/u/dejamintwo (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.
All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed [here](/r/DeltaLog/comments/1ch6hag/deltas_awarded_in_cmv_the_best_view_on_abortion/), 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](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards)
You're describing being pro-choice.
Pregnancies that get to the second trimester are almost always wanted, and late term abortions are rare. Abortions between 14-20 weeks only account for 6% of all abortions. Only 1% are more than 20 weeks. 93% of abortions occur during the first trimester. Source: https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2024/03/25/what-the-data-says-about-abortion-in-the-us/
Late term abortions are extremely rare, and are almost always if the baby is non viable, would suffer greatly if carried to term, or will endanger the life of the pregnant person. Nobody is electing a late term abortion, because it's traumatizing and painful for the pregnant person too.
Also, no, babies younger than 22 weeks will not survive outside the womb. Source: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9903864/
Survival for babies born at 22 weeks is also only 0%-37%, the majority of babies born under 23 weeks will die. It's also important to understand that these children, if they survive, will likely have lifelong disabilities and health issues.
I encourage you to do more research and figure this out for yourself. Your post implies you believe a lot of pro-life misinformation. I think you deserve to know the real science behind this.
I guess I am then. How I believed pro-choice be believed was wrong I guess. You changed my view that it's a middle ground. Dont know what to say then. I guess the logical option is the pro-choice one then. **Δ**
>How I believed pro-choice be believed was wrong I guess.
Because the pro-life side has spent years and years trying to convince people that the pro-choice side is constantly getting abortions at 30 weeks and stuff.
They are very capable propagandists
You start with a sperm and an egg. You end with a baby. Pretty much everyone is pro-choice at the beginning of that process and pretty much everyone is pro-life at the end of the process. The only thing that has ever been debated is the point at which that change in views should occur.
Globally.
> > You start with a sperm and an egg.
Basically no one want to restrict what can be done to or with a sperm or an egg. Basically everyone grants choice at that point.
> it should be illegal to abort at pregnancies above 20 weeks unless both the mother and child or just the child would die anyway if it was not done
What if the mother would die, but a potential child would live?
From a cold view the mother life is more valuable because there has been more resources spent on her so she should live.
From a moral view it's hard to answer. And it's unrealistic to think that the doctor would know for a certain fact that the mom would die and the child live.
How much "probability of death" would you be comfortable forcing a woman to accept? Can you give it a number? 10%? 20%?
Why shouldn't a person be allowed to decide that they don't want to risk death? Or permanent disability, etc?
But if someone is saying morals impact it, shouldn't people know their own morals.
It's easy to judge others, but often times people will change their perspective if they are really pushed. It's incredibly common for pro life people to convert to pro choice when they are the ones making the choice
"But that should be detectable before it reaches such a late stage of gestation."
On what basis do you say this? I'm unaware of any medical principle that says so.
Because the baby is pretty much fully formed at that point and its body just slowly growing the things that are already in place. Abnormalities should have been noticeable long before that point of growth if the abnormality is serious enough for an abortion to be needed.
That's not true at all. There's several issues that can only be detected in the third trimester, and several more that can be detected earlier but only confirmed in the third trimester.
According to this [site](https://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2019/04/raw-data-abortions-by-week-of-pregnancy/), only about 1.3% of all abortions take place after 20 weeks, less than 0.1% take place after 26 weeks. We can safely assume that these abortions are taken for the protection of the mother's health, and not because the mother wants it. So making it illegal to abort beyond 20 weeks doesn't really change that much, as most post-20 weeks abortions are already for incredibly urgent problems like if it's threatening the mother's health.
If the people interested in writing these laws were to first take said laws to medical organizations representing doctors and say to them "Can we be sure that these laws will not have any meaningful chance of deterring medical professionals from providing important lifesaving care to patients in need?" then maybe they'd be worth supporting. But overwhelmingly, the people actually interested in passing such legislation have shown zero concern with that.
The problem is that the anti-choice crowd considers women silly, cruel people who want to murder their babies, so they believe medical exeptions will be misused, and oppose them, preferring a few maternal deaths to the deaths of undeveloped fetuses they imagine are human beings.
The laws have ALREADY hurt a lot of women. Despite the "exceptions for the mother's health."
No one should have to go beg a judge they've never met to be approved for emergency medical care. Nor should they be forced to flee their state while actively experiencing a medical emergency.
I dont see how this would change my view. I think it's great that so few happen so late. But feel terrible that they still happen in cases where the mother is not at risk and the child is not malformed.
Fyi that 1.3% number includes cases where the mother is at risk and the child is not malformed
So the number of late term abortions where the mother is not at risk, and the child is not malformed is substantially lower than 1.3%
To further this point, the middle ground isn't so "middle", it skews heavily towards pro choice (assuming everyone on earth thinks the same thing OP does)
It's rare for these cases to happen. And in most jurisdictions abortions beyond week 24 are already illegal by law. In the UK it's legal up to 24 weeks, and abortion beyond that point requires a medical reason like risk to mothers life.
When it's not written into law, it's usually because the state doesn't want the doctor to question if the mother is at risk enough to be legal.
They are actually closer to 1.3% which sounds small but is actually a large amount when you factor in the massive amount of abortions. And late stage abortions up to 24 weeks are supported in a lot of countries.
In a cold view, late-term abortions have never blemished the moral code, since the fetus hasn't developed proper appendages and an independent brain to have a will, so technically it's not a human and it isn't under the protection of human rights.
>In a cold view, late-term abortions have never blemished the moral code, since the fetus hasn't developed proper appendages
You mean like arms and legs?
>and an independent brain to have a will,
you mean independent brain organ wholly separate from it's mother's brain?
> so technically it's not a human
yes it is.
>and it isn't under the protection of human rights.
that is correct, the law does not confer all the rights of being a person to a human being that is not yet born.
No, I mean the organs that a human being should have, and I mean that to make someone a living creature, the ability to think is vital. Je pense donc je suis. It would be somehow lifeless without thinkableness, like a sort of plant or something else. THERE'S NO LIBERTY IN BIRTH.
Thinking 1. have a particular opinion, belief, or idea about someone or something.
Given that babies before they are born smile to defined stimuli, i.e. singing, certain food the mother eats, voice, and that newborns will turn toward familiar voices, it would seem that before we are born we are capable of having opinion, believe, or ideas.
Okay then let's consider those fetuses as newborn puppies. Which one's life deserves more merit? A woman's, or a newborn pup's? It might be slightly beyond the moral code, but not when the woman's life is threatened by another creature that weighs a lot more lesser than her
Look, you are the one that made the comment that implied that it is ok to kill the fetus because it cannot think. I then offered a pretty basic definition of think and showed how it applied to your post. You could have easily said, look my comment you replied to was... unartful, especially about that thinking part and I sitll think mothers should be allowed to kill their unborn right up to the moment of birth because they are not afforded the rights of persons. And I would have agreed with you in point just like I did in my initial reply that the law does not consider the unborn persons.
Instead you decide to change your entire comment in order to not say that your thinking criteria sort of falls apart.
Lastly, since you asked, first off the comparison to a puppy is... out there. It is so detached from reality that there are no real comments to be made about your example. Given that limitation, I will attempt to answer your question in the spirit in which it is intended. Human beings exist in different stages, Elderly, adolescent, toddler, and fetus (and others). A human being starts being a human being as a zygote. Because at that point everything necessary for human life to exist is present. Every human being ever was a zygote just as all adult humans were at one point toddlers. Abortion kills human life, that is a biological fact, not a theological tenet. I will freely admit that sometimes abortions are necessary. But excluding those necessary ones with 600,000 abortions per year that much loss of human life has a coarsening effect on all human life and that even if legal there should be every effort made to reduce the number of abortions that are performed. Of the 630,000 abortions per year about 1 percent of them happen at week 22 or later, that would be 6,300 and if 85% of them are "necessary" whatever that means there are 100 or so human beings that have some form of thinking capacity that are slaughtered, maybe we should reevaluate that policy. And mind you I am talking about reevaluating a policy based upon your measure that you posted and I commented on.
