With or against abortion?

[Nada98]

[dangerDoge]

I'm against abortion / pro-life. (I'll just explain my argument here in detail so I can copy/paste it, perhaps edited, for the inevitable future abortion questions).

The crux or overall premises of my argument:
P[remise]1: Abortion kills a fetus.
P2: A fetus is a human being.
P3: Killing humans is morally wrong.
C1: Abortion is morally wrong.

I have some supporting points I'll get to, but first let me address P2, since that is the object of much debate and essential to my argument. Firstly, I'll say that my definition of a 'human being' is at the moment of conception. That is, a cell that has the potential for life and is fundamentally unlike its sperm and egg parent cells, is successfully created. Thus, the argument of "ejaculation is murder since it kills sperm" is a poor rebuttal, since I do not consider individual sperm cells as human beings.

If one does not agree with this definition/premise, then my argument falls apart. However, given how it's a matter of defining a vague concept like "human being," all I can basically say is that you agree with that statement or you don't.

I will note though that I believe defining life (that is 'morally wrong to take') makes the most sense. Otherwise, we run into the problem of when it is acceptable. Assuming pregnancy lasts 40 weeks (for the purposes of discussion at least), I think most people would consider it wrong to kill a fetus that is 39 weeks and 6 days old, but then I question where to draw the line. (Note: If you consider aborting a baby at 39 weeks and 6 days old morally ok, we will likely not see eye to eye. I don't consider a baby at that time and baby born really all that different.) If someone says week 27 that it's acceptable to abort the baby, where the fetus has a 90% survival rate if born (Irish Neonatal Health Alliance, date unspecified), then what makes that fetus noticeably different from one 26 weeks and 6 days old? Likewise, if based off survival rates, they're a gradual slope up, not a sudden cutoff. My point is that, given the permanent nature of abortion, clear cutoff criteria would be needed, but it is hard to determine the best cutoff day or week. Thus, the most clear options are defining life are either at the moment of conception or at the moment of birth. Given most people's reactions to abortion right before birth though, I believe conception is the best time.

This issue aside, I have further reasoning for why I think abortion is morally wrong.

Firstly, I believe that people should take responsibility for their actions. Abortion requires a conceived baby, and the only way (ignoring random scientific means) to conceive a baby is sexual intercourse. Generally speaking, if one is at the age of having sex, he/she probably already know that babies are made via sex. Thus, they should have that knowledge in mind when choosing to have sex and weight the possibility of a baby with their desire for sex. Note that the possibility of a baby can change dramatically with birth control and contraception, so the scale may be affected by that. However, one should still go into sex knowing that there is almost always a possibility (no matter how slight) that the sex will result in a baby. As such, they (read: both parents) should be ready to accept the possible consequences of the action.

A rebuttal to this point can be made by citations of special cases-- rape, or endangerment to the mother. In the case of rape, the woman has no choice in the matter, so should she be able to get an abortion? From my perspective, the action of abortion is morally wrong, regardless of circumstance, but it should be legal. Same with endangerment to the mother. There is no such thing as a morally ok abortion, but the situation can be justified, if that makes sense.

[dangerDoge]

In conclusion, this leads to my last point: should abortion be illegal? My answer to that is yes. I equate abortion to murder or any other law we have. The US has freedoms, sure, but it isn't free in the full sense of the word. We have laws, and without said laws, the country would be in chaos. It's illegal to steal, counterfeit money, kill others, among many other things. Thus, the argument that "it's ____ choice or freedom" doesn't hold up. We form laws to protect morals to an extent based on the seriousness of the morals being broken, and maybe even to uplift society as a whole. Given that I do equate killing a fetus as murder, I would argue it is a serious matter and justifies having a law to deem it illegal.

[dangerDoge]

I'm going to write some more to address popular arguments for abortion, as these have popped up in the past: "Abortion will be done regardless. Making it legal lets women get abortion done in a safe and clean environment." To this, I will ask the purpose of what a law is. I propose that a law has two main purposes: to prevent people from doing something (with punishment as an incentive) and as a societal statement that more-or-less states that an action is morally wrong and should not be done. Making abortion illegal would first and foremost dissuade many women from getting one. It's like if you hated your neighbor for whatever reason. Would you kill him? Chances are, you wouldn't, right? (Well, hopefully you wouldn't!) Why? Well, I'm guessing your big reason first and foremost is that it is illegal and punishable by jail time and what have you. However, if you wouldn't be punished for it, how about now? Still, although more would say "Yes, I'd kill em" here, many others would say they wouldn't due to the morally wrongness of the situation. If we lived in a world where it was morally acceptable and not illegal to kill though, many more would be fine with killing the neighbor. And yes, there are some who would indeed kill the neighbor regardless of law or morality. We still have murders happen today after all. However, the law dissuades the vast majority of people of committing murder both from a punishment standpoint and additionally from a morality standpoint. Just because some will murder doesn't mean murder should be legalized. Translated to the argument with abortion, as mentioned before, some will get an abortion regardless. However, just because some will get an abortion does not mean abortion should be legalized (and thus publicly condoned) for the nation. A smaller percentage of people does not justify affecting the larger percentage. Likewise, the responsibility of the baby should be accepted before the pregnancy to begin with.

