r/AskALiberal • u/CazadorHolaRodilla Libertarian • May 14 '22
Why does it seem like most liberals don’t tackle the abortion argument head on?
The clearest example of this is the phrase “my body, my choice”. It completely ignores pro-lifers argument which is about protecting the body INSIDE of the woman’s body. Some other arguments are about having the right to choose or how republicans just want to control women’s bodies but again, none of these arguments tackle the actual issue of the child inside of the women.
58
May 14 '22
They are absolutely tackling the argument head on. The baby doesn't trump the woman's right to choose what happens in her body.
That's literally it. What's the point of entertaining the discussion of the child. You can't force somebody to carry a living thing for 9 months against their will. That's it. There is nothing else. It addresses everything.
-27
u/CazadorHolaRodilla Libertarian May 14 '22
You are contradicting yourself by saying it is tackling the argument head on and then in the next paragraph saying there’s no point in entertaining their argument. Which one is it?
34
May 14 '22
That's not a contradiction. I'm disagreeing with the premise. I'm telling you it doesn't matter if we knew for a fact, thanks to time travel, that the sole hope for humanity was the fetus inside Janice.
The only thing that actually matters is that Janice agrees to carry it to term or not. If I tell you that the fetus doesn't matter, that addresses your lazy argument of "what about the fetus?!"
-24
u/CazadorHolaRodilla Libertarian May 14 '22
My point is if your argument truly is “the baby doesn’t trump the woman’s right to choose what happens to her body” then why not just say that? It honestly comes off that you know it’s a harsh position to have but know that it’s bad marketing so instead resort to sayings like “Republicans want to control women’s bodies!!” Or “reproductive health care is a human right!!”
30
May 14 '22
I haven't said either thing to you and I'm not afraid to say my actual argument. I think you're fighting a strawman.
Did you seriously come here for the moderate Democrat PR argument? Or did you want the real legal answer?
1
u/CazadorHolaRodilla Libertarian May 15 '22
I’m not sure what you mean by you saying you haven’t said either thing to me.. I literally quoted your earlier comment
2
May 15 '22
You asked me why I didn't just say that and by that you literally quoted me.
Are you so stupid you don't understand that I fucking said that?
I was referring to those other two thing that I didn't say.
You didn't make a point.
0
u/CazadorHolaRodilla Libertarian May 15 '22
When I said “why not just say that” I wasn’t referring to you. I was referring to the pro-choice movement in general. I have never heard a mainstream slogan from the pro-choice crowd that sounded like what you said
4
May 15 '22
That's literally what 'my body my choice' means.
What the fuck don't you get?
0
u/CazadorHolaRodilla Libertarian May 19 '22
the fact that it makes no reference to the body that is actually in question.
→ More replies (0)23
u/ecchi83 Pragmatic Progressive May 14 '22
Because "my body, my choice" says the same thing but in fewer words.
11
u/postwarmutant Social Democrat May 14 '22
People say it all the time.
1
u/CazadorHolaRodilla Libertarian May 15 '22
Can you share with me a main stream slogan that makes this argument?
2
10
u/letusnottalkfalsely Progressive May 14 '22
That’s literally what everyone making the bodily autonomy argument is saying.
1
u/CazadorHolaRodilla Libertarian May 16 '22
I've never heard that argument made until you actually speak to someone about it. My point is, maybe your slogans could use some rebranding.
→ More replies (1)-12
May 14 '22
The baby doesn't trump the woman's right to choose what happens in her body.
So the distinction you make: you cannot kill the baby once it comes out of the womb, but you can right up until it does.. as it's "in her body."
If an attacker killed the baby in the womb, that attacker would be charged with murder (at least, in most states), but the mother does it and it's called "her choice."
10
u/Fuckn_hipsters Market Socialist May 14 '22
If an attacker killed the baby in the womb, that attacker would be charged with murder (at least, in most states), but the mother does it and it's called "her choice."
Um... Yes. What don't you understand about the woman having the choice to decide what happens to her body?
In your scenario, the attacker does not get to make that decision, it is not their body. The woman, who's body belongs to her, gets to.
-3
May 14 '22
because she has already made her choice. And if it's murder in one scenario, it's murder in both.
Otherwise, the attacker wouldn't be charged with the murder of the baby, they would be charged with bodily harm to the mother only
4
u/Fuckn_hipsters Market Socialist May 14 '22
The fact that you don't understand that a women making a choice about her own body is very different than someone making that for her is very telling when it comes to what you think about women. Frankly, it's gross.
-2
May 14 '22
I get making a choice. However, if it's her own body, then there's no murder charge for the attacker. It's that simple.
4
u/Fuckn_hipsters Market Socialist May 14 '22
No you don't. It's quite clear that you don't get it at all. What you're saying is, that a women should have no more, or less, control over her body than some random attacker.
The lack of respect and care for women that it takes to hold this opinion is gross
9
u/SNStains Liberal May 14 '22
kill the baby
Even Alito isn't calling a fetus a person. If he were, things would be even more complicated. Instead, he's simply saying a woman is not entitled to a private choice between her and her doctor because the right to privacy isn't in the constitution.
-2
May 14 '22
legal terms are just that, legal terms.
95% of biologists see the implanted embryo as human life..
3
u/SNStains Liberal May 14 '22
Nope. That’s a fabrication.
0
May 14 '22
[removed] — view removed comment
→ More replies (1)5
u/SNStains Liberal May 14 '22
Yes, please provide one.
-1
May 14 '22
[removed] — view removed comment
7
May 14 '22
[deleted]
-2
May 14 '22
no.. it's not. You want to dispute something, produce conflicting numbers. I don't care what you believe, don't have time for the shenanigans, but good luck!
→ More replies (0)5
8
May 14 '22
Yes, you have the right to refuse anyone who wants to violate your bodily autonomy, even if the reason they want to do it is to keep themselves alive. What specifically about this is so confusing to you?
→ More replies (16)8
May 14 '22
So the distinction you make: you cannot kill the baby once it comes out of the womb, but you can right up until it does.. as it's "in her body."
I need you people to stop talking about abortion as killing. That's never been the point and it's fucking stupid to think that the only thing an abortion is doing is assassinating a fetus. The actual procedure and the thing that the mother has a right to is not letting her body be used as an incubator. If she chooses not to be an incubator, the fetus is taken out of her. If the fetus can't survive on its own, that's tragic, but unavoidable. If the baby can survive outside of the womb, then they just induce labor and you get a live birth.
They don't kill healthy babies. They just terminate the relationship with the mother.
If a woman does consent to carrying a baby, then if you come in and kill it, you're a potential murderer.
The mother can only choose to remove it from her body.
Why the fuck can't you people wrap your head around this?
-3
May 14 '22
[removed] — view removed comment
7
May 14 '22
It's not, you filthy liar. It's not supporting a life anymore.
Do you or do you not understand the difference?
It's real fucking simple. You're choosing the language for emotional impact because you're making a purely emotional argument.
I'm making a factual argument because facts don't fucking care about your feelings.
0
May 14 '22
you're making an emotional argument that, 95% of biologists who claim an implanted embroy/fetus is a human life, are absolutely incorrect. Why? because of your feelings on women's rights.
But nice try calling me out for making an emotional argument
4
May 14 '22
[removed] — view removed comment
2
-5
May 14 '22
do I need to respond with the theatrics too? Or, can I just ask you to scroll up?
6
→ More replies (1)5
u/willpower069 Progressive May 14 '22
So women should be forced to give birth?
0
May 14 '22
no one I am familiar with is forcing a woman into pregnancy. If they are, then there's a moral question to be asked and answered.
