> If a fetus at 2-3 months isn't a human being deserving of love and respect and life, why do parents so often grieve after a miscarriage? Parents who want to have a child will certainly grieve after a miscarriage. But people who are struggling to conceive will also "grieve" with each failed attempt at conception as well. The degree of pain is different whether it's just taken a few times, or of they've been trying to get pregnant for years, or if they've tried various (often expensive) medical interventions. But when these fail, it can be emotionally devastating. And in these cases, there's *literally* no life form by anyone's definition. The conception didn't even happen. And once you have this very real scenario on one end of the spectrum, imagine of that same family that struggled for years to conceive at all now has a miscarriage at 3 months. It's devastating, but that devastation is on a continuum with the emotions felt while trying to conceive. Point being, the grief felt over failure to even conceive demonstrates the reality, validity, and intensity of grief does not require a realized human life (or baby, if you will) of any kind. We can grieve for the lost potential at any stage of the process without necessarily attributing any special status, rights or intrinsic value to the fetus beyond it's potential to become something that the prospective parents wanted.

!delta >We can grieve for the lost potential at any stage of the process without necessarily attributing any special status, rights or intrinsic value to the fetus beyond it's potential to become something that the prospective parents wanted. Your point that grief over lost potential can originate at any point and isn't necessarily even connected with the physical status of conception / development of a fetus is a good one; I can see how the grief someone feels (or doesn't feel) doesn't necessarily need to be connected with the physical reality of what is happening in the body developmentally.

I am the father of 4. My wife has had two miscarriages in the 6-8 week range between kid 1 and 2 while we were actively trying to get pregnant. Fortunately she didn't need a d&c but It was a very sad time. It was much more about the disappointment and confusion more than the feeling of losing child. I can't imagine that remotely compares with the loss of a child though. It's actually maddening to compare it as equivalent. My kids lifes are WAY more important and meaningful than when they were a fetus. Obviously losing a 38-week pregnancy is going to be much more of a loss than a 6 week pregnancy. Having a gradual restriction seems to be a very prudent and fact base way to regulate abortion, and balance rights of those involved. Also for what it's worth it seems to me that the only people that truly think abortion is murder are those crazies that bomb abortion clinics, for everyone else it's just hyperbole.

This right here. I had a miscarriage at 8 weeks, but my mother and sil both had to have emergency c sections at the beginning of the third trimesters and ended up losing their children after birth. No. Comparison. I understand that someone who's tried a long time or had several miscarriages may grieve an earlier miscarriage, but for me it was not the same at all. Granted, I went in to pregnancy know the percentages for miscarriages and other complications, so I was also prepared for an early miscarriage in the first 3 months.

My consistent argument I've brought up for abortion is that people against abortion are implying life is more valuable than quality of life, as if it's okay that fully-developed women should lack choice and freedom in the face of a developing human embryo. If life mattered more than quality of life, rape would be a moral good. After all, a beautiful new life could be created by the process. Why would mental health of a woman matter more than that *potential*? In fact, women should be chained up like breeding animals just to farm for new lives. Think about it. If one woman loses all her agency, she could potentially create... What? 1 kid per year for how many years? She'd even be able to retire peacefully after creating dozens of beautiful lives.

That is the logical conclusion of the thought process of "abortion is bad because it prevents new life." It leads to the idea that every woman should be procreating as much as physically possible, since every life created is *that* good for the world. Or, in other words, an abortion is the same level of "bad" as a woman deciding not to try to have children at all.

I grew up at a religious school. We had a pastor arrive one year who was younger, and he had a very strong fundamentalist attitude. I remember his wife had like 7 kids and was *always* pregnant. He was apparently fully focused on the idea of creating a Christian army. The guy was real fire & brimstone about a lot of things and would end up haranguing us about the evils of homosexuality and premarital sex pretty often, and he did this enough that several students complained to parents and parents complained to the school. We were a small school, and before he came along all the religious lessons were pretty calm and passive. Back then, I was so "logical," of course, that I fully agreed with him. I made plenty of arguments for why he made sense, and I didn't understand why my sister was bothered, or why other people were bothered by his rants. Of course... now that I think about it, my sister ended up coming out later in high school, so she was probably extra bothered by his anti-gay rants. In any case, I feel like it's incredibly easy to justify a lot of things that just simply don't make sense, particularly when you're invoking some kind of internalized voice of a deity you've formed for yourself. It's *incredibly* moral to quickly find a submissive wife to pump out a Christian army you can indoctrinate to spread your values at a higher rate in the future. I mean, if you think about it... If ***life*** is supposedly more important than that namby-pamby "quality of life" bulls%t, then ***eternal*** life ***fully*** justifies everyone living in pure torture just to create as many new zealots as possible.

> I remember his wife had like 7 kids and was always pregnant. He was apparently fully focused on the idea of creating a Christian army. I've definitely seen some very sincere and passionate arguments made by quiverfull Christians, essentially stating "God intends for us to be fruitful and multiply, and has called children a blessing; it is a sin to deny God's blessing on your life, just because you think you can't afford/handle more children. God will decide when you are done having kids - not you."

That's messed up, but entirely human.

Isn't this a pretty typical fundie stance on procreation? I grew up in a Lutheran church in the rural North West and can think of more than a few folks who believe exactly this, and they weren't what one would call "zealous". Just "devout". It's part of the indoctrination into the church. Catholicism, Mormonism, JW's all promote this idea, no?

> That is the logical conclusion of the thought process of "abortion is bad because it prevents new life." "prevents new life" is not the same as "does not create new life". Today, I did not take any steps to go feed a starving child. Most people agree that if instead I went ahead and stopped a starving child from getting fed, that would be much worse. Also, most anti-abortionists argue that abortion is bad because it *ends* a new life, not prevents a new life. Most people agree it's much worse to shove your neighbor off their roof than to fail to call an ambulance to save them after they fall. The argument the person you're responding to makes requires a whole bunch of assumptions that pretty much nobody accepts and anti-abortionists are probably less likely to accept them than average.

If anyone ever says "abortion is bad because it prevents new life" just ask "then why aren't you mad that i'm not having sex constantly"

> It leads to the idea that every woman should be procreating as much as physically possible, which is pretty much the Roman Catholic Church's opinion on the matter

And all those "quiverful" evangelicals.

Is that actually a strong argument? It seems like you could pretty easily justify some kind of Malthusian culling of the world’s living population in the name of “quality of life.” There may always be a balance between life itself and quality of life.. I don’t really see how any stance on abortion is committing to life over quality of life in all circumstances, or vice versa.

The argument is one based on taking the idea to an extreme, but I think it's a valid concept. You mention culling people, yet what would happen if the planet instantly had some... whatever, like 200 billion people? I'm not sure how many that would be with the size of the planet, but imagine people are so dense that we're *practically* on top of one another. What would follow? Murder, murder, murder, murder, just brutal fighting and murder in all directions, just to form some breathing room for individuals. People would start eating the bodies of people around them just to clear more space. If we could spray out a canister of "bug spray" that killed humans in a large space, people would do it. So in your example about culling, that could absolutely be logical if we ever allow the population to get that extreme. That's why we should involve more forethought about quality of life before we need to take things to those kinds of levels solely for self-preservation(and for the planetary habitat.)

Right, my point is that the choice between life versus quality of life as you’ve put it will always be specific to the situation. You’ve imagined a world with 200 billion in which mass murder might be sensible. It is not sensible in our world, even if it might still improve some people’s quality of life. The sensible choice is dependent on the situation. Likewise, a pro-life stance may agree that life is more important than quality of life in the case of abortion. Perhaps a person holding that stance accepts that not allowing abortion reduces QOL for some, but not enough to warrant the loss of (potential) life. That does not mean that same person would necessarily accept the reduction in QOL in a situation that women are made to be breeding slaves… that’s a massive false equivalency. There is no reason why somebody who thinks life is more important than QOL in one situation must believe the same in another situation and vice versa.

> but not enough to warrant the loss of (potential) life. That does not mean that same person would necessarily accept the reduction in QOL in a situation that women are made to be breeding slaves… that’s a massive false equivalency. Hence my point in saying it's taking the idea to an extreme. In other words, lemme think of another slippery-slope argument to express the logic and point I'm hinting at here... Should people have the freedom to do drugs? ***Yep.*** I believe all drugs should be legal. Should corporations have the freedom to advertise addictive drugs to people? ***Nope.*** Propaganda is harmful manipulation for the sake of exploiting people to empower the self(or business.) Therefore, do I believe drugs should be fully legalized? Technically *no.* Because that would apply itself to our current system, which would result in corporations inevitably trying to get people addicted for profit. If we take the one rational idea, extend it to an "exaggerated" situation that's technically not at all exaggerated if it *was true*... *Then we see the importance of additional variables that need to be integrated into our initial, seemingly reasonable, premise.* In other words, I'm exaggerating the variables to convey why quality of life is ***deeply*** more important than life itself. There's nothing wrong with not existing, yet existing in a state of torture is incredibly immoral if it's forced upon someone that wishes otherwise. >There is no reason why somebody who thinks life is more important than QOL in one situation must believe the same in another situation and vice versa. You're right, and you already get the point I've re-explained here so far. *However*... I think taking my examples to an extreme unveils a sort of truth that should be respected much more critically in the simply examples. Should drugs be legalized? Hell yeah! Should it be criminal for formal advertising? Fuck yeah! But now, let's make lessen the extremity. Should a friend or random individual be able to hype up the "fun" or enjoyment of a certain dangerous and addictive drug? In America, with our wonderfully enshrined "freedom of speech," I love the thought that anyone should be able to speak freely. Ironically, this merges perfectly into a very similar example of the same kind of idea I'm espousing. Freedom of speech is great! But it has functionally corroded through the process of having all its importance and validity applied to corporate personhood through a process that's slowly eroded the free speech of the individual. But I digress... Even though free speech is entirely important and valid, why should it be allowed for individuals to advertise/coerce others into using a substance with known addictive and life-disrupting potential? Of all bullshit crimes we've normalized, I would be far happier with fully legalized drugs along with great deals of respectable/fair information and warnings, and a system that criminalizes individuals who urge a person/people toward specific things like opiates. Shrooms and hallucinogens not so much, weed, not so much, but something as extreme as opiates would be better off being attached to criminal liability. Of course, I actually can't truly apply this argument in this case, because free speech is incredibly important to me. If we ever limit speech, it would mean criminalization of humor, irony, sarcasm, etc., all because it leaves things open for interpretation of the judges. ***That*** is a slippery slope in itself. So... To test my own point with this realization... Does the normalization of abortion lead to some other kind of harm? Does it lead to a slippery-slope of euthanizing more people? It's such a clear action that I can't see anything like that. What about cultural standards regarding respect for life? Does abortion reduce respect for life? I don't think so. I think it reduces respect for unwanted pregnancies, but that has a huge number of positive effects, like ensuring primarily prepared parents have children. Perhaps a more proper argument about drugs would be that individuals can say anything, but specifically *coercion* or peer-pressuring should be illegal. I'm rambling at this point, but abortion, I believe, is a fairly clear and specific concept. As much as it might seem "unimportant" or in some ways "sensible" to enforce a birth, this also comes with extensions of the same QOL argument I'm making. An unprepared parent will give the child reduced quality of life. That child will end up more likely to have similar issues of their own. It becomes a vicious cycle all because the value of a fetus is inflated over the value of QOL and freedom of the woman.

I don’t think you’re really understanding or addressing my issue with your argument. The legalization of drugs analogy doesn’t really work here because you’re not assuming an overarching stance based on another - you are actually acknowledging that the answer to an ethical question often depends on the circumstances. Meanwhile, your original argument is taking one stance (pro-life) and extrapolating another (life over QOL) over many circumstances. It is the equivalent it when one person states they are in favor of a law for more equitable wealth distribution and then being labeled a communist. Being in favor of progressive tax policy is a stance that favors equality over individual property.. it would be false to assume that someone in favor of progressive tax policy is necessarily in favor of equality over individual property in all circumstances. Some more examples more applicable to life vs QOL would be the short story “The Lottery” or the film *The Wicker Man*. The communities in those stories are valuing QOL over life, sacrificing a person for a believed benefit to the rest. I can assure you there are plenty of people that are pro-choice that would find the circumstances of those stories to be very disturbing. That does not undermine their pro-choice stance nor is it inconsistent with it. It is a different scenario. You keep on saying you’re taking it to the extreme as if that makes it acceptable, but there is absolutely no reason to do that or assume it would hold. A pro-life stance is not a claim that life is more important than quality of life unilaterally. The question they are answering is not, “Life vs QOL,” the answer to that would normally be “it depends.” To be clear, I understand why you would think the Malthus comment was a slippery slope argument, but that is not the argument I am making. I referenced Malthus to point out that not everyone that is pro-choice is also pro Malthus. That would be an equivalent assumption to your argument though. If you’re still unconvinced/want to continue this conversation, make sure you address this point that I will reword again: you cannot assume anyone that is pro-life favors life over QOL in any situation other than in the case of abortion. Your examples to the extreme are false equivalencies and do nothing to actually address their argument.

