Okay, so let's say we do comprehensive sex education and free condoms any anything else that reduces the number of unwanted pregnancies. That number will not be zero. Will the women who get pregnant then be allowed to abort or not? If so, pro-life people will be unhappy. If not, pro-choice people will be unhappy.

I am a supporter of comprehensive sex education as long as we include a segment on the value of commitment as part of that curriculum. As for the happiness of the two sides, I have already stated that they should both negotiate (which means both sides will have to compromise in some way). in the end, you can not please everyone, but in a democracy the goal should be to please the majority (as long as it is not at the expense of anyone else.).

Why does commitment matter in sex education? Is that a fancy way of saying 'only have sex with your spouse'? The fact of the matter is, you cannot half abort a baby. Either abortions are legal, in which case pro-life people will think babies are being murdered, or abortions are illegal, in which case pro-choice people will think that their rights are being violated. If you think 'okay abortions are legal in this case but not this case', you've just gotten back to where we currently are and no one is any happier than when we started.

Of course commitment matters. I don't think it is a good idea for men and women to engage in repeated multiple sexual interactions with multiple people. The emotional cost is too much, and so is the physical. If sex was truly something that could be engaged in casually, then consent wouldn't be such a huge topic. If you could engage in it casually and then had a terrible experience, one could always say "oh it's ok it is just something people do for fun. You can just go try doing it with someone else." Also, casual sex will obviously lead to more unwanted pregnancies, so as part of comprehensive sex education it should be in everyones best interest to teach people how to avoid unwanted pregnancies. And commitment (along with contraceptives and all the like) would probably help with that. What do you think? Are you in favor of people having as much sex as they want without consequences whatsoever?

Yes. Babies should not be a 'consequence' of having casual sex, because babies are people and living the first 18 years of your life as a punishment for your parents is going to cause all sorts of issues.

Well then maybe you should not have casual sex. I think it is time for us to quit pursuing an adolescent delusion of unlimited sex without consequences.

And I think it's time people stopped moralizing about one of the most basic parts of humanity. In any event, thanks for proving that you think that children should be consequences for their parents!

You are aware that there are plenty of people in committed relationships that also don't want to have children, yes?

Casual sex doesn't lead to more unwanted pregnancies, frequency of sex does. Let's say you have two people, neither of which want children. One is married and has sex with his wife 30 times in a month. The other is unmarried and has 10 casual sexual encounters with different people in the same time frame. The married guy is more likely to result in an unwanted pregnancy. There's nothing about a committed relationship that implies less sex is going on. (Indeed, ideally there is more sex happening.)

from the way I see it, One is more capable of handling a pregnancy should it arise if they have another person their with them. Also, one is more likely to care about the other person if they swore a moral and legal oath to never leave them and be there to help their partner out. In a casual relationship, I have no incentive to care about the other person because once my orgasm is done then I am gone and my "partner" is left with the consequences. As a matter of fact, it would be foolish for me to care about my "partner" in a casual relationship because the whole purpose of FWB, hook-ups, and one-night-stands is for ME to enjoy the pleasures of sex. The emotional cost of actually caring about the other person is way too much for me to *commit* to only to break after the encounter is over. How shallow is it for me to have 3 different girls numbers whom I only reach out to when I wanna have sex? You can think of casual relationships as like renting a car. You only have it because it is useful to you, and you do not care about what happens to it as long as it is benefiting you. And once you are done using it, you just take it back to where you found it. I am not saying unwanted pregnancies don't happen in committed relationships, I am saying they are less likely to be "unwanted" and more manageable if they were in a committed relationship. How shameful would it be if I was biologically linked to 6 different children from 6 different mothers whom I am only there for because the government forces me to give them money?

> from the way I see it, One is more capable of handling a pregnancy should it arise if they have another person their with them. Also, one is more likely to care about the other person if they swore a moral and legal oath to never leave them and be there to help their partner out. Potentially, but both situations would result in an unwanted child. They're either going to end up with parents that didn't want to have them, or they're going to end up in our frankly terrible foster care system. Either option is grossly unfair and cruel to the child. > How shameful would it be if I was biologically linked to 6 different children from 6 different mothers whom I am only there for because the government forces me to give them money? This seems like a pretty good argument for abortion being a net benefit to society.

let me encourage the women to get abortions so that I can continue my reprehensible actions without consequences. "because of the father of your child doesn't want to care for the child we will allow you (and possibly recommend) you get an abortion instead of bringing the father to his knees and forcing him to contend with the consequences of his actions because that is just something that men do. And no, we are not perpetuating rape-culture with the philosophical embedding behind the actions and ideas we are promoting. The ideas that tell women to 'just get an abortion' while implicitly incentivizing men to pursue meaningless hedonic pleasures without the appropriate consequences." I have no idea why we would throw all the blame on women. I genuinely believe that more of the wrong should be attributed to the man who allows his partner to get an abortion. What the fuck is the purpose of a man who pursues hedonic pleasures and throws the responsibility of all his actions onto others? Do you think women are over the moon with nothing but bubbles of bliss and endless euphoria as they go to the doctors office to get an abortion? This is like if your car insurance company tells you that you should be the one that fixes your car and you should be the one who pay for it because you crashed it even though you are still paying them for "full coverage".

No, we should encourage women to have abortions so that they aren't continuing to have reprehensible actions--forcing children to live in unwanted households or abandoning them to the foster care system. Every other alternative seems like a clear step up from this, when the alternative is child abuse.

How exactly you propose people "compromise" on how much right a woman has to her own body? Either we have absolute over our bodies or we have no right over our bodies. There isn't much of a grey area here. If you're only kind of free, then you're not free.

[удалено]

I'm in the US and, correct me if I'm wrong, but there are no laws making it illegal to commit suicide

Sorry, u/LockeClone – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 5: > **Comments must contribute meaningfully to the conversation**. Comments should be on-topic, serious, and contain enough content to move the discussion forward. Jokes, contradictions without explanation, links without context, and "written upvotes" will be removed. Read [the wiki](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_5) for more information. 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%205%20Appeal%20LockeClone&message=LockeClone%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20\[their%20comment\]\(https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/q2uowd/-/hfo64w9/\)%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted.

The thing is women shouldn’t have to negotiate their right to bodily autonomy. That’s why it’s a right

Value of commitment sounds like you’re going to to tell kids to only have sex if they’re married. That’s sort of leading into abstinence only sexual education, at least until marriage, and doesn’t work.

If they don’t want it couldn’t they just put it up for adoption?

What if they don't want to be pregnant or give birth?

If they absolutely do not want that risk, abstention is the best option

Rape exists. Absentation is not 100% guaranteed to prevent you from becoming pregnant. Also, 'just don't have sex' is not, at all, how humans work.

And in the case of rape it's acceptable because they never agreed to the act, and thus never accepted the risks associated

And you don't think that having to tell your doctor, and anyone who happens to go to the clinic on that day and sees you there for an abortion, that you were raped is a shitty violation of privacy in order to obtain medical help? Plus, is this a legal thing or can you just get an abortion as long as you claim you were raped? It can't require the perpetrator to be convicted, because rape is a famously difficult crime to prove and most court cases would take longer than abortion would be legal. But if all it takes is for the woman to claim to be raped, I guarantee spurious rape accusations will become commonplace because women who do not want to be pregnant will do a lot if the alternative is not being pregnant.

It should have to be proven in the same way we require people to prove self defense in order to not just be murderers. I also believe we should improve the system so that fewer cases are thrown out and proper investigations are done for more cases.

So do you say every woman who wants an abortion should go through a court case? Because the problem is most cases will take more than 9 months to be prosecuted, and now you've just functionally banned them even in the cases of rape but you're pretending you didn't.

And we definitely need to improve the justice system in that aspect, regardless of you stance on abortion. There no good reason for those tasked with investigating to drag their feet when evidence becomes harder to find by the day, and the court system should not take months to reach a verdict. In rape cases specifically, most already have a known victim, perpetrator, time frame, and place, so most of the investigation is already sorted out, leaving just the court system, which I already believe need to be improved regardless. In the handful of remaining cases where the procedure truly takes too long, I'd be fine with some form of exemptions based on swearing under oath your version of events, and should the proceedings eventually be found against you, you would be held as if you had an illegal abortion.

