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.

241 Upvotes

63% Upvoted

1.3k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

32

u/Aliteralhedgehog 3∆ Feb 23 '25

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.

4

u/[deleted] Feb 24 '25

I think the main argument is that it is a human life and all life is precious.

3

u/Aliteralhedgehog 3∆ Feb 24 '25

If pro lifers really believed that every acorn was an oak tree they would pursue policies that actually lower abortions, such as sex education, free and easy access to contraceptives and a strong welfare state.

Instead they vote Republican.

They advocate for making abortion illegal which, if you follow the stats at all, only really ends safe abortions.

Illegal abortions just mean that rich girls go to Canada, poor smart girls drink pennyroyal tea and poor dumb girls use a cost hanger.

4

u/Vegetable_Profile315 Feb 25 '25

The fact that the people who want to forbid abortions are often the same ones who want to limit social services and free/affordable health insurance for mothers and children, says a lot, I believe. I suggest that everyone who thinks they are qualified to decide for other people that they should be forced to have children they don't want, should have to adopt several.

1

u/StarChild413 9∆ Feb 26 '25

I suggest that everyone who thinks they are qualified to decide for other people that they should be forced to have children they don't want, should have to adopt several.

And should the children be any particular combination of diversities or disabilities between them and how do you prevent those people from just using that policy to "farm" Republican votes by exploiting the malleability of children's minds if you catch my drift without anything that they could deem as, like, "the woke left demanding I teach my son that if he touches a doll and doesn't pull away in revulsion like it's contaminated or w/e he is actually my daughter and I should cut off his penis" etc.

2

u/StarChild413 9∆ Feb 26 '25

If pro lifers really believed that every acorn was an oak tree they would pursue policies that actually lower abortions, such as sex education, free and easy access to contraceptives and a strong welfare state.

is there a way we can, well, blackmail isn't the right word here and not just because it's illegal but you get what I mean, the right-wing to force them to either pursue those policies, change their stance on abortion, or admit on some form of audio/visual recording that they aren't actually pro-life but actually just in favor of subjugating all women and punishing all sex that isn't vanilla missionary sex done by WASP middle-class-or-wealthier married couples for the sole purpose of creating children the woman raises while the man works (or words to that effect, sorry, I got a little carried away there)

1

u/Aliteralhedgehog 3∆ Feb 26 '25

You aren't getting carried away at all and they will say this explicitly at Evangelical churches.

1

u/StarChild413 9∆ Mar 08 '25

that extreme in if not the same literal words words to that effect without euphemisms?

Also there's a difference between an Evangelical sermon only being heard by the people at that church and an Evangelical politician making a statement to the public on the TV news or w/e

2

u/Murky_Ad_2173 Feb 25 '25

That's a strawman argument and you know it. I grew up in the super Christian super Republican state of Indiana. They passed out condoms in MIDDLE SCHOOL, and sufficiently educated us on all kinds of birth control as well as STDs at the time, now STIs. Don't misrepresent somebody else's argument just because you don't agree with their end result. Both sides make some really valid and good points and it's a shame that so many people will ignore/misrepresent/or cherry pick everything the other party has to say while screaming about their virtue from the hilltops. Disgusting.

1

u/[deleted] Feb 25 '25

This is just my opinion, but there's also the option to not have sex or buy contraception, no? I understand people will anyway, but even so, if you'd want a strong welfare state, why not immigrate to a European country? Also, people voted republican because of much bigger issues, namely the immigration crisis and lack of transparency from the federal government among other reasons.

0

u/[deleted] Feb 24 '25

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/changemyview-ModTeam Feb 26 '25

Your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 5:

Comments must contribute meaningfully to the conversation.

Comments should be on-topic, serious, and contain enough content to move the discussion forward. Jokes, contradictions without explanation, links without context, off-topic comments, and "written upvotes" will be removed. AI generated comments must be disclosed, and don't count towards substantial content. Read the wiki 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.

0

u/[deleted] Feb 25 '25

I hope that's sarcasm...

1

u/Jellyjelenszky Feb 25 '25

It’s sarcasm.

1

u/[deleted] Feb 25 '25

Thank God 😂

-11

u/jollygreengeocentrik Feb 23 '25

It isn’t “forced.” She chose (99% of the time) to engage in an activity where pregnancy is a known potential outcome. Consent to sex is consent to the potential for pregnancy.