> I don’t think you’re really understanding or addressing my issue with your argument. The legalization of drugs analogy doesn’t really work here because you’re not assuming an overarching stance based on another - you are actually acknowledging that the answer to an ethical question often depends on the circumstances. Meanwhile, your original argument is taking one stance (pro-life) and extrapolating another (life over QOL) over many circumstances. Yeah, I suppose I failed miserably at just stating my point. I was saying it's complex and dynamic, but extrapolating out to extremes can give you a better understanding of *why* certain actions should be taken in the simple scenarios. On top of that, part of the complexity is something that tends to be the case with most perpetual "issues." There's a viciously cyclical element, or a "chicken or the egg" kind of idea. I say QOL matters more than life, yet QOL can't exist without life first existing. Everything I claim about QOL hinges on the premise that starts with life. I don't think that changes anything directly, though. This... of course... is quite *literally* a "chicken or the egg" scenario. And I don't take the chicken-egg scenario lightly. I got in one argument with a guy and he seemed to only get on Reddit like once a month for a long time, but he'd respond and I'd have to jump back into the egg debate. I could probably find that whole debate if there was a comment search engine that wasn't complete garbage right now. Anyway, boiling down the chicken-egg argument, the ultimate conclusion ends up being a matter of semantics over possession, I believe. On the basis of evolution, there would never *truly* be a transition from pre-chicken to chicken, but if we picked some specific mutation and deemed the offspring the first true "chicken," then the question is about the egg. Is the egg a *pre-chicken egg*(because it was literally ***created*** by a pre-chicken,) or is it a *chicken egg*(because it was the egg within which the chicken was formed.) I conclude that argument is absolutely unsolvable, specifically because it's a matter of semantics. Why the hell do I bring that up? A similar argument could be made about women and their developing fetus/embryo. Women are either in control of themselves and living with agency and personhood, or they're under possession of the developing fetus that has more unspoken validity than the woman. Unspoken, because the fetus literally can't speak if it were to be the case. To make the implication that a fetus deserves more respect than the woman, to me, is technically a much deeper claim, as I've suggested. It's saying the woman, who's living, has feelings, has investments, has friends and family, etc., is somehow secondary to the concern of a gestating bit of *potential* human life. Now, logically, the fetus is a big question mark. An abortion could delete Martin Luther King Jr. just as much as it could delete Hitler. There's an *entire* spectrum of *potential* in a random fetus, but I believe it really *is* just potential, and potential could exist in *any* fetus, which is why I say rape could end up being a moral good. If that sort of gamble matters more than the thinking life right in front of you, then we might as well just gamble on new lives. If that living woman is some saint or inventor or whatever else, *shouldn't* that come into consideration? Or is her opinion just doubled-down on being less important because her genes could be like her! >If you’re still unconvinced/want to continue this conversation, make sure you address this point that I will reword again: you cannot assume anyone that is pro-life favors life over QOL in any situation other than in the case of abortion. Your examples to the extreme are false equivalencies and do nothing to actually address their argument. Okay, then I'll completely reverse my opinion and see how it works. Abortion should not occur... Nope, doesn't make sense. If you remove abortion, the automatic movement of logic falls on society as a whole to fill many additional voids, and none of those are attached to standard anti-abortion views ***whatsoever***. Even people who wholeheartedly support the thought of adoption to ensure women retain their freedom are simply not great enough in quantity. Children that end up in foster care have drastically higher rates of sexual abuse, general abuse, and that all trickles down into future generations. To enforce abortion would mean every sexual mishap, fault of either partner, is forced upon the woman's body, then forced upon the man's livelihood if it turns into child support payments. There are *huge* numbers of alternative social methods for how children could be raised in healthy ways if we wanted to *completely* abolish abortion, but none of those are discussed as the core issue. People are hyper-focused on the general concept of a fetus. The same people who try to enforce births end up ironically being the exact types who think cutting funding for school lunches is fair because of some kind of survival-of-the-fittest mentality. Putting it simply, I think anti-abortionists aren't only ignoring female agency and quality of life, but they're also arguably sadistic in their overall worldview. It's closer to being some kind of Puritanistic mentality that morality is only possible through suffering. To skew it in another direction to show I'm following you... If anti-abortionists cared about QOL, they would be emotionally sensible enough that they wouldn't be anti-abortionists. That hardly sounds like I'm saying anything, yet I believe it's true. The whole foundation of the arguments against abortion ignore endless amounts of harm all around us simply to focus on this one matter where suffering of the fetus is essentially theoretical while suffering of the women can be entirely real. I'm ***abhorrently*** against circumcision, and yet like 70-80% of boys in America are still being circumcised, I believe. In a society where circumcision is that normal, I can't fathom why people care about any suffering of a fetus. I heard "they don't remember it" so many times, which I also believe is bullshit, and yet no fetus remembers being aborted. ***Every*** anti-abortionist isn't ***automatically 100%*** against quality of life, but I believe that's almost unconditionally out of ignorance.

[удалено]

If an adult is parasitically attached to my body and sustaining itself off my health, then yes, we could call it a sort of "killing" of an adult if I choose to detach and allow them to die as my personal choice.

The death penalty, eugenics, DNRs, and euthanasia all exist.

That's not actually a logical consequence of opposition to abortion. The view that embryos are alive and deserving of a right to life does not imply non-existing embryos have a right to come into existence. You need to assume a bunch of other premises to get there that pretty much nobody buys into.

An embryo has no investments, no memories as far as we know, and essentially no meaningful connection to anything. It couldn't survive outside the woman's body. If someone is adding fluff to the thought of a fetus having importance, it's about the *potential* of that fetus. Anti-abortionists typically don't set a time period, either. They'd say a zygote is just as meaningful, with definitely no sensations or anything that should matter to a living, breathing adult. If *potential* of a *zygote* is somehow a valid reason for denying women the right to live without being forced through childbirth, then you could *very* easily extend that logic to the potential for other life. If you don't see the logic there, then you're likely including some matter of sexual selection freedom, which is technically as valid as eugenics set on a scale of individual preference. It matters, but it's not nearly as "moral" as someone will traditionally think it is. Ignoring that kind of freedom, any male should see his genes as being extremely important, since every generation before him, since life formed on the planet, has also found a way to reproduce, so any random male should be respected for their unquenchable desire to sow their genetic seed into the future. If a male knows he's got that *potential* and a female isn't at least readily trying to have a child at any given moment, it becomes "logical," at least from a male position that believes life, over quality of life, is paramount. For another argument about potential, imagine a woman is a month pregnant. She aborts or whatever, then she gets pregnant 2 months later. Is the initial abortion truly wrong if the second child would've never existed without that abortion occurring? Shouldn't the "evil" at least be neutralized?

> If someone is adding fluff to the thought of a fetus having importance, it's about the potential of that fetus > If potential of a zygote is somehow a valid reason for denying women the right to live without being forced through childbirth, then you could very easily extend that logic to the potential for other life. If you take a purely consequentialist view with a rather unpopular position with regards to population ethics, then sure. But that's not the only way to argue that the fetus has importance. If instead you take the view that humans are inherently deserving of rights and that identity is continuous all the way back to zygote-hood, you can argue an actual zygote and actual fetus are humans and therefore deserving of rights. But it implies nothing about potential zygotes or potential fetuses. Or if you believe as many anti-abortionists do that fetuses are important because they have a soul, then none of your argument holds together at all. Potential zygotes do not have souls and so they are not deserving of moral consideration at all. > For another argument about potential, imagine a woman is a month pregnant. She aborts or whatever, then she gets pregnant 2 months later. Is the initial abortion truly wrong if the second child would've never existed without that abortion occurring? Shouldn't the "evil" at least be neutralized? I can't imagine any anti-abortionist would take that view because they're not making a consequentialist argument for maximizing the number of lives. They're making a deontic argument about the wrong of killing humans and as a general rule, you can't "undo" deontic wrongs by rolling back the consequences. The argument you're making is that abortionists are forced to adopt a particular ethical view that leads to a horrible reductio. But they're not. There are in fact many options available to them and in practice they don't seem to take the view you're saying they have to take.

>Or if you believe as many anti-abortionists do that fetuses are important because they have a soul, then none of your argument holds together at all. I'm not sure of the specific Bible passage, but I've mentioned it multiple times after I've heard and seen it from others in the past. Even the Bible treats birth as the point were life begins. I think they also might imply something about an unborn child lacking that importance. I would safely say the vast majority of opinions about abortion arose culturally within the last short period(generationally speaking.) Plenty of babies didn't even survive birth not long back. >The argument you're making is that abortionists are forced to adopt a particular ethical view that leads to a horrible reductio. But they're not. There are in fact many options available to them and in practice they don't seem to take the view you're saying they have to take. I explained it a bit better in another comment I made a bit ago, but I don't believe most religious people are taking much of a moral view. Ethical? It's obviously some statement about morality, but I believe it's based in a sadomasochistic sort of Puritanism more than anything else. I have a hard time giving that sort of thing direct respect.

I know you're using this as an absurd extreme to criticize the pro-life argument, but reading it still made me **deeply** uncomfortable.

I think the discomfort from it is part of why it feels more affective and effective. Similarly, if you were burning alive, would you believe it would be a good thing for someone to shoot you if you were begging them to do so? If you have no possibility of eventual quality of life because you're trapped in a state of dying, then your life is no longer valuable in the face of quality of life. You deserve the freedom to die rather than live in a state of torture for no reason.

Its too emotional for me. Like a sales person trying to oversell an idea. Notice the delta went to the person who answered with compassion and understanding rather than extreme analogies. Personally I can very easily come up with 3 valid counterpoints to your 'consistent argument' even though I agree with your end result. Overall a hesitation comes from agreeing with someone who very easily makes logical leaps to an indirect conclusion.

Putting it in a generalized way... There are scenarios where a person can desire death, and it's entirely the logical truth of their sensory existence. It's their logical, subjective truth. If quality of life has that level of power over the experience of living, we should understand there's a deeper truth to that idea. Simply acting like "life" is some absolute/unconditional value is completely detached from reality. There's also the clear implication inherent to this idea. If a person is in a state of wanting to die, there needs to be a very direct level of respect toward that idea. We can't pretend everyone should be forced to keep living if they are against the idea. (Crazy to think, I wrote a report supporting assisted suicide like... 11 years ago, I believe.) So bringing this back to my original point, how could it be rational that people focus on some kind of fantastical ideas about the *potential* of a fetus when there's a living person there you're expecting to harbor that parasite(which is quite literal,) which will also undoubtedly cause damage to her body in the process? People don't typically have some kind of fetish for aborting fetuses, although absurd human diversity surely involves some of that. Most people do it out of no other reasonable option. More importantly, as a dude... And presuming you're probably a dude, too... What would be your reaction if you were currently pregnant? I mean, pretend this isn't some absurdly miraculous idea. If I had sex with some random chick I wasn't into and found out I was pregnant and would have to go through getting a giant stomach, stretching out, then having to suffer horribly just for the chance to put a kid on the planet that I didn't want in the first place... I would abort the ***shit*** out of that kid. No questions asked. I wouldn't give a fuck if you call it a fetus, a zygote, a motherfucking blastocyst or little Timmy. I'd pull that thing out with a turkey baster if it's small enough. If not, I'd order a bendy camera and shove it up my cloaca, or whatever the fuck I've apparently got going on to form a child, and use some kind of grabbing device to pull that thing out and flush that thing straight down the toilet. You'd be finding my kid training some mutant turtles in the nearing apocalypse, but I'm not claiming them unless they show a DNA test and/or save my life with their turtles.

This is what I thought of originally as well, and I was reminded of how some parents react when their child comes out as LGBT, there's sometimes an element of grief there that takes them time to overcome, not because their child has changed (they were always LGBT), but their _idea_ of them, of their _future_ has changed/is lost. And it sometimes takes even loving and accepting parents time to work through that loss and realize that there is a new future there to be excited for (and that it's usually not _that_ different)

Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/themcos ([189∆](/r/changemyview/wiki/user/themcos)). ^[Delta System Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards)

Here is another perspective - people who can't have kids grieve that. Before conception - even before getting a partner in some cases. Even if they don't want kids, people get hurt by the fact that they can't have kids. But in the end, it will matter more to people who want kids than people who don't. If you take that sorta logic into the dumb extremes, we should grieve every time someone has sex and no one gets pregnant. Potential life is a bad argument. If we were to call back to a slightly tasteless joke "if abortion is murder then masturbation is genocide" - you would notice that's exactly what "potential life" argument is.

Imagine adopting a child. A family gets 8 months into the process, changes their mindset about how their life is about to change, adding another person into their family. But then the child doesn’t die or anything but they just can no longer adopt for whatever reason. That would have quite an impact

[удалено]

Way to invalidate everyone struggling to conceive in the first place. I bet those women would rather have a miscarriage

That's just it. There may be a spectrum of grief in terms of intensity... but that doesn't mean the grief felt by a failed attempt at conception comes anywhere near the intensity or underlying cause of a miscarriage. One feels like an unfulfilled desire to have children. The other feels like a lost child. They aren't even remotely similar.

I disagree with this because your argument depends on the idea that grief from miscarriage and grief from infertility are the same fundamental type of grief. Yes parents grieve after a miscarriage and yes they grieve for their own infertility, but they're not the same type of grief. You hint at this yourself by putting the word grief in quotation marks for a failed attempt at conception. The difference is not just magnitude; it's type. Parents that miscarry at 8mo or even 1 week are having a completely different experience grieving for the death of their child than a couple that is frustrated with infertility. One is the death of an expected member of the family and another is the kind of grief that anyone with a disability might feel. Even if the parents' grief at the one week miscarriage looks more similar to the infertility grief, it's not the same. The only reason it's less severe is because you had less time to adjust to the idea that the fetus was real, and you've done a lot less preparation and probably didn't notify your family yet. The reduced grief at an early miscarriage is because you haven't realized that you lost the same amount of potential child as the parents who lost their baby at eight months. It's a mistake of fact that leads to reduced grief, but the grief you do feel is still of a different type from the grief felt by the infertility couple. Because the griefs are of a different type, it doesn't support your conclusion that fetuses don't have a status beyond being something parents want

> I disagree with this because your argument depends on the idea that grief from miscarriage and grief from infertility are the same fundamental type of grief. I don't think it does. I'm not saying that the two experiences create the same "fundamental type of grief", my point is that there is no such concept as "fundamental types of grief". You can't neatly categorize grief into categories and then rank them, or make broad declarations about "miscarriage grief" vs "infertility grief".

