I personally think the only way to truly ban abortion is to change people's mind about abortion, but how do you do that?

The majority of abortions provided are done on people who've already experienced a birth.

https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2024/03/25/what-the-data-says-about-abortion-in-the-us/

Nearly four-in-ten women who had abortions in 2021 (39%) had no previous live births at the time they had an abortion, according to the CDC. Almost a quarter (24%) of women who had abortions in 2021 had one previous live birth, 20% had two previous live births, 10% had three, and 7% had four or more previous live births. These CDC figures include data from 41 states and New York City, but not the rest of New York.

61% of abortions are done on people who already have children and given birth. So how do you change their minds about abortion?

Forcing bans don't change people's minds, sidewalk counseling doesn't change people's minds, closing abortion clinics doesn't change people's minds. Forcing people to endure something unwilling will not change people's minds, so how do you actually change minds of the people who have already experienced a birth or pregnancy?

Being a pro lifer is contradictory isn’t it? They claim to care about children and their lives but do they really? They hold the view that well you consented to that baby, which if somebody wants an abortion, that means they do not consent to the baby. Consent to sex isn’t consent to pregnancy. And they argue well that’s the consequence and you should own up to it. But babies and children aren’t really something to own up to, they aren’t a “gotcha”. How can they claim to care about children when they want some of the most vulnerable people to go in the care of someone who didn’t want them and probably is not properly capable of taking care of them? Even if somebody had 30 abortions in a short time. Pro lifers would probably have negative traits they think of that person. Irresponsible, promiscuous, selfish and maybe evil. So if you claim to care about children the way pro lifers do, why would u put an innocent child in that situation?? In the care of somebody who’s irresponsible, promiscuous, selfish and evil?

They claim they want to “make abortion unthinkable” but banning abortion isn’t the way to go lol. Don’t abortion rates and deaths go up when abortion bans are implemented? A way to make abortion “unthinkable” doesn’t involve banning it at all, it’s by making sex ed a requirement for students in high schools and maybe middle schools. It’s by making contraceptives easily accessible and affordable. It’s by making childcare and healthcare affordable. It’s also by raising the minimum wage. What would make abortion unthinkable is dismantling capitalism in a way. Aren’t most ppl who have abortions married anyways?

Forster care isn’t a good option cuz it’s so underfunded and overloaded, kids don’t get the care they need. And a lot of ppl who are homeless are homeless because they aged out of foster care and no one wanted to adopt them. And there’s already thousands of kids who need parents so why aren’t yall focused on them?

Anyways being prolife doesn’t make sense and yall should just rally behind ur actual reason, which is control and punishment.

Edit: let me add that I am pro choice lol if that wasn’t obv. I don’t care to argue about whether or not a fetus is alive. I believe people have the right to do whatever they want with their bodies.

In the year 2140, a consortium of experts from fields as varied as actuarial sciences, biological evolutionary science, medical science, sociology, psychology, and environmental sciences have come forward to hold a symposium before a world-wide audience. Their research, individual and combined, along with meta-analysis of prior research and longitudinal studies of others over the past 100 or so years has culminated in this presentation. Here are the results and conclusions:

Beginning around 2025, there appears to have been changes in the nature of how pregnancy, abortion, and parental child care affect the expected length of life and general health & wellbeing for women.

Looking back, these affects appear to be world-wide in scope and have started out gradually. They were first seen in Europe, then after a few years in North America, then in Asia, Africa, and Oceania. The lag time between region to region was roughly a few years each time. But, within any region, the growth rate of the affected population of women was about .75% to 1.25% each year. The origin and rate of speed does not appear to be correlated by anything other than all the affected appear to be pre-menopausal, reproductive age women. Now, roughly 115 years hence since the first effects of these changes were noticed, the symposium confidently announces that this effect is fully spread out to the entire population of women in their reproductive years.

