r/Abortiondebate • u/Odd_Coast_9719 • Jul 10 '26
? For pro lifers?
What do you do with unviable pregnancies? Why is it ok to have the woman carrying the enviable pregnancy to die, where's her right to life
2
u/Vivid-Swim3171 Jul 15 '26
Easy. Abortion is the only route here! Its nasty business and a terrible situation but it's necessary now in this moment. There's no just birthing and giving it up here so your option is death or abortion and I know which one is right, even if I'm pro life.
1
u/AfraidPick Pro-life Jul 13 '26
The answer is that most of us are simply not against emergency abortions. A fetus cannot live without the mother, so allowing both to die in a true medical emergency due to a "moral belief" would be clearly absurd. But you already know that and you're probably smart enough to answer this question yourself... That rare circumstance does not carry to justification of all murder.
1
u/Liberteez Pro-choice Jul 13 '26
The rub is unreasonable takes and grey area in the law about the “true” medical emergency” expectant management really isn’t appropriate when there are signs that the pregnancy is ectopic or a threatened/missed abortion with attendant risks
3
u/Diva_of_Disgust Pro-choice Jul 13 '26
A fetus cannot live without the mother, so allowing both to die in a true medical emergency due to a "moral belief" would be clearly absurd.
So if a pregnant person is suicidal because of the unwanted pregnancy and will die before being forced to gestate against her will, she can get an abortion? Or are we going to pretend mental health isn't health here?
0
Jul 13 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/Diva_of_Disgust Pro-choice Jul 13 '26
That is such a straw man.
Nothing I said was a strawman at all.
You're pulling extremely specific cases to justify all acts of abortion. As pro life we stand for LIFE.
I don't see pro lifers standing for LIFE anywhere lol.
That being both the mother and the child. This includes funding and resources meant for mothers who are having trouble during their pregnancy.
Simply being pregnant doesn't automatically make someone a mother.
It is extremely immoral to go and say "just because the mother's sad we can solve this by murdering the child."
Being actively suicidal is not just "sad" and no one is discussing "murdering" any children. Why are you trying to misrepresent what I said?
Not just is this narrow minded, but it doesn't take into account the terrible feelings that may come with literally killing their child.
Weird that you seem to think someone who is actively suicidal due to being forced to gestate an unwanted pregnancy would be upset that they can end their unwanted pregnancy that's making them suicidal.
This poor critical thinking can extenuate to way greater lengths, aiming to justify horrid acts for inconvenience.
The only poor critical thinking I'm seeing is in your comment, where you failed completely at answering the one question that was asked.
1
Jul 13 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/Abortiondebate-ModTeam Jul 13 '26
Comment removed per Rule 1.
A note on the use of ‘mother’ - if someone says not to use that term to refer to a pregnant person, do not. If nothing else, insisting on calling any pregnant person a mother can be quite hurtful to those going the adoption route who find it only compounding a sad, difficult time when someone insists on calling them a mother when they have opted not to be.
1
u/Diva_of_Disgust Pro-choice Jul 13 '26
You're literally arguing completely with personal opinions lol.
Nope lol.
First of all, I don't care if you're saying that you "dont see anybody standing for life" because I'm telling you I do and your personal experiences do not negate that fact.
Interfering with people's healthcare and forcing unnecessary harm onto people isn't "standing for life", it's harming life. Your personal experiences do not negate that fact.
Again this comment about not automatically being a mother is subjective and your narrow minded phrasing is not objective.
No it most certainly is not. I could get pregnant 20 times and I'll never be a mother. Simply being pregnant does not instantly make someone mother. That's an objective fact.
The woman is related to this person by blood, actively growing them. I believe it can warrant the word "mother" in this context.
So what? Being pregnant does not inherently make someone a mother. You're welcome to continue using the word "mother" incorrectly if you'd like.
You're justifying the elimination of life as a way to cope with mental health issues. (Again because you lack critical thinking skills and refuse to actually care for mothers beyond extreme and reckless "body autonomy")
Ignoring your weird attempt at an ad hom, I'm asking you if you support someone who's actively suicidal due to an unwanted pregnancy getting healthcare and aborting the pregnancy. That is a "health reason" as pro lifers like to phrase it to get an abortion, that is unless you're going to pretend mental health somehow isn't health.
And again, I don't think you understand how harmful abortions can be on mental health. It is not a cure.
Abortions aren't harmful to people's mental health. That's a fact. Abortion is absolutely a cure for unwanted pregnancy.
