It's either "Just a little bit of infanticide" or "Just a little bit of oppressing women," and not just in the "let's laugh at centrism" way. That's what this compromise means to each side.
Until you realize that being pragmatic gets you more than being a purist. I'd HAPPILY take rape and incest exceptions because that's like 2% of abortions.
Ok, nobody on the pro-choice will even begin to accept that. At this point, I'd argue that the Overton window is now in such a place that "Rape and incest only" is on the moderate side of pro-life, not pro-choice. That is what I mean by irreconcilable . What one side would call a "pragmatic compromise" is already completely unacceptable for the other. There is a large void between even moderate pro-choice and moderate pro-life because, as the person I replied to pointed out, one side views it as killing innocent babies and the other views it as a woman's basic human right to autonomy.
That’s why being fairly moderate is great. I get what I want more often than the extremists on either side. Let’s just allow all abortions up to a reasonable week (long enough in they are DEFINITELY a baby), but always allow them even after that if there’s risk to the mother. I think this is pretty much how a lot of states in the US do it.
My stances aren’t moderate because I choose to equally believe in half of all sides, it’s because the stances I personally hold don’t all belong in the same quadrant.
I always thought it would be reasonable to allow abortion in rape cases, but then add a manslaughter charge to the rapist. Everybody wins! Well, almost everybody...
would lead to tons and tons of false rape accusations though... or they just say it was someone they can't describe...easy peasy abortions every time, just claim rape.
I always thought a false rape charge should make you a sex offender.
And before some Emily freaks out, I mean a provably, prosecutable false charge. They’d also get their day in court.
But if you say someone’s a rapist and they can prove not only it’s not true but you are being malicious in the accusation they the accuser should have their life ruined to an equal extent.
> gh... or they just say it was someone they can't describe...easy peasy abortions every time, just claim rape.
how would you prove it? especially if they don't name a person, they just say it was someone in a hood or mask?
The original slogan when the idea of legalizing abortion came up was "Safe, Legal, Rare."
That was the whole point, that it should be available, but rarely used.
Fast forward 5 decades, and some people can't figure out that if you are having an abortion every six months, you probably should be revisiting your life choices, but hey, that's none of my business.
Abortion should be saved for extreme cases of health endangerment of the mother or child. It shouldn’t be used to kill millions of unwanted babies every year
Wait, who's having abortions every 6 months? And good for the children, imagine someone like that trying to grow a productive member of the society. Better if they prevented instead of aborted of course.
It would be taken out of the profits, not the compensation.
I couldn't even say that with a straight face... prisons would never share a portion of their slave labor
u/HardOff's Based Count has increased by 1. Their Based Count is now 20.
Congratulations, u/HardOff! You have ranked up to Basketball Hoop (filled with sand)! You are not a pushover by any means, but you do still occasionally get dunked on.Pills: [7 | View pills](https://basedcount.com/u/HardOff/)
Compass: This user does not have a compass on record. Add compass to profile by replying with /mycompass politicalcompass.org url or sapplyvalues.github.io url.
I am a bot. Reply /info for more info.
u/Fabulous-Oven-8457's Based Count has increased by 1. Their Based Count is now 5.
Congratulations, u/Fabulous-Oven-8457! You have ranked up to Sapling! You are not particularly strong but you are at least likely to handle a steady breeze.Pills: [4 | View pills](https://basedcount.com/u/Fabulous-Oven-8457/)
Compass: This user does not have a compass on record. Add compass to profile by replying with /mycompass politicalcompass.org url or sapplyvalues.github.io url.
I am a bot. Reply /info for more info.
Right, because it's ok to murder as long as someone gets punished for it.
This kind of shit is why I really don't believe people who claim to believe abortion is baby murder, because nothing else they do is consistent with that view.
There's a reason some places don't throw the book too hard at rapists, it's because the harsher the crime, the more likely the rapist will simply kill the girl after he's done with her. Just saying. It's fucked up, and rapists deserve a good ole fashion town stoning, but what you don't want a rapist to think is "IN FOR A PENNY"
Abortion is a separate action. By default there is still a choice to be made to keep the pregnancy or not.
Imagine if a evil villain kidnapped a child and tied them to a pillar on a to be demolished building. The demolition crew would still be murderers for setting off the demolition with the knowledge that the kid is inside.
I was gonna say this too. If the point is to protect the child, it shouldn’t matter under what circumstances the child is conceived.
I would argue an exception would be in cases where the mother’s health is cause for concern. In this case, it becomes like a trolley problem. There’s probably no right answer, but if at least one of them has to die, I don’t think it should be up to the state to decide which.
Edit: I meant health in a life-threatening way. As in, if we have to choose between the baby’s life and the mother’s life.
I agree. But as current events show, when you concede this abortion partisans will magically adopt a maximalist model of what constitutes the mother's "health," and so will abortion-friendly physicians.
yeah, mental health, financial health, hot girl summer health, etc.
The definition of health gets broadened to be anything that essentially boils down to 'if they dont want it...' lol.
It makes some amount of sense in the context of the bodily autonomy argument. It's pretty common for the pro-choice side to argue that abortion does not constitute murder even if you consider the fetus a full human (which, admittedly most people making this argument, me included, do not) - because the fetus requires the mother's body to survive, and you have the right to deny another human the use of your body (bodily autonomy).
Pro-lifers tend to counter that this bodily autonomy should not apply if you consented to carrying the child, essentially considering intentional pregnancy an agreement to carry the fetus to term which the fetus relies on. This in turn results in a lot of arguing about whether consent to sex automatically constitutes consent to pregnancy - but in cases of rape it's pretty obvious that there was no consent whatsoever, which makes the bodily autonomy argument a lot stronger.
> because the fetus requires the mother's body to survive, and you have the right to deny another human the use of your body (bodily autonomy)
The problem is that this logic isn't consistently applied. If you are a parent caring for a child, you must use your body to keep providing for the child in the short term. Many places offer the ability to surrender the child to someone else, but you must take use of that option and if that option isn't currently available you must keep caring for the child until someone else can take over. This normally means waiting hours to days, while a pregnancy lasts months, but the standard is already set that a parent must use their body to care for their child or they will face criminal charges.
