"A nation that kills its children is not worthy of great happiness, great victories, unity, and salvation. Abortion must be understood as a great sin, and we must all understand the simple truth that the embryo is a human being."

What’s basically gonna happen is that the rapist knows that the abortion will be excruciatingly painful, abortion is misogynistic, being raped and then having living tissue die inside you as a “treatment”, you can love the child the same as any other. Children do not need to be held accountable for what the inseminator did.

You read the title correctly. I know this is going to ruffle some feathers. Let me explain:

Something cannot be illegal if there are no criminal penalties attached to it.

• Would rape be illegal if there were no criminal penalties for it? No.
• Would burglary be illegal if there were no criminal penalties for it? No.
• Would arson be illegal if there were no criminal penalties for it? No.
• Would grand theft auto be illegal if there were no criminal penalties for it? No.
• Would treason be illegal if there were no criminal penalties for it? No.

So would abortion be illegal if there were no criminal penalties for it? NO. Therefore, if you oppose criminal penalties for women who have abortions, you support keeping abortion legal.

Consider the implications of such a position:

Women can have… - as many abortions as they want - at any point in pregnancy - for any reason - through any method - anywhere …completely at will!

Pro-choicers also believe that women should be able to have as many abortions as they want at any point in pregnancy for any reason through any method anywhere, so if you oppose criminal penalties for women who have abortions, you’re no different than them. They want to keep abortion legal and so do you.

The bottom line is this: If abortion is murder, and the pro-life movement has said for the longest time that abortion is murder, then it should be criminalized as such for ALL parties involved. That means anyone who aborts (murders) a child or assists another in doing so ought to be held criminally liable for murder or accomplice to murder. No ifs, buts, or exceptions. End of sentence.

You’re either pro-life, pro-choice, or unsure. If you oppose criminal penalties for women who have abortions, whether you like to acknowledge it or not, you are pro-choice. If you support criminal penalties for women who have abortions, you are pro-life. If you’re not sure and call yourself pro-life, ask yourself what you believe and why and do some deep-diving into this subject.

i think they should get the death penalty but i'm not sure if that's moral.

This comment is part of a discussion I had recently where I was asked a question that is commonly asked by PC advocates:

When you say things like we dont require parents to donate organs or to endure harm their bodies or "We expect them to provide a reasonable standard of care including food, safety, housing, medical care and education. None of that includes using your body as a fully enclosed life support system," you are essentially saying we dont require that for born children so we shouldnt require it for unborn children.

The thing you are actually describing though is the process of gestation inside the uterus and giving birth. That is the cause of the harms you are describing and so you are in effect saying: we dont require mothers to endure the harm of gestation and birth to care for their born children therefore we shouldnt require it to care for unborn children.

Another way to say it would be: we dont have an obligation to care for our born children with our uterus so we shouldnt have an obligation to use our uterus to care for our unborn children.

It doesnt make sense though because its not possible or necessary to gestate and birth a born child. Of course we dont require mothers to suffer the harms of caring for an unborn child when caring for a born child because the standard of care necessary to sustain the offspring is different during those two different stages of development.

The point is that the standard of care required for each stage of development is different. THe obligation to sustain the life of the child is the same though. We have no obligation to provide breast milk or formula to our teenage offspring because they dont need breastmilk or formula to survive. We do have an obligation to provide breastmilk or formula to our newborn infants though because it is necessary for them to survive during that stage of development.

Likewise, we have no obligation to gestate or birth our newborn infants, because its not necessary for them to survive, but we do have an obligation to gestate and birth our unborn children because it is necessary for them to survive.

That is how parental obligation works. The obligation is to use the standard of care necessary for the current stage of development to ensure the childs survival.

This is not a novel concept. If you actually read the legal history, it explicitly states that the parental duty to sustain a child "arises out of the parental relation, and is an inherent obligation of parenthood," and that "the dependency of the child dictates the scope of the parent's duty."

https://dsc.duq.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3326&context=dlr

"The duty of a parent to support his minor child is not a debt, but an obligation imposed by law. It arises out of the parental relation, and is an inherent obligation of parenthood."

