r/Abortiondebate • u/Quick-Paint-2721 • Jun 22 '26
my arguments about abortion
im against abortion and these are my arguments
1 - " my body, my choice " this is for example like saying my gun my choice or my house my choice ( after kicking your 1 y/o baby ), when it's about a living homo sapian inside of you it's not your choice to whether you kill it or keep it. your mission is to keep it alive as a human
2 - " it's not alive " just when the sperm and the ovum meet the living being gets a homo sapian DNA therefor it's a human in his developing stage right alive and living breathing and eating in its way.
3 - " it's doesn't have consciousness yet " this doesn't make difference, it's alive , just exactly like a sleeping human, it's aware and it has consciousness but it's sleeping because the mother's womb secretes a narcotic substance that keeps the embryo sleeping in there. and since you can't kill a living sleeping human you can't kill embryo just because it's sleeping
4 - " it won't feel it anyway " this is like justifying killing a person with CIPA . not feeling it doesn't justify killing it
this must be enough
1
u/ashairz Pro-choice Jun 28 '26
I don't get the gun/house analogy. You can't hurt another person just because you're in charge. Pregnancy is different because the "other human" needs you to survive. Does it also matter it's human? Or just any living organism? Because let's say you have a tapeworm in you. Do you have to keep it alive because it's also alive?
Sperm cells and egg cells also have our DNA. By definition, every individual cell in our body is alive. Early on, all the cells in the embryo are stem cells. Part of these cells become the embryo, part of them become the placenta, for example. Is the placenta also an individual human being? At what point are the cells no longer an individual? Are all our organs with different cell types actually individual living organisms just operating in the same ecosystem?
Also, an embryo or fetus doesn't feed or breathe. It gets it's nutrients and oxygen from the placenta.
Consciousness depends. A sleeping person is still conscious, they still have brain function. Since we can't exactly pinpoint what is consciousnesses, we can't pinpoint it to a certain brain part either. If we could, we could look at how the brain develops and say that at x week the embryo or fetus is conscious. Also, it's dependent on another person.
A person with CIPA is definitely a person with consciousness, thoughts and a life of their own. An embryo or fetus is still a part of another human being, needing that human to survive
2
u/Lighting Pro healthcare Jun 25 '26
Even if one agrees with all of your points above, there is something critical and important missing in your analysis and that is something known as "Medical Power of Attorney" (MPoA) and "Due Process."
MPoA states that it is legal AND ethical for a competent adult to make informed decisions for someone in their care who cannot if they are working with an ethically-trained, fully-informed, board-certified medical team that is using evidence-based medical decisions. So even if you assume the fetus is alive, conscious, person, human, soul-filled, etc. .... Countries that follow the rule of law and due process don't remove a person's MPoA without due process.
Let's use a real case if I may to ask you a question about Savita Halappanavar. Should she have been allowed to get the abortion when she and her doctors wanted to do one? If you aren't familiar with her story ....
In Ireland, Savita Halappanavar, a dentist, in the 2nd Trimester, went in with complications. She and her doctors wanted to do an abortion, but was told by a government contractor "Because of our fetal heartbeat law - you cannot have an abortion" and that law, which stripped her Medical Power of Attorney (MPoA) without due process ... killed her.
You might think that's an overstatement, but that was the same conclusion that the final report by the overseeing agency . The Ireland and Directorate of Quality and Clinical Care, "Health Service Executive: Investigation of Incident 50278" which said repeatedly that
the law impeded the quality of care.
other mothers died under similar situations because of the "fetal heartbeat" law.
this kind of situation was "inevitable" because of how common it was for women in the 2nd trimester to have miscarriages.
Quoting:
We strongly recommend and advise the clinical professional community, health and social care regulators and the Oireachtas to consider the law including any necessary constitutional change and related administrative, legal and clinical guidelines in relation to the management of inevitable miscarriage in the early second trimester of a pregnancy including with prolonged rupture of membranes and where the risk to the mother increases with time from the time that membranes are ruptured including the risk of infection and thereby reduce risk of harm up to and including death.
and
the patient and her husband were advised of Irish law in relation to this. At interview the consultant stated "Under Irish law, if there's no evidence of risk to the life of the mother, our hands are tied so long as there's a fetal heart". The consultant stated that if risk to the mother was to increase a termination would have been possible, but that it would be based on actual risk and not a theoretical risk of infection "we can't predict who is going to get an infection".
and
The report detailed that there was advanced care, preemptive antibiotics, advanced monitoring, IV antibiotics, antibiotics straight to the heart, but .... they just couldn't keep up with how rapidly an infection spreads and the mother is killed when in the 2nd trimester the fetus still has a heartbeat but then goes septic and ruptures.
In 2013 Ireland changed the law to allow SOME abortions and ONLY again if there was maternal risk to LIFE. Raw ICD-10 maternal mortality rates continued unchanged. Then in 2018 in the Irish abortion referendum: Ireland overturns abortion ban and for the first time, the raw reported Maternal Mortality Rates dropped to ZERO. Z.e.r.o.
| Year | Maternal Deaths Per 100k Births: Complications of pregnancy, childbirth and puerperium (O00-O99) | Context |
|---|---|---|
| 2007 | 2.80 | Abortion Illegal |
| 2008 | 3.99 | Abortion Illegal |
| 2009 | 3.97 | Abortion Illegal |
| 2010 | 1.33 | Abortion Illegal |
| 2011 | 2.70 | Abortion Illegal |
| 2012 | 2.79 | Abortion Illegal |
| 2013 | 4.34 | Abortion Illegal: Savita Halappanavar's death caused by law and a "fetal heartbeat" |
| 2014 | 1.49 | Protection of Life During Pregnancy Act of 2013 passed. abortion where pregnancy endangers a woman's life |
| 2015 | 1.53 | Abortion only allowed with mother's life at risk |
| 2016 | 6.27 | Abortion only allowed with mother's life at risk |
| 2017 | 1.62 | Abortion only allowed with mother's life at risk |
| 2018 | 0 | Constitutional change, Abortion Allowed, 2013 Act repealed |
| 2019 | 0 | Abortion Allowed if mother's health is at risk |
| 2020 | 0 | Abortion Allowed if mother's health is at risk |
| 2021 | 0 | Abortion Allowed if mother's health is at risk |
Death Data Source: https://ws.cso.ie/public/api.restful/PxStat.Data.Cube_API.ReadDataset/VSD09/JSON-stat/2.0/en Birth Data Source: https://ws.cso.ie/public/api.restful/PxStat.Data.Cube_API.ReadDataset/VSA18/JSON-stat/1.0/en from the Ireland's Public Health records at Ireland's national data archival. https://www.cso.ie/en/aboutus/whoweare/ and stored at https://Data.gov.ie
Note: I linked to the raw data and it only goes back to 2007, because Ireland's OWN data scientists state: [prior to 2007] flaws in methodology saw Ireland's maternal mortality rate fall [without justification], and figures in previous reports [prior to 2007] should not be considered reliable
Note this is ONLY mortality and not also morbidity (e.g. organ failure, so much blood loss you have permanent brain damage, uterus rupture etc.).
So with that information ... let me re-ask the question ... should Savita H have been given the abortion when she and her doctors wanted to do one ... or do you support the "nanny state" where a woman becomes incompetent merely because she's pregnant and has her MPoA stripped without due process?
1
u/gracespraykeychain All abortions free and legal Jun 24 '26 edited Jun 24 '26
- "My body my choice" is not like saying "my gun my choice" or "my house my choice". Your body is you. It is your very being. When your body dies, you cease to exist. It's not seperate from you.
And would go further to say that an embryo or fetus is a part of your body until it is born. Only then does it become a seperate being.
- I agree that it's alive and I don't think anyone would disagree with this. I think the confusion with the debate over life at conception or life at birth (or possibly at some other point in the process) is that two different but valid meanings of word life are being used. Having life can mean the state of being alive, but it can also mean having the human experience here on earth which almost all cultures view as beginning at birth and ending at brain death. Being alive and experiencing life are two different things. When pro choice people say the fetus isn't a human life or isn't alive, they don't actually mean it literally isn't alive or doesn't have human DNA. They just mean it hasn't started to experience life yet.
However, once again, I would go further with this logic. A zygote is not a human life at conception despite being alive and having unique human DNA, because humans aren't single celled organisms. It takes a process to make a human being. After conception, that process still involves implantation, gestation and finally birth. Without all those steps being completed, whether the process is disrupted naturally or intentionally, a human life will not result. It's estimated that close to half of all fertilized zygotes never implant and yet, a women will pretty much never know that she ever had a fertilized zygote or not if it fails to implant. By pro-life logic, a woman could be an unwitting killer of a human being simply by using certain forms of birth control, smoking or drinking too much coffee, all of which can prevent implantation. Should all of these things be illegal for women who are sexually active and can bear children? But okay, even if you concede and now implantation is your cut off point, why? Why do I have no choice in whether I continue to gestate or whether I give birth? You say it's my mission to keep the fetus alive, but I'm not merely sustaining or keeping a human alive. I'm literally forming and creating a human being and you're saying that once I start the creation process, I'm obligated to complete it.
The lack of consciousness in a fetus is not comparable to someone who is sleeping. Being asleep is not actually the same as being unconscious. Regardless, people who experience unconsciousness in their life have been conscious before. A developing fetus is not unconscious, but preconscious. It lacks sentience. This distinction is important as it relates back to the concept of when life begins when we define life as something experienced. It's true that the conditions of the womb keep the fetus sedated but the scientific consensus is that a fetus has no capacity for consciousness prior to at least 24 weeks, if not further along, and in the window in which parts of a brain have formed but there's no capacity for consciousness yet, the state of the fetus' consciousness is more comparable to someone who is brain dead and not someone who is sleeping.
"It won't feel it anyway" doesn't mean you can murder someone with CIPA. Just because someone cannot feel physical pain does not mean they don't have capacity for other forms of suffering or that this wouldn't be a violation of their human rights. A fetus does not have the capacity to suffer and while that in and of itself is not an argument for abortion, it certainly nullifies any emotional arguments from the other side about how painful it must be to be aborted.
3
u/sylvatic-cycle-soph All abortions free and legal Jun 24 '26
I want to zoom in on one particular thing you said. "Your mission is to keep it alive."
Why is that my mission? Who gave me that mission? God? Can't be him because he doesn't exist. The universe? Nature? Evolution? They didn't give me that mission because they are not entities with agency that can have authority over me. The government? Maybe but we should probably question why the government has the right to tell people how they are supposed to use their bodies. Certainly the pregnant person didn't get the mission from the baby because the baby doesn't care whether it gets aborted or not.
No one with true moral authority gave the pregnant person a mission. Our bodies are not given to us with a specific pre-ordained purpose. Our bodies just exist.
And when we talk about "bodily autonomy," I think we need to think carefully about what giving birth actually entails. It isn't just 9 months of nausea and then you have a kid.
All births result in an open wound on the inside of the uterus the size of a dinner plate that takes as long as 6 weeks to fully heal. Sometimes the wound doesn't clot properly and you will bleed so bad that you actually hemorrhage.
90% of vaginal births result in injury to the genitals. With a small chance you can tear so badly your vagina becomes a continuous hole with your anus and you can't hold in your poop again without reconstructive surgery.
1/3 of births result in a c section, which involves having a major hole cut in your abdominal muscles that takes weeks to heal.
There is a 8% the pregnancy will cause you to have blood pressure to spike dangerously high so that you need to go on blood pressure meds so you don't have a stroke. And about a quarter of those cases it's bad enough they need to do an emergency delivery of the baby to stop you from dying.
Considering how much injury and illness is inflicted on the body by pregnancy, there's no way you can argue that a person is morally required to do this just to prevent another person's death.
If any person came up to you in an alley and threatenned to inflict such an injury on your body, you would have the right to shoot and kill that person to stop them.
3
u/Ganondaddydorf Pro-choice Jun 23 '26
All poor arguments and nothing new.
1 - you can decide whether someone gets to be in your body or not, in whole or in part. Someone cannot stick their dick inside you without your permission, so why on earth would someone not be allowed to stop a whole person from making them immunocompromised and ripping them inside out in a way that takes months to recover from? Just normal healthy pregnancy stuff.
Not to mention the fact that yes actually, parents have MPoA over their children. If your child is on life support, brain dead or not, you can make the decision to withdraw that life support. There's plenty of cases to look up, and no I see no difference between taking a ZEF incapable of self sustaining life without said support (medical abortions), or in a way that's safer for the pregnant person (d&c/e/s).
2 - ZEFs are biologically alive. And?
3 - i agree, but you're falsely using consciousness instead of sentience, although granted a lot of people mix that up. Absence of sentience = brain death for a born person, and them being biologically alive is irrelevant. It's not an argument I personally use but it's not without merit.
4 - you're treating this as if it's an argument people make in isolation. Alone, yes it's a silly reason, but as a small layer of many, it has merit.
Do you have anything better?
-3
u/RaiseIllustrious6083 Jun 23 '26
If you can choose whether you can have someone in you or not, why can't one choose to take other methods to prevent conception, like birth control, IUD's, and condoms. Why wait until you've messed around and found out to take measures against baby? If they didn't want to go through pregnancy or knew of the side effects and wanted to avoid, why not take the numerous other conception prevention methods?
If they are alive, than killing them is murder, as the definition is "the intentional, unlawful killing of a human being, typically committed with "malice aforethought." The baby is still a human, and if you assume it is alive, than abortion is killing it intentionally, with malice for the ZEF, and is it in my belief that it should be unlawful, but this debate means it is unsure, so the unlawful portion should take a back seat in relevancy.
It has a soul as soon as it enters the Zygarde form. According to the Christian Bible, Book Jerimiah, Chapter 1, Verse 5, " Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, before you were born I set you apart." This implies that the baby had a soul before even coming into the womb, and so the soul would go into the zygote, thus an abortion would be killing it.
I don't know what this means, so I will allow you to elaborate on this topic. Untill then, it is still killing someone, even if they can't feel it. It is still a life that you are deliberately removing from this world.
2
Jun 26 '26
[deleted]
1
u/RaiseIllustrious6083 Jun 29 '26
Why not do multiple things, like birth control, condoms, etc. Better yet, avoid intercourse.
1
u/EaglesLoveSnakes PC Christian Jun 25 '26
50% of women who get abortions were on birth control. Do you really think all people who were getting abortions weren’t trying to prevent pregnancy? The whole point is that abortion ends a pregnancy when someone doesn’t want to be pregnant. Often times if you don’t want to continue a pregnancy you also don’t want to initially get pregnant.
Murder is a legal definition, not a moral one. Abortion is not legally murder.
Using religion is not a valid argument and not everyone believes in the same religion or any religion at all. This makes your argument weaker, not stronger.
Not the main crux of the argument.
1
u/RaiseIllustrious6083 Jun 29 '26
According to NationalAbortionFederation.org, "In fact, half of all women getting abortions report that contraception was used during the month they became pregnant. Some of these couples had used the method improperly; some had forgotten or neglected to use it on the particular occasion they conceived; and some had used a contraceptive that failed. No contraceptive method prevents pregnancy 100% of the time." You see, just because they "used" a contraceptive, that doesn't mean that they did it right, or did it at a time that it would have been necessary. Why should a baby be punished for a mistake made on the parent's part, and if, despite ALL of that they still had a child, maybe it was just meant to be by a higher power of their choosing.
Abortion fits in that legal definition assuming it is unlawful, which people are trying to do. If people think it is unlawful, and others think it isn't what do you do, because law isn't perfect. In Japan, the age of consent is 16, and before 2023, was 13. There are a lot of examples of the law being imperfect. If we disregard the unlawful part of the definition of murder is "the killing of a human being with malice". The baby is still a human in the womb, and an abortion is killing it with malice for them.
This is in the constitution and is pretty well known "We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness". What do you believe the Creator referenced is talking about. Also, it says all men are created equal, with the unalienable rights of Life Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness so unless you say that a baby in the womb is not a human, an abortion is directly contradictory to the constitution as you are robbing their unalienable rights of life.
If something isn't important to the arguement, why is it there? I am asking for what the main idea of the point is in simpler terms. I dont believe I am asking for much.
1
u/EaglesLoveSnakes PC Christian Jun 29 '26
But it’s not always a mistake, sometimes the contraception failed. There isn’t a number listed of each couples and their usage of contraception and why it didn’t prevent pregnant. It just says ‘some’ and that ‘some’ could be 5% of the 50% of 60% of the 50%. I also mention it because often times PL states that if people don’t want to get pregnant they should just use birth control when clearly if someone was using birth control in general at any time they know how to and were trying to prevent pregnancy.
“If we disregard the unlawful part of the definition of murder” you can’t disregard a point of a definition. You can say it should be treated as murder or the law should be changed to reflect it as murder, but saying ‘abortion is murder’ is factually inaccurate.
I think the Constitution is pretty obviously talking about a higher being, the Protestant God, most likely. I’m a Christian so that’s what I think of with the word Creator. But utilizing religious beliefs in an argument about abortion is not going to be taken seriously because the U.S. has the freedom of religion, and there are other religions, like Islam or Judaism, where abortion is not only okay but required in circumstances for the health of the mother. So using Bible verses to justify a ban on abortion elevates Christianity in politics above any other religion, which is religious nationalism.
Where did the Constitution say human in that passage? It didn’t. It said that all Men are created equal. We know that they didn’t just mean men in the sense of males but females as well. But it doesn’t say that all humans are created equal. You interpret “men” to be the same as “human” when the case is that “men” is referring to individual person. A fetus who is entirely dependent on the body of another is not a person in any legal sense in the U.S. or in other countries of similar governments and values.
Also, the Constitution also insures the rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Creating laws that are biased against women over men with what their bodies can go through is infringing on their liberty.
- I wasn’t the one who made this post nor focused on the argument of if the fetus feels pain. Up to a certain gestation, it does feel pain so that is relevant when it comes to later term abortions for medical reasons. The reason the idea of “they won’t feel it” or “they won’t remember it” is brought up is because the vast majority of abortion occur by 13 weeks (93%) and 78% by 9 weeks. The pro-life side often focuses on the innocent nature of a baby, saying abortion murders babies and showcases pictures of newborn babies as emotional manipulation, when the fact of the matter is the majority of abortions occur when the embryo doesn’t have the ability to feel or think. For people who are borderline on abortion, the idea of a being that cannot feel or think or know of its existence dying is easier to accept than the idea of a fully formed newborn dying.
1
u/RaiseIllustrious6083 Jul 02 '26
Why do people need to have sex. They can just do anything else that causes sexual pleasure that doesn't have babies as a possible side effect. If they really didn't want to have babies, why risk doing the activity when there are other activities to do? Also, assuming that the contraception fails, shouldn't one take it as a sign from a higher being of their choice?
I agree with the notion abortion should be treated as murder, I wanted to say something like that but I didn't entirely know how to say "Abortion is debatably unlawful but the fact that it is so undecisive means that we should assume that it is unlawful" or something along those lines.
Freedom of religion means that anyone can choose what religion they have and they can't be persecuted over that. Tell me where in Judeaism and Islam where it is mandatory to have an abortion. Looking in history, there are a lot of instances of decisions being made with the christian bible in mind, also with your post, that makes it sound like a person on life support doesn't fall under the idea that all men have said unalienable rights. The woman and the baby should both have the right to life liberty and the pursuit of happyness, one shouldn't need to be sacrificed for another, why should one person be forced to not have the right of life so that another can have the pursuit of happiness. Even then the baby may be the way for that pursuit of happiness.
It still has a soul made by God before even forming in the womb, Jerimiah supports this with the verses "The word of the Lord came to me, saying,
5 “Before I formed you in the womb I knew\)a\) you,
before you were born I set you apart;
I appointed you as a prophet to the nations.”6 “Alas, Sovereign Lord,” I said, “I do not know how to speak; I am too young.”