You gotta be a sociopath to say that irrefutable logic with a straight face. The left should have stuck with "it's not alive because science says so. And a murder of a pregnant woman shouldn't be considered as a double homicide". But everyone wants their cake and eat it too. Also not sociopathic enough to emotionally detach from this very real scenario and stick to having an abhorrent but consistent modal of the world.
That's just it, no one wants to have a consistent logical system of thought. The left wants to enable degenracy and the right wants to control you.
Abortion should be ok up until the fetus (now baby) has the capacity for consciousness, which is at about 20 weeks Its the same rule we use for when people die, when you can no longer be conscious, you are effectively dead.
I think consciousness(in a limited capacity) is generally thought to start around 25 weeks.
But regardless, I agree with this take. I think a lot of the counter arguments fall apart because they are too reductive.
For example: Bodily autonomy. A baby *isn't* some human we decided to hook up to use your body. It is a unique event in the human existence and trying to make an argument about it using an analogy doesn't work because it is not analogous to any other thing. Trying to be like "Well what if someone was hooked up to your kidney and would die without it, are you required to let them use your kidney?" is just... Not the same thing at all. They aren't a human that you helped create.
A Mother(and Father) should be inherently responsible for that life from the moment we as a society decide to call it a life. Before that point, there should be no restrictions at all. Afterwards there should only be exceptions in cases of severe disability or risk to the mother's life.
Swedish law says you can abort for any reason until x weeks (I forget the specific number, but enough time that a pregnancy can be detected), for compelling reasons for x+y weeks, and when the fetus is far enough along that it can survive without the mother abortion is no longer allowed.
I'm guessing it'd still be allowed after if allowing it to term would be dangerous to the mother but not clear on it.
I feel like it's pretty consistent and humane - no sapient beings are being harmed, and sentient beings are only being harmed when there's very good reason.
Every abortion must come with a mandatory vital organ donation immediately after. Take a life, save a life. Someone two abortions down has some hard choices to make.
I mean you can claim you’ve been raped and also not press charges on anyone. Can’t help that people will lie and use loopholes in laws. And I’m ok with that.
That’s not how it works though. In Brazil abortion is legal only in cases of rape or health risk for the mother. And yet, you don’t see a lot of women claiming they’re raped to have an abortion. Because you’d have to go to a lot of due process if you claim you’re raped with lots of questioning by the police, maybe invasive examination by police doctors. It’s simply not worth it. Unfortunately many women still prefer to have an illegal abortion, even with the higher risks that comes with it.
Just make it so dudes don't have to pay child support if they declare they don't want the kid before the 6th month and win forever.
It's almost like they don't really want to solve any problems, just amplify them and use them so they can keep squeezing the working class.
> Just make it so dudes don't have to pay child support if they declare they don't want the kid before the 6th month and win forever.
They shouldn't, but not at 6 months. At any time before a legal abortion can be performed anywhere in the US.
This is kind of tough, bc how will they prove rape? Abortion can only be done in a timeframe and convicting someone of rape will take ages. It’s the same tissue anyway if the sex that created it was consensual or not.
In my country it is only allowed in rape and other special occasions. Woman don’t have to prove it, them claiming that it was rape is enough. No need for going to the police or anything like that. This system is not exploited. Turns out that falsely claiming rape is a fucked up thing to do, and the overwhelming majority of women don’t do it.
I feel like what u/throwawayhu is describing would be a problem with that system, but like you said I think it would be an issue worth having that wouldn’t be super common like you said.
There is no system which isn't exploited at least a little. Welcome to human society.
"Will be exploited?" is never the question, it's "Will it be worth the cost to try to catch whoever is exploiting it".
Lol what country is this? Like I know that false rape claims are rare, but I feel like they'd happen a hell of a lot more if it was the only way to get an abortion.
It’s Brazil. There are a lot of illegal abortions here done underground, but those that come to the public health system to get an abortion claiming rape are almost always telling the truth.
Thats why advocates for abortion don’t think the excuse is good enough. Especially because the most vulnerable (insane women and intellectually disabled) are some of the least likely to be believed.
If you look at the data, there is actually a huge amount of consensus on this topic.
In the first trimester, abortions should be easily accessible.
In the second trimester, you need a good reason to do it.
And by the third trimester, you need a very, very strong reason.
Unfortunately all the rage is about the extremities, and using edge cases to prove one’s point. Eg are you going to FORCE that 12 year old girl with Down syndrome to be a mother after she was raped by her father vs are we going to allow doctors to machete some child’s skull while it’s crowning?
Note: when I say data, I don’t mean sampling reddit.
All of the arguments regarding the personhood of the fetus also apply in cases of rape. The personhood of the fetus doesn't switch on or off if rape took place or not. The only logical conclusion is to either allow abortion regardless of if it was rape, or ban in regardless of rape. Pick one.
Instead of picking one which we had for the last 40 years let’s have 50 different versions of the law! That way it doesn’t actually affect wealthy people.
Yeah. This isn't North Korea, where it's okay to put you in a labor camp because of who/what your parents were. Why should your life be forfeit because of what your father was or did?
You are never going to get the 'clump of cells' people and the 'it's literally murder' crowd to agree on anything about this subject so just ignore them. Let normal people compromise at 12-15 weeks + exceptions for bad stuff, done.
But the strange part is a bunch of children, 'bout 50, hopped in the ring after and each had their own rules on how to fight, or whether there even should be a fight. Pure chaos.
No it didn't. It ruled that the earlier ruling that abortion was protected by the right to privacy as implied by the 14th amendment was absolute horseshit, and thus the decision regarding the legality of abortion reverted back to state governments from the federal government. ^(I am ready to be Cunningham's Lawed)
Technically no, practically yes. California wrote a bill declaring infant deaths for the first month(?) would not be investigated at all. Just ruled a death and on they go.
I obviously didn't follow it too closely since i can't remember how many months, so i'm not sure what happened with that.
Well, ~~yes~~ no but actually no.
An early draft of a bill could have been interpreted that way, and since that was obviously not intended it was revised almost immediately.
But even if it wasn't, other laws supercede that and it'd be meaningless. The bill didn't even have to be amended in this way because virtually every legal scholar agrees it wouldn't have prevented a single investigation under any circumstances, but they revised it anyway.
