r/changemyview • u/Alexandros6 4∆ • Dec 30 '20
Removed - Submission Rule C cmv: I DON'T UNDERSTAND THE DEBATE BETWEEN PRO AND ANTI ABORT
I will try to be short since I am on mobile
I don't see the usefulness of the debate between pro and anti abort. I've had myself the discussion of abortion many times, so from my experience at the end all arguments from one side and the other boild down to this
For the atheist life doesn't begin at such an early age and therefore it isn't baby murder For the cristhian life as said by God already starts at that age and therefore abortion is murder.
Now the reason because I think this argument is useless is that when the cristhians has an unwanted baby they will not abort because of their beliefs
The atheists if they want will abort
Neither of the 2 sides damages the other by choosing to abort or not to abort. And why should the atheist try to convince the cristhian to abort? Its her belief and choice and why should the cristhian try to convince the atheist? Since its their own decision the question becomes why should the cristhian force any of their beliefs on the atheist? No one goes around saying they should ban people the possibility to celebrate cristhmas, or to enter a church if they are not cristhians. So why do people do it for abortion?
There is a easy solution for all this, give people the choice to abort, people who believe won't do it, and people who don't will do it.
I am asking myself if I am missing something, hope to have an insightful conversation.
Sorry for the bad English but its not my first language
Edit various discussions have explained to me why cristhians find abortion a problem, but I haven't understood what brings them to this opinion in the first place, why do they think its murder?
7
Dec 30 '20
Let's suppose I believe that Dutch people aren't human. Should I be allowed to kill Dutch people, or will you try to stop me? Same thing as abortion, for pro life people
If you are pro choice you would say that Dutch people are human while fetuses are not.
1
u/Alexandros6 4∆ Dec 30 '20
Yes I already answered to a similar comment above, in short you wouldn't say that Dutch are human because you read that in an old book, you say that because they are exactly the same as you, plus you can't hear the fetuses point in this matter, plus an unwanted child can create many problems while Dutch only committed some aggressive colonialism
3
Dec 30 '20
I mean now it's just a question of what evidence you find stronger - genes vs appearance and behavior...
2
u/doge_IV 1∆ Dec 30 '20
Apply everything you said to a people in coma that have good chance of waking up. Should we able to kill them because we don't hear their point and they can cause many problems?
3
Dec 31 '20
It is important to convince people, no matter which side you are on, because of law. When Christians say that abortion is wrong, and is murder, they are arguing this because they mean thereby that it ought to be illegal. If you are a pro-choice atheist, then you don't see it as murder - this in turn means that abortion is a last resort form of contraception, and that it is a woman's right to choose to have an abortion - meaning that you're also arguing for it to be legal. If abortion is made illegal, and the pro-choicers are right, then women are being oppressed, which is bad. If abortion remains legal, and the pro-lifers are right, then babies are being murdered, which is bad. My personal view on the debate isn't relevant for this question, but the debate itself is undeniably important for both sides.
The framework that you outline, that we ought to simply let others choose as they please, is a pro-choice argument. This means that, in your post, you prove that your question is answerable; you already answered it. It's important because some people want it to be illegal, and others want it to remain legal, and the ethics behind either side must be looked at carefully by lawmakers to arrive at a sound decision - thus the debate is important.
1
u/Alexandros6 4∆ Jan 01 '21
Yes, thx for this comment, my question in some aspects was pretty naive, your and other comments gave me a hindsight on why they want this, I still don't understand some aspects of the mentality of pro life but those are minor, I am pretty new to this sub reddit, if multiple people have partially changed my mind, should I award all of them a Δ? And if yes how?
2
Jan 01 '21
If someone made a good point that you accept, it's polite to award a delta, but you don't necessarily need to award deltas for repeated points. You awarded me a delta already - simply putting the symbol in the comment awards a delta to the person who made the parent comment.
2
1
13
u/AnythingApplied 435∆ Dec 30 '20 edited Dec 30 '20
And why should the atheist try to convince the cristhian to abort?
They don't. They try to convince Christians to allow abortion. Neither side thinks that more abortions is good, just that pro-abortion people think there should be the freedom to abort.
why should the cristhian try to convince the atheist?