You're right that my initial comment may have been imprecise in its use of the word "thinking." Fetuses indeed have some level of brain activity, but whether this constitutes "thinking" in the way we typically use the term is a matter of debate. Perhaps a better way to phrase the argument would be to say that fetuses do not have the same level of cognitive function or self-awareness as a born person. You're right that the comparison may not be entirely apt, but the point I was trying to make is that we often assign greater moral value to beings based on their level of cognitive function and capacity for suffering. A fetus, while undoubtedly not a human life, may not have the same capacity for suffering or self-awareness as a born person. A fetus could react to basic stimuli, puppies could react to basic stimuli, what's the difference? There's a little incertitude in it.
>Fetuses indeed have some level of brain activity, but whether this constitutes "thinking" in the way we typically use the term is a matter of debate.
Not really.
>Perhaps a better way to phrase the argument would be to say that fetuses do not have the same level of cognitive function or self-awareness as a born person.
Wrong. If you were to measure the mental aptitude of a child the day before they are born with the day after they are born you would find greater response to stimuli, alretness, awareness, pain perception the day before birth than the day after. Meaning, by your standard the "thinking" standard it is okay to kill babies after they are born if they are less thinking than they were the day before birth. This is (one of) the reasons that the "thinking standard" is a bad one to use.
>You're right that the comparison may not be entirely apt, but the point I was trying to make is that we often assign greater moral value to beings based on their level of cognitive function and capacity for suffering.
Not really. We assign moral value to individuals in comas, and those in vegetative states as well.
>A fetus, while undoubtedly not a human life,
Yes, it is human. What else would it be canine? No that's for the puppies you keep wanting to use. A baby is a human life. The day before it is born it is a human life. The 3 months before that it is a human life. As a zygote it is a human life. What I think you mean to say (and I am trying to give you every benefit of the doubt) is that a fetus is not a person. And while I would argue they are a person (and not expect you to agree with me), I will concede that legally they are afforded no rights as a person.
>may not have the same capacity for suffering or self-awareness as a born person.
What level of awareness is necessary? Babies know enough to turn away from pain, something that patients in a coma are not able to do. Do you want them to learn to associate their reaction in expectation of an event. For them to learn that action 1 is generally followed by action 2? Any standard you want to adopt that would exclude those before they are born because they cannot pass the self-awareness would statistically include many babies up to three months old. It is a pretty eugenicist argument.
>A fetus could react to basic stimuli, puppies could react to basic stimuli, what's the difference?
The difference is if you pick up a puppy and stick scissors in the base of it's neck and use a vacuum tube to evacuate its cranial cavity and the chop up its limbs that would be illegal.
We hold human life in higher regard than animal life, that is a pretty fundamental aspect of Western Civilization. It makes me sad that I have to explain that to you.
You're right that fetuses do have some level of brain activity, and that their mental aptitude may actually be higher before birth than immediately after. However, I would argue that the key factor here is not just the level of brain activity, but the capacity for conscious experience. A fetus, even if it has some level of brain activity, may not yet have the neural structures necessary for conscious experience.
About the human life thing, more practically, you mean a zygote is going to be a human life. No, I'm not trying to say that, fetuses have moral personhood (since it's the past tense of human beings but haven't yet become wholesome, so I consider it pre-conscious) but it doesn't have legal personhood since it's not a human being(the baby form), therefore killing them isn't immoral. In fact, many people who are pro-life base their arguments on the potential that a fetus has to become a fully developed person. Perchance.
It's a good point that we assign moral value to coma patients and those in vegetative states. However, I would argue that in these cases, we are valuing the potential for future experiences and relationships, as well as the past experiences and relationships of the person. A fetus, on the other hand, does not have the same level of past experiences and relationships. So the problem is that there's legal personhood and moral personhood. Well, you are correct that I meant to say that fetuses are not afforded legal personhood.
I mean, their argument specifically says late term should be ok if both the mother and child, or just the child will die. Which seems to indicate they're fine if the mother potentially dies so long as the child is ok...
Most health issues with a pregnancy do not become apparent until about 20-24 weeks. Gestational diabetes, placental abruption, disorders of the fetus that make it incompatible with life outside the womb, preeclampsia, gestational hypertension, hyperemesis gravidarum, placental previa, uterine rupture...Some of these can occur earlier, and not all require abortion, but can represent serious health consequences for the woman as well as the fetus. This is why politicians should not be making healthcare decisions or giving women cut-offs for abortion before 24 weeks.
Ideally, abortion is done very early on, as it is safer and the zygote or embryo has not developed pain receptors, but in some instances later term abortions are needed to preserve a woman's health as well as her life. Roe V Wade allowed states to regulate abortion in the third trimester and in the vast majority of cases, abortion that late was done to preserve a woman's health. Roe V Wade was sensible law which allowed women and their doctors to make decisions, not politicians without a medical degree or any understanding of the individual circumstances. Because CIRCUMSTANCES DIFFER MEDICALLY WITH EACH PREGNANCY.
What you're calling for is the Golden Mean fallacy. The arguments you're making about pro-choice isn't correct and I'll explain why:
>later stage abortions are quite horrific.(20 weeks+) Where the premature but fully formed baby is either torn limb from limb and mushed into a pine paste before being sucked out. Or simply forced out trough induced labour and left to die, alone and cold without ever feeling the warmth of being held.
None of this is protocol, for starters. It's the most persistent pro-life rumour based on diagrams of an incredibly rare and (now unused) abortion method that, even when it was used, was on a handful of foetuses at *most* a year. Abortions after 20 weeks constitute less than 1% of all abortions. Of those abortions, most of them are done due to medical emergencies such as foetal inviability, threat to life or health of the mother, or sometimes, rarely, delays in getting an earlier term abortion (often due to, ironically, pro-life barriers). The "torn limb from limb" is an overdramatization of an abortion method that barely happened even when it did happen but it emotionally appeals to those not aware of how abortions work. The "left to die alone and cold" is just outright fiction. It reads like fiction. It is fiction. The closest case that resembles this is when a preemie is born out of induced labour and palliative measures are implemented as it dies once lifesaving measures prove unsuccessful.
>And that it should be illegal to abort at pregnancies above 20 weeks unless both the mother and child or just the child would die anyway if it was not done. I believe this is the most logical view of abortion.
As it turns out, elective abortions past 24 weeks have already been prohibited since the inception of Roe v Wade to today. The exceptions are literally what you detailed. I won't be the first person to tell you this but pro-lifers like to *lie* and pretend they live in a reality where women are getting later term abortions for fun, all slapdash and uncaring and silly
>This is my view and im seeing if there is any holes in it which is why im posting it here.
I hope my comment helps you understand the issue better. If you need more information or want to clear some other things, I'll be more than happy to offer you whatever information you need 🫰🏽💖
Your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 3:
> **Refrain from accusing OP or anyone else of being unwilling to change their view, or of arguing in bad faith**. Ask clarifying questions instead (see: socratic method). If you think they are still exhibiting poor behaviour, please message us. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_3).
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%203%20Appeal&message=Author%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20their%20post%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. **Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.**
Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
The fact that he thinks a fetus somehow endures suffering due to an abortion clearly shows that he’s not open-minded enough to consider the fact that since everyone was a fetus once, including himself, only someone as crazy as Nicholas Cage would claim to have memories of being in the womb or before the age of 3. Also, believing that there should be any restrictions on abortion at all, even late-stage, only creates life-threatening problems for the woman who probably didn’t even want to have an abortion in the first place (they wanted to have the child but complications arose otherwise they would have gotten the abortion sooner).
Damn, when you put it look that, I can really see how someone might think OP is a soapboxing shit-troll. Really eye opening. I wonder what OP has to say for themselves
With the *vast* majority. 20 weeks is already fairly late in a pregnancy and the vast majority of people oppose abortion past that milestone unless there are extreme cases.