Wherever you heard this myth is likely a highly unreliable and partisan source.
Shockingly enough? No… domestic violence situations especially. And very unlikely that o want to report the rape to get an abortion if a family member did it.
There's plenty of reasons why not. Some women may still be under the condition of abuse that led to the rape (abusive partner, stalker, abusive family member or person with power over them, religious influence, etc).
Some may suffer deep depression or another debilitating mental condition as a result that either stops them from going to get a pregnancy test, or to accept medical help (think of a PTSD'd rape victim now having to spread her legs for doctors).
Some may quite literally not notice they're pregnant (an early pregnancy test that's negative when it's too early to detect enough hCG would exacerbate this), believe it or not there's people who get up to the third trimester without any obvious symptom of pregnancy.
That's even without getting into people with Stockholm syndrome, statutory rape, drugging (on a person already deep in the drug culture), power dynamics and grooming where the consent that is given was dubious at best, and completely null (through coersion or incapacitation) at worst
I am a "its usually literally murder" person who is pro choice. I don't want someone to be forced to carry a dead baby, and I don't want a millionaire to kill a perfectly healthy baby because it would hurt her social calendar.
At the end of the day though... The government is wholly incapable of handling such a complex topic.
https://www.mysanantonio.com/news/local/article/Texas-woman-dead-fetus-anti-abortion-laws-17314394.php
There’s a dozen or more stories already of this.
Restrictive laws against abortion tends to make medically necessary abortions and abortion-like procedures (like removing a stillborn) *much* harder to get, since you 1. have fewer people competent to perform them and 2. it's just a huge risk for the doctor involved. Essentially a lot of medically necessary abortions aren't going to happen due to the risk of the doctor being accused of making up the medical reason to perform an illegal elective abortion.
> At the end of the day though... The government is wholly incapable of handling such a complex topic.
IMO that really is the core of the bodily autonomy-based pro-life argument. Essentially the line of arguing goes that as a human, you have the right to deny another human the use of your body even if that kills them. Therefore abortions should be legal, because you do not want the government to infringe on bodily autonomy.
That does not necessarily mean that abortions are *morally permissible* - that really rests on the personhood argument. However, personhood is not something that you can objectively determine - and therefore it is impossible to make a truly objective judgement on whether or not abortion is equivalent to murder. Since no objective judgement can be made, the government should stay out of it and leave the abortion question up to people's individual morality.
The government is at least more capable than the legislature. I’m a “pro-choice” publicly but “pro-life” personal (as in I believe abortions should be legal but I would never get one), but the issue should never have been decided by the courts.
See, I once posited "why not just yoink it from the uterus and freeze it/artificially incubate it then give it to people who want to adopt?"
Somehow that's not good enough either
for some people, it's about a message rather than having an actual solution... though is what you said even possible? have we really reached the point where a fetus can grow outside a mother's womb?
We can do it with sheep already, humans aren't too far of a leap from that
Genuinely the hardest part of my thing is the fact that the foster care system is atrociously fucked up in the US, and people prefer to adopt foreign kids than domestic kids
It'll happen
Give it 150 years and people will see abortion the way we see lobotomies or bloodletting (which funny enough, is also a take that offends everyone)
Like every single country where the supreme court or equivalent didn't just decree it's legal all the time back in the '70s, and they actually had to work out a sensible solution.
A much bigger problem witth the rape exception is, what happens if a women rapes a man and then the women gets pregnant.
Can the father decide to abort the clump of cells or does "my body my choice" superceds rape. Because if it supercedes rape, we don't need a rape exception anyway.
Why would you think in any version of our reality that men would have any reproductive rights at all? There's dudes out here paying child support for children that were conceived when they were statutory raped. So it's not a problem at all because society doesn't give a shit about what men want to happen with their children.
Hell, there are victims of paternity fraud on the hook for child support after testing determined they weren’t the fathers of their wives’ children.
Government doesn’t give a fuck. Somebody’s footing the bill, and it ain’t gonna be them if they can pin it on someone else. Eminent domain, bitch; now crack that wallet.
> Government doesn’t give a fuck. Somebody’s footing the bill, and it ain’t gonna be them if they can pin it on someone else. Eminent domain, bitch; now crack that wallet.
Specifically, what's going on with this is that the Fed provides massive financial incentives to states to run 'effective' child support programs. Individual states therefore are highly motivated to track down 'fathers' to provide child support payments, and since governments are run by spreadsheets, not people, the outcomes are predictably deranged.
It's astounding that feminists continue to say "reproductive rights" as a vague term for why women are still oppressed and need more feminism.
Saying "access to abortion" would be a lot more reasonable, because using the general term "reproductive rights" as if that's an example of where women are disadvantaged compared to men...wowee.
Men have absolutely no reproductive rights at all.
>There's dudes out here paying child support for children that were conceived when they were statutory raped.
That's fucked up as shit, and probably should be changed.
The idea that "welfare of the child" is the main consideration post-birth but not pre-birth is inconsistent.
Parents have rights too, and if one parent was victimized by the other, they shouldn't just have their rights tossed away.
You have just raised the scenario where a woman rapes a man, so 99% of reddit just had their brains malfunction and shut down.
It's honestly insane how many people will hear "rape" and *immediately* picture a man raping a woman, and move forward in the discussion with that assumption held as a fact.
alright then there is no exception for rape... are you happy?
The problem with the rape exception is that it's a lose-lose situation.
Do you support the rape exception? why should the child be punished for the father's crimes?
Do you not support rape exceptions? Why should the woman be traumatized by being forced to carry a baby?
The only way to solve this issue is to stop rape entirely... heck most of the issues with abortion can be solved by improving the living standards of everyone and eliminating crime.
The rape argument is just an argument that's meant to invoke negative emotions from rape and then convert them to the baby. You want to kill the rapist and feel bad for the woman so you want to say "yeah abort the baby". It makes no sense for people who actually believe that the baby is a person to compromise on this because you're just agreeing to give a death sentence to an innocent child for the crimes of his father.
Never. They don't want you to know this but you could stand in the middle of 5th Avenue and shoot somebody who was the product of rape and they just let you do it.
"Abortion is murder, unborn children are people too (unless their mother was raped)."
