Consent, on a legal basis, must be informed, continuous, explicit, and revocable. This applies to medical decisions, bodily autonomy, sexual acts, and anything else that requires a person's consent.

The Rape, Abuse & Incest National Network (RAINN) defines consent as: "a mutual agreement that must always be clear, voluntary, and communicated without pressure, manipulation, or fear."
https://rainn.org/share-the-facts/consent-101-respect-boundaries-and-building-trust/

Cornell Law School defines consent as: "a person voluntarily and willfully agrees in response to another person's proposition."

Columbia Health Institute defines consent as: "permission for something to happen or an agreement to do something."
https://www.health.columbia.edu/content/consent

The Merriam-Webster dictionary defines consent as: to give assent or approval : agree

Consent can typically only be "implied" in any legal basis if a person is suspected of or convicted of a crime. For example, all 50 states in the US have laws forcing you to submit to alcohol and drug testing if you are suspected of DUI/DWI. Most countries in the world have similar variations of this legislation. If you are not suspected of or convicted of a crime, there is no legal basis I can find that justifies revoking or limiting a person's basic human rights.

So, given that having sex and getting pregnant are not crimes, and given these precedencies and definitions for consent, how exactly does consenting to sex imply irrevocable consent to gestate against one's will?

If one were to attempt to make having sex without the intention to procreate a crime in order to justify implying consent to gestate, how exactly would that be enforced?

Would we have to force semi-permanent sterilization onto people who are not actively seeking to reproduce, and only allow reversal if one can prove they are ready and fit to be parents (keeping in mind that these procedures are not always reversible)?

Would the risk of permanently sterilizing a significant portion of the child-bearing population be worth negating all future voluntary abortions?

As we all know, the claimed motivations of people on both sides of this debate are frequently called into question, and opposing allegations are just as frequently and fervently rejected.

PLers claim that they are motivated by wanting to protect innocent life and equal rights for all human beings – whereas PCers see in their arguments and rhetoric and actions an entitlement to women and their bodies, an excuse to control them and take away their rights.

PCers claim that they are motivated by wanting to protect the right of women and girls to their own bodies and to make the healthcare choices that they see as best for them – whereas PLers see in their arguments and rhetoric and actions a dehumanization of human beings, an excuse to take away their right to life and unjustly kill them.

Now, the thing is, that while we cannot directly prove our claimed motivations or disprove the allegations of others, no such convictions as claimed or alleged exist in a vacuum, if they are genuine and sincerely held beliefs. We expect them to be part of a broader mindset of values that informs similar beliefs and the actions based on them.

Thus, my question is, what evidence do people on either side have to bring forth for the claim that your motivations – individually and as a common cause – are genuine and informed by such a broader mindset?

What other societal and political positions, what actions and activism do your values inform, that would make it seem plausible that you are at the very least debating in good faith here, even if we might not agree, instead of using abortion as a pretense for furthering some alleged hidden agenda that doesn't match your claimed motives?

(And should your claimed motives or those of your cause or the alleged motives you suspect of the other side be anything other than what is broadly outlined above, then let us know in advance, so that we're not fruitlessly debating claims and allegations that nobody made.)

Now before I begin, I don't support anything in this hypothetical because I'm pro CHOICE, as in everyone should make their own medical choices.

My question is for pro lifers. What if society decided that raising children and instilling a pro life ideology onto them is abusive, so to avoid that potential abuse of a child anyone who is pro life and gets pregnant is FORCED to abort. It's either abort or 25+ years in jail (saw a pro lifer mention this number as a punishment for people who abort earlier so I figure it's reasonable) and the baby is immediately taken once born in jail and given to a pro choice family.

If we use the logic I see pro lifers using, obviously pro life people still have the "choice" to just not get pregnant. If they have sex, they obviously consent to a future abortion since everyone would know the law of "No pro life pregnancies carried to term".

What does everyone think? Obviously I think this is monstrous, since I don't support people forcing anything unwanted onto anyone, but for people that support forcing things onto other people surely this would be okay, right?

The only way to place moral value to something is if you can relate to it. And the only way to relate to something is if you both have the experience. We care about dogs: when it gets sad, we care, because we remember when we where sad and know how it feels like. Relating to something helps us understand/recognize the importance of someone else's experience.

I struggle with relating to a zygote because it has no subjective experience, it doesn't have "what it feels like to be that thing." So, how do you relate (in a morally relevant way) to fetuses?

