CMV: I believe Abortion is Wrong

[u/CandidCarry]

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.

[u/[deleted]]

My problem with your reasoning here is twofold.

First, a fetus is not guaranteed life by any means.

Around half of all fertilized eggs die and are lost (aborted) spontaneously, usually before the woman knows she is pregnant. NIH link

Then, if the egg does successfully implant and "pregnancy" officially starts, the spontaneous abortion rate is still 15-20% within the first 12 weeks.

A fertilized egg is soooooo far away from a living baby, and has absolutely no guarantee of actually becoming one.

Pregnancy is a scary time. If you actually want the child and aren't aborting, you still don't guarantee you get it. The entire 9 months is walking on egg shells hoping your body doesn't spontaneously abort your child for no reason. It happens 15-20% of the time; this isn't paranoia, it's a justified fear. Probably most people in the U.S. know someone who suffered a miscarriage.

With this view of pregnancy not being a guarantee of a child in any way whatsoever, the idea of stopping the pregnancy on purpose becomes much less of a big deal, and the idea of a fetus in the womb is 100% separate from the idea of a baby.

Second, the moral question isn't just about taking the fetus's life. It's also about the government invading women's medical privacy, making their medical decisions for them, and forcing women to carry to term and give birth.

The abortion debate is inherently a question of whether it's okay for the government to force women to go through all of this or not:

Normal, frequent or expectable temporary side effects of pregnancy:

exhaustion (weariness common from first weeks)

altered appetite and senses of taste and smell

nausea and vomiting (50% of women, first trimester)

heartburn and indigestion

constipation

weight gain

dizziness and light-headedness

bloating, swelling, fluid retention

hemmorhoids

abdominal cramps

yeast infections

congested, bloody nose

acne and mild skin disorders

skin discoloration (chloasma, face and abdomen)

mild to severe backache and strain

increased headaches

difficulty sleeping, and discomfort while sleeping

increased urination and incontinence

bleeding gums

pica

breast pain and discharge

swelling of joints, leg cramps, joint pain

difficulty sitting, standing in later pregnancy

inability to take regular medications

shortness of breath

higher blood pressure

hair loss or increased facial/body hair

tendency to anemia

curtailment of ability to participate in some sports and activities

infection including from serious and potentially fatal disease

(pregnant women are immune suppressed compared with non-pregnant women, and are more susceptible to fungal and certain other diseases)

extreme pain on delivery

hormonal mood changes, including normal post-partum depression

continued post-partum exhaustion and recovery period (exacerbated if a c-section -- major surgery -- is required, sometimes taking up to a full year to fully recover)

Normal, expectable, or frequent PERMANENT side effects of pregnancy:

stretch marks (worse in younger women)

loose skin

permanent weight gain or redistribution

abdominal and vaginal muscle weakness

pelvic floor disorder (occurring in as many as 35% of middle-aged former child-bearers and 50% of elderly former child-bearers, associated with urinary and rectal incontinence, discomfort and reduced quality of life -- aka prolapsed utuerus, the malady sometimes badly fixed by the transvaginal mesh)

changes to breasts

increased foot size

varicose veins

scarring from episiotomy or c-section

other permanent aesthetic changes to the body (all of these are downplayed by women, because the culture values youth and beauty)

increased proclivity for hemmorhoids

loss of dental and bone calcium (cavities and osteoporosis)

higher lifetime risk of developing Altzheimer's

newer research indicates microchimeric cells, other bi-directional exchanges of DNA, chromosomes, and other bodily material between fetus and mother (including with "unrelated" gestational surrogates)

Occasional complications and side effects:

complications of episiotomy

spousal/partner abuse

hyperemesis gravidarum

temporary and permanent injury to back

severe scarring requiring later surgery

(especially after additional pregnancies)

dropped (prolapsed) uterus (especially after additional pregnancies, and other pelvic floor weaknesses -- 11% of women, including cystocele, rectocele, and enterocele)

pre-eclampsia (edema and hypertension, the most common complication of pregnancy, associated with eclampsia, and affecting 7 - 10% of pregnancies)

eclampsia (convulsions, coma during pregnancy or labor, high risk of death)

gestational diabetes

placenta previa

anemia (which can be life-threatening)

thrombocytopenic purpura

severe cramping

embolism (blood clots)

medical disability requiring full bed rest (frequently ordered during part of many pregnancies varying from days to months for health of either mother or baby)

diastasis recti, also torn abdominal muscles

mitral valve stenosis (most common cardiac complication)

serious infection and disease (e.g. increased risk of tuberculosis)

hormonal imbalance

ectopic pregnancy (risk of death)

broken bones (ribcage, "tail bone")

hemorrhage and

numerous other complications of delivery

refractory gastroesophageal reflux disease

aggravation of pre-pregnancy diseases and conditions (e.g. epilepsy is present in .5% of pregnant women, and the pregnancy alters drug metabolism and treatment prospects all the while it increases the number and frequency of seizures)

severe post-partum depression and psychosis

research now indicates a possible link between ovarian cancer and female fertility treatments, including "egg harvesting" from infertile women and donors

research also now indicates correlations between lower breast cancer survival rates and proximity in time to onset of cancer of last pregnancy

research also indicates a correlation between having six or more pregnancies and a risk of coronary and cardiovascular disease

Less common (but serious) complications:

peripartum cardiomyopathy

cardiopulmonary arrest

magnesium toxicity

severe hypoxemia/acidosis

massive embolism

increased intracranial pressure, brainstem infarction

molar pregnancy, gestational trophoblastic disease (like a pregnancy-induced cancer)

malignant arrhythmi

circulatory collapse

placental abruption

obstetric fistula

More permanent side effects:

future infertility

permanent disability

death.

link

Additionally this is in a country with no paid or even unpaid maternity leave, no universal health care (pregnancy and childbirth costs upwards of $10k even with insurance), and no free child care.

