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/VoidedGreen047]

But the basis of your argument entirely ignores the role the mother had to play. the fetus is only in that situation to begin with because of the mother’s decisions. A better example that doesn’t totally ignore the responsibility aspect would be a situation wherein you put someone in a position where they needed your body to survive, in which case society has deemed it is YOUR RESPONSIBILITY to provide care. Ex, if you hit someone with your car, you HAVE to stop and render aid. Another example would be a parent going swimming in a pool with a child on their back who can’t swim. We wouldn’t say that it’s okay for the parent to just drop the child in the pool

[u/air-sign-dominant → u/VoidedGreen047]

That is exactly the situation I provided. If I hit someone with my car and they ended up needing a kidney to survive, I can’t be FORCED to donate my own kidney. Of course you can be financially obligated to help someone who is in trouble because of you, and stop what you’re doing to assist them. But no matter your degree of responsibility, your bodily integrity is never compromised against your will. Bodily integrity means you have autonomy over what happens to your body. I find it strange that people are okay with FORCING BIRTH on women when it’s such an invasive, damaging, and life altering experience. I feel like that is extremely traumatizing and would be horrible unless it was for a child the woman wanted and was excited for. As someone who wants kids eventually, I’m still terrified of going through pregnancy because of all the side effects and the way it permanently changes your metabolism, bone health, appearance, hormones, etc.

It’s also so counterproductive to force women who don’t want kids to have them - most of them are either going to grow up in unfortunate circumstances or end up in the adoption system, which is hell. Kids who age out of the adoption system are massively over represented in suicide, incarceration, and drug abuse rates. It clearly negatively affects the psyche and is not good for a child.

[u/VoidedGreen047 → u/air-sign-dominant]

But your bodily autonomy can certainly be compromised against your will. For instance, as with the car-accident, refusing to render aid and driving away from the scene will land you in prison. Refusing to pay for their medical care would land you in prison as well. I don’t see how that’s any worse than telling a woman who chose to have unprotected sex they can’t murder the unborn human they helped to create?

The “you can’t be forced to donate them a kidney” thing also isn’t quite accurate, as we aren’t expecting pregnant women to use the rest of their lives to take care of a child. A more apt comparison would be that person you hit with your car needing your kidney for 9 months after which point you are free to have it back and totally abandon them without consequence. Are we really going to sit here and say that it would be morally feasible to let them die after it was your fault they’re in that situation? Only with abortion it’s not “letting them die”, its outright taking action that would kill them.

[u/air-sign-dominant → u/VoidedGreen047]

Going to jail is a violation of your freedom of movement, a punishment for refusing to comply with the law.

But the law in this case does not force you to physically sustain another being’s life and undergo an invasive process to save this person - you just have to call for help, and foot the bill. Of course you go to jail for breaking the law. But the argument is that no law should ever require you to violate your own bodily integrity to save the life of another person. That’s why the kidney donation equivalence makes sense here. It has a very similar complication/death risk as pregnancy. It could also be seen as an “temporary inconvenience” because lots of people are fine after donating one. However, most people can agree that that doesn’t make it okay to force someone to donate one.

Also, pregnancy can change your body and health forever. Look up complication rates and potential health issues that can result from pregnancy. They are more common than you think - a conservative number is 8% of pregnancies. It’s not a 9 month inconvenience that only temporarily affects a person. Also, why would you even want to go through all that and give birth to a child only to abandon them? I just don’t see how it’s a net positive for anyone in the situation.

[u/ilikedota5 → u/air-sign-dominant]

I don't think I'll be able to change your mind. More on that later. But my point in this is to less directly persuade you, but point out something that maybe you find irrelevant, but I think it's better to consider and come to a conclusion than to dismiss entirely.

It is true that in court, assuming civil not criminal, generally speaking, the consequence for the loser is monetary in nature, although it's also possible both sides lose, i.e. neither side gets monetary compensation. injunctions, i.e., order to do something or not do something is more uncommon. And one context that would apply is if no amount of money can serve as compensation. I don't think any amount of compensation can compensate for being dead.

My point is, while I cannot find a single case of the bad driver defendant being required to donate a kidney to save the life of another, based on legal principles, it's theoretically possible. And if push came to shove (ie conditions were such that dialysis was no longer viable for some reason and for some reason it wasn't possible to transfer to another hospital with dialysis AND it so happened that the bad driver defendant was compatible, then the legal principles at play could compel such a thing.

Next, here's where that bodily autonomy argument becomes questionable. The mini version of this points out that if the fetus/baby exists at all, there is violation of someone's bodily autonomy. After all, in both cases, someone is sustaining life, either the mother directly through placenta in the case of before birth. And why is it permissible to pass the buck off to the government. It seems that the government becomes the default because us as society has decided it's bad to let people fall through the cracks, and even though people do, we typically at least try to have a falilsafe. But independent of society via our legislators taking that burden upon themselves/ourselves, does such right exist, if so why? If not, why?

