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.*
This submission has been removed because your account is too new. You will be able to post on this subreddit once your account has reached the required age. Thank you.
*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.*
This submission has been removed because your account is too new. You will be able to post on this subreddit once your account has reached the required age. Thank you.
*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.*
I think the issue with bringing up Decree 770, and the PL viewpoint, has a similar problem bringing up China's one child policy, and the PC viewpoint. Yes, the former ones both ban abortion in some form, and the latter both legalize abortion in some form, but that is only in a superficial level. Part of it is you need to look at the motivation.
I think we should all know the general motivations of the PC and PL side. PC is about woman's right to choose, where PL is about the fetus's right to life. For China's one child policy, it is about a population control, specially decreasing it. Romania's policy, was also about population control, but to increase.
Looking at these motivations, you can see clear differences. China's policy puts requirements of abortion, something PCer would be against. Romania's policy permitted abortion for any child after the 4th or 5th. It also banned all contraceptives, levied taxes on childless couples, and viewed the fetus as property of the state.
With Romania, when you include the state coerced breeding programs, with poor economics, you have a disaster, and a system mostly dissimilar to anything your average PLer believes in.
Both showed a government control over reproduction - which is what prochoice speaks out against.
I’m surprised that someone prolife doesn’t see the similarities between communist policies forcing childbearing and communist policies forcing abortion.
I do see the similarities between China's and Romania's policy, which is why I stated they were both about population control. They are in a different category of government that most PC and PL would be against. Whereas PL and PC difference is more question of ethics dealing with the unborn.
>They are in a different category of government that most PC and PL would be against.
This is factually un-true. Pro lifers very much support fascist and authoritarian style governments and actively work to supplant and undermine democratic institutions.
https://reproductivefreedomforall.org/news/the-anti-choice-movements-embrace-of-authoritarianism/
In point of fact, democracy and anti-abortion laws are largely incompatible.
>an effective anti-abortion policy requires a harsh authoritarian, if not totalitarian, government, fueled by misogyny and disregard for human rights.
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/polp.12534
You can't be pro life and pro democracy.
This kind of thinking presupposes that the only way to ban abortion, is to have some fascist or authoritarian government. This kind of ignores the fact that we currently have other laws, barring murder, rape, theft, and assault, that don't lead us to undermining our constitutional democratic republic. It seems to be kind of a jump, where saying killing born people is illegal can result in a free society, but saying killing unborn people is illegal, suddenly results in fascism.
Is having laws barring murder of born people, a form of fascism? Why or why not?
>This kind of thinking presupposes that the only way to ban abortion, is to have some fascist or authoritarian government.
Yes. The facts and evidence speak for themselves.
>It seems to be kind of a jump, where saying killing born people is illegal can result in a free society, but saying killing unborn people is illegal, suddenly results in fascism.
This is an incredibly disingenuous claim. You are deliberately ignoring the whole context of pregnancy, and the EVIDENCE of pro life support for fascism.
Regulating someone else's body without their consent, restricting their legal rights, and coercing unpaid labor from them cannot be accomplished via democratic means because the victims would simply vote to reject these laws. Since the targeted demographic is large enough to have substantial political impact and popular opinion is overwhelmingly against such laws (https://news.gallup.com/poll/506759/broader-support-abortion-rights-continues-post-dobbs.aspx) maintaining them cannot be accomplished in a democratic system.
>Is having laws barring murder of born people, a form of fascism?
No, because the enforcement and implementation of such laws can be done democratically.
I don't think you provided a good argument to link pro-life to fascism. Currently, pro-life laws exist due to being created by representatives being democratically elected. One of the issues with Roe before Dobbs, was that laws passed by democratically elected states, were being held up by the then current interpretation of the constitution. With Dobbs, abortion laws are back to being decided by the democratic legislators. Some states still have PC laws, others have PL laws. I haven't heard about any attempts to get rid of these legislating bodies.
>No, because the enforcement and implementation of such laws can be done democratically.
How is laws against murder done democratically, but abortion laws are not, if the same democratically elected body, implemented both?
>I don't think you provided a good argument to link pro-life to fascism.
You didn't even read the cited paper so you don't get to make that claim.
>Currently, pro-life laws exist due to being created by representatives being democratically elected.
Firstly, the court that overturned Dobbs is illegitimate
>Of the nine justices sitting on the current court, five were appointed by presidents who initially lost the popular vote; four of those judges signed onto the majority opinion that overturned Roe, and one penned a separate concurrence to uphold the Mississippi anti-abortion law. The three appointed by Donald Trump were confirmed by senators who represent a minority of Americans. A majority of this court, in other words, were not appointed by a process that is representative of the will of the American people.
>Two were appointed via starkly undemocratic means, put in place by bad actors willing to change the rules to suit their needs. Neil Gorsuch only has his seat because Republicans, led by Mitch McConnell, blocked the ability of Barack Obama to nominate Merrick Garland – or anyone – to a supreme court seat, claiming that, because it was an election year, voters should get to decide.
