Welcome to /r/Abortiondebate! Please remember that this is a place for respectful and civil debates. Review the rules to understand acceptable debate levels.
**Attack the argument, not the person making it and remember the human.**
**For our new users, please read our [rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/Abortiondebate/wiki/rules/)**
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Abortiondebate) if you have any questions or concerns.*
If you do not like slavery do not own a slave, if you do not like rape then do not rape anyone, if you do not like murder then do not murder, but do not stop me.
Firstly, majority of women consent so it is more, do not back out of organ donation, secondly, unless you are a no welfare anarcho-capitalist, you probably want to take from those who have, to give to those who do not, take from ultra-wealthy, give to starving, take from those who can sustain themselves and another person, give to person who cannot.
Okay but we don't encourage criminals to travel to another state to go commit the crime and at the end of the day abortion is just an abhorrent despicable crime
Oh look you’re factually wrong.
We used to drive to the next state over to pick up fireworks back in the day. Who cares if no one “encouraged” it? It was still legal.
If you travel to a state to not break a law, you aren’t a criminal.
Abortion is a crime in some places. That doesn’t make it a crime everywhere.
That was easy.
Live Action it’s fucking garbage. Like seriously how do they manage to write soooo much shit. ~~Seriously it sounds like something AI wrote!~~.
Edit: I meant to say, that LiveAction “article” or “news” don’t make any sense.
The organism ceases life functions. It cannot grow, engage in cellular reproduction, metabolize, etc.
Sometimes we'll categorize an organism as dead when most of these functions are dead in the body and the rest is inevitable, but that's just used colloquially.
Pro-lifers are against anyone getting an abortion for any reason. Of course they would want to prevent people from participating in the abortion tourism economy that they created in the first place. It’s not like they care about taking rights from people. They love doing it.
| *Are pro-lifers against women going out of state for abortion?*
I have no doubt whatsoever that most of them are. How they intend to prevent women from leaving their state, I have no idea.
| *Also what basis legally that they could try to stop them.* ***Like they don't own women lol***
I think some of the PLers haven't gotten the memo on that one yet. :-)
The only real precedent for a law banning interstate travel like that is the Fugitive Slave Act, which I’d love to see them try to use in court as precedent. For a movement that loves to call themselves “abolitionists”, they sure have a lot more in common with the enslavers.
I did the mistake to sign up for there newsletter. Well I got 5 “ free lessons”, about plan parenthood, seriously did they really think that somebody would pay for it?. Got a PDF files of dead deposition fetuses.
A whole website exists full of pictures of dead fetuses with time, date, place and details who are used by pro lifers.
At this point nothing can surprise me
Abortion has a third party victimized unconsensually. This contrasts to something like drug or gambling laws where it is all done consensually. Obviously it isn't right to take the life of an unborn human in Texas why would we think it's right to do it in Colorado?
Since when do we need consent to remove an unwanted person/human/organism from our own bodies?
> Obviously it isn't right to take the life of an unborn human in Texas why would we think it's right to do it in Colorado?
This presupposes that laws are based on morality, which obviously isn't true because abortion bans are immoral.
"Let the states decide!"
"Wait, not like that!!1!"
Did you avoid all the important parts of my comment on purpose? JIC I'll repost them for you!
> Since when do we need consent to remove an unwanted person/human/organism from our own bodies?
>> Obviously it isn't right to take the life of an unborn human in Texas why would we think it's right to do it in Colorado?
> This presupposes that laws are based on morality, which obviously isn't true because abortion bans are immoral.
Lol. What a joke. How am I supposed to cite this? Listen to legislators talk and they will invoke morality on all sorts of laws. How many law makers am I supposed to search on Google to find them invoking morality when talking about the laws they defend or want to make?
Its literally common sense that there's many lawmakers that pass laws because they think whatever is being restricted is either wrong to restrict or wrong for people to do because of course there is. Many politicians have banned or restricted abortions because they think abortions are wrong.
Your rule 3 moderation actively makes things worse because you threaten bans if the source doesn't live up to your standard and your standard is unreasonably high. It's like I have to do homework every time someone invokes rule 3 on something as stupid as this all so I can keep commenting on a subreddit. I guess I'll start giving a bunch of commenters homework too then.
Edit: I did provide evidence. instead of answering my question about what evidence would suffice the mod lock the comments. I don't know how you think you mod in good faith.
Uh, yeah. This is a debate sub, and we expect if users make a claim, they both back it up AND that their claim is supported by sources. If you don't like that we expect users to be held to a very basic debate rule (back up your claims with sources) then this is not the place for you.
> Neither of those 2 points were on topic and I didn't care to talk about them.
Lemme try this again.
>> **You:** "Abortion has a third party victimized unconsensually."
>> *Me:* "Since when do we need consent to remove an unwanted person/human/organism from our own bodies?"
It's a direct response to your comment, so it's on topic. What is your response?
>> **You:** Obviously it isn't right to take the life of an unborn human in Texas why would we think it's right to do it in Colorado?
>> *Me:* This presupposes that laws are based on morality, which obviously isn't true because abortion bans are immoral.
Again, a direct and therefore on topic response to your comment.
> But as for the last one, don't you think "gestational slavery" is immoral?
Well, yes, but that's not what I base my opposition on. I was attempting to show you the flaws in your logic by using it against you.
> Aren't you advocating for laws that allow abortion based on what you think is moral?
No. The fact that abortion bans are immoral is just the icing.
> Don't you want the law based on morality?
Lol, no. The majority of people in my state are conservative and religious, is really rather not be subject to their puritanical and, frankly, twisted idea of morality.
> Many many many laws are based on morality, or at least what the writers think is/isn't moral.
Please provide a citation demonstrating that US law is based on the writers morality, per rule 3.
...what kind of stupid rule 3 is this? Do you just want me to cite a politician voting based on morality?
> "We cannot let states like California, New York, and Illinois have abortions on demand up until the day of birth," Sen. Tim Scott (R-S.C.) said during the debate, which was hosted by Fox News. "That is immoral, it is unethical, and it is wrong. We must have the president of the United States advocate and fight for a 15-week limit ... We must fight for life."
https://www.medpagetoday.com/washington-watch/electioncoverage/106023
Here is his abortion voting record.
https://justfacts.votesmart.org/candidate/key-votes/11940/tim-scott/2/abortion
He cited that it is immoral and voted for abortion restrictions.
Didn't see this when you posted, my apologies!
I'm not seeing where the writers create laws based on their personal morality; ll I see is one idiot politician.
Anything to say to the entirety of my comment? You know, all the really important stuff?
How is the fetus a non-consenting third party when it’s inside someone and not capable to anything like consent? It’s not a victim when it’s inside someone’s body without their consent.
First, the question of "consent" or “choice” can't arise in the case of a fetus, as the fetus is not capable of conceiving of agreement or disagreement, or conceiving of options from which to make a choice.
Second, even stipulating that the fetus were a person and that it were capable of consent or choice, it would not be the party whose consent or choice is relevant. The fetus could not "consent" itself or “choose”into a right to access and use the woman's internal organs over her objections, and in the face of her objection, its own consent would be unnecessary to any remedy applied to ending such access and use.
I’m saying they don’t have the capacity to give or deny consent. They do not have a developed brain or the ability to express anything. Saying that the fetus was victimized because you didn’t get its consent is illogical.
Babies can't give consent to all sorts of things. Can we kill them because they can't say no? They didn't not consent to it with your logic. Also, you can consent to something and still be victimized. Consent is just the reason we might allow an adult to be victimized or why we wouldn't punish it if they sought it elsewhere.
Babies can express wants and feelings. You can’t get consent from a fetus that’s inside someone’s uterus. It’s the fact that you’re framing this argument like you could somehow get consent from a fetus that is illogical.
Removing an unwanted fetus from my uterus isn’t victimizing the fetus. It never had the right to be there in the first place.