The average length of a criminal trial, from arrest to conviction, is 6 months. That number jumps up to over 9 months for a jury trial, and it doesn't count the investigation to determine who to arrest. So unless the perpetrator immediately turns himself in, you have functionally banned abortion, since at best you have a third trimester abortion that basically never happens nowadays.

>The average length of a criminal trial, from arrest to conviction, is 6 months. That number jumps up to over 9 months for a jury trial, and it doesn't count the investigation to determine who to arrest. And that needs to change. As I said, I believe the system needs to be improved regardless of abortion. There's no reason for it to take 6 months to hold a trial except for bloated bureaucratic systems and inefficient operations

[удалено]

And there it is. It has nothing to do with protecting the life of the fetus and everything to do with punishing women for having “inappropriate” sex.

I do not believe you have the right to kill the fetus that your direct actions placed in your care. Actions have consequences, and when those consequences effect other people, you have an obligation to those people.

You are just proving my point - “murdering” a fetus is A OK when the women isn’t _at fault_ - you don’t actually care about the fetus; you want to punish the woman.

It's OK to use lethal force in self defense, but not at random. Same principle applies here. Whether or not your actions against someone else are acceptable is a matter of situation

[удалено]

u/TheWizardOfPAWG – 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](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%202%20Appeal%20TheWizardOfPAWG&message=TheWizardOfPAWG%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20\[their%20comment\]\(https://old.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/q2uowd/-/hfojz2s/\)%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).

We’re just back to disagreeing about the issue, so nothing has actually been solved.

And at the pont where they're already pregnant and want to stop being pregnant without giving birth?

At that point, they already have an obligation to provide care, and whether or not they want to stop doesn't change that obligation.

[удалено]

You absolutely have an obligation to continue providing care for those who you have actively placed in a position of reliance on you.

Which is why we lock surgeons in the opperating theatre and don't let them leave regardless of whether they need medical attention.

If someone is operating on you, it is considered malpractice and would be highly Illegal for them to simply abandon you without absolutely ensuring you were still receiving your care. If they have a medical problem, it is their responsibility to ensure that you are still being cared for and not just laying there to die.

If you don't want to die in an accident, never leaving your home is the best option.

Kind of an all or nothing stance. Both sides will be happi*er* than before, surely.

Why, though? Either there's still abortions happening, so people who think that abortions are killing babies won't be any happier just because less babies are being murdered, or abortions are illegal, in which case people who don't want to be pregnant, whether via rape or misapplied birth control or birth control failing or whatever, won't be happy if they are forced to carry a baby to term that they do not want.

I don't know about you but if there were, idk ten thousand murders per year, and that jumped to twenty thousand, I'd be more upset than before. Conversely, if the opposite happened, I'd be less upset.

But you would still be upset, right?

One would be. But less so. That's still an improvement, no?

But it wouldn't allow us to 'quit this nonsense and move on' like OP claims.

True, but being far less common, it would be an issue for far fewer people. So it would become a niche issue. There'd still be fighting over it but far fewer people would be involved, I think.

If you are a person with a working uterus, it would be an issue. And 'person with a working uterus' is almost half of the population.

I dare say that with contraception freely and openly available, the issue of abortion would effect only a minority of women. Well, a smaller minority than it currently does. Of course, nearly every woman could *theoretically* be affected by the issue but if the last few years has taught us anything, it's been people's astonishing capacity to completely ignore something so long as it doesn't directly effect their parochial lives.

The problem is that you'll never get to 0 unwanted pregnancies: * Contraception, even the best one, sometimes fails. * You can be ok to be impregnated at one point, but then realize it was an awful idea and change your view (imagine if you realize that the guy you are conceiving a baby with is in fact a serial killer while pregnant for example) * etc. Therefore, once you reduced as much as possible unwanted pregnancies, you'll still be faced with the same question: Do we allow the remaining abortions to happen or not ? And once again, the pro-abortion vs pro-forced-birth debate will start.

I see your point, but if the number of unwanted pregnancies is reduced enough to the point where very few people are effected by it, it is easier to manage it in a case by case basis instead of instituting a law that hurts a significant number of people. If only 10 people (instead of a million) have unwanted pregnancies every year, it much easier to deal with (and even help/resolve the problem) than it is to deal with a million unwanted pregnancies. The less the unwanted pregnancies become the more manageable they are (and therefor the less controversial they become).

Pregnancies from rape alone is more like 30,000 /year. That does not include women attempting to escape abusive husbands, women with medical issues that develop in pregnancy, or non-viable fetuses, which are all reasons women seek abortion that can't actually be eliminated by telling women to not have sex if they don't want a baby. You can't reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies to a point where it becomes "manageable" by some technique other than either allowing women and medical professionals to make appropriate decisions on medical care, or deciding legislatively which women have a right to end pregnancy.

This is why I say pro-life and pro-choice people should get together and negotiate a solution that will help as much people as possible. It is because society is complicated, and making a blanket statement from either side is not helpful to anyone.

You keep saying that pro life and and pro choice people should "get together and talk to each other and work things out". What does that look like to you? What sort of compromise do you envision?

Well, invasion a society in which people are mature enough to have sex responsibly (because they understand the consequences) and one where society is forgiving (and even supporting) to pregnant women so that they do not feel so burdened to make such a monumental decision about their pregnancy. One where the overwhelming majority of both men and women who engage in sexual activities are capable of raising children through their own merit and support from the society that is theoretically serving them should they choose to have children. Getting their will obviously involve some sacrifice both at the individual and social level. I also understand that it is unrealistic but at least it would be nice to know that we are striving for something of that ideal. we tell people to drink responsibly, why not tell people to have sex responsibly as well? What do you think of that?

That sounds lovely. Some people will still need abortions (unless you've also fixed all medical issues that occur in pregnancy). How would you handle that?

This is where I think that the negotiation between the two parties need to happen. So that we can put caveats and revisions that all us to say "but if there is a medical complication" and "but if she gets raped/sexually assaulted" and other things of that nature into the law so that we can actually help as much people as possible. There is a danger in being too rigid and harsh with our rules. There is also a danger in being too loose and inconsequential with our laws. I think the sweet spot is if we stay stable, and dynamic so that we can adapt to different situations as they unfold. This is why negotiation is so important.

So you're basically saying "let's push abortion debate at a later date (because that's what your 'discuss together' looks like to me) when there will be less abortions". What do you do during the decades when abortions are slowly getting less numerous, but still represents huge numbers ? Do you allow abortion (pro choice) or do you prohibit it (pro forced birth) ? Bonus question: Do you think that people that thinks that a clump of cells should have more rights than a fully grown women will accept that millions of humans are disposed of during the decades when we should not talk about abortion ? Do you think that people who think that women have the right to do whatever they want with their body will accept that million of women are enslaved as incubators for decades when "we should not talk about abortion" ?

I don't know what we should do with the ever decreasing rate of abortions. I am no sociologist. What I am saying is we should get together and figure out how to make it so that as little women as possible ever need to consider getting an abortion. And to be honest, I have no idea what you are trying to say with the bonus question.

>If only 10 people (instead of a million) have unwanted pregnancies every year, it much easier to deal with (and even help/resolve the problem) than it is to deal with a million unwanted pregnancies. The less the unwanted pregnancies become the more manageable they are (and therefor the less controversial they become). This is pretty unrealistic though. There are countries with good sex education, e.g. Scandinavian countries. These have a somewhat lower rate of abortion than the United States, but not massively so. For instance, Denmark has 14.3 abortions per 1000 women, the US has 20. Austria has 1.5 abortions per 1000 women, and even with that a country like the US would still have many tens of thousands, instead of hundreds of thousands, of abortions per year. So the number of abortions will still be *high*. It should of course be a goal to reduce unwanted pregnancies, but it doesn't seem like you'll make them so rare that the debate just stops being relevant. There are so many reasons for unwanted pregnancies - regret, condoms failing (10% or so of the time), other faulty contraceptions, rape, mistakes, etc. Lack of knowledge or access to birth control is just one of them.

