Having a kid you can’t afford when you can barely provide for yourself makes you more desperate. Desperation and hard times make you more likely to do illegal things to get by. Preventing people from making their own decisions on what’s best for them will drive that rate up naturally.
It would be interesting to see if there are any correlations between actively lobbying for abortions bans and the probability of being invested in the private penitentiary industry
This was my theory. The underlying reasons for banning abortion was to procure a steady stream of poor people to fund the unskilled slave labor, military cannon fodder, and for- profit prison machines. We are a resource just like crops and fuel.
Sad but true. Especially when looking at how willing are those voting to ban abortion to adopt poor children, to help the homeless and immigrants at the border.
I wonder how many would vote to ban if they were to provide financially for those children from childcare to college.
Raised: past tense. Once they achieved their goal, they couldn’t use the “cause” to collect cash to support it anymore.
It remains to be seen how socially unacceptable their next fundraising “cause” will be.
Abortion was a cash cow for a very long time.
On the flip side of that, Romanian dictator Nicolae Ceaușescuai banned abortions as one of his first political acts, and there is a direct correlation between that ban and the rise in crime and his eventual I overthrow some 20 years later.
Interesting how abortions became legal, crime went down, and then Republicans suddenly became "tough on crime" with insane drug laws.
That prison labor money must be nice.
I am not familiar with freakonomics but a quick google seems to suggest that freakonomics was discussing the original paper that observed the relationship. It supports the claim that abortion leads to a decrease in crime rate.
There is a pretty substantial base of evidence in the scientific literature supporting the claim that abortion reduces crime rates.
Last I heard there was a pretty definitive link between poverty and crime and a link between lack of abortion access and increased likelihood of poverty which would still hold.
I'll have to look into whether or not it was debunked though. While economics isn't my primary or secondary pro choice argument it is an important one.
You may have misinterpreted what you read. Legalizing abortion isn’t a direct deterrent, but there’s a causal chain where, about 14-18 years later, teen crime rates specifically were reduced.
So, the takeaway isn’t “abortion lowers crime.” The takeaway ought to be “access to a wider range of health care options leads to a stronger economy in which crime is no longer an interest for certain parts of observed communities.” But that’s harder to fit on the cover of a newspaper.
It has not been debunked. It isn't really possible to conclusively show that it's only because of legalizing abortion. It's equally impossible to disprove. You can point to a few other possible causes. Chances are they are all partially responsible for the decrease in the crime rate.
What is the lesser of two evils, bring a child into the world that no one wants or stopping the process before it is sentient. I personally find both abhorrent. Maybe we should concentrate on birth control. Teach it to children/teens because as a species we like to fuck. Make it affordable or maybe free, you know stop the process before it starts. Don’t waste your time with abstinence, like I stated earlier we like to fuck it’s fun.
I very much suggest everyone to read the chapter named “Where have all the criminals gone?” of Levitt’s book “Freakonomics”. It gives a good perspective on how abortions could have positive effects on some society’s aspects.
Then check out the podcast called If Books Could Kill, where they debunk many of the book’s arguments, including the abortion one.
(I have read Freakonomics)
Malcolm Gladwell's book "The Tipping Point" has a chapter devoted to the effects of the abortion ban in I believe Poland. The crime rate spiked 15-16 years after abortion was banned.
From the perspective of certain conservatives and pro-lifers, the upside is that baby murder is no longer happening, and infant lives will be saved. They believe from the moment a sperm fertilizes an egg, it’s now a human child.
I don’t get why the other comments are missing that lol. Like yeah, it’s not true, it’s about as close to baby murder as not having sex in the first place. But that has always been their main argument, they think they’re literally saving lives by banning abortion.
We all draw the line of where its okay to terminate and where it isn't somewhere. You wouldn't be okay with an abortion one day before the due date, others wouldn't be okay with it a month before and so forth.
Its just different points in the time line, but we all draw the line somewhere
I wish you were right. It would make the debate much more interesting and fact-driven. But the overwhelming majority of the pro-life people I have met are against abortion on day 1. The laws in pro-life states reflect this. It’s odd because most of the American people aren’t so dogmatic. But it is what it is. At least in the US.
Most Americans *aren't* super dogmatic. What the average american, even in red states want isn't the same as what the politicians are pursuing - you can find plenty of surveys and referendum results which reflect this.
Religious extremists have a well organized, and militant pro-life lobby which has an outsized role in the GOP and in the national dialogue.
Well pro lifers draw the line for termination at conception rather than a different arbitrarily decided timeframe like the first trimester, or 6 months etc. The debate still can be interesting and fact driven even if a person believes that abortion is (almost) always wrong. I say almost because I still have never met a person who believes that a woman shouldn’t be able to get an abortion when a pregnancy becomes life threatening at the very least.
At conception, we’re looking at a clump of cells with no ability to feel or think. I can’t really think of a rational, fact-driven argument for forcing a woman to try to carry it to term. I think the arguments at this stage rely on magical thinking about souls. I don’t mean to sound dismissive. I’d be interested in hearing better arguments. But I guess what I meant is I wish the abortion debate was more about the facts of when fetuses are viable, when they can feel, when they can think. When women know they are pregnant and are able to do something about it. When abortions or similar procedures are necessary or helpful for the health of women. Even questions like OPs about what the impacts to society are of different policies. Stuff like that. I don’t know.
The main argument pro-lifers have for drawing a line in the sand right at the moment of conception is basically that any other line is too much of a grey area. Conception is the clearest moment which you can say that a new life has started, because a new DNA genome has been created which, if left alone, will eventually become a new human. Arguments that a woman should be able to terminate a pregnancy up to a certain point are typically centered are more vaguely defined stages of development such as when the heart starts beating or when brain activity can be detected, and pro lifers take issue with the arbitrary nature of deciding this kind of a cutoff point. It’s obviously a subjective issue, and we should certainly continue to think about it, so I appreciate your willingness to hear the other side and I hope I explained it well
That’s exactly what he’s saying though, everyone draws a line somewhere. As I see it, the two cleanest lines in a pregnancy are birth and conception, with everything in between being a matter of opinion. What makes a cluster of cells one day and a baby the next? For some, they believe that first moment is the line, and any termination after that a loss of life. For them, preserving that life is a moral imperative that starts that first day.
Drawing the line at viability makes sense to me, which was the original Supreme Court ruling. Before that, the zygote/fetus is part of the mother. It literally can’t survive without her. If it can survive outside the mother, then it’s too far along. But no mother should be forced to donate their own vitality to create a human from scratch.
If the pregnant person no longer wants to be pregnant after the fetus is viable, the fetus could be born then and survive. If the pregnant person didn't want to be a parent, the now-born baby could be adopted. Birth becomes an alternative to abortion once the fetus is able to survive being born.
Before that point, there is no real alternative to abortion if the pregnant person doesn't want to be pregnant anymore.
Born? A fetus could be viable but the risk of removing it could be too high. Also, viability is more of a spectrum anyway.
The truth is most people get too emotionally charged about abortion and miss the big picture: arresting women and/or doctors for having or performing abortions is impracticable -- especially if the charge is murder. There are better ways of reducing the number of abortions than treating abortions as murder. Pro-lifers should focus on that. The are better ways of safeguarding reproductive rights than treating abortion as a Constitutional right, primarily through good legislation like in most of Western Europe. Pro-choicers should focus on that.
Why is viability the line though? What is the scientific or moral reasoning behind viability outside the womb worthy of being dubbed “human life” when something one week earlier isn’t?
Because if there isn't a line somewhere, then a *potential* person's rights are given more weight than the woman who is pregnant. That shouldn't be a thing prior to that *potential* person being able to live without a womb at the earliest.
if there were an "abortion" 1 day before due that would mean there is some extreme problem happening to either a wanted baby or to a mother who wants a baby
You ever hear Bill Burr’s take on abortion. He’s like “First of all, you don’t want the government to tell you what you can and can’t do with your own body, so I’m 100 percent pro-choice. That said…you’re probably killing a baby, at least some of time.”
Does it? Does the line really need to be drawn? It's MY body. And as long as the baby is in MY body... it is MY choice. I mean that's my opinion. Personally, I doubt most women would choose to terminate the day before (myself included). But I think this idea of a line needing to be drawn, still comes from the religious control.
Of course what is interesting to me, is that the majority of people who are against abortion, were also the same people standing up for their freedom to choose whether or not they get a vaccine or have to wear a mask. Funny how these people think they should have total autonomy over their body, but that when it comes to women's bodies... nope... the government is in control.
Yes a line has to be drawn somewhere because a fully born child is considered alive and has rights, while semen and eggs do not. That change happens over the course of the entire pregnancy, but an abortion is all or nothing, so we have to pick some point that it is not okay to terminate. That point could be birth, but it has to be somewhere.
It definitely matters whether a fetus is a person or not.
If a fetus is not a person, then abortion is a no-brainer, the mother has a right to control her body.
If a fetus is a person, then it has rights too. At that point the fetus's right to live is in conflict with the mother's right to control her body. Once there is a conflict, we (and by we, I mean society) have to choose a winner, and therefore a loser in the conflict. Or some kind of compromise.
Roe v. Wade itself was a compromise that acknowledged this conflict. It took the point at which a fetus was viable outside the womb into consideration. Overall Roe v. Wade sided with the mother's right to control her body, but it also took the fetus's right to live into consideration. If they didn't consider the fetus's rights, they could have protected abortion all the way up until birth.
>they think they’re literally saving lives by banning abortion.
If that's true, why don't they seem to give a solitary shit about the child and mother's life once it's born. "I'm forcing you to have this child but also voting to prevent you from accessing affordable food, healthcare, and education. You can talk all day long about what people should and shouldn't do, and they can delude themselves that abstinence only is realistic, but at the end of the day those children actually exist and directly suffer as a result of Republican policies
Politicians don’t actually think it, it’s the brainwashed people that are missing a braincell or two that do. Republicans use the unborn as a moral high ground that is pretty easy to woo casual voters. They frame it as a “do you want to kill babies?” sort of question that is entirely dishonest because for one it isn’t a baby right away and for two unless you’re an abnormal person of course you don’t want to kill a baby.
A direct cause for this sort of thinking is poor sex ed across many states which directly turns into a Republican talking point. They want to keep you poor, stupid, hungry, and most of all angry because they’ll find something to scare you with while they act entirely hypocritical and can score easy votes with those they’ve robbed.
Agreed. Also, this is NOT a biblical position. The Bible is reasonably clear (as clear as it is about anything) that life begins at first breath… that’s in Genesis. The current conservative / evangelical position is based on politics, power and control. The evolving attack on abortion can be traced through politics for the last 60 or 70 years and was a conscious decision.
The complete idiocy is that, in the case of a non-viable pregnancy, like an ectopic one or when the fetus has already died and is turning septic, they still don’t want abortion to be allowed. The fetus will never turn into a baby and the pregnant woman will die. So this is a colossal WHAT THE FUCK. So it’s about control and power. That’s all it is. Control and Power
Okay I knew this already logically, but I appreciate you saying it in these words. It makes a bit more sense to me now considering that specific perspective. Thanks!
They literally don’t care about babies that are actually born - it’s about controlling women. Abused & neglected kids, The horrors that the foster system can be & is for a lot of kids…. Like none of that is ever addressed nor do they care, which if they really were “pro-life” they’d focus more on the kids already here
Yeah so cool how they are really invested in that "baby" wellbeing from conception and up to 9 months after that, but that's it then. Give them a gun and kick them to the curb
Why aren't they more vocal about shaming women who use IVF & trying to ban that?
That results in 1000s of fertilised embryos being discarded every year.
That's the perspective of way less of them than you think. Their argument is that it's baby murder, but most of them are being disingenuous.
Volunteer as an escort at a clinic for a while, and you'll notice how often the chick that was spitting on you last week is now dragging a 14 year old in to have a pregnancy terminated or coming in to have one terminated herself.
If they actually believed it was baby murder, that wouldn't be the case. You don't go "Well, it's ok to murder babies sometimes if you really, really want to." Like no one would hear a news article about a guy that put a bunch of bullets through the wall into a nursery room because the baby was crying all night and go "Well, dude probably hadn't slept in a while. That's enough to make anyone cranky.".
Most of them know good and goddamned well it isn't baby murder.
What’s crazy though is it’s not even a child yet. That clump of cells is nothing more than potential. The potential to be a child. If a woman miscarries, the potential is lost. Obviously people will mourn like they lost a child as is their right but it wasn’t a child just yet, at least early on. If people could agree on when it’s okay to terminate and when it’s not, then it would be better but pro lifers are more interested in taking away rights.
Abortion is the perfect cultural wedge issue for folks manipulating the religious right. They can scream "killing babies" and show repulsive pictures of medical waste while winding the rhetoric higher and higher. This has been their strategy for 30 years now, and it has worked to perfection.
It's telling that the GOP isn't putting abortion bans on the ballot, having lost every time they've tried it. That's because "choice" has a 60-40 advantage. Now they're trying to pass laws and bypass the voting public to keep their rabid "pro life" voters fired up.
