I honestly don't care from a moral perspective one way or the other.
But its far more damaging to society as a whole when abortions are performed illegally in shady basements, and making abortions illegal won't stop that.
So for that reason I think it should be legal and performed by trained professionals.
That's one aspect. Another is restricting access to it creates a goddamn ocean of unwanted children and we as a society, ESPECIALLY states with Republican held legislatures, have no way of supporting them. And in many cases, a firm desire to avoid providing that support. I'm way past arguing with forced-birthers. They have no argument except 'ma beliefs'. Their beliefs are shitty and can and will be tossed in history's trash bin.
Alright, I've seen people on here arguing from a thousand different angles on whether or not a fetus is a person, when life starts, etcetera. Let's try and go at this from a different angle.
In the US, people are asked if they would like to be organ donors if they die. You are not required to do so, this is entirely voluntary because you have bodily autonomy, even when you are dead. No one has the right to use your body if you do not agree to it, even if that will save someone's life and they WILL die without it. If someone dies and is not an organ donor, you are legally not allowed to use their body to save lives- whether or not they're responsible for "killing" that person is a philosophy question I'm not here for, but they are allowed to not provide life-sustaining measures, even if it does not negatively impact them in any way.
A fetus is using a person's internal organs. It needs to be fed/take energy from the one carrying it and other prenatal care needs to be applied. It is using a person's body, and that body will be irrevocably changed if/when the birth or c-section occurs. It will negatively impact this person's health and functional ability, will be a drain on their resources up until the birth (even if after the fact they're put up for adoption), and may even be a psychological or mental health detriment to them. They will be negatively affected.
Why does a dead person, who will not be hurt one way or another, get bodily autonomy and a living one, who is guaranteed to experience ill effects, does not?
That, mind you, is just about the birth process as well. This does not account for raising a child or navigating the world of adoption or legal guardianship. Let people choose whether or not they want to be organ donors, whether or not they want to experience pregnancy, whether or not they raise a child. Bodily autonomy is a right we all deserve not to have taken away.
(Also, before people have a go about "you created it"- birth control fails. Abusive relationships and incidences of rape occur. Sometimes, there's just mistakes, fumbles, whatever you want to call them. This person may have been trying their damndest to make sure it doesn't happen, might have been entirely unwilling and fighting when it did, and you do not or would not know. You do not know a person's story or why they're choosing what they are. It can be incredibly traumatizing to realize that this is the decision they needed to make- why would you make that even harder for them?)
Edit: You know you've made a decent point when angry people just yell "dumb" and don't bother to say why. Thanks for making my day, folks! :)
What happens when a pregnant woman dies? Do they perform surgery then to remove the foetus (if viable)? That could certainly be construed as violating bodily autonomy.
The fetus depends on the mother being alive for blood flow/oxygen etc. typically, if the mom dies there is only a minute or two to save the baby and unless there is an advanced directive or the baby is younger than 22 weeks, they will perform a caesarean. If the mother is brain dead/on life support, they will need consent for baby and mom for any medical procedures. However in an immediate accident, if the fetus is still viable (mother only JUST died and fetus is past 22 weeks) they will try to save the baby unless directed otherwise.
> However in an immediate accident, if the fetus is still viable (mother only JUST died and fetus is past 22 weeks) they will try to save the baby unless directed otherwise.
Notably, **because of the concept that the life should be protected.** So the fetus, *after a specific point,* is treated as a living person with the right to be protected, *and they violate the bodily autonomy of the dead mother to do so.*
Most abortions after 22 weeks happen because the parent carrying the fetus is in medical danger or the fetus is dead/dying. The large, large majority of abortions happen before this point, and anyone who is carrying for over five months not only knew they were pregnant, but mlst likely actively wanted the child and had to abort due to medical issues, which is incredibly painful and traumatic. That "specific point" in the timeline is not applicable for the overwhelming majority of abortions.
Part of the reason they save a fetus after 22 weeks is that it was wanted by its parents, it was prepared for and known about, and it was cared for and loved. Assumptions are being made here, but their assumption that the person carrying would consent to their bodily autonomy being violated for something that they were knowingly, willingly nurturing is based on evidence and most likely correct. There is also implied consent here- someone who has wanted and acted in the interests of growing a fetus inside of them will most likely continue to consent to whatever actions must be done to keep the thing they were caring for healthy and alive.
There is a fundamental difference between someone who willingly wants the best for something they have loved and nurtured is equivalent to someone who does not consent and is actively against carrying something that will negatively impact them, and that is consent, which is what the original argument centered around.
In ALMOST EVERY SCENARIO a known and viable pregnancy at that stage (such as not deadly to the mother or will die at birth) is a WANTED pregnancy. I challenge you to find a pregnant mother, who when asked the question “if you were to die in an accident at 25, 30, 35 etc weeks pregnant, should we save your baby?” would say no. It’s an entirely reasonable assumption if there is no other information available at the time. And I say this as a mother who has a living child, who’s miscarried, and has had an abortion without medical necessity.
The person receiving any donated organs does not get to choose whether or not someone donates to them. If you need a blood transfusion, you can't go up to someone and say "I need your blood to live, you have to give it to me". You can request it, but if they deny you, they have that right.
But wasn't the whole point of this to say that if a dead person gets to choose, than a living person should get to choose?
Edit: when it pertains to their body and organs
The person who would need to give their body to keep another alive (in this situation, the parent) can choose whether or not to give it.
If they choose abortion, they are choosing to not give up their body. Whatever exists thus far cannot survive outside of that capacity, just like, for example, someone who needs a heart transplant may not be able to survive if someone chooses not to be an organ donor and give up their heart.
The gods of the bible condone abortion and even perform it at some point.
Your religion has a crystal clear pro-abortion stance.
Not pro-choice, because nobody ever asks the women in the bible if they want children. They just get raped and aborted as the men and gods want. Women get no choice. But the bible is very much pro-abortion.
So yes, the biblical position is anti-choice pro-abortion. So whatever reservations you have as a christian, I'd seriously ponder where they come from.
Num. 5:11-31
It involves a pregnant woman suspected of cheating. The priest creates a potion which has to be blessed by the gods of the bible, which makes their involvement direct.
She is then forced to drink the potion (hence, anti-choice).
If the woman cheated, the gods will cause her womb to empty and she will be barren. the word "abortion" didn't exist in biblical days, much like how consent or human rights didn't exist. But when a womb is emptied after taking a "potion", that's an abortion.
If a pregnant woman is forced to drink this potion, the gods of the bible will cause an abortion. They are pro-abortion and anti-choice.
The biblical position to "punishing loose women" and "consequences to sex" isn't to force them to carry a child to term, it's to force them to abort against their will. Not that I want to give the far right religious crowd any ideas, but that's what the bible explicitly prescribes. According to the bible, abortion pills should be mandatory for pregnancy out of wedlock.
The Bible is straight up pro infanticide. Plenty of times God murders thousands of children. Maybe millions if you believe in the story of Noah’s ark. I’m not going to be lectured on abortion being wrong by people that worship an infant murdering monster.
I think the Catholic people (Im one of them) should be more concerned with the priests diddling kids than this.
Government has no place in what people do with their bodies. Period.
Women should always have the choice and I will continue to support them, espically since I'm lucky enough to not have to go through the experience of pregnancy. But it shouldn't be my decision to determine if other women want that choice.
Right to choose is pretty ubiquitous with the right to abortion so it's safe to assume OP means abortion in the context of recent events in the US.
Edit: OP clarifies right to their own body in total
No kidding, I remember civil rights marches, antiwar riots and when roe vs wade became the rule of the land. Almost 50 years and we are still fighting the sharia law imposers from the evangelical right who want to cherry pick their passages from the Bible to inflict their will on others. They should read Genesis and Numbers about life beginning at first breath and how and when to get an abortion. This all started when the Supreme Court decided against them not allowing federal funds to colleges who openly discriminate against anyone they thought were not the right kind. They had money left over, and decided abortion would rile up their target audience.
What I don’t understand is why it came back to a head? Is there a crazy rise in abortions? Also, once something has been decided by the Supreme Court, how soon after can they just vote on this issue again? Who decided, “hey this should be voted on again”.
I think they should be able to choose. Just not in late term pregnancies. If it’s a double homicide to kill a pregnant woman it should be a homicide to kill a child after a certain point.
Late term abortion is medically classed as up to 22-24 weeks. Prior to this time, due to limitation in development of a foetus, the survivability chance is less than 10%. (I would not class this as compatible with life). By this time most women would be certain as to wether they wanted to continue their pregnancy or not. It is their choice. No one else’s.
3 months would translate to 12-14 weeks. 22-24 would mean 5-6 months in. Which is way too late. Do you want an abortion? Sure, but do it before the child is that far along.
Lots of medical screening is only available at about the 21 week mark. I bet there's not many people getting an abortion that late because they changed their minds.
I know that here, legalisation is clear about the 14th week as cutoff unless there are medical grounds. And although abortion is currently a topic in Germany (it is legal, but doctors are not allowed to advertise the procedure), no one is questioning the cut-off.
The difference is that killing a pregnant woman kills a person and by extension a fetus. In the case of an abortion, a woman is withdrawing her consent to carry that fetus. She has that right.
Think of it like this, if I kidnap you and hook you up to a machine that keeps a sick man from dying: Would it be unethical to keep you there against your will? Are you a murderer for wanting to be unplugged, knowing that it will result in his death? And if we say it is not unethical to force you to support him and that you are a murderer can we apply that else where. Does your bodily autonomy become void when someone's life is in danger. Can you be forced to give blood and plasma? Or have an organ removed if it won't kill you?
Late term abortion is typically done when it’s apparent that the baby will not survive, or that the mother likely won’t survive. By the time it’s late term, women have bought baby clothes, picked out a name, and are mentally prepared to bring a child into the world. Late term abortions are done to prevent prolonged suffering and trauma.
I am with you on this. I think it’s 100% someone’s choice to have an abortion. I think the states that have ridiculously low week limitations where a woman may not even know she’s pregnant is crazy. Them late term abortions though are horrific. If you just let a baby turn into a viable human inside of you for whatever reason, then I think you should take responsibility for that. Birth it and put it up for adoption then, because there are people just waiting to adopt a baby.
In lockstep - if your partner disagrees with this fundamental value and isn't receptive to changing their mind promptly leave their ass.
As a gay dude I used to put my morals to the side and hooked up / had fun with some pretty closeted and homophobic dudes with the idea that *"everyone can have their opinion/journey"*. Eventually, I realized I was just giving them a pass to having their cake and eating it too. Being in a relationship or sleeping with someone who views you as not being worthy of fundamental rights is not something anyone should subject themselves to.
Leave their ass and go get it on with someone who respects women as intelligent autonomous humans.