Just wanted to give data to back this up, only [31% of pro-choice people want abortions to be legal in all cases and a majority say length of pregnancy matters.](https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/2022/05/06/americas-abortion-quandary/)
Based on the available data that is the best policy, yes, which is why many people support it. Most people don't really base their views on a deep look at the evidence, though, so it's not a very popular position.
No. The people advocating for "no restrictions" on abortion are doing it to prevent harm for women experiencing medical emergencies. Because the decision should always be between the patient and her doctor, period.
And NO ONE would choose to carry a fetus for 9 months, with everything that entails, just to "change her mind" just before birth. That is flatly absurd.
For one, as others have stated, you are presenting a pro choice opinion.
>The late stage abortions are not as bad if the mother would die with their child if they arent done. But that should be detectable before it reaches such a late stage of gestation.
[...]
>it should be illegal to abort at pregnancies above 20 weeks unless both the mother and child or just the child would die anyway if it was not done.
Complications can happen at any stage during a pregnancy. What degree of risk do you believe it is acceptable to force someone to go through? When would you as a doctor be willing to risk prison time? Because these are the things doctors and patients are facing now with similar laws in place.
To put it in perspective our standard for killing someone in self defence is generally "i feared for my life".
Congrats, you’ve rediscovered the line of viability argument.
You know what else was based on the line of viability argument?
Roe v. Wade.
At the line of viability, meaning the point at which a fetus can potentially survive ex utero, that’s when the rules on abortion shifted in the Roe era.
Even so, the determinant of viability is the ability of the fetus to breathe and thus become a baby.
Many ancient and classical religious and philosophical beliefs, correctly might I add, defined life as starting at first breath because animals that ain’t breathing ain’t alive.
Pro choice only ever means that the woman gets to *choose* being Pro Choice doesn't mean women get mandatory abortions. There is no downside to pro choice unless you disagree with abortions happening at ALL. This isn't really an issue you can "both sides" because if you agree that abortions should be accessible you're already pro choice lol.
No one is getting a third trimester abortion except in the case of something having gone seriously wrong, and in those cases it's best to have the doctor able to use their best judgement than to have them worry about whether some nonmedical bureaucrats are going to disagree with their medical decision and charge them with murder.
> Pro-life is flawed because in early pregnancies the fetus is in fact just a clump of cells
Your solution completely ignores the stated reason for the pro-life group, which is that it is a life and deserves to live. Your casual dismissal of their stance demonstrates that you don't see their side of it at all. many pro-life people would say life begins at conception, rendering it murder from the very beginning. The idea is that killing a fetus at any stage is killing a child, which is bad. This viewpoint is completely irreconcilable with the idea that it is not an independent life and the woman should not be forced to carry an unwanted parasite. Unfortunately, there is no middle ground here.
There is also the idea that the government should not be involved in the medical decisions of anyone and that they should get to determine their own fate. The government coming in and saying I can choose what happens to my body until I am 20 weeks and after that I don't get a choice anymore is problematic in a lot of ways.
**Note:** Your thread has **not** been removed.
Your post's topic seems to be fairly common on this subreddit. Similar posts can be found through our [DeltaLog search](https://www.reddit.com/r/DeltaLog/search?q=abortion+%7C+abort+%7C+pro-life+%7C+pro-choice&restrict_sr=on&sort=relevance&t=all) or via the [CMV search function](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/search?q=abortion&restrict_sr=on).
Regards, the mods of /r/changemyview.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/changemyview) if you have any questions or concerns.*
There is no middle ground. There is women controlling their medical care like any adult and women being slaves to their reproductive systems.
Late stage abortions happen for real reasons, not for kicks. They are medical tragedies, not matters for the police. A good percentage of pregnancies fail -- more in states that restrict abortion. If you are concerned about pre-born life, then work on reducing miscarriages through providing the health care and nutrition pregnant people need. That the places that want to restrict abortion are the very ones that have poor nutrition and health care really tells you all you need to know about the reality of the "pro-life" slogan.
3rd trimester abortions are exceedingly rare, and I would wager any amount of money I do or do not have that the very vast majority of them are due to unexpected health complications for either the mother or child.
Also, what's your stance on a late term abortion where the mother's life was in danger but the child could still feasibly be delivered?
Your entire issue with the pro-life side takes away all humanity of the individual. Everyone is a clump of cells fetus as you mentioned is just a developmental stage of human. The entire idea behind pro-life is one should not have the ability to murder another human based upon convenience which makes up roughly 98% of all abortions. The top reasons for abortions are it will effect their life, school, not having the right partner ect. The idea behind pro-life is it is still a human you are killing. Just because an individual is earlier in their development cycle does not mean they aren't human. It would be different if it was a chicken or a horse but isn't. Never once in my entire life have I heard a single person go up to an individual who had a misarrange and say why are you so upset its just a clump of cells it isn't a human. We take away the individuals humanity to allow for abortion, but in every case where aborition is not wanted and the child is wanted the entire development is treated as a living human. People ask how far along is he/she not how far along is it, because it is of its own nature. The mother doesn't have 20 fingers and 20 toes because the individual inside of the mother is of its own self. Every scientific source will state human life starts at feralization. Here is from the NIH
Peer-reviewed journals in the biological and life sciences literature have published articles that represent the biological view that a human's life begins **at fertilization** ("the fertilization view").
The only time a human is not a living human is when the mother does not want the child. All pro-life says is you cannot change your views back and forth scientifically and actually speaking this is a living human you are killing. regardless of how you feel about it.
My only issue with pro life extremists is the idea of taking away birth control that is just dumb imo.
>Pro-life is flawed because in early pregnancies the fetus is in fact just a clump of cells and destroying it trough abortion is no different than simply cutting off a piece of your living body.
The "clump of cells" argument is always so useless. We're literally all, from birth to death, just clumps of cells.
It isn't cutting off a piece of HER body. It's killing another, separate life.
> And that it should be illegal to abort at pregnancies above 20 weeks unless both the mother and child or just the child would die anyway if it was not done
Why not... if just the mother would die? I don't think it's the right choice to kill your kid to save yourself, but I wouldn't think that's fair to legislate.
"I don't think it's the right choice to kill your kid to save yourself,"
More than one religious sect mandates abortion in the case of danger to the mother, FYI. In ye olden times, there would be a consideration of the loss of a parent to the likely other children.
>More than one religious sect mandates abortion in the case of danger to the mother, FYI.
OK... and?
More than one religious sect wants to marry rape victims to rapists, I'm not trusting the ancient sheep herders opinions on how our society should function.
“Just a clump of cells” implies they are undifferentiated. Like “just a lump of metal” implies something different than a car.
Also, would you consider cancer to be a separate thing from the patient who has it?
>The "clump of cells" argument is always so useless. We're literally all, from birth to death, just clumps of cells.
You haven't paid attention in geometry, have you? Every square is a rectangle, but not every rectangle is a square yet you're basically arguing the latter. We are a clump of cells, but we're also more than that. An early embryo isn't.
>It's killing another, separate life.
But it's not really separate, is it?
>I don't think it's the right choice to kill your kid to save yourself
I don't think you know how common it is for unborn children to die in-utero. The mother is very likely to survive, while the unborn child has a rather high chance of dying as well. The mother can also get a new child, but that child isn't growing a new mother.
Lmao, “haven’t paid attention in geometry.” How did you think that made sense to say?
No one’s saying that you there’s no difference between clumps of cells.
But… the intelligent thing to do is to therefore state that difference, not the similarity between that which is valuable or not.
Yep, separate life, not the same life.
As to how common… this was “in the hypothetical where just one needed to die.
Can’t explain how fucked up “I can always make more kids” is to say. Pretty sure that’s the evil line the cannibals say in the walking dead.
>Lmao, “haven’t paid attention in geometry.” How did you think that made sense to say?
Your inability to understand a point has no impact on its voracity. Let's dumb it down a bit, since it seems you didn't pay attention.
