Greetings r/AbortionDebate community!

By popular request, here is our recurring weekly meta discussion thread!

Here is your place for things like:

• Non-debate oriented questions or requests for clarification you have for the other side, your own side and everyone in between.
• Non-debate oriented discussions related to the abortion debate.
• Meta-discussions about the subreddit.
• Anything else relevant to the subreddit that isn't a topic for debate.

Obviously all normal subreddit rules and redditquette are still in effect here, especially Rule 1. So as always, let's please try our very best to keep things civil at all times.

This is not a place to call out or complain about the behavior or comments from specific users. If you want to draw mod attention to a specific user - please send us a private modmail. Comments that complain about specific users will be removed from this thread.

r/ADBreakRoom is our officially recognized sibling subreddit for off-topic content and banter you'd like to share with the members of this community. It's a great place to relax and unwind after some intense debating, so go subscribe!

Greetings everyone!

Wecome to r/Abortiondebate. Due to popular request, this is our weekly abortion debate thread.

This thread is meant for anything related to the abortion debate, like questions, ideas or clarifications, that are too small to make an entire post about. This is also a great way to gain more insight in the abortion debate if you are new, or unsure about making a whole post.

In this post, we will be taking a more relaxed approach towards moderating (which will mostly only apply towards attacking/name-calling, etc. other users). Participation should therefore happen with these changes in mind.

Reddit's TOS will however still apply, this will not be a free pass for hate speech.

We also have a recurring weekly meta thread where you can voice your suggestions about rules, ask questions, or anything else related to the way this sub is run.

r/ADBreakRoom is our officially recognized sister subreddit for all off-topic content and banter you'd like to share with the members of this community. It's a great place to relax and unwind after some intense debating, so go subscribe!

I haven’t seen a recent post asking this specifically.

Would PL accept instead of ZEFSs being aborted that they were removed and frozen indefinitely for the rest of time infinitely?

(Since we are pretending there is technology to do so it includes fetus as well).

Or does the “right to life/not be killed” include the right to the unwilling body of another?

If so why does the zef get a special right no born child has?

Imagine that the technology exists to transfer a ZEF from one woman to another. To prevent an abortion, would PL women be willing to accept another woman's ZEF, gestate it, and give birth to it? Assume there's no further obligation and the baby once born could be turned over to the state. The same risks any pregnancy and birth entails would apply.

Assuming a uterus could also be transplanted, would any PL men be willing to gestate and give birth (through C-section) to save a ZEF from abortion? The uterus would only be present until after birth, after which it could be removed.

If this technology existed, would you support making the above mandatory? It would be like jury duty, where eligible citizens would be chosen at random and required to gestate and give birth to unwanted ZEFs. These could be for rape cases, underage girls, or when the bio mom can't safely give birth for some other reason.

I'm not limiting this to PL-exclusive because I don't want to limit answers, but I'm hoping some PL respond.

Imagine a building on fire. You see that on a table, there are 5 different fertilized eggs. These zygotes are put in containers above which is a picture of them. There are different types of zygotes: a bee zygote, a spider zygote, a bear zygote, a monkey zygote and a human zygote. You must rescue one. Would you know which one is the human one?

They all look alike, there is then no possibility of recognizing the human one. This experiment is really unsettling for prolifers as they proclaim the human is different from birth, but then, they are incapable of choosing the right zygote. There usually provide us the following argument:

It is different because of the human DNA.

To that one, I shall promptly reply, for it is not the most important. The most obvious way to answer is to talk about other cells in your body that have DNA and these cells are not granted personhood, from that follows that the zygote cannot be granted personhood, merely based on DNA.

But it needs to be an organism and have human DNA

Why should 'being an organism with human DNA' be the defining criteria for personhood? If that were the case, we would expect a human zygote to be visually distinguishable from other species, yet it is not. If a definition of personhood does not allow one to tell apart a human from an insect at conception, how meaningful is it?

Once that argument has been made, they shall probably refer to the potentiality of the zygote, which is a more interesting point. I shall hereafter show why I think the potentiality argument is flawed.

1. Potentiality does not equal actuality.

Do you consider each acorn a tree? If you see a stone, do you consider it a Cathedral? So why when you see a cell, you consider it human?

2. Potentiality does not exist if the woman wants to abort.

Potentiality only exists if development is allowed. If a zygote's personhood is based on what it 'may become,' then abortion removes that potential entirely. If potentiality = 0, then personhood = 0.

3. Potentiality does not deal with reality.

Potentiality exists only in the realm of unreality. Therefore, if a zygote is granted personhood from potentiality, it is done so within the realm of unreality. The problem is that we live in reality. What happens in the unreal world is irrelevant to us. Thereby, potentiality is irrelevant to us.

I hope this provides clarity on why potentiality fails as an argument. I'm always open to well-reasoned discussion, regardless of perspective

Edit: I guess my point was to show there is no meaningful difference among zygotes between species. Here my point focuses on sight, but zygotes have the same structure, develop the same way, are created the same way, have the same biological purpose, ... Therefore, they only things that differ are the DNA (not even active at conception btw) and the potentiality, the two arguments I address hereinabove.