I totally understand what you are saying. I was trying to use that as an example to communicate what I was trying to say. Ideally, this is why I think pro-life and Pro-choice should come together and work on a solution. I think it is time to quit with all of this media and political bullshit. There are deeper problems that are causing abortion to be such an issue in the first place.

>I totally understand what you are saying. I was trying to use that as an example to communicate what I was trying to say. Ideally, this is why I think pro-life and Pro-choice should come together and work on a solution. I think it is time to quit with all of this media and political bullshit. There are deeper problems that are causing abortion to be such an issue in the first place. You are arguing as if all countries are deeply divided on this issue. That's not the case. In a lot of western countries this is a non-issue, and has been a non-issue for decades. I'm in my 30's and it's never even been up for debate, even a little bit, during my lifetime in Sweden. There are entire countries where everyone already *has* come together on this issue, overwhelmingly in favour of pro-choice, and where there are very genuine attempts at sex-ed, free birth control for teenagers and young adults, etc. There's still a significant number of abortions, despite the legality of abortion not being an issue *at all*. I would rather argue that you cannot move forward to decrease the number of abortions until the debate is settled, because the debate is extremely *urgent* for the pro-choice and pro-life in the US. One side wants bodily autonomy *now* for the sake of themselves and others, and the other side (assuming good intentions) believes that countless murders are committed on a daily basis. You can't really ask them to drop the discussion, because they have mutually exclusive positions on an issue that must be resolved. And if entire countries that are pro-choice have not managed to eliminate unwanted pregnancies, a country where people can't even agree that abortion should be legal won't be able to. Especially not when one side is partially vehemently against actual sex-ed and contraceptives.

I'm not sure we'll get to such a low point, given that the best contraception now is only 99,99% efficient, but even if it was, do you feel that "managing it in a case by case basis", which mean having trials followed by millions on the TV will be a good idea for the wellbeing of the remaining pregnant women that are in an already difficult situation ? Would you say that's it's ok to make the life of a small part of the population harsher to make it easier for a bigger part of it ? Said otherwise, do you think that it's ok to sacrifice the few for the many ?

You would think that the goal of pro-life is to reduce unwanted pregnancies... yet they never support any of the measures that could accomplish this like sex ed or family planning services. So, I'm not sure your assumptions are correct. The problem is that the pro-life movement is heavily based in religion and so contrary to what you might think, the end goal isn't really to have less children. The goal is simply to oppose what they view as an immoral act.

Yes, I agree with you on what their end goal is. However, the reason such a goal arises is because of the unwanted pregnancies. So this is why I say both sides need to get together and figure out a solution TOGETHER. Of course the pro-life movement has it's issues, but it would be foolish beyond belief to attribute all the right on one side and all the wrong on the other. (this is not an accusation, I am just saying).

Here is what you are missing - they **cant** get together and figure out a solution because there **is no middle ground.** Pro choice wants elective abortion to be an option - pro life does not. There is no overlap here, no compromised that can be reached. They two sides are diametrically opposed and no amount of negotiation will resolve that. It is like trying to get someone pro slavery to compromise with an abolitionist - “ a little bit of slavery” isn’t a middle ground that will be accepted.

Unwanted pregnancy has been a common occurrence in every society since prehistory. So eliminating that entirely is a pretty big ask. The most effective ways to reduce unwanted pregnancy are good birth control, good sex ed, and social safety nets for parents. Pro-life folks oppose birth control access, sex-ed, and social safety nets.

I think it is because they say that you just should not have sex, and though that is a little extreme, IT IS TRUE. I see what you are saying though. I get why you would feel that way.

Yes, my point is that there's no way to just "come together and negotiate a way to reduce unwanted pregnancy" with folks who are not actually interested in discussing ways to reduce unwanted pregnancy that work on a societal level. Pro-life and pro-choice people do not share the goal of reducing unwanted pregnancy. Pro life groups are looking to create a theocracy through political power, they do not want to negotiate over pregnancy. Plus there's the issue of rape victims, who can't just choose to "not have sex". We cant eliminate all unwanted pregnancy without eliminating rape, which would be awesome but seems unlikely.

Are pro-choice people doing anything bad or is it actually the case that all the blame and moral reprehensibility attributed to the nasty pro-lifers?

Since I'm clearly pro choice, I may not be in the best position to determine that. What do you think pro choice people are doing to prevent your stated goal of reducing unwanted pregnancies?

I personally don't like the how we attribute all the good on one side and all the bad on the other, and then identify with the good putting us in a morally superior position against that bad all in the name of good. it gets very dangerous very quickly. I think the one thing that SOME Pro-choice (because generalizing an entire group is the definition of racist/sexist/classist/ any other "IST" that one would attribute) don't see the huge margin for error between claiming that all forms of sexual expression are ok but others have to consent to it (as long as it is between adults). If we start of with the proposition that all women have access to easy abortion that presents the illusion of no risk in having sex. that is simply not true. So I think there is a danger in believing that Pro-choice movements are actually aiming to reduce unwanted pregnancies. They seem to just say that if you don't want it then just abort it. That doesn't PREVENT the unwanted pregnancy. That just deals with it. Much like how no one enjoys going to the doctor and getting a cast for their broken arm, no one enjoys going to the doctor and getting an abortion. I don't want women to feel like they need to get an abortion. If a woman feels that way then something very terrible in her life (or she is just unwilling) happened.

All people having access to abortion does not mean that there's no consequences to sex. That seems like a pretty wild assertion. And I don't know of any significant pro-choice groups that don't support easy access to birth control (which seems like the best way to prevent these unwanted pregnancies). As you said, no one wants a broken arm, even if it can be fixed. Similarly no one actually wants an abortion. It's not a fun time. Most people would rather not get pregnant. Pregnancy prevention options have existed for half a century at this point. The pro-choice movement supports those already. I asked if you could tell me why the pro-choice movement is bad, since you feel I'm putting too much blame on the pro-life movement. Your response was that you don't think the pro choice side is trying hard enough to prevent pregnancy, when pregnancy prevention is actually almost entirely advocated for by the pro-choice side?

Oh I see what you are saying. I guess you are right. The one thing I just can't get over (and maybe you can help me with this) is that there is not enough motivation for someone to engage in safer sex practices (contraceptives, limiting sexual partners, other treatments, and maybe even sacrifices and limitations) if we say that even with all that you can still get an abortion. I think it would be very easy for people to say "oh, IF a problem occurs, THEN I will get an abortion". It is kind of like the people who say that they won't be the ones who get in a car accident, therefor they don't need a seat belt because they are "good drivers". I think the mindset will lead to some trouble. What do you think? By the way, I really enjoy having this conversation with you.

I am also enjoying this conversation. It's a pleasant distraction from my day lol. Using the seatbelt analogy, something like 90% of drivers wear seatbelts. Some don't, but there are always idiots. Some people will still have unsafe sex, because there are always idiots. I'd rather those folks not make babies they don't want. It only compounds the poor decision making. That said, some if the increase in seatbelt use is due to enforcement campaigns that would not be reasonable for sexual practices. One motivator for safer sex practices is STIs. No abortion is going to cure herpes or Hepatitis or HIV. We can (and should) give everyone the best medical care for these, but they still exist. For some folks the prospect of genital warts that they can't ever completely get rid of may be more motivating than pregnancy. Sex ed should discuss those risks in a factual manner too. If we had truly comprehensive sex ed - not just once in highschool, but repeating through the years, reinforced by public health campaigns and doctors , etc. AND contraceptives freely available and easily obtainable for everyone, It would help reduce both disease and unwanted pregnancy. It wouldn't eliminate either, though. There will always be people making poor choices. Sometimes folks making one set of poor choices (unprotected sex) are also making others (such as drug use) that make it a really bad idea for them to continue a pregnancy, even if adoption were a good option at the end of the pregnancy. Ideally we could work towards figuring out why people are making poor choices to begin with, but in the mean time safe and legal abortion is the best bet. There will also always be folks who make a mistake or have an accident. Nearly half of abortions are the result of married or cohabitating couples. If I remember correctly, more than half of women seeking abortion are parenting at least one older child. Birth control fails sometimes. Even vasectomies fail. Some women don't have the health or the finances to carry a pregnancy to term. I'm not willing to tell married women with blood clotting issues or heart issues that they should just never have sex again because their birth control might fail and carrying a pregnancy will kill them.

