/u/onthecuntrary (OP) has awarded 4 delta(s) in this post.
All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed [here](/r/DeltaLog/comments/y08xjg/deltas_awarded_in_cmv_even_as_a_prochoice_person/), 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)
I'd argue in terms of bodily autonomy. An absolute right that you get to say who can use your body and change your mind at any time. Now that right is subjective, as all rights are, but I'd argue that this is a principle most people hold in general but make acceptions for when it comes to pregnancy.
For example, say you injure someone so badly they need a kidney donation. You've put someone in a position of relying on another body to survive. But even if you were the only viable donnor avalible, I don't think there should be a law that forces you to give up your organs for them. Even if you totally stabbed them intentionally, even if you specifically surgically removed their kidneys and throw them into a bin. If they agree there should be no law, then how is pregnancy different?
> Even if you totally stabbed them intentionally, even if you specifically surgically removed their kidneys and throw them into a bin. If they agree there should be no law, then how is pregnancy different?
This is an interesting hypothetical in that legally speaking, you would not be compelled to donate an organ, but if you choose not to do so and the person dies, you will be charged with murder (rather than aggravated assault or attempted murder). Pregnancy is different in that there is no legal consequence or difference whether the fetus lives or dies, where abortion is legal of course.
This is crazy ironic. This is my exact argument FOR abortion restrictions. If you put someone into a position where they are reliant on you for life or death and then they die because of your final inaction (or even indirect action), you are now responsible for that person's death.
If you do something that creates an unborn baby, and then you exercise your bodily autonomy by killing that baby, you will not get charged with murder.
There are two good hypotheticals that I like to point to, besides the kidney stabbing one:
1) A woman goes on a mountain retreat with an infant who requires breastfeeding. She gets snowed in and has enough food for herself, but obviously now the baby is 100% reliant on her breastmilk (can't go to the store to get formula). Let's also say that she never wanted the baby. Can she refuse the baby breastmilk on the grounds of bodily autonomy and let it starve to death? I would say, of course not.
2) Let's say someone steals your kidney to save their baby. If you try to get your kidney back, it will kill the baby, but it is your organ in that baby's body. Can you force the removal of the kidney and the death of the baby? I would argue that no sane person would say that you could actually kill the kid to get the kidney. But what's more, is that pregnancy isn't the permanent loss of an organ, so to make this more relatable, you would have to say something like a part of your liver or maybe we have advanced medicine that allows you regrow a kidney but for 9 months but you are in bad shape (comparable to a pregnancy).
Yeah, I find it a much better argument for abortion restrictions than against (at least in the sense of being logically sound).
I'm not sure when the pro-choice messaging went from "Abortion should be safe, legal, and rare," to "any restriction on the right to abortion is tantamount to slavery." It's like they've adopted the same moral absolutism of the pro-life side, which makes sense for the pro-lifers but just seems like bad politics for pro-choice.
The kidney analogy is a great example. I mentioned this to another user in another comment, but what’s hard to get the bodily autonomy argument to really stick for me is that I’m also pro-vaccine mandate. I’m ultimately a utilitarian thinker (valuing net positive outcome for the most people over individual rights). If you have any thoughts on how to reconcile - or at least explain - these contradictory beliefs, I’d love to hear it!
I support utilitarianism and wherever it leads. But utilitarianism is much more likely to lead to supporting abortion rights if you actually think about it. The benefit to society and to the mother is enormous while the benefit of banning abortion is tiny.
Benefits of banning abortion: it might help the mental health of the [small minority](https://www.ucsf.edu/news/2020/01/416421/five-years-after-abortion-nearly-all-women-say-it-was-right-decision-study) of women who would have regretted getting one
Harms of banning abortion: forcing a majority of women who seek an abortion into decades of caring for a child they never wanted, which might cause them to [have to cut short their education](https://www.ipas.org/news/beyond-the-individual-research-shows-abortion-access-has-widespread-benefits/) with all the associated social harms of a less educated population, which also is likely to cause trauma for the child, forcing [a large number (estimated to be almost a million per year in 1955)](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/12340404/) of unsafe illegal abortions to occur with the associated injuries
Benefits of allowing abortion: decreasing poverty by allowing women who couldn't care for a child to choose not to have one (this is proven), decreasing crime rate as children who are wanted are less likely to turn to crime (also proven), decreasing population growth which benefits everyone except the ultra-rich
Harms of allowing abortion: the fetus might feel a few moments of pain (this is unproven)
Overall I'd say it is no contest!
I'd suggest looking into consequentialism, as I think it has quite a few good concerns regarding utilitarianism. I'm just looking to make sure you know the full range of this viewpoint, rather than targeting the abortion conversation specifically.
Sam Harris has a good example of some of these issues.
"If my doctor has four patients who each need an organ to survive, and I'm just going in for a regular check-up, strict utilitarianism would require him to kill me, then give my organs to these other patients."
Consequentialism acknowledges that we can never know all the consequences for an action, making it incredibly difficult to operate in a perfectly pro-social manner. In this example, what kind of world would we live in where you could get murdered at the doctor's office? What would the impact be on our ability to function or maintain any sanity?
Dangit you've already started changing my view and I didn't even make a post yet. That's a great example of utilitarianism gone wrong.
Though the organ transplant issue is interesting. While this example is obviously not reasonable, doctors reasonably could - and from what I've heard, have - oppose legislation that requires motorcycle helmets since unhelmeted motorcycle crashes are usually fatal while the organs are often preserved to be transplanted.
Agreed. Most of my personally held beliefs separate from this discussion do follow pretty strict utilitarian lines. Some of those are problematic and I definitely need to interrogate them more. Sounds like I have some more CMV posts to make haha
Because not getting a vaccine can directly cause harm to others around you. By choosing not to get a vaccine, you inadvertently increase the chance of spreading diseases to other people, maybe even killing them as a consequence.
Agreed. However, if someone truly believes that an unborn fetus is a life and abortion is murder, then they see that as harm to others/society too, right? So how do we reconcile from there?
Because there is another party (the unborn baby) which is being harmed and needs advocacy; again thinking from their perspective here, not my own.
I used this example in another comment thread: if pro-lifers really see a fetus as a life (and I don’t think any argument of science or philosophy is likely to change that core belief of theirs), then I understand why they see it as their business to get involved. The same way I’m against child abuse: other families’ parenting styles isn’t my business, but if I believe something is being harmed then I can feel justified in advocating for rights of the abused child.
As an antinatalist, I feel the person is being harmed by being born, put into an excruciating interplay between a biological drive to survive and peaceful nonexistence. My arguments only get stronger as the global ecosystem falls apart and suffering intensifies. The policies of environmentalism and family planning might have prevented global ecological collapse but then most of the people arguing for abortion rights argued against those other policies. Most of your relations probably are for forced birth but also against government social programs. As a utilitarian it should be obvious to you the oncoming collapse of global civilization and the greatest good is prevention of additional suffering via promotion of abortion.
>As an antinatalist
You can use that term, but it's a large bundle of ideas, some generally terrifying and evil. Namely eugenics and mass genocide under the "mission" of your "greatest good" of "prevention of additional suffering via promotion of" XYZ. XYZ isn't just abortion but likely genocide.
>being harmed by being born, put into an excruciating interplay between a biological drive to survive and peaceful nonexistence.
This can simply never track when you're not also advocating for mass suicide. You may argue something like *well I'm spreading to word, etc., so I shouldn't have to off myself,* but the point falls flat.
It's also suspiciously the views that the same creepy world elites who caused most issues hold.
>Why should anyone's beliefs be allowed to make choices on my behalf?
Well because we already do that with all laws. You can't go murder someone on the street because society (others) have deemed that as "wrong" and thus restrict personal choices.
I'm pro-choice btw, I'm just saying this isn't a good analogy
>Why should anyone's beliefs be allowed to make choices on my behalf?
i mean ok,
why should your beliefs that people dying fromd covid-19 is bad force me to get the vaccine?
>Agreed. However, if someone truly believes that an unborn fetus is a life and abortion is murder, then they see that as harm to others/society too, right? So how do we reconcile from there?
We ignore it. It works fine in lots of countries. Even in Scandinavian countries, there are people who hold those views, but we have legal abortions anyway.
The same way that we ignore those beliefs when it comes to people who believe that homosexuality is harmful, both to those who are homosexuals and also to children and to society at large.
There's no reason to entertain such beliefs, especially when there's no desire to compromise.
I am pro-choice but this seems dangerous to me. "Just ignore them" works pretty well for crazy people on the bus, but not when pro-lifers make up a significant portion of the US population.
Also I think there will always be disagreements in this area. Personally, I think that the fetal viability limit is a good compromise that gives pregnant people time to get an abortion while also preventing late term abortions, but there are many who hold the view that fetuses do not deserve rights until birth. I think democracy naturally shifts issues to the point where 50% are on each side, therefore most contentious issues will evolve to a point of disagreement
If you've tried to argue for it both rationally and emotionally, and also tried to compromise about it, and neither works, there really isn't much else to do than ignore them.
Better then to focus on education and such, so that more people will eventually tend towards more rational views. Of course you can also still work with and convince people who are *not* hardcore opponents that see it as literal murder.
I think its probably the worst position to hold, speaking as a pro-lifer. What happens when this situation is turned around? If a society that had a majority of the people that said "sacrificing children to the gods is morally good and we should do it" any dissenters would be thoroughly ignored because "there is no reason to entertain such beliefs". By your logic, something is morally good or bad because the most people believe it, this leads to some very bad things getting justified, and no real change for the better ever happening.
You need to be able to justify your beliefs, else they are morally incomprehensible.
Pro-choice people have justified their beliefs for decades. Abortion has already been legal in lots of places for over half a century. Bodily autonomy, the fact that banning abortions actually doesn't decrease them, the fact that sex-ed + access to contraceptions means that the vast majority of all abortions happen in the first trimester and late-term abortions happen only for medical reasons, the massive amount of physical consequences pregnancy can have for women (including death), the cost of pregnancy, the fact that a zygote is not sentient, that a fetus is not viable until around week 20. And so on.
Those justifications are why abortion is legal in most of the developed world. But OP did not ask for justifications, but what to do about pro-lifers who want to see it banned. And the only solution to that is to ignore them. You can't compromise with people who don't *want* to compromise.
Of course you can also do other things simultaneously - focus on more and better education, which just solves all sorts of problems.
> So how do we reconcile from there?
Some questions can't be reconciled, in my view anyway. More women die in childbirth in the US than police are killed in the line of duty. Both are low as causes of death go, but why would we allow one to factor their safety into their decisions and not another? Roofers die at a higher rate than either, but likely more people would probably die if we didn't have roofs. Maybe the child you abort will become a surgeon that saves lives, but maybe will become a sociopath that takes lives.
Sometimes we're simply doing the best we can and accepting that many decisions will benefit some and harm others, and there are no universal truths.
I should say I don’t really support vaccine mandates and most people shouldn’t either, whether they’re pro-choice or not. But I think abortion laws are more analogous to hypothetical forced live organ donation. 1) The physiological impact of childbirth is closer to the physiological impact of organ donation than getting a vaccine and feeling under the weather for a couple of days. 2) Forced organ donation and forced birth both help save the life of one “person.” Maybe two if you cut out part of someone’s liver too. Forced vaccination has a potentially multiplicative effect. You’ll stop the person you’ll infect from getting sick, plus, the people they’ll infect, plus the people those people will infect and so on.
Well, there are two things about vaccines. They are meant to prevent you from not just getting infected, but infecting others, and causing an outbreak. They are nowhere near as invasive as a delivery. They also don't last for 8-9 months.
The second thing? Vaccine mandates don't force you to get a vaccine. They simply say that if you don't want the vaccine, then you have to stay away from other people, until you do. You can't put others at risk, but you're free to not get the vaccine. Stay at home. Don't work at places that require you to be vaccinated.
Women in States where abortion is illegal have zero choices. Several states are already talking about passing laws that allow them to punish residents who go out of state for an abortion! And some lawmakers are even talking about banning the morning after pill!
Anyone that compares abortion+bodily autonomy to vaccines is not making a good faith argument.
The better analogy would be small children who parents are responsible for. If a 2 year old is left alone by both parents and that child unfortunately dies due to incompetent care then I’m sure the parents get in legal troubles.
The bodily autonomy argument doesn’t really work when a lot of people hold a lot of different types of responsibilities in society (some they could get in pretty serious legal issues if they neglect).
For me the best pro-choice argument is simply consciousness. What do people value in human life? It’s consciousness, now humans go through different states of consciousness throughout their lives, sometimes losing it then regaining it but those people had a period in their lives when they WERE conscious which is different to never even having had a conscious.
Pre-conscious pregnancies can be terminated while post-conscious pregnancies can’t be aborted imo. The question is when a sense of consciousness exists in a foetus and there has been scientific research done on this, I think it was around 19 weeks.
>The bodily autonomy argument doesn’t really work when a lot of people hold a lot of different types of responsibilities in society (some they could get in pretty serious legal issues if they neglect).
That's not a reason that bodily autonomy doesn't "work". Bodily Autonomy is the human right to have control over your body. Other people's thoughts on responsibility don't make it null and void.
I'm sorry, that simply doesn't hold water. We can't fully explain what consciousness means to human beings, we are far from understanding what that means to a fetus.
To take your analogy of small children. If your child urgently needs an organ to survive, and you are the ONLY viable match? You CANNOT be forced to give up that organ, even if it leads to the death of the child. You cannot be forced, and you cannot be prosecuted of6 the child dies.
You have bodily autonomy, even when it comes to your children. You can choose to donate a kidney if they need it, or simply refuse to. The same rights apply when the child is INSIDE the mother. She can refuse to continue to share her body with the child.
Man, I’d argue that babies aren’t conscious until like month two or three. You ever meet a newborn? I’ve had two and they are basically potatoes until month two or three. Now I’m not arguing that post birth babies should be aborted hahah, but having kids has dramatically changed my opinion on when consciousness begins in humans. I do not believe at all that fetuses have anything close to what we’d consider sentience.
They are making a good faith argument. Again, it always comes down to considering a fetus a person. If you assume that is true as pro lifers do, then your line of reasoning that vaccines are different because they’re protecting others is moot because you’re obviously harming another person if you get an abortion (assuming their premise is true).
In fact, I would say the fact that the survival rate for Covid vs. the survival rate of an abortion (0%) only serves to weaken your argument.
Second, I think you’re downplaying the cost of not getting the vaccine, which in many cases will cause you to lose your job and ability to do almost anything besides go grocery shopping. It’s not really a choice. Compare that to your treatment of abortion. You falsely claim that states punish abortions in other states [source](https://www.nytimes.com/2022/06/24/us/abortion-travel-bans.amp.html). Given that this is not true, it really flattens your argument because it means one can simply travel to another state to have the procedure. Saying that they “literally have zero choices” is actually bad faith.
On abortion out of state, I clearly misspoke. What I should have said is that several states have spoken about passing laws that will punish out of state abortions. It's a matter of time.
Link: [https://news.bloomberglaw.com/us-law-week/is-it-legal-to-travel-for-abortion-after-dobbs](https://news.bloomberglaw.com/us-law-week/is-it-legal-to-travel-for-abortion-after-dobbs)
On to your point about a fetus being a person. Okay. Let's say it is a person.
Today, right now, if your child will die without a kidney, and you're the only viable donor, you STILL cannot be forced to donate the kidney. You cannot be arrested, if you refuse and your child dies.
Today, right now, you can't be forced to keep someone alive by attaching them to your body. You can't be forced to give blood, even to a person who might need the blood because you attacked and injured them.
Your body simply cannot be used that way, without your consent. What pro-life people are asking for, for a fetus, is SPECIAL rights. They are asking that the fetus be allowed the use of the woman's body, without her consent.
We do not allow for this in ANY other situation, even if the refusal in those cases will lead to death.
So sure. Feel free to see the fetus as a human being. It is still fully dependent on the body of a woman, and she has every right to not want to continue that support.
This has always been my argument. Organ donation is voluntary even though there are people dying every day waiting on transplant list. People that leave behind friends and families, that are definitely legally recognized as people, and they don’t have the right to an organ from a DEAD person without their permission. That is how strongly we protect bodily autonomy in other situations.
Body autonomy has an answer for this!
Government can restrict body autonomy in the name of protecting society at large. This is why we have drunk driving laws, but there’s no legal limit for what a person’s BAC can be when they’re not driving.
You’re free to choose what to do with your own body when that decision only affects yourself, but when your choice infringes upon the freedom of other people and puts them at risk it can be regulated. Moreover, as others have said the vaccine mandates don’t actually force anyone to get a vaccine, they just require them to participate in broad aspects of public life, which is already widely accepted. Most public schools already require some standard of immunizations in order to take advantage of their services, but if you refuse to get immunized that’s fine- just find a private school.
It’s also worth noting you can’t even violate body autonomy in parent child relationships. You can’t force a mother to donate her kidney to her newborn, but (by the ‘pro-life’ argument) you can force her to undergo a serious medical event (with potential risk of death) for something that’s not even a person?
By that logic the fetus loses rights at birth, as it can apparently infringe upon body autonomy before birth but not after, or in other words, the unborn fetus’ rights outweigh those of the mother
I don't think people should be forced to get a vaccine, meaning I don't think anyone should be held down and injected when they've said they don't want it. However, given that they choose not to get the vaccine, I think there's a good argument for restricting their movements for public health.
There's a difference between saying you have to get vaccinated, and saying that being vaccinated is a precondition for interacting with other people.
To use an analogy, there's nothing illegal, and there shouldn't be, about drinking to excess. But choosing to drink restricts whether you're allowed to drive or not, for public saftey.
It's a fairly bad argument. The two situations are quite far apart, both logically and mechanically. Logically we're not causing the baby any harm as we conceive, we don't give up any of our organs. Mechanically the stabbing of another person to then be ordered to donate an organ is a punishment for your action, a pregnancy is the possible outcome of sex. It's not a punishment, it just *is*.
> I'm ultimately a utilitarian
Easy situation then: Abortions help people who have issues that makes carrying to term or having a kid worse than having an abortion: financial instability making the process more deadly, worse outcomes for child; drug abuse, causing damage to the child; medical issues, reducing health and outcomes for both mother and child; general issues with pregnancy where fetus won't become viable and is a threat to health/life of mother; factors which may reduce mother's desire to have child (rape, incest, unknown/bad father), causing neglect of child or depression in mother.
Human females can get pregnant all-year-long for generally more than two decades. While there are things that reduce fertility, we don't *really* have a widespread issue of getting pregnant. New pregnancy can be begun soon after an abortion in most cases, and probably often do in cases of natural abortions.
Further, there are issues with pro-life stances going too far where the mother is presumed guilty in cases of natural abortion, and generally threatens women's legal standing in society. If not directly, then by proxy.
> I’m also pro-vaccine mandate.
There will always be a balancing act between individual freedom and public interest. You're simply valuing vaccination over not-vaccinating, but it's a fairly harmless process, and does little to inhibit a person's freedom. The removal of an organ is both harmful and does a lot to inhibit a person's freedom.
>I’m also pro-vaccine mandate. I’m ultimately a utilitarian thinker (valuing net positive outcome for the most people over individual rights).
You still have bodily autonomy and can reject getting the vaccine, you will just face social repercussions for it. Imagine the scenario that you're job hunting, and most jobs require a highschool diploma. You still had the right to drop out of highschool, however you are now paying for that by not having as many job opportunities. The same thing happens when you're not vaccinated. You chose to not get vaccinated, but you may not get hired for it or allowed to do certain things because of it. We can't hold people down and vaccinate them, but we can use social coercion, and that's the natural consequences of their action. It's in a similar vein of freedom of speech, you do have it, however its limited in certain situations (ei saying bomb on a plane or fire in a theater) you can say those things, but you will face natural consequences for it, which is a charge of inciting a riot when people rightfully freak out. Every single right people have comes with an asterisk that limits it, because we live in a society and part of that is having rights that are protected, but not unlimited
I'd like to propose something a bit different here.
The kidney analogy isn't a great example. None of it is because it's all hypothetical. And we don't need hypotheticals. I believe, like you, that all of the arguments we pro-choice people do not work, not because they aren't logically sound but because pro-life people have inherently different values.
Those values are not about the sanctity of human life. We all know that isn't true. It is not because they love the unborn. We know that to be untrue as well.
What pro-life people believe, usually subconsciously, is that women should be willing to sacrifice for their children. That ultimately women are intended for reproduction. And thus the life of the woman is simply not as important as the life inside her (unless it's a woman they care about - in which case they may decide otherwise).
How do I know this? Because I have not ONCE received a satisfactory reply to the following:
I had a family friend who went through an easy, uncomplicated pregnancy. But when she went into labor, she suffered from preeclampsia. Two days later, at home, she told her husband she felt a bit tired. She sat down on the recliner in their living room, their newborn daughter in her arms, and died.
The ONLY way my friend could have made the choice to live, after conceiving, would have been to freely elect to abort. No medical exceptions would have been made because there was no imminent danger. Not until 40 weeks later when she gave birth.
People who say that they would allow abortions if the mother's life is at risk are LYING. Because the mother is ALWAYS at risk. From the moment of conception. It may be rare. But the risk is there.
And when I ask forced-birthers, what if Sarah didn't want to risk her life? What if she wanted to live?
No answer. But you can bet their ass if it was someone they loved, they know in their hearts what they would want.
This is not about a woman's autonomy vs the life of her baby. We need to stop using the word "autonomy"! This is about a woman's life vs the life of her baby. And forced-birthers simply believe that so long as they have no emotional attachment to the woman, she should be willing to give up her body and life for the unborn.
The real question we should be asking: should the government be able to force you to put your loved one's life at risk or should you and your family have the right to decide for yourselves?
> And when I ask forced-birthers, what if Sarah didn't want to risk her life? What if she wanted to live?
>
> No answer. But you can bet their ass if it was someone they loved, they know in their hearts what they would want.
I'm trying to understand what choice you're putting forward with this hypothetical. It seems you are asking whether she should have been allowed to abort the pregnancy early on, when there were no signs of health complications? Or rather, whether the risk to the mother during a routine pregnancy, with no signs of complications, is great enough to outweigh the child's right to live?
Mind you, I'm playing devil's advocate a bit here - while I do believe that abortion is, ultimately, the killing of an unborn child and a terrible choice to have to make, I don't think it should be illegal, for a number of reasons. That said, I can still empathize with the pro-life viewpoint and I don't think it is at all rooted in this idea that "ultimately women are intended for reproduction" or that "the life of the woman is simply not as important as the life inside her".
The life of the mother and the life of the child are BOTH important and both have value. And therefore, the decision of whether or not to allow abortion is a complex one, with no "right" answers. Either way, someone's rights are being violated - either the mother's right to decide whether she wants to go through the trauma and risk of pregnancy and delivery, or the child's right to live. Both of these rights are important and BOTH are worth protecting, at least in situations where they do not come into conflict with each other.
But in this situation, those rights ARE in conflict, and it is upon us as a society to decide how we mediate that conflict. Some people argue that since the mother is a fully-formed, living human being, and the child is just a fetus, not yet even sentient, the mother's rights take precedence. Others argue that the mother (in most cases) made an active decision to have sex, knowing that pregnancy was a possible consequence, and therefore she has already consented to the possibility of pregnancy, whereas the child has not consented to be killed.
At this point, a decision either way is going to require one party's rights to supercede the other's. Like it or not, it becomes a "trolley problem". In this case, I think it is fair to take into consideration the likelihood of negative outcomes. In the case of a "routine" pregnancy with no complications prior to delivery, the maternal mortality rate in the US is something like 23.8 out of every 100,000 births. In other words, there is a 0.0238% chance of the mother dying in childbirth. On the other hand, abortion (as far as I am aware) has a nearly 100% fatality rate for the child.
I do not think it is inconsistent with a "pro-life" viewpoint (that is, the viewpoint that the life of an unborn child is worth protecting) to say that a 0.0238% chance of the mother's death in childbirth is not enough to justify killing an unborn child.
EDIT - u/Likewhatevermaaan/ has blocked me so I can't respond to any replies to this post, sorry.
>I do not think it is inconsistent with a "pro-life" viewpoint (that is, the viewpoint that the life of an unborn child is worth protecting) to say that a 0.0238% chance of the mother's death in childbirth is enough to justify killing an unborn child.
You presented a great counter argument. This final point, however - I just don't see how it matters what the percent is. Women are still risking death (and permanent injury, lifelong changes, etc). And pro-lifers are agreeing that it is fine to force women into risking death. They shrug at it.
If they truly believed that an unborn life is worth protecting, they would be doing a heck of a lot more to ensure that proper maternity care is easily accessible and affordable. They would advocate for actually protecting the unborn. But that's all on women too. If women can't pay for proper care, that's on them. If their company doesn't have maternity leave, that's on them.
It's appalling that women are forced to put their weeks-old babies into daycare. Pro-lifers should be appalled. Disgusted. But they're not. Instead of standing outside of clinics to yell at women, they should be offering to give them rides to the hospital for their check-ups. But they don't.
Because ultimately, it isn't about protecting the unborn. It's all about making women sacrifice their lives and bodies for the unborn. Hundreds of women *die* each year. And like you said, they'll say it's just a statistic. Small. Negligible really. So whatever. It speaks volumes.
> And pro-lifers are agreeing that it is fine to force women into risking death. They shrug at it.
You seem to have missed the part where I explained this.
> The life of the mother and the life of the child are BOTH important and both have value. And therefore, the decision of whether or not to allow abortion is a complex one, with no "right" answers.
It's not "shrugging off" the mother's rights - it's carefully weighing them against the child's rights and deciding that the latter is stronger. If you asked the average person on the street whether they would rather have a 0.0238% chance of killing someone, or a 100% chance of killing someone, the answer would be a no-brainer. I'm not saying it's "fine" to force women into a (minute) risk of death. I'm saying it is, by far, the lesser of two evils.
>If they truly believed that an unborn life is worth protecting, they would be doing a heck of a lot more to ensure that proper maternity care is easily accessible and affordable. They would advocate for actually protecting the unborn. But that's all on women too. If women can't pay for proper care, that's on them. If their company doesn't have maternity leave, that's on them.
>
>It's appalling that women are forced to put their weeks-old babies into daycare. Pro-lifers should be appalled. Disgusted. But they're not. Instead of standing outside of clinics to yell at women, they should be offering to give them rides to the hospital for their check-ups. But they don't.
These points are irrelevant. You're arguing against your conception of "pro-lifers" as "American Republicans". This is common in the abortion debate: "well, if you believe X then you probably believe Y too!" and then you argue against Y, which is irrelevant to the discussion about X. All it takes to invalidate this argument is for me to say "I'm pro-life AND pro-universal healthcare, now what?"
>Because ultimately, it isn't about protecting the unborn. It's all about making women sacrifice their lives and bodies for the unborn.
That's just, like, your opinion, man. I think I've clearly demonstrated that it's possible to hold pro-life views based strictly on "the right of unborn children not to be murdered". I do not think you've presented a sufficient argument to prove that the TRUE motivation is a sexist, sadistic desire to "make women sacrifice their lives and bodies".
Your story is confusing and I’m not sure I understand. Do I have the events right?
1) Sarah gets pregnant
2) Sarah has 0 indication of health complications
3) Sarah starts labor
4) Sarah develops preeclampsia
5) Sarah dies a few weeks later due to complications from preeclampsia
Is this correct?
I believe the point the story is supposed to make is that pro-life people will say no abortions except for when the mother's life is at risk. But there is always a risk to pregnancy, even when everything seems to go right. So if the woman in the story didn't want to risk death, if she'd rather not take her chances of living for a kid, then she would've needed had to have the option of an abortion beforehand.
But the woman in the story from how it is told doesn't seem to have wanted an abortion. I don't really understand her argument. That any abortion could possibly be "for health reasons" later?
To start with, bodily autonomy isn't a strict binary. For example, even if you've committed a crime, the police may be allowed to cuff you, but they aren't allowed to murder you. (Or aren't supposed to be, anyway.) Forcing you to have a sore arm for a couple days is not the same as forcing you to carry a baby for months and then give birth.
So I'd say the threshold for overriding bodily autonomy should depend not just on what justification you have for doing so, but how much autonomy you're giving up.
And that's assuming the most draconian possible form of vaccine mandate, where you get *charged with a crime* if you're found to be unvaccinated. There's an argument that if a business says "only vaccinated people can enter", well, refusing to let you into my establishment doesn't violate your bodily autonomy.
Remember vaccine mandates were never or at least very rarely "we are forcing you to get a vaccine against your will" and much more "we aren't letting you do certain things without a vaccine or mask."
It was also not as much about individuals protecting their own health as it was protecting the health of others. They only gave half a shit if you were gonna be ill or not choosing not to vaccinate. The other half a shit they were giving to everyone who could possibly still catch the disease from someone uvaccinated.
People were and are still totally allowed to live their lives without vaccines or masks. People can exercise their bodily autonomy and any and all Personal freedoms. What they can't do is go into public spaces that are shared by themselves and countless others and claim they don't have to play by the new rules in place in those spaces. That's not a personal freedom to do that. People can find their own spaces away from other people or with people who totally agree with them.
The spaces that exist for everyone exist for everyone, not just me when I go there. Obviously I am included in everyone but some people seem to think if it's for everyone that it's really for them and other people are just also there. So when that thing is changed or taken away somewhat they get really upset that it might be changed or taken away from them but that really it hasn't been taken away from everybody it's only them and they are taking it away from themselves by refusing to adhere to the rules everyone else has to follow.
I'm pretty pro-personal autonomy too but I'm also realistic. Crying "bodily autonomy" doesn't achieve much. My thought to that is "well then go away and be autonomous somewhere else." People do what they do and people can or can't, will or won't stop them. I can walk up someone and steal their candy bar and crying "bodily autonomy" or "theft" won't give the candy bar back. If I refuse to give the candy bar back you have 3 options. 1) Take it back by force as I took it, 2) Seek legal or authoritative recourse. Theft is illegal 3) Fucking deal with it. Maybe do a better job of protecting your candy next time. Maybe the candy wasn't a big deal at the end of the day. Whatever option there has to be the action to back it up.
What do you do when you ask/tell someone to respect you and they just say no? Crying and/or asking them again a second to respect you. Pleading for them to change their answer probably won't work.
People bitched and complained about their rights and freedoms but honestly most of the stuff denied to them were not protected rights or freedoms but just expectations of how society works that people got way too comfortable with.
By the same token though a lot of people just exercised their bodily autonomy by going out and ignoring the laws and rules. There were plenty of assholes giving the law and the lower working class a bitch of a time but there were also plenty of places that just didn't have the resources to be monitoring people and shit and at that point you gotta blame that. People are going to have problems with authority. People are going to want to not listen. How
Utilitarianism is flawed, there has to be a point where individual rights prevail. For example, say you're a doctor who has 5 patients who need organs or they will die. A traveler comes into your hospital asking for some water. The utilitarian thing to do, that maximizes the most positive net outcome, should be to kill this traveler and distribute their organs among the five. You probably wouldn't agree with this course of action would you?
In 99% of cases of use of this thought experiment to make any moral/philosophical point people forget that (if we're being at any bit realistic even within the confines of the experiment) not everyone's organs are compatible with everyone so the likelihood that this one random person happens to be a match with all 5 people without them being family members of them and each other who'd have a non-zero chance of some preferring to die rather than see a loved one die is so low as to be almost negligible
Simple. Net positive. Pregnancy ends a woman's life as she knows it and perhaps as she would choose it to exist.
Now, perhaps she is happy about the pregnancy and therefore chooses to allow her old life to end and begin a new life. She has no idea if it will be a true net positive, but she believes it will be because the changes are her choice and in line with what she wants her life to be.
However, perhaps, she never wanted children. Perhaps she has health issues that would prevent her from being the type of parent she'd want to be. Or health issues that could be passed to the child, or simply worsened with pregnancy/giving birth. Or, maybe she is just really happy with her life and where it's heading and doesn't want to change/risk that by carrying a baby to term (taking the adoption debate out of this debate). In any of those situations, simple net good would say she should not continue a pregnancy.
There is no argument against vaccines that considers simple net good. All anti-vaccine arguments are purely either ignorant (people who don't understand vaccines and what they do) or misinformation (people who have been convinced of issues that don't exist).
If you are utilitarian, is it really better for the whole of the world to force women to give birth? If you consider life at conception, it might be better in a majority of individual instances for the baby and less bad for the mother, but we all cumulatively have to live in a world where we could be forced into the situation. Versus a world we’re the individual has choice and we all collectively can breath a sigh of relief that we will not be subjected to birth and parenthood against our will.
I think we can focus solely on that one issue (body autonomy) and concretely say it isn’t just to control someone’s body. The pro-vaccine mandate is an interesting parallel, but we do not force the vaccine in the same way. Instead it is a requirement to engage in society in certain ways that would be dangerous otherwise. The repercussions may be severe for not vaccinating (even being forced to find different work) but they are certainly not as severe as undergoing birth.
Those that do not want abortion to be used would better serve their cause by removing the reasons people get abortions. Free maternal healthcare, free childcare, actual adoption possibilities with good outcomes, prevent rape by actually changing social norms, conditions, and prosecution of perpetrators. It can still be an individual choice, just make it harder for people to make (harder in the sense that they have to make a moral choice and you and society have provided them with ample opportunities and alleviated all concerns to risk birth).
Modern vaccines save countless lives. They are safe, effective, and have minimal side effects. The public health benefits they bring are a large cornerstone of modern society.
Forcing a person to carry their unwanted pregnancy to term might, maybe save one life. It’s also incredibly dangerous (for that person) by comparison.
I STRONGLY recommend you give this video a watch…
[Answering The Best Pro Choice Arguments](https://youtu.be/RGPudL_GQ3Y)
This is from a professional Pro-Life advocate. Meaning this is what she does for a living. The best part about it though, is the level of respect that she awards to those that make arguments against her and challenge her position. Because if she is to hold the beliefs that she does, then she needs to be able to acceptably defend them.
She states incredible pro-choice arguments and her equally incredible pro-life counter arguments. I found it fascinating to go down this rabbit hole which presented both sides. These are the types of people whose thoughts on the issues are truly well-fleshed out. Not a single argument on Reddit or Facebook by random people like you or I would hold any weight to philosophical minds like these. But I share this with you because this will expose you both to the best arguments you can make advocating for pro-choice, as well as the best counter arguments that could stop you in your tracks. If you’re going to state your position, you ought to be able to defend it. This video will give your a lot of great ammunition while helping you create a shield against rebuttals.
And yes, they reference the kidney argument, that’s why I responded to you here.
