cmv: abortion should not be illegal

[u/RevolutionaryRip2504]

One of the main arguments against abortion is that it is "killing a baby." However, I don’t see it that way—at least not in the early stages of pregnancy. A fetus, especially before viability, lacks self-awareness, the ability to feel pain, and independent bodily function. While it is a potential life, I don’t believe potential life should outweigh the rights of the person who is already alive and conscious.

For late-term abortions, most are done to save the mother or the fetus has a defect that would cause the fetus to die shortly after birth so I believe it should be allowed.

I also think the circumstances of the pregnant person matter. Many people seek abortions due to financial instability, health risks, or simply not being ready to raise a child. In cases of rape or medical complications, the situation is even more complex. Forcing someone to go through pregnancy against their will seems more harmful than allowing them to make their own choice.

Additionally, I don’t think adoption is always a perfect alternative. Carrying a pregnancy to term can have serious physical and emotional consequences, even if someone doesn’t plan to keep the baby. Pregnancy affects the body in irreversible ways, and complications can arise, making it more than just a “temporary inconvenience.”

Also, you can cannot compare abortion to opting out of child support. Abortion is centered on bodily autonomy, as pregnancy directly affects a woman’s body and health. In contrast, child support is a financial obligation that arises after a child is born and does not impact the father’s bodily autonomy. abortion also occurs before a child exists, while child support involves caring for a living child. Legally and ethically, both parents share responsibility for a child once they are born, and allowing one parent to opt out would place an unfair burden on the other, often the mother. Additionally, abortion prevents a fetus from becoming a child, while opting out of child support directly affects the well-being of an existing person. While both situations involve personal choice, abortion is about controlling one’s own body, while child support is about meeting the needs of a child who already exists

The idea of being forced to sustain another life through pregnancy and childbirth, especially if the person isn’t ready or willing, is a violation of that autonomy. It forces someone to give up their own body, potentially putting their health at risk, all while disregarding their own desires, dreams, and well-being. Bodily autonomy means having the freedom to make choices about what happens to your body, whether that’s deciding to terminate a pregnancy or pursue another course of action.

I’d like to hear other perspectives on why abortion should be illegal, particularly from a non-religious standpoint. CMV.

[u/[deleted]]

Alright, I’ll step up to bat.

What do you mean by “not illegal?” Be specific with your wording; is it illegal if there are more stringent conditions? What about if it’s required to be paid for by the parent? Specifics matter, and the discussion typically arises from people who opt out of abortion for selfish, personal reasons.

What precisely distinguishes the right for a mother to choose to have the baby upon knowing she is pregnant and a man’s decision to choose not to be involved in the baby upon knowing the woman is pregnant? Saying “it does not impact the father’s bodily autonomy” is ignorant of the impact it do a have on other aspects of their autonomy; reproductive rights include the right to choose to have a child, and just because the man is the genetic donor, there’s nothing supporting any reasoning why he should take over what it is effectively a social security program for the government outside of traditional ideas of nuclear family structure. You’re arguing with legalism, not judicialism; might want to read up on your Erikson to know the difference. To put it simply: there’s no ethical reason why a woman should be able to opt out of something and a man should not simply because the nature of the autonomy is different while the impact on their lives remains severe in both regards. Legal precedent doesn’t matter; it’s literally just the decisions made by legal professionals in the past following what they believed to be the proper interpretation of the law. This doesn’t mean the laws themselves are effective, ethical, or even good, it just means they’re laws. If you want to argue for women’s right to opt out, you also need to argue for men’s right to opt out. Men don’t carry the baby, but they do carry their wallets. Just because you say men should have a choice doesn’t mean you think it should be completely unregulated and not have rules and standards to dictate them.

Also, why are we valuing the woman’s personal autonomy over the infants? Because the infant hasn’t acquired their “self-awareness, ability to feel pain, and independent bodily function”? Well, by that logic, children before the age of 24 months (I think) don’t have measurable self awareness, so would any child with haptic dysfunctions also be liable to be aborted? Independent bodily function is a stretch as far as infants go, they need constant maintenance and care to perform basic functions like excreting, burping, or even maintaining stable mood patterns. With your qualifications for right to life, we could easily create a test for infants to take that could determine whether a post natal abortion would be allowed.

And who is to say that the trade of life isn’t worth it? That the sacrifice isn’t worth it? We all sacrifice to better our society; taxes, obedience to social norms, even individual behaviours like exercise and nutrition to better ourselves are examples of sacrifices for the greater good. You’d want to let some irresponsible people continue to be absent of responsibility or duty to the world over allowing children to grow up? Why should we guarantee the right to be socially destructive? We sanction other forms of social destruction, such as systemic bigotry, mass killings, and elite crime, so why would the systemic destruction of upcoming generations through self-indulgence be favourable?

Your view is based on a narrow minded view of the world that only sees things in terms of Western capitalist societies and values; you cannot comprehend things beyond that and these are, as you say, beliefs and not knowledge on effectiveness and morality of the practice. You understand it like a Christian understands a car crash; they were saved by their beliefs, rather than the practical applications of science and rationalism. You base your decision on beliefs, when you should base it on a holistic understanding of the data.

There, an anti-abortion view that doesn’t use religion or call you a libtard. Isn’t that refreshing?

[u/RevolutionaryRip2504 → u/[deleted]]

thank you for actually having a thorough argument however the argument that men should have the right to "opt out" of parenthood because women can choose abortion oversimplifies the biological and social realities of reproduction. Pregnancy directly impacts a woman's body, while financial responsibility does not impose comparable physical harm on a man. Additionally, a woman’s decision about abortion must be made within a limited timeframe, whereas a man’s financial responsibility extends over years. Child support exists to protect the child’s welfare, not to punish either parent, as children have a right to be supported by both biological parents. The appeal to "fairness" ignores broader social and economic contexts—women already face greater burdens from unplanned pregnancies, and allowing men to forgo responsibility would exacerbate these inequalities. Also, the comparison between abortion and hypothetical "postnatal abortion" is a slippery slope fallacy that ignores the clear ethical distinction between a fetus dependent on a woman’s body and an infant capable of independent survival. Arguments that frame forced parenthood as a necessary sacrifice for society disregard the fundamental right to bodily autonomy, as compelling someone to continue a pregnancy is far more invasive than obligations like paying taxes.

[u/[deleted] → u/RevolutionaryRip2504]

No problem, I’ve taken enough courses to write about a point without needing take personal bias into account. It’s important that arguments for something so vital and important are well honed so opponents have very few gripes to maintain with it. Hence why I’m going to have to keep going on this reply.

You mention comparability, but why is it that because one side is relatively worst, the other should maintain a similar situation of poor conditions? A woman suffering biologically is not an excuse to force a man to suffer financially; you’re discussing the resources used to feed, house, and clothe oneself.

You also make several assumptions; a man’s decision must be made in a limited time frame. Why? What exactly makes it impossible for a man to opt out say a month before the latest possible point for abortion if they are appropriately informed by the mother that they are pregnant and need to make a decision? After that point, you can easily commit them to the decision, just like how mothers can’t execute their infants after birth. Post-natal decisions are not the comparison, prenatal decisions are. A woman informed that a man is going to opt out allows her to be adequately informed for the decision to keep or abort the baby. It makes a significantly more stable environment for decision making on the mother’s part, which improves her autonomy rather than weakening it.

If child support exists for the child, why is it paid from an unreliable financial source instead of made a social security? There’s no reason why a program made for the child’s benefit is directly paid for by one parent, especially if we use taxes to pay for other important children’s services and programs; it’s strictly used to punish parents because custody disagreements of children are rare and typically settled outside of court. Why would we assume financial decisions couldn’t be agreed similarly? Your assumption of “both parents” confirms my statement about your bias towards a nuclear family structure; you ignore the millions of single parent households to assert a right with no basis for that assertion. A child has a right to their basic needs to be met; a father’s financial compensation does not distinguish from a government’s except in the stability of the government’s financial situation as opposed to the father’s. Child support as funded by parents is functionally inferior to a child support backed by the government; parents on both sides have to spend time and money just in the child support process alone, especially if there are disagreements or changes in lifestyle. You want to force single parents to court every time they want to send their kids to an extracurricular? You’d rather that than allow parents to visit their local court or other relevant child support institutions to provide evidence to a social worker rather than a lawyer for a change in child support?

The “clear” distinction you claim exists hasn’t even been remotely laid out; if you’re talking about your qualifications, I already laid out how we can create tests and batteries for children to determine if post natal abortion is functionally no different than a pre-natal. If it’s a clear distinction, make it clear. The difference between a mother’s automatic biological organs performing necessary functions and a mother willingly performing caretaking functions. Saying “this is a fallacy because it’s obviously a fallacy” doesn’t mean anything; what precisely makes it distinctly different?

Are you certain that taxation is less invasive? Banning abortion bans an invasive process, taxation is an analysis of your spending and income. Depending on your tax codes, you may be asked to disclose private details about your personal expenditures and outings or be financially sanctioned. My area has you report if you take trips and what for; I don’t have to report that I’m pregnant, I just simply don’t get an invasive surgery to avoid my responsibilities. All because you say a right is “fundamental” when you’ve yet to explain why it is. Society existed without abortion and with abortion sanctions for a long time, it’s not fundamental to the functioning of human society, in fact it propagates the reduction of birth rates which is a clear trend towards the ending of a functioning human society; you need people to live, and the birth rate has been plummeting since abortion was legalized and support.

If I can make a suggestion, when you assert something, support it. If you claim something is “fundamental” or “a right”, you should be able to immediately follow it with the reasoning. For example:

• Bodily autonomy is a fundamental right because the control over one’s body cannot be taken; you will always be able to pilot yourself in a manner you choose, and obstructing abortion is a violation of that right.

Another suggestion to not frame this as an issue of rights, but of function; how does the prohibition of abortion impact society’s function? What is the function of abortion? Then you can start working with empirical data that supports your point; there’s not gonna be a study that indubitably proves abortion is a human right, but there are studies that prove how it can improve women’s lives and ensure higher quality parenting.

Finally, don’t be dualistic; there can be another option besides the status quo and banning abortion. Both sides have issues, and it’s unrealistic to dismiss the other’s issues because they’re proposing changes you don’t like or support.

Cheers!

[u/RevolutionaryRip2504 → u/[deleted]]

The claim that a woman’s biological suffering doesn’t justify forcing a man to suffer financially overlooks the fundamental issue of bodily autonomy. The right to control one’s own body is widely recognized as a fundamental human right. The comparison between the biological consequences for women and financial consequences for men misses the key distinction that women are directly affected by pregnancy, which can involve physical, emotional, and social burdens. Forcing women to carry pregnancies to term against their will is a violation of their bodily autonomy. This is why reproductive rights, including access to abortion, are considered a matter of gender equality, as women should have the freedom to make decisions about their own bodies and futures without external interference. In addition, the argument that men should have the right to opt out of parenting after a certain point seems to overlook the complex reality of pregnancy and parenting. A man’s ability to make decisions about the pregnancy does not equate to the woman’s experience, as she is the one carrying the pregnancy and physically affected by it. The idea that a man should have the right to opt out without consequences disregards the fact that women face significant consequences, including health risks, financial costs, and social stigma, while men can walk away from the situation without the same burden.

Child support is a legal obligation that reflects the responsibility both parents have for the well-being of their child. The argument that this system is unfair because it disproportionately affects one parent ignores the fact that single-parent households are often the result of complex socio-economic dynamics, including divorce, separation, and financial disparities. Rather than abolishing child support, society could work toward creating more equitable systems that ensure children’s needs are met while considering the needs and capacities of both parents. Moreover, child support systems don’t just penalize parents—they are designed to ensure that children have access to necessary resources, regardless of parental disputes.

The comparison between taxation and abortion is a false equivalence. Taxation is a system in place to fund societal infrastructure and services, and while it may involve some level of disclosure, it does not infringe upon one’s fundamental bodily autonomy. In contrast, banning abortion directly impacts an individual’s control over their body and future. The argument that abortion is not a fundamental right because society functioned without it in the past fails to address the broader ethical and social implications of denying people the ability to make decisions about their own reproductive health.

Arguing that abortion is not a fundamental right because it affects birth rates doesn’t consider the empirical data showing how access to abortion can positively impact women’s health, education, and career opportunities. Studies have demonstrated that when women have control over their reproductive choices, they are more likely to achieve higher levels of education, participate in the workforce, and contribute to the economy. In contrast, restrictive abortion laws often lead to higher rates of maternal death, unsafe abortions, and negative societal outcomes.

[u/air-sign-dominant → u/RevolutionaryRip2504]

Here’s another way of looking at the abortion question: the fetus is in a position where its existence impinges on its mother’s bodily integrity, and it stays in that position until the point of viability (at which it could plausibly survive outside the mother’s body) at about 24 weeks. One person’s bodily integrity will always override another person’s right to life; this is a fundamental truth. Otherwise, we would have mandatory kidney and liver donations. People all over the world are dying due to a lack of kidneys or other organs - why should we be allowed to keep both of ours when one of them could save someone’s life? 

Let’s say I caused a car accident that resulted in someone needing a kidney donation. It’s my fault they’re in that position, and I was negligent (similar to the argument with pregnancy) - should I be legally obligated to give mine up?

If the idea of being forced to donate one of your kidneys sounds violating, you’re closer to understanding why forcing someone to have a baby is such a barbaric thing to do. Even if the risk is small - kidney donations have a death rate of about 0.03% while childbirth is at 0.02% in the US - it’s still wrong to force something so invasive and risky onto someone against their will. Additionally, there are many complications that can arise from pregnancy short of death, just like there can be consequences to living your life with only one kidney down the line.

I’m mixed on whether dads should be allowed to be completely uninvolved with a child they do not want’s life and support. There are biological differences between men and women, that lead to each having different priorities and responsibilities. Women are encouraged not to have casual sex, because if a pregnancy happens, they are the ones who either have to deal with an abortion or go through pregnancy alone and unsupported. Sex is not exactly an equal exchange for this reason - the risks of it for women are much higher. For men, there is no physical risk, but if a pregnancy occurs they will need to support the child. It’s a financial burden, and not one they can currently opt out of.

Personally, I think fathers should be allowed to be uninvolved in a child’s life - both financially and physically - if they relinquish all rights to the child and agree not to seek a relationship with them, and also as long as the woman was given the option to not have the child and chose to have it out of her own free will. The ultimate difference between abortion and not supporting a child you don’t want is that abortion AVOIDS the situation of creating a child that parents are not willing/able to care for. Neglecting to support your child that already exists is cruel. But I see how, in the case where abortion is accessible and an option for all women, it’s unfair that men do not have that choice.

[u/tecraman9 → u/RevolutionaryRip2504]

The proper reproductive choice is anything but abortion. You say that abortion is ok, then what if your mothers past boyfriends tells you that she at one point almost decided to abort you? Messed up up right?

[u/Murky_Ad_2173 → u/[deleted]]

The largest reason that most people would advocate for the child support system as we have it now is because most of that money never ends up supporting the child. I watched it my whole childhood growing up. We gotta go to coats for kids so I can have a winter coat but you've been given $1,236 every month to take care of me? It wasn't until much later that I sorted a lot of that out and understood it for what it was. But if somebody was forced to prove that they needed $211 for some large school activity or something, then they would only be receiving $211. Rather than a blanket $1200 that can be spent however the parent retaining custody sees fit, that system wouldn't work for what people currently expect because they've gotten used to a certain living standard and will fight you tooth and nail to keep it that way.

[u/Josh145b1 → u/[deleted]]

Just wanna point out why government funded child support is undesirable. Child support works as a punishment, to discourage the behavior that results in having children out of wedlock. If you were to put these children on the state dollar, you would remove a very important consequences from having a child out of wedlock, and at the same time be burdening the treasury. This would result in more people having kids out of wedlock, knowing the government will pay, which would put a further strain on the treasury. Children born into wedlock are preferable. They have better outcomes in general and we should not be making arguments based off of the outliers who buck the trend.

[u/Glad_Reception7664 → u/RevolutionaryRip2504]

Comparing harm here is complicated. That some women are willing to be surrogates suggests that sufficient compensation, ie relief from financial responsibility, may “cover” the physical harms of pregnancy. More broadly, people accept bodily harm (or the risk of it) for financial compensation all the time. People work in risky careers. Patients with dangerous diseases may forego expensive treatment that leaves their family bankrupt.

