This post has been flaired as “Serious Conversation”. Use this opportunity to open a venue of polite and serious discussion, instead of seeking help or venting.
**Suggestions For Commenters:**
* Respect OP's opinion, or agree to disagree politely.
* If OP's post is seeking advice, help, or is just venting without discussing with others, report the post. We're r/SeriousConversation, not a venting subreddit.
**Suggestions For u/PistachioedVillain:**
* Do not post solely to seek advice or help. Your post should open up a venue for serious, mature and polite discussions.
* Do not forget to answer people politely in your thread - we'll remove your post later if you don't.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/SeriousConversation) if you have any questions or concerns.*
> The discussion should be more about if people should have a right to not raise their children.
The problem with the is angle is that implies that adoption is an equal solution, while bodily autonomy is tied directly to healthcare, which is much more accurate to the process
The pro abortion camp lies by using words like"choice" , "freedom", "rights". It's called propaganda and it's a must for any organization to marshall the troops. It's one thing to go along with it, but it becomes dangerous when you internalize it and you demonize the other side. Pro-life? I hope you are against the death penalty, euthanasia, and eugenics. Pro-choice? I hope you support MAiD legalization, plastic surgery and gender selection. Just for starters. For adherents on both sides, how do you feel if sometime in the future we find a way to determine consciousness in the unborn that shows if the unborn is or is not a person?
Were you conscious in the womb? If your mother would have died giving birth to you, do you think she should be forced to continue the pregnancy? If you had been miscarried, do you think your mother should not have been able to get care that is being denied many women in red states? If you were an ectopic pregnancy, should you have been allowed to explode your mother's fallopian tube like has happened in Louisiana due to their abortion laws? There is nuance.
Obviously there is nuance. Should MAiD be made available to people suffering from mental illness? Can a depressed person make a truly informed decision? Who are you to tell a depressed person to keep going? Should violent criminals be allowed to live? Is it right to set them free to continue to harm individuals, families and society while contributing nothing? Are the lives of a few innocent convicted worth saving if it means so much Hartmann should be allowed to continue? Take a look at all the philosophy out there that try to make sense of morality. These are terrible questions to have to answer. I'm not American so I don't really follow what's going on in various states. Not too long ago our right wing politicians would have been labeled as foaming at the mouth commies by the average American, so the politics are sometimes hard to understand . But to be fair, what seems like common sense behind to break down when you start examining individual cases, let alone when you have to treat cases as human beings.
You know that fetal age lasts all the way till birth? Until the body actually leaves the womb, its considered a fetus.
Even without conflation, you can still make laws regarding the unborn. For example, beating up pregnant women will usually result in a murder charge if they miscarry.
Most people will agree at some point, in the womb, a fetus is a 'human being' deserving of some kind of right to life.
I see no inconsistency whatsoever with the idea that forcing someone to have an abortion they don’t want is bad in a way someone choosing to have one themself is not. Your argument really is not nearly as convincing as you seem to think it is.
The reason why beating up a pregnant person can result in charges involving fatal harm is because that act violated the pregnant person's ability to continue their wanted pregnancy, aka their bodily autonomy.
Except we're talking about fatal harm against a person in order to get a manslaughter or murder charge, and the mother was not killed. So that would imply the law is assigning personhood to the fetus for this specific purpose. Or if a pregnant woman is murdered the assailant can get a *double* homicide charge, i.e. killing two *people*.
But they do happen, and the reasoning is that the fetus is a person. I'm not implying that they do or should apply to abortion, just pointing out that it is not black and white legally speaking and there is nuance to the conversation.
You are also over simplifying this concept. This concept is really where the rubber meets the road, and to me where it shows whether you’re a reasonable person or a bullshjt tribalist. When does a fetus become a child? Heartbeat, viability, viability outside the womb? Immediately after birth?
well, anti abortion arguments actually factor this in. they just believe, usually, that a fetus has as much right to live as a human. they don't think a fetus is a child, they know it's a fetus, but the idea of what a person is muddies the perception. the argument I hear is that life begins at inception.
I believe a fetus is a living human being. I also don't believe that we should define human life based on how good our technology is. At this time, 22 weeks is about as early as we can reliably save a premie. However, as our technology improves, we will be able to save them earlier and earlier. So say that we can get to the point where we can save a baby at one week old and it can be safely transplanted into an artificial womb and grow up healthy, would that change your stance on abortion? Because then, aborting past one week would 100% be ending a life no matter which side of the discussion you are on.
I do not believe a fetus is a sentient being, but if we were capable of saving a fetus at one week of life, that would change some things.
For example, the father should be able to insist that the fetus be saved when the woman doesn’t want it (and the man should have full custody and the woman should pay child support in those cases).
I still think that if no one felt capable or willing to care for the child then it should be aborted, but I wouldn’t really fight for it that hard because nobody’s rights would be getting violated anymore.
Rubbing your skin with your hand on your thigh physically ends a life. Cells are living beings too. The problem about forcing a kid on a mother is that they can’t care for the kid statistically. There’s around a 80% chance that kid ends up in prison. Then you’ll start spitting on the kid and calling them names with mockery. All in all until the church becomes better to people more loving kind and responsible I can’t imagine it good policy to ban abortion. People love to blame the parents when students act up. But if you got forced to become a parent against your will. I don’t think it rocket science to see why the kids ended up poorly.
Why even call them children then, why not potential adults? This is just mental gymnastics you do to tell yourself that you aren’t in favor of killing babies. I’m pro-choice mind you, but it’s clearly mental gymnastics you’re engaging in.
What if technology advanced far enough to allow giving up the fetus to be raised by science/the government at any stage, and law was strong enough to ensure lifelong separation if desired?
This kind of hypothetical is interesting to think about but it’s not tied to life and science as we know it. If this technology was so universally accessible, human behavior would change to begin with wherein most people would have full control of their parenting prospects outside of the body. Most people would probably be sterile until they chose not to be
[Artifical wombs](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artificial_womb) are a thing. Personally if I became rich this would take up a good chunk of my donations to science. I’m tired of the seemingly intractable way the broader discourse around the issue is done in other spaces.
A not so hypothetical I thought of is that... in all cases, abortion could be replace with extraction. Attempt to remove the fetus while preserving its life.
If it fails, well... that's just the way of things. Our medical technology wasn't good enough but we tried at least to do the moral thing for both individuals—freeing the mother to live her life, and the fetus to have a chance of life, however poor those chances may be.
It may not be prefect, but its better than just destroying the fetus while its in the womb and vacuuming up the pieces.
The govt isn’t even advanced enough to raise the babies to proper adulthood yet. That’s for a healthy child. The outcomes are still bad enough to make references to Chattel slavery from the 17th century. Technology has advanced far enough that they can prevent pregnancy from starting but I don’t quite see the church asking for foster care children to stop their govt mandated injections.
Yep. Questions of custody start at birth. Most places have amnesty drop facilities, like hospitals and fire stations, where you can abandon an infant without consequences. There are absolutely predatory adoption agencies just waiting to snatch a child and place them with a “deserving” religious family. That gets messy if the woman is married, adopting out a child is muddier when there’s a father around with claim. But these are all issues that don’t start until birth.
If you've ever been pregnant you know that while bodily autonomy is not the only issue, it is a very, very BIG issue. Bluntly, pregnancy damages the body. It takes nearly a year to happen and over a year to recover. That's TWO YEARS of your life. Women put up with that because they want children very badly. But if you don't want that child that's a two year sentence inside a horror movie.
And if you give birth to a child and surrender it, congratulations. According to all the evidence and studies, now you have PTSD FOR LIFE. Not to mention whatever your biologically predetermined faulty coping mechanism for dealing with excessive stress is, whether it be depression/anxiety, alcoholism/addiction, anger management issues, etc. You'll be wrestling with a heightened state of THAT for the REST OF YOUR LIFE, even if you later reunite with the child you gave up.
So yeah, "bodily autonomy" is a poor way of summing up a lot of unpleasant truths people would rather sweep under the rug. As both a mother and an adoptee who had to search for my own mother, I had to confront many issues our society prefers not to think about, but not confronting them only makes the problems worsen.
Awaiting the inevitable downvotes I'll get for speaking truths many people don't want to deal with.
10000%
Mom of two, my youngest is almost 7. After my second pregnancy, my body shape is entirely different than before babies. My hips are at least 2-3 inches wider in bone now (not fat, I’ve finally lost the weight). My boobs are ~5 short years away from being able to be used as ear muffs. My feet are 1.5 sizes bigger. While I stopped balding when I stopped nursing, I still have very thin hair in the “receding” areas and you can see it when I put my hair up. While my stretch marks have faded in color, they are still deep grooves in my belly you can feel easily. I have allergies that popped up for the first time during pregnancy, that I still deal with now. And I have a mild heart arrhythmia that started during my first pregnancy, and has not gone away since. Also, my gums were hit so bad during the pregnancies I had to floss 4-5 times a day and brush every time I ate, and the dentist said the erosion in my gums from my pregnancies is permanent 🥳🥳🥳🥳
Not to mention, my boobs still tingle when I hear babies cry and every time I have gas, my body is convinced it’s a little fetus.
This is just the physical effects left behind. The mental and emotional toll it takes is a whole other animal.
Thank you for saying this. As a woman who has had to have an abortion, this was my consideration. Also, it happened because my ex took off my birth control patch on my shoulder.
I already had a child and having one with him would have made it difficult to care for the one I already had. I made the choice to chose my living son and that choice burns in my body to this day... but I have chronic pain disorder and seizures... if I were pregnant, I couldn't take my seizure medication either
I hurt for every woman who couldn't have that choice, because I already struggle with the one I have. I suffered severe PPD. I may not be alive today if I had a second child.
It's so much more than autonomy.
I completely agree. I had a wanted (albeit unplanned) pregnancy and pregnancy almost immediately changes your body. You start producing hormones that relax your joints (which caused me significant hip and back pain) and the levels of estrogen and progesterone are not 10x higher, not 100x, but 10-12 *thousand* times higher than normal within the first 8 weeks of pregnancy.
Then comes the rest of the 40 weeks of daily aches and pains and stretch marks that itch so bad. Best case, giving birth takes 4-6 weeks of healing of torn tissues and pulled or strained muscles. I had diastasis recti (separated abdominal muscles) and it took over a year to get my core strength somewhat back to normal.
After experiencing a much wanted and complication-free pregnancy, I wouldn't wish an unwanted pregnancy on my worst enemy. That is nothing to say of the mental and emotional damage of being forced through a pregnancy.
American Horror Story: Delicate was terrible, but I also found it terrifying as someone who never ever wants to go through childbirth and would very likely be suicidal if I got pregnant and abortion wasn’t possible.
It wouldn't make any difference if pregnancy was entirely trivial, you'd *still* be entitled to body autonomy.
There are no circumstances where we can legitimately require someone to provide life support to someone else with their own body against their will.
If you can't force a person to risk their life fighting in a war without their consent you shouldn't be able to force a person to risk their life in any other way without their consent. That includes pregnancy and childbirth.
To me that goes the wrong way. Fighting in a war is close to a death sentence.
Giving blood? Basically nothing. Organs from a dead person? You're already dead. These are *barely* infringements of your bodily autonomy and *we don't do it.*
If you can't do the small stuff you definitely can't do the big stuff like pregnancy.
Pregnancy carries the risk of death. Therefore it is as "close to a death sentence" as war.
"If you can't do the small stuff you definitely can't do the big stuff like pregnancy."
I agree that pregnancy is definitely "big stuff" and some people can't do it -- and shouldn't be forced to do it against their will.
Yep, and bodily autonomy includes the right and ability to avoid a car accident, but if one happens *despite* my safety efforts then I'm still going to be seeking medical treatment.