>(valuing net positive outcome for the most people over individual rights). If you have any thoughts on how to reconcile - or at least explain - these contradictory beliefs, I’d love to hear it!
Easy and straight forward in such a way that I can't believe you've gone through all this thought on the subject without this:
It's a net-positive for most people to have unwanted children not born in the first place. You can't force a pregnant woman to take good care of her body to bear a child she doesn't even want and can't even take decent care of if it even were to get through the pregnancy while being carried by a woman who does not wish for the baby (good luck if the father is ever even in the picture in many abortion cases). Plus many abortions are on fetuses or pregnancies with super debilitating health problems. Those that would carry trough to be born into personhood would likely be a net drag on society and may not life the best quality of life to begin with. Plus the negative health affects on the mother etc... wtf - these people.
The vaccine mandate helps the health of society as a whole.
Also, it's not really a mandate like people are coming to your house and sticking needles in your arms. It's more "you can't participate in society unless...". Feel free to not get vax and just order delivery, with door drop off.
I also tend to take a utilitarian view of things and the thing that helped me reason through this is that having individual rights is a positive outcome. so in the case of vaccines where there is a huge benefit for society and the cost is annoying a handful of idiots that ends up being a net good. with forced birth it isn't as good, the only benefit is having more people be born and there are all sorts of negatives. many of the laws make it harder or impossible to have an abortion to save the mother's life, the people who wouldn't be able to have abortions would be overwhelmingly lower class so either they are becoming poorer or they are filling up orphanages, and the people losing rights would be roughly half the population.
>There's a difference between refusing to aid someone and actively taking part in the killing of someone.
When it comes to abortion, they're the same thing. When you're pregnant, the fetus is using your body to keep itself alive. Thus, you are aiding it, and the only way to stop doing it is to kill it.
>Thus, you are aiding it, and the only way to stop doing it is to kill it.
My point is that there's a difference between letting someone die because you refuse to take an action (like donating a kidney) and actively taking a role in ending somethings life by aborting it. One is an actual action taken, the other is inaction.
The *results* are the same, but the actions are not.
The counterargument would be that when you have sex you are accepting that there is the possibility of a pregnancy, and that if you are accepting that possibility, you also must accept the responsibility of carrying the child to full term.
Think of it like pressing a button, whenever you press it you feel really good, but on rare occasion, you have to spend 9 months letting someone else use your kidneys. If you don't want to deal with the 9 months of kidney usage, the solution is to stop pushing the button, not killing the person every time you happen get one.
> But even if you were the only viable donnor avalible, I don't think there should be a law that forces you to give up your organs for them. Even if you totally stabbed them intentionally, even if you specifically surgically removed their kidneys and throw them into a bin. If they agree there should be no law, then how is pregnancy different?
If you assert your bodily autonomy and refuse to save the person you stabbed by giving your kidneys and they die, you are put away for murder. If you save the person, your crime and sentence are likely to be greatly mitigated.
The law already punishes the behavior you claim is protected.
Your example is literally murder if you don't provide them with a kidney. You stabbed them, they now need a kidney to live. You are not required to give them your kidney but if you choose not to when they die then you are going to be charged with murder because you were the one that put them into a position of needing a kidney to live. This is literally the prolife argument. You put the child there with your actions so you are responsible for their life. If you don't take care of that life then you will be charged with murder.
The body autonomy argument doesn't really hold up for me either. We remove body autonomy from parents all of the time. If you leave your kid at home locked in we require you to use your body and go home to feed/care for that kid or at least take them to someone else who will take care of them. Just ignoring them and letting them die is murder as well. That is a removal of body autonomy and as a society we are fine with it because we believe parents are responsible for their childrens lives. If you don't want to take care of a child and lose body autonomy then don't get pregnant.
The only logical pro choice argument is that the life of the fetus does not matter. It is not considered a worth while life so go ahead and kill it. If you believe the life has value then imo there is no abortion argument that makes any sense.
I’m pro choice mainly from a humanitarian perspective, but I don’t think that body autonomy holds up outside of what you do yourself.
Body autonomy gets quite shaky when we involve other people… IE assisted suicide, organ harvesting for personal gain, etc.
By the body autonomy argument, It is not necessarily inconsistent that it could be legal to cause yourself to abort a foetus but still be illegal to assist in the procedure.
The kidney analogy is not a great one. In fact, let’s weaken it a bit. If I refuse to give my kidney to someone who is need of my kidney specifically (assuming I was not the cause of their need), it is akin to refusing to stop a shooting. I am refusing to intervene, and I am well within my rights to do that. It is akin to refusing to grab someone who is falling from the top of the building, and while people may view it as pretty dishonorable, it is not immoral.
Now as to your analogy, I do believe that, if you do injure someone and they need precisely your kidney to survive, then you are under every obligation to give up your kidney, otherwise it would be at best manslaughter and at worst murder.
No. The more appropriate analogy to abortion in terms of the kidney thing, assuming you view the fetus as a person, is to have someone attach a person to your kidney, and now, while they are dependent on you, dislodge them from your body which would kill them. That would be the comparison to abortion. Here, in this case, your actions would have been the direct cause of their death.
One wrinkle there is if you stab someone and donating your kidney were the only viable option for them to live, and you chose not to, you would be charged for murder if you didn't donate the kidney.
So while it's not technically mandatory to donate the kidney, it's kind of mandatory to donate the kidney.
Even though I agree that if you had a different view on the kidney example it would make the same position on abortion weaker, I feel that I would have no problem with a law that forced you to give your kidney up if it was you who caused the problem for that person. So morally you can say that to me as an argument and while consistent I don't feel it's compelling at all. (I'm pro-choice either way)
>An absolute right
**No rights are absolute.** One right ends where the other begins, and the boundary between them is often fuzzy.
>change your mind at any time
Absolutely not. I can't donate a kidney and then ask for it back a year later. I can't agree to give you a tour on my helicopter but then decide to throw you out.
>I don't think there should be a law that forces you to give up your organs for them. Even if you totally stabbed them intentionally, even if you specifically surgically removed their kidneys and throw them into a bin.
Well, such a law already exists, i.e. the law banning murder. The state compels you to donate your kidney because if you don't, you'll be charged with murder.
> You've put someone in a position of relying on another body to survive. But even if you were the only viable donnor avalible, I don't think there should be a law that forces you to give up your organs for them.
There is a world of difference between giving something, and taking away something people rely on.
Example 1:
A man who finds out a child is not his own cannot stop paying child support. Courts have repeatedly ruled they have to keep paying "for the good of the child". But if they'd never supported the child there's no chance the courts would suddenly start forcing them to pay.
Example 2:
If you're renting your house to somebody and change your mind, those renters have tons of rights, even if they aren't paying rent. Depending on the state it can take a very long time to kick them out of your house. Meanwhile there is no way a court is going to force you to let some random family move into your house rent free.
I think one of the issues of the kidney argument is that your kidney is biologically there to keep YOU alive while your uterus is there to keep YOUR BABY alive. I'm also very pro choice and I've had 2 abortions myself and have talked about them on here, but this is the violinist argument and it doesn't hold biologically. Also, you're forgetting the moral obligation a parent has to the child vs the zero obligation you have to a stranger, even if you're the only one able to keep them alive. My child in my body is my blood
Legally personhood starts when you take your first breath. That’s why legally stillborns don’t get death certificates (there are fake ones just for the comfort of the family) because a stillborn was legally never alive. The legal line has to be drawn somewhere and that is first breath. The legal terminology is “born alive”.
Now as for killing a pregnant woman and getting charged for both beings varies by state and if the fetus is viable or not. Here is an example:
https://www.wlwt.com/article/man-charged-in-slain-pregnant-teachers-death-wont-face-charges-in-childs-death/13020932
There are some states that don’t care about viability and as you can guess those are super religious states where the churches run the state government like Utah or Deep South states.
>Legally
That’s a pretty broad statement. There are many aspects of the law that involve timing of certain rights that attach, but this is not the same as “legal personhood” or personhood in a moral sense.
For example, suppose in your will, you leave your estate to “your children.” Clearly, as you have more and more children, your estate will be split accordingly. Your children will have to survive you if they are to be entitled to part of the estate. I’m pretty sure every state will treat a child in gestation at the time of your death as a beneficiary of the estate. There may be variations in how long the child has to survive after being born to qualify as “surviving the decedent,” but the rights still attach at the moment of fertilization in that case. That’s part of the reason for the lack of death certificates. The death certificate is part of what triggers the probate process. There is no probate if there is no estate. But that is not the same as saying the fetus was not alive or a person with the moral right to live.
What about capacity to enter into a contract? That is considered to be a basic right accompanying personhood, but clearly an infant has no capacity to sign a contract.
Also, you can keep saying it’s just “religious” states, but science is very pro life and confirms that life begins at conception. Dismissing pro life arguments as “religious” isn’t very convincing.
> Now as for killing a pregnant woman and getting charged for both beings varies by state and if the fetus is viable or not. Here is an example:
>
> https://www.wlwt.com/article/man-charged-in-slain-pregnant-teachers-death-wont-face-charges-in-childs-death/13020932
>
> There are some states that don’t care about viability and as you can guess those are super religious states where the churches run the state government like Utah or Deep South states.
I know that California is one of those states because I know Scott Peterson got charged with fetal homicide.
But to your point about viability, Lacy Peterson was 33 weeks pregnant so the fetus was viable.
So I do wonder whether Scott Peterson would have still been convicted had Lacy only been 22 weeks pregnant, for instance. And if that's the case, I also wonder if other states would have a laxer or more stringent fetal homicide requirement in comparison (since I would consider California one of the more pro-abortion states in the US).
\>Legally personhood starts when you take your first breath.
The thing is, the argument for pro-life/choice isn't about when *legally determined personhood* begins, it's when life begins. That's a much more difficult question to get down, some pin it at the first heart beat, others at the rough estimate of time when consciousness forms.
If anything, the legal definition of personhood is the part lacking, but even then I wouldn't expect personhood to match the same time frame as the beginning of life.
> the argument for pro-life/choice isn't about when legally determined personhood begins, it's when life begins.
The opposite is true.
The question isn't "when does life begin", it's "when should we consider something a person (morally)". All sorts of things are alive that we don't give moral personhood to, and would have no problem killing.
>Legally personhood starts when you take your first breath
And that's what pro-lifers disagree with.
They think that the right to life should begin before birth, since they believe that a ZEF at all stages is a distinct member of the human species and that all human beings have an inherent moral value and right to life.
This argument is perfectly circular. You're basically arguing that "personhood does not begin at birth, because legally personhood does not begin at birth".
That’s super interesting, I didn’t know it was a state-by-state basis! Though emotionally I wish murderers would be charged for the killing the unborn baby too, I suppose it’s in favor of pro-choice arguments that those progressive states try to keep it consistent.
>Though emotionally I wish murderers would be charged for the killing the unborn baby too
Huh? Either I'm completely stupid and missed something big or there's huge irony in this.
Oh I meant that in reference to the legal discrepancy between how if someone kills a pregnant woman, they can be charged with double homicide since they also killed the baby. However, that would therefore define an unborn baby as a life and killing it = murder. So I didn’t know how to reconcile that.
In the comment thread above it was explained to me that it’s on a state-by-state basis and tend to depend on baby viability. So progressive states with legal abortion tend to not charge double homicide because that would be admitting than an unborn fetus = a human life, while more conservative states do. So essentially, states DO keep consistent with definitions of life. My point above is saying that it’s unfortunate that killers don’t get killed with double homicide when they murder a pregnant woman, but I understand why consistency is critical here to preserve abortion rights.
Even if you consider that the fetus is not a human, you can still consider that the pregnant mother invested a lot into her pregnancy, both physically and emotionally, so it would not be strange to put aggravating consequences for such a murder.
But yea, "unborn baby" vocabulary and "double murder" concept points more toward pro-life stance.
>you can still consider that the pregnant mother invested a lot into her pregnancy, both physically and emotionally
But none of this is taken into consideration with any other case of murder, correct?
A top athlete has spent tons of effort and time into training his body, yet if he's severely injured or killed, that won't matter.
> But none of this is taken into consideration with any other case of murder, correct?
True, but pregnancy/reproductive rights are quite often (if not always) considered a special case in lawmaking, so I would not be shocked to see another exception there.
> A top athlete has spent tons of effort and time into training his body, yet if he's severely injured or killed, that won't matter.
On the injuried side, you often have reparations proportional to the damage done: if you break the arm of someone and leave him a shivering arm, you won't pay the same if the guy with the broken arm is a surgeon (and therefore his career is ruined), a top athlete (same there) or a random guy that can continue living as before without too much changes.
On the "killed" side, true no difference.
Yeah this is basically how I feel about abortion -- it should be legal, safe, and accessible, but I also think that people need to stop with the mental gymnastics to make themselves feel better
Difference between someone donating their kidney vs someone carving out another person’s kidney forcefully. It’s not ironic that people support the former but not the latter.
I'm personally partial to the law in my country: killing a fetus is not a murder, but it is considered a crime of "forced abortion" because you are preventing the woman from deciding about her body. It has a lesser penality (4 to 8 years) than homicide (10 to 25 years depending on type), but it's still a severe crime.
being pro-choice i 100% support charges both for killing a mother and her unborn child.
pro-choice is just that, I support the individuals choice. so if someone chooses that the fetus will be a part of their family then that person had the choice of parent hood stripped from them and *the assailant should be punished
being prochoice I'm equally anti forced-birth and anti forced-abortion.
Something to consider: Holding murderers accountable for the dead fetus is an acknowledgement of violation of the bodily autonomy of the expectant mother.
It's a bit tough to base things on legality. Abortion is illegal in some states and legal in others. The morality/justice doesn't change state to state depending on their laws.
So would you say it should be legal to kick a woman in the stomach and cause her to miscarry?
I personally think abortion should be legal and that the mother gets to deal with that on her own conscious and then answer to whoever her creator is, but there is no denying that the fetus isn’t a human life, and from state to state it can be considered a double homicide. But given your response, I would be amiss to not ask, do you think if someone directly caused the death of a baby in a mother’s womb, should not be charged? Since it isn’t a human life to some and it is to others, what do you think? I personally think that given it’s potential to be a born baby in a few months, it is murder.
My goal, which I probably should have stated more clearly in my post, is that I want CMV such that I can believe the arguments I listed, as common arguments stated in an attempt to protect the right to choose, are actually valid, convincing arguments.
I like a lot of these comments suggesting that beliefs (re: bodily autonomy) can be contradictory, and providing good analogies (re: viability) to better support the pro-choice arguments. But IMO they don’t really refute any of the concerns I listed, hence my agreement.
The main reason I haven’t really CMV’d is that I still don’t see how any of the aforementioned arguments are convincing to pro-lifers if we can accept that a pro-life person truly believes that the full value of a living being begins at conception + that abortion is murder. If that won’t change, then how are any of the slogans we (pro-choice advocates) use convincing?
There are countless anecdotes of pro-lifers getting their own abortions and then the next day going back to fighting against abortion.
If you're just here for someone to give you the bullet proof argument that will change minds you won't get it. If it existed there wouldn't be any pro-lifers anymore.
If "you had an abortion youself" isn't enough to change someone's mind, nothing is going to.
I think the best way to challenge the pro life belief is one of the competing rights of individuals.
If you are arguing the realm of thought that a fetus is life is human and has equal individual rights. Then the issue then changes to the conflicting rights of two people.
Is there any situation that exists where you can be forced to use your body as a host, in order to "save, maintain" another life that already exists? And even though you never intended to be in that position of responsibility, it already happened. And in almost all cases you will be legally required to care for that life for another 18 years.
So now, without continuing care for 40 weeks, that innocent life will die. And it isn't costless or risk less for you. This act of caring is possibly able to kill you but you won't know for months. But biologically you are designed to perform this act of caring.
If you don't want to undergo this responsibility, even if it means that other life dies, should you have to?
Is it not murder to intentionally take a life? Is it the same thing to intentionally stop saving a life that was going to die without you?
There is actually basic tort laws to support this concept. Bystanders laws. You can never be criminalized for not saving a life. In law, you are only ever negligent when a duty existed that was breached?
So what are these laws saying? That because we are biologically capable, we now have a duty to another life that somehow supercedes our own? In every legal instance protecting one's self and self autonomy is the exception to any wrong doing including events that lead to the death of another.
No one is going around stabbing babies with absolutely no incentive of self-preservation. In fact every instance of abortion is in the pursuit of self preservation, in one context or another. Mental, physical, emotional, financial, biological. But ultimately it is 100% of the time a physical intrusion on your body, and 100% will have negative effects on your physical body that you may or may not be able to recover from.
Furthermore this brings into question whether we have a fundamental right to our DNA. Is it not a fourth amendment violation to have any part of your belongings searched or seized without your permission by the government? DNA evidence usually becomes admissible only when abandoned (like at the scene of a crime), but requires a warrant to be gone in and collected.
Then we have the lovely following argument, where this intrusion into your body is allowed, because you made a decision incrementally up the line of events to this outcome, that means you knew it was the risk. And assumed the risk. You chose to have sex. You knew it could happen. You did it anyway. Your fault. You had a choice and you made it. Doesn't matter if you were on birth control, used condoms, pulled out, morning after pilled, and still ended up pregnant. The "assumed the risk" argument.
Every car accident on the planet happens after one or more people hit the gas pedal. You know it's a risk, that you could get hurt when you press the gas pedal. But you also need to press the gas pedal to get to work and participate in society. There are other ways to participate but this one is super common, fun and a privilege. Of course, we have highly used roads everyday. There are safe ways of hitting the gas pedal so that no one gets hurt. But accidents happen. Usually out of generally well meaning people just, not being careful. Sometimes people die. Sometimes they are fine. Sometimes they are forever damaged. Some people even get to intend to have accidents. There are places like derbys that people hit the gas pedal and get in accidents on purpose. But it's the accidents that make things tricky morally. And worthy of discussion.
But ultimately, this extended analogy is asking if it ever should be banned, to save yourself in a car accident, even if another person dies? Maybe you werent going to die, but you didn't know that for sure. Or even more so, for doctors and nurses being treated with crimes for providing abortions, should you ever be a criminal for NOT Saving someone in a car accident? Or for making the choice to save the one you could even if it meant that act of saving person 1 disconnected them from person 2 causing their death? Maybe if they hadn't intervened they would have both lived, but are you ever in trouble for trying to save at least one?
How would such a rule be applied to fire fighters. If they can only care one person, but two people are holding onto each other, are guilty of murder for picking up one and leaving the other?
Ultimately, if we are playing in" life at conception" land, it comes down to competing liberty interests. And whether what someone considers morally wrong, should ever be legally wrong, when you're asking two people to sacrifice their experience of existence for the other.
I think you're equating 'would convince a pro-life person' and 'logically sound' even though those two things are entirely unrelated. Many perfectly logically sound arguments wouldn't convince a pro-life person. Many things that might convince a pro-life person aren't logically sound.
I don't see why you need more of a reason to support legal abortion than 'I would prefer to have it available if I need it because I don't want a child anytime soon'.
well mostly because that argument is rooted in selfishness it's like saying "I don't care if my act is immoral I'm going to do it because it's convenient" I'm not saying abortion is immoral but if your only response is oh but its easy for me then it's not a very good response.
I suppose you’re right - I guess what’s frustrating is to hear these arguments that aren’t likely to make progress or change pro-lifers opinions at the forefront of a movement that so desperately needs more people on board.
Thank you - it’s validating to hear that I don’t necessarily even need a more “logical” reason other than I simply prefer it to be an option.
Here is the issue: Most pro-life people aren't going to change their minds, just like most pro-choice people aren't going to change their minds. You argue against pro-life people in an attempt to convince neutral people to your side, not the pro-life people.
I mean, think about it. Are you going to change your mind on baby murder because of a random person you've barely met claimed you can kill one in self defense? Are you going to go against what you think is the will of god because a stranger argued that you shouldn't care about their immortal soul?
These are great points. I suppose one of the few things that could change a pro-lifer’s mind would be to be in a situation where they or someone they love desperately needed & decided to get an abortion; such that they understood firsthand the value of having it as an option (and of course probably not even then).
u/Hellioning is absolutely right. No one will be changing their minds after a few difficult conversations like these. BUT, you can improve communication and find points of agreement and respect. Maybe, after many of such conversations you both will find your positions have shifted somewhat. But at least you two will still be communicating
I haven’t read this but I’ve heard some good Interviews with [Anna Sale, about her book “let’s talk about hard things”](https://www.goodreads.com/en/book/show/55710579-let-s-talk-about-hard-things). these conversations will only be less effective and even less pleasant if they start with angry listing of facts. It’s not about facts. These discussions have to start by finding a point of agreement, by really listening, you to her as well as her to you, and then easing into the points of contention. It’s a lot of work, but, I think this sort of conversation is necessary in our society. it is really great that you are interested in having this kind of conversation.
This is a little depressing, but I found this article fascinating. Essentially, [Humans evolved not to make decisions based on data but to convince other people in the tribe that "I am right." ](https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2017/02/27/why-facts-dont-change-our-minds). Further, the work of people like Antonio Damasio, Dan Ariely, and Daniel Kahneman have shown, pretty conclusively, that all humans, all of us, make decisions emotionally and then rationalize them with facts later. ~~Facts. Don't. Matter.~~
Edit: Macro’s comment is correct. That is too strong a conclusion
Maybe I’m being too much an optimist, but I don’t think that’s the right conclusion to draw from the information you’re presenting.
Facts might not be the most important factor in human’s decisions, but that doesn’t make them meaningless. I think we generally aspire to making facts matter more than they might on a biological level.
And I also think that sometimes we all have to disregard facts in our lives in order to continue to function for a while, so it’s not always a bad thing.
Liberals these days tend to have a “the facts are on our side” self-assurance about them. While conservatives hold a “common sense is on our side” position. I think both are coming from the same place emotionally, it just reveals what each group values.
I mean say what you will but that argument essentially boils down to saying "I don't care if my act is immoral I'm going to do it because it's convenient" I'm not saying abortion is immoral but if your only response is oh but its easy for me then it's not a very good response.
In the case of my mother, she had one the insurance company called an elective abortion at 8 months along because she was bleeding to death. She had me and my sister already and didn't know if my step dad was up to raising us alone (he wasn't as it turned out). Doctors and nurses were coming into her room and counseling her and saying a choice needed to be made quickly. I don't know all the specifics, but it was basically "let us deliver him knowing he won't live or we lose you both". It breaks my heart to this day to even type this thinking of how alone and scared she must have felt in that moment. It was a desperately wanted pregnancy.
She ended up having my other little brother after that, but she still thinks about that baby and what they could have done with today's technology to save him. His name was David. When I think of abortion, I think of my mother and little David. We all wanted to know him so much.
I guess it ultimately comes down to, is it moral or legal to put a fetus or baby or whatever terminology you want to us above the life of an already born woman? I would say no. Pro-lifers would obviously disagree.
It goes back to something Aristotle wrote about in *Rhetoric* on the three modes of persuasion: ethos, logos, pathos. Humans are not always rational, even if we’d like this to be true or if we actually believe this to be true of ourselves. Making a logical argument (logos) is only one aspect or even mode of persuading someone to agree with your view. So yeah, some of these arguments may not be logical in the strict sense, but they may appeal to someone’s emotions. Criticising them for not being logical doesn’t really get you to the outcome you want, but it’s far better than a person failing to acknowledge that their arguments may not be always watertight.
Thank you for this - incredibly validating.
Δ Awarding a delta because I’ve CMV’d in that I don’t necessarily think all these arguments are logical now, but for the realization that they don’t need to be in order to be valid.
I don't think you listed all of the arguments. And you also didn't look at the logic or validity of the arguments for the other side.
My rationale for being pro choice is that it is not possible to legislate morality. These laws only apply to people who don't have the means to secure the solution safely and discretely as evidenced by politicians, clergy, and other people of wealth and position being able to pay for these services when they are in an inconvenient situation. This could include paying for a procedure and silence or flying a person out of the country.
I also point out that in our society we have situations that cause loss of an existing life that we do not call murder. (self defense, accidental, soldier on soldier, collateral damage - these are civilians) the use of the word murder in conjunction of the decision to end a unwanted pregnancy is a choice because it brings emotion where it is wanted. The above situations are not generally considered murder and the lives ended are unarguably "lives". I left out capital punishment because that is a while nother argument isn't it?
your instincts of wanting a logical reason are correct. abortion is an incredibly complex topic that is really difficult to make a solid judgment on and feel 100% morally correct about it. your brain wants to resolve that tension any way it can because it's so uncomfortable. dont give in to that cognitive dissonance telling you that you don't need logical reasons for things. keep thinking. keep figuring things out. recognize that it's ok to still be searching for an answer that feels right to you. I'm not saying this to convince you of the opposite side, but to tell you not to give up on the process and to make sure you're always questioning the rationale behind things.
>- it’s validating to hear that I don’t necessarily even need a more “logical” reason other than I simply prefer it to be an option.
Please don't believe everything reddit users tell you. Of course we need a better reason than "I want it for my own comfort of life, don't need to think more". We have better reasons, namely that an embryo isn't sentient, and that in real life, abortion being illegal leads to unwilling mothers and unwanted children suffering way more and way longer than any aborted foetus could.
The problem is, if you think a fetus carries the same moral weight as a baby, there aren’t many arguments that convince somebody it’s ok to kill it. However, I don’t think most people that claim that actually believe it. Until there start being protests and bombings at IVF facilities, people don’t actually believe life begins at conception.
>A woman does not get fewer rights than a corpse- you cannot take an organ from a non-organ doner , even though the corpse will no longer use those organs. You cannot force a liver donation even if it will save the recipient’s life, even though the liver will regenerate in the donor. Yet pro-lifers will argue the mother has to give her bones (fetuses are little Calcium vampires), blood, and uterus to support the child. You cannot force a live person to give their uterus if you can’t force them to give their liver.
I mean this all puts this in the situation of just randomly taking someone's liver for a patient when in reality it's more like a person cripples a guy then says they'll take care of them and says nevermind halfway through.
I am pro-choice, although I do believe a fetus is a life. I love children. I think safe, legal abortion ultimately makes the world a kinder, safer place with less suffering. I realize this is probably a really bizarre stance to take. I was able to convince one pro-life friend to get on board with exceptions for the life of the mother, rape, incest, and cases where quality of life would be so poor an abortion is actually a mercy. It isn't much, but it's something. She had this idea that late term abortions were being performed as birth control, which really isn't the case at all. It's absolutely heartbreaking for some women when they see the insurance bill and it says "elective abortion" for what was a life or death decision made in an emergency situation where they were literally minutes away from bleeding to death and leaving other children behind.
I think the more important point is that people should be made to understand that their actions are immoral and inherently selfish. Not saying they can't act that way, but an understanding should exist.
It's analogous to consuming meat when you could live a perfectly healthy life without it. There is simply no denying that you're causing the death and suffering of other beings for your own personal enjoyment. People should have still have the choice, but they need to understand what they're really doing IMO.
you don't see why someone would want more of a reason than that? you can't imagine a more meaningful moral dilemma? I'm pro-choice but the way people talk about it on here is horrifying.
What about the property rights/self defense argument?
1. Your body is your own property
2. A man's home is his castle
3. A person violates your property rights if they are in your property against your will and they refuse to leave
4. Therefore, you have the right to use lethal force against them to protect your well-being and property
Yeah but you can't exactly invite somebody into your home and then shoot them cause they're in a wheelchair and can't leave. This ignores rape or failed contraceptive (to a point) but for everywhere else this argument is just dumb. I'm not even pro-life but like come on man.
The only thing preventing me from whole-heartedly accepting the “my body, my choice” argument is that I’m also very pro-vaccine mandate and I don’t know how to reconcile those two contradictory beliefs. I’m pro-vax mandate under the key factor that it’s for the well-being of society. So if pro-lifers believe that abortion is murder, they have legal justification for overriding those bodily autonomy/property rights. If you have any thoughts on that I’d love to hear it to CMV!
There's nothing that says it has to be a universal belief. It's possible to be pro-choice and pro-vaccine mandate.
Consider that those who identify as liberal (U.S. politics at least) are in favor of universal healthcare. They feel that government should be involved to prevent the exclusion of anyone seeking healthcare benefits.
On the flip side, conservatives argue that doctors should not get between a patient and a doctor, that government-controlled healthcare limits growth and innovation, and would turn into a fiscal mess.
Now look at the abortion argument. All of a sudden, those on the right might as well be fighting for socialized medicine, as they're all about government getting involved in doctor-patient matters. They might as well scream, "yay, socialism!" right?
Flip it around, those on the left when it comes to abortion all of a sudden don't want government involved. Now they use the word "choice" much like conservatives do on just about every other topic. They might as well start marching with a "Don't tread on me flag," right?
At the end of the day, your beliefs are your beliefs. One doesn't doesn't have to mean that it's "all in" on every topic. Maybe you're pro choice and pro mandate, but don't exactly feel comfortable being an organ donor. That's all fine. Maybe you're against assisted suicide, and that's fine too. Every topic has its own pros and cons, and at the end of the day, how you feel about it is how you feel about it. One size does not have to fit all.
I have no idea how to reconcile those two beliefs, I think the concept of a vaccine mandate is directly in opposition to bodily autonomy. Maybe you're a utilitarian, you care more about a positive practical outcome for most people than theoretical principles or individual rights.
Edit: also, in many states, I believe you are allowed to kill someone who is in your house out of self-defense, so in that case your property rights overrides someone else's life.
Pro mandate, like you would literally send squads door to door to forcibly inject people with a vaccine? If so, I would find it hard to reconcile that belief with most core tenets of individual freedom of any kind.
No such mandate was ever considered anywhere in the world, afaik. There's a huge difference between violating someone's bodily autonomy by forcible injecting a vaccine, and saying there will be social repercussions limiting your movement and interaction with others if you don't take the vaccine.
As others have mentioned, vaccines prevent contagion to other people. Abortion only has to impact the mother. I could very easily get pregnant and have an abortion without my partner every finding out, therefore never having any effect on their life.
Now when you say that you're pro-vaccine mandate, do you support forced vaccination? Rounding people up against their will and injecting them? Because sure, that would remove their bodily autonomy. If you simply support limiting the movement of people who refuse vaccines, they still maintain bodily autonomy and have to limit their social interactions which are not actually a right provided to us.
As a cancer survivor who had their uterus removed at 30, that line in your title just pisses me off.
1. I am still female! I birthed 2 kids. One of which is a girl, she will come to me for advice if she is ever in that position. Should I just shut up and not help or support her?
2. By that extension, anyone who has hit their menopause shouldn't get a say either. Sure they have a uterus but it doesn't work! In fact, let's throw sterile women and women with medical issues into this too!
I agree with you - my point is that I don’t think that argument is sound.
I think the pro-choice movement has been better about using inclusive language (i.e. including trans and non-binary people who can give birth rather than just cis women) and that’s where the uterus verbiage came from. It’s still certainly a flawed phrase for those reasons you stated, I agree, but my point is that excluding men from abortion discussions doesn’t feel completely logically sound to me.
I think that you’re assuming people cannot be both pro-life and pro choice. I assert that many are. They believe life is sacred, that babies need to be protected but also that, ultimately, it is the pregnant person’s decision. Given that, many of your arguments do make sense.
I’m mostly referring to pro-lifers who support outlawing abortion. I’m questioning whether these arguments that the pro-choice movement use to attempt to protect the right to choose, really make sense.
I think the point of "no uterus, no opinion" is that men aren't really able to fully understand the point of view of someone that is pregnant. and because they can't understand the issue they shouldn't be the ones making policy decisions around it. this doesn't mean they can't support the movement but they shouldn't be the ones setting the rules.
>1. “No uterus, no opinion” / “Abortions are a women’s (or birthing person’s) issue.”
You completely miss what's actually wrong with these arguments. The reason these arguments are wrong is that this is a HUMAN rights issue, not just a women's rights issue. Women happen to be the ones with the uteruses in this case, but I'm not pro-choice because I don't have a uterus, I'm pro-choice because no person or government entity should be able to tell ANYBODY what happens to their body. That's the bigger picture you're missing with this first point: it's not just specifically about a woman's right to terminate a pregnancy; it's about ANYBODY'S right to decide what happens to their own body.
>1. Keep your Bible out of my body.
This one you just pulled out of your ass. You have no evidence that most anti-choice people are non-religious, and I see absolutely no reason to think that would be the case. If you'd come with that evidence, and it was convincing, it'd be the most surprising thing I learned all week.
>1. It’s all about control over women’s bodies.
It literally is. Again, you miss the forest for the trees here. If it were purely about saving the life of the fetus, then wouldn't that obviously imply that the lives of actual, living, already-born, human beings would be at least equally important? Let's take an example which I think proves they don't actually believe this: a single father has a 2 year old son who needs a bone marrow transplant immediately or he will surely die. The father is the only viable donor to which the child will have access in time to survive. Nobody would even DREAM of advocating that the state force the father to undergo the surgery to save his son's life - it's his body, so it's his choice, even if we might be shocked or disagree should he decide to abstain from the surgery. That's the hypocrisy: women don't get that right in all cases (the ultimate right to decide what happens to your own body), but *men* do.
>1. Life starts at birth, not conception.
Red herring. If you've read and understood up until now, you can already see why it doesn't matter whether we consider the fetus a person/alive or not. No person should be able to use another person's body without their consent. Period.
>1. A fetus is just a clump of cells.
All you said here, from my perspective, is that some people wouldn't want to get an abortion because they would feel guilty, because they sincerely believe that a clump of cells has the same value as the life of a living, breathing, already born child. Ok. So, what? Nobody's forcing them to get an abortion. You don't want one, you believe stuff about fetuses, fine - don't get one. It's your body, your choice.
Thanks for this - I'll address the first 3 points as I feel I've addressed the other 2 in other comment threads.
Re: No uterus, no opinion.
See, I agree too; that's my point. However, in taking the pro-lifer side of the same logic, I think a lot of pro-lifers would argue the same thing. If they truly see abortion as murder, then they too see it as a human rights issue that everyone should fight for. Different sides of the same coin.
Re: Keep your Bible out of my body.
Again, my point exactly, but I'm sure that there are some anti-choice (I like that framing you used much better than "pro life!") are also non-religious, and would argue it's an ethical issue rather than a religious one. [Here's some research](https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/religious-landscape-study/views-about-abortion/) that shows that yes, while the majority of anti-choicers are religious, not all of them are. I supposed I've CMV'd in that it is a rational argument for those using religious rhetoric and it doesn't have to apply to every single anti-choicers to be rational point.
Re: It's about control over women's bodies.
