If a sovereign nation, such as the US, decides that abortion is a right, why should that have any bearing on anti-abortion Christians? Why can't anti-abortion Christians advocate against it while still respecting the decision of a secular government?

[Lysandre, the Star-Crossed]

Reproductive Rights ARE Personal - YouTube

Abortion laws are getting more draconian by the day, and this woman is standing before the rest of her legislature in defiance of the absolute worst I've ever seen. Start about four minutes in. This is how you filibuster. I'm absolutely in awe of the badassery of this woman's mic drop moment at the end.

[Sarah-Sylvia]

I'm not very well-informed on this and not sure on the context, but just felt like sharing a few thoughts.

 

Anti-Abortionists believe that it's wrong to abort a baby, that it's killing a human life (nipping it in the bud), so they would not respect laws that are pro-choice, because it's still wrong in their eyes.

 

I think there's only so much someone can respect when they believe it's wrong. And this is different from people 'talking' about pro-choice. Out of freedom of speech (and if someone believes in that), they should be able to respect different opinions, but if they get put into law, it's no longer about free speech but an action (that they believe is wrong).

 

 

I think it's respectful to value human life, just like it's respectful to value people's rights when it comes to pregnancy/birthing or not. So I would hope ideally the different sides 'could' respect each other, even if they don't agree with each other on some key things. And decisions should weigh things that are important.

I know it's not quite that smooth, realistically xD.

[nolanv]

On 4/20/2022 at 7:30 PM, Rockblossom said:

Well, obviously they can because they do.  And they can because the First Amendment to the Constitution  protects their rights to free speech and religious belief, just as it should.  And a right to abortion does not force any of them have one.  What they do not have  a right to do is impose that belief on others, because those others  also have a right to religious belief and expression.   

Pretty sure OP is looking for the right to advocate against abortion without anyone criticizing them. Lots of Christians think people disagreeing with them is violating their free speech, or that receiving a retort for their speech is persecution.

[coolshades]

On 4/20/2022 at 6:32 PM, RoseGoesToYale said:

Sorry, I know I've written enough already, but I remembered something. The Christian Bible states that life begins at first breath, when God "breathes your soul" into you. Before that point, an unborn baby is an empty vessel (which explains why so many abortions via providence happened in the Bible). So I have no idea where all the "life begins at conception" stuff came from.

It's from Psalm 139.  It says that God "Knit me together in my mother's womb."   So Christians interpret that as meaning that we were human from the moment we were conceived because God already formed us.

 

That being said, I personally don't use Psalm 139 as my reason for being pro life.  I have believed that life began at conception since I was old enough to understand the issue.  I just can't wrap my head around the idea that an unborn child is just part of the mother and not a distinct person.  I think many Christians feel the same way, and their activism is therefore an attempt to save lives and prevent murders.  They are not going to accept a law that they feel permits murder.  The problem is that some of them take it way too far, blocking access to health facilities, bombing abortion clinics, and killing doctors who perform abortions.  And then they just become hypocrites and make all of us who are pro life look bad.

[Tetus]

On 4/21/2022 at 4:32 PM, uhtred said:

BTW, I've never understood the rape exception for abortion laws.  Anyone who believes a fetus is a person and should be protected, should believe that no matter how the fetus was conceived.  I understand allowing abortion. I understand wanting to ban abortion, but I cannot understand this justification from any moral basis.

First, a thought experiment that I think is more relevant for abortion exceptions than more generally, and we can even modify it a bit to make it fit better:

 

TW (consent, mild body horror):

 

Spoiler

A young person is hit by a car through no fault of their own, and they lose kidney function. You happened to be at the hospital they were admitted to for an unrelated issue. Unable to secure a donor, a doctor anesthetizes you, and performs a procedure that binds you to this person, making your kidneys work for both of you. When you awaken, another doctor explains that it will take 9 months to get a donor kidney, and that while there is a safe way to reverse the procedure, this will result in the death of the other person, but either way, you will have to cover all the medical costs involved.

 

Both you and the person whose life now depends on you are 'innocents', that is, neither of you have done anything to create the current situation. Two questions:

 

1. Are you morally obligated to remain attached to this person until they can get the transplant, even if it forces you to go into debt, lose your job, and/or miss out on opportunities you may have had?

 

2. Regardless of your answer to 1, should the state be able to force you to stay bound to this person against your will?

 

Okay, now:

 

6 hours ago, coolshades said:

I just can't wrap my head around the idea that an unborn child is just part of the mother and not a distinct person.