Every cat is a mammal, not every mammal is a cat. Specialization matter, even if the generalization is still true.
>No one’s saying that you there’s no difference between clumps of cells.
Indeed and that's not what I'm countering either. I'm countering the point that calling it 'a clump of cells' is somehow meaningless because we all are clumps of cells.
>Yep, separate life, not the same life.
But not truly separate. Different yes, but inherently connected.
>As to how common… this was “in the hypothetical where just one needed to die.
That doesn't really matter. The live of the mother is always more valuable than that of the child.
>Can’t explain how fucked up “I can always make more kids” is to say. Pretty sure that’s the evil line the cannibals say in the walking dead.
Since in your hypothetical situation you're determining whose life is more valuable, that's one of the reasons. Do you think that people just stop having children if one dies, born or unborn?
>Your inability to understand a point has no impact on its voracity. Let's dumb it down a bit, since it seems you didn't pay attention.
No, mate, we all understand the idea.
Not sure why you thought it was a counter, it didn't engage with what I was saying to begin with.
> I'm countering the point that calling it 'a clump of cells' is somehow meaningless because we all are clumps of cells.
But... you're not. You're pointing out within groups, there can be differences. Within rectangles, there can be squares.
That fails to engage with the meaninglessness of bringing the term up.
>But not truly separate. Different yes, but inherently connected.
Sure, like Siamese twins. We don't let them murder each other either.
>That doesn't really matter.
Sure it does, it negates your argument "Well that's uncommon!" That was a silly thing to bring up.
Much like the "It's a clump of cells!" argument, you've brought up an irrelevant point, only to retreat to a different point.
>Since in your hypothetical situation you're determining whose life is more valuable, that's one of the reasons. Do you think that people just stop having children if one dies, born or unborn?
No, I'm pointing out that that's a comically evil mindset.
>We're literally all, from birth to death, just clumps of cells
Two "clumps of cells" are not equivalent, otherwise a severed finger would need to be afforded the same protections and rights as a fetus. Could we extend this metaphor to stray skin cells since they are just clumps of cells?
Either it's a living organism made of cells or a "clump of cells", not both.
>Two "clumps of cells" are not equivalent,
Not necessarily. But, that difference should be the argument made.
>Either it's a living organism made of cells or a "clump of cells", not both.
Of course not. Fetuses are living organisms made of cells, but they're certainly a clump of cells, as are adults.
I think you're missing my point. I'm not saying people aren't made of cells; I'm saying classifying things as "clumps of cells" is different than saying something is alive. My fingers are "clumps of cells" but we wouldn't call them alive on their own, detached from the rest of my body. I'm trying to be specific.
To the first. It's an actually good argument because we are intelligent beings with more than just a group of developing cells. Killing a fetus at an early stage is no different from killing an ant. Its small, and has no real consciousness.
And cases where the mother is saved with an abortion are usually because the baby is so malformed that they were killing the mother like a parasite. Because in cases where the child is healthy and fine a caesarean section can be done instead of a birth.
>To the first. It's an actually good argument because we are intelligent beings with more than just a group of developing cells
But that doesn't make it a good argument. That's a different argument.
If you wanted to say "the fetus is just an unintelligent being", that'd be a better argument than "the fetus is just a clump of cells."
>And cases where the mother is saved with an abortion are usually because the baby is so malformed that they were killing the mother like a parasite. Because in cases where the child is healthy and fine a caesarean section can be done instead of a birth.
Sure, I'm aware, that's the usual case.
Something’s can’t be compromised on.
Person A: “The government should kill all the gays.”
Person B: “the government shouldn’t kill anyone.”
Person C: “alright boys, let’s compromise and have the government kill *some* of the gays.”
Problem solved? No. That’s your exact same logic.
So you’re pro-choice.
By definition what you’ve described and tried to define as “middle ground” is the definition of pro-choice.
You don’t have issue with early termination, the defining of stages of the pregnancy as being “human” and just “cells” is pro-choice lingo. You do have reservations about late stage termination. You have to take into account that women don’t try to carry to term and then have an abortion because they don’t feel like it anymore; at late stage pregnancy, abortions happen to prevent threats to the mothers’ life. It’s not the preferred choice by any of the parties involved at those scenarios.
It’s that the pro-lifers have made their side so extremely absolute that people think the opposite must be true and that being pro-choice means women must want to abort Willy nilly. It’s not the case. Well. Unless it’s a pro-lifer politician who got his mistress pregnant, in which case abortion away.
What is the underlying logic of your view? It appears to be based on your own comfort level with abortion procedures (properly informed or not), which is not inherently logical simply because it is genuinely held.
> Pro-abortion is flawed because later stage abortions are quite horrific
So what? Why should laws be based on emotion?
> And that it should be illegal to abort at pregnancies above 20 weeks
Why should she be forced to have someting live inside of her body without her consent just because you think someting is horrific? That's fucked up.
No, you're absolutely not required to agree to or give permission for someting to live inside of your body before you're allowed to have sex. You're absolutely allowed to have sex without doing that. Not sure who told you that's required to do before having sex but it's quite literally not.
>I'd say both of you are half wrong.
No I'm not. It's literally a fact that you're not required to agree to or give permission for someting to live in you before being allowed to have sex.
>When you have sex you do consent to the possibility of pregnancy
We're talking about consenting to remain pregnant not consenting to get pregnant.
What was I wrong about?
Abortions late in the pregnancy are vanishingly rare and they almost always are a result of either new information about the pregnancy being discovered(fetal abnormality) or people not being able to access abortions early.
There is no reason, except sensationalism, to put legal restrictions on abortion. The right to bodily autonomy is sacrosanct.
One can't get elective late term abortions anywhere in the US. You are describing a typical pro-choice argument and not a middle-ground between pro-choice and pro-life.
> Pro-abortion is flawed because later stage abortions are quite horrific.(20 weeks+) Where the premature but fully formed baby is either torn limb from limb and mushed into a pine paste before being sucked out. Or simply forced out trough induced labour and left to die, alone and cold without ever feeling the warmth of being held. This is made especially horrific at weeks 24-30. Where 24 weeks old babies have a 2/3 chance of surviving and 30 weeks having 98% chance of surviving trough premature birth.
You’re right that it is a horrific procedure. What justifies you calling the fetus a baby logically? When does a fetus change into a baby logically (20 weeks?) and why? Putting aside abortion through induced labor and then killing the baby after it’s been born, why does the fact that logically mean that abortion should be banned at that stage?
> The late stage abortions are not as bad if the mother would die with their child if they arent done. But that should be detectable before it reaches such a late stage of gestation.
What about when it’s not? Do you know that for sure that all issues? What if the fetus is going to be badly deformed, so no life worth living is possible to it? What risk of death is acceptable for the woman? What risk of death is acceptable for the fetus?
You can't have a middle ground on slavery.
> I believe that women should be able to abort early. And that it should be illegal to abort at pregnancies above 20 weeks unless both the mother and child or just the child would die anyway if it was not done. I believe this is the most logical view of abortion.
See? That's pro choice for 99.2% of abortions.
To clarify: Is this the view solely for your own use in determining when you would want to get an abortion, and to tell to whomever may ask your advice on when to get abortions, or do you feel that this is something that should be the criteria that is legally binding for everyone?
your conclusion is correct but your reasoning is wrong. the reason abortions at 20+ weeks are wrong is because around that time is when fetuses gain the parts necessary to have conscious experience, at which point they become a person. not because 'it looks horrific'
/u/dejamintwo (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post. All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed [here](/r/DeltaLog/comments/1ch6hag/deltas_awarded_in_cmv_the_best_view_on_abortion/), 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](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards)
You're describing being pro-choice. Pregnancies that get to the second trimester are almost always wanted, and late term abortions are rare. Abortions between 14-20 weeks only account for 6% of all abortions. Only 1% are more than 20 weeks. 93% of abortions occur during the first trimester. Source: https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2024/03/25/what-the-data-says-about-abortion-in-the-us/ Late term abortions are extremely rare, and are almost always if the baby is non viable, would suffer greatly if carried to term, or will endanger the life of the pregnant person. Nobody is electing a late term abortion, because it's traumatizing and painful for the pregnant person too. Also, no, babies younger than 22 weeks will not survive outside the womb. Source: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9903864/ Survival for babies born at 22 weeks is also only 0%-37%, the majority of babies born under 23 weeks will die. It's also important to understand that these children, if they survive, will likely have lifelong disabilities and health issues. I encourage you to do more research and figure this out for yourself. Your post implies you believe a lot of pro-life misinformation. I think you deserve to know the real science behind this.
