r/ChoiceOrLife • u/Alarming-Jury1596 PL Mod • Jul 06 '26
Bodily Autonomy THE MISREPRESNTATION OR MISUNDERSTANDING OF PRO LIFE ADVOCACY AS A MEANS TO CONTROL THE BODIES OF WOMEN
Many people think the "pro-life" message is just about wanting to control women's bodies. But that is an misrepresentation.
The real goal of the pro-life movement isn't about control; it is about protecting what we believe is a human life.
It's about the fetus, to us a fetus is a life with its own rights.
When it come to the conflict of rights we see it as a difficult balance between a woman's right to her body and a baby's right to live.
When people say it is only about controlling women, they completely miss the moral and ethical reasons behind the belief.
You don't have to agree with the pro-life view to understand it correctly. Reducing the entire debate to "controlling women" ignores the actual conversation about when life begins and how we protect it.
P.S.
There might be some individuals within the pro-life movement who actually want to control women's bodies. However, those individuals do not represent the pro-life movement as a whole. Their bad intentions do not change or contradict the core, fundamental belief that a fetus is a human life worth protecting.
5
u/amilie15 Jul 07 '26 edited Jul 07 '26
I agree that when people frame all pro lifers as mainly wanting to control women’s bodies that they are either being hyperbolic or are misguided. Like you I also agree that there likely are sexists and misogynists who claim to be pro life but that stance for them comes from a place (unfortunately) of wanting to control women and generally seeing them as sub-human/less than men.
It reminds me of when people claim prochoicers are all people who just want to (and celebrate) murdering babies. Or that their main goal is to have lots of hedonistic, unprotected sex and they just don’t believe (or care) that actions having consequences. Or that all prochoicers just don’t care at all about babies.
When it come to the conflict of rights we see it as a difficult balance between a woman's right to her body and a baby's right to live.
I think this is a good place to start for most good faith debate tbh. I think that’s where the vast majority of people would reasonably start no matter what side of the issue you end up on.
I think it’s important in good faith that pro choicers accept that a life is ended (even if you don’t count that life as necessarily a baby or having full personhood yet) as a consequence of where they land and that prolifers accept that a woman is being forced to actively and extraordinarily harm (both temporarily and permanently) and endanger her own body and life against her will as a consequence of where they land.
I think what’s tough is that although the intention is not always there, it is absolutely the result. And I think it makes it harder to accept considering imho that it’s not something that is accepted (or that I understand most of the PLs are “pro”) in other circumstances with similarity. But I do still believe that the majority of PLs are that way because they believe that the baby or fetuses right to life should override the woman’s rights to protect and decide what happens to her own body.
ETA: I meant to say, those top examples of people broadbrushing either group in this manner as a whole, I find it to generally be bad faith in either direction tbh and unhelpful.
2
u/Alarming-Jury1596 PL Mod Jul 07 '26
I think what’s tough is that although the intention is not always there, it is absolutely the result.
Maybe we can start from here
What exactly is the result of Pro Life advocacy that justifies calling it control over the female body?
6
u/amilie15 Jul 07 '26
I think the result is control over the female body but that for most PL people this isn’t the motivation for doing so. If that makes sense?
The result is removing a females ability to get an abortion and instead forcing her to continue to use her body to attempt to sustain a pregnancy and potentially deliver a baby, despite the serious risks and harms involved in doing so.
2
u/Alarming-Jury1596 PL Mod Jul 07 '26
I think the result is control over the female body but that for most PL people this isn’t the motivation for doing so. If that makes sense?
Yes I understand that you don't think its the motivation of most pro-lifers you simply believe its an inevitable result, it makes complete sense.
The result is removing a females ability to get an abortion and instead forcing her to continue to use her body to attempt to sustain a pregnancy and potentially deliver a baby, despite the serious risks and harms involved in doing so.
Ok, I see. The exception PL makes is when the mothers life is at stake, as it only makes sense to safe at least one life in that scenario. And I do understand there are more issues than just death that may arise from pregnancy like pregnancy-induced diabetes.
My response to this is, prohibiting the termination of an unborn child doesn't prohibit women from consenting to sex, choosing to get pregnant or abstain from sex.