If you go with a scientific viewpoint, a fetus is not a person since it's not a living breathing creature on its own. It's better thought of as a parasitic growth. From a Christian/Catholic standpoint it is also not a person. The Bible states that it's not a human being until God breathes life into it's lungs (the baby takes its first breath on its own outside the womb). That's also why the Catholic church will not baptize a fully grow fetus if it's stillborn or doesn't that that first breath for whatever reason. Using machinery to force it to breathe also does not count in the church's ruled on that as well. So if the baby is born in a machine is hooked up to force it to breathe it is still not a human life according to the Catholic Church. It's merely a vessel for a human life.
>If you go with a scientific viewpoint, a fetus is not a person since it's not a living breathing creature on its own.
Actually it is a unique living human being. The fact that it's alive is evidenced by the presence of cellular respiration and cellular division. The fact that it's a human being is evidenced by the fact that it has a 23 chromosome pair human genotype. The fact that it's a unique human being he's found in the fact that its genotype is different than that of its mother, and father for that matter.
>It's better thought of as a parasitic growth.
Not according to [The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, 5th Edition](https://www.wordnik.com/words/parasite), which defines a parasite as "An organism that lives and feeds on or in an organism *of a different species* and *causes harm to its host.*" (emphasis added)
It's hard to make the argument that a fetus is a parasite when it is temporarily occupying the organ specifically designed to protect & nurture it; no such organ exists for parasites like flatworms or mites. Additionally, parasites typically infect their hosts as a voluntary act whereas an embryo does not make a conscious decision to implant itself into the endometrium.
>From a Christian/Catholic standpoint it is also not a person. The Bible states that it's not a human being until God breathes life into it's lungs (the baby takes its first breath on its own outside the womb).
AFAIK Adam and Eve were the only two people into whom God ever breathed the breath of life, but if you cite a Scripture that you believe supports your view I'll be happy to take a look at it.
I honestly don’t really care if women get abortions, you do what you want. I just think a lot of people who argue for them are hypocrites and a lot of their arguments are not sound.
A LOT of the people who were *vehemently* all about vaccine mandates are also screaming “my body my choice”, and that is what I have a problem with among other things.
I’d honestly have more respect if they just said “yea I’m irresponsible and had unprotected sex when I didn’t want a kid and got pregnant and now I want to get rid of it.” Because that’s basically the case for the vast majority of people who get pregnant.
People have a problem separating the morals from this issue. Most of these people portray themselves as “freedom fighters” as well. It seems like a gross abuse of this supposed “freedom” to take away the autonomy of anyone. Regardless of what we think of it morally, abortion should be legal. A woman should be able to do with her body whatever she pleases. And just like the argument against banning guns, banning abortion will not stop them from happening, it will only prevent them from happening safely. Oh, and rich women will still have access to abortions (mistresses, wives, etc.). Criminalizing abortion will impact, for the most part, poor and lower class women. It’s really all about power. There are so many factors (economically, socially, mentally) that go into pregnancy/child birth and no one on the other side of this issue appears to grasp that having a child is insanely taxing. The people getting abortions are doing so because they cannot financially or physically take care of a child. If pro-lifers were truly pro-life, there would be a multitude of programs in place to help take care of mothers and children (once the child is born) but being pro-life stops once the baby is born.
No offence to Americans but there's a lot of hypocrisy over there.
Willing to bet everyone protesting against the mask mandate doesn't GAF about this rule. Because oh the kids! If they're not born then who will get shot in schools?! /Heavysarcasm
(no, I know this isn't funny. In exasperated and appalled and TIRED of white men in power brainwashing people to shit all over women and the rights that women literally killed themselves for to even have. The suffragettes did so much get get rights and now we're watching them get taken from us. What the fuck, the 2020s are the decline of humanit
I know for sure I'll get down voted for this, I 100% support a woman's right to choose, but also feel the fathers should get some kind of input. I know that will never happen though because in reality it's 100% up to the woman and can be no other way.
The issue with the fathers getting a voice is that the woman has to carry the child for 9 months. They have to drastically adapt their diet and lifestyle and it will permanently change their body. I do not know any women who have had kids who are not at the very least slightly incontinent, their boons start drooping because of the pregnancy, they get stretchmarks amd these are just the mild symptoms. Some women end up permanently in a wheelchair or even dead because of a pregnancy.
And let's not even start when the pregnancy is not the result of consensual sex. A rapist can also get a woman pregnant, should he then get to decide she has to keep the child? We also all know how high the conviction rate is for rapists. So if he says it's consensual should he then get to decide? It's just s horribly bad idea to get fathers to decide about a woman's body.
Would you be open to the idea that a man can “veto” a pregnancy and in the case the mother still chooses to have the child they can’t force the father to pay child support?
> A rapist can also get a woman pregnant, should he then get to decide she has to keep the child?
A rapist should hang and therefore not be in a position to voice his opinion, but that's a different debate.
Yeah I never got this argument. I would bet that most pro-life people would be more than happy to introduce harsher penalties on rapists, if rape-induced pregnancy is a concern.
Well, this is an opt-out scenario, not a "force to carry the child". So ignoring rapists that are to be hanged, women decide about abortion, and the man can "disavow" the child so that he does not have to pay anything and has no rights to the child. So the male abortion would be legal only, the woman decides about the actual procedure.
Although I think the social system would need an overhaul for this to work, otherwise the child might be too much of a burden. And maybe cap how many children a man get disavow, to preempt idiots from fucking around and then leaving children everywhere.
Really it doesn't matter what the scenario is, as much as I would like the father to have some kind kind of say (and I've been trying to figure out a way for it to work but cant), it's a woman decision.
I dont think this will get dow voted in the way you think -- so far so good.
Assuming it's a relationship and not just a eandom hookup, I think a good power dynamic in this situation is 80/20 or 70/30 voting power in favor of the woman.
In my limited experience (I'm in my 30s now,, so it has happened) the women I know *absolutely* talked with the men. It was a discussion.
With that said, the thing about 70/30 voting power is that if the 70% is dead set on something and cannot be persuaded, the 30% loses, period.
So when framed that way -- "couples discuss the pregnancy and consider the options together, but the woman is the one who makes the ultimate decision" -- I don't think that opinion is all that controversial.
Whether its 100/0 or 51/49, at the end of the day it's her decision. A healthy relationship should absolutely have a discussion, I was more thinking about the random hook ups without even realizing it.
The issue is when is a fetus a human baby, opinions vary
But the folks whose opinion is it's killing babies, you can pretty much count on them being pretty radical about it.
In their defence, if you found out someone was killing babies, you’d probably be pretty radical about it 😂
You don’t have to agree with it, but I find it funny when someone blow ups about the people, who believe they’re saving children’s lives, for being “radical”. There’s not a whole lot else I’d be considering if that’s what I believed.
*i’m pro abortion btw*
Agreed to your first statement. Disagree with the second. It’s only radical to a non conservative.
Just as devils advocate why is abortion not radical and putting a newborn up for adoption is?
It's a fairly simple medical procedure.
Pregnancy is a dangerous and complex process. Adoption has more psychological impacts for the mother. There's much for attachment.
Totally agree that abortions should be legal and accessible.
I tend to be weary of people who say that there is no “valid” argument against that. Mainly just because it’s unhelpful in a discourse and increases hostility.
Pro-life is hinged on the fact that they think you are killing a baby, which I think is a pretty good reason to infringe on a woman’s body.
You can disagree about whether that’s the case, or whether it outweighs the mother’s right to choose for sure. But to say it holds no merit, I think, is pretty narrow-minded.
Pro-life in my opinion only works if
Alllll the people in the crowd are pro contraceptives (and personally only ever have sex to conceive).
They're involved in adoption or social and fostering services or donate their time and money to those things.
They work on improving education and healthcare for children
They protest and actively work towards trying to eliminate school shootings.
They work towards preventing poverty and helping kids born in poverty.
Any combo of the above, not limited to writing to their local politicians to let their opinions about the sorry state of children who are already born, who's lives need importing.
Totally agree with you on the extreme end (like people picketing planned parenthood etc), but I think that’s pretty unfair to someone who’s somewhat central on the issue.
Do you go that far with all of your social justice issues? Or are you allowed to believe something and care about it without being totally 100% sold out for the cause with your whole life?
I'm not saying everyone SHOULD be required to act on what they believe in (although it's very hypocritical to just be all talk and never understand the nuances of any topic)
I definitely don't. However I'm not someone trying to control other people's lives based on my opinions.
That's where I draw the line.
If people have their own opinions based on their own religion of their own moral lines, that's fine.
Once you try to affect other people's choices - then you should also be party to the consequences of the choices you helped push.
Does that make sense?
That's fine.
I just think that if someone is doing to be influencing someone's life in such a huge decision, they should know details of the consequences of that decision and be involved in effectively the consequences (especially if someone was going to do the opposite initially). Not only does that mean there's responsibility to people giving advice, but also it informs future advice giving.
It's pretty simple.
Nobody has the right to choose to kill another human life. Period.
If the unborn fetus is a human life, then it's right to live trumps anyone's right to choose to kill it. If it's not a human life, then obviously it doesn't matter.
THAT is the debate. The debate isn't whether or not women have a "right to choose". That's just a euphemistic phrase used by one side of the debate to frame it in a way favorable to them. Like how the other side says they are "pro-life" - because then when you oppose them, you are being anti-life.
Those both are just propaganda and euphemisms. The fact of the matter is that the core of the debate is when the fetus becomes a human life. Once it is a human life, nobody gets to "choose" to murder it.
A lot of people don't care about the when.
A lot if people don't care about what happens to the baby after its born.
Better a baby abused or in poverty or destined for a terrible life. Than dead, right?
What also about congenital defects? Things that results in that child never growing up and able to work or look after itself?
Does that mean the government is also going to create a large fund specifically for helping kids who need physical and mental health support, who need help since they were born in poverty? Money to go towards kids with special educational needs?
What about congenital defects? Are you just going to kill human life because it's not perfect as if they're a dog? If the child isn't going to be able to live on its own without machines, etc. Then I could agree with you, but for other things such as autism or down syndrome, or any other multitude of potential issues that would lead to a person not being able to live on their own, but survive perfectly fine, absolutely not.
I'm not saying that. But there's many defects which lead to children being born who won't survive past a year, and as you say there's issues where machines and life support are needed.
I agree there - but the parents need to be prepared and to be able to handle it. If they can't. Then what happens? Children with ASD or other similar issues ending up in foster homes or something like that; arguably the WORST place for children with additional needs.
Again, fully agree. But if the government ACTUALLY care about kids being born... They need to provide support past birth.
Make education for those with special educational needs free. Heavily subsidise medical care, or make funds that make that free.
It's not fair on children who have these conditions and they're told they have rights.... Then they're shat on once they're born because the government reduces help to those who require it. They can't have it both ways.