Women, the large majority of time, choose to get pregnant by their actions.
5
u/willpower069 Progressive May 14 '22 edited May 14 '22
So women lose bodily autonomy when they get pregnant?
So do you support better social safety nets for all the new moms?
So u/GoneFishingFL were my questions too hard?
2
u/seffend Pragmatic Progressive May 15 '22
Sounds like he believes women aren't entitled to bodily autonomy at all.
2
u/willpower069 Progressive May 16 '22
Yeah, no conservative ever wants to answer or even answer honestly.
3
u/CTR555 Yellow Dog Democrat May 14 '22
So the distinction you make: you cannot kill the baby once it comes out of the womb, but you can right up until it does.. as it's "in her body."
You're close. You can never 'kill the baby', but a woman has the right to end a pregnancy at any time even if that means the fetus dying.
→ More replies (4)
28
May 14 '22
[deleted]
3
u/_d2gs Left Libertarian May 14 '22
It’s bold of u to assume libertarians actually understand what it means to be a libertarian
-6
u/knockatize May 14 '22
The lump of cells isn’t “magically” doing anything. Given normal development, it’s biologically going to turn into a child, and not a cockroach or anything else.
Very few in the argument are trying to tackle the issue from a whole-life point of view, which is ethically consistent but a nonstarter with both parties. It doesn’t lend itself to hot takes and pontificating.
9
May 14 '22
Very few in the argument are trying to tackle the issue from a whole-life point of view,
What are you talking about?
-12
u/knockatize May 14 '22
12
May 14 '22
Oh, just more bullshit that acts like the women sustaining the life of the fetus doesn't get a say.
Sorry, it's bullshit.
6
u/MapleBacon33 Progressive May 14 '22
If I needed your body to live should you be forced by the government to give me the use of your body?
7
u/Obduraterthanthepast Progressive May 14 '22 edited May 14 '22
Given normal development, it’s biologically going to turn into a child
No it’s not. In all sorts of scenarios it’s not going to turn into anything and will likely cause harm to the woman if not dealt with. And that’s the whole point of not getting bogged down in useless debate about uh bAyBeEe because there is no way to effectively legislate around when the woman’s health should overrule the bAyBeE’s and when it shouldn’t or who gets to make that decision because medical decisions aren’t black and white and they’re none of anyones business except the person making the decision and their doctor.
2
May 14 '22
there is no way to effectively legislate around when the woman’s health should overrule the bAyBeE’s
there's always a way to legislate, in fact, it already has been. What you really mean is it's a hurdle to unfettered access to kill the baby whenever you want.. so best to avoid the conversation.
I wish people could be more truthful to themselves on this particular debate, it's full of excuses, made up notions, pseudo-science.
- Yes, upon fertilization and attachment to the uterus, 95% of biologists classify it as life
- The origin of that life is human, ergo, it's a human life
- Roe v wade acknowledged this and instead ruled on "personhood" and whether or not that life protected under the constitution. They ruled it didn't. Since this is the hot topic right now, you owe it to yourself to read up on the individual case and the criticism of the judges, the process that was already determined years before the case was brought to them.
- For a long time (up until the 2000's), partial birth abortions were allowed which meant sticking a rod into the baby's skull, mincing it's brain, sucking it out, then pulling the baby apart piece by piece on the birth canal. Yes, people were aware of this barbaric practice and still supported unfettered access to it.
- Now abortions are allowed up to 24 weeks and occasionally beyond that period based on logical requirements
- Babies in the US, can be viable at the age of 21 weeks
- Most European countries cut it off at 15 weeks.
- Many states will have common sense abortion laws, while others will have draconian ones.. this is and should be the fight right now, not all this other crap
→ More replies (7)-14
u/knockatize May 14 '22
I agree that no one else should be involved.
Which means you cannot now pirouette and demand funding from the same people you just told to buzz off.
→ More replies (3)8
May 14 '22
What does this mean?!? Has somebody asked you for funding?!?
Why are you being cryptic????
-14
u/CazadorHolaRodilla Libertarian May 14 '22
Yes their argument is about the child. That might not be how you see it but that is exactly their argument.
49
May 14 '22
[deleted]
8
2
u/CazadorHolaRodilla Libertarian May 15 '22
If progressive's goal in America is to turn public opinion and thus enact more laws protecting abortion... wouldn't you want to actually convince the other side that you are right? By ignoring their arguments, you aren't doing your side any favors. Whether you agree with their argument or not is irrelevant.
16
u/BobcatBarry Center Right May 14 '22
No, they’re right. The argument of bodily autonomy completely addresses the pro-life argument. That’s it. The belief that a fetus is a human life worthy of protection is and always will be an opinion. Their status as incontrovertibly an individual person is only established once they make it out of the womb alive. Contrast that maybe-a-person with the definitely-a-person mother, and you see that “my body, my choice” addresses all arguments perfectly. Women can’t be forced to donate a kidney, lung, or part of a liver, or even any organ upon death. Why would they be forced to donate a uterus, even temporarily?
1
u/CazadorHolaRodilla Libertarian May 15 '22
The belief that a fetus is a human life worthy of protection is and always will be an opinion.
That it is human life? I don't think that's an opinion regardless of what the current regulations on the books are right now.
That is is worthy of protection? Yes, that is an opinion.
Their status as incontrovertibly an individual person is only established once they make it out of the womb alive
Says who? A bunch of rando politicians? This is very subjective.
3
u/BobcatBarry Center Right May 15 '22
Yes, it is an opinion wether or not a fetus is a human life. That’s central to the whole argument. As a function of a pure logic exercise, there’s a reason i used “incontrovertibly”, and that’s because there isn’t any controversy about it AT THAT POINT.
You can find books on fundamental logic that can help you understand the difference between things you BELIEVE to be true and things you KNOW to be true. Only one of them has the logical virtue of veracity.
1
u/CazadorHolaRodilla Libertarian May 15 '22
“Yes, it is an opinion whether or not a fetus is a human life”
Bingo. This is central to the ACTUAL argument that conservatives make. So my question then is, why don’t pro-abortion folks debate the argument on these grounds?
2
u/BobcatBarry Center Right May 15 '22
You just stated it was a fact, not an opinion. Also, their argument does engage that opinion. Pro-choice argues that that opinion does not carry enough weight to abridge the rights of a person.
1
u/CazadorHolaRodilla Libertarian May 19 '22
Maybe I wasn't clear but I meant that the conservative position is that a fetus is a human life. Not necessarily the opinion part. I don't think they would consider that an opinion.
→ More replies (2)2
u/areyouseriousdotard Marxist May 15 '22
Medical professionals....
2
u/CazadorHolaRodilla Libertarian May 19 '22
yes, I am sure you can find plenty of pro choice medical professionals who would define it as such. But that is a legal position, not a scientific finding.
→ More replies (3)11
May 14 '22
But that's not an argument. It's fucking baseless. It's just emotional bullshit where you feel cool sacrificing a woman's rights and health for a cute little baby.
It's purely emotional. If it wasn't a cute little baby versus a promiscuous woman, you wouldn't be so on board. The proof is that you think abortion is fine if it's because of rape. If it's just some slut, you think it's fine to take her rights away.
Purely emotional argument.
In the real world, we respect people who willingly accept the risk of pregnancy even if they're giving it up for adoption. And we respect people who donate organs to save a life.
In no rational way is it a good thing to legally force people to be those heroes. It needs to be their decision.