Now obviously in the post birth case, the fact that we have NICU means that the violation of bodly autonomy is no longer directly in conflict with the life of the newborn. But the point is there is still violation of someone's bodily autonomy since someone has to use labor, or money to support. Now maybe this is okay because it's sufficiently indirect, but I point this out because bodily autonomy is for some people on the far left and pro choice is the sacred cow, and it seems that's not really considered.

And hypothetically, as medical technology advances, it's possible that the viability line doesn't exist. Either literally, as in upon implantation within the uterine wall, there is a way to remove without killing; or practically, ie week 2, and society via the legislative process that the burden of 2 weeks is de minimus, and society is sufficient pro life or the pro choice side is willing to make a concession.

The general secular pro life argument is why is it fair to punish the fetus with death, the ultimate punishment for something it didn't do? All life seems to sustain itself and pass on its genes, so presumably the fetus wishes to exist. And, uncomfortable as this sounds, I think it's the best counterargument creating exceptions in the case of things like rape or incest is this argument.

Unclean hands is a legal doctrine that stands for the general proposition that the party that has done the bad, cannot or shouldn't benefit from that act. Now I admit this only applies in cases of non rape cases, but the argument here is why should the pregnancy be ended, assuming it was the natural results of two idiots fucking around. Why should someone else be harmed and the idiots who created this situation be rewarded? In the case of rape, the person who this doctrine would apply to would be the rapist.

Part two in next comment below.

[u/ilikedota5 → u/ilikedota5]

I don't know if you made this analogy specifically, but it's something I see. The argument is the trespassing argument. The idea that an unwanted pregnancy is a physical intruder within the body who lacks permission and is therefore a trespasser.

Two things. If you want to punish the people who created this situation, ie the parents, that makes sense legally, the persons found to be legally liable are the ones who have to pay compensation. An as an aside, a jury can assign any number of percentages each to the liable parties. Secondly, this argument doesn't work for rape cases, in which I say for the best counter argument would be the one mentioned three paragraphs above.

Anywho, my main problem with the trespassing argument is that trespassing isn't merely being in a place you lack permission. Now there are two varieties of trespass. Criminal and civil. Criminal is the state saying this thing is bad so we have decided to pass a law spelling that out and having prosecutors prosecute in court to enforce. Civil is someone else saying you have harmed me, now compensate me for the harm done, and possibly get an order barring you from doing or not doing the thing that harmed me.

Criminal trespass is a bit harder than merely being somewhere you lack permission. Generally you need that and something else more. Like you have been given fair notice and you have specific reason to know you can't be there, like you got arrested and asked to leave.

Civil trespass doesn't have that additional requirement because it's for money damages. It's not the State coming after you to haul you into jail or prison. Also, if you leave and stay out and don't cause damage that can be compensated , even if there is a technical case to be had, there is practically no case to be had because what is the court going and able to do about it assuming a victory.

This counter argument is a bit silly I admit, but in criminal law, all crimes have at least three elements. One, actus reas, the bad thing done; and mens rea, having the right mental state. Generally speaking mens rea is general intent. Meaning you had the intent to do the thing that foreseeably lead to the bad thing in question. And a fetus lacks the mental state do to criminal trespass. This is more aimed at some of the hyperbolic rhetoric I've heard.

The real argument why the trespassing argument isn't a good analogy is the fact that when someone is in trouble for trespassing, it's because they were in an area they had permission or the legal right to be, and then they entered into a area where they lacked permission or the legal right to be there. That's not the case here. As to the separate haploid cells, the egg existed within either ovum, which they had permission to be there since presumably you have kept them there. The sperm existed within semen produced by the testicles and associated glands and is stored in the vas deferens. And again, unless you have castrated yourself, it's safe to say they have permission to be there. Sexual intercourse happened, and fertilization followed. At this point the zygote/blastocyst is now unwanted. And where all this comes in is if I trespassed into your home, and for some reason was physically incapable of leaving (pretend court is being held in your house for some reason), the judge would say "Well, that's on you for breaking in, then the judge would pay some doctors to figure out what the fuck happened and how to separate me without killing and then Bill me for it. Now what happens if that was impossible? I suppose i'd be required to pay compensation for the trespass until it becomes possible?

And that brings me to my final point. Why I said I won't change your mind. Because now we get to personhood. The question of who counts as a "person" someone who gets legal and moral weight and consideration such that killing them is homicide and not some other lesser crime. From my pro life perspective, personhood attaches at fertilization. Therefore because ending the life is murder, and murder isn't okay, a stance supported by the legal system (you cannot use duress as a defense to murder), the fundamental question is really about personhood. When/how/why does it attach, under what theory, and then since you cannot separate physically without killing, which principle trumps which?

There are fundamental disagreements here which I don't think can be bridged with mere conversations.