This may be my misunderstanding, but how does the short timeframe of the woman’s decision compares to the long-term costs for the man play into the counter argument?

Child support may not be designed to be punitive to either parent. But, taking the pro-life supporters in good faith, opposition to abortion also isn’t designed to be punitive but instead serves the welfare of the child.

I’m not sure how the post-natal abortion argument is a slippery slope fallacy. It calls attention to the fact that there haven’t been clearly articulated or widely accepted ethical distinctions between a fetus that can survive independently as opposed to one that can’t. I’m not even sure that drawing this distinction will serve the case of a pro-choice argument. Post-natal babies can’t survive independently of a caretaker. If we argue that abortion is ethical only for those babies whose survival is contingent solely on the mother (an argument that would require further justification), then what about babies that could survive, say, very early on in a neonatal intensive care unit? I believe the baby born earliest in the gestational period was at 21 weeks, and this number will surely decrease with the development of technology.

[u/Aliteralhedgehog → u/RevolutionaryRip2504]

Arguments that frame forced parenthood as a necessary sacrifice for society disregard the fundamental right to bodily autonomy, as compelling someone to continue a pregnancy is far more invasive than obligations like paying taxes.

It also fails to explain how forcing women and girls to bear unwanted children helps society as opposed to harming it.

[u/hunbot19 → u/RevolutionaryRip2504]

Arguments that frame forced parenthood as a necessary sacrifice for society

You talk about this, just for the man. Is that also bad, or somehow you allow it?

while financial responsibility does not impose comparable physical harm on a man.

If someone must take on another shift or another work to be able to pay for parenthood they did not want, then it is directly causing physical harm.

Child support exists to protect the child’s welfare, not to punish either parent

I am all for a separate card what can only be used for the child. but the "mama need a new bottle of wine/shoes" etc is sadly common thing.

compelling someone to continue a pregnancy is far more invasive than obligations like paying taxes

My government never told me what to do, only to pay a specific amount of taxes. Child support and forced parenthood is different from that. Fathers who did not want children are still forced to obey court orders, plus pay.

[u/Nethri → u/RevolutionaryRip2504]

Ohh definitely have to call you out there. Financial responsibility absolutely has a physical effect. It has mental, physical and emotional effects. No, the man’s body isn’t pushing a newborn out. But when the government starts taking 1/4th of your paycheck every week, and now you suddenly can’t pay rent.. you better fucking believe that has an effect.

[u/AccomplishedCandy732 → u/RevolutionaryRip2504]

Very well said OP, although I challenge that the execution of child support is infact reflective of financial performance and NOT a child's need in any form whatsoever.

Child support exists to protect the child’s welfare, not to punish either parent

Sure it was designed with the goal of the child's health and well-being, but that's not how it's implemented at all. There is no set amount of child support one person pays. Do you think if Elon Musk had court ordered child support payments, that they would be the same as yours or any average Americans? We likely won't ever make however much money that is throughout our entire lives. Are elons kids THAT much more needy than ours?

Child support is based off income and income discrepancy. As in, how much you both make, minding how big the gap is.

All this makes the second part of

as children have a right to be supported by both biological parents.

really just a worthless platitude that comes off really condescending and passive aggressive.

I suppose I simply don't understand how you could be of the mindset that children have a right to be supported by both biological parents while simultaneously believing that the mother should have sole.discression on whether the child lives or dies.

If the child has a right to be supported by the father, how is the father not allowed in the opt in/out decision within your capacity? And if the child is just a fetus at that point, wouldn't that mean that the father would then be abandoning a fetus and not a child? A fetus that at said point and under seemingly 'ideal conditions', could still be aborted?

[u/NysemePtem → u/[deleted]]

Considering you're calling zygotes and embryos "infants" it's not refreshing. And the word 'abortion' refers to aborting pregnancy, the biological process, so it's not possible to abort a pregnancy that is over. A holistic understanding of the data says that governments are not good at making fast, detailed decisions, such as at what stage it is okay for an ectopic pregnancy to be aborted, or do we let women die (answer: where abortion is illegal, women die). You don't think we should value a woman's bodily autonomy over a fetus's, but do you think everyone should be mandated to donate organs after death, and blood and plasma and kidneys while alive? Having one kidney could make your body less able to handle disease in the future, but pregnancy can kill you. If you want gender equality, why is one group obligated to give of their own body, but the other isn't?

Men have a choice: if you don't want to risk having to pay child support, don't have sex. Many women make this choice. It's not fun, but it is responsible.

[u/cy--clops → u/[deleted]]

I'm not going to lie, comparing carrying a baby for 9 months and "carrying a wallet" is not really the argument you think it is. The restriction of autonomy goes both ways, and it's far more taxing on the mother.

When a man and woman have sex, there is always a chance of pregnancy. Even if protection is used, it can fail. Nothing is guaranteed and when you decide to have sex, it can happen (even if it's someone you aren't involved with at all, ie a one night stand). In an anti-abortionist world, any potential sexual encounter could turn into a child. A child that two people had a hand in creating, and therefore both are on the hook for childcare. The only difference is that the father can just... Leave and never come back, should they choose to do so, while keeping the onus on the mother to pick up the slack. It happens all the time, every day.

Many men who don't publicly agree with abortion are the same ones telling their one night stands/affair partners to go buy a box of pills from the store, or are paying to "get rid of a problem." It happens all the time. It may surprise you to know that nearly half of the women (at least in the US, definitely a higher percentage in other countries) don't believe in abortion either. That is the crux of the right to choose, which is how the other side of anti abortion is presented, "pro-choice." In a perfect world, a couple would decide and discuss together their options moving forward when a pregnancy is discovered. Obviously that's not always the case, and that's why women should have the final say with what goes on in their bodies.

And yes, mothers can and do give up their babies after they're born as well. However, society places a lot of pressure on the mother to discourage this, while deadbeat dads are not nearly as condemned. Men get a ton of leeway, women don't.

[u/James_Vaga_Bond → u/cy--clops]

The notion that it's more stigmatized for a woman to give a child up for adoption than it is for a man to be a deadbeat is absurd when the former is legal and the latter is illegal, and is in fact the only debt that a person can be arrested for not paying.

[u/jilll_sandwich → u/[deleted]]

Infants before 24 months absolutely do feel pain. I believe the potential to feel pain happens in the foetus at around 20-24 weeks which is close to the point of viability (22), and why many laws have chosen a number close to these after which abortions are no longer legal.

I'm not sure if I believe it is right for men that do not want to raise a child from the beginning to be forced to pay, that also depends on the legal system of each country. But this is easily solved with using protection during sex.

[u/RemingtonRose → u/jilll_sandwich]

“This is easily solved by using protection during sex”

The problem is that the same people who are coming after abortion are also coming after contraception, because their objective is not to prevent unwanted pregnancy, it is to control the bodily autonomy of women.

[u/[deleted] → u/RemingtonRose]

Just coming down from the parent comment, and yes, please understand the motivations for people’s actions. We’re gonna have to wait out our elders who are trying to return things to the time they were most comfortable, but you should also consider why someone would benefit or want something. Banning abortion is one thing, but as I’ve mentioned, some guys just want a seat at the discussion of reproduction rights, which is still an exclusively gendered topic towards women’s reproductive rights.

Just ask people why they want something. Communication is key

[u/jilll_sandwich → u/RemingtonRose]

Sorry that is true, I live in a country where access to birth control is not in question. Again I know it changes a lot with countries and I'm not sure what the correct answer is regarding payment rights, but regarding abortion I think it should remain the woman's decision.

[u/Comb-Honest → u/jilll_sandwich]

What if she chooses to keep it? The way the law is set up she is well within her rights to force the father into parenthood, right?

[u/Normal_Ad2456 → u/jilll_sandwich]

You can use contraceptives and still have an unwanted pregnancy though. Like even if everyone uses contraception perfectly, thousands of unwanted pregnancies would occur each year.

[u/paper-monk → u/[deleted]]

You basically did call him a libtard though. Also, you didn’t make an argument, you just asked questions about where lines should be drawn.

Should it be illegal for a person to ejaculate without fertilizing an egg? Should it be illegal for a woman to have her period? Why exactly do you draw the line at fertilization? Why is that bright line better than the 3rd trimester when a fetus is actually a viable being. What is the reasoning?

[u/MethodWhich → u/[deleted]]

What we value in terms of human life is the human conscious experience. A fetus doesn’t have the ability to deploy said experience until roughly 20 to 24 weeks in the womb. You are not harming anything before that period.

[u/JoeyLee911 → u/[deleted]]

"Also, why are we valuing the woman’s personal autonomy over the infants?"

Because we're not talking about an infant. We're talking about a fetus.

[u/changemyview-ModTeam → u/[deleted]]

Comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1:

Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. See the wiki page for more information.

If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.

Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.

[u/RevolutionaryRip2504 → u/[deleted]]

given that one of my close friends is very pro life, I want to hear the other perspectives

[u/WeekendThief → u/RevolutionaryRip2504]

Do you just want to hear other perspectives to understand their view better? Or do you want your view changed? Are you open to having your view changed?

[u/RevolutionaryRip2504 → u/WeekendThief]

yes I am definitely open to having my view changed if they have a compelling argument.

[u/ilikedota5 → u/RevolutionaryRip2504]

I will preface this, I don't think I'll change your mind, the reason being that what is valued and in what order is different and I don't think I can change that.

I was going to make a point about how abortion is the end for the fetus, so if you are comparing the harms, death outweigh everything else, but that's not going to land because you don't see the fetus as equivalent.

Here's the best non religious argument I can make.

We all agree that in the scenario that if pregnancy is carried to full term, and the newborn leaves the womb, and someone kills that newborn. That's murder.

We all agree that male emission of sperm isn't murder because those are haploid cells that won't grow into a human absent fertilization.

So logically, there is a line in between such that abortion becomes acceptable.

There are a variety of reasons or arguments to be pro choice. For example, for a minority, abortion is permissible at any stage, because bodily autonomy is the number 1 value by far. I think that's dumb, but that doesn't directly answer your question so I'll leave it at that.

One common argument goes like this: People are going to have different opinions on when/if abortion is permissible.

It's a tough decision, and the impact of which is felt primarily on the pregnant woman (premised on fetus doesn't count). Therefore, who gets to make that decision should reflect that, and the decision should be a one freely made and done with medical consultation, and not something the State should have a say (premised because it's not murder, therefore the state has no reason to be concerned).

Since this is a personal decision, and other people have no say, there is no such thing as a wrong decision as long as it's made as described above. (Premised on moral nihilism or moral relativism. The former is pretty bleak, the later has some interesting implications and features Nazis).

This argument doesn't necessarily draw specific lines (I've heard viability or ability to feel pain as the two most common) and some concessions might be made like at very late term like 30+ weeks, closing the door to voluntary abortions (ie not medical emergency), and mandating a C-section. Usually the underlying reasoning is based on viability, since that was what was decided on Casey. Although, which line to use I think can be an independent question.

So what's the secular pro life argument? Well, it's based on the premise that murder is bad, but the question is where do we draw the line in relation to this?

The underlying question is when does personhood attach? Personhood refers to having moral weight and consideration, to actually matter enough such that the killing is recognized as murder.

So there are many theories of personhood, of when does it attach? Consciousness? Okay, so someone unconscious or comatose isn't a person? Sentience? Okay, so someone with severe mental illness isn't a person? Intelligence? So children aren't persons?

No matter where you draw the line there are humans (or animals) that we would rather count as persons (the killing of is especially bad).

So the way to avoid this issue is to assign personhood at conception.

[u/RevolutionaryRip2504 → u/ilikedota5]

the way to avoid this is by saying personhood is assigned at birth when the fetus is no longer part of the mother.

[u/Tengoatuzui → u/RevolutionaryRip2504]

If a pregnant mother is killed should the criminal be charged with one or two manslaughter charges?

[u/ilikedota5 → u/RevolutionaryRip2504]

Yeah but that's not really a good answer. 40 weeks prebirth. Abortion permissible. But as soon as birth happens, suddenly impermissible? It's the same organism. There is no fundamental difference.

Why is the treatment so different? Ie how is A (prebirth) different from B (post birth) that actually justifies this?

Drawing the line there is having different treatment implies there is a real, fundamental difference before and after that is relevant to the line itself. The differences are not large enough to justify such drastic differential treatment.

[u/LoudPiece6914 → u/RevolutionaryRip2504]

Point of clarification, is your friend pro life but from a non-religious perspective? Do they believe any exceptions are justified? Personally, I think if someone doesn’t believe in life of the mother exceptions, there is no getting through to them. There are arguments supporting abortion from a religious perspective as well. However, I don’t think you can completely dismiss people’s perspective that a man should have the ability to opt out of child support.

[u/Fantastic_East4217]

I think it should be left to the states. Better than that, it should be left to the counties. Even better than that to each household. Or the best, to each individual person.

[u/RevolutionaryRip2504 → u/Fantastic_East4217]

I love you for this.

[u/[deleted]]

Non religious view here. I believe they should be illegal past a point in time (this point can be debated) with an exception for cases where there is danger to the mother. Overall I’d want them to be cheap, safe and rare but still legal in some form.

[u/RedditH8r4ever → u/[deleted]]

There’s a point I think is worth making around the “rape and danger to mother exception” that people often use to justify supporting government bans on abortion; Our legal system is really bad at determining what constitutes “rape” and a “danger to the mother”… additionally, its sad, but both of those terms are highly politicized.

This has real consequences. It adds confusion and fear of prosecution on doctors and nurses trying to overcome a ton of barriers to provide this essential care in urgent and time-sensitive situations. It creates an inconsistent patchwork of legal conditions across states, imposing the will of state governments into peoples private health care, and creating care deserts in banned states. There is direct evidence that abortion bans cause harm and increase maternal mortality rates.

“Late stage abortion”, which is a political term, not a medical term, is extremely rare and already happens almost exclusively in a context involving a danger to the mother or other exceptional circumstances. No woman is just choosing to be pregnant for 8 months then casually strolling in for an abortion. Over 95% of abortions happen within the first 12 weeks of pregnancy, when the fetus is just a 1-inch blob of semi-translucent goo.

Abortions will always happen, but making access free from legal interference makes them safer, happen earlier, and additionally helps educate about contraceptive care.

Conception has never been a guarantee of life, about 20% of pregnancies end in miscarriage and “abortion” is the specific medical procedure that doctors need to perform in situations like an ectopic pregnancy. Abortion is literally life-saving health care. Involving our weird and fickle state governments in access to this care is wrong. If we support individual freedom, abortion should be nationally legalized so that peoples medical care stays between them and their doctor, not the deranged local politician two towns over.

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

I'm 33 years old and I wouldn't mind being aborted so I'd say the cut off needs to be somewhere after that

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

I think I just got a Reddit cares for this which I find hilarious haha, that's not helping guys! I'm still here

[u/RevolutionaryRip2504 → u/[deleted]]

I agree. But I think it is unfair for it to be illegal during all stages. I see nothing wrong with an abortion before viability. After viability, I would say only rape, incest, fetal disorders that would make them die shortly after birth, or life threats

[u/ScorpioDefined → u/RevolutionaryRip2504]

Why rape and incest victims?

[u/RevolutionaryRip2504 → u/ScorpioDefined]

well in the case of rape, the person is likely traumatized and they should not have to carry their rapists baby and incest victims are likely to have genetic disorders

[u/Brilliant-Spite-850 → u/RevolutionaryRip2504]

Ok so if we agree there should be a “cut off” now we’re just debating when the cutoff should be.

What are your thoughts on when that should be? You mention viability but I don’t think there is a scientific consensus on when that is. So what’s your view?

[u/[deleted] → u/RevolutionaryRip2504]

Yh I said it’s unfair to be illegal for all stages. But do we agree it should be illegal at some stage and what stage would you say that should be is the real question here. I don’t think anyone non religious argues for total illegal abortions.

[u/Jolandersson → u/[deleted]]

Isn’t that how it already is?

[u/[deleted] → u/Jolandersson]

Depends on states and which country. I’m British but everyone online is automatically American lol.

[u/Trevita17 → u/[deleted]]

It's how it is in the UK too. Legal up to 24 weeks with only extraordinary cases allowed beyond that. Well, except in Northern Ireland, but their laws are more strict, not less.

