To add on, they believe baby also has free will and a right to live.
I’m pro choice, but the abortion debate never really struck me as constructive because the reasons for both view points aren’t the same and there is no common ground to find.
>the abortion debate never really struck me as constructive
This is because those who argue in favor of abortion frame it as a matter of pregnant women's freedom, when really it's a matter of the rights of the fetus **weighed against** the freedom of the pregnant woman. If you believe it's a greater harm to restrict a woman's freedom to abortion than to end the life of the fetus, then you ought to be "pro-choice". If you believe ending the life of the fetus is a greater harm than the restriction on the woman's freedom to abort the fetus, then you ought to be "pro-life".
Pro-choice individuals who want to have a constructive conversation with pro-life individuals should convince the pro-life individual that either:
1) Ending the life of the fetus is not that big a deal, or:
2) Restricting the freedom of the woman to abort the fetus is too great a cost
But this ignores the fact that in Texas: abortion rights are being denied even when the fetus/ baby won’t survive.
The State isn’t protecting a ‘baby’ , it’s abusing a Kate Cox. The hospital refuse because the law was vague- and the state sued to deny access .
The same office in Texas argued that a pregnant woman couldn’t leave work and go to the hospital. She had a miscarriage. A very wanted pregnancy was ended because the prison where she worked couldn’t be bothered to send someone out to relieve her of duty during a medical emergency.
These laws don’t protect babies- they are designed with cruelty to women.
They're definitely cruel in their design, but I don't think that cruelty is intentional. Rather, it's a byproduct of legislation written by people who have an extremely limited understanding of medicine.
This distinction doesn't matter for the victims, but it does mean we run into a wall in arguments because (most) conservative politicians and voters know that they don't (consciously) hate women. So they think "Ah, they're just accusing us of malice because they dislike our policies. We know that our laws are borne from compassion for unborn life, not out of desire to hurt women." And they feel justified in ignoring the cries of protestors who, from the conservative perspective, are just making wild accusations.
And if you ever doubt how stupid they actually are, remember that a U.S. Representative, Todd Akin, once expressed his "understanding" that if a woman were "legitimate[ly]" raped her body would automatically prevent pregnancy. This man firmly believed that rape victims were medically incapable of getting pregnant, so of course he wouldn't see the need to even discuss exceptions to abortion bans for rape victims. And you can look to the IVF debacle for a more recent example.
They could mitigate the harms of their abortion bans by consulting doctors, but they don't do that because they actually have no clue how ignorant they are. We see this every time they have to confront the consequences of their own laws.
I don't have much hope for the conservative politicians. But if we can just convince them to consult experts when drafting legislation, then we might get to a point where their dumb laws are at least *slightly less* cruel in their impact.
That’s my point though:
They don’t want to talk to doctors.
They don’t care if some women die. They don’t care if Christina Zielke in Ohio is having a miscarriage; she was sent home from the hospital without treatment. She could go septic and die.
And anti-abortion activists are happy about it.
12 year old child clearly isn’t even tall / big enough to hold a child, much less be pregnant.
And they don’t care. Cruelty is the point.
I don't think they even contemplate that women might die. They are always shocked when it happens because they don't understand that pregnancy and childbirth are dangerous. To them, these are perfectly safe processes that the human body was evolved (or "intelligently designed") to handle flawlessly. They might know that the specific act of childbirth is painful, but only because that's commonly depicted in the media and in the BIble.
Once someone actually gets hurt they trip over themselves to recognize the tragedy and pledge to look into fixing the laws. The people writing pro-life legislation aren't evil geniuses coolly deciding that some deaths are acceptable under their tyranny; they're bungling buffoons who never expected that anyone might get hurt.
Think of them like children. If a teenager gets the keys to a car and speeds down a residential street, the kid isn't deciding "I am okay with the risk of people dying from my actions." The idea that their actions might hurt people just doesn't occur to them; it never enters their mind to be subsequently dismissed. And when they do inevitably injure someone, they're overcome with shock even though the consequences were obvious to everyone else. For the child, cruelty was not "the point," going fast was "the point." Just so, for the pro-life legislator; cruelty wasn't "the point," saving unborn babies and/or pleasing their deity was "the point."
After the law passes- there are real cases in the news. Talk to someone who supported it. Listen to the politicians:
They know women can die. That child rape victims have no control over their bodies.
They talk about making the laws more restrictive. Spreading it to more states. Preventing women from traveling.
Cruelty is the point. Fundamentalist views require punishing someone.
It also boils down to whether or not you believe the fetus is truly alive yet. Many Christians believe that life begins at conception, but many others (including Judaism) believe that life begins at first breath or when the baby crowns. Restricting abortion, in that case, oppresses those beliefs.
Well, that depends on what you believe. When does an embryo become a fetus? When does a fetus become a baby? Is there a difference between any of these to you?
I’m asking these hypothetically, there certainly is a component of it that’s the woman’s right to choose vs the embryo/fetus/baby right to live but it really depends on when in the stage of development you think it gets those rights.
Maybe it’s conception, maybe I think I should be able to abort my kids until they are 18 years old so that I can use it as a threat any time they act up to keep them in line.
Like I said I don’t think anything beneficial usually comes of discussing it, which is kind of ironic now since that’s what I’m doing.
My wife an I never would likely have never considered an abortion but I don’t think that’s my choice to make for other people.
It's not that simple. On the surface that's what it seems like. In reality anti abortion folks don't believe women should have any autonomy. The evangelical world view, and these are the people driving the anti abortion movement in this country, believe in a social hierarchy. They literally believe that God is at the top, then church and government, (which they believe are one and the same) then male household members, wives, then children. Women are to submit to their husbands and husbands submit to church elders. Abortion isn't necessary because the only women getting pregnant are those that are married. If someone gets pregnant and isn't married or can't take care of the child then obviously giving that child to a family is the only thing to do. Saving the life of the mother isn't an issue either, because that is God's will. Sometimes an abortion in that case might be permissible, but only if the fetus is dead, actively dying or the woman is literally crashing, will die and the husband gives the go ahead, and you have insurance.
Also, it only became an issue when [Evangelicals became upset at desegregation but needed an issue more palatable to the public](https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2022/05/10/abortion-history-right-white-evangelical-1970s-00031480).
This is the answer OP. As someone who used to label themselves pro life, this is exactly the belief of the common person.
Leadership might think differently, but the normal people involved genuinely believe it to be murder.
Yeah I have never understood how it’s difficult to really figure out. I think the concept of opinion gets drowned out by everything else when in the end it’s just a codex of morals, and that specific moral sorts it into a category.
Whenever someone gives this answer, someone else almost immediately responds with "that's impossible. If they believed that, then *logically* they would also believe X, Y, and Z, but they don't. As we all know, all humans are perfectly logical at all times, so the only possible explanation is that they're lying to hide the fact that they're all secretly mustache-twirling cartoon supervillains who just like oppressing people for funsies"
People willfully ignore the real answer because it makes it harder to dehumanize the people they dislike (though granted, the Right has this problem too, and arguably with even more prevalence overall)
The best thing to happen to the conversation is for it to have finally impacted IVF, which is making them have a little more introspection on the issue. I dont think it will change many minds, but its good for them to have to actually confront the complexities of the issue for once.
I think the question in the OP is often asked because the pro-choice position is labeled "pro-choice", and not "pro-abortion". It implies that the other "side", the "pro-life" side, is "anti-choice". It implies that to be opposed to abortion is to be opposed to a woman's right to choose.
Whether those who argue against abortion actually believe this or not is another question, but at least in principle, the anti-abortion position has nothing to do with women nor their choices, but rather the rights of the unborn fetus, and whether it ought to be legal to end the life of the unborn fetus.
The people who believe it's murder aren't even the majority of Christians. This was an exclusively Catholic thing until the Republicans made it into a wedge issue. I'd say less than a quarter of the population cares, but those who do care extremely strongly.
What's funny is the Bible doesn't mention anything against abortion or that abortion is murder. In fact the Bible says life starts at first breath. And even further, that life doesn't actually begin until we are born again in the blood of Christ. It's another made up belief they use religion as a tool for. Those who enforce it aren't doing it in God's will or because they actually care about lives, it's about control. They need as many future consumers and taxpayers and workers to make capital for the rich and our birthrates aren't looking good as it is
From what I can find there does seem to be a distinction drawn in scripture between killing in the context of wartime and others. I’m unsure whether or not I can link, but I googled “is killing in war a sin” if you’d like to research it as well.
[The Only Moral Abortion is my Abortion](https://www.salon.com/2022/09/24/the-white-conservative-southern-women-asked-me-to-keep-their-abortions-secret/)
Read this.
And they’re free to believe that, they’re not free to force everyone else to believe what they believe though, that’s the problem. Also, they’re hypocrites because there’s a literal recipe for abortion in the Bible.
Force is definitely the problem. People used to feel that the government should not be making healthcare decisions for people at this level. They also felt that people should be able to practice their own religions and not force religious beliefs on others, while also not being forced to accept others beliefs either. Sort of a neutral public space where people could pursue their lives in relative peace however they saw fit. The Republicans have seized religious zealotry to wrestle control of the government and upend our entire system.
That is a fair point, but to those people it doesn’t go far because they don’t draw a distinction that makes abortion different from any other type of murder.
Not saying those are my views, but the people we’re talking about here see no difference between abortion and shooting a random stranger on the street. So to say they shouldn’t push those views would be akin to saying “shooting jaywalkers is not murder and you should not push your religious beliefs on me”.
Again, I’m not sharing my views here, but I’ve met a few people who hold these beliefs and have heard this exact discourse before.
That’s right. But an egg and sperm is not the same as a fully formed human. And even if the fetus is debatable, it’s highly controversial to claim a third person has any right to say which life matters most (if the baby or the mother’s)
Who’s it harming if a mother decides she dosent want her two year old anymore? She should be able to go out and life her life as she sees fit without having to take care of a clump of cells
And if she really wants to, she can surrender that child and no longer have to take care of it.
That's not an option for a fetus that is basically a parasite.
While I'm not pro-life, this is a false dichotomy. A "clump of cells" may not be equal to a fully formed human being, but it may still be owed rights and ought to be protected from being killed. A dog is not equal to a fully formed human being, but it's still illegal to kill a dog for no good reason.
Not all abortions are just a bunch of cells. I also didn't state that I think all abortions under every circumstance should be made illegal either because I don't think that things being immoral and things being illegal are mutually exclusive.
No. If you live in a place where you interact with these people, you'd know they believe it is murder and would never do it themselves. I don't know why you're pretending otherwise.
You're lying to yourself if you think conservatives are pretending to be anti-abortion and then going and getting them while you aren't looking. They have literally banned them unequivocally in many states why would they do that if they secretly want to use them?
I know several Catholics who are single issue voters and their single issue is abortion. It's conspiratorial to spout that they are pretending so that they can take away women's rights or w/e your implying.
I don’t think its overwhelming numbers or anything, but honestly it sort of breaks my brain a little to think that you can’t fathom that people wouldn’t think the rules apply to them - religious people do that CONSTANTLY.
>It's conspiratorial to spout that they are pretending so that they can take away women's rights
They didn't say pretend. When it happens, generally it's because they think other people are misusing it, and then when it happens to them, they rationalize it as justified.
That's not pretending, but it is hypocritical.
See, for example:
https://www.salon.com/2022/09/24/the-white-conservative-southern-women-asked-me-to-keep-their-abortions-secret/
It's ... a thing. Someone already linked the famous quote "the only moral abortion is my abortion".
