer -1 points0 points1 point 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

the other gets them sick with a small potential for death

And definitely many other by spreading it in public because even two braincells can recognise it's a fucking disaster.

[–]dcs577 0 points1 point2 points 4 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

  1. Two wrongs make a right? You can advocate for both things. Sounds like you’re just being vindictive.

  2. Wearing a mask for COVID is different because the spread of COVID affects other people. Your choice to wear a mask or not affects those around you. Aborting a fetus does not directly affect anyone else.

[–]BrickDaddyShark 1 point2 points3 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

For the second one it does affect the father. But as another commenter pointed out thats just how bodily autonomy works, your body your choice stands for everyone.

[–]18Apollo18 -2 points-1 points0 points 4 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

Aborting a fetus does not directly affect anyone else.

It effects the fetus.

It effects the other parent

[–]dcs577 0 points1 point2 points 4 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

Fetus is not a person.

[–]18Apollo18 -1 points0 points1 point 4 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

By definition a fetus is a person.

A sentiant and conscious human being.

The fetal stage starts at week 8 , by this point the central nervous system has already fully developed and the brain finished developing.

A fetus is self aware, capable of experiencing thoughts and feeling pain.

[–]dcs577 0 points1 point2 points 4 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

Lol it is not sentient nor self aware. And your brain doesn’t stop developing until youre 25 so you’re a bit off.

[–]18Apollo18 1 point2 points3 points 4 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

Actually that's not true

That's specifically the prefrontal cortex not the entire brain.

It actually peaks at age 10 and there's just a slight decline after the mid 20s.

It continues to develop and change well into the 80s and 90s. It certainly doesn't stop at age 25.

Petanjek, Z., Judaš, M., Šimić, G., Rašin, M. R., Uylings, H. B., Rakic, P., & Kostović, I. (2011). Extraordinary neoteny of synaptic spines in the human prefrontal cortex. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 108(32), 13281-13286.

[–]dcs577 0 points1 point2 points 4 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Is the prefrontal cortex not part of the brain? Okay let’s say 10. Is that not well after being a fetus? You just owned yourself. Thanks.

[–]18Apollo18 0 points1 point2 points 4 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

But it doesn't stop at age 10 either, it just peaks at age 10.

It doesn't come anywhere near stopping after age 10.

As I said development of the prefrontal cortex continues well into the 80s and 90s.

By your logic the human brain never develops.

[–]dcs577 -1 points0 points1 point 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

No. You said it peaks at 10 and declines after. You think declining function equals development? Development means growth. Decline does not mean growth.

[–]CawlinAlcarz 0 points1 point2 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Wow... REALLY well said!

It's definitely time for some "good for the goose, good for the gander" application of our laws.

[–]CawlinAlcarz 0 points1 point2 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Wow... REALLY well said!

It's definitely time for some "good for the goose, good for the gander" application of our laws.

[–]Shawn411 -1 points0 points1 point 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

The difference between abortion and vaccines is that, one, you are putting others at risk (mainly the immunocompromised) by not getting the vaccine. And two, you are taking part in allowing the virus to continue to mutate, resulting in more variants, and ultimately dragging on the pandemic for everyone.

Abortion has none of these effects.

[–]RezaDinto 0 points1 point2 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Paper abortion isn't just rights but it's way to prevent irresponsible father because if he didn't want to have a baby then why do we force him at all? I prefer the fetus is eliminated since beginning instead of they grow in unwanted situations and broken home.

Fatherlessness is really bad for development of children, it's good to know if a man is serious so we could prepare the worst case scenario, I don't like argument on morality of "killing a fetus" or "what if the baby you aborted could invented cancer cure" which is bs, these kids were more likely to be a thug than scientist in such situations, so let men abort it.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Philosophically I am Libertarian and standing against arbitrary rules is first and foremost. While I agree with your reasons, they simply aren't needed for me to make a choice. Banning with the threat of a gun (government) is the first aggression and must be opposed regardless of the philosophy.

[–]NoBrick444 40 points41 points42 points 4 years ago (18 children) | Copy Link

Generally speaking I find abortion unethical, but it's not the govt's business either, it's the family's business.

I understand that there are all sorts of pregnancy complications where they have to perform an abortion to save the mother's life, or where the fetus was just never going to be viable.

These are heartbreaking medical decisions, family decisions, not govt decisions.

That being said, I'm not the one giving birth so I tend to keep my mouth shut about abortion, I don't support or oppose it.

I tend to vote R because I'm a fiscal conservative, I hate inflation and high taxes.

[–][deleted] 31 points32 points33 points 4 years ago* (8 children) | Copy Link

Honestly, I'd say abortion should be kept legal, but the "environment" (no other way for me to say it) should be structured to discourage unwanted pregnancies and selective abortions.

You can do that with better sex ed, more birth control options for men + further study on the male reproductive system, Intactivism (minor case) and providing male reproductive rights.

We need to debate and resolve the ethics of abortion, but better not having to deal with it in the first place.

I'm not sure this will happen fast enough. Any male-friendly approach to these issues won't go very far for obvious reasons, and developed countries won't be incentivized to do it because a lot of their pregnancies are unplanned and others because of religious conflicts and financial issues.

Compromise is best, you can admit something is immoral and still make it legal for important reasons. (my opinion)

[–]-Soggy-Potato- 9 points10 points11 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

To be fair the environment is about as hostile as it can realistically be in many places in America where it isn’t outright banned

[–][deleted] 8 points9 points10 points 4 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

You can do that with better sex ed, more birth control options for men + further study on the male reproductive system, Intactivism (minor case) and providing male reproductive rights.

The thing that many pro-choice folks like to point out is that many of the Christian tradcons who seek to restrict/ban are diametrically opposed to sex ed and birth control, and push abstinence from sex until marriage as the only reasonable choice.

[–]TracyMorganFreeman -2 points-1 points0 points 4 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

No, they're opposed to government funding of those things.

Being opposed to the government funding X does not mean you're against X itself.

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 4 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

I can't prove you wrong, but I've never heard of anyone saying "Sex ed is fine so long as the government doesn't pay for it."

[–]TracyMorganFreeman 0 points1 point2 points 4 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

They're fine with private schools doing it.

They don't want to be forced to pay for others birth control.

No pro lifer is seriously against birth control existing.

[–]flakemasterflake 0 points1 point2 points 4 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

I don’t follow the logic then? You advocate for better sex ex, but without public schools teaching it, how can this be achieved?

Or are you just saying this would be “nice” but impossible since the free market doesn’t allow for it?

[–]dcs577 1 point2 points3 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Both sides SHOULD agree on the goal of minimizing abortions. And do the things you said like sex Ed and birth control access. But the right likes to restrict access to birth control too. They expect us to go against our nature and just abstain until we’re married.

[–]NewfieBadger8 points 4 years ago* [recovered] (2 children) | Copy Link

I’m of the same opinion. Laws on abortion infringe upon basic bodily autonomy and freedom. Regardless of your philosophical view on how ethical it is, the fact remains that this is a decision people should make for themselves.

[–]Donghoon 2 points3 points4 points 4 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

What we need is more accessible sex education and more access to protected sex. (im aware condoms fail and rapes happen)

[–]Ariliescbk 4 points5 points6 points 4 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

I tend to vote R because I'm a fiscal conservative, I hate inflation and high taxes.\

Interestingly enough, in Australia, it's been the conservative party that's increased inflation and taxes for the past 9 years.

[–]duhhhh 4 points5 points6 points 4 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

In the US, there are only a handful of true social liberal or fiscal conservative politicians at the national level.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 4 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

They sure as shit aren't running the GOP.

[–]duhhhh 1 point2 points3 points 4 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

I wish Bernie Sanders teamed up with Ron Paul for a split party presidential ticket. They were both hated by their parties and the media and loved by the grass roots folks when they ran for president. They both had consistent decades long voting records and integrity. Bernie was a true social liberal. Paul was a true fiscal conservative. Any areas the two of them could comprise on policy, it would probably be great for the country. The parties and corporate America would hate it.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Ron Paul is better than his kid, who is a fucking moron.

[–]18Apollo18 0 points1 point2 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Generally speaking I find abortion unethical, but it's not the govt's business either, it's the family's business.

Is it not the governments business to prevent unethical and abusive behaviors??

[–]Throwawaysei95 9 points10 points11 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

It’s ridiculous. Abortion should be legal for sure. But at the same time, birth control and sex education needs to be provided more often. Teaching abstinence only is ridiculous. Teenagers don’t know what they are doing. You’ll see this a lot in low income areas. Also, teenagers with hyper religious parents are going to sneak around so they don’t get caught. And then they end up pregnant. We shouldn’t just be shouting abstinence on them. They need resources and more education so they know exactly what they are getting into. And so they can be prepared. When I was in school, we barely learned anything and were told to stay abstinent. Lots of couples got pregnant and lot of them were very misinformed.

[–]RubMobile2126 28 points29 points30 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

If women want us to stick up for their "reproductive rights" how about returning the favor a little. At least help men change the laws that allow women to rape young boys and get child support from him.

[–]Albert_Camus129 47 points48 points49 points 4 years ago (88 children) | Copy Link

Bodily autonomy is a human right

[–]TAPriceCTR 23 points24 points25 points 4 years ago (19 children) | Copy Link

If a man doesn't want the responsibility of fatherhood he needs to keep it in his pants.

