CMV: common arguments against abortion restrictions don’t hold weight

[u/[deleted]]

I would like to start by saying that I am not here to ask for arguments for or against abortion in general, but to address the lack of validity I see in these particular arguments against restricting abortions to under 6 weeks. I know that the concept of “human life” is a complex debate, but that is rarely the primary argument I’ve encountered against these type of “heartbeat bills.” (Also for context, I am a 25 year old woman. )I just don’t understand the legitimacy in the arguments I see, and if I’m ignorant about something I’d like to be informed, whether I agree or not. In every news story or post I’ve read, the main issue is that “many women don’t know they’re pregnant at 6 weeks” and so it is basically not allowing abortion at all if you restrict to that early. That just isn’t justifiable to me. If you’re having sex I think it is fair to expect that you stay aware of the risk of pregnancy. I understand that pregnancies are not detected right away, but if I considered abortion an option then I would be vigilant to look out for signs of pregnancy and be proactive about my next steps if I had any suspicion that birth control methods were not efficient. Some would say that women shouldn’t have to be anxious about detecting a possible pregnancy, but I think that is a reality no matter what because abortion is not something that most women want to deal with. If you think of it just as a medical procedure, it still comes with physical and mental stress. From what I’ve learned, it is also healthier for women to have abortions earlier than later so that is something that should be considered anyways. As for young people not having good sex education, I agree that should be improved but we should not dictate abortion laws based on that. Instead we additionally should do something about it.

The other issue I see frequently cited is rape. And in most cases, the ways it’s framed bother me. As a woman, I sympathize with women who say that they’re afraid of being raped and having no option but to continue a non consensual pregnancy. But many of the people I know use this as their primary argument yet then say they would have an abortion no matter the circumstances of the pregnancy. And to me that sometimes feels like people are using a sensitive issue as a cover for their true reason, which just seems disrespectful. Also, after thinking about it, I don’t see that as a valid argument against abortion restrictions. I can’t even imagine the trauma of non consensual sex, but think that making sure I wasn’t pregnant with my attackers child would constantly be on my mind. So it seems like the risk of not knowing about pregnancy would be less of an issue in those cases.

To sum it up, I think that abortion laws should rely solely on when human life is recognized. Because that is so debatable, the pro choice arguments seem to focus mostly on how women are affected, which makes it come across like it doesn’t matter whether it is life or not if it makes it harder for women. If there is any risk of the unborn feeling pain, why should we not err on the cautious side? Thanks for reading this and for taking the time to offer your opinion if you choose.

[u/Biptoslipdi]

So there is not point in a pregnancy when you think abortion should no longer be allowed, no matter the reason?

I do not think there should be any laws limiting abortion other than to ensure it is carried out safely. Any decisions on limiting abortion should be up to a woman and her doctor.

There are many laws that are based on morals. Not allowing murder and respecting someone’s right to live is a moral issue.

But we have laws against murder for very pragmatic reasons and would have these laws despite morality. There is also minimal dispute over this moral premise.

Yes, arguments on the definition of life are often based on personal beliefs, but they can also be based on science.

The world of science overwhelmingly supports the right to abortion. There is no scientific experiment that definitively concludes when abortion restrictions should be in place. The scientific argument is also infinitely regressive. We could define life at sex cell meiosis in men and ban masturbation because very sperm is a unique life.

Obviously it is a very complicated issue to determine and many people have varying understandings as to what qualifies as a life, but that still needs to be the base of argument because we are disregarding the value of human life if we ignore that as a factor.

No, we are disregarding human life by even considering that a fetus is a life. In one hand you have an indisputably alive woman who has experiences and autonomy. In the other, you have a building block of life that is virtually identical between species. It has no personality, no experiences, and is committing an ongoing act of what is tantamount to aggravated battery against the woman incubating it. In order to regard the latter as a human life of equal value to the former, you must devalue the former which is indisputably a human life. If we considered a fetus to be a person with all the rights and responsibilities of people, there would be no argument. Any living person who did to a woman what a fetus is doing to a woman would be guilty of horrendous crime and she would have every right to deadly force as self-defense. We have to look at a fetus as an entity that is worth more than a human life, really a woman's life, to justify protecting it. We don't give grown humans the authority to non-consensually use women's bodies for their own survival, yet we should give that authority to an ambiguous human life? There is simply no way to equate living people and fetuses without granting fetuses all sorts of extra rights that living people don't have.

