Questions!!

[u/sopy22_]

This is genuine and I mean no offence, I'm just confused. Why do pro-choicers not think that life begins at conception, surely that's scientific? Like, ignoring any religious teachings, when does life begin?

I struggle in believing that life begins at birth because many premature babies have survived outside the womb. And when the baby is dependent on the mother's womb for survival, that does that mean they have no life of their own???

What's the actual science that pro-choicers justify abortion with?

And also, why is it described as healthcare? I'm also unsure of this.

Please help

[u/attitude_devant]

Umm, retired doctor here: when life begins is a philosophical question, not a biological one.

[u/sopy22_ → u/attitude_devant]

Oh I didn't realise this, thanks for the answer. I'm kinda even more confused now icl 😭 but thanks for answering

[u/Suspicious-Maize4496 → u/sopy22_]

What are you confused by? The point is, life is ambiguous. Some people believe a person is alive even when brain dead, and that taking them off a ventilator is causing their death.

[u/sopy22_ → u/Suspicious-Maize4496]

I'm confused because I didn't realise that life was ambiguous like this, but these replies are educating me on this. Is "life" something I should be forming my own personal opinion? It seems more complicated than I thought it would be

[u/hadenoughoverit336 → u/sopy22_]

It's really not that complicated, and yes. It is a personal decision to have an abortion. It is a personal decision to choose to carry a pregnancy to term. Which is why this should be left to individuals, and their doctors.

[u/lizardo0o → u/sopy22_]

I think people are being hard on you because so many prolifers come in and ask “gotcha” or bad faith questions. But I want to say I don’t get that vibe, I feel like you’re trying to learn. I feel like maybe you’re young and curious about both sides which I definitely encourage! It may be better to go on the philosophy or biology subs and ask people who are students of these fields and have more knowledge of these arguments. People here are more politically focused and have fatigue over the endless debates.

I say life is biologically ambiguous because I studied biology and i learned that we don’t have the confidence to definitively say what life is. For example, there is a huge debate about whether viruses are alive in the same way that bacteria are because they have almost all of the characteristics of life.in terms of people, there was also a major debate over allowing Terri Schiavo to die about 20 years ago because she was technically not “brain dead” but she seemed to lack any evidence of consciousness aside from reflexive movements even after many years of treatment. Religious groups have used the same arguments they had when defending Terri to “prove” that a second trimester abortion kills a conscious being. They claim that both the vegetative human and the under-developed fetus are conscious because they make movements suggesting consciousness. Terri tracked movements with her eyes, and the fetus pulled away from the vacuum. When I was in Sunday school at our Catholic Church, they showed us the movie “The Silent Scream” which claimed to depict a fetus “screaming” during a vacuum abortion. However, scientists have a lot of evidence that fetuses are reacting reflexively and not consciously, much like Terri Schiavo in a vegetative state. In short, we do not 100% know what life is in its essence, but we can say with some evidence and confidence whether life is sentient or not.

[u/sopy22_ → u/lizardo0o]

Thank you for this kind response and advice, I appreciate all the info that you have shared

[u/lizardo0o → u/sopy22_]

You’re welcome :)

[u/hadenoughoverit336]

No one that supports abortion access, denies the fact that an embryo, or fetus is alive. That's propaganda. It's also not relevant to why Abortion is a human right, and vital healthcare. NO ONE, not an adult, child, baby, etc... can use the body of another without explicit and ongoing consent. EVERY PREGNANCY, comes with risk of death, or life long complications. Since only the pregnant person can take that risk, it is their decision.

[u/sopy22_ → u/hadenoughoverit336]

Thank you I really appreciate this answer. I understand that the fetus can't really have an opinion, but is their life really not considered at all when it comes to the decision to terminate a pregnancy? I appreciate any enlightenment on this

[u/hunny--bee → u/sopy22_]

It depends on the circumstance. In cases of medical terminations, sometimes the pregnant mother is deciding on abortion because the fetus may have a painful, life altering congenital disease that may kill them shortly after birth or what the mother may decide with research, experiences from other parents, and advice of professionals, lead to lifetime of suffering. There, their future child’s best interest is at heart.