Second, let's talk about personhood. What counts as a person, and where and why do you draw the line? And, importantly, do your policy positions support your reasoning?

 

As an example here, if you think that life begins at conception, and your policy goals are to prevent the killing of those lives, and you view the suffering of women impacted by these policies as an unhappy necessity, then why start with abortion?

 

Clearly, the first target should be modern fertility clinics generally, and in vitro fertilization in particular. IVF involves the fertilization of large numbers of eggs in order to generate a number of embryos, only the most successful of which is implanted back into the uterus. The rest are destroyed.

 

Now, it is easy to say something like, "Yes, well, I oppose IVF also." Great. But why, then, are the most active policy efforts focused on abortion, rather than IVF? IVF kills millions more embryos than abortion ever could, and banning it would not, for instance, put women in situations where they lose bodily autonomy. Banning IVF would be the obvious first step in a truly 'pro-life' movement, and yet the idea doesn't really come up.

 

I think it is worth examining the goals and philosophy of the movement to find out why that is.

 

[Rockblossom]

22 minutes ago, Epic Tetus said:

Banning IVF would be the obvious first step in a truly 'pro-life' movement, and yet the idea doesn't really come up.

True. Another one is the creation of artificial "wombs" that could sustain a fetus until it is capable of living on its own.  That would be a genuine option that could be offered to women, but any time I have mentioned that, none of them want to listen or spend a penny on research.  Why is that?  You would think they would be advocates for the production of such technology, as it would definitely save fetuses that would otherwise be lost.  

 

Any science fiction fans who have read Lois Bujold's Barrayar series will know what I am talking about.  

[Gloomy]

1 hour ago, Rockblossom said:

Another one is the creation of artificial "wombs" that could sustain a fetus until it is capable of living on its own.   

As an evictionist, I would backup pro-life people on the idea that zygotes/embryos/fetuses shouldn’t be killed if either artificial wombs or a way to transplant them to a consenting host were invented.

[Nick2]

Are you crazy.  That would make to much sense.  Religious Christians must impose their beliefs on all of us.  Sharia of the Cross.

[Phalena]

But artificial wombs would always bear the risk that these new people would want to know why they were abandoned by their bio mums wouldn't it? It's still a way to get rid of an unwanted pregnancy, yeah? Nobody has to agree with me but not being born sounds way better than living only to know that you were never wanted while others got love and care (or at least any adult guardian, as terrible as they might be) for just existing. People born from artificial wombs would probably also be targets of being invalidated as true human beings and would likely be seen as lesser and as missing a crucial part of being human.

[coolshades]

I have no problem with artificial wombs. I've always felt that they would be a good solution for women who don't want to carry a pregnancy to term.

 

10 hours ago, Phalena said:

People born from artificial wombs would probably also be targets of being invalidated as true human beings and would likely be seen as lesser and as missing a crucial part of being human.

What about babies who are born at only 20-25 weeks and have to remain in the NICU for months and months? They don't spend the entire 9 months in the womb, but no one questions their validity as humans.  I think that as long as the child is conceived within the woman's womb, if the child is later taken out and put in an artificial womb to continue growing until strong enough to be on their own, then no one would question their humanity.

 

The bigger issue occurs if babies are *created* in the artificial womb. I still don't think that people would try to argue they are not human (just like no one argues that babies born through IVF aren't human) but it would be interesting to see if they do miss out on something vital to their development if they never spend any time in a real womb.

[Phalena]

1 hour ago, coolshades said:

I have no problem with artificial wombs. I've always felt that they would be a good solution for women who don't want to carry a pregnancy to term.

 

What about babies who are born at only 20-25 weeks and have to remain in the NICU for months and months? They don't spend the entire 9 months in the womb, but no one questions their validity as humans.  I think that as long as the child is conceived within the woman's womb, if the child is later taken out and put in an artificial womb to continue growing until strong enough to be on their own, then no one would question their humanity.

 

The bigger issue occurs if babies are *created* in the artificial womb. I still don't think that people would try to argue they are not human (just like no one argues that babies born through IVF aren't human) but it would be interesting to see if they do miss out on something vital to their development if they never spend any time in a real womb.