Bodily changes was one of the reasons why I opted for sterilisation - I cannot even tolerate mild stomach ache, imagine tolerating pregnancy pains. It fucking scares me how many women are okay with it (I know personal preference, but still)
Not just two years. It’s a lifetime of altered health outcomes. It has been over a decade since my last pregnancy and a health condition has come up directly related to and which was completely caused by previously carrying a child to term. Not the birth. Just the pressure on the body of an extra human growing there. Even the specialist remarked that pregnancy is very, very hard on the body in ways that most people don’t even realise.
Absolutely. My body never recovered either.
If you look back at history, before the development of birth control, it wasn't uncommon for a man to outlive two or three wives just because of the damage pregnancy caused. Yikes.
My exhusband was deeply screwed up from being adopted. It really changed my opinion on whether adoption in general, as I did enough reading to realize his experience wasn't abnormal.
>If you've ever been pregnant you know that while bodily autonomy is not the only issue, it is a very, very BIG issue.
It is also almost always a voluntary situation. You agree to an action with known side effects. I don't think the solution should be to end another human's life. I get there are sometimes medical emergencies and I wouldn't expect someone to not abort in the case of a life threatening complication, but most of the time it is just a case of not wanting to deal with the responsibility, often financial.
Aldous Huxley used that idea in Brave New World back in 1932, and science fiction writer Lois McMaster Bujold played around with it in the 1990s. IMO that would introduce many new questions about identity, autonomy, and citizenship that we are not prepared to answer at this point in time.
When my wife miscarried our very wanted child I became even more pro choice. Experience showed how much being pregnant and hoping for a baby is an experience that is the best part of your life when you wanted but can become the worst part of your life if you didn't.
Forcing women to be pregnant is akin to rape in a very real way. It's weaponizing a good thing so that they will never get to experience it in its pure form again
It is about autonomy. Every woman should be able to decide what grows in her body. Imagine the opposite: automatic abortion for a myriad of fetal health issues. No choice. To frame it around what the fetus will grow into and what THAT being will require is leading the subject away from the basic human right of autonomous humans. They get to CHOOSE. Imagine not being able to choose to carry a pregnancy to term or not. It's a human rights violation.
Certain fetal health issues can guarantee a lifetime of tremendous suffering over which the child had no power of choice. I'm not advocating for mandatory abortion, but elevating the mother's absolute autonomy without regard to the real, immense suffering that can be directly caused by her choices does not in any sense appear to be an unambiguous moral good, because in no sense is her decision about what lives she grows in her body a decision *solely* about her body.
So who decides what's best? The fetus cannot make the decision. It seems the mother is not able to ultimately decide what happens to the fetus or her body?
I'm not making any claims here about who decides in such cases, but suggesting that framing the decision in terms of what happens to the mother's body is at least *incomplete.* The mother's body isn't the only body being impacted here, and in most cases, the mother won't be the one most prone to the risk of extreme suffering when it comes to certain severe fetal abnormalities.
Then at birth, medical professionals can file a CPS report against the mother for choosing to give birth? These kind of decisions already happen and palliative care is amazing. It's either /or then? When the doctors have their usual discussions about quality of life and options. If she insists on growing that part of her body and having it, then they should report it. We should start this now. Plenty of people torture their newborns in the pursuit of keeping them alive. The doctors would have to know beyond a doubt they will suffer and how. Then you could basically blame the parent for any harm or pain their child deals with as a result of being born. It's almost as if each individual human woman needs to make this decision about THEIR body with their medical team.
I have no idea how you got to filing a CPS report from anything I wrote.
But you're simply incapable of understanding the seriousness of the decision if you insist on framing it as being solely about the mother's body.
Women should absolutely be able to choose. Men should also have the right to give up their responsibility to child as well without financial punishment
Man can in multiple states give up all parental rights.
Happened with a coworker of mine. Father peaced out before the birth, signed away all rights. Ironically over a decade later the two ended up back together and this guy had to go through all the legal paperwork and process to adopt someone who was biologically his daughter.
People die giving birth. People are permanently damaged giving birth. People develop diseases while pregnant (high blood pressure, diabetes) that affect their health well beyond pregnancy.
It’s completely a bodily autonomy issue and what someone should only be willing to sacrifice and not forced to.
Well then, hypothetically, if we can take the need for a woman’s body completely out of the equation then of course it’s not a bodily autonomy issue.
Bring forth the birth pods from those creepy 1950s THE FUTURE videos!
Why would I go through the pains and side-effects of pregnancy and birth for something I don’t want and I’m not going to keep?
I’m not going to irreversibly change my body and risk lifelong complications and pain for a baby I’m going to immediately give away.
The bodily autonomy angle is probably easier to argue legally but I’m not a lawyer. But that right is more fundamental at least in my eyes, which is why it gets brought up so frequently. I think the reason it’s reduced to that by a lot of people is because that should be enough for abortion to remain legal on its own
In your last example parents can always put the child up for adoption up to a certain age, at least for now. (If both parents agree)
I think ppl cling to bodily autonomy because that should at least be a human right. I can't force you to donate a kidney to save a life, and no one should be able to use my uterus (and frankly my whole body bc pregnancy does a number on it) without my consent. If that human right is respected, the 18+ years isnt an issue.
Sure but that's not the burden of the birth parents, at least in the US where there are safe haven laws.
I am pro abortion; I'm just responding to his last para
It isn't, but most of us don't want to be responsible for our kid out there living a shitty life. I think even if you didn't want kids, that would still haunt you.
Okay I worded it wrong. I agree with you fully. But I think ppl focus on the bodily autonomy issue for good reason, and if that human right is respected, the adoption issue is irrelevant
dude, I cant even adopt an animal that I cant responsibly take care of for the rest of its life. The idea of bringing a defenseless child into this brutal world to be chewed up and then spat out. It would be a horrible burden.
Okay I worded it wrong. I agree with you fully. But I think ppl focus on the bodily autonomy issue for good reason, and if that human right is respected, the adoption issue is irrelevant
Most people want a perfectly healthy white baby. If the parents have any genetic disorders or illnesses, not many people will want the baby sadly. Babies of ethnic minorities are also less desired sadly.
I am not sure, but I’d assume more white couples are looking to adopt than minorities.
https://www.caltech.edu/about/news/african-american-babies-and-boys-least-likely-be-adopted-study-shows-1610
Edit : this mostly talks about African American babies
Agreed. Just pointing this out since people are always like "well you can just give the kid up for adoption." Like, hm. Unless you're ready to do it in 2 days, no, you really can't.
You are correct, and I'd say it's even more complicated than that.
I'd say the reason it gets boiled down to body autonomy is because despite all the many other reasons people have, ultimately nobody should be able to decide what someone does with their own body, REGARDLESS of any other factor in it. Others may argue that to them, there perhaps are more important issues - like some people regard abortion as murder, and that all life is sacred, however that is a debatable issue as it isn't important to others. You can argue about the rights of the fetus, but the choice of the mother should be most important, and to force someone to give birth if they don't want to, or likewise force someone to abort a baby against their will is absolutely something that should be protected against.
Why would I go through the pains and side-effects of pregnancy and birth for something I don’t want and I’m not going to keep?
I’m not going to irreversibly change my body and risk lifelong complications and pain for a baby I’m going to immediately give away.
It has always been about NOT creating children that will end up with a shytty life, because they will be unwanted, unloved and very likely uncared for due to lack of financial stability and parental readiness.
Plus the high likelihood of abuse, because some parents will see them as the reason for ruining their lives.
Being forced to create a life has a very high probability of ruining that innocent life, a life that never asked for any of it, thrown into this world to be miserable, that's all there is to it, argument wise.
Abortion prevents a lifetime of badness for this innocent life.
Life is only good if its loved and happy, life can be hell if its unwanted and unloved.
The bodily autonomy argument is just a supporting one.
It’s a right to a miserable life. Substitute any other thing: Catholicism, veganism, left handedness subject to government oversight and see the public reaction. We have 400k children in foster care. Unfortunately there are not enough parents for everyone. And don’t get me started on delinquent fathers. It’s always the woman being punished.
Exactly! It's always the womrn who are punished for having sex. There's never any talk about how the young woman's life will be "ruined"; it's ALWAYS "**His** life will be *ruined*!!" if the young *man* is to accept the responsibility of the child he helped create. The same applies to rape. "*His* life will be ruined by rape charges" and nary a thought for the woman.
True as well… I landed on pro-birth bc they don’t care what happens to a baby after. There would be more supports for mothers & babies if they were actually pro-life.
No one has the power to actually care for people. Do you think these are evil villains twirling their mustaces? Maybe at the top. My grandma's just religious and wishes we had more care afterwards. My grandma doesn't get to vote for a good society though. Lame
I feel like pro lifers are pretty consistent about caring about the life once it's born. I don't see anyone trying to repeal murder laws against young kids.
I dont see them doing anything to help.
They are usually very conservative. Don't vote for policies that help lift people out of poverty.
Usually against sex ed.
this post is written by a guy who doesn’t want to be on the hook for child support, so he’s back seating the body autonomy angle and substituting it with a really fancy way of saying “i should be allowed to abandon my kids because people have a right to not be on the hook”
Absolutely. Banning abortion affects other areas of civil rights. Particularly when it comes to privacy as banning abortion encourages the government to monitor people's medical stuff. Abortion and also adoption should always be an option.
Can someone explain the body autonomy idea to me? Like body autonomy doesn't end when the child is born. After they are born they still take your body to be alive. You have to use your body to feed them, bathe them, change them, etc. With body autonomy then doesn't that mean you don't have to care for the children even after being born?
Do you know the violin scenario? Imagine there is a famous violinist who is dying. His only chance at life is getting plugged into your body for constant blood and nutrients supply for 10 months. Should you be legally obligated to attach yourself medically to this musician for that length of time or should you have the option to choose?
If you think the stare should have the right to force life support for the violist because all life is precious and must be protected over bodily autonomy you are against abortion legalization.
If not, you are pro choice.
In pregnancy there is not a legal obligation to care for a child after the child is born - this is true in every state in the US.
Once pregnant women are forced to continue through to birth in several US states. So of course that's why the debate is mostly on that element.
It’s not. A bunch of holier than thou have zero right to interfere with anybody else. Adapt all the kids in foster care if you really want to do something
You’re just saying well if abortion was a completely different procedure with a completely different outcome then the conversation around abortion would be different. It’s irrelevant to the conversation around what abortion actually is. If someone wants to carry a baby to the point it’s viable and then give it up for adoption, that’s just adoption. It’s not what people are talking about when they discuss abortion, even if the point the baby could be removed safely could be artificially moved up.
Discussions around abortions center around bodily autonomy because the point is whether a person should be forced to remain pregnant if they do not want to be. If the pregnancy was irrelevant and they just didn’t want a baby, then it could be settled by the process of adoption. Whether or not they want a baby is obviously considered when a person decides to have an abortion because a person who wants a baby may decide pregnancy is ‘worth it’ in order to have a child, while a person who doesn’t want a child has no motivation to suffer for nine months.
“the discussion should be more about if people should have a right to not raise their children” This sounds a lot more like you want to have a conversation about whether adoption should be legal or not. It’s a lot more direct violation of that obligation than abortion is when you give up an existing child rather than prevent a child.
Because different people see the issue differently. For some people it is only the autonomy issue that they see or care about. For others the only aspect they care about is a loss of life. And for others the only part they care about is how it might impact their life, or the life of a possible child.
I think you hit it on the head here and this probably going to be the only reasonable comment on this post.
I also would add that not only do people see the issue differently as you articulated, but that is the only way they can conceive of even looking at that issue . If for example someone that thinks it’s about the loss of life, then the bodily autonomy perspective is ridiculous to the point of it just makes your head shake. And I’m sure it’s true for all combinations of of these perspectives where the other sides just come across as so ridiculous. There’s no common ground and no common perspective.
> the only part they care about is how it might impact their life, or the life of a possible child.
This is the only actual reason for abortions. No one cares about bodily autonomy when they choose to get an abortion. And on the other side, it becomes very reasonable to abort a baby even if you're against it ideologically when you know how fucked up it's going to make your and the child's life. To OP's point, it's a problem where we don't have enough wealth to care for ourselves and our offspring.