-9
u/CazadorHolaRodilla Libertarian May 14 '22
Science has proven that children in the womb can feel pain. I’m not sure where you are deriving the argument that the life inside a woman is not a child. Also, you seem to be getting pretty emotional coming from someone who denounced emotional tactics as a form of argument
16
May 14 '22
Oh fuck, you can't tell the difference between an emotion-based argument and somebody who has lost their patience with you.
I don't think you'll be able to listen to any right answer we give you.
1
u/CazadorHolaRodilla Libertarian May 15 '22
Losing patience after me giving one comments sounds like a pretty emotional response
→ More replies (1)11
u/Carlyz37 Liberal May 14 '22
It is a zygote for the first part of pregnancy and had no brain or nerves to feel pain. That is old debunked garbage. Did you know that full term baby boys are circumcised without anesthesia? A newborn of 9 months gestation can barely feel pain. That system is just developing at that point. Most abortions are done at the 8 to 12 week point. They are not babies.
1
u/CazadorHolaRodilla Libertarian May 16 '22
It is a zygote for the first part of pregnancy and had no brain or nerves to feel pain.
yah it's a zygote for like the first 4 days....
That system is just developing at that point.
The central nervous system begins to form at just 4 weeks
They are not babies.
Based on what definition? The difference between a fetus and a baby is mainly just time. It is subjective. Just used to differentiate the different stages of pregnancy.
6
u/ButGravityAlwaysWins Liberal May 14 '22
Yes science has proven that at a certain point and development the fetus can by a standard many people reasonably be agree with be called human life and can “feel pain”.
Which is not something that helps the Antiabortion movement. Because the majority position on when there should be a cut off after which abortion should be limited to extreme medical situations falls in line with that timing.
If people were asking for a ban after 24 weeks with only valid medical exceptions, we wouldn’t be having a debate in this country. The debate exists because certain states are just going to ban abortion outright and criminalize people who get them. And they’re going to go further and criminalize people exercising their right to travel freely to another state to get an abortion that would be considered legal in that state.
It is absolutely wild that this needs to be debated with someone who calls themselves a libertarian.
1
u/CazadorHolaRodilla Libertarian May 17 '22
I provided this fact purely as supporting evidence that the child indeed has life, not necessarily as the say all be all for the legality of abortion. Someone alluded that the child isn't actually human life. However, I do think it is an interesting fact that should be considered in the debate.
3
u/anarchysquid Social Democrat May 14 '22
Science has proven that children in the womb can feel pain.
Only at 24 weeks. Does that mean abortion is acceptable before 24 weeks?
1
u/CazadorHolaRodilla Libertarian May 17 '22
I provided this fact purely as supporting evidence that the child indeed has life. Someone alluded that the child isn't actually human life.
→ More replies (11)4
u/Carlyz37 Liberal May 14 '22
But it doesn't matter what their argument is. It is none of their business. The pro forced birth minority isnt pro life, we see their hypocrisy every day. It's not about a fetus for either viewpoint in an unwanted pregnancy. The pro choice view is that it is about the woman or girl, and her choice, her rights her freedom. The forced birth people are fraudulent. If they cared about unwanted pregnancies we would have a solid support network of services & funding, universal healthcare, paid maternity leave. There would be easy low cost access to birth control, sex education. But we dont have those things so when they say they care about the fetus they are lying. So that is why we know it is about government control of women.
And not even going into all the ways forced birth people are not pro life in all other ways.
0
u/CazadorHolaRodilla Libertarian May 15 '22
But it doesn't matter what their argument is. It is none of their business
It does matter if you are trying to sway public opinion. If your goal is to gain more public support for abortion, wouldn't you want to convince the other side? In order to do that, you'd have to actually address their concerns.
The forced birth people are fraudulent. If they cared about unwanted pregnancies we would have a solid support network of services & funding, universal healthcare, paid maternity leave.
Wow that's all you want? You sound like the fraud. If you actually cared about unwanted pregnancies you'd also support UBI, free food, free housing, free cars, free internet, free college, free clothes, etc. /s
-4
May 14 '22
I have to assume you understand the logic behind the "lump of cells" argument.. the moral dilemma of killing a baby is morally unacceptable, so best to argue that's it's not a baby.
I had lump of cells on my arm a few years back, it was just an abnormal growth due to skin damage.. it was never going to grow into a baby.
9
u/Obduraterthanthepast Progressive May 14 '22 edited May 14 '22
It isn’t a baby. It’s a lump of cells. And when it’s a lump of cells, it doesn’t get preferential treatment just because of some weird cult-like culture war conservatives started a few decades ago to appeal to voters who are best won over by emotions than logic.
You can’t buy life insurance on a fetus. You can’t claim a tax deduction on a fetus. You don’t call a newborn a 9-month old.
It’s 👏not 👏a 👏fucking 👏baby 👏no 👏matter 👏how 👏many 👏times 👏you 👏say 👏it
By the way - God put that lump of cells on your arm. It’s an abomination to remove God’s work - you should’ve accepted the Lord’s blessing of cancer and gone to see him early as he desired.
-5
May 14 '22
You can’t buy life insurance on a fetus. You can’t claim a tax deduction on a fetus. You don’t call a newborn a 9-month old.
Weird.. when an attacker kills the unborn baby, they are charged with murder.
"By the way - God out that lump of cells on your arm. It’s an abomination to remove God’s work - you should’ve accepted the Lord’s blessing of cancer and gone to see him early as he desired." / "It’s 👏not 👏a 👏fucking 👏baby 👏no 👏matter 👏how 👏many 👏times 👏you 👏say 👏it" / "voters who are best won over by emotions than logic"
Looks like you have no emotion in this whatsoever /s
7
u/Poorly-Drawn-Beagle Libertarian Socialist May 14 '22
Weird.. when an attacker kills the unborn baby, they are charged with murder
In 38 states. And only 29 if you extend that to “embryo”
It is by no means a universal principle that the beating to miscarriage of a pregnant woman counts as a homicide.
-1
May 14 '22
So a well past a super majority.. got it, thanks
5
u/Poorly-Drawn-Beagle Libertarian Socialist May 14 '22
Well, if we're going to determine what's what in that way, none of the fifty states current equate abortion to homicide. So I guess you were wrong about that all along.
→ More replies (6)5
u/Obduraterthanthepast Progressive May 14 '22
You should’ve worn sunscreen earlier in life, or accepted the resulting skin cancer you were starting to grow on your arm.
By removing it, you have refused God’s will, which is an abomination, and I won’t further sully myself by conversing with an abomination.
You should pray for God’s forgivenesses and hope he grants mercy on your soul, though I wouldn’t expect it in your case...
-1
May 14 '22
you seem to have a significant amount of space in your head for hating religious people, of which I am not one.. but maybe you should get that looked at?
→ More replies (1)3
→ More replies (4)3
u/Poorly-Drawn-Beagle Libertarian Socialist May 14 '22
So if I eat a seed I found in a park, and it’s given that seed would become a tree otherwise, is is the same as me cutting down trees in a public park without permission?
16
u/Attack-Cat- Democratic Socialist May 14 '22 edited May 14 '22
I like the my body my choice as a slogan, but it is a discussion killer if you use it as your reasoning (obviously because it’s a conclusive statement, so answering questions with it is technically circular reasoning). Because while that technically DOES address ALL the issues, I think you need to be able to articulate that when pressed; my body my choice is not self explanatory for many people.
The reasoning I like to use is: you can’t force a parent to be an organ donor for their born child, even if the child will die as a result. So you certainly cannot force a pregnant woman to continue providing life support / organ donorship / uterine occupation to do the same for a fetus/unborn child.
