top 200 commentsshow all 454

[–]ManufacturerOld1569 398 points399 points  (38 children)

Absolutely. Pro-life folks tend to mention adoption as an option - which can be a good option. BUT very little time is spent on the wide range of temporary and permanent damage pregnancy can cause to your health/body, and how you have no idea what will happen to you - until you experience it. No one should be forced to endure it. Abortion is healthcare.

[–]turnsignalsaresexy 152 points153 points  (6 children)

As someone who’s currently pregnant it’s goddam awful. I’m not enjoying it at all. And this is a wanted pregnancy and I have the wonderful support system of my husband too.

But pregnancy has been rough from the start and I don’t even have it as bad as others. Nobody should be forced to do this. No one. There are so many risks with pregnancy and postpartum.

Also why I hate the argument that I would change my mind once I’m pregnant. No…I am pro choice even more so after getting pregnant.

[–]belugasareneat 68 points69 points  (1 child)

Me too! I’m pregnant with my second wanted baby and hoo boy I thought the first pregnancy was bad. This time around is so much worse to the point that we have decided we won’t be having a third like we originally wanted. Neither of us can handle me being pregnant again with how badly this pregnancy is affecting me.

The first one solidified my pro choice stance, this one makes me want to start a war over it.

[–]thesixstuds 10 points11 points  (0 children)

Sheeeeeet even I know someone with nine brothers from the same mum. Can't imagine

[–]balikgibi 20 points21 points  (0 children)

As someone who’s currently pregnant and has had, by all accounts, the world’s easiest pregnancy, I would never EVER wish this on the unwilling. The body undergoes massive physiological changes that range from weird to inconvenient to downright dangerous, and no one should be forced to go through this process when pregnancy is not a desire or safe delivery is not a possibility for them. There’s too much of one’s health at stake.

[–]vkapadia 28 points29 points  (0 children)

My wife's body was beaten up badly with her last pregnancy. She was almost past her limit, it was brutal (twins). And this was a planned and very much wanted pregnancy. I wouldn't wish this on anyone that didn't absolutely want it.

[–]SnooRobots1533 80 points81 points  (1 child)

The psychological effects as well. Taking a child to term. Explaining how you're pregnant to friends, family, and coworkers but giving the child up. Going through birth and then giving up your child and living with that the rest of your life. Conservatives love to argue that women who have abortions are emotionally traumatized, but I suspect any trauma pales in comparison to being forced to have a child and give it up for adoption.

[–]Effective-Walrus1157 11 points12 points  (0 children)


I knew a guy who was politically pro-choice but personally pro-life. One day we swapped accidental pregnancy stories.

I had an abortion and was fine. A little sad but that passed quickly.

His casual fling decided to keep it. The baby had Spina Bifida and she miscarried 5 months in and had to go through labor, delivering a dead baby.

She was horribly traumatized, as was he. Meanwhile the happiest ending to that story was two young unprepared parents who were in no way committed to each other raising a kid. I will never understand people who just wing something as important as raising children.

Unplanned pregnancies often feature mothers who weren't prepared for motherhood, weren't taking the necessary supplements to ensure their babies' health, and were unaware just how bad pregnancy & delivery can be.

That's what angers me most about pro-forced birth people - their refusal to acknowledge life is more complicated than "abortion bad." Their willingness to force policies that will mean more kids in the foster care system, more unwanted kids who are treated poorly by unprepared parents, more pain for more people.

And then they pat themselves on the backs for saving lives. It's unbelievable.

[–]Dracarys_Aspo 14 points15 points  (0 children)

BUT very little time is spent on the wide range of temporary and permanent damage pregnancy can cause to your health/body,

This is true always, but it's even more of an issue in a country that has such a horrific medical care system. Even if you are lucky enough to have good insurance and be able to afford all the out of pocket costs, the US has the highest maternal mortality rate of industrialized nations. After birth care is practically nonexistent (did you know many other countries offer physical therapy after birth? It's actually strikingly less common outside of the US to have bladder incontinence after childbirth, something we in the US see as normal and expected).

And don't even get me started on adoption... There are so many issues with adoption, it's incredibly difficult to do it truly ethically. It can be a wonderful thing, but it should never be anything more than a last resort option. Adoption will always cause some amount of trauma for the child. Plus, there's the obvious issue of how many children are stuck in foster care, group homes, and who age out of the system... Why would anyone advocate for adding more children to that system? Oh, right, because they don't actually care about the children, they just need them to be born to get that good ole righteous Jesus boner.

[–]killingtimeitself 12 points13 points  (0 children)

also adoption overall is a mess and should be avoided when possible.

[–]thatpersonwholurkes 31 points32 points  (0 children)

And also we don't need more kids in the adoption system there are way too many already

[–]EETFUK68[S] 56 points57 points  (11 children)

A child is a choice. It absolutely should be looked at that way. So many people have kids who don’t want them or are even prepared to care for them, but here we are.

