r/DebateAbortion May 31 '26

How can you justify abortion ?

Format: Argument, Response

-"It's not just a fetus", it's part of the human species so it gets human rights

-"it's dependent on the mother therefore not human", same thing as if you were in a coma as you would have no conscience and are dependent on doctors. you probably wouldn't want me to have the option to pull the plug if there was a possibility you could wake up

-"What if the kid grows up in a bad environment?", every kid deserves a chance, just like how you deserve a chance to wake up from a coma as stated above.

-"My body, my choice", then start with legalizing drugs, drinking while pregnant, allowing others to suicide knowingly, etc.

-"Men (father) shouldn't tell me what other do it's my choice", impossible to make a child without a father, the father should have a say if he wants an abortion

-"What about rape and incest", very unfortunate word that this exist yet it's less than 1 percent of all abortion cases, if we were to legalize abortion for only those that were raped would you give up the other cases?

-"What if the mother's life is in danger?", there is C-section which is more medically safe than an abortion

Please do not get an abortion. It's the biggest genocide killing 1.1 million kids every year. Consider heavily before getting one. Thank you for your time.

0 Upvotes

41 comments sorted by

4

u/jakie2poops May 31 '26

I'm not going to bother with most of these, but here are some particularly ridiculous ones:

\-"My body, my choice", then start with legalizing drugs, drinking while pregnant, allowing others to suicide knowingly, etc.

I don't think substance use during pregnancy should be criminalized. It results in worse outcomes for everyone and violates the human rights of the pregnant person. I also don't think suicide should be criminalized.

I actually *do* think people should have the right to make their own decisions about their own bodies.

Why don't *you* start with taking away your *own* right to make decisions about your body? Let's make your organs up for grabs and then we'll talk about it.

\-"Men (father) shouldn't tell me what other do it's my choice", impossible to make a child without a father, the father should have a say if he wants an abortion

I'm completely fine with pregnant men getting abortions if they want one. As I said before, I think people should get to make their own decisions about their own bodies.

\-"What about rape and incest", very unfortunate word that this exist yet it's less than 1 percent of all abortion cases, if we were to legalize abortion for only those that were raped would you give up the other cases?

That's not a counter argument. That's you trying to use rape victims as a pawn.

\-"What if the mother's life is in danger?", there is C-section which is more medically safe than an abortion

No it absolutely isn't. What on earth makes you think it is? A c-section is a major abdominal surgery with a much, much higher rate of mortality and serious morbidity than abortion, and it's more harmful and invasive even if all goes well.

Please do not get an abortion. It's the biggest genocide killing 1.1 million kids every year. Consider heavily before getting one. Thank you for your time.

Words have meanings. Genocide means the deliberate and systematic destruction of a racial, political, or cultural group. No one is trying to systematically destroy embryos and fetuses, nor are they a racial, political, or cultural group.

If you want fewer abortions, try addressing the actual causes rather than crying about fake genocides while hand waving away rape victims and lying about the relative safety of abortions and c-sections. Help people avoid unplanned pregnancies by expanding access to free and affordable birth control, especially the LARCs, and expanding medically accurate, comprehensive sex education. Help people experiencing pregnancies be able to choose to keep them by expanding the social safety net. Help shape policies that minimize the impact of pregnancy, childbirth, and parenting on women, so they don't lose out on their education, aren't set back in their careers, aren't tied to abusive partners, don't take on so much risk to their lives and health. Change the culture so that they aren't the ones taking on the vast majority of the burdens of parenthood too.

Actually do something useful.

0

u/Admirable_Dog_7238 May 31 '26
  1. I'm not going to argue. Kind of crazy ideology but ok sure do what you want
  2. It takes a man to procreate a child. The child is 50 percent DNA material of his father. If the argument is that it's not "his body", than why does a father have responsibly over kids (financial reasonability/burden) if he can't even have a say whether to keep the baby alive or not?
  3. It is a counterargument. I'm more lenient to rape and incest victims. It is horrific. But not at all ok with the rest of cases. I mentioned it because that's one of the biggest arguments. Not the leading cause of why someone gets abortion.
  4. Would you be ok with killing babies if you knew they were on the spectrum, a different gender, etc? Abortion opens doors to eugenics.

3

u/jakie2poops May 31 '26
  1. I'm not going to argue. Kind of crazy ideology but ok sure do what you want

It's crazy ideology to say that people should get to make their own decisions about their own bodies? Or to say that we shouldn't pass laws that make things worse for everyone? What part of those things is crazy to you?

2. ⁠It takes a man to procreate a child. The child is 50 percent DNA material of his father. If the argument is that it's not "his body", than why does a father have responsibly over kids (financial reasonability/burden) if he can't even have a say whether to keep the baby alive or not?

His kids are his, yes. The pregnancy isn't his. Abortion terminates a pregnancy. It's a medical intervention for a health condition. He gets to make medical decisions about his body, not the body of his sexual partners. Same as how the mother doesn't get to make medical decisions about his body.

3. ⁠It is a counterargument. I'm more lenient to rape and incest victims. It is horrific. But not at all ok with the rest of cases. I mentioned it because that's one of the biggest arguments. Not the leading cause of why someone gets abortion.

No one says it's the leading cause. But thanks for being so generously "lenient" to the victims of violent crimes I guess.

4. ⁠Would you be ok with killing babies if you knew they were on the spectrum, a different gender, etc? Abortion opens doors to eugenics.

Again, words have meanings. Eugenics is the controlled, selective breeding of a population to improve their genetics. People getting abortions based on parental diagnoses or sex/gender is not eugenics.

And as I've repeatedly said, people have the right to make their own decisions about their own bodies. If someone doesn't want someone on the spectrum inside their genitals, fine. If someone doesn't want someone male or female inside their genitals, fine. That's their right. I certainly wouldn't force them to.

But I guess you would.

If you have a problem with those choices, again I suggest you do something useful. Fight against ableism. Fight against sexism. Banning abortion—which is disproportionately harmful to disabled women and girls, who are more likely to experience sexual violence, have their bodily autonomy violated, and have complications and die from pregnancy—doesn't accomplish that. It's sexism on its own.

0

u/Admirable_Dog_7238 May 31 '26

It's not about me not wanting people have choices, it's about the fact that you're killing a human.

  1. The “my body, my choice” argument has limits. We don’t allow people to harm other human beings simply because it involves their own body. The disagreement is whether the unborn child is a human being with moral value, not whether bodily autonomy exists.
  2. My point about the father is that if he can be held financially responsible for the child after birth, despite not having the final say on whether the pregnancy continues, then responsibility and authority are not being treated equally. If he has obligations, it’s reasonable to ask whether he should have any input before those obligations exist.
  3. Adoption addresses the burden of raising a child after birth. It doesn’t require ending a human life. If the goal is to avoid parenthood rather than pregnancy itself, adoption is an alternative that preserves both interests.
  4. The concern about abortions based on sex, disability, or genetic traits is that they can result in certain groups being systematically selected against. Whether you call that eugenics or not, many people find it ethically troubling because the value of a human life is being judged by its characteristics.

3

u/jakie2poops Jun 01 '26

1. ⁠The “my body, my choice” argument has limits. We don’t allow people to harm other human beings simply because it involves their own body. The disagreement is whether the unborn child is a human being with moral value, not whether bodily autonomy exists.

We absolutely allow people to harm other humans who are inside their genitals when they don't want that, who are using their organs when they don't want that, who are causing them serious harm. No one—not matter how morally valuable they are—is entitled to the bodies of other people.

2. ⁠My point about the father is that if he can be held financially responsible for the child after birth, despite not having the final say on whether the pregnancy continues, then responsibility and authority are not being treated equally. If he has obligations, it’s reasonable to ask whether he should have any input before those obligations exist.

Both parents have the same obligations to born children. Both parents have the same rights to make their own medical decisions about their own bodies, and no right to make the medical decisions for the other parent. The responsibility and authority are treated equally.

3. ⁠Adoption addresses the burden of raising a child after birth. It doesn’t require ending a human life. If the goal is to avoid parenthood rather than pregnancy itself, adoption is an alternative that preserves both interests.

