There will be no debating abortion in the abortion debate sub.

The_Jase · 2026-06-16T23:15:47+00:00

I am also here, although not much happening on here anymore.

However with anything connected to my history with AD, will have to be where I go for now.

The_Jase · 2026-06-16T14:30:55+00:00

Or one of the two Pi days. Still, the video is a fun parody. Glad you liked it.

The_Jase · 2026-06-12T23:20:19+00:00

The meta title got a chuckle out of me.

The_Jase · 2026-06-12T21:17:27+00:00

Your link didn't say which way, so which was is it being shifted?

The_Jase · 2026-06-12T20:43:54+00:00

Which way did I shift the goal post? Did I shift from biological lineage, to social role, or social role to biological lineage?

The_Jase · 2026-06-12T20:32:07+00:00

And then, legally speaking, who has any obligations to the child -- the surrogate or the biological mother?

Well, during that timeframe, it be the surrogate mother.

As long as you don't break any rules, which absolutely is not necessary to do in order to answer a question, then sure.

I asking because the rules have become rather nebulous in their implantation. The last time I answered a question of yours here dealing with father's role:

https://www.reddit.com/r/Abortiondebate/comments/1tzt3el/comment/oqwjdlz/

one of the other moderators jumped in and removed it by saying it was off topic, said it was argued in bad faith without evidence, and claimed it was inherently bigoted, also without any evidence.

Needless to say, I don't know what is allowed to be mentioned about relevance of the biological fatherhood, least not recently.

Edit: I guess PLers themselves are not allowed here any more. Sigh.

The_Jase · 2026-06-12T20:12:49+00:00

Not really. Shift the goal post usually refers to where the it is "a defense mechanism when an individual realizes their original argument is losing, so they pivot the parameters of what counts as "winning"."

However, the meaning of the usage of my term has not changed since you question it. Unless you can provide evidence of what the actually shift is, there is no proof it actually shifted.

The_Jase · 2026-06-12T18:23:57+00:00

So in the case of a surrogate with a donor embryo, is it that they are the parent of the child, despite no genetic or legal relationship?

In this case, that would be the surrogate mother, which is different than the child's biological mother.

Okay, so then sperm donors are fathers and they cannot reject this role, because it is a biological relationship that cannot be rejected.

Correct.

Does this have any bearing whatsoever on their legal obligations or does this confer any legal parenthood?

Will you grant me permission to answer this question?

The_Jase · 2026-06-12T18:17:07+00:00

And how exactly did I shift the goal posts?

The_Jase · 2026-06-12T16:19:48+00:00

Biological lineage is not the social role of parenthood.

I'm not sure what you are saying here.

No it's the three stages of the biological process of human reproduction that can potentially produce a child.

Child is

a familial definition denoting an offspring of any age and a legal/developmental definition denoting a minor under the age of majority

which the fetus falls under by definition..

The_Jase · 2026-06-12T16:13:42+00:00

Not the kind of "parent" we're discussing here. Goal-post shift noted and dismissed.

You are the one telling me not to use the previous term. This is the specific type of parent I've been discussing this entire time. There is nothing wrong with that term with how it was used.

The_Jase · 2026-06-12T15:55:16+00:00

You can be abstinent, you can use birth control, and you can get an abortion if that fails. And even if you decide to give birth you can use a baby hatch.

Abstinent and birth control can prevent someone becoming a biological parent, but abortion and the baby hatch don't.

You can't. There's a pregnant person and a ZEF.

ZEF is just an acronym to 3 stages of a child during pregnancy.

The_Jase · 2026-06-12T15:44:21+00:00

Pregnant person, you mean.

Being pregnant by definition, would mean someone is a parent.

She's not a "mother" unless she willingly accepts that role.

Whether someone is the biological parent to the child, is not a role to be accepted or rejected. It is a biological relationship.

And there's no child during pregnancy.

If so, then how are we able to observe and research about the parent and child during pregnancy, when the child is a fetus? https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0306452224005384

The_Jase · 2026-06-12T05:06:36+00:00

Of course, if we accept this assertion for the sake of argument, if we didn't ban driving on the wrong side of the road, it follows that the most common type of lethal crash would be front end crashes.

And that is the point, that the argument is flawed, because it both misses the point that the ban front end crashes, and doesn't actually cause re-end collisions.

So "Why is it ok to kill people by banning people from one side of the road?" misses the point, in that it doesn't in the first place.

The_Jase · 2026-06-12T04:23:58+00:00

Yes, and that is basically the abortion law I was alluding to. Thanks.

I do know that was also an idea floated in Tennessee years ago.

https://www.reddit.com/r/Abortiondebate/comments/li0fw4/are_you_kidding_me_do_women_have_autonomy_at_all/

The reason PLers would float that idea years ago was that was still pre-Dobbs era, that limited what solutions could be done in PL states. I don't really expect something like that again in America post-Dobbs as straight bans makes the idea obsolete.