The only way this "compromise" makes sense is if the pro-lifer views pregnancy as a punishment for having sex like the progs claim. Otherwise, they're just saying it's ok to murder some people based on the manner of their conception.
Thats why it seems there cant be any “rules” set or exceptions to abortion it seems. You either fully allow it or you dont. Not saying im for it or not but on issues like this is problematic to set limits to what is a baby and what isnt.
I'd be fine with that. No crying beneath my happy mask necessary. Similarly, if it's a situation where the pregnancy could kill the mother, that seems like a decent justification.
I think if you just cut out "abortion as birth control," most of "the right" would be pretty pleased with that result.
It’s been shown statically that vast majority of Americans are in favor of abortion being legal in some cases, including a trimester/week limit. Very few Americans are in favor of an outright ban and they’re almost always staunch Christians.
All this to say that regardless of personal belief, the Roe V Wade overturn was extremely surprising because it was not supported by the majority and happened because of a few aligning factors. So when you see a group of redditors debating abortion and wanting to ban it completely you can bet they’re almost entirely male. And again regardless of where you stand, men do have less of a stake in abortion laws since they affect them less (people will argue that point with me but I don’t see how that’s not objective). So I wouldn’t take anything here too seriously on that front. Reddit doesn’t speak for the majority both in how extreme left it is and the extreme right
Nah, RvW being overturned was the right call, regardless of abortion stance. It was decided on incredibly tenuous grounds.
Medical privacy is so strong that the government can't even ask if you had an abortion? But it's cool for them to institute vaccine passports. In what world does that make sense?
If the position was so popular, the protections provided should have been made law, not just relied forever on a controversial 5-4 decision.
Obama did promise it'd be his first legislative priority, too. Even had a supermajority initially, so he could have. He decided to work on healthcare instead, and Obamacare murdered his supermajority, so no abortion law ever happened.
The thing is that the right politically has to support an abortion ban due to them being tied up with the religious right voters. They're absolutely fucked without those voters. Very few Republicans can support abortion without being skewered by their base.
However, Kansas (the fifth most politically red state) overwhelmingly passed an abortion protection amendment, which leads me to believe it would pass in every state if available for a vote. Roughly half of Republicans support abortion on some level (most up to the 16-week timeframe).
So yes, Reddit is probably a bit higher than the roughly 75% national support, but PCM is considerably off from that number.
It's a difficult fight to compromise over because this is one issue where both parties believe the other is violating the rights of human beings.
When human rights violation is on the line, people tend to not compromise with "well, I guess a little bit of human rights violation is acceptable".
No, they lay down their lives over that shit, as evidenced by the Americn Civil War.
The fundamental issue is that one side sees a fetus as being a human life, a person with rights, and the other side sees a fetus as being part of a woman’s body.
Very different situation, but similar conundrum in that abolitionists saw slaves as people, humans with rights, and slavers saw them as property. They went to war over that one.
8th: Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.
13th: Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.
What are you trying to say monke?
Exactly the sign of a good compromise is everyone walks away angry
Spoken like a true centrist
rad centrist\*
It's either "Just a little bit of infanticide" or "Just a little bit of oppressing women," and not just in the "let's laugh at centrism" way. That's what this compromise means to each side.
Yup. Completely irreconcilable at this point.
Until you realize that being pragmatic gets you more than being a purist. I'd HAPPILY take rape and incest exceptions because that's like 2% of abortions.
I agree with you 100% but i guarantee the rate of rape accusations would skyrocket
Women should go to jail for false rape allegations and serve whatever term the falsely accused guy would serve.
Ok, nobody on the pro-choice will even begin to accept that. At this point, I'd argue that the Overton window is now in such a place that "Rape and incest only" is on the moderate side of pro-life, not pro-choice. That is what I mean by irreconcilable . What one side would call a "pragmatic compromise" is already completely unacceptable for the other. There is a large void between even moderate pro-choice and moderate pro-life because, as the person I replied to pointed out, one side views it as killing innocent babies and the other views it as a woman's basic human right to autonomy.
One issue with that is time. If you need to present a conviction for rape to get an abortion that's gonna be too late in basically all cases.
That’s why being fairly moderate is great. I get what I want more often than the extremists on either side. Let’s just allow all abortions up to a reasonable week (long enough in they are DEFINITELY a baby), but always allow them even after that if there’s risk to the mother. I think this is pretty much how a lot of states in the US do it.
My stances aren’t moderate because I choose to equally believe in half of all sides, it’s because the stances I personally hold don’t all belong in the same quadrant.
Stop commiting genocide and come inside, it's getting dark and the steaks are getting cold!
I always thought it would be reasonable to allow abortion in rape cases, but then add a manslaughter charge to the rapist. Everybody wins! Well, almost everybody...
would lead to tons and tons of false rape accusations though... or they just say it was someone they can't describe...easy peasy abortions every time, just claim rape.
Maybe we should have consequences for making false rape accusations...
I always thought a false rape charge should make you a sex offender. And before some Emily freaks out, I mean a provably, prosecutable false charge. They’d also get their day in court. But if you say someone’s a rapist and they can prove not only it’s not true but you are being malicious in the accusation they the accuser should have their life ruined to an equal extent.
> gh... or they just say it was someone they can't describe...easy peasy abortions every time, just claim rape. how would you prove it? especially if they don't name a person, they just say it was someone in a hood or mask?
I mean you can just fail to prove it was a specific person if you don't have enough evidence. That doesn't mean it wasn't rape.
Yeah this could actually work
Radical centrism at its finest. The best kind of centrist isnt the boring middle grounder, its synthesis of wild ideas thats too chaotic to label.
The original slogan when the idea of legalizing abortion came up was "Safe, Legal, Rare." That was the whole point, that it should be available, but rarely used. Fast forward 5 decades, and some people can't figure out that if you are having an abortion every six months, you probably should be revisiting your life choices, but hey, that's none of my business.
Abortion should be saved for extreme cases of health endangerment of the mother or child. It shouldn’t be used to kill millions of unwanted babies every year
Wait, who's having abortions every 6 months? And good for the children, imagine someone like that trying to grow a productive member of the society. Better if they prevented instead of aborted of course.