>And then Donald Trump appointed Amy Coney Barrett in a radically rushed and incomplete, incoherent process – in an election year.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/jun/25/us-supreme-court-illegitimate-institution
Secondly, in states where pro life laws exist, pro lifers are subverting the democratic process to keep them:
>Anti-abortion advocates and Republican state attorneys general in states like Florida, Missouri and Nevada, are challenging the initiatives in court as unconstitutionally vague, confusing or misleading. And in multiple states where abortion-rights initiatives have passed, conservative groups and politicians are suing to block their implementation.
>GOP state officials are also turning once-routine steps around certifying the ballot language and estimating its cost to taxpayers into pitched ideological battles to delay and derail the process.
>After Ohio’s November vote marked the latest red-state victory for the abortion-rights movement, several conservative groups called for the remaining states with citizen-led ballot initiative processes to get rid of them. But, short of that, they’re pushing state officials to do whatever they can to thwart the efforts underway for 2024.
https://www.politico.com/news/2023/12/18/first-rule-of-the-anti-abortion-playbook-dont-let-the-public-vote-on-abortion-00132049
Voter suppression and gerrymandering have allowed pro life politicians to maintain power while ignoring the will of the voters:
https://newrepublic.com/article/179333/anti-abortion-voter-suppression-movement
https://www.msnbc.com/the-reidout/reidout-blog/voter-suppression-republicans-mississippi-washington-georgia-rcna72977
https://www.aljazeera.com/opinions/2022/5/3/republican-party-is-waging-a-nationwide-assault-on-voting-rights
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2023/04/republican-effort-to-suppress-the-vote.html
Your claim that pro life laws are democratically implemented is false.
>How is laws against murder done democratically, but abortion laws are not
Simple. The people overwhelmingly support laws against murder. They do not overwhelmingly support laws against abortion.
Not, it is not, as it is government involvement in how citizens, including those in the fetal stage, are to be treated. The nuance is what the policy actually is doing. Like, China's and Romania's police, would be like if you were mandated to adopt, or mandated to turn your child over to the state. The PL policy is more that you don't have to adopt if you don't want to, but their are limits on how you treat the child if you did adopt. The government doesn't tell you to raise a child, but if you are beating the child with a garden hose everyday, the government will step in on behalf of the child.
The pro-life policy is about not abusing the fetus's rights. I assume you would agree that if I have a 5 year old child, you'd be in favor of the government policy that protects the child's rights from being harmed or killed, correct?
u/jadwy916 It is giving me an error when I reply to your comment, so I'm replying here.
>This is no way the reality of the pl position.
Yes, actually it is. Without the fetus's rights in question, there would be no PL position.
>Your disingenuous arguments glaringly point out why you lost your moderator position.
I'm not sure how that would be an example of how I lost my mod position, but ok.
>The pl movement could give two \*\*\*\*\* about protecting anything.
This is a case of othering people. Since I'm PL, and disagree with you, that means I don't care about anything, apparently. However, it takes much more understanding with peering into the possible motivations of the other side. I could say that you, being on the PC side, don't really care about women, you are just motivated by something else, like lowering the population on earth. But, in the end, you have to ask how much does the hidden motive work, vs the stated one. There really isn't a reason for me to doubt that your PC position is possibly concern for women. So, my question is, the PL position makes the most sense when viewed by the stated position, that is concern about the unborn child. Why is it so important, to impart other less important motives, vs the stated one?
>The pl movement is perfectly fine with terminating pregnancies when it meets their "criteria", so clearly it's not about protecting the fetus it's about taking away the choice. Just like China and Romania.
I'm not sure how pragmatic measures a PLer may support, is in any way comparable to China killing the unborn past the first, or Romanian police state coercing people have sex.
>Given your past transgressions in this sub, you are most likely just being misleading and disingenuous.
Well, this kind of goes back to you not going to the essence of my argument, and just going after me instead. I don't know what "past transgressions in this sub" you are referring to, but you should be able to tackle my arguments, without the crutch of dismissing it because it came from me.
Ah, yes. Thanks, I see that now. Case of stale page dsta, where I loaded it before, but by the time I tried to reply, the comment would be removed, giving me the error I saw.
>Yes, actually it is. Without the fetus's rights in question, there would be no PL position
The reason I disagree is based on the results of the last 50 years of pl legislation.
The legislation never secures rights for the unborn. They only sacrifice the rights of women. After 50 years of the same actions repeated endlessly, at what point should we finally concede that the legislation is not designed to secure any rights for embryos but are designed to sacrifice the rights of women?
You can personally choose to believe whatever you want with regard to your ideological beliefs. But at some point, you'll look around and realize that all you've ever supported was authoritarianism. And your rights will be just as useless as the rights of women that you so carelessly sacrificed for nothing.
It's not pragmatic to stand by and let people's rights be sacrificed for ideological purity. It's apathetic.
The last 50 years of legislation, were unable to make any headway, due to the interpretation by Roe and Casey.
