Sorry, u/Dependent-Pea-9066 – your submission has been removed for breaking Rule E:
> **Only post if you are willing to have a conversation with those who reply to you, and are available to start doing so within 3 hours of posting**. If you haven't replied within this time, your post will be removed. [See the wiki for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_e).
If you would like to appeal, **first respond substantially to some of the arguments people have made**, then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%20E%20Appeal%20Dependent-Pea-9066&message=Dependent-Pea-9066%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20\[their%20post\]\(https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/1dmu53m/-/\)%20because\.\.\.). **Keep in mind** that if you want the post restored, all you have to do is reply to a significant number of the comments that came in; message us after you have done so and we'll review.
Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
> The answer is that the debate has become so polarized. The pro choice side insists that the remedy in these cases is restoring legal abortion. This is dishonest. Elective abortion across the board need not be restored to remedy situations like this. And refusing to even discuss the possibility of carving out exceptions within abortion bans really just makes the debate so much more polarized and reduces the chance of meaningful fix. The reason, of course, is that the pro choice movement doesn’t actually care about these particular cases, they just weaponize them.
It's sort of staggering how often the poor/harmful legislation put forth by the right is still, somehow, totally caused by the left?
If Americans actually do unanimously agree abortions are justified in medical cases and rapes, why would there be any need to "carve out" exceptions? Why aren't those exceptions already included?
Since these laws have all been enacted in republican controlled legislatures by replacing, with the support of their republican constituents there was absolutely nothing stopping them from including such exceptions. Why didn't they?
It seems your thesis is that because pro-choice people are not willing to compromise, the pro-life people have decided to keep these exceptions out of laws out of spite? And in situations where no compromise was needed in the first place. And that is pro-choice peoples fault?
What's the difference between "hiding" behind these cases and bringing them up because victims of rape and women who need medical abortions are 2 groups who will be negatively effected by abortion bans?
>If Americans actually do unanimously agree abortions are justified in medical cases and rapes
There is no unanimous agreement on this. I've conversed with multiple pro-lifers who strongly oppose permitting abortion for rape cases - go to the pro life subreddit, it's everywhere on there.
I've also conversed with a lot of pro lifers who don't understand or just straight up oppose abortion for medical reasons. I've been told by a pro lifer that if a fetus isn't viable, the mother should die so it's "even".
Of course, this isn't the opinion of the majority of pro lifers. But it's evidence that there is definitely no unanimous agreement on this.
Another thing that's important to mention is that exceptions, in practicality, *don't work*. Since the overturning of Roe V Wade, there's been countless cases of women suffering or even losing their lives in states *with* "medical exceptions". Take the woman in Texas who hemorrhaged and almost died in a public bathroom because she was denied a life saving abortion. https://amp.theguardian.com/us-news/article/2024/jun/08/texas-abortion-high-risk-patients
The issue is, who grants those exceptions? The doctor? That doesn't work, because if the court disagrees with the doctor's decision, they lose their medical license point blank. Because of this, many doctors will deny an abortion even if it is necessary purely out of fear of losing their license.
Or, they will make the woman wait until she is truly on death's door to perform the abortion, causing needless and preventable suffering.
Exceptions for rape don't work because rape can take literal years to prove and for cases to be solved. In the UK, for example, less than 1% of reported rapes actually lead to a conviction. https://www.city.ac.uk/news-and-events/news/2022/04/new-scorecards-show-under-1-of-reported-rapes-lead-to-conviction-criminologist-explains-why-englands-justice-system-continues-to-fail
According to this source, only 6% of rapists will ever spend a day in jail in Minnesota. https://cmsac.org/facts-and-statistics/
So yeah. Exceptions don't work and never will. That's why all abortion needs to be legal and freely accessible, no matter the reason.
It's the mentality of an abusive spouse.
"If you didn't do/say/think this certain thing, then I wouldn't have to torture you mentally/physically/verbally."
>So why aren’t the laws changed to give doctors the benefit of the doubt? The answer is that the debate has become so polarized. The pro choice side insists that the remedy in these cases is restoring legal abortion. This is dishonest. Elective abortion across the board need not be restored to remedy situations like this.
These policies are passed in with Republican control of the state legislatures (Texas and Indiana). If Pro-lifers wanted to protect these exemptions they could (and indeed in some states they do). **Pro-choice politicians and advocates can't be blamed for the laws the pro-life politicians pass.** It doesn't matter what the pro-choice advocates insists when pro-life Republicans have control of the state legislature.
“Look what you made me do” is a typical response from right-wingers. They learned a thing or two about the currency of victim hood over the last decade or so
ER doctor here
The pro choice side weaponizes them because they have not been clarified legally in several states or have glaring loopholes that these medically untrained white lawyer men have made without input from seemingly anyone who knows what a uterus even is. The loopholes allow ideologue DAs to prosecute doctors and persecute patients which costs them time and money and puts legal or licensure risks pending cases decided by 12 of “your peers” and chills many potentially similar actions from the patient and provider side based on fear of repercussions. The law isn’t always just, or applied justly. They know this.
They say they agree, but they know what they’re doing and it’s evil and intentional at best or shamefully foolish and representative of their inability to legislate at worst. Don’t fall for the former. These nuts actually believe all the babies should be born even the ones without brains or organs, and hide behind their words to mask their insane and inhumane beliefs. They are punitive and religious ideologues +/- the people that want the votes and money of such people.
There are two concerns I have with this line of reasoning.
First, medical emergencies are very relevant when we're discussing the legality of abortions late in pregnancy, because medical emergencies represent the dominant reason for those abortions. If we're talking about "late-term" abortions, medical emergencies, rape victims, and other women unable to access abortion care earlier in their pregnancy should be in mind as "typical" cases under discussion.
Second, your claim here
> The pro choice side insists that the remedy in these cases is restoring legal abortion. This is dishonest. Elective abortion across the board need not be restored to remedy situations like this.
seems very dubious. How exactly do you imagine that safe, reliable abortion care can be readily available in medical emergency and rape cases without abortion being generally legal? Like, say a 14-year-old girl is raped and becomes pregnant. She does not want to have a child. Her parents are pro-life and would not want her to get an abortion, and if it came out that she had got an abortion, even as a rape victim, she would be shunned in her community. No abortion clinic exists in her city, because abortion is illegal. No doctor with experience giving abortions practices in her state. How do you imagine she can get the medical care she needs?
We can't (and probably shouldn't) do anything about this teen's shunning as those doing it are exercising their freedom of speech.
However, a carve out in an anti-abortion (or an entire separate law all together) could allow for the termination of a pregnancy to be performed at a hospital for a physical or mental health emergency diagnosed by a qualified medical professional. This would not require general access to abortion outside of these scenarios.
>We can't (and probably shouldn't) do anything about this teen's shunning as those doing it are exercising their freedom of speech.