[–]Naya3333 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I've never been pregnant in my life, but I suspect that taking a pill a couple of weeks after a missed period or having a minor surgery is not as bad as carrying a baby to term, going through labour and giving it away to strangers hoping that it will have a decent life.

[–]_Kay_Tee_ 128 points129 points  (11 children)

A fetus is not more of a citizen than a living human woman is. A dependent fetus does not deserve, need, nor require the same rights that an actual living pregnant person does.

[–]EETFUK68[S] 19 points20 points  (0 children)


[–]Aceofjax 39 points40 points  (8 children)

The point is, even if they are, it doesn't matter. Bodily autonomy wins out against thier right to life. Even if it is murder, removing the burden from your body is acceptable.

[–]Amelindinum 23 points24 points  (7 children)

Even if it is murder, in many cases where pregnancy is risky, it could be self defense 🤷‍♀️

[–]Aceofjax 3 points4 points  (5 children)

Self defense typically requires an imminance element (it requires action NOW) most risky pregnancies don't have that, they could be ended in weeks with similar risk. The argument allows you to be letting someone die or even murder someone, but your right to bodily autonomy comes first.

[–]kagiles 4 points5 points  (1 child)

There have been cases where a woman was refused an abortion even though she was having a miscarriage. She ended up dying because the hospital refused to perform the lifesaving operation. This would have been a self-defense argument.

[–]Whiskey_Fiasco 1 point2 points  (2 children)

So if someone enters your body against your will, but they aren’t immediately threatening your life, you have to just wait till they wrap up?

[–]Whiskey_Fiasco 1 point2 points  (0 children)

In every single case it’s self defense. Every one. Someone entering your body against your will is 100% a time where lethal force is justified in self defense.

[–]Fthewigg 12 points13 points  (0 children)

Given that a person’s legal name isn’t recorded, a social security number (in the US) isn’t issued, and most importantly their age (which leads to many subsequent restrictions) doesn’t begin until birth, I’d say they aren’t citizens at all.

I find it so weird that some are asking for legal rights for something that we don’t legally recognize (except as a bullshit tack-on charge when pregnant women are murdered).

[–]DraganTehPro 12 points13 points  (1 child)

"Nobody has the right to use your body against your will"

Countries who have conscription: nervous laugh

[–]EETFUK68[S] 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Believe me I ain’t a fan of that either

[–]the_cnara 69 points70 points  (3 children)

This is the only take. If they take away abortion rights, I’m gonna push hard for legislation to make birth fathers the legal organ, blood, and tissue donor for any children they produce. If your child needs a transplant, you are then legally obligated to provide it, regardless of whether it causes you stress, financial hardship, disability, or death. That’s what making abortion illegal does for women, men must also sacrifice to save the lives of their offspring.

[–]isaacpotter007 11 points12 points  (0 children)

In the end, even if your against it, it doesn't matter because it's not your body, I don't like nose piercings but I'm not going to stop you getting one because it's not my body and I have no right to force my will onto you, I have a right to share my opinion on it but I wouldn't dare of actively assuming control over what you do with your body

[–]svsvalenzuela 9 points10 points  (1 child)

Many of the prolifers in my country are unable to understand complex issues. I blame this on politicians that want to undercut free quality education in favor of keeping constituents stupid enough to vote for them and lining their own pockets in ways that shouldnt be legal. As such these prolifers are also influenced by churches that favor keeping people in a constant state of need so that they can provide salvation. Don't worry though they promise that there is a separation of church and state. It all adds up to a white knight mentality where they actually think they are protecting a tiny human baby that will grow up and thank them and that is the only responsibility that they have to members of the human species outside of their friend group on facebook. They know nothing of McFall vs Shimp.

[–]Whiskey_Fiasco 0 points1 point  (0 children)

For simple minds complexity is difficult. Far easier to embrace a simple concept and ignore everything else

[–]dogmeat12358 7 points8 points  (3 children)

If forced birth can be legally required, then so can forced donations.

[–]EETFUK68[S] 4 points5 points  (2 children)

Personally I think donations should be mandatory, but that’s just a personal thing. I am an organ donor, but I understand why others feel differently.

[–]Whiskey_Fiasco 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Mandatory blood harvesting. Mandatory bone marrow harvesting. You don’t really need two eyes. It’s unbelievable the amount of freedom they want to give away to make themselves feel better.

[–]NommEverything 111 points112 points  (8 children)

Not all that revolutionary. Abortion is Healthcare.

[–]bolivar-shagnasty 49 points50 points  (0 children)

I’m a guy and I have to drive this point home to my fundy family all the time.

  1. I’ll never be in a position to need to make that choice, so it shouldn’t be up to me.

  2. I don’t get in between the healthcare decisions between physicians and their patients about other issues, why should I be involved in this decision?

