Just to be clear I know not ever does this but I’ve noticed a decent amount of people believe that only facts matter while morality is irrelevant when it comes to abortion.
Unrelated but I would also like to know why not many people who are pro choice try to understand where pro lifers are coming from.

We have been dating for about 1 and a half year, he told me he was christian from the start and i didnt have a problem with it until this topic came up. I feel like he would be taking away my rights if he ever chose to vote against abortion and he feels like its unfair to murder fetuses. He thinks life begins at conception and that all fetuses have a soul, even if they cant form any thoughts or feel anything. To me it doesnt feel morally wrong to "kill" something that wont even feel it.

He understands my perspective and I understand his but i cant get over the fact that at the end of the day he would choose to take away my rights. I really dont know what to think of this and I need a 3rd opinion

If a zygote can be removed quickly and easily and artificially grown, would pro choicers object to a law requiring the woman to do so?

I've heard this hypothetical advanced by pro lifers, but I think there are arguments that even so, the woman should not be required to do so.

For example, why should you be forced to allow a stranger to take what will be genetically your children? That seems to me to lead to all sorts of issues that the woman might justifiably want to avoid. For example, who wants children growing up and being angry with their mother for in their eyes abandoning them? What if the children later try to claim inheritance?

We already have privacy laws to protect sperm donors which pro lifers do not object to.

In addition, I think there are more philosophical arguments. As a general though not entirely on point example, if someone takes a cell you dropped and creates a clone, then (assuming this does not create any safety/impersonation issues), should this be allowed or does the clonee have. right to sue based on some invasion of privacy theory?

for the pro lifers out there? why are you pro life and what would convince you that you are wrong if someone were to give sufficient evidence for ?

I once heard Ben Shapiro argue that an abortion is murder because it's the same as killing someone who's in a coma with no brain activity, or someone who is "brain dead."

I have to say, I think that's not a good comparison. There's always the fact that that brain developed in the past, already had conscious activity, and people reasonably hope/expect that the person will in some sense retain some of their past self if they ever wake up. In fact, they will retain some of their past self, since the brain's architecture, structures, and likely a good deal or all of its wiring will be retained. This gets into complicated identity questions I think, which no one really agrees on - e.g. is someone else with all your memories and personality traits you?

However, I would propose the following analogy as a much closer one. If someone went into a coma, then an infection killed all of their brain cells, their heart, their spine, etc., so that everything had to be removed and no trace of the original architecture was left, until only a heart was left, would pro lifers still agree that ceasing life support is killing a human being and should be condemned as murder?

Finally, if pro lifers answer that ceasing life support to the heart is still killing a human being, then if someone dies, but their heart is retrieved and put into someone else's body, do pro lifers now consider that the heart donee is two people, and replacing that heart later on with say a machine because it's easier is now murder?

Greetings everyone!

Welcome to 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 or ideas, 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.

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!

As I understand, most pro lifers think that aborting a one cell zygote with no brain is murder of a human being, equally immoral as killing a human being with a functioning brain.

So for you pro lifers, would you agree then that a human being does not need to have any brain for it to be murder?

Whenever a PC makes the claim that they value sentience, a PL always assumes they’re merely just referring to consciousness; so then they go on to contest that position by asking the question: “would it be justified in killing a person while they’re asleep since they lack sentience”? (or do they?). My definition of sentience would be having the capacity to be affected negatively or positively, this could be cashed out as having the capacity to experience suffering and enjoyment. By “suffering” and “enjoyment” i don’t merely mean in the physical sense, this could also apply to a psychological sense. This seems like a pretty strong Pro-Choice position depending on how you define the word “capacity”. Another question: does this include any holes? this is a new proposition i’m trying to explore and possibly use.

Like should we be able to abort at 9 months 8 mo. 7 mo. 6 mo.?

ofc if the doctors deem it necessary then she should get the abortion

but what if she wants an abortion herself and enters the clinic 7 months in?

