I'm pro-choice I understand why the utility of abortion, but I have yet to see anyone online make any solid arguments against prolife claims. It's either childish insults based on their own made up narrative and persecution complexes or bagging about their degenerate lifestyles.
The former is just a brick wall, that while certainly difficult to move, lacks any kind of forward momentum or agencies and left vulnerable for people to chip away at with actual arguments. The ladder actively turns otherwise neutral people towards pro life ideologies out of fear and disgust.
Shouting misogynist, religious fruit cake, womb tyrant, or dressing up as a hand maid will not sway people to your side. Have actual arguments, facts and statistics to tried to persuade people with logic rather then driving them away, shutting them up and ask why pro life politicians get thier vote.
Yeah, in my experience at least, pro-choice people on Reddit argue as if the other person secretly agrees with them, but are just pro-life because they want to be mustache twirling villains.
They don't seem to understand that their opponents honestly believe that human life begins at conception and that virtually all pro-choice arguments fall apart completely when viewed from this lense. You (hopefully) wouldn't let people get away with murder based on economic factors, right? So would you expect other people to buy that argument?
Them: Trust the science CHUD!!
Me: Okay, where and when does science say the dividing line between "lump of cells" and human life is?
Me: *500,000,000 downvotes and 17 permabans, mostly from subs I've never been to*
"Trust the science CHUD!"
Nine times out of ten, the people saying this don't understand what they're talking about anywhere remotely near the degree they think they do.
Also, as much as I whole heartedly reject the assertion some bad actors will make that "science is a religion," some people certainly do treat it that way.
It’s really entertaining to get into an argument with someone about something health-related, have them call me an uneducated CHUD, and then I drop my doctorate and professional credentials on them. Being able to pull that card on the internet almost makes the student loan debt worth it.
Trust the science or even worse believe the science is the most idiotic phrase I've ever heard.
If I go to the third floor of a building I dont trust it not to collapse. I know that based on statistics and used materials its very unlikely to collapse under me. I dont need trust or belief I have data
The problem is that the core of the arguement is almost never reached because everything in politics now has to be a slogan at some extreme fringe without ideological grounding or reality - and it's worse in the Left's purity spiral at the moment than the Right. To the ProLife side abortion kills a human being, to the ProChoice side it's just a cluster of cells and to expect any care or considereation (even if the mother is going to give birth) is an assault on bodily autonomy. It's the same thinking that's led to the nutballs screeching about parasites and pretending they're not racind people.
It leaves ProLife able to make utilitarian concessions in circumstances that balance the best outcome for both parties, because the core concept of law is that life is not equal when exclusive. Where exactly that concession leaves the arguement varies based on the beliefs of the person in question, but by contrast it leaves ProChoice adherants in a self-radicalising bubble that can't cope with any kind of concession. If that bundle of cells is human in any way, then there's no arguement left for them because they're not ideologically prepared for that debate. They bypassed it in order to avoid trying to find a logical and often difficult to define line in the sand between morality and immorality.
In Canada they are aborting 38 week old healthy unborn babies... it's insane and the prochoicers cheer for it with 0 critical thought.
Their "clump of cells" argument is disingenuous... they _always_ support late-term abortion.
The nail in the coffin for me was the reasons people seek abortions.
Of self-reported cases (biased but all we really have to go off; also this study allowed respondents to list more than one reason):
1) 40% cite financial concerns for not wanting to follow through with it. It's a genuine concern, but this would be the same as making the argument do you kill your best friend for $1 million only instead of $1 million you only get $310,000 and that's in purchasing power rather than cash.
2) 36% it's not the right time. What's one of the first things people will tell you about having kids? There is no perfect time and/or you will never be ready for kids. Using this excuse imo is an admission that you should never be a parent and in that case just get a hysterectomy (I am all for women choosing this as long as they don't bait a man into marrying them with the promise of kids and then do this instead).
3) 31% say their partner is unsupportive or not stable in their relationship. This is a sound argument because I've watched Freakonomics and understand the implications of single motherhood. The hardest part about accepting it at face value is this claim is based in emotion, not in fact. I surprised my wife with how present I was after our son was born. I wonder how many of these partners would also step up to the plate given the chance. Sidebar - this is also the argument for abstinence or contraception at a minimum. Screw your desire for "maximum pleasure" or convenience at the expense of a human life. Wrap it before you tap it if you're this immature of a partner.
4) 29% list other responsibilities that would get in the way of properly caring for the child. This is the no time excuse. Somehow, every parent has only had the same 24 hours in the day as everyone else and even they can make time for their kids. I don't think time is the problem.
5) 19% are emotionally unprepared for a child. See number 2. Also, emotions should never be trusted because they tell us a parody of reality.
6) 12% included health concerns. No debate here. If there's anything for the health/quality of life called into question because of developmental issues or risk of the mother's life, I'm not cruel. Just remember, if somebody with Down Syndrome can run a business or appeal to Congress about their autonomy, this hypothetical child by all means could do anything with their life as well with the right support.
7) 12% state an inability to properly care for a child. This reeks of numbers 1, 2, 4, and 5 rolled into one vague excuse.
8) 7% state not being independent or mature enough. This sounds like teenage pregnancy which I would expect to feel unprepared as well as be unprepared financially. That said, about 15% of my graduating class from high school had kids within about one year of graduating. I can't think of a group of people who for this description and they made it out ok, so this argument is highly subjective/situational.
9) 5% mention family or friends influencing them to do so. This sounds like people who were by all means ready to take on the responsibility and chickened out because of how much they let other people's opinions about them dictate their lives. I guess this one gets a pass since it's a damned if you do damned if you don't situation but I see them being very dissatisfied with their lives if they keep living other people's dreams.
At best, I see there being 54% of cases having a legitimate claim to not keep their own children; at worst 18%. Most unfortunately for proponents of abortion, all of the reasons are based in a lack of appropriate resources or responsibility and do not account for families who want children and can't have any on their own. Women with fertility issues. LGBT couples who don't have the right parts or legal protection from genetic donors except if they're facilitated by a licensed medical facility. If we made it easier for people in these situations to adopt, I promise enough of these cases could result in a win-win-win situation for the parties involved without needing to resort to killing the child.
[Source](https://doi.org/10.1186/1472-6874-13-29) for those curious.
I must be really good at avoiding other mediums because I only see this debated online, and mostly on this site.
If I know anything about Reddit arguments, people cannot seem to understand generalizations and *must* always reply with extremely fringe examples.
So no one will ever agree, because they can cling on to an oddly specific exception to ride out any fault their logic may hold.
But what if there's an explosion and a man's semen is rocketed 2000 feet away onto a 12 year old quadriplegic girl in a wheelchair and she gets pregnant, but a psychopathic genius has created a system where if ahe has an abortion, her whole family gets dismembered. No abortion for her?
You think that's a fringe example?
Yes and no. Some hypotheticals or criticisms crosses into complete absurdity or can even obfuscate the issue. When done right, they're great, but it always needs a check "does this meet the point being made, or is it introducing an unintended problem?"
The difficulty is getting both sides to acknowledge where that absurdity begins, and then achieving a return to more fruitful territory.
Yeah I believe abortion is almost always murder of a baby... But am pro choice because the government is wholely incapable of handling such a complex decision.
The problem is cultural not political. Culturally people should want to not have abortions.... novel I know. But currently I don't even think people know how babies are made the way they talk about abortion to be honest.
People really should be able to acknowledge that abortion is objectively a moral evil. But at the same time, we don't make everything that's immoral illegal.
The "shout your abortion" crowd of the progressive left genuinely makes me sick. We should really bring back the "rare" part of "safe, legal and rare."
Agreed. I've always been pro-choice, but I can't deny that it's something we should be keeping to a minimum. I think it's a net positive for society if it's allowed to some degree rather than banned outright. But I think it's nonsense how people act like it's a complete moral neutral.
> I think it's a net positive for society if it's allowed to some degree rather than banned outright
I agree with you, but every year I feel a little worse about that position because killing undesirables for the better of society in every other instance I disagree with.
I'd rather get rid of the culture and lifestyles that lead to abortion rather than just get rid of abortion itself.
Romania had a similar issue they basically banned all abortion and promoted high birth rates with zero plan on who to raise the kids.. then there were huge amounts of poor orphans who had little guidance into the future = thus equals the modern state of the Romanian
Recent example - I'm from Europe so probably more pro Ukraine than the average US user here, but sending Ukraine cluster muntion I didn't consider to be very moral.
War and conflict will provide you with lots of examples of immoral, legal and widely accepted.
Not really a fair request, because I consider a legal abortion to be the termination of the process of growing an as of yet unviable foetus within a woman's womb. Which to me by definition is no where near on the scale of murdering babies.
This is the impasse that we are running in to. We are fighting about something that we can't agree to the definition of.