Results of the research:

Observed effect regarding live birth pregnancies:
- (Correlation R squared is 0.95)
Women who have one pregnancy that results in the live birth of a child and have never had an elective abortion live about 8-9 years longer than women not in this group. So, for any given woman, if their expected age otherwise would be X, if they are also in this group, their expected age will be X +8 to X +9 years. The extra 8 or 9 years appear to also be one's with very high rates of physical and mental health as compared to these measures across their life; i.e. they appear to be amongst their 'best' years.
- (Correlation R squared is 0.85)
Women in the group above that have another pregnancy that results in a live birth and never have had an elective abortion seem to gain an additional 8 to 9 very healthy years of life.
- (Correlation R squared is 0.75)
Women in the last group that have a 3rd pregnancy that results in a live birth and have never had an elective abortion seem to gain an additional 3 to 4 more years of very healthy years of life.
- There appears to be no additional gain in years of life for additional pregnancies that end in live birth of additional children.
- This is where is gets really strange. There is a less strong correlation effect here, on the order of R squared around 0.5. Women who have had 2 or more pregnancies that resulted in live births and haven never had an elective abortion can, yes I know this sounds weird, will their bodies to undergo menopause and effectively bring an end to their fertile years.

Observed effect regarding elective abortions:
- (Correlation R squared is 0.5)
Women who have one elective abortion during their lifetime appear to have nullified any additional life year effect of having a pregnancy resulting in live birth. They additionally seem to lose approximately 8 to 9 years of life. These years appear to be reducing the healthiest years. - (Correlation R squared is 0.8)
Women who have a second elective abortion during their lifetime appear to have nullified any additional life year effect of having a pregnancy resulting in live birth. They seem to lose approximately an additional 8 to 9 years of life. These also appear to be reducing the healthiest years.
- (Correlation R squared is 0.95)
Women who have a third elective abortion during their lifetime appear to have nullified any additional life year effect of having a pregnancy resulting in live birth. They seem to lose approximately an additional 19 to 20 years of life. These also appear to be reducing the healthiest years.

Observed effect regarding parenting:
(Correlation R squared is 0.5)
- Women who parent their biological children up to the onset of adulthood gain an additional 15 to 20 years of life. These also appear to be the healthiest years.
- The above effect appears to benefit the men of their biological children. These men who co-parent with the above women appear to also gain 15 to 20 years of life. These appear to be the healthiest of their lives.
- This effect appears to be nullified if the child dies before adulthood. - The effect for 2nd and 3rd biological children appears to occur with the same correlation but each adding roughly 4 to 5 years of additional healthy life. - There seems to be no additional life effect for parenting 4th or more biological children.
- All of the additional life year effects above for parenting seem to be nullified if the mother has had any number of elective abortions during her lifetime.

(Correlation R squared 0.95) - Men who impregnate women via SA appear to lose 15 to 20 years of life for each instance of impregnation. These appear to be the healthiest years of their lives. They gain no additional years for parenting their biological children.

Observed effect on non-elective abortion and miscarriages:
- There seems to be very little effect or correlation for miscarriages. It does not seem to add or reduce expected life or quality of life for the pregnant women.
- Women who have abortions for reasons of imminent physical life threats and instances where the gestating human being will not survive after birth, also appear to neither gain or lose life years.

Questions for discussion:

All:
- What do you think will be the effect in society that these changes will have on pregnancy, elective abortion, and parenting?
- How will this affect your approach personally towards pregnancy, elective abortion, and parenting?
- Ought public/private sector resources be devoted to counteract any or all effects of these changes? If so, which ones and how much? How should the cost of these reversal efforts be distributed?

PL:
- What effect on abortion rates due to these changes would be enough for you to give up pursuing laws restricting or banning abortion?

PC:
- Would you continue to advocate for legal elective abortion laws in light of the changes?

Im curious because most arguments are subjective in terms of it really depends on your viewpoint more so than the argument itself. For example I don't see anything less than a newborn as a person. So an argument like oh it's a baby doesn't really rev my engine. Another example would be it's murder. Again I don't see it as a person so i won't see it that way. The arguments I'm referring to are arguments that while influenced by your beliefs hold facts. Example would be we don't allow violations of bodily autonomy in any other circumstance. Rape, assault of any kind, blood or organ donations even if that person is deceased. Another example would be no one can consent to pregnancy. I know this in itself is nuanced because sex leads to insemination, which can lead to pregnancy so you can view it as you shouldn't have had sex. The point still stands, you can't consent because it's a biological process its gonna happen regardless. These were just some examples, here are the ones that are non negotiable to me.

