“Your body is meant for this.”

Ok. And? I did what my body was “meant for.” It conceived. Apparently created “offspring” (even though nothing has sprung off me while still inside of and attached in me). And now I’m done. I created an offspring (re: abortion doesn’t make you not a mother just a mother of a dead child). I achieved “pregnant.”

The idea that the uterus is “meant for” nourishing and maintaining your child is incorrect. Oxford dictionary defines that as what the placenta’s function is.

Even if that’s what my body is “meant for”, abortion doesn’t change that. The uterus isn’t metered.

If a person gives birth at 24 weeks, they were still pregnant. If they give birth to a stillborn at 40 weeks, no one would say they didn’t accomplish what their body was “meant for.” That they weren’t pregnant cause the fetus died. And if a person dies barren, they still had a uterus.

Their body being pregnant isn’t determined based off the survival of the offspring.

They became pregnant, which is both what your body and sex are apparently meant for (re: “don’t be surprised when you have sex and wind up pregnant.”) Remaining pregnant for x amount of time or y amount of time is irrespective of accomplishing what the pregnant person’s body is “meant for.” What happens after that is the goal - the purpose - of the placenta; ie someone else’s body (re: “the babies body is not your body”). The biological purpose of nourishing and maintaining the fetus is the placentas, not the uterus’.

Given all this, do you see now that a person who has an abortion still achieves what their body is “meant for?” Anything more is extra or is misattributing “purposes.”

I have been observing both positions for a few years now, and have firmly remained pro choice.

It seems to me there are two main arguments that divide the pro choice and the pro life side - first of all, the argument on when does life begin. It is debated amongst medical professionals and scientists when that is, and it appears there are different opinions/beliefs - some say from the moment of conception, some say from viability, or birth.

However, I would argue the MAIN difference that divides both sides is the belief of bodily autonamy - Many pro choicers, myself included, would say the argument on when does life begin is irrelevant, as we believe no one has the right to use our body against our will, regardless of age or reason.

It is a known fact that pregnancy is hugely taxing on the body, physically, mentally and financially. Giving birth is also extremely painful, and a risky procedure as it can do irreversible change to the body and, in some cases, even cause death. I would personally argue that to force a woman to go through full term pregnancy and give birth is a form of torture, and I know many pro choicers would agree with that. So in a sense a lot of us would argue abortion is self defence.

Now obviously pro lifers will disagree with abortion, but that is the beauty of pro choice - we allow the option to CHOOSE whether or not to carry a pregnancy to term and give birth or not. The abortion debate has remained a big topic of disagreements for decades, so I would argue that there is no exact science on it - medical care and science is constantly developing, no pregnancies and chilbirth or peoples health/personal circumstances are the same, so I can't see how there is an exact answer on whether it is right or wrong.

The point I am making is that we all have different beliefs and opinions. So my question is, why should we have to put ourselves through a torturous, life changing (and possibly even life ending) event, just because your beliefs are different from ours?

There is a recent post elsewhere about a woman who had a third trimester abortion because she didn't want to be pregnant, give birth, or have a child. ETA - She was suicidal from the moment she learned of her pregnancy, and acutely so for the period of time where she thought she would not be able to an abortion due to the gestational age. - The reason for the "delay" was that the woman did not know she was pregnant until the third trimester due to her weight and PCOS - the time from her detection of the pregnancy to the abortion procedure was just a few weeks, which was necessary to determine gestational age, find the clinic, and make the necessary arrangements.

As those who know my posting history know, I have no problem with any of this. My position is pro-choice at any time, for any reason. But here's the kicker.

On day one, the intake and evaluation day of the three-day abortion procedure, it was determined that she had preeclampsia.

It does not appear the facility cared about her reason for the abortion as long as she was uncoerced and of sound mind, so things proceeded as planned, except that, due to the preeclampsia, the woman could not get the anesthesia she was hoping for. Fetal demise was induced on day one as planned. She was dilated on day two as planned.