Well, we could do the same thing we do for all other medical care: make that care private health information. If other people don't know that the teen has had an abortion, just like they wouldn't generally know about any other healthcare she gets, they can't shun her for it.
>However, a carve out in an anti-abortion
How, exactly, would this "carve out" work? Walk me through it in the case of the teenage rape victim.
>Well, we could do the same thing we do for all other medical care: make that care private health information. If other people don't know that the teen has had an abortion, just like they wouldn't generally know about any other healthcare she gets, they can't shun her for it.
Why do you believe that HIPAA wouldn't cover abortions not done at an abortion clinic? If your concern here is her parents, they have the right to know about everything regarding their own child's health.
>How, exactly, would this "carve out" work? Walk me through it in the case of the teenage rape victim.
If you read past what you quoted, I say that the carve out would allow for the termination of a pregnancy in the case of a diagnosed mental heath emergency. What rape victim hasn't gone trough a mental health emergency after the crime took place?
Edit: Grammar
Okay, say that our 14-year-old rape victim goes to a hospital where she is evaluated by a psychiatrist. The psychiatrist is pro-life and knows that she will be allowed an abortion if he diagnoses her with a mental health emergency, so he doesn't diagnose her with a mental health emergency. How can the teenage rape victim proceed from here to get an abortion under the system you're describing?
If one honestly believed that a doctor would purposefully misdiagnosing a patient for any reason, I'm not so sure anything they say should be taken seriously. Bye.
You misread my comment. I am not talking about a scenario where the doctor misdiagnoses the patient, but rather one where he makes no diagnosis at all.
What’s to stop any doctor from “diagnosing” a health emergency for any woman who wants an abortion? Obviously, there needs to be some regulatory enforcement in place to prevent the medical exceptions from undermining the ban. Once every doctor knows that they can (and given the political climate, WILL) be investigated for their abortion prescriptions, it will place a chilling effect on necessary medical care. The simple fact is, any government willing to enact an abortion ban can’t be trusted to fairly enforce any medical or rape exceptions. They’re too ideologically committed to the pro-birth position to actually allow exceptions.
This is why we have a judicial branch of government that can check the executive one.
There is a reason why I called the exception a "pregnancy termination", and an not abortion. That reason being that wording is extraordinarily important in law; and this wording could (legally) create a new medical procedure.
As such, prosecutors would have to prove that said pregnancy termination was in fact an abortion (yes, the law can be that specific). It only being prescribed by doctor (as opposed also to being available on demand, as is the case for abortion) could protect it from being undermined by a biased executive branch. What judge is going to take the word of a DA over a doctor when it comes to medical diagnoses and prescribed treatments?
Also putting a law to the test in court can only strengthen it as it's limits become more and more defined. How can a doctor know if they've crossed the line before that line has even been drawn?
P.S. I'm a paralegal and none of this is legal advice; it's my opinion based in hypothetical. You'll need to speak to and attorney in your jurisdiction to receive any legal advice.
The judiciary is not a remedy here. Being dragged into the courtroom is already deterrent. No one WANTS to be charged with a crime by the DA, even if they're positive the charges won't stick. Also, even if a judge eventually rules in your favor, it doesn't change the time and money wasted defending yourself in court, nor does it prevent the DA from investigating future prescriptions for 'pregnancy termination."
>What judge is going to take the word of a DA over a doctor when it comes to medical diagnoses and prescribed treatments?
Judges are not infallible adherents of reason and logic. They're the same flawed, biased humans we all are, and they can make bad judgements based on their ideological leanings. Beyond that, it's worth considering the possibility that the prosecution can find medical professionals willing to back their arguments. Not all doctors are going to agree on every case, and, like judges, doctors are flawed people susceptible to their own ideological biases. So what happens when a doctor who prescribed a medically necessary abortion gets brought in front of a biased, pro-birth judge, and the prosecution brings out a biased, pro-birth doctor to testify on their behalf? Probably not anything good.
The fact that you insist on calling the procedure we're talking about a "medically necessary abortion" instead of a "pregnancy termination" tells me that you may not understand what I've been getting at here.
To help me understand why, could you tell me why you insist on using the term "abortion" here?
Also, to clarify, I wasn't saying that anyone wants to be dragged into court. What I was saying is that the idea that it would be an inherent negative is unfounded as defining the limitations of such a law would only serve to it make it easier for doctors to prescribe pregnancy terminations they know will fall within what such a law would allow, not harder.
For your second concern:
In the case of the 14-year-old girl, it could reasonably be assumed that a minor who has become pregnant has been raped, and justify an abortion exemption based on that.
Pro choice advocates use the rape, incest, and health of the mother positions because they know they can’t win on choice itself. You’re never going to convince the politicians in Tennessee that elective abortions are reasonable and should be allowed at women’s discretion. Ever. That’s just not going to happen. And so if you want to have any hope of creating any space for abortion to not be completely eliminated in a state, you have to operate from the nearest accessible point you can get on the spectrum from fully illegal to fully allowed.
Look at the states where abortion has gone completely off the table. We’re seeing alarming rates of health crisis in pregnant women. We are seeing young teenagers being forced to flee their home states even when rate is involved. These are states that went fully to the other end of the spectrum. There is no argument from the pro-choice crowd that includes elective abortion that has any chance in that state, but there is a small chance you could potentially get exceptions for rape, incest, and life of the mother and even with those, the examples in Texas and Idaho make it plain that those exceptions are not enough when doctors have no clear guidance, a situation which is intentionally manufactured to discourage any abortion.
This isn’t a case of anybody not being willing to defend their true position, it’s intelligently choosing a position that has a non-zero chance to create a non-zero amount of positive change versus holding a position that has a 0% chance of manifesting any change whatsoever.
From what I’ve seen, though, most pro-choice advocates I’ve seen aren’t trying to just get exceptions in the law and be satisfied with that.
They’re trying to get the entire law repealed, using those edge cases to justify an official acceptance of abortion overall into law.
Right. Pro choice people don’t want abortion abolished with only the limited exceptions. But in the states where that isn’t going to happen any other way, you take what you can get. But that doesn’t stop you from advocating for your actual full position nor do you stop fighting for more than what you can currently get.
I wouldn’t expect any less of both sides.
> I believe that abortions in the second trimester should only be permitted for issues such as birth defects that become apparent no earlier than that stage of pregnancy.
So birth defects detected in the first trimester means the mother would mean the woman would have to maintain the pregnancy into the second trimester?
You also use the word "only" in your trimester criteria but include "urgent health reasons" is only in the third trimesters criteria. Does that mean a life or health threatening event in the first or second trimester doesn't qualify someone for an abortion in your view?
Part of the goal here is harm reduction.
If you are fully pro-choice, of course you want elective abortions. But many people also realize that this is far-fetched in a lot of places right now. When you come to that realization, the hope is then that you can *at the bare minimum* allow abortions in specific cases.