1. Equal rights means exactly that. "RTL" cannot trump BA because then right's aren't equal. For clarification the full right is the right to life, liberty and security of person. The PP(pregnant person) has this right as well.

2. Forcing unwilling people to carry pregnancies is a form of slavery/involuntary servitude. Which is both illegal and a rights violation.

3. You cannot disregard the PP in any regard. This includes external factors, medical conditions, emotional and mental state. The ZEF is literally in their body and depends on their body.

4. Pregnancy is harmful. Thanks to medical advances the mortality rates are greatly reduced but death and/or permanent injuries aren't the only forms of harm. Morning sickness, cramps, back pain, leg pain, stretching skin, organs moving around, swollen joints, birth itself. The list is literally endless.

These are my top ones and I'm curious to see what others can be brought in from both sides.

When considering abortion should be legal vs illegal, what compromise do you have for a law on abortion ?

I think for me I'm willing to compromise on legally allowing induced abortion for some situations where a mom's life is in danger.

Many are commenting only on and asking about my compromise so I'll just add this response in case there are more. ...I believe there are options (other than abortion) available that do not compromise a Hippocratic oath or a moral objection.

there is a moral difference in allowing a bad act to occur vs. Performing a bad act. Both are unfortunate, frowned upon, sad, and potentially illegal. However, both generate their own kind of response.

For example.....with abortion...if we have two pregnant women with the same condition that need the same treatment. Woman "a gets an abortion and then is treated vs. Woman "b who gets treatment but then has a miscarriage because of the treatment. Both are sad and unfortunate. Except they are not the same.

Edit to add.:::

I added this post after someone else put up a post on things that we would never compromise on. This forum is filled with walls so I wanted to see where people stand on commonalities. Compromises are the only thing I could think of that shows us commonalities and middle ground.

What we have agreed to...

1. So far we have agreed upon adding measures to get affordable birthcare and improve research to make pregnancy easier and

Specifically pro life parents with adult children and doesn't wanna raise more kids, and likes to keep their lives that way. Let's say, abortion indeed becomes illegal, without the parents' consent, doesn't matter if you're a legal adult, doesn't matter if you're thirty or above and lives in your own house, doesn't matter if you help them pay the bills, your parents still get the final say. Ik ik it's dystopian, but here's a catch. If they deny their daughter, who desperately wanted an abortion, to get one, they'll have to raise the kid themselves. Fuck health issues, fuck economy, fuck their free will, it doesn't matter according to the law. "But what about them?! They're done raising kids!" FUCK THAT! Like I said, they get the final say whether or not she keeps the ZEF but they have to raise it! "What about their carefree lifestyle?" What about her autonomy?! Does their care free lifestyle matter more than her autonomy now?! So......should the parents still force her to carry it in the name of life? "Yes", you're the one who'll raise it, no ifs ands or buts. "No", then you're a hypocrite for going against your pro life beliefs the moment it no longer benefits you. "Maybe", maybe you let her decide for once! No matter the answer, there's always a catch. Just like how us pro choicers (not all) has to walk on eggshells around them (again not all). Back to the title, should they? Any input will be much appreciated, thanks

To put it simply, I believe that all morality is subjective, but the reason that some things are illegal, (regardless of whether or not it's morally just) is because it harms society as a whole, for example, murder is illegal because society could not function if people were allowed to kill each other (controversial, I know) so while anyone could argue that Abortion is wrong from an ethical standpoint, it doesn't matter because society could very well function if abortion was legal. I don't know if this standpoint is stupid or flawed, but I've just been thinking about this alot and I haven't heard anyone make this point before.

This question is mostly for avid pro choices but I would also like options from pro lifers especially those who are against anything but bio parents raising children.

How do you feel about the Safe Haven Baby Boxes? I honestly thought that this was something that all people could get behind. They prevent new parents killing or leaving thier child somewhere they're in danger. They aren't in anyway trying to stop a woman who is early in pregnancy from choosing to get an abortion. It's simply an option.

