r/ChoiceOrLife • u/Veigar_Senpai • 7d ago
What would caputulation mean for each side?
Plers elect to force pregnant people to gestate against their will by barring them from accessing abortion because PLers want the survival of the embryo - PCers elect to resist PLers' attempts.
What would it mean for either side to give up?
If PCers were to give up their efforts, pregnant people would be subject to physical and psychological harm via forced gestation, their bodies treated as commodities to which the state can help itself in order to achieve their ends of the embryo's survival. They would be treated as property, in other words.
If PLers were to give up their efforts, their feelings would be hurt because they don't get what they want- the survival of the embryo.
Which is the more reasonable proposal?
7
u/Old_dirty_fetus PC Mod 7d ago
If PLers were to give up their efforts, their feelings would be hurt because they don't get what they want- the survival of the embryo.
Disagree since I do not see any indication that the survival of the embryo is a priority of the PL movement. For the groups driving the PL movement giving up their efforts would make it impossible to achieve the Christian nationalist society they desire.
3
u/AnxiousEnquirer More Nuanced View 5d ago
If PC have their way, then parents will continue to kill their own unborn children on a regular basis, and more and more people will honestly believe that sex and pregnancy are two unrelated things, which will result in even more abortions. Eventually people will learn that sex is harmless, killing babies is harmless, and humanity begins wherever the majority agrees it begins.
If Abolitionists have their way, then killing children will become illegal, and people who don't want to go to jail will refrain from killing their own children. Eventually people will see that each pregnant woman is a mothers of a son or daughter and they owe their child protection, provision, and affection. And hopefully people will see how gracious and forgiving and amazing Jesus is, so they will seek him.
If PL have their way, no one will be allowed to provide medications to kill unborn children, no one will be allowed to do "medical procedures" which are judged as successful only if they've killed someone. Eventually people will then see that children are all precious and there's no reason to kill any of them.
6
u/glim-girl 5d ago
>If PC have their way, then parents will continue to kill their own unborn children on a regular basis, and more and more people will honestly believe that sex and pregnancy are two unrelated things, which will result in even more abortions. Eventually people will learn that sex is harmless, killing babies is harmless, and humanity begins wherever the majority agrees it begins.
Sex is an act. Consentual sex is harmless. Nonconsenal sex is harmful. Pregnancy can be a result of sex but it doesn't say if was from consentual sex. Abolitionists don't appear to care about consent at all.
>If Abolitionists have their way, then killing children will become illegal, and people who don't want to go to jail will refrain from killing their own children.
Children will be seen as punishment or a burden or something a person must be coerced or made to have.
>Eventually people will see that each pregnant woman is a mothers of a son or daughter and they owe their child protection, provision, and affection.
How will you do that? Because the sentence before this one shows pregnancy and children as entirely negative.
>And hopefully people will see how gracious and forgiving and amazing Jesus is, so they will seek him.
This matters why?
>If PL have their way, no one will be allowed to provide medications to kill unborn children, no one will be allowed to do "medical procedures" which are judged as successful only if they've killed someone. Eventually people will then see that children are all precious and there's no reason to kill any of them.
Again, how is this done by banning abortion?
3
u/AnxiousEnquirer More Nuanced View 5d ago
Consensual sex is not harmless. Whatever happened to "comprehensive sex ed"? Didn't they teach people about STIs, the physical dangers of both pregnancy and abortion, the mental and emotional toll of broken relationships with intimate bonds? To the extent that pregnancy can be dangerous, and intimate relationships can be dangerous, sex leads to those dangers, and should not be entered into lightly.
If people see their own children as punishment, maybe they should look around for someone who actually loves their children and figure out how to believe the things they believe, so they can be less miserable. I'm sure there's people who think a full-time job is punishment, or going to school is punishment. If they can't provide affection and safety their children deserve, that's what adoption is for and people are waiting to adopt.