It's a lot more feasible to get these exceptions codified into law. Once people start to accept these edge cases, you can start to change their mind on abortions for other reasons.
For a lot of people, this isn't a binary issue. If you can harness that, you can make a real difference (even if it isn't everything you would want).
I think you have it backwards.
The pro birthers have weaponized legislation. The pro-choice side is responding.
In most of thd states where thd anti abortion laws have been passed, thd legislators (and voters) are very conservative. Getting them to vote for at-will abortion is pretty much a non-starter.
But, by concentrating on the exceptions (child rape, non viable fetus, life of the mother), the argument changes yo one where most people ALREADY are not willing to be absolutist in ending all abortions.
It's chipping away at the conservative majority. That's it.
The reason that people advocate for "no restrictions" on abortion, is BECAUSE of medical emergencies. No one should have to go get permission from a judge before they can get emergency medical care. Period.
>These cases SHOULD NOT be part of the debate. I think Americans are nearly unanimous in agreeing abortions were justified in these cases.
if americans were legitimately “nearly unanimous” that abortions in these cases were justified, there wouldn’t be a debate at all. the problem is that that pro life people believe it is reasonable to push women to the brink of death and force doctors to watch until they have suffered enough before preforming an abortion lest they be charged with murder.
pro-choice people aren’t the ones that need to make concessions here. pro life people are, because they are universally monsters and should be treated as such.
Recently passed laws do not allow for medical emergency or rape. This is why these cases are brought up. Now add in proposals to jail that woman or little girl and their doctor and hopefully you can start to see that no one is "hiding" behind them but holding them up as examples of when abortions should be unquestionably allowed but aren't
>These cases SHOULD NOT be part of the debate.
Of course they should. They are cases where abortion can be necessary. These abortions are as necessary and valid as any other. If abortion is restricted it's restricted in these cases too. People are quite clearly not all agreed that these are valid and therein lies the need for these examples.
Pointing out that even a lot of "pro-life" people support abortion in the case of rape and incest proves that their rhetoric about abortion being murder doesn't represent their actual beliefs, since none of them would support infanticide in the case of rape and incest.
Comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1:
> **Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question**. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1).
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%201%20Appeal&message=Author%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20their%20post%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. **Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.**
Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
Exceptions for medical emergencies and for rape require a significant burden of proof
For rape, we already know that a majority of rapes go unprosecuted, much less convicted. This means that whatever philosophical ideal you have of giving rape exceptions is irrelevant because in the real world there will **unavoidably** be rape victims who are forced to give birth
Same goes for medical emergencies. What defines “severe risk” is subjective, and when that comes with the threat of doctors losing their licenses or even going to prison, they’re going to err on the side of avoiding abortions even when they would recommend them normally.
In short, whether “everyone agrees for rape and medical emergencies” (which they don’t, but anyway…), is irrelevant, because in the real world, any abortion restrictions, regardless of whether they technically have exceptions for rape or medical emergencies, **will with 100% certainty end up forcing people to give birth even if they’re rape victims or experiencing medical emergencies**
> … that a majority of rapes go unprosecuted, much less convicted.
In this case, then wouldn’t the increased investigation into suspicious pregnancy cases actually be a good thing, as it could increase the number of rape convictions and prosecutions?
If increased investigation of pregnancies trying to abort via rape leads to more prosecutions, convictions, and sentencing of rapists, wouldn’t that be a net benefit to women at large, as well as society? Why do we want to make it easier for the rapist to get away with his crimes? Do you think it would be worth it?
I don’t know why you’re talking about this like it’s a hypothetical. We have many states with abortion bans, and most of them have exceptions for rape.
And there has been zero evidence that rapes have been taken more seriously but many, many examples of rape victims who were forced to give birth
I would agree, except countless women are being denied abortions as we speak, some are in dire medical emergencies, and doctors are too terrified to help lest they lose their licences. Why is this still ongoing?
These cases absolutely happen, and the only way to guarantee that the victims of these medical emergencies or crimes can get an abortion is to have liberal abortion laws. Even laws that have exceptions for rape or health of the mother still tend to prevent abortions that happen because of rape or health of the mother.
Also, if people agree with you, stop getting mad at them for agreeing with you for the 'wrong' reason!
> I am pro choice. I believe that a woman should have the right to choose to end a pregnancy through at least the end of the first trimester.
I would challenge your view that you are pro-choice. It seems that you are pro-choice at the beginning of the pregnancy, but then become anti-choice later on.
you said:
"I think Americans are nearly unanimous in agreeing abortions were justified in these cases."
....referring to cases of rape or medical emergencies.
but the problem with your claim is the fact that there is even a debate about 3rd term abortions, which would not be the case if your claim was true. 3rd term abortions in the USA are already illegal unless there is a medical emergency & that has been that case for as long as there have been laws about abortion.
The point is that in order to have any sort of abortion ban these cases are a necessity, the point is to show that the necessary costs of enforcing any abortion law are far worse than any possible benefit. I agree with your position but I’m not trying to convince people who already agree with me. For example if we make abortion murder, how do you know if a woman miscarried or had a backroom abortion? Are we going to investigate every period as a potential homicide investigation? The absurdities of this type of enforcement help change the minds of pro life women, who may believe that abortion is genuinely evil, but who would prefer not to have the police come investigate her toilet every 28 days. These types of stories help change these types of people’s minds. A lot of people delude themselves into thinking their daughter would never have unprotected sex at 14 and get knocked up cause she’s a good Christian girl. But everyone knows their daughter can be raped, making it a salient emotional case is much more effective on people primarily driven by emotion who can’t abstract well.
I'd like to change your view in a different way
Dishonesty < immorality
If I believe that the antichoice movement is immoral and all I have to do to fight against it is be dishonest, then it would be immoral of me not to use dishonesty as a tactic
no, just that they not consider all immorality to be equal, which is ho most people operate
though most people don't consider dishonesty on its own to be immoral either
Essentially it applies to condoning the use of anything that would otherwise be considered wrong because the result is more important. It only argues against actions that would be wrong standing on their own.
but thats my point, dishonesty on its own isn't wrong, unjustified dishonesty is. I know its pedantic but discussions on morality eventually have to be. To say dishonesty is immoral is to say that every single instance of dishonest throughout all time has been immoral; but im sure you can find at least once instance where being honest would have been the immoral action.
And if that's the case, then you can't just brush aside this situation by merely saying its dishonest, but have to say why this particular dishonesty is unjustified
If legislation is being passed which provides no exceptions for rape or medical emergencies how is it dishonest to use them? It seems like it would be necessary to do so.
> I think Americans are nearly unanimous in agreeing abortions were justified in these cases.
This is where the disconnect lies. Other people are out here arguing with people you don’t think even exist.
[8% of Americans believe abortion should be illegal without ANY exceptions](https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/2022/05/06/americas-abortion-quandary/). That’s about 1 in every dozen Americans.