Oh, you're talking about wahmens bodily autonomy? Well that's different. If a woman doesn't want the responsibility of maternity she needs to keep her legs closed

I have never earned a penny without using my body thus taking my money is taking my body for a time. 25%of a 40hr workweek (as if my average isn't 60) for 18 years is about 50% more time than a pregnancy... and I don't get to sleep or much of anything else for myself while I work

[–][deleted] 4 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]TAPriceCTR 1 point2 points3 points 4 years ago* (2 children) | Copy Link

If women don't want to have kids they need to figure it out as soon as possible then get final ligation. If they want kids, still get final ligation but freeze your eggs. The eggs are viable for decades.

Damn that sounds vile. Is just a vile when the gender reverse you said.

No thanks. I'll stick with monogamy. I'm not arguing for myself. I'm arguing for equality. I'm perfectly fine outlawing fetucide and enforcing child support. But if women have the post sex choice not to become mothers, men must have the post sex choice not to become fathers. Allowing women unilateral choice over BOTH their lives isn't equality.

PS: I just noticed you username. You don't happen to be my ex wife? She was a massive leach too. Thankfully another man rescued me from her... poor asshole doesn't deserve her but better him than me.

[–][deleted] 4 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]TAPriceCTR 1 point2 points3 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

If you want to hold men to this standard, fine... but hold women to it as well. Whether it be reproductive responsibility or reproductive choice, drop the double standards.

[+]Much_Society_6170 -20 points-19 points-18 points 4 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link

women are the ones who go through the terrible and extremely life threatening experience of pregnancy and childbirth. i promise you can keep your dick in your skid marked underwear or wear a condom if you dont want kids. a man could never tell me to keep a child against my will.

[–]TAPriceCTR 17 points18 points19 points 4 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

Many times More men die every year in the 1 kind of labor men do than do women in BOTH kinds of labor. So stop post hocing excuses for your position and try applying consistent standards.

[+]Much_Society_6170 -24 points-23 points-22 points 4 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

men die more doing work cause they put themselves in a position where they are the workers and women are the caretakers so tough luck i guess lol

[–]TAPriceCTR 2 points3 points4 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Men die doing the work necessary to keep society in a condition that women can think they don't need men. Men die on the job because women are too privileged to go out in a winter storm to restore power. Men die on the job more because feminists don't give a shit about breaking into the glass cellar. Men die on the job more because men do what NEEDS to be done and women do what gives them a sense of fulfillment. And all this is a distraction from the fact that when you steal 25%of a man's income you make him work more hours. Karen Straughan tells of a friend who was maimed on the job and wants to quit for a safer, easier, lower paying job but because of his slavery, I mean child support, he can't. If my wife had the income to provide for our family is love to be a stay at home dad. Yes, I do know what that takes, I spent 3 years as a single dad with sole custody... and I was man enough to do it without child support, but just like working in arduous and dangerous fields, we can't expect women to have the strength to handle their own UNILATERAL decisions... that would require them be men's equal in responsibility, not just rights.

[–][deleted] 4 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[+]Much_Society_6170 -6 points-5 points-4 points 4 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

this is truly the stupidest reply ive ever received, jesus christ. did you even read what i said? men put themselves as the leaders and above women by force because they hate women, see them as mindless child birthing machines, and believe themselves to be better, stronger, and more capable of leading.

the whole argument of “oh you said men are leaders so actually youre the sexist one” is proof you’re too stupid to understand the real issues of this world.

what do keeping my legs closed even have to do with this? are you high?

[–][deleted] 4 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]Much_Society_6170 1 point2 points3 points 4 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

ah yes men are totally the disadvantaged group in society when they have it better in basically everyway. a man doesnt have to give up his body to birth a child while his significant other does absolutely nothing but donate some dry sperm. a man never has to experience bleeding from his dick or being raped and killed for his gender, or not being allowed to show his ankles.

it is a fact that most issues that men have are caused and maintained by other men. issues that women have are also caused and maintained by men.

and no i dont care about “women and gender studies”. im studying to become a lawyer.

by the way calling me a dumb bitch for stating facts isnt making you seem any less misogynistic, mr equality

[–]KochiraJin 2 points3 points4 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

women are the ones who go through the terrible and extremely life threatening experience of pregnancy and childbirth.

In 2017, The US had 17.3 mothers die due to pregnancy per 100,000 live births*. So the risk of death is about 0.0713% per pregnancy. I think you need to reassess what qualifies as extremely life threatening.

  • Data from the CDC.

[–]haaappppyyy -1 points0 points1 point 4 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Men and women can close their legs.

I believe men and women shouldn’t have sex before marriage.

[+]dcs577 -6 points-5 points-4 points 4 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Nice whataboutism

[–]TAPriceCTR 0 points1 point2 points 4 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Deflecting from your hypocrisy being illuminated by calling it Whataboutism is Whataboutism.

[–]dcs577 3 points4 points5 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Need a dictionary?

[–]_insertnamehere-_- 7 points8 points9 points 4 years ago* (11 children) | Copy Link

Autonomy? You choose to fuck, you may face the consequences. It’s not your body, it’s other human live.

[–]YouLookGoodInASmile 5 points6 points7 points 4 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

Thats the same argument that people who are against men having the ability to choose if they want to be a father or not use

[–]_insertnamehere-_- -3 points-2 points-1 points 4 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Well if they had sex with consent and she got pregnant, then no one should be able to opt out

[–]YouLookGoodInASmile 2 points3 points4 points 4 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

yeah no way buckeroo. Everyone should be able to opt out of parenthood when its that early.
I do not think men should be able to force abortions, but I also dont think they should be forced to pay for a child they didnt want.

[–]_insertnamehere-_- -4 points-3 points-2 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Woman should not be able to abort and men should not be able to stop paying (but I do not agree with abusive payments like, what type of kid needs $10k per month)

[–]18Apollo18 1 point2 points3 points 4 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

So you support child support then?

A man choose to have sex so he should accept all responsibility to rasing a child?

[–]_insertnamehere-_- -1 points0 points1 point 4 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Yes

[–]18Apollo18 -1 points0 points1 point 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Gross

[–]Brilliant-Derp-6653 -5 points-4 points-3 points 4 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

Rape.

I’m not elaborating further, If you can’t fully understand upon what I just said, then I pity you.

[–]KitoOkada 11 points12 points13 points 4 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

That's maybe 1% of abortions and I'm highballing. Disingenuous argument

[–]Bluejay022 0 points1 point2 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Plus plenty of pro-life people say their position is “pro-life except in cases of rape, incest, and to save the life of the mother” to account for these rare exceptions

[–]_insertnamehere-_- -3 points-2 points-1 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Exactly

[–][deleted] 4 points5 points6 points 4 years ago (53 children) | Copy Link

Look at the babies’ bodies from the DC abortions and tell me that they were granted bodily autonomy.
A fetus is ontologically, biologically, immunologically, and genetically distinct from the mother. It is not “her body”.
Why can’t irresponsible women take a stupid pill everyday?! Hmmm?!

[–]Hit_riolusquad 13 points14 points15 points 4 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Not sure if you're being sarcastic, but those pills aren't 100% effective.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Taken as directed, 99.9% effective. Routine Abortion is driven by irresponsible behavior.

[–]dcs577 1 point2 points3 points 4 years ago (39 children) | Copy Link

Fetuses don’t have bodily autonomy until they can live autonomously…

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points1 point 4 years ago (38 children) | Copy Link

Really? Can a newborn live autonomously? Can you lol? Nope and nope.

[–]dcs577 2 points3 points4 points 4 years ago (37 children) | Copy Link

Yes…it can live separately from any other living organism. Did you not know what bodily autonomy meant?

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 4 years ago (36 children) | Copy Link

I know exactly what it means.
A newborn baby requires a mother’s milk, or equivalent. Is that bodily autonomy?! It needs food and shelter. A person on dialysis or a ventilator is not autonomous; you aren’t, I am not, we are not off the grid. We depend on farmers and lots of people to keep us alive. So what level of autonomy confers humanity on a person, hmmm?!

[–]dcs577 2 points3 points4 points 4 years ago (35 children) | Copy Link

It is bodily autonomy yes. By your definition, no one has body autonomy because we rely on a farmer to grow food we buy and so on.

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points1 point 4 years ago (32 children) | Copy Link

Yes. Ontology is unrelated to dependency.

[–]dcs577 2 points3 points4 points 4 years ago (31 children) | Copy Link

You seem to agree there are degrees of autonomy and you’ve chosen a reduction to absurdity route in your argument.

The difference is you have chosen to be reliant on farmers. You could grow your own food but you have decided you’d rather be a slave to big-AG. A fetus has no choice but to be reliant on the health of the mother.

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points1 point 4 years ago (30 children) | Copy Link

The ontological essence of a zygote is a human being. Same for embryo, same for fetus, same for a preemie, same for a newborn, same for a person born without arms, same for person in a coma.
There is constant change in our morphologies from one stage to the next. Independence of existence from nutrition sources is not the basis of one’s humanity.

[–]EddPW 0 points1 point2 points 4 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

By your definition, no one has body autonomy because we rely on a farmer to grow food we buy and so on.

not really?

if tomorrow every farmer stops working nothing stopping from planting your own food or raise your own chickens

youre using the example of a mutual beneficial relationship

meanwhile if a mother abandons a new born the baby is physically incapable of surviving on its own

[+]somirion -12 points-11 points-10 points 4 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

Ok. So just cut the babies out with placenta and let them live on their own without stealing womans nutrients and being generally a big stress to body. They will die 3 minutes in, but they will die on their own. Why cant irresponsible men wear a condom once in a year?