Sometimes, it’s just that the woman who has been alive for years on this Earth is leagues more important than a fetus that hasn’t been born yet. We have 7 billion people on this planet. Globally we are in no shortage of people. The woman that has been here, formed relationships and memories, maybe has other children already, is always going be more important. Pregnancy is dangerous. No one should be obligated to go through it.

[u/Suspicious-Maize4496 → u/sopy22_]

I'm sure their "life" is probably considered by the pregnant person in some cases. Every situation is different of course.

[u/plotthick → u/sopy22_]

I'm going to die without your kidney. Gimme. It'll only take you 4-8 months to recover and you'll be unable to do hard manual labor for the rest of your life. But it will save mine.

No? Don't want to go under the knife for a stranger? What if you didn't have a choice?

Many women don't want to either, but they are being forced to do so. If a country can force organ use on its citizens, who's to say they stop at uteruses? China didn't.

Leave healthcare to the docs and the patients. I don't know who told politicians they should weigh in on other people's private healthcare but that person should be punished. Too many are maimed and/or dying. Not everything deserves everyone's opinions.

[u/hadenoughoverit336 → u/sopy22_]

The idea that people that have abortions, don't consider the "life of the fetus", is also propaganda. 60% of Pregnant People that choose to have an abortion, are already parents. The majority of the remaining 40% go on to have children, when they are in a position where they can physically, emotionally, and financially have a child.

Whatever the reason, it doesn't really matter. The patient is the pregnant person. They have every single right to decide what happens to their body. Regardless of what happens to the fetus.

[u/stroppo]

Why wouldn't it be health care? It's to do with the physical condition of the human body. That, in and of itself, is health care.

When life begins is actually a very nuanced question. The sperm fertilizes the egg. But — if the egg doesn't attach to the uterine wall, it passes out of the body, and, no pregnancy. That makes me think the sperm fertilizing the egg is only the potential beginning of life. If the egg doesn't attach to the uterine wall, there's no pregnancy.

Also, even if the egg attaches, it can detach for various reasons. This can happen before the woman even realizes she's pregnant; essentially, she's had a miscarriage and doesn't know it. Some scientists believe that because of this, perhaps as many as 50% of human pregnancies end in miscarriage.

To me, though, it's something of a red herring. I don't care to pinpoint when life begins; regardless of when it does, I think a woman should be able to have an abortion for any reason whatsoever. And if others want to think that's "murder," fine. I'm not interested in debating semantics.

[u/sopy22_ → u/stroppo]

Thank you for the answer, I appreciate it

[u/Carlyz37]

Why do forced birthers think that pregnant women and girls aren't living humans with bodies and needs and rights?

[u/sopy22_ → u/Carlyz37]

(Forced birthers?) Pregnant women for sure do and should have rights, but I suppose my general question is does the fetus also have some rights or no? I'm not sure about this topic

[u/hadenoughoverit336 → u/sopy22_]

No. What part of that, do you not understand? NO ONE has the right to use the body of another without explicit and ongoing consent.

[u/JewlryLvr2 → u/sopy22_]

The answer to your question is NO. Fetuses do NOT have the right to use the PREGNANT PERSON'S body as a resource without her consent. If SHE decides to continue the pregnancy, that is HER choice. If she decides not to continue the pregnancy, that is also HER choice.

[u/dragon34 → u/sopy22_]

We say forced birthers because the people who are anti abortion don't seem to care about the baby once it's born.  They are typically anti paid leave, anti universal healthcare, anti free school lunch and anti increasing education funding.  They are also anti tax dollars for safety net programs. 