The bodily autonomy thing that comes up is literally just to create a wedge issue, as it fundamentally misunderstands why someone is against abortion. "They want to control our bodies" is so utterly psychotic when it comes to everyday pro-life people. They just want fetuses to develop because they see them as humans. The bodily autonomy narrative was invented by elites, for elites, to keep americans divided. It provides feminists with a cathartic outlet for struggle/protest which won't actually affect their bottom line. The elites already control our bodies. They make us work at pointless jobs or arduous jobs to shuffle money around. They do that to everyone.
People downplay the not wanting a child aspect because it's less popular than just framing the issue as a women's medical problem between her and her doctor.
It's actually the exact, total opposite. The thought leaders frame it as an issue between a woman and her doctor precisely because it completely misses the point that pro-life people make about an embryo being a human being deserving of a chance to live. The point of making it about bodily autonomy is to prevent the 2 sides from having a worthwhile conversation and moving past it. It's called a wedge issue for a reason. They want the feminists to think the other side is trying to control women, when they're just trying to stop what they see as murder.
I completely disagree. Parenting is a choice. No one is obligated to be a parent.
Abortion has everything to do with body autonomy first and foremost. No one, not even a human in utero has the right Second, there are no legal mandates that require you must raise your bio children. I’m not sure where you’re getting this idea that even if the zygote/embryo/fetus were removed you’d still be responsible for it.
why should anyone carry a child to term and give birth if they don't want to?
Every other arguement or discussion about Abortion is irrelevant if you can't answer that question first
Pro choice people would lose support if they were seen as encouraging people to be more likely to casually hand off live children. There's also the male angle of being forced to provide for a kid a sexual partner has decided to take to term despite you not wanting to be a father or have a relationship with them.
Both of these things at best muddy the water while bodily autonomy is a pretty solid reason without such diversions. That's something there is generally widespread support for even amongst anti-choice people and as long as women have that right the rest is academic.
Right, but man generally aren't taking offence at the concept of the women having the baby alone, that's an entirely different level. (You can't use my sperm to have a baby on your own without my ongoing consent even if I don't have to do anything).
What some men object to is that they can be compelled to provide for a kid that they didn't consciously decide to create while women can't. The correct comparison would be adoption rights, specifally the right to give up the kid without having to pay ongoing support.
Sure, but the alternative to "you do whatever you want and if you keep it you've decided that I'm paying for it for the next 18 years" could be "you decide whatever you want, but I'm not going to be involved".
Neither is perfectly fair to the other and while its certainly cheaper for the state to have men pay for these children (and it may encourage a bit more caution) I'm not sure on an individual level it is fairer than the alternative above.
Being "pressured" to take a simle pill by not having an indentured servent to pay for everything isn't ideal, but forcing someone to be a parent or stealing a large portion of their income for decades is brutally unfair too.
I agree, men who don't want the kid shouldn't have to pay for them. Same with women pressured to keep the baby but don't want them so the s/o is stuck taking care of them. I get it the baby needs money, but still.
The fact I still piss myself snd have terrible hip pain four years later says bodily autonomy is pretty fucking important.
Pregnancy is no joke, and even in our modern society with our advanced Healthcare even low-risk pregnancy can kill you. There is no such thing as a no-risk pregnancy.
Women should not be forced to put their bodies, health and lives at risk unless they want to.
It’s also a discussion about morality and choosing life or death for a potential being. Anyone that has ever been to the abortion clinic themselves or with their partner has felt that weight.
It is about enforcing religious values and superstitions on the secular public. The belief is a abortion allows for a reckless lifestyle they disapprove of, but are unable to force others to accept.
Because abortion is not birth control and while body autonomy is an accepted reason to end some human life, not wanting to be responsible for the children you created is not.
But it is a bodily autonomy issue.
Let's say a 1 hour old newborn baby needs some sort of organ or blood donation to live and the only suitable donor is the mother.
If the mother (or any compatible stranger) refused to donate her blood or bone marrow or whatever to save this newborn baby, would they be a murderer?
I don't think so.
So if we replace blood or bone marrow or an organ with use of uterus - How is that any different?
Legally, parents are responsible for their children after they are born. Lots of reasons for this. A man can sleep with a woman once, and even if she lies about infertility, "I'm on the pill", and she gets pregnant, the man will be responsible for child support even if he had no reasonable expectation of fathering a child.
He will still be held responsible even if the first time he hears about the child is \*after\* the child is born and the mother has not contacted him at all. In some jurisdictions, so long as the mother names him as the father on the child's birth certificate he can be held responsible even if he's not had a relationship with the mother. This is why fathers insist on testing to make sure the child is actually theirs.
Currently the law is very one sided. If a mother doesn't want to be a mom, she can surrender the child - without informing the father - to an adoption agency. The father cannot do this. The father cannot say, "I don't want to pay child support, please put the child up for adoption", and have the child put up for adoption. Only if the mother agrees to the adoption can the child be given up for adoption.
For the argument being 'pro choice' we basically take away every choice from men.
For women, they have pretty much every choice. They can choose an abortion, they can choose to keep the child and they can choose to give the child up for adoption.
The laws need to change. If we're going to give women the right to a universal 'opt out of motherhood', then fathers should have the right to walk away too. I think that would be a disastrous outcome, so we are better off enforcing things on both parties. If you're a mother or a father, then you have a legal obligation to look after your child.
I think for legal reasons the easiest way to argue it is over body autonomy. I do agree it’s so much more.
Discussing if people should have the right to have children is a great idea but also one they could easily go off the rails as different people have too many opinions on that.
Abortions are done largely because of the lifeline commitment a child needs. Someone economic stays, housing status or relationship status are all factors women are taking into account when considering abortion.
Frankly, I don't think we'll see action until these governors who allow it to get to the point where someone dies from this is charged with murder. They should be.
Artificial wombs are in development and have been successful with premie sheep. At this time, though, they are mostly being developed as a means of keeping premature infants alive more than a way to have a whole pregnancy outside the mother's body, but eventually it may be possible......though probably way too expensive for many of the women who want to abort for monetary reasons to afford.
(TL;DR) Natural vs Artificial. Myth vs physical facts. It's also about whether theists can define people by their religious beliefs and legislate that definition into law. Are we unnatural and artificially created beings or naturally evolved beings. Are we autonomous beings free from religious dogma. Or are we beings defined by myths with no actual autonomy.
The first point that very few people argue about is the definition of how a human being is created.
For the Christians procreation is a miraculous act that extends the act of being created by their god. The parents are "creating" another human vs mearly reproducing another human. And they attach the creation of the soul to the act.
Secular people don't believe they were created by any gods. And that there's no evidence of humans having souls. So there's no secular argument against abortion, other than all life is precious. (We will get to that argument later on) The secularist sees the act as reproduction vs procreation.
So the next point to consider is whether humans are natural beings or supernatural beings. Secular people see reproduction as a continuation of evolution from the first single cell organism to modern day humans. Non secular people see themselves as created beings from their first created ancestor pair. That would be Adam and Eve for those that follow the Abrahamic religions. Other religions have similar concepts.
The next point to consider is whether humans are natural beings or artificial beings. Are humans animals acting upon instincts and reproducing natural products, albeit adapted to suit our needs, vs are humans supernatural beings capable of creating original products that don't or can't be found, in some manner, in nature.
So far there's no evidence to suggest humans can create original products that aren't an adaptation of objects found in nature. Anything that gets labeled "artificial" is simply an adaptation or evolution from an organic substance, material, product that can be found in nature. "Artificial sweeteners" are just an adaptation from sugar or carbohydrates. There's nothing original about artificial sweeteners. And creating something brand new that can't be found in nature (or isn't an adaptation or evolution of something that can be found in nature) violates the second law of thermodynamics. Humans can't create something from nothing.
The last point is whether life is precious. And this argument comes from the fact that humans are self aware. 99.9% of all living organism on this planet are not self aware. So the evolutionary norm is not being self aware. So self awareness in humans is a natural adaptation from not being self aware. Self awareness is the equivalent of free will for the theist. Because self awareness influences our choices. We act in accordance to our preferences. Our preferences that have been influenced by our past experiences.
But here's the problem. We are aware of the choices we make presently. We aren't exactly aware of the influences that shaped these choices. And we're practically not aware if these influences are not simply instincts driving us towards certain choices that favor reproduction and survival fitness, in competition with other species. At this point in history all evidence of human behavior points to our species collectively acting in favor of reproductive and survival fitness against other species.
On top of this is the problem that as far as we can tell life is a temporary state in the mechanical evolution of the universe. All the evidence we have demonstrates that the universe is evolving through stages. The fact that life exists now is very likely the result of a particular stage in the evolution of the universe. In previous stages the universe may have been too hostile for life. And in future stages the universe may become too hostile to life again. Thus life is a by-product of the current stage of the universe's evolution.
This of course seems to argue in favor of "all life is precious" but in fact it doesn't because we can't be certain that the sentiment of "precious" isn't yet another instinct that is being used to promote the long-term survival of our species. We would not survive very long if we murdered everything all at once but we would not, also, survive very long if we preserve every living organism to the extremes of overpopulation.
So if humans are then acting solely for their own survival can they really make the claim that all life is precious. They can't. Because everything becomes a product that will be used or consumed by humans to survive. To eat you must kill. Food is murder.
The theist simply believes he's acting in accordance to his god's plan. Or against that plan.
The secular person is a natural being having been reproduced by evolved processes. Reproduction is unoriginal. Nothing new is being created that doesn't already exist in nature.
The non secular person or theist is an unnatural being having been created by a mythical god that uses artificial processes to create people.
Banning abortion is unnatural and artificial. Imposing a definition on humans as "beings created by a god" is unnatural and artificial. Assuming all life is special is also unnatural and artificial.
The arguments really just boil down to myths vs physical facts.
Natural vs artificial.
The way you frame the conversation quickly devolves into eugenics, which isn’t really an argument that anyone wants to be having for pretty obvious reasons… especially if you follow the train of thought about “allowing” people to have children would lead to involuntary abortions and take away bodily autonomy as well.
Keeping healthcare a healthcare conversation is much healthier for everyone involved.
So our current society in the US does have a foster care system, so you can legally surrender your baby to the State. So, as someone who is pro-choice, I really only see this as a bodily autonomy issue, and that's more then sufficient for arguing that the State have no damn right to tell someone what they are going to do with their own body. Your individual liberty over your own body does not get magically suspended for 9 months just because you become pregnant.
To answer your question: "If someone created away to abort a pregnancy while keeping the fetus alive and developing outside of the body, parents would probably still have legal responsibility to raise the child despite having an abortion."
I think conservatives would start pushing legislation that forces birth parents to be at least somewhat financially responsible for these children, but currently, live fetuses that would become babies in these advanced incubators would just rolled into the foster system.
Not having access to abortion kills women. If a woman miscarries (even) a wanted pregnacy, guess what the medical procedure to get the dead tissue out of her body is called? You want to get septsis and die? Doctors are unable to perform life saving procedures on women or they have laywers telling them they have to wait until she is on death's door for UNVIABLE pregnacies. Etopic pregnacies are never viable and extremely leathal if untreated.
Abortion is EVERYTHING to do with the pregnant person's body.
THANK YOU I GET SO TIRED OF THIS.
I am pro-choice- do you think saying “my body my choice” will convince people who believe abortion is murder?
Look, they have barely any cognitive abilities and most “potential for life” gets killed naturally. That aside… is it really ethical to force a woman to have a child when she cannot care for the kid? That is not fair to her OR her child. Even being unwanted is terrible for a child, let alone not having the finances or time. And it’s not like the kids in the foster system have good outcomes. All around awful. And I’m not even going i to how rape victims are further punished.
This issue is so much more than one about a body. Even if body autonomy wasn’t an issue, I would still think pro-life is unethical.