[–]Mantequilla_Stotch 10 points11 points12 points 4 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

Oh man here we are. Another woman who thinks babies are parasites and think it's fully men's faults for not wearing condoms since women don't have the ability to enforce what goes into their fucking vagina.

[+]somirion -9 points-8 points-7 points 4 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

No, im a man. Why its women responsibility to take pills everyday? Also you think that every sex should conclude in babies? Because "if sex was, then child must stay" is stupid.

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points1 point 4 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

Irresponsibility leads to pregnancy. Don’t be irresponsible. A newborn baby can’t live on its own. You can’t and I can’t.

[–]somirion 2 points3 points4 points 4 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

Yes, but there was "its not her body" etc. So we can extract fetus without damaging it. Let it live on its own, without taking toll on mothers body. I know that it will die. But we did not damaged the body, so we dont kill it. If women cant abort because "its not her body, genetic material etc", why child must be able to take her nutrients if she doesnt want it?

Child is violating her space and she did not put it there alone and if she wants to abort- it wasnt even planned.

Tell me logical why, without talking about "she should not spread her legs" or something simmilar.

I really dont care about not sentient things and potential to be sentient is too little. Average full grown human is infinietly more important to me than 1-3 months old fetus.

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points1 point 4 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

So would you abort a nine month of pregnancy developed fetus?! Have you seen the photos of such abortions?! It’s disgusting.

[–]Mantequilla_Stotch 0 points1 point2 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I never said that it's a woman's responsibility. I did however say that it is women's responsibility to make sure the man who sticks his dick in her complies with wearing a condom. Men should wear condoms but women need to make sure they are actually wearing one, especially if she isn't taking a pill..

I don't think every time someone has sex, a baby is born. I do however know that unprotected sex is usually the reason why babies are born.

if sex was, then child must stay"

Did you have a stroke?

[–]DoppelGangHer88 0 points1 point2 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Which is why abortion should be illegal.

[+]TAPriceCTR -13 points-12 points-11 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Looking at one side of an issue only is feminist dogma.

[–]Dirk_94 7 points8 points9 points 4 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Sauce? Not everyonw lives in america Oklahoma :)

[–]Pr0X_JoshiGuy[S] 2 points3 points4 points 4 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/04/06/us/oklahoma-abortion-ban.html

[–]Donghoon 2 points3 points4 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Im in no place to say anything about abortion; im kinda a prolife but abortion should absolutely be legally available.

I think at late stafe pregnancy it's immoral to abort but i understand situation arose and many complications exist with pregnancy and health of women etc.

Its a hard decision to make, its a serious decision to make, but I don't think government should dictate such decision.

[–]FastFourierTerraform 19 points20 points21 points 4 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Once again, feminists have declared a national emergency over the prospect of having the same rights as men, and I think it's fucking hilarious.

I'd be down to enshrine the right to opt out of parenthood, but only if it includes everyone. Unfortunately feminists find the thought of human rights for men to be an abhorrent prospect, so I don't see that going anywhere anytime soon.

[–]Candid-Relevance-333 6 points7 points8 points 4 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

Feminists don't want equal rights. They want dominance.

[–]thcottimusprime 6 points7 points8 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Hands down a shit law.

[–]jmcsquared 10 points11 points12 points 4 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

I see nothing unethical about 1st trimester abortions before fetuses develop consciousness. So, since it makes every single abortion a felony, this bill is way too much.

[+]TracyMorganFreeman -8 points-7 points-6 points 4 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

It's unknown when consciousness develops though.

[–]Ihaveaparrot 5 points6 points7 points 4 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Well clearly it doesn't exist when there's no brain 🤡🤡

[–]TracyMorganFreeman 2 points3 points4 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Brain and notochord starts developing at week 5.

That's not even halfway into trimester one.

[–]AnnaisElliesMom 0 points1 point2 points 4 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

By that logic if someone goes unconscious, say, in a coma, does that mean its ethically right to kill them?

Lets say doctors know theyre going to wake up.... can you still kill them?

Same logic for a healthy developing baby. you know its gonna live. but its just not conscious yet..

[–]andallwassilent 1 point2 points3 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

No, this is more of a case of balancing the rights of the fetus against those of the mother. During the first trimester, the mother’s rights outweigh the fetus’ rights.

[–]duhhhh 6 points7 points8 points 4 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

Is it a law? I thought it just passed the house. Still has to get through the senate and governor, no?

I'd much rather see universl rights for anyone not to be forced into unwanted parental responsibilities added rather than taking away half the options for women. While this a step towards equality, it's the wrong direction.

[–]No_Mirror_345 1 point2 points3 points 4 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

What’s being proposed?

[–]duhhhh 2 points3 points4 points 4 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

https://www.reuters.com/world/us/oklahoma-house-passes-near-total-abortion-ban-with-threat-prison-providers-2022-04-05/

[–]No_Mirror_345 5 points6 points7 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Thanks, to you. No thanks on the law.

[+]Bluejay022 -6 points-5 points-4 points 4 years ago* (1 child) | Copy Link

They wouldn’t have unwanted parental responsibilities if they were more careful. Actions are supposed to have consequences.

[–]duhhhh 3 points4 points5 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Way to victim blame...

A man's choice not to have sex is irrelevant as far as the courts are concerned. No matter how she gets pregnant, his only choices today are pay, jail repeatedly for the rest of his life, fleeing the country to a crappy one forever, or ending his life.

After Hermesmann v Seyer set the precedent, courts around the country have decided that male victims of women owe the perpetrators child support for decades, while other precedents (Roe v Wade) and laws (safe haven laws) generally allow female victims many options to get rid of the product of their rapes.

Hermesmann successfully argued that a woman is entitled to sue the father of her child for child support even if conception occurred as a result of a criminal act committed by the woman.

E.g.

Alabama man - https://law.justia.com/cases/alabama/court-of-appeals-civil/1996/2950025-0.html

Arizona boy - https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/09/02/statutory-rape-victim-child-support/14953965/

California boy - https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/ct-xpm-1996-12-22-9612220045-story.html

Others in this paper "Victims with responsibilities" -https://lawpublications.barry.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1017&context=cflj

There are many others out there. I do not believe there has yet been a single case where a boy or man has gotten out of paying child support to an adult woman that statutory raped, raped, sperm jacked, etc.

The good news is that in recent years feminist lobbiests have pushed for laws to prevent rapists from getting child custody. Without custody the child wouldn't be raised by a rapist and the victim wouldn't owe child support. So the day that a male doesn't owe his perpetrator may be coming soon. The less good news is that just over half the states that passed these laws passed them as the feminist lobbiests proposed them - only preventing rapist fathers from getting custody. (https://www.ncsl.org/research/human-services/parental-rights-and-sexual-assault.aspx)

Terrell v Torres recently set a precedent and invalidated a signed contract to let a woman use embryos created with her ex and have him owe child support.

https://www.azcentral.com/story/news/local/arizona/2019/03/18/arizona-court-ruling-use-preserved-embryos-without-ex-husbands-consent-ruby-torres/3205867002/

Courts have ruled the same way in Illinois and the US supreme court agreed.

http://www.fathers4equality-australia.org/fathers-rights/woman-wins-custody-of-embryos-after-separation/

Courts have ruled the same way in a very similar situation in Italy.

https://www.ansa.it/canale_saluteebenessere/notizie/lei_lui/vita_di_coppia/2021/02/25/si-allimpianto-dellembrione-dellex-marito-anche-se-lui-dice-no_05230156-95ea-406a-aa7e-4e90cf2d7c93.html

Courts ruled the same way in yet another similar case in Israel.

https://he.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D7%A4%D7%A8%D7%A9%D7%AA_%D7%A0%D7%97%D7%9E%D7%A0%D7%99

In several other cases women who forged her ex's signature to implant have been awarded child support from the unwilling father. E.G. https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5687477/Ex-husband-ordered-pay-child-support-former-wife-forged-signature-undergo-IVF.html

Reproductive coersion of men is also an issue that would be drastically reduced with financial abortion.

approximately 10.4% (or an estimated 11.7 million) of men in the United States reported ever having an intimate partner who tried to get pregnant when they did not want to or tried to stop them from using birth control

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reproductive_coercion

American talk shows for women encourage women to stop birth control without telling their partner with the applause of their audiences.

https://youtube.com/watch?v=5CNHwhHWPoQ

What about IVF with sperm taken from a condom without the man's consent?

https://www.mommyish.com/woman-steals-ex-boyfriends-sperm-has-twins-sues-for-child-support-836/

How about when they only engage in oral sex which should have no pregnancy risk?

https://rollingout.com/2014/02/04/woman-uses-sperm-oral-sex-get-pregnant-force-man-pay-child-support/

How about court orders mandating men give their wife sperm so they can impregnate themselves during divorce proceedings?

https://theprint.in/judiciary/court-orders-man-to-donate-sperm-to-estranged-wife-who-says-no-time-for-2nd-marriage/255215/

Financial abortion would solve all the financial issues for victimized males and remove financial incentives for women to do these things, but many pro-choice folks immediately start making pro-life talking points that if he didn't want a kid he should have used a condom or kept it in his pants.

Financial abortion is about bodily autonomy. No out for child support forces a man to spend years of his life working to pay for a child he does not want. If he loses his job and is unable to pay, he will be locked in a cage.

1 in 8 men in South Carolina jails are there for failure to pay child support. They are not given court appointed lawyers until they are $10k behind and most are arrested and lose their job way before that limit making it extremely difficult to pay.

