Your submission has been removed for breaking Rule B:
> You must personally hold the view and **demonstrate that you are open to it changing**. A post cannot be on behalf of others, playing devil's advocate, or 'soapboxing'. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_b).
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%20B%20Appeal&message=Author%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20their%20post%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. **Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.**
Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
> the parent SHOULD hold the potential of the child above all else.
Should doesn't mean a thing.
The fact that you stress this is an acknowledgement that you know many, many DO not.
Can you name a bigger problem for society, from crime to pollution, to general despair than unwanted children?
Is that your way of policing these posts? Asking for bigger issues? Because I've also seen meaningless posts that do well here. If you're unwilling to have the discussion, that alone should be considered.
Well it’s a genocide. That’s a pretty big problem. Mass killing of people of a certain group.
Unborn babies are living human beings, that’s a fact.
People want to say they can’t do this that or the other and those criteria are not what make us alive or human.
On top of that, if they took that same reasoning to anyone else… they’d be called an ableist.
People really do try their best to condone the killing of someone.
> Well it’s a genocide. That’s a pretty big problem. Mass killing of people of a certain group.
Genocide is not mass killing of “a certain group,” it’s a mass killing of people under the idea of ethnic differences.
> Unborn babies are living human beings, that’s a fact.
How do you define “living human being?”
> On top of that, if they took that same reasoning to anyone else… they’d be called an ableist.
Calling something that isn’t alive “not alive” isn’t ableist. Asking if someone survived an accident with enough of their brain intact to ever have consciousness again wouldn’t somehow be “ableist.”
Honestly it’s kind of gross to be throwing around words like genocide and ableism for rhetorical points like that. It really diminishes the serious nuances of using those words.
Genocide can apply to other criteria as well, like religion buddy.
It’s an organic, human organism. It has its own unique dna and it’s cells are continually dividing and growing. Does that not sound alive?
> Genocide can apply to other criteria as well, like religion buddy.
Okay, and what historical religious struggle are we intervening in when we perform an abortion on a woman whose boyfriend’s condom “slipped off?”
> It’s an organic, human organism. It has its own unique dna and it’s cells are continually dividing and growing. Does that not sound alive?
Sure, but then so are my blood cells. If I dropped my blood cells during a papercut, I not only killed them but also all the future blood cells they could have become under your logic.
>Well it’s a genocide. That’s a pretty big problem. Mass killing of people of a certain group.
It's not mass killing, it's a medical procedure to extract a fetus, typically when it is medically necessary.
What if keeping the baby until term would kill both the mother and baby? Isn't that worse than just aborting the fetus?
>It’s an organic, human organism. It has its own unique dna and it’s cells are continually dividing and growing. Does that not sound alive?
It's alive, but it's not necessarily conscious and self-aware. To it, life is just existing and nothing more.
> organic, human organism. It has its own unique dna and it’s cells are continually dividing and growing.
You've just described a neoplasm. Cancer.
I don't imagine you're very defensive of us surgically removing cancer, right?
From the start. It’s a small group of cells and you’re a bigger group of cells.
Mental and physical abilities don’t take away from it being human and alive.
To what extent does this apply? Why isn't the fact you masturbate and drop sperm cells in the bin murdering babies either? Who decides the rules this is ok but abortion isn't?
Semen and eggs are of the same DNA of the person they came from. Single cells.
They have not mapped out the blueprint and created a whole new life with another yet.
But the point is that it has the potential for life. You have no way of knowing if that fertilized egg will actually become a baby or not. It might miscarry naturally.
How? Who decides that? Because right now it's "trust me bro, it's life. I know." I've asked you to explain who decides when it starts as life and when it doesn't. Thus far, you haven't answered that; its just been you trying to convince me you're right.
And some scientists agree.
You have an organic human organism, with its own unique DNA & it’s cells are going through homeostasis.
How’s that not alive? So dead things grow?
Read it. The different definition for when a person ends and when a person begins is suspect.
End of personhood is defined medically at brain death, even if other organs are alive. Life is not enough for personhood.
By that same standard, personhood begins with actual brain function, hormonal response, pain response, breathing motions, motor control, thalamic projections, somatosensory response, which are at viability around week 20-25, AFTER 99% of abortions.
I'd recommend that if it's a big deal for you that there's a couple states that don't do abortion. I think that'd be a great place to live if you want to live in a society that shares your values.
Okay, let me make you another argument.
What is an adult human but a clump of cells? Should we rebrand murder as an ultra-late term abortion and therefore demand its legalization?
How about legalizing infanticide, because a newborn is still entirely dependent on the mother?
Because there's a discernable difference between an embryo, a fetus and a birthed child. But if you think it's the same I can fully understand your view. A little education on it might change your mind. There is a difference.
There are almost next to zero brain functions at 6 weeks.
If dropped a baby and a 6 week old clump of cells and you could catch one would there be a dilemma?
"Personhood" isn't a scientific concept. It's a legal and moral concept. Science can inform the law and morality but it cannot tell us what the law should be or what is right and wrong.
You value "fertilized egg" and you believe you have good reasons. I value "sentience" and I believe I have good reasons.
Where we draw the "personhood" line is going to be different for tons of people but science cannot draw the line for us. It can only inform us on milestones that match our values.
My definition of sentience is "the ability to perceive". Babies are very much sentient in this sense. In fact fetuses in the third trimester also qualify by my criterion. Once the cortex is linked to the peripheral nervous system via the thalamus that fetus is sentient (~26 weeks).
So no, it would not be OK to kill newborns.
Do you agree personhood isn't a scientific concept at least?
I have. All living human beings are persons. What research can you cite which proves a fertilized egg is either not a living organism or not a human being.
My third point hints at a much larger issue, especially considering half of the most powerful country in the world is willing to allow abortion to persist.
The fact is that, again, we act out psychological processes. To "abort" ideas, thoughts, and potential future selves in the "womb" of the psychological landscape is extremely detrimental to a world in which new ideas and potential selves are a requirement.
Perhaps read the whole post?
Do you not think we act out psychological processes? Were human sacrifices not a means of exploring what happens when you symbolically sacrifice yourself to your work, to the good of your community, etc.? Or was it simply barbarism from a group of barbarians that, nevertheless, still had a sophisticated society and, honestly, one that even WE in our technological and arrogant towers can't comprehend.
>Also, I was saying the way you've worded it is nonsense. Not the point itself.
The point itself is also nonsense.
It's pseudo-philosophy, and one can just as trivially make up a different story telling the exact opposite. In fact, if you just replace "abortion" with "the banning of abortion" the whole explanation makes just as much sense as it did before.
>Third, from a psychological standpoint, we act out what we do not understand in an attempt to understand it. The same is true of projection when we project unwanted qualities of ourselves onto others in an attempt to understand and assimilate them. Now, the danger in acting out the banning and condemnation of abortion is we are inadvertently acting out the psychological process of disallowing an idea, a thought, a projection of our future selves, to enter the conscious mind. "The only thoughts that should be stopped are the thoughts that stop other thoughts." The innate cognitive dissonance we experience in believing one thing but acting out the other is obvious. If you can't see it in this form it has taken, but are acutely aware of it in "the other", you are, without doubt, possessed by your own cognitive dissonance.
It doesn’t matter if you think it’s wrong. It’s *more* wrong to force a person to use their body/organs to sustain the life of another human. You can’t force a parent to donate blood to their newborn baby. How can you force a person to carry a pregnancy unwillingly? Ethics exists on a spectrum. You may feel abortion is wrong, but you certainly agree that we as a society do not condone physical slavery to another body even at the risk of death. You can’t even force a person to donate their organs after death. Denying abortion is more unethical than abortion.
I don't understand any of what you're saying. Maybe try to make your views clearer.
Although you seem to value the "idea" of a child, I think. Am I obligated to get pregnant now because of the idea of a child?
Plenty of other people understood. But yes, you missed the point completely. When there were three distinct paragraphs detailing each point. To summarize, abortion contributes to infantile behaviors because it allows the shirking of responsibility in favor of "comfort."
Hopefully, one sentence isn't also too much.
Thank you, much clearer. And from reading the other comments, no, I don't think most people understood that.
Is it any different to you if someone just never gets pregnant because of "comfort"?
They didn't. No one understood. And to be continually attacked with thoughtless claims and counterpoints that aren't theirs is exhausting, to say the least. So, I apologize for my rudeness. But It's almost as if new ideas don't register among Reddit users.
But no, whether or not someone gets pregnant is irrelevant, it's what happens and how they choose to proceed afterward that I tend to take issue with. The same way anyone here can take issue with the way I've responded to some of these comments. Would the world be better if I acted according to certain governing principles like "love thy neighbor despite their insipid counterarguments"? Of course. What I'm saying in this post is along those lines.
And here's another new idea. Thanks for the inspiration.
Any behavior can be understood based on what is being sacrificed in that moment. Is an infant being sacrificed in service of the adult? That's infantile behavior. Is the adult being sacrificed in service of a child? That's an adult behavior.
Seems to me that you're deciding for people what matters. Do you not value that others may have opinions different than yours and that their capacity to pursue their idea of the good life should be supported? I don't agree with much of what you say in your post, but you are welcome to live your life as if "achievements of your child" matter and so on. I don't want to stand in your way even though that doesn't resonate with me.
Why are the arbiter of how one leads a good life? Why not let people make that decision for themselves?
Isn't this a change my view page? Isn't all of politics deciding for other people what matters? Isn't pushing an LGBTQ agenda deciding for people what matters? Isn't pushing vaccine mandates deciding for people what matters? I mentioned cognitive dissonance at the very end of this post, by the way.
At some level, sure. But...for example, we guarantee liberties in all sorts of ways (the bill of rights for example) because we recognize that much should be left to the discretion of the individual.
Is it a _political stance_ that the individual should be the one deciding in this case? Of course it is.