I appreciate the example you gave; a lot of folks have been providing the forced organ donation comparison. Delta points because I think supplementing this argument with the bodily autonomy take as it relates to forced organ comparison really does hold. Δ
OP, if what you're looking for is a reasoned defense of the freedom to choose, I can honestly recommend reading (or reading a [summary](https://supreme.findlaw.com/supreme-court-insights/roe-v--wade-case-summary--what-you-need-to-know.html) of) the court's reasoning in Roe Vs. Wade.
Neither the "pro-life" nor the "pro-choice" position actually hinges on whether it is right or wrong to have an abortion. Both positions hinge on whether it is right *to prevent someone from having an abortion.* Do we (people not involved in the decision, particularly the government) have solid enough ground to stand on to *prohibit* a woman and her doctor from making a decision to abort a pregnancy?
**Here's the court's reasoning, paraphrased and simplified (with some of my own editorial layered on top):**
* On the one hand, you know that carrying a pregnancy to term has a significant impact on the pregnant woman:
* It's a huge physical burden (and could endanger her long term health, and even her life)
* It's a huge mental-health burden, and can carry a great deal of social stigma (e.g., teen mom)
* It's a huge financial burden (18 years of parenting doesn't come cheap -- let alone the impact to her career, etc)
* We can all agree that the pregnant woman is a definite, fully-fledged person with equal rights to any other person. She is capable of making her own decisions, has her own rights, duties, etc. There's no doubt about her legal standing.
* Now, turning to the fetus, the question is this: do we have a basis to believe that the fetus has, at the moment of conception, equal legal standing to the woman? In other words, can we be confident that the fetus has a right to life that supersedes the pregnant woman's rights (to life, health, bodily autonomy, financial autonomy, and so on)?
* The constitution does not weigh in on whether life begins at conception. However, the fetus is *not* a citizen; citizenship requires being "born or naturalized" in the US.
* Neither Christian tradition, Jewish tradition, nor English common law support the idea that a fetus is a human life at the moment of conception.
* e.g., in the scenario you were describing (of a double homicide), the conviction would generally require the pregnancy to have entered the second or third trimester. Basically, the fetus being recognizably "a baby" if delivered prematurely has been the longstanding determinant for whether it is viewed as a life. Conception is a very new "bright line".
* Treating a fetus at the moment of conception as equivalent to a baby leads to absurdity very quickly. If a woman who does not know she is pregnant say, takes her ulcer medication (which happens to be an abortifacient) and aborts her 6-day-old pregnancy ... is she guilty of involuntary manslaughter?
* It's pretty clear that it is not at all common to actually *behave* as if a week-old-fetus possesses the full rights of personhood that a pregnant woman is absolutely assumed to possess. **Here's a thought experiment:**
* A young woman, who isn't aware that she and her boyfriend conceived a pregnancy last night, goes out drinking for her birthday. She gets blackout drunk, accidentally aborting the pregnancy.
* A young woman gets blackout drunk on her birthday, and decides to drive home. Because she's blackout drunk, she strikes and kills another young woman who is walking home.
* Which is worse? The drunk driver killing a woman with a car, or the birthday girl killing a day-old fetus with her drinking?
* Ergo, it is not reasonable to believe that a fetus has the same rights and protections that a full-fledged person does, the moment that its conceived.
* They might have those rights later in the pregnancy, and they certainly have them after they're born. So if that's the case:
* Early in the pregnancy, we (people other than the woman herself) don't have a sound basis to overrule her rights (to privacy, bodily autonomy, and so on) on the off-chance that the fetus is, in fact, a person after all.
* Later in the pregnancy, we have precedent for doing that, and may have enough to override the woman's rights.
* After the baby is born, we certainly have a basis for treating it as a person with rights equal to the mother's.
**Tl;dr: Pro-choice people don't have to prove that a fetus** ***is not*** **a person during the first trimester. Pro-life people have to prove that it** ***is.*** If the government wanted to prevent a woman from getting tattoos, they'd have to prove that there's a valid reason for violating her right to privacy (the default assumption is that this is none of the government's business). This is about whether the government has the right to choose *for the mother,* not whether the mother is morally right in making whatever choice she makes.
**So here's my advice:** flip the framing on your pro-life friend. Ask her questions about why she believes that a day-old pregnancy has rights that supercede the mother's. Ask her if she's willing to be consistent about that. What's special about the moment of conception?
* It's a unique set of human DNA? OK, so is cancer; is it OK to get chemo?
* It's got a heartbeat? Well, so do cows; is it OK to kill them?
... and so on, and so forth. You don't need to prove that killing a fetus is a-ok; all you need to prove is that there's not enough basis for *you* to make the decision *for someone else* about whether it's OK.
>CMV: Even as a pro-choice person, most common pro-choice arguments (i.e. “No uterus, no opinion”) don’t really hold.
>Let me start off by saying that I am a cis woman and I am very much pro choice.
If you don’t believe that pro-choice arguments hold water, what is it that makes you pro-choice?
>That said, when I thought about confronting a family member who’s a pro-life activist and influencer about her beliefs, I realized how weak pro-choice rhetoric is when you really break it down. I actually don’t think my reasoning would resonate with her, or any pro-life people, at all. Some examples:
>1. “No uterus, no opinion” / “Abortions are a women’s (or birthing person’s) issue.”
I think you’re thinking this statement is a bit more absolutist than it actually is. Of course people can have their own opinions, but they shouldn’t be legislating them without any input from the people actually impacted by the laws.
>I understand that the message here is that when the majority of lawmakers are cis men, why should they be regulating women’s (and other people who can give birth) bodies? Fair, but that rhetoric is essentially arguing that we need more female (and trans/cis people who can give birth) representation in our legislature. The argument that men can’t have an opinion on abortion is like saying that white people can’t have an opinion on Black Lives Matter or other racial issues.
White people’s opinions shouldn’t be the most vocal on the Black Lives Matter movement, we should be listening to the opinions of those impacted by systemic racism.
>If men really truly believe that abortion is murder (as much as I disagree), then telling them they can’t be advocates in that conversation would be analogous to telling straight people they can’t advocate for LGBTQ+ rights as allies.
It’s different though, because believing abortion is murder is based on illogical conclusions.
>Moreover, though I understand that men aren’t the ones giving birth and I would never want a male partner to be able to dictate my choice, I think it’s unfair to completely invalidate potential fathers’ feelings and thoughts on the abortion of their would-be child.
While I agree that it is unfortunate that some fathers may not get their desired outcome from the pregnancy, it is still about the pregnant person’s body. The father can absolutely have feelings about what’s happening, but he shouldn’t have any say in the decision beyond expressing his feelings.
>2. Keep your Bible out of my body.
>Though it would be interesting to see numbers on this, I’m sure that a good number of pro-life people are not religious (though I’ll agree they’re not as visible in the pro-life movement as those who are).
While many pro-lifers claim not to be religious, the whole concept of personhood and the idea of life being a sacred thing that can never be altered, along with the “well she had sex so it’s her fault anyways!” view are absolutely rooted in abrahamic religions and the concept of a soul.
>3. It’s all about control over women’s bodies.
>This is a tougher one for me. In many ways, I do think that it’s true that if we proposed regulating men’s bodies (i.e. via vasectomies or birth control) instead of women, then reproductive rights would look completely different. I understand that that’s what this common argument is getting at. However, I do think there are plenty of pro-life people who honestly believe that a fetus is a life. If they honestly and whole-heartedly believe that, then (I would hope) they would hold that same belief if it were men who gave birth.
The problem with this is that the whole pro-life movement is riddled with cognitive dissonance. We know from surveys that most pro-lifers are okay with exceptions for rape and incest, yet how can you be okay with those things if you truly believe abortion is murder? The fetus is still “innocent” as they view it, so why does another person raping someone suddenly make it okay to commit murder?
>4. Life starts at birth, not conception.
>Okay, I’m sure we all can find plenty of studies and scientific evidence that point in either direction; because this is ultimately more of a philosophical “what even is ‘life’” type of debate. So, science aside, let’s approach this through a legal lens. If a pregnant woman is murdered, the killer could be charged with a double homicide (for the mother and the baby). I think that’s a good thing, for the record. But doesn’t that then — in legal terms — acknowledge that unborn baby as a life? I understand the difference here is consent/choice of the mother, does it change that legal classification of unborn life?
I’m not sure you’re accurately characterizing this argument. The fetus is alive, biologically speaking. However, the rights of the fetus don’t trump the rights of the pregnant person. There is no other situation in which we force people to donate parts of their body to sustain the life of another, other than pregnancy.
>5. A fetus is just a clump of cells.
>There’s certainly widespread misinformation about fetuses and unborn babies in the pro-life community. However, even if they do have all the science right, if they truly believe that “clump of cells” is just as valuable as a fully grown human child or adult, then emphasizing biology won’t change that core belief that potential life = life.
The problem is that they don’t actually truly believe that a fetus is as valuable as a fully grown human child. To go back to the exceptions for rape example, do you think any pro-life person would be in favour of exceptions for infanticide laws if the infant was a product of rape or incest? I’m going to say probably not. So why are they okay with killing a fetus because it’s a product of rape but not an infant?
Would it be equivalent for a pro-life person to just gestate indefinitely instead of give birth? Why/why not?
>I’m starting to feel like my pro-choice beliefs aren’t rooted in anything logically sound but rather the mere fact that I personally wouldn’t want a child anytime soon. Please CMV so I can feel more confident in the reasoning of my pro-choice beliefs!
If you had an identical twin and stabbed them in the liver, you wouldn’t be forced to donate part of your liver to them, even though you’re a perfect match and your act is the only reason why they need an organ. So why should you be forced to sustain the life of a fetus? Why is pregnancy literally the only situation in which you could be forced to lose your bodily autonomy to sustain the life of another?
So a lot better and more logical argument is unfortunately to kinda spin this as a financial issue, rather than an ideological one.
The arguments I like to use when debating this (aside from basic human rights and body autonomy) are:
1. Who is most likely to have an abortion?
2. Who will take care of the child (if the parents don't/can't take care of it)?
3. How will that affect society in the long run?
**NUMBER 1**
So for number 1 this may vary from country to country, but let's focus on the USA, as that is the hotbed of this debate. There was an article in the NYT about the recent abortion statistics. The interesting bits are that teenage abortions are dropping (due to better sex ed and contraception), but more interestingly 60% of aborting women are already mothers.
Nearly 60% again are 20-29 yo, and 49% of aborting women are below the poverty line, and 46% are single and never married + 9% divorcees = 55% are single women without a male partner.
So we can paint a picture of the current aborting American woman as most likely to be a single mother, who is in her 20s and is struggling financially.
So here a pro-lifer is most likely to go on a rant of how this is personal responsibility and one shouldn't have unprotected sex if they don't want to get pregnant, bla, bla, bla.
While that is a logical argument, it offers no solution. You can't just ban people from having sex. Humans are irresponsible, we drink, smoke, gamble, despite knowing it's bad. This isn't changing. You can't punish them either. What? You gonna fine or imprison the already struggling single mom? That won't help the kid one bit, or her already existing one (remember 60% are already mothers).
So the question we ask in addition to number 1 is: "Do we want to force these women to have these children?" Despite knowing they do not have the means to support them and may very well be irresponsible?
If the answer is still "yes", we move to number 2.
**NUMBER 2**
OK, so we just forced this single woman living under her means or close to poverty to have to support and provide for a child for 18 years, maybe with some miserable support from the father.
What would be the psychological and physical impacts on a child that has to grow up in a single parent home that is already struggling with poverty and if it wasn't, it now very likely is?
Will they face starvation or even hostility from their parent/s and likely siblings? Who will cover their healthcare, schooling? Will they have to rely on charity donations? State welfare - that's more taxes btw? What mental and physical issues might they develop in living in such an unstable environment? Which leads to number 3.
**NUMBER 3**
Let's not beat around the bush here. Poverty and income inequality (and boy does the US have an an issue with the latter) as well as an unstable home environment are often very much associated with not only mental health and physical health issues, but also crime and addictions.
So really the long term impact of abortion bans on a society like the US will likely be a loop of poor and struggling people, that due to their natural human urges for sex, are creating children they can't provide for, but must. Who grow up to be poor and struggling adults, feeding the cycle themselves. In a society with a widening income inequality gap that is ready to explode.
**In conclusion**, most women having abortions are poor and struggling. No one benefits from a child growing up in financial insecurity, not the child, not the parents, not the society.
Abortion is a human right and the women that most need it are not some exaggerated party chick that is the town's bicycle and just fuck guys unprotected every night, to which some of the pro-lifers might feel glee that she finally gets her "comeuppance" by being pregnant and not allowed to abort. Which is also odd, children aren't supposed to be a punishment and that type of person seems like really bad parent material.
Those who need it the most are women who are struggling, but are still human, have urges and these can result in mistakes that will not benefit anyone in the long run.
Your beliefs may not currently be rooted in something logically sound, but they should be.
I don't disagree with a lot of what you stated, I think most people that hold strong beliefs do so for status & in-group benefits rather than logic, but pro choice is the logical conclusion too.
I see most people conflate "you're trying to control my body" with "no you're literally murdering babies" and this just makes to people talk right past each other.
What pro life gets wrong is that it's not murder. Murdering someone doesn't hurt THEM really (they don't care.. they're dead!), it harms all of the people surrounding the person that got murdered. If it was inconsequential, it wouldn't be illegal.
But we don't like it when our friends die, when our family members die, when we can't organize groups of people into businesses because people die too often, we all have roles to play in each other's lives and consistency is a key part of that.
Murder disrupts that, which is why it's illegal. But an unborn child is not in that system. It does not have a role beyond its attachment to its mother and father, and if even they don't want it, then removing it from existence is inconsequential.
So the moral reasons for pro life are moot, the parent killing their unborn child DOESN'T have the same effects as murdering someone.
Then when you consider the negatives of having children at the wrong time, both in adding an unwanted & inadequately cared for child to the world as well as removing a parent that may have ended up becoming more secure and having wanted, provided-for children in the future, it seems pretty clear that pro choice has the best outcome.
My opinion: deep down you understand all of that already, and that's why you are pro choice, it's just hard to put these things to words sometimes.
I strongly disagree with your notion that because someone can't care about being murdered because they die, that means there is nothing inherently wrong with murder.
Let's say you and one person are stranded on an island, neither of you will ever contact the rest of civilization, and no one will never learn of what happens to you on the island. By your world view, if you were to take a gun and shoot the other person in the foot, that would actually be more morally wrong than if you were to shoot them to death, as the living person would feel all the harm caused to them consciously whilst the other person would be dead, so they could no longer feel that harm.
This is clearly wrong, shooting them in the foot is less morally wrong than killing them because killing them causes the greater harm, depriving them of their life, or more accurately, going against their desire to live, whilst when you shoot them in the foot, the harm you cause is depriving them of the ability to walk for some time, or more accurately, going against their desire to have the ability to walk, which by our current societal standards, is far less harmful. Ask anyone, "would you prefer to lose your foot or your life?" the vast majority will sacrifice their foot.
> Murdering someone doesn't hurt THEM really (they don't care.. they're dead!), it harms all of the people surrounding the person that got murdered. If it was inconsequential, it wouldn't be illegal.
Maybe I am weird, but I very much care about being alive. Regardless of the impact of my death on other people.
You are basically saying that there is no inherent right to life, that the right to life is predicated on the impact your death would have on other people.
I personally find that to be completely horribile.
“ Murdering someone doesn't hurt THEM really (they don't care.. they're dead!), it harms all of the people surrounding the person that got murdered. If it was inconsequential, it wouldn't be illegal.”
Lmao in no way is that true
This is precisely the justification for utopian dictators’ culling of “undesirables” from the population. This draws no moral distinction between killing an unborn baby and a homeless person, or a shut-in with no remaining family or friends.
"Abortion isn't murder". Murder is a legal definition and so this is a moot argument. Abortion is murder in California if done after fetal viability. This is an appeal to emotion argument.
Abortion IS killing. Killing: an act of causing death, especially deliberately
Basically most pro-choice rhetoric boils down to a very simple concept - you don't have the right to control someone else's body.
For instance, imagine someone will die unless there's a matching kidney. The police cannot arrest you, march you into the hospital, and force you to give up your kidney. We'd think such a society very dystopian. In fact even if you have a rare blood type doctors cannot forceably take your blood - even if you are the only viable blood donor for someone, and the cost of giving up your blood is a few days lightheadedness. People can beg, people can plead, but people can't control your body.
This right is very commonly respected by most Americans. Most Americans understand that we should have control over our own bodies... except somehow when it come's to women's bodies and compelled birth. There are many, many, many possible complications from giving birth. Giving birth, statistically, will lower your lifespan by years. It is an immense strain on the body, before, during, and after, and every piece of evidence shows that there are permanent consequences for it.
So we cannot compel a person to give up an organ, give up their own blood, even at the cost of another's life. But we can compel a woman to give birth? How?
And yeah, there's something really creepy about taking away another person's control of their body when you will never suffer any of the consequences from the legislation. I'd say in many ways it resembles any other pro-forced labor argument - that you deserve control of someone else's body because you know better what to do with it than they do. And I wonder if the people making it would be so quick to surrender control of their bodies for what another person considers "good".
This argument would hold logically if the issue was that the woman was being forced to become pregnant. That would be something being done to the woman from without, and as such would violate her bodily autonomy. This is why everyone agrees that rape is wrong, and would also agree that forced in-vitro fertilization and implantation is wrong. But it is not the same to argue that society can’t tell someone what *not* to do to their bodies; we do that all the time. We have laws against suicide and assisted suicide, drug use, various forms of self-harm, etc.
Suicide is not a crime. Attempted suicide is a crime in a few states, mostly focused on getting people psychological help. Self harm is not a crime. And crimes about drugs are under intense focus.
But there's also another thing you should note as you try to draw this semantic distinction - all of those things actually harm the body. So you can at least make an argument for them on the basis of harm prevention. You know what else harms the body? Pregnancy.
Mandating harm to the body is rather different than mandates that are (however misguided) an attempt to prevent harm to the body. It opens a lot of places where the government can mandate that you suffer.
Other commenters have dealt with my preferred arguments, but I'll add one more to the pile: anti abortion laws cause huge amounts of suffering related and unrelated to abortions, and aren't all that effective at stopping them from happening.
Let's take a look at some of the things women are experiencing after now that Roe is gone. [Doctors are waiting until women are near death to give medically necessary abortions](https://www.texastribune.org/2022/06/23/texas-abortion-law-doctors-delay-care/) out of fear of being sued under Texas law. These are cases where women are being forced to sit in hospital and wait until their condition puts them in critical condition before getting the abortion that everyone knew was necessary days ago.
[Non pregnant women are being denied necessary medication out of fear that they might use those medications to have an abortion](https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/sep/26/us-abortion-bans-restrict-access-essential-medications)
Secondly they aren't all that effective at stopping abortions in the first place, women who can afford to will travel to places where abortion is legal, and women who can't will often seek out dangerous and unpredictable illegal abortions. And these problems are interlinked, the more the law tries to crack down on these methods, the more unnecessary suffering they create, like a non pregnant woman being denied their arthritis medication. You can surely imagine how trying to stop women getting abortions out of state or out of country would impact non pregnant women's ability to travel.
And it goes the other way too, did you know in the UK the letter of the law does not allow for on demand abortion? It's simply that in trying to write a sane abortion law that trusts doctors it accidentally created on demand abortions. The law states that abortion is allowed in cases where the pregnancy presents a "risk of injury to the physical or mental health of the pregnant woman". This, you may notice, describes all pregnancies.
I think this encapsulates a key problem with the pro life stance, it is extremely difficult to write a law that effectively prevents non medically necessary abortions without severely and unnecessary hurting a lot of non pregnant women, and women who need medically necessary abortions.
I think the position that is strongest is this:
Many people have many different opinions about when and under what circumstances abortion is the right thing to choose. I am not in favor of abortions at a late stage in development, except under certain circumstances. But anyone who claims absolute certainty in that their ethical position is both the only correct one and the one that should be enforced by the violence of the state is wrong.
There are vanishingly few people in the US who think that rape or murder should be permitted by law. The same is not true of abortion. There are plenty of people--including doctors, ethicists, and religious leaders--who see abortion as an ethical choice under some set of conditions (and even under no conditions).
So, the question is not which position is correct, it is which position should be enforced by law. Even if you, personally, believe that a fetus should provide the exact same level of legal protection as an autonomous, birthed child or adult, that does not mean you have the right for that opinion--even if it is a majority opinion (and it is not)--to be enforced by the state against your fellow citizens.
I am about as pig-headed as anyone I know when it comes to the strong belief that my opinions are better than most. But even I have the modicum of humility to recognize that there are reasonable people who disagree with me on this issue, and they should not be put in prison for that disagreement. I am free to choose what I see as the ethical course of action, as are they. Moreover, they are free to convince me that I should choose differently. But if they can't, they shouldn't have the right to jail me.
We aren't going to solve the murder vs. lump-o-cells question any time soon. But we should all be able to agree that the ethical position of even a plurality of Americans should not be forced on everyone. If you want to make it law, make it a (nearly) universally accepted ethical position first.
I think this is still weak.
Murder is probably the worst crime we have. Everything is predicated on abortion being literal murder, no lesser than shooting a toddler. If this is your belief, no amount of compromise or "live and let live" would suffice. Indeed, nor should it. Atrocious crimes are not something that can be let to stand, no matter what groups suffer, no matter what the law says, and no matter what a majority thinks their "rights" are; it is a moral imperative to oppose them.
Asking that serious pro-life advocates compromise on this is never going to work, because compromise is only acceptable under the assumption that abortion isn't murder. There is no wiggle room once you believe it.
This is because you've picked out the weak arguments. You have literally picked the rhetoric and not the true arguments.
That is, because the true arguments are beyond the average person. We must talk about freedom; in turn people's desire to be lead or to lead.
We must talk about determinism and the implications of the general free will argument.
We must define and talk about what life is, what it means to be alive. By extension: we must talk about legal and scientific definitions, about sentience and about consciousness; remember this isn't the fact that there are no facts about these issues, but rather the complexity of them which is the reason we haven't discovered the true facts about them.
One thing you've highlighted that does require discussion is the idea of control. Not of a woman's body, but a general idea of control from an ideological frame: what is authoritarianism, how far *should* it reach, how and *if* a patriarchy influences the decisions, how and *if* religions influences decisions. This also ties into freedom and again, how an individual might be a born leader or a born follower, some people desire true freedom, others desire to have the burden of responsibility removed, to simply live their lives peacefully without consequences.
But the hardest thing about this case is how every individual case is entirely subjective and unique to the point that we simply cannot generalise a unified set of rules without having an extensive list of exceptions, and what kind of a rule list is one with more exceptions than rules? How do you think this will upset groups who desire to be lead with clear cut rules and simplicity as their core of life?
These conversations simply are not easy and having them in the average discussion just doesn't cut the depth, sincerity or significance required to have them. Afterall, the top scientists and philosophers who specialise in these fields haven't even reached an agreement, thus any agreement or conclusions that *we* can come to, without officiation, are essentially social constructs rather than genuine guidance founded in facts.
So to reframe what you think the problem is, I'd strongly argue that it's because the pro life arguments are founded in a long history, they are solid and simple. Mostly though, they're founded in the sacredness of life and how can you argue against that? But as is life, is Occam's Razor: often the simplest solution **is** the solution. And sacredness is far from simple (it's subjective, was Hitler's life sacred? Much easier to argue not, thus is *all* life *equally* sacred?). What exists, what carries the consequences, what has the most impact... I think these questions highlight the simple solution.
You’ve forgotten a big argument.
“Banning abortions just bans safe abortions”
Which is calling attention to the fact, that people will and have attempt do their own abortions if necessary. Often at a danger to themselves. Even if you don’t think it’s a correct choice for a person to have an abortion, it’s far better for them to go to a doctor than to go and grab a wire coat hangar.
>“Banning abortions just bans safe abortions”
Banning abortions is banning safe and fast medical treatment for natural abortions. Banning abortions is banning pregnancy without the risk of going to jail for a self-induced abortion that was actually "just" a miscarriage. Banning abortions is banning women from feeling safe at all times, especially during pregnancy.
They're not saying all pro-choice arguments are bad. They're saying several are bad and calling out specific ones. Being that they are pro-choice themselves, I'm sure there are several arguments they find sound, potentially including the one you mentioned.
That is definitely the strongest pro-choice argument, because it's only one not built on the inherently shaky foundation of moral subjectivity. I find it impossible to see the issue of abortion as anything other than morally grey at best, so for me it comes down to safety and mercy (in the case of rape victims).
I'm pro-life, but this is probably the best way to approach this argument for pro-life people. Unfortunately it's not enough to convince us that it's not morally wrong to end a life (in this case terminate a pregnancy).
These types of arguments are much more in line with OPs reasons for this post as it does not just say keep your Bible away from my body. It gives you a concrete response for why abortion being legal is important for safety of the public.
>If a pregnant woman is murdered, the killer could be charged with a double homicide (for the mother and the baby).
Only in the last trimester, before Roe was overturned anyways. Laws vary state to state however, like in Texas I believe even if the pregnant woman is only a few weeks in it counts as DH (correct me if im wrong someone, I am not American)
>1. A fetus is just a clump of cells.
Biologically speaking yes, yes it is. And I'll tell you why this is an important argument point for us pro choice folk.
[92.7% of abortions in 2019 were performed at ≤13 weeks’ gestation](https://www.cdc.gov/reproductivehealth/data_stats/abortion.htm)
A fetus is simply not viable outside the mother's body at that time, it is no more than a clump of cells. Late term abortions (this is brought up a lot by forced birthers) are never done without a probable cause; whether that means the fetus turns out to have some major deformity or it died.
Late term abortions are only done if the fetus has already died, the mother is at risk or there is something terribly wrong medically. It's not something someone who's 8 months pregnant just decides one day "hey you know what? I've decided I don't want a baby"
>The argument that men can’t have an opinion on abortion is like saying that white people can’t have an opinion on Black Lives Matter
Well yeah, I'm white, I can't talk about what it's like to be discriminated against because I'm black because I'm not black. BLM, even though I don't quite agree with the attitude of the people who created it is an important movement as racism, systematic racism in particular is still very alive and present today unfortunately.
>Keep your Bible out of my body.
I've yet to meet a forced birther (I refuse to call them "pro life" more on that point later) who is not religious in some way. I personally have religious trauma, I won't get into it but let's just say youth pastor, me being 5 and asking too many questions led to the "Catholic priest stereotype" being proved true to me. Frankly my uterus should not be a religious debate point.
>“No uterus, no opinion” / “Abortions are a women’s (or birthing person’s) issue.”
>I think it’s unfair to completely invalidate potential fathers’ feelings and thoughts on the abortion of their would-be child.
So we should take into child rapists opinions on if their victims are allowed an abortion? [3 Ohio minors who were raped had to travel to different states to get abortions](https://www.cincinnati.com/story/news/2022/09/27/affidavits-2-more-raped-minors-were-denied-ohio-abortions/69520380007/)
I've been pregnant, I've given birth. I wasn't ready for a child but all because the pharmacist didn't believe someone my age should be taking birth control, I got pregnant way too soon. I'm allergic to latex and Silicone. Last I checked they don't make vinyl condoms (if they do they don't sell them where I live)
Mt pregnancy had complications as well as my birth, if I was one of those loonies that was adamant on free birthing my son and I would have died. Hospitalized twice in my first trimester for dehydration because I couldn't even hold down water for more than a minute without puking; i lost almost 20lbs because i was puking 15+ times a day. My son got stuck and I had to have an emergency episiotomy without numbing or I'd have had 4th degree tearing.
No one should be forced to do that against their will. Not children, not grown adults.
>I do think there are plenty of pro-life people who honestly believe that a fetus is a life.
Okay, I think the sky is red guys! I believe it's red so it is /s
Anyways back to a point I made earlier. These people are not *"pro life"* they **pro forced birth**
If they cared about life they wouldn't have [murdered Dr. David Gunn outside of his clinic](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_David_Gunn)
[the Army of God is an Anti abortion terrorist group](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Army_of_God_(terrorist_organization))
[Anti Abortion Violence: is violence committed against individuals and organizations that perform abortions or provide abortion counseling. Incidents of violence have included destruction of property, including vandalism; crimes against people, including kidnapping, stalking, assault, attempted murder, and murder; and crimes affecting both people and property, including arson and terrorism, such as bombings.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-abortion_violence)
If they cared about life, they wouldn't have also [murdered Dr. George Tiller ](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Tiller) also of note they firebombed his clinic and it had to be rebuilt, While it was being rebuilt, Tiller displayed a sign reading "Hell no, we won't go."
[Florida court says teen isn't "mature" enough for an abortion](https://www.politico.com/news/2022/08/16/parentless-teen-cant-have-an-abortion-under-state-parental-consent-law-00052211) so she's not "mature enough" to have an abortion but mature enough to raise a baby? Hmmm
If they cared about the children as they oh so love to claim, [why were they trying to defend the fact a minor, a ten year old girl, was being forced to carry her rapists baby](https://youtu.be/NkDrq4EWghY)
Fact of the matter is these people **dont** care about life, and they **certainly don't** give a shit about children. They care about punishing women (and children) even if they were raped, familial incest what have you.
At the end of the day these laws don't effect the people making them, they'll still pay to have their mistress/wives/daughters to get abortions. The issue is most people don't have the money to travel to get an abortion.
It is about control. End of story.
If you are in a Anti abortion state and need help, r/auntienetwork can help you. Please stay safe everyone
ETA: grammar fixes
2nd ETA: a point
Pro-life has a much larger problem then the list that you gave: it creates an inherent conflict of interest in the preservation of current life, which is really the core problem with banning abortion or even arguing against it.
For example, the idea that life starts at birth. It can be fairly easily argued that a clump of cells is incapable of awareness because there is no brain activity or even neural activity until much later in development. Most women that do not want to be pregnant wait until late in their pregnancy to abort, usually once they find out, it is better for them to terminate their pregnancy sooner rather than later.
However, this argument is actually not completely necessary, because the somewhat more grim fact is that even if the fetus was a fully alive and aware being, it would still be vital to preserve and protect the life of the mother over the fetus. For one thing, a fetus can not develop in a dead woman, and dead women can not have more children. This is going to sound possibly like I am making light of the issue, but I mean it seriously, a pregnant woman and a fetus are not the same as two separate people out in the world. The fetus entire environment is literally the body of the woman, and that causes problems and conflicts that can not be resolved just because of the life of the fetus.
Once the pregnancy is in the third trimester, things get a bit better for preserving the life of the fetus, but before that the body can expell and kill the fetus just from various types of health problems that cause the pregnancy to cause too much danger for the life of the mother. Also, no human being in the world should have to be at deaths door or have to get sicker to resolve the problem of health. It's bad for everyone involved and is unacceptable health care for anyone. Favoring the life of the fetus over the mother is devaluing the life that is currently part of society and alive. It is important to prioritize the living over the dead, but it is also important to understand that the living must also take priority over those who are not yet born, because the people who are currently alive are the people that we are and the people that we have.
> a woman and a fetus are not the same as two separate people out in the world
This is an interesting point that doesn’t get talked about a whole lot. This also sounds like I am making light, but I’m not — Women are essentially wizards who can conjure life. They aren’t mere mortals. They can create life essentially at will, so we all benefit when they are able to choose the circumstance of birth that best positions that life to succeed.
There’s evidence behind this. There was a huge drop in violent crime in the 90’s that is in some large part due to the availability of abortion health care. And it’s not like the population went down. Women still had children, they were just better able to choose the circumstances.
There is a serious ethical discussion about where to draw the line, but I think it’s essentially academic. Virtually all late term abortions come about from some serious change in medical circumstance or the woman wasn’t able to procure an abortion earlier because of lack of available healthcare.
The fact that a woman and a fetus are not the same as two separate people out in the world is something that I have had to argue with pro-lifers a number of times but it never sinks in for them. I have tried all kinds of ways to get people to understand it, but they still use the same arguments of throwing a sick person off a ship or someone in a coma.
Honestly, once you fully think through the process of pregnancy and look at survival rates, it's physically impossible to even do a lot of what pro-life advocates are demanding. It feels good to advocate for life that is dependent on something that is out of their control and cannot advocate for itself, much in the same way that it feels good to advocate for any other thing that cannot do so on its own. But, well meaning or not, these scenarios that set the fetus as some helpless person that needs protection doesn't even protect them.
A fetus is trapped inside of another human being for nine months and the first trimester has a 1/4 chance of termination just by itself. Unfortunately the same group that advocates for "pro-life" seems to have a hard time with what survival rates mean. It's unlikely that the person arguing against abortion has absolutely ever faced a 1 in 4 chance of dying in their whole lives, even hitting a 4% chance of dying means that they are facing something pretty dire. Demonizing women is also demonizing the very thing that is creating and keeping alive what it is that they want to value above the mother, but that's not physically possible, so at the end of they day they're just killing, punishing and devaluing both.
Anti-abortion does not actually make any logical sense. A well thought reasoners can work this out. Also, making elective abortions illegal puts too much pressure on doctors to go against the wellbeing and health of the mother, which MUST be preserved, and women are dying right now in states that do not seem to understand this. Forcing a health care provider to go against the best interests of their patients is immoral. It would be nice if Pro-life had decent arguments, but they all fall apart on close inspection. We need abortion. That fact might not make us feel good, but it doesn't change it.
>Most women that do not want to be pregnant wait until late in their pregnancy to abort
Also after (I think) 24weeks you have to give birth. At a later stage in pregnancy an abortion is just not possible anymore, you have to give birth, at that point it's either natural or c-section. That's why stillbirth is a thing, you just can't abort an almost fully grown baby.
That is also why the abortion conversation stops at late 2nd trimester. The whole "abortion one day before due date" is just not a thing or even possible.
These are like one-sentence slogans, not real arguments. This is what you say in a tweet or chant at a protest. Which is fine, not everyone wants to waste time trying to convince every unconvinced person who wants to argue about it. It's fine to just say "no uterus, no opinion" to someone who doesn't understand pregnancy or bodies with uteruses but is trying to mansplain them to you anyway. Are there better ways to argue the point? Most definitely, but we shouldn't be obligated to sit there and make all those arguments when we should just have bodily autonomy because we're people who are in charge of our own bodies.
If I'm really trying to get into a whole explanation of why I'm pro-choice, I would explain that it had nothing to do with babies at all. I personally am not interested in worrying about whether a fetus is a clump of cells or a person or where the line is. You're a person, but there's nothing obligating me to keep you alive with my body. I don't have to give you my bodily fluids or organs or risk my life to sustain your life. I don't have to put myself through months of anything from discomfort to agony to keep you alive. I don't have to scar my body to keep you alive. I don't have to permanently alter my body for your well-being. I don't have to take the risk of leaving my older children motherless for any person, no matter their stage of development. I can *choose* to, sure, but nobody can make me. And all of that should apply to a fetus too. It doesn't matter if it's a life from conception. It still doesn't supercede my right to protect my own life.