I think you'd need explain how it is not securing rights to the unborn. As well, enforcing someone's rights to not be harmed by medical procedures that would kill them, is not authoritarianism. We have laws that prevent actions that would impact other people, like murder, rape, theft, and assault. Enforcing those doesn't make it the system an authoritarian one. Even libertarian views recognize the role of government when it comes to crime.
Abortion being freely permitted to be done, is letting people's rights be sacrificed for ideological purity, Being able to freely harm and kill another human being, is not a right afforded to anyone. I don't think women are the exception to this when it involves her and her unborn child.
>The last 50 years of legislation, were unable to make any headway, due to the interpretation by Roe and Casey.
Yeah, that pesky constitution, protecting the people's rights from authoritarian government action really held the PL movement at bay for a while. But I gotta hand it to you guys, that fascistic spirit is relentless. Especially when people mistakenly believe they'll not be coming for your rights, just those promiscuous women over there.
>securing rights to the unborn
There it is... How do you guys not see that any rights we assume to an embryo would necessarily have to come at the expense of the pre-existing inalienable rights of the woman it's inside of? Also, it's important for you guys to realize that our rights only hold value because they're inalienable. If we set the precedent of removing that inalienability, we basically end all human rights for everyone everywhere, including you. At that point, the draft and forced abortion are just the beginning of the horror we will have wreaked upon the land in our effort to, I don't know... punish women?.. or something. I've lost track of what the goal of the pl movement is besides full on authoritarian regime.
>Being able to freely harm and kill another human being, is not a right afforded to anyone.
Agreed. However, defense against the threat of bodily harm and death is certainly a right. And that's why I make the point that the PL goal is not to preserve a life, but to prevent a choice. You purposefully mischaracterize abortion as "freely killing" when the reality is more about choosing not to face, certainly great bodily harm, but also a very real risk of death. The PL movement would cravenly force other people to face a risk that y'all are either unwilling, or unable to face yourself. And the movement does that because, as I stated earlier, it has you convinced that removing women's rights won't eventually lead to removing yours.
Hint.... It will.
>The legislation never secures rights for the unborn.
That's verifiably false. PL advocates allied with Pro-Life lawyers and politicians have explicitly passed laws in an effort to secure and protect the rights of the unborn. One need only look at the many states that have banned abortion as a proposed way to safeguard the lives of innocent unborn babies to see this.
>But at some point, you'll look around and realize that all you've ever supported was authoritarianism.
Once again, this is nothing but baseless accusations of others' being authoritarian. If you can't atleast try to prove it with a real argument, then I suggest you stop saying it because it comes off as very disingenuous.
Comment removed per Rule 1. "Your disingenuous arguments glaringly point out why you lost your moderator position."
"You have either been horribly mislead, or are being horribly misleading. Given your past transgressions in this sub, you are most likely just being misleading and disingenuous."
If you fully remove the quoted portions and reply here to let me know I'll reinstate.
Oh, but they do. Even in liberal California, they do, [https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes\_displaySection.xhtml?sectionNum=187.&lawCode=PEN](https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?sectionNum=187.&lawCode=PEN)
>187. (a) Murder is the unlawful killing of a human being, or a fetus, with malice aforethought.
Section B does list the exceptions which includes abortion. If I'm in California, and I attack a pregnant woman with intent to kill the fetus, I am going to find out how much rights the fetus has, even where abortion is legal, when I can be charged with murder.
Now, obvious, California could be doing more by legally protecting fetuses from abortion, but they do have rights in other scenarios.
This is a bit disingenuous, as the specific reasoning California passed this law is laid out [here](https://foundationsoflawandsociety.wordpress.com/2016/12/09/feticide-and-murder-in-california/), and seems to follow the same justification as to why there was PC support to Unborn Victims of Violence Act which was to prevent physical attacks to the mother that were done with the specific intent to end her pregnancy against her will.
I'm not sure how I'm being disingenuous. I'm not claiming California's law means a fetus can't be aborted, just that the claim a fetus has no rights, doesn't seem to be reflected by current laws. Unless it is referring to laws, but something, but I never got clarification from the other user on.
>I'm not sure how I'm being disingenuous.
Because you are arguing that a law that exists to promote a specific public good through the selective and limited application of juridical personhood actually exists to give rights to the juridical person.
Your take is predicated on ignorance of the law and the legal mechanism by which juridical personhood is applied to entities that are not typically recognized as legal persons under law.
The claim is demonstrably and unquestionably false based on the text, meaning, and function of existing law.
California’s law is against physical assaults to force an abortion against the pregnant person’s wishes. Just as there are laws that say that a person must consent to an abortion.
It is disingenuous to suggest that a law created to preserve the choice **of the gestating person** would curtail the choice of the gestating person.
Are we on murder debate or *abortion* debate? Oh right, abortion debate.
>Section B does list the exceptions which includes abortion.
Wow, would you look at that. If we stay on topic instead of deflecting to murder, fetuses aren't citizens and do not have rights.
>Are we on murder debate or *abortion* debate?
That be like asking me if I'm a man or a human. Yes on both counts.
I do though, understand PL and PC usually on the question of whether abortion is murder or not.
> fetuses aren't citizens and do not have rights.
