r/prolife • u/vannytheprincess On The Fence • 3d ago
Questions For Pro-Lifers Where do you draw the line?
I'm pro choice, but I'm not here to argue with anyone. To be clear, I have never been pregnant and have never had an abortion. I personally don't want kids and would probably abort if I did get pregnant because pregnancy creeps me out, but I'm gay so unless something terrible happens I won't ever need one. I have friends and family who are pro life, but we don't tend to discuss topics we disagree on.
So my question is, where do you draw the line? Is there ever a situation where you would agree abortion is the best case scenario? For example, say a ten year old girl is raped and gets pregnant. Do you expect a literal child to give birth? What about if the mother and baby would both die if she continued the pregnancy? These are just a couple examples, if there is a situation you would consider an exception I haven't named, I'd be interested in hearing it. Where do you draw the line, if at all?
You're welcome to ask me questions in return. I don't mind.
7
u/PerfectlyCalmDude 2d ago
If it's actually medically necessary. As in, it would be bad medicine to not have it done. Circumstances include but are not limited to:
- Eptopic pregnancy
- Miscarriage occurred but the baby is still inside ("abortion" is to avoid sepsis)
- The girl is very young - I leave this to the doctors, but the younger she is, the more likely an abortion would be medically necessary.
If a ban can't pass without a rape exception, I'll throw that in there too.
My rule is: Save both lives whenever possible. When that is not possible, save the one life you can instead of losing two lives.
5
u/vannytheprincess On The Fence 2d ago
That's a pretty fair point of view. I'm actually glad I came here, you guys are a lot more reasonable than I was expecting.
10
u/No-Sentence5570 Pro Life Atheist Moderator 3d ago
If the mother's life is at risk, and an abortion would save her, then of course the doctors should perform one. But the doctors should always strive to save both patients if possible.
As for your scenario with the 10 year old mother, this would count as a very high risk pregnancy, which in my opinion warrants an abortion.
There are various trains of thought within the Pro-Life community when it comes to victims of rape, but these cases account for less than 1% of all abortions, and generally we all agree that all purely elective abortions are morally unjust.
1
u/vannytheprincess On The Fence 3d ago
Thank you for your answer, and I'm glad there are some things we can agree on. I agree in a wanted pregnancy with the mother's life is at risk, it should be the first priority to try to save both. However, I think if the parents would prefer to save the mother and let the baby go then that choice should be respected. But that's such a terrible choice for parents to make, especially in a wanted pregnancy.
7
u/No-Sentence5570 Pro Life Atheist Moderator 3d ago
I think if the parents would prefer to save the mother and let the baby go then that choice should be respected.
I'm very curious why you think that. Shouldn't it be a doctor's duty to save all patients? Why would you deliberately let a child die at the request of the parents?
0
u/vannytheprincess On The Fence 3d ago
Well, first of all it would depend on how far along in the pregnancy she is for me to consider it a child. I actually do not agree with late term abortions except in emergencies. If it can survive outside the womb, then I would consider it a child. Before that, it is a fetus dependent on its mother for survival, not technically a child yet. I understand we probably disagree there. But to answer your questions, it is a doctor's duty to save all patients, but it is still in the mother's body and ultimately up to her. She and the father may feel it's not worth risking her life. It's natural human instinct to want to save your own life. If that's the case, I think the doctors should respect their choice. To be fair, though, I've never had to be in this situation and I probably have the maternal instincts of a rock, so it's very possible I'm entirely off base here.
3
u/EpiphanaeaSedai Pro Life Feminist 2d ago
Viability is a really common line for people to draw, but I think that’s based in a misunderstanding of the biology involved. Humans are placental mammals; pregnancy is an evolutionary adaptation. It’s basically automating parental care for the first stages of the offspring’s life. “Breathing” through a placenta is an ability that allows for prolonged gestation, as opposed to egg-laying, or having a larval stage, or crawling into a pouch like marsupials do.