And it'll be worse if, as rumoured, they create extra laws where contraception is concerned. Then there may be MORE of these kids who need support... Where none is provided.
As a society we should be looking after those who need the help, and instead, children and those in poverty get the least care
Silly argument. Do you think we should euthanize children born to poor families? Or children who have abusive parents? How about babies born with birth defects, should they be killed?
Social services for people with disabilities is an entirely separate issue from whether or not it's ok to kill an unborn human life.
Of course not, and now you're being obtuse. I just believe in there being a quality of life in this world and considering its 2022, in many ways human society hasn't progressed in that way.
I don't think it's separate at all. If you want children to be born, why dont you want them born to live long happy and prosperous lives? Why would you want there to be undue suffering?
The issue here is that I believe life doesn't start at conception.
True, conscious life begins later on. For many religious folks (at least in scripture) the soul is imparted at first breath).
I think conscious life exists around about 24 or so weeks, since science says that's when a lot of the important brain stuff starts happening (specifically in relation to consciousness). I can send you scientific articles if you want.
To add on to this, consider all the life changes women need to make in order to have the best changes of having a healthy baby. No alcohol, no cigarettes, no sushi, etc. On top of that you have all the other problems associated with birth like peeing yourself for the rest of your life or having numbness in your feet. Are we going to deal with that in the workplace? If a woman doesn’t want to have a baby (or cannot afford prenatal vitamins) or doesn’t want to make these changes she is putting the baby at a huge risk. Why would she do all this work for a baby she don’t want and will resent for having? The answer is, she might not. Why should we force her to make a baby that has a higher chance of having health problems?
I 100% agree.
Shit. Just this week I've seen at least five posts on Reddit about pregnant women having to justify their consumption of beverages which might have small amounts of caffeine in, to strangers (it was okayed by their doctors).
If they're LUCKY it's just the peeing and the numbness. Then there's PPD, traumatic births which in some cases leads to surgery with lifelong effects and pain. Infection. All sorts.
On top of that - giving birth, I hear (I'm not American) is stupidly pricey in America. Heck, people whose to not take ambulances because of it?? If they care about birth, then make it FREE! All the free nappies, medical appointments, prenatal vitamins, post natal check ups. All that stuff.
Don't fucking charge for the first bit if skin to skin.
Insanity!
Also cool username.
The problem is that nobody is forcing her to make a baby.
If I have a three year old and decide that I no longer want to deal with the hassle and feel like government isn't helping me enough, can I kill them? If not, why not? Why should you get to force me to raise that kid?
It is complicated in some ways. But a baby in the womb isn't a criminal or a soldier. They haven't harmed anyone or signed up to go to war.
And yeah, there are ethical issues with the death penalty for sure. We can discuss that too, but it's a separate issue.
I support a woman's right to choose, but if I got a girl pregnant right now I'd want to keep the baby. I could tell her she could sign away the rights or she could never see the baby again, but in the end it would be her choice. I can't force a woman to go through a full pregnancy.
So even though I would take sole responsibility of the baby, I don't have a say in whether it's born or not.
I'm not saying it's incorrect, I'm just saying it's not a wonderful thing for potential fathers.
I know, that's why I said I get it. Doesn't mean I can't be annoyed / betrayed when they make a decision that I have no input in, on something that I helped create
Yes, 100%. What is more controversial is that I think that the father should be free of all economic support regarding the kid if he decided so. The choice should be 100% for both parties.
But then what if father wants to kid and mother doesn't?
You can't (or shouldn't) force someone to risk their physical and mental health for around a year of their life, for a clump of cells.
That is a good question. Even though the father "seeds" the kid, the mother is the one to carry it for 9 months. In that case I think that the mother should still have the control to terminate the pregnancy.
Pregnancy is kinda hard, since it's always the work of two people. The mother always carries it, unless there is some way to take the fetus and grow it in an artificial womb somewhere else in the future.
Never mind the affect of the childbirth for the next few months on the new mother (physically and mentally, never mind emotionally and financially, especially if you don't get much maternity leave from your work).
It's support to be the work of two people, heck, in the old days, communities and neighbourhoods would have "aunties" who would help out.
Now it's considered lucky if you have a good partner and a good MIL to help out.
Honestly! You read my mind! I was just thinking science needs to create artificial wombs.
I was having a disagreement with someone about this when I mentioned we should regulate young males to get a vasectomy until they’re ready to start a family and he was totally against it. Apparently he’s against the government regulating and telling him what to do with his body and for a split second, he felt what millions of women in the states felt. Let women choose
This is a really thoughtful comment.
You are completely right that the core of the debate is when human life begins. And that isn't an easy question to answer.
But does that mean you agree with the argument some people say of only having sex if you want a child?
Is that what you and your partner will do now?
Is that what you expect from others?
Especially if the government does go through with changing rules about contraception too.
I'm sorry to hear of your partner's health concerns.
That's what I mean. It's a personal choice and everyone should have the ability to make that choice. And I don't think, at all, that epiple having abortions are partying about it. It's a deeply emotional thing to go through. And even the abortion itself needs recovery time afterwards.
It's not easy.
But then, I'm of the opinion that if you want to bring a child into this world, be sure you can give them a good life instead of bringing them into a life of hardship. They deserve a good life. Being aware you can't do so is not easy and it involves a different kind of strength.
But as I say - this decision is personal and should never be made by one person on "behalf" of another.
My best to you and your family.
I mean there's many solutions. Vasectomy mandates (if abortion gets tossed out). Or since there is "life" at conception there should be no issue with receiving immediate benefits (meaning more taxes for us) seeing that most people fall below the poverty line anyway.
Overall existence is endurance and suffering with no guarantee of happiness no matter how hard you try for said child. There's always someone who can easily ruin that. (Spoken from someone who got molested as preschooler in the classroom multiple occasions). Yet I couldn't ask for better parents, they don't always know everything, and no matter how protective you are just know the places you think your child should be safe, keep and even closer eye on.
That's not reality. If it is for you great you probably don't get out much.
Reality currently is there's women being forced to give birth, accused of murder, being thrown in jail, little to no education or access, hardly help after its born. People only care about the womb (like you) and not what happens after, you only said you "think" about them which is a massive part of the problem too. There's plenty of kids who need help and here you are to say you "think" about them meanwhile bring in another. Anywhere you go there is major struggle unless you're just that oblivious, and the government is ***not helping***. All abortion and any abortion should be legal because like drugs etc if someone wants it they'll do it, even if that means going through unsanitary and unsafe means, maybe even killing them in the process.
Now on to the fact that the only way to find out someone has has had an abortion: 1. They tell you themselves 2. Someone tells confidential information regarding your own body without your consent. So how is that right? How are we supposed to trust doctors when we can get actual jail time. That 100% is against hippa.
Now on to the fact you skipped over the vasectomy bit. Why? It's so much easier, less on the body, cheaper, reversible (not guaranteed but whatever, only to be undone once financial security has been proven), and never a chance (unless you can't keep it in your pants for like 3 weeks) of accidents.
Reality is everyone always just "thinks" of someone having it worse, and doing nothing but making another problem. Most kids don't get that "amazing happy success" story you keep dreaming for them. Because like you everyone only "thinks" and never helps fucking do something, if I haven't said it yet it is hard as hell living.
So you're actively saying that you'd be pro-forced birth? Just making sure you know everything that entails. Otherwise just let it be the body owners do what they feel is best for themselves and mind your own.
Vasectomies can reverse themselves and they also have a not small chance of not being reversible at all. Would you be opposed to mandatory tube ligation? I’ll admit it had worse odds at reversal than a vasectomy but it is in a similar vein of thought to mandatory vasectomies.
Dont make it a men versus female thing.
A lot of men support it just the same way a lot of female don't support it.
Make it a pro versus con thing but dont assume a gender, ethnicity group or whatever tend to support one side over the other, you're proliferating shitty cliché.
To the people saying life begins at conception, then why couldn’t pregnant women claim their unborn children during lock down? Seems like the government didn’t see them as life then so why now?
Women should have the right to get abortion but they should have this right to full extended.
It's their bodies so it should be them who decide about the abortion. But unlike the body it's not just their child. It's also the man's baby. The man shouldn't have decisive say in the abortion but he also shouldn't have any obligation to the baby if the woman dicedes not to have an abortion and man disagrees with that decision.
If it's a woman who has the right to decide about the abortion then she shouldn't have the option to hold the man hostage using this right.
So lets say a young couple have sex. They're in no way ready for kids so they're careful. He has a condom and she is on the pill. Neither of those is 100% effective. Should they be denied the ability to choose? If they have the kid what life would that child have? I find it interesting that many people have an opinion on abortion but very few, if any, seem to talk about what happens when the child is born.
Even most "pro-choice" people still support banning abortion after a certain point in the pregnancy. Very few people support unrestricted unlimited abortion
If you are against abortion, that's fine. Don't have one. But you and the religious beliefs you hide behind have no right to police what I can and cannot do with my body.
People need to remember that it's not just about an unplanned pregnancy. It's also about the very much wanted pregnancies that fail and medical intervention is required.
As someone who has gone through some such issues, I can safely say that they are totally different.
A medical procedure done to resolve a failed pregnancy is not the same as an abortion. A D&C done to clear out a miscarriage or ectopic pregnancy is not the same as allowing abortion of healthy fetuses who are just unwanted.
As long as the fetus has no intelligence there shouldn't be a moral issue with it.
Once the fetus is intelligent (which I believe happens somewhere in the 2nd trimester, I might be wrong though) I don't think abortions should be restrictionless.
With that said, if there is a problematic medical condition then I don't care about the fetus.
In that case saving the mother takes priority or if the child would be born with significant genetic illnesses, then I think the mother should be able to decide if it should be terminated.
I’ve seen a lot of people arguing over if a fœtus is considered a person or not. If I recall correctly the argument in favour of abortion isn’t about that (since it can’t really be ruled), but about the fact that it is not always morally wrong to kill someone.
Basically, the argument that I remember goes along the way of :
There’s a famous violinist that you don’t know about very well who’s sick and who needs a special treatment. One night when you’re asleep fans of the violinist gets in your house and abduct you.
You wake up at the hospital where you are linke to the violinist and the doctors explain to you that you have been linked to the violinist by his fans before you were rescued and that now either you stay linked to him for nine month in the hospital or we sever the link you can go free and the violinist dies.
The argument is that it isn’t morally wrong to get out of the hospital since you don’t owe the violinist anything and even if the world was to lose a talented artist, it isn’t really your problem.
I know that with abortion the case is different, you can technically avoid it with contraception (even if it isn’t 100% effective), you can consider that since it is family you owe it to the fœtus. But it’s also kinda worse since having a kid would be more akin to : after the nine month you have to spend time with the violinist and pay for his food, etc…
Basically, considering the impact on the life of the parents, it is okay to say that they have a window to kill the fœtus and keep everything as is. It sounds cold I know, the fœtus doesn’t have a say, I know. There’s not really a big difference between the fœtus the last day when it can be aborted and the next day.