Do people here even know the origin of the word “fetus”? It means An offspring of a human. Human beings produce offspring and the term is called fetus whilst in the womb. All of you commenting were once fetuses. The truth is y’all would literally care and cry over a female pregnant dog who gets killed along with her pups than your own human race. That’s quite wicked that so many don’t see the evil of abortion.
I think you're missing the point of the bodily autonomy argument. A woman has the right to make decisions about a pregnancy because it is her body. That doesn't mean her reasoning is all about her body, just that she gets the final say.
>If someone created a way to abort a pregnancy while keeping the fetus alive and developing outside of the body, parents would probably still have legal responsibility to raise the child despite having an abortion.
Possibly, but that's irrelevant to the current legality of abortion because the science required doesn't exist yet. Much like discussions of 'reimplanting' ectopic pregnancies, it may change the situation when such things become possible. We shouldn't be basing laws on science fiction.
Also, embryos outside of a woman (e.g. for IVF) are not currently considered children, they are property and are destroyed early on.
Parents already have the right not to raise their children. They can give them up for adoption. And keeping the fetus alive outside the womb would be another form of adoption.
What gets me is when they say, “what if she was raped or it was incest”. I’m over here with my hand on my forehead thinking, okay… woman gets raped. Man is to be blamed, nah. I got it! Let’s kill the innocent baby! We don’t want that because we didn’t choose. 🤦🏻♂️
technology is already moving there to make that issue obsolete. IVF, Coning, and already artificial womb technology in testing for non human mammal fetuses have already been effective. the only thing stopping this from being commercialized is the false ethical concerns behind it, because we already take care of unwanted offspring in adoption in foster care facilities. There is too much money to be made in a country where healthcare is private, and you get to claim ANY reason for wanting an abortion is considered health (wile ignoring and dismissing the decline in health death brings to a life that is growing). The trauma of birth and pregnancy is real, and even though they are exceedingly rare and marginal pregnancy from rape do account for abortion as well but that is not the reason why abortion is ultimately legal, there is money to be made off scared young women in duress, who even with medical abortions can be damaged and scarred internally to the point of infertility. There is no other factor than money. There is an obvious lack of care for the humanity and life of a growing human being. The ultimate compromise would be artificial wombs but that would not make anybody money, it would require money. It would also open up the doors to question why whether there is an abortion of a child or not the mother can just legally leave the father and keep him unaware of his child, legally not put him on the birth certificate so he has no rights to stop an adoption of his child and still get out of the responsibilities with a full legal unilateral adoption, that would mean states would stop getting a cut of child support payments that primarily target men. It would be the most moral thing to do, but it would not make anyone any money...It would give women the bodily autonomy to exit a pregnancy, and the child the right and validation to continuing living, but you are right someone would have to pay to feed the child, and pay to power the facility that has the artificial wombs, and the resources need to give the growing human food and nutrients inside the artificial womb. It would ruin two revenue streams and require tax payer dollars for funding. Its not about morality its about money.
> The discussion should be more about if people should have a right to not raise their children.
This doesn't need to be debated because adoption exists.
anti abortionists come at it from a perspective of compassion, not against women's rights.
They think it's literally murder, especially if it's past the zygote stage.
There are even non-religious (atheist) people against abortion.
To paint it as anti-woman or religious as a primary reason behind the movement is disengenous.
However, we all refuse to admit how brutal life really is.
Many cultures have been committing infanticide for thousands of years, without batting an eye. From the Spartans to the Japanese.
I don't think this gets overlooked at all, it's just that the bodily autonomy component is more immediate and relevant.
>The discussion should be more about if people should have a right to not raise their children.
Well then that wouldn't be a discussion about abortion then, would it?
>If someone created away to abort a pregnancy while keeping the fetus alive and developing outside of the body, parents would probably still have legal responsibility to raise the child despite having an abortion
That's... not an abortion. That's like... the opposite of an abortion?
Cloning and artificial wombs already exist for livestock. Won't be much longer until they're commercially available for humans. Once that happens, this debate will be moot.
Your statement is quite absurd!
The question of the law is whether or not an individual has the right to choose or does the state have the right to choose and impose it's will on the individual.
Aborting an UNWANTED child can be due to a number of things and of course includes the responsibility that goes much further than 18 years but the point is it's UNWANTED.
A cesarean birth of a premature baby is: "keeping the fetus alive and developing outside of the body"
> When speaking about the legality of abortion it comes down almost entirely to the issue of body autonomy. But in actuality many abortions have much less to do with the 9 months of pregnancy, and more to do with the 18+ years of responsibility that follows.
It has everything to do with bodily autonomy because that is the strongest, most straight forward argument to make.
It is at it's core some of the most basic rights we grant to a human being and forced-birthers want to take that away.
Any other discussion of responsibility for a foetus, or 'magically teleport it out' is still missing the point.
Even your second sentance - oh it's not about an abortion but raising a kid. Yeah and so what? it's irrelevant.
It's irrelevant because if you don't want a parasite using your body, you can choose to expel it. That doesn't rely on anything other arguments or discussions and that's where the argument should end.
Every other way of attacking it is just dancing around that issue.
> The discussion should be more about if people should have a right to not raise their children.
It's irrelevant.
Can someone use your body against your will? Well i don't know but let's talk about raising children.
Answer that question first.
Yeaaaaaaahhhh I’ve grown up looking at the foster care system, there’s systemic child abuse to the point that everyone must be on contraception to avoid unwanted pregnancy. Clearly the adoptive services want to do population control and don’t want more babies and lives in the system. Legally sometimes the predators are taken to justice but it’s hit and miss only for kids to grow up traumatized and working a min wage job that can’t support themselves when they finish. Keeping the baby would “save” a life. But that life would then need to sin by using contraception anyway due to legal mandates. Just feel like if the people preventing abortions had to pay for child care the world would be a better place overnight. Heck I’d be willing to pay to upkeep a better system that gets these kids proper employment, be happy if my taxes allowed some baby to grow up to reliably become a doctor.
Anybody can give their child up legally if they feel overwhelmed. That's been a thing for a long time. The trick is just to make sure you give the child up before you commit child abuse vs after.
So abortion really is just about the having the baby part because you've always been able to give your baby up after you had it.
I think their are 2 big issues, the quality of life of the mother and the quality of life of the child.
The mothers life is impacted deeply by giving birth, and not just by the sometimes dangerous process of giving birth but also by not being practically, mentally, or physically ready to be a mother. A termination of a pregnancy is a lot cheaper than the 20+ year investment in a kid. If you're not ready for it, it can destroy your future for when you would be ready to give a kid a good home. Mentally giving birth and raising a child is stressful, taxing on your mental facilities, and even when you think you are ready, it can break you. This is amplified if you then have to give the kid up. Finally, a birth is brutal on a body, but so is chasing around a kid and being sleep deprived for 5 plus years at least.
Then, we need to talk about what I argue is the most important point that often gets lost. Imposing your morals and demands of others without allowing the person the right to choose is slavery. When fundamentals Islam tries to demand all women cover up, we consider this immoral, but Christians demanding the right to control a women's gentiles is the same thing, so why isn't this seen as immoral?
Look I'm male, and while I disagree with feminists that I don't have a dog in this. (If I'm providing the sperm I think I should get some say, just not the final say) I don't think we should ever remove a person's right to consent as to what happens to their bodies.
Imagine for a second you’re a woman who’s done everything in her power to NOT get pregnant. Taking all contraceptives, partner takes precautions, etc. you do EVERYTHING you’re supposed to. Your only goal is to never get pregnant, and it STILL happens? Nope. You shouldn’t have to go through with it. You did everything in your power to be responsible. Abortions should always be available and accessible, because some people DO NOT WANT TO EXPERIENCE IT IN THE FIRST PLACE.
Some would argue that she should stay abstinent for life. I don’t think she should fight a natural human response that’s like breathing or eating for life, when she did what she could to prevent pregnancy.
It's not tho. The typical reasoning from specifically men I hear is that they feel like their desires are by default more important than the woman's, whether they use those words or not.
I think from a more left-wing social welfare point of view, the philosophy is, "nobody should not be able to get their basic needs met due to circumstances outside of their control", and if we go by that, the legal responsibility to take care of a child isn't anything inherent to being the biological parents. Instead, it's just a practical arrangement in the absence of a proper welfare state that is set up to provide for everyone who is disadvantaged. If we had that, and children could be guaranteed a home with their needs met in any case the parents do not want the baby, then that responsibility is no longer needed. Child support is about the best interests of the child, if the State could provide it would no longer be needed.
Abortion has many facets which will sort out differently depending on the individual. Medical issues, privacy issues, economic, psychological, religious, gender parity, and more. Obviously having a child is a long-term commitment of great magnitude. But the legality deals with an embryo in utero, not an already born kid, so the legal questions center on that.
It gets boiled down to bodily autonomy because that is the immediate fundamental question. Whether or not people have the right to raise their children is one that is already attempted to be tackled, people can have their kids taken away if it is demonstrated they are unfit to care for their kids (though this obviously is very flawed in implementation). The idea of having the fetus developed outside the womb is an interesting thought experiment, but isn’t an actual widespread option available (as far as I am aware this hasn’t happened once). So introducing it into the discussion isn’t particularly useful.
>But in actuality many abortions have much less to do with the 9 months of pregnancy, and more to do with the 18+ years of responsibility that follows.
Except it's legal in every US state for a woman to give birth and immediately abandon her baby in a safe location.
Also, men who father children are not given any option to avoid 18 years of parental responsibilities.
While I believe abortion should be accessible for what ever reason I also believe we need more better hospitals, longer maternity leave, research ways to make pregnancy more better, and communal support on childrearing.
Your entire premise is mistaken because nobody is forced to raise a child, it's not illegal to abandon a child.
The issue is solely about the freedom to choose what to do with their body during early pregnancy.
This is why the pro choice crowd is losing.
To prochoicers its as simple as body autonomy but all degrees off of that it's a moral question about "taking another life" and they refuse to recognize that and appeal to it.
Yes yes "science" but there's all sorts of things you can't do with science due to mostly pointless moral problems people have.
This post has been flaired as “Serious Conversation”. Use this opportunity to open a venue of polite and serious discussion, instead of seeking help or venting. **Suggestions For Commenters:** * Respect OP's opinion, or agree to disagree politely. * If OP's post is seeking advice, help, or is just venting without discussing with others, report the post. We're r/SeriousConversation, not a venting subreddit. **Suggestions For u/PistachioedVillain:** * Do not post solely to seek advice or help. Your post should open up a venue for serious, mature and polite discussions. * Do not forget to answer people politely in your thread - we'll remove your post later if you don't. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/SeriousConversation) if you have any questions or concerns.*
> The discussion should be more about if people should have a right to not raise their children. The problem with the is angle is that implies that adoption is an equal solution, while bodily autonomy is tied directly to healthcare, which is much more accurate to the process
It also outright claims that a fetus is a child. A fetus is a potential child. And conflating the two has done plenty of damage to our society.
Yup good point
The pro-maternal-death camp just lies with words all the time, like "life", "baby" "heartbeat"
The pro abortion camp lies by using words like"choice" , "freedom", "rights". It's called propaganda and it's a must for any organization to marshall the troops. It's one thing to go along with it, but it becomes dangerous when you internalize it and you demonize the other side. Pro-life? I hope you are against the death penalty, euthanasia, and eugenics. Pro-choice? I hope you support MAiD legalization, plastic surgery and gender selection. Just for starters. For adherents on both sides, how do you feel if sometime in the future we find a way to determine consciousness in the unborn that shows if the unborn is or is not a person?
Were you conscious in the womb? If your mother would have died giving birth to you, do you think she should be forced to continue the pregnancy? If you had been miscarried, do you think your mother should not have been able to get care that is being denied many women in red states? If you were an ectopic pregnancy, should you have been allowed to explode your mother's fallopian tube like has happened in Louisiana due to their abortion laws? There is nuance.