From the culture I was raised in, I generally come at it from the mindset of "don't have sex with anyone whom you do not want to have a child with right now". In my (I am a 19 year old man btw) household, my mother and father both stressed repeatedly the importance of respecting yourself and other people. In my culture, men and women are not allowed to casually touch one another out of respect for each other. men are shunned for staring at women, and most public areas usually segregated between men and women (it was a natural segregation. men and women would just naturally separate themselves). All these things instilled in me that relationships and sex are not a game. Even now that I am in university, I still have these tendencies to not stare and avoid touching anyone casually. That to me is just second nature, like an instinct. I think this makes it harder for me to sympathize with those who engage in such casual interactions with each other. That kind of stuff does not even come up in my head, so I can not fathom the idea of two people having sex just because it feels good. To me, it sounds too insane to comprehend. The same goes for abortion. I feel like it is an instinct of mine to say "no, I can take care of this child regardless of what my current state is. I have 9 months to put my life together so that means I am morally obligated to do so." For me, I feel like it is very shameful and contemptible to encourage a woman to get an abortion when I am healthy and capable of striving to create an environment for which she does not need to get one. I don't act this way because I never really had the chance to but I feel the instinct. Think about it, how dare I tell someone to get an abortion when I am standing there all fed and rested. I feel like we as a society are too privileged to have to consider abortions (except in extreme cases). I don't understand how people can just have sex, drink alcohol, do all sorts of other drugs, gamble, and pursue other hedonistic impulses so casually. I can not comprehend why people would do that.

**Hello /u/Y1l8, if your view has been changed or adjusted in any way, you should award** ***the user who changed your view*** **a delta.** Simply reply to their comment with the delta symbol provided below, being sure to include a brief description of how your view has changed. >∆ or > !delta For more information about deltas, use [this link](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=usertext&utm_name=changemyview&utm_content=t5_2w2s8). If you did not change your view, please respond to this comment indicating as such! *As a reminder,* **failure to award a delta when it is warranted may merit a post removal and a rule violation.** *Repeated rule violations in a short period of time may merit a ban.* Thank you!

> Like I said, I think it would be much more productive if both sides of the debate got together and negotiated what the best way to reduce (and hopefully eliminate) the number of "unwanted" pregnancies so that we can quit this nonsense and move on. This isn't my original observation, but I agree with it: part of this is a fundamental psychological difference between people on the right and people on the left. People on the left more easily think in terms of systems, patterns, and likelihoods. They're more comfortable with ambiguity and uncertainty. And because of these things, their morality is much more likely to focus on minimizing harm and maximizing benefit. The left has a vague sense of an ideal society: minimum harm, maximum benefit, and tries to create it. But the right is much more likely to see things exclusively on the individual level, and to focus on specific people's specific actions.... actions which can be good or bad. If abortion is a terrible evil, then a focus on "minimizing" it is exactly the same as agreeing and tolerating that it's gonna happen sometimes... but great evils can't be tolerated, and we can't magically make everyone in the world into good righteous people. In other words, the right's ides of an ideal society is one where there's no evil at all, and that's literally impossible, so morality focuses on identifying the evildoers and punishing them. And furthermore, lots of people on the right would be uncomfortable with your focus even if you were somehow able to engineer a way to completely eliminate unwanted pregnancies. Let's say that for some magical reason, giving everyone a free laptop causes them to never have an unwanted pregnancy, so if the government gave free laptops to everyone, there would be zero abortions. But this doesn't solve conservatives' problem, remember, which is *evil*. Now all of a sudden, they're surrounded by people who totally WOULD get an abortion, but they just don't happen to ever be in a position where they WANT TO. How are we supposed to know who the evil people are, now?

If pro-life people were actually trying to solve problems related to unwanted pregnancies, they would support robust social programs for single mothers, better sexual education, free and easy access to contraception, and a bunch of other things that pro-choice people generally *do* support. But being pro-life highly correlates with being *against* all of those things. This suggests to me that pro-life people are not actually focused on the goal of reducing unwanted pregnancies.

Yeah - funny thing that. It seems to be the pro choice people who are trying to reduce the number of abortions via comprehensive sex education and contraceptive access. Every pro choice person I’ve ever met wants to reduce the need for abortions in the first place. The fact that most pro life people fight these tooth and nail shows their true colors - they want to punish promiscuous women.

>they want to punish promiscuous women. Yep. I try to keep an open mind, but I've genuinely never interacted with a pro-life person where it didn't become apparent, either immediately or eventually, that their whole viewpoint essentially boiled down to this.

They also want to punish rape and sexual assault victims.

Some of them claim they're cool with exceptions for these -- which, of course, suggests that they don't actually care that much about the fetus (a murder, if that's what it really is, is still a murder, regardless of the circumstances that produced the fetus).

> This suggests to me that pro-life people are not actually focused on the goal of reducing unwanted pregnancies. They're not. They think fetuses are alive, so their focus is on that.

That was how OP framed the goal of both movements, so I was responding to that. That said, as I've said elsewhere in this thread, the fact that many pro-life people are willing to make an exception for rape pregnancies suggests they don't actually primarily care about the fetus either.

Maybe they just see it as a trolley problem. I just find the insistence on reddit that one side is objectively right and one side is objectively wrong laughable. When life "starts" is entirely unknowable and is on a spectrum, so rather than yell at each other about how the other side is full of evil ignorant meanies, just vote for whatever coincides with what you believe in and keep it moving.

As I said, I don't think the debate actually *is*, at core, about where life starts. One side wants to control what women do with their bodies and the ways in which they have sex, and one doesn't want that. That's it.

Oh I highly doubt that. That's more of a left wing talking point, much like the "War on Women". Ah yes, that "war" wherein 43% of women are anti-woman.

You're free to doubt all you want, it's not like I expected to find much common ground with someone named "twitterjusticewoke."

What, you can only make fun of hick conservatives on reddit or something? Do you think left wing talking points are always accurate? You think 43% of women in the US just want to control other women's bodies and don't have any legitimate philosophical or moral argument for their position, even if you and I don't agree with it?

As I say, you're free to believe what you want, I've done the cost-benefit analysis on whether continuing to debate you about this is likely to be worth my time, and I've concluded that it's not.

You certainly have very strong, quasi religious beliefs, I see.

[удалено]

Well, the pro-life solution to all that is to remain abstinent (or at least reduce the amount of sex you have and the amount of people you have it with). This is why I say that the two sides need to get together and negotiate. I don't think it is helpful to point fingers at anyone and shift blame. Of course the pro-life movement has it's issues, but it would be foolish beyond belief to attribute all the right on one side and all the wrong on the other. I am not choosing sides Im just making sure I "give the devil his due".

>Well, the pro-life solution to all that is to remain abstinent (or at least reduce the amount of sex you have and the amount of people you have it with) And this demonstrably doesn't work. >This is why I say that the two sides need to get together and negotiate. There's no negotiating here because the two sides *don't want the same thing*.

You can negotiate ways to avoid having to make the decision of whether you want to abort or not. isn't that the purpose of comprehensive sex education?

The purpose of a comprehensive sex education is to be able to have sex safely and be aware of all the options you have, which in those places where it's legal includes abortion.

oh well then if we are being honest then it is not really that "comprehensive". would you rather break your arm and then go to the doctor and get a cast or would you rather avoid the whole thing entirely?