[dangerDoge]

"Men have no say in abortion rights, because it's not their body. Therefore your opinion is invalid." I disagree with this statement, because the sex for creating the baby was presumably done by two consenting people-- the father and mother. Although, yes, only the mother's body is physically affected by the baby, as I discussed above in the original opinion (second to last paragraph), the responsibility for the baby should be accepted before pregnancy. That is, it should be accepted before and sex, and sex is done by [well... at least] two parties. "So people shouldn't have sex unless they're wanting a baby?" I'm putting this in more as a clarifying point than a response to a rebuttal. Nevertheless, my argument is NOT that people shouldn't have sex. In fact, my stance on abortion says nothing on how traditional one should view sex. People can have sex for pleasure without the intent of having a baby. My argument is that people shouldn't have sex without being able to accept the consequences of it. In other words, even with a condom and birth control with, let's say, a 99.999% conception prevention rate, people should be aware of that.001% chance, accept it, and then weigh that chance with their desire for sex. Of course, that.001% is small, so it may not have much weight, but even so, if pregnancy occurs, responsibility should be taken. If I had to equate it to something, it's like buying a lotto ticket [with better chances] where the prize is a baby, and the ticket is sex. Every time you buy a ticket (aka having sex), you run the risk of winning the prize. By choosing to buy a ticket, you acknowledge this risk.

[dangerDoge]

Phew, that was long as crap. Anyway, I'm open for discussion on the topic too if anyone wants it. I should note that I have a response to the "saving fetuses in a burning building" thought experiment people like to bring up-- at least it floated around facebook for awhile, but I figured I've probably written enough here already lol

[Inneedofusername]

"taking responsibility for ones actions" is a nice sounding euphemism for ruining woman's health and body by pregnancy. Forcing a woman to go through a pregnancy when she clearly never in her life wanted to be pregnant is inhumane

[dangerDoge]

@Inneedofusername If she is in a position where the pregnancy is life threatening, then I support abortion. Otherwise, I don’t. Why don’t I think it’s inhumane? Because she presumably knew pregnancy is caused by sex and that sex has a possibility of making her pregnant. No one forced her to have sex. It was an action she chose herself (along with her partner), and pregnancy is sometimes a consequence of said action. If she wasn’t ready to take responsibility for a baby in any fashion, she shouldn’t have had sex. (To note: I’m not implying by any means the guy is off the hook here.) Having birth control and whatnot is only so effective. The “taking responsibility” parts are saying that someone should make an informed decision beforehand and not trying to change things after-the-fact when it has (from my perspective) significantly morally wrong consequences. People do have a choice in the matter— it’s just earlier than what people for abortion would argue.

[Inneedofusername]

I didn't say life threatening. Every pregnancy destroys woman's health and body in some way, depending on a person some pregnancies are worse and some are better, you never know, it's a russian roulette. By voting for abortion to stay illegal, you're forcing women to choose between going through a pregnancy in case of failed contraception or being a virgin forever. Do I even need to elaborate on how cruel both of those options are?

[Inneedofusername]

I already wrote it once, so copying it won't take me much time: By forcing someone to be virgin forever, you're ripping them out of right to fulfill their fundamental human need. Sex is on the same level as eating in Maslov pyramid. You won't die without it, but you also won't die without having family or any friends around you. But obviously forcing someone to be alone and unloved would be ihumane right? And the need to have sex is even stronger than the need to be loved and accepted. So do you see the cruelty in ruining someone's mental health? You were also asking what is wrong with forcing a woman to pregnancy? What is your answer in the poll above? And giving a kidney is less destroying to the body than pregnancy. Pregnancy can cause many possible consequences. Hemorrhoids, varicose veins, serious spine problems, streched out uglier than before skin, waist will never again be as intended as it was, muscular space of the rectus abdominis muscle, hair loss after birth, urinary incontinence, ripped crotch and sometimes even anus, disgusting pendulous breasts with ugly big nipples, kidney problems, diabetes. Those are just the ones that I know of, but there are more. As you can see it destroys woman's health and her sexual life. So do you still think forcing a woman to be pregnant against her will is fine?