From this article

“The UN Human Rights Committee recently issued a groundbreaking ruling against Ecuador and Nicaragua, condemning both countries for violating the human rights of three girls who were forced into motherhood at age 13.”

The international treaties this was ruled under was the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (signed by the US in 1948) and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (signed by the US in 1992).

Under the Supremacy Clause of the US Constitution international agreements are considered Federal law and trump State law.

Since forcing children into motherhood has been legislated as illegal via international law - why do prolife states still think they can force children to gestate?

A Federal Abortion Ban has been proposed in the United States. I am Livid. I am a married mother who almost died creating my Daughter, and I WILL NOT be doing it again. You think you can control my choices and my body?

PROVE ME WRONG.

The right to bodily autonomy is the DEFAULT STATE. It doesn't matter what laws come to my door, I have the RIGHT TO SAY NO, up to and including with physical self defense, regardless of whatever "legality" or "consequences".

Imma restate some things that make this flat out discriminatory against AFAB people, and if a ban passes will relegate AFAB people to being treated as Second Class citizens.

Allow me to share something I learned while working as a Caregiver for people diagnosed with Serious Mental Illness.

Source: https://nrc-pad.org/images/stories/PDFs/fedaddirectives2a.pdf

When a person is brain dead, and they are no longer able to decide for themselves they either MUST HAVE, an ADVANCE DIRECTIVE, LIVING WILL or, their RIGHT TO CHOOSE is given to SOMEONE ELSE. This legal standard is AUTOMATIC and does not need any paperwork or proceedings AT ALL, aside advance directive and procedure in place at hospitals etc.

A physical body that functions DOES NOT EQUAL PERSON-HOOD. It is established legal precedence.

IT. DOES. NOT. MATTER. if they have a heartbeat, or any residual brain activity. The person's life and person-hood is no longer under their ownership aside advance directive or living will. A brain dead person is not a person anymore, that is why the advance directive is REQUIRED for them to have a say, AT ALL.

And before you say "We CaN WrItE AdVanCeD DiRecTivE fOr ThE UnBoRn..." That is contrary to the purpose of advance directive. Advance directive is meant to PRESERVE BODILY AUTONOMY of an individual even when incapacitated. NOT REMOVE SOMEONE ELSE'S.

I need someone to try and argue that excluding a ZEF from this standard is not pure, outright discrimination against AFAB people, and their rights.

It's not a legal person. Even if it was, why would it have the right that no-one else has (to take what isn't theirs to survive, to do things to a person's body that could kill a person, to be inside someone against their will)?

A fetus is alive and part of the human species. Yeah, so? Why does that make abortion illegal? Even if it is an act of killing, so? Why is the fetus entitled to another person's body when no other law gives that same entitlement to born people?

Even from the PL 'parental responsibility and duty of care' argument, parental responsibility is given at birth and voluntarily. No duty of care requires a parent to let a child eat their flesh or put their lives on the line for their child.

https://www.congress.gov/bill/119th-congress/house-bill/722/all-actions?overview=closed#tabs

This bill was introduced in the House of Representatives by Rep. Burlison of Missouri and 67 other reps on January 24. There is no text attached to the links.

For the bill to become law, it has to pass through the House to the Senate then to the President. Right now, it is still in committee. It has to make it to the floor for a vote. With the new Congress, the fate of the bill is up in the air.

The bill is similar to the Life at Conception Act which was introduced January 20, 2023 but didn't make it past committee to the floor for a vote.

The 14th amendment of the US Constitution reads as follows: "No State shall make or enforce any law, which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law."

There is speculation that this bill will affirm legal personhood for all unborns, however, without text, there is no way to be sure.

If this bill manages to pass and be signed into law, would PL or PC benefit? Would abortion still be permissible? What arguments could be made to support either side?

Congress trying, and failing, to pass laws like this have been happening for decades. Below is a link outlining all the bills with 'unborn' in them (33 pages worth).

https://www.congress.gov/search?q=%7B%22source%22%3A%22legislation%22%2C%22search%22%3A%22unborn%22%7D

For the purpose of this post, the term 'give birth' means 'to produce viable offspring that survive the birthing process'.

There has been debate fighting over where the right to abortion, or the right to 'end fetal life'*, comes from. From equal rights to self defense to bodily autonomy to bodily sovereignty to liberty and freedom, the arguments are many.

But putting aside abortion for a moment, what about the opposite? Where does the right to give birth/have children come from?

Arguments range from nature and purpose to liberty and freedom to civic and social duty to religious mandate, but what are your thoughts?

Abortion and live birth both end in death, just at different times and usually by different means. Why should a person have the right to give birth and not also abortion?

* Yes, technically, abortion is a birth. In many intact abortions, the reason the fetus dies is because there is no life-saving technology to keep him alive after he is disconnected and expelled from the uterus. In many abortions, there is no intentional, deliberate goal to cause death, only to sever the physical dependency and remove the fetus from the uterus.

