BestGarbagePerson

Wow, it’s amazing women recover at all from pregnancy.

Most people also recover from broken legs and gunshot wounds (truth) so, what the eff is your point?

I’ll just say that there are certainly changes the likes of which do not occur in any other event of a woman’s life

This is a moot and arbitrary point as all things are unique.

But women recover, survive, and in virtually every case can go on to live a normal, healthy, active life

Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha! You need to talk to more women who have given birth. Sometimes it takes years most women will confirm you are never the same. Many are disabled for life. Most other countries have automatic semi-disability coverage for women for 3 to 6 months. It's so condescending to act like you have a right to force this on people as long as you can say "well you recovered somewhat eventually."

Might as well state its okay for you to take a bat to the legs of a child. That's warped.

To suggest that women are crippled for life, or suffer soldier-life PTSD, or end up a shell of their former life, as a result of pregnancy.... is ridiculous.

That's not ridiculous that is the truth.

Pregnancy is the no 1 reason for short term disability claims in the US, and the 3rd most common reason for a long term disability claim.

Like how do you get off not knowing this?

Source:

http://disabilitycanhappen.org/disability-statistic/

You have no excuse.

Here is the truth about pregnancy and PTSD.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4168363/

How many veterans do you know had to see their own internal organs being removed? Or lose a 1/5th of their blood volume?

To act as if only people who've been in the service get PTSD is supremely ignorant.

It doesn't seem to me in the scenario I describe that the state has to give anything back.

You are describing conscripting people's bodies against their will. By law whether it is the state or not, you must provide just compensation.

Please read the 4th (regarding seizing people's property and violating their privacy), 5th(regarding military draft) and 13th amendments especially (13th is regarding slavery.)

Also, if it's a just war I don't think the government owes the person who they conscript.

Wow you are ignorant. So how will families who need their men to support them not starve to death if the men who are drafted are not paid? If you do not pay your soldiers your soldiers will come home from your wars and fucking revolt.

Conscription without just compensation is SLAVERY. By definition that is what it is. This concept goes back thousands of years. (ETA btw, if you read the US Bill of Rights and knew the history of America, stopping British abuse of people's property and lives in this manner was a primary motivation for the revolution.)

Even the lowest toilet scrubber in the army is paid for their service.

It would be good for the state to give back but it's not obligatory.

see 4th, 5th and 13th amendments. (ETA: see also 3rd, it's related to property but also the same concept.)

Likewise, it is a "just war" to make sure everyone that is afflicted is provided for and everyone is afflicted.

It doesn't matter if it's just (in fact it's required to be so but it doesn't matter). If everyone still has to pay taxes and work to live (feed themselves, keep a roof over their head, save for retirement), you have to pay them so they can support their families. That's extremely messed up that you do not understand that. Do you even know any veterans?

ETA: And you're also forgetting the other stuff, no undue duress (due process) and the means to contentiously object (we don't have press gangs in the United States - do you know what those are?) and a means to petition for redress (court system.) Oh and also a universal code of conduct (how should a pregnant woman behave - is she allowed to travel? What can she eat? In what circumstances is she required to report to a doctor? etc) it must be universal or else you violate equal protection under the law.

Of course, a fetus is not able to consent - or at least not able to communicate its consent - to the issue of its being aborted.

Neither can a rapist consent to be killed in self defense for committing a rape.

Here's the thing, though. You're going to say: "a rapist knows they are breaking the law."

A fetus being innocent by fact of it having no consciousness doesn't mean it has a superior right to unlawfully occupy and harm anyone without continuous consent.

Being innocent doesn't mean you have a squatter's right to someone's body.

through no fault of your own....then your right not to be harmed cannot be violated.

That is totally wrong. Innocent people need to be defended from all the time. Mental fitness and/or mens rea is absent in these types of situations all the time.

All legally abiding people have the same right to self defense. They don't lose their bodily autonomy if they can't prove the guilt of someone else first.

Here's the fact, it wasn't the woman's fault either. It was the zygote/fetuses "fault" in the sense that it moved into the uterus of it's own volition (fact) and if it had not done so it would not be a pregnancy in the first place. Saying we have no right to defend from that is like saying we have no right to defend from a mosquito or any other animal that is harming us, because they too are innocent by lack of mental fitness. That's the truth.

These human rights don't work the way you think they do.

I have seen yellow eyes.

But cars kill people all the fucking time. How does weed kill people?

Babies are toddlers without the communication and fine motor skills. They are less violent only by nature of them not having the ability to be violent. They similarly have no higher or lower empathy and have no concept of self-control.

I highly disagree. Everyone who has been around a baby knows they are very selfish. Empathy develops from age 5 to 25.

Username checks out.