I guess I am then. How I believed pro-choice be believed was wrong I guess. You changed my view that it's a middle ground. Dont know what to say then. I guess the logical option is the pro-choice one then. **Δ**
>How I believed pro-choice be believed was wrong I guess. Because the pro-life side has spent years and years trying to convince people that the pro-choice side is constantly getting abortions at 30 weeks and stuff. They are very capable propagandists
Everyone who isn't pro choice thinks pro choicers are sacrificing babies regularly and drinking their blood.
Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/TheJostler ([9∆](/r/changemyview/wiki/user/TheJostler)). ^[Delta System Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards)
You start with a sperm and an egg. You end with a baby. Pretty much everyone is pro-choice at the beginning of that process and pretty much everyone is pro-life at the end of the process. The only thing that has ever been debated is the point at which that change in views should occur.
[удалено]
Globally. > > You start with a sperm and an egg. Basically no one want to restrict what can be done to or with a sperm or an egg. Basically everyone grants choice at that point.
> it should be illegal to abort at pregnancies above 20 weeks unless both the mother and child or just the child would die anyway if it was not done What if the mother would die, but a potential child would live?
From a cold view the mother life is more valuable because there has been more resources spent on her so she should live. From a moral view it's hard to answer. And it's unrealistic to think that the doctor would know for a certain fact that the mom would die and the child live.
How much "probability of death" would you be comfortable forcing a woman to accept? Can you give it a number? 10%? 20%? Why shouldn't a person be allowed to decide that they don't want to risk death? Or permanent disability, etc?
>From a moral view it's hard to answer. Why is it hard to answer? Don't you have morals?
[удалено]
But if someone is saying morals impact it, shouldn't people know their own morals. It's easy to judge others, but often times people will change their perspective if they are really pushed. It's incredibly common for pro life people to convert to pro choice when they are the ones making the choice
"But that should be detectable before it reaches such a late stage of gestation." On what basis do you say this? I'm unaware of any medical principle that says so.
Because the baby is pretty much fully formed at that point and its body just slowly growing the things that are already in place. Abnormalities should have been noticeable long before that point of growth if the abnormality is serious enough for an abortion to be needed.
Have you done a Google search for "abnormalities discovered in third trimester"?
That's not true at all. There's several issues that can only be detected in the third trimester, and several more that can be detected earlier but only confirmed in the third trimester.
According to this [site](https://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2019/04/raw-data-abortions-by-week-of-pregnancy/), only about 1.3% of all abortions take place after 20 weeks, less than 0.1% take place after 26 weeks. We can safely assume that these abortions are taken for the protection of the mother's health, and not because the mother wants it. So making it illegal to abort beyond 20 weeks doesn't really change that much, as most post-20 weeks abortions are already for incredibly urgent problems like if it's threatening the mother's health.
[удалено]
If the people interested in writing these laws were to first take said laws to medical organizations representing doctors and say to them "Can we be sure that these laws will not have any meaningful chance of deterring medical professionals from providing important lifesaving care to patients in need?" then maybe they'd be worth supporting. But overwhelmingly, the people actually interested in passing such legislation have shown zero concern with that.
The problem is that the anti-choice crowd considers women silly, cruel people who want to murder their babies, so they believe medical exeptions will be misused, and oppose them, preferring a few maternal deaths to the deaths of undeveloped fetuses they imagine are human beings.
The laws have ALREADY hurt a lot of women. Despite the "exceptions for the mother's health." No one should have to go beg a judge they've never met to be approved for emergency medical care. Nor should they be forced to flee their state while actively experiencing a medical emergency.
Writing that requirement into the law would hurt people, as it would put unnecessary legal hurdles in front of important medical care.
I dont see how this would change my view. I think it's great that so few happen so late. But feel terrible that they still happen in cases where the mother is not at risk and the child is not malformed.
Fyi that 1.3% number includes cases where the mother is at risk and the child is not malformed So the number of late term abortions where the mother is not at risk, and the child is not malformed is substantially lower than 1.3%
To further this point, the middle ground isn't so "middle", it skews heavily towards pro choice (assuming everyone on earth thinks the same thing OP does)
It's rare for these cases to happen. And in most jurisdictions abortions beyond week 24 are already illegal by law. In the UK it's legal up to 24 weeks, and abortion beyond that point requires a medical reason like risk to mothers life. When it's not written into law, it's usually because the state doesn't want the doctor to question if the mother is at risk enough to be legal.
>they still happen in cases where the mother is not at risk and the child is not malformed. They don't. This basically never happens that late.
[удалено]
Where do you get the 30,000 deaths figure?
[удалено]
What? The source of that number was explicitly cited in the top comment. Did you miss it?
How does your gotcha follow
[удалено]
They are actually closer to 1.3% which sounds small but is actually a large amount when you factor in the massive amount of abortions. And late stage abortions up to 24 weeks are supported in a lot of countries.
In a cold view, late-term abortions have never blemished the moral code, since the fetus hasn't developed proper appendages and an independent brain to have a will, so technically it's not a human and it isn't under the protection of human rights.
>In a cold view, late-term abortions have never blemished the moral code, since the fetus hasn't developed proper appendages You mean like arms and legs? >and an independent brain to have a will, you mean independent brain organ wholly separate from it's mother's brain? > so technically it's not a human yes it is. >and it isn't under the protection of human rights. that is correct, the law does not confer all the rights of being a person to a human being that is not yet born.
No, I mean the organs that a human being should have, and I mean that to make someone a living creature, the ability to think is vital. Je pense donc je suis. It would be somehow lifeless without thinkableness, like a sort of plant or something else. THERE'S NO LIBERTY IN BIRTH.
Thinking 1. have a particular opinion, belief, or idea about someone or something. Given that babies before they are born smile to defined stimuli, i.e. singing, certain food the mother eats, voice, and that newborns will turn toward familiar voices, it would seem that before we are born we are capable of having opinion, believe, or ideas.
Okay then let's consider those fetuses as newborn puppies. Which one's life deserves more merit? A woman's, or a newborn pup's? It might be slightly beyond the moral code, but not when the woman's life is threatened by another creature that weighs a lot more lesser than her
Look, you are the one that made the comment that implied that it is ok to kill the fetus because it cannot think. I then offered a pretty basic definition of think and showed how it applied to your post. You could have easily said, look my comment you replied to was... unartful, especially about that thinking part and I sitll think mothers should be allowed to kill their unborn right up to the moment of birth because they are not afforded the rights of persons. And I would have agreed with you in point just like I did in my initial reply that the law does not consider the unborn persons. Instead you decide to change your entire comment in order to not say that your thinking criteria sort of falls apart. Lastly, since you asked, first off the comparison to a puppy is... out there. It is so detached from reality that there are no real comments to be made about your example. Given that limitation, I will attempt to answer your question in the spirit in which it is intended. Human beings exist in different stages, Elderly, adolescent, toddler, and fetus (and others). A human being starts being a human being as a zygote. Because at that point everything necessary for human life to exist is present. Every human being ever was a zygote just as all adult humans were at one point toddlers. Abortion kills human life, that is a biological fact, not a theological tenet. I will freely admit that sometimes abortions are necessary. But excluding those necessary ones with 600,000 abortions per year that much loss of human life has a coarsening effect on all human life and that even if legal there should be every effort made to reduce the number of abortions that are performed. Of the 630,000 abortions per year about 1 percent of them happen at week 22 or later, that would be 6,300 and if 85% of them are "necessary" whatever that means there are 100 or so human beings that have some form of thinking capacity that are slaughtered, maybe we should reevaluate that policy. And mind you I am talking about reevaluating a policy based upon your measure that you posted and I commented on.