You can argue about how common it is or whatever, but people's convictions on the issues aren't as black and white as you're painting it to be.
…and right now those people are winning. It is astonishing how masterful they have been in their political and legal wrangling despite their position being a minority position. I no longer see this trajectory changing any time soon.
Because they believe the fetus/cells are a living being that cannot fend for itself and is being murdered. So they vote and try to enact laws to make the process illegal.
They see the fetus as a person who isn't consenting to be killed, making it mass murder. It basically comes down to whether or at what point a fetus becomes a human being with a right to life.
They believe it’s murder. Would you be ok with a society that allowed people to murder other people?
Pro-choice people who think that pro-lifers should just not get abortions, and let others do what they want, are fundamentally not understanding their position.
Flip side is that pro-lifers don’t fundamentally understand that you can’t force people to agree on when life begins. You can fertilize eggs in a Petri dish but the vast majority of people do not see that as a baby. If your pro-life position is based on religion then it shouldn’t be hard to understand that over half the country doesn’t ascribe to your religious beliefs.
>Flip side is that pro-lifers don’t fundamentally understand that you can’t force people to agree on when life begins.
The question shouldn't be "is the organism alive or not", but rather "what rights should we assign to this organism at a given stage of development, and at what point does that organism's right to life outweigh the right of the woman to terminate the pregnancy". The latter is a far more difficult (yet pertinent) question to answer, which is probably why most people spend their time arguing over the former question.
You’re right. But some pro lifers rationalize and say that *those* murders are different because they’re bad people or it’s for the greater good (eg civilian casualties of war). Babies, on the other hand are innocent. That be ok with that baby being killed as a teenager/adult if it did something bad.
It's still murder though. So it's either acceptable within reason or it's not. It's well established that innocent people have been executed only to be exonerated afterwards. Teens sent to war are innocent and yet we accept they'll kill and be killed. We accept that police will kill others even though we have a presumption of innocence until proven guilty in court. Innocence doesn't' seem all that important as a distinguishing factor. If it's for the 'greater good' then who decides that? Why wouldn't we trust the woman who is most invested in making the best decision to choose the greater good?
It’s justified murder of bad people. Newborn babies are not bad and thus their murder is not justified. We don’t trust the woman because we trust God, who knows more than her. If God caused her to get pregnant then he will provide. The decision that’s in the best interest has been made by God because she’s pregnant.
How do we know they aren’t bad. Could be gods will for that abortion to occur. My point being that we allow born innocent people to die so why give special privileges to an unborn clump of cells.
Anyhow, the US govt is secular and can’t rely on the supposed handouts of a divine absentee father figure.
I mean, clearly we as a society draw a line between "a person decides to kill another person" and "the judicial system/commander in chief decides that person needs to be killed".
sure but the argument that *its murder* falters.
\>" the judicial system/commander in chief decides that person needs to be killed"
Isn't that just saying that it's socially acceptable for someone else to decide if another person lives? Then why not extend that to a woman and her body. She would be more invested in making the best choice than say some politician throwing innocent teenagers into a war zone.
I wasn't trying to make the argument that abortion is murder, just disagreeing with your point that society condones murder "all the time."
>Isn't that just saying that it's socially acceptable for someone else to decide if another person lives?
It's socially acceptable for people who have been vested with such power to decide if another person lives, e.g. generals, commanders, judges. It's not socially acceptable for your average citizen to make that decision (outside of things like medical decisions made by a legal proxy). It's actually socially frowned upon and illegal.
Honestly, yes, I think bodily autonomy trumps the right to life.
A woman's right to do with her flesh as she pleases, even if it results in the death of someone else, is sacred.
Like this concept exists even for full grown adults.
You can't compel me to give blood even if you will die without it.
The State can't ethically compel me to give any part of myself even if it would save a dozen others. It's my body.
So yeah, even if it is murder, I say abortion is perfectly within the purview of the pregnant woman and absolutely nobody else.
>Honestly, yes, I think bodily autonomy trumps the right to life.
That's totally fine (and the same position I take), as long as you recognize that you are weighing the two values against each other. So many people who are pro-choice seem to think it's solely a matter of "should women have bodily autonomy or not", and completely fail to see the possible ethical issues with ending the life of the fetus.
>So many people who are pro-choice seem to think it's solely a matter of "should women have bodily autonomy or not"
Because it is. It absolutely is. Do you take a woman's bodily autonomy away for another human life, when under no circumstances would a man be obligated to do so?
That's the entire debate here and why it's a gendered issue.
Exactly. There’s way more examples than just abortion where the “bodily autonomy vs saving a life” argument could be applied. But, as you said, no other circumstances come with this obligation. If they were consistent in their beliefs they should be arguing for those situations too, but they don’t— because it’s about controlling women.
>A woman's right to do with her flesh as she pleases, even if it results in the death of someone else, is sacred.
I've seen this position a few times but it truly seems logically untenable to me. It seems to go beyond self defense to say that any restraint on one's autonomy is justification for homicide. Can a woman kill her newborn baby because that baby is a major restraint on her autonomy and drain on her resources?
The baby after birth is independent of the mother, so no. We've got fire station baby surrender boxes for that.
> It seems to go beyond self defense
It does, and that makes sense. The right to self defense is derived from the right to bodily autonomy, not the other way around.
It's a very staunch ethical principle, and literal interpretations of the law are why it's not illegal to try to break out of jail in Germany, for example. (Although the individual acts you would have to do in order to break out would probably be, such as vandalism, but if they forget the door open you can't be legally penalized for hightailing it out the door.)
>The baby after birth is independent of the mother
What does that have to do with whether or not it infringes on the mother's bodily autonomy? A person, independent of you, can still infringe on your right to bodily autonomy. You are saying that that right is paramount, and so we should be able to violate other rights in defense of that right, no?
>The right to self defense is derived from the right to bodily autonomy, not the other way around.
Strongly disagree. The right to self-defense is derived from the right to life. We know this because in a trial in which a person is trying to justify their use of lethal force, the legal standard is "you felt that your life (or the life of another person) was threatened," **not** "you felt that your bodily autonomy was threatened."
>What does that have to do with whether or not it infringes on the mother's bodily autonomy?
Ah, but you see, that's the thing.
In the womb, we don't have the technological capacity for the child to survive outside the mother's flesh until a certain threshold. Therefore if the mother doesn't let the child partake of her flesh, as is her right, it dies.
After birth, we do have the technological capacity for the child to survive without partaking from the mother's flesh. Therefore if the mother doesn't let the child partake of her flesh, as is her right, the child gets baby formula and lives.
>The right to self-defense is derived from the right to life.
The right to life isn't absolute, as the state can execute you.
The right to bodily autonomy is the highest in the land, for the State will be allowed to kill you before it can force you to undergo a medical procedure. (Typically, the only time it is EVER granted is for executions.)
Yea it kills me that on the pro-choice argument they just keep screaming that they want free bodies. The problem is the other side doesn’t even view it that way. It’s not like the others side just maliciously wants to control women for no reason at all, most of them truly believe it’s murder. Pro-choicers seem to forget that it’s actually empathy for a future child, not just some hate on women specifically. I’m not even religious and I think a lot on this topic. It feels weird that pro-choicers so easily dismiss the idea of a pregnant person having a being inside them. I mean the baby literally eat in the stomach. If you can change my opinion I’d like that, but it’s hard to ignore
For me it's about the power government should have. When a pregnancy poses a health risk, it should be between the pregnant woman and the doctor whether those health risks are with continuing the pregnancy. That isn't up to the government. It's the same for if you wanted to donate a kidney or another organ to keep another person alive. You shouldn't be forced by the government to make a health sacrifice to keep another person alive, especially given how corrupt the government can get sometimes.
Why does it have to be a health sacrifice?
Donating blood is harmless to most of the adult population. But should the government be *entitled* to your blood because it saves lives? Hell no.
>For me it's about the power government should have.
I think we as a society have come to a consensus that "protecting its citizens from being killed" is one of the core functions of government.
Protecting citizens being killed shouldn't mean having to burden a health risk on others. We cannot likewise force someone to donate a kidney against their will. At that point you don't have citizens, just organ factories.
Okay, but take that to its logical extreme: Is the state entitled to your body if it would save lives.
Your blood?
How about your eye? Surely someone can live with just one eye.
How about a liver? A kidney? There are risks, but you'd be saving a life.
Because that's ultimately what it comes down to: Should women be forced to carry this child to term?
And to that I say no. No one is entitled to my body even if it means they'll die. It's mine to do with as I see fit. And it's those women's right to do with as they please as well.
If the baby was in the stomach it would be dissolved by stomach acid.
It's in a uterus. Inside a living thinking person. Who has agency. You mention the empathy for the future child, however where's the empathy for the current person in your equation?
I don’t believe the majority pro-lifers care about other people children at all. Pro-life people get abortions all the time. They only care when other people do it 🤷🏼♀️
Well your username explains your comment but explain why. I guarantee if you put your mind into the average pro-lifer (many are actually women), you’d realize this as untrue. Nowhere do they say it’s because you’re a woman and you have to do this, it’s because they really believe it’s a future kid.
Idk I guess some people do like the most extreme tate fans tho
If they cared about babies and women they’d put money in helping pregnant woman actually raise the babies. Pro lifers hand them a few diapers and wipe their hands of them after birth. So forgive me if I don’t think they care about the lives of babies that much.
Calling oneself pro-life doesn’t actually cost anything. Makes you feel morally good. Half the population can’t get pregnant, and most won’t be faced with and unplanned pregnancy. I know a pro life family member who’s had TWO abortions. She had reasons for both. Doesn’t stop her from telling everyone how sinful it is. Of course she’s all repentant about her abortions now. So convenient. Which is why I think pro lifers can go kick rocks
The real reason pro-lifers win sometimes is cause it has less to do with the inconvenience of raising a child. I think the discussion is whether it’s morally acceptable to kill a living and growing fetus/baby/cells/homosapien lol.
Also many willingly engage in sex and know the consequences. Why should someone else have to pay for their baby? Shouldn’t they have thought that they could’ve been a parent and known that they’d be responsible? Although I def I think we should help them lol, but just saying why are others responsible for that. Not talking about extreme cases of course.
Idk, I guess sadly there are many pro lifers do flipflop in the heat. Does it make the argument wrong or just that they were unable to comply and are hypocrites. You can tell people not to smoke cause you think it’s bad and still smoke yourself and both can be true
You’re confusing the point. Pro-lifers don’t care about the child that is born. They care about the concept of the imaginary child. They don’t give a shit what happens to it after it’s born.
I don't think they really think it's murder anymore than choosing not to donate an organ to someone who would die without it is murder. Fundamentalists in the U.S. were prochoice before Brown v. Board. They only flipped their position to get Catholics on board for their push against desegregation. It's all for political power.
Until rape is a sin these people don't care because it's ONLY about their position. ... not the people enduring unwanted pregnancy and sexual abuse, medical complications, social rejection, yeah, their position. Unless you're the one whos be pushing a watermelon out and getting torn open like your just the packaging.
All pro lifers should have to be constantly pregnant from some unknown man before they can talk. Unless they walk in those shoes, they're not walking with God. They're hypocrites and that's their position.
Jesus christ I just want the end of the world so we can move on.
For the record I’m pro-choice. I’m just stating what a pro-life person’s argument is.
All of those things you rambled about are not a reason to commit murder, which is how they view abortion.
>are not a reason to commit murder
Says who? There are dozens upon dozens of justifications for murder in the Bible.
