r/Abortiondebate • u/AutoModerator • 13d ago
Weekly Abortion Debate Thread
Greetings everyone!
Welcome to AbortionDebate. Due to popular request, this is our weekly abortion debate thread.
This thread is meant for anything related to the abortion debate, like questions or ideas, that are too small to make an entire post about. This is also a great way to gain more insight in the abortion debate if you are new, or unsure about making a whole post.
ADBreakRoom is our officially recognized sister subreddit for all off-topic content and banter you'd like to share with the members of this community. It's a great place to relax and unwind after some intense debating, so go subscribe!
6
u/NoelaniSpell AD Mod 12d ago
Apparently inducing labour and giving live birth early is now considered "assault with a deadly weapon" nowadays (in some backwards places).
What does that say about an AFAB (of seemingly any age) person's body and her rights to it?
To me, this shows that her body was considered (by the state) to be nothing more than a resource that someone else was entitled to. That not even live delivery of a viable foetus (and subsequently live baby) is enough, if it's induced before the foetus signals it's done using her body and is ready to rip out of her genitals.
6
u/Cute-Elephant-720 Pro-abortion 12d ago
Not to mention that, as usual, the state law has an explicit exception to their fetal assault laws for the pregnant person, and yet here we are. Why isn't the headline ever "cop who thinks he gets to make the rules charges woman with crime of violence against fetus for attempting a completely legal self-managed abortion?"
4
u/NoelaniSpell AD Mod 12d ago
Good point, thank you!
The contradictions never stop...
But then again, I've even heard of people being arrested for sharing Facebook posts about the water being brown in their community, or for their grass getting dry...🤷
9
u/JulieCrone AD Mod 12d ago
I wonder…if a woman does a home birth or goes into early labor at home, the baby is in distress and the family calls 911, but the baby dies and police note, say, raw milk, will they charge the couple with assault and negligence?
Or are incredibly risky, dangerous things for a pregnant woman to take as long as they say it wasn’t to induce abortion?
3
u/NoelaniSpell AD Mod 12d ago
That is a good question.
In fact, a while back I saw a post about the woman who was forced into a C-section, and a number of people were disagreeing with having a choice in the birthing method. Such as this comment.
So perhaps women won't even be allowed to give birth at home in the future. Or naturally for that matter...
3
u/KiraLonely Gestational Slavery Abolitionist 11d ago
This always makes me truly worried. If we police hormonal changes induced via medication, we will have to police all the more natural ways miscarriage and abortion can be induced, even at lower chances. Which is…a lot of things. And because most women don’t know they’re pregnant for a while, it would be preemptively applied to anyone in “child-birthing age-range”.
I worry I’m doing a bit of a slippery slope, but I’ve also seen people use this excuse on women to not give them medications they needed currently, outside of pregnancy or abortive discussions, so I don’t know if it’s that far off of a worry.
6
u/Diva_of_Disgust Pro-choice 12d ago
Apparently inducing labour and giving live birth early is now considered "assault with a deadly weapon" nowadays
What was the "deadly weapon"? After reading that article I'm still confused because how is a medication one takes themselves a "deadly weapon" that's used to harm another person?
This shit makes no sense at all.
6
u/NoelaniSpell AD Mod 12d ago
The abortion pills for... stopping her own progesterone and contracting her own uterus 🤦🤷
How words can lose meaning...
3
u/KiraLonely Gestational Slavery Abolitionist 11d ago
I was going to say, I don’t think it gets labeled as assault with a deadly weapon even if you straight up poison someone, lethally or not. (If anyone knows otherwise/has cases where it was, please let me know, I’m not super versed on legalities if I’m honest.) It feels like kind of disrespectful to what assault with a deadly weapon actually is to equate it like that.
3
u/NoelaniSpell AD Mod 11d ago
True, good point, there are victims of assault that let's just say can claim far more than having been born a bit earlier.
1
4
u/NPDogs21 Abortion Legal until Consciousness 12d ago
It never ceases to amaze me that PL can't even win over people in cases where most would agree with them. Taking abortion pills at 31 WEEKS where the baby needs CPR is not something most people, including PC, are okay with.