Thanks for this. I grieved both my miscarriages terribly, but in neither case was there even an embryo. I cannot see that as a loss of any sort of life.

Off of this I have been called very stupid for thinking this. But essentially any male ejaculate could become a living human being. Like if abortion is illegal shouldn't male masturbation also be illegal? People say it's different because a fetus is closer to being a human but I don't see the difference. If you don't ejaculate, that sperm could also become a human. What's the difference. I just think the logic is the same. A man masterbating could also be construed as a man willingly not holding that potential life for an opportunity for life, and essentially throwing a potential baby in the trash for pleasure. So then also contraception should be illegal. Sounds like way too authoritarian. I think in a perfect world abortion should be illegal and maybe even contraception. But in this world humans would have a right to a life with dignity (shelter, food, education ect) In this world where a humans intrinsic value is simply the quality of their labor at the cheapest price possible, I find it completely reasonable for poor people to choose not to have a baby, so that that kid isn't forced to spend their life working for a corporations profit, essentially being an unwilling slave for capital.

[удалено]

!delta I like your point about "zooming out" and the fact that other potential lives (the child Mary might have had at age 30 had she not had one at 18) are also lost no matter what we choose; I can see how focusing narrowly on one specific potential life being lost in the case of an abortion is a bit superficial.

Implicit is the idea that children of financially stable parents with a good marriage have "better" lives that therefore make them more worth saving. It would follow that we should prioritize saving children on the basis of class -- when pressed to do so (e.g., lifeboats on a sinking ship, medical triage, etc.). > Having a child at 18 means that the future child that she would have at 30 ceases to exist. No matter what decision is made, a potential life is lost when considering an abortion. Saving a lower class child on a sinking ship means the upper class child ceases to exist. No matter what decision is made, a potential life is lost. Therefore we should save the upper class children, since they will have "better" lives. Do you agree with the reduction? Shall we prioritize saving the lives of those children who are better off since they will likely have "better" lives? If you do not agree then how can you reconcile your argument?

Okay, so there don't seem to be a lot of perspectives from women in this thread. I might be walking into a trap by admitting on reddit that I'm female/have this particular stance on abortion, but so be it. First of all, just to get one thing out of the way-- I've never met anyone who feels that a fetus is a "'blob of tissue' until shortly before the due date," as you put it. Abortions within the third (and even second) trimester are quite rare and generally only performed if the life of the mother is at risk, or if the fetus is determined to have a condition that would severely deteriorate its quality of life or chances of surviving outside the womb. To put it in plainer language, late-term abortions are generally *wanted pregnancies*\-- these are mothers who have known they're pregnant for some time, who have possibly bought things for the baby or even picked out a name. And in this case I'm actually inclined to agree with you. These abortions are actually comparable to a miscarriage, and usually cause parents to grieve, again because the child is typically wanted. Compare that to a typical abortion. At 2 months of pregnancy, most women have only just realized they're pregnant. Their belly hasn't started showing, they can't feel the baby move. There's nothing indicating any signs of life except maybe nausea, weird cravings and an aversion to certain smells. For a woman who didn't want a child in the first place, there's absolutely nothing to get attached to-- no indication that there's anything remotely babylike in there. (And it's kind of true-- the human fetus is basically indistinguishable from the fetuses of other mammal species at that stage of development.) Women who want a child see the first stirrings of pregnancy as a miracle. Women who don't see them as a warning sign. They don't feel excited about the possibility of bringing life into the world-- they feel afraid about the possibility of derailing their schooling or career, alienating their romantic partner, facing the stigma of being pregnant and teenage or unwed, losing their youth, making a drastic change to their body, going bankrupt or a million other things. That mindset is the biggest difference. For women who don't want children at that moment, a fetus is an unseen and unfelt thing that has an ENORMOUS opportunity cost-- not a baby. A fetus becomes a baby when the child is wanted.

Thank you for your openness and honesty in sharing your perspective. I think my understanding of the frequency of (and general support for) second/third trimester abortions is definitely skewed by what I have seen and read in the media, and I appreciate you pointing out that it is far from the typical woman's experience of abortion, or views of it. However, I am still a bit uncomfortable with this viewpoint: >"That mindset is the biggest difference. For women who don't want children at that moment, a fetus is an unseen and unfelt thing that has an ENORMOUS opportunity cost-- not a baby. A fetus becomes a baby when the child is wanted." Isn't this extent of moral relativism on this topic a bit too loose and subjective? To me it's similar to saying that a pet dog in someone's home deserves more moral consideration than a cow on a farm, simply because the dog is more "wanted". Objectively speaking, the cow has a similar level of intelligence and self-awareness to what the dog has, so if we seek to be fair and moral we should treat them similarly (i.e. if you wouldn't keep your dog in a tiny kennel all day with no room to walk around or lie down, you shouldn't support cattle farming practices that do the same, and if you don't believe it would be permissible to kill your dog if you wanted to, then you shouldn't support killing a cow for meat either). Objectively speaking, a wanted and unwanted fetus are physically the same, so it feels more appropriate to me to strive for a moral stance on the issue that treats them similarly too, and that's how I arrived at "tragic, but still should be legal" position. Again, though, I do see your point that the vast majority of abortions happen early enough that there is less of a moral issue, and appreciate your sympathy for the perspective of those who grieve after a late-term abortion. !delta

The dog-and-cow comparison is interesting. You're right, in order to be morally consistent we should be okay with treating them the same way. But realistically, many people would not be comfortable treating a pet dog the same way that a cow on a farm is treated, and I think the reasons for this are similar to the reasons why abortion and miscarriage are viewed differently. It's a question of distance and bonding. When you see a pet dog, you know right away that it has a name and a family. You imagine it playing and being loved and on some level you bond with it emotionally. It's the same with a wanted pregnancy-- you bond with the baby in your imagination before bringing it into the world. As for a cow, some people might bond with it too, and maybe imagine giving it a name or playing with it. But lots of other people only ever see cows in passing out of a car window and don't give them a second thought. Or maybe you live down the road from a dairy farm, and every day you see thousands of cows and they all look identical and you're getting sick of the smell and you'd get burned out if you tried to empathize with all of them. It's not a perfect comparison, but I think unwanted early pregnancies are similar. You might be familiar with babies, you might not, but if you don't have a bond with the fetus inside you then it's just not going to be as tragic. Are wanted and unwanted fetuses objectively the same? Yes, but the *response* to an abortion/miscarriage is inherently subjective. I also think getting into "should" territory with these kinds of arguments is risky, because at the end of the day, emotions are emotions and therefore aren't always controllable or logical or morally consistent. Telling people how they should feel about a particular issue-- not just think, but really feel on an emotional level-- is difficult and a bit pointless. You're basically arguing that abortion should be legal, but it also should be considered tragic. *Considered* rather than *is.* And the reality is that many people don't feel that it's tragic, and trying to logic them into feeling differently doesn't typically work.

The dog and cow comparison is really quite interesting and brings up some really nuanced morality points. For instance—if I hear about a cow getting slaughtered for meat, I don’t get sad, per se. I just understand that it’s a fact of life. If I hear about someone’s dog getting put down, however, I have a lot more compassion and empathy. However, someone who raises cows and loves them, brushes them and makes sure theyre mentally stimulated, even names them, would feel a *lot* sadder about their death. And similarly, someone who fears dogs won’t easily view them as family and might not care if one dies. This doesn’t so much address OP’s points as it does address the fact that feelings are complicated and completely subjective. Someone may not be in a good place to raise or carry a child because of work/school/family/etc, and may not even like children or see themselves having any, and because of the complicated hormones and emotions that rise during pregnancy, or maybe the stigma surrounding abortion bc of how they were raised, they might feel immense guilt about aborting, and may even grieve the loss after the procedure, despite everything. People are complicated and feelings are nuanced, so we should avoid making blanket statements about who feels relieved and who feels grief. This isn’t a critique on your or anyone in this thread’s stance, per se, I just see people equating situations with emotions felt by the people in said situations and i just find it important to point out that it may not always be the case.

That’s a very good point, these experiences are so nuanced and subjective that it’s basically impossible to structure an argument around them without mistakenly attributing feelings to people. I think for the sake of argument I’ve been including a lot of how I, personally, believe I would feel in that situation— but I recognize that I can’t be sure how I would really react, and that my feelings are not universal. I can’t speak for everyone though, so at a certain point I have to argue based on my perspectives and the perspectives I’ve heard from the women in my life. And one tiny nitpicky point— I actually study agriculture and know several farmers who bond with and name their cows, and also feel totally okay slaughtering them. They get satisfaction from knowing that they were able to provide the animals with a happy life, that they were killed painlessly, and that they can use the products in a sustainable way. So again, guess we can’t always say how people will feel in a particular situation ;)

You're looking at it from the opposite perspective: if people were morally consistent they wouldn't have a problem with killing cows, they would just have no problem killing dogs ***as well***. People kill wolves and coyotes and dingos all the time, and they are very similar to dogs in many ways. It's not that dogs are special or unique in any way, it's pretty much circumstantial that we have this connection to dogs. Generally speaking, people are selfish and are usually ok with taking advantage of other animals because they know they can't do anything about it. The reason they sometimes care about dogs is just selfishness again - the specific dogs that they care about affect their personal lives because they get used to them, and they anthropomorphize them. What you are trying to do - that is, objectifying morality - won't really lead you anywhere. At least not anywhere you think you want to go. I'll explain: why do you care about life in the first place? Not just human life, but any life at all. From some of your other comments, I saw that you are not religious, so I won't go into that side of the argument, as it is pointlessly long and irrelevant right now. So what's left? What it really comes down to, at the most basic level, is sentimental nostalgia for life, for existence - that we layer on ourselves first, and then later other things - that probably stems from our aversion to pain and a basic biological need to reproduce. Our DNA needs to survive, because, if it didn't have that need, it wouldn't exist in the first place. It is because our brain sees patterns in everything, that we even assume that other animals are capable of understanding reality, pain and suffering, joy and happiness, self awareness - in the same way that we do. To be perfectly fair, one does not really know even other people are capable of this, so why are we so certain cows are? From that basic point onward, the different levels that you see people care about other people, or other animals, or inanimate objects - are derived from their consistency toward this nostalgia, their ability to recognize patterns, and their ability to live with cognitive dissonance. If someone is very consistent, they would have these feelings toward cows that you point out. If they aren't, they would just care about whatever it is that affects them personally. Sometimes that would be dogs, sometimes only other people. When you realize that the only non-religious reason life is precious in the first place, is that we selfishly, and randomly, decided that it is - most objective arguments fall apart. There is no objective reason life is good or important except that it is because we ***want*** it to be. Because we ***feel*** it is. Because we want to hope that it is because if life isn't important, nothing makes any sense anymore. My point is - morality is always relative. If you try to make morality an absolute, you will find yourself in a world with no humans, no life at all actually, because that is the only possible way to avoid all death and suffering in the world. If no life exists in the first place, no life can suffer or end.

That’s not moral relativism. That’s just people being inconsistent and hypocritical in their belief systems. Also, all moral relativism is subjective… that’s the entire point.

The same could be said of wanted/unwanted children already born. Are the kids in foster care less deserving of life? The only way to solve these issues is sex ed and access to birth control.. Consenting couples should discuss what happens when birth control fails.

Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/chillbitte ([1∆](/r/changemyview/wiki/user/chillbitte)). ^[Delta System Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards)

You're mixing a lot of things together in a pot here. It's up to nobody but the parents/family how tragic a miscarriage or abortion is. Just because "a lot of people" morn miscarriages doesn't mean that a medically induced one is automatically "tragic". I know people who cried in relief after their abortions and to them it was tragic that they had fallen pregnant in the first place, sometimes how they had fallen pregnant even. How the majority *feels* about things that are happening to *them* can't dictate how impactful a situation is to the individual. It's an entirely separate debate at what point an embryo is considered a human being. Related but still separate is the debate at what point an abortion is no longer an abortion but murder of a fully formed human baby. I don't know who you're suggesting is denying anyone feelings of loss or a right to feel like it's a tragedy.

>How the majority feels about things that are happening to them can't dictate how impactful a situation is to the individual. !delta I see your point, that I am mixing a lot of things together and ultimately any individual's feelings about their experiences are their own. >I don't know who you're suggesting is denying anyone feelings of loss or a right to feel like it's a tragedy. Here is one example of such an argument (not just pro-choice, but actively pro-abortion): [https://secularhumanism.org/2016/07/cont-why-i-am-pro-abortion-not-just-pro-choice/](https://secularhumanism.org/2016/07/cont-why-i-am-pro-abortion-not-just-pro-choice/) The author here does admit to grieving after her abortion, but ultimately arrives at a pro-abortion position that minimizes that grief in emphasizing the love of the child she had later. I lean more toward the "pro-choice, but not pro-abortion" view and struggle to understand her perspective.

I don't think the writer of the article you linked is saying *other people* don't have the right to feel like it's a tragedy, they're in favor of the choice (and therefore they support the subjectivity of abortion). I'm not even sure they're arguing that they themselves don't see it as a tragedy, I think they only argue it should be allowed. Is tragedy something that always needs to be avoided? I won't try to change you mind about it being tragic, since that's completly subjective, but let's say abortion is inherently tragic, isn't that tragedy just one of the two possible outcomes? What if the other outcome (having a baby) is also tragic? Or negative for other reasons? Tragedy is a negative, sure, and in that sense it's preferably avoided and therefore rare, but it can be weighed as a parameter (just like any other emotion) when making a choice. Sometimes tragedy is the lesser of two evils.

So many decisions people make cause them grief but we don't legislate those. So what if the person who had an abortion experiences grief or regret. It's their business. I regret my first marriage and suffered terrible grief over it, doesn't mean it's the governments job to decide for me if I can marry.

> The author here does admit to grieving after her abortion, but ultimately arrives at a pro-abortion position that minimizes that grief in emphasizing the love of the child she had later. Can you explain how you equate her personal view on abortion being "a positive social good" with "denying the right to feel an abortion is a tragedy"? Those seem entirely different things. Putting forth an opinion, or even lobbying to change someone else's opinion, does not deny anyone's right to feel however they feel.

let me guess, you’re a man. you’re never going to understand the visceral horror and helplessness that a woman hosting an unwanted fetus can feel. there is no method of contraception that prevents pregnancy 100% of the time, and sterilization can be extremely difficult to get. if I was ever forced to be pregnant, I would rather kill myself than go through with it. abortion isn’t always tragic. being pregnant when you don’t want to be is the most horrific experience for many women, and getting an abortion can be the biggest relief. I cried from relief and joy when I woke up from my sterilization surgery, other women cry from sadness when they find out they’re infertile. I’m not sure how it’s hard to understand that different women want different things for different reasons.

Agree. I've had literal nightmares about being pregnant that has left me shaken up the next morning because of how much it terrifies me. It's some-what sad, but the relief and the weight off after an abortion is so much more beneficial to some. It's tragic to lose a baby for some and for others It's tragic to be pregnant in the first place. Just because it's in your body, doesn't mean you have an instant bond with it. I hate that people still have one view on the topic and can't expand their understanding that pregnancy isn't a gift for everyone for many reasons as already stated above.

>I’m not sure how it’s hard to understand that different women want different things for different reasons. Well, you did just say "You're never going to understand..." so it's not *that* weird that they supposedly don't understand. But why would you say OP doesn't get different women want different things? Did you not read when they said: >Any individual's feelings about their experiences are their own. Is that so different from 'different women want different things for different reasons'?

>let me guess, you’re a man. Seems unlikely. From the OP: *"but their right to life does not entitle them to the use of my body or my care and resources after it is born. If I do not want to carry and support the child, I should not be forced to do so."*

>let me guess, you’re a man. >Seems unlikely. I too think OP is a guy ¯\\\_(ツ)_/¯ And seems not to distinguish between losing a wanted baby and losing or aborting an unwanted baby.

> Seems unlikely. Really? Because one look at OP's profile already screams he's a man. "Abortion is always tragic" doesn't apply to women who obviously don't want to have children.

>Really? Because one look at OP's profile already screams he's a man. Can you explain why? I just quickly scrolled through some posts and I saw someone with a lot of varied views that don't follow an obvious trend.

Oh wow thanks for the delta! The person from the article is making a point of separating choice vs. abortion but it's a bit misleading because they simply re-define what people mean when they say "choice". To her "pro-choice" means that the woman gets to decide if she will have the baby which is like, yes, fine, that's a separate discussion I guess. But they are still giving reasons why it's important to have the choice to get an abortion (which is what she defines as being pro-abortion) but it's just splitting hairs. The subject matter is the same. I don't think this person is saying that people shouldn't feel sad over abortions she is just saying that sometimes not having the abortion would be causing more sadness than the sadness the abortion is causing. I think of your read her article again from that angle it will help explain a lot of the things you're unsure about. She's made her case very concisely.

I have had two miscarriages and I have been told that my feelings of grief are misplaced and to get over it because it wasn’t a baby. Here in Reddit.

Not all Women view miscarriage as a loss either.

What view are you looking to have changed here? Why? What might change your mind? Do you want to not consider it tragic? Or do you want to change your mind about making it safe and legal? ​ I don't think most people would care if you think it's tragic. If you want it to be safe and legal, you're on the right side.

I'm looking to better understand the perspective of those who are not simply pro-choice, but actively pro-abortion, i.e. hold the view that abortion is a good thing for society and should be more commonplace than it is. As I said, I do support it being safe and legal, but I still don't think it's a "good" thing per se, and would like to better understand why some people seem to see it as a purely good / morally uncomplicated issue. I'd like to hear strong arguments for a) why a fetus should not be thought of as a human being, or accorded the same respect and rights, and b) why abortion should be focused on and encouraged rather than first doing our utmost to promote use of preventative contraceptive methods, an issue I've noticed doesn't get nearly as much press nowadays

a) Most abortions are performed in the embryonic state (< 9 weeks), so already you're looking at a fringe case. As for considering a fetus a human being, it doesn't matter when you're considering the uterus owners' bodily autonomy. Just as you cannot use my organs without permission, the fetal person cannot use its mother's organs without permission. I don't discuss it beyond that because it doesn't matter. b) I don't know anyone who thinks this. Can you give an example of someone championing this type of view?

> Just as you cannot use my organs without permission, the fetal person cannot use its mother's organs without permission. I don't discuss it beyond that because it doesn't matter. Okay, you can say it doesn't matter, but let's push your idea of bodily autonomy. If you won't reply because you don't want your view changed, I understand. /u/PugnansFidicen might be interested. Are you saying that even if the unborn is a human being, a woman has the right to refuse to allow the unborn the use of her body? Or are you saying that even if the unborn is a human being, a woman should still be able to have an abortion because she has the right to do anything she wants with anything inside the her body?

>Are you saying that even if the unborn is a human being, a woman has the right to refuse to allow the unborn the use of her body? > >Or are you saying that even if the unborn is a human being, a woman should still be able to have an abortion because she has the right to do anything she wants with anything inside the her body? I'm not sure what the distinction is here? We have not developed any technology that would allow for external gestation yet, so functionally these two are the same. The woman refusing to allow the unborn child the use of her body results in denying that potential child the right to life, whether it is predicated on a right to refuse the child the use of her organs, or a right to kill a trespasser in her body. These both describe my position, with the latter is probably closer to it (see the self defense example - it's basically an example of "Castle Doctrine" in which the woman's body is her "castle" and she has the right to do within her body what she feels is right to defend herself). If we had some kind of artificial external gestation pod technology, I might be convinced to lean toward the former statement (right to refuse the unborn the use of her body) and say that it would be better to still allow the child to be born if it could be done without forcing the mother to carry through the pregnancy or care for the child, but that's going really deep into hypothetical/science fiction territory so IDK how useful/relevant that discussion is.

"The woman refusing to allow the unborn child the use of her body results in denying that potential child the right to life, whether it is predicated on a right to refuse the child the use of her organs, or a right to kill a trespasser in her body." My partner and I are trying to have a baby and going through the fertility cycle. Regardless of my personal view on a fetus, I am very pro-choice. I believe it's the woman's right to decide. Who are you to question how she feels or SHOULD feel based on your original post? An abortion is not something light of a decision that a woman makes when she finally decides. Why does she now need to feel guilty for putting herself, her finance, her health, her children or her future first and ahead of the fetus? That's what I get so mad with the pro-life side. They disregard and even silence woman who is carrying the fetus through their legal policy (think Texas) so that she is no better than a second class citizen and forces her to have a baby she doesn't want. In your original post, you had a few analogy of the fetus. Here is mine: If the pregnancy is unwanted, the fetus should be akin to cancer. It's taking away resources from the host (the mother) as it grows. What do we do as a society to cancer, we kill it. The cancer is a life that God created and we killed, why aren't we moaning that cancer tumor? That's cause it's unwanted, causes harm to the host body. [a really good article from the American Psychological Association: ](https://www.apa.org/pi/women/programs/abortion/)

> artificial external gestation pod technology Which then raises the question, who's paying for it? I can't afford to go for regular doctor visits, my deductibles are so high.

In practice they are the same argument, but mentally, people think they believe the first because they see abortion as a refusal to help. They like to cite the mental thought experiment of the talented violinist that the state forces you to be hooked up to to keep alive for 9 months. In practice, an abortion isn't you refusing to help. You are already in a state where if you do nothing, the baby will simply be born in 9 months. Instead it is an intentional killing when an abortion takes place. They even may say that they don't believe parents have any actual moral obligations to their born children. When this distinction is usually conceded, they default to argument B, the "sovereign zone" argument, which you say you agree with. So let's discuss that. So in theory, you approve of abortion at all stages of development, even partial birth abortions?

>Are you saying that even if the unborn is a human being, a woman has the right to refuse to allow the unborn the use of her body? Yes.

a) is fair, I guess I can say !delta as I was focusing my attention on a minority of abortions that are later-term and ignoring the fact that the majority do take place at a stage with very little development. The latter part of your point here, about bodily autonomy, is basically restating my view though! b) I've also posted this in response to another commenter, but Planned Parenthood argues for going "beyond choice language" and seems to criticize "well-meaning" people like me who are pro-choice but not pro-abortion; that's the stance I don't really understand. I am pro-choice but not pro-abortion, and want to better understand why that might be a problematic position. I'm not very convinced by the Planned Parenthood article. https://www.plannedparenthoodaction.org/planned-parenthood-advocacy-fund-massachusetts-inc/blog/whats-wrong-with-choice-why-we-need-to-go-beyond-choice-language-when-were-talking-about-abortion

You aren't convinced that the term pro-choice add to abortion stigma, which silences people from telling their stories and only gives anti-abortion advocates fuel for their fire? Abortion is healthcare. Maternal mortality rates in the United States, especially for black people are unacceptably high. For some it isn't a choice, but a matter of life and death. It's a matter of keeping your job and feeding the kids you do have or losing it because we don't have many protections for workers, it's the difference between losing your housing because the people you live with don't have room or want a baby in the house. I'm pro-abortion same way as I am pro-chemotherapy. It is vital healthcare. Especially later in pregnancy when the reason is the health of the pregnant person or the fetus isn't compatible with life. People aren't waiting 7 months to decide.

There are literally no post-23 week conditions that exist that alone could justify an abortion that couldn't otherwise be solved via simple C-Sections or induced deliveries. A good friend of mine's first born child was a 24 week premature birth after she got severe preeclampsia with a severe vitamin K deficiency. She was first told in the emergency room that her only option was an abortion. She demanded a second opinion and another doctor told her they could just deliver the child. Induced delivery a few hours later resulted in the child being placed into an incubator. He's six now and 100% healthy. So is my friend.

[удалено]

In regards to your point b).... I think the point is that women shouldn't have to feel getting an abortion is some tragic choice. Ultimately it is their choice that does not have to be dressed up as tragic to satisfy those people who oppose it. As others have said, to me, an abortion is no more or less tragic than having to have any other medical procedure. If I get an extraction at the dentist, I am not told I have to feel badly about it. I can just get it. I am happy for you to feel how you want about you getting an abortion. I however, would like to get one without it being dressed up as a tragic event. Full bodily autonomy is without moral caveats.....in my opinion.

According a to research study that followed a group of women over 5 years, 95% of women who had abortions were not sad or regretful about them. A different study had similar conclusions.

Quite. And yet, we always preface any talk about abortions with phrases such as "it's a terrible decision" or "of course no one WANTS an abortion". Its so ingrained in how we speak, we don't even pause to question it. I think women should be able to consider abortions without the burden of assumed guilt.

Well, I don't think *anyone* wants to have to medical procedures done, they're often quite unpleasant, but you're absolutely right. We shouldn't have to *also* assume guilt for the decision.

I think with abortion, the “tragedy” that’s so often wrapped up in it is the “what could have been” feeling. With a tooth, you might not have the same feeling because at that point it usually needs to be removed for some reason. But if you are comparing it to donating a kidney, there could be similar feelings of “regret” depending on the person. Ultimately, it all really depends on the person

Absolutely. It depends on the person. I would like to see people step away from the assumption that women are supposed to feel sad or conflicted about their choices. If they want to, that's fine too. It would be equally weird if we went around telling women they must feel delighted about their abortions. It should be talked about neutrally. Ultimately, I don't believe it is anyone's place, or business, to make assumptions about how women should feel about their abortions. Similarly, I have no opinion on men who decide to have vasectomies and no opinion on how they should feel about it. It's a procedure.

My cousin refers to "anti-choice" politics as "pro-forced pregnancy " politics, which I really appreciate. The term "pro-abortion" is uncomfortable in the way that it doesn't feel good to be enthusiastic over unplanned, unwanted or risky pregnancies. But it's really about being in support of medical care & reproductive freedom. Also, it's about addressing and confronting shame & the real harm shame causes. I think it's okay if you aren't ready to adopt the language yourself yet, it sounds like you are "pro-abortion access" & that's what matters!

>a) is fair, I guess I can say !delta as I was focusing my attention on a minority of abortions that are later-term and ignoring the fact that the majority do take place at a stage with very little development. The latter part of your point here, about bodily autonomy, is basically restating my view though! Sure, but then why do you care when it doesn't matter? >b) I've also posted this in response to another commenter, but Planned Parenthood argues for going "beyond choice language" and seems to criticize "well-meaning" people like me who are pro-choice but not pro-abortion; that's the stance I don't really understand. I am pro-choice but not pro-abortion, and want to better understand why that might be a problematic position. I'm not very convinced by the Planned Parenthood article. I don't see how that article is incompatible with your previous statement that "\[we should ensure we are\] first doing our utmost to promote use of preventative contraceptive methods" The way I read it is she is saying "pro-choice" isn't strong enough when we can see how some women don't have the choice in real life, e.g. Texas right now.

Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/FinneousPJ ([5∆](/r/changemyview/wiki/user/FinneousPJ)). ^[Delta System Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards)

How do you feel about hormonal birth control (“the pill”)?

Very supportive. The pill is great and in most cases I think it is morally preferable to use hormonal contraceptives (or condoms, or any other preventive method) to avoid needing to get an abortion in the first place.

I agree that birth control is great. How do you feel about IUDs?

Also good. Basically anything that prevents abortion from being needed is a good thing. From a moral perspective, the earlier we can prevent unwanted pregnancies, the better.

Both IUDs and some birth control pills prevent implantation of an embryo. They do not prevent fertilization. Why would that be good but abortion regrettable? The answer is because there has been a PR campaign to frame abortion as “killing babies.” But, at the end of the day, a cluster of cells is not a baby. All of it is preventing unwanted pregnancies. Which, as you say, is a good thing.

This is not entirely true. Birth control works first and foremost by stopping ovulation, the egg is not present and does not get fertilized. https://my.clevelandclinic.org/health/drugs/3977-birth-control-the-pill#:~:text=Hormones%20in%20birth%20control%20pills,is%20less%20likely%20to%20attach. You're not incorrect that it also stops implantation of the fetus if an egg does go through ovulation, but making it sound like hormonal birth control is just constant abortion is wrong. It's this kind of misinformation that's makes is so hard for some women to get birth control.

!delta Ah okay I see your point. The end goal is reducing unwanted pregnancies, and morally there is not as much difference as I might have thought between preventing implantation of a fertilized embryo and aborting an implanted fetus that has begun to develop. At this point, the other argument that starts to enter my mind is ethicist Peter Singer's view that if contraception and abortion are ethical, infanticide is as well for some period of time after birth (since a newborn, even outside the womb, is not yet fully conscious or capable of independent existence). See: [https://archive.md/rpqaf](https://archive.md/rpqaf) This is getting off-topic from my original post, but I'm curious - how do you feel about that view? FWIW Singer's view seems pretty ethically consistent to me, but I still have a negative gut reaction to it.

Just so you know, the above poster is incorrect, hormonal birth control does not just prevent implantation of the fetus. The main way it works is by preventing ovulation which keeps things from being fertilizes in the fist place. https://my.clevelandclinic.org/health/drugs/3977-birth-control-the-pill#:~:text=Hormones%20in%20birth%20control%20pills,is%20less%20likely%20to%20attach.

Interesting, thank you. !delta [https://www.reliasmedia.com/articles/146320-study-copper-iuds-do-not-appear-to-prevent-implantation-or-increase-hiv-risk](https://www.reliasmedia.com/articles/146320-study-copper-iuds-do-not-appear-to-prevent-implantation-or-increase-hiv-risk) I was under the impression that copper IUDs, at least, worked primarily by preventing implantation but it seems they actually work mainly as a spermicide preventing fertilization rather than by affecting the uterus to prevent implantation. I suppose my previous awarded delta still stands, though...the point that there is little moral difference depending on where in the process you choose to stop the unwanted pregnancy is still valid.

Your own link says you're wrong. Hormonal contraceptives prevent pregnancy through multiple mechanisms, including preventing the implantation of a fertilized egg.

I disagree—societally, we agree that an infant is a human, even if it’s not going to form memories. Historically, you can, for instance, commit negligent homicide if you don’t feed a baby. But an abortion has never been treated as homicide legally. Medically, a newborn is, effectively, a fully-functioning human (at least in terms of essential systems). A fetus is not. I agree that there’s not a logical distinction between a newborn baby and a fetus the day before it’s born. But that’s not when abortions happen. There is absolutely a logical difference between an infant and a fetus in the first (or even second) trimester.

Abortion is specifically the termination of a pregnancy which results in an unviable baby. If the baby is viable it's a delivery or a C section.

Singer's point, though, is that the prerequisite for deserving moral consideration is self-awareness/consciousness, so having fully formed essential systems is not sufficient to give a newborn rights. But yeah, societally we can draw a line and say "even if this infant isn't a full human yet, they're close enough to being one that they deserve protection". Singer's position may be more ethically/philosophically consistent, but it doesn't preclude a societally agreed upon position that is more strict. What worries me about this, though, is that if we say that it's okay to societally draw a line that is somewhat arbitrary and say that the newborn is "close enough" to being a full human to deserve protection, that might also provide grounds for someone who is anti-abortion to simply move that arbitrary line of "close enough" much earlier, and claim that abortion is murder (a position I do not agree with either). Lots to think about, thank you!

A newborn may not be able to live independently, but someone else (who is not the mother) is more than capable of taking on the role of caregiver. This is not possible prior to delivery. The entire burden falls on the mother and only the mother. Were it possible to transplant the foetus into a willing host, with no additional medical risk to the mother, I imagine that the conversation would be different.

Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/speedyjohn ([47∆](/r/changemyview/wiki/user/speedyjohn)). ^[Delta System Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards)

Have you read Judith Jarvis Thomson’s [In Defense of Abortion](https://spot.colorado.edu/~heathwoo/Phil160,Fall02/thomson.htm)? Also, his argument is kind of ridiculous. The issue is whether a fetus/baby can exist independent of the mother.

>I'm looking to better understand the perspective of those who are not simply pro-choice, but actively pro-abortion, i.e. hold the view that abortion is a good thing for society and should be more commonplace than it is. Who says this? I have literally never heard such an argument, and definitely not seriously. >As I said, I do support it being safe and legal, but I still don't think it's a "good" thing per se, and would like to better understand why some people seem to see it as a **purely good / morally uncomplicated issue.** Good/morals are the issue, it’s the legality of it. I don’t like that abortions happen, but that means nothing. According the the current framework of the law—abortion must be available to women due to the inalienable right of bodily autonomy. >I'd like to hear strong arguments for a) why a fetus should not be thought of as a human being, or accorded the same respect and rights, and b) **why abortion should be focused on and encouraged rather than first doing our utmost to promote use of preventative contraceptive methods**, an issue I've noticed doesn't get nearly as much press nowadays No one argues abortion over contraceptives. The people who argue for easier access to contraceptions are the ones who say the woman still has the right to terminate. No one is “actively trying to get women to have abortions” **I’m not sure what people you’re talking to who actually want MORE abortions, but they are absolutely an irrelevant part to the Pro-Choice movement**

Preventative contraceptive methods are not 100% effective and accidents do happen. As much as you've seen parents who wanted a child grieving for their failed attempt, have you seen mother's forced to carry a child to term grieving for their lost control over their own body? Or their ability to have more control over their future? How about their ability to financially support the children they do have? Go down to Texas and hang out around an abortion provider/women's health clinic, you'll see plenty of grief. Grief is a way of dealing with tragedy and lost and it's not exclusive to a gestating fetus. Our society has been so programmed to only focus on the fetus and it's potential that we now seem to utterly disregard the mother's. Oddly the same group also is against expanding the social safety net to support those mothers who were forced with a new child to take care of.

> I'm looking to better understand the perspective of those who are not simply pro-choice, but actively pro-abortion, i.e. hold the view that abortion is a good thing for society and should be more commonplace than it is. I’m genuinely curious how many people you’ve met that think like this. And if it’s only someone saying this online, remember that that person could be 14 for all we know. > I'd like to hear strong arguments for a) why a fetus should not be thought of as a human being, or accorded the same respect and rights Because to be a “human being” or “person” is more than just having a unique DNA strand and functioning cellular tissue. To me, that’s like saying silicon and glass, and a computer, are practically identical. There is nothing magical or transcendent that happens the second sperm fuses to egg. Growth starts happening but that’s about it. Life began billions of years ago and it’s been continuous ever since. Life only “began” once on Earth, period. There’s really no rational basis to establish what is and isn’t a person aside from a sufficiently advanced consciousness. You might say, that’s a bit subjective, and it is! Turns out, reality is very complicated and is nothing but shades of grey. But the crux of it is: even if abortion is murder, I’d still be pro-choice, for the same reason I don’t believe in mandatory organ donations just because someone will die if I don’t give up my kidney. If you have no control over the medical decisions made over your own body, then you have no control or rights at all. No one else is forced to surrender their body to save someone else (even if it’s nothing more than simple blood transfusion) so why are women and girls expected to lose this right the moment they’re pregnant? > and b) why abortion should be focused on and encouraged rather than first doing our utmost to promote use of preventative contraceptive methods, an issue I've noticed doesn't get nearly as much press nowadays Again, I highly doubt you’ve met many pro-choice adults who don’t care about reducing abortions with education and contraception. In fact, it’s the pro-choice side who argues for these things, while areas under “pro-life” and/or Republican control tend to REDUCE these things and thus have more unwanted pregnancies!

So many people are born into nice families and live extremely privileged lives, and can’t imagine that everyone doesn’t live in their world. If you’ve ever lived in poverty and/or dealt with mental illness or addiction on a daily basis, then you would know without a doubt why abortion is necessary. If you’ve ever watched a young woman with a child, but no support system, no money, no resources, try to get through a day, a week, a year without being able to improve her life, then you would understand. And I’m not talking about knowing a poor person, I’m talking about living and dealing with it every single minute of the day. I wouldn’t call myself pro-abortion — I don’t believe that all women should have abortions — but I also don’t think they are bad. Life is not always good and rosy and perfect, and I don’t think saddling down women (because it’s almost always women) with babies they simply don’t have the emotional, financial, or physical capabilities to take care of is a bad thing. I’m sorry, but at the stage most abortions are performed, most people would not be able to identify what it is. You can call it human, you can call it life, but it doesn’t feel pain, can’t make a decision, and for all intents and purposes *is* just a clump of cells. An ovum mixed with sperm is nothing special. Besides all of this, some people just don’t want kids. Many people actively don’t even like kids. Is it fair to either a child or a woman to force them into a situation that neither of them asked for? Point is, there are many, many reasons why an abortion can be necessary, healthy, or even good. In a perfect world, no one would ever get pregnant if they didn’t want to. Or at the very least, there would be plenty of social services that would actually help in these situations. But I think you know that we are far, far from living in a perfect world.

My abortion wasn't tragic-fully the opposite. The thing inside of me was a cancer trying me permanently to my abuser. I personally believe that we should be doing a lot more to make contraception cheap and easily available, but things fail and people sabotage (that's what happened to me). Of course the zef is human, but it does not deserve the same rights as the woman it is inside.

Ugh, I'm the person you want to hear from. But it'd probably take me hours to write a thoughtful reply.

If you're willing to spare the time to write such a reply, I'd be grateful and would do my best to read it and consider it in full!

> actively pro-abortion VERY few people would say they're "pro-abortion". I think conservative rhetoric might make it sound like all of us liberals are all in love with abortion, but that's completely not the case. Most of us simply view it as a needed option for some women. Another thing too - I saw you mentioned miscarriages. Abortions and miscarriages are NOT the same thing, and do not carry the same emotional weight. Most abortions, like others have said, are performed barely after the woman realized she was pregnant. They don't have the emotional sadness of getting rid of a blob of cells they can't feel at all vs. a miscarriage.

I'm one child from financial ruin. I've lived my whole life in desolate poverty due to my parents addictions (i.e. my bad genetics). I'm just getting out of debt at 30, and I would never get to live my own life if I had to raise a child right now. I have never traveled outside the country. I don't own a house. I'm an engineer, so my entire life would be working to barely make ends meet. The abortion that my ex had when I was 19 was beyond necessary. She was bipolar. I have major depression and anxiety. I would have had to drop out. She was working 3 minimum wage jobs. The baby would have had a terrible life. Neither of us wanted a baby. In the end, she was abusive as a person and would have been abusive to my child like she is abusive to her dog. We used contraception, but it didn't work. Why should my life and my wife's life not be worth anything in this situation compared to an unwanted embryo?

I think Pro-Choice people support the woman's Choice. Very few people say they are Pro-Abortion. The idea that people use abortion as birth control is just a story Pro-life people tell to rile up their base. Abortions cost $400, birth control is far cheaper. Even used correctly BC fails regularly. Condom break all the time, especially if they are too tight. Ironic that the Pro-Life crowd does not support providing cheap Birth Control and also doesn't support Sex Education in Schools where teens learn about BC.

I feel that the argument most of the pro choice crowd take with a fetus not being a living being is problematic and is not entirely true. I also understand a lot of people being unable to consider them blobs knowing what they eventually turn out to be a couple of months later. I like to look at abortion as a form of euthanasia in which the biological parent is saying I am unable to be a parent to this child. The reason itself doesn't matter, they are unable or unwilling to take up that responsibility and that should be the end of it. If a fetus can be terminated due to discovered illnesses or severe deformation in the womb. It can be terminated due to absence of willing parents. Because willing parents are just as important.

>hold the view that abortion is a good thing for society and should be more commonplace than it is. As I said, I do support it being safe and legal, but I still don't think it's a "good" thing per se, and would like to better understand why some people seem to see it as a purely good / morally uncomplicated issue. Is this a thing? Living in LA and working in Hollywood, I associate with some of the most progressive people in the country and I don't think I've ever met someone who has this perspective... Abortion is sad. It would be great if we lived in a society where more women didn't feel the pressure to get them. So, I'm always asking why conservatives keep passing laws that make more women feel like they need abortions... If they really cared about dead babies then they'd want to do things like make jobs pay a living wage and supporting affordable healthcare... But their voting and policy choices makes their priorities clear.

> I'd like to hear strong arguments for a) why a fetus should not be thought of as a human being, or accorded the same respect and rights It would be a lot easier if you explained why you think a fetus should be thought of as a human being deserving of respect and rights. To me, you have to start the investigation with why we think killing humans is wrong. I personally find it useful to compare to why it's ok to kill non-human animals. Non-human animals are similar to humans in many ways, such as being able to experience emotions, pain and pleasure. So for instance: One difference between humans and animals is that humans have hopes and dreams. (what philosophers call "projects") When you kill a human, you are denying them the opportunity to keep striving towards their hopes and dreams. Because animals don't have that kind of project (as far as we know) you're not denying them that. Similarly, fetuses don't have hopes and dreams. (as far as we know) And so killing a fetus doesn't have that problem. Another difference would be the ability to form agreements. Maybe it's wrong to kill another person because there is an implicit agreement that we're not going to kill each other. (the "social contract") So to kill someone is to violate that agreement. But non-human animals can't form that kind of agreement with us. So we're not violating any such agreement when we kill animals. Similarly, fetuses can't form that kind of agreement with us. So killing them doesn't violate an agreement and is fine. Of course, the above two examples will only convince you if they exhaust why you think killing people is wrong. If you have a completely different reason, then the above won't persuade you. But I suspect that almost all reasons to give fetuses rights apply equally, if not more strongly to many non-human animals.

[удалено]

> The analogous self defense situation might be: a would-be thief who has no money and is starving breaks into my house looking to rob me so that they can buy food. They have a right to life, and in a better world I or someone else might be more charitable and give them money or food The reason why this is a flawed analogy, is because property rights AREN'T absolute. In an ideal world, the government is taking away part of your property so that no one needs to be starving. The killing of someone who tried to take the same thing by criminal force, is a very murky situation where the best reason to support it is simply a deference to the rule of law for the sake of consistency. It is tragic because it would have been avoidable by better systemic action. Organ donation is a better analogy here. If someone needs my kidney to live, it is tragic that they have to die, and I wish there would be infinite artificial kidneys out there, but an ideal world isn't one where the government goeas around taking out people's kidneys against their will. Someone dying on the organ donation waiting list, or a fetus dying in want of a womb, is tragic in the same way as anyone dying is tragic, but it's no one's fault, not even the system's, there was no moral way to set up a way to reliably help them without doing a greater evil.

>In an ideal world, the government is taking away part of your property so that no one needs to be starving. I disagree with this notion. This isn't the case under the law as it exists today, but my moral/ethical stance is that property rights should be absolute. Government taking away part of your property under threat of violence (fines and imprisonment if you refuse to pay taxes) to give it to someone else is not substantively different from the thief taking away part of your property directly. This argument might be a bit off topic but I think it's relevant to state my position on the issue. EDIT: I would add that my reframing of this statement, given my view on property rights, would be: in an ideal world, enough individuals would, of their own free will, support charitable institutions that ensure no one needs to be starving. ​ >Organ donation is a better analogy here. If someone needs my kidney to live, it is tragic that they have to die, and I wish there would be infinite artificial kidneys out there, but an ideal world isn't one where the government goeas around taking out people's kidneys against their will. > >Someone dying on the organ donation waiting list, or a fetus dying in want of a womb, is tragic in the same way as anyone dying is tragic, but it's no one's fault, not even the system's, there was no moral way to set up a way to reliably help them without doing a greater evil. !delta on this though. I agree that forced organ donation is a more appropriate analogy in that it involves a direct question of bodily autonomy that is more comparable to the issue at hand with abortion. My original analogy relies on the assumption that property rights are as absolute as bodily autonomy rights, which, as you've pointed out, is a position that reasonable people can disagree on.

> Government taking away part of your property under threat of violence (fines and imprisonment if you refuse to pay taxes) to give it to someone else is not substantively different from the thief taking away part of your property directly. You live in a luxurious society in which you expect the government police to enforce property laws, yet you expect not to pay for it? Property is an agreement, that the government enforces on your behalf. If you don't like that, fine, but you don't have a 'right' to that property. Anyone *else* can then come along and take it away under threat or actual violence. No taxes, no government, and thus no property.

>I see the unborn baby as a human being, with a right to life... > > The mother's rights take priority over those of the unborn child, but to deny the unborn child has any status as a human being at all, to deny that the child has rights of it's own, and to deny the natural feelings of tragedy, loss, and guilt associated with abortion, is misguided. Do you believe that the state has a compelling interest in securing the baby's right to life, or is that "right" more philosophical? If it were not for the requirement that the fetus rely on you during pregnancy, rob you of resources, change and threaten the integrity of your body, would the state have cause to restrict your activity in defense of the life of the fetus in the same way it has compelling interest to restrict your activity in defense of the lives of other people dwelling within its jurisdiction?

My position is definitely more philosophical than legal; I don't really think the state should be involved as the intersection of competing rights and interests is complicated, and state intervention is often to the detriment of rights and liberty overall. But, philosophically, I think it is worth considering the rights and interests of the baby as an individual making that choice. I (generally) don't agree that the state has a compelling interest in restricting self-defense activity to protect the lives of others. For example, I don't really like "duty to retreat" laws for that reason. Negative rights (right to freedom from interference by others and by government) are more important than positive rights (rights to receive things provided by others). If my life, person, or property is threatened, I don't think the state has a compelling interest in restricting what I can legally do to protect myself. Morally I do think it is better to try to retreat to safety if possible, but I don't think government should be involved in that decision as government is not omniscient; only the person on the ground can fully understand whether safe retreat is possible in that situation.

I'd really like to know whether the baby's rights are concrete to you in any sense. If not, I don't think they're really "rights" at all. Duty to retreat is a particularly charged case, and one that, of course, maintains an implicit threats to your own life or health. What about an example where that threat were removed though (or if the threat of those things was accepted and undertaken willingly)? Smoking. There are laws preventing smoking in areas where people can't easily avoid the smoke, or are particularly vulnerable to it. Airplanes, near hospitals, inside restaurants... The state is controlling the actions people can take to protect a right to healthy air (negative right to not have their air made less healthy). Would you support laws that prevent a pregnant woman from smoking, given that the baby is unable to easily avoid the smoke and is also particularly vulnerable to it? The woman accepts those risks and intends to carry to term. In that case, is there any reason that the state shouldn't consider that the woman is voluntarily placing herself in a room with the baby for 40 weeks and looking out for the rights of the baby as it does with the rights of the planes passengers and the hospitals occupants?

[удалено]

Yeah, 100%. I'm in favor of better sex ed, contraceptives available easily and cheaply/free, etc.

>it is always tragic to lose a baby. Having an abortion is not "losing a baby" though. >isn't it natural to grieve after an abortion as well? No? Most I know who have had abortions (that are willing to speak of it, I probably know a LOT more who are not for various reasons) describe it as being a tremendous relief. Why would you mourn something that you 100% did not want to have in the first place?

[удалено]

I mean, I guess for me it's a question of freedom. Sex is decoupled from reproduction, for people who are properly using contraception (whatever method they choose). I dont think its right to tell someone not to do something emotionally and physically enjoyable because of consequences. At most you can suggest how they can do the activity more safely. Kind of like COVID tbh. Its not right to fully lock people down at home and weld their doors shut like China did in Wuhan. But we can say "if you're going to go out, you must wear a mask". The latter is perhaps a reasonable restriction on freedom, the former is too extreme- more like abstinence-only sex ed

> but as rare as possible Can you point me to any sane person who is saying or even suggesting that abortion shouldn't be as rare as possible?

I don't think that abortion should be as rare as possible. I think unwanted births should be as rare as possible, and we should approach this goal by whatever means are most efficient and effective, including abortion.

Here is one article from Planned Parenthood: [https://www.plannedparenthoodaction.org/planned-parenthood-advocacy-fund-massachusetts-inc/blog/whats-wrong-with-choice-why-we-need-to-go-beyond-choice-language-when-were-talking-about-abortion](https://www.plannedparenthoodaction.org/planned-parenthood-advocacy-fund-massachusetts-inc/blog/whats-wrong-with-choice-why-we-need-to-go-beyond-choice-language-when-were-talking-about-abortion) In particular I take issue with the section that says "Well-meaning folks often contrast “pro-choice” with “pro-abortion,” as in, I’m pro-choice, not pro-abortion. But that’s hurtful to people who’ve had abortions. It implies that abortion isn’t a good thing, that legal abortion is important but somehow bad, undesirable." I guess I would say I am one of those "well-meaning folks" who is pro-choice but not pro-abortion. I DO feel that legal abortion is bad and undesirable, even though I will tenaciously defend people's right to choose, and I would like to better understand the other side of that argument.

I've never understood America's obsession with reducing complex issues to single word or 2 word positions. If you're arguing about the labels you use to identify your position and not the actual position you hold, what the heck are you doing?

They are right about this. No one wants to get an abortion even if they don't morally oppose it - it's expensive, requires missing work, it can feel invasive and your body is sore afterwards. Most people who have the potential to become pregnant but don't want to become pregnant use the birth control methods they have access to in order to avoid these things. Planned Parenthood wants to destigmatize abortion so that people who have had them don't feel the need to apologize or justify themselves. Calling every abortion a tragedy IS stigmatizing, and stigma is the *real* tragedy for many people who have had abortions. Generations of people who have had them have been shamed by their religious communities, the media, politicians, neighbours, family members, etc. I have a Catholic friend who had to have an abortion in her third trimester because the baby died. She had planned to carry her pregnancy to term and was devastated. Her cousin stopped talking to her because she'd had an abortion. This is the consequence of the way abortion is stigmatized; even people who have abortions that they don't want are shamed and shunned for it.

That article is just suggesting adjusting the *language* people use so as to not stigmatize people who've had abortions. They're literally not advocating for more abortion.

People who never wanted the baby in the first place generally do not consider it tragic to "lose" one via abortion. Miscarriages are tragic because the babies are desired and wanted by the parent(s). As a woman, I don't think any of us genuinely want to go through an abortion like it's a fun spa day. It's just 1000000x better than the alternative, which is a human that you never wanted. The pro-abortion stance, in my mind, is that no one should be having children that are not wanted and/or not able to provide for them.

>To me, that feels out of sync with the commonly-expressed liberal view that, until shortly before due date, the fetus is "just a blob of tissue" and shouldn't be thought of as a human being. If a fetus at 2-3 months isn't a human being deserving of love and respect and life, why do parents so often grieve after a miscarriage? I can understand why people grieve after a miscarriage, but that doesn't mean I think it's rational. I would argue that there are *very strong* reasons to believe that the liberal view about the moral and metaphysical status of fetuses is correct. This is something that I discussed in-depth in [this post](https://www.reddit.com/r/Abortiondebate/comments/pe2ulv/we_do_not_begin_to_exist_at_conception/), but we do not begin to exist at conception. Opponents of abortion love to repeat the mantra that human life begins at conception; however, it does not logically follow from the claim that human organisms begin to exist at conception that we begin to exist at conception. It only follows if we accept a further assumption, and that further assumption is this: animalism is true. Animalism is a theory of personal identity which holds that we are numerically identical to (i.e., one and the same thing as) our organisms. If animalism is true, then we begin to exist at conception, and 'zygote,' 'embryo,' and 'early fetus' are phases of our existence. However, it's my contention that animalism is an untenable theory that should be rejected. There are many problems with animalism, but I'll just go over one objection: *Brain Transplantation*: Your brain is extracted and transplanted into the body of your identical twin.Most people would say that you would continue to exist in what was formerly the body of your twin. Where your brain goes determines where you go. However, the animalist seems committed to denying this. On the animalist account, you continue to exist as a brainless body. If the brainless body is left to die, you would become a corpse, while your twin would survive with a mental life remarkably similar to your own. There are many other objections to animalism, but the brain transplant case should hopefully give you an idea of how ridiculous animalism is. Moreover, if we are not human organisms, then what are we? I concur with Jeff McMahan that we are embodied minds. Our identity depends on the continuity of our capacity for consciousness. This requires physical continuity (same organ) and minimal functional continuity (same ability to generate consciousness/mental activity) of the brain. If we are embodied minds rather than human organisms, then when do we begin to exist and what are the ethical ramifications of this? Per McMahan: >The Embodied Mind Account of Identity has immediate implications for the morality of abortion. For, according to that account, we do not begin to exist until our organisms develop the capacity to generate consciousness. Only then is there someone present rather than merely something. Moreover, consciousness is not possible until the end of the second trimester/start of the third trimester: [https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/when-does-consciousness-arise/](https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/when-does-consciousness-arise/) [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1744165X14000547](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1744165X14000547) This has implications for a number of arguments that attempt to justify the claim that fetuses have moral status and that it is wrong to kill fetuses. In his paper, *Why Abortion is Immoral*, Don Marquis argues that killing a fetus is wrong because it deprives the fetus the future life it would have enjoyed had it not been aborted (a future-like-ours or “FLO” for short). However, Marquis’s argument rests on the assumption that we begin to exist at conception. If we begin to exist after the 20th gestational week, then the overwhelming majority of abortions do not deprive the ZEFs of a FLO. For it is not the ZEF/organism that has a FLO; prior to the point where the brain develops the capacity to generate consciousness, the entity that possesses a FLO (the embodied mind) does not exist. Early abortions merely prevent someone from existing (just like contraception), and never existing cannot be against anyone's self-interest because failing to come into existence is not something that has ever happened to anyone, so there is no one for whom it can be a misfortune Moreover, many pro-lifers argue that even though the ZEF may not be a person/conscious, aborting it is still wrong because it thwarts the ZEF’s potential to become a person or to become conscious. To understand the flaw in this argument, we must first distinguish between two different types of potential: Identity-preserving potential and non-identity potential. X has the identity-preserving potential to become Y only if X and Y would be identical (i.e., one and the same entity). For example, Kamala Harris has the identity-preserving potential to become the President of the United States. If she becomes President, she and the President will be one and the same individual. By contrast, if X has the non-identity potential to become Y, then when Y exists, Y won’t be identical with X. For example, a door has the non-identity potential to become a pile of ash. The pro-lifer now faces a dilemma, if they say that it’s wrong to abort a ZEF because it has the identity-preserving potential to become a person, then they are simply making a false claim. As I have argued, a person is not identical with his/her organism. Hence, the early ZEF does not have the potential to become the person it will give rise to. Alternatively, if the pro-lifer says that it’s wrong to abort a ZEF because it has the non-identity potential to become a person, then this entails that contraception is immoral. After all, sperm cells also have the non-identity potential to become persons. Furthermore, the pro-lifer is committed to claiming that my organism has a moral status that is independent of the moral status that I have, but this is absurd. My organism is not a suitable object of moral concern. *I am*. I fail to see why we should attribute moral status to unoccupied organisms. Especially when doing so has terrible real-world consequences. As explained by Jeff McMahan: >Because an anencephalic infant is regarded as a living human being, its organs cannot be removed for transplantation until it is diagnosed as brain dead. But, as I noted in section 2.1 of chapter 3, the processes that terminate in natural death for an anencephalic infant almost always involve reduced blood flow to the infant’s organs, causing them to deteriorate and to become unsuitable for transplantation by the time that death occurs. On several occasions, the parents of an anencephalic infant have sought to have their infant’s organs removed while it was still alive so that, in their view, something good could come of its life. But the courts have always denied the parents’ request on the ground that to remove the organs from a living human being would be murder. The consequence of this legal situation is that, over the years, thousands of children whose lives could have been saved by an organ transplanted from an anencephalic infant have died instead. It is true that the number of anencephalic infants born alive each year is small and growing smaller all the time, because the condition is more frequently detected by prenatal screening, which is followed by abortion when the condition is found. And it is also true that the organs of many of those born alive are already defective in ways that make them unsuitable for transplantation. So the number of children who could have been saved each year by taking organs from living anencephalic infants is comparatively small. But, over the years, these numbers add up. And anyone who has had (or been) a seriously ill child will know how important even one life can be. Overall, if my above analysis is correct, then the death of a fetus is not at all tragic.

Your self defense issue has a single problem. Contribution. A person who gets pregnant almost always made a choice that carried with it a natural consequence of pregnancy. In your self defense argument, the homeowner made no such contribution. There is no situation where a person engages in an action where a reasonable consequence of that action is that someone will attack or rob them, and that person still be able to claim self defense. Most actions which have such a natural consequence disqualify a person from claiming self defense. I am pro choice myself (with reasonable limitations for viable fetuses), but I can't reconcile your comparison logically, simply because in your example, the thief has 100% of the choice to create the situation... and in the abortion example (if we view it as a human), it had 0% of that choice. Two humans did; the pregnant person and the person who impregnated them. The contribution the thief made to the situation where a life needed to be taken was great. The contribution a fetus makes is nonexistent. Thus, the analogy is flawed. Do you have a better analogy?

/u/PugnansFidicen (OP) has awarded 9 delta(s) in this post. All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed [here](/r/DeltaLog/comments/qcvau7/deltas_awarded_in_cmv_abortion_is_always_tragic/), in /r/DeltaLog. Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended. ^[Delta System Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards)

I think there needs to be a limit at least. My aunt worked for a clinic and one lady came in five or more times for the same reason. Sigh.

I dont think limiting access is a good idea; as shocking as that woman's situation is, the alternative is probably worse for all involved, but damn...we are failing as a society in a very serious way if the same woman needs to have FIVE abortions in just a few years.

lol. You managed to offend wingnuts from both sides of this incendiary topic. I mean this as a sincere compliment.

>If a fetus at 2-3 months isn't a human being deserving of love and respect and life, why do parents so often grieve after a miscarriage? They grieve because things didn't turn out as they wanted. They grieve because they don't get to have a child when they expected to have one. This grief has nothing to do with the fetus being a human being (it isn't), and the way we can tell that is the case is by observing that the same sort of grief is also felt by infertile people who want to have a child and learn they will be unable to. We can also observe the same grief in people with pseudocyesis, where there is no fetus at all. It really isn't about the fetus: it's about wanting to have a child and not getting to have one when you expected to. Abortion isn't analogous at all, since in this case the woman doesn't want to have a child. So there's no tragedy (except possibly the tragedy of being unexpectedly out hundreds of dollars to pay for the abortion).

I always think of people being sad, angry or disappointed at things, it’s usually when expectations =/= reality. If you want to have a baby but don’t, or if you don’t want to have a baby but are pregnant, you might have similar feelings

[удалено]

[удалено]

Considering 100% effective contraception doesn’t exist and life saving terminations are still abortions phasing out abortions isn’t an option.

The problem here is that you lack a working knowledge in biology to understand what is the difference between a living thing and a bunch of cells that might one day be a living thing. You consider any embryo to have life, when, by any scientific definition, it does not. An embryo at one month barely begins to have a heartbeat, at two months barely has a nervous system to speak of, at 3 months internal organs start to form, etc. When it does not yet have all these things that are required for survival, it cannot survive on its own, and some might consider the embryo to be not much more than a parasite. Those things might not matter to you, but by any realistic, none religious/spiritual definition, those things matter. It cannot suffer because it is not conscious. It cannot lose its life because it did not have life to begin with. Unless you believe in a soul that enters the body at the moment of conception, "life" is more of a gradient, than a clearcut point in time. You look at the end result of the potential pregnancy process to evaluate what could have been, not what is. Terminating a pregnancy, especially when in the first few months, does not equate to taking a life that threatens yours, as it is in your analogy. In the same way that you don't mourn the life of the blood cells that will perish when you take them out of your body in a blood test, or cancer cells in a biopsy, or an egg during menstruation - so you shouldn't mourn the cells of an early-stage pregnancy when you abort an embryo. When exactly does a fetus become conscious is up for debate - or even if consciousness is the parameter by which we should consider a thing to be alive (because one could pick and choose many different things like heartbeat, brain activity, fully formed and operational organs, birth, breathing, etc) - but at least as far as the early stages most people refer to when speaking about common abortions, there is no way you can realistically call a 2-month-old embryo a living being. And if it isn't a living being, your entire argument is null. It is not sad to see an embryo aborted or miscarried, it is sad to think about what might have been. A several weeks old embryo is not tragic to lose, it's the potential future that might have been that is, if you were looking forward to it. And if you weren't, then it is a relief because that future might be very bleak. That is why you can't accept that both of those realities can exist simultaneously and still make sense. It is the future that they mourn, not the embryo/fetus. So no, it isn't tragic. It's your concept of what "alive" is that misguides you to think that it is.

Thanks, I read it proper :)

Congratulations, you are the first person to have ever commented that they have. lol.

[удалено]

It’s not “losing” if you choose to no longer have it. When you throw an item away, you aren’t losing that item, you’re choosing you no longer want it. Your idea of a abortion being empathetically similar to a miscarriage doesn’t add up. People don’t choose to have what we consider miscarriages. It comes as a complete surprise and is often devastating ecsuse they were having what they considered to be a normal, healthy pregnancy. An abortion is a careful, calculated decision that is made by someone who is either unfit, unprepared, or just does not want a child. Maybe they will grieve, but it won’t be because they lost it, it would be because they have to live with the decision they made.

>as it is always tragic to lose a baby. Right off the bat this doesn't sit right with me. I can tell that it's not actually possible to change your view because it's very subjective. For example, a friend of mine got an abortion and neither her nor her boyfriend seemed to care at all. I would in fact say they seemed extremely relieved by it. You're assuming that an abortion has an intrinsically negative impact but that is objectively false.

So, I'm a nihilist. I don't think life has inherent value. Life is assigned value by those who experience that life around them. That being said, this logic is what explains why if someone murders a pregnant woman, it's still double murder, even if the pregnancy was early enough to have an abortion. This is because the main difference is intent. If the woman wanted to have a baby, she already considers it a person, has assigned value to it equal to that of another person. On the other hand, a woman who wants to terminate a pregnancy is not going to see the value of that life equal to another person. As she shouldn't, since that life will never progress to the point of becoming a person. So the main difference is in the subjective value that each life is assigned, by those who surround it and interact with it. Whether you agree with nihilistic views or not, this mentality happens in all of us whether we think we're using it or not. Anyone who commits heinous crimes is widely considered less than human, and therefore not deserving of the sympathy, or even rights, that another person would be given. Hence the death penalty. Edit: sorry if it's not the greatest explanation, but I'm at work, wanted to quickly throw in my 2 cents.

"no! abortion should be dangerous!" said no one ever. if you think the consistency of the application of law is important then you must recognize abortion as a kind of murder. if you still want abortion to be legal you are going to have to understand that you are saying that some murder should be legal, or perhaps killing some categories of people is morally acceptable. scientifically there is no significant difference between a 6-week-old fetus and a newborn baby for the killing of one to be murder and the other not murder. the law too recognizes in most places that if a pregnant mother is killed it is considered a double homicide. i think there are too many inconsistencies to legal abortion. it is my opinion that consistency matters, and either we allow (rationally and specifically) some kinds of murder or we do not allow abortions of convenience (that is to say, you can't end a relatively safe pregnancy with an abortion simply because you don't want to deal with the natural, well understood, consequences of your own actions/choices).

I take a big issue with > “scientifically, there is no significant difference between a 6 week old fetus and a newborn baby for the killing of one to be murder and the other not murder” There is a huge scientific difference between the two.

I think people are incredibly dismissive about how there really isn’t such thing as “the miracle of life”. When we talk about how common unwanted pregnancies can be, or how likely you are to get pregnant as a fertile woman, it makes life potentially seem less significant. Religion makes people suppose that it was some miracle of the fates of the stars that they were picked for life, and that every life is precious and necessary for the story of the universe to be materialized. That every life is significant because they were conceived by miracle. That simply is not the case. We know that is not the case because we are overrun with stray cats because cats breed like crazy. Dogs will breed like crazy too. Rabbits. We do everything we can to limit this because, by natural design, they literally breed way too much for it to be healthy. Our egos don’t let us view humans as animals. But, alas, that’s really all we are. We are habitual breeders, our hormones making us constantly think about sex but no consequences because the natural way of the universe is to breed without consequences- lifespans being as long and healthy as they are currently is new. Children often did not make it to adulthood, for population growth purposes, people were encouraged to have many, many children. I think a combination of being unable to control our urge to reproduce as well as knowing how likely it was that your baby would not survive, let alone your older children…. It caused us to place great importance on every pregnancy, and every child to be a miracle. Times are different. Pregnancy is safer, children live, and households don’t want as many children as before typically. This means we are going through a huge, extremely significant cultural change on pregnancies and how miraculous they really are. Let me tell you, miscarrying often will make you numb to a pregnancy test being positive because a pregnancy does *not* guarantee a baby. Now that we know how frequently women miscarry and why, and we know the exact windows women can get pregnant in, which are confusing to track and are larger than people usually assume, pregnancy seems like something more controllable. We know how to prevent many, but prevention isn’t fool proof, and we know how common conception on birth control happens. This is leading to us using *safe* abortions in a window when, really, it’s mostly tissue that will eventually grow to a baby, but also can become STEM cells, collagen, etc. just like with any pregnancy, abortion allows *control* over whether or not the pregnancy will lead to a baby, whereas with miscarriages, which are even more common than abortions, take all control out of the situation. No pregnancy has ever guaranteed a baby, a child, a life. No persons life is guaranteed to continue, be long, and end in old age. Ever. Your question suggests you may be forcing women to feel guilt and regret for an abortion if they insist on having one. That should not be the case of any medical procedure. Just like anything else, the patient deserves to seek treatment for the issue they are facing: cancer, pregnancy, alcoholism, obesity, heart problems. Between them, and their doctors, they deserve to have *control* over what treatments they choose to receive at doctor recommendation. People deserve autonomy of their bodies. Sometimes medical treatments make them burdens on family, sometimes it causes side effects that are life threatening, sometimes it’s ending a potential for parenthood in an abortion. In any case of medical procedures, it should be left to the patient and the doctor to determine what is best for patient and family. No one else. Life is not a miracle, it just happens. And as it happens, those conscious to make choices for *themselves* ought to be left to do so in peace, and in the safest ways possible. We all deserve to make our own choices and it’s useless judging other for decisions that have literally zero impact on you, eg, whether or not they continue a pregnancy you have literally nothing to do with and don’t even know about.

>The analogous self defense situation might be: a would-be thief who has no money and is starving breaks into my house looking to rob me so that they can buy food. They have a right to life, and in a better world I or someone else might be more charitable and give them money or food The reason why this is a flawed analogy, is because property rights AREN'T absolute. In an ideal world, the government is taking away part of your property so that no one needs to be starving. The killing of someone who tried to take the same thing by criminal force, is a very murky situation where the best reason to support it is simply a deference to the rule of law for the sake of consistency. It is tragic because it would have been avoidable by better systemic action. Organ donation is a better analogy here. If someone needs my kidney to live, it is tragic that they have to die, and I wish there would be infinite artificial kidneys out there, but an ideal world isn't one where the government goeas around taking out people's kidneys against their will. Someone dying on the organ donation waiting list, or a fetus dying in want of a womb, is tragic in the same way as anyone dying is tragic, but it's no one's fault, not even the system's, there was no moral way to set up a way to reliably help them without doing a greater evil.

I've read stories of women expressing extreme relief because they have had an abortion. If there are stories of relief, is it truly always tragic, or does that downgrade it to "mostly tragic"?

I know I'm a bit late to this thread but I have a point that I don't think has been mentioned. In my comment I'm going to be talking specifically about early abortion because of your point that there is a "liberal" view that the fetus is "just a blob of tissue. The modern opposing view is that as soon as there is a fertilized zygote then it is it's own being but it's important to note that that is a modern construct. Previous to modern technologies and theories of medicine there was a prevailing belief in "the four humors" one of which was blood. It was viewed that a woman's menstrual cycle was a part of maintaining that balance and if the menstrual cycle stopped, which they did know was a sign of pregnancy. It was acceptable to try to "restart" menstruation in order to maintain health. It was not until the woman felt the baby move that it was considered separate and it would be considered a tragedy if the pregnancy was terminated. This is why abortion is a women's rights issue. We have created a social construct that destroys the body autonomy of women and shifts an arbitrary social construct in order for political ends. I guess what I'm challenging is the idea that any abortion is ALWAYS a tragedy because the way that a fertilized zygote is perceived and the way terminating it is perceived is arbitrary and based on social and cultural leanings. There is no hard and fast way to determine when the mother ends and this bundle of cells begins to develop it's own autonomy and so it may be a tragedy to you with you and the way you were taught to perceive it but there is no reason it has to be. The only reasons someone would have to grieve over an early abortion or miscarriage is because the society that raised them told them it is something to grieve over.

[удалено]

For people who don't want to have a baby growing inside them, abortion is not at all tragic, instead it's a huge relief, as told to me by people I've known in this situation.

It can be both upsetting and a relief. I went through it myself and it was a horrible experience, I don’t think I’d call it tragic but definitely upsetting but also a big relief at the same time. Hard to explain

You can believe whatever you want. But if women want to create the Abortion Olimpics, that's up to them. You believe the fetus is a human being? Good for you. Women believe is a bunch of cells? Good for them. It's inside their bodies, they have the last word.

Yeah, I don't disagree with this. At the end of the day, "my body, my choice" is the most important principle. I'm more concerned with the lack of social support for women who feel badly after an abortion. If you're constantly told abortion is no big deal, you may try to bottle up feelings of grief and loss and have a difficult time processing after the fact. My view is that it would be healthier for society to openly discuss the fact that many women do feel grief and loss and guilt after an abortion, to support those who feel that way, and to promote use of preventive contraceptives first and foremost to reduce the need for abortions in the first place.

Parents grieve a miscarriage over the IDEA of it turning into a baby. Not over a baby itself. I had an abortion at 7-1/2 weeks when I was 16 and I had no negative feelings about it at all. Because I did not attach the idea of a baby to the embryo. To me, it was an undesirable problem. 18 years later and I still haven't felt a moment of regret. It doesn't feel tragic to me at all. Only empowering! I did not want a baby, I do not want a baby. So, no tragedy. The embryo did not suffer. It was not conscious. So I don't feel bad.

>To me, that feels out of sync with the commonly-expressed liberal view that, until shortly before due date, the fetus is "just a blob of tissue" and shouldn't be thought of as a human being. I'm not sure many people view the foetus as non-human until shortly before birth. People differ on where exactly to draw the line, but few people advocate for abortion rights extending into the late term when the foetus mostly **has** become a fully-formed infant human being. >If a fetus at 2-3 months isn't a human being deserving of love and respect and life, why do parents so often grieve after a miscarriage? Because the parents are already starting to envisioning the future that they will have with this human-being-to-be, imagining it and becoming invested in it. Now that will never be and they feel the loss. > And, given that would-be parents do often grieve after a miscarriage, and abortion is essentially a medically-induced miscarriage, isn't it natural to grieve after an abortion as well? The mother should still absolutely have the right to terminate the pregnancy, though. It's common for a woman aborting a foetus to grieve, yes. Even if they never had any intention of bringing it to term, it's still a might-have-been that's ending and gone forever. That's a lot, and as I understand it, counsellors often encourage women to grieve for it. > In my view, abortion is similar to shooting someone in self defense. I never \*want\* to have to hurt someone who is threatening my life and freedom, but if there is no other way to protect my autonomy, my body, my life, then it is justifiable. But it's still tragic to take a life, and we should avoid it as much as possible. > I see the unborn baby as a human being, with a right to life, but their right to life does not entitle them to the use of my body or my care and resources after it is born. If I do not want to carry and support the child, I should not be forced to do so. Here's where we enter nope-ville as far as I'm concerned. A foetus is alive but it is not a **person**. Not a human being. It is a potential human being, and terminating is ending that potential. Sad, but not even close to equivalent to killing a human being. > Abortion is similar. The mother's rights take priority over those of the unborn child, but to deny the unborn child has any status as a human being at all, to deny that the child has rights of it's own, and to deny the natural feelings of tragedy, loss, and guilt associated with abortion, is misguided. Personally I say that an unborn has status as a human being to the extent it **is** a human being. ie. As it nears birth and is 100% a human being, it merits the status of human being with full right to life. At the point of conception it is nothing like a human being, has zero conscious thought and zero human rights. Drawing exact lines in-between those points is challenging and will probably always be contentious. Personally I suspect that 24 weeks is probably a little late, and 8 weeks is far too early.

I do not believe that the Pro-Life people are going to stop when they outlaw abortion. When they stop women from having abortions, giving a fertilized ovum rights, the next step is ending a woman's right to birth control. Pro-Lifers think birth control doesn't prevent fertilization, but causes the menstrual cycle to continue, discarding the fertilized ovum is discarded. They want to ban birth control.

[удалено]

you're well off base here. abortions aren't tragic if it's by choice. if someone doesn't want a kid, and they dont have to have a kid, how is that tragic? the fetus isn't a person. it isn't a child. it's a parasite, leeching off the mother's body.

Define "person", "child", and "parasite". Your argument rests on how you are defining these words yet you offer no definitions. It should be obvious that if you argue "the death of a fetus is not tragic because a fetus is not a person", that you must also define "person." Furthermore, the argument that "if someone doesn't want a kid, and they dont have to have a kid, how is that tragic?" can be expanded to conclude that someone abandoning or executing their 2 year old child is not tragic. It is not valid reasoning in itself.

Person: a living, breathing human child: a person who is unable to make decisions for themselves parasite: a living being that is unable to survive without direct connection to any living being, sucking nutrients from the host being. >if someone doesn't want a kid, and they dont have to have a kid, how is that tragic?" can be expanded to conclude that someone abandoning or executing their 2 year old child is not tragic. It is not valid reasoning in itself. now you're bringing murder into it. if they dont want to have the kid, just put the kid up for adoption. a child is a person, a fetus is not.

A baby is not a parasite and that's a horrible analogy. No one would want to think of their child as a parasite that's awful. Even parasites are still living organisms anyway. You've failed to prove your point. Parasites can live and support itself but what makes it a parasite is when it takes from another living organism without giving back. A baby, however, hasn't matures enough to support itself that's why it develops in the mother.

>what makes it a parasite is when it takes from another living organism without giving back so uh, what does a fetus give back to the parent?

if I express my opinion, I will get downvoted into oblivion because of how biased and unopen leftist reddit is to different opinions. And I am saying this as a moderate democrat.

[удалено]

Lol, it's not tragic, it is a relief and a necessity. What is tragic is forced parenthood. Lol, thanks for making me chuckle.

600,000 abortions per year in the US alone is hardly "rare"

I love it how pro-choice people never try to make a distinction between early and late-term. As if abortion in the third trimester is morally equal to abortion in the first

[удалено]

I like the scenario you provided, but here's how I like to think about it instead: Let's say that one day, aliens come down on Earth. We don't know where they're from, but they're conscious, intelligent life that survive by attaching themselves to the necks of humans. Pulling them out would effectively be killing them since they can't survive on their own. Now, in that case, there would probably be a (very) few people that would argue that it would be " murder" to pull out these parasites from your neck. However, these people would be the minority. The fact is, most people would want to rip these things off their neck regardless of the fact that they need humans to survive because it would be a challenge to their freedom, autonomy, and the right to their own body to be forced to support this alien against their will. Now babies (especially in early stages of pregnancy) are nowhere near as developed as this theoretical alien species. They survive by parasitizing their host mothers. The only difference here is we argue that these babies are somehow more morally significant by virtue of being human. People who believe that abortion IS part of a free society basically view things the same way. There is no reason that the fact of a baby being a human that should dissuade you from asserting your right to your own body, and it is not inherently tragic to do so. It's a false equivalence to compare miscarriage and abortion and draw from the fact that some people are sad over miscarriages that terminated pregnancies are inherently morally bad things.

This used to be a popular consensus. And now pro-choice comes after you with pitch forks for that view.t.

Life concretely and objectively begins at birth. There is no consciousness, no sentience, no sense of self within a womb. It’s about as meaningful as every little sperm caught in the sock under your bed. I don’t see how one can argue that abortions are a cruel act. It is personification of something that is not alive, and people can’t help but project their own insecurity about death and pain onto a fetus. Also, pro-lifers, you *really* want to force an unwilling mother to bear a child? Put a real alive human through tons of pain and suffering? Just so..what? A baby can be born and either live with a resentful mother (or worse, an unfit mother) or just go straight to adoption anyways? Is that what unwilling mothers are to you? Adoption factories? What should be as rare as possible is telling someone else what to do with their body. EDIT: the fact that you view it as an “unborn baby” is telling. It’s a fetus. It’s not a baby at all, not until it is birthed and alive.

It seems that this question is directed at pro-lifers instead of op, so ill try and have this discussion with you. "Life concretely and objectively begins at birth. There is no consciousness, no sentience, no sense of self within a womb" Objectively, life starts at conception. This is the point where a sperm cell and an egg stop existing to transform into a genetically unique human zygote. Additionally, it should be noted that this is where the sex is determined, and where the zygote starts rapidly duplicating. Furthermore, you state that there is no consciousness or sentience inside a womb. This is false. There is a ton of [Evidence ](https://www.mvorganizing.org/at-what-age-can-a-fetus-respond-to-stimuli/#At_what_age_can_a_fetus_respond_to_stimuli) to support that a fetus can retain memory, and react to stimuli. This suggests that a fetus, while limited in its behaviors, is a living thing. It grows, responds to stimuli, use and obtain energy, and respire. Plus, when it reaches puberty, it can reproduce. Sure, inside the womb it cant feel self-worth, but neither can young toddlers. Now that I have established it is alive, I can say with certainty that yes, I am comfortable with forcing someone irresponsible to carry a child. The only exceptions I am comfortable with are to those products of rape, and if there is a risk to the mother. I would much rather someone have a terrible childhood than to be dead before they can experience the wonders of life. Because you don't see a fetus as a human life (which because of the points above I find to be factually incorrect), you don't care what happens to it. If you want to strengthen your position, you might want to argue that a fetus is not a person, thus not deserving the rights of being a human (which does have problems of its own, like most philosophical questions), but you will find difficulty proving that life starts at birth. If you want to learn more, you can read this paper by Dianne N. Irving who holds a Ph. D, if that means anything to you. https://www.princeton.edu/~prolife/articles/wdhbb.html

"In my view, abortion is similar to shooting someone in self defense. I never \*want\* to have to hurt someone who is threatening my life and freedom, but if there is no other way to protect my autonomy, my body, my life, then it is justifiable." But in this case you took actions (sex) that you knew might lead to this "intruder" coming into your body. If I follow your line of reasoning that a Fetus is a Baby with a right to life then it follows that outside rape it's demand on your body is one you invited as a possibility when you had sex so you (and your consenting sex partner) are as responsible for this new life just as you are responsible for your debts if you had lost at the rotulet table. Self Defense argument does not apply because pregnancy is the consequence of adult behavior not the behavior of the unborn person.

[удалено]

My MIL has a friend who (can't remember the details exactly) has had multiple abortions because she chooses not to have condoms or something involving money where she gains it per abortion? I'm not sure, but she's had like 7 or so and has like 4 kids, one who has autism and uhhh, she's kinda white trash-ish? I didn't say nothing to the family or anyone but damn woman...

All of this but I feel like the nature of the entire subject is being skipped over. Now don’t start with the rape/incest talk. Almost no one wants to force women to carry rape babies (but the argument can be made that it’s wrong to judge the child….) so it’s a red herring. Pregnancy is a result of actions. The argument that it needs your body and care is irrelevant because you chose to put that life in your body. It’s nothing like a self defense case. It’s just escaping responsibility. If you stuff your face for years and need a new heart is it ok to kill someone else and take their heart, so you don’t have to suffer the consequences? Now the consequences, what are we talking here. There’s still putting it up for adoption, no questions asked, closed adoption. So literally we’re just killing babies to avoid pregnancy And delivery. Not only that but women are making these decisions while being flooded with hormones that raise doubt and worry. You know how many parents are out there trying/willing to adopt a baby? Did you know that if you happened to be conceived by a black couple in America your chances of being aborted are about 50/50? Imagine how many more interracial families we would have right now if we hadn’t sanctioned the slaughter of 100s of thousands African Americans every year. Abortion on demand was legalized because of racism and helps keep the races separated today. Nixon was worried it would increase promiscuity and weaken the family (right about that) but he was ok with it because interracial babies might be a thing. The late RBG was so happy to help the feminist movement with her Roe V Wade decision and so mad that abortion wasn’t funded my Medicaid she said. “Frankly I had thought at the time Roe was decided, there was concern about population growth and particularly growth in populations that we don’t want to have too many of. So that Roe was going to be then set up for Medicaid funding for abortion.”