Low effort. Why do you think I chose this name? Because I deal with idiots who have attacked me viciously for my views on the regular, so I give myself something of a bait box to reveal the real low effort trolls like you.

But no, son

I'm not a son. Try again.

No drama here.

You've got some living to do, child, if this is the saddest thing you've ever read.

To me, the very idea that you are left wholly impotent to change your methods and practice a life that is in line with your true

Where do you come off making these ridiculous assumptions? I was being self-deprecating not hopeless you ass.

Not all prose has to be entirely 100% literal. Especially if it's so obviously childish. There's no black and white category of "smart people" vs me. Nor does one have to be a genius to have success. Just like one doesn't have to be a non-genius to fail. Who takes that seriously? You do apparently.

Just imagine if I had written it perfectly and said "sometimes" that you wouldn't be suffering major depression over my single post like you supposedly are.

You sound like someone begging to exert control over others.

Maybe you actually don't get it. Maybe you are just a zombie.

I get somethings sometimes. Definitely don't get weirdos like you who want to stamp out self-expression that dares to reveal the slightest lack of perfect confidence and "all-is-well" fakeness. I'm not a zombie. I'm just not a perfect person. I have good days and bad days. I've pulled myself from nothing (literally nothing, I escaped from an extremely controlling cult, was homeless) to a salaried position and my own townhome to myself. You sound like a person who needs to work on their communication skills and who really wouldn't know struggle if it slapped them 80 times in the face and ass.

I bet you'd rag on a cancer survivor for not "being positive."

I'll stick around and explore this with you if you want. I'm genuinely curious as to what you are actually like in real life. Who is u/_winterofdiscontent_? So angry and upset with such random and benevolent things.

All pregnancies leave a dinner plate sized internal wound in the womb from the detachment of the placenta. The process of giving birth itself you lose about 1/5th of your blood volume (mostly from this wound) and it takes an average of 6-12 weeks for your internal bleeding to stop.

That's just the average.

What else happens on average, lets see:

Most people also experience vaginal tearing, for which most women note some pretty extreme discomfort in the genital area for a while. Thus they will literally need to put ice packs on their vaginas for at least a week.

"Mommy tummy" is not just looks its muscular damage. Most women experience permanent tearing in the ligaments and fascia of the pelvis, pelvic floor and abdomen. Most don't experience major life changes with this but it does inhibit the ability of the body to hold up the torso and spine. Women who are more active in their life specifically notice more of a debilitation than those who are not. This can also cause nerve and disc damage to the spine. 1 in 3 women experience symphis pubis syndrome after pregnancy, which can be extremely painful. It can take over a year to recover from this muscular/skeletal damage. Sometimes never.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Symphysis_pubis_dysfunction

What about the immune system and everything else? Well every two days you are pregnant your progesterone doubles. Progesterone has a serious effect on the limbic, immune, pituitary and circulatory systems. The day you are not pregnant anymore, this hormone disappears from your body. So imagine testosterone ramping up every day, doubling and doubling, for 9 months, and then in 48 hours it is all gone. In the US 1 in 4 women experience depression or psychosis related to pregnancy. Progesterone is also directly linked to the supression of the immune system, and reduces the nutrient levels of your blood. This is probably why worldwide children and pregnant women are the no 1 victims of preventable diseases.

And theres more. But I'm starting with the very very basic stuff for you.

That is forgetting that all people who are drafted in the military are provided with the following in exchange: just compensation, the means to conscientiously object, full disclosure and due process (means of petition and redress). But if you are wondering what I'm talking about read the 4th and 5th amendments. Even a toilet scrubber in the army is provided just compensation for losing their bodily autonomy to the state. If you provide those rights and it's truly a national crisis, then I am in agreement, as drafts are designed for times of crisis like this as you suggest, and I would not be against that even though I am pro-choice.

I am against forcing women to give birth with no just compensation and no just cause (no national crisis), with undue duress (no oath of service or time to conscientiously object since pregnancy is time sensitive) and no means to petition for rights (no court overseeing it).

just so you know u/bigtexnick, TheChemist158's view is based on what I consider a misunderstanding of the rights to self defense. I've been talking to them about this for a while.

Specifically they believe in the right to protect yourself with lethal force from other threats of harm, but not from pregnancies because pregnancies are "unique."

I think (and I could be wrong) that this misunderstanding is two fold.

1) They think innocent people have the right to harm others (make them bleed, be disabled, get sick etc) as long as they are innocent. This is forgetting that all people are innocent until proven guilty (a) and (b) that people have the right to defend themselves whether the person is guilty or not, conscious or unconscious, etc. and (c) no one has to prove the guilt of someone else first before they have the right to protect their bodies from harm.

