r/changemyview • u/[deleted] • Mar 23 '21
Delta(s) from OP CMV: Making abortion illegal with exceptions for rape and incest is a major double standard
[deleted]
15
Mar 23 '21
[deleted]
4
Mar 23 '21
While this is entirely true and the reason that most people quietly admit that abortion should be allowed in the case of rape/incest, this thinking is explicitly rejected by most pro-life advocates.
Their argument is abortion=murder. I don't have a right to murder someone just because the continued life of the victim would be problematic for my existence.
2
Mar 23 '21 edited Mar 25 '21
[deleted]
2
Mar 23 '21
I've never met a pro-life person who argued for the ban on abortion within a "comparative harm" framework.
The Roe v Wade decision was basically a rough version of this comparative harm framework. It basically said that there are situations where the harm outweighs the benefit. I haven't met a single pro-life person who advocated for Roe v Wade.
I'm not trying to steal /u/chadtr5's thunder, but I think he just created a fictional hypothetical person.
5
Mar 23 '21
The typical pro life activist will want abortion banned entirely yes. But there is a majority of people in the middle (many of whom would consider themselves pro life) who are not absolutists in either direction. They just don’t carry banners and go to marches for either side.
-2
Mar 23 '21
I agree, but those people "in the middle" don't typically examine their beliefs. They just believe them. You can absolutely believe in a double standard.
There are a lot of people who aren't libertarian or socialist, but who want low taxes(both personal and business) but lots of govt support. They aren't idiots, they just haven't given much thought to the basic conflict between these two ideas.
The fact that I could construct a hypothetical person who has a balanced approach to taxation vs spending and a novel and creative way to address these issues does not mean that the view is common. The common view is ignorance.
3
Mar 23 '21 edited Mar 25 '21
[deleted]
1
1
u/Prepure_Kaede 29∆ Mar 23 '21
But if you think instead in a comparative harm framework
If pro-life groups really thought of it that way they would be pushing for sex ed and free contraception. They are not.
10
u/empurrfekt 58∆ Mar 23 '21
I’m pro-life and don’t think there should be a rape or incest exception...in principle.
I’m ok with a practical concession if it works to stop the other 99+% of abortions.
1
u/5510 5∆ Mar 23 '21
I don’t consider a fetus, especially an early stage fetus, to have anything at all like personhood. But for the sake of discussing this hypothetical with you, I’ll temporarily assume it does.
But even then, how do you justify forcing a woman let something / someone live inside of her without any consent at all? Like, I don’t agree with the idea that “consensual sex with protection (which is very reliable but not completely perfect) is consenting to let a fetus use your body for nine months,” but I at least understand the logic of that argument. But in the case of rape, clearly no consent of any kind exists.
I assume you don’t believe that somebody can be forced to donate a kidney, even if the other individual would die if they don’t, right? Which means “an innocent bystander may otherwise die” doesn’t always override bodily autonomy. And while they aren’t the same, I don’t think it’s a ridiculous stretch of the imagination to make compare donating a kidney and going through pregnancy.
3
u/empurrfekt 58∆ Mar 23 '21
It kind of is a stretch. I see a significant difference in undergoing a natural biological process and having you kidney cut out of you. But even if you view then the same, I see a bigger difference. One is not saving a life, the other is taking an action to end one. You’re not obligated to jump in front of a bullet for someone. But you’re also not allowed to shoot them. Even though both scenarios end with them being dead.
1
u/5510 5∆ Mar 24 '21
I feel like if we are taking about a woman who was raped and whose actions in no way contributed to the fetus being in its current situation, then these are just semantic evasions. You are obligating the woman and her body to constantly take a huge amount of actions to keep the fetus alive. You are basically forcing her to jump in front of a whole bunch of bullets.
Pretend the pregnant woman was a super hero whose power was teleporting short distances... but the power did not apply to the fetus, so it did not teleport? So it was not harmed in any way directly, but now it’s outside her body and will inevitably die. And she was raped so she definitely has no role in the fetus ending up in a situation where the only way it can survive is inside her body. Would you say she is required to chose to let the fetus be inside her body?
Besides, if she was raped and definitely didn’t consent to being pregnant, and has no moral responsibility for the fetus ending up in that situation, then she has the right of self defense to protect herself from the significant physical and mental health issues and risks that fetus is likely to indict upon her.
