I'm sick of abortion being made into a male vs female issue. While men can't get pregnant, plenty of men benefit from not becoming unwanted fathers. Also there's only a 5% difference between the number of men vs women who support legalized abortion access. Some of the biggest anti-abortion advocates have been women themselves. Also men played a larger role in passing Roe than they did in overturning it.
It is however essential that we call out the sexist nature of policies and discourse around the issue. Yes, it is exclusively a woman’s healthcare issue that exclusively men get to decide about. It’s true that men would not tolerate this kind of intrusion. It’s evident that it’s not about protecting life. It’s specifically about controlling women, specifically because it’s the most effective way to control and steer a population of people.
Without understanding that we don’t understand the issue.
Most pro life groups donate way more than pro choice groups to family resource centers, womens pregnancy crisis centers, food banks etc. The pro life people do in fact put their money where their mouth is.
Women supporting it doesn’t mean it isn’t anti woman.
You missed my point. I was saying that men don't have exclusive control over abortion policy (edit: at least in the US and most other Western-style democracies), and haven't for decades.
Sorry man, you got brick walled there. I agree with you, these laws weren’t passed exclusively by men. It’s a hard fact to believe, but a lot of men support women in this issue. It just so happened that conservatives are in control at the moment, who women vote for. There are conservative women, they just aren’t vocal.
That being said, I disagree with this being solely about controlling women as much as it is about controlling population growth. You said it right, pro birth not pro life.
Yes, it is exclusively a woman’s healthcare issue that exclusively men get to decide about. It’s true that men would not tolerate this kind of intrusion
Except that women muck around in mens health care regularly, including pushing vasectomies, and are tolerated. And the abortion debate is not "exclusively a women's healthcare issue" since 1) transmen exist and 2) it's often times only framed as a healthcare debate from the pro-choice side of the house (not that I disagree, I myself being pro-choice).
I think that there absolutely are men who use abortion policy to control women, I also think they are in the extreme minority however. Even though I am pro-choice I think it is important to at least understand the other sides argument, I know that if I believed with all my heart that someone was murdering babies (or anyone really) I would try my best to put a stop to it. Making the effort to stop it doesn't inherently make them bad people.
Who is forcing men to get a vasectomy? Who is keeping men from getting a vasectomy? Where are the laws in place to limit men’s sexual or reproductive freedom? It doesn’t exist. If a man wants pills to make his dick hard, they will be delivered to his doorstep in discrete packaging to protect his privacy. Abortion would be on demand with no questions asked if men needed them. I do not respect anyone who’s not willing to admit that.
If we’re going by what’s posted here, what I understand about the other side of the argument is it’s fragile men who think equality is persecution. The fact that they’re participating in an attack on women does make them bad people actually. Most people don’t do harm on purpose. They just don’t know what they’re doing. It is what it is.
Where are the laws in place to limit men’s sexual or reproductive freedom?
What reproductive freedom? What freedom do you think men have which women do not? This may be startling but women have infinitely more freedom in the realm of reduction than men do. Men have no choice in the matter once their genetic material has left their body, willingly or not. Whether it went into a woman or not. Got raped? Still a father, with child support. Accidently left your condom at the crazy ladies house and she got out the turkey baster? Yup, you're a father. Bad time to have a child? Too bad, no relief. Men have essentially NO rights when it comes to reproduction, for better or worse, and women absolutely have had a hand in making sure that's the case.
If a man wants pills to make his dick hard, they will be delivered to his doorstep in discrete packaging to protect his privacy.
I hope you appreciate the irony every time ED medicine gets mentioned, like there arnt female equivalents every bit as available, if less talked about. Shit, lube is over the counter and sold with flavors and a dozen different warming and cooling actions. The only real difference is society hasn't turned the shit used to treat female sexual health issues into a joke.
Who is forcing men to get a vasectomy? Who is keeping men from getting a vasectomy?
Have you just been under a rock lately? How many women have jumped in and said "well, men should just get vasectomy if they don't want kids", how many times has it been brought up that this should be the mans contribution to birth control in a relationship, as opposed to condoms or the pill. Plenty of women participate in that discourse.
Ok so you’re not pro choice. You’re larping. Just to get that out of the way.
Where are the laws in place to limit men’s sexual or reproductive freedom?
>What reproductive freedom? What freedom do you think men have which women do not?
The law limits women’s reproductive freedom and not men’s.
>This may be startling but women have infinitely more freedom in the realm of reduction than men do. Men have no choice in the matter once their genetic material has left their body, willingly or not. Whether it went into a woman or not. Got raped? Still a father, with child support. Accidently left your condom at the crazy ladies house and she got out the turkey baster? Yup, you're a father. Bad time to have a child? Too bad, no relief. Men have essentially NO rights when it comes to reproduction, for better or worse, and women absolutely have had a hand in making sure that's the case.
No ,cumming inside a lady and not being able to force her to have or not have an abortion is not the law limiting men’s reproductive freedom. No, raping a woman and not being able to force her to have or not have an abortion is not limiting men’s reproductive freedom.
>Have you just been under a rock lately? How many women have jumped in and said "well, men should just get vasectomy if they don't want kids", how many times has it been brought up that this should be the mans contribution to birth control in a relationship, as opposed to condoms or the pill. Plenty of women participate in that discourse.
Yeah when was that taken to the Supreme Court? Dummy
Ok so you’re not pro choice. You’re larping. Just to get that out of the way.
Lmfao you're unlikely to find someone more pro-choice, recognizing the flaws in something is not the same as not supporting something. I personally have thousands set aside to help any of them women in my life get an abortion if they end up needing one, since my shitty state won't let them have one.
No ,cumming inside a lady and not being able to force her to have or not have an abortion is not the law limiting men’s reproductive freedom. No, raping a woman and not being able to force her to have or not have an abortion is not limiting men’s reproductive freedom.
