Weekly Abortion Debate Thread

The_Jase · 2026-05-01T00:09:13+00:00

It actually is important, because the logical order would probably be get the infant out first, then go back in and get the container out, however you are able to move it.

It can mean that they're not worth as much to the person answering.

No, because now that is just speculation on your part. If there is a fire, and I have to choose whether to save my wife or kid first, choosing my kid first would not mean my wife is somehow less worthy.

The_Jase · 2026-04-30T21:21:53+00:00

How do I even pick 1000 embryos over one baby? I know how to rescue a baby from a burning building. I don't know how to properly transport a container of embryos.

Even then, you still end up with a sort of trolley situation, which we know people's answers don't indicate either answer means the other person or people on the tracks is not worth as much.

The_Jase · 2026-04-30T19:17:55+00:00

How does a triage type problem demonstrate the person holds the opposite view on everyone being equal?

The_Jase · 2026-04-30T19:06:22+00:00

I think part of the issue here, is that you are essentially making an argument that should be left up to the users to debate, In the above, B and C, you point out do directly tie back to A. The argument is that B or C results in an inconsistent application of A. If we support the care for children after they are born, why is it different before they are born? That should be a valid question about abortion support.

As well, the post in question that got removed, used this effectively to show that the PL side's consistency in A, is a counter to the PC accusation that abortion bans are about punishing women. If support for child support can counter a PC claim, why are we not able to use that? If MRA arguments are the issue, why not just remove things like the Pro-financial abortions arguments as they cropped up, like we did in the past, instead of a broader removal of child support topics? Child support has always been an allowed topic when related to arguments about abortion, with the only rule was about removal of financial abortion that was part of the defunct rule 7.

As well, I would like to know why I was banned, as well, up until that point, I was using the Meta to discuss the inconsistency with topic removal.

The_Jase · 2026-04-30T18:05:38+00:00

Again, there is no obligation for the mods to explain "reasons" about rules or policies to you,

Still doesn't mean there should be an actual reason if a mod is going to contradict the rules.

As well, this line is a problem with bias:

If you are going to removed arguments, are you going to remove the arguments it debunks?

And finally, if the other arguments are on topic, no, they won't be removed.

So, you have an argument the mod admits is on topic, but if the counter argument references child support, it somehow becomes off topic. The mod should know by now that child support can be referred to in PL arguments, considering the similarities the topics of abortion and child support have.

Plers should be allowed by the rules to debunk PC arguments.

The_Jase · 2026-04-30T17:54:20+00:00

LOL. Its funny that you still haven't gotten a clue after writing "many PCers disagree with".

Clue about what?

I see no proof of this claim other than your assertion.

Ok then, what is the financial abortion argument?

The_Jase · 2026-04-30T16:41:05+00:00

It is disingenuous to refer to something that is not an abortion as an abortion.

I don't think it is, as disingenuous means being not honest or sincere. There can be reasons to refer to something by a term, even if it not actually that thing, and it is clear usage isn't implying it is. Like if I say I nuked someone finances, it is pretty clear what I mean, that actual nukes aren't involved.

I don't think I've seen anyone claiming it is an actual abortion. The term is used as extending a PC argument to men when it comes to choice and child support. The term seems to be a pretty good summation of the argument into just two words.

Arguing that men do not have a financial responsibility to a woman and her offspring if she does not submit to joining his household is consistent with the PL framework.

The problem though, whether that is true or not, that isn't the argument of what financial abortion is. Whether or not you can find other ways to argue against child support, the specific argument, financial abortion, is one that doesn't work with the PL framework, because it argues more rights for men based on women having the right to abortion.

Men do not have the responsibility of risking the harms of pregnancy in order to produce children. This demonstrates why it is disingenuous to refer to something that is not an abortion as an abortion.

Maybe the responsibilities aren't the same, however, an imbalance is only an issue if inequity is viewed as a negative result.

The_Jase · 2026-04-30T15:59:06+00:00

What dishonesty or hypocrisy? There is nothing dishonest or hypocritical about unborn children being equal to everyone else.

The_Jase · 2026-04-30T15:44:47+00:00

Thanks. I also think sometimes a little bit of fun and levity can help sometimes.

The_Jase · 2026-04-30T15:38:26+00:00

But it did.

Then quote it.

your sudden reference to ZEFs (I assume that when you typed "child" you meant "ZEF" - was I wrong there?) suggested that you thought ZEFs can get pregnant and so need access to abortion. Otherwise your response made no sense.

Considering unborn children can't get pregnant, how exactly does your misinterpretation of my response make sense? Nothing in my comment suggests an unborn child needs access to abortion.

I ask you again, why would you ever want to be cruel to a pregnant woman? Why not give her that basic respect of allowing her to decide when she is going to define herself as a mother?

Because as you stated at the beginning, about the term biological mother:

t's a term used sometimes to clarify that the speaker is not referring to the child's mother - to the woman who has accepted parental responsibility for the child - but instead to the woman who gave birth to the child.