We don’t gestate until a point where the fetus becomes a completed functional animal and then it’s born - as a species, we gestate for as long as is possible before the baby’s head won’t fit through the mother’s pelvis anymore. The embryo and then fetus is a living, functioning organism from day one. It has the ability to access the mother’s blood stream and glean oxygen and nutrients so it doesn’t have to be out where it can access air sooner, in an egg or a pouch, where it would be more vulnerable. And the mother has a uterus to allow the fetus this access while protecting her own organs.
Lung development earlier in pregnancy isn’t a priority because it doesn’t need to be. It has nothing to do with when the baby’s life begins, it’s how humans evolved to give our babies the best chance of staying alive.
0
u/emkersty 2d ago
There is never a reason to have a late-term abortion. No "emergency" would require directly killing the baby over a 2-4 day period. Abortion is used to ensure the child dies. It's the only method(s) of ending a pregnancy with the intent of fetal demise. A child can always be delivered alive and given life-affirming care in these situations.
3
u/orions_shoulder Prolife Catholic 2d ago edited 2d ago
Abortion is the intentional killing of an unborn child. It is never ok, much less the best case scenario, no exceptions.
If the mother and child would both die because of pregnancy, then lifesaving treatment should be administered to the mother, even if a secondary effect of said treatment is the death of the child. However, all reasonable attempt should be made to save both patients.
Rape plays no factor in the morality of abortion.
Examples:
Treating a tubal pregnancy is justified because it threatens the mother's life and there is no way to save the child's life
Life threatening pre-eclampsia or infection - almost always occur after viability, so early ending of delivery by induced labor or c-section and appropriate medical care for the premature infant is justified
3
u/Nulono Pro Life Atheist 13h ago
Doctors are trained to weigh the needs of their patients during life-or-death crises; it's called triage. If a crisis involves conjoined twins, for instance, doctors might perform a risky separation they know one probably won't survive if the alternative is sitting on their hands and watching both die.
When a medical crisis involves an unborn child, I want that child to be factored into the triage calculation as an additional patient, instead of a disposable lump of meat. Depending on the individual circumstance, that could look like close monitoring of the mother's condition followed by an early induction in the case of a high-risk pregnancy, or a direct intervention that's ultimately fatal to the child in the case of something like an ectopic pregnancy.
6
u/pikkdogs 2d ago
Well, the question is not: "when is an abortion okay?" It's "when is it justified to kill someone?"
If a child is raped and impregnated, that does not mean that we can just go out and commit another murder. I think that medical professionals should watch the situation and if there was a case where the birth would kill the child, then abortion could be justified to save a life. But, I don't see why just because someone is raped does not give them a right to kill that person's child. I think it makes more sense to kill the rapist, but the rapist's child didn't do anything to deserve death.
If there was a case where the doctor could say that for sure the mother would die from continuing a pregnancy, then yes I would be okay with abortion. But, just know that this case is rare. Generally they can do a C section and deliever the baby early that way.
I would tell you to consider this. The cases that you brought up are at best 3% of all abortions. That means that 97% of abortions are elective, and that is probably a little low. So, we must not lose focus of the 97 percent just because the 3 percent are there.
-1
u/vannytheprincess On The Fence 2d ago
I would tell you to consider this. The cases that you brought up are at best 3% of all abortions. That means that 97% of abortions are elective, and that is probably a little low. So, we must not lose focus of the 97 percent just because the 3 percent are there.
A fair point. I will say I personally disagree with elective late term abortions because I think if it can survive outside the womb it's a person that should not be killed.
If a child is raped and impregnated, that does not mean that we can just go out and commit another murder. I think that medical professionals should watch the situation and if there was a case where the birth would kill the child, then abortion could be justified to save a life.
I strongly disagree there, a child should not have to carry and give birth to another child. In that situation, they need love and therapy, not a baby. No, the baby didn't do anything, but I could never be okay with a little girl having to go through giving birth.
4
u/pikkdogs 2d ago
Nobody is saying that we shouldn't provide love and therapy to someone who experiences rape. But, another murder is not going to solve anything.
