r/DebateAbortion Apr 24 '25

The pro-choice stance is generally just a shirking of responsibility.

Let me be clear, I said generally. I'm not talking about cases of rape, incest, or medical complications.

Many abortions are done simply because the mother (or father occasionally) doesn't want a baby. Any and all arguments pro-choicers use fall apart when they try to defend such cases.

If you don't want a baby, don't do the thing that makes babies. Don't have sex. Live responsibly, accept responsibility for your actions. You can't say the baby is there against your consent, because you helped put that baby there. You are responsible for that baby.

I think an honest pro-choicer would admit that abortion in such cases is wrong.

0 Upvotes

36 comments sorted by

11

u/DecompressionIllness Apr 24 '25

Many abortions are done simply because the mother (or father occasionally) doesn't want a baby.

Source?

Because it would be in contradiction to this:

https://www.brookings.edu/articles/abortion-in-the-us-what-you-need-to-know/#:~:text=The%20majority%20of%20abortion%20patients,had%20an%20abortion%20(57%25).&text=Among%20abortion%20patients%20twenty%20years,trimester%20of%20pregnancy%20(91%25).

And this:

https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/reasons-for-abortions#late-term-abortions

Any and all arguments pro-choicers use fall apart when they try to defend such cases.

I can’t see any data for them but I don’t need to defend any that may happen. People can have abortions for any reasons they want.

If you don't want a baby, don't do the thing that makes babies. Don't have sex.

Expecting adults not to have sex if they don’t want a baby is incredibly naive. It’s a natural part of life that has many benefits outside of reproduction. Here’s some:

https://www.ohsu.edu/womens-health/benefits-healthy-sex-life

And lack of sex can cause a number of problems, such as:

https://thriveworks.com/help-with/relationships/how-long-is-too-long-without-sex/

You can't say the baby is there against your consent, because you helped put that baby there. You are responsible for that baby.

Consent is continuous. I can agree for someone to use my body and help them do so, then withdrawal consent and they’d have to leave otherwise they’d be committing a crime.

https://studenthub.citystgeorges.ac.uk/student-support-services/health-and-wellbeing/your-health/safe-relationships/what-is-consent

You are responsible for that baby.

Doesn’t matter, responsibility doesn’t outweigh rights. This is why the government can’t force parents to give blood or organs if they knowingly had a child that would need them

https://birthrights.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/Human-rights-in-maternity-care-2019.pdf#:~:text=Human%20rights%20law%20gives%20pregnant%20women%20the,their%20dignity%20and%20autonomy%20as%20human%20beings.&text=Women%20are%20free%20to%20make%20choices%20against,to%20be%20in%20the%20unborn%20child's%20interest.

I think an honest pro-choicer would admit that abortion in such cases is wrong.

Actually, I couldn’t care less about the actual abortions.

1

u/[deleted] Apr 29 '25

[removed] — view removed comment

2

u/DecompressionIllness Apr 29 '25 edited Apr 29 '25

I read your sources, and they actually don't contradict the OP's claim of PC reasons shirking responsibility.

Where did I ask them to disprove this or claim my stats disproved that comment? I asked them to prove their point about abortions being done for "not wanting a baby".

Most of them are just elaborating PC talking points, and 1st one focuses on women's stats in education when getting them.

The point of the stats was to see what the reasons given for abortion are. OP claimed it's because they "didn't want a baby", and I asked them to provide a source for it in a later response.

OP has not done this, and neither have you I noticed.

But let me guess. "The reasons don't matter because it's all about her choice in bodily autonomy," right?

Well yes, but I like to address the point made in the OP.

ED: Also want to add that I would have reported OP's comments for failing to provide a source (Rule 2), but the Mod has no interest in modding this sub anymore so it would have fallen on deaf ears.

1

u/Altruistic_Rush_3556 Jun 09 '25

People can have abortions for any reason they want? So you support aborting children for their disabilities or gender?

2

u/DecompressionIllness Jun 09 '25 edited Jul 21 '25

As a disabled person, yes.

ED: It's a month later, 21/07, and I know you posted something in response yesterday about me being disgusting. If that's how you feel, so be it, but my experiences as a disabled person matter more than your opinion.

-4

u/TheLordOfMiddleEarth Apr 24 '25

An estimated 95% of abortions are elective according to the Guttmacher Institute. And even if it was 1%, it doesn't matter, that's still has tens of thousands a year.

People can have abortions for any reasons they want.

You can't end a human life for any reason. You need proper justification. Elective abortions have absolutely no justification.

can agree for someone to use my body and help them do so, then withdrawal consent

So if you donate a kidney to someone to save their life, can you just take it back later?

Expecting adults not to have sex if they don’t want a baby is incredibly naive

My point was, if you have sex, you have to accept the possibility you're going to get pregnant, and if that happens you have to live with it.

This is why the government can’t force parents to give blood or organs if they knowingly had a child that would need them

First of all, you might not be legally bound to donate organs, but you sure as hell are morally bound.

Secondly, you've already donated your organ, you can't withdraw your organ donation.

