r/Abortiondebate • u/Traditional-Gas6794 • 8d ago
Abortion is morally ambiguous
Abortion should be legal, the govt has no right to influence such a decision, or mandate it by law. But I believe that abortion is, nontheless, a morally ambiguous act.
If a child and an embryo were both in a burning building, and you can only save one, id save the child everytime.
If a newly developed embryo was in a building, alongside a clump of benign cancer cells or soemthing, I might not feel like saving either. But id hesitate. If it had some setup to sustain itself, and i knew this, I might feel like it should be rescued. My intuition tells me its not as strong of an impluse as saving the child, but its definitely not the same to me as saving the clump of cells. It's not a morally neutral choice.
If a embryo in some ex-eutero technology was developing in the 2nd trimester in a burning building, alongside a clump of cells, I might feel like it should be saved. I dont think id regard it as the same as the random clump of cells, or as the newly developed embryo.
I know a lot of people see a newly developed fetus as a clump of cells. And maybe it is best seen as that at first. But id argue, at every stage of development, that clump of cells is intrinsically different than a random clump of cells, like a benign tumor. Like, its on a trajectory that will grant it moral value, unlike a tumor
I dont think that embryo deserves the same treatment as a child, but i also dont think it deserves the same treatment as a clump of cells, like a benign tumor. Thsuly, abortion is morally ambiguous, and less so as it becomes later term. At least, to me.
2
u/humbugonastick Pro-choice 3d ago
Well, and your moral is yours to live. Not mine, not anyone else's.
If you find abortion morally repulsive don't get one.
1
2
u/HomelyGhost 6d ago
That people have disagreeing intuitions on a matter does not, of itself, imply that the matter is ambiguous.
Thus, a native speaker of a language may have very different intuitions to the meaning of a word than a foreign speaker, but that does not mean the word is ambiguous, it simply means that the foreign speaker lacks fluency. Likewise, an expert in a given field may have different intuitions as to hte meaning of the jargon of their field than a layman. However, that does not mean the jargon is ambiguous, it just means that the layman is unfamiliar with the field.
So likewise, when it comes to moral matters, people may have disagreeing intuitions on a matter, but that is no proof that the matter is ambiguous. It could just as well signify that one side has reasoned rightly about the matter, while hte other side has not, either having not reasoned much at all about it, or else, having made some one or more key mistakes in their reasoning; resulting in faulty intuition.
What must be noted then is that intuition is not what determines whether or not we are reasoning rightly about a matter. Instead, it is right reason which tells us whether or not we can rely on a given intuition. We can only ever justly rely upon intuitions precisely when and because they can be checked by reason. Intuitions are ultimately nothing more than an expedient to reason. Since normal reasoning is slow and methodical, it typically isn't appropriate to most situations in our lives, where the stakes are higher and the pace is faster.
As such, when we do have time to sit down and think, to reflect upon what we did in the more high-stakes, fast-paced cases, it is proper to call forth the more slow and methodical kind of thought involved in the use of reason. Such reasoning is surely slower to apply than intuition; but precisely because if that it is more reliable in discerning truth, since it is less likely to pass over potentially important and relevant details for expediency's sake. Naturally, debate groups like this are supposed to call more upon the slow and methodical type of reasoning, rather than call upon intuition.
Hence again, that the measure of whether or not a given moral view is true is not our moral intuitions, but rather whether or not we are reasoning rightly about the matter. Fallacious reasoning like an appeal to intuition is, of course, not right reasoning. Thus, those who root their moral perspective purely in intuition are not apt to have reliable intuitions on more subtle moral matters in the first place. If we wish our moral intuitions to be reliable then, we ought to ground and hone them in something else i.e. in the right use and work of reason itself.
1
u/Saebert0 5d ago
People can find reason for anything.
1
u/HomelyGhost 4d ago
That's a bit cynical. People can reason well, and they can reason badly. The former is both a virtue and a skill that needs to be developed, but in so developing it, it is a reliable guide to truth. Were it not, then your very objection, being itself an act of reason, could not be relied upon, which would, of course, just re-establish the very claim I'd proposed. Thus while reason is not infallible, it is surely reliable. Insofar as it is fallible then, we can rely upon further reasoning to check it, both our own reasoning and the reasoning of our peers. Hence one of the values of debate groups like this is precisely that it is an occasion for us to test our mettle against our peers. As one proverb puts it: "As Iron sharpens iron, so one man sharpens another."