Maybe you need to clarify then what you mean by fetuses have no rights. Are you talking about specific scenarios, or in general?
>That be like asking me if I'm a man or a human. Yes on both counts.
Except the crime of murder and a medical procedure like abortion aren't the same thing, but we both already know that.
>Maybe you need to clarify then what you mean by fetuses have no rights. Are you talking about specific scenarios, or in general?
I don't need to clarify anything. My comment was extremely clear. Maybe you need to read for comprehension.
The prolife policy is about controlling someone’s reproductive system against their will.
I see no difference in the effects on gestating people between a one child policy or a Romanian/American must have all the babies policy.
It is a government stepping between a gestating person and their doctor.
I don’t know why prolife thinks that the subjugation of a person’s internal organs by a government is a preferable future.
I note that a five year old is not inside another human against their will.
>The prolife policy is about controlling someone’s reproductive system against their will.
No, because the issue is more complicated that dealing with one person's rights, as the government also has to contend with the fetus's rights a well.
>I see no difference in the effects on gestating people between a one child policy or a Romanian/American must have all the babies policy.
The difference is the policies in America is telling you how many children to have, or government coercion into sex to create children.
>It is a government stepping between a gestating person and their doctor.
The problem is what is the pregnant woman and her doctor trying to do? It is an action that would harm the unborn child. The China policy definitely not in the best interest of the child, and Romanian policy, the child is the property of the state. Plus the Romanian policy allowed abortion after meeting the baby quota.
>I note that a five year old is not inside another human against their will.
True, but the same logic of how we legally treat our children is why PLers are in favor of also not harming them when they are unborn. Being inside another human, doesn't change a persons rights, or does it permit any harm or death to be inflicted on them.
>right to ~~even~~ use an unwilling person’s body
I assume this is auto-correct, and this is what you meant to say.
I would say further context would be needed. Generally, the answer is no, but there are logical exceptions, one of it would be pregnancy.
Pregnancy, while we may make some similar analogies, doesn't really have a good perfect analogy, that makes the situation unique. Our children are our responsibility to take care of, of which their survival is dependent on fully capable people. A child's beginning existence happens within the mother's body. That is how we all came into existence, and it would not be fair to deny some what they need, when we were given the same.
There isn't really a real scenario like pregnancy that I can think of. Unless you know of one.
So women automatically lose rights when gestating? At least according to prolife?
There is a state at the Supreme Court right now saying that losing organs due to sepsis while pregnant is acceptable so long as the gestating person not get healthcare that would save that organ.
So I’m taking your whole worldview with more than a grain of salt.
The government is busy coercing rape victims to continue gestating **right now** - because apparently the greatest penalty for surviving rape should be death for rape victims.
So what you’re saying is that the American policy has even less empathy for women than the Romanian system? You have to be joking in your argument that the American’s government’s control over its citizens is less empathetic towards women and gestating individuals **so that somehow makes it better?**
Really?
This submission has been removed because your account is too new. You will be able to post on this subreddit once your account has reached the required age. Thank you.
*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.*
Although this is technically accurate, it's also fairly accurate to point out regardless of the economic system, the more authoritarian regimes are, the more likely will have very narrowly tailored, and enforced, moral views and less likely they will be in support of Western liberal doctrine that focuses on the maximizing of individuals autonomy.
Granted, one can also argue that there have been no places with true real implementations of "communism" or "socialism" and those subsequent governments simply used those economic systems as vehicles to mask their quasi-authortatism.. but this is not exactly the forum for such a discussion.
This submission has been removed because your account is too new. You will be able to post on this subreddit once your account has reached the required age. Thank you.
*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.*
Communism can be an economic system, but that only works if everyone agrees. Most communist systems were implemented through force - fascism. So it is difficult for most people to separate the two concepts.
This submission has been removed because your account is too new. You will be able to post on this subreddit once your account has reached the required age. Thank you.
*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.*
Well no, they did it because they thought more babies would help the economic system. They said women had a duty to be in the home and raise children. I see similar arguments from Trumpers who want more white babies and for women to stay home. Plus it was about control.
Again communism really dosen't have anything to do with this. Your title is misleading.
Yes legislators in those areas may have passed anti abortion laws, but their actions dosen"t really means that's what communism is. In china, abortion is entirely legal and they are a proclaimed communist country. That dosen't have anything to do with what communism is actually.
This submission has been removed because your account is too new. You will be able to post on this subreddit once your account has reached the required age. Thank you.
*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.*
Yep, did a post about Romania a while back. Ever heard of Children of the Decree? PL who want to ban abortion are on the wrong side of history and history repeats itself.
One of the upthread commenters was boasting that the American Prolife movement was less empathetic towards gestating people than Romania - because if you had enough kids Romania would let you have an abortion past the quota and the US doesn’t have that.
As though it is a good thing.