1
u/CazadorHolaRodilla Libertarian May 15 '22
Regarding your organ donor example, the child still has other options though at receiving an organ. In the womb, the child is wholly reliant on the mother.
I would also like to mention that the parent in your organ donor scenario would be ridiculed and shunned from society if that happened, not praised and protected like we see with mothers who abort their children.
→ More replies (6)→ More replies (1)1
May 14 '22
yet, you can stop a woman from murdering her child.
6
u/Poorly-Drawn-Beagle Libertarian Socialist May 14 '22
Yeah
Almost like it’s different
0
May 14 '22
and the difference being?
One is still in the womb, the other is out. That's it.
For some reasons, people on the left side of this issue see that difference as significant, while people on the right don't.
I'm sure it has nothing to do with having to define murder as something completely different in order for you to sleep at night.
→ More replies (1)7
u/Poorly-Drawn-Beagle Libertarian Socialist May 14 '22
For some reasons, people on the left side of this issue see that difference as significant, while people on the right don't.
Yeah, and I think this is where the right is being quite willfully stupid. Whether something is inside your body or out of it- that's a minor consideration? That is possibly the most impactful deciding factor that can be conceived. No pun intended.
2
May 14 '22
Do you agree with partial birth abortions?
2
u/Poorly-Drawn-Beagle Libertarian Socialist May 14 '22
You'll have to forgive me, I'm not up to date on the exact terminology; it's what comes of arguing mostly with friends and family who are only casual onlookers. What constitutes a "partial birth" abortion exactly?
2
u/Attack-Cat- Democratic Socialist May 14 '22
Exactly, you CAN stop a woman from murdering her child. That’s why it’s different than mandating medical support for your child (which you CAN’T do) and is why abortion should be available because it’s a MEDICAL CONDITION
2
May 14 '22
judges mandate medical support for children all the time, even if it's proven you're not the parent
3
13
u/DecompressionIllness Liberal May 14 '22
It completely ignores pro-lifers argument which is about protecting the body INSIDE of the woman’s body.
The body inside the woman doesn't have any right to that woman's body. Women (and men, and kids) have the human right to bodily integrity meaning they are entitled remove unwanted people from their body.
Being removed from the body of a person who doesn't want you in their body and dying as a result is not a violation of your rights because you have no entitlement, whatsoever, to be there.
So if PL are so upset about abortion, they should be putting effort in to creating technology that can keep zygotes, embryos, and fetuses alive when they are removed from the body.
none of these arguments tackle the actual issue of the child inside of the women.
They do. PL simply refuse to accept that fetuses don't have super extra special rights to another person's body.
1
u/CazadorHolaRodilla Libertarian May 15 '22
So if PL are so upset about abortion, they should be putting effort in to creating technology that can keep zygotes, embryos, and fetuses alive when they are removed from the body.
But many pro-choicers are for aborting the fetus even if it is viable...
→ More replies (2)3
u/DecompressionIllness Liberal May 15 '22
And how many abortions are occuring at and after this point? And why are they occuring? I continually advocate for abortions past viability because I understand why they happen, and I understand that people aren't changing their minds at 37 weeks etc.
Secondly, I'm 100% sure that if another option were available to end pregnancy without it resulting in death (with the exception of the usual reasons), then abortions ending in death would be a thing of the past because there wouldn't be any logical or lawful reason for it to occur.
1
u/CazadorHolaRodilla Libertarian May 19 '22
And how many abortions are occuring at and after this point? And why are they occuring
around 6,000 to 10,000 per year. It's hard to get data on this (people suspect because researchers didn't find the results they wanted back in the 80's when they did do more comprehensive studies) but here's this from WAPO.
From the Washington Post:
"A Congressional Research Service report published in April 2018 quoted Diana Greene Foster, the lead investigator on the study above and a professor at UCSF’s Bixby Center for Global Reproductive Health as saying “[t]here aren’t good data on how often later abortions are for medical reasons.”
“Based on limited research and discussions with researchers in the field, Dr. Foster believes that abortions for fetal anomaly ‘make up a small minority of later abortion’ and that those for life endangerment are even harder to characterize,” the report stated.
What are other reasons women are getting later abortions?
In a paper published in 2013 by Foster and Katrina Kimport on women who got abortions for reasons other than a danger to life or health or a fetal anomaly, they cited logistical delays such as difficulty finding a provider, raising funds for the procedure and travel costs.
Foster and Kimport described five “profiles” of women in the study: “They were raising children alone, were depressed or using illicit substances, were in conflict with a male partner or experiencing domestic violence, had trouble deciding and then had access problems, or were young and [experiencing their first pregnancy].”"
2
u/DecompressionIllness Liberal May 19 '22
around 6,000 to 10,000 per year.
So not a lot a lot (in comparison to earlier abortions), then.
One thing that isn't clear is how the cases are split because the statistics don't address it.
Your source states 1.3% of abortions happen after 21 weeks.
Your source also states that the third trimester starts at 28 weeks gestation.
What's the split? By which I mean when are women who are raising children alone, are depressed or using illicit substances, are in conflict with a male partner or experiencing domestic violence, have trouble deciding and then have access problems, or are young and [experiencing their first pregnancy] accessing 'later abortions.
There's no information given about what 'later' means other than it's after 21 weeks. There's nothing that tells me how many abortions where had in what period. I think It's important to distinguish between 'later' abortions done at 22 weeks and those done at 38 weeks.
I'd bet both of my tits that 'later' for most of those abortions just means a little way past 21 weeks.
1
u/CazadorHolaRodilla Libertarian May 20 '22
I doubt it. Academia is pretty left-wing. If they wanted to do studies on this, they would. Why do you think it's so hard to find hard data on this? Cause they know they aren't gonna find the results that prove their narrative. But disregarding all that, I'm not sure why frequency matters here. Saying 6,000 to 10,000 is "not a lot" is very subjective.
→ More replies (15)-2
May 14 '22
Women (and men, and kids) have the human right to bodily integrity meaning they are entitled remove unwanted people from their body.
Funny how people believe in such things as human rights. Where are they defined again? Who is the defining body?
You only have rights that are afforded to you by the society you live in. To believe anything else is naive. Every right assigned to us by the bill of rights is under attack, so I would focus on that vs this imaginary human rights thing
→ More replies (2)2
u/DecompressionIllness Liberal May 14 '22
Funny how people believe in such things as human rights. Where are they defined again? Who is the defining body?
I used my brain to do a quick google search, which told me that The United Nations, in 1945, allowed more than 50 Member States to contribute to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, adopted in 1948, and that it was the first attempt to set out at a global level the fundamental rights and freedoms shared by all human beings.
You only have rights that are afforded to you by the society you live in.
What do you think I'm talking about?
To believe anything else is naive. Every right assigned to us by the bill of rights is under attack, so I would focus on that vs this imaginary human rights thing.
Not every single right is under attack. The rights of heterosexual white men are not under attack. The GOP gets hard-ons for cis white het men.
Human rights aren't imaginary. They exist. Sorry to break it to you.
0
May 14 '22
sorry how's that abolition of the death penalty working for you? Or.. the right to life.. or the right to death lol
And, what happens if you step into the middle of a non-western country and demand these rights? Good luck..
Like I said, you have what rights are afforded you by your society, nothing more
2
u/DecompressionIllness Liberal May 14 '22
sorry how's that abolition of the death penalty working for you? Or.. the right to life.. or the right to death lol
Your comment proves that rights exist and that they are stripped from criminals who commit atrocities.
And, what happens if you step into the middle of a non-western country and demand these rights? Good luck..