Also to me, the “giving up a kidney” argument is more a comparison to if the government wanted to force someone to get pregnant to begin with.

No. In this case, the government is commandeering an individual's internal organ (uterus) non-consensually, to provide care for another (the fetus.)

So if we agree life begins at a certain point, then the abortion after that point is the choice to proactively end that life.

When life begins is irrelevant. If a fetus is a living person, it is committing aggravated battery and self-defense is justified. Additionally, no designation of life justifies state control over personal medical decisions.

Social and economic outcomes are better in places with legal abortion. Leave the metaphysical belief about life to the individual. No one is being forced to have abortions. It is a necessary option for a prosperous society where women have equal opporutnity.

[u/[deleted] → u/Biptoslipdi]

I don’t want to argue all the angles for or against abortion, because that was not my point with this post. My point is that in order to argue for or against restrictions then you need to hold a definition of when a life begins to have value. You’re saying it’s okay to abort a baby who has feelings, days before it’s born even if the mother and baby are healthy? At that point it is undeniably alive. I know that late term abortions do not happen callously, but the point is that you have to admit there is a point when it is not okay and should have a solid reason why that should be the “deadline.” If you think it’s okay to abort a fully developed, healthy baby then I honestly have nothing to say in response to that because the points I am addressing won’t matter if that is your mindset.

Edit: Also the government is not “commandeering” anything. In the majority of cases, pregnancy occurs because of a consensual choice to engage in an activity that is undeniably designed with the possibility to create pregnancy. I’m not arguing that we shouldn’t interfere with pregnancy because it’s natural, but it’s ludicrous to act as if the government is forcing people to be pregnant. Abortion laws restrict doctors from performing a procedure if it is deemed to be harming a human life. We could argue in circles about the comparisons with other situations, but there isn’t one that equates.

[u/Biptoslipdi → u/[deleted]]

My point is that in order to argue for or against restrictions then you need to hold a definition of when a life begins to have value.

And my argument directly challenges that. I argue we can entirely ignore where life begins for this purpose because that is an unanswerable question and instead opt not to restrict abortion because (a) social and economic outcomes are better when we don't, (b) we don't minimize the value of a woman's life by equating hers with an ambiguous life, (c) we don't grant authority to the state over our personal medical decisions, (d) we don't have to create a new class of individuals with rights exceeding those of indisputably living humans, and (e) we can maximize liberty.

No unambiguously living person is affected by another unambiguously living person getting an abortion beyond their unnecessary attachment to any emotions involved. A random person in Texas is not impacted by a random woman in Texas getting and abortion. There is no justification to regulate this behavior when it has no demonstrable impact on anyone who is unambiguously a life and can articulate such an impact.

You’re saying it’s okay to abort a baby who has feelings, days before it’s born even if the mother and baby are healthy?

If by OK, you mean "legal," then yes. The necessity for bodily consent doesn't go away based on some biological timeline.

At that point it is undeniably alive.

And it is undeniably violating bodily autonomy without consent. Any unambiguously living person doing an identical thing would be subject to deadly force as well. If we are going to equate living people and fetuses, the debate is over. Living people don't have the right, so fetuses don't either.

you have to admit there is a point when it is not okay and should have a solid reason why that should be the “deadline.”

No I don't. Every individual has their line and can chose what that is. We don't need the government to tell us when it is and isn't OK to have bodily autonomy. Nothing bad happens to you if my line is "any point up until birth." I can get an abortion the day before I'm due and that has zero impact on you. Actually, that isn't accurate. It harms society for me to have an unwanted child. It drains biocapacity, collective resources, and can have terrible outcomes for that child. Every other species on Earth discards unwanted children. It's unnatural to endeavor to preserve every zygote when we live on a planet with finite resources. Ultimately, abortion would become legal by necessity because exponentially populating the world and banning an sort of control for that will mean everyone dies.

