Real arguments for abortion?

[CompSciGuy]

I have met pro-choice people in person and on the Internet, but I have never met someone who gave a real moral argument for abortion. When I witness debates (especially on the Internet) the pro-choicers I witness usually resort to straw-men, name-calling, ad-hominem attacks or even personal insults. Some of the typical responses I hear are, for example,

“you are a man, you have no say in the matter,”
“if you are against abortion, you hate women and are at war with women,”
“leave your religion out of women’s issues (even though the abortion is not a religious matter but a human rights matter),”
“you just want to control women’s sexual habits,”
etc.

I have also seen a lot of people accuse pro-life activists of having no confidence in science, even though they (the pro-choicers) offer nothing scientific to support their own view, nor do they offer examples of pro-lifers being anti-science.

When life issues are brought up, 90 percent of the time they are ignored or dismissed. On the rare occasion where pro-choicers are willing to address this matter, it usually amounts to “an undeveloped human of X weeks does not constitute a real person,” often with no explanation as to how he/she determined X (and X varies pretty wildly from person to person). When an explanation is given, a lot of times it has to do with the ability to feel pain or cognitive developments, which have obvious counter arguments (you can anesthetize an adult human before killing them and that still would be unethical, or you could kill an incapacitated adult human and that would also be unethical).

I wish I could hear just one solid argument for abortion. There must be some reason why so many people support it.

 

[ProdglArchitect]

I wish I could hear just one solid argument for abortion. There must be some reason why so many people support it.

If you want to hear a legitimate reason for abortion you will spend the entirety of your life being disappointed, because one doesn’t exist. No justification could outweigh the reality that an abortion is the brutal murder of an innocent human being. There are -no- legitimate reasons for it, only irrational, baseless assertions that can be easily overturned by anyone with an ounce of logical reasoning and intellectual integrity.

 

[Mumbles140]

I wish I could hear just one solid argument for abortion. There must be some reason why so many people support it.

As a mostly former smoker myself, can someone provide one rational argument why it is OK to smoke cigarettes? Especially in light of all of the health facts available? People will make the choices they want to make, and will find some argument here or there to support it, regardless of whether it has a logical basis.

I have a good friend, atheist, and we got onto the topic of the morning-after pill and whether it was abortifacient. After cutting through a lot of the lies associated with abortions, in a matter of 5 minutes, I got her on board with no abortions after 20 weeks (as opposed to her previous views of abortion on demand).

If you have the right audience, and you can have a real debate with them, it isn’t hard to at least start the change. We just have to break the oppressed-mentality propagated by PP and most of the Left…

 

[Sy_Noe]

When I witness debates (especially on the Internet) the pro-choicers I witness usually resort to straw-men, name-calling, ad-hominem attacks or even personal insults.

You don’t really want to go there. Name-calling, attacks, and personal insults, trust me I know, are by no means limited to pro-choicers. Not even in the slightest. And that includes on internet forums.

 

[Tim_D]

I have also seen a lot of people accuse pro-life activists of having no confidence in science, even though they (the pro-choicers) offer nothing scientific to support their own view, nor do they offer examples of pro-lifers being anti-science.

That is because they know they will lose the argument if they try to rely on science. By the time a woman even realizes she is pregnant, the heart is formed and beating, supplying blood and oxygen to support life functions. They know this; they don’t care. They want abortion no matter the morals or ethics involved. I would at least have a modicum of respect (not really) for someone who honestly said “I don’t care if it is a life, a baby or a human; I want my right to kill it.”

 

[ProdglArchitect]

You don’t really want to go there. Name-calling, attacks, and personal insults, trust me I know, are by no means limited to pro-choicers. Not even in the slightest. And that includes on internet forums.

The thing is, even when pro-life people resort to straw-man arguments, name-calling, etc., there are other pro-lifers making solid, rational, scientifically-based arguments for their position. The point the OP is trying to make is that with the pro-choice people, those other people aren’t there, it’s nothing but straw-man and circular arguments.

 

[MacBP]

You don’t really want to go there. Name-calling, attacks, and personal insults, trust me I know, are by no means limited to pro-choicers. Not even in the slightest. And that includes on internet forums.

Unfortunately all too true. I tend to view pro-lifers as generally being more level headed, but that might be because I’ve never been on the other side and the power imbalance forces pro-lifers to be more cautious.

 

[Mumbles140]

A favorite argument I’ve heard is “Well what are you going to do, arrest every single woman who has an abortion? How is that going to help anyone.” Note that there is no push to say it is right or should be legal, only how do we respond when so many people have already held it as legal for so long. That is not an argument against legal abortion, it is a hurdle for making it a crime - one which I would gladly dedicate my time to if necessary!

 

[Stephen_says]

I don’t think there are any good “moral” arguments for a lot of things that people do, especially the people we put in charge of our countries. The argument that advocates of all sorts of issues make, I think, is basically that morality is relative, and laws are arbitrary, in which case there are no good reasons to prohibit anything, aside from popular opinion.