On day three, after her water broke, she went in for the delivery. Her blood pressure had to be carefully monitored throughout the procedure, and it spiked several times, but she was ultimately able to complete the delivery, though not as comfortably as she would have without the preeclampsia.

PL discourse on the matter has described this person as "evil" and suggested she could have just carried to term and given the baby up for adoption. One person even said this is a case that should be cited when PC say third trimester abortions only happen for medical reasons (not a line I draw because it is not relevant to my position - I let others who are more invested in that point fight it out).

But here's the thing - she did have a medical condition that made delivering the fetus less dangerous when it was dead, and thus did not require any concessions or attention from her treatment team, than if she had waited for the rapid growth that takes place over the last two months of pregnancy and attempted to give birth to a live full-term fetus/baby.

Hence my confusion over the PL consternation. Not one comment I saw said, "this is a regrettable but justified abortion due to her medical condition." This my questions:

1. When you talk about termination for medical reasons, are you talking about that being (a) the "but for reason" the pregnant person wants an abortion, i.e., "I would have chosen to give birth to this baby if it weren't for my [insert condition]," or (b) a condition sufficient to allow an abortion, i.e., "this person had a condition that would allow a doctor to sign off on an abortion, if requested?"

2. When you talk about abortion ban exceptions for medical reasons, are you talking about that being (a) the "but for reason" the pregnant person wants an abortion, i.e., "I would have chosen to give birth to this baby if it weren't for my [insert condition]," or (b) a condition sufficient to allow an abortion, i.e., "this person had a condition that would allow a doctor to sign off on an abortion, if requested?"

3. If you are a person who opposes third trimester abortions (PC or PL), do you oppose the desire, the act, or both? As in, do you think a person who finds out they are pregnant and decides they want an abortion should morally, upon learning they are in the third trimester, personally believe that it would no longer be appropriate to seek an abortion? Or just you feel that the procedure/medication to induce an abortion should be denied if requested?

4. Legally, should this person have been able to get an abortion? Is your answer the same if there is an abortion ban with medical exceptions in place?

5. Unfortunately, this person quickly fell pregnant again (she herself admits a lapse in contraception, but her circumstances also have me wondering if there is in fact higher susceptibility to pregnancy right after a loss/abortion because this is quite bad luck for a person who was told her weight and PCOS made pregnancy "nothing to worry about"). She will be seeking another abortion, likely a less controversial first-trimester medication abortion this time. If you are PL in all trimesters, does her previous bout of preeclampsia justify this abortion?

6. Overall, how does this situation sit with you? Would your opinion change if, after these two abortions, the woman ultimately decides she wants a child and chooses to endure the risks of eclampsia to have one, despite the circumstances likely reaching the point, at some point, where her condition would have made an abortion permissible?

ETA: In case you are unaware of the rules, do not seek out or attempt to engage with the poster I am referring to.

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'd much rather have pro choice policies with a minimum of 15 weeks being allowed nationally, don't get me wrong.

At the same time, in states where there are bans with life exceptions, the implementation of these life exceptions need not be as awful as it is.

My case in point is to look at places where life exceptions are or have been. One example is the UAE, which up til recently had a life and fetal deformity exception only.

How did they do it? They essentially had a medical board which determines whether or not an abortion qualifies. The key thing here is that the government respects the decision of the board. They have full immunity in the vast majority of cases if they use good faith, even if a jury or judge hypothetically would disagree that an abortion was needed in that specific case. Most of Europe has this as well to determine the legality of abortion past the legal limit of the country.

There is no rule that would stop this in the United States, but I think what the issue is here is that Americans shudder at the idea of giving a civilian immunity in general even in cases of good faith.

Also, I think that PL knows that most OBGYN are pro choice so they have trouble trusting them in such cases because of that.

My stances on abortion have been fairly consistent since I was a teenager. I always believed nobody should have a child they don't want. I always believed that children deserve a loving home with a loving mom and a loving dad. I also think far too many people are too evil and too stupid to be responsible for raising a child and that those children didn't deserve this.

