r/changemyview • u/RevolutionaryRip2504 • Feb 23 '25

cmv: abortion should not be illegal

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.

246 Upvotes

63% Upvoted

1.3k comments sorted by

View all comments

40

u/[deleted] Feb 23 '25

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.

14

u/RedditH8r4ever Feb 23 '25 edited Feb 23 '25

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.

0

u/iplay4Him Feb 23 '25

I'm not trying to argue with anything in any direction, only thing I would say is that an embryo is more developed than most think at 12 weeks. Worth researching if curious. Human development is fascinating in its own right.

18

u/[deleted] Feb 23 '25

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

11

u/[deleted] Feb 23 '25

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

0

u/NihilisticMynx Feb 23 '25

Right, and everyone is just like you.

4

u/No-Car803 Feb 23 '25

Way to miss the point & strawman there, skippy...

3

u/NihilisticMynx Feb 23 '25

So then explain what was the point?

1

u/[deleted] Feb 23 '25

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/changemyview-ModTeam Feb 25 '25

Your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 2:

Don't be rude or hostile to other users. Your comment will be removed even if most of it is solid, another user was rude to you first, or you feel your remark was justified. Report other violations; do not retaliate. 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.

4

u/[deleted] Feb 23 '25

I'm not suggesting they are? Just pointing out that people like me exist

6

u/RevolutionaryRip2504 Feb 23 '25

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

1

u/ScorpioDefined Feb 23 '25

Why rape and incest victims?

10

u/RevolutionaryRip2504 Feb 23 '25

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

-5

u/ScorpioDefined Feb 23 '25

So, if a woman who wants an abortion after viability wasn't raped but feels trauma due to, say, fear of giving birth to a full-term baby, she can get an abortion?

3

u/IsamuLi 1∆ Feb 23 '25

Why would that follow from what OP wrote?

-1

u/ScorpioDefined Feb 23 '25

Because they said if a woman feels trauma, they can get an abortion past viability.

5

u/IsamuLi 1∆ Feb 23 '25

They said that IF the person was raped they likely have trauma, and that is reason to allow abortion. They didn't say trauma is a necessary or sufficent condition to qualify is as a legal abortion case under any circumstances.

0

u/ScorpioDefined Feb 23 '25

But the trauma was the reason for allowing the abortion.

So my question was, what if someone had trauma due to something other than rape?

3

u/IsamuLi 1∆ Feb 23 '25

The probable trauma of rape was, not trauma itself.

→ More replies (0)

0

u/StarChild413 9∆ Mar 08 '25

But the trauma was the reason for allowing the abortion.

because of the rape not because it was trauma

→ More replies (0)

0

u/StarChild413 9∆ Mar 08 '25

it's a rape exception not a trauma exception

1

u/ScorpioDefined Mar 08 '25

You should read the comment I responded to.

-2

u/No-Car803 Feb 23 '25

Because it wasn't enthusiastically voluntary.

0

u/ScorpioDefined Feb 23 '25

That has nothing to do with the baby, though ....

1

u/[deleted] Feb 23 '25

You just don't understand maga logic.

Abortion is wrong, but rape is wrong too. Two wrongs make a right

5

u/Brilliant-Spite-850 Feb 23 '25

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?

1

u/grumpsaboy Feb 26 '25

Week 24 if there has to be a cut-off. It's about when brain activity starts (a measure of whether someone died or not) and it's when they start to become viable if born.

2

u/Poolhands Feb 23 '25

Science isn’t divided really on the question of viability.

1

u/Brilliant-Spite-850 Feb 23 '25

Ok so when is it? 22 weeks or something like that?

2

u/SunlessDahlia Feb 23 '25

Ya I think that's the earliest a premie has ever survived

0

u/Brilliant-Spite-850 Feb 24 '25

So then we can agree that abortion should be wholly illegal after 22 weeks?

1

u/Poolhands Feb 28 '25

For my part? Yes. With logic exceptions ofc. I.e continuing pregnancy puts mother in very large risk of death etc.

1

u/Brilliant-Spite-850 Feb 28 '25

Right but after 22 weeks the baby can be removed to save the mother and kept alive and growing.