I asked because it is humankind that we are talking about. That species that has particularily much talent in invalidating other members of their species for the smallest reasons. If it won't be the way they were born then it will be the fact that somethingmust e wrong with them- otherwise they wouldn't have been abandoned by their bio mums. It's a bit different if the child was put in an artificial womb to support the parents. But we are taling about babies that weren't meant to be born in the first place.

I kind of dislike the idea of artificial wombs overall for a different reason, too. Just like some baby drops in which mothers are required to file info about themselves. The women could be forced to take care of the child once it's born regardless. Or at least, the child will probably have the right to seek them out some day. A horror when you never wanted a child that now claims motherly love that you were never ready to give. It will only cause suffering on both sides. And there si no way that a procedure like this could be executed anonymously. And it will waste time, too if it's anything like getting an abortion where there are likely enough people trying to talk the woman out of it. Because for some reason, "runaway mothers" are held "responsible" and are shunned while "runaway fathers" aren't.

[uhtred]

On 4/24/2022 at 7:13 AM, Gloomy said:

As an evictionist, I would backup pro-life people on the idea that zygotes/embryos/fetuses shouldn’t be killed if either artificial wombs or a way to transplant them to a consenting host were invented.

This leads to some interesting questions.   Many people use "viability" as a test of when an abortion is OK. But advancing technology may push 'viability' back to conception, or even before - when an egg can be fertilized and grown in the lab.

 

Even further - its already possible to synthesize DNA. It may not be that far future before we can assemble a human starting just from raw materials.

 

Lab grown human embryos may become popular, but then at what point must they be allowed to continue to develop? What about known genetic defects?  Its easy to get in to a very deep moral swamp on this.

 

[previously known as aroace]

Bottom line: anti abortion results in the death of mothers who wanted the child and also results in forced pedophilia births that require C section because little girls cannot give birth vaginally.

 

Why did Ireland reverse their absolute ban on abortion? A woman 17 weeks in to her pregnancy had a miscarriage, but her body did not expel the fetus. The abortion ban forced her to die of sepsis.

 

Brazil had a 11 year old girl who was raped by her grandmother's boyfriend. They forced her to have a C section while she became suicidal and people struggled to fight it in court.

 

And what do anti abortion groups and the GOP want in the USA? Absolute ban on abortion with no consideration to medical problems nor people or children who were raped. On top of that the same groups ban sex education and contraception. Oh wait what did that GOP guy say? He'll ban rape? Wow I didnt know rape was allowed! Problem solved.

 

This same garbage is parroted in Canada and other countries around the world. All they do is promote propaganda to make themselves feel moral because they have someone they can hurt physically, emotionally, and financially.

 

Pregnancy and labour are not easy. Both are dangerous to many woman and all children. Abortion is a medical proceedure that saves lives.

[Mult]

There's also no difference between a medically induced abortion and a spontaneous abortion (aka miscarriage). 

 

A woman in Texas was sent to jail for an "abortion" but turns out she just had a still birth. They arrested this poor woman after she suffered losing her baby—what twisted f*cks.

 

Furthermore morons actually believe the Morning After pill is an abortion pill! It doesn't induce an abortion, it doesn't work if the egg has already been fertilized and planted onto the uterus

 

Abortion bans are sadistic religious control laws that lead to suffering and death.

[bare_trees]

So many salient points brought up in this thread as to why laws banning abortion are neither moral nor logical from a medical or any other perspective.  I've asked "pro-life" friends the same question OP asks in the thread title before, and I always get the "because it's murder" response and honestly, if someone understands the points made in this thread and still argues that abortion is murder, I think the person is just delusional and cannot be reasoned with.  I was once that person--when I was a kid and teenager, I firmly believed abortion was wrong and supported laws that I believed would either limit or eliminate it.  But I was a kid and did not have to think deeply about the consequences of such a belief, were I to grow up and support legislation that followed it through.  I was not sexually abused, did not experience an unplanned pregnancy in my teens, or anything of that nature.  My brain was not fully formed and I had every reason and opportunity to be selfish, stubborn, and self-righteous about the matter.  I had the luxury of saying that I was "pro-life" without anyone demanding that I look at the matter from every angle.  An informed adult who still says the same is someone I honestly just can't talk to. 🤷‍♀️

[Calligraphette_Coe]

No one is forcing pro-lifers to have abortions.  And whether the pro-life folks realize it or not, God and/or Mother Nature spontaneously aborts about 10% of conceptions in the first month. What happens to those 'souls'? Do they go to heaven and appear as what? Since they had no earthly bodies?