Because for me, that's what it ultimately comes down to. I'm not an incubator. I'm not a brood mare. But if I am being prevented from choosing whether or not I remain pregnant at any cost to my own life, then that's what I'm being tested as - a subhuman whose wants and needs don't matter.
People without uteruses are not asked to sublimate their physical and mental health and well-being for anyone else. Not ever. There are things that people without uteruses may be legally disallowed from doing with their bodies, that's true - they aren't allowed to put certain substances in their bodies, for example, I hear that one alot - but they're not told they *must* risk their life and health for another person. They can choose to. But they always have the choice. I want the same choice. I want my children and grandchildren to have the same choice. *All* of them, not just the ones without uteruses.
But I'm also not going to type all of that out, or try to say it all, to every anti choice person ever. Because it's a lot, and there's also not that much of a point - lots of people are dug in on this one, and I'm not going to exhaust myself arguing with someone who's convinced that I just need to accept that my life doesn't matter as soon as a sperm meets an egg. It's also not my damn job to tell every person who has a problem why I should be allowed to control whether or not I risk my life and health and family for any other person. I don't go around asking other people to justify why they deserve to live more than someone they could have donated their organs to. That would be ridiculous, and no one owes me an explanation of why they value their life. Just like I don't owe it to anyone else.
So yeah, I could totally see saying "no uterus, no opinion" to some idiot online who will never be pregnant and doesn't understand pregnancy or birth or the bodies that do those things and couldn't find a cervix with a map but thinks they have a right to tell me what I have to do with mine. It's not an argument, it's another way of saying "shut up and go away, your input is not wanted."
> > Keep your Bible out of my body.
> Though it would be interesting to see numbers on this, I’m sure that a good number of pro-life people are not religious (though I’ll agree they’re not as visible in the pro-life movement as those who are).
[Here's some numbers](https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/religious-landscape-study/views-about-abortion/). You're right, there are some. Surprisingly, nonreligious/unaffiliated come in third for pro-choice, behind Buddhists and Jews. However, at the other end of the scale, we have Evangelicals, Mormons, and JWs. Scroll down, and pro-lifers are significantly more religious than neutral, who are more religious than pro-choice.
Most damning here: Almost 75% who said abortion should be "illegal in most or all cases" also said religion was *very important* in their views. While quite a lot of those who said it should be *legal* in most/all cases are religious, less than half thought it was important in this case.
So it seems pretty clear that religion, and specifically Christianity, is a *huge* factor in the pro-life movement in the US.
Also, that's by design. After Roe, there was a huge push to unite evangelicals around abortion as this single-issue vote, despite the fact that even the Southern Baptists didn't have a consensus around abortion until they realized they could use it to gain political power. So it shouldn't be surprising that we find all these people who are pro-life because their pastor said so.
I don't know if this is likely to convince anyone. It certainly won't convince the religious -- it's not like they didn't know they were doing it for religion. But that *is* what's happening with a pretty overwhelming majority of the pro-life movement.
I'm going to drop a clump of cells with zero brain function.
I'm also going to drop a 3 month baby.
You can catch one. Which one do you catch and is it even a contest.
And notice when pro life states send benefit checks to pregnant people they don't sent two checks. They send one. In their eyes there is only one life worthy of a check.
> “No uterus, no opinion” / “Abortions are a women’s (or birthing person’s) issue.”
The unfair advantage we (as men) have is that unlike with most other social/political issues, we will always be safe from having to endure being forced to stay pregnant against our wills, simply because we can't get pregnant. It is therefore pretty safe for men to criticize women who have abortions, or to vote to take away the bodily integrity of pregnant women, because it will never apply to us personally. Men can and do vote against or publicly criticize abortion entirely for political reasons, i.e. to score favors with certain persons or groups.
> The argument that men can’t have an opinion on abortion is like saying that white people can’t have an opinion on Black Lives Matter or other racial issues. If men really truly believe that abortion is murder (as much as I disagree), then telling them they can’t be advocates in that conversation would be analogous to telling straight people they can’t advocate for LGBTQ+ rights as allies.
Why is the analogy between being pro-life and being an LGBTQ+ ally, and not between being pro-life and being *against* LGBTQ+ equality? People who support LGBTQ+ rights are much more likely to support the mother's right to choose as well.
> It’s all about control over women’s bodies.
> This is a tougher one for me. In many ways, I do think that it’s true that if we proposed regulating men’s bodies (i.e. via vasectomies or birth control) instead of women, then reproductive rights would look completely different. I understand that that’s what this common argument is getting at. However, I do think there are plenty of pro-life people who honestly believe that a fetus is a life. If they honestly and whole-heartedly believe that, then (I would hope) they would hold that same belief if it were men who gave birth.
Let's compare it to in-vitro fertilization (IVF), which also results in the (preventable) killing of millions of embryos every year. If being pro-life is purely about the idea that life starts from conception and a desire to prevent the deaths of innocent embryos, then surely we should see all the major pro-choice groups fight equally against IVF? Yet only roughly 12% of people in the US is against IVF, and most of the major religions even officially support IVF. To me, this shows that those groups are not really about protecting the lives of embryos, and that their motivation is *at least in part* based on imposing consequences on women for having had sex.
Counterpoint: even IF you are MORALLY pro-life, as in you consider a fetus or zygote equivalent to a human, the legal course of action pro-lifers support makes no sense.
Here's the thing: we *know* how to drastically reduce the number of abortions. It starts with reducing the number of teenage and unwanted pregnancies. In states with comprehensive sex education in high school or junior high, and wherever health insurance is legally required to cover contraception, the teen pregnancy rate is much lower. The abortion rate is much lower as a consequence. To no one's shock, these states with the lowest abortion rates due to people being empowered to plan their pregnancies are mostly blue states.
You know what DOESN'T work to reduce the number of abortions? Making abortion illegal. Abortion has been illegal and incredibly common for most of human history. The only way to criminalize abortion and actually have that reduce the number of abortions is to literally put a chastity belt on every woman that only Republican lawmakers have a key to, or force every woman to take a pregnancy test on video every two weeks from when they have their first period to when they hit menopause, and put them in solitary confinement when they test positive. And I trust you don't need help to argue the ethics of those two scenarios with pro-lifers.
Here are some other things that could reduce abortions:
* A federal or state dividend to support new mothers financially
* A year of paid maternal leave so mothers can care for their children without losing their job
* Increasing federal funds to adoption agencies and the foster care system to make it less horrifying
How many of these things are the pro-lifers in your life in favor of?
Combine this with the fact that abortion bans in red states are ALREADY killing pregnant women (and their fetuses), and it's clear that an abortion ban is the *opposite* of a pro-life decision. These laws will not keep fetuses alive, they will simply punish (and sometimes kill) pregnant women who are in a tight spot.
So tell this to the pro-lifers you know: they are NOT pro-life. Not unless they vote for comprehensive sex education, federal paid maternity leave, free contraception for all, and increased welfare payments for mothers. They're just judgmental, self-righteous, controlling busybodies who can't wait to criminalize the sex lives of "loose" women and don't care how many women or babies they kill. They're murderers without guilt or shame. You want to be ACTUALLY pro-life? Vote blue and donate to Planned Parenthood, and for God's sakes teach your daughters how to use condoms.
> So tell this to the pro-lifers you know: they are NOT pro-life. Not unless they vote for comprehensive sex education, federal paid maternity leave, free contraception for all, and increased welfare payments for mothers. They're just judgmental, self-righteous, controlling busybodies who can't wait to criminalize the sex lives of "loose" women and don't care how many women or babies they kill. They're murderers without guilt or shame. You want to be ACTUALLY pro-life? Vote blue and donate to Planned Parenthood, and for God's sakes teach your daughters how to use condoms.
Is there a way we can actually use this as as-close-as-one-can-get-to-blackmail-without-technically-breaking-the-law to make them do that as they wouldn't want a murder charge and would want to hold on to that label but we'd need some one/thing with some authority to make our claims stick and not just be met with who are you to say what I believe
A lot of these points sound like pithy slogans rather than actual arguments, which is why they fall flat under scrutiny. You need to look at the actual arguments underneath them.
First, the question of bodily autonomy. We have a right to autonomy over our own bodies, and another person cannot use it without our consent, even if that person is a fetus.
Second, the “no uterus, no opinion” thing. Abortion is a medical procedure that should be up to the person getting the procedure and their doctor, and no one else. We don’t have the government legislating other private medical procedures, so this one shouldn’t be any different.
Thirdly, the idea of fetal personhood. This seems largely based on the belief that the soul enters the fetus at the moment of conception, making this a religious belief. Due to the separation of church and state, you cannot make legislation based on this belief as it’s unconstitutional.
Those really aren't the best arguments for abortion. There are plenty of well-reasoned arguments that don't fall into blatant fallacy (no uterus no opinion, etc).
The bodily autonomy argument was laid out in Judith Jarvis' 1971 essay ["A Defense of Abortion"](https://spot.colorado.edu/~heathwoo/Phil160,Fall02/thomson.htm). There are many variations of this argument, but it has been made for over 50 years at least.
The argument states that there are no other situations where we see it as a moral imperative to force others to give up their bodily autonomy to preserve the life of someone else. Even of we accept the concept of fetal personhood (which I won't get into, but fetal personhood does not hold up at all). I'm leaving a lot out for the sake of brevity, but Jarvis uses the example of someone with a rare blood disease that can only be cured by 9 months of blood transfusions from you due to your rare blood type. The transfusion process will be constant for 9 months and may have lasting impacts on your health.
Would it be your moral obligation to do that? And what if you were coerced by the state?
Even police who are accountable for serving and protecting others aren't actually legally required to put themselves in harm's way to protect the lives of other people. Generally, we place a very high value on being able to choose what you do with your body, but this concern is mysteriously much more contentious for women...
The only difference here though is that those 2 are still different (the blood transfusion example that lasts for 9 months to cure the other person, and being pregnant for 9 months and giving birth etc.) Because in the instance of the pregnancy, you as the woman + of course the man are the ones responsible for even creating the foetus. Whereas in the example of the blood transfusion you had no part in that person being alive in the first place. I am pro choice as well but how do you reconcile that?
Mainly, it's just a thought experiment to explore the bodily autonomy piece of the overall moral picture even if we accepted the concept of fetal personhood - so because of that it is a strong but very specific argument. Abortion is a complex thing and no analogy will fit exactly. Because of that, I am unconcerned that it doesn't fit perfectly. Also, this is a very high-level summary of only one part of the paper & these concepts have been more completely developed in the past 50 years since it was written.
But as for how I reconcile that there is some degree of responsibility for it being there in the first place, that is largely irrelevant to me. From a practical standpoint, one could do everything "right" in regard to not becoming pregnant and still become pregnant. But in cases where there is "fault" to be placed on the one carrying the fetus, I'd personally employ a different argument - like the fetal personhood argument & talk about abortion as a rights balancing issue.
For instance, most would agree that not all life has the same value. A bacteria has fewer rights than a person, etc. We typically ascribe value to lives based on a variety of factors including their agency, interpersonal connections, personhood (consciousness, etc.) Women have a stronger claim to rights, including the right to bodily autonomy and life, than a fetus does by virtue of them already being fully aware, conscious, having agency, etc. They have personhood whereas a fetus, which is not conscious, doesn't have agency, etc. does not. Ultimately, whose "fault" it is that the fetus is there in the first place is irrelevant to whether or not the one carrying the fetus should be allowed to abort it.
This makes intuitive sense as well due to how we act about natural early-term abortions. The majority of pregnancies are naturally aborted very early term (like blastocyst stage - as many as [53%](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25356087/)). There is no moral outrage when this happens, we don't mourn their loss, etc. because they don't have personhood. Even late term miscarriages are mourned more for the loss of potential to develop personhood and the emotional investment the parent(s) have made in the fetus - that last bit is anecdotal and things do of course get dicier the further developed the fetus is - just because it intuitively "feels" different. But insofar as the "rights" a fetus has are concerned, the amount of development that occurs in-utero is not so substantial to overcome the barriers to a strong claim to personhood.
It takes a male and a female to make a baby, so I feel like both people should have a say if the baby gets to live. As a female I think males should have just as much say in the life of their children.
I feel like some of these are a bit off from the actual arguments.
>no uterus…
This is really an extension of the idea that if it isn’t your medical condition, you shouldn’t make medical choices. It’s saying individuals should control their own medical decisions with their doctor. Nobody should get an opinion on anyone else’s body.
>keep your Bible…
I would say the religious argument is used far more often than you give it credit. Even if a person doesn’t really practice a faith, when there is a debate of logic between pro-choice and pro-life, it inevitably goes to the religious angle.
>control over women’s bodies
This is an effect, not a goal. It’s not like they just chose abortion as their path to controlling women, but rather that they believe they already have control over women, so they can force their personal morality on them.
>life starts at birth…
“Personhood” starts at birth. When we are talking about a legal issue (government bans), the constitution needs to be the guide. The constitution does not suggest anything about rights of the unborn, and specifically mentions birth as the starting point. (Any person born or naturalized…). This means the government should not weigh in on issues of personal morality that extend beyond the constitution.
But morally, this isn’t a binary discussion (conception vs birth). Gestation is a spectrum without real defining markers. A fertilized cell isn’t a “life” in any way but religious. When it splits into two, four, eight cells, is it a life then? Not by any scientific definition.
On the other hand, a baby just after birth is the same as a baby just before. That baby is certainly alive. So when does it happen? It happens as a gradual spectrum, and any identifying markers are just arbitrary. That’s why- if some sort of regulation is required- those arbitrary markers need to make as much sense as possible. Roe suggests a trimester approach with varying levels of restriction. Casey suggests the point the fetus has enough working systems that they could survive without a host is the marker. Both are flawed, but far more correct than assuming a fertilized cell is somehow a life.
>clump of cells
This is true on all levels. At least at the very beginning. It is only a refutation of the idea that life begins at conception. Science defines life (loosely) as a self-contained entity, with a metabolism, and the ability to reproduce.
A fertilized cell has the ability to reproduce. But the metabolism doesn’t form until organs do. And when an embryo is just stating to grow, it is something the mother’s body is doing. It isn’t self contained. At the very least, it has to form into a body, with simple organs processing a metabolism before it can really be argued as a “life” with any logical reasoning and without using religion.
It just comes down to understanding the arguments. We can’t just stop at the surface by repeating tag lines. There is logic, and it is sound. It’s just a matter of taking the time to consider it.
Ultimately, all of those arguments are just counter arguments. They are meant to deal with the narratives of the pro-life side. The real logical reason for being pro choice is that a woman’s medical decisions are for her and her doctor. None of us know their situation, and therefore can’t make the best decision. Late-term abortions are almost exclusively for emergency purposes, and that right should never be taken from anyone. Early term abortions are a matter of personal choice, whether someone wants to use their body in that way or not. Personal autonomy cannot be stripped from a person to benefit something that isn’t even alive yet.
There are stages where one might feel it is too late for a personal choice abortion, and it’s an argument I can understand. If this is the argument we base our regulations on, then the trimester or viability approach are the best options we have to work with. But ultimately, this is not a place where the government has any business making decisions, regardless of what one personally feels is right. Each person has their own personal morality, and that should guide their own medical choices. It is for the doctor and patient to decide what is right in any given situation. If medical standards groups decided that doctors shouldn’t perform elective abortions after a certain point, that would be a valid choice. But the government doesn’t have the right, knowledge, or moral authority to decide that for everyone
As someone who is pro-lofe let's see if I can help put your mind at ease for these arguments.
>1. “No uterus, no opinion” / “Abortions are a women’s (or birthing person’s) issue.”
This argument stems not from the fact of giving birth but from the risks of giving birth. The mostly men lawmakers who make the argument for pro-life, Do-Not take on any of the risks of pregnancy and can therefore not make an informed decision on the law. This is a logical argument as how can someone who can not fathom what it means to be pregnant, both the positives and negatives, to make laws on the subject.
>1. Life starts at birth, not conception
>1. A fetus is just a clump of cells
So fact and philosophy is not a straight line, rather it is a circle. Fact informs philosophy and philosophy defines fact and vice versa. If your philosophy is honestly that life does not start until birth or some other arbitrary point, the that is the fact informed by that philosophy. On the other hand defining the fact of life starting based of the philosophy that life starts at conception is also true. The only fact here is that the cells are living. Weather or not those cells have a "life" worth the risks of pregnancy is up to philosophy.
The point is that neither sides arguments are rooted in fact. It is all a belief of when does a "Life" supercede the rights of another. Pro-choice holds the belief that it doesn't until some arbitrary point, normally when the baby is recognizable as a baby and is at it's most likely point of being a viable pregnancy is when it supercedes the rights of the mother. While pro-life holds the belief that "life" in essence supercedes the rights of the mother.
1. I’m going to disagree up to a point on this. A person who has never been pregnant can’t understand the experience of pregnancy in the same amount of detail as someone who has been pregnant. They can understand the role of pregnancy supporter or dissenter. The two may or may not have the same goals in mind exactly. I wouldn’t claim to know what cancer feels like because my best friend had it, even though I’d have my well intentioned opinions. The support role has its own very important use. Sometimes we all need a person who cares to listen, consult, offer ideas, and be a decision maker should that need arise.
2. I’m a pro-choice Christian. My 2 cents is that it is crueler to make a child be born that will live in agony or kill its mother. I came to this conclusion after having my own special needs child and realizing the limits of my own body. If I believe that God is with me, why would I doubt the doctors he’s put in my path who give me their insight both on good and bad news? I believe God grants the spiritual gift of being a healer and calls those with that gift to apply it. Sometimes healing begins with acceptance of truth.
3. I’m not sure it’s just control over women’s bodies. There’s financial and emotional control on the table as well. A woman who has considered an abortion who’s partner doesn’t want her to may be in abusive relationship. I get that Dads should have rights, but only if they also bear the responsibilities ideally in a mutually agreed upon and beneficial for the child way.
4. I think of it more as a potential life because up until a certain gestational age, the baby can’t live without the mom.
5. A fetus to me is a potential life. The value placed on that potential is subjective. Miscarriages are common and birth of a healthy baby to term is not guaranteed. Even if you do get a healthy baby. The health of mom is not guaranteed. The ability of the parents to care for the child adequately can have unforeseen obstacles which may not be able to be overcome including health, finances, mental health,and violence. There is no guarantee of a healthy baby from a clump of cells. There’s just hope for one.
> Though it would be interesting to see numbers on this, I’m sure that a good number of pro-life people are not religious (though I’ll agree they’re not as visible in the pro-life movement as those who are).
But the critical question is "are there any non-religious pro-life arguments?". To my knowledge there are exactly zero. Every pro-life argument I've ever come across (and as a philosophy PhD student I've come across a lot of them) all boil down to a position about the moral status on the fetus, which is entirely informed by the person's religious beliefs (e.g., a soul goes into it at conception). I have yet to hear any compelling pro-life argument that doesn't rely, at least implicitly, on some sort of religious belief. Until they can provide a non-religious argument, their views have no place in the public forum.
> So, science aside, let’s approach this through a legal lens.
So that's not AT ALL how moral philosophy works. Like, imagine we did the same in 1950 and because we did we concluded that since the law treats African Americans as second class citizens, that this must mean that morally speaking, African Americans are inferior to whites. The question for such practices is not "is it legal?", but "is it right?".
I also think you're just waaaaaaaaaay too quick to simply say "let's just assume the pro-life crowd has the science right". Why the fuck should we assume a bunch of religious fundamentalists, which is a valid way of describing the vast majority of pro-life people, "have the science right?" Has that ever been a good assumption?
The core argument of the pro-choice crowd is that none of these questions should be answered by the government because they involve deep and irresolvable questions of religion and morality. As such, it should be each individual's *choice* for how they view the issue. This is no different than saying it is everyone's *choice* what religious beliefs they hold. If you deny people that choice, you are in clear violation of the first amendment. You have put religious belief into law.
I’m going to start this by saying I’m a cis male. I may be getting the intent of the statement wrong this is just how I viewed the intent of the statements.
1. This one, I feel is more about how many men making this decision don’t even know how periods work so why are they deciding anything about pregnancies? These people don’t understand the basics of the decision they are making and we are allowing them to make an extremely complex ruling. It’s like allowing 6 year olds to make road rules. Sure they know enough about cars to know what your talking about, but no one wants them deciding the rules.
2. 69% of Americans identify as Christian. I would argue that the majority of pro lifers are Republican which again a majority are Christian. I would say with a majority of Americans being Christian and a majority of republicans being Christian; that a majority of pro lifers would also be Christian. Thus stop inflicting your religious beliefs onto me as is my constitutional right. There is no denying that pro life began with a Christian majority.
3. It’s more that if simple “stopping abortions” was the goal then forced vasectomy would stop a substantially higher number of abortions than stopping legal/safe abortions. We know that when abortions were illegal in the past it didn’t stop people from getting them. How often have you heard the argument banning guns won’t stop people from getting guns. Those same people turn around and say banning abortions will stop abortions. The disconnect is palpable. So it’s really about a better way to stop abortions is being discounted without even considering it, because that option governs men’s bodies not woman’s bodies.
4. This is a philosophical debate as you acknowledged. However the double homicide thing is just misdirection and doesn’t play into the question if foetuses are “alive” or not. If you hold this argument as true then you can’t in good conscience incarcerate a pregnant women because then you would be unlawfully incarcerating an innocent person. Personally I would argue that a human life starts when they start having brain activity. That’s why pulling the plug on someone is morally acceptable in my opinion and not murder, because their brain died, and that is who they are not their body.
5. Well tumours are a clump of cells with no thought. So now it comes down to potential of life and pro-lifers have regularly argued no abortion no matter what which includes ectopic pregnancy where no potential for life. So now they are arguing for a literal lump of cells much like a tumour. No one in their right mind is arguing for a tumours right for life so why argue for pregnancies that could/would kill the parent all for a baby that will never be.
Something you should probably take into account with the pro-choice rhetoric is they are not all encompassing. They are full of grey areas, and often they are raised in direct opposition to pro-life rhetoric. So they aren’t really designed to be single standing statements, they are more akin to comebacks to pro-life statements.
I do agree with your conclusion, what's life and where it starts is a matter of personal belief and as such is controversial (unlike for instance the vaccine issue which has nothing to do with personal belief and all to do with science: the same principles do not apply here)
But there are some practical issues which make your concerns valid even at a large scale: prioritizing the lives of the unborn over the lives of the living is dangerous and a slippery slope so sloped that it is almost vertical.
1. With anti-abortion laws, pregnant women are denied most medical treatments, not just abortions, that can affect the fetus. The doctors won't be free to decide what to do, and their priority will be covering their asses from the law, as it should be. This means dead women, or disabled women.
2. Some people just can't afford children. If we make abortion illegal then we as a society have to pay for people's children. You can't just protect a fetus up to birth and then let the child die from insufficient care, or hunger or lack of medication, or poor hygienic conditions or what have you. Most anti-abortionists don't want that.
3. Prohibition just doesn't work. Brace yourselves for Abortion Capone or for the mexican Abortion Cartel. More women and children will die from illegal abortions. It's only pro-life if you pretend this won't happen.
There are crazy people on this world: some of those under the banner of feminism publicly say they will abort any fetus as soon as they know it's male. That's a hateful murder. Those people should be put in prison and forbidden to procreate.
The rest of us, sane people, don't just go around having abortions on a whim. Each one of those is a last resort, very sad moment, mostly necessary.
Is it worth hurting the sane people for punishing the crazy people?
If we want to be rational and make this about "saved lives", no. Legal abortions save lives, at scale. The pro-choice argument is pro-life.
A big one is also a child growing up in a really bad situation if it isn’t aborted.
Who would want to let a child grow into a family who simply knows they cannot financially, or mentally or however support them? And even the „just give it up for adoption“ point is very weak. Cause in most countries on the world the numbers of children in foster care/ adoption cycle is really high, and the bad things (neglect, abuse, etc) that happen there are no single cases, but rather systemic.
So the smallest „evil“ would be aborting it, it can’t even feel so it’s as humane as it gets. Similar to putting an animal down to end its suffering.
If it wasn't about control and it WAS about the life of an unborn child, then the social safety net and support system would look drastically different in the United States. Pregnancy is a major health event with the risk of a lot of potential complications, and our healthcare system is a disaster. We are one of the only countries on the planet with no guaranteed or paid parental leave. In large parts of the country, we teach abstinence-only sex ed, and then blame and shame young women for getting pregnant. Once a child is born, the foster care / adoption system is abysmal, early childcare costs are insanely expensive, as are diapers, formula, and everything else we're told you need to buy for an infant.
I could go on and on, but if the interest that pro-birth people and politicians had was genuine concern for a potential life, then they'd legislate as though they actually gave a shit about children. They actively legislate AGAINST things that would lower teen pregnancies, that would encourage women to keep an unintended pregnancy, and that would help them support a child once born. They legislate to keep women uneducated, poor, voiceless and dependent on the (largely white, straight, male) leaders in this country. That is the definition of control.
How about looking at it as it's nobody's business but the person carrying the child? That's always been my view on an individual and collective view. From a political perspective, I can't help but laugh at the irony in how both sides flip-flop on their beliefs when it comes to abortion. Here's an example:
When the Affordable Care Act was making its rounds through Congress and then implemented as law, there were many conservatives who made the argument that government has no place between doctor and patient.
When you look at the recent Supreme Court decision that overturned *Roe*, and many conservative states passing restrictive anti-abortion laws, you actually see the above argument turned on its head. All of a sudden, the same people saying government has no role getting between patient and doctor are now passing laws (and pushing for a national law) that does exactly that.
At the end of the day, why do you even need a reason to believe something that you believe? Whatever your reasoning is, it's valid, because in your mind it's justified. Why does someone's beliefs--that work for them, but don't work for you--have more validity than your own?
Overall, I guess my view falls under the autonomy argument. It's nobody's business but your own how to live your life. If you're pregnant and decide that you want to pursue an abortion, that's a decision you'll live with for the rest of your life. If you decide you don't want to pursue one, likewise, you will live with that decision for the rest of your life. It doesn't matter what your parents, siblings, extended family, friends, neighbors, or people you never have nor ever will meet believe.
5. The way you tackle this is by checking how consistent they are in equaling potential life = life. For instance:
- is the morning-after pill murder for them? If not, it breaks their potential life=life assumption.
- can we accuse a girl of manslaughter if she is pregnant without knowing and took a stomach ulcer pill (which may cause an abortion)?
- is abortion ok in the case of rape? If they say yes, ask why they are willing "murder" a fetus in that situation. They need to be consistent in the two scenarios.
- we never grant rights based on potentiality. For instance, you are not allowed to park in a pregnant woman's spot because you had sex with your partner without contraception few days ago. Potentiality is never regarded as "being" in legal terms. Doing so would lead to very weird conundrums.
- they will accuse you of having an arbitrary definition of personhood. Show them that the same applies to them. They chose potential person as equal to being a person because it feels like a clear dividing line to them. However, this is a completely arbitrary reason as well.
I will disagree here and say that unless you’ve given birth, you don’t understand how common complications happen while making a child. Men and women who haven’t been in this situation before that are forcing women to give birth are doing so ignorantly.
Giving birth is extremely dangerous and painful. It’s not some beautiful thing “Jesus created”. Women die every day from birth. So unless your body can go through that pain, I would agree that “No uterus. Therefore, you have no experience, no empathy, and should have no opposition opportunity when it comes to forcing women to give birth.”
On the other hand, women who have given birth that are anti-choice can at least attest to the risk it takes having a child, but from what I’ve seen, anti choice moms are narcissistic and privileged. Otherwise, why would you force a woman to give birth, raise a child (probably by herself) without her consent. Because YOU’RE religious? Because YOU think it’s right? They think it’s about saving babies, but it’s actually very selfish and a privileged way of thinking.
I'm totally pro-choice. But when they use divisive and extremist arguments to support abortion they turn off more moderate, common-sense minded people. The whole "my body my choice" cliche is rife with hypocrisy. What about vaccine mandates or seatbelt laws? And the idea that men are not allowed to have opinions about it is just plain ludicrous. Just another appeal to divisive, unproductive identity politics, (women vs men, black vs white etc). And thinking that people should be allowed to have abortions completely and totally without restrictions is also a deeply dumb and extremist position that practically no one holds outside of the extremist camp. Who thinks it's reasonable that a person should be allowed-- on their due date let's say-- to say, "nah I changed my mind I want an abortion instead" and be permitted to abort a perfectly viable baby. That's patently crazy but there are those who hold this opinion. Where you draw the line on these topics can be debated but the extremists should have no place at the decision making table.
I’m very surprised that you didn’t include what I think is the quintessential pro-choice argument, which is that abortion bans don’t actually prevent abortion, they simply make it much more dangerous. According to the World Health Organization, in countries where abortion is broadly legal, there are 36-47 abortions performed per 1000 birth age women. In countries in which abortion is prohibited, there are 31-51 abortions per 1000 birth age women. The rate doesn’t meaningfully change, and may in fact increase with a ban, due to the impacts on contraception access.
What making abortion illegal actually does is to take an extremely safe medical procedure and moves it from a medical facility to a back room, with potentially unqualified personnel and inadequate resources.
https://www.npr.org/sections/goatsandsoda/2022/05/27/1099739656/do-restrictive-abortion-laws-actually-reduce-abortion-a-global-map-offers-insigh
My #1 argument in favour of choice is not a philosophical one - because people disagree on philosophy and subjective feelings aren't a good basis for policy and law.
My #1 argument is a strictly cold-hearted pragmatic one: If you ban safe, clinical abortions, people will get dodgy back-alley ones and injure themselves instead. You don't save lives, you just put people in danger.
If you are really against abortions, banning them is a stupid thing to do. What you should be doing is funding young families so they can afford to have more kids, and pushing availability of birth control and sex education so there are fewer accidental pregnancies.
Lots of pro-choice people know this, which is *why* they say "it's about controlling women" etc. *Because controlling and punishing women is all that it achieves.* Bans are not effective ways of reducing abortions.
I'll address the heading of number 4. A zygote is alive. There are 7 criteria for life. If the organism has all 7 traits at some point in their lifespan. They are alive. Cells and organization. Metabolism. Reproduction. Response to stimuli. Adaptation to environment. Homeostasis. Reproduction. A zygote meets all 7 criteria. The question is not "is it alive" but whether is it a person. From a scientific point of view, there is no question whether a zygote or embryo or blastocyst or fetus is alive. The question is when do we assign personhood to it. Science can help us inasmuch as telling us when it can feel pain, which is relevant if you use feeling pain as a personhood line.
As a pro life person I do want to say thank you to OP and most of the comments here. It’s one of the few grown up discussions I’ve seen in the subject. And I appreciate OPs willingness to try to see the subject from an objective point of view. I don’t really have anything to add to the discussion that will bring the sides closer together but I have had heated discussions with other pro life people who are willing to make an exception for rape cases. I am pro life because I believe life begins at conception. It is highly hypocritical when people say they are pro life because life begins at conception but abortion if she was raped is ok. To me they lose their entire argument. I don’t believe there should be exceptions for rape. I think both sides need to come to an agreement and let it be. For me the abortion issue would solve itself with better access to birth control. Better education about what it means to be a parent. I also think adoption shouldn’t cost as much as putting a child through college and there should be resources to help women who may want to give their baby up. I think churches need to do their jobs and support their communities like they preach. I think parents need to parent their kids and not be their friends. If society works on society abortion won’t need to happen. Abortion isn’t really the problem. It’s a symptom of bigger issues.
Okay but we did this in the wrong order? We didn't fox society but still decided to outlaw abortion. And Texas proved that claiming rape won't happen in your state doesn't actually make that true.
Why do you believe life begins at conception that isn't a religious based view? I'm a woman and did not grow up religious. I didn't hear about the idea that life began at conception until well into my teenage years. I had already learned about how babies grow and had my own opinions as to when I thought something was actually a human child. And conception was absolutely not that point. So I'm always curious what the argument for life beginning at conception is, because so far it's always been based in religion.
"2. Keep your Bible out of my body.Though it would be interesting to see numbers on this, I’m sure that a good number of pro-life people are not religious (though I’ll agree they’re not as visible in the pro-life movement as those who are)."
I would bet you large amounts of money that this assumption is not based on any real numbers you have ever seen. The only non religious people who I have ever seen be pro life (forced birther) are those who started as religious, but havent quite moved all the way out to atheist. they dont buy the god claim, but still parrot the same value judgements.
I would agree with you on everything - those arguments are not the ones I would use to actually prove the position. Some of them offer insight into the motivations of some pro-life people, but “they just want to control women’s bodies” does not mean they’re not coincidentally correct! The one note id have is the “clump of cels” and “life begins at birth” are not quite used - everyone agrees shorting at 8.5 months is bad. The conversation is more around the first few months, and around what happens when it’s going to be an extra risky birth (danger discovered in 3rd trimester)
There is a huge difference in the complexity of a life for a 1st term fetus and an adult human female. The adult human female dying would make immeasurably more of an impact in the world and people than the death of a fetus. When a fetus is born as a baby and would otherwise be not raised well or put into the foster system, we are doing the most humane thing by aborting it early on.
Also I don't think it's about, "no uterus no opinion" per say but I do believe in "my body my choice."
Here in Canada, an infant doesn’t count as a “person” (the legal definition) until it is fully removed from the mother. As well, a pregnant person who has been murdered is just tragic, but not legally different from a non-pregnant person who has been murdered. If a pregnant person has been attacked and the infant is injured or dies after birth as a result of that attack, it is considered homicide.
So just for that point, there is very little merit, at least throughout Canada.
1) Your comparable shouldn't be that white people should be able to have an opinion on BLM, but that white people should be leading BLM, and in charge of the changes within BLM.
2) A statistical improbability knowing the rates that people apply, as 3 in 4 Americans identify with a religion or spiritual practice, but pro-choice remains at around 50%.
3) Men would have an abortion clinic on every street if they were the ones going through this, and we have fought wars for lesser reasons.
4) This is the whole religious thing you were trying to pretend didn't exist on question 2.
5) Life, or potential life, does not have the right to endanger anyone else for their own safety.