However I must say that from an intellectually consistent and honest perspective the pro life arguments make more sense IF we accept that lives (specifically human lives) are inherently important to preserve and protect. There is simply no other way around it.

The issue is, we cannot possibly prove that. We cannot force everyone to accept that either. I mean clearly many people want to kill others but don't do so only because of fear of legal repercussions and not due to killing being against their morality.

I tend to agree that killing humans is only wrong in two ways:

1. Emotionally. Killing humans affects others emotionally. Those who knew that person will be directly impacted. Others will simply feel unsafe, paranoid, disturbed. Nobody wants to live in a perpetual state of fear for their lives and have to constantly watch their backs in case someone decides to kill them. Nobody wants to have to fear that their family members and friends could be killed at any moment and be robbed from them. The emotional ramifications on society would be devastating, constant anxiety and fear would cause people to barricade themselves in their homes and never leave, people would be unproductive and forming human relationships would be almost impossible.

2. It is unsustainable and an existential threat. Children losing their parents, their sole providers, valuable members of society who hold important jobs and roles in society being removed along with their talents, skills and knowledge would set humans back decades. Human flourishing would be impossiblez

With that said of course we need laws against murder and killing in general. But here's the thing, both of those reasons don't affect fetuses.

First of all nobody has an emotional connection to a fetus except maybe it's mother and if the mother doesn't care and wants to abort it then who else does? Even so anyone who may have an emotional connection to the fetus will quickly recover and it doesn't cause fear or anxiety.

Secondly abortion is not an existential threat neither does it remove useful members or society. Here is of course one caveat, if too many people have abortions and birth rates decline too far then this can be an existential threat to humanity, but if enough humans want their own children dead before they can even be born, to the point where it becomes an existential threat, perhaps humans deserve to go extinct. No other animal has such power compulsion to terminate its own pregnancy.

With all of that said, I have yet to see a more compelling case for abortion and I tend to think that pro life arguments are more intellectually consistent with most people's worldviews and beliefs around the value of life. I really wish someone can come up with something more powerful that isn't purely bad analogies and appeals to bodily autonomy

Despite abortion being banned in 12 states and effectively banned in 8 states, abortion are at a 10 year high right now. The overwhelming reason for getting an abortion, as has always been the case, is because women can't afford a baby.

https://www.nbcnews.com/health/womens-health/abortions-rose-roe-overturned-why-rcna181094

Abortion is cheaper and safer than it has ever been, with a medication abortion averaging at just $150, meanwhile the cost of having a baby remains just short of $20,000 for just the delivery.

Regarding safety, in the USA, just 6 people have died from abortions on 2020 (most recent data I can find). Meanwhile, the maternal mortality rate in the USA was 32 women per 100,000, which is the highest among developed nations, and the bans themselves have killed many women just on its own.

My question to PL is this: given that the result of your bans is the exact opposite of what you wanted to happen, why not try a different approach? Undo the bans, make women's health a priority for once, make it free to deliver a baby. Give women the physical and mental support needed. Instead of mocking the reasons women get abortions, try listening to them, and addressing them. Stop treating them as criminals - anything pushing women to get abortions is the real crime, be it income inequality, or lack of access to care.

Would that not save more lives than your bans have saved? Isnt that the whole point?

Hello,

I need help with my view, I do think late term abortions, (third trimester), are wrong, and should be banned, but before than, when it is just a disconnection, I feel conflicted. It doesn't seem obvious to me which way is the way to go, if tis okay to disconnect, or if they have a right to it. How can i get more clarity on what the right thing is before viability?

As a vehement pro lifer I feel like the point life begins is clear, conception. Any other point is highly arbitrary, such as viability, consciousness and birth. Also the scientific consensus is clear on this, 95% of biologists think that life begins at conception. What do you think?

If we designed the law to make a fetus a living soul, it could mean:

Child tax credits for unborn children

Child support for unborn children

Life insurance for unborn children

Murdering/assault etc on a pregnant woman is 2 counts (I understand it already is in some states)

Unborn children qualify for welfare benefits

Pregnant women can use the carpool lane

Most of these things can retroactively or directly lead to less maternal mortality.