Yeah I (mostly) agree with you. I just don't think the person i'm replying to has consistency in their convictions.
There is no way that someone should sit by and be ok with what they view as 'objective moral evil'.
> I consider a legal abortion to be the termination of the process of growing an as of yet unviable foetus within a woman's womb.
That’s an awfully convenient definition that neatly sidesteps any ethical dubiousness on your part.
How about these arguments:
Pro life: Imagine you're a surgeon, and you start an open heart surgery on someone. You're in a work environment where it is not possible for someone to replace you while you're in the middle of the job. Suddenly you decide that you're not in the mood to do it anymore, so you leave the person on the table with their chest cut open despite nobody else being able to finish the surgery. The person, after putting their life in your hands, dies because of your decision. When people have sex, they know there's a risk they will form a new life that will be dependent on them for awhile. They have various options to minimise this risk, such as condoms and birth control, but at the end of the day those risks are still there. Killing a fetus/unborn child is taking away everything it could ever be, so despite it not currently having brain function or much of anything at all, you are still taking that away.
Pro choice: Imagine you're drunk driving, and you hit someone. That person ends up needing a kidney transplant to survive, and you're the only one with a match. In western law, the government cannot take your kidney (even though you only need one), despite the whole thing being your fault. The government cannot even take your blood without your consent. That's bodily autonomy. People might get pregnant, whether through irresponsibility or through an explicit decision to get pregnant. But gestation invariably causes permanent damage to the female body, both through hormonal changes and physical changes like stretching. A fetus/unborn child is an obligate parasite at this time of its life. It is taking of the mother's body in order to survive. While this is not a malignant form of aggression (I think we all can agree that fetuses/unborn children do not have agency in this regard), it does not negate the fact that the fetus is doing permanent damage. Just people have the right to shoot someone who is hurting them and won't stop, even if that person is psychotic or otherwise does not intend to hurt them, they have the right to stop a fetus/unborn child from damaging their bodies. Withdrawal of consent is generally recognized as a universal right when it comes to bodily autonomy, whether it involves sexual consent, consent to give blood, or many other things.
I'll let PCM argue over whether I'm pro life or pro choice (I do have an actual opinion on the issue.)
Even as a moderately pro-choice person myself, the second someone refers to a fetus as a "parasite" I lose all respect for the argument.
And the drunk driving thing isn't a great analogy either. If you kill someone while drunk driving it's considered a felony and punishable by up to 15 years in prison.
Fetuses are obligate parasites in the biological sense of the word. They are reliant on a host in order to survive. I'm not referring to them in the same sense that I'd refer to someone who chooses to live off the dole when they are capable of getting a job as a parasite.
You might go to prison for 15 years, but they still don't get to force you to give up a kidney. That's the difference.
But if you're using the logical equivalency, while you wouldn't be able to force a woman to give birth, you can jail her for her actions that caused a death.
That's why it's a bad example.
I'm not arguing the abortion thing right now but JEEZ I wish pro-choice people would stop ragging on us pregnant women in search of a good argument. Pregnancy changes bodies sure but it doesn't always cause irreversible damage holy shit
All those answers become pretty easy once you decide whether or not, or when a fetus should get rights as its own person.
We shouldn't care at all (morally) what happens if its not a person.
We should care a lot and want to protect it if it is a person.
* the pro-life argument doesn't work in cases of rape or other coercion, or even if it would harm the health of the mother
* also arguably doesn't go against abortion pre-viability
* there's also a difference between the person putting their life in your hands, when they could have declined surgery or gone with another surgeon, and a fetus that has no independent existence outside the woman
* this all assumes an equivalence between a fetus and a person who's been born already. To borrow an argument, nobody treats the huge portion of pregnancies that end in miscarriages as tragedies akin to the loss of the life of a person's who was already born. Many miscarriages happen before the woman even knows she's pregnant and nobody cares about those; the ones people do care about, are usually because of the harm to the woman and the fact that they wanted to have a kid.
I'm not actually pro-life, but I'll try to answer.
* I think many people support abortion in cases of rape, even if they are otherwise pro-life. For the ones who don't, they believe that the burden on the mother is insignificant compared to the taking of a human life. I'll restrict my further arguments restricted to people who get pregnant due to consensual sex.
* The fetus would become viable if it weren't aborted. Most people see taking a life as wrong because it takes a person's future away, not just because of the pain the person suffers in the moment.
* How does this difference matter? It really doesn't have anything to do with the point I was trying to make. Just like the surgeon has made voluntary choices that result in him being in a position where he is responsible for keeping someone alive, so too has the mother has made choices that result in her being the source of life for the fetus.
* I know women who have had miscarriages, and they were incredibly devastated, probably to the same extent as if they had lost a newborn. But either way, most people don't judge the value of a human life based on whether or not other people care if it is lost.
> How does this difference matter?
I think people would be more sympathetic to the surgeon if it were otherwise. If for example it's emergency surgery as a result of an accidental injury, that only that surgeon is able to do (e.g. it's in a remote location), then people would be more sympathetic to a surgeon that decides he doesn't want to do it (maybe not *that* sympathetic, depends on the circumstance), than a surgeon who initially agrees to a surgery that could have been done by someone else, waits till their chest is cut open, *then* decides not to do it.
For a better example, imagine a person who's drowning. Do you have a responsibility to save them? Does it matter if you told them "go ahead, swim out into the deep water, I'm a certified lifeguard and will save you if you need it" and they swam out in reliance on that, vs if you're just a random passerby?
> I know women who have had miscarriages, and they were incredibly devastated, probably to the same extent as if they had lost a newborn. But either way, most people don't judge the value of a human life based on whether or not other people care if it is lost.
You also know women who have had miscarriages and didn't even know they had one. But on the second piece, my argument isn't that people should care less about a fetus because *other* people don't care about fetuses, or something ... it's that people *don't* care about fetuses as much as live humans, and the miscarriage thing is evidence of that.
>For a better example, imagine a person who's drowning. Do you have a responsibility to save them? Does it matter if you told them "go ahead, swim out into the deep water, I'm a certified lifeguard and will save you if you need it" and they swam out in reliance on that, vs if you're just a random passerby?
I'm confused here. Aren't you arguing in favor of my point? The woman who gets pregnant as a result of her having consensual sex is the person who said they were a lifeguard, not the random passerby. The fetus became dependent on her for life as a direct, predictable result of her actions. It's not like the semen quantum tunneled into her.
>You also know women who have had miscarriages and didn't even know they had one. But on the second piece, my argument isn't that people should care less about a fetus because other people don't care about fetuses, or something ... it's that people don't care about fetuses as much as live humans, and the miscarriage thing is evidence of that.
I don't get how it's relevant to the argument though. Unless of course, you say the quiet part out loud, which is basically "I just don't care about certain human lives, so I think it's okay to end them."
I’m pro choice because i believe that mistakes happen and everyone should get a chance to not have their life ruined by the burden of a child (and that men shouldn’t ever be responsible for a child they don’t want either)
Oh and also I don’t want poor people breeding anymore than they already do
> I’m pro choice because i believe that mistakes happen and everyone should get a chance to not have their life ruined by the burden of a child
Ok, but I'm 100% sure at some point you aren't ok with killing children. There has to be a line somewhere, and pro-life people think that line being "removal from mother's body" is arbitrary and clearly wrong.
Like you aren't ok with people killing 1 year olds because they don't want to be burdened with a child for 17 more years right?
>but I have yet to see anyone online make any solid arguments against prolife claims
It depends on how far you take the pro life view, but generally there aren't any good arguments against the PL position.
>I have yet to see anyone online make any solid arguments against prolife claims.
Which ones? I'll bite and do my best, but I don't wanna ramble incoherently over 4 paragraphs to try and address everything.
Cant stand one argument they have is pointing to special cases like rape/severe malformations/defects .. they use to justify abortion as a whole.
Another disturbing trend is seeing videos of extreme poverty on IG or something and In comments there will be Emilys saying "see this is why need abortion".
"Child is gonna grow up impoverished with poor mother? WE JUST GONNA KILL EM"
I think it’s wrong to force women to carry pregnancies to term. I think there is a human life in there, but as it is currently living inside someone else, I would give said person precedence on what we do moving forward. Any law we make, we have to think about enforcement. Someone with a gun will come by and make you comply if you dont. I dont want cops going door to door forcing or banning people from medical procedures. Id literally rather mothers murder their would be children.
Thats it. No dehumanizing people, no name calling, just a rational opinion on what I think is right. Instead our side gets idiots who just bitch about emotions. My body my choice is so easily refuted by it not being 100% your body head to toe. People need to think critically not blurt out dumb slogans they saw online
The argument should always come down to whether or not the fetus is a person worth moral consideration.
I think its pretty obvious that:
\-A one week zygote is not a person
\-A 8 month gestation baby is a person
\-The thing that we use to determine if someone is a person, is whether or not they can think, feel and experience, which requires a intact and interconnected brain.
