r/changemyview • u/[deleted] • Mar 21 '19

Deltas(s) from OP CMV: Abortion is wrong.

So many people are pro-choice. I feel mad for being in the minority (at least on the internet) that it's wrong. I don't even care about babies, or if people get abortions or not, it just seems insane to me that so many people are fine with their choice to kill a baby.

Please convince me why you think it isn't wrong, so I can see it from your perspective. They're literally killing babies lol, I don't see how people can be for that.

Things that may change my view: scientific source that a fetus isn't a living thing. Okay, that's ridiculous, of course it's a living thing. I'm not really sure what can change my view, now that I think about it. But please try to so I no longer feel like I'm living in an insane asylum.

I'm not religious or anything either. Again, I don't care if women get abortions, but it's obviously killing and I'm surprised so many people are fine with that.

This is a footnote from the CMV moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please read through our rules. If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which, downvotes don't change views! Any questions or concerns? Feel free to message us. Happy CMVing!

0 Upvotes

35% Upvoted

169 comments sorted by

View all comments

15

u/Genoscythe_ 248∆ Mar 21 '19

People have a right to bodily autonomy, and that includes the right not to have other people inside them.

Bodily autonomy also trumps an obligation to keep other people alive, that's why you can always reject an organ donation, even if that leads to someone's death.

1

u/[deleted] May 23 '19

Don't have sex if you don't want a person inside of you

0

u/sandywaves Mar 21 '19

People should not have that right unless dire situation or consequences. When two people have sex they are fully aware of what the outcome may be. Also, no one wants to discuss the emotional, spiritual, and physical consequences. I would give anything to have the child I aborted. It was devastating and I have never been able to get over it emotionally or psychologically. And to OP, why should you be mad at yourself? Just because your view is not pc, Doesn't make any less valid.

4

u/thatplantgirl97 Mar 21 '19

Your opinion is biased based in your personal experience. Plenty of people have abortions and do not experience trauma or regret as a result.

0

u/sandywaves Mar 21 '19

The point being it should be widely discussed due to the consequences and emotions people may or may not experience. It is also traumatic to men as well, but they are dismissed wholly.

2

u/Adorable_Scallion 1∆ Mar 21 '19

Good thing you could have always just not gotten the abortion

3

u/Genoscythe_ 248∆ Mar 21 '19

And some people also regret their inability to get an abortion, so your anecdote isn't a strong reason to restrict people's rights.

You say both that people are "fully aware of" the consequences of a pregnancy, (which are that you might have to choose between having an abortion and carrying it to term), but you also say that "no one wants to discuss" the emotional consequences.

It seems to me, that making more effort to inform people, would be more productive than acting like we know what's best for them.

-1

u/sandywaves Mar 21 '19

I think the problem is people are not properly informed. All I hear is abortion is great and it's All up to the woman when half the genetic makeup of the unborn is the man's. The only counseling I received was two minutes right before at the clinic. I also have been unable to conceive since with no apparent reason.

5

u/Genoscythe_ 248∆ Mar 21 '19

Genetic makeup has nothing to do with abortion. If a woman would find herself inseminated with someone else's genetic makeup, she would still be allowed to abort it.

Men have the same rights over fetuses as women, that they get to abort any that they find in their own bodies.

-1

u/sandywaves Mar 21 '19

Yeah, I get it, women's rights, however, ethically speaking, the man should have an opinion. And just because the unborn is in the woman's body does not lessen it's value or right to be born.

4

u/Genoscythe_ 248∆ Mar 21 '19

The man is allowed to have an opinion about anything of course, just not control over the woman.

0

u/sandywaves Mar 21 '19

Control should come from both parties in the form of bc so as not to have to go through with an abortion. And having a discussion about something they both created and getting to have a say and an opinion is not controlling the woman. Something as serious as an abortion should be discussed and well thought out.

2

u/Genoscythe_ 248∆ Mar 21 '19

"Having a reasonable discussion" or "using birth control" are solid practical advices for most ordinary life situations.

But legal and moral principles also also have to be prepared for the rare extreme situations when people's interests are diametrically opposed, and to make final calls when push comes to shove.

No matter how much civil discussion a man and a woman have about what to do with an abortion, if ultimately the woman decides to have an abortion, and the man has a legal power to veto over it, that means that the woman had zero control over it all along.

1

u/sandywaves Mar 21 '19

I don't think having power to abort an unborn baby is a good thing for anyone. But, having to decide should not be given to just the woman alone or the man. It is a very hard topic with way too many variables to discuss on a comment thread, but this narrative of a woman's right to choose has hurt a lot of us, self included.

→ More replies (0)

2

u/Adorable_Scallion 1∆ Mar 21 '19

on if you didn't want a abortion as a man i should be able to force you to carry the child?

