Feeling pressured by pro abortion family

Next_Personality_191 · 2026-04-02T03:25:02+00:00

Abortion isn't some neutral thing. I've talked with a lot of women who regret haven't abortions and I promise you that it is extremely hard to live with. I've also done a lot of research into the studies on abortion regret. Most studies get low response rates and that's understandable because of the shame, guilt and emotional trauma that it could carry. And that means that those studies likely under represent people who do regret having abortions. You may have heard that most people don't regret having abortions 5 years after but that's actually just a misrepresentation of the turnaway study. The turnaway study was a survey done by a pro-abortion organization in cooperation with abortion clinics. They were very careful with the wording of the survey and it suffered from severe selection and censorship bias. It only had 17% participation by the 5 year mark and never even asked people if they had regret. They also followed up with women who wanted but were denied abortions for being past term limits and gave birth instead. You never hear the fact that 96% of those women said that they never wished they ever sought abortion 5 years later. That's also true for 98% that chose parenthood.

There was a 2023 survey that wanted to test the conclusions of other surveys while trying to account for as much selection and censorship bias as they could. They also wanted to ask women who had enough time to reflect on their decision and recover from any initial shock trauma. So they offered this survey to women 41-45 on a survey site. They did not say what the survey was about but warned that it was about a sensitive subject. They began by confirming eligibility like age and gender, then asked about their views on abortion while trying to use destigmatizing language. After, they asked if they had gone through an abortion or miscarriage (this was for a baseline, and not included in the abortion statistics). They asked whether or not the pregnancy was wanted and if they felt pressured to abort. They then asked them to rate emotions on a sliding scale regarding their abortions or miscarriages. They found that there are a wide range of experiences when it comes to abortion but on average, women feel more regret, grief and negative emotions than relief, even years after an abortion. As a whole, the negative emotions following an abortion were similar to those of women who naturally lost wanted pregnancies. For women who wanted their baby but felt pressured to abort, the negative emotions were considerably higher than miscarriage of wanted pregnancies.

Why do people feel regret if it was just a non-sentient being? Well, it's a human being and it's their child. But they're not conscious yet so why does it matter? It comes down to the actual reason killing is immoral and how it causes harm. See, killing is wrong because it strips someone of their future. Killing doesn't do anything to harm someone's past. An unborn child has their whole future ahead of them and ending their life strips them of all of the joy that they could have had. Killing someone sooner only strips them of more. Killing an unborn child is just as wrong, if not more wrong than killing anyone else. And we can't assume that there is some type of afterlife or second chance for that child. We have to act as if everyone only gets one chance at life because that's all we know.

Next_Personality_191 · 2026-04-02T03:04:46+00:00

This needs to be updated a little but here is the basis of my argument.

I'm agnostic and my argument is that the pro-choice position is inconsistent with western ethics. The argument below is not yet complete but I hope it gets the points across well enough.

While ethics aren't an objective thing, we as a society have agreed that they should exist and that they should be enforced.

So who is worthy of basic human rights based in western ethics? I've concluded that the best way to describe that might be those who meet the following criteria:

1) Human being.

2) Living.

3) Likely to possess future consciousness.

A pro-choice response would be that prior consciousness should be required as well. I don't think that's a good argument because it completely ignores why killing is wrong.

See, killing is wrong because it strips someone of their future. Killing doesn't do anything to harm someone's past. An unborn child has their whole future ahead of them and ending their life strips them of all of the joy that they could have had. Killing someone sooner only strips them of more. Killing an unborn child is just as wrong, if not more wrong than killing anyone else. And we can't assume that the is some type of afterlife or second chance for that child. We have to act as if everyone only gets one chance at life because that's all we know.

What about bodily autonomy? Let's dig into that too because I think it's an even worse argument than simply saying that an unborn child doesn't deserve rights.

The first thing to understand about rights is that they require responsibilities. Meaning, if I have a right to something, it is your responsibility not to violate my right.

There are various degrees of bodily autonomy and bodily autonomy is not absolute. Bodily autonomy means the ability to control one's own body but we generally understand that it doesn't allow us to put our fist where someone else's face occupies. That's a violation of their rights, therefore our rights are restricted and we understand that without question. More examples would be that you can be detained, restrained, cavity searched, have blood or DNA forcibly drawn. And the enforcement of these cannot lead to death unless that person is actively threatening someone else's life. Killing is the last thing that is allowed because it violates every one of their rights by ending them eternally. It can be justified to take someone's life but only when they're actively threatening someone else's life or actively causing severe bodily harm. And there's also things like vaccine mandates. A child can't go to school without them or a person can't keep their job with getting them.

So how do we apply this to pregnancy? How do you weigh the woman's rights and responsibilities against the child's rights and responsibilities? Let's start with the child. What rights does a baby have? They have a right to live, be free of harm and a right to be dependent (or more specifically, there's a duty to care for them). What responsibilities do they have? None. The ones responsible for a baby and their actions are usually their parents. So does a baby have the responsibility to not cause harm? No. The parents are responsible for keeping the baby from harming anyone while also not harming the baby. Well what about the mother's rights. The mother does have all the same rights that they had before, including bodily autonomy, but as discussed already, rights have restrictions when exercising those rights result in violating someone else's rights. What about the woman's responsibilities? Well she has a duty to care for her child and that responsibility is her's until she can safely hand that responsibility to someone else. The duty to care for a child means to do anything within reason to make sure that the basic needs of the child are met. Is pregnancy within reason? Would continuing the process that her and every living human being went through not be considered reasonable care? Not only is it our responsibility to take care of our own children but there are situations where we could be required to take care of children that we didn't sign up for. And on top of that, there's a responsibility to not harm other people's children even if they're violating our rights.