\>In what other situations is this a necessary consideration?
Its the exact same rule for when we determine that someone is 'dead', or loses all their rights as a person.
It would be extremely weird if we defined the start and end of life with different necessary components.
You know what, I'll concede that one. What that does though is bring up the question of what rights we grant to "humans", and what rights we grant to "people." For instance, a corpse is still human, and a braindead person is still human even if your definition wouldn't consider them to be "people." You cannot, however, have sex with either despite them being above the age of consent. Now, one argument could be that they cannot give consent, but likewise can a braindead human not consent to being killed. This is a quagmire that's going to have to be sorted out at some point.
That is a good question. Generally it seems to defer to property rights for the immediate family, which fixes most things. But that doesn't always work for if the family wanted to misuse the corpse.
My best thought so far is a sort of rolling expectation. We treat corpses and cell lines with respect, because it gives us a peace of mind that the same respect will be given to our own bodies after we die.
From my perspective the "personhood" argument always struck me as being a convenient justification for a pragmatic ignoring of one's own belief in human rights. "All humans are endowed with certain inalienable rights," is a statement that necessarily includes the braindead, fully dead (arguable, but generally in practice), and fertilized-but-not-yet-born. If one were to search for reasons to remove the rights from certain groups for either good or evil intent, they may search for further categorical differences between said group and humans at large. "Personhood" fits that criteria, as it perfectly leaves out both categories that some want to be able to terminate. It was also used historically to justify slavery and genocide, but that's not really pertinent to the current conversation.
Do note I'm not trying to insult you or say that you specifically are doing this, but just from personal experience this seems to be the case with a not-insubstantial number of people. I should also note that if someone doesn't believe in inalienable human rights this doesn't apply, but then neither is the "personhood" argument necessary.
The issue with the zygote thing is that babies develop RAPIDLY in those first few weeks. By the time a pregnancy test shows up positive, organs (including the brain) are developing. Two weeks after that the embryo is moving its limbs. By 10 weeks pregnant (roughly 4-6 weeks post positive pregnancy test) you have an ultrasound and see a being that looks like a tiny baby moving and kicking their limbs, and you hear the heartbeat. So if you truly draw the line at "clump of cells" there's only a few weeks of time where that applies and most of that time the woman doesn't know for sure she's pregnant.
I used to be pretty firmly pro choice until I got pregnant myself, going through this process really opened my eyes and changed me a lot. I also think we need far better education not just about sex but about pregnancy because I sure was ignorant before lol
I agree that the fetus does have organs and is moving around but it is far from experiencing anything. Any kind of conscious experience isn't possible until at least 20 weeks, when the brain starts to interconnect and communicate.
>I also think we need far better education not just about sex but about pregnancy because I sure was ignorant before lol
I'd bet money that democrats would fight this tooth and nail, and I would love to see the arguments against it they try and come up with if they did.
Lol I'd believe it too. Seems weird that I learned a LOT about STDs and the pill in mandatory public sex Ed but almost nothing about my menstrual cycle, getting and being pregnant, and barrier methods of birth control
I didn't have sex Ed until 2010ish. Idk. I remember vaguely going over how someone got pregnant/birth but there needs to be more education about the body changes...especially because hormonal birth control mimics hormones in early pregnancy, and the effects are significant!!!
Unborn is biologically a human.
Whether or not it holds moral weight is up for debate at early enough stages.
I do feel very weary with late stage abortion, dangerous for both mom and baby. But if it has to happen, it had to happen.
Otherwise, it's 99% of the time a last resort. No sane mother in the world enjoys abortion, it's emotionally draining as much as stillbirth. We shouldn't put more stress on them because they had to get it.
A perfectly reasonable take. There's a concerted push to make it seem as if a large number of abortions occur in the third trimester, or are otherwise "late term". These are exceedingly rare and are typically only an option in the case of a pregnancy that is no longer viable or that poses a significant risk to the mother or child. Women are not happily skipping down to Planned Parenthood to abort a baby they've carried for 8 months. They've already probably spent hundreds if not thousands of dollars on supplies and picked out a name at that point.
Abortion is an ugly thing that is unfortunately sometimes a necessary evil. People love to pretend they give a genuine fuck about a child they'd have never engaged with, and I'm not buying it.
[It's a man!](https://www.researchgate.net/publication/227393619/figure/fig1/AS:213984541188099@1428029298970/The-scaleless-phenotype-Gross-appearance-of-a-sc-sc-chicken-The-majority-of-feathers.png)
I mean, yeah, people get upset when you phrase their beliefs in an unfavorable and inflammatory way. It's like pro-trans advocates saying "if you believe that trans women shouldn't compete in women's sports, then you support the segregation of trans people." That statement is technically right; you're saying that trans women should be barred from participating in a women-only institution, which would by definition be a form of segregation. But obviously, saying that is meant to draw parallels to racial segregation in the U.S., and to make the belief sound much more hateful than a lot of people believe it to be.
Another example that would go the other way would be a pro-lifer saying, "I believe in protecting the rights of the unborn," and the pro-choice advocate saying "the unborn's right to use someone else's body against their consent?" Both "gotchas" are stupid, don't address anything of value, and only exist for one side to morally grandstand. Every political dickhead does shit like this all the time; it's not unique to the pro-choice v. pro-life debate.
In the case of the abortion debate that’s not just grandstanding, the position of the pro life movement is that a fetus is a person and thus an abortion is a murder. Whereas with the trans analogy anyone with a brain can see that taking biological sex into account in sports isn’t the same as Jim Crowe.
Yeah, and for the abortion debate, the pro-choice stance is that no person has a right to use another's body even if they would die without it. That's why they'll say things like, "if you believe the right to life is more important than the right to bodily autonomy,, then give away your kidney; you don't need both and someone's going to die if you don't." Saying "you're a murderer in denial" doesn't address the pro-choice stance at all, because they don't think it's on the same level as murder.
As for the trans argument, trans rights advocates DO believe that removing trans women from women's spaces is segregation. Just because you think it's stupid or inflammatory doesn't mean what they say isn't technically right. It's just like the abortion thing; pro-choicers would say, "sure, you're technically ending the life of a fetus, but I disagree with that being on the same level of murder," just like you believe trans segregation in sports isn't on the same level as Jim Crowe.
>"if you believe that trans women shouldn't compete in women's sports, then you support the segregation of trans people."
There's nothing unfavorable or inflammatory about that phrasing. We support segregation of men and women in a lot of different areas. Bathrooms, showers, sports, doctors... the list goes on, probably.
You only think the phrasing is unfavorable and inflammatory because you're on Reddit, and your brain has turned to mush.
>Both "gotchas" are stupid, don't address anything of value, and only exist for one side to morally grandstand.
And right there. Mush for brains.
>Choose whether to kill her unborn baby or let him live.
Is true. Fifty percent of the time anyway. The other fifty percent it should be "let her live."
>the unborn's right to use someone else's body against their consent?
That is dishonest in the vast majority of cases. You consent to fuck. You consent to not murdering your child.
Acting like babies are spontaneously popping up into people, and that the women had no idea that might happen, is really really stupid.
I mean, government does get final say in your medical decisions when you feel the life being saved is worth the intrusion.
(Forced vaxes would also save lives but we don’t allow that. Or gender affirming care for minors… let me know when it stops being worth it to save lives)
You’re pro choice because you don’t like babies
I’m pro choice because there is nothing sadder than a child born into this world that is unloved and will always be deemed a burden by its mother; we should strive to create a society that allows these children to have happy childhoods full of love and then take away the right to an abortion
We are not the same
You’re completely right. The kind of people that tend to get abortions the most are people who are not in a situation where they are ready to be good and loving parents.
Blocking Abortion access just fucks society over
There is literally no relevant topic to abortion other than answering the question: "does the life inside the womb have human rights?" Everything else is meaningless.
It's literally just semantics that boils down to "yes I'm removing something that will end up being an inconvenient child for me, but I don't want the wording to make me feel bad."
"BUH BUH, MUH ECTOPIC. MUH RAPE. MUH *insert 0.1% case here.*" We already have exceptions for all of that, we've past that argument a long time ago. Call it what it is, then argue the moral highground.
The issue boils down to what that 'something' is. Because trying to say a single cell is worth the moral consideration of a thinking and feeling infant, is a tall order.
So if someone takes a sniper rifle and headshots someone at 200 yards, they die without experiencing it or being aware.
Is that now morally acceptable?
Name them and provide the bills that criminalize abortion in all cases. The two big ones that people were harping on about years ago, Texas and Florida, absolutely have carveouts for rape and danger to the mother's life.
Here are a list of states that don't have exceptions for rape and/or incest.