 

And what happens when Nature pulls another of its tricks and egg splits into identical twins? Do two people share one soul?

 

I can understand and empathize with late term abortions being nixed, but how far does the pro-life perspective go ? Wha'ts next, a prohibition agains using contraceptives enforced by law? 

[coolshades]

On 4/29/2022 at 9:27 AM, Mult said:

There's also no difference between a medically induced abortion and a spontaneous abortion (aka miscarriage).

Yes there is.  A miscarriage is not a choice.  Abortion is.

[coolshades]

On 4/30/2022 at 3:27 PM, bare_trees said:

So many salient points brought up in this thread as to why laws banning abortion are neither moral nor logical from a medical or any other perspective.  I've asked "pro-life" friends the same question OP asks in the thread title before, and I always get the "because it's murder" response and honestly, if someone understands the points made in this thread and still argues that abortion is murder, I think the person is just delusional and cannot be reasoned with.  I was once that person--when I was a kid and teenager, I firmly believed abortion was wrong and supported laws that I believed would either limit or eliminate it.  But I was a kid and did not have to think deeply about the consequences of such a belief, were I to grow up and support legislation that followed it through.  I was not sexually abused, did not experience an unplanned pregnancy in my teens, or anything of that nature.  My brain was not fully formed and I had every reason and opportunity to be selfish, stubborn, and self-righteous about the matter.  I had the luxury of saying that I was "pro-life" without anyone demanding that I look at the matter from every angle.  An informed adult who still says the same is someone I honestly just can't talk to. 🤷‍♀️

I'm sorry you think I'm delusional.  I'd never say the same about anyone who thinks of feels different from me, nor would I refuse to talk to them.  I just say they have a different opinion than mine and have their reasons for it.  I may be baffled by their reasons, but that doesn't mean I think the people themselves are delusional.

[rainbowocollie]

Let's reframe this by substituting with another issue:

If a sovereign nation, such as the US, decides that slavery is a right, why should that have any bearing on anti-slavery people? Why can't anti-slavery people advocate against it while still respecting the decision of a secular government?

 

I'm assuming the response would be along the lines of "because slavery is wrong and hurts people". 

You can't expect people who believe abortion is an objective wrong that hurts people, to just be content with the government being ok with it.



Anyways, no one can have a civil conversation on this, so I'll going to shut off notifications and go back to my hole. No, I will not be responding to questions or prompting nor any response to my post. This issue will not be won by online debates, but by actions and offering help and alternatives and kindness and government resources and community resources to needy mothers in crisis, which I greatly prefer over arguing on the internet.

Thank you for your time.

[Mult]

1 hour ago, coolshades said:

Yes there is.  A miscarriage is not a choice.  Abortion is.

There is no way to tell if a body has gone through a elective abortion or a spontaneous one.

 

Spontaneous abortions are not rare in the least. The body has a higher change of spontaneously terminating a pregnancy in the first few weeks, but it can happen all the way through the third trimester.

 

Taking a pill in the first few weeks is indistinguishable from a spontanious abortion in the same period. Women in Brazil have been sentenced to years in prison for being accused of abortion even if it was a spontanious abortion rather than an elective one. That women recently in Texas had a still birth.

 

Attacking women for abortions accomplishes nothing but emotional trauma on both those who had an elective abortion or a spontanious one.

 

If you want to actually decrease abortion then contraception must be affordable or free and easily accessible, health care must be afforable or free and easily accessible and childcare must be affordable or free and easily accessible.

 

Those who prevent unwanted pregnancies do not have abortions.

 

Good health care leads to less abortions.

 

Affordable and accessible childcare gives expecting parents a way to care for the new child and prevents more children from ending up in fostercare.

 

Yet this still doesn't prevent rape. There are still medical conditions that require terminarion like ectopic pregnancies. 

 

Abortion is necessary and it is healthcare. It is part of life. Many of those who get abortions for health reasons would have had a spontanious abortion anyway but that runs the risk of infection and sepsis.

 

Banning abortion does not solve anything. It does not percent abortion; that only hurts people more. Banning it leads to dead mothers, doctors unable to make the best life saving decisions for their patients,  traumatized rape victims, increased financial strain and abandoned children.

 

Children who have been raped but aren't physically large enough to successfully birth a baby must have a c-section at whatever age they unfortunately started menstruating may that be 8 or 12.

 

The person living right now deserves to live and have their life rather than be forced to make decisions about their body by other people.