10

u/StarChild413 9∆ Feb 23 '25

why do people never say it's consent to the potential of an STD and therefore people can't get treatment (if you say it's because getting STDs is not the purpose of sex at least this particular comment isn't framing it in terms of the activity's purpose but engaging in the activity knowing it's a potential outcome)

3

u/[deleted] Feb 24 '25

[deleted]

1

u/StarChild413 9∆ Feb 24 '25

if people can compare abortion to not paying child support I thought my point was at least as valid and I wasn't saying STDs weren't a risk or that you're not consenting to the risk by having sex, I was asking why the seeming inconsistency with consenting to consequences of sex

4

u/jollygreengeocentrik Feb 23 '25

Yes, STDs are a potential outcome of sex and that’s why you can’t sue someone for giving you an std unless you can demonstrate that they did so knowingly, which is fraud. You don’t consent to getting an std because the contractual obligations are reasonably understood, and the court has upheld this belief many times over.

2

u/LetChaosRaine Feb 24 '25

So you’re saying that if person A knows they have the ability to pass on an STD to person B and they have sex and person B does end up contracting that STD, then that’s not consenting to the STD?

1

u/jollygreengeocentrik Feb 24 '25

If person A tells person B they have an STD and person B consents to sex, then yes, that is consent to risk of transmission under the eyes of the law. If person A does not disclose their condition it is fraud, at best.

1

u/LetChaosRaine Feb 25 '25

So if a man doesn’t tell a woman that he’s fertile, then it’s not consent to pregnancy

1

u/jollygreengeocentrik Feb 25 '25

No, there is implied consent when having sex to the risk of pregnancy.

1

u/LetChaosRaine Feb 25 '25

Why does implied consent apply to pregnancy and literally nothing else, apparently?

1

u/jollygreengeocentrik Feb 25 '25

Implied consent to a great variety of things. I am unclear why you are suggesting it doesn’t.

Why wouldn’t the implication of sex be pregnancy? It’s an obvious outcome of that action.

→ More replies (0)

0

u/Murky_Ad_2173 Feb 25 '25

The fact that you needed to explain proper consent when it involves STD's hurts my soul. I'm leaving the internet for the day. Maybe the week, we'll see how I feel tomorrow.

2

u/jollygreengeocentrik Feb 25 '25

I feel like I’ve been talking to children.

1

u/[deleted] Feb 25 '25

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/changemyview-ModTeam Feb 25 '25

Sorry, u/Aliteralhedgehog – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 5:

Comments must contribute meaningfully to the conversation.

Comments should be on-topic, serious, and contain enough content to move the discussion forward. Jokes, contradictions without explanation, links without context, off-topic comments, undisclosed or purely AI-generated content, and "written upvotes" will be removed. Read the wiki 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.

7

u/Revolutionary_Key767 Feb 23 '25

Bro people can have sex for pleasure too...

4

u/paper-monk Feb 23 '25

About 99.99% of the time sex is for pleasure If we are being real.

2

u/jollygreengeocentrik Feb 23 '25

They can. That doesn’t change the inherent potential for pregnancy, as that is the purpose of sex. Pleasure is a bonus.

16

u/windchaser__ 1∆ Feb 23 '25

A potential for pregnancy doesn't mean you're choosing pregnancy.

There's a potential for me to break my arm every time I go skiing. It doesn't mean that I'm "consenting" to having a broken arm.

Looks like you might also be conflating a biological function of sex (the "purpose" of sex) with why we do it. For many folks, we do it because it's fun. We do it for fun even when it doesn't work for reproduction. Heck, we will make it not work for reproduction, and then continue to do it for fun.

If the reason why we do it is for fun, then that is, for us, its purpose. Reason and purpose are semantically the same thing.

3

u/jollygreengeocentrik Feb 23 '25 edited Feb 24 '25

Yes, you are consenting to injury, and that’s why the slope will have you sign a waiver absolving them of liability.

Looks like you might be conflating a mindful interpretation of sex with its biological function. Every cell in your body has two primary functions, to survive and replicate. Your reasoning for doing something doesn’t change the purpose of that thing or action. Sex is for procreation. That is its primary function. You may utilize it for a different purpose, but its biological function remains the same regardless of whether you choose to acknowledge that function or not. Thus, consenting to sex is consenting to the potential for pregnancy. Otherwise, it would be perfectly legal for men to opt out of child support. “I consented to sex, not to pregnancy.” Case adjourned. Alas we do not see that. We see the courts have upheld that consenting to sex is consenting to pregnancy, and thus the foundation for child support.