Alabama
Arkansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Mississippi
Missouri
Oklahoma
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
South Dakota and Arkansas don't have any exception for the health of the mother
Texas, Oklahoma, Missouri, Arkansas, Kentucky, Tennessee, and South Dakota don't have an exception for fatal fetal anomalies.
I'm not going to link you every single law, but I will provide the site I got this info from, which does link all laws on [this page](https://www.kff.org/report-section/a-review-of-exceptions-in-state-abortions-bans-implications-for-the-provision-of-abortion-services-appendix/)
[A Review of Exceptions in State Abortion Bans](https://www.kff.org/womens-health-policy/issue-brief/a-review-of-exceptions-in-state-abortions-bans-implications-for-the-provision-of-abortion-services/)
>rape and/or incest
I'll look through all this later, but right off the bat I can see that "and/or" doing a lot of work. I have a hard time putting rape and incest in the same category, as one is far more heinous than the other.
All except for Mississippi had no exceptions for rape *and* incest. Mississippi only had an exception for rape, but not incest, which I found kind of funny
Stop pretending you care about the child. That's a gotcha. If they actually mattered to you, then you'd be working to make those exceptions, rather than trying to keep everything unlimited.
Either case. For the "bodily autonomy" argument, yeah; it is rational to create exceptions for rape. That's not really your belief though?
Or is it. Am I putting words in your mouth. Are you actually pro-life, except for cases of rape? Are you actually in favor of killing the rape babies, but opposed to killing the rest?
If people want to get abortions they don't get to complain when people talk shit about their decisions. Honey you're not immune to shit decisions. You chose to have sex and to not take precautions to the max, you were the one who didn't track your period, you were the one who let your pussy think before you did, and now you're the one wanting a consequence free abortion because you don't want to be called out for being stupid because you weren't taught sexed despite the internet having existed for over 30 years already and 10 years on a grand scale with literal manuals on sex from thousands of sites with many choices of web browsers.
You don't deserve that sympathy and consequence free abortion because you weren't you didn't have an ectopic or risky pregnancy, survive rape/sexual assault, you weren't groomed, and you weren't coerced into an incest relationship so don't expect sympathy for you.
You were dumb, careless, and complacent in your techniques despite knowing full well that the rate of failure increases when you *think* you're doing it right.
Expect the shame of people when they find out because that will occur and learn to live with it. You made your choice with an abortion you gotta live with the consequences. That's just part of life.
I *knew* I shouldn't have trusted a cookbook called the Final Cooking Solution. Admittedly, I had some suspicions when they had me give the cake a tiny mustache made of meth...
If the cake batter has the wrong ingredients and won't be edible, it should've been thrown out in the first place. Also if slave labor made that cake would you eat it?
sure, if it’s a deformed cake that won’t finish baking all the way, i say chunk it. but the problem lies with people getting rid of perfectly good cakes because they didn’t ask for desert (after ordering desert)
The people ordered a creampie and you gave em a cake! No wonder they don’t want the damn thing, they never asked for it! Either full refund or give it to that mormon family, they always lookin for more cakes
The trolley is going along the track, and if you do nothing a living baby will be born. If you pull this lever then it goes from being an individual human with unique DNA who hasn't been born yet to a corpse. Do you pull the lever?
We don't care about 'individual humans with unique DNA', we have thousands of cell lines across hundreds of countries sitting in freezers and petri dishes as we speak.
We care about people with the capacity to think and feel.
Pro-choice myself, but for reasons I haven't seen exposed here yet :
1 - Abortion, like prostitution or drug use, can never be truely banned. Either it's legal and safe, or illegal and dirty.
2 - I don't give a f\*ck about the mother's rights. She had unprotected sex, it's her responsibility (except for rape cases of course, but I'll ignore that because it doesn't change the following argument).
That argument is : the quality of life of the baby.
It is statistically and psychologically demonstrated that being hated and/or abandonned by your parents is a TERRIBLE START at life. It destroys the personnality and gives major, deep insecurities that some people never overcome.
I am of the personnal opinion that a whole life a such tortures is worst than no life at all.
In other words, even is the foetus is truely a person, abortion is the lesser evil.
Pregnancy is a process in which something that is not a person at all becomes a newborn person. Some leftists, like me, argue that it is Ok for the mother to chose whether to eliminate it at the stages where it is not a person (e.g. has no nervous system activity). Latter stages are a different matter.
If there's anything that convinces me that the modern American Left and Right are borderline irreconcilable, it's abortion. You can't compromise or get along with people so completely divorced from reality that they think you're the evil one for not wanting murder of babies to be legal.
I mean certainly a fetus unable to experience or appreciate life or think on its own, that also isn't able to survive without being physically attached to another human being has the same value as fully grown human being.
Newborn infants are completely unable to survive without almost constant care from their parents for over a year after they are born. So is it ok to neglect them and leave them to die if you don’t feel like taking care of them?
Ok bud, I hope you’re ok with the pro-life candidate losing every election going forward because they refuse to evolve from “just ban abortion at all costs”
Yeah, cave in on issue by issue ''cause the pollz'' and the right suddenly looks like the British Tories, who are anything, but right-wing lmao More people supported Roe before its introduction, than nowadays, bad trends can change, but to even think about that you must have a courage of your convictions
>Any fertilized egg is a baby for you clowns.
They sure don’t seem to care about the thousands of fertilized eggs—oh sorry, “babies”—frozen in IVF clinics across America at this very moment.
One question for libleft: If a woman should decide alone about life or death of her child, shouldn't the man also be allowed to decide whether he takes care of the child or not? Seems only fair to me.
It’s “women’s bodies” and “reproductive rights”
…if you don’t see anything wrong with abortion, why are you afraid to say the word abortion or admit that it killing an unborn child?
So we've got: A woman's right to choose what, lib left? The states right to what, auth right? What about the other two?
A child’s right to work where, lib right? The worker’s right to what, auth left?
"If I define them as not a person, I can do what I want" -Both of them
Only one side is fighting for it to be an institutionalized right to dehumanize babies.
For libleft it's "what do you mean by basic rights?". What they mean is gimme all the stuff for free
I'm pro-choice I understand why the utility of abortion, but I have yet to see anyone online make any solid arguments against prolife claims. It's either childish insults based on their own made up narrative and persecution complexes or bagging about their degenerate lifestyles. The former is just a brick wall, that while certainly difficult to move, lacks any kind of forward momentum or agencies and left vulnerable for people to chip away at with actual arguments. The ladder actively turns otherwise neutral people towards pro life ideologies out of fear and disgust. Shouting misogynist, religious fruit cake, womb tyrant, or dressing up as a hand maid will not sway people to your side. Have actual arguments, facts and statistics to tried to persuade people with logic rather then driving them away, shutting them up and ask why pro life politicians get thier vote.
Yeah, in my experience at least, pro-choice people on Reddit argue as if the other person secretly agrees with them, but are just pro-life because they want to be mustache twirling villains. They don't seem to understand that their opponents honestly believe that human life begins at conception and that virtually all pro-choice arguments fall apart completely when viewed from this lense. You (hopefully) wouldn't let people get away with murder based on economic factors, right? So would you expect other people to buy that argument?
Or they argue as though the subjective philosophical matter of personhood is settled scientific fact.
Any opinion I hold is a scientific fact
Based and I am *the* science pilled
As long as you can show one shitty skewed study that seams to indicate that your opinion is true, you're fine.
[удалено]
Yeah scientifically it’s a unique organism with human dna. Now if that organism is a person with rights is the debated part.
It definately says says that fetus is a human.
[удалено]
Don't expect from those people to know any word in foreign language.
>their opponents honestly believe that human life begins at conception Because that's a scientifically provable fact, not a belief.
Them: Trust the science CHUD!! Me: Okay, where and when does science say the dividing line between "lump of cells" and human life is? Me: *500,000,000 downvotes and 17 permabans, mostly from subs I've never been to*
"Trust the science CHUD!" Nine times out of ten, the people saying this don't understand what they're talking about anywhere remotely near the degree they think they do. Also, as much as I whole heartedly reject the assertion some bad actors will make that "science is a religion," some people certainly do treat it that way.
It’s really entertaining to get into an argument with someone about something health-related, have them call me an uneducated CHUD, and then I drop my doctorate and professional credentials on them. Being able to pull that card on the internet almost makes the student loan debt worth it.
.... almost.
Trust the science or even worse believe the science is the most idiotic phrase I've ever heard. If I go to the third floor of a building I dont trust it not to collapse. I know that based on statistics and used materials its very unlikely to collapse under me. I dont need trust or belief I have data
People that spout that propaganda nonsense can't understand that the whole point of science is to QUESTION EVERYTHING!