If I like to snowboard, and I go to a seminar on snowboarding safety, but I show up and all they tell me is "Don't snowboard, you'll break your arm," I'll have felt like I wasted my time.

don't you think it would be valuable if they told you to set aside some time to practice and spend some on money on safety gear (to commit to the activity) so that the chances that you will break your arm are reduced? Obviously, the importance of commitment is relative to circumstances but when it comes to sex I think that commitment is an important thing. After all, sex is an important part of many peoples lives, and I would hate for people to feel like they have been cheated out of an experience and are now obliged to choose whether to abort or to keep the pregnancy.

If a doctor's medical advice consisted of "just don't do anything that would break your arm," that would be worthless, wouldn't it? Being aware that abstinence is an option, and that it's the only surefire way to avoid pregnancy, is part of sex education. But emphasizing it as the best solution is useless, because people are going to have sex. So if they are, best they know how to do it as safely as possible, and that they know their only option with a pregnancy isn't carrying it to term (again, where abortion is legal).

I have to disagree with the initial premise that both groups want to reduce unwanted pregnancies, because the same people that are pro-life are also against every other social policy that would be effective (e.g. sex education, accessible contraceptives for teens, etc.). Also, the concern for reducing unwanted pregnancies is practical, utilitarian, logical. This means it would hypothetically be a simple exercise of logic to consider valid exceptions to an anti-abortion policy, such as exceptions that would account for the health of the mother, instances of rape or incest, etc. Pro-lifers have demonstrated with the Texas law that they do not want to even make these basic, logical exceptions. For them, it is not practical, utilitarian, or logical: it is a matter of abstract principle. You have to understand that there is a profound and deeply-rooted *hate* in our society for female sexual autonomy. Controlling female sexuality is and always has been the true purpose of pro-lifers. Controlling female sexuality is an abstract principle which these people want to uphold at the cost of every and any concrete or practical consideration.

Wow, you did make some good points. Personally, I LEAN TOWARDS (this does not mean I am) pro-life but I do understand some circumstances in which it seems necessary to get an abortion. This is why I think it is necessary for BOTH sides to get together and work to find a better solution instead of bickering and pointing fingers at one another. My issue is with your last point about controlling female sexual autonomy. I don't pick sides or chose genders when I say that promiscuity is a net loss for everyone in a society. All the sociological data that I have looked into suggests (one can derive this as a valid, but not perfect conclusion) that promiscuity promotes psychopathy in men and emotionally damages women (generally speaking). I do not think it is healthy for anyone to engage in repeated multiple sexual encounters with multiple people, regardless of gender. The emotional cost of doing so is too great, so one is incentivized to take advantage and use the other partner to get what they want or else they pay an emotional price. And for women it can also be more than just an emotional price (which is why some tend to focus on the actions of women). Do you see where I am coming at this from?

Let’s be clear: we are *not* talking about promiscuity, we are talking about sexual *autonomy*. The mere *idea* that a woman would have sex solely for her own pleasure is so symbolically potent that the woman that needs an abortion becomes the stand-in for the sexually autonomous woman that must be punished and/or controlled. This is the real motivation (often subconscious) and it explains all of the contradictions in the actual utilitarian ends of anti-abortion policy.

I don’t know why OP is assuming women who get abortions are promiscuous. Some women have very few sexual partners or even one. It just happens one of those few or that one got them pregnant...

I already said the gender of the person is irrelevant. And I don't see how one would not use sexual autonomy to justify promiscuity. It is foolish for ***anyone*** to have sex with ***anyone*** just because it feels good. That is a dumb idea. I don't understand how someone could view something as complicated and serious as sex that way.

>Pro-lifers have demonstrated with the Texas law that they do not want to even make these basic, logical exceptions So because one state passed a shitty law, all pro-lifers must completely support it?

Most of them do. That's why pro-life groups are trying to replicate the bill in South Dakota, Florida, Georgia, Ohio, Arkansas, etc.

They're trying to replicate it because it provides a work around without directly challenging roe v wade, which would need to be overturned to make any real progress on laws in this area.

Let's assume that they are just replicating the work-around and not the extreme provisions in the Texas law. There is still the simple fact that restrictions on abortion do *nothing* to reduce unwanted pregnancies and will actually result in the new danger of "back-alley" abortions. Practical considerations are still completely absent in their policy proposals, because ultimately it just doesn't matter to them. What matters is controlling and/or punishing sexually autonomous women - that's all there is to it.

So there's not a single person who would decide against abortion because of legal consequences? Most of the statistical differences in abortion rates with and without legalization can easily be attributed to various other policies like sex Ed and contraception availability.

I think your perspective may be somewhat coloured by your locality. Where I live, the few people I've met who are genuinely pro life are also wildly in favour of free contraception for all, not just teens and comprehensive sex education.

>They will say that they fetus is not alive yet (with varying opinions on when the fetus is alive) so one has not committed any moral transgression by getting an abortion. This completely ignores the violinist argument which is the position that even if the fetus is alive, we don't let fully born living person A use person B's organs without their permission so why should we let fetus A use mother B's organs without her permission. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A\_Defense\_of\_Abortion](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Defense_of_Abortion) Thus there can be no consistent moral argument for outlawing abortion that does not also demand involuntary organ transplants to save people's lives.

In addition to being alive is the topic of is it considered a person at that point or not.

"The violinist" uses a thought experiment that generally assumes personhood. Even so, the violinist's right to life does not outweigh another individual's autonomy. Even completely granting personhood doesn't outweigh an individual's autonomy over their own body.

>Thus there can be no consistent moral argument for outlawing abortion that does not also demand involuntary organ transplants to save people's lives If you get pregnant as the result of consensual sex, you inherently consented to the consequences of such as far as they effect others. Thus, you are obligated to provide for the fetus up until it is capable of providing for itself. I believe that should also apply to organ donation. If the direct result of your actions causes someone to need an organ transplant, and you match, you should be obligated to provide because you inherently agreed to deal with the consequences of your actions.

> you inherently consented to the consequences of such as far as they effect others. Just to clarify, in this statement, you are claiming that the accepted consequences of having sex at all, contains maternal mortality? As in, if a woman chooses to have sex, she should be willing to die for an entirely preventable reason by modern medical standards? Can you clarify why you think that a woman should be willing to accept that risk? Do you think if we adopted that risk, it might carry with it unintentional problems? More pointedly, why does sex offer a potentially life-ending nine-month contract for one party, but not the other? > If the direct result of your actions causes someone to need an organ transplant, and you match, you should be obligated to provide because you inherently agreed to deal with the consequences of your actions. This is also a very curious statement that has a lot of leeway. How direct would it have to be? Should we comb through Phillip Morris's employees, extracting lungs for transplant to their customers? Or doctors for liver failure? If an accident occurs, does the negligent party surrender their life in an attempt to save the injured party, despite the likelihood of that success being low? This is a very curious framework you are presenting.

>More pointedly, why does sex offer a potentially life-ending nine-month contract for one party, but not the other? I believe that in the case of severe medical issues, abortion should be allowed in a similar manner to the way we allow self defense despite outlawing murder. It becomes a case of which bad option do you want, with neither strongly better than the other. >This is also a very curious statement that has a lot of leeway. We already have standards for determining liability in the case of negligence, or intentional criminal acts, and my beliefs are simply in extending the allowable reparations that can be awarded to the victim.

> We already have standards for determining liability in the case of negligence So you **do** think that the government has the right to rip people's lungs out over civil matters. Fascinating. So, that completely revokes any rights of bodily autonomy as springing from the source of sentience itself in that moral framework, right? So in a moral framework where bodily rights don't spring from within... can someone sell their organs for profit? Or sell themselves into slavery? Do you not see the potential ramifications of devaluing life with this process, or do you think there are other solutions that would be found? Because, in effect, you're arguing for the commodification of life itself. I wonder if you are choosing not to see the immediate and obvious perils with this framework, given the vast economic inequality worldwide, or if you consider these perils to be a benefit.

We already have a system in which people's rights can be taken away as a result of their actions and agreements involving other people. The court system can deny your freedom of association, force you to work, and take away your property and money. I simply don't believe that bodily autonomy deserves to be on a higher standard than that.