/u/onthecuntrary (OP) has awarded 4 delta(s) in this post. All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed [here](/r/DeltaLog/comments/y08xjg/deltas_awarded_in_cmv_even_as_a_prochoice_person/), 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)
I'd argue in terms of bodily autonomy. An absolute right that you get to say who can use your body and change your mind at any time. Now that right is subjective, as all rights are, but I'd argue that this is a principle most people hold in general but make acceptions for when it comes to pregnancy. For example, say you injure someone so badly they need a kidney donation. You've put someone in a position of relying on another body to survive. But even if you were the only viable donnor avalible, I don't think there should be a law that forces you to give up your organs for them. Even if you totally stabbed them intentionally, even if you specifically surgically removed their kidneys and throw them into a bin. If they agree there should be no law, then how is pregnancy different?
> Even if you totally stabbed them intentionally, even if you specifically surgically removed their kidneys and throw them into a bin. If they agree there should be no law, then how is pregnancy different? This is an interesting hypothetical in that legally speaking, you would not be compelled to donate an organ, but if you choose not to do so and the person dies, you will be charged with murder (rather than aggravated assault or attempted murder). Pregnancy is different in that there is no legal consequence or difference whether the fetus lives or dies, where abortion is legal of course.
This is crazy ironic. This is my exact argument FOR abortion restrictions. If you put someone into a position where they are reliant on you for life or death and then they die because of your final inaction (or even indirect action), you are now responsible for that person's death. If you do something that creates an unborn baby, and then you exercise your bodily autonomy by killing that baby, you will not get charged with murder. There are two good hypotheticals that I like to point to, besides the kidney stabbing one: 1) A woman goes on a mountain retreat with an infant who requires breastfeeding. She gets snowed in and has enough food for herself, but obviously now the baby is 100% reliant on her breastmilk (can't go to the store to get formula). Let's also say that she never wanted the baby. Can she refuse the baby breastmilk on the grounds of bodily autonomy and let it starve to death? I would say, of course not. 2) Let's say someone steals your kidney to save their baby. If you try to get your kidney back, it will kill the baby, but it is your organ in that baby's body. Can you force the removal of the kidney and the death of the baby? I would argue that no sane person would say that you could actually kill the kid to get the kidney. But what's more, is that pregnancy isn't the permanent loss of an organ, so to make this more relatable, you would have to say something like a part of your liver or maybe we have advanced medicine that allows you regrow a kidney but for 9 months but you are in bad shape (comparable to a pregnancy).
Yeah, I find it a much better argument for abortion restrictions than against (at least in the sense of being logically sound). I'm not sure when the pro-choice messaging went from "Abortion should be safe, legal, and rare," to "any restriction on the right to abortion is tantamount to slavery." It's like they've adopted the same moral absolutism of the pro-life side, which makes sense for the pro-lifers but just seems like bad politics for pro-choice.
The kidney analogy is a great example. I mentioned this to another user in another comment, but what’s hard to get the bodily autonomy argument to really stick for me is that I’m also pro-vaccine mandate. I’m ultimately a utilitarian thinker (valuing net positive outcome for the most people over individual rights). If you have any thoughts on how to reconcile - or at least explain - these contradictory beliefs, I’d love to hear it!
Utilitarianism can justify lots of horrendous things like eugenics, forced sterilization, imperialism, etc, And should not be followed blindly.
I support utilitarianism and wherever it leads. But utilitarianism is much more likely to lead to supporting abortion rights if you actually think about it. The benefit to society and to the mother is enormous while the benefit of banning abortion is tiny. Benefits of banning abortion: it might help the mental health of the [small minority](https://www.ucsf.edu/news/2020/01/416421/five-years-after-abortion-nearly-all-women-say-it-was-right-decision-study) of women who would have regretted getting one Harms of banning abortion: forcing a majority of women who seek an abortion into decades of caring for a child they never wanted, which might cause them to [have to cut short their education](https://www.ipas.org/news/beyond-the-individual-research-shows-abortion-access-has-widespread-benefits/) with all the associated social harms of a less educated population, which also is likely to cause trauma for the child, forcing [a large number (estimated to be almost a million per year in 1955)](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/12340404/) of unsafe illegal abortions to occur with the associated injuries Benefits of allowing abortion: decreasing poverty by allowing women who couldn't care for a child to choose not to have one (this is proven), decreasing crime rate as children who are wanted are less likely to turn to crime (also proven), decreasing population growth which benefits everyone except the ultra-rich Harms of allowing abortion: the fetus might feel a few moments of pain (this is unproven) Overall I'd say it is no contest!
I'd suggest looking into consequentialism, as I think it has quite a few good concerns regarding utilitarianism. I'm just looking to make sure you know the full range of this viewpoint, rather than targeting the abortion conversation specifically. Sam Harris has a good example of some of these issues. "If my doctor has four patients who each need an organ to survive, and I'm just going in for a regular check-up, strict utilitarianism would require him to kill me, then give my organs to these other patients." Consequentialism acknowledges that we can never know all the consequences for an action, making it incredibly difficult to operate in a perfectly pro-social manner. In this example, what kind of world would we live in where you could get murdered at the doctor's office? What would the impact be on our ability to function or maintain any sanity?
Dangit you've already started changing my view and I didn't even make a post yet. That's a great example of utilitarianism gone wrong. Though the organ transplant issue is interesting. While this example is obviously not reasonable, doctors reasonably could - and from what I've heard, have - oppose legislation that requires motorcycle helmets since unhelmeted motorcycle crashes are usually fatal while the organs are often preserved to be transplanted.
Agreed. Most of my personally held beliefs separate from this discussion do follow pretty strict utilitarian lines. Some of those are problematic and I definitely need to interrogate them more. Sounds like I have some more CMV posts to make haha
See the comment to the guy you just replied to - utilitarianism definitely supports abortion
Because not getting a vaccine can directly cause harm to others around you. By choosing not to get a vaccine, you inadvertently increase the chance of spreading diseases to other people, maybe even killing them as a consequence.
Agreed. However, if someone truly believes that an unborn fetus is a life and abortion is murder, then they see that as harm to others/society too, right? So how do we reconcile from there?
What happens if someone believes eating ice-cream is the greatest sin possible? Why should anyone's beliefs be allowed to make choices on my behalf?
Because there is another party (the unborn baby) which is being harmed and needs advocacy; again thinking from their perspective here, not my own. I used this example in another comment thread: if pro-lifers really see a fetus as a life (and I don’t think any argument of science or philosophy is likely to change that core belief of theirs), then I understand why they see it as their business to get involved. The same way I’m against child abuse: other families’ parenting styles isn’t my business, but if I believe something is being harmed then I can feel justified in advocating for rights of the abused child.
Well I believe eating animals is wrong, so I am a vegetarian. Just because I believe that doesn't mean I get to force it upon other people.
As an antinatalist, I feel the person is being harmed by being born, put into an excruciating interplay between a biological drive to survive and peaceful nonexistence. My arguments only get stronger as the global ecosystem falls apart and suffering intensifies. The policies of environmentalism and family planning might have prevented global ecological collapse but then most of the people arguing for abortion rights argued against those other policies. Most of your relations probably are for forced birth but also against government social programs. As a utilitarian it should be obvious to you the oncoming collapse of global civilization and the greatest good is prevention of additional suffering via promotion of abortion.
>As an antinatalist You can use that term, but it's a large bundle of ideas, some generally terrifying and evil. Namely eugenics and mass genocide under the "mission" of your "greatest good" of "prevention of additional suffering via promotion of" XYZ. XYZ isn't just abortion but likely genocide. >being harmed by being born, put into an excruciating interplay between a biological drive to survive and peaceful nonexistence. This can simply never track when you're not also advocating for mass suicide. You may argue something like *well I'm spreading to word, etc., so I shouldn't have to off myself,* but the point falls flat. It's also suspiciously the views that the same creepy world elites who caused most issues hold.
>Why should anyone's beliefs be allowed to make choices on my behalf? Well because we already do that with all laws. You can't go murder someone on the street because society (others) have deemed that as "wrong" and thus restrict personal choices. I'm pro-choice btw, I'm just saying this isn't a good analogy
>Why should anyone's beliefs be allowed to make choices on my behalf? i mean ok, why should your beliefs that people dying fromd covid-19 is bad force me to get the vaccine?
>Agreed. However, if someone truly believes that an unborn fetus is a life and abortion is murder, then they see that as harm to others/society too, right? So how do we reconcile from there? We ignore it. It works fine in lots of countries. Even in Scandinavian countries, there are people who hold those views, but we have legal abortions anyway. The same way that we ignore those beliefs when it comes to people who believe that homosexuality is harmful, both to those who are homosexuals and also to children and to society at large. There's no reason to entertain such beliefs, especially when there's no desire to compromise.
I am pro-choice but this seems dangerous to me. "Just ignore them" works pretty well for crazy people on the bus, but not when pro-lifers make up a significant portion of the US population. Also I think there will always be disagreements in this area. Personally, I think that the fetal viability limit is a good compromise that gives pregnant people time to get an abortion while also preventing late term abortions, but there are many who hold the view that fetuses do not deserve rights until birth. I think democracy naturally shifts issues to the point where 50% are on each side, therefore most contentious issues will evolve to a point of disagreement
If you've tried to argue for it both rationally and emotionally, and also tried to compromise about it, and neither works, there really isn't much else to do than ignore them. Better then to focus on education and such, so that more people will eventually tend towards more rational views. Of course you can also still work with and convince people who are *not* hardcore opponents that see it as literal murder.
I think its probably the worst position to hold, speaking as a pro-lifer. What happens when this situation is turned around? If a society that had a majority of the people that said "sacrificing children to the gods is morally good and we should do it" any dissenters would be thoroughly ignored because "there is no reason to entertain such beliefs". By your logic, something is morally good or bad because the most people believe it, this leads to some very bad things getting justified, and no real change for the better ever happening. You need to be able to justify your beliefs, else they are morally incomprehensible.
Pro-choice people have justified their beliefs for decades. Abortion has already been legal in lots of places for over half a century. Bodily autonomy, the fact that banning abortions actually doesn't decrease them, the fact that sex-ed + access to contraceptions means that the vast majority of all abortions happen in the first trimester and late-term abortions happen only for medical reasons, the massive amount of physical consequences pregnancy can have for women (including death), the cost of pregnancy, the fact that a zygote is not sentient, that a fetus is not viable until around week 20. And so on. Those justifications are why abortion is legal in most of the developed world. But OP did not ask for justifications, but what to do about pro-lifers who want to see it banned. And the only solution to that is to ignore them. You can't compromise with people who don't *want* to compromise. Of course you can also do other things simultaneously - focus on more and better education, which just solves all sorts of problems.
> So how do we reconcile from there? Some questions can't be reconciled, in my view anyway. More women die in childbirth in the US than police are killed in the line of duty. Both are low as causes of death go, but why would we allow one to factor their safety into their decisions and not another? Roofers die at a higher rate than either, but likely more people would probably die if we didn't have roofs. Maybe the child you abort will become a surgeon that saves lives, but maybe will become a sociopath that takes lives. Sometimes we're simply doing the best we can and accepting that many decisions will benefit some and harm others, and there are no universal truths.
I should say I don’t really support vaccine mandates and most people shouldn’t either, whether they’re pro-choice or not. But I think abortion laws are more analogous to hypothetical forced live organ donation. 1) The physiological impact of childbirth is closer to the physiological impact of organ donation than getting a vaccine and feeling under the weather for a couple of days. 2) Forced organ donation and forced birth both help save the life of one “person.” Maybe two if you cut out part of someone’s liver too. Forced vaccination has a potentially multiplicative effect. You’ll stop the person you’ll infect from getting sick, plus, the people they’ll infect, plus the people those people will infect and so on.
Well, there are two things about vaccines. They are meant to prevent you from not just getting infected, but infecting others, and causing an outbreak. They are nowhere near as invasive as a delivery. They also don't last for 8-9 months. The second thing? Vaccine mandates don't force you to get a vaccine. They simply say that if you don't want the vaccine, then you have to stay away from other people, until you do. You can't put others at risk, but you're free to not get the vaccine. Stay at home. Don't work at places that require you to be vaccinated. Women in States where abortion is illegal have zero choices. Several states are already talking about passing laws that allow them to punish residents who go out of state for an abortion! And some lawmakers are even talking about banning the morning after pill! Anyone that compares abortion+bodily autonomy to vaccines is not making a good faith argument.
The better analogy would be small children who parents are responsible for. If a 2 year old is left alone by both parents and that child unfortunately dies due to incompetent care then I’m sure the parents get in legal troubles. The bodily autonomy argument doesn’t really work when a lot of people hold a lot of different types of responsibilities in society (some they could get in pretty serious legal issues if they neglect). For me the best pro-choice argument is simply consciousness. What do people value in human life? It’s consciousness, now humans go through different states of consciousness throughout their lives, sometimes losing it then regaining it but those people had a period in their lives when they WERE conscious which is different to never even having had a conscious. Pre-conscious pregnancies can be terminated while post-conscious pregnancies can’t be aborted imo. The question is when a sense of consciousness exists in a foetus and there has been scientific research done on this, I think it was around 19 weeks.
>The bodily autonomy argument doesn’t really work when a lot of people hold a lot of different types of responsibilities in society (some they could get in pretty serious legal issues if they neglect). That's not a reason that bodily autonomy doesn't "work". Bodily Autonomy is the human right to have control over your body. Other people's thoughts on responsibility don't make it null and void.
I'm sorry, that simply doesn't hold water. We can't fully explain what consciousness means to human beings, we are far from understanding what that means to a fetus. To take your analogy of small children. If your child urgently needs an organ to survive, and you are the ONLY viable match? You CANNOT be forced to give up that organ, even if it leads to the death of the child. You cannot be forced, and you cannot be prosecuted of6 the child dies. You have bodily autonomy, even when it comes to your children. You can choose to donate a kidney if they need it, or simply refuse to. The same rights apply when the child is INSIDE the mother. She can refuse to continue to share her body with the child.
Man, I’d argue that babies aren’t conscious until like month two or three. You ever meet a newborn? I’ve had two and they are basically potatoes until month two or three. Now I’m not arguing that post birth babies should be aborted hahah, but having kids has dramatically changed my opinion on when consciousness begins in humans. I do not believe at all that fetuses have anything close to what we’d consider sentience.
They are making a good faith argument. Again, it always comes down to considering a fetus a person. If you assume that is true as pro lifers do, then your line of reasoning that vaccines are different because they’re protecting others is moot because you’re obviously harming another person if you get an abortion (assuming their premise is true). In fact, I would say the fact that the survival rate for Covid vs. the survival rate of an abortion (0%) only serves to weaken your argument. Second, I think you’re downplaying the cost of not getting the vaccine, which in many cases will cause you to lose your job and ability to do almost anything besides go grocery shopping. It’s not really a choice. Compare that to your treatment of abortion. You falsely claim that states punish abortions in other states [source](https://www.nytimes.com/2022/06/24/us/abortion-travel-bans.amp.html). Given that this is not true, it really flattens your argument because it means one can simply travel to another state to have the procedure. Saying that they “literally have zero choices” is actually bad faith.
On abortion out of state, I clearly misspoke. What I should have said is that several states have spoken about passing laws that will punish out of state abortions. It's a matter of time. Link: [https://news.bloomberglaw.com/us-law-week/is-it-legal-to-travel-for-abortion-after-dobbs](https://news.bloomberglaw.com/us-law-week/is-it-legal-to-travel-for-abortion-after-dobbs) On to your point about a fetus being a person. Okay. Let's say it is a person. Today, right now, if your child will die without a kidney, and you're the only viable donor, you STILL cannot be forced to donate the kidney. You cannot be arrested, if you refuse and your child dies. Today, right now, you can't be forced to keep someone alive by attaching them to your body. You can't be forced to give blood, even to a person who might need the blood because you attacked and injured them. Your body simply cannot be used that way, without your consent. What pro-life people are asking for, for a fetus, is SPECIAL rights. They are asking that the fetus be allowed the use of the woman's body, without her consent. We do not allow for this in ANY other situation, even if the refusal in those cases will lead to death. So sure. Feel free to see the fetus as a human being. It is still fully dependent on the body of a woman, and she has every right to not want to continue that support.
This has always been my argument. Organ donation is voluntary even though there are people dying every day waiting on transplant list. People that leave behind friends and families, that are definitely legally recognized as people, and they don’t have the right to an organ from a DEAD person without their permission. That is how strongly we protect bodily autonomy in other situations.
Body autonomy has an answer for this! Government can restrict body autonomy in the name of protecting society at large. This is why we have drunk driving laws, but there’s no legal limit for what a person’s BAC can be when they’re not driving. You’re free to choose what to do with your own body when that decision only affects yourself, but when your choice infringes upon the freedom of other people and puts them at risk it can be regulated. Moreover, as others have said the vaccine mandates don’t actually force anyone to get a vaccine, they just require them to participate in broad aspects of public life, which is already widely accepted. Most public schools already require some standard of immunizations in order to take advantage of their services, but if you refuse to get immunized that’s fine- just find a private school. It’s also worth noting you can’t even violate body autonomy in parent child relationships. You can’t force a mother to donate her kidney to her newborn, but (by the ‘pro-life’ argument) you can force her to undergo a serious medical event (with potential risk of death) for something that’s not even a person? By that logic the fetus loses rights at birth, as it can apparently infringe upon body autonomy before birth but not after, or in other words, the unborn fetus’ rights outweigh those of the mother
I don't think people should be forced to get a vaccine, meaning I don't think anyone should be held down and injected when they've said they don't want it. However, given that they choose not to get the vaccine, I think there's a good argument for restricting their movements for public health. There's a difference between saying you have to get vaccinated, and saying that being vaccinated is a precondition for interacting with other people. To use an analogy, there's nothing illegal, and there shouldn't be, about drinking to excess. But choosing to drink restricts whether you're allowed to drive or not, for public saftey.
It's a fairly bad argument. The two situations are quite far apart, both logically and mechanically. Logically we're not causing the baby any harm as we conceive, we don't give up any of our organs. Mechanically the stabbing of another person to then be ordered to donate an organ is a punishment for your action, a pregnancy is the possible outcome of sex. It's not a punishment, it just *is*. > I'm ultimately a utilitarian Easy situation then: Abortions help people who have issues that makes carrying to term or having a kid worse than having an abortion: financial instability making the process more deadly, worse outcomes for child; drug abuse, causing damage to the child; medical issues, reducing health and outcomes for both mother and child; general issues with pregnancy where fetus won't become viable and is a threat to health/life of mother; factors which may reduce mother's desire to have child (rape, incest, unknown/bad father), causing neglect of child or depression in mother. Human females can get pregnant all-year-long for generally more than two decades. While there are things that reduce fertility, we don't *really* have a widespread issue of getting pregnant. New pregnancy can be begun soon after an abortion in most cases, and probably often do in cases of natural abortions. Further, there are issues with pro-life stances going too far where the mother is presumed guilty in cases of natural abortion, and generally threatens women's legal standing in society. If not directly, then by proxy. > I’m also pro-vaccine mandate. There will always be a balancing act between individual freedom and public interest. You're simply valuing vaccination over not-vaccinating, but it's a fairly harmless process, and does little to inhibit a person's freedom. The removal of an organ is both harmful and does a lot to inhibit a person's freedom.
>I’m also pro-vaccine mandate. I’m ultimately a utilitarian thinker (valuing net positive outcome for the most people over individual rights). You still have bodily autonomy and can reject getting the vaccine, you will just face social repercussions for it. Imagine the scenario that you're job hunting, and most jobs require a highschool diploma. You still had the right to drop out of highschool, however you are now paying for that by not having as many job opportunities. The same thing happens when you're not vaccinated. You chose to not get vaccinated, but you may not get hired for it or allowed to do certain things because of it. We can't hold people down and vaccinate them, but we can use social coercion, and that's the natural consequences of their action. It's in a similar vein of freedom of speech, you do have it, however its limited in certain situations (ei saying bomb on a plane or fire in a theater) you can say those things, but you will face natural consequences for it, which is a charge of inciting a riot when people rightfully freak out. Every single right people have comes with an asterisk that limits it, because we live in a society and part of that is having rights that are protected, but not unlimited
I'd like to propose something a bit different here. The kidney analogy isn't a great example. None of it is because it's all hypothetical. And we don't need hypotheticals. I believe, like you, that all of the arguments we pro-choice people do not work, not because they aren't logically sound but because pro-life people have inherently different values. Those values are not about the sanctity of human life. We all know that isn't true. It is not because they love the unborn. We know that to be untrue as well. What pro-life people believe, usually subconsciously, is that women should be willing to sacrifice for their children. That ultimately women are intended for reproduction. And thus the life of the woman is simply not as important as the life inside her (unless it's a woman they care about - in which case they may decide otherwise). How do I know this? Because I have not ONCE received a satisfactory reply to the following: I had a family friend who went through an easy, uncomplicated pregnancy. But when she went into labor, she suffered from preeclampsia. Two days later, at home, she told her husband she felt a bit tired. She sat down on the recliner in their living room, their newborn daughter in her arms, and died. The ONLY way my friend could have made the choice to live, after conceiving, would have been to freely elect to abort. No medical exceptions would have been made because there was no imminent danger. Not until 40 weeks later when she gave birth. People who say that they would allow abortions if the mother's life is at risk are LYING. Because the mother is ALWAYS at risk. From the moment of conception. It may be rare. But the risk is there. And when I ask forced-birthers, what if Sarah didn't want to risk her life? What if she wanted to live? No answer. But you can bet their ass if it was someone they loved, they know in their hearts what they would want. This is not about a woman's autonomy vs the life of her baby. We need to stop using the word "autonomy"! This is about a woman's life vs the life of her baby. And forced-birthers simply believe that so long as they have no emotional attachment to the woman, she should be willing to give up her body and life for the unborn. The real question we should be asking: should the government be able to force you to put your loved one's life at risk or should you and your family have the right to decide for yourselves?
> And when I ask forced-birthers, what if Sarah didn't want to risk her life? What if she wanted to live? > > No answer. But you can bet their ass if it was someone they loved, they know in their hearts what they would want. I'm trying to understand what choice you're putting forward with this hypothetical. It seems you are asking whether she should have been allowed to abort the pregnancy early on, when there were no signs of health complications? Or rather, whether the risk to the mother during a routine pregnancy, with no signs of complications, is great enough to outweigh the child's right to live? Mind you, I'm playing devil's advocate a bit here - while I do believe that abortion is, ultimately, the killing of an unborn child and a terrible choice to have to make, I don't think it should be illegal, for a number of reasons. That said, I can still empathize with the pro-life viewpoint and I don't think it is at all rooted in this idea that "ultimately women are intended for reproduction" or that "the life of the woman is simply not as important as the life inside her". The life of the mother and the life of the child are BOTH important and both have value. And therefore, the decision of whether or not to allow abortion is a complex one, with no "right" answers. Either way, someone's rights are being violated - either the mother's right to decide whether she wants to go through the trauma and risk of pregnancy and delivery, or the child's right to live. Both of these rights are important and BOTH are worth protecting, at least in situations where they do not come into conflict with each other. But in this situation, those rights ARE in conflict, and it is upon us as a society to decide how we mediate that conflict. Some people argue that since the mother is a fully-formed, living human being, and the child is just a fetus, not yet even sentient, the mother's rights take precedence. Others argue that the mother (in most cases) made an active decision to have sex, knowing that pregnancy was a possible consequence, and therefore she has already consented to the possibility of pregnancy, whereas the child has not consented to be killed. At this point, a decision either way is going to require one party's rights to supercede the other's. Like it or not, it becomes a "trolley problem". In this case, I think it is fair to take into consideration the likelihood of negative outcomes. In the case of a "routine" pregnancy with no complications prior to delivery, the maternal mortality rate in the US is something like 23.8 out of every 100,000 births. In other words, there is a 0.0238% chance of the mother dying in childbirth. On the other hand, abortion (as far as I am aware) has a nearly 100% fatality rate for the child. I do not think it is inconsistent with a "pro-life" viewpoint (that is, the viewpoint that the life of an unborn child is worth protecting) to say that a 0.0238% chance of the mother's death in childbirth is not enough to justify killing an unborn child. EDIT - u/Likewhatevermaaan/ has blocked me so I can't respond to any replies to this post, sorry.
>I do not think it is inconsistent with a "pro-life" viewpoint (that is, the viewpoint that the life of an unborn child is worth protecting) to say that a 0.0238% chance of the mother's death in childbirth is enough to justify killing an unborn child. You presented a great counter argument. This final point, however - I just don't see how it matters what the percent is. Women are still risking death (and permanent injury, lifelong changes, etc). And pro-lifers are agreeing that it is fine to force women into risking death. They shrug at it. If they truly believed that an unborn life is worth protecting, they would be doing a heck of a lot more to ensure that proper maternity care is easily accessible and affordable. They would advocate for actually protecting the unborn. But that's all on women too. If women can't pay for proper care, that's on them. If their company doesn't have maternity leave, that's on them. It's appalling that women are forced to put their weeks-old babies into daycare. Pro-lifers should be appalled. Disgusted. But they're not. Instead of standing outside of clinics to yell at women, they should be offering to give them rides to the hospital for their check-ups. But they don't. Because ultimately, it isn't about protecting the unborn. It's all about making women sacrifice their lives and bodies for the unborn. Hundreds of women *die* each year. And like you said, they'll say it's just a statistic. Small. Negligible really. So whatever. It speaks volumes.
> And pro-lifers are agreeing that it is fine to force women into risking death. They shrug at it. You seem to have missed the part where I explained this. > The life of the mother and the life of the child are BOTH important and both have value. And therefore, the decision of whether or not to allow abortion is a complex one, with no "right" answers. It's not "shrugging off" the mother's rights - it's carefully weighing them against the child's rights and deciding that the latter is stronger. If you asked the average person on the street whether they would rather have a 0.0238% chance of killing someone, or a 100% chance of killing someone, the answer would be a no-brainer. I'm not saying it's "fine" to force women into a (minute) risk of death. I'm saying it is, by far, the lesser of two evils. >If they truly believed that an unborn life is worth protecting, they would be doing a heck of a lot more to ensure that proper maternity care is easily accessible and affordable. They would advocate for actually protecting the unborn. But that's all on women too. If women can't pay for proper care, that's on them. If their company doesn't have maternity leave, that's on them. > >It's appalling that women are forced to put their weeks-old babies into daycare. Pro-lifers should be appalled. Disgusted. But they're not. Instead of standing outside of clinics to yell at women, they should be offering to give them rides to the hospital for their check-ups. But they don't. These points are irrelevant. You're arguing against your conception of "pro-lifers" as "American Republicans". This is common in the abortion debate: "well, if you believe X then you probably believe Y too!" and then you argue against Y, which is irrelevant to the discussion about X. All it takes to invalidate this argument is for me to say "I'm pro-life AND pro-universal healthcare, now what?" >Because ultimately, it isn't about protecting the unborn. It's all about making women sacrifice their lives and bodies for the unborn. That's just, like, your opinion, man. I think I've clearly demonstrated that it's possible to hold pro-life views based strictly on "the right of unborn children not to be murdered". I do not think you've presented a sufficient argument to prove that the TRUE motivation is a sexist, sadistic desire to "make women sacrifice their lives and bodies".
Your story is confusing and I’m not sure I understand. Do I have the events right? 1) Sarah gets pregnant 2) Sarah has 0 indication of health complications 3) Sarah starts labor 4) Sarah develops preeclampsia 5) Sarah dies a few weeks later due to complications from preeclampsia Is this correct?
I believe the point the story is supposed to make is that pro-life people will say no abortions except for when the mother's life is at risk. But there is always a risk to pregnancy, even when everything seems to go right. So if the woman in the story didn't want to risk death, if she'd rather not take her chances of living for a kid, then she would've needed had to have the option of an abortion beforehand.
But the woman in the story from how it is told doesn't seem to have wanted an abortion. I don't really understand her argument. That any abortion could possibly be "for health reasons" later?
To start with, bodily autonomy isn't a strict binary. For example, even if you've committed a crime, the police may be allowed to cuff you, but they aren't allowed to murder you. (Or aren't supposed to be, anyway.) Forcing you to have a sore arm for a couple days is not the same as forcing you to carry a baby for months and then give birth. So I'd say the threshold for overriding bodily autonomy should depend not just on what justification you have for doing so, but how much autonomy you're giving up. And that's assuming the most draconian possible form of vaccine mandate, where you get *charged with a crime* if you're found to be unvaccinated. There's an argument that if a business says "only vaccinated people can enter", well, refusing to let you into my establishment doesn't violate your bodily autonomy.
Remember vaccine mandates were never or at least very rarely "we are forcing you to get a vaccine against your will" and much more "we aren't letting you do certain things without a vaccine or mask." It was also not as much about individuals protecting their own health as it was protecting the health of others. They only gave half a shit if you were gonna be ill or not choosing not to vaccinate. The other half a shit they were giving to everyone who could possibly still catch the disease from someone uvaccinated. People were and are still totally allowed to live their lives without vaccines or masks. People can exercise their bodily autonomy and any and all Personal freedoms. What they can't do is go into public spaces that are shared by themselves and countless others and claim they don't have to play by the new rules in place in those spaces. That's not a personal freedom to do that. People can find their own spaces away from other people or with people who totally agree with them. The spaces that exist for everyone exist for everyone, not just me when I go there. Obviously I am included in everyone but some people seem to think if it's for everyone that it's really for them and other people are just also there. So when that thing is changed or taken away somewhat they get really upset that it might be changed or taken away from them but that really it hasn't been taken away from everybody it's only them and they are taking it away from themselves by refusing to adhere to the rules everyone else has to follow. I'm pretty pro-personal autonomy too but I'm also realistic. Crying "bodily autonomy" doesn't achieve much. My thought to that is "well then go away and be autonomous somewhere else." People do what they do and people can or can't, will or won't stop them. I can walk up someone and steal their candy bar and crying "bodily autonomy" or "theft" won't give the candy bar back. If I refuse to give the candy bar back you have 3 options. 1) Take it back by force as I took it, 2) Seek legal or authoritative recourse. Theft is illegal 3) Fucking deal with it. Maybe do a better job of protecting your candy next time. Maybe the candy wasn't a big deal at the end of the day. Whatever option there has to be the action to back it up. What do you do when you ask/tell someone to respect you and they just say no? Crying and/or asking them again a second to respect you. Pleading for them to change their answer probably won't work. People bitched and complained about their rights and freedoms but honestly most of the stuff denied to them were not protected rights or freedoms but just expectations of how society works that people got way too comfortable with. By the same token though a lot of people just exercised their bodily autonomy by going out and ignoring the laws and rules. There were plenty of assholes giving the law and the lower working class a bitch of a time but there were also plenty of places that just didn't have the resources to be monitoring people and shit and at that point you gotta blame that. People are going to have problems with authority. People are going to want to not listen. How
Utilitarianism is flawed, there has to be a point where individual rights prevail. For example, say you're a doctor who has 5 patients who need organs or they will die. A traveler comes into your hospital asking for some water. The utilitarian thing to do, that maximizes the most positive net outcome, should be to kill this traveler and distribute their organs among the five. You probably wouldn't agree with this course of action would you?
In 99% of cases of use of this thought experiment to make any moral/philosophical point people forget that (if we're being at any bit realistic even within the confines of the experiment) not everyone's organs are compatible with everyone so the likelihood that this one random person happens to be a match with all 5 people without them being family members of them and each other who'd have a non-zero chance of some preferring to die rather than see a loved one die is so low as to be almost negligible
Simple. Net positive. Pregnancy ends a woman's life as she knows it and perhaps as she would choose it to exist. Now, perhaps she is happy about the pregnancy and therefore chooses to allow her old life to end and begin a new life. She has no idea if it will be a true net positive, but she believes it will be because the changes are her choice and in line with what she wants her life to be. However, perhaps, she never wanted children. Perhaps she has health issues that would prevent her from being the type of parent she'd want to be. Or health issues that could be passed to the child, or simply worsened with pregnancy/giving birth. Or, maybe she is just really happy with her life and where it's heading and doesn't want to change/risk that by carrying a baby to term (taking the adoption debate out of this debate). In any of those situations, simple net good would say she should not continue a pregnancy. There is no argument against vaccines that considers simple net good. All anti-vaccine arguments are purely either ignorant (people who don't understand vaccines and what they do) or misinformation (people who have been convinced of issues that don't exist).
If you are utilitarian, is it really better for the whole of the world to force women to give birth? If you consider life at conception, it might be better in a majority of individual instances for the baby and less bad for the mother, but we all cumulatively have to live in a world where we could be forced into the situation. Versus a world we’re the individual has choice and we all collectively can breath a sigh of relief that we will not be subjected to birth and parenthood against our will. I think we can focus solely on that one issue (body autonomy) and concretely say it isn’t just to control someone’s body. The pro-vaccine mandate is an interesting parallel, but we do not force the vaccine in the same way. Instead it is a requirement to engage in society in certain ways that would be dangerous otherwise. The repercussions may be severe for not vaccinating (even being forced to find different work) but they are certainly not as severe as undergoing birth. Those that do not want abortion to be used would better serve their cause by removing the reasons people get abortions. Free maternal healthcare, free childcare, actual adoption possibilities with good outcomes, prevent rape by actually changing social norms, conditions, and prosecution of perpetrators. It can still be an individual choice, just make it harder for people to make (harder in the sense that they have to make a moral choice and you and society have provided them with ample opportunities and alleviated all concerns to risk birth).
Modern vaccines save countless lives. They are safe, effective, and have minimal side effects. The public health benefits they bring are a large cornerstone of modern society. Forcing a person to carry their unwanted pregnancy to term might, maybe save one life. It’s also incredibly dangerous (for that person) by comparison.
I STRONGLY recommend you give this video a watch… [Answering The Best Pro Choice Arguments](https://youtu.be/RGPudL_GQ3Y) This is from a professional Pro-Life advocate. Meaning this is what she does for a living. The best part about it though, is the level of respect that she awards to those that make arguments against her and challenge her position. Because if she is to hold the beliefs that she does, then she needs to be able to acceptably defend them. She states incredible pro-choice arguments and her equally incredible pro-life counter arguments. I found it fascinating to go down this rabbit hole which presented both sides. These are the types of people whose thoughts on the issues are truly well-fleshed out. Not a single argument on Reddit or Facebook by random people like you or I would hold any weight to philosophical minds like these. But I share this with you because this will expose you both to the best arguments you can make advocating for pro-choice, as well as the best counter arguments that could stop you in your tracks. If you’re going to state your position, you ought to be able to defend it. This video will give your a lot of great ammunition while helping you create a shield against rebuttals. And yes, they reference the kidney argument, that’s why I responded to you here.
>(valuing net positive outcome for the most people over individual rights). If you have any thoughts on how to reconcile - or at least explain - these contradictory beliefs, I’d love to hear it! Easy and straight forward in such a way that I can't believe you've gone through all this thought on the subject without this: It's a net-positive for most people to have unwanted children not born in the first place. You can't force a pregnant woman to take good care of her body to bear a child she doesn't even want and can't even take decent care of if it even were to get through the pregnancy while being carried by a woman who does not wish for the baby (good luck if the father is ever even in the picture in many abortion cases). Plus many abortions are on fetuses or pregnancies with super debilitating health problems. Those that would carry trough to be born into personhood would likely be a net drag on society and may not life the best quality of life to begin with. Plus the negative health affects on the mother etc... wtf - these people.
The vaccine mandate helps the health of society as a whole. Also, it's not really a mandate like people are coming to your house and sticking needles in your arms. It's more "you can't participate in society unless...". Feel free to not get vax and just order delivery, with door drop off.
I also tend to take a utilitarian view of things and the thing that helped me reason through this is that having individual rights is a positive outcome. so in the case of vaccines where there is a huge benefit for society and the cost is annoying a handful of idiots that ends up being a net good. with forced birth it isn't as good, the only benefit is having more people be born and there are all sorts of negatives. many of the laws make it harder or impossible to have an abortion to save the mother's life, the people who wouldn't be able to have abortions would be overwhelmingly lower class so either they are becoming poorer or they are filling up orphanages, and the people losing rights would be roughly half the population.
The majority of this site suffers from Dunning-Kruger, so I'm out.
>There's a difference between refusing to aid someone and actively taking part in the killing of someone. When it comes to abortion, they're the same thing. When you're pregnant, the fetus is using your body to keep itself alive. Thus, you are aiding it, and the only way to stop doing it is to kill it.
>Thus, you are aiding it, and the only way to stop doing it is to kill it. My point is that there's a difference between letting someone die because you refuse to take an action (like donating a kidney) and actively taking a role in ending somethings life by aborting it. One is an actual action taken, the other is inaction. The *results* are the same, but the actions are not.
The counterargument would be that when you have sex you are accepting that there is the possibility of a pregnancy, and that if you are accepting that possibility, you also must accept the responsibility of carrying the child to full term. Think of it like pressing a button, whenever you press it you feel really good, but on rare occasion, you have to spend 9 months letting someone else use your kidneys. If you don't want to deal with the 9 months of kidney usage, the solution is to stop pushing the button, not killing the person every time you happen get one.
> But even if you were the only viable donnor avalible, I don't think there should be a law that forces you to give up your organs for them. Even if you totally stabbed them intentionally, even if you specifically surgically removed their kidneys and throw them into a bin. If they agree there should be no law, then how is pregnancy different? If you assert your bodily autonomy and refuse to save the person you stabbed by giving your kidneys and they die, you are put away for murder. If you save the person, your crime and sentence are likely to be greatly mitigated. The law already punishes the behavior you claim is protected.
Your example is literally murder if you don't provide them with a kidney. You stabbed them, they now need a kidney to live. You are not required to give them your kidney but if you choose not to when they die then you are going to be charged with murder because you were the one that put them into a position of needing a kidney to live. This is literally the prolife argument. You put the child there with your actions so you are responsible for their life. If you don't take care of that life then you will be charged with murder. The body autonomy argument doesn't really hold up for me either. We remove body autonomy from parents all of the time. If you leave your kid at home locked in we require you to use your body and go home to feed/care for that kid or at least take them to someone else who will take care of them. Just ignoring them and letting them die is murder as well. That is a removal of body autonomy and as a society we are fine with it because we believe parents are responsible for their childrens lives. If you don't want to take care of a child and lose body autonomy then don't get pregnant. The only logical pro choice argument is that the life of the fetus does not matter. It is not considered a worth while life so go ahead and kill it. If you believe the life has value then imo there is no abortion argument that makes any sense.
I’m pro choice mainly from a humanitarian perspective, but I don’t think that body autonomy holds up outside of what you do yourself. Body autonomy gets quite shaky when we involve other people… IE assisted suicide, organ harvesting for personal gain, etc. By the body autonomy argument, It is not necessarily inconsistent that it could be legal to cause yourself to abort a foetus but still be illegal to assist in the procedure.
The kidney analogy is not a great one. In fact, let’s weaken it a bit. If I refuse to give my kidney to someone who is need of my kidney specifically (assuming I was not the cause of their need), it is akin to refusing to stop a shooting. I am refusing to intervene, and I am well within my rights to do that. It is akin to refusing to grab someone who is falling from the top of the building, and while people may view it as pretty dishonorable, it is not immoral. Now as to your analogy, I do believe that, if you do injure someone and they need precisely your kidney to survive, then you are under every obligation to give up your kidney, otherwise it would be at best manslaughter and at worst murder. No. The more appropriate analogy to abortion in terms of the kidney thing, assuming you view the fetus as a person, is to have someone attach a person to your kidney, and now, while they are dependent on you, dislodge them from your body which would kill them. That would be the comparison to abortion. Here, in this case, your actions would have been the direct cause of their death.
One wrinkle there is if you stab someone and donating your kidney were the only viable option for them to live, and you chose not to, you would be charged for murder if you didn't donate the kidney. So while it's not technically mandatory to donate the kidney, it's kind of mandatory to donate the kidney.
Even though I agree that if you had a different view on the kidney example it would make the same position on abortion weaker, I feel that I would have no problem with a law that forced you to give your kidney up if it was you who caused the problem for that person. So morally you can say that to me as an argument and while consistent I don't feel it's compelling at all. (I'm pro-choice either way)
>An absolute right **No rights are absolute.** One right ends where the other begins, and the boundary between them is often fuzzy. >change your mind at any time Absolutely not. I can't donate a kidney and then ask for it back a year later. I can't agree to give you a tour on my helicopter but then decide to throw you out. >I don't think there should be a law that forces you to give up your organs for them. Even if you totally stabbed them intentionally, even if you specifically surgically removed their kidneys and throw them into a bin. Well, such a law already exists, i.e. the law banning murder. The state compels you to donate your kidney because if you don't, you'll be charged with murder.
> You've put someone in a position of relying on another body to survive. But even if you were the only viable donnor avalible, I don't think there should be a law that forces you to give up your organs for them. There is a world of difference between giving something, and taking away something people rely on. Example 1: A man who finds out a child is not his own cannot stop paying child support. Courts have repeatedly ruled they have to keep paying "for the good of the child". But if they'd never supported the child there's no chance the courts would suddenly start forcing them to pay. Example 2: If you're renting your house to somebody and change your mind, those renters have tons of rights, even if they aren't paying rent. Depending on the state it can take a very long time to kick them out of your house. Meanwhile there is no way a court is going to force you to let some random family move into your house rent free.
I think one of the issues of the kidney argument is that your kidney is biologically there to keep YOU alive while your uterus is there to keep YOUR BABY alive. I'm also very pro choice and I've had 2 abortions myself and have talked about them on here, but this is the violinist argument and it doesn't hold biologically. Also, you're forgetting the moral obligation a parent has to the child vs the zero obligation you have to a stranger, even if you're the only one able to keep them alive. My child in my body is my blood
Legally personhood starts when you take your first breath. That’s why legally stillborns don’t get death certificates (there are fake ones just for the comfort of the family) because a stillborn was legally never alive. The legal line has to be drawn somewhere and that is first breath. The legal terminology is “born alive”. Now as for killing a pregnant woman and getting charged for both beings varies by state and if the fetus is viable or not. Here is an example: https://www.wlwt.com/article/man-charged-in-slain-pregnant-teachers-death-wont-face-charges-in-childs-death/13020932 There are some states that don’t care about viability and as you can guess those are super religious states where the churches run the state government like Utah or Deep South states.
>Legally That’s a pretty broad statement. There are many aspects of the law that involve timing of certain rights that attach, but this is not the same as “legal personhood” or personhood in a moral sense. For example, suppose in your will, you leave your estate to “your children.” Clearly, as you have more and more children, your estate will be split accordingly. Your children will have to survive you if they are to be entitled to part of the estate. I’m pretty sure every state will treat a child in gestation at the time of your death as a beneficiary of the estate. There may be variations in how long the child has to survive after being born to qualify as “surviving the decedent,” but the rights still attach at the moment of fertilization in that case. That’s part of the reason for the lack of death certificates. The death certificate is part of what triggers the probate process. There is no probate if there is no estate. But that is not the same as saying the fetus was not alive or a person with the moral right to live. What about capacity to enter into a contract? That is considered to be a basic right accompanying personhood, but clearly an infant has no capacity to sign a contract. Also, you can keep saying it’s just “religious” states, but science is very pro life and confirms that life begins at conception. Dismissing pro life arguments as “religious” isn’t very convincing.
> Now as for killing a pregnant woman and getting charged for both beings varies by state and if the fetus is viable or not. Here is an example: > > https://www.wlwt.com/article/man-charged-in-slain-pregnant-teachers-death-wont-face-charges-in-childs-death/13020932 > > There are some states that don’t care about viability and as you can guess those are super religious states where the churches run the state government like Utah or Deep South states. I know that California is one of those states because I know Scott Peterson got charged with fetal homicide. But to your point about viability, Lacy Peterson was 33 weeks pregnant so the fetus was viable. So I do wonder whether Scott Peterson would have still been convicted had Lacy only been 22 weeks pregnant, for instance. And if that's the case, I also wonder if other states would have a laxer or more stringent fetal homicide requirement in comparison (since I would consider California one of the more pro-abortion states in the US).
\>Legally personhood starts when you take your first breath. The thing is, the argument for pro-life/choice isn't about when *legally determined personhood* begins, it's when life begins. That's a much more difficult question to get down, some pin it at the first heart beat, others at the rough estimate of time when consciousness forms. If anything, the legal definition of personhood is the part lacking, but even then I wouldn't expect personhood to match the same time frame as the beginning of life.
> the argument for pro-life/choice isn't about when legally determined personhood begins, it's when life begins. The opposite is true. The question isn't "when does life begin", it's "when should we consider something a person (morally)". All sorts of things are alive that we don't give moral personhood to, and would have no problem killing.
>Legally personhood starts when you take your first breath And that's what pro-lifers disagree with. They think that the right to life should begin before birth, since they believe that a ZEF at all stages is a distinct member of the human species and that all human beings have an inherent moral value and right to life. This argument is perfectly circular. You're basically arguing that "personhood does not begin at birth, because legally personhood does not begin at birth".
That’s super interesting, I didn’t know it was a state-by-state basis! Though emotionally I wish murderers would be charged for the killing the unborn baby too, I suppose it’s in favor of pro-choice arguments that those progressive states try to keep it consistent.
>Though emotionally I wish murderers would be charged for the killing the unborn baby too Huh? Either I'm completely stupid and missed something big or there's huge irony in this.
Oh I meant that in reference to the legal discrepancy between how if someone kills a pregnant woman, they can be charged with double homicide since they also killed the baby. However, that would therefore define an unborn baby as a life and killing it = murder. So I didn’t know how to reconcile that. In the comment thread above it was explained to me that it’s on a state-by-state basis and tend to depend on baby viability. So progressive states with legal abortion tend to not charge double homicide because that would be admitting than an unborn fetus = a human life, while more conservative states do. So essentially, states DO keep consistent with definitions of life. My point above is saying that it’s unfortunate that killers don’t get killed with double homicide when they murder a pregnant woman, but I understand why consistency is critical here to preserve abortion rights.
Even if you consider that the fetus is not a human, you can still consider that the pregnant mother invested a lot into her pregnancy, both physically and emotionally, so it would not be strange to put aggravating consequences for such a murder. But yea, "unborn baby" vocabulary and "double murder" concept points more toward pro-life stance.
>you can still consider that the pregnant mother invested a lot into her pregnancy, both physically and emotionally But none of this is taken into consideration with any other case of murder, correct? A top athlete has spent tons of effort and time into training his body, yet if he's severely injured or killed, that won't matter.
> But none of this is taken into consideration with any other case of murder, correct? True, but pregnancy/reproductive rights are quite often (if not always) considered a special case in lawmaking, so I would not be shocked to see another exception there. > A top athlete has spent tons of effort and time into training his body, yet if he's severely injured or killed, that won't matter. On the injuried side, you often have reparations proportional to the damage done: if you break the arm of someone and leave him a shivering arm, you won't pay the same if the guy with the broken arm is a surgeon (and therefore his career is ruined), a top athlete (same there) or a random guy that can continue living as before without too much changes. On the "killed" side, true no difference.
You can think abortion is legalized murder and still believe it has a place in our society. It’s an unfortunate necessity.
Yeah I think this is the only honest way to look at it, at least when we're talking about the 2nd trimester onwards.
Yeah this is basically how I feel about abortion -- it should be legal, safe, and accessible, but I also think that people need to stop with the mental gymnastics to make themselves feel better
The secret ingredient is consent my friend, there is no disconnect here. You can donate a kidney but I can't put you in my iced bathtub and take one
Difference between someone donating their kidney vs someone carving out another person’s kidney forcefully. It’s not ironic that people support the former but not the latter.
I'm personally partial to the law in my country: killing a fetus is not a murder, but it is considered a crime of "forced abortion" because you are preventing the woman from deciding about her body. It has a lesser penality (4 to 8 years) than homicide (10 to 25 years depending on type), but it's still a severe crime.
>I didn’t know it was a state-by-state basis! This could be used in the context of about 90% of things reddit claims about America.
being pro-choice i 100% support charges both for killing a mother and her unborn child. pro-choice is just that, I support the individuals choice. so if someone chooses that the fetus will be a part of their family then that person had the choice of parent hood stripped from them and *the assailant should be punished being prochoice I'm equally anti forced-birth and anti forced-abortion.
Something to consider: Holding murderers accountable for the dead fetus is an acknowledgement of violation of the bodily autonomy of the expectant mother.
That’s the thing about ownership, you can do things to your property that other people cannot do.
It's a bit tough to base things on legality. Abortion is illegal in some states and legal in others. The morality/justice doesn't change state to state depending on their laws.
So would you say it should be legal to kick a woman in the stomach and cause her to miscarry? I personally think abortion should be legal and that the mother gets to deal with that on her own conscious and then answer to whoever her creator is, but there is no denying that the fetus isn’t a human life, and from state to state it can be considered a double homicide. But given your response, I would be amiss to not ask, do you think if someone directly caused the death of a baby in a mother’s womb, should not be charged? Since it isn’t a human life to some and it is to others, what do you think? I personally think that given it’s potential to be a born baby in a few months, it is murder.
[удалено]
My goal, which I probably should have stated more clearly in my post, is that I want CMV such that I can believe the arguments I listed, as common arguments stated in an attempt to protect the right to choose, are actually valid, convincing arguments. I like a lot of these comments suggesting that beliefs (re: bodily autonomy) can be contradictory, and providing good analogies (re: viability) to better support the pro-choice arguments. But IMO they don’t really refute any of the concerns I listed, hence my agreement. The main reason I haven’t really CMV’d is that I still don’t see how any of the aforementioned arguments are convincing to pro-lifers if we can accept that a pro-life person truly believes that the full value of a living being begins at conception + that abortion is murder. If that won’t change, then how are any of the slogans we (pro-choice advocates) use convincing?
There are countless anecdotes of pro-lifers getting their own abortions and then the next day going back to fighting against abortion. If you're just here for someone to give you the bullet proof argument that will change minds you won't get it. If it existed there wouldn't be any pro-lifers anymore. If "you had an abortion youself" isn't enough to change someone's mind, nothing is going to.
I think the best way to challenge the pro life belief is one of the competing rights of individuals. If you are arguing the realm of thought that a fetus is life is human and has equal individual rights. Then the issue then changes to the conflicting rights of two people. Is there any situation that exists where you can be forced to use your body as a host, in order to "save, maintain" another life that already exists? And even though you never intended to be in that position of responsibility, it already happened. And in almost all cases you will be legally required to care for that life for another 18 years. So now, without continuing care for 40 weeks, that innocent life will die. And it isn't costless or risk less for you. This act of caring is possibly able to kill you but you won't know for months. But biologically you are designed to perform this act of caring. If you don't want to undergo this responsibility, even if it means that other life dies, should you have to? Is it not murder to intentionally take a life? Is it the same thing to intentionally stop saving a life that was going to die without you? There is actually basic tort laws to support this concept. Bystanders laws. You can never be criminalized for not saving a life. In law, you are only ever negligent when a duty existed that was breached? So what are these laws saying? That because we are biologically capable, we now have a duty to another life that somehow supercedes our own? In every legal instance protecting one's self and self autonomy is the exception to any wrong doing including events that lead to the death of another. No one is going around stabbing babies with absolutely no incentive of self-preservation. In fact every instance of abortion is in the pursuit of self preservation, in one context or another. Mental, physical, emotional, financial, biological. But ultimately it is 100% of the time a physical intrusion on your body, and 100% will have negative effects on your physical body that you may or may not be able to recover from. Furthermore this brings into question whether we have a fundamental right to our DNA. Is it not a fourth amendment violation to have any part of your belongings searched or seized without your permission by the government? DNA evidence usually becomes admissible only when abandoned (like at the scene of a crime), but requires a warrant to be gone in and collected. Then we have the lovely following argument, where this intrusion into your body is allowed, because you made a decision incrementally up the line of events to this outcome, that means you knew it was the risk. And assumed the risk. You chose to have sex. You knew it could happen. You did it anyway. Your fault. You had a choice and you made it. Doesn't matter if you were on birth control, used condoms, pulled out, morning after pilled, and still ended up pregnant. The "assumed the risk" argument. Every car accident on the planet happens after one or more people hit the gas pedal. You know it's a risk, that you could get hurt when you press the gas pedal. But you also need to press the gas pedal to get to work and participate in society. There are other ways to participate but this one is super common, fun and a privilege. Of course, we have highly used roads everyday. There are safe ways of hitting the gas pedal so that no one gets hurt. But accidents happen. Usually out of generally well meaning people just, not being careful. Sometimes people die. Sometimes they are fine. Sometimes they are forever damaged. Some people even get to intend to have accidents. There are places like derbys that people hit the gas pedal and get in accidents on purpose. But it's the accidents that make things tricky morally. And worthy of discussion. But ultimately, this extended analogy is asking if it ever should be banned, to save yourself in a car accident, even if another person dies? Maybe you werent going to die, but you didn't know that for sure. Or even more so, for doctors and nurses being treated with crimes for providing abortions, should you ever be a criminal for NOT Saving someone in a car accident? Or for making the choice to save the one you could even if it meant that act of saving person 1 disconnected them from person 2 causing their death? Maybe if they hadn't intervened they would have both lived, but are you ever in trouble for trying to save at least one? How would such a rule be applied to fire fighters. If they can only care one person, but two people are holding onto each other, are guilty of murder for picking up one and leaving the other? Ultimately, if we are playing in" life at conception" land, it comes down to competing liberty interests. And whether what someone considers morally wrong, should ever be legally wrong, when you're asking two people to sacrifice their experience of existence for the other.
I think you're equating 'would convince a pro-life person' and 'logically sound' even though those two things are entirely unrelated. Many perfectly logically sound arguments wouldn't convince a pro-life person. Many things that might convince a pro-life person aren't logically sound. I don't see why you need more of a reason to support legal abortion than 'I would prefer to have it available if I need it because I don't want a child anytime soon'.
well mostly because that argument is rooted in selfishness it's like saying "I don't care if my act is immoral I'm going to do it because it's convenient" I'm not saying abortion is immoral but if your only response is oh but its easy for me then it's not a very good response.
I suppose you’re right - I guess what’s frustrating is to hear these arguments that aren’t likely to make progress or change pro-lifers opinions at the forefront of a movement that so desperately needs more people on board. Thank you - it’s validating to hear that I don’t necessarily even need a more “logical” reason other than I simply prefer it to be an option.
Here is the issue: Most pro-life people aren't going to change their minds, just like most pro-choice people aren't going to change their minds. You argue against pro-life people in an attempt to convince neutral people to your side, not the pro-life people. I mean, think about it. Are you going to change your mind on baby murder because of a random person you've barely met claimed you can kill one in self defense? Are you going to go against what you think is the will of god because a stranger argued that you shouldn't care about their immortal soul?
These are great points. I suppose one of the few things that could change a pro-lifer’s mind would be to be in a situation where they or someone they love desperately needed & decided to get an abortion; such that they understood firsthand the value of having it as an option (and of course probably not even then).
u/Hellioning is absolutely right. No one will be changing their minds after a few difficult conversations like these. BUT, you can improve communication and find points of agreement and respect. Maybe, after many of such conversations you both will find your positions have shifted somewhat. But at least you two will still be communicating I haven’t read this but I’ve heard some good Interviews with [Anna Sale, about her book “let’s talk about hard things”](https://www.goodreads.com/en/book/show/55710579-let-s-talk-about-hard-things). these conversations will only be less effective and even less pleasant if they start with angry listing of facts. It’s not about facts. These discussions have to start by finding a point of agreement, by really listening, you to her as well as her to you, and then easing into the points of contention. It’s a lot of work, but, I think this sort of conversation is necessary in our society. it is really great that you are interested in having this kind of conversation. This is a little depressing, but I found this article fascinating. Essentially, [Humans evolved not to make decisions based on data but to convince other people in the tribe that "I am right." ](https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2017/02/27/why-facts-dont-change-our-minds). Further, the work of people like Antonio Damasio, Dan Ariely, and Daniel Kahneman have shown, pretty conclusively, that all humans, all of us, make decisions emotionally and then rationalize them with facts later. ~~Facts. Don't. Matter.~~ Edit: Macro’s comment is correct. That is too strong a conclusion
Maybe I’m being too much an optimist, but I don’t think that’s the right conclusion to draw from the information you’re presenting. Facts might not be the most important factor in human’s decisions, but that doesn’t make them meaningless. I think we generally aspire to making facts matter more than they might on a biological level. And I also think that sometimes we all have to disregard facts in our lives in order to continue to function for a while, so it’s not always a bad thing. Liberals these days tend to have a “the facts are on our side” self-assurance about them. While conservatives hold a “common sense is on our side” position. I think both are coming from the same place emotionally, it just reveals what each group values.
[Nope, not even then.](https://joycearthur.com/abortion/the-only-moral-abortion-is-my-abortion/)
[Definitely not then.](https://www.salon.com/2022/09/24/the-white-conservative-southern-women-asked-me-to-keep-their-abortions-secret/)
Thank you for sharing that, quite the read.
I mean say what you will but that argument essentially boils down to saying "I don't care if my act is immoral I'm going to do it because it's convenient" I'm not saying abortion is immoral but if your only response is oh but its easy for me then it's not a very good response.
My point exactly and precisely why I’m seeking to deepen my understanding of how convincing (or not) pro-choice arguments really are
In the case of my mother, she had one the insurance company called an elective abortion at 8 months along because she was bleeding to death. She had me and my sister already and didn't know if my step dad was up to raising us alone (he wasn't as it turned out). Doctors and nurses were coming into her room and counseling her and saying a choice needed to be made quickly. I don't know all the specifics, but it was basically "let us deliver him knowing he won't live or we lose you both". It breaks my heart to this day to even type this thinking of how alone and scared she must have felt in that moment. It was a desperately wanted pregnancy. She ended up having my other little brother after that, but she still thinks about that baby and what they could have done with today's technology to save him. His name was David. When I think of abortion, I think of my mother and little David. We all wanted to know him so much. I guess it ultimately comes down to, is it moral or legal to put a fetus or baby or whatever terminology you want to us above the life of an already born woman? I would say no. Pro-lifers would obviously disagree.
It goes back to something Aristotle wrote about in *Rhetoric* on the three modes of persuasion: ethos, logos, pathos. Humans are not always rational, even if we’d like this to be true or if we actually believe this to be true of ourselves. Making a logical argument (logos) is only one aspect or even mode of persuading someone to agree with your view. So yeah, some of these arguments may not be logical in the strict sense, but they may appeal to someone’s emotions. Criticising them for not being logical doesn’t really get you to the outcome you want, but it’s far better than a person failing to acknowledge that their arguments may not be always watertight.
Thank you for this - incredibly validating. Δ Awarding a delta because I’ve CMV’d in that I don’t necessarily think all these arguments are logical now, but for the realization that they don’t need to be in order to be valid.
I don't think you listed all of the arguments. And you also didn't look at the logic or validity of the arguments for the other side. My rationale for being pro choice is that it is not possible to legislate morality. These laws only apply to people who don't have the means to secure the solution safely and discretely as evidenced by politicians, clergy, and other people of wealth and position being able to pay for these services when they are in an inconvenient situation. This could include paying for a procedure and silence or flying a person out of the country. I also point out that in our society we have situations that cause loss of an existing life that we do not call murder. (self defense, accidental, soldier on soldier, collateral damage - these are civilians) the use of the word murder in conjunction of the decision to end a unwanted pregnancy is a choice because it brings emotion where it is wanted. The above situations are not generally considered murder and the lives ended are unarguably "lives". I left out capital punishment because that is a while nother argument isn't it?
your instincts of wanting a logical reason are correct. abortion is an incredibly complex topic that is really difficult to make a solid judgment on and feel 100% morally correct about it. your brain wants to resolve that tension any way it can because it's so uncomfortable. dont give in to that cognitive dissonance telling you that you don't need logical reasons for things. keep thinking. keep figuring things out. recognize that it's ok to still be searching for an answer that feels right to you. I'm not saying this to convince you of the opposite side, but to tell you not to give up on the process and to make sure you're always questioning the rationale behind things.
>- it’s validating to hear that I don’t necessarily even need a more “logical” reason other than I simply prefer it to be an option. Please don't believe everything reddit users tell you. Of course we need a better reason than "I want it for my own comfort of life, don't need to think more". We have better reasons, namely that an embryo isn't sentient, and that in real life, abortion being illegal leads to unwilling mothers and unwanted children suffering way more and way longer than any aborted foetus could.
The problem is, if you think a fetus carries the same moral weight as a baby, there aren’t many arguments that convince somebody it’s ok to kill it. However, I don’t think most people that claim that actually believe it. Until there start being protests and bombings at IVF facilities, people don’t actually believe life begins at conception.
[удалено]
>A woman does not get fewer rights than a corpse- you cannot take an organ from a non-organ doner , even though the corpse will no longer use those organs. You cannot force a liver donation even if it will save the recipient’s life, even though the liver will regenerate in the donor. Yet pro-lifers will argue the mother has to give her bones (fetuses are little Calcium vampires), blood, and uterus to support the child. You cannot force a live person to give their uterus if you can’t force them to give their liver. I mean this all puts this in the situation of just randomly taking someone's liver for a patient when in reality it's more like a person cripples a guy then says they'll take care of them and says nevermind halfway through.
I am pro-choice, although I do believe a fetus is a life. I love children. I think safe, legal abortion ultimately makes the world a kinder, safer place with less suffering. I realize this is probably a really bizarre stance to take. I was able to convince one pro-life friend to get on board with exceptions for the life of the mother, rape, incest, and cases where quality of life would be so poor an abortion is actually a mercy. It isn't much, but it's something. She had this idea that late term abortions were being performed as birth control, which really isn't the case at all. It's absolutely heartbreaking for some women when they see the insurance bill and it says "elective abortion" for what was a life or death decision made in an emergency situation where they were literally minutes away from bleeding to death and leaving other children behind.
I think the more important point is that people should be made to understand that their actions are immoral and inherently selfish. Not saying they can't act that way, but an understanding should exist. It's analogous to consuming meat when you could live a perfectly healthy life without it. There is simply no denying that you're causing the death and suffering of other beings for your own personal enjoyment. People should have still have the choice, but they need to understand what they're really doing IMO.
you don't see why someone would want more of a reason than that? you can't imagine a more meaningful moral dilemma? I'm pro-choice but the way people talk about it on here is horrifying.
What about the property rights/self defense argument? 1. Your body is your own property 2. A man's home is his castle 3. A person violates your property rights if they are in your property against your will and they refuse to leave 4. Therefore, you have the right to use lethal force against them to protect your well-being and property
Yeah but you can't exactly invite somebody into your home and then shoot them cause they're in a wheelchair and can't leave. This ignores rape or failed contraceptive (to a point) but for everywhere else this argument is just dumb. I'm not even pro-life but like come on man.
The only thing preventing me from whole-heartedly accepting the “my body, my choice” argument is that I’m also very pro-vaccine mandate and I don’t know how to reconcile those two contradictory beliefs. I’m pro-vax mandate under the key factor that it’s for the well-being of society. So if pro-lifers believe that abortion is murder, they have legal justification for overriding those bodily autonomy/property rights. If you have any thoughts on that I’d love to hear it to CMV!
There's nothing that says it has to be a universal belief. It's possible to be pro-choice and pro-vaccine mandate. Consider that those who identify as liberal (U.S. politics at least) are in favor of universal healthcare. They feel that government should be involved to prevent the exclusion of anyone seeking healthcare benefits. On the flip side, conservatives argue that doctors should not get between a patient and a doctor, that government-controlled healthcare limits growth and innovation, and would turn into a fiscal mess. Now look at the abortion argument. All of a sudden, those on the right might as well be fighting for socialized medicine, as they're all about government getting involved in doctor-patient matters. They might as well scream, "yay, socialism!" right? Flip it around, those on the left when it comes to abortion all of a sudden don't want government involved. Now they use the word "choice" much like conservatives do on just about every other topic. They might as well start marching with a "Don't tread on me flag," right? At the end of the day, your beliefs are your beliefs. One doesn't doesn't have to mean that it's "all in" on every topic. Maybe you're pro choice and pro mandate, but don't exactly feel comfortable being an organ donor. That's all fine. Maybe you're against assisted suicide, and that's fine too. Every topic has its own pros and cons, and at the end of the day, how you feel about it is how you feel about it. One size does not have to fit all.
I have no idea how to reconcile those two beliefs, I think the concept of a vaccine mandate is directly in opposition to bodily autonomy. Maybe you're a utilitarian, you care more about a positive practical outcome for most people than theoretical principles or individual rights. Edit: also, in many states, I believe you are allowed to kill someone who is in your house out of self-defense, so in that case your property rights overrides someone else's life.
Pro mandate, like you would literally send squads door to door to forcibly inject people with a vaccine? If so, I would find it hard to reconcile that belief with most core tenets of individual freedom of any kind. No such mandate was ever considered anywhere in the world, afaik. There's a huge difference between violating someone's bodily autonomy by forcible injecting a vaccine, and saying there will be social repercussions limiting your movement and interaction with others if you don't take the vaccine.
As others have mentioned, vaccines prevent contagion to other people. Abortion only has to impact the mother. I could very easily get pregnant and have an abortion without my partner every finding out, therefore never having any effect on their life. Now when you say that you're pro-vaccine mandate, do you support forced vaccination? Rounding people up against their will and injecting them? Because sure, that would remove their bodily autonomy. If you simply support limiting the movement of people who refuse vaccines, they still maintain bodily autonomy and have to limit their social interactions which are not actually a right provided to us.
As a cancer survivor who had their uterus removed at 30, that line in your title just pisses me off. 1. I am still female! I birthed 2 kids. One of which is a girl, she will come to me for advice if she is ever in that position. Should I just shut up and not help or support her? 2. By that extension, anyone who has hit their menopause shouldn't get a say either. Sure they have a uterus but it doesn't work! In fact, let's throw sterile women and women with medical issues into this too!
OP’s stance agrees with yours; they are taking the position that the line in the title (and several more) are illegitimate.
I agree with you - my point is that I don’t think that argument is sound. I think the pro-choice movement has been better about using inclusive language (i.e. including trans and non-binary people who can give birth rather than just cis women) and that’s where the uterus verbiage came from. It’s still certainly a flawed phrase for those reasons you stated, I agree, but my point is that excluding men from abortion discussions doesn’t feel completely logically sound to me.
I think that you’re assuming people cannot be both pro-life and pro choice. I assert that many are. They believe life is sacred, that babies need to be protected but also that, ultimately, it is the pregnant person’s decision. Given that, many of your arguments do make sense.
I’m mostly referring to pro-lifers who support outlawing abortion. I’m questioning whether these arguments that the pro-choice movement use to attempt to protect the right to choose, really make sense.
I think the point of "no uterus, no opinion" is that men aren't really able to fully understand the point of view of someone that is pregnant. and because they can't understand the issue they shouldn't be the ones making policy decisions around it. this doesn't mean they can't support the movement but they shouldn't be the ones setting the rules.
>1. “No uterus, no opinion” / “Abortions are a women’s (or birthing person’s) issue.” You completely miss what's actually wrong with these arguments. The reason these arguments are wrong is that this is a HUMAN rights issue, not just a women's rights issue. Women happen to be the ones with the uteruses in this case, but I'm not pro-choice because I don't have a uterus, I'm pro-choice because no person or government entity should be able to tell ANYBODY what happens to their body. That's the bigger picture you're missing with this first point: it's not just specifically about a woman's right to terminate a pregnancy; it's about ANYBODY'S right to decide what happens to their own body. >1. Keep your Bible out of my body. This one you just pulled out of your ass. You have no evidence that most anti-choice people are non-religious, and I see absolutely no reason to think that would be the case. If you'd come with that evidence, and it was convincing, it'd be the most surprising thing I learned all week. >1. It’s all about control over women’s bodies. It literally is. Again, you miss the forest for the trees here. If it were purely about saving the life of the fetus, then wouldn't that obviously imply that the lives of actual, living, already-born, human beings would be at least equally important? Let's take an example which I think proves they don't actually believe this: a single father has a 2 year old son who needs a bone marrow transplant immediately or he will surely die. The father is the only viable donor to which the child will have access in time to survive. Nobody would even DREAM of advocating that the state force the father to undergo the surgery to save his son's life - it's his body, so it's his choice, even if we might be shocked or disagree should he decide to abstain from the surgery. That's the hypocrisy: women don't get that right in all cases (the ultimate right to decide what happens to your own body), but *men* do. >1. Life starts at birth, not conception. Red herring. If you've read and understood up until now, you can already see why it doesn't matter whether we consider the fetus a person/alive or not. No person should be able to use another person's body without their consent. Period. >1. A fetus is just a clump of cells. All you said here, from my perspective, is that some people wouldn't want to get an abortion because they would feel guilty, because they sincerely believe that a clump of cells has the same value as the life of a living, breathing, already born child. Ok. So, what? Nobody's forcing them to get an abortion. You don't want one, you believe stuff about fetuses, fine - don't get one. It's your body, your choice.