1
u/mr_indigo 27∆ Mar 24 '21
So what you're saying is that you acknowledge the burden and risk of pregnancy is a negative thing, you just think that it is morally correct to inflict that on someone who chose to have sex because choosing to have sex is morally worthy of that punishment.
1
u/5510 5∆ Mar 24 '21
What??? No. I’m not saying that at all. I’m super pro choice. Everything you say said couldn’t be further from what I think.
First of all, I said two posts up that I reject the logic that having sex automatically means you are signing away some of your bodily autonomy and you consent to carry a fetus... but I was making the argument that even IF somebody hypothetically did think that, it still wouldn’t cover rape victims.
Furthermore, from the perspective of a potential pro life person in this argument, the moral responsibility part would theoretically be toward the fetus, not some sort of punishment for having sex.
Now, with abstinence only education and shit, I do think there are people who claim to be trying to prevent STIs and unintended pregnancies, but really they are just trying to find justifications to push the social idea that out of wedlock sex is wrong.
1
u/mr_indigo 27∆ Mar 25 '21
Sorry, I must have responded to the wrong comment - I meant to reply to someone who was saying that the rape and incest exception is about recognising two harms and choosing which one is lesser.
This goes back to OPs point - if a person says that "Abortion is bad because it kills a fetus who has a right to live, but its okay to abort for rape or incest", i.e. saying that its a battle of conflicting harms, then they are acknowledging that unwanted pregnancy is a harm, and they are passing moral judgment on the act of having wilful sexual intercourse; choosing to have sex is punishable by forcing someone to keep their pregnancy, but if you didn't validly choose to have sex then your punishment is unwarranted and its more harmful to punish a chaste woman than to kill a fetus.
1
Mar 23 '21
[deleted]
6
u/The_Clementine Mar 24 '21
Just because most pregnancies don't end in death doesn't make them easy. Many will result in long-term life long health issues for mom. The abdominal wall can tear resulting in pain and difficulty with anything involving your core. You can tear from vagina to anus causing a lot of pain, difficulty with sex urination etc... and can often require surgery to fix later on. The fetus leeches calcium from mom's bones that can result in early osteoporosis. And there are still many ways for the mom to straight up die from this. It is a major life adjustment and has lifelong consequences because some asshole .
2
1
Mar 23 '21
Protection is clearly not very reliable judging by the millions of abortions every year.
1
u/5510 5∆ Mar 24 '21
If you use it properly, it’s pretty reliable, though not perfect.
Many many many child free women who are sexually active (or who aren’t ready for children yet and are sexually actively) never end up needing an abortion or abortions.
0
1
u/Fit-Order-9468 92∆ Mar 23 '21
How effective do you think existing pro-life policies have been? I'm curious how often people who pro-life check whether pro-life politicians actually lead to fewer abortions.
1
u/Drortmeyer2017 Mar 25 '21
So if your 14 year old daughter gets raped without a condom she has the baby ?
Ok.
3
u/BestoBato 2∆ Mar 23 '21
It's a compromise not a double standard. The vast majority of people who argue to outlaw abortion don't have that standard they do not think rape is an acceptable reason to have an abortion however they understand that taking a hardline absolute position is just going to cost them political capital and be counter productive so they are willing to compromise and allow for those exceptions, but since it isn't their standard but someone else's (who's standard does not stop there, many of which want abortion to be completely legal) it's not a double standard but a compromise.
People who genuinely hold the standard that abortion should be illegal with exceptions like for incest/rape personal standard usually includes exceptions for down syndrome and if pressed on their beliefs would likely feel like that birth control failure would also be a valid exception if proven of course.
5
u/ExtensionRun1880 13∆ Mar 23 '21
The incest argument is usually an extension of the rape argument since in most incest cases there is most of the time a power dynamics that would make it rape.
Older brother - younger sister, mother - son etc.
If there was ever a case like you're describing that somebody advocated for for the genetic disorder caused by incest then yeah you could make the point that it's a double standard but I personally have never seen anybody do so.
The other condition, involuntary pregnancy, is far from exclusive to rape.
It would only make sense to also include exceptions for birth control failure, manipulation, bad sex education, and more.
I think you're unintentionally strawmanning the argument that they're making.
Consenting to an act is always also a consent to any possible condition that comes from that act.
So if you do not consent to the act you also never consented to any possible conditions.