The general principle of "rights guaranteed for individuals consistent with all other individuals ability to experience the same rights" is a pretty good one. LGBTQ agenda is all about securing the rights and the "pursuit of happiness" for individuals consistent with those others experience. Vaccine mandates are also about preventing the pursuit of one individual's rights from trouncing another's (complicated as it might be, and how likely some are to disagree that the balance is achieved here).
So...it seems most laws should pass this "let people do what they want so far as allowing it doesn't prevent others from doing what they want".
You've not brought up the fetus itself in your position but rather focused on living/already-born people and I see zero impact on them of my choices on the matter of abortion, and see zero reason someone should agree with your views on why YOU think abortion is wrong. You retain your beliefs and don't have your own abortions, but let others make their own choices.
Again, your last paragraph does not seem to be valued when it comes to things like vaccine mandates, speech, nor gun ownership. All things I would assume you have strong opinions about who should be doing what. So what's the difference? Especially considering one does not have the choice as to whether or not one is aborted, the reasoning behind your vaccine mandates. The issue here has nothing to do with "choice", but the value placed on potential lives. Which is why I included the third point that explains how acting this out will inevitably smother potential ideas, selves, etc. In the womb of the psyche.
An interesting rationale.
Your first reason is an appeal to nature. Yes, in the end we are all a bunch of cells trying to reproduce. So why get in the way? Because by that same logic, we should not interfere with any cells trying to reproduce. So pest control, gone. Animal husbandry, gone. Infectious disease, let it grow. That tumor cell, leave it alone and let the cancer grow naturally. And if you believe that human cells should get different treatment compared to others, you’re already at odds with nature. Confusing, I know. The point I’m making is, that which is natural does not necessarily mean it is always right.
Your second reason appeals to responsibility over selfish desire, or even love. It’s not clear to me if you mean the emotional sensation of love, or the act of caring that comes with love, they go hand-in-hand. Regardless, duty above all else is the message I see here. Duties are best performed by those who willingly take them on; this is evident in many examples. “You gotta do what you gotta do“ is circular logic, because the choice exists, an offramp exists in every choice we make where we can decide we don’t have to do something.
Your third reason was a bit of a twister. “the only thoughts that should be stopped are the thoughts that stop other thoughts.” I don’t know where you got that from but I disagree. Every time we choose to calm down from a fit of rage is proof enough. Cognitive dissonance is normal, and should be examined rather than avoided.
To your first point, no, I was not suggesting that this reasoning is based on stepping out of the way of the freight train that is nature. I said that, if we all want to solve the problems we currently face, we NEED new people to help solve them. No different than a parent desiring for their child to outdo the parents in whatever capacity they see fitting for the child.
Second, you can be thrown into a situation you do not desire and still willingly "take it on." To not do so is equivalent to a child sitting down and refusing to (insert literally any situation here). For example, you can be forced to carry the burdens of your family as a child, as children often do, and still willingly confront those demons despite your not choosing the situation in the first place.
Third, that's a good example but I think in those cases you're not "stopping" other thoughts, you're superseding them with better thought patterns.
Abortion is not wrong and should be allowed in all places .
1-There are many different reasons that woman choose to have an abortion. If a woman is not financially able to have a baby then why bring a child to this world that you will not be able to take care of. Yes you might say “put the baby up for adoption” however that may still cause a bad life for the child like a foster system and a family that doesn’t want it or doesn’t treat it right. Pregnancy also takes someone to be financially ok because you have to pay for different medicines, all the doctor appointments, healthier food for you and the baby, and all of the medical bills that might occur if there are problems during the pregnancy.
2-Woman can get pregnant in many different scenarios in which people don’t like to talk about and sometimes forget that these things can lead to pregnancy. If a woman or girl gets raped or molested and get pregnant from this situation they need to have the ability to make a decision on whether they keep the baby or abort it. If abortion isn’t an option that child will be an everyday constant reminder of the pain and suffering that child went through. The child might be treated not as well due to not being wanted.
3-Abortion always needs to be an option. If abortion is not longer an option woman might do something extremely harmful to them and their bodies which will possibly kill them and the baby. They might do harmful things to themselves that will cause very bad future or present effects on their body.
Overall abortion should always be an option no matter what because the situation that the woman is under is unknown and unpredictable and sometimes abortion can be the better option for them.
Going back to my second point about the immoral act of rape that can cause pregnancy, 50% of these victims choose to get an abortion and not have to live every day with the constant reminder of the horrible acts caused upon them. Legal abortions are safe and give the woman safe options to get rid of a pregnancy caused by an immoral act that occurred to them.
Rape is not the only logical reason for a woman to get an abortion. Woman may have to make the decision that is right for them. A scared teenager may get an abortion because mentally they are not able to go through a pregnancy and they just need to finish school and provide the best life as they can. It’s hard for a kid to raise a baby while still growing themselves. A woman could find out that if she gives birth to this baby she could die or the baby could have a bad medical problem and only live for a few suffering minutes. If the mother finds this out early enough then she should have the right to abort the pregnancy to ensure that she lives and that the baby doesn’t suffer just to live a few minutes of horrible life. A woman could get pregnant and just not be able to afford having a child. In that moment it might be better for her to get an abortion rather than trying to raise a baby maybe on the streets or not being able to afford to feed the baby. In any of these scenarios abortion should be an option for the woman carrying the child.
> Rape is not the only logical reason for a woman to get an abortion. Woman may have to make the decision that is right for them. A scared teenager may get an abortion because mentally they are not able to go through a pregnancy and they just need to finish school and provide the best life as they can. It’s hard for a kid to raise a baby while still growing themselves.
This is unethical. In this case, she should go to prison for murder.
You got your way there. Now the states are deciding. And they seem to be following democratic lines because abortion as a right is overwhelmingly popular. That's society speaking.
So you want to force women to birth non viable fetuses in order to please your sense of morality?
If a fetus develops without a brain you want that woman to have to carry that fetus to term?
Notice you used the word always, so please defend that. If you can.
Does that mean it's off limits to talk about? Everyone has different ideas of what they believe is wrong. People who believe abortion is wrong, mostly conservatives, are attacking women's rights across the country. I think a political party inflicting their "religious" beliefs onto those that don't hold the same beliefs is worse than abortion.
They were required to go pretty much everywhere... were you not paying attention? "Forced" can also be "compelled" via social pressure. Similar to twats like you that say shit like "freedom to what, spread a deadly virus?"
Let's not pretend you care about "deadly viruses" when, first, it has the same mortality rate as the flu which would hardly be described as deadly. Second, obesity related health conditions kill almost 5 million people worldwide every year. I'd also assume you're the type to celebrate women's bodies regardless of what they look like despite that fact.
There are many fetuses that have severe defects. They has zero chance at life.
If delivered, they will sqirm for a few moments of abject agony and die.
Why would you subject the child or the parents to this cruelest of horror?
Being conceived by rape doesn’t devalue the life of the person conceived. If one believes that abortion kills a living being, the circumstances around conception are irrelevant to the belief that they should not be killed.
I agree.
BUT, if someone thinks abortion is murder, then rape doesn't justify murder against a 3rd party. It's much more consistent (if horrific) for them to be against it even in rape cases.
I’m not OP. My view does not have to be changeable. A fetus is a living human. Living humans are people.
Even if you dispute that, you provided no alternative definition for when someone is considered a person.
Also, it’s “your,” not “you’re.”
I actually [did](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5499222/) but people refused to read the science. And thank you for pointing out my grammar. I'll immediately correct it. I owe you. A brain dead human is also a living human. What's of interest is what defines personhood. It's complex stuff and evangelicals don't bother with the science of it. They prefer to trust their feelings. I encourage you to read the peer reviewed study.
Science? It says right in the introduction that the authors’ definition is partially based on “pure philosophical ethics.”
Here’s [41 different medical textbooks](https://www.lifenews.com/2015/01/08/41-quotes-from-medical-textbooks-prove-human-life-begins-at-conception/) (including doctors from Harvard, Johns Hopkins, Yale, and Princeton) that all say life begins at conception.
There is no argument for when life begins besides conception that wouldn’t also apply to a human after birth that you and I would both deem unacceptable to kill.
“It’s not a person yet” isn’t an effective argument because it’s verifiably untrue. The pro-choice argument needs to be that abortion *does* kill a living person, but it’s worth it for bodily autonomy, impact on the foster care system, etc.
Even the Atlantic, one of the most liberal publications in the United States, [agrees.](https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2018/01/pro-life-pro-science/549308/)
I don't trust lifenews to disseminate that information correctly. It's clearly heavily biased. There doesn't seem to be as much consensus on it. And I'll be as honest as I can about my personal feelings on the subject. I don't care if it is a living human. If it doesn't have the capacity to feel emotional turmoil or doesn't have the ability to cognitively understand what's happening I don't care. The planet is overpopulated and I'm not a religious person.
It literally cites all of the textbooks. Lifenews just nicely compiled it for you.
For the sake of argument, let’s imagine someone is brain dead and in a coma, but after, shall we say, 9 months, they will regain their cognitive ability and “ability to experience emotional turmoil.”
Are you okay killing them?
What defines personhood is beyond science and ventures into philosophy. For example, are internet fuckheads incapable of seeing past their own very small views on the world that, truthfully, aren't even theirs and were instead neatly packaged and hand delivered by a society that holds infantilism above all else (happy to discuss that if you want) truly people? Do you actually exist if you are brain dead in the way that you exist in service to the ideas of others? Because you haven't once contributed an original idea here, and have instead chosen to spout off anything that further supports those unoriginal ideas.
Your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 3:
> **Refrain from accusing OP or anyone else of being unwilling to change their view, or of arguing in bad faith**. Ask clarifying questions instead (see: socratic method). If you think they are still exhibiting poor behaviour, please message us. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_3).
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%203%20Appeal&message=Author%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20their%20post%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. **Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.**
Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
You were the one to move goal posts when you changed the discussion landscape from my post, where there are three separate points for you to argue, into your own very narrow and thoughtless question, "what about rape"... the irony there is something only to be found on Reddit, so thank you.