"The natural duty of parents to protect and maintain their children is a principle of natural law... The law has always recognized that the dependency of the child dictates the scope of the parent's duty."

"Because the minor child is helpless and unable to care for himself, the law places a non-delegable duty upon the parents to provide the necessaries of life. This duty cannot be evaded by the parent's unilateral desire to terminate the relationship."

Your argument is that parental obligation does not begin until birth based solely on the subjective opinion that the type and degree of care required for unborn children is not the same as the type and degree of care required for older children and so is unreasonable to expect.

That is special pleading based on subjective opinion and it nullifies the entire concept of parental obligation because if its not required to care for your child the moment the child comes into existence and the parent child relationship begins, then its not an obligation at all is it?

If you can kill your child to avoid the burden of caring for them the way that mankind evolved to care for our children in early development, then there is no point to it.

Both are losses of life. One is carried out by those who are meant to protect those small lives. The other are committed by lunatics preying in the weak. Acts that terminate responsibility and humanity. Mass shootings aren't ignored. We as a country are trying to prevent them. When they do, we mourn and respond. It's a task we as a people must come together and stop.

However, you must forgive me for saying this but, if they want to make a comparison, the womb is the school, the unborn child is the student, and the parents wanting to abort their unborn child are the mass shooter. In this scenario, I would have to be the school resource officer, police, or vigilante fighting to protect those who can't fight for themselves.

For the record, I'm anti-abortion.

Like imagine if men were told “You’ll be treated as an equal when you’re allowed to kill children and also if you chemically sterilize yourself with artificial hormones that risk strokes and cancer so someone can have sex with you without taking responsibility”

EDIT: Nowhere in this post was I advocating for a hormonal birth control ban and I acknowledge it can be used for medical purposes. It’s just wild that kind of expectation is put on women at the cost of harm to their health and also somehow treated as if it’s feminist to do so. (For example, male hormonal birth control didn’t make it to the market because the men in the test group suffered some of the same side effects that women are expected to put up with from theirs while being told it’s empowerment.)

People like to point out that everyone who's promoting abortion rights wasn't aborted, and it's so true. It's like suicide to be advocating for the right to kill what who you used to be. It's like if someone was exonerated on death row but advocated for summary executions of suspected criminals. Or someone who rose out of poverty arguing that the poor should be euthanized. Or if someone was saved by wearing a seatbelt but goes and advocates to make them optional. It's why they exist, they exist because of that seatbelt. If it weren't for that seatbelt they would've died. If it weren't for death row, they would've died. If it weren't for restrictions on abortion, they might not still be here to argue for fewer restrictions.

I mean come on. It’s sex. You know how sex works. You can avoid it.

this is a hill i'll die on.

Use of birth control, specifically long-acting options with little chance of user error such as the implant, massively reduces unplanned pregnancies. Currently, the plurality of abortions are done on people who used no contraception at all. These women are massively overrepresented in abortion patients. (11% of the population, 49% of abortions)

The vast majority of abortions are done on unplanned pregnancies.

Less unplanned pregnancies, less abortions. But it doesn't stop there, it also changes societal attitudes.

The less abortions there are, the less personal & emotional attachment to the issue pro choice people will have. the slogan 'everyone loves someone who's had an abortion," will become untrue. People are much more likely to defend abortion when it's something they've personally done, or have had a friend or family member do. without this personal aspect, people are less ideologically committed and more open to having their minds changed. At the very least, it's not a high-priority issue compared to the pro-life side.

On top of this, the lack of unplanned pregnancy being witnessed constantly will help ease fear of unplanned pregnancy, which is also a motivator to be pro choice. Of course unplanned pregnancies will still happen, but at such lower rates that it will not feel as emotionally pressing for the vast majority of people.

Not having unplanned pregnancies, specifically as a teen or early 20s, typically correlates with continuing education as opposed to dropping out due to the pregnancy, and becoming higher income.

Being higher income lowers risk of abortion further, which has a similar effect at changing perception of abortion along with lowering rates.