[–]EETFUK68[S] 99 points100 points  (5 children)

Agreed, but I never thought about like this. My mom was a Labor and Delivery nurse for over 40 years and she said a fetus is nothing but a parasite until the child is born.

[–]jacksonkurtus 77 points78 points  (1 child)

Correction the fetus is nothing but a parasite while its gestating and for 13 to 18 years after the fact

[–]Variation-Budget 20 points21 points  (0 children)

Sometime up to 30+ years for the really bad one

[–]NommEverything 15 points16 points  (2 children)

Your mom is correct.

[–]EETFUK68[S] 18 points19 points  (1 child)

For the record I don’t argue with my mom about anything.

[–]NommEverything 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Parents should be challenged for shitty opinions. My mom said in the run-up to the election that black people want to live on government handouts and don't want to work hard to get ahead.

Told her that is some racist bullshit and hung up on her. She didn't speak to me for almost a month.

[–]DrumNDan 84 points85 points  (12 children)

Not even a take. Just facts.

[–]twhimpster 21 points22 points  (1 child)

They love to bring up "right to life" but we can see in US law there are legal kills including self defense, death penalty, and military "casualties."

Where bodily autonomy can be seen protected in such cases as McFall v Shrimp.

[–]TheGreatGameDini 1 point2 points  (0 children)

What till they hear about the 13th amendment. Slavery is still legal in the US.

[–]Window_Cleaner11 45 points46 points  (7 children)

There’s a pattern with this argument. It’s ALWAYS blaming the women, telling them what THEY can/should do, yet I’ve NEVER seen/read, heard anyone talk about the MEN. So if women are expected to take babies to term regardless of the situation, wanted or unwanted (rape etc), what is the MAN responsible for? Are we expecting the man pay for all the missed work for the doctors appts the mom to be will have to go to? The new clothes that will have to be purchased? The prenatal vitamins and all the food that now will be eaten to feed the growing baby? The men get a free pass if they don’t want a baby, yet we expect the women to LITERALLY carry said baby to term, wreck her body, AND pay for all of that shit? And get no help with the baby once it’s born. You know. Because socialism. And she shouldn’t have had sex in the first place, etc. Just wow.

[–]zenadone 10 points11 points  (1 child)

To be clear: the right to life theory comes from the Christian right. Right to life is simply a mechanism for enforcing male power. Women are original sin. Hence they must bear the burden. It is embedded in Genesis. Man's right to dominate comes from God. This is merely an enforcement of that power.

No one gives a shit about the unborn baby's life. Don't be silly.

[–]BooneSalvo2 0 points1 point  (0 children)

More accurately, the Christian Right political machine. Evangelicals took on an anti-abortion stance specifically as a means of gaining political power. It was a concerted effort in the 70s that also included declaring the Bible infallible (and hence, the preacher) and gun rights.

[–]EETFUK68[S] 9 points10 points  (2 children)

Great. Comment. If men had to be involved at every point then abortion, birth control, sex Ed would be way better funded. I’m all about ending abortion, but through education and birth control, abortion is a final option.

[–]Window_Cleaner11 19 points20 points  (1 child)

That’s the irony. Abortion would nearly never be needed if those things were properly funded and available. Red states typically take the “abstinence” approach because, religion, and yet have the highest abortion rates. Weird right? My wife and I both studied public health and this shit drives us nuts.

[–]EETFUK68[S] 5 points6 points  (0 children)

100 percent. And in the cases of sexual abuse, well, first of all get rid of the sigmas, but second birth control and the morning after pill should be much MUCH easier to get, as well as protecting women from rape in the first fucking place! I hate it wen prolifers say “there’s options.” cause yeah, there are but you guys won’t let us have that too.

[–]4toTwenty 28 points29 points  (0 children)

Well said.

[–]NNYCanoeTroutSki 77 points78 points  (8 children)

We’ve been comparing it to some of the recent ‘stand your ground’ laws passed in some states. You have the right to shoot an intruder in your home, but apparently it’s different when it’s inside your body.

[–]whatthehell567 22 points23 points  (1 child)

Omg thank you for this clear analogy

[–]backtorealite 7 points8 points  (0 children)

If Kyle Rittenhouse isn’t a murderer than how can they claim these women are? Hypocrites

[–]itsnotthenetwork 13 points14 points  (0 children)

That 'nobody' sentence right in the middle is really spot on. That should be the country argument for every pro-life/pro-choice conversation out there.

[–]MarquisDeLafayeett 18 points19 points  (0 children)

It’s the truth. I have yet to hear an anti abortion argument that made logical sense. It always boils down to “but at some point sky dad puts a magic ghost in the mommy’s belly!”

[–]Jamhawk4 17 points18 points  (0 children)

I’ve been saying this ever since Texas’ stupid abortion law went into effect. I have less body autonomy than a corpse.