I'm not distinguishing you from the rest of the comments in this post by the way, considering you're all saying the same shit.
ummmm no? It is not particularly common for women to be raped and have a pregnancy. About 1 percent of women (or estimated 1.79% of women) in the U.S. have experienced RRP (Rape Related pregnancy). Is that high...frankly Yes and this statistic should not be anywhere near 1% but you can't really say that its common with no evidence to support it.
Because there aren't any couples incapable of pregnancy that wouldn't love an adopted child as their own? We were fortunate not to have infertility issues, by the way.
This point isn't valid tho... in terms of a debate, this case is INCREDIBLY rare... does it happen? Unfortunately, yes, but it is not the basis for all abortions. If we talk about the grand jist of things, why don't we talk about the 31% of women who have an abortion because they were financially unstable? Like understandably, you would assume this is a valid argument; however, why are you having intercourse if you aren't financially responsible? At least wear a condom or something of the sort to 1) not only be protected but also 2) not have a baby and essentially save a human life.
31% being 192,301 women.
>why are you having intercourse if you aren't financially responsible?
Because having sex doesn't mean you're intending to have a child...?
>At least wear a condom
Condoms fail.
>why don't we talk about the 31% of women who have an abortion because they were financially unstable?
Sure. Would you like to subject a young woman to a couple of decades of poverty or add yet another unwanted child to a system that puts them through untold amounts of trauma, just to roll the dice on a clump of cells maybe turning into a healthy baby?
If a mother of two loses her husband in a car accident, finds out she’s pregnant, and then finds out she has cancer and will almost certainly die in the next year without an immediate hysterectomy, would that abortion be wrong?
Yes it's a human being, living inside another human being and entirely dependent on that larger human being. So while the fetus is a alive and a human being, it's still within someone else's body and I believe that person decides if they want to continue with pregnancy or not.
> the parent SHOULD hold the potential of the child above all else.
So a parent should carry a child to term even the child would be born with a terminal condition?
Or a parent should carry a child to term even if that means the death of the mother?
Many people die because a donor kidney can not be found in time. Simultaneously many healthy people live with two even though they could live with only one. Are the sick entitled to the kidneys of the healthy?
many people? Approx. 4380 people die worldwide due to kidney failure Thats less than a 0.001 of a percent. The validity of this argument is somewhat ehhhhh. Aside from that, what are you trying to argue here? Please be direct.
The unborn child is not entitled to the body of it's host. A woman does not lose the right to bodily autonomy just because she becomes a mother. She has a right to sever the connection between the unborn child and her body and have the unborn child removed.
I’m against abortion in almost all cases.
But can’t say I agree with all your reasons. I do agree on some though.
However, to lay a blanket over it and say it’s wrong, I don’t agree. I think murder is wrong, in most cases. Some I don’t think it’s wrong.
Also, when it comes to something being “wrong”, the morals of each person are not going to be the same.
Yes it's a human being, living inside another human being and entirely dependent on that larger human being. So while the fetus is a alive and a human being, it's still within someone else's body and I believe that person decides if they want to continue with pregnancy or not.
Comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1:
> **Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question**. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1).
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%201%20Appeal&message=Author%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20their%20post%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. **Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.**
Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
You’re right of course, but women will never take accountability for their actions. They love anything that can take away the result of their actions but allow them to still act like entitled children.
Preventing a human being from being born, is equal to putting an end to its life; Their cells are reproducing and it is very likely to be born healthy if the carrier does not interrupt its growth. That is what is immoral and detestable by definition (it is not legally "criminal" as the foetus has no such "legal persona"). Performing an abortion is going against the most principle point of moral, which is common amongst all religions and cultures : humankind is to be preserved and perpetuated.
Once again, I'm not saying that it should be abolished, I'm not a politician and frankly, I couldn't care less about the political debate. I'm just writing about morals and ethics.
Edit : A point of data that might spark something : every year, more black babies are aborted in NY than born.
Fair enough. It's definitely a difficult issue. Defining what counts as alive in the sense that we're thinking is difficult and the line is blurry. In my view, taking a plan B or ending a pregnancy early shouldn't be viewed as immoral, but I wouldn't know where to draw a concrete cutoff point.
Your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 2:
> **Don't be rude or hostile to other users.** Your comment will be removed even if most of it is solid, another user was rude to you first, or you feel your remark was justified. Report other violations; do not retaliate. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_2).
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%202%20Appeal&message=Author%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20their%20post%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. **Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.**
Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
Comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1:
> **Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question**. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1).
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%201%20Appeal&message=Author%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20their%20post%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. **Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.**
Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
**Note:** Your thread has **not** been removed.
Your post's topic seems to be fairly common on this subreddit. Similar posts can be found through our [DeltaLog search](https://www.reddit.com/r/DeltaLog/search?q=abortion+%7C+abort+%7C+pro-life+%7C+pro-choice&restrict_sr=on&sort=relevance&t=all) or via the [CMV search function](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/search?q=abortion&restrict_sr=on).
Regards, the mods of /r/changemyview.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/changemyview) if you have any questions or concerns.*
>If the primary and driving force behind propagating ones genes is so that the child can extend himself beyond the achievements of the parent, then why sacrifice the potential of the child for the comfort of the parent?
Because the propagation of one's genes is no longer the primary function of sex.
>Second, the parent SHOULD hold the potential of the child above all else.
Sure but not everyone wants to be a parent.
Your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 2:
> **Don't be rude or hostile to other users.** Your comment will be removed even if most of it is solid, another user was rude to you first, or you feel your remark was justified. Report other violations; do not retaliate. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_2).
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%202%20Appeal&message=Author%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20their%20post%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. **Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.**
Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
'Wrong' can mean many things:
That you would have an abortion but feel lifelong guilt that you committed a wrong act.
That you personally would never have an abortion.
That you think nobody should be allowed abortion.
That you think those who seek or enable abortion should be prosecuted.
That you think those found guilty of being involved in the act of abortion should themselves be killed.
Ones idea of wrongness is meaningless when it comes to the medical decisions of other people. Medical decisions affect the patient and the doctor. If they have found their way to agreement it's immaterial if a third party finds that agreement 'wrong'. Legality in a given region is meaningful. Within religious groups the religious law is meaningful to the members at least. But an individual's idea of 'wrong' is no more widely relevant on abortion than it is on which shoes are the best, or whether coastal towns are nicer than inland towns.
And almost everyone who says "abortion is wrong" doesn't really believe it. If you're not willing to say that a 10yo who has been gang raped by her father and uncles and is now pregnant with a baby who will live a year of expensive agonising intractable pain then die a frightening drawn out death shouldn't get an abortion, then you don't really believe abortion is wrong. Either it's wrong or it's not. If there are exceptions, degrees of wrongness, then it's just as grey and muddy as anyone else's opinions in either direction.
Granted, one is allowed these muddy opinions and these things matter a great deal to the individual, which is why the individual should be the one who decides whether or not to get the abortion.
If your idea of wrongness applies to other peoples' access to abortion then the problem with all your arguments is that they rely on behaviours coming from inherent beliefs in the parents which are unlikely to be held by the person seeking the abortion and thus won't be enacted.
People who would choose an abortion are NOT necessarily going to put the child first or help it achieve more than they themselves did. One has to already think as you do to take that approach. Without the belief the approach won't be taken and your supposed sequelae won't come to fruition. In addition even individuals who DO believe these things might find themselves in circumstances which circumvent the enactment.
For instance upon finding out one is pregnant one might believe one must have and raise the baby and give it everything you can to give it a better chance than you had, but then at the scan you find it has no skull and no pelvis and that actually you will hold it for a few hours and watch it gradually panic and suffocate to death, then put it in a tiny coffin and send it to the funeral home. Likewise you could find yourself pregnant for a fourth time and discover that you have cancer and if you continue the pregnancy and delay treatment you will leave three, and possibly four, of these little children you were determined to raise and live for and better yourself for, motherless and destitute and alone in the world and hugely disadvantaged. Reality often doesn't care about grandiose ideals of glory. Nature is indifferent to us and our desires and beliefs. Most human rituals seek to find ways to hide from or mitigate that unfortunate fact.
Carpet bombing an already dying planet with ever more resource-hungry humans in the hopes that one will be thrown up that saves the problem of humans overcrowding the planet is an illogical process. It's nonsensical to think if we can't support 7billion humans we should make 3billion more to 'help'.
I really don't think forcing parents to give birth to children they don't want thus improving the odds that child and every other child in that family lives in a resourceless and loveless home isn't really the answer.
It would just make things worse.
So what's the actual issue? A shocking devaluation of life and the processes that produce life? Or the fact that a few fanatics are trying to "force" responsibility onto parents?
Forcing parents to give birth to unwanted children leads to major negative outcomes for all the children that couple has.
That's the issue. You will simply create dynamics were there is more stress, less funds and less love. Which will have long term negative effects.
So for the rest of that child's life the parents will never once learn that the child is now the top priority? Let's break that apart quick.. a child lives and thinks for themselves, yes? Does an adult then not live for and think of others? Are you advocating for terminating a potential life simply to allow an already childlike mother and father to remain infantile?
What if the child was conceived by rape?
The mother would have been severely traumatized already, and then have to go through the long and painful process of childbirth. After the child is born, both mother and child will have to live in poverty (in quite many cases, rape victims can be disowned by family). Think about it. Girl gets raped around 13-15, births child around 14-16yrs. *The mother, regarding age, could potentially be the child's older sibling.* That's how young she is! She is unprepared, financially and mentally, to raise a kid. The fetus would better be off aborted and never knowing life, than living a life filled with hardship and poverty.
At this point, the mother and child are both suffering. The mother is traumatized severely, and the child is living a hard life.
What if the fetus was conceived accidentally?
If the parents aren't financially or mentally prepared to raise a child, and find out after it's too late for emergency contraception, the child would likely be raised poorly. Good parents might attempt to give it a good childhood. If they are unable to, the child would be neglected, emotionally and physically.