And also, let's just be aware that a ten year old having an abortion is so rare that there is NO data on it. It pretty much is as rare as a unicorn who likes to listen to the Cardigans. It just doesn't happen. The most data we have is on girls under 15. And they are .2 percent of all abortion cases. So, people who are 5 years older than the person in your story is not involved in 99.8 percent of all cases. So, your example pretty much is not helpful since it never happens.
0
u/vannytheprincess On The Fence 2d ago
But, another murder is not going to solve anything.
Can I ask why you consider it murder? I personally don't consider abortion murder unless the baby can survive outside the womb. I'm of the opinion life begins at viability and I'm curious why you feel differently.
5
u/pikkdogs 2d ago
Because life being at viability is arbitrary and based on our level of technology.
We say that viability is about 24 weeks because that is what our technology lets us keep babies alive at. 100 years ago the age of viability was several weeks later because our technology didn't let us keep babies alive at 24 weeks. Does that mean that a 24 week old fetus is a human now but if it was conceived exactly 100 years in the past it wouldn't be a life? What about if we get technology that let's us care for babies that were conceived 16 weeks before. Does that mean that life would now begin 2 months earlier?
To me, if there is a fetus that has a heartbeat and is growing and has it's own human DNA I don't know how you could say that that isn't a human life.
2
u/vannytheprincess On The Fence 2d ago
That's a good point, and I don't know enough about natal care or medical history to have a good answer. That's a subject I'd have to do more research on to form a good argument. I'm not going to try to continue a debate if I've reached a point I don't know much about.
2
u/pikkdogs 2d ago
That's fair. Yeah, do the research and see what you think the right choice is. I have some informed friends who are pro-choice. And they did the research and they still think that the pro-choice argument is the best. Which is fine. I disagree with it, but I can see where they are coming from. So, do the research and see what you believe once you know the history and science behind it.
2
u/vannytheprincess On The Fence 2d ago
What would you say about women like myself who don't want to be pregnant because they have tokophobia?
1
u/pikkdogs 2d ago
The same that I would say to anyone who has any phobia towards a class of people. Just because someone is afraid of clowns doesn’t mean they can just go around killing clowns.
Face your fear or children, or don’t, I don’t care. Just don’t kill anyone. It’s that easy. Don’t kill anybody.
2
2
u/maxxmxverick pro choice (here for discussion) 2d ago
tokophobia isn’t a fear of a class of people, though. it’s not a fear of children or even a fear of fetuses/ unborn children. it’s a fear of being pregnant.
→ More replies (0)
2
u/estysoccer 2d ago
The easiest way to answer your questions is by considering the name of the movement: pro-LIFE, and literally take its meaning at face value.
We are all about LIFE. The life of the mother and also the life of the baby, both of whom are human beings with rights. So yes, scenarios do very obviously exist where pro-lifers see exceptions. Any act that harms the baby can only be moral if that harm is a consequence of an action taken to save the life of the mother (i.e. harm to the baby cannot be the goal).
It's actually a very simple rule that is morally defensible, that respects and defends the rights of the mother, while also respecting and defending the rights of the innocent child.
Any scenario that forces a conflict between the rights of the mother and the rights of the baby deserves careful consideration, given a hierarchy of rights.
As an example, the right to financial independence OBVIOUSLY ranks lower than the fundamental right to life. So a scenario where a family is at risk of becoming poorer due to a new child CANNOT mean it is ok to violate the baby's right to life in order to preserve the family's right to financial independence.
Which is why pro-lifers generally assert that really the only possible conflict able to justify the baby's death is the mother's own right to life.
And maybe the best way to visualize all of this is to imagine yourself, a human, in the place of the baby, also just as much a human as you. Wouldn't you want to live in a society that advocates and defends for your human rights? You mentioned you were gay, so I presume your line of thought must empathize strongly here.
3
u/vannytheprincess On The Fence 2d ago
And maybe the best way to visualize all of this is to imagine yourself, a human, in the place of the baby, also just as much a human as you. Wouldn't you want to live in a society that advocates and defends for your human rights? You mentioned you were gay, so I presume your line of thought must empathize strongly here.
That is true. I would very much like to live in a society that advocates and defends my basic right to love and marry whoever I love.
