Yolectroda t1_jaucq67 wrote on March 4, 2023 at 3:20 AM

Reply to comment by tomtomcowboy in SC woman charged after allegedly consuming abortion pills to end pregnancy by MajesticOuting

I do understand that it is your opinion that women don't deserve body autonomy rights. Generally, in western society, it's considered wrong to deny these rights. Unsurprisingly, some people who oppose these rights point to far right religious bullshit and mention things like "unalive a woman" in order to pretend that they aren't also on that same path. Of course, many others just point to their own religious justification for their stances as the reason to control others on this.

Meanwhile, it's interesting that you say "interfere with another's life in this kind of way", while making an argument that a fetus (a non-person) has the right to do that exact thing. Seems wildly inconsistent.

Either way, it seems your personal perspective on morals go directly against the core concepts of freedom, and you're denying that women should have rights over their own bodies as you or I do, so let's ignore the "rights" argument. Let's just go with a practicality discussion. Why is your opinion here a more practical stance for society?

dkdndkdmdmdmd t1_jb8m8gq wrote on March 7, 2023 at 6:26 AM

I support bodily autonomy and would not deny a woman that. I would never force a woman who was raped to carry a child to term. If a woman freely engages in intercourse knowing she could conceive forfeits her bodily autonomy by consenting to sex. Saying a woman can’t kill her offspring that the openly produced is like saying forcing a man who had consensual sex to pay child support is slavery. It’s a ridiculous argument.

tomtomcowboy t1_jaugmgd wrote on March 4, 2023 at 3:53 AM

You assume a great deal here, and I will do my best to address this comment as it is.

First off, thank you for replying in a way that opens up this discussion, without resorting to some sort of verbal barrage or demeaning of my character for such beliefs, and encouraging debate thereof.

For the majority of my life I agreed in abortions, that its the womans choice, and her place to decide. After the recent roe v wade overturning last year I began to look more seriously into it, and what all the commotion was about.

I have heard so many and continue to hear mainly emotionally charged arguments and circular ethical stances within the "pro-choice" community.
Believe me I am open minded to hearing all postions on the matter, and continue to be, however none of the logical arguments are particularly sound. Your position of 'personhood' being legally defined at birth is so far amongst the best stances, however even so falls quite short of being convincing.

Now I will respond to your comment directly : I never said woman "dont deserve body autonomy rights", nor do I hold a moral stance as such. Woman have the choice and freedom to decide upon a partner, and have full body autonomy in this regard. It is her choice of whom she allows to enter her, and whom she chooses as a partner to do so. When a woman consents to sex, she inextricably consents to the possibility of being impregnated. This seems to be something that is majorly overlooked in the pro-abortion circles.

If she becomes pregnant, from her choices , she now must accept her body is changing again, and once gestation phase begins, just like her monthly period, she has no choice on the matter. She already made her choice by consenting to sexual intercourse.

Furthermore I fully believe she has the right to birth control at this phase. Let me also include that when one is graped/forced into this I believe in prosecuting the male who violated her body autonomy in this way as well. Likewise if she knows this occured, I do believe in early stage abortions, but if she fails to act, then she must bare the child to term as then the fetus will become a human, which is not fair to jointly punish the child for the fathers criminal misconduct. I also am aware this kind of situation is terrible for the mother and there should be greater measures of support for her in this case.

This leads now into my main premise on the matter; A woman has all the freedom of choice prior to gestation, however once she receives the sperm that is the completion of her choice. She is now responsible + accountable to/for the human life growing inside her. To take unnatural action otherwise at this point is akin to denying an inevitable emergence of a human existing. The definition of such a denial of life is 'killing', and the legal consequence of killing another human is being liable to charges of murder in the court of law.

Likewise all thru out history it has been a common tactic of oppressors to dehumanize a group for political sway. Such was the case of slaves in america [3/5th vote], jews in germany [yellow star] , and so on and so forth. This is now a common argument justifying the procedure to artificially induce early labor.

The extent of trauma on every level of the womans body from this kind of surgery is absolutely life changing. Their body is literally meant to have children, so its my "practical" opinion the law should protect their rights in this way.

Not allow them some special priviledge to deny life to a human being they no longer want to be responsible for. Hence the islam example, which I was stating because I disagree with that as a special priviledge as well.

Per usual I expect many downvotes and perhaps emotionally charged hyterics or whatever. However this is my stance on the matter and likewise I believe as a man I do have a say on this, because it can and has affected my own life.

Yolectroda t1_jauim2c wrote on March 4, 2023 at 4:12 AM

> I have heard so many and continue to hear solely emotionally charged arguments and circular ethical stances within the "pro-choice" community.