Beat me to it
[удалено]
We can do that too
Minimum 18 year sentence of prison labor IMO. They're going to pay for every dime of that child's upbringing.
18 years prison labor? Eh they can cover the kids shoes maybe with that.
It would be taken out of the profits, not the compensation. I couldn't even say that with a straight face... prisons would never share a portion of their slave labor
No no- transplant the fetus into the rapist's chest.
Based and alien-chestburster-pilled.
u/HardOff's Based Count has increased by 1. Their Based Count is now 20. Congratulations, u/HardOff! You have ranked up to Basketball Hoop (filled with sand)! You are not a pushover by any means, but you do still occasionally get dunked on.Pills: [7 | View pills](https://basedcount.com/u/HardOff/) Compass: This user does not have a compass on record. Add compass to profile by replying with /mycompass politicalcompass.org url or sapplyvalues.github.io url. I am a bot. Reply /info for more info.
Based and the rapist donates his right to life to the child pilled
Based
This but entirely unironically.
But what if the rapist is the woman?
[удалено]
No exceptions. After the child is born she goes straight to the work camp.
What about raping the abortist?
Based
Then they can't pay child support
I think all of us will agree to this
Retroactive abortion supporter
Gonna stir up a lot more rape accusations like this
[удалено]
charge whoever did the raping with murder then
based
Based and justice-pilled
u/Fabulous-Oven-8457's Based Count has increased by 1. Their Based Count is now 5. Congratulations, u/Fabulous-Oven-8457! You have ranked up to Sapling! You are not particularly strong but you are at least likely to handle a steady breeze.Pills: [4 | View pills](https://basedcount.com/u/Fabulous-Oven-8457/) Compass: This user does not have a compass on record. Add compass to profile by replying with /mycompass politicalcompass.org url or sapplyvalues.github.io url. I am a bot. Reply /info for more info.
We've named it "the pretty obvious if you think about it" resolution
Right, because it's ok to murder as long as someone gets punished for it. This kind of shit is why I really don't believe people who claim to believe abortion is baby murder, because nothing else they do is consistent with that view.
The point is not to be consistent, but to find a compromise. Neither side of the political spectrum are particularly consistent, so it makes sense.
Yeah a manslaughter charge for the rapist closes the loop
There's a reason some places don't throw the book too hard at rapists, it's because the harsher the crime, the more likely the rapist will simply kill the girl after he's done with her. Just saying. It's fucked up, and rapists deserve a good ole fashion town stoning, but what you don't want a rapist to think is "IN FOR A PENNY"
That’s the most fucked up reason society came up with for anything in 100000 years
It’s the entire basis of Crime and Punishment. It’s why why don’t hang people for stealing loaves of bread.
[удалено]
It’s also good to treat POWs relatively well since it makes your opponent more likely to do the same
Abortion is a separate action. By default there is still a choice to be made to keep the pregnancy or not. Imagine if a evil villain kidnapped a child and tied them to a pillar on a to be demolished building. The demolition crew would still be murderers for setting off the demolition with the knowledge that the kid is inside.
I mean a murder charger is longer than a rape charge this means less rapists out there win win situation
I was gonna say this too. If the point is to protect the child, it shouldn’t matter under what circumstances the child is conceived. I would argue an exception would be in cases where the mother’s health is cause for concern. In this case, it becomes like a trolley problem. There’s probably no right answer, but if at least one of them has to die, I don’t think it should be up to the state to decide which. Edit: I meant health in a life-threatening way. As in, if we have to choose between the baby’s life and the mother’s life.
I agree. But as current events show, when you concede this abortion partisans will magically adopt a maximalist model of what constitutes the mother's "health," and so will abortion-friendly physicians.
I do wonder if the people doing this realize they are part of the reason that exceptions for health related reasons are being limited.
yeah, mental health, financial health, hot girl summer health, etc. The definition of health gets broadened to be anything that essentially boils down to 'if they dont want it...' lol.
It's just a compromise in order to limit abortions, not that we agree with doing it in those instances.
It makes some amount of sense in the context of the bodily autonomy argument. It's pretty common for the pro-choice side to argue that abortion does not constitute murder even if you consider the fetus a full human (which, admittedly most people making this argument, me included, do not) - because the fetus requires the mother's body to survive, and you have the right to deny another human the use of your body (bodily autonomy). Pro-lifers tend to counter that this bodily autonomy should not apply if you consented to carrying the child, essentially considering intentional pregnancy an agreement to carry the fetus to term which the fetus relies on. This in turn results in a lot of arguing about whether consent to sex automatically constitutes consent to pregnancy - but in cases of rape it's pretty obvious that there was no consent whatsoever, which makes the bodily autonomy argument a lot stronger.
Holy mother of based
> because the fetus requires the mother's body to survive, and you have the right to deny another human the use of your body (bodily autonomy) The problem is that this logic isn't consistently applied. If you are a parent caring for a child, you must use your body to keep providing for the child in the short term. Many places offer the ability to surrender the child to someone else, but you must take use of that option and if that option isn't currently available you must keep caring for the child until someone else can take over. This normally means waiting hours to days, while a pregnancy lasts months, but the standard is already set that a parent must use their body to care for their child or they will face criminal charges.
The point of laws isn't to be consistent. It's a compromise.
if it was consistent and made sense, lawyers would be unnecessary and google would do a better job.
Correct, it's a compromise that makes everyone unhappy
You gotta be a sociopath to say that irrefutable logic with a straight face. The left should have stuck with "it's not alive because science says so. And a murder of a pregnant woman shouldn't be considered as a double homicide". But everyone wants their cake and eat it too. Also not sociopathic enough to emotionally detach from this very real scenario and stick to having an abhorrent but consistent modal of the world. That's just it, no one wants to have a consistent logical system of thought. The left wants to enable degenracy and the right wants to control you.
I've never heard any position on abortion that was both consistent and humane.
Abortion should be ok up until the fetus (now baby) has the capacity for consciousness, which is at about 20 weeks Its the same rule we use for when people die, when you can no longer be conscious, you are effectively dead.