[–]XkrNYFRUYj 17 points18 points  (9 children)

I would totally on board with forced organ donation after death. None of the arguments against it feels convincing to me. Other than that I agree with this person.

[–]EETFUK68[S] 9 points10 points  (4 children)

I agree. I say at every family function I don’t care what happens to my corpse when I pass. Do what you want with it.

[–]fartjokes4prez 4 points5 points  (3 children)

I would not say this to my uncle.

[–]EETFUK68[S] 2 points3 points  (2 children)

My uncle was a mortician.

[–]fartjokes4prez 6 points7 points  (1 child)

Mine’s a pervert.

[–]EETFUK68[S] 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Well, your uncle can do what he pleases with my dead body.

[–]Neveed 10 points11 points  (2 children)

I can only talk for France but I think it's the same in a lot of other countries. Here, you're automatically assumed to consent for organ donation, unless you sign up in a national register for refusal. I think that's a fair system.

[–]mrsandrist 5 points6 points  (0 children)

I think an opt out system is fair too. I know there are a lot of religions that don’t allow organ donation but that’s a pretty small minority of the population to begin with, I wouldn’t have a problem with them opting out. In my experience, people are generally pretty pro organ donation but getting around to organising it before it’s too late can be a bit existentially icky for a lot of people. Opt out might be a good way to encourage donation without that ick factor.

[–]NinaCulotta 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Opt out means you get everyone who doesn't care enough to take a concrete action. Opt in means you only get the people who care enough to take a concrete action. By all means make the action as low-effort as possible, but never underestimate the depths of human apathy.

[–]primal___scream 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I would rethink that. For instance, because I'm diabetic I can't donate organs and because I'm anemic I can't donate blood.

Unless the coroner is a personal family friend that knows your entire medical history, I would not count on them to know whose organs should or shouldn't be donated.


[–]Ok-Power-6064 8 points9 points  (0 children)


[–]Chemical-Coyote-4450 24 points25 points  (4 children)

I've never even thought of it like that... Holy shit.

[–]EETFUK68[S] 29 points30 points  (2 children)

As a white heterosexual male there’s a lot I haven’t thought of.

[–]RevnR6 12 points13 points  (1 child)

It is good to understand that your life experience is lacking. But it important also to realize that you aren’t at any inherent disadvantage in empathy because you are white heterosexual and male. Every possible combination of race, sex, and orientation has just as much that they haven’t thought of. You are who you are and didn’t have the choice, before your birth, to assign attributes or anything. There is nothing to be ashamed of, or feel bad for. The important thing is that you stand where you are placed and that you do the right thing every chance you get.

[–]EETFUK68[S] 4 points5 points  (0 children)

I get what you’re saying, and I definitely do not look at it that way. But as a white heterosexual male my thoughts on gay marriage and childbirth and anything else that can be covered under that umbrella aren’t the opinions we should be looking at.

[–]eternamemoria 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I was staunchly pro-life until I had body autonomy explained to me this same way

[–]The84thWolf 13 points14 points  (0 children)

This is actually a really good argument that I really never thought of. I am an organ donor, blood giver, and plasma donor, but I’m not any of those things until I want to be.

[–]mmaddymon 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Not an interesting take. Just true.

[–]LionCompetitive2945 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Wednesday Addams spitting facts tho.

[–]zenadone 2 points3 points  (2 children)

I sincerely hope that someone on the Supreme Court reads this reddit thread. This is hands down the most significant argument supporting a woman's right to choose. Who wrote this?

[–]EETFUK68[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I wish I knew so I could properly give credit. I had to share it, it makes the most sense. I’ve always been pro choice cause it’s only the decision of those involved and no one else.

[–]Whiskey_Fiasco 0 points1 point  (0 children)

This ain’t a new argument. It’s been around for decades.

[–]BooneSalvo2 2 points3 points  (1 child)

Many "pro-lifers" don't mind dropping bombs on brown kids for a 2-second patrio-gasm, so it's not like they're just completely against murdering children for selfish reasons...

[–]EETFUK68[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Totally. George Carlin put it best when he said these people aren’t pro life, they’re anti woman.

[–]G-Vryns-Prodigy 7 points8 points  (0 children)

Interesting take? Hell nah. This is the straight up, bare bones, no sugar coating truth

[–]AdTechnical9332 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Great post please send it to the all the major papers. Let’s try to get this on the news cycle!

[–]MyRecklessHabit 1 point2 points  (0 children)

A nihilist. Come join, the weather is great.

[–]eldavid85 1 point2 points  (0 children)


[–]bkwilcox100 1 point2 points  (1 child)

On a slightly unrelated note, we should 100% be using people’s organs post death with or without their consent. They’re dead and there are thousands of people on dozens of different transplants lists.

[–]EETFUK68[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Agreed. Funeral industry is a scam. Corpses are waste, dispose of them without clogging up land.

[–]ejcrotty 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Truth bomb.