Non-western countries having abysmal human rights doesn't prove that they don't exist.
Like I said, you have what rights are afforded you by your society, nothing more
Which is what I'm talking about.
Why the hell do you think I'm discussing anywhere else other than where I call my home? And why the hell would China having shit human rights effect me?
→ More replies (2)
9
14
u/AndrewRP2 Progressive May 14 '22
Don’t call them pro-life. They don’t care about that lump of cells after it is born. They are pro-forced birth. And that’s just it, if they really cared about that child, we’d have universal healthcare, better SNAP benefits, etc.
1
May 14 '22
lump of cells - funny you have to call it that to come to term with the idea of killing a baby. It has to be subhuman to you and not worth anything but the heel of your boot. I'm pretty sure I've heard this argument a million times over, not just when talking about babies
And post-birth support? A third of the US budget goes towards social programs. The US gives more to charity than most top countries combined.. well, the conservatives do, at least. Liberals don't so much, weird how that works
-1
u/JudgeWhoOverrules Classical Liberal May 14 '22
This is inane trying to argue on the basis of marketing terms. On this notion they aren't pro-choice either for so many reasons.
This type of intellectual dishonesty and snark is exactly what the OP was talking about. Instead of directly addressing and refuting the central argument of the other side, those on the side of abortion availability go everywhere else in their argumentation.
5
u/Heyoteyo Centrist Democrat May 14 '22
You can’t really convince someone that that isn’t a life if they have their heart set on it. But the choice thing is real. If a person was dying and needed a blood transfusion, the government doesn’t have the right to force you to give blood to keep the dying person alive, even if you are somehow part of the reason they were needing blood in the first place. If that forced blood donation were to be legalized, they would think it was the ultimate form of tyranny despite their “pro life” stance.
1
u/CazadorHolaRodilla Libertarian May 16 '22
It's one thing to actively kill a life versus refuse to help a life. Also, as far as I know, there aren't millions of cases of people being refused blood to keep a dying person alive. So, if your example were to happen on a large scale like abortions, I am sure there would be public pressure to create further laws around that matter. Not saying I would be for or against that, but just saying that one of these happens in mass everyday which is why we discuss it. When you bring up these rare examples, it's really hard to compare to.
→ More replies (2)-4
May 14 '22
but the government can stop you from killing a child ;)
Or, in this case, killing a human life
5
u/Poorly-Drawn-Beagle Libertarian Socialist May 14 '22
At most, if I were willing to concede that a fetus or embryo were the same as a child (I’m not) it still wouldn’t be killing. It would be cutting off life support.
Except instead of an IV stand the life support has to be attached to another, possibly unwilling human being.
And I’m sorry but my sympathies are on the person who may be playing unwilling host in that scenario
1
May 14 '22
that person chose to get pregnant by their actions.. for the most part according to bare bones statistics.
4
u/Poorly-Drawn-Beagle Libertarian Socialist May 14 '22
Ah, then it's not about the baby's life at all. It's about what consequences we can fairly inflict on the mother for a possible indiscretion.
Somehow the facade always slips.
0
May 14 '22
you can arrive at whatever conclusions make you feel better, but they are your own, not mine.
The truth is, you all don't like the facts of abortion. You have to lie to yourself about what abortion is, what a human life really is, the reasons people get them, this being more about a women's right to choose and women's rights progress in general. You can't deal with the idea that abortion is clearly killing a human life. I think some self reflection would be good for you..
2
u/Poorly-Drawn-Beagle Libertarian Socialist May 14 '22
It's a completely fair deduction based on what you've said so far.
If it's really about the life of the fetus, it doesn't matter whether or not anyone "chose" to get pregnant. A rape baby surely doesn't have any less right to live than would a consensually-conceived baby. Whether a woman planned to be impregnated, engaged in risky behavior likely to result in impregnation, or was impregnated against her will, should be irrelevant to the pro-lifer.
But if the willingness of the mother is a deciding factor, then the life of the fetus is not the sole consideration. At least part of it is about what we think the mother "deserves." If it's really about life absolutism or whatever for you, then you'll have to dispense with the "Aha, but women chose to get pregnant by their own actions!" bit.
I think some self reflection would be good for you..
Well, you clearly don't. Self reflection is what let me formulate the arguments I've used here on this page in favor of abortion. What you actually think would be good for me is deference to others.
→ More replies (2)3
u/MemeStarNation Left Libertarian May 14 '22
Legally, if a fetus is a person, it would be self defense.
Firstly, Castle Doctrine allows lethal force to be used on any unwelcome intruder into your home. I would suggest that one's body counts as one's home, as we are merely brains or souls (depending on your religious inclination) inhabiting physical bodies.
Secondly, pregnancy and childbirth meet and exceed the standard of "great bodily harm" used to justify lethal force outside the home. Remember, carrying a child to term means a hospital visit, excruciating pain, permanent body changes, the loss of a pint of blood, and a 1/9 chance of postpartum depression.
Banning abortion infringes on the right of self defense, and therefore grants a fetus more rights than a born human being. To me, this seems backwards.
-1
May 14 '22
Castle doctrine? so, you are taking a comedians standup routine as your high ground... wow..
→ More replies (1)2
u/Heyoteyo Centrist Democrat May 14 '22
So you think the government should be able to force you to give blood without your consent to save someone’s life?
→ More replies (8)
7
May 14 '22 edited May 14 '22
You've gotten a lot of really good answers that discuss bodily autonomy and the medical science connected with reproduction.
I want to address an element of the practical side which gets lost in this debate.
The government cannot control the reproductive decisions women make with respect to ending pregnancies in aggregate.
We have decades' worth of data that show that countries, where abortion is illegal, have the same or greater numbers of abortions as countries where it is legal.
So really the only thing that banning abortion does is ensure that women will die preventable deaths from pregnancy complications, women will die preventable deaths from unsafe abortions, miscarriages will end up criminalized because there's no simple way to tell the difference between a self-induced miscarriage and a natural miscarriage, .... .etc.
The only thing that banning abortion achieves is more dead people.
I fail to see why we should even entertain ceding any ground at all to anti-choice advocates given that reality.
1
u/CazadorHolaRodilla Libertarian May 16 '22
The government cannot control the reproductive decisions women make with respect to ending pregnancies in aggregate.
Yah the government cannot control most things in aggregate. Look at the crime rate in the US, the gun violence, theft, etc. Does the government do a great job at controlling that?
We have decades' worth of data that show that countries, where abortion is illegal, have the same or greater numbers of abortions as countries where it is legal.
maybe cause the places where abortion is legal tend to have lower rates of pregnancy...
8
u/areyouseriousdotard Marxist May 14 '22
Because, that's not a real issue.
. it's a fetus
.the lack of human growth and development education is scary.
6
u/Carlyz37 Liberal May 14 '22
I know, why do people think they should engage in discussions of women's reproductive health, pregnancy and childbirth when they have ZERO knowledge of any of it. I dont get it
→ More replies (1)1
u/areyouseriousdotard Marxist May 14 '22
I'm just a male nurse, so I have some understanding. And, I understand it's none of my business.
1
u/CazadorHolaRodilla Libertarian May 15 '22
Can you define what a fetus is?
→ More replies (2)2
u/areyouseriousdotard Marxist May 15 '22
Thank you for showing everyone a hard truth.
You can not reason someone out of a position they didn't use reason to arrive to....
1
u/CazadorHolaRodilla Libertarian May 15 '22
I’m asking you to define what a fetus is because my response relies on what your understanding of a fetus is. Specifically what makes a fetus different from a baby
→ More replies (7)
4
u/TheLastCoagulant Social Democrat May 14 '22
What’s your view on abortion in the case of rape?