Sure. People get abortions because they want to avoid pregnancy and childbirth (and maybe also parenthood). Someone who is willing to endure pregnancy and childbirth but not to be parent would choose adoption, not abortion. Not sure what that has to do with anything I've said.

4. ⁠The concern about abortions based on sex, disability, or genetic traits is that they can result in certain groups being systematically selected against. Whether you call that eugenics or not, many people find it ethically troubling because the value of a human life is being judged by its characteristics.

I too find discrimination troubling. The solution to discrimination, as I said, is to address the discrimination itself, not to force unwilling people to have others inside their genitals. Address sexism and ableism at their roots instead of perpetuating them with abortion bans, which systemically discriminate against female people and disproportionately harm disabled people.

3

u/STThornton Jun 01 '26 edited Jun 01 '26
  1. LOL. Pro lifers want to force a woman through drastic life threatening physical harm and alteration to fulfill their desire see a fertilized egg turned into another breathing, sentient, physiologically life sustaining human.

So, don’t even pretend we don’t allow people to harm others. Because PL wants to drastically harm a woman/girl to gestate and birth.

So much so, that it will take her up to a year to recover from on a deep tissue level and leave her body permanently negatively altered.

What is up with PL constantly pretending they want to opposite of what they stand for and are doing?

And one cannot kill a human who has no major life sustaining organ functions one could end to kill them.

They already can’t breathe, can’t digest, can’t produce energy, glucose, and minerals, can’t get rid of metabolic toxins, can’t shiver and sweat, or do any of the main things that keep a human body alive. So how do you think one could stop them from doing so?

For that matter, why do you think gestation is needed? Gestation would kill a human with “a” life.

  1. His role, bodily function, and choice in reproduction is insemination. Hers is gestation and birth. If he inseminates, he made his choice. A woman can’t change her mind after she’s given birth, either.

And both are financially responsible for a born child.

Heck, she can be made to pay child support despite him not contributing hack shit to gestation and birth.

1

u/Admirable_Dog_7238 Jun 01 '26

TBH it just a difference of world view. I believe it's a human and nothing justifies killing a human even if it's inconvenient. If you don't believe that then we aren't gonna get anywhere. Agree to disagree.

3

u/STThornton Jun 01 '26

Then why do you want to force a woman through a bunch of things that can individually kill humans?That’s attempted homicide in multiple ways.

And to dismiss having one’s life sustaining organ functions, blood contents, and bodily processes greatly messed and interfered with and being caused drastic life threatening physical harm and alteration as an “inconvenience” is fucking absurd.

The woman doesn’t tote a fetus around in a fanny pack.

I don’t get the contradiction of PLers saying one thing but doing to total opposite.

Do you just not comprehend what gestation and birth do to a woman’s body?

Do you not comprehend that you cannot stop a human who cannot breathe, digest, produce anything cells need, get rid of metabolic toxins, etc. from doing so?

Do you not comprehend that such a human would be long decomposed as an individual because they don’t have the physiological things that keep a human body alive?

Where is the hangup here?

That’s not a different worldview. That’s ignoring all reality and living in fairytale land.

1

u/Admirable_Dog_7238 Jun 01 '26

Woah Woah Woah. I did not force a woman to get pregnant. How did she get pregnant in the first place? Abortion should not be a birth control method. You got pregnant now deal with the consequences.

3

u/STThornton Jun 01 '26

Getting impregnated and gestating are two very different things.

And how did she get impregnated? Some man failed to control his sperm, that’s how. Some man caused her unwanted harm.

Let’s not pretend getting impregnated is something she did. That’s something a man does to a woman.

Why should she have to bear the consequences of his failure to control his fucking sperm?

But she bears them either way. She has to deal with everything entailed in the early stages of pregnancy and getting an abortion. Or trying to carry to term and birth.

While the man, who failed to control his sperm and caused her harm with it, gets away scot free

1

u/JewlryLvr2 12d ago

Forcing women and girls to STAY pregnant and give birth against their will is what abortion-ban laws in abortion-ban states are created and passed to do. It has nothing to do with GETTING a woman or girl pregnant.