Seeing another post where a woman supposedly had an abortion, which in PL eyes meant she murdered a child. Naturally, I would expect the same treatment we have for murderers. Heck, we saw how much open disdain they had for Lindsay Clancy.

Unsurprisingly, it was immediate forgiveness and water under the bridge since they said abortion was wrong. If thats the attitude PL have towards abortion, can we reach a compromise where abortion is legal if the woman says it was wrong or she repents?

Do some pro life people promote rape pregnancies thus a part of rape culture?

Lilia Rose once stated: "Your rights end when someone else's begin". So my right to life, right to vote ends just because of a fertilized egg?

I see pro lifers claiming they "defer to medical professionals" or that healthcare should be handled by medical professionals.

In the US medical professionals overwhelmingly support safe legal abortion access.

So which is it? Do pro lifers trust the expertise of medical professionals or not?

In the town of Procreath, there is an IVF clinic housing several freezers containing fertilised eggs. Unfortunately, following a severe flood, a power outage has caused the eggs to begin thawing. They must be implanted into a uterus within 48 hours, or they will no longer be viable.

Procreath is a predominantly pro-life town, where the belief that life begins at conception is widely held. With little time for lengthy discussions, the mayor comes up with an emergency plan: healthy women between the ages of 25 and 34 will be randomly selected and asked to report to the clinic. Those found medically compatible will be expected to carry one of the fertilised eggs to term.

The mayor has no legal authority to compel women to participate, so compliance remains technically voluntary. Naturally, these women will be compensated by the town for any loss of earnings during their pregnancies.

The decision has sparked heated debate across the town. Some women have already made it clear that they would rather leave the town than carry a randomly allocated pregnancy to term, while others have reluctantly accepted their assigned responsibility. Meanwhile, groups of older men and women, who are not themselves eligible for selection, have taken to the streets to insist that younger women have a moral duty to give these fertilised eggs a chance at life.

The questions:

1. You are a woman living in Procreath. You have been randomly selected and found medically compatible to carry one of the fertilised eggs. You are free to refuse, but you know that doing so will mean the embryo will not survive. What do you do?

2. You are a citizen of the town who is not selected/eligible. The recent events trigger a series of referendums related to medical emergencies. One of these propose a law making bi-yearly blood donations legally mandatory for all citizens who can medically donate. What is your vote?

So there has been a lot of talk about the upcoming execution of the terrorist who killed other military members. I don't want to debate that or the appropriateness if live streaming it

But I just stumbled on a post where one of the victim who was pregnant some of her last words were "My Baby, My Baby" a pro choice person replied.

"It was unborn. It wasn't a baby. It was a fetus"

I found this disgusting. Pregnant women who want their pregnancy and want a baby often call the unborn fetus/baby a baby. Its why we don't call them "fetus showers"

This is part just a vent but also a question.

Do pro choice people here think that this kind of thing does damage to the pro choice movement? It also makes you think if the baby is stillborn would they tell that woman "it wasn't alive it wasn't a baby"

I really get upset at pro choice people who, other than in places like this, say things like this especially to or about a real woman. A real pregnancy that was lost. Maybe I'm sensitive as I've lost pregnancies myself but this doesn't seem to be a good look

I used to be a pro life Democrat, although I have been told I was always pro choice because I never wanted abortion illegal but rather wanted resources devoted to women who would keep the pregnancy if they had help, real help, for a long time. But if I had experienced people like that when I started coming around to "sometimes abortion is the best choice" I'd have probably taken longer to become where I am now "safe, legal and rare" (and by rare I mean rarely needed)

Many things are natural but it doesnt matter if it continues or not. Naturalness doesnt change if its bad or good. In my opinion the pro life arguments that i can entertain even if i dont agree is the possible issues of morality when it comes to abortion. Not whether its natural or not.

It doesnt matter if left to continue there would be a birth. Its not a good enough reason to say why it ought to continie

Greetings everyone!

Welcome to 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 or ideas, 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.

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!

Im curious what would happen if a, there was no welfare.

I suppose before 1800s we had no welfare... But, abortion wasnt encouraged.

Im curious if, and i know thats an almost impossible scenario as the world seems to push for more babies, but if abortion was encouraged and welfare was cut, would people have kids only when ready?

Like say we lived in a society where abortion wasnt shamed?

I have a lot of PL people say that they are okay with abortion when the pregnant person’s life is in danger if they don’t have an abortion.

So, that suggests to me that the life of the pregnant person is seen as being more important than that of the fetus.