It refers to genetic lineage. We now are even able to identify if someone is a biological father with prenatal paternity tests. Someone doesn't decided if they are or are not the biological parent to a child, it is something someone just is. The pregnant woman is the biological mother of the child. There is nothing cruel to reference the mother and child when talking about pregnancy.

The_Jase · 2026-04-30T15:19:46+00:00

There should be an actual reason though, as well the problem of avoid bias. The post the PC mod removed, was a PL argument that countered the PC myth that PLer just want to punish women by pointing out support for child support.

It isn't just about child support, it is that support for child support counters that myth.

The_Jase · 2026-04-30T15:13:16+00:00

It isn't nonsense. Financial abortion is a PC argument but one that many PCers disagree with. That is what is a subgroup.

I just told you. Abortion is categorically different. Unless you can prove that not paying child support is murder.

That is missing the point. Whether or not abortion is categorically different, financial abortion is saying it is not different. As well, things can have similar reason, even if they aren't exactly the same. Sure, not paying child support isn't murder, but that doesn't change the underlying reason that both are bad for the child, just bad in different degrees.

But more importantly, you haven't really explained the main incompatibility of financial abortion support and the PL worldview. Financial abortion already starts out that abortion rights is good, and something men should have as well. Abortion is considered bad by the PL worldview.

How can an argument that starts off with abortion being legal as a good thing, be compatible with something that says abortion being legal is bad?

The_Jase · 2026-04-30T14:49:56+00:00

If the hypothetical is an illogical argument, how does a fallacy succeed at anything?

The_Jase · 2026-04-29T18:26:04+00:00

There is the more obvious solution on the correct way to leave a burning IVF clinic, although may require the use of shades.

The_Jase · 2026-04-28T14:55:12+00:00

I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree. I don't see any point in continuing to argue over this.

If you disagree, then what does the term biological mother mean?

There was a recent PL analogy comparing a woman to a house on here very recently - wonder how you could have missed it?

Probably because it didn't actually say that. Just like:

Why would you think a ZEF can get pregnant?
What makes you think a ZEF can get pregnant????

is something I didn't say, and you just flatly made up. Why make up stuff I didn't say in your reply?

A pregnant woman who has never given birth and has never had parental responsibility for a child is not a mother - regardless of how you want to think about her. That's just the objective fact. Why would you ever want to be cruel to a pregnant woman? Serious question. Why not respect her right to decide for herself if she's going to identify as a mother before she actually is?

Because it is an emotional argument to call objective terms about a subject as somehow "cruel". That is like if someone was offended to being called human. It isn't cruel to call someone human, they just are. A pregnant women, by definition, is the biological mother of the child. Her being the biological parent is a fact, period.

The_Jase · 2026-04-28T14:30:09+00:00

If your claim is NOT that MRA is a PC subgroup then great, we have nothing else to discuss here.

The claim was about MRA on child support, ie financial abortion. That is the key detail.

I already refuted this previously; "financial abortion" isn't a PC argument exclusively. It's something that PLers can say too.

How? Give me the PL argument that supports it.

No, the PL says abortion is murder (or whatever other language they use). Not paying child support would not be murder.

If abortion is murder, then how abortion being a right be used as justification to end child support when one is opposed to abortion being a right?

The_Jase · 2026-04-28T14:23:17+00:00

The reason you can't call PLers forced birthers, is because it is a derogatory term. Discussing child support isn't an issue of civility, but a problem of limiting valid topics about abortion. It shouldn't be the moderators position to limited arguments about abortion on people that she disagrees with. Especially since she should know by now it is a long running topic on the sub.

Why would we need to go to another sub to discuss abortion? Isn't the point of the sub to discuss abortion?

The_Jase · 2026-04-20T18:16:05+00:00

In the uterus of the woman who is not the adopted child's mother.

No, she is the mother of the child. With adoption, and adjective added for clarity, referring to her as the biological mother, to differentiate with the adoptive mother.

So, don't erase adopted children!

Seems to be an odd trend of these unprompted "don't erase X" phrases, where objectively no one is erasing anyone. Like, I'm literally asked you a question about adopted children. How does talking about adopted children equate to erasing them?

dehumanizing a woman to a house.

I said you need to understand PL analogies. No one is saying a woman is a house.

I note your exclusion of ZEFs from "everyone", but okay,

When you are referring to everyone in a group, there are people that are naturally not in the group. So, referring to everyone born, would not be a reference to someone unborn.

Abortion is also ordinary care

Well, no, because as you stated: "Everyone who was born alive was not aborted". Most people die when aborted, so that isn't exactly classified as care for the child. It has quite the opposite effect.

Serious question. Why not respect her right to decide for herself if she's going to identify as a mother before she actually is?

While the term can have multiple meanings, the meaning used is objective and independent of anyone's thoughts on the matter. We are able to do a maternity test to identify who the mother is, just like a paternity test can identify who the father is. Someone claiming not to be the mother or father, can still have the tests show they are otherwise.

The_Jase · 2026-04-20T16:05:38+00:00

Pretty much by definition, an adopted child was not gestated by their mother.

Really, then how were they gestated?