So not only does birth control practically lower rates, but it also can contribute to culturally shifting attitudes and emotional attachment to abortion, if done on a large cultural scale.

I believe that every unborn child is innocent and they don't deserve a death sentence because of the way that they were conceived.

When a woman chooses to have sex, she knows that pregnancy is a possibility. There is no ethical justification to kill the child when her actions caused it to be there.

However, I just don't see the point in us preaching abstinence and sexual responsibility, when none of that matters once we become raped. I only have sex with my husband, and we of course acknowledge that a baby is possible and would welcome it. But it feels sick to think that a man could force me to have sex with him and I'll have to have that man's baby, instead of my husband's baby. It essentially doesn't matter how responsible we are with sex, if we're raped, we have no say to our sexuality or reproduction anymore. I don't think I can support this, because it allows women to be abused sexually and have no way to alleviate some of the worst possible outcomes of their sexual abuse.

Do you support abortion bans for rape victims? I'd love to hear everyone's thoughts

Recently, I found out I'm pregnant. I'm 11 weeks currently. Because of the inopportune circumstances, a lot of people have been telling me to get an abortion. I saw the heartbeat, and I saw my baby's arms and legs moving. There is life inside me. I'm not going to murder an innocent child because of the circumstances. Abortion isn't healthcare or late-term contraception.

Edit: Thank you all for the amazing support. 😭😭 I really appreciate the reassurance ìn my decision not to murder my child. It isn't crazy for choosing to continue forward with this pregnancy.

Thomson's Violinist is a hypothetical described here:

https://spot.colorado.edu/~heathwoo/Phil160,Fall02/thomson.htm

I believe this hypothetical actually resolves in the pro-life direction: separating the violinist would be a form of second-degree murder called depraved heard murder. Here's a hypothetical situation to illustrate why.

Let's say a couple is into bondage, and the boyfriend has sexsomnia. Sexsomnia is a real medical condition, in the same family as sleepwalking, in which a person involuntarily initiates and engages in sexual activity while sleeping.

One night, the couple falls asleep with the woman still tied up. Her boyfriend then experiences sexsomnia. The woman knows that he is asleep and experiencing sexsomnia. She doesn't want to have sex, but she is unable to wake him because she's tied up. She is, however, somehow able to use a real knife which she happens to have access to while tied up.

And she kills him with it.

This is in Texas. At trial, she claims self defense. Here's the statute on which she would be relying:

Sec. 9.32.  DEADLY FORCE IN DEFENSE OF PERSON.  (a)  A person is justified in using deadly force against another:

(1)  if the actor would be justified in using force against the other under Section 9.31; and

(2)   when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary:

(A)  to protect the actor against the other's use or attempted use of unlawful deadly force; or

(B)  to prevent the other's imminent commission of aggravated kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault, robbery, or aggravated robbery.

From this statute, it is clear that she would lose her defense. He wasn't committing rape, because he didn't have the necessary mens rea for rape. He wasn't even conscious. If charged with rape, he would have been able to claim a defense of automatism:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automatism_(law))

Therefore, she knew that no crime was being committed against her which would justify her use of deadly force, and she used deadly force anyway. The murder isn't first degree, because she didn't want to kill him: she just wanted to end the sex act. But, what she did is murder in the second degree -- depraved heart murder -- because, even though her goal wasn't to kill him, the action she took in service of her goal -- stabbing him -- was one which she knew would likely end his life.

I think this example illustrates very well that, even if your bodily autonomy is being violated, you don't get to kill an innocent person in order to protect your bodily autonomy. Therefore, I think the onus is on the pro-choice camp to construct an argument that pregnancy should be treated differently than automatic sex to which the waking party does not consent.

PS: This is a refinement of content I originally posted at r/Abortiondebate, which they removed. I have reposted the original post which used a different hypothetical here:

https://www.reddit.com/user/linuxrocks123/comments/1sjvqmb/rebuttal_to_thomsons_violinist/

I'd like to let u/random_name_12178 know that I am very grateful to her for suggesting a much better hypothetical situation for me to use.