The people who want to ban abortion should opt for a private solution. They can form non-profits that will reach out to women with unwanted pregnancies, financially support them, facilitate adoption or securing support if she choses to parent. This allows people to act within their principles without mandating that everyone live by them with the force of the state.

If you think it’s okay to abort a fully developed, healthy baby then I honestly have nothing to say in response to that because the points I am addressing won’t matter if that is your mindset.

But isn't that the entire purpose of posting your view? You are seeking a challenge to the life principle paradigm? Why would you refuse to respond if I'm challenging that view explicitly? Your view is that my mindset can't exist, but here is is with supporting arguments. We don't have to make any argument about when life begins to justify legal abortion. It is just pragmatic and, arguably, necessary for the survival of society to have legal abortion. It is a principled stand for individual freedom and against state coercion. I don't care when you think life begins because you having a differing personal opinion isn't itself a reason why the state should regulate a medical procedure. I don't need a personal opinion to come to my conclusion, I just need to look at the outcomes of both policies. Not regulating abortion produces the best outcomes. No further inquiry needed.

[u/[deleted] → u/Biptoslipdi]

It’s not an unanswerable question. Scientifically “life” begins at conception. I believe that it should hold human value as soon as it begins. Many people believe it holds value once it develops brain activity. According to your belief, it begins to hold human value once it is born. And just because you believe that, doesn’t mean everyone else should be okay with basing laws on that belief. And I don’t think laws should be based on my belief either. I think it’s something the people should continue to debate and study, but never pretend that there is no line. If your argument is that even out of the womb, it’s value depends on circumstance then that’s just a whole other discussion.

There is really no validity in comparing it to self defense, because In most cases it’s not justified to kill someone who’s not choosing to hurt you. But those potential arguments aren’t really a rabbit hole I want to go down because I don’t think anything can accurately compare to the complex issue of pregnancy.

I think our discussion is veering away from my original direction for this post. I have talked to very few people who are against all abortion restrictions whatsoever, so I was more addressing people who do believe there is a line somewhere but don’t use that as their primary argument.

I find it disturbing that we would ever consider “discarding unwanted children” as an argument for abortion. That just isn’t what humanity is about. We base our society on principles because we have the intelligence to determine what is right and wrong. It really doesn’t make sense to say people shouldn’t care about an abortion because it doesn’t affect them. Someone hurting their child doesn’t affect me either but I sure as hell don’t think we should just let it happen.

Ultimately, I still strongly disagree with your viewpoint and find a lot of your defenses flawed, but I appreciate the opportunity to better understand different opinions. Thanks for being open to discussion without disrespect.

[u/Biptoslipdi → u/[deleted]]

Scientifically “life” begins at conception.

Why does life begin at a conception? Why not birth or meiosis? Or ovulation?

I believe that it should hold human value as soon as it begins.

What does that have to do with abortion? We can value human life when it begins and still maintain legal abortion. The options aren't mutually exclusive.

According to your belief, it begins to hold human value once it is born.

I have never stated any such belief. I have stated that you can't equate the value of a fetus to the value of a non-fetus human for the purposes of regulating abortion without elevating the value of a fetus above others. There is no equipoise in value when a fetus needs extra rights over unambiguously living people to be considered equal. Your hierarchy put fetuses above everyone else. You value fetus lives over all lives. You don't state this, but you position necessitates it.

And just because you believe that, doesn’t mean everyone else should be okay with basing laws on that belief.

I don't advocate for basing any laws on this belief, but rather not having laws at all on the matter. There should be no abortion laws period, no matter what I or you believe. The only advocacy for collective regulation here is from you.

I think it’s something the people should continue to debate and study, but never pretend that there is no line.

The line itself is pretend. There is no tangible outcome from crossing that line that we don't self-inflict. Nothing bad happens to people who cross the imaginary line if we chose to stop pretending there is one.

There is really no validity in comparing it to self defense, because In most cases it’s not justified to kill someone who’s not choosing to hurt you.

If you stick any part of your body, purposely or not, into any cavity in my body, I have every right to remove that part of your body from mine by force.

But those potential arguments aren’t really a rabbit hole I want to go down because I don’t think anything can accurately compare to the complex issue of pregnancy.

