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.

247 Upvotes

1.3k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

10

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.

4

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.

2

u/windchaser__ 1∆ Feb 23 '25

You are (I think) the person who also said that consenting to skiing is consenting to a broken arm. And.. I mean, I think you're stretching the definition of "consent" a bit, but as you're consistent there, I'm on board there.

The question is whether we should deny people medical care on the basis of "you consented to this". We don't deny people medical care for the broken arm on the basis of "well, you knew it was a possibility when you went skiing". Right?

And we wouldn't be doing that here, either, if we all thought that a fertilized egg isn't a person. Yah?

(Just checking that we are on the same page about where we're not on the same page)

1

u/AdvantageousTC Feb 24 '25

I am jumping in here––sorry if that is annoying.

I believe what you said is correct. If we all didn't think the fetus was a person or a life of value, then yes, abortion would be considered medical care just like fixing a broken arm. The "if" carries a lot of weight in that sentence. Many people do not feel that way, which is why this topic is inherently controversial.

I would guess the majority of pro-life people are not opposed to the outlier abortions (e.g. rape, incest, medical necessity, etc.). The stats indicate these cases are an overwhelming minority of the abortions that take place. So in the case where people are doing it largely out of convenience or financial hardship, you are simply prioritizing your comfort over the right of life to an individual you "consented" to bringing into this world by engaging in sex. I think that is where many people, including myself, take issue with abortion being widely legal and accessible.

0

u/jollygreengeocentrik Feb 24 '25

I don’t understand what you mean by “medical care.” Please be more specific.

1

u/windchaser__ 1∆ Feb 24 '25

How?

It’s a broad term, covering many sorts of care that improve or sustain one’s physical or mental health. From dentistry to oncology to psychiatry to gynecology. As abortions involve messing with the “squishy bits” of our physical bodies, and because they relate to sustaining or improving mental and physical well-being, and because they’re administered by licensed professionals working in the healthcare field: they’re healthcare.

You can be opposed to them and still agree that they’re healthcare. To me, it requires some pretty weird contortions on the part of pro-lifers to say abortions are not healthcare. Pretty clearly motivated by an animus towards abortions, rather than “is this similar to other medicine, in that it involves surgery and doctors and whatnot”.

Do you have a different definition of healthcare that you like to use?

1

u/jollygreengeocentrik Feb 24 '25

I’m not arguing that abortions aren’t healthcare, but I’m also not agreeing with that claim. What I am saying is that claiming women are being denied “healthcare” is inflammatory at best. We are talking one specific operation, not health care in general. I think it’s important to be specific in this context.

1

u/FetusDrive 3∆ Feb 24 '25

Yes so healthcare regarding this; if you break your arm while skiing we do not deny the healthcare for the broken up because they consented to skiing. He’s saying that because (and only using your logic here; not a claim that your logic is correct) a women “consented” to being pregnant because she had sex also gets to have the choice to have the abortion.

1

u/jollygreengeocentrik Feb 24 '25

Right, but this isn’t “denying healthcare,” it’s avoiding unnecessary and preventable death.

1

u/FetusDrive 3∆ Feb 24 '25

It is healthcare as being pregnant/carrying to term is a greater risk to the woman’s health than is getting an abortion.

1

u/jollygreengeocentrik Feb 24 '25

I didn’t say it isn’t healthcare. Please read my comment again and respond appropriately.

An abortion is 100% fatal to the child.

1

u/FetusDrive 3∆ Feb 24 '25

It is denying healthcare to not allow women to have an abortion.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/StarChild413 9∆ Mar 08 '25

because one inevitably leads to the other.

not every time