 

Solve some of the environmental pressures that push people into having elective abortions. Make raising children easy. Make health care accessible. Make contraception available. 

 

And for the love of f*ck, don't ban the Morning After Pill—the people who don't understand how that works are so damn ignorant. Dumb as rocks. Holy sh*t.

[Sally]

One of the reasons I'm happy being a Jew is that Judaism -- from Orthodox through Reform -- believes that life begins at birth, not conception.  A child is a child once it draws breath.  

[bare_trees]

13 hours ago, coolshades said:

I'm sorry you think I'm delusional.  I'd never say the same about anyone who thinks of feels different from me, nor would I refuse to talk to them.  I just say they have a different opinion than mine and have their reasons for it.  I may be baffled by their reasons, but that doesn't mean I think the people themselves are delusional.

So you can write off "differences of opinion" with what leads to oppression, death, and endless cycles of poverty for women and others who can become pregnant.  I cannot write off those "differences of opinion" as such, any more than I can do that with racism, homophobia, or transphobia.  I can wish the person well and move on, but that's it.  Not all of us are mentally healthy enough to endure this debate endlessly, and the fact that I was once "pro-life" does not make it better--it makes it worse for me.  I had a friend in college who broke off our friendship because I said I was not going to support legislation to ban abortion, or the so-called "pro-life movement," and she realized that she could never be friends with someone like that because our values are too divergent.  If little else, I can respect her commitment.  But being presented with facts again and again and still pointing to one interpretation of your religion to justify limiting the rights of others' is bonkers.

 

Good for you, that you would "never" do that to anyone else, I guess.  If writing that reply makes you feel morally superior to me and others like me, then more power to you.

[Tetus]

13 hours ago, coolshades said:

I'm sorry you think I'm delusional.  I'd never say the same about anyone who thinks of feels different from me, nor would I refuse to talk to them.  I just say they have a different opinion than mine and have their reasons for it.  I may be baffled by their reasons, but that doesn't mean I think the people themselves are delusional.

What if they campaigned for a ban on blood transfusions because a magic fairy told them that space ghosts living in the blood will taint the spirit zones of anyone who gets a transfusion, causing instant soul death? To them, every blood transfusion is equivalent to murder.

 

What kind of reasonable discussion do you believe you would be able to have with this individual?

[uhtred]

On 4/30/2022 at 3:27 PM, bare_trees said:

So many salient points brought up in this thread as to why laws banning abortion are neither moral nor logical from a medical or any other perspective.  I've asked "pro-life" friends the same question OP asks in the thread title before, and I always get the "because it's murder" response and honestly, if someone understands the points made in this thread and still argues that abortion is murder, I think the person is just delusional and cannot be reasoned with.  I was once that person--when I was a kid and teenager, I firmly believed abortion was wrong and supported laws that I believed would either limit or eliminate it.  But I was a kid and did not have to think deeply about the consequences of such a belief, were I to grow up and support legislation that followed it through.  I was not sexually abused, did not experience an unplanned pregnancy in my teens, or anything of that nature.  My brain was not fully formed and I had every reason and opportunity to be selfish, stubborn, and self-righteous about the matter.  I had the luxury of saying that I was "pro-life" without anyone demanding that I look at the matter from every angle.  An informed adult who still says the same is someone I honestly just can't talk to. 🤷‍♀️

Why do you see equating abortion with murder as delusional?  What if we were talking about 6 month old infants? Why is birth such an important step?

 

I don't personally think abortion is murder, but I understand the opinions of those who do.

[uhtred]

14 hours ago, Sally said:

One of the reasons I'm happy being a Jew is that Judaism -- from Orthodox through Reform -- believes that life begins at birth, not conception.  A child is a child once it draws breath.  

One of the things I like about Judaism is that it is a religion that attempts to evaluate complex situations rationally, and so my next question is not intended to be in any way offensive, but really is curiosity:   We are not far from being able to fertilize and egg and grow it entirely in the lab, where no "birth" will take place.   Has there been a ruling on at what stage it is considered a living person?

[bare_trees]

52 minutes ago, uhtred said:

Why do you see equating abortion with murder as delusional?  What if we were talking about 6 month old infants? Why is birth such an important step?

 

I don't personally think abortion is murder, but I understand the opinions of those who do.

It's delusional because it's a routine medical procedure. A 6 month old is completely different because it isn't inside another person, taking resources from that person, not necessarily with that person's consent. Murder is cold-blooded and calculated.