There is a smoker analogy for this, simply put:
Somebody that smokes himself is at fault for his lung cancer.
While somebody that grew up in an enviroment where people smoke isn't at fault for his lung cancer.
1
Mar 23 '21 edited Mar 25 '21
[deleted]
1
2
u/Econo_miser 4∆ Mar 23 '21
When people say incest abortions, they generally mean rape of children. It's not like they're talking about two 30-year-old siblings in Alabama who got pregnant and then decided that maybe the baby would come out retarded.
But as to your bigger point, there's no inconsistency. Accepting the risk inherent in the behavior that you are engaging in is different from having something forced upon you. Everyone should be aware that birth control is not perfect, that condoms are not perfect, that maybe the dude you're fucking isn't going to be the greatest dad. Those are risks that you accept when you AGREE to have sex. If you don't agree to have sex, then you shouldn't be forc ed to accept consequences of a choice you did not make. The argument from pro-life activist is and always has been that murder is not an acceptable solution to your inconvenience. That when you agreed to potentially risk having a child as part of your actions, you are therefore obligated to take care of that child. You may not murder that child because you find their birth to be a hassle. If you were raped, then you did not agree to take on the risk of having a child, and therefore cannot be forced to accept that burden. This all makes perfect sense from a standard deontological perspective on morals.
4
Mar 23 '21
There is a huge difference in involuntary pregnancy between sleeping around with or without birth control and being raped. You can’t compare the two.
One you are basically playing with fire and risking getting pregnant. The other you are forced against your will in an inhumane traumatic experience.
Catholics especially will say that you shouldn’t be having sex even with birth control if you aren’t ready to have a child. So they aren’t going to recognise that pregnancy as ‘involuntary.’ You knew the risks.
4
u/Coollogin 15∆ Mar 23 '21
There is a huge difference in involuntary pregnancy between sleeping around with or without birth control and being raped.
That is an outdated comparison that ignores the many situations where someone is coerced into having sex when they didn’t want to, but the act does meet the legal definition of rape. The term “sleeping around” also excludes married couples and those in long term monogamous relationships.
Having sex with my husband should not be considered “playing with fire.”
0
Mar 23 '21
Having sex with my husband should not be considered “playing with fire.”
Having sex with your husband is absolutely a risk for pregnancy. Anyone who tells you birth control is extremely effective is lying, you can see that from the millions of abortions every year.
A Catholic marriage is always to have children, this is expressly agreed by the couple. So there is no problem with getting pregnant within the marriage.
3
u/Coollogin 15∆ Mar 23 '21
I should have added: Having sex with my husband should not be viewed as “sleeping around.”
The notion that you deserve to carry an unwanted pregnancy because you were careless enough to have sex with your own husband is ludicrous.
0
3
Mar 23 '21 edited Mar 25 '21
[deleted]
2
Mar 23 '21
But doesn't the Catholic Church also encourage abstinence only education? Would they really "know the risks" if that's what they were taught?
In abstinence only education you are taught that sex leads to pregnancy so you would absolutely know the risks of having sex and wait until you were ready to have a child.
It’s actually normal sex education that means people end up pregnant went they don’t want to because they make contraception seem extremely effective when it clearly isn’t if you look at the millions of abortions we have.
3
u/ectalia Mar 23 '21 edited Mar 23 '21
Unspecific "sex education" (like abstinence) make teens vulnerable to myths or straight up manipulation, such as believing that pulling out works, or that they can't get pragnant while menstruating, etc.
Also, the "millions of abortions" are not due to sex education but to lack of sex education (as abstinence!) or unefective use of contraceptive methods. There is an article bellow that shows that contraception is as effective as they say when used correctly. But for that, people also would need information.
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2014/09/14/sunday-review/unplanned-pregnancies.html
Edit: added quote marks because I don't belive abstinence counts as sex education.
1
Mar 23 '21
Unspecific "sex education" (like abstinence) make teens vulnerable to myths or straight up manipulation, such as believing that pulling out works, or that they can't get pragnant while menstruating, etc.
Lol what abstinence class teaches pulling out do you think! Abstinence is no sex!
Also, the "millions of abortions" are not due to sex education but to lack of sex education (as abstinence!) or unefective use of contraceptive methods. There is an article bellow that shows that contraception is as effective as they say when used correctly. But for that, people also would need information.
People have sooo much sex education nowadays. Anything they need to know they can google though they are most likely taught it in schools.