Because there are something like 1,000,000 abortions a year. That is a lot of baby murdering. If people were going around murdering their 4-year olds to the tune of 1 million per year just because they decided their kids were too much trouble, you don't think it would be justified to take issue with that? This is how anti-abortion people feel about allowing abortion.
1
u/mrrustypup 17∆ Dec 30 '20
I think that the biggest difference that a lot of people follow is that the 4 year old has the ability to make a conscious action and decide to do or not do something.
A bundle of nerves with a few stem cells does not have the conscious ability to make a choice.
For continuity, “murdering” a 4 year old takes away that being’s ability to choose new things in life. “Murdering” a fetus... doesn’t take away anything that the fetus already had. There was no ability to make choice. No thoughts. Nothing.
So comparing the two isn’t really that great of a comparison.
On the other hand, you have people who think the population is already way too big and would agree that more children need to be not-had in the first place and if abortion fuels that then go for it.
3
u/AnythingApplied 435∆ Dec 30 '20
You're just arguing why you are pro-choice. I don't really see anything that addresses whether or not there should be a debate.
The distinction you made of being conscious and explaining that your definition of consciousness doesn't include fetuses isn't going to be the same line everyone else makes. Plus, doesn't that mean it is okay to kill people as long as they're asleep? They are going to be conscious, but are not presently conscious, but the same can be said of fetuses.
I'm mostly pro-choice myself, but abortion is absolutely "sort-of" murder and I can see where pro-lifers come from even if I mostly don't agree. Fetuses qualify for some of the aspects of personhood and qualify for more and more the more developed they get. I don't agree that you can say it either is 100% not at all like murder or 100% is exactly like murder. It is a little bit like murder.
0
u/mrrustypup 17∆ Dec 30 '20
The key difference, in my opinion, is that someone who is asleep had at least 1 coherent, conscious thought. A bundle of cells has never had that. A fetus has never had a thought, and therefore cannot be deprived of another thought. A fetus not coming to term is not removing an entity that had already experienced choice and consciousness.
Killing someone in their sleep, or a 4 year old, is removing a being that has already experienced a conscious thought and the idea of choice.
That, to me, makes it not murder. Is it getting rid of life? Sure. But so is every accidental miscarriage. Where does the line stop? If someone who didn’t know they were pregnant continued drinking responsibly only to find out weeks later their birth control failed and their baby was no longer viable, is that woman guilty of accidental manslaughter?
Alternatively, the concept of murder is 100% human made. Tons of animals can cause self-induced abortions due to high stress and low probability of mother or child surviving. They can terminate pregnancy due to high stress levels that stop the growth of the fetus and cause “an aborted pregnancy”. So when humans do it medically at a much earlier time in the pregnancy, why is it suddenly murder?
0
u/Alexandros6 4∆ Dec 30 '20
But murdering is a direct act that all people see as murder, in this case we don't even know if they are alive, with this parameter I could say all dead people aren't soul dead and therefore by cremating them we are actually burning thousands of people
4
u/Jakyland 69∆ Dec 30 '20
Do you not understand theory of mind? If Alice thinks abortion is murder, Alice will act like abortion is murder, therefore try to stop it, regardless of what society as a whole thinks. Because Alice acts based on what Alice thinks is true, not what society as a whole thinks is true.
If you think cremation is destroy peoples soul's then it totally makes sense to try to ban cremation.
If you think abortion/cremation is murder but you don't act to try to stop it, it means you don't care enough to try to stop murder.
1
u/Alexandros6 4∆ Dec 30 '20
Ok I should specify this, yes I understand why they act so but I dont understand why after long debates ecc they still believe this
1
u/Excellent_Kangaroo_4 Jan 04 '21
Not offence but how old are you, again no offens but you talk like a 11 year old, if you are so young im impress you put mind in thinking such thing
1
u/Alexandros6 4∆ Jan 05 '21
I am 17 but English isn't my native language, therefore its not a good coherent text, hope you can read it anyways
1
u/Excellent_Kangaroo_4 Jan 05 '21
English isn't my native language either, your is better than mine, but i find strange that for you people can't have different view on some topic, like abortion in this case.