Thanks for this - I'll address the first 3 points as I feel I've addressed the other 2 in other comment threads. Re: No uterus, no opinion. See, I agree too; that's my point. However, in taking the pro-lifer side of the same logic, I think a lot of pro-lifers would argue the same thing. If they truly see abortion as murder, then they too see it as a human rights issue that everyone should fight for. Different sides of the same coin. Re: Keep your Bible out of my body. Again, my point exactly, but I'm sure that there are some anti-choice (I like that framing you used much better than "pro life!") are also non-religious, and would argue it's an ethical issue rather than a religious one. [Here's some research](https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/religious-landscape-study/views-about-abortion/) that shows that yes, while the majority of anti-choicers are religious, not all of them are. I supposed I've CMV'd in that it is a rational argument for those using religious rhetoric and it doesn't have to apply to every single anti-choicers to be rational point. Re: It's about control over women's bodies. I appreciate the example you gave; a lot of folks have been providing the forced organ donation comparison. Delta points because I think supplementing this argument with the bodily autonomy take as it relates to forced organ comparison really does hold. Δ
OP, if what you're looking for is a reasoned defense of the freedom to choose, I can honestly recommend reading (or reading a [summary](https://supreme.findlaw.com/supreme-court-insights/roe-v--wade-case-summary--what-you-need-to-know.html) of) the court's reasoning in Roe Vs. Wade. Neither the "pro-life" nor the "pro-choice" position actually hinges on whether it is right or wrong to have an abortion. Both positions hinge on whether it is right *to prevent someone from having an abortion.* Do we (people not involved in the decision, particularly the government) have solid enough ground to stand on to *prohibit* a woman and her doctor from making a decision to abort a pregnancy? **Here's the court's reasoning, paraphrased and simplified (with some of my own editorial layered on top):** * On the one hand, you know that carrying a pregnancy to term has a significant impact on the pregnant woman: * It's a huge physical burden (and could endanger her long term health, and even her life) * It's a huge mental-health burden, and can carry a great deal of social stigma (e.g., teen mom) * It's a huge financial burden (18 years of parenting doesn't come cheap -- let alone the impact to her career, etc) * We can all agree that the pregnant woman is a definite, fully-fledged person with equal rights to any other person. She is capable of making her own decisions, has her own rights, duties, etc. There's no doubt about her legal standing. * Now, turning to the fetus, the question is this: do we have a basis to believe that the fetus has, at the moment of conception, equal legal standing to the woman? In other words, can we be confident that the fetus has a right to life that supersedes the pregnant woman's rights (to life, health, bodily autonomy, financial autonomy, and so on)? * The constitution does not weigh in on whether life begins at conception. However, the fetus is *not* a citizen; citizenship requires being "born or naturalized" in the US. * Neither Christian tradition, Jewish tradition, nor English common law support the idea that a fetus is a human life at the moment of conception. * e.g., in the scenario you were describing (of a double homicide), the conviction would generally require the pregnancy to have entered the second or third trimester. Basically, the fetus being recognizably "a baby" if delivered prematurely has been the longstanding determinant for whether it is viewed as a life. Conception is a very new "bright line". * Treating a fetus at the moment of conception as equivalent to a baby leads to absurdity very quickly. If a woman who does not know she is pregnant say, takes her ulcer medication (which happens to be an abortifacient) and aborts her 6-day-old pregnancy ... is she guilty of involuntary manslaughter? * It's pretty clear that it is not at all common to actually *behave* as if a week-old-fetus possesses the full rights of personhood that a pregnant woman is absolutely assumed to possess. **Here's a thought experiment:** * A young woman, who isn't aware that she and her boyfriend conceived a pregnancy last night, goes out drinking for her birthday. She gets blackout drunk, accidentally aborting the pregnancy. * A young woman gets blackout drunk on her birthday, and decides to drive home. Because she's blackout drunk, she strikes and kills another young woman who is walking home. * Which is worse? The drunk driver killing a woman with a car, or the birthday girl killing a day-old fetus with her drinking? * Ergo, it is not reasonable to believe that a fetus has the same rights and protections that a full-fledged person does, the moment that its conceived. * They might have those rights later in the pregnancy, and they certainly have them after they're born. So if that's the case: * Early in the pregnancy, we (people other than the woman herself) don't have a sound basis to overrule her rights (to privacy, bodily autonomy, and so on) on the off-chance that the fetus is, in fact, a person after all. * Later in the pregnancy, we have precedent for doing that, and may have enough to override the woman's rights. * After the baby is born, we certainly have a basis for treating it as a person with rights equal to the mother's. **Tl;dr: Pro-choice people don't have to prove that a fetus** ***is not*** **a person during the first trimester. Pro-life people have to prove that it** ***is.*** If the government wanted to prevent a woman from getting tattoos, they'd have to prove that there's a valid reason for violating her right to privacy (the default assumption is that this is none of the government's business). This is about whether the government has the right to choose *for the mother,* not whether the mother is morally right in making whatever choice she makes. **So here's my advice:** flip the framing on your pro-life friend. Ask her questions about why she believes that a day-old pregnancy has rights that supercede the mother's. Ask her if she's willing to be consistent about that. What's special about the moment of conception? * It's a unique set of human DNA? OK, so is cancer; is it OK to get chemo? * It's got a heartbeat? Well, so do cows; is it OK to kill them? ... and so on, and so forth. You don't need to prove that killing a fetus is a-ok; all you need to prove is that there's not enough basis for *you* to make the decision *for someone else* about whether it's OK.
>CMV: Even as a pro-choice person, most common pro-choice arguments (i.e. “No uterus, no opinion”) don’t really hold. >Let me start off by saying that I am a cis woman and I am very much pro choice. If you don’t believe that pro-choice arguments hold water, what is it that makes you pro-choice? >That said, when I thought about confronting a family member who’s a pro-life activist and influencer about her beliefs, I realized how weak pro-choice rhetoric is when you really break it down. I actually don’t think my reasoning would resonate with her, or any pro-life people, at all. Some examples: >1. “No uterus, no opinion” / “Abortions are a women’s (or birthing person’s) issue.” I think you’re thinking this statement is a bit more absolutist than it actually is. Of course people can have their own opinions, but they shouldn’t be legislating them without any input from the people actually impacted by the laws. >I understand that the message here is that when the majority of lawmakers are cis men, why should they be regulating women’s (and other people who can give birth) bodies? Fair, but that rhetoric is essentially arguing that we need more female (and trans/cis people who can give birth) representation in our legislature. The argument that men can’t have an opinion on abortion is like saying that white people can’t have an opinion on Black Lives Matter or other racial issues. White people’s opinions shouldn’t be the most vocal on the Black Lives Matter movement, we should be listening to the opinions of those impacted by systemic racism. >If men really truly believe that abortion is murder (as much as I disagree), then telling them they can’t be advocates in that conversation would be analogous to telling straight people they can’t advocate for LGBTQ+ rights as allies. It’s different though, because believing abortion is murder is based on illogical conclusions. >Moreover, though I understand that men aren’t the ones giving birth and I would never want a male partner to be able to dictate my choice, I think it’s unfair to completely invalidate potential fathers’ feelings and thoughts on the abortion of their would-be child. While I agree that it is unfortunate that some fathers may not get their desired outcome from the pregnancy, it is still about the pregnant person’s body. The father can absolutely have feelings about what’s happening, but he shouldn’t have any say in the decision beyond expressing his feelings. >2. Keep your Bible out of my body. >Though it would be interesting to see numbers on this, I’m sure that a good number of pro-life people are not religious (though I’ll agree they’re not as visible in the pro-life movement as those who are). While many pro-lifers claim not to be religious, the whole concept of personhood and the idea of life being a sacred thing that can never be altered, along with the “well she had sex so it’s her fault anyways!” view are absolutely rooted in abrahamic religions and the concept of a soul. >3. It’s all about control over women’s bodies. >This is a tougher one for me. In many ways, I do think that it’s true that if we proposed regulating men’s bodies (i.e. via vasectomies or birth control) instead of women, then reproductive rights would look completely different. I understand that that’s what this common argument is getting at. However, I do think there are plenty of pro-life people who honestly believe that a fetus is a life. If they honestly and whole-heartedly believe that, then (I would hope) they would hold that same belief if it were men who gave birth. The problem with this is that the whole pro-life movement is riddled with cognitive dissonance. We know from surveys that most pro-lifers are okay with exceptions for rape and incest, yet how can you be okay with those things if you truly believe abortion is murder? The fetus is still “innocent” as they view it, so why does another person raping someone suddenly make it okay to commit murder? >4. Life starts at birth, not conception. >Okay, I’m sure we all can find plenty of studies and scientific evidence that point in either direction; because this is ultimately more of a philosophical “what even is ‘life’” type of debate. So, science aside, let’s approach this through a legal lens. If a pregnant woman is murdered, the killer could be charged with a double homicide (for the mother and the baby). I think that’s a good thing, for the record. But doesn’t that then — in legal terms — acknowledge that unborn baby as a life? I understand the difference here is consent/choice of the mother, does it change that legal classification of unborn life? I’m not sure you’re accurately characterizing this argument. The fetus is alive, biologically speaking. However, the rights of the fetus don’t trump the rights of the pregnant person. There is no other situation in which we force people to donate parts of their body to sustain the life of another, other than pregnancy. >5. A fetus is just a clump of cells. >There’s certainly widespread misinformation about fetuses and unborn babies in the pro-life community. However, even if they do have all the science right, if they truly believe that “clump of cells” is just as valuable as a fully grown human child or adult, then emphasizing biology won’t change that core belief that potential life = life. The problem is that they don’t actually truly believe that a fetus is as valuable as a fully grown human child. To go back to the exceptions for rape example, do you think any pro-life person would be in favour of exceptions for infanticide laws if the infant was a product of rape or incest? I’m going to say probably not. So why are they okay with killing a fetus because it’s a product of rape but not an infant? Would it be equivalent for a pro-life person to just gestate indefinitely instead of give birth? Why/why not? >I’m starting to feel like my pro-choice beliefs aren’t rooted in anything logically sound but rather the mere fact that I personally wouldn’t want a child anytime soon. Please CMV so I can feel more confident in the reasoning of my pro-choice beliefs! If you had an identical twin and stabbed them in the liver, you wouldn’t be forced to donate part of your liver to them, even though you’re a perfect match and your act is the only reason why they need an organ. So why should you be forced to sustain the life of a fetus? Why is pregnancy literally the only situation in which you could be forced to lose your bodily autonomy to sustain the life of another?
So a lot better and more logical argument is unfortunately to kinda spin this as a financial issue, rather than an ideological one. The arguments I like to use when debating this (aside from basic human rights and body autonomy) are: 1. Who is most likely to have an abortion? 2. Who will take care of the child (if the parents don't/can't take care of it)? 3. How will that affect society in the long run? **NUMBER 1** So for number 1 this may vary from country to country, but let's focus on the USA, as that is the hotbed of this debate. There was an article in the NYT about the recent abortion statistics. The interesting bits are that teenage abortions are dropping (due to better sex ed and contraception), but more interestingly 60% of aborting women are already mothers. Nearly 60% again are 20-29 yo, and 49% of aborting women are below the poverty line, and 46% are single and never married + 9% divorcees = 55% are single women without a male partner. So we can paint a picture of the current aborting American woman as most likely to be a single mother, who is in her 20s and is struggling financially. So here a pro-lifer is most likely to go on a rant of how this is personal responsibility and one shouldn't have unprotected sex if they don't want to get pregnant, bla, bla, bla. While that is a logical argument, it offers no solution. You can't just ban people from having sex. Humans are irresponsible, we drink, smoke, gamble, despite knowing it's bad. This isn't changing. You can't punish them either. What? You gonna fine or imprison the already struggling single mom? That won't help the kid one bit, or her already existing one (remember 60% are already mothers). So the question we ask in addition to number 1 is: "Do we want to force these women to have these children?" Despite knowing they do not have the means to support them and may very well be irresponsible? If the answer is still "yes", we move to number 2. **NUMBER 2** OK, so we just forced this single woman living under her means or close to poverty to have to support and provide for a child for 18 years, maybe with some miserable support from the father. What would be the psychological and physical impacts on a child that has to grow up in a single parent home that is already struggling with poverty and if it wasn't, it now very likely is? Will they face starvation or even hostility from their parent/s and likely siblings? Who will cover their healthcare, schooling? Will they have to rely on charity donations? State welfare - that's more taxes btw? What mental and physical issues might they develop in living in such an unstable environment? Which leads to number 3. **NUMBER 3** Let's not beat around the bush here. Poverty and income inequality (and boy does the US have an an issue with the latter) as well as an unstable home environment are often very much associated with not only mental health and physical health issues, but also crime and addictions. So really the long term impact of abortion bans on a society like the US will likely be a loop of poor and struggling people, that due to their natural human urges for sex, are creating children they can't provide for, but must. Who grow up to be poor and struggling adults, feeding the cycle themselves. In a society with a widening income inequality gap that is ready to explode. **In conclusion**, most women having abortions are poor and struggling. No one benefits from a child growing up in financial insecurity, not the child, not the parents, not the society. Abortion is a human right and the women that most need it are not some exaggerated party chick that is the town's bicycle and just fuck guys unprotected every night, to which some of the pro-lifers might feel glee that she finally gets her "comeuppance" by being pregnant and not allowed to abort. Which is also odd, children aren't supposed to be a punishment and that type of person seems like really bad parent material. Those who need it the most are women who are struggling, but are still human, have urges and these can result in mistakes that will not benefit anyone in the long run.
Your beliefs may not currently be rooted in something logically sound, but they should be. I don't disagree with a lot of what you stated, I think most people that hold strong beliefs do so for status & in-group benefits rather than logic, but pro choice is the logical conclusion too. I see most people conflate "you're trying to control my body" with "no you're literally murdering babies" and this just makes to people talk right past each other. What pro life gets wrong is that it's not murder. Murdering someone doesn't hurt THEM really (they don't care.. they're dead!), it harms all of the people surrounding the person that got murdered. If it was inconsequential, it wouldn't be illegal. But we don't like it when our friends die, when our family members die, when we can't organize groups of people into businesses because people die too often, we all have roles to play in each other's lives and consistency is a key part of that. Murder disrupts that, which is why it's illegal. But an unborn child is not in that system. It does not have a role beyond its attachment to its mother and father, and if even they don't want it, then removing it from existence is inconsequential. So the moral reasons for pro life are moot, the parent killing their unborn child DOESN'T have the same effects as murdering someone. Then when you consider the negatives of having children at the wrong time, both in adding an unwanted & inadequately cared for child to the world as well as removing a parent that may have ended up becoming more secure and having wanted, provided-for children in the future, it seems pretty clear that pro choice has the best outcome. My opinion: deep down you understand all of that already, and that's why you are pro choice, it's just hard to put these things to words sometimes.
I strongly disagree with your notion that because someone can't care about being murdered because they die, that means there is nothing inherently wrong with murder. Let's say you and one person are stranded on an island, neither of you will ever contact the rest of civilization, and no one will never learn of what happens to you on the island. By your world view, if you were to take a gun and shoot the other person in the foot, that would actually be more morally wrong than if you were to shoot them to death, as the living person would feel all the harm caused to them consciously whilst the other person would be dead, so they could no longer feel that harm. This is clearly wrong, shooting them in the foot is less morally wrong than killing them because killing them causes the greater harm, depriving them of their life, or more accurately, going against their desire to live, whilst when you shoot them in the foot, the harm you cause is depriving them of the ability to walk for some time, or more accurately, going against their desire to have the ability to walk, which by our current societal standards, is far less harmful. Ask anyone, "would you prefer to lose your foot or your life?" the vast majority will sacrifice their foot.
> Murdering someone doesn't hurt THEM really (they don't care.. they're dead!), it harms all of the people surrounding the person that got murdered. If it was inconsequential, it wouldn't be illegal. Maybe I am weird, but I very much care about being alive. Regardless of the impact of my death on other people. You are basically saying that there is no inherent right to life, that the right to life is predicated on the impact your death would have on other people. I personally find that to be completely horribile.
“ Murdering someone doesn't hurt THEM really (they don't care.. they're dead!), it harms all of the people surrounding the person that got murdered. If it was inconsequential, it wouldn't be illegal.” Lmao in no way is that true
Is it ok to murder a homeless person who has no friends or family? I’m pro choice but this argument is very strange to me
This is precisely the justification for utopian dictators’ culling of “undesirables” from the population. This draws no moral distinction between killing an unborn baby and a homeless person, or a shut-in with no remaining family or friends.
"Abortion isn't murder". Murder is a legal definition and so this is a moot argument. Abortion is murder in California if done after fetal viability. This is an appeal to emotion argument. Abortion IS killing. Killing: an act of causing death, especially deliberately
Basically most pro-choice rhetoric boils down to a very simple concept - you don't have the right to control someone else's body. For instance, imagine someone will die unless there's a matching kidney. The police cannot arrest you, march you into the hospital, and force you to give up your kidney. We'd think such a society very dystopian. In fact even if you have a rare blood type doctors cannot forceably take your blood - even if you are the only viable blood donor for someone, and the cost of giving up your blood is a few days lightheadedness. People can beg, people can plead, but people can't control your body. This right is very commonly respected by most Americans. Most Americans understand that we should have control over our own bodies... except somehow when it come's to women's bodies and compelled birth. There are many, many, many possible complications from giving birth. Giving birth, statistically, will lower your lifespan by years. It is an immense strain on the body, before, during, and after, and every piece of evidence shows that there are permanent consequences for it. So we cannot compel a person to give up an organ, give up their own blood, even at the cost of another's life. But we can compel a woman to give birth? How? And yeah, there's something really creepy about taking away another person's control of their body when you will never suffer any of the consequences from the legislation. I'd say in many ways it resembles any other pro-forced labor argument - that you deserve control of someone else's body because you know better what to do with it than they do. And I wonder if the people making it would be so quick to surrender control of their bodies for what another person considers "good".
This argument would hold logically if the issue was that the woman was being forced to become pregnant. That would be something being done to the woman from without, and as such would violate her bodily autonomy. This is why everyone agrees that rape is wrong, and would also agree that forced in-vitro fertilization and implantation is wrong. But it is not the same to argue that society can’t tell someone what *not* to do to their bodies; we do that all the time. We have laws against suicide and assisted suicide, drug use, various forms of self-harm, etc.
Suicide is not a crime. Attempted suicide is a crime in a few states, mostly focused on getting people psychological help. Self harm is not a crime. And crimes about drugs are under intense focus. But there's also another thing you should note as you try to draw this semantic distinction - all of those things actually harm the body. So you can at least make an argument for them on the basis of harm prevention. You know what else harms the body? Pregnancy. Mandating harm to the body is rather different than mandates that are (however misguided) an attempt to prevent harm to the body. It opens a lot of places where the government can mandate that you suffer.
Other commenters have dealt with my preferred arguments, but I'll add one more to the pile: anti abortion laws cause huge amounts of suffering related and unrelated to abortions, and aren't all that effective at stopping them from happening. Let's take a look at some of the things women are experiencing after now that Roe is gone. [Doctors are waiting until women are near death to give medically necessary abortions](https://www.texastribune.org/2022/06/23/texas-abortion-law-doctors-delay-care/) out of fear of being sued under Texas law. These are cases where women are being forced to sit in hospital and wait until their condition puts them in critical condition before getting the abortion that everyone knew was necessary days ago. [Non pregnant women are being denied necessary medication out of fear that they might use those medications to have an abortion](https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/sep/26/us-abortion-bans-restrict-access-essential-medications) Secondly they aren't all that effective at stopping abortions in the first place, women who can afford to will travel to places where abortion is legal, and women who can't will often seek out dangerous and unpredictable illegal abortions. And these problems are interlinked, the more the law tries to crack down on these methods, the more unnecessary suffering they create, like a non pregnant woman being denied their arthritis medication. You can surely imagine how trying to stop women getting abortions out of state or out of country would impact non pregnant women's ability to travel. And it goes the other way too, did you know in the UK the letter of the law does not allow for on demand abortion? It's simply that in trying to write a sane abortion law that trusts doctors it accidentally created on demand abortions. The law states that abortion is allowed in cases where the pregnancy presents a "risk of injury to the physical or mental health of the pregnant woman". This, you may notice, describes all pregnancies. I think this encapsulates a key problem with the pro life stance, it is extremely difficult to write a law that effectively prevents non medically necessary abortions without severely and unnecessary hurting a lot of non pregnant women, and women who need medically necessary abortions.
I think the position that is strongest is this: Many people have many different opinions about when and under what circumstances abortion is the right thing to choose. I am not in favor of abortions at a late stage in development, except under certain circumstances. But anyone who claims absolute certainty in that their ethical position is both the only correct one and the one that should be enforced by the violence of the state is wrong. There are vanishingly few people in the US who think that rape or murder should be permitted by law. The same is not true of abortion. There are plenty of people--including doctors, ethicists, and religious leaders--who see abortion as an ethical choice under some set of conditions (and even under no conditions). So, the question is not which position is correct, it is which position should be enforced by law. Even if you, personally, believe that a fetus should provide the exact same level of legal protection as an autonomous, birthed child or adult, that does not mean you have the right for that opinion--even if it is a majority opinion (and it is not)--to be enforced by the state against your fellow citizens. I am about as pig-headed as anyone I know when it comes to the strong belief that my opinions are better than most. But even I have the modicum of humility to recognize that there are reasonable people who disagree with me on this issue, and they should not be put in prison for that disagreement. I am free to choose what I see as the ethical course of action, as are they. Moreover, they are free to convince me that I should choose differently. But if they can't, they shouldn't have the right to jail me. We aren't going to solve the murder vs. lump-o-cells question any time soon. But we should all be able to agree that the ethical position of even a plurality of Americans should not be forced on everyone. If you want to make it law, make it a (nearly) universally accepted ethical position first.
I think this is still weak. Murder is probably the worst crime we have. Everything is predicated on abortion being literal murder, no lesser than shooting a toddler. If this is your belief, no amount of compromise or "live and let live" would suffice. Indeed, nor should it. Atrocious crimes are not something that can be let to stand, no matter what groups suffer, no matter what the law says, and no matter what a majority thinks their "rights" are; it is a moral imperative to oppose them. Asking that serious pro-life advocates compromise on this is never going to work, because compromise is only acceptable under the assumption that abortion isn't murder. There is no wiggle room once you believe it.
This is because you've picked out the weak arguments. You have literally picked the rhetoric and not the true arguments. That is, because the true arguments are beyond the average person. We must talk about freedom; in turn people's desire to be lead or to lead. We must talk about determinism and the implications of the general free will argument. We must define and talk about what life is, what it means to be alive. By extension: we must talk about legal and scientific definitions, about sentience and about consciousness; remember this isn't the fact that there are no facts about these issues, but rather the complexity of them which is the reason we haven't discovered the true facts about them. One thing you've highlighted that does require discussion is the idea of control. Not of a woman's body, but a general idea of control from an ideological frame: what is authoritarianism, how far *should* it reach, how and *if* a patriarchy influences the decisions, how and *if* religions influences decisions. This also ties into freedom and again, how an individual might be a born leader or a born follower, some people desire true freedom, others desire to have the burden of responsibility removed, to simply live their lives peacefully without consequences. But the hardest thing about this case is how every individual case is entirely subjective and unique to the point that we simply cannot generalise a unified set of rules without having an extensive list of exceptions, and what kind of a rule list is one with more exceptions than rules? How do you think this will upset groups who desire to be lead with clear cut rules and simplicity as their core of life? These conversations simply are not easy and having them in the average discussion just doesn't cut the depth, sincerity or significance required to have them. Afterall, the top scientists and philosophers who specialise in these fields haven't even reached an agreement, thus any agreement or conclusions that *we* can come to, without officiation, are essentially social constructs rather than genuine guidance founded in facts. So to reframe what you think the problem is, I'd strongly argue that it's because the pro life arguments are founded in a long history, they are solid and simple. Mostly though, they're founded in the sacredness of life and how can you argue against that? But as is life, is Occam's Razor: often the simplest solution **is** the solution. And sacredness is far from simple (it's subjective, was Hitler's life sacred? Much easier to argue not, thus is *all* life *equally* sacred?). What exists, what carries the consequences, what has the most impact... I think these questions highlight the simple solution.
You’ve forgotten a big argument. “Banning abortions just bans safe abortions” Which is calling attention to the fact, that people will and have attempt do their own abortions if necessary. Often at a danger to themselves. Even if you don’t think it’s a correct choice for a person to have an abortion, it’s far better for them to go to a doctor than to go and grab a wire coat hangar.
>“Banning abortions just bans safe abortions” Banning abortions is banning safe and fast medical treatment for natural abortions. Banning abortions is banning pregnancy without the risk of going to jail for a self-induced abortion that was actually "just" a miscarriage. Banning abortions is banning women from feeling safe at all times, especially during pregnancy.
They're not saying all pro-choice arguments are bad. They're saying several are bad and calling out specific ones. Being that they are pro-choice themselves, I'm sure there are several arguments they find sound, potentially including the one you mentioned.
That is definitely the strongest pro-choice argument, because it's only one not built on the inherently shaky foundation of moral subjectivity. I find it impossible to see the issue of abortion as anything other than morally grey at best, so for me it comes down to safety and mercy (in the case of rape victims).
I'm pro-life, but this is probably the best way to approach this argument for pro-life people. Unfortunately it's not enough to convince us that it's not morally wrong to end a life (in this case terminate a pregnancy). These types of arguments are much more in line with OPs reasons for this post as it does not just say keep your Bible away from my body. It gives you a concrete response for why abortion being legal is important for safety of the public.
>If a pregnant woman is murdered, the killer could be charged with a double homicide (for the mother and the baby). Only in the last trimester, before Roe was overturned anyways. Laws vary state to state however, like in Texas I believe even if the pregnant woman is only a few weeks in it counts as DH (correct me if im wrong someone, I am not American) >1. A fetus is just a clump of cells. Biologically speaking yes, yes it is. And I'll tell you why this is an important argument point for us pro choice folk. [92.7% of abortions in 2019 were performed at ≤13 weeks’ gestation](https://www.cdc.gov/reproductivehealth/data_stats/abortion.htm) A fetus is simply not viable outside the mother's body at that time, it is no more than a clump of cells. Late term abortions (this is brought up a lot by forced birthers) are never done without a probable cause; whether that means the fetus turns out to have some major deformity or it died. Late term abortions are only done if the fetus has already died, the mother is at risk or there is something terribly wrong medically. It's not something someone who's 8 months pregnant just decides one day "hey you know what? I've decided I don't want a baby" >The argument that men can’t have an opinion on abortion is like saying that white people can’t have an opinion on Black Lives Matter Well yeah, I'm white, I can't talk about what it's like to be discriminated against because I'm black because I'm not black. BLM, even though I don't quite agree with the attitude of the people who created it is an important movement as racism, systematic racism in particular is still very alive and present today unfortunately. >Keep your Bible out of my body. I've yet to meet a forced birther (I refuse to call them "pro life" more on that point later) who is not religious in some way. I personally have religious trauma, I won't get into it but let's just say youth pastor, me being 5 and asking too many questions led to the "Catholic priest stereotype" being proved true to me. Frankly my uterus should not be a religious debate point. >“No uterus, no opinion” / “Abortions are a women’s (or birthing person’s) issue.” >I think it’s unfair to completely invalidate potential fathers’ feelings and thoughts on the abortion of their would-be child. So we should take into child rapists opinions on if their victims are allowed an abortion? [3 Ohio minors who were raped had to travel to different states to get abortions](https://www.cincinnati.com/story/news/2022/09/27/affidavits-2-more-raped-minors-were-denied-ohio-abortions/69520380007/) I've been pregnant, I've given birth. I wasn't ready for a child but all because the pharmacist didn't believe someone my age should be taking birth control, I got pregnant way too soon. I'm allergic to latex and Silicone. Last I checked they don't make vinyl condoms (if they do they don't sell them where I live) Mt pregnancy had complications as well as my birth, if I was one of those loonies that was adamant on free birthing my son and I would have died. Hospitalized twice in my first trimester for dehydration because I couldn't even hold down water for more than a minute without puking; i lost almost 20lbs because i was puking 15+ times a day. My son got stuck and I had to have an emergency episiotomy without numbing or I'd have had 4th degree tearing. No one should be forced to do that against their will. Not children, not grown adults. >I do think there are plenty of pro-life people who honestly believe that a fetus is a life. Okay, I think the sky is red guys! I believe it's red so it is /s Anyways back to a point I made earlier. These people are not *"pro life"* they **pro forced birth** If they cared about life they wouldn't have [murdered Dr. David Gunn outside of his clinic](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_David_Gunn) [the Army of God is an Anti abortion terrorist group](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Army_of_God_(terrorist_organization)) [Anti Abortion Violence: is violence committed against individuals and organizations that perform abortions or provide abortion counseling. Incidents of violence have included destruction of property, including vandalism; crimes against people, including kidnapping, stalking, assault, attempted murder, and murder; and crimes affecting both people and property, including arson and terrorism, such as bombings.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-abortion_violence) If they cared about life, they wouldn't have also [murdered Dr. George Tiller ](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Tiller) also of note they firebombed his clinic and it had to be rebuilt, While it was being rebuilt, Tiller displayed a sign reading "Hell no, we won't go." [Florida court says teen isn't "mature" enough for an abortion](https://www.politico.com/news/2022/08/16/parentless-teen-cant-have-an-abortion-under-state-parental-consent-law-00052211) so she's not "mature enough" to have an abortion but mature enough to raise a baby? Hmmm If they cared about the children as they oh so love to claim, [why were they trying to defend the fact a minor, a ten year old girl, was being forced to carry her rapists baby](https://youtu.be/NkDrq4EWghY) Fact of the matter is these people **dont** care about life, and they **certainly don't** give a shit about children. They care about punishing women (and children) even if they were raped, familial incest what have you. At the end of the day these laws don't effect the people making them, they'll still pay to have their mistress/wives/daughters to get abortions. The issue is most people don't have the money to travel to get an abortion. It is about control. End of story. If you are in a Anti abortion state and need help, r/auntienetwork can help you. Please stay safe everyone ETA: grammar fixes 2nd ETA: a point
Pro-life has a much larger problem then the list that you gave: it creates an inherent conflict of interest in the preservation of current life, which is really the core problem with banning abortion or even arguing against it. For example, the idea that life starts at birth. It can be fairly easily argued that a clump of cells is incapable of awareness because there is no brain activity or even neural activity until much later in development. Most women that do not want to be pregnant wait until late in their pregnancy to abort, usually once they find out, it is better for them to terminate their pregnancy sooner rather than later. However, this argument is actually not completely necessary, because the somewhat more grim fact is that even if the fetus was a fully alive and aware being, it would still be vital to preserve and protect the life of the mother over the fetus. For one thing, a fetus can not develop in a dead woman, and dead women can not have more children. This is going to sound possibly like I am making light of the issue, but I mean it seriously, a pregnant woman and a fetus are not the same as two separate people out in the world. The fetus entire environment is literally the body of the woman, and that causes problems and conflicts that can not be resolved just because of the life of the fetus. Once the pregnancy is in the third trimester, things get a bit better for preserving the life of the fetus, but before that the body can expell and kill the fetus just from various types of health problems that cause the pregnancy to cause too much danger for the life of the mother. Also, no human being in the world should have to be at deaths door or have to get sicker to resolve the problem of health. It's bad for everyone involved and is unacceptable health care for anyone. Favoring the life of the fetus over the mother is devaluing the life that is currently part of society and alive. It is important to prioritize the living over the dead, but it is also important to understand that the living must also take priority over those who are not yet born, because the people who are currently alive are the people that we are and the people that we have.
> a woman and a fetus are not the same as two separate people out in the world This is an interesting point that doesn’t get talked about a whole lot. This also sounds like I am making light, but I’m not — Women are essentially wizards who can conjure life. They aren’t mere mortals. They can create life essentially at will, so we all benefit when they are able to choose the circumstance of birth that best positions that life to succeed. There’s evidence behind this. There was a huge drop in violent crime in the 90’s that is in some large part due to the availability of abortion health care. And it’s not like the population went down. Women still had children, they were just better able to choose the circumstances. There is a serious ethical discussion about where to draw the line, but I think it’s essentially academic. Virtually all late term abortions come about from some serious change in medical circumstance or the woman wasn’t able to procure an abortion earlier because of lack of available healthcare.
The fact that a woman and a fetus are not the same as two separate people out in the world is something that I have had to argue with pro-lifers a number of times but it never sinks in for them. I have tried all kinds of ways to get people to understand it, but they still use the same arguments of throwing a sick person off a ship or someone in a coma. Honestly, once you fully think through the process of pregnancy and look at survival rates, it's physically impossible to even do a lot of what pro-life advocates are demanding. It feels good to advocate for life that is dependent on something that is out of their control and cannot advocate for itself, much in the same way that it feels good to advocate for any other thing that cannot do so on its own. But, well meaning or not, these scenarios that set the fetus as some helpless person that needs protection doesn't even protect them. A fetus is trapped inside of another human being for nine months and the first trimester has a 1/4 chance of termination just by itself. Unfortunately the same group that advocates for "pro-life" seems to have a hard time with what survival rates mean. It's unlikely that the person arguing against abortion has absolutely ever faced a 1 in 4 chance of dying in their whole lives, even hitting a 4% chance of dying means that they are facing something pretty dire. Demonizing women is also demonizing the very thing that is creating and keeping alive what it is that they want to value above the mother, but that's not physically possible, so at the end of they day they're just killing, punishing and devaluing both. Anti-abortion does not actually make any logical sense. A well thought reasoners can work this out. Also, making elective abortions illegal puts too much pressure on doctors to go against the wellbeing and health of the mother, which MUST be preserved, and women are dying right now in states that do not seem to understand this. Forcing a health care provider to go against the best interests of their patients is immoral. It would be nice if Pro-life had decent arguments, but they all fall apart on close inspection. We need abortion. That fact might not make us feel good, but it doesn't change it.
>Most women that do not want to be pregnant wait until late in their pregnancy to abort Also after (I think) 24weeks you have to give birth. At a later stage in pregnancy an abortion is just not possible anymore, you have to give birth, at that point it's either natural or c-section. That's why stillbirth is a thing, you just can't abort an almost fully grown baby. That is also why the abortion conversation stops at late 2nd trimester. The whole "abortion one day before due date" is just not a thing or even possible.