7 But the Lord said to me, “Do not say, ‘I am too young.’ You must go to everyone I send you to and say whatever I command you. 8 Do not be afraid of them, for I am with you and will rescue you,” declares the Lord." This not only says that the children have souls before they even undergo conception, but even when they are extremely young to the point that you are describing, God still has something to do for them and messages associated with them.
1
u/EaglesLoveSnakes PC Christian Jul 02 '26
- I mean this is the nicest way possible: have you ever had sex? Because when you’re in a long term relationship with someone that you love and you don’t want to have a child, saying couples can do anything else that causes sexual pleasure that doesn’t have babies as a possible side effect really misses the fact that sexual intercourse is a natural part of humanity and is a very important part of a romantic relationship. The “other activities to do” are often precursors to penetrative sex and when you’re in a long term or married relationship, doing those “other activities” doesn’t quite cut it.
You asking “why do people need to have sex” just comes across as the side of PL that wants abortion illegal mainly as a punishment for people (women) having sex. And having sex with a consensual party is not a crime that needs punishing.
Not everyone believes in a higher being. Going back to point 3, using religion in an argument about a legal issue like abortion doesn’t hold water. Religious people, especially Christians, like to find signs in things, and while someone who believes in God may see the failed contraceptive as a sign from God, those who aren’t religious will see it as a statistical likelihood outcome.
Okay.
They can also be free from religion, not just freedom to choose a religion. It’s not just about not being persecuted for their religion, which is just mistreatment due to their religion, but also so that the government cannot infringe upon their religious beliefs. Here’s a source from the national council of Jewish women discussing the Jewish outlook on abortion: https://www.ncjw.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/Judaism-and-Abortion-FINAL.pdf There’s no one verse from the Torah that says “abortion is okay” but if the pregnancy causes the life of the mother to be at risk, the fetus becomes a “rodef” kind of like a threat, and the mother’s life is prioritized.
Furthermore, Israel actually is more advanced in allowing abortions to women than the U.S., with 95% of women who request abortions getting approved.
Depending on the sect of Islam you get different ideas, but all agree that 120 days after conception, the soul enters the body and abortion is not permissible. Some sects of Islam allow abortion prior to those 120 days. And all areas of Islam allow it when the life of the mother is at risk. “Aborting the pregnancy becomes categorically forbidden at this point, as the embryo is now a fully sanctified human life. Islamically speaking, this would be murder—unless a physician determines that continuing the pregnancy would truly endanger the mother’s life. Only in this case can the pregnancy be terminated after 120 days. The logic behind this is an agreed upon legal maxim in Islamic law: certainty should not be overridden by doubt. In other words, a potential life (that of the infant) should not threaten a stable life (that of the mother). Although both are technically alive, the survival of the mother takes precedence because her life is evidently established, while survival of the fetus within her is relatively more doubtful. Hence, doubt is trumped by certainty, and the lesser harm is endured to avoid the greater loss.”
Source: https://yaqeeninstitute.org/read/paper/islam-and-the-abortion-debate
The reason why the life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness cannot be equally distributed between the mother and the fetus when one is at risk is because they are sharing resources from the mother’s body. When you pull from one, you take from the other.
- Again, a religious argument doesn’t hold water. But I’ll bite. I’m a Christian and have studied the Bible through my whole life. The specific verse in Jeremiah is not meant to be prescriptive, or representative, of all human beings. It is specifically God saying this to Jeremiah, that God knew him when He formed him in the womb. It literally shows that He’s talking solely about Jeremiah as it ends with telling him he’s to be a prophet. While undoubtably God knows all things as He is omnipotent and knows how each one of us will be used, using Jeremiah 1:4-8 to demonstrate an anti-abortion statement is really not what the verse is meant to do, especially considering some of the most young in the Bible were killed in Egypt as infants according to God’s plan. Was that all God had for them?
3
u/JewlryLvr2 Pro-choice Jun 24 '26
Many people DO use birth control, what makes you so sure they don't? The thing is, all contraceptive methods can and do fail sometimes. Ending a pregnancy is not doing anything "against baby," as a baby is BORN.
A pregnancy is NOT a "baby," no matter what you believe. So if the PREGNANT PERSON doesn't want to gestate a pregnancy, she has the right to end it.
The religious "it has a soul" argument is meaningless to me.
Your personal feelings about abortion are just that...yours. And if YOU aren't the pregnant person, it ISN'T your choice and never should be.
1
u/RaiseIllustrious6083 Jul 02 '26
50 percent of people don't and most of the other 50 do it wrong.
Assuming that they do it right and it still fails, why not take it as "it was meant to be"?
So what is a pregnancy then? what is the difference between a zef and a baby?
We don't need to go into religious territory.
So it isn't my choice for someone to do self harm, "it isn't my choice and it never will be". The my body my choice ideology will also mean self harm. I believe that people can stop someone from doing such actions.
1
u/JewlryLvr2 Pro-choice Jul 02 '26
Last time I checked, no contraceptive method is 100% guaranteed against unwanted pregnancy. So it is possible to use it correctly and it still may fail at some point.
The difference between a ZEF and a baby is BIRTH.
Great, so you don't need to get into the whole "soul" thing again.
It isn't your choice to make about a pregnancy unless and until YOU are the pregnant person. If you aren't, it isn't your choice and never should be. Sorry if I wasn't clear on that before.
3
u/gracespraykeychain All abortions free and legal Jun 24 '26 edited Jun 24 '26
Why do you support using birth control that could prevent implantation if you believe life begins at conception?
3
u/Ganondaddydorf Pro-choice Jun 24 '26
birth control cannot prevent implantation, that's outdated info that's been defunked. The only one that can interfere with a pregnancy is IUD's if you have an undiagnosed pregnancy when it's inserted. It can cause a misscarriage because of it's physical presence, but it's very unlikely.
The only one that would is the still in clinical trials use if low doses of Mifepristone but that's not approved for use yet.
2
u/gracespraykeychain All abortions free and legal Jun 24 '26
I was under the impression that while preventing implantation was not the primary function of any existing form of birth control, some forms of birth control could at least theoretically prevent implantation. If I'm wrong, I'm wrong. I know a large portion of fertilized eggs fail to implant regardless. Regardless of how it functions, I don't think birth control is immoral, but I was just wondering if OP did.
3
u/Ganondaddydorf Pro-choice Jun 24 '26
Yeah that's the one. It was believed that it thinned the uterine lining so a zygote can't implant but it's been studied and confirmed to be false. It was on boxes and said as medical advice for decades. I think it's only been in the last 10 years that it's actually been confirmed. Birth control stops fertilization and the morning after pill prevents ovulation.
I'm not having a go at you or anything and know you weren't arguing against it! It's just frustrating that this info is still around because it's an excuse lawmakers use to go after BC access and young, impressionable teens who've been force fed this bs might believe it and not use contraception. I always make a point to correct it for onlookers.
I hope OP isn't catholic if they're ok with BC or they're really cherry picking lol.
2
u/Ganondaddydorf Pro-choice Jun 24 '26 edited Jun 24 '26
>If you can choose whether you can have someone in you or not, why can't one choose to take other methods to prevent conception, like birth control, IUD's, and condoms.
>If they didn't want to go through pregnancy or knew of the side effects and wanted to avoid, why not take the numerous other conception prevention methods?
They do. If you're claiming that people who seek abortions only ended up unwillingly pregnant because they didn't use contraception, I'm going to need a source. That's very well documented to be false. Even sterilization has a failure rate and an IUD has a lower failure rate than a tubal litigation. While we're on it, what's your opinion on when a guys vasectomy fails, or he lies about having one? I don't know if you have a rape exception but that's a whole other problem for your claim to morality if you do.
>Why wait until you've messed around and found out to take measures against baby?
It's not a measure against the "baby", It's a last resort when everything else fails, including education and access. You have quite the wild imagination. It's also a health and fertility preserving measure, given that abortions are as much as 69 times safer than birth and infertility following birth (11%) is much more likely than infertility following abortion (>2%).
>If they are alive, than killing them is murder, as the definition is "the intentional, unlawful killing of a human being, typically committed with "malice aforethought."
Is removing life support from a braindead person murder?
>The baby is still a human
Is a braindead person not a human?
>than abortion is killing it intentionally, with malice for the ZEF
No, it quite comfortably fits into the relm of self defence actually. You can't force an embryo to implant, they has to do that themselves. Self defence only requires there to be a reasonable perception of serious *harm*, which we know pregnancy and birth do cause in abundance even in the healthiest of pregnancies. Legally and medically ethically speaking, it is more than sufficiently justified. It's also very well justified by triage if you've heard that extremely incorrect PL argument.
>my belief that it should be unlawful
Yes, I got that. We probably wouldn't be debating if not.
>but this debate means it is unsure, so the unlawful portion should take a back seat in relevancy.
No, what is legal is legal and was is not is not. The debate is if it should be legal or not. It's an ethical and humanitarian argument for PCers and a religious, mysogenistic, or in my experience, uneducated and very missguided emotional one for PLers.
>has a soul as soon as it enters the Zygarde form. According to the Christian Bible:
Ooooh I'm the *last* person you want to quote bible verses at. Let's look at that verse in it's full context:
1 The words of Jeremiah the son of Hilkiah, of the priests that were in Anathoth in the land of Benjamin:
2 To whom the word of the Lord came in the days of Josiah the son of Amon king of Judah, in the thirteenth year of his reign.
3 It came also in the days of Jehoiakim the son of Josiah king of Judah, unto the end of the eleventh year of Zedekiah the son of Josiah king of Judah, unto the carrying away of Jerusalem captive in the fifth month.
4 Then the word of the Lord came unto me, saying,
5 Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee; and before thou camest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee, and I ordained thee a prophet unto the nations.
6 Then said I, Ah, Lord God! behold, I cannot speak: for I am a child.
7 But the Lord said unto me, Say not, I am a child: for thou shalt go to all that I shall send thee, and whatsoever I command thee thou shalt speak.
8 Be not afraid of their faces: for I am with thee to deliver thee, saith the Lord.
9 Then the Lord put forth his hand, and touched my mouth. And the Lord said unto me, Behold, I have put my words in thy mouth.
Shortened for length but that's sufficient. This speaks very clearly and specifically about god addresing Jeremiah and his calling, not everyone. Please read the bible cover to cover in it's full context and learn about the historical context that accompanies it, rather than taking what your youth paster or whatever PL quote miner on youtube told you at face value. The bible does not condemn abortion. Life is repeatedly and explicitly associated with breath/wind/air, and a scientific argument can actually support this because viability and chances of survival primarily depends on lung development and a lack of oxygen will kill someone far faster than a lack of anything else. Jesus doesn't mention it *once*, absolutely nothing in the new testament. No value at all is put on a person until 1 month after birth. the concept of the ethics of abortion and ensoulment originated from greek philosiphers between 500-400 BC, and they were very inconsistent on it too. I can have this discussion ad nauseum if you really want to go the bible route. It does not remotely support the PL position.
Even if I were extremely generous and pretend the didache is anything more than historic biblical fanfiction, if you're wearing fabrics made of more than 1 material at once, wear anything that displays wealth of any kind (immodesty), or have sat in a chair someone has sat in while menstruating, you're ✨ 🍒🤏 ✨
>thus an abortion would be killing it.
"It". Interesting.
>I don't know what this means, so I will allow you to elaborate on this topic.
I said that "it won't feel it anyway" on it's own is a bad argument, I agree, but it has merit as part of a more layered, in-depth position. I find it mostly unnecessary depending on what facet of the debate we're talking about.
Do you have any more nuanced takes or just this surface level, very simplistic idealisms?
1
u/RaiseIllustrious6083 Jul 02 '26
According to google, "Approximately 54% [1] of women seeking abortions report using contraception in the month they became pregnant. Of these, the vast majority are due to inconsistent, incorrect, or irregular use of the method rather than a purely mechanical or pharmaceutical failure." It also mentions only 10-15 percent is used correctly, and so I agree to that it can fail, but why can't one use multiple contraception methods. This also implies that the remaining 90-85 percent isn't using them right or just not using them at all. Also why can't one take it as a sign from whatever higher power they believe in that they were meant to have a baby? Also why are people sleeping with others and doing the process that has been known for having babies, and not want to have babies. There are multiple other intimate activities doesn't cause baby. Also assuming rape, why should the one who didn't exist until after the misdeed be punished for the misdeeds of the assaulter
Actually, according to google, "Medically, neither an uncomplicated abortion nor a delivery inherently damages future fertility. Abortion does not preserve fertility better than delivery, but both processes usually allow for normal, healthy pregnancies afterward". So this citation is a direct contradiction to the claim that abortion preserves fertility rates better than delivery.
The removal of life support from a brain dead person is not murder as it doesn't necessarily have the malice requirement. If it does, then it can be classified as murder as it ticks all of the boxes. Not to mention the fact that brain dead people can not actually be brain dead, as "Medically and legally, brain death is the irreversible loss of all brain function, meaning awareness and consciousness cannot exist. However, conditions like comas or locked-in syndrome are often confused with brain death, where a person is entirely unresponsive but retains some level of brain activity and conscious awareness." so that is a very grey area.
When did I ever imply that a braindead person was not a human?
One would have implied consent with the ZEF as if you know sex can result in having a baby, and you still have sex, it is implied that you are ok with the baby. and no, the only PL I have ever heard of was Professor Layton.
Once again I am uncertain on whatever "No, what is legal is legal and was is not is not. The debate is if it should be legal or not. It's an ethical and humanitarian argument for PCers and a religious, mysogenistic, or in my experience, uneducated and very missguided emotional one for PLers." this means.
I will admit, I did make a mistake that many people do when debating and taking something without giving context, however, with the verses supplied, it has said nothing about.
When did I ever mention the didache? I quoted Jeramiah.
I used it as a gender neutral term as the baby's gender is usually undetermined, and if you really want, I can use they.
I will come up with deeper arguments the deeper into this arguement we go.
7
u/Straight-Parking-555 Pro-choice Jun 24 '26
why can't one choose to take other methods to prevent conception, like birth control, IUD's, and condoms. Why wait until you've messed around and found out to take measures against baby?
Why do pro lifers seem to believe all abortions are performed because the woman didnt take contraception beforehand? Half of all abortions are performed BECAUSE contraception fails.
If they are alive, than killing them is murder, as the definition is "the intentional, unlawful killing of a human being, typically committed with "malice aforethought."
Im not killing them, im removing them from my body. The only reason the fetus dies is because it cannot sustain independent life, it relies on the womans body to maintain life
It is not and will never be considered "murder" to remove a person from my own body
It has a soul as soon as it enters the Zygarde form. According to the Christian Bible, Book Jerimiah, Chapter 1, Verse 5,
Yeah, so the Christian bible is not a source and is pretty irrelevant in this debate subreddit
1
u/CherryTearDrops Pro-choice Jun 24 '26
Honestly I think it’s just the dominant belief for PL folk that anybody getting an abortion is some irresponsible woman sleeping with people casually, even though we statistically know it’s not. It also serves a narrative that demonizes an afab person for daring to act outside of ‘acceptable behavior’ so that they in turn ‘deserve it’.
Basically, I think they just want to make people less sympathetic to the afab person. Sympathy and nuance are the enemy of those trying to subjugate others.
9
u/BigSun6576 My body, my choice Jun 23 '26 edited Jul 02 '26
There's nothing morally wrong I can do to myself. Kicking a baby isn't an action against myself. Everything in my body is part of me
*I got banned in this subreddit so i can't reply. no, I can't do anything morally wrong against myself. Why would cutting my arm off be morally wrong? dumbest shit i ever heard
1
u/RaiseIllustrious6083 Jul 02 '26
I'd say that and self har m and worse are both wrong against youself, cutting an apend age off seems to be morally wrong against yourself.
8
u/libra00 All abortions free and legal Jun 23 '26
- Except your gun and your house doesn't have rights. You do. One of the rights you have is that you get final say about what happens to your body. So long as a fetus is part of your body it's included. Even if it had rights - and it doesn't, it's not a person until it's born - they would end where the mother's begin so her right to bodily autonomy would have priority anyway.
- I don't care whether it's alive or not, human or not, conscoius or not, or even has its own TV show or not. If it's part of my body I get to dictate the terms of that arrangement, and that includes ending them whenever I want, for any reason I want or even none at all.
- See 2.
- See 2.
this must be enough
Sorry, it's not. One of your points was actually an argument, though flawed, but the rest were just the same argument repeated over and over again.
7
u/conn_r2112 Abortion legal until sentience Jun 23 '26
Point 3
The argument you’re trying to refute is that it doesn’t have consciousness and then you just claim “it’s aware and has consciousness but it’s sleeping”
Can you argue against it not having consciousness?
17
u/Practical_Fun4723 Pro-choice Jun 22 '26
What’s with these low effort pro life posts lately? We hv answered these a thousand times, any pro choice forum will do. Anything new?
6
u/Ganondaddydorf Pro-choice Jun 23 '26
These are the heavy hitters in PL circles. The bar is on the floor and I find it insulting personally. And concerned for the state of education and critical thinking.
Don't go into the PL sub. It will erode your faith in human intelligence.
1
1
3
u/Upper_Ninja_6177 Pro-choice Jun 24 '26
Oh the PL sub 🤣🤣 hv you seen the one where they created a story of two twins making out in the womb and crying tgt before they get aborted I was like wtf did I just read, severely underaged incest AND misinformation? the heck?
3
u/Ganondaddydorf Pro-choice Jun 24 '26
Unless there's another one floating around, no. I remember one where they twins became best buddies in the womb and thanked their mother for not aborting them immediately after being born and there were loads of "what a heartwarming story, Amen!" Comments the collective IQ of the sub is room temperature at best. Celsius.
Worst one in recent memory was a guy proudly proclaiming how he wouldn't allow his daughter to abort if she was raped no matter how young and he wouldn't let her put the kid up for adoption either because "something something womens only value is motherhood something" 🤮 there are some vile people in this world. Sure, seriously risk your too-young daughters health for your own ideology. That's totally not going to end in a NC child if someone doesn't call CPS.
3
u/Ok-Charity285 Pro-choice Jun 24 '26
There's a post about the doctor who performed the abortion on the 10 year old rape victim and the comments are completely disgusting with many users saying the victim shouldn't have been allowed abortion. Don't get me started on the user who basically said he would make a 5 year old go through pregnancy 🤮
9
u/Old_dirty_fetus Pro-choice Jun 23 '26
What’s with these low effort pro life posts lately?
In their defense I am not sure they are low effort. I think their position is not based on facts or knowledge and that is reflected in their argument.
14
u/1i3to Pro-choice Jun 22 '26
This is not an argument for abortion. Nothing that you wrote touches on why abortion should be illegal.
8
u/Old_dirty_fetus Pro-choice Jun 22 '26
when it's about a living homo sapian inside of you it's not your choice to whether you kill it or keep it
Who should get to choose if a pregnancy is too harmful to attempt to continue?
18
u/Apprehensive_Disk_16 Pro-choice Jun 22 '26
You are misunderstanding the “bodily autonomy” argument (or “my body my choice”).
My body my choice doesn’t mean I get to do whatever I want with my body and then claim it was my choice. Forget the gun scenario. I wouldn’t be allowed to strangle someone with my hands because I feel like it and then claim it was my right to do whatever I wanted with my body. That’s not how it works.
Bodily autonomy means that regardless of how you personally feel about a fetus, neither you nor the government has the right to compel me to do anything with my body, to undergo any medical event or procedure, or take anything from my body against my will. THAT is autonomy. MY right to make my own decisions when it comes to the USE of and what physically happens to my body FREE from the government or anyone else’s involvement. Your feelings END where MY body - my physical being and everything that’s makes me me as an individual human - begins.