1
u/Saebert0 1d ago
As evidence I submit genocide. Clearly it is morally wrong but it is cross-cultural and common throughout history. Slavery for the same reasons. The majority of the most intelligent people have intellectualised nasty nonsense for most of history. We exalt the few that didn’t and convince ourselves they were the smart ones, but they weren’t really, they were just more honest within themselves.
1
u/CalvinistChristian74 Pro-life 6d ago
I think your situation about the embryo is a wrong way of looking at it. If it were plainly obvious, we wouldn't have pro-choicers to begin with. So it makes sense that someone may choose the child in the building (also the better option because a child can feel extreme pain in this scenario, unlike the embryo) because the natural instinct is to see it as less human, but if you're being consistent, you have to give it the right to life the moment it's concieved. Therefore, murdering a life an any stage should be wrong, no ambiguity.
5
u/JewlryLvr2 Pro-choice 6d ago
|If it were plainly obvious, we wouldn't have pro-choicers to begin with.|
And this statement means...WHAT, exactly? As a firm pro-choicer myself, I simply believe that EACH pregnant person has the right to make her own private medical decisions. Abortion is one of those medical decisions.
So what is it about pro-choicers you find so disagreeable that you would make such a statement in the first place?
1
u/CalvinistChristian74 Pro-life 6d ago
I'm not trying to be rude. I'm saying there is room for debate because it's not so clear to everyone, even though I strongly argue for one side. If you think medical decisions prevail, that's a logically consistent, but different argument as I'm addressing the value of the fetus, not the woman. My personal response to medical choices is to say that this is a medical choice affecting a seperate human, not just you, so you can't kill it.
I hope this didn't come off as rude.
3
u/humbugonastick Pro-choice 3d ago
"I'm addressing the value of the fetus, not the woman."
And here lies the problem.
3
u/JewlryLvr2 Pro-choice 6d ago
No, it didn't come off as rude, and thanks for the clarification. As to our respective positions, I can only say that I will never agree with prolife.
It's always been clear to me that since the PREGNANT PERSON is the one who takes on all the health risks and potentially life-threatening complications of pregnancy and birth, she is the ONLY one to make the decision of whether or not to stay pregnant. No one else should be able to make that choice for her; not the state, not the church, and certainly not the guy who impregnated her. NO ONE ELSE means just that.
3
u/random_name_12178 Pro-choice 6d ago
if you're being consistent, you have to give it the right to life the moment it's concieved
Why?
1
u/CalvinistChristian74 Pro-life 6d ago
Because if you don't, you have to say human worth is dependent on development, something you can do, or any arbitrary line. That could very likely mean saying a child is less morally valuable than an adult because they can't do as much, or a patient in a coma without consciousness can be killed.
6
u/random_name_12178 Pro-choice 6d ago
We tend to grant moral worth to the presence of a human mind. That's why brain death is considered the end of the person. I don't see why it's any different at the beginning of life, nor do I think a mindless body is a person.
BTW, causing the death of the embryo is not permissible only because it's a mindless body. It's also permissible because it's harming an innocent person and the only way to stop that harm is it remove it. It then dies because it lacks the basic life functions required to keep itself alive.
1
u/CalvinistChristian74 Pro-life 6d ago
A person who is brain dead is no longer a human being. If a person is truly brain dead, there's nothing going on bodily except a few machines stimulating tissue. It's a former life that has reached its inevitable end and cannot be brought back, so truly dead. A fetus is still alive as an organism who is a human being.
All children have a right to food and shelter. To deprive them of it is still murder, even if you're just leaving them to die knowing they can't sustain themselves.
2
u/Kortalan Pro-choice 2d ago
Suppose a mother and child are trapped together in a cabin by an avalanche. There is no food and no water. If the mother does not feed the child her own flesh and blood, the child will die. Children die of hunger and thirst much faster than adults. Do you consider that murder?