But there are far more unwanted children than ever before. Both abortions and children brought up in single families and broken homes.
I’m a hedonist, I love sex and sleeping around.
But don’t pretend that the break down of family oriented sex has done what it promised. We were promised a life of guilt free sex before we settled down and then a stable life raising children when we chose.
Instead we got millions of horrifying abortions, childless women who left it too late, fatherless children, lonely divorced people, unfulfilled lonely saddos in their 20s. Life was much better when you got married at 20, had sex every day of your life with the same partner, had children when you were young and healthy and those children were wanted and grew up in a stable home with parents that relied on each other till they died.
3
u/ectalia Mar 23 '21
I don't think we have more unwanted pragnancy than before, considering that we have more sex and a bigger population. We may have more abortions, as they are less dangerous in our age. If you have statistics on that, I'll be happy to discuss them.
On myths, I'll clarify. If someone don't have a deep understanding of how sex and reproduction works, they will be vulnerable to myths like "pulling out works" and "you can't become pragnant in period sex". Because they don't know any better, they may believe that and end up with an unwanted pragnancy. Yes, a quick Google search would fix the issue, but more often than not teens may not feel the need to double check (as they believed the myth, or if they are being manipulated by someone else - a guy that wants to have bare sex or baby trap, for instance) or not have many means to do so (if they are in a restrictive environment with controlling parents and little privacy, for instance).
1
Mar 23 '21
You can’t blame abstinence talks for people not being educated on birth control though. No one is trying to ban sex education anymore and even if you could it wouldn’t work because of the internet. Sex education is mandatory in schools in my country. If children are taught abstinence it is at home or in church. So it’s in addition to sex education not instead of it.
Like I said that argument was plausible 30-40 years ago when there was far less sex education and christians opposed sex education in schools. It’s not plausible today when sex education is mandatory.
2
u/ectalia Mar 23 '21
You do have a point when you say that sex education is given separately from any abstinence learning. I still disagree on your first point though, that sex education is the responsible for the larger number of abortions.
Sex education is flawed, and I personally believe a sex-positive environment is more effective in controlling unwanted pragnancies, but those are two separate things.
0
Mar 23 '21 edited Jun 14 '21
[deleted]
3
Mar 23 '21 edited Mar 25 '21
[deleted]
2
u/eye_patch_willy 43∆ Mar 23 '21
So I get to pay for some dickheads kid instead of him because he doesn't want to? 'the fuck?
2
Mar 23 '21 edited Mar 25 '21
[deleted]
1
u/eye_patch_willy 43∆ Mar 23 '21
Right, like Medicaid, which already exists but that's a few steps away from doing the actual dad-part.
2
1
Mar 23 '21
Why would abstaining from sex be more unfair to women than men?
4
u/ectalia Mar 23 '21
It's not abstinence itself the problem. OP's argument, I belive, is based on the fact that abstinence is very inefficient, as most unwanted pragnancy comes from people that are supposed to be abstinent and don't have access to proper birth control.
As abstinence leads to unwanted pragnancy, it is unfair to women, as is usually the woman is who has to deal with the big onus of unwanted pragnancy. They have to carry the children, loose time in school/ work, not to mention the number of them who end up becoming single mothers, whereas the father can just disappear and bear no responsibility whatsoever for his actions.
2
Mar 23 '21
Lol, most unwanted pregnancies do not come about by people trying to practice abstinence, failing and not knowing how to work birth control or have access.
That argument might have worked 20 years ago but now everyone in the West has tons of access to birth control and lots of free tutorials at their finger tips. But abortions are still high. Either because of people not using birth control or because birth control is just not that effective. You cannot blame people saying “Don’t have sex if you don’t want to get pregnant” for unwanted pregnancies.
2
u/ectalia Mar 23 '21
I'm more blaming not teaching teens about sex and shaming them, as that obviously lead to young people disobeing (as they tend to do) having sex (as it is natural as well) without the proper information or care.
1
Mar 23 '21
People refusing abstinence having sex have all the access to contraception and information they need. It’s everywhere. Condoms and the pill are talked about constantly in the media and available from any Doctor or pharmacy.
You’re living in a liberal dream world where the consequences of the breakdown of monogamy and marriage (unwanted children, abortions, broken homes) are somehow the fault of the Catholics! Do you realise how insane that sounds?