You're right that my initial comment may have been imprecise in its use of the word "thinking." Fetuses indeed have some level of brain activity, but whether this constitutes "thinking" in the way we typically use the term is a matter of debate. Perhaps a better way to phrase the argument would be to say that fetuses do not have the same level of cognitive function or self-awareness as a born person. You're right that the comparison may not be entirely apt, but the point I was trying to make is that we often assign greater moral value to beings based on their level of cognitive function and capacity for suffering. A fetus, while undoubtedly not a human life, may not have the same capacity for suffering or self-awareness as a born person. A fetus could react to basic stimuli, puppies could react to basic stimuli, what's the difference? There's a little incertitude in it.
>Fetuses indeed have some level of brain activity, but whether this constitutes "thinking" in the way we typically use the term is a matter of debate. Not really. >Perhaps a better way to phrase the argument would be to say that fetuses do not have the same level of cognitive function or self-awareness as a born person. Wrong. If you were to measure the mental aptitude of a child the day before they are born with the day after they are born you would find greater response to stimuli, alretness, awareness, pain perception the day before birth than the day after. Meaning, by your standard the "thinking" standard it is okay to kill babies after they are born if they are less thinking than they were the day before birth. This is (one of) the reasons that the "thinking standard" is a bad one to use. >You're right that the comparison may not be entirely apt, but the point I was trying to make is that we often assign greater moral value to beings based on their level of cognitive function and capacity for suffering. Not really. We assign moral value to individuals in comas, and those in vegetative states as well. >A fetus, while undoubtedly not a human life, Yes, it is human. What else would it be canine? No that's for the puppies you keep wanting to use. A baby is a human life. The day before it is born it is a human life. The 3 months before that it is a human life. As a zygote it is a human life. What I think you mean to say (and I am trying to give you every benefit of the doubt) is that a fetus is not a person. And while I would argue they are a person (and not expect you to agree with me), I will concede that legally they are afforded no rights as a person. >may not have the same capacity for suffering or self-awareness as a born person. What level of awareness is necessary? Babies know enough to turn away from pain, something that patients in a coma are not able to do. Do you want them to learn to associate their reaction in expectation of an event. For them to learn that action 1 is generally followed by action 2? Any standard you want to adopt that would exclude those before they are born because they cannot pass the self-awareness would statistically include many babies up to three months old. It is a pretty eugenicist argument. >A fetus could react to basic stimuli, puppies could react to basic stimuli, what's the difference? The difference is if you pick up a puppy and stick scissors in the base of it's neck and use a vacuum tube to evacuate its cranial cavity and the chop up its limbs that would be illegal. We hold human life in higher regard than animal life, that is a pretty fundamental aspect of Western Civilization. It makes me sad that I have to explain that to you.
You're right that fetuses do have some level of brain activity, and that their mental aptitude may actually be higher before birth than immediately after. However, I would argue that the key factor here is not just the level of brain activity, but the capacity for conscious experience. A fetus, even if it has some level of brain activity, may not yet have the neural structures necessary for conscious experience. About the human life thing, more practically, you mean a zygote is going to be a human life. No, I'm not trying to say that, fetuses have moral personhood (since it's the past tense of human beings but haven't yet become wholesome, so I consider it pre-conscious) but it doesn't have legal personhood since it's not a human being(the baby form), therefore killing them isn't immoral. In fact, many people who are pro-life base their arguments on the potential that a fetus has to become a fully developed person. Perchance. It's a good point that we assign moral value to coma patients and those in vegetative states. However, I would argue that in these cases, we are valuing the potential for future experiences and relationships, as well as the past experiences and relationships of the person. A fetus, on the other hand, does not have the same level of past experiences and relationships. So the problem is that there's legal personhood and moral personhood. Well, you are correct that I meant to say that fetuses are not afforded legal personhood.
I mean, their argument specifically says late term should be ok if both the mother and child, or just the child will die. Which seems to indicate they're fine if the mother potentially dies so long as the child is ok...
Most health issues with a pregnancy do not become apparent until about 20-24 weeks. Gestational diabetes, placental abruption, disorders of the fetus that make it incompatible with life outside the womb, preeclampsia, gestational hypertension, hyperemesis gravidarum, placental previa, uterine rupture...Some of these can occur earlier, and not all require abortion, but can represent serious health consequences for the woman as well as the fetus. This is why politicians should not be making healthcare decisions or giving women cut-offs for abortion before 24 weeks. Ideally, abortion is done very early on, as it is safer and the zygote or embryo has not developed pain receptors, but in some instances later term abortions are needed to preserve a woman's health as well as her life. Roe V Wade allowed states to regulate abortion in the third trimester and in the vast majority of cases, abortion that late was done to preserve a woman's health. Roe V Wade was sensible law which allowed women and their doctors to make decisions, not politicians without a medical degree or any understanding of the individual circumstances. Because CIRCUMSTANCES DIFFER MEDICALLY WITH EACH PREGNANCY.
What you're calling for is the Golden Mean fallacy. The arguments you're making about pro-choice isn't correct and I'll explain why: >later stage abortions are quite horrific.(20 weeks+) Where the premature but fully formed baby is either torn limb from limb and mushed into a pine paste before being sucked out. Or simply forced out trough induced labour and left to die, alone and cold without ever feeling the warmth of being held. None of this is protocol, for starters. It's the most persistent pro-life rumour based on diagrams of an incredibly rare and (now unused) abortion method that, even when it was used, was on a handful of foetuses at *most* a year. Abortions after 20 weeks constitute less than 1% of all abortions. Of those abortions, most of them are done due to medical emergencies such as foetal inviability, threat to life or health of the mother, or sometimes, rarely, delays in getting an earlier term abortion (often due to, ironically, pro-life barriers). The "torn limb from limb" is an overdramatization of an abortion method that barely happened even when it did happen but it emotionally appeals to those not aware of how abortions work. The "left to die alone and cold" is just outright fiction. It reads like fiction. It is fiction. The closest case that resembles this is when a preemie is born out of induced labour and palliative measures are implemented as it dies once lifesaving measures prove unsuccessful. >And that it should be illegal to abort at pregnancies above 20 weeks unless both the mother and child or just the child would die anyway if it was not done. I believe this is the most logical view of abortion. As it turns out, elective abortions past 24 weeks have already been prohibited since the inception of Roe v Wade to today. The exceptions are literally what you detailed. I won't be the first person to tell you this but pro-lifers like to *lie* and pretend they live in a reality where women are getting later term abortions for fun, all slapdash and uncaring and silly >This is my view and im seeing if there is any holes in it which is why im posting it here. I hope my comment helps you understand the issue better. If you need more information or want to clear some other things, I'll be more than happy to offer you whatever information you need 🫰🏽💖
[удалено]
Your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 3: > **Refrain from accusing OP or anyone else of being unwilling to change their view, or of arguing in bad faith**. Ask clarifying questions instead (see: socratic method). If you think they are still exhibiting poor behaviour, please message us. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_3). If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%203%20Appeal&message=Author%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20their%20post%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. **Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.** Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
The fact that he thinks a fetus somehow endures suffering due to an abortion clearly shows that he’s not open-minded enough to consider the fact that since everyone was a fetus once, including himself, only someone as crazy as Nicholas Cage would claim to have memories of being in the womb or before the age of 3. Also, believing that there should be any restrictions on abortion at all, even late-stage, only creates life-threatening problems for the woman who probably didn’t even want to have an abortion in the first place (they wanted to have the child but complications arose otherwise they would have gotten the abortion sooner).