 

I'm having a really difficult time not getting upset about this, and that's on me, I will concede. I hate that to most people, I have no worth beyond being a baby-making machine--something I will never actually be. Not anyone's fault in this thread that I'm overreacting, but I won't be responding in this thread anymore. 

[coolshades]

15 hours ago, bare_trees said:

So you can write off "differences of opinion" with what leads to oppression, death, and endless cycles of poverty for women and others who can become pregnant.  I cannot write off those "differences of opinion" as such, any more than I can do that with racism, homophobia, or transphobia.  I can wish the person well and move on, but that's it.  Not all of us are mentally healthy enough to endure this debate endlessly, and the fact that I was once "pro-life" does not make it better--it makes it worse for me.  I had a friend in college who broke off our friendship because I said I was not going to support legislation to ban abortion, or the so-called "pro-life movement," and she realized that she could never be friends with someone like that because our values are too divergent.  If little else, I can respect her commitment.  But being presented with facts again and again and still pointing to one interpretation of your religion to justify limiting the rights of others' is bonkers.

 

Good for you, that you would "never" do that to anyone else, I guess.  If writing that reply makes you feel morally superior to me and others like me, then more power to you.

Why are you assuming my beliefs about abortion are based on religion?  I know which verse of the Bible Christians use to defend their pro-choice views, but my beliefs are not based on that verse.

 

 

[coolshades]

14 hours ago, Epic Tetus said:

What if they campaigned for a ban on blood transfusions because a magic fairy told them that space ghosts living in the blood will taint the spirit zones of anyone who gets a transfusion, causing instant soul death? To them, every blood transfusion is equivalent to murder.

 

What kind of reasonable discussion do you believe you would be able to have with this individual?

Is a discussion necessary?   Why can't I just say, "Ok, that's an interesting point of view" and move on?

 

And I don't see how that example is anything like someone believing abortion is wrong because life begins at conception.

[previously known as aroace]

On 5/1/2022 at 7:24 PM, coolshades said:

Yes there is.  A miscarriage is not a choice.  Abortion is.

https://rewirenewsgroup.com/article/2021/10/21/when-a-miscarriage-becomes-a-jail-sentence/

 

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-59214544

 

https://www.babygaga.com/women-united-states-jail-miscarriages/

 

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/el-salvador-where-women-are-jailed-for-40-years-for-the-crime-of-having-a-miscarriage-a7053501.html

 

https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2015/dec/22/rio-favelas-el-salvador-women-jailed-miscarriage-paris-climate-deal

 

And just recently in Texas a woman was arrested after going to the hospital because of a miscarriage. People were able to save her and throw out the case, but this will happen more and more because of the anti-abortionists.

[Mult]

On 5/1/2022 at 7:37 PM, Quest the Collie said:

Let's reframe this by substituting with another issue:

If a sovereign nation, such as the US, decides that slavery is a right, why should that have any bearing on anti-slavery people? Why can't anti-slavery people advocate against it while still respecting the decision of a secular government?

 

I'm assuming the response would be along the lines of "because slavery is wrong and hurts people". 

You can't expect people who believe abortion is an objective wrong that hurts people, to just be content with the government being ok with it.



Anyways, no one can have a civil conversation on this, so I'll going to shut off notifications and go back to my hole. No, I will not be responding to questions or prompting nor any response to my post. This issue will not be won by online debates, but by actions and offering help and alternatives and kindness and government resources and community resources to needy mothers in crisis, which I greatly prefer over arguing on the internet.

Thank you for your time.

Forcing a person to go through a pregnancy is enslaving their body. It is their body being used, their resources being consumed, their time being taken, their suffering being prolongued.

 

Don't want people to have abortions? Then give people free or cheap accessible healthcare, give them free or cheap contraception, give them free or cheap childcare, ensure they have food and a roof above their head.

 

And for rape victims, too bad so sad. The rapist should be held accountable because they forced it upon another person.

 

And for medical reasons, too bad again. Transplanting a fetus is impossible once the placenta has implanted. Termination is the only option for many complications lest the pregnant person die along with the fetus.

 

Don't want to have an abortion personally? Then don't have one, but you don't get to force other people to do the same. They are not a brood mare, they are not property, they are not a slave. 

 

Banning abortion does not prevent abortions. All that does is let the rich access it and the poor die or suffer performing it themselves, die in the pregnancy or birth, lose the born baby immediately because they can't afford it.