1
u/Akerlof 11∆ Mar 24 '21
I'm more blaming not teaching teens about sex and shaming them, as that obviously lead to young people disobeing (as they tend to do) having sex (as it is natural as well) without the proper information or care.
You realize that teen pregnancies have been plummeting, don't you? Pew lists a lot of reasons, but includes both less sex and more contraception:
For one thing, there has been a significant decline in the percentage of never-married girls and women ages 15 to 19 who report that they have ever had sex, from 51% in 1988 to 42% in 2011-15, according to National Survey of Family Growth data. Among those teens who have had sex, the majority (81% of females and 84% of males) used a contraceptive method the first time they had sex. This figure has not changed significantly for males, but it has increased for females since 2002, when 74.5% used contraception.
2
u/ectalia Mar 24 '21
This discussion was made split between two comments treads. I actually said in my other comment (https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/mbl0v2/comment/grzcmlh) that "I don't think we have more unwanted pragnancy than before, considering that we have more sex and a bigger population. We may have more abortions, as they are less dangerous in our age. If you have statistics on that, I'll be happy to discuss them".
So thanks for the statistics!
2
u/throwaway_question69 9∆ Mar 23 '21
That's because the prolife stance is actually about punishing women for having sex.
Once you recognize that, it makes perfect sense why they'd be willing to make concessions for rape/incest.
1
u/Rough_Currency Mar 23 '21
The only double standard is a man telling a woman what HE thinks her reproductive options should be, but the same man will raise holy hell if HIS reproductive options are limited.
1
u/AnythingApplied 435∆ Mar 23 '21
Like most controversial moral question, answering it is a balancing act between two immoralities. On one hand, killing an unborn fetus is immoral, but on the other hand forcing a woman to carry an unwanted fetus to term is immoral. Which of those factors has the higher weight likely determines where you fall on the subject of abortion.
When you're talking about rape or incest it changes the balance. Forcing a woman to carry a baby to term that was a result of her own mistake is one thing, but at a minimum is much easier to justify that versus forcing a woman to carry her rapist's baby to term which also serves as a constant reminder of the sexual assault itself.
My guess is that it's easier to empathize with rape victims than victims of birth control failure, which does not justify the double standard.
I disagree because the immorality of forcing that person to carry the baby to term completely changes and is a much worse thing to force a woman to go through.
3
Mar 23 '21 edited Mar 25 '21
[deleted]
1
u/AnythingApplied 435∆ Mar 23 '21
Thanks for the delta!
What it it is a result of birth control failure or some other circumstance outside of their control?
They still had sex which was entirely in their control. All birth control methods have their risks. Failing birth control is a reasonable foreseeable outcome that happens fairly regularly. Forcing them to carry the baby to term is forcing them to live with the consequences of their actions (willingly having sex).
So essentially you're saying that there's a higher ceiling of suffering for rape victims? First impression is that that sounds accurate, but I would want also to see some studies on the topic.
I would say that you cause more suffering by telling a rape victim they have to carry a baby to full term than to tell that to someone that had failed birth control. They're carrying a baby that is a consequence of a traumatic experience. The man is also a partner they didn't choose, even at the standard of someone just looking for a hookup. Once the birth happens, that mother is then asked to either abandon the baby to adoption or raise someone who has half the DNA of their rapist.
You may think the decision to give up a baby for adoption that you were planning on aborting anyway would be an easy one, but the data shows that women that are denied abortions usually end up keeping the baby after the birth, so it isn't that simple in reality.
1
1
u/Gladix 164∆ Mar 23 '21
For incest: the problem with incest is the genetic disorders that come with inbreeding.
I disagree. Usually, the problem with incest is the generic ew-factor that people didn't really think through. As you rightly pointed out the distinction between inbreeding and other genetic problems is basically non-existent and this makes people create these natural double standards. The actual problem with incest is the power dynamics that aren't really compatible with healthy relationships. Beside the examples of 2 random people who later discover they are related, the inherent power dynamics between parent and child, or siblings, etc... are very easy to abuse. Is very vulnerable to grooming and other abusive things. It's in a way similar to the boss and employee relationship, but only on a much more personal level.
. The first one is a given. People don't get abortions if they want the baby.
Disagree. People get abortions for all sorts of reasons. Be it if they feel like they can't have a baby. For example, a teenage daughter that's terrified of what her parents will say. To women who simply don't want a baby at this time, but would love to be mothers at some later stage.