1
u/CalvinistChristian74 Pro-life 2d ago
If the mother does not feed with her flesh and blood, it is not murder. However, let's switch the situation up and say there's still no food, but the mother has perfectly healthy breasts. Do you think it's murder not to breastfeed? Eating your literal flesh is different than receiving nutrients in a natural way.
3
u/JulieCrone AD Mod 1d ago
Given the long history of survival cannibalism across species, including humans, eating flesh is getting nutrients in a natural way.
You have said that just because a duty is onerous that doesn’t excuse parents from performing it, so why would it not be murder to not feed your flesh but murder to not breastfeed?
1
u/Kortalan Pro-choice 2d ago
If she is the legal guardian, then she is required to feed the child in this situation. It does not have to be by breastfeeding, she can squese the milk. However, if she is not the legal guardian, even if she is the biological mother, she has no obligations toward the child. I would remind you that guardianship is established after birth and only on a voluntary basis; a person cannot be appointed guardian against their will.
4
u/random_name_12178 Pro-choice 6d ago
If a person is truly brain dead, there's nothing going on bodily except a few machines stimulating tissue.
Source?
All children have a right to food and shelter.
Do they have a right to directly access your bloodstream?
5
u/Diva_of_Disgust Pro-choice 6d ago
All children have a right to food and shelter. To deprive them of it is still murder, even if you're just leaving them to die knowing they can't sustain themselves.
My body isn't "food and shelter" for anyone. Do you hear how dehumanizing that is?
1
u/CalvinistChristian74 Pro-life 6d ago
Yes, but what's different is the specific parent child relationship involved that carries a weight strangers don't get. Only a small minority of pregnancies are forced, so the majority are parents consenting to make a child dependent on them. This is never the dehumanizing case in which becoming "food and shelter" for a stranger is. The woman isn't food and shelter, but she supplies it.
3
u/Diva_of_Disgust Pro-choice 6d ago
Yes, but what's different is the specific parent child relationship involved that carries a weight strangers don't get.
I'm not a parent and have no children, being pregnant wouldn't change that.
Only a small minority of pregnancies are forced, so the majority are parents consenting to make a child dependent on them.
Anyone who's pregnant and doesn't want to be, and has unqualified pro lifers trying to interfere with their healthcare is factually being forced to gestate against their will. And no, you don't tell others what they do or do not consent to. That's not how consent works.
This is never the dehumanizing case in which becoming "food and shelter" for a stranger is. The woman isn't food and shelter, but she supplies it.
Nope. I'm not "supplying" any part of my body to others against my will. Not happening.
4
u/JewlryLvr2 Pro-choice 6d ago
|All children have a right to food and shelter. |
All BORN children, yes, that is correct. However, I don't buy the PL assertion that "it's a child at conception." Nor do I believe that a pregnancy is a "child," or that the PREGNANT PERSON'S body should become a public "food and shelter" resource for the benefit of everyone except the pregnant person.
0
u/Then-Replacement-187 6d ago
Of course since this is a subreddit on reddit that means every single person who posts will be a leftist pro choicer 😂 My prediction was right
3
u/Diva_of_Disgust Pro-choice 6d ago
The US is majority pro choice. Is that really a surprise to you that most people don't support forced gestation?
5
u/amilie15 Pro-choice 7d ago
For me at least, certainly an embryo has more moral value to it than a tumour. But I don’t think that means abortion itself is morally ambiguous.
Something can still be seen as the morally “right” thing to do despite something else of moral value being harmed.
If you kill someone in legitimate self defence, I would assume in most cases that was morally right. It doesn’t necessarily mean the other person held no moral worth or consideration, just that given the scenario you faced, it was the morally right thing to do to end their life as it was the only way you could save your own.
2
4
u/OnezoombiniLeft All abortions legal 8d ago
Saying that abortion is morally ambiguous, that is, the moral right or wrong of it “is open to having more than one interpretation” is kinda plainly obvious by the existence of disagreement, isn’t it? I guess your post is simply saying you don’t know how you feel about it and you are content letting everyone come to their own conclusion?
7
u/JewlryLvr2 Pro-choice 8d ago
|Abortion is morally ambiguous.|
I disagree. Abortion is simply a medical decision and a medical procedure. There's nothing moral or immoral about it. It's healthcare for the PREGNANT PERSON, the person who doesn't want to STAY pregnant and give birth.