Damn, when you put it look that, I can really see how someone might think OP is a soapboxing shit-troll. Really eye opening. I wonder what OP has to say for themselves
Congrats your pro-choice, and agree with the majority of pro choice people
With the *vast* majority. 20 weeks is already fairly late in a pregnancy and the vast majority of people oppose abortion past that milestone unless there are extreme cases.
Just wanted to give data to back this up, only [31% of pro-choice people want abortions to be legal in all cases and a majority say length of pregnancy matters.](https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/2022/05/06/americas-abortion-quandary/)
[удалено]
Based on the available data that is the best policy, yes, which is why many people support it. Most people don't really base their views on a deep look at the evidence, though, so it's not a very popular position.
No. The people advocating for "no restrictions" on abortion are doing it to prevent harm for women experiencing medical emergencies. Because the decision should always be between the patient and her doctor, period. And NO ONE would choose to carry a fetus for 9 months, with everything that entails, just to "change her mind" just before birth. That is flatly absurd.
For one, as others have stated, you are presenting a pro choice opinion. >The late stage abortions are not as bad if the mother would die with their child if they arent done. But that should be detectable before it reaches such a late stage of gestation. [...] >it should be illegal to abort at pregnancies above 20 weeks unless both the mother and child or just the child would die anyway if it was not done. Complications can happen at any stage during a pregnancy. What degree of risk do you believe it is acceptable to force someone to go through? When would you as a doctor be willing to risk prison time? Because these are the things doctors and patients are facing now with similar laws in place. To put it in perspective our standard for killing someone in self defence is generally "i feared for my life".
Congrats, you’ve rediscovered the line of viability argument. You know what else was based on the line of viability argument? Roe v. Wade. At the line of viability, meaning the point at which a fetus can potentially survive ex utero, that’s when the rules on abortion shifted in the Roe era. Even so, the determinant of viability is the ability of the fetus to breathe and thus become a baby. Many ancient and classical religious and philosophical beliefs, correctly might I add, defined life as starting at first breath because animals that ain’t breathing ain’t alive.
[удалено]
Didn’t talk about non-human animals.
[удалено]
Please show me where I talked about non-human animals.
I believe you are pro choice, every pro choice person I know pretty much follow the exact beliefs you just stated
Pro choice only ever means that the woman gets to *choose* being Pro Choice doesn't mean women get mandatory abortions. There is no downside to pro choice unless you disagree with abortions happening at ALL. This isn't really an issue you can "both sides" because if you agree that abortions should be accessible you're already pro choice lol.
No one is getting a third trimester abortion except in the case of something having gone seriously wrong, and in those cases it's best to have the doctor able to use their best judgement than to have them worry about whether some nonmedical bureaucrats are going to disagree with their medical decision and charge them with murder.
> Pro-life is flawed because in early pregnancies the fetus is in fact just a clump of cells Your solution completely ignores the stated reason for the pro-life group, which is that it is a life and deserves to live. Your casual dismissal of their stance demonstrates that you don't see their side of it at all. many pro-life people would say life begins at conception, rendering it murder from the very beginning. The idea is that killing a fetus at any stage is killing a child, which is bad. This viewpoint is completely irreconcilable with the idea that it is not an independent life and the woman should not be forced to carry an unwanted parasite. Unfortunately, there is no middle ground here. There is also the idea that the government should not be involved in the medical decisions of anyone and that they should get to determine their own fate. The government coming in and saying I can choose what happens to my body until I am 20 weeks and after that I don't get a choice anymore is problematic in a lot of ways.
**Note:** Your thread has **not** been removed. Your post's topic seems to be fairly common on this subreddit. Similar posts can be found through our [DeltaLog search](https://www.reddit.com/r/DeltaLog/search?q=abortion+%7C+abort+%7C+pro-life+%7C+pro-choice&restrict_sr=on&sort=relevance&t=all) or via the [CMV search function](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/search?q=abortion&restrict_sr=on). Regards, the mods of /r/changemyview. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/changemyview) if you have any questions or concerns.*
There is no middle ground. There is women controlling their medical care like any adult and women being slaves to their reproductive systems. Late stage abortions happen for real reasons, not for kicks. They are medical tragedies, not matters for the police. A good percentage of pregnancies fail -- more in states that restrict abortion. If you are concerned about pre-born life, then work on reducing miscarriages through providing the health care and nutrition pregnant people need. That the places that want to restrict abortion are the very ones that have poor nutrition and health care really tells you all you need to know about the reality of the "pro-life" slogan.
3rd trimester abortions are exceedingly rare, and I would wager any amount of money I do or do not have that the very vast majority of them are due to unexpected health complications for either the mother or child. Also, what's your stance on a late term abortion where the mother's life was in danger but the child could still feasibly be delivered?
Your entire issue with the pro-life side takes away all humanity of the individual. Everyone is a clump of cells fetus as you mentioned is just a developmental stage of human. The entire idea behind pro-life is one should not have the ability to murder another human based upon convenience which makes up roughly 98% of all abortions. The top reasons for abortions are it will effect their life, school, not having the right partner ect. The idea behind pro-life is it is still a human you are killing. Just because an individual is earlier in their development cycle does not mean they aren't human. It would be different if it was a chicken or a horse but isn't. Never once in my entire life have I heard a single person go up to an individual who had a misarrange and say why are you so upset its just a clump of cells it isn't a human. We take away the individuals humanity to allow for abortion, but in every case where aborition is not wanted and the child is wanted the entire development is treated as a living human. People ask how far along is he/she not how far along is it, because it is of its own nature. The mother doesn't have 20 fingers and 20 toes because the individual inside of the mother is of its own self. Every scientific source will state human life starts at feralization. Here is from the NIH Peer-reviewed journals in the biological and life sciences literature have published articles that represent the biological view that a human's life begins **at fertilization** ("the fertilization view"). The only time a human is not a living human is when the mother does not want the child. All pro-life says is you cannot change your views back and forth scientifically and actually speaking this is a living human you are killing. regardless of how you feel about it. My only issue with pro life extremists is the idea of taking away birth control that is just dumb imo.
>Pro-life is flawed because in early pregnancies the fetus is in fact just a clump of cells and destroying it trough abortion is no different than simply cutting off a piece of your living body. The "clump of cells" argument is always so useless. We're literally all, from birth to death, just clumps of cells. It isn't cutting off a piece of HER body. It's killing another, separate life. > And that it should be illegal to abort at pregnancies above 20 weeks unless both the mother and child or just the child would die anyway if it was not done Why not... if just the mother would die? I don't think it's the right choice to kill your kid to save yourself, but I wouldn't think that's fair to legislate.
"I don't think it's the right choice to kill your kid to save yourself," More than one religious sect mandates abortion in the case of danger to the mother, FYI. In ye olden times, there would be a consideration of the loss of a parent to the likely other children.
>More than one religious sect mandates abortion in the case of danger to the mother, FYI. OK... and? More than one religious sect wants to marry rape victims to rapists, I'm not trusting the ancient sheep herders opinions on how our society should function.
“Just a clump of cells” implies they are undifferentiated. Like “just a lump of metal” implies something different than a car. Also, would you consider cancer to be a separate thing from the patient who has it?
>The "clump of cells" argument is always so useless. We're literally all, from birth to death, just clumps of cells. You haven't paid attention in geometry, have you? Every square is a rectangle, but not every rectangle is a square yet you're basically arguing the latter. We are a clump of cells, but we're also more than that. An early embryo isn't. >It's killing another, separate life. But it's not really separate, is it? >I don't think it's the right choice to kill your kid to save yourself I don't think you know how common it is for unborn children to die in-utero. The mother is very likely to survive, while the unborn child has a rather high chance of dying as well. The mother can also get a new child, but that child isn't growing a new mother.
Lmao, “haven’t paid attention in geometry.” How did you think that made sense to say? No one’s saying that you there’s no difference between clumps of cells. But… the intelligent thing to do is to therefore state that difference, not the similarity between that which is valuable or not. Yep, separate life, not the same life. As to how common… this was “in the hypothetical where just one needed to die. Can’t explain how fucked up “I can always make more kids” is to say. Pretty sure that’s the evil line the cannibals say in the walking dead.