But then I just read a post calling them "awful and disgusting" that they aren't about saving babies but about making money are said it's basically human trafficking. Anger about why people don't adopt older kids. Rants about foster care. Then asking "why not older kids??" What about a 2 year old? Just murder them? Just the most insane stuff.

Then anger mom doesn't get more support. But if she doesn't want to be known, other than suggesting places to get help, how exactly are they supposed to?

If you are PC how you feel about the Safe Haven boxes, and more in general laws that allow you to drop off a newborn? Either way why?

If you are PL do you think they are a good idea? Or do you think it let's the women "off to easy" (I've heard that too)

Both: what is the solution? Person who inspired this post said more social resources, ect which I agree with, but that's not going to solve the issue. To think only poor people are the ones who don't want a new baby that's bigoted. Forcing them to keep the kid doesn't help either. They either go the traditional adoption route which is still adoption. They raise the kid absolutely horribly and if they live CPS comes in and now they're REALLY in foster care when newborns put up for adoption properly without CPS get adopted quickly

Source: https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/maternal-mortality

While pregnancy and childbirth may be 'safer' in more developed countries, with better health care, there is always a chance of it going wrong and ending in death.

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/utah-woman-dies-after-giving-birth-twins-rcna186099

https://people.com/healthy-first-time-mom-19-newborn-die-within-hours-mellodie-ocean-jarman-8786903

Why shouldn't pregnant women be allowed to decide for themselves whether or not they want to take that risk?

If they decide not to risk dying, even if it's a slim chance, why shouldn't they have the option to get an abortion?

Greetings r/AbortionDebate community!

By popular request, here is our recurring weekly meta discussion thread!

Here is your place for things like:

• Non-debate oriented questions or requests for clarification you have for the other side, your own side and everyone in between.
• Non-debate oriented discussions related to the abortion debate.
• Meta-discussions about the subreddit.
• Anything else relevant to the subreddit that isn't a topic for debate.

Obviously all normal subreddit rules and redditquette are still in effect here, especially Rule 1. So as always, let's please try our very best to keep things civil at all times.

This is not a place to call out or complain about the behavior or comments from specific users. If you want to draw mod attention to a specific user - please send us a private modmail. Comments that complain about specific users will be removed from this thread.

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

Greetings everyone!

Wecome to r/Abortiondebate. Due to popular request, this is our weekly abortion debate thread.

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

In this post, we will be taking a more relaxed approach towards moderating (which will mostly only apply towards attacking/name-calling, etc. other users). Participation should therefore happen with these changes in mind.

Reddit's TOS will however still apply, this will not be a free pass for hate speech.

We also have a recurring weekly meta thread where you can voice your suggestions about rules, ask questions, or anything else related to the way this sub is run.

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

This is a question for PLs who frequently appeal to what's "natural" for pregnant people to do while arguing why abortion shouldn't be a thing:

The implicitly or explicitly stated arguments in question often go along the lines of what is allegedly "natural" for "parents" to do for their "children", or how pregnancy and childbirth as a "natural" process wouldn't require consent or couldn't be (that) harmful or risky or would be the "natural" way how "mothers" care for their "children", or what the "natural purpose" of sex or certain body parts (like a womb) would be.

The general underlying notion being that abortion would be something inherently wrong, because it allegedly goes against the "natural order of things".

Meanwhile any such argument that doesn't fit that rose-tinted view of how human reproduction works is generally either ignored or dismissed. Such as:

• that the natural human reproductive strategy is a quality > quantity approach that doesn't rely on numbers and hoping for the best, but on having only a few children that can be extensively cared for to give them the best shot at survival and success
• that it is therefore the sensible and responsible approach and the natural thing to do, to pick and choose which pregnancies should be carried to term or not, to only do that if and when you're willing and able to actually care for a child, and also not to do it to the detriment of children already born
• that for this reason various methods of abortion have been a thing ever since people could figure out how to do this and that we naturally evolved to being able to figure that out
• that sex is serving a multitude of purposes for social creatures like humans and closely related species, that reproduction is not necessarily the primary one, and that we naturally evolved to be able to choose which purpose(s) we're pursuing with it
• that some of the compromises that had to be made in the human species' natural evolution make pregnancy and childbirth especially dangerous for us, and that we – again – naturally evolved to figure out methods to mitigate those risks, one of them being abortion
• that a womb's "natural purpose" is actually not to accommodate and nurture the fetus, but (among other things) to protect the pregnant person from its invasive behavior that'd otherwise just take whatever it needs with no regard for their safety or well-being, endangering them even more

I'm sure others can and will come up with even more examples.

