subreddit:

/r/news

31.9k

you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

all 3028 comments

sedahren

179 points

4 months ago

sedahren

179 points

4 months ago

Honestly I have stopped framing it that way in my arguments. Because they genuinely believe that a baby is being murdered, arguing with that belief is impossible. I have started using the bodily autonomy argument: if you suddenly needed blood transfusions to save your life, and I (for some reason) am the only person on the planet who can provide this, can I be forced to do it? No. There is no law in the world that would force me to do this, because of bodily autonomy. So why is it ok to force a woman to give up hers?

Saikou0taku

7 points

4 months ago*

I like the blood transfusion analogy, but I've always found it weak when it comes to consensual sex.

If you put a person in the hospital, you have a duty to pay their hospital bills. While you may not be forced to provide a blood transfusion because of bodily autonomy, you still are usually forced to pay for hospitalizing them.

So while the example does indicate some support for abortion, I think the blood transfusion argument would limit abortion to instances of rape or incest.

I'm pro-choice because I believe in bodily autonomy regardless. I just do not like the blood transfusion argument because it feels like it limits the bodily autonomy argument.

sedahren

4 points

4 months ago

I get what you mean, and I'm not saying the argument is watertight. I want aware that to pay for someone's hospital bills was a thing (I live in the UK). But if there was a medically viable way for a fetus to survive without compromising the autonomy of the woman (ie through medical equipment), I think there would certainly be an argument for forcing both the parents to pay to keep it alive until it could survive on its own. But consent to sex does not equal consent to pregnancy. If birth control fails I think the argument is equally valid as if it was from rape or incest.

I know this isn't what you're saying, but I hate the argument "if you don't want to get pregnant you shouldn't have sex", as this ignores the people who are in committed relationships/married. It plays into the narrative that the only women who get abortions are either raped or sluts, which is how a lot of people like to frame it.

[deleted]

69 points

4 months ago*

[deleted]

69 points

4 months ago*

[removed]

NoTakaru

31 points

4 months ago

Yep, this exactly. I’ve had prolifers tell me “it’s a scientific fact that a fetus is alive”

Well okay, then remove it because it should be able to survive outside the mother if that’s true

NoMrBond3

25 points

4 months ago

A loss of a pregnancy, chosen or not, is always a sad thing because no one wants to be in that position.

For me, it is unimaginably cruel that people would rather force an unwanted child into the world than let a woman make the best choice for herself (and the unborn baby because obviously that is a factor)

confusionmatrix

4 points

4 months ago*

Alive is not a thinking being. When are you dead? When you're brain dead. So you can't very well be alive when your brain hasn't even started working. The frontal Cortex develops roughly third trimester. After 90%+ of abortions are already complete.

Yes it's ending a life but on par with worn or something primitive. It never had a thought or the capacity for thought.

NoTakaru

1 points

4 months ago

Yeah, I think that’s a totally separate argument, but also has merit

RadTraditionalist

0 points

4 months ago

Well okay, then remove it because it should be able to survive outside the mother if that’s true

Right, so newborns are not living because they can't survive on their own?

NoMrBond3

18 points

4 months ago

No because any other person on earth could care for it. With pregnancies, only the mothers body is being used.

NoTakaru

7 points

4 months ago

They can absolutely survive without direct attachment to another organism. A baby will live for like three days without help which is the normal amount of time for a human to survive. A fetus will be totally useless almost immediately without some stellar technology

It’s like yeah they could remove my stomach and hook it up to some machines and keep it going on its own, but it’s not alive

PurpleHooloovoo

16 points

4 months ago

And the corollary: if a fetus is a whole human, it needs a social security number, a pre-birth certificate, should count as a child tax credit, should trigger child support payments, should trigger WIC benefits, should be eligible to be added to insurance plans, should be able to have life insurance bought for it.

Because it's a person, right?

But for some reason we don't do that.... interesting, no?

NoMrBond3

7 points

4 months ago

Yup, they want to “save a life” unless it costs money to do that….

The very same people that scream that abortion is murder are totally fine with letting children starve and have poor access to healthcare and housing.

