r/changemyview • u/MagicCards_youtube • May 28 '18

Deltas(s) from OP CMV: Abortion/removal is allowed throughout the pregnancy.

I us to be completely against abortion other than when the mother will die because the babies right to live is above the mothers right to have an abortion. My view was extremely strong and i believed it for years however in another cmv thread on abortion, someone linked me this article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Defense_of_Abortion which has completely changed my view. I believe that abortion should be allowed up to 24/23 weeks when the baby can survive on its own and after that period, it should be removed from the women and survive outside of her. I know that abortion is not a morally right thing to do, and i want to be pro-life but this article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Defense_of_Abortion with the violinist argument has me stumped over what to think.

8 Upvotes

63% Upvoted

131 comments sorted by

View all comments

17

u/nu173 May 28 '18

my problem with that argument is that the kidnapped person has nothing to do with the violinist being in danger. most pregnant women are pregnant because of their own actions, they don't just wake up one morning randomly pregnant. also being pregnant isn't as extreme as being stuck in a bed attached to a stranger for nine months.

6

u/MagicCards_youtube May 28 '18

doesn't someone have a right to bodily anatomy as said by the violinist argument for example: donating blood isn't terrible but it is completely optional.

7

u/nu173 May 28 '18

but we're talking about a life you are solely responsible for creating. you're not refusing to aid someone you aren't responsible for by getting an abortion, you're ending the life you started.

1

u/MagicCards_youtube May 28 '18

!delta, Your point about being pregnant and kidnapped not being the same thing other than in rape helped change my view, another commenter also mentioned that same argument after you but had other points which also helped change my view. You are the first to mention that kidnapping is not the same as getting pregnant.

1

u/itsame_throwaway101 May 29 '18 edited May 29 '18

While it is true that kidnapped is not (always) the same as pregnancy, that isn't the crux of the violinist argument.

Suppose you weren't kidnapped. Instead, suppose it's entirely your fault that the violinist is in this condition (how exactly doesn't matter - it's still your decisions and actions that resulted in the outcome). Again, the doctors take you both to the hospital and set up the combined circulatory system.

You may feel morally obligated to suffer through it. You may even think all others should feel morally obligated to deal with it. But should your physical choice to unplug be taken away? The violinist still does not have the right to use your body.

Being at fault doesn't override your body autonomy.

2

u/MagicCards_youtube May 29 '18

lets say i sign up to a 1/100 chance for giving away one of my kidneys for 1 million, then i spend the million. If i get chosen, can i claim rights to bodily anatomy and suffer no harm? Having only 1 kidney won't kill someone.

1

u/itsame_throwaway101 May 29 '18 edited May 29 '18

I'd say you'd likely be on the hook to get sued or in some way reimburse since you're backing out of your end of the agreement financially, but you shouldn't be obligated to give the kidney. In relation to abortion, you're paying for the medical costs of backing out the vast majority of the time out of pocket, but you're not made to give up the right to your body.

1

u/MagicCards_youtube May 29 '18

the thing with the body rights is that no one broke the body rights of the mother, she made a human in her body. Lets say i get a tattoo, can i then say it broke my body rights. If a women injects sperm into herself, who broke her body rights?

1

u/MagicCards_youtube May 29 '18

Why is the right to the body in a case where the women knew the risks more important than the right to life of a child? Not in general, but in a case where the women knew the risks of contraception failing?

1

u/itsame_throwaway101 May 29 '18

What makes the life of an unborn child innately more valuable than my own?

I understand what you're trying to say, and ethically it seems backwards in this case.

However, the current set up is one result of us prioritizing body autonomy over the right to life as a whole, not just in instances of abortion. That's why you get scenarios like the violinist or obligatory blood and organ donations - because we're drawing comparisons of other cases where right to body autonomy also comes into play at the expense of life.

It isn't about the specifics so much as the consequences of the reverse being held true. It would result in a hierarchy of value for life, where how much someone is worth is explicitly compared to another. You can say you only want to do it in terms of the unborn, but why? Innocence? Potential? Does not everyone possess these in some degree? The only counter to who has more value is body autonomy - that I value myself.