My mother had an abortion a few months before getting pregnant with me. Apologies for any vagueness as I am trying to respect my families privacy, if needed I'll try to elaborate more to any who ask.

It was with a different man than my father, and the baby would have been born ~4 months before I was born. If she had kept the first pregnancy, I would not exist, it is simply not physically possible no matter how you slice it. My younger sibling would not exist either as my parents likely would not have ended up together.

The pregnancy was of a (presumably) healthy fetus, and the abortion was because my mother was 17 at the time, and my grandparent forced her to get one. The guy involved ghosted my mom as soon as he heard the news, and presumably would have played no role in the childs life as he never even heard the news of the abortion but still chose to never reach out after the initial ghosting.

I can't say who that baby would have become, but I know they wouldn't be me. I know they wouldn't have made the same decisions as I did or made the same connections with others. My mother would have struggled even more as a single mom than she did being with my dad, and my younger sibling would not be getting married next week if none of this had happened.

My life came out of my mother having that abortion, so why should she have kept the first pregnancy?

What’s everyone’s thoughts on the protection of Eagle Eggs vs Human pre born? Is it not the same? If it is the same to you why? If not why?

https://amp.theguardian.com/world/2024/sep/25/south-australia-late-term-abortion-bill-liberal-party-greens-ntwnfb

This is the most trusted article above.

To put it shortly the way I understand it, is that if a woman is in need of an abortion after 27 weeks then instead of an abortion then the baby will be removed alive instead of aborted. Even though it may be premature.

Interested to get people’s view on this.

I personally would agree with this statement, and is a Solution we should be striving for in this debate

“The bill ensures that the mother’s decision to end her pregnancy is respected, but also that the child has an opportunity to live”

As another note, I’ve noticed that most of the media in Australia is incorrectly reporting on this topic. Most are saying that The Government wants to ban abortions completely, which is causing some protesting. Why do you think the media would lie about this topic?

Here is ACOG's position on abortion rights, for reference:

https://www.acog.org/clinical-information/policy-and-position-statements/statements-of-policy/2022/abortion-policy

Pro-life, explain as best as you can, why do you think that is their position? They are medical professionals. Most of you are not. There are a handful of pro-life OB/GYN's, but the vast, vast majority of OB/GYN's are pro-choice.

Before you answer, let me pre-emptively address some of the responses I've heard in the past.

PL Response: "They support abortion rights because they make money off abortions!"

Answer: No, they don't. First trimester abortions, which are the vast majority, cost in the $500-$1000 range. Childbirth, on the other hand, costs around $30,000, and that doesn't even include the cost of pre-natal and post-natal care. It is absolutely illogical to think abortion is more lucrative for OB/GYN's than childbirth.

PL Response: "They support abortion because they just hate babies and want to kill them!"

Answer: No, they don't. Most people become OB/GYN's because they genuinely love delivering babies and helping people grow their families. If OB/GYN's hate babies and want to kill them, why would you ever trust them with pre-natal care and delivery?

PL Response: "Well, we don't really need OB/GYN's anyway. Pregnancy is natural! 92% of all pregnancies happen without incident!"

Answer: This is false and has a lot of selection bias. Before modern medicine, pregnancy was much more dangerous. Maternal and infant mortality rates were much higher, and any woman who had a common pregnancy complication like pre-eclampsia or gestational diabetes would probably die. These complications can be managed today BECAUSE of doctors, not in spite of them. The "92%" number I often see cited by PL is also subject to severe selection bias. That number is coming from a sample of women who all CHOSE to be pregnant. I can't imagine those are post-Dobbs numbers, because it takes years to produce that kind of research. It does NOT mean 92% of all women are capable of having a healthy pregnancy. There is a strong likelihood that the women at the highest risk are not counted in that sample, either because they chose to abort, or because they chose not to get pregnant in the first place.