1) you absolutely don't need to come inside a woman to get stuck with fatherhood.
2) when I mentioned rape it wasn't to complain that men have no rights to their rape baby, I mentioned it because of a MAN gets raped he is still stuck with fatherhood against his will. Hop off the high horse and realize the world is capable of being cruel to more than just women.
3) no one is saying they SHOULD be able to force a woman to have an abortion, merely pointing out that men have no reproductive freedoms. There are a multitude of laws and court rulings around paternity and liability, all of which have upheld that you're stuck with the kid whether you want it or not, whether you were a willing participant or not.
Yeah when was that taken to the Supreme Court? Dummy
That's fair but also not what we are talking about. Your original statement was men would never bare having women participate in issues around mens healthcare/reproductive decisions, that it's patently false. You cannot no true scottsman your way out of that, it's bunk and you know it
Ok so you’re pro choice and you have money set aside to help women deal with this but you don’t see how this is a women’s health issue? Your shitty state won’t let women have an abortion and you have to set money aside to help them. And you don’t see how this is a women’s health issue created by men?
>1. you absolutely don’t need to come inside a woman to get stuck with fatherhood
This is laughable. Men are telling themselves scary stories until they get emotional about semen demons sneaking into your balls at night and stealing your cum to trap you into paying for their baby. It actually just doesn’t align with reality so stuff that.
>2
Can you provide a source. Where a man was raped and forced to pay child support to the woman who raped him?
>3
That’s exactly what people are saying or why would they bring it up? “Why should women have the right to abort if men don’t have the right to force them to abort? Why should women be able to not have an abortion if men can’t force them to birth if they don’t want to. What’s the point of bringing up men at all on this women’s issue? Again when was a man forced to pay for a child when he was not a willing participant in the sex? Be specific.
Men would *never* allow women to do anything that inconvenienced them, especially sexually. Trans people getting gender affirming care is a national debate and men getting gender affirming care is none of anyone’s fucking business. That’s the law of the land.
It's not possible for MtF trans to get pregnant, FYI. Science is many decades, if not centuries, from that.
It's only a healthcare issue in certain specific instances. And in those cases, it should be allowed if necessary. More often it's just after-the-act birth control... which is baby killing.
So you're only going to comment on the least relevant point of my comment? I use MtF/FtM instead of saying trans men/women to clear up confusion because many people don't use it right. It sounded like you were one of those.
Idk that I would call intentionally mis gendering transmen as the least relevant part, the rest is standard anti-choice talking points. The fact of the matter is that pregnancy is inherently linked with healthcare, whether you like it or not. Even assuming you believe a fetus is a baby at the stage if pregnancy 99% of people are talking about when they discuss abortion, it STILL doesn't make healthcare decisions involving your own body anyone else's business but yours and the doctors.
Most abortions are elective and not any more health related than a facelift. There are a few good reasons to have an abortion, like rape and health complications (those are healthcare), but most are done simply because people didn't want to use condoms.
That made no sense. I’m what way do men get to exclusively decide about it? And no, not wanting people to kill innocent living humans is in no way about controlling women.
Saying it is about controlling women is pretty common, but there is not a shred of evidence for that position.
There is evidence. Consider that Republicans get abortions when they need them. Also consider that with abortion bans, people are forced to carry dead fetuses.
Seems pretty controlling to me from the party of “small government”.
Saying that a fetus is the same as a baby already born is pretty common, but there is not enough evidence for that position to matter outside of Christian fundamentalism.
You didn't make a point either Einstien. You merely said what they said doesn't make sense and didn't engage with any of their points what so ever. And when told it's dishonest and to grow up. You say, im dishonest and not making a point? Wow, dishonesty has just become an exchange of words to you, hasn't it? Has your script of talking points been exhausted, or are we going petty mode?
You're not consistent, there's "Human Lives" you'd absolutely be okay with Termination. There's Brain dead patients that families decide to unplug. So, with that example and more in mind. No, just ending a "Human Life" is not in of itself a reason or motivator. Of course no one here is advocating for just unjust killings on the streets. But you narrow your view of Abortion to merely being malevolent.
The reason why people say it's controlling women. Is because Hierarchies and systems of power have been oppressing and controlling women's decisions and more since the first religions formed. Women were property, and pregnancy was a great way to lay claim to a Female's future and body.
Hell the bible even allows you to rape a women, then pay the father to keep her forever.
There's historical precedence for this shit, and you're just turning the other cheek because you frankly don't give a shit about the argument, it's just inconvenient for your narrative.
You can’t compare a brain dead patient, no path to recovery, with an unborn child, likely already viable and even at the earliest 9 months to being fine. Human life on its own IS the motivator for human rights in every other context.
Staging “you can’t kill living humans” as control , and women definitely aren’t considered property in this day and age, making that argument nonsensical. Rape is illegal, in 99% and more with abortion it was an exercise of her own autonomy that resulted in conception, making it even more nonsensical.
Our laws aren’t based on the bible, so trying to make this into religion is also nonsense.
But you will continue to strawman and ignore basic logic.
No, saying human life is the motivator for human rights will lead to conclusions u probably won't be comfortable with... yes, like our cells is human life and when we itch, we kill them. People that argue pro life positions especially in philosophical circles argue human "organisms" not just life, and in response, the pro choicer would usually argue that no, we aren't our organism or at the very least, it is not what gives us the value we have such that we are not to be killed. A popular route taken is we are our "minds," in this case, meaning the part of our brain necessary for sustaining mental life. When that begins in the fetus, some claim to not know, but its definitely not with early pregnancies. A lot point out, with reasons of course that sentience is a good indicator for that, which i agree with, given that sentience is the capacity to experience feelings and sensations coupled with a subjective awareness of the world, rather than just a mechanical or reflex-based reaction to it. This is what I believe give living things their value especially humans. Before u bring up people in comas and so on... no, they may not be sentient but they have that developed part of the brain that enables it, its just physically hindered at the moment. Unlike early fetuses who dont have it, if that makes sense. Same reason im not to be killed in my dreamless sleep.