My question is why, if the life of the pregnant person is even slightly more important than that of the fetus, is abortion only okay to prevent imminent death, but no other harm or unforeseeable death?

There is a risk of death for everyone who brings a baby into the world. Even someone without any risk factors can have a catastrophic hemorrhage or amniotic fluid embolism. Anyone can have a spontaneous placental abruption or a ruptured uterus during labour. If a c-section is performed, there are risks of death associated with surgery.

I took on these risks when I decided to bring my children into the world, and I gladly would have done it again. But it was my CHOICE to take the risk.

Why is it ok for someone to risk their life to bring a baby into the world when they don’t WANT to bring a baby into the world? Why is it okay for someone to die in childbirth because a condom broke, or because their birth control failed, or because they made one mistake. Why should any of those things result in DEATH?

And let’s not forget all the other risks of being pregnant/bringing a child into the world, such as: the need for a hysterectomy; permanent damage to the genitals, perineum, or even to the rectum or anus; internal or external scarring; pregnancy loss; child loss; having to place a child for adoption; having a child removed by social services; needing to staying in a violent or dangerous relationship; being forced to have continued contact with an abuser because they are the child’s other parent; etc. The list could go on for days.

So, which is it? Is the fetus’ life the most important one, in which case, abortions should never be allowed in ANY situation, or is the life of the pregnant person most important, in which case they should be allowed to make the decision whether or not to take on the risks of pregnancy, including death, and no other person should have a say in that?

The only ideal exceptions being in cases of 🍇, incest, and when it’s for the life of the mother. A 4th exception can be if it’s discovered to be a severely disabled fetus.

Do pro-lifers not believe in these exceptions?

The pro-choice bodily autonomy argument is that a fetus is physically dependent on the pregnant person, so she can choose to abort because we can't force someone to give up their bodily resources for another.

The standard pro-life counter-argument is that dependency shouldn't matter because babies are still dependent even after they're born. The usual comeback is: Well, should a mom be able to kill a born baby just because it's dependent? Which is obviously absurd. No, you don’t have right to kill your born baby!

However, there is a distinct difference in how they are dependent:
A fetus is uniquely dependent on one specific person (the pregnant person). For example, if she dies, the fetus dies with her.
A born baby is dependent on any human who is willing and able to care for it. For example, if a mother dies after birth, someone else can step in and care for the baby.

Forcing pregnancy is forcing someone to use their own physical body and organs, whereas caring for a born child is about standard caregiving that can be transferred to anyone.

We don’t even use the organs of a DEAD person to save others if they have not agreed to it before they die.

One thing that always leaves me perplexed is when someone has strong opinions on abortion, but their positions they claim led them there are inconsistent.

For PL, I believe them if they say they're anti abortion. If they say they value life or simply being human is enough for human rights, I find those inconsistent. You can take any issue when it comes to the sanctity of life or improving its quality, and PL mostly oppose it.

The one that is jaw dropping, but unfortunately unsurprising, now is watching them cheer on a public execution that will be livestreamed. How can I see that and believe you value life or even a small government? Some say they oppose it but will not change their voting at all, which makes it just virtue signaling. Same when it comes to supporting women and children with government programs.

For PC, I believe them when they say they're pro bodily autonomy. If they say they care about both the woman and the ZEF, I find that inconsistent. I care about the woman, not the ZEF. Theres usually so much disdain for the ZEF, calling it an invader, parasite, or rapist that they believe it is consciously and maliciously attacking the woman.

I also believe its a more left leaning position, which PC usually are, to be more empathetic and wanting to protect the vulnerable. With the abortion debate, I see very little empathy towards others, and some completely not understanding why anyone would care about the ZEF. It seems many would be considered anti natalists.

How important is a consistent worldview to you when it comes to abortion?

To start, I am pro choice, pro abortion and think banning abortion is unconscionable. It’s healthcare and it’s a human right, full stop.

Why is that a doctor in Texas can face a $100,000 fine, decades in prison and loss of their career for performing an abortion, but there are absolutely no consequences for lawmakers when women are found to have died preventable deaths due to anti abortion laws.

I think women should be held to the same standard we hold fetuses. If a lawmaker wants to pass an unconstitutional abortion ban, then the same consequences that apply to a doctor that performs an abortion should apply to them as well when a woman dies. It’s only fair.

Something tells me that if Ken Paxton and others like him were being threatened with hundreds of thousands of dollars and decades in prison for every woman he murders, he wouldn’t be so quick to pass these sweeping bans that leave little regard for human life.