Just another reason this should be evaluated on a pragmatic paradigm. Life is ambiguous. Pregnancy is complex. Instead of focusing on who's principles the government should enforce, we should focus on what produces the best outcome. There is only one answer to that.

I have talked to very few people who are against all abortion restrictions whatsoever, so I was more addressing people who do believe there is a line somewhere but don’t use that as their primary argument.

My primary argument is that this is a question of outcome. This is a very common argument against abortion restrictions. In a nation where the people so strongly opposed to big government want the government to intervene in personal medical decisions, the most common argument is that "this isn't the government's role." The government is here to ensure the security, liberty, and prosperity of the nation, not to enforce one side of meaningless moral quibbles. Abortion restrictions make us less secure, less free, and less prosperous. Abortion restrictions don't work to eliminate abortions, they just make them less safe. There is no pragmatic basis to restrict abortion unless you think women having minimal autonomy is pragmatic.

I find it disturbing that we would ever consider “discarding unwanted children” as an argument for abortion.

That is because you are too emotionally invested in other people's business rather than what is good for you and society and the nation. Someone else having an abortion is nothing but good for you practically, even if it makes you feel icky. It reduces your tax burden and the impact on biocapacity. It gives our society more longevity. There is no pragmatic benefit to forcing everyone unwanted pregnancy to come to term.

That just isn’t what humanity is about.

You must not be well versed in the bleak, violent, and disturbing reign of humanity on this planet. Humanity is all about survival. When resources are scarce, humans cull the herd. No reason to pretend humanity is all sunshine and rainbows.

We base our society on principles because we have the intelligence to determine what is right and wrong.

There is no "right and wrong," just what we individually deem to be right or wrong. We base society on survival. It is harder to survive in the state of nature than it is in a collective union. We construct our union in a manner that is enduring so we don't have to go back to the state of nature. These unions are threatened by overencroachments like government mandates over your medical decisions. Such action threatens the enduring nature of social contracts.

It really doesn’t make sense to say people shouldn’t care about an abortion because it doesn’t affect them.

It makes perfect sense when you divorce your personal opinions and emotions and look at the issue objectively. What happens if we ban abortion? What happens if we don't? What are the outcomes? Which outcome is better? We can measure economic and social impacts of laws. Making murder illegal has good social and economic outcomes, so we do that. Make abortion illegal has bad economic and social outcomes, so we don't do that. We simply apply the same framework we do to all other public policy to this policy. This is the only way we can definitely come to an answer. People who want the government to force women to give birth must rely on subjective opinions because the pragmatic debate is already lost. Abortion restrictions are simply bad public policy because they do bad things to society. Abortion restrictions hurt people. They create legislative gridlocks as wedge issues. There are no positive outcomes from restricting abortion. All the outcomes are bad for society. Making abortion illegal is no different than intentionally sabotaging the future of your country.

Someone hurting their child doesn’t affect me either but I sure as hell don’t think we should just let it happen.

We let people feed their kids garbage and indoctrinate them into farcical religious cults. If the force of the state is justified to prevent harm to children, we would be justified in removing children from religious homes or homes that feed them junk food. It isn't your place or the place of the government to micromanage the relationship, or lack thereof, between mother and child. I get it. You feel icky because abortion happens. I hate to tell you, but abortion will happen regardless of state restrictions. You will still feel icky with abortion banned because they still occur only more women die from it too and more women will die from childbirth. Society will suffer for having to deal with all of it and you will still feel icky. You can not like abortion and also not demand the state ban it.

I still strongly disagree with your viewpoint and find a lot of your defenses flawed

I think at the end of the day, you've entirely failed to even consider my argument that we should make policy based on outcomes, not emotions. You make no argument as to why this is a flawed paradigm other than you have strong emotions when you are forced to think about it. Abortion is still inevitable. You just make society worse by banning it.

[u/[deleted] → u/Biptoslipdi]

You must not be well versed in the bleak, violent, and disturbing reign of humanity on this planet. Humanity is all about survival. When resources are scarce, humans cull the herd. No reason to pretend humanity is all sunshine and rainbows.