[dangerDoge]

@Inneedofusername The life threatening part was only an aside. It was only in case you meant life threatening but I wasn’t using it as the main response. Note when I say “life threatening” though, I’m talking about extreme cases. For normal risks associated with pregnancy, I would consider these as part of the acceptance of consequence and likewise, I don’t think they trump the moral consequences of abortion. “Pregnancy in case of failed contraception or stay a virgin forever.” I consider this statement to be an exaggeration, because first and foremost contraception has a high effectiveness rating today. Weighing a 96 or 97% pregnancy prevention rate for birth control (plus maybe higher if a condom, plus higher if “pulling out”) against pregnancy is different from treating sex as a pregnant-or-not situation. Tons of people have sex a plethora of times in their lifetimes without abortions. Abortions (in the sense of a fully legal and funded clinic) likewise are fairly modern too. Again, to reiterate my point, I’m *not* claiming people shouldn’t have sex. If people understand the possibilities and implications, by all means, have sex. It’s having sex and then using abortion something like that of a failsafe that I consider reckless and/or morally wrong behavior. What poll are you talking about? I assume this is from copying/pasting a response. Nevertheless, I believe one weakness of the argument you are presenting is that the possibility of pregnancy is being exaggerated. I said before that one shouldn’t have sex if they weren’t ready to take responsibility for possible pregnancy. However, possibilities of pregnancy are fairly limited without proper contraception use. True, they may fail though, and thought is to be considered before sex. (Responding to the argument presented regarding pregnancy repercussions in next comment)

[dangerDoge]

@Inneedofusername Ok, now regarding the possible repercussions of pregnancy, I don’t doubt your words. There are plenty of possible risks that could fall under “normal” or non life-threatening risks (under my definition) arguably. However, I have three points to make against your stance. (If I understand correctly, you are stating that it’s cruel to force women to go through a pregnancy, since it means the various problematic health and sexual possibilities associated with it.) My response can be broken up into three points. 1.) Given the results of abortion by its nature (aka killing a fetus/unborn baby), I consider it signifantly morally wrong. I consider said action so morally wrong in fact that I would weigh it as worse than the negative possibilities involved. Thus, abortion is the better of two evils in that sense. I would advise and support legally having a woman follow through a pregnancy despite possibilities involved because of my stance towards a fetus as a human being in full sense of the words. 2.) These possibilities are also risks to consider as part of pregnancy as a whole, and as such, should be thought of before sex. Also, I should emphasize that many of things are only possible repercussions of pregnancy. Admittedly, there are plenty of almost definite symptoms (i. e. childbirthing pain, stretched out skin) but I don’t think these can be equated to all symptoms (i. e. diabetes or serious spine problems). 3.) I should note that this is my weakest point. With that out of the way, I would also claim that abortion isn’t without its risks too (i. e. hemmhoraging, difficulties for future pregnancies, uterus tissue damage). It is likely not to the extent of pregnancy, but it still isn’t without it’s complications.

[Inneedofusername]

Hormonal birth control is harmful to health and I'm not gonna use it, my health is. I'm gonna check condoms after every intercourse and if they break - plan B pills are on prescription, so there is a possibility that I won't be able to get one on time. Sterilization is completely illegal, but even when I will save enough money (I'm saving it since I was 16 but Poland is poor ass country so it will take some time) to do it abroad it still isn't 100%. So yeah, I guess the possibility that I would get pregnant once in my life isn't as low as I would want it to be.
I was reffering to this poll Would you vote for such a law? ↗ yes I was copying this response.
I don't argue with people whenever the fetus in early stages of pregnancy is a human being or not, because that is not important. What is important is that it is not a person. It doesn't feel, it doesn't think or have the past it is only the possibilty of a person. And I think it's insane to put it above an adult woman who is suffering (yes, pregnancy would destroy my and some woman's life to the extent of suffering) and will be suffering for the rest of her life after pregnancy

[dangerDoge]

@Inneedofusername Like many things in life, having sex is a matter of weighing pros and cons. It’s ultimately a matter of weighing the 90+% (or whatever is available for you) against possible risks. When I said human being, I was meaning as someone with personhood. I suppose the right word to use would be a “person,” so that’s likely a mistake on my part. I don’t think people really argue on a biological “is the fetus alive” level, so I agree with you in saying that’s not important. I suppose what makes a person in a moral sense is what it comes down to then. If I understand the implications of your argument correctly, you are determining personhood based on the idea of Functionalism. That is, personhood is not just determined by biological components but rather, personhood is made by function— or mental states. Within this, the argument is that some cells cannot think or reason or be self-aware, so therefore they cannot have personhood. I would question exactly what a person is then. If personhood is based on consciously doing something, that does not include people sleeping as having personhood, but if based on ability to do something, that doesn’t include people in coma. If based on past, that would imply someone who is born in a coma, lives for 10+ years, and wakes up is not a person until they wake up. If based on future acts, someone on their deathbed isn’t a person. Thus, they’d all be permissible to kill. However, common sense dictates that the people mentioned are indeed people. If we are saying that the ability to consciously perform “human” acts must be inherent, it leads to a circling argument, because it could be said that very trait is born from personhood. The fetus has no brain, sure, but it has the potential for it. The fetus already has the DNA code for a full person and, if all goes to plan, will carry out said DNA coding.