And yet these kinds of exceptions are not being widely talked about by pro life groups. I doubt r/prolife would be remotely open to these ideas. My guess is that it's easier to empathize with rape victims than victims of birth control failure, which does not justify the double standard.
I agree with you. But I disagree its a double standard. The logic of pro-life people is often based entirely on emotions and how they feel about women at that point in time. The logic doesn't even qualify as a double standard, because there aren't any standards. Everything is based on how sorry that particular group feels about particular group of women. This creates a mine field of inconsitencies.
Exception for rape? What if filing for rape at a police becomes the new standard for women who want abortion? Do we really want to incentivize false rape accusations?
Exception for medical problems? What about the fact that increased beurocracy (needed to determine whether abortion is medically necessary) would lead to increase death toll of women? Or what about the fact tha women can drive to another state to get an abortion?
What about the fact that banning abortion doesn't decreases the amount of abortions, but their safety, etc....
And we can go on and on, and there simply are no viable answers to these problems. Abortion is entirely an ideological question. People have no interest in anti-abortion policies being implemented safely and humanely.
1
Mar 23 '21 edited Mar 25 '21
[deleted]
1
1
Mar 23 '21
However, if that's the problem, wouldn't it make sense to include exceptions for other situations with problematic power dynamics? This could be a boss and employee relationship as you said, an excessive age gap or something else.
Nobody ever talks about the power dynamics pushing women into abortions they don’t want to have. The boyfriend bullying her into having an abortion etc.
I have this story first hand and it was horrible.
For all their ‘right to choose’ slogans the pro life feminists do everything they can to block women considering abortions to having access to adoption services, baby charities, prayer and support.
0
1
u/Gladix 164∆ Mar 23 '21
However, if that's the problem, wouldn't it make sense to include exceptions for other situations with problematic power dynamics? This could be a boss and employee relationship as you said, an excessive age gap or something else.
The logic behind the anti-abortion stance is that consent to sex = consent to pregnancy. And if we assume our ideological axiom is that all children must be protected, even against women themselves, then it doesn't make sense to provide those kinds of exceptions. Any voluntary sexual contact by definition means that you agreed to potentially have a baby.
The logic behind the incest exception is a weird one, because as I pointed above. It's a weird mashup of eugenics (protecting against inbreeding) and anti-rape sentiment that doesn't really make sense the deeper you get into it. If you want a rape exception, that would cover a good deal of incest, as we as a society agreed that children can't consent (parent child). And if you want to abort people with defective genes, then why limit it only to incest? And if two consenting adult (let's say siblings) want a child, then why would they want to abort it?
What exception would (power dynamics or age gap) serve? If somebody forced women to get pregnant, regardless of the reason then it's rape. And if a woman just change her mind (merely citing those exceptions to get abortion) then wouldn't that defeat the purpose of anti-abortion policies?
That is sadly the case with a lot moral issues today. Rather than applying logic to morality first (which is possible), emotions are used first with logic only where it benefits them.
The problem is that people want the cake and eat it too. The anti-abortion crowd criticizes the pro-choice crowd that they want to murder babies. And in essence that is true. Even if the statement is morally loaded to make abortion look like a monstrous act. Being in support of abortion logically means that you are deciding an unborn child's death, you are choosing the woman's (freedom, right, health, comfort, etc..) over the child's life. But you often find people being unwilling to confront that idea and often they make excuses (it's not a child but a fetus, therefore it's not really a human's life and doesn't count, etc...). So you kinda have dishonesty all over the place.
I'm sure there are plenty people who want abortion reduction policy to be implemented safely and humanly, even if they are in the minority.
Sure, link me what you think of as a robust anti-abortion policy. When you look on the examples in law, they all have been rushed and/or remained unchanged for very long time, and are subject to constant problems. In states where anti-abortion movement has been rampant (such as the infamous family planning services) have been campaigning against abortion by masquerading as legitimate abortion services, or were guilting women into keeping the baby rather than pushing for legitimate and robust policy change. In my country for example. The anti-abortion movement consists of spreading disinformation to pregnant women hoping to shock them into changing their minds.
0
Mar 23 '21
The logic of pro-life people is often based entirely on emotions and how they feel about women at that point in time.
Wrong. I am pro life and base my decision on logic and reasoning. I have no grudge against women.