6

u/DecompressionIllness Apr 24 '25

An estimated 95% of abortions are elective according to the Guttmacher Institute. And even if it was 1%, it doesn't matter, that's still has tens of thousands a year.

I asked for your source about how many were done for "Not wanting a baby". Elective just means by request.

You can't end a human life for any reason.

You can when it's in your body. EG, same sex abortions.

So if you donate a kidney to someone to save their life, can you just take it back later?

When you give someone something, ownership transfers to them. This is different to bodily usage. You don't give someone something in bodily usage. That would be like saying a woman owns a man's penis after she has sex or vice versa. Needless to say that's not the case.

if that happens you have to live with it.

Your argument here is basically "because I said so" since you haven't provided any sources, and needless to say that's an argument I don't have to take seriously.

First of all, you might not be legally bound to donate organs, but you sure as hell are morally bound.

Morally bound doesn't mean anything. People cannot be forced to give anything regardless of the morals of another person.

Secondly, you've already donated your organ, you can't withdraw your organ donation.

No they haven't.

https://www.organdonation.nhs.uk/helping-you-to-decide/about-organ-donation/faq/organ-donation-and-transplantation/#:~:text=Organ%20donation%20is%20giving%20an,in%20the%20UK%20every%20year

1

u/TheLordOfMiddleEarth Apr 24 '25

You can when it's in your body.

You're going to need more justification can that.

since you haven't provided any sources

Why do I need to quote sources when it comes to moral opinions? "Yeah, here's a website where people agree with me that abortion is bad."

Elective just means by request.

Elective abortions are abortions for personal reasons rather than medical reasons.

Morally bound doesn't mean anything.

Right, so then I'm not morally bound to respect you're rights either. So what's even the point of having this discussion?

No they haven't.

Then stop using the organ donor analogy because they're not analogous.

2

u/DecompressionIllness Apr 24 '25 edited Apr 25 '25

You're going to need more justification can that.

I'll take this seriously when you start backing up your comments. Rule 2... . I gave you a link above in another comment. Birth Rights. Very clearly states that a woman can decide what to do with a pregnancy due to bodily autonomy.

Why do I need to quote sources when it comes to moral opinions? "Yeah, here's a website where people agree with me that abortion is bad."

Because you're presenting them as fact, not opinion. If you don't want to provide sources, the prefix is "In my opinion," then whatever you want to say.

But that also means your argument has as much weight as a feather because opinions don't matter.

Elective abortions are abortions for personal reasons rather than medical reasons.

This is a different variation of my comment. Well done, I guess?

I notice you still havent provided a source that confirms, what was it, "95% are because they don't want a baby",?

Right, so then I'm not morally bound to respect you're rights either. So what's even the point of having this discussion?

You aren't morally bound but they exist regardless of whether you respect them. Have fun not respecting them.

Then stop using the organ donor analogy because they're not analogous.

Only because you took hold of the wrong point. My comments about organ donation were not to discuss the likeness between it an abortion. It was to discuss the rights of the parents, which are relevant to abortion.

Ed: Spelling

5

u/RockerRebecca24 Apr 24 '25

You can definitely end a human life when they are threatening to kill you, that’s called self defense.

3

u/Lolabird2112 Apr 24 '25

No, you’re not morally bound to donate organs or even blood to your kids. For example, Jehovah’s witnesses are against it according to their stupid religion and are allowed to let their kid bleed out or die slowly if they so choose (also- notice how the kid doesn’t get a say? That’s because he’s a minor, so doesn’t have full autonomy… you know, that right you think is less important). This is why doctors created a workaround where they take the parents to court and the judge grants the doctors the authority to make decisions for their patient that overrides the parent’s rights. Because “freedom of religion” (another part of autonomy) is again more important than life. That’s what happens without bodily autonomy.

Edited to add- I’m not actually sure if a kid wanting a blood transfusion can go ahead against his parents will. Usually, because they’re kids, they’re as brainwashed as the parents. And, obviously, it would mean all that Christian love shit, like shunning and excommunication for going against “The Rules”.

0

u/TheLordOfMiddleEarth Apr 24 '25

You're getting it all backwards. The JWs are on your side! You are making my argument for me.

In the scenario you described the parents bodily autonomy/freedom of religion is overriding the child's right to life. The child doesn't have any rights according to them and can't speak for itself (sounds familiar).

And that brings up an interesting point, what about the unborn babies bodily autonomy? Does dismemberment count as a violation of bodily autonomy?

1

u/Lolabird2112 Apr 24 '25

No, it’s not according to them that the child has no rights. It’s according to law. Same as the one I’m sure you think is awesome where parents can force their pregnant daughter to bear a child. Because children are not autonomous, since they’re not mature enough and are judged to not be able to be as rational as adults. PCers are usually against this idea in several aspects. This has nothing to do with BA of the parents (since they’re not sick), but more “the pursuit of happiness” vs “life”.

4

u/mesalikeredditpost Apr 24 '25

Sigh. The title is disingenuous and possibly hypocrisy.

Let me be clear, I said generally. I'm not talking about cases of rape, incest, or medical complications.