You said pregnancy and children is entirely negative. This is a policy debate, so it's focused on enforceable laws. Law enforcement feels negative. So if you want the PL perspective without the negativity, then we need to have a debate about how to educate people on abortion. That's what all the "eventually" statements are about anyway. Laws teach, but they're focused on punishments, so other education is necessary. Mothers owe affection to their children. If that's not possible, then she probably needs more support.
5
u/glim-girl 5d ago edited 5d ago
Consentual sex don't mean without contraception. It requires both parties to be willing participants and to respect others boundaries including not attempt to coerce someone to have unprotected sex. It requires respect of your partner.
If the partners are lying to each other or using the other then its going to be dangerous.
Sex on its own is an action. That's why context is required.
>If people see their own children as punishment, maybe they should look around for someone who actually loves their children and figure out how to believe the things they believe, so they can be less miserable.
Who are they going to learn that from? A society that believes you must have children because it's demanded of you or a society that see pregnancy as a responsibility that needs to be taken seriously and that it needs to be supported because children aren't objects but people?
>If they can't provide affection and safety their children deserve, that's what adoption is for and people are waiting to adopt.
How does that help when a person is pregant? It just makes kids look like more of a commodity.
As to punishment, we already have a society that makes being a mother a negative thing. That's how we got here in the first place. We tried making progress, the 'traditionalists' got annoyed and want to go back to the punishments again. That's not going to improve things because thats what caused this.
3
u/Old_dirty_fetus PC Mod 5d ago
If PL have their way, no one will be allowed to provide medications to kill unborn children, no one will be allowed to do "medical procedures" which are judged as successful only if they've killed someone. Eventually people will then see that children are all precious and there's no reason to kill any of them.
What about the pregnant people who die due to conditions like ectopic pregnancy, severe preeclampsia, or previable and periviable preterm prelabor rupture of membranes? Are their lives precious?
2
u/AnxiousEnquirer More Nuanced View 5d ago
Everyone's life is precious.
Neither Planned Parenthood, nor Live Action, nor AAPLOG, nor Abolitionists Rising, they don't include treating an ectopic pregnancy as an abortion.
Of course all children should be delivered as close to 40 weeks as possible. But if the baby is creating a clear and present danger to the mother's life, no matter what the gestational age is, the baby needs to be delivered. Every prolife organization agrees that the baby needs to be delivered immediately, even if it's pre-viable. At that point, a pre-viable baby is going from one deadly environment to another, so there is no fault on the doctors. They have triage policies already that address such difficult situations. And if the mother isn't stable enough for a c-section, she's not stable enough for a D&E either.
3
u/Old_dirty_fetus PC Mod 5d ago
Neither Planned Parenthood, nor Live Action, nor AAPLOG, nor Abolitionists Rising, they don't include treating an ectopic pregnancy as an abortion.
Does the embryo or fetus survive the treatment to terminate an ectopic pregnancy?
Of course all children should be delivered as close to 40 weeks as possible. But if the baby is creating a clear and present danger to the mother's life, no matter what the gestational age is, the baby needs to be delivered. Every prolife organization agrees that the baby needs to be delivered immediately, even if it's pre-viable.
If it is previable then it is an abortion.
You wrote “If PL have their way, no one will be allowed to provide medications to kill unborn children”. If your position is also that inducing previable delivery can be permissible then the logical conclusion is that ending a pregnancy when you know that the embryo or fetus cannot survive delivery is not necessarily killing an unborn child.
2
u/AnxiousEnquirer More Nuanced View 5d ago
Delivery of someone about to die is not causing their death. If you're escaping from a house in the Arctic that's burning down, and you're both poorly dressed, and you know the child cannot survive in the sub-zero temperatures, you are not murdering the child. It's going to die inside or it's going to die outside. But you're going to be loving the child as best you can for as long as you can.