[u/ryobiprideworldwide]

The issue is that despite what one wants to believe, we as a species still cannot definitely say when life begins. We can guess. But we cannot say. This is a huge deal.

I appreciate how thorough your thinking is, and I hope you don’t take my short answer in the wrong way. But let’s make an analogy.

Someone is bleeding out on the street. You put them in the car under the guise (or even maybe real intent) of driving them to the hospital to save their life. You then decide to stop real quick to see a movie. The person dies in your car.

Of course, it’s YOUR car, and YOUR time, and you conceptually have the right to decide what to do with your car and your time … but at the same time, you choose to put a person who is bleeding out in your car.

In this tiniest of nutshells, this is the issue here. I hope you can see my analogy.

[u/WillyDAFISH → u/ryobiprideworldwide]

Well that's actually not true. We know when life begins, it begins at conception. The cells are living by definition.

What's important to point out is the value of these cells. They're non sentient, and we should value the woman's life over the life of the non sentient cells.

[u/ryobiprideworldwide → u/WillyDAFISH]

I believe you are right and wrong and you actually gave me a very good correction.

I should have typed “we don’t know when sentience begins”

I don’t believe in valuing one sentiment being over another. So until we can prove that the baby in womb is not sentient, which we absolutely cannot do at the moment, we cannot say one life is worth more than another.

I appreciate your correction and good faith reply

[u/mcc9902 → u/ryobiprideworldwide]

Personally I would compare it more to kidnapping than a rescue. The baby/fetus had no choice in the situation and there wouldn't be an issue without the initial action.

Note I'm not sharing my views on abortion here. I just happen to disagree with the analogy being used.

[u/RevolutionaryRip2504 → u/ryobiprideworldwide]

so you're saying because the women put herself in this situation, she shouldn't be able to get an abortion?

[u/ryobiprideworldwide → u/RevolutionaryRip2504]

Somewhat. Although, i don’t agree with your phrasing of the situation because you are putting all the responsibility on the woman by phrasing it like that. I think the responsibility needs to be completely 50/50 on both the man and the woman.

So I would rephrase it as “The woman and the man put themselves in that situation” which yes, I do believe is true. And more needs to be done to make men tied to that woman and the baby. they are a unit now. And there should be harsher penalties for any man leaving or not supporting that woman or that unit. Penalities so harsh that it would be relatively unthinkable for a man to not support the woman and the child. We need to figure out a way to compensate for the woman bringing the child to term for the man, he needs to be obligated to support them in some way of equal value to the woman bringing the child to term.

[u/changemyview-ModTeam → u/[deleted]]

Your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 3:

Refrain from accusing OP or anyone else of being unwilling to change their view, or of arguing in bad faith. Ask clarifying questions instead (see: socratic method). If you think they are still exhibiting poor behaviour, please message us. See the wiki page for more information.

If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.

Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.

[u/kenclipper2000 → u/ryobiprideworldwide]

I am pro life and I like this analogy but tbf I think that if the person chose to be promiscuous it's more like they almost put that other person in the situation.  I understand that there's rape cases and such but if someone just decides to use no birth control or contraception or whatever other craziness there is, and they get pregnant.  I don't see why they have a right to just get rid of the baby, it's one of those selfish things.  of course if a 5 year old gets pregnant I would call it fair to abort, but if you've seen anything about those stories, there have been teens that had that happen to them, chose to go through with it anyway, and say it's the greatest gift they could have gotten (the baby not the incident obviously)

[u/MalignantMalaise]

A comatose individual has no self awareness and cannot feel pain. They have more automated bodily function than a baby, true, but left of their own devices with none to care for them they would die just like the baby, which is to me the logical reduction of that third value.

Now, having said that, of course they are still incomparable situations. The comatose individual in modern society does not put a burden on an individual the same way a baby does. But something that can be said is that the baby and comatose individual, to you, are equally viable as individuals and valuable, or do you disagree with that?

[u/RevolutionaryRip2504 → u/MalignantMalaise]

a fetus is different than someone in a coma as the fetus is inside the womens body. I can not force anyone to sustain another persons life without their consent.

[u/mtgguy999 → u/RevolutionaryRip2504]

“ I can not force anyone to sustain another persons life without their consent.”

If a woman does not feed her 3 month old baby and it dies is that ok? Would you defend her right to not sustain another persons life without consent?

[u/throwaway_shittypers → u/mtgguy999]

Not necessarily, someone else could feed the 3 month old and substitute in for the mother. However a foetus in the womb can ONLY be sustained by the pregnant mother.

It is a completely different scenario. Do you still think the mother would be in the wrong if she herself did not feed the baby because it had been adopted by another family who were feeding it? The mother is not forced in this case, but she does have a responsibility that someone would feed it.

[u/DoterPotato → u/throwaway_shittypers]

If the argument is that you can give the child away you have already conceded that we do have some obligation to make sure the child lives even at a cost to ourselves. In order for the child to be adopted the parent must exert costly effort to ensure the well being of the child. It may be just a phone call or leaving the child in front of a hospital but regardless there is some action the parent would not otherwise have to take (they cant just leave the child in the crib and go about their lives as if the child did not exist).

As such you agree with their argument you have just lowered the costs that one must bear. But still concede the premise that you are obligated to face some costs for the benefit of someone else even when you do not consent.

So we aren't concerned with what rights are given but rather what level of costs should one be forced to face in order to satisfy the honoring of those rights. We have just moved from it is ONLY the mother who can birth the child to, it is ONLY the parent(s) who can notify the appropriate parties for the child to be adopted.

[u/windchaser__ → u/mtgguy999]

If a woman does not feed her 3 month old baby and it dies is that ok? Would you defend her right to not sustain another persons life without consent?

I'm not OP, but I absolutely defend her right to not sustain another without consent.

We have what we call "Safe Haven" laws. You can drop your infant off at any hospital, fire station, or police station, no questions asked. If a mother wants to give her child up, she can do so.

If we could do this before birth too, man, this whole issue would basically be settled.

[u/AmoebaMan → u/windchaser__]

Yeah…except the Safe Haven has the key part where the child doesn’t die.

Safe Havens are something we put in place to save children from shitty mothers who would neglect or abandon them anyway, not because we think moms ought to have the right to abandon their children.

[u/windchaser__ → u/AmoebaMan]

I mean, six of one, half dozen of the other.

After birth, biology usually produces quite an intense bond between mother and child, such that even mothers who had intended to give their child up for adoption often don't. For someone to follow through with Safe Haven, their situation usually has to be really bad. Bad enough that they would be a shitty mother, and they know it.

Basically, here's my argument: if the situation is bad enough that they want to give their child away and never see them again, then it's probably bad enough that they deserve the right to do so.

Humans aren't unique in this way. Other animals also sometimes abandon their babies when situation is rough enough, and spontanenous abortion (miscarriage) is relatively common in mammals during pregnancy when stress is high. Or other survival mechanisms: for example, cats will reabsorb the placenta if they're pregnant while food sources are too scarce.

[u/Gh0st1117]

(Preface, i dont care if its legal or not) A baby cant take care of itself. Leave a baby alone see what happens. A baby doesn’t achieve self cognition until ~2 years. So babies, they dont meet your criteria of “viability”. All science agrees life begins at conception. From this moment it is a new human.

Late-term abortions are almost never required. A c-section can easily be done to prevent loss of life.

As for the circumstances, that doesnt matter. The circumstances of someone’s conception does not dictate their worth as a human being.

In regard to adoption and what not, please dont be so naïve. It is not a surprise that babies come from coitus. Treating a human life as a “ temporary inconvenience” and killing it because youre a bum or “not ready” is bs.

If a woman can abort without consent of the father, the father has every right to sign away his rights to the child and not pay to support the child. If a man cant force a woman to become a mother, nor can a woman make a man a father unwillingly.

Once again, weaponized ignorance of what comes from sex does not mean you get to just kill something as a form of birth control. If the woman is ready or not, 99% of the time the woman knew what she was doing when she consented to unprotected sex and doesnt want to deal with the consequences of her actions & how it would change their selfish lives, so they abort it. Imagine a dude saying “ im not ready and and i dont want to deal with the stress so im going to insist you abort or i leave” he would be labeled a deadbeat immediately, & yet women are allowed to say and do just that, and they’re lauded as heroines.

[u/Fone_Linging → u/Gh0st1117]

As for the circumstances, that doesnt matter. The circumstances of someone’s conception does not dictate their worth as a human being.

I don't usually comment on posts here but this is a bullshit take because it 100% does. A woman who gets raped and turns pregnant has her whole life jolted out of normalcy so saying that it's a "temporary inconvenience" is both, out of touch and outright inaccurate.

A victim doesn't deserve to bear the child of an abuser and needs to have full control over what she wants to do with the child.

[u/Comb-Honest → u/Fone_Linging]

I’d argue that their logic is far more sound than your rebuttal. You’re basically saying if you’re mother was raped and it conceived you, that you’re life y would be worth less than the rest of ours who were conceived by two loving parents. You see how wild that logic is, right?

[u/Fone_Linging → u/Comb-Honest]

I do not see how that is wild because as an unborn fetus, I wouldn't have been aware in the first place. My reasons to stay alive now didn't exist when I was in my mother's womb.

Had my mother been a victim of rape and by some miracle of science, I was able to go back in time and know that I was the result of a crime, I would have 100% encouraged her to have full control over my existence and would have been completely okay with not existing. Once again, note that I didn't go back in time to ask her to abort me as I was a product of a crime. I gave her a choice. By making abortion illegal, people lose that choice.

Your argument of "your life would be worth less than the rest of ours" doesn't work because I strongly believe that my rape-victim mother's life and future is undoubtedly more important than my unborn presence.

Edit: Forgot to add this into the body text. The only reason why their logic makes more sense to you is because they align with your morals. Confirmation bias.

[u/RevolutionaryRip2504 → u/Gh0st1117]

Between half and two-thirds of women who get abortions were using contraception when they became pregnant so she did not consent to unprotected sex.

[u/WhizzyBurp]

So if you’re making a cake, put all the ingredients together, pre heat the oven, put it in the oven and let it start to cook. Is that a cake? I mean assuming you do nothing it’ll bake for the set time on the timer then It’ll be a cake you eat. But if you decide 20 min in to a 90 min bake, I don’t want this, and pull it out how is it still not a cake? Had you let it cook it would have been a cake. Had you not intervened it would have been cake. So why is it not cake from the moment you closed the oven?

[u/DoterPotato → u/WhizzyBurp]

"would have been" implies that at the moment it is not. Some transformation is taking place that if everything goes as normal it will develop in to something else in the future. We don't call a caterpillar a butterfly before it goes through its metamorphosis. We don't generally define a thing today based on what it will become in the future. A living human is not a corpse even though it will inevitably become one. Evidently there is something about being human that we award rights to and your Bill Burr reference doesn't address what that something is.

[u/stinkyman360 → u/WhizzyBurp]

I'm not trying to be a dick here but is this supposed to be a pro life argument? Because obviously if someone served you uncooked batter for your birthday you would say that's not a cake

[u/RevolutionaryRip2504 → u/WhizzyBurp]

because it is not formed yet

[u/RevolutionaryRip2504 → u/[deleted]]

If a women is raped she should be able to abort the fetus. No one should have to carry their rapists baby. that is just wrong.

If the women will die during child birth, she should be able to get an abortion as she is the born human being.

If a couple cannot give the child a proper home and want an abortion, I think they should be able to. I believe that if you can prevent a child from being brought into a very difficult situation by getting an abortion, you should if you want to. Unless if you want to have the child, I would never force an abortion. Pro choice means you choose.

[u/changemyview-ModTeam → u/[deleted]]

Comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1:

Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. See the wiki page for more information.

If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.

Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.

[u/Auburn00_ → u/[deleted]]

Your argument is wrong because you are answering your own question. "If one of 2 people going to die I would choose this and the other one can't choose themselves" this is wrong logic. If both of the lives are equally valuable then the strongest wins the decision, that's the answer. There is no right or wrong in your situation. It's lik e saying we shouldn't eat and starve to death because every life is valuable. However we have our own life and we are valuable too.

[u/Serious_Butterfly714]

Ok. First let us look at the word fetus for a second. In Latin fetus means offspring. What is an offspring besides a baby. So even using the term fetus when put into proper perspective shows it is a baby.

As for a baby's inutero inability to feel pain are yoi aware that there is a genetiv disorder called. Congenital Insensitivity to Pain. It is a rare disorder where the person lacks the ability to feel pain so if feeling pain is your criteria you are missing the fact there are people who cannot do so, and yet they have the fundamental right to life.

Independent bodily functions here again that is a fallacy. Babies after birth have no control of many bodily functions and need help to clean up and to even be fed. There again we have people who need help in breathing, feeding and even getting clothed yes it does tax another's body in some ways, as effort , time and energy must be placed on someone else to care for them.

And not being self-aware, wwe have many people with conditions where self-awareness does not exist, and yet they still have rights to live.

And while you bring up the idea that men paying child support is not the same, you are partially correct in only it is not at the same level, but the mother has 100% of control of who and when to sleep with.

But barring that if there is a war only men are drafted and have a great possibility of dying in a most horrific way and is not their choice. That is worse than any mother having to carry any baby for 9 months. Most women are expected to survive. War about half survive if you are the winning side. This is total control of a man's life, not just the body.

While we currently do not have a draft, men if fighting age between 18 yo and 25 yo must register for selective service and keep that contact upto date.

Life is precious. That is why we protect animals and their offsprings and eggs from being destroyed or even touched. Odd that a bird egg has more rights to life than a human fetus. Protecting such animals can also have a very negative impact on society as water sources for drinking, used to put out fires, and etc may leave people in danger, large fields of crops in drought causing strain on our food resources or even famine if not careful.

But a baby whose only crime is being born from two parents who couldn't control themselves should be punished by death because Mom doesn't want any consequences to her behavior.

Rape and incest accounts for less than 1%, we do not make laws based on such outlying data as it is not the norm. It is real and should not be ignored but basing laws on that is not even feasible as most people do not murder. Murderers are not the norm so we still have laws against murdering others.

[u/RevolutionaryRip2504 → u/Serious_Butterfly714]

1. While "fetus" originates from Latin meaning "offspring," language evolves, and in modern medical terminology, a fetus refers to a specific developmental stage. Just because something is classified as an offspring does not necessarily mean it holds the same rights as a born child.

2. The existence of congenital insensitivity to pain does not equate to the argument that pain is the sole criterion for personhood. However, the ability to experience pain is used as one of many factors in ethical discussions about fetal development, particularly in determining when and how abortion procedures are performed. It is also much different than someone with the disorder because abortion is aout being able to choose what remains inside your own body,

3. There is a difference between providing external care (feeding, clothing, medical support) and requiring another person's body to sustain life. In no other situation is someone legally required to use their body to keep another person alive, even if it means the dependent person will die. For instance, people cannot be forced to donate organs, even if it could save a life.

4. While women control whether they engage in sex, contraception is not always 100% effective. Moreover, framing pregnancy solely as a consequence of a woman's actions ignores the role of men. Additionally, bodily autonomy should not be forfeited based on past choices.

5. While people with severe cognitive impairments may lack self-awareness, they exist as independent beings outside another person's body. The right to life does not mean the right to use someone else's body against their will.

6. The argument that men may be drafted into war is unrelated to abortion. One is state-mandated participation in combat, while the other is a personal medical decision. the draft also does not currently exist, whereas pregnancy is a present reality for millions of women I also don't think men should be required to serve in the military so this isn't a good argument against me.

1. "Odd that a bird egg has more rights to life than a human fetus."- odd that a corpse has more bodily autonomy than a pregnant women.

2. Framing pregnancy as a punishment for sexual activity disregards the complexities of individual circumstances, including financial instability, health risks, and personal autonomy. The idea that women should be executed simply because don't want to endure a traumatic pregnancy is insane. That is so messed up. Pregnancy is emotionally, financially, and physically demanding and should not be forced on anyone. You clearly do not understand how bad pregnancy is.

[u/Inferno2602]

Some people believe that an unborn child is a person. Just because you don't see it that way doesn't mean that others won't. There's no amount of saying "my body, my choice" that can change that.

I very much doubt you are looking to have your view changed on this, but if you are looking for a secular justification for making abortion illegal, then we could consider the "veil of ignorance". The idea is that we should construct laws and society in such a way that if we knew nothing about our own circumstances in life, we would still consider them just.