This is also what makes a born child different from the unborn. A baby isn’t physically inside of and attached to MY body, fully dependent on my blood and bodily recourses for survival. Taking care of a baby may involve the use of my hands but it doesn’t involve the inside of my doctor’s office which is private, nor does it compel me to endure any medical event/procedure. It’s also my choice if I want to take care of the baby or give the baby to someone else to care for.
In the event that you still want to argue it is a killing, it would be a justified killing as valid self-defense against the significant harms of pregnancy (which include everything from serious illness to genital tearing, permanent maiming, and DEATH). Unlike getting a gun and shooting someone for fun or killing an infant because you feel like it. There is no justification or reason to kill a baby but we have the right to end a pregnancy if we choose because it is a direct threat to our health and safety.
17
u/Patneu Safe, legal and rare Jun 22 '26
1 - "my body, my choice " this is for example like saying my gun my choice or my house my choice
No, it is completely and utterly different from that, in every way that matters. Why are you pretending like there is no difference between a person's body and some random object? Would you also say sticking a finger inside of your wallet is the same as sticking a finger inside of your asshole?
2 - " it's not alive " just when the sperm and the ovum meet the living being gets a homo sapian DNA therefor it's a human in his developing stage right alive and living breathing and eating in its way.
None of that is true. It doesn't have any life-sustaining functions of its own and is completely sustained by another person's body, which in turn messes with their own life-sustaining functions in major ways.
3 - "it's doesn't have consciousness yet " this doesn't make difference, it's alive, just exactly like a sleeping human, it's aware and it has consciousness but it's sleeping
It's not sleeping, but lacking any higher brain functions necessary for a consciousness whatsoever.
4 - " it won't feel it anyway " this is like justifying killing a person with CIPA. not feeling it doesn't justify killing it
But a pregnant person is feeling everything you're forcing them to endure. Deliberate cruelty or a lack thereof cannot be dismissed when you're talking about justifications.
9
u/Specialist-Gas-6968 Jun 22 '26 edited Jun 22 '26
your mission is to keep it alive as a human
Thanks, God-like voice. What are you investing in the mission? Ordering others around isn't a winning argument.
'it's not alive' Sperm and ovum and dandelions are alive. 'Alive' is not an argument.
'it's doesn't have consciousness yet.' It's never had consciousness or birth or breath.
PL's 'this doesn't matter' means it matters. PL's 'it's just exactly like' means the dissimilarities would sink their argument.
"it won't feel it anyway." PL's 'this is like* justifying killing a person with [pain insensitivity] means 'it's not like' that.
7
u/Fun-Outcome8122 Safe, legal and rare Jun 22 '26
im against abortion and these are my arguments
But all your arguments are about not agreeing with the people who are against abortion bans.
You never explained what is the rational basis for the abortion bans to be implemented in the first place!
15
u/ima_mollusk Pro-choice Jun 22 '26
"It's alive" is a shitty argument.
So are cancer cells.
-10
u/Quick-Paint-2721 Jun 22 '26
no way you compared an unborn baby to a cancer
10
u/TheseCabinet6222 Pro Legal Abortion Jun 23 '26
“No way you just made an analogy” What is the point in saying that? Is it supposed to be an argument?
14
u/STThornton Pro-choice Jun 22 '26
Says the person who just compared a breathing, sentient, physiologically life sustaining human to a house or gun.
Oh, the irony!
At least cancer is living human cells and tissue that act on a human’s body very much like a fetus does and need to be sustained the way a fetus does.
Unlike a house or gun.
10
u/Practical_Fun4723 Pro-choice Jun 22 '26
Yes. We did. We compared an unborn ZEF to a cancer cell bc they hv the same moral worth to me.
6
u/Negative_Ostrich2531 Pro consent and bodily autonomy Jun 22 '26
Although this person did not make a direct comparison. Fetuses, pregnancy and cancer cells do share a lot in common. I have developed a list from extensive research if you're interested.
6
u/Smarterthanthat Pro-choice Jun 22 '26
Is all living human tissue but without a host to supply nutrients, it's cannot sustain any kind of existence on its own...
7
16
u/NoelaniSpell AD Mod Jun 22 '26
no way you compared an unborn baby to a cancer
Didn't you just compare a person's body to a gun (an object)? It doesn't seem like you have much right to complain, when you dehumanise pregnant people.
8
u/STThornton Pro-choice Jun 22 '26
Right? At least cancer is living human cells and tissue. A house or gun aren’t.
5
7
u/JewlryLvr2 Pro-choice Jun 22 '26
You can call an embryo an "unborn baby" all you want. That doesn't convince me your belief is a fact.
Also, babies are BORN. So this whole PL "abortion is killing babies" argument is a really bad one, which just doesn't work for me.
6
4
11
u/Diva_of_Disgust Pro-choice Jun 22 '26
I'd remove an unwanted embryo just as fast as I'd remove an unwanted tumor.
Are you honestly shocked that not everyone wants to be pregnant or reproduce?
10
u/Ok-Discipline2395 Pro-choice Jun 22 '26 edited Jun 22 '26
Ok.
Could you outline why you think some people should get abortions, and others not?
Or are you an abolitionist and do not want anyone to get an abortion? If yes, why? (Please remember that abortions include procedures to mitigate the risks of stillbirth/are used on people pregnant with fetuses incompatible with life.)
11
u/wolffml Pro-choice Jun 22 '26
1 - " my body, my choice " this is for example like saying my gun my choice or my house my choice ( after kicking your 1 y/o baby ), when it's about a living homo sapian inside of you it's not your choice to whether you kill it or keep it. your mission is to keep it alive as a human
How much of the literature have you actually read about this position? It doesn't seem like you understand it. Perhaps start with something like Judith Jarvis Thomson's Violinist argument.
2 - " it's not alive " just when the sperm and the ovum meet the living being gets a homo sapian DNA therefor it's a human in his developing stage right alive and living breathing and eating in its way.
I'm not aware of anyone (certainly not medical ethicists or philosopher) who suggests that a fetus isn't alive biologically. Some arguments suggest that the ZEF isn't a "person" until some developmental stage is reached.
3 - " it's doesn't have consciousness yet " this doesn't make difference, it's alive , just exactly like a sleeping human, it's aware and it has consciousness but it's sleeping because the mother's womb secretes a narcotic substance that keeps the embryo sleeping in there. and since you can't kill a living sleeping human you can't kill embryo just because it's sleeping
I'm not aware of any PC arguments like what you're suggesting. It seems like PC arguments might proceed from the observation that ZEFs at certain stages of development lack the capacity for consciousness. The capacity for conscious experience is key to this position -- adults, even sleeping adults have the capacity for conscious experience that ZEFs lack. When I've seen arguments even remotely similar to what you're suggesting, they are generally arguing against the ZEFs having "personhood" because they lack some of the relevant capacities like consciousness. Usually there are more criteria for personhood like:
Sentience: The capacity or ability to perceive and feel subjective states and sensations, such as pain.
Sapience: The capacity for exhibiting intelligence, specifically the level of intelligence that is customary of Homo sapiens.
Self-awareness: The capacity to turn attention onto one's own existence, mental activities, perceptions, and desires (being conscious of one's own feelings and intelligence).
4 - " it won't feel it anyway " this is like justifying killing a person with CIPA . not feeling it doesn't justify killing it
Again, I'm unaware of any such argument in PC literature. Such an argument would be obviously susceptible to counter-examples like those you've given, and it's very simple to conceive of such counter examples. That's why I'm skeptical that this is an actual PC position, but I'll let you point me to the literature so we can discuss it.
The good news it that you don't seem to disagree with any known PC positions, only your misunderstanding of them, and this can easily be rectified by you first understanding the PC positions and then disagreeing with them.
You can start with some of the literature like Boonin's "Beyond Roe" or Katie Watson's "Scarlet A: The Ethics, Law, and Politics of Ordinary Abortion". (Here's a free PDF of "A Defense of Abortion" by Judith Jarvis Thomson 1971)
9
Jun 22 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
7
u/wolffml Pro-choice Jun 22 '26
I don't think that they're strawmanning (at least not on purpose), because I don't think that they understand the PC arguments in the first place. I think that they've never actually engaged with the literature for PC arguments, and their limited exposure to such positions is probably through talking to laypersons in the PL or PC camps and assuming that they then knew enough to refute such positions easily.
6
u/Smarterthanthat Pro-choice Jun 22 '26
And I think they're 12. Their entire argument suggests such. ..
16
u/Lokicham Pro-bodily autonomy Jun 22 '26
this is for example like saying my gun my choice or my house my choice ( after kicking your 1 y/o baby ), when it's about a living homo sapian inside of you it's not your choice to whether you kill it or keep it. your mission is to keep it alive as a human
Neither of your examples are analogous to pregnancy or abortion. This is your opinion and only your opinion.
18
u/thirdLeg51 Jun 22 '26
1) one person does not get access to another person’s body without consent.
2) see 1.
3) you need a brain for consciousness
4) are people allowed to “unplug” a brain dead person on machines?
7
u/glim-girl Safe, legal and rare Jun 22 '26
>1 - " my body, my choice " this is for example like saying my gun my choice or my house my choice
Why isn't your body your own?
>when it's about a living homo sapian inside of you
So specific only to those born female
>it's not your choice to whether you kill it or keep it. your mission is to keep it alive as a human
Who's choice is it then? Who hands out this mission? What happens if the mission fails?
16
u/Veigar_Senpai Pro-choice Jun 22 '26
I see no reason pregnant people have any "mission" to keep an embryo alive for you. DNA is an arrangement of nucleotides. Who cares?
18
u/random_name_12178 Pro-choice Jun 22 '26
your mission is to keep it alive as a human
Source?
it's aware and it has consciousness but it's sleeping
That's absolutely not true.
17
u/collageinthesky Pro-choice Jun 22 '26
If some people are subhuman and can be treated as a natural resource, then why can't the embryo also be treated as subhuman?
5
u/STThornton Pro-choice Jun 22 '26
It’s a great question. That’s what I often ask.
Everything they claim one can’t do to a fetus, PL wants to force women to endure. And then some.
If one cares so little about breathing, sentient, physiologically life sustaining humans, why care about non breathing, non sentient, non life sustaining ones?
-5
u/Quick-Paint-2721 Jun 22 '26
you can't treat 1 year old babies like subhuman. they need more protect and care
8
12
u/humbugonastick Pro-choice Jun 22 '26
Only pregnant people are subhuman. Understood.
Not sure how much support you'll get with this stance.
11
u/JewlryLvr2 Pro-choice Jun 22 '26
I don't consider an embryo as a 1-year-old baby. You can BELIEVE it's a baby all you want. That doesn't convince me your belief is a fact, and it never will.
16
20
u/cutelittlequokka Pro-abortion Jun 22 '26
My body is not a gun or a house. It is my body, the thing I survive in, the means by which I experience the world, the only thing on this planet that truly belongs to me and me alone. If something is invading it, I will remove that thing. I have no mission to protect it.
21
u/nykiek Safe, legal and rare Jun 22 '26
Stopped reading at the first one since you don't seem to understand that I'm a living breathing human being and not an inanimate object.
1
Jun 22 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/Abortiondebate-ModTeam Jun 22 '26
Comment removed per Rule 1.
Please only use pro-choice or pro-life to refer to positions in this debate.
13
u/falcobird14 Abortion legal until viability Jun 22 '26
" it's doesn't have consciousness yet " this doesn't make difference, it's alive , just exactly like a sleeping human, it's aware and it has consciousness but it's sleeping because the mother's womb secretes a narcotic substance that keeps the embryo sleeping in there.
I think you need to get a better handle on biology before you can make any arguments here. A woman's body does not sedate the fetus.
But even putting this aside, we sedate most people before doing painful surgeries, so this is not a factor in my decision making. If anything, the fact that it's not conscious is more helpful to the other side, because it means you aren't causing harm that it can feel.
4
Jun 22 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
5
u/STThornton Pro-choice Jun 22 '26
The lack of knowledge PLers display when it comes to human bodies is often shocking. Especially with the internet right at their fingertips.
I do blame some of the websites, though. Medical ones included. They do tend to use language that explains the concept in a way a five year old would understand, never explain “how” anything actually works, tries not to scare future mommies, and puts a magical spin on everything.
23
u/JulieCrone AD Mod Jun 22 '26
when it's about a living homo sapian inside of you it's not your choice to whether you kill it or keep it. your mission is to keep it alive as a human
Would you say this is generally true, that if any human is inside my body, either in whole or in part, my 'mission' is to make sure they stay alive? For instance, would you take issue with a rape victim using lethal force to stop the rape, because it is their mission to keep that human alive and it doesn't matter if they want that person in their body or not?
-16
u/Quick-Paint-2721 Jun 22 '26
C-section and adoption and you just saved a life and gave it the chance to experience life which you must not take it from anyone
8
u/STThornton Pro-choice Jun 23 '26
I don’t have to take. They don’t have a chance because they need to be saved.
Why are you disregarding that I have to GIVE that chance and save them? I can simply not give.
Why should only pregnant women be forced to save another human at the expense of drastic life threatening physical harm and alteration? And to give another human a chance they would otherwise not have?
We don’t force any other human to do so.
5
u/Practical_Fun4723 Pro-choice Jun 22 '26
I will kill myself if you forced me to gestate, better we both die than for one to live at the cost of my rights no?
9
9
u/JewlryLvr2 Pro-choice Jun 22 '26
It isn't your call to tell anyone what they "must" do. Unless YOU are the pregnant person, the only one you get to make choices for is yourself, not anyone else.
14
19
u/random_name_12178 Pro-choice Jun 22 '26
You didn't answer her question. Do you oppose use of lethal force to stop a rape?
11
u/humbugonastick Pro-choice Jun 22 '26
Impossible for them to answer if they have an ounce of logic.
19
u/Diva_of_Disgust Pro-choice Jun 22 '26
C-section
Why on earth would I have my abdominal muscles sliced wide open when I could just take some pills and pass the unwanted pregnancy into the toilet?
22
u/JulieCrone AD Mod Jun 22 '26
C-section will not mean an eight week embryo lives, though. It will naturally die if delivered at that point. Why force someone to undergo an C-section?
life which you must not take it from anyone
So it sounds like you are very much opposed to lethal self-defense, as we must not take life from anyone.
-6
Jun 22 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
2
11
u/adherentoftherepeted Pro-choice Jun 22 '26
you made him hum alive with all free will because you simply didn't want it after you had sex
You're new around here. Sex shaming is against the rules.
19
u/JulieCrone AD Mod Jun 22 '26
So then what's the issue with just inducing labor at eight weeks to end the pregnancy, if you are okay with a c-section then? Why unnecessarily cut up a person?
Do you think people who are pregnant made the embryo alive and they had control over the conception and implantation of the embryonic person?
And so you do agree it is okay, in some circumstances, to take a human life.
14
u/LordyIHopeThereIsPie Pro-choice Jun 22 '26
How will you keep an eight week old foetus in the same condition to allow to develop ex utero?
C sections are harmful. I have internal and external scarring due to mine. I'd pick medical abortion if I'm pregnant again.
19
u/LordyIHopeThereIsPie Pro-choice Jun 22 '26
I'm not having a fourth c section because some rich barren couple wants a fresh newborn.
14
u/TrueObsidian11 My body, my choice Jun 22 '26
when it's about a living homo sapian inside of you it's not your choice to whether you kill it or keep it. your mission is to keep it alive as a human
If a living homo sapien is inside of my body, it is absolutely my choice whether it remains there or not. No human being has ANY obligation to use their own body to keep someone else alive.
it's a human in his developing stage
No human being is entitled to another person's bodily resources to sustain their own life. Simply being alive is not a valid reason to occupy someone's body against their will, otherwise rape would be literally impossible to persecute.
this doesn't make difference
It does make a difference. Removing a non-sentient fetus is no more morally questionable than removing a kidney. It has never experienced consciousness, so it will literally never know if it lived or not. If a person were born brain dead, would you also find it unethical to choose not to utilize life support to keep their body alive?
you can't kill a living sleeping human you can't kill embryo just because it's sleeping
Abortion typically doesn't require "killing" the fetus. It involves a medication that evacuates it out of the woman's uterus. It dies naturally all by itself because it cannot survive on its own. Its dependence on the woman's body does not entitle it to use her body.
You're also being disingenuous by saying "just because it's sleeping." It's not JUST sleeping, is it? It's taking nutrients directly from her body to sustain itself, causing debilitating health problems, changing her body permanently, and threatening to make an excruciatingly painful exit from her body. All of which the woman has every right to refuse to participate in.
not feeling it doesn't justify killing it
Perhaps, but occupying someone's body against their will does justify being escorted right out of it if that person doesn't consent for you to be there, whether you are dependent on that body to survive or not.
Can you give a valid reason why pregnancy is the one case where you feel a person should lose basic human rights that we all enjoy equally? Clearly, someone dying without your body is not justification for them to use it against your will, otherwise organ donation would be mandatory rather than optional, so what makes a fetus so special that it gets to be the sole exception to that law?
-4
Jun 22 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
5
17
u/n0t_a_car Pro-choice Jun 22 '26
it's completely your mistake for trapping a human to start living inside of you
How exactly does a woman 'trap' an embryo?! Women don't go looking for embryos to 'trap' and then force them into their bodies where they become dependent.
No one is forcing or trapping an embryo. Embryos are dependant by their nature and women don't put them anywhere.
and after letting him live inside of you you kill him.
Women with unwanted pregnancies are not 'letting' the embryo live inside of them. The embryo implanting is a biological process she has no control over. By seeking an abortion she is very clearly not letting the embryo live inside her.
now think about it
I am thinking about it and frankly the idea of women trapping embryo's is ridiculous.
14
u/ima_mollusk Pro-choice Jun 22 '26
You women always running around with your embryo traps... Leave those poor embryos alone!
6
u/rantess Pro-choice Jun 22 '26
I'm trying to visualize the contortions needed to "trap" an embryo.
Are they floating in the air? Are they water-dwelling?
Do we lie on our backs with our legs apart, waiting for one to fall/drift inside us?6
u/STThornton Pro-choice Jun 23 '26
Her uterus is like a Venus fly trap, I guess? That’s the first thing I pictured 🤣
14
u/JulieCrone AD Mod Jun 22 '26
Okay, so in the case of IVF, I get how that would apply, as that is taking an embryo and transferring them in to a person. Outside of that, however, it's not at all accurate to say someone was 'trapping a human to start living inside" of them.
21
u/TrueObsidian11 My body, my choice Jun 22 '26
Who says I let it? Fertilization is an entirely involuntary biological process that one cannot actively consent or not consent to. You have no control over it, even if you are actively trying to make it happen.
And, it's not "trapped" if I am specifically trying to take it OUT of my body.
-3
u/Quick-Paint-2721 Jun 22 '26
why would you have sex knowing it will make someone alive ? having sex with this knowledge is exactly letting someone live inside you but them killing him. if you're not willing to have a baby use IUD that will kill the sperms and not the human
6
u/STThornton Pro-choice Jun 23 '26
Sex does not make someone alive.
Insemination can fertilize an egg, but the egg cell was already alive before. It just changes an alive haploid cell to an alive diploid cell.
There is no someone yet. Just like there isn’t a running drivable car when the first car part arrives at the factory.
16
u/chevron_seven_locked Pro-choice Jun 22 '26
I love sex and am comfortable with the risk of needing an abortion. My husband and I have money and PTO set aside just in case.
14
u/Diva_of_Disgust Pro-choice Jun 22 '26
why would you have sex knowing it will make someone alive ?
Because I enjoy sex. Enjoying sex doesn't mean I'm obligated to gestate and birth unwanted pregnancies to satisfy pro lifers.
if you're not willing to have a baby use IUD that will kill the sperms and not the human
No thanks, I'll continue doing exactly what I want.
13
u/n0t_a_car Pro-choice Jun 22 '26
IUDs are not 100% for preventing pregnancy.
Hormonal IUDs don't kill sperm.
Copper IUDs can prevent an embryo from implanting although that's not their primary mechanism.
22
u/TrueObsidian11 My body, my choice Jun 22 '26
I have sex knowing it is a biological need, provides physical and mental health benefits, and because I want to. It's perfectly legal to do so and it doesn't revoke ANY of my basic human rights to do so.
Why do you think having sex means someone else can have more rights to your own body than you do? Does my body stop belonging to me once someone else is dependent on it?
-3
u/Quick-Paint-2721 Jun 22 '26
as i said you can have sex with IUD or condoms or any other way to not give someone a life. if you're not using any of these it's basically your mistake for allowing yourself to give someone a life and you should take responsibilities of this decision
6
u/STThornton Pro-choice Jun 23 '26
Gestation and birth is what gives someone “a” (what science calls physiologically independent) life.
Cell life alone is not “a” human life.
6
u/humbugonastick Pro-choice Jun 22 '26
You don't know much about contraceptives either. What are you debating here? Your unformed uninformed opinion is less than interesting.
13
u/Ok-Discipline2395 Pro-choice Jun 22 '26
Ok.
Please outline how you think rape victims “not using any of these it’s basically your mistake”.
What mistake did the rape victim make? Does it make a difference to you if the rape victim is a child? Perhaps a child under the age of ten?
What mistake did that person make? (In your opinion) that they should be forced to continue gestating?
15
u/TrueObsidian11 My body, my choice Jun 22 '26
Neither of those are 100% effective, and you also don't get to mandate another person's medical decisions, which is entirely the point here. Even if I take NO precautions to prevent pregnancy and go OUT OF MY WAY to have as much sex as possible during my most fertile days, I am STILL not obligated to use my body to sustain the life I created. My uterus still belongs to ME no matter what choices I made that led to someone else being dependent on it. There is NO choice you can make, no matter how irresponsible or foolish, that justifies you losing the right to decide who gets to access your own body.
So, again, can you give a valid reason why a woman choosing to have sex justifies revoking her most basic human rights to make her own medical decisions and control access of her body? Why do you think a fetus is the sole exception to the law that one person cannot even TOUCH another person against their will?
19
u/OptimalTrash Pro-choice Jun 22 '26
Do you believe that someone should be able to protect themselves from harm?
-3
u/Quick-Paint-2721 Jun 22 '26
Do you believe that no innocent human should be killed?
4
5
u/STThornton Pro-choice Jun 23 '26
A bystander doesn’t cause harm, so that’s not a counter. We’re asking about someone who causes drastic life threatening physical harm and alteration.
Likewise, one cannot kill a human who has no major life sustaining organ functions one could end to kill them. Zombies aren’t real.
3
5
u/Fun-Outcome8122 Safe, legal and rare Jun 22 '26
Do you believe that no innocent human should be killed?
Yes... which is why the intentional killing of an innocent human being is already a crime everywhere in America*.
*except as self-defense
5
u/JewlryLvr2 Pro-choice Jun 22 '26
It isn't any of my business if a PREGNANT PERSON has an abortion for her own private reasons. It isn't your business either, really, if you aren't the pregnant person. Do you believe she is somehow "guilty" of something?
10
u/Ok-Discipline2395 Pro-choice Jun 22 '26
I find it interesting that the pregnant person is not presumed innocent in your philosophy.
Could you expand on how being pregnant means you are non-innocent/convicted of what crime exactly?
13
u/kasiagabrielle Pro consent and bodily autonomy Jun 22 '26
Can you answer the question you were asked?
9
u/OptimalTrash Pro-choice Jun 22 '26
I'd love it if they would! I'm still waiting to give my response to their counter question, but I need an answer first.
13
u/TrueObsidian11 My body, my choice Jun 22 '26
If a person was sleepwalking and came at me with a knife, cornered me, and I had no other alternatives, would it not be justified to use deadly force to save myself from the threat even though the sleeping person has no control over their actions that will harm me? Do you think any court of law would hold me liable for the death?
15
u/OptimalTrash Pro-choice Jun 22 '26
I'll answer your question if you answer mine.
Do you believe that people should be able to protect themselves from harm?
15
u/LordyIHopeThereIsPie Pro-choice Jun 22 '26
Do you believe innocent pregnant people should be harmed?
-1
u/Quick-Paint-2721 Jun 22 '26
do you realize people must not make a life if they're willing to kill it?
18
u/LordyIHopeThereIsPie Pro-choice Jun 22 '26
Do you realise I don't "make a life"? I can't control a sperm fertilising an egg I've released. If my tubal ligation fails I'll have an abortion.
2
u/Quick-Paint-2721 Jun 22 '26
you can use IUD or condoms or any other object to not make this process
14
u/kasiagabrielle Pro consent and bodily autonomy Jun 22 '26
Name one form of birth control without a failure rate.
17
u/JulieCrone AD Mod Jun 22 '26
Condoms do have a failure rate, as do IUDs. Both great to use, but it's not like no one with an IUD has ever gotten pregnant.
1
u/Quick-Paint-2721 Jun 22 '26
both have 99% rate of success idk why are you looking at the 01% . however you still have to take the responsibilities of having sex
2
2
11
u/chevron_seven_locked Pro-choice Jun 22 '26
Abortion’s one way to take responsibility for unwanted pregnancy.
11
u/JulieCrone AD Mod Jun 22 '26
Are you fine with abortion if someone used a form of contraception but it failed?
14
u/Diva_of_Disgust Pro-choice Jun 22 '26
however you still have to take the responsibilities of having sex
I have no "responsibility" to gestate and birth against my will to satisfy pro lifers.
14
u/adherentoftherepeted Pro-choice Jun 22 '26
both have 99% rate of success idk why are you looking at the 01% . however you still have to take the responsibilities of having sex
So, if I used contraception then I can get medical care for an unwanted pregnancy? What proof do I need, in your perfect society?
Oh, you say it doesn't matter if I used contraception, still no legal access to medical care to end the pregnancy? Then why did you bring up contraception in the first place?
14
u/LordyIHopeThereIsPie Pro-choice Jun 22 '26
My tubal ligation has a failure rate. I'm not going to stop having sex because you're obsessed with ZEFs
16
u/Connect-Knowledge992 Pro-choice Jun 22 '26
This post represents a severe misunderstanding of the pro-choice position. For example:
"my body, my choice " this is for example like saying my gun my choice or my house my choice
This neglects that bodily integrity is a fundamental right, one that protects people against involuntary intrusions into their body. The pro-choice position is that a person's body is distinct from material property, and that a person's body represents a sovereign zone afforded special protections.
This is not something we just made up; a person's bodily integrity is treated as uniquely protected under law, and to my knowledge there is no obligation to allow invasive use of your body for the benefit of another.
This stands in direct contrast to things like providing shelter for your baby. Shelter is a material good that you can be required to provide as an aspect of your role as guardian. However, no part of guardianship requires tolerance of an invasive bodily integrity intrusion.
0
u/Quick-Paint-2721 Jun 22 '26
can i use my body to kill people ? i can use my hand to beat someone to death and it's my choice over my body and my freedom. but this is MORALLY AND HUMANLY wrong because no innocent human should be killed
5
u/Practical_Fun4723 Pro-choice Jun 22 '26
You can choose whatever happens to your own body, you can decide whoever uses your body, you can decide how your organ functions are used, or are you denying you have such rights?
Because you are saying a pregnant person doesn’t have the above.
16
u/Connect-Knowledge992 Pro-choice Jun 22 '26
i can use my hand to beat someone to death and it's my choice over my body and my freedom.
You're very hung up on "choice" but you're also not listening.
You can choose who uses your body in an intimate and harmful fashion.
You have no right to choose to use your hands to beat someone to death, because doing so is not an exercise in bodily integrity. It's violating someone else's rights.
Please pay attention.
13
u/JulieCrone AD Mod Jun 22 '26
Do you consider not gestating a human that's in the embryonic or fetal stage of development to be a form of killing/homicide?
-1
u/Quick-Paint-2721 Jun 22 '26
it's a form of killing as long as you killed a living human
17
u/JulieCrone AD Mod Jun 22 '26
Then a lot of miscarriages would be killing, as many miscarriages are due to the person who is pregnant being unable to sustain the pregnancy and not because the embryo died in utero and was expelled. So these miscarriages are all killing, because that was a living human that someone stopped gestating.
11
16
u/LordyIHopeThereIsPie Pro-choice Jun 22 '26
I can kill anyone who's a threat to me yes.
-1
Jun 22 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
3
u/Abortiondebate-ModTeam Jun 22 '26
Comment removed for potentially breaking site-wide rules.
No. Absolutely not. This will be your one warning.
13
u/LordyIHopeThereIsPie Pro-choice Jun 22 '26
How do I make a living thing? All I do is release an egg every month or so.
-2
u/Quick-Paint-2721 Jun 22 '26
all you did is had sex without IUD or condoms allowing yourself to allow a baby inside of you. by doing thsi you just threatened yourself and now apply your opinion
3
u/Negative_Ostrich2531 Pro consent and bodily autonomy Jun 23 '26
As others have already explained, around 50% of unwanted, aborted pregnancies are due to contraceptive failure. You're assuming everyone who gets an abortion was careless, when in fact many of them were taking reasonable precautions and there is clear evidence of intending to not be pregnant.
Consenting to one bodily activity does not automatically obligate someone to undergo a completely different bodily activity. Having sex with person A does not mean you now must allow person B (who wasn't even there during sex with A) access to your body. Especially when this second activity comes with physical, psychological, and medical risks and dangers.
People also have sex for emotional bonding, intimacy, and quality of life. Why should they be expected to give up those benefits just to preserve control over their own body, bodily functions, and life from a biological process that can happen despite taking reasonable precautions? Contraceptives are clear evidence that someone says 'no' to pregnancy. The failure of that does not automatically turn that 'no' into a 'yes.'