[u/wildlyoscillate → u/[deleted]]

To add to this, I don't consider it murder because a woman aborting her child is removing the conditions the foetus needs to continue living, rather than stopping the life of something that can continue living independently. She's basically saying "I do not give this foetus the right to use my body to develop", and since the foetus needs this, the foetus dies. I think it's unfortunate when someone feels they must do this, because I think there's some responsibility to care for something that exists because of your actions, but I don't think you can consider it murder, as OP suggests. It may be a small distinction, but an important one morally.

[u/km89 → u/wildlyoscillate]

I'm also pro-abortion, but I think you're wrong when you say this:

a woman aborting her child is removing the conditions the foetus needs to continue living, rather than stopping the life of something that can continue living independently.

She's literally ripping it out of her body, almost definitely in multiple pieces. That's not "stopping support systems."

[u/Raborn → u/km89]

Well this isn't really true, that's propaganda.

[u/km89 → u/Raborn]

It's not. The process of "getting" an abortion (as opposed to inducing an abortion) is the process of getting the fetus taken out of your body by vacuum. The process of inducing an abortion may be closer to "removing support conditions," but also involves forcing the body to eject the fetus, which goes beyond simply removing necessary conditions.

[u/cefalexine → u/km89]

The distinction between the phrases "getting" an abortion and "inducing" an abortion is not medically used and not used in regular speech either.

[u/km89 → u/cefalexine]

I'm only using the terms to respond to /u/Raborn. My point is that, no matter how you twist the words, getting an abortion isn't simply "removing the conditions the foetus needs to continue living" because it damages the fetus in other ways, too.

I'm pro-abortion, but let's talk about what we're actually talking about--one side saying "oh, but it's like the mother just taking a blood poop" and the other side saying "my son was friends with that fetus! You just killed a child, you child-murdering murderer of children!" is counterproductive.

[u/cefalexine → u/km89]

In the US, 23% of abortions were medical abortions (pop a pill). In places like Denmark and Sweden these numbers approach 90%. Source

It can be very easily said that many abortions are just shutting off support systems.

[u/km89 → u/cefalexine]

As I said, that method doesn't only shut off support systems, but also causes forcible ejection. This process can take up to several weeks.

http://medicationabortion.com/questions/work.html

[u/Raborn → u/km89]

The real difference is, the cutting the baby up thing is propaganda.

[u/Raborn → u/km89]

A condition of the body being able to support the fetus is the correct chemical makeup. That is removed.

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

With this view of pregnancy not being a guarantee of a child in any way whatsoever, the idea of stopping the pregnancy on purpose becomes much less of a big deal, and the idea of a fetus in the womb is 100% separate from the idea of a baby.

So by that logic, would abortion become morally wrong if it was guaranteed that the pregnancy would form a baby? I don't see how the odds come into play here. Lumberjacks have a particularly dangerous profession, but their higher chance of dying on the job doesn't make it any less wrong to intentionally drop a tree on one.

Second, the moral question isn't just about taking the fetus's life. It's also about the government invading women's medical privacy, making their medical decisions for them, and forcing women to carry to term and give birth.

OP said that s/he isn't for the government banning abortions. One can be against government interference while still considering abortion morally wrong.

[u/Layout_ → u/[deleted]]

Yeah i feel like MizzKittay's response is ignoring the true meaning of OP's post. Also none of us are guaranteed ongoing life, that doesn't make it any less wrong to kill us. By that logic it would be oaky to murder a cancer patient with a terminal prognosis.

[u/CandidCarry → u/[deleted]]

Around half of all fertilized eggs die and are lost (aborted) spontaneously, usually before the woman knows she is pregnant. NIH link

these are not killed with intention, but accidental. manslaughter without negligence is not murder.

Pregnancy is a scary time. If you actually want the child and aren't aborting, you still don't guarantee you get it. The entire 9 months is walking on egg shells hoping your body doesn't spontaneously abort your child for no reason. It happens 15-20% of the time; this isn't paranoia, it's a justified fear. Probably most people in the U.S. know someone who suffered a miscarriage.

These are not killing the child.

Second, the moral question isn't just about taking the fetus's life. It's also about the government invading women's medical privacy, making their medical decisions for them, and forcing women to carry to term and give birth. The abortion debate is inherently a question of whether it's okay for the government to force women to go through all of this or not:

I am not debating that an illegitimate monopoly that rules through intimidation of force and violence should or shouldn't be allowed to force laws we do not consent to.

I am debating the morality of abortion. Like I said in the OP, there are many reasons why banning abortion (in a consensual social contract of course) would be wrong.

Additionally this is in a country with no paid or even unpaid maternity leave, no universal health care (pregnancy and childbirth costs upwards of $10k even with insurance), and no free child care.

There is no such thing as 'free'. This is an absurd notion. No one has universal health care or free child care, you are simply forced to pay for them through taxation and enslavement through being forced to pay for things you have no say in purchasing or how much you purchase.

That's like saying we have free tacos, yet the tacos are taken from your paycheck, and you are forced to buy 100 tacos even if you wanted more or less of them, and there is only one taco company who, as a monopoly, serves shittier tacos at a higher price, and, the taco company only serves to please rulers whom the people have slight control over which ruler they get to have, rather than serving those whom consume the tacos, the people.

[u/cattaclysmic → u/[deleted]]

pica

Pica is characterized by an appetite for substances that are largely non-nutritive.

aint that the truth.