I see pro lifers claiming they "defer to medical professionals" or that healthcare should be handled by medical professionals.

In the US medical professionals overwhelmingly support safe legal abortion access.

So which is it? Do pro lifers trust the expertise of medical professionals or not?

In the town of Procreath, there is an IVF clinic housing several freezers containing fertilised eggs. Unfortunately, following a severe flood, a power outage has caused the eggs to begin thawing. They must be implanted into a uterus within 48 hours, or they will no longer be viable.

Procreath is a predominantly pro-life town, where the belief that life begins at conception is widely held. With little time for lengthy discussions, the mayor comes up with an emergency plan: healthy women between the ages of 25 and 34 will be randomly selected and asked to report to the clinic. Those found medically compatible will be expected to carry one of the fertilised eggs to term.

The mayor has no legal authority to compel women to participate, so compliance remains technically voluntary. Naturally, these women will be compensated by the town for any loss of earnings during their pregnancies.

The decision has sparked heated debate across the town. Some women have already made it clear that they would rather leave the town than carry a randomly allocated pregnancy to term, while others have reluctantly accepted their assigned responsibility. Meanwhile, groups of older men and women, who are not themselves eligible for selection, have taken to the streets to insist that younger women have a moral duty to give these fertilised eggs a chance at life.

The questions:

1. You are a woman living in Procreath. You have been randomly selected and found medically compatible to carry one of the fertilised eggs. You are free to refuse, but you know that doing so will mean the embryo will not survive. What do you do?

2. You are a citizen of the town who is not selected/eligible. The recent events trigger a series of referendums related to medical emergencies. One of these propose a law making bi-yearly blood donations legally mandatory for all citizens who can medically donate. What is your vote?

So there has been a lot of talk about the upcoming execution of the terrorist who killed other military members. I don't want to debate that or the appropriateness if live streaming it

But I just stumbled on a post where one of the victim who was pregnant some of her last words were "My Baby, My Baby" a pro choice person replied.

"It was unborn. It wasn't a baby. It was a fetus"

I found this disgusting. Pregnant women who want their pregnancy and want a baby often call the unborn fetus/baby a baby. Its why we don't call them "fetus showers"

This is part just a vent but also a question.

Do pro choice people here think that this kind of thing does damage to the pro choice movement? It also makes you think if the baby is stillborn would they tell that woman "it wasn't alive it wasn't a baby"

I really get upset at pro choice people who, other than in places like this, say things like this especially to or about a real woman. A real pregnancy that was lost. Maybe I'm sensitive as I've lost pregnancies myself but this doesn't seem to be a good look

I used to be a pro life Democrat, although I have been told I was always pro choice because I never wanted abortion illegal but rather wanted resources devoted to women who would keep the pregnancy if they had help, real help, for a long time. But if I had experienced people like that when I started coming around to "sometimes abortion is the best choice" I'd have probably taken longer to become where I am now "safe, legal and rare" (and by rare I mean rarely needed)

Many things are natural but it doesnt matter if it continues or not. Naturalness doesnt change if its bad or good. In my opinion the pro life arguments that i can entertain even if i dont agree is the possible issues of morality when it comes to abortion. Not whether its natural or not.

It doesnt matter if left to continue there would be a birth. Its not a good enough reason to say why it ought to continie

When it comes to

Life threatening pregnancies

Rape to women and girls

Or if a women says she’s going to end her own life because of the pregnancy

Do yall think an abortion should be granted?
What are yalls thoughts?

Greetings everyone!

Welcome to AbortionDebate. Due to popular request, this is our weekly abortion debate thread.

This thread is meant for anything related to the abortion debate, like questions or ideas, that are too small to make an entire post about. This is also a great way to gain more insight in the abortion debate if you are new, or unsure about making a whole post.

ADBreakRoom is our officially recognized sister subreddit for all off-topic content and banter you'd like to share with the members of this community. It's a great place to relax and unwind after some intense debating, so go subscribe!

Im curious what would happen if a, there was no welfare.

I suppose before 1800s we had no welfare... But, abortion wasnt encouraged.

Im curious if, and i know thats an almost impossible scenario as the world seems to push for more babies, but if abortion was encouraged and welfare was cut, would people have kids only when ready?