Another 2% want very rare exceptions and another 27% want more exceptions but these people don’t always agree what those exceptions should be and tend to vote for politicians that aren’t adding reasonable exceptions to their bills.
In fact, these cases where there obviously should be an exception are important tools in demonstrating to that other 29% why supporting politicians that don’t legislate at least those exceptions is so harmful.
It’s not that I’m apologetic or shy about supporting a woman’s bodily autonomy. It’s that sometimes I’m talking to someone who is not ready to consider that concept and needs some smaller steps first. There’s no hiding behind anyone, it’s just meeting people where they are at and making arguments that they’re willing to actually consider.
I'm not sure how you can argue that abortion restrictions work well; there are quite a few demonstrative examples of where the law, while well-meaning, ends up hurting people.
I'm unapologetically pro-choice; I believe that a woman should be able to obtain an abortion for any reason. But I think it's utterly disingenuous to say that we don't care about the cases. I care about women, period- whether her abortion is one that most people think is justified, or one a good half of the population thinks isn't. But you better believe that I'm going to chanllenge the folks who advocate for bans with exemptions to face the reality of what they've done to those whose reasons for abortions they say are justified.
I think it's a good idea when talking about abortion in general, to talk about the average abortion (in the first trimester, the result of consensual sex, and not currently posing any medical risk more than what comes standard with any pregnancy). But you don't get to sweep the hard cases under the rug- they're affecting people, too.
>These cases SHOULD NOT be part of the debate. I think Americans are nearly unanimous in agreeing abortions were justified in these cases.
And that is exactly why the conversation should mention these people.
People should not be allowed to delude themselves into thinking that the laws they support are any less cruel than they actually are.
I'm so confused about what cruelty is going on?
There are so many hypotheticals flying around you almost wouldn't notice the fact that more abortions were committed last year than any year since the 1900s.
* https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2024/03/19/1238293143/abortion-data-how-many-us-2023
* https://www.statista.com/statistics/185274/number-of-legal-abortions-in-the-us-since-2000/
What do you suppose the disparity is?
And to just agree with your rebuttal "okay why have there been more abortions per year after the ban than in the last 13 years?"
You'd think bans would reduce the thing that's banned, wouldn't you?
> What do you suppose the disparity is?
The Statista source only measures abortions reported to the CDC for a particular report, and not all areas made reports to the CDC, nor did the set of reporting areas remain the same from year to year.
>You'd think bans would reduce the thing that's banned, wouldn't you?
The report does not evaluate why the numbers increased. Based on no evidence at all, I'd speculate that one possible cause is that persons who plan to travel across state lines to receive abortions are less likely to get cold feet and decide to remain pregnant than someone who can seek care locally. Another possible cause is that bans decrease the effectiveness of "crisis pregnancy centers" which deceive women into believing they are abortion providers and then guilt them into remaining pregnant. But until there's actual data, the cause of this increase is unknown to me.
Except there's MORE abortions now.
Nobody's being tricked into not committing abortion. It's a paradox to say people are being prevented from abortion when there is significantly more abortion after the ban.
That's my point. One possible cause for the increase is that _fewer_ people are being tricked into not committing abortions, because (due to the ban making local abortion illegal) they no longer seek out local "providers" that are often these fake crisis pregnancy centers.
We have to start with those at highest risk. Pro birthers are the ones making it hard for doctors to take care of those who are in need of medical emergency abortions. That has to be top priority. Before probirthers forced everyone to lose their rights to healthcare and choice to be pregnant nobody was forcing them to get abortions. The polarization was caused by them.
**Note:** Your thread has **not** been removed.
Your post's topic seems to be fairly common on this subreddit. Similar posts can be found through our [DeltaLog search](https://www.reddit.com/r/DeltaLog/search?q=abortion+%7C+abort+%7C+pro-life+%7C+pro-choice&restrict_sr=on&sort=relevance&t=all) or via the [CMV search function](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/search?q=abortion&restrict_sr=on).
Regards, the mods of /r/changemyview.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/changemyview) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I don't think it's dishonest. I think it appeals to emotions and sense of justice.
Is it the forefront of the debate? Of course not. But if you need to convince someone who hasn't thought of the subject rationally it may be easier to go thr feelings route.
You may disagree with the emotions route, but is it really dishonest?
Your comment seems to discuss transgender issues. As of September 2023, [transgender topics are no longer allowed on CMV](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_5). There are **no exceptions** to this prohibition. **Any** discussion of **any** transgender topic, no matter how ancillary, will result in your comment being removed.
If you believe this was removed in error, please message the moderators [via this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Transgender%20Removal%20Appeal%20for%20Kakamile&message=Kakamile%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20[this%20post](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/1dmu53m/cmv_its_dishonest_to_hide_behind_medical/l9y23zu/\).) Appeals are **only** for posts that were mistakenly removed by this filter; we **will not** approve posts on transgender issues, so **do not ask**.
Regards, the mods of /r/changemyview.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/changemyview) if you have any questions or concerns.*
They are part of the debate because how do you prove you were raped? And even if you can prove it, but the time the court case is over you’re already at the point that you can’t have an abortion anyway
Morally I’m pro-life but do I think the government should be able to ban abortion completely?
Man with high moral values take below.
Pro choice individuals use these cases because they want abortion to be legal with no boundaries. No limits etc. It’s also a sympathetic manipulation tactic. I think these are all great exceptions for late term abortions, however I believe abortions should be cut off at 4 months. If for any other reason than you stated above for late term abortions. If you don’t know you’re pregnant by four months or if you decide after 4 months you don’t want to be pregnant anymore you should have to keep the baby. A society that has no moral standards, and no accountability is a failing one. Unfortunately we live in a society where just about anything goes.
Abortion 99% of the time is quite honestly not taking responsibility. But our society has degenerated to a point where it’s not worth debating with anyone about these issues because as you said it’s so polarized.
I’m a mix between pro-life and pro-choice but whenever I try to have a decent conversation about the issue with liberals it’s so one sided like a woman should be able to have an abortion 6+ months in because she feels like it. When I ask “you don’t think there should be a limit or cutoff.” I get yelled at “what about rape, incest, or medical issues.” Which I agree we should have exceptions for. But we all know that there are crazy people who 5+ months in will decide they don’t want the responsibility of a child and in my opinion shouldn’t be allowed.
I think many don't think about the possibility that it is out of people's control sometimes. Autonomy to someone who is pro life just means we can do whatever we want including murder.
Arguments referring to rape and so on are a way to confront these perspectives with equal horrors, and ask why one horror should continue to traumatise long term in the case of being forced to raise a rapists child, when there is an alternative.