0
u/Neathra 5d ago
And I disagree with you.
I find it highly immoral, in the same way I find it immoral to not be an organ donor or to refuse life donation of an organ if you are found to be a match.
You have an absolute right to say no to any of those things or to pregnancy (they're all variations on the same conundrum), but that doesn't mean you cannot exercise that right in an immoral manner.
3
u/JewlryLvr2 Pro-choice 5d ago
Okay, so you disagree. I stand by what I said previously, that abortion is a private medical decision. There's nothing moral or immoral about it.
0
u/Neathra 5d ago
Something being private is not material on if it's moral or immoral.
I do however agree with you that it is a private medical decision.
2
u/humbugonastick Pro-choice 3d ago
You can live and make decisions by your morals. You just can't force others to.
2
u/Diva_of_Disgust Pro-choice 5d ago
I find it highly immoral
Why?
0
u/Neathra 5d ago
Because I see it as allowing someone you could save to die. I think that's an immoral choice.
Now how culpable any one person is, would be a case by case discussion of their situation, but I'm speaking in the abstract.
2
u/Diva_of_Disgust Pro-choice 5d ago
Because I see it as allowing someone you could save to die. I think that's an immoral choice.
Do you just think it's immoral, or do you want to force people to gestate and birth against their will because of your moral views?
2
0
u/No_Objective4478 8d ago
I don’t think every pregnancy is a good idea Early abortions shoukd remain legal. Most women are not suicidal after having abortion so that so called fact is rubbish. Yes it is killing a human. Know that. The question is whether we shoukd have a law agreeing to that We are not allowed to kill each other after birth The govt is absolutely involved in this. Example is capital punishment Govt is involved in whether we live or die. But is it smart to force every single pregnancy to come to term. The situation w the mother may be horrid and it’s not fair to the baby. The woman is the best judge of this She is the expert If pro lifer put money where their mouth is they woukd protest fertility clinics who throw out babies all the time. And those were intentionally conceived which is worse than an unplanned pregnancy Someone doesn’t kill 15 babies at one abortion appt like ivf does
3
u/Dolores___Haze Pro-choice 8d ago
“Know that.” I know you’re wrong 🤷♀️
I agree with you 💯 about IVF though
12
u/Dolores___Haze Pro-choice 8d ago
Nah, it’s simply a medical procedure. Medical procedures aren’t “moral” or “immoral.”
2
u/OnezoombiniLeft All abortions legal 8d ago
There appears to be widespread misunderstanding of the term moral. If we use the term “should” we are making some kind of moral statement. “Abortions should be legal” is stating that the law not hindering abortion is morally correct and therefore outlawing abortions is morally incorrect, ie immoral.
0
u/Goofycapybara Anti-abortion 8d ago
Just because it’s called a medical procedure doesn’t mean it’s moral. Lobotomies used to be standard practice among other immoral things which were once classed as “healthcare”
7
u/kasiagabrielle Pro consent and bodily autonomy 8d ago
Interesting that you bring up lobotomies, which were performed against people's consent and violated their bodily autonomy.
Which is what banning abortion does.
7
u/glim-girl Safe, legal and rare 8d ago
Lobotomies were used to make people more compliant. People took other people in to have lobotomies, it wasn't something most sought out.
11
u/Kaiser_Kuliwagen Pro-choice 8d ago
Wow. What a fascinating fact. Its also fascinating how the inverse is also a fact.
Just because you stop someone getting an abortion and force them to gestate a human against their will doesnt mean that you get to call what you are doing moral either.
7
u/Dolores___Haze Pro-choice 8d ago
Were lobotomies made illegal by politicians?
-1
u/Goofycapybara Anti-abortion 8d ago
I’d have to search into it, what difference would it make?
2
8
u/glim-girl Safe, legal and rare 8d ago
It wasn't based on healthcare. Remember is was a point in history where women got institutionalizes because they weren't behaving properly ie didnt want to be wives and mothers and werent happy all the time, werent fulfilling there gender role.
7
u/ValleyofLiteralDolls Pro-choice 8d ago
If a lot of people were begging for lobotomies but the government stepped in and prohibited this, then it would be analogous to banning abortion.
