Abortion Mega Thread | PurplePillDebate

AutoModerator · 2021-03-14T20:00:18+00:00

This sticky is to semi-relevant hot topics that may change from week to week. Let the frothy wars begin! Check out discord here if you want to chat Personal...

[–]Mrs_DrgreeMarried to Automod[M] [score hidden] 5 years ago stickied comment (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]TheBookOfSeil2 points 5 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 5 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]SmurfESmurfersonStacy’s Post-Wall Mom 0 points1 point2 points 5 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

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

[–]TheBookOfSeilSentient penis with arms and legs 0 points1 point2 points 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]HOLYREGIME 1 point2 points3 points 5 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]TheBookOfSeilSentient penis with arms and legs 1 point2 points3 points 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]801735 0 points1 point2 points 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 5 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]Bandit174🖤 0 points1 point2 points 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]TheBookOfSeilSentient penis with arms and legs 0 points1 point2 points 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]abaxeron✴️Indian Programmer 0 points1 point2 points 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]SliptheWhichbladeN Maiden 1 point2 points3 points 5 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]801735 0 points1 point2 points 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]seasonalblah 0 points1 point2 points 5 years ago (21 children) | Copy Link

[–]TheBookOfSeilSentient penis with arms and legs 0 points1 point2 points 5 years ago (15 children) | Copy Link

[–]seasonalblah 0 points1 point2 points 5 years ago (14 children) | Copy Link

[–]TheBookOfSeilSentient penis with arms and legs 0 points1 point2 points 5 years ago (13 children) | Copy Link

[–]seasonalblah 1 point2 points3 points 5 years ago (12 children) | Copy Link

[–]TheBookOfSeilSentient penis with arms and legs 0 points1 point2 points 5 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link

That's not my argument. I don't need to advocate for special cases, because I'm convinced abortion is not a bad thing in any case.

So you're not actually going to debate it then, right? You're just going to tell people that they're wrong if they disagree with you?

When I talk about the woman's life, I don't mean her potential death through childbirth. I'm talking about her actual life and the impact a pregnancy/unwanted child could have on that.

In that case, there's already an implication that a woman's life is more valuable than her own child's, which sort of begs the question as to why or how that is true in any objective way beyond personal opinion. I don't think any life is inherently more valuable than anyone else's, though the law of self-preservation makes me value my own life and wellbeing over other people's.

Sure, I understand. But that's not my argument, so why should I address it?

You should address it if you disagree with the above and believe that some people's lives are more valuable than others because that is what that line is implying.

[–]seasonalblah 0 points1 point2 points 5 years ago* (10 children) | Copy Link

You're just going to tell people that they're wrong if they disagree with you?

No. And I don't see how you could draw that conclusion?

I just don't see how an argument like that would support my view. As I've said, I think abortion is always okay, so arguing that it's okay only when the woman's life is in danger is just bad argumentation.

there's already an implication that a woman's life is more valuable than her own child's, which sort of begs the question as to why or how that is true in any objective way beyond personal opinion.

That's an inference again. I do not think that. Though, when pushed, I might say that a fully developed human being is significantly different than one that's still developing.

But again, this isn't an argument I'd make.

You should address it if you disagree with the above

No. You don't get to decide for me what my arguments should be. As I state above, I think its a bad argument. So in a way, I'm agreeing with you. We're both in agreement that it's a bad argument for abortion.

You can argue against what I say, but so far all you're doing is assuming you know what my arguments are and addressing those.

That's called a straw man fallacy.

[–]TheBookOfSeilSentient penis with arms and legs 0 points1 point2 points 5 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

No. And I don't see how you could draw that conclusion?

You said "because I'm convinced that abortion is not a bad thing in any case," so you believe that it is/should be okay in all cases, right?

I just don't see how an argument like that would support my view. As I've said, I think abortion is always okay, so arguing that it's okay only when the woman's life is in danger is just bad argumentation.

Right, which means that you are basically just going to tell people that they're wrong if they disagree with you, like I said before, because you are arguing from an absolutist position.

That's an inference again. I do not think that. Though, when pushed, I might say that a fully developed human being is significantly different than one that's still developing.

Different in form, yes, but in inherent value? That can't really be argued in an objective way being that value is subjective and changes with opinion.

So in a way, I'm agreeing with you. We're both in agreement that it's a bad argument for abortion.

Alright then.

You can argue against what I say, but so far all you're doing is assuming you know what my arguments are and addressing those.