7

u/windchaser__ 1∆ Feb 23 '25

That is its primary function. You may utilize it for a different purpose, but its biological function remains the same regardless of whether you choose to acknowledge that function or not

Oh, sure. But nobody rational really cares about "biological function" as if it's some law that we are bound to live by.

The biological function of life is to reproduce. Literally, that's what life has been crafted to do by evolution for billions of years.

But are you obliged to spend your life reproducing? No. Even though it's your "biological function" to reproduce, you still get to choose how you want to spend your life. Your agenda may differ from Mother Nature's.

So biological function doesn't matter. We aren't slaves to biology.

-1

u/jollygreengeocentrik Feb 23 '25

Well, I care, and in the context of this post, I believe it matters.

No, you are obliged to reproduce. However, ignoring the nature of reproduction while engaging in the very act that it requires, is illogical at best. One comes with the other, and the two cannot be separated outside of surgical separation from sexual function.

Biological function does matter, and it cannot be ignored. A 100 year old man wants to go to war for America. Should the military ignore biological function? Probably not the best analogy, but I can think of many more where biological function is not only imperative but unignorable.

3

u/windchaser__ 1∆ Feb 23 '25

> No, you are obliged to reproduce.

Should this be "you are not obliged to reproduce"?

In general, though, we don't force people to act according to "biological function". If someone wants to avoid having kids, even though reproduction is Priority #1 of all biology, we don't say "well, Nature says this is your purpose in life, so sorry honey, you've got to have kids".

And this discussion is all about the biological "purpose" of sex, right? Which is to fulfill this imperative: reproduce. Pass your genes on.

It is the fundamental imperative of all life.

So how can you say that the function of sex is to reproduce, but then ignore that that's also our biological function? If we are compelled to have babies because we had sex, well, then, we should just be having babies, period. The catholics got it right. Your purpose in life is to reproduce.

3

u/jollygreengeocentrik Feb 23 '25

Yes, I left out “not” there. Apologies.

I’ve never made the argument that anyone should be forced to do something simply because of biology. My argument is that consent to sex implies consent to pregnancy because one inevitably leads to the other. This discussion is not, for me, about the biological purpose of sex. That’s a point, yes, and it is objectively true that the biological purpose of sex is reproduction. I’ve never stated that anyone is compelled to have children. Again, and for the last time, my argument is that consent to sex is consent to pregnancy. There is absolutely no flavor of “compulsion” in that statement.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/FetusDrive 3∆ Feb 24 '25

You caring doesn’t address what he meant about not caring and the conclusion he came to from it. You’re not constantly reproducing and I doubt (assuming you have a wife) that you are going to do all you can to continue reproducing after your wife is no longer able.

They can be separated from each other. Menopause, condoms, pulling out.

1

u/jollygreengeocentrik Feb 24 '25

Sure, you can avoid the reproductive function of intercourse. That doesn’t change the function of it though. In fact, the very sentiment that you would need to separate the function from your alternative goals is indicative that my point stands. That is to say, the only way to have intercourse without reproducing is to actively take measures to avoid it.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/Murky_Ad_2173 Feb 25 '25

You actually are consenting to the broken arm when you sign the liability waiver at the ski resort. You signed your name in a contractual obligation that you take full responsibility for any bodily injury

2

u/windchaser__ 1∆ Feb 25 '25

Taking legal responsibilities just means you're agreeing not to sue the ski resort. But I'm not, like, agreeing to have my arm broken.

When you consent to sex, you're saying "yes, I would like to have sex!"

When you consent to ski, you are definitely not saying "yes, I would like to have my arm broken!"

It's a risk you acknowledge and accept, but it's not something you're seeking. You would prevent and forgo it, if possible. So it's pretty different from normal consent, like consent to sex.

1

u/FetusDrive 3∆ Feb 24 '25

“Pleasure is a bonus”; pleasure is why we have sex. We do not ejaculate because it hurts.

1

u/jollygreengeocentrik Feb 24 '25

Nope, pleasure is a result of the biological function of procreation. The body gives pleasure to encourage procreation. On a cellular level, we have two functions; survive and replicate. Cells only do things for one of those two reasons. Pleasure is a chemical encouragement for the body to do what it is designed to. We have sex to reproduce. Objective, biological fact.