Src: https://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/20/us/skip-child-support-go-to-jail-lose-job-repeat.html

In the US,

66 percent of all child support not paid by fathers is due to an inability to come up with the money

Src: https://www.huffpost.com/entry/the-myth-of-the-deadbeat-_b_4745118

Mothers owing child support are more likely to not pay fathers than visa versa, but women are rarely jailed for it.

we found that 32 percent of custodial fathers didn't receive any of the child support that had been awarded to them compared to 25 percent of custodial moms

Src: https://www.npr.org/2015/03/01/389945311/who-fails-to-pay-child-support-moms-at-a-higher-rate-than-dads

But women aren't sent to jail at nearly the same rates for failure to live up to their obligations.

Based on national data, if incarceration for non-payment of child support occurred at equal rates for men and women who are in arrears, 88% of those incarcerated would be men, not 95% to 98.5%, and 12% would be women (since 12% of those in arrears are women). If, as Brennan’s report shows, as few as 1.5% of those incarcerated for non-payment of child support in Massachusetts are women, instead of the expected 12%, then women in arrears are incarcerated at a rate eight times less than their numbers warrant.

Src: https://pjmedia.com/drhelen/2013/03/15/women-who-fail-to-pay-all-of-their-child-support-are-incarcerated-only-one-eighth-as-often-as-men-with-similar-violations-n130850

[–]VeteranOfDepression 4 points5 points6 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I'd say that women should be able to have abortions, but men should be able to give up parental rights and not have to pay a dime.

[–]YUPitsME_RICK 7 points8 points9 points 4 years ago (19 children) | Copy Link

this is something for which my ideologies align with feminists. u cant force someone to go through the struggles of pregnancy. it is completely a matter of choice.

[–][deleted] 4 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]YUPitsME_RICK 0 points1 point2 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

the child should have born dead if it didnt want to come in this world /s

[+]ignatztempotypo -6 points-5 points-4 points 4 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

Choices have consequences. One of the very possible consequences of piv sex is pregnancy. Women, as a generalization live more in the moment and don't like dealing with consequences.

[–]YUPitsME_RICK 7 points8 points9 points 4 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

and thts no reason to force someone through pregnancy

[–]nexisprime -5 points-4 points-3 points 4 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

Yes, it is. By your logic, we can't send people to prison for committing crimes. Since that would be forcing them to face the consequences of their actions.

[–]YUPitsME_RICK 1 point2 points3 points 4 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

people are sent to jail to ‘learn’ from their mistakes and also to make them suffer for their immoral actions. having sex isnt immoral hence the ‘punishing’ avoidable consequences may be avoided, depending on the women’s choice

[–]nexisprime -4 points-3 points-2 points 4 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

You're missing the point. The point wasn't about jail. It was about consequences. Consequences are amoral. They're the results of actions or behaviors, and they have to be endured.

Pregnancy is the consequence of sex.

[–]YUPitsME_RICK 1 point2 points3 points 4 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

yeah thats literally shit philosophy. believe me, even i felt that way but a bit of thinking shows you how dumb that actually is in real life

[–]nexisprime 1 point2 points3 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I’m not seeing a rebuttal. Just saying “shit philosophy” means nothing. Garbage argument.

[–]DoppelGangHer88 -3 points-2 points-1 points 4 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

Unless they were raped, no one is forced to go through pregnancy.

[–]YUPitsME_RICK 4 points5 points6 points 4 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

having sex isnt called being pregnant.

[–]DoppelGangHer88 -3 points-2 points-1 points 4 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

I didn't say that. Having sex can result in pregnancy and if you consent to sex you're also consenting to the possible consequences of that action.

It's the same argument given to men who can't opt-out of parenthood and its the same argument you'd give someone who didn't consent to being fat if they ate in a surplus.

You can pick your choices but you can't always pick the consequences.

[–]YUPitsME_RICK 3 points4 points5 points 4 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

its the same argument given to men who cant opt out of parenthood

the fact you know its a dumb reason and still arguing. the only thing u are doing is eye for an eye, which is just dumb

[–]DoppelGangHer88 0 points1 point2 points 4 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

Nice cherry pick. Now see the apt comparison of being fat. If you eat in a surplus you can't say you didn't consent to risking becoming fat. If you consented to sex you can't say you didn't consent to risking pregnancy.

The double standard men face doesn't negate my argument, the argument applies the same to them. The only difference is that women can kill the natural consequence of their consented action, while there is no such choice for men.

Unilateral power over life and death shouldn't be available to anyone.

[–]YUPitsME_RICK 1 point2 points3 points 4 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

eating in surplus will make u fat. you can escape that consequence by exercising. simple.

and if u think that women not getting abortion rights will solve the problem for men forced into parenthood, i have some new for you.

[–]DoppelGangHer88 1 point2 points3 points 4 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

If you exercise enough to negate the surplus, you're no longer eating in a surplus.

If you have properly protected sex, you reduce the risk of pregnancy significantly, almost to the point of negation. Since women are the arbiters of who gets sex and who gets born, the vast majority of that responsibility falls onto us, which is why "just keep your legs closed," or "don't get pregnant" is much more pertinent advice to us than it is to men, who have a significantly harder time on average having access to sex, at all.

Women can opt out of parenthood completely, even if they chose to have the baby, men cannot. That's the inequality that needs to be addressed, not the power to kill the baby itself.

[–]YUPitsME_RICK -1 points0 points1 point 4 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

so on a post about abortion you want to discuss parenthood laws. sorry its the wrong place

[–]CawlinAlcarz 5 points6 points7 points 4 years ago* (4 children) | Copy Link

It will never hold up to SCOTUS scrutiny. It's dumb grandstanding, but I think it's an effort to swing back at the dems who are going after 2A with the same sort of vigor and malice.

FWIW, I am generally opposed to abortion, but I understand that not everyone shares my own morality. I blelieve abortion should be allowed, particularly in the first trimester. After that, it should be for medical emergencies only.

Political grandstanding aside, I feel like we would be better off spending resources on education and low cost birth control than going after abortion.

[–]TrilIias -1 points0 points1 point 4 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

On what grounds would the Supreme Court oppose it? Roe v Wade? There's a high chance that SCOTUS is going to strike down Roe this summer, probably before they'd get a chance to review this law in Oklahoma.

[–]CawlinAlcarz 1 point2 points3 points 4 years ago* (2 children) | Copy Link

If I were a betting man, I'd bet against them overturning Roe. I just don't think they'll do it. You could be right though.

What's that feature we can use to have reddit send us a reminder to check back on a post in some defined amount of time? I'd like to be reminded to look back at this in say, 6 months.

[–]TrilIias 1 point2 points3 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I'm not going to be surprised either way. They all know the outrage that will be generated if they overturn it, and I don't know if they are brave enough to do it. But they definitely should, it's objectively a bad decision. Even if you are pro-choice it must be recognized that it was a bad decision. And it was made by a conservative majority SCOTUS, so having a conservative majority now means nothing.

[–]TrilIias 0 points1 point2 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Well it hasn't been 6 months, I guess we'll check again in about 2 more?

[–]jamesbwbevis 6 points7 points8 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Strongly against. I support abortion

[–]StinkingDischarge 6 points7 points8 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I dont have a uterus so I'm not qualified to have an opinion, right?? Right?? So I dont have a dog in this fight. Women, you're on your own with this one.

[–]MagentaLove 5 points6 points7 points 4 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

I think an acceptable line is that abortions should be legal up until the fetus could survive outside the womb, which I believe is around 24 weeks.

I cannot support any law that restricts or complicates beyond that line, even as a 'revenge' tactic because men can't get a 'paper abortion'. It's a bad argument to withhold rights earned by another because you are also pushing for your own.

[–]OldEgalitarianMRA 11 points12 points13 points 4 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

Many women lost their life and hospitals were full of women with complications of back room abortions. I support abortion on the first trimester.

[–]TAPriceCTR 1 point2 points3 points 4 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Revisionist history. The only documented coat hanger abortion (that feminists love to harp about) happened in a place where abortion was legal.

[–]OldEgalitarianMRA 8 points9 points10 points 4 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

I had a close long term friend who was a physician in Argentina when abortion was illegal. She explained to me the wards filled with women with horrible infections and perforated uteri from illegal abortions.

[–]pyrolover6666 -4 points-3 points-2 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

No one force the women to preform back room abortions

[–]TrilIias 0 points1 point2 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Is this an argument? Because to someone who is pro-life all we hear is "attempted murder ends up in hospital."

[–]pyrolover6666 -3 points-2 points-1 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Women still get back room abortions even in the most pro-choice states

[–]bibkel 1 point2 points3 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

It would help to post it, as not everyone is from Oklahoma or watches the news.

[–]doomsday1021 1 point2 points3 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

The only reason they outlawed it was probably because too many people from Texas kept going to their state just for abortions which is illegal depending on what state your from… every state is different 🤷🏻‍♂️

[–]lostcymbrogi 1 point2 points3 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Regardless of your opinion it should be pointed out that this poll is misleading. It isn't law yet. It still has a couple of hurdles to cross before it actually becomes law.

[–]3-1-3-mamma 1 point2 points3 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Murdering babies is evil. Every time.

[–]elebrin 4 points5 points6 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Ultimately, I want abortion to be legal. I don't like abortion and I am very judgmental of the women I know who have had them, but it needs to be legal because I don't see it as a valid justification for harassing people over. We don't need the police knocking on people's door because they think someone had an abortion three years ago or because someone asked a question online about their options for an unwanted pregnancy.

For me, I want it to be legal because I don't think it's a valid excuse for enforcement to harass people, and I also don't want dangerous backalley abortions killing people.