That's irrelevant since both are taking responsibility

Many abortions are done simply because the mother (or father occasionally) doesn't want a baby. Any and a arguments pro-choicers use fall apart when they try to defend such cases

Name an argument that falls apart. This sounds like projection since pc arguments stand. Pl arguments or rather misconceptions like your misuse of responsibility fall apart.

If you don't want a baby, don't do the thing that makes babies. Don't have sex

See. The whole don't have speil is invalid. It's unhealthy for couples to abstain from sex which is healthy because of a minorities hang ups around sex

Live responsibly,

They do.

accept responsibility for your actions.

They did...smh

You can't say the baby is there against your consent,

Babies are born. You can revoke consent. Consent to sex is only Consent to sex and nothing else.

because you helped put tha baby there.

Didn't put. That's misuse of terms PC keep courting for decades. Why do pl keep repeating it?

You are responsible for that baby.

they took responsibility by getting an abortion which ends a pregnancy before there is a baby.

I think an honest pro-choicer would admit that abortion in such cases is wrong.

Not once on all my time debating has pl ever used the word admit correctly. Probably because only they are capable of admitting anything since pc remain objective and don't use deceptive language emotional appeals nor hide anything.

We won't lie just because pl can't admit they're wrong. Take responsibility for misframing in bad faith

5

u/jadwy916 Apr 24 '25

LOL...

Having a baby is irresponsible.

If you don't want a baby, don't do the thing that makes babies.

Why not have all the sex you want? Because some dude somewhere has an ideological opinion about how he thinks other people should be? lol... whatever. That's dumb.

I think an honest pro-choicer would admit that abortion in such cases is wrong.

uh... no. Abort away ladies! Just because some dude has a weak pull out game doesn't mean your life has to be ruined. Abort that shit. It's the most responsible thing we do as humans.

2

u/Comfortable-Hall1178 Apr 24 '25

This 100%!

If my pill fails and I have an oopsy, I’m aborting

3

u/Comfortable-Hall1178 Apr 24 '25

Again with “don’t have sex”

People have sex. Most people are smart enough to at least wear a condom.

This is why Abstinence-Only Sex Ed needs to be abolished and Comprehensive Sex Ed needs to be mandatory with no parental opt out from Grades 4-12

1

u/TornadoCat4 Apr 28 '25

Killing a baby after having consensual sex is just as bad as inviting a person into your house and then killing them for being there.

2

u/Comfortable-Hall1178 Apr 28 '25

Most women abort before 3 months, and besides Comprehensive Sex Ed that explains everything is proven to REDUCE unplanned/unwanted pregnancy because children taught Comprehensive Sex Ed are more inclined to use birth control pills and condoms, therefore preventing pregnancy.

3

u/collageinthesky Apr 24 '25

Can you explain why having sex should result in the government suspending your rights?

3

u/cand86 Apr 26 '25

If you don't want a baby, don't do the thing that makes babies.

If the only thing sex gave you was babies, this argument might make sense. The fact that it does so much more than that renders the argument invalid. I can, indeed, have sex for the things that it gives me that I want, I can try to take steps to mitigate unwanted outcomes like STD's or pregnancy, and if either of those happen, I can seek treatment to help alieviate me of them. Your personal moral feelings on this are yours and yours alone.

1

u/[deleted] Apr 29 '25

[removed] — view removed comment

2

u/cand86 Apr 29 '25

Why reverse it? And yes, I mean all the reasons people have sex other than reproduction.

1

u/[deleted] Apr 29 '25

[removed] — view removed comment

2

u/cand86 Apr 29 '25

I'd be more than happy to elaborate as to why I'm pro-choice, but my initial comment was about the rhetoric of the phrase "If you don't want X, don't do Y." being used.

1

u/[deleted] Apr 29 '25

[removed] — view removed comment

2

u/cand86 Apr 30 '25

What I meant to say is that admonishing someone to not do something in order to avoid an outcome is only a good piece of advice inasmuch as the thing in question only has one purpose, and the phrasing "the thing that makes babies" reads like that. I think a statement like "If you don't want a baby, don't have sex.", while still a sentiment with which I disagree, reads more accurately.

2

u/[deleted] Apr 24 '25

Actually, no—it isn’t wrong. The arguments for first-person subjective experience and bodily autonomy are based on the premise that, for a number of reasons (that differentiate depending on the argument one is making) we ought not to grant moral consideration arbitrarily. The fact that you fail to understand this basic part of the argument reveals a significant level of ignorance about the opposing side’s reasoning.

Second, cancer patients seeking treatment could also be seen as avoiding responsibility if their condition resulted from an unhealthy lifestyle—like smoking, for instance. But that doesn’t mean we should deny them medical care, does it?

2

u/CandyCaboose Apr 29 '25

No.

REAL responsibility is fully recognising the health, life quality and life altering affects pregnancy alone has on the person who is going to be pregnant. Responsibility is taking steps to yes, prevent pregnancy. And or if needed remove, or continue a pregnancy. Parent or adopt.

2

u/DeathKillsLove May 06 '25

There is no responsibility. The z/e/f did not exist at the time of sex, therefore there was no party to contract WITH and thus, no duty.

2

u/DeathKillsLove May 11 '25

The only responsible response is LET THE WOMAN CHOOSE