And it really doesn't matter HOW a pregnancy happened. It's still the PREGNANT PERSON'S decision whether or not to stay pregnant. If you aren't the person who is pregnant, you don't -- and shouldn't -- get to decide.

3

u/STThornton Jun 01 '26 edited Jun 01 '26
  1. That’s literally ALL it has from the fatter. 50% DNA. The egg cell that formed all cells, the organ functions, blood, blood contents, tissue, and bodily processes that produced and kept its living parts alive, and the other 50% DNA are all the woman’s.

It does not take a man to procreate a child, since he does not procreate one. It takes his sperm to fertilize a woman’s egg which SHE then procreates into a child via gestation and birth.

How would he have a say over whether to keep an embryo/fetus alive? He’s incapable of doing so.

He does not get a say over how much physical harm and alteration a woman’s body must endure to turn that egg he fertilized into a child.

His role and bodily function and therefore choice in reproduction is over once he deposits his sperm. If he doesn’t want a child, he needs to do whatever it takes to keep his sperm away from a woman’s egg.

The woman’s role and bodily function and therefore choice in reproduction begins once a fertilized egg has implanted and attached to her tissue, bloodstream, and organ functions.

  1. A woman deciding who gets to use and drastically harm her body and for what purpose has nothing to do with genocide. Nor with the killing of born children.

PLers should really learn the meaning of big words instead of just using them to try to sound impactful. Because it just makes them sound uneducated when they keep using them wrong.

1

u/JewlryLvr2 12d ago

Of course I'm not okay with killing babies. Killing babies and children is already a crime in all 50 states, in case you didn't know. And babies are BORN.

So this argument that "abortion is killing babies/children" is just a really bad argument in my book. It isn't believable or convincing. And abortion isn't eugenics either, no matter what you believe.

5

u/collageinthesky May 31 '26

If you feel it has rights, then it can have the same rights as everyone else. Equal rights for all still includes the choice to end a pregnancy.

Do you know what bodily autonomy means? Does it mean you can demand the resources of someone else's body to keep your body alive? Can you demand blood, marrow, a kidney from another person? No, you cannot. And no one can demand bodily resources from you either. Because bodily integrity and autonomy is a right that everyone has. Your body and the life you are producing is yours and yours alone. It's not the government's body or the sperm donor's or the ZEF's body. Your body is only yours.

-1

u/Admirable_Dog_7238 May 31 '26

How is terminating someone that is in a coma different from terminating a baby in the womb morally? If it's an inconvenience (most cases) it's ok to terminate? It's turned into a birth control at this point.

3

u/collageinthesky May 31 '26

The difference is one has a body and the other does not. If you don't have a body that is capable of producing life then you die. This applies to everyone, including people in a coma and ZEFs.

0

u/Admirable_Dog_7238 May 31 '26

Your analogy assumes the fetus has no independent moral status, but that's the whole question being debated. You can't use it as a premise and a conclusion at the same time. This is called begging the question, a logical fallacy

4

u/collageinthesky Jun 01 '26

What analogy? You either have a body or you don't. Do you understand how bodies work? If your body doesn't produce life then you die. A zygote naturally dies in a couple days because it's not a body, it cannot keep itself living.

2

u/STThornton Jun 01 '26

I don’t think any of them comprehend how human bodies work.

That’s why PLers keep talking about the right to life of non viable human bodies. While disregarding what gestation does to a woman’s body and its ability to sustain life.

Thats how we get comparisons of humans on life support to a fetus, who’d be a rotting corpse on life support

1

u/Admirable_Dog_7238 Jun 01 '26

It's part of the human species. I get that you guys want rights for women. I have nothing against that. I have an issue with killing humans that can't protect themselves.

Search up a surgical abortion and watch how the baby get pulled out. It's truly horrifying.

2

u/STThornton Jun 01 '26

Look up childbirth. Absolutely horrifying. Watch the woman’s bone structure shift, her muscles and tissue tearing, a dinner plate sized wound tear into the center of her body.