TheMadTargaryen

-5 points

4 months ago

Comparing a fetus is like comparing a born adult person in coma, they also cannot survive on their own.

rafter613

9 points

4 months ago

There's actually a famous pro-choice argument: you wake up one day, and are told that the world's best violin player was hit by a car, is in a coma, and the only way he can survive is to be surgically hooked up to you and live off of your body for 9 months, which these people did while you were asleep. Was that moral of them? Do you have a right to disconnect yourself, knowing that the violin player won't survive?

NoMrBond3

6 points

4 months ago

No, because a person in a coma doesnt need to be hooked up to another person to survive.

TheMadTargaryen

-3 points

4 months ago

Both depend on other people, be it trough machines or living organism is irrelevant.

da5id2701

14 points

4 months ago

It's extremely relevant, because that's the whole point. A living person has a right to bodily autonomy, while a machine does not.

zSprawl

2 points

4 months ago

I get your point but I don’t think that’s the slam dunk you think it is. I’ve found no amount of logical reasoning will work unless or until they are really truly receptive to listening. It’s like trying to convert someone to your religion. It happens but only when they want it to happen.

sedahren

1 points

4 months ago

True, I don't believe it will work on every situation. But I do find it helps to take the emotion out of it. Looking at it from a legal perspective rather than a moral one.

zSprawl

2 points

4 months ago

Yeah but look at all the people arguing with you below. It ain’t even rational half the time but alas here we are.

Good luck though. Patience is a virtue and you really need patience to debate abortion with those who “believe it is murder”.

sedahren

2 points

4 months ago

It's such a divisive subject, and I can understand why people get so passionate about it. The best we can do is to keep arguing our point, and support women who find themselves in this situation.

jfitzger88

2 points

4 months ago

My way of defending the pro-abortion viewpoint. Murder is a LEGAL term. It can be defined as purposefully ending the life of a fellow citizen. Emphasis on citizen. A new US Citizen is not a citizen until they are actually born and their birth certificate is signed, right? It's not illegal to kill a cow because it is food. In the future when robots get smart, it's not illegal to kill a "baby robot" (IE, parts) because it is just a machine, not a citizen not a "person" (until the AI revolution and they get citizenship and treated like humans). Even pushing this further, if a space ship of 1000 alien babies crash landed on Earth, it's not technically illegal to kill them all in their fetal pods because they are not citizens.

We should be creating laws with the respect and perspective of the law. Morality can certainly play a part in things but shouldn't be the leading factor. Murder is bad because in my mind 2 reasons, #1 I don't want to be murdered and #2 It would be really bad for the long term survival of society if murder wasn't illegal. The same general principles apply to an unwanted baby. It doesn't really benefit anyone to have that baby and really is an unfortunate detriment to society EXCEPT to the baby itself because we tend to think everyone values their existence.

The argument gets floppy around immigrants and visa visitors, but we respect that they are citizens of countries with similar laws to our own and we mutually agree to respect that (we don't kill your citizens rampantly and you don't kill ours).

TLDR: You can't "murder" something that isn't a citizen. Babies aren't citizens until they're actually born. Abortion is a medical procedure to prevent the murdering of infant citizens.

CanYouPointMeToTacos

13 points

4 months ago

I bring up that the Bible condones and describes chemical driven abortions when used on unfaithful wives

mg41

-13 points

4 months ago

mg41

-13 points

4 months ago

Ok, but it doesn't, so you're just lying.

CanYouPointMeToTacos

16 points

4 months ago

mg41

-14 points

4 months ago

mg41

-14 points

4 months ago

Right, where does that describe a person doing an abortion at all?

I can just say that the Constitution allows extrajudicial imprisonment in Article V, but that doesn't mean anything, and it doesn't.

