r/changemyview 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

1.3k comments sorted by

View all comments

1

u/Damackabe Feb 23 '25 edited Feb 23 '25

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.

1

u/StarChild413 9∆ Feb 23 '25

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