[dangerDoge]

I concede that this growth of the brain and such is gradual, but the gradual nature of it also makes conception the most clear time to determine personhood. If we determine personhood-growth as a gradual process, that would mean we’re never person’s because we’re always growing/changing. If we base things on functionality and say that a fetus has less value than an infant due to personhood and therefore an adult women (say 25 years old), then that leads into other issues. It would imply, for instance, that a 3 year old is worth less than a 20 year old because the 3 year old can do less things than a 20 year old. I would also argue that destroying the mother’s life in suffering to the extent your pro-porting is an exaggeration. If that was the case, there would be less willing pregnancies in the world as is if it was as physically debiliating as it seems to be implied here. (Note: sorry for the length of my comments, but it’s a pretty complicated topic so I don't know how to word it less)

[Inneedofusername]

A person has personality. You can identify a fetus as a human being ( even though I wouldn't) but you can't identify it as a person. And people in coma or asleep are not destroing anyone's health and life. Fetus has only a possibilty of becoming a person, so removing it is close to using a condom during sex, in both situations you're taking away the possibilty that a person will become. In case of pregnancy, you must acknowledge either fetus either the woman superior. Did you check the poll? Almost everyone picked the option where a person (not a fetus, an adult person) dies and the other person isn't forced to give up a kidney (where giving up a kidney is much less of a tragedy than pregnancy is)

[Inneedofusername]

That was a response to the first reply since I wrote it before I read your second. There are women with maternal instinct, which is the answer to why are there so many pregnancies in the world. Instincts are the strongest in people. We have instincts to eat food, to have sex etc. If you were very hungry, you would do ANYTHING to get the food

[dangerDoge]

@Inneedofusername Would you define how you’re using “human being” vs “person?” Are you using human being as a biological term and person as someone having the essence personhood (meaning it’d be morally wrong to kill them). I’m confused what distinction you’re making between the two, and I’d like to clarify things before making a response.

[Inneedofusername]

This maternal instinct covers their eyes for everything bad connected to pregnancy. You probably heard of cases where women were stealing other women's kids because they wanted a baby so much. Having a maternal instinct or lack of it is a very strong feeling. One gynecologist once said "If a woman wants a baby, she will do absolutely everything to have it, if a woman doesn't want it, she will do everything to not have it" And it's true. It's the reason why so many women are deciding to do illegal abortions or are trying to abort on their own knowing all the risks. If I ever got pregnant, I would kick myself hard in the belly, and I would rather stab myself with a knife than let some parasite destroy me

[Inneedofusername]

"Are you using human being as a biological term and person as someone having the essence personhood (meaning it’d be morally wrong to kill them)" Yes

[dangerDoge]

@Inneedofusername Ok, there is a lot to dissect here, so bear with me. “A person has a personality.” A personality is characteristics of a person based on life experiences and possibly genetic components. That still falls into the lines of Functionalism as I discussed in the previous comments. To get a personality, one has to accumulate life experiences. That would again rule out someone who was born in a coma and grew then. That would also call to question how much personhood someone with a personality disorder has. I would also then consider it debatable, under this definition, as to how human recently born babies are. Does a baby right after birth really have a personality? If it does, what makes that baby so different from when it was in the womb. If there is no difference, then what makes that about-to-be-born baby so different from that same baby the day before? It becomes to a point where there is no clear cut off point. The only clear cutoff point is at conception. If we acknowledge personhood (defined by personality) as a gradual process, that creates some people with more personhood than others, like a 3 year old as less of a person than an adult since their life experiences are going to be unequal. “people in coma or asleep are not destro[y]ing anyone's health and life” I don’t see how this statement is relevant to whether someone is a person or not. If I murder a 1000 people and ruin a lot of people’s lives, that doesn’t suddenly make me less of a person. It makes me evil sure, but I’m still a person and human. Even more so, an argument could be made that someone in coma is taking a financial burden on someone somewhere. It’s not like that hypothetical financial burden placed on whoever makes the patient in coma not a person though. (Another comment attached)

[dangerDoge]

“Fetus has only a possibilty of becoming a person, so removing it is close to using a condom during sex, in both situations you're taking away the possibilty that a person will become.” I disagree with this statement, because a fetus is fundamentally different from sperm, egg cells, or even something abstract like a possibility. The zygote or fetus is independent from the parents in the sense that it is neither the father nor the mother’s clone or part of their DNA. It is a new life and, while it may characteristics from the mother and father, it is not the mother or father. Sperm and egg cells are not independent from the parents. Plus, they don’t have any coding for life. Using a condom is completely different from abortion. Condom do not remove life (and what I consider as a person). Abortion does. “In case of pregnancy, you must acknowledge either [the] fetus [or] the woman superior” I believe this statement is sort of ambiguous. If the mother’s life is significantly in danger (i. e. the mother will likely die if not aborted) that’s a special case. I discussed this in my original opinion. However, normal and likely non life threatening pregnancy risks, in my opinion, are not enough to trump over the fetus’s life. In regards to the poll and question you linked, the situation you describe does not match up with the abortion argument. They’re different situations. I can get into the differences if you’d like, but that’ll make this response already longer than it is. “Maternal instinct.” First and foremost, the whole notion of maternal instinct is a myth. It’s like saying women are inherently more emotional than men (based on stereotypes). Hard evidence is scant for maternal instinct. At the very least, it lacks the credibility to be used as evidence to back up your argument. (One last comment attached below)

[dangerDoge]

“One gynecologist said...” and the remaining argument. This falls under the “abortion should be legal so people have a safe place to do it/People are going to do it anyway” argument. To that, I addressed this argument in my second comment under my original opinion. I would also call to question how true the “so many women” claim is. “If I ever got pregnant...” This is more of a personal opinion and would lack credibility for evidence in the argument, because your views may not necessarily line up with most women.