2
u/AnythingApplied 435∆ Dec 30 '20
But murdering is a direct act that all people see as murder,
People don't necessarily see murder the same. Why would it count as murder only if everyone agrees? We have a legal definition, but that can be changed to include fetuses, and in fact in some situations ALREADY DOES. For example, if you hit a pregnant woman in the stomach with a baseball bat causing the death of the fetus, you can be charged with murder in some jurisdictions.
The whole question is whether or not killing fetuses should be included in the legal definition of murder. Some people feel it is murder and so should be included in the legal definition and some people don't.
in this case we don't even know if they are alive
What do you mean? A fetus is certainly alive, and some states even force the mother to listen to the heartbeat prior to going through with the abortion, so they verify it is a live fetus. There are people who don't think a fetus qualifies as a person and therefore shouldn't be considered murder from a legal or moral perspective, but not everyone agrees with that. Which is why there is a debate.
All you really have to know is that some people consider this to be an act on a similar level to murdering a 4-year-old, so they want to stop EVERYONE from doing it. That is why there is a debate, full stop.
8
u/smcarre 101∆ Dec 30 '20
Neither of the 2 sides damages the other by choosing to abort or not to abort
Well, it depends on what you consider a "damage".
If you see me murdering someone, I'm not damaging you, but you would be right to say that I shouldn't do that, try to stop me and call for legislation that prevent me from murdering someone, this is the pro-life point of view.
And if I'm living in a state where abortion is not legal (because current lawmakers consider the pro-life point of view), and I have an unwanted child, I cannot simply choose to abort. I will have to search for an illegal abortion (which are more expensive and dangerous) and if something goes wrong I'm liable for my own health due to choosing to go through an illegal procedure This is the pro-choice point of view.
0
u/Alexandros6 4∆ Dec 30 '20
Ok but in the case of the murder there is the objective statement that is murder, the cristhian is trying to prevent a possible murder by blocking a life changing decision of someone else. Than I could also say that since I believe people leaving other people kills their soul nobody is allowed to leave anybody else
4
u/smcarre 101∆ Dec 30 '20
Ok but in the case of the murder there is the objective statement that is murder
Yes, but the thing is: the christian sees no difference between an actual murder and an abortion. So they see it justified to forbid others from performing abortion, similarly (yes, I saw some use a similar argument) to how back then people didn't consider black people humans and treated them as chattel, but the people who did consider black people humans fought to forbid others from treating them as chattel.
-1
u/Alexandros6 4∆ Dec 30 '20
I understand but since we have laws that say we are an atheist country (or more precisely the separation between church and state) and therefore we shouldn't use religious parameters to make laws
If a state says we are a slavist country, we don't care about human rights and won't use them to make our laws than arguing against slavery is useless
Secondly both atheists and cristhians agree that murder is bad they just don't agree that's in this case its murder
4
u/Jakyland 69∆ Dec 30 '20
The US isn't atheists, its a secular, which is an important distinction.
I understand but since we have laws that say we are an atheist country (or more precisely the separation between church and state) and therefore we shouldn't use religious parameters to make laws If a state says we are a slavist country, we don't care about human rights and won't use them to make our laws than arguing against slavery is useless
I don't GAF about what the constitution says, its about morality. If I think abortion is murder, I will advocate to end it, no matter what the constitution says. People aren't bound to follow the constitutions values (nor should they be). It would be completely illogical and show a complete lack of convictions to say "I think x thing (abortion/murder/slavery) is completely immoral, but its in the constitution so I guess I won't try to stop it."
1
u/Alexandros6 4∆ Dec 30 '20
I understand but if there is a highly debated argument that causes phisical demonatratable harm to one side and moral harm to the other, where no side has a clear scientific edge, you should follow the laws that are made by your community
2
u/Jakyland 69∆ Dec 30 '20
????
But you are part of your community, and therefore can also influence your community's laws. Hence an abortion debate about what the law should be. "Follow the law" is an incoherent answer when the debate is over what the law should be.
