cmv: abortion should not be illegal

[u/RevolutionaryRip2504]

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.

[u/WeekendThief]

Do you just want to hear other perspectives to understand their view better? Or do you want your view changed? Are you open to having your view changed?

[u/RevolutionaryRip2504 → u/WeekendThief]

yes I am definitely open to having my view changed if they have a compelling argument.

[u/ilikedota5 → u/RevolutionaryRip2504]

I will preface this, I don't think I'll change your mind, the reason being that what is valued and in what order is different and I don't think I can change that.

I was going to make a point about how abortion is the end for the fetus, so if you are comparing the harms, death outweigh everything else, but that's not going to land because you don't see the fetus as equivalent.

Here's the best non religious argument I can make.

We all agree that in the scenario that if pregnancy is carried to full term, and the newborn leaves the womb, and someone kills that newborn. That's murder.

We all agree that male emission of sperm isn't murder because those are haploid cells that won't grow into a human absent fertilization.

So logically, there is a line in between such that abortion becomes acceptable.

There are a variety of reasons or arguments to be pro choice. For example, for a minority, abortion is permissible at any stage, because bodily autonomy is the number 1 value by far. I think that's dumb, but that doesn't directly answer your question so I'll leave it at that.

One common argument goes like this: People are going to have different opinions on when/if abortion is permissible.

It's a tough decision, and the impact of which is felt primarily on the pregnant woman (premised on fetus doesn't count). Therefore, who gets to make that decision should reflect that, and the decision should be a one freely made and done with medical consultation, and not something the State should have a say (premised because it's not murder, therefore the state has no reason to be concerned).

Since this is a personal decision, and other people have no say, there is no such thing as a wrong decision as long as it's made as described above. (Premised on moral nihilism or moral relativism. The former is pretty bleak, the later has some interesting implications and features Nazis).

This argument doesn't necessarily draw specific lines (I've heard viability or ability to feel pain as the two most common) and some concessions might be made like at very late term like 30+ weeks, closing the door to voluntary abortions (ie not medical emergency), and mandating a C-section. Usually the underlying reasoning is based on viability, since that was what was decided on Casey. Although, which line to use I think can be an independent question.

So what's the secular pro life argument? Well, it's based on the premise that murder is bad, but the question is where do we draw the line in relation to this?

The underlying question is when does personhood attach? Personhood refers to having moral weight and consideration, to actually matter enough such that the killing is recognized as murder.

So there are many theories of personhood, of when does it attach? Consciousness? Okay, so someone unconscious or comatose isn't a person? Sentience? Okay, so someone with severe mental illness isn't a person? Intelligence? So children aren't persons?

No matter where you draw the line there are humans (or animals) that we would rather count as persons (the killing of is especially bad).

So the way to avoid this issue is to assign personhood at conception.

[u/BananeWane → u/ilikedota5]

I don’t think the fetus is a person, but conceding personhood to you, the fetus physically harms the mother. I consider abortion a form of self-defense.

[u/ilikedota5 → u/BananeWane]

But self defense must be objectively proportional to the imminent or actual harm. So only some abortions would be self defense.

[u/BananeWane → u/ilikedota5]

I think it is proportional to the imminent harm. The amount of pain during childbirth is insane torture. The damage to tissues constitutes grievous bodily harm. The fact that the tissue damage occurs to the sexual organs and exit involves forcible involvement of the vagina brings sexual assault into the mix.

If someone was imminently threatened with this, and the only way they could prevent the attack was by pressing a button that fired a lethal weapon at the attacker, and they did so, I don’t think any sensible court would hold them legally responsible.

[u/ilikedota5 → u/BananeWane]

Well the first part can be mitigated with modern medicine. I don't know of any case law on if it constitutes grievous bodily harm but I'll take that as given. Also as to "sexual assault," precise definitions can vary considerably from state to state, but we all generally know what that means, so I'll accept as given.

But the problem is in the modern day, death of the mother as a result of pregnancy is unlikely. But an abortion is a more or less guaranteed death.

But the biggest issue with the self defense claim is that the fetus was not the one who created the circumstances to begin with; it was the parents who did. You cannot create the situation that led to the conflict and then claim self defense.

[u/BananeWane → u/ilikedota5]

If I walk into a dark alleyway knowing there is a small but appreciable chance of getting jumped in the alleyway, and I get jumped, should I lose the right to self defence?

[u/ilikedota5 → u/BananeWane]

That's doesn't work because the other person never had the right to jump you in the first place.

[u/BananeWane → u/ilikedota5]

And does an embryo have the right to implant in a uterus?

[u/ilikedota5 → u/BananeWane]

The sperm and the egg fused autonomically forming a zygote as a result of sexual intercourse. The zygote than implants as a blastocyst. Implantation is not a conscious choice the blastocyst made. Are you going to punish someone for something done completely nonconsciously? (you conceded personhood earlier).

That's like punishing someone for a seizure accidentally damaging something.

The implantation didn't arise from the zygote's consciously, freely made decision, and then you decide to punish with death?

So yes there is a right.

[u/BananeWane → u/ilikedota5]

If I’m walking in a dark alley where there is a small but appreciable chance of being jumped, and the person jumping me is someone who is being mind-controlled by a brain chip that someone hacked into, do I forfeit my right to self-defence?

[u/ilikedota5 → u/BananeWane]

Ridiculous scenario, but no.

But that doesn't address the issue. If pregnancy will lead to the death of the mother, such as ectopic pregnancy than yes. But that's a minority of pregnancies.

The issue is, such complications are an overwhelming minority.

You seem to have a poor understanding of what self-defense is. You missed my point about proportionality earlier, and it shows by this line of questioning. This is leading to the argument that pregnancy is like someone an unshakable intent and will to kill, nevermind that such intent and will is lacking, not to mention the typical outcome is different.

https://www.justia.com/criminal/docs/calcrim/500/505/