You're using the exact same lines as a popular pro-choice sentiment, so that is what I'm arguing against. If you meant something different, then I wouldn't know that until you explained what you meant, which is how it happened.

[–]seasonalblah 0 points1 point2 points 5 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

you believe that it is/should be okay in all cases, right?

Yes. But that's not the conclusion I referred to. You concluded I did not have any arguments for my position. That's where you slipped up.

Right, which means that you are basically just going to tell people that they're wrong if they disagree with you, like I said before, because you are arguing from an absolutist position.

Again with the assuming. Several comments in and you've never even ASKED me what my arguments are? I have no idea what you're trying to get to here.

Different in form, yes, but in inherent value? That can't really be argued in an objective way being that value is subjective and changes with opinion.

And as I've said, I'm not arguing that.

If you meant something different, then I wouldn't know that until you explained what you meant, which is how it happened.

Well, if you stop wrongfully assuming my position for one sentence we might get to that.

If I say, "I think abortion is always okay", the logical follow up would be : "Why do you think that?" or "What are your arguments for that?".

So far, all you've been doing is assuming to know my position and then arguing against that. And then you seem puzzled when I state (multiple times now) that that's NOT MY ARGUMENT...

[–]TheBookOfSeilSentient penis with arms and legs 0 points1 point2 points 5 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

Yes. But that's not the conclusion I referred to. You concluded I did not have any arguments for my position. That's where you slipped up.

I never said anything about you not having any arguments. I just said that you were only going to tell people that they were wrong/"could not be right because ______."

Several comments in and you've never even ASKED me what my arguments are?

I've actually been waiting for you to start, if you were going to.

If I say, "I think abortion is always okay", the logical follow up would be : "Why do you think that?" or "What are your arguments for that?".

"never a bad thing" is what I took issue with because it belies your position that everyone with a dissenting opinion is going to be "wrong" by your views, so it doesn't exactly matter what arguments you use because they're going to follow that reasoning and probably end in a pointless debate because you will probably never consider yourself wrong.

So far, all you've been doing is assuming to know my position and then arguing against that.

Again, because you (I'm just going to assume, unknowingly) used the exact same line that other pro-choice people commonly use, which I already explained.

[–]seasonalblah1 point 5 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

I've actually been waiting for you to start, if you were going to.

I was, but you kept bombarding me with assumptions. So far I've honestly answered all question you've asked of me. But fine, I'll throw you an olive branch and explain my arguments below.

everyone with a dissenting opinion is going to be "wrong" by your views

Isn't that true for you too? Don't you think that I'm entirely in the wrong for thinking abortion is fine?

it doesn't exactly matter what arguments you use

I find that problematic.

you will probably never consider yourself wrong.

Again, why would you think that? If you have good counterarguments I'll change my mind. Please just stop "guessing" what I'm thinking or how I'll behave. It's getting tiring. Seriously.

the exact same line

I don't think I did. But let's clarify that right here and now. I'll keep it simple.

The fetus doesn't have the right to be in the woman's body without her permission.

Please don't go off assuming to know what I think. Ask questions or point out flaws all you like, but seriously stop your "mind reading".

[–]TheBookOfSeil1 point 5 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Don't you think that I'm entirely in the wrong for thinking abortion is fine?

Depends on your reasoning.

I find that problematic.

Yes, it is.

Again, why would you think that?

Because that is the usual absolutist view. No matter what anyone says, they're always wrong "because _______." If a point is reached where one person keeps repeating a line because they want it to be true, that's the point where the argument has ended.

The fetus doesn't have the right to be in the woman's body without her permission.

Ah, finally, an argument, and a common one at that. The problem with this argument is that it implies that permission was necessary in the first place. It wasn't. Sex, pregnancy and child birth are all one continuous chain of cause and effect. Sex is the initial cause and birth is the final effect. We can't choose the outcome because that's not how our bodies work.

I'm also a bit confused as to whether you mean this in the legal sense or some type of moral sense, because if you're arguing for bodily autonomy, that is related to what I was saying above.

A woman can consent to sex because that is an action that she has control over, but the entire process consists of pregnancy in the event that sperm reaches the egg, so all a woman can really do is consent to sex. "Permission" becomes irrelevant after that. Another flaw in logic is that women believe that they have the right to be provided with an abortion, which is absolutely false. The right to abortion via bodily autonomy only means that the government cannot restrict women from seeking an abortion, not that abortions must be provided, so in the event that nobody was willing to provide abortions to women, they would be SOL.

[–]seasonalblah1 point 5 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

The problem with this argument is that it implies that permission was necessary in the first place.