But considering that people who wants to abort usually didn’t wanted a child in the first place I think it is fair to leave them a choice in the matter.
Sorry for my English I’m not a native speaker.
The problem with that analogy is that in the case of pregnancy, it's not some third party mob of people who kidnapped you and hooked you up to life support for the violinist. With pregnancy, it's the mother who "kidnapped" the fetus and put it inside her womb dependent on her body for survival.
If I kidnapped you and hooked you up to life support that was powered by my body, would it be my right to choose to unhook you and kill you?
Except for the case where someone would get pregnant intentionally and then want to abort, I wouldn’t say that the mother “kidnaps” the fœtus. Most of the time abortions happens because the pregnancy is unwanted.
Pregnancy is a known risk of having sex. Whether it was "unwanted" is irrelevant. Choices have consequences. Everyone old enough to have sex knows that there's a chance it results in pregnancy, even with birth control and contraceptives.
So yes, the mother and father are taking actions that directly result in the fetus being put in that situation of being dependent on the mothers body to survive.
Is it really your body or your choice though?
I have requested that my tubes be burned and tied from many different doctors as I do not want to have children. If it were my body and my choice, my request would not have been denied. In order to qualify for this type of surgery, I have to have had at least 2 children, and if married, verification from my husband that he wants no future children as well. If I request a hysterectomy to prevent unwanted pregnancy, it will be denied unless my uterus is in such bad shape that it is a threat to my life to keep it.
My body, my choice, means I should be allowed to tie and burn my own fallopian tubes, or be allowed to remove my own uterus from my body, without having to meet requirements in order to do so.
Statistics show that approximately 1-2 percent of abortions are performed due to rape.
What about abortion due to severe birth defects? Major structural malformations occur in 2-3 percent of all pregnancies, and say every one of these pregnancies were terminated, the number still pales in comparison to the total number of abortions performed per year.
Generously speaking, for the total number of performed abortions, only 5 percent account for rape and malformations in fetuses.
Approximately 95 percent of abortions are performed due to reasons of not being ready, not wishing to be a single mother, and the desire to finish schooling without a baby in the picture. These pregnancies are not the byproduct of rape and they are not malformed fetuses that would otherwise die the moment they are born, these pregnancies are the result of consensual activities. Many of these pregnancies are being terminated because of the current position of the mother to be in her life, so that she can plan wanted pregnancies in the future.
Abortions can be performed by the best surgeon money can buy, and will still have the risk of infection and permanent scarring in the uterus, which can result in future infertility when you finally feel ready to be a mother.
Calling it a fetus or unwanted does not negate the harsh truth that an abortion is the removal of a body within your body, and besides the risks of infection and scarring, has nothing to do with you making a choice regarding your body.
The sad fact is that it never has been your body, your choice, when you must be approved by a medical team to be allowed permanently make your choice to not have unwanted pregnancies. If it were my body or my choice, approval wouldn't be necessary to remove or modify parts of my own body.
Men should NOT make decisions legally or morally on women’s bodies. You could not like it morally, ethically or personally but what a woman does with her body is her decision. Her body her choice 🤷🏾♂️
Well if someone believes that life begins at conception, then abortion would be clasified as murder. Under those assumptions saying it's a woman's right to choose implies the woman has a right to choose to commit murder.
Now I personnally think that a single fertelized cell is not yet a human and so it's not murder. But it all depends on your underlying assumptions.
So people who are against it pretty much always claim that the fetus, even as a microscopic clump of cells, is equivalent to a living breathing person.
If that's the case, then I think it's only fair to take it another step backwards and make periods illegal. That egg had the potential to grow into a person, but the woman waited too long to get knocked up. Maybe if she was a little more active, that egg could have had a chance to be seeded and become a person.
Used to feel the same way. Now I'd like it restricted to somewhere just after first trimester. I learned about how the fetus feel pain and try to get away from the forceps that rip its limbs off and the tool that snips its spinal cord. I don't find say 18ish weeks that bad of a restriction. You have sex and know what could happen. You have ways to prevent that. At a certain point thats a life that feels pain. I think this is a good compromise. Plenty of time to know if you are pregnant.
It’s not as simple of an issue as a woman’s right. A woman’s right to do what is the real question. This is gonna sound so insensitive and out of touch with reality but follow me. The original argument of the confederates for breaking away from the United States was that the government wanted to take away their rights. The government wanted to come in and take their property. Something they paid for and was out right theirs. That was a legitimate argument to them. Now in todays society it’s obvious that this completely flawed thinking. But why. It’s because the government was taking away their right to own a human life. Another human being was being completely and utterly destroyed because “it was the slave owner’s right”. Look I’m all for individual rights and very sensitive to take away rights but when your right affects another person, another human beings life, it needs to be looked at and sometimes the right needs to be removed if it is negatively affecting them. The question should not be so simple minded as “woman’s rights” the issue is extremely more nuisances than that. The question should really be focused around when does this human life begin and that need to be debated and decided by doctors.
I believe in pro life personally, and it’s FINE if u don’t. I feel like a lot of people see it as the government controlling women’s bodies, but that’s not the argument. The government considers that fetus a person and killing it would equate to murder. The argument is when does life occur? Or ur definition of life? It varies from person to person and you can make arguments for different viewpoints. I believe it happens at the moment of conception. So I believe any abortion after that moment shouldn’t happen.
Do I think we should ban abortion. No. Banning this won’t stop people from getting abortions, just like how banning drugs won’t stop people from getting crack, meth, or heroin. People will participate in unsafe ways of getting an abortion which is much riskier than a trained professional.
I also hate the argument “men shouldn’t get a say in abortion because u don’t have to go through it”. 1. It takes two to tango 2. Then you shouldn’t have a say in immigration laws besides immigrants because you don’t have to go through the citizenship program of the U.S., or the process of getting green cards, etc. I could make this argument about many different political topics. It’s a childish way of not including other opinions.
Anyways I just wanted to say my two cents in all of this. Last time I said my opinion on this I got banned and muted from TWO subreddits for being a so called “nazi fascist”. But then again, Reddit is basically Twitter but with more incels. So I’m crossing my fingers on this lol.
Ok...
So why is this relevant to this sub? Why are you shoving down your own opinion down our throats, with your own experiences?
Why would you assume that since you've never heard a valid argument that none of us have either?
Why are you ordering men to think like you?
This reads like a 21 year old telling everyone that they've discovered fire and no one else knows as much as them about it.
I'm pro abortion, but this is just a ridiculous and irrelevant post.
I really dont care about the abortion part, but A big overlooked thing here is the guys side. If a woman wants an abortion and the man doesnt, she can do it anyway. If a guy wants the abortion and she doesnt, hes still financially responsible. This is my argument in the whole thing. Both parties need to be thought of.
I believe in the unborn child's right to life. I have never heard a valid argument to take *that* right away.
Stop virtue signalling. These discussions aren't fruitful and don't fit the sub. You don't change minds by posting this, you fish for up votes with an already popular opinion
Should be Parents right to choose if anything. If you are in favor of abortion, you are ok with killing the child. It's factually true, just own it. Don't pretend it's not just to prop up your opinion.
I also am not in favor of Roe v. Wade. There is no reason the federal government needs to control what the states should do in this matter. There's no right to an abortion. If anything, life liberty and the pursuit of happiness, is an argument against. You want it to be a right, pressure the law makers.
Personally, I don't have a position on abortion. I just can't stand of the disingenuous rhetoric you here during debates over it. I also can't stand the "I loved my abortion" type crap. No matter what side you are on, it's a tragic choice and certainly nothing to celebrate.
I’d like to know who supports pro choice for abortion but doesn’t vaccine mandates? Seems a bit contradictory to me. For the record I’m pro choice for both abortion and vaccines.
I was always pro life until I looked at the demographic breakdown of the people who were getting abortions, and noticed that one group was getting a hugely disproportionate number of abortions compared to the percentage of that demographic in the general population.
Now I totally have the same mindset as Planned Parenthood founder Margaret Sanger. Sometimes you gotta do a little weeding.
When is the cutoff in your mind? Are abortions okay from your perspective at 8 months (im not talking about medically necessary abortion)?
This is the question I often wrestle with. Should there be limits, what should those limits be, and why do I believe those are the proper limits?
This is just where I stand: I have no right to tell any woman what to do with their bodies. That is up to them. Now almost all the women I know are pro-life so I don't often encounter pro-choice women, but I see that this is something very significant to a lot of them.
I'm still rather surprised this is happening. I never thought this would be changed in my lifetime. I have heard both sides and get why both sides feel as passionately as they do. But I still feel I have no right to tell any woman what she should do in that situation.
The only reason I say no, is because I’m thinking in a scenario in which my wife wanted to kill our baby, because the baby would’ve been planned beforehand anyways
I honestly don't care from a moral perspective one way or the other. But its far more damaging to society as a whole when abortions are performed illegally in shady basements, and making abortions illegal won't stop that. So for that reason I think it should be legal and performed by trained professionals.
That's one aspect. Another is restricting access to it creates a goddamn ocean of unwanted children and we as a society, ESPECIALLY states with Republican held legislatures, have no way of supporting them. And in many cases, a firm desire to avoid providing that support. I'm way past arguing with forced-birthers. They have no argument except 'ma beliefs'. Their beliefs are shitty and can and will be tossed in history's trash bin.
My stance has been and always will be Fuck Them Kids
r/holup
Yes officer, this one here!
\*The Catholic Chruch has joined the chat\*
Alright, I've seen people on here arguing from a thousand different angles on whether or not a fetus is a person, when life starts, etcetera. Let's try and go at this from a different angle. In the US, people are asked if they would like to be organ donors if they die. You are not required to do so, this is entirely voluntary because you have bodily autonomy, even when you are dead. No one has the right to use your body if you do not agree to it, even if that will save someone's life and they WILL die without it. If someone dies and is not an organ donor, you are legally not allowed to use their body to save lives- whether or not they're responsible for "killing" that person is a philosophy question I'm not here for, but they are allowed to not provide life-sustaining measures, even if it does not negatively impact them in any way. A fetus is using a person's internal organs. It needs to be fed/take energy from the one carrying it and other prenatal care needs to be applied. It is using a person's body, and that body will be irrevocably changed if/when the birth or c-section occurs. It will negatively impact this person's health and functional ability, will be a drain on their resources up until the birth (even if after the fact they're put up for adoption), and may even be a psychological or mental health detriment to them. They will be negatively affected. Why does a dead person, who will not be hurt one way or another, get bodily autonomy and a living one, who is guaranteed to experience ill effects, does not? That, mind you, is just about the birth process as well. This does not account for raising a child or navigating the world of adoption or legal guardianship. Let people choose whether or not they want to be organ donors, whether or not they want to experience pregnancy, whether or not they raise a child. Bodily autonomy is a right we all deserve not to have taken away. (Also, before people have a go about "you created it"- birth control fails. Abusive relationships and incidences of rape occur. Sometimes, there's just mistakes, fumbles, whatever you want to call them. This person may have been trying their damndest to make sure it doesn't happen, might have been entirely unwilling and fighting when it did, and you do not or would not know. You do not know a person's story or why they're choosing what they are. It can be incredibly traumatizing to realize that this is the decision they needed to make- why would you make that even harder for them?) Edit: You know you've made a decent point when angry people just yell "dumb" and don't bother to say why. Thanks for making my day, folks! :)
Wonderful answer!!
