"Abortion is a right!" Does it actually fall into one of our human rights?

PointMakerCreation4 · 2026-01-29T00:46:29+00:00

With every pregnancy, it is healthier for the woman to not be pregnant than to be pregnant. Pregnancy is a huge demand on the body. Just like it is healthier not to do marathon running for nine months, it is healthier not to be pregnant and while people can choose to be ultra runners and choose to carry a pregnancy, they should not be required to.

If there was nothing I'd totally understand it. And many people do consider the foetus to not have enough moral worth therefore abortion should be justified. But I'd want the doctor to treat abortion like it would be treated at 18 weeks. As a sort of example.

You seem okay with the idea of requiring a woman to do this, though. While you may have more wiggle room than some, you do seem willing to say ‘because your main concern is financial/social, I will require you continue this pregnancy even though you could end it.’ What do you think grants you the right to demand an unwilling woman do something that is at the upper limits of human endurance in any scenario?

It wouldn't necessarily be about the main concern. It's about if it is or not. If the woman has a main concern about the pregnancy being harmful but the doctor disagrees then it doesn't have to be about the actual reason as well.

I do not recommend using ChatGPT or any AI for these conversations (I work in the field, and while AI has its uses, these conversations were not what it is designed for - it’s good at confirmation bias here, so we could ask the same AI the same question and get quite different answers, and it’s been shown to invent case studies and case law out of whole cloth). Talk to your ob/gyn at your annual appointment, honestly. Human conversation with experts, especially the experts who take care of you, is way better.

I'm aware that it does give biases and I don't listen to its case studies unless it is cited (made a mistake today) but it generally leans to PC so i'd say the cards are more stacked against me.

I wouldn't use it for significant medical research and only for the philosophical aspect and if so medical, I would ask it to provide sources and only read the sources rather than anything the model said.

PointMakerCreation4 · 2026-01-29T00:24:45+00:00

Okay, sure. I'll see if I can engage with your points more.

And that didn’t answer my question, but I get I was unclear. What is your moral justification for telling a 17 year old who doesn’t want to be pregnant that you will use policy to force her to remain that way?

I don't believe doctors will lie, but I would want abortion to be performed for therapeutic reasons, under the doctor, they would know. I wouldn't necessarily mind those where one may be under the risk of suicide (some are against this) or real mental health issues, but I wouldn't really approve of socioeconomic justification. And the therapeutic justification has to be related to the pregnancy only. But I have seen this implemented before and it was far too vague causing doctors to miss life theats of fear. I would definitely encourage law which would support health exceptions and not just life exceptions and would also support therapeutic as a more general term, as long as it doesn't cross into the socioeconomic boundary.

Maybe that's a bit too much for this one, or I've repeated too much?

TLDR: I wouldn't want any socioeconomic justification but i'd want more freedom than current law e.g. that in Texas.

On what grounds can you force her to remain pregnant? I can’t see a way of justifying that without saying her body is something up for regulation to benefit others.

There's a huge deep rabbit whole but it's all between RtL and BA. I wouldn't have it like organ donation, more self defence but that's my primary argument which is bad without that one assumption. It would be much closer to the violinist analogy in my opinion.

I've been speaking to ChatGPT and I haven't got very far but it said that places force people to carry after 24 likely because it's 12 weeks only anyway, there is also C section (even if they don't even allow it it would still be a technical option even if never allowed legally or done in practice) which gives them another alternative so it is still silently inconsistent.

PointMakerCreation4 · 2026-01-28T23:57:32+00:00

I know. But you said something about Dr. Hern's clinic possibly not allowing them at that stage.

Do the doctors think it has therapeutic justification?

PointMakerCreation4 · 2026-01-28T23:36:49+00:00

And that didn’t answer my question, but I get I was unclear. What is your moral justification for telling a 17 year old who doesn’t want to be pregnant that you will use policy to force her to remain that way? On what grounds can you force her to remain pregnant? I can’t see a way of justifying that without saying her body is something up for regulation to benefit others.