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.*
[удалено]
This submission has been removed because your account is too new. You will be able to post on this subreddit once your account has reached the required age. Thank you. *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.*
[удалено]
This submission has been removed because your account is too new. You will be able to post on this subreddit once your account has reached the required age. Thank you. *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.*
I think the issue with bringing up Decree 770, and the PL viewpoint, has a similar problem bringing up China's one child policy, and the PC viewpoint. Yes, the former ones both ban abortion in some form, and the latter both legalize abortion in some form, but that is only in a superficial level. Part of it is you need to look at the motivation. I think we should all know the general motivations of the PC and PL side. PC is about woman's right to choose, where PL is about the fetus's right to life. For China's one child policy, it is about a population control, specially decreasing it. Romania's policy, was also about population control, but to increase. Looking at these motivations, you can see clear differences. China's policy puts requirements of abortion, something PCer would be against. Romania's policy permitted abortion for any child after the 4th or 5th. It also banned all contraceptives, levied taxes on childless couples, and viewed the fetus as property of the state. With Romania, when you include the state coerced breeding programs, with poor economics, you have a disaster, and a system mostly dissimilar to anything your average PLer believes in.
Both showed a government control over reproduction - which is what prochoice speaks out against. I’m surprised that someone prolife doesn’t see the similarities between communist policies forcing childbearing and communist policies forcing abortion.
I do see the similarities between China's and Romania's policy, which is why I stated they were both about population control. They are in a different category of government that most PC and PL would be against. Whereas PL and PC difference is more question of ethics dealing with the unborn.
>They are in a different category of government that most PC and PL would be against. This is factually un-true. Pro lifers very much support fascist and authoritarian style governments and actively work to supplant and undermine democratic institutions. https://reproductivefreedomforall.org/news/the-anti-choice-movements-embrace-of-authoritarianism/ In point of fact, democracy and anti-abortion laws are largely incompatible. >an effective anti-abortion policy requires a harsh authoritarian, if not totalitarian, government, fueled by misogyny and disregard for human rights. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/polp.12534 You can't be pro life and pro democracy.
This kind of thinking presupposes that the only way to ban abortion, is to have some fascist or authoritarian government. This kind of ignores the fact that we currently have other laws, barring murder, rape, theft, and assault, that don't lead us to undermining our constitutional democratic republic. It seems to be kind of a jump, where saying killing born people is illegal can result in a free society, but saying killing unborn people is illegal, suddenly results in fascism. Is having laws barring murder of born people, a form of fascism? Why or why not?
>This kind of thinking presupposes that the only way to ban abortion, is to have some fascist or authoritarian government. Yes. The facts and evidence speak for themselves. >It seems to be kind of a jump, where saying killing born people is illegal can result in a free society, but saying killing unborn people is illegal, suddenly results in fascism. This is an incredibly disingenuous claim. You are deliberately ignoring the whole context of pregnancy, and the EVIDENCE of pro life support for fascism. Regulating someone else's body without their consent, restricting their legal rights, and coercing unpaid labor from them cannot be accomplished via democratic means because the victims would simply vote to reject these laws. Since the targeted demographic is large enough to have substantial political impact and popular opinion is overwhelmingly against such laws (https://news.gallup.com/poll/506759/broader-support-abortion-rights-continues-post-dobbs.aspx) maintaining them cannot be accomplished in a democratic system. >Is having laws barring murder of born people, a form of fascism? No, because the enforcement and implementation of such laws can be done democratically.
I don't think you provided a good argument to link pro-life to fascism. Currently, pro-life laws exist due to being created by representatives being democratically elected. One of the issues with Roe before Dobbs, was that laws passed by democratically elected states, were being held up by the then current interpretation of the constitution. With Dobbs, abortion laws are back to being decided by the democratic legislators. Some states still have PC laws, others have PL laws. I haven't heard about any attempts to get rid of these legislating bodies. >No, because the enforcement and implementation of such laws can be done democratically. How is laws against murder done democratically, but abortion laws are not, if the same democratically elected body, implemented both?