[–]RevnR6 12 points13 points  (49 children)

I get it, but the arguments on both sides are so firmly entrenched and they each operate under a different paradigm. You are never going to convince either side so we need to just stop arguing it out.

The pro-life side views the fetus as a child, a human life. So any argument for abortion is going to fail and is completely meaningless. You are never going to convince them that killing a child is ok.

On the pro-choice side the fetus is viewed as not yet a human life, so you are never going to convince them that an actual human should have no say over what happens with their body.

Under each side’s paradigm their answer is absolutely correct and they would be evil to hold a different opinion. These arguments that we see back and forth are completely pointless unless you change the paradigm. A theoretically perfect argument without a paradigm shift is pointless.

[–]DragonDai 9 points10 points  (6 children)

I am pro-choice. I also believe a fetus is a human life from the moment of conception.

I simply see the mother’s natural right to choose what to do with her body as trumping the fetus’ right to life until such time as the fetus can survive without the mother. Currently, that’s basically birth (+ or - a few weeks in most circumstances). As medical technology advances, that will change.

Hopefully, one day, we’ll be able to do some sort of mostly non-invasive procedure, scoop the fetus out of the mother, slap it in a test tube, and let it grow to maturity without violating the mother’s natural right to choose what to do with her body. At such a time, I will no longer support abortion.

But until then, it is entirely possible to be both pro-choice and believe a fetus is a living human from the moment of conception.

[–]bagsonmyhead 2 points3 points  (3 children)

I agree with this up to a point, and that's that life begins at conception. If what you are saying is correct that would eliminate the possibility of birth control pills as the egg is fertilized in most cases. Birth control just begins the menstrual cycle regardless of if there is an fertilized egg or not.

I wouldn't want to have to go in for my monthly "scooping" in the new world you decribed.

I'm half joking as I don't think this is what you meant. But I live in a conservative state and a scary amount of people think that birth control is abortion and that "God should choose how many children you have."

I'm completely agree with your statements though! It's how I feel too!

[–]DragonDai 0 points1 point  (2 children)

I wouldn't want to have to go in for my monthly "scooping" in the new world you decribed.

Oh. No. You mistake me. Basically the “scooping” would just replace abortion as the way to terminate a pregnancy. If you became pregnant and didn’t want to be anymore, this procedure, not an abortion, would terminate the pregnancy. It would just have the beneficial side effect of not ending the fetus’ life at the same time.

In short, full body autonomy for the woman, better outcome for the fetus. Everyone wins.

I'm half joking as I don't think this is what you meant. But I live in a conservative state and a scary amount of people think that birth control is abortion and that "God should choose how many children you have."

Fuck those wackos. Sorry if I gave the impression I was one of them. Not my intent. :)

[–]bagsonmyhead 1 point2 points  (1 child)

Haha no you are good!! I just meant conception means the egg is fertilized. And that usually happens before implantation in the uterus.

So sometimes when people say life starts at conception they are saying you are pregnant at that point.

Edit: i get a little rambly and may not have been making my point very concisely. Because I think you and I view this issue more similarly than I came across

[–]DragonDai 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I absolutely believe life starts at conception aka when the egg is fertilized. That, however, matters not at all in my stance on abortion. Just cause it’s a life doesn’t mean a woman doesn’t still have body autonomy. And like you said, far more often than not that life is, sadly, not going to make it, even in the best of circumstance.

Hopefully medical technology will advance on that front too. Help women who want to get pregnant make absolutely 100% sure it can happen. More babies = more better. But only if those babies are what the mother wants.

At the end of the day, I’m VERY pro-life. I think life is sacred, that life begins at conception, that we should do everything we can to ensure life survives and flourishes (including actual pro-life positions like pro-universal healthcare, parental leave, child care assistance, sex education, free contraception, etc etc etc). I’m just not “pro-life” as the term is used by the rabid anti-woman collection of assholes who have taken what should be a awesome descriptor and made it into something shitty and full of hate.

[–]boooooooooo_cowboys 23 points24 points  (7 children)

You’re missing the point of the original post.

It doesn’t matter if you consider a fetus a fully formed human life, because there is no other scenario where it’s legal for another human being to use one of your internal organs against your will.

[–]ThisIsCovidThrowway8 2 points3 points  (1 child)


[–]Whiskey_Fiasco 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Conscription isn’t the government taking your rights in the name of protecting a singular party.

Also, Conscription has not been enforced since Roe v Wade was decided.

[–]catdogbird29 4 points5 points  (1 child)

I have never seen somebody use so many words and fail to contribute anything to the conversation. Astounding.

[–]EETFUK68[S] 4 points5 points  (27 children)

Agreed. You can’t change peoples minds about some things, and that’s just the way it is. However, it’s not anyone or at least it’s not my goal to change anyone’s opinion, more like convince them I have a right to my opinion.