Murder is the unlawful killing of another human being with malice and is a category of homicide.(https://www.justice.gov/archives/jm/criminal-resource-manual-1536-murder-definition-and-degrees) From a biological standpoint, a fetus is considered a developing human organism from the moment of conception. It is genetically human and follows stages of growth and development that eventually lead to birth. A fetus is considered living by conception because, from a biological standpoint, the zygote formed at fertilization meets key criteria for life. It exhibits cellular organization as a single-celled organism that divides and grows through mitosis, processes energy via metabolism, and responds to its environment by interacting with the uterine lining to implant and sustain development. Additionally, the zygote contains the complete genetic blueprint (DNA) necessary for human development, making it a unique and distinct organism. While it may not yet exhibit all characteristics of mature life, such as homeostasis, its active growth and future potential to develop those characteristics fulfill the criteria for it to be classified as a living organism from the moment of conception. You'll have to go through hell to find one obviously biased biologist who would dispute that human life begins at conception.

Now let's use the homicide flow chart. A fetus is a living human being from conception, so abortion involves intentionally ending the life of a human. This means it falls under the homicide category as an intentional killing. From there, it breaks into two paths: unjustified killing and justified killing. Elective abortions, where the mother’s life is not in danger, are unjustified killings, which I view as murder, because it is the intentional taking of an innocent life. However, if the mother's life is at risk, the situation changes. In those cases, the abortion is a justified killing since it is performed out of necessity to save the mother's life, not with the intent to harm the fetus. While it is still a tragic decision, I see it as a morally permissible exception under my belief in minimizing harm and valuing both lives.

Now that it's objectively clear from a legal standpoint, all pro-choice advocates can do is argue why we should change the law, but should we? They may first point out that it should be personhood that matters, not if it's a human. I would argue the law got it right. Personhood is a subjective philosophical matter, just like religion should have no place in policy. Does personhood begin with consciousness? What about people in comas? When can they feel pain? There are people with genetic defects that can't feel pain. There's a reason why when you murder a pregnant woman, it's a double homicide. Ok, well, what about ethics? Regardless of the circumstances, it is always wrong to murder an innocent life. What about her autonomy?Women's autonomy is important, but it has limits when it comes to the life of another human being. Biologically, the fetus is not part of the mother's body; it is a distinct human being with its own genetic identity, blood type, and developmental trajectory. While the mother and fetus are connected, they are two separate lives. No one's autonomy, including the mother's, justifies taking the life of another innocent human being. I strongly believe that it's self-evident that abortion should only be legal when it's necessary to preserve the woman's life. There are so many hoops pro-choice advocates have to jump through. I'm open to you changing my mind.

One of the most common pro-life arguments I hear is along the lines of "fetuses are considered humans, and therefore deserve the same rights as humans have". However I'm slightly confused by this, as my understanding is bodily consent of an individual isn't removed even in situations where it would save someone.

For example, if a drunk driver were to hit a kid and the kid needed an immediate blood transfusion, the driver wouldn't be required to give any blood. Even if they were the only matching donor avaliable.

Or the fact that around 17 people die in the US every day due to lack of organ access (HRSA, Organ Donation Statistics), and yet we can't remove organs from corpses, unless consent while alive was given. (or by approved family/freinds).

So is there something unique about the situation with fetuses I'm not understanding or do most pro-lifers also approval of those kinds of situations of saving a life via disregard of bodily consent?

EDIT: When I initially posted this, I did not realize that the phrase "late-term" had a specific medical meaning that is not relevant here. I should have phrased this question: "What is the difference between an abortion on a viable fetus and infanticide?"

I know that there is an argumentative technique where you pretend that you don't understand your opponent's point of view and ask them to explain it, but that's not what I'm doing here. I genuinely don't understand this.

There are many pro-choicers who believe in abortion only until the fetus is viable. I understand them. I may not agree with them, but I totally understand their reasoning.

What I don't understand is people who believe that abortion should be legal after the fetus can survive outside the womb. I mean, an abortion starts with a pregnant woman and an abortion doctor, and ends with a non-pregnant woman, an abortion doctor, and a dead fetus. There are two ways to get from the start to the finish: Either kill the fetus and then remove it, or remove the fetus and then kill it. The end result is exactly the same. Why should it matter what order the steps take place in?

I've asked this question before, and the two answers I've gotten are:

1. "Because one is an abortion and the other isn't." But this doesn't answer the question, it just defines the terms.
2. "Because pro-lifers would lose their shit if we did it the second way." Well, yes, but that's pro-lifers. I want to know why you feel it should always be done the first way.

Obviously, removing the fetus alive and then killing it is illegal in (I believe) every country in the world. But, if some part of the world made it legal to perform abortions that way, would you be in favor of that or against it? And if you're against it, why? Explain exactly how it's different from an abortion on a viable fetus.

Please try to avoid getting off-topic. The purpose of this thread is not to discuss abortion in general, or the consequences of rape, or any of that. All I'm looking for is an answer to the question above. Thank you.

(Note: I have only a limited amount of time to be on the internet, so if I disappear for a couple of days, that's normal for me.)