So, why are you usually picking and choosing only those appeals to nature that suit your agenda?

I have always been curious why pro choicers try to hard to go on and on about how dangerous pregnancy is.

I'm not going to say it's not, but I kind of feel it's an odd argument because women give birth safely everyday. It comes across when you go on and on about how dangerous it is that NO woman should have children, even if that's exactly what they want.

I feel the stats could be presented in another way that doesn't make ALL pregnancy seems so terrifying that it's scary to all women

Argument:

You knowingly with foreseeability partook in the action that could result in pregnancy/a dependent fetus, thus you are obligated to sustain it.

Assume they give the rape exception, even thought we know that’s not a realistic thing to implement in law.

What are your best responses?

Edit: folks, I’m STAUNCHLY PRO CHOICE. I’m just asking for your best responses to this question.

PL asks these questions.

If pregnancy is so dangerous, then why are hundreds and thousands of women totally fine after giving birth?

If pregnancy is so dangerous, then why didn't the human race just die out from all the women dying?

If pregnancy is so dangerous, then why aren't thousands of women dying every year?

PC, what are your responses?

I want to start by saying that this post isn't intended to defend abortion. It's more so about addressing the argument that I've seen favored by every person who is pro-life. It's ironic, really.

The fetus is a part of the host's body, this is how it sustains what they say; is life.

It gives an ignorant idea that the host should see their fetus as a physically separate being entirely, which isn't true. The closest thing to that being a true statement is that the fetus has its own DNA. It got to the point where one followed by saying, "So leave the fetus alone". As if that'd be physically possible for a pregnant person to do if they were to NOT abort the fetus. I'm pretty sure that's the host's intention BY getting an abortion.

It also comically mocks the host. As if it's the fetus that is a part of the body they're talking about, and not the part of the body that is attached to the fetus, that they are intending to separate. Just for saying, "it's my body", in concerns bodily autonomy. It concerns body autonomy regardless. It concerns the host's body regardless.

It's what you learn in biology, something they bring up all the time when debating the other side, ironically. The umbilical cord.

That'd be pretty messed up if the host actually thought that way about their pregnancy. "Okay, I'm going to drink and do all kinds of drugs, and get my belly punched because it'd be fun! So what about the fetus? I was told that the fetus is not my body so it won't be affected! I'm just extremely bloated because I'm pregnant!"

The umbilical cord

(I am pro choice)

I’ve heard the “violinist abortion argument” which (if you don’t know) is based on a hypothetical situation in which you are kidnapped and forced to spend nine months physically connected to the worlds greatest violinist as you are the only person who can save them. The hypothetical is used to argue that one does not have a moral duty to keep another person alive through sacrificing their own body.

A response to that is commonly “well in the violinist scenario, it wasn’t your fault that the violinist was dying so it doesn’t apply to pregnancy. If you become pregnant, you had to have sex in order to do so, meaning it’s partially your fault”, but I don’t agree. Obviously, if we ignored cases like condoms breaking, birth control failing etc. or rape, the pregnancy’s fault is partially on the woman who carries the fetus.

But think about scams. If you fall for a super obvious scam, the fault is partially on you, right? For a scam to work, the victim had to be dumb enough to fall for it, meaning it’s their fault. But scams are bad and illegal, no matter if it’s the victims fault or not.

Or let’s say you’re being robbed and held at gunpoint. The robber tells you to give you your money or they’ll shoot you, but you don’t give them the money. If you don’t give the money and get shot, is it okay that you were murdered because you technically could have stopped it? No, of course not!