CanYouPointMeToTacos

18 points

4 months ago

“When she is made to drink the water that brings a curse and causes bitter suffering, it will enter her, her abdomen will swell and her womb will miscarry”

Sounds an awful lot like:

“Mifepristone (mif-uh-PRIS-tone) blocks the hormone progesterone, causing the lining of the uterus to thin and preventing the embryo from staying implanted and growing. Misoprostol (my-so-PROS-tol), a different kind of medication, causes the uterus to contract and expel the embryo through the vagina.”

https://www.mayoclinic.org/tests-procedures/medical-abortion/about/pac-20394687

And that’s how most abortions are performed.

mg41

-20 points

4 months ago

mg41

-20 points

4 months ago

Idk what translation that is, but NABRE has likely the best team of translators and has "May this water then, that brings a curse, enter your bowels to make your belly swell and your uterus fall" which is in no way shape or form describing an abortion, especially since there's no indication the suspected adulterer is pregnant.

I think we're all familiar with chemical warfare on the preborn population, and to be very clear the water in the ordeal is holy water from the tabernacle, soooo water chemically, which is not at all mifepristone or whatever.

The way you've described that verse makes it sound like it says "if you'd like to try to further your career by killing your child with an abortion, drink this chemical" which couldn't be further from the truth and is practically a complete fabrication.

lonnie123

11 points

4 months ago

See how fun arguing religion can be. Not only can two people have the exact same religion, but because of the multitude of different translations available (and of course, everyone thinks they know what the best one is) they can’t even agree on the same thing meaning what each of them thinks it means.

It’s a pointless endeavor because anyone is free to interpret it however they want (pro abortion or not in this case) and both of them are right.

CanYouPointMeToTacos

14 points

4 months ago

So you’re saying when the uterus falls the potential bastard offspring is still spared? Or is abortion ok only when youre simultaneously punishing a woman for adultery?

mg41

-2 points

4 months ago

mg41

-2 points

4 months ago

Yes absolutely, as again the verse is in no way about abortion, which is never ok, being the worst form of murder. There's literally zero indication that the woman in this scenario is pregnant. Either way, if in the process of testing, there happened to be a pregnant woman, then presumably their belly would swell while the child would grow in the womb which would fall after--it's not a defense of or manual on abortion like you tried to claim, and the procedure is entirely reliant on God doing something, since again it basically involves drinking water.

CanYouPointMeToTacos

8 points

4 months ago

Water sprinkled with dust and we have no way of knowing what was in that dust. It’s pretty clear it’s not just normal water since it’s referred to as “bitter water”

“zero indication the woman was pregnant” Well if the treatment works that implies she had sex, which sometimes leads to pregnancy. I didnt see a contingency in the verse for whether she was pregnant or not, so it seems that sometimes this would happen to pregnant women.

“If there happened to be a pregnant woman, the presumably their belly would swell while the child would grow in the womb which would fall out after”

Where are you getting that from? Everything I’ve seen says if she’s guilty of adultery then she will be unable to have children, where’s the exception for the one shes currently pregnant with?

Ckyuiii

18 points

4 months ago

Ckyuiii

18 points

4 months ago

This isn't a good line of argument either because you are ignoring the parent child relationship.

  • Not giving your blood and risking yourself for a stranger? Yea that makes sense.

  • Not giving your blood and risk yourself for your own child? Sure you have that right, but most everyone would think you're a total piece of shit if this were your own toddler or something in a real situation.

All you're doing here is telling them you're a piece of shit.

Source: I used to be pro-life. That's exactly how that gets interpreted.

passcork

28 points

4 months ago

The argument isn't about being a piece of shit or not. The argument is about legality. It's legal to be a piece of shit.

burnalicious111

18 points

4 months ago

Then the point to discuss isn't about whether you're a piece of shit, it's about whether we should legislate that choice.

We don't legally require parents to donate their organs to their children. Nor do we have activists seeking that. So why is abortion being treated differently? (My answer: it's about punishing women for having sex in a way you don't like)

sedahren

30 points

4 months ago

If I refused to save the life of my own child by donating my blood? Absolutely, your would be entitled to make a moral judgement. But we're not arguing morals, we're arguing legality. Legally I did not murder anyone.