EDIT 2 and 3: I would also like to add the stipulation that the fetus is healthy. There are third-trimester abortions that are performed on fetuses which are dying or will die shortly after birth, but those are outside the scope of what I intended for this discussion, and, as one person pointed out, at that point an abortion would (or at least could) be considered palliative care.

EDIT 4: And the mother's life is not at risk, either.

I am trying to word this to not make it come across comical because it is a reductio ad absurdum but in regards to how abortion should be completely up to women, wether it's the idea men shouldn't legislate abortion or abortion should be completely up to the woman as an individual. This is the hypothetical:

A woman dictator comes to power and is universally accepted, abortion is free and legal no questions asked, easier than buying mcdonalds. For whatever reason every woman in the world decides they will only go through with a pregnancy if the child is projected to be -white -blonde -blue eyes -6 foot minimum -120 minimum iq

• no physical or mental disabilities

Would it still be morally acceptable to say abortion should only be up to women? Bear in mind, this is eugenics, and very obviously eugenics, but it isn't forced every women decided they wanted to do eugenics, and at no point does any man get to decide wether or not to be a father because their children will be aborted against their will if they don't meet the eugenics requirements. 2 questions, is this acceptable morally, in other words is "consensual eugenics" ethical, and Secondly do the men on this world have any right morally speaking to advocate for themselves and say that they aren't ok with this or should this still be a women's only issue even if it effects men

I am curious to know the opinions and thoughts of PLs on the following scenario. PLEASE READ COMPLETELY.

That’s a clinic which has an IVF lab and also includes OBGYN treatments. So everything from conception to birth, the clinic has professionals and services. There’s a lab where fertilized eggs are preserved and also nicus and rooms for new mothers and their babies.

A fire breaks out. The fire engine comes to the premise. They can either retrieve the 15 fertilized eggs stored in the IVF department or rescue 3 new mothers and their 3 new borns who are all in another part of the clinic. There’s no way to retrieve and save all.

Would you choose:

Option 1: The 3 moms and their 3 babies

Option 2: 15 fertilized eggs that are preserved.

Please mention which option you choose by the number indicated before providing your reasons.

Thanks in advance for sharing all your thoughts.

If you had the absolute power to choose prevent ONE in each of the below scenarios, which would you choose to prevent?

(A) (1) A fertility clinic accidentally destroys a tray of 100 embryos scheduled for implantation OR (2) 10 newborn babies pass from natural causes

(B) (1) A fertility clinic containing thousands of embryos sets ablaze overnight all are destroyed but no born persons are harmed OR (2) a residential house is set ablaze overnight and a family of five born persons pass

(C) (1) A woman aborts a twin pregnancy at 8 weeks because of health conditions OR (2) a newborn baby passes from natural causes

(D) (1) 100 women abort their pregnancies before 12 weeks because they don't want to continue the pregnancies OR (2) 10 newborn babies pass from natural causes

(E) (1) A teenager in poverty becomes pregnant through rape and gets an early abortion, this enables her to join the military and get an engineering degree with the GI bill and marry a man who is overall a good man but not interested in dating single mothers and they have two kids who wouldn't exist if she didn't have an abortion and they have a good life OR (2) a teenager in poverty becomes pregnant through rape but abortion is illegal unfortunately it turns out to be an ectopic pregnancy and the teen loses a tube and her uterus, has to miss 1.5 months of school to recover, and can never have kids which she always wanted to have once older and on her terms.

(F) (1) A woman who is 16 weeks pregnant finds out through genetic testing and amniocentesis that her fetus has Trisomy 13 and elects for an abortion OR (2) A mother of 5 who is 8 weeks pregnant finds out she has aggressive cancer and her best chance of survival is to get an abortion and start treatment immediately. She is unable to receive an abortion because her husband does not agree (in this scenario it's illegal to get an abortion if the father doesn't consent).

For me and many other pro-choicers, we are preventing #2 in all scenarios. We are saving the born person from harm or death if we have it in our power. That is where we recognize greater value.

I've seen some pro-lifers like Lila Rose claim that the unborn gain equal rights and value to the born at conception. That would not support that so many humans would choose the intentional termination of a fetus or embryo over an unintentional accidental harm or death to a born person, even when the quantity of unborn vastly surpass the quanitity of born in the scenarios.

The way the United States is moving towards national abortion bans and abolishing it completely, how can you be ok with them also getting rid of government funded programs like food stamps? It really makes no sense to me. I made a post about this before, but I want to hear from the people who want full-on bans, no exceptions. You want abortion bans but don't agree with funding to more affordable childcare and food stamps. I've been in arguments with pro lifers telling me to just get a job, but what if that's not enough. Groceries are too expensive and getting higher by the day under the Trump administration, and he's now going after SNAP, WIC, and all programs related to making life more affordable. Yet pro lifers are still pro lifing. (It doesn't make it better that's he's going after birth control either)

Edit: Also, birth costs in the US are MINIMUM $20k.(upwards of hundreds of thousands if extra care is needed) Whether you have insurance or not, it's expensive, and if Trump decides to go after medicaid, then you have to pay out of pocket, so there's that too.