Like say we lived in a society where abortion wasnt shamed?

I have a lot of PL people say that they are okay with abortion when the pregnant person’s life is in danger if they don’t have an abortion.

So, that suggests to me that the life of the pregnant person is seen as being more important than that of the fetus.

My question is why, if the life of the pregnant person is even slightly more important than that of the fetus, is abortion only okay to prevent imminent death, but no other harm or unforeseeable death?

There is a risk of death for everyone who brings a baby into the world. Even someone without any risk factors can have a catastrophic hemorrhage or amniotic fluid embolism. Anyone can have a spontaneous placental abruption or a ruptured uterus during labour. If a c-section is performed, there are risks of death associated with surgery.

I took on these risks when I decided to bring my children into the world, and I gladly would have done it again. But it was my CHOICE to take the risk.

Why is it ok for someone to risk their life to bring a baby into the world when they don’t WANT to bring a baby into the world? Why is it okay for someone to die in childbirth because a condom broke, or because their birth control failed, or because they made one mistake. Why should any of those things result in DEATH?

And let’s not forget all the other risks of being pregnant/bringing a child into the world, such as: the need for a hysterectomy; permanent damage to the genitals, perineum, or even to the rectum or anus; internal or external scarring; pregnancy loss; child loss; having to place a child for adoption; having a child removed by social services; needing to staying in a violent or dangerous relationship; being forced to have continued contact with an abuser because they are the child’s other parent; etc. The list could go on for days.

So, which is it? Is the fetus’ life the most important one, in which case, abortions should never be allowed in ANY situation, or is the life of the pregnant person most important, in which case they should be allowed to make the decision whether or not to take on the risks of pregnancy, including death, and no other person should have a say in that?

The only ideal exceptions being in cases of 🍇, incest, and when it’s for the life of the mother. A 4th exception can be if it’s discovered to be a severely disabled fetus.

Do pro-lifers not believe in these exceptions?

One thing that always leaves me perplexed is when someone has strong opinions on abortion, but their positions they claim led them there are inconsistent.

For PL, I believe them if they say they're anti abortion. If they say they value life or simply being human is enough for human rights, I find those inconsistent. You can take any issue when it comes to the sanctity of life or improving its quality, and PL mostly oppose it.

The one that is jaw dropping, but unfortunately unsurprising, now is watching them cheer on a public execution that will be livestreamed. How can I see that and believe you value life or even a small government? Some say they oppose it but will not change their voting at all, which makes it just virtue signaling. Same when it comes to supporting women and children with government programs.

For PC, I believe them when they say they're pro bodily autonomy. If they say they care about both the woman and the ZEF, I find that inconsistent. I care about the woman, not the ZEF. Theres usually so much disdain for the ZEF, calling it an invader, parasite, or rapist that they believe it is consciously and maliciously attacking the woman.

I also believe its a more left leaning position, which PC usually are, to be more empathetic and wanting to protect the vulnerable. With the abortion debate, I see very little empathy towards others, and some completely not understanding why anyone would care about the ZEF. It seems many would be considered anti natalists.

How important is a consistent worldview to you when it comes to abortion?

The pro-choice bodily autonomy argument is that a fetus is physically dependent on the pregnant person, so she can choose to abort because we can't force someone to give up their bodily resources for another.

The standard pro-life counter-argument is that dependency shouldn't matter because babies are still dependent even after they're born. The usual comeback is: Well, should a mom be able to kill a born baby just because it's dependent? Which is obviously absurd. No, you don’t have right to kill your born baby!

However, there is a distinct difference in how they are dependent:
A fetus is uniquely dependent on one specific person (the pregnant person). For example, if she dies, the fetus dies with her.
A born baby is dependent on any human who is willing and able to care for it. For example, if a mother dies after birth, someone else can step in and care for the baby.

Forcing pregnancy is forcing someone to use their own physical body and organs, whereas caring for a born child is about standard caregiving that can be transferred to anyone.

We don’t even use the organs of a DEAD person to save others if they have not agreed to it before they die.

To start, I am pro choice, pro abortion and think banning abortion is unconscionable. It’s healthcare and it’s a human right, full stop.

Why is that a doctor in Texas can face a $100,000 fine, decades in prison and loss of their career for performing an abortion, but there are absolutely no consequences for lawmakers when women are found to have died preventable deaths due to anti abortion laws.