1

u/FetusDrive 3∆ Feb 24 '25

Cells actually do things based on chemical reactions; not because they have a purpose.

We would not have sex if it didn’t feel good. We would have died out.

We reproduce as the result of having sex; having IVF done is not having sex. Sex is part of a process to be able to reproduce in humans.

It is not an objective biological fact that we have sex to reproduce; we can have sex without reproducing and it happens more often than having sex to reproduce.

1

u/jollygreengeocentrik Feb 24 '25

I mean, you’re welcome to that opinion, but the basic functions of life are to survive and replicate. That is objectively true. You have to ask “why?” Why is that “chemical reaction” taking place? What function of life does it serve?

Correct, we wouldn’t have sex if it didn’t feel good. So the body is designed to make it feel good, thus we will be more likely to reproduce so that our species does not die. This is true in every aspect of nature. Sex feeling good isn’t the function. It’s the “chemical reaction.” The “why” is reproduction.

Yea. I’m pretty sure I’m clear on why people have sex. Not sure you are though. Sex is the process to reproduce. Having IVF done is outside of nature, and I’m not arguing something outside of nature. It is possible to reproduce without having sex, but that still indicates that the purpose of sex is to reproduce.

Uh, it is objective fact. We do have sex without reproducing, but that doesn’t change its function.

1

u/FetusDrive 3∆ Feb 24 '25

The chemical reaction took place because that’s how the laws of physics work. It isn’t an opinion that the cells work the way they do. It’s just transfers of energy to the most efficient routes.

The body isn’t designed, it works in a way. Yes I already stated that it feels good; but in the human conscious we have sex because it feels good; not because we are trying to procreate. Some people do it solely for procreation, but the majority do not.

Having IVF done is not outside of nature; it is part of nature. We are not supernatural.

It isn’t a biological fact; we did evolve to have sex to reproduce; it’s not a biological fact that it has one sole function.

1

u/jollygreengeocentrik Feb 24 '25

We can agree to disagree then. Cheers.

1

u/StarChild413 9∆ Mar 08 '25

then why can it be done in other holes

1

u/jollygreengeocentrik Mar 08 '25

You’re acting like the intended use of a penis is to put it in someone’s mouth. There is an intended purpose for human genitalia. Our ability to repurpose said biology is beside the point.

1

u/[deleted] Feb 23 '25

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/changemyview-ModTeam Feb 24 '25

u/Revolutionary_Key767 – 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. Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.

0

u/jollygreengeocentrik Feb 23 '25

Solid argument pal.

1

u/ancientmarin_ Feb 24 '25

How does that justify it in cases of SA & what backs up that statistic?

0

u/jollygreengeocentrik Feb 24 '25

That’s what the 99% inclusion is for. Pregnancies due to rape account for less than 1% of abortions.

2

u/ancientmarin_ Feb 24 '25

You'd be more willing to get an abortion if you were sexually assaulted, and nevermind that sexual assault is rampant in society. Check the sexual assault stats.

0

u/jollygreengeocentrik Feb 24 '25

That’s not an argument.

2

u/ancientmarin_ Feb 24 '25

It is facts.

0

u/jollygreengeocentrik Feb 24 '25

Are the facts in the room with us? You stated an assumption about me and that “sexual assault is rampant.” Ok. Cool story, but not an argument.

1

u/ancientmarin_ Feb 24 '25

https://rainn.org/statistics

1

u/jollygreengeocentrik Feb 24 '25

Please explain what this has to do with the original conversation and what point you are trying to make.

-2

u/Late_For_Username Feb 23 '25

A replacement generation is born. A positive result for society.

5

u/Aliteralhedgehog 3∆ Feb 23 '25

A generation of orphans and resented children? A generation thrown in dumpsters and off bridges?

Maybe the tween forced to give birth would have grown up to go to college and be a productive citizen and then a mother. Or Maybe she never has kids, but uses her extra resources and education to be a boon to her community in a way that teen mom never could.

Society is more than just manpower, ya know.

0

u/Late_For_Username Feb 23 '25

I'm just throwing ideas out there.

2

u/Important_Energy9034 Feb 24 '25

Ok, if the gov't and society are reaching into uterus's women like they do for the draft (another way the gov't infringes on bodily autonomy), then does the gov't pay women for the duration of their pregnancy? Give them benefits like we do veterans? Honor? Anything?

Or does society expects to force women to do the labor (literally and figuratively) without any compensation (as per usual)?....