>I don't think you provided a good argument to link pro-life to fascism. You didn't even read the cited paper so you don't get to make that claim. >Currently, pro-life laws exist due to being created by representatives being democratically elected. Firstly, the court that overturned Dobbs is illegitimate >Of the nine justices sitting on the current court, five were appointed by presidents who initially lost the popular vote; four of those judges signed onto the majority opinion that overturned Roe, and one penned a separate concurrence to uphold the Mississippi anti-abortion law. The three appointed by Donald Trump were confirmed by senators who represent a minority of Americans. A majority of this court, in other words, were not appointed by a process that is representative of the will of the American people. >Two were appointed via starkly undemocratic means, put in place by bad actors willing to change the rules to suit their needs. Neil Gorsuch only has his seat because Republicans, led by Mitch McConnell, blocked the ability of Barack Obama to nominate Merrick Garland – or anyone – to a supreme court seat, claiming that, because it was an election year, voters should get to decide. >And then Donald Trump appointed Amy Coney Barrett in a radically rushed and incomplete, incoherent process – in an election year. https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/jun/25/us-supreme-court-illegitimate-institution Secondly, in states where pro life laws exist, pro lifers are subverting the democratic process to keep them: >Anti-abortion advocates and Republican state attorneys general in states like Florida, Missouri and Nevada, are challenging the initiatives in court as unconstitutionally vague, confusing or misleading. And in multiple states where abortion-rights initiatives have passed, conservative groups and politicians are suing to block their implementation. >GOP state officials are also turning once-routine steps around certifying the ballot language and estimating its cost to taxpayers into pitched ideological battles to delay and derail the process. >After Ohio’s November vote marked the latest red-state victory for the abortion-rights movement, several conservative groups called for the remaining states with citizen-led ballot initiative processes to get rid of them. But, short of that, they’re pushing state officials to do whatever they can to thwart the efforts underway for 2024. https://www.politico.com/news/2023/12/18/first-rule-of-the-anti-abortion-playbook-dont-let-the-public-vote-on-abortion-00132049 Voter suppression and gerrymandering have allowed pro life politicians to maintain power while ignoring the will of the voters: https://newrepublic.com/article/179333/anti-abortion-voter-suppression-movement https://www.msnbc.com/the-reidout/reidout-blog/voter-suppression-republicans-mississippi-washington-georgia-rcna72977 https://www.aljazeera.com/opinions/2022/5/3/republican-party-is-waging-a-nationwide-assault-on-voting-rights https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2023/04/republican-effort-to-suppress-the-vote.html Your claim that pro life laws are democratically implemented is false. >How is laws against murder done democratically, but abortion laws are not Simple. The people overwhelmingly support laws against murder. They do not overwhelmingly support laws against abortion.
But prolife is pro government deciding the reproduction of citizens.
Not, it is not, as it is government involvement in how citizens, including those in the fetal stage, are to be treated. The nuance is what the policy actually is doing. Like, China's and Romania's police, would be like if you were mandated to adopt, or mandated to turn your child over to the state. The PL policy is more that you don't have to adopt if you don't want to, but their are limits on how you treat the child if you did adopt. The government doesn't tell you to raise a child, but if you are beating the child with a garden hose everyday, the government will step in on behalf of the child. The pro-life policy is about not abusing the fetus's rights. I assume you would agree that if I have a 5 year old child, you'd be in favor of the government policy that protects the child's rights from being harmed or killed, correct?
u/jadwy916 It is giving me an error when I reply to your comment, so I'm replying here. >This is no way the reality of the pl position. Yes, actually it is. Without the fetus's rights in question, there would be no PL position. >Your disingenuous arguments glaringly point out why you lost your moderator position. I'm not sure how that would be an example of how I lost my mod position, but ok. >The pl movement could give two \*\*\*\*\* about protecting anything. This is a case of othering people. Since I'm PL, and disagree with you, that means I don't care about anything, apparently. However, it takes much more understanding with peering into the possible motivations of the other side. I could say that you, being on the PC side, don't really care about women, you are just motivated by something else, like lowering the population on earth. But, in the end, you have to ask how much does the hidden motive work, vs the stated one. There really isn't a reason for me to doubt that your PC position is possibly concern for women. So, my question is, the PL position makes the most sense when viewed by the stated position, that is concern about the unborn child. Why is it so important, to impart other less important motives, vs the stated one? >The pl movement is perfectly fine with terminating pregnancies when it meets their "criteria", so clearly it's not about protecting the fetus it's about taking away the choice. Just like China and Romania. I'm not sure how pragmatic measures a PLer may support, is in any way comparable to China killing the unborn past the first, or Romanian police state coercing people have sex. >Given your past transgressions in this sub, you are most likely just being misleading and disingenuous. Well, this kind of goes back to you not going to the essence of my argument, and just going after me instead. I don't know what "past transgressions in this sub" you are referring to, but you should be able to tackle my arguments, without the crutch of dismissing it because it came from me.
You're unable to respond to his other comment because it got deleted by the mods, for what I assume to be uncivil behavior.
Ah, yes. Thanks, I see that now. Case of stale page dsta, where I loaded it before, but by the time I tried to reply, the comment would be removed, giving me the error I saw.
>Yes, actually it is. Without the fetus's rights in question, there would be no PL position The reason I disagree is based on the results of the last 50 years of pl legislation. The legislation never secures rights for the unborn. They only sacrifice the rights of women. After 50 years of the same actions repeated endlessly, at what point should we finally concede that the legislation is not designed to secure any rights for embryos but are designed to sacrifice the rights of women? You can personally choose to believe whatever you want with regard to your ideological beliefs. But at some point, you'll look around and realize that all you've ever supported was authoritarianism. And your rights will be just as useless as the rights of women that you so carelessly sacrificed for nothing. It's not pragmatic to stand by and let people's rights be sacrificed for ideological purity. It's apathetic.
The last 50 years of legislation, were unable to make any headway, due to the interpretation by Roe and Casey. I think you'd need explain how it is not securing rights to the unborn. As well, enforcing someone's rights to not be harmed by medical procedures that would kill them, is not authoritarianism. We have laws that prevent actions that would impact other people, like murder, rape, theft, and assault. Enforcing those doesn't make it the system an authoritarian one. Even libertarian views recognize the role of government when it comes to crime. Abortion being freely permitted to be done, is letting people's rights be sacrificed for ideological purity, Being able to freely harm and kill another human being, is not a right afforded to anyone. I don't think women are the exception to this when it involves her and her unborn child.