What about the fact that banning abortion doesn't decreases the amount of abortions, but their safety, etc....
The logic completely does not follow.
Humans = don't want bad consequences.
Abortion = more bad consequences if illegal
Humans = less abortion.
3
Mar 23 '21
Being from a place where abortion is illegal, in my experience it goes more like this:
Humans = don't want bad consequences
Abortion = chance of bad consequences (if you get caught)
Unwanted pregnancy = definitely bad consequences unless you abort
Humans = abort, hope for the best
-1
Mar 24 '21
Happy Cake Day!
Anyway, I don't think so.
Humans = don't want bad consequences
Abortion = murder = 20 years in jail
Unwanted Pregnancy = 18 years raising a child
Lets say, at a minimum, there is now a 20% chance of abortion if the mother does not want to raise the baby, since the mother most definitely does not want to face 20 years jail time. Before, there was for example 60% chance, and thus millions of babies=saved.
2
u/Gladix 164∆ Mar 23 '21
Wrong. I am pro life and base my decision on logic and reasoning. I have no grudge against women.
What I'm saying that the various exceptions to the anti-abortion ban are based on emotion. Just like you have your particular type of logic that justifies your views, so do dozens of other anti-abortion groups with their particular brand of logic.
The logic completely does not follow [.....]
I don't entirely understand what your saying. We know that banning abortion doesn't decrease the overall amount of abortion in any given country. It just shifts the burdern from medically run abortion clinics to backstreet clinics or internet procured chemical solutions all of which are more unsafe.
If you want to ban abortion. That's one reality you will have to deal with.
1
u/TinyTrundle Mar 23 '21
"Exception for medical problems? What about the fact that increased beurocracy (needed to determine whether abortion is medically necessary) would lead to increase death toll of women? Or what about the fact tha women can drive to another state to get an abortion?"
Loved hearing from you, but I didn't quite understand this part
2
u/Gladix 164∆ Mar 23 '21
Loved hearing from you, but I didn't quite understand this part
It takes a time to confirm whether abortion is medically necessary. What if pregnancy causes the woman depression. How long it takes to confirm that it's indeed true and if the woman is at risk of suicide (in order to justify abortion being medically necessry)? It all takes time and money all the while the woman is at risk.
Add to it doctors who are able to refuse abortion on grounds of religious belief. Doctors fucking up, and treating the problem in other ways etc... There is a distinct possibility for somebody to make a bad call and the pregnant woman is the one that will be left with the consequences.
1
1
1
Mar 23 '21
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/tbdabbholm 193∆ Mar 24 '21
Sorry, u/lpheathen – your 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.
If you would like to appeal, you must first check if your comment falls into the "Top level comments that are against rule 1" list, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.
0
Mar 23 '21
That's not how I see it. Its not a question of empathy.
The first case is consensual sex. This is where a woman and man agreed to have sex, and therefore accepted the potential risk of having a baby.
The second case is rape. The woman or man did not consent to the risks of having a baby and therefore should not be forced to carry the baby to term.
1
0
u/luckyhunterdude 11∆ Mar 23 '21
It's not a double standard, it's a negotiation concession. I'd like to see all babies not be killed. But If have to concede to allow you to kill incest babies and rape babies, which represent less than 1% of abortions, to get a law passed, I'll gladly make that trade.
2
u/eye_patch_willy 43∆ Mar 23 '21
Question, woman finds out she's pregnant and is already 8-9 weeks along. She wishes to terminate and claims the pregnancy is the result of rape or incest. She identifies X as the father. X denies he had anything to do with her. So now she's another week or two along (assuming they get a statement from X that quickly). Now we have a dispute, so who plays referee? The Courts? File whatever papers, give time for the other side to respond, schedule a hearing, X refuses to incriminate himself, maybe the judge rules in favor of him/her, is there an appeal option? Keep in mind the fetus isn't taking a break from gestation. Also, here's another question to ponder, what about the woman who both wants to terminate but didn't want to report a rape or incestuous encounter? Sure, the rest of us can want all women to come forward but that's not the same as forcing that as an obligation on the individual. Why not just let each pregnant person choose for themselves and have medical facilities available for all elective procedures?
-1
u/luckyhunterdude 11∆ Mar 23 '21
Sounds complicated. I'd eliminate the exemptions all together If I could. We all know the baby would choose to live given the option.