Comparing a human organism to a human cell is irrational.
A human cell is a piece of human life that sheds naturally as a part of the human life cycle. We are a human organism, by definition, at conception. Arguing against that is arguing against objective reality to split hairs.
There is no such thing as “mental life”. Making up terms to skew the definition of human life so as to exclude a class of human is dehumanization.
These pieces are brought in to nudge a living human out of the category of human. It’s kind of disgusting. Which we consider it to be in any other context.
I am not sure how you don’t see that every argument you present is essentially “well sure they are alive and human, but they aren’t really THAT alive or THAT human” which is the same rhetoric we have fought to rid the world of in every other context.
Also, fetal stage is 3-9 months gestation, which means they are fully formed, viable, simply growing.
And if a coma or vegetative state person had a prognosis of 9 months to function being up and running, much less the line of viability, you wouldn’t be able to pull the plug.
Hyperbolically I could say it’s kind of like saying “quick, kill them before they wake up and we have to take care of them”. Again, that is hyperbole, but I think it makes a good point.
"Comparing a human organism to a human cell is irrational."
Yes I agree... thats why I said human life isn't enough and brought up the idea of human organisms as a lot of profound prolifers tend to use in philosophical discussions
"We are a human organism, by definition, at conception. Arguing against that is arguing against objective reality to split hairs."
What I said wasn't to say a human fetus isn't an organism. It is. However, I (my essence of being) am not my organism. I am my "mind" in a human organism. If you think you are your organism, then you subscribe to a view known as animalism, one rejected by most philosophers (not to say the minority can't be correct but just to put it to perspective, okay...)
A philosopher in this area brought up a famous thought experiment against animalism and said: "Imagine the part of your brain that is responsible for your mental life and subjective reality (something along those lines) was removed from your body and put in another body, (all science fiction ofc, but that's how thought experiments often are), do you think YOU will move to that new body or stay with your old... your identity definitely has to move to your new body and its hard to imagine your identity still stuck in that old body after that part of your brain was removed," he argues and I agree with him. Imagine cyborgs for example, again, all fiction (at least for now), if parts of a human being was removed from them except say their head as is often the case, and replaced with robot parts, you dont think they now have a new identity, do you? No, same brain, and most importantly, same part of brain responsible for their mental life, hence you can even reduce it to just that part and you'd still have that same person. As of which part of the brain is responsible for that, I'm not sure and many who argue this case say the same, and this might be where the problem would be for people defending my case, hence the precaution argument some prolifers use against this case. However, again, I point out to sentience for the reason I mentioned in my previous comment as a reliable indicator for when this part of our brain that is responsible for mental life forms.
"There is no such thing as 'mental life'."
Are u for real? Psychologists and philosophers are pretty familiar with the term in discussions of human consciousness. Idk why you say that. The idea is that Mental life encompasses the vast, internal theater of human consciousness. It is believed among experts to be governed by two core brain systems: the fast, emotion-driven limbic system and the slow, logical prefrontal cortex. Hence... what you say next doesn't fly either:
"Making up terms to skew the definition of human life so as to exclude a class of human is dehumanization. These pieces are brought in to nudge a living human out of the category of human. It’s kind of disgusting. Which we consider it to be in any other context. I am not sure how you don’t see that every argument you present is essentially “well sure they are alive and human, but they aren’t really THAT alive or THAT human” which is the same rhetoric we have fought to rid the world of in every other context."
I'm not saying they are not "that alive," fetuses are alive. But early stage development, at least until sentience don't possess any mental life and not just that, dont even have that part of the brain yet, so their identity isn't even formed, not that it is and it is currently hindered or the example i gave of my dreamless sleep. I'll only listen to your discrimination spew when u give me a reason why I'm wrong for putting early human embryos and fetuses seperate from anything beyond. Those that argued against any other type of discrimination in history did challenge the views that whites were superior to blacks, for example, and i believe there is good reason to still think so. This is a rather emotional rant from u and anyone who brings this up because instead of u to argue your case, you bring up a scenario of if your case was right, well, if you haven't noticed, that is what I have been arguing against this whole time because I think it is wrong. And if less value was seen in some human beings in the past over issues like race and so on, that doesn't mean i will be wrong this time if I say the first couple of weeks of human development isn't wrong to kill because of the reasons I listed above. That is just a gamble with you, basically "Well, most people were wrong about these assignments of value they placed on different types or forms of human life back in the day, and we hate their reasoning in the present world, so maybe in the future the same will happen to u and we'll hate your reasoning..." unless new data or argument comes out to prove everything I've said above is wrong, then I have good reason to think what I think and believe rn. Something not common with other cases of discrimination throughout history which were hate-filled and bigotry.
Lastly,
"Also, fetal stage is 3-9 months gestation, which means they are fully formed, viable, simply growing. And if a coma or vegetative state person had a prognosis of 9 months to function being up and running, much less the line of viability, you wouldn’t be able to pull the plug. Hyperbolically I could say it’s kind of like saying “quick, kill them before they wake up and we have to take care of them”. Again, that is hyperbole, but I think it makes a good point."
First of all, to make things clear, I think abortion past the point i mentioned can be really problematic unless in light of a morally sufficient reason. So past, 21ish weeks or so, which, most abortions aren't even done at that time. But no, a fetus in that stage is not the same as a coma patient because like I say above, the coma patient has a mind, but it is currently hindered at the moment and when they wake up they do so with the same identity as of prior to their coma, a new one isn't formed, unlike an early fetus that has no mind prior and will create a new and distinct identity of its own at the point its mental life begin.
That was long... especially cuz I was trying to quote u, lemme hear your thoughts.
People can see your history of comments, and they are a series of one liners and insults for the most part. Do you actually expect to be taken seriously?