Im not saying miscarriages are abortions, I’m just curious if each one of them should be investigated since technically it’s the death of a child.

If they aren’t investigated, wouldn’t that incentivize having abortions and disguising them as a miscarry?

I often see PL say something along the lines of

"Abortion debate is fundamentally a disagreement on morality so the line should be drawn by the arbitrators of morality which are the legislature/courts." Or something very similar along those lines.

So my question is, if it's determined to be morally acceptable to obligate everyone to use their body unwillingly to ensure the survival of another person, would this be a position you would accept as morally correct?

If you caused a person to be dependent of organ sustainability or any other bodily process, should you be obligated or enforced to provide that?

Hello, r/Abortiondebate community members,

This post is to inform the community that we are implementing a new policy to address the occurrence of weaponized blocking. This occurs when users respond to someone within a debate and then immediately blocks them to prevent them from responding.

Effective immediately, the last response made will be removed in exchanges like this. We will require proof from the user who was blocked and we will investigate prior to removal. This policy is not retroactive and will be effective for future occurrences only from here on out.

If you are found to be blocking people to "get the last word in" on a regular basis, your posting privileges may be suspended, temporarily or permanently depending on your current status within this community.

Please let us know if you have any questions.

Thank you.

If your argument is that abortion is murder, what should be the punishment for women for abortion?

If abortion is murder, this would necessitate the investigation of every single abortion, wouldn’t it? Of course it would.

But it would also require investigations into every single miscarriage in order to determine if that was an abortion.

We know from various studies that 90% of all fertilized eggs fail to develop to term, with 65% resulting in miscarriage. 55% will occur in the first trimester, with the first 25% occurring between week 4-5, which is only 1-7 days after the day of her period, before she likely even knows she was pregnant, and another 35% occurring between week 6-12. Since 74% of abortions occur before the first trimester, every miscarriage would also need to be investigated in order to rule out abortion.

How can anyone determine whether the abortion was for “no reason?”How do they know the woman wasn’t doing so because the pregnancy was causing a severe complication and they didn’t want to continue it for that reason? How do they know if a fetus wasn’t already dead and the reason she was having an abortion was to remove the dead fetus? How will they know she wasn’t just having a miscarriage? How will they even know she was even pregnant to begin with since there is NO DIFFERENCE in the amount of blood and tissue for a miscarriage < 6 weeks and a regular period. Ditto for miscarriages < 8 weeks for women with endometriosis. Do you know how many women have endometriosis? Of course you don’t. It’s 1 in 5. Speaking of endo, how will they know the difference between a D&C for an abortion or a D&C for a uterine ablation (that’s when OBGYNs dilate the cervix and scrape out the lining)?

Every single woman that’s ever had an abortion “for no reason” can just say she had a miscarriage. How are they going to determine if she is lying unless you remove her right to medical privacy? After all, you need a warrant to obtain someone’s blood to determine if they were under the influence. Why do other suspected criminals have the right to medical privacy but she - whose “crime” was having sex, does not?

See, In your eagerness to punish women because for having abortions for reasons “for convenience”, you failed to realize that you have REMOVE the RIGHT TO MEDICAL PRIVACY for ALL WOMEN who are capable of becoming pregnant!!!

Are you willing to do that as a test of your convictions?

This question is for those who don’t recognize all humans as persons. For those who support abortion for the sake of bodily autonomy, do you think there are limits to that are right or that there should be?

The legal framing surrounding abortion makes it sound like the state considers the fetus its ward. But post-birth, guardianship of the fetus automatic reverts to the parents.

Why does the state consider the fetus to be its ward, overriding parental rights? Why does this ward status only last for 9 months? What actually happens legally after birth that changes the guardianship to the parents? There's no other scenario that I can think of where an individual becomes a ward of the state and then the state just "relinquishes" control so quickly and easily.

Adoption guardianship doesn't transfer over until over 12 months coz they have to monitor your parenting and they can take the kid away at any point while you are still on "probation". It takes even longer for birth parents to get access to their own kids if child services removes them for any reason, something like 2 years.