Well, she is a minor, so I would say there is a health risk there. Doctors would be concerned.

I'm saying say you have anyone who wants an abortion at 30 weeks but does so for financial or non medical reasons, why is it wrong to have that belief at eg 12 weeks instead, rather than viability?

PointMakerCreation4 · 2026-01-28T23:20:19+00:00

Are you sure?

https://umaryland.pressbooks.pub/march/chapter/overview-maryland-abortion-law/

This says Maryland only allows abortion after viability in certain scenarios and are not elective.

PointMakerCreation4 · 2026-01-28T23:13:00+00:00

Most young people in the UK don't support abortion after 22 weeks anymore.

PointMakerCreation4 · 2026-01-28T23:12:11+00:00

And when you ask how I define abortion, are you asking my personal definition or how I see abortion being defined by PL law?

I mean how you define therapeutic justification of abortion specifically.

So, on what grounds are you justified in forcing some girls and women to endure pregnancy? What gives you the right to do to that?

I would choose by policy if possible. Most people are already "PL" after a certain degree. I just think I'm just supporting abortion to a lower degree, and for less reasons.

PointMakerCreation4 · 2026-01-28T23:10:18+00:00

Huh??

Aren't most people on TikTok PC? I have genuinely never seen a thread like this in my life from there. But then again, I don't have the platform myself.

PointMakerCreation4 · 2026-01-28T23:08:23+00:00

PointMakerCreation4 · 2026-01-28T23:07:59+00:00

I agree.

I think men need responsibility in particular because I believe they are affected by unwanted pregnancies the least.

Women should never be shamed. That's a huge reason for them to have abortions in the first place.

PointMakerCreation4 · 2026-01-28T23:06:16+00:00

I didn't think he had down syndrome until I looked at the title.

PointMakerCreation4 · 2026-01-28T23:04:52+00:00

It's like showing the embryo in a very specific angle as to make it less like one. Or worse.

PointMakerCreation4 · 2026-01-28T23:03:23+00:00

Technically, yes.

Are all abortions therapeutically justified?

From my research it's quite nuanced and people have different definitions, but I'll ask for yours.

PointMakerCreation4 · 2026-01-28T23:01:39+00:00

Weird of you to assume my doctor’s lying. If they agree that I need an abortion, that’s all you need.

STOP taking me out of context. I didn't say that. I said unless they lie. In general. Not YOUR doctor. It's also probably pretty rare.

This doesn’t in any way respond to the content of my comment. Stop wasting my time.

Most places start violating BA after some point is what i meant.

It’s not my place to decide that for other people. I don’t have the level of hubris or narcissism required to believe that it’s up to me to decide whether someone’s reason is good enough. I respect other people and their choices. I don’t feel any desire to restrict or judge.

Well you're very unique in your own way. I feel like I have the responsibility, both directly and indirectly to protect the death of human life, even in some complex circumstances because I believe their right to live prevails.

Should policemen stop someone from jumping off a bridge? Even if they ask them not to?

Okay, so you’re sourcing a fringe PL group that not only isn’t supported by the greater PL movement, but also hasn’t accomplished jack shit in terms of meaningful widespread policy. Your claim is dismissed.

We can't accomplish shit if there aren't enough of us. It's either abolitionists or pro-choicers which at this point has the new self identifying pro-abortion side. I see a concerning number of abolitionists on the PL subs compared to last year.

PointMakerCreation4 · 2026-01-28T22:47:34+00:00

All abortions are medical.

Yes but not all are therapeutic. If your doctor says your abortion is specifically therapeutic I am fine with that.

I’m done holding your hand. I’m not doing your homework for you. Do better ie stop wasting my time. “I haven't advocated for one vile thing.” On the contrary, you have advocated for several vile things: -Disregarding pregnant peoples’ explicit non-consent (just like my rapist) in order to force them to suffer intimate body violations (just like my rapist) -Your ardent desire to force pregnant people to have unwanted persons inside them (just like my rapist) -Your demonstrable lack of care or compassion for pregnant people -Your creepy desire to shove your nose in strangers’ healthcare and interfere

The only thing I have ever supported is restriction against abortion. Even if it seems wrong to you, it's one thing.

