Arguing About Abortion

[Aquinas11]

I have children and don’t like the idea of killing them. It’s just a personal reason.

“don’t like” the idea of killing children? “just” a personal reason?

makes it sound like the decision to not kill children is akin to decision of ice cream flavor

 

[Stephen168]

I know a few, too (myself included) and to be fair…99% of pro life arguments ARE religious. It’s often very hard for some religious believers to separate their religious beliefs into strictly scientific ones. One of the hardest is the right to life supersedes the right to body autonomy versus the opposite. The religious mostly argue that the right to life is the more important…due to religious belief. It’s beyond science to answer either. It’s a societies legal description. Right now, our society favors body autonomy over the right to life. To change the legal climate, we must first change the values…something neither quick or easy.

Right now, there is no legal mandate to have an abortion nor to not have an abortion…it really IS a choice. We need to change people’s values so that they do not choose it. I often think the pro abortion crowd and the anti abortion crowd should work a bit harder in this arena…as both sides really do want there to be no abortions (excluding rare circumstances).

The arguments do seem to be right to life vs body autonomy. The anti-abortion people I know choose right to life because a human being is killed vs a human being doing what human beings were designed to do. And adoption is still an option. I have never understood why the belief that murder is wrong is called out as a religious argument; many people with no religion believe murder is wrong.

If our society only had no mandate for an abortion or not to have one, I would agree that it really is a choice. I shared that view until I went to college and learned about subsidies. Subsidies cause more of something to occur in a market. We subsidize abortions most places in our society. Until recently, I would agree that people on both sides do not want abortion, but lately I hear about this “shout your abortion” thing. I just hope that is a very very small number of women and not a trend to the future.

 

[Hume]

I just don’t see how you can force someone to do something that will almost certainly harm them and can actually kill them. Today. In 2020.

And then to try and jive that with liberty…

Blows my mind. We hate despots unless we get to play despot.

 

[Aquinas11]

I just don’t see how you can force someone to do something

Not forcing anyone to do anything

Saying cannot kill the baby

If you deny the distinction you’re equivocating positive requirement (what one must do) with a negative requirement (what one cannot do), which is absurd

Our free speech laws are one example of that clear distinction, where there is only requirements on what you cannot say not requirements on what you must say.

 

[Pattylt]

No, that’s not unique to pregnancy. My appendix is “inside” my body and can pose a threat to my body. This suggests my appendix has its own right to life, which is absurd.

You are completely misunderstanding their argument. You have every right to have your appendix removed. Does someone else say, no you must keep it inside you until it bursts?

If “it” is not her body, then it also has self autonomy which is violated by her removing it. Hence “self autonomy” can’t be the justification for removing it.

They say that the fetus has no inherent rights until born. It’s mom’s decision since she is it’s incubator. I will point out that we do have personal autonomy, even after death with regards to blood donation, organ donation, eyes and skin donations…no one can be forced to donate their own body for these reasons. No matter if you like it or not, denying a woman an abortion is a violation of her personal body autonomy. The argument is that that right shouldn’t supersede the right to life.

don’t like” the idea of killing children? “just” a personal reason?

Yes. I’m perfectly entitled to have my own personal reasons for not killing my children. Would you prefer I didn’t?

I’m done here…I’ve explained what the arguments boils down to and what is needed to overcome them…a change in values. I’m starting to get challenged for something I don’t even agree with just because I understand it. Thanks

 

[VanitasVanitatum]

“Because my preferred god said so” can be valid upon the individual - but not upon the greater society. Your preferred god is not everyone’s preferred god.

Thus, the basis for your argument - either openly or cryptoreligious - will always fall flat.

That’s simply a straw man of your own making. My arguments have their basis on secular values so your insistence that they aren’t is in bad faith.

 

[Aquinas11]

You are completely misunderstanding their argument

No you tried to distinguish pregnancy from having a leg amputated since the baby is “inside the mothers body” (your words not mine) thus appendix was cited to refute this distinction

They say that the fetus has no inherent rights until born.