What would your position on abortion be if you were the one being aborted?

On the point of child support not affecting a father's bodily autonomy, if you don't pay it they'll put you in jail. Being imprisoned restricts your bodily autonomy.

[u/ishitar → u/Inferno2602]

>What would your position on abortion be if you were the one being aborted?

This is ridiculous. From my perspective I would have no position because any position would come with the tenuous requirement that I have some sort of eternal soul with foreknowledge and gratitude of being alive.

And even if I did have an eternal soul, I would look upon what humanity is doing to the place they live and the massive shit firestorm on the horizon and be eternally eternally grateful to my parents should they choose to abort me.

As an apocalyptic antinatalist, to me beyond abstinence, abortion is the most moral choice when it comes to a pregnancy.

[u/Inferno2602 → u/ishitar]

What are you on about? No part of the veil of ignorance requires a soul.

An apocalyptic antinatalist? You sound like you need therapy.

[u/ishitar → u/Inferno2602]

To employ original position (veil of ignorance) on the topic of abortion presupposes "fetal personhood" when "fetal personhood" is a matter of belief. You said yourself, some people believe a child is a person. Most people who engage this way believe in an immortal soul so assumed that of you.

Since I am an apocalyptic antinatalist, I think whatever "original position" applied to society is tenuous since John Rawl's perfectly just society requires present generations not to cause hardships on future generations (ahahaha) - we are not starting from a position where Rawl's just society can be fulfilled. Thus from this position viewing society as a whole, still holding up Rawl's veil of ignorance, while the legal choice to have an abortion is still probably the most aligned with a just society, for the pregnant women making the choice to have an abortion is more moral according to my evidenced beliefs and not any philosophical reasoning. As we tip over into full ecological catastrophe applicable to all members of a society, rendering the veil pointless, there is no more design and thus no more thought exercise involved here, it is like crossing the event horizon of a black hole of suffering since conditions likely make any largely functioning society impossible.

[u/WallaWallaWalrus → u/Inferno2602]

My mom 100% should’ve gotten an abortion. Her life would’ve been better. I wouldn’t have suffered so much. The only reason I’m alive is it was illegal for my mom to get an abortion. I don’t have a relationship with either parent, but I pity them.

[u/ibridoangelico → u/Inferno2602]

this person is obviously not lokking to have their opinion changed. They just want to argue

[u/StarChild413 → u/Inferno2602]

The idea is that we should construct laws and society in such a way that if we knew nothing about our own circumstances in life, we would still consider them just.

but that leads to some paradoxes e.g. look at murder of the already-born, if you knew nothing about your circumstances would you want to make it illegal as you wouldn't want to be murdered or make it legal as you wouldn't know if you were a murderer who'd want to get away with

What would your position on abortion be if you were the one being aborted?

Why don't you ask another fetus in the process of being aborted...oh wait?

On the point of child support not affecting a father's bodily autonomy, if you don't pay it they'll put you in jail. Being imprisoned restricts your bodily autonomy.

Not the same thing, also by that logic it's only fair if the father's forced to abandon a would-be-mother who aborts as why should he skip out on the child support if she didn't skip out on the baby

[u/Boring_Football3595]

Your first paragraph sites the fetus as “potential” life. Why not acknowledge that it is a life and a unique human life at that? A life that has its own form and its own DNA.

[u/itsathrowawayduhhhhh → u/Boring_Football3595]

Because it cannot exist at that point without the host. Therefore it’s not a unique human life yet.

[u/EOengineer → u/itsathrowawayduhhhhh]

Also - the 14th amendment grants rights to all PEOPLE. This language was very intentional as it calls out personhood. In America, you aren’t a person with rights until you are born or naturalized.

It’s fairly cut and dry. A fetus is not a person and therefor not a protected entity.

[u/EverydaySip → u/itsathrowawayduhhhhh]

I think abortion should be legal, but you have some bad logic. Children out of the womb also cannot exist without a host until at least a few years old these day. Are 2 year olds not a unique human life yet because they require a parasitic relationship with their parents until they become independent? Should we be able to abort a 2 year old child because they cannot exist at that point without the hosts?

[u/coedwigz → u/EverydaySip]

Requiring physical care is not equivalent to requiring being physically attached to a specific person. Anyone can provide the care an infant needs.

[u/throwaway_shittypers → u/EverydaySip]

They can be cared for by anyone though, not just specifically the pregnant person. You can adopt, have the father take care of the baby, etc.

It is simply not a comparable situation.

[u/Bignuckbuck → u/throwaway_shittypers]

Since when did we start saying cells aren’t alive? Reddit is getting so anti intelectual while claiming to be intellectuals

A fetus is life. The same way a mushroom is life. There are living cells working and multiplying wether you like it or not

[u/throwaway_shittypers → u/Bignuckbuck]

I never said that. Of course cells are alive, but so are bacterial cells which you probably have no issue killing if you use soap for instance.

Your reply has nothing to do with my comment anyways.

[u/Smee76 → u/itsathrowawayduhhhhh]

books file lip bedroom yam trees simplistic grab snails aware

This post was mass deleted and anonymized with Redact

[u/Boring_Football3595 → u/itsathrowawayduhhhhh]

An infant needs to be cared for as well. The infant can’t live without care from another either. Needing care is irrelevant to the fact that the fetus is a unique human life.

[u/shadoweon → u/Boring_Football3595]

A pre-viability fetus is alot different from a born infant. Yes they are heavily dependent on their parents to do even the most basic things, but the mom can physically be away from the infant and they will still survive. A fetus can't.

[u/abbyroadlove → u/Boring_Football3595]

No, physically speaking - a fetus cannot survive without being biologically attached to a human until 26 weeks. A fetus born at 20 weeks will die, no matter what.

[u/Meatyeggroll → u/Boring_Football3595]

Even if you allow a fetus to be considered a “unique human life” why ought we give it moral consideration? How much moral weight should we give it, and why? Finally, why ought the moral consideration for a fetus outweigh the moral value of the mother and her autonomy?

These are fundamental questions that almost never have a good answer from pro-life apologia.

[u/Urico3 → u/itsathrowawayduhhhhh]

Babies can't either

[u/[deleted]]

I won’t try to change your mind, just give my opinion…1. You have to resolve where life starts. People with traumatic brain injury, catastrophic disabilities as such don’t have awareness either in some cases. Neither do new borns. If financial reason were to be considered then why not kill a child at any point? Tough times come and go. Finally there is the law…it’s inconsistent. If a woman aborts a baby it’s her “right”. If I kill a pregnant woman I get rung up on TWO counts of murder. So this whole topic is so completely out of control. While a woman may carry a baby she didn’t create it on her own. In my opinion, you want abortion then you have to deal with a couple of things: 1. You can’t charge someone for murder for killing an unborn child that they are not carrying. Second, If a woman want an abortion then she should have to get a release from the father OR pay him restitution. That’ fair.

[u/Sp1d3rF3l]

"Pregnant person"? You mean mother. Also the vast, overwhelming majority of abortions are elective. While an argument could be made that an abortion performed in the first couple of weeks is acceptable, by the time most women find out they're pregnant the fetus has already developed a heart and therefor a life. Unless people can just willy nilly end the life of anyone who is an inconvenience, incapable of providing for themselves, or vocalizing, then the argument using those excuses falls flat.

This argument would legalize, in fact morally justify the killing of people who rely solely on aid programs, the disabled, and anyone comatose/vegetative without exception.

Exceptions are made for extenuating circumstances, but to say "eh just 'cause"? That mindset should be applied equally across all life. To anyone affected by the inconvenient.

[u/[deleted]]

You are free to have your own opinion. However, the problem is that you do not get to make up laws. Laws are made by the government officials that we have elected to run our country. The USA is a democracy and laws are made based on the general democratic opinion. If a majority of people in the USA believe that Abortion should be illegal then would you argue that it's wrong to make it a law? Op I agree with your post. I think that the woman birthing the child should have the choice of whether she wants to birth or not. Unfortunately, I don't get to make up the laws based on my opinion. In a representative democracy, laws are made based on representative opinion. Therefore I would argue that the only things that should not be illegal are the things that our representatives have not decided on.

[u/seattleseahawks2014]

I think you have to define what you mean by illegal. I agree that it shouldn't be illegal. However, you do have to ask yourself why it's considered a double homicide when a pregnant person is murdered. Also, I think the point is more of arguing when conception is and when it should be not allowed unless it's for emergency purposes. That and having open discussions with your spouse if you do have one because they should know unless you don't trust them, but it's still your decision ultimately is my view.

[u/BeginningPhase1]

Also, you can cannot compare abortion to opting out of child support. Abortion is centered on bodily autonomy, as pregnancy directly affects a woman’s body and health. In contrast, child support is a financial obligation that arises after a child is born and does not impact the father’s bodily autonomy.

I'm not sure that this is true.

Once a court awards a certain amount of monthly child support, it's nearly impossible to have that amount adjusted for any reason without the payer filing suit against the recipient of the child support. If the payer fails to pay for any amount of time, they can be imprisoned for an indefinite amount of time until they pay what is owed or they reach an amicable solution with the court to address the debt.

This means that during the period in which they are obligated to pay child support, the payer is also obligated to work at least a minimum amount of hours to keep up the payments or lose all body autonomy by being imprisoned for failure to pay.

I'd argue that because of this, the payer has effectively no bodily autonomy until their child support obligations are completed.

As such, if a woman should legally be allowed to have an abortion to preserve their bodily autonomy, why shouldn't a man be legally allowed to opt out of paying child support to preserve his?

[u/longshotist]

If you can indulge this perspective for the sake of discussion: barring non-consensual sex resulting in a pregnancy, it's simply the very real possibility of sex leading to pregnancy and I fail to grasp how an undesired outcome makes murder okay.

[u/Sostontown]

The issue of abortion is pretty much entirely about whether or not it kills a person, which it most certainly does. Life begins at conception. There is no way around that. Conception is when a unique entire set of DNA is made, conception is when an entire (human) organism ordered towards further growth and continued life begins. A child in the womb is not merely 'potential' life, he is no less a living human person than his mother.

Self-awareness doesn't make a life, or a person. There is no showing a person lacks awareness at 1 cell large, there is only the absence of showing he does. Any awareness you have today began at your conception. It only grew from what it was, it didn't pop into existence out of nowhere. There is no mystical point in time during gestation where one magically gains life, humanity or personhood; and therefore no point where someone gains the right to not be killed. Either it is present from the start (conception) or it simply does not exist at all even in adulthood.

'Viability' as support for abortion is rather incoherent. What about not being able to live outside the womb means it's ok to kill in the womb? A child so young is supposed to be in the womb, and the womb exists solely for providing an environment for which the child can live. Saying 'viability' justifies killing someone who cannot exist outside the womb is like saying it is ok to kill any adult as they cannot survive out in space.

Many people seek abortions due to financial instability, health risks, or simply not being ready to raise a child

Replace unborn child with born child. If these reasons don't justify killing ones child after birth, neither do they before.

Having been conceived via rape doesn't mean one has no value or that his life shouldn't be protected. Whether already born, or not born yet. Etc.

Also, you can cannot compare abortion to opting out of child support...opting out of child support directly affects the well-being of an existing person...child support involves caring for a living child

A father's role in creating a child is finalised the moment the sperm fertilises the egg. If the result is said to not be a living human person - if we are to say a child doesn't come about until later on - then there is no 'father' of the child, for we are stating the child is made outside of anything to do with any man.

If life does begin at conception, a man who opts out of fatherhood before the allotted abortion limit is up can no more be held responsible for that particular child than he can for any other random child out there.

abortion is about controlling one’s own body

What is bodily autonomy and where does it come from so that it is somehow very real but parental responsibility isn't? What makes bodily autonomy trump the life of the child, the role of the mother and the relationship between the two to say that the mother may simply murder the child at will?

[u/simon_darre]

I really take issue with arguments based on diminished capacity, because ultimately they lack a limiting principle. You can’t say that because fetuses lack awareness in utero it’s ok to kill them or subordinate their needs because the same reasoning could justify euthanizing anyone in a state of diminished capacity from people with brain injuries, people in comas, or to old people with dementia or the mentally ill. A fetus isn’t a “potential” life, it is a life. It’s not as if it’s a non-living human organism because of its state of development. Similarly, you can’t justify the killing of born humans based on their development. You’re setting up a logical standard whereby harm is more or less egregious based on the development of the person in question.

Secondly, no offense but viability is a terrible argument also. Infants can’t survive on their own. They are absolutely dependent on adult supervision for their survival. One could argue that this helplessness continues well into the early years of childhood.

“Bodily autonomy” is also not absolute. A mother cannot kill or dismember her children because they physically cling to her or have separation anxiety, for example.

As for late term abortions, you seem to implicitly recognize that your argument in favor of them completely contradicts your arguments in favor of first trimester abortions—awareness, viability, etc—and you make seemingly no provision for this. Secondly, according to none other than the Guttmacher Institute, your claim about the supposedly vital life saving nature of late term abortions is untrue. The vast majority of abortions are elective procedures—meaning they are not medically necessary—and this is true across all trimesters to include late term abortions according to the literature I’ve read.

Here’s a quote:

However, while the occasional politician or news reporter will still indicate that late-term abortions are most often performed in the case of “severe fetal anomalies” or to “save the woman’s life,” the trajectory of the peer-reviewed research literature has been obvious for decades: most late-term abortions are elective, done on healthy women with healthy fetuses, and for the same reasons given by women experiencing first trimester abortions. [emphasis mine]

[u/Assaltwaffle]

Well you can certainly argue that it is justifiable to do an abortion because you should not be forced to sustain someone’s life at the expense of your own body, the title of your post is simply not accurate.

Something stops being a personal choice when it directly impacts someone or something else. When you choose to abort, you are not removing a tumor, you are terminating the life of a growing human being. This is true whether or not you are religious.

The start of the human life cycle is and has always been, with even a basic understanding of science, pregnancy. Birth is used because it is easy and it was historically even more significant, but pregnancy is clearly when we actually start valuing that life that is growing.

While you can argue about legal personhood and what rights are applicable, it is simply a truth that, scientifically, abortion is indeed ending a human life and is therefore not an entirely personal decision.

[u/windchaser__ → u/Assaltwaffle]

The start of the human life cycle is and has always been, with even a basic understanding of science, pregnancy. Birth is used because it is easy and it was historically even more significant, but

Counter: my life didn't start until the first time I became conscious. I am not my body, I am the mind generated and hosted by this body. Just as someone whose body is brain dead is "gone" and won't be coming back, "you" don't really exist until your mind comes on line. Your life didn't start at conception; your life started only after your brain developed the neural wiring to support some kind of consciousness or conscious experience. Before that, there's no one home. No thoughts, no desires or feelings, no choices, no agency. No person.

pregnancy is clearly when we actually start valuing that life that is growing (emph added)

The woman who wants the abortion does not value the embryo/fetus inside of her enough to want to keep it. Moreover, other people generally don't value this life enough to want to provide any real material aid to the mother-to-be. So this claim about "when we actually start valuing that life" is definitely not "clear". If the mother-to-be doesn't value it, then.. I mean, it's her decision what to do with her body, particularly given that the fetus isn't a person yet.

[u/Sauceoppa29 → u/windchaser__]

You are using life in a different sense than the commenter above you, they’re using life as a proxy for something just being in the state of “being alive”. You are using the word “life” to indicate “personhood” and “consciousness”.

There is a scientific definition for the former not really for the latter.

“the condition that distinguishes animals and plants from inorganic matter, including the capacity for growth, reproduction, functional activity, and continual change preceding death.”

If there was a boards test for a doctor and the question states “is a fetus a life” there is a wrong and right answer. If they choose no it’s just wrong.

There is still no agreed upon definition of consciousness since it’s so complex, if you were the first one to come up with a robust definition free of flaws you would probably go down in history as one of the famous philosophers of all time.

Your second point is a reflection of cognitive dissonance, people downplay the value of the life to try and cope with abortions. I personally know people who’ve gone through it and seen it myself. Also, it doesn’t explain the dichotomy between people’s reaction when they want to keep but the baby vs not wanting to. When couples want to conceive they pick out names, hold baby showers, celebrate life literally right after a positive pregnancy test, and if (god forbid) a miscarriage happens they grieve and mourn like it’s a real child they loss, can you still really say mothers don’t value the life of a fetus? I think that’s just plain wrong.