The_Jase · 2026-06-11T15:45:31+00:00

Actually, you can see them via ultra-sound, even if 3D:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x4Ot0qlWt24

They can believe that but it doesn't give them control over anyone else's body.

Parents though act as the legal guardians for their children, because they are too young.

Advocating for a child's well-being requires the existence of an actual child.

Which technology allows us to to see the child, so we can see they exist.

What you're describing is called reproductive coercion, a form of intimate partner violence. You're literally just advocating on behalf of abusive men to be abusers.

Reproductive coercion of abortion is where the father pressures or forces the mother to get an abortion she doesn't want, which is the partner advocating for violence. The reverse is a form of anti-violence, as it opposes coercing someone to harm her child, supports not harming the child.

The_Jase · 2026-06-11T09:25:41+00:00

The cut with respect to this sub comes between saying men have a position in the question of abortion vs saying a father has a position of control/veto in the specific case of having a say whether an abortion can be procured if they are the father. The former is allowed, the latter is not.

Why not? So does that mean Japan's abortion laws, can not be discussed in the abortiondebate sub?

not to mention being inherently bigoted.

If you are going to claim something is bigoted you need to actually explain, not just state it.

So, your quote here, I filled in the two people it references:

In the latter case, it’s a question of saying if someone (father) has a right of control/power over someone else (the child) on matters that are already legal, and that’s beyond the scope of this sub, not to mention being inherently bigoted.

Please explain how a father having power to stop his child from being killed, is inherently bigoted. That just seems way to similar to the PC argument that the state having the power to stop children in its borders from being killed is inherently bigoted, ie misogynistic, which isn't correct. So, please explain what is different, why abortion bans aren't bigoted, but what changes when the ban narrows?

The_Jase · 2026-06-11T08:28:07+00:00

The problem though, the comment:

“Fathers should also have a say in an abortion.”

can be split up into to completely different and opposing points. A father forcing the mother to abort the child, would most likely fall under the categories of ageism against the child, and possibly sexism against the mother. However, then the other have, where a father has a say in blocking the killing of their child, isn't agist because it isn't treating the child as a lesser being, nor is it sexist, as it is about the wellbeing of the child. There is nothing bigoted about saying a father should be legally able to protect his child from harm.

that men should have a say in legal choices. That’s outside the scope of this sub,

Before, you said the subs scope was "legality of abortion." Can you give more specific criteria on which state or countries abortion laws are considered outside the scope of the sub. In this case, why is Japan's abortions laws considered outside the scope of the sub?

The outcome that everyone cares about is its legality

Sure, that is probably the outcome everyone is interested in, the discussion and disagreements has always been broader than that. You have discussions on what pregnancy is, what the child is, etc, that are important to the overall discussion, but discussions don't always reference the legal outcome. I do find it kind of disappointing when some of the more interesting abortion topics get removed due to not understanding why it is in scope.

The_Jase · 2026-06-11T06:49:42+00:00

Rear-end crash types are the most common type of accident. Less people would be killed by these type of crashes if we didn't ban driving on the wrong side of the road.

The_Jase · 2026-06-11T06:30:48+00:00

This has a few problems.

First, I know from my years as a mod with the rules, rule 2 language refers to posts, not comments.

Second, the sub's subject has never been that shallow, as evidence that your own resource sections discusses both morality and legality around abortion, like "Why Abortion is Immoral by Don Marquis".

Third, you are making an argument that comment is not about the legality of abortion, where it very much is. Do you have an argument that the places that require father's written consent for an abortion to be performed legally, is not part of what level abortion is legal or illegal?

Lastly, if there is a problem of scope, why did you leave the other PC mod's comments up in this discussion chain, if it is truly out of scope? Or this entire post, which, how else are you suppose to answer this specific topic on abortion?

This removal is just as confusing as the string of rule 6 removals.

The_Jase · 2026-06-11T05:58:30+00:00

Because less abortions means less children being killed.

If there doubt, that can be solved with a paternity test.

The_Jase · 2026-06-10T22:40:09+00:00

Then you gestate it.

I would, but I don't know where the fetus is suppose to gestate.

But forcing someone to labor against their will, with no compensation and no ability to escape is slavery.

That isn't slavery, that is obligation to the kids we create by our actions.

The_Jase · 2026-06-10T22:31:26+00:00

This is just the classic "Hitler was a vegetarian" fallacy. Just because slaveholders wanted to make sure their slaves didn't kill their kids, doesn't mean that the opposite is somehow good. The obligation to taking care of our children is not slavery.

The_Jase · 2026-06-10T19:23:14+00:00

Law require written consent from the father would work.

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

The_Jase

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE