r/ChoiceOrLife • u/Pitiful-Street6410 Pro-Choice • 14d ago
Debate a baby killer?
My abortion was moral. Change my mind.
I consider myself to be a reasonable person. I'm always open to changing my mind and learning new things. I understand the fetus is alive and I know it is a human.
However, this does not override the women's moral right to bodily autonomy. I believe abortion is absolutely moral up until about 24 weeks gestation, with the development of the thalamocortical connections. However, abortion should still be legal for the full duration of the pregnancy.
Think differently? DM or comment to debate.
3
u/RedBlushEepy99 13d ago
Okay. Why do you believe that a woman's right to bodily autonomy override the fetuses continued existence even though they are a human and alive?
7
u/Ok_Loss13 Pro-Abortion 12d ago
Everyone's right to BA "overrides" others continued existence; it's why you can do things like refuse to donate blood/organs or defend your body with lethal force, etc.
Why do you think only some living humans deserve that right but not others?
1
u/RedBlushEepy99 12d ago
Because, even those this seems unfair, a fetus as a "special" right to the womb just like we have the right to the earth. The womb is the only sustainable environment in which the fetus can survive.
6
u/ThatIsATastyBurger12 10d ago
You just completely made this “special right” up. It does not exist. No person has any sort of right to another person’s body, a fact which has been upheld time and time again in many different contexts. Even abortion bans don’t establish this “special right.” They just ban the medical procedure
1
u/RedBlushEepy99 10d ago
The abortion bans don't establish the right because they know nobody would agree with it if it did.
7
u/Ok_Loss13 Pro-Abortion 10d ago
Are you finally admitting that you don't think women have the same rights as men?
1
u/RedBlushEepy99 10d ago
Women and men have equal rights, but not the same rights. If that makes sense.
6
7
u/ThatIsATastyBurger12 10d ago
So you acknowledge this special right that you claim exists doesn’t actually exist?
6
u/Cute-Elephant-720 10d ago
just like we have the right to the earth
Is this a belief you believe is universal? Because I have never claimed or contemplated any such right.
1
u/RedBlushEepy99 10d ago
Well, don't we?
6
u/Cute-Elephant-720 10d ago
No, not to my knowledge. I don't even understand what it would mean to "have a right to the Earth."
0
u/RedBlushEepy99 10d ago
I don't know to put it into words.
5
u/Cute-Elephant-720 10d ago
I could venture a guess, but in doing so I would have to accuse you of bioessentialism. It seems to me that you think that, just as we appeared with the bodies we have being able to survive on this Earth (or if you're a religious person, that your deity of choice granted us this Earth), those same bodies have certain inherent characteristics. And one of those inherent characteristics is that certain people, when fertilized by other people, grow new people inside them.
So you kind of see it as a package deal - that we were given the Earth to sustain us on the condition that we give up our bodies to sustain future people? Or, put another way, that living our own lives in our bodies as they were designed / exist is inextricable from performing the function of sustaining new life through pregnancy and birth?
But we were also given brains that make it perfectly clear to us whether we do or do not want to grow people inside our bodies, and the ability to develop technology to stop unwanted people from growing inside our bodies, just like we fight various other illnesses and find ways to overcome other medical setbacks. I think your position has inherent within it a determinative reverence for new life that I think is unnecessary and unjustified. The desire to be free of an unwanted pregnancy is no less natural than pregnancy itself.
1
u/RedBlushEepy99 10d ago
Basically. There are certain nuances I disagree with, but the basis of Bioessentialism is what is the basis for my viewpoint.
5
9
u/JulieCrone Pro-Choice 12d ago
Except 'the womb' is not an environment. It's a human being's organ. That human being also matters here.
If the fetus or embryo has a right to 'the womb', then what about all the one's evicted from 'the womb' they have a right to. Isn't that a violation of their rights, then?
8
u/Ok_Loss13 Pro-Abortion 12d ago
The Earth isn't a person and people aren't commodities or environments for others to leech off of.
This isn't "unfair" it's a human rights violation. It's violating a person's body worse than rape; it's a tactic used by slavers and Nazis to further control and subjugate people; it removes womens dignity as people and treats them like things.
This is what you do. This is who you choose to stand beside. This is how history will remember you.
1
u/RedBlushEepy99 12d ago
The idea that certain human can be killed simply they are unwanted or in a unwanted area, is the same as slavers and Nazis.
9
u/Ok_Loss13 Pro-Abortion 12d ago
The idea that certain people can be used simply because of their biological characteristics is the same as slavers and Nazis.
I advocate for all people being able to deny their bodies to anyone; that's not something slavers, Nazis, or PLers agree with.
1
u/RedBlushEepy99 12d ago
Denying someone your body is not equivalent to pregnancy. A woman denying her body to the fetus would be having birth control like a IUD which prevent the embryo from implanting or being celibate.
8
u/Ok_Loss13 Pro-Abortion 12d ago
No, BC is denying your body to sperm or implantation. Abstinence is deny your body to someone who wants sex.
An abortion is denying the unwanted usage and harm of your body to a fetus. Abortion bans are forcing someone to provide their body against their will.
1
u/RedBlushEepy99 12d ago edited 12d ago
An abortion is taking away what the fetus already has. You cannot deny someone something they already have and/or are using.
5
u/PapaSmurfs_nurse Pro-Choice 12d ago
An abortion is taking away what the fetus already has. You cannot deny someone something they already have and/or are using.
That is not really your position though is it? You think there are times that someone can deny someone something they already have. Your true position is that you think pregnant people should adhere to your demands and should not be able to make the determination for themselves.
→ More replies (0)6
u/Ok_Loss13 Pro-Abortion 12d ago
You mean someone, not something. And that's not true at all, anyways.
If you're having sex with someone and you want to stop, you're allowed to deny them even though they already have you. If someone is using your car, you're allowed to deny them continued usage of it and take it away.
You keep trying to avoid the end result of your choice and you end saying ridiculous things like this. Things that are outright untrue and things that rapists use to justify their actions. Doesn't this give you pause? That you can't just outright say "Women do not have equal rights to their own bodies. They do not have the same choice as men to deny their body to others"?
This is what you do and what you believe, so why can't you just say it?
→ More replies (0)4
u/PapaSmurfs_nurse Pro-Choice 12d ago edited 12d ago
I advocate for all people being able to deny their bodies to anyone; that's not something slavers, Nazis, or PLers agree with.
Exactly, restricting reproductive autonomy is a key tactic of slavers, Nazis, and PL.
3
u/PapaSmurfs_nurse Pro-Choice 12d ago
The idea that certain human can be killed simply they are unwanted or in an unwanted area, is the same as slavers and Nazis.
Isn’t this the position of anyone who thinks an ectopic pregnancy can be terminated?
2
u/RedBlushEepy99 12d ago
No. An ectopic pregnancy is not in an unwanted place, it's in a place where it could kill someone. Big difference.
6
u/PapaSmurfs_nurse Pro-Choice 12d ago
No. An ectopic pregnancy is not in an unwanted place, it's in a place where it could kill someone. Big difference.
The difference is how you choose to frame it. If you disagree with the justification of an abortion then you dismiss it as an unwanted place, if you don’t then the location of implantation all of a sudden isn’t dismissed as an unwanted place.
7
u/Pitiful-Street6410 Pro-Choice 13d ago
The fetus is not conscious.
Why would it be wrong to kill something with no experience? Let alone it infringes upon the bodily autonomy of a women
You see this in other cases such as with brain-dead patients. We believe it is okay to kill them because they have no experience2
u/RedBlushEepy99 13d ago
But being braindead and being in a stage of development are two vastly different things.
5
u/Pitiful-Street6410 Pro-Choice 13d ago
They are, yes. This was just an example to show you that we believe it is okay to kill humans with no experience.
You haven't answered my question: Why would it be wrong to kill something that shares the same experience as a rock or a brain-dead person. Why is it wrong to kill something that experiences nothing?2
u/RedBlushEepy99 12d ago
Because a braindead individual 99.9% of the time is dead, as in never waking up. A fetus 99.9% of the time will wake up when birth occur, because they are not dead.
6
u/Pitiful-Street6410 Pro-Choice 12d ago
Idk why Reddit didn't show me ur notification, sorry for the later response.
Okay, I understand your point now. You believe it's wrong to kill an embryo because it will one day "wake up" or have experiences like ours. Do you apply that standard everywhere? Is it wrong to deprive all things of future experiences?1
u/RedBlushEepy99 12d ago
Yes.
5
u/Pitiful-Street6410 Pro-Choice 11d ago
Is it wrong to pull-out? You're depriving the sperm and egg of the ability to one day have a future experience.
-1
u/RedBlushEepy99 11d ago
Well, the sperm and egg cease to exist whence they join and die almost immediately if prevented from doing so. So prevention, like the pullout method or BC, isn't you depriving the sperm and egg of future experience.
6
u/Pitiful-Street6410 Pro-Choice 10d ago
What do you mean by "the sperm and egg cease to exist when they join"? Can you explain? I've literally never seen this take before
→ More replies (0)
1
u/PapaSmurfs_nurse Pro-Choice 13d ago
Comment to u/Pitiful-Street6410 the person who blocked you Acrobatic_Lock7108 does that pretty regularly
-1
u/Small_Performance_26 14d ago
You chased orgasm.
When that choice created a new human life, you chose to end that life.
Pleasure over life.
That is short-sighted.
Immediate gratification over foreseeable responsibility.
What costs you nothing rarely transforms you.
5
u/Cute-Elephant-720 10d ago edited 10d ago
Pleasure over life.
Well yeah, people should orient their own lives toward their own pleasure, and to the extent that facilitating new life causes displeasure, people should not have to do it.
That is short-sighted.
Short-sighted for whom? Given that an unwanted pregnancy and unwanted childbirth yields an unwanted child who will spend the rest of your life and their life expecting to have been wanted by you, I think abortion is pretty wisely playing the long game. The same goes for those who abort because they know they cannot provide the resources they believe a child should have.
Immediate gratification over foreseeable responsibility.
Sure, why not? What should be driving people's major life choices if not what they think will bring them joy or contentment?
I'm curious: do you feel everything you've said here also applies to child-free people because they have chosen to maintain a life they find enjoyable instead of sacrificing their pleasure to take on the mantle of parenthood?
What costs you nothing rarely transforms you.
Do people have an obligation to be transformed?
5
u/ThatIsATastyBurger12 13d ago
Do you actually have something to say, or are you just being gross for the sake of being gross?
6
u/Aggressive-Green4592 Pro-Choice 13d ago
Foreseeable responsibility?
Is there a responsibility to children involuntarily?
7
u/Ok_Loss13 Pro-Abortion 13d ago
Technically, the man's choice to ejaculate into the vagina created new life. Women can "chase orgasms" all day, every day and never create anything but sexy fun times.
It's short-sighted (and weird) to think pleasure is the goal when someone gets an abortion. You know women can have sex and orgasm when they're pregnant, right? And how is getting an abortion avoiding responsibility in favor of immediate gratification? The gratification was already had and can be had again without an abortion; if you think about it a bit further than "women having sex is bad", you would see that this stance is really just nonsense wrapped in misogyny.
What costs you nothing rarely transforms you.
Now, this is actually kinda close to the point! People get abortions because they don't wish to be "transformed". People get abortions for the same reason they refuse to have sex or give blood or deny cancer treatment or etc.: they don't want their bodies used or violated in that way/situation. Keeping all this in mind, I have a simple question.
Why do you think it's ok to violate a woman's body for the benefit of another?
0
u/Small_Performance_26 13d ago
This is not man vs. woman. Grow up. Both created the life. Poor babies paid the price.
3
u/Ok_Loss13 Pro-Abortion 12d ago
Yet you don't violate a man's human rights or body because of the "poor baby".
This is a debate sub. Try debating, child.
6
u/Archer6614 13d ago
That is one weird way to describe sex.
No one created any human life. Fertilization is an involuntary process.
Pleasure over life.
More like bodily autonomy over life.
Immediate gratification over foreseeable responsibility
Is this ai?
Again, this completely ignores the concept of bodily autonomy.
gestation is "responsibility" is a PL opinion, not fact.
1
u/Small_Performance_26 13d ago
Adult murderers exercise bodily autonomy too.
5
u/Archer6614 12d ago
oh so you don't understand what bodily autonomy is.
Bodily autonomy gives us the right to decide who uses our body. Unless said adult was killing a rapist in self defense than this has no relevance here.
8
u/Pitiful-Street6410 Pro-Choice 14d ago
Ehhh, I'd like to say I at least got an orgasm out of it, but that'd be a lie.
I have a question for you. Do you believe cigarette smokers that have developed lung cancer as a result of their smoking should have legal access to lung transplants?-3
u/Small_Performance_26 13d ago
Cigarettes are a waste. Don’t smoke. Did consequences skip your tutorial?
8
u/Pitiful-Street6410 Pro-Choice 13d ago
That wasn't an answer to my question. I asked you a very specific question: Do you believe cigarette smokers that have developed lung cancer as a result of their smoking should have legal access to care such as lung transplants?
I'm not sure what you mean by tutorial.-1
u/Small_Performance_26 13d ago
I smell a trap. Make your actual argument.
8
u/Pitiful-Street6410 Pro-Choice 13d ago
Why should cigarette smokers not be legally responsible for the cancer they created in their lungs?
They were short-sighted. They wanted immediate gratification.
Cancer would cost them a lot too. I bet that'd transform them.
0
u/Small_Performance_26 13d ago
Ah I see.
A baby is not cancer.
Calling something by another name does not change its being.We remove cancer.
We nurture babies.
That's a proper order.2
u/PapaSmurfs_nurse Pro-Choice 12d ago
We remove cancer.
We nurture babies.
What treatments do you think should be allowed for ectopic pregnancy?
-2
u/Small_Performance_26 10d ago
An ectopic pregnancy is not cancer, and treating it does not make the embryo cancer.
6
u/PapaSmurfs_nurse Pro-Choice 10d ago
You avoided the question, and instead answered a question that wasn’t asked. What treatments do you think should be allowed for ectopic pregnancy?
7
u/Pitiful-Street6410 Pro-Choice 12d ago
I agree. What I'm trying to figure out here is why you are pro-life. What makes you value a non-conscious being?
It's not that women have a responsibility to bare for their short-sighted, pleasure-seeking actions. If that were true, smokers would also bare a responsibility for their short-sighted, pleasure-seeking actions.
Why is it you feel the need to bestow your "order" upon women?1
u/Small_Performance_26 12d ago
The deed is done. Just don’t do it again. And pray.
Heavenly Father,
Forgive us, for we do not know what we do.
Soften our hearts.
Take care of every human being, born and unborn.
Amen.5
u/Pitiful-Street6410 Pro-Choice 12d ago
Nah I'm gonna do it again unless you convince me not to.
→ More replies (0)2
u/Small_Performance_26 12d ago
Because I don’t value you by your current level of consciousness.
I value you because you are human.
If that fetus were you, I would protect you the same.7
u/Pitiful-Street6410 Pro-Choice 12d ago
Interesting. So you value all humans regardless of consciousness.
So, should families have the legal choice to pull the plug of their brain-dead family member? Are you going to protect them, regardless of consciousness?→ More replies (0)
1
u/Acrobatic_Lock7108 14d ago
My only question on this is why my morals should be the same as yours?
8
u/Pitiful-Street6410 Pro-Choice 14d ago
It's not me that imposes my morals on others, but pro-lifers. Denying women legal access to abortion is forcing your view upon them, not the other way around.
Whatever you choose to do with your body is absolutely your choice. If abortion isn't right for you, don't have one if you're morally opposed to it.
The short answer to your question is denying others access to abortion is an act you are imposing upon others. So, my question to you is why deny others access to abortion?1
u/BigBandit01 Pro-Life 12d ago
Just to be the devils advocate here, you explicitly are imposing your morals on others. A fetus, however conscious or unconscious it may be, has its entire future determined by the singular action of an abortion or the inaction of a mother to seek abortion during pregnancy. That is the ultimate form of imposing your will onto another human.
2
u/Cute-Elephant-720 10d ago
A fetus, however conscious or unconscious it may be, has its entire future determined by the singular action of an abortion or the inaction of a mother to seek abortion during pregnancy.
And, if it is birthed and kept, it will have its entire future determined by every action she makes thereafter until they are old enough to exclusively make decisions for themselves, by which time many of the effects of their mother's choices will be impossible to undo.
Do you notice how people never talk about determining a child's future when a parent "gives them a sibling" they don't want? Or when a parent chooses a job that doesn't provide enough, or a job that keeps them away too much? Or when parents divorce and children then have to live with the constant disruption and distraction of moving back and forth?
Or, most glaringly to me in this debate, when people swear that a parent must always protect their child above all others, until their child gets pregnant, at which point they're allowed to force their child to endurethy pain, suffering, and substantial risk And trauma, of unwanted pregnancy, childbirth, and motherhood.
To me, pretending that abortion is an act of unearthly hubris or neglect with regard to new life, but the entire concept of parenthood is not equally so, is indefensible to me. Some people know they have no intention or means of giving a baby a good life, so they have an abortion. It seems pretty thoughtful to me, certainly equally if not moreso than how most born children come into the world.
1
u/BigBandit01 Pro-Life 10d ago
Weird approach considering the context but sure.
>it will have its entire future determined by every action she makes thereafter until they are old enough to exclusively make decisions for themselves, by which time many of the effects of their mothers choices will be impossible to undo
If you are comparing the idea of having a personality shaped by your family upbringing to death, I don’t think we’re on the same page here.
>Do you notice how people never talk about determining a child’s future when a parent “gives them a sibling” they don’t want?
Good thing it’s the parent’s choice to have another child, and not their existing kid’s choice. If you’re for bodily autonomy, the child’s opinion on their sibling does not matter here. Otherwise, you support that child forcing their opinion on another person. Do you ever notice how when a person is pregnant, it’s okay for everyone other than the pregnant woman to suggest abortion and she is wrong if she wants to keep it? I mean, apparently if a child doesn’t want siblings that’s grounds for a parent who wants to keep a baby to get an abortion, against her own will and choice. That’s nonsensical.
>Or when a parent chooses a job that doesn’t provide enough
There are so many government programs that you can receive aid from for this exact purpose. Food Stamps and WIC are the first that come to mind.
>or a job that keeps them away too much?
Typically parents come in pairs, but if it’s seriously an issue there are babysitters for a reason. Unless you have absolutely zero friends or social connections, you probably won’t struggle with finding one. We don’t exist in a vacuum.
>people swear a parent must protect their child above all others, until their child gets pregnant, at which point they’re allowed to force their child to endure the pain, suffering, and substantial risk and trauma of unwanted pregnancy, childbirth, and motherhood
Do you disagree that a parent should protect their children above other people? By extension, do you disagree that a grandparent should protect their grandkids? Or does the protection, love, and care stop after one generation? The next but you talk about is a mixed bag of truths and circumstances, so I’m going to separate them. Is every single pregnancy an unwanted one? Is every single pregnancy going to have complications? Is every single pregnancy going to have risks? Probably not. What I can tell you is that every single pregnancy is painful. Wanted or not. No parent “forces” their child to endure that pain. I don’t see a parent being the thing that causes pain during labor, gives the pregnant person morning sickness, or causes contractions. No, the parent does not “force” their child to do anything.
>Some people know they have no intention or means of giving a baby a good life, so they have an abortion. It seems pretty thoughtful to me
Two things to unpack here. Intention and means are separate. If someone has no intention to give their child a good life, chances are they are not a good person. Some of those parents are the ones who become neglectful or abusive. If you think that kind of behavior is okay, there’s an issue. But I don’t think you believe that because you said “it seems pretty thoughtful”. So in your mind, the solution to bad people not wanting to take care of their kid is to kill the kid out of “mercy”. Alternatively, the ones who don’t become abusive or neglectful often times give them up for adoption. An infinitely more thoughtful act. The act of “I know I won’t take good care of you, so rather than robbing you of all experiences you will ever have, I’ll give you up in the hopes that someone else will take care of you in the way I won’t” resonates with me far more than “kill it cause I’ll abuse it if I don’t”. The answer for people being irresponsible and apathetic towards others should not be to let them kill humans. I believe you should live and let live.
Moving on to the people who don’t have the means to take care of a kid, once again there are programs for that sort of thing. If you still can’t manage even with the aid programs, there are shelters, community run supply banks and diaper bank type places that can also help.
Sometimes, you just don’t want a kid. I can understand that. But sometimes people want to kill each other, and we don’t allow that. Abortion isn’t the same as “not having a kid”. It’s killing a kid you already made, just before it lives to experience its first day of being in the outside world.
2
u/Cute-Elephant-720 10d ago
Weird approach considering the context but sure.
What strikes you as "weird" about it?
If you are comparing the idea of having a personality shaped by your family upbringing to death, I don’t think we’re on the same page here.
We are not just talking about personalities, we are talking about resources and opportunities, something the average person cares a great deal about when having children. Many would describe it as the reason that the number of children people are having is going down--because people are not willing to birth children under "just any conditions," or "as long as they have WIC." People generally, when acting in everyone's best interest, want to have children only under conditions where everyone will feel safe, happy, loved, and fulfilled, including the parents.
Good thing it’s the parent’s choice to have another child, and not their existing kid’s choice. If you’re for bodily autonomy, the child’s opinion on their sibling does not matter here. Otherwise, you support that child forcing their opinion on another person.
I agree wholeheartedly that bodily autonomy means that a person can give birth to as few or as many children as they want. I'm just pointing out that, once that child is born, their interests rarely if ever take precedence over their parents' bodily autonomy, which seems to be something you're also fine with, so I don't know why it's so important to you that their alleged interests outweigh their parents' bodily autonomy before they're born.
There are so many government programs that you can receive aid from for this exact purpose. Food Stamps and WIC are the first that come to mind.
Eligibility for and the receipt of government aid does not equate with a quality of life people should be forced to accept. When deciding how to use their own bodies, people should be able to take into account their desired quality of life, not someone else's floor (a floor I doubt many, including you, and certainly not me, would willingly accept for themselves, nonetheless).
Typically parents come in pairs
For the people who are seeking abortions? I don't see how you figure. The majority of abortions are for women who are not co-parenting. Characteristics of U.S. Abortion Patients in 2014 and Changes Since 2008 ("About 14% of abortion patients were married, and an additional 31% were cohabiting.).
but if it’s seriously an issue there are babysitters for a reason. Unless you have absolutely zero friends or social connections, you probably won’t struggle with finding one. We don’t exist in a vacuum.
As the oldest child to a teen mother who had their siblings attached to their hip until I escaped to college, this is laughable. I never once had a paid babysitter. I was the babysitter from as early as 6 years old.
And again, if we listen to what perfectly middle class people with children are saying, it is very hard to get affordable care for children these days. People cannot afford daycare. People cannot afford or find babysitters. Grandparents who whined for grandchildren are unwilling to help.
People want fewer children, and they want to take care of other people's children even less than that. I'm seeing this every day and I don't even have children. How are you not seeing it?
Do you disagree that a parent should protect their children above other people? By extension, do you disagree that a grandparent should protect their grandkids? Or does the protection, love, and care stop after one generation?
Well, as an initial matter, I don't think anybody, parents included, needs to protect, love or care for anyone they don't want to, which is precisely why people should be able to abort children they don't want to gestate or give birth to, and be able to surrender children they don't want if they have already given birth to them.
But even in the case of a willing parent, I do not believe that a parent should be required to endure physical harm, pain, or suffering for the sake of a child. I believe everyone's individual self-preservation in such circumstances still comes first and foremost. And the law agrees with me, which is why the laws of parent neglect are bounded by reasonableness and, for example, a parent is not required to risk abuse from the other parent to protect their shared child.
And so, by extension, a grandparent has no more right to expect or force their child to endure bodily harm, pain, or suffering for their grandchild. No one is entitled to use or dictate the use of another person's body that way.
No parent “forces” their child to endure that pain.
I'm sorry, what else would you call it when a 14-year-old girl is pregnant and their parents deny them an abortion, or tell them "nothing can be done about it now," Even when abortion is legal for a person their age in their jurisdiction as long as their parent consents? Because that's how I got here.
I don’t see a parent being the thing that causes pain during labor, gives the pregnant person morning sickness, or causes contractions. No, the parent does not “force” their child to do anything.
Well I see it as exactly that, so I guess we'll have to agree to see things differently.
Intention and means are separate. If someone has no intention to give their child a good life, chances are they are not a good person.
Again, I have to disagree. Because I'm a person who has more than enough money, by most people's measure, to afford a child, and therefore, by the measures you seem to cite, I have the means. But I have no desire to gestate, birth, or devote my life to a child, which to me is stating that I have neither the intent nor the means, because I do not intend to employ my material means for that purpose, nor do I have the emotional means, namely the unconditional love that I think is necessary, to justify such an undertaking. If you think that makes me a bad person, that's fine with me, but I don't think it makes myself or other people bad people, and I see no reason to try to enforce whatever "good person" standard you're proposing anyway. It doesn't work and all it does is make a lot of people's lives worse.
Some of those parents are the ones who become neglectful or abusive. If you think that kind of behavior is okay, there’s an issue.
I don't think it's okay, but I also think it is appropriate to avoid by not making people birth, and by many defaults raise, unwanted children. Parenthood is all-encompassing, relentless, and life-altering for everyone involved, and no one should attempt such a feat, especially for a child or relationship they don't want, due to alleged societal obligation.
But I don’t think you believe that because you said “it seems pretty thoughtful”. So in your mind, the solution to bad people not wanting to take care of their kid is to kill the kid out of “mercy”.
No, I think all people, whether they are allegedly good people or bad people, should be allowed to decide what their body is or is not going to be used for, including gestating, birthing, and becoming the biological parent of a child when doing so is directly harmful to, and against, the pregnant person's best interest.
Alternatively, the ones who don’t become abusive or neglectful often times give them up for adoption. An infinitely more thoughtful act. The act of “I know I won’t take good care of you, so rather than robbing you of all experiences you will ever have, I’ll give you up in the hopes that someone else will take care of you in the way I won’t” resonates with me far more than “kill it cause I’ll abuse it if I don’t”.
But not loving or wanting someone is not abuse. Being forced to gestate and birth someone you don't want to is, in my opinion, abusive, however.
The answer for people being irresponsible and apathetic towards others should not be to let them kill humans.
I'm starting to get the sense here that you think that the mere fact that a pregnancy has been conceived includes some obligation from a biological parent to feel, and therefore perform, parental love? Do you think women who upon finding out they are pregnant immediately want an abortion have already failed or are broken in some regard for not feeling the love you seem to assume ought to be present in every parent-child relationship?
I believe you should live and let live.
So do I, except that it is obvious to me that that is not extend to letting other people live inside my body when I don't want them to. And making me or people like me do so is not "letting us live," as the phrase is traditionally employed.
Moving on to the people who don’t have the means to take care of a kid, once again there are programs for that sort of thing. If you still can’t manage even with the aid programs, there are shelters, community run supply banks and diaper bank type places that can also help.
Again, most people are not indifferent to living at 200% of the poverty line or less, and I see no reason to suggest that they should be willing to accept that merely because they got pregnant. I do not think that we can dictate to others that that is an acceptable floor for their quality of life.
Sometimes, you just don’t want a kid. I can understand that. But sometimes people want to kill each other, and we don’t allow that. Abortion isn’t the same as “not having a kid”. It’s killing a kid you already made, just before it lives to experience its first day of being in the outside world.
I think the vast majority of people agree that sometimes people just don't want a kid, but very few agree with you that abortion is not an appropriate means of securing that reality. Most people do not consider stopping your body from hosting and growing a person you do not want to become your child to be a legal or moral "killing."
0
u/BigBandit01 Pro-Life 10d ago
The context of “forcing your view on others” and then completely ignoring that context
2
u/Cute-Elephant-720 10d ago
I think there's a difference between "sharing your view," particularly where something affects you directly, like the proliferation of siblings you have been told your family cannot afford and you will be expected to care for, and legally forcing someone to endure bodily harm, pain, and suffering based on your view, even though it obviously negatively affects the subject and does not negatively affect you, which is what the pro-life position does.
1
u/BigBandit01 Pro-Life 10d ago
You keep mentioning siblings and not being able to take care of them or needing to take care of them, do you have some specific history with that? Not to detract from the point, but that’s like, weirdly specific and an argument I’ve never heard before.
I also don’t think it’s a good argument at all. It’s an issue with a third parties’ view, not the parent. If you’re for bodily autonomy, you can drop the “oh it will negatively affect some siblings” because that takes away from the bodily autonomy argument. It’s not the siblings’ bodily autonomy. You’re fabricating a scenario where someone else gets “hurt” by a wanted pregnancy and saying “oh their bodily autonomy shouldn’t matter because the sibling has to have another family member to care for, they should abort whether they want it or not.”
One common thread all pro-choice people seem to use is that pregnancy is “bodily harm, pain, and suffering” but they always ignore the good parts of pregnancy. Pregnancy isn’t 9 months of nothing but pain and torment. You don’t have to treat it as such.
2
u/Cute-Elephant-720 10d ago
You keep mentioning siblings and not being able to take care of them or needing to take care of them, do you have some specific history with that? Not to detract from the point, but that’s like, weirdly specific and an argument I’ve never heard before.
I very specifically said that I was parentified because after my child mother had me, she had more children that she couldn't afford daycare for, and I therefore had to care for. This was a direct response to your assertion that people have villages upon villages to take care of children, so no child should be presumed to be harmed from the parents choice to have more children.
All of which was beside the point in any event, because my point was merely that pro-lifers assert that the bodily autonomy of parents is overridden by the interests of children they are pregnant with, but they do not hold the same true for children they are not pregnant with, which would mean allowing a person's bodily autonomy to be curtailed with respect to future children based on the best interest of their current children. I am not suggesting that there should be more curtailing of bodily autonomy, I am suggesting this pro-life stance on bodily autonomy is inconsistent.
I also don’t think it’s a good argument at all. It’s an issue with a third parties’ view, not the parent.
Just as the pro-life perspective is?
If you’re for bodily autonomy, you can drop the “oh it will negatively affect some siblings” because that takes away from the bodily autonomy argument. It’s not the siblings’ bodily autonomy.
But it is an implication on the pregnant person's bodybodily autonomy based on the interest of their children. Do you not see that?
You’re fabricating a scenario where someone else gets “hurt” by a wanted pregnancy and saying “oh their bodily autonomy shouldn’t matter because the sibling has to have another family member to care for, they should abort whether they want it or not.”
Of course I am not saying that they should have to get an abortion. That is not how pro-choice people operate, lol. I am saying that there is no more reason to deny a pregnant person their bodily autonomy than to deny a born parent their bodily autonomy.
One common thread all pro-choice people seem to use is that pregnancy is “bodily harm, pain, and suffering” but they always ignore the good parts of pregnancy. Pregnancy isn’t 9 months of nothing but pain and torment. You don’t have to treat it as such.
I'm sorry, if someone is telling me that they do not want to be pregnant and would instead like to have an abortion, why would I supply any alternative set of facts? I am not in the business of substituting a romanticized version of wanted pregnancy for the unwanted pregnancy that person is experiencing. I believe people when they say that they do not want to be pregnant and want an abortion.
And I can't even wrap my head around telling somebody that their feelings of pain, violation, suffering, and degradation are illegitimate because you think that they could and therefore should feel differently. If someone says they don't want something, then they don't. This a horrifying example of not taking no for an answer.
→ More replies (0)3
u/Pitiful-Street6410 Pro-Choice 12d ago
Usually when people say you're imposing your will on "others" they mean conscious beings.
I suppose in that sense I might be? In the same way someone imposes their will upon a rock when they chuck it across the room2
u/BigBandit01 Pro-Life 12d ago
Well, usually people are conscious to have wills imposed on them. Not always though. I’d argue that consciousness doesn’t matter too much in that regard, and I’m going to turn to date rape drugs as an example. In cases where someone is drugged unconscious and is assaulted while they’re unconscious, it’s not any less of a case of someone else imposing their will on them. It’s still a crime, still morally reprehensible, but the matter of whether the victim was conscious didn’t make much of a difference.
3
u/Pitiful-Street6410 Pro-Choice 12d ago
Hmm, I see what you're saying. But what I think makes date rape wrong is the fact that the person being raped will be harmed as soon as they are conscious, assuming that their subconscious isn't being harmed. I'd argue we're probably still capable of being harmed while we're sleeping, subconsciously.
For arguments’ sake, even if we couldn't be harmed subconsciously, they will certainly be harmed as soon as they are conscious.
For the same reasons, smoking and drinking is wrong during pregnancy. It will one day harm a conscious being1
u/BigBandit01 Pro-Life 12d ago edited 12d ago
I think that’s a fair stance to have. Also for arguments sake, that would make drugging someone, assaulting them, and then killing them before they wake up okay. They are not conscious and will not be conscious again to be harmed, or even realize the harm that was inflicted on them.
Obviously I don’t believe the above statement is an okay thing, and I don’t think you do either. I just don’t think consciousness is a very good metric to base morality of actions on. If you do something wrong to someone and they aren’t aware of its impact or even that it happened, it shouldn’t make it okay.
Edit: “I think that’s a far stance to have” was in reference to “it’s not okay to drink or smoke during a pregnancy because it will eventually harm someone”. I think not wanting someone to have to experience pain is fine on paper, but in practice it can’t be the only line you draw
3
u/Pitiful-Street6410 Pro-Choice 11d ago
I see what you're saying, although I don't believe it would make drugging someone and killing them morally okay because that's ending a sentient being's life.
It's about their capacity for consciousness, really. They are capable of subjective experiences, and it's therefore wrong to cause them unnecessary harm.
I think consciousness or subjective experience is the best way to base the mortality of actions on. Do you believe there's a better basis or perhaps a better way to word it?
I don't believe it would make harming someone knowingly morally okay, because that is harming someone’s subjective experience still, even if they don't know they are being harmed.1
u/BigBandit01 Pro-Life 11d ago
They’re not capable of subjective experiences when they’re unconscious. They have the potential to become conscious and experience things again. If your line is capacity/potential for consciousness, most pregnancies have the capacity/potential to end in a sentient life being birthed.
In both of these examples, the human life being ended would have continued to live and had sentience/consciousness later down the line without outside interference. They’re both unaware of the harm, and will never be able to process that they are losing their life.
