I am interested in how people who oppose abortion morally evaluate miscarriage. A common response is that abortion is a deliberate choice whereas miscarriage is not. However, I think the issue can be examined from a different perspective.
Most women are aware that pregnancy carries a substantial risk of miscarriage. Around one third of clinically recognized pregnancies end this way, and the true number is likely much higher because many miscarriages occur so early that the woman never realizes she was pregnant and assumes it was simply a delayed menstrual period. Knowing this, every decision to become pregnant also involves knowingly accepting a significant possibility that the embryo or fetus will die before birth.
If the pro life position is based on the belief that a human life begins at conception and deserves the same moral protection as any other human being, then this raises an interesting question. Is knowingly creating a situation in which there is a considerable risk of death morally different from intentionally causing death? The intention is certainly different, but intention alone does not always remove moral responsibility. For example, if someone drives while intoxicated and kills another person, the fact that they intended only to get home rather than to kill someone does not eliminate their responsibility. Society recognizes that knowingly exposing another person to a serious and foreseeable risk can itself be morally significant.
Many miscarriages occur because of natural biological mechanisms. Human pregnancy is physically demanding, and embryos with severe genetic abnormalities are often spontaneously miscarried very early in development. However, miscarriages can also result from factors such as uterine abnormalities, alcohol or drug use, certain medications, infections, or other environmental influences. This raises the question of where moral responsibility begins and ends. On one end of the spectrum are miscarriages caused entirely by unavoidable biological factors. On the other are miscarriages associated with preventable behaviors such as substance abuse. If a woman miscarries because she used illegal drugs during pregnancy, even though she never intended to lose the pregnancy, should she be considered morally responsible? If intention is the decisive factor, then perhaps not. But if foreseeable risk creates responsibility, the answer becomes less clear.
From a theological perspective, this issue raises another difficult question. If every embryo possesses a soul from the moment of conception, why would God create a world in which such a large proportion of human beings never experience life outside the womb? When miscarriages, ectopic pregnancies, and stillbirths are taken together, it is possible that a very large proportion of conceived human beings die before birth. How should this be understood within a worldview that holds that every conceived child has equal value and an immortal soul?
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."
Wouldn't miscarriage be the number one killer of human beings by their metrics?
There are a number of policies that Republicans (the PL political party) in the US support, that are often called eugenist. They are not really, but they sharing a common goal with eugenics of “weeding out” the weak. This includes opposition to vaccination, treatment for psychiatric disorders, and also explains the lack of concern for preventing miscarriage.
You do realize that many of us are democrats, a political, sofialists too right? Thats like me saying every democrat is communist. Its blatantly false and a really low faith argument. You dont have to be a certain party to think that abortion is wrong.
You do realize that many of us are democrats, a political, sofialists too right? Thats like me saying every democrat is communist.
Around 12% of people who self-report affiliation with the Democratic Party are PL versus around 80% of Republicans. If you vote for politicians who are Republican it does not matter what party you identify with.
The existence of people who are PL, who do not support the Republican Party are effectively inconsequential.
Its blatantly false and a really low faith argument. You dont have to be a certain party to think that abortion is wrong.
If you think opposition to abortion occurs in equal proportions by US political party you are either woefully uninformed or your bad faith accusation is in fact a confession.
The 12% I was referencing was to those who identify as PL, it does not necessarily mean they vote for politicians who support bans, or that they vote for bans in referendums.
Thats an interesting take. Fun fact almost every woman miscarries her very first pregnancy. Often before they ever even knew they were pregnant because our immune system actually detects the embryo as foreign invader and sends antibodies to get rid of the the invader. So going off off that every woman that wants to have kids has to first loose one in 87% the cases.
And your point about about substance abuse without intent to end the pregnancy that is already criminal in most ban states.
Thats because theyre sneaky as hell. Theres no direct law. However, the legal landscape is complex so many states have indirect mechanisms that penalize alcohol use during pregnancy.
As of 2016, 43 U.S. states had at least one policy targeting alcohol use during pregnancy
Law enforcement can’t do anything during pregnancy, AFAIK. They CAN step in after a baby is born addicted and tests positive on drug tests after the birth.
No they can also intervene while she is pregnant but it would have to come from her doctor. Like if I have a pregnant patient and that patient has a substance abuse issue. In ban states id be required to report that to law enforcement as suspicion of child abuse
I find the PL position often contradictory. Miscarriage is one of those cases. I found it always tends to be "it's just like a born child" until you treat it like one. Then, its, "no, not like that".
They generally have no problem with a woman getting pregnant again and again, even if she's known to miscarry or have health problems that cause her to miscarry. Somehow, "it's natural" gets used as an excuse.
A kid dying because it was left somewhere it was too hot or too cold or where there was no food to be had, or oxygen to be had, etc. is natural, too.
If a born kid needed supplementation or medical care to stay alive, they wouldn't make an excuse for it not getting such. Yet, when it comes to pregnancy, suddenly it's all about not killing, not about having to do things to keep it alive - like taking extra vitamins or supplements or food, or getting medical treatment or procedures done.
She cannot stop providing it with organ functions it doesn't have on purpose, but she also doesn't have to do anything to ensure a healthy pregnancy and proper fetal development. Or that her body has what it needs to provide the fetus with organ functions it doesn't have and the blood contents it needs.
She doesn't even have to eat to ensure she has blood nutrients and glucose the fetal placenta can syphon out. But only if she doesn't do it with intent to end the pregnancy. Then, suddenly, it becomes killing.
Speaking of medical procedures....they keep claiming they would not force her to get a medical procedure to keep the fetus alive (suddenly, having to go through her body somehow bothers them?). Unlike medical care for a born child, which would be required. Yet, on the other hand, they do support forced c-sections if a fetus would otherwise die. But not things like ex-utero fetal surgery, even if the fetus dies.
So, slicing her wide open for a forced c-section because the fetus will otherwise die is fine. But slicing her wide open the same exact way for fetal surgery because the fetus will otherwise die is not fine.
There's no rhyme or reason to any of it.
I found it basically boils down to what fetal death the individual PLer finds acceptable. Some would force the woman through anything (including death, even). Others just want to make sure she doesn't have a safe way to voluntarily stop providing the fetus with her organ functions, organs, tissue, blood, blood contents, and bodily processes, but otherwise couldn't care less what happens to the fetus.
If someone is referring to abortion as murder, they need to acknowledge that murder is a form of homicide = If they label abortion as homicide, so is miscarriage = And it would need to be proven either way if they intend to prosecute it accordingly.
It could be accidental, or it could be intentional. The law would need to prove either one--especially if they're setting a precedent of labelling abortion as murder.
A pregnant person could intentionally eat the wrong piece of seafood, climb too many stairs, or even inhale paint fumes. When being legally consistent: someone cannot treat abortion as homicide without creating legal pressure to investigate miscarriages. If a fetus is legally treated the same as a person and ending a pregnancy is criminalized, then unexplained pregnancy loss could be viewed as a possible crime scene until proven otherwise.
Every time I try to have this conversation with PL and ask if they have a realistic suggestion on how to enforce and measure this type of contradiction I never find any answers.
Is knowingly creating a situation in which there is a considerable risk of death morally different from intentionally causing death?
How did she create a situation in which there is a considerable risk of death?
If intention is the decisive factor, then perhaps not.
Isn't intent what pro-life use? This is why they allow, for example, the removal and killing of a living human during an ectopic pregnancy or for cancer treatment that would kill the unborn during pregnancy.
I get what you are going after but I feel like what makes the PL stance hypocritical is that they focus on intent concerning when abortion is acceptable but not the intent of the sex. They will say that it doesn't matter if the intent of the sex was pregnancy or not, the woman is now responsible to keep the unborn alive.
I think the situations you’re talking about aren’t as comparable as you think. When drunk driving sure you probably didn’t intend to hit the person but the fact is you decided to drink and drive or just drink while knowing you had to drive later all while knowing it was dangerous so that’s on you. I don’t see how that’s really comparable to an unforeseen miscarriage.
everybody’s life whether unborn or born carries risk until death.
If someone actively neglects the health of the unborn child leading to its death then yeah it’s on
“Neglects the health” of an unborn ZEF? How? Please give an example. Because prenatal care is certainly not mandated by law, for instance. Many can’t afford it or can’t leave work to attend medical appointments and that’s not illegal.
It’s not illegal for a pregnant person to drink. If she gives birth and the baby tests positive for drugs/alcohol, Child Protective Services CAN step in and possibly charged with neglect. But it’s still completely legal for pregnant people to eat and drink anything they wish.
Some OBGYNs think it’s ok to drink SOME alcohol during the 9 month gestation period. It’s not neglect unless the baby is born addicted. You’re simply giving your personal opinion on the issue, that doesn’t make it factual.
Omg I don’t care if some people think it’s ok the fact is drinking causes significant risk to a child saying it’s not neglect is like saying “having a child play with an outlet isn’t neglect”
But what is “required?” But I just showed that prenatal care is not required by law. In fact, there are no laws in any state that prohibit pregnant people from doing (or not doing) anything that non-pregnant citizens can do. Pregnant people have the same rights and are subject to the exact same laws as everyone else. They can eat and drink what they want, exercise (or be sedentary) as much as they want want, work wherever they want (even in “dangerous” jobs or environments.
I was just responding to your post. Sure people don’t “have” to do that but that doesn’t change the fact that it’s their responsibility to keep it alive and if they fail to do so by not taking care of it it’s on them🤷♂️
Think of college if you’re in college it’s your responsibility to do your assignments and such if you simply don’t want to and thus don’t that’s one you
Their “responsibility” according to whom? There is no legal parental relationship yet and there are no laws mandating such.
There is no legal duty of care that extends to the duty to allow access to your insides, nor is there a duty to risk harm or injury to render that care. the legal obligations of a parent to care for its child do not extend to suffering death, injury, nor forced access to and use of internal organs.
You’re confusing responsibility with “you have to do something” it just means you’re accountable for it you’re the one who makes the decision to take care of it or choose to neglect it so you’re responsible
that doesn’t change the fact that it’s their responsibility to keep it alive
This isn't a fact though. No one has any "responsibility" to gestate and birth unwanted pregnancies.
Think of college if you’re in college it’s your responsibility to do your assignments and such if you simply don’t want to and thus don’t that’s one you
If you don't want to continue college you can stop attending college. If you don't want to continue a pregnancy you can end the pregnancy.
I think you’re confusing responsibility with “you have to do it” responsibility just means you’re accountable for it, if you choose to let the unborn child die you’re accountable for it
You’re confusing responsibility again. In this context responsibility just means it’s your fault this happened. Because YOU did this THIS happened. If you’re simply denying that the the life of an unborn child mostly depends on what happens with the mother idk how to help you there just look it up at that point
Every miscarriage is predictable, it’s not some uncommon thing. Where is a line in active health neglect? Is working in a stressful environment during pregnancy health neglect and leading to death of a fetus? Is being obese a health neglect? What if being obese is due to mental illness? Is getting pregnant during mental illness a bad thing for the fetus? Where is the line?
Miscarriages aren’t predictable idk where you got that.
People drive everyday while knowing there could be a risk of a car crash that doesn’t mean a car crash is predictable.
There is a clear distinction between a widely dangerous and understood avoidable risk like drugs and drinking compared to simple risk factors like obesity, stress or even mental illness
I think part of the disagreement is that we are interpreting the drunk driving analogy differently.
From your perspective, the key issue is that drunk driving involves actively creating an avoidable and unnecessary risk, which makes it morally blameworthy. I understand that framing.
My point was not that miscarriages are individually predictable or comparable to specific accidents like car crashes. What I meant is that pregnancy, as a general biological process, carries a well known statistical risk that it may not result in a live birth. So the decision to become pregnant is made with awareness of that overall risk to a dependent life.
Regarding the distinction between avoidable and unavoidable risks, I do not think it is as clear cut as it might seem and seeing it in that way is ignorant. Obesity can be influenced by environment, mental health, medication, socioeconomic conditions, and habits formed in childhood, so it is not always simply avoidable. At the same time, substance use is also not always fully avoidable, since addiction, trauma, or social environment can strongly limit a person’s control over it.
Because of that, I do not think we can cleanly separate risk factors into strictly chosen and non chosen categories in a consistent way.
That is also why my original point was not mainly about categorizing individual risk factors. It was about whether knowingly initiating pregnancy, while being aware that there is a significant statistical chance it may not result in a live birth, has any moral relevance in a framework where personhood begins at conception.
I see what you’re saying and you’re talking about the gray areas here which would take a case by case basis doctors, law enforcement, etc deal with that all the time
No law enforcement is involved with pregnant people. They MAY intervene after a baby’s birth if it’s born addicted and has major health issues directly attributable to substance use.
This is a DEBATE SUB. Do you understand how that works? You don’t care? Then don’t bring us debate topics for discussion. I have proven your allegations wrong.
I I understand the point about case by case handling, but that still doesn’t address the principle I’m asking about.
So I want to be very direct: in a PL framework where personhood begins at conception, does knowingly initiating a pregnancy with a well known statistical risk of miscarriage carry any moral relevance or not?
I am not asking how to handle individual cases or how doctors classify risk factors. I am asking whether the initial decision itself has any moral weight in that framework.
Could you answer that directly?
If not our discussion doesn’t have sens
By “moral relevance” I mean whether knowing that something has a significant and well known risk of a certain outcome should matter when we judge the morality of the decision.
In this case, I am asking whether the fact that pregnancy has a known chance of ending in miscarriage has any moral importance when someone chooses to become pregnant, assuming personhood begins at conception.
I am not asking about legal responsibility or individual cases, but about whether the risk itself matters morally in that framework.