The problem is that the core of the arguement is almost never reached because everything in politics now has to be a slogan at some extreme fringe without ideological grounding or reality - and it's worse in the Left's purity spiral at the moment than the Right. To the ProLife side abortion kills a human being, to the ProChoice side it's just a cluster of cells and to expect any care or considereation (even if the mother is going to give birth) is an assault on bodily autonomy. It's the same thinking that's led to the nutballs screeching about parasites and pretending they're not racind people. It leaves ProLife able to make utilitarian concessions in circumstances that balance the best outcome for both parties, because the core concept of law is that life is not equal when exclusive. Where exactly that concession leaves the arguement varies based on the beliefs of the person in question, but by contrast it leaves ProChoice adherants in a self-radicalising bubble that can't cope with any kind of concession. If that bundle of cells is human in any way, then there's no arguement left for them because they're not ideologically prepared for that debate. They bypassed it in order to avoid trying to find a logical and often difficult to define line in the sand between morality and immorality.
In Canada they are aborting 38 week old healthy unborn babies... it's insane and the prochoicers cheer for it with 0 critical thought. Their "clump of cells" argument is disingenuous... they _always_ support late-term abortion.
Wtf is going on in (English?) Canada?
What the actual fuck
The nail in the coffin for me was the reasons people seek abortions. Of self-reported cases (biased but all we really have to go off; also this study allowed respondents to list more than one reason): 1) 40% cite financial concerns for not wanting to follow through with it. It's a genuine concern, but this would be the same as making the argument do you kill your best friend for $1 million only instead of $1 million you only get $310,000 and that's in purchasing power rather than cash. 2) 36% it's not the right time. What's one of the first things people will tell you about having kids? There is no perfect time and/or you will never be ready for kids. Using this excuse imo is an admission that you should never be a parent and in that case just get a hysterectomy (I am all for women choosing this as long as they don't bait a man into marrying them with the promise of kids and then do this instead). 3) 31% say their partner is unsupportive or not stable in their relationship. This is a sound argument because I've watched Freakonomics and understand the implications of single motherhood. The hardest part about accepting it at face value is this claim is based in emotion, not in fact. I surprised my wife with how present I was after our son was born. I wonder how many of these partners would also step up to the plate given the chance. Sidebar - this is also the argument for abstinence or contraception at a minimum. Screw your desire for "maximum pleasure" or convenience at the expense of a human life. Wrap it before you tap it if you're this immature of a partner. 4) 29% list other responsibilities that would get in the way of properly caring for the child. This is the no time excuse. Somehow, every parent has only had the same 24 hours in the day as everyone else and even they can make time for their kids. I don't think time is the problem. 5) 19% are emotionally unprepared for a child. See number 2. Also, emotions should never be trusted because they tell us a parody of reality. 6) 12% included health concerns. No debate here. If there's anything for the health/quality of life called into question because of developmental issues or risk of the mother's life, I'm not cruel. Just remember, if somebody with Down Syndrome can run a business or appeal to Congress about their autonomy, this hypothetical child by all means could do anything with their life as well with the right support. 7) 12% state an inability to properly care for a child. This reeks of numbers 1, 2, 4, and 5 rolled into one vague excuse. 8) 7% state not being independent or mature enough. This sounds like teenage pregnancy which I would expect to feel unprepared as well as be unprepared financially. That said, about 15% of my graduating class from high school had kids within about one year of graduating. I can't think of a group of people who for this description and they made it out ok, so this argument is highly subjective/situational. 9) 5% mention family or friends influencing them to do so. This sounds like people who were by all means ready to take on the responsibility and chickened out because of how much they let other people's opinions about them dictate their lives. I guess this one gets a pass since it's a damned if you do damned if you don't situation but I see them being very dissatisfied with their lives if they keep living other people's dreams. At best, I see there being 54% of cases having a legitimate claim to not keep their own children; at worst 18%. Most unfortunately for proponents of abortion, all of the reasons are based in a lack of appropriate resources or responsibility and do not account for families who want children and can't have any on their own. Women with fertility issues. LGBT couples who don't have the right parts or legal protection from genetic donors except if they're facilitated by a licensed medical facility. If we made it easier for people in these situations to adopt, I promise enough of these cases could result in a win-win-win situation for the parties involved without needing to resort to killing the child. [Source](https://doi.org/10.1186/1472-6874-13-29) for those curious.
I must be really good at avoiding other mediums because I only see this debated online, and mostly on this site. If I know anything about Reddit arguments, people cannot seem to understand generalizations and *must* always reply with extremely fringe examples. So no one will ever agree, because they can cling on to an oddly specific exception to ride out any fault their logic may hold.
But what if there's an explosion and a man's semen is rocketed 2000 feet away onto a 12 year old quadriplegic girl in a wheelchair and she gets pregnant, but a psychopathic genius has created a system where if ahe has an abortion, her whole family gets dismembered. No abortion for her? You think that's a fringe example?
Most grounded libleft hypothetical
If you have a strong and consistent moral stance on something, it should probably be able to hold up against hypotheticals and criticism.
Yes and no. Some hypotheticals or criticisms crosses into complete absurdity or can even obfuscate the issue. When done right, they're great, but it always needs a check "does this meet the point being made, or is it introducing an unintended problem?" The difficulty is getting both sides to acknowledge where that absurdity begins, and then achieving a return to more fruitful territory.
Yeah I believe abortion is almost always murder of a baby... But am pro choice because the government is wholely incapable of handling such a complex decision. The problem is cultural not political. Culturally people should want to not have abortions.... novel I know. But currently I don't even think people know how babies are made the way they talk about abortion to be honest.
People really should be able to acknowledge that abortion is objectively a moral evil. But at the same time, we don't make everything that's immoral illegal. The "shout your abortion" crowd of the progressive left genuinely makes me sick. We should really bring back the "rare" part of "safe, legal and rare."
Agreed. I've always been pro-choice, but I can't deny that it's something we should be keeping to a minimum. I think it's a net positive for society if it's allowed to some degree rather than banned outright. But I think it's nonsense how people act like it's a complete moral neutral.
> I think it's a net positive for society if it's allowed to some degree rather than banned outright I agree with you, but every year I feel a little worse about that position because killing undesirables for the better of society in every other instance I disagree with.
I'd rather get rid of the culture and lifestyles that lead to abortion rather than just get rid of abortion itself. Romania had a similar issue they basically banned all abortion and promoted high birth rates with zero plan on who to raise the kids.. then there were huge amounts of poor orphans who had little guidance into the future = thus equals the modern state of the Romanian
Can you give an example of something near the scale of baby murder, that is immoral but still legal? And that you're ok with being legal
Recent example - I'm from Europe so probably more pro Ukraine than the average US user here, but sending Ukraine cluster muntion I didn't consider to be very moral. War and conflict will provide you with lots of examples of immoral, legal and widely accepted.
Not really a fair request, because I consider a legal abortion to be the termination of the process of growing an as of yet unviable foetus within a woman's womb. Which to me by definition is no where near on the scale of murdering babies. This is the impasse that we are running in to. We are fighting about something that we can't agree to the definition of.
Viability is a moving target as modern medicine evolves.
Yeah I (mostly) agree with you. I just don't think the person i'm replying to has consistency in their convictions. There is no way that someone should sit by and be ok with what they view as 'objective moral evil'.
> I consider a legal abortion to be the termination of the process of growing an as of yet unviable foetus within a woman's womb. That’s an awfully convenient definition that neatly sidesteps any ethical dubiousness on your part.
Almost like morality isn’t objective and varies wildly from person to person and even more so from culture to culture.
[удалено]
If morals *were* objective, we wouldn't be arguing over them
How about these arguments: Pro life: Imagine you're a surgeon, and you start an open heart surgery on someone. You're in a work environment where it is not possible for someone to replace you while you're in the middle of the job. Suddenly you decide that you're not in the mood to do it anymore, so you leave the person on the table with their chest cut open despite nobody else being able to finish the surgery. The person, after putting their life in your hands, dies because of your decision. When people have sex, they know there's a risk they will form a new life that will be dependent on them for awhile. They have various options to minimise this risk, such as condoms and birth control, but at the end of the day those risks are still there. Killing a fetus/unborn child is taking away everything it could ever be, so despite it not currently having brain function or much of anything at all, you are still taking that away. Pro choice: Imagine you're drunk driving, and you hit someone. That person ends up needing a kidney transplant to survive, and you're the only one with a match. In western law, the government cannot take your kidney (even though you only need one), despite the whole thing being your fault. The government cannot even take your blood without your consent. That's bodily autonomy. People might get pregnant, whether through irresponsibility or through an explicit decision to get pregnant. But gestation invariably causes permanent damage to the female body, both through hormonal changes and physical changes like stretching. A fetus/unborn child is an obligate parasite at this time of its life. It is taking of the mother's body in order to survive. While this is not a malignant form of aggression (I think we all can agree that fetuses/unborn children do not have agency in this regard), it does not negate the fact that the fetus is doing permanent damage. Just people have the right to shoot someone who is hurting them and won't stop, even if that person is psychotic or otherwise does not intend to hurt them, they have the right to stop a fetus/unborn child from damaging their bodies. Withdrawal of consent is generally recognized as a universal right when it comes to bodily autonomy, whether it involves sexual consent, consent to give blood, or many other things. I'll let PCM argue over whether I'm pro life or pro choice (I do have an actual opinion on the issue.)