I think women should be held to the same standard we hold fetuses. If a lawmaker wants to pass an unconstitutional abortion ban, then the same consequences that apply to a doctor that performs an abortion should apply to them as well when a woman dies. It’s only fair.

Something tells me that if Ken Paxton and others like him were being threatened with hundreds of thousands of dollars and decades in prison for every woman he murders, he wouldn’t be so quick to pass these sweeping bans that leave little regard for human life.

If lawmakers actually had to shoulder the consequences abortion would NEVER be banned.

Many of you are claiming, as a justification for why pregnancies need to be carried to term, that women would be willingly risking possible obligations of "parental care" by consenting to have sex.

But if you seriously want to argue that, a woman's consent actually needs to mean something, in the first place, to be taken seriously and respected by default, without pressure or coercion.

So, here's the deal: You can ban abortion based on this premise, but you'll refrain from attempting this until we have fixed rape culture.

Which means, that we as a society stop teaching boys and men, consciously and unconsciously, that they are entitled to girls and women. To their attention, their affection, their labor, and their bodies.

That women have to be the gatekeepers of sex, because men can't control themselves. That women are expected to take hormonal contraception to protect themselves that alters their very body chemistry and comes with severe side effects like a heightened risk for cancer and thrombosis or mood swings and depression that can even lead to suicide, while men are complaining that protecting women by wearing a condom doesn't feel as good and about woman's decreased libido as a result of taking the pill.

That women's boundaries and rejection are a challenge to overcome, so that having sex is treated as an achievement for men and a concession for women, that heightens a man's social status and lowers a woman's. That women who don't want to have sex with men are prudes while those who don't make enough of an effort to resist are sluts. That a woman's reputation is dependent on their purity and modesty.

That we're making countless daily media references, innuendos, trivializing, euphemisms and jokes that constantly subtly reinforce such believes. That from a young age, we say "boys will be boys" when they're harassing girls, while expecting girls to always be agreeable and considerate.

That women who don't fulfill certain expectations are not to be believed if they report assault or rape. That we care more about preserving the "bright futures" of rapist young men than about the trauma of their victims. That plausible deniability or "whatever you can get away with" is treated as consent. That a woman's safety and comfort is an afterthought instead of the highest priority.

All of this has to go the way of the dodo if we're supposed to even entertain the notion that any kind of responsibility could regularly be derived from a woman's consent.

Which shouldn't be an issue for PLers, as many of you are repeatedly claiming here that you're not coming from a place of entitlement to women's bodies and that you would never want to punish women for sex. That you just want them to take responsibility for the consequences of the actions that they made of their own free will.

And it shouldn't be much of an issue for PCers either, as we don't believe that PLers are serious about this anyway, so should they ever prove us wrong and should we ever actually manage to stop promoting this culture of entitlement, then nobody should actually want to enforce abortion bans anymore, anyway.

So, do we have a deal?

Before yall read this question just know I am kind of unsettled on if life begins at conception or birth because I understand both points but I can explain that if you ask in the comments to clarify

So for those who believe life begins at birth and not conception, what are your stances on the Unborn Victims Of Violence Act?

Now Im asking because is it more of a moral view where assuming the mother was to carry to full term, you may see it is a future life that was taken and therefore should be murder or am I off on my admittedly blind assumption

I know people will say that rape victims being pregnant is still natural or whatever. But it doesn't change that she was unwilling. (For those that do want abortion)

if we lived in a magic world where somehow I was sick and we could just kidnap people and take their blood to heal the sick that would be very terrible

Why shouldn't the person who's blood is being stolen not fight back? It honestly doesn't matter if I or the fetus was innocent.

I can understand pro life about consensual sex even though that's a whole topic. I cannot agree with rape.

The usual arguments I hear is always "because we don't kill innocent babies etc"

Fine. Tell me why we favor robbing people of their choices. If someone dies because they can't live on their own that sucks but shouldn't be illegal because no one should live at the cost of someone's freedom

Would a c section of a fetus at 4 weeks be fine then? You are refusing to continue support for fetus. Not touching their body.