I'd rather see a society that encourages young people to get married and start their family right away. Want to prevent incels AND crazy extreme feminists? Give young people LOTS of motivation to pair off and start families, so that they grow together and have a support network of family. My hypothesis is this: if we had the expectation that most people are married by 20 and have kids by 22, we'd have different problems but some of our current ones would be lessened in strength. Serious relationships that are sexual in nature would end up married relationships, and children would be considered good news rather than the death knell for your future.

[–]FaceYourEvil 2 points3 points4 points 4 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

Fucking disgusting. It's not as bad as texas though where you can collect a 10k bounty for snitching about an abortion.

[+]nexisprime -7 points-6 points-5 points 4 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

Stop defending murder.

[–]FaceYourEvil 3 points4 points5 points 4 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Fuck you, youre trash and belong with the murderers. Fucking scum.

[–]nexisprime -3 points-2 points-1 points 4 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

I think you need to face your own evil.

[–]FaceYourEvil 3 points4 points5 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

All of us do brother

[–]ManofGod1000 1 point2 points3 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Our opinion is typically irrelevant, things are going to happen the way they happen and that is that. Otherwise, why is the fathers right to have that child born irrelevant? (We already know the answer so.......)

[–]timeslidesRD 2 points3 points4 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Providing its done early enough its fine.

[–]big_wing 1 point2 points3 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I used to live in Oklahoma. I dodged a bullet thanks to abortion. I'm glad I escaped that evangelical hellscape.

[–]XandogxD 0 points1 point2 points 4 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Isn’t it funny how by giving “women the right to abort” you are removing the right for the fetus to live?

Which one is more important? The life of a potential human being? Or that women get to have sex without having children?

Yeah I said it.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 4 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

I'm so confused. This is a Men's Rights board, but abortion is seen as a women's issue. But men should have a say in the welfare of their child, yet also my body my choice.....I'm so confused.

Any attempt to protect the innocent I support.

[–]XandogxD 0 points1 point2 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I agree always support the innocent. (I am guessing you mean children that is)

And abortion is both a male and female issue. And I agree men should have equal say in their child’s life, born or unborn.

I’m just quoting the leftist motto. And poking holes in it 😂

The thing is both male and female babies are killed In the millions each year.

“Womens rights” don’t care about men or women. Only themselves. And they will use whoever is gullible enough to believe that all their dreams will come true if only they bend over for these horrible people.

I mean look at the world as it is?

Sexism, murder, sexual assault on men, racism, discrimination, thievery, minority victimization, misinformation, censorship, and more are legal, expected, and ENCOURAGED.

I wouldn’t be surprised if in 50 years “Mens liberation” came around and then men become the new face of the liberal agenda. Where masculinity is encouraged and femininity becomes “toxic”.

History is riddled with this behavior. It’s not new. But then again ask anyone a basic history question and most get them wrong so what does anyone know 🤷‍♂️

So yeah. I agree lol

[–][deleted] 4 points5 points6 points 4 years ago (17 children) | Copy Link

Nothing weirder than a bunch of men bleating about men's rights voting to curtail women's rights out of petulance.

And sure, eliminating the right to abortion will do SO much for men paying child support...

[–]Le_ed 1 point2 points3 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

But the majority disliked it...

[–]pyrolover6666 -2 points-1 points0 points 4 years ago (15 children) | Copy Link

What about the right to life?

[–][deleted] 4 points5 points6 points 4 years ago (14 children) | Copy Link

What right to life? You don't have any rights until birth. You never did in all of history.

[–]pyrolover6666 -1 points0 points1 point 4 years ago (13 children) | Copy Link

why until birth?

[–][deleted] 3 points4 points5 points 4 years ago (12 children) | Copy Link

It's unambiguous. It's actually been after at times and places. There are probably many other reasons, religious (as in the case of the Jewish for example) and otherwise.

[–]pyrolover6666 -1 points0 points1 point 4 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link

What is the actual reason though?

Speaking of Jewish did you know that Margaret Sanger (founder of planned Parenthood) openly supported eugenics.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 4 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

She did yes, in a general sense. The quotes people use against her though are doctored, redacted, and out of context. She was not a racist.

[–]pyrolover6666 -1 points0 points1 point 4 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

Out of context like trump?

She may not not have been racist but she still hate poor and disable people.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 4 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

Hardly like Trump. They take what she said, and delete whole words from her sentences, and whole sentences from her paragraphs. When you read what she really wrote, she's says something altogether different than what the liars have made her out to have said.

Trump just gets quoted and makes no sense.

Your last line is abject nonsense.

[–]pyrolover6666 -1 points0 points1 point 4 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

So just like with trump.

If she doesn't hate poc,poor people, and those with disabilities, how is she still an eugenics supporter?

[–]SheSeesSounds 2 points3 points4 points 4 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

What are we trying to accomplish here? Rather what are we thinking we're trading? Less fetus deaths for more what? children born.
What are we likely to actually be trading for? mother deaths or more criminals or more welfare or larger families( aren't a chunk of abortions from pre existing families decision?)...or what say you?

[–]Le_ed -3 points-2 points-1 points 4 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

More criminals and more welfare? What the fuck are you talking about?

[–]SheSeesSounds 1 point2 points3 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

More Criminals: Those breaking the new proposed law.

More Welfare: The social safety net may need to be a bit bigger for "some" of the additional children born due to the new proposed law.

Those were my initial thoughts about tradeoffs that I was talking about. hbu?

[–]Potato-with-guns 3 points4 points5 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I mean who gives a shit, when you cut yourself do you mourn the skin and muscle that died? The white blood cells that were lost keeping you safe and healthy? Why should an embryo or a fetus or whatever stage it is in be different?

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 4 years ago (16 children) | Copy Link

Like or not a fetus is:

A human, DNA test can prove this

Alive. Biologically a fetus is considered alive by virtually all metrics.

You don’t get to kill a human life for convenience.

[–]Ihaveaparrot 3 points4 points5 points 4 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

For me its more about human bodily autonomy. It's your body so you should have full permission over what to do with it regardless of what stage the baby is in. It's a fundamental policy of freedom imo.

[–]pyrolover6666 2 points3 points4 points 4 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

So by your logic conjoined twins should legally allowed to kill their twin

[–]Ihaveaparrot 1 point2 points3 points 4 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

Depends on the case, because you can’t technically distinguish whose body is whose. If it’s a parasitic twin then absolutely. But, if the crucial organs are shared you can’t distinguish which organ in whose.

In contrast to this, in pregnancies, it’s obvious which organs belong to whom, and until the baby is outside the mom, the baby is a part of the mom’s body and so are its bodyparts

[–]pyrolover6666 -3 points-2 points-1 points 4 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

so generally you believe that conjoined twins should have the legal right to murder their twin. I personally disagree and find terrible opinion deeply disturbing.

[–]Ihaveaparrot 1 point2 points3 points 4 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

You didn’t read what i said

[–]pyrolover6666 -2 points-1 points0 points 4 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

Yes I did.

[–]Ihaveaparrot 0 points1 point2 points 4 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

I said that in parasitic cases they can and in shared non-parasitic cases nobody can have agency because it’s a shared body.

Compared to pregnancies, the mother carries the entire child inside her and it’s entirely her body sustaining the fetuses. Thus, that would make it a part of her body

[–]pyrolover6666 -2 points-1 points0 points 4 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Humans aren't parasites

[–]Ihaveaparrot 0 points1 point2 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Parasital conjoined twins are just extra arms and legs… They take oxygen away, at least read up on something before you post about it

[–][deleted] -5 points-4 points-3 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

But it’s not your body… like that’s scientifically proven… it’s just not your body. It’s a whole another person. You don’t get to kill it because it’s inside you… that’s not bodily autonomy

[–]Le_ed 0 points1 point2 points 4 years ago* (4 children) | Copy Link

So is every cell on your body. If those are the definitions of human to you, then a paper cut is genocide.

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points1 point 4 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

Any cell that’s not your DNA isn’t your cell.

You are a accumulation of cells with a very specific set of genetic coding.

Which is exactly was a fetus or even a zygote is. These cells working in tandem makes it a life. Which is exactly what you are.

[–]Le_ed 1 point2 points3 points 4 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Any individual cell may be alive, but is not a human life. A group of cells only become a human after a certain degree of complexity. A small cluster of human cells doesn't make a human, even if a large cluster of cells with the same DNA would make a human.

Think of it like this, if I break a brick, does it mean I have broken a whole house? If I get a slight paper cut, does it mean I have killed millions of humans? Obviously no.

Being human arrives from the specific and highly complex organization of many individual cells, that are themselves not a human. In the same way that a house is a highly complex and specific arrangement of bricks, even though not a single brick by themselves would be a house.

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points1 point 4 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Um you completely contradict yourself.

If a cell is the most basic form of “life” then how is a group of them not a “life”?

And not “most” of them have unique dna… ALL OF THEM DO

you are arbitrarily considering one thing life and the other thing not.

The fact of the matter is, there are no differences between a fetus and an adult other than size , level of development, degree of dependence, and environment

And NONE of these are considered a biological standard for determining “life”

I’m sorry but biologically you are 100% wrong.

[–]Le_ed 2 points3 points4 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Damm, have you read my comment? At no point I said that cells are not alive, I said that they are not HUMAN life.

Think about it for a second. Any single cell is alive, even bacterial cells, but no single cell IS A HUMAN LIFE. Can you get the idea? That a human is not any individual cell, but rather the specific arrangement of various cells?