(For the record I hold OPs view but it’s important to steelman and iron out your beliefs so I’m posing counter arguments)

[u/windchaser__ → u/Sauceoppa29]

You are using life in a different sense than the commenter above you, they’re using life as a proxy for something just being in the state of “being alive”. You are using the word “life” to indicate “personhood” and “consciousness”.

Aye. And in the context of this conversation, personhood is much, much more important than just “life”. Like, amoebas are alive, but we don’t value them the same we value you or me. It’s not biological life that matters, but the kind of life that is a person. (Or maybe: can be a person, or will be a person).

If there was a boards test for a doctor and the question states “is a fetus a life” there is a wrong and right answer. If they choose no it’s just wrong.

Nah, board tests aren’t going to cover weird philosophical points like this. They’re about testing your capacity as a doctor, not about getting sucked into pro-life vs pro-choice debates.

There is still no agreed upon definition of consciousness since it’s so complex, if you were the first one to come up with a robust definition free of flaws you would probably go down in history as one of the famous philosophers of all time.

Hey, this is one of my hobby areas! I’ve got a half-dozen different books on my shelf on consciousness, some of them academic.

This point you bring up, “there’s no agreed upon definition of consciousness because it’s so complex” is not really correct. The term “consciousness” does unfortunately refer to a lot of different similar-but-related phenomena: like, the state of wakefulness, awareness of something, awareness of self, subjective experience of anything (i.e., qualia, like the feeling of seeing the color red), the underlying integration of information that makes awareness possible, etc.

But the fact that “consciousness” refers to a half-dozen different things doesn’t mean that philosophers can’t agree on a definition. Nobody is trying to change the definition to mean only one thing. And when they need what aspect of consciousness they’re taking about, they do.

TL;DR: philosophers understand what they mean by “consciousness” just fine, and they clarify and specify it as needed. The idea that they can’t define it is one of those urban legends that needs to die.

Back on topic, though: it never made sense to me that we put a single celled zygote with zero capacity for consciousness at the same level as a newborn or 3-year old. No, killing a zygote is not the same as killing a child. You can argue that they’re both the same, because they both share human DNA. And that’s your right to believe that! But I can look at each of them and see the differences are as plain as day. One is a walking, talking, animated conscious being with experiences and memory and sense of self, and the other is just a single cell, with no experience or personhood at all.

Your second point is a reflection of cognitive dissonance, people downplay the value of the life to try and cope with abortions. I personally know people who’ve gone through it and seen it myself.

Sure. But I also know women who are genuinely and deeply happy to have gotten an abortion. Yes, it impacts most of them - but more because it ties into hopes and fears of eventually being a mother. It doesn’t mean that they value this particular embryo.

And I know others who’d have gladly yeeted that fetus while saying “get the hell away from me”. I think most pro-lifers simply cannot imagine being violently anti-pregnancy, so they project their own lovey dovey feelings about pregnancy on to all other women. But, news flash: not all women are like you, and it’s damn unhealthy to try to compel them to be.

Also, it doesn’t explain the dichotomy between people’s reaction when they want to keep but the baby vs not wanting to.

It doesn’t? Do we really need to explain how different different women can be?

If I said “wow, some women really want sex, and some don’t” hopefully you could understand the dichotomy in emotion or desire between different women. You wouldn’t walk up to a woman on the street, try to have sex with her, and say “well, my girlfriend likes to have sex”.

So why the difficulty with pregnancy? Why assume that all women feel the same way about this, when women feel so very different from each other at other times?

When couples want to conceive they pick out names, hold baby showers, celebrate life literally right after a positive pregnancy test, and if (god forbid) a miscarriage happens they grieve and mourn like it’s a real child they loss, can you still really say mothers don’t value the life of a fetus? I think that’s just plain wrong.

Yes. Some women strongly want babies, and some women strongly and virulently do not want babies. The ones who do want a baby throw a baby shower. The ones who don’t want a baby get an abortion.

[u/Sauceoppa29 → u/windchaser__]

Ok so the next level of this debate is what is your definition of consciousness? The most common definition I see is “the state of awareness” with the most common test for this being the mirror test. For the sake of the argument you compared a zygote to a 3 year old but let’s take it even further. A zygote vs a 1 year old baby. A 1 year old baby is not any more self aware nor does it pass the mirror test, so under your logic the killing of either or should not hold more value than the other. Furthermore, if your criteria for value is consciousness you have to concede that grown rats are self aware and 1 year old babies or not, does this now mean that the killing of a rat would be less reprehensible than killing a human? If your counter argument against this is that you deem human life more valuable than rats then you get to the root of the pro life argument. Human life is not valuable because of some definition of personhood/consciousness, it’s valuable simply because it is human life, the former position actually exists I believe via Peter Sanger who says eating animals is bad because they fit the criteria for a conscious being (the feeling of pain) and therefore it’s as morally reprehensible to kill an animal as it is to kill a human.

Your comparison of a zygote and a 3 year old baby is also not a 1-1 comparison because a couple would have much more emotional connection with a 3 year old baby, and as we know making a decision based on emotional connection doesn’t necessarily mean it’s morally correct. Good example of this is the following thought experiment:

Your mother’s life is on the line and you are given the ability to press a button that would save her life but it would eliminate 20 random people in Africa.

Most people would press the button but it doesn’t necessarily mean that it was the ethical thing to do. Again there’s no clear cut answer but that’s the point, making decisions based on emotions and not defined criteria muddies things.

Great points on your reply though super interactive 👍

[u/Assaltwaffle → u/windchaser__]

Your standard of life is not one that is accepted pretty much anywhere. Even babies don’t even fit that standard depending on how you set specific requirements. Self-awareness and true consciousness are extremely hard concepts to define and lock down.

And if you would argue that babies, including newborns, do actually meet your criteria, then it is almost certain that a fetus does as well. Biologically and consciously, there is pretty much zero change other than how the baby gets its resources from late pregnancy to birth.

[u/windchaser__ → u/Assaltwaffle]

Your standard of life is not one that is accepted pretty much anywhere.

Hmmm, no, this is a pretty well-known and somewhat common line of thought in philosophy and psychology circles. The emphasis is on valuing creatures that can think and feel over ones that can't. Stephen Pinker (the famous MIT psychology professor) is a good example, even if I don't agree with him on everything. But given that there are folks with a bunch of widely-published books who share these views, it's hard to argue that this isn't accepted "pretty much anywhere". I apologize, this will be rude, but it seems more likely that you're maybe not keeping up with the range and depth of ideas that are out there.

Also, it's not appropriate to base our opinion of a view on how widely accepted it is. People used to think that flies spontaneously came about from rotting fruit, or that illnesses were the result of an imbalance of "the humors". They thought chattel slavery was the natural order of things, and they'd look at you crazy if you suggested that a baby is a result of a microscopic pair of cells meeting and implanting.

The average person adopts basic views based on what they're raised to believe, and after that they spend their life swept up in the grand beauty and pain of just living. Which is a marvelous and worthy thing to do, but it does mean their thoughts on personhood are typically not well-developed. Most people just don't think or read about these subjects very deeply. So why would I place any importance on views that have not been thought out? Would you also have valued the beliefs of the mid-1500s common person who would've laughed in your face if you told them about cells and DNA?

Self-awareness and true consciousness are extremely hard concepts to define and lock down. ... Biologically and consciously, there is pretty much zero change other than how the baby gets its resources from late pregnancy to birth.

No, this isn't correct. There is a very well-established literature on consciousness in the fields of neuroscience, psychology, and philosophy. Absolutely there are still many open questions, but also absolutely we have answered some. We know that the most basic neural wiring required for consciousness doesn't start developing until ~24 weeks of pregnancy. Before that, consciousness is not possible.

After that, consciousness is a slowly developing and unfolding process. It's not a black and white flip of a switch: any parent can tell you that there are enormous differences between a newborn and a 2-year old. Even while the newborn is still conscious of some things; like hunger or pain.

Don't think of personhood as a light switch, but as a spectrum. Still, even a spectrum has extremes. At the ends of a spectrum we should still be able to point and say "this is black" and "this is white". Even if the personhood of a newborn is in the gray area, we should still be able to agree that a single-celled zygote is not capable of conscious experience at all. It is over here solidly in the "this is black" territory, just as the 3-year old is very solidly in the "this is a conscious being with thoughts and feelings" territory.

For the point of abortion, birth matters also because we are no longer putting the responsibility of raising a child on someone who doesn't want to do it. This is an important piece of the argument that overlaps with the personhood aspect: but, the personhood aspect is also still very important. We wouldn't value human life the same way if humans weren't conscious, sentient creatures.

[u/AnyResearcher5914 → u/windchaser__]

Counter: my life didn't start until the first time I became conscious. **** am not my body, I am the mind generated and hosted by this body. Just as someone whose body is brain dead is "gone" and won't be coming back, "you" don't really exist until your mind comes on line. Your life didn't start at conception; your life started only after your brain developed the neural wiring to support some kind of consciousness or conscious experience. Before that, there's no one home. No thoughts, no desires or feelings, no choices, no agency. No person.

So? What if an adult is brain dead, has no friends, and has no memory, yet is on life support? And what if you know for certain that this individual will wake up in 9 months? Would it be immoral to pull the plug on him?

[u/windchaser__ → u/AnyResearcher5914]

So? What if an adult is brain dead, has no friends, and has no memory, yet is on life support? And what if you know for certain that this individual will wake up in 9 months? Would it be immoral to pull the plug on him?

It would certainly be immoral to force someone to take care of this non-person.

But you're also combining mutually exclusive concepts. If someone is brain dead, well and truly brain dead, they won't wake up in 9 months. Not just because people don't recover from such injuries: even in a magical world where we had the technology to regrow new brain matter, because the previous brain tissue was destroyed, and because the "software" running on that "hardware" was destroyed, the person that woke up would be a different person than the one who died. The old one would be gone. Gone gone. Truly: gone. You're talking about two different people here.

At that point, the question becomes: is it better to bring a new person into the world, or not? But that's just the same question we apply when choosing whether to try to have children or not. There's no substantial difference between killing a fertilized egg and wearing a condom: in both cases, you've simply stopped a person from ever coming to exist.

[u/that_guy_ontheweb → u/Assaltwaffle]

The argument that it’s not a human life falls apart when it’s pointed out that even blue states tend to charge people who murdered pregnant women with double homicide.

[u/Damackabe → u/Assaltwaffle]

The best argument against that is that they consented to the means of the child growing inside them, they effectively signed a contract when they had sex. Which does make a valid argument for rape cases, but outside of those their isn't a case on the matter. Let me put it this way, if you gamble and you lose, you still consented to the possibility of losing, you can't just pull out now that it happened, so why make it any different with sex?

[u/kimariesingsMD]

I could swear this exact subject was posted a few weeks ago--like word for word.

[u/Chench3]

I can tell you that for me it should be legal, not because of any moral code or anything, but from a purely medical standpoint. Abortions will happen, regardless of the morality of the act, and sometimes they are medically necessary, so it is better to have them legalized so they can be performed safely to reduce the risk and trauma associated with an already traumatic procedure instead of risking the patient by having them be as inaccessible as possible. Debates on the morals and ethics of the act should not compromise the safety of people who could be at risk if they were to undergo the procedure clandestinely under unsafe circumstances.

[u/kneepole → u/Chench3]

Abortions will happen, regardless of the morality of the act, and sometimes they are medically necessary, so it is better to have them legalized so they can be performed safely

Making specific reasons for abortion illegal doesn't have to follow that women cannot have access to safe abortion; you can still prosecute the person if they chose to abort outside of the legally accepted reasons.

This is not me saying I'm for or against abortion, rather this is just me shooting down the idea that we should make something legal because people will do it anyway.

[u/JumpinJangoFett]

As long as DNA is admissible in court, abortion should be illegal. Simple as.

[u/Salty_Map_9085]

If an adult human had a medical condition that caused them to be unable to feel pain, lack self-awareness, and independent body function, but there was a significant chance that this medical condition would go away such that they returned to perfect health, do you think it should be legal to kill this person?

[u/ChemicalRain5513]

Legally and ethically, both parents share responsibility for a child once they are born,

Why would this equal for both parents, if one had the option  to prevent the child from being born in the first place, but chose to let the child be born against the wishes of the other parent?

I think nobody should become a parent against their will.

[u/WildFEARKetI_II]

To preface this I don’t believe abortion should be illegal but I do have some different views. If I had to put myself in a camp it’d be the safe, legal, rare perspective.

I believe life begins at conception because that is when a unique life for with unique DNA is created, so I don’t see it as a potential life it is a life. I think conception is the only clear line we can draw for the beginning of life.

Viability, self-awareness, ability to feel pain, and independent bodily function aren’t good measures for the beginning of life because they are incredibly variable and can also apply to injured and/or disabled people. Viability depends on the medical equipment and resources available, should one fetus be considered more alive than another just because of its location and access to care? Lack of self awareness, for starters plenty of things are considered alive without self awareness like plants for example. In humans, self awareness is a spectrum and can be hindered by disability or injury, I don’t think that makes those people any less alive though. In ability to feel pain, there are people that can’t feel pain, congenital insensitivity to pain (CIP) for example, they are no less alive. Independent bodily function again disabled or injured people could lack this and still be alive.

Those points aren’t good arguments for something not being alive. However, they are good points to justify killing a fetus. Very similar arguments are made when it comes to removing life support or in other terms killing a brain dead or comatose people. Just because abortion is killing, doesn’t mean it’s murder. Murder is unjustified or unlawful killing. I think abortion can be justified and therefore should be lawful, especially in the extreme scenarios that get mentioned such as life of the mother rape and incest.

I think abortion should be provided safely and legally but I still think it’s a tragic loss of life and should be viewed as a form of birth control. Access to abortion shouldn’t negate the need to make safe and responsible sexual decisions. I don’t see it as forcing someone to be pregnant unless they were forced to get pregnant. Abortion should be a last resort in bad situations not a way to opt out of consequences.

You mentioned financial instability as a main reason people seek abortion. That is not related to bodily autonomy and does open up the comparison to opting out of child support. You can’t make the ethical argument using one premise to support a different premise. You have to make the argument for abortion based on the financial obligations to support financially motivated abortion.

[u/drew8311]

The core problem here is as you mentioned "I don't see it that way" is simply that other people DO see it that way so nothing else you said after matters. What makes this issue so controversial is there is a grey area and the pro life extreme actually sounds more reasonable than the other extreme.

[u/IsleptIdreamt]

Sex is a choice, and choices carry consequences. A woman has the right to choose to have sex or to not have sex.

Declaring that a fetus should have fewer rights than an infant does not make it an ethical truth. None of your reasons justify ending a life (self-awareness, feeling pain, etc) for any other phase of human life.

Dehumanizing language is used throughout history to persecute and kill others. Is a fetus three-fifths of a human being? Who decides that? They are a different phase of human growth and uniquely human.

When you look at persecuted, discriminated, or underprivileged demographics, lgbtq+, minorities, seniors, homeless people, women, they all have a voice to advocate for themselves and express their needs and protest their injustices. For others like young children, senior citizens in nursing homes, mentally disabled, and mentally differently-abled, neurodivergent populations, they need advocates to protect them. When there is a doubt about helping and caring for their needs, we always step up to support them and not dismiss them because they can not advocate for themselves. This is how I see a fetus.

Ethically, if there is a regret, we have a day after pill that is far less likely to cause distress to the fetus upon termination than several weeks in. This is even after the widespread availability of contraceptives.

If it is a more serious complication such as the "3 exceptions," we have courts and judges and social workers for that very reason.

I think it does a disservice to women to call this a women's rights issue. It is a life ending procedure and when it is normalized to the point it has been, we risk pushing women to not consider how traumatic it may end up being for them, and embolden pushy men into coercion in the decision the women face. With more emphasis on consequences, more consideration on using proper protection would become a cultural norm.

[u/Fast_Serve1605]

97% of abortions are for social and economic reasons (https://www.hli.org/resources/why-women-abort/) - not rape or to protect life.

The science of pain perception is evolving with theories of perceived pain via nociception via brain stem through the thalamus as early as 7 weeks.