But a mother who was gonna abort and then gave birth, the child is under her guardianship straight away. It's not very consistent. Either she cannot be trusted and so should never be awarded guardianship over her child. Or you trust her judgement and the child as fetus should never have been a ward of the state to begin with.

I want to begin by apologizing for my username and post history, this is an older account and my view on this issue is rapidly evolving. I am a secular liberal, I have a uterus, and used to be very strongly pro-life. I’d like to see the pro-choice side of this debate but I’m really struggling.

I also want to point out that this post is wordy and somewhat emotion-based, and would appreciate understanding of that. I don’t believe ethics can be defined logically, so there comes a point where we have to rely on feelings to decide what we believe is right and wrong. I’d like some pro-choice people to explain what they believe about this topic in hopes that it will guide my own feelings toward being more accepting.

—

I understand that pregnancy is dangerous, that banning abortion has implications beyond just abortion, and that most pro-lifers don’t actually care about life. But the fact remains that if a fetus is a person, it would be wrong to intentionally, directly, and painfully kill them.

So how do we define personhood? I’ve read papers trying to talk about sentience or pain in a fetus and their wording was always disturbingly vague, and very clearly driven by either one side or the other of the abortion debate. Science is important but I don’t trust studies conducted with an ulterior motive. (This goes both ways.)

I guess the most convincing argument is that very young humans don’t have the mental capacity to experience personhood the way older people do. I could see how ending a pregnancy at that point wouldn’t be the same as ending the life of someone who has relationships and dreams for their life. But where do we draw the line for that? History shows us how bad humanity is at defining personhood, and how easily we fall into assuming certain people are “not people” until proven otherwise. If there’s any risk of falling into that I don’t see a reasonable justification to err away from personhood—so how can we know there isn’t any risk, and at what point is that (absence of risk) no longer true?

I also feel really weird about the resistance to pain legislation with abortion. Is this resistance something that the PL side exaggerates? If not, why is it so harmful to require anesthesia for a living entity who is undergoing a painful process of dying? Even if this entity is not a moral person, and thus has no right to life (at least not higher than the carrier’s right to bodily autonomy), isn’t it basic decency to eliminate the pain? We do that for animals & not doing it is considered animal cruelty.

Finally, circling back to my first paragraph, can someone point out the differences between the abortion debate and other historical debates where one side has argued that the entity whose life was being ended was not human, when in reality they were all along? I’m sure these historical parallels are part of a PL scare tactic but they also make too much sense. The Holocaust, lynching, slavery, needless wars, and human sacrifice, among other things, were all done with the justification that the victims were subhuman, many of which even had “science” to back them up. Assuming that abortion is different from these, how can we be sure that it’s different, when we know all too well that humans and their beliefs are almost always a product of their times?

Thank you for bearing with me. I know this is a sensitive issue and it’s not my intent to hurt anyone.

—

Edit: I want to thank everyone for the gentle and thoughtful responses I’ve received. I have a lot to think about, and probably a lot more reading to do, but you all have treated me with much more kindness than I expected.

To the few passive-aggressive commenters, I want to point out that everyone comes from a different background, and while it’s not your responsibility to educate me or anyone else, responding to genuine questions with shaming or snark doesn’t help. I’m not offended, I knew what I was getting myself into by making this post, but I do think it’s important to recognize this if we want to make a change in the world.

Yesterday I posited the idea that laws prohibiting abortion take away a woman’s rights to govern her own body, essentially stripping her of bodily autonomy. I then posed the question “should we enact a law that requires everyone to become an organ donor?” The rationale was that if saving the life of a fetus means a pregnant woman has no say on how her body is used, we could save many more lives by making everyone an organ donor.

Now, for part 2: Using the same logic, should you be legally compelled to be a living donor and provide a kidney, bone marrow, or part of your liver to somebody who will die without a transplant?