Again going back to my analogy, a house is a specific arrangement of bricks, not any individual brick. And no individual brick by itself can be considered a house. The existence of the entity called "house" arises from the complex arrangement of many other entities that are not themselves a "house".

Also, I don't know where you got the "most have unique DNA" part. Like, I don't think I even used the word "most" in my comment, and I barely talked about DNA. But just so that you are not confused, all cells in your body share the exact same DNA, if that was not clear. Also I didn't really talked about being "unique" in my comment. I think you just didn't understand what I said.

And again, to reiterate, I am saying that a zygote is not A HUMAN LIFE, not that it is not ALIVE. Just the same way that any individual cell in your body is ALIVE, but not a HUMAN. The keyword there being HUMAN if you still don't get it.

And lastly, when you said:

there are no differences between a fetus and an adult other than size , level of development, degree of dependence, and environment

Level of development is exactly what separates both. Just like level of development separates a single brick being laid and a house existing. The development of complexity is exactly what make the entity "human" or the entity "house" arise.

[–]skirted_dork 1 point2 points3 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

If men were the ones getting pregnant, abortion would be illegal everywhere

[–]Fean2616 1 point2 points3 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I'm shocked at the amount that like it.

[–]IamLilPump 1 point2 points3 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

this thread reminds me of who redditors are

[–][deleted] 4 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 4 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Being inconvenient doesn't mean you lose the right to life.

[–]C-Dub178 1 point2 points3 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I support it only because from the moment of conception to birth, you can’t draw any line that can’t also be drawn to a grown human where it’s okay to kill. Not sentient? What about people in comas? Can’t survive on its own? People on life support.

[–]Ashton-MD 0 points1 point2 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

This may get me downvoted, but I may offer my opinion, I believe that all life is valuable and that would include the fetus/baby. This fact is brought out in the Bible, even in the Mosaic Law that if harm came to a pregnant woman, but the baby wasn’t lost, the guilty party would have to pay compensation to the family. If the baby was lost, the guilty party would receive the death penalty. To me, this shows that life should be viewed as precious and valuable, and that God himself views it as so.

To me, the willful act of abortion is a form of murder. If you’re willing to have sex, you have to be ready and mature enough to accept all the consequences, no matter what they may be. This can include, but is not limited to, STD/STIs, emotional roller coaster, and naturally, the possibility of pregnancy.

Of course, victims of rape get my full sympathy and condolences. No person should ever be subjected to such indignity and disgusting behaviour. It’s truly a vile thing to do. But to those who suffered through such trauma, first, I’d like to say, talk to a professional. Get therapy. You’re a beautiful human being, and deserve to heal.

However, even for rape victims, I personally do not condone abortion. The baby/fetus may be a visible reminder of the horror that person experienced, but that child is in no way responsible for those actions. To blame them and end their life doesn’t solve the problem but rather compounds that issue.

This is of course, what I believe and I don’t judge the choices other people make. I believe that we are all responsible for the decisions we make. I personally would rather be guilty of being self-disciplined and controlled, so that I never put a person in such a position, as opposed to adamantly insisting on my so called “rights” and doing whatever I wanted. So while I can personally never condone or recommend an abortion, except in the case when the woman’s body rejects the fetus independently of medical assistance (or in other accidental circumstances), I would never attempt to control someone else’s decision either.

Put another way, I choose not to smoke because I know the health risks. That doesn’t mean I try and forces others to quit. I encourage them to if they choose to do so of their own accord, but I would never judge them if they continue to smoke. Similarly with abortions, I have my own personal opinion and believe that others should make their own personal choice.

[–]toastyhoodie -3 points-2 points-1 points 4 years ago (73 children) | Copy Link

Less abortion is much better

[–]ToadMugen72 15 points16 points17 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Less abortion because of less unwanted pregnancies happening in the first place would be better, but less abortions because of banning abortions would be much worse.

[–]-Soggy-Potato- 9 points10 points11 points 4 years ago (70 children) | Copy Link

Doesn’t actually change abortion rates

If you outright ban abortions, women just get illegal, more dangerous abortions or find other methods for terminating the pregnancy

It’s just generates more suffering, in exchange for control over a someone else’s bodily autonomy, with the creation of unwanted children often being shoved into the abysmal care system

This is a massive step back, I thought america was all about freedom and individualism, what happened?

[–]ASexualSloth 1 point2 points3 points 4 years ago (15 children) | Copy Link

Or, and hear me out on this one.

People take responsibility for the consequences of their actions.

[–]-Soggy-Potato- 2 points3 points4 points 4 years ago* (14 children) | Copy Link

That’s a horrible way to approach it

Needlessly reductive and dismissive of a complex and very very broad topic

[–]ASexualSloth 1 point2 points3 points 4 years ago (13 children) | Copy Link

Hmm.

Child support: If you don't want it, don't have sex

Abortion: Same root cause.

You can claim it's a reductive statement, but ultimately it boils down to take responsibility for your actions, legislation aside.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Yeah, but in your example you’re treating men and women’s bodies with equal respect

Get with the program! If it’s happening to a male, then it’s not a crime or violation of their autonomy at all!

[–]-Soggy-Potato- 0 points1 point2 points 4 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link

It’s a fancy sentiment but it doesn’t exist in the actual real world

People don’t and will not suddenly start taking responsibility when there are options to remove that responsibility

It’s a incredibly pointless statement to make, women will get abortions whether they’re legal or not

It’s just about whether or not you want to support a overall safe option or essentially encouraging an overall harmful one

[–]ASexualSloth 0 points1 point2 points 4 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

So because people make bad choices, you want to enable those bad choices so they don't have to face the consequences of their actions.

Did I get that right?

[–]-Soggy-Potato- -1 points0 points1 point 4 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

Nope, try again

[+]toastyhoodie -7 points-6 points-5 points 4 years ago (46 children) | Copy Link

The child’s life should be lost for the parents choices? Just commit murder for convenience then?

We are about freedom and individualism. What about the child’s freedom and individualism. It’s not just the woman’s body any longer.

[–]-Soggy-Potato- 7 points8 points9 points 4 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

That’s dismissive and shallow

Simplifying a complex issue to ‘murder’ and ‘convenience’ is grossly disingenuous

This is talking rape babies, incest babies, underage parents.

That isn’t ‘convenience’, saying that is intentionally dismissive because actually applying / empathising with the people in that context isn’t what people actually care about. It’s about a child being born no matter the cost

It’s not truly valuing a life if you don’t care about the life of the mother, and even this is ignoring the gross overstep in a persons bodily autonomy

[–]toastyhoodie -2 points-1 points0 points 4 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

Why should a child of rape pay for the sins of its father?

Same for incest. (Both account for less than 1% of abortions yearly)

I know parents who had kids underage. It’s better to fund support structures for those cases than to kill an unborn child.

The overwhelming amount of abortion is for convenience. The statistics show this.

[–]duhhhh 6 points7 points8 points 4 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

Why should a child of rape pay for the sins of its father?

Why should a mother victim be forced to carry such a child? Better to end the life before it is aware.

Why should a father victim be forced to pay his rapist to support such a child? Better to have the state care for the child than have a rapist raise the child and have the victim revictimized every paycheck for decades.

[–]toastyhoodie -2 points-1 points0 points 4 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

The child is innocent and deserves a chance

[–]duhhhh 12 points13 points14 points 4 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Same with the rape victim. The victim is already sentient though and the product of the rape is not.

[–]somirion 6 points7 points8 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Also child might not be loved by its mother, because it will look like her rapist

[–]dcs577 2 points3 points4 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

A chance to be on welfare and antidepressants yippie

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 4 years ago (16 children) | Copy Link

If it's a lawful killing, then it's not murder.

[–]toastyhoodie 2 points3 points4 points 4 years ago (15 children) | Copy Link

It isn’t lawful.

[–][deleted] 5 points6 points7 points 4 years ago (14 children) | Copy Link

That depends on the local law. There are plenty of places where it is.

[–]toastyhoodie 6 points7 points8 points 4 years ago (13 children) | Copy Link

Because you CAN, doesn’t mean you should. There’s plenty of unjust laws on the books. Doesn’t mean they’re right.

Personally I’m not just pro life, I’m anti abortion.

There are women that exist that will abort if they’re having a boy. That would relate to this sub funny enough.

[–]somirion 2 points3 points4 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

And in China they cant tell parents on USG gender of the child, because if its girl, they would abort her.

[–]duhhhh 6 points7 points8 points 4 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

There are women that exist that will abort if they’re having a boy.

A good example of sometimes no life is better than some lives. I'd prefer not to be born than be psychologically tortured by a mother like that for the first 18 years.

[–]Mantequilla_Stotch -3 points-2 points-1 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

You'd prefer.. you're also not everyone. So.. 1/4 of your life sucks.. might as well not be alive at all? If you have 75% chance you'd win the lottery, I guarantee you would go buy a ticket.

[–]Mantequilla_Stotch -5 points-4 points-3 points 4 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

You'd prefer.. you're also not everyone. So.. 1/4 of your life sucks.. might as well not be alive at all? If you have 75% chance you'd win the lottery, I guarantee you would go buy a ticket.

[–]duhhhh 2 points3 points4 points 4 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Childhood trauma usually fucks you up later in life too.

[–][deleted] 3 points4 points5 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

It just means that in an argument whether there should be a law against abortion, it's preferred to use a neutral word like 'killing' instead of 'murder', which already carries an unlawful implication.

I understand why people use 'murder' to evoke a greater emotional response, but it's not a fair debating technique.