So just to be clear, you're saying that consent to sex is automatically consent to being pregnant for 9 months?

Sex is the initial cause and birth is the final effect.

You do realise not every set act results in pregnancy, right? In fact, it usually doesn't. Even at peak fertility, a woman is highly unlikely to get pregnant on the first go.

So more often than not, the outcome of sex is... not being pregnant.

And then there's miscarriages and rejected zygotes (where fertilisation does happen, but the cells don't latch onto the womb correctly, causing the cells to be flushed out with menstruation)

And then there's infertile women. (And men)

That's quite a lot of different outcomes for this initial cause, wouldn't you say?

We can't choose the outcome because that's not how our bodies work.

Clearly you haven't heard of contraception.

all a woman can really do is consent to sex

Not really, she can also take a pill that prevents sperm cells from penetrating her egg cell so no fertilisation happens.

And she can get an abortion, which is legal in most places.

And what if she revokes consent during sex? Is she still obligated to let the guy finish inside her? I mean, she did consent. At what point exactly do you think her consent becomes meaningless?

Either way, she has plenty of options. You're the one saying she shouldn't have those options.

The right to abortion via bodily autonomy only means that the government cannot restrict women from seeking an abortion, not that abortions must be provided,

That's a technicality and honestly kind of silly, seeing as abortions can be provided even in places they're illegal.

"Permission" becomes irrelevant after that.

I'm curious: does this mean that you're okay with abortions if the woman didn't consent to the sex that led to a pregnancy?

[–]TheBookOfSeil1 point 5 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

So just to be clear, you're saying that consent to sex is automatically consent to being pregnant for 9 months?

It's not a matter of "consent." It's a matter of cause and effect. Pregnancy is just what happens as a result of sex, similar to bloating/indigestion/weight gain happening as a result of eating food. We don't have control over what our bodies do beyond our initial choice, so the "consent to sex isn't consent to carrying a pregnancy" is a non-argument because there's no such thing as continuous consent in this case.

You do realise not every set act results in pregnancy, right?

Yes. We are talking about the ones that do, though, because we don't have control over that either. You either get pregnant or you don't.

And then there's infertile women. (And men)

No point in mentioning them because they can no longer reproduce so their potential for pregnancy is zero.

That's quite a lot of different outcomes for this initial cause, wouldn't you say?

No. There's still only pregnant and not pregnant. Miscarriage = not pregnant. Infertile = not pregnant. Not pregnant = not pregnant. Sex isn't the cause for any of these things either.

Clearly you haven't heard of contraception.

Contraception is not part of your body. It's also not 100% foolproof so even with contraception, there is always a possibility of pregnancy. People who choose to roll the dice on that option are still responsible for the outcome even if they didn't want to be or thought that it wouldn't happen to them.

Not really, she can also take a pill that prevents sperm cells from penetrating her egg cell so no fertilisation happens.

What's the rate of success on that? n<100%? Still a possibility if not 100%.

And she can get an abortion, which is legal in most places.

If we're debating abortion, using abortion as an argument for abortion is just circular reasoning.

And what if she revokes consent during sex? Is she still obligated to let the guy finish inside her? I mean, she did consent. At what point exactly do you think her consent becomes meaningless?

If she revokes consent during sex, then that is fine, but if some sperm still got inside to the egg, then the consent no longer matters. We're also not talking about retroactively withdrawing consent after they finished the act either. The only time you have consent is while doing it. After that, consent becomes irrelevant.

Either way, she has plenty of options. You're the one saying she shouldn't have those options.

The only "options" I'm referring to here is abortion. Don't be disingenuous.

That's a technicality and honestly kind of silly, seeing as abortions can be provided even in places they're illegal.

Not really. Whether women pursue illegal medical services is separate from the fact that abortion is a service and not a "right."

I'm curious: does this mean that you're okay with abortions if the woman didn't consent to the sex that led to a pregnancy?

I would be if that was a viable option, but it isn't because rape is already difficult to prove on it own right, and if abortions were offered to rape victims by their word alone, women could (and would) simply lie about being raped to get them, which would be terrible for the actual victims.

Shame that people can't simply be responsible for their own actions so others have to pay the price.

[–]seasonalblah1 point 5 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

It's a matter of cause and effect.

Everything is cause and effect. Going to an abortion clinic is also cause and effect (cause: enter clinic, effect: baby gone).

We don't have control over what our bodies do beyond our initial choice

Sure we do: surgery, medication, ...

there's no such thing as continuous consent in this case

According to you.

Let me ask you this: should anyone be allowed to use another person's body without their consent?