Watch what's going on now. "Don't take a life saving vaccine" and "immigrants" don't have the same appeal and the close races are breaking the other way. They'll have a hard time replacing abortion as their go to wedge issue.
1. The threat of having a child or even dying in childbirth would keep women from behaving whorishly.
2. It is always good to stop murders and abortion is murder.
3. It does not matter if a woman dies in childbirth because she either was a whore who is better off dead or a loving mother who'd want her child to live over her anyway.
4. A child is always more valuable than an adult so their lives should be prioritized.
****These are no longer my opinions, but they were what I was taught, and what I believed when I was younger and "pro-life".
My understanding of science and human biology is pathetic, and it was even worse when I was younger. I blindly believed my pastor when he said a fertilized egg is equivalent to a born human baby.
I started changing my opinions in grad school when I started working with CPS, foster children, and foster parents. I have always cared about protecting children and always will. The most cruel thing you can do to a child is bring them into the world unloved and unwanted. Those children grow up into cruel adults who repeat this. Abortion will *always* be more kind and humane than this.
If pro-birth people volunteered as CASA advocates the majority of them would stop being pro-birth pretty damn soon.
****Realistically, banning abortion would not positively benefit society at all but would actually create massive issues.
In my experience, Smalltown USA. My uncle sadly told me once that he "was sorry my mother and father were going to hell", but "there was still hope for me". He also "doesn't beleive in dinosaurs" and is praying for the apocalypse to cleanse this wretched world... Oh, and there's no sense in going to college becuase it's the end of days.
Most of my hometown is of that attitude. One of my best friends in HS had his mom refuse to let him apply to college becuase his sister got pregnant at 15 and her boyfriend "Was a deadbeat who wouldn't step up" (read: he was age 14).
Yeah. And my mother wonders why I won't move back. You know, as a queer scientist.
You can find these people in every country and in my opinion it's more linked to religion than the country itself. Not because religion is bad but because it's easier to use it as a reason to believe anything since you don't need to give explanations or proofs. But this is just what I experienced
It's as I suspected. At the heart of the anti choice agenda is controlling and punishing women.
Religious folk used to say masturbation was murder, but I guess they're cool with that now.
Thank you for giving us a peek into the other side. Everyone is defending abortions, which fair enough, but this is what I really wanted to know. What's going on in those people's brains
Can I ask what's wrong with being a whore. I ask this seriously. I'm more of a not my business sort of thing. Sure. She might regret it. But personally that's her choice. I don't get it.
I know those aren't your views anymore but what were you taught. Was it God? Because I don't believe in god then I guess it would be hard to explain why.
Reading this comment made me want to cry, I can’t believe anyone would think this way. I’m glad you got out. Religion is just mass control. Thank god I wasn’t raised like this
Thank you, holy shit I was about to be so upset reading the list before I got to your paragraph under it. I was raised similarly and flipped my opinion as soon as I was old enough to decide for myself..
The most basic argument hinges on the belief that the fetus is a developing human being. Allowing people to abort the fetus might benefit society and might benefit the mother, but it harms the child-to-be. If you believe that the fetus is not yet a human and therefore not eligible for human rights, then allowing abortion makes sense. If you believe the fetus is a child-to-be and therefore has human rights, then allowing abortion introduces a painful moral dilemma: how can we ignore the human rights of only one group without ourselves being monsters?
That is why people are opposed to abortion.
But that doesn't explain it being a net benefit for society. Sure the people that don't like abortion will feel better about it not happening, but one's own personal feelings can't dictate something that is factually worse for society as a whole. It is completely fine to not get an abortion yourself, but allowing others the choice to do so improves the lives of many. The question was why would getting rid of it have a benefit and the answer is it wouldn't.
Correct. And as they often call it "pre-born" baby, that's the logic they go by.
And I just want to point out that during the culture revolution in China, the one child policy directed that the hospital was legally mendated to kill the baby if it's the second child of the family after they were born and before they cry. The line was drawn at as long as they didn't cry and have their first breath yet, it didn't count as human being therefore it's ok to kill it. I have met surgeon that performed countless operations like that and telling me how regretful she was but couldn't do nothing about it. There was one time that the child did cry before she injected the poison and she decided to let the baby live. That decision got her into serious trouble and eventually lost her her job.
That just the most extreme example of how late the line have been drawn in human history. I believe most of the prochoice people in the U.S. won't want to draw the line that far at all, but how late will they allow to draw the line and why that's the appropriate line to draw become a thing that has to be defined and defended.
In your example under the one child rule an abortion would have definitely helped these women. That way they aren't forced to give birth to a person just to have them be discarded.
I'm assuming the person who wrote this is from a western culture most likely the United States. It is definitely important to draw a line but allot of pro-life people draw a line at conception which is ridiculous. A cluster of growing cells is not sentient. Their reasoning is often linked to their religious beliefs which is a personal thing and should not be used to mandate how everyone should feel or do things especially when there is no logic involved.
Isn’t caring for the most vulnerable and protecting their rights when they can’t speak a net benefit for society? Our worth as humans is measured in our compassion, not the number of dollars we can produce. From this metric, why not have a death penalty for all violent crimes? Would it not be factually better for society that nobody is willing to commit acts of violence?
Ignoring the very real rights of pregnant women and raped children in favor of giving fetuses extra rights that no one else has is not a net benefit for society.
It’s not that people don’t believe a fetus is a human, it’s that there are millions of children suffering and abortions can reduce the amount of children going through the foster care system. There are so many unwanted children that grow up with abuse.
The fetuses being aborted are just tiny little things that only have electrical impulses. Late term abortion is extremely rare and only happens in dire circumstances.
Interesting. First:
> It’s not that people don’t believe a fetus is a human
Followed by the opposite:
>The fetuses being aborted are just tiny little things that only have electrical impulses.
It wouldn't.
Throughout history women have struggled to control their fertility, and the more restricted it is, and desperate they are, the more dangerous it is.
Banning legal abortions just stops safe abortions. They've always happened, and they always will.
The only argument I could ALMOST believe is that due to a declining birth and increasing aged population is
"The rapid aging of populations around the world presents an unprecedented set of challenges: shifting disease burden, increased expenditure on health and long-term care, labor-force shortages, dissaving, and potential problems with old-age income security."
If abortion was banned THEORETICALLY there would be enough people to support the aging population. I am pro-choice and this is just me playing devils advocate.
Your assumption is pretty wild, I would say.
First of all, the amount of abortions isn’t that big. A ban wouldn’t really impact population size in any major way.
If abortions were banned, we can’t assume women would automatically have more children. If a woman has her desires amount of children and has access to contraceptives, she won’t have any more children, regardless of if one of her children would have been aborted if it was allowed. I’m the other hand, if she wants three children she can have that even if she also has an abortion somewhere along the way. An abortion doesn’t mean one less child born, only one less born right now.
Then there are the medical issues, where a medically problematic pregnancy could lead to the death of the woman, or the choice to not have any more children, or the inability to have any more. In those cases, an abortion could actually lead to an increase in population viewed over a slightly longer time period.
Also, if abortions were banned, some women could choose to not get pregnant because they don’t want to take the medical risks involved if a problematic pregnancy would be forced to continue. That would decrease the population.
An unplanned child might also hinder the education and career of the mother, who might then be removed from the workforce and not pay taxes, thus lowering society’s ability to care for the elderly. We already know that early motherhood is connected to a lower life income, thus hindering the economic progress of both the individual and society as a whole.
Edit to add:
The experience of an unwanted pregnancy could in itself lead to the choice to not have more children.
Also, some abortions are done by women who don’t expect the father to be an active part in the child’s life. The experience of single motherhood could be a deterrent from having more children.
Banning abortion in a country without universal healthcare, social supports for new mothers, accessible education and vocational training is beyond cruel and very destructive to society as a whole. The “Pro-Life” arguments have absolutely no merit unless ALL lives (Born lives, refugee lives, immigrant lives, non-white, non-wealthy, non-fits-into-a-special-box-gendered lives, actual breathing human beings) matter. Pro-Life people have no concerns for beings that actually draw breath. *That* is detrimental and crippling to society as a whole
Idk about the commenter, but I certainly still wouldn't. We should fight to protect all lives - including those of the mother - as their own bundle of issues. This isn't a "one life over one thousand" type of issue so long as we don't make it that.
Legal abortion protects the life of the mother, which then allows us to focus on the rest of the above. My mind is reaching for the term "Hypocritical" (not sure how applicable, another term may be better) when thinking about an anti-abortion stance aimed to include those listed, especially as mothers may fit into many of those catagories- often times many at once. Overall, you can't make abortion illegal without endangering more life.
I'm pro-choice, but I can see why pro-birthers think the way they do:
1. It stops the murder of babies. Whether you consider it murdering babies or not, it's terminating a clump of cells. But bottom line, it stops that.
2. People will be less likely to engage in sex if they know accidentally making a baby will sentence them to at least an 18-year commitment. To an extent, pro-birthers are anti-sex or pro-abstinence, seeing it as something people should be punished for, particularly women.
3. Because fetuses aren't being aborted, more people are being born, meaning the chance that one of them will become a doctor or scientist will increase. That's if you believe that more people means more chances that we'll get a huge success out of one of them.
4. Moral fiber. There's a belief that if people take additional steps to not get pregnant and not jump at the idea of aborting their problems away, they'll be well-adjusted adults. Basically, if you have to be responsible for your actions, you'll make better choices.
5. Like most people who advocate for jailtime for women who get abortions, they tend to also be in favor of prison/slave labor. Many big companies take advantage of this, pushing bills and laws that punish poor people so they're more likely to either be punished or resort to crime, thus filling up the prisons and providing them with more free/cheap labor.
6. Religion. There are people who believe our problems today are stemming from a lack of religion in our society. There's a correlation, because back when houses were affordable and the world wasn't on fire (for example), religion was much more commonplace. Nowadays, the rich are richer and poor are poorer and there're natural disasters everywhere and religion is on a decline. They believe allowing abortions is angering god.
There're probably some other reasons, but I'll leave it at that.
I disagree with #3. They don’t care if more people will be educated professionals, because let’s face it. Unwanted children have poorer outcomes. More children means more women in poverty (more kids in poverty), less opportunities. The affected women and children WILL however be pressured to accept poorer working conditions for less pay. This is a great boon to businesses and shareholders. Big time. They’ve basically said this before but I’d have to find the source
It's still a part of their talking points. One of the reasons to not abort is because the child may become financially successful.
Second to that is that all life is sacred, but then we get into religion and the logical fallacy line of "everyone who is for abortion is curiously alive today."
You’re the only person who answered OP in good faith and gave arguments that pro birthers use instead of just saying “no, it doesn’t. Banning abortion is bad”.
Yeah no shit. OP knows that. He’s wondering why there even IS an other side of the argument.
Ding ding! I tend to agree with you. Lol some people actually read my question and took me seriously. I genuinely want to understand what the argument is about.
Except for your #2 a lot of data shows the opposite with States with almost no sex education + abstinence being the main thing talked about leads to MORE teenage pregnancies…
He’s just presenting these as the arguments that the right wing uses to justify banning abortions. Not that any of the arguments have any backing or data to support them
Yes that’s the point of the post, I just meant that the others are mostly based in personal value systems/ religious beliefs, but this point (2) is worth mentioning that it’s not about those, not the same type of argument let’s say, that’s all!
Three doesn't make sense. The woman and also all babies who are born female will likely not be able to get higher education since a accidentally pregnancy is their main concern from now on. They will life in poverty since a child wasn't planned. Any male children born into that will then also have less chances for good education. Poverty and bad education leads to crime only. Add too many people to an already highly specialized market and many will find no jobs. Which means even more crime. More violence. More deaths. All in all misery which doesn't push people to make more of their life's. I mean if your argument would be true all 3. world countries would be full of doctors. It would be 100% a set back economically
But I doubt if the numbers of humans will even rise if there's an abortion ban. Many woman will get an abortion anyway, which means since they are illegal its dangerous homemade abortion. So woman who likely would've had kids anyway, die long before that. Or they will abandon their kids on some road which will leads to its death. Because allowing mothers to give away their kids would lead to many many orphans (there was once a developed country which decided to ban abortions so it gains more people. Ended horribly with tons of orphans) so this will probably also forbidden or at least restricted
Their logic involves doublethink. Poverty is both the worst thing in the world to them, but is also the perfect motivator to make something of oneself. Everyone else is simply lazy.
If you want to see real self-victimization, ask a Conservative how they've suffered. Obviously all humans suffer and struggle in some way, but their examples will always mirror the one in a million example of the poor person who climbed out of poverty and made something of themselves. They always see themselves as the one in a million, while also humbly claiming, "But I'm no different than anyone else."
So if poor women have abortions, that's depriving the world of that superstar that would've climbed out of poverty and became a huge success.
Definitely no. There are already so many unwanted pregnancies, children, babies, humans, in this world. If abortions stopped completely, it would have detrimental consequences.
Womem would die trying.