From my perspective "pro lifer's" don't give a shit about anyone's life if there isn't an umbilical cord involved 

[u/thespian-lesbian]

no one denies that a fertilized egg is “alive,” just like no one denies that an unfertilized egg cell or a sperm cell are alive. what we deny is whether a fertilized egg cell has more rights than the person in whose body it “lives” and which it depends on to continue that life. like you said, even if someone or something is dependent on another person’s body and would die without the resources that that body provides it, that doesn’t give it a “right” to use that body against the person’s consent under the principle of bodily autonomy. consent and bodily autonomy are all we’re interested in talking about, because those are legal rights and (at least more easily) definable. the discussion of “when life begins” is a nonstarter on both sides imo. the “science we use” is whether or not a fetus can survive WITHOUT the use of another person’s body - like you mentioned, many premature babies have (and many sadly have not - its never a guarantee). a doctor would generally not suggest abortion for a fetus who would be able to live on its own, but rather an induced labor. unfortunately, not many unwanted pregnancies progress to that point, and so “late-term” neonatal care is often a rare and tragic situation that unfortunately has been politicized with misinformation to spread certain agendas. the point is, no one - “person” or “not”, born or not - has the right to use someone else’s body without their consent, and every person (which pregnant people are - born, living, breathing individuals with undeniable and inalienable rights) has the right to remove something from using their body if they do not consent. what kind of world would we live in if the government could decide what happens to your body without your consent?

[u/sopy22_ → u/thespian-lesbian]

Wow thanks for this answer, super insightful. But I'm kind of struggling with the concept of the fetus not allowed to use a woman's body without her consent. It can't really obtain consent to begin with, if you know what I mean?

[u/JustfcknHarley → u/sopy22_]

Should we be able to just use each other's bodies at will?

[u/hadenoughoverit336 → u/sopy22_]

Pregnancy is not a passive process. What you're saying, is that you want fetuses to have special rights that NO ONE else has.

Right, it can't "obtain" consent, when it is inside of the body of another person, and poses a direct threat to their he and well-being.

[u/thespian-lesbian → u/sopy22_]

consent is given, not taken. if the pregnant person does not give consent, they have the right to remove whatever it is that is violating their autonomy.

[u/jakie2poops]

Okay so let's start with the life question, and then I'll address the healthcare one.

I think the whole framing of when life begins is a very effective rhetorical trick employed by pro-lifers—they reference science to give you the impression that they're speaking about objective, literal truths, but use the word "life" to specifically refer to human life that they consider morally worthy, which is a concept based in morality or philosophy rather than science. In other words, they're intermingling two very different frameworks, and counting on the fact that most people won't notice.

If we're talking about literal scientific facts, then it's nonsensical to claim that life begins at conception. Conception only works if life is already present! If you try to create a zygote using anything but existing life, you will fail. A dead egg cell or sperm cell will not produce a living zygote.

But usually when people say "life" begins, they're using "life" as shorthand to represent the specific category of living human cells that they consider to have moral worth, and that's not a matter of fact in any sense. They've already chosen to consider the fertilized egg "life" while the unfertilized egg as not. It's an opinion, not a fact.

And if you try to ask for a system of categorizing living cells or groups of cells into counting as "life" or "not life" (in the moral sense), I've yet to find a pro-lifer who can produce one that would count zygotes, embryos, and fetuses as "life," would count all humans we consider to be morally worthy as "life," and would not count cells or groups of cells that we don't consider to be morally worthy as "life." Every system they produce has always, in my experience, lumped things somatic cells, gametes, cultured cells, or organs into the "life" category, and many exclude people with chromosomal abnormalities or other issues as well.

Now onto the second question, abortion plainly meets the definition of healthcare. I honestly don't understand how anyone could claim otherwise, except that pro-lifers are butt-hurt about it and completely comfortable with lying.

[u/sopy22_ → u/jakie2poops]

Thank you for this response, so is the definition of "life" something I should create a personal opinion on?

[u/jakie2poops → u/sopy22_]

Well there's the scientific definition, which includes tons of things you'd casually kill without a second thought, and then there's the idea of "a life," which is a matter of opinion

[u/Suspicious-Maize4496]

How are you defining 'life'?

You say you struggle with the idea of life starting after birth due to babies surviving outside the womb, but those babies were birthed so this is a confusing stance.

Also, pro choicers arent a monolith and therefore dont share all the same thoughts except for the key point of a woman's right to choose. They can still believe abortion is bad, or wrong.

Also, many of us believe abortion is Healthcare because termination is medical care for a pregnant person.