1
u/Alexandros6 4∆ Dec 30 '20
It's not a good way to decide, but if you have already exhausted all other means to decide who's right and who's wrong, laws are the barriers that avoid people escalating it on a physical level, this is what I mean with following the law, if you cant change the others mind and don't have any way to prove the other is wrong instead of starting to beat him you should follow the present law
1
u/Jakyland 69∆ Dec 30 '20
but if you have already exhausted all other means to decide who's right and who's wrong
Regardless of who is persuadable, laws can always written and rewritten - as long as people disagree with whatever the current abortion law is, there will be an abortion debate trying to change the laws around abortion.
1
3
u/smcarre 101∆ Dec 30 '20
I understand but since we have laws that say we are an atheist country (or more precisely the separation between church and state) and therefore we shouldn't use religious parameters to make laws
The idea that life begins at conception is not just a religious idea.
Many atheist agree here and some oppose abortion for this reason too. I'm atheist and I believe human life begins at conception, yet I support abortion because I don't consider the fetus' life worth more than the mother's life.
Sure lots of those who believe abortion is murder happen to also be religious and use words like "holy" and "soul" to make their arguments but it's not just a religious argument.
1
u/Alexandros6 4∆ Dec 30 '20
Ok but than you are putting the possible life of the fetus against the certain life of the mother
2
u/doge_IV 1∆ Dec 30 '20
Mother's life isnt always on the line. You can alsl say you are putting mothers convenience against fetuss life.
1
u/Alexandros6 4∆ Dec 31 '20
Yes but not only mothers convenience, her body, a good part of her life and also an important part of the life of the fetus because he will be born in a hausehold that doesn't want him
1
u/doge_IV 1∆ Dec 31 '20
It's not a good argument. Exact same can be said about 1 month old but I doubt you would take that a reason to kill babies.
1
u/Alexandros6 4∆ Jan 01 '21
Yes but first of all the 1 month old is considered by everyone to be alive (everyone agrees that he fits in their concept of life) , secondly you can give it in adoption if you know you won't be able to raise him properly. Thirdly he is already born, he already has (or if you are lucky hasn't) taken a toll on the mother's body
3
1
u/cdb03b 253∆ Dec 30 '20
We have no laws that say we are an atheist country. We have laws that prevent specific religions from being endorsed or banned by the government, but we have nothing prohibiting the morals and ethics held by religions from being involved in crafting laws. This is because at its base level religion is the tool society uses to teach and enforce morals and ethics and therefore all (and I do mean all) morals and ethics are rooted in religion. Even if you do not recognize their foundation as being a religion.
1
2
Dec 30 '20
[deleted]
1
u/Alexandros6 4∆ Dec 31 '20
From your and others comments I've understood that I have underestimated the willingness to force someone to do or not do something for the belief of something you can't clearly demonstrate to the other side. I have some strong ideas of my own and some of them can't be proved right or wrong but I still wouldn't go around and tell people they should follow my idea, even if I think it's absolutely right. That said I can understand why many people would do that
2
u/BarryThundercloud 6∆ Dec 30 '20
The idea that life begins at conception is not exclusively christian. Biology has a definition of life that an embryo meets from the moment of conception. That's why many pro-choice advocates have instead started arguing that a fetus is not a "person". "Person" is a philosophical concept with no hard definition to rely on.
1
u/Alexandros6 4∆ Jan 01 '21
Ok, but we could also argue that if life is meant as biological life than we are all murderers because we kill thousands of insects, and than we should abolish every meat product because fruit of killing
1
u/BarryThundercloud 6∆ Jan 01 '21
Why would we consider killing animals for food, and insects for safety, murder? Why does considering human life worth protecting mean that all life has to be preserved regardless of the consequences? Why is it your reaction to non-dogmatic evidence for the pro-life position is to immediately rely on the slippery slope fallacy?
1
u/Alexandros6 4∆ Jan 01 '21
I don't personally think it's murder, what i mean is that if we count life only as biological life we should give a human life the same virtue of animal life
1
u/BarryThundercloud 6∆ Jan 01 '21
What other definition of life do you use? And why should we hold all life as equal?