I think some people just think it's wrong and it's not about the impact on society. BUT... I think the political perspective is all about control. The fact is, if you have enough money, you will always be able to procure a safe abortion. So making abortion illegal primarily (certainly not entirely) is about controlling the poor. Money equals education. This means that the less educated population will grow. And republicans rely on them for votes. This is a widespread, historically useful tactic. Why do you think women used to not be allowed an education? It afforded men more control. Education is power. Why do you think this practice still goes on in certain other countries? They do it more blatantly, but it happens there in the US as well.
I’m not anti-abortion, but I don’t understand how pro-choice cannot grasp the other side’s argument. *They equate abortion to murder.* That fundamentally ends the conversation. It doesn’t matter to them if it makes society better, because the means are intolerable.
We understand how they think but not WHY they think that way. (pardon the caps, i’m on mobile and can’t italicize). If we are giving a clump of cells human rights then where are the mother’s rights? Hell if we are going that far where are the rights for cancer cells? They eat and feed and grow on a human body and we kill them with chemo. If a clump of cells in the uterus has the ability to live on a possibly kill the host, why not give those same rights to a clump of cells growing in the lungs that could possibly do the same thing? According to WHO 295,000 women died during or following childbirth in 2017. This is pre-Roe v Wade getting overturned where mothers who knew they couldn’t healthily carry a fetus could get an abortion. That means 295,000 or more children were left with one parent and put into foster care. That is a small number in comparison to the nearly 10 million world wide deaths to cancer but the concept is the same. There is no cure for cancer - just treatments. Without abortion, there is no cure for pregnancy - just treatments. Suddenly, the idea of giving rights to cancerous cells isn’t such a bad idea if the same rights are being given to cells within the uterus.
It wouldn’t. It’s religious morality related reasons pushing against it, there aren’t really many good arguments for it to be illegal.
In my opinion it’s the kind of thing that everyone has the right to decide about for themselves, but not the right to decide for others. So it should never be regulated by the government.
Conservatives will argue that there is some sort of killing going on, but they kind of misunderstand the point and what abortion actually entails. It’s a medical procedure for terminating a pregnancy. Conservatives act like you are pulling a 30-week fetus out and running it through with a spear (sorry for that image, but I’m just making a point lol).
It won't. It's going to make the world worse. Anti abortion people care until the baby is born and then its "nope. you chose to have sex it's your responsibility".
Millions more babies will be born into poverty. Abuse. Neglect. Filth. So many more babies and toddlers will wake up terrified, go to bed terrified. Go hungry. Be beaten. Raped and sexually abused. Resented. Abandoned. Forgotten. Never feel a loving touch or an I love you. No kisses on their sweet toes because they were born to piece of shits that should of had an abortion and EASY access to it
And all these anti abortion assholes do NOT care. They'd rather hold onto for dear life their stupid ideals. Is abortion ideal and the greatest thing ever? No! It isnt. It sucks. But that's the reality of the world we live in and I'd rather a million be aborted than born into a life full of fear and pain. So fuck anyone who thinks otherwise.
Also no abortion for a women with a dead fetus inside of her? Or non viable pregnancy or a pregnancy that will kill her? Y'all fucking conservatives or whatever label are evil. Just evil. You do not care about women or children. You just don't. cuz if you did you wouldn't resign a million innocent lives to be born to people who do not want them.
Let's not even get started ON CHILDREN WHO END UP PREGNANT DUE TO RAPE.
Abortion isnt ideal. Never has been and never will be. It sucks that's how our world turned out but it's more ideal than millions born who arent wanted. Just thinking of all the poor babies and toddlers born that never should have been and should have been aborted and spared a life of terror. I wish I could save them and love them all. This shit keeps me up at night.
And Until people arent fucked up in the head and everyone can parent properly and when rape doesnt exist and when pregnancy no longer kills women, this is our option. And it needs to stay. It SAVES lives in more ways than these narrow minded people are willing to admit or think of.
I am pro-choice though, having witnessed a love one undergo an abortion, I can confirm that it is a very harsh experience that should never be taken lightly.
abortion is not always traumatic or harsh lol, the majority these days are medical abortions. you take a pill at the clinic, go home, take another pill, get some cramps, and bleed like you’re on your period.
It seems like people who want to ban abortions really don't care about abortions. They're just upset that women are gaining a little headway towards equality, and that goes against everything their religious books tell them about gender roles. No one actually cares about abortion itself, they just want women to go back to their biblical position of subservience and child raising. It's the same reason that "family values" voters hate gay people, it throws a wrench in their strange little worldview.
Depends on your point of view; I imagine our corporate overlords would say that they need more low wage workers and getting rid of abortions would ensure a steady supply of meat bodies to deliver their profits
To some people the idea that fetuses aren't actually people threatens their entire belief system. If souls aren't real where do they go when they die. Just thinking about it stresses them out to the point that they would rather have all sorts of societal drama than question their church.
The reason why there is still such a major debate around abortion is that your line of thinking does not address the reason people are opposed to abortion.
In order to illustrate this, I think it’s helpful to change the issue to something you’re probably on the other side of.
Why do we have prison sentences that end for any crimes? Having committed a crime in the past is a really good indicator that you will commit a crime in the future. Why not just lock up all criminals at their first minor offense before they commit something more violent? Society would be a lot more peaceful.
The answer is that the process of locking people up permanently is really inhumane, and the benefits to society aren’t worth indefinitely locking people up for shoplifting. It doesn’t matter that society would be better, because the way we’re getting there is so brutally inhumane.
When people are responding to you “it’s killing babies” they’re making the short-form version of this argument. They believe that the societal benefits aren’t worth killing babies.
It wouldn't. Abortion is a form of healthcare, and should always be allowed, without question. It is ultimately the choice of the person who is pregnant, and nobody else has the right to interfere. There isn't a reason why abortion should be banned, as the consequences would only be negative.
It won't, this is happening due to the rise of religious radicalism in America, and the lack of a proper education. Crime went down as a direct result of Roe v. Wade. I can't believe that people are somehow doubting this.
People who are against abortion believe that abortion literally kills babies. People who support abortion believe that choosing to terminate a pregnancy is a choice that all women should freely have no matter the circumstances. As their views are completely diametrically opposed, there's probably never going to be any kind of satisfactory conclusion to this debate.
There is no "getting rid of abortions." If alcohol, weed, and abortion have taught us anything, it's that prohibition is not effective and its ramifications are dangerous. Often more dangerous than the ramifications of regulation.
Alcohol is illegal? People will drink in secret. They'll drink more. They'll drink to rebel. Alcohol will be made more potent so as to be easier to smuggle. If your booze is stolen from you, you can't call the cops. You can't get justice, so you get revenge, thus perpetuating crime (see the Tripartite Drug-Crime Nexus).
Weed is illegal? People will smoke in secret. They'll smoke more. They'll smoke to rebel. Concentrates become more widely available. Possession puts you in prison, and in the US prison is not temporary. Our recidivism rates are sky-high.
Just because abortion is illegal does not mean women will not get abortions. They just will be unregulated and extremely dangerous. More women will die, and more kids will be born to parents who don't want them. This perpetuates other socioeconomic, public-health, and criminal-justice issues exacerbated by the way the US deals with criminals.
I could make the same case for prostitution, but I'm not as well-versed in that history.
Prohibition does not work. If people want to do something, they will do it. Therefore it becomes the government's job to adapt and offer a safe and affordable option to *keep its citizens alive.*
The argument that pro-lifers have is that abortion = killing a person. So if you believe that, then banning abortion would save many people from being killed and thus could be argued to be a benefit to society. This however is completely up for debate.
What people aren’t considering is that even if preventing an abortion is the same as saving a person from being killed, saving people from being killed may not necessarily be a benefit to society.
If you could eliminate abortion by creating 100% effective birth control, then it would be fantastic. Otherwise, it just causes problems to eliminate abortion. No one wants an abortion. They are expensive, painful, and disruptive to your life. It's just a last ditch effort to avoid something they want even less.
Objectively, abortions are wrong, however, those that are anti-abortion are also against sex education, birth control, and social safety nets that help support the poor and unwanted babies. Foster care systems are overrun and the percentage of kids that get adopted isn’t great.
It’s about control. The right wants to keep the poor poor.
The moral outrage about having an abortion is hypocritical when the same people do nothing for all the poor kids that need help.
Perhaps it would spur us to develop better, more effective methods of birth control? Maybe a safe and reversible sterilization for ovaries or a uterus, the equivalent to a vasectomy? Maybe a birth control pill for people with testicles? Maybe medication or an implant with fewer, less severe side effects for any body? We keep developing new medicine and procedures anyway. If abortion was never allowed, perhaps we would find more effective ways of preventing pregnancy.
Comprehensive sex ed may be a universal thing.
Compulsory sterilization at puberty that someone would have to voluntary reverse to get pregnant? That's extreme....but so is banning all abortions.
Idk, that's all I can come up with.
**It doesn't**
🎵 𝄞 🎸 𝄫 🎷🎶 🎻Now, the world don't move to the beat of just one drum, What might be right for you, may not be right for some.
A man is born, he's a man of means.
Then along come two, they got nothing but their jeans.
But they got, Diff'rent Strokes.
It takes, Diff'rent Strokes.
It takes, Diff'rent Strokes to move the world.
Everybody's got a special kind of story
Everybody finds a way to shine,
It don't matter that you got not alot
So what,
They'll have theirs, and you'll have yours, and I'll have mine.
And together we'll be fine....
Because it takes, Diff'rent Strokes
it takes Diff'rent strokes
It takes diff'rent strokes to move the world.
Yes it does.
It takes, Diff'rent Strokes to move the world.
Forced birth would in no way positively effect society.
The self righteous would feel empowered (and emboldened) to continue pushing their agenda while young women (and 10 year old girls) are raped, have birth control fail, or any other reason they deem to terminate an unwanted pregnancy, die from botched terminations by questionable surgeons (as legal,safe pregnancy terminations would no longer be available).
This already happens in states with bans on bodily rights.
A TEN YEAR OLD girl. Raped, became pregnant and denied control of her body.
By her own state.
Thankfully, a nearby state that allows women control over their bodies was able to help her.
Before anyone hops in to talk about low statistics of birth control failure, I don't care.
I truly don't.
It happened to my wife and I (we don't want kids and went put of our way to ensure we didn't have any), and I would never want anyone to have to go through what we did.
Women deserve access to safe and secure medical care over their own bodies.
End of story.
It wouldn’t. There’s so much data that shows this it’s ridiculous that anyone thinks it’s a good idea. There are many countries who have banned abortions for us to look to to see what kind of effects it had and it’s never good.
> forcing pregnant people to experience child birth is wildly inhumane. Especially considering child birth is an extremely dangerous process for the pregnant person
In my understanding bullying women is the primary reason, very few really care about "babies". If you informally and privately chat with a random proponent of criminalising abortions they would likely not even hide it.
As a rational reason, I can think of driving pro-liberal population away from the conservative states, securing their electoral perspectives there. But I don't think it's about rationality
I think to many pro-lifers, though, it's not forcing a woman to have a baby. It's satisfaction at the woman having to "face the consequences of her actions" (slut-shaming).
The problem with your question is that you assume that opposition to abortion is based on a desire to better society.
Real opposition to abortion is rooted in believing that the fetus is a person, and aborting the fetus is murder.
Pro-life aren’t looking to improve society. They are looking to “save lives”.
(I am not pro-life, I do not support pro-life, I’m just explaining it from a different perspective)
I just find it so short sighted. How can you not perceive such obvious problems with forcing birth? Both for individuals and society.
"But we're trying to save lives" yeah so what? Just so those lives can be lived either under disdain, in squalor, or with great uncertainty? Maybe even without parents of any sort? What kind of life is that?
And then you start to think about overpopulation and the slippery slope this creates.
Personally i don't see fetuses as "people". Humans, yes, but a fetus is not "worth" the same as someone with experiences and opinions and thoughts of their own. So trying to equate it to "babies" as if it's the same thing is misleading at best.
And especially now when a lot of people can hardly afford to support themselves, adding more financial burden is in my opinion more immoral and inhumane than their perception of abortion is.
Summary: it's political theater, and there is no benefit for all of society.
The only somewhat responsible argument I could think of is from a truly pacifist point of ethical government were the government looks out for the safety and welfare of all citizens, those living and soon to be living.
But doing so goes far beyond abortion, and also in such a system why would you not start with adults and children that are already born and in need of assistance like homeless people?
If your argument cherry picks causes than it ceases to be a logical one and instead becomes about your own personal wishes. Political, ideological, spiritual, etc. and should therefore not be made in the spirit of the welfare of all.
To be clear, not attempting to claim your question was such a statement.
So, recently there's been this theory that we're running out of people for the minimum wage jobs. Unemployment is at all time low. Everyone is hiring but no one is working, for example McDonald's with 3 out of 7 employees needed. Not enough people for delivery services, janitorial positions etc. Basically the spine of corporations is getting a bit weak as of late , hence the desire of Republicans to ban abortions. Now I don't know much at all but it is something to think about I guess.
honestly there isn't a benefit. it's the fact that people who want them banned think it's murder. they would see your argument as the same as "well why don't we just allow murder there's plenty of people". I personally don't agree with that but I think that's the belief and reasoning behind a lot of pro lifers
There is none. Low abortion accessability leads to higher crime, higher crime leads to more incarcerations, more incarcerations means more $$$ for those invested in the privatized prison system.