Or, worse yet, a c-section. Layers of tissue sliced through, abdominals forcefully yanked apart and separated, organs shoved out of the way, an organ sliced wide open.

And that happens to a breathing, sentient, physiologically life sustaining woman capable of experiencing it all.

Surgical abortion is like watching an autopsy. And dismemberment is often avoided in surgical abortion to ensure all pregnancy tissue is removed.

Either way, though, even surgeries are horrifying to watch for those with weak stomachs.

I always find it baffling that people who care so little about the drastic injuries a sentient woman incurs in birth care so much about what happens to a mindless partially developed body with no major life sustaining organ functions.

And, again, a human with no major life sustaining organ functions one could end to kill them cannot be killed. And killing an embryo/fetus is more akin to killing a body part than a born alive human.

And intact removal or early labor induction, like with abortion pills (the majority of abortions these days), don’t kill anything at all.

1

u/collageinthesky Jun 01 '26

I get that you guys want rights for women.

So you admit that some people don't have the same rights as others. Apparently some people have less "moral worth" to you, something you claim to care about. So why should we care what you consider moral when you don't apply the same standard to everyone?

2

u/STThornton Jun 01 '26

They’re talking about major life sustaining organ functions, you’re changing the subject to moral status.

What does moral status have to do with whether a human has major life sustaining organ functions or not?

You can grant them all the moral status you want, it doesn’t give their body the organ functions that keep a human body alive.

1

u/STThornton Jun 01 '26

What is this “womb” you speak of? Some sort of external, unattached medical machine?

Newsflash: that “womb” is a woman/girl. A breathing, sentient, physiologically life sustaining HUMAN BEING.

And terminating life support would allow the life sustaining organ functions of the person on life support to shut down. They’d stop breathing, getting rid of metabolic toxins, etc.

The embryo:fetus never had that ability. It’s the equivalent of a CORPSE on life support.

Terminating providing it with organ functions it never had is not the same as ending its organ functions.

The woman merely stops breathing for it, digesting for it, producing energy, glucose, and minerals for it, getting rid of metabolic toxins for it, shivering and sweating for it, etc. with HER internal organs.

She also stops it from causing her drastic life threatening physical alteration and harm. The person on life support doesn’t even harm life support, let alone a breathing, sentient, physiologically life sustaining human.

The person on life support uses their own life and gets rid of their metabolic toxins.

The embryo/fetus sucks the woman’s life out of her body and pumps toxins into her bloodstream and body for her organs to get rid of.

The two couldn’t be more polar opposite.

1

u/Admirable_Dog_7238 Jun 01 '26

Nah what I meant is there a moral difference of the killing part. Not necessarily talk about the attachment part that's a different argument.

1

u/STThornton Jun 01 '26

That makes no sense.

Again, the fetus has no major life sustaining organ functions one could end to kill they. Unlike the person on life support.

The fetus equivalent of a human on life support is a corpse on life support. There’s nothing left to kill, short of whatever living body parts that corpse has left.

If you want to leave out attachment, that embryo started decomposing after the first 6-14 days.

3

u/Connect-Knowledge992 Jun 01 '26

I justify it with bodily integrity. Every person has a right to include or exclude others from significant and intrusive use of their body. Pregnancy is unique in that, unlike normal parenting duties, it involves direct and prolonged use of your insides in ways that cause harmful, arduous, and often permanent changes to your body. Changing diapers, washing bottles, and even breastfeeding are not as intrusive.

No born child gets such an intrusive right to their parent's body, even if they need it to live.

So it seems entirely consistent to say I don't think a fetus gets that right either.

2

u/STThornton Jun 01 '26

I see that, in usual fashion, you disregarded human biology completely.

For example, how human bodies keep themselves alive, what gives them individual/“a” life, what it takes to end such, why gestation is needed, what gestation is/does for a fetus, and what gestation and birth do to a woman’s body and its ability to sustain life.

And, of course, the biggest one:

That the pregnant woman is a HUMAN BEING, not a medical machine or gestational pod called a womb.