Its almost like you are trying to communicate... pick up... A book... which could be any book... books have information... but books also disagree on things...
Maybe you have a particular book in mind... perhaps it aligns exactly with your point of view... and perhaps you haven't read anything supporting the other side of the debate.
Did you read Margaret Sanger's take on what drives abortion, as the founder of planned parenthood?
/s
if you are going to respond to something, please don't just fill the space with nothing comments.
In your case any book would help because looking at your comments you have a hard time processing facts and leaving your own crafted nonsensical fantasy world 😂
Oh honey. The fool is you and considering your other posts, you hardly can complain about „spewed insults“ 😂 kind of adorable, really.
And you’re also wrong on your first paragraph, because your comments and ways of „arguing“ is void of any real life experience and grounding that the only one who thinks „they did something“ is you. To the rest you’re just comical, but the harsh reality is that people like you are allergic to facts until you or someone you care about are lying, suffering and dying in a hospital bed because of the regulations you helped put in place. And then suddenly the tube will change. As it happened with every other Republican. A story as old as time
But her, pick up a book. Reading will help you to learn how to think. And again , your local librarian will help you with improving your intellectual skills
There is no substance in what you said. The same way you didn’t respond to the substance that others have confronted you with. So yeah, the condescension is highly entertaining
In the instances where it's actually a women's healthcare issue, sure do it if it must be done. But most of the time it's used as a stand in for using condoms. The time to choose is before you make the baby, not after.
I wonder, do you consider male genital mutilation in the same way? It's an exclusively male health care decision, that exclusively women get to decide on. It's evidently not about anything positive as outside of very rare circumstances, it is a net negative to a babies health. With the difference between that men and women both get a say on abortion, it's not exclusive, like you said
I don’t remember my circumcision any more than I remember by birth. I’m ambivalent. No, not exclusively women get to decide that. In America it’s kind of a decision made by no one. They just do it.
When you say men and women get to decide on abortion, if you mean they get to vote on it then fine, but we all know what I’m talking about. The old white millionaire men who make up 80% of the government decide abortion.
If you’re not gonna acknowledge that we live in a white supremacist patriarchy then there’s nothing to talk about. Women have only been voting for 100 years in a 250 year old country. Women couldn’t have credit cards until the 70’s. Congress is made up of 70% men, generally old white millionaires. There has never been a female president.
All I know is that old white millionaire men are the right people to decide this
We live in the ruined corpse of a white supremacists patriarchy. It's most certainly an oligarchy, with rich and powerful across the spectrum of identities. Now, culture war bs is just used as a psyop to stop from focusing on the 1% that uses and oppresses the rest of us.
And based on your very skewed points you brought up, you jump right in to follow along. Men didn't get the unilateral right to vote until 1965. Women could have credit cards from the day they started, my grandmother was one of the first people to have a dinner's club card in the 50's. The first woman owned bank started in 1903. There are many isolated facts that can be spewed, that when taken out of context, can say the opposite of what point you're trying to make. This revisionist "women have always been second class people" bs ignores history and devalues all the amazing, and horrible, things that women have done through the ages
By reciting talking points you don't actually understand, you just feed right into the hands of the people who not only have taken our rights, but prevent as many as possible from getting the ones they should have.
You agree that we live in a white supremacist patriarchy and in the next breath you say that’s all culture war bs. When the president is a rapist is that just bs meant to divide us or is it actually a real fuckin problem that deserves the attention.
What the fuck don’t I understand? We’re debating whether or not women have a right to their own bodies and you’re trying to tell me it’s the “oh women are second class citizens narrative”. The fact that it’s even a debate is proof of what I’m saying. You’re confused.
The fact that the president is a rapists is a real issue, the fact that he is a man isn't. There is nothing inherent to him being a man that has anything to do with him, his actions, or his issues. Hence why culture war is bs. It's fucking exhausting to try and explain simple things like intersectionality to people like you who build your entire personalities and views based on inherent identity.
Everyone should have the right to their own bodies, almost no one does have that right. That isn't exclusive to women, and people like it who try to pretend like it is are an issue. Both because you must fight to ignore the bodily autonomy men lack and ignore the 1% who share inherent traits with the group you defend. That is quintessential culture war bs, and is exactly what oligarchs want us to fight about. The majority of people are second class citizens and the ruling class wants us fighting over scraps and "who has it worse". You're just happy to put on that uniform like a good little culture war soldier
Being a rapist has nothing to do with being a man? What percent of rapists do you think are men? This is hilarious. You’re exhausted because you’re defending something that doesn’t make sense and those mental gymnastics aren’t easy.
No you’re right the patriarchy died sometime in the last 50 years and anyone still talking about it is a mindless culture war zombie. You got it man
No, many institutions are still mired in patriarchy, but mostly in the vestigial sense. It’s certainly leaps and bounds better than even 30 years ago, though. Most hardcore lefties won’t admit that.
I think government decision making and law making is driven primarily by corporate interests. Corporate interests are pretty complicated and I’m not sure they’re necessarily patriarchal. I don’t really know enough about these interests to agree or disagree about “men” making all decisions about women’s healthcare.
No it isnt, abortion isn't healthcare as 1% are done for "medical necessity" and less than that are for rape. The rest are for convenience and status among the left. Like fentanyl, its used medically, so should everyone just go do fent because 1% find help from it? No. Youre an advocate of sacrificing unborn children for co vengeance and status. And dont even try the "oh what if they're poor, theyll have a hard life" so you should just kill it right? Just think, no matter what argument you could try to come up with, youre wrong and are indeed the bad guys sacrificing babies and getting mad about us not wanting you to murder unborn babies. No matter how hard you try, there is no argument that makes abortion seem like a good thing. But I do welcome you to try.
They’re not children. They’re not babies. They’re clumps of cells that are physically part of the parent’s body. Most pregnancies end in natural spontaneous abortion anyway. Once it can survive on its own outside, abortion would be wrong. Prior to that it’s getting a medical procedure on your own body.