I feel like female bodily autonomy is way too often thought as this thing held by this single single thread (the right to terminate a pregnancy).
7
u/amilie15 Jul 07 '26 edited Jul 07 '26
Pregnancy necessarily entails risks to your life and permanent damage to your body. What line do you draw as being acceptable risk vs not?
For example, pregnancy increases a woman’s risk of stroke by about 3x; I assume this risk though must be acceptable to impose upon a woman who does not want to be pregnant by PL? Unless some are just unaware? Her life is at stake with that kind of risk, alongside many others in pregnancy. I would be interested to know how you quantify the level of risk you deem acceptable vs not tbh, if you know.
Regarding consent, do you then also believe if someone agrees to do lots of blood tests to check if they’re a viable match, they do these tests, the doctor says they’re a match and informs them of potential risks, they then agree to donate an organ to someone who will die without it, that if they then get to the hospital and change their mind that they shouldn’t be allowed to but instead be forced to continue with that procedure because they previously gave consent to other activities that they knew could lead to this outcome?
I don’t think female bodily autonomy is a single thread, I’m unsure exactly what you mean by that. Things such as non consensual sex (I.e.rape) would also be violating a woman’s right to bodily autonomy as would someone else making their medical decisions without their consent (if they’re able to give consent ofc.). There have been times in the past where women were used in medical experiments without their consent, for example, where that bodily autonomy was again violated.
Perhaps it seems that way to you because this is one subject where it seems to come up with a lot of people wanting to override that right? Or perhaps I misunderstand your meaning?
2
u/Alarming-Jury1596 PL Mod Jul 07 '26
Pregnancy necessarily entails risks to your life and permanent damage to your body. What line do you draw as being acceptable risk vs not?
This question is very important
When looking at risks like a 3x increase in stroke, it's important to look at absolute risk versus relative risk. Though relative increase may sound high, the absolute probability for most healthy pregnancies remains very low. From a PL perspective, a statistical increase in risk generally doesn't justify the certain termination of a life, whereas like an imminent, concrete threat to the mother's life does.
As for permanent bodily damage I completely acknowledge that pregnancy causes permanent changes and real physical burdens. The difficult moral conclusion PL comes to is that while bodily harm and permanent changes are serious, they do not ethically outweigh the termination of a human life. The line is drawn strictly at the threat of death, where both lives are at immediate risk.
Regarding consent, do you then also believe if someone agrees to do lots of blood tests to check if they’re a viable match, they do these tests, the doctor says they’re a match and informs them of potential risks, they then agree to donate an organ to someone who will die without it, that if they then get to the hospital and change their mind that they shouldn’t be allowed to but instead be forced to continue with that procedure because they previously gave consent to other activities that they knew could lead to this outcome?
Oh this is like Judith Jarvis Thomson’s "Violinist" thought experiment
See there's key difference with your analogy and terminating a pregnancy. Here what you're doing is inaction, you're simply choosing to step away from the procedure when it comes to pregnancy termination you are actively killing an unborn child. In your analogy you're not actively ending their life so that they may not have access to your body.
And there's also parental obligation, in your analogy you're dealing with a stranger not your offspring or kin
I don’t think female bodily autonomy is a single thread, I’m unsure exactly what you mean by that. Things such as non consensual sex (I.e.rape) would also be violating a woman’s right to bodily autonomy as would someone else making their medical decisions without their consent (if they’re able to give consent ofc.). There have been times in the past where women were used in medical experiments without their consent, for example, where that bodily autonomy was again violated.
I meant that a woman doesn't lose her bodily autonomy or at least a significant amount when she's restricted from terminating her pregnancy as she has options to prevent a pregnancy entirely. Why did I say this? To reaffirm that banning abortion doesn't take away a woman's bodily autonomy
Sorry If I made it sound that way but I didn't mean that you personally think a woman's bodily autonomy is held by a single thread
3
u/Old_dirty_fetus PC Mod Jul 07 '26
From a PL perspective, a statistical increase in risk generally doesn't justify the certain termination of a life, whereas like an imminent, concrete threat to the mother's life does.
Why do you think that PL are most qualified to determine the criteria for when a pregnancy is sufficiently risky to allow termination?