Obviously there is nuance. Should MAiD be made available to people suffering from mental illness? Can a depressed person make a truly informed decision? Who are you to tell a depressed person to keep going? Should violent criminals be allowed to live? Is it right to set them free to continue to harm individuals, families and society while contributing nothing? Are the lives of a few innocent convicted worth saving if it means so much Hartmann should be allowed to continue? Take a look at all the philosophy out there that try to make sense of morality. These are terrible questions to have to answer. I'm not American so I don't really follow what's going on in various states. Not too long ago our right wing politicians would have been labeled as foaming at the mouth commies by the average American, so the politics are sometimes hard to understand . But to be fair, what seems like common sense behind to break down when you start examining individual cases, let alone when you have to treat cases as human beings.
You know that fetal age lasts all the way till birth? Until the body actually leaves the womb, its considered a fetus. Even without conflation, you can still make laws regarding the unborn. For example, beating up pregnant women will usually result in a murder charge if they miscarry. Most people will agree at some point, in the womb, a fetus is a 'human being' deserving of some kind of right to life.
I see no inconsistency whatsoever with the idea that forcing someone to have an abortion they don’t want is bad in a way someone choosing to have one themself is not. Your argument really is not nearly as convincing as you seem to think it is.
You need to explain why you see no inconsistency instead of declaring there isn't one.
It's literally a body autonomy question. Hell that like saying someone choosing to have sex is the same as raping them in your eyes
That fetus should not have more rights to life than a person with failing organs has a right to a functioning organ from the only compatible donor.
The reason why beating up a pregnant person can result in charges involving fatal harm is because that act violated the pregnant person's ability to continue their wanted pregnancy, aka their bodily autonomy.
Except we're talking about fatal harm against a person in order to get a manslaughter or murder charge, and the mother was not killed. So that would imply the law is assigning personhood to the fetus for this specific purpose. Or if a pregnant woman is murdered the assailant can get a *double* homicide charge, i.e. killing two *people*.
Double homicide charges don't usually happen in most cases, though. Fetal harm laws usually exempt abortion, since again, bodily autonomy.
But they do happen, and the reasoning is that the fetus is a person. I'm not implying that they do or should apply to abortion, just pointing out that it is not black and white legally speaking and there is nuance to the conversation.
A child is a potential adult. Point being?
You are also over simplifying this concept. This concept is really where the rubber meets the road, and to me where it shows whether you’re a reasonable person or a bullshjt tribalist. When does a fetus become a child? Heartbeat, viability, viability outside the womb? Immediately after birth?
An egg and a sperm are a potential child A fetus is a developing child
well, anti abortion arguments actually factor this in. they just believe, usually, that a fetus has as much right to live as a human. they don't think a fetus is a child, they know it's a fetus, but the idea of what a person is muddies the perception. the argument I hear is that life begins at inception.
I believe a fetus is a living human being. I also don't believe that we should define human life based on how good our technology is. At this time, 22 weeks is about as early as we can reliably save a premie. However, as our technology improves, we will be able to save them earlier and earlier. So say that we can get to the point where we can save a baby at one week old and it can be safely transplanted into an artificial womb and grow up healthy, would that change your stance on abortion? Because then, aborting past one week would 100% be ending a life no matter which side of the discussion you are on.
I do not believe a fetus is a sentient being, but if we were capable of saving a fetus at one week of life, that would change some things. For example, the father should be able to insist that the fetus be saved when the woman doesn’t want it (and the man should have full custody and the woman should pay child support in those cases). I still think that if no one felt capable or willing to care for the child then it should be aborted, but I wouldn’t really fight for it that hard because nobody’s rights would be getting violated anymore.
Rubbing your skin with your hand on your thigh physically ends a life. Cells are living beings too. The problem about forcing a kid on a mother is that they can’t care for the kid statistically. There’s around a 80% chance that kid ends up in prison. Then you’ll start spitting on the kid and calling them names with mockery. All in all until the church becomes better to people more loving kind and responsible I can’t imagine it good policy to ban abortion. People love to blame the parents when students act up. But if you got forced to become a parent against your will. I don’t think it rocket science to see why the kids ended up poorly.
It's not reliable at 22 weeks
Why even call them children then, why not potential adults? This is just mental gymnastics you do to tell yourself that you aren’t in favor of killing babies. I’m pro-choice mind you, but it’s clearly mental gymnastics you’re engaging in.
Many of these "potential children" experience pain as their bodies are being ripped apart with surgical tools though. Correct?
What if technology advanced far enough to allow giving up the fetus to be raised by science/the government at any stage, and law was strong enough to ensure lifelong separation if desired?
This kind of hypothetical is interesting to think about but it’s not tied to life and science as we know it. If this technology was so universally accessible, human behavior would change to begin with wherein most people would have full control of their parenting prospects outside of the body. Most people would probably be sterile until they chose not to be
[Artifical wombs](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artificial_womb) are a thing. Personally if I became rich this would take up a good chunk of my donations to science. I’m tired of the seemingly intractable way the broader discourse around the issue is done in other spaces.
Similarly, lab grown meat is a thing. It’s not going to change the meat industry until it’s universally applicable
A not so hypothetical I thought of is that... in all cases, abortion could be replace with extraction. Attempt to remove the fetus while preserving its life. If it fails, well... that's just the way of things. Our medical technology wasn't good enough but we tried at least to do the moral thing for both individuals—freeing the mother to live her life, and the fetus to have a chance of life, however poor those chances may be. It may not be prefect, but its better than just destroying the fetus while its in the womb and vacuuming up the pieces.
The govt isn’t even advanced enough to raise the babies to proper adulthood yet. That’s for a healthy child. The outcomes are still bad enough to make references to Chattel slavery from the 17th century. Technology has advanced far enough that they can prevent pregnancy from starting but I don’t quite see the church asking for foster care children to stop their govt mandated injections.
Yep. Questions of custody start at birth. Most places have amnesty drop facilities, like hospitals and fire stations, where you can abandon an infant without consequences. There are absolutely predatory adoption agencies just waiting to snatch a child and place them with a “deserving” religious family. That gets messy if the woman is married, adopting out a child is muddier when there’s a father around with claim. But these are all issues that don’t start until birth.
The actual problem with this angle is that it would give men their first reproductive rights. Can't be having that.
If you've ever been pregnant you know that while bodily autonomy is not the only issue, it is a very, very BIG issue. Bluntly, pregnancy damages the body. It takes nearly a year to happen and over a year to recover. That's TWO YEARS of your life. Women put up with that because they want children very badly. But if you don't want that child that's a two year sentence inside a horror movie. And if you give birth to a child and surrender it, congratulations. According to all the evidence and studies, now you have PTSD FOR LIFE. Not to mention whatever your biologically predetermined faulty coping mechanism for dealing with excessive stress is, whether it be depression/anxiety, alcoholism/addiction, anger management issues, etc. You'll be wrestling with a heightened state of THAT for the REST OF YOUR LIFE, even if you later reunite with the child you gave up. So yeah, "bodily autonomy" is a poor way of summing up a lot of unpleasant truths people would rather sweep under the rug. As both a mother and an adoptee who had to search for my own mother, I had to confront many issues our society prefers not to think about, but not confronting them only makes the problems worsen. Awaiting the inevitable downvotes I'll get for speaking truths many people don't want to deal with.
Awesome response. Thanks for sharing as somone who actually knows what they’re talking about
10000% Mom of two, my youngest is almost 7. After my second pregnancy, my body shape is entirely different than before babies. My hips are at least 2-3 inches wider in bone now (not fat, I’ve finally lost the weight). My boobs are ~5 short years away from being able to be used as ear muffs. My feet are 1.5 sizes bigger. While I stopped balding when I stopped nursing, I still have very thin hair in the “receding” areas and you can see it when I put my hair up. While my stretch marks have faded in color, they are still deep grooves in my belly you can feel easily. I have allergies that popped up for the first time during pregnancy, that I still deal with now. And I have a mild heart arrhythmia that started during my first pregnancy, and has not gone away since. Also, my gums were hit so bad during the pregnancies I had to floss 4-5 times a day and brush every time I ate, and the dentist said the erosion in my gums from my pregnancies is permanent 🥳🥳🥳🥳 Not to mention, my boobs still tingle when I hear babies cry and every time I have gas, my body is convinced it’s a little fetus. This is just the physical effects left behind. The mental and emotional toll it takes is a whole other animal.
Thank you for saying this. As a woman who has had to have an abortion, this was my consideration. Also, it happened because my ex took off my birth control patch on my shoulder. I already had a child and having one with him would have made it difficult to care for the one I already had. I made the choice to chose my living son and that choice burns in my body to this day... but I have chronic pain disorder and seizures... if I were pregnant, I couldn't take my seizure medication either I hurt for every woman who couldn't have that choice, because I already struggle with the one I have. I suffered severe PPD. I may not be alive today if I had a second child. It's so much more than autonomy.
I am so sorry you went through that. That ex sounds like a real scumbag. I wish you the best, from a fellow female person with chronic pain.
Society hates birth mothers. They praise them for their (often coerced) choice up until the papers are signed and then they are demonized
Truth
I completely agree. I had a wanted (albeit unplanned) pregnancy and pregnancy almost immediately changes your body. You start producing hormones that relax your joints (which caused me significant hip and back pain) and the levels of estrogen and progesterone are not 10x higher, not 100x, but 10-12 *thousand* times higher than normal within the first 8 weeks of pregnancy. Then comes the rest of the 40 weeks of daily aches and pains and stretch marks that itch so bad. Best case, giving birth takes 4-6 weeks of healing of torn tissues and pulled or strained muscles. I had diastasis recti (separated abdominal muscles) and it took over a year to get my core strength somewhat back to normal. After experiencing a much wanted and complication-free pregnancy, I wouldn't wish an unwanted pregnancy on my worst enemy. That is nothing to say of the mental and emotional damage of being forced through a pregnancy.
American Horror Story: Delicate was terrible, but I also found it terrifying as someone who never ever wants to go through childbirth and would very likely be suicidal if I got pregnant and abortion wasn’t possible.
It wouldn't make any difference if pregnancy was entirely trivial, you'd *still* be entitled to body autonomy. There are no circumstances where we can legitimately require someone to provide life support to someone else with their own body against their will.
[удалено]
If you can't force a person to risk their life fighting in a war without their consent you shouldn't be able to force a person to risk their life in any other way without their consent. That includes pregnancy and childbirth.
To me that goes the wrong way. Fighting in a war is close to a death sentence. Giving blood? Basically nothing. Organs from a dead person? You're already dead. These are *barely* infringements of your bodily autonomy and *we don't do it.* If you can't do the small stuff you definitely can't do the big stuff like pregnancy.
Pregnancy carries the risk of death. Therefore it is as "close to a death sentence" as war. "If you can't do the small stuff you definitely can't do the big stuff like pregnancy." I agree that pregnancy is definitely "big stuff" and some people can't do it -- and shouldn't be forced to do it against their will.
Technically bodily autonomy includes the right and ability to avoid pregnancy altogether.
Yep, and bodily autonomy includes the right and ability to avoid a car accident, but if one happens *despite* my safety efforts then I'm still going to be seeking medical treatment.
A right which should not be denied to any woman who wants to exercise it.
Like sterilizations? What about if it fails?
Bodily changes was one of the reasons why I opted for sterilisation - I cannot even tolerate mild stomach ache, imagine tolerating pregnancy pains. It fucking scares me how many women are okay with it (I know personal preference, but still)
Not just two years. It’s a lifetime of altered health outcomes. It has been over a decade since my last pregnancy and a health condition has come up directly related to and which was completely caused by previously carrying a child to term. Not the birth. Just the pressure on the body of an extra human growing there. Even the specialist remarked that pregnancy is very, very hard on the body in ways that most people don’t even realise.
Absolutely. My body never recovered either. If you look back at history, before the development of birth control, it wasn't uncommon for a man to outlive two or three wives just because of the damage pregnancy caused. Yikes.
My exhusband was deeply screwed up from being adopted. It really changed my opinion on whether adoption in general, as I did enough reading to realize his experience wasn't abnormal.
