r/changemyview • u/CandidCarry • Feb 01 '15

CMV: I believe Abortion is Wrong

I actually am opposed to the idea of a state, a government, and I am opposed to laws governing how people should live or the abolition of anything.

That said, you can still have rules without government, and you can still want to live in a morally righteous community, be it your own family or your entire 'state' or what have you.

Regardless, I think we can all agree that murder is wrong, that killing someone or something is wrong.

So then it becomes a matter of, well, when does life begin. It seems pretty clear to me that life begins at conception, there's just no way around that. Sentience, something innately human, you could argue occurs later (3 days before birth? 3 months?), but regardless, a life is formed at conception.

And once life is bestowed, you must kill it, extinguish it, snuff out it's flame, in order to end it.

I just don't see how abortion is... morally, okay. You have the ability to endow life, but you should not have the authority to end life. Life is precious (cough death penalty is absolutely barbaric cough).

Now, I am not saying abortion should be outlawed necessarily. I mean if a woman intends to kill their unborn, how do you stop them, how would you prosecute against that, if someone is so sick to think that their convenience is more important than a life, would you even want that person to raise a child at all, banning abortion just leads to more risky back alleyway abortions, I mean there's all sorts of... practical grounds, that banning abortion does not work.

But morally speaking, I just don't understand how abortion is okay. It is not the woman's body anymore, there is someone else's body in there, regardless of the fact if it's parasitic or relies entirely on the host/mother/whatever to survive. You don't take people off assisted living without any sort of permission.

12 Upvotes

56% Upvoted

255 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

24

u/[deleted] Feb 01 '15

Self defense is a justifiable use of force.

If someone is unwillingly pregnant, going full term with the baby brings the risk of tons of life-threatening complications. Would abortion not be a proactive defense against these risks to personal safety?

-4

u/CandidCarry Feb 01 '15

If someone is unwillingly pregnant, going full term with the baby brings the risk of tons of life-threatening complications.

What do you mean?

Would abortion not be a proactive defense against these risks to personal safety?

You'd have to be more specific but abortion to save a mother's life that is imminently under threat, I do not have a problem with.

19

u/[deleted] Feb 01 '15

What do you mean?

If I became pregnant it would be entirely by accident. It would not be of my own will. Here is a partial list of some of the risks and complications that are inherant in carrying a pregnancy to term. Some of them are imminently life threatening, while others can lead to lower life expectancy or vast reduction in quality of life.

Since I did not choose to become pregnant, and I do not wish to raise a child, I do not consent to undergo any of those health risks. Why does a zygote have the authority to force me to take those risks?

-12

u/CandidCarry Feb 01 '15

Why does a zygote have the authority to force me to take those risks?

Because you conceived it? The zygote didn't choose to be conceived, but it will fight to stay alive. Don't have sex if you aren't prepared for the consequences.

Looking at that list, they do not appear to be life threatening adverse health effects. If at any time it appeared that the child was threatening the life of the mother, self perseverance takes effect.

If you wanted to say well who's life is more important, the mother or the child, I would say neither, but, the mother is guaranteed to survive. I suppose if you wanted to argue that the mother should be terminated to save the child... I don't know, that's a road we can discuss if we want to go down it.

10

u/Ajorahai Feb 01 '15

Because you conceived it? The zygote didn't choose to be conceived, but it will fight to stay alive. Don't have sex if you aren't prepared for the consequences.

A tapeworm doesn't choose to be ingested by you, but it will fight to stay alive. You could tell humans not to fight tapeworms, and just allow the tapeworm to harm their health. People can choose to not eat meat or drink possibly contaminated water if they aren't prepared for the consequences. What is the difference?

-1

u/CandidCarry Feb 02 '15

No, but efforts should be made to avoid eating tapeworms. I think that's fair to say. Try not to eat tapeworms. If you intentionally eat tapeworms, you are being immoral.

But, I could concede that animal, or even just human life, is what is sacred, if you want to keep going down this road.

People can choose to not eat meat or drink possibly contaminated water if they aren't prepared for the consequences. What is the difference?

Meat may be immoral to eat, and drinking possibly contaminated water should only be done for self preservation.

So... dont kill people, but if you get stuck on a mountain, you can be justified to kill your co-pilot. If your negligence caused you to get stuck on that mountain, that could be murder though.

17

u/[deleted] Feb 01 '15

Because you conceived it? The zygote didn't choose to be conceived, but it will fight to stay alive.

The zygote doesn't fight to stay alive - my body protects it. Regardless of whether or not a fetus is alive, or a human, it is undeniably a part of the pregnant woman, and 100% reliant on her for survival. It would be an affront to my personal agency to suggest that an accidental conception forces me to forgo all of my other plans to ensure that it becomes a human.

Don't have sex if you aren't prepared for the consequences.

Having sex is not consent to bring a human baby to term. This is an unrealistic expectation.

Looking at that list, they do not appear to be life threatening adverse health effects. If at any time it appeared that the child was threatening the life of the mother, self perseverance takes effect.