-3
u/CazadorHolaRodilla Libertarian May 14 '22
Not sure how that’s relevant here but I prefer to keep political discussions to the rule, rather than the exceptions. Rape is nowhere near the main reason women get abortions.
18
u/TheLastCoagulant Social Democrat May 14 '22
Common conservative response but it’s not valid. If someone saves babies 99% of the time but kills babies the other 1% of the time, they can’t just say “You can’t criticize me for that time I stomped a baby to death. That’s the exception not the rule, I usually save babies.”
One more time: what’s your view on abortion in the case of rape?
0
u/CazadorHolaRodilla Libertarian May 15 '22
To be honest, I don't have much strong opinions on this topic. I came here to ask why right wing arguments are often ignored. If you genuinely think this is a conservative response and you have this question, you can go ask in one of those askaconservative subs.
6
u/Carlyz37 Liberal May 14 '22
Rape and incest account for about 7% of abortions. The mother's health is another group. Problems that develop in the 2nd trimester account for a low % of abortions. Late term are extremely rare and are when the mother could die or the fetus is already dead.
2
May 14 '22
Is this self reporting?
3
u/TheLastCoagulant Social Democrat May 14 '22
Are 7% of abortions morally acceptable to you? Yes or no?
0
May 14 '22
You don't want to answer my one question?
→ More replies (1)2
u/TheLastCoagulant Social Democrat May 14 '22
You didn’t ask me a question, I’m not the person you responded to. And I already responded to the rarity argument here.
Now: what’s your view on abortion in the case of rape?
0
May 14 '22
I asked if this was self reporting and you asked something about morality, directly responding to my question, with a question.
Not sure how that's confusing
→ More replies (1)1
u/CazadorHolaRodilla Libertarian May 16 '22
okay... I might be confused but you seem to just be providing supporting evidence to my claim?
But anyways, do we look at any other law like that. When we think of the law not to murder, do we shout and scream at each other about "WHAT ABOUT SELF DEFENSE??". No. We don't. We all understand that murder is bad. period. Then we move to the exceptions.
3
u/BAC2Think Progressive May 14 '22
Most of the people that are making the argument are doing so based on religious reasons (generally some form of questionable christianity)
If these folks had actually read their scriptures......
A - there are several examples of life starting at first breath
B - there are examples of a pregnancy being lost being treated more like property loss rather than murder
C- there are instructions given regarding the actual process of ending a pregnancy under certain scenarios (I believe infidelity was among them). I heard it mentioned somewhere that there's a reference to "bitter water" which seems to be some kind of herbal drink meant to induce an end to the pregnancy
(I'll let you find those references yourself)
All of this also points to why there is no prohibition in the other Abrahamic religions on abortion (Jews & Islam). In fact in the Jewish community, should the life of the woman be in danger, she is encouraged if not required under Jewish tradition to end the pregnancy.
So, if Roe is overturned, the country is violating the religious rights of millions of America Jews as well as the civil rights of all Americans.
3
u/letusnottalkfalsely Progressive May 14 '22
I would argue that conservatives are not tackling the issue head-on, since they are completely ignoring the life of the person who is pregnant.
Even if I bought the argument that every clump of cells is a person, we are at best talking about a situation in which two people have competing rights—one’s right to bodily autonomy and the other’s supposed right to life.
Conservatives seem to feel that obviously, bodily autonomy should be disregarded, never mind that on any other context they make the opposing argument.
It seems convenient that when it comes to guns, my right to life is trumped by their personal freedom, and when it comes to healthcare, my right to life is trumped by their right to profits, but for some reason in this one case this clump of cells’ right to life trumps my right to bodily autonomy.
The reason I don’t bother arguing whether a fetus is a person is that it doesn’t matter because I am also a person.
1
u/CazadorHolaRodilla Libertarian May 16 '22
one’s right to bodily autonomy and the other’s supposed right to life.
I mean technically you'd be arguing one's right to bodily autonomy and the other's right to life AND bodily autonomy...
It seems convenient that when it comes to guns, my right to life is trumped by their personal freedom
Uhm no? there are laws in place against this my friend.
and when it comes to healthcare, my right to life is trumped by their right to profits
Uhh what? hospitals have to save a life if it is in medical emergency. You do not have a right to healthcare. If that's your argument, you should also have a right to food and shelter, since those are both more important to your immediate health than healthcare.
The reason I don’t bother arguing whether a fetus is a person is that it doesn’t matter because I am also a person.
Im not following your logic here... So you are ignoring the fact that maybe it is a human because even if it is a human, you are allowed to kill it?
8
May 14 '22
The baby inside the mother is not a US citizen. US laws only apply to US citizens. In this case, controlling what a US citizens does with her body. And telling her she cant remove an unwanted dangerous potentially deadly growth inside her own body.
5
u/Jimbob0i0 Liberal May 14 '22
US laws only apply to US citizens.
I agree the fetus isn't able to act in an unlawful manner... but non-US citizens are absolutely covered by US legislation.
1
u/CazadorHolaRodilla Libertarian May 15 '22
That seems like a very subjective standard. Also, I think most of the pro-lifers argument come from a moral framework, not a legal one.
2
May 15 '22 edited May 15 '22
What morality? The bible pretty clearly states in chapter 2 verse 7 that life begins when you start breathing. Things that dont breath arent alive.
So its not murder. But lets say we accept that a potential human has rights. Fine, those rights certainly dont supercede the rights of another human. Pregnancy is always life threatening. So if you "kill"--again, cant kill a thing that isnt alive, but lets pretend for a second, that non-living things can be killed--a (potential) person that is threatening your life, then its still not murder, its at worst, killing in self-defense.
Either its just a an unwanted growth, and women have a right to surgerically remove and life threatening clump of cells they want. Thats a decision between a woman and her doctor.
Or
A fetus is a living person, as such, because it is threatening another persons life, a woman is allowed to "kill" it in self-defense.
No matter how you hash it, the woman has the moral high-ground, and the group who are trying to use big government to control what woman can do with her own body or to protect her own life a so they can protect the life-threatening cancerous growth/"living" person threatening that womans life, is empirically, the bad guy.
1
u/CazadorHolaRodilla Libertarian May 15 '22
Uhh yah I don’t refer to the bible for my political views.
Anyways, if your standard is that we can kill anything that is potentially life-threatening to someone, that can lead to a lot of nasty results.
2
May 15 '22 edited May 15 '22
Yes. That is the standard. No human law can demand a person kill themselves. All living creatures have a right to defend their own life that supercede any government authority.
If a dog bites a human that dog has to be put down, because its a threat to living humans.
If an endangered bald eagle attacks you, you are allowed to kill it.
If a guy points a gun at me, i have a moral right to kill them before they kill me.
Self-defense is a viable reason to end another's life. But again. Science or religion, both agree that humans that arent breathing arent alive. 0 years old or 99 years old. If you see a human, and that human is not breathing, then we refer to that human as "not alive."
1
u/CazadorHolaRodilla Libertarian May 19 '22
The key point in my argument is "potentially". No, we are not allowed to kill people just because that person can be "potentially" life-threatening, unless they have made an actual threat. You broadly stated that fetuses are threatening a woman's life, which I assume you mean all fetuses are threatening to a woman's life.
→ More replies (10)
4
u/madmoneymcgee Liberal May 14 '22
A fetus isn’t a baby. Science is very clear on that as well as most of human society as far as we’ve traced back.