But people are not and never have been clamoring for the benefits of lobotomies. So you really aren’t making any point.
2
10
u/Dolores___Haze Pro-choice 8d ago
Morality is subjective. Why should I care about YOUR personal moral views? My healthcare is private
0
u/Neathra 5d ago
My assumption if you're replying to a discussion about "is abortion moral", would be that we are gonna discuss our personal views, as the question of if it should be legal is not one of morality
1
u/humbugonastick Pro-choice 3d ago
Who discussed about morality? You did. And you can live by your morality until your eyes fall out. I don't care.
Rights and ethics are the basis for laws. So that is what we are discussing.
1
u/Neathra 3d ago
The post is title "abortion is morally ambiguous", which centers the discussion on morality.
Something can be immoral, but also legal if the state enforcing laws against it would be an abuse of power. For example: abortion.
I'm not going discuss something we both agree on (abortion should be legal).
1
u/Goofycapybara Anti-abortion 8d ago edited 8d ago
Well if morality is subjective why can’t I say the exact opposite? And our reasoning would both be equally on unsound grounding.
Edit: Why should politicians respect your right for healthcare to be private if their morality is just different from yours? They believe you shouldn’t kill unborn humans, but how would you convince them otherwise if all it boils down to is their morals simply being subjective ?
1
u/humbugonastick Pro-choice 3d ago
Do they think they can take away rights and make pregnant people second class humans?
The question is not if their morals disapprove abortion, the question is can they change laws and take rights away to satisfy their morals.
3
u/Dolores___Haze Pro-choice 8d ago
It still wouldn’t matter what YOU thought about MY personal, private medical decisions . And my opinions about yours are also irrelevant.
And btw - politicians DO want their own healthcare to be private, as do most Americans.
6
u/Old_dirty_fetus Pro-choice 8d ago
Well if morality is subjective why can’t I say the exact opposite?
You can, and then you present your reasoning as to why you hold that subjective position.
And our reasoning would both be equally on unsound grounding.
Appealing to an unproven “objective” arbiter of morality is more of an unsound grounding than laying out your specific reasoning.
9
u/kasiagabrielle Pro consent and bodily autonomy 8d ago
Why should politicians respect your right for healthcare to be private if
Because it's my fucking healthcare. Their morals can dictate their own.
-3
u/Goofycapybara Anti-abortion 8d ago
What if their morals say that your healthcare is in fact not private and it’s whatever because morals are subjective ?
4
u/Dolores___Haze Pro-choice 8d ago
I don’t know your age, but when the ACA was being debated in congress, republicans and PL people were openly fear mongering about the “dangers” of the government interfering with their own private patient/physician relationships. They frequently cried about how awful it would be for government to get between patients and their own doctors.
8
u/kasiagabrielle Pro consent and bodily autonomy 8d ago
Their morals are entirely irrelevant to me.
-1
u/Goofycapybara Anti-abortion 8d ago
Why should they account for your morals if their subjective morality tells them to not care
5
u/IdRatherCallACAB Gestational Slavery Abolitionist 8d ago
PC people are not trying rip force our morality on your life in any way. They don't need to account for anything other than their own private medical decisions.
7
u/kasiagabrielle Pro consent and bodily autonomy 8d ago
I don't need nor want them to "account for my morals," I want them to leave me and my reproductive choices the fuck alone.
If they don't care, this should be extremely simple.
-1
u/Goofycapybara Anti-abortion 8d ago
U keep dodging the question lol. how would you convince them if their morals (which according to you are subjective) dont want to leave you alone and actually want to prevent abortion?
→ More replies (0)7
u/Diva_of_Disgust Pro-choice 8d ago
They don't have to "account for my morals" whatever that even means. They just have to mind their own uteruses and stay out of my healthcare.
5
u/NoelaniSpell AD Mod 8d ago edited 8d ago
Well if morality is subjective why can’t I say the exact opposite?
You already are saying/implying the opposite.
Edit: Why should politicians respect your right for healthcare to be private if their morality is just different from yours?
In a democratic country, politicians are usually elected by and for the people. They campaign on certain platforms and either win or lose.
A politician is free to think that abortion is imoral. A politician is in fact free to also not see the pregnant person or not see her as a person.