[–]ToadMugen72 1 point2 points3 points 4 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

Since you're already looking definitions up you should look at the definition of murder.

[–]toastyhoodie 0 points1 point2 points 4 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Verb: to kill (a human being) unlawfully and with premeditated malice

[–]ToadMugen72 2 points3 points4 points 4 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

So now you see how what the other dude said was true?

[–]dcs577 -1 points0 points1 point 4 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

An unjust law is still lawful.

[–]toastyhoodie -1 points0 points1 point 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Hence the progress being made.

[–]duhhhh 2 points3 points4 points 4 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

Some lives are worse than no life at all.

What about the child’s freedom and individualism. It’s not just the woman’s body any longer.

That's why most people support restricting third trimester abortions to strong medical need. Oklahoma is trying to restrict nearly all abortions.

[–][deleted] -2 points-1 points0 points 4 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

Some lives are worse than no lives at all

I disagree entirely with this statement. I would much rather have a horrible life than not have a life at all.

[–]somirion 4 points5 points6 points 4 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

So you didnt had a horrible life and you dont know how bad it can be for some.

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 4 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Well, I do have autism, dysgraphia, dyscalculia, severe constipation, mild scoliosis, high metabolism, was circumcised at birth, and am about to fail 12th grade, but I guess I’ve had an ok life.

[–]dcs577 0 points1 point2 points 4 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Circumcised at birth?!? How do you wake up each day?!

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

It’s part of my life now, but I still want to beat the doctor that did it until my fists go numb.

[–]Mantequilla_Stotch 0 points1 point2 points 4 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

At least those with horrible lives have the choices to make that could actually make it less horrible.

[–]somirion 3 points4 points5 points 4 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

Yes, for example they can sometimes kill themselves. Some people are sick, some have just bad bodies. Dude, everybody thinks im super healthy etc and for half of my 27 years life i take opioids for pain. And I will take them probably to the end of my life. And im rather good all things considered.

If you really think that you would rather live horrible life than not experience it at all, then you didnt even saw people with horrible lifes.

Thats my take.

[–]ToadMugen72 0 points1 point2 points 4 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

The child’s life should be lost for the parents choices? Just commit murder for convenience then?

It is an embryo or fetus, not a child.

[–]toastyhoodie -2 points-1 points0 points 4 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

Science disagrees with you. Separate DNA, separate life.

Btw a fetus is an unborn mammal, specifically a human at 8 weeks after conception.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/fetus

[–]ToadMugen72 1 point2 points3 points 4 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

Look up the word child.

[–]toastyhoodie 7 points8 points9 points 4 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/child

A young person.

Definition 3 in particular states “an unborn or recently born person”

So your point?

Are you saying that at 38 weeks it’s ok to abort? Is the location the factor?

[–]ToadMugen72 2 points3 points4 points 4 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

"Biologically, a child (plural children) is a human being between the stages of birth and puberty"

Are you saying that at 38 weeks it’s ok to abort? Is the location the factor?

No, that is far too late.

[–]toastyhoodie 6 points7 points8 points 4 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

So again, are we saying a “fetus” (using your definition) at 38 weeks gestation, is ok to be aborted?

If not, what is the cutoff?

Here’s a baby born and survived at 21 weeks gestation

https://www.childrensmn.org/2020/12/23/baby-richard-born-21-weeks-one-youngest-babies-survive/

Many are aborted in that second trimester.

This article argues that the earliest a fetus can feel pain is 13 weeks.

https://jme.bmj.com/content/46/1/3

So what’s our cutoff?

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points1 point 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

“Whatever the women wants” - OP, probably

I’ve know feminists who argued women should be able to have “abortions” after birth (and in the next breath argue they have the right to mutilate the genitals of the baby they were considering killing)

Truly crazy people. No regard for the lives of anyone but themselves

[–][deleted] -4 points-3 points-2 points 4 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Fetus is Latin or Small Child.

[–]ToadMugen72 3 points4 points5 points 4 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

We're not speaking latin.

[–][deleted] -4 points-3 points-2 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

But you said a fetus isn’t a child. I was pointing out the inaccuracy of that statement.

[–]Millennial_Paleocon -1 points0 points1 point 4 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

That isn’t exactly true, at least not anymore. Within the first month of Texas’ new law, it was estimated that 150 children per day were born who otherwise would’ve been aborted. If there were back alley abortions for even 10% of those pregnancies, the media would’ve jumped all over it, especially if a woman was seriously injured or died as a result.

[–]-Soggy-Potato- 0 points1 point2 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

True, I do get that if you restrict peoples freedoms then they’ll have less options, I’d assume it’s right that more births take place, albeit unwanted, most likely under-supported kids

I think my main point is more that it’s hard to justify the good over the harm

Sentient, independent, thinking feeling individuals dealing with all the mental and physical trauma of a forced pregnancy / struggle of going to another state for one / ofc all the back alley or self-miscarriages

I just fail to see how you can justify that, valuing the life of the fetus so much over the woman, that I can’t genuinely see as totally equal in value

The general implications are just more important to me, it feels like a shallow stance that ignores the woman

And that’s still not really getting into bodily autonomy / individual freedoms etc

[–]TrilIias -1 points0 points1 point 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

What happened is we recognized the unborn as individuals. Hardly inconsistent with American values.

And I don't pity attempted murderers. If you try to kill someone else and end up in the hospital, I call that a step towards justice. Minimizing suffering should never be our objective. Maximizing justice should be our objective.

[–]TrilIias -1 points0 points1 point 4 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

What happened is we recognized the unborn as individuals. Hardly inconsistent with American values.

And I don't pity attempted murderers. If you try to kill someone else and end up in the hospital, I call that a step towards justice. Minimizing suffering should never be our objective. Maximizing justice should be our objective.

[–]-Soggy-Potato- 0 points1 point2 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I still don’t entirely get recognising the unborn as individuals

The whole context and implications of the situation make it hard for me to see it as a real 50/50 type of thing

The harm to the woman is actually tangible, it can be understood and experienced

Whereas the harm to An unborn life isn’t, it’s more based in ‘potentials’ which Isn’t a particularly good basis for ‘justice’

At which point is it just justice for the sake of justice? How much harm are you willing to inflict over a concept?

[–]DoppelGangHer88 -3 points-2 points-1 points 4 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

That's not what the data says; when abortion was illegal, there were less abortions.

Also, the baby's body is not the woman's body.

[–]-Soggy-Potato- 0 points1 point2 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

True, albeit more unwanted births and in turn most likely more under-supported children born into dysfunctional homes

And there were probably more illegal abortions, intentional miscarriages, out-of-state abortions

And ofc more trauma / suffering / breach of autonomy for women

It’s still a relatively complicated and wide problem, even if you point out the obvious

[–]angrybab00n 0 points1 point2 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I doubt that's how this law will work out

[–]ThrowawayGhostGuy1 1 point2 points3 points 4 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Women should have the same freedom of choice that men have.

[–]duhhhh 1 point2 points3 points 4 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Not same, as close to equivalent as possible. Women have a biological advantage in their ability to not bring a child into this world. However, they also have the ability to use safe haven laws and put a child up for adoption without disclosing the father's identity. Therefore, men should be able to walk away from their unwanted infants with no responsibilities as well.

[–]ThrowawayGhostGuy1 0 points1 point2 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

whoosh

[–]DoppelGangHer88 0 points1 point2 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I'll never understand why someone who supports men's rights would support women having unilateral power over life and death; yet another way to cement men's second-class status in society.

[–]Important_Market2512 0 points1 point2 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Abortion is murder

[+]MirrorofInk -9 points-8 points-7 points 4 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

I was pro-choice for quite a while, but now my political stance is whatever is the antithesis of anyone who votes Democrat or supports the disgusting "social justice" movement. I'll be voting Republican in every election for the rest of my life. It's the only way to restore sanity and preserve the culture and values that have made America the greatest nation that has ever existed.

[–]MEDICARE_FOR_ALL 7 points8 points9 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

but now my political stance is whatever is the antithesis of anyone who votes Democrat

So you're just as bad as the "social justice" people you are trying to vote against. At least have some political principles rather than "Democrats bad".

[–]duhhhh 13 points14 points15 points 4 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

I'll be voting Republican in every election for the rest of my life.

That's stupid. As a former Dem voter that has been voting Green, Libertarian, and Republican in recent years, it seems foolish to avoid them if they drop hate, identity politics, sucking up to big tech/pharma, etc and start pushing for progressive improvements for nearly all people.

[–]ASexualSloth 7 points8 points9 points 4 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

I'm not sure why, but from where I'm standing that's one heck of a big if.

It's more likely that they end up being replaced by a newer party that does a better job of representing what they claim to represent.

[–]duhhhh 2 points3 points4 points 4 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

That would be even better. Still not the same as voting Republican for life because the Dems are pricks today though.

[–]ASexualSloth 0 points1 point2 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

True, voting the same option just because is never a good thing, but since most people disregard the possibility of more than 2 pairs, it's all they think they can do to 'fight'.

[–]Jbr74 1 point2 points3 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

So in other words, he will be voting for Republicans for the rest of his life.

Because Democrats have been on the identity politics train for decades and it works. And hate is pretty effective with the younger generation so I don't see that going away anytime soon.

But yes "in theory" its not wise to lock yourself into one choice with a blanket statement, even if its the realistic outcome. I HOPE one day there is a Democrat I can vote for, because that means we are in a much better place than we are now.