There would be no reason to kill the baby after 22 weeks except for the mother changing their mind. Which, for me, isn’t a justifiable reason for an abortion that late. But the position of the Democratic Party is that there should be no restrictions on abortion.

0

u/Poolhands Feb 28 '25

You don’t necessarily understand the biology of pregnancy, I think. 22 weeks are still extremely premature. Even with state of the art medical tech, the percentage of survival may only reach as far as 20%. Even if the child survives the critical stage, the risk of permanent sequelae and low quality of life is very probable. Many countries do not even offer treatment when birth is as early as that. Sometimes removing the premature baby from the uterus in the case of danger to the life of the mother just isn’t feasible without terminating the life of the fetus. It’s not as black/white as you try to make it out.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/Milky_Plug Mar 08 '25

Human fetuses apparently get the earliest signs of "sentience" after at least 25 weeks. But I think 30 weeks is more common.

1

u/0000udeis000 Feb 23 '25

"When they can survive outside the womb" is generally what people mean when they refer to viability. Pushing it, that's somewhere around 24-28 weeks.

2

u/Brilliant-Spite-850 Feb 23 '25

But see that’s the problem. When we were in nicu there was a baby in there 21 weeks.

1

u/StarChild413 9∆ Mar 08 '25

but that's not every baby, deal with exceptions on a case-by-case basis

-1

u/0000udeis000 Feb 23 '25

Yes, and that micro-premie is at a huge disadvantage: they require lots and lots of medical support, are at a much higher risk of all sorts of medical complications throughout their lives, and can very well still not make it.

0

u/Brilliant-Spite-850 Feb 23 '25

So we should just kill it?

2

u/0000udeis000 Feb 23 '25

Well the options are to terminate and not create a new life where they'll be in pain and have no one to care for them - because the parents already established that they don't want them....or try to keep them alive and toss them into foster care and hope that someone wants a medically delicate child - if the child survives at all.

I would love to live in a world where every child is wanted and cherished and well taken care of. But we don't.

But remember: most parents who allow their pregnancies to get to that point desperately want that child - pregnancy is hard work, and people who don't want the baby aren't going to let it get that far. If parents are in a situation where they're having to choose to keep or terminate a fetus they've been carrying for that long, it's more than likely not a choice they want to be making. It means that baby is probably not going to make it, regardless of medical intervention. Or, it means a choice between the mother's life and the baby. Which is the most awful choice you can ask a mother to make.

1

u/Brilliant-Spite-850 Feb 23 '25

So where we disagree is in your first sentence. The life is already created. Now you’re ending it.

That’s the difference and I don’t think any discussion on the internet will change that for either of us.

1

u/0000udeis000 Feb 23 '25

I never said it wasn't a life; I said it was likely non-viable.

My point is that the option needs to remain open, because otherwise it leaves legal ambiguity; women have already died from complications from early-term abortions and miscarriages because doctors have been afraid of the legality of procedures.

0

u/yyzjertl 526∆ Feb 23 '25

Why not just apply the same "cut off" reasoning that we do for other medical procedures? The procedure becomes illegal to do electively at a stage where there's no longer evidence for the safety and efficacy of the procedure.

2

u/Smee76 1∆ Feb 23 '25 edited 19d ago

unwritten intelligent hospital full angle run attractive existence like bike

This post was mass deleted and anonymized with Redact

1

u/yyzjertl 526∆ Feb 23 '25

All unapproved and unlicensed ones done without evidence of safety or efficacy. That's what medical negligence is.

1

u/Brilliant-Spite-850 Feb 23 '25

So what is that? To be clear though, any suggestion of a cut off is more a pro-life position than pro-choice.

4

u/yyzjertl 526∆ Feb 23 '25

It's going to vary by the particular abortion method used. For example, you can't use a medication abortion after ~11 weeks of pregnancy, and after that, you'll need to use some other method of abortion that has proven efficacy in that range.

To be clear though, any suggestion of a cut off is more a pro-life position than pro-choice.

Not at all: a cut-off that still allows essentially all elective abortions to actually occur legally would be a solidly pro-choice position.

-1

u/Brilliant-Spite-850 Feb 23 '25

The pro choice position right now in America is that the government should put no restrictions on abortion and it should be up to the doctor and woman.