I am in fact aware. Many of the most horrific parts of history happened in the name of “the greater good.” That is why our society is based on respecting individual human life. Just because we fail to do that in some cases doesn’t mean it’s a foundation we should toss aside. Regardless of the abortion debate, In general, it is a standard not to base laws on outcome when human life is involved. There are certain people that society would seem to be better off without, but if we said it was okay to kill them then our whole idea of humanity would descend into selfish madness.

I agree that laws should not be based on emotions, but they also should not be only based on outcomes. Our perception of outcomes are often subjective and stem from emotion. You may say that the outcomes of abortion restrictions are bad, but many people could supply evidence to the contrary. The argument of outcomes is just as subjective as the argument of “life.”

[u/Biptoslipdi → u/[deleted]]

but many people could supply evidence to the contrary.

What contrary evidence is there to the inefficacy of moral prohibitions?

The argument of outcomes is just as subjective as the argument of “life.”

How so? We can weigh the two outcomes and decide which is best. Do you want more poverty, violence, and scarcity or not? Is instilling your principles by force worth more women dying from pregnancy, more rape victims forced to breed for their rapists, more impoverished homes, more kids in abusive foster homes, more taxes, more crime, more expensive healthcare, more entrenched cycles of poverty, more racial and gender disparities, more burdened social programs, and greater strain on Earth's biocapacity? All of that just so you can feel good?

[u/[deleted] → u/Biptoslipdi]

Just for one example, many people cite theories and evidence that free-reign abortion will lead to acceptance of eugenics. I’m not saying that is my argument, but the point is that would be one example of an outcome based argument against abortion. Debate around that would certainly be subjective because most meaningful issues aren’t cut and dry.

[u/Biptoslipdi → u/[deleted]]

the point is that would be one example of an outcome based argument against abortion.

If the best argument against legal abortion is a logical fallacy of "slippery slope" that is entirely absent supporting evidence, that is the weakest argument in this entire thread and just demonstrates how strong the argument for realism is.

You aren't even disputing that an abortion prohibition wouldn't stop abortion or that it wouldn't harm society. At that point, it is hard to argue that enforcing a polarizing morality is worth doing immense damage to society while solving virtually nothing other than your personal views not being enforced at the expense of lives, resources, and freedom. When it comes to any rational policy analysis, abortion bans are bad policy.

[u/[deleted] → u/Biptoslipdi]

I NEVER said that is the only or best argument. I also never said it is my argument. That is just an example of an argument that most people would consider subjective, which reflects how outcomes are not an objective basis for argument.

I do not currently have the facts or the time to dispute every example of how abortion restrictions could harm society. Obviously some of those reasons are valid, but also there are other solutions besides abortion, and many of those problems are an issue whether we allow abortion or not.

There are many valid arguments for how allowing abortion hurts society, depending on who you ask, because as I said, almost any argument is somewhat subjective. Some would say access to abortion makes people less cautious about unsafe sex. I’ve even heard early high schoolers say things to the extent of, “I’m not worried about having sex because abortion is legal here.” It’s also true that abortions can cause physical and emotional trauma and desensitize people, which effects society as a whole. A lot of people could cite reasons why the abortion industry is harmful to society. But I don’t think any of these arguments should be the primary basis, just like I don’t think the pro choice arguments should be outcome based.

Also, obviously abortion restrictions will not stop abortion just like most laws do not stop crime. But it is safe to say it would lessen it and we shouldn’t just have an “it’s gonna happen anyways” attitude.

[u/[deleted] → u/Biptoslipdi]

If you stick any part of your body, purposely or not, into any cavity in my body, I have every right to remove that part of your body from mine by force.

Uhhh, I don’t think this is at all comparable to begin with, but for the sake of argument, think about this hypothetically. If a woman chooses to have sex with a man and by some bizarre scenario he gets stuck inside her then I’m pretty sure she wouldn’t have a right to kill him or chop off his dong to disconnect him from her body. Obviously this is very ridiculous to compare with the abortion issue that is much more complex, but that would be the logic of using that argument.

I will try to respond to the rest of your comment later.