Yes, I do understand that there may be debate about when abortion becomes too late, but I feel that pro-life zealots caricature themselves by insisting that the zygote is a human being. For reasoning to be upheld, it must be rigorous, consistent, made in good faith, and must not lead to absurd conclusions. Let me delve into this further and explain why I think they fail to meet these standards.

Pro-birth advocates often act in bad faith by twisting or outright misrepresenting biological facts. The claim that "life begins at conception" is not supported by science. It is an arbitrary marker chosen to fit their narrative. Biology shows that life is a continuous, unbroken process that has persisted for billions of years. If life truly began at conception, the zygote would have to be formed from non-living matter, yet it is created from two living cells: a sperm and an egg. While a zygote contains a new combination of DNA, both sperm and eggs also have unique DNA. Their focus on the zygote’s DNA as a defining factor is both misleading and arbitrary.

Pro-life advocates may argue, "Yes, but the new DNA is complete and contains the characteristics of your individuality, so it’s when the ‘real you’ starts." But why should this new DNA be considered more important than its separate components (the sperm and egg)? The new DNA could not exist without these living, unique contributors. It is true that a sperm or egg alone cannot develop into a human, but neither can a zygote. A zygote requires very specific external conditions (implantation, nourishment, and protection) to develop into a human being. Claiming that the zygote marks the beginning of individuality oversimplifies the reality of development. Moreover, if we take this claim rigorously, that the zygote is the start of individuality, then identical twins, which originate from the same zygote, would logically have to be considered the same person. This is clearly not the case, further demonstrating that individuality cannot be solely attributed to the zygote or its DNA.

Once, I also heard a pro-choice advocate refer to a fetus as a "clump of cells," and a pro-life supporter responded, "We are all clumps of cells as well." Is it not utterly unreasonable to make such a grotesque comparison? Of course, we are clumps of cells, but we are sentient beings capable of self-awareness, emotions, reasoning, and relationships. A fetus, particularly in the early stages, lacks these capacities entirely. Equating a fetus to a fully developed person is an absurd oversimplification.

When the mind stops working, but the rest of the body is being kept alive, that is called being braindead. This is death. Without the mind, you are no longer a human person. You can be unplugged from life support and have your organs harvested.

When a baby is born with severe anencephaly (lacking a developed brain), we don’t typically struggle to keep the mindless body alive.

When a person gets a prosthetic limb, a prosthetic or donated organ, or a skin graft from someone else, we don’t consider them any less themselves. They can replace everything but the brain and remain themselves. Remove or replace the brain, however, and we would no longer consider that person present.

This even holds true in sci-fi. When a brain is transferred to another body, the one with the original brain is considered that person, not the body left behind with the arms and legs. Further, aliens with minds similar to humans are treated as having human like value.

In religion/mythology, gods, angels, and other spirits have value despite not being human, because they too have minds. Nobody ever says the imago dei is in our DNA, but rather in our thoughts.

Non-human animals have some value to most of us that non-animals don’t have. The difference between animals and non-animals? They are conscious beings. They can experience suffering, pleasure, life, and death. They have feelings and personalities.

The mind is what defines us, makes us who we are, makes us people, gives us value. It’s what gives us any experience of suffering or pleasure, life or death.

 
 
You cannot be a victim if you cannot experience victimization. If a mind never exists in a body, then there never is anyone to experience any suffering or death. They never existed.

(A common question is: do sleeping people have value? A temporary lapse in consciousness doesn’t destroy the mind any more than a computer in sleep mode has no processor or hard drive. A zygote is more like raw metals for making the computer than a sleeping one).

The key components of the conscious mind develop around the third trimester, after 99% of all abortions. That’s when the prefrontal cortex begins most of its development and gains the necessary texture to function, its function being consciousness.

So why should we value a pre-sentient newly fertilized egg any more than an anencephalic baby or the remains of a braindead person? If our value ends when the mind ends, shouldn’t it begin when the mind begins?

Why concern yourself with the victimization of someone who cannot experience victimization or lack of victimization in any way because they don’t exist yet (and never will)?

 
 
As a note, even people with minds don’t have rights to other people’s organs, nutrients, and health, so this debate alone doesn’t define the abortion rights discussion. It still seems secondarily important.

I'm sorry this is long but i would appreciate a response. I am wondering if someone who is prolife with or without exceptions will answer my questions. I'll be honest, the idea for this is because of a post on the prolife sub.

-What are your reasons? Does your church approve of abortions if that plays a role?

-Were you raised prolife?

-Who should be punished for an abortion? The doctor? The woman? The person who helped them get the abortion? How about the taxi driver, nurses and maybe even the front desk person at the clinic?

-Do you think punishment should be able to be retrospective (the prolife post)? What should be the "punishment"? Saying that would never happen is not accurate so please don't use that. DJT has decided that birth right citizenship should be taken away even though it is a right in the constitution.

-Have you had any children yourself (aka been pregnant)? Have you ever had a spontaneous abortion? Have you ever had a high risk pregnancy or delivery? If you plan to have children in the future, why are you pushing for women to get sterilized if contraception being removed as an option?