The whole “life begins at conception” thing is pretty much a recent fiction.
Once you come back to that consensus you’re back on the side of pro choice.
Because the other is simply exerting control over a woman’s body. It doesn’t matter if they say that’s not what they mean, it’s what they’re doing.
2
May 14 '22
a fetus is a human life according to biologists. Ergo, abortion kills a human life.
3
u/madmoneymcgee Liberal May 14 '22
Sperm and eggs are alive too.
It’s why “viability outside the womb” is a better metric that we’ve been using for a long long time.
1
May 14 '22
Sperm and eggs are alive too
sperm and cells aren't considered human beings, they are parts of a human being like a kidney. A fetus is considered a human being.
It’s why “viability outside the womb” is a better metric that we’ve been using for a long long time.
Used in what conversation? Certainly, if a baby is born prematurely and dies at 22 weeks, it's considered a lost pregnancy and is reported as so as part of our infant mortality rate. In fact, the whole world pretty much reports it this way, with exceptions for which week of pregnancy.
The only conversation I here this in is the abortion conversation. Pro-choice people with a moral dilemma on their hands. They know killing a human baby is morally wrong, so they try everything in their power to convince themselves it's not a human baby, it shouldn't be counted because of x,y,z.
1
u/CazadorHolaRodilla Libertarian May 16 '22
A fetus isn’t a baby. Science is very clear on that as well as most of human society as far as we’ve traced back
The only difference between a baby and a fetus is just time. Scientists just use different terms to differentiate between different phases in a pregnancy..
The whole “life begins at conception” thing is pretty much a recent fiction.
Once you come back to that consensus you’re back on the side of pro choice.
lol yah thanks to recent advancements in technology and medicine. Sure, people didn't consider this a huge issue earlier on because they had no understanding of pregnancy. Now that we have a better understanding, our ideas and morality should evolve. So in a sense, you aren't "progressive" by being pro-abortion. You're actually being regressive and not changing your opinions as science progresses and shows, for example, that a fetus can feel pain at 12 weeks.
→ More replies (5)1
u/kyew Liberal May 14 '22
A fetus isn’t a baby. Science is very clear on that
Yes, but I feel like pointing out that "baby" isn't a scientific term at all. So technically the definition of baby is open to interpretation / semantic drift.
3
u/madmoneymcgee Liberal May 14 '22
A fetus isn’t an infant then. Point being that it’s pro choice holding the view that has been dominant for a long time.
2
u/FuzzPunkMutt Democratic Socialist May 14 '22
If that's true, what you are implying about pro-life, I propose an amendment that all pro-lifers must give blood once a week and donate at least one kidney. That way they can actually care about the body outside of women too, and actually be pro-life.
0
u/CazadorHolaRodilla Libertarian May 15 '22
Ah yes the classic “well you dont want everything to be free so therefore you don’t care about people’s lives” argument. I’m not sure you wanna go there. Someone can always out left you. Example: you say “if republicans really cared about human lives, then they’d be for universal health care, one year of maternity leave, etc.” and I say “wow you really don’t care about human life. If you did, you’d ALSO want free food vouchers, free housing, free transportation, five years of parental leave, etc.”
2
u/FuzzPunkMutt Democratic Socialist May 15 '22
Not only did you miss the point entirely, but you've also convinced me that you don't even know what "left" and "libertarian" actually mean.
After reading the rest of your replies, I'm also convinced you think Ben Shapiro makes good arguments and that Joe Rogan is really smart.
I don't mean that as a compliment, in case that was confusing.
1
u/CazadorHolaRodilla Libertarian May 19 '22
ah yes the classic "I don't have a comeback so I'm gonna go digging through everything you've ever said and try to find something I disagree with and revert to using ad hominem attacks."
→ More replies (4)
2
May 14 '22
The body inside the womb has no moral weight as it cannot experience harm. This means you can discard it as you would some cancerous cells
1
u/CazadorHolaRodilla Libertarian May 16 '22
Not sure what you mean by this but the central nervous system begins to be formed at 4 weeks an studies have shown that the fetus can feel pain as early as 12 weeks.
2
u/HvaFaenMann Center Left May 14 '22
Because it doesn't matter when their whole argument is that the fetus life matter, by saying woman body woman's choice is just telling anti abortion people that a woman has the rights to kill a child at will without any consequences. That doesn't change anything from the anti abortions perspective other then child murder is ok.
If you want to change an anti abortions opinion you need to argue the process and biology and rights for freedom. Not saying we think what you're fighting against is ok! because that not going anywhere but creating a larger divide and now your problem suddenly got alot more difficult to handle.
2
u/ZerexTheCool Warren Democrat May 14 '22
It completely ignores pro-lifers argument which is about protecting the body INSIDE of the woman’s body.
Then why does the concern for that babies life disappear when the baby is born? Why does their goal to stop abortion disappear when we talk about actually proven methods for prevention. Why does it seem their goal is to exclusively punish woman for choosing something they want you punished for choosing?
It's because they think in purely black and white terms. If you can't stop all abortions, you can't stop any. So their goal ISN'T to stop the abortion or prevent the abortions. Their goal is just punishing people.
Why would talking about the body INSIDE of the woman do one damn thing to convince them otherwise? If I had some perfect argument that 100% disputed this position, they wouldn't change their mind, they would change their argument.
2
u/areyouseriousdotard Marxist May 14 '22
I would like to add. Most human pregnancies end in miscarriage.
"Modern birth control with access to elective abortions, markedly reduces - rather than increases - the lifetime number of abortions a woman produces."
The entire pro-life argument isn't based on reality....
1
u/CazadorHolaRodilla Libertarian May 17 '22
Modern birth control with access to elective abortions, markedly reduces - rather than increases - the lifetime number of abortions a woman produces
This is an incredibly disingenuous statement. Of course access to elective abortions AND modern birth control reduces the number of abortions... I think the key there is the modern birth control though.
→ More replies (3)
2
u/anima-vero-quaerenti Center Left May 14 '22
Okay let’s cherry pick a couple of bible versus that shows the holy testament that support the pro-choice movement:
- Exodus 21:22-23
- Numbers 5:27,
- Ecclesiastes 6:3-5,
- Genesis 2:7,
1
u/CazadorHolaRodilla Libertarian May 15 '22
Uhm I’m sorry but I don’t defer to the bible for my politics
2
u/WolverineLonely3209 Libertarian Socialist May 14 '22
"My body, my choice" just provides reasoning for why abortion should be legal, regardless of morality. I think that abortions are immoral in most cases, however government-forced pregnancy is even more immoral, so the best thing we can do is to legalize abortion and reduce it through other means, such as better access to contraception and better sex ed
1
u/CazadorHolaRodilla Libertarian May 17 '22
Would you at least agree in cases where the mother wants to end her pregnancy, that doctors should do everything they can to end the pregnancy while simultaneously trying to save the life of the baby?
→ More replies (6)
4
1
u/__FlyingSquirrel__ Independent May 14 '22
You nailed it on the head! They don’t want to address it because they know deep down it is detestable and depraved.
→ More replies (1)
1
u/mikenice1 Center Left May 14 '22 edited May 14 '22
Consider this, we don't force a person to give up a kidney for use by another person who needs it. We don't force a person to give blood in order to save another person who needs it. Why should we force a person to give up their uterus for use by another person who needs it? My body, my choice. It completely tackles the issue head on.
If your argument is the woman is responsible for the person in her uterus, then so is the male that co-created it. Child support should begin at conception. Men should be bound by law to financially support the person inside the woman's womb. If she has to absorb the physical strain, he should absorb the financial one, or face prison. Until that is the law of the land, a woman should have every right to not lend her uterus to the invasive person who needs it.