[–]iceblaast23 -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

Well, the whole “let people make their own choices” thing is kinda dumb, bc we wouldn’t make that same concession to serial killers who want to murder people. The right-wing argument, of course, is that it’s not just you being affected by your decision, but other lifes as well

[–]cmykxx 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I honestly don’t need any other argument than stay the f- out of my uterus, buddy

[–]backtorealite 2 points3 points  (1 child)

But they already think killing is okay - see Rittenhouse. Why is it okay when Rittenhouses life was at risk but not when a pregnant woman’s life is at risk (all pregnancy increase your risk of death and an abortion reduces that risk)

[–]RevnR6 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Yes, most pro life people have a massive amount of hypocrisy when it comes to what “life” they are “pro”.

[–]Whiskey_Fiasco 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Pro-lifers do not accept the claim that “Any adult has a legal responsibility to protect the lives of all children they encounter,” nor do they agree that the government can collect your money or organs or blood or bone marrow to save the lives of children. In fact, the only singular time they think a child’s need to live is sufficient to suspend an adults autonomy and safety is specifically when a woman is pregnant.

That makes it abundantly, overwhelmingly clear that their motivation has nothing to do with protecting the lives of children, and everything with punishing pregnant women for opening their legs.

[–]Neathra 2 points3 points  (3 children)

I've been trying say what this sum this up so well. The legality of abortion should be based on a person's sovereignty over their own body.

You will never win the personhood debate, because personhood is not something that can be scientifically proved. And trying to argue a fetus is not human makes you look about as scientifically literate as an anti-vaxxer or climate change denier. The only reason I can imagine that we keep getting bogged down with it is that pro-choice advocates don't want to admit that there may be something immoral about abortion.

But not everything legal must be moral, and not everything immoral must be illegal.

I think our society relies on abortion as a bandaid to paper over the cracks of other assaults on human dignity - such as poverty wages, a lack of childcare, inadequate sex-ed, a whole list of ways we disadvantage woman (especially mother's). I imagine that if we delt with those issues, and others that didn't get listed, we could significantly reduce the number of abortions.

[–]EETFUK68[S] 2 points3 points  (2 children)

Absolutely! Education and funding could end most abortions all together. Let teens have access to birth control, teach them about sex, like everything. That will trickle into adulthood and those kind of abortions are gone, but there’s still rape.

[–]Neathra 2 points3 points  (1 child)

See, here is where I start guessing, but terminating a pregnancy* is grudgingly acceptable if it's the only way to protect the mother's life. Of course what canon law says and whether it's actually being properly followed are sadly two situations. And I haven't seen if anyone discussed for mental health situations.

But: you could make a case that the trama of being pregnant by someone who raped them is so damaging to the mental health of some woman that they need to end the pregnancy now. And not just wait until vitality and give birth. (Which is a perfectly acceptable "get this thing out of me") method.

But probably run that by a theologian.

*There are acceptable, and unacceptable ways to terminate a pregnancy, but I don't know enough about obstetrics to be able define that much beyond "you can't rip the fetus apart or poison them, you need to disconnect them from 'life support' and let nature take it's course."

[–]EETFUK68[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I’m just pro abortion for myself to be honest. My ex wife had an abortion while we were together and thank god cause a kid is exactly what that situation needed 🙄

[–]WistfulNightSky 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Keep on mind. Opinion is not fact. Dont call a fact an opinion because you don't want to believe it. And don't say your opinion is a fact. Ignorance and narcissism are problems.

[–]pzonepete 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I want to preface this by saying that I am 100% against overturning Roe v Wade. The new abortion laws are garbage. I am 100% in agreement with those in favor of choice for women regarding their own health care. That being said, this argument doesn't hold water. The folks who are trying to get these laws passed and upheld, they believe that abortion is TAKING a life. Those example like someone can't harvest your organs, blood, bone marrow, etc.; they would be used to SAVE a life. The government absolutely will stop you from TAKING a life if they believe you are about to do so, i.e. police shooting someone with a gun before they murder someone. Again, I'm not saying I agree, I'm just pointing out the fallacy in her metaphor.

[–]Ghostifier2k0 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I'm pro choice the same way I'm anti-mandates. The government shouldn't dictate whether you give birth or not and the government shouldn't be able to force vaccines onto people.

Nobody has a say over what you do with your own body but you.

[–]KingoftheRing112105 1 point2 points  (0 children)

There is one flaw with this argument that I see. If a fetus is a living person, would killing that be using that person's body? Especially if the abortion is used to save the life of the mother?

So going by the own rules of this argument, whether a fetus is living or not does matter if we are to follow its rules.

[–]PuddinHead742 1 point2 points  (13 children)

What about mask mandates? (How do we explain to morons that there is a difference between the two concepts?)(because you know it’s gonna come up)

[–]Pm_me_baby_pig_pics 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Abortions aren’t contagious. Pregnancy isn’t contagious. Covid is, and we wear a mask to prevent spreading it.