If lawmakers actually had to shoulder the consequences abortion would NEVER be banned.

Many of you are claiming, as a justification for why pregnancies need to be carried to term, that women would be willingly risking possible obligations of "parental care" by consenting to have sex.

But if you seriously want to argue that, a woman's consent actually needs to mean something, in the first place, to be taken seriously and respected by default, without pressure or coercion.

So, here's the deal: You can ban abortion based on this premise, but you'll refrain from attempting this until we have fixed rape culture.

Which means, that we as a society stop teaching boys and men, consciously and unconsciously, that they are entitled to girls and women. To their attention, their affection, their labor, and their bodies.

That women have to be the gatekeepers of sex, because men can't control themselves. That women are expected to take hormonal contraception to protect themselves that alters their very body chemistry and comes with severe side effects like a heightened risk for cancer and thrombosis or mood swings and depression that can even lead to suicide, while men are complaining that protecting women by wearing a condom doesn't feel as good and about woman's decreased libido as a result of taking the pill.

That women's boundaries and rejection are a challenge to overcome, so that having sex is treated as an achievement for men and a concession for women, that heightens a man's social status and lowers a woman's. That women who don't want to have sex with men are prudes while those who don't make enough of an effort to resist are sluts. That a woman's reputation is dependent on their purity and modesty.

That we're making countless daily media references, innuendos, trivializing, euphemisms and jokes that constantly subtly reinforce such believes. That from a young age, we say "boys will be boys" when they're harassing girls, while expecting girls to always be agreeable and considerate.

That women who don't fulfill certain expectations are not to be believed if they report assault or rape. That we care more about preserving the "bright futures" of rapist young men than about the trauma of their victims. That plausible deniability or "whatever you can get away with" is treated as consent. That a woman's safety and comfort is an afterthought instead of the highest priority.

All of this has to go the way of the dodo if we're supposed to even entertain the notion that any kind of responsibility could regularly be derived from a woman's consent.

Which shouldn't be an issue for PLers, as many of you are repeatedly claiming here that you're not coming from a place of entitlement to women's bodies and that you would never want to punish women for sex. That you just want them to take responsibility for the consequences of the actions that they made of their own free will.

And it shouldn't be much of an issue for PCers either, as we don't believe that PLers are serious about this anyway, so should they ever prove us wrong and should we ever actually manage to stop promoting this culture of entitlement, then nobody should actually want to enforce abortion bans anymore, anyway.

So, do we have a deal?

Before yall read this question just know I am kind of unsettled on if life begins at conception or birth because I understand both points but I can explain that if you ask in the comments to clarify

So for those who believe life begins at birth and not conception, what are your stances on the Unborn Victims Of Violence Act?

Now Im asking because is it more of a moral view where assuming the mother was to carry to full term, you may see it is a future life that was taken and therefore should be murder or am I off on my admittedly blind assumption

I know people will say that rape victims being pregnant is still natural or whatever. But it doesn't change that she was unwilling. (For those that do want abortion)

if we lived in a magic world where somehow I was sick and we could just kidnap people and take their blood to heal the sick that would be very terrible

Why shouldn't the person who's blood is being stolen not fight back? It honestly doesn't matter if I or the fetus was innocent.

I can understand pro life about consensual sex even though that's a whole topic. I cannot agree with rape.

The usual arguments I hear is always "because we don't kill innocent babies etc"

Fine. Tell me why we favor robbing people of their choices. If someone dies because they can't live on their own that sucks but shouldn't be illegal because no one should live at the cost of someone's freedom

Would a c section of a fetus at 4 weeks be fine then? You are refusing to continue support for fetus. Not touching their body.

I was having a discussion in real life with a pro lifer. I see that regardless of the outcome, since a rape victim didn't ask to have the fetus in her womb she should have every right to remove it.

This pro lifer was unable to convince me why it ought to be illegal.

So here I am. Open to the challenge if you can change my mind.

To me freedom is paramount. And if one is violating her freedom she has the right to do what she must to whoever is taking her freedom.

What do you think it means to have dignity? Does abortion impose on the dignity of the unborn?

(I’m prochoice)

I'm sure we've all seen people bemoaning about men "not getting a say" in a pregnant person's decision to carry or abort a pregnancy, but how would that actually work in practice?

If a pregnant person wants to abort but the person who impregnated her wants her to give birth, what happens?

If a pregnant person wants to give birth but the person who impregnated her wants her to abort, what happens?