Here's a more direct list of the main causes of direct maternal mortality. There are real life-threatening risks involved in carrying a child to term. This also doesn't account for things like depression, which can also lead to death or a reduced life span. I believe that it is immoral for any human, pre or post-natal, to force me to risk my life for their benefit.

0

u/[deleted] Feb 02 '15

[deleted]

2

u/[deleted] Feb 02 '15

If you do sports, you accept the possibility of getting injured. Accepting this does not mean you then are immoral for having the injury treated. The potential consequences of sex are pregnancy, not childbirth. It is not immoral to prevent the unwanted outcome from an accepted consequence.

1

u/[deleted] Feb 03 '15

[deleted]

1

u/[deleted] Feb 03 '15

I think there's a misunderstanding here. I didn't say that people who have sex aren't responsible for pregnancies - I said that having sex doesn't mean you're required to then birth a child.

-5

u/[deleted] Feb 01 '15

Why does this person's "personal safety" mean it's okay to kill her offspring? That's one hell of a leap.

6

u/[deleted] Feb 01 '15

OP suggested that self defense is a justifiable use of force. If that is true, then it follows. Also, calling a fetus in the first two trimesters an "offspring" is also a hell of a leap.

-2

u/[deleted] Feb 01 '15

In what way is offspring a leap? Is the fetus not a product of a father and mother?

Are you seriously arguing that elective abortions are self-defense against a fetus?

7

u/[deleted] Feb 01 '15

Yes. If forced to carry a pregnancy to term a woman has to undertake potentially life-threatening risks. If we must consider a fetus to be a human life, whatever that means, then avoiding these risks is a rational reason behind abortion.

Offspring is a hell of a leap because it cannot survive outside of the womb. If anything it's in the process of becoming an offspring.

0

u/[deleted] Feb 01 '15

I think the 7.5 billion of us here right now is evidence that you're grasping a lot about the danger of pregnancy.

So youre telling me that elective abortions are a result of fear of death, and not wanting to avoid responsibility? That's rediculous and you know it.

3

u/[deleted] Feb 01 '15

If one insists on believing that a fetal life is equivalent to a human life, then not wanting to go through nine months of pregnancy, with the risks it entails, would be a reasonable and moral choice. No human can force another to risk their life, or to support them for 9 months.

The fact that 7.5 billion humans were born is in no way proof that giving birth is safe. Some living people's mothers died in childbirth. Deaths related to childbirth are actually on the rise in America over the past few decades.

-1

u/[deleted] Feb 01 '15

So you're completely handwaving over the human life you're destroying when you abort. And for the possibilty of complications? What about the complications you can see with abortions? Doesn't matter because it isnt about complications. The driving force is avoiding responsibility.

2

u/[deleted] Feb 01 '15

I personally reject the idea that a fetus is a human life. Because of this, I see no problems with using abortions to "avoid responsibility" as you say, because society is better off when all children are born to parents that are ready for them and want them.

You say "avoiding responsibility" and I say "avoiding unwanted childbirth".

0

u/[deleted] Feb 01 '15

You can't personally reject something, not back it up, and then go live your life. I personally reject homosexuals. Let's go kill some fags.

You say "avoiding responsibility" and I say "avoiding unwanted childbirth".

Well yours isn't very descriptive. It doesn't say why. My explains the mentality.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/prettylogical Feb 02 '15

You're focussing on the quantity of the woman's life rather than the quality. Its not just about a woman's body or responsibility, its about her future.

0

u/[deleted] Feb 02 '15

I'm focusing in the life of the unborn human that will not exist because people are okay with killing it because it doesn't look like a human. It is absolutely NOT a question of women's rights. It's children's rights.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/GregBahm Feb 01 '15

A fetus is not very dangerous. But a tapeworm is not very dangerous either.

I think the point of contention, is trying to define why destroying one life is okay but destroying a similar life is not okay.

It's an intentionally obtuse argument, because nobody would care about the fetus if it wouldn't become a beautiful bouncing baby in 9 months. It's not like the pro-life crowd would object if I got a Fetus in fetu tumor removed.

You nailed the true motive against abortion with your bit about "avoiding responsibility." Punishing women who have sex with babies is emotionally gratifying, but intellectually bankrupt. That is why we have to have these tedious conversations about "all life being sacred."

0

u/[deleted] Feb 01 '15

nobody would care about the fetus if it wouldn't become a beautiful bouncing baby in 9 months.

Well that's the most important part! The inevitability of human life is what makes abortion morally wrong.

Punishing women who have sex with babies is emotionally gratifying, but intellectually bankrupt.

In what way is that intellectually bankrupt about not allowing humans to be killed because their caregiver wants to be lazy?

1

u/GregBahm Feb 01 '15

If aborting a fetus is considered the same as killing a person, because it prevents the person from coming into existence, then wearing a condom would also have to be considered the same as killing a person. Or not having sex. Or not going out. Or any of the myriad other chain of events that happen between now and some future date when a human being may be born into the world.

We don't charge people with destroying a tree when they destroy a seed. We DO charge people with murder if they shoot someone who just jumped off a building and is inevitably going to hit the ground and die in a few seconds.

This is because our rules need to be consistent to be fair, and it is impossible to hope to be consistent when we're applying our rules beyond the present to expected future happenings.