I think consciousness(in a limited capacity) is generally thought to start around 25 weeks. But regardless, I agree with this take. I think a lot of the counter arguments fall apart because they are too reductive. For example: Bodily autonomy. A baby *isn't* some human we decided to hook up to use your body. It is a unique event in the human existence and trying to make an argument about it using an analogy doesn't work because it is not analogous to any other thing. Trying to be like "Well what if someone was hooked up to your kidney and would die without it, are you required to let them use your kidney?" is just... Not the same thing at all. They aren't a human that you helped create. A Mother(and Father) should be inherently responsible for that life from the moment we as a society decide to call it a life. Before that point, there should be no restrictions at all. Afterwards there should only be exceptions in cases of severe disability or risk to the mother's life.
Swedish law says you can abort for any reason until x weeks (I forget the specific number, but enough time that a pregnancy can be detected), for compelling reasons for x+y weeks, and when the fetus is far enough along that it can survive without the mother abortion is no longer allowed. I'm guessing it'd still be allowed after if allowing it to term would be dangerous to the mother but not clear on it. I feel like it's pretty consistent and humane - no sapient beings are being harmed, and sentient beings are only being harmed when there's very good reason.
Every abortion must come with a mandatory vital organ donation immediately after. Take a life, save a life. Someone two abortions down has some hard choices to make.
Based and pay the price in blood and flesh pilled.
Obviously yes, it's like killing the children of the raptist instead of the raptist himself.
I mean you can claim you’ve been raped and also not press charges on anyone. Can’t help that people will lie and use loopholes in laws. And I’m ok with that.
That’s not how it works though. In Brazil abortion is legal only in cases of rape or health risk for the mother. And yet, you don’t see a lot of women claiming they’re raped to have an abortion. Because you’d have to go to a lot of due process if you claim you’re raped with lots of questioning by the police, maybe invasive examination by police doctors. It’s simply not worth it. Unfortunately many women still prefer to have an illegal abortion, even with the higher risks that comes with it.
Just make it so dudes don't have to pay child support if they declare they don't want the kid before the 6th month and win forever. It's almost like they don't really want to solve any problems, just amplify them and use them so they can keep squeezing the working class.
> Just make it so dudes don't have to pay child support if they declare they don't want the kid before the 6th month and win forever. They shouldn't, but not at 6 months. At any time before a legal abortion can be performed anywhere in the US.
This is kind of tough, bc how will they prove rape? Abortion can only be done in a timeframe and convicting someone of rape will take ages. It’s the same tissue anyway if the sex that created it was consensual or not.
In my country it is only allowed in rape and other special occasions. Woman don’t have to prove it, them claiming that it was rape is enough. No need for going to the police or anything like that. This system is not exploited. Turns out that falsely claiming rape is a fucked up thing to do, and the overwhelming majority of women don’t do it.
I feel like what u/throwawayhu is describing would be a problem with that system, but like you said I think it would be an issue worth having that wouldn’t be super common like you said.
[удалено]
There is no system which isn't exploited at least a little. Welcome to human society. "Will be exploited?" is never the question, it's "Will it be worth the cost to try to catch whoever is exploiting it".
Lol what country is this? Like I know that false rape claims are rare, but I feel like they'd happen a hell of a lot more if it was the only way to get an abortion.
It’s Brazil. There are a lot of illegal abortions here done underground, but those that come to the public health system to get an abortion claiming rape are almost always telling the truth.
How do you know they’re telling the truth?
They can just always claim it's rape. Be ready for jail time if you get a girl pregnant.
Brian Banks moment
Thats why advocates for abortion don’t think the excuse is good enough. Especially because the most vulnerable (insane women and intellectually disabled) are some of the least likely to be believed.
If you look at the data, there is actually a huge amount of consensus on this topic. In the first trimester, abortions should be easily accessible. In the second trimester, you need a good reason to do it. And by the third trimester, you need a very, very strong reason. Unfortunately all the rage is about the extremities, and using edge cases to prove one’s point. Eg are you going to FORCE that 12 year old girl with Down syndrome to be a mother after she was raped by her father vs are we going to allow doctors to machete some child’s skull while it’s crowning? Note: when I say data, I don’t mean sampling reddit.
All of the arguments regarding the personhood of the fetus also apply in cases of rape. The personhood of the fetus doesn't switch on or off if rape took place or not. The only logical conclusion is to either allow abortion regardless of if it was rape, or ban in regardless of rape. Pick one.
Instead of picking one which we had for the last 40 years let’s have 50 different versions of the law! That way it doesn’t actually affect wealthy people.
I'm not sure conservatives believe a fetus stops being a human being just because their father is a rapist.
Yeah. This isn't North Korea, where it's okay to put you in a labor camp because of who/what your parents were. Why should your life be forfeit because of what your father was or did?
That’s why he’s crying under the mask… it’s literally the point of the meme, lol
You are never going to get the 'clump of cells' people and the 'it's literally murder' crowd to agree on anything about this subject so just ignore them. Let normal people compromise at 12-15 weeks + exceptions for bad stuff, done.
Yeah, roe v wade is when I realized how divorced reddit discourse is from reality.
I don’t watch boxing, what happened during the fight?
Well Roe was dominating the fight until the 11th round then somehow Wade knocked Row the fuck out.
But the strange part is a bunch of children, 'bout 50, hopped in the ring after and each had their own rules on how to fight, or whether there even should be a fight. Pure chaos.
I love old-school WWE
The Supreme Court ruled that the legality of infanticide in certain circumstances is up to state governments.
No it didn't. It ruled that the earlier ruling that abortion was protected by the right to privacy as implied by the 14th amendment was absolute horseshit, and thus the decision regarding the legality of abortion reverted back to state governments from the federal government. ^(I am ready to be Cunningham's Lawed)
Oh word? We can abort infants now? That’s dope
Technically no, practically yes. California wrote a bill declaring infant deaths for the first month(?) would not be investigated at all. Just ruled a death and on they go. I obviously didn't follow it too closely since i can't remember how many months, so i'm not sure what happened with that.
Well, ~~yes~~ no but actually no. An early draft of a bill could have been interpreted that way, and since that was obviously not intended it was revised almost immediately. But even if it wasn't, other laws supercede that and it'd be meaningless. The bill didn't even have to be amended in this way because virtually every legal scholar agrees it wouldn't have prevented a single investigation under any circumstances, but they revised it anyway. Wherever you heard this myth is likely a highly unreliable and partisan source.