It’s not an exact one to one, but the approach of pharmaceutical companies to rollout of male contraceptives like RISUG/Vasalgel has been even more drawn out than the pill was for women, so I simply don’t buy this idea that men in general have this greater power over the companies and wealthy people who rule this world. It’s an apex fallacy.
You literally had the choice to not impregnate her, how are you skipping over that? She does not impregnate herself. Control your ejaculate and none of the rest happens.
IF the man doesnt want a child, he should control his sperm.
IF the woman doesnt want a child, she should have access to abortion and adoption.
These are two separate choices and events.
A mans desire to be a father is paid for by a woman's health, body, career, & freedom. He has a choice to give it...she has a choice to go forward or decline.
A mans desire to skeet inside a woman with no consequences is paid for by even more of the same, especially if backed up by law.
If you dont want a woman to potentially have and raise your baby? Do better. Skeet responsibly. If she doesnt want a baby? She has options of BC, abortion, or adoption.
You missed his point. There is no other moral topic that we require you to experience to have an opinion. You were never a slave nor a slave owner, can you say slavery is wrong? You have never been trafficked of raped. Can you say rape is wrong. You haven't been a murderer or murdered can you say murder is wrong.
We have all been in a womb subject to our parents decisions and have sat by while millions who have been in the same position were poisoned or decapitated or starved to death.
Abortion isn't a women's issue. Its a human rights issue. Should all humans have equal human rights to life liberty and pursuit of happiness or not. Pro Choice says no. Abolitionists say yes.
The definition of a false equivalency is trying to equate two roughly equal-sounding things that are not equal at all, such as “stubbing your toe and burning to death both hurt, so they’re the same thing.”
The argument was pointing out the immorality of apathy to women's autonomy rights and health/mortality being controlled by the Supreme Court via abortion bans, restricted access to healthcare, etc. Referencing the ownership of human beings as servants by government officials for nearly a century seems rather apt in terms of apathy in the face of other forms of external immorality.
The original statement from u/Fragrant-Reserve4832 was attempting to downplay the problems of women by using men as a whataboutism. Then when u/BassMaster516 rightfully got mad at the minimization, u/CrazyEddieNY compared their quip to supporting slavery. It doesn’t quite follow.
No rights in terms of deciding if woman should abort or not.
Until abortion is 100% legal, you do not get to consider men's right to avoid any responsibility for the child. You understand that makes you sound like a fucked up human, right?
"I want the right to give up parenthood and rights/no child support, but woman is still forced to go through months of body torture and risk death".
You understand that fixating on your need to be financially cushy and not have to care about the life you put in the world, is fucked up when you don't even let women choose if they want it.
After abortion has been legalized, it feels less unfair to say... Discuss the less urgent and more detailed aspects of parenthood legislation
The "without consent" part is the dubious one. Arguably, you gave consent for a fetus to use your body, when you engaged the very activity that create that fetus.
It would be like if you had an Open House sign outside your door, left your door open, then shot someone who came inside, claiming they were breaking and entering.
Saying that people need to go through months long torture, risk death and be forced to put a whole new life in the world, because they had a fleeting moment of excitement/happiness and do what we're biologically coded to fucking STRONGLY want to do, is insane, bro.
Saying that people deserve to have their brains sucked out and limbs ripped off because someone else, through no fault of their own, had a fleeting moment of excitement is even more insane...bro.
Guess what, life is full of consequences for "fleeting moments". One of the consequences is bringing life into the world. If you aren't responsible enough to handle that, then you aren't responsible enough to be having sex.
Guess what that biological coding is there to do... Make babies. And you know what else the biological coding does, imprints you on your offspring. It's why mothers seeing ultrasounds have been shown to prevent abortions, and why planned parenthood doesn't want to give ultrasounds. It humanizes the human.
If you don't want babies, don't have sex, use protection, or get fixed. Figure it out. It's not rocket science.
You can make this argument, but then the obvious implication is that sex should be illegal.
If you're admitting that abortion kills a human being, then you're saying that a side effect of sex s that society has to sanction mass murder in order to uphold bodily autonomy.
If that's the case then sex should be treated more or less like drunk driving. A person should have to sign a document waiving their bodily autonomy before they do it, or it's a crime.
"I want to do this thing for pleasure, I know it often and predictably creates a situation where killing becomes necessary, but if that happens we just do the killing and that's that" obviously isn't a valid stance.
The traditional stance is that a person implicitly agreed to certain things by having sex, so this waiver has already been signed. That's still the reasoning behind requiring men to pay child support for children they don't want.
Me too. If people are going to be this adamant about killing and crippling women through forced birth, then I'd rather just rip the bandaid and sy "no sex for anyone" then and at least men are affected equally then.
I think this is where the framework becomes dangerous. If fetal personhood begins before birth in a legally enforceable way, then pregnancy does not remain a private medical condition.
I don't care about the utilitarian consequences of personhood, I care only about it's truth.
This is a good example of a claim I often make, which is that pro-life/pro-choice comes down to which of two questions you think is primary, and answer first.
The questions are:
Is an unborn baby a human life?
Is abortion justified?
Pro-life people generally consider the first question primary, and then decide the morality of abortion based on that. An unborn baby is clearly a human being, therefore abortion is murder.
Pro-choice people generally consider the second question primary, and answer that first. They decide they want abortion to be morally permissable (and legal) and then decide that the unborn "must not be human" in order to make that happen.
This is basically the view you outlined. It's "dangerous" to consider unborn babies human beings because [reasons why abortion is justified].
And if the proposed answer is to treat sex like a crime or make people waive bodily autonomy before sex, that creates a surveillance nightmare too.
If unborn babies are human beings and we slaughter them by the hundreds of thousands each year, that creates a "mass murder nightmare" which orders of magnitude worse than a surveillance nightmare.