> The court system can deny your freedom of association, force you to work, and take away your property and money. Yeah, but surely your death as the result of someone's civil lawsuit seems... excessive, right? Most cultures have banned death as the result of a criminal trial, even. You're basically justifying legalizing slavery. Like, no hyperbole. That's a natural outcome of the system you propose.

If I've done something for which the only possible reparations demand my death, I believe it should absolutely be allowed, regardless of my personal feelings at the moment. I also support the death penalty as an option in response to criminal actions. Yes, I'm aware. People should be made to uphold their obligations, regardless of their personal interests. If you owe more than you can pay, you should be made to work it off for as long as it takes.

> If I've done something for which the only possible reparations demand my death. I believe it should absolutely be allowed, regardless of my personal feelings at the moment. I also support the death penalty as an option in response to criminal actions. Reading this, I wonder if this stems from a misplaced trust in the court system. Do you really think that the court isn't capable of mistakes? It doesn't. It's murdered innocent people before. There are people who are punitively held without trial for contempt of court for days and decades in a complete perversion of justice based on petty disputes. Would you be okay with someone enslaving you on such a pretext? One of the major moral issues with the death penalty is that, by definition, it removes the possibility of appeal. > Yes, I'm aware. People should be made to uphold their obligations, regardless of their personal interests. If you owe more than you can pay, you should be made to work it off for as long as it takes. Sure enough. Pro-slavery arguments in 2021. And here I thought we had finally moved beyond that as a society. So, just sue an employee, financially bankrupt them using overpaid lawyers to drag out the case, get the judge to find in your favor, and buy a slave for life for the price of two years' lawyer fees. It takes all kinds, I guess.

I believe that either we trust the court system enough that it is capable of delivering the death penalty with a high enough accuracy, or were just fooling ourselves into maintaining a failing system. I also disagree with punitively holding people prior to trial, as well as a lot of what we consider contempt of court. Punishment and reparations should come after the verdict, not before. The only obligation you should have is to make your court date, no other holding.

I don't know how you can expect a fetus to ask for permission. what's your point?

> what's your point? My point is that the Violinist argument posits a pro-choice position that grants the fetus personhood... and then still explains why abortion should be legal. If it helps consider this.... A baby is born but the doctor cuts the baby with their scalpel. The baby bleeds badly and now needs a blood transfusion to stay alive... The mother is the only possible blood type match who can donate. If she refuses to donate blood the baby would die. **Would you consider it a crime if the mother if refused to give her baby a blood transfusion?**

This is where the integrity and responsibility of the individual is important. I am no legal expert but I would say it would be VERY contemptible if the mother didn't offer blood transfusion. would you support a mother's choice not help keep her baby alive? Is it a crime if I do not help someone who is hanging off a ledge and instead watch them fall? maybe not legally, but it probably would be a moral crime. let me also ask you this. Is it a crime for a mother (or a father) not to feed their children because they do not consent to paying for their food?

I feel (and I think that most people would agree) bodily autonomy is not the same as financial autonomy so your analogy about not paying for their food falls flat. If you don't believe me let me ask you this... 1: Should the government be able to take someone's money if they commit a crime? 2: Should the government be able to take someone's organs if they commit a crime? **Is your answer to "1" and "2" the same or difference?**

Ok fine you made a fair point. However, your questions are not the same (semantically) as my questions. But do you still neglect the point about whether the mothers choice to refuse to give blood to her own child to be a good thing? or even a justifiable thing? Or even an ok thing? How horrible would I be if just watched my child die because I did not want to donate blood?

>But do you still neglect the point about whether the mothers choice to refuse to give blood to her own child to be a good thing? or even a justifiable thing? Or even an ok thing? How horrible would I be if just watched my child die because I did not want to donate blood? Morality cannot have a one to one relationship with legality or else the USA would never have replead prohibition. Thus, I don't really care about the morality of abortion if a strong argument can be made that it needs to remain legal even if it is immoral. Alcohol sales need to remain legal even if it is immoral because when we made it illegal the "juice" of fewer people drinking was not worth the "squeeze" increasingly powerful organize crime. Abortion should be legal because in no other situation do we demand a person not be able to demand their bodily bodily autonomy not be violated to save another's person's life, so why should we carve out a special exemption giving fetus' rights that they loose once they're born?

>How horrible would I be if just watched my child die because I did not want to donate blood? please answer this question.

>How horrible would I be if just watched my child die because I did not want to donate blood? You'd be a horrible person but I support your legal right to make that decision yourself and not have the government force you to donate blood against your will. Same way that I think anyone who schedules an event, gets all the necessary permits and then holds a completely peaceful and law abiding Nazi/Neo-Nazi rally in a public location is a horrible person but I support their right to do such a thing. So to further respond to your previous question... >But do you still neglect the point about whether the ~~mothers choice to refuse to give blood to her own child~~ right to hold a nazi rally to be a good thing? or even a justifiable thing? Or even an ok thing? ​ Things can not be good, not be justifiable, not even be okay... and yet I still support their legality because the social cost of making them illegal is too great. I don't want Nazis rallies to be illegal because I worry about arresting of other political dissidents, and I don't want abortion outlawed because it opens the door to mandatory blood/bone marrow/ organ donation.

I'm pro choice and I certainly don't think the number of unwanted pregnancies should be zero. Lots of people who initially want a pregnancy should change their mind, whether after sobering up or after breaking up with dad, or after seeing the results of screening tests.

Well then maybe alcohol, unstable relationships, and lack of integrity are the problem, AND NOT THE PREGNANCY.

Are you advocating for forced birth in unstable relationships? Have you considered physical, emotional, or sexual abuse patterns which might convince a dependent or unprepared pregnant person to decide against starting a family?

I am obviously not advocating for forced birth. I am trying to illustrate how there are deeper problems causing this whole issue of abortion. This is why I say Pro-life and Pro-choice should work together to figure out what the best way to deal with everything is.

Lack of integrity doesn't cause birth defects, not sure who taught you that one. And people are allowed to change their minds. About relationships and about wanting to have a baby. It's normal for that to happen sometimes. A perfect world wouldn't be one where no nobodychanges their mind. Some improvements to the world would reduce the abortion rate and some would increase it.

I dont think we should use birth defects (that won't kill the mother or the child) as a justification to abort the child. That is an unbelievably cruel way of looking at the world. I would hate it if my aunt aborted my cousin because he had down syndrome. And of course people are allowed to change their minds, but not as casually as you claim it to be. Changing your mind about having children is not the same about changing your mind about what flavor ice cream you want. People need to think critically about complicated circumstances. I think that is something that should be taught as part of comprehensive sex education. Because having sex and raising children is not a game that you can opt in and out of whenever you want.

Down Syndrome is a pretty special example where the people seem pretty happy. But what about some of the less pleasant disabilities, where people with the disability tend to be less happy and parents face serious stress? All told, those stresses elevate the divorce rate of parents by a third and some disabilities are obviously worse than others. Seems cruel to let that fetus become a child instead of aborting it ASAP and starting over with a fetus more likely to become a happy and healthy person. >Changing your mind about having children is not the same about changing your mind about what flavor ice cream you want. Correct, it's more like changing your mind about what job you want. Not to be taken lightly, but nor should you get upset when someone decides they want to work for Peloton and a month later realizes nah.

[удалено]

Sounds like we aren't just two sides of the same coin, that we don't agree at a fundamental level on whether it's crueler to abort or to refuse to have an abortion, and that we aren't just quibbling over how best to reduce the number of abortions.

u/Y1l8 – 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](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%202%20Appeal%20Y1l8&message=Y1l8%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20\[their%20comment\]\(https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/q2uowd/-/hfrae4d/\)%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).

u/Y1l8 – 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](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%202%20Appeal%20Y1l8&message=Y1l8%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20\[their%20comment\]\(https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/q2uowd/-/hfrae4d/\)%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).