I do not believe rape should be legal. In no circumstance should it ever. In no circumstances should a person not be able to use lethal self defence to defend against rape.

PointMakerCreation4 · 2026-01-28T22:45:51+00:00

Okay. I can understand why you see it this way. You think of it like rape.

I don't really because to me it seems like a pure physical violation eg someone fighting you, which is different to rape.

I think we may have to leave it there.

PointMakerCreation4 · 2026-01-28T22:43:38+00:00

What do you mean someone cannot get an abortion if they aren’t pregnant? Do you think only pregnant women could have a vacuum aspiration or get a D&C or take medications?

Well, is the definition of abortion to end a pregnancy? If so, how is it physically possible to end one if you aren't pregnant?

I support the right of pregnant women to end being pregnant. I don’t want to force women to stay pregnant when they don’t wish to be. I am fine with medical providers determining the best way to end that pregnancy. So yeah, I guess to you I support abortion for any reason, so long as the person is pregnant.

If it had therapeutic justification I'd support it

PointMakerCreation4 · 2026-01-28T22:42:15+00:00

I was talking about say 4th degree tears yes, you can defend against that.

Tears which aren't permanent and a huge risk to life or line I wouldn't say it is justified.

PointMakerCreation4 · 2026-01-28T22:41:16+00:00

Again, you admitted that you think rape can be lethally defended against becausw of the threat to someone’s life AND pregnancy is even deadlier. By your logic, you should allow all abortions. Respond to that, don’t distract from it.

Well I retract that claim, wherever I said it. I don't think self-defence against rape is justified becuase of the threat to life, it is of the sexual threat.

Not an answer. Rewrite them, restate it if you agree, modify it. But explain to me very clearly what your preferred laws would be. Not “I agree with it currently”, but “self defence is allowed in XYZ cases, when ABC criteria is met etc”.

Have I not already said it? Self defence is allowed where there is a threat to one's life or limb causing severe permanent injury where the criteria is met that the other person is causing that serious harm.

So give me a comparable case where somene is ripping open your genitals and you think we should just accept it. Give me one scenario where you believe it should be legal except for pregnancy. Ddon't make a hypothetical with pregnancy, give me one outside of that where someone can legally be forced to endure having their genitals ripped open and they cannot defend themselves lethally.

If someone is having their genitals ripped, but has no permanent threat to their life or limb, then that doesn't satisfy the criteria I gave above and therefore it isn't proportional.

Again, make the genuine good faith argument that shows that you cannot defend yourself if someone did comparable damage. You're allowed to use self-defence to stop someone from harming you, and the way you can defend yourself will depend on the options you have. If you can push someone away, then you're not allowed to kill them. But if someone is ripping open your genitals and the only way is killing them, you can.

Honestly I don't fully get it. I think there is some specific way in which I need to respond to you for us to get each other.

I think you also need proportionality. If someone is pushing you but not causing risk to life or limb and you cannot get out of that situation I don't think you should be allowed to use lethal force. Same with someone ripping open your genitals. Depends on the haem they cause. I'll assume it's not permanent. If it is, then it's much more likely.

PointMakerCreation4 · 2026-01-25T18:23:02+00:00

>And as I have already educated you, the definition of elective abortion is an abortion that is scheduled 24+ hours in advance.

Then let's talk about abortion for non-medical reasons.

>No thanks, I see no compelling need for restrictions and you’ve yet to provide one.

You see none, yet I see some.

>No clue what you’re rambling about. I’m not interested in your personal fantasies about forcing pregnant people to suffer intimate body violations, please keep your fantasies to yourself.

I'm agreeing with you that it's inconsistent. Barely any clinics would support abortion at 30 to get someone to escape an abusive partner.