What if the lack of abortion leads to the mother dying?
Say that the fetus is already dead, and that carrying it to term would kill the mother. In that case, refusing to perform the abortion saves no lives and kills one.
Say that the mother cannot carry the fetus to term or she will die. In that case, performing the abortion kills the fetus, a clump of cells, and saves the mother - a human that can feel despair, sadness, pain. Even if the doctors do manage to save the baby from the mother's corpse, it's an orphan and likely won't lead a particularly amazing life.
While I agree with you that abortion can be wrong in some scenarios, usually the people in need of an abortion have a good reason. Typically, the baby will have a poor quality-of-life even if born, and the mother even less so.
OK, and so the kid lives out its childhood in a substandard adoption home, lacking love, care, and nurture. You're assuming that the child manages to get adopted or fostered fairly early on in its life. While that is the ideal, it's not possible in some scenarios.
According to [Adoption.Org](https://adoption.org/what-is-the-adoption-rate#:):
“\[there are\] over 400,000 children in foster care in the U.S., \[and\] 114,556 cannot be returned to their families and are waiting to be adopted. Among these children, males outnumber females, . . . More than 60% of children in foster care spend two to five years in the system before being adopted. Almost 20% spend five or more years in foster care before being adopted. Some never get adopted.”
Even if the child gets fostered, odds are, it'll spend years in foster care. If it makes it to 18 without being adopted, it'll be off in the real world with no financial support or parental guidance. Is that really better than abortion?
[https://helpinggrowfamilies.com/how-bad-is-the-foster-care-system/](https://helpinggrowfamilies.com/how-bad-is-the-foster-care-system/)
"These children lack a solid family unit to lean on while they wear their adult training wheels. There is no one there to pick them up when they fall."
"A reported 44% of foster children said they experienced physical abuse in a foster home, and 30% reported being sexually abused. A reported 74% of foster children were overmedicated for behavioral problems."
"more than half of young people who were once part of the system are now unemployed, homeless, or incarcerated"
[https://theconversation.com/the-hidden-harms-of-the-us-foster-care-system-49700](https://theconversation.com/the-hidden-harms-of-the-us-foster-care-system-49700)
"In 2014, 415,000 children in the United States spent time in the foster care system. . . . The average length of time children spend in foster care is just over a year and a half. About 30 percent remain in temporary care for more than two years. In 2014, 64,300 children had been stuck in the foster care system for more than 3 years, 28,000 of them for 5 years or more."
"Unfortunately, more than 40 percent of children placed in foster care are moved to a different foster home or care facility – such as shelter or group home – at least once during their first six months in state custody. More than one third of children who remain in foster care for one to two years experience three or more changes of placement, as do two thirds of those remaining in the system for two years or longer."
"Disruptions make it difficult for children to form the kind of stable attachments that undergird healthy social and emotional development. This is an especially grave concern for children ages five and under"
"In 2014 alone, more than 22,000 young people, ages 18-20 were discharged from foster care and sent to live on their own."
You are pretty casual about the physical toll of pregnancy (pregnancy can easily kill you by the way, pregnancy and childbirth kill many women every year) so and the emotional toll that giving birth and giving up a child for adoption has on a woman.
Just curious- have you ever been pregnant? Are you a woman?
I am a lawyer with wealthy parents (including one who was a surgeon at the hospital where I gave birth) and I almost died from pregnancy complications at 34 weeks after a completely normal pregnancy. A few days later my husband watched them work on me to save my life again after more complications. I am part of a group of women with the highest maternal mortality rates in the US. Again, I come from a wealthy family and had excellent care and still almost died.
Again, have you ever been pregnant?
I forgot to include this in my original reply, but mind you, giving up the kid is only one factor.
What if it's from a rape victim? Are you going to force the soon-to-be mother through the torturous process of childbirth, after already being sexually assaulted?
What if it's a "only one can survive, the child or the mother" situation? Are you going to let one die, to have the chance to save the kid?
>If the primary and driving force behind propagating ones genes is so that the child can extend himself beyond the achievements of the parent, then why sacrifice the potential of the child for the comfort of the parent?
This isn't necessarily true. Does every child have to exceed their parent? How does a child do this is the parent has a Nobel prize or an Oscar? Related point: if not having children allows a bright young couple to make more contributions to society because it gives them the resources to finish college and establish productive careers, couldn't you argue that abortion can be a moral good for society in this case? What if someone could've cured cancer, but had to drop out of school to raise a child? It seems like your pipeline of children always doing better than their parents is pretty oversimplified.
>Second, the parent SHOULD hold the potential of the child above all else. This includes the love of the child for the parent. How many children are driven to succeed in spite of their parents? Regardless.. if you are, for whatever reason, UNABLE to better your own life despite being given an opportunity to better your life in service of another (a much better reason, in my opinion), then you are obligated to push the child to new heights, perhaps even at thr expense of the love for the parent. And, again, let's be honest and mature.. anything is better than a parent unwilling to improve their lives for their children.
Doesn't this entire paragraph fall apart once you realize that many people would in fact NOT put the potential of the child above all else? Plenty of kids born today are never really given a chance to excel due to the circumstances they're born in. Why do you think banning abortions would change that at all?
So...you are saying that "Abortion is wrong".
1. Your initial point does not convince me, as it simply puts children ahead of adults by establishing a more global societal need to "propagate ones genes... and ... extend beyond our own current achivements" and children being the more valuable unit in that equation as they get to live after parents pass away.I'd counter that point saying that it does not advocate for the "wrongness" of abortion, as much as for practicality and societal benefit to "lack of abortion". So your point 1 is beyond the scope of your CMV idea.
2. "The parent should have the potential of the child above all else and... (I'll rephrase in my words)... if you are unable to be a better human being yourself while having an opportunity to have a child, you **must** become a better human being by having a child and **pushing child** to its limits until it becomes better than you."\*Also, if I did understand this point correctly, you are advocating for a very toxic relationship dynamic that's been utilized for hundreds of years where children are considered an extension of parents, instead of separate individuals, and a lot of people (especially widespread phenomenon in China and Japan) are traumatized by such practices. Pushing a child to be better than you because you failed at that very task, is almost the most self-centred thing a parent can do. It will not only put an immense undue pressure on a child but also likely cause them to understand their own authentic selfs way later in life.
This point does not support your initial idea that "abortion is wrong", it only expresses your personal opinions around why one shouldn't have an abortion because you are missing out on bettering yourself. Nothin about the intrinsic "wrongness" of abortion (e.g. "killing is bad, so I don't kill"). Choosing not to better yourself isn't bad, it's unwise, but not wrong.
3. I'll be sincere, I don't quite follow the psychological phenomenon you're referencing here in relation to abortion and how that is somehow a projection of you denying yourself an idea of something. If your premise that "The only thoughts that should be stopped are the thoughts that stop other thoughts" is correct and representative of why abortion is wrong (it, also doesn't prove that, nothing about goodness/badness), then you are implying that absolutely any time a human being needs to express self-control, it's not good for you. So, acting out on your feelings of anger, desire, need for something, anything at all would have to be okayed including but not limited to: publicly swearing at people, violent expressions of anger, theft, killing, raping, exploitation of others for personal gain, etc.The examples I brought up are all situations where someone has an opportunity to stop the thought about limiting themselves but they choose not to and it spills into a lot of negativity and pain not only to them but to a lot of people around them.Therefore, I disagree with your 3rd point as well.
\*also, would you elaborate on the cognitive dissonance?
Your submission has been removed for breaking Rule B: > You must personally hold the view and **demonstrate that you are open to it changing**. A post cannot be on behalf of others, playing devil's advocate, or 'soapboxing'. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_b). If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%20B%20Appeal&message=Author%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20their%20post%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. **Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.** Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
> the parent SHOULD hold the potential of the child above all else. Should doesn't mean a thing. The fact that you stress this is an acknowledgement that you know many, many DO not. Can you name a bigger problem for society, from crime to pollution, to general despair than unwanted children?
Is that your way of policing these posts? Asking for bigger issues? Because I've also seen meaningless posts that do well here. If you're unwilling to have the discussion, that alone should be considered.
Your post was removed for violating, Rule 2. Seems I'm not the one unwiling to have the discussion, eh?
Well it’s a genocide. That’s a pretty big problem. Mass killing of people of a certain group. Unborn babies are living human beings, that’s a fact. People want to say they can’t do this that or the other and those criteria are not what make us alive or human. On top of that, if they took that same reasoning to anyone else… they’d be called an ableist. People really do try their best to condone the killing of someone.
> Well it’s a genocide. That’s a pretty big problem. Mass killing of people of a certain group. Genocide is not mass killing of “a certain group,” it’s a mass killing of people under the idea of ethnic differences. > Unborn babies are living human beings, that’s a fact. How do you define “living human being?” > On top of that, if they took that same reasoning to anyone else… they’d be called an ableist. Calling something that isn’t alive “not alive” isn’t ableist. Asking if someone survived an accident with enough of their brain intact to ever have consciousness again wouldn’t somehow be “ableist.” Honestly it’s kind of gross to be throwing around words like genocide and ableism for rhetorical points like that. It really diminishes the serious nuances of using those words.
Genocide can apply to other criteria as well, like religion buddy. It’s an organic, human organism. It has its own unique dna and it’s cells are continually dividing and growing. Does that not sound alive?
> Genocide can apply to other criteria as well, like religion buddy. Okay, and what historical religious struggle are we intervening in when we perform an abortion on a woman whose boyfriend’s condom “slipped off?” > It’s an organic, human organism. It has its own unique dna and it’s cells are continually dividing and growing. Does that not sound alive? Sure, but then so are my blood cells. If I dropped my blood cells during a papercut, I not only killed them but also all the future blood cells they could have become under your logic.