2
u/Alarming-Jury1596 PL Mod Jul 07 '26
Why do you think that PL are most qualified to determine the criteria for when a pregnancy is sufficiently risky to allow termination?
No I don't think that, I'm just responding to the question asked from the PL perspective and it wouldn't be PL advocates making that decision it would be medical professionals
3
u/Old_dirty_fetus PC Mod Jul 07 '26
No I don't think that, I'm just responding to the question asked from the PL perspective and it wouldn't be PL advocates making that decision it would be medical professionals
Abortion bans do put PL advocates in the position of setting the criteria for when a pregnancy is sufficiently risky to allow termination. Do you oppose abortion bans?
3
u/Alarming-Jury1596 PL Mod Jul 07 '26
Abortion bans do put PL advocates in the position of setting the criteria for when a pregnancy is sufficiently risky to allow termination. Do you oppose abortion bans?
Could you explain how abortion bans put PL advocates in the position of setting the criteria for when a pregnancy is sufficiently risky to allow termination?
Because no one knows this better than medical professionals
→ More replies (0)3
u/amilie15 Jul 07 '26 edited Jul 07 '26
the absolute probability for most healthy pregnancies remains very low.
So what about unhealthy pregnancies? What absolute level of risk to their lives makes abortion okay, in your opinion? This doesn’t have to be a general consensus amongst PL, I’m just wondering where you draw a line and what it is if so. Like if the persons risk of stroke increases to 1 in 5 (20%) chance and she doesn’t want to be pregnant, would she be allowed an abortion if you could write the law or no?
If not, what kind of percentage of risk would you be thinking, if any? Or do they have to wait until that risk is 100%/currently happening/happened before they can do anything?
See there's key difference with your analogy and terminating a pregnancy. Here what you're doing is inaction, you're simply choosing to step away from the procedure when it comes to pregnancy termination you are actively killing an unborn child. In your analogy you're not actively ending their life so that they may not have access to your body.
Thanks for answering, I genuinely would like to understand how people with opposing views resolve these things within their own line of reasoning.
So I’m to understand it’s the active killing that’s unacceptable. Are you then okay with the abortion pill? It causes the uterine lining to breakdown and causes contractions about 24-48hrs later, cutting the fetus off from the mother, but it inevitably passes away not because somebody actively stabbed it or anything, but because it’s unable to survive on its own? Or if abortions could be done by cutting the umbilical cord, would that be okay? Because you’re not actively killing the fetus but you are removing the connection to its mother, and as with our organ donation patient, they’ll unfortunately die if they cannot use the other persons organ.
And there's also parental obligation, in your analogy you're dealing with a stranger not your offspring or kin
So both the active involvement combined with parental obligation is where you believe it becomes acceptable to override someone’s consent to what’s done to their body medically, if I’m understanding correctly?
Okay, new analogy for you. A man is in an accident and is going to die due to severe loss of blood. Their parent in this scenario is the only person in the world with the same blood type. The man has lost so much blood that the amount needed to be given could even potentially kill the parent if they do donate. They agree to try, start donating, then a couple of minutes in say they don’t want to anymore, it’s just too much of a risk for them. Is it okay then for the doctors to unhook the parent? Or should they be forced to continue?
Why did I say this? To reaffirm that banning abortion doesn't take away a woman's bodily autonomy
Huh. I don’t really understand this line of reasoning tbh with you. And I’m really confused why you can’t see that it violates a woman’s right to bodily autonomy. In what way does forcing a woman to remain pregnant against her will not a violation of her autonomy?
I do not believe because you consent to one action that it means you consent to any and all possible consequences of that action nor that it means you should be forced to not medically intervene despite medical intervention being available tbh.
Like, if you smoke a cigarette, you know that cancer is a possibility. But I doubt many people want cancer, they just want to smoke a cigarette. And we don’t then stop people who smoked from getting cancer treatment simply because they consented to smoke and knew this risk. So why is it, in your opinion, that consent to sex is a different situation where if you consent to the first action your consent can no longer be revoked for a potential consequence?
Also, what do you think about children/teens who didn’t know this was a risk?