-Do you personally know anyone who has had one for any reason? So I am not referring to a coworker, etc. I'm referring to a person who would feel comfortable sharing it with you. I will be honest that I personally have had 2 miscarriages, 1 later in pregnancy that was aborted and have 3 born healthy (for the most part). Does hearing something like that make you feel differently about the person?

-Have you put in the work to see what prochoice's reasons or are you just assuming what you have heard people in your bubble are saying?

-Do you really see blastocysts, embryos and fetuses are the same thing as a newborn, toddler, teenager, adult or elderly person? When I say that, what I mean is why would you pause when asked if you for some strange reason were in an IVF building with a toddler and it catches on fire, you would save the sentient 2 year old from a fire if you have the same likelihood of saving either/ or AND yourself. Does it change your decision if you can hear the child screaming and crying for help would you reach for the pile of blastocyst or try to reach the 2 year old? Those "blastocysts" are likely thought of as their babies by the people who are undergoing fertility treatment.

-I understand the feeling uncomfortable when discussing later in pregnancy abortion but why is it that you won't accept abortions do not go down with bans?

We have speed limits on the road to keep the public safe but no one listens to it. You can go 5mph over the speed limit with absolutely no repercussions. You can usually go 10mph over it and not have repercussions unless the officer is just in a bad mood. That doesn't make people follow the speed limit because there might be repercussions. We could kill someone else, cause serious injuries and property damage and it still doesn't matter. The car navigation warns people of upcoming "speed traps" frequently and the passengers are on the look out to help spot the sherrifs and officers.

For example, the freeway near my house, the speed limit is 70mph. It's a guarantee that going 75mpg, there will be zero repercussions. Going 80mph might have a cop pull you over but getting a ticket is unlikely. Going 80mph+ is when the possibility of being stopped starts. We have sherrifs who literally drive past the intersection many times per day with and without their sirens on. It's a busy road and we refer to the road and area as "suicide alley" because there are literally at least one fatality per couple weeks. We literally had the Medivac helicopter land in our personal yard followed by the white sheet covering part of the car about a week ago. Sometimes, the helicopter leaves with no patients because they are very dead. The most recent crash, the person was in our ditch after being thrown from the car. Parents don't take the time to get the car seat in properly or have the straps too loose which can seriously maim or kill their kids.

But still nothing happens. So bans on speeding, using alcohol or drugs, etc, don't change anything. The reason is because we retroactively punish rather than be proactive. The same thing as the abortion debate. Punishment and fear don't work. Positive reinforcement works.

If an undocumented person is not subject to the jurisdiction thereof per the 14th Amendment, then neither is a stateless undocumented non-citizen fetus. How can undocumented people not have protected rights in the US when a fetus is, by definition, undocumented? A fetus is not a citizen until after it's born, per the Constitution.

Abortion happens because pregnancy happens. Pregnancy happens because the person hasn't been sterilised.

We know that virgins can give birth too, see Mary and any number of ancient (Greek, Roman, Egyptian) female priests.

So, the best solution to abortion is to have mass sterilisation. If you are pro-life, surely you can see the logic to this.

If you are against sterilisation, then it means that you want people to have sex and birth children. If you want them to have sex and birth children, what's with all the slut shaming?

If you want to take it very literally, Mary was a slut too, which makes Jesus, both the son of a slut and a bastard because Mary and God were never married so he was born out of wedlock.

Pro lifers say you shouldn’t abort a fetus because the fetus can feel the pain. So if they find out during pregnancy, the fetus will have a birth defect/lifelong disease/disability that will cause them pain, would they still have abortions?

I’ve seen mixed results for questions like this, saying “well this is an exception for abortion.” Yet i know many pro lifers who still go through with the pregnancy.

For example, Trisomy conditions (extra chromosome of a specific type) can end up with your child living with chronic pain for as long as they live, which could be under a year (trisomy 18) and chances are a lot of their life will be painful and spent in a hospital, hooked up to wires and machines.

so would you (a pro lifer) rather a fetus feel a fast, quick death, or the fetus live in chronic pain and die a slow death.

want to say sorry for using such cruel words, but i have to speak the truth.

Greetings r/AbortionDebate community!

By popular request, here is our recurring weekly meta discussion thread!

Here is your place for things like:

• Non-debate oriented questions or requests for clarification you have for the other side, your own side and everyone in between.
• Non-debate oriented discussions related to the abortion debate.
• Meta-discussions about the subreddit.
• Anything else relevant to the subreddit that isn't a topic for debate.

Obviously all normal subreddit rules and redditquette are still in effect here, especially Rule 1. So as always, let's please try our very best to keep things civil at all times.

This is not a place to call out or complain about the behavior or comments from specific users. If you want to draw mod attention to a specific user - please send us a private modmail. Comments that complain about specific users will be removed from this thread.

r/ADBreakRoom is our officially recognized sibling subreddit for off-topic content and banter you'd like to share with the members of this community. It's a great place to relax and unwind after some intense debating, so go subscribe!

Greetings everyone!

Wecome to r/Abortiondebate. Due to popular request, this is our weekly abortion debate thread.