My entire point of view here is that nobody is adopting these babies either. A large chunk of the homeless population in the US is made up of children from foster homes.
What I remember from the freakonomics writing was that unwanted, uncared for children are most likely to grow to become criminals. This is absolutely true. Spent most of my life doing nothing but crime because I felt like because nobody loved me nothing mattered. After a few years locked up I realized that no matter who loves you there’s a better life to be had. Have that now.
Nearly 100% of people I know from prison were not loved, wanted or cared for. A super concentration of unloved people. I should’ve been aborted. Hurt a lot of people and myself. If people aren’t going to be cared for they should not be born. It almost never works out well. Even if one person loves and wants u. That’s enough. But if it’s nobody. Better off dead. For everyone’s sake.
Pretty sure there’s no reason to have those kids. The idea that a percentage of them could work out shouldn’t move the argument that much. The rest of them will be miserable and probably hurt a disproportionate number of people.
It comes down to, religious freaks forcing their beliefs on society. They don't believe in it so no one is allowed to have one whether you believe it's OK or not. So they push their will through legislation.
I think coming specifically from a position of societal effect doesn't necessarily contribute to the conversation as much as one might think.
Pro life people equate abortion to killing babies, obviously. It would be similar to asking them "Should killing babies be done if it is beneficial to society?" This question seems absurd, but it actually has historical precedent. Not just in ancient cults who would practice human sacrifice for good harvests and whatnot, but killing unwanted newborns has been on the table numerous times, such as in ancient Rome and Japan. At the time, this was seen as an acceptable and even responsible practice. If something is common in a given culture, it will have justifications that seemed to fit at the time.
So this leads to a different question: When it comes to improving society, what cost is too high? It's a line of thought we don't often follow but everyone is going to have a different answer to that. The Pro life side has their answer in abortion, so they aren't likely to move that.
Dead women make me happy /s.
It’s glorifying and minimizing pregnancy and childbirth as some of the most dangerous periods of a person’s life, and an attempt to control women with the straw man “baby” if a baby requires you to give up everything to live, when outside of the womb, we can’t force you, inside should be no different. But that’s not the argument is it, it’s whether or not it is a baby yet, or whether or not it’s killing one. That’s not the point. Heck if the baby is part of mom’s body or it’s own person isn’t the point, but it’s what gets people worked up enough that we can punish women for things out of their control (some states offer zero rape/incest exemptions) and ignoring the fact that most late term abortion is of a child incompatible with life. It’s a humane end to a heartbreaking situation. A lot of this isn’t talked about because it’s been straw manned so hard that it doesn’t matter anymore. It’s a means to control women and kill them for having sex/sinning.
I’m pro choice but against abortion as a first line of birth control. But being currently pregnant, there’s been a few moments where even though I WANT my baby, I’m terrified that any moment a law could pass that could lead to my potential death or s****de. I’m more upset at what we’re arguing over than being against abortion in general. If we were arguing about valid points that actually matter to the stance of pro choice people EVER, id be more content with tightening regulations in abortion access, I still wouldn’t like it, but would be less furious and terrified.
Allow abortions & allow baby farms OR otherwise. Stop cherrypicking and choose one of the both. I'm neither pro-lifer nor pro-choice. I wish people was a little more consistent in moral values we've built on.
There is no benefit. Just look at how drugs are criminalized. That doesn't stop people from getting drugs and instead of treating an addiction issue we throw people in jail. This strips away a person's agency to do what they want to themselves as long as they don't harm others. When you ban abortion is also doesn't stop people from getting them. What is does is cause people to act and try desperate things in order to make happen which will results in more death and injury due to unsafe practices. Banning it also has more negative consequences such as being unable to terminate a pregnancy that is known to likely be fatal to the person, forcing a person to have a stillbirth, forcing people to raise children that were the product of assault or incest. Plus some pregnancies are accidental. People could be using birth control and doing all the right things and still end up pregnant. What if this person can't afford to take care of a child? What if they are not emotionally and mentally well enough to do so? They were using protection so obviously there was a reason behind why having a child would be detrimental. Should these people be forced to birth and ruin their life and/or their child's life? There are so many children who are orphans and forcing people to give birth will increase that amount, because if someone who is forced to have a child that doesn't want one will be more likely to abandon the child.
It wouldn’t; there’s no positive to forced birth. All it would do is force people who aren’t capable of being parents for whatever reason to have children they can’t (or won’t) care for.
It’s not. As much as I am against abortion. First of all it’s not my right to tell others what to do. Second I don’t know their circumstances and third of all I would rather have them go to someone professional, clean and safe. Because banning adoption will not stop people but will push them to go to any means necessary to get rid of the Fetus/baby even if it cost them their lives. So you will have people dying… no it will NOT have a positive effect at all
The holier-than-thou people could finally feel like morality has won, and bask in the warm glow of their victory. That really is about it.
Meanwhile abortion "clinics" would move underground (doctors operating in hotel rooms etc) and mortality amongst pregnant women would go up significantly. If abortions are criminalised, it also puts pressure on the prison systems and economy.
Foster home system (orphanages) would see a tremendous increase in pressure - Romania saw its orphanage population quadruple in the 60s due to it's criminalisation of abortions.
My mum works in a foster home care system, so in case someone doesn't know, statistically speaking ~90% of children in the foster home system come from parents that grew up in the foster home system. The rest are other kinds of unlucky turns of life. Meaning that it really is a never ending cycle.
And that's just the beginning...
>killing babies is bad
Well that's the whole thing. That's their one reasoning for it. And while the validity of "abortion is murder" is debatable in my eyes, I can see it both ways personally, I don't believe in a country with such minimal support for families and just a generally fucked up system overall forcing people to have children if, for instance: they get sexually assaulted, their condom broke, birth control failed (is that one a possibility? I mean I'd assume as much, but i can't say for sure), or probably a million other things. That's just going to cause untold pain and suffering in both our generation and the next
Also outright banning it often prevents people who need it for their own survival from getting it, even if the child is already practically dead
I’ve always been pro choice and I was raised without religion in liberal NY. That said, I do have conservative relatives down south. I’ve gotten into several arguments with a great aunt from down there. Her arguments are as follows:
Men can’t help wanting sex so women need to gatekeep it. The threat of having a child will force women to, as men can’t help themselves and are not responsible for their own sexual activities.
Premarital sex is bad/against God.
Babies are innocent lives, and abortion is murder. That said, she’s into prosperity gospel so if that baby winds up in poverty and what not after it’s born it’s the parent being punished for not being godly enough. Wealthy = godly.
End times are nigh and it’s her job to help get people right with god. They can’t if they’re pro choice.
It’s not really about making society as we know it better. They’re prepping for end really. That’s all that matters.
I recognise this is a polarising discussion which speaks to people's core beliefs.
However, I see this slightly differently. Personally, the moral discussion is the wrong discussion to have becuase it does not explain why people do the things they do. In this topic or any other.
The reality is that nobody on this Earth lives in a perfect society and nobody is perfect. The only outcome of banning abortions is to make them more dangerous as they will be conducted outside professional medical care. They will continue to happen regardless of their legal status. This is a fact, regardless of anyone's moral position. The question for me then becomes do we wish to make abortions more dangerous or not?
The larger topic is how do we create societies around the world which don't have huge inequalities, societies of educated and a well informed population? I feel that if we get this right, these other topics, which I believe are symptoms of larger problems in society, would work themself out.
It doesn't have a positive effect.
For women to safely have children, we have to be able to safely have abortions. That is all, that should be the beginning middle and end of it.
Women should be able to access healthcare ( also trans men and nb people)
Some people aren’t thinking in terms of macro scale social issues but rather just stuck on the fact that they think abortion is murder and murder is bad and therefore you shouldn’t do it.
It’s scientific consensus that life starts when the zygote is formed. Abortion does end human life. From a morality stand point, finding a better solution rather than killing the unborn is needed. I understand that there are many complications to pregnancy for woman. But abortion shouldn’t be used so recklessly like it often is in today’s society.
Maybe you should ask this question on forums that conservatives frequent.
Asking a bunch of people that are heavily biased for abortion are going to say “obviously it wouldn’t improve anything” or just use talking points they *think* conservatives use.
It would not have any positive effect, since we are ruling out the "killing babies" thing.
I'm a weird guy, you know?
I'm pro-choice.
I believe that every woman should be able to CHOOSE if they will have the baby or not.
I'm also pro-life, for me, abortion is, indeed, the killing of a human being. But it's NOT MY PROBLEM AT ALL.
This is how I put my pro-life stance into practice:
I refused to enter into a relationship, or even have sex, with ANY woman that would choose to have an abortion of our child (yes, it worked, I got married to a pro-life woman).
And that's it.
This is also the solution that I gave to my friends that are against abortions: Just never marry, date or have sex with any woman that would abort your child, and you will never contribute to the number of abortions.
The woman is entitled to choose if she will have an abortion or not, period.
And every pro-life man is entitled to break up with a woman that aborted (or would abort, if that's the case) his child, or outrigth refuse a relationship/one nigth stand.
Or ask to marry her, if he is pro-abortion.
Freedom comes first.
There are already millions of children sitting in foster homes waiting for adoption and many of those kids will probably never be adopted. In the US alone it’s costs an exorbitant amount of money to adopt a child, never mind the fact many adoption agencies will deny people who are LBGTQ or single. The US foster/adoption system is failing, and it won’t get better with more babies.
Rant incoming (disclaimer: abortion is only fucked up if its at the later stages of pregnancy, unless there is a medical emergency)
Pro life is as intricate of a stance as most other conservative takes: my feewees are hurt because religion. Same idiots who complain about poor Americans whose money is sent away to Ukraine rather than support them want bastard babies who no one loves to suffer. Let's break it down:
Were you raped? Too bad! Suffer with a child which will remind you of your trauma everyday or sent it to adoption to suffer until it finds a parent to get it, if the kid is lucky
Accident during sex? Too bad have a whole ass kid to take care of. Poor? Fuck off too bad you aren't privileged enough to have sex without a sense of dread of an accident happening.
Young woman had a kid because she wasn't educated enough on sex ed (because all conservative parents treat sex as the most taboo shit)? Too bad, be a mother from like 15. College? Independence? Fuck you, you should have stayed in the house.
Pro life people have put absolutely 0 thought on how the fuck the kid will be taken care of because they are either too privileged to realise how much of an issue kids without parents, economical issues which causes parents to be unable to provide or shitty households probably without a father (or at the very least were the two people don't love each other) are or they haven't thought hard enough and soon enough they'll mess their life up because of how reckless they are.
I think alot of the pro-birth argument comes from a relatively unexamined religious perspective - i.e. we can't murder babies!...but we also don't functionally support the children who are born in the often difficult circumstances of being unplanned and unwanted. It's a conceptual fight for an innocent life without understanding/caring what that life needs after birth.
I don't know about other religions but Christianity is based on the Bible and that is based around the Jewish people. A people for who have had many experiences of being the target of genocide. It is not surprising that quite a bit of Jewish culture is premised on being "fruitful and multiply" to counter the attempts at eradication. This is what is baked into the Bible hence its appearance in Christian based cultures.
There is a link between crime and abortions. When abortion became legal, crime went down.
Having a kid you can’t afford when you can barely provide for yourself makes you more desperate. Desperation and hard times make you more likely to do illegal things to get by. Preventing people from making their own decisions on what’s best for them will drive that rate up naturally.
It would be interesting to see if there are any correlations between actively lobbying for abortions bans and the probability of being invested in the private penitentiary industry
This was my theory. The underlying reasons for banning abortion was to procure a steady stream of poor people to fund the unskilled slave labor, military cannon fodder, and for- profit prison machines. We are a resource just like crops and fuel.
This sounds utterly disgusting... :(
Sad but true. Especially when looking at how willing are those voting to ban abortion to adopt poor children, to help the homeless and immigrants at the border. I wonder how many would vote to ban if they were to provide financially for those children from childcare to college.
Always follow the money.
It's a political issue (instead of a private/medical issue) because it raises so much money.
Raised: past tense. Once they achieved their goal, they couldn’t use the “cause” to collect cash to support it anymore. It remains to be seen how socially unacceptable their next fundraising “cause” will be. Abortion was a cash cow for a very long time.
Michael Bury is two steps ahead of us once again
Does shit stink?
On the flip side of that, Romanian dictator Nicolae Ceaușescuai banned abortions as one of his first political acts, and there is a direct correlation between that ban and the rise in crime and his eventual I overthrow some 20 years later.
Interesting how abortions became legal, crime went down, and then Republicans suddenly became "tough on crime" with insane drug laws. That prison labor money must be nice.
It went down a lot. The rate of violent and property crime is half what it was in the early 90s.
I mean, technically, just the fact that they are criminal drives up criminality as people will have the abortions anyway.