No, your post said they do believe baby has right to life that is outweighed by their right to self autonomy. Now you’re saying they don’t believe baby has right to life.

This demonstrates they don’t believe in self autonomy . If baby doesn’t have it neither does mother. No such thing as selective self autonomy (some have it, some don’t)

I’m perfectly entitled to have my own personal reasons for not killing my children.

Yes and anyone else is entitled to point out not killing kids is objectively immoral

I’ve explained what the arguments boils down to

No numerous logical fallacies remain. Ironically this discussion was based on a post that 99% pro life arguments are religious based yet logical arguments remain not refuted

 

[Stephen168]

99% of pro life arguments ARE religious

Can you list a few?

 

[Pattylt]

God condemns abortion
The Bible says…
The soul is given at conception
The fifth commandment…
Every life is precious
You’ll go to hell
You can’t be Christian if you are pro abortion

Off the top of my head…

 

[Rau]

Who knew the founder’s legalized it 220 years ago and we JUST noticed…

No doubt an amazing example of re-writing history!

 

[VanitasVanitatum]

I know a few, too (myself included) and to be fair…99% of pro life arguments ARE religious. It’s often very hard for some religious believers to separate their religious beliefs into strictly scientific ones. One of the hardest is the right to life supersedes the right to body autonomy versus the opposite. The religious mostly argue that the right to life is the more important…due to religious belief. It’s beyond science to answer either. It’s a societies legal description. Right now, our society favors body autonomy over the right to life. To change the legal climate, we must first change the values…something neither quick or easy.

That’s because the topic is philosphical which doesn’t neccessarily mean the arguments are religious. The whole point of debating is about changing values or at least its one of the only ways to.

 

[Pattylt]

That’s because the topic is philosphical which doesn’t neccessarily mean the arguments are religious. The whole point of debating is about changing values.

I agree. I think there are very good non theological arguments. I just don’t usually hear them from from most pro life crowds. Atheists Against Abortion doesn’t use religious arguments.

It’s just that most pro life movements are made up of religious people and they tend to use religious arguments…which go nowhere if the mom is non religious as more and more are…especially younger ones.

Pro life organizations are much more sophisticated now. They are abandoning the religious angle so my 99% is probably incorrect. It was very accurate fifteen, twenty years ago when I wanted to join one and was so put off by the religious. So, I retract my 99% and am unsure what it would be today. To those still active in a pro life group, do you still hear other members using religious arguments or has that been corrected?

 

[HarryStotle]

No matter if you like it or not, denying a woman an abortion is a violation of her personal body autonomy. The argument is that that right shouldn’t supersede the right to life.

And permitting an abortion is a violation of the personal body autonomy of the baby.

Granted it is a unique case that one human being happens to be growing and developing inside another human being, but the “solution” to the unparalleled nature of that situation isn’t merely to grant “rights” to the one human being that can vote or vocalize their rights while completely removing the rights of the other.

The human, moral, and humane solution is to side with both to the fullest extent morally possible — and BOTH can have their right to life upheld 95%+ of the time.

 

[HarryStotle]

VanitasVanitatum:

That’s because the topic is philosphical which doesn’t neccessarily mean the arguments are religious. The whole point of debating is about changing values.

I agree. I think there are very good non theological arguments. I just don’t usually hear them from from most pro life crowds. Atheists Against Abortion doesn’t use religious arguments.

It’s just that most pro life movements are made up of religious people and they tend to use religious arguments…which go nowhere if the mom is non religious as more and more are…especially younger ones.

I think you are missing the obvious here. Approximately 78.4% of Americans have professed religious affiliation according to Pew. That would mean “religious arguments” could very well be effective for most people, given the religious predispositions of the vast majority of US citizens.

Ergo, there is no reason to abandon religious arguments in favour of completely secular ones BECAUSE secular arguments may only be effective for 22% or so of the population.

