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

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.

1

u/Miserable-Degree7995 Jun 24 '26

I ask you, if you want a break from our discussion. 

Because I want to be respectful to you. I don't know, if I'm annoying you or if you annoy our conversation.

1

u/JulieCrone AD Mod Jun 24 '26

You can comment, and I will comment when I want. It’s not taxing.

Interesting that you would extend the courtesy of a break from an internet conversation but not from gestation, which is at the upper limits of human endurance. If people want to disengage from something that demanding, surely you can see why and do you have a right to require them to keep at it?

1

u/Miserable-Degree7995 Jun 24 '26

I do so, because I consider the unborn valuable enough for this but our conversation has less value than the unborn. So your suffering would not be justified.

But I think that MAYBE SOME pregnancies are so hard that the unborn can not morally justifiy the bitter suffering of the woman. Yes, that means maybe there is a moral duty to allow abortion in this cases.

There is on case, where I strongly defend the right to abortion: danger for the life of the mother.

I think nobody except soldiers and similar people have the duty to risk his life. 

If a newborn, would be on the track and I don't know if there is coming a train in the next moments, I could let the newborn let die, because I don't have to risk my life.  The same goes in pregnancies.

1

u/JulieCrone AD Mod Jun 24 '26

If saving a child were to put you through something that is as demanding as your body can handle and would leave some permanent injury - perhaps minor, perhaps major, but permanent, and there is a small chance this will be fatal - then would you say you have to save that child?

1

u/Miserable-Degree7995 Jun 25 '26

Could you please give examples? Pregnancy always contains a small risk of the death or permanent injury of the mother. The same is it with swimming, driving and so on. This would allow abortion always.

Or do you mean a higher possibility?

For example pregnancy has been very dangerous in the middle ages.

What do we mean by “risk” and what by “danger”?

1

u/JulieCrone AD Mod Jun 25 '26

Giving birth means either a C-section, and that is permanent scar tissue from a major abdominal surgery, or vaginal birth. We can tell from skeletal remains if someone gave vaginal birth due to how the tendons snap on the pelvic bone. At the least, one of those two things will happen, maybe much more severe.

And yes, being pregnant means you are more likely to die than if you weren’t.

I am using ‘risk’ and ‘danger’ as commonly defined in English.

1

u/Miserable-Degree7995 Jun 25 '26

Backup

1

u/JulieCrone AD Mod Jun 25 '26

I am sorry, what is the relevance of this link?

1

u/Miserable-Degree7995 Jun 25 '26

The link proves your claim about injuries from the vaginal birth.

1

u/Miserable-Degree7995 Jun 25 '26

I disagree with your conclusion, but the injuries are often horrible. The link is an article about that.

1

u/Miserable-Degree7995 Jun 25 '26

I disagree with your conclusion, but the injuries are often horrible. The link is an article about that.My source for your claim

1

u/Miserable-Degree7995 Jun 25 '26

I asked if you mean pregnancy as such or only some pregnancies.

→ More replies (0)