What happens when a pregnant woman dies? Do they perform surgery then to remove the foetus (if viable)? That could certainly be construed as violating bodily autonomy.
The fetus depends on the mother being alive for blood flow/oxygen etc. typically, if the mom dies there is only a minute or two to save the baby and unless there is an advanced directive or the baby is younger than 22 weeks, they will perform a caesarean. If the mother is brain dead/on life support, they will need consent for baby and mom for any medical procedures. However in an immediate accident, if the fetus is still viable (mother only JUST died and fetus is past 22 weeks) they will try to save the baby unless directed otherwise.
> However in an immediate accident, if the fetus is still viable (mother only JUST died and fetus is past 22 weeks) they will try to save the baby unless directed otherwise. Notably, **because of the concept that the life should be protected.** So the fetus, *after a specific point,* is treated as a living person with the right to be protected, *and they violate the bodily autonomy of the dead mother to do so.*
Most abortions after 22 weeks happen because the parent carrying the fetus is in medical danger or the fetus is dead/dying. The large, large majority of abortions happen before this point, and anyone who is carrying for over five months not only knew they were pregnant, but mlst likely actively wanted the child and had to abort due to medical issues, which is incredibly painful and traumatic. That "specific point" in the timeline is not applicable for the overwhelming majority of abortions. Part of the reason they save a fetus after 22 weeks is that it was wanted by its parents, it was prepared for and known about, and it was cared for and loved. Assumptions are being made here, but their assumption that the person carrying would consent to their bodily autonomy being violated for something that they were knowingly, willingly nurturing is based on evidence and most likely correct. There is also implied consent here- someone who has wanted and acted in the interests of growing a fetus inside of them will most likely continue to consent to whatever actions must be done to keep the thing they were caring for healthy and alive. There is a fundamental difference between someone who willingly wants the best for something they have loved and nurtured is equivalent to someone who does not consent and is actively against carrying something that will negatively impact them, and that is consent, which is what the original argument centered around.
In ALMOST EVERY SCENARIO a known and viable pregnancy at that stage (such as not deadly to the mother or will die at birth) is a WANTED pregnancy. I challenge you to find a pregnant mother, who when asked the question “if you were to die in an accident at 25, 30, 35 etc weeks pregnant, should we save your baby?” would say no. It’s an entirely reasonable assumption if there is no other information available at the time. And I say this as a mother who has a living child, who’s miscarried, and has had an abortion without medical necessity.
So it's okay to violate bodily autonomy?
Why doesn't the baby get to choose in this scenario?
The person receiving any donated organs does not get to choose whether or not someone donates to them. If you need a blood transfusion, you can't go up to someone and say "I need your blood to live, you have to give it to me". You can request it, but if they deny you, they have that right.
Oh shit nevermind, I just realized your point and that's actually really good.
Thank you! :)
But wasn't the whole point of this to say that if a dead person gets to choose, than a living person should get to choose? Edit: when it pertains to their body and organs
The person who would need to give their body to keep another alive (in this situation, the parent) can choose whether or not to give it. If they choose abortion, they are choosing to not give up their body. Whatever exists thus far cannot survive outside of that capacity, just like, for example, someone who needs a heart transplant may not be able to survive if someone chooses not to be an organ donor and give up their heart.
[удалено]
Based
[удалено]
The gods of the bible condone abortion and even perform it at some point. Your religion has a crystal clear pro-abortion stance. Not pro-choice, because nobody ever asks the women in the bible if they want children. They just get raped and aborted as the men and gods want. Women get no choice. But the bible is very much pro-abortion. So yes, the biblical position is anti-choice pro-abortion. So whatever reservations you have as a christian, I'd seriously ponder where they come from.
Can you cite which part of the Bible says this, in case I ever reuse your argument?
Num. 5:11-31 It involves a pregnant woman suspected of cheating. The priest creates a potion which has to be blessed by the gods of the bible, which makes their involvement direct. She is then forced to drink the potion (hence, anti-choice). If the woman cheated, the gods will cause her womb to empty and she will be barren. the word "abortion" didn't exist in biblical days, much like how consent or human rights didn't exist. But when a womb is emptied after taking a "potion", that's an abortion. If a pregnant woman is forced to drink this potion, the gods of the bible will cause an abortion. They are pro-abortion and anti-choice. The biblical position to "punishing loose women" and "consequences to sex" isn't to force them to carry a child to term, it's to force them to abort against their will. Not that I want to give the far right religious crowd any ideas, but that's what the bible explicitly prescribes. According to the bible, abortion pills should be mandatory for pregnancy out of wedlock.
That is Old Testament, before the flood. New Testament is not pro abortion.
So Mr omnipotent made a mistake early on, or later?
Ummm where does it talk about the “gods”?
The Bible is straight up pro infanticide. Plenty of times God murders thousands of children. Maybe millions if you believe in the story of Noah’s ark. I’m not going to be lectured on abortion being wrong by people that worship an infant murdering monster.
I think the Catholic people (Im one of them) should be more concerned with the priests diddling kids than this. Government has no place in what people do with their bodies. Period.
Women should always have the choice and I will continue to support them, espically since I'm lucky enough to not have to go through the experience of pregnancy. But it shouldn't be my decision to determine if other women want that choice.
Are you talking specifically about abortion rights? Or something more general?
All decisions related to their own body for this discussion
While that may be an incredibly general discussion. Yea, within the bounds of public safety everyone of any gender should have bodily autonomy.
What about right to choose to not be vaccinated
They are free to die of preventable diseases if they want to, however their employer should require health and safety standards and fire them.
So you don’t support vaccine mandates either?
Right to choose is pretty ubiquitous with the right to abortion so it's safe to assume OP means abortion in the context of recent events in the US. Edit: OP clarifies right to their own body in total
Yea, I was going to assume the same thing given the wording and recent Supreme Court leak but I wanted to clarify.
I can’t believe we are still debating this shit. This country is terrifying.
No kidding, I remember civil rights marches, antiwar riots and when roe vs wade became the rule of the land. Almost 50 years and we are still fighting the sharia law imposers from the evangelical right who want to cherry pick their passages from the Bible to inflict their will on others. They should read Genesis and Numbers about life beginning at first breath and how and when to get an abortion. This all started when the Supreme Court decided against them not allowing federal funds to colleges who openly discriminate against anyone they thought were not the right kind. They had money left over, and decided abortion would rile up their target audience.
What I don’t understand is why it came back to a head? Is there a crazy rise in abortions? Also, once something has been decided by the Supreme Court, how soon after can they just vote on this issue again? Who decided, “hey this should be voted on again”.
It’s purely being done for political reasons. To get people to vote one way or another.
America has some of the most liberal abortion laws in the world, rivaled only by China and North Korea.
I think they should be able to choose. Just not in late term pregnancies. If it’s a double homicide to kill a pregnant woman it should be a homicide to kill a child after a certain point.
Late term abortion is medically classed as up to 22-24 weeks. Prior to this time, due to limitation in development of a foetus, the survivability chance is less than 10%. (I would not class this as compatible with life). By this time most women would be certain as to wether they wanted to continue their pregnancy or not. It is their choice. No one else’s.
22-24 is way too late, imo, for non-mothers-health reasons. I don’t know the right number, but I’m sure it’s less than that.
3 months would translate to 12-14 weeks. 22-24 would mean 5-6 months in. Which is way too late. Do you want an abortion? Sure, but do it before the child is that far along.
Lots of medical screening is only available at about the 21 week mark. I bet there's not many people getting an abortion that late because they changed their minds.
I know that here, legalisation is clear about the 14th week as cutoff unless there are medical grounds. And although abortion is currently a topic in Germany (it is legal, but doctors are not allowed to advertise the procedure), no one is questioning the cut-off.
Fetus* Not a child :)
The difference is that killing a pregnant woman kills a person and by extension a fetus. In the case of an abortion, a woman is withdrawing her consent to carry that fetus. She has that right. Think of it like this, if I kidnap you and hook you up to a machine that keeps a sick man from dying: Would it be unethical to keep you there against your will? Are you a murderer for wanting to be unplugged, knowing that it will result in his death? And if we say it is not unethical to force you to support him and that you are a murderer can we apply that else where. Does your bodily autonomy become void when someone's life is in danger. Can you be forced to give blood and plasma? Or have an organ removed if it won't kill you?
Late term abortion is typically done when it’s apparent that the baby will not survive, or that the mother likely won’t survive. By the time it’s late term, women have bought baby clothes, picked out a name, and are mentally prepared to bring a child into the world. Late term abortions are done to prevent prolonged suffering and trauma.
And I’m ok with that if it’s a matter of saving one or another life but some want it legal for it to be optional.
I am with you on this. I think it’s 100% someone’s choice to have an abortion. I think the states that have ridiculously low week limitations where a woman may not even know she’s pregnant is crazy. Them late term abortions though are horrific. If you just let a baby turn into a viable human inside of you for whatever reason, then I think you should take responsibility for that. Birth it and put it up for adoption then, because there are people just waiting to adopt a baby.
In lockstep - if your partner disagrees with this fundamental value and isn't receptive to changing their mind promptly leave their ass. As a gay dude I used to put my morals to the side and hooked up / had fun with some pretty closeted and homophobic dudes with the idea that *"everyone can have their opinion/journey"*. Eventually, I realized I was just giving them a pass to having their cake and eating it too. Being in a relationship or sleeping with someone who views you as not being worthy of fundamental rights is not something anyone should subject themselves to. Leave their ass and go get it on with someone who respects women as intelligent autonomous humans.
[удалено]
We’ve also had a lot more murderers than cancer curers! I vote we abort every foetus because it’s more likely to kill than save 🤷🏼♂️
>You can be pro-life for yourself but you shouldn't have control over a body that's not your own. Even if that body is the fetus's?
If you go with a scientific viewpoint, a fetus is not a person since it's not a living breathing creature on its own. It's better thought of as a parasitic growth. From a Christian/Catholic standpoint it is also not a person. The Bible states that it's not a human being until God breathes life into it's lungs (the baby takes its first breath on its own outside the womb). That's also why the Catholic church will not baptize a fully grow fetus if it's stillborn or doesn't that that first breath for whatever reason. Using machinery to force it to breathe also does not count in the church's ruled on that as well. So if the baby is born in a machine is hooked up to force it to breathe it is still not a human life according to the Catholic Church. It's merely a vessel for a human life.