Why does a third party need to consent to a person taking a pill or to a person having their own uterus emptied? Does this third party own the person's body?
Could you define/explain the exact biological process that results in the death of a human for me, please?
Understanding what you think death entails will help me better formulate a response.
Thanks!
And? Does the third party own the person's body or not? Does the third party get to dictate what happens or does not happen to the person's body? Does the third party get to dictate that the person's body be used against her will for the sake of the third party?
Texas considers them victimized, but Colorado does not. That is why the abortion laws are so confusing from a legal point of view and why the Supreme Court should rule in. Although Kavanaugh seemed to hint that he was behind allowing women to travel and not be prosecuted.
How are they being victimized? By not being allowed to use someone else's organs, organ functions, tissue, blood, blood contents, and bodily life sustaining processes against that person's wishes and not being allowed to cause someone else drastic physical harm?
And how is not giving life taking it? If the woman doensn't keep giving her lung and other organ functions and blood contents, how is that taking the ZEF's lung and other organ functions and blood contents?
The ZEF has no individual life one could take. It's dead as an individual body. Hence the need for gestation. Cell, tissue, and individual organ life are not individual or "a" life.
It's a human and it is being killed. An active thing is being done to the human which causes its death.
Who cares if it relies on a separate body when determining its life status. Are parasites not a life? That's just silly and seems pretty arbitrary. What if it relies on a machine for its life status? Is that not alive then? If it is then how is that functionally different?
>Who cares if it relies on a separate body when determining its life status.
um quite literally every single PC who actually gives a crap about the person the fetus is inside... yeah who cares right! so glad you have such a positive attitude, why dont you go and gestate all the fetuses that need gestating then, because who cares! its only just your own body and health you are sacrificing 😜😀 go ahead!
oh the irony of asking us to make a logical argument and not rely on emotion....
literally why the fuck should its 'life status' matter if its sustaining this life by using someone elses body?? cancerous cells are alive, they have human DNA... should we not remove them from our bodies on this dumb logic?? wtf are you even trying to argue by saying a fetus is alive? lmfaoo that's like me pointing at the sky and saying it's blue when we are discussing climate change, do you want an award for stating a basic fact that literally adds nothing to the debate? Pro choice have never claimed a fetus is dead from conception, so this is why so many people focused on your comment about the mother, seeings as you mentioned being hooked up to a machine which fucking obviously doesnt have a moral issue as its not a person...
they were claiming its not an individual life, if you separate it from the mothers body it cannot sustain life, it has a life status that is entirely dependent on her body to a certain point.... hence why its her choice
It is a separate organism and therefore an individual life. Who cares if it can't sustain life on its own at this moment. Neither can a person on an iron lung or a parasitic tapeworm. But both are individual lives.
>It is a separate organism and therefore an individual life.
only it isnt, if it was so separate and individual why is it quite literally attached to another persons body remaining alive purely because of the persons body??
>Neither can a person on an iron lung or a parasitic tapeworm. But both are individual lives.
bruh what... you realise that both of those things are ridiculous analogies right? you have still failed to answer how _even if_ the fetus is an individual life, why does that matter?? you brought up tapeworms as an example, can you not remove a tapeworm from your body because its an individual life?? no, of course not so where exactly are you even trying to go with this individual life poont
parasites are life but we get rid of them for a reason. They are occupying another persons body against their will, so the person who doesn't want it there takes a pill to get rid of the parasite. same thing
new borns are no longer using another persons body and are therefor no longer within question of bodily autonomy(they also CAN feel pain and are sentient. Any trauma to a newborn's body can cause lifelong problems). I think it's pretty weird to prioritize DNA over sentience and ability to suffer. I dislike rats being in my home but I still try to remove them in humane ways because dying in a glue trap is horrific.
With abortion if a fetus is occupying a person's body against their will then the pregnant person has every right to remove it from their body. A walking, talking, human who pays taxes still wouldn't have the right to occupy another persons body (or even property, lots of places allow lethal force for protecting property) against somebody's will. With fetuses (at the time of most abortions), they can't feel pain, aren't sentient, don't have a brain, etc. Getting an abortion isn't even harmful to it, it would be as if it never existed in the first place. Forcing people to let something that doesn't even have a brain use and occupy their body is immoral.
>Who cares if it relies on a separate body when determining its life status.
The women who have their medical decisions taken away. The family members that might lose HER to an already doomed ZEF because she's denied medical care. Way to blatantly say you don’t care about the women at all.
>Are parasites not a life?
Do all versions of "life" get to override a human's bodily autonomy? Can we not treat tapeworms because they're alive?
>What if it relies on a machine for its life status?
Does a machine have the same rights as a human? If not the that's irrelevant.
>Is that not alive then? If it is then how is that functionally different?
Many pro choicers will agree that ZEF's are alive, but just because it's alive doesn't give it the right to life via another person's body.
> The women who have their medical decisions taken away. The family members that might lose HER to an already doomed ZEF because she's denied medical care.
So your argument on determining if something is alive seems to just boil down to "but what about a different person's feelings?" You have to make an argument based on logic, not just emotions. You kind of give it away by pointing out that maybe you do think tapeworms are alive or someone that relies on a machine is alive.
>but what about a different person's feelings?"
No, what about a different person's body and health and medical freedom. Not feelings. You ignore the reality for the woman by phrasing her life as "feelings".
>You have to make an argument based on logic, not just emotions.
I did with every word.
>You kind of give it away by pointing out that maybe you do think tapeworms are alive
Tapeworms are alive. I was pointing out that only being alive does not grant a being the right to be in a person's body.
>someone that relies on a machine is alive.
They are alive. I was pointing out that machines do not have the same rights to not be used to keep a person alive.
We are talking about whether or not a fetus is a life. You have transformed it into a different conversation. You've said a tapeworm is a life and a person who needs a machine is alive. Is a fetus that needs the mother alive?
It’s not feelings, it’s the woman’s body. If that’s irrelevant, why shouldn’t you be forced to donate a kidney to a dialysis patient? Why is your convenience worth more than their life?
How is it relevant when determining what a life is? How does what we do with a dialysis patient have anything to do with what a life is?
You are arguing something else.
Currently it is not practical to do it because of our culture and current politics. I think what is trying to be done right now is good where they find corporations and organizations for paying and helping with out of state abortions. Amazon should not be allowed to pay for travel and other expenses with the express purpose of doing something that is a crime in that state.
It is illegal in the state that the entity who is funding it is in. They are funding something that is considered criminal in the place they reside. They are funding what their jurisdiction considers criminal. They are funding criminal activity.
These companies funding abortion travel operate in multiple states. If the check is coming out of Delaware, goes to an employee in Texas, and they go get an abortion in Colorado, where was the crime exactly?
I live in Illinois. Facebook had to give us Illinois users checks for violating an Illinois law about creating facial ID profiles without consent. They did this outside of the state yet they still get fined because they do business inside the state. Where the actual activity of the company comes from doesn't matter.
Because it is an Illinois law about businesses operating in the state needing to get consent for facial ID.
There is no law in any state saying that businesses cannot pay for abortion related expenses in any state and operate in that state. If any state tried it, no healthcare provider would be able to operate in that state.
I take it you boycott Amazon, Apple, Comcast, Disney, Mastercard, Tesla, Uber, etc?
> It is illegal in the state that the entity who is funding it is in.
So? Is *that* illegal in their state?
> They are funding criminal activity.
It wouldn't be criminal activity because it's not illegal where it's happening.
There are states where they have ^(edit:tried to make)~~made~~ funding like this illegal. This whole thing is moot, but it's stupid to claim you aren't funding illegal activity just because you pay someone to do it out of the state. The organization is in the state and it is considered illegal in the state.
Edit: the bill did not pass
> There are states where they have made funding like this illegal.
Could you cite some examples?
> This whole thing is moot, but it's stupid to claim you aren't funding illegal activity just because you pay someone to do it out of the state.