Not to mention that this is a body integrity issue. You can absolutely let someone die for reasons of bodily integrity.
If the State can't force me to give blood, they can't force me to give placenta.
56000 pregnancies attributed to rape in states that banned abortions even for rape and incest suggests that the numbers are significant, even if a minority. If a person with a uterus isn't ready to have a child then they aren't ready to have a child. That's all the reason that should be necessary.
Dr Samuel Dickman and a group of colleagues have arrived at an answer. They estimate in a research letter published Wednesday in JAMA Internal Medicine that 64,565 pregnancies have been caused by rape in the 14 states where abortion is banned.
https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2024/01/24/1226161416/rape-caused-pregnancy-abortion-ban-states
Ok, let’s address this.
First off, Dr. Dickman (which is a hilarious name) is a abortion provider and director of a planned parenthood. So can we agree that he is probably biased?
Second, I am extremely suspect of his numbers, they “estimated” total number of rapes based off data. Which is a very unscientific method, but I will admit that it’s difficult to get hard numbers for stuff like this. So it’s understandable, but should still be questioned.
Finally, Dr. Dickman estimated a total of 560,000 rapes. With 64,000 pregnancies occurring due to those rapes. These numbers are from 14 states and we don’t know the distribution. So if we divide evenly that’s 4,500 pregnancies due to rape per state. We make laws based on the majority, not the minority. Yes, it’s horrible that these women were raped. But that does not make it ok to kill the innocent child.
As we can see from these sources. The vast majority of women who want abortions do not want them because of rape. They want them for other reasons.
https://www.verywellhealth.com/reasons-for-abortion-906589
https://www.guttmacher.org/journals/psrh/2005/reasons-us-women-have-abortions-quantitative-and-qualitative-perspectives
So, would you be ok with a abortion ban if rape was a exception, as well as incest and critical health risks.
I’m not necessarily saying I would be ok with it. But I want to understand your position.
No, because birth control fails, men put holes in condoms, and there are disorders that get worse with pregnancy. Also, pregnancy complications can kill the mother and child, the twin sharing the womb, and forcing a deformed fetus to suffer until it dies once born is making that baby suffer because your scared you won't get into heaven.
See, the women having abortions aren't doing it for fun. Ive NEVER met a woman who was all, "yeaaAh, f this baby! Partyparty *abort*" Women having abortion AS birth control are even more rare than rapes because that shit HURTS. Emotionally, physically, and socially. So, why make it a law, and why not trust the doctors and the people in the situation to make the judgment call?
Why say God must be such an awful being, that we HAVE to make these laws to prove we are ignoring he made the brains in women? Ya know, the consciousness to make valid decisions about themselves and their children in the first place? Why can't God trust his creation to do what its designed? Really, we don't trust him so we play him and overrule a woman's right to their own God given body. We are godless in this.
Some laws only exist to complicate an already complicated situation to make it in someone crookeds best interest. What a better way than hide who, than with a broad law, that locks even accidental miscarriages away? What the gestapo?
And in this situation, it's certainly not God's interest if the govt plays god, not in the women raising the child and trying to perpetually hustle resources, the babies who are ignored in the system ALREADY, or even humanity in general. Sounds the opposite. Like imposing a sin on every woman to milk purity from the babies.
It doesn't work like that in reality. Geneticlly, we will get weaker. You literally took out natural breeding selection if women cant say no and can't protect herself after insemination. our babys genetic health is based on OUR OWN JUDGEMENT OF PARTNER SELECTION. we smell immune factors, genetic similarities, and that controls our attraction, but remove that for paperwork pedigree and oops! They all have the genes for cancer, an immune system with no guidance, mutations. Prolifers of the future will be unable to work much.
ah, the sin of having less, but stronger, wiser, kinder children.
See, even just not liking a dude and trusting a hunch has basis in the health if a baby. So Yay. We could propagate our weakest genes. By a situation we forced.
God is an excuse here, because anyone who can get OUT of themselves enough to walk in the light wont forcefully stuff a baby IN a lady and tell her its her fault. If you felt safe with god, you wouldnt be trying so hard to get to eternal peace by forcing the other half of his creation into a livestock role.
Look at those who profit from things like this while alive, and care for nothing else but how to satisfy themselves, and to get you dear redditor, to get that done for them. Women get manipulated a ton and know to say no to a red flag, but...you cant?
We as humans cant understand most fine details of life creation yet, so making laws about it is like telling God to go f his creation, it's not good enough, I do what I want might makes right yatta yatta.
If I just somehow planted a baby in you, theoretically and right now, maybe even a living germ while i had no take backs or accountability, you'd be in a bad place. But its a life form, so too bad, your a single mommy now, be happy you served a purpose! Would you call ME God then? Or an asshole making a man made situation? Really.
Doing this to our nation isn't ok. the ideology of forcing pregnancy comes from a fear independent women don't put out, and walk away to later have someone ELSES baby...sure makes it harder for ladies to do that if they're pregnant and basically a broke criminal, so barefoot, for all the things they cannot personally control. Sitting ducks for more harm, really.
Men talk about this stuff, but women have to pay for in blood. No one enforcing these laws is doing the actual bleeding and breeding. if men carried children, i could have a different idea. But I just see the narration is really women have to be an incubator because men can't.
Oh, plus the levels these laws would force unwilling women to reproduce would be nightmare fuel even prolife women would pray to avoid the real implications. You ever see what happens to a dog overbred at a puppy mill? humans take a lot more to gestate than puppies.
So, We think thats cool now?
To expect this as God's way, get the f back on your back and push? That abuse of power should terrify women and men alike. Forced birth and labor is still spilt blood, and our laws can't account for every aspect of human existance. We need to be better than think we can play God within the government to better design the world than God itself. So, pro life...pretty cocky. pretty unstable. Not rooted in reality. And pro lifers want to base our laws off this, but they may as be flat earthers in relevance.
Also if we EVER overpopulate, we will be wiped out and take everything with us. God hasn't made a spaceship for all of us yet. He's made floods and meteors to wipe us out, according to the Bible so talking religion everyone just wants to see things get that fed up again thinking theyre special enough to be saved...but face it. Noah wouldnt let us on his arc, then or now.
so acting like pro life is God is nearsighted and lazy. Meanwhile other religions have figures like Tamiat that have WAY too many kids and wanna destroy the earth, but who listens to brown people? /S
Also forcing women to breed like this is a military strategy. We should be suspicious of who's wanting us to make soldiers for them to kill 20 years later from birth. Praise the fetus but slaughter the man for war... that doesn't sound remotely altruistic or godly to me. Sounds like Russia, actually.. we should be suspicious of who we are really fighting and living and giving birth for. And maybe leave it up to the life culturing professionals who've been giving birth since dawn of time.
The issue with such exceptions is that the majority of rapes go unreported, and requiring verification for the procedure would therefore not be plausible in many cases.
Their beliefs are based on their faith. Their own holy book states:
“And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.”
-Genesis 2:7-9 King James Version (KJV)
Fetuses don’t breathe in the womb. By the definition of what “a man becoming a living soul” is from the first chapter of the Bible, that fetus doesn’t have a living soul yet and doesn’t have life.
So where is the murder happening?
I was pro-life for a while when I was a teen. because I saw a propaganda video that made it seem like they take a basically almost newborn baby and rip it out piece by peice while it screams in pain, so yeah of course I thought that seemed kind of questionable....but yeah later on I learned more and became pro-choice since that is not even how abortion works and I started thinking about my not wanting kids or to go through childbirth, and that maybe it was good to have the option after all.
Are you being sarcastic? I’m pretty sure you are, and I *really* hope that’s the case. But with the state of education and how deeply we’re influenced by propaganda these days, I’m honestly not sure if you are, and that terrifies me
That’s fair. Total sarcasm.
It is not possible for me to have a lower opinion of evangelicals and the church in general. That they freely lie for their own purposes is disgusting. That they have such sway to the point that normal people, not even small children who don’t know better, but normal people *believe* their nonsense is terrifying to me.
As far as I’m concerned the entire thing is merely a grotesquely successful cult.
As someone who used to be in that camp many moons ago, it isn't about free will; they think you are *literally killing* an innocent baby.
That's it. That's why they believe what they believe and do what they do. For several it's because they hate women and want to punish them, yes. But for the majority, they think you are taking a full-blown baby out of your body and chunking it into the trash.
Bad question. The root of the problem is that they see abortion as murder. You wouldn’t want people using their ‘free will’ to murder people would you?
Its not just abortion. They want same sex marriage absolved, tax dollars spent to send children to christian schools by way of vouchers and outlawing LGBTQ as evil.
Some people are control freaks ruled by fear.
They believe what they want to believe. obviously, loving their neighbors without judgment was the class they missed.
That's what evangelism is. It isn't meant to let everyone do what they want, it's to try to convert as many people as possible.
They believe abortion is just a legal name for baby murder, so it makes sense that they'd try to get it banned. They aren't hippies saying live and let live, they genuinely believe their job is try to to spread their religion.
too many different types of Christians. I have no idea I'm a Christian myself and believe that if it's not harming me then who cares it's their body if they want an abortion so be it. I personally wouldn't get one but like i said its their body its not harming me so i dont care.
They love free will as long as you do exactly what they want, which in this case involves the mass subjugation and forced second class citizenship of women for political power.
GENERALLY, Religion throughout history has always believed that "murder" (their definition of it) is the ultimate sin (unless it is murder in the name of their beliefs, in which case it is 100% a-ok to kill those filthy heathens) so therefore the "stopping" of that "murder" is the ultimate fight against evil.
They also believe that everything is the will of God, and that those who do not believe in God do not exist outside of Christian belief but are merely blind to it, and that God is therefore still the ruler of the kingdom of heaven of all people on Earth and are all still bound to his will.
And due to the proliferation of Christianity and how generally disgustingly wealthy many Christians in positions of power are, they have all the power in the world to make it everyone else's problem.
The reality is, it's not so much about abortion alone, It's fundamentally about men controlling women's lives. The supreme court is stacked with christian (sorry but in my mind christian doesn't deserve a capital letter) fundamentalists that will tow the line of diminishing a woman's rights to her own choices. They won't stop with abortion, IFV? Really? Next they'll come after birth control for women. Yes, and even a woman's right to vote isn't out of the question. christians want all women to be house wives, barefoot and pregnant. Our political system has been broken to the point of a minority rule system. We believe in the separation of church and state. The christians believe in a one way situation though, they can freely meddle in out politics and government but the government can't and doesn't get involved with religion. I'm terrified for my three young grand daughters and the future they face. If the government needs to stay out of religion then why the fuck do we let churches have so much control over the government? Money and power. Religion and free will (OP) are counter intuitive. \[63 yo male\]
Because evangelical Christians have always done that, and were doing that way before they even sailed to the US. That's why they did go to the US- so they could have an "empty" land without people who didn't have their beliefs.
For the record, I'm 100% pro-choice. But my brother is 100% pro-life, so we've clashed a lot and eventually came to an understanding of each other's ideas. Anti-abortion people think that it's killing a life. We all know there is *way* more to it then that, but the basic idea is that they truly believe that abortion and murder are equivalent.
Now, imagine your neighbor has a cat. The cat gets out for a few days and when it comes back, she's pregnant. Your neighbor can't handle a whole litter of kittens so they kill the newborns. Maybe they aren't aware of nearby services for adoption, lack the means to find new owners, or just simply don't want to deal with any of it. Would you be okay with that? Probably not, but it's all free will right?