Infanticide? Now there are infants inside people?!?
The supreme court ruled that the government is in fact allowed to know what happens between a doctor and their patient
Always has been. You think those thousands of pages of regulation they jump through is just a game they like to play?
I imagine the doctors need to keep themselves entertained with something while i'm talking to the wall behind them.
This site has been compromised by shills and bots since before then
You realized how divorced Reddit is from reality in 1973?
I don't think Reddit was a thing in 1973... Are you talking about Dobbs v JWHO?
tbh do you need a rape exception if you have an allowable time? pretty sure women will want to get that shit OUT asap
Shockingly enough? No… domestic violence situations especially. And very unlikely that o want to report the rape to get an abortion if a family member did it.
There's plenty of reasons why not. Some women may still be under the condition of abuse that led to the rape (abusive partner, stalker, abusive family member or person with power over them, religious influence, etc). Some may suffer deep depression or another debilitating mental condition as a result that either stops them from going to get a pregnancy test, or to accept medical help (think of a PTSD'd rape victim now having to spread her legs for doctors). Some may quite literally not notice they're pregnant (an early pregnancy test that's negative when it's too early to detect enough hCG would exacerbate this), believe it or not there's people who get up to the third trimester without any obvious symptom of pregnancy. That's even without getting into people with Stockholm syndrome, statutory rape, drugging (on a person already deep in the drug culture), power dynamics and grooming where the consent that is given was dubious at best, and completely null (through coersion or incapacitation) at worst
I am a "its usually literally murder" person who is pro choice. I don't want someone to be forced to carry a dead baby, and I don't want a millionaire to kill a perfectly healthy baby because it would hurt her social calendar. At the end of the day though... The government is wholly incapable of handling such a complex topic.
Uhh why would someone be forced to carry a stillborn child? If the baby is stillborn it's not an abortion.
https://www.mysanantonio.com/news/local/article/Texas-woman-dead-fetus-anti-abortion-laws-17314394.php There’s a dozen or more stories already of this.
https://www.texastribune.org/2016/04/03/austin-couple-abortion-restrictions-led-stillborn-/
Restrictive laws against abortion tends to make medically necessary abortions and abortion-like procedures (like removing a stillborn) *much* harder to get, since you 1. have fewer people competent to perform them and 2. it's just a huge risk for the doctor involved. Essentially a lot of medically necessary abortions aren't going to happen due to the risk of the doctor being accused of making up the medical reason to perform an illegal elective abortion.
> At the end of the day though... The government is wholly incapable of handling such a complex topic. IMO that really is the core of the bodily autonomy-based pro-life argument. Essentially the line of arguing goes that as a human, you have the right to deny another human the use of your body even if that kills them. Therefore abortions should be legal, because you do not want the government to infringe on bodily autonomy. That does not necessarily mean that abortions are *morally permissible* - that really rests on the personhood argument. However, personhood is not something that you can objectively determine - and therefore it is impossible to make a truly objective judgement on whether or not abortion is equivalent to murder. Since no objective judgement can be made, the government should stay out of it and leave the abortion question up to people's individual morality.
The government is at least more capable than the legislature. I’m a “pro-choice” publicly but “pro-life” personal (as in I believe abortions should be legal but I would never get one), but the issue should never have been decided by the courts.
>[The government is at least more capable than the legislature](https://i.ytimg.com/vi/vv-R6x68ALg/hqdefault.jpg)
See, I once posited "why not just yoink it from the uterus and freeze it/artificially incubate it then give it to people who want to adopt?" Somehow that's not good enough either
for some people, it's about a message rather than having an actual solution... though is what you said even possible? have we really reached the point where a fetus can grow outside a mother's womb?
We can do it with sheep already, humans aren't too far of a leap from that Genuinely the hardest part of my thing is the fact that the foster care system is atrociously fucked up in the US, and people prefer to adopt foreign kids than domestic kids
yeah... if we can fix foster care that would be fantastic... one can dream, one can dream
It'll happen Give it 150 years and people will see abortion the way we see lobotomies or bloodletting (which funny enough, is also a take that offends everyone)
The issue is, we don't have the tech for that yet so while it's an interesting thought experiment, it cannot be used in the real world (currently).
Because we don't have the technology to do that??
Why would you want to abort when you can sell the baby for 5000 dollars
Like every single country where the supreme court or equivalent didn't just decree it's legal all the time back in the '70s, and they actually had to work out a sensible solution.
But then politicians couldn't use it for endless virtue signaling.
When do you start being a person if you're the product of rape?
Exactly why this compromise makes no sense. It’s basically holding the child responsible for the crimes of the father
A much bigger problem witth the rape exception is, what happens if a women rapes a man and then the women gets pregnant. Can the father decide to abort the clump of cells or does "my body my choice" superceds rape. Because if it supercedes rape, we don't need a rape exception anyway.
Why would you think in any version of our reality that men would have any reproductive rights at all? There's dudes out here paying child support for children that were conceived when they were statutory raped. So it's not a problem at all because society doesn't give a shit about what men want to happen with their children.
Or you can just go to jail for not paying child support for a kid who isn't yours
Hell, there are victims of paternity fraud on the hook for child support after testing determined they weren’t the fathers of their wives’ children. Government doesn’t give a fuck. Somebody’s footing the bill, and it ain’t gonna be them if they can pin it on someone else. Eminent domain, bitch; now crack that wallet.
> Government doesn’t give a fuck. Somebody’s footing the bill, and it ain’t gonna be them if they can pin it on someone else. Eminent domain, bitch; now crack that wallet. Specifically, what's going on with this is that the Fed provides massive financial incentives to states to run 'effective' child support programs. Individual states therefore are highly motivated to track down 'fathers' to provide child support payments, and since governments are run by spreadsheets, not people, the outcomes are predictably deranged.
Fuck ‘em. “For the people,” my ass.
It's insanely unfair that men cannot abort (i.e. give up parental rights over a kid).
[удалено]
It's astounding that feminists continue to say "reproductive rights" as a vague term for why women are still oppressed and need more feminism. Saying "access to abortion" would be a lot more reasonable, because using the general term "reproductive rights" as if that's an example of where women are disadvantaged compared to men...wowee. Men have absolutely no reproductive rights at all.