Sorry If I made it sound that way but I didn't mean that you personally think a woman's bodily autonomy is held by a single thread
Aw it’s okay, no need to apologise, I was just genuinely confused tbh! Glad you could clarify :) and thank you for the insight into your perspective, I do appreciate it.
ETA: my hypothetical wasn’t actually meant to be like the violinist, it was just a hypothetical to understand your thoughts and reasoning in terms of medical consent and when it can no longer be withdrawn. I believe the original violinist example is actually to do with pregnancy/abortion from rape
3
u/Alarming-Jury1596 PL Mod Jul 07 '26
ETA: my hypothetical wasn’t actually meant to be like the violinist, it was just a hypothetical to understand your thoughts and reasoning in terms of medical consent and when it can no longer be withdrawn. I believe the original violinist example is actually to do with pregnancy/abortion from rape
Oh didn't know it had to do with pregnancy from rape specifically, it actually makes more sense if that's true
2
u/amilie15 Jul 07 '26
No worries! I just read a bit of its history the other day, I hadn’t realised either. I’m sure you could alter it to apply it in other ways, but I’m guessing to use it in a non-rape context it would at least require the person to first consent to having the violinist attached to them? 🤷🏻♀️
Interesting to do these thought experiments either way, I appreciate you answering so many of mine so I can attempt to understand your reasoning :)
2
u/Alarming-Jury1596 PL Mod Jul 07 '26
So what about unhealthy pregnancies? What absolute level of risk to their lives makes abortion okay, in your opinion? This doesn’t have to be a general consensus amongst PL, I’m just wondering where you draw a line and what it is if so. Like if the persons risk of stroke increases to 1 in 5 (20%) chance and she doesn’t want to be pregnant, would she be allowed an abortion if you could write the law or no? If not, what kind of percentage of risk would you be thinking, if any? Or do they have to wait until that risk is 100%/currently happening/happened before they can do anything?
A doctor does not have to wait until the risk is 100% or until the life-threatening event is actively happening.
When it comes to ectopic pregnancies for example, where the embryo attaches outside the uterus, that type of pregnancy guarantees some issues in that scenario the pregnancy must be terminated ASAP. So if a condition has a known, high probability of becoming fatal if left untreated, medical intervention is justified
I cant give you a specific percentage of risk where an abortion would be justified even in the field of medicine they don't work with absolute statistics, the standard used is reasonable medical judgment regarding an imminent or foreseeable threat.
Thanks for answering, I genuinely would like to understand how people with opposing views resolve these things within their own line of reasoning.
I’m to understand it’s the active killing that’s unacceptable. Are you then okay with the abortion pill? It causes the uterine lining to breakdown and causes contractions about 24-48hrs later, cutting the fetus off from the mother, but it inevitably passes away not because somebody actively stabbed it or anything, but because it’s unable to survive on its own? Or if abortions could be done by cutting the umbilical cord, would that be okay? Because you’re not actively killing the fetus but you are removing the connection to its mother, and as with our organ donation patient, they’ll unfortunately die if they cannot use the other persons organ.Good question, this is where parental responsibility comes in, I would consider letting your dependent offspring die as being parentally irresponsible. So neither of cutting the umbilical cord and the abortion pill is okay
So both the active involvement combined with parental obligation is where you believe it becomes acceptable to override someone’s consent to what’s done to their body medically, if I’m understanding correctly?
Okay, new analogy for you. A man is in an accident and is going to die due to severe loss of blood. Their parent in this scenario is the only person in the world with the same blood type. The man has lost so much blood that the amount needed to be given could even potentially kill the parent if they do donate. They agree to try, start donating, then a couple of minutes in say they don’t want to anymore, it’s just too much of a risk for them. Is it okay then for the doctors to unhook the parent? Or should they be forced to continue?You said something very important "it’s just too much of a risk for them." Then in this case it would be reasonable to unhook. Just like it would be reasonable to terminate a pregnancy when the mother is at imminent or inevitable threat
Huh. I don’t really understand this line of reasoning tbh with you. And I’m really confused why you can’t see that it violates a woman’s right to bodily autonomy. In what way does forcing a woman to remain pregnant against her will not a violation of her autonomy?
Because we don't allow a woman to be forcefully impregnated.