[Inneedofusername]

A newborn isn't a person. It's a human being. However there is no longer any person that he/she is destroying so there is no need to kill it. All in all the whole abortion discussion comes down to whenever you would force a woman to go through a pregnancy or not. If someone thinks that it's okay to deprive someone from fundamental right to either have sex or the right to their own body autonomy, then I don't see point in argueing since it's a basic moral thing. The only thing I have left then is stop breathing and try to kill myself while people like you would try to handcuff me to bed to prevent me from aborting a fetus by myself.

[dangerDoge]

@Inneedofusername “A newborn isn't a person. It's a human being. However there is no longer any person that he/she is destroying so there is no need to kill it.“ By this logic though, one could kill a newborn without it being morally wrong since it’s not a person, which seems flawed. More so, that would make it a question of “when” the newborn gets a personality, and the lack of a hard cutoff makes things vague. Making it a gradual process brings in other problems as already discussed previously. “All in all the whole abortion discussion comes down to whenever you would force a woman to go through a pregnancy or not” This all circles back to the original argument of making the decision before sex. I wholeheartedly agree people have the right to sex and body autonomy. Body autonomy would mean in this case the decision to or to not have sex. When someone becomes pregnant, I believe they carry a new person and human being inside of them, and thus it would be morally wrong to kill the fetus. This boils down to personhood, because if the fetus has personhood, it would horrible to have an abortion because it would be classified as murder. And, thus there should then be laws to prevent said abortion. I mean, I figured this is why we’ve been going back and forth on the whole personhood matter. Also, the “people like you” statement seems a bit unnecessary. Lol as far as I know, neither of us are evil people, trying to be inhumane, and/or trying to have inhumane views. You brought up a challenge to my opinion, so I defended it and challenged back. I mean, I still respect your thoughts as a person (no pun intended) though, I just don’t agree with them and think they’re flawed and not the way society should run.

[Nada98]

Well, it's actually doesn't matter what you think it's wrong to kill it or no 'it's not your body neither you agree or not, the decision is due to the woman not the man and yes their opinions in this topic are invalid simply because, women have a moral right to decide what to do with their bodies the right to abortion is vital for gender equality the right to abortion is vital for individual women to achieve their full potential banning abortion puts women at risk by forcing them to use illegal abortionists the right to abortion should be part of a portfolio of pregnancy rights that enables women to make a truly free choice whether to end a pregnancy, This argument reminds us that even in the abortion debate, we should regard the woman as a person and not just as a container for the foetus. We should therefore give great consideration to her rights and needs as well as those of the unborn.

[Nada98]

a woman has the right to decide what she can and can't do with her body the foetus exists inside a woman's body a woman has the right to decide whether the foetus remains in her body therefore a pregnant woman has the right to abort the foetus The issue brings many ideas about human rights into brutally sharp focus. every human being has the right to own their own body a foetus is part of a woman's body therefore that woman has the right to abort a foetus they are carrying

[Inneedofusername]

The someone as you statement was supposed to show this issue on a personal level. On the internet, this discussion is all like "I respect your opinion" "this is how I think a society should work". But we're talking about real feeling woman like me here. You are the one who would vote against abortion, and I am the one who would get an abortion in case of failed contraception

[dangerDoge]

I’m going to respond to one person at a time for ease. There is a lot of claims made in the two comments back to back. “it's not your body neither you agree or not, the decision is due to the woman not the man” Regarding this argument, I refer you to my third comment, first paragraph titled "Men have no say in abortion rights, because it's not their body. Therefore your opinion is invalid." From a societal standpoint, I also consider abortion as significantly morally wrong, so I believe a society without abortion would thus be better. Therefore, I have an opinion on it and my opinion is still valid because I am part of said society. “the right to abortion is vital for gender equality the right to abortion is vital for individual women to achieve their full potential” In response to gender equality, admittedly, I will concede that laws may also need to be changed so that each parent is clearly responsible from the child, and no parent is able to simply abandon him/her and the partner. Just as it takes two-to-tango, the child is both the parents’ responsibility and likewise belongs to both. Otherwise, I am confused by your statement and would like clarification if possible. Likewise, I don’t know what you mean by “achieve their full potential,” so clarification on that would also be appreciated. “banning abortion puts women at risk by forcing them to use illegal abortionists” I discussed this point second comment under my opinion. “the right to abortion should be part of a portfolio of pregnancy rights that enables women to make a truly free choice whether to end a pregnanc” I would disagree, because 1.) the choice to not have the child was already presented to the mother in the choice to or to not have sex and 2.) the fetus is a new person and life, not the mother’s or father’s, so killing the fetus is still morally wrong. I listed reasons before why I’d argue the fetus is a person, but we can discuss it more if you’d like. (2nd comment attached to this)