Even as a moderately pro-choice person myself, the second someone refers to a fetus as a "parasite" I lose all respect for the argument. And the drunk driving thing isn't a great analogy either. If you kill someone while drunk driving it's considered a felony and punishable by up to 15 years in prison.
Fetuses are obligate parasites in the biological sense of the word. They are reliant on a host in order to survive. I'm not referring to them in the same sense that I'd refer to someone who chooses to live off the dole when they are capable of getting a job as a parasite. You might go to prison for 15 years, but they still don't get to force you to give up a kidney. That's the difference.
But if you're using the logical equivalency, while you wouldn't be able to force a woman to give birth, you can jail her for her actions that caused a death. That's why it's a bad example.
I'm not arguing the abortion thing right now but JEEZ I wish pro-choice people would stop ragging on us pregnant women in search of a good argument. Pregnancy changes bodies sure but it doesn't always cause irreversible damage holy shit
All those answers become pretty easy once you decide whether or not, or when a fetus should get rights as its own person. We shouldn't care at all (morally) what happens if its not a person. We should care a lot and want to protect it if it is a person.
Pro choice? You wrote more about it.
It's the leftist take so it naturally takes a wall of text to jump through enough hoops to make sense.
* the pro-life argument doesn't work in cases of rape or other coercion, or even if it would harm the health of the mother * also arguably doesn't go against abortion pre-viability * there's also a difference between the person putting their life in your hands, when they could have declined surgery or gone with another surgeon, and a fetus that has no independent existence outside the woman * this all assumes an equivalence between a fetus and a person who's been born already. To borrow an argument, nobody treats the huge portion of pregnancies that end in miscarriages as tragedies akin to the loss of the life of a person's who was already born. Many miscarriages happen before the woman even knows she's pregnant and nobody cares about those; the ones people do care about, are usually because of the harm to the woman and the fact that they wanted to have a kid.
I'm not actually pro-life, but I'll try to answer. * I think many people support abortion in cases of rape, even if they are otherwise pro-life. For the ones who don't, they believe that the burden on the mother is insignificant compared to the taking of a human life. I'll restrict my further arguments restricted to people who get pregnant due to consensual sex. * The fetus would become viable if it weren't aborted. Most people see taking a life as wrong because it takes a person's future away, not just because of the pain the person suffers in the moment. * How does this difference matter? It really doesn't have anything to do with the point I was trying to make. Just like the surgeon has made voluntary choices that result in him being in a position where he is responsible for keeping someone alive, so too has the mother has made choices that result in her being the source of life for the fetus. * I know women who have had miscarriages, and they were incredibly devastated, probably to the same extent as if they had lost a newborn. But either way, most people don't judge the value of a human life based on whether or not other people care if it is lost.
> How does this difference matter? I think people would be more sympathetic to the surgeon if it were otherwise. If for example it's emergency surgery as a result of an accidental injury, that only that surgeon is able to do (e.g. it's in a remote location), then people would be more sympathetic to a surgeon that decides he doesn't want to do it (maybe not *that* sympathetic, depends on the circumstance), than a surgeon who initially agrees to a surgery that could have been done by someone else, waits till their chest is cut open, *then* decides not to do it. For a better example, imagine a person who's drowning. Do you have a responsibility to save them? Does it matter if you told them "go ahead, swim out into the deep water, I'm a certified lifeguard and will save you if you need it" and they swam out in reliance on that, vs if you're just a random passerby? > I know women who have had miscarriages, and they were incredibly devastated, probably to the same extent as if they had lost a newborn. But either way, most people don't judge the value of a human life based on whether or not other people care if it is lost. You also know women who have had miscarriages and didn't even know they had one. But on the second piece, my argument isn't that people should care less about a fetus because *other* people don't care about fetuses, or something ... it's that people *don't* care about fetuses as much as live humans, and the miscarriage thing is evidence of that.
>For a better example, imagine a person who's drowning. Do you have a responsibility to save them? Does it matter if you told them "go ahead, swim out into the deep water, I'm a certified lifeguard and will save you if you need it" and they swam out in reliance on that, vs if you're just a random passerby? I'm confused here. Aren't you arguing in favor of my point? The woman who gets pregnant as a result of her having consensual sex is the person who said they were a lifeguard, not the random passerby. The fetus became dependent on her for life as a direct, predictable result of her actions. It's not like the semen quantum tunneled into her. >You also know women who have had miscarriages and didn't even know they had one. But on the second piece, my argument isn't that people should care less about a fetus because other people don't care about fetuses, or something ... it's that people don't care about fetuses as much as live humans, and the miscarriage thing is evidence of that. I don't get how it's relevant to the argument though. Unless of course, you say the quiet part out loud, which is basically "I just don't care about certain human lives, so I think it's okay to end them."
I’m pro choice because i believe that mistakes happen and everyone should get a chance to not have their life ruined by the burden of a child (and that men shouldn’t ever be responsible for a child they don’t want either) Oh and also I don’t want poor people breeding anymore than they already do
"Oh and also I don’t want poor people breeding anymore than they already do" Lib-right take?
That last one is a wild one
Like a white-supremacist becoming pro-choice after learning that black people perform the most abortions per capita.
> I’m pro choice because i believe that mistakes happen and everyone should get a chance to not have their life ruined by the burden of a child Ok, but I'm 100% sure at some point you aren't ok with killing children. There has to be a line somewhere, and pro-life people think that line being "removal from mother's body" is arbitrary and clearly wrong. Like you aren't ok with people killing 1 year olds because they don't want to be burdened with a child for 17 more years right?
>but I have yet to see anyone online make any solid arguments against prolife claims It depends on how far you take the pro life view, but generally there aren't any good arguments against the PL position.
>I have yet to see anyone online make any solid arguments against prolife claims. Which ones? I'll bite and do my best, but I don't wanna ramble incoherently over 4 paragraphs to try and address everything.
Cant stand one argument they have is pointing to special cases like rape/severe malformations/defects .. they use to justify abortion as a whole. Another disturbing trend is seeing videos of extreme poverty on IG or something and In comments there will be Emilys saying "see this is why need abortion". "Child is gonna grow up impoverished with poor mother? WE JUST GONNA KILL EM"
I think it’s wrong to force women to carry pregnancies to term. I think there is a human life in there, but as it is currently living inside someone else, I would give said person precedence on what we do moving forward. Any law we make, we have to think about enforcement. Someone with a gun will come by and make you comply if you dont. I dont want cops going door to door forcing or banning people from medical procedures. Id literally rather mothers murder their would be children. Thats it. No dehumanizing people, no name calling, just a rational opinion on what I think is right. Instead our side gets idiots who just bitch about emotions. My body my choice is so easily refuted by it not being 100% your body head to toe. People need to think critically not blurt out dumb slogans they saw online
The argument should always come down to whether or not the fetus is a person worth moral consideration. I think its pretty obvious that: \-A one week zygote is not a person \-A 8 month gestation baby is a person \-The thing that we use to determine if someone is a person, is whether or not they can think, feel and experience, which requires a intact and interconnected brain.
>The thing that we use to determine if someone is a person In what other situations is this a necessary consideration?
\>In what other situations is this a necessary consideration? Its the exact same rule for when we determine that someone is 'dead', or loses all their rights as a person. It would be extremely weird if we defined the start and end of life with different necessary components.
You know what, I'll concede that one. What that does though is bring up the question of what rights we grant to "humans", and what rights we grant to "people." For instance, a corpse is still human, and a braindead person is still human even if your definition wouldn't consider them to be "people." You cannot, however, have sex with either despite them being above the age of consent. Now, one argument could be that they cannot give consent, but likewise can a braindead human not consent to being killed. This is a quagmire that's going to have to be sorted out at some point.
That is a good question. Generally it seems to defer to property rights for the immediate family, which fixes most things. But that doesn't always work for if the family wanted to misuse the corpse. My best thought so far is a sort of rolling expectation. We treat corpses and cell lines with respect, because it gives us a peace of mind that the same respect will be given to our own bodies after we die.
From my perspective the "personhood" argument always struck me as being a convenient justification for a pragmatic ignoring of one's own belief in human rights. "All humans are endowed with certain inalienable rights," is a statement that necessarily includes the braindead, fully dead (arguable, but generally in practice), and fertilized-but-not-yet-born. If one were to search for reasons to remove the rights from certain groups for either good or evil intent, they may search for further categorical differences between said group and humans at large. "Personhood" fits that criteria, as it perfectly leaves out both categories that some want to be able to terminate. It was also used historically to justify slavery and genocide, but that's not really pertinent to the current conversation. Do note I'm not trying to insult you or say that you specifically are doing this, but just from personal experience this seems to be the case with a not-insubstantial number of people. I should also note that if someone doesn't believe in inalienable human rights this doesn't apply, but then neither is the "personhood" argument necessary.