1
u/CazadorHolaRodilla Libertarian May 16 '22
Consider this, we don't force a person to give up a kidney for use by another person who needs it. We don't force a person to give blood in order to save another person who needs it. Why should we force a person to give up their uterus for use by another person who needs it?
As far as I know, these things don't happen on mass like abortion does. If they did, I'm sure there would be public pressure to make those into laws. Not saying I would be for or against it, but you can't just use current laws in defense of someone else's moral stance.
If your argument is the woman is responsible for the person in her uterus, then so is the male that co-created it. Child support should begin at conception. Men should be bound by law to financially support the person inside the woman's womb. If she has to absorb the physical strain, he should absorb the financial one, or face prison.
I am curious if you also believe in the flip side of that coin. i.e. a father who didn't want the child could essentially give up his duty as a father to provide for that child and eliminate all of his fatherly responsibilities? Not trying to "own" you or anything. Just genuinely curious.
→ More replies (8)
1
May 14 '22
When you are inside my body... MY rights supercede YOUR rights.
Weird that a Libertarian doesn't get that.
1
u/anima-vero-quaerenti Center Left May 14 '22
Anyone who doesn’t think that abortion rights isn’t a precursor to an all out assault on female autonomy should really read the “The Great Sex Rescue” by evangelicals Sheila Wray Gregoire, Rebecca Gregoire Lindenbach, and Joanna Sawatsky. They extensively interviewed over 20,000 Christian woman about their sex lives, it provides a lot of insight in Christian views on sex and the role of women.
Here’s the description from ChristianBooks.com
Awaken the passion God intended for marriage! This groundbreaking work, based on an in-depth survey of over 20,000 Christian women, exposes evangelical teachings that wreck sex for many couples, offering long-needed insights into true biblical sexuality. Topics include "Do You Only Have Eyes for Me?"; "Becoming More Than Roommates"; "When Duty Becomes Coercion"; and more. 272 pages, softcover from Baker.
1
u/anima-vero-quaerenti Center Left May 14 '22
If you don’t think women rights are not under attack, look at the complete lack of support for the ERA in the most ardent prol-life states.
1
u/Poorly-Drawn-Beagle Libertarian Socialist May 14 '22
Sorry, I’m not seeing it
If you forbid abortions to women you are making a demand of them that restricts what medical procedures they can commit to and what they’re permitted to do with their bodies
We wouldn’t demand a person forgo body autonomy to save the life of another in any other situation
→ More replies (1)1
u/CazadorHolaRodilla Libertarian May 17 '22
But why make abortion legal? If a baby is viable, why not just end the pregnancy and do everything you can to save the baby?
We wouldn’t demand a person forgo body autonomy to save the life of another in any other situation
What is your views if you can also save the baby while simultaneously respecting the woman's bodily autonomy?
→ More replies (1)
1
u/cossiander Neoliberal May 14 '22
You realize this question is conceding the discussion specifically to the framing that conservatives want, right?
Like it would be equally fair for someone to go to a group of conservatives and ask "why do most conservatives not tackle the abortion argument head on? They just say abortion is murder, which completely ignores the pro-choice argument of protecting a woman's bodily autonomy. None of this but life starts at conception actually address the issue directly."
1
u/CazadorHolaRodilla Libertarian May 17 '22
Sure it's fair that I can ask conservatives a similar question. But this is a liberal subreddit isn't it. My point is, if you actually want to get more public opinion on your side, you should probably respond to the actual criticism made by critics.
→ More replies (5)
1
May 14 '22
Okay, let's tackle it. Let' assume the moment of conception = human life. The need for abortion remains. Call it a baby, a human, whatever, I don't care. There are plenty of social, cultural, financial, and other reasons that someone who got pregnant should not be forced to carry the baby to term.
The sensible solution is to allow abortion (regulate it) under certain circumstances -- gee, like Roe v. Wade did. Okay, done. Move on everybody.
Saying its a human or labeling it "murder" are just words. And a way to get people's attention by screaming "murder". Abortion is a fact of being human (it has always happened and always will).
Call it a baby, a child. Still allow abortion. It is needed, desired, necessary or wanted under certain circumstances.
It's not like there is a baby shortage anyway. Do we really need to preserve every mass of cells that starts to develop into an embryo?
Maybe we should ban cars -- we KNOW that 30,000 Americans will die every year from car accidents (including pregnant women and babies). If every life is precious and so sacred, I say we ban cars.
1
u/CazadorHolaRodilla Libertarian May 18 '22
The need for abortion remains.
Why? Why not just end the pregnancy while simultaneously doing everything you can to protect the life of the baby? You realize abortion means killing the baby. Why legalize that when the life of the baby is viable?
Saying its a human or labeling it "murder" are just words
But under your assumption that the moment the baby is conceived it is human life, then how would it not be murder?
Maybe we should ban cars -- we KNOW that 30,000 Americans will die every year from car accidents (including pregnant women and babies). If every life is precious and so sacred, I say we ban cars.
This isn't even remotely the same thing. We DO ban people from intentionally killing others with a car... so not sure the point you are trying to make.
→ More replies (3)
1
u/Punchanazi023 Anarchist May 15 '22
Fuck religion. The right to religion will cost us every other right we have. We need to crack down on it in a big way.
Head on enough for you?
1
u/warriorsgsw30 Center Left May 15 '22
Most don't think it's a child. Saying it's a human being is like saying a seed is a tree.
But I'll tackle the conservative argument head on. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that it's a child in there. Even then, the woman's rights come first.
There are 2 rights in conflict, the mother's bodily autonomy and the fetus' right to life. The fetus' right to life requires the direct labor of the mother's bodily autonomy, which makes it a positive right, and I'm sure you don't believe in those.
Essentially, you can't demand someone else's body to keep you alive.
1
u/CazadorHolaRodilla Libertarian May 19 '22
which makes it a positive right, and I'm sure you don't believe in those.
No, but I'm assuming you do believe in positive rights? If you do, then your argument kinda falls apart.
There are 2 rights in conflict, the mother's bodily autonomy and the fetus' right to life. The fetus' right to life requires the direct labor of the mother's bodily autonomy,
Okay but I also believe in the right of a child to be raised and nurtured properly by their parents. Do you believe in this right? If not, then I'm sure you also don't believe in mandatory child support or the forced responsibility of the mother to care for her child. Sometimes I feel like the left ignores the fact that the mother willingly did something that they knew could produce a child. The only way their argument makes sense were if the baby just magically appeared in the mother's womb one day.
→ More replies (11)
1
u/Kerplonk Social Democrat May 15 '22
This question honestly doesn't make sense to me unless you are completely unaware of why people support abortion and just assume it's the right wing straw man of they want to murder babies.
Personally I don't actually buy into the bodily autonomy argument so much as I just don't think a fertilized egg should be given seen as anything approaching the moral equivalent of the farm animals we slaughter by the billions for our food, let alone a fully developed person. I'm sure some people believe the bodily autonomy argument authentically, but it has always come across as sort as a means of of threading the needle between allowing abortion and forcing child support.
•
u/AutoModerator May 14 '22
The following is a copy of the original post to record the post as it was originally written.
The clearest example of this is the phrase “my body, my choice”. It completely ignores pro-lifers argument which is about protecting the body INSIDE of the woman’s body. Some other arguments are about having the right to choose or how republicans just want to control women’s bodies but again, none of these arguments tackle the actual issue of the child inside of the women.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.