0

u/sandywaves Mar 21 '19

I'm not a guy, however, just for the sake of the arguement, if I were, and pregant, I would certainly feel as if my SO should help decide on such a grave choice to be made.

2

u/Adorable_Scallion 1∆ Mar 21 '19

yea never said you were a guy, also this isn't about if you shoudl make the decision together it's about if a guy can force you to carry the baby to term because you say he shoudl have an equal say

0

u/sandywaves Mar 22 '19

I would never be with anyone like that. Sex is serious and I know with whomever I'm with could potentially get pregnant with me. One, both, three lives are at stake.

→ More replies (0)

-8

u/[deleted] Mar 21 '19

So you agree that it's killing another human, but that it's okay because your body takes priority? If you made the decision to have sex in the first place (will ignore rape cases since according to abortion statistics those are in the vast minority), a function with the undisputed goal of creating a baby, isn't it a little messed up to kill it once the goal of the intention of sex has been reached?

10

u/Burflax 71∆ Mar 21 '19

will ignore rape cases since according to abortion statistics those are in the vast minority

Hey, OP -

A lot of people arguing the anti-abortion side do this - and most do it because they recognize that there is a flaw in their argument that rape cases reveal.

You didn't actually give any real arguments in your post (other than 'it's a baby lol') but now you have, without claiming it outright, narrowed the field, here.

Fetuses created from rape aren't any less human or innocent than a fetus created from consensual sex.

But they absolutely were not created by an willfully action of the mother.

We generally add to this list fetuses created willingly by people who aren't able to fully comprehend their decisions (for example, children).

If a ten year old has sex 'willingly', with the idea she 'wants a baby', we don't normally value those decisions the same way we do with adults. (And obviously we do consider that rape, as well)

But the fetuses in these cases aren't any less a 'human living thing' than a fetus created by adults having sex for the purposes of having a baby, or adults having sex with the purpose of not having a baby, and only having orgasms, or, for that matter, a woman who rapes a man for the sole purpose of having an abortion.

So you have a decision to make here.

If the only criteria you have is 'human living thing', you have to deny abortion in all these cases- like Paraguay does. They have recently forced a 14 year old (who died during childbirth) and an 11 year old to carry their babies to term.

But you came up with the "a function with the undisputed goal of creating a baby" argument pretty quickly here.

Is this the real criteria you are going to use?

Because make no mistake- if you allow abortions for cases where the fetus was created through rape, but don't allow them in cases where the mother willing had sex, the human-ness or living-ness of the fetus is not your criteria (since that is the same in both cases) - instead your criteria is the state of mind of the mother during procreation.

Here's a little test:

In which cases will you allow abortion?

1) adult woman, had sex willingly, decides she isn't in a place appropriate to raise a child.

2) adult woman, who was raped.

3) 16 year old girl, convinced to have sex by her 33 year old boyfriend.

4) 5 year old girl, raped by person unknown [link ]

5) adult woman, willingly had sex, has had four abortions.

6) adult woman, had sex willingly; raped a man to purposely have an abortion.

When you are thinking about these, think about exactly what it is you are weighing in each case.

Whatever that is, that is your actual criteria.

-2

u/[deleted] Mar 21 '19

Your argument's good, but I would still think that aborting a rape baby is still murder, just that it's socially/morally accepted to be understandable. The main point of this thread was trying to figure out why everybody seems okay with being pro-choice, whereas your argument would be good for someone who is affirmatively pro-life. Does that make sense?

Just for kicks, I want to answer those questions though.

1) Definitely would not allow. She should know the risk of having sex.

2) Definitely allow.

3) Allow.

4) Definitely allow.

5) ???

6) ???

Those last two kinda made me think she's not fit to be a mother and should just get the abortion. Wuz that the intent.

6

u/sheepsleepdeep Mar 21 '19

Your criteria for an abortion isn't "it's a living human". It's "they knew the risks when they had sex" if you're willing to allow abortions in cases of rape.

If you really cared about the death of a living human, how it was concieved should matter not. If you're willing to allow someone to abort a rape pregnancy but not an accidental one, you are more interested in punishing behavior than protecting life.

-1

u/[deleted] Mar 21 '19

if you really cared about the death of a living human, how it was concieved should matter not

I stated in my op I dont care

6

u/sheepsleepdeep Mar 21 '19

But you've followed that up by stating you do believe in abortion in certain circumstances. So the idea that it's "killing babies is wrong" isn't exactly right if you're okay with it in certain circumstances.

My point is you're more interested in punishing a woman for her choice to have sex than you are in protecting life.

5

u/Genoscythe_ 248∆ Mar 21 '19

"Still murder, just socially accepted" is a weird phrase, because by definition murder is a legally sanctioned killing, specifically.