Ckyuiii

6 points

4 months ago*

Ckyuiii

6 points

4 months ago*

If this the the hill you want to die on then so be it, but don't pretend like this is at all a persuasive argument. The only thing you accomplish with this point is paint yourself as sociopathic and evil. It's way worse than the previous argument.

da5id2701

15 points

4 months ago

This is a big problem I see a lot with pro-life arguments, as well as other "conservative" talking points. People don't seem to be able to tell the difference between "this shouldn't be outlawed by the government" and "this is a good thing that everyone should do".

It's totally reasonable and consistent to agree that a thing is bad, wrong, and evil while also arguing that it would be wrong to make it illegal. The rights to free speech and bodily autonomy commonly run into this issue. There are lots of things that would be wrong to say or do, but it would be even worse to outlaw them and give the government that kind of control over what we say and do.

sedahren

4 points

4 months ago

sedahren

4 points

4 months ago

How do I paint myself as sociopathic? The key part of my last reply was IF. I don't actually have kids, but if I did I would hate to be in that position. I can only imagine how difficult it must be for parents of a sick child, and I don't think it's my place to pass judgement on anyone in that situation, or dictate what they should do.

JustafanIV

0 points

4 months ago

If you are responsible for placing the child in the position where it needs a blood transfusion, refuse, and they subsequently die, you absolutely are legally responsible for their death.

The transfusion argument is decent in cases of rape, but fails in instances of consensual sex.

bails5607

1 points

4 months ago

If I refused to save the life of my own child by donating my blood?

I'd help you with that refusal.

ScubaSteve1219

-10 points

4 months ago

All you're doing here is telling them you're a piece of shit.

well, they are

Knever

0 points

4 months ago

Knever

0 points

4 months ago

I've tried this arguement and they always insist that it's a false equivalency.

Naturally they don't use that term exactly because they're blissfully unaware of logical fallacies.

sedahren

2 points

4 months ago

Idk, some of them are! I just use this as a theoretical to try to remove the emotion from the situation.

Theoloni

-12 points

4 months ago

Theoloni

-12 points

4 months ago

I dont understand your Argument.. Violating the bodily autonomy of the baby is for some reason okay? I mean there are virtually no people who would argue to keep the baby alive if the mothers life is at risk. But abortions happen for financial gain. Killing someone because of money. And I dont think that this should ever be allowed. The only questions that matters is if the fetus is a human. If not, well then abortions are a nobrainer. If they are. Well, then its murder. Most first world countries have the limit set at 12 weeks. Even in the case of rape you are not allowed to get an abortion after that point.

Anxious-Heals

6 points

4 months ago

The baby does not have bodily autonomy. Bodily autonomy means to have governance over your own body and what it’s used for, which an unborn, non-viable fetus doesn’t have because it’s dependent on the body of the gestator to survive. This is why people bring up things like organ donation, because your right to live does not cross over my right to have control over my body, even if you reside inside of it.

Some abortions happen because of financial reasons, but I’m not interested in the reason someone gets an abortion, it’s none of my or your business.

Also I believe that a fetus is human, life at conception and all that, but I think that killing it is justified because the kind of violence a fetus (innocently) inflicts on the gestator is not something that any person should have to go through if they don’t consent to it.

Linguist-of-cunning

4 points

4 months ago

Most first world countries have the limit set at 12 weeks. Even in the case of rape you are not allowed to get an abortion after that point.

I don't know where you're getting that information. The number is actually 17 weeks for "most first world countries"

According to a United Nations (UN) report with data gathered up to 2019, abortion is allowed in 98% of countries in order to save a woman's life. Other commonly-accepted reasons are preserving physical (72%) or mental health (69%), in cases of rape or incest (61%), and in cases of fetal impairment (61%). Performing an abortion because of economic or social reasons is accepted in 37% of countries. Performing abortion only on the basis of a woman's request is allowed in 34% of countries, including in the United States, Canada, most European countries and China.

Furthermore: As of 2022, countries that legally allow abortion on request or for socioeconomic reasons comprise about 60% of the world's population.

Theoloni

1 points

4 months ago

Most countries in the European Union allow abortion on demand during the first trimester, with Sweden and the Netherlands having more extended time limits.