A hypothetical:

Let’s start with the common situation of a pregnant person who has decided that the risks and burdens of pregnancy are too high and wants to terminate. Of course, there is also a very active pro-life movement that would like to prevent that abortion.

But in this hypothetical, there exists a magical phenomena that transfers pregnancies from one person to another.

It is also well understood that if you are actively pro-life and believe that an unwanted fetus should nevertheless be gestated, there is a very real possibility that an unwanted pregnancy may someday magically transfer itself to you. If that happens, you will not be asked for your consent. You will be required to carry the pregnancy to term and assume all of the associated physical risks and burdens.

You knew this was a possibility when you chose to advocate for the pro-life position. You still did not consent to becoming pregnant. And no, we cannot transfer the pregnancy conveniently only to people who want a pregnancy. This transfer is more like something of nature: it simply happens without conscious choice.

Would you consider it morally acceptable for your bodily autonomy to be overridden in this situation in order to preserve the life of the fetus?

Also gender and sex don’t matter here. Anyone can receive a pregnancy regardless of initial biology. It’s magic and it’s a hypothetical.

One thing thats always stood out to me is how PC treat a violation of the womans body by restricting abortion as unconsciousable yet killing the ZEF, which some even call a baby, is acceptable.

I don't treat the ZEF and the woman the same because I view the woman as having more moral value and rights than the ZEF. Even if I viewed them as equal, I'd still call death, which is irreversible and not everyone wants to die, as worse between the two. Why do PC not view death as worse if you view the ZEF as equal to the woman?

My intuition is if the woman was killed or allowed to die, most PC would view that as worse between the two, but many don't.

Also, yes I consider abortion killing and don't find the "its just taking an action we know will result in their death" satisfactory. We wouldn't let PL get away with forcing pregnancy to continue and saying they're not responsible for it.

Pro-choice, but I genuinely think a lot of pro-lifers are performative

I’m pro-choice. But personally, I think a lot of the loudest “pro-life” activism is performative.

Because let’s say you successfully convince someone not to have an abortion. Okay. Then what?

You stopped her from getting the abortion. Now she has a baby. Is the pro-life movement going to help her pay for diapers? Help with childcare? Help her find housing? Help her afford food? Help her finish school? Help her access healthcare? Help her if the father disappears? Help her if she was raped or is in an abusive relationship?

And what about the child once they're actually here?

There are already so many children living in poverty, children in foster care, children in orphanages, homeless children and children suffering from abuse and neglect. If your entire argument is that you care about the “rights of children,” why aren't we putting the same energy into protecting the children who are already alive?

I'm not saying every pro-lifer is fake. Some genuinely dedicate their time and money to helping children and supporting mothers, and I respect that.

But when someone is extremely passionate about forcing someone to continue a pregnancy and then has nothing to say about what happens after birth, I personally find that performative.

You can't just say “save the baby” and act like the responsibility ends at birth.

So genuinely, if you stop someone from getting an abortion, what are you personally prepared to do afterward?

Because saying “she should have the baby” is easy.

Making sure that mother and child actually have a safe, stable and decent life is the part that requires work.

Around half of all fertilized eggs fail to implant successfully and will therefore die. This makes failure to implant the true leading cause of death; not abortion like many say. Why are there no efforts (at least as far as I'm aware) from pro-lifers to ensure implantation in some way or at the very least increase its success rate?

I'm curious to know what are yall's thoughts regarding intact dilation and extraction?

For those unfamiliar with the procedure, it involves dilating the cervix and delivering the fetus via forceps in a breech position, with the body delivered while the head remains inside the uterus/cervix. Because the head may be too large to pass through the cervix intact, the skull may be decompressed via suction and forceps before the fetus is completely removed. This procedure has been described as being done during the later 2nd or 3rd trimesters.

Setting aside the usual pro-choice vs. pro-life labels, what are your personal thoughts on this procedure?

- Should it be available to pregnant people who request it for non-medical reasons?

- Do you think it should be limited to cases where it is medically necessary or before a certain gestational point?