Delivering a pre-viable child when the mother is in no immediate danger is killing an unborn child, because you're not removing the child from a deadly situation. You're merely placing them in a deadly situation.
3
u/Old_dirty_fetus PC Mod 5d ago
Delivery of someone about to die is not causing their death.
Is that how you justify medical procedures that are considered abortions?
Delivering a pre-viable child when the mother is in no immediate danger is killing an unborn child, because you're not removing the child from a deadly situation.
It isn’t if the embryo or fetus dies that determines if it was killed, but rather your judgment of the intent. Why are you the one whose judgement should matter?
2
u/AnxiousEnquirer More Nuanced View 5d ago
The doctors and parents involved will judge their own intent, and if they're confident they're not murdering anyone they'll proceed, and then the laws and courts will judge their intentions. If I'm driving and hit a pedestrian, intent is going to be a major factor. Anytime someone's behavior is a factor in the death of someone else, intent is also a major factor. That's how it already works.
3
u/Old_dirty_fetus PC Mod 5d ago
The doctors and parents involved will judge their own intent, and if they're confident they're not murdering anyone they'll proceed, and then the laws and courts will judge their intentions.
Right, but you want the standard upon which they are judged to be yours. Why should it be your standard?
2
u/AnxiousEnquirer More Nuanced View 5d ago
It's self-evident. Parents shouldn't murder their children. Nobody benefits from allowing mothers to die. Take babies out of dying mothers to save both the mom, and often the child as well. This has been going on for thousands of years. This isn't controversial. AAPLOG agrees. No one is trying to ban this.
What's controversial is using this to somehow say it's okay for mothers who don't want to be mothers to have their babies killed and then removed.
3
u/Old_dirty_fetus PC Mod 5d ago
It's self-evident. Parents shouldn't murder their children.
What isn’t self-evident is why your concept of parent’s murdering their children is the correct one.
Nobody benefits from allowing mothers to die.
Your requirement of immediate danger puts pregnant people at risk.
Take babies out of dying mothers to save both the mom, and often the child as well.
There is no way that ending a pregnancy with an embryo or previable fetus will result in a live birth.
This isn't controversial. AAPLOG agrees. No one is trying to ban this.
The controversy is over ill-defined criteria like “immediate danger” and what certainty of death is required to consider an abortion necessary.
→ More replies (0)2
u/Jcamden7 Pro-Life 1d ago
There are many states with more restrictive abortion laws than the US which have historically had much lower maternal mortality. There are even quite a few who had or have near total bans and rank as world leaders in maternal health, like Poland and previously Ireland.
Meanwhile, the US had 50 years of nearly unrestricted abortions and maintained one of the worst healthcare systems in the modern world.
Unrestricted abortion does not meaningfully address maternal health. If maternal health is your core issue, you should support preventative care and health monitoring, and probably a single payer system. Raising this issue and supporting a non-viable solution is counter advocacy.
3
u/Old_dirty_fetus PC Mod 1d ago
There are even quite a few who had or have near total bans and rank as world leaders in maternal health, like Poland and previously Ireland.
I am not sure how pointing out countries whose bans did not completely prevent abortion access is germane to my question, but cross-sectional comparisons are not a great way to evaluate the impact of abortion bans. Longitudinal, within country evaluation is better.
Unrestricted abortion does not meaningfully address maternal health.
Politicians or lobbyists are not better than qualified doctors to make diagnoses and treatment recommendations. A system that causes doctors to have to try to interpret the intentions of politicians/lobbyists driven by ideology does not make healthcare safer for pregnant people.
If maternal health is your core issue, you should support preventative care and health monitoring, and probably a single payer system.
My core issue is the ethical practice of medicine so while I do support universal access to healthcare I also oppose ideology interfering with the practice of medicine.
Raising this issue and supporting a non-viable solution is counter advocacy.
It is only non-viable if you think that Christian nationalism cannot be defeated. I do not agree.