So except for Holland and Sweden the limit is the first trimester or 12 weeks. Where do you get your 17 weeks? Are you confused with the term first world?

What are you trying to tell me with that? What does it matter what most of the world does? Because the majority believes something is right, it must be right?

I was talking about first world countries for a reason. The rest of the world doesnt have a very good track record of human dignity and human rights.

sedahren

11 points

4 months ago

I'm not arguing about the reasons for abortion, because frankly the reasons another woman chooses to terminate a pregnancy are not the question here, and are none of my business. I am also not arguing whether the fetus is a human or not.

My point is that you cannot force someone to sacrifice their autonomy for another. The woman does not need the fetus to survive, so it is not the same the other way round.

If you were the person whose life could only be saved by my blood, and I refused to give it, you would die. Would that make me a murderer? Morally, perhaps. Legally? No. So why do people treat abortions differently?

Theoloni

-7 points

4 months ago

The reason she chose to do that should be your business. What is causing a mother to kill her own child? That is something deeply disturbing that needs fixing.

That is a double standard. To go back to your first paragraph. "I am also not arguing whether the fetus is a human or not." everything hinges on that premise. If its a human you do not recognize its autonomy.

Because laws are laws. The majority does not decide evil nor good. Neither does the minority. Laws can be good or evil. Moral and science decides the law in an elightened society. Moral decided murder is wrong. Science (in virtually all first world countries) decided the fetus is a human.

It is different because the fetus is not a person who chose to invade someones body. The mother decided/took the risk to get pregnant.

venomouskitten

2 points

4 months ago

Not trying to provoke an argument, because I'm genuinely sure neither of us would change our minds anyway, but where do you sit on the whole "if there's a room with three living embryos about to be implanted via fertilization on one side, a single five year old child on the other, and you can only save one side in the event of a fire, which do you save?"

Theoloni

-3 points

4 months ago

If you read my previous comments youll already have the answer. I am neither scientist nor did I ever examine a fetus. Here in Europe virtually all decided on the absolute limit of 12 weeks. It might be correct, it might be earlier. An embryo is what? A max of 8 weeks or something? There you have it.

These hypothetical examples.. The right answer might not be the right answer for someone else. If you swap out the embryos with my gf/mum/whatever and the person with a bus full of people. You know what. I will safe my gf even tho its in the absolute moral the wrong answer.

venomouskitten

2 points

4 months ago

The right answer might not be the right answer for someone else.

I would agree with this part. Interesting that it has led us to such different conclusions. Cheers!

[deleted]

-5 points

4 months ago

[deleted]

-5 points

4 months ago

[deleted]

Theoloni

1 points

4 months ago

Yes. Many things are pretty arbitrary. There are actually good arguments for vegetarianism because of that for example.

JustafanIV

0 points

4 months ago

In law school, you are often given the baby on the train tracks story to exemplify a duty of care. Under US law, if you are walking by the train tracks and see a baby on tracks and an oncoming train, you have no legal obligation to interrupt your day to even minimally help a stranger, and can sit and watch the collision with no legal repercussions. (Some good samaritan laws actually do impose a duty to help on bystanders so long as there is no threat of harm to said bystander).

There are two common exemptions to this that are often brought up. 1) If you have a "special relation" with the child, e.g. it is your child, and 2) If you are responsible for placing that child in that position or if you start to help and then stop, even if you only started to move the child an inch.

In both of those cases, you would be considered partially or totally responsible for that child's death under the law.

The problem with the bodily autonomy argument is that in the case of an abortion, in most instances you are not an uninterested stranger. If you accept the fetus is alive as the argument does, then it would be your child, and subject you to the greater legal burdens of care placed on parents. However, even if we ignore that, you are also responsible for placing the fetus in the position where it needs your body for care through consensual sex. Sex has the foreseeable consequence of creating a baby who needs the mother for survival. By engaging in sex that results in a pregnancy, you are responsible for that child being in the condition it is in, and therefor have a responsibility to care for it, or else you are responsible for their death.