And secondly they think that:

2) That lethal force is not justified unless you are close to death. Which is not true at all. It's justified if the imminent threat is non-re-treatable and that threat is to life AND well-being.

Personally this is a rare view among pro-choice people Most of us are conscious of these rights as they are pivotal to our understanding of bodily autonomy.

Nope. No person has a de facto right to use and harm another person without their consent. Conscious or unconscious.

Position D is the position I take. A murder of a pregnant woman is two murders. An abortion is justified homicide.

However, I personally don't think anything but a very late fetus would really be factually "a person." But since ultimately it's impossible to make a non-arbitrary line of viability regarding what is an isn't conscious or alive (and not have that be classist to a degree) I take the D stance as the best legal stance that covers the most.

For example, in the case of a doctor botching treatment of a woman leading to the death of her fetus, I would prefer that be treated as a manslaughter or murder against the Doctor for the sake of the pursuit of justice.

Thus fetuses should be considered persons, whatever stage they are at.

No woman should ever be investigated for a miscarriage as an illegal homicide however. Because she has the right to privacy and sovereignty of her own body like all other people. If she intended a miscarriage, that would fall under the category abortion. Self defense of the body from the harm and threat of the fetus. If she didn't intended a miscarriage, but had one anyway due to recklessness of some kind, again, not possible to persecute because it's her own organs and there is no possible contract of responsibility one could persecute as manslaughter via neglect (omission of care) with an unborn fetus. Or to put it simply, pregnancy in itself is a medical condition, not a de facto duty of care over a fetus.

There are other weird things though that this position could lead to but that's another story. I vacillate between position b and position d.

Arrested for what? That's the important question.

There needs to be a reasonable to believe a threat will happen (meaning that a 1 in 10,000 chance isn't enough) and that there threat will kill a person or negatively affect their well being. The damage must be very likely to occur and be of great magnitude.

Only if you use your completely made up definition of what "threat to life and well-being is."

Once again you pretend as if it's only life, not "life and well-being."

I don't know how many times I have to say this but, by your logic slavery would be legal, and so would rape.

You cannot own another person

Oh, but fetuses own women's bodies by your logic. What do the words "labor" mean to you? You agreed already they have a squatters right. Those are property laws. Governing property. So you already agreed you think women's bodies should be reduced to the property of fetuses.

I have told you there is no such thing as a squatters right (or any property law) applying to a person. You don't seem to get that.

Men do not have the right to kill a person and not have it be investigated. Every time a person is killed there needs to be some way to investigate if the homicide was criminal.

Nope. Wrong. Not every time. When the facts invoke a probable cause of a crime, then yes. Before that, no. Read the 4th amendment please. A homicide by itself is not probable cause of a crime. Shocker, but true. It is the burden of the state to prove probable cause in order to have the right to investigate anything. So, they have to find something questionable on their own, to justify a warrant. Abortion is legal just like justified homicide is legal, just like driving a car while black is legal. No one can say "you don't have the right to do what is presumed innocent behavior without being investigated." That's not how any of this works.

The husband doesn't need to rape too stay alive.

Nope, and the state doesn't need to force women to give birth either.

Child birth is a natural process that rarely causes any serious, lasting harm to the women.

This is an appeal to nature fallacy. Natural is not safe or good just by fact it is nature. Nature is nature, and it's quite cruel actually. I wonder what you think about women forced to endure miscarriage. I suppose its "natural" therefore it's okay?

It's just that there's a situation that is unique to women that never comes up with men

This is a false dilemma. All situations are unique. Saying a person with a different set of organs should deserve separate but equal treatment is morally repugnant. Do you understand that "separate but equal" is an oxymoron?

A man does not have a right to commit homicide without an investigation. A woman also doesn't have a right to commit homicide without an investigation.

Once again, false. When the facts are clear, there is no need for any investigation. All abortions are justified because no woman has a duty to retreat from something already inside her own body. Nobody does. Ever. Even if men can't get pregnant, it doesn't fucking matter.

I think we could all agree that 'investigation' is best done before the abortion by a doctor rather than after the abortion by law enforcement.

Being pregnant by itself is not probable cause of a crime being committed. See amendment 4, 5 and 14. Everyone has the right to say "no" to anyone and anything for any reason. Including saying no to fetuses. And if that fetus can't leave in any other way but via a means that kills them, that's called justified homicide.

That's not evidence, that's anecdotes.

Wrong. Anecdotes ARE evidence. They aren't always the best evidence, especially if self-reported. But they are evidence. That's a fact.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anecdote

You clearly didn't even read the Wikipedia page you just linked. It says, right in the introduction,

Says what exactly?

A homicide can only be justified if there is sufficient evidence to prove that it was reasonable to believe that the offending party posed an imminent threat to the life or well-being of another,

It says this. Which is exactly what you are claiming it doesn't say

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Justifiable_homicide

We need it to be reasonable to believe the the damage would happen.