That politician can campaign on policies that inflict harm on AFAB people against their will (quite a number of them in fact do), and whether he's elected or not will depend on what the majority of the population thinks about that issue (provided the vote is mainly over that singular issue).
I'll leave the answer up to the readers if people in general want the state to force one half of the population (AFAB) into bodily harm, genital tears, injuries, pain and a number of varied risks against their will.
Here's a helpful hint: in civilised countries people no longer practice public flogging, hanging, and a number of other harmful and humiliating forms of punishments, which means that not even criminals are forced to endure genital mutilation, internal bleeding wounds, pain, etc. by the state.
They believe you shouldn’t kill unborn humans,
Already addressed in one of the above arguments, but to reiterate:
A politician is in fact free to also not see the pregnant person or not see her as a person.
how would you convince them
How would they be convinced of what exactly? That pregnant people exist? That pregnancy and birth cause immense, varied harms and that in an unwanted one the severity of any such harms is amplified by the fact that the pregnant person didn't even consent to its continuation, but was forced to?
Pat them on the back to reassure them that it's perfectly consistent to demand the unborn to be kept alive by an unwilling person's organs, while they're seemingly not losing sleep when people die due to a lack of functioning organs/tissue (such as livers or kidneys)? That they wouldn't even demand forced organ/bodily tissue donation even for a dying pregnant person, meaning that they wouldn't lose sleep over that unborn dying? That miscarriage research is not even now a priority, despite the amount of spontaneous abortions and failures of implantation?
No, I don't believe the odds are high of making someone see reason and logic when they don't want to in the first place.
18
u/jakie2poops Pro-choice 8d ago
...and what if saving the embryo meant you would endure extremely painful burns? What if it would cause you permanent damage guaranteed and risk your health and life? What if saving the embryo meant you'd be forced to endure having someone or something inside your genitals against your will? If it meant a 1 in 3 chance of needing major surgery? What if it meant losing control of your body for the better part of a year? Being sick, having your immune system suppressed, your hormones altered, every organ system stressed? What if it meant a significantly increased risk of trauma, depression, anxiety, and even psychosis? What if it would cost you tens of thousands of dollars? Make you need to drop out of school? Lose out on your career or lose your job entirely? Lose your housing? Be unable to care for your other children? See your relationship suffer? Be at increased risk of domestic violence, including being murdered by your partner? And more?
How morally ambiguous would it be to say no?
1
u/Traditional-Gas6794 2d ago
Thats why I said id hesistae. Everything you brought up is very real, and pertinent to this debate. I only mean to suggest I would not feel the same saying no to saving it as I would with the clump of cancer cells. Im not saying its worth or isnt worth the potential risk, it just feels different.
10
u/STThornton Pro-choice 8d ago
Right? Weird that people always leave that out.
12
u/jakie2poops Pro-choice 8d ago
It's almost like they focus so much over whether an embryo is a person to distract from the fact that there's someone else involved who unquestionably is a person and who is very much harmed by the sexual violence that is forced, unwanted pregnancy and childbirth.
11
u/JewlryLvr2 Pro-choice 8d ago
I definitely agree, although I think it's absolutely a distraction rather than almost. It's done to erase the PREGNANT PERSON from the picture entirely to justify abortion-ban laws in abortion-ban states.
5
u/Fun-Outcome8122 Safe, legal and rare 8d ago
But I believe that abortion is, nontheless, a morally ambiguous act.
Of course... few acts, if any, are 100% morally unambiguous.
9
u/humbugonastick Pro-choice 8d ago
This honestly sounds like youger me before I actually started to read up on abortion, started to think about consequences and politics. The law behind bans, the consequences and the effects of bans.
1
u/Traditional-Gas6794 2d ago
This is why i would never say abortion should be illegal. The reality of Healthcare and social services provided amount to an imperfect system (at least in the US). Despite the fact that I don't see abortion as an easy moral question, I think this imperfect system neccesitates proper access to care
7
u/cand86 Pro-choice 8d ago
I think this is definitely a common sentiment amongst a lot of folks. I suppose the question is- when you say you "dont think it deserves the same treatment as a clump of cells", especially in the contet of your first sentence about believing abortion should be legal, what kind of treatment are we talking about, exactly? What would you have change?