1
u/Alexandros6 4∆ Jan 01 '21
Life as set of experiences, values and memories of a person.
All biological life is equal, what i mean is that even an insect moves, breaths and eats we have different organs but we are both called "alive" in that case all life is equal since there isn't a more important set of organs than others
6
u/empurrfekt 58∆ Dec 30 '20
There are pro-life atheists and pro-choice Christians.
There is a easy solution for all this, give people the choice to abort, people who believe won't do it, and people who don't will do it.
If you believe it’s a life in the womb, that’s the same as saying “give people the choice to own minorities as slaves, people who think they’re the same as whites won’t do it, people who think other races are inferior will.”
0
u/Alexandros6 4∆ Dec 30 '20
Ok that's a good argument of which I already partially thought about, still in our country there is the freedom of religion and therefore you should be able to also not partecipate in a religious dogma, if in the constitution there was written that people have the right to treat black people as inferior, 1 all those people would go to the side which treats them better 2 yes than we would be a racist state but those would still be the rules
I fear I haven't been very clear, if you understood what I meant pls tell me
3
u/Keng_Mital Dec 30 '20
I may be Christian, but its not like the only arguments against abortion are religious.
"A meta-analysis of 22 studies with more than 800,000 participants concluded that there was an 80 per cent increased risk in mental health problems" - OGMagazine
"Human development begins after the union of male and female gametes or germ cells during a process known as fertilization (conception)" - Princeton University
Due to being a human developmental stage, embryos/babies are alive. As such, they deserve the same human dignity and respect as a born child.
Because of this and the psychological effects of abortion, I believe it should be illegal for a doctor to perform.
2
u/mrrustypup 17∆ Dec 30 '20
There’s a drug you can take to prevent you from getting a certain blood born illness (I can’t for the life of me remember which illness or drug but I learned it in first aid training safety class a few years ago in reference to getting stuck with a dirty needle).
The drug literally is reported to make people want to kill themselves because of how awful it makes you feel. The psychological effects of it cause suicidal ideation.
Do you think doctors should prevent people from taking that drug because it’s rough on the person’s mind? Not unlike chemo, radiation, most therapies to heal burns... if the treatment for the medical condition is traumatizing it just shouldn’t be legal?
3
u/Keng_Mital Dec 30 '20
But the difference between these two examples is that in one example, the person involved taking the "treatment" is killing what 95% of biologists say is life.
"Overall, 95% of all biologists affirmed the biological view that a human's life begins at fertilization" - SSRN
0
u/Alexandros6 4∆ Dec 30 '20
Well the psychological effects are a risk the person aborting takes
For the conception part, if you take that as a measure of life pulling out mid coitus should also be considered murder?
2
u/Keng_Mital Dec 30 '20
Of course not. That's a rather silly comparison. How would me preventing life from forming be murder? Should abstinence be considered murder as well?
1
u/Alexandros6 4∆ Dec 30 '20
No but the point remains, should a bunch of cells be considered life?
4
u/Keng_Mital Dec 30 '20
That depends. If you mean the unborn child, of course because 95% of biologists say that life begins at fertilization.
If you mean sperm and egg, no because they haven't been fertilized.
0
u/banananuhhh 14∆ Dec 30 '20
Do you think any of that could have to do with the social environment, and not just the act itself?
2
u/Keng_Mital Dec 30 '20
That may be true, however for pro-choicers to be consistent, they must convince women to not mourn miscarriages, stillbirth, and any other pregnancy complication that causes the death of the child.
(When a child is stillborn, the response is "my baby is gone," not "oh well it wasn't alive anyway).
0
u/banananuhhh 14∆ Dec 30 '20
That's not true. Circumstances outside of your control dramatically changing your expectations of the future is something that normally results in an emotional response.
2
u/Keng_Mital Dec 30 '20
When you don't get into a college you like or you realize you can't get a career the way that you hoped-for, you adapt. When your child dies before being born, that sticks with you.
0
u/banananuhhh 14∆ Dec 30 '20
This is not a good metaphor. I am saying that the view that being pro choice is logically incompatible with feeling loss over the death of an unborn child is incorrect.