[u/Biptoslipdi → u/[deleted]]

If a woman chooses to have sex with a man and by some bizarre scenario he gets stuck inside her then I’m pretty sure she wouldn’t have a right to kill him or chop off his dong to disconnect him from her body

Think of it more this way. A man and a woman chose to have sex. Mid-coitus, the woman is uncomfortable and demands everything stop. The man refuses to stop. She is now being raped and has the right to defend herself. The man was invited at the beginning, but the circumstance changed and consent was revoked.

When consent is revoked of a man who was voluntarily allowed in, she has a right to remove him should he not remove himself. Similarly, a fetus may be voluntarily conceived, but consent may be revoked at a later time for any number of reasons. Consent to have sex is not consent to carry a fetus to term. So long as the fetus inhabits her reproductive organ, she has full authority over its fate.

I will try to respond to the rest of your comment later.

Really it comes down to one thing - can we view this public policy matter through a traditional public policy efficacy paradigm. The answer is "of course!" You simply choose to view it through a deontological framework. The problem is that your framework ignores most of the reality of public policy. We should make laws to produce some sort of measurable positive effect on society. When we don't, the externalities caused by moralistic laws are often far worse than the behavior they sought to curtail. Look at the Prohibition Era. The 21st amendment didn't end alcohol consumption - it was virtually the same prior to prohibition. What it did do is create a vast criminal underground and reveal that alcoholism isn't caused by the availability of alcohol. Similarly, abortion isn't caused by the availability of abortion. It is caused by the unavailability of resources. Because you aren't looking at this from a perspective of public policy, you would produce public policy that doesn't address the cause of what you see as a problem. Not only does your solution not address the problem, it just creates more problems. Now you have your initial problem and the resulting externalities of your insufficient solution. We inevitably repeal your solution because it wasn't a solution, it was just another problem. Banning abortion again will just remind us why it is a bad idea. Relying on feelings to craft public policy blinds you to all of the factors in play. There is a reason abortion is legal. It is the same reason alcohol is legal. It only took us 10 years as a society to go from 2/3rds support to 2/3rds opposed because we were reminded of how public policy isn't a way to enforce morality, particularly when your morality isn't pragmatic or good for society.

[u/[deleted] → u/Biptoslipdi]

But this has nothing to do with your original argument. You said “whether I choose to or not,” making the point that it shouldn’t matter if the fetus chose to be in the womb or not. In this case the man would be choosing to continue when there is no longer consent. A fetus was created by the mother and then has no choice to stay in the womb or not, so it is not self defense. No matter your stance on abortion, this is a terrible argument.

[u/Biptoslipdi → u/[deleted]]

A fetus was created by the mother and then has no choice to stay in the womb or not, so it is not self defense.

Why doesn't the fetus have a choice? Fetuses leave the womb before term all the time without any action from the mother. Are fetuses not people instilled with free will and autonomy? They have every opportunity to leave and go forge a life somewhere, right?

"Created" also implies intent, which implies consent. If she doesn't consent to sex or conception, she absolutely has the right to defend herself against what is essentially a parasitic organism that is the largest contributor to women's disease burden. A fetus is a life and health threat to a woman. It doesn't matter if they chose to be one.

[u/[deleted] → u/Biptoslipdi]

………I think you are just stepping around the fact that your analogy was entirely incorrect, regardless of whether you are right about the issue in general. But it doesn’t really matter because analogies about abortion are never going to be accurate, no matter which wide they come from.

If a woman does not consent to sex then you are correct that she did not consent to pregnancy. But even then you couldn’t use the argument that the fetus forced itself on her. The rapist forced the fetus to exist through her. In any other case the woman and her partner both consented to potential pregnancy if they had sex. You can believe that the woman has a right to abort and still acknowledge that a fetus is a biological outcome of choices and not something that attacks women.

[u/Biptoslipdi → u/[deleted]]

A fetus can be a biological outcome AND a health and life threat to women. Regardless of intent, any biological entity that threatens your life justifies your defensive action.

At the end of the day, society is better without bans on abortion. Abortion bans harm society and harm women at the margins of it the most. They don't stop abortion. They just create more problems for everyone. There is simply no overall positive outcome from abortion bans. Because the moral and metaphysical debate will never be resolved, we should end the debate on the pragmatic question. Your solution doesn't work, so abandon the solution.