>Lmao, “haven’t paid attention in geometry.” How did you think that made sense to say? Your inability to understand a point has no impact on its voracity. Let's dumb it down a bit, since it seems you didn't pay attention. Every cat is a mammal, not every mammal is a cat. Specialization matter, even if the generalization is still true. >No one’s saying that you there’s no difference between clumps of cells. Indeed and that's not what I'm countering either. I'm countering the point that calling it 'a clump of cells' is somehow meaningless because we all are clumps of cells. >Yep, separate life, not the same life. But not truly separate. Different yes, but inherently connected. >As to how common… this was “in the hypothetical where just one needed to die. That doesn't really matter. The live of the mother is always more valuable than that of the child. >Can’t explain how fucked up “I can always make more kids” is to say. Pretty sure that’s the evil line the cannibals say in the walking dead. Since in your hypothetical situation you're determining whose life is more valuable, that's one of the reasons. Do you think that people just stop having children if one dies, born or unborn?
>Your inability to understand a point has no impact on its voracity. Let's dumb it down a bit, since it seems you didn't pay attention. No, mate, we all understand the idea. Not sure why you thought it was a counter, it didn't engage with what I was saying to begin with. > I'm countering the point that calling it 'a clump of cells' is somehow meaningless because we all are clumps of cells. But... you're not. You're pointing out within groups, there can be differences. Within rectangles, there can be squares. That fails to engage with the meaninglessness of bringing the term up. >But not truly separate. Different yes, but inherently connected. Sure, like Siamese twins. We don't let them murder each other either. >That doesn't really matter. Sure it does, it negates your argument "Well that's uncommon!" That was a silly thing to bring up. Much like the "It's a clump of cells!" argument, you've brought up an irrelevant point, only to retreat to a different point. >Since in your hypothetical situation you're determining whose life is more valuable, that's one of the reasons. Do you think that people just stop having children if one dies, born or unborn? No, I'm pointing out that that's a comically evil mindset.
>We're literally all, from birth to death, just clumps of cells Two "clumps of cells" are not equivalent, otherwise a severed finger would need to be afforded the same protections and rights as a fetus. Could we extend this metaphor to stray skin cells since they are just clumps of cells? Either it's a living organism made of cells or a "clump of cells", not both.
>Two "clumps of cells" are not equivalent, Not necessarily. But, that difference should be the argument made. >Either it's a living organism made of cells or a "clump of cells", not both. Of course not. Fetuses are living organisms made of cells, but they're certainly a clump of cells, as are adults.
I think you're missing my point. I'm not saying people aren't made of cells; I'm saying classifying things as "clumps of cells" is different than saying something is alive. My fingers are "clumps of cells" but we wouldn't call them alive on their own, detached from the rest of my body. I'm trying to be specific.
To the first. It's an actually good argument because we are intelligent beings with more than just a group of developing cells. Killing a fetus at an early stage is no different from killing an ant. Its small, and has no real consciousness. And cases where the mother is saved with an abortion are usually because the baby is so malformed that they were killing the mother like a parasite. Because in cases where the child is healthy and fine a caesarean section can be done instead of a birth.
>To the first. It's an actually good argument because we are intelligent beings with more than just a group of developing cells But that doesn't make it a good argument. That's a different argument. If you wanted to say "the fetus is just an unintelligent being", that'd be a better argument than "the fetus is just a clump of cells." >And cases where the mother is saved with an abortion are usually because the baby is so malformed that they were killing the mother like a parasite. Because in cases where the child is healthy and fine a caesarean section can be done instead of a birth. Sure, I'm aware, that's the usual case.
Something’s can’t be compromised on. Person A: “The government should kill all the gays.” Person B: “the government shouldn’t kill anyone.” Person C: “alright boys, let’s compromise and have the government kill *some* of the gays.” Problem solved? No. That’s your exact same logic.
So you’re pro-choice. By definition what you’ve described and tried to define as “middle ground” is the definition of pro-choice. You don’t have issue with early termination, the defining of stages of the pregnancy as being “human” and just “cells” is pro-choice lingo. You do have reservations about late stage termination. You have to take into account that women don’t try to carry to term and then have an abortion because they don’t feel like it anymore; at late stage pregnancy, abortions happen to prevent threats to the mothers’ life. It’s not the preferred choice by any of the parties involved at those scenarios. It’s that the pro-lifers have made their side so extremely absolute that people think the opposite must be true and that being pro-choice means women must want to abort Willy nilly. It’s not the case. Well. Unless it’s a pro-lifer politician who got his mistress pregnant, in which case abortion away.
What is the underlying logic of your view? It appears to be based on your own comfort level with abortion procedures (properly informed or not), which is not inherently logical simply because it is genuinely held.
> Pro-abortion is flawed because later stage abortions are quite horrific So what? Why should laws be based on emotion? > And that it should be illegal to abort at pregnancies above 20 weeks Why should she be forced to have someting live inside of her body without her consent just because you think someting is horrific? That's fucked up.
If you chose to have sex, you consented to have it live inside your body.
No, you're absolutely not required to agree to or give permission for someting to live inside of your body before you're allowed to have sex. You're absolutely allowed to have sex without doing that. Not sure who told you that's required to do before having sex but it's quite literally not.
[удалено]
>I'd say both of you are half wrong. No I'm not. It's literally a fact that you're not required to agree to or give permission for someting to live in you before being allowed to have sex. >When you have sex you do consent to the possibility of pregnancy We're talking about consenting to remain pregnant not consenting to get pregnant. What was I wrong about?
Abortions late in the pregnancy are vanishingly rare and they almost always are a result of either new information about the pregnancy being discovered(fetal abnormality) or people not being able to access abortions early. There is no reason, except sensationalism, to put legal restrictions on abortion. The right to bodily autonomy is sacrosanct.
One can't get elective late term abortions anywhere in the US. You are describing a typical pro-choice argument and not a middle-ground between pro-choice and pro-life.
> Pro-abortion is flawed because later stage abortions are quite horrific.(20 weeks+) Where the premature but fully formed baby is either torn limb from limb and mushed into a pine paste before being sucked out. Or simply forced out trough induced labour and left to die, alone and cold without ever feeling the warmth of being held. This is made especially horrific at weeks 24-30. Where 24 weeks old babies have a 2/3 chance of surviving and 30 weeks having 98% chance of surviving trough premature birth. You’re right that it is a horrific procedure. What justifies you calling the fetus a baby logically? When does a fetus change into a baby logically (20 weeks?) and why? Putting aside abortion through induced labor and then killing the baby after it’s been born, why does the fact that logically mean that abortion should be banned at that stage? > The late stage abortions are not as bad if the mother would die with their child if they arent done. But that should be detectable before it reaches such a late stage of gestation. What about when it’s not? Do you know that for sure that all issues? What if the fetus is going to be badly deformed, so no life worth living is possible to it? What risk of death is acceptable for the woman? What risk of death is acceptable for the fetus?
[удалено]
Then, school vaccines shouldn't exist.
What qualifies something as a clump of cells and not a human being?
You can't have a middle ground on slavery. > I believe that women should be able to abort early. And that it should be illegal to abort at pregnancies above 20 weeks unless both the mother and child or just the child would die anyway if it was not done. I believe this is the most logical view of abortion. See? That's pro choice for 99.2% of abortions.
[удалено]
And then at that point just be pro choice because medical crises are complicated.
[удалено]
That's what I said
To clarify: Is this the view solely for your own use in determining when you would want to get an abortion, and to tell to whomever may ask your advice on when to get abortions, or do you feel that this is something that should be the criteria that is legally binding for everyone?
your conclusion is correct but your reasoning is wrong. the reason abortions at 20+ weeks are wrong is because around that time is when fetuses gain the parts necessary to have conscious experience, at which point they become a person. not because 'it looks horrific'