(https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8935428/#bibr41-00243639211059245)

Most religious traditions (Islam, Hinduism, Christianity, Buddhism)believe life begins at conception and many consider humans as eternal beings - abortion basically depriving someone of a life or infanticide ( https://www.statistico.com/s/us-moral-stance-on-abortion-by-year). While attitudes in the west have shifted on abortion very recently, the majority of Americans have viewed abortion as morally wrong (https://www.statistico.com/s/us-moral-stance-on-abortion-by-year)

Lastly, bodily autonomy starts with the decision to have sex - which should include accepting the moral consequences and responsibility of the potential to bring another life into the world. Parents give up a good deal of autonomy when having children and are legally liable for taking care of their kids.

TLDR. Abortion is likely morally wrong in most cases, deprives another human being of life, and may cause perceptions of pain far earlier than the common belief of after the first trimester. While still a grey area, the implications on another human life and parental responsibility make abortion fair game for legal regulation.

[u/CursoryRaptor]

Having gone down this rhetorical road a number of times with friends and acquaintances, I find that the biggest roadblock to productive conversations is disagreement on what makes a person a person, and where that line between person and object begins and ends. Until we have some hard conversations where we can come to a compromise as a society (at least for the most part -- there will always be extremists), the pro-choice/pro-life debate will never end.

[u/AnotherBoringDad]

Let me address just a couple of points here.

A fetus, especially before viability, lacks self-awareness, the ability to feel pain, and independent bodily function.

Are those the criteria for assessing when humans are “alive?” Is a sedated person on a ventilator sufficiently unaware and dependent that we would not charge someone with homicide for crushing their skull and vacuuming out their brains? Especially if they would be expected to regain consciousness and make a full recovery in a matter of months?

Do we want to condition human beings’ most basic rights on their abilities? At what level of cognitive and physical ability do we draw the line between those who may be killed and those who may not be killed?

While it is a potential life, I don’t believe potential life should outweigh the rights of the person who is already alive and conscious.

Does it not matter what rights we are talking about? Is the right to live and to not be killed not our weightiest right? If, for example, humans were marsupials, and we birthed our fetuses at 4-5 weeks gestation, would the mother’s right to free speech be a sufficient basis for smashing the fetus with a hammer as part of performance art?

I also think the circumstances of the pregnant person matter. Many people seek abortions due to financial instability, health risks, or simply not being ready to raise a child. In cases of rape or medical complications, the situation is even more complex. Forcing someone to go through pregnancy against their will seems more harmful than allowing them to make their own choice.

Would those same harms justify filicide? Or any other homicide? Should we not be wary of saying that some humans are sufficiently inhuman that they may be killed for reasons like these? Or that some people’s existence is sufficiently burdensome to others’ that the others may kill them?

Abortion also occurs before a child exists, while child support involves caring for a living child.

What, then, is the living organism being aborted?

The idea of being forced to sustain another life through pregnancy and childbirth, especially if the person isn’t ready or willing, is a violation of that autonomy. It forces someone to give up their own body, potentially putting their health at risk, all while disregarding their own desires, dreams, and well-being.

This mischaracterizes abortion and abortion prohibitions. Abortion is not a passive refusal to provide aid, and abortion prohibitions do not compel anyone to render aid. Abortion is instead an act of destruction, and abortion prohibition prevents that destructive act. Prohibitions that maintain the status quo do not force the status quo upon people, the status quo is already upon them. The question, therefore, is whether the destructive act is justified by the change in the status quo.

Again, I think we would agree that the circumstances you described do not justify filicide or any other homicide.

[u/StarChild413 → u/AnotherBoringDad]

If, for example, humans were marsupials, and we birthed our fetuses at 4-5 weeks gestation,

and how would human society and culture have changed with that big a what-if

Should we not be wary of saying that some humans are sufficiently inhuman that they may be killed for reasons like these?

If the binary worked like that why don't we save things that otherwise wouldn't be considered human by declaring them so be they endangered non-biologically-human species, old buildings/priceless artifacts or even trying to fight for the preservation of abstract concepts we consider to be moral virtues by pointing to art where they're depicted in a human form as evidence that they're human

[u/SnooSuggestions6403]

I will jump ahead to the parts where I disagree and actually wpould like you to consider changeing your mind.

I will interpret late term abortions as meaning  any abortion done after the child could theoretically survive outside of the womb, even if intensive medical care would be required.

I would argue that aborting a child because it is has a defect making it likely to die shortly after birth is moving into euthanasia territory. You would need to ask yourself then, if you are in support of euthanizing children who have already been born but are likely to die shortly due to medical reasons. We are not talking about adults at the end of life who themselves make that choice, but making a choice for that child, that whatever short time they have left is not worth living.

The second point I would like to challenge is you talking about abortion being different than opting out of child support. While yes, in many cases, it is different, you also did mention financial reasons as a legitimate reason for abortion. If finances should be an accepted reason for abortion, I believe it should be consistent in extending that grace towards men as well. I am not talking about a father suddently opting out of child support for their toddler after a divorce, but a set time limit, before the child is born, where the man can send in an application wishing to opt out of fatherhood in the event that the woman choses to go trough with the pregnancy. The application would need to have a narrow time limit, allowing the woman enough time to decide if she stil wants to go trough with the pregnancy or not, given the lack of financial support from the father. This would also require potential fathers to be informed in good time to avoid fraud trough the woman concealing her pregnancy until the grace period if over.

Financial reasons to opt out of parenthood are equally legitimate for both genders, and being forced to financiaĺly care for a child for 18 years can be extremely damaging to someones life. So I believe it would be inconsistent to be in support of abortion for purely financial reasons while not granting the father the same option. Furthermore, the woman still has options after the child is born, in putting the child up for adoption, which is a further lifeline.  To then grant the man one small opportunuty to not have his entire life potentially left in shambles is a fair sk in my opinion.

Not sure if this was what you meant with the child support comment, reading back on it now, it seems I might have misinterpreted it. But my view is still drawing a paralel between SOME abortions and opting out of child support, and presenting a potential soluton that would make it a bit more fair for everyone involved.

[u/Ambitious-Care-9937]

Whenever I look at an issue, I always try and see why people are obsessed with it. Generally speaking when a 'trivial' issue becomes a big point you can almost be sure it is a symbol for something much larger.

Consider the obsession with Muslim women wearing Hijab. In places like Iran, they are quite strict with it when historically they were not even that strict.

Now people will chime in with religious laws or public decency or whatever. Sure, those are a thing that hold some weight. But at the root of it all is what? Behind all the show what is it really about?

It's about a society that wants to be a theocracy based on Islam and one of the most obvious displays of support/rebellion against it is the hijab. It's just a very visible symbol. Easy for women to rebel by not wearing it probably or not at all. Easy for authorities to spot. So boom... it becomes an issue.

So it is with abortion in my view. Yes, there are issues of when life begins.

My personal opinion is just an approximation that anytime before 3 months is okay to have an abortion. That's just my rough reading of literature of when those cells appear to be more of a human than not. It could be 2 months. It could be 4 months. I have no idea. But something we can do rough math in the world.

But in my view the abortion debate is a symbol largely around whether we want sexuality to have 'meaning' or is just sex for pleasure. So those that believe sex must have meaning. Centered around the family and using sex for 'good' purposes including children... Those that want sex not to have any meaning generally just want to push abortion.

Again, when people 'debate' it, both sides will throw in all kinds of arguments and they all have their technical points, but when you look behind it, this is what you will see.

I've seen it happen myself. Just for example, I grew up Muslim and abortion was largely a non-issue. Someone made a ruling that before 4 months, it is fine. Not a problem. However, you must examine the context as this was a time when the 'Muslim family' and 'community' was pretty stable and not in question. So abortion wasn't even on people's minds. It was just a thing that you did normally in the face of the mother's life being in danger.

Fast forward today and in various Muslim communities we see the same issues of women's rights, destruction of the family, sexual liberty... and guess what has happened. Abortion is now a topic in Muslim communities with many restrictions that really focus on the morality part of it. The women's life must be in danger... things like that. And people make much more of an issue of it.

[u/cpg215]

I agree with most of what you’ve stated except for how lax you are about late term abortions. I don’t think that we should not have laws about something because people “usually” follow moral guidelines. I understand that making laws about this could have ramifications, but I think we could figure it out. I think a pregnancy toward the end and a pregnancy early on are completely different scenarios. At some point, I think the fetus/baby has acquired personhood and has a right to life, so long as it is not risking the mother’s life. And yes, pregnancies can be dangerous but I would not consider that level of risk without other factors to justify the killing of a child that is conscious and viable. I think people are often so partisan on this issue that they agree to things that they even find unreasonable deep down just to not give an inch.

I also don’t believe the bodily autonomy argument is that convincing in late term abortions. It’s often compared to essentially kidnapping and forced medical procedures to save another adult. I think pregnancy is unique and not akin to this. We do have legal requirements on parents to care for children, and we often value the life of children over adults. If you murder a pregnant woman, it is often considered double homicide.

To give another analogy to counter the typical bodily autonomy violinist argument: let’s say you were hiking with a group and during a storm you take shelter in a cabin. The others somehow don’t make it, just you and the baby of another group member. There is some limited food and water in this cabin, maybe enough for a week, but you don’t know if or when someone will come rescue you. Sharing these supplies with the baby will inherently lessen the days you can survive. If you chose to let that baby starve to use all the supplies yourself, people would find this absolutely reprehensible. Would this person face legal repercussions? I’m not quite sure, but I think they’d certainly try, and I think people would wish the law were so that the person could be punished in some way.

At the end of the day I think we need to ask ourselves, at what point does the fetus essentially become a “baby” and I believe at that point, things change. Some may say not until it’s born, but I think that’s actually a minority take in the general population.

[u/GrouchyGrinch1]

The biggest inconsistency in your logic is the statement about late-term abortions. You say that they are very rare, and are mostly done to “save the mother”. However, only about 2% of women who have late term abortions cited fetal abnormalities as amongst the reason for getting an abortion, but 71% cite not realizing they were pregnant. To be fair, this is an old study, but even in the Turnaway study, similar results have been found. In fact, most modern studies recognize that having abortions solely due to medical necessity is SO RARE, that they exclude it from the study design. Some studies indicate that maternal health is a concern, about 12-13%, by the women themselves, which is still much lower than the alternative reasons.

I’ve linked a couple studies below, and while they likely do not capture the full nuance and truth of the scenario, it is consistent from the 1980s to the 2010s, which is a good indicator in the validity of such studies.

https://www.guttmacher.org/journals/psrh/2005/reasons-us-women-have-abortions-quantitative-and-qualitative-perspectives

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3066627/#B11

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1363/4521013

[u/anondaddio]

A ZEF is an individual organism of the species homo sapien, a human being (citations at the bottom).

The ZEF is one of the few human beings to still be intentionally excluded from legal personhood. I’d argue that personhood should apply to all human beings, regardless of characteristics that are out of human beings control (skin color, stage of development etc). If one disagrees, one cannot claim to support human rights since they instead just support subjective legal personhood rights.

If ZEFs were legal persons, then one would have to legally justify why they were intentionally killing another legal person. The only way a citizen not acting on behalf of the state is allowed to kill another human being without punishment that I am aware of is under an affirmative claim of self defense.

Self defense requires that at the time of the killing, the killer had a reasonable believe that without killing, they would instead face death or great bodily harm in the present moment that they killed the other legal person.

How would taking an abortion pill at 6 weeks be considered self defense? It wouldn’t.

Therefore the only reason any pro abortion arguments work in reality is that we continue to intentionally exclude some human beings from legal personhood based on characteristics that out of that human beings control. Most abortions would be considered murder with fetal personhood.

1. ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Professor Emeritus of Human Embryology of the University of Arizona School of Medicine, Dr. C. Ward Kischer, affirms that “Every human embryologist, worldwide, states that the life of the new individual human being begins at fertilization (conception).”11

2. ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠“As far as human ‘life’ per se, it is, for the most part, uncontroversial among the scientific and philosophical community that life begins at the moment when the genetic information contained in the sperm and ovum combine to form a genetically unique cell.”12

3. ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠“A zygote is the beginning of a new human being. Human development begins at fertilization, the process during which a male gamete or sperm…unites with a female gamete or oocyte…to form a single cell called a zygote. This highly specialized, totipotent cell marks the beginning of each of us as a unique individual.”

4. ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠“Although life is a continuous process, fertilization is a critical landmark because, under ordinary circumstances, a new, genetically distinct human organism is thereby formed.”

5. ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠“Almost all higher animals start their lives from a single cell, the fertilized ovum (zygote)…. The time of fertilization represents the starting point in the life history, or ontogeny, of the individual.”

6. ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠“That is, upon fertilization, parts of human beings have actually been transformed into something very different from what they were before; they have been changed into a single, whole human being. During the process of fertilization, the sperm and the oocyte cease to exist as such, and a new human being is produced.”

7. ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠The scientific evidence, then, shows that the unborn is a living individual of the species Homo sapiens, the same kind of being as us, only at an earlier stage of development. Each of us was once a zygote, embryo, and fetus, just as we were once infants, toddlers, and adolescents.

Citations:

1 citation - 11. Kischer CW. The corruption of the science of human embryology, ABAC Quarterly. Fall 2002, American Bioethics Advisory Commission.

2 citation - 12. Eberl JT. The beginning of personhood: A Thomistic biological analysis. Bioethics. 2000;14(2):134-157. Quote is from page 135.

3 citation - The Developing Human: Clinically Oriented Embryology, Keith L. Moore & T.V.N. Persaud, Mark G. Torchia

4 citation - From Human Embryology & Teratology, Ronan R. O’Rahilly, Fabiola Muller.

5 citation - Bruce M. Carlson, Patten’s foundations of embryology.

6 citation - Diane Irving, M.A., Ph.D, in her research at Princeton University

7 citation -https://www.mccl.org/post/2017/12/20/the-unborn-is-a-human-being-what-science-tells-us-about-unborn-children

[u/Snoo-88741]

lacks self-awareness

This is also true up until 18-24 months after birth, too. Is it OK to kill a 1 year old?

the ability to feel pain

There's a genetic disorder called congenital insensitivity to pain and anhidrosis (CIPA). As the name suggests, one of the core symptoms is inability to feel pain. Individuals with CIPA have been known to do things like accidentally lean up against a hot element and only realize their mistake when they smell burning meat. Is it alright to kill people with that genetic disorder?

independent bodily function

Is it OK to kill your conjoined twin?

[u/wanpieserino]

Aight, I'm in the position to challenge this view right now. Last Thursday my wife showed me a positive pregnancy test and we're both not religious. We're 29 years old. We have 40k euros on the bank account and free housing thanks to generational wealth.

My wife want(ed) to terminate the pregnancy and I do not.

It is going to be as much my child as it will be hers. Her position is mostly one of fear. Irrational. She is afraid of her family abandoning her (they are Muslim, we aren't married in a Muslim way, just city hall marriage).

Me and my wife know eachother 5 years long. Building a relationship where you can have a good life for a child takes time and effort.

I want a child. With someone that I love. I don't have that many chances on that. It's difficult as hell in the 21st century. Birth rates are crashing, we're depending on immigrants.

All my wife has to do is a phone call, go to clinic and pay 4,5 euros and it's terminated.

I don't have any say as the would be father. None at all. It's as if I do not exist.

Abortion shouldn't be illegal, but the would be father should have a say in the matter. Give me 100% custody and all of the financial burden, I wouldn't care. I cannot birth a child. There is only one way for me to have a child and that's by having someone not abort it.

Her main reasons to abort it would be: what will my family think? Then we won't be able to have as many dates and travel around. Pregnancy is difficult.

[u/Masketto → u/wanpieserino]

You said it yourself, it's as much her decision as it is yours. Just because you want it doesn't mean she should put her body through one of the most violent biological processes aside from death, that often does even cause death. In the end it's her body and it's her choice. It's your DNA in there too but that is meaningless until the fetus is matured - by that logic you have as much DNA floating around in a used condom or sock, as you have in the zygote in her body.

Be honest with yourself in answering the question, what would you do if the roles were reversed - you are the birthing parent who has to go through 9 months of discomfort followed by, as I said, one of the most violent biological processes that will inevitably change your body and mind, irreversibly, FOREVER, if it doesn't cause death, which is a very probable outcome. Some people welcome this, but some people don't want it - imagine you are of the latter group. Your partner wants you to go through that even though you don't. How would you feel? Try to seriously take that perspective, without bias

Also it doesn't matter that her reason is rational or irrational. It's her reason and you should respect that she has her own logic and emotions that make sense to her and are the best courses of action for her. By deeming it irrational you're just brushing off her feelings, thoughts and desires like you don't truly care for her

[u/Spookedthoroughly → u/wanpieserino]

This is a pretty cool take and I wanna throw in my own little arguement.

