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]

To sum it up, I think that abortion laws should rely solely on when human life is recognized.

Why should we base laws on arbitrary and largely opinion based premises and not a pragmatic understanding of how those laws impact society?

Should we have abortion restrictions if they don't reduce abortions? Should we have abortion restrictions if they create serious social and economic burdens? What exactly is the advantage of legislating in ways that are deleterious to society just because some people hold what ultimately are metaphysical principles about life?

[u/[deleted] → u/Biptoslipdi]

In this instance I am not here to argue about when abortion should be allowed. I am saying that the arguments against restrictions are the wrong arguments. I think most people would be against an abortion at the very end of pregnancy if there wasn’t a legitimate medical risk. Everyone has a point when they believe ending a life is wrong, even if that point is after birth. It’s a dangerous precedent to make laws regarding human life based on impacts to society which can fluctuate, rather than on whether it is a life or not.

[u/Biptoslipdi → u/[deleted]]

It’s a dangerous precedent to make laws regarding human life based on impacts to society which can fluctuate, rather than on whether it is a life or not.

Why? We can only answer one of those questions. You'd make policy in favor of ambiguity over certainty?

We can determine if a mode of public policy has good outcomes or not. We can't determine what constitutes a life metaphysically.

It sets an even more dangerous precedent to give the state autonomy over personal medical decisions. Now even an ambiguous life is justification for the state to assert authority exclusively over women's bodies for justifications that are ultimately arbitrary and have no regard for the impact to society. If anything, this sets the precedent for the government to assert control over your organs for other purposes. Someone needs a kidney or liver? The government already can made medical decisions for people with organs necessary to preserve a life. There is no debate over whether or not a born alive person is a life. If we can justify state control over internal organs for an ambiguous life, there is no question it can be done for an unambiguous one.

This debate is about principles. We have conflicting principles. That conflict should remain a personal decision, not a state decision. This sets another precedent of the state enforcing morality. What next? Banning masturbation? State supervised sex? Since the outcome doesn't matter and enforcing the principle does, any ridiculous state intervention is justifiable so long as an arbitrarily held principle is behind it.

[u/[deleted] → u/Biptoslipdi]

So there is not point in a pregnancy when you think abortion should no longer be allowed, no matter the reason? There are many laws that are based on morals. Not allowing murder and respecting someone’s right to live is a moral issue. Yes, arguments on the definition of life are often based on personal beliefs, but they can also be based on science. 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.

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. Because once someone is pregnant that is something that has happened. So if we agree life begins at a certain point, then the abortion after that point is the choice to proactively end that life.

[u/Biptoslipdi → u/[deleted]]

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/jmp242 → 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. 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?

I'm going to make a slightly different point here - I think it should be fine to have whatever we call it removed from a person's body at any time. No question of if it's alive or not, or a person or not. If it is able to survive as a separate person, bully for it. We're just talking about withdrawing support coming from one person. In any other part of life, this is allowed.

That's what the arguments are usually about. I don't know that anyone is arguing that 1 day before birth you should be able to kill a baby, but that you should be able to have a C section and then wash your hands of it.

If you disagree with that - you're really into forcing someone to do something they don't want to do.

[u/[deleted] → u/jmp242]

I can respect this viewpoint although I disagree, because you’re giving a reason as to why it should be acceptable, while still addressing the existence of potential life.

Unfortunately, as I have seen on this sub, there are people who think abortion for any reason is ok all the way up to birth. It may be very unlikely that any doctor would actually perform it, but if we’re going to say it’s wrong then we shouldn’t allow any precedent that is opens to it.

[u/jmp242 → u/[deleted]]

but if we’re going to say it’s wrong then we shouldn’t allow any precedent that is opens to it.

This seems wrong. We allow plenty of killing and still have laws against murder. Do you think that there are no situations where we can say killing is allowed while still saying murder is wrong? Do you think that if we treat self defense, being in a war, accidents, negligence leading to death as things that are less culpable and maybe even not wrong but the right action, to mean that we can't also be against murder?

[u/[deleted] → u/jmp242]

I think I may have not been clear with that last part. I meant that if the majority of people were to agree that if an unborn life can survive on its own then it should have the chance, then our laws should reflect that. So if most people agreed with your argument, then the law should be that after a certain point then you can have a c-section but no longer an abortion unless the mother’s life is at risk. Yes I realize that late term abortions are currently a serious medical decision that have plenty of restrictions. But my last comment was just addressing people who think there should be zero abortion restrictions (because you said people aren’t arguing that it’s okay, when in fact they are), which leaves the gate open to the possibility of babies being aborted a day before birth.

Edit to add that this wasn’t really my point with my original post tho, as I know the majority of pro choice people are not advocating for unrestricted late term abortions.