No point in mentioning them because they can no longer reproduce so their potential for pregnancy is zero.

No, because you say the function of sex is only to have babies. And here we have people having sex without having babies.

So the point is people can want sex purely for pleasure.

There's still only pregnant and not pregnant.

No, as I've said, a zygote can be rejected by the womb. And women miscarrying were definitely pregnant.

using abortion as an argument for abortion

No, you said women only have the option of consenting to sex, which is obviously false. I understand that you don't want them to have that option, but that statement was still false.

Still a possibility if not 100%.

Again, that was a response to you saying women don't have options outside of consenting to sex, which is again false.

But to clarify, you're fine with the use of this pill?

consent becomes irrelevant

I don't see why I should think that consent to sex should automatically lead to consent to pregnancy.

Aside from basically saying "well, that's where babies come from! Cause and effect!" you've yet to present a compelling argument for why that should be.

Whether women pursue illegal medical services is separate from the fact that abortion is a service and not a "right."

Sure, but that's not really a compelling argument for why it shouldn't be allowed either.

I would be if that was a viable option, but it isn't because rape is already difficult to prove on it own right, and if abortions were offered to rape victims by their word alone, women could (and would) simply lie about being raped to get them, which would be terrible for the actual victims.

So your default position would just be to let them have the rapist's baby if the assault isn't proven?

Shame that people can't simply be responsible for their own actions so others have to pay the price.

Shame that someone is allowed to stay inside of your body for 9 months if you don't want them there.

[–]TheBookOfSeil1 point 5 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Everything is cause and effect. Going to an abortion clinic is also cause and effect (cause: enter clinic, effect: baby gone).

You're skipping over the point.

Sure we do: surgery, medication, ...

That's not control. Most people aren't performing surgeries on themselves and making their own medication, so their "control" is entirely in the hands of other people, which is the point here.

Let me ask you this: should anyone be allowed to use another person's body without their consent?

Depends on the situation, but the reason why abortion falls into the gray area is because a third party is created out of the action/consent of two people, so it's not as simple as "using another person's body without their consent." Bodily autonomy prohibits this in cases where there's already a person existing outside another and imposing their will on them. Fetuses are created inside of the body and did not do so of their own will so they are an exception that warrants consideration. It's also not just "anyone," but their own child, so giving women a "right to an abortion" also gives them the rights to the entire reproductive process of the species, which they should not have sole control over.

No, because you say the function of sex is only to have babies. And here we have people having sex without having babies.

Yes, because they are infertile. The default state of our reproductive process is not infertility. That would make no sense so you pointing to them, an extreme and abnormal exception, is pointless.

So the point is people can want sex purely for pleasure.

We can "want" it, sure, but have it? Not so much.

No, as I've said, a zygote can be rejected by the womb. And women miscarrying were definitely pregnant.

I mean if they're not pregnant then they're not pregnant. Still not very hard to understand. If they have a miscarriage then they're not pregnant.

No, you said women only have the option of consenting to sex, which is obviously false.

Explain how it is false in the context of cause and effect. Like I said before, women don't have control over whether they get pregnant or whether the fetus stays inside of their wombs. The only time that they themselves have any control over this is before semen enters the vagina via sex.

Again, that was a response to you saying women don't have options outside of consenting to sex, which is again false.

That's because you're getting confused about what the context was.

But to clarify, you're fine with the use of this pill?

I'm fine with contraception because contraception is prevention. With abortion, you aren't preventing conception because it already happened.

I don't see why I should think that consent to sex should automatically lead to consent to pregnancy.

There is no "consent to pregnancy." We don't have control over that. As said before, the only thing that we can consent to is sex.

Aside from basically saying "well, that's where babies come from! Cause and effect!" you've yet to present a compelling argument for why that should be.

It's not a matter of "should be." It's a matter of "It is." You're the one trying to debate that sex should not lead to pregnancy because you don't want it to, so you're arguing from a position that is separate from reality, and really, you're the one who should be providing an argument for why it shouldn't be, aside from the fact that you just don't want/don't think it should be.

Sure, but that's not really a compelling argument for why it shouldn't be allowed either.

There are many reasons that anyone can think of for why it should or shouldn't be allowed, depending on their views (preferential and self-serving or otherwise), but I'm listing mine. You've only essentially said that it just should be allowed because it should be allowed and that darned little fetus has no right to be inside a woman's body without consent even though consent isn't what caused it to happen.

So your default position would just be to let them have the rapist's baby if the assault isn't proven?