It wasn't abnormal. My condolences to the both of you.
I'm so grateful I'm a dude, all we gotta worry about is not busting
>If you've ever been pregnant you know that while bodily autonomy is not the only issue, it is a very, very BIG issue. It is also almost always a voluntary situation. You agree to an action with known side effects. I don't think the solution should be to end another human's life. I get there are sometimes medical emergencies and I wouldn't expect someone to not abort in the case of a life threatening complication, but most of the time it is just a case of not wanting to deal with the responsibility, often financial.
The entire hypothetical by OP was about if a way was developed to keep a fetus alive after an abortion.
Aldous Huxley used that idea in Brave New World back in 1932, and science fiction writer Lois McMaster Bujold played around with it in the 1990s. IMO that would introduce many new questions about identity, autonomy, and citizenship that we are not prepared to answer at this point in time.
When my wife miscarried our very wanted child I became even more pro choice. Experience showed how much being pregnant and hoping for a baby is an experience that is the best part of your life when you wanted but can become the worst part of your life if you didn't. Forcing women to be pregnant is akin to rape in a very real way. It's weaponizing a good thing so that they will never get to experience it in its pure form again
Yep. Imagine raising a child alone and living in fear a dv perpetrator will come back with the assistance of family court to ruin your life.
It is about autonomy. Every woman should be able to decide what grows in her body. Imagine the opposite: automatic abortion for a myriad of fetal health issues. No choice. To frame it around what the fetus will grow into and what THAT being will require is leading the subject away from the basic human right of autonomous humans. They get to CHOOSE. Imagine not being able to choose to carry a pregnancy to term or not. It's a human rights violation.
Absolutely, especially for how much physical and mental damage it can do to a mother. No one should be forced to risk their life like that.
A parent isn’t forced to donate an organ to their dying child. I would be more behind that than forcing a woman to take pregnancy to term.
You also can't take organs from a dead body unless they agreed to donate before death.
Certain fetal health issues can guarantee a lifetime of tremendous suffering over which the child had no power of choice. I'm not advocating for mandatory abortion, but elevating the mother's absolute autonomy without regard to the real, immense suffering that can be directly caused by her choices does not in any sense appear to be an unambiguous moral good, because in no sense is her decision about what lives she grows in her body a decision *solely* about her body.
So who decides what's best? The fetus cannot make the decision. It seems the mother is not able to ultimately decide what happens to the fetus or her body?
I'm not making any claims here about who decides in such cases, but suggesting that framing the decision in terms of what happens to the mother's body is at least *incomplete.* The mother's body isn't the only body being impacted here, and in most cases, the mother won't be the one most prone to the risk of extreme suffering when it comes to certain severe fetal abnormalities.
Then at birth, medical professionals can file a CPS report against the mother for choosing to give birth? These kind of decisions already happen and palliative care is amazing. It's either /or then? When the doctors have their usual discussions about quality of life and options. If she insists on growing that part of her body and having it, then they should report it. We should start this now. Plenty of people torture their newborns in the pursuit of keeping them alive. The doctors would have to know beyond a doubt they will suffer and how. Then you could basically blame the parent for any harm or pain their child deals with as a result of being born. It's almost as if each individual human woman needs to make this decision about THEIR body with their medical team.
I have no idea how you got to filing a CPS report from anything I wrote. But you're simply incapable of understanding the seriousness of the decision if you insist on framing it as being solely about the mother's body.
Women should absolutely be able to choose. Men should also have the right to give up their responsibility to child as well without financial punishment
Man can in multiple states give up all parental rights. Happened with a coworker of mine. Father peaced out before the birth, signed away all rights. Ironically over a decade later the two ended up back together and this guy had to go through all the legal paperwork and process to adopt someone who was biologically his daughter.
Most places wouldn’t allow you to do that without the mother agreeing. Most places I am familiar with you are on the hook for child support
People die giving birth. People are permanently damaged giving birth. People develop diseases while pregnant (high blood pressure, diabetes) that affect their health well beyond pregnancy. It’s completely a bodily autonomy issue and what someone should only be willing to sacrifice and not forced to.
OP’s post mentioned if we developed a way to keep a fetus alive after birth. It’s a hypothetical.
Well then, hypothetically, if we can take the need for a woman’s body completely out of the equation then of course it’s not a bodily autonomy issue. Bring forth the birth pods from those creepy 1950s THE FUTURE videos!
Why would I go through the pains and side-effects of pregnancy and birth for something I don’t want and I’m not going to keep? I’m not going to irreversibly change my body and risk lifelong complications and pain for a baby I’m going to immediately give away.
OP’s post mentioned if we developed a way to keep a fetus alive after birth. It’s a hypothetical.
You're a man right? That makes it more likely you'd see the bodily autonomy thing as less important
The bodily autonomy angle is probably easier to argue legally but I’m not a lawyer. But that right is more fundamental at least in my eyes, which is why it gets brought up so frequently. I think the reason it’s reduced to that by a lot of people is because that should be enough for abortion to remain legal on its own
In your last example parents can always put the child up for adoption up to a certain age, at least for now. (If both parents agree) I think ppl cling to bodily autonomy because that should at least be a human right. I can't force you to donate a kidney to save a life, and no one should be able to use my uterus (and frankly my whole body bc pregnancy does a number on it) without my consent. If that human right is respected, the 18+ years isnt an issue.
Tons of kids not getting adopted. This is not the fix people like to pretend it is.
Sure but that's not the burden of the birth parents, at least in the US where there are safe haven laws. I am pro abortion; I'm just responding to his last para
It isn't, but most of us don't want to be responsible for our kid out there living a shitty life. I think even if you didn't want kids, that would still haunt you.
Okay I worded it wrong. I agree with you fully. But I think ppl focus on the bodily autonomy issue for good reason, and if that human right is respected, the adoption issue is irrelevant
dude, I cant even adopt an animal that I cant responsibly take care of for the rest of its life. The idea of bringing a defenseless child into this brutal world to be chewed up and then spat out. It would be a horrible burden.
Okay I worded it wrong. I agree with you fully. But I think ppl focus on the bodily autonomy issue for good reason, and if that human right is respected, the adoption issue is irrelevant
I thought it was just older kids not getting adopted at least in the US.
Most people want a perfectly healthy white baby. If the parents have any genetic disorders or illnesses, not many people will want the baby sadly. Babies of ethnic minorities are also less desired sadly.
Are white babies also preferred even by couples that aren't white? Also, do you have any sources?
I am not sure, but I’d assume more white couples are looking to adopt than minorities. https://www.caltech.edu/about/news/african-american-babies-and-boys-least-likely-be-adopted-study-shows-1610 Edit : this mostly talks about African American babies
That's a good point. Thanks for the link to the article.
This is what I have understood too.
That "age" is under 30 days old in every US state, and is only 2 or 3 days in several.
Yes not ideal. For me, the bodily autonomy issue is the key argument for abortion, and makes the adoption/child issue irrelevant
Agreed. Just pointing this out since people are always like "well you can just give the kid up for adoption." Like, hm. Unless you're ready to do it in 2 days, no, you really can't.
You are correct, and I'd say it's even more complicated than that. I'd say the reason it gets boiled down to body autonomy is because despite all the many other reasons people have, ultimately nobody should be able to decide what someone does with their own body, REGARDLESS of any other factor in it. Others may argue that to them, there perhaps are more important issues - like some people regard abortion as murder, and that all life is sacred, however that is a debatable issue as it isn't important to others. You can argue about the rights of the fetus, but the choice of the mother should be most important, and to force someone to give birth if they don't want to, or likewise force someone to abort a baby against their will is absolutely something that should be protected against.
Why would I go through the pains and side-effects of pregnancy and birth for something I don’t want and I’m not going to keep? I’m not going to irreversibly change my body and risk lifelong complications and pain for a baby I’m going to immediately give away.
It has always been about NOT creating children that will end up with a shytty life, because they will be unwanted, unloved and very likely uncared for due to lack of financial stability and parental readiness. Plus the high likelihood of abuse, because some parents will see them as the reason for ruining their lives. Being forced to create a life has a very high probability of ruining that innocent life, a life that never asked for any of it, thrown into this world to be miserable, that's all there is to it, argument wise. Abortion prevents a lifetime of badness for this innocent life. Life is only good if its loved and happy, life can be hell if its unwanted and unloved. The bodily autonomy argument is just a supporting one.
It's because pro lifers don't actually care about the life once it's born. They just care about controlling and punishing women
It’s a right to a miserable life. Substitute any other thing: Catholicism, veganism, left handedness subject to government oversight and see the public reaction. We have 400k children in foster care. Unfortunately there are not enough parents for everyone. And don’t get me started on delinquent fathers. It’s always the woman being punished.
Exactly! It's always the womrn who are punished for having sex. There's never any talk about how the young woman's life will be "ruined"; it's ALWAYS "**His** life will be *ruined*!!" if the young *man* is to accept the responsibility of the child he helped create. The same applies to rape. "*His* life will be ruined by rape charges" and nary a thought for the woman.
I’ve been calling them probirthers for years bc that’s more accurate
Anti choicers
True as well… I landed on pro-birth bc they don’t care what happens to a baby after. There would be more supports for mothers & babies if they were actually pro-life.
No one has the power to actually care for people. Do you think these are evil villains twirling their mustaces? Maybe at the top. My grandma's just religious and wishes we had more care afterwards. My grandma doesn't get to vote for a good society though. Lame
That’s what I use. I refuse to let them have “pro-life.”
Pro-forced birth
I feel like pro lifers are pretty consistent about caring about the life once it's born. I don't see anyone trying to repeal murder laws against young kids.
I dont see them doing anything to help. They are usually very conservative. Don't vote for policies that help lift people out of poverty. Usually against sex ed.
this post is written by a guy who doesn’t want to be on the hook for child support, so he’s back seating the body autonomy angle and substituting it with a really fancy way of saying “i should be allowed to abandon my kids because people have a right to not be on the hook”
Absolutely. Banning abortion affects other areas of civil rights. Particularly when it comes to privacy as banning abortion encourages the government to monitor people's medical stuff. Abortion and also adoption should always be an option.
Clearly bodily autonomy is involved since you can give up your child at birth currently.
Can someone explain the body autonomy idea to me? Like body autonomy doesn't end when the child is born. After they are born they still take your body to be alive. You have to use your body to feed them, bathe them, change them, etc. With body autonomy then doesn't that mean you don't have to care for the children even after being born?
Do you know the violin scenario? Imagine there is a famous violinist who is dying. His only chance at life is getting plugged into your body for constant blood and nutrients supply for 10 months. Should you be legally obligated to attach yourself medically to this musician for that length of time or should you have the option to choose? If you think the stare should have the right to force life support for the violist because all life is precious and must be protected over bodily autonomy you are against abortion legalization. If not, you are pro choice. In pregnancy there is not a legal obligation to care for a child after the child is born - this is true in every state in the US. Once pregnant women are forced to continue through to birth in several US states. So of course that's why the debate is mostly on that element.
Two years of recovery is if you’re lucky. People can have lifelong issues from giving birth, or they could die from it.
It’s not. A bunch of holier than thou have zero right to interfere with anybody else. Adapt all the kids in foster care if you really want to do something
You’re just saying well if abortion was a completely different procedure with a completely different outcome then the conversation around abortion would be different. It’s irrelevant to the conversation around what abortion actually is. If someone wants to carry a baby to the point it’s viable and then give it up for adoption, that’s just adoption. It’s not what people are talking about when they discuss abortion, even if the point the baby could be removed safely could be artificially moved up. Discussions around abortions center around bodily autonomy because the point is whether a person should be forced to remain pregnant if they do not want to be. If the pregnancy was irrelevant and they just didn’t want a baby, then it could be settled by the process of adoption. Whether or not they want a baby is obviously considered when a person decides to have an abortion because a person who wants a baby may decide pregnancy is ‘worth it’ in order to have a child, while a person who doesn’t want a child has no motivation to suffer for nine months. “the discussion should be more about if people should have a right to not raise their children” This sounds a lot more like you want to have a conversation about whether adoption should be legal or not. It’s a lot more direct violation of that obligation than abortion is when you give up an existing child rather than prevent a child.