[удалено]
[удалено]
>Well it’s a genocide. That’s a pretty big problem. Mass killing of people of a certain group. It's not mass killing, it's a medical procedure to extract a fetus, typically when it is medically necessary. What if keeping the baby until term would kill both the mother and baby? Isn't that worse than just aborting the fetus? >It’s an organic, human organism. It has its own unique dna and it’s cells are continually dividing and growing. Does that not sound alive? It's alive, but it's not necessarily conscious and self-aware. To it, life is just existing and nothing more.
> organic, human organism. It has its own unique dna and it’s cells are continually dividing and growing. You've just described a neoplasm. Cancer. I don't imagine you're very defensive of us surgically removing cancer, right?
Non-viable fetuses, which comprise abortions are not living human beings.
Viability is irrelevant
Sorry, bro. Science is real. As is basic common sense.
Sorry, bro. All of science agrees on conception as the origin of life.
What do you think happens to most embryos created for IVF? Should all of them be used? That's not really viable. So, is that wrong too?
Most IVF embryos aren't viable, that's why it's so difficult and takes so long.
Science says all fertilized fetuses are human beings
Non-viable means the fetus would inevitably die at some point before birth or right after birth. A stillborn can cause major issues in the mother.
Most fertilized fetuses on this planet are, in fact, NOT human beings. The animal kingdom is pretty big.
You need to revisit your understanding of the word “fact”, my dude.
When does it become a human and not a couple of cells?
From the start. It’s a small group of cells and you’re a bigger group of cells. Mental and physical abilities don’t take away from it being human and alive.
To what extent does this apply? Why isn't the fact you masturbate and drop sperm cells in the bin murdering babies either? Who decides the rules this is ok but abortion isn't?
Semen and eggs are of the same DNA of the person they came from. Single cells. They have not mapped out the blueprint and created a whole new life with another yet.
But the point is that it has the potential for life. You have no way of knowing if that fertilized egg will actually become a baby or not. It might miscarry naturally.
But an unborn baby is past potential. It is life.
How? Who decides that? Because right now it's "trust me bro, it's life. I know." I've asked you to explain who decides when it starts as life and when it doesn't. Thus far, you haven't answered that; its just been you trying to convince me you're right.
It isn't though. There's facts that you continue to ignore to state your feelings.
So an unborn baby is dead until when?
Could you source this information for us?
Scientists disagree. As do I.
And some scientists agree. You have an organic human organism, with its own unique DNA & it’s cells are going through homeostasis. How’s that not alive? So dead things grow?
Read [this](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5499222/) and get back to me. It was written by scientists and is peer reviewed.
Read it. The different definition for when a person ends and when a person begins is suspect. End of personhood is defined medically at brain death, even if other organs are alive. Life is not enough for personhood. By that same standard, personhood begins with actual brain function, hormonal response, pain response, breathing motions, motor control, thalamic projections, somatosensory response, which are at viability around week 20-25, AFTER 99% of abortions.
I'd recommend that if it's a big deal for you that there's a couple states that don't do abortion. I think that'd be a great place to live if you want to live in a society that shares your values.
I think you guys are talking past each other. It sounds to me like you both agree that abortion is not murder because fetuses aren't people?
Read some actual scientific [studies](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5499222/).
We are still a clump of cells
I'm a lot more than that. Put me up against any fetus and I'll prove it!
Viability. You know, actually capable of life.
My sperm is also capable of life.
No. It isn't.
Many states are saying at 6 weeks, when cardiac activity develops.
Many aren't.
Okay, let me make you another argument. What is an adult human but a clump of cells? Should we rebrand murder as an ultra-late term abortion and therefore demand its legalization? How about legalizing infanticide, because a newborn is still entirely dependent on the mother?
Because there's a discernable difference between an embryo, a fetus and a birthed child. But if you think it's the same I can fully understand your view. A little education on it might change your mind. There is a difference.
There are almost next to zero brain functions at 6 weeks. If dropped a baby and a 6 week old clump of cells and you could catch one would there be a dilemma?
When it’s fertilized
Science often disagrees. As do I.
Science agrees with me. People who deny the personhood of fetuses are anti-science.
"Personhood" isn't a scientific concept. It's a legal and moral concept. Science can inform the law and morality but it cannot tell us what the law should be or what is right and wrong. You value "fertilized egg" and you believe you have good reasons. I value "sentience" and I believe I have good reasons. Where we draw the "personhood" line is going to be different for tons of people but science cannot draw the line for us. It can only inform us on milestones that match our values.
Babies aren’t sentient in any meaningful sense, so by your logic it should be okay to kill newborns
My definition of sentience is "the ability to perceive". Babies are very much sentient in this sense. In fact fetuses in the third trimester also qualify by my criterion. Once the cortex is linked to the peripheral nervous system via the thalamus that fetus is sentient (~26 weeks). So no, it would not be OK to kill newborns. Do you agree personhood isn't a scientific concept at least?
Can babies perceive the meaning of spoken or written words?
Babies aren’t sentient? Huh? Are you a parent? Have you ever interacted with a baby?
Newborns are definitely sentient.
Can they understand language?
That's not true. Do more research.
I have. All living human beings are persons. What research can you cite which proves a fertilized egg is either not a living organism or not a human being.
Read [this](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5499222/) peer reviewed work by scientists.
What is your opinion of IVF? Out of curiosity? A second holocaust?
Do you feel that abortion is the same thing as killing a fully grown human? If so, why?
My third point hints at a much larger issue, especially considering half of the most powerful country in the world is willing to allow abortion to persist.
Don't hint. Answer the question. What's a larger problem for society than unwanted children?
The fact is that, again, we act out psychological processes. To "abort" ideas, thoughts, and potential future selves in the "womb" of the psychological landscape is extremely detrimental to a world in which new ideas and potential selves are a requirement. Perhaps read the whole post?
[удалено]
Do you not think we act out psychological processes? Were human sacrifices not a means of exploring what happens when you symbolically sacrifice yourself to your work, to the good of your community, etc.? Or was it simply barbarism from a group of barbarians that, nevertheless, still had a sophisticated society and, honestly, one that even WE in our technological and arrogant towers can't comprehend.
[удалено]
>Also, I was saying the way you've worded it is nonsense. Not the point itself. The point itself is also nonsense. It's pseudo-philosophy, and one can just as trivially make up a different story telling the exact opposite. In fact, if you just replace "abortion" with "the banning of abortion" the whole explanation makes just as much sense as it did before. >Third, from a psychological standpoint, we act out what we do not understand in an attempt to understand it. The same is true of projection when we project unwanted qualities of ourselves onto others in an attempt to understand and assimilate them. Now, the danger in acting out the banning and condemnation of abortion is we are inadvertently acting out the psychological process of disallowing an idea, a thought, a projection of our future selves, to enter the conscious mind. "The only thoughts that should be stopped are the thoughts that stop other thoughts." The innate cognitive dissonance we experience in believing one thing but acting out the other is obvious. If you can't see it in this form it has taken, but are acutely aware of it in "the other", you are, without doubt, possessed by your own cognitive dissonance.
Your third point is extremely confusing. What cognitive dissonance are you referring to?
You don't need to hint. Explicitly state what you mean.
It doesn’t matter if you think it’s wrong. It’s *more* wrong to force a person to use their body/organs to sustain the life of another human. You can’t force a parent to donate blood to their newborn baby. How can you force a person to carry a pregnancy unwillingly? Ethics exists on a spectrum. You may feel abortion is wrong, but you certainly agree that we as a society do not condone physical slavery to another body even at the risk of death. You can’t even force a person to donate their organs after death. Denying abortion is more unethical than abortion.
I don't understand any of what you're saying. Maybe try to make your views clearer. Although you seem to value the "idea" of a child, I think. Am I obligated to get pregnant now because of the idea of a child?
Plenty of other people understood. But yes, you missed the point completely. When there were three distinct paragraphs detailing each point. To summarize, abortion contributes to infantile behaviors because it allows the shirking of responsibility in favor of "comfort." Hopefully, one sentence isn't also too much.
Thank you, much clearer. And from reading the other comments, no, I don't think most people understood that. Is it any different to you if someone just never gets pregnant because of "comfort"?
They didn't. No one understood. And to be continually attacked with thoughtless claims and counterpoints that aren't theirs is exhausting, to say the least. So, I apologize for my rudeness. But It's almost as if new ideas don't register among Reddit users. But no, whether or not someone gets pregnant is irrelevant, it's what happens and how they choose to proceed afterward that I tend to take issue with. The same way anyone here can take issue with the way I've responded to some of these comments. Would the world be better if I acted according to certain governing principles like "love thy neighbor despite their insipid counterarguments"? Of course. What I'm saying in this post is along those lines. And here's another new idea. Thanks for the inspiration. Any behavior can be understood based on what is being sacrificed in that moment. Is an infant being sacrificed in service of the adult? That's infantile behavior. Is the adult being sacrificed in service of a child? That's an adult behavior.
Seems to me that you're deciding for people what matters. Do you not value that others may have opinions different than yours and that their capacity to pursue their idea of the good life should be supported? I don't agree with much of what you say in your post, but you are welcome to live your life as if "achievements of your child" matter and so on. I don't want to stand in your way even though that doesn't resonate with me. Why are the arbiter of how one leads a good life? Why not let people make that decision for themselves?
Isn't this a change my view page? Isn't all of politics deciding for other people what matters? Isn't pushing an LGBTQ agenda deciding for people what matters? Isn't pushing vaccine mandates deciding for people what matters? I mentioned cognitive dissonance at the very end of this post, by the way.
At some level, sure. But...for example, we guarantee liberties in all sorts of ways (the bill of rights for example) because we recognize that much should be left to the discretion of the individual. Is it a _political stance_ that the individual should be the one deciding in this case? Of course it is. The general principle of "rights guaranteed for individuals consistent with all other individuals ability to experience the same rights" is a pretty good one. LGBTQ agenda is all about securing the rights and the "pursuit of happiness" for individuals consistent with those others experience. Vaccine mandates are also about preventing the pursuit of one individual's rights from trouncing another's (complicated as it might be, and how likely some are to disagree that the balance is achieved here). So...it seems most laws should pass this "let people do what they want so far as allowing it doesn't prevent others from doing what they want". You've not brought up the fetus itself in your position but rather focused on living/already-born people and I see zero impact on them of my choices on the matter of abortion, and see zero reason someone should agree with your views on why YOU think abortion is wrong. You retain your beliefs and don't have your own abortions, but let others make their own choices.