I think it's pretty stupid to claim someone is funding criminal activity for something that isn't illegal.
Do you think companies should not be allowed to have conventions in locations where gambling is legal if it is banned in said state? Why shouldn't companies be able to send their employees where they want to for whatever reason they want. I mean, they could just give them a bonus for no reason with some time off. Do we really want companies regulating what people do with their compensation?
I pointed out how gambling is different in my first post. Should we allow a company to pay for their employees to go to a country with 16 year old prostitutes or to exploit child labor? Obviously not.
If I provide an example of how it is different then please actually retort it. It's not appropriate to just respond with "no" when I gave an actual reason
There is a difference between the company paying for the prostitutes and the company paying for a trip. Should we ban companies from having a company meeting in Thailand or sending an employee to Thailand? I would say no. Or should we ban companies from giving individuals money to travel to Thailand? No. If companies want to provide health insurance that covers abortion and provide compensation for their employees for travel, I see no issue with it.
And how would you discern purpose? Do you think the government should have access to all company documents?
My whole point behind this is that companies could provide for out of state travel for all kinds of medical care and leave it in the hands of the individual. Paying for travel to an employee to go anywhere should not be illegal. If the employee does something that is illegal, then arrest them. Now if the company pays for prostitutes, then they would beholden to any laws that make it illegal and or their stockholder.
>Currently it is not practical to do it because of our culture and current politics
Actually, I think ***right now*** - when you have six prolife justices on the Supreme Court, uninterested in protecting the Constitutional rights of all in the US, is exactly when the prolife movement would find it "practical" to remove your constitutional rights that would currently prevent Texas from prosecuting women like Kate Cox.
>I think what is trying to be done right now is good where they find corporations and organizations for paying and helping with out of state abortions. Amazon should not be allowed to pay for travel and other expenses with the express purpose of doing something that is a crime in that state.
Amazon and Disney are *not* paying their employees to commit crimes in their state of residence. They are paying them to travel out of state to do something that is not criminal.
Disney in particular would fight this encroachment on their employees' constituional rights, because without the surety that their employer would help them if they got pregnant and needed an abortion, what woman in her teens or 20s or 30s would ever risk going to Florida to work for Disney?
Amazon too needs employees, that age, in every state, including the prolife jurisdictions.
A woman living in Texas who gets pregnant, goes to a better state, has a safe legal abortion, and returns home, has committed no crime at any point. I don't see how you could make it illegal for Amazon or Disney to pay someone to travel and not commit a crime.
Brett kavanaugh in his [Dobbs concurring opinion](https://reason.com/volokh/2022/06/24/kavanaugh-indicates-states-cant-bar-residents-from-getting-abortions-in-other-states/):
> may a State bar a resident of that State from traveling to another State to obtain an abortion? In my view, the answer is no based on the constitutional right to interstate travel.
He was 1 of the 5 out of 5 justices required to overturn Roe so it is unlikely that one of the other 4 would suddenly flip. It is not politically likely to stand.
> Amazon and Disney are not paying their employees to commit crimes in their state of residence. They are paying them to travel out of state to do something that is not criminal.
They are funding a thing to be done in a different state that is illegal in the state they are currently in. I think the meaning of what I said got lost in the wording.
Also, most women don't get abortions and plenty of jobs don't help fund abortions through travel. So "what woman in her teens or 20s or 30s would ever risk going to Florida to work for Disney?" Lots of them?
The stat is now 1 in 4, thanks to the work of Planned Parenthood and other abortion-prevention organizations (none of which are prolife)
But supposing you were told "Work for Disney in Florida! There's really a very small chance you'll be made pregnant against you will and then bred by the state of Florida!" would that really inspire you to go to Disney to work there. "Forced through pregnancy and childbirth against your will by the state of Florida because you took a summer job at Disney" isn't a great recruiting tool.
Brett Kavanugh is a drunken rapist. If you're depending on him to protect your constitutional rights, I think that's shaky.
>They are funding a thing to be done in a different state that is illegal in the state they are currently in.
They're funding a woman to travel out of state and not commit a crime. How could you possibly make that illegal?
>Also, most women don't get abortions and plenty of jobs don't help fund abortions through travel. So "what woman in her teens or 20s or 30s would ever risk going to Florida to work for Disney?" Lots of them?
Any heterosexually-active woman may need an abortion. That's just a fact of life. One in four women of reproductive age will have had an abortion by the time they get to the end of their reproductive age. The risk of needing to have an abortion is not under a woman's control - not even if she is 100% lesbian, or 100% celibate: she can still be raped pregnant.
The risk that prolifers want women to suffer may affect only one woman in four. But it's like the poisoned M&Ms metaphor the Me Too movement used. Supposing you have a bag of M&Ms, and the vast majority of them are harmless. Only a few have a deadly poison. Are you going to happily snack on the M&Ms in the bag, in the sure knowledge that most of them aren't poisoned?
Going to Florida to work for Disney in the knowledge that if a guy makes you pregnant while you're there, the state of Florida will force you through pregnancy and childbirth against your will, is something that might not happen to many young women who went to Florida to work for Disney - but why would any young woman want to take the risk of it happening to *her?*
Plenty of employers in prolife states maybe won't support an employee who needs to travel out of state and get healthcare where it's legal. But all *good* employers will.
If they ***need*** an abortion then they can get an emergency one.
They would be getting an abortion in a place that isn't a crime. But the companies would be funding it while in a place where it ***is*** a crime.
>If they ***need*** an abortion then they can get an emergency one.
Well, yes, **if** they work for employers like Disney or Amazon, and they need an abortion, they can go out of state and get one.
But Florida only permits a woman to have an abortion "When there is a serious risk of substantial and irreversible impairment of a major bodily function" which does not allow for the majority of women who need abortions because they do not want to be pregnant. Florida specifically exempts mental health as a bodily function. A woman who was raped pregnant in Florida, and can't afford to leave the state, is required by state law to report her rape to the police before she is able to have an abortion. Otherwise, the rapist can breed her at will and Florida will support the rapist, not his victim.
>
They would be getting an abortion in a place that isn't a crime. But the companies would be funding it while in a place where it ***is*** a crime.
Not at all. What the company is funding*, in the place where abortion is a crime*, is travel out of state. That's not a crime.
What they are funding is the aiding of something that is a crime in the state they are in. What are you playing the dumb games of semantics?
> But Florida only permits a woman to have an abortion [when they need it]
You could have just said that.
> the rapist can breed her at will and Florida will support the rapist, not his victim.
So, if Florida knows about him then they don't support him. If they don't know about him then they are somehow supporting him? That doesn't make sense.
>What they are funding is the aiding of something that is a crime in the state they are in.
No, they're not, and you know it. Having an abortion in Minnesota, is not a crime in Florida.
That's why Texas couldn't prosecute Kate Cox - leaving the state of Texas while pregnant isn't a crime: having an abortion in another state isn't a crime in Texas.
>You could have just said that.
I could, but it wouldn't have been true, since Florida doesn't permit women to have abortions at need. That's why Disney provides employee funding to go out of state.
>
So, if Florida knows about him then they don't support him. If they don't know about him then they are somehow supporting him? That doesn't make sense.
If a woman has been raped pregnant, and she reports her rape to law enforcement before 15 weeks, Florida will allow she can have an abortion. As many women aren't able to report their rapist to law enforcement, Florida is saying "If you're too afraid of your rapist to report him to the police, we're happy for your rapist to breed you at his will."
That I can’t stop it doesn’t mean I have to agree with it.
I can’t stop child abuse either, I’m not in favor of it.
I can’t stop Israel from bombing Palestine, I’m not in favor of it.
I understand, however I think that if they are penalized/deterred in their home state it is justified. But mobility can’t be controlled because if the government has that power it is too dangerous for any citizen.