[–]dcs577 1 point2 points3 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Sounds reasonable

[–]DirtyPartyMan 2 points3 points4 points 4 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Republican? The same party that voted almost unanimously against capping insulin?

To be clear: I hate both parties and the circus they represent. If anyone thinks one or the other party is “better” I automatically question their critical thinking.

[–]duhhhh 0 points1 point2 points 4 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Democrat? The same party that removed the existing price cap insulin as soon as Biden got into office and made lots of pay a whole lot more for a year before they could be heros?

[–]DirtyPartyMan 1 point2 points3 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

To

Be

more

Clear

Both sides suck

[–]AishiFem 0 points1 point2 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I love this law. A bit extreme but still on the right track.

[–]TrilIias -3 points-2 points-1 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

As an Oklahoman, I love this bill.

[–]ghostjava 0 points1 point2 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

It is disgusting.

[–]soukidan1 -2 points-1 points0 points 4 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Anything that stands in the way of infant murder is great in my book. Pro-life all the way. What really needs to be done is a repeal of Roe v Wade

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Amen!

[–]Bland-fantasie 0 points1 point2 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

If our perception was that nearly everybody thought abortion was bad, none of us individually would be pro-abortion.

It’s been normalized as a good thing, but only under threat. It’s easier to just get along and buy the incomplete, half-developed arguments for it. Opposing the tribe has a cost, and elements of the tribe have made being anti-abortion a taboo.

Specifically, elements of our tribe have made it clear that opposition to their point of view on this issue will result in your own destruction at their hands, and they will blame you for “making them” do it.

What does an abortion procedure actually involve at 7-9 months? Is that use of knives a good thing?

[–]daylight_stalker -1 points0 points1 point 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

We really shouldn't just be freely letting women get abortions imo without any consequences because I feel that it just enables them to make bad choices.

A woman gets to choose who she wants to be with, who she wants to have sex with, ect. And they get alot of options just go look at any girls Instagram or Facebook and you will see tons of guys that would take her up on a date.

So when a woman gets pregnant with the wrong person or at the wrong time then she needs to held herself accountable for her actions. She chooses whether or not to have sex with that person and if it ends up being the wrong guy then that should be her fault and therefore she needs to be held accountable for her actions.

Women should know full well that if she has sex even protective sex she knows what could happen and she shouldn't just use an abortion to fall back on when she accidentally gets pregnant.

[+]smegma_tears32 -7 points-6 points-5 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Based, anything that makes the feminists mad is good

[–]ImJustHereForCorn -1 points0 points1 point 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I say if they want to do it, then go for it. It's their state and I'm betting the vast majority of people here on Reddit who are commenting on it, aren't even from or are living in Oklahoma, so what does it do to you? Nothing. It doesn't directly impact you whatsoever and if a woman really wants an abortion that badly, go to the surrounding states or a state that allows it.

[–]moneymaster69 -1 points0 points1 point 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

The more babies we have, the more Elon Musks we could have. This is the best argument against abortion.

[–]HikuroMishiro -1 points0 points1 point 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I don't really care. For the most part discussions here are just going to echo generic abortion discussions everywhere else and have been happening for decades.

Regardless of anyone's opinions on the matter, if you make abortion illegal you are removing a persons rights and bodily autonomy. If you let it be legal you are removing an unborn persons rights and bodily autonomy. Regardless of which side you support there is no 'best' answer and while it's fine to support one side or the other both sides have valid points. There's a reason why the matter is left to the states and not the federal government.

The more annoying thing to me is laws like this that only punish one group and not everyone involved. Not that I'm necessarily for fining women in these states that have these laws, but punishing the doctor and not the person coming in looking for the abortion is ridiculous.

[–]BigRedditPlays -2 points-1 points0 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Abortion is murder. Period. Happy to see it go.

[–][deleted] -2 points-1 points0 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

An abortion law is for me good if the man can decide too if he wants to abort the child. It’s unethical to still force the male if he needs to pay 18 years of his life for the child he never wanted. Until this isn’t fixed any law will be bad

[–]Medforus -3 points-2 points-1 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

If only it designated only male babies to be killed.

[+]DipsandChip -14 points-13 points-12 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

What we really need is a ban on hormonal birth control. That shit is KNOWN to cause all sorts of psychiatric disorders most commonly depression as well as mess with the type of man women are attracted to. I stay away from women on birth control.

The reason why this should be the government's prerogative is that the government needs to set the rule for issues like this. Think about it. If murder wasn't outlawed, a whole lot more people would be murdered each year with no penalty. The people who really want to do it are still going to do it. The average man and woman of America, however, won't.

[–]Atheisthater42069 0 points1 point2 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

What is the bill?

[–]TheConsumateCracker 0 points1 point2 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

In v mmm.

[–]No-Mathematician-579 0 points1 point2 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Didn't know there was one- if someone wants to summarize/link it'd be nice

[–]PsychoBoy26 0 points1 point2 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I'm not from America so I'm just gonna stand here and do nothing

[–]dylan21502 0 points1 point2 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

What's the new law?

[–]XandogxD 0 points1 point2 points 4 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

If an abortion is the termination of a fetus, then the fetus dies, the fact that you HAVE to describe it separately from the mothers body is PROOF that it’s separate!

Mothers aren’t aborted, the fetus is. And if the fetus is terminated, then does the mother as well? Cause there are other medical terms for the death of an organ or body part. But termination is in direct alignment with the conscious ending of a living beings life.

If it is a woman’s body then we need to stop referencing the fetus as a separate entity. We need to reference the mother as 3,6 or 9 months along. Not the fetus. Because at that point you are allocating a determined age to a body part. We don’t do the same for other “organs”, yet we recognize that the fetus has its own physical growth regardless of the mother.

The fetus has is a body, growing, that it owns. We recognize this, we act on this, but we don’t TALK about this!

I here so often something along the lines of, “the fetus was 4 and 1/2 months along, and so at that point we decided to abort.”

First of all you recognized it as an entity SEPARATE of the mother, you give it an at age for which to estimate it’s growth and potential growth, and you reference terminating it in a way as the mother is not terminated.

If you REALLY believe that a fetus, excuse me, BABY, is really apart of the mothers body you need to talk about the mother as the subject, the conscious being, talk about the fetus as an organ, use dialogue that expresses its removal in a medical way without the context of a living breathing human as being murdered, and to talk about its growth as a factor of the mothers pregnancy, not it’s age

[–]ThrowAway640KB 0 points1 point2 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I am all for any abortion law that provides equal rights to both men and women.

I am against any abortion law that promotes the abilities and rights of one gender above the other.

We are still short, technologically speaking, if the man wants to keep the baby but the woman doesn’t - artificial wombs are not quite a thing just yet - but the ability to “abort” a baby can be done by both genders to a relatively equivalent threshold, with the man conducting a paper abortion to divest himself of all legal entanglements with the child.

[–]PQKN051502 0 points1 point2 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I am pro-choice

[–]Yennavere 0 points1 point2 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

People like the Oklahoma abortion law until they get a woman in Okalahoma pregnant, lmao.

[–]SuperManicMondayz 0 points1 point2 points 4 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

what you guys arent realizing is that a fetus is a parasite

[–]SuperManicMondayz 0 points1 point2 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

it lives off the mother giving nothing in return it manipulates her body to ITS benifite IT isnt a person IT is nothing but a leech

[–]SnooKiwis5976 0 points1 point2 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I dislike it because what happens a lot of the time is the child's life is ruined He is abused, beaten and bullied because he was unwanted and some of these parents who don't know condoms do not even earn, this is ultimately worse for the child imo abortion should be allowed

[–]ChadWolf98 0 points1 point2 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

For the PC men here beiing pro life lets men have much more agency. If they want to be a dad, they are saved from their wanted child being killed, if the woman dont want to be a parent and neither you you can put the kid up for adoption.

Men win with pro life laws

[–]Microtart 0 points1 point2 points 4 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

The question to be asked is who is taking care of the babies that are born with severe defects or the children of rape and incest where the mother wants to disassociate completely, children born with foetal alcohol syndrome or drug withdrawal?

Will adoptive parents be told fully of the child’s history? Does the state have procedures in place to cope with the influx of abandoned children or those deemed at risk by social services?

What happens if someone dies during childbirth, will compensation be payable?

Will the suicide rate go up?

Has anyone in government made proviso for these and any other future considerations or are they going to pretend it just won’t happen?

They can congratulate themselves on their blanket ban as much as they like but it shouldn’t become legal until they have all the answers written in stone

[–]Shadowpriest 0 points1 point2 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Oh as sure as the sun does shine there'll be 2 crowds of people - those that say 'she should have kept her legs shut', 'don't let the gov't be your baby daddy', and 'you got pregnant it's your problem now' and then those that don't care because it doesn't impact them directly.

They definitely should have fleshed it out better and also accounted for when child support starts, life/health insurance starts, custody, and have immediate plans in place for where to put the newborn and then all the aftercare needed since the state is forcing women to give birth.

[–]Appropriate-Link-678 0 points1 point2 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I think it’s a dumb law because it doesn’t do anything. All it does is upset liberals that believe in pro-choice, and alienate moderates that also believe in pro-choice. This won’t drop the amount of abortions in Oklahoma residents. People will either go to other states to get abortions, or they’ll get them illegally which is even worse than if it was legal because then not only will you be getting rid of the fetus, the mother could also die from a botched illegal abortion. This isn’t something that 40+ a year-old white men should be deciding for other people. This really shows how out of touch they are.

Browse all authors
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

© TheRedArchive 2026. All rights reserved.
created by /u/dream-hunter