[dangerDoge]

Nevertheless, the choice should not be to have an abortion or not. The choice should be if the risks (with modern contraception in mind) of sex at the moment outweigh the benefits. “This argument reminds us that even in the abortion debate, we should regard the woman as a person and not just as a container for the foetus. We should therefore give great consideration to her rights and needs as well as those of the unborn.” I agree 100% here. I don’t think of the woman as a container for the fetus. Consideration for her (and his) rights is encouraging weighing the pros and cons before a sexual encounter. “a foetus is part of a woman's body” I’m just using this line to represent your argument on your second comment. Two points to make on this. 1.) This falls under a transitive relation. (I. e. if A is part of B, and B is part of C, then A is part of C) So if the fetus is part of the mother, this means that each pregnant woman has 20 toes, 4 eyes, 4 hands, and half have penises. This is a bit of an absurd connection to say the least. 2.) Secondly, the unborn baby is in the mother, but it is not the mother. The choice to have the baby was, from my perspective, already chosen by having sex. If I understand your argument correctly, it implies that, since the fetus is dependent on the mother and cannot survive on its own, then it is the mother’s decision to terminate. To that, I would ask then why people under 18 can’t be aborted if they’re financially dependent on their parents? Or why, again, people hospitalized can’t be just killed if they’re dependent on caretakers. A person being dependent does not make said person abort-able. More so, the argument still boils down to whether the fetus is a person. If the fetus is a person, killing the fetus would be morally wrong.

[dangerDoge]

@Inneedofusername I agree— we are talking about real women here. Society how I’m defining it is a place full of groups of real men and real women. Regardless of what you possibly may think about me, I’m not some evil monster out for torturing women with babies or whatever. I don’t view women as simply some objects for carrying fetuses and delivering babies either. Heck, I’m not even against sex and I don’t have issues with sex before or without marriage. Ultimately, I see abortion as significantly morally wrong, so naturally, I’m going to be opposed to it and would vote against it. I have my opinions towards how society would be best as you have yours (as we have discussed thoroughly)

[matchrestore]

When abortion isn't legal, it still happens, but it becomes a black market, often unsafe and unsanitary procedure, which threatens the life of a woman.

Forcing a woman to carry a pregnancy to term can also threaten the life of the woman. That woman may also be the sole provider for other children, who would become wards of the state if the woman lost her life due to complications that could have been avoided through abortion.

Denying women access to abortion is gender discrimination. Restricting access to abortion denies women access to a procedure that can reduce exposure to health risks that are not experienced by men.

When a pregnancy is unwanted, forcing a woman to carry it to term can take a heavy toll on her physical and emotional well-being.

Denying the right to abortion removes a woman's power to make decisions about her own body, her family planning, and health care. Governments should play no role in making that decision for her.

[Inneedofusername]

Like some girl earlier said, with is a bad word. It's not about encouraging people to have abortion.
It's about giving a choice, since forcing a woman to go through pregnancy is barbaric

[SarahsSummer]

I’m not sure anybody is really “with” abortions. They may however, be for their right to choose what happens to their body.

[nightdrot]

The British statesman and political philosopher Edmund Burke wrote, "The effect of liberty to individuals is that they may do as they please. We ought see what it will please them to do before we risk congratulations." Therein lay the problem with laws that permit abortion on demand.

A society that premises its law as "Choice"- to use the locution of abortion rights advocates - effectively leaves open the question of the value of human life. It becomes not a standing principle, but a subjective judgment to each individual. In such a society, human life becomes not an end in itself, but mere instrument. Life becomes not an object whose preservation is the highest standard, but rather a convenience to be maintained or not according to the satisfaction of another's will.

We shape our laws and then our laws shape us - see also the civil rights laws of the 1960s which have effected a revolution in race relations. (The idea that a black man and a white man cannot sit together at the same lunch counter is as alien to this generation as Neptune. Yet in 1965 it was pretty much the norm.)

Inherent then in the pro-choice argument is the idea that life has no value save that which each person chooses to attach to it. It denies society any authority to make a collective judgment on such questions. Therefore, in this view, the law may not afford protection to life except at some arbitrarily defined (and inherently subjective) point.

This then conduces to an assertion of power over rights. Life is maintained not as its own end, but according to the will of the person who, effectively, controls it because they can. An ethic of convenience is established and it is a slippery slope on which to build a culture and a legal edifice.

Such a society will not value life that sees life as not an end, but as a means to some other end. Indeed, that is why at about the same time as the culture began to shift on the abortion question we also saw a rise in child abuse, spousal abuse, divorce, out of wedlock births and other social pathologies. These were not unrelated phenomena.

Aristotle said that the first questions of politics are, "How ought we to live? What kind of a people do we wish to be?" The implicit answer of those who support abortion on demand is, in effect, that it is nobody's business. Predictable results follow. One cannot expect the society to absent itself from collective moral judgments on the value of life and then expect an ethical social order to result.