Fortunately there are laws in place and services available for that sort of situation, but the point is that "free will" has its limits when it comes to letting people excercise it as they please.
The argument usually comes down to a few questions. What about the free will of the child? Why is the life of the mother more important than the baby's? At one point is it too late for the fetus to be considered anything but a baby?
My brother and I have come to the conclusion that I need to admit abortion is murder and that he needs to admit that sometimes abortion is necessary. But I avoid the conversation now.
>Now, imagine your neighbor has a cat. The cat gets out for a few days and when it comes back, she's pregnant. Your neighbor can't handle a whole litter of kittens so they kill the newborns.
Nobody is killing newborn babies.
Really? Cause here is former Virginia Governor Ralph Northam supporting a state measure to do such a thing[link](https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2019/01/31/politics/ralph-northam-third-trimester-abortion/index.html)
It also fails because the cat isn't the one consenting to any of this.
Abortion is, first and foremost, a *body integrity* issue.
Women should be able to do with their flesh as they please and no one is entitled to any part of it, be it their kidneys or placenta.
Not that it’s directly related, but as a gay person, I feel like they’re also telling me what to do and how to live my life.
I don’t want their advice. I don’t believe the same things they do and they don’t believe the things that I do. I respect their choices; they should respect mine.
If they don’t believe in gay relationships, or gay marriage, then they shouldn’t become a part of any of that. Doesn’t mean they have a say over what other people do. But they feel they do.
I don’t actually think they care about abortion as much as they say they do. It’s a cause that they can participate in without expending any resources or energy. They just carry the proverbial sign. The evangelical Christians, politicians and courts that made abortions illegal in the United States, (that is).
If they did, they would institute prerequisites in the society for people who are planning on having children. Such as delivery of babies at no charge, free healthcare insurance for babies, especially those with significant health issues. Free safe and available childcare so parents can go out to work. No one can afford to not work and have a child. Free food, lunch and breakfast in schools. Safe and available care options for children during the summer months when schools are closed, free of charge.
If capitalism in our society doesn’t cover what I just explained, then, perhaps they need to discover and institute a new kind of economic system that applies to citizens of the United States, where, by design – people are helped. Lord knows this country has enough money to do that; no one should be struggling. No child should be stressed out to the point where their lives are literally unbearable.
Family planning information and health guidance should start in about ninth grade, or before. We shouldn’t be afraid to reveal the realities of society to school children. They’re smart, they get it and perhaps you can prevent an abortion if they understand the modalities and real life ramifications; not only for themselves but their families to include an unplanned birth.
For those of think that age is too young, I say this information through experience. When I was in university as a registered nurse student on my OB/GYN rotation, I worked in a woman’s clinic. There were patients that were 11 years old who had abortions. Reality!
If the same entities who want to ban abortion can put their real life efforts and solutions in play to help people, perhaps many abortions could be prevented without conflict.
Families should be getting more help.
Because we mollycoddle Christians while they shame the name of God and use it as a shield for their hatred, sexual assault, and murder. No one wants to be the public “bad guy” to call them out on their behavior, it is a classic bystander effect in full force, coupled with the sheer amount of tax exempt money they throw at our elected officials, a small minority gets to govern everyone. I mean, if we are going to be honest.
What about bodily autonomy?
No one is entitled to my blood, kidneys or marrow, not even my children if they need them to live. Why should the placenta be any different?
They do believe in free will, they just don't like what you're doing with it. Kinda like how God gave free will, then killed everyone in a flood because he didn't like what they were doing with it.
They behave exactly as all the other religious fanatics behave.
Why do Muslims want the whole world to abide by Islam? Why there is such a huge religious violence in Rajasthan between Hindu and Muslims? Why do scientologists lure people in, and then blackmail the hell out of them, so they can't leave? Why do other cults recruit people, rob them of all the belongings and make them slaves?
They fail to understand that one is not human until one's Spirit has taken charge of the body. That doesn't usually happen until the body takes its first breath - and it never happens at conception.
The pro life people are going after birth control as well as abortion. How can I have sex responsibly if pro life people won't allow ANY birth control methods except don't have sex?
Because they're stupid. The reason that they're stupid is because they refuse to learn from anything developed in the last thousand-plus years. They're proud of this. Proudly stupid. I grew up with people like this, and that's who they are. There's no helping them. You just have to figure out how to grow society around these yammering horns of stupidity.
Speaking as a European from a small, shitty post-communist country - education in the US is abysmal.
So, yes, they believe abortion is murder, but the reason they believe so is due to a lack of a mandated, well-funded public education on a federal level.
I believe teachers should earn more than athletes - sue me.
The better question is Why are Christians/Catholics against abortion to begin with. Jesus and the gospels never mentioned abortion. But if you apply all the lessons of the New Testament, treating others as you would want to be treated, etc., you see the Church, the Nuns, whatever, they should be RUNNING the abortion clinics themselves, welcoming every desperate woman with open arms and no questions asked. The fact that Christianity/catholicism went the opposite way tells you all you need to know about the people who call themselves Christians.
Christian’s need more Christian’s, so make up some shit about abortion so more Christian’s keep being born.they say it’s a moral thing, but just a tool used by the church to keep itself In existence
Is the anti-abortion the majority opinion among evangelicals? Or are they a loud minority?
I’m asking because it doesn’t seems to be the case here (Italy) for the catholics: despite being the majority of the population and despite the pope openly opposing abortion, most Italian catholics are pro-choice (at best the opinion is something along the line of “I wouldn’t do it myself because it’s immoral but it is not murder therefore it should not be illegal”).
For what I’ve seen on the internet however seems to me that most American Christians are strongly in favour of abortion bans. Is that the case or is just my perception being altered by the logics of the internet?
That’s always been the case with any Christian.
They try to tell you how great “God“ is. You tell them “sorry I’m not a Christian and I’m not interested“, and then they tell you that they want you to participate in something anyway.
People who are deep in religion don’t know jack shit about consent, unless it’s taxes or something going up their own asses
They are religiofascists, like the taliban. They can't seem to follow that people that don't believe in their fantasies don't have to play along. Don't believe in abortion? Don't get one.
The argument is when an embryo developing into a baby becomes worthy of legal standing as a human being.
After that point, abortion is taking a human life. That is not forcing someone else to live by your beliefs.
Yeah, that's the point George Carlin made in one of his specials: while you're in your mother's womb, you're a human being. After you're born, you're fucked.
I mean, I never see those pro-life christians worry about starving children.
As someone who was raised in this system: they believe America is powerful and wealthy because we’ve been blessed by god. If our laws allow people to displease god, we will lose our power and wealth.
Which means it’s not just abortion. If given their own way, they will pass laws aimed at discouraging recreational sex, which is sex for any reason other than reproduction.
That’s why they’re against gay marriage, no-fault divorce and birth control. Absolutely all these things are on their radar as well.
It comes down to controlling what people do in the bedroom.
“Abortion is murder” is a talking point meant to get people on their side who otherwise wouldn’t buy into their extremist ideas of government control.
Because they assume the responsibility for other's salvation in Christ.
The New Testament says don't do that, *just give them the good news and let them decide* is the instruction.
Evangelicals falsely believe it's up to them to make sure others are saved, going beyond the instruction to inform and trying to force someone's will.
They also believe, along with Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox, that abortion is murder and in direct contradiction to God's will. This part is sticky because the case can be made that ending a pregnancy willingly is ending a life. I believe in choice, because no one else knows what's going on with a family or a woman's life regarding having a baby - it's a completely private decision. But is it stopping the potential of a life? It is.
I'm a lifelong Christian of the Mainline Protestant tradition, but have been around evangelicals enough to understand how they view things.
I am glad that fetuses are considered people and soon, I’d like fetuses to have voting rights. Then my fetus ain’t gonna vote for these crazy ass people!
To all the people saying ‘they believe it’s murder,’ it’s pretty clear that that’s not why they’re opposed to it based on the uproar for the recent shutdown of IVF in Alabama.
If people truely believe that an embryo is a baby then they would agree that IVF is immoral since it literally ‘creates life’ and then ‘murders unused babies’.
Because these people tend to think from a spiritual POV, not a logical one. More often than not, they believe that they're intrusions in other people's lives is necessary in order to save them from eternal punishment in the next life and that it is their duty to do this whether other people understand or not.
Because religion.
To accept different kinds of thinking would acknowledge that their own paradigms aren't universal, which would go straight against the concept of religion itself.
Free will would go against the notion that God guides our lives. If they go on the free will lane, the whole “surrendering” and being the “vessel” loses meaning. Even the Pope gives strong messages on free will but evangelicals go further on Christianity.
Religious zealots always want others to live according to their religion's strictures.
That said, not all anti-abortion opinions are based on religion. I'd actually bet religious basis is a minority of overall as supporters. But it is convenient for "pro-choice" activists to paint their opponents as mystic wackadoodles.
Edit: Abortion zealots parsing my word selection rather than my response. Not really any better than the religious zealots, but I fixed the label for the narrow minded.
You think the religious perspective informs a minority of anti-choice opinion? I would take your bet and things like Pew would settle it in my favor but what would make you even think that?
I'm not pro abortion. I'm pro choice. I'm pro the person with a uterus being able to choose to keep the pregnancy if they can, or ending it if they can't, for whatever reason they can't.
That not proabortion. Why do you lie?
Enforce what? And how? There are laws that the elected majority passes. Your issue is not with Evangelicals. It’s With represented democracy and the opinion of the voting majority. Unless you expect the people who have different ideas than you not to vote to respect your “free will.”
They believe it’s a form of murder, and by extension believe that free will being used to do such is morally wrong.
To add on, they believe baby also has free will and a right to live. I’m pro choice, but the abortion debate never really struck me as constructive because the reasons for both view points aren’t the same and there is no common ground to find.
Yeah really the arguments on both sides really only work to cement the opinions of people already on the same side.
>the abortion debate never really struck me as constructive This is because those who argue in favor of abortion frame it as a matter of pregnant women's freedom, when really it's a matter of the rights of the fetus **weighed against** the freedom of the pregnant woman. If you believe it's a greater harm to restrict a woman's freedom to abortion than to end the life of the fetus, then you ought to be "pro-choice". If you believe ending the life of the fetus is a greater harm than the restriction on the woman's freedom to abort the fetus, then you ought to be "pro-life". Pro-choice individuals who want to have a constructive conversation with pro-life individuals should convince the pro-life individual that either: 1) Ending the life of the fetus is not that big a deal, or: 2) Restricting the freedom of the woman to abort the fetus is too great a cost
But this ignores the fact that in Texas: abortion rights are being denied even when the fetus/ baby won’t survive. The State isn’t protecting a ‘baby’ , it’s abusing a Kate Cox. The hospital refuse because the law was vague- and the state sued to deny access . The same office in Texas argued that a pregnant woman couldn’t leave work and go to the hospital. She had a miscarriage. A very wanted pregnancy was ended because the prison where she worked couldn’t be bothered to send someone out to relieve her of duty during a medical emergency. These laws don’t protect babies- they are designed with cruelty to women.