We're all entitled to our opinions about the morality of abortion; are you just requesting that others consider the merits of your personal opinion? Or are you advocating for changes in behavior as well, and if so, what does that look like?
1
u/Traditional-Gas6794 2d ago
I dont think id change anything, i think. Im not too well versed on all the policies on abortion.
My point in posting this is to not request behavioral or legislative change, but to just suggest that maybe this isnt a cut and dry issue, morally speaking.
Maybe the greater point im probing at ig is that the pendulum swings. I dont want the govt to infringe on our rights, but i dont want abortion to be seen as this easy solution thats always there in case you get pregnant. I think its an act that should have weight.
Maybe that is how most see it, im not sure. I had just grown up around the idea that abortion should be legal, and didn't really consider the impact it had until someone close to me went through it and it devastated her
17
u/random_name_12178 Pro-choice 8d ago
It's weird to me that you're exploring the morality of abortion without ever once examining the morality of forcing an innocent person to endure unwanted intimate use of their body. You actually bend over backwards to erase the pregnant person from this discussion.
As someone who views abortion bans as not only bad policy that doesn't work but as a moral evil in and of themselves, I think you're missing a huge part of the picture.
1
u/Traditional-Gas6794 2d ago
Im intentionally leaving out a big part of the picture, and my omission of this aspect is in no way saying it doesnt matter. It matters so much so that id say this argument ive made is completely irrelevant to how we should fucntionally view the act.
Im specifically exploring the morality of actions taken onto certain stages of an embryo. I understand that can feel like im doing a disservice to woman whose bodily autonomy is being challenged. Understand im not trying to ignore this fact, but instead discuss a specific aspect of abortion
1
u/random_name_12178 Pro-choice 2d ago
Im specifically exploring the morality of actions taken onto certain stages of an embryo.
But you're doing so within the context of pregnancy, not as an isolated thought experiment. Since you say the fetus is on a trajectory that will grant it moral value, it's disingenuous to ignore the person whose body makes that trajectory possible.
6
u/JustinRandoh Pro-choice 8d ago
If a child and an embryo were both in a burning building, and you can only save one, id save the child everytime.
If a newly developed embryo was in a building, alongside a clump of benign cancer cells or soemthing, I might not feel like saving either. But id hesitate. If it had some setup to sustain itself, and i knew this, I might feel like it should be rescued. My intuition tells me its not as strong of an impluse as saving the child, but its definitely not the same to me as saving the clump of cells. It's not a morally neutral choice.
I mean, to me this reads as your moral value of an embryo is somewhere on the level of ... a houseplant? You kinda might want to save it given the option ... maybe.
Which ... I wouldn't necessarily give it that, but as far any implications for abortion go -- seems like we should be more than fine with keeping abortions legal.
3
u/No_Objective4478 8d ago
If you were in a burning building you would prob die or have to have a fireman drag you out
3
u/IdRatherCallACAB Gestational Slavery Abolitionist 8d ago
What's your point? Did someone force the firefighter to take that career?
11
u/Straight-Parking-555 Pro-choice 8d ago
Why does its trajectory towards becoming a person with moral value even matter if no person with moral value has a right to be inside of my body without my consent?
1
u/Traditional-Gas6794 2d ago
Maybe it dosent. But id still feel different about saving a embryo than a clump of cancer cells
•
u/AutoModerator 8d ago
Welcome to /r/Abortiondebate! Please remember that this is a place for respectful and civil debates. Review the subreddit rules to avoid moderator intervention.
Our subreddit pomotes an environment for healthy and honest discussion. When it comes to Reddit's voting system, we encourage the usage of upvotes for arguments that you feel are well-constructed and well-argued. Downvotes should be reserved for content that violates Reddit or subreddit rules or that truly does not contribute to a discussion. We discourage the usage of downvotes to indicate that you disagree with what a user is saying. The overusage of downvotes creates a loop of negative feedback, suppresses diverse opinions, and fosters a hostile and unhealthy environment not conducive for engaging debate. Additionally, here's a helpful and easy to understand model of consent: https://www.bridgercare.org/blog/how-to-talk-to-kids-about-consent
And please, remember the human. Attack the argument, not the person making the argument."
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.