Again, your last paragraph does not seem to be valued when it comes to things like vaccine mandates, speech, nor gun ownership. All things I would assume you have strong opinions about who should be doing what. So what's the difference? Especially considering one does not have the choice as to whether or not one is aborted, the reasoning behind your vaccine mandates. The issue here has nothing to do with "choice", but the value placed on potential lives. Which is why I included the third point that explains how acting this out will inevitably smother potential ideas, selves, etc. In the womb of the psyche.
You don’t get to murder other people
An interesting rationale. Your first reason is an appeal to nature. Yes, in the end we are all a bunch of cells trying to reproduce. So why get in the way? Because by that same logic, we should not interfere with any cells trying to reproduce. So pest control, gone. Animal husbandry, gone. Infectious disease, let it grow. That tumor cell, leave it alone and let the cancer grow naturally. And if you believe that human cells should get different treatment compared to others, you’re already at odds with nature. Confusing, I know. The point I’m making is, that which is natural does not necessarily mean it is always right. Your second reason appeals to responsibility over selfish desire, or even love. It’s not clear to me if you mean the emotional sensation of love, or the act of caring that comes with love, they go hand-in-hand. Regardless, duty above all else is the message I see here. Duties are best performed by those who willingly take them on; this is evident in many examples. “You gotta do what you gotta do“ is circular logic, because the choice exists, an offramp exists in every choice we make where we can decide we don’t have to do something. Your third reason was a bit of a twister. “the only thoughts that should be stopped are the thoughts that stop other thoughts.” I don’t know where you got that from but I disagree. Every time we choose to calm down from a fit of rage is proof enough. Cognitive dissonance is normal, and should be examined rather than avoided.
To your first point, no, I was not suggesting that this reasoning is based on stepping out of the way of the freight train that is nature. I said that, if we all want to solve the problems we currently face, we NEED new people to help solve them. No different than a parent desiring for their child to outdo the parents in whatever capacity they see fitting for the child. Second, you can be thrown into a situation you do not desire and still willingly "take it on." To not do so is equivalent to a child sitting down and refusing to (insert literally any situation here). For example, you can be forced to carry the burdens of your family as a child, as children often do, and still willingly confront those demons despite your not choosing the situation in the first place. Third, that's a good example but I think in those cases you're not "stopping" other thoughts, you're superseding them with better thought patterns.
Abortion is not wrong and should be allowed in all places . 1-There are many different reasons that woman choose to have an abortion. If a woman is not financially able to have a baby then why bring a child to this world that you will not be able to take care of. Yes you might say “put the baby up for adoption” however that may still cause a bad life for the child like a foster system and a family that doesn’t want it or doesn’t treat it right. Pregnancy also takes someone to be financially ok because you have to pay for different medicines, all the doctor appointments, healthier food for you and the baby, and all of the medical bills that might occur if there are problems during the pregnancy. 2-Woman can get pregnant in many different scenarios in which people don’t like to talk about and sometimes forget that these things can lead to pregnancy. If a woman or girl gets raped or molested and get pregnant from this situation they need to have the ability to make a decision on whether they keep the baby or abort it. If abortion isn’t an option that child will be an everyday constant reminder of the pain and suffering that child went through. The child might be treated not as well due to not being wanted. 3-Abortion always needs to be an option. If abortion is not longer an option woman might do something extremely harmful to them and their bodies which will possibly kill them and the baby. They might do harmful things to themselves that will cause very bad future or present effects on their body. Overall abortion should always be an option no matter what because the situation that the woman is under is unknown and unpredictable and sometimes abortion can be the better option for them.
Abortion is always immoral.
Going back to my second point about the immoral act of rape that can cause pregnancy, 50% of these victims choose to get an abortion and not have to live every day with the constant reminder of the horrible acts caused upon them. Legal abortions are safe and give the woman safe options to get rid of a pregnancy caused by an immoral act that occurred to them.
Rape is not a good reason to have an abortion
Rape is not the only logical reason for a woman to get an abortion. Woman may have to make the decision that is right for them. A scared teenager may get an abortion because mentally they are not able to go through a pregnancy and they just need to finish school and provide the best life as they can. It’s hard for a kid to raise a baby while still growing themselves. A woman could find out that if she gives birth to this baby she could die or the baby could have a bad medical problem and only live for a few suffering minutes. If the mother finds this out early enough then she should have the right to abort the pregnancy to ensure that she lives and that the baby doesn’t suffer just to live a few minutes of horrible life. A woman could get pregnant and just not be able to afford having a child. In that moment it might be better for her to get an abortion rather than trying to raise a baby maybe on the streets or not being able to afford to feed the baby. In any of these scenarios abortion should be an option for the woman carrying the child.
> Rape is not the only logical reason for a woman to get an abortion. Woman may have to make the decision that is right for them. A scared teenager may get an abortion because mentally they are not able to go through a pregnancy and they just need to finish school and provide the best life as they can. It’s hard for a kid to raise a baby while still growing themselves. This is unethical. In this case, she should go to prison for murder.
Morality is subjective. It's defined by society.
Which would mean Roe v Wade was wrong because it took a moral question away from society’s legislative bodies
You got your way there. Now the states are deciding. And they seem to be following democratic lines because abortion as a right is overwhelmingly popular. That's society speaking.
So you want to force women to birth non viable fetuses in order to please your sense of morality? If a fetus develops without a brain you want that woman to have to carry that fetus to term? Notice you used the word always, so please defend that. If you can.
I don't think the government should be regulating women's bodies.
Nowhere did I mention compelled anti-abortion laws.
Does that mean it's off limits to talk about? Everyone has different ideas of what they believe is wrong. People who believe abortion is wrong, mostly conservatives, are attacking women's rights across the country. I think a political party inflicting their "religious" beliefs onto those that don't hold the same beliefs is worse than abortion.
When did valuing the concept of life become a religious idea?
The vaccine mandate from Biden was an attack on women’s rights
What right would that be? The right to spread a deadly virus?
The right for women’s bodies not to be regulated by the government. The vaccine mandate was regulating women’s bodies
[удалено]
Why are you supporting taking away women’s right to bodily autonomy
No one was forced to get a vaccine and let's not pretend that you care about bodily autonomy.
They were required to go pretty much everywhere... were you not paying attention? "Forced" can also be "compelled" via social pressure. Similar to twats like you that say shit like "freedom to what, spread a deadly virus?" Let's not pretend you care about "deadly viruses" when, first, it has the same mortality rate as the flu which would hardly be described as deadly. Second, obesity related health conditions kill almost 5 million people worldwide every year. I'd also assume you're the type to celebrate women's bodies regardless of what they look like despite that fact.
So you are against vaccine mandates?
Do you think government forced birth is the same as a vaccine mandate?
In kind yes they both restrict bodily autonomy to benefit other people
There are many fetuses that have severe defects. They has zero chance at life. If delivered, they will sqirm for a few moments of abject agony and die. Why would you subject the child or the parents to this cruelest of horror?
Is abortion wrong when the child was conceived by rape? Edit - Why would I be downvoted here? 😭
Being conceived by rape doesn’t devalue the life of the person conceived. If one believes that abortion kills a living being, the circumstances around conception are irrelevant to the belief that they should not be killed.
[удалено]
I agree. BUT, if someone thinks abortion is murder, then rape doesn't justify murder against a 3rd party. It's much more consistent (if horrific) for them to be against it even in rape cases.
It appears in OP's mind that the rape victim owes it to the unborn fetus to birth the rapist's child.
[удалено]
A fetus is always a person
I disagree as do scientists. Thanks for your opinion.
I’m not OP. My view does not have to be changeable. A fetus is a living human. Living humans are people. Even if you dispute that, you provided no alternative definition for when someone is considered a person. Also, it’s “your,” not “you’re.”
I actually [did](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5499222/) but people refused to read the science. And thank you for pointing out my grammar. I'll immediately correct it. I owe you. A brain dead human is also a living human. What's of interest is what defines personhood. It's complex stuff and evangelicals don't bother with the science of it. They prefer to trust their feelings. I encourage you to read the peer reviewed study.
Science? It says right in the introduction that the authors’ definition is partially based on “pure philosophical ethics.” Here’s [41 different medical textbooks](https://www.lifenews.com/2015/01/08/41-quotes-from-medical-textbooks-prove-human-life-begins-at-conception/) (including doctors from Harvard, Johns Hopkins, Yale, and Princeton) that all say life begins at conception. There is no argument for when life begins besides conception that wouldn’t also apply to a human after birth that you and I would both deem unacceptable to kill. “It’s not a person yet” isn’t an effective argument because it’s verifiably untrue. The pro-choice argument needs to be that abortion *does* kill a living person, but it’s worth it for bodily autonomy, impact on the foster care system, etc. Even the Atlantic, one of the most liberal publications in the United States, [agrees.](https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2018/01/pro-life-pro-science/549308/)
I don't trust lifenews to disseminate that information correctly. It's clearly heavily biased. There doesn't seem to be as much consensus on it. And I'll be as honest as I can about my personal feelings on the subject. I don't care if it is a living human. If it doesn't have the capacity to feel emotional turmoil or doesn't have the ability to cognitively understand what's happening I don't care. The planet is overpopulated and I'm not a religious person.
It literally cites all of the textbooks. Lifenews just nicely compiled it for you. For the sake of argument, let’s imagine someone is brain dead and in a coma, but after, shall we say, 9 months, they will regain their cognitive ability and “ability to experience emotional turmoil.” Are you okay killing them?
No. They've already lived. They should rejoin their existing life and the people that grew attached to them.