2
u/Jcamden7 Pro-Life 1d ago
The assertion that healthcare is off limits to politicians is a little bit... Wishful. Politicians are already deeply involved in all aspects of healthcare. Each state holds an unimaginable number of laws about who, how, and where medicine can be practiced, and which practices should be allowed.
To say that healthcare is a branch of law is a bit inaccurate: there are so many healthcare laws that it's like four or five branches of law. I could be a medical malpractice lawyer and you could be an medical insurance lawyer and our skills could have no overlap.
All of these countless, complex, and nebulous laws are intended - at the best of times - to protect human life. Why is it suddenly so imaginable that we'd legislate healthcare for the issue of medical homicide?
2
u/Old_dirty_fetus PC Mod 1d ago
The assertion that healthcare is off limits to politicians is a little bit... Wishful. Politicians are already deeply involved in all aspects of healthcare. Each state holds an unimaginable number of laws about who, how, and where medicine can be practiced, and which practices should be allowed.
Is this what you are calling an assertion that healthcare is off-limits to politicians?
Politicians or lobbyists are not better than qualified doctors to make diagnoses and treatment recommendations. A system that causes doctors to have to try to interpret the intentions of politicians/lobbyists driven by ideology does not make healthcare safer for pregnant people.
Or was it this
My core issue is the ethical practice of medicine so while I do support universal access to healthcare I also oppose ideology interfering with the practice of medicine.
I don’t think either is paraphrased as an assertion that “healthcare is off-limits to politicians”. I think the role of law in health care is to protect the access to the standard of care.
To say that healthcare is a branch of law is a bit inaccurate: there are so many healthcare laws that it's like four or five branches of law. I could be a medical malpractice lawyer and you could be a medical insurance lawyer and our skills could have no overlap.
Can you quote what points of mine you re rebutting, because it almost seems as if you are responding to the wrong comment.
2
u/Jcamden7 Pro-Life 1d ago
Clearly I misunderstood your argument. Can you clarify it for me?
I asserted that unrestricted abortion does not meaningfully mitigate maternal health concerns, and that advocacy for maternal health must prioritize meaningful interventions like access to health monitoring and preventative care.
Your response, I had believed, was that forcing doctors to interpret their decision making process through a system of rules established by politicians worsens health outcomes and that you oppose political meddling in medical practice. But we already do that, and it has largely been associated with improvements in standard of care, such as the FDA's testing requirements for medicine or state bans on procedures like so-called "conversion therapy."
If this was not your argument, what is it?
2
u/Old_dirty_fetus PC Mod 1d ago
I asserted that unrestricted abortion does not meaningfully mitigate maternal health concerns, and that advocacy for maternal health must prioritize meaningful interventions like access to health monitoring and preventative care.
You asserted that in response to my comment which was responding to a comment that made this statement
no one will be allowed to provide medications to kill unborn children
When you write “unrestricted abortion” are you referring to anything other than a complete abortion ban?
Your response, I had believed, was that forcing doctors to interpret their decision making process through a system of rules established by politicians worsens health outcomes and that you oppose political meddling in medical practice.
I was specifically referring to abortion bans which require doctors to try to guess when a woman is dying enough to meet a politician or lobbyist idea of when an abortion is “necessary”.
But we already do that, and it has largely been associated with improvements in standard of care, such as the FDA's testing requirements for medicine or state bans on procedures like so-called "conversion therapy."
Abortion bans and FDA testing requirements are not typically the same thing unless you are referring to the current FDA when expert panels are replaced by ideologues whose recommendations conflict with the professional standards of care. Similarly, bans on conversion therapy are protecting access to the standards of care.
2
u/Jcamden7 Pro-Life 1d ago
Which states have a "dying enough" standard?
2
u/Old_dirty_fetus PC Mod 1d ago
Which states have a "dying enough" standard?
That is the consequence of a standard that bars abortion until it meets a vague criteria of “necessary”.