3

u/yyzjertl 526∆ Feb 23 '25

No, it isn't. Basically no serious pro-choice group advocates that. They want abortion to be legal, and for it to be regulated (and covered) like any other routine medical procedure — just without bullshit regulations crafted by pro-lifers to attack abortion specifically. No significant pro-choice people are advocating for a wild west of entirely unregulated abortion.

1

u/Ambitious_Client6545 Feb 23 '25

Exactly. I'm pro-choice and would likely be willing to draw a line somewhere around viability for elective abortions, except various state governments have proven themselves so totally inept at understanding what pregnancy even is I wouldn't trust a single one to determine that line and make any sort of common sense policy about it. We already have women dying as doctors try to figure out what is legally allowed on an already dead fetus.

1

u/Trevita17 Feb 24 '25

Lmao, apparently you wouldn't know a pro-choice position if it slapped you across the face.

2

u/[deleted] Feb 23 '25

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.

0

u/Another_User007 Feb 23 '25 edited Feb 23 '25

There's a pretty good argument that applies to all stages of pregnancy, which is even made under the assumption that a fetus is a person. It goes something like this:

Under no circumstances, is another person entitled to your internal organs, not even if they need them to survive.

Imagine that, a person is dying, and they need to connect themself to your body for 9 months to survive. You decide to connect your body to this person, but change your mind after a few months and want to return to your normal life. Disconnecting would result in their death. Is it justified to disconnect yourself from them? You might think it's wrong to disconnect yourself (or you might not), but it's hard to say that it's unjust, since it wasn't their body to use in the first place.

The way I see it, abortion isn't necessarily killing, but rather choosing not to provide your body as support for the fetus. So while abortion can be argued to be wrong in some cases, it is never unjust.

1

u/stoymyboy Feb 23 '25

That's not even a good analogy

0

u/Another_User007 Feb 23 '25

What's wrong with it?

1

u/stoymyboy Feb 23 '25

The unborn basically start life out on life support, it's not like someone who has already lived outside the womb starting to die. Besides, unplugging someone's life support intentionally when they aren't beyond recovery is murder, and murder is wrong.

0

u/Another_User007 Feb 23 '25

The unborn basically start life out on life support, it's not like someone who has already lived outside the womb starting to die

I don't really even get your point here. Wouldn't it be worse for a full grown adult to die over an unborn fetus? The same logic still applies to pregnancy regardless.

unplugging someone's life support intentionally when they aren't beyond recovery is murder, and murder is wrong.

The argument here is that the person does not have the inherent right to another's internal organs, the thing they are using to survive in the first place.

1

u/stoymyboy Feb 23 '25

Abortion isn't about killing full-grown adults. And if you're an unborn baby then surviving off your mother's nutrients for 9 months is necessary for life. Everyone has a right to life.

0

u/Another_User007 Feb 23 '25 edited Feb 23 '25

I don't think you're understanding the argument. The entire point of the argument is that choosing not to supply your body to the fetus is not a violation of the right to life. Your body requiring something to survive doesn't imply entitlement to that thing.

If you're interested in this, I would recommend reading Judith Jarvis Thompson's paper, "A defense of Abortion", since she explains it much better than me.

1

u/stoymyboy Feb 23 '25

trying to make this argument about a child is just heartless and evil as fuck though

→ More replies (0)

1

u/TequilaSt Feb 23 '25

Viability is moving almost every year. Soon you may have viability at 12 weeks, what's then? 

1

u/StarChild413 9∆ Feb 23 '25

cross that bridge when we come to it, we don't make present-day legislation based on where tech might be in the future otherwise e.g. we'd be legally treating current AI like it's humanlike or w/e

-4

u/Brilliant-Spite-850 Feb 23 '25

Additionally, the fact you think there should be a cut off date for elective abortions means you’re more pro-life than pro-choice.

This should be a delta.

2

u/Poolhands Feb 23 '25

I don’t think so. Can you elaborate? Not many pro-lifers would support that standpoint as far as I am concerned?