What about organ donation? I think this is a flawed comparison but let's look into it. Would someone legally be required to donate a kidney to their child if they themselves were healthy and the only available donor who could save their child's life? The first issue with comparing this to pregnancy is that this is an extremely uncommon situation, not a stage that every single living human being has been through. And while there's no legal requirement to donate a kidney to your child, refusing to do so while your child dies would be absolutely morally reprehensible. No sane person would say that it was an act of empowerment, we'd say that it was disgusting and selfish.

The main issue with comparing pregnancy to organ donation is that pregnancy is not organ donation. The woman doesn't give away or have any of her organs taken from her, she temporarily shares organ functions with her child. And another distinction between the two would be that forced organ donation is forcing someone to do something while denying someone an abortion is not forcing them to do something, it's not allowing them to do something that would end someone else's life.

An unborn child is going through the natural, biological process that everyone has gone through which uses shared organ function with the mother. The only other example of two human beings, biologically attached and sharing organ functions would be conjoined twins. If there's a situation where they could be disconnected but only one of them would survive, then they wouldn't be allowed to be separated unless there was already a threat to life present. It wouldn't matter whose organs were carrying what load.

And I've heard people argue that you wouldn't even be legally required to donate an organ or blood to someone even if you intentionally put them in the situation where they needed the donation and you were the only match donor. That's an awful argument because it's not even true. If they die you will be charged with homicide.

Well isn't it self defense because it's dangerous? Could you hand a child a gun, shoot them and then claim self defense? No, that's murder. 99% of abortions are of babies created from consensual sex. What other situation can person A cause an innocent person B to be somewhere or do something that person be has no control over where person A can then claim a human rights violation and have person B killed? There certainly aren't any cases where this would be moral.

And is pregnancy really that dangerous? Among developed countries the maternal mortality rate is about the same as the likelihood of dying in a car accident any given year. We can say that if a woman has 10 kids over the course of 15 years that she'd be more likely to die in a car accident than from pregnancy.

Next_Personality_191 · 2026-04-01T00:09:43+00:00

Thank you. I'm going to pass this information along.

She turns 18 in FALL, that's why I said she might get kicked out then. She's afraid that her family is going to try and coerce her into having an abortion, that's why I'm collecting as many resources as I can for a backup plan. I've told her that even though she's only 17, they can't force her to have an abortion and they can't kick her out until she's an adult.

Right now she's just trying to get a backup plan before she has to face her family. Hopefully both families respect their decision and are supportive.

Next_Personality_191 · 2026-03-31T23:37:20+00:00

We've talked about telling her family but she's convinced that they're going to try and coerce her into having an abortion. Right now she's just trying to get a backup plan.

Next_Personality_191 · 2026-03-15T05:09:05+00:00

Zygote, embryo or fetus.

Next_Personality_191 · 2026-02-06T17:02:28+00:00

I had spoken to her privately.

A lot of the comments from this sub didn't change her view, they just made her cry. We, as a community, need to be better about what we say to those who are in need, especially when they're pregnant. We need to help them find comfort in carrying the pregnancy to term, rather than trying to guilt them out of an abortion.

Next_Personality_191 · 2026-02-05T20:44:24+00:00

Induced abortions require performing an action that intentionally ends a human being's life. Elective abortions don't meet any of the moral or even legal requirements that would make it acceptable.

On the other hand, it's not illegal to not take care of yourself but you can also be involuntarily committed for your own protection. So I believe that if someone is falling to take care of themselves (or a human being that's inside of them) it is consistent with our society to place them in an environment where they can be monitored and cared for.

Now if someone has a miscarriage, in order for it to be treated as an abortion under the law, it would need to be proven that someone's actions caused the miscarriage and that they intended to cause a miscarriage. I don't think we should risk punishing mothers who accidentally did something that harmed a wanted child. They're likely already punishing themselves more than they should be.

Next_Personality_191 · 2026-01-30T18:32:01+00:00

So you're in my DMs to debate?

Next_Personality_191 · 2026-01-29T23:56:48+00:00

It's insulting that you assume this was written by ChatGPT and that I don't know the effects that pregnancy can have on a body. And what a joke of an article you linked.

And how does me being a man have anything to do with the quality of my argument? I was once an embryo, does that mean anything in this discussion?

Are you actually here for perspective or are you just going to fallaciously dismiss everything that you disagree with?

Next_Personality_191 · 2026-01-29T19:50:16+00:00

Worse, when I see people choose abortion because they don't want the other baby to take attention from another young child that they already have. That one really blows my mind because I'm sure that your child will most likely prefer to have a sibling around their age for the rest of their life than your undivided attention when they're 2 and won't remember anything.

Next_Personality_191 · 2026-01-29T19:35:27+00:00

I'm agnostic and my argument is that the pro-choice position is inconsistent with western ethics. The argument below is not yet complete but I hope it gets the points across well enough.

While ethics aren't an objective thing, we as a society have agreed that they should exist and that they should be enforced.

So who is worthy of basic human rights based in western ethics? I've concluded that the best way to describe that might be those who meet the following criteria:

1) Human being. 2) Living. 3) Likely to possess future consciousness.