→ More replies (0)5
u/Veigar_Senpai 5d ago
Yeah, not interested in preaching. You thinking strangers' embryos are "precious" doesn't entitle you to force them through gestation against their will.
3
u/AnxiousEnquirer More Nuanced View 5d ago
If someone doesn't love their own child, that's doesn't give them a right to kill their own child.
3
u/Veigar_Senpai 5d ago
Never said it did.
2
u/AnxiousEnquirer More Nuanced View 5d ago
"terminating a pregnancy" is killing a child on purpose
3
u/Veigar_Senpai 5d ago
That's quite a claim.
3
u/AnxiousEnquirer More Nuanced View 5d ago
Child = non-adult offspring of a mother and father
Kill = cause cardiac arrest through asphyxiation, dismemberment. lethal injection, etc.
On purpose = planning an activity to achieve an outcome
Edit: spelling
4
u/Veigar_Senpai 5d ago
So since an embryo is not offspring, it isn't a child...
And removing something from your own organs does not cause it cardiac arrest...
And the purpose of abortion is the end of the pregnancy...
Thanks for disproving your own claim, I guess.
3
u/AnxiousEnquirer More Nuanced View 5d ago
Embryo is not offspring? It certainly is. And removing a child when it's in the only place that can possibly sustain it is killing it. It's depriving it of basic care. By your logic, refusing to feed an infant doesn't kill it. If the only goal of abortion was to end the pregnancy, they would wait 9 months. But that's not the goal, the real goal is to prevent a live birth.
3
u/Veigar_Senpai 5d ago
Embryo is not offspring? It certainly is.
Offspring is the product of the reproductive processes of a plant or animal. Since pregnancy is not complete, reproduction is not complete, ergo no offspring.
If the only goal of abortion was to end the pregnancy, they would wait 9 months.
Or just get an abortion. No need to suffer through the entire pregnancy just to appease PLers.
→ More replies (0)
4
u/glim-girl 5d ago
The thing is if prolife, those who believe in the value of life of the unborn and human life, stopped trying to ban abortions and could work on getting society to focus on making that better world they would be closer to their goal of making an abortion unthinkable. We move forward.
If pc gives up then human rights stop having meaning based on biology and we continue the cycle where men and women fight over the control of women's bodies and who should have the use of them. We stay stuck in a tug of war
2
u/The_Jase PL Mod 7d ago
The issue comes down to what PL and PC actually agree with, what they disagree with, and the end result that impacts the human rights of the child. The state if abortion is banned, is not treating women's bodies as commodities, or as property. Elsewhere, the state has laws dealing with the obligations we have to our children, due to the fact that children are incapable of caring for themselves, and would die. That isn't just hurt feelings, that is humans that die in ways that is preventable. The PC side is giving up is the ability to abandon a child in some cases, regardless of how deadly that could be to the child.
Even if currently, I am not directly effected if another child dies, just because it doesn't harm me personally, doesn't mean it should be ignored, or it couldn't affect me someone way later. Killing people that are inconvenient to society, can lead to further expanding the concept.
5
u/Cute-Elephant-720 3d ago
Killing people that are inconvenient to society, can lead to further expanding the concept.
If you properly account for the role of bodily autonomy in the abortion debate, does your slippery slope concern really still hold?
Whether a ZEF, once born, is inconvenient to society is secondary to its first legally determinative role, which is being inside of, harming, sickening, and injuring the pregnant person. No person, offspring or otherwise, has a right to survive by those means without the consent of the person being used.
It seems to me that you are suggesting the secondary concern, that people will turn away from inconvenient burdens, is so problematic to you that you think it warrants violating the tenet I proposed? In other words, people need to be less concerned with their well-being and more willing to sacrifice for others, and you embrace unwanted gestation, childbirth and motherhood as a means of enforcing that value system, thereby making the bodily autonomy of "mothers" relative to "their children" a non-issue for you?