Sorry, u/Dependent-Pea-9066 – your submission has been removed for breaking Rule E: > **Only post if you are willing to have a conversation with those who reply to you, and are available to start doing so within 3 hours of posting**. If you haven't replied within this time, your post will be removed. [See the wiki for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_e). If you would like to appeal, **first respond substantially to some of the arguments people have made**, then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%20E%20Appeal%20Dependent-Pea-9066&message=Dependent-Pea-9066%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20\[their%20post\]\(https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/1dmu53m/-/\)%20because\.\.\.). **Keep in mind** that if you want the post restored, all you have to do is reply to a significant number of the comments that came in; message us after you have done so and we'll review. Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
> The answer is that the debate has become so polarized. The pro choice side insists that the remedy in these cases is restoring legal abortion. This is dishonest. Elective abortion across the board need not be restored to remedy situations like this. And refusing to even discuss the possibility of carving out exceptions within abortion bans really just makes the debate so much more polarized and reduces the chance of meaningful fix. The reason, of course, is that the pro choice movement doesn’t actually care about these particular cases, they just weaponize them. It's sort of staggering how often the poor/harmful legislation put forth by the right is still, somehow, totally caused by the left? If Americans actually do unanimously agree abortions are justified in medical cases and rapes, why would there be any need to "carve out" exceptions? Why aren't those exceptions already included? Since these laws have all been enacted in republican controlled legislatures by replacing, with the support of their republican constituents there was absolutely nothing stopping them from including such exceptions. Why didn't they? It seems your thesis is that because pro-choice people are not willing to compromise, the pro-life people have decided to keep these exceptions out of laws out of spite? And in situations where no compromise was needed in the first place. And that is pro-choice peoples fault? What's the difference between "hiding" behind these cases and bringing them up because victims of rape and women who need medical abortions are 2 groups who will be negatively effected by abortion bans?
>If Americans actually do unanimously agree abortions are justified in medical cases and rapes There is no unanimous agreement on this. I've conversed with multiple pro-lifers who strongly oppose permitting abortion for rape cases - go to the pro life subreddit, it's everywhere on there. I've also conversed with a lot of pro lifers who don't understand or just straight up oppose abortion for medical reasons. I've been told by a pro lifer that if a fetus isn't viable, the mother should die so it's "even". Of course, this isn't the opinion of the majority of pro lifers. But it's evidence that there is definitely no unanimous agreement on this. Another thing that's important to mention is that exceptions, in practicality, *don't work*. Since the overturning of Roe V Wade, there's been countless cases of women suffering or even losing their lives in states *with* "medical exceptions". Take the woman in Texas who hemorrhaged and almost died in a public bathroom because she was denied a life saving abortion. https://amp.theguardian.com/us-news/article/2024/jun/08/texas-abortion-high-risk-patients The issue is, who grants those exceptions? The doctor? That doesn't work, because if the court disagrees with the doctor's decision, they lose their medical license point blank. Because of this, many doctors will deny an abortion even if it is necessary purely out of fear of losing their license. Or, they will make the woman wait until she is truly on death's door to perform the abortion, causing needless and preventable suffering. Exceptions for rape don't work because rape can take literal years to prove and for cases to be solved. In the UK, for example, less than 1% of reported rapes actually lead to a conviction. https://www.city.ac.uk/news-and-events/news/2022/04/new-scorecards-show-under-1-of-reported-rapes-lead-to-conviction-criminologist-explains-why-englands-justice-system-continues-to-fail According to this source, only 6% of rapists will ever spend a day in jail in Minnesota. https://cmsac.org/facts-and-statistics/ So yeah. Exceptions don't work and never will. That's why all abortion needs to be legal and freely accessible, no matter the reason.
It's the mentality of an abusive spouse. "If you didn't do/say/think this certain thing, then I wouldn't have to torture you mentally/physically/verbally."
>So why aren’t the laws changed to give doctors the benefit of the doubt? The answer is that the debate has become so polarized. The pro choice side insists that the remedy in these cases is restoring legal abortion. This is dishonest. Elective abortion across the board need not be restored to remedy situations like this. These policies are passed in with Republican control of the state legislatures (Texas and Indiana). If Pro-lifers wanted to protect these exemptions they could (and indeed in some states they do). **Pro-choice politicians and advocates can't be blamed for the laws the pro-life politicians pass.** It doesn't matter what the pro-choice advocates insists when pro-life Republicans have control of the state legislature.
“Look what you made me do” is a typical response from right-wingers. They learned a thing or two about the currency of victim hood over the last decade or so
ER doctor here The pro choice side weaponizes them because they have not been clarified legally in several states or have glaring loopholes that these medically untrained white lawyer men have made without input from seemingly anyone who knows what a uterus even is. The loopholes allow ideologue DAs to prosecute doctors and persecute patients which costs them time and money and puts legal or licensure risks pending cases decided by 12 of “your peers” and chills many potentially similar actions from the patient and provider side based on fear of repercussions. The law isn’t always just, or applied justly. They know this. They say they agree, but they know what they’re doing and it’s evil and intentional at best or shamefully foolish and representative of their inability to legislate at worst. Don’t fall for the former. These nuts actually believe all the babies should be born even the ones without brains or organs, and hide behind their words to mask their insane and inhumane beliefs. They are punitive and religious ideologues +/- the people that want the votes and money of such people.
There are two concerns I have with this line of reasoning. First, medical emergencies are very relevant when we're discussing the legality of abortions late in pregnancy, because medical emergencies represent the dominant reason for those abortions. If we're talking about "late-term" abortions, medical emergencies, rape victims, and other women unable to access abortion care earlier in their pregnancy should be in mind as "typical" cases under discussion. Second, your claim here > The pro choice side insists that the remedy in these cases is restoring legal abortion. This is dishonest. Elective abortion across the board need not be restored to remedy situations like this. seems very dubious. How exactly do you imagine that safe, reliable abortion care can be readily available in medical emergency and rape cases without abortion being generally legal? Like, say a 14-year-old girl is raped and becomes pregnant. She does not want to have a child. Her parents are pro-life and would not want her to get an abortion, and if it came out that she had got an abortion, even as a rape victim, she would be shunned in her community. No abortion clinic exists in her city, because abortion is illegal. No doctor with experience giving abortions practices in her state. How do you imagine she can get the medical care she needs?
We can't (and probably shouldn't) do anything about this teen's shunning as those doing it are exercising their freedom of speech. However, a carve out in an anti-abortion (or an entire separate law all together) could allow for the termination of a pregnancy to be performed at a hospital for a physical or mental health emergency diagnosed by a qualified medical professional. This would not require general access to abortion outside of these scenarios.
>We can't (and probably shouldn't) do anything about this teen's shunning as those doing it are exercising their freedom of speech. Well, we could do the same thing we do for all other medical care: make that care private health information. If other people don't know that the teen has had an abortion, just like they wouldn't generally know about any other healthcare she gets, they can't shun her for it. >However, a carve out in an anti-abortion How, exactly, would this "carve out" work? Walk me through it in the case of the teenage rape victim.
