Anonymous #2 12w

In which case, I would still view abortion as an essential medical procedure in many cases, but would even more heavily favor policies preventing unwanted pregnancies from reaching the point where termination would be a loss of a human life. Any attempts to explicitly ban abortion are very difficult to legislate properly because of the negative impact they have on maternal health care

8

Anonymous amethyst_headphone51 12w

Sometimes procedures classified as abortions don’t even involve fetuses anyway 😭 any living tissue that needs to be vacated from the uterus, including tumors, cysts, or other growths, is classified as an abortion. Why? Because lawmakers don’t know what the fuck they’re talking about and used the most vague terms possible to describe it

2

Anonymous #4 12w

The only correct take

2

Anonymous ireallylikepancakes 12w

Now apply that logic to wealth redistribution.

-2

Anonymous #10 12w

Becoming rich involves removing the financial autonomy of multiple people. Nice try, though.

4

Anonymous ireallylikepancakes 12w

So do taxes lol

-1

Anonymous #10 12w

When the taxer is rich, yes.

1

Anonymous amethyst_headphone51 12w

So is abortion killing a human person?

1

Anonymous ireallylikepancakes 12w

If the fetus is a human person, wouldn’t their right to life take precedent over their mother’s bodily autonomy?

1

Anonymous #11 12w

Not a person

1

Anonymous shrimp_fried_rice 12w

Do you believe in souls?

1

Anonymous #6 12w

When do you believe personhood begins? And once personhood begins, what would be your answer to my original question be?

1

Anonymous #2 12w

Do human persons not have a right to life, which is the primary right from which all others flow?

1

Anonymous #11 12w

Personhood I would argue begins at fetal viability when the fetus can live (mostly) without relying on the mother. Regardless, the woman’s health trumps the fetus in any case. I don’t really care what the circumstances are. If a woman doesn’t want to be a mother, she doesn’t have to. Children shouldn’t be a punishment and idk why yall have that mentality

8

Anonymous #11 12w

Yes. But loss of abortion access results in the deaths of already born women, which we absolutely know are people. If there was some new evidence to indicate that fetuses are fully conscious beings, I would definitely prioritize minimizing abortions as much as possible. But that cannot then result in women dying because they were denied abortion care in cases of miscarriage etc as has happened in several states.

1

Anonymous #2 12w

And I specify new evidence because that is what it would require for me to change my position. I do not believe that a shift in medical consensus would be enough unless it is informed and motivated by some compelling evidence. It wouldn’t be enough for a bunch of doctors to adopt Christian beliefs regarding conception.

1

Anonymous #2 12w

There is the “you wouldn’t force someone to give up an organ” comparison but tbh I have mixed feelings about that. If I believed in fetal personhood I do not think I would find it particularly convincing, given my ethics system is shaped more by utilitarianism (what is the ethical result) than a belief in fundamental rights. I don’t think fetal personhood is plausible for early stages so that isn’t really an issue. And late term abortions are usually due to health complications

1

Anonymous #2 12w

So wouldn’t the goal be to save both persons if possible? If the mother dies, the fetus dies too, as their wellbeing is derivative from the mother. Therefore the mother’s life would take priority, but wouldn’t extend her bodily autonomy to be able to electively end the life of the fetus.

1

Anonymous #6 12w

I think that the emphasis on punishment is really a needed aspect of understanding pro-life policy. If they truly wanted to minimize abortions they’d be encouraging sex ed, condoms everywhere, super easy access to vasectomies and tubal ligations, lots of birth control, etc. But they tend to oppose that too because they’d see it as “encouraging sin.”

13

Anonymous #2 12w

Their policy decisions are seemingly more about pregnancy being a consequence of sex that people must endure, rather than abortion being murder like they claim. If abortion was actually murder, shouldn’t “encouraging sin” be an easy choice to stop babies from dying?

9

Anonymous #2 12w

Yes exactly

1

Anonymous #11 12w

I mean theoretically that’s the case. But that’s not how it plays out legally. In one example, a doctor (I think in either Texas or Georgia) was not able to perform an abortion until the miscarriage underway reached a level of medical severity that would allow the abortion to legally occur. But by that point it was too late and the woman died.

1

Anonymous #2 12w

In another case the doctor was unable to perform the abortion until the fetal heartbeat ceased, by which point the complications caused the woman to die. Miscarriages are common, and trying to legislate when abortion care can occur means that women will not receive adequate care.

1

Anonymous #6 12w

But that’s shifting ethical goalposts. If personhood begins at viability, then after the point of viability it would be wrong to kill that human person as they possess the right to life. How can you say that the elective bodily autonomy of one person trumps the fundamental bodily autonomy of another? And if it’s about the life and health of the mother, then why not have an early delivery instead of an abortion if the baby is viable?

8

Anonymous ireallylikepancakes 12w

Why is it wrong to violate bodily autonomy?

-2

Anonymous ireallylikepancakes 12w

Additionally, where is bodily autonomy? What is it made of?

-2

Anonymous #2 12w

In the second case, how do we know that the mother would have survived if she had terminated the life of her baby? And I don’t know about how the 1st case reached that point legally, as a dead fetus without a heart beat would not be a living person— therefore making a DNC legal.

1

Anonymous #11 12w

It’s not moving the goalpost. It’s me choosing the life of an adult human woman over a human fetus that is not born. I find it a little nuts that you guys care so much for an unborn fetus but not for the child it will become. 1 in 5 children are food insecure yearly in the US. Care about the living children first ☺️

3

Anonymous #11 12w

Because aborting a miscarried fetus is a common medical procedure that usually works????

5

Anonymous #11 12w

Genuine question: do you know anything regarding any medical procedures that women go through when pregnant? Because they’re very important to have knowledge of when talking about pregnancy and abortion

3

Anonymous #11 12w

The fetus wasn’t dead yet. The law allowed for abortions in cases of imminent threat to the mother’s life. Hence the doctor was not able to perform to the abortion until the miscarriage became medically severe enough.

5

Anonymous #2 12w

This goes to show that these attempts to carve out exemptions don’t work. Because legislators aren’t doctors.

4

Comment Deleted

0

“If you do nothing” Yes, because pregnancy is a famously uninvolved process.

1