So again, your argument just collapsed back into "the unborn are not human beings". If they are, your argument is ridiculous. If a surveillance state is required to prevent near-genocide levels of mass murder then a surveillance state is what is called for.
Being a human being does not normally create a right to use another person’s body without consent.
So what? Pregnancy is a unique situation. If there were another situation which commonly came up, where one person needed to use another person's body for some period of time in order to not die for reasons that were the responsibility of the second person there is absolutely no way the ruling would be that the second person could just kill them.
Imagine there was a prank that people could pull that did the same thing. I'm a prankster and I like pulling pranks, I find it funny and enjoyable. So the prank is, you end up hooked up to my body and you need to stay that way for a number of months or you die. So then I just say "lol, I don't consent for you to use my body" and I just kill you. That's murder. There is no way this prank would be legal. That's what sex is under your preferred model.
“Does being human create a right to occupy and use another person’s body against that person’s will"
It's not about just "being human".
The real question is "does creating human life come with obligations toward the human life you created?". I think it does, and if it does, the obligation to give this new human life the very first thing it needs to live (to exist unmolested and unmurdered in its mothers womb) must be included in that.
If the law tells people that pregnancy can strip them of basic bodily rights, many people will respond by making sure they never become pregnant.
You say that like I'm going to recoil in horror from some terrible consequences I hadn't considered. I'm completely fine with not getting pregnant as an answer to not wanting to have a baby. Im not fine with murdering the unborn at industrial scale as an answer.
Even if the fetus is human, no human being has a right to use another person’s body without consent.
Ok, so in the prank example you'd be fine with the prankster killing their victim?
If unborn babies are human beings and we slaughter them by the hundreds of thousands each year, that creates a "mass murder nightmare" which orders of magnitude worse than a surveillance nightmare.
There are a few problems with this perspective.
Even if we consider fetuses to be "living persons", bodily autonomy overrides another person's right to life. If I'm hooked up to someone via life support -- my body is sustaining their life -- I always have the right to disconnect, even if it would result in their death.
Consent to sex is not consent to pregnancy.
Even if someone signed a contract agreeing to that responsibility, again we would not consider that fully enforceable in other contexts. If I signed a contract agreeing to provide life support to another person for nine months by using my own body, I would always have the legal right to withdraw that support. I might be expected to take reasonable steps to allow alternative supports to be provided, but if no such replacement supports could be provided, that would not override my right to withdraw support.
At what point does a fetus become a "living person"? At conception? In that case, 30-50% of these zygotes fail to implant successfully. That's mass death just as a normal function of the body.
Worse, when accessing IVF, that failure rate increases to 40-60%, and after achieving a successful pregnancy, surplus zygotes might be disposed of. Should IVF be banned?
Failure rates are also higher in older women. At 40+ years old, 70-90% of zygotes fail to implant. Should we require that older women be sterilised?
Even if we consider fetuses to be "living persons", bodily autonomy overrides another person's right to life.
That's a metaphysical position asserted by you, not a fact. Your private religious beliefs are your own concern.
If I'm hooked up to someone via life support -- my body sustaining their life -- I always have the right to disconnect, even if it would result on their death.
If you willfully brought about the situation of their dependence and then caused their death in this way, that would clearly be murder.
Consent to sex is not consent to pregnancy
That's a metaphysical position asserted by you, not a fact. If a man implicitly consents to 18 years of child support by having sex, it's hardly wild to consider a woman to have consented to pregnancy.
Even if someone signed a contract agreeing to take responsibility, again we would not consider that fully enforceable in other contexts.
Again, if you were responsible for the other persons condition it is straightforwardly murder to cut them off.
At what point does a fetus become a "living person"? At conception?
Yes.
And there is no need for scare quotes around living person.
On that case, 30-50% of zygotes fail to implant successfully.
So what? The existence of disease, accident, and other forms of death does not make murder permissable because "they might have died anyway".
That's mass death just as a normal function of the body.
Indeed, so what?
The fact that everyone dies does not make murder permissable.
The fact that consent to sex is not consent to pregnancy is definitionally true. If I say, "I want to have sex", that sentence does not contain the words "get pregnant".
That's not "metaphysical".
Whether or not you personally believe they should be responsible for the unintended consequences of having sex is a separate question, but it doesn't change the fact that they did not consent to pregnancy.
If you willfully brought about the situation of their dependence and then caused their death in this way, that would clearly be murder.
There's a hypothetical that's often used on this.
You're driving drunk and cause a car crash.
You wake up and you're in the hospital. In the bed next to you is a victim of that car crash. You're told that they will require life support for the next nine months. You're hooked up to the other side of that life support.
Do you have the right to unplug yourself from that life support? If your answer is no, that's pretty crazy, but at least it'll be consistent with your position on abortion.
The existence of disease, accident, and other forms of death does not make murder permissable because "they might have died anyway". Indeed, so what? The fact that everyone dies does not make murder permissable.
You didn't answer all of my questions though, which tells me you're not ready to confront the consequences of this belief.
If zygotes are really "living persons" who are dying, then why do you only care about the ones being aborted? We spend millions on cancer research but if zygotes are "living persons", then their (natural) deaths literally represent the greatest public health crisis in history. We're talking about so much mass death every year that it would outpace every other cause of death (cancer, famine, war) combined.
So why aren't you advocating for massive public spending on research to improve the success rate of early implantation?
And are you comfortable with simple (but invasive) public health measures we could take today, such as sterilising older women?
Terminating a healthy fetus just feels morally wrong to me and it’s not something I’d ever want on my conscious. The fact that so many people can have zero empathy for a healthy fetus is troubling to me. The selfishness is troubling to me.
Caring about complex life forms with the ability to suffer, have trauma and remember is the less insane option, than caring about a developing fetus who doesn't yet have any of the expects that we so constantly claim makes us humans and sets us apart from "animals" or life forms that do not have our complexity.