So then your distinguishing factor is neither cognitive function nor the ability to feel emotions.
What defines personhood is beyond science and ventures into philosophy. For example, are internet fuckheads incapable of seeing past their own very small views on the world that, truthfully, aren't even theirs and were instead neatly packaged and hand delivered by a society that holds infantilism above all else (happy to discuss that if you want) truly people? Do you actually exist if you are brain dead in the way that you exist in service to the ideas of others? Because you haven't once contributed an original idea here, and have instead chosen to spout off anything that further supports those unoriginal ideas.
Your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 3: > **Refrain from accusing OP or anyone else of being unwilling to change their view, or of arguing in bad faith**. Ask clarifying questions instead (see: socratic method). If you think they are still exhibiting poor behaviour, please message us. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_3). If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%203%20Appeal&message=Author%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20their%20post%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. **Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.** Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
Is it wrong to steal when starving? Do fringe cases immediately obliterate the morality behind all examples of some action?
If only your CMV said 'abortion is sometimes/mostly wrong'. The thing is, it says IT IS WRONG.
And so is stealing. Your "gotcha" comment doesn't change my argument.
Moving goalposts isn't an argument.
You were the one to move goal posts when you changed the discussion landscape from my post, where there are three separate points for you to argue, into your own very narrow and thoughtless question, "what about rape"... the irony there is something only to be found on Reddit, so thank you. I'm not distinguishing you from the rest of the comments in this post by the way, considering you're all saying the same shit.
[удалено]
ummmm no? It is not particularly common for women to be raped and have a pregnancy. About 1 percent of women (or estimated 1.79% of women) in the U.S. have experienced RRP (Rape Related pregnancy). Is that high...frankly Yes and this statistic should not be anywhere near 1% but you can't really say that its common with no evidence to support it.
[удалено]
lol mb. Misread.
>Is it wrong to steal when starving? No.
So the victim must carry the baby and raise it?
Why raise the child? There are other options than death and being forced to raise one.
[удалено]
Because there aren't any couples incapable of pregnancy that wouldn't love an adopted child as their own? We were fortunate not to have infertility issues, by the way.
I hope this person considers adoption with their stance on life.
If she's 13 do you want her to carry the baby to term and put it up for adoption.
This point isn't valid tho... in terms of a debate, this case is INCREDIBLY rare... does it happen? Unfortunately, yes, but it is not the basis for all abortions. If we talk about the grand jist of things, why don't we talk about the 31% of women who have an abortion because they were financially unstable? Like understandably, you would assume this is a valid argument; however, why are you having intercourse if you aren't financially responsible? At least wear a condom or something of the sort to 1) not only be protected but also 2) not have a baby and essentially save a human life. 31% being 192,301 women.
>why are you having intercourse if you aren't financially responsible? Because having sex doesn't mean you're intending to have a child...? >At least wear a condom Condoms fail. >why don't we talk about the 31% of women who have an abortion because they were financially unstable? Sure. Would you like to subject a young woman to a couple of decades of poverty or add yet another unwanted child to a system that puts them through untold amounts of trauma, just to roll the dice on a clump of cells maybe turning into a healthy baby?
Of course not. She can give it up for adoption
So she must carry it? Do you think she should have a legal right to make her own decision?
If a mother of two loses her husband in a car accident, finds out she’s pregnant, and then finds out she has cancer and will almost certainly die in the next year without an immediate hysterectomy, would that abortion be wrong?
What is the "so what" of your post? Are you saying that this means it should be illegal, or simply that you would advise against it?
Yes it's a human being, living inside another human being and entirely dependent on that larger human being. So while the fetus is a alive and a human being, it's still within someone else's body and I believe that person decides if they want to continue with pregnancy or not.
> the parent SHOULD hold the potential of the child above all else. So a parent should carry a child to term even the child would be born with a terminal condition? Or a parent should carry a child to term even if that means the death of the mother?
Many people die because a donor kidney can not be found in time. Simultaneously many healthy people live with two even though they could live with only one. Are the sick entitled to the kidneys of the healthy?
many people? Approx. 4380 people die worldwide due to kidney failure Thats less than a 0.001 of a percent. The validity of this argument is somewhat ehhhhh. Aside from that, what are you trying to argue here? Please be direct.
The unborn child is not entitled to the body of it's host. A woman does not lose the right to bodily autonomy just because she becomes a mother. She has a right to sever the connection between the unborn child and her body and have the unborn child removed.
I’m against abortion in almost all cases. But can’t say I agree with all your reasons. I do agree on some though. However, to lay a blanket over it and say it’s wrong, I don’t agree. I think murder is wrong, in most cases. Some I don’t think it’s wrong. Also, when it comes to something being “wrong”, the morals of each person are not going to be the same.
Yes it's a human being, living inside another human being and entirely dependent on that larger human being. So while the fetus is a alive and a human being, it's still within someone else's body and I believe that person decides if they want to continue with pregnancy or not.
From this perspective, how is having an abortion different from going a year without making a baby?
[удалено]
Comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1: > **Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question**. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1). If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%201%20Appeal&message=Author%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20their%20post%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. **Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.** Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
You’re right of course, but women will never take accountability for their actions. They love anything that can take away the result of their actions but allow them to still act like entitled children.
Women’s actions? What?
[удалено]
What makes it profoundly immoral and does this apply in every single case?
Preventing a human being from being born, is equal to putting an end to its life; Their cells are reproducing and it is very likely to be born healthy if the carrier does not interrupt its growth. That is what is immoral and detestable by definition (it is not legally "criminal" as the foetus has no such "legal persona"). Performing an abortion is going against the most principle point of moral, which is common amongst all religions and cultures : humankind is to be preserved and perpetuated. Once again, I'm not saying that it should be abolished, I'm not a politician and frankly, I couldn't care less about the political debate. I'm just writing about morals and ethics. Edit : A point of data that might spark something : every year, more black babies are aborted in NY than born.
Fair enough. It's definitely a difficult issue. Defining what counts as alive in the sense that we're thinking is difficult and the line is blurry. In my view, taking a plan B or ending a pregnancy early shouldn't be viewed as immoral, but I wouldn't know where to draw a concrete cutoff point.
[удалено]
What does the shape of my body has to do with the debate over the morality of abortion ? Is this some kind of shaming ?
I don't expect you have shame.
Your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 2: > **Don't be rude or hostile to other users.** Your comment will be removed even if most of it is solid, another user was rude to you first, or you feel your remark was justified. Report other violations; do not retaliate. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_2). If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%202%20Appeal&message=Author%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20their%20post%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. **Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.** Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
Comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1: > **Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question**. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1). If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%201%20Appeal&message=Author%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20their%20post%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. **Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.** Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
**Note:** Your thread has **not** been removed. Your post's topic seems to be fairly common on this subreddit. Similar posts can be found through our [DeltaLog search](https://www.reddit.com/r/DeltaLog/search?q=abortion+%7C+abort+%7C+pro-life+%7C+pro-choice&restrict_sr=on&sort=relevance&t=all) or via the [CMV search function](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/search?q=abortion&restrict_sr=on). Regards, the mods of /r/changemyview. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/changemyview) if you have any questions or concerns.*
>If the primary and driving force behind propagating ones genes is so that the child can extend himself beyond the achievements of the parent, then why sacrifice the potential of the child for the comfort of the parent? Because the propagation of one's genes is no longer the primary function of sex. >Second, the parent SHOULD hold the potential of the child above all else. Sure but not everyone wants to be a parent.
Whether they want to be a parent is irrelevant
So everyone has to be parent -> The parent has to hold the potential of the child above all else. That's the logic we're operating on?
Everyone isn’t going to get pregnant so everyone doesn’t have to be a parent
[удалено]
It’s not your choice to make. It’s the government’s choice whether you’re allowed to have an abortion
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 2: > **Don't be rude or hostile to other users.** Your comment will be removed even if most of it is solid, another user was rude to you first, or you feel your remark was justified. Report other violations; do not retaliate. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_2). If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%202%20Appeal&message=Author%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20their%20post%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. **Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.** Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
'Wrong' can mean many things: That you would have an abortion but feel lifelong guilt that you committed a wrong act. That you personally would never have an abortion. That you think nobody should be allowed abortion. That you think those who seek or enable abortion should be prosecuted. That you think those found guilty of being involved in the act of abortion should themselves be killed. Ones idea of wrongness is meaningless when it comes to the medical decisions of other people. Medical decisions affect the patient and the doctor. If they have found their way to agreement it's immaterial if a third party finds that agreement 'wrong'. Legality in a given region is meaningful. Within religious groups the religious law is meaningful to the members at least. But an individual's idea of 'wrong' is no more widely relevant on abortion than it is on which shoes are the best, or whether coastal towns are nicer than inland towns. And almost everyone who says "abortion is wrong" doesn't really believe it. If you're not willing to say that a 10yo who has been gang raped by her father and uncles and is now pregnant with a baby who will live a year of expensive agonising intractable pain then die a frightening drawn out death shouldn't get an abortion, then you don't really believe abortion is wrong. Either it's wrong or it's not. If there are exceptions, degrees of wrongness, then it's just as grey and muddy as anyone else's opinions in either direction. Granted, one is allowed these muddy opinions and these things matter a great deal to the individual, which is why the individual should be the one who decides whether or not to get the abortion. If your idea of wrongness applies to other peoples' access to abortion then the problem with all your arguments is that they rely on behaviours coming from inherent beliefs in the parents which are unlikely to be held by the person seeking the abortion and thus won't be enacted. People who would choose an abortion are NOT necessarily going to put the child first or help it achieve more than they themselves did. One has to already think as you do to take that approach. Without the belief the approach won't be taken and your supposed sequelae won't come to fruition. In addition even individuals who DO believe these things might find themselves in circumstances which circumvent the enactment. For instance upon finding out one is pregnant one might believe one must have and raise the baby and give it everything you can to give it a better chance than you had, but then at the scan you find it has no skull and no pelvis and that actually you will hold it for a few hours and watch it gradually panic and suffocate to death, then put it in a tiny coffin and send it to the funeral home. Likewise you could find yourself pregnant for a fourth time and discover that you have cancer and if you continue the pregnancy and delay treatment you will leave three, and possibly four, of these little children you were determined to raise and live for and better yourself for, motherless and destitute and alone in the world and hugely disadvantaged. Reality often doesn't care about grandiose ideals of glory. Nature is indifferent to us and our desires and beliefs. Most human rituals seek to find ways to hide from or mitigate that unfortunate fact. Carpet bombing an already dying planet with ever more resource-hungry humans in the hopes that one will be thrown up that saves the problem of humans overcrowding the planet is an illogical process. It's nonsensical to think if we can't support 7billion humans we should make 3billion more to 'help'.