Your entire comment here is based on emotional outtakes. You have made multiple claims that don't fit reality when it comes to the medical situation. You started with a denial of what I said, and then jumped with both feet into a long argument that a woman's body, mind, and "spirit" are to be devoted to reproduction. You pull the old tired (and always false) line to say that abortion is murder. You even compare abortion to slavery and the Holocaust.

You decided to abandon the very things you claimed to base your stance on at the start, and instead relied on BS and emotional crap.

When you make a comment that comes close to living up to your standards, then maybe it'll warrant a response. And maybe if you answered my questions about practicality rather than making a emotional rant, we could have had a better conversation as well.

But I do need to pull this out and comment on it:

> Their body is literally meant to have children

Nobody who claims that they believe in the rights to bodily autonomy of women can ever say this and be honest and consistent. Their body is literally meant to do whatever the hell they want to do with it, because our country is supposed to care about freedom, and that line goes directly against that.

And I don't mean any offense (though I am calling you a liar here), but with that line and the paragraph on how women are "the channel" to some false inevitability, I don't believe most of the stuff that you said about doing research and coming to a new stance. It seems more like you spent some time talking to your pastor and listening to his bullshit instead of looking up how pregnancy or abortion work at all (or the laws as written right now).

It's funny, you start saying that I assumed things. I didn't assume anything. You said who you were and have just reinforced everything that I said above. Good luck in your path to understanding. I was once fooled by the BS that a religion taught me about abortion and pregnancy. You can learn the truth of how female biology works. It's not hard, and there are plenty of resources out there.

tomtomcowboy t1_jauk6u0 wrote on March 4, 2023 at 4:26 AM

Sorry but maybe actually read what I said and we can have a discussion.

Assume ; verb : Suppose to be the case, without actual proof.

Your entire reply is quite literally overflowimg with assumptions + pointedly charged declarations.

Im not making any assumptions about you as a person, however you are, and are incredibly off with most of them. It seems you want to paint me in a particular manner, to fit the image of someone you disagree with. Like I mentioned, and you highlighted, pro-abortion debatees tend to degenerate into these kinds of tactical theatrics. An attempt to deflect and invalidate my entire comment in your first sentence is evidence of this.

Previously I was willing to debate the various things I brought up and was forthcoming with my beliefs. However this seems to have lead to a personal attack on me and my character which collapsed the possibility of entertaining different ideas and even attempting to find common ground.

There are just so many ways you twisted my words that it doesnt seem like you even read thru what I took the time to type out. None of what Im saying is from religious belief or advocacy, the only beliefs Im presenting are my own.

Additionally like I said I was pro-abortion until the recent supreme court ruling brought this to the forefront of public discourse and outrage.

Im also unsure how you are debating the biological facts of my argument, such as woman baring children. You can ask any mother, ask your own, its a very spiritual experience. It just is.

Beyond that you didnt even provide a claim for what your stance even is. All you stated is my comment reinforced your completely false assumptions, about me as a person, calling me a liar because you just simply disagree with me, and convienently ignoring the bulk of what I presented.

Ok? 🤷

Yolectroda t1_jaul9v2 wrote on March 4, 2023 at 4:37 AM

I did, that's what led to that comment. I started to respond to various things, and then as your comment got worse and worse, I deleted that and made that comment. Also, I referenced parts of your comment from all over that comment, so it's a pretty ridiculous take to say that I didn't read it.

Either way, I'm not particularly interested in your discussion. You've made it clear that your stance is that a woman's body is not her's, but exists for the purpose of procreation. You've made this very clear in multiple statements (this requires no assumptions). I don't see me saying anything that will make you change your mind on this, and I don't see a reason to entertain the same BS that was pushed on me as a youth many years ago.

And when you were asked a direct question at the start, you ignored it, so I don't really think you're interested in discussion, either.

Also, there is little discussion available when one side is dodging questions, and the other side thinks that they're also a liar (I'll take the blame on that belief). Like I said, good luck in your path to understanding, if that's legitimate. You'll need it if you think that comment up there leads to actual discussion.

Edit: When I responded, the only thing in the comment above was the first line, and that's what I responded to. Unlike your prior comments, I'm not reading the rest. /u/tomtomcowboy: Editing in a much longer response 15 minutes after I made my response is pretty damned shitty.

Theemuts t1_jav9qjj wrote on March 4, 2023 at 9:37 AM

>Edit: When I responded, the only thing in the comment above was the first line, and that's what I responded to. Unlike your prior comments, I'm not reading the rest. /u/tomtomcowboy: Editing in a much longer response 15 minutes after I made my response is pretty damned shitty.

Yeah, it's pretty obvious from the chain of comments he's not a good person.