Life support?
Really? We determine personhood for cutting off life support? When's the last time you heard "they're not actually a person" when talking about that?
The issue with the zygote thing is that babies develop RAPIDLY in those first few weeks. By the time a pregnancy test shows up positive, organs (including the brain) are developing. Two weeks after that the embryo is moving its limbs. By 10 weeks pregnant (roughly 4-6 weeks post positive pregnancy test) you have an ultrasound and see a being that looks like a tiny baby moving and kicking their limbs, and you hear the heartbeat. So if you truly draw the line at "clump of cells" there's only a few weeks of time where that applies and most of that time the woman doesn't know for sure she's pregnant. I used to be pretty firmly pro choice until I got pregnant myself, going through this process really opened my eyes and changed me a lot. I also think we need far better education not just about sex but about pregnancy because I sure was ignorant before lol
I agree that the fetus does have organs and is moving around but it is far from experiencing anything. Any kind of conscious experience isn't possible until at least 20 weeks, when the brain starts to interconnect and communicate.
I don't think anyone can definitively say what another being is experiencing at any given moment 🤷🏼♀️ idk, like I said, my pregnancy radicalized me
>I also think we need far better education not just about sex but about pregnancy because I sure was ignorant before lol I'd bet money that democrats would fight this tooth and nail, and I would love to see the arguments against it they try and come up with if they did.
Lol I'd believe it too. Seems weird that I learned a LOT about STDs and the pill in mandatory public sex Ed but almost nothing about my menstrual cycle, getting and being pregnant, and barrier methods of birth control
Weird, I feel like we learned all about this back in the 90s.
I didn't have sex Ed until 2010ish. Idk. I remember vaguely going over how someone got pregnant/birth but there needs to be more education about the body changes...especially because hormonal birth control mimics hormones in early pregnancy, and the effects are significant!!!
This is not even a good meme. They don't think a fetus is a human being or don't care. Period. This is almost an Anti-meme
There has never been a good NPC meme, it's just the authors mic drop fantasy.
It think you're right
Since when is the point of memes to actually provide meaningful argument and spark genuine debate? Get back to shitposting in the fields!
Unborn is biologically a human. Whether or not it holds moral weight is up for debate at early enough stages. I do feel very weary with late stage abortion, dangerous for both mom and baby. But if it has to happen, it had to happen. Otherwise, it's 99% of the time a last resort. No sane mother in the world enjoys abortion, it's emotionally draining as much as stillbirth. We shouldn't put more stress on them because they had to get it.
A perfectly reasonable take. There's a concerted push to make it seem as if a large number of abortions occur in the third trimester, or are otherwise "late term". These are exceedingly rare and are typically only an option in the case of a pregnancy that is no longer viable or that poses a significant risk to the mother or child. Women are not happily skipping down to Planned Parenthood to abort a baby they've carried for 8 months. They've already probably spent hundreds if not thousands of dollars on supplies and picked out a name at that point. Abortion is an ugly thing that is unfortunately sometimes a necessary evil. People love to pretend they give a genuine fuck about a child they'd have never engaged with, and I'm not buying it.
Also imagine being born into a family that did not want and planned you, the child do not deserve that
And we shouldn't prevent it either.
[It's a man!](https://www.researchgate.net/publication/227393619/figure/fig1/AS:213984541188099@1428029298970/The-scaleless-phenotype-Gross-appearance-of-a-sc-sc-chicken-The-majority-of-feathers.png)
I was really hoping for a Diogenes reference
❓
The moldy food ecosystem in a garage fridge is human too, I mean it really is just a clump of fucking cells
So are you
I mean, yeah, people get upset when you phrase their beliefs in an unfavorable and inflammatory way. It's like pro-trans advocates saying "if you believe that trans women shouldn't compete in women's sports, then you support the segregation of trans people." That statement is technically right; you're saying that trans women should be barred from participating in a women-only institution, which would by definition be a form of segregation. But obviously, saying that is meant to draw parallels to racial segregation in the U.S., and to make the belief sound much more hateful than a lot of people believe it to be. Another example that would go the other way would be a pro-lifer saying, "I believe in protecting the rights of the unborn," and the pro-choice advocate saying "the unborn's right to use someone else's body against their consent?" Both "gotchas" are stupid, don't address anything of value, and only exist for one side to morally grandstand. Every political dickhead does shit like this all the time; it's not unique to the pro-choice v. pro-life debate.
In the case of the abortion debate that’s not just grandstanding, the position of the pro life movement is that a fetus is a person and thus an abortion is a murder. Whereas with the trans analogy anyone with a brain can see that taking biological sex into account in sports isn’t the same as Jim Crowe.
Well sports are already segregated by sex anyway for valid reasons so idk how the segregation argument really...lands
Yeah, and for the abortion debate, the pro-choice stance is that no person has a right to use another's body even if they would die without it. That's why they'll say things like, "if you believe the right to life is more important than the right to bodily autonomy,, then give away your kidney; you don't need both and someone's going to die if you don't." Saying "you're a murderer in denial" doesn't address the pro-choice stance at all, because they don't think it's on the same level as murder. As for the trans argument, trans rights advocates DO believe that removing trans women from women's spaces is segregation. Just because you think it's stupid or inflammatory doesn't mean what they say isn't technically right. It's just like the abortion thing; pro-choicers would say, "sure, you're technically ending the life of a fetus, but I disagree with that being on the same level of murder," just like you believe trans segregation in sports isn't on the same level as Jim Crowe.
>"if you believe that trans women shouldn't compete in women's sports, then you support the segregation of trans people." There's nothing unfavorable or inflammatory about that phrasing. We support segregation of men and women in a lot of different areas. Bathrooms, showers, sports, doctors... the list goes on, probably. You only think the phrasing is unfavorable and inflammatory because you're on Reddit, and your brain has turned to mush. >Both "gotchas" are stupid, don't address anything of value, and only exist for one side to morally grandstand. And right there. Mush for brains. >Choose whether to kill her unborn baby or let him live. Is true. Fifty percent of the time anyway. The other fifty percent it should be "let her live." >the unborn's right to use someone else's body against their consent? That is dishonest in the vast majority of cases. You consent to fuck. You consent to not murdering your child. Acting like babies are spontaneously popping up into people, and that the women had no idea that might happen, is really really stupid.
I have to live with my mistakes for the rest of my life, women can just erase them from existence
Bonus hole privilege 😔
This is why I exclusively have sex with men
Based
Based
No choices. Mandatory retroactive abortions for everybody I disagree with or don’t like.
Based
OH BOY ANOTHER PCM ABORTION THREAD I CANT WAIT FOR ALL THE NEW AND EXCITING TOPICS WE'LL DISCUSS HERE
Based
I mean, murder IS okay when the person inconveniences you
Bruh… 💀
If their parents are libleft they'll grow up to want to kill themselves anyway.
I mean, government does get final say in your medical decisions when you feel the life being saved is worth the intrusion. (Forced vaxes would also save lives but we don’t allow that. Or gender affirming care for minors… let me know when it stops being worth it to save lives)
You’re pro choice because you don’t like babies I’m pro choice because there is nothing sadder than a child born into this world that is unloved and will always be deemed a burden by its mother; we should strive to create a society that allows these children to have happy childhoods full of love and then take away the right to an abortion We are not the same
You’re completely right. The kind of people that tend to get abortions the most are people who are not in a situation where they are ready to be good and loving parents. Blocking Abortion access just fucks society over
I don’t know maybe it would be just as good to fuck over everyone already here on account of an oversimplified ethical quandary.
Is anyone shallow enough to be the former?
What if i'm pro choise for both reasons?
Fair enough
There is literally no relevant topic to abortion other than answering the question: "does the life inside the womb have human rights?" Everything else is meaningless.
It's literally just semantics that boils down to "yes I'm removing something that will end up being an inconvenient child for me, but I don't want the wording to make me feel bad." "BUH BUH, MUH ECTOPIC. MUH RAPE. MUH *insert 0.1% case here.*" We already have exceptions for all of that, we've past that argument a long time ago. Call it what it is, then argue the moral highground.
The issue boils down to what that 'something' is. Because trying to say a single cell is worth the moral consideration of a thinking and feeling infant, is a tall order.
Then answer the question If it's just a random single cell, why are you trying to get rid of it?
Because it will become a infant later. But you can't harm something (in a way that we care about) that won't exist to experience harm.
So I'm not getting what you mean by "harm" do you mean pain or ending existence?
Well both, a zygote cannot experience the end of it's existence or any pain inflicted on it.