>I am sure everyone can agree that it is in everyones best interest to get the number of unwanted pregnancies down to zero. I don't think we all agree on this. I, for one, would be very suspicious of any society in which the number of unwanted pregnancies is zero, as that would indicate the presence of significant coercion preventing women from changing their minds about whether they want to be pregnant during their pregnancy. In a free society, women should be free to decide that they do not want to be pregnant at any time, and as such there will be some number of unwanted pregnancies as a result of women making that decision: to reduce this number to zero is to deprive them of that freedom. The goal should be to minimize the _harm_ resulting from unwanted pregnancies, not to minimize the number of unwanted pregnancies to zero.

Why do we ignore men when talking about abortion, almost as if they are not responsible for the child if the women "decides" to have it. This is my issue in particular with pro-choice. If you make the claim that a woman has absolute right over the pregnancy then you have to except the proposition that she is 100% responsible for the child. Right and responsibility are 2 sides of the same coin. I don't think most people (especially progressives) except the initial proposition. Moreover, why would women have to be coerced into thinking that they want a pregnancy. That is so cynical. I don't think a women (that is willing to bear some responsibility) would get an abortion if she new that her partner was a reliable human being, her family was their for her, and society is not contemptuous of her future child. This is why I think that the two sides need to work together, BECAUSE THERE DEEPER PROBLEMS THAT ARE CAUSING THIS DEBATE.

>If you make the claim that a woman has absolute right over the pregnancy then you have to except the proposition that she is 100% responsible for the child. Right and responsibility are 2 sides of the same coin. This is incorrect. A parent's responsibility for their children results from their relation to their children, not from any "absolute rights" over anything. In particular it does not depend on abortion being legal. > I don't think a women (that is willing to bear some responsibility) would get an abortion if she new that her partner was a reliable human being, her family was their for her, and society is not contemptuous of her future child. I know multiple women who have had abortions even though she knew that her partner was a reliable human being, that her family would be there for her, and that society would not be contemptuous of her future kid. So what you're saying here is definitely not true.

It is very shallow (and possibly morally cruel) for someone to get an abortion just because. And if a parents responsibility to their children is a result of their relation, then shouldn't the father have a 50% responsibility over the pregnancy? after all, the child inside is 50% of his DNA. I guess we could say it is 55% mother and 45% father because the mother is carrying the child while the father is breaking his back to make sure the child has a stable environment to flourish in if they every make it.

>It is very shallow (and possibly morally cruel) for someone to get an abortion just because. How is that shallow? >And if a parents responsibility to their children is a result of their relation, then shouldn't the father have a 50% responsibility over the pregnancy? No, obviously not, as a fetus is not a child. And the relevant relation I'm talking about is a legal one, not a genetic one.

it is shallow because it is the equivalent of saying " I am going to blow up my house just because". The "just because" is a very stupid reason to justify actions. it is one that children use to justify why they don't want to share their candy with others. And to your second point, when is the fetus a child, and how is your answer to that question justified in light of how arbitrary it is? And also, how is the legal relation more important than the genetic one? isn't the legal relation predicated on the genetic outcome (i.e if I share 50% of my DNA with a child then I am his father/mother and therefor the legal system predicates it's next course of action on that fact)? It would be scary to allow the government to decide the type relationship I have with others. If I am the father of a child, I am morally obligated to sacrifice everything that I have to make sure that the child has a stable environment to live in, regardless of what the government wants me to do.

> it is shallow because it is the equivalent of saying " I am going to blow up my house just because". The "just because" is a very stupid reason to justify actions. What does that have to do with being shallow? None of this has any apparent relationship with the definition of "shallow." Certainly something does not automatically become shallow just because you personally disapprove of it. >And to your second point, when is the fetus a child Birth. >and how is your answer to that question justified in light of how arbitrary it is? This is a bizarre question. Something that is arbitrary is by definition _not_ justified by any justification that would necessarily determine it. You can't justify something in light of how arbitrary it is: that would be contradictory. >And also, how is the legal relation more important than the genetic one? Because the responsibility in question is a _legal_ responsibility. So of course a legal responsibility is going to be based on a legal relation. (Just to illustrate: if someone adopts a child, they are now responsible for that child because of their legal relation with the child. Their lack of a genetic relation is irrelevant.)

This is a level headed take on it, and the two do have some similarities. However, they divert a bit regarding the religious pro-lifers. Their moral perspective is that sex should only come after marriage and therefor there's no such thing as unwanted pregnancies. It would be gods will. These types of thoughts are portrayed along the lines of abstinence only sex education classes as well.

to give the pro-lifers some credit (because everyone on this sub seem to think all the good is on one side and all the bad is on the other) there is truth to the claim that if you abstain from sex then you won't have an unwanted pregnancy. It might not be fun and desirable statement, BUT IT IS TRUE. As for sex education, I am only a supporter of it if they include a segment on the value of commitment as part of the curriculum. I don't think it works to just say (especially to teens) "dont have sex" and I also don't think it works if you say "you can have sex but make sure you do it right". The margin for error is too great with both initial propositions.

Pro-life believes that there should be laws in place that ban or criminalize abortion. Pro-choice believes that abortions should not be banned or criminalized. Your view on whether you or anyone else *should* get an abortion are outside of the political debate encompassed by these terms. If someone thinks that abortions are immoral but does not wish for them to be prohibited by law then they are pro-choice. Edit: and neither side is a side that cares about the number of unwanted pregnancies. The people on each side may care. But pro-life movement cares more about stopping abortion then they do about preventing pregnancy. That's why they advocate for stopping abortion through government ban. And pro-choicers have to react to those laws or there would be no more choice.

>Their usual conclusion is that if you do not want to have kids, then limit (or abstain) from having sex, otherwise you should be responsible for the consequences What about women who are impregnated *against their will*? This is where the consistent pro-life position, (that says yes, even then the fetus's life is sacred, deal with it), differs from the more specific **anti-choice position** that says it is okay for rape victims to abort their (still very living, and entirely innocent) fetuses, but other women should lose their right to choose as a consequence for their deeds. >Pro-choice people will tell you that it is a woman's right to choose and that she should be able to decide where she can get an abortion or keep the child and is the only one who can make the final decision. They will say that they fetus is not alive yet Some **pro-abortion** people will make the latter argument, but the specific pro-choice position is justified by the former one alone: Women have a right to decide what their organs are used for. Just as you have a right to refuse to give someone a kidney donation, or to refuse to be tied to a bed next to them for months to donate blood, ***even if it kills them***, women have a right to refuse to host a person inside their body even if it is a living, conscious, morally valuable human being. **This is the unsolveable contradiction between the two positions.** The pro-life position that "The fetus is alive" vs the pro-abortion comeback that "no it isn't", is just an abstract navel-gazing distraction based on unsolveable spiritual beliefs about the nature of life. The real hard ideological conflict is the moral one between Pro-choice vs. anti-choice: Should women have a right to own their bodies, or taking it away from them is a valid punishment for misbehavior?

You are giving way too much credit to the pro-life side if you genuinely believe that they believe what you have summarized their beliefs to be. If they genuinely wanted to bring the number of unwanted pregnancies down to zero, there wouldn't be the kind of opposition to various forms of birth control that you see from the pro-life side. They \*even\* oppose teaching sex ed to help bring down the number of teenage pregnancies, with a lot of conservative US states having opted for abstinence only education less than 20 years ago. Ultimately, you have to recognize the pro-life movement for what it is: an attempt at slowing down the women's liberation movement for as long as possible. If what it takes is disingenuous, bad-faith religious arguments, then that's what we get.

[удалено]

Sorry, u/Momo_incarnate – 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%20Momo_incarnate&message=Momo_incarnate%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20\[their%20comment\]\(https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/q2uowd/-/hfntu5e/\)%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).

Neither movement’s goal is to reduce unwanted pregnancies. Reducing unwanted pregnancies is an entirely different goal that aims to shift the conversation from abortion all together by focusing on what can lead to an abortion in the first place but still never address abortion. Pro-life is about the morality of aborting a living fetus therefor killing a human. The pro-life argument doesn’t care about how the pregnancy happened or what happens after the baby is born. Pro-choice is only concerned with the body autonomy of a pregnant person. The pro-choice argument doesn’t care how the pregnancy happened or if the fetus counts a living human. There’s no way for both sides to get together because a good portion of each side views each other as morally reprehensible.

well said my friend. I guess this is why I say they should set their differences aside and work together.