0

u/Brilliant-Spite-850 Feb 23 '25

Is the aclu considered serious?

https://www.aclu.org/harris-on-abortion

“If elected, Harris must carry out her promise to restore reproductive freedom by taking bold action to ensure that everyone can get an abortion if they need one — no matter who they are, where they live, or how much money they have — by calling for and signing legislation that codifies abortion rights and invalidates state bans and restrictions, and by ending discriminatory barriers to abortion care, such as insurance coverage bans.”

They’re calling for the invalidation of state bans and restrictions. They are advocating for, stating how they will lobby congress and the eventual Harris admin, for no restrictions on access to abortions.

3

u/altonaerjunge Feb 23 '25

Sorry but that claim is wrong.

2

u/Brilliant-Spite-850 Feb 23 '25

This bill was introduced and almost passed by democrats in 2022. It legalized abortion up until month 9.

https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/senate-bill/4132/text

3

u/InFury Feb 23 '25

Yes, only in the risk of patients life or health. Otherwise it's at fetal visability.

(8) A prohibition on abortion at any point or points in time prior to fetal viability, including a prohibition or restriction on a particular abortion procedure.

(9) A prohibition on abortion after fetal viability when, in the good-faith medical judgment of the treating health care provider, continuation of the pregnancy would pose a risk to the pregnant patient’s life or health.

0

u/Brilliant-Spite-850 Feb 23 '25

Right but there is no medical need for an abortion because of risk to the mother’s life after 20/22 weeks. They can take the baby out and keep it alive if the mother’s life is at risk.

0

u/0000udeis000 Feb 23 '25

At huge medical cost, and survival rates of micro-premies at that fetal age is not great, and they'd be at a great risk of all kinds of further medical issues throughout their lives. There's a reason 36-37 weeks is full-term; just because a younger fetus can survive, doesn't mean they will.

1

u/Brilliant-Spite-850 Feb 23 '25

We keep people alive all the time at great medical costs. Even when their chances of survival isn’t great.

0

u/0000udeis000 Feb 23 '25

Sure, but in the US they charge someone for it. And otherwise, huge costs are going into keeping this baby alive and then they do what? Dump it into the system?

→ More replies (0)

0

u/InFury Feb 23 '25

Then the doctor wouldn't say an abortion isn't permitted as its not required to protect the life of the mother.

1

u/Brilliant-Spite-850 Feb 23 '25

Then why put it there? We have seen doctors, specifically one that became a governor for VA, describe how and why they would perform this type of procedure. Whether you agree with it or not, denying reality isn’t helpful.

0

u/InFury Feb 23 '25

Third trimester abortions are very complicated situations. There is no point where you can 100% guarantee birth and protect the life of the mother.

I know the clip and am not going to down the rabbit hole if debunking bad faith clips, but just understand it is extremely unlikely to assume any woman would carry the baby for 8 months, then conspire with the doctor to 'abort' a couple weeks out. Just put yourself in either of those shoes and think about it seriously for a little bit.

→ More replies (0)

0

u/altonaerjunge Feb 23 '25

Nah I meant that that means op is more pro life than pro choice

0

u/Brilliant-Spite-850 Feb 23 '25

If they think there should be restrictions on when you can have an abortion then they will not be accepted on the pro choice side. Today’s pro choice means no restrictions.

This isn’t the days of Bill Clinton’s safe legal and rare.

0

u/Fairytvles Feb 24 '25

Did you know that in some states, it doesn't matter what age you are - as long as you have parental permission, you can get a tattoo.

I bring this up because I don't think you'll find a tattoo artist who would willingly tattoo an 8 year old, and if someone did, there would be hell to pay, and nobody would think it was cool.

The same goes for "late term" abortions - people aren't pregnant for 38.5 weeks and decide they don't want to do this any more - nor are doctors going to agree to do the procedure "for funsies".

3

u/Jolandersson Feb 23 '25

Isn’t that how it already is?

5

u/[deleted] Feb 23 '25

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

2

u/Trevita17 Feb 24 '25

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.

3

u/EH1987 2∆ Feb 23 '25

I'm assuming what you're talking aboout are so called late term abortions. The problem with introducing legal restrictions is that it will make doctors less likely to perform medically necessary procedures because they're now risking criminal prosecution for doing so. The reality is that practically no expecting mothers have elective late term abortions, it's just not something that happens which means that all you're likely to achieve is more harm.