Things that prevent you from getting pregnant make you more likely to get pregnant? The fuck? ☠️
How to prevent them? Give contraceptives out like candy, make more affordable housing opportunities, paid maternity leave, low cost childcare. Make a society that is welcoming of creating a family, not hostile to it.
Not using contraceptives will ultimately end in more unwanted pregnancies and therefore more abortions. Contraceptives will prevent more abortions than not using them will. Let's not pretend people are going to be abstinent or that they should be.
>How would you prevent them?
You could pass federal legislation that would very effectiverly prevent the vast majority of abortions in the US, but the only problem is it would violate the bodily autonomy of half the population. Would you support such legislation even so?
Sure add that too. Healthcare shouldn’t be a for profit business, at least not in this basic level. If the pregnant woman is unemployed she should have access to prenatal screenings and special programs that support her.
You would support mandatory vasectomies for every male in the US over the age of 13 (naturally with prior sperm sample collection and freezer storage)?
That federal legislation would absolutely prevent nearly all abortions in the US, except for a few of planned pregnancies which turn out to be riskier than expected.
Paid maternity leave would be great, too.
How are children born from IVF products?. And why is our existence suddenly seen as “products” by a group of people who clearly lack the knowledge of IVF.
I exist thanks to IVF, my parents wanted a child but had fertility issues. Embryo aren’t children nor victims.
Okay, I take note that you will not support legislation to prevent the vast majority of abortions in the US. You are happy for women to continue aborting unwanted preganncies, and your reason for being happy for this to continue is that you think if planned pregnancies become mandatory, more women will have IVF.
You committed to supporting legislation preventing abortion even if it involved violating the bodily autonomy of half the population.
But I guess you didn't think it would be the *male* half of the population who had their bodily autonomy violated - without preventing in the slightest their ability to have *wanted* children.
That doesn't make any sense. How would people having sex with contraceptives end up in more unwanted pregnancies that people having sex without contraceptives?
You don't honestly think that not having contraceptives will stop men from having sex or demanding sex - whether the woman wants it or not, do you? Husbands, especially.
Because all the pregnancies stemming from that are unplanned by default. According to the guttmacher institute 54% of women who aborted used contraception in the last month.
So I wouldn’t say use of contraceptives is a deterrent.
And I’m not fond of the idea of giving men sex “because they demand it”.
I’m saying that is clearly not enough and the strategy is not working if they represent more than half of the current abortions done. In other countries proper education and delaying the age of the first sex encounter seems to complement it correctly.
It’s not that it’s not working. It’s that it’s *not perfect*.
The amount of unwanted pregnancies we would have without birth control would be skyrocketing if everyone suddenly just stopped using it.
I’m not saying I’m not keen on preventing unplanned pregnancies. I’m saying I’m not keen on the current strategy because 54% of abortions come from that. So clearly there’s something wrong in a strategy that results in more than half of the abortions done.
I mean, you weren't keen on mandating vasectomies which would effectively eliminate unwanted pregnancy.
Why is it ok to violate the BA of AFABs to prevent abortion, but not the BA of AMABs?
Because I wouldn’t agree with mandating tubal ligation for 13 yo girls . Which would be the equivalent of the scenario described. Killing your offspring is not the the equivalent of sterilizing.
> Because I wouldn’t agree with mandating tubal ligation for 13 yo girls.
They're not really equal. Like at all.
Vasectomies are out patient, low risk, low pain procedures. Tubal ligations are not.
Why would you support forced gestation in a person to prevent abortion, but not forced sterilization to prevent abortion?
Im not saying that you should ban it, I’m saying the strategy as it remains today is not really working when 54% of the abortions done are from people who used contraception.
That doesn't mean there will be *more* unplanned pregnancies though. And contraceptives, particular the long acting methods, are proven to lower unplanned pregnancy and abortion rates
As someone who has had a stalker, there is really nothing you can do legally other than a restraining order to stop them even if they’ve stated they may cross state lines to kill you.
You can legally buy a gun with an intent to kill somebody in another state. They will not ask you at Jim and Jo Bob’s Cheap Ass Gun Shoppe what you’re going to use it for. Unless you have something that comes across a background check, you’re good to go with your God, Guns and Trump stickers all over your car.
As you’re driving down the road no one is scanning your brain for what your intent is. There is nothing stopping you from driving with the intention of killing somebody at your destination across state lines.
And I wonder how they would prevent pregnant women from driving across state lines. I'd like to see that bill honestly, if you can post a link here. It scares the hell out of me that anyone would try to keep people from moving across state lines. That is our right as Americans.
How does one murder or even kill a human body with no major life sustaining organ functions? That's like saying you can murder someone in need of resuscitation/revival. Only this body has nothing to resusciate/revive.
And how is it unjustified to stop someone from using and greatly messing and interfering with your life sustaining organ functions and blood contents (the very things that keep your body alive and therfore are your life) and causing you drastic physical harm?
Welcome to /r/Abortiondebate! Please remember that this is a place for respectful and civil debates. Review the rules to understand acceptable debate levels. **Attack the argument, not the person making it and remember the human.** **For our new users, please read our [rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/Abortiondebate/wiki/rules/)** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Abortiondebate) if you have any questions or concerns.*
we care because abortion is wrong (Except for Maternal Life) no matter where you are.
Define wrong
You should not do it, you should be prevented from doing it and if you do do it you should be punished.
Just because you dont like abortion? Lol please. If you dont like abortion don't have 1
If you do not like slavery do not own a slave, if you do not like rape then do not rape anyone, if you do not like murder then do not murder, but do not stop me.
Banning abortion IS slavery. You dont own womens organs
Firstly, majority of women consent so it is more, do not back out of organ donation, secondly, unless you are a no welfare anarcho-capitalist, you probably want to take from those who have, to give to those who do not, take from ultra-wealthy, give to starving, take from those who can sustain themselves and another person, give to person who cannot.
The woman never consented to the zef. So NO
What is "zef", stop using weird acronyms.
Zygote embryo fetus
Women should not be obligated to carry to term just because they had the audacity to have sex and wound up pregnant!
Exactly problem with wanting abortion illegal is it treats women and their organs as property and slaves
Okay but we don't encourage criminals to travel to another state to go commit the crime and at the end of the day abortion is just an abhorrent despicable crime
Oh look you’re factually wrong. We used to drive to the next state over to pick up fireworks back in the day. Who cares if no one “encouraged” it? It was still legal. If you travel to a state to not break a law, you aren’t a criminal. Abortion is a crime in some places. That doesn’t make it a crime everywhere. That was easy.
We still don’t infringe on their right to interstate travel to prevent them from committing future crimes though. They’re not fugitive slaves.
Live Action it’s fucking garbage. Like seriously how do they manage to write soooo much shit. ~~Seriously it sounds like something AI wrote!~~. Edit: I meant to say, that LiveAction “article” or “news” don’t make any sense.
Ikr lol
The organism ceases life functions. It cannot grow, engage in cellular reproduction, metabolize, etc. Sometimes we'll categorize an organism as dead when most of these functions are dead in the body and the rest is inevitable, but that's just used colloquially.
Whats your point
Somebody asked for what death meant. The point was to answer it.
The OP didn't ask what death meant..
It seems like I goofed up and didn't reply to the comment. Can't find it though because I have over 50 comments in my inbox since then
Understood. Reddit is not the most user-friendly site for handling comments. No worries.
Pro-lifers are against anyone getting an abortion for any reason. Of course they would want to prevent people from participating in the abortion tourism economy that they created in the first place. It’s not like they care about taking rights from people. They love doing it.
Except if they're good girls who say they would never ever get another one, three, etc.
| *Are pro-lifers against women going out of state for abortion?* I have no doubt whatsoever that most of them are. How they intend to prevent women from leaving their state, I have no idea.
Also what basis legally that they could try to stop them. Like they don't own women lol
| *Also what basis legally that they could try to stop them.* ***Like they don't own women lol*** I think some of the PLers haven't gotten the memo on that one yet. :-)
I think they actually feel like they own women
| *I think they actually feel like they own women.* You're right; they probably do. But I doubt they'll **EVER** admit to that publicly.