We decided, for reasons amoral, that abortion, gambling, gay marriage, taxation, pornography, standing armies, and smoking marijuana (in some places) is legal, not “moral”.

Nowadays, legality = morality, our rights come from the government, and dissent is bigotry.

 

[1ke]

Yes, there certainly are perceived “real” arguments for abortion.

Randy Alcorn wrote an entire book refuting them, and has an updated/expanded edition available of that original book. I highly recommend his book, available on Amazon or other bookseller sites.

 

[on_the_hill]

I think that’s because we’re arguing about it from entirely different perspectives.

Pro-life = the fetus is a living human being

Pro-choice = this is a matter of a woman’s rights

From our perspective, the right doesn’t exist. From their perspective, the fetus is irrelevant.

 

[ProdglArchitect]

I think that’s because we’re arguing about it from entirely different perspectives.

Pro-life = the fetus is a living human being

Pro-choice = this is a matter of a woman’s rights

From our perspective, the right doesn’t exist. From their perspective, the fetus is irrelevant.

Huh, so, they chose self-love over love of the other… sounds familiar.

 

[Jeannie52]

If you want to hear a legitimate reason for abortion you will spend the entirety of your life being disappointed, because one doesn’t exist. No justification could outweigh the reality that an abortion is the brutal murder of an innocent human being. There are -no- legitimate reasons for it, only irrational, baseless assertions that can be easily overturned by anyone with an ounce of logical reasoning and intellectual integrity.

This is very well stated.

Those in the abortion industry are murdering innocent unborn children by tearing their tiny bodies apart and that, most definitely, stops their tiny heart from beating. There is absolutely no legitimate reason for murdering an innocent unborn child.:tsktsk::tsktsk:

A heart beating is an innocent human being; to stop their heart from beating is murder.
EVERY CHILD CONCEIVED is a TRUE BLESSING FROM GOD because to conceive a child is a DEFINITE MIRACLE.

Our Lady of Guadalupe, pray for the innocent unborn children.

 

[MatthewTrainor]

I wish I could hear just one solid argument for abortion. There must be some reason why so many people support it.

The only real argument for legalized abortion is this: “Abortion lets us have more sex with less responsibility.”

It is unsurprising that few pro-“choice” people make this assertion.

 

[MacBP]

I wish I could hear just one solid argument for abortion. There must be some reason why so many people support it.

There are essentially two types of arguments for abortions that I’m aware of and which do not rely on faulty science: an argument which says that the quality of life and well being is more important than the life of her developing child and arguments which champion total personal autonomy.

The first argument would point the numerous detrimental outcomes from having an unplanned pregnancy. For many women, particularly vulnerable women who are young or who are very poor, an unplanned pregnancy can mean the difference between a successful, prosperous life and a difficult, miserable one. While terminating one’s pregnancy will come at the cost of their developing child’s life, and while this isn’t a good thing, the benefit to the mother outweighs negative of ending that child’s life.

Typically, the child will be valued less than the mother for a variety of reasons, but intuitively I think people value the child less because they believe that where the mother will consciously experience the downside of an unplanned pregnancy, the unborn child neither knows or is capable of caring that it is alive. Ending that child’s life would be depriving him/her of something that child (at that current stage of development) won’t miss.

The second major argument seems to come from personal autonomy. While its true that the child is a distinct individual, that child’s existence requires him/her to draw resources from his/her mother’s body. The woman is forced to give up her body’s resources and experience the many physical, emotional and mental effects of pregnancy for an uninvited individual. A poor analogy might be if the government suddenly showed up at your house and forced you to take care of a small child. Abortion supporters would argue that women should have the right to control when and with who they choose to share their resources with.

Both on a certain understanding about the meaning and purpose of sex (barring cases of rape) and on the nature of the value of human life. Most people who are sexually active don’t consider procreation to be the natural result of sex, and so babies become an unwanted surprise (like, for example, cancer) instead of the natural result of one’s choices. In this way, barring cases of non-consensual sex, we would say that individuals accept the responsibility of bearing new life when they choose to become sexually active. Both arguments also require us to believe that human life is valuable not because of what it is (i.e. human) but rather its attributes. I think discussions about abortion will almost inevitably break down because the pro-life mentality about these two issues is often radically different than the pro-choice mentality. Understanding one another’s arguments, and successfully addressing them, requires us to discuss these topics first.

 

[MatthewTrainor]

The first argument would point the numerous detrimental outcomes from having an unplanned pregnancy. For many women, particularly vulnerable women who are young or who are very poor, an unplanned pregnancy can mean the difference between a successful, prosperous life and a difficult, miserable one. While terminating one’s pregnancy will come at the cost of their developing child’s life, and while this isn’t a good thing, the benefit to the mother outweighs negative of ending that child’s life.

This is what is known as a false dilemma. In the situation you have described the primary cost to the mother is the time and expense of raising the child, not allowing it to live. If the goal is to avoid the costs raising a child one can always give it up for adoption. In many cases this can ensure prenatal costs are covered as well.