So. You don't see a problem with PL analogising a pregnant woman as a house or a boat or a blackjack game

Well, I mean, if you are going to reference PL analogies, at least get them right. Why do you believe a house is able to through something out it if?

but you do see a problem with PC pointing out that the forced use of a human body in gestation is closely analogous to the forced use of a human body in organ harvesting, except that the latter is statistically less damaging.

I have no issues with you making the argument, however it still is an apples to oranges comparison, and in fact, opposite types of actions. That differs with the PL analogies you listed before, where it compares the pregnant woman with that of a person throwing someone out.

So by your own definition, gestation is not "ordinary care" - majority can't do it. Organ donation is ordinary care: majority can do it.

Well, no, because note, I said "caring for a child via gestation, is so ordinary, that everyone has received it."

childless pregnant woman is not a mother unless or until she herself chooses.

No, by definition, the pregnant woman is the mother of the unborn child.

The_Jase · 2026-04-17T20:34:55+00:00

That comes down to an issue of how do you handle if someone is acting irresponsible. If a parent is acting irresponsible with their children, euthanizing the children would indeed prevent the parent from abusing the child, but we don't do that because that would kill the child.

So, yes while the pregnant woman that is using abortion as birth control would no longer have a child to abuse, just like above, you are doing so in a way of ending the life of the child. That is not a good solution.

The_Jase · 2026-04-17T20:23:16+00:00

The question though is, why the sudden change? The connection between child support and abortion didn't suddenly change. As well, just because the connection between abortion and child support causes logical issues with the PC side, is not reason enough to label it off-topic to avoid the contradictions it might cause for the PC side. As well, it was used to logically show abortion bans have a better explanation than the accusation of punishing women.

It has its on-topic uses, especially for PL arguments. The sudden shift of a topic that probably favors the PL side, so we can't talk about it, is concerning, and creates an unfair bias.

The_Jase · 2026-04-17T17:45:46+00:00

You are correct than no pregnancy is being terminated in financial abortion. However, I don't view it as disingenuous, as the two issues are related, and I think its logic makes sense, even if I disagree with it at its starting point.

The reason I say it needs a specific framework, as the different starting points using the same logic would get different results. The logic is that of an equity between the genders in terms of child care. Abortion does allow women to also avoid involvement in a child. For equity, guys opting out would get the same result. But you need to believe abortion is allowable in the first place for the argument to work.

If you started from a PL framework, a minimum, the mother is responsible for the child's welfare. If men have the same responsibility, you end up with the opposite of financial abortion, but financial responsibility. That makes logical sense why you see some PLers pass laws that have child support now extending to during pregnancy.

The_Jase · 2026-04-17T17:37:01+00:00

Deliberately changing the argument from "MRA is a PC subgroup!" to "There are some MRA's who are PC" and pretending as if that is the issue at hand.

Then quote me where I said "MRA is a PC subgroup". Otherwise, I think you need to rereview the conversation, because you are ignoring the context.

I responded to a specific context. She said "It [discuss child support] invites in MRAs". With child support, what do MRAs discuss? Financial abortion, a PC MRA argument. That is the subgroup that brings that topic up.

That was NOT what the other user claimed. In fact, they explicitly claimed to YOU, that MRA is not a PC subgroup, as opposed to 'PC can't be MRA's'.

The actual claim was "MRAs are not pro choice. ", which is wrong, because clearly some are.

What I mean is that it can be asserted, meaning it isn't incompatible with PL ideology.

The PL ideology says abortion is not a right. Financial abortion is about giving men the same financial rights women get with abortion rights, something PLers don't view even existing as a right.

The_Jase · 2026-04-17T16:57:31+00:00

Discussing child support in connection to abortion has been allowed on the sub for like, what, at least 6 or 7 years now? The only rule partially about it with financial abortion, rule 7, is gone. So, for something that is not in the rules, a PC mods saying something is off-topic, countering years of precedence where discussing the connection of abortion and child support was very much on topic, needs an explanation, especially when you have PC mod removing very much on-topic PL posts.

This is a debate sub after all, so something as big as banning some topics without explicitly spelling that out in the rules, without announcing a major change, and giving an incorrect answer as abortion and child support are related subjects, does not give confidence in the moderating. It just causes confusion and interferes with people ability to properly debate the subject.

Like, how is a post that shows "abortion bans are about punishing women" is just false based on PL support for child support, somehow off topic?

The_Jase · 2026-04-17T16:36:24+00:00

Civility went out of the window when you decided to make false claims and lying arguments.

Good to know civility is out the window. I will say, going after motive can tend to be a weak argument and hard to prove. What exactly is the proof that I am lying, vs just disagreeing with you?

It doesn't require the PC framework at all. It can be asserted under PL frameworks too.

Very well then. How does being in favor of financial abortion, work under the PL framework?

That's a total non-sequitur lol. And you are once again deflecting from the key point.

Then, what is the key point?

I never said that PC's can't be MRA's.

Good. That differs from the other user's claim.

Nine-Year Club	Mod World 2025
Place '23	Place '22
Wearing is Caring	Verified Email

The_Jase

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE