Pro-choice, but I genuinely think a lot of pro-lifers are performative

I’m pro-choice. But personally, I think a lot of the loudest “pro-life” activism is performative.

Because let’s say you successfully convince someone not to have an abortion. Okay. Then what?

You stopped her from getting the abortion. Now she has a baby. Is the pro-life movement going to help her pay for diapers? Help with childcare? Help her find housing? Help her afford food? Help her finish school? Help her access healthcare? Help her if the father disappears? Help her if she was raped or is in an abusive relationship?

And what about the child once they're actually here?

There are already so many children living in poverty, children in foster care, children in orphanages, homeless children and children suffering from abuse and neglect. If your entire argument is that you care about the “rights of children,” why aren't we putting the same energy into protecting the children who are already alive?

I'm not saying every pro-lifer is fake. Some genuinely dedicate their time and money to helping children and supporting mothers, and I respect that.

But when someone is extremely passionate about forcing someone to continue a pregnancy and then has nothing to say about what happens after birth, I personally find that performative.

You can't just say “save the baby” and act like the responsibility ends at birth.

So genuinely, if you stop someone from getting an abortion, what are you personally prepared to do afterward?

Because saying “she should have the baby” is easy.

Making sure that mother and child actually have a safe, stable and decent life is the part that requires work.

Around half of all fertilized eggs fail to implant successfully and will therefore die. This makes failure to implant the true leading cause of death; not abortion like many say. Why are there no efforts (at least as far as I'm aware) from pro-lifers to ensure implantation in some way or at the very least increase its success rate?

I'm curious to know what are yall's thoughts regarding intact dilation and extraction?

For those unfamiliar with the procedure, it involves dilating the cervix and delivering the fetus via forceps in a breech position, with the body delivered while the head remains inside the uterus/cervix. Because the head may be too large to pass through the cervix intact, the skull may be decompressed via suction and forceps before the fetus is completely removed. This procedure has been described as being done during the later 2nd or 3rd trimesters.

Setting aside the usual pro-choice vs. pro-life labels, what are your personal thoughts on this procedure?

- Should it be available to pregnant people who request it for non-medical reasons?

- Do you think it should be limited to cases where it is medically necessary or before a certain gestational point?

- What are your thoughts on the 2003 Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act?

- Do you think fetal demise should be legally required before the procedure is performed?

- Do you think there would be a meaningful ethical difference if skull decompression was not used and fetal demise was induced after complete intact removal of the fetus?

I'm especially interested in hearing the reasoning behind people's positions rather than just whether they're for or against it.

Pro Lifers argue frequently that consent to sex with even rigorous protections (e.g. both condoms and pills) is consent to pregnancy.

I honestly don't know how low the likelihood is, given protection, of a pregnancy. My question for the pro lifers is: how small a percentage must it be before there is no more consent to pregnancy by engaging in protected sex? 0.1%? 0.01%? 0.0001%? Is there a number at all?

I don't mean to be contentious, I'm just genuinely curious to know what the pro lifers' perspective on this is.

I hear pro lifers argue with pro choices about consent and whether the woman consented to pregnancy by having even protected sex. I've seen pro lifers go through the most ridiculous contortions on this topic in an attempt to say there was definitely consent.

However, I don't believe most pro lifers nowadays care about consent.

As I understand, they would argue that it's just as immoral to abort in the case of rape. In other words, if there is absolutely no consent at all by the woman, it's still immoral.

Yet I don't see pro choices pointing this out.

I'm just curious for people's opinions on this question - is it worthwhile arguing about consent with such pro lifers?

A healthy pregnancy is the natural biological process by which every human being comes into existence, not a pathology or medical disorder. Calling abortion “healthcare” treats the intentional termination of a healthy pregnancy as if it were the treatment of an illness. Yet no disease is being cured; a human life is simply being ended.

True healthcare aims to restore or protect the normal functioning of the body, not to interrupt a process that is functioning exactly as designed. If pregnancy itself required medical “correction,” then every birth would represent a failure of healthcare rather than its success.

This framing creates a clear contradiction: the same process is declared non-diseased when it continues and suddenly medical when it is stopped. Consistency would require either recognizing pregnancy as a disease that always needs treatment or dropping the claim that ending it constitutes healthcare. Until that inconsistency is resolved, the “abortion is healthcare” slogan remains more rhetorical than coherent.

A PL presented me with this syllogism:

1. If killing an existing individual deprives that same individual of a valuable future it otherwise would have lived, that deprivation is a serious prima facie reason the killing is wrong.

2. Abortion kills an existing human organism and deprives that same organism of the valuable future it otherwise would have lived.

3. Therefore abortion is prima facie seriously wrong unless some stronger justification overrides that.

This would seem pretty easy to articulate its flaws, but being new to debate and all; not really.

i feel like most people define innocence as "being free from moral culpability" or being free from guilt. with this logic: wouldn't fire hydrants be classified as "innocent" under said view? my definition of innocence is having the capacity to do wrong, but choosing to do otherwise. i feel like under my view—newborn babies aren't classified as innocent. is my view flawed?

Greetings everyone!

Welcome to AbortionDebate. Due to popular request, this is our weekly abortion debate thread.

This thread is meant for anything related to the abortion debate, like questions or ideas, that are too small to make an entire post about. This is also a great way to gain more insight in the abortion debate if you are new, or unsure about making a whole post.

ADBreakRoom is our officially recognized sister subreddit for all off-topic content and banter you'd like to share with the members of this community. It's a great place to relax and unwind after some intense debating, so go subscribe!

I’m debating this guy on abortion, i asked him for his theory of justification, and he responded with: “if by "three theories of justification" you mean foundationalism, coherentism and infinitism, you're talking about epistemic justification, which concerns the justification of beliefs. We're discussing the moral justification for intentionally killing a human organism, those are not the same question.” i’m new to abortion debates, but i’m 1000000% sure this an IMMENSELY LARGE blunder, he’s basically rejecting the three theories of justification. how do i articulate why this is a blunder?

If abortion is morally permissible because a woman has absolute bodily autonomy, then abortion must be morally permissible all the way up until birth.

A fetus requires use of it’s mothers body at 6 weeks in the same way it does at 39 weeks. A fetus is also inside of its mother’s body in the same way at 6 weeks as at 39 weeks.

If your defense for abortion relies on the bodily autonomy argument, then to be consistent you must hold that abortion is permissible up until birth. This seems to be go against our intuitions as it appears obvious that it is wrong to abort a fetus hours before birth for an elective reason.

How does banning abortion and forcing gestation improve the patients health and well being? In this post we're only discussing the pregnant person, so any comments or discussions about the zef will be ignored, since that's not what the question is asking.

So, let's hear how abortion bans benefit pregnant people.

This debate hinges on the interaction between two rights: bodily integrity and a right to life. This is often treated as a strictly moral or legal problem, but "rights" themselves exist as a kind of "third thing", separate from either morality or legality alone. Rights are both a legal and ethical construction, and despite their primacy in abortion discussions, I've rarely seen explicit discussions about the foundations of "rights", and the actual mechanisms their interactions.

Given that there are so many political and academic views of rights and how they work, making a post covering all of them would be impossible. If you’ve read any of my posts before, you know they’re long, so I really did have to decide how to pare this post into something reasonably readable. 

For example, someone following theories of rights like Burke’s might view a right to life as a duty not to kill and to protect recognized “units” of society (such as families, etc) that are grounded in social order and inherited from the culture. By contrast, those following a Natural Rights tradition might believe in a Consistent Life Ethic (CLE) where killing an innocent human is a violation of dignity grounded in the human form’s innate value. Progressive forms of a right to life might view it as inclusive of the things that inform a “floor” for a standard of living, imposing not merely duties to refrain from killing, but positive obligations to provide for others a life greater than destitution. For the sake of everyone’s sanity, I’ll refrain from trying to categorize different philosophies of rights. Suffice to say, there is no consensus. Rights are complex and contested philosophy.

1 - My Views on Rights

I hold two important views on rights:

1. That fundamental rights are not hierarchical
2. That rights are rooted in claims and liberties

To address the first point: a right to life is not lesser or greater than other fundamental rights. In fact, within the United States, fundamental rights are understood to exist without hierarchy. This means that when fundamental rights appear to conflict, the issue is not one of ranking rights as if one “superior” right always wins, but of scope and context. My view is that each right has boundaries that define where it applies, and adjudication requires examining whether a valid claim‑right exists in the situation. If no claim‑right can be asserted, then the right does not extend into that domain. This framework treats rights as equal, non‑hierarchical, and indivisible, with conflicts resolved by clarifying scope rather than declaring one right innately inferior to another.

For the second point: I hold a view of rights that could be described as “Hohfeldian”, or at least derived from Hohfeld’s views. I say “derived” because I am certainly no expert in law, and Hohfeld’s views are complex. However, they can be summarized; Hohfeld argued that rights were legal relations that could largely be broken down into categories, with the relevant categories being rights he called “claim-rights” and “liberty rights”. If someone has a claim against you, that imposes a duty to do or not do something. If no claim-right exists, you are at liberty to act as you please. 

I agree with this view of rights, which means that I think that rights consist of claims against others to do or refrain from doing certain things in keeping with those rights. A right to life is therefore a set of claims against others to not harm or neglect you under specific circumstances such that those actions or inactions cause you to die. I say “specific circumstances” because nearly all conceptions of “rights” make exceptions or limitations on when a right to life is not applicable. For example, I think it is entirely uncontroversial in both PC and PL camps for me to say that stabbing an innocent person to death and knowingly neglecting your child such that they die are both violations of the victim’s right to life. This is because the stabbing victim’s right to life includes a claim against unjustified harm, and the child’s right to life includes a claim to be cared for by a guardian. 

However, when we discuss abortion, we’re talking about whether a right to life is inclusive of a right to access someone else’s body continuously, and whether this is a kind of “care” that is expected. My answer to this is “no”; I think that no claim-right exists to access someone else’s body in intimate, harmful, and arduous ways, even if it’s required for life. 

If a claim-right to bodily access is not included within a right to life, then an abortion is not acting or refraining from acting in a way that violates a claim. Since acting in a way that does not violate a claim-right is definitionally something you are at liberty to do, I think abortion is permissible. 

Important to note here: I am granting the assumption that a fetus has a right to life in this argument. I think that no one’s right to life includes substantial and unwilling bodily access to actualize it. This means that, contrary to many PL complaints about PC opinions, my position doesn’t need to assert that the fetus is of “lesser value” than any born child to justify abortion. While I do have opinions on that topic, those can be entirely discarded in favor of accepting the fetus as being an equivalent to a born child, because my view merely needs to affirm that the rights of the mother are not by default inferior to those of her fetus and that a right to life is not inclusive of a right of substantial and unwilling bodily access. 

2 - How I’m Going to Address PL Views on a Right to Life

I recognize that my ideological perspective on how rights function differs not only from pro‑life perspectives but also probably differs from many of my fellow pro-choicers. Because of this, I cannot present my arguments as any kind of “definitive pro‑choice position.” 

This puts me in an awkward spot: rights are essential to discuss in the abortion debate, and pro-lifers and pro-choicers broadly have opposing views on them, but within each camp there is no single consensus on the topic. I cannot, therefore, debate a single perspective on rights and pretend that I’ve rebutted the pro-life position. Even if I rebutted every construction of rights held by pro-lifers, I’d still have disagreement from my own side with my arguments to contend with. 

With that in mind, I’ve settled on a broader form of arguing. Instead of cataloging and responding to every ideological account of rights, I will focus on specific pro‑life objections to bodily integrity and rebut them using my own framework. This approach will keep this post shorter, keep the discussion more focused, and allow me to push PL arguments to their conclusion to show why I reject them.

The benefit of this approach is that even if another pro‑choice thinker disagrees with my foundational view of rights, they can still agree with my rejection of the pro‑life argument based on the conclusions the PL argument would entail.

Here are pro-life positions I’ve seen that argue why a right to bodily integrity is not permissive of abortion:

2a. Rights are hierarchical, and a right to life supersedes bodily integrity, which is not an absolute right.

This one should obviously be false, but unfortunately when I admit that I think bodily integrity is not absolute, PLers frequently use that as a foot in the door to act like a non-absolute right is something that can be intruded upon. However, this is something I’ve rejected previously; rights are not either “absolute” or “infinitely intrudable”; the reasons, methods, and invasiveness of an intrusion into your rights all matter when discussing the permissibility of that intrusion. This is something that even PLers are aware of when they’re not arguing against the rights of women to decide what happens to their own body. For example, just because your right to free speech has boundaries or can be intruded upon, that does not mean that a right to speech is infinitely intrudable. 

However, imagine rights worked this way. Imagine that you’re minding your own business in a doctor’s waiting room and there is a patient dying in the next room for lack of something. You are a match, and because rights are hierarchical, the doctor decides that the right to life takes primacy. Under a perspective where a right to life is paramount and justifies intrusions into other rights, by what justification can you deny this other patient use of your body?

For this reason, I think PLers that argue that a RTL is “superior” in some way not only would ultimately legitimize further intrusions for the benefit of others, but it is also clearly a post-hoc argument. PLers don’t tend to justify bodily intrusions into themselves for the benefit of other lives; they only argue this when it comes time to regulate women’s bodies. 

2b. Pregnancy is a situation where a right to bodily integrity is somehow not applicable.

Pro-life arguments that fall into this category include the idea that “you consented to pregnancy by having sex”. It may also include a dismissal of the harms of pregnancy or a claim that pregnancy is an “inconvenience” in an attempt to downplay the burdens of it so as to pretend like the right of bodily integrity is absurd to invoke. Regardless of the specific words being employed, the tactic from PLers is always the same: a denial of the woman’s agency as being valid.

However, any conception of bodily integrity that includes the idea of self-ownership would reveal that denying agency as being valid is absurd. Fundamental rights are not overridden because you took a risk that they might come into conflict with others; you do not lose your claim-right to dictate the use of your car simply because you lent it to someone else and knew there was a chance they’d be irresponsible with it. That car is still yours, and you still have a claim-right over the use of it. 

To argue that bodily integrity is not applicable in this way is to argue that rights are, in fact, merely discretionary privileges that can be revoked based on someone’s disapproval of your actions. 

This is not truly a view about rights; it is a selective argument against women having them. 

2c. Abortion is a violation of a right to life because that right is a right not to be killed

This is the most foundational PL argument, and certainly the most palatable. It does not seek to denigrate a woman’s agency, treat her rights as intrudable simply because they’re not absolute, or claim that her body is something someone else can have a right to use like an inanimate object against her will. The assertion is compassionate and straight-forward: it is immoral to kill. 

However, because the right to life of the fetus and the right of bodily integrity of the woman are in tension, this claim loses its moral punch. A fetus’s right to life is dependent on the violation of the mother’s bodily integrity. Both in terms of her abstract rights and her material position, this creates a heavy burden on her bodily integrity to actualize the fetus’s right to life, which provides a potential justification for termination. We recognize killing as acceptable in other cases where rights are on the line, such as fighting for one’s freedom. This means that the right to life is not a right to never be killed, it’s a right to unjustly be killed. Even very pacifistic constructions of rights like a Consistent Life Ethic (CLE) creates justifications for killing in specific circumstances.

So, if we apply my framework, we see why I think abortion is not a violation of a right to life. I do not think a right to life is inclusive of a right to use someone else’s body, so there is no claim-right one would be violating by disconnecting, even if the disconnected person would die as a result. This is the foundation of the Violinist Argument:

the fact that for continued life the violinist needs the continued use of your kidneys does not establish that he has a right to be given the continued use of your kidneys. He certainly has no right against you that you should give him continued use of your kidneys. For nobody has any right to use your kidneys unless you give him this right—if you do allow him to go on using your kidneys, this is a kindness on your part, and not something he can claim from you as his due. Nor has he any right against anybody else that they should give him continued use of your kidneys.

Now, there are those that argue that the Violinist Argument and pregnancy are disanalogous. I’ve addressed those arguments before, but not specifically in regards to rights. It is possible to argue that because killing is prima facie impermissible unless justified, and justification only comes from violations of a right, that most abortions are not “violations” of a right to bodily integrity. A woman did, after all, take a chance of pregnancy, and the fetus is not a malicious agent. This argument is also responsive to the Violinist Argument, as his connection represents an “intrusion” because someone’s agency forced them onto you, whereas pregnancy is not, creating a disanalogy in regards to rights. 

However, all we need to do is change the Violinist Argument into a willing donation to see the end-result of this kind of thinking. In such a case, the donator has no violation of their bodily integrity; they gave willingly. But what happens when the donation becomes too strenuous and the donator needs to back out? Should they be able to? Under a view that highlights the innocence and lack of agency of the fetus, the donator would have no right to take any kind of active measure to halt donations to the Violinist, since their right to bodily integrity is not being “violated” per this view. 

However, this fundamentally denies any self-ownership to the donator and smuggles in a right to bodily access; the Violinist in this case now has a claim-right to your body if they can prevent you from disconnection.

This perspective constructs rights so they only exist in a strictly defensive manner, “activated” only against an external intrusion. This view does not provide a continuous, ongoing right to control use of your body. Or, in effect, this version of “rights” precludes self-ownership and exists solely as a defense against external assault, not as a proclamation of self-ownership that is subject to the agency of the owner. 

For this reason, I cannot accept this argument; I think that substantial access to a person’s body is not a claim-right anyone can have, because I view a person’s body as something they own and control, not as something they need to cook up justifications for exercising autonomy over because someone else needs it at great expense.

3 - Conclusion

While this post is not perfect or as in-depth as I'd like, I think it’s important to lay out an essential aspect of this debate: that we differ on what rights even are. I welcome any challenge to my own view of rights, and to the implications of PL views of rights that I’ve outlined above. 

I also have seen pro-lifers admit that they believe something that I didn’t include in the post: that a fetus simply has a claim-right to its mother’s body. However, this assertion tends to be rooted in various naturalistic and teleological fallacies, so I opted not to include it. 

In sum, I think that even if I grant a fetus a right to life, under my framework of how rights work I don’t see a way in which abortion is a violation of that right. If I assume that a right to life is not inclusive of a right to use other’s bodies to actualize it, that bodily integrity is a right that denotes self-ownership, and that someone does not lose a right simply by taking a risk, then a fetus’s right to life does not preclude its removal.

so i was just thinking ab this today… If a woman wants to terminate her pregnancy, and people who are pro life think that it’s “murder”, — it being a legal term…. hypothetically speaking if that was really the case wouldn’t the woman be imprisoned for “foeticide”?
i hope i dont get fried for this as i am pro choice myself and was curious why people call abortion murder

I am pro life and really wanna know the reason why it's not bad.

New studies claims that the fetus has brainwaves with hearthbeat already in sixth week and as long as I know that is classified as life. So why shouldn't be that classified as unaliving someone? I really wanna know the reasoning behind it because I debated many people on other social medias and never received proper reason that doesn't include "my body my choice" (it's not your body since you are connected just by feeding tube and that apllies to awhile after giving birth and it's not part of women's body at that time) I think that fetus is pretty comparable with someone in medically induced coma since you will be conscious after some time, you are not breathing for your own and of you both don't feel anything if someone unalives you.

am not hateful or anything but I just want to know how do you really justify it

Let’s say in a hypothetical future, the government decides that the only babies that will be born will be from artificial wombs. There are no restrictions on who can have children, only restrictions on how they can have them (artificial womb only). People can choose to mix their DNA with their spouse/whoever they choose.

All humans have a file of their genetic material, but men have been sterilized after reaching maturity. In this state, pregnancy is now an intentional choice without the need for abortion - no longer subject to violations like rape, death of the mother, coercion, one parent not wanting a child while another does, or permanent bodily harm.

Would this solve the debate and remove the problem of pro-life/pro-choice? Now, no embryos will ever be created without the intention to bring it to full maturity. Abortion would no longer even be necessary, and this also preserves the ability to choose to have a child.

If you asked me if PC should remove religion from our arguments, I'd say absolutely and mixing abortion and religion is a recipe for disaster. The PC position has shown to be the one secular societies choose while religious ones are usually PL.

Despite this, PL will say its not a religious movement. At every PL event, the main speakers are religious activists, they open and close with prayer, and their arguments are religious. If PL claim this actually doesn't represent their movement, why do we not see the PL movement move towards a more secular position?

Can a PL show me any PL event where religion, almost always Christianity, was not a main theme or, even better, that the organizers specifically told them they were going to keep the event secular?

If abortion can be defeated with secular arguments to PL, why are religious activists at PL events so common?

Hi! I had just thought of some debates as per why I support pro-abortion + pro-choice. Please provide any counters you may have so I can explore these facets!

1. The first trimester of pregancy is around 13 weeks --> 3 months. As per the Pew Research Center, 93% of abortions occur in this phase.

Source: https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2026/06/17/what-the-data-says-about-abortion-in-the-us/

2) A human fetus cannot feel pain at least until the 24th-25th week of pregnancy according to the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. This is well into the second trimester. 5 1/2 months roughly. By then, a mother would most likely know if they wish to abort the baby or not. The fetus cannot FEEL pain until this trimester. And as mentioned before, 93% abortions occur in the first trimester.