[America1st]

Because it is a live human being. The heart beat can be heard at about six weeks. That's before most women know they are pregnant. For those who are going to say it's not a live, like the liberals who love abortions, they are just wrong. If it's not a human, why does a person who murders a pregnant woman get charged for a double murder. You certainly can't kill something that isn't alive!

[rachel776]

i personally am not for abortion but i think everyone should have their own choice. choosing to not have an abortion is one of those choices someone can make

[summiter]

It is a women's choice what to do with her body

[WindowLicker]

I'm fine with abortion.

[WindowLicker]

I'm also fine with pink downvotes.

[normalguy93]

Im with it because there's some family with a kid that they totally dont care about and never wanted

[SG_04]

Its the persons choice even if it isn't morally right according to some people

[Ripper_E]

Very much against abortions

[AngelLily]

Against

[jacquesvol]

Another abortion troll.
Pro choice

[chriscdi]

I dont really care

[tartaarsaus]

Pro-choice

[AynonOMouse]

If the man has equal rights/say then I am for it.
I am against the woman having total say and can either kill it when the man wants to keep it, or keep it when he doesn't want it, then expect him to pay for it.
I want equal rights for fathers/children.
The law is currently very unfair and sexist against men.

[murdanyc916]

im for abortion, even though i really dont care

i just appeciate the freedom to choose, its AMERICA!

telling somebody they can't do something is just purely wrong

[Tilin29]

So if I stab someone. He dies. It's wrong if people tell me I did something wrong?

[murdanyc916]

@Tilin29 thats called anarchy, not freedom the ability to choose = freedom the ability to do whatever you want = anarchy you got the 2 confused

[murdanyc916]

@Tilin29 morally right/wrong are just opinions, quitting a job for example could be a right thing or it could be a wrong thing. what matters are circumstance, why you did such action to begin with.

[Tilin29]

The ability to choose = freedom I choose to stab someone. Bad argument. In this case anarchy and freedom is the same thing by what you stated. Executing someone if adult or a developing fetus is not any different. But we tend to value adult life more since we emotionally connect ourselves to it.

[Lance1965]

Pro-choice.

[Surely]

Choice by me, but don't believe in using it as the only form of birth control But definitely don't believe in partial birth abortions.

[name_is_eric]

Against pop culture abortion.

[jacquesvol]

abortion existed long before pop culture

[TsubasaCorrupted]

I support a woman's choice.

[Tilin29]

What about the creature's choice to live?

[TsubasaCorrupted]

It doesn't matter to me. Nobody, not you, me, or a fetus, has any right to occupy a womans body without her consent.

[Tilin29]

Occupy? If I put a dog inside of my home. I agreed to putting it inside my home. Can I kill it?

[TsubasaCorrupted]

That is a false equivalency fallacy. It isn't the same and you know it. There is a difference between bringing a dog into your home, and a dog getting into your house without your permission.

[Tilin29]

Sorry isn't sex consensual for the most part? Isn't it consensual to bring a dog into your house? The euphoria of getting a dog causes you to get one. But then you regret it. Having sex (the purpose of it is to procreate) and causes you to get pregnant. But then you regret it. It was YOUR own fault. It wasn't anyone's fault. Use contraceptives.

[TsubasaCorrupted]

1. Yes. But she is agreeing to have sex, she is not agreeing to an unwanted pregnancy. 2. Of course, unless you come home and find a random dog in your house. If you want it then regret it, that is ultimately meaningless. Revocation of consent means she no longer consents to someone using her body. Contraceptives fail anyways. Condoms are especially notorious for ripping, perforation and coming off during rough sex or due to inappropriate sizing.

[TsubasaCorrupted]

I've been debating this before you were born. Try again.

[Tilin29]

Just because you might be doing something for longer doesn't mean you have an upper hand on things. You debate things like these, yet you should know mentioning how long you've been debating it for can make people turn away from you as they believe you don't have the capabilities to achieve your goal. Yes, she did not consent to the baby, but if you have sex it's a risk you're willing to take. Most abortions come from females who failed to use any contraceptives. I do agree abortion in some cases is agreeable and sometimes necessary, but not in every case of choice.

[TsubasaCorrupted]

I don't much care how they see me honestly. Thus far you haven't presented a valid argument other than fallacy and casuistry based arguments. It's not a baby. Depending on the stage of development, it is an embryo, fetus or a zygote. Sure it's a risk. Everything in life carries risk, it doesn't mean you consent to being harmed by it. It doesn't matter if they do or don't, nor does your opinion on when it should be agreeable. It is still ultimately this: a human is violating her human right of bodily autonomy, the right to control her body and it's access.