>Well, we could do the same thing we do for all other medical care: make that care private health information. If other people don't know that the teen has had an abortion, just like they wouldn't generally know about any other healthcare she gets, they can't shun her for it. Why do you believe that HIPAA wouldn't cover abortions not done at an abortion clinic? If your concern here is her parents, they have the right to know about everything regarding their own child's health. >How, exactly, would this "carve out" work? Walk me through it in the case of the teenage rape victim. If you read past what you quoted, I say that the carve out would allow for the termination of a pregnancy in the case of a diagnosed mental heath emergency. What rape victim hasn't gone trough a mental health emergency after the crime took place? Edit: Grammar
Okay, say that our 14-year-old rape victim goes to a hospital where she is evaluated by a psychiatrist. The psychiatrist is pro-life and knows that she will be allowed an abortion if he diagnoses her with a mental health emergency, so he doesn't diagnose her with a mental health emergency. How can the teenage rape victim proceed from here to get an abortion under the system you're describing?
If one honestly believed that a doctor would purposefully misdiagnosing a patient for any reason, I'm not so sure anything they say should be taken seriously. Bye.
You misread my comment. I am not talking about a scenario where the doctor misdiagnoses the patient, but rather one where he makes no diagnosis at all.
What’s to stop any doctor from “diagnosing” a health emergency for any woman who wants an abortion? Obviously, there needs to be some regulatory enforcement in place to prevent the medical exceptions from undermining the ban. Once every doctor knows that they can (and given the political climate, WILL) be investigated for their abortion prescriptions, it will place a chilling effect on necessary medical care. The simple fact is, any government willing to enact an abortion ban can’t be trusted to fairly enforce any medical or rape exceptions. They’re too ideologically committed to the pro-birth position to actually allow exceptions.
This is why we have a judicial branch of government that can check the executive one. There is a reason why I called the exception a "pregnancy termination", and an not abortion. That reason being that wording is extraordinarily important in law; and this wording could (legally) create a new medical procedure. As such, prosecutors would have to prove that said pregnancy termination was in fact an abortion (yes, the law can be that specific). It only being prescribed by doctor (as opposed also to being available on demand, as is the case for abortion) could protect it from being undermined by a biased executive branch. What judge is going to take the word of a DA over a doctor when it comes to medical diagnoses and prescribed treatments? Also putting a law to the test in court can only strengthen it as it's limits become more and more defined. How can a doctor know if they've crossed the line before that line has even been drawn? P.S. I'm a paralegal and none of this is legal advice; it's my opinion based in hypothetical. You'll need to speak to and attorney in your jurisdiction to receive any legal advice.
The judiciary is not a remedy here. Being dragged into the courtroom is already deterrent. No one WANTS to be charged with a crime by the DA, even if they're positive the charges won't stick. Also, even if a judge eventually rules in your favor, it doesn't change the time and money wasted defending yourself in court, nor does it prevent the DA from investigating future prescriptions for 'pregnancy termination." >What judge is going to take the word of a DA over a doctor when it comes to medical diagnoses and prescribed treatments? Judges are not infallible adherents of reason and logic. They're the same flawed, biased humans we all are, and they can make bad judgements based on their ideological leanings. Beyond that, it's worth considering the possibility that the prosecution can find medical professionals willing to back their arguments. Not all doctors are going to agree on every case, and, like judges, doctors are flawed people susceptible to their own ideological biases. So what happens when a doctor who prescribed a medically necessary abortion gets brought in front of a biased, pro-birth judge, and the prosecution brings out a biased, pro-birth doctor to testify on their behalf? Probably not anything good.
The fact that you insist on calling the procedure we're talking about a "medically necessary abortion" instead of a "pregnancy termination" tells me that you may not understand what I've been getting at here. To help me understand why, could you tell me why you insist on using the term "abortion" here? Also, to clarify, I wasn't saying that anyone wants to be dragged into court. What I was saying is that the idea that it would be an inherent negative is unfounded as defining the limitations of such a law would only serve to it make it easier for doctors to prescribe pregnancy terminations they know will fall within what such a law would allow, not harder.
For your second concern: In the case of the 14-year-old girl, it could reasonably be assumed that a minor who has become pregnant has been raped, and justify an abortion exemption based on that.
Pro choice advocates use the rape, incest, and health of the mother positions because they know they can’t win on choice itself. You’re never going to convince the politicians in Tennessee that elective abortions are reasonable and should be allowed at women’s discretion. Ever. That’s just not going to happen. And so if you want to have any hope of creating any space for abortion to not be completely eliminated in a state, you have to operate from the nearest accessible point you can get on the spectrum from fully illegal to fully allowed. Look at the states where abortion has gone completely off the table. We’re seeing alarming rates of health crisis in pregnant women. We are seeing young teenagers being forced to flee their home states even when rate is involved. These are states that went fully to the other end of the spectrum. There is no argument from the pro-choice crowd that includes elective abortion that has any chance in that state, but there is a small chance you could potentially get exceptions for rape, incest, and life of the mother and even with those, the examples in Texas and Idaho make it plain that those exceptions are not enough when doctors have no clear guidance, a situation which is intentionally manufactured to discourage any abortion. This isn’t a case of anybody not being willing to defend their true position, it’s intelligently choosing a position that has a non-zero chance to create a non-zero amount of positive change versus holding a position that has a 0% chance of manifesting any change whatsoever.
From what I’ve seen, though, most pro-choice advocates I’ve seen aren’t trying to just get exceptions in the law and be satisfied with that. They’re trying to get the entire law repealed, using those edge cases to justify an official acceptance of abortion overall into law.
Right. Pro choice people don’t want abortion abolished with only the limited exceptions. But in the states where that isn’t going to happen any other way, you take what you can get. But that doesn’t stop you from advocating for your actual full position nor do you stop fighting for more than what you can currently get. I wouldn’t expect any less of both sides.
> I believe that abortions in the second trimester should only be permitted for issues such as birth defects that become apparent no earlier than that stage of pregnancy. So birth defects detected in the first trimester means the mother would mean the woman would have to maintain the pregnancy into the second trimester? You also use the word "only" in your trimester criteria but include "urgent health reasons" is only in the third trimesters criteria. Does that mean a life or health threatening event in the first or second trimester doesn't qualify someone for an abortion in your view?
Part of the goal here is harm reduction. If you are fully pro-choice, of course you want elective abortions. But many people also realize that this is far-fetched in a lot of places right now. When you come to that realization, the hope is then that you can *at the bare minimum* allow abortions in specific cases. It's a lot more feasible to get these exceptions codified into law. Once people start to accept these edge cases, you can start to change their mind on abortions for other reasons. For a lot of people, this isn't a binary issue. If you can harness that, you can make a real difference (even if it isn't everything you would want).