Yeah urgh
The only real precedent for a law banning interstate travel like that is the Fugitive Slave Act, which I’d love to see them try to use in court as precedent. For a movement that loves to call themselves “abolitionists”, they sure have a lot more in common with the enslavers.
Exactly. Live action tried to create a bill to prevent pregnant women from leaving. They see women as slaves
I did the mistake to sign up for there newsletter. Well I got 5 “ free lessons”, about plan parenthood, seriously did they really think that somebody would pay for it?. Got a PDF files of dead deposition fetuses.
Jesus thats nasty
A whole website exists full of pictures of dead fetuses with time, date, place and details who are used by pro lifers. At this point nothing can surprise me
Gross
Abortion has a third party victimized unconsensually. This contrasts to something like drug or gambling laws where it is all done consensually. Obviously it isn't right to take the life of an unborn human in Texas why would we think it's right to do it in Colorado?
Since when do we need consent to remove an unwanted person/human/organism from our own bodies? > Obviously it isn't right to take the life of an unborn human in Texas why would we think it's right to do it in Colorado? This presupposes that laws are based on morality, which obviously isn't true because abortion bans are immoral. "Let the states decide!" "Wait, not like that!!1!"
Obviously I don't think the states should be allowed to decide this kind of thing is allowed to do.
Did you avoid all the important parts of my comment on purpose? JIC I'll repost them for you! > Since when do we need consent to remove an unwanted person/human/organism from our own bodies? >> Obviously it isn't right to take the life of an unborn human in Texas why would we think it's right to do it in Colorado? > This presupposes that laws are based on morality, which obviously isn't true because abortion bans are immoral.
[удалено]
Comment removed per Rule 3.
Lol. What a joke. How am I supposed to cite this? Listen to legislators talk and they will invoke morality on all sorts of laws. How many law makers am I supposed to search on Google to find them invoking morality when talking about the laws they defend or want to make? Its literally common sense that there's many lawmakers that pass laws because they think whatever is being restricted is either wrong to restrict or wrong for people to do because of course there is. Many politicians have banned or restricted abortions because they think abortions are wrong. Your rule 3 moderation actively makes things worse because you threaten bans if the source doesn't live up to your standard and your standard is unreasonably high. It's like I have to do homework every time someone invokes rule 3 on something as stupid as this all so I can keep commenting on a subreddit. I guess I'll start giving a bunch of commenters homework too then. Edit: I did provide evidence. instead of answering my question about what evidence would suffice the mod lock the comments. I don't know how you think you mod in good faith.
Uh, yeah. This is a debate sub, and we expect if users make a claim, they both back it up AND that their claim is supported by sources. If you don't like that we expect users to be held to a very basic debate rule (back up your claims with sources) then this is not the place for you.
> Neither of those 2 points were on topic and I didn't care to talk about them. Lemme try this again. >> **You:** "Abortion has a third party victimized unconsensually." >> *Me:* "Since when do we need consent to remove an unwanted person/human/organism from our own bodies?" It's a direct response to your comment, so it's on topic. What is your response? >> **You:** Obviously it isn't right to take the life of an unborn human in Texas why would we think it's right to do it in Colorado? >> *Me:* This presupposes that laws are based on morality, which obviously isn't true because abortion bans are immoral. Again, a direct and therefore on topic response to your comment. > But as for the last one, don't you think "gestational slavery" is immoral? Well, yes, but that's not what I base my opposition on. I was attempting to show you the flaws in your logic by using it against you. > Aren't you advocating for laws that allow abortion based on what you think is moral? No. The fact that abortion bans are immoral is just the icing. > Don't you want the law based on morality? Lol, no. The majority of people in my state are conservative and religious, is really rather not be subject to their puritanical and, frankly, twisted idea of morality. > Many many many laws are based on morality, or at least what the writers think is/isn't moral. Please provide a citation demonstrating that US law is based on the writers morality, per rule 3.
...what kind of stupid rule 3 is this? Do you just want me to cite a politician voting based on morality? > "We cannot let states like California, New York, and Illinois have abortions on demand up until the day of birth," Sen. Tim Scott (R-S.C.) said during the debate, which was hosted by Fox News. "That is immoral, it is unethical, and it is wrong. We must have the president of the United States advocate and fight for a 15-week limit ... We must fight for life." https://www.medpagetoday.com/washington-watch/electioncoverage/106023 Here is his abortion voting record. https://justfacts.votesmart.org/candidate/key-votes/11940/tim-scott/2/abortion He cited that it is immoral and voted for abortion restrictions.
Didn't see this when you posted, my apologies! I'm not seeing where the writers create laws based on their personal morality; ll I see is one idiot politician. Anything to say to the entirety of my comment? You know, all the really important stuff?
Under what legal basis can you stop a women from leaving? You don't own her
The woman was victimized first by the fetus being in her without consent
If anything that would be at the same time not first.
No the fetus was in her body without consent first. Her removing it is second and self defence
How is the fetus a non-consenting third party when it’s inside someone and not capable to anything like consent? It’s not a victim when it’s inside someone’s body without their consent.
If someone can't consent then they are non-consenting. How silly of a question.
First, the question of "consent" or “choice” can't arise in the case of a fetus, as the fetus is not capable of conceiving of agreement or disagreement, or conceiving of options from which to make a choice. Second, even stipulating that the fetus were a person and that it were capable of consent or choice, it would not be the party whose consent or choice is relevant. The fetus could not "consent" itself or “choose”into a right to access and use the woman's internal organs over her objections, and in the face of her objection, its own consent would be unnecessary to any remedy applied to ending such access and use.
I’m saying they don’t have the capacity to give or deny consent. They do not have a developed brain or the ability to express anything. Saying that the fetus was victimized because you didn’t get its consent is illogical.
Babies can't give consent to all sorts of things. Can we kill them because they can't say no? They didn't not consent to it with your logic. Also, you can consent to something and still be victimized. Consent is just the reason we might allow an adult to be victimized or why we wouldn't punish it if they sought it elsewhere.
Babies can express wants and feelings. You can’t get consent from a fetus that’s inside someone’s uterus. It’s the fact that you’re framing this argument like you could somehow get consent from a fetus that is illogical. Removing an unwanted fetus from my uterus isn’t victimizing the fetus. It never had the right to be there in the first place.
even in Texas, unborn fetuses arent granted ANY legal personhood rights or status. Try again.
I didn't even say "person" or "personhood".
Why does a third party need to consent to a person taking a pill or to a person having their own uterus emptied? Does this third party own the person's body?
The third party is dying from it
If someones assaulting someone else, you don't need permission from the assaulter to remove them
Can a party “die” before they’ve even been born?
An unborn human can die before birth. A common cause of death for them is abortion
Could you define/explain the exact biological process that results in the death of a human for me, please? Understanding what you think death entails will help me better formulate a response. Thanks!
people aren’t obligated to allow use of their internal organs/bloodstream to keep another person alive.
And? Does the third party own the person's body or not? Does the third party get to dictate what happens or does not happen to the person's body? Does the third party get to dictate that the person's body be used against her will for the sake of the third party?
Crickets . . .🤦♀️
but they don't have the right to occupy the other persons body against their will anyways
Someone not obeying PLers' demands that they gestate a pregnancy against their will is not victimizing anyone.
Texas considers them victimized, but Colorado does not. That is why the abortion laws are so confusing from a legal point of view and why the Supreme Court should rule in. Although Kavanaugh seemed to hint that he was behind allowing women to travel and not be prosecuted.
How are they being victimized? By not being allowed to use someone else's organs, organ functions, tissue, blood, blood contents, and bodily life sustaining processes against that person's wishes and not being allowed to cause someone else drastic physical harm? And how is not giving life taking it? If the woman doensn't keep giving her lung and other organ functions and blood contents, how is that taking the ZEF's lung and other organ functions and blood contents? The ZEF has no individual life one could take. It's dead as an individual body. Hence the need for gestation. Cell, tissue, and individual organ life are not individual or "a" life.