So your point that “most pro life movements are made up of religious people and they tend to use religious arguments” is moot unless you suppose only “non-religious” arguments are the arguments worth having even for religiously affiliated Americans.

Given that religion is a principal influence on the morality of most adherents my guess is that you are completely underestimating the value of religion-based arguments.

I would suggest both types of arguments are worth making and insisting that religious arguments are valueless is you confusing your preferences for those of the majority of thoughtful people — as if religious people and religious ideas cannot be thoughtful.

 

[Lea101]

Approximately 78.4% of Americans have professed religious affiliation according to Pew. That would mean “religious arguments” could very well be effective for most people, given the religious predispositions of the vast majority of US citizens

To be fair, professing religious affiliation does not necessarily mean they sincerely hold religious beliefs or are swayed by them.

Many people who claim to be spiritual or religious treat it as a relativist matter. So you’ll get people saying “well you believe the bible says it’s wrong, but I personally believe…” (I’m assuming you mean religious arguments as in arguing from the perspective of Christianity or a specific religion)

So it’s easier to argue from a secular philosophical perspective because it’s more straightforward because it’s not just applicable to the 22 percent, but to most people.

Religious arguments, imo, are useful if the other person is already making the claim that Christianity does not oppose abortion. If we’re talking about a general discussion, it seems more fitting to keep it secular.

 

[Hume]

Not forcing anyone to do anything

Saying cannot kill the baby

You’re forcing her to undergo pregnancy. You can deny that, sure. But that’s still the reality of the thing.

If you deny the distinction you’re equivocating positive requirement (what one must do) with a negative requirement (what one cannot do), which is absurd

No, your novel rule here is absurd. Who is the arbiter of “must”, “must not” and “can”, “cannot”?

You? Me? More special pleading…

Since there is no clear rational answer here, we must default to choice.

You are completely misunderstanding their argument.

Thank you for your understanding, if not your agreement

That’s simply a straw man of your own making. My arguments have their basis on secular values so your insistence that they aren’t is in bad faith.

You’ve not offered any secular values. You’ve offered fiat. Which is religion, or at least authoritarian ideology.

Religious arguments, imo, are useful if the other person is already making the claim that Christianity does not oppose abortion. If we’re talking about a general discussion, it seems more fitting to keep it secular.

Powerful advice.

 

[Hume]

The greatest and best secular argument I’ve personally seen is the appeal to human rights; that the life of the fetus is a thing worth fighting for as it is a human.

What @Pattylt above clearly identified is that this can’t be honed into a razor. It’s a value judgement.

It’s a moral dilemma where the life of an unborn human (which has value) is weighed against the bodily autonomy of a woman (which has value).

It’s a value judgement, here. Nothing more.

Those things have enormous weight in making our own personal decisions. But it’s a different animal to say that your personal value judgements should be binding on another person.

This is why I’ve said repeatedly that the most ethical path is one where choice reigns and we pro-lifers do as much as we can to systematically eliminate the reasons a mother would choose to abort the fetus.

Paid maternity leave (at least a year), health insurance for mom and baby, so on…

---

If I can maybe uncharitably add a little barb here, it’s interesting to see a lot of the pro-life/pro-birth crowd balk when they’re asked to put their money where their mouths are.

 

[Rau]

The problem is, we aren’t submitting to majority deliberations. The whole thing got forced on us by the Supreme Court in Roe v. Wade

Well, that’s a particular US circumstance. In other countries, it’s the more usual operation of the legislature. The democratic process (generally) allows us to favour a right to abortion or to oppose it; to argue that marriage is properly a relationship between 1 man and 1 woman or is accessible to other groupings.

 

[Rau]

It’s a moral dilemma where the life of an unborn human (which has value) is weighed against the bodily autonomy of a woman (which has value).

Only some would find that much of a dilemma.

 

[Hume]

That’s true, which is why most folks in the US support choice at some level.