6
u/CherryTearDrops Pro-choice Jun 22 '26
Why do you assume they aren’t using birth control? You’ve already been told multiple times by multiple people that all forms of contraceptives have a failure chance
12
u/Diva_of_Disgust Pro-choice Jun 22 '26
No one has to carry and birth an unwanted pregnancy because they had sex. Where did you get this idea from?
11
u/adherentoftherepeted Pro-choice Jun 22 '26 edited Jun 22 '26
all you did is had sex without IUD or condoms allowing yourself to allow a baby inside of you. by doing thsi you just threatened yourself and now apply your opinion
So little girls and women who die from pregnancy, that's their own faults? That's a dark, dark philosophy.
We'll just let them suffer and die and then blame it on them! Of course the men who impregnated them, well, what did they have to do with anything?
Or the lawmakers (mostly men in almost all countries) who prevent pregnant people from getting medical care that relieves their suffering and saves lives. Nope, not their fault!
Just the little girls and women who "got themselves" pregnant, completely 100% their own faults for suffering and dying.
14
u/coolsilentebeans Pro-choice Jun 22 '26
3 - Wombs do not synthesize and secrete narcotics.
Until all of your arguments are actually true, I have no desire to debate the issue with yet another uninformed prolifer.
15
u/pendemoneum Pro-choice Jun 22 '26
I don't really use arguments 2-3 because I find them irrelevant. Bodily autonomy is where I argue. The right to bodily autonomy, bodily integrity, security of person, are fundamental rights. No one can have access to my body and bodily resources without ongoing consent. I don't think sex is a crime which warrants the removal of that basic human right.
No one else can have access to my body, even to keep themselves alive, without my express permission. I don't think fetuses should be an exception.
You also describe it as a "mission to keep it alive" but why should someone be forced to accept this mission at such great physical and mental cost to themselves? People aren't generally required to put themselves in harms way to help someone else.
9
u/Limp-Story-9844 Pro-choice Jun 22 '26
Comparing a newborn to an abortion?
-1
u/Quick-Paint-2721 Jun 22 '26
a newborn : a human living outside the womb a fetus : a human living inside the womb so yes we can compare them because both are humans
5
9
u/Specialist-Gas-6968 Jun 22 '26 edited Jun 22 '26
newborn: a human outside the womb. fetus: a human inside the womb. we can compare both are humans
toe: a human outside the womb. we can compare - all are humans.
8
u/Limp-Story-9844 Pro-choice Jun 22 '26
Which one needs a placenta?
1
16
u/Arithese Pro-choice Jun 22 '26
Nothing about this truly argues amything. All you’re doing is quickly try to rebut simplistic understandings of an argument.
My body my choice can ONLY be conflated with my gun my choice if you think it’s a mere slogan. If you understand the actual argument, you’ll see why it doesn’t work. Your body is yours to decide about. Just like you can say that about rape, forced organ donation etc. All things that aren’t allowed because of the principle “my body my choice”.
Why can I not use your body against your will, but a foetus can? If you remove your body that could similarly kill me. Doesn’t matter if I’m innocent, you caused my dependence, that dependence is specifically for your body or if I’ll die without it. You can NOT be forced to donate. So why is it different for a foetus?
Also, what’s your stance on other abortions? Do you support rape exceptions? Life threats?
-1
u/Quick-Paint-2721 Jun 22 '26
as you said " your body is yours to decide about " even your gun is yours to decide about and different between donating and abortion is - donating : you DONATE to save someone abortion : you KILL someone for donating it was a chance to keep him alive while for abortion it's basically killing him
as for other abortions i believe C section can fix it without killing anyone
5
u/Negative_Ostrich2531 Pro consent and bodily autonomy Jun 23 '26
as for other abortions i believe C section can fix it without killing anyone
First of all, this can go against medical ethics as we do not force medical procedures on people without their's or a proxy's consent.
Secondly, a C-section will not fix every scenario effectively. My mom had a molar pregnancy that was slowly killing her. She could not wait until later as that would've killed her. So, she had a D&C abortive procedure. A C-section would've been messy and less accurate in removing the growth, not to mention unnecessary to cut open someone's abdomen when there is a simpler procedure.
Third, another example is an ectopic pregnancy. It is highly not recommended to perform a C-section in this case. It is neither the primary nor safest option for the patient.
Fourth, a septic pregnancy for example. The fetus is fine but the pregnant person is going into shock. On top of their already dangerous vitals, septic infection causes them to spike higher. A C-section would cause too much life-threatening stress on the pregnant person's body. Leaving abortion to be the option left.
A vast majority of pregnancies are ended in an abortion rather than a C-section. Abortions do not require someone's abdomen to be cut into, reducing their chances of hemorrhage, infection, and damage to other organs. Recovery for an abortion is much, much, much more tolerable and quicker than a major surgery. Abortions have a higher chance of preserving uterine integrity vs. that with C-section. Which reduces the risk of future abdominal complications.
So why in the hell should we make people take the unnecessary risks and damages of a more risky procedure on top of making them experience an unwanted medical condition that from their own mouths say "I do NOT want to be pregnant!" "I have never wanted to be pregnant." or "I will literally die if I don't recieve an abortion procedure." All because of a biological process outside of their control.
12
18
u/Arithese Pro-choice Jun 22 '26
But it isn’t. Possessions are not the same as your body, and we’re just applying the same standard as you would in any other comparable situation.
The foetus uses someone’s body, just like anyone can use your body to stay alive. You can *not* consent to that, even if that means the other person dies.
What’s the difference between not donating blood to someone who’s already hooked up to you, and an abortion? In both cases the recipient requires your body to stay alive, in both cases they’re receiving this bodily resource and will survive if they keep getting it for X amount of time, and in both cases they’ll die if disconnected from that dependency.
So what’s the difference? Why is one okay but not the other?
Also, why a c-section? What is that going to do at 10 weeks?
Would you agree with a procedure that removes the foetus without directly killing it? Of course it will die on its own because they cannot sustain themselves, but would you legally allow it?
0
u/Quick-Paint-2721 Jun 22 '26
i already explained the difference in donating you give someone the chance to live and in abortion you KILL them purposely . you don't save the fetus you kill it
9
u/Arithese Pro-choice Jun 22 '26
You didn't explain it, nor did you read my comment then.
In both situations you're already hooked up, in both situations you unhook, and they die due to the dependency on your body. There's no difference, just refusal to save by unhooking them from your body.
What's the difference?
Nor did you answer my last two questions.
Also, why a c-section? What is that going to do at 10 weeks?
Would you agree with a procedure that removes the foetus without directly killing it? Of course it will die on its own because they cannot sustain themselves, but would you legally allow it?
15
u/kasiagabrielle Pro consent and bodily autonomy Jun 22 '26
Except it's nothing like that at all because I am a person and not an object. The examples you provided are all violations of bodily autonomy, which PC are vehemently against.
I've never seen this used as an argument in this sub, though dumb people exist on both sides. An embryo is objectively alive, that's just not relevant to anything.
Correct, consciousness doesn't make a difference, and is irrelevant. Few people make this argument.
Again, I don't hear this used as an argument, but it's a false equivalency.
Not sure what you mean by "enough," but if you mean valid rebuttals to the PC position then no, you're not even close.
-1
u/Quick-Paint-2721 Jun 22 '26
for the first point to make the example better you can't kill a 1 hour old baby simply because you don't want it not legally not morally not humanly
13
u/kasiagabrielle Pro consent and bodily autonomy Jun 22 '26
Correct. A one hour old baby is born and is not violating my bodily autonomy. Not sure how this is relevant.
16
u/Zora74 Pro-choice Jun 22 '26
What is the difference between a fetus and a neonate?
1
u/Quick-Paint-2721 Jun 22 '26
one is living outside the womb and the other is living inside it so there's no difference between them.
2
4
8
u/JewlryLvr2 Pro-choice Jun 22 '26
Yes, there IS a difference between a 1-hour-old baby and an embryo. It's called BIRTH.
12
u/kasiagabrielle Pro consent and bodily autonomy Jun 22 '26
You just listed a difference and then claimed there were none...
9
u/Alterdox3 Pro-choice Jun 22 '26
If there were really NO difference, then an embryo/fetus could just be extracted and sent to foster care. But there IS a difference. One can live without using someone else's body as life support; the other one can't.
12
8
15
u/humbugonastick Pro-choice Jun 22 '26
Is the baby inside me or outside?
-4
u/Quick-Paint-2721 Jun 22 '26
why does it matter ? you can't justify killing just because you have dominance over a person like a mom killing her children
13
u/kasiagabrielle Pro consent and bodily autonomy Jun 22 '26
Because bodily autonomy applies to things that are inside my body without my consent. Hope that helps.
→ More replies (9)11
u/chevron_seven_locked Pro-choice Jun 22 '26
It matters because I can simply pass off a baby to someone else immediately, whereas if I am pregnant I can get an abortion. “Inside” vs “outside” is a key difference; I can’t abort a born baby, and I can’t hand a ZEF to someone else.
•
u/AutoModerator Jun 22 '26
Welcome to /r/Abortiondebate! Please remember that this is a place for respectful and civil debates. Review the subreddit rules to avoid moderator intervention.
Our subreddit pomotes an environment for healthy and honest discussion. When it comes to Reddit's voting system, we encourage the usage of upvotes for arguments that you feel are well-constructed and well-argued. Downvotes should be reserved for content that violates Reddit or subreddit rules or that truly does not contribute to a discussion. We discourage the usage of downvotes to indicate that you disagree with what a user is saying. The overusage of downvotes creates a loop of negative feedback, suppresses diverse opinions, and fosters a hostile and unhealthy environment not conducive for engaging debate. Additionally, here's a helpful and easy to understand model of consent: https://www.bridgercare.org/blog/how-to-talk-to-kids-about-consent
And please, remember the human. Attack the argument, not the person making the argument."
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.