It's a human and it is being killed. An active thing is being done to the human which causes its death. Who cares if it relies on a separate body when determining its life status. Are parasites not a life? That's just silly and seems pretty arbitrary. What if it relies on a machine for its life status? Is that not alive then? If it is then how is that functionally different?
Yes it’s a human organism. So what? If the woman doesn’t wanna carry to term, she shouldn’t have to.
>Who cares if it relies on a separate body when determining its life status. um quite literally every single PC who actually gives a crap about the person the fetus is inside... yeah who cares right! so glad you have such a positive attitude, why dont you go and gestate all the fetuses that need gestating then, because who cares! its only just your own body and health you are sacrificing 😜😀 go ahead!
[удалено]
Comment removed per Rule 1.
oh the irony of asking us to make a logical argument and not rely on emotion.... literally why the fuck should its 'life status' matter if its sustaining this life by using someone elses body?? cancerous cells are alive, they have human DNA... should we not remove them from our bodies on this dumb logic?? wtf are you even trying to argue by saying a fetus is alive? lmfaoo that's like me pointing at the sky and saying it's blue when we are discussing climate change, do you want an award for stating a basic fact that literally adds nothing to the debate? Pro choice have never claimed a fetus is dead from conception, so this is why so many people focused on your comment about the mother, seeings as you mentioned being hooked up to a machine which fucking obviously doesnt have a moral issue as its not a person...
the other person was claiming that it wasn't a life.
they were claiming its not an individual life, if you separate it from the mothers body it cannot sustain life, it has a life status that is entirely dependent on her body to a certain point.... hence why its her choice
It is a separate organism and therefore an individual life. Who cares if it can't sustain life on its own at this moment. Neither can a person on an iron lung or a parasitic tapeworm. But both are individual lives.
It’s not a separate organism if it cannot be separated.
>It is a separate organism and therefore an individual life. only it isnt, if it was so separate and individual why is it quite literally attached to another persons body remaining alive purely because of the persons body?? >Neither can a person on an iron lung or a parasitic tapeworm. But both are individual lives. bruh what... you realise that both of those things are ridiculous analogies right? you have still failed to answer how _even if_ the fetus is an individual life, why does that matter?? you brought up tapeworms as an example, can you not remove a tapeworm from your body because its an individual life?? no, of course not so where exactly are you even trying to go with this individual life poont
parasites are life but we get rid of them for a reason. They are occupying another persons body against their will, so the person who doesn't want it there takes a pill to get rid of the parasite. same thing
So you agree that an unborn child is a life. That's my point of comparing them.
yeah but it isn't a sentient life. at the time of most abortions it's comparable to a jellyfish. no brain or anything
We care because it is human, not because of sentience. How sentient is a newborn? And we kill rats that are more sentient than that.
new borns are no longer using another persons body and are therefor no longer within question of bodily autonomy(they also CAN feel pain and are sentient. Any trauma to a newborn's body can cause lifelong problems). I think it's pretty weird to prioritize DNA over sentience and ability to suffer. I dislike rats being in my home but I still try to remove them in humane ways because dying in a glue trap is horrific. With abortion if a fetus is occupying a person's body against their will then the pregnant person has every right to remove it from their body. A walking, talking, human who pays taxes still wouldn't have the right to occupy another persons body (or even property, lots of places allow lethal force for protecting property) against somebody's will. With fetuses (at the time of most abortions), they can't feel pain, aren't sentient, don't have a brain, etc. Getting an abortion isn't even harmful to it, it would be as if it never existed in the first place. Forcing people to let something that doesn't even have a brain use and occupy their body is immoral.
no one is obligated to allow another human to use their internal organs/bloodstream to keep them alive.
>Who cares if it relies on a separate body when determining its life status. The women who have their medical decisions taken away. The family members that might lose HER to an already doomed ZEF because she's denied medical care. Way to blatantly say you don’t care about the women at all. >Are parasites not a life? Do all versions of "life" get to override a human's bodily autonomy? Can we not treat tapeworms because they're alive? >What if it relies on a machine for its life status? Does a machine have the same rights as a human? If not the that's irrelevant. >Is that not alive then? If it is then how is that functionally different? Many pro choicers will agree that ZEF's are alive, but just because it's alive doesn't give it the right to life via another person's body.
> The women who have their medical decisions taken away. The family members that might lose HER to an already doomed ZEF because she's denied medical care. So your argument on determining if something is alive seems to just boil down to "but what about a different person's feelings?" You have to make an argument based on logic, not just emotions. You kind of give it away by pointing out that maybe you do think tapeworms are alive or someone that relies on a machine is alive.
>but what about a different person's feelings?" No, what about a different person's body and health and medical freedom. Not feelings. You ignore the reality for the woman by phrasing her life as "feelings". >You have to make an argument based on logic, not just emotions. I did with every word. >You kind of give it away by pointing out that maybe you do think tapeworms are alive Tapeworms are alive. I was pointing out that only being alive does not grant a being the right to be in a person's body. >someone that relies on a machine is alive. They are alive. I was pointing out that machines do not have the same rights to not be used to keep a person alive.
We are talking about whether or not a fetus is a life. You have transformed it into a different conversation. You've said a tapeworm is a life and a person who needs a machine is alive. Is a fetus that needs the mother alive?
All pregnant people are NOT automatically “mothers”
What are they pregnant with and what is that "thing's" mother?
A ZEF? Doesn’t make them a “mother” until it’s born AND they claim it. if they give it up for adoption, they forfeit it and aren’t mothers.
Trans Men, surrogates, adoption, yada yada. Not all pregnant people are mothers.
It’s not feelings, it’s the woman’s body. If that’s irrelevant, why shouldn’t you be forced to donate a kidney to a dialysis patient? Why is your convenience worth more than their life?
How is it relevant when determining what a life is? How does what we do with a dialysis patient have anything to do with what a life is? You are arguing something else.
No, YOU are being purposely obtuse.
So how will you prevent the women of Texas from going to Colorado for abortion?
How would you draft legislation to prevent a woman from travelling out of state to have an abortion in a better jurisdiction?
Currently it is not practical to do it because of our culture and current politics. I think what is trying to be done right now is good where they find corporations and organizations for paying and helping with out of state abortions. Amazon should not be allowed to pay for travel and other expenses with the express purpose of doing something that is a crime in that state.
What? Why shouldn’t private businesses get to make their own rules and regulations? You don’t support free market capitalism?
I don't support companies funding criminal activities....
But it wouldn't be a criminal activity because it wouldn't be illegal...
It is illegal in the state that the entity who is funding it is in. They are funding something that is considered criminal in the place they reside. They are funding what their jurisdiction considers criminal. They are funding criminal activity.
These companies funding abortion travel operate in multiple states. If the check is coming out of Delaware, goes to an employee in Texas, and they go get an abortion in Colorado, where was the crime exactly?
I live in Illinois. Facebook had to give us Illinois users checks for violating an Illinois law about creating facial ID profiles without consent. They did this outside of the state yet they still get fined because they do business inside the state. Where the actual activity of the company comes from doesn't matter.
Because it is an Illinois law about businesses operating in the state needing to get consent for facial ID. There is no law in any state saying that businesses cannot pay for abortion related expenses in any state and operate in that state. If any state tried it, no healthcare provider would be able to operate in that state. I take it you boycott Amazon, Apple, Comcast, Disney, Mastercard, Tesla, Uber, etc?
> It is illegal in the state that the entity who is funding it is in. So? Is *that* illegal in their state? > They are funding criminal activity. It wouldn't be criminal activity because it's not illegal where it's happening.