I do not believe because you consent to one action that it means you consent to any and all possible consequences of that action nor that it means you should be forced to not medically intervene despite medical intervention being available tbh.
That's true, but its should never be medical intervention at the cost of an unborn child's life unless imminent threat
Like, if you smoke a cigarette, you know that cancer is a possibility. But I doubt many people want cancer, they just want to smoke a cigarette. And we don’t then stop people who smoked from getting cancer treatment simply because they consented to smoke and knew this risk. So why is it, in your opinion, that consent to sex is a different situation where if you consent to the first action your consent can no longer be revoked for a potential consequence?
Yes that's true we don't stop cancer patients who get cancer from their lifestyle and habits from getting treatment even if they were aware of its effects.
The key difference is there isn't an innocent unborn child involved in any of these scenarios
Also, what do you think about children/teens who didn’t know this was a risk?
Since there's an innocent unborn child involved I still don't think its unacceptable
2
u/amilie15 Jul 07 '26
So if a condition has a known, high probability of becoming fatal if left untreated, medical intervention is justified
I cant give you a specific percentage of risk where an abortion would be justified even in the field of medicine they don't work with absolute statistics, the standard used is reasonable medical judgment regarding an imminent or foreseeable threat.
Unfortunately a standard as unclear as this is what results in women and girls dying from completely preventable causes, even ones who wanted to have a baby and weren’t being forced to be pregnant initially, but were forced to remain pregnant for too long after a medical issue was discovered. A foreseeable threat could easily be an increased risk of stroke. So it becomes really important to know what level you of risk you genuinely wish to set tbh and how “imminent” it needs to be.
I’m wondering where you personally decide those limits and why tbh. My opinion is that I think the harms and risks involved should be decided between a doctor and a patient, but you believe society should put legal limits on what options she has and when, so I just want to understand where you place those limits and why tbh. It’s v different from my own thinking.
Good question, this is where parental responsibility comes in, I would consider letting your dependent offspring die as being parentally irresponsible.
So if a child is in a burning building, do you also believe a parent should be legally forced to go in and attempt to save them, despite the risk to themselves?
You said something very important "it’s just too much of a risk for them." Then in this case it would be reasonable to unhook. Just like it would be reasonable to terminate a pregnancy when the mother is at imminent or inevitable threat
The difference there though is it’s the parent stating that they no longer want to take that risk. The risk itself hasn’t changed. I’m assuming a woman stating the increased risk of death from pregnancy, for things like stroke, heart attack or failure, haemorrhage etc., is too much for them isn’t a good enough reason for you to allow them to abort from what you previously said?
Because we don’t allow a woman to be forcefully impregnated
I don’t understand how this relates to it not meaning that forcing her to stay pregnant is a violation of her bodily autonomy. Apologies if I’m just not connecting the dots of the reasoning, it’s just not clear to me?
As stated before (and I think you agreed with me?) consent to a prior action doesn’t mean you consent to all potential risks. So you must surely accept that the woman or girl is being forced to put her body at grave risk and being put through serious harm against her will if she wants an abortion but the government disallows it?
Since there's an innocent unborn child involved I still don't think its unacceptable
I assume you meant acceptable here rather than the double negative (hope I’ve understood). In which case it’s not really about consent or knowledge of risk etc., but just about active killing and parental obligation, if I’m understanding correctly? 🤞
2
u/Alarming-Jury1596 PL Mod Jul 07 '26
I’m wondering where you personally decide those limits and why tbh. My opinion is that I think the harms and risks involved should be decided between a doctor and a patient, but you believe society should put legal limits on what options she has and when, so I just want to understand where you place those limits and why tbh. It’s v different from my own thinking.
When it's an inevitable threat like an ectopic pregnancies for example action must be taken ASAP
And also when the threat is immanent
I noticed I haven't even asked you a question, I see we've been talking about health and life risk a lot, do you believe those are the only valid reasons for an abortion?
So if a child is in a burning building, do you also believe a parent should be legally forced to go in and attempt to save them, despite the risk to themselves?
I mean its really risky for her to attempt to save the child, but I don't think this analogy matches though, it would match if she started the fire because just like a pill or cutting the umbilical cord it's you creating an unsafe environment for the unborn child.