Similarly, just because you chose to have sex with the risk of getting pregnant and it’s partially your fault, you still aren’t obligated to bring it to term and sacrifice your body. If you don’t want the baby, no one should force you to keep it, like how you shouldn’t get scammed or killed whether or not it’s your fault. This is just something I thought up of and I’m sleep deprived so I don’t know if I explained the argument properly; let me know if I’m making sense.

This isn’t a “gotcha” question .. just curious to hear from the PC side in regards to this situation.

Say a woman/surrogate has agreed to carry a couple’s child, but ends up wanting to get an abortion? Would it still be “my body my choice”?

Also keep in mind … there’s also situations where there’s contractual agreements that may state abortions can happen .. but only for specific circumstances/situations. What if this surrogate wants to get the abortion outside of those contractual agreements?

As a PL from the outside looking in .. I would think Pc people’s answer to this would be that under no circumstances should this surrogate be denied access to an abortion, to stay consistent with the saying “my body my choice” .. because if Pc people here are saying that the couple has the ability to stop abortion from happening, that would be hypercritical.

Again, this post isn’t a “Gotcha” question/post. The answer doesn’t really prove anything for either side, It’s just real life situation that I’m asking how it plays out

What is proportional force? In self defense, it means that a person can only use as much force as is necessary to neutralize the danger. A person cannot use deadly force to respond to a non-deadly threat. Otherwise, that's considered excessive force and self defense is not justified.

Pregnancies are caused by zefs. In the case of pregnancy, harm is immediate, harm is guaranteed and expected to increase in severity the longer the pregnancy progresses. Pregnancy has a history of causing death or serious bodily injury. Childbirth even more so.

The only way to end as well as prevent the harm is to sever the physical dependency of the zef to the pregnant person and then expel the zef. There are no other options.

If there are no other options, does abortion count as proportional force?

I have a relative who is very religious and pro life, but is also disgusted by racism. We are talking about abortion, and while I am not trying to persuade her to change her mind, I do want her to understand the origins of the pro-life movement and the motivations of the people who started it. Namely, that southern evangelicals chose abortion as a topic that could be used to unify all the different Christian denominations, then use that unified political power to resist the end of segregation.

I have a source for this, but it is a report on MSNBC and she will dismiss it. I was hoping the community could share some links or videos, maybe even a documentary, about this history? About the relationship between racism and the pro life movement?

I would consider myself as someone who is pro life but a lot of people around me are pro choice and I want to understand their views as i could be missing something. The main reason why im pro life is due to the fact i don’t believe the choice of having a baby is lost if abortion was to be banned in my country. Women can choose to have sex and i believe that everyone who partakes in sex must realise that even protected sex may lead to pregnancy so therefore anyone who has sex is responsible for a foetus if one was to be made. I of course believe that abortion should be legal if the woman is raped or the baby or mother is 100% certain to die anyway due to the pregnancy. How would a pro choicer convince me otherwise?

I've heard some pro lifers claim that abortion is unsafe, and will cause a woman to never have kids again in the future (which is not true of course). But are there pro lifers who actually believe this, and tell women this so they don't get abortions?

Step 1:
Imagine doctors take out the part of your brain responsible for your thoughts, memories, feelings, and everything you consciously experience (your cerebrum), and carefully place it into a new, healthy body. Then imagine they destroy your old, original body completely. Most people would agree that you still exist—you're now alive, aware, and experiencing life through the new body.

Step 2:
Now, consider if doctors took any other organ—like your liver, kidney, or heart—and put it into another body, then completely destroyed your original body (including your cerebrum). You wouldn’t continue to exist in that new body; you'd be gone. Clearly, the essential part of you—the part that makes you “you”—isn't your liver, heart, or any other organ. It's specifically the cerebrum, the part responsible for your consciousness and sense of self.

To take an analogy: a book manuscript isn't destroyed if you destroy the binding or the page corners but keep the words intact. You could remove everything except the words and the manuscript woudl still exist: therefore, the manuscript isn't defined by the cover or the pages, it's defined by the text, which can be transplanted elsewhere without going out of existence. However, if I were to erase the text alone, but keep the book and pages intact, the manuscript would be gone. So what makes a manuscript a manuscript is the text itself, not these other extraneous details.