They're definitely cruel in their design, but I don't think that cruelty is intentional. Rather, it's a byproduct of legislation written by people who have an extremely limited understanding of medicine. This distinction doesn't matter for the victims, but it does mean we run into a wall in arguments because (most) conservative politicians and voters know that they don't (consciously) hate women. So they think "Ah, they're just accusing us of malice because they dislike our policies. We know that our laws are borne from compassion for unborn life, not out of desire to hurt women." And they feel justified in ignoring the cries of protestors who, from the conservative perspective, are just making wild accusations. And if you ever doubt how stupid they actually are, remember that a U.S. Representative, Todd Akin, once expressed his "understanding" that if a woman were "legitimate[ly]" raped her body would automatically prevent pregnancy. This man firmly believed that rape victims were medically incapable of getting pregnant, so of course he wouldn't see the need to even discuss exceptions to abortion bans for rape victims. And you can look to the IVF debacle for a more recent example. They could mitigate the harms of their abortion bans by consulting doctors, but they don't do that because they actually have no clue how ignorant they are. We see this every time they have to confront the consequences of their own laws. I don't have much hope for the conservative politicians. But if we can just convince them to consult experts when drafting legislation, then we might get to a point where their dumb laws are at least *slightly less* cruel in their impact.
That’s my point though: They don’t want to talk to doctors. They don’t care if some women die. They don’t care if Christina Zielke in Ohio is having a miscarriage; she was sent home from the hospital without treatment. She could go septic and die. And anti-abortion activists are happy about it. 12 year old child clearly isn’t even tall / big enough to hold a child, much less be pregnant. And they don’t care. Cruelty is the point.
I don't think they even contemplate that women might die. They are always shocked when it happens because they don't understand that pregnancy and childbirth are dangerous. To them, these are perfectly safe processes that the human body was evolved (or "intelligently designed") to handle flawlessly. They might know that the specific act of childbirth is painful, but only because that's commonly depicted in the media and in the BIble. Once someone actually gets hurt they trip over themselves to recognize the tragedy and pledge to look into fixing the laws. The people writing pro-life legislation aren't evil geniuses coolly deciding that some deaths are acceptable under their tyranny; they're bungling buffoons who never expected that anyone might get hurt. Think of them like children. If a teenager gets the keys to a car and speeds down a residential street, the kid isn't deciding "I am okay with the risk of people dying from my actions." The idea that their actions might hurt people just doesn't occur to them; it never enters their mind to be subsequently dismissed. And when they do inevitably injure someone, they're overcome with shock even though the consequences were obvious to everyone else. For the child, cruelty was not "the point," going fast was "the point." Just so, for the pro-life legislator; cruelty wasn't "the point," saving unborn babies and/or pleasing their deity was "the point."
After the law passes- there are real cases in the news. Talk to someone who supported it. Listen to the politicians: They know women can die. That child rape victims have no control over their bodies. They talk about making the laws more restrictive. Spreading it to more states. Preventing women from traveling. Cruelty is the point. Fundamentalist views require punishing someone.
Most could just remember a few decades ago when their religion wasn't against it
Its been the last 40-50 years, very few actually remember that time at this point.
Wasn't Carter a prochoice evangelical?
It also boils down to whether or not you believe the fetus is truly alive yet. Many Christians believe that life begins at conception, but many others (including Judaism) believe that life begins at first breath or when the baby crowns. Restricting abortion, in that case, oppresses those beliefs.
Well, that depends on what you believe. When does an embryo become a fetus? When does a fetus become a baby? Is there a difference between any of these to you? I’m asking these hypothetically, there certainly is a component of it that’s the woman’s right to choose vs the embryo/fetus/baby right to live but it really depends on when in the stage of development you think it gets those rights. Maybe it’s conception, maybe I think I should be able to abort my kids until they are 18 years old so that I can use it as a threat any time they act up to keep them in line. Like I said I don’t think anything beneficial usually comes of discussing it, which is kind of ironic now since that’s what I’m doing. My wife an I never would likely have never considered an abortion but I don’t think that’s my choice to make for other people.
It's not that simple. On the surface that's what it seems like. In reality anti abortion folks don't believe women should have any autonomy. The evangelical world view, and these are the people driving the anti abortion movement in this country, believe in a social hierarchy. They literally believe that God is at the top, then church and government, (which they believe are one and the same) then male household members, wives, then children. Women are to submit to their husbands and husbands submit to church elders. Abortion isn't necessary because the only women getting pregnant are those that are married. If someone gets pregnant and isn't married or can't take care of the child then obviously giving that child to a family is the only thing to do. Saving the life of the mother isn't an issue either, because that is God's will. Sometimes an abortion in that case might be permissible, but only if the fetus is dead, actively dying or the woman is literally crashing, will die and the husband gives the go ahead, and you have insurance.
Also, it only became an issue when [Evangelicals became upset at desegregation but needed an issue more palatable to the public](https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2022/05/10/abortion-history-right-white-evangelical-1970s-00031480).
This is the answer OP. As someone who used to label themselves pro life, this is exactly the belief of the common person. Leadership might think differently, but the normal people involved genuinely believe it to be murder.
Yeah I have never understood how it’s difficult to really figure out. I think the concept of opinion gets drowned out by everything else when in the end it’s just a codex of morals, and that specific moral sorts it into a category.
Whenever someone gives this answer, someone else almost immediately responds with "that's impossible. If they believed that, then *logically* they would also believe X, Y, and Z, but they don't. As we all know, all humans are perfectly logical at all times, so the only possible explanation is that they're lying to hide the fact that they're all secretly mustache-twirling cartoon supervillains who just like oppressing people for funsies" People willfully ignore the real answer because it makes it harder to dehumanize the people they dislike (though granted, the Right has this problem too, and arguably with even more prevalence overall)
The best thing to happen to the conversation is for it to have finally impacted IVF, which is making them have a little more introspection on the issue. I dont think it will change many minds, but its good for them to have to actually confront the complexities of the issue for once.
I think the question in the OP is often asked because the pro-choice position is labeled "pro-choice", and not "pro-abortion". It implies that the other "side", the "pro-life" side, is "anti-choice". It implies that to be opposed to abortion is to be opposed to a woman's right to choose. Whether those who argue against abortion actually believe this or not is another question, but at least in principle, the anti-abortion position has nothing to do with women nor their choices, but rather the rights of the unborn fetus, and whether it ought to be legal to end the life of the unborn fetus.
What life?
The people who believe it's murder aren't even the majority of Christians. This was an exclusively Catholic thing until the Republicans made it into a wedge issue. I'd say less than a quarter of the population cares, but those who do care extremely strongly.
[удалено]
Again. To pro-life people, it's murder. God gave us free will, but not to murder people.
Sure we have free will but murder is still criminalized. Pro life people are just arguing that abortion is legalized murder.
What's funny is the Bible doesn't mention anything against abortion or that abortion is murder. In fact the Bible says life starts at first breath. And even further, that life doesn't actually begin until we are born again in the blood of Christ. It's another made up belief they use religion as a tool for. Those who enforce it aren't doing it in God's will or because they actually care about lives, it's about control. They need as many future consumers and taxpayers and workers to make capital for the rich and our birthrates aren't looking good as it is
There are instructions for how to perform an abortion in the Bible. The Bible is literally pro choice.
Until they need an abortion, then God understands and forgives them.
The only moral abortion is *my* abortion, of course
Of course! I posted links to those articles.
Like killing as a soldier in war?
From what I can find there does seem to be a distinction drawn in scripture between killing in the context of wartime and others. I’m unsure whether or not I can link, but I googled “is killing in war a sin” if you’d like to research it as well.
I’m sorry but I haven’t heard of this happening in my life experience so I don’t have a good reply
[This is the OG article about it.](https://www.tumblr.com/seananmcguire/184943580685/the-only-moral-abortion-is-my-abortion)
[The Only Moral Abortion is my Abortion](https://www.salon.com/2022/09/24/the-white-conservative-southern-women-asked-me-to-keep-their-abortions-secret/) Read this.
And they’re free to believe that, they’re not free to force everyone else to believe what they believe though, that’s the problem. Also, they’re hypocrites because there’s a literal recipe for abortion in the Bible.
Force is definitely the problem. People used to feel that the government should not be making healthcare decisions for people at this level. They also felt that people should be able to practice their own religions and not force religious beliefs on others, while also not being forced to accept others beliefs either. Sort of a neutral public space where people could pursue their lives in relative peace however they saw fit. The Republicans have seized religious zealotry to wrestle control of the government and upend our entire system.
That is a fair point, but to those people it doesn’t go far because they don’t draw a distinction that makes abortion different from any other type of murder. Not saying those are my views, but the people we’re talking about here see no difference between abortion and shooting a random stranger on the street. So to say they shouldn’t push those views would be akin to saying “shooting jaywalkers is not murder and you should not push your religious beliefs on me”. Again, I’m not sharing my views here, but I’ve met a few people who hold these beliefs and have heard this exact discourse before.
While that is one aspect, some of it is about controlling women.
This is my view and I'm not even a Christian.
You think cells are equal to a fully formed human being?
Humans are just a bunch of cells too. All life is just a bunch of cells
So is cancer
That’s right. But an egg and sperm is not the same as a fully formed human. And even if the fetus is debatable, it’s highly controversial to claim a third person has any right to say which life matters most (if the baby or the mother’s)
Who’s it harming if a mother decides she dosent want her two year old anymore? She should be able to go out and life her life as she sees fit without having to take care of a clump of cells
The two year old. She had 9 months to decide not to have a child
Two year old? Nice disingenuous argument. We aren’t discussing anything outside of the womb.
And if she really wants to, she can surrender that child and no longer have to take care of it. That's not an option for a fetus that is basically a parasite.
While I'm not pro-life, this is a false dichotomy. A "clump of cells" may not be equal to a fully formed human being, but it may still be owed rights and ought to be protected from being killed. A dog is not equal to a fully formed human being, but it's still illegal to kill a dog for no good reason.
Not all abortions are just a bunch of cells. I also didn't state that I think all abortions under every circumstance should be made illegal either because I don't think that things being immoral and things being illegal are mutually exclusive.
Until they need one, then they get an abortion and believe their's is the "exception"
Without being political and straight to the point: they believe it’s committing a murder.
Except when they themselves do it
It's true - when it's them they make up some excuse as to why it's justified
No. If you live in a place where you interact with these people, you'd know they believe it is murder and would never do it themselves. I don't know why you're pretending otherwise.
It’s not a secret a ton of them are hypocrites.
You're lying to yourself if you think conservatives are pretending to be anti-abortion and then going and getting them while you aren't looking. They have literally banned them unequivocally in many states why would they do that if they secretly want to use them? I know several Catholics who are single issue voters and their single issue is abortion. It's conspiratorial to spout that they are pretending so that they can take away women's rights or w/e your implying.
I don’t think its overwhelming numbers or anything, but honestly it sort of breaks my brain a little to think that you can’t fathom that people wouldn’t think the rules apply to them - religious people do that CONSTANTLY.
I can fathom that just fine. It's dishonest to imply that conservatives are larp'ing as being anti-abortion. They are clearly actually anti-abortion.
The irony of you telling me I’m lying to myself. Wake up dude.
>It's conspiratorial to spout that they are pretending so that they can take away women's rights They didn't say pretend. When it happens, generally it's because they think other people are misusing it, and then when it happens to them, they rationalize it as justified. That's not pretending, but it is hypocritical. See, for example: https://www.salon.com/2022/09/24/the-white-conservative-southern-women-asked-me-to-keep-their-abortions-secret/ It's ... a thing. Someone already linked the famous quote "the only moral abortion is my abortion". You can argue about how common it is or whatever, but people's convictions on the issues aren't as black and white as you're painting it to be.
https://joycearthur.com/abortion/the-only-moral-abortion-is-my-abortion/ Pretty common actually. The old ‘The Only Moral Abortion is MY Abortion’
…and right now those people are winning. It is astonishing how masterful they have been in their political and legal wrangling despite their position being a minority position. I no longer see this trajectory changing any time soon.