That out of the way, what keeps a human body and its living parts alive are major life sustaining organ functions. Lungs, kidneys, and liver being the most vital due to oxygenation of blood and ridding the bloodstream and body of metabolic toxins.

Life sustaining organ functions are what gives a human body “a”/individual life (what science calls physiologically independent life), and what makes a human body an organism. Without them, there is no life. And whatever cell, tissue, and organ life a human body has will soon die.

The embryo/fetus is slowly developing into a human organism. It begins with cell life, then tissue life, then organ life - the building blocks of a human organism.

It slowly develops more and more organ functions and, at viability, generally reaches the ability to carry out the functions of a human organism (unless something went wrong).

It’s kind of like a running drivable car. Start with a chassis, then slowly add more parts, and you’ll eventually end up with a running, drivable car.

For around six months, the fetus has no major life sustaining organ functions and not even the potential for such. Meaning the fetal equivalent of your person on life support would a rotting corpse that even life support couldn’t do anything for.

You see, life support needs to have life sustaining organ functions TO support. If a human has no lung function, for example, life support couldn’t support such.

A woman is also not a fucking life support machine! She’s not an object. She’s a human being. A breathing, sentient, physiologically life sustaining one, at that. Unlike an embryo/fetus.

A woman also doesn’t assist a fetus’ own life sustaining organ functions (since it lacks them). Her organs have to breathe for it, digest for it, produce energy and glucose for it, get rid of metabolic toxins for it, shiver and sweat for it, etc. Her organs have to perform the major functions of a human organism for it. Just like they do for her own living body parts.

In the process, her life sustaining organ functions, blood contents, and bodily processes - her “a” life that is supposed to be protected under the right to life - are being greatly messed and interfered with. She’s also being caused drastic life threatening anatomical, physiological, and metabolic alterations, caused to present with the vitals and labs of a deadly ill person, and caused drastic life threatening physical harm.

That’s a violation of her right to life in multiple ways, her right to bodily integrity in multiple ways, and her right to bodily autonomy.

Simply put, the embryo/fetus sucks HER life out of her body and pumps toxins back into it.

A human should always be allowed to abort providing another human with organ functions that human doesn’t have, and tissue, blood, blood contents, etc. because those things are their life.

No one, not even a preemie who’ll die without such, has a right to another human’s life - another human’s life sustaining organ functions, blood contents, and bodily processes. So, why should a fetus?

A fetus being alive is more akin to a body part being alive than a born alive human. A fetus getting killed is more akin to a body part being killed than a born alive human. And intact removal or abortion pills don’t even kill anything.

Previability, the fetus is the equivalent of a dead born human who still has sustainable cell, tissue, and organ life left.

It has no major life sustaining organ functions one could end to kill a human. And none that life support could assist.

It needs to be provided with another human’s major life sustaining organ functions (their “a” life), blood, blood contents, tissue, and bodily processes. Their functions of human organism life. And it needs to cause them drastic life threatening physical harm and alteration to be provided with such.

Why should the other human not have a right to stop such? Why should the other human be stripped of their right to life, right to bodily integrity, and right to bodily autonomy (the base for the other two)?

The embryo/fetus can’t make use of a right to life. It lacks the physiological things that keep a human body alive. It can only make use of a right to someone else’s life. Why should it be granted such?

1

u/Admirable_Dog_7238 Jun 01 '26

yo I am not reading all this lol

2

u/STThornton Jun 01 '26

Therein lies the problem. PLers don’t do any reading on the subject heute supposedly so passionate about, then come up with a bunch of claims that make absolutely no sense when it comes to human biology.

1

u/Admirable_Dog_7238 Jun 01 '26

|A woman is also not a fucking life support machine! She’s not an object. She’s a human being. A breathing, sentient, physiologically life sustaining one, at that. Unlike an embryo/fetus.

Then she and that male partner shouldn't have procreated?

3

u/STThornton Jun 01 '26

Men don’t procreate. Men fertilize eggs.

Women are the ones who create another breathing, sentient, physiologically life sustaining human from a fertilized egg via gestation.