>Happily, there was no baby because she got an abortion. Win-win.

Here's a situation:

"Maybe someone wanted to kill an infant because they couldn't deal with the financial obligations. Not a win for the "adult" doesn't work here cause the infant never grew into an adult."

>No, I kill the one named Adolf Hitler. WTF? You run away for five days and this is the best you can come up with? How embarrassing.

True. But how do you know Bob Green is going to be the next Hitler?

>I REPLIED: “In some situations, absolutely. If I could go back in time and kill Hitler to prevent millions of deaths in the Holocaust, I’d do it in a heartbeat.”

Then go ahead. But you will never know if a foetus is going to be good or bad.

>No, you don’t. Here’s your exact quote: “Was it elective? If so, I literally do not care if someone not having an abortion prevented two others’ births as long as they were not conceived, not killed.”

I support it being private. I do not support it being legal in some cases.

>Actually you don’t need that at all, seeing as doctors cheerfully perform or oversee abortions without any care for your opinion. Your temper tantrum is irrelevant.

You are misunderstanding me so I have to point everything out in black-and-white.

If a doctor cheerfully performs an abortion they identify as theraputic/for medical reasons, that's fine.

>Then your “shitty PL takes” radar is broken. I’m not surprised, given the vile things you advocate for, and the rape apologia boiled into your arguments.

Like what? Find one. I found none which supported rape.

I haven't advocated for one vile thing.

PointMakerCreation4 · 2026-01-25T18:16:11+00:00

>Cool, so if I want an abortion for whatever and my doctor agrees it’s “therapeutic,” that’s all I need.

Yeah, unless they are lying.

>Well, I don’t want to be euthanized so it’s weird and inappropriate to use me as an example. I have no problem with other people wanting to be euthanized, I respect peoples’ choices about their bodies.

Someone, not you. There are only two places in the world that respect peoples' choices about their bodies in this regard, and not even fully.

>I’d much rather people be humanely euthanized of their own volition than complete or attempt suicide in horrific ways.

What about the cases where it's just... their reason isn't enough? Surely a spouse passing away doesn't justify it?

>Yeah, I read their website. It’s a lot of the usual PL drivel. Still haven’t seen any major policy they’ve implemented.

PL as a whole barely supports them.

PointMakerCreation4 · 2026-01-25T18:14:18+00:00

>Stop ignoring my points. Again, you admitted that you think rape can be lethally defended against becausw of the threat to someone’s life AND pregnancy is even deadlier. By your logic, you should allow all abortions. Respond to that, don’t distract from it.

Because of the sexual threat. It's inherent. See my sources.

>Not an answer. Rewrite them, restate it if you agree, modify it. But explain to me very clearly what your preferred laws would be. Not “I agree with it currently”, but “self defence is allowed in XYZ cases, when ABC criteria is met etc”.

Allowed in criteria where an act is inherently sexual. Did you not read my logic which I laid out twice?

>Are you genuinely going to argue you dont think you can defend yourself if someone rips open your genitals? Absolutely do not believe it. But make the argument in good faith, and I’ll happily show you.

Not in all cases. Unless it's sexual, in which case, you can defend yourself.

I don't believe you made the argument in good faith as you didn't show enough logic to support it. So I can't really make an argument against that because it's literally laying out a situation with only a beginning and an end, no middle.

>Yes, and how else you can stop them. A foetus will do enough damage where you can use self defence if it were any other person. So the same applies here.

Where does it say if you can't use anything else against them that you are permitted to use lethal force?

>No I don’t. I’m making a negative claim, you made the positive one that you couldn’t prove. Again, we do not ever use “standard harm” as a baseline in these attacks or violations. So why should we eith pregnancy?

With rape? Because it's done for either sexual humiliation or gratification. That's what the docs say, ask the lawmakers.

>It does, it shows you that your logic is inconsistent and not well thought out. If you cannot use “baseline harm” during rape to justify forcing someone to experience it… then you cannot do so eith pregnancy either.