Typically, the child will be valued less than the mother for a variety of reasons, but intuitively I think people value the child less because they believe that where the mother will consciously experience the downside of an unplanned pregnancy, the unborn child neither knows or is capable of caring that it is alive. Ending that child’s life would be depriving him/her of something that child (at that current stage of development) won’t miss.

The same is true for all newborn children. This is a great argument in favor of infanticide.

The second major argument seems to come from personal autonomy. While its true that the child is a distinct individual, that child’s existence requires him/her to draw resources from his/her mother’s body. The woman is forced to give up her body’s resources and experience the many physical, emotional and mental effects of pregnancy for an uninvited individual. A poor analogy might be if the government suddenly showed up at your house and forced you to take care of a small child. Abortion supporters would argue that women should have the right to control when and with who they choose to share their resources with.

While a nice intellectual argument, I’m not aware of a single woman who sought an abortion because she declined to “share resources” with the child. (source)

Most people who are sexually active don’t consider procreation to be the natural result of sex, and so babies become an unwanted surprise (like, for example, cancer) instead of the natural result of one’s choices.

This is another way of saying that most people who are sexually active are idiots. I simply do not believe that any such person exists (unaccompanied by a 24/7 psychiatric health aide that is). At best there are people who may have convinced themselves that sex is totally free from any and all consequences, but if questioned closely will be forced to admit that they in fact do know of the potential for pregnancy.

It seems neither of your proposed arguments is supported by science, faulty or otherwise.

 

[SMH_2015]

Personally I’ve never heard anyone argue that abortion is a “good” thing, only a less-bad thing than something else (e.g., better than giving birth to a terribly deformed baby).

The most common defense (especially from men) goes something like, “Well, I really don’t like it, but what right do I have to tell a woman what to do with her body?”

 

[CuriousMike]

Folks I’ve dealt with have a couple of interesting points I want to throw in, mostly because I would like them answered(!), as they can be stumbling blocks:

• Women facing un-planned pregancy (i.e. rape) may end their lives as a result of the pregnancy, or the emotional burden of carrying “someone else’s child”
• Legalising abortion at least means the practice isn’t forced into the underground. i.e. it can be regulated and monitored.*

*Flaw here is that someone denied an Abortion may well go and do it somehow themselves.

 

[Stephen_says]

Folks I’ve dealt with have a couple of interesting points I want to throw in, mostly because I would like them answered(!), as they can be stumbling blocks:

• Women facing un-planned pregancy (i.e. rape) may end their lives as a result of the pregnancy, or the emotional burden of carrying “someone else’s child”
• Legalising abortion at least means the practice isn’t forced into the underground. i.e. it can be regulated and monitored.*

*Flaw here is that someone denied an Abortion may well go and do it somehow themselves.

Your first point highlights an issue that I recently read online, namely that there may be a lack (or a perceived lack) of charity and support regarding the woman. The argument goes that Pro-Lifers view pregnant women as only vessels for a baby, and disregard the women’s thoughts, feelings, struggles, and personhood.

I think this is an important point that we could all stand to learn from: In our passion for the issue of life, do we fail to actually shine the light on the real struggles of the mother and why she is facing this decision in the first place? I know this isn’t really an answer, but more of a call for more charity and compassion instead of the vitriol that occasionally dominates the debate.

As for your second point: It has been shown that so-called “Coat Hangar Abortions” are a myth. Even prior to legalized abortions, the majority of them were performed by doctors, and the rate of complications and infections were reduced by the advent of more modern medical practices and medication, not by legalization, while today there is still a severe lack of regulation, as many abortion clinics go for years without being inspected by government officials.

 

[MatthewTrainor]

• Women facing un-planned pregancy (i.e. rape) may end their lives as a result of the pregnancy, or the emotional burden of carrying “someone else’s child”

Anyone who is seriously contemplating suicide is obviously in desperate need of love, assistance and support from others, but I don’t see how allowing a woman to kill her child, innocent of any offense, is the only way to resolve the dilemma. The so called “rape-exception” is also based on a false premise. It presupposes that the trauma of rape lasts only 9 months or less, otherwise how could a pregnancy extend it? Any woman in this situation needs compassionate counseling and, if necessary, assistance in arranging for the adoption of her child. Very few jurisdictions allow for the death penalty for convicted rapists, why should the innocent child be put to death? Children conceived in rape have a right to live. If the mother is properly counseled (i.e. not told her child is just a “clump of cells”), the knowledge that she heroically saved the life of an innocent child can only help her overcome the trauma caused by the rape.

• Legalising abortion at least means the practice isn’t forced into the underground. i.e. it can be regulated and monitored.*
  *Flaw here is that someone denied an Abortion may well go and do it somehow themselves.

The same can be said for any kind of criminal offense, like patricide for instance. Young adults tired of waiting for the old man to kick the bucket might take matters into their own hands. Better to have it regulated and monitored, eh?