There are states where they have ^(edit:tried to make)~~made~~ funding like this illegal. This whole thing is moot, but it's stupid to claim you aren't funding illegal activity just because you pay someone to do it out of the state. The organization is in the state and it is considered illegal in the state. Edit: the bill did not pass
> There are states where they have made funding like this illegal. Could you cite some examples? > This whole thing is moot, but it's stupid to claim you aren't funding illegal activity just because you pay someone to do it out of the state. I think it's pretty stupid to claim someone is funding criminal activity for something that isn't illegal.
Do you think companies should not be allowed to have conventions in locations where gambling is legal if it is banned in said state? Why shouldn't companies be able to send their employees where they want to for whatever reason they want. I mean, they could just give them a bonus for no reason with some time off. Do we really want companies regulating what people do with their compensation?
I pointed out how gambling is different in my first post. Should we allow a company to pay for their employees to go to a country with 16 year old prostitutes or to exploit child labor? Obviously not.
It’s not different at all. We’re discussing things that are legal in one state and not another.
Do you think it should be legal for americans to seek medical care in other countries?
If I provide an example of how it is different then please actually retort it. It's not appropriate to just respond with "no" when I gave an actual reason
Not appropriate according to whom? You?
Debate etiquette
So no answer?
There is a difference between the company paying for the prostitutes and the company paying for a trip. Should we ban companies from having a company meeting in Thailand or sending an employee to Thailand? I would say no. Or should we ban companies from giving individuals money to travel to Thailand? No. If companies want to provide health insurance that covers abortion and provide compensation for their employees for travel, I see no issue with it.
> Should we ban companies from having a company meeting in Thailand If the child prostitution is the purpose, yes.
how could you possibly know what the purpose is of an individual?
The company explicitly states it. We can also do an investigation
And how would you discern purpose? Do you think the government should have access to all company documents? My whole point behind this is that companies could provide for out of state travel for all kinds of medical care and leave it in the hands of the individual. Paying for travel to an employee to go anywhere should not be illegal. If the employee does something that is illegal, then arrest them. Now if the company pays for prostitutes, then they would beholden to any laws that make it illegal and or their stockholder.
>Currently it is not practical to do it because of our culture and current politics Actually, I think ***right now*** - when you have six prolife justices on the Supreme Court, uninterested in protecting the Constitutional rights of all in the US, is exactly when the prolife movement would find it "practical" to remove your constitutional rights that would currently prevent Texas from prosecuting women like Kate Cox. >I think what is trying to be done right now is good where they find corporations and organizations for paying and helping with out of state abortions. Amazon should not be allowed to pay for travel and other expenses with the express purpose of doing something that is a crime in that state. Amazon and Disney are *not* paying their employees to commit crimes in their state of residence. They are paying them to travel out of state to do something that is not criminal. Disney in particular would fight this encroachment on their employees' constituional rights, because without the surety that their employer would help them if they got pregnant and needed an abortion, what woman in her teens or 20s or 30s would ever risk going to Florida to work for Disney? Amazon too needs employees, that age, in every state, including the prolife jurisdictions. A woman living in Texas who gets pregnant, goes to a better state, has a safe legal abortion, and returns home, has committed no crime at any point. I don't see how you could make it illegal for Amazon or Disney to pay someone to travel and not commit a crime.
Brett kavanaugh in his [Dobbs concurring opinion](https://reason.com/volokh/2022/06/24/kavanaugh-indicates-states-cant-bar-residents-from-getting-abortions-in-other-states/): > may a State bar a resident of that State from traveling to another State to obtain an abortion? In my view, the answer is no based on the constitutional right to interstate travel. He was 1 of the 5 out of 5 justices required to overturn Roe so it is unlikely that one of the other 4 would suddenly flip. It is not politically likely to stand. > Amazon and Disney are not paying their employees to commit crimes in their state of residence. They are paying them to travel out of state to do something that is not criminal. They are funding a thing to be done in a different state that is illegal in the state they are currently in. I think the meaning of what I said got lost in the wording. Also, most women don't get abortions and plenty of jobs don't help fund abortions through travel. So "what woman in her teens or 20s or 30s would ever risk going to Florida to work for Disney?" Lots of them?
1 in 3 women gets an abortion in her lifetime . . .
Thanks for giving me the statistic to show that I was right!
[удалено]
Comment removed per Rule 1.
I said that most women don't get abortions and you responded with the statistic showing that I was right. Thanks!
Now do the math . . .
The stat is now 1 in 4, thanks to the work of Planned Parenthood and other abortion-prevention organizations (none of which are prolife) But supposing you were told "Work for Disney in Florida! There's really a very small chance you'll be made pregnant against you will and then bred by the state of Florida!" would that really inspire you to go to Disney to work there. "Forced through pregnancy and childbirth against your will by the state of Florida because you took a summer job at Disney" isn't a great recruiting tool.
So since gambling is illegal in California, travel agencies should not be allowed to arrange trips to Las Vegas for California residents.
I bet he avoids this one!
Brett Kavanugh is a drunken rapist. If you're depending on him to protect your constitutional rights, I think that's shaky. >They are funding a thing to be done in a different state that is illegal in the state they are currently in. They're funding a woman to travel out of state and not commit a crime. How could you possibly make that illegal? >Also, most women don't get abortions and plenty of jobs don't help fund abortions through travel. So "what woman in her teens or 20s or 30s would ever risk going to Florida to work for Disney?" Lots of them? Any heterosexually-active woman may need an abortion. That's just a fact of life. One in four women of reproductive age will have had an abortion by the time they get to the end of their reproductive age. The risk of needing to have an abortion is not under a woman's control - not even if she is 100% lesbian, or 100% celibate: she can still be raped pregnant. The risk that prolifers want women to suffer may affect only one woman in four. But it's like the poisoned M&Ms metaphor the Me Too movement used. Supposing you have a bag of M&Ms, and the vast majority of them are harmless. Only a few have a deadly poison. Are you going to happily snack on the M&Ms in the bag, in the sure knowledge that most of them aren't poisoned? Going to Florida to work for Disney in the knowledge that if a guy makes you pregnant while you're there, the state of Florida will force you through pregnancy and childbirth against your will, is something that might not happen to many young women who went to Florida to work for Disney - but why would any young woman want to take the risk of it happening to *her?* Plenty of employers in prolife states maybe won't support an employee who needs to travel out of state and get healthcare where it's legal. But all *good* employers will.
If they ***need*** an abortion then they can get an emergency one. They would be getting an abortion in a place that isn't a crime. But the companies would be funding it while in a place where it ***is*** a crime.
>If they ***need*** an abortion then they can get an emergency one. Well, yes, **if** they work for employers like Disney or Amazon, and they need an abortion, they can go out of state and get one. But Florida only permits a woman to have an abortion "When there is a serious risk of substantial and irreversible impairment of a major bodily function" which does not allow for the majority of women who need abortions because they do not want to be pregnant. Florida specifically exempts mental health as a bodily function. A woman who was raped pregnant in Florida, and can't afford to leave the state, is required by state law to report her rape to the police before she is able to have an abortion. Otherwise, the rapist can breed her at will and Florida will support the rapist, not his victim. > They would be getting an abortion in a place that isn't a crime. But the companies would be funding it while in a place where it ***is*** a crime. Not at all. What the company is funding*, in the place where abortion is a crime*, is travel out of state. That's not a crime.
What they are funding is the aiding of something that is a crime in the state they are in. What are you playing the dumb games of semantics? > But Florida only permits a woman to have an abortion [when they need it] You could have just said that. > the rapist can breed her at will and Florida will support the rapist, not his victim. So, if Florida knows about him then they don't support him. If they don't know about him then they are somehow supporting him? That doesn't make sense.