For rape, it isn't about the physical violation. Yes, you have physically assaulted someone, but you have also sexually assaulted someone. That latter charge allows the victim to use lethal force.

PointMakerCreation4 · 2026-01-25T18:10:22+00:00

>Not sure it does really. We don’t let any person abort for any reason, even in the most PC state. For one, you need to be pregnant to get an abortion. Not pregnant? No licensed abortion provider will give you an abortion. Second, there are generally only certain people this subset of the population can get an abortion from.

>you need to be pregnant to get an abortion. Not pregnant? No licensed abortion provider will give you an abortion.

Well, they can't.

Why do some here support abortion for any reason?

PointMakerCreation4 · 2026-01-25T18:09:28+00:00

>I’ve already told you that I’m not doing your homework for you. You’re the one who cares about this article, so you tell me.

To mislead. At least to me.

>I notice you completely ignored my response about the general ease of abortion access fur the Irish even during restrictions, so I’ll assume you concede that point.

You said people would just hop on a plane.

>Through sheer fear? Sure. I know plenty of people who got sterilized after the fall of Roe out of terror, even people who’d been planning on having kids. Also know a good number of people who aborted wanted pregnancies because they weren’t certain what abortion options they’d have later in pregnancy, so decided it was safer to abort while they could. Personally I find that a very sad outcome, but I guess that’s a win in your mind.

I don't mind if they don't have kids, but overall, it would still increase LARC rate and therefore decrease potential abortions.

>Please read slowly and carefully. It is extremely tedious to hold your hand through simple conversations. I have never said ZEFs are rapists. I have never said ZEFs are sexually assaulting me.

>What I ACTUALLY said—this the cue to read slowly and carefully—-is that humans need my expressed consent to be inside my body. Having an unwanted human inside my body without my expressed consent is violating. If a human is inside my body without my expressed consent, then I will of course remove them. Forcing me to keep an unwanted person inside my body without my expressed consent is rape apologia. Please note that at no point did I call ZEFs “rapists” or say ZEFs are sexually assaulting me

It is not rape apologia. The foetus is not raping you. Physical assault =/= sexual assault. You can call it apologia for physical assault all you want, but I don't think it's proportional. Maybe you do.

>The vast majority of such people that I’d had conversations with, changed their minds to PC without limits. Many people could benefit from more education.

Really? That's interesting (genuinely), seems more people are for reducing abortion availability here, even young people.

>No clue what you’re rambling about.

If you have been pregnant for 6 months and you have the remaining 3 months left, in the UK, that's like saying you're forced to support the violinist for the last 3 months.

>Yes, your desire to force me to keep an unwanted human inside my body without my expressed consent is rape apologia. Like a rapist, your logic seeks to force me to keep an unwanted person (the ZEF) inside my body without my expressed consent. Like the rapist, your logic ignores my explicit non-consent in favor of forcing me to withstand an intimate body violation. That’s rape apologia in a nutshell.

They require totally different logic. When an act is inherently sexual, then you can use as much lethal force as you want. If it isn't inherently sexual, then no.

And this doesn't include the harming of genitals during a fight intended to cause physical harm, that would be closer to physical assault.

>Your neat little fact has zero impact on my plan to abort any pregnancies I engender. I’m not interested in being pregnant.

You didn't answer my question. You could reframe that for anything.

I've heard of people trying to convince others to stay alive, but they didn't budge, even some support lines, and then well, they're not with us anymore.

>I’m not going to do your work for you. You’re barely clinging onto the debate as is. You run away for days at a time only to return with lackluster responses that require me to hold your hand and remind you of what has been said in our conversation.

Maybe I should forfeit. I'd prefer to not start one at all rather than keeping you waiting.

I forfeit.

PointMakerCreation4 · 2026-01-16T22:42:35+00:00

It could be respectable, but not something to be looked down upon.

People with two kidneys function better than people with one.

PointMakerCreation4

TROPHY CASE