This thread is meant for anything related to the abortion debate, like questions, ideas or clarifications, that are too small to make an entire post about. This is also a great way to gain more insight in the abortion debate if you are new, or unsure about making a whole post.

In this post, we will be taking a more relaxed approach towards moderating (which will mostly only apply towards attacking/name-calling, etc. other users). Participation should therefore happen with these changes in mind.

Reddit's TOS will however still apply, this will not be a free pass for hate speech.

We also have a recurring weekly meta thread where you can voice your suggestions about rules, ask questions, or anything else related to the way this sub is run.

r/ADBreakRoom is our officially recognized sister subreddit for all off-topic content and banter you'd like to share with the members of this community. It's a great place to relax and unwind after some intense debating, so go subscribe!

I grew up as a christian. I believe in God, Jesus, etc. I pray every morning and night and read the bible. However, I am unshakably pro choice. I was not convinced into being pro choice, I just felt from the bottom of my heart from a young age that women should get to choose whether or not they could get abortions. It never seemed right to me that the choice should be taken away. Listening to more pro-choice and pro-life arguments, I have solidified my pro choice stance. Especially since I just came from arguing with a pro life guy that supports the death penalty, and said he hoped my kids would pull me off of life support early.

However, my stance as a Christian is wavering because of this. In the bible, murder is a sin, but whether or not you can compare abortion to murder is up for debate. After all, there are many ways you can kill somebody that is not generally classified as "murder" . I forget where in the bible it says it, but it said something about "he created you from the womb"--something like that.

You may argue that in the old testament, there are instructions on how to get an abortion:

Numbers 5: 11-31

Then the Lord said to Moses, ^(12) “Speak to the Israelites and say to them: ‘If a man’s wife goes astray and is unfaithful to him ^(13) so that another man has sexual relations with her, and this is hidden from her husband and her impurity is undetected (since there is no witness against her and she has not been caught in the act), ^(14) and if feelings of jealousy come over her husband and he suspects his wife and she is impure—or if he is jealous and suspects her even though she is not impure— ^(15) then he is to take his wife to the priest. He must also take an offering of a tenth of an ephah^([)^(a)^(]) of barley flour on her behalf. He must not pour olive oil on it or put incense on it, because it is a grain offering for jealousy, a reminder-offering to draw attention to wrongdoing.

^(16) “‘The priest shall bring her and have her stand before the Lord. ^(17) Then he shall take some holy water in a clay jar and put some dust from the tabernacle floor into the water. ^(18) After the priest has had the woman stand before the Lord, he shall loosen her hair and place in her hands the reminder-offering, the grain offering for jealousy, while he himself holds the bitter water that brings a curse. ^(19) Then the priest shall put the woman under oath and say to her, “If no other man has had sexual relations with you and you have not gone astray and become impure while married to your husband, may this bitter water that brings a curse not harm you. ^(20) But if you have gone astray while married to your husband and you have made yourself impure by having sexual relations with a man other than your husband”— ^(21) here the priest is to put the woman under this curse—“may the Lord cause you to become a curse^([)^(b)^(]) among your people when he makes your womb miscarry and your abdomen swell. ^(22) May this water that brings a curse enter your body so that your abdomen swells or your womb miscarries.”

“‘Then the woman is to say, “Amen. So be it.”

Somewhere in Exodus, I forget the chapter and verse (would appreciate if anyone would share), people are only to be fined if they hit a pregnant woman (which endangers the life of the fetus). However, these are Jewish laws, so they are not relevant to Christ followers.

I would like to argue (regarding Numbers) that the Lord HIMSELF told Moses that a woman should have her pregnancy aborted if she was unfaithful to her husband. One might argue that Jesus Himself did not say this, but isn't Jesus Christ an extension of the Lord (in this context, God)?

I am not sure, but it is causing me to doubt if I can really consider myself a Christian as someone who supports abortion. Any thoughts?

Imagine you're in Texas, and you're selected for jury duty. The case is abortion.

The person on trial is a doctor, who performed a surgical abortion on patient 16 weeks pregnant - a very much wanted pregnancy. The patient has admitted in evidence that she would have gone out of state if it had been unwanted - she has had a couple of abortions already, but this pregnancy was wanted. She consented to the abortion on health grounds - her own.

The doctor's testimony is that the patient has had been experiencing pre-eclampsia since week 12 of gestation. Repeated attempts to reduce her blood pressure had not worked. In week 16, the pre-eclampsia had become so severe that inducing an early delivery would have killed her - the safest and easiest method for her was what is called IDX - "partial birth abortion" in prolife lexicology. The dead fetus would be removed quickly - which would save the pregnant woman from permanent damage from the pre-eclampsia - but almost intact, so that she could have a body to grieve over and provide closure. This was discussed with the patient, who understood and consented, IDX abortion was performed, and the patient is now well and - at the time of the trial - pregnant again and extremely grateful to her doctor.

The doctor is known to be pro-choice. Several witnesses testify to that.