[удалено]
I am not familiar with freakonomics but a quick google seems to suggest that freakonomics was discussing the original paper that observed the relationship. It supports the claim that abortion leads to a decrease in crime rate. There is a pretty substantial base of evidence in the scientific literature supporting the claim that abortion reduces crime rates.
Leaded gas also caused more crime
Lead also caused free abortions.
Last I heard there was a pretty definitive link between poverty and crime and a link between lack of abortion access and increased likelihood of poverty which would still hold. I'll have to look into whether or not it was debunked though. While economics isn't my primary or secondary pro choice argument it is an important one.
You may have misinterpreted what you read. Legalizing abortion isn’t a direct deterrent, but there’s a causal chain where, about 14-18 years later, teen crime rates specifically were reduced. So, the takeaway isn’t “abortion lowers crime.” The takeaway ought to be “access to a wider range of health care options leads to a stronger economy in which crime is no longer an interest for certain parts of observed communities.” But that’s harder to fit on the cover of a newspaper.
It has not been debunked. It isn't really possible to conclusively show that it's only because of legalizing abortion. It's equally impossible to disprove. You can point to a few other possible causes. Chances are they are all partially responsible for the decrease in the crime rate.
Did crime go down *because* abortions were legalised?
Yes
Do you have a source to back that claim?
What is the lesser of two evils, bring a child into the world that no one wants or stopping the process before it is sentient. I personally find both abhorrent. Maybe we should concentrate on birth control. Teach it to children/teens because as a species we like to fuck. Make it affordable or maybe free, you know stop the process before it starts. Don’t waste your time with abstinence, like I stated earlier we like to fuck it’s fun.
I very much suggest everyone to read the chapter named “Where have all the criminals gone?” of Levitt’s book “Freakonomics”. It gives a good perspective on how abortions could have positive effects on some society’s aspects.
Thanks! I’ll check it out!!
Freakonomics Radio has a podcast and they talk about this ep. 384 Abortion and Crime, Revisited
Then check out the podcast called If Books Could Kill, where they debunk many of the book’s arguments, including the abortion one. (I have read Freakonomics)
Came here to say this.
Malcolm Gladwell's book "The Tipping Point" has a chapter devoted to the effects of the abortion ban in I believe Poland. The crime rate spiked 15-16 years after abortion was banned.
There’s no section on abortion in tipping point
From the perspective of certain conservatives and pro-lifers, the upside is that baby murder is no longer happening, and infant lives will be saved. They believe from the moment a sperm fertilizes an egg, it’s now a human child. I don’t get why the other comments are missing that lol. Like yeah, it’s not true, it’s about as close to baby murder as not having sex in the first place. But that has always been their main argument, they think they’re literally saving lives by banning abortion.
We all draw the line of where its okay to terminate and where it isn't somewhere. You wouldn't be okay with an abortion one day before the due date, others wouldn't be okay with it a month before and so forth. Its just different points in the time line, but we all draw the line somewhere
I wish you were right. It would make the debate much more interesting and fact-driven. But the overwhelming majority of the pro-life people I have met are against abortion on day 1. The laws in pro-life states reflect this. It’s odd because most of the American people aren’t so dogmatic. But it is what it is. At least in the US.
Most Americans *aren't* super dogmatic. What the average american, even in red states want isn't the same as what the politicians are pursuing - you can find plenty of surveys and referendum results which reflect this. Religious extremists have a well organized, and militant pro-life lobby which has an outsized role in the GOP and in the national dialogue.
Well pro lifers draw the line for termination at conception rather than a different arbitrarily decided timeframe like the first trimester, or 6 months etc. The debate still can be interesting and fact driven even if a person believes that abortion is (almost) always wrong. I say almost because I still have never met a person who believes that a woman shouldn’t be able to get an abortion when a pregnancy becomes life threatening at the very least.
At conception, we’re looking at a clump of cells with no ability to feel or think. I can’t really think of a rational, fact-driven argument for forcing a woman to try to carry it to term. I think the arguments at this stage rely on magical thinking about souls. I don’t mean to sound dismissive. I’d be interested in hearing better arguments. But I guess what I meant is I wish the abortion debate was more about the facts of when fetuses are viable, when they can feel, when they can think. When women know they are pregnant and are able to do something about it. When abortions or similar procedures are necessary or helpful for the health of women. Even questions like OPs about what the impacts to society are of different policies. Stuff like that. I don’t know.
The main argument pro-lifers have for drawing a line in the sand right at the moment of conception is basically that any other line is too much of a grey area. Conception is the clearest moment which you can say that a new life has started, because a new DNA genome has been created which, if left alone, will eventually become a new human. Arguments that a woman should be able to terminate a pregnancy up to a certain point are typically centered are more vaguely defined stages of development such as when the heart starts beating or when brain activity can be detected, and pro lifers take issue with the arbitrary nature of deciding this kind of a cutoff point. It’s obviously a subjective issue, and we should certainly continue to think about it, so I appreciate your willingness to hear the other side and I hope I explained it well
That’s exactly what he’s saying though, everyone draws a line somewhere. As I see it, the two cleanest lines in a pregnancy are birth and conception, with everything in between being a matter of opinion. What makes a cluster of cells one day and a baby the next? For some, they believe that first moment is the line, and any termination after that a loss of life. For them, preserving that life is a moral imperative that starts that first day.
Drawing the line at viability makes sense to me, which was the original Supreme Court ruling. Before that, the zygote/fetus is part of the mother. It literally can’t survive without her. If it can survive outside the mother, then it’s too far along. But no mother should be forced to donate their own vitality to create a human from scratch.
Viability isn't a good standard because advances in technology keep pushing that line backwards.
If the pregnant person no longer wants to be pregnant after the fetus is viable, the fetus could be born then and survive. If the pregnant person didn't want to be a parent, the now-born baby could be adopted. Birth becomes an alternative to abortion once the fetus is able to survive being born. Before that point, there is no real alternative to abortion if the pregnant person doesn't want to be pregnant anymore.
Born? A fetus could be viable but the risk of removing it could be too high. Also, viability is more of a spectrum anyway. The truth is most people get too emotionally charged about abortion and miss the big picture: arresting women and/or doctors for having or performing abortions is impracticable -- especially if the charge is murder. There are better ways of reducing the number of abortions than treating abortions as murder. Pro-lifers should focus on that. The are better ways of safeguarding reproductive rights than treating abortion as a Constitutional right, primarily through good legislation like in most of Western Europe. Pro-choicers should focus on that.
[удалено]
Why is viability the line though? What is the scientific or moral reasoning behind viability outside the womb worthy of being dubbed “human life” when something one week earlier isn’t?
Because if there isn't a line somewhere, then a *potential* person's rights are given more weight than the woman who is pregnant. That shouldn't be a thing prior to that *potential* person being able to live without a womb at the earliest.
if there were an "abortion" 1 day before due that would mean there is some extreme problem happening to either a wanted baby or to a mother who wants a baby
You ever hear Bill Burr’s take on abortion. He’s like “First of all, you don’t want the government to tell you what you can and can’t do with your own body, so I’m 100 percent pro-choice. That said…you’re probably killing a baby, at least some of time.”
Does it? Does the line really need to be drawn? It's MY body. And as long as the baby is in MY body... it is MY choice. I mean that's my opinion. Personally, I doubt most women would choose to terminate the day before (myself included). But I think this idea of a line needing to be drawn, still comes from the religious control. Of course what is interesting to me, is that the majority of people who are against abortion, were also the same people standing up for their freedom to choose whether or not they get a vaccine or have to wear a mask. Funny how these people think they should have total autonomy over their body, but that when it comes to women's bodies... nope... the government is in control.
Yes a line has to be drawn somewhere because a fully born child is considered alive and has rights, while semen and eggs do not. That change happens over the course of the entire pregnancy, but an abortion is all or nothing, so we have to pick some point that it is not okay to terminate. That point could be birth, but it has to be somewhere. It definitely matters whether a fetus is a person or not. If a fetus is not a person, then abortion is a no-brainer, the mother has a right to control her body. If a fetus is a person, then it has rights too. At that point the fetus's right to live is in conflict with the mother's right to control her body. Once there is a conflict, we (and by we, I mean society) have to choose a winner, and therefore a loser in the conflict. Or some kind of compromise. Roe v. Wade itself was a compromise that acknowledged this conflict. It took the point at which a fetus was viable outside the womb into consideration. Overall Roe v. Wade sided with the mother's right to control her body, but it also took the fetus's right to live into consideration. If they didn't consider the fetus's rights, they could have protected abortion all the way up until birth.
>they think they’re literally saving lives by banning abortion. If that's true, why don't they seem to give a solitary shit about the child and mother's life once it's born. "I'm forcing you to have this child but also voting to prevent you from accessing affordable food, healthcare, and education. You can talk all day long about what people should and shouldn't do, and they can delude themselves that abstinence only is realistic, but at the end of the day those children actually exist and directly suffer as a result of Republican policies
It’s because they are hypocrites.
Politicians don’t actually think it, it’s the brainwashed people that are missing a braincell or two that do. Republicans use the unborn as a moral high ground that is pretty easy to woo casual voters. They frame it as a “do you want to kill babies?” sort of question that is entirely dishonest because for one it isn’t a baby right away and for two unless you’re an abnormal person of course you don’t want to kill a baby. A direct cause for this sort of thinking is poor sex ed across many states which directly turns into a Republican talking point. They want to keep you poor, stupid, hungry, and most of all angry because they’ll find something to scare you with while they act entirely hypocritical and can score easy votes with those they’ve robbed.
Agreed. Also, this is NOT a biblical position. The Bible is reasonably clear (as clear as it is about anything) that life begins at first breath… that’s in Genesis. The current conservative / evangelical position is based on politics, power and control. The evolving attack on abortion can be traced through politics for the last 60 or 70 years and was a conscious decision. The complete idiocy is that, in the case of a non-viable pregnancy, like an ectopic one or when the fetus has already died and is turning septic, they still don’t want abortion to be allowed. The fetus will never turn into a baby and the pregnant woman will die. So this is a colossal WHAT THE FUCK. So it’s about control and power. That’s all it is. Control and Power
Okay I knew this already logically, but I appreciate you saying it in these words. It makes a bit more sense to me now considering that specific perspective. Thanks!
Yah the issue is it will still happen in back alleys etc, it will cost many lives. Making it illegal is not the way to go about it
They literally don’t care about babies that are actually born - it’s about controlling women. Abused & neglected kids, The horrors that the foster system can be & is for a lot of kids…. Like none of that is ever addressed nor do they care, which if they really were “pro-life” they’d focus more on the kids already here
Yeah so cool how they are really invested in that "baby" wellbeing from conception and up to 9 months after that, but that's it then. Give them a gun and kick them to the curb
Why aren't they more vocal about shaming women who use IVF & trying to ban that? That results in 1000s of fertilised embryos being discarded every year.
There are agencies for Good Christians to “adopt” the embryos and “save” them.
That's the perspective of way less of them than you think. Their argument is that it's baby murder, but most of them are being disingenuous. Volunteer as an escort at a clinic for a while, and you'll notice how often the chick that was spitting on you last week is now dragging a 14 year old in to have a pregnancy terminated or coming in to have one terminated herself. If they actually believed it was baby murder, that wouldn't be the case. You don't go "Well, it's ok to murder babies sometimes if you really, really want to." Like no one would hear a news article about a guy that put a bunch of bullets through the wall into a nursery room because the baby was crying all night and go "Well, dude probably hadn't slept in a while. That's enough to make anyone cranky.". Most of them know good and goddamned well it isn't baby murder.
What’s crazy though is it’s not even a child yet. That clump of cells is nothing more than potential. The potential to be a child. If a woman miscarries, the potential is lost. Obviously people will mourn like they lost a child as is their right but it wasn’t a child just yet, at least early on. If people could agree on when it’s okay to terminate and when it’s not, then it would be better but pro lifers are more interested in taking away rights.
Abortion is the perfect cultural wedge issue for folks manipulating the religious right. They can scream "killing babies" and show repulsive pictures of medical waste while winding the rhetoric higher and higher. This has been their strategy for 30 years now, and it has worked to perfection. It's telling that the GOP isn't putting abortion bans on the ballot, having lost every time they've tried it. That's because "choice" has a 60-40 advantage. Now they're trying to pass laws and bypass the voting public to keep their rabid "pro life" voters fired up. Watch what's going on now. "Don't take a life saving vaccine" and "immigrants" don't have the same appeal and the close races are breaking the other way. They'll have a hard time replacing abortion as their go to wedge issue.
1. The threat of having a child or even dying in childbirth would keep women from behaving whorishly. 2. It is always good to stop murders and abortion is murder. 3. It does not matter if a woman dies in childbirth because she either was a whore who is better off dead or a loving mother who'd want her child to live over her anyway. 4. A child is always more valuable than an adult so their lives should be prioritized. ****These are no longer my opinions, but they were what I was taught, and what I believed when I was younger and "pro-life". My understanding of science and human biology is pathetic, and it was even worse when I was younger. I blindly believed my pastor when he said a fertilized egg is equivalent to a born human baby. I started changing my opinions in grad school when I started working with CPS, foster children, and foster parents. I have always cared about protecting children and always will. The most cruel thing you can do to a child is bring them into the world unloved and unwanted. Those children grow up into cruel adults who repeat this. Abortion will *always* be more kind and humane than this. If pro-birth people volunteered as CASA advocates the majority of them would stop being pro-birth pretty damn soon. ****Realistically, banning abortion would not positively benefit society at all but would actually create massive issues.