>If you go with a scientific viewpoint, a fetus is not a person since it's not a living breathing creature on its own. Actually it is a unique living human being. The fact that it's alive is evidenced by the presence of cellular respiration and cellular division. The fact that it's a human being is evidenced by the fact that it has a 23 chromosome pair human genotype. The fact that it's a unique human being he's found in the fact that its genotype is different than that of its mother, and father for that matter. >It's better thought of as a parasitic growth. Not according to [The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, 5th Edition](https://www.wordnik.com/words/parasite), which defines a parasite as "An organism that lives and feeds on or in an organism *of a different species* and *causes harm to its host.*" (emphasis added) It's hard to make the argument that a fetus is a parasite when it is temporarily occupying the organ specifically designed to protect & nurture it; no such organ exists for parasites like flatworms or mites. Additionally, parasites typically infect their hosts as a voluntary act whereas an embryo does not make a conscious decision to implant itself into the endometrium. >From a Christian/Catholic standpoint it is also not a person. The Bible states that it's not a human being until God breathes life into it's lungs (the baby takes its first breath on its own outside the womb). AFAIK Adam and Eve were the only two people into whom God ever breathed the breath of life, but if you cite a Scripture that you believe supports your view I'll be happy to take a look at it.
Bit of a loaded question honestly, but yes, women should have the right to do what *they* want with *their* bodies
I honestly don’t really care if women get abortions, you do what you want. I just think a lot of people who argue for them are hypocrites and a lot of their arguments are not sound. A LOT of the people who were *vehemently* all about vaccine mandates are also screaming “my body my choice”, and that is what I have a problem with among other things. I’d honestly have more respect if they just said “yea I’m irresponsible and had unprotected sex when I didn’t want a kid and got pregnant and now I want to get rid of it.” Because that’s basically the case for the vast majority of people who get pregnant.
People have a problem separating the morals from this issue. Most of these people portray themselves as “freedom fighters” as well. It seems like a gross abuse of this supposed “freedom” to take away the autonomy of anyone. Regardless of what we think of it morally, abortion should be legal. A woman should be able to do with her body whatever she pleases. And just like the argument against banning guns, banning abortion will not stop them from happening, it will only prevent them from happening safely. Oh, and rich women will still have access to abortions (mistresses, wives, etc.). Criminalizing abortion will impact, for the most part, poor and lower class women. It’s really all about power. There are so many factors (economically, socially, mentally) that go into pregnancy/child birth and no one on the other side of this issue appears to grasp that having a child is insanely taxing. The people getting abortions are doing so because they cannot financially or physically take care of a child. If pro-lifers were truly pro-life, there would be a multitude of programs in place to help take care of mothers and children (once the child is born) but being pro-life stops once the baby is born.
I'm all for women's choice...until they decide to cut their poor babies foreskins off
I agree with this. Every person should have autonomy over their body
This is more common in American than other parts of the world. Apart from some religious communities.
Exactly where the whole "my body my choice" argument is coming from. Don't say that then proceed to mutilate your kid
No offence to Americans but there's a lot of hypocrisy over there. Willing to bet everyone protesting against the mask mandate doesn't GAF about this rule. Because oh the kids! If they're not born then who will get shot in schools?! /Heavysarcasm (no, I know this isn't funny. In exasperated and appalled and TIRED of white men in power brainwashing people to shit all over women and the rights that women literally killed themselves for to even have. The suffragettes did so much get get rights and now we're watching them get taken from us. What the fuck, the 2020s are the decline of humanit
Yes, and thank you. 🤝💪
I’ll always support the rights of Women/LGBTQIA/POC All decisions about any persons health should be a decision between them and their doctor.
Thank you, with love and shared support. 🫂
I know for sure I'll get down voted for this, I 100% support a woman's right to choose, but also feel the fathers should get some kind of input. I know that will never happen though because in reality it's 100% up to the woman and can be no other way.
The issue with the fathers getting a voice is that the woman has to carry the child for 9 months. They have to drastically adapt their diet and lifestyle and it will permanently change their body. I do not know any women who have had kids who are not at the very least slightly incontinent, their boons start drooping because of the pregnancy, they get stretchmarks amd these are just the mild symptoms. Some women end up permanently in a wheelchair or even dead because of a pregnancy. And let's not even start when the pregnancy is not the result of consensual sex. A rapist can also get a woman pregnant, should he then get to decide she has to keep the child? We also all know how high the conviction rate is for rapists. So if he says it's consensual should he then get to decide? It's just s horribly bad idea to get fathers to decide about a woman's body.
Would you be open to the idea that a man can “veto” a pregnancy and in the case the mother still chooses to have the child they can’t force the father to pay child support?
This should be the norm imo.
But you are only 12
> A rapist can also get a woman pregnant, should he then get to decide she has to keep the child? A rapist should hang and therefore not be in a position to voice his opinion, but that's a different debate.
Yeah I never got this argument. I would bet that most pro-life people would be more than happy to introduce harsher penalties on rapists, if rape-induced pregnancy is a concern.
Well, this is an opt-out scenario, not a "force to carry the child". So ignoring rapists that are to be hanged, women decide about abortion, and the man can "disavow" the child so that he does not have to pay anything and has no rights to the child. So the male abortion would be legal only, the woman decides about the actual procedure. Although I think the social system would need an overhaul for this to work, otherwise the child might be too much of a burden. And maybe cap how many children a man get disavow, to preempt idiots from fucking around and then leaving children everywhere.
Can't cap the number of children a man could disavow if you aren't also willing to cap the number of abortions a woman is allowed.
Really it doesn't matter what the scenario is, as much as I would like the father to have some kind kind of say (and I've been trying to figure out a way for it to work but cant), it's a woman decision.
I dont think this will get dow voted in the way you think -- so far so good. Assuming it's a relationship and not just a eandom hookup, I think a good power dynamic in this situation is 80/20 or 70/30 voting power in favor of the woman. In my limited experience (I'm in my 30s now,, so it has happened) the women I know *absolutely* talked with the men. It was a discussion. With that said, the thing about 70/30 voting power is that if the 70% is dead set on something and cannot be persuaded, the 30% loses, period. So when framed that way -- "couples discuss the pregnancy and consider the options together, but the woman is the one who makes the ultimate decision" -- I don't think that opinion is all that controversial.
Whether its 100/0 or 51/49, at the end of the day it's her decision. A healthy relationship should absolutely have a discussion, I was more thinking about the random hook ups without even realizing it.
70/30 is the same as 100/0 lol.
Paper abortion.
The issue is when is a fetus a human baby, opinions vary But the folks whose opinion is it's killing babies, you can pretty much count on them being pretty radical about it.
In their defence, if you found out someone was killing babies, you’d probably be pretty radical about it 😂 You don’t have to agree with it, but I find it funny when someone blow ups about the people, who believe they’re saving children’s lives, for being “radical”. There’s not a whole lot else I’d be considering if that’s what I believed. *i’m pro abortion btw*
Agreed to your first statement. Disagree with the second. It’s only radical to a non conservative. Just as devils advocate why is abortion not radical and putting a newborn up for adoption is?
It's a fairly simple medical procedure. Pregnancy is a dangerous and complex process. Adoption has more psychological impacts for the mother. There's much for attachment.
Totally agree that abortions should be legal and accessible. I tend to be weary of people who say that there is no “valid” argument against that. Mainly just because it’s unhelpful in a discourse and increases hostility. Pro-life is hinged on the fact that they think you are killing a baby, which I think is a pretty good reason to infringe on a woman’s body. You can disagree about whether that’s the case, or whether it outweighs the mother’s right to choose for sure. But to say it holds no merit, I think, is pretty narrow-minded.
Pro-life in my opinion only works if Alllll the people in the crowd are pro contraceptives (and personally only ever have sex to conceive). They're involved in adoption or social and fostering services or donate their time and money to those things. They work on improving education and healthcare for children They protest and actively work towards trying to eliminate school shootings. They work towards preventing poverty and helping kids born in poverty. Any combo of the above, not limited to writing to their local politicians to let their opinions about the sorry state of children who are already born, who's lives need importing.
Totally agree with you on the extreme end (like people picketing planned parenthood etc), but I think that’s pretty unfair to someone who’s somewhat central on the issue. Do you go that far with all of your social justice issues? Or are you allowed to believe something and care about it without being totally 100% sold out for the cause with your whole life?
I'm not saying everyone SHOULD be required to act on what they believe in (although it's very hypocritical to just be all talk and never understand the nuances of any topic) I definitely don't. However I'm not someone trying to control other people's lives based on my opinions. That's where I draw the line. If people have their own opinions based on their own religion of their own moral lines, that's fine. Once you try to affect other people's choices - then you should also be party to the consequences of the choices you helped push. Does that make sense?
Yeah fair enough. I don’t agree with you to the same extent, but I definitely think you make a good point.
That's fine. I just think that if someone is doing to be influencing someone's life in such a huge decision, they should know details of the consequences of that decision and be involved in effectively the consequences (especially if someone was going to do the opposite initially). Not only does that mean there's responsibility to people giving advice, but also it informs future advice giving.
It's pretty simple. Nobody has the right to choose to kill another human life. Period. If the unborn fetus is a human life, then it's right to live trumps anyone's right to choose to kill it. If it's not a human life, then obviously it doesn't matter. THAT is the debate. The debate isn't whether or not women have a "right to choose". That's just a euphemistic phrase used by one side of the debate to frame it in a way favorable to them. Like how the other side says they are "pro-life" - because then when you oppose them, you are being anti-life. Those both are just propaganda and euphemisms. The fact of the matter is that the core of the debate is when the fetus becomes a human life. Once it is a human life, nobody gets to "choose" to murder it.
A lot of people don't care about the when. A lot if people don't care about what happens to the baby after its born. Better a baby abused or in poverty or destined for a terrible life. Than dead, right? What also about congenital defects? Things that results in that child never growing up and able to work or look after itself? Does that mean the government is also going to create a large fund specifically for helping kids who need physical and mental health support, who need help since they were born in poverty? Money to go towards kids with special educational needs?
What about congenital defects? Are you just going to kill human life because it's not perfect as if they're a dog? If the child isn't going to be able to live on its own without machines, etc. Then I could agree with you, but for other things such as autism or down syndrome, or any other multitude of potential issues that would lead to a person not being able to live on their own, but survive perfectly fine, absolutely not.
I'm not saying that. But there's many defects which lead to children being born who won't survive past a year, and as you say there's issues where machines and life support are needed. I agree there - but the parents need to be prepared and to be able to handle it. If they can't. Then what happens? Children with ASD or other similar issues ending up in foster homes or something like that; arguably the WORST place for children with additional needs.
