> Strong disagree. They affect at minimum 2 (potentially 3 depending how you define life/person) by default.

That's exactly what I said?

no - what you said is:

>The contract being common decency. Vaccinations are part of that contract (it affects others), pronouns are part of that contract (they affect others), abortions _are not_ (the only affect those having them, and potentially the medical professionals).

You say it only affects those having the abortion (ie, female), I was pointing out that there is AT MINIMUM the other parent involved, and there are tons of arguments a person could make about it impacting a much larger portion of people due to the societal/social impact this option brings out.

So I would go as far as to include medical professionals, but not the other parent? For lack of any actual argument, you've turned to such a degree of pedantry that it changes the spirit of what I said. Not that your pedantry adds anything to the discussion one way or another.

The problem is that the "spirit" of what you said was pretty confusing.

You seemed to imply that a social contract requires people to take actions they may not want to do because by not taking those actions, they impact "others" and then said abortion doesn't fall into that because apparently that "others" group is so small it doesn't count as "others"?? Yet you included people using incorrect pronouns to an INDIVIDUAL... so your entire argument feels pretty arbitrary.

The pedantry response was to hopefully make you realize that your argument was arbitrary, I had hoped you'd come to that on your own - but here we are.

People who oppose abortion usually consider abortion to affect 3 people, which probably influences their opinion on that topic.

Can you describe which asymmetry you mean?

The female has asymmetrical power in this situation regarding the two parents.

Example:

- Most pro-choice supporters would support the female deciding that she was too young to become a mother and terminating a pregnancy not because of any medical reason, but because of the changes to her life it would cause (ie, "I'm not ready to be a mother yet"). This same option is not available to males. If the female has decided to keep the child, the male in most countries is now automatically bound to this decision and generally, at least financially, will have their life impacted even if they have the same reasoning (ie, "I'm not ready to be a father yet"). Alternatively, if the female has decided to terminate and the male desperately wants the child, there is no recourse.

I say asymmetrical because the results/responsibility of the decision are forced to be shared, however, the power to make said decision lies only with a single party.

I do not propose a solution here or make a judgement I'm simply pointing it out because the person I replied to made it sound like this decision is a simple and doesn't impact others.