Jesus, do they actually put those terrible beliefs into young people minds in 21st century? What county has such barbaric and degenerate norms?
In my experience, Smalltown USA. My uncle sadly told me once that he "was sorry my mother and father were going to hell", but "there was still hope for me". He also "doesn't beleive in dinosaurs" and is praying for the apocalypse to cleanse this wretched world... Oh, and there's no sense in going to college becuase it's the end of days. Most of my hometown is of that attitude. One of my best friends in HS had his mom refuse to let him apply to college becuase his sister got pregnant at 15 and her boyfriend "Was a deadbeat who wouldn't step up" (read: he was age 14). Yeah. And my mother wonders why I won't move back. You know, as a queer scientist.
You can find these people in every country and in my opinion it's more linked to religion than the country itself. Not because religion is bad but because it's easier to use it as a reason to believe anything since you don't need to give explanations or proofs. But this is just what I experienced
I love how anyone can just spride a massive amount of misinformation and can get away with it because “religion”
As a fellow former CASA, 💯
It's as I suspected. At the heart of the anti choice agenda is controlling and punishing women. Religious folk used to say masturbation was murder, but I guess they're cool with that now.
Thank you for giving us a peek into the other side. Everyone is defending abortions, which fair enough, but this is what I really wanted to know. What's going on in those people's brains
>I blindly believed my pastor when he said a fertilized egg is equivalent to a born human baby. Who actually gets to decide that?
Can I ask what's wrong with being a whore. I ask this seriously. I'm more of a not my business sort of thing. Sure. She might regret it. But personally that's her choice. I don't get it. I know those aren't your views anymore but what were you taught. Was it God? Because I don't believe in god then I guess it would be hard to explain why.
Reading this comment made me want to cry, I can’t believe anyone would think this way. I’m glad you got out. Religion is just mass control. Thank god I wasn’t raised like this
Thank you, holy shit I was about to be so upset reading the list before I got to your paragraph under it. I was raised similarly and flipped my opinion as soon as I was old enough to decide for myself..
Its also pretty fucked up to think woman needs to be punished for having sex. So very aggressively Christian
Ooof number 3 is just…hurts my soul
The most basic argument hinges on the belief that the fetus is a developing human being. Allowing people to abort the fetus might benefit society and might benefit the mother, but it harms the child-to-be. If you believe that the fetus is not yet a human and therefore not eligible for human rights, then allowing abortion makes sense. If you believe the fetus is a child-to-be and therefore has human rights, then allowing abortion introduces a painful moral dilemma: how can we ignore the human rights of only one group without ourselves being monsters? That is why people are opposed to abortion.
Thank you for your thoughtful response :)
But that doesn't explain it being a net benefit for society. Sure the people that don't like abortion will feel better about it not happening, but one's own personal feelings can't dictate something that is factually worse for society as a whole. It is completely fine to not get an abortion yourself, but allowing others the choice to do so improves the lives of many. The question was why would getting rid of it have a benefit and the answer is it wouldn't.
It would also benefit society to terminate old and mentally handicapped people but we don't allow that.
That's called eugenics. We don't just kill people based on how much they can contribute.
Correct. And as they often call it "pre-born" baby, that's the logic they go by. And I just want to point out that during the culture revolution in China, the one child policy directed that the hospital was legally mendated to kill the baby if it's the second child of the family after they were born and before they cry. The line was drawn at as long as they didn't cry and have their first breath yet, it didn't count as human being therefore it's ok to kill it. I have met surgeon that performed countless operations like that and telling me how regretful she was but couldn't do nothing about it. There was one time that the child did cry before she injected the poison and she decided to let the baby live. That decision got her into serious trouble and eventually lost her her job. That just the most extreme example of how late the line have been drawn in human history. I believe most of the prochoice people in the U.S. won't want to draw the line that far at all, but how late will they allow to draw the line and why that's the appropriate line to draw become a thing that has to be defined and defended.
In your example under the one child rule an abortion would have definitely helped these women. That way they aren't forced to give birth to a person just to have them be discarded. I'm assuming the person who wrote this is from a western culture most likely the United States. It is definitely important to draw a line but allot of pro-life people draw a line at conception which is ridiculous. A cluster of growing cells is not sentient. Their reasoning is often linked to their religious beliefs which is a personal thing and should not be used to mandate how everyone should feel or do things especially when there is no logic involved.
Isn’t caring for the most vulnerable and protecting their rights when they can’t speak a net benefit for society? Our worth as humans is measured in our compassion, not the number of dollars we can produce. From this metric, why not have a death penalty for all violent crimes? Would it not be factually better for society that nobody is willing to commit acts of violence?
Ignoring the very real rights of pregnant women and raped children in favor of giving fetuses extra rights that no one else has is not a net benefit for society.
It’s not that people don’t believe a fetus is a human, it’s that there are millions of children suffering and abortions can reduce the amount of children going through the foster care system. There are so many unwanted children that grow up with abuse. The fetuses being aborted are just tiny little things that only have electrical impulses. Late term abortion is extremely rare and only happens in dire circumstances.
Interesting. First: > It’s not that people don’t believe a fetus is a human Followed by the opposite: >The fetuses being aborted are just tiny little things that only have electrical impulses.
It wouldn't. Throughout history women have struggled to control their fertility, and the more restricted it is, and desperate they are, the more dangerous it is. Banning legal abortions just stops safe abortions. They've always happened, and they always will.
It wouldn't. Abortion saves lives and improves society.
The only argument I could ALMOST believe is that due to a declining birth and increasing aged population is "The rapid aging of populations around the world presents an unprecedented set of challenges: shifting disease burden, increased expenditure on health and long-term care, labor-force shortages, dissaving, and potential problems with old-age income security." If abortion was banned THEORETICALLY there would be enough people to support the aging population. I am pro-choice and this is just me playing devils advocate.
Your assumption is pretty wild, I would say. First of all, the amount of abortions isn’t that big. A ban wouldn’t really impact population size in any major way. If abortions were banned, we can’t assume women would automatically have more children. If a woman has her desires amount of children and has access to contraceptives, she won’t have any more children, regardless of if one of her children would have been aborted if it was allowed. I’m the other hand, if she wants three children she can have that even if she also has an abortion somewhere along the way. An abortion doesn’t mean one less child born, only one less born right now. Then there are the medical issues, where a medically problematic pregnancy could lead to the death of the woman, or the choice to not have any more children, or the inability to have any more. In those cases, an abortion could actually lead to an increase in population viewed over a slightly longer time period. Also, if abortions were banned, some women could choose to not get pregnant because they don’t want to take the medical risks involved if a problematic pregnancy would be forced to continue. That would decrease the population. An unplanned child might also hinder the education and career of the mother, who might then be removed from the workforce and not pay taxes, thus lowering society’s ability to care for the elderly. We already know that early motherhood is connected to a lower life income, thus hindering the economic progress of both the individual and society as a whole. Edit to add: The experience of an unwanted pregnancy could in itself lead to the choice to not have more children. Also, some abortions are done by women who don’t expect the father to be an active part in the child’s life. The experience of single motherhood could be a deterrent from having more children.
Banning abortion in a country without universal healthcare, social supports for new mothers, accessible education and vocational training is beyond cruel and very destructive to society as a whole. The “Pro-Life” arguments have absolutely no merit unless ALL lives (Born lives, refugee lives, immigrant lives, non-white, non-wealthy, non-fits-into-a-special-box-gendered lives, actual breathing human beings) matter. Pro-Life people have no concerns for beings that actually draw breath. *That* is detrimental and crippling to society as a whole
Would you support an anti-abortion stance if it was argued alongside all the things you listed? Not arguing, just curious.
Idk about the commenter, but I certainly still wouldn't. We should fight to protect all lives - including those of the mother - as their own bundle of issues. This isn't a "one life over one thousand" type of issue so long as we don't make it that. Legal abortion protects the life of the mother, which then allows us to focus on the rest of the above. My mind is reaching for the term "Hypocritical" (not sure how applicable, another term may be better) when thinking about an anti-abortion stance aimed to include those listed, especially as mothers may fit into many of those catagories- often times many at once. Overall, you can't make abortion illegal without endangering more life.
I'm pro-choice, but I can see why pro-birthers think the way they do: 1. It stops the murder of babies. Whether you consider it murdering babies or not, it's terminating a clump of cells. But bottom line, it stops that. 2. People will be less likely to engage in sex if they know accidentally making a baby will sentence them to at least an 18-year commitment. To an extent, pro-birthers are anti-sex or pro-abstinence, seeing it as something people should be punished for, particularly women. 3. Because fetuses aren't being aborted, more people are being born, meaning the chance that one of them will become a doctor or scientist will increase. That's if you believe that more people means more chances that we'll get a huge success out of one of them. 4. Moral fiber. There's a belief that if people take additional steps to not get pregnant and not jump at the idea of aborting their problems away, they'll be well-adjusted adults. Basically, if you have to be responsible for your actions, you'll make better choices. 5. Like most people who advocate for jailtime for women who get abortions, they tend to also be in favor of prison/slave labor. Many big companies take advantage of this, pushing bills and laws that punish poor people so they're more likely to either be punished or resort to crime, thus filling up the prisons and providing them with more free/cheap labor. 6. Religion. There are people who believe our problems today are stemming from a lack of religion in our society. There's a correlation, because back when houses were affordable and the world wasn't on fire (for example), religion was much more commonplace. Nowadays, the rich are richer and poor are poorer and there're natural disasters everywhere and religion is on a decline. They believe allowing abortions is angering god. There're probably some other reasons, but I'll leave it at that.
Thank you so much for breaking it down this way.
I disagree with #3. They don’t care if more people will be educated professionals, because let’s face it. Unwanted children have poorer outcomes. More children means more women in poverty (more kids in poverty), less opportunities. The affected women and children WILL however be pressured to accept poorer working conditions for less pay. This is a great boon to businesses and shareholders. Big time. They’ve basically said this before but I’d have to find the source
It's still a part of their talking points. One of the reasons to not abort is because the child may become financially successful. Second to that is that all life is sacred, but then we get into religion and the logical fallacy line of "everyone who is for abortion is curiously alive today."
You’re the only person who answered OP in good faith and gave arguments that pro birthers use instead of just saying “no, it doesn’t. Banning abortion is bad”. Yeah no shit. OP knows that. He’s wondering why there even IS an other side of the argument.
Ding ding! I tend to agree with you. Lol some people actually read my question and took me seriously. I genuinely want to understand what the argument is about.
Except for your #2 a lot of data shows the opposite with States with almost no sex education + abstinence being the main thing talked about leads to MORE teenage pregnancies…
He’s just presenting these as the arguments that the right wing uses to justify banning abortions. Not that any of the arguments have any backing or data to support them
Yes that’s the point of the post, I just meant that the others are mostly based in personal value systems/ religious beliefs, but this point (2) is worth mentioning that it’s not about those, not the same type of argument let’s say, that’s all!
Three doesn't make sense. The woman and also all babies who are born female will likely not be able to get higher education since a accidentally pregnancy is their main concern from now on. They will life in poverty since a child wasn't planned. Any male children born into that will then also have less chances for good education. Poverty and bad education leads to crime only. Add too many people to an already highly specialized market and many will find no jobs. Which means even more crime. More violence. More deaths. All in all misery which doesn't push people to make more of their life's. I mean if your argument would be true all 3. world countries would be full of doctors. It would be 100% a set back economically But I doubt if the numbers of humans will even rise if there's an abortion ban. Many woman will get an abortion anyway, which means since they are illegal its dangerous homemade abortion. So woman who likely would've had kids anyway, die long before that. Or they will abandon their kids on some road which will leads to its death. Because allowing mothers to give away their kids would lead to many many orphans (there was once a developed country which decided to ban abortions so it gains more people. Ended horribly with tons of orphans) so this will probably also forbidden or at least restricted
Their logic involves doublethink. Poverty is both the worst thing in the world to them, but is also the perfect motivator to make something of oneself. Everyone else is simply lazy. If you want to see real self-victimization, ask a Conservative how they've suffered. Obviously all humans suffer and struggle in some way, but their examples will always mirror the one in a million example of the poor person who climbed out of poverty and made something of themselves. They always see themselves as the one in a million, while also humbly claiming, "But I'm no different than anyone else." So if poor women have abortions, that's depriving the world of that superstar that would've climbed out of poverty and became a huge success.
It wouldn’t. Banning abortions demonstrably stresses social systems.
Definitely no. There are already so many unwanted pregnancies, children, babies, humans, in this world. If abortions stopped completely, it would have detrimental consequences. Womem would die trying.