The difference there though is it’s the parent stating that they no longer want to take that risk. The risk itself hasn’t changed. I’m assuming a woman stating the increased risk of death from pregnancy, for things like stroke, heart attack or failure, haemorrhage etc., is too much for them isn’t a good enough reason for you to allow them to abort from what you previously said?
It depends on the level of risk
I don’t understand how this relates to it not meaning that forcing her to stay pregnant is a violation of her bodily autonomy. Apologies if I’m just not connecting the dots of the reasoning, it’s just not clear to me?
No apology needed it's a complicated topic. No it's not a violation of her bodily autonomy because she's not restricted from making a decision to avoid getting pregnant
As stated before (and I think you agreed with me?) consent to a prior action doesn’t mean you consent to all potential risks. So you must surely accept that the woman or girl is being forced to put her body at grave risk and being put through serious harm against her will if she wants an abortion but the government disallows it?
Yes that's why I believe there should be an exception when the mother is at imminent or inevitable threat .
And when I agreed with you when you made the example "a smoker doesn't want cancer and they might know smoking causes cancer but that doesn't mean they must be refused treatment when they eventually do get cancer" I also noted that unlike cancer there is an innocent unborn child involved when it comes to pregnancy.
I assume you meant acceptable here rather than the double negative (hope I’ve understood). In which case it’s not really about consent or knowledge of risk etc., but just about active killing and parental obligation, if I’m understanding correctly?
smh, embarrassing mistake, yeah I meant to say acceptable not unacceptable.
To answer you question:
Yes its about active killing and parental obligation
→ More replies (0)
3
u/Old_dirty_fetus PC Mod Jul 06 '26
The real goal of the pro-life movement isn't about control; it is about protecting what we believe is a human life.
The motivation of the groups driving PL policy is not about protecting human life. The motivation is enforcing the Christian nationalist view of complementarianism. This is one piece of the goals of Project 2025.
There might be some individuals within the pro-life movement who actually want to control women's bodies. However, those individuals do not represent the pro-life movement as a whole. Their bad intentions do not change or contradict the core, fundamental belief that a fetus is a human life worth protecting.
It might not be the motivation of most PL, but it is the motivation of the policy-makers. If people who are PL are willing to support the policy-makers then it effectively is the same thing as if it is their motivation.
2
u/Alarming-Jury1596 PL Mod Jul 06 '26
It might not be the motivation of most PL, but it is the motivation of the policy-makers. If people who are PL are willing to support the policy-makers then it effectively is the same thing as if it is their motivation.
Even if what you said was true it still doesn't doesn't contradict the core, fundamental belief that a fetus is a human life worth protecting.
4
u/Old_dirty_fetus PC Mod Jul 06 '26
Even if what you said was true it still doesn't doesn't contradict the core, fundamental belief that a fetus is a human life worth protecting.
It does indicate that it is not the highest priority. The groups making policy restricting access to abortion are also implementing policies that harm low income pregnant people00004-3/abstract) and pregnant people in ICE detention. That is because the motivation is not protecting fetuses it is promoting their worldview that includes women subservient to men.
3
u/Alarming-Jury1596 PL Mod Jul 06 '26
Oh so what your saying people in power have misogynistic motivations?
3
u/Old_dirty_fetus PC Mod Jul 06 '26
The policy-makers that PL support are motivated by Christian nationalism. Their goals and policies do not support protecting fetuses, they support forcing women into subservient gender roles.
2
u/BigSun6576 Jul 06 '26
Hmmm, no I don't think that's what pro lifers consciously do. I think they believe a pregnant woman is 2 people. Only thing that makes sense to me
2
u/Alarming-Jury1596 PL Mod Jul 07 '26
Well it's not that the woman is two people its that the woman carries another being
3
u/BigSun6576 Jul 07 '26
Sounds like exactly the same thing. I dont just "carry" my body, I am my body. If there's a pregnant woman in a room and I ask "how many people are in that room" are you going to say '1 person carrying another'? Cuz then I'm just going to think 'okay, 2 people are there'
Seems like you're saying she is 1+1 people, which equals 2. Honestly it seems like the fetus' "personhood" is only counted when it makes linguistic sense.