The doctor says the abortion was legal, because if the pre-eclampsia had continued, the patient would have suffered permanent damage, and would ultimately have died. Asked if the patient could have survived another 8 weeks, the doctor says possibly, with intensive pallative care, but the patient's kidneys and liver would certainly have been permanently damaged unless they had somehow managed to reduce the hyptertension; the patient might have had a stroke; and there was a real possibility the fetus would have been permanently damaged or stillborn.

The Attorney General of Texas says the abortion was illegal because the patient could have lived another 8 weeks and had an early delivery. The judge's guidance to the jury is that unless the patient would certainly have died, or the fetus was definitely going to die, the abortion was a felony, and that performing a partial birth abortion in Texas is itself a state jail felony.

You are ardently prolife - you think abortion is murdering a baby and you don't think it can be justified unless "the mother" is going to die. You're disgusted by the two previous abortions the patient had, and you're horrified by the doctor admitting that they think Dobbs was a mistake and Roe Vs Wade ought still to be the law of the land.

You have no medical background at all and don't understand any of the medical evidence, but the prosecution has made clear to you that the pregnant woman could have survived another 8 weeks, and the doctor can't say absolutely that she definitely would have had kidney and liver damage or a stroke, or that the unborn child wouldn't have survived an early delivery at 24 weeks.

You do understand that "innocent til proven guilty" is the rule.

How do you vote -Not Guilty, or Guilty, knowing that "Guilty" means the doctor is going to prison for anything up to 99 years?

If "Guilty", do you feel bad when your next-door neighbor goes into hospital with severe pre-eclampsia and never comes out - she dies, 18 weeks pregnant?

If "Not Guilty", do you feel bad when your next-door neighbor goes into hospital with severe pre-eclampsia and he same doctor performs an abortion on her at 15 weeks and your neighbor - also a prolifer - is absolutely distraught at the loss of her much-wanted pregnancy?

Note: I'd have made it "prolife exclusive" except that using that flair effectively creates a hostile environment for prolifers, since prochoicers have to leave all response to the post as comments to the PL comment. I am genuinely interested in prolife answers to both questions.

A woman is born already with 1 to 2 million eggs and men can ejaculate tens even hundreds of millions of sperm. That means a partner couple has the potential of trillions of different lives that could result from reproduction, but even a partner couple who are intentional to have as many children as possible will only birth around 20 or so of these lives out of trillions, if by chance the "winning" eggs and sperms are free of chromosomal/genetic abnormalities, find their way to the right place to implant, and the host woman's body is healthy enough to support it. Any thing that happens in the couple's lives, through their choices or by happenstance or chance, will change who that turns out to be.

Not having sex by choice until you are married at least at 18 but often not until closer to 30, would prevent potential lives. Natural Family Planning - not having sex when ovulating - would prevent potential lives. Chemical or physical barrier birth control and Plan B prevent potential lives. People fertilize eggs (conceive) all the time and we never know about it because it doesn't implant, or it does but it's abnormal or the woman's body rejects the process and those potential lives go unnoticed. Nothing changes. And the same happens if a woman were to take an abortive pill or have a D&C for an early pregnancy smaller than a kumquat. Because it was not a born person, nobody knew it and it had no impact on anyone. Even the parents who knew about the pregnancy may only mourn the idea of that person or themselves as a parent, in the same way an infertile couple mourns their failures to become pregnant.

Know who people know and are impacted by? The woman whose body this has to occur in. Her life is at risk when she is denied healthcare and doctors are restricted from saving her. Her family, business, and community may mourn the idea of the potential life she was growing, but they will fully mourn her if she dies because of abortion bans. They will feel the lack of her presence and lack of her actions. She is a born person, and the unborn potential life should not be placed at a higher or even equal priority to hers.

Lets say you are in a position of great power over your state, and you are asked to make a choice.

you're presented two laws which have both been tested in similar counties within your state and examined for their effectiveness.

Law one:

law one is called the REDUCING ABORTION CAUSATIONS LAW. It provides extensive Sexual education, free birth control, and financial support to new parents.

After a year it's discovered that this law sharply reduces the amount of abortions in the county, as well as STD and teen pregnancy rates.

Law two is called the PROTECTING FETAL LIFE LAW. It makes it a crime to commit abortions for anything but medical reasons.

After a year it's found that not only does the maternal mortality rate spike, maternity doctors have left the county, and abortions didn't decrease, abortion seekers simply found other ways to abort like telehealth or traveling.

when both these laws hit your desk, it's again made clear: law one decreased abortions. Law two did not.

now you have to choose one and only one to make the standard for your state.

which do you choose and why?

And all the (predictable) events that's come after?

Mental health is strongly affected by how we are treated in society and how we are perceived.

Children who grow up in households where they are considered people and are given choices and control over their lives and are seen as competent individuals fare better mentally.

Workers who have their inputs acknowledged, their achievements commended, and their opinions respected and their health and safety protected fare better mentally.

So, given everything that's gone down since Dobbs, the overturn of Roe v Wade, the rise in abortions and deaths of girls and women, and the impending anti-freedom regime in the US, how is your mental health regarding reproductive choice and personal freedom and bodily autonomy?