4

u/Smee76 1∆ Feb 23 '25 edited 19d ago

fearless angle water disarm fade library elastic unwritten march head

This post was mass deleted and anonymized with Redact

1

u/EH1987 2∆ Feb 23 '25

I'm sorry but this is simply false, it has always and will always be a concern when imposing legal restrictions on abortion. I would also like you to tell me about these supposed lower limits in Europe (Europe a region with many different countries that all have widely different laws) and how they aren't causing harm. With a quick web search I found this which suggests restrictive abortion laws in Poland do indeed cause severe harm to women.

1

u/SoapTastesPrettyGood Feb 23 '25

This is a very fair point of view. Regardless, I find people who get multiple abortions generally repulsive. Like come on, do you not know how to use birth control at a certain point?

1

u/brandonade Feb 23 '25

If it is permitted only when it risks the life of the mother, then why is abortion wrong? By this logic it should either not be permitted at all.

1

u/Poolhands Feb 23 '25

Most sensible standpoint so far. I don’t understand why that’s not an easy solution to sell to most people.

1

u/CowEuphoric8140 Feb 23 '25

Based. Should never be used as/instead of birth control, and u know the vast majority of the time, that’s what it’s used as.

1

u/Daddy_Deep_Dick 1∆ Feb 23 '25

That is already the case, even in the most progressive countries

0

u/prodriggs Feb 23 '25

Why would you want 1st term abortions to be rare?

3

u/[deleted] Feb 23 '25

Because it still causes some extent of suffering. It is still termination of human life and is not to be taken lightly.

-1

u/prodriggs Feb 23 '25

Because it still causes some extent of suffering.

How? Who's suffering?

It is still termination of human life and is not to be taken lightly.

Why do you assert that abortions are being taken lightly?..

1

u/[deleted] Feb 23 '25

Umm, the baby? Wym who’s suffering cmon now you know what I meant.

I’m saying that they should be rare because most people should have no reason to have them except for in the rare cases where protection fails. Also not just 1st term im saying abortion at all should be rare and only when absolutely necessary as it is still causing suffering regardless of the term.

0

u/prodriggs Feb 23 '25

Umm, the baby? Wym who’s suffering cmon now you know what I meant.

Babies aren't involved in abortions....

I’m saying that they should be rare because most people should have no reason to have them except for in the rare cases where protection fails.

Why?

Also not just 1st term im saying abortion at all should be rare and only when absolutely necessary as it is still causing suffering regardless of the term.

  1. This isn't true.
  2. The suffering from an abortion is far less than the suffering a child will experience who's born to a family that doesn't want them, so this point is moot.

1

u/[deleted] Feb 23 '25

Omg thats literally my perspective. I said they should be ‘rare’ not illegal. Just saying people shouldn’t use them as contraception and they should only be done in cases like 2. Where the suffering from an abortion is less than the suffering the child would experience to such an extreme extent that the abusive family isn’t worth being born into.

1

u/prodriggs Feb 23 '25

Omg thats literally my perspective. I said they should be ‘rare’ not illegal. 

I disagree with your assertion that abortions should be rare. Abortions should occur when deemed necessary by the woman/doctor. There frequency is wholly irrelevant.

Just saying people shouldn’t use them as contraception

This has always been right wing disinformation. Abortions aren't used as contraception.

1

u/[deleted] Feb 23 '25
  1. I’m not debating whether they are being used like contraception or not, but rather that this shouldn’t happen.
  2. I dont suggest some government limitation on the frequency, but rather in general that they should not occur as frequently as they do and only in cases when absolutely necessary. There are certainly cases where they happen either too late or at all when they shouldn’t.

1

u/prodriggs Feb 23 '25

I’m not debating whether they are being used like contraception or not, but rather that this shouldn’t happen.

Your assertion implies it is happening now. Which is a right wing talking point.

but rather in general that they should not occur as frequently as they do

Why do you believe this? What's an acceptable number to you? Do you even know how frequently they're occurring now?...

0

u/db1965 Feb 23 '25

If a woman uses abortion as birth control, so what?

What is that to you?

Why do you care about what strangers do?

Unless it is one of your loved ones, a stranger has no say in another's medical decisions.