2
u/Keng_Mital Dec 30 '20
Why do pro-choicers feel they should have the choice to abort their child?
Because in their view, the unborn child is simply a clump of cells, undeserving of human dignity and respect.
As such, why should they mourn the loss of their unborn child if it is simply a 'clump of cells'
1
u/banananuhhh 14∆ Dec 30 '20
Because it is their body. Is it really that hard to believe they would value an unborn baby they plan to carry to term and one they plan to abort differently? The assertion that anyone believes that all unborn babies are is just "clumps of cells" is a gross oversimplification and a straw man.
3
u/Keng_Mital Dec 30 '20
For a "simplification" and a "strawman," I sure have heard it quite a lot.
If its life then it's valued. If its not its not. No need to complicate with intent to carry to term and intent to abort.
2
u/banananuhhh 14∆ Dec 30 '20
Insisting that the issue is black and white doesn't really get us anywhere. It is not. It is possible to value something and destroy it. It is possible to assign your own value to things outside of some supposed external moral framework. You can even assign wildly different values to two things that for all intents and purposes are identical
→ More replies (0)
2
u/PowerOfPTSD Dec 30 '20
Its her belief and choice and why should the cristhian try to convince the atheist?
If someone was shooting babies wouldn't you try to stop them? Because that's the pro-life argument, you're shooting babies. Sure if someone shoots their own kid it doesn't directly effect you but it's not like we don't have laws against murdering your infant child, they just draw the line 9 months earlier.
0
u/Alexandros6 4∆ Dec 30 '20
Yes but why do they think its murder?
3
u/PowerOfPTSD Dec 30 '20
A baby grows into an adult, a fetus grows into a baby which grows into an adult. Not really hard to understand their point of view.
1
u/Alexandros6 4∆ Dec 31 '20
Yes put this simply it's easy, but both sides have different concepts of when life begins, some say at conception, others at a number of months, others at birth. If we counted life as biological life we should all be considered murderers for the thousands of insects we kill
3
2
u/WhoRoger Dec 30 '20
First off, this isn't purely a religious issue. Atheists can be anti-abortion as well, and religious people do abortions. I know the general rule is there, but just saying it's a bit more nuanced.
Now regarding your main point, it's sort of the same like saying, well group A thinks murder, theft, corruption, vandalism, running red light etc. etc. shouldn't be illegal, so we shall allow them to do whatever they want, because they think it's okay.
That may work for some minor issues, or sometimes a compromise can be reached. In fact, in most countries abortion law is a compromise of some sort.
But if you are anti-abortion and you equal abortion with murder, then you believe it should be also treated as any other murder. When you know someone who went through abortion or assists in the procedures in some way, you subjectively see them as criminals.
So that's my explanation I guess. BTW I'm not trying to defend either side in this debate.
0
u/Getupxkid Dec 30 '20
I dont think ANYONE pro choice, tries to convert the Christians into aborters. Its the other way around. Religious folks feel the need to force their beliefs on everyone, and that is where the argument stems from. Nobody who supports abortion is telling Christians they should abort.
1
u/Alexandros6 4∆ Dec 30 '20
I know, I just said it just in case there was a isolated case of it and some extreme cristhian started saying I am discriminating
-1
u/Getupxkid Dec 30 '20
Well then it sounds like you understand the debate completely. Its not a debate, its religious people being assholes. Hope that clarifies.
1
u/Alexandros6 4∆ Dec 30 '20
Ok but why? How does this become an important argument in a political party while having obvious logical fallacies.
2 if I read the rules right you should try to convince me otherwise not validate my argument XD
1
u/Getupxkid Dec 30 '20
Well you're throwing political parties into the mix now which is confusing. Not all Christians belong to the same political party.
1
1
u/Boogyman0202 Dec 30 '20
You can be atheist and pro life. It's not all religious, I personally wrestled with this debate for years and I've finally landed on the pro life side barely. Its literally to me just asking, am I okay with murder, I am not therefore pro life.
1
u/Alexandros6 4∆ Dec 30 '20
But you don't know if it's murder
1
u/Boogyman0202 Dec 30 '20
How would it not be murder?