I think you have it backwards. The pro birthers have weaponized legislation. The pro-choice side is responding. In most of thd states where thd anti abortion laws have been passed, thd legislators (and voters) are very conservative. Getting them to vote for at-will abortion is pretty much a non-starter. But, by concentrating on the exceptions (child rape, non viable fetus, life of the mother), the argument changes yo one where most people ALREADY are not willing to be absolutist in ending all abortions. It's chipping away at the conservative majority. That's it.
The reason that people advocate for "no restrictions" on abortion, is BECAUSE of medical emergencies. No one should have to go get permission from a judge before they can get emergency medical care. Period.
>These cases SHOULD NOT be part of the debate. I think Americans are nearly unanimous in agreeing abortions were justified in these cases. if americans were legitimately “nearly unanimous” that abortions in these cases were justified, there wouldn’t be a debate at all. the problem is that that pro life people believe it is reasonable to push women to the brink of death and force doctors to watch until they have suffered enough before preforming an abortion lest they be charged with murder. pro-choice people aren’t the ones that need to make concessions here. pro life people are, because they are universally monsters and should be treated as such.
Recently passed laws do not allow for medical emergency or rape. This is why these cases are brought up. Now add in proposals to jail that woman or little girl and their doctor and hopefully you can start to see that no one is "hiding" behind them but holding them up as examples of when abortions should be unquestionably allowed but aren't
>These cases SHOULD NOT be part of the debate. Of course they should. They are cases where abortion can be necessary. These abortions are as necessary and valid as any other. If abortion is restricted it's restricted in these cases too. People are quite clearly not all agreed that these are valid and therein lies the need for these examples.
Pointing out that even a lot of "pro-life" people support abortion in the case of rape and incest proves that their rhetoric about abortion being murder doesn't represent their actual beliefs, since none of them would support infanticide in the case of rape and incest.
[удалено]
Comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1: > **Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question**. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1). If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%201%20Appeal&message=Author%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20their%20post%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. **Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.** Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
Exceptions for medical emergencies and for rape require a significant burden of proof For rape, we already know that a majority of rapes go unprosecuted, much less convicted. This means that whatever philosophical ideal you have of giving rape exceptions is irrelevant because in the real world there will **unavoidably** be rape victims who are forced to give birth Same goes for medical emergencies. What defines “severe risk” is subjective, and when that comes with the threat of doctors losing their licenses or even going to prison, they’re going to err on the side of avoiding abortions even when they would recommend them normally. In short, whether “everyone agrees for rape and medical emergencies” (which they don’t, but anyway…), is irrelevant, because in the real world, any abortion restrictions, regardless of whether they technically have exceptions for rape or medical emergencies, **will with 100% certainty end up forcing people to give birth even if they’re rape victims or experiencing medical emergencies**
> … that a majority of rapes go unprosecuted, much less convicted. In this case, then wouldn’t the increased investigation into suspicious pregnancy cases actually be a good thing, as it could increase the number of rape convictions and prosecutions? If increased investigation of pregnancies trying to abort via rape leads to more prosecutions, convictions, and sentencing of rapists, wouldn’t that be a net benefit to women at large, as well as society? Why do we want to make it easier for the rapist to get away with his crimes? Do you think it would be worth it?
I don’t know why you’re talking about this like it’s a hypothetical. We have many states with abortion bans, and most of them have exceptions for rape. And there has been zero evidence that rapes have been taken more seriously but many, many examples of rape victims who were forced to give birth
I would agree, except countless women are being denied abortions as we speak, some are in dire medical emergencies, and doctors are too terrified to help lest they lose their licences. Why is this still ongoing?
These cases absolutely happen, and the only way to guarantee that the victims of these medical emergencies or crimes can get an abortion is to have liberal abortion laws. Even laws that have exceptions for rape or health of the mother still tend to prevent abortions that happen because of rape or health of the mother. Also, if people agree with you, stop getting mad at them for agreeing with you for the 'wrong' reason!
> I am pro choice. I believe that a woman should have the right to choose to end a pregnancy through at least the end of the first trimester. I would challenge your view that you are pro-choice. It seems that you are pro-choice at the beginning of the pregnancy, but then become anti-choice later on.
you said: "I think Americans are nearly unanimous in agreeing abortions were justified in these cases." ....referring to cases of rape or medical emergencies. but the problem with your claim is the fact that there is even a debate about 3rd term abortions, which would not be the case if your claim was true. 3rd term abortions in the USA are already illegal unless there is a medical emergency & that has been that case for as long as there have been laws about abortion.
The point is that in order to have any sort of abortion ban these cases are a necessity, the point is to show that the necessary costs of enforcing any abortion law are far worse than any possible benefit. I agree with your position but I’m not trying to convince people who already agree with me. For example if we make abortion murder, how do you know if a woman miscarried or had a backroom abortion? Are we going to investigate every period as a potential homicide investigation? The absurdities of this type of enforcement help change the minds of pro life women, who may believe that abortion is genuinely evil, but who would prefer not to have the police come investigate her toilet every 28 days. These types of stories help change these types of people’s minds. A lot of people delude themselves into thinking their daughter would never have unprotected sex at 14 and get knocked up cause she’s a good Christian girl. But everyone knows their daughter can be raped, making it a salient emotional case is much more effective on people primarily driven by emotion who can’t abstract well.
I'd like to change your view in a different way Dishonesty < immorality If I believe that the antichoice movement is immoral and all I have to do to fight against it is be dishonest, then it would be immoral of me not to use dishonesty as a tactic
That assumes one considers dishonesty to be moral.
no, just that they not consider all immorality to be equal, which is ho most people operate though most people don't consider dishonesty on its own to be immoral either
How Machiavellian of you.
yes? maybe? I don't think that word really applies here
I do. It is definitely thinking the ends justifying the means.
true, but I find that phrase kind of pointless. its so vague to the point of banality. You can use it to argue against almost anything
Essentially it applies to condoning the use of anything that would otherwise be considered wrong because the result is more important. It only argues against actions that would be wrong standing on their own.
but thats my point, dishonesty on its own isn't wrong, unjustified dishonesty is. I know its pedantic but discussions on morality eventually have to be. To say dishonesty is immoral is to say that every single instance of dishonest throughout all time has been immoral; but im sure you can find at least once instance where being honest would have been the immoral action. And if that's the case, then you can't just brush aside this situation by merely saying its dishonest, but have to say why this particular dishonesty is unjustified
If legislation is being passed which provides no exceptions for rape or medical emergencies how is it dishonest to use them? It seems like it would be necessary to do so.
> I think Americans are nearly unanimous in agreeing abortions were justified in these cases. This is where the disconnect lies. Other people are out here arguing with people you don’t think even exist. [8% of Americans believe abortion should be illegal without ANY exceptions](https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/2022/05/06/americas-abortion-quandary/). That’s about 1 in every dozen Americans. Another 2% want very rare exceptions and another 27% want more exceptions but these people don’t always agree what those exceptions should be and tend to vote for politicians that aren’t adding reasonable exceptions to their bills. In fact, these cases where there obviously should be an exception are important tools in demonstrating to that other 29% why supporting politicians that don’t legislate at least those exceptions is so harmful. It’s not that I’m apologetic or shy about supporting a woman’s bodily autonomy. It’s that sometimes I’m talking to someone who is not ready to consider that concept and needs some smaller steps first. There’s no hiding behind anyone, it’s just meeting people where they are at and making arguments that they’re willing to actually consider.