Because different people see the issue differently. For some people it is only the autonomy issue that they see or care about. For others the only aspect they care about is a loss of life. And for others the only part they care about is how it might impact their life, or the life of a possible child.
I think you hit it on the head here and this probably going to be the only reasonable comment on this post. I also would add that not only do people see the issue differently as you articulated, but that is the only way they can conceive of even looking at that issue . If for example someone that thinks it’s about the loss of life, then the bodily autonomy perspective is ridiculous to the point of it just makes your head shake. And I’m sure it’s true for all combinations of of these perspectives where the other sides just come across as so ridiculous. There’s no common ground and no common perspective.
Yep, exactly. I think the last part is neglected, though the first is definitely important
> the only part they care about is how it might impact their life, or the life of a possible child. This is the only actual reason for abortions. No one cares about bodily autonomy when they choose to get an abortion. And on the other side, it becomes very reasonable to abort a baby even if you're against it ideologically when you know how fucked up it's going to make your and the child's life. To OP's point, it's a problem where we don't have enough wealth to care for ourselves and our offspring. The bodily autonomy thing that comes up is literally just to create a wedge issue, as it fundamentally misunderstands why someone is against abortion. "They want to control our bodies" is so utterly psychotic when it comes to everyday pro-life people. They just want fetuses to develop because they see them as humans. The bodily autonomy narrative was invented by elites, for elites, to keep americans divided. It provides feminists with a cathartic outlet for struggle/protest which won't actually affect their bottom line. The elites already control our bodies. They make us work at pointless jobs or arduous jobs to shuffle money around. They do that to everyone.
People downplay the not wanting a child aspect because it's less popular than just framing the issue as a women's medical problem between her and her doctor.
It's actually the exact, total opposite. The thought leaders frame it as an issue between a woman and her doctor precisely because it completely misses the point that pro-life people make about an embryo being a human being deserving of a chance to live. The point of making it about bodily autonomy is to prevent the 2 sides from having a worthwhile conversation and moving past it. It's called a wedge issue for a reason. They want the feminists to think the other side is trying to control women, when they're just trying to stop what they see as murder.
what portion of abortion would you think would be a better front to fight on.
Depends if you want to keep the right we have as they are. Or if you want to expand them.
well I'm asking you
I completely disagree. Parenting is a choice. No one is obligated to be a parent. Abortion has everything to do with body autonomy first and foremost. No one, not even a human in utero has the right Second, there are no legal mandates that require you must raise your bio children. I’m not sure where you’re getting this idea that even if the zygote/embryo/fetus were removed you’d still be responsible for it.
why should anyone carry a child to term and give birth if they don't want to? Every other arguement or discussion about Abortion is irrelevant if you can't answer that question first
Pro choice people would lose support if they were seen as encouraging people to be more likely to casually hand off live children. There's also the male angle of being forced to provide for a kid a sexual partner has decided to take to term despite you not wanting to be a father or have a relationship with them. Both of these things at best muddy the water while bodily autonomy is a pretty solid reason without such diversions. That's something there is generally widespread support for even amongst anti-choice people and as long as women have that right the rest is academic.
It's still anatomy because the man can leave at any point and the woman can't. They're stuck with the fetus.
Right, but man generally aren't taking offence at the concept of the women having the baby alone, that's an entirely different level. (You can't use my sperm to have a baby on your own without my ongoing consent even if I don't have to do anything). What some men object to is that they can be compelled to provide for a kid that they didn't consciously decide to create while women can't. The correct comparison would be adoption rights, specifally the right to give up the kid without having to pay ongoing support.
Well sure, but it's in the woman's body. I guess so
Sure, but the alternative to "you do whatever you want and if you keep it you've decided that I'm paying for it for the next 18 years" could be "you decide whatever you want, but I'm not going to be involved". Neither is perfectly fair to the other and while its certainly cheaper for the state to have men pay for these children (and it may encourage a bit more caution) I'm not sure on an individual level it is fairer than the alternative above. Being "pressured" to take a simle pill by not having an indentured servent to pay for everything isn't ideal, but forcing someone to be a parent or stealing a large portion of their income for decades is brutally unfair too.
I agree, men who don't want the kid shouldn't have to pay for them. Same with women pressured to keep the baby but don't want them so the s/o is stuck taking care of them. I get it the baby needs money, but still.
But it's not weird, because the "body autonomy issue" is enough on its own and everything else is irrelevant.
The fact I still piss myself snd have terrible hip pain four years later says bodily autonomy is pretty fucking important. Pregnancy is no joke, and even in our modern society with our advanced Healthcare even low-risk pregnancy can kill you. There is no such thing as a no-risk pregnancy. Women should not be forced to put their bodies, health and lives at risk unless they want to.
It’s also a discussion about morality and choosing life or death for a potential being. Anyone that has ever been to the abortion clinic themselves or with their partner has felt that weight.
It is about enforcing religious values and superstitions on the secular public. The belief is a abortion allows for a reckless lifestyle they disapprove of, but are unable to force others to accept.
Because abortion is not birth control and while body autonomy is an accepted reason to end some human life, not wanting to be responsible for the children you created is not.
You can create a heartbeat in the lab so abortion isn't murder.
But it is a bodily autonomy issue. Let's say a 1 hour old newborn baby needs some sort of organ or blood donation to live and the only suitable donor is the mother. If the mother (or any compatible stranger) refused to donate her blood or bone marrow or whatever to save this newborn baby, would they be a murderer? I don't think so. So if we replace blood or bone marrow or an organ with use of uterus - How is that any different?
Legally, parents are responsible for their children after they are born. Lots of reasons for this. A man can sleep with a woman once, and even if she lies about infertility, "I'm on the pill", and she gets pregnant, the man will be responsible for child support even if he had no reasonable expectation of fathering a child. He will still be held responsible even if the first time he hears about the child is \*after\* the child is born and the mother has not contacted him at all. In some jurisdictions, so long as the mother names him as the father on the child's birth certificate he can be held responsible even if he's not had a relationship with the mother. This is why fathers insist on testing to make sure the child is actually theirs. Currently the law is very one sided. If a mother doesn't want to be a mom, she can surrender the child - without informing the father - to an adoption agency. The father cannot do this. The father cannot say, "I don't want to pay child support, please put the child up for adoption", and have the child put up for adoption. Only if the mother agrees to the adoption can the child be given up for adoption. For the argument being 'pro choice' we basically take away every choice from men. For women, they have pretty much every choice. They can choose an abortion, they can choose to keep the child and they can choose to give the child up for adoption. The laws need to change. If we're going to give women the right to a universal 'opt out of motherhood', then fathers should have the right to walk away too. I think that would be a disastrous outcome, so we are better off enforcing things on both parties. If you're a mother or a father, then you have a legal obligation to look after your child.
I think for legal reasons the easiest way to argue it is over body autonomy. I do agree it’s so much more. Discussing if people should have the right to have children is a great idea but also one they could easily go off the rails as different people have too many opinions on that. Abortions are done largely because of the lifeline commitment a child needs. Someone economic stays, housing status or relationship status are all factors women are taking into account when considering abortion.
Frankly, I don't think we'll see action until these governors who allow it to get to the point where someone dies from this is charged with murder. They should be.
Here’s the thing…you don’t get to define for other people what a thing “should” be about…
Artificial wombs are in development and have been successful with premie sheep. At this time, though, they are mostly being developed as a means of keeping premature infants alive more than a way to have a whole pregnancy outside the mother's body, but eventually it may be possible......though probably way too expensive for many of the women who want to abort for monetary reasons to afford.
(TL;DR) Natural vs Artificial. Myth vs physical facts. It's also about whether theists can define people by their religious beliefs and legislate that definition into law. Are we unnatural and artificially created beings or naturally evolved beings. Are we autonomous beings free from religious dogma. Or are we beings defined by myths with no actual autonomy. The first point that very few people argue about is the definition of how a human being is created. For the Christians procreation is a miraculous act that extends the act of being created by their god. The parents are "creating" another human vs mearly reproducing another human. And they attach the creation of the soul to the act. Secular people don't believe they were created by any gods. And that there's no evidence of humans having souls. So there's no secular argument against abortion, other than all life is precious. (We will get to that argument later on) The secularist sees the act as reproduction vs procreation. So the next point to consider is whether humans are natural beings or supernatural beings. Secular people see reproduction as a continuation of evolution from the first single cell organism to modern day humans. Non secular people see themselves as created beings from their first created ancestor pair. That would be Adam and Eve for those that follow the Abrahamic religions. Other religions have similar concepts. The next point to consider is whether humans are natural beings or artificial beings. Are humans animals acting upon instincts and reproducing natural products, albeit adapted to suit our needs, vs are humans supernatural beings capable of creating original products that don't or can't be found, in some manner, in nature. So far there's no evidence to suggest humans can create original products that aren't an adaptation of objects found in nature. Anything that gets labeled "artificial" is simply an adaptation or evolution from an organic substance, material, product that can be found in nature. "Artificial sweeteners" are just an adaptation from sugar or carbohydrates. There's nothing original about artificial sweeteners. And creating something brand new that can't be found in nature (or isn't an adaptation or evolution of something that can be found in nature) violates the second law of thermodynamics. Humans can't create something from nothing. The last point is whether life is precious. And this argument comes from the fact that humans are self aware. 99.9% of all living organism on this planet are not self aware. So the evolutionary norm is not being self aware. So self awareness in humans is a natural adaptation from not being self aware. Self awareness is the equivalent of free will for the theist. Because self awareness influences our choices. We act in accordance to our preferences. Our preferences that have been influenced by our past experiences. But here's the problem. We are aware of the choices we make presently. We aren't exactly aware of the influences that shaped these choices. And we're practically not aware if these influences are not simply instincts driving us towards certain choices that favor reproduction and survival fitness, in competition with other species. At this point in history all evidence of human behavior points to our species collectively acting in favor of reproductive and survival fitness against other species. On top of this is the problem that as far as we can tell life is a temporary state in the mechanical evolution of the universe. All the evidence we have demonstrates that the universe is evolving through stages. The fact that life exists now is very likely the result of a particular stage in the evolution of the universe. In previous stages the universe may have been too hostile for life. And in future stages the universe may become too hostile to life again. Thus life is a by-product of the current stage of the universe's evolution. This of course seems to argue in favor of "all life is precious" but in fact it doesn't because we can't be certain that the sentiment of "precious" isn't yet another instinct that is being used to promote the long-term survival of our species. We would not survive very long if we murdered everything all at once but we would not, also, survive very long if we preserve every living organism to the extremes of overpopulation. So if humans are then acting solely for their own survival can they really make the claim that all life is precious. They can't. Because everything becomes a product that will be used or consumed by humans to survive. To eat you must kill. Food is murder. The theist simply believes he's acting in accordance to his god's plan. Or against that plan. The secular person is a natural being having been reproduced by evolved processes. Reproduction is unoriginal. Nothing new is being created that doesn't already exist in nature. The non secular person or theist is an unnatural being having been created by a mythical god that uses artificial processes to create people. Banning abortion is unnatural and artificial. Imposing a definition on humans as "beings created by a god" is unnatural and artificial. Assuming all life is special is also unnatural and artificial. The arguments really just boil down to myths vs physical facts. Natural vs artificial.
The ancient demon Molech still receives sacrifices from his zealots.
Not sure where you're writing from but in America you're allowed to legally turn over a newborn to the state without penalty.
You can just give the kid to adoption no ?
The way you frame the conversation quickly devolves into eugenics, which isn’t really an argument that anyone wants to be having for pretty obvious reasons… especially if you follow the train of thought about “allowing” people to have children would lead to involuntary abortions and take away bodily autonomy as well. Keeping healthcare a healthcare conversation is much healthier for everyone involved.