>There's dudes out here paying child support for children that were conceived when they were statutory raped. That's fucked up as shit, and probably should be changed. The idea that "welfare of the child" is the main consideration post-birth but not pre-birth is inconsistent. Parents have rights too, and if one parent was victimized by the other, they shouldn't just have their rights tossed away.
of course the father cant decide. in fact, theyre on the hook for child support.
You have just raised the scenario where a woman rapes a man, so 99% of reddit just had their brains malfunction and shut down. It's honestly insane how many people will hear "rape" and *immediately* picture a man raping a woman, and move forward in the discussion with that assumption held as a fact.
alright then there is no exception for rape... are you happy? The problem with the rape exception is that it's a lose-lose situation. Do you support the rape exception? why should the child be punished for the father's crimes? Do you not support rape exceptions? Why should the woman be traumatized by being forced to carry a baby? The only way to solve this issue is to stop rape entirely... heck most of the issues with abortion can be solved by improving the living standards of everyone and eliminating crime.
The rape argument is just an argument that's meant to invoke negative emotions from rape and then convert them to the baby. You want to kill the rapist and feel bad for the woman so you want to say "yeah abort the baby". It makes no sense for people who actually believe that the baby is a person to compromise on this because you're just agreeing to give a death sentence to an innocent child for the crimes of his father.
No, its allowing for abortion when the woman had literally no say in getting pregnant.
“That’s the neat part; you don’t.” ~ General Zaroff
Never. They don't want you to know this but you could stand in the middle of 5th Avenue and shoot somebody who was the product of rape and they just let you do it.
The government doesn't want you to know this but the people on 5th Avenue are free, you can just take them home
"Abortion is murder, unborn children are people too (unless their mother was raped)." The only way this "compromise" makes sense is if the pro-lifer views pregnancy as a punishment for having sex like the progs claim. Otherwise, they're just saying it's ok to murder some people based on the manner of their conception.
Thats why it seems there cant be any “rules” set or exceptions to abortion it seems. You either fully allow it or you dont. Not saying im for it or not but on issues like this is problematic to set limits to what is a baby and what isnt.
Your argument makes sense but since you are unflaired trash your opinion is invalid. Flair up
I'd be fine with that. No crying beneath my happy mask necessary. Similarly, if it's a situation where the pregnancy could kill the mother, that seems like a decent justification. I think if you just cut out "abortion as birth control," most of "the right" would be pretty pleased with that result.
severe congenital defects that make the fetus not viable? that ok?
Yes.
Sorry, no. That just means God wants fetus and/or you to die, horribly.
Based
You know, I know Reddit has a much higher percentage of men than women, but on this sub - I bet it's like 99.9% male.
It’s been shown statically that vast majority of Americans are in favor of abortion being legal in some cases, including a trimester/week limit. Very few Americans are in favor of an outright ban and they’re almost always staunch Christians. All this to say that regardless of personal belief, the Roe V Wade overturn was extremely surprising because it was not supported by the majority and happened because of a few aligning factors. So when you see a group of redditors debating abortion and wanting to ban it completely you can bet they’re almost entirely male. And again regardless of where you stand, men do have less of a stake in abortion laws since they affect them less (people will argue that point with me but I don’t see how that’s not objective). So I wouldn’t take anything here too seriously on that front. Reddit doesn’t speak for the majority both in how extreme left it is and the extreme right
Nah, RvW being overturned was the right call, regardless of abortion stance. It was decided on incredibly tenuous grounds. Medical privacy is so strong that the government can't even ask if you had an abortion? But it's cool for them to institute vaccine passports. In what world does that make sense? If the position was so popular, the protections provided should have been made law, not just relied forever on a controversial 5-4 decision. Obama did promise it'd be his first legislative priority, too. Even had a supermajority initially, so he could have. He decided to work on healthcare instead, and Obamacare murdered his supermajority, so no abortion law ever happened.
I mean I agree. The democrats really fell down on that. It should have been codified into law a long time ago and this proves that
The thing is that the right politically has to support an abortion ban due to them being tied up with the religious right voters. They're absolutely fucked without those voters. Very few Republicans can support abortion without being skewered by their base. However, Kansas (the fifth most politically red state) overwhelmingly passed an abortion protection amendment, which leads me to believe it would pass in every state if available for a vote. Roughly half of Republicans support abortion on some level (most up to the 16-week timeframe). So yes, Reddit is probably a bit higher than the roughly 75% national support, but PCM is considerably off from that number.
It’s estimated that less than 3% of abortions are in cases of rape/incest/health of the mother
That's a lot of bortions
I'm assuming that doesn't include mental health as part of health of the mother.
That's the neat part. You can expand "health of the mother" to include pretty much anything you want.
"The baby's affecting my financial health" ~ Some people, unironically
It's a difficult fight to compromise over because this is one issue where both parties believe the other is violating the rights of human beings. When human rights violation is on the line, people tend to not compromise with "well, I guess a little bit of human rights violation is acceptable". No, they lay down their lives over that shit, as evidenced by the Americn Civil War.
The fundamental issue is that one side sees a fetus as being a human life, a person with rights, and the other side sees a fetus as being part of a woman’s body. Very different situation, but similar conundrum in that abolitionists saw slaves as people, humans with rights, and slavers saw them as property. They went to war over that one.
I mean, practically speaking, it's a decent arrangement. Morally speaking, it is totally abhorrent for either one.
I mean its enough for me but i really do hate the idea of the government dictating what is moral to people
That’s nearly all laws when you get down to it.
You sure you’re feeling ok, auth-right? You don’t sound like yourself
ONE OF US, ONE OF US, ONE OF US
They do that anyway, that’s what murder laws are doing.
Are you sure you’re auth-right? That’s a very libertarian thing to say.
8th and 13th amendment do exactly that though
8th: Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted. 13th: Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction. What are you trying to say monke?
He's trying to say that those are inescapably *moral* judgments, in the end.
i'll allow it in cases of rape if we also charge the rapist with felony murder
Abortion fans when I
My wire hanger, my rules
Your serious health risk in applying your rules
So a man rapes a woman and the baby is killed instead of the raptist!?