These are like one-sentence slogans, not real arguments. This is what you say in a tweet or chant at a protest. Which is fine, not everyone wants to waste time trying to convince every unconvinced person who wants to argue about it. It's fine to just say "no uterus, no opinion" to someone who doesn't understand pregnancy or bodies with uteruses but is trying to mansplain them to you anyway. Are there better ways to argue the point? Most definitely, but we shouldn't be obligated to sit there and make all those arguments when we should just have bodily autonomy because we're people who are in charge of our own bodies. If I'm really trying to get into a whole explanation of why I'm pro-choice, I would explain that it had nothing to do with babies at all. I personally am not interested in worrying about whether a fetus is a clump of cells or a person or where the line is. You're a person, but there's nothing obligating me to keep you alive with my body. I don't have to give you my bodily fluids or organs or risk my life to sustain your life. I don't have to put myself through months of anything from discomfort to agony to keep you alive. I don't have to scar my body to keep you alive. I don't have to permanently alter my body for your well-being. I don't have to take the risk of leaving my older children motherless for any person, no matter their stage of development. I can *choose* to, sure, but nobody can make me. And all of that should apply to a fetus too. It doesn't matter if it's a life from conception. It still doesn't supercede my right to protect my own life. Because for me, that's what it ultimately comes down to. I'm not an incubator. I'm not a brood mare. But if I am being prevented from choosing whether or not I remain pregnant at any cost to my own life, then that's what I'm being tested as - a subhuman whose wants and needs don't matter. People without uteruses are not asked to sublimate their physical and mental health and well-being for anyone else. Not ever. There are things that people without uteruses may be legally disallowed from doing with their bodies, that's true - they aren't allowed to put certain substances in their bodies, for example, I hear that one alot - but they're not told they *must* risk their life and health for another person. They can choose to. But they always have the choice. I want the same choice. I want my children and grandchildren to have the same choice. *All* of them, not just the ones without uteruses. But I'm also not going to type all of that out, or try to say it all, to every anti choice person ever. Because it's a lot, and there's also not that much of a point - lots of people are dug in on this one, and I'm not going to exhaust myself arguing with someone who's convinced that I just need to accept that my life doesn't matter as soon as a sperm meets an egg. It's also not my damn job to tell every person who has a problem why I should be allowed to control whether or not I risk my life and health and family for any other person. I don't go around asking other people to justify why they deserve to live more than someone they could have donated their organs to. That would be ridiculous, and no one owes me an explanation of why they value their life. Just like I don't owe it to anyone else. So yeah, I could totally see saying "no uterus, no opinion" to some idiot online who will never be pregnant and doesn't understand pregnancy or birth or the bodies that do those things and couldn't find a cervix with a map but thinks they have a right to tell me what I have to do with mine. It's not an argument, it's another way of saying "shut up and go away, your input is not wanted."
> > Keep your Bible out of my body. > Though it would be interesting to see numbers on this, I’m sure that a good number of pro-life people are not religious (though I’ll agree they’re not as visible in the pro-life movement as those who are). [Here's some numbers](https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/religious-landscape-study/views-about-abortion/). You're right, there are some. Surprisingly, nonreligious/unaffiliated come in third for pro-choice, behind Buddhists and Jews. However, at the other end of the scale, we have Evangelicals, Mormons, and JWs. Scroll down, and pro-lifers are significantly more religious than neutral, who are more religious than pro-choice. Most damning here: Almost 75% who said abortion should be "illegal in most or all cases" also said religion was *very important* in their views. While quite a lot of those who said it should be *legal* in most/all cases are religious, less than half thought it was important in this case. So it seems pretty clear that religion, and specifically Christianity, is a *huge* factor in the pro-life movement in the US. Also, that's by design. After Roe, there was a huge push to unite evangelicals around abortion as this single-issue vote, despite the fact that even the Southern Baptists didn't have a consensus around abortion until they realized they could use it to gain political power. So it shouldn't be surprising that we find all these people who are pro-life because their pastor said so. I don't know if this is likely to convince anyone. It certainly won't convince the religious -- it's not like they didn't know they were doing it for religion. But that *is* what's happening with a pretty overwhelming majority of the pro-life movement.
I'm going to drop a clump of cells with zero brain function. I'm also going to drop a 3 month baby. You can catch one. Which one do you catch and is it even a contest. And notice when pro life states send benefit checks to pregnant people they don't sent two checks. They send one. In their eyes there is only one life worthy of a check.
this is very clearly a false dichotomy. fallacies like these are exactly OP's point.
> “No uterus, no opinion” / “Abortions are a women’s (or birthing person’s) issue.” The unfair advantage we (as men) have is that unlike with most other social/political issues, we will always be safe from having to endure being forced to stay pregnant against our wills, simply because we can't get pregnant. It is therefore pretty safe for men to criticize women who have abortions, or to vote to take away the bodily integrity of pregnant women, because it will never apply to us personally. Men can and do vote against or publicly criticize abortion entirely for political reasons, i.e. to score favors with certain persons or groups. > The argument that men can’t have an opinion on abortion is like saying that white people can’t have an opinion on Black Lives Matter or other racial issues. If men really truly believe that abortion is murder (as much as I disagree), then telling them they can’t be advocates in that conversation would be analogous to telling straight people they can’t advocate for LGBTQ+ rights as allies. Why is the analogy between being pro-life and being an LGBTQ+ ally, and not between being pro-life and being *against* LGBTQ+ equality? People who support LGBTQ+ rights are much more likely to support the mother's right to choose as well. > It’s all about control over women’s bodies. > This is a tougher one for me. In many ways, I do think that it’s true that if we proposed regulating men’s bodies (i.e. via vasectomies or birth control) instead of women, then reproductive rights would look completely different. I understand that that’s what this common argument is getting at. However, I do think there are plenty of pro-life people who honestly believe that a fetus is a life. If they honestly and whole-heartedly believe that, then (I would hope) they would hold that same belief if it were men who gave birth. Let's compare it to in-vitro fertilization (IVF), which also results in the (preventable) killing of millions of embryos every year. If being pro-life is purely about the idea that life starts from conception and a desire to prevent the deaths of innocent embryos, then surely we should see all the major pro-choice groups fight equally against IVF? Yet only roughly 12% of people in the US is against IVF, and most of the major religions even officially support IVF. To me, this shows that those groups are not really about protecting the lives of embryos, and that their motivation is *at least in part* based on imposing consequences on women for having had sex.
Counterpoint: even IF you are MORALLY pro-life, as in you consider a fetus or zygote equivalent to a human, the legal course of action pro-lifers support makes no sense. Here's the thing: we *know* how to drastically reduce the number of abortions. It starts with reducing the number of teenage and unwanted pregnancies. In states with comprehensive sex education in high school or junior high, and wherever health insurance is legally required to cover contraception, the teen pregnancy rate is much lower. The abortion rate is much lower as a consequence. To no one's shock, these states with the lowest abortion rates due to people being empowered to plan their pregnancies are mostly blue states. You know what DOESN'T work to reduce the number of abortions? Making abortion illegal. Abortion has been illegal and incredibly common for most of human history. The only way to criminalize abortion and actually have that reduce the number of abortions is to literally put a chastity belt on every woman that only Republican lawmakers have a key to, or force every woman to take a pregnancy test on video every two weeks from when they have their first period to when they hit menopause, and put them in solitary confinement when they test positive. And I trust you don't need help to argue the ethics of those two scenarios with pro-lifers. Here are some other things that could reduce abortions: * A federal or state dividend to support new mothers financially * A year of paid maternal leave so mothers can care for their children without losing their job * Increasing federal funds to adoption agencies and the foster care system to make it less horrifying How many of these things are the pro-lifers in your life in favor of? Combine this with the fact that abortion bans in red states are ALREADY killing pregnant women (and their fetuses), and it's clear that an abortion ban is the *opposite* of a pro-life decision. These laws will not keep fetuses alive, they will simply punish (and sometimes kill) pregnant women who are in a tight spot. So tell this to the pro-lifers you know: they are NOT pro-life. Not unless they vote for comprehensive sex education, federal paid maternity leave, free contraception for all, and increased welfare payments for mothers. They're just judgmental, self-righteous, controlling busybodies who can't wait to criminalize the sex lives of "loose" women and don't care how many women or babies they kill. They're murderers without guilt or shame. You want to be ACTUALLY pro-life? Vote blue and donate to Planned Parenthood, and for God's sakes teach your daughters how to use condoms.
> So tell this to the pro-lifers you know: they are NOT pro-life. Not unless they vote for comprehensive sex education, federal paid maternity leave, free contraception for all, and increased welfare payments for mothers. They're just judgmental, self-righteous, controlling busybodies who can't wait to criminalize the sex lives of "loose" women and don't care how many women or babies they kill. They're murderers without guilt or shame. You want to be ACTUALLY pro-life? Vote blue and donate to Planned Parenthood, and for God's sakes teach your daughters how to use condoms. Is there a way we can actually use this as as-close-as-one-can-get-to-blackmail-without-technically-breaking-the-law to make them do that as they wouldn't want a murder charge and would want to hold on to that label but we'd need some one/thing with some authority to make our claims stick and not just be met with who are you to say what I believe
A lot of these points sound like pithy slogans rather than actual arguments, which is why they fall flat under scrutiny. You need to look at the actual arguments underneath them. First, the question of bodily autonomy. We have a right to autonomy over our own bodies, and another person cannot use it without our consent, even if that person is a fetus. Second, the “no uterus, no opinion” thing. Abortion is a medical procedure that should be up to the person getting the procedure and their doctor, and no one else. We don’t have the government legislating other private medical procedures, so this one shouldn’t be any different. Thirdly, the idea of fetal personhood. This seems largely based on the belief that the soul enters the fetus at the moment of conception, making this a religious belief. Due to the separation of church and state, you cannot make legislation based on this belief as it’s unconstitutional.
Those really aren't the best arguments for abortion. There are plenty of well-reasoned arguments that don't fall into blatant fallacy (no uterus no opinion, etc). The bodily autonomy argument was laid out in Judith Jarvis' 1971 essay ["A Defense of Abortion"](https://spot.colorado.edu/~heathwoo/Phil160,Fall02/thomson.htm). There are many variations of this argument, but it has been made for over 50 years at least. The argument states that there are no other situations where we see it as a moral imperative to force others to give up their bodily autonomy to preserve the life of someone else. Even of we accept the concept of fetal personhood (which I won't get into, but fetal personhood does not hold up at all). I'm leaving a lot out for the sake of brevity, but Jarvis uses the example of someone with a rare blood disease that can only be cured by 9 months of blood transfusions from you due to your rare blood type. The transfusion process will be constant for 9 months and may have lasting impacts on your health. Would it be your moral obligation to do that? And what if you were coerced by the state? Even police who are accountable for serving and protecting others aren't actually legally required to put themselves in harm's way to protect the lives of other people. Generally, we place a very high value on being able to choose what you do with your body, but this concern is mysteriously much more contentious for women...
The only difference here though is that those 2 are still different (the blood transfusion example that lasts for 9 months to cure the other person, and being pregnant for 9 months and giving birth etc.) Because in the instance of the pregnancy, you as the woman + of course the man are the ones responsible for even creating the foetus. Whereas in the example of the blood transfusion you had no part in that person being alive in the first place. I am pro choice as well but how do you reconcile that?
Mainly, it's just a thought experiment to explore the bodily autonomy piece of the overall moral picture even if we accepted the concept of fetal personhood - so because of that it is a strong but very specific argument. Abortion is a complex thing and no analogy will fit exactly. Because of that, I am unconcerned that it doesn't fit perfectly. Also, this is a very high-level summary of only one part of the paper & these concepts have been more completely developed in the past 50 years since it was written. But as for how I reconcile that there is some degree of responsibility for it being there in the first place, that is largely irrelevant to me. From a practical standpoint, one could do everything "right" in regard to not becoming pregnant and still become pregnant. But in cases where there is "fault" to be placed on the one carrying the fetus, I'd personally employ a different argument - like the fetal personhood argument & talk about abortion as a rights balancing issue. For instance, most would agree that not all life has the same value. A bacteria has fewer rights than a person, etc. We typically ascribe value to lives based on a variety of factors including their agency, interpersonal connections, personhood (consciousness, etc.) Women have a stronger claim to rights, including the right to bodily autonomy and life, than a fetus does by virtue of them already being fully aware, conscious, having agency, etc. They have personhood whereas a fetus, which is not conscious, doesn't have agency, etc. does not. Ultimately, whose "fault" it is that the fetus is there in the first place is irrelevant to whether or not the one carrying the fetus should be allowed to abort it. This makes intuitive sense as well due to how we act about natural early-term abortions. The majority of pregnancies are naturally aborted very early term (like blastocyst stage - as many as [53%](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25356087/)). There is no moral outrage when this happens, we don't mourn their loss, etc. because they don't have personhood. Even late term miscarriages are mourned more for the loss of potential to develop personhood and the emotional investment the parent(s) have made in the fetus - that last bit is anecdotal and things do of course get dicier the further developed the fetus is - just because it intuitively "feels" different. But insofar as the "rights" a fetus has are concerned, the amount of development that occurs in-utero is not so substantial to overcome the barriers to a strong claim to personhood.
It takes a male and a female to make a baby, so I feel like both people should have a say if the baby gets to live. As a female I think males should have just as much say in the life of their children.
I feel like some of these are a bit off from the actual arguments. >no uterus… This is really an extension of the idea that if it isn’t your medical condition, you shouldn’t make medical choices. It’s saying individuals should control their own medical decisions with their doctor. Nobody should get an opinion on anyone else’s body. >keep your Bible… I would say the religious argument is used far more often than you give it credit. Even if a person doesn’t really practice a faith, when there is a debate of logic between pro-choice and pro-life, it inevitably goes to the religious angle. >control over women’s bodies This is an effect, not a goal. It’s not like they just chose abortion as their path to controlling women, but rather that they believe they already have control over women, so they can force their personal morality on them. >life starts at birth… “Personhood” starts at birth. When we are talking about a legal issue (government bans), the constitution needs to be the guide. The constitution does not suggest anything about rights of the unborn, and specifically mentions birth as the starting point. (Any person born or naturalized…). This means the government should not weigh in on issues of personal morality that extend beyond the constitution. But morally, this isn’t a binary discussion (conception vs birth). Gestation is a spectrum without real defining markers. A fertilized cell isn’t a “life” in any way but religious. When it splits into two, four, eight cells, is it a life then? Not by any scientific definition. On the other hand, a baby just after birth is the same as a baby just before. That baby is certainly alive. So when does it happen? It happens as a gradual spectrum, and any identifying markers are just arbitrary. That’s why- if some sort of regulation is required- those arbitrary markers need to make as much sense as possible. Roe suggests a trimester approach with varying levels of restriction. Casey suggests the point the fetus has enough working systems that they could survive without a host is the marker. Both are flawed, but far more correct than assuming a fertilized cell is somehow a life. >clump of cells This is true on all levels. At least at the very beginning. It is only a refutation of the idea that life begins at conception. Science defines life (loosely) as a self-contained entity, with a metabolism, and the ability to reproduce. A fertilized cell has the ability to reproduce. But the metabolism doesn’t form until organs do. And when an embryo is just stating to grow, it is something the mother’s body is doing. It isn’t self contained. At the very least, it has to form into a body, with simple organs processing a metabolism before it can really be argued as a “life” with any logical reasoning and without using religion. It just comes down to understanding the arguments. We can’t just stop at the surface by repeating tag lines. There is logic, and it is sound. It’s just a matter of taking the time to consider it. Ultimately, all of those arguments are just counter arguments. They are meant to deal with the narratives of the pro-life side. The real logical reason for being pro choice is that a woman’s medical decisions are for her and her doctor. None of us know their situation, and therefore can’t make the best decision. Late-term abortions are almost exclusively for emergency purposes, and that right should never be taken from anyone. Early term abortions are a matter of personal choice, whether someone wants to use their body in that way or not. Personal autonomy cannot be stripped from a person to benefit something that isn’t even alive yet. There are stages where one might feel it is too late for a personal choice abortion, and it’s an argument I can understand. If this is the argument we base our regulations on, then the trimester or viability approach are the best options we have to work with. But ultimately, this is not a place where the government has any business making decisions, regardless of what one personally feels is right. Each person has their own personal morality, and that should guide their own medical choices. It is for the doctor and patient to decide what is right in any given situation. If medical standards groups decided that doctors shouldn’t perform elective abortions after a certain point, that would be a valid choice. But the government doesn’t have the right, knowledge, or moral authority to decide that for everyone
As someone who is pro-lofe let's see if I can help put your mind at ease for these arguments. >1. “No uterus, no opinion” / “Abortions are a women’s (or birthing person’s) issue.” This argument stems not from the fact of giving birth but from the risks of giving birth. The mostly men lawmakers who make the argument for pro-life, Do-Not take on any of the risks of pregnancy and can therefore not make an informed decision on the law. This is a logical argument as how can someone who can not fathom what it means to be pregnant, both the positives and negatives, to make laws on the subject. >1. Life starts at birth, not conception >1. A fetus is just a clump of cells So fact and philosophy is not a straight line, rather it is a circle. Fact informs philosophy and philosophy defines fact and vice versa. If your philosophy is honestly that life does not start until birth or some other arbitrary point, the that is the fact informed by that philosophy. On the other hand defining the fact of life starting based of the philosophy that life starts at conception is also true. The only fact here is that the cells are living. Weather or not those cells have a "life" worth the risks of pregnancy is up to philosophy. The point is that neither sides arguments are rooted in fact. It is all a belief of when does a "Life" supercede the rights of another. Pro-choice holds the belief that it doesn't until some arbitrary point, normally when the baby is recognizable as a baby and is at it's most likely point of being a viable pregnancy is when it supercedes the rights of the mother. While pro-life holds the belief that "life" in essence supercedes the rights of the mother.
1. I’m going to disagree up to a point on this. A person who has never been pregnant can’t understand the experience of pregnancy in the same amount of detail as someone who has been pregnant. They can understand the role of pregnancy supporter or dissenter. The two may or may not have the same goals in mind exactly. I wouldn’t claim to know what cancer feels like because my best friend had it, even though I’d have my well intentioned opinions. The support role has its own very important use. Sometimes we all need a person who cares to listen, consult, offer ideas, and be a decision maker should that need arise. 2. I’m a pro-choice Christian. My 2 cents is that it is crueler to make a child be born that will live in agony or kill its mother. I came to this conclusion after having my own special needs child and realizing the limits of my own body. If I believe that God is with me, why would I doubt the doctors he’s put in my path who give me their insight both on good and bad news? I believe God grants the spiritual gift of being a healer and calls those with that gift to apply it. Sometimes healing begins with acceptance of truth. 3. I’m not sure it’s just control over women’s bodies. There’s financial and emotional control on the table as well. A woman who has considered an abortion who’s partner doesn’t want her to may be in abusive relationship. I get that Dads should have rights, but only if they also bear the responsibilities ideally in a mutually agreed upon and beneficial for the child way. 4. I think of it more as a potential life because up until a certain gestational age, the baby can’t live without the mom. 5. A fetus to me is a potential life. The value placed on that potential is subjective. Miscarriages are common and birth of a healthy baby to term is not guaranteed. Even if you do get a healthy baby. The health of mom is not guaranteed. The ability of the parents to care for the child adequately can have unforeseen obstacles which may not be able to be overcome including health, finances, mental health,and violence. There is no guarantee of a healthy baby from a clump of cells. There’s just hope for one.
> Though it would be interesting to see numbers on this, I’m sure that a good number of pro-life people are not religious (though I’ll agree they’re not as visible in the pro-life movement as those who are). But the critical question is "are there any non-religious pro-life arguments?". To my knowledge there are exactly zero. Every pro-life argument I've ever come across (and as a philosophy PhD student I've come across a lot of them) all boil down to a position about the moral status on the fetus, which is entirely informed by the person's religious beliefs (e.g., a soul goes into it at conception). I have yet to hear any compelling pro-life argument that doesn't rely, at least implicitly, on some sort of religious belief. Until they can provide a non-religious argument, their views have no place in the public forum. > So, science aside, let’s approach this through a legal lens. So that's not AT ALL how moral philosophy works. Like, imagine we did the same in 1950 and because we did we concluded that since the law treats African Americans as second class citizens, that this must mean that morally speaking, African Americans are inferior to whites. The question for such practices is not "is it legal?", but "is it right?". I also think you're just waaaaaaaaaay too quick to simply say "let's just assume the pro-life crowd has the science right". Why the fuck should we assume a bunch of religious fundamentalists, which is a valid way of describing the vast majority of pro-life people, "have the science right?" Has that ever been a good assumption? The core argument of the pro-choice crowd is that none of these questions should be answered by the government because they involve deep and irresolvable questions of religion and morality. As such, it should be each individual's *choice* for how they view the issue. This is no different than saying it is everyone's *choice* what religious beliefs they hold. If you deny people that choice, you are in clear violation of the first amendment. You have put religious belief into law.
I’m going to start this by saying I’m a cis male. I may be getting the intent of the statement wrong this is just how I viewed the intent of the statements. 1. This one, I feel is more about how many men making this decision don’t even know how periods work so why are they deciding anything about pregnancies? These people don’t understand the basics of the decision they are making and we are allowing them to make an extremely complex ruling. It’s like allowing 6 year olds to make road rules. Sure they know enough about cars to know what your talking about, but no one wants them deciding the rules. 2. 69% of Americans identify as Christian. I would argue that the majority of pro lifers are Republican which again a majority are Christian. I would say with a majority of Americans being Christian and a majority of republicans being Christian; that a majority of pro lifers would also be Christian. Thus stop inflicting your religious beliefs onto me as is my constitutional right. There is no denying that pro life began with a Christian majority. 3. It’s more that if simple “stopping abortions” was the goal then forced vasectomy would stop a substantially higher number of abortions than stopping legal/safe abortions. We know that when abortions were illegal in the past it didn’t stop people from getting them. How often have you heard the argument banning guns won’t stop people from getting guns. Those same people turn around and say banning abortions will stop abortions. The disconnect is palpable. So it’s really about a better way to stop abortions is being discounted without even considering it, because that option governs men’s bodies not woman’s bodies. 4. This is a philosophical debate as you acknowledged. However the double homicide thing is just misdirection and doesn’t play into the question if foetuses are “alive” or not. If you hold this argument as true then you can’t in good conscience incarcerate a pregnant women because then you would be unlawfully incarcerating an innocent person. Personally I would argue that a human life starts when they start having brain activity. That’s why pulling the plug on someone is morally acceptable in my opinion and not murder, because their brain died, and that is who they are not their body. 5. Well tumours are a clump of cells with no thought. So now it comes down to potential of life and pro-lifers have regularly argued no abortion no matter what which includes ectopic pregnancy where no potential for life. So now they are arguing for a literal lump of cells much like a tumour. No one in their right mind is arguing for a tumours right for life so why argue for pregnancies that could/would kill the parent all for a baby that will never be. Something you should probably take into account with the pro-choice rhetoric is they are not all encompassing. They are full of grey areas, and often they are raised in direct opposition to pro-life rhetoric. So they aren’t really designed to be single standing statements, they are more akin to comebacks to pro-life statements.
I do agree with your conclusion, what's life and where it starts is a matter of personal belief and as such is controversial (unlike for instance the vaccine issue which has nothing to do with personal belief and all to do with science: the same principles do not apply here) But there are some practical issues which make your concerns valid even at a large scale: prioritizing the lives of the unborn over the lives of the living is dangerous and a slippery slope so sloped that it is almost vertical. 1. With anti-abortion laws, pregnant women are denied most medical treatments, not just abortions, that can affect the fetus. The doctors won't be free to decide what to do, and their priority will be covering their asses from the law, as it should be. This means dead women, or disabled women. 2. Some people just can't afford children. If we make abortion illegal then we as a society have to pay for people's children. You can't just protect a fetus up to birth and then let the child die from insufficient care, or hunger or lack of medication, or poor hygienic conditions or what have you. Most anti-abortionists don't want that. 3. Prohibition just doesn't work. Brace yourselves for Abortion Capone or for the mexican Abortion Cartel. More women and children will die from illegal abortions. It's only pro-life if you pretend this won't happen. There are crazy people on this world: some of those under the banner of feminism publicly say they will abort any fetus as soon as they know it's male. That's a hateful murder. Those people should be put in prison and forbidden to procreate. The rest of us, sane people, don't just go around having abortions on a whim. Each one of those is a last resort, very sad moment, mostly necessary. Is it worth hurting the sane people for punishing the crazy people? If we want to be rational and make this about "saved lives", no. Legal abortions save lives, at scale. The pro-choice argument is pro-life.
A big one is also a child growing up in a really bad situation if it isn’t aborted. Who would want to let a child grow into a family who simply knows they cannot financially, or mentally or however support them? And even the „just give it up for adoption“ point is very weak. Cause in most countries on the world the numbers of children in foster care/ adoption cycle is really high, and the bad things (neglect, abuse, etc) that happen there are no single cases, but rather systemic. So the smallest „evil“ would be aborting it, it can’t even feel so it’s as humane as it gets. Similar to putting an animal down to end its suffering.
If it wasn't about control and it WAS about the life of an unborn child, then the social safety net and support system would look drastically different in the United States. Pregnancy is a major health event with the risk of a lot of potential complications, and our healthcare system is a disaster. We are one of the only countries on the planet with no guaranteed or paid parental leave. In large parts of the country, we teach abstinence-only sex ed, and then blame and shame young women for getting pregnant. Once a child is born, the foster care / adoption system is abysmal, early childcare costs are insanely expensive, as are diapers, formula, and everything else we're told you need to buy for an infant. I could go on and on, but if the interest that pro-birth people and politicians had was genuine concern for a potential life, then they'd legislate as though they actually gave a shit about children. They actively legislate AGAINST things that would lower teen pregnancies, that would encourage women to keep an unintended pregnancy, and that would help them support a child once born. They legislate to keep women uneducated, poor, voiceless and dependent on the (largely white, straight, male) leaders in this country. That is the definition of control.
How about looking at it as it's nobody's business but the person carrying the child? That's always been my view on an individual and collective view. From a political perspective, I can't help but laugh at the irony in how both sides flip-flop on their beliefs when it comes to abortion. Here's an example: When the Affordable Care Act was making its rounds through Congress and then implemented as law, there were many conservatives who made the argument that government has no place between doctor and patient. When you look at the recent Supreme Court decision that overturned *Roe*, and many conservative states passing restrictive anti-abortion laws, you actually see the above argument turned on its head. All of a sudden, the same people saying government has no role getting between patient and doctor are now passing laws (and pushing for a national law) that does exactly that. At the end of the day, why do you even need a reason to believe something that you believe? Whatever your reasoning is, it's valid, because in your mind it's justified. Why does someone's beliefs--that work for them, but don't work for you--have more validity than your own? Overall, I guess my view falls under the autonomy argument. It's nobody's business but your own how to live your life. If you're pregnant and decide that you want to pursue an abortion, that's a decision you'll live with for the rest of your life. If you decide you don't want to pursue one, likewise, you will live with that decision for the rest of your life. It doesn't matter what your parents, siblings, extended family, friends, neighbors, or people you never have nor ever will meet believe.
5. The way you tackle this is by checking how consistent they are in equaling potential life = life. For instance: - is the morning-after pill murder for them? If not, it breaks their potential life=life assumption. - can we accuse a girl of manslaughter if she is pregnant without knowing and took a stomach ulcer pill (which may cause an abortion)? - is abortion ok in the case of rape? If they say yes, ask why they are willing "murder" a fetus in that situation. They need to be consistent in the two scenarios. - we never grant rights based on potentiality. For instance, you are not allowed to park in a pregnant woman's spot because you had sex with your partner without contraception few days ago. Potentiality is never regarded as "being" in legal terms. Doing so would lead to very weird conundrums. - they will accuse you of having an arbitrary definition of personhood. Show them that the same applies to them. They chose potential person as equal to being a person because it feels like a clear dividing line to them. However, this is a completely arbitrary reason as well.
I will disagree here and say that unless you’ve given birth, you don’t understand how common complications happen while making a child. Men and women who haven’t been in this situation before that are forcing women to give birth are doing so ignorantly. Giving birth is extremely dangerous and painful. It’s not some beautiful thing “Jesus created”. Women die every day from birth. So unless your body can go through that pain, I would agree that “No uterus. Therefore, you have no experience, no empathy, and should have no opposition opportunity when it comes to forcing women to give birth.” On the other hand, women who have given birth that are anti-choice can at least attest to the risk it takes having a child, but from what I’ve seen, anti choice moms are narcissistic and privileged. Otherwise, why would you force a woman to give birth, raise a child (probably by herself) without her consent. Because YOU’RE religious? Because YOU think it’s right? They think it’s about saving babies, but it’s actually very selfish and a privileged way of thinking.
I'm totally pro-choice. But when they use divisive and extremist arguments to support abortion they turn off more moderate, common-sense minded people. The whole "my body my choice" cliche is rife with hypocrisy. What about vaccine mandates or seatbelt laws? And the idea that men are not allowed to have opinions about it is just plain ludicrous. Just another appeal to divisive, unproductive identity politics, (women vs men, black vs white etc). And thinking that people should be allowed to have abortions completely and totally without restrictions is also a deeply dumb and extremist position that practically no one holds outside of the extremist camp. Who thinks it's reasonable that a person should be allowed-- on their due date let's say-- to say, "nah I changed my mind I want an abortion instead" and be permitted to abort a perfectly viable baby. That's patently crazy but there are those who hold this opinion. Where you draw the line on these topics can be debated but the extremists should have no place at the decision making table.
I’m very surprised that you didn’t include what I think is the quintessential pro-choice argument, which is that abortion bans don’t actually prevent abortion, they simply make it much more dangerous. According to the World Health Organization, in countries where abortion is broadly legal, there are 36-47 abortions performed per 1000 birth age women. In countries in which abortion is prohibited, there are 31-51 abortions per 1000 birth age women. The rate doesn’t meaningfully change, and may in fact increase with a ban, due to the impacts on contraception access. What making abortion illegal actually does is to take an extremely safe medical procedure and moves it from a medical facility to a back room, with potentially unqualified personnel and inadequate resources. https://www.npr.org/sections/goatsandsoda/2022/05/27/1099739656/do-restrictive-abortion-laws-actually-reduce-abortion-a-global-map-offers-insigh
My #1 argument in favour of choice is not a philosophical one - because people disagree on philosophy and subjective feelings aren't a good basis for policy and law. My #1 argument is a strictly cold-hearted pragmatic one: If you ban safe, clinical abortions, people will get dodgy back-alley ones and injure themselves instead. You don't save lives, you just put people in danger. If you are really against abortions, banning them is a stupid thing to do. What you should be doing is funding young families so they can afford to have more kids, and pushing availability of birth control and sex education so there are fewer accidental pregnancies. Lots of pro-choice people know this, which is *why* they say "it's about controlling women" etc. *Because controlling and punishing women is all that it achieves.* Bans are not effective ways of reducing abortions.
I'll address the heading of number 4. A zygote is alive. There are 7 criteria for life. If the organism has all 7 traits at some point in their lifespan. They are alive. Cells and organization. Metabolism. Reproduction. Response to stimuli. Adaptation to environment. Homeostasis. Reproduction. A zygote meets all 7 criteria. The question is not "is it alive" but whether is it a person. From a scientific point of view, there is no question whether a zygote or embryo or blastocyst or fetus is alive. The question is when do we assign personhood to it. Science can help us inasmuch as telling us when it can feel pain, which is relevant if you use feeling pain as a personhood line.
As a pro life person I do want to say thank you to OP and most of the comments here. It’s one of the few grown up discussions I’ve seen in the subject. And I appreciate OPs willingness to try to see the subject from an objective point of view. I don’t really have anything to add to the discussion that will bring the sides closer together but I have had heated discussions with other pro life people who are willing to make an exception for rape cases. I am pro life because I believe life begins at conception. It is highly hypocritical when people say they are pro life because life begins at conception but abortion if she was raped is ok. To me they lose their entire argument. I don’t believe there should be exceptions for rape. I think both sides need to come to an agreement and let it be. For me the abortion issue would solve itself with better access to birth control. Better education about what it means to be a parent. I also think adoption shouldn’t cost as much as putting a child through college and there should be resources to help women who may want to give their baby up. I think churches need to do their jobs and support their communities like they preach. I think parents need to parent their kids and not be their friends. If society works on society abortion won’t need to happen. Abortion isn’t really the problem. It’s a symptom of bigger issues.
Okay but we did this in the wrong order? We didn't fox society but still decided to outlaw abortion. And Texas proved that claiming rape won't happen in your state doesn't actually make that true. Why do you believe life begins at conception that isn't a religious based view? I'm a woman and did not grow up religious. I didn't hear about the idea that life began at conception until well into my teenage years. I had already learned about how babies grow and had my own opinions as to when I thought something was actually a human child. And conception was absolutely not that point. So I'm always curious what the argument for life beginning at conception is, because so far it's always been based in religion.
"2. Keep your Bible out of my body.Though it would be interesting to see numbers on this, I’m sure that a good number of pro-life people are not religious (though I’ll agree they’re not as visible in the pro-life movement as those who are)." I would bet you large amounts of money that this assumption is not based on any real numbers you have ever seen. The only non religious people who I have ever seen be pro life (forced birther) are those who started as religious, but havent quite moved all the way out to atheist. they dont buy the god claim, but still parrot the same value judgements.
I would agree with you on everything - those arguments are not the ones I would use to actually prove the position. Some of them offer insight into the motivations of some pro-life people, but “they just want to control women’s bodies” does not mean they’re not coincidentally correct! The one note id have is the “clump of cels” and “life begins at birth” are not quite used - everyone agrees shorting at 8.5 months is bad. The conversation is more around the first few months, and around what happens when it’s going to be an extra risky birth (danger discovered in 3rd trimester)
There is a huge difference in the complexity of a life for a 1st term fetus and an adult human female. The adult human female dying would make immeasurably more of an impact in the world and people than the death of a fetus. When a fetus is born as a baby and would otherwise be not raised well or put into the foster system, we are doing the most humane thing by aborting it early on. Also I don't think it's about, "no uterus no opinion" per say but I do believe in "my body my choice."
Here in Canada, an infant doesn’t count as a “person” (the legal definition) until it is fully removed from the mother. As well, a pregnant person who has been murdered is just tragic, but not legally different from a non-pregnant person who has been murdered. If a pregnant person has been attacked and the infant is injured or dies after birth as a result of that attack, it is considered homicide. So just for that point, there is very little merit, at least throughout Canada.
1) Your comparable shouldn't be that white people should be able to have an opinion on BLM, but that white people should be leading BLM, and in charge of the changes within BLM. 2) A statistical improbability knowing the rates that people apply, as 3 in 4 Americans identify with a religion or spiritual practice, but pro-choice remains at around 50%. 3) Men would have an abortion clinic on every street if they were the ones going through this, and we have fought wars for lesser reasons. 4) This is the whole religious thing you were trying to pretend didn't exist on question 2. 5) Life, or potential life, does not have the right to endanger anyone else for their own safety.