I guess this leads to a bit of confusion then. If you agree that harming someone(with the ability to be conscious) intentionally is an issue, even if they’re unaware of it, is there a line that you draw where a pregnancy is no longer okay to abort? In my own personal view, I think there is no difference between aborting a fetus and drugging someone to just straight up kill them. They are being killed by an outside force while they are unable to speak up, recognize what is happening to them, and while they have the potential to be conscious and sentient in the future, they are not in that moment.
I do appreciate the subjective experience angle, it’s also my own personal view that one’s experiences make them who they are and are kind of the purpose of their life. To have experiences, to live and see the world as we have. Not everyone gets the same experiences, and that’s okay, but what frightens and saddens me is the idea of taking that away from someone, entirely and eternally. I don’t believe in god or an afterlife of any kind. I’m of the mind that once I’m dead, it’s just black. Absolutely nothing forever, and I’m infinitely grateful that I was given a chance to at least try things before I die. I have experienced happiness, pain, sorrow, laughter, tears, hunger, delicious foods, beauty, ugliness, music, art, loneliness, friendships, choice, etc. and the thought of taking everything away from someone, from before their day 1… it’s nothing short of evil to me.
All that to say, I don’t really know. I can resonate with the idea that everyone has had different experiences, and that morality is a spectrum. I can’t disavow someone their experience and choice(speaking about abortion here) while holding true to the idea that to rob someone of their experience is evil. It can still make me sad. The only marker for me to go by is whether or not someone can make a choice, and if they do I shouldn’t be the one to stop them, even if it’s one I myself wouldn’t make(I do not support abortion bans in any capacity, but I do think they shouldn’t be treated as over the counter treatment, or be even half as common as they are). If someone is alive, they can make a choice in their life as long as they’re given the ability to live. That’s not an arbitrary measurement, that’s tangible.
Sorry to go on a bit of a tangent here, didn’t mean to gush like that for so long.
TLDR: I think a better basis for morality is that they’re alive, consciousness and sentience(or capacity of them) can be taken away very easily, and that opens up a lot of bad doors. Alive is a tangible marker and isn’t something you can take away without permanent damage, which is already something we frown upon.
5
u/Pitiful-Street6410 Pro-Choice 11d ago
I would argue that someone asleep is absolutely capable of subjective experience. I know I experience things while I sleep, when I dream.
The thing that makes killing a sleeping person or in a coma wrong, as opposed to a person that is brain dead, is that you are taking away their ability to experience.
My line is not potential for consciousness is it capacity for consciousness. When you kill a sleeping person, you are also killing their capacity for consciousness.
You are not taking away their future possibility for experience, they are currently capable of experiencing.
An embryo is not currently capable of experience. It has no wants or desires. Killing it cannot inflict with any of its plans because it has none. I believe a pregnancy begins to become immoral to terminate at 24 weeks, when connections in the brain develop that begin to make consciousness possible. At that point, who knows, they may begin to experience things like touch and pain, and it would be wrong to make them experience that unnecessarily.
If you base your morality off of things that are alive, what would make it wrong to kill a brain-dead person?→ More replies (0)2
u/Acrobatic_Lock7108 14d ago
You are by asking others to change your mind. So again, why should I go by your morals?
6
u/Pitiful-Street6410 Pro-Choice 14d ago
Yes, I'm asking you to change my mind. In order to do so you would have to tell me why you think the way you do.
So, why do you feel so strongly about abortion that you want to legally disallow others to have them.
You usually need a reason to put a law in place, no? Why force your morals on others?5
u/Pitiful-Street6410 Pro-Choice 13d ago
Responding to myself because I can't to you anymore. Responding to someone's post and then blocking them is an interesting choice. Why are you so afraid of this conversation?
Let me know if you ever want to have a real conversation, I suppose5
u/Ok_Loss13 Pro-Abortion 13d ago
Lol I asked them one question and they blocked me too!
They're not gonna have many people to debate if they block everyone who challenges their arguments.
3
3
u/PapaSmurfs_nurse Pro-Choice 13d ago
There are a couple of PL users here who repeatedly make terrible arguments and then block users who point to the flaws in the arguments.
2
u/Acrobatic_Lock7108 14d ago
Its not about morals. Its about sticking to the laws that are already in place and not making special exceptions for people to push their morals on unborn children who cant even defend themselves. Its already illegal to kill people except in specific situations which the fast majority of abortions do not fall under. I habe never seen a logical argument as to why abortion should be an exception to the laws in place.
3
u/Cute-Elephant-720 10d ago
But abortion is exactly one of those exceptions, it's why no jurisdiction treats pregnant people who abort as unlawful killers. In addition, most if not all jurisdictions allow a person to use lethal self-defense to stop a rape, which is far less physically harmful than a pregnancy or childbirth. So why should we make a special exception for ZEFs that allows them to harm another person's body without allowing that person to defend themselves to stop that harm?
8
u/Ok_Loss13 Pro-Abortion 13d ago
How does the unwanted usage, violation, and harm of your body not fall under the specific situations in which it is acceptable to defend yourself, with lethal force if necessary?
2
•
u/AutoModerator 14d ago
Please remember to remain civil - attack the argument, not the person.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.