How to respond to this pro-abortion argument?

[Nate13]

the consequence of a choice =/= what was chosen. you disagree, but if someone chooses to go to school, for example, they wouldnt say they chose to die because kids have been killed in school. most would disagree with your logic, but i can respect your consistency.

more importantly, even if the women getting abortions did choose to get pregnant–which i dont agree they did–it would make absolutely no difference. youve demonstrated that youre fine with counteracting (going to hospital) unintended consequences (car accident) resulting from choices made (drive). so its really a waste of time to adopt that line of reasoning when if youre trying to make an argument against abortion. you should stick with morality.

sw85, im not making those analogies to liken healing to abortions.

I agree that the consequences of our choices can at times be much farther removed from the choice itself. Your example of kids who go to school not expecting that choice might endanger their lives is an example where the consequences of our choices are very far removed. For you to compare that to sex and pregnancy though is absurd. Almost everything about sex and the mechanics of it point towards the aim of it being pregnancy. Pregnancy is about as direct a consequence of sex as you can get especially when done at certain known times of the month.

I’m sure you have heard the phrase “If you don’t want to go to Minneapolis, don’t get on the train”. Sure there are times when a woman is not fertile, but there is a known amount of time when she is. Why are people jumping on the train to Minneapolis (pregnancy) when they have no intention of going there, and have every intention of doing everything they can from preventing the train from arriving? The fact that they are working so hard to prevent the the train from getting there implies they know where the train is headed and made a conscience choice to get on anyways… This is why people think the “I want a choice argument” is ludicrous.

A choice made knowing the consequences and odds beforehand, implies acceptance of odds and potential consequences. The golden rule of investing is to never invest anything your not willingly to lose.

 

[hazmat]

no matter how far removed, they are known risks, so if your logic is applied consistently, choosing to go to school = choosing to die. pregnancy is exceedingly rare given the amount of sex people have. theres no golden rule saying you cant try to make up for your losses after a bad investment. trying to argue that women know theyll get pregnant doesnt really accomplish anything. im guessing you arent ok with abortions in cases of rape…

 

[Nate13]

no matter how far removed, they are known risks, so if your logic is applied consistently, choosing to go to school = choosing to die. pregnancy is exceedingly rare given the amount of sex people have. theres no golden rule saying you cant try to make up for your losses after a bad investment. trying to argue that women know theyll get pregnant doesnt really accomplish anything. im guessing you arent ok with abortions in cases of rape…

I don’t think I’m going to concede this point at all. Going to school does not imply getting shot by virtue of anything directly about going to school. Sex is how babies are made, whether they are made a lot or a little. I would say a baby is a direct consequence of sex. Getting shot at school is an indirect consequence of being there and is not a required part of being at school. Eventually sex has to lead to babies or else the human race dies out. You can apply the logic to school and getting shot if you want, but I think it lacks weight considering the difference between direct and indirect consequences. We hold people accountable for the consequences of their actions based on how foreseeable and directly related to the act they were when they chose to commit the act.

You also keep claiming I’m denying someone the ability to make the best they can out of bad inevitable consequences to their actions. I’ve said repeatedly you don’t have to like the consequences of your actions to consider your actions a choice. If someone smokes a pack a day for 30 years and gets lung cancer most people are not going to feel incredibly sorry for that guy and are going to view those consequences as his choice since they were so obviously going to be result of his actions. That person is welcome to try every moral means possible to correct the condition, but they are not allowed to kill their child to relieve stress.

 

[hazmat]

its highly unlikely, but it is a known risk. but that doesnt even matter anyway. your opposing abortion has absolutely nothing to do with what choices are made; youre concerned with “moral means.” all that talk of choice is a waste of time. maybe you want to waste time.

 

[Nate13]

its highly unlikely, but it is a known risk. but that doesnt even matter anyway. your opposing abortion has absolutely nothing to do with what choices are made; youre concerned with “moral means.” all that talk of choice is a waste of time. maybe you want to waste time.

Lol well at least you didn’t make this comment while we were arguing this issue in the moral theology section although this topic most certainly would fit in that section. That would have been really ironic. “Stop talking about morals in the moral theology section”… Granted your statement is still ridiculous. If you don’t want to talk about morals your in the wrong place.

 

[hazmat]

you misunderstand. i said your talk about choice is a waste of time. im encouraging you to stick with talking morality: “consider not distracting from your point by citing choice when its irrelevant; youre concerned with whether an action is moral, not with whether something was chosen.”