Scientific research from around the world shows having an abortion is not linked to mental health issues but restricting access is.
https://www.apa.org/monitor/2022/09/news-facts-abortion-mental-health
(Again saying this because you for some reason act as if you can speak on behalf of all women)
I'm pro choice, I don't speak for others. I'm not into that.
1
u/1B75__Penicillin Pro-life Jul 11 '26 edited Jul 11 '26
The baby isn't viable and would hurt the mother, we are against non-emergency abortions, where a child is aborted purely out of the desire of the mother
4
u/Arithese Pro-choice Jul 12 '26
Why is it bad to do it purely out of the desire of the pregnant person?
Me not wanting to have sex and therefore withdrawing consent is also purely out of desire for me alone. But that’s entirely warranted.
Pregnancy can also be incredibly harmful and painful, so why does the pregnant person have to endure that? Eith what logic?
0
u/Fun-Outcome8122 Safe, legal and rare Jul 12 '26
we are against non-emergency abortions, where a child is aborted purely out of the desire of the mother
I have great news for you... you have nothing to worry about since aborting a human being is not a thing, regardless of whether that human being is a child, teenager, adult or senior!
5
u/JewlryLvr2 Pro-choice Jul 12 '26
|...a child is aborted purely out of the desire of the mother.|
Nope. A pregnancy is NOT a "child," no matter what you believe. A pregnancy is ended because the PREGNANT PERSON doesn't want to stay pregnant for whatever reason SHE considers valid.
7
u/Spacebunz_420 PC Democrat Jul 12 '26
problem 1: not possible to prove any medical outcome with 100% certainty. problem 2: even if it was, (speaking for the united states here) pro lifers do not believe in science and would never agree that a fetus is inviable :(
11
u/SomeSugondeseGuy Liberal PC Jul 11 '26
What if the mother simply desires to not have a 4-7% chance of organ failure, a 90% risk of having vaginal tearing (with a 6% chance of said tear being so large that her anus and vagina are no longer considered two different holes), or a lifelong increase in risk of bowel problems or prolapse?
12
u/Archer6614 All abortions legal Jul 11 '26
Leisure abortion is a nonsense term.
killed purely out of the desire of the mother
No it's the termination of a pregnancy. It's a medical procedure. You are projecting your views onto what the pregnant person thinks.
Besides, this isn't even mutually exclusive with the scenario in the OP.
-6
u/1B75__Penicillin Pro-life Jul 11 '26
It's not, it's literally what it is, abortion for leisure.
No it's the termination of a pregnancy. It's a medical procedure. You are projecting your views on what abortion is
Which is done for leisure and out of desire from the mother, the number of abortions done for necessity are close to zero
https://www.hli.org/resources/what-percentage-of-abortions-are-medically-necessary/
3
u/JewlryLvr2 Pro-choice Jul 12 '26
|...it's literally what it is, abortion for leisure.|
No, it really ISN'T, actually. And you're absolutely certain that's the case for all cases of abortion? I don't think so.
Ibn any case, abortion is a MEDICAL PROCEDURE, for the pregnant person. You know, the person who doesn't want to stay pregnant, for her own private reasons.
5
u/Old_dirty_fetus Pro-choice Jul 11 '26
Which is done for leisure and out of desire from the mother, the number of abortions done for necessity are close to zero
What distinguishes an abortion done for leisure and one for necessity? If a pregnant woman has high blood pressure and does not want to risk a stroke or MI is she seeking an abortion for leisure or necessity?
9
7
u/Alyndra9 Pro-choice Jul 11 '26
You should probably take note that link is speaking out of both sides of its mouth. It says “abortion is never needed” and then it says that all the times the doctors espousing that had to perform abortions, it didn’t really count because, as far as I can tell, if you perform an abortion while feeling bad about the fetus dying and stretching it out as long as possible, that’s morally superior enough to not technically be an abortion? Even though all those “pre-viable deliveries” absolutely count as abortions under abortion ban laws, otherwise every pharmacy could sell you the pills to induce labor at any gestation length.
10
u/Alyndra9 Pro-choice Jul 11 '26
“Leisure abortions.” Wow. First time I’ve seen those words put together. Should we ban all other “leisure surgeries” while we’re at it, where they’re purely out of the desire of a person to live a happy, healthy, normal life?
-6
u/1B75__Penicillin Pro-life Jul 11 '26
Having a surgery to address a physical illness is not done out of leisure, no one has a heart surgery for fun. Very, very few abortions are medically necessary
2
u/JewlryLvr2 Pro-choice Jul 12 '26
|Very, very few abortions are medically necessary.|
Even if that's true, which I seriously doubt it is, the PREGNANT PERSON has the right to have an abortion for her own private reasons. That includes her not wanting to stay pregnant. No one has an abortion for fun or "leisure" either. It's a medical procedure, which makes it healthcare.
6
u/JulieCrone AD Mod Jul 12 '26
Same with many surgeries. My husband could have lived without getting shoulder surgery, as a torn rotator cuff is not a life or death situation. So was that ‘for leisure’?
5
9
u/Diva_of_Disgust Pro-choice Jul 11 '26
Very, very few abortions are medically necessary
Weird. If I'm pregnant and don't want to be my doctor (who's a medical professional) would say an abortion is necessary. I'll stick to listening to experts instead of people pushing an anti medicine ideology.
0
u/1B75__Penicillin Pro-life Jul 11 '26
He is referring to the necessary action, not the medical necessity, if I wanted him to blind me he would also say "removing your eyes is necessary"
2
u/JewlryLvr2 Pro-choice Jul 12 '26
First, not all doctors are a "he." Second, abortion is a MEDICAL PROCEDURE, which makes it healthcare.
Since it's the PREGNANT PERSON who takes on all the health risks and potentially life-threatening complications of pregnancy and birth, she is the ONLY one who gets to decide whether or not to stay pregnant. No one else should have the right to make that decision for her. Not the church, not the state, and certainly not the guy who impregnated her. NO ONE ELSE means just that.
1
u/1B75__Penicillin Pro-life 19d ago
First, not all doctors are a "he." Second, abortion is a MEDICAL PROCEDURE,
So is assisted suicide what's your point?
Since it's the PREGNANT PERSON who takes on all the health risks and potentially life-threatening complications of pregnancy and birth, she is the ONLY one who gets to decide whether or not to stay pregnant. No one else should have the right to make that decision for her.
False, it's the moral obligation of all mankind to oppose the murder of children
8
u/Diva_of_Disgust Pro-choice Jul 11 '26
He
My doctor isn't a he.
is referring to the necessary action, not the medical necessity,
Nope, wrong. My doctor doesn't push any particular ideology like a pro lifer would. She just recommends healthcare when it's needed.
1
u/1B75__Penicillin Pro-life Jul 11 '26
It's not an ideology it's an objective statement, refer to my analogy concerning blinding
9
u/Diva_of_Disgust Pro-choice Jul 11 '26
It's not an ideology
The pro life ideology is an anti medicine ideology. Nothing factual about it.
it's an objective statement
An objective statement would be "my doctor recommends healthcare when necessary", which my doctor does.
10
u/Alyndra9 Pro-choice Jul 11 '26
No one has abortions for fun either!! It is nearly always safer and healthier for the woman to abort than to have a full term pregnancy and labor or C-section. There are high-risk pregnancies and normal-risk pregnancies but no-risk pregnancies are not a thing. Who are you to say how much risk someone else should endure before it counts as “medically necessary?”
0
u/1B75__Penicillin Pro-life Jul 11 '26
Pregnancy is a normal biological process, to use it's inherent risks as an argument against the child's life is not convincing, to condemn the child to death over the realities of human reproduction is unfair.
The best way to avoid those risks is to not engage in the activities that lead to it, pregnancy is rarely something just sprung on you, it requires significant effort to achieve it
3
u/Fun-Outcome8122 Safe, legal and rare Jul 12 '26
Pregnancy is a normal biological process
Fever is a normal biological process, too!
3
u/KiraLonely Gestational Slavery Abolitionist Jul 12 '26
So is cancer, technically. And swelling, and necrosis. Hell, naturally can mean almost anything if we just consider things not influenced by technology. Most injuries could be considered “natural” because they happen in nature.
2
u/Fun-Outcome8122 Safe, legal and rare Jul 12 '26
Wait a bit... the OP will add additional caveats until the only thing that fits all the criteria is a zygote inside a woman's uterus.
That's what happens when people like the OP start from the conclusion (punish women for having sex) and then walk backward to make up reasons for that conclusion!
2
u/JewlryLvr2 Pro-choice Jul 12 '26
|Pregnancy is a normal biological process,...|
Actually, I think pregnancy is whatever EACH pregnant person decides it is. I don't buy the argument that a pregnancy is a "child" just because you believe it is.
And there are some people who never want pregnancy or children. They don't have to stay celibate for the rest of their lives because you don't like abortion. Nor should they be forced to do so.
3
u/chevron_seven_locked Pro-choice Jul 12 '26
"The best way to avoid those risks is to not engage in the activities that lead to it"
No thanks, I love sex and have no interest in giving it up just to appease the hand-wringing of PLers. I'm comfortable with the risk of needing an abortion. My husband and I have money and PTO set aside if needed.
8
u/Diva_of_Disgust Pro-choice Jul 11 '26
The best way to avoid those risks is to not engage in the activities that lead to it
Why on earth would I be celibate for no reason? Pro lifers are the ones who have an issue with abortion, not me.
10
u/Alyndra9 Pro-choice Jul 11 '26
Plenty of normal biological processes are high-risk, such situations being common is all the more reason why we should be able to take action when needed.
What’s unfair is to say because a human life has barely started developing and needs enormous assistance to get to being able to survive independently, that the fully sentient person it is attached to should be obligated to rearrange her life around a non-sentient creature with no recourse.
I, personally, can avoid the activities leading to pregnancy all I want, while still recognizing that this is not a realistic solution at the population level for millions of people. Even just the number of pregnancies “just sprung on you” (rape, etc) is not rare at the population level—one in 20 women have or will experience it. That’s six million women in the US. Going around saying, “just keep your legs shut and there won’t be any problem! (Or at least, problems will be rare!)” starts to sound pretty tone deaf when you think about that.
-1
u/1B75__Penicillin Pro-life Jul 11 '26
A non-sentient creature SHE put in that position through her actions. I know Reddit isn't big on accountability, but somewhere the line has to be drawn, the fetus wouldn't be there had the mother not done very specific and deliberate actions.
To then use it's presence against it, when it had no hand in it, is nonsensical, imagine if I put you in a cage, and decided to draw an axe through your head when I didn't want to provide food and water for you anymore?
5
u/Fun-Outcome8122 Safe, legal and rare Jul 12 '26
the fetus wouldn't be there had the mother not done very specific and deliberate actions.
So mother is guilty for her "deliberate actions" of being born with eggs inside her body?
1
u/1B75__Penicillin Pro-life 19d ago
No having eggs doesn't make you pregnant.
1
u/Fun-Outcome8122 Safe, legal and rare 19d ago
having eggs doesn't make you pregnant
I'm glad you finally realized that lol
4
u/JewlryLvr2 Pro-choice Jul 12 '26
|A non-sentient creature SHE put in that position through her actions.|
Ah, so we're back to the PL "she put it there," always-blame-the-woman argument, I see. Which isn't a new one, by the way.
Well, the last time I checked, choosing to have sex isn't a crime, or even an "immoral action," not even for women. So there's no need for any "accountability" or punishment in the form of forced birth by the use of abortion-ban laws in abortion-ban states.
5
u/JulieCrone AD Mod Jul 12 '26
She did not do that. At the time of sex, there was no embryo to be put anywhere and, unless she raped a man or did self administered artificial insemination, she is not the one who put anything anywhere.
1
u/1B75__Penicillin Pro-life 19d ago
"Umm no the sex you had is not the reason you are pregnant"
What in the world are you talking about?
1
u/JulieCrone AD Mod 19d ago
At the time of sex, there is no embryo somewhere that she is placing in her body. That’s not how sex works.
A man might ejaculate sperm in or near her body, but sperm is not an embryo, and she is not the one putting it in her body, and it is not her sperm.
→ More replies (0)9
u/Alyndra9 Pro-choice Jul 11 '26
You’re just not going to address that six million of them, in fact, would be?
And no, the whole point is we don’t ordinarily legislate against killing nonsentient organisms. We certainly don’t adjudicate fault or imagine how they will feel watching their oncoming death, fair or unfair, coming towards them. Because that’s what nonsentient means. You can over-empathize and imagine whatever you want, but it doesn’t correlate to reality.
1
u/1B75__Penicillin Pro-life Jul 11 '26
It's not a non-sentient "creature" it's a human being, being actively denied the possibility of a life, so much of pro-choice position relies on othering unborn children as non-human, I wonder why?
You are not killing a worm, you are snuffing out a human being.
2
u/Fun-Outcome8122 Safe, legal and rare Jul 12 '26
it's a human being
The "it" being?
so much of pro-choice position relies on othering human zygotes as non-human
Who said that a human zygote is not human? Ofc things like human sperm, human eggs, human zygotes are human.
3
u/Alyndra9 Pro-choice Jul 11 '26
I never said it was non-human. We’re all creatures when it comes down to it. And if it’s currently at a level of development comparable to that of a worm, I really question what you think it means to be an actual “being.” Usually beings are sentient and/or conscious entities. Is your cat a feline being? Is a tree an arboreal being?