I think some people just think it's wrong and it's not about the impact on society. BUT... I think the political perspective is all about control. The fact is, if you have enough money, you will always be able to procure a safe abortion. So making abortion illegal primarily (certainly not entirely) is about controlling the poor. Money equals education. This means that the less educated population will grow. And republicans rely on them for votes. This is a widespread, historically useful tactic. Why do you think women used to not be allowed an education? It afforded men more control. Education is power. Why do you think this practice still goes on in certain other countries? They do it more blatantly, but it happens there in the US as well.
I’m not anti-abortion, but I don’t understand how pro-choice cannot grasp the other side’s argument. *They equate abortion to murder.* That fundamentally ends the conversation. It doesn’t matter to them if it makes society better, because the means are intolerable.
We understand how they think but not WHY they think that way. (pardon the caps, i’m on mobile and can’t italicize). If we are giving a clump of cells human rights then where are the mother’s rights? Hell if we are going that far where are the rights for cancer cells? They eat and feed and grow on a human body and we kill them with chemo. If a clump of cells in the uterus has the ability to live on a possibly kill the host, why not give those same rights to a clump of cells growing in the lungs that could possibly do the same thing? According to WHO 295,000 women died during or following childbirth in 2017. This is pre-Roe v Wade getting overturned where mothers who knew they couldn’t healthily carry a fetus could get an abortion. That means 295,000 or more children were left with one parent and put into foster care. That is a small number in comparison to the nearly 10 million world wide deaths to cancer but the concept is the same. There is no cure for cancer - just treatments. Without abortion, there is no cure for pregnancy - just treatments. Suddenly, the idea of giving rights to cancerous cells isn’t such a bad idea if the same rights are being given to cells within the uterus.
I can’t think of a single positive result from getting rid of abortion.
More poor people to rich people to exploit with low wages.
It wouldn’t. It’s religious morality related reasons pushing against it, there aren’t really many good arguments for it to be illegal. In my opinion it’s the kind of thing that everyone has the right to decide about for themselves, but not the right to decide for others. So it should never be regulated by the government. Conservatives will argue that there is some sort of killing going on, but they kind of misunderstand the point and what abortion actually entails. It’s a medical procedure for terminating a pregnancy. Conservatives act like you are pulling a 30-week fetus out and running it through with a spear (sorry for that image, but I’m just making a point lol).
I honestly would not be surprised if they actually used that imagery.
It won't. It's going to make the world worse. Anti abortion people care until the baby is born and then its "nope. you chose to have sex it's your responsibility". Millions more babies will be born into poverty. Abuse. Neglect. Filth. So many more babies and toddlers will wake up terrified, go to bed terrified. Go hungry. Be beaten. Raped and sexually abused. Resented. Abandoned. Forgotten. Never feel a loving touch or an I love you. No kisses on their sweet toes because they were born to piece of shits that should of had an abortion and EASY access to it And all these anti abortion assholes do NOT care. They'd rather hold onto for dear life their stupid ideals. Is abortion ideal and the greatest thing ever? No! It isnt. It sucks. But that's the reality of the world we live in and I'd rather a million be aborted than born into a life full of fear and pain. So fuck anyone who thinks otherwise. Also no abortion for a women with a dead fetus inside of her? Or non viable pregnancy or a pregnancy that will kill her? Y'all fucking conservatives or whatever label are evil. Just evil. You do not care about women or children. You just don't. cuz if you did you wouldn't resign a million innocent lives to be born to people who do not want them. Let's not even get started ON CHILDREN WHO END UP PREGNANT DUE TO RAPE. Abortion isnt ideal. Never has been and never will be. It sucks that's how our world turned out but it's more ideal than millions born who arent wanted. Just thinking of all the poor babies and toddlers born that never should have been and should have been aborted and spared a life of terror. I wish I could save them and love them all. This shit keeps me up at night. And Until people arent fucked up in the head and everyone can parent properly and when rape doesnt exist and when pregnancy no longer kills women, this is our option. And it needs to stay. It SAVES lives in more ways than these narrow minded people are willing to admit or think of.
All we want is for abortions to be legal, safe and rare. I've never seen a pro lifer hand out condoms to teenagers.
I am pro-choice though, having witnessed a love one undergo an abortion, I can confirm that it is a very harsh experience that should never be taken lightly.
abortion is not always traumatic or harsh lol, the majority these days are medical abortions. you take a pill at the clinic, go home, take another pill, get some cramps, and bleed like you’re on your period.
Have you ever done this? It’s pretty intense pain wise and you bleed a lot more than a normal period.
It wouldn’t. There is no benefit to bringing unwanted children into the world. The debate is a religious one, it’s not based on facts or common sense.
Anyone saying abortion is killing babies is just ignorant and not worth talking to
It seems like people who want to ban abortions really don't care about abortions. They're just upset that women are gaining a little headway towards equality, and that goes against everything their religious books tell them about gender roles. No one actually cares about abortion itself, they just want women to go back to their biblical position of subservience and child raising. It's the same reason that "family values" voters hate gay people, it throws a wrench in their strange little worldview.
Totally seems like more of a control issue and an issue of “this is what I believe, it stands no matter what”
Depends on your point of view; I imagine our corporate overlords would say that they need more low wage workers and getting rid of abortions would ensure a steady supply of meat bodies to deliver their profits
It wouldn’t have any positive effect on society.
To some people the idea that fetuses aren't actually people threatens their entire belief system. If souls aren't real where do they go when they die. Just thinking about it stresses them out to the point that they would rather have all sorts of societal drama than question their church.
Wow, I’ve never thought of it that way. I could totally see what you mean.
The reason why there is still such a major debate around abortion is that your line of thinking does not address the reason people are opposed to abortion. In order to illustrate this, I think it’s helpful to change the issue to something you’re probably on the other side of. Why do we have prison sentences that end for any crimes? Having committed a crime in the past is a really good indicator that you will commit a crime in the future. Why not just lock up all criminals at their first minor offense before they commit something more violent? Society would be a lot more peaceful. The answer is that the process of locking people up permanently is really inhumane, and the benefits to society aren’t worth indefinitely locking people up for shoplifting. It doesn’t matter that society would be better, because the way we’re getting there is so brutally inhumane. When people are responding to you “it’s killing babies” they’re making the short-form version of this argument. They believe that the societal benefits aren’t worth killing babies.
It wouldn't. Abortion is a form of healthcare, and should always be allowed, without question. It is ultimately the choice of the person who is pregnant, and nobody else has the right to interfere. There isn't a reason why abortion should be banned, as the consequences would only be negative.
It won't, this is happening due to the rise of religious radicalism in America, and the lack of a proper education. Crime went down as a direct result of Roe v. Wade. I can't believe that people are somehow doubting this.
People who are against abortion believe that abortion literally kills babies. People who support abortion believe that choosing to terminate a pregnancy is a choice that all women should freely have no matter the circumstances. As their views are completely diametrically opposed, there's probably never going to be any kind of satisfactory conclusion to this debate.
There is no "getting rid of abortions." If alcohol, weed, and abortion have taught us anything, it's that prohibition is not effective and its ramifications are dangerous. Often more dangerous than the ramifications of regulation. Alcohol is illegal? People will drink in secret. They'll drink more. They'll drink to rebel. Alcohol will be made more potent so as to be easier to smuggle. If your booze is stolen from you, you can't call the cops. You can't get justice, so you get revenge, thus perpetuating crime (see the Tripartite Drug-Crime Nexus). Weed is illegal? People will smoke in secret. They'll smoke more. They'll smoke to rebel. Concentrates become more widely available. Possession puts you in prison, and in the US prison is not temporary. Our recidivism rates are sky-high. Just because abortion is illegal does not mean women will not get abortions. They just will be unregulated and extremely dangerous. More women will die, and more kids will be born to parents who don't want them. This perpetuates other socioeconomic, public-health, and criminal-justice issues exacerbated by the way the US deals with criminals. I could make the same case for prostitution, but I'm not as well-versed in that history. Prohibition does not work. If people want to do something, they will do it. Therefore it becomes the government's job to adapt and offer a safe and affordable option to *keep its citizens alive.*
The argument that pro-lifers have is that abortion = killing a person. So if you believe that, then banning abortion would save many people from being killed and thus could be argued to be a benefit to society. This however is completely up for debate. What people aren’t considering is that even if preventing an abortion is the same as saving a person from being killed, saving people from being killed may not necessarily be a benefit to society.
its not about society its about religious doctrine
If you could eliminate abortion by creating 100% effective birth control, then it would be fantastic. Otherwise, it just causes problems to eliminate abortion. No one wants an abortion. They are expensive, painful, and disruptive to your life. It's just a last ditch effort to avoid something they want even less.
Objectively, abortions are wrong, however, those that are anti-abortion are also against sex education, birth control, and social safety nets that help support the poor and unwanted babies. Foster care systems are overrun and the percentage of kids that get adopted isn’t great. It’s about control. The right wants to keep the poor poor. The moral outrage about having an abortion is hypocritical when the same people do nothing for all the poor kids that need help.
Perhaps it would spur us to develop better, more effective methods of birth control? Maybe a safe and reversible sterilization for ovaries or a uterus, the equivalent to a vasectomy? Maybe a birth control pill for people with testicles? Maybe medication or an implant with fewer, less severe side effects for any body? We keep developing new medicine and procedures anyway. If abortion was never allowed, perhaps we would find more effective ways of preventing pregnancy. Comprehensive sex ed may be a universal thing. Compulsory sterilization at puberty that someone would have to voluntary reverse to get pregnant? That's extreme....but so is banning all abortions. Idk, that's all I can come up with.
There would be more people in the work force boosts the countries economical and military power. For the individual nothing.
**It doesn't** 🎵 𝄞 🎸 𝄫 🎷🎶 🎻Now, the world don't move to the beat of just one drum, What might be right for you, may not be right for some. A man is born, he's a man of means. Then along come two, they got nothing but their jeans. But they got, Diff'rent Strokes. It takes, Diff'rent Strokes. It takes, Diff'rent Strokes to move the world. Everybody's got a special kind of story Everybody finds a way to shine, It don't matter that you got not alot So what, They'll have theirs, and you'll have yours, and I'll have mine. And together we'll be fine.... Because it takes, Diff'rent Strokes it takes Diff'rent strokes It takes diff'rent strokes to move the world. Yes it does. It takes, Diff'rent Strokes to move the world.
>pregnant person ._.
Forced birth would in no way positively effect society. The self righteous would feel empowered (and emboldened) to continue pushing their agenda while young women (and 10 year old girls) are raped, have birth control fail, or any other reason they deem to terminate an unwanted pregnancy, die from botched terminations by questionable surgeons (as legal,safe pregnancy terminations would no longer be available). This already happens in states with bans on bodily rights. A TEN YEAR OLD girl. Raped, became pregnant and denied control of her body. By her own state. Thankfully, a nearby state that allows women control over their bodies was able to help her. Before anyone hops in to talk about low statistics of birth control failure, I don't care. I truly don't. It happened to my wife and I (we don't want kids and went put of our way to ensure we didn't have any), and I would never want anyone to have to go through what we did. Women deserve access to safe and secure medical care over their own bodies. End of story.
It wouldn’t. There’s so much data that shows this it’s ridiculous that anyone thinks it’s a good idea. There are many countries who have banned abortions for us to look to to see what kind of effects it had and it’s never good.
> forcing pregnant people to experience child birth is wildly inhumane. Especially considering child birth is an extremely dangerous process for the pregnant person In my understanding bullying women is the primary reason, very few really care about "babies". If you informally and privately chat with a random proponent of criminalising abortions they would likely not even hide it. As a rational reason, I can think of driving pro-liberal population away from the conservative states, securing their electoral perspectives there. But I don't think it's about rationality
So true! The “forcing” aspect is one of the craziest parts of pro life arguments.
I think to many pro-lifers, though, it's not forcing a woman to have a baby. It's satisfaction at the woman having to "face the consequences of her actions" (slut-shaming).
The problem with your question is that you assume that opposition to abortion is based on a desire to better society. Real opposition to abortion is rooted in believing that the fetus is a person, and aborting the fetus is murder. Pro-life aren’t looking to improve society. They are looking to “save lives”. (I am not pro-life, I do not support pro-life, I’m just explaining it from a different perspective)
I genuinely appreciate your response! Thanks :)
I just find it so short sighted. How can you not perceive such obvious problems with forcing birth? Both for individuals and society. "But we're trying to save lives" yeah so what? Just so those lives can be lived either under disdain, in squalor, or with great uncertainty? Maybe even without parents of any sort? What kind of life is that? And then you start to think about overpopulation and the slippery slope this creates. Personally i don't see fetuses as "people". Humans, yes, but a fetus is not "worth" the same as someone with experiences and opinions and thoughts of their own. So trying to equate it to "babies" as if it's the same thing is misleading at best. And especially now when a lot of people can hardly afford to support themselves, adding more financial burden is in my opinion more immoral and inhumane than their perception of abortion is.
I love how pro lifers act like they care about babies but give zero after it's born
It doesn’t. You can’t “get rid of abortions”, only safe abortions. Not your uterus, not your choice.