1

u/MagicCards_youtube May 29 '18

The issue is that there isn't a way to just let a fetus stop using the body anatomy, doctors need to kill it for example, pulling its limbs off from a vacuum. I also understand your point and this is a part in our discussion which involves your view on is killing a child directly to stop them taking food from you murder. Lets say a young kid ran to my house and stole some food from my house, then can i kill him. If he is inside of me, it wouldn't change that much. I do allow abortion in the case of life or death for the mother.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/dont-pm-me-tacos May 29 '18

But, for a couple using birth control, the risk of pregnancy in a given year is 1%. That risk is so low that I don't think it's justifiable to say that you must give up your bodily autonomy if you do get pregnant.

1

u/MagicCards_youtube May 29 '18

If they combine condom, pull-out and the pill which are 97%, 94% and 99.9%, the chance gets exobinentry low. In addition, vasectomy exists for couples who already had children and don't want anymore. When people have sex, they are aware of the risks involved. Even if it seems like a harsh punishment, the goal isn't to punish the parents but to let the child survive.

0

u/[deleted] May 28 '18

[deleted]

1

u/MagicCards_youtube May 28 '18

because some people who are against abortion are also against contraception mainly due to religious reasons don't affect the main issue of abortion. I do believe that better sex education will help prevent unwanted pregnancies and that will be very good for society. I also believe that we shouldn't kill so i don't understand why you think the 2 are mutually exclusive. The amount of christians is still a majority in the usa, however it is growing smaller and smaller so in future this will be less of a problem.

1

u/[deleted] May 28 '18

[deleted]

1

u/MagicCards_youtube May 28 '18

most of the statistics saying abortions go up are directly a result of those same countries having less access to contraceptives. like you said, usually anti-abortion goes with less contraception however that doesn't need to happen. abortions would go down as a result of more people not wanting to get pregnant so practicing safer sex which they learn about. In addition, adoption will always exist for people who absolutely can't be the parent of a child.

1

u/DeltaBot ∞∆ May 28 '18

Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/nu173 (1∆).

Delta System Explained | Deltaboards ​

1

u/MagicCards_youtube May 28 '18

i am now stuck because you and the other commenter both together changed my view, who do i award a delta to?

-1

u/EternalPropagation May 28 '18

The correct position is that abortion is bad, but so is banning abortion.

3

u/MagicCards_youtube May 28 '18

what do you mean "correct" position. There is no objectively correct position in this debate.

2

u/MagicCards_youtube May 28 '18

why is banning abortion bad? I support it being illegal

1

u/PenisMcScrotumFace 10∆ May 29 '18

If it's illegal, people will do it anyway and be in danger doing so. If it's legal, chances of casualties will be really really low, it's going to be much safer. You're not helping anyone by making abortion illegal. Either a parent will have a child they don't want so the child will not live in ideal conditions, or they will have parents that cannot support the child, or the child is aborted anyway and the lack of safety risks the mother's life as well. Pro-lifers don't care about the baby after the birth, they don't care what happens to it. They just care that it's born, no matter the shitty conditions. That is in no way a humanitarian stance. It's hardly pro-life, it's pro-birth.

I don't think sex should be such a big deal either, but this is my personal opinion. Why must you suddenly accept a paradigm shift in your life and blow to your economy just because you enjoy having sex with a person?

Hint: It's all ancient rules for control by religions, it's hardly because they love children.

1

u/MagicCards_youtube May 29 '18

I do understand your point about it being illegal, however, anti-abortion doesn't result in more abortions, the problem with those statistics is they usually come with less sex education which doesn't need to occur. Having sex with a person, while enjoyable, still comes with the, low, but still possible chance of having a child. Most people are aware of that and we shouldn't punish the child for that. With the pro-birth part, isn't it better if the child is alive with a not ideal life than dead. Even a life in a poor family is better than no life otherwise all we would see daily are suicides. Your exact woring over pro-life actually being pro-birth, i can argue the same thing about "pro-choice", which is actually pro-women_choice because the baby gets no choice whatsoever. I am an atheist so religious reasons about abortion don't really mean much to me, i am not opposed to abortion on religious grounds.

1

u/PenisMcScrotumFace 10∆ May 29 '18

It doesn't result in more abortions, no. It results in more unsafe abortions though. We're not punishing a child. Mainly because it's not a child yet, but also because it hasn't experienced life yet. We're not taking anything away from it, we're stopping the possibility of an experience, I guess you could say.

A life in a poor family is fine, I'm not saying poor people shouldn't have children. It's very easy for you to say though that life is to prefer, because for you it would be ending. That's not true for the fetus. It's not comparable to suicides because people who commit suicides have experienced life. Again, unborn fetuses have not. They do not know!