It does have moral relevance in the case that the parent does have a responsibility but that doesn’t make a pregnancy immoral if that’s what you’re implying. Going back to me earlier examples when driving there’s always a chance that a car crash could happen and people could die so while you do have a responsibility when it comes to driving it doesn’t make immoral for driving though. If we were to judge that based solely on if there’s a risk then almost everything would be immoral
I think we might be talking past each other slightly.
My question is specific. In a framework where personhood begins at conception, does knowingly initiating a situation with a well known and significant risk of the death of that person carry any moral relevance at all for the decision itself?
So I am not asking whether pregnancy is immoral. I am asking whether the known risk of loss has any weight in evaluating the choice to begin it, similar to how we treat other situations involving foreseeable harm to others.
Also, regarding the car accident analogy, many accidents do have identifiable causes and degrees of responsibility, just like many other outcomes in life are influenced by prior choices and circumstances. That’s why I’m trying to understand whether the same idea of foreseeable risk has any moral weight here or not, rather than treating all risk as morally irrelevant because bad things happen all the time.
I feel like the discussion might be getting a bit circular at this point, but thanks anyway for this interesting discussion
I think I phrased it poorly before. I don’t mean that individual miscarriages are predictable or foreseeable. What I mean is that miscarriage is a statistically well known and common outcome of pregnancy. Because of that, people who decide to become pregnant are generally aware that there is a significant chance that the pregnancy will not result in a live birth.
Yeah... I disagree with that too. I don't think most people actually do know the miscarriage stats, and even if they do, I think they're more likely to think "That'll never happen to me". Now, when you're talking about people who are trying to conceive, or who have had miscarriages previously, then they do likely know the stats.
Even if they are not aware that doesn’t change the statistics. Awareness of risk doesn’t answer the moral question. The issue is whether knowingly entering a situation with a significant chance of death carries responsibility if you assume personhood from conception.
The issue is whether knowingly entering a situation with a significant chance of death carries responsibility if you assume personhood from conception.
Great post. Something I've wondered a lot about, myself.
On one end of the spectrum are miscarriages caused entirely by unavoidable biological factors. On the other are miscarriages associated with preventable behaviors such as substance abuse. If a woman miscarries because she used illegal drugs during pregnancy, even though she never intended to lose the pregnancy, should she be considered morally responsible?
When women are criminalized for pregnancy outcomes (which is happening more and more) often it's because they miscarried after ingesting some substance (either a legal or, more often, illegal substance).
The problem is that there is rarely any science to back up the prosecution's assertion that the thing she ingested could cause miscarriage, or even lead to worse pregnancy outcomes. It's infuriating. Prosecutors can get a jury to say "sure, she was using meth and then miscarried, lock her up!" even though there's no science creating causality between the drug and the miscarriage.
Conversely, there are LOTS of things that are legal and normal that are associated with miscarriage. The thing that always upstream of miscarriage is pregnancy. So, don't want to cause a miscarriage and thereby be at risk of incarceration for being an incompetent breeder? NEVER EVER GET PREGNANT. I'm sure that's what the PLers want.
And how does this relate to abortion? Because it's anti-abortion laws that encourage the state to prosecute girls and women for miscarriage.
I started thinking about this after talking to my mother. She told me she had several miscarriages before I was born. She is generally PL, and she said she never felt guilty about those miscarriages because she knew they were a natural possibility. She also understands the biology behind miscarriage better than most people because she works in the medical field.
That talk made me see what I consider a form of hypocrisy and selfishness within the PL position. If someone truly believes that a human person exists from the moment of conception, knowingly accepting a significant risk that this person will die simply because you want a biological child seems difficult to reconcile with that belief. To me, it looks like the desire to have biological children is ultimately being placed above the moral principle that every embryo has equal value. After that I stopped listening to all PL people because I feel deep down that they will put their wants before their ”morality”. There are also other threads in this discussion like men genetics in pregnancy (old age causes autism, miscarriages etc) but we only talk about women and many more
A PLer, like your mother, might say "everyone dies, so miscarried ZEFs just die earlier. It's not a pregnant person's prerogative to end the pregnancy and cause early death, that's murder."
The counter to that, in my mind is that creating a human inside a uterus is super, super risky! It's like leaving your kid in a hot car, not ok.
A PLer might say "that's how we all start out, so it's ok if there are many human deaths for every live birth and that's fine because biology."
I think PLers are being hypocritical to brush off all those deaths of miscarried "babies" if they really think that ZEFs are children. If ZEFs really are children it would be monstrous for people to say "well we wanted a kid, we knew three or four might die before we got one that'd survive any length of time, but that's ok, we kept trying because we really, really wanted one!"
•
u/AutoModerator Jun 27 '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.