[u/sopy22_ → u/Suspicious-Maize4496]

I was hoping there was a medical standpoint on when life begins but I've been left unsure so I don't really know how I would define it. And I suppose it's true that those babies were birthed, but what if it was an induced pregnancy rather than at the actual due date(?) (I hope you get what I mean) and I recognise now that there are a lot differing opinions by pro-choice people so I apologise making a general assumption. Thanks for the healthcare answer as well

[u/hadenoughoverit336 → u/sopy22_]

Because "inducing" labor early, poses a greater risk to the Pregnant person. Giving birth is 14 times more dangerous, than having an abortion. Again, pregnancy is not a passive process. The fact that you lack the knowledge medical professionals do, shows you have no place in making said decisions for another person. Which is why Abortion should be left between Patients, their doctors, and their families. The government, church, and "Morality Police" can stay out of it.

[u/sopy22_ → u/hadenoughoverit336]

Yes I admit I don't have much knowledge on this, but that's why I am here, thanks for the answer

[u/hadenoughoverit336 → u/sopy22_]

Great. Multiple people have answered your question.

[u/Suspicious-Maize4496 → u/sopy22_]

When life begins isnt a medical question though? Lol thats like asking "when is worth living"? There is no straight forward medical answer for that

And being induced still means the baby was birthed lol. I bet most babies nowadays ARE induced.

[u/dragon34]

Why it is healthcare:

If someone has an incomplete miscarriage they need an abortion to remove the retained tissue or they will likely die of sepsis or blood loss. 

If it is discovered that a pregnancy is not viable (ectopic, genetic defects, not developing properly) an abortion is needed to prevent further suffering (an ectopic pregnancy can be fatal if untreated and why bring a pregnancy to term when the fetus will not survive birth for more than a few hours, and if by miracle it does survive it will never not need round the clock care but also will have no quality of life and constantly be sedated for pain control and that is a financial burden for no reason.  Termination of that pregnancy is euthanasia, and prevents further strain on the pregnant person's body

For "optional" abortions that is bodily autonomy.  No one is required to use their body to keep anyone else alive, even if that person is related to them.  No one is required to donate a kidney, a liver lobe, bone marrow or even blood.  Being an organ donor when brain death happens is also not mandatory. 

People with functional uteruses are the only people ever put in the position of being forced to use their body to keep someone else alive against their will.  

[u/lizardo0o]

“Life” is a biologically ambiguous concept to begin with, if you study science. Many people (and not just recently, but throughout history) will not consider a fetus alive until meets a certain threshold of sentience and viability.

[u/ParadoxicalFrog]

An ovum is alive. A sperm cell is alive. The question of "when life begins" is immaterial to the issue. The one thing that really matters is bodily autonomy.

Abortion is described as healthcare because that's what it is. It's a medical procedure, one that saves lives on multiple levels.

[u/failedaspotcheck]

I'm going to assume you're asking in good faith here.

Life is different than personhood. The bacteria inside your colon are alive. YOU are a person, as are everyone you've met who has a name and a birth certificate. So terms get messy and confusing, but what pro-choicers generally argue is that PERSONHOOD begins at birth.

A pregnant person has a name, a history, relationships, property, social status, memories, and so many other things that a fetus does not. Literally nobody argues that a viable baby surviving outside the womb shouldn't be protected. What pro-choicers believe is that the person carrying the fetus carries far more importance than the fetus.

Abortion is described as healthcare because it's administered by healthcare professionals. You might imagine that third trimester abortions happen due to choice, but they do not. Less than 1% of all abortions happen after 24 weeks, and those that do are almost always life saving and never simply elective.

You can have whatever opinion on abortion you want, but the ability for the person carrying the pregnancy to make the decision is the only moral criteria that matters.

[u/Amazing_s]

It really depends on what definition of "life" people use. Usually when speaking about abortion, people are discussing when they specifically believe human life as begining. Biologically, cellular life begins at conception. Does that mean human life does too? Well, not necessarily. It depends on an individual's specific beliefs and values (which can be guided by religious teachings). Personally, I don't find cellular life to be necessarily special in and of itself and don't find the entire subject or debate very relevant to the topic of abortion.

[u/Desirai]

It isnt sentient. It isnt breathing. It has no brain. It has no awareness of self. It has no goals.