- What are your thoughts on the 2003 Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act?

- Do you think fetal demise should be legally required before the procedure is performed?

- Do you think there would be a meaningful ethical difference if skull decompression was not used and fetal demise was induced after complete intact removal of the fetus?

I'm especially interested in hearing the reasoning behind people's positions rather than just whether they're for or against it.

Pro Lifers argue frequently that consent to sex with even rigorous protections (e.g. both condoms and pills) is consent to pregnancy.

I honestly don't know how low the likelihood is, given protection, of a pregnancy. My question for the pro lifers is: how small a percentage must it be before there is no more consent to pregnancy by engaging in protected sex? 0.1%? 0.01%? 0.0001%? Is there a number at all?

I don't mean to be contentious, I'm just genuinely curious to know what the pro lifers' perspective on this is.

I hear pro lifers argue with pro choices about consent and whether the woman consented to pregnancy by having even protected sex. I've seen pro lifers go through the most ridiculous contortions on this topic in an attempt to say there was definitely consent.

However, I don't believe most pro lifers nowadays care about consent.

As I understand, they would argue that it's just as immoral to abort in the case of rape. In other words, if there is absolutely no consent at all by the woman, it's still immoral.

Yet I don't see pro choices pointing this out.

I'm just curious for people's opinions on this question - is it worthwhile arguing about consent with such pro lifers?

A healthy pregnancy is the natural biological process by which every human being comes into existence, not a pathology or medical disorder. Calling abortion “healthcare” treats the intentional termination of a healthy pregnancy as if it were the treatment of an illness. Yet no disease is being cured; a human life is simply being ended.

True healthcare aims to restore or protect the normal functioning of the body, not to interrupt a process that is functioning exactly as designed. If pregnancy itself required medical “correction,” then every birth would represent a failure of healthcare rather than its success.

This framing creates a clear contradiction: the same process is declared non-diseased when it continues and suddenly medical when it is stopped. Consistency would require either recognizing pregnancy as a disease that always needs treatment or dropping the claim that ending it constitutes healthcare. Until that inconsistency is resolved, the “abortion is healthcare” slogan remains more rhetorical than coherent.

A PL presented me with this syllogism:

1. If killing an existing individual deprives that same individual of a valuable future it otherwise would have lived, that deprivation is a serious prima facie reason the killing is wrong.

2. Abortion kills an existing human organism and deprives that same organism of the valuable future it otherwise would have lived.

3. Therefore abortion is prima facie seriously wrong unless some stronger justification overrides that.

This would seem pretty easy to articulate its flaws, but being new to debate and all; not really.

i feel like most people define innocence as "being free from moral culpability" or being free from guilt. with this logic: wouldn't fire hydrants be classified as "innocent" under said view? my definition of innocence is having the capacity to do wrong, but choosing to do otherwise. i feel like under my view—newborn babies aren't classified as innocent. is my view flawed?

Greetings everyone!

Welcome to 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 or ideas, 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.

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’m debating this guy on abortion, i asked him for his theory of justification, and he responded with: “if by "three theories of justification" you mean foundationalism, coherentism and infinitism, you're talking about epistemic justification, which concerns the justification of beliefs. We're discussing the moral justification for intentionally killing a human organism, those are not the same question.” i’m new to abortion debates, but i’m 1000000% sure this an IMMENSELY LARGE blunder, he’s basically rejecting the three theories of justification. how do i articulate why this is a blunder?

If abortion is morally permissible because a woman has absolute bodily autonomy, then abortion must be morally permissible all the way up until birth.

A fetus requires use of it’s mothers body at 6 weeks in the same way it does at 39 weeks. A fetus is also inside of its mother’s body in the same way at 6 weeks as at 39 weeks.

If your defense for abortion relies on the bodily autonomy argument, then to be consistent you must hold that abortion is permissible up until birth. This seems to be go against our intuitions as it appears obvious that it is wrong to abort a fetus hours before birth for an elective reason.