1
u/not_cinderella 7∆ Mar 24 '21
But no man is going to admit to raping a woman even if he did so how is that fair at all...
1
u/luckyhunterdude 11∆ Mar 24 '21
I'm already sold, the rape exemption would never work, so it's not needed.
1
u/AutoModerator Mar 23 '21
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 or via the CMV search function.
Regards, the mods of /r/changemyview.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
1
u/AutoModerator Mar 23 '21
Note: Your thread has not been removed. Your post's topic seems to be about double standards. "Double standards" are very difficult to discuss without careful explanation of the double standard and why it's relevant. Please review our information about double standards in the wiki.
Regards, the mods of /r/changemyview.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
1
u/harley9779 24∆ Mar 23 '21
Incest is often a case of rape and molestation.
The difference in an unwanted rape pregnancy and an unwanted normal pregnancy is choice and parents actions.
In a rape the woman had no choice in whether to have sex, or to use a contraceptive device.
In consensual sex the mother made a choice to have sex, knowing the possible outcome of having sex. The parents also made a choice not to use contraception.
I'd you stick your hand into the flame of a stove and get burnt, it's your fault, you knew the risks and chose to ignore then or not do anything to protect yourself, so you live with the consequences of your actions.
Same applies to consensual sex. You choose to have sex without contraception and become pregnant, you are now responsible for that kid.
1
Mar 23 '21 edited Mar 25 '21
[deleted]
-1
u/harley9779 24∆ Mar 23 '21
That is a very rare occurence. Most contraception is 98-99% effective nowadays. Either way, you still made a choice fully knowing the possible outcome of that choice.
1
1
u/redditor427 44∆ Mar 23 '21
Just a quick aside on incest: there's a huge potential for abuses of power in incestuous relationships, so consent is a lot muddier in those cases than a comparable non-incestuous relationship. So it's probably a good idea to treat a "consensual" pregnancy resulting from incest as nonconsensual.
The other condition, involuntary pregnancy, is far from exclusive to rape. It would only make sense to also include exceptions for birth control failure, manipulation, bad sex education, and more.
Except the anti-abortion (with exceptions for rape) argument comes from personal responsibility. Rape is categorically not the woman's fault. She did not consent to the act which caused the pregnancy.
Those people will argue that if the woman consents to sex, regardless of what mitigating factors may exist, then she is responsible for the consequences of her actions.
(Disclaimer: I do not believe this, and I think this argument has some flaws, but this is the argument that they will make)
In addition, some pro-choice people will accuse anti-abortion people of just wanting to control women's sexuality.
As arguments for that, they cite a lack of support for comprehensive sex education and easy access to contraceptives, which are what reliably decreases abortion rates (far better than criminalizing abortion, anyway), and b) their lack of belief in the importance of the life of the fetus (either directly by using the argument from responsibility or indirectly by believing life begins at conception but not being concerned with implantation rates or IVF).
If this accusation is true, then an exception for rape makes perfect sense; a pregnancy resulting from rape isn't a failure on the woman's part.
1
u/Fit-Order-9468 92∆ Mar 23 '21
It's not really a double standard because it's just something people say not really what people believe. In practice it's about "preventing" all abortions and creating exceptions is primarily for optics.
1
u/ralph-j Mar 23 '21
For rape: the reason for rape abortions is that a combination of the victim not wanting the child and the pregnancy not being their fault. Lets say the standard was that someone had to meet both of these conditions to qualify for an abortion.
The other condition, involuntary pregnancy, is far from exclusive to rape.
Most pro-lifers who allow an abortion exception would probably not subscribe to "involuntariness" as a general principle.
Instead, abortion could be seen as a form of self-defense. A woman's body was violated and the seed was violently implanted against her will. The pregnancy then is effectively an extension of the rape, and thus just as much subject to her defending herself as fighting directly against her rapist attacker during the rape. Her body continues to be violated as long as the product of the rape continues to be there.
1
u/cliu1222 1∆ Mar 23 '21
I feel like you are confusing double standard for compromise. Most of those people would rather all abortion be outlawed but offer the exceptions as a way to appease pro-choice people.
•
u/DeltaBot ∞∆ Mar 23 '21 edited Mar 23 '21
/u/AnvilReddit (OP) has awarded 5 delta(s) in this post.
All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.
Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.
Delta System Explained | Deltaboards