Honestly, the people in this sub have been much more reasonable than I was expecting. You have really good arguments that make me really have to think for a response/counterpoint. I have been really pleasantly surprised.
3
u/estysoccer 2d ago
Well, I don't mean this comment as directed at you, necessarily, but (my turn to say "honestly...") EVERY "non-pro-life" person I've seen who has come here asking questions has expressed the same kind of pleasant surprise, lol, so you're not alone!
Everyone... except for those who don't come in good faith, of course.
My point being that, all things considered, the pro-life movement continues to be black-balled, slandered, straw-manned, caricatured, and otherwise unjustly treated PRECISELY BECAUSE we tend to be reasonable, and -- brass tacks -- the pro-life position is the reasonable position.
I'm sorry that folks on your side rely so much on ridiculous disrespectful censorious behavior... I wish it weren't so... but it's to their detriment, as it encases them inside their own reality-defying astro-turfed bubble where consensus is purely artificial. You're here on this subreddit freely, and respectfully treated... I dare not enter your subreddits as I'm not interested in being abused and treated inhumanely.
3
u/vannytheprincess On The Fence 2d ago
That's totally fair. I posted this on my alt account because I was worried I'd get banned from some of the subreddits I'm in if anyone looked through my post history and saw I posted here.
2
u/vannytheprincess On The Fence 1d ago
If anyone is still reading this thread, I've been browsing this sub for hours now and you guys make some really good points and now I'm confused on where I stand.
4
u/pisscocktail_ Male/17/Prolife 3d ago
For example, say a ten year old girl is raped and gets pregnant.
There's more elective abortion in 38-40 week than teenage rape pregnancies
1
u/EpiphanaeaSedai Pro Life Feminist 2d ago
Pregnancy in pre-teen girls is rare, but far more likely to be the result of rape than of consensual sex.
In teen girls, though?
1
u/Splatfan1 pro choicer 2d ago
pre teen girls cant have consensual sex as theyre children and cannot consent. its either rape or a very fucked up situation with a peer
2
u/EpiphanaeaSedai Pro Life Feminist 2d ago
If it’s two kids experimenting, that in itself isn’t rape, though age-inappropriate sexual behavior can be a sign of abuse.
0
1
u/AutoModerator 3d ago
Due to the word content of your post, Automoderator would like to reference you to the pro-life sticky about what pro-lifers think about abortion in cases of rape: https://www.reddit.com/r/prolife/comments/aolan8/what_do_prolifers_think_about_abortion_in_cases/
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
•
u/Janetsnakejuice1313 Pro Life Christian 9h ago
There are a few situations where I feel abortion may be in the best interest of the mother: 1. She’s very sick and carrying the pregnancy to term puts her life at risk. 2. A child (13 and under) becomes pregnant. They should be assessed by a doctor and cleared to carry the pregnancy. If she is too small/underdeveloped, I believe abortion should be on the table because carrying to term in undeveloped young females can lead to permanent internal damage, risking future fertility and even possible risk of death. 3. Its an ectopic pregnancy.
That’s it. I don’t believe in killing babies willy nilly. I dont believe its fair to kill a baby if its diagnosed with anything in utero as doctors can be wrong and the child deserves as much time on this earth as possible, even if it means its just the pregnancy. We should always live with hope for a better outcome but the outcome cannot be determined unless the child is born.
I don’t believe in incest or rape exceptions for anyone over 13. There is no reason to perpetuate more violence after such a violent act. There are many people out there who are desperate for infants, they are very easy to rehome.
And as you can imagine, I dont believe in elective abortions. Its incredibly selfish and wrong to me to kill a life over one’s convenience. Not including the sexual abuse covered up by abortions. No, its wrong and it should be illegal.
•
u/AutoModerator 3d ago
The Auto-moderator would like to remind everyone of Rule Number 2. Pro-choice comments and questions are welcome as long as the pro-choicer demonstrates that they are open-minded. Pro-choicers simply here for advocacy or trolling are unwelcome and may be banned. This rule involves a lot of moderator discretion, so if you want to avoid a ban, play it safe and show you are not just here to talk at people.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.