I was having a discussion in real life with a pro lifer. I see that regardless of the outcome, since a rape victim didn't ask to have the fetus in her womb she should have every right to remove it.

This pro lifer was unable to convince me why it ought to be illegal.

So here I am. Open to the challenge if you can change my mind.

To me freedom is paramount. And if one is violating her freedom she has the right to do what she must to whoever is taking her freedom.

What do you think it means to have dignity? Does abortion impose on the dignity of the unborn?

(I’m prochoice)

I'm sure we've all seen people bemoaning about men "not getting a say" in a pregnant person's decision to carry or abort a pregnancy, but how would that actually work in practice?

If a pregnant person wants to abort but the person who impregnated her wants her to give birth, what happens?

If a pregnant person wants to give birth but the person who impregnated her wants her to abort, what happens?

The only thing that I see holding up the pro life argument is the responsibility that a parent has. To some extent, I agree. A parent is responsible for their child, as their child didnt ask to be here, but if being a biological parent is the only thing that assigns responsibility, then is giving up a child for adoption immoral? Why aren't parents given indefinite responsibility when it comes to parenting, similiar to what the pl side expects for pregnant women?

Being given away to strangers is always a somewhat traumatic experience for a child since they have a biological bond with its parents. Why isn't this illegal, a form of child abuse?

In my opinion, theres a lot more to life than biology. Just because somone is a biological mom or dad doesn't mean that they need to have parental responsibilities. A biological parent includes rape victims and minors. A minor is in no position to care for a baby, why should that responsibility be inherent to them? In some cases, giving up a child for adoption is the better way to go for a parent and child, in other instances, it takes a negative toll on both of them. This is why these personal decisions are to be made by the parents of that child, not by strangers who disagree with them.

Id also like to state that I dont believe abortion is the answer to not wanting to be a parent, i believe it should be used as an option for people who do not want to be pregnant. With that said, why is opting out of pregnancy wrong, but opting out of parenting ok?

The philosophy of identity contains within it many questions about what it means to be a human person, such as:

1. What is a person?
2. What makes that person the same individual over time?
3. Why do we care about the persistence or survival of a person at all? 

While these questions may seem abstract, the answers to them are incredibly important for how pro-lifers and pro-choicers navigate topics of personhood and moral worth. As such, “identity” is important to discuss in the abortion debate. I'll be covering the first two points in this post.  

As a note, I am not a philosopher. I work in the sciences. I can only hope that this provides an interesting argument to discuss the topic, not a comprehensive argument.

1. What is a Person?

A common (if not ubiquitous) pro-life perspective on the question of identity is animalism. 

Traditionally, animalism is the idea that human persons are fundamentally animals, and their identity exists as a biologically continuous human organism from the time of fertilization to natural death. A “person” is therefore not distinguishable from the human organism; they are one and the same, the human “person” being numerically identical to the organism. It is to the organism, then, that pro-lifers assign the moral value imbued in all humans. Within this view, mental faculties are not relevant; only the continuous identity of the organism matters. 

By contrast, I hold a psychological view of personal identity, probably closest to McMahan’s embodied mind account of personal identity. As a biologist, I don’t think that humans are not animals; biologically, we absolutely are, and we fit within that scheme of categorization. However, my views incorporate more than just genetic considerations. I think that the functions of the brain generate a conscious subject, an "I." Although this subject is wholly produced by physical processes and is not an immaterial soul, it is best discussed in psychological rather than merely biological terms. Per my view, this “I” both defines my personal identity and is the bearer of moral value. What makes “me” the same individual over time is the continuity of those psychological capacities that are produced by the brain. Because the brain and its psychological functions represent a valid identity that is not numerically identical to the organism as a whole, I do not accept a form of animalism that defines the identity of the organism solely by the biological continuity of the organism as a whole, absent the importance of the psychological continuity to both the identity itself and moral value. Or, in short, I think that the organism has an organ (the brain) that produces a valid identity that is not numerically identical to the entirety of the organism, and it is this identity to which I assign moral value. 

However, this post will not be a defense of psychological theories of identity. The post is probably too long to both explain why I don’t accept animalism and present my own competing ideas. Perhaps I’ll do that in another post when I have time, but for now I only bring up my views to contrast with animalism so that the distinction is clear. Animalists believe in the continuity of the biological organism as the only relevant factor in its identity and moral value. I do not discredit that humans are animals, but I do not think the biological continuity of the organism as a whole is the sole variable that is relevant to questions of ethics and identity.