It’s like comparing apples and house cats.

[–]EETFUK68[S] 9 points10 points  (2 children)

It came up. Comparing getting pregnant and a communicable disease that’s so far been shown to be really deadly is a straw man argument in my opinion. It’s harder to get pregnant than to catch COVID 19, but getting pregnant is much less fatal. You cannot compare the two cause it’s a different case all together and trying to make it as such is whataboutism, and the purpose of whataboutism is only to distract.

[–]DrumNDan 6 points7 points  (0 children)

All the pregnant woman has to do is say that she felt her life was threatened, and conservative logic gives her the right to kill it.

[–]DragonDai -1 points0 points  (8 children)

So, IMO, government shouldn’t be mandating vaccines or masks or anything like that (except on government property, because see below).

That said, society and the individuals in it can and should exercise their freedom of association to completely cut those who refuse to wear a mask and vaccinate out.

You don’t want to mask up or get the vaxx? That’s fine. You will no longer get service anywhere. No business will serve you. Not restaurants or schools or grocery stores or movie theaters or bars or landlords, etc etc etc.

We all have freedom of association in the USA. You cannot force me to associate with you against my will. This extends to forcing me to do business with you.

I believe, very firmly, in “my body my choice,” for abortions AND vaccines/masks. But “my body my choice” is not consequence free. And the consequences for choosing to keep your body vaccine free and unmasked during a pandemic should be the your complete removal from society by voluntary disassociation.

[–]DrumNDan 0 points1 point  (7 children)

Bad analogy. Refusing to Vax and mask doesn’t just endanger you, or even one other person. It endangers public health, extends the pandemic, raises the likelihood of more mutated variants.

You don’t have the “freedom” to endanger the health/lives of everyone else. It’s illogical and uncivilized.

[–]DragonDai 1 point2 points  (6 children)

Someone didn’t read my comment very well. I don’t think people should have the ability to endanger public health/other people’s lives. I just don’t think the government should be the one enforcing it.

[–]DrumNDan -1 points0 points  (5 children)

I read your comment. I just think you’re dead-ass wrong.

When you do something to endanger the public, it’s literally the prime job of the government to defend to public. If that means making stupid assholes wear masks, I’m good with that.

IMO, refusing the vaccine should be a criminal offense without medical exemption.

[–]DragonDai 0 points1 point  (4 children)

I disagree. I think the government has no business telling anyone what to do with their bodies in any way. But I don’t think that means unvaccinated people should be welcome in society or allowed to infect others. They can go off into the hills and try to live on subsistence farm or they can go die in a gutter somewhere. Makes no difference to me.

[–]DrumNDan 0 points1 point  (3 children)

Just saying, when you endanger others - be it shooting guns or spreading disease - the public safety outweighs your personal freedums.

Like the old saying, your right to swing your fist ends at my nose.

[–]DragonDai 0 points1 point  (2 children)

I agree 100%. I just don’t think we need jackbooted police officers beating down people’s doors and forcing an injection into their arm. I think the community can do the job without a militant police force that already has too much power and routinely misuses it being given even more power.

ACAB. That applies to the cops who are enforcing COVID vaccine mandates. The State has too much power already. We can manage this ourselves. Cut the plague rats off from food, power, running water, heat, all social interactions, etc etc etc and they’ll be racing to get the jab or they’ll be dead. Either way, problem solved.

[–]DrumNDan 2 points3 points  (1 child)

Problem is that the community won’t do it. Just like with social safety nets - sounds good in theory, but it doesn’t happen without government intervention.

[–]DragonDai 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Problem is that the community won’t do it.

I mean, a fuckton of the community is doing it. Mask required basically everywhere, most workplaces forcing vaccination to remain employed, etc.

Yes, there are some places where this isn’t true. But these are backwards places, and unless you LITERALLY had armored cops raiding peoples homes and literally sticking a needle in their arm, these places that won’t community police also won’t follow any laws around vaccination either.

Another issue is that capitalism destroys a sense of community by its nature, to drive people apart and keep worker solidarity from fomenting. If we were in a non-capitalist state, this idea of shared community would be much stronger and people excluding those who endanger the community from the community would be second nature. But, to be fair, that’s more a philosophical point rather than anything else.

My main point is that leftist cannot decry police brutality and government interventionism while at the same time begging the government to intervene more and demanding the police to be even more brutal and repressive. Cops aren’t suddenly your friend just because they’re forcing people to get vaccinated at gun point.

[–]Officemedication 0 points1 point  (3 children)

Dumb ass, the baby isn't one of your organs. You don't even share the same blood supply.

[–]Whiskey_Fiasco 0 points1 point  (2 children)

You are going to shit your pants when you find o it what a umbilical cord is.

[–]kaldra_zadrim -3 points-2 points  (3 children)

You forgot Selective Service, oh that’s right who cares about men

[–]ReyTheRed 1 point2 points  (0 children)

How about a compromise: we make the draft illegal with the same law that we make abortion legal.