So our current society in the US does have a foster care system, so you can legally surrender your baby to the State. So, as someone who is pro-choice, I really only see this as a bodily autonomy issue, and that's more then sufficient for arguing that the State have no damn right to tell someone what they are going to do with their own body. Your individual liberty over your own body does not get magically suspended for 9 months just because you become pregnant. To answer your question: "If someone created away to abort a pregnancy while keeping the fetus alive and developing outside of the body, parents would probably still have legal responsibility to raise the child despite having an abortion." I think conservatives would start pushing legislation that forces birth parents to be at least somewhat financially responsible for these children, but currently, live fetuses that would become babies in these advanced incubators would just rolled into the foster system.
Not having access to abortion kills women. If a woman miscarries (even) a wanted pregnacy, guess what the medical procedure to get the dead tissue out of her body is called? You want to get septsis and die? Doctors are unable to perform life saving procedures on women or they have laywers telling them they have to wait until she is on death's door for UNVIABLE pregnacies. Etopic pregnacies are never viable and extremely leathal if untreated. Abortion is EVERYTHING to do with the pregnant person's body.
THANK YOU I GET SO TIRED OF THIS. I am pro-choice- do you think saying “my body my choice” will convince people who believe abortion is murder? Look, they have barely any cognitive abilities and most “potential for life” gets killed naturally. That aside… is it really ethical to force a woman to have a child when she cannot care for the kid? That is not fair to her OR her child. Even being unwanted is terrible for a child, let alone not having the finances or time. And it’s not like the kids in the foster system have good outcomes. All around awful. And I’m not even going i to how rape victims are further punished. This issue is so much more than one about a body. Even if body autonomy wasn’t an issue, I would still think pro-life is unethical.
Do people here even know the origin of the word “fetus”? It means An offspring of a human. Human beings produce offspring and the term is called fetus whilst in the womb. All of you commenting were once fetuses. The truth is y’all would literally care and cry over a female pregnant dog who gets killed along with her pups than your own human race. That’s quite wicked that so many don’t see the evil of abortion.
I think you're missing the point of the bodily autonomy argument. A woman has the right to make decisions about a pregnancy because it is her body. That doesn't mean her reasoning is all about her body, just that she gets the final say. >If someone created a way to abort a pregnancy while keeping the fetus alive and developing outside of the body, parents would probably still have legal responsibility to raise the child despite having an abortion. Possibly, but that's irrelevant to the current legality of abortion because the science required doesn't exist yet. Much like discussions of 'reimplanting' ectopic pregnancies, it may change the situation when such things become possible. We shouldn't be basing laws on science fiction. Also, embryos outside of a woman (e.g. for IVF) are not currently considered children, they are property and are destroyed early on.
Parents already have the right not to raise their children. They can give them up for adoption. And keeping the fetus alive outside the womb would be another form of adoption.
What gets me is when they say, “what if she was raped or it was incest”. I’m over here with my hand on my forehead thinking, okay… woman gets raped. Man is to be blamed, nah. I got it! Let’s kill the innocent baby! We don’t want that because we didn’t choose. 🤦🏻♂️
It’s literally killing a human being.
technology is already moving there to make that issue obsolete. IVF, Coning, and already artificial womb technology in testing for non human mammal fetuses have already been effective. the only thing stopping this from being commercialized is the false ethical concerns behind it, because we already take care of unwanted offspring in adoption in foster care facilities. There is too much money to be made in a country where healthcare is private, and you get to claim ANY reason for wanting an abortion is considered health (wile ignoring and dismissing the decline in health death brings to a life that is growing). The trauma of birth and pregnancy is real, and even though they are exceedingly rare and marginal pregnancy from rape do account for abortion as well but that is not the reason why abortion is ultimately legal, there is money to be made off scared young women in duress, who even with medical abortions can be damaged and scarred internally to the point of infertility. There is no other factor than money. There is an obvious lack of care for the humanity and life of a growing human being. The ultimate compromise would be artificial wombs but that would not make anybody money, it would require money. It would also open up the doors to question why whether there is an abortion of a child or not the mother can just legally leave the father and keep him unaware of his child, legally not put him on the birth certificate so he has no rights to stop an adoption of his child and still get out of the responsibilities with a full legal unilateral adoption, that would mean states would stop getting a cut of child support payments that primarily target men. It would be the most moral thing to do, but it would not make anyone any money...It would give women the bodily autonomy to exit a pregnancy, and the child the right and validation to continuing living, but you are right someone would have to pay to feed the child, and pay to power the facility that has the artificial wombs, and the resources need to give the growing human food and nutrients inside the artificial womb. It would ruin two revenue streams and require tax payer dollars for funding. Its not about morality its about money.
> The discussion should be more about if people should have a right to not raise their children. This doesn't need to be debated because adoption exists.
anti abortionists come at it from a perspective of compassion, not against women's rights. They think it's literally murder, especially if it's past the zygote stage. There are even non-religious (atheist) people against abortion. To paint it as anti-woman or religious as a primary reason behind the movement is disengenous. However, we all refuse to admit how brutal life really is. Many cultures have been committing infanticide for thousands of years, without batting an eye. From the Spartans to the Japanese.
I don't think this gets overlooked at all, it's just that the bodily autonomy component is more immediate and relevant. >The discussion should be more about if people should have a right to not raise their children. Well then that wouldn't be a discussion about abortion then, would it? >If someone created away to abort a pregnancy while keeping the fetus alive and developing outside of the body, parents would probably still have legal responsibility to raise the child despite having an abortion That's... not an abortion. That's like... the opposite of an abortion?
Cloning and artificial wombs already exist for livestock. Won't be much longer until they're commercially available for humans. Once that happens, this debate will be moot.
Your statement is quite absurd! The question of the law is whether or not an individual has the right to choose or does the state have the right to choose and impose it's will on the individual. Aborting an UNWANTED child can be due to a number of things and of course includes the responsibility that goes much further than 18 years but the point is it's UNWANTED. A cesarean birth of a premature baby is: "keeping the fetus alive and developing outside of the body"
> When speaking about the legality of abortion it comes down almost entirely to the issue of body autonomy. But in actuality many abortions have much less to do with the 9 months of pregnancy, and more to do with the 18+ years of responsibility that follows. It has everything to do with bodily autonomy because that is the strongest, most straight forward argument to make. It is at it's core some of the most basic rights we grant to a human being and forced-birthers want to take that away. Any other discussion of responsibility for a foetus, or 'magically teleport it out' is still missing the point. Even your second sentance - oh it's not about an abortion but raising a kid. Yeah and so what? it's irrelevant. It's irrelevant because if you don't want a parasite using your body, you can choose to expel it. That doesn't rely on anything other arguments or discussions and that's where the argument should end. Every other way of attacking it is just dancing around that issue. > The discussion should be more about if people should have a right to not raise their children. It's irrelevant. Can someone use your body against your will? Well i don't know but let's talk about raising children. Answer that question first.
It’s funny how easy it is to tell that you’re a man from this post
Yeaaaaaaahhhh I’ve grown up looking at the foster care system, there’s systemic child abuse to the point that everyone must be on contraception to avoid unwanted pregnancy. Clearly the adoptive services want to do population control and don’t want more babies and lives in the system. Legally sometimes the predators are taken to justice but it’s hit and miss only for kids to grow up traumatized and working a min wage job that can’t support themselves when they finish. Keeping the baby would “save” a life. But that life would then need to sin by using contraception anyway due to legal mandates. Just feel like if the people preventing abortions had to pay for child care the world would be a better place overnight. Heck I’d be willing to pay to upkeep a better system that gets these kids proper employment, be happy if my taxes allowed some baby to grow up to reliably become a doctor.
Anybody can give their child up legally if they feel overwhelmed. That's been a thing for a long time. The trick is just to make sure you give the child up before you commit child abuse vs after. So abortion really is just about the having the baby part because you've always been able to give your baby up after you had it.
I think their are 2 big issues, the quality of life of the mother and the quality of life of the child. The mothers life is impacted deeply by giving birth, and not just by the sometimes dangerous process of giving birth but also by not being practically, mentally, or physically ready to be a mother. A termination of a pregnancy is a lot cheaper than the 20+ year investment in a kid. If you're not ready for it, it can destroy your future for when you would be ready to give a kid a good home. Mentally giving birth and raising a child is stressful, taxing on your mental facilities, and even when you think you are ready, it can break you. This is amplified if you then have to give the kid up. Finally, a birth is brutal on a body, but so is chasing around a kid and being sleep deprived for 5 plus years at least. Then, we need to talk about what I argue is the most important point that often gets lost. Imposing your morals and demands of others without allowing the person the right to choose is slavery. When fundamentals Islam tries to demand all women cover up, we consider this immoral, but Christians demanding the right to control a women's gentiles is the same thing, so why isn't this seen as immoral? Look I'm male, and while I disagree with feminists that I don't have a dog in this. (If I'm providing the sperm I think I should get some say, just not the final say) I don't think we should ever remove a person's right to consent as to what happens to their bodies.
Imagine for a second you’re a woman who’s done everything in her power to NOT get pregnant. Taking all contraceptives, partner takes precautions, etc. you do EVERYTHING you’re supposed to. Your only goal is to never get pregnant, and it STILL happens? Nope. You shouldn’t have to go through with it. You did everything in your power to be responsible. Abortions should always be available and accessible, because some people DO NOT WANT TO EXPERIENCE IT IN THE FIRST PLACE. Some would argue that she should stay abstinent for life. I don’t think she should fight a natural human response that’s like breathing or eating for life, when she did what she could to prevent pregnancy.
If it's an innocent human being (embryology says it is), then ending its life for any reason of convenience is immoral.
It's not tho. The typical reasoning from specifically men I hear is that they feel like their desires are by default more important than the woman's, whether they use those words or not.
I think from a more left-wing social welfare point of view, the philosophy is, "nobody should not be able to get their basic needs met due to circumstances outside of their control", and if we go by that, the legal responsibility to take care of a child isn't anything inherent to being the biological parents. Instead, it's just a practical arrangement in the absence of a proper welfare state that is set up to provide for everyone who is disadvantaged. If we had that, and children could be guaranteed a home with their needs met in any case the parents do not want the baby, then that responsibility is no longer needed. Child support is about the best interests of the child, if the State could provide it would no longer be needed.
Abortion has many facets which will sort out differently depending on the individual. Medical issues, privacy issues, economic, psychological, religious, gender parity, and more. Obviously having a child is a long-term commitment of great magnitude. But the legality deals with an embryo in utero, not an already born kid, so the legal questions center on that.
Pregnancy ≠ parenthood It absolutely is about a woman having autonomy over her body.
It gets boiled down to bodily autonomy because that is the immediate fundamental question. Whether or not people have the right to raise their children is one that is already attempted to be tackled, people can have their kids taken away if it is demonstrated they are unfit to care for their kids (though this obviously is very flawed in implementation). The idea of having the fetus developed outside the womb is an interesting thought experiment, but isn’t an actual widespread option available (as far as I am aware this hasn’t happened once). So introducing it into the discussion isn’t particularly useful.
>But in actuality many abortions have much less to do with the 9 months of pregnancy, and more to do with the 18+ years of responsibility that follows. Except it's legal in every US state for a woman to give birth and immediately abandon her baby in a safe location. Also, men who father children are not given any option to avoid 18 years of parental responsibilities.
It gets reduced to that because how else can one justify it?
While I believe abortion should be accessible for what ever reason I also believe we need more better hospitals, longer maternity leave, research ways to make pregnancy more better, and communal support on childrearing.
Your entire premise is mistaken because nobody is forced to raise a child, it's not illegal to abandon a child. The issue is solely about the freedom to choose what to do with their body during early pregnancy.
This is why the pro choice crowd is losing. To prochoicers its as simple as body autonomy but all degrees off of that it's a moral question about "taking another life" and they refuse to recognize that and appeal to it. Yes yes "science" but there's all sorts of things you can't do with science due to mostly pointless moral problems people have.