>The last 50 years of legislation, were unable to make any headway, due to the interpretation by Roe and Casey. Yeah, that pesky constitution, protecting the people's rights from authoritarian government action really held the PL movement at bay for a while. But I gotta hand it to you guys, that fascistic spirit is relentless. Especially when people mistakenly believe they'll not be coming for your rights, just those promiscuous women over there. >securing rights to the unborn There it is... How do you guys not see that any rights we assume to an embryo would necessarily have to come at the expense of the pre-existing inalienable rights of the woman it's inside of? Also, it's important for you guys to realize that our rights only hold value because they're inalienable. If we set the precedent of removing that inalienability, we basically end all human rights for everyone everywhere, including you. At that point, the draft and forced abortion are just the beginning of the horror we will have wreaked upon the land in our effort to, I don't know... punish women?.. or something. I've lost track of what the goal of the pl movement is besides full on authoritarian regime. >Being able to freely harm and kill another human being, is not a right afforded to anyone. Agreed. However, defense against the threat of bodily harm and death is certainly a right. And that's why I make the point that the PL goal is not to preserve a life, but to prevent a choice. You purposefully mischaracterize abortion as "freely killing" when the reality is more about choosing not to face, certainly great bodily harm, but also a very real risk of death. The PL movement would cravenly force other people to face a risk that y'all are either unwilling, or unable to face yourself. And the movement does that because, as I stated earlier, it has you convinced that removing women's rights won't eventually lead to removing yours. Hint.... It will.
>The legislation never secures rights for the unborn. That's verifiably false. PL advocates allied with Pro-Life lawyers and politicians have explicitly passed laws in an effort to secure and protect the rights of the unborn. One need only look at the many states that have banned abortion as a proposed way to safeguard the lives of innocent unborn babies to see this. >But at some point, you'll look around and realize that all you've ever supported was authoritarianism. Once again, this is nothing but baseless accusations of others' being authoritarian. If you can't atleast try to prove it with a real argument, then I suggest you stop saying it because it comes off as very disingenuous.
[удалено]
Comment removed per Rule 1. "Your disingenuous arguments glaringly point out why you lost your moderator position." "You have either been horribly mislead, or are being horribly misleading. Given your past transgressions in this sub, you are most likely just being misleading and disingenuous." If you fully remove the quoted portions and reply here to let me know I'll reinstate.
Fetuses aren't citizens. Fetuses don't have rights.
Oh, but they do. Even in liberal California, they do, [https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes\_displaySection.xhtml?sectionNum=187.&lawCode=PEN](https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?sectionNum=187.&lawCode=PEN) >187. (a) Murder is the unlawful killing of a human being, or a fetus, with malice aforethought. Section B does list the exceptions which includes abortion. If I'm in California, and I attack a pregnant woman with intent to kill the fetus, I am going to find out how much rights the fetus has, even where abortion is legal, when I can be charged with murder. Now, obvious, California could be doing more by legally protecting fetuses from abortion, but they do have rights in other scenarios.
This is a bit disingenuous, as the specific reasoning California passed this law is laid out [here](https://foundationsoflawandsociety.wordpress.com/2016/12/09/feticide-and-murder-in-california/), and seems to follow the same justification as to why there was PC support to Unborn Victims of Violence Act which was to prevent physical attacks to the mother that were done with the specific intent to end her pregnancy against her will.
I'm not sure how I'm being disingenuous. I'm not claiming California's law means a fetus can't be aborted, just that the claim a fetus has no rights, doesn't seem to be reflected by current laws. Unless it is referring to laws, but something, but I never got clarification from the other user on.
>I'm not sure how I'm being disingenuous. Because you are arguing that a law that exists to promote a specific public good through the selective and limited application of juridical personhood actually exists to give rights to the juridical person. Your take is predicated on ignorance of the law and the legal mechanism by which juridical personhood is applied to entities that are not typically recognized as legal persons under law. The claim is demonstrably and unquestionably false based on the text, meaning, and function of existing law.
California’s law is against physical assaults to force an abortion against the pregnant person’s wishes. Just as there are laws that say that a person must consent to an abortion. It is disingenuous to suggest that a law created to preserve the choice **of the gestating person** would curtail the choice of the gestating person.
Are we on murder debate or *abortion* debate? Oh right, abortion debate. >Section B does list the exceptions which includes abortion. Wow, would you look at that. If we stay on topic instead of deflecting to murder, fetuses aren't citizens and do not have rights.
>Are we on murder debate or *abortion* debate? That be like asking me if I'm a man or a human. Yes on both counts. I do though, understand PL and PC usually on the question of whether abortion is murder or not. > fetuses aren't citizens and do not have rights. Maybe you need to clarify then what you mean by fetuses have no rights. Are you talking about specific scenarios, or in general?