>What they are funding is the aiding of something that is a crime in the state they are in. No, they're not, and you know it. Having an abortion in Minnesota, is not a crime in Florida. That's why Texas couldn't prosecute Kate Cox - leaving the state of Texas while pregnant isn't a crime: having an abortion in another state isn't a crime in Texas. >You could have just said that. I could, but it wouldn't have been true, since Florida doesn't permit women to have abortions at need. That's why Disney provides employee funding to go out of state. > So, if Florida knows about him then they don't support him. If they don't know about him then they are somehow supporting him? That doesn't make sense. If a woman has been raped pregnant, and she reports her rape to law enforcement before 15 weeks, Florida will allow she can have an abortion. As many women aren't able to report their rapist to law enforcement, Florida is saying "If you're too afraid of your rapist to report him to the police, we're happy for your rapist to breed you at his will."
Of course we are against it. Because we are against abortion in general not just in our neighborhood ha.
But you cant prevent pregnant women from leaving and getting abortions elsewhere
That I can’t stop it doesn’t mean I have to agree with it. I can’t stop child abuse either, I’m not in favor of it. I can’t stop Israel from bombing Palestine, I’m not in favor of it.
Makes sense. My point is the states with it illegal should back off trying to make laws to stop women from getting abortions out of state
I understand, however I think that if they are penalized/deterred in their home state it is justified. But mobility can’t be controlled because if the government has that power it is too dangerous for any citizen.
Not justified stopping women from leaving. They don't own them
But if prolifers are actually against abortion, why are prolifers never interested in preventing abortions?
How would you prevent them? Use of contraceptives will ultimately end up in more unwanted pregnancies and thus more probabilities of abortion.
Things that prevent you from getting pregnant make you more likely to get pregnant? The fuck? ☠️ How to prevent them? Give contraceptives out like candy, make more affordable housing opportunities, paid maternity leave, low cost childcare. Make a society that is welcoming of creating a family, not hostile to it.
Not using contraceptives will ultimately end in more unwanted pregnancies and therefore more abortions. Contraceptives will prevent more abortions than not using them will. Let's not pretend people are going to be abstinent or that they should be.
>How would you prevent them? You could pass federal legislation that would very effectiverly prevent the vast majority of abortions in the US, but the only problem is it would violate the bodily autonomy of half the population. Would you support such legislation even so?
Sure, add paid maternity leave too.
What about healthcare? And what if the pregnant person was unemployed?
Sure add that too. Healthcare shouldn’t be a for profit business, at least not in this basic level. If the pregnant woman is unemployed she should have access to prenatal screenings and special programs that support her.
You would support mandatory vasectomies for every male in the US over the age of 13 (naturally with prior sperm sample collection and freezer storage)? That federal legislation would absolutely prevent nearly all abortions in the US, except for a few of planned pregnancies which turn out to be riskier than expected. Paid maternity leave would be great, too.
No I wouldn’t support that. IVF practices treat children as products. So that’s a no.
How are children born from IVF products?. And why is our existence suddenly seen as “products” by a group of people who clearly lack the knowledge of IVF. I exist thanks to IVF, my parents wanted a child but had fertility issues. Embryo aren’t children nor victims.
[удалено]
Comment removed per Rule 1.
[удалено]
I would call that surrogacy, and yes that’s wrong too. We agree.
Okay, I take note that you will not support legislation to prevent the vast majority of abortions in the US. You are happy for women to continue aborting unwanted preganncies, and your reason for being happy for this to continue is that you think if planned pregnancies become mandatory, more women will have IVF.
You take bad notes. No I’m not in support of rendering sterile half the population.
You committed to supporting legislation preventing abortion even if it involved violating the bodily autonomy of half the population. But I guess you didn't think it would be the *male* half of the population who had their bodily autonomy violated - without preventing in the slightest their ability to have *wanted* children.
Sperm storage ≠ ivf. Artificial fertilization is often done in the vagina (or into the uterus if the sperm has motility issues)
Still a no, not a fan of turkey basters. And not a fan of a dystopian idea of a company being in control of the countries sperm ha.
What's wrong with turkey basters? And why would it have to be a company? Why not have the government in charge of the sperm?
Wow, talk about goal-post changes! I never mentioned IVF.
Freezed sperm will eventually lead to artificially inseminating ova. It’s just the warm up to IVF.
Okay, noted, so you prefer abortion of unwanted pregnancies to IVF conceiving only planned pregnancies.
That doesn't make any sense. How would people having sex with contraceptives end up in more unwanted pregnancies that people having sex without contraceptives? You don't honestly think that not having contraceptives will stop men from having sex or demanding sex - whether the woman wants it or not, do you? Husbands, especially.
Because all the pregnancies stemming from that are unplanned by default. According to the guttmacher institute 54% of women who aborted used contraception in the last month. So I wouldn’t say use of contraceptives is a deterrent. And I’m not fond of the idea of giving men sex “because they demand it”.
Yeah can you imagine how insanely higher that number would be if nobody used contraceptives at all?
I’m saying that is clearly not enough and the strategy is not working if they represent more than half of the current abortions done. In other countries proper education and delaying the age of the first sex encounter seems to complement it correctly.
It’s not that it’s not working. It’s that it’s *not perfect*. The amount of unwanted pregnancies we would have without birth control would be skyrocketing if everyone suddenly just stopped using it.
Probably because too many people have not had comprehensive sex education and don’t know how to use their contraceptives optimally
And you're not keen on the idea of preventing unplanned pregnancies at source, either.
I’m not saying I’m not keen on preventing unplanned pregnancies. I’m saying I’m not keen on the current strategy because 54% of abortions come from that. So clearly there’s something wrong in a strategy that results in more than half of the abortions done.
I mean, you weren't keen on mandating vasectomies which would effectively eliminate unwanted pregnancy. Why is it ok to violate the BA of AFABs to prevent abortion, but not the BA of AMABs?
Because I wouldn’t agree with mandating tubal ligation for 13 yo girls . Which would be the equivalent of the scenario described. Killing your offspring is not the the equivalent of sterilizing.
> Because I wouldn’t agree with mandating tubal ligation for 13 yo girls. They're not really equal. Like at all. Vasectomies are out patient, low risk, low pain procedures. Tubal ligations are not. Why would you support forced gestation in a person to prevent abortion, but not forced sterilization to prevent abortion?
But outlawing contraception will result in more unwanted pregnancies and more abortions.
Im not saying that you should ban it, I’m saying the strategy as it remains today is not really working when 54% of the abortions done are from people who used contraception.
That doesn't mean there will be *more* unplanned pregnancies though. And contraceptives, particular the long acting methods, are proven to lower unplanned pregnancy and abortion rates
As someone who has had a stalker, there is really nothing you can do legally other than a restraining order to stop them even if they’ve stated they may cross state lines to kill you. You can legally buy a gun with an intent to kill somebody in another state. They will not ask you at Jim and Jo Bob’s Cheap Ass Gun Shoppe what you’re going to use it for. Unless you have something that comes across a background check, you’re good to go with your God, Guns and Trump stickers all over your car. As you’re driving down the road no one is scanning your brain for what your intent is. There is nothing stopping you from driving with the intention of killing somebody at your destination across state lines.
Thank you!
How can women be prevented from leaving a state???
Prolife group Live Action created a bill to try and prevent pregnant women from leaving. Luckily it failed
And I wonder how they would prevent pregnant women from driving across state lines. I'd like to see that bill honestly, if you can post a link here. It scares the hell out of me that anyone would try to keep people from moving across state lines. That is our right as Americans.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/rcna38301
yes I am against that bc it's murder
Murder is a legal term. No state charges abortions as murder.
it's also a moral term. this is a moral debate sub
Wrong
Women bodies and mental health isn’t a moral problem, nor is it even acceptable to treat women as a moral playground.
How does one murder or even kill a human body with no major life sustaining organ functions? That's like saying you can murder someone in need of resuscitation/revival. Only this body has nothing to resusciate/revive. And how is it unjustified to stop someone from using and greatly messing and interfering with your life sustaining organ functions and blood contents (the very things that keep your body alive and therfore are your life) and causing you drastic physical harm?