No, my default position would be to allow a rape exception but the fact that women would lie to get an abortion makes the exception pointless. It's not a viable option because of the potential dishonesty, unfortunately, so the only other way for that to be an option would be to prove the rape, difficult as that may be, but that wouldn't be due to cruelty on the government's part. That would be due to dishonesty on the rest of women's part that we couldn't simply allow the actual victims of rape to have an abortion.

Shame that someone is allowed to stay inside of your body for 9 months if you don't want them there.

It was their actions that put them there, so I have a hard time finding sympathy for people in that situation.

[–]seasonalblah1 point 5 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

I notice you keep making statements and then backtrack, saying it's not relevant. You kept droning on on how pregnancy is just causality at work and then when I point out causality affects everything you say I'm missing the point.

Okay. Then stop pointing to cause and effect as a reason for why I should think abortion shouldn't be allowed.

Then you say people can't control their own bodies and I provide you with exceptions, then you say that doesn't count because it involves others.

Okay. But then just make the point you don't think others should be involved in abortion in the first place. (If that's indeed what you're trying to say)

There's a few more but I'll try to keep these comments from becoming unwieldy long. So I'll try to address the core of your arguments.

a third party is created out of the action/consent of two people,

Well, consent doesn't seem to be that high on your list of priorities when it comes to rape victims who can't prove their rape (= the majority). So there's that.

This also circles back to the same thing: you being convinced that consent to sex automatically means consent to have another individual inside of you, which I don't think holds up

women don't have control over whether they get pregnant or whether the fetus stays inside of their wombs

There are actually a variety of ways women can induce a miscarriage if they're really desperate, so no, that's not true.

By the way, you do understand that sometimes medical intervention is required to keep the unborn child alive if the woman does want it?

You make a big deal about others being involved in aborting a child, but the same holds true for situations where the reverse is happening.

There's lots of pregnancies that would fail without outside intervention. A woman wouldn't have much control over their dying wanted baby, either.

So obviously "outside interference bad!" can't be the crux of your argument here.

Fetuses are created inside of the body and did not do so of their own will so they are an exception that warrants consideration.

Okay, let's consider it then, with the terms you mention.

My first simple question would be why? What makes a zygote, embryo or fetus so important it should be allowed to use another person's body against their will? Clearly the assumption here is that a blob of cells should have more rights than a fully developed human.

The second a conception happens the woman should just accept that she's now an incubator, whether she likes it or not, and we should force her to stay pregnant.

The fetus, enbryo or zygote not having come about of their own will is irrelevant. The woman didn't choose to be fertile either. She also didn't ask to be born into a species where she would need to carry another creature in her for 9 months

But more importantly and ironically, if the fetus didn't consent to be conceived then logically it was conceived against it's will and shouldn't be there in the first place, making that entire point nonsensical.

the rights to the entire reproductive process of the species, which they should not have sole control over.

Why not?

There is no "consent to pregnancy." We don't have control over that.

We do have control over that. You keep making it a point that, even with perfect use, contraception is never 100%.

But it still decreases the risk of getting pregnant by close to 99%!

Yeah, imma go ahead and call that control.

There are many reasons that anyone can think of for why it should or shouldn't be allowed,

The default position is always to allow everything until we have good reasons to forbid it. Why is that the default? Well, the alternative is forbidding everything until we have good reasons to allow something, but that's not workable for obvious reasons.

So technically... I don't even need to. The default is to allow abortion until there are good reasons to forbid it.

It's not a matter of "should be." It's a matter of "It is."

Funny, seeing as abortion is something that "is" while you don't think it "should be".

So clearly it does matter to you what "should be".

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

[–]TheBookOfSeilSentient penis with arms and legs 0 points1 point2 points 5 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]PurplePill_ThrowawayRed Pill Woman 0 points1 point2 points 5 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]TheBookOfSeilSentient penis with arms and legs 0 points1 point2 points 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

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

[–]YouSaidChicken 2 points3 points4 points 5 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 5 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[removed]

[–]PurplePill_ThrowawayRed Pill Woman 2 points3 points4 points 5 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 5 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[deleted]

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

[–]AutoModerator[S,M] 0 points1 point2 points 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Title	Abortion Mega Thread
Author	AutoModerator
Upvotes	0
Comments	43
Date	March 14, 2021 8:00 PM UTC (5 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/PurplePillDebate
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/PurplePillDebate/comments/m52ud1/abortion_mega_thread/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/PurplePillDebate/abortion-mega-thread.767511 https://theredarchive.com/post/767511

Comments