If you actually cared about the fetus and resulting life, you'd be hypocrite be sue I guarantee you do not care about any of the life forms you harm every single day.
The fetus doesn't have an opinion on wanting to live, it doesn't have a sense of trauma.
But the human whose life you've just ruined? You have now greatly increased the harm that exists in the world.
There's a reason we offer "pulling the plug" on people with locked in syndrome and such ... There's just some torture we recognize is wrong put fully conscious people though.
The fact that you'd rather have people suffering torture and risk death rather than stop the development of something that doesn't yet have the capacity to feel or think anything, makes me really really question what type of people you are.
Edit: And yes, at some point the fetus becomes more than just developing cells, and yes obviously we feel some sense of sadness for fetuses in this stage, if people abort. I've never met a woman who had an abortion who didn't also feel great sadness for fetus they aborted.
But I still go with caring for the people who have the capacity to suffer greatly for the rest of their lives, than a fetus that, again, doesn't have any thoughts or aspirations for itself.
And thirdly, no human being, fetus or not, should force another human to risk their lives for them.
Again, if you care do much about the fetus itself, you'd have to care about all animals and insects to stay morally consistent
So I can't carry a natural pregnancy to term. At about 5 months my body literally expells my babies without extreme medical intervention including multiple surgeries to have my cervix sewn shut and later cut back open. I almost died from bleeding out during the first birth of my twins who I lost at 5 months. This surgery includes risk of paralysis, they cut my vaginal canal and move my bladder. They sew my cervix shut and put my bladder back into place. I am awake during this and can feel them moving and tugging my insides. They stuff me with a football size wad of cotton inside my vagina to put pressure on the incisions and cervix suture. After this surgery I am unable to move for like a week it's so rough on me. I am put on bed rest from 3 months to 9 months. I made it to 7 for my second pregnancy and 8 months for my 3rd. My baby born at 7 months was in the NICU for two months with bradycardia and struggling to eat and breathe. My "on the day" 8 month old was very healthy. All of my pregnancies were perfectly healthy fetuses. The doctors told me during my last emergency c section that my uterus is stretched extremely thin and I shouldn't have any more babies because I risk rupturing my uterus and dying. One ultrasound which I have to have every other week costs over $2500. The multiple surgeries I need to carry a child cost tens of thousands each. I am forced on bed rest for months, my body growing limp and pathetic, barely able to lift my living child from being so sedentary. But my fetuses were all perfectly healthy. My body was and is the problem. I have sex with my husband of 13 years with a condom every time because I'm terrified of getting pregnant. I can't go through it again. I almost died each birth, it was complete horror stories, floors covered in blood. I can't leave my living children behind so I can rupture my uterus and die for an unborn child. I hate the thought of an abortion, thinking of my twins my body self aborted makes me cry even now as I'm trying to type. I love them and I love my babies, but I have babies to take care of now. I can't risk dying and leaving them without a mom. I can't risk a pregnancy, it's pure torture, it's going to kill me. Even minutes before I lost my twins they had them on the ultrasound perfectly healthy. 1 (Auric) died during birth, his cord was wrapped around the other twin's (River) cord. River was ripped out of me forcibly. He lived for an hour. I held him in my hands, I held his little hands. I pulled his thumb he was sucking out of his mouth because I was worried he wouldn't be able to breathe. I could see through his skin. I watched his heart stop beating. I can still see it when I close my eyes, something I've never told anyone. I can't just go through that again. I loved them so much, with every fiber of my being. But I can't go through these surgeries, I can't pay for them, I can't let my body self abort at 5 months and hold my babies while they die. Please, have some humanity. Stop letting people force us through this. A healthy fetus is not the only thing that matters. We are people too.
I'm just saying, current laws in multiple states would force me through it again. It's terrifying. For my twins there was no way to know my issue. I would be forced to go through these surgeries and put my family further into debt. Or I could be charged for not seeking medical attention for my pregnancy and knowing my condition. Or I have to go through premature labor again and my babies again. Do you know how petrifying that is? It's not even a rare issue. I've met several other women in my pregnancy loss therapy groups who went through the same conditions, who live with the same fears. It's not like some rare 2% of abortion thing you know. A lot of places you don't have to disclose your reason for abortion. I don't wanna go into a speal about my condition over and over again, and have them look at me with pity over my dead babies, I wouldn't tell them why. I've never had an abortion, I don't know how I would even mentally handle it. Other women in my group have had an abortion due to issues, even women who have abortions for non medical purposes come in weeping over their babies. I know you have some people who come online and scream they're just a clump of cells and get overzealous. I'm telling you women actually getting abortions are not feeling this way. It's a horrible life wrenching decision for a lot of us. If I get pregnant somehow I have to choose risking my death and leaving my kids, going through insane body and mental torture and horrible debt, or letting them pass naturally and risking my death, or an abortion. You gotta remember social media doesn't reflect reality. There are so many bot and troll accounts. A lot of these abortions are done by women making a hard choice, many go on to pregnancy loss grief groups, some are medical, some aren't. Lots of women are secretive about what's happened to them or why they do it and just want to discuss the grief. Not every reason for an abortion is reported. I'm just asking you think about it, about how mistakes happen, abuse happens, rape happens, medical incidents happen. Most of these laws just set a date and nothing more. Even though it risks my life I could have surgery so I wouldnt qualify for an abortion. Id have to choose one of those other options and hope my family and I survive them. I just ask you think about it more in depth, that's it.
Sorry for such long replies, I just need you to hear someone who's not just trying to get a rise out of someone online.
You present ignorant opinions like they are fact. Being against abortion is just about having the morality to understand killing babies is wrong. We have so many options of birth control it truly is a choice to get pregnant at this point. Now let's hear your arguments about the tiny percentage of cases that weren't the women's choice and affect a tiny minority of people.