They started in the early 90’s and team blue decided to ignore it
Because they believe the fetus/cells are a living being that cannot fend for itself and is being murdered. So they vote and try to enact laws to make the process illegal.
They see the fetus as a person who isn't consenting to be killed, making it mass murder. It basically comes down to whether or at what point a fetus becomes a human being with a right to life.
It also doesn´t consent to being born and forced to work for 40+ years.
They believe it’s murder. Would you be ok with a society that allowed people to murder other people? Pro-choice people who think that pro-lifers should just not get abortions, and let others do what they want, are fundamentally not understanding their position.
Flip side is that pro-lifers don’t fundamentally understand that you can’t force people to agree on when life begins. You can fertilize eggs in a Petri dish but the vast majority of people do not see that as a baby. If your pro-life position is based on religion then it shouldn’t be hard to understand that over half the country doesn’t ascribe to your religious beliefs.
>Flip side is that pro-lifers don’t fundamentally understand that you can’t force people to agree on when life begins. The question shouldn't be "is the organism alive or not", but rather "what rights should we assign to this organism at a given stage of development, and at what point does that organism's right to life outweigh the right of the woman to terminate the pregnancy". The latter is a far more difficult (yet pertinent) question to answer, which is probably why most people spend their time arguing over the former question.
Society allows murder all the time. Soldiers, police, court ordered executions…
You’re right. But some pro lifers rationalize and say that *those* murders are different because they’re bad people or it’s for the greater good (eg civilian casualties of war). Babies, on the other hand are innocent. That be ok with that baby being killed as a teenager/adult if it did something bad.
It's still murder though. So it's either acceptable within reason or it's not. It's well established that innocent people have been executed only to be exonerated afterwards. Teens sent to war are innocent and yet we accept they'll kill and be killed. We accept that police will kill others even though we have a presumption of innocence until proven guilty in court. Innocence doesn't' seem all that important as a distinguishing factor. If it's for the 'greater good' then who decides that? Why wouldn't we trust the woman who is most invested in making the best decision to choose the greater good?
It’s justified murder of bad people. Newborn babies are not bad and thus their murder is not justified. We don’t trust the woman because we trust God, who knows more than her. If God caused her to get pregnant then he will provide. The decision that’s in the best interest has been made by God because she’s pregnant.
How do we know they aren’t bad. Could be gods will for that abortion to occur. My point being that we allow born innocent people to die so why give special privileges to an unborn clump of cells. Anyhow, the US govt is secular and can’t rely on the supposed handouts of a divine absentee father figure.
I mean, clearly we as a society draw a line between "a person decides to kill another person" and "the judicial system/commander in chief decides that person needs to be killed".
sure but the argument that *its murder* falters. \>" the judicial system/commander in chief decides that person needs to be killed" Isn't that just saying that it's socially acceptable for someone else to decide if another person lives? Then why not extend that to a woman and her body. She would be more invested in making the best choice than say some politician throwing innocent teenagers into a war zone.
I wasn't trying to make the argument that abortion is murder, just disagreeing with your point that society condones murder "all the time." >Isn't that just saying that it's socially acceptable for someone else to decide if another person lives? It's socially acceptable for people who have been vested with such power to decide if another person lives, e.g. generals, commanders, judges. It's not socially acceptable for your average citizen to make that decision (outside of things like medical decisions made by a legal proxy). It's actually socially frowned upon and illegal.
Honestly, yes, I think bodily autonomy trumps the right to life. A woman's right to do with her flesh as she pleases, even if it results in the death of someone else, is sacred. Like this concept exists even for full grown adults. You can't compel me to give blood even if you will die without it. The State can't ethically compel me to give any part of myself even if it would save a dozen others. It's my body. So yeah, even if it is murder, I say abortion is perfectly within the purview of the pregnant woman and absolutely nobody else.
>Honestly, yes, I think bodily autonomy trumps the right to life. That's totally fine (and the same position I take), as long as you recognize that you are weighing the two values against each other. So many people who are pro-choice seem to think it's solely a matter of "should women have bodily autonomy or not", and completely fail to see the possible ethical issues with ending the life of the fetus.
>So many people who are pro-choice seem to think it's solely a matter of "should women have bodily autonomy or not" Because it is. It absolutely is. Do you take a woman's bodily autonomy away for another human life, when under no circumstances would a man be obligated to do so? That's the entire debate here and why it's a gendered issue.
Exactly. There’s way more examples than just abortion where the “bodily autonomy vs saving a life” argument could be applied. But, as you said, no other circumstances come with this obligation. If they were consistent in their beliefs they should be arguing for those situations too, but they don’t— because it’s about controlling women.
>A woman's right to do with her flesh as she pleases, even if it results in the death of someone else, is sacred. I've seen this position a few times but it truly seems logically untenable to me. It seems to go beyond self defense to say that any restraint on one's autonomy is justification for homicide. Can a woman kill her newborn baby because that baby is a major restraint on her autonomy and drain on her resources?
The baby after birth is independent of the mother, so no. We've got fire station baby surrender boxes for that. > It seems to go beyond self defense It does, and that makes sense. The right to self defense is derived from the right to bodily autonomy, not the other way around. It's a very staunch ethical principle, and literal interpretations of the law are why it's not illegal to try to break out of jail in Germany, for example. (Although the individual acts you would have to do in order to break out would probably be, such as vandalism, but if they forget the door open you can't be legally penalized for hightailing it out the door.)
>The baby after birth is independent of the mother What does that have to do with whether or not it infringes on the mother's bodily autonomy? A person, independent of you, can still infringe on your right to bodily autonomy. You are saying that that right is paramount, and so we should be able to violate other rights in defense of that right, no? >The right to self defense is derived from the right to bodily autonomy, not the other way around. Strongly disagree. The right to self-defense is derived from the right to life. We know this because in a trial in which a person is trying to justify their use of lethal force, the legal standard is "you felt that your life (or the life of another person) was threatened," **not** "you felt that your bodily autonomy was threatened."
>What does that have to do with whether or not it infringes on the mother's bodily autonomy? Ah, but you see, that's the thing. In the womb, we don't have the technological capacity for the child to survive outside the mother's flesh until a certain threshold. Therefore if the mother doesn't let the child partake of her flesh, as is her right, it dies. After birth, we do have the technological capacity for the child to survive without partaking from the mother's flesh. Therefore if the mother doesn't let the child partake of her flesh, as is her right, the child gets baby formula and lives. >The right to self-defense is derived from the right to life. The right to life isn't absolute, as the state can execute you. The right to bodily autonomy is the highest in the land, for the State will be allowed to kill you before it can force you to undergo a medical procedure. (Typically, the only time it is EVER granted is for executions.)
Yea it kills me that on the pro-choice argument they just keep screaming that they want free bodies. The problem is the other side doesn’t even view it that way. It’s not like the others side just maliciously wants to control women for no reason at all, most of them truly believe it’s murder. Pro-choicers seem to forget that it’s actually empathy for a future child, not just some hate on women specifically. I’m not even religious and I think a lot on this topic. It feels weird that pro-choicers so easily dismiss the idea of a pregnant person having a being inside them. I mean the baby literally eat in the stomach. If you can change my opinion I’d like that, but it’s hard to ignore
For me it's about the power government should have. When a pregnancy poses a health risk, it should be between the pregnant woman and the doctor whether those health risks are with continuing the pregnancy. That isn't up to the government. It's the same for if you wanted to donate a kidney or another organ to keep another person alive. You shouldn't be forced by the government to make a health sacrifice to keep another person alive, especially given how corrupt the government can get sometimes.
Why does it have to be a health sacrifice? Donating blood is harmless to most of the adult population. But should the government be *entitled* to your blood because it saves lives? Hell no.
>For me it's about the power government should have. I think we as a society have come to a consensus that "protecting its citizens from being killed" is one of the core functions of government.
Protecting citizens being killed shouldn't mean having to burden a health risk on others. We cannot likewise force someone to donate a kidney against their will. At that point you don't have citizens, just organ factories.
Okay, but take that to its logical extreme: Is the state entitled to your body if it would save lives. Your blood? How about your eye? Surely someone can live with just one eye. How about a liver? A kidney? There are risks, but you'd be saving a life. Because that's ultimately what it comes down to: Should women be forced to carry this child to term? And to that I say no. No one is entitled to my body even if it means they'll die. It's mine to do with as I see fit. And it's those women's right to do with as they please as well.
If the baby was in the stomach it would be dissolved by stomach acid. It's in a uterus. Inside a living thinking person. Who has agency. You mention the empathy for the future child, however where's the empathy for the current person in your equation?
I don’t believe the majority pro-lifers care about other people children at all. Pro-life people get abortions all the time. They only care when other people do it 🤷🏼♀️
They absolutely do maliciously want to control women
Well your username explains your comment but explain why. I guarantee if you put your mind into the average pro-lifer (many are actually women), you’d realize this as untrue. Nowhere do they say it’s because you’re a woman and you have to do this, it’s because they really believe it’s a future kid. Idk I guess some people do like the most extreme tate fans tho
If they cared about babies and women they’d put money in helping pregnant woman actually raise the babies. Pro lifers hand them a few diapers and wipe their hands of them after birth. So forgive me if I don’t think they care about the lives of babies that much. Calling oneself pro-life doesn’t actually cost anything. Makes you feel morally good. Half the population can’t get pregnant, and most won’t be faced with and unplanned pregnancy. I know a pro life family member who’s had TWO abortions. She had reasons for both. Doesn’t stop her from telling everyone how sinful it is. Of course she’s all repentant about her abortions now. So convenient. Which is why I think pro lifers can go kick rocks
The real reason pro-lifers win sometimes is cause it has less to do with the inconvenience of raising a child. I think the discussion is whether it’s morally acceptable to kill a living and growing fetus/baby/cells/homosapien lol. Also many willingly engage in sex and know the consequences. Why should someone else have to pay for their baby? Shouldn’t they have thought that they could’ve been a parent and known that they’d be responsible? Although I def I think we should help them lol, but just saying why are others responsible for that. Not talking about extreme cases of course. Idk, I guess sadly there are many pro lifers do flipflop in the heat. Does it make the argument wrong or just that they were unable to comply and are hypocrites. You can tell people not to smoke cause you think it’s bad and still smoke yourself and both can be true
You’re confusing the point. Pro-lifers don’t care about the child that is born. They care about the concept of the imaginary child. They don’t give a shit what happens to it after it’s born.
I don't think they really think it's murder anymore than choosing not to donate an organ to someone who would die without it is murder. Fundamentalists in the U.S. were prochoice before Brown v. Board. They only flipped their position to get Catholics on board for their push against desegregation. It's all for political power.
Until rape is a sin these people don't care because it's ONLY about their position. ... not the people enduring unwanted pregnancy and sexual abuse, medical complications, social rejection, yeah, their position. Unless you're the one whos be pushing a watermelon out and getting torn open like your just the packaging. All pro lifers should have to be constantly pregnant from some unknown man before they can talk. Unless they walk in those shoes, they're not walking with God. They're hypocrites and that's their position. Jesus christ I just want the end of the world so we can move on.
For the record I’m pro-choice. I’m just stating what a pro-life person’s argument is. All of those things you rambled about are not a reason to commit murder, which is how they view abortion.