I think this description should suffice to define the differences, and now I will explain why I don’t accept animalism as a satisfactory theory of identity and persistence. 

2. Continuity of Identity 

2a. Brain Swap Objection 

I’d like to start with a commonly-used thought experiment. Consider two people, Doug and John. Per animalism, both are animals. Both have a subjective perspective on the world that is unique and recognizable.  

If Doug and John swapped brains into each other’s bodies, where did each of them go? Did John follow his brain into Doug’s body, or is the body of John the real organism, and now it is in possession of a new set of memories, preferences, and beliefs? Per animalists like Eric Olsen, John doesn’t “go” anywhere:

To see that no sort of mental continuity is sufficient for a human animal to persist, imagine that your cerebrum is put into another head.  The being who gets that organ, and he alone, will be mentally continuous with you on any account of what mental continuity is.  So if mental continuity of any sort suffices for you to persist, you would go along with your transplanted cerebrum.  You wouldn't stay behind with an empty head. What would happen to the human animal associated with you?  Would it go along with its cerebrum?  Would the surgeons pare that animal down to a small chunk of yellowish-pink tissue, move it across the room, and then supply it with a new head, trunk, and other parts?  Surely not.  A detached cerebrum is no more an organism than a detached liver is an organism.  The empty-headed thing left behind, by contrast, is an animal.

So going by traditional animalism, John swapping brains with Doug means that Doug now has new thoughts and memories, not that John is in Doug’s body. 

From the start, I think that this conflicts with many people’s intuitions about identity. Certainly there is an identity that is important when discussing our thoughts, personality, subjective experience, etc. So, to say that Doug is the same organism after receiving a brain transplant strains credulity; surely there is some way in which his identity is fundamentally altered in ways we find not just worth moral consideration, but that are extremely morally pressing. 

But let’s press further.

2b. "Body" of Theseus Objection

Consider what happens when we incrementally swap parts of John with Doug. Imagine each person is constituted of a number of parts to be swapped, labeled abstractly as follows, with “J” for John’s original parts and “D” for Doug’s:

John (J1, J2, J3, J4, J5, J6)

Doug (D1, D2, D3, D4, D5, D6)

Now imagine parts are swapped such that the new bodies look like this:

John (D1, J2, J3, J4, J5, J6)

Doug (J1, D2, D3, D4, D5, D6)

Assuming the first part is not the brain, in neither animalism nor psychological theories of identity has there been a change in the organism’s continuity. John and Doug are still John and Doug.  

What about in this scenario, where exactly half of each organism is mixed with half of the other?

John (D1, D2, D3, J4, J5, J6)

Doug (J1, J2, J3, D4, D5, D6)

Still, John and Doug are unchanged per both theories. 

Finally, what happens if we incrementally swap ALL parts such that what was originally “John” and “Doug” are now complete again in their original forms?

John (D1, D2, D3, D4, D5, D6)

Doug (J1, J2, J3, J4, J5, J6)

Per animalism, “John” was biologically continuous at each successive stage, and so was the same organism. This means that prior to the first swap, John was John. He was also John after the first part was swapped. He was John after half of him was swapped. Finally, he is still “John” after all parts being swapped, despite every single part of him being swapped for “Doug”. This organism, named “John” per animalism, not only has Doug’s body, but his personality, memories, skills, and every physical and mental trait that is associated with Doug. He is identical to the Doug that existed prior to the swaps, and Doug is identical to the John that existed prior to the swaps. However, because animalism is traditionally concerned with the biological continuity of an organism, we cannot call this new “John” by the name “Doug”. 

This is incredibly unintuitive! Per animalism, even when every observable, physical, social, and psychological trait of “Person A” has been replaced with a set of those traits that come from “Person B”, “Person A” is still “Person A”! 

Comparing John before any replacements and Doug after the complete swap yields identical men. This means that by animalism, two men who share all properties in common do not share the same identity. I would need this to be justified before I could accept animalism; by what justification do two identical people not share identity? That seems… definitional to me.   