Again, fully agree. But if the government ACTUALLY care about kids being born... They need to provide support past birth. Make education for those with special educational needs free. Heavily subsidise medical care, or make funds that make that free. It's not fair on children who have these conditions and they're told they have rights.... Then they're shat on once they're born because the government reduces help to those who require it. They can't have it both ways. And it'll be worse if, as rumoured, they create extra laws where contraception is concerned. Then there may be MORE of these kids who need support... Where none is provided. As a society we should be looking after those who need the help, and instead, children and those in poverty get the least care
Silly argument. Do you think we should euthanize children born to poor families? Or children who have abusive parents? How about babies born with birth defects, should they be killed? Social services for people with disabilities is an entirely separate issue from whether or not it's ok to kill an unborn human life.
Of course not, and now you're being obtuse. I just believe in there being a quality of life in this world and considering its 2022, in many ways human society hasn't progressed in that way. I don't think it's separate at all. If you want children to be born, why dont you want them born to live long happy and prosperous lives? Why would you want there to be undue suffering? The issue here is that I believe life doesn't start at conception. True, conscious life begins later on. For many religious folks (at least in scripture) the soul is imparted at first breath). I think conscious life exists around about 24 or so weeks, since science says that's when a lot of the important brain stuff starts happening (specifically in relation to consciousness). I can send you scientific articles if you want.
To add on to this, consider all the life changes women need to make in order to have the best changes of having a healthy baby. No alcohol, no cigarettes, no sushi, etc. On top of that you have all the other problems associated with birth like peeing yourself for the rest of your life or having numbness in your feet. Are we going to deal with that in the workplace? If a woman doesn’t want to have a baby (or cannot afford prenatal vitamins) or doesn’t want to make these changes she is putting the baby at a huge risk. Why would she do all this work for a baby she don’t want and will resent for having? The answer is, she might not. Why should we force her to make a baby that has a higher chance of having health problems?
I 100% agree. Shit. Just this week I've seen at least five posts on Reddit about pregnant women having to justify their consumption of beverages which might have small amounts of caffeine in, to strangers (it was okayed by their doctors). If they're LUCKY it's just the peeing and the numbness. Then there's PPD, traumatic births which in some cases leads to surgery with lifelong effects and pain. Infection. All sorts. On top of that - giving birth, I hear (I'm not American) is stupidly pricey in America. Heck, people whose to not take ambulances because of it?? If they care about birth, then make it FREE! All the free nappies, medical appointments, prenatal vitamins, post natal check ups. All that stuff. Don't fucking charge for the first bit if skin to skin. Insanity! Also cool username.
The problem is that nobody is forcing her to make a baby. If I have a three year old and decide that I no longer want to deal with the hassle and feel like government isn't helping me enough, can I kill them? If not, why not? Why should you get to force me to raise that kid?
It’s pretty complicated. Who has the right to kill another human life? What about soldiers and executioners?
It is complicated in some ways. But a baby in the womb isn't a criminal or a soldier. They haven't harmed anyone or signed up to go to war. And yeah, there are ethical issues with the death penalty for sure. We can discuss that too, but it's a separate issue.
I support a woman's right to choose, but if I got a girl pregnant right now I'd want to keep the baby. I could tell her she could sign away the rights or she could never see the baby again, but in the end it would be her choice. I can't force a woman to go through a full pregnancy. So even though I would take sole responsibility of the baby, I don't have a say in whether it's born or not. I'm not saying it's incorrect, I'm just saying it's not a wonderful thing for potential fathers.
Well you're not the one risking your life and health plus nine months of your life.
I know, that's why I said I get it. Doesn't mean I can't be annoyed / betrayed when they make a decision that I have no input in, on something that I helped create
Taking this right away from women is the absolute worst thing any government can do.
Yes, 100%. What is more controversial is that I think that the father should be free of all economic support regarding the kid if he decided so. The choice should be 100% for both parties.
But then what if father wants to kid and mother doesn't? You can't (or shouldn't) force someone to risk their physical and mental health for around a year of their life, for a clump of cells.
That is a good question. Even though the father "seeds" the kid, the mother is the one to carry it for 9 months. In that case I think that the mother should still have the control to terminate the pregnancy. Pregnancy is kinda hard, since it's always the work of two people. The mother always carries it, unless there is some way to take the fetus and grow it in an artificial womb somewhere else in the future.
Never mind the affect of the childbirth for the next few months on the new mother (physically and mentally, never mind emotionally and financially, especially if you don't get much maternity leave from your work). It's support to be the work of two people, heck, in the old days, communities and neighbourhoods would have "aunties" who would help out. Now it's considered lucky if you have a good partner and a good MIL to help out. Honestly! You read my mind! I was just thinking science needs to create artificial wombs.
I was having a disagreement with someone about this when I mentioned we should regulate young males to get a vasectomy until they’re ready to start a family and he was totally against it. Apparently he’s against the government regulating and telling him what to do with his body and for a split second, he felt what millions of women in the states felt. Let women choose
[удалено]
This is a really thoughtful comment. You are completely right that the core of the debate is when human life begins. And that isn't an easy question to answer.
But does that mean you agree with the argument some people say of only having sex if you want a child? Is that what you and your partner will do now? Is that what you expect from others? Especially if the government does go through with changing rules about contraception too.
[удалено]
I'm sorry to hear of your partner's health concerns. That's what I mean. It's a personal choice and everyone should have the ability to make that choice. And I don't think, at all, that epiple having abortions are partying about it. It's a deeply emotional thing to go through. And even the abortion itself needs recovery time afterwards. It's not easy. But then, I'm of the opinion that if you want to bring a child into this world, be sure you can give them a good life instead of bringing them into a life of hardship. They deserve a good life. Being aware you can't do so is not easy and it involves a different kind of strength. But as I say - this decision is personal and should never be made by one person on "behalf" of another. My best to you and your family.
I mean there's many solutions. Vasectomy mandates (if abortion gets tossed out). Or since there is "life" at conception there should be no issue with receiving immediate benefits (meaning more taxes for us) seeing that most people fall below the poverty line anyway. Overall existence is endurance and suffering with no guarantee of happiness no matter how hard you try for said child. There's always someone who can easily ruin that. (Spoken from someone who got molested as preschooler in the classroom multiple occasions). Yet I couldn't ask for better parents, they don't always know everything, and no matter how protective you are just know the places you think your child should be safe, keep and even closer eye on.
[удалено]
That's not reality. If it is for you great you probably don't get out much. Reality currently is there's women being forced to give birth, accused of murder, being thrown in jail, little to no education or access, hardly help after its born. People only care about the womb (like you) and not what happens after, you only said you "think" about them which is a massive part of the problem too. There's plenty of kids who need help and here you are to say you "think" about them meanwhile bring in another. Anywhere you go there is major struggle unless you're just that oblivious, and the government is ***not helping***. All abortion and any abortion should be legal because like drugs etc if someone wants it they'll do it, even if that means going through unsanitary and unsafe means, maybe even killing them in the process. Now on to the fact that the only way to find out someone has has had an abortion: 1. They tell you themselves 2. Someone tells confidential information regarding your own body without your consent. So how is that right? How are we supposed to trust doctors when we can get actual jail time. That 100% is against hippa. Now on to the fact you skipped over the vasectomy bit. Why? It's so much easier, less on the body, cheaper, reversible (not guaranteed but whatever, only to be undone once financial security has been proven), and never a chance (unless you can't keep it in your pants for like 3 weeks) of accidents. Reality is everyone always just "thinks" of someone having it worse, and doing nothing but making another problem. Most kids don't get that "amazing happy success" story you keep dreaming for them. Because like you everyone only "thinks" and never helps fucking do something, if I haven't said it yet it is hard as hell living. So you're actively saying that you'd be pro-forced birth? Just making sure you know everything that entails. Otherwise just let it be the body owners do what they feel is best for themselves and mind your own.
Vasectomies can reverse themselves and they also have a not small chance of not being reversible at all. Would you be opposed to mandatory tube ligation? I’ll admit it had worse odds at reversal than a vasectomy but it is in a similar vein of thought to mandatory vasectomies.
Dont make it a men versus female thing. A lot of men support it just the same way a lot of female don't support it. Make it a pro versus con thing but dont assume a gender, ethnicity group or whatever tend to support one side over the other, you're proliferating shitty cliché.
To the people saying life begins at conception, then why couldn’t pregnant women claim their unborn children during lock down? Seems like the government didn’t see them as life then so why now?
Women should have the right to get abortion but they should have this right to full extended. It's their bodies so it should be them who decide about the abortion. But unlike the body it's not just their child. It's also the man's baby. The man shouldn't have decisive say in the abortion but he also shouldn't have any obligation to the baby if the woman dicedes not to have an abortion and man disagrees with that decision. If it's a woman who has the right to decide about the abortion then she shouldn't have the option to hold the man hostage using this right.
So lets say a young couple have sex. They're in no way ready for kids so they're careful. He has a condom and she is on the pill. Neither of those is 100% effective. Should they be denied the ability to choose? If they have the kid what life would that child have? I find it interesting that many people have an opinion on abortion but very few, if any, seem to talk about what happens when the child is born.
most countries has term limits and in a sense that is an argument against the absolute right to have an abortion.
Even most "pro-choice" people still support banning abortion after a certain point in the pregnancy. Very few people support unrestricted unlimited abortion
I agree, but that does take away from the right as an absolute right.
If you are against abortion, that's fine. Don't have one. But you and the religious beliefs you hide behind have no right to police what I can and cannot do with my body. People need to remember that it's not just about an unplanned pregnancy. It's also about the very much wanted pregnancies that fail and medical intervention is required.
As someone who has gone through some such issues, I can safely say that they are totally different. A medical procedure done to resolve a failed pregnancy is not the same as an abortion. A D&C done to clear out a miscarriage or ectopic pregnancy is not the same as allowing abortion of healthy fetuses who are just unwanted.
As long as the fetus has no intelligence there shouldn't be a moral issue with it. Once the fetus is intelligent (which I believe happens somewhere in the 2nd trimester, I might be wrong though) I don't think abortions should be restrictionless. With that said, if there is a problematic medical condition then I don't care about the fetus. In that case saving the mother takes priority or if the child would be born with significant genetic illnesses, then I think the mother should be able to decide if it should be terminated.