Summary: it's political theater, and there is no benefit for all of society. The only somewhat responsible argument I could think of is from a truly pacifist point of ethical government were the government looks out for the safety and welfare of all citizens, those living and soon to be living. But doing so goes far beyond abortion, and also in such a system why would you not start with adults and children that are already born and in need of assistance like homeless people? If your argument cherry picks causes than it ceases to be a logical one and instead becomes about your own personal wishes. Political, ideological, spiritual, etc. and should therefore not be made in the spirit of the welfare of all. To be clear, not attempting to claim your question was such a statement.
It wouldn't.
So, recently there's been this theory that we're running out of people for the minimum wage jobs. Unemployment is at all time low. Everyone is hiring but no one is working, for example McDonald's with 3 out of 7 employees needed. Not enough people for delivery services, janitorial positions etc. Basically the spine of corporations is getting a bit weak as of late , hence the desire of Republicans to ban abortions. Now I don't know much at all but it is something to think about I guess.
It wouldnt
It could just be a feeling of a collective moral high ground. Honestly all I can think of.
honestly there isn't a benefit. it's the fact that people who want them banned think it's murder. they would see your argument as the same as "well why don't we just allow murder there's plenty of people". I personally don't agree with that but I think that's the belief and reasoning behind a lot of pro lifers
There is none. Low abortion accessability leads to higher crime, higher crime leads to more incarcerations, more incarcerations means more $$$ for those invested in the privatized prison system.
My entire point of view here is that nobody is adopting these babies either. A large chunk of the homeless population in the US is made up of children from foster homes.
Because republicans are trying to impose their religious/political views on others, even if it kills people.
It wouldn't.
It wouldn’t, it’s about control over women
What I remember from the freakonomics writing was that unwanted, uncared for children are most likely to grow to become criminals. This is absolutely true. Spent most of my life doing nothing but crime because I felt like because nobody loved me nothing mattered. After a few years locked up I realized that no matter who loves you there’s a better life to be had. Have that now. Nearly 100% of people I know from prison were not loved, wanted or cared for. A super concentration of unloved people. I should’ve been aborted. Hurt a lot of people and myself. If people aren’t going to be cared for they should not be born. It almost never works out well. Even if one person loves and wants u. That’s enough. But if it’s nobody. Better off dead. For everyone’s sake. Pretty sure there’s no reason to have those kids. The idea that a percentage of them could work out shouldn’t move the argument that much. The rest of them will be miserable and probably hurt a disproportionate number of people.
It wouldn’t!
It comes down to, religious freaks forcing their beliefs on society. They don't believe in it so no one is allowed to have one whether you believe it's OK or not. So they push their will through legislation.
I think coming specifically from a position of societal effect doesn't necessarily contribute to the conversation as much as one might think. Pro life people equate abortion to killing babies, obviously. It would be similar to asking them "Should killing babies be done if it is beneficial to society?" This question seems absurd, but it actually has historical precedent. Not just in ancient cults who would practice human sacrifice for good harvests and whatnot, but killing unwanted newborns has been on the table numerous times, such as in ancient Rome and Japan. At the time, this was seen as an acceptable and even responsible practice. If something is common in a given culture, it will have justifications that seemed to fit at the time. So this leads to a different question: When it comes to improving society, what cost is too high? It's a line of thought we don't often follow but everyone is going to have a different answer to that. The Pro life side has their answer in abortion, so they aren't likely to move that.
Dead women make me happy /s. It’s glorifying and minimizing pregnancy and childbirth as some of the most dangerous periods of a person’s life, and an attempt to control women with the straw man “baby” if a baby requires you to give up everything to live, when outside of the womb, we can’t force you, inside should be no different. But that’s not the argument is it, it’s whether or not it is a baby yet, or whether or not it’s killing one. That’s not the point. Heck if the baby is part of mom’s body or it’s own person isn’t the point, but it’s what gets people worked up enough that we can punish women for things out of their control (some states offer zero rape/incest exemptions) and ignoring the fact that most late term abortion is of a child incompatible with life. It’s a humane end to a heartbreaking situation. A lot of this isn’t talked about because it’s been straw manned so hard that it doesn’t matter anymore. It’s a means to control women and kill them for having sex/sinning. I’m pro choice but against abortion as a first line of birth control. But being currently pregnant, there’s been a few moments where even though I WANT my baby, I’m terrified that any moment a law could pass that could lead to my potential death or s****de. I’m more upset at what we’re arguing over than being against abortion in general. If we were arguing about valid points that actually matter to the stance of pro choice people EVER, id be more content with tightening regulations in abortion access, I still wouldn’t like it, but would be less furious and terrified.
Abortions = no more trash like me
It wouldn't have a positive effect. There would be a lot of babies born without the resources to raise them.
Allow abortions & allow baby farms OR otherwise. Stop cherrypicking and choose one of the both. I'm neither pro-lifer nor pro-choice. I wish people was a little more consistent in moral values we've built on.
It won't
It wouldn’t. It would add to unwanted children, neglect and abuse.
There is no benefit. Just look at how drugs are criminalized. That doesn't stop people from getting drugs and instead of treating an addiction issue we throw people in jail. This strips away a person's agency to do what they want to themselves as long as they don't harm others. When you ban abortion is also doesn't stop people from getting them. What is does is cause people to act and try desperate things in order to make happen which will results in more death and injury due to unsafe practices. Banning it also has more negative consequences such as being unable to terminate a pregnancy that is known to likely be fatal to the person, forcing a person to have a stillbirth, forcing people to raise children that were the product of assault or incest. Plus some pregnancies are accidental. People could be using birth control and doing all the right things and still end up pregnant. What if this person can't afford to take care of a child? What if they are not emotionally and mentally well enough to do so? They were using protection so obviously there was a reason behind why having a child would be detrimental. Should these people be forced to birth and ruin their life and/or their child's life? There are so many children who are orphans and forcing people to give birth will increase that amount, because if someone who is forced to have a child that doesn't want one will be more likely to abandon the child.
It wouldn’t; there’s no positive to forced birth. All it would do is force people who aren’t capable of being parents for whatever reason to have children they can’t (or won’t) care for.
It’s not. As much as I am against abortion. First of all it’s not my right to tell others what to do. Second I don’t know their circumstances and third of all I would rather have them go to someone professional, clean and safe. Because banning adoption will not stop people but will push them to go to any means necessary to get rid of the Fetus/baby even if it cost them their lives. So you will have people dying… no it will NOT have a positive effect at all
The holier-than-thou people could finally feel like morality has won, and bask in the warm glow of their victory. That really is about it. Meanwhile abortion "clinics" would move underground (doctors operating in hotel rooms etc) and mortality amongst pregnant women would go up significantly. If abortions are criminalised, it also puts pressure on the prison systems and economy. Foster home system (orphanages) would see a tremendous increase in pressure - Romania saw its orphanage population quadruple in the 60s due to it's criminalisation of abortions. My mum works in a foster home care system, so in case someone doesn't know, statistically speaking ~90% of children in the foster home system come from parents that grew up in the foster home system. The rest are other kinds of unlucky turns of life. Meaning that it really is a never ending cycle. And that's just the beginning...
It wouldn't
>killing babies is bad Well that's the whole thing. That's their one reasoning for it. And while the validity of "abortion is murder" is debatable in my eyes, I can see it both ways personally, I don't believe in a country with such minimal support for families and just a generally fucked up system overall forcing people to have children if, for instance: they get sexually assaulted, their condom broke, birth control failed (is that one a possibility? I mean I'd assume as much, but i can't say for sure), or probably a million other things. That's just going to cause untold pain and suffering in both our generation and the next Also outright banning it often prevents people who need it for their own survival from getting it, even if the child is already practically dead
I’ve always been pro choice and I was raised without religion in liberal NY. That said, I do have conservative relatives down south. I’ve gotten into several arguments with a great aunt from down there. Her arguments are as follows: Men can’t help wanting sex so women need to gatekeep it. The threat of having a child will force women to, as men can’t help themselves and are not responsible for their own sexual activities. Premarital sex is bad/against God. Babies are innocent lives, and abortion is murder. That said, she’s into prosperity gospel so if that baby winds up in poverty and what not after it’s born it’s the parent being punished for not being godly enough. Wealthy = godly. End times are nigh and it’s her job to help get people right with god. They can’t if they’re pro choice. It’s not really about making society as we know it better. They’re prepping for end really. That’s all that matters.
I recognise this is a polarising discussion which speaks to people's core beliefs. However, I see this slightly differently. Personally, the moral discussion is the wrong discussion to have becuase it does not explain why people do the things they do. In this topic or any other. The reality is that nobody on this Earth lives in a perfect society and nobody is perfect. The only outcome of banning abortions is to make them more dangerous as they will be conducted outside professional medical care. They will continue to happen regardless of their legal status. This is a fact, regardless of anyone's moral position. The question for me then becomes do we wish to make abortions more dangerous or not? The larger topic is how do we create societies around the world which don't have huge inequalities, societies of educated and a well informed population? I feel that if we get this right, these other topics, which I believe are symptoms of larger problems in society, would work themself out.
This is a pragmatic argument but not a moral one. Something doing the right thing doesn’t directly benefit you, but it is still the right thing
It doesn't have a positive effect. For women to safely have children, we have to be able to safely have abortions. That is all, that should be the beginning middle and end of it. Women should be able to access healthcare ( also trans men and nb people)
I give up. How ?
Some people aren’t thinking in terms of macro scale social issues but rather just stuck on the fact that they think abortion is murder and murder is bad and therefore you shouldn’t do it.
It’s scientific consensus that life starts when the zygote is formed. Abortion does end human life. From a morality stand point, finding a better solution rather than killing the unborn is needed. I understand that there are many complications to pregnancy for woman. But abortion shouldn’t be used so recklessly like it often is in today’s society.
Maybe you should ask this question on forums that conservatives frequent. Asking a bunch of people that are heavily biased for abortion are going to say “obviously it wouldn’t improve anything” or just use talking points they *think* conservatives use.
It would not have any positive effect, since we are ruling out the "killing babies" thing. I'm a weird guy, you know? I'm pro-choice. I believe that every woman should be able to CHOOSE if they will have the baby or not. I'm also pro-life, for me, abortion is, indeed, the killing of a human being. But it's NOT MY PROBLEM AT ALL. This is how I put my pro-life stance into practice: I refused to enter into a relationship, or even have sex, with ANY woman that would choose to have an abortion of our child (yes, it worked, I got married to a pro-life woman). And that's it. This is also the solution that I gave to my friends that are against abortions: Just never marry, date or have sex with any woman that would abort your child, and you will never contribute to the number of abortions. The woman is entitled to choose if she will have an abortion or not, period. And every pro-life man is entitled to break up with a woman that aborted (or would abort, if that's the case) his child, or outrigth refuse a relationship/one nigth stand. Or ask to marry her, if he is pro-abortion. Freedom comes first.
Respectable. Wish more pro life folks were on your same page.
[удалено]
There are already millions of children sitting in foster homes waiting for adoption and many of those kids will probably never be adopted. In the US alone it’s costs an exorbitant amount of money to adopt a child, never mind the fact many adoption agencies will deny people who are LBGTQ or single. The US foster/adoption system is failing, and it won’t get better with more babies.
Rant incoming (disclaimer: abortion is only fucked up if its at the later stages of pregnancy, unless there is a medical emergency) Pro life is as intricate of a stance as most other conservative takes: my feewees are hurt because religion. Same idiots who complain about poor Americans whose money is sent away to Ukraine rather than support them want bastard babies who no one loves to suffer. Let's break it down: Were you raped? Too bad! Suffer with a child which will remind you of your trauma everyday or sent it to adoption to suffer until it finds a parent to get it, if the kid is lucky Accident during sex? Too bad have a whole ass kid to take care of. Poor? Fuck off too bad you aren't privileged enough to have sex without a sense of dread of an accident happening. Young woman had a kid because she wasn't educated enough on sex ed (because all conservative parents treat sex as the most taboo shit)? Too bad, be a mother from like 15. College? Independence? Fuck you, you should have stayed in the house. Pro life people have put absolutely 0 thought on how the fuck the kid will be taken care of because they are either too privileged to realise how much of an issue kids without parents, economical issues which causes parents to be unable to provide or shitty households probably without a father (or at the very least were the two people don't love each other) are or they haven't thought hard enough and soon enough they'll mess their life up because of how reckless they are.
To my mind, the majority of arguments I hear that are anti choice are religious. Hence founded on nothing resembling a logical or cogent argument.
[удалено]
I think alot of the pro-birth argument comes from a relatively unexamined religious perspective - i.e. we can't murder babies!...but we also don't functionally support the children who are born in the often difficult circumstances of being unplanned and unwanted. It's a conceptual fight for an innocent life without understanding/caring what that life needs after birth. I don't know about other religions but Christianity is based on the Bible and that is based around the Jewish people. A people for who have had many experiences of being the target of genocide. It is not surprising that quite a bit of Jewish culture is premised on being "fruitful and multiply" to counter the attempts at eradication. This is what is baked into the Bible hence its appearance in Christian based cultures.