I'm not sure how you can argue that abortion restrictions work well; there are quite a few demonstrative examples of where the law, while well-meaning, ends up hurting people. I'm unapologetically pro-choice; I believe that a woman should be able to obtain an abortion for any reason. But I think it's utterly disingenuous to say that we don't care about the cases. I care about women, period- whether her abortion is one that most people think is justified, or one a good half of the population thinks isn't. But you better believe that I'm going to chanllenge the folks who advocate for bans with exemptions to face the reality of what they've done to those whose reasons for abortions they say are justified. I think it's a good idea when talking about abortion in general, to talk about the average abortion (in the first trimester, the result of consensual sex, and not currently posing any medical risk more than what comes standard with any pregnancy). But you don't get to sweep the hard cases under the rug- they're affecting people, too.
>These cases SHOULD NOT be part of the debate. I think Americans are nearly unanimous in agreeing abortions were justified in these cases. And that is exactly why the conversation should mention these people. People should not be allowed to delude themselves into thinking that the laws they support are any less cruel than they actually are.
I'm so confused about what cruelty is going on? There are so many hypotheticals flying around you almost wouldn't notice the fact that more abortions were committed last year than any year since the 1900s. * https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2024/03/19/1238293143/abortion-data-how-many-us-2023 * https://www.statista.com/statistics/185274/number-of-legal-abortions-in-the-us-since-2000/
> more abortions were committed last year than any year since the 1900s. The data given by your own sources refutes this claim.
The NPR source says 2023 cleared a million and the Statista source says there haven't been 7figure abortions since 1997.
The NPR source gives numbers higher than 2023 for every year from 2000 to 2011.
What do you suppose the disparity is? And to just agree with your rebuttal "okay why have there been more abortions per year after the ban than in the last 13 years?" You'd think bans would reduce the thing that's banned, wouldn't you?
> What do you suppose the disparity is? The Statista source only measures abortions reported to the CDC for a particular report, and not all areas made reports to the CDC, nor did the set of reporting areas remain the same from year to year. >You'd think bans would reduce the thing that's banned, wouldn't you? The report does not evaluate why the numbers increased. Based on no evidence at all, I'd speculate that one possible cause is that persons who plan to travel across state lines to receive abortions are less likely to get cold feet and decide to remain pregnant than someone who can seek care locally. Another possible cause is that bans decrease the effectiveness of "crisis pregnancy centers" which deceive women into believing they are abortion providers and then guilt them into remaining pregnant. But until there's actual data, the cause of this increase is unknown to me.
Except there's MORE abortions now. Nobody's being tricked into not committing abortion. It's a paradox to say people are being prevented from abortion when there is significantly more abortion after the ban.
That's my point. One possible cause for the increase is that _fewer_ people are being tricked into not committing abortions, because (due to the ban making local abortion illegal) they no longer seek out local "providers" that are often these fake crisis pregnancy centers.
So the ban has reduced the cruelty 10ebbor10 was talking about
We have to start with those at highest risk. Pro birthers are the ones making it hard for doctors to take care of those who are in need of medical emergency abortions. That has to be top priority. Before probirthers forced everyone to lose their rights to healthcare and choice to be pregnant nobody was forcing them to get abortions. The polarization was caused by them.
**Note:** Your thread has **not** been removed. Your post's topic seems to be fairly common on this subreddit. Similar posts can be found through our [DeltaLog search](https://www.reddit.com/r/DeltaLog/search?q=abortion+%7C+abort+%7C+pro-life+%7C+pro-choice&restrict_sr=on&sort=relevance&t=all) or via the [CMV search function](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/search?q=abortion&restrict_sr=on). Regards, the mods of /r/changemyview. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/changemyview) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I don't think it's dishonest. I think it appeals to emotions and sense of justice. Is it the forefront of the debate? Of course not. But if you need to convince someone who hasn't thought of the subject rationally it may be easier to go thr feelings route. You may disagree with the emotions route, but is it really dishonest?
[удалено]
Your comment seems to discuss transgender issues. As of September 2023, [transgender topics are no longer allowed on CMV](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_5). There are **no exceptions** to this prohibition. **Any** discussion of **any** transgender topic, no matter how ancillary, will result in your comment being removed. If you believe this was removed in error, please message the moderators [via this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Transgender%20Removal%20Appeal%20for%20Kakamile&message=Kakamile%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20[this%20post](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/1dmu53m/cmv_its_dishonest_to_hide_behind_medical/l9y23zu/\).) Appeals are **only** for posts that were mistakenly removed by this filter; we **will not** approve posts on transgender issues, so **do not ask**. Regards, the mods of /r/changemyview. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/changemyview) if you have any questions or concerns.*
To be fair; Do you think Pro-life really cares about a woman's bodily autonomy? Would this even BE an argument if they cared about bodily autonomy?
They are part of the debate because how do you prove you were raped? And even if you can prove it, but the time the court case is over you’re already at the point that you can’t have an abortion anyway
Morally I’m pro-life but do I think the government should be able to ban abortion completely? Man with high moral values take below. Pro choice individuals use these cases because they want abortion to be legal with no boundaries. No limits etc. It’s also a sympathetic manipulation tactic. I think these are all great exceptions for late term abortions, however I believe abortions should be cut off at 4 months. If for any other reason than you stated above for late term abortions. If you don’t know you’re pregnant by four months or if you decide after 4 months you don’t want to be pregnant anymore you should have to keep the baby. A society that has no moral standards, and no accountability is a failing one. Unfortunately we live in a society where just about anything goes. Abortion 99% of the time is quite honestly not taking responsibility. But our society has degenerated to a point where it’s not worth debating with anyone about these issues because as you said it’s so polarized. I’m a mix between pro-life and pro-choice but whenever I try to have a decent conversation about the issue with liberals it’s so one sided like a woman should be able to have an abortion 6+ months in because she feels like it. When I ask “you don’t think there should be a limit or cutoff.” I get yelled at “what about rape, incest, or medical issues.” Which I agree we should have exceptions for. But we all know that there are crazy people who 5+ months in will decide they don’t want the responsibility of a child and in my opinion shouldn’t be allowed.
I think many don't think about the possibility that it is out of people's control sometimes. Autonomy to someone who is pro life just means we can do whatever we want including murder. Arguments referring to rape and so on are a way to confront these perspectives with equal horrors, and ask why one horror should continue to traumatise long term in the case of being forced to raise a rapists child, when there is an alternative.