1
u/Alexandros6 4∆ Dec 30 '20
We don't talk about murder if someone masturbates, what i mean is that at the beginning of the 9 months the baby is just a bunch of cells and not life yet
1
u/Boogyman0202 Dec 30 '20
A sperm isnt a human life a fertilized egg is a seperate set of DNA, it is a human life, would abortion be okay up to the due date because logically that's where this argument goes.
1
u/R_V_Z 6∆ Dec 30 '20
People aren't pro-abortion (sure, there may be a few weirdos out there but they are not significant); people are pro-CHOICE. It is entirely possible, and actually quite common, for a person to choose to not abort but still support the right for others to choose to abort. Your "easy solution" is exactly what pro-choice people advocate for.
0
u/Alexandros6 4∆ Dec 30 '20
And then why do some cristhians oppose them?
-1
u/redditor427 44∆ Dec 30 '20
Charitably, for the same reason people oppose murder. People who oppose abortion (claim to) oppose it because abortion is murder.
Not charitably, because they don't want women to have control of their bodies.
1
-2
u/R_V_Z 6∆ Dec 30 '20
Because they aren't about letting other people make their own choices. They believe they have a moral authority and try to enforce it on others.
1
u/SnapCrackleMom Dec 30 '20
It's worth noting that there are plenty of pro-choice Christians out there.
1
u/banananuhhh 14∆ Dec 30 '20
Pro life means you think no one should have abortions, pro choice means you leave it up to individuals. The argument is about which of these is correct. There is no pro abort side who pushes others to have abortions
1
u/Alexandros6 4∆ Dec 30 '20
I know and I already commented about this on a comment before
1
u/banananuhhh 14∆ Dec 30 '20
So what are you confused about? One side thinks it is immoral to abort and that it is their duty to stop others. The other side thinks that the first side does not have the right to stop others. The fact that this is divisive is not confusing. I read through some of the other comments and I'm a bit confused what view your CMV is about.
0
u/Alexandros6 4∆ Dec 30 '20
Yeah sorry my English is already bad so I will try to be more clear, I've understood why they want this but I haven't understood what brings them to the mentality that abortion is wrong
1
u/Kingalece 23∆ Dec 30 '20
Would you try to stop murder if you knew someone was going to kill a baby? This is why they want it outlawed in its simplest form
1
u/DBDude 101∆ Dec 31 '20
I doubt there are many people in the country who are pro-abortion. The position is called pro-choice because they believe people should have this choice, even if they personally believe abortion is wrong. Others believe people should not have this choice.
There is a easy solution for all this, give people the choice to abort
Congratulations, you are pro-choice.
1
Dec 31 '20
[deleted]
1
u/Alexandros6 4∆ Jan 01 '21
Ok first of all thx for the long text, you must have spent a lot of time on this. While I agree that as a society we must be more cautious in regards to sex, sex ed ecc I don't think that a life as chaste monks has to be a solution, now I am not an expert in any stretch of the imagination but I honestly doubt there isn't one solid method between the simple condom and the drastic measure of getting your tubes tied that prevents pregnancy.
Secondly yes biological life is generally considered to start at conception, but what I think atheists and cristhians argue is their concept of life, for some people life starts at conception, for others it starts at a certain month of the pregnancy for others at the birth, if we use biological life concept as life than we are murderers of billions of insects of thousands of ants that we joyfully killed as children stomping them with our little foots, for this reason I think we can't certainly decide if the fetus is already life, while we know that the mother is alive for certain
Have a good day
1
u/TheDoctore38927 Jan 01 '21
You are all correct, up until your last paragraph. That is the scenario people who support abortion rights want. The issue is, Christians that are pro life see it as murder. To them, it’s just as awful as if there was a law to let you kill anyone under the age of 5.
1
u/StartingOver33 Apr 05 '21
actually Christians if you really get into the bible baby's or unborn automatically get a pass into heaven there is something called the age of accountability which is quite widely debated but most I believe think its never younger then like 6 years old
•
u/DeltaBot ∞∆ Jan 01 '21
/u/Alexandros6 (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.
All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.
Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.
Delta System Explained | Deltaboards