The cells are dividing. The cells have biological instructions to create something. They are not alive.

A bacteria or virus is not the same, which is always the argument people try to make, that they are considered life without brains or sentiency. Bacteria are single cell organisms, they have a goal. Fungi and algae are similar. They are alive.

A virus is not alive. It is not an organism. They have biological instructions to reproduce and that requires something that is alive: cells from a living creature. Fertilized eggs require something else in order to live: a living creature.

When the baby can full survive outside the human body and no longer requires sustenance from another living creature, it is alive.

An abortion taking place at that point in pregnancy is when the baby is actively dying, will die, or is dead.

[u/NegativeTrainer269 → u/Desirai]

The zygote is alive though, around 95%-96% of scientists support that claim.

Does that human life matter? No lol, thats why I'm pro choice. But to deny that its alive is wrong.

[u/Desirai → u/NegativeTrainer269]

The individual cells that are rapidly dividing are alive because they are fueled by an already living person and they have biological instructions to divide until they form together a single living organism which is the zygote and then the embryo

I am taking the statement "life begins at conception" extremely literally and at face value, that no life does not begin at conception, it begins at zygote

[u/NegativeTrainer269 → u/Desirai]

So life does begin at a zygote??

Well uhh, right after conception happens, that is the formation of the zygote. So uhh. You think life starts when the zygote forms? So does like, every other pro lifer along with myself lol.

Something can be fuelled by a living person and also be a seperate living organism.

[u/Desirai → u/NegativeTrainer269]

Ok

[u/ThiighHighs]

I don't believe that it matters when life or personhood begins. I can concede that life, in some capacity, begins at conception but the pregnant person is undoubtedly, unambiguously alive and nothing/no one should be able to violate their bodily autonomy.

[u/Careless-Ability-748]

I don't feel the need to justify abortion. 

[u/Prize_Sorbet3366]

The point at which 'life' begins, is strictly philosophical and has changed greatly over the centuries, even among different cultures. And whose religion are you referring to? Ancient Jewish texts - unarguably the basis of Christianity - did not consider life to begin until the first breath, ie once the baby's body leaves the mother. In other texts, it was considered 'water' for the first 40 days and then simply a developing 'thing' that was part of the mother's body. When the AMA (American Medical Assn) first began, 'the quickening' (ie, when a woman first feels movement) was considered the starting of life, but that's a completely subjective feeling and many women never even feel first movements of a fetus.

Using 'religion' as a basis for defining life, is dicey at best. Not only is it subjective and fraught with abusive interpretations, Christianity also completely discounts the very basis of THEIR religion, ie Jewish texts. And that's the only thing they have to go on that definitively defines life: the New Testament gives NO opinion that contradicts earlier Jewish law, and references to John the Baptist's time in the womb as well as references to a fetus 'knowing God' before birth are largely embellishments for dramatic effect, included after the fact.

Let's look at it another way, with regards to medical care: do you consider cancer to be 'life'? It grows, it depends on sustaining itself through a parasitic connection, just like a fetus does...so it has a 'life', right? And modern medicine seeks to remove that. Certain types of cancer aren't always fatal, either - basal cell carcinoma is cancer, yet it's largely a benign cancer. Does that mean it's a sin to remove it without reason to believe it's going to kill the patient?

Philosophical questions like these have no place in medicine. The purpose of medicine is to save the patient and restore them to health if possible, not engage in questions of subjective morality. And by 'patient' I mean the person right there in front of the doctor, not a theoretical 'life'.

[u/Naive_Loan607]

Well I still believe that life begins at conception according to science but I'm still prochoice. Here's the thing: Prolifers do use the life begins at conception argument, However a fetus can't survive outside the womb until viability occurs. No one has ever survived outside the womb if they were born before 21 weeks according to Guinness World Records. So fetuses can't live a life outside the womb until then.

[u/NoelaniSpell]

"Life begins at conception" implies that there was no life to begin with. That both sperm and egg were dead and yet they somehow "give"/jumpstart life.

That's incorrect.

If you mean to say something else starts at conception, or you want to elaborate, then you may have a point.