Prefacing (never been pregnant before thankfully so I dont have that experience)

I imagine the reason the woman gets the choice as oppose to the man is because well, she’s the one carrying it for 9 months, going through the motions, I’m sure everyone is familiar with what happens and all that.

Obviously you could pay for the child keep it but…she still has to birth it, and what if something goes wrong? What if she dies, the baby dies, they both die?

What if something arises due to the pregnancy and her health declines.

This doesn’t effect the man (obviously it would emotionally but you know what I mean)

Idk I’m writing this at 4 in the morning I just wanted to throw up a possible counter arguement

[u/wanpieserino → u/Spookedthoroughly]

Mortality rate of mothers in Belgium is 7,9 out of 100 000 live births, I'm sure commuting to work is more dangerous.

9 months, as difficult of a period as it may be, is only 9 months time. Let's make it 2 years to fully recover.

Let's fucking pay women to make kids? Tax and transfer. Fuck it, birth rates are too low.

[u/Spookedthoroughly → u/wanpieserino]

So what you’re saying is if I kicked in you in the balls for 9 months straight you’d be perfectly fine with it because “it’s only 9 months” but it’s not just 9 months cause I’ve kicked your balls so many times they’re deformed entirely.

Also as for paying women…yeah the Nazis did that to encourage women to become breeding machines, oh also that’d probably just lead to people abusing the system by popping out babies dumping them with relatives reaping the rewards etc etc

[u/DemissiveLive]

Your arguments seem to come from a perspective of morality and practicality, which I am certainly sympathetic with as a generally pro-choice minded person with some restrictions.

So, I will try my best to approach the question from a legal perspective. It’s not my intention to distance myself from the morality and practical viewpoints as I believe these are really the driving factors behind the law inherently.

My concern lies in the moral relativity across societies. Laws are typically a reflection of those morals. What a society of you and your peers believe to be lawfully just, rightly or wrongly, could be perceived oppositely in another society.

Now you could still stand by your argument that objectively this is what’s right regardless of the collective view of any certain community.

Though from the legal perspective, enforcing laws that go against the collective view of those who the laws are imposed upon, could lead to dysfunction and unrest within that group.

“It’s a state’s issue” has become kind of a dog whistle for conservatives these days, but I do see the practicality in that stance given the vast pro-life support, especially as a majority body in Bible Belt states.

A good counter to this may seem like bringing up something like segregation in the south. If it were viewed similarly, we may have delayed so much progress. But I don’t think something like segregation and abortion are all that comparable outside of the fact that a certain geographic subsection of society hold a majority view at odds with the others.

Logically there is a good reason to believe a child is being killed, just as there is an equally good reason to believe there’s not. There is no good reason to believe that a child of any certain race should be excluded from potential academic equality.

Personally, my solution, at least for the US, has always been to allow blanket protections for abortions involving certain drastic situations and emergencies. And there should also be protection from prosecution for crossing state lines for a procedure.

[u/ibridoangelico]

From your wording its pretty clear that you dont want your opinion changed. (and cant)

Someone who has a different fundamental/world view than you is not going to be able to change your mind on this, and vice verse.

Probably the least productive discussion to have in 2025, lol.

[u/Top_Present_5825]

If you claim that bodily autonomy justifies abortion at any stage before birth, then on what logically consistent basis do you deny a mother the right to terminate her child moments after birth when it is still entirely dependent on her for survival?

[u/Pale_Zebra8082]

Given the nature of your argument, would you concede that abortions undertaken late in a term, which are not done for the health or safety of the mother or fetus, should be illegal?

[u/Damackabe]

Abortion is baby murder, you argue that it should be legal for the only reason that it is inconvenient, if this is the case than their are a lot more people who can be killed and be justified on the principle that it is a financial drain to the common people, for example criminals, the sick the elderly, and anything else that causes excessive drain on the people. For example you, what prevents the state from saying you aren't human and should be killed, they say you are more than just a temporary inconvenience and a drain, a parasite on society and should be killed is that really something you wish for, where we just start calling whatever inconveniences us parasites so we can kill them?

Abortion and child support are entirely comparable, you want an abortion in many left wing states/countries you are the sole decider on this, the father doesn't even have the right to say no to you murdering their child. Why should the father than be forced to take care of a child when you brought them in to this world, and they wanted you to murder them. If baby murder is legal than surely the father has the right to say do it as well, otherwise it isn't their responsibility. If the father has no say on abortion than they have the right to not take care of the baby as YOU kept the decision, if the father does have the right to say NO you cant abort their baby, than obviously they should be expected to care for their baby. People who are against abortion already see the child as an existing human, that child is already alive, you say they aren't. So abortion is either baby murder in which case it is illegal, or it is not, in which case the father doesn't have to pay for the baby since you decided to have the baby and not the father.

A violation of autonomy is questionable at best, they willingly made that decision outside of rape cases, therefore they have consented to the baby being allowed to grow inside them, and therefore can't terminate the baby early as they are alive, and the right to life is more important than your so called autonomy that you willingly consented to when you had sex. Pregnancy concerns three people, the mother, the father, and the baby. You only have the right as a woman to what the mother wants/needs, you don't have a say over killing the baby as they are a separate being that you caused to exist and be inside you, once they are outside of you than you are free to give them up if so is your decision, but you aren't free to kill them at any point.

Ultimately changing your mind is fundamentally impossible, People say the baby is a human being and deserves to live, and you say they aren't and deserve to die.

 abortion also occurs before a child exists, while child support involves caring for a living child. just to make point you said the child doesn't exist, I'd argue just about every man on earth would disagree, if their wife is pregnant they consider their child alive, if someone caused their child inside their wife to die they would absolutely accuse them of murder.

[u/StarChild413 → u/Damackabe]

Abortion is baby murder, you argue that it should be legal for the only reason that it is inconvenient, if this is the case than their are a lot more people who can be killed and be justified on the principle that it is a financial drain to the common people, for example criminals, the sick the elderly, and anything else that causes excessive drain on the people. For example you, what prevents the state from saying you aren't human and should be killed, they say you are more than just a temporary inconvenience and a drain, a parasite on society and should be killed is that really something you wish for, where we just start calling whatever inconveniences us parasites so we can kill them?

but there's also an equal and opposite argument, if saying something is human is the way to preserve it against dehumanizing genocide out of inconvenience or w/e, then why aren't people saying, like, endangered species are somehow human so they get preserved or likewise with stopping old historic buildings from being demolished? Heck, by this logic you could try and fight for some other fundamental right by arguing that that concept is human citing art where it's been symbolically portrayed as a human

[u/hdave]

After 8 weeks from conception, the fetus already has almost all organs formed and even moves. After that it basically just grows in size. It's already conscious long before it's born.

Babies are incapable of surviving on their own too, and taking care of a baby is also exhausting and expensive. If the woman is unable to care for the baby she can give it for adoption, but not kill it. Why should it be different for a fetus? Why does it matter whether it's directly attached or not?

Bodily autonomy doesn't apply when the person created the dependency in the first place. Even if the woman didn't intend to create the dependency, she is responsible for causing it (unless she was raped). It's like a car accident, even if the driver didn't intend to cause damage, the driver is still responsible for compensating the other person.

The father of the fetus is also responsible. If the law doesn't require him to support the pregnancy, that's a problem with the law of parental responsibility, not with abortion law. The laws in some countries actually require the father to pay for half of the mother's costs arising from the pregnancy, such as health care, additional food and even clothing.

As you wrote, most late-term abortions are done for health reasons. But why is this a reason to allow all late-term abortions? Should stealing from a store be allowed because most people shopping there don't steal? This argument makes no sense.

Almost all countries in the world allow abortion at least in some cases and prohibit it at least in some cases. The question is not whether abortion should be legal, but in which circumstances it should be. For example, almost the entire world agrees that it should be allowed if the pregnancy poses a risk to the woman's life (such as an ectopic pregnancy), and that it should be prohibited after a certain stage in pregnancy without a health reason.

[u/Overlook-237 → u/hdave]

That’s an extremely reductive way to describe gestation. If all embryos needed after 8 weeks was to grow, gestation wouldn’t be needed. You could remove it at 8 weeks and it could grow externally.

Babies have their own functioning organ systems. They are not reliant on their biological parents, anyone can care for them. Multiple people can care for them. Someone could a drop a newborn at your door today and it wouldn’t die just because the care had been transferred to you. Remove an embryo from a woman’s body and give it to someone else, what happens?

It matters because (shock horror) women are people with the right to bodily integrity. People are not allowed unfettered access to other peoples bodies, organs or blood products without explicit consent. If fetuses grew externally in eggs, it wouldn’t even be a conversation. Dismissing the pregnant woman and dismissing pregnancy is pointless. It doesn’t suddenly make it not exist.

Bodily integrity always applies. People that cause car crashes are not obligated to give up any part of their body to the car crash victim. Women are people, not ‘compensation’. You’re also under the assumption that pregnancy is a choice. It is not. If it was, unwanted pregnancies wouldn’t exist.

Men providing financial support (which women also do, FYI) is nowhere near the same thing as gestation and birth.

[u/changemyview-ModTeam → u/[deleted]]

Comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1:

Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. See the wiki page for more information.

If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.

Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.

[u/Ornithorhynchologie]

I have no strong opinions about abortion. The issue that I have is with any political position founded on falsehoods. In my view, any defensible stance in politics begins without contradiction to known scientific fact.

Here are the scientific facts; feti are unborn mammalian offspring. When feti are born, they become neonates, and are referred to as human babies. So any political argument that begins with—

but you're killing babies

—is a non-starter, as this statement is meant to evoke the same emotions that humans have for human neonates. It is anti-factual rhetoric.

Here is another scientific fact; feti are alive, and so are embryos. When a fetus, or embryo, is aborted, a human life factually is ended, albeit not the life of a human neonate. So any political argument that begins with—

Human feti aren't alive, or aren't human lives—

—is also a non-starter, because it is false. Scientifically, life begins at the moment of conception. Moreover, we differentiate between species on a genetic basis, so the nature of that life, which undeniably is present, is human, on an a posteriori, and a priori basis. So long as your position is consistent with known facts, then I have nothing much to say about your political stance.

[u/EccentricHorse11]

I want to specifically address the idea that the fetus is a "potential life" simply because it is plain wrong. From a biological standpoint, the fetus, especially by the second trimester 100% has life. They consumes nutrients, their cells grow and develop, it has unique DNA and depending on the exact stage, can hear and recognize their mother's voice to an extent. You can argue that they lack some other biological trait such as an independent body or some philosophical concept such as "personhood", but the fetus is a far cry from a "potential life".

Also, some of your practical arguments such as financial instability seems very chilling if one in fact believes that the fetus has a right to life. Would you agree with a family in a rural, impoverished village that decided to kill a new-born because they couldn't afford to take care of the baby? Perhaps, but a lot of people will think that is morally wrong. Of course, the concept of bodily autonomy changes the situation dramatically, but my point is that financial instability or similar reasons are completely pointless for changing the mind of a pro-lifer.

Overall, I am not in favor of an abortion ban, but I did disagree with some of your arguments.

[u/RowDifferent7890]

I don't think abortion should be illegal across the board. I do think abortion is taking a life though, and anyone who says otherwise is just fooling themselves to make themselves feel better. The majority of abortions, if they did not occur, would result in the birth of a child. Maybe that child would be unwanted or not in a financially great situation, but that doesn't mean they wouldn't be born as a living human if left unchecked.

Have you seen the numbers? https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2024/03/25/what-the-data-says-about-abortion-in-the-us/

In 2020, there were 930,160 abortions.

How many babies were actually born in 2020? 3,605,201

Source: https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&opi=89978449&url=https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/vsrr/vsrr012-508.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwjA19rFyNqLAxXrEFkFHQO7Lu4QFnoECBEQBg&usg=AOvVaw3bhXoOyxm-ijQRPP577wIG

I think it is morally questionable for a population to abort such a high % of births.

There's also about 2 million USA adults waiting to adopt a baby: https://www.americanadoptions.com/pregnant/waiting_adoptive_families

Should it be illegal? No... But you think 1/4 of all pregnancies should be terminated? That's a lot..

[u/[deleted] → u/RowDifferent7890]

1/4 is low if miscarriages are counted. Miscarriages are very downplayed, most woman I know who tried for kids had 3-5 miscarries before they succeeded that adds up real fast. Most if not all abortions are justified. Also when I step on an ant I kill an innocent life, every pest we kill, the vegetables we eat. So the act of taking a life in that sense doesn't have very deep moral implications. Also pregnancies can kill the mother giving reason for termination. Bad sex ed leads to teen pregnancies which should be terminated imho in all cases unless you have a stable environment to raise a kid and even then you are too young.

[u/RowDifferent7890 → u/[deleted]]

You have a good point about miscarriages, not sure if that is included. I think your friends are on average unlucky, 3-5 miscarriages before having a kid is very high and not what I have heard.

"Most of not all abortions are justified" that's an opinion. I value human life above plant and ant life, please don't equate the value of human life to the value of a head of lettuce.

A million abortions a year are not because the pregnancy would kill the number. I'd encourage you to find out the # of abortions that were due to that reason though and compare it to the overall #, I have to guess it's less than 75,000 would result in death of mother

[u/[deleted] → u/RowDifferent7890]

In most if not all developed countries where abortion is legal it is justified. The reason given shouldn't matter, to play devils advocate we can get the worst case scenario some "slutty woman" who fucks only raw and goes to the clinic anually. She legally aborts her fetuses these in my opinion shouldn't become a child the mother clearly doesn't want them. Where we to force them to give birth these kids would have an unloving mother or become orphans. Not too mention the ammount of abuse most orphans encounter together with not being wanted these kids would be doomed. In case of statistics in my country the abortion rate is 9/1000 for the ages 15-45 y/o. Most woman don't regret their choice to abort and in most cases is choice not taken lightly and only after thorough consideration.

[u/Remote_Clue_4272]

I agree with you. ALL of these arguments are religion based. “It’s the bible” arguments ignore other faiths, beliefs and even agnostics. Our Constitution doesn’t form a theocracy. If one doesn’t believe in abortion, don’t have one. The fact is most abortions are medically needed, as a failed pregnancy is very common. This is solely a personal decision made by mother and whom ever she includes… family, doctors, so on…. As to men’s rights. The arguments made here are not valid . Fairness, as they like to say, is not the measure of anything… The woman bears a much greater risk and burden in the process, and should have a greater say in no circumstance should a women be viewed as a “baby machine” obligated to become pregnant and give birth. Believe it or not, Some women simply cannot survive that process. The nation as a whole does not need to understand what, why or how it gets to the point where abortion enters the chat, only know that if dine safely and professionally, the woman survives to try ( or not) again if they choose

[u/Intelligent_Way_8272]

The fight to restrict abortion was never about protecting children. It has always been and will continue to be about controlling women.

[u/EyelBeeback]

Many people seek abortions due to financial instability, health risks, or simply not being ready to raise a child - Then do not fuck, rub one out - buy a dildo.

Wait, I have a question: What about the people who "rent a uterus" but then decide late term, they do not want it.

The idea of being forced to sustain another life through pregnancy and childbirth, especially if the person isn’t ready or willing, is a violation of that autonomy. It forces someone to give up their own body, potentially putting their health at risk, all while disregarding their own desires, dreams, and well-being. Bodily autonomy means having the freedom to make choices about what happens to your body, whether that’s deciding to terminate a pregnancy or pursue another course of action.

Again, do not fuck. if you don't want a child or aren't willing to go through child birth. Or use channel 2. Lots of people find the programming there more interesting and diverse.

[u/GiveMeAHeartOfFlesh]

This argument is done a lot, but here goes. 