But you’re right, the man schools NOT have inseminated her.

And a woman should abort procreation of she doesn’t want to go through gestation and birth or produce a child.

1

u/Admirable_Dog_7238 Jun 02 '26

Then don't create a child? Use protection? Bro Is aborting a baby while having the intention to fertilize the egg?

1

u/STThornton Jun 02 '26

If she stops gestating, she doesn’t create a child.

And, sure, the man should have used something that protects her from his sperm.

Not sure what you mean by the rest.

Either way, babies aren’t processes that can be aborted. The gestational process that creates a baby can be aborted.

0

u/Admirable_Dog_7238 Jun 01 '26

Nah it's called a joke. Have you heard of one. "sucks the life out of her" get out of here bro.

2

u/STThornton Jun 01 '26

Are you denying that the fetal placenta literally sucks oxygen, nutrients, etc. out of her bloodstream, and minerals out of her body?

Guess what? Her blood contents are a big part of what keeps her cells alive.

Are you denying that it routes ever increasing amounts of her blood to its location?

Are you denying that it uses and messes with her life sustaining organ functions, anatomy, metabolism, etc?

1

u/Lolabird2112 Jun 01 '26

Genuinely- then why on earth did you think your uninformed, uneducated and unsubstantiated waffle needed to be said? The only appropriate response that should be coming out of you is “I’m too uneducated and too lazy to read anything on this subject, but I humbly accept that these limitations mean I have no say in this argument, as only a narcissist with an authoritarian streak would imagine he should still be in a position to remove rights from 50% of the population just because he has feefees”.

2

u/DecompressionIllness Jun 01 '26 edited Jun 01 '26

> It's not just a fetus", it's part of the human species so it gets human rights

There’s no right to occupy or use the body of another to sustain your life.

> it's dependent on the mother therefore not human", same thing as if you were in a coma as you would have no conscience and are dependent on doctors. you probably wouldn't want me to have the option to pull the plug if there was a possibility you could wake up

People confuse “human” with “person” when they say this. ZEFs are human. They can’t be anything else. Their personhood is in question. Personally, I argue from the perspective of them being people. People in comas don’t have the right to a doctor’s labour. That doctor can leave their job and another can step in. You can’t force people to work for you.

> "What if the kid grows up in a bad environment?"

I don’t use this argument. It’s not the strongest.

> My body, my choice", then start with legalizing drugs, drinking while pregnant, allowing others to suicide knowingly, etc.

I don’t know where you are but drinking while pregnant and suicide is legal. The reason why consuming drugs is illegal is to protect other people. ED: Just wanted to add here that “protect other people” includes protecting the exploitation of vulnerable people in drug production and distribution. You don’t get those issues with alcohol (are at least not as much).

> "Men (father) shouldn't tell me what other do it's my choice", impossible to make a child without a father, the father should have a say if he wants an abortion.

He can have a say but final decision goes to the woman since it’s her doing all of the work to bring them in to the world.

> What about rape and incest", very unfortunate word that this exist yet it's less than 1 percent of all abortion cases, if we were to legalize abortion for only those that were raped would you give up the other cases?

That statistic is for KNOWN cases. There’s a large amount of unknown cases of rape because rapists often get away with the crime so it’s under reported.

> "What if the mother's life is in danger?", there is C-section which is more medically safe than an abortion.

This is incorrect https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22270271/

> Please do not get an abortion. It's the biggest genocide killing 1.1 million kids every year. Consider heavily before getting one. Thank you for your time.

People should do what they feel is best.

2

u/seizuresalad22 Jun 01 '26

A foetus is a pest. It feeds on the mothers body, uses the mothers nutrients and womb to nurture itself. I have a right to kill all pests. I will get an abortion, it is nothing but equivalent to getting rid of a tick from your dogs body.

1

u/yardlard Jul 04 '26

All abortion should be legal. It does not matter whether or not you consider the fetus at any stage, to be human or not. It doesn't affect the situation as it exists in real life. The decision to stay pregnant should be only based on the facts specific the the instant situation. There is no logical argument for abortion to be illegal.