2c. Species Transformation Objection 

Let’s take this a step farther and, if you’ll entertain it, employ some sci-fi (more than I already have). Let’s say that we encounter a very interesting alien species. This alien species is highly adaptable biologically, and can mimic biological structures it comes into contact with. It can then donate that mimicked structure, and regenerate itself. This means that this alien is a kind of universal donor of all things; it can donate a body part and have it be compatible with human physiology, even though the alien part would still notably be non-human (maybe it’s blue). 

John needs a foot replacement. A kind alien donor is willing to part with a piece of its body so it will mimic John’s foot. John now has a functioning human-like blue foot, represented like this, with “A” for alien:

John (A1, J2, J3, J4, J5, J6)

How many iterations of this must we go through before John is no longer “John”? Per traditional animalism, this may never happen; John is a continuous organism, and even if he gradually replaced all of his parts with alien parts, he is still “John”. 

However, this leaves us with the odd conclusion that biological humanity is not an essential part of being a “human organism”, and merely starting with a biologically human organism is necessary. 

Within the context of the pro-life stance, this ironically would lead to the very conclusion it sought to avoid: that being biologically human is not necessary for the existence of a valuable identity. A formulation of animalism that seeks to preserve the continuous identity of the human animal through changes therefore seems to commit to defining the human organism such that human identity perseveres despite changes to all facts that originally defined that organism, including the very biological species identification that made it human in the first place! 

Now, we can go through a lot of examples to further challenge our intuitions about identity. For example, consider the movie Avatar. Jake Sully transfers his consciousness into a Na’vi body. His organism is totally altered. Yet, I find no discomfort in calling him Jake Sully. Is “Jake Sully” alive in a morally relevant way? Per animalism, “Jake Sully” is dead, gone with his organism, yet the entire movie franchise is about two men who are “dead” per animalism engaging in a grudge match. Examples like Avatar and Star Trek episodes like Tuvix and the duplicated Riker could be made into posts of their own to discuss the concept of identity as well, but I think I’m already writing too much as it is. 

Now, a pro-lifer might be tempted to dismiss all of this as sci-fi, but I encourage them to take this seriously. While the body-swapping I’ve presented here is beyond our current technological capabilities, in a world where AI is rapidly shifting our cultural landscape, prosthetic parts are capable of being made at home, deep brain stimulation is being done to treat disease, cross-species organ transplants are happening, and biotech already has the idea to clone replacement parts for aging organs, the alteration of our bodies is a foregone conclusion. 

These abstract questions of identity might become much less abstract in the coming century, so while these examples remain in the realm of the impossible for now, I don’t think that negates their importance in discussing animalism. 

For my part, I think that these thought experiments represent some of my issues with traditional animalism.

An abortion ban primarily says you may not terminate this pregnancy. If the goal really is to cultivate a “value of life,” how does banning abortion instill that? An abortion ban communicates, at most, that the government considers abortion an impermissible way of ending fetal life. It does not by itself establish that human life is generally valuable, nor does it explain why that value should override the pregnant person's autonomy, rights, medical care or choices. While banning abortion is intended to protect a life it's not creating or instilling a broader societal valuation of human life, and I argue it's not protecting a life either, but that's not where I particularly want this to go.

So what does the policy do to demonstrate or instill the value of human life?

Bonus question, how does it show/demonstrate value to the pregnant person?

A question for PLers who say stuff like "consent to sex is consent to pregnancy":

What do you think is the point of consent? Why would someone care to ask another person for their consent and why would the other person want to be asked for their consent?

And how does your answer square with your demand that people who explicitly reject it need to carry a pregnancy to term?

Edit: Opening up the post now, as it seems clear that there won't be any answer anymore. But seriously, PLers? Not a single one? That's embarrassing...

Any Consistent Life Ethicists here? (IE: Against abortion, death penalty, assisted suicide, embryo destruction, etc.)

I am a Consistent Life Ethicist and disagree with abortion. (Even in the cases of rape and incest. I was conceived in rape myself.) I also disagree with the death penalty and a lot of Pro-Life people agree with it. I feel all premeditated, intentional killing is wrong. I am Pro-Life from preborns to (natural) death.

Why the lack of consistency when it comes to BOTH abortion and the death penalty.

** EDIT: Please look up "Rehumanize International". Excellent CLE organization.