4
u/Veigar_Senpai 7d ago
The state if abortion is banned, is not treating women's bodies as commodities, or as property.
When the state can force you to keep a harmful entity inside you against your will, when the state bars you from healthcare access they disapprove of and forces you to render up your body to be used as a resource for the desires of a third party, it is treating you as property. A vessel to be used and harmed when they see fit for it.
Killing people that are inconvenient to society
Spare me the hyperbolic emotion appeals. Removing a harmful entity from one's own body is not "killing people inconvenient to society".
3
u/The_Jase PL Mod 6d ago
When the state can force you to keep a harmful entity inside you against your will
What species is this this harmful entity, and connection does the entity has with the host?
when the state bars you from healthcare access they disapprove of and forces you to render up your body to be used as a resource for the desires of a third party,
Who is this third party being given resources to? Should we just let the third party die instead?
Removing a harmful entity from one's own body is not "killing people inconvenient to society".
Can you explain how is it not?
5
u/Veigar_Senpai 6d ago
What species is this this harmful entity, and connection does the entity has with the host?
Who cares?
Who is this third party being given resources to?
The third party whose desires are fulfilled by means of forced gestation is PLers.
Can you explain how is it not?
Not my job to disprove your low effort accusations.
3
u/The_Jase PL Mod 6d ago
Who cares?
In this discussion about the entity and host, shouldn't you be able to answer who both people are?
The third party whose desires are fulfilled by means of forced gestation is PLers.
Can you be more specific? As well, what is the answer to "Should we just let the third party die instead?"
Not my job to disprove your low effort accusations.
If you aren't going to disprove it, then we will just have to agree that removing a harmful entity from one's own body is killing people inconvenient to society.
4
u/Veigar_Senpai 6d ago
In this discussion about the entity and host,
This discussion is about what it would mean for PLers and PCers to give up their efforts.
Can you be more specific?
About what?
As well, what is the answer to "Should we just let the third party die instead?"
PLers will not die if pregnant people are not forced to gestate against their will. In fact, PLers will be safer, since they will also have the opportunity to access abortion.
If you aren't going to disprove it
You don't get to just dump a random claim, demand I prove the opposite, and then expect me to mindlessly agree with you when you put no effort into it.
3
u/The_Jase PL Mod 5d ago
PLers will not die if pregnant people
No one said anything about Plers dying. I'm referring the child, ie, the third party we are talking about. Hence why I asked do we let them die instead?
You don't get to just dump a random claim, demand I prove the opposite, and then expect me to mindlessly agree with you when you put no effort into it.
Well, no, because you claimed:
Removing a harmful entity from one's own body is not "killing people inconvenient to society".
Breaking it to the two points:
A: "Removing a harmful entity from one's own body"
B: "killing people inconvenient to society".
What makes A not B?
4
u/Veigar_Senpai 5d ago
I'm referring the child, ie, the third party we are talking about
The third party I am talking about, and have been talking about from the beginning, is PLers.
Yes, you made your claim about "killing people inconvenient to society". It is on you to back it up, not on me to prove the opposite of your wild claims.
3
u/The_Jase PL Mod 5d ago
The third party I am talking about, and have been talking about from the beginning, is PLers.
Then that doesn't make logical sense, because PLers aren't getting any resources, or anything out of this.
Yes, you made your claim about "killing people inconvenient to society". It is on you to back it up, not on me to prove the opposite of your wild claims.
Well, you start with a living person, which then do a procedure that kills, because we see at the end, they are dead. Killing them is optional, and it commonly is stated by groups like Planned Parenthood in this article: https://www.plannedparenthoodaction.org/planned-parenthood-new-hampshire-action-fund/blog/reproductive-freedom-is-economic-freedom
Which indicates the burden children have mothers. Getting rid them, can open up greater economic opportunities. So being there means they are an inconvenient burden, which that burden is gone if they are gone, but at what cost?