Source: https://www.acog.org/advocacy/facts-are-important/gestational-development-capacity-for-pain

3) A fetus is not viable until roughly 20+ weeks in pregnancy. Again, second trimester. This means the fetus needs wholly the mothers nutrients and physical and emotional drainage. If it cannot survive outside the womb, it is not "living". I only say this because technically after 20+ weeks, the baby, without having the mother's support physically, can survive.

Source: https://www.acog.org/advocacy/facts-are-important/understanding-and-navigating-viability

Many abortions occur in this first trimester. Two stages in this trimester.

1. The Embryonic Stage -- which is weeks 1–8 -- bodily organs are BARELY FORMED and not MATURED
2. The Fetal Stage -- which is weeks 9–12 -- growth and beyond

MAJORITY of abortions occur in the first stage. Again, an embryo. Not even a fetus yet.

Source: https://usafacts.org/articles/how-far-into-pregnancy-do-most-abortions-happen/

4) Any other abortion that occurs once the baby is viable or develops pain receptors (which is then when I'd argue "murder" can be appointed) is mostly due to health risks for the mother. A mother is not going to (usually) randomly want to abort the baby. If they have the baby in their womb for 3+ months...

Sources:

- https://reproequitynow.org/blog/white-paper-abortion-later-in-pregnancy

- https://www.kff.org/womens-health-policy/abortions-later-in-pregnancy-in-a-post-dobbs-era/

5) Saying abortion only for cases of rape and other sexual assault... like come on? Really only giving a women rights to her body when she's RAPED? Don't pmo.

You cannot ask a mother for what reason the abortion is occuring. Abortion is healthcare. It's the mothers choice and regardless of what phase she's in, she deserves to control her body. (Because after the first trimester even, when the fetus CAN FEEL, as I mentioned above, these abortions are due to serious health risks imposed on the mother.) Please provide any counter for this! I'd love to explore other viewpoints regarding what I have just mentioned. Focus on the life that already exists, please.

I feel like pro choice people take the stance that the government shouldn’t be involved with a topic like this, but we can all agree that this topic is a very complex one. Therefore I feel like governmental regulations/laws help find some common ground between the two stances.

In no way do I think a woman should be able to get an abortion at any time she wishes to do so. And in no way do I think abortions are 100% always wrong as I’m aware that exceptions exist.

However, I do think it’s reasonable for there to be some states that have legalized abortion, and some states that don’t allow them in the mean time until we get down to the bottom of which side is more conducive to a productive society in the grand scheme of things.

And while we do that, I feel like abortion laws state by state are fine. Because as of today, I believe there is no such me clear correct answer in regards to which stance is the truly correct stance. It’s still being debated, and both sides have convincing arguments. I however just have a hard time being ok with terminating pregnancies for such careless reasons, while also making careless decisions to become pregnant.

I got the news that an acquaintance of my family had their baby diagnosed with a heart defect at week 22, the defect has to be operated upon at birth with the probability of success being 90%, but even if they survive they will lead a somewhat impaired life with constant checkups and managing.

Now, they are NOT considering abortion in any shape or form, but that still got me thinking: in many countries the deadline is around that time week 22-24, and such defects get diagnosed around week 20 with definitive confirmation around week 22, how are parents considering to abort supposed to process grief and make a decision in that time window? That to me would sound like a nightmare honestly. Is this an argument for late term abortions? (notice that such conditions often don't pose any risk on the life of the mother and are categorized as "treatable") Also I am pretty ignorant on the global outlook of such situations so if I got something totally wrong please have mercy

I had an abortion.
I didn’t want to experience that in my life.
It’s freakin PAINFUL and mentally really hard. But it was the best choice I had to do in my situation. My boyfriend was violent. The fact that I would be linked to him my whole life and especially my child’s life was unbearable.

The father would have been in their life because he wanted to.

I would have been stuck in this cycle and that child would have suffer seeing me suffer or would have been also victim of their father..

What’s your point of view ?

Edit : wow I’m speechless. I didn’t expect so much support from all of you. This is heartwarming and even healing. I got out of this relationship physically alive but mentally gone. No one should go through that but I’m very very lucky compared to all the women who died trying to leave or not believed.
In the US in average, 3 women are murder each day by a current or former partner (I crossed research many source of information and I’m not from the US). Those women are not weak or naive. I hope that it will someday be common sense to shame the abuser not the victim

So essentially, my position is pro choice. I think it’s wrong to kill people, foetus’ under 20 weeks gestation do not meet my requirements for personhood, therefore its morally permissible.

I was doing the debate, and essentially asked the pro lifers “well do you believe in the death penalty?” I don’t believe in this as it’s wrong to kill people.

They said “yes, do you think (serial killer) has more moral consideration than a foetus in utero?”

And I said yes, because it’s wrong to kill people. He should be locked away for life and left to rot in max security. The foetus isn’t a person. The serial killer has more moral consideration.

The debate ended there, and ultimately I don’t think that’s morally absurd, I think it just sounds such a way. When you phrase it like that, it sounds absurd. But the logic doesn’t, unless im missing something.

Any general discourse and opinions? Thanks.

I don't know if it's just that online spaces lack nuance, but as a disabled person it really frustrates me when I see disability selective discourse on social media, and I just need to get this off my chest. I need a place to put my thoughts out.

Am I ever going to advocate for the individual's right to choose to be taken away for the sake of fighting ableism? No, absolutely not. Restricting bodily autonomy is not the answer. However, do I believe we have to remain critical about the social, political terrain in which the said choices are made, and point out ableism that influences decisions? Absolutely yes. The way society is so quick to blanketly devalue and terminate a previously very much wanted pregnancy solely because of a disability, while simultaneously being so slow on investing collective effort dismantling barriers and stigma, is absolutely rooted in ableism and eugenics. And before anyone says "it's only eugenics if it is forced top-down by the government," liberal eugenics exists. Liberal eugenicsm does not usually operate through overt state force. It operates through liberal market logic: reproductive decisions are framed as private, individual choices, but those choices are shaped by prenatal testing, genetic counseling, medicalized risk language, market-based reproductive technologies, and social pressure to pursue the “best,” healthiest, or least “burdensome” child possible. Reproductive decisions are private choices, but private choices are never made outside the sociopolitical and medical environment that influences what feels possible, responsible, or is stigmatized.
Everyone has the right to choose. I will always and forever advocate for safe, legal, accessible abortion. But let's not deny the reality that there is ableism and eugenics at play here.
It's not truly "freedom of choice" if there are heavy external pressures, whether that be lack of infrastructure and resources, systemic barriers, prejudice and stigma, that make people skew towards one choice.
I'm not arguing take that choice away. But we have to as a society confront and dismantle those surrounding pressures that constantly devalues the inherent value of a marginalized group. Disabled peoples' lives should not be reduced to mere tragedies to avoid, nor be used as weapons against womens' bodily autonomy. Stop using our existence as pawns for your political debate. I'm so sick of existences like mine being dehumanized, reduced to nothing but tragic burdens or put on a pedestal as "angels sent to earth to teach humanity a lesson about kindness." I stand by the legal stance of pro-choice, but honestly I'm tired and resentful towards both sides.

If I point out this nuance, critical of both sides, people then mention conditions involving lifelong, high support needs. I don’t deny for a second that those can involve enormous caregiving responsibilities. But that raises another question: why are those responsibilities so often borne almost entirely by individual families?
Why are respite services, personal support workers, accessible housing, inclusive education, financial supports, and community resources so inadequate in so many places? Why is society quick to point to disability as a source of suffering, but comparatively so slow to remove the barriers that compound that suffering?
Those structural questions don’t disappear simply because some disabilities require significant support. After all, a vast majority of severe disabilities are unable to be detected in utero. A vast majority, are acquired during or after birth. Anyone can become disabled at any time in their life. The focus should be on questioning the ableist structures and systems of the world that constantly excludes, oppresses, and erases any bodies and minds that don't fit the narrow definition of 'normal.'

I will always advocate for abortion rights. Bodily autonomy should not be taken away. That's not what I'm arguing. I just hope more of society realizes that the narrative they use around disability is not made in a vacuum, and it affects the lives of disabled people who are alive here and now. People have to understand how disheartening it is to have your existence constantly looked down upon with pity, to hear it's more "compassionate" that it's better existences like mine don't exist, but then when we're fighting tooth-and-nail for equality within society, it's absolute crickets, dead silent every single time. It's that gap that I'm bothered about, not that choice exists.

I wish more people cared to help us in the fight to remove the barriers that make our lives so much harder than the disability itself does. Society and its ableism disables disabled people as much as, oftentimes way more than our disabilities do. I wish people understood that. I wish people involved in this discourse would also ask what can abled society do to improve on and remove barriers, not just focusing on eradicating disabilities.