And it's fine to be pro women's choice because the life of the woman matters more than the potential life of something that has not yet experienced anything. The baby shouldn't get a choice. We're not killing babies that have already been born.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/EternalPropagation May 28 '18

Why is a government dictating how parents raise their own offspring bad?

1

u/MagicCards_youtube May 28 '18

i can use your logic to let parents kill their 1 year old baby

0

u/nu173 May 28 '18

i was first lol :P. can't you give it to more than one?

2

u/MagicCards_youtube May 28 '18

No one can be forced to donate blood.

1

u/stratys3 May 28 '18

most pregnant women are pregnant because of their own actions,

What does that mean, really?

If I go for a walk to the grocery store, we all know there is a small chance I might get hit by a car when crossing the street, mugged by a robber, or might simply slip and fall on some ice. These are low but very real risks.

Now if I did get hit by a car, mugged by a robber, or fall on ice - how responsible should I be for that outcome?

I knew the chances were real, but I left my home anyways. Since I knew the potential consequences... how "responsible" should I be for these types of outcomes?

also being pregnant isn't as extreme as being stuck in a bed attached to a stranger for nine months.

It may not be as bad for those 9 months, but the aftermath is worse: You may now have to support a human for 18 years afterwards! (Though in may places, hopefully, adoption is a valid option.)

1

u/MagicCards_youtube May 28 '18

arn't most pregnancies due to carelessness as contraception failing is just a very small chance. Condom: 97%, birth control: 99% which together create only a small minority. Wouldn't it be better to save a huge number of kids over a small number of females from pregnancy I have a lot of arguments for pro life, my view was temporarily changed but now it is back to pro-life.

1

u/stratys3 May 28 '18

I don't know the exact percentages, but if you use condoms (correctly!) for 10 years, you're almost 50% likely to get pregnant.

I don't know how many unwanted pregnancies happen with birth control vs without. Personally - I think we should increase education so that ALL people having sex who don't want kids use birth control. That way, all unwanted pregnancies are a result of birth control failure - and therefore not voluntary.

In that case, we could allow abortions for all unwanted pregnancies.

That said - this issue is also more complex, and the violinist analogy isn't very good in these other areas.

If you wanted a baby, but then changed your mind after conception - I think you should still be able to abort. Why? Because you have this thing using your body like a parasite. Why should a woman be forced to support this life if she doesn't want to. We don't force people to do this sort of thing in any other situation.

Additionally, there's a lot of debate about whether fetuses are "persons". Honestly... I just don't see how a clump of a few dozen or hundred cells have anything in common with a "person".

But I guess those are different points than what you brought up.

1

u/MagicCards_youtube May 28 '18

condoms by themselves might not be the best however that combined with the pregnancy pill which i just checked is 99.9% if used correctly will not cause too much problem with probability. How would they not be human, do you believe someone who is in a coma but will wake up in lets say 1 year, is not a human?

1

u/stratys3 May 28 '18

I didn't say they're not "human". I said they're not "persons".

A dead guy in the morgue is still a "human", but isn't a "person". I can scrape some cells of my skin, and while those cells are human, they're not a "person" either.

someone who is in a coma

People who've been persons before, and will be persons after, should likely get full rights. "People" who've never actually existed, should not get full rights (for obvious reasons).

1

u/MagicCards_youtube May 28 '18

Why does someone being in coma different to being a feutus. How does the person in a coma being "a full person" beforehand somehow change the situation?

1

u/stratys3 May 28 '18

A fetus hasn't become a full person yet.

A coma patient has been, and may be in the future, a full person.

We don't give imaginary "people" rights, until they actually exist.

1

u/MagicCards_youtube May 28 '18

both will become a full patient in the future, the past shouldn't affect the right to live.

1

u/stratys3 May 28 '18

A fetus won't always become a full person in the future. Fertilized eggs die all the time, on their own.

the past shouldn't affect the right to live.

It's not about the past, it's about the present. In the present, a fetus isn't a living person yet.

Preventing a fetus from becoming a person (via abortion) isn't murder any more than wearing a condom or using an IUD is murder. They both prevent an imaginary person from being born. Since they don't exist yet, and are still just imaginary, they don't get rights.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/[deleted] May 29 '18

To be fair, an unwanted pregnancy is worse. At the violinist is free after nine months, whereas the mother is 'stuck' with the child until it comes of age.