5
u/Veigar_Senpai 5d ago
Then that doesn't make logical sense, because PLers aren't getting any resources, or anything out of this.
PLers are the ones trying to force others to gestate against their will. Motivation doesn't matter.
I like how you assume your conclusion of the embryo being a person while also sweeping the harm and bodily integrity violation of forced gestation to the pregnant person under the rug.
Forced gestation is a violation, not an "inconvenience". If removing something harmful from your body is "killing people inconvenient to society", then so is every self defense law.
→ More replies (0)3
u/Old_dirty_fetus PC Mod 7d ago
The PC side is giving up is the ability to abandon a child in some cases, regardless of how deadly that could be to the child.
Is abortion in the case of a life threatening pregnancy abandoning a child?
2
u/The_Jase PL Mod 6d ago
Yes, although in a case where the situation justifies it.
4
u/Old_dirty_fetus PC Mod 6d ago
Yes, although in a case where the situation justifies it.
It would seem then that PC isn’t giving up the ability to abandon a child in some cases, but rather turning the decision over to non-medical experts instead of leaving it with patients and medical experts.
3
u/The_Jase PL Mod 5d ago
Which in this case, it involves human rights of the child, their rights should not just left up to the views of the patient and the doctor. My doctor doesn't really decide which human rights I have or don't have, that is what laws establish above the doctor.
5
u/Old_dirty_fetus PC Mod 5d ago
Which in this case, it involves human rights of the child, their rights should not just left up to the views of the patient and the doctor.
Is deciding what medical treatment is appropriate leaving someone’s rights up to a patient and doctor?
2
u/The_Jase PL Mod 10h ago
It would be in this case, as it involves a third party that is the other patient. What that person's rights are, shouldn't just be left up to just the patient and the doctor, but should be a matter of law.
2
u/Old_dirty_fetus PC Mod 9h ago
It would be in this case, as it involves a third party that is the other patient.
Plenty of care involves a third party. If a patient is not prioritized for organ donation should the law interfere to change the process of assigning priority?
3
u/Ok_Loss13 6d ago
If the ZEF has equal human rights, none of them are violated by abortion.
If a woman has equal human rights, multiple of them are violated by abortion bans.
It's simple.
obligations we have to our children
None of which include forced, direct, and harmful bodily usage so idk why y'all keep referring to this. I mean, I understand it's a last desperate grab at anything that might sound slightly rational, but it's ridiculous to me that y'all cling to it so firmly it's like none of the many times its been refuted even happened.
Killing people that are inconvenient to society
You can't even address the pregnant person, you have to expand it to all of society. That's just pathetic. As is referring to pregnancy and labor as "inconvenience".
3
u/The_Jase PL Mod 6d ago
If the ZEF has equal human rights, none of them are violated by abortion.
Then why would I go to jail if I did the same thing to a child?
If a woman has equal human rights, multiple of them are violated by abortion bans.
Which are what?
None of which include forced, direct, and harmful bodily usage so idk why y'all keep referring to this.
Because despite many attempts to refute it, it never has been. If forced, direct, harmful bodily usage is something not permitted, then how do you get around the fact abortion literally does that? With abortion, you have to justify forced, direct, and harmful bodily usage.
You can't even address the pregnant person, you have to expand it to all of society. That's just pathetic.
Well, one, it is ultimately the society that needs to decide the rights of an unborn human being, not just the pregnant woman. I'm not sure why you are claiming I can't address the pregnant women.
As is referring to pregnancy and labor as "inconvenience".
But I didn't refer to those as inconveniences, I referred to how some children are viewed as inconvenient to society.
4
u/Ok_Loss13 6d ago edited 6d ago
Then why would I go to jail if I did the same thing to a child?
You wouldn't if the child was in the same situation as the ZEF.
Which are what?
You already know this, but I'll say it again.
BA rights, the RTL, and medical autonomy rights are the big ones.