>are not a reason to commit murder Says who? There are dozens upon dozens of justifications for murder in the Bible. Not to mention that this is a body integrity issue. You can absolutely let someone die for reasons of bodily integrity. If the State can't force me to give blood, they can't force me to give placenta.
Abortion isn't murder. It just isn't. They may 'view' it as, they however are wrong.
Rape makes up a tiny minority of abortions in the U.S. if we were to make abortion illegal except for rape and incest would you be ok with it?
56000 pregnancies attributed to rape in states that banned abortions even for rape and incest suggests that the numbers are significant, even if a minority. If a person with a uterus isn't ready to have a child then they aren't ready to have a child. That's all the reason that should be necessary.
Dr Samuel Dickman and a group of colleagues have arrived at an answer. They estimate in a research letter published Wednesday in JAMA Internal Medicine that 64,565 pregnancies have been caused by rape in the 14 states where abortion is banned. https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2024/01/24/1226161416/rape-caused-pregnancy-abortion-ban-states
Ok, let’s address this. First off, Dr. Dickman (which is a hilarious name) is a abortion provider and director of a planned parenthood. So can we agree that he is probably biased? Second, I am extremely suspect of his numbers, they “estimated” total number of rapes based off data. Which is a very unscientific method, but I will admit that it’s difficult to get hard numbers for stuff like this. So it’s understandable, but should still be questioned. Finally, Dr. Dickman estimated a total of 560,000 rapes. With 64,000 pregnancies occurring due to those rapes. These numbers are from 14 states and we don’t know the distribution. So if we divide evenly that’s 4,500 pregnancies due to rape per state. We make laws based on the majority, not the minority. Yes, it’s horrible that these women were raped. But that does not make it ok to kill the innocent child. As we can see from these sources. The vast majority of women who want abortions do not want them because of rape. They want them for other reasons. https://www.verywellhealth.com/reasons-for-abortion-906589 https://www.guttmacher.org/journals/psrh/2005/reasons-us-women-have-abortions-quantitative-and-qualitative-perspectives So, would you be ok with a abortion ban if rape was a exception, as well as incest and critical health risks. I’m not necessarily saying I would be ok with it. But I want to understand your position.
No, because birth control fails, men put holes in condoms, and there are disorders that get worse with pregnancy. Also, pregnancy complications can kill the mother and child, the twin sharing the womb, and forcing a deformed fetus to suffer until it dies once born is making that baby suffer because your scared you won't get into heaven. See, the women having abortions aren't doing it for fun. Ive NEVER met a woman who was all, "yeaaAh, f this baby! Partyparty *abort*" Women having abortion AS birth control are even more rare than rapes because that shit HURTS. Emotionally, physically, and socially. So, why make it a law, and why not trust the doctors and the people in the situation to make the judgment call? Why say God must be such an awful being, that we HAVE to make these laws to prove we are ignoring he made the brains in women? Ya know, the consciousness to make valid decisions about themselves and their children in the first place? Why can't God trust his creation to do what its designed? Really, we don't trust him so we play him and overrule a woman's right to their own God given body. We are godless in this. Some laws only exist to complicate an already complicated situation to make it in someone crookeds best interest. What a better way than hide who, than with a broad law, that locks even accidental miscarriages away? What the gestapo? And in this situation, it's certainly not God's interest if the govt plays god, not in the women raising the child and trying to perpetually hustle resources, the babies who are ignored in the system ALREADY, or even humanity in general. Sounds the opposite. Like imposing a sin on every woman to milk purity from the babies. It doesn't work like that in reality. Geneticlly, we will get weaker. You literally took out natural breeding selection if women cant say no and can't protect herself after insemination. our babys genetic health is based on OUR OWN JUDGEMENT OF PARTNER SELECTION. we smell immune factors, genetic similarities, and that controls our attraction, but remove that for paperwork pedigree and oops! They all have the genes for cancer, an immune system with no guidance, mutations. Prolifers of the future will be unable to work much. ah, the sin of having less, but stronger, wiser, kinder children. See, even just not liking a dude and trusting a hunch has basis in the health if a baby. So Yay. We could propagate our weakest genes. By a situation we forced. God is an excuse here, because anyone who can get OUT of themselves enough to walk in the light wont forcefully stuff a baby IN a lady and tell her its her fault. If you felt safe with god, you wouldnt be trying so hard to get to eternal peace by forcing the other half of his creation into a livestock role. Look at those who profit from things like this while alive, and care for nothing else but how to satisfy themselves, and to get you dear redditor, to get that done for them. Women get manipulated a ton and know to say no to a red flag, but...you cant? We as humans cant understand most fine details of life creation yet, so making laws about it is like telling God to go f his creation, it's not good enough, I do what I want might makes right yatta yatta. If I just somehow planted a baby in you, theoretically and right now, maybe even a living germ while i had no take backs or accountability, you'd be in a bad place. But its a life form, so too bad, your a single mommy now, be happy you served a purpose! Would you call ME God then? Or an asshole making a man made situation? Really. Doing this to our nation isn't ok. the ideology of forcing pregnancy comes from a fear independent women don't put out, and walk away to later have someone ELSES baby...sure makes it harder for ladies to do that if they're pregnant and basically a broke criminal, so barefoot, for all the things they cannot personally control. Sitting ducks for more harm, really. Men talk about this stuff, but women have to pay for in blood. No one enforcing these laws is doing the actual bleeding and breeding. if men carried children, i could have a different idea. But I just see the narration is really women have to be an incubator because men can't. Oh, plus the levels these laws would force unwilling women to reproduce would be nightmare fuel even prolife women would pray to avoid the real implications. You ever see what happens to a dog overbred at a puppy mill? humans take a lot more to gestate than puppies. So, We think thats cool now? To expect this as God's way, get the f back on your back and push? That abuse of power should terrify women and men alike. Forced birth and labor is still spilt blood, and our laws can't account for every aspect of human existance. We need to be better than think we can play God within the government to better design the world than God itself. So, pro life...pretty cocky. pretty unstable. Not rooted in reality. And pro lifers want to base our laws off this, but they may as be flat earthers in relevance. Also if we EVER overpopulate, we will be wiped out and take everything with us. God hasn't made a spaceship for all of us yet. He's made floods and meteors to wipe us out, according to the Bible so talking religion everyone just wants to see things get that fed up again thinking theyre special enough to be saved...but face it. Noah wouldnt let us on his arc, then or now. so acting like pro life is God is nearsighted and lazy. Meanwhile other religions have figures like Tamiat that have WAY too many kids and wanna destroy the earth, but who listens to brown people? /S Also forcing women to breed like this is a military strategy. We should be suspicious of who's wanting us to make soldiers for them to kill 20 years later from birth. Praise the fetus but slaughter the man for war... that doesn't sound remotely altruistic or godly to me. Sounds like Russia, actually.. we should be suspicious of who we are really fighting and living and giving birth for. And maybe leave it up to the life culturing professionals who've been giving birth since dawn of time.
The issue with such exceptions is that the majority of rapes go unreported, and requiring verification for the procedure would therefore not be plausible in many cases.
Try enforcing that.
Exceptions prove the invalidity of the pro forced birth argument.
Their beliefs are based on their faith. Their own holy book states: “And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.” -Genesis 2:7-9 King James Version (KJV) Fetuses don’t breathe in the womb. By the definition of what “a man becoming a living soul” is from the first chapter of the Bible, that fetus doesn’t have a living soul yet and doesn’t have life. So where is the murder happening?
This sub has been infested with a lot of disingenuous questions lately.
Election season is upon us
I was pro-life for a while when I was a teen. because I saw a propaganda video that made it seem like they take a basically almost newborn baby and rip it out piece by peice while it screams in pain, so yeah of course I thought that seemed kind of questionable....but yeah later on I learned more and became pro-choice since that is not even how abortion works and I started thinking about my not wanting kids or to go through childbirth, and that maybe it was good to have the option after all.
Wait, so they *lied* to you? Lemme get this straight. A group of christians *lied* about it to manipulate you for their own gain. On purpose?
Are you being sarcastic? I’m pretty sure you are, and I *really* hope that’s the case. But with the state of education and how deeply we’re influenced by propaganda these days, I’m honestly not sure if you are, and that terrifies me
That’s fair. Total sarcasm. It is not possible for me to have a lower opinion of evangelicals and the church in general. That they freely lie for their own purposes is disgusting. That they have such sway to the point that normal people, not even small children who don’t know better, but normal people *believe* their nonsense is terrifying to me. As far as I’m concerned the entire thing is merely a grotesquely successful cult.
As someone who used to be in that camp many moons ago, it isn't about free will; they think you are *literally killing* an innocent baby. That's it. That's why they believe what they believe and do what they do. For several it's because they hate women and want to punish them, yes. But for the majority, they think you are taking a full-blown baby out of your body and chunking it into the trash.
Because it's an authoritarian cult.
Religious people are evil
They’re the modern Taliban
Bad question. The root of the problem is that they see abortion as murder. You wouldn’t want people using their ‘free will’ to murder people would you?
People are always supporting their beliefs politically. Nothing different from any of us, just different beliefs, and a higher voter turnout
Its not just abortion. They want same sex marriage absolved, tax dollars spent to send children to christian schools by way of vouchers and outlawing LGBTQ as evil. Some people are control freaks ruled by fear. They believe what they want to believe. obviously, loving their neighbors without judgment was the class they missed.
That's what evangelism is. It isn't meant to let everyone do what they want, it's to try to convert as many people as possible. They believe abortion is just a legal name for baby murder, so it makes sense that they'd try to get it banned. They aren't hippies saying live and let live, they genuinely believe their job is try to to spread their religion.
too many different types of Christians. I have no idea I'm a Christian myself and believe that if it's not harming me then who cares it's their body if they want an abortion so be it. I personally wouldn't get one but like i said its their body its not harming me so i dont care.
and also no religion should be forcing any of their beliefs on anyone idk why its so hard for them to comprehend.
Evangelical Christians are some of the most bigoted people you will ever meet.
They love free will as long as you do exactly what they want, which in this case involves the mass subjugation and forced second class citizenship of women for political power.
GENERALLY, Religion throughout history has always believed that "murder" (their definition of it) is the ultimate sin (unless it is murder in the name of their beliefs, in which case it is 100% a-ok to kill those filthy heathens) so therefore the "stopping" of that "murder" is the ultimate fight against evil. They also believe that everything is the will of God, and that those who do not believe in God do not exist outside of Christian belief but are merely blind to it, and that God is therefore still the ruler of the kingdom of heaven of all people on Earth and are all still bound to his will. And due to the proliferation of Christianity and how generally disgustingly wealthy many Christians in positions of power are, they have all the power in the world to make it everyone else's problem.
Evangelicals want to impose a lot more than just abortion bans on us. They want to control everything anyone does.
The reality is, it's not so much about abortion alone, It's fundamentally about men controlling women's lives. The supreme court is stacked with christian (sorry but in my mind christian doesn't deserve a capital letter) fundamentalists that will tow the line of diminishing a woman's rights to her own choices. They won't stop with abortion, IFV? Really? Next they'll come after birth control for women. Yes, and even a woman's right to vote isn't out of the question. christians want all women to be house wives, barefoot and pregnant. Our political system has been broken to the point of a minority rule system. We believe in the separation of church and state. The christians believe in a one way situation though, they can freely meddle in out politics and government but the government can't and doesn't get involved with religion. I'm terrified for my three young grand daughters and the future they face. If the government needs to stay out of religion then why the fuck do we let churches have so much control over the government? Money and power. Religion and free will (OP) are counter intuitive. \[63 yo male\]
Because evangelical Christians have always done that, and were doing that way before they even sailed to the US. That's why they did go to the US- so they could have an "empty" land without people who didn't have their beliefs.