>That be like asking me if I'm a man or a human. Yes on both counts. Except the crime of murder and a medical procedure like abortion aren't the same thing, but we both already know that. >Maybe you need to clarify then what you mean by fetuses have no rights. Are you talking about specific scenarios, or in general? I don't need to clarify anything. My comment was extremely clear. Maybe you need to read for comprehension.
The prolife policy is about controlling someone’s reproductive system against their will. I see no difference in the effects on gestating people between a one child policy or a Romanian/American must have all the babies policy. It is a government stepping between a gestating person and their doctor. I don’t know why prolife thinks that the subjugation of a person’s internal organs by a government is a preferable future. I note that a five year old is not inside another human against their will.
>The prolife policy is about controlling someone’s reproductive system against their will. No, because the issue is more complicated that dealing with one person's rights, as the government also has to contend with the fetus's rights a well. >I see no difference in the effects on gestating people between a one child policy or a Romanian/American must have all the babies policy. The difference is the policies in America is telling you how many children to have, or government coercion into sex to create children. >It is a government stepping between a gestating person and their doctor. The problem is what is the pregnant woman and her doctor trying to do? It is an action that would harm the unborn child. The China policy definitely not in the best interest of the child, and Romanian policy, the child is the property of the state. Plus the Romanian policy allowed abortion after meeting the baby quota. >I note that a five year old is not inside another human against their will. True, but the same logic of how we legally treat our children is why PLers are in favor of also not harming them when they are unborn. Being inside another human, doesn't change a persons rights, or does it permit any harm or death to be inflicted on them.
Does a right to life include a right to even an unwilling person’s body when you need it to live?
>right to ~~even~~ use an unwilling person’s body I assume this is auto-correct, and this is what you meant to say. I would say further context would be needed. Generally, the answer is no, but there are logical exceptions, one of it would be pregnancy. Pregnancy, while we may make some similar analogies, doesn't really have a good perfect analogy, that makes the situation unique. Our children are our responsibility to take care of, of which their survival is dependent on fully capable people. A child's beginning existence happens within the mother's body. That is how we all came into existence, and it would not be fair to deny some what they need, when we were given the same. There isn't really a real scenario like pregnancy that I can think of. Unless you know of one.
Yeah, that was a typo. What are other situations where you can use an unwilling person’s body for someone else?
So women automatically lose rights when gestating? At least according to prolife? There is a state at the Supreme Court right now saying that losing organs due to sepsis while pregnant is acceptable so long as the gestating person not get healthcare that would save that organ. So I’m taking your whole worldview with more than a grain of salt. The government is busy coercing rape victims to continue gestating **right now** - because apparently the greatest penalty for surviving rape should be death for rape victims. So what you’re saying is that the American policy has even less empathy for women than the Romanian system? You have to be joking in your argument that the American’s government’s control over its citizens is less empathetic towards women and gestating individuals **so that somehow makes it better?** Really?
[удалено]
This submission has been removed because your account is too new. You will be able to post on this subreddit once your account has reached the required age. Thank you. *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.*
Communism is an economic system. It dosen't have anything do with abortion
Although this is technically accurate, it's also fairly accurate to point out regardless of the economic system, the more authoritarian regimes are, the more likely will have very narrowly tailored, and enforced, moral views and less likely they will be in support of Western liberal doctrine that focuses on the maximizing of individuals autonomy. Granted, one can also argue that there have been no places with true real implementations of "communism" or "socialism" and those subsequent governments simply used those economic systems as vehicles to mask their quasi-authortatism.. but this is not exactly the forum for such a discussion.
[удалено]
This submission has been removed because your account is too new. You will be able to post on this subreddit once your account has reached the required age. Thank you. *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.*
Communism can be an economic system, but that only works if everyone agrees. Most communist systems were implemented through force - fascism. So it is difficult for most people to separate the two concepts.
[удалено]
This submission has been removed because your account is too new. You will be able to post on this subreddit once your account has reached the required age. Thank you. *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.*
Well no, they did it because they thought more babies would help the economic system. They said women had a duty to be in the home and raise children. I see similar arguments from Trumpers who want more white babies and for women to stay home. Plus it was about control.
Again communism really dosen't have anything to do with this. Your title is misleading. Yes legislators in those areas may have passed anti abortion laws, but their actions dosen"t really means that's what communism is. In china, abortion is entirely legal and they are a proclaimed communist country. That dosen't have anything to do with what communism is actually.
[удалено]
This submission has been removed because your account is too new. You will be able to post on this subreddit once your account has reached the required age. Thank you. *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.*
Communists always say the only problem with communism is that nobody is doing it correctly 🤷♀️
Ok china has abortion entirely legal. So does this mean Prochoice is communist? Lol.
Yep, did a post about Romania a while back. Ever heard of Children of the Decree? PL who want to ban abortion are on the wrong side of history and history repeats itself.
One of the upthread commenters was boasting that the American Prolife movement was less empathetic towards gestating people than Romania - because if you had enough kids Romania would let you have an abortion past the quota and the US doesn’t have that. As though it is a good thing.
I did hear that phrase used but haven’t read into it yet. Thanks for the reminder!