I would like pro-life to specifically answer how they define death, in hopes that the answer of when life ends can also help us define when life begins. Consider the following evidence when doing so:

Cells in the body can live on after a person has died. Some can live up to two weeks, or even longer in the case of organ transplants. If we do not define the end of a person's life as the death of the last cell with a person's DNA, why would we define the beginning of life as the beginning of the first cell with a person's DNA?

A heartbeat stopping is also a poor marker of the end of life because a person can be brought back from their heart stopping, via CPR or a defibrillator.

If a person is permanently brain dead and being supported by machines, as in the case of Terri Schiavo, is that person alive or dead?

Pro lifers, how do YOU define death, and if your definition of when life ends is not congruent with your definition of when life begins, how would you explain this discrepancy?

Source on cells living on after death: https://www.vice.com/en/article/if-your-cells-continue-to-function-what-does-it-mean-to-die/

So with the holidays coming up, here's a thought experiment for PL:

You're at dinner on Thanksgiving or Christmas. Most of your family is out of state and you only really see your parents maybe yearly for the holidays.

The conversation inevitably turns to politics and the recent election and eventually delves into the discussion about abortion. You are staunchly PL and are overjoyed that the country is being dragged back into the 1950s where women are second class citizens with no body autonomy if they become impregnated.

Your mother has had a few glasses of wine and the filter is gone.

Suddenly she says "you know, if I had access to safe abortion, I would've had a completely different life. I never wanted children. I wanted an abortion. I had dreams and goals of my own that didn't include giving up my life for you. Sometimes when I look at you all that resentment I feel toward you is all I see. You are just a reminder of how I was stripped of my life and basic human dignity."

How would you respond to this? What if you were a product of rape and she said "every time I look at you I'm reminded of the worst thing that ever happened to me and how I was violated again by being forced to give birth."

Would you sit there with your entitlement to have been born when your own mother was forced to use her body against her will?

Would you be ok with knowing that because of laws like you are proposing that your own mother was stripped of her own dignity to decide what happened to her body?

In a futuristic world there is an election where people must vote for one of 2 options.

Option 1: Allows any women to get an abortion, except those from rape, incest or life threatening circumstances. The women facing these conditions must carry their fetus through to birth. Anyone not facing these conditions is allowed to get an abortion.

Option 2: The same but reversed. Anyone facing the conditions of rape, incest or life threatening circumstances can access an abortion, but those not facing them are banned from accessing them.

For context, life threatening means that carrying the baby would place the mother at significantly more risk then a normal pregnancy.

This isn’t framed as a gotcha question, just something I can use to further build my knowledge on the pro choice position. My perspective is that women facing those 3 circumstances are commonly seen as “more deserving of an abortion”. Hence these examples are commonly used during debates.

On the other side, I believe that most abortions are not done for these reasons, and banning them for everyone else would have a greater effect on more people. I’m curious to see if people find if the tradeoff is worth it.

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!

A key issue in the abortion debate is bodily autonomy. Anti-abortion proponents argue that the rights of the fetus supersede those of the pregnant individual. The anti-abortion laws that have been enacted remove the right to say whether or not the pregnant person can refuse to let their body be used.

By the same logic, then shouldn’t there be a law that mandates every person must be an organ donor upon their death?

Let’s say there’s a set of adult conjoined twins named Jake and Josh. They share some of their internal organs, and because of this they each have some health problems. In this obviously unrealistic scenario I’m about to describe, Jake somehow convinced his doctors to have him surgically separated from Josh, where Jake gets to keep his organs, meaning Josh will die because he doesn’t have those organs (although they euthanize him before he wakes up).

The surgery is successful, and Jake no longer has to share a body. His family finds out about what he did and is horrified. Jake tries to justify what he did because:

First, Josh was a part of his body, and Jake felt like he had the right to do what he wants with his body.

Second, Josh was under anesthetics, therefore being no different from an embryo who hasn’t developed consciousness. Jake figures if it’s okay to kill an embryo that will eventually gain consciousness, it would be fine to kill his brother who would’ve gained consciousness if they had been doing a different type of surgery where they both survive.

My question is: how is this ethically different from abortion?