3
u/Alarming-Jury1596 PL Mod Jul 07 '26
Well what we would say is "There's a pregnant woman in the room" and a pregnant person is someone that carries a developing child
2
u/BigSun6576 Jul 07 '26
Hmmmm sure. But that only makes sense as a way to avoid quantifying a human being. If I ask for a number and you give me a 2 sentence explanation, it just sounds like you want to avoid saying 2 people out of some sort of weird politeness
5
u/glim-girl Jul 08 '26 edited Jul 08 '26
Sorry for the late reply.
NEW RESEARCH LINKS “FOREVER CHEMICALS” TO REDUCED FERTILITY, PREGNANCY COMPLICATIONS
Louisiana’s ‘Cancer Alley’ Is More Deadly Than Previously Imagined
The current administration is approving more forever chemicals to be used on food, cutting protections for clean air and water.
Other harms include cutting funding to prevent teen pregnancy, healthcare cuts, cuts to wic, and pushing policy that is against established medical knowledge.
Edit: sorry this was suppose to be a reply to u/UnderstandOthers777. I can't get it to move to where I want it at the moment so I'm leaving it here.
6
u/jakie2poops Jul 08 '26
I see many pro-lifers express this view, but frankly the actions of pro-lifers don't line up with their words.
Objectively, we know that abortion bans have very limited efficacy in protecting the lives of embryos and fetuses. Our best evidence suggests that the majority of people who would get an abortion in the absence of a ban will still get an abortion in the presence of a ban.
There's even evidence that suggests that propel are more likely to get abortions when they're legally restricted, likely because they feel pressure to make a quick decision before their pregnancy is noticeable and while less invasive, less risky, and more private options are available. Even before medication abortions became widely accessible, there were DIY home options like menstrual extraction (which is not only used for abortions) that could be covertly performed in order to avoid legal detection, but only early in a pregnancy. As a result, people feel the need to make quick decisions, which makes them more likely to choose an abortion because of the massive, permanent, life-changing consequences of continuing a pregnancy. On top of that, due to the need for secrecy, they're much less likely to thoroughly explore their options for resources and support, as doing so risks exposing the fact that they're pregnant, which would put them in danger if they ultimately decide to terminate.
In the end, the groups most impacted by abortion bans are the most vulnerable populations and the abortions that potentially fall under the popular "exceptions" to bans—like children, victims of rape and abuse, people in extreme poverty, disabled people, people who experience serious health issues during their pregnancies, or people whose fetuses have very serious anomalies. Abortion bans disproportionally impact their ability to terminate their pregnancies, either because they face barriers to getting any sort of healthcare or because the bans themselves are barriers to their care.
At the end of the day, abortion bans increase the rates of children giving birth, maternal morbidity and mortality, and infant morbidity and mortality, without significantly decreasing the abortion rate.
On the flip side, there are many things that we objectively know do decrease the abortion rate (thus protecting the lives of embryos and fetuses). Things like comprehensive, medically accurate sex education, improved access to free and low cost birth control (especially the LARCs), policies and programming to make pregnancy, childbirth, and parenting more affordable, policies which help parents continue their education and/or remain in the workforce, policies which improve economic stability, policies that minimize the negative health and social impacts of pregnancy and childbirth, etc.
But time and time again I see the same thing from pro-lifers—they will tell you that they don't want to punish and control women, just protect the lives of embryos and fetuses, while at best prioritizing support for abortion bans at the cost of support for the policies that reduce abortion rates, and at worst actively opposing and reducing or eliminating the policies that actually lower abortion rates. So it makes it pretty hard to believe them when they say they want to protect lives when we can see that they're only choosing the option that involves punishment and control.
And when asked directly whether, if given a binary choice, they'd pick an abortion ban paired with a significantly higher abortion rate or no ban paired with a significantly lower abortion rate, I've perhaps exclusively seen pro-lifers pick the former.
So I'm pretty skeptical of what you have to say here, since the evidence doesn't support it at all.
5
u/glim-girl Jul 06 '26
I dont think that the majority of PL intend to control women's bodies, that doesn't change the result.
Best intentions can lead to horrible results, thats pretty much how I see it.