OMFG, no.

1) there is no "we" it is the perception of that person who is being harmed that matters. There is no judge and jury saying "you can't defend yourself if we don't think you're going to suffer too much from this blood loss."

2) What do you not understand about threat of damage as well as damage? Especially how do you confuse damage with death?

We could have every late term abortion investigated afterwards, and if they aren't deemed to be justified we could charge the woman with murder/manslaughter

Except no one has a duty to retreat from someone they cannot retreat from, so you are literally saying that women should be given a different set of rules than all other classes of persons.

But I think it would be best for everyone if the investigation happened beforehand.

Nobody cares what you think if it violates the bill of rights.

I actually don't always have a duty to retreat.

Nope you don't, I am aware of stand your ground and castle doctrine, but that is the exception not the rule. It's pretty much unique to the US and not every state. And again, in principle, its applied equally to all classes. Just to reiterate though, these are extra rights that give people even more right to defend themselves. Stand your ground in public spaces, and castle doctrine in your private domain. So how does this bolster your argument to go the opposite direction?

No person ever has a duty to retreat from their own body.

Even in the most strict duty to retreat states, no one has an impossible duty to retreat. That is, to be asked to do something they are physically unable to do would be a violation of human rights.

No, I would not have the right to kill him. Why do you think killing a home intruder is so often convicted of manslaughter?

Yes you would. False imprisonment (the person is preventing you from retreating) is absolutely, even in the most strict duty to retreat states, a huge legal invitation of your right to use lethal force. If you cannot retreat, you have the right to use lethal force. Clearly you have NO idea about these laws and are just throwing things around hoping something will stick.

Justified homocide laws also protects preventing a felony such as rape

Tresspassing on a person's body without consent is always unlawful. Things are only felonies when you can prove the person had intention prior. (Mens rea) That only happens afterwards in a court of law. A fetus is legally innocent and can never be charged with anything so what? The facts ar if it's inside a person's body without consent, it's not there lawfully. Period. End. People dont' lose their rights to protect their bodies from harm just because the person harming them is unfit for trial (mentally incompetent.)

That way we don't have to have law enforcement investigate what will likely be an emotional topic

Nope, you'll just have families destitute and ruined because mothers will be forced to suffer from and recover from the damage of pregnancy they never wanted, you'll have people recovering for years from that, maybe never. Just think about how something like penis in vagina rape, (which is "only" that horrible) would compare to being cut open in a c-section against your will, with maybe a number of people reaching inside your own organs. Being reduced to a breeding cow for the state. Assaulted in a hospital filled with people who are supposed to be trustworthy and interested in your safety. "Do no harm" not applying to you because you a declared an inferior person to a fetus. Being asked to retreat from something inside your own organs.

Are you a male or a female btw? Do you have any concept of what it is to be treated like nothing but a breeding cow?

Because it's better to assume the negative and demand perfect answers for tiny mistakes? (Spelling!) mistakes aren't mistakes? They're strikes on a person's character?

That's not how to be a good manager. I'm a general manager btw. What's your job? What kind of work do you do? What kind of experience with leadership do you have? I wouldn't doubt that your skills are not equal to what you demand of others.

ou consciously know this and yet you follow on with the very next sentence confirming that you have been completely disabled

Where did I say I was completely disabled? What I'm saying is I'm not enlightened. I'm not perfect. Saying I struggle sometimes and don't have perfect days is not the same as being completely disabled.

The fuck is wrong with your reading comprehension?

This is possibly the saddest, most impotent thing imaginable.

I get it, you're suffering from major depression just from my single comment. You're a drama factory, we get it.

Why don't you go to r/morbidreality and get a clue on what is actually sad in life you faker.

And intention has nothing to do with it. Innocence and guilt does not matter. If you are being physically harmed and you have no means of retreat, it doesn't matter if the person harming you is legally innocent (has intentions or mens rea) or not.

Clearly not, because much, much less then 5% of child birth results in maternal death.

Once again, lethal force is legal no matter what the risk. And pregnancy is more dangerous than rape. So you might as well say people can rape women too.

Ukraine is safer than the US on average. Unless you plan to go to Donbass or Crimea you will have a good time.

If the copy paste was also wrong, then you are fucked.

They're sources of frustration and disappointment are only because you are told over and over again you cannot do anything and its not worth doing anything and it's stupid to even try doing anything.

Smart people (and I'm not one of those btw) do something to spite all those nasty defeatest thoughts and messages.

Yes. This comment should be higher.

Just confront him with it in email. It's what my boss did to his boss who was doing the same thing. It stopped.

Unless they've got dyslexia, or some other processing disorder. Better not to assume.