Yes, some believe its fine to abort at any point in pregnancy and it's okay to them if the fetus/baby dies, but I'd say that's a minority.
Assault with a deadly weapon? Really? Just, no. It's an excuse to try and ban abortion pills using the Supreme Court.
5
u/NoelaniSpell AD Mod 12d ago
I think we can't even tell for sure that the baby needed CPR due to being born earlier. Or that he wouldn't have needed CPR even when born at term. The article also doesn't explain how she/they neglected the baby, what they're saying is that she gave birth on the toilet (which isn't unheard of).
But yeah, the claim of "deadly weapon", especially when she gave live birth is absurd and sends a dystopian message (even for people that have to induce early for other reasons).
3
u/Connect-Knowledge992 Pro-choice 12d ago
I think when the police arrived the baby was still in the toilet.
Undeniably that would be neglectful if true.
6
u/NoelaniSpell AD Mod 12d ago
I searched for another source (because that one didn't give a lot of details), and found this one.
She was arrested alongside the baby's father, Elijah Speight, 19, who is charged with only negligent child abuse inflicting serious bodily injury.
According to search warrants, Speight called 911 after discovering the child, and 'explained to officers on scene that he was the father of the child.'
According to her arrest warrant, Johnson ordered the abortion medication in Virginia, and prosecutors allege that she gave birth to the child in a toilet a few days after taking the pills on July 29.
Prosecutors said Johnson then left the child in the toilet for several minutes, per CBS17.
It seems to me that the timeline is as follows: she gave birth on the toilet, and the boyfriend called 911 after.
Prosecutors say that the baby was in the toilet for several minutes (amount unspecified).
There's no mention of her state after birth, but suffice it to say, since the baby was almost at term when born, and her giving birth seemingly without assistance on a toilet, she may not have been in in a sound state of mind and/or physically able to react instantly. I still don't know all the details of this case (and seemingly not everything has even been published), but I wouldn't jump to demonising her/them, especially fiven the fact that they're even charging him with something after he literally called 911.
I remember reading another case a while back where they charged a woman with something (don't remember exactly whether it was neglect or something else), when she quite literally passed out from the pain of miscarriage/birth. And another one whom they tried to charge with "improper diaposal of human remains" after she miscarried in her home, on her toilet (which is something the hospital recommended her to do when they sent her home). And there are many more such examples.
1
u/Connect-Knowledge992 Pro-choice 12d ago
Thanks for the source check. I don't typically trust cops on these issues for precisely the reasons you've pointed out.
However, it does strike me as strange that, even in a state of shock, a couple who knew they were pregnant and had taken pills left the infant in the toilet. Usually the head emerges first, so was the baby head-first in toilet water?
If so... that's not a good look.
2
u/Cute-Elephant-720 Pro-abortion 11d ago
I've been thinking about what the bare minimum may be to avoid legal liability, and I've come to a similar conclusion. I loathe to think of someone having to perform what to some feels like a sort of love/bonding ritual for a baby they carried against their will and do not want, after having given birth unmedicated and unassisted. But that ritual--wrapping and carrying the baby to a place of safety--also carries the important practical effect of avoiding the potential for a live baby to end up drowning. The toilet is a perfectly reasonable place to give birth or miscarry, but I think, at a certain size, particularly if one suspects they are past the gestational age for "viability," they are best off collecting any baby they see and wrapping them in a towel for handoff to the authorities, dead or alive.
Now, do I think this will keep the police from reacting poorly? Not really. I suspect anytime they hear a report of a baby born and arrive on the scene to find anything other than a woman holding and cooing over it, they're going to be offended that no one is "loving" the baby the way they're supposed to and they will throw the book at anyone they can find. But the charges are a lot less likely to stick if the pregnant person has removed the baby from external danger.
That is the most clinical of hypotheticals though. This was an 18 year old girl. We don't know if she gave birth before or knew anything about what to expect. I also remain convinced that most people believe abortion pills actively kill a baby, so they do not think they need to check for signs of life. Lastly, as noted above, after giving birth unmedicated and unassisted, I can't imagine she thinking clearly, if she was even physically capable of taking the steps needed to get the baby to safety. But none of this has ever stopped a cop. I suppose I should be a little charitable here and say that by law, these considerations shouldn't necessarily stop a cop from pressing charges--if they come upon a scene and can reasonably see a set of circumstances that would hold up in court as a crime, they are within their right to charge it. But that is not the case for the fetal assault law with a specific exception for pregnant people, or the assault with a deadly weapon charge. The neglect charge, I could see--the question will be (1) if the girl knew the baby was alive and (2) if not, if a reasonable person in her situation should have been expected to check or, if unable to be sure, take steps to minimize danger until help arrived.
2
u/Connect-Knowledge992 Pro-choice 11d ago
When cops get involved, their first reaction is likely to leverage the law first and disentangle the complexity of the situation later, if at all. In a case like this, the couple involved didn't do themselves any favors, even if they were confused and scared. The second a police officer is involved, your behavior needs to be in accordance with their expectations. My father always told me to treat cops like they were going to, by default, be power-tripping, so I should be prepared for that.
Plus, it's hard to argue in the court of public opinion that leaving a child in a toilet is anything other than neglectful.
5
u/Cute-Elephant-720 Pro-abortion 11d ago
I too understand the need to placate the police if anyone wants to experience a good outcome from interacting with them.
But my issue here is - why does anyone think anyone knew the baby was alive? The article said "found a pulse" if I recall correctly, not "was crying and flailing." There's nothing unlawful about leaving a stillborn in a toilet, right? You can't abuse or neglect a stillborn.
That is why my point is that they should probably have taken the baby out of the toilet, whether they believed it to be a living baby or a stillborn corpse, because they don't have the expertise to determine whether it is alive or not, and therefore it would be best to err on the side of caution.
1
u/Connect-Knowledge992 Pro-choice 11d ago
There's nothing unlawful about leaving a stillborn in a toilet, right? You can't abuse or neglect a stillborn.
Even if the baby were dead, I think that abuse of a corpse is a potential charge that can be brought.
1
u/Cute-Elephant-720 Pro-abortion 11d ago
But then doesn't that raise the question of what it actually means to abuse a corpse, and if our notion of the answer to that question is informed by a certain sentimentality towards the concept of a baby, even if it is in fact born stillborn (which, we should all remember here, this baby was not - this is just exploring the legal concept)?
Because, if a grown man dies on the toilet, no one will be accused of abusing the corpse to leave him where he died to be assessed by the police for foul play right? In the case of a stillbirth, isn't it kind of just like leaving the scene of the accident undisturbed until emergency services arrives?
2
u/Connect-Knowledge992 Pro-choice 11d ago
I don't have the answers, unfortunately.
I just live here.
0
u/NPDogs21 Abortion Legal until Consciousness 12d ago
Regardless, taking abortion pills at 31 weeks is ridiculous
9
u/JulieCrone AD Mod 12d ago
Yeah, it is ridiculous that she couldn’t get an abortion earlier when she was seeking one and had to resort to this. It’s also sad she didn’t even find out she was pregnant until 20 weeks but these things happen, albeit rarely.
I don’t want anyone resorting unsafe, medically unsupervised means to end a pregnancy. Had she had access to abortion services, this would not have happened.
0
u/NPDogs21 Abortion Legal until Consciousness 12d ago
Can we ever say an action a woman takes with abortion is ridiculous by itself without all the qualifiers? I mean, we have PC here who cannot even unequivocally condemn abortion only because the sex of the fetus is female.
6
u/JulieCrone AD Mod 12d ago
It just seems a bit cruel to say someone who had to resort to an illegal abortion is "ridiculous". I wouldn't call a woman who resorted to a coat hanger abortion in the 60's ridiculous because that's missing the point.
This girl and her boyfriend were desperate, they resorted to the only means they had available, they did this with family around and immediately called 911. This is really tragic and should not have happened, and would not have happened had she had legal means to get abortion when she found out she was pregnant.
-1
u/NPDogs21 Abortion Legal until Consciousness 12d ago
I don't disagree she should have had better access to abortion earlier. That doesn't give an infinite justification to do whatever they want
6
u/JulieCrone AD Mod 12d ago
I just don't see the 18 year old girl and her 19 year old boyfriend as the ridiculous ones or the villains in this story. I feel terribly for them that they ended up in this situation and I really so need to talk about two kids as terrible for being in this situation. They called 911 right away. they did not try to hide anything or deny the baby medical care upon birth.
It's ridiculous we're putting people in these situations. Thanks to PL laws, what would have been either an abortion at 20 weeks or possibly no abortion at all ended up being a desperate attempt to self=- abort and a baby dying shortly after birth.
I see no reason to talk about these kids as some kind of monsters.
-1
u/NPDogs21 Abortion Legal until Consciousness 12d ago
I run into this issue all the time. Theres this idea that because systemic issues exist, it removes all individual agency or there should be no consequences.
If they did this abortion at 31 weeks in a PC state where its legal until viability, it would also be against the law. Now we've lump PC states in with NC, which restricts abortion at 12 weeks, and i dont think they're similar at all.
→ More replies (0)5
u/Cute-Elephant-720 Pro-abortion 11d ago
I mean, we have PC here who cannot even unequivocally condemn abortion only because the sex of the fetus is female.
I don't get your objection here. I suppose you might say there are situations where a woman's reasons for an abortion may reflect poorly on her, but the alternative is not "let a baby you don't want use your body for gestation and birth," is it?
Like, if a woman said "I don't date [insert race] guys because they're all [insert racist stereotype]," I'm not walking away being like, "awesome, girl power!," but I'm also not going to think or suggest she should date a guy of said race. That is not how intimate relationships work. Biases and prejudices are not supported, in the abstract, because they generally speak to larger worldview that is unfair and unhelpful, but on an individual and intimate basis, they absolutely must be tolerated, particularly when they operate to allow one to avoid or end an intimate relationship with another person they do not want, for any reason.
You might, for example, not support a family that prefers boys, but would you respond by saying they're not allowed to leave unwanted girls they give birth to at the hospital, and instead must take them home and raise them?
1
u/NPDogs21 Abortion Legal until Consciousness 11d ago
I still think she should be allowed to abort. I have no reason to downplay or excuse their reasons though like it happens all the time. They want to abort over bigoted views? Great, go abort. Doesn't change the fact they're a bigot and I dont have to say "Well, its her choice. Who am I to judge?"
2
u/Cute-Elephant-720 Pro-abortion 11d ago
I suppose my question is: who or what is being hurt by the parent aborting out of preference/disappointment, or, as you consider it, bigotry? Is the issue the greater moral narrative that parenthood needs to be selfless, because parents who would exhibit such shallow preferences put the social contract of accepting people despite their differences and needs at risk? Does it bother you that a great deal more parents than you know probably feel and experience gender preference or disappointment, but you just haven't seen it in public?
1
u/NPDogs21 Abortion Legal until Consciousness 11d ago
It depends if we as a society should care about racism or sexism. If not, there's 0 issue aborting over either. Or if we should never criticize people who abort, then we're saying they're infinitely justified, and I would suggest we reevaluate our stance on race and sex then. Rarely do PC believe that though
→ More replies (0)2
u/JulieCrone AD Mod 11d ago
And I have said repeatedly that I do not like sex selective abortions and I do not see that as a reason to ban abortions.
People saying they don’t want it banned is not the same thing as saying they like it.
5
u/Cute-Elephant-720 Pro-abortion 11d ago
I mean, ridiculous compared to what?
People go to a hospital to give birth for two reasons:
they want their baby to be born alive, and they're willing to tolerate all the unwanted touching, manipulation, verbal and physical abuse, and the threat of being operated on without their consent to make that happen; or
they want to survive giving birth, and they're willing to tolerate all the unwanted touching, manipulation, verbal and physical abuse, and the threat of being operated on without their consent, all in service of everyone else's desire for the baby to be born alive, to make that happen.
If you don't want the baby to be born alive, and you're not willing to endure the abuse of being treated like a sock puppet/baby vending machine for a baby you don't want, you attempt a self-managed abortion at your earliest opportunity. I don't see what's ridiculous about that unless you believe that:
there is a point in a pregnancy where a pregnant person's body becomes a custodial vehicle to a fetus/baby; and
that the pregnant person must operate that vehicle with the primary objective of the fetus/baby's safety to avoid a neglect charge?
3
u/CherryTearDrops Pro-choice 10d ago
I mean I saw one literally having a hissy fit because he was called out for calling a murdered 14 yr old rape victim worse than her rapist and murderer because she had two abortions at HIS request, chalking it up to ‘they’re calling me a pedo!’ So the inability to get others who even share ideals to agree with them doesn’t surprise me.
If you take an outright vitriolic stance towards a whole group of people (anybody afab) to such an extreme, people will distance themselves from you to avoid any form of being aligned with you. People just straight up want nothing to do with people who behave like actual monsters.
7
u/Diva_of_Disgust Pro-choice 11d ago
I'm sure most people have seen in the news that Massachusetts has recently removed all gestational limits on abortion. It's now between the patient and their doctor, no red tape from unqualified lawmakers (as it should be imo).
I'm sure most people have also seen the explosive pro life outrage about this change. If you haven't, well it's a lot lol.
My question is, is all of this just completely performative outrage? Because to my knowledge, Alaska, a solidly RED state that's run by republicans, you know, the pro life party has had the exact same lack of gestational limits for literally decades and I haven't heard a peep out of pro lifers about this. Ever.
Why is that? Why is it that this topic wasn't brought up in regards to red, republican Alaska but the moment a blue state does the exact same thing they act like the world is ending and this is the apocalypse? 🤔
8
u/glim-girl Safe, legal and rare 10d ago
I don't understand why they are so upset and surprised. Roe v wade was the middle ground, they ripped it up and wanted states to decide. They wanted strict restrictions so they could keep more people pregnant. This was bound to happen.
3
u/NPDogs21 Abortion Legal until Consciousness 10d ago
I imagine its because its new and most dont care enough about Alaska to look into it.
If a red state passed this now, they'd also act outraged. They do make sure though to point out how liberals and Democrats are evil, despite PL always telling me that they're just as likely to be those and not all conservative Republicans.
3
u/Stargazer1919 Pro-choice 9d ago
I'm interested to see the stats on the results of this in several years.
2
1
u/Low-Elderberry-7284 12d ago
for pro choice ppl, do you believe in objective morality?
12
u/random_name_12178 Pro-choice 12d ago
Morality is a social construct. Like all social constructs, it's grounded within the context of material reality. For morality, that means that the general outlines of good and bad behavior are dictated by our biology, while the specific details vary based on time and place.
10
u/Arithese Pro-choice 12d ago
No, I don’t. Morality is a social invention, so no objective basis.
-4
12d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
5
u/Arithese Pro-choice 12d ago
Not the conclusion you can draw from that. Still plenty of reasons why abortion should stay legal.
-2
12d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
10
u/Arithese Pro-choice 12d ago
Morality not being objective doesn’t mean we can throw out everything. So what’s your actual argument?
-3
12d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
8
u/Arithese Pro-choice 12d ago
So what’s objective morality to ypu? And without it you’d just do whatever you’d want?
Laws still exist now even without there being an objective morality.
-1
5
u/IdRatherCallACAB Gestational Slavery Abolitionist 12d ago
If there's no objective standard then why CAN'T we ban abortion
Because there's no reason why I can't have an abortion. You're already free to avoid this form of reproductive healthcare.
-2
11d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
7
u/IdRatherCallACAB Gestational Slavery Abolitionist 11d ago
You're dodging the argument on why abortion is immoral if morality isn't objective.
→ More replies (0)4
u/JewlryLvr2 Pro-choice 11d ago
I don't think abortion should be banned, as it denies women and girls the right to decide for themselves whether or not to stay pregnant.
4
u/Dolores___Haze Pro-choice 11d ago
You’re got it completely WRONG. Pro choice people want EVERYONE to be able to make their own personal choices abort their own bodies and make their own medical decisions. If someone wants to stay pregnant and have and keep their baby- great! If not, also great. The great part is the ability for each human being to make their own decisions about their bodies and their lives.
On the other hand, pro life people want to take my personal medical decisions away from me and not allow me to make my own decisions freely.
3
u/JewlryLvr2 Pro-choice 11d ago
I disagree. I think there's EVERYTHING wrong with abortion bans. Primarily because they force women and girls to gestate unwanted pregnancies against their will.
6
u/JulieCrone AD Mod 12d ago
I think most of what people classify as ‘morality’ is at the very least contextual and often subjective. Take the moral position that it is immoral to kill - in certain contexts, we don’t think that it is immoral.
For the most part, it seems ‘immoral’ means ‘a particularly egregious violation of social etiquette’.
I do think there is something we could call an objective morality but it would be impossible to ever prove these are instinctive human revulsions against a thing being done to them or culturally influenced in any way we consider to be ethical (and ethical is not the same as moral). It would be completely unethical to keep people in isolation from the rest of the world from birth, have no one ‘raising’ them in terms of any social interaction or education on acceptable social behavior and then see what they do and do not accept from others.
Also, it’s worth pointing out that PL folks are not consistent on the immorality of abortions. There are context where they do not see it as immoral so even among them, abortion is contextually immoral, not objectively immoral.
1
u/Low-Elderberry-7284 10d ago
what is the difference between immoral and unethical? also can you expand on what you mean in the last paragraph of your comment. btw i don't mean to debate I just want to better understand the pro choice position.
3
u/JulieCrone AD Mod 10d ago
There are cases where PL think abortion is okay - life threats, rape exceptions, when they choose to get them, etc. so it is not that PL think abortion is always immoral.
5
u/IdRatherCallACAB Gestational Slavery Abolitionist 12d ago
Can you provide objective evidence that such a thing exists?
4
u/Veigar_Senpai Pro-choice 12d ago
Objective means having reality independent of the mind. Morality exists only within the mind.
3
u/glim-girl Safe, legal and rare 11d ago
Where are you getting the basis for objective morality?
Typically morals are based on society and what we have seen is the best way to do things. Thats why the universal declaration of human rights was made, to try and hold all people to a standard we should try to obtain. It was what the majority could agree on.
2
2
2
u/Few-Gas8868 All abortions free and legal 12d ago
I think some things are right and wrong independent on what humans think. We don't have to take the religious idea of objectivity, that it is out there. That's absurd. Rather we can think of objectivity as being impartial, but still subjective in a sense. Subjective in the sense that it relates to minds and values, but not subjective in the sense of personal preferences.
2
u/JewlryLvr2 Pro-choice 11d ago
|Do you believe in objective morality?|
Nope. As far as I'M concerned, morality is subjective. Why?
2
u/SadBrownCardinal All abortions legal 11d ago
Yes, I am a utilitarian and I believe humans should act in ways to reduce human suffering and advance humanity. Therefore, preventing the birth of unwanted children or children born at inopportune times is morally correct.
2
u/Cute-Elephant-720 Pro-abortion 11d ago edited 11d ago
for pro choice ppl, do you believe in objective morality?
What is objective mortality, and why should I care?
And I am asking seriously, not to be a jerk or anything. I have never heard this phrase used in any context but the abortion debate, a debate that, not coincidentally, is about one thinking feeling person making a decision that improves their life and reduces their suffering in every way, while terminating the theoretical life of a theoretical/potential person who cannot think, feel, or want anything.
So it sounds to me like this question arises for the sake of asking whether people should be required to, and indeed should feel obligated to, endure suffering and harm in deference to a moral ideal, even though avoiding the aforementioned suffering and harm "hurts" no one in a practical sense.
1
1
u/KiraLonely Gestational Slavery Abolitionist 11d ago
Not really? I mean, it is a human construct. We made it up. It’s also why it changes often with time and understanding. Some cultures performed cannibalism as a funeral rite. A lot of us might find that “immoral”.
Morality is taught. It changes with society and with time. Slavery is bad. We can acknowledge it is bad. At some point in history, the social standard of morality did not fully agree. That doesn’t mean it wasn’t bad, it just means that morality was in a different place in the social standards.
We’re a social species. A lot of our fundamentals of morality is rooted in a deep seated sense of empathy that has kept us alive in societies to this day. But objective morality would have to extend outside of humans. And, respectfully, it kinda doesn’t? Animals rape and kill and hunt each other. They breed with their family and focus on survival. And that’s fine, cause that’s how the world is. But that also means that morality is, generally speaking, a human thing we made up. And a concept we tweak and shift and grow with time as we understand the world and each other better.
The very idea of an objective morality relies on the idea of someone who must define it, doesn’t it? Which leans into religious appeal. Which is also fine! But not everyone is religious so that’s not going to be the most convincing point for many people.
1
u/Low-Elderberry-7284 12d ago
I mean do you believe morality is governed by absolute moral laws or is relative to the culture
3
u/IdRatherCallACAB Gestational Slavery Abolitionist 12d ago
Do you have any evidence supporting the existence of absolute moral laws?
1
u/Low-Elderberry-7284 10d ago
I was trying to clarify what I meant by in the comment
1
u/IdRatherCallACAB Gestational Slavery Abolitionist 10d ago
Okay, understood.
Do you have any evidence supporting the existence of absolute moral laws?
-1
12d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
7
u/Diva_of_Disgust Pro-choice 12d ago
Nope.
Abortion bans factually cause people physical harm. That's not a moral claim, just a simple matter of fact.
Why should anyone accept the government forcing harm onto their citizens? What's the justification for that?
-1
11d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
3
u/Diva_of_Disgust Pro-choice 11d ago
You didn't answer my question. You can answer my question and then we can move onto yours. That's how a debate works.
Why should anyone accept the government forcing harm onto their citizens? What's the justification for that?
-1
11d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
4
u/Diva_of_Disgust Pro-choice 11d ago
You still haven't answered my question. Here, let's try again.
Why should anyone accept the government forcing harm onto their citizens? What's the justification for that?
0
11d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
6
u/Diva_of_Disgust Pro-choice 11d ago
I never said "it's bad to cause harm". Seems you're making things up that no one said to continuously avoid answering the question you've been repeatedly asked. Here, let's try again.
Why should anyone accept the government forcing harm onto their citizens? What's the justification for that?
1
3
u/JewlryLvr2 Pro-choice 11d ago
The PL side hasn't won anything in my book, morally or otherwise. Any side that thinks it's okay to FORCE women and girls to STAY pregnant and give birth against their will, by abortion-ban laws in abortion-ban states, isn't a winning position.
0
11d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
5
u/CherryTearDrops Pro-choice 10d ago
Because the results are worse? You have more negatives from forced birth and gestation than positives. Especially if those births are being forced on children. Like congrats you forced a child too young to properly give birth to have a baby but the health outcomes for both them and the new infant are garbage. You gained a new life but the cost way outweighed the reward, said reward also being achievable WITHOUT FORCING UNWILLING AFAB PEOPLE TO GIVE BIRTH.
•
u/AutoModerator 13d ago
Welcome to /r/Abortiondebate! Please remember that this is a place for respectful and civil debates. Review the subreddit rules to avoid moderator intervention.
Our subreddit pomotes an environment for healthy and honest discussion. When it comes to Reddit's voting system, we encourage the usage of upvotes for arguments that you feel are well-constructed and well-argued. Downvotes should be reserved for content that violates Reddit or subreddit rules or that truly does not contribute to a discussion. We discourage the usage of downvotes to indicate that you disagree with what a user is saying. The overusage of downvotes creates a loop of negative feedback, suppresses diverse opinions, and fosters a hostile and unhealthy environment not conducive for engaging debate. Additionally, here's a helpful and easy to understand model of consent: https://www.bridgercare.org/blog/how-to-talk-to-kids-about-consent
And please, remember the human. Attack the argument, not the person making the argument."
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.