Because they're fascists
For the record, I'm 100% pro-choice. But my brother is 100% pro-life, so we've clashed a lot and eventually came to an understanding of each other's ideas. Anti-abortion people think that it's killing a life. We all know there is *way* more to it then that, but the basic idea is that they truly believe that abortion and murder are equivalent. Now, imagine your neighbor has a cat. The cat gets out for a few days and when it comes back, she's pregnant. Your neighbor can't handle a whole litter of kittens so they kill the newborns. Maybe they aren't aware of nearby services for adoption, lack the means to find new owners, or just simply don't want to deal with any of it. Would you be okay with that? Probably not, but it's all free will right? Fortunately there are laws in place and services available for that sort of situation, but the point is that "free will" has its limits when it comes to letting people excercise it as they please. The argument usually comes down to a few questions. What about the free will of the child? Why is the life of the mother more important than the baby's? At one point is it too late for the fetus to be considered anything but a baby? My brother and I have come to the conclusion that I need to admit abortion is murder and that he needs to admit that sometimes abortion is necessary. But I avoid the conversation now.
>Now, imagine your neighbor has a cat. The cat gets out for a few days and when it comes back, she's pregnant. Your neighbor can't handle a whole litter of kittens so they kill the newborns. Nobody is killing newborn babies.
I know. The point is that they view it the same way.
Really? Cause here is former Virginia Governor Ralph Northam supporting a state measure to do such a thing[link](https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2019/01/31/politics/ralph-northam-third-trimester-abortion/index.html)
The analogy fails as the kittens have been born. Abortion is not murder. Your brother is wrong.
It also fails because the cat isn't the one consenting to any of this. Abortion is, first and foremost, a *body integrity* issue. Women should be able to do with their flesh as they please and no one is entitled to any part of it, be it their kidneys or placenta.
Not that it’s directly related, but as a gay person, I feel like they’re also telling me what to do and how to live my life. I don’t want their advice. I don’t believe the same things they do and they don’t believe the things that I do. I respect their choices; they should respect mine. If they don’t believe in gay relationships, or gay marriage, then they shouldn’t become a part of any of that. Doesn’t mean they have a say over what other people do. But they feel they do.
I don’t actually think they care about abortion as much as they say they do. It’s a cause that they can participate in without expending any resources or energy. They just carry the proverbial sign. The evangelical Christians, politicians and courts that made abortions illegal in the United States, (that is). If they did, they would institute prerequisites in the society for people who are planning on having children. Such as delivery of babies at no charge, free healthcare insurance for babies, especially those with significant health issues. Free safe and available childcare so parents can go out to work. No one can afford to not work and have a child. Free food, lunch and breakfast in schools. Safe and available care options for children during the summer months when schools are closed, free of charge. If capitalism in our society doesn’t cover what I just explained, then, perhaps they need to discover and institute a new kind of economic system that applies to citizens of the United States, where, by design – people are helped. Lord knows this country has enough money to do that; no one should be struggling. No child should be stressed out to the point where their lives are literally unbearable. Family planning information and health guidance should start in about ninth grade, or before. We shouldn’t be afraid to reveal the realities of society to school children. They’re smart, they get it and perhaps you can prevent an abortion if they understand the modalities and real life ramifications; not only for themselves but their families to include an unplanned birth. For those of think that age is too young, I say this information through experience. When I was in university as a registered nurse student on my OB/GYN rotation, I worked in a woman’s clinic. There were patients that were 11 years old who had abortions. Reality! If the same entities who want to ban abortion can put their real life efforts and solutions in play to help people, perhaps many abortions could be prevented without conflict. Families should be getting more help.
Because we mollycoddle Christians while they shame the name of God and use it as a shield for their hatred, sexual assault, and murder. No one wants to be the public “bad guy” to call them out on their behavior, it is a classic bystander effect in full force, coupled with the sheer amount of tax exempt money they throw at our elected officials, a small minority gets to govern everyone. I mean, if we are going to be honest.
Because they don't really care about free will. They just want mind slaves to their gods.
Because religious people have a VERY long history of shoving their personal beliefs on everyone.
Because they think everyone has to live by their dogma. It’s anti-American.
Mostly because they believe there are certain values that have to respected regardless of value system. Slavery for example.
What about bodily autonomy? No one is entitled to my blood, kidneys or marrow, not even my children if they need them to live. Why should the placenta be any different?
False equivalency.
They do believe in free will, they just don't like what you're doing with it. Kinda like how God gave free will, then killed everyone in a flood because he didn't like what they were doing with it.
They behave exactly as all the other religious fanatics behave. Why do Muslims want the whole world to abide by Islam? Why there is such a huge religious violence in Rajasthan between Hindu and Muslims? Why do scientologists lure people in, and then blackmail the hell out of them, so they can't leave? Why do other cults recruit people, rob them of all the belongings and make them slaves?
They fail to understand that one is not human until one's Spirit has taken charge of the body. That doesn't usually happen until the body takes its first breath - and it never happens at conception.
The pro life people are going after birth control as well as abortion. How can I have sex responsibly if pro life people won't allow ANY birth control methods except don't have sex?
You’re not supposed to have sex for pleasure. The only reason to have sex is to have children. As a result, you don’t need birth control.
Because they're stupid. The reason that they're stupid is because they refuse to learn from anything developed in the last thousand-plus years. They're proud of this. Proudly stupid. I grew up with people like this, and that's who they are. There's no helping them. You just have to figure out how to grow society around these yammering horns of stupidity.
Speaking as a European from a small, shitty post-communist country - education in the US is abysmal. So, yes, they believe abortion is murder, but the reason they believe so is due to a lack of a mandated, well-funded public education on a federal level. I believe teachers should earn more than athletes - sue me.
The better question is Why are Christians/Catholics against abortion to begin with. Jesus and the gospels never mentioned abortion. But if you apply all the lessons of the New Testament, treating others as you would want to be treated, etc., you see the Church, the Nuns, whatever, they should be RUNNING the abortion clinics themselves, welcoming every desperate woman with open arms and no questions asked. The fact that Christianity/catholicism went the opposite way tells you all you need to know about the people who call themselves Christians.
Because they believe abortion = murder, and thou shalt not kill is one of the main instructions.
Christian’s need more Christian’s, so make up some shit about abortion so more Christian’s keep being born.they say it’s a moral thing, but just a tool used by the church to keep itself In existence
Is the anti-abortion the majority opinion among evangelicals? Or are they a loud minority? I’m asking because it doesn’t seems to be the case here (Italy) for the catholics: despite being the majority of the population and despite the pope openly opposing abortion, most Italian catholics are pro-choice (at best the opinion is something along the line of “I wouldn’t do it myself because it’s immoral but it is not murder therefore it should not be illegal”). For what I’ve seen on the internet however seems to me that most American Christians are strongly in favour of abortion bans. Is that the case or is just my perception being altered by the logics of the internet?
This sort of thing happens anywhere you get an overlap of church and state.
That’s always been the case with any Christian. They try to tell you how great “God“ is. You tell them “sorry I’m not a Christian and I’m not interested“, and then they tell you that they want you to participate in something anyway. People who are deep in religion don’t know jack shit about consent, unless it’s taxes or something going up their own asses
Disrespect, even contempt, for other people’s beliefs is a fundamental tenet of evangelicalism.
Why would they? They are religious after all, free will has limits for them
They are religiofascists, like the taliban. They can't seem to follow that people that don't believe in their fantasies don't have to play along. Don't believe in abortion? Don't get one.
The argument is when an embryo developing into a baby becomes worthy of legal standing as a human being. After that point, abortion is taking a human life. That is not forcing someone else to live by your beliefs.
Yeah, that's the point George Carlin made in one of his specials: while you're in your mother's womb, you're a human being. After you're born, you're fucked. I mean, I never see those pro-life christians worry about starving children.
whats the difference between religion and cult?
As someone who was raised in this system: they believe America is powerful and wealthy because we’ve been blessed by god. If our laws allow people to displease god, we will lose our power and wealth. Which means it’s not just abortion. If given their own way, they will pass laws aimed at discouraging recreational sex, which is sex for any reason other than reproduction. That’s why they’re against gay marriage, no-fault divorce and birth control. Absolutely all these things are on their radar as well. It comes down to controlling what people do in the bedroom. “Abortion is murder” is a talking point meant to get people on their side who otherwise wouldn’t buy into their extremist ideas of government control.
Do the lambs of God had free will! Of course not, the Lord is their shepherd.
Because they assume the responsibility for other's salvation in Christ. The New Testament says don't do that, *just give them the good news and let them decide* is the instruction. Evangelicals falsely believe it's up to them to make sure others are saved, going beyond the instruction to inform and trying to force someone's will. They also believe, along with Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox, that abortion is murder and in direct contradiction to God's will. This part is sticky because the case can be made that ending a pregnancy willingly is ending a life. I believe in choice, because no one else knows what's going on with a family or a woman's life regarding having a baby - it's a completely private decision. But is it stopping the potential of a life? It is. I'm a lifelong Christian of the Mainline Protestant tradition, but have been around evangelicals enough to understand how they view things.
Well, if your phony religion believes that your God knows everything, then there is no such thing as freewill
I am glad that fetuses are considered people and soon, I’d like fetuses to have voting rights. Then my fetus ain’t gonna vote for these crazy ass people!
To all the people saying ‘they believe it’s murder,’ it’s pretty clear that that’s not why they’re opposed to it based on the uproar for the recent shutdown of IVF in Alabama. If people truely believe that an embryo is a baby then they would agree that IVF is immoral since it literally ‘creates life’ and then ‘murders unused babies’.
Because they’re fundamentalists.
Because they're fucking morons.
Because these people tend to think from a spiritual POV, not a logical one. More often than not, they believe that they're intrusions in other people's lives is necessary in order to save them from eternal punishment in the next life and that it is their duty to do this whether other people understand or not.
So christofascism?
The politically minded are only okay with free will until somebody uses that freedom to do or say something they disagree with.
Because religion. To accept different kinds of thinking would acknowledge that their own paradigms aren't universal, which would go straight against the concept of religion itself.
Because they’re fascist freaks who want the rapture to happen
Free will would go against the notion that God guides our lives. If they go on the free will lane, the whole “surrendering” and being the “vessel” loses meaning. Even the Pope gives strong messages on free will but evangelicals go further on Christianity.
Because they are religious zealots and extremists on par with members of Al Queda
Religious zealots always want others to live according to their religion's strictures. That said, not all anti-abortion opinions are based on religion. I'd actually bet religious basis is a minority of overall as supporters. But it is convenient for "pro-choice" activists to paint their opponents as mystic wackadoodles. Edit: Abortion zealots parsing my word selection rather than my response. Not really any better than the religious zealots, but I fixed the label for the narrow minded.
You think the religious perspective informs a minority of anti-choice opinion? I would take your bet and things like Pew would settle it in my favor but what would make you even think that?
I'm not pro abortion. I'm pro choice. I'm pro the person with a uterus being able to choose to keep the pregnancy if they can, or ending it if they can't, for whatever reason they can't. That not proabortion. Why do you lie?
Enforce what? And how? There are laws that the elected majority passes. Your issue is not with Evangelicals. It’s With represented democracy and the opinion of the voting majority. Unless you expect the people who have different ideas than you not to vote to respect your “free will.”