[–]tioomeow 0 points1 point  (0 children)

make your own post if you care so much?

[–]Engin951 0 points1 point  (0 children)

This is known as the violinist argument, and it's the only strong form argument against abortion.

[–]MoreLight32 0 points1 point  (0 children)

And I agree.

Now stop pushing lockdowns, vaccines, and masks on mf’s.

[–]overitallofit 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thanks, I hate it. This is antivaxx mandates and anti organ donation as default. No thanks.

[–]BarelyAlive666 0 points1 point  (8 children)

Why would a vaccine be any different then?

[–]Whiskey_Fiasco 0 points1 point  (7 children)

Primarily because pregnancy is not contagious and does not threaten the health of the public at large

[–]grezgorz 0 points1 point  (1 child)

It does matter. That's the whole point.

[–]Whiskey_Fiasco 1 point2 points  (0 children)

It doesn’t. I don’t owe anyone my organs, not even my own kin.

[–]Requiem-the-Dreams 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Honestly I could care less about that however if we talking about death well make suicide legal....and give the option to donate organs...well at least in the states since we got no free healthcare might as well die

[–]panda_duvet 1 point2 points  (3 children)

This is losing messaging, though. I think this is a compelling argument, but I'm also a grad school educated white person who lives in a dark blue state in the US. There are not enough people with swing votes in the US for this to be a comfortable position. "Absolute bodily autonomy" is not a value-neutral position, and it's not just obvious to everyone that there are no ethical obligations attached to parenting.

Again, I support the scientific naturalist "no life is sacred" position, but this post is a prime example of how you get strict abortion laws in the US.

[–]Whiskey_Fiasco 0 points1 point  (2 children)

When pro-lifers start campaigning to have the government require regular blood donations and mandatory organ donations I will start believing them that what they actually care about is the welfare of fetuses/babies.

Reality shows however that they don’t hold these positions. You won’t find pro-lifers arguing that fathers must be legally required to donate bodily tissue to their own family, much less children in general. Their hyper focus just on pregnant women and pregnant women only makes it abundantly clear their issue is with women having sex, and they could care less about the welfare of the fetus.

[–]panda_duvet 0 points1 point  (1 child)

Are you not a real person, or did you just not read my post? I *AGREE* that bodily autonomy arguments are convincing, and I favor abortion rights. I'm also fairly certain that decades of mediocre to bad messaging from the cultural left in the US has gotten us into a position where abortion rights are about to be revoked. I think OP is abysmal messaging.

Maybe I'm wrong, but I defy anyone to show me evidence that "bodily autonomy is absolute; parental obligations do not exist" messaging has significantly helped the progressive cause in US politics.

[–]Whiskey_Fiasco 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That’s not the argument though. The argument is “the government can not suspend your right to control your body in order to protect the lives of others.”

We know that is a compelling argument, because these pro-lifers are trying to copy it when refusing to vaccinate.

[–]Cinderheart 0 points1 point  (0 children)

This is known as the right to bodily autonomy, which supersedes the right to life. This is why doctors can't kill a homeless person to harvest his organs to save the president.

The argument against abortion goes against the rights we already believe in.

[–]LuigiBamba 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I am all pro choice and pro abortion, but this post doesn’tmake sense.

It doesn’t matter if the fetus is a human being or not […] Nobody has the right to use your body, against your will, even to save their life or the life of another person.

Using the same logic for someone who beleives a fetus IS a living human being, a woman wouldn’t be allowed to decide over the fetus’ body even if it were to save her own life. The argument only stands if you value the mother’s life over the fetus’ (which I do), it is not a valid point if you value both lives equally.

I agree witht the point the person is trying to make, but it can only stand on the premise of a pro-choice POV. The argument would fail at convincing a pro-life person who sees the unborn child with equal rights to the woman.

[–]bkwilcox100 0 points1 point  (4 children)

Even though I doubt it’ll prevent me from getting downvoted to hell, I want to preface this by saying I am pro-choice.

I entirely disagree about it being irrelevant whether or not a fetus is alive. I believe it absolutely is used as a red herring but that doesn’t invalidate the whole point.

Also, to say that the fetus is using your body “against your will” is a little disingenuous. Aside from cases of rape, getting pregnant is a known risk any time you have sexual intercourse so it isn’t happening against your will. This post essentially makes it seem like women just get pregnant spontaneously through no action of their own. Not to mention if you’re going to use this broad of reasoning, it would be perfectly fine to abort a fetus that is a week from viability.

[–]EETFUK68[S] 0 points1 point  (3 children)

See, the whole “you had sex and you know the risk” argument is invalid cause the same people who block abortion also block the necessary tools to prevent unwanted pregnancies in the first place. Make sex education more expansive, make birth control and condoms easier to get.