[Tilin29]

It's not her body at that point. It becomes a human being at that point even if just a fetus. The reason you believe I haven't presented any valid points is because just like your case, I completely disagree with any of your points. In my opinion you haven't provided me with any valid arguments either except "its her body", When you sign up to join the army, there's a chance of you not surviving the period of you serving as a soldier. But you consented to that risk. You knew what might happen and if it does, you can't do anything about it. The topic of abortion is also unfair to men. Just because it might be an inconvenience to her, she can abort it. The man can't choose anything and even needs to pay for child support. It doesn't violate any human rights as it is not your right to kill a living being. It's illegal and it's murder. Your human right is that you can do whatever with your OWN body and yet drugs are not allowed to be used in the biggest case

[TsubasaCorrupted]

It is her body, that doesn't change, nor does the fetus being human change that fact. No, it's because you offered fallacious arguments. Those are flawed lines of thought and you can do better. That's all that is needed. It is ultimately her body, and her human right of bodily autonomy trumps anyone elses non right to occupy it. Accepting the risk, and consenting to it actually happening to you, are two separate things. That is because all the man does is deposit sperm. She puts her health, finances, future and life on the line. Plus it goes back to her human right of bodily autonomy. If a man could get pregnant, I would be supporting his choices as well. Actually, you're wrong. Murder is defined as the illegal killing of another with malicious aforethought. Abortion is defined as the early termination of pregnancy. Forcing someone to keep a unwanted pregnancy does indeed violate their human right of bodily autonomy. Does abortion kill? Absolutely. Is it murder? No. Exactly, that is bodily autonomy. And if someone is using your body without consent, you have the full right to stop them from doing so.

[Tilin29]

Constantly says my points aren't valid. Even though your points aren't strong as well. It's the same thing. You're aware of the risks. Don't want pregnancy? Use contraceptives or don't have sex. Don't want to get killed in war? Don't join the army. Just because something occupies your body doesn't mean you can just kill it. It's not a tumor. It's a potential sentient life form. You had the chance to prevent it from happening before. Not after. Just because you messed up doesn't mean a life should be washed away. Seeing that you've been in the debating topic as you claim, you are probably aware most abortions come from women who did not take any precautions during sex. You would also know that many women regret and even fall into depression after an abortion. Abortions should be heavily monitored and should really be down to the opinion of the doctor.

[TsubasaCorrupted]

Using half baked arguments is not a good argument. You can do better. Do so. Or get an abortion, that also stops a pregnancy. You have a simplistic what of seeing things. You can consent to join the army, but that does not mean you consent to being killed. It means you accept that it could happen, but do not want it to happen. Actually, it does mean just that. If a man rapes a woman, she is justified in using lethal self defense. If you have a tumor, you can kill it. Same thing with a fetus. It doesn't matter if it, as you say, has a POTENTIAL to be a sentient life form or already is, you have the right to kill anything that violates your human right of bodily autonomy. Does that matter to me? No. But I do keep hearing that. True or not, I'm not sure. It is. Doctors can refuse to perform any procedure so long as it isn't endangering the patients life. But it should NOT be up to another person what can happen to the patient. It is not their body, life, finances, health, choice nor right.

[Tilin29]

"You can consent to join the army, but that does not mean you consent to being killed. It means you accept that it could happen, but do not want it to happen." Thanks. You just summed up what I was talking about the entire time with that last line. Now replace the words and you'll see my standpoint. I agree that abortion should be an affordable procedure available to anyone who has medical reasons for it. Let it be abnormalities or risks to the female. NO ONE and I say NO ONE forces you to have sex. If someone does, it's rape and we have a different scenario where you did not consent to the act and therefore neither to the risks. Everyone is taught that babies come from sex. It's like pressing "I Agree" on any application you download. There's terms and conditions, in which your responsibilities are stated in. Fun fact: Did you know a lot of raped women, if they get pregnant decide to keep the baby and not abort it? Abortion is not a contraceptive. It should be used in severe cases. Currently in the US it's up for the patient to decide what to do with the fetus. There's some regulations but any woman can get an abortion. Thing is that the pro-life movement brought up so many valid points and due to some new research on fetuses and how they form, brought some attention from both the medical and scientific world. The movement unlike the pro-choice movement is not aggressive and bases off of academic research while pro-choice bases of the "choice" word. I believe it may succeed due to the success shown. Yes. It may be YOUR body. But inside that body is SOMEONE ELSE'S body. And you killing them is infringing their human rights.

[TsubasaCorrupted]

For your fun fact, where did you get your sources? I've never seen any unbiased official document stating the numbers of rapes, much less rape pregnancies, considering most rapes are never even reported. I expect your reply to have sufficient sources. If that is what you want for other people, so be it. I actually respect the womans human right to control her body. If she wants to make a choice and regret it, regardless of that choice, that is the result of her personal choice. True, but it is birth control in a sense, as it stops a birth by ending the pregnancy. Yes it is up to them, but doctors can refuse to do it, which requires the patient to go elsewhere. Not aggressive? What about the anti choicers constant desire to overturn roe v Wade or even succeeding in adding limitation to abortion or removing the clinics that supply them? We advocate choice, you advocate in removing choice. It has no rights over someone else's body. By violating her rights, her right to kill it supercedes the right it has to live. It's a simple concept.

[The_Revolver]

With

[Nachowedgie]

I'm for the option being there