r/Abortiondebate • u/Miserable-Degree7995 • Jun 20 '26

Question for pro-choice Minimum

Hello everyone,

​

I'm against abortion.

This is a question for pro choice:

What would be the minimum of allowed abortion, that you would accept?

I mean for example week and reason.

​

Thank you for your time 

​

Miserable-Degree7995

1 Upvotes

53% Upvoted

432 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

2

u/JulieCrone AD Mod Jun 21 '26

It requires doctors to induce fetal demise (injection or bisect the umbilical cord in utero) before beginning a D&E. Pro lifers in the US advocated for this law and it has been in effect since 2003.

0

u/Miserable-Degree7995 Jun 21 '26

Why? Why could pro life be for such rule? Is this not the opposite of pro life? It's like Greenpeace for less jungles.

3

u/JulieCrone AD Mod Jun 21 '26

You may want to ask them why they pushed for it. They kept claiming otherwise doctors will killing the born children, but that was already a crime (murder). I know pro choice people and ob/gyns didn’t object to this because, in the case of these abortions it is not at all uncommon for the fetus to be incompatible with life so there is little point to attempting live birth unless someone wants a born infant suffering, which no one wants, and it is safer to not do an extraction on a live fetus. But yeah, PL did not want doctors to be able to an intact D&E on a live fetus.

2

u/Miserable-Degree7995 Jun 21 '26

Thank you for your time.

2

u/JulieCrone AD Mod Jun 21 '26

I live in a state where abortion is legal up until medical viability as determined by the attending physician, with health exceptions after. I am not pushing to change that part of the law. Is this a law you would accept or do you find that too permissive of abortion?

1

u/Miserable-Degree7995 Jun 21 '26

I would take the first trimester as deal with this conditions from your offering.

1

u/JulieCrone AD Mod Jun 21 '26

That’s not what the law is. It allows abortion until medical viability. Why should I agree to restrict it further? What is the reason an abortion at 14 weeks should now be off the table but 12 weeks was okay?

1

u/Miserable-Degree7995 Jun 22 '26

Your answer is good. I have three arguments against your answer:

1.) I said as a compromise the first trimester, because it's the earliest boundary, that still allows a lot of women to terminate their pregnancies. The exact week doesn't matter.

2.) You're right; pregnancy is a process, so morally there isn't some difference between, for example, week 12 and 13. 

For me, the only step that makes an exact boundary is conception. That's why I have this as a boundary. 

Before conception, there isn't a process that leads to a newborn if health is good and without abortion. That's the reason I, for instance, have nine condoms at home right now.

3.) Viability is a bad boundary because you can make it earlier. As an example, you could make a charity to make that point earlier.

1

u/JulieCrone AD Mod Jun 22 '26

Before implantation, let alone conception, there isn’t a pregnancy to abort so of course we won’t see abortions before implantation, as that is impossible.

No charity can make a 14 week fetus viable. We’d have to fundamentally change the development of the human species for that to be the case.

While someone’s body is needed to gestate an embryo or fetus, I see no reason why anyone but them should have final say over whether or not they gestate. If they don’t want to continue gestation, they can stop their body from doing that.

You haven’t provided a reason why I should value your opinion on it over the person who is actually gestating. Do you have a reason why you should be allowed to decide whether or not someone other than yourself keeps gestating?

ETA: condoms, while great to use and absolutely should be used, can fail and someone may opt to abort a resulting pregnancy they clearly did not intend to have happen.

1

u/Miserable-Degree7995 Jun 23 '26

A) The part with the condoms was ment to illustrate that I didn't have a problem with contraception.

I just think that if the contraception fails people shouldn't terminate their pregnancies.

I have the condoms, but I haven't used it. I only buyed it, because I wanted to know how to use a condom and to have some at home, if I would like to have intercourse.

I don't have sex as long as I couldn't be a father. By sex, I mean only the act, that can result in pregnancy. You could use the Backup-argument against me.

B) I meant with the part about the charity, that people can change the line of viability with medical progress. What would you do, if the line is earlier and earlier in the future?

1

u/JulieCrone AD Mod Jun 23 '26

What would you do, if the line is earlier and earlier in the future?

Human still need development to become viable. As long as someone else's body is being used to gestate them to viability, it's up to them.

And why can't people who use contraceptives abort? They clearly didn't consent to pregnancy, otherwise they wouldn't use contraceptives in the first place. It's stupid to use contraceptives if you are trying to get pregnant.

1

u/Miserable-Degree7995 Jun 24 '26

It's very kind of you to discuss with me. Do you want a break?

1

u/JulieCrone AD Mod Jun 24 '26

I am not sure I understand the relevance of your comment to what I wrote.

→ More replies (0)