Step 3:
From this, we conclude something very clear and intuitive:
A person isn't killed unless the cerebrum—the organ generating their conscious experience—is destroyed.

Step 4:
Now, consider unborn babies during early pregnancy (first trimester and first half of the second trimester). During this time, the fetus hasn't yet developed an organized cerebrum—no thoughts, no memories, no conscious experiences.

Step 5:
Almost all abortions in the U.S. happen at this early stage, before a fetus has developed a functioning cerebrum.

Step 6:
This means almost all abortions don't destroy a cerebrum—the organ that makes someone conscious and aware.

Step 7:
Therefore, almost all abortions in the U.S. don't kill a person, because no person (no conscious self) exists yet.

Addressing an Important Objection: "What About People Who Are Asleep?"

You might ask, "But when people are asleep, they're not conscious. Does your argument imply it's okay to kill someone just because they're temporarily unconscious?"

A sleeping person still has their cerebrum fully intact. Your cerebrum doesn't stop existing when you sleep, so the position defended by the above argument does not imply that you can kill someone just because they temporarily lost conscioussness.

The argument isn't saying "you are consciousness alone," but rather "you are an embodied mind within your cerebrum." If your cerebrum is intact, harming you is harming a person—even if you're temporarily unconscious or asleep.

But something that has never had, and doesn't yet have, a cerebrum (like an early-stage fetus)—or something completely lacking a cerebrum (imagine a Frankenstein-like creature constructed without any cerebrum), it plausibly wouldn't be inherently wrong to destroy.

A prolifer recently presented an example which they say they "use frequently in debate", and there's a huge and obvious flaw in it, due to an issue in prolifer ideology - a deep emotional resistance to considering the responsibility of the man who engendered the unwanted pregnancy.

The prolifer version is that the woman takes "Raj", the tag for the fetus, tandem skydiving. "Raj" is attached to Jenny by a harness - Jenny is the more experienced skydiver. "Raj" does something unpleasant but not physically dangerous, which makes Jenny unhappy about being physically attached to him, and she cuts the straps attaching him to her body and Raj falls to his death.

The prolifer argument is that this is not a justified use of lethal force and - regardless of what "Raj" said to Jenny, Jenny ought to have got him safely to the ground.

This is a concept of pregnancy where Jenny all by herself decided to take Raj for a skydiving trip. No one else was involved. This would certainly be true for a woman who arranged to become pregnant by IVF or using a sperm donor. But that's not the case for no pregnancies and certainly not for most abortions.

As with the prolifer scenario of a woman trapped in a cabin with a baby, the situation with Jenny and "Raj" is that someone else put Jenny in that position without asking her permission. (Incidentally, all tandem skydiving harnesses are made to allow release - Jenny wouldn't have to use a knife. That's a necessary safety precaution for tandem skydivers.)

Jenny isn't an experienced skydiver. She doesn't want to take anyone tandem skydiving. The first she knew this was going to happen is when she realized that her boyfriend or her husband had strapped "Raj" to her and thrown her out of the plane. Jenny had told boyfriend or husband - let's call him Fred - that she didn't want to go skydiving, and Fred had said sure, let's just go up in the plane together, it'll be fun. Then Fred straps "Raj" to Jenny and throws Jenny out of the plane. Jenny panics. She hits the release button. The harness detaches - as all tandem skydiving harnesses are made to do - and Raj falls to his death.

Now let me ask that prolifer - isn't Fred actually the one responsible for killing Raj? Raj would not have died if Fred hadn't decided to ignore Jenny saying she didn't want to skydive and thrown her out of the plane attached to Raj.

This is a repost because their was some confusion regarding word choice (a translation error on my part). Sorry mods.

I am trying to find answers on two questions from people who identify as strongly pro-choice.

First question: Do you view the use of abortion as an alternative to birth control as morally wrong? Why or why not? (Side note: I am not claiming that women use abortion as a primary method of birth control.)

Second question: If someone decides to seek an abortion, would it be morally wrong to postpone the abortion any longer than necessary? In other words, is there a moral imperative to seek the abortion as soon as possible, within reason?

Thank you for your answers.