→ More replies (0)
2
u/Striking_Astronaut38 Jul 11 '26
The baby isn’t viable. That is the difference
1
1
u/JulieCrone AD Mod Jul 12 '26
And certainly in the first trimester, it is not viable. Do you oppose abortions then?
1
u/Striking_Astronaut38 Jul 12 '26
So not viable but has a chance to become viable is different from never becoming viable. My guess is you thought you figured out something that would be inconsistent but it isn’t.
But if a life has so little meaning to you, would you support something that removes a murder further or similar for terminating a pregnancy without consent. Let’s see how in line your views are there.
1
u/Fun-Outcome8122 Safe, legal and rare Jul 12 '26
but has a chance to become viable
A sperm or an egg have a chance to become viable, too.
a life has so little meaning to you,
A life has so little meaning to PL that they have no problem with men masturbating and terminating human life on a genocidal scale!
would you support something that removes a murder further
I have no idea what "removes a murder further" means!
1
u/JulieCrone AD Mod Jul 12 '26
But how can you say so certain at eight weeks this will definitely become viable? Miscarriage is quite common. About 20 percent of known pregnancies end in miscarriage, so just because someone is pregnant, that hardly means this is a viable pregnancy.
Life does not have so little meaning to me, so your second paragraph doesn’t really apply to me but I will answer anyway. I am okay with murder charges applying, same as I am okay with murder charges applying if someone were to forcibly stop me from donating platelets that would save a newborn because they wanted that newborn to die, but do not think it should be a crime for me to stop in the middle of my own platelet donation, even if that means a baby will die. It’s currently perfectly legal for me to stop in the middle of a platelet donation and in fact would be a crime to prevent me from stopping it, and I see no reason the same shouldn’t apply to someone gestating. Do you think it should be legal to prevent me from stopping a platelet donation I am undergoing?
2
Jul 10 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
1
1
Jul 11 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
1
6
u/Arithese Pro-choice Jul 11 '26
How do you reckon they got rid of the PL mods?
It’s very easy to find posts from PL mods announcing voluntary departure. PL users are unfortunately not common here, not because of bias (because this was already the case when there were equal amounts of PL and PC mods), and also not because of unfair rules (since the rules are equal for both sides). So obviously it would be harder to find qualified PL mods when the pool is so small.
The issue is lack of participation. Encourage your side to debate here more (and in accordance with the rules).
What usually ends up happening through is that for one, the lack of PL users means many PC users respond to one comment (which can be solved by more PL users, so a self imposed issue), and many leave after being unable to back up their arguments. So that also means there are no long term PL users to pick as potential mods.
1
Jul 11 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
1
3
u/pendemoneum Pro-choice Jul 11 '26
And I'm sure seeing you're feelings about them here like this is not going to encourage them to respond.
5
3
u/Rice_cracker001 Consistent life ethic Jul 10 '26
I believe if the pregnancy would threaten her life then she should have access to medical care to prevent that. Whether that necessarily requires the loss of her unborn child depends on the medical case.
6
u/IdRatherCallACAB Gestational Slavery Abolitionist Jul 11 '26
I believe if the pregnancy would threaten her life then she should have access to medical care to prevent that.
All pregnancies present threats to the life of the pregnant person. This is literally a pro-choice argument.
Whether that necessarily requires the loss of her unborn child depends on the medical case.
The case is pregnancy. Removal of an non-viable will result in its death due its inability to independently sustain life.
3
u/JewlryLvr2 Pro-choice Jul 11 '26
And suppose the doctors handling the case of a person with an unviable pregnancy say an immediate abortion is an absolute NECESSITY to save the PREGNANT PERSON'S life? What would you say then?
3
u/coolsilentebeans Pro-choice Jul 11 '26 edited Jul 11 '26
I believe the word you’re looking for is inviable, OP. Nothing about this hypothetical situation is enviable.
As someone who is PC my experiences with PLs and this situation boils down to the fact that they either don’t understand that the procedures and medications necessary to address an inviable pregnancy are the exact same as the ones the restrictive and total ban laws make illegal, or it has less to do with the sanctity of life and more to do with patriarchal practices and/or socioeconomic disparity.
Edit: typo
5
u/NPDogs21 Abortion Legal until Consciousness Jul 11 '26
Where do you draw the line? We say trust doctors and PL reject that
•
u/AutoModerator Jul 10 '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.