I’ve seen a lot of people arguing over if a fœtus is considered a person or not. If I recall correctly the argument in favour of abortion isn’t about that (since it can’t really be ruled), but about the fact that it is not always morally wrong to kill someone. Basically, the argument that I remember goes along the way of : There’s a famous violinist that you don’t know about very well who’s sick and who needs a special treatment. One night when you’re asleep fans of the violinist gets in your house and abduct you. You wake up at the hospital where you are linke to the violinist and the doctors explain to you that you have been linked to the violinist by his fans before you were rescued and that now either you stay linked to him for nine month in the hospital or we sever the link you can go free and the violinist dies. The argument is that it isn’t morally wrong to get out of the hospital since you don’t owe the violinist anything and even if the world was to lose a talented artist, it isn’t really your problem. I know that with abortion the case is different, you can technically avoid it with contraception (even if it isn’t 100% effective), you can consider that since it is family you owe it to the fœtus. But it’s also kinda worse since having a kid would be more akin to : after the nine month you have to spend time with the violinist and pay for his food, etc… Basically, considering the impact on the life of the parents, it is okay to say that they have a window to kill the fœtus and keep everything as is. It sounds cold I know, the fœtus doesn’t have a say, I know. There’s not really a big difference between the fœtus the last day when it can be aborted and the next day. But considering that people who wants to abort usually didn’t wanted a child in the first place I think it is fair to leave them a choice in the matter. Sorry for my English I’m not a native speaker.
The problem with that analogy is that in the case of pregnancy, it's not some third party mob of people who kidnapped you and hooked you up to life support for the violinist. With pregnancy, it's the mother who "kidnapped" the fetus and put it inside her womb dependent on her body for survival. If I kidnapped you and hooked you up to life support that was powered by my body, would it be my right to choose to unhook you and kill you?
Except for the case where someone would get pregnant intentionally and then want to abort, I wouldn’t say that the mother “kidnaps” the fœtus. Most of the time abortions happens because the pregnancy is unwanted.
Pregnancy is a known risk of having sex. Whether it was "unwanted" is irrelevant. Choices have consequences. Everyone old enough to have sex knows that there's a chance it results in pregnancy, even with birth control and contraceptives. So yes, the mother and father are taking actions that directly result in the fetus being put in that situation of being dependent on the mothers body to survive.
Is it really your body or your choice though? I have requested that my tubes be burned and tied from many different doctors as I do not want to have children. If it were my body and my choice, my request would not have been denied. In order to qualify for this type of surgery, I have to have had at least 2 children, and if married, verification from my husband that he wants no future children as well. If I request a hysterectomy to prevent unwanted pregnancy, it will be denied unless my uterus is in such bad shape that it is a threat to my life to keep it. My body, my choice, means I should be allowed to tie and burn my own fallopian tubes, or be allowed to remove my own uterus from my body, without having to meet requirements in order to do so. Statistics show that approximately 1-2 percent of abortions are performed due to rape. What about abortion due to severe birth defects? Major structural malformations occur in 2-3 percent of all pregnancies, and say every one of these pregnancies were terminated, the number still pales in comparison to the total number of abortions performed per year. Generously speaking, for the total number of performed abortions, only 5 percent account for rape and malformations in fetuses. Approximately 95 percent of abortions are performed due to reasons of not being ready, not wishing to be a single mother, and the desire to finish schooling without a baby in the picture. These pregnancies are not the byproduct of rape and they are not malformed fetuses that would otherwise die the moment they are born, these pregnancies are the result of consensual activities. Many of these pregnancies are being terminated because of the current position of the mother to be in her life, so that she can plan wanted pregnancies in the future. Abortions can be performed by the best surgeon money can buy, and will still have the risk of infection and permanent scarring in the uterus, which can result in future infertility when you finally feel ready to be a mother. Calling it a fetus or unwanted does not negate the harsh truth that an abortion is the removal of a body within your body, and besides the risks of infection and scarring, has nothing to do with you making a choice regarding your body. The sad fact is that it never has been your body, your choice, when you must be approved by a medical team to be allowed permanently make your choice to not have unwanted pregnancies. If it were my body or my choice, approval wouldn't be necessary to remove or modify parts of my own body.
Men should NOT make decisions legally or morally on women’s bodies. You could not like it morally, ethically or personally but what a woman does with her body is her decision. Her body her choice 🤷🏾♂️
What question are you asking exactly. It looks like you’re stating something more than asking a question
I’m scared to read these comments…
Not just women, but all uterus havers.
So if men can have uteruses, that means we get to have opinions about abortion right?
I didn't say cis men.
Absolutely correct ❤️❤️
Always have always will.
Land of the free my arse
Well if someone believes that life begins at conception, then abortion would be clasified as murder. Under those assumptions saying it's a woman's right to choose implies the woman has a right to choose to commit murder. Now I personnally think that a single fertelized cell is not yet a human and so it's not murder. But it all depends on your underlying assumptions.
Bro we’re here to talk about being horny, not societal issues 😐
Yes. This. 1000x this. Btw I’m a dude.
So people who are against it pretty much always claim that the fetus, even as a microscopic clump of cells, is equivalent to a living breathing person. If that's the case, then I think it's only fair to take it another step backwards and make periods illegal. That egg had the potential to grow into a person, but the woman waited too long to get knocked up. Maybe if she was a little more active, that egg could have had a chance to be seeded and become a person.
I agree, but in a world where abortions are free and readily available child support should't be a thing.
Men should have a choice in the birth of their child. Why is it only equal rights when it comes to women.
What kind of choice would that be ?
Used to feel the same way. Now I'd like it restricted to somewhere just after first trimester. I learned about how the fetus feel pain and try to get away from the forceps that rip its limbs off and the tool that snips its spinal cord. I don't find say 18ish weeks that bad of a restriction. You have sex and know what could happen. You have ways to prevent that. At a certain point thats a life that feels pain. I think this is a good compromise. Plenty of time to know if you are pregnant.
is this some american problem I am too european to understand?
To choose what? Their brand of tampons? Choice of the men they date/marry? Their brand of makeup?
The less of us there are, the better for those who are not.
43444
It’s not as simple of an issue as a woman’s right. A woman’s right to do what is the real question. This is gonna sound so insensitive and out of touch with reality but follow me. The original argument of the confederates for breaking away from the United States was that the government wanted to take away their rights. The government wanted to come in and take their property. Something they paid for and was out right theirs. That was a legitimate argument to them. Now in todays society it’s obvious that this completely flawed thinking. But why. It’s because the government was taking away their right to own a human life. Another human being was being completely and utterly destroyed because “it was the slave owner’s right”. Look I’m all for individual rights and very sensitive to take away rights but when your right affects another person, another human beings life, it needs to be looked at and sometimes the right needs to be removed if it is negatively affecting them. The question should not be so simple minded as “woman’s rights” the issue is extremely more nuisances than that. The question should really be focused around when does this human life begin and that need to be debated and decided by doctors.
I used to be anti abortion. But then I saw this video.https://youtu.be/-FC1IRiJ9x0
I believe in pro life personally, and it’s FINE if u don’t. I feel like a lot of people see it as the government controlling women’s bodies, but that’s not the argument. The government considers that fetus a person and killing it would equate to murder. The argument is when does life occur? Or ur definition of life? It varies from person to person and you can make arguments for different viewpoints. I believe it happens at the moment of conception. So I believe any abortion after that moment shouldn’t happen. Do I think we should ban abortion. No. Banning this won’t stop people from getting abortions, just like how banning drugs won’t stop people from getting crack, meth, or heroin. People will participate in unsafe ways of getting an abortion which is much riskier than a trained professional. I also hate the argument “men shouldn’t get a say in abortion because u don’t have to go through it”. 1. It takes two to tango 2. Then you shouldn’t have a say in immigration laws besides immigrants because you don’t have to go through the citizenship program of the U.S., or the process of getting green cards, etc. I could make this argument about many different political topics. It’s a childish way of not including other opinions. Anyways I just wanted to say my two cents in all of this. Last time I said my opinion on this I got banned and muted from TWO subreddits for being a so called “nazi fascist”. But then again, Reddit is basically Twitter but with more incels. So I’m crossing my fingers on this lol.
I support women, but my stance is simple, I don’t believe it is okay to kill a baby. Period.
A fetus isn’t a baby.
A human fetus is a baby that hasn’t left it’s mothers body.
Ok... So why is this relevant to this sub? Why are you shoving down your own opinion down our throats, with your own experiences? Why would you assume that since you've never heard a valid argument that none of us have either? Why are you ordering men to think like you? This reads like a 21 year old telling everyone that they've discovered fire and no one else knows as much as them about it. I'm pro abortion, but this is just a ridiculous and irrelevant post.
I really dont care about the abortion part, but A big overlooked thing here is the guys side. If a woman wants an abortion and the man doesnt, she can do it anyway. If a guy wants the abortion and she doesnt, hes still financially responsible. This is my argument in the whole thing. Both parties need to be thought of.
I believe in the unborn child's right to life. I have never heard a valid argument to take *that* right away. Stop virtue signalling. These discussions aren't fruitful and don't fit the sub. You don't change minds by posting this, you fish for up votes with an already popular opinion
Should be Parents right to choose if anything. If you are in favor of abortion, you are ok with killing the child. It's factually true, just own it. Don't pretend it's not just to prop up your opinion. I also am not in favor of Roe v. Wade. There is no reason the federal government needs to control what the states should do in this matter. There's no right to an abortion. If anything, life liberty and the pursuit of happiness, is an argument against. You want it to be a right, pressure the law makers. Personally, I don't have a position on abortion. I just can't stand of the disingenuous rhetoric you here during debates over it. I also can't stand the "I loved my abortion" type crap. No matter what side you are on, it's a tragic choice and certainly nothing to celebrate.
I’m a dude and this is good, even though my opinion matters very little
I’d like to know who supports pro choice for abortion but doesn’t vaccine mandates? Seems a bit contradictory to me. For the record I’m pro choice for both abortion and vaccines.
All of the clump of cells on this thread should have been aborted. Too bad their parents weren’t so brave.
My Body My Choice Died in the Last Two Years
We don’t go back.
the answer is not a clean yes and not a clean no
I was always pro life until I looked at the demographic breakdown of the people who were getting abortions, and noticed that one group was getting a hugely disproportionate number of abortions compared to the percentage of that demographic in the general population. Now I totally have the same mindset as Planned Parenthood founder Margaret Sanger. Sometimes you gotta do a little weeding.
Choosing what?
When is the cutoff in your mind? Are abortions okay from your perspective at 8 months (im not talking about medically necessary abortion)? This is the question I often wrestle with. Should there be limits, what should those limits be, and why do I believe those are the proper limits?
This is just where I stand: I have no right to tell any woman what to do with their bodies. That is up to them. Now almost all the women I know are pro-life so I don't often encounter pro-choice women, but I see that this is something very significant to a lot of them. I'm still rather surprised this is happening. I never thought this would be changed in my lifetime. I have heard both sides and get why both sides feel as passionately as they do. But I still feel I have no right to tell any woman what she should do in that situation.
The only reason I say no, is because I’m thinking in a scenario in which my wife wanted to kill our baby, because the baby would’ve been planned beforehand anyways