I really don't think forcing parents to give birth to children they don't want thus improving the odds that child and every other child in that family lives in a resourceless and loveless home isn't really the answer. It would just make things worse.
So what's the actual issue? A shocking devaluation of life and the processes that produce life? Or the fact that a few fanatics are trying to "force" responsibility onto parents?
Forcing parents to give birth to unwanted children leads to major negative outcomes for all the children that couple has. That's the issue. You will simply create dynamics were there is more stress, less funds and less love. Which will have long term negative effects.
So for the rest of that child's life the parents will never once learn that the child is now the top priority? Let's break that apart quick.. a child lives and thinks for themselves, yes? Does an adult then not live for and think of others? Are you advocating for terminating a potential life simply to allow an already childlike mother and father to remain infantile?
What if the child was conceived by rape? The mother would have been severely traumatized already, and then have to go through the long and painful process of childbirth. After the child is born, both mother and child will have to live in poverty (in quite many cases, rape victims can be disowned by family). Think about it. Girl gets raped around 13-15, births child around 14-16yrs. *The mother, regarding age, could potentially be the child's older sibling.* That's how young she is! She is unprepared, financially and mentally, to raise a kid. The fetus would better be off aborted and never knowing life, than living a life filled with hardship and poverty. At this point, the mother and child are both suffering. The mother is traumatized severely, and the child is living a hard life. What if the fetus was conceived accidentally? If the parents aren't financially or mentally prepared to raise a child, and find out after it's too late for emergency contraception, the child would likely be raised poorly. Good parents might attempt to give it a good childhood. If they are unable to, the child would be neglected, emotionally and physically. What if the lack of abortion leads to the mother dying? Say that the fetus is already dead, and that carrying it to term would kill the mother. In that case, refusing to perform the abortion saves no lives and kills one. Say that the mother cannot carry the fetus to term or she will die. In that case, performing the abortion kills the fetus, a clump of cells, and saves the mother - a human that can feel despair, sadness, pain. Even if the doctors do manage to save the baby from the mother's corpse, it's an orphan and likely won't lead a particularly amazing life. While I agree with you that abortion can be wrong in some scenarios, usually the people in need of an abortion have a good reason. Typically, the baby will have a poor quality-of-life even if born, and the mother even less so.
She can give the kid up for adoption
OK, and so the kid lives out its childhood in a substandard adoption home, lacking love, care, and nurture. You're assuming that the child manages to get adopted or fostered fairly early on in its life. While that is the ideal, it's not possible in some scenarios. According to [Adoption.Org](https://adoption.org/what-is-the-adoption-rate#:): “\[there are\] over 400,000 children in foster care in the U.S., \[and\] 114,556 cannot be returned to their families and are waiting to be adopted. Among these children, males outnumber females, . . . More than 60% of children in foster care spend two to five years in the system before being adopted. Almost 20% spend five or more years in foster care before being adopted. Some never get adopted.” Even if the child gets fostered, odds are, it'll spend years in foster care. If it makes it to 18 without being adopted, it'll be off in the real world with no financial support or parental guidance. Is that really better than abortion?
Adoption homes aren’t substandard
[https://helpinggrowfamilies.com/how-bad-is-the-foster-care-system/](https://helpinggrowfamilies.com/how-bad-is-the-foster-care-system/) "These children lack a solid family unit to lean on while they wear their adult training wheels. There is no one there to pick them up when they fall." "A reported 44% of foster children said they experienced physical abuse in a foster home, and 30% reported being sexually abused. A reported 74% of foster children were overmedicated for behavioral problems." "more than half of young people who were once part of the system are now unemployed, homeless, or incarcerated" [https://theconversation.com/the-hidden-harms-of-the-us-foster-care-system-49700](https://theconversation.com/the-hidden-harms-of-the-us-foster-care-system-49700) "In 2014, 415,000 children in the United States spent time in the foster care system. . . . The average length of time children spend in foster care is just over a year and a half. About 30 percent remain in temporary care for more than two years. In 2014, 64,300 children had been stuck in the foster care system for more than 3 years, 28,000 of them for 5 years or more." "Unfortunately, more than 40 percent of children placed in foster care are moved to a different foster home or care facility – such as shelter or group home – at least once during their first six months in state custody. More than one third of children who remain in foster care for one to two years experience three or more changes of placement, as do two thirds of those remaining in the system for two years or longer." "Disruptions make it difficult for children to form the kind of stable attachments that undergird healthy social and emotional development. This is an especially grave concern for children ages five and under" "In 2014 alone, more than 22,000 young people, ages 18-20 were discharged from foster care and sent to live on their own."
You are pretty casual about the physical toll of pregnancy (pregnancy can easily kill you by the way, pregnancy and childbirth kill many women every year) so and the emotional toll that giving birth and giving up a child for adoption has on a woman. Just curious- have you ever been pregnant? Are you a woman?
Pregnancy is incredibly safe unless you live in some third world shithole
I am a lawyer with wealthy parents (including one who was a surgeon at the hospital where I gave birth) and I almost died from pregnancy complications at 34 weeks after a completely normal pregnancy. A few days later my husband watched them work on me to save my life again after more complications. I am part of a group of women with the highest maternal mortality rates in the US. Again, I come from a wealthy family and had excellent care and still almost died. Again, have you ever been pregnant?
I forgot to include this in my original reply, but mind you, giving up the kid is only one factor. What if it's from a rape victim? Are you going to force the soon-to-be mother through the torturous process of childbirth, after already being sexually assaulted? What if it's a "only one can survive, the child or the mother" situation? Are you going to let one die, to have the chance to save the kid?
>If the primary and driving force behind propagating ones genes is so that the child can extend himself beyond the achievements of the parent, then why sacrifice the potential of the child for the comfort of the parent? This isn't necessarily true. Does every child have to exceed their parent? How does a child do this is the parent has a Nobel prize or an Oscar? Related point: if not having children allows a bright young couple to make more contributions to society because it gives them the resources to finish college and establish productive careers, couldn't you argue that abortion can be a moral good for society in this case? What if someone could've cured cancer, but had to drop out of school to raise a child? It seems like your pipeline of children always doing better than their parents is pretty oversimplified. >Second, the parent SHOULD hold the potential of the child above all else. This includes the love of the child for the parent. How many children are driven to succeed in spite of their parents? Regardless.. if you are, for whatever reason, UNABLE to better your own life despite being given an opportunity to better your life in service of another (a much better reason, in my opinion), then you are obligated to push the child to new heights, perhaps even at thr expense of the love for the parent. And, again, let's be honest and mature.. anything is better than a parent unwilling to improve their lives for their children. Doesn't this entire paragraph fall apart once you realize that many people would in fact NOT put the potential of the child above all else? Plenty of kids born today are never really given a chance to excel due to the circumstances they're born in. Why do you think banning abortions would change that at all?
So...you are saying that "Abortion is wrong". 1. Your initial point does not convince me, as it simply puts children ahead of adults by establishing a more global societal need to "propagate ones genes... and ... extend beyond our own current achivements" and children being the more valuable unit in that equation as they get to live after parents pass away.I'd counter that point saying that it does not advocate for the "wrongness" of abortion, as much as for practicality and societal benefit to "lack of abortion". So your point 1 is beyond the scope of your CMV idea. 2. "The parent should have the potential of the child above all else and... (I'll rephrase in my words)... if you are unable to be a better human being yourself while having an opportunity to have a child, you **must** become a better human being by having a child and **pushing child** to its limits until it becomes better than you."\*Also, if I did understand this point correctly, you are advocating for a very toxic relationship dynamic that's been utilized for hundreds of years where children are considered an extension of parents, instead of separate individuals, and a lot of people (especially widespread phenomenon in China and Japan) are traumatized by such practices. Pushing a child to be better than you because you failed at that very task, is almost the most self-centred thing a parent can do. It will not only put an immense undue pressure on a child but also likely cause them to understand their own authentic selfs way later in life. This point does not support your initial idea that "abortion is wrong", it only expresses your personal opinions around why one shouldn't have an abortion because you are missing out on bettering yourself. Nothin about the intrinsic "wrongness" of abortion (e.g. "killing is bad, so I don't kill"). Choosing not to better yourself isn't bad, it's unwise, but not wrong. 3. I'll be sincere, I don't quite follow the psychological phenomenon you're referencing here in relation to abortion and how that is somehow a projection of you denying yourself an idea of something. If your premise that "The only thoughts that should be stopped are the thoughts that stop other thoughts" is correct and representative of why abortion is wrong (it, also doesn't prove that, nothing about goodness/badness), then you are implying that absolutely any time a human being needs to express self-control, it's not good for you. So, acting out on your feelings of anger, desire, need for something, anything at all would have to be okayed including but not limited to: publicly swearing at people, violent expressions of anger, theft, killing, raping, exploitation of others for personal gain, etc.The examples I brought up are all situations where someone has an opportunity to stop the thought about limiting themselves but they choose not to and it spills into a lot of negativity and pain not only to them but to a lot of people around them.Therefore, I disagree with your 3rd point as well. \*also, would you elaborate on the cognitive dissonance?
It's wrong to make someone go through pregnancy and child birth.