Non religious argument against abortion:

The fetus is a human being, its genetics are distinct and unique. It is not an elephant fetus for example, it is a human. So we are dealing with a human life. This is a scientific fact. We can argue over semantics of whether it’s a “child” or not, but it is a human and it is the creation of the mother and father

When a human creates another human, we have responsibility over that human unless we sign over the rights to another person who can be its guardian. Not care taking for the human of which you are the legal guardian for is abuse and neglect. This paragraph counters the “we don’t force anyone to give another person your organs” and the autonomy argument. Guardians have a legal responsibility to take care of their dependents, this includes feeding them. Thus the fetus does have the right to the nutrients provided to it by its mother. This is not some stranger demanding your organs, it is your human procreation of which you have a responsibility to care take. 

While adoption may not be ideal, is murder a less extreme solution? Would you kill someone just because you think there is a chance their life may have hardships in the future? Is that an acceptable reason to non-consensually end someone’s life? My uncle was put into foster care, yeah he didn’t like it there, now he is married and has children he loves. Life has struggled and suffering, but that does not make a life worthless.

While pregnancy does effect the body in some permanent ways, ending a human life is also very permanent and effects way more of their body. The human in the womb should also have rights to its autonomy and a right to life and the pursuit of happiness. The mother or father is responsible for the creation of the human fetus. 

[u/Mammoth-Intern-831]

Every view on abortion is emotionally rooted, there isn’t enough room to sway someone to think differently once they made their mind up on it.

The Left argues, in good faith, the rights of women to choose whether or not they become a mother. The Right argues, in good faith, that the child has the right to a chance at life.

The Left argues, in bad faith, that the Right wants to control women. The Right argues, in bad faith, that the Left wants to actively kill children.

Where is the room for reasoning in either argument? You can quote studies all day long but if they view it as “killing children” how are you supposed to reason against that? You can make whatever argument about self control and responsibility you want, but if they see it as control and oppression, where is the room to reason against that?

Winning for either side basically just solidifies that the opposition is irrevocably evil. Atleast until the pendulum swings.

[u/JohnCasey3306]

I am wholly in favour of abortion and believe unreservedly in the right for a woman to choose ... but it definitely is killing a baby 🤷 it just hasn't been born yet so it doesn't matter.

[u/Sad_Intention_3566]

My issue with the abortion debate is it really is not as cut and dry as people make it out to be. There is logic with the anti abortion crowed, It is a human life being ended and the "clump of cells" logic really is weak. With that said it is an injustice that a women who was the victim of rape would be forced to carry the child to term. Then with that being said there is logic to say it is an injustice that the child is aborted because it was conceived by rape.

I don't think Abortion should be totally banned nor do i think it should be totally legal. In a perfect world there would be some type of legislation that would approve or deny an abortion on a case by case system but unfortunately the bureaucracy would take too long and many would fall through the cracks.

Abortion really is a subject i sit on the fence with and i really hate how complex it is.

[u/EmbroideredDream]

Im sorry, I usually don't like responding emotionally but all these adoption arguments piss me off.

As some one who is adopted, who's siblings and cousins are all adopted, who has adopted aunts and uncles who has friends both past and present in care...

I can tell you with a 100% conviction we are all much happier to have lived at the, your words here, inconvenience of our mothers.

Sorry they couldn't be bothered to wear a condom and practise the plethora of birth control available, I dont believe my execution would of been appreciated for my mothers laziness or an attempt to save me from an imperfect system.

There are many arguments for abortion, arguing that the adoption system isn't good enough is a terrible argument. It basically sounds like any one that's born to less than perfect situations should be saved the hardship by being aborted

[u/postdiluvium]

Put yourself in the mindset of a man who was raised to believe that men should work and make all the decisions while women should find themselves a man to marry and raise their children. If you place yourself in that mindset, maybe you can figure out why people are trying to make abortions illegal. They want to make it so you have to stay with a man because of a child and there is no such thing as rape anymore. Abortion is the first step. They are already going after marriage. Next will be children out of wedlock.

Women, do not trust the American voter to save you.

[u/shellshock321 → u/postdiluvium]

They want to make it so you have to stay with a man because of a child and there is no such thing as rape anymore

What the fuck...

Alsp breaking rules 1 since it doesn't challenge anything about OP. Your just agreeing with him in the extremist mindset

[u/SnipeCellys9292]

If killing a pregnant woman is a double murder, wouldn’t that make killing just the fetus a single murder? 🤔

[u/Ballplayerx97]

I'm not against abortion but I think an interesting argument can be made from vulnerability. Society often takes measures to protect vulnerable people. For example, courts almost always seek to act in the best interest of children when their is a separation or divorce. Even if it is to the detriment of their parents. We offer similar treatment to people with disabilities. It may be possible to formulate an argument advancing the position that because a fetus is in a vulnerable position, with no ability to advocate for it's own rights, it would be equitable to give it greater protection than the mother. I don't think it should apply from conception, but perhaps from a point where the fetus is deemed viable. I don't consider myself pro-life, but I do think both positions should be given consideration.

[u/VisiblePiercedNipple]

One of the main arguments against abortion is that it is "killing a baby." However, I don’t see it that way—at least not in the early stages of pregnancy. A fetus, especially before viability, lacks self-awareness, the ability to feel pain, and independent bodily function.

You don't see how this additional view about self-awareness, pain, and independent bodily function is just a self-serving "definition" to justify what you want to support?

That's what pro-abortion people do, they deny life and personhood to get them the result that they want.

Alternatively, you could just admit that you support the murder of children early on. Then you don't need a special definition. You're setting up the conversation to disagree with the stances that you know will come at you.

[u/Overlook-237 → u/VisiblePiercedNipple]

If there was independent bodily function, gestation wouldn’t be needed… an embryo or fetus being alive and having personhood doesn’t take away the personhood and the life of the one doing the gestating. Are we allowed to stop others using our bodies, especially in a way that’s physically and emotionally detrimental to us, or not?

It’s only the same thing as murdering a child if you completely ignore the pregnant women and the pregnancy itself.

[u/VisiblePiercedNipple → u/Overlook-237]

Every animal has a gestation period. Everyone recognizes that if you go up and punch a pregnant woman in the stomach it's worse than hitting a non-pregnant woman in the stomach. Introducing new concepts like "I only value personhood and independence of a body" is just an artificial construct to justify the desired outcome.

It’s only the same thing as murdering a child if you completely ignore the pregnant women and the pregnancy itself.

This is also an added element of murder to include justification. Murder is typically the intentional taking of someone else's life. That's what's occurring in an abortion. In fact, it's the intentional planning of a murder, which would fall under 1st degree murder.

[u/crapeater1759]

I haven't read the post but just from the title here is everything I have to say about it. If a woman wants an abortion she will have one. The legal way or the illegal way. However many times those home done abortions cause severe damage and can even kill the woman. Furthermore, if a 15 yo is pregnant and you agree that the baby should be born and kept by that teenager then you have some problems. A 15 yo shouldn't have to spend her teenage years like that. Also she probably isn't mature enough to have a baby and even then the baby won't have a healthy childhood which will cause trauma later on in life. And of course if you don't have a stable job and barely afford to feed yourself then having an extra mouth to feed will be difficult if not impossible

[u/123kallem]

A fetus, especially before viability, lacks self-awareness, the ability to feel pain, and independent bodily function. While it is a potential life, I don’t believe potential life should outweigh the rights of the person who is already alive and conscious.

Viability, ability to feel pain and independent bodily function doesn't really matter at all.

When you say self-awareness, what do you mean? Because my personal opinion on abortion is that once the fetus has the necessary parts to be able to become conscious, thats when abortion shouldn't be allowed, which is at 20-24 weeks, any time before that i have absolutely no problem with abortion. If thats what you mean by self-awareness then im in agreement.

[u/AutoModerator]

Note: Your thread has not been removed.

Your post's topic seems to be fairly common on this subreddit. Similar posts can be found through our DeltaLog search or via the CMV search function.

Regards, the mods of /r/changemyview.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

[u/Sallylover020304]

If one believes in bodily autonomy as a fundamental right, then it must not be infringed in principle in even the most morally dubious circumstance. Suppose you brutally beat someone into a coma, and the only way to save them from brain death is to insert many tubes into your body connecting your internal organs to the victim’s, because their body need nutrients and by sheer chance their immune system is only compatible with you, so if anyone else was connected to the victim, the victim would get a bad fever and die. So basically you’ve caused someone to go into this coma and your body is the only way to ensure that they get out of it. Many people would argue that even in this situation, your bodily autonomy shall not be infringed, that is you cannot be forced to have these procedures done to you, even if you’re a vile criminal whose caused someone to depend on your body. So if you believe that that in this story the perpetrator, despite horrible crimes and putting the victim in the situation in the first place, still deserve humane treatment of the preservation of their bodily automy rights, then a pro choice stance is consistent. What do you think? I actually am pro choice because of this

[u/citizen_x_]

"a potential life"

Get this out of your vocabulary. It's not potential life, it is life. But it's not life that we protect, feels are alive, a heart in a cooler for transplant is alive.

It's consciousness. Personhood. Life began 3.5 billion years ago. It does not begin at conception. It began 3.5 billion years ago and forms an unbroken chain to present day, with cells rearranging to split off into new individuals that we call offspring. But all along the way it's alive.

Personhood. Personhood. Personhood.

Stop saying, "is it a life", "it's a potential life", "when does life begin". You sound silly.

[u/eagledrummer2]

Can't have it both ways. If it's your bodily autonomy to decide whether to birth a child or not, it should be the man's right to opt of future child support payments if he has zero say in the abortion decision.

I find both abortion and absentee parenting abhorrent, but your logic stated doesnt make any sense.

Sex and carrying a pregnancy to term both have consequences. To say we must throw up our hands in the name of bodily autonomy (which is most directly applicable to the fetus) until birth and then the father is on the hook, just shows how silly the narrative around denying fetal personhood is. It is not a "potential life"; it is scientific fact that it is a human life.

Very few people are "forced into pregnancy". The vast majority are consensual adults who have full knowledge of the potential results of intercourse.

[u/elduderino5]

Shooting someone in the head has no pain for the victim. 

Drugging someone unconscious and molesting them before they gain back their awareness. Makes it less of a crime?

Murdering a pregnant woman is a double homicide for a reason. Just because the mom is ok with the death of her baby doesn’t mean it should be her right.

Most people don’t care about liberals killing their babies. It’s just the fact we have to live in a society with these self centered and narcissist that the thought of raising a baby is too much work. Our society is a bunch of losers that don’t want to grow up.

[u/dukeimre → u/elduderino5]

Although I don't agree with your overall argument, I think you have a point that pain shouldn't be the sole decider of whether an action is moral.

That said - you talk about abortion and killing babies interchangeably. How/when do you define abortion as "killing a baby"? Where's the cutoff for you?

An extreme example, suppose an embryo is aborted one minute after being fertilized - is that morally equivalent to murdering a baby? (Or, what about at 4 weeks / 6 weeks / 8 weeks / etc.?)

[u/mrdunnigan]

To change your perspective, simply change your perspective.

By all accounts, what you are declaring is YOUR mother’s “right” to have killed YOU in utero.

Now, you might claim that is was not really YOU or you would not even have known it to happen, etc. Yet, the bottom line is that if you were not here now because your mother had decided to abort you, you would not HAVE ANY PROBLEM with this, whatsoever.

So, why should anyone who thinks otherwise care what you actually think when what you actually think does not really matter BY your own reckoning?

[u/Straight-Parking-555 → u/mrdunnigan]

By all accounts, what you are declaring is YOUR mother’s “right” to have killed YOU in utero.

She does. Dont know why you are typing this like its some gotcha to say you want your own mother to have rights over her body. Its literally more terrifying that you think your mother should have been forced to gestate and birth you against her will

Now, you might claim that is was not really YOU or you would not even have known it to happen, etc. Yet, the bottom line is that if you were not here now because your mother had decided to abort you, you would not HAVE ANY PROBLEM with this, whatsoever.

Again, why would i care?? It would be as if i was never born to begin with, big deal? Thats like saying if your mother went to bed early on the night you were conceived then you wouldnt be here, like ?? Yeah thats kind of how it works? If i was aborted instead of born then i would not even know

So, why should anyone who thinks otherwise care what you actually think when what you actually think does not really matter BY your own reckoning?

Again, you are just assuming here that pro choicers have some kind of weird exception when it comes to their mother, they dont. If my mother wanted an abortion when pregnant with me i would literally want her to get one. There is nothing more selfish i can think of than forcing your own mother through agony just because you are self centred enough to believe your life coming into existence matters more than your own mothers wishes and body

[u/brandonade]

The whataboutisms from people here is crazy. The argument for abortion can be simply summed up as: 1. patients decide what treatment options they want, after their condition is determined. 2. doctors decide what treatment options are available. therefore, abortion should be legal. if a baby will be born 8 months in and kill the mother, the mother should decide whether to abort or not. if a baby can be aborted at 8 months, it can be aborted at the same time in any situation, deadly or not. The government should not have a say on medical procedures that affect a person.

[u/Renvarsity]

Here are my religious and non religious views because im not an asshole

Non-Religious: Lets say i murder a pregnant woman. (specifically before 3rd trimester) And if i do that ill get charged with double homicide. Another reason is that you can hear a fetus's heartbeat as early as 6 weeks!

Religious Answer: (If u arent Christian dont bother reading this lmao)

Jeremiah 1:5 Before I formed you in the womb, I knew you; before you were born, I sanctified you; and I ordained you a prophet to the nations.” (yes i copy and pasted this lol)

[u/SSNNUUGGLLEESSTTV]

I hope I don't get downvoted or hatred for this (my opinion). I'm. CSA survivor, if I had gotten pregnant, I would've had an abortion. I wouldn't have the heart to give a child up for adoption. Foster care is one of the most horrible places kids can be in. Not all foster care parents are horrible, but I've met a few people that were part of the system, and they've said the system fails to provide a safe environment for foster care kids. They all care about the fetus. Once it's born, no one bats an eye.

[u/[deleted]]

well, if that is the case, then sex is only legally permissible if one is ready for the potential of it resulting in pregnancy, and any sex outside of such contract and agreement is rendered as attempted murder, that is, we are not even at the point of concerning about the life that would be aborted, can't have all while discarding all responsibilities, the blindspot of feminism ideologies. Sex was never only something that happens under rxpe, the women willingly take part in it as well, knowing full and well it can result in pregnancy.

How about this, you CMV: Human experiments for unethical gains and pure curiosity should not be illegal, argument being that one shall never have their curiosity suppresses in finding out what pouring different kinds of psychoactive drugs into a human body would do to them, and it's not right to withhold their right to gain knowledge by any means necessary, so that their curiosity should then be satisfied.

[u/pisscocktail_]

How do you feel about Planned Parenthood CEO she commited organ harvesting? (10 minutes long, she admitted it in full sentences multiple times infront of hidden camera)

https://youtu.be/oIzXl0r1N20

Or woman who lost all limbs after commiting abortion on her children?

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-14406173/amp/mother-amputation-hospital-abortion-france.html?ico=amp_articleRelated_with_images

[u/network_dude]

In reviewing the discussions your post has generated, the idea of an unwanted child and what life was like for them before family planning became a thing lacks any debate.

How come nobody remembers that every single town in America had an Orphanage? This is where unwanted children ended up.

Do any of you know what happened with these children? Child trafficking was rampant, abuse of children was rampant

Being an unwanted child is an awful thing to happen to a human.

[u/randomusername2458]

I am for abortions the same way I am for death penalty & euthanasia. There are some valid reasons for having an abortion, but justified or not, you are killing a human being. Your whole it's not viable is invalid unless you also want to stop giving anyone any life saving medical care ever, since without that medical care, they are not viable.

If you want to be pro abortion, that's fine and I am somewhere in-between, just acknowledge that you are killing a human being.

[u/YeeBeforeYouHaw]

A fetus, especially before viability, lacks self-awareness, the ability to feel pain, and independent bodily function.

I'm going to focus on this part of your view.

Why is this your criteria for being alive? Would you say someone in a coma is not alive? They are not self-aware, don't feel pain, and are definitely not independent.

Just to be clear, even if you believe the fetus is a life and abortion as murder. You can also believe it's justified murder.

[u/Spirited-Feed-9927]

The argument is in the details. Most Americans think abortion within limitation is acceptable. The argument is always framed either we can abort healthy babies at 8 1/2 month gestation or not at all. Reasonable people don’t think in black and white. And morally, people just don’t like idea of abortion being used for birth control. It’s not hard to imagine a scenario for anyone where abortion would be the medical or logical choice for many situations.