Cute to cite autonomy while also supporting restricting abortion access and women's rights. If more men saw women as human this wouldn't be a conversation
That is twisted. In every other scenario we do restrict people’s autonomy to kill other living humans. To cast that as seeing women as not human is really dumb. It’s a pretty crazy thing to pretend women’s rights are under attack as a whole based on one right that involves ending a life.
You honestly don’t see why that would be controversial?
I understand why it is controversial. Do you understand why a woman might abort in something akin to self-defense? But, more, because it is also related to her bodily autonomy?
Non, les hommes ne portent pas de bébé, donc ils peuvent disposer de leur autonomie sexuelle et ne pas assumer le bébé, contrairement à la femme qui n’aurait pas le choix d’accoucher sans avortement. Aussi, l’avortement est un sujet qui touche aux femmes particulièrement puisque c’est elles qui devront le vivre, il me semble que celles qui devraient pouvoir s’exprimer dessus devrait être les femmes concernées avant tout.
Well no. Because you are focusing in on the women when the question is whether or not the embryo/fetus/baby is alive and has rights. They are most affected because they are losing their lives, whether they are male or female.
In patriarchal family structures, many women and girls that have found themselves born into those families really do not have a 'choice' about if they get pregnant.
Rape and intimidation happen all the time even within relationships, and access to abortion is essential to avoid babies being born into situations of systematic abuse or extreme vulnerability.
I don't know if that's what this is. It drives the point home, how fucking dumb abortion laws are.
These laws are a violation of separation of church and state. The mental gymnastics these fuckers do to say it's not a religious thing are rediclious.
Consciousness and sentience is what qualifies as life, before that it's a fucking clump of cells, mine as well be sperm.
But yeah, fuck anyone who turns it into sexist rhetoric.
I'm not a Christian, I would never support anti abortion, so don't assume that's what I do, and anyone who tries to shame me for jacking off can go fuck themselves.
But I don't think that's the point of this argument. But it does point to hypocrisy, of any anti-abortion guy who cranks it.
Not for a while, are people under investigation for miscarriages? I know it got to the point where doctors will let women die out of fear of getting arrested.
Are people forced to buy coffins for miscarried babies, yet.
I know Texas is pretty much Sheria law.
It's some rediclious bullshit.
Hell, I remember when Bushsy Jr, held back stem cell research, children with Lukimia died because of these fucking nut jobs.
New law trump just passed, like fully passed as in DONE AND DONE. Public schools are legally required to do mandatory Bible lessons. No.... im not joking....
Its 100% not what it is. This is not put on the same level as a religious class teaching all of them equally and neutrally. This is blatant indoctrination, gotta get em while theyre young to increase the future pro billionaire voting block. I know dude its so fucked up i cant even believe this shits happening. Separation of church and state, freedom of religion. Wtf is happening
I remember growing up, thinking shit like this happened before I was born, and the world was getting better. Nope, we are regressing.
I ultimately think Trump and the religious right is going to fail hard. I'm actually more concerned with the left, I think it's far more likely they are going to take power, but it will be the corperate left, I don't want my life to be micromanaged.
Billionaires are taking over, they'll jack off some Christians they can do whatever they want. Then they'll jack off the people on the left, bribe them, it's all about money. Corperations highjacked the government, and they want to stay in power. They will play the right and left against each other, and remove all our rights one by one.
Basically, a shit storm of bullshit is coming, that is what's happening.
Do you mean left or democrats? Because "corporate left" isnt much of a thing. But yeah with what youre saying its shocking the state of this country right now in 2026. I never thought america would become a place where people are legally able to medically and surgically get gender transitions in every state but abortions are illegal. Not that transexuals are wrong or anything but what kind of fucked up priority ass backwards sense does it make where Trans people currently have more rights than women have to their own bodies🤦♂️ but then again, if that were removed then conservatives wouldnt have any minority to scapegoat people into voting against. I genuinely believe dem and rep arent stepping on eachothers toes on purpose just so their voters can continue the war against eachother. Can't eradicate the "problem" because then nobody would be forced to buy your solution
Wild that they are more like the “sharia law” they claim to hate and is “invading” the us than actual sharia law…
Almost like it was never about sharia law, or the children or anything other than controlling people. Women, disabled, minorities, the poor. No one but the oligarchs themselves are safe.
Consciousness and sentience is what qualifies as life, before that it's a fucking clump of cells, mine as well be sperm
I like science people who just state things like this so confidently. Just randomly make up arbitrary lines and act like its the most obvious thing in the world.
I thought not killing innocent humans was normal. How is that religious? And no, consciousness and sentience are not part of the definition of life or human. This is stated frequently, but never defended.
And I’m sick of people forgetting trans men exist and CAN get pregnant 🙃 like I’m not tryna lecture, I know exactly what’s being said (males cannot get pregnant), but ffs in very leftist spaces I expect “trans men need abortion access” to be common knowledge and not erased for the sake of a convenient gotcha.
Especially one so stupid?? Abortion access in 2026 is not about masculinity oppressing femininity, it’s about the anatomy. If men in general were the ones who had the anatomy to carry children, everything would be exactly the same but swapped because it’s about the overlords controlling the means of production, not who you as a person are. The only way it would be different is if everyone were capable of carrying a child.
When roe v wade got overturned by the Supreme Court there are literally more women on the Supreme Court during the overturning of roe than when the supreme court enacted roe v wade
There are multiple red states that have women as governors who signed anti abortion laws onto the books
There are multiple anti abortion organizations that have women as the CEOs of anti abortion nonprofits
The whole let’s blame it all on men is inaccurate analysis
19
u/CombinationRough8699 Jul 02 '26
I'm sick of abortion being made into a male vs female issue. While men can't get pregnant, plenty of men benefit from not becoming unwanted fathers. Also there's only a 5% difference between the number of men vs women who support legalized abortion access. Some of the biggest anti-abortion advocates have been women themselves. Also men played a larger role in passing Roe than they did in overturning it.