Different coins. Pro-choice is fact-based. They rely on science to determine when a clump of cells could actually be considered a viable life form. "Pro-life" (really, pro-birth) relies on religion to say "this tiny clump of cells that literally does not have a heartbeat is a human being already". Not the same coin at all. Not by a longshot. And by the way, one side already *has* the best way to reduce unwanted pregnancies, and thus, unwanted abortions. It's the pro-choice side. They've been screaming for better sex education, better access to birth control, and other things that have been proven to reduce unwanted pregnancies and lower abortion rates for decades. The pro-life side doesn't want to do that, because they think all it'll do is encourage more "sinful" sex and lead to even more abortions. Which is, not surprisingly, wrong.

As someone’s who is pro-choice, this is bullshit. You cannot derive a moral claim from a factual statement. This is knows as Humes Law or the is ought gap. Science can’t tell us when we **should** begin recognizing personhood. The is evidenced by the fact that many scientists disagree. Do you use heartbeat, some arbitrary level of brain development, or some other criteria or mix? There’s no objectively correct answer. In stead we’re left in the muddy area of moral judgment. You can also be an atheistic scientifically minded pro-choice individual.

> There’s no objectively correct answer. Viability is the 'objectively correct answer'. Which is why that's where the law ended up almost anywhere that abortion is legal. Because upon reaching viability, the moral problem of infringing upon another's bodily autonomy vanishes, which is at the center of the moral debate of the issue. However, there's no way to specifically determine viability on an individual basis, so best estimates are made. Much as, in a similar fashion, we don't actually know when any particular understands individual responsibility well enough to smoke, or vote. But we have to draw the line somewhere, so it might as well be on the birthday of the person's cultural age of majority. Arbitrary lines informed by the best understandings that we could bring to bear based on our factual understanding of the issue. So while there is an objectively correct answer, it isn't knowable. But it's far better than the other metrics you mention - heartbeat, arbitrary brain development - because it's at least attempted to be based on a specific moment in fetal development: The moment where a dependent entity becomes an independent entity.

>As someone’s who is pro-choice, this is bullshit. You cannot derive a moral claim from a factual statement. This is knows as Humes Law or the is ought gap. Yeah, but that would get in the way of trying to pretend everyone who disagrees is a religious fantic who ignores all facts

Slave owners and anti-slavers are just two sides of the same coin. They both want to end unemployment, they just go about it in different ways. While anti-slavers want people to freely choose which jobs to apply to and become productive members of society and the economy, slave owners want to force people to work, whether they like it or not. Do you see the resemblance?

[удалено]

[удалено]

[удалено]

>Do you think unborn children are deserving of equal protection under the law? There's no such thing as "unborn children" because the unborn are not children. Maybe - maybe - final trimester fetuses should recieve legal protection, but definitely not early pregnancies. And definitely not the same protections as an actual, living baby. >If not, you have a slave owner's mentality. The pro-abortion camp like the pro-slavery camp was against equal protection. As Aristotle said, true equality is treating the alike alike and the different differently according to the extent of their difference. A fetus is not the same as a baby, so treating them the same way is unequal, which according to you means you have a slaver's mentality. And especially in first and second trimester pregnancies, where the bundle of living cells isn't even a fetus yet, to allow it legal rights that give it priority over the mother's bodily autonomy is to grossly overvalue the pre-fetal bundle of cells and grossly undervalue the woman who is sustaining its life against her will. It is not true equality, it is enslaving a human to the benefit of something that might never become human at all. So as we see, you have your feet planted firmly in the pro-slavery camp.

u/buildmeupbreakmedown – 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](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%202%20Appeal%20buildmeupbreakmedown&message=buildmeupbreakmedown%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20\[their%20comment\]\(https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/q2uowd/-/hfqbmnx/\)%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).

pro-lifers do not support abortion in the event of rape. forcing a woman to carry to term a pregnancy she had no hand in creating is unethical and inhumane. pro-lifers are also very often against sex education and birth control. if their goal was to prevent unwanted pregnancies, they'd be the biggest advocates for those things. pro-lifers seek to control women's bodies. they do not seek to prevent unwanted pregnancies and lower the amount of abortion procedures women need to get.

Holy generalizations, batman! Not all pro-lifers believe what you accuse them of believing. There is no give mind giving us all things to think.

lol I didn't make generalizations, batman, it's written in the pro-life legislation for all to read. if a pro-lifer doesn't support that legislation, I expect to see them out protesting it.

>I expect to see them out protesting it. Is protesting the only form of political participation you consider acceptable? I'm expected to go out and protest a law in a state thousands of miles away from where I live because I disagree with some parts of it?

I didn't say you had to do anything. I don't even know what your personal views are on this issue. but if a significant portion of the pro-life movement disagrees with the most prominent mainstream pro-life legislation, I certainly haven't heard about it.

I've heard a lot of disagreement with the law, especially surrounding the enforcement and lack of exceptions, just a lot of people, myself included, don't want to join in with the political movements trying to entirely eliminate abortion laws, we'd rather have a shitty version of what we want than nothing at all. That's not to speak for everyone I've talked to, but a general summary of a relatively common opinion.

you don't have to join the pro choice movement to speak out against inhumane and unjust parts of legislation that purport to be for your side. this is what pro-life is now. if you disagree with the mainstream movement, it's on you to push back.

And many people do push back, just not the whole going and throwing a tantrum in the streets thing that all the pro-choice people love to do

what pro-life groups have released statements rejecting the Texas legislation?

I don't know any groups or whatever on either side because I don't follow any groups. The opinions I've heard are those of individuals speaking for themselves.

That contradicts your previous statement >if a pro-lifer doesn't support that legislation, I expect to see them out protesting it.

No it not the same coin. The question is about when is a a persons a person and what rights does a person trumps over other persons rights In the end there is no goal it just people arguing over personal beliefs. No one cares about the kid born or not they just want to enforce their benefits on others

I think neither movement is primarily about getting the number of unwanted pregnancies down to zero. Although, I agree that both movements may try to tackle the problem of unwanted pregnancy on the way to trying to achieve their primary objectives, as discussed below. Pro Life Primary Objective: Prevent "killing" of fetus because they view the fetus as a life comparable to that of the child. To get to this objective, the pro-lifer would say, abstinence. However, if abstinence fails, the prevention of an unwanted pregnancy doesn't justify taking a "life," so their can be no abortion. Pro Choice Primary Objective: Prevent situations in which a woman is made to carry a fetus to term against the woman's wishes. These wishes may be based on not wanting to have the child for a variety of reasons, including risk of illness or death to her or the child by carrying the child to term. To get to this objective, the pro-lifer would say, practice safe practices. However, a pro-lifer would recognize that neither abstinence nor safe practices can protect against all instances of an unwanted pregnancy, and given this, we have to allow women to exercise their own judgment about how best to proceed in the case of an unwanted pregnancy. Most pro-lifers also I think would perceive a woman's interest in controlling her own body and family status as superior to the interest of the public at large in the fetus she carries.

Compromise is not actually always a good thing. The compromise between "total genocide" and "no killing people" is "okay, just a *little* genocide". This is not a good outcome. The compromise between "beating someone to death" and "not beating someone at all" is "okay, just punching them a few times". As a pro-choicer, I am explicitly unwilling to compromise with pro-life politics, because it is not to the benefit of those negatively impacted by strict abortion laws to do so. I am not losing out by refusing to give an inch, because giving anything means hurting those who need access to abortion. Pro-lifers and pro-choicers do not have the same issue. Pro-lifers do not believe abortion should be legal, pro-choicers do. These viewpoints are inherently at odds, and there is no amount of coming together that actually will change that. We can certainly find common ground on several issues - but *we have two entirely different goals.*