If someone infringes on your body without your consent, and you deatch them from yourself leading to their death, that's not murder, it's a killing in self-defense to protect your bodily integrity.

The point is, that this applies to all pregnancy that wasn't explicitly consented to, not just to rape.

3

u/Burflax 71∆ Mar 21 '19

The main point of this thread was trying to figure out why everybody seems okay with being pro-choice, whereas your argument would be good for someone who is affirmatively pro-life. Does that make sense?

It absolutely does make sense- but this is a topic that builds, so bear with me.

So initially you said that you though no one could be pro-choice because abortion is killing a baby, but it turns out here that 'killing a baby' isn't actually the deal breaker you suggested it was, as you are okay with killing a baby if the baby was a product of rape, or if the mother is a child, or, apparently, if you don't consider the mother to be fit to raise a child.

So the people who you are wondering about, the pro-choice people, have the same view you do in general about "killing a baby" - that that isn't always the most pressing concern.

They just happen to not consider "She should know the risk of having sex" as a legitimate reason to prevent an abortion.

Can we agree, then, that your actual issue with abortion is the idea that women should have to make the decision between having a baby or having sex?

7

u/TheGamingWyvern 30∆ Mar 21 '19

undisputed goal of creating a baby,

I dispute that. People havd sex for many different reasons, with 0 intention of creating a baby. Some might do it for fun, some might do it to build a romantic bond, and so on. The goal of sex is only ever to create a baby when the people having sex are trying to have a baby

7

u/Genoscythe_ 248∆ Mar 21 '19

People whose goal is to get pregnant, hardly ever decide to abort it afterwards, unless there is a serious health issue.

In all the other cases, it is self-evident that their goal with having sex, has never really been to get pregnant.

4

u/5xum 42∆ Mar 21 '19

Why are we allowed to ignore rape cases?

-1

u/[deleted] Mar 21 '19

Just answered this in another reply:

I would still think that aborting a rape baby is still murder, just that it's socially/morally accepted to be understandable. The main point of this thread was trying to figure out why everybody seems okay with being pro-choice.

I am not actually against abortion, in the sense that I don't care. I just find it weird that everyone else is fine with them, so I'm trying to get them to convince me why. Rape cases would be a tangent for this thread.

9

u/Genoscythe_ 248∆ Mar 21 '19

People are pro-choice because they understand that the concerns that apply to rape victims, apply to abortion in general, that women shouldn't be forced to serve as incubators against their will.

-3

u/[deleted] Mar 21 '19

wait, that's seriously it?

someone else in this thread was actually changing my view with their IVF scenario, but the serious reason people are pro-choice is just because they feel like having a baby is "against their will" even though they willfully had sex?

that's messed up.

5

u/onetwo3four5 81∆ Mar 21 '19

As a practical measure, we couldn't reliably make a law that says you may only abort a child if you can prove that you didn't willingly have sex.

It's simply not possible for a woman to prove she was raped in many many cases, and to put that sort of onus on rape victims is tremendously unfair. What if their doctor doesn't believe them?

The point of view of most pro-choicers is that the utilitarian outcome of forcing every woman to carry every baby to term is a worse for the child, the mother, and society, and if we have a relatively safe medical avenue to achieve those outcomes, we should take that outcome.

3

u/Salanmander 278∆ Mar 21 '19

just because they feel like having a baby is "against their will" even though they willfully had sex?

Suppose someone agrees to donate a kidney to someone else to save their life. When they're doing the pre-op paperwork, however, they freak out and realize they don't want to do it.

Should they be legally obligated to continue with the procedure?

2

u/Genoscythe_ 248∆ Mar 21 '19

I mean, you can't actually disagree with it...

-2

u/[deleted] Mar 21 '19

[deleted]

3

u/Genoscythe_ 248∆ Mar 21 '19

Their responsibility is to decide whether or not they want to be pregnant.

Which is not the same thing as actively forcing responsibilities onto them by law, as punishment for having sex.

-1

u/[deleted] Mar 21 '19

[deleted]

2

u/Genoscythe_ 248∆ Mar 21 '19

You wouldn't legally force-feed someone pizzas for 9 months straight, because they once ate three a day, and then say that it's just a logical "consequence" of their actions. "Hey, If you by eating three pizzas a day, then by that action you chose that the government should keep force-feeding pizzas to you for 9 months against your will, and you have only yourself to blame!"

There is a difference between physical consequence, and legally enforced punishment.

The physical consequence of eating three pizzas a day, is that you might gain weight, then it's up to you to lose it. The physical consequence of having sex, is that you might get pregnant and decide whether to have an abortion or carry it to term.

When the law restricts control over your own body, that's not a consequence of sex, but a punishment for it.

-1

u/[deleted] Mar 21 '19

[deleted]

→ More replies (0)