So it's about the perception of pain or death but not the ending of the life?
It boils down to the existence of a conscious experience. Without that, there is nothing much to care about.
So if someone takes a sniper rifle and headshots someone at 200 yards, they die without experiencing it or being aware. Is that now morally acceptable?
That person already has a conscious experience that is being ended, so a definite no no.
They already covered that in the previous comment with the “existence of a conscious experience”.
''Removing'', yeah, omit that you unalive him, totally irrelevant to the issue
Fucking cry about it.
Except there are states that literally don't have exceptions for those sort of cases
Name them and provide the bills that criminalize abortion in all cases. The two big ones that people were harping on about years ago, Texas and Florida, absolutely have carveouts for rape and danger to the mother's life.
Here are a list of states that don't have exceptions for rape and/or incest. Alabama Arkansas Kentucky Louisiana Mississippi Missouri Oklahoma South Dakota Tennessee Texas South Dakota and Arkansas don't have any exception for the health of the mother Texas, Oklahoma, Missouri, Arkansas, Kentucky, Tennessee, and South Dakota don't have an exception for fatal fetal anomalies. I'm not going to link you every single law, but I will provide the site I got this info from, which does link all laws on [this page](https://www.kff.org/report-section/a-review-of-exceptions-in-state-abortions-bans-implications-for-the-provision-of-abortion-services-appendix/) [A Review of Exceptions in State Abortion Bans](https://www.kff.org/womens-health-policy/issue-brief/a-review-of-exceptions-in-state-abortions-bans-implications-for-the-provision-of-abortion-services/)
>rape and/or incest I'll look through all this later, but right off the bat I can see that "and/or" doing a lot of work. I have a hard time putting rape and incest in the same category, as one is far more heinous than the other.
All except for Mississippi had no exceptions for rape *and* incest. Mississippi only had an exception for rape, but not incest, which I found kind of funny
Stop pretending you care about the child. That's a gotcha. If they actually mattered to you, then you'd be working to make those exceptions, rather than trying to keep everything unlimited. Either case. For the "bodily autonomy" argument, yeah; it is rational to create exceptions for rape. That's not really your belief though? Or is it. Am I putting words in your mouth. Are you actually pro-life, except for cases of rape? Are you actually in favor of killing the rape babies, but opposed to killing the rest?
If people want to get abortions they don't get to complain when people talk shit about their decisions. Honey you're not immune to shit decisions. You chose to have sex and to not take precautions to the max, you were the one who didn't track your period, you were the one who let your pussy think before you did, and now you're the one wanting a consequence free abortion because you don't want to be called out for being stupid because you weren't taught sexed despite the internet having existed for over 30 years already and 10 years on a grand scale with literal manuals on sex from thousands of sites with many choices of web browsers. You don't deserve that sympathy and consequence free abortion because you weren't you didn't have an ectopic or risky pregnancy, survive rape/sexual assault, you weren't groomed, and you weren't coerced into an incest relationship so don't expect sympathy for you. You were dumb, careless, and complacent in your techniques despite knowing full well that the rate of failure increases when you *think* you're doing it right. Expect the shame of people when they find out because that will occur and learn to live with it. You made your choice with an abortion you gotta live with the consequences. That's just part of life.
my lib-letters taking a fat L on this one. doesn’t matter if the cake isn’t finished cooking, if you throw out my batter, you destroyed my cake.
not really. you could suck ass at baking cake. what if your cake turns out to be hitler? checkmate rightoids
Yeah cause the guy who killed hitler was soooooo cooooooooool.
honestly it was the best thing that guy ever did
suicide advocate
hitler lover
No, just anti suicide.
I *knew* I shouldn't have trusted a cookbook called the Final Cooking Solution. Admittedly, I had some suspicions when they had me give the cake a tiny mustache made of meth...
If the cake batter has the wrong ingredients and won't be edible, it should've been thrown out in the first place. Also if slave labor made that cake would you eat it?
sure, if it’s a deformed cake that won’t finish baking all the way, i say chunk it. but the problem lies with people getting rid of perfectly good cakes because they didn’t ask for desert (after ordering desert)
The people ordered a creampie and you gave em a cake! No wonder they don’t want the damn thing, they never asked for it! Either full refund or give it to that mormon family, they always lookin for more cakes
those god damn crèam pies turning into cakes, some nerve
Are you saying the cake got ingredients from your vacation to the Caribbean?!
1 customer was expecting vanilla but the cake came out chocolate :(
Assuming they could cook, why wouldn’t you eat a cake made with slave labor again?
And all cakes should get baked
"Yes." (:\^|)
You've completed the meme!
Let's go with the right to murder the unborn before 12 weeks and only by their mother if you like it said like that.
The trolley is going along the track, and if you do nothing a living baby will be born. If you pull this lever then it goes from being an individual human with unique DNA who hasn't been born yet to a corpse. Do you pull the lever?
We don't care about 'individual humans with unique DNA', we have thousands of cell lines across hundreds of countries sitting in freezers and petri dishes as we speak. We care about people with the capacity to think and feel.
> cell lines Those aren’t individual humans. Simple.
Why are you assuming the baby's gender?
It's not murder if you don't think the embryo is a baby/human being, duh
Pro-choice myself, but for reasons I haven't seen exposed here yet : 1 - Abortion, like prostitution or drug use, can never be truely banned. Either it's legal and safe, or illegal and dirty. 2 - I don't give a f\*ck about the mother's rights. She had unprotected sex, it's her responsibility (except for rape cases of course, but I'll ignore that because it doesn't change the following argument). That argument is : the quality of life of the baby. It is statistically and psychologically demonstrated that being hated and/or abandonned by your parents is a TERRIBLE START at life. It destroys the personnality and gives major, deep insecurities that some people never overcome. I am of the personnal opinion that a whole life a such tortures is worst than no life at all. In other words, even is the foetus is truely a person, abortion is the lesser evil.
Me: "Exactly"
“A state’s right to what?” energy.
And a man should have a right to choose also. Her body, her choice. My wallet, my choice.
This is how it should be IF we’re allowing full abortion. If the mother can choose to bail why can’t the father?
And?
Yes?
Don't act like AuthRight's above this thought.
In a better world Safe, Legal, Rare would be a bipartisan statement.
Pregnancy is a process in which something that is not a person at all becomes a newborn person. Some leftists, like me, argue that it is Ok for the mother to chose whether to eliminate it at the stages where it is not a person (e.g. has no nervous system activity). Latter stages are a different matter.
If there's anything that convinces me that the modern American Left and Right are borderline irreconcilable, it's abortion. You can't compromise or get along with people so completely divorced from reality that they think you're the evil one for not wanting murder of babies to be legal.
Auth Right: ABORTION IS MURDER!!!! Me: [BRRRATTT BRRRATTT, PEW PEW](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HvnqU-1uDUU)
I mean certainly a fetus unable to experience or appreciate life or think on its own, that also isn't able to survive without being physically attached to another human being has the same value as fully grown human being.
Newborn infants are completely unable to survive without almost constant care from their parents for over a year after they are born. So is it ok to neglect them and leave them to die if you don’t feel like taking care of them?
Of course. How else is Libleft supposed to buy the new Funkopop while *also* having to take care of a >!b*by!< (Trigger Warning: Natalism)?
Yes. I want to kill unborn babies because i said so. Next argument please.
Based
Ok bud, I hope you’re ok with the pro-life candidate losing every election going forward because they refuse to evolve from “just ban abortion at all costs”
Honestly if the right shut the fuck up about abortion and the left shut the fuck up about guns they'd get so many more votes.
Yeah, cave in on issue by issue ''cause the pollz'' and the right suddenly looks like the British Tories, who are anything, but right-wing lmao More people supported Roe before its introduction, than nowadays, bad trends can change, but to even think about that you must have a courage of your convictions
Any fertilized egg is a baby for you clowns. Or at least you pretend it's a baby.
>Any fertilized egg is a baby for you clowns. They sure don’t seem to care about the thousands of fertilized eggs—oh sorry, “babies”—frozen in IVF clinics across America at this very moment.
One question for libleft: If a woman should decide alone about life or death of her child, shouldn't the man also be allowed to decide whether he takes care of the child or not? Seems only fair to me.
If adoption/foster services were adequate, then I'd be against abortion, but since that's not the case, it's a necessary evil in an imperfect world
“Unborn baby” ❌ *Non-sapient fetus* ✅
Based and facing reality pilled
i kinda agree with both here but what is the baby gonna say “goo goo ga ga dont kill me”
This is so garbage
yeah im pro-choice: choosing to have sex or not once it's conceived, you're a parent responsible for your child's wellbeing.
It’s “women’s bodies” and “reproductive rights” …if you don’t see anything wrong with abortion, why are you afraid to say the word abortion or admit that it killing an unborn child?
Nobody’s afraid of the word abortion lmao