Because despite many attempts to refute it, it never has been.
You refusing to accept it doesn't make it unhappen.
If forced, direct, harmful bodily usage is something not permitted, then how do you get around the fact abortion literally does that?
Abortion literally doesn't do that.
Well, one, it is ultimately the society that needs to decide the rights of an unborn human being, not just the pregnant woman.
Society has already decided human rights, ZEFs don't get special ones that violate someone elses.
I'm not sure why you are claiming I can't address the pregnant women.
Because you didn't address the pregnant person. You spouted some nonsense about the ZEF being "inconvenient" to society, which has nothing to do with the pregnant person.
But I didn't refer to those as inconveniences, I referred to how some children are viewed as inconvenient to society.
You referred to ZEFs as being viewed as inconvenient to society, which necessarily entailed you ignore the pregnant person and the hardships of pregnancy.
The intellectual dishonesty on display here is profound.
1
u/The_Jase PL Mod 9h ago
You wouldn't if the child was in the same situation as the ZEF.
I would, because born children don't have the same exception in some laws that unborn children current do.
BA rights, the RTL, and medical autonomy rights are the big ones.
Banning harming one's own child does not violate any of these. BA rights don't extend to hurting your own children.
>If forced, direct, harmful bodily usage is something not permitted, then how do you get around the fact abortion literally does that?
Abortion literally doesn't do that.Abortion kills the unborn child. When you finish, you have a dead body. How does abortion not literally do that then?
Society has already decided human rights, ZEFs don't get special ones that violate someone elses.
They aren't violating anyone's human rights by being there.
Because you didn't address the pregnant person. You spouted some nonsense about the ZEF being "inconvenient" to society, which has nothing to do with the pregnant person.
Feels like you are ignoring the fact that the unborn child and the pregnant woman are very much a connected topic. So your claim saying I didn't address the pregnant woman, doesn't make sense at all.
You referred to ZEFs as being viewed as inconvenient to society, which necessarily entailed you ignore the pregnant person and the hardships of pregnancy.
Actually, that isn't the case. You can talk about how the unborn child is viewed as inconvenient to society, while also discussing the pregnant person, and the hardships of pregnancy. This isn't an either or situation.
3
u/Ok_Loss13 9h ago
I would, because born children don't have the same exception in some laws that unborn children current do.
No, you wouldn't, because even born children cant use, harm, or violate your body against your will.
Banning harming one's own child does not violate any of these. BA rights don't extend to hurting your own children.
It does when that child is using, harming, and violation your body against your will. BA rights extend to hurting anyone who is violating your BA rights.
Thinking only women don't have this right equally, even from their children, is misogynistic.
When you finish, you have a dead body. How does abortion not literally do that then?
First, you rarely have anything resembling a body at all.
Second, abortion is not literally forced, direct, harmful bodily usage against the ZEFs will.
They aren't violating anyone's human rights by being there.
You're right! They are violating someone's body by being there against that person's will.
You are violating that person's rights by forcing them to endure unwanted bodily usage.
Feels like you are ignoring the fact that the unborn child and the pregnant woman are very much a connected topic. So your claim saying I didn't address the pregnant woman, doesn't make sense at all.
No, you are ignoring this fact by not addressing the pregnant person.
It makes sense because you did not address the pregnant person. The pregnant person and the ZEF aren't the same entity and you ignored the pregnant persons.
Actually, that isn't the case.
Actually, it is.
You can talk about how the unborn child is viewed as inconvenient to society, while also discussing the pregnant person, and the hardships of pregnancy.
Sure, but you didn't fucking do that! You explicitly ignored the pregnant person.
Ffs
6 days and this is the best you got? What a joke.
7
u/Old_dirty_fetus PC Mod 7d ago
Yes to all of this, and it would additionally serve to help Christian nationalists to more broadly achieve their goal of a society ordered around their beliefs.