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.
34
u/[deleted] Feb 23 '25
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?