Why no argument for abortion has ever worked.

[warpus]

It's the same as the government rounding up and shooting homeless people on the grounds that productive citizens will not longer have to support them.

Yes, it's exactly the same, you've cracked the case! Finally...

I would laugh, if this wasn't so incredibly sad.

 

[Lexicus]

Because unlike donating organs (not blood), carrying a baby to term does not have permanent and severe effects on the woman's body. In fact, her body is designed to carry out that precise function.

Wow. I was wondering when we'd get to the 'women are baby factories' point, but I admit I thought it would take considerably longer than this.
Also note that it's completely untrue that carrying a pregnancy to term doesn't have 'permanent and severe' effects on a woman's body. Even in the best-case scenario there are lasting effects...and without modern medicine enormous numbers of pregnancies end in the woman's death. Even with modern medicine pregnancy is the sixth most common cause of death for women between the ages of 20 and 34 in the US.

Yes, men don't get pregnant. What's the point of saying this if not claiming that men can't understand abortion unless they have to deal with its alternatives personally?

Well, I think it's clear from what you've said here that you've never been involved in an unwanted pregnancy or known anyone close to you who faced this choice. You also apparently know very little if anything about pregnancy generally, so I think I can pretty safely say you don't understand abortion, which undoubtedly is what leads you to make such silly pronouncements about it.

 

[Evie]

Your entire first argument is built on the premise that a thing either has value, in which case we should never allow its death, or it hasn't, in which case we can allow its death. It denies the existence of any middle state where a thing may be recognized to have some value, but that value may come second-best in a conflict with something of even greater value.

Animal cruelty laws make the opposite case. Clearly, animals are not recognized in our society to have as much value as humans ; we eat them and allow them to be property. Yet, clearly, they are recognized to have some value, since we feel the need to restrict the abilities of their owners to treat them inhumanely.

It seems pretty obvious that human society recognizes intermediary degrees of value, not just a binary choice between "valuable" and "not valuable". Things and beings in those intermediary degrees are often granted some measure of protection, but less than those recognized to have greater value.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

If your argument is something like abortion lowering crime rates (which has been pretty much debunked anyway) than I ask you if it is acceptable to kill everyone who commits a felony-level crime.

No that's not my argument at all. I'm just saying there is no nuance in your two options. You have:

1) Foetuses (Foeti?) have no more moral value than a rock, this is 100% certain.

2) Women have 100% right to do whatever they want with their bodies, regardless of the consequences to anyone or anything else.

While no doubt some people hold these views, these aren't the only views that can be held, nor do they need to be held with absolute 100% certainty in that way. It's possible to weigh competing ideas against each other, both of which are essentially "right", and make a decision based on reasoning of the grey areas. But you're denying grey areas even exist.

 

[Mouthwash]

Yes, it's exactly the same, you've cracked the case! Finally...

I would laugh, if this wasn't so incredibly sad.

Dude, I was specifically addressing people who accept that fetuses have a right to life but think abortion is fine anyway.

Wow. I was wondering when we'd get to the 'women are baby factories' point, but I admit I thought it would take considerably longer than this.

It's been expedited by your skill in quote-mining.

The point is that people's bodies aren't designed to handle organ removal, while they are designed to handle procreation.

Also note that it's completely untrue that carrying a pregnancy to term doesn't have 'permanent and severe' effects on a woman's body. Even in the best-case scenario there are lasting effects...

Being on life-support for years isn't usually one of those effects. Of course, I'm talking about major organs. A little tissue should definitely be mandatory.

.and without modern medicine enormous numbers of pregnancies end in the woman's death.

Have I mentioned that I endorse abortion if the mother's life is in danger? Because I do.

Even with modern medicine pregnancy is the sixth most common cause of death for women between the ages of 20 and 34 in the US.

Abortion is the number one cause of death for children.

Well, I think it's clear from what you've said here that ad hominem ad hominem

So prickly. I must be making headway.

 

[Princeps]

but it is not considered acceptable to kill children below two years of age, although their mental state isn't advanced much beyond than a chimp's.

Fetuses and two year old babies are not the same thing. They're not the same to people or the law. That's enough. You don't need any further philosophical nonsense to justify the difference.

Fetuses have the ability to develop sapience, an inherent capacity which is part of their nature.

This is potential humanity, not actual humanity. A nut can grow into a tree, but that doesn't make the nut a tree.

but this also applies to someone who is under general anesthesia, or in a coma.

A human in a coma is still a human. He has lived and can continue to live as a human being.

A fetus is not human. IT can become a human if the parents choose to have it, but you have to be born first to become a human.

I don't see how you need any further justification. It's common sense. It's perfectly acceptable to most people and can be unambiguously expressed in legislation.

You're going to have to put the arbitrary definition of a human beginning at some point; at conception is just as arbitrary after all, so you might as well put it where it's most palatable to people while being the most humane to women, which is at birth or somewhere along the pregnancy.

 

[warpus]

Dude, I was specifically addressing people who accept that fetuses have a right to life but think abortion is fine anyway.

It's such warped logic all over your OP and in all your arguments, if I had to guess I would say it's a poor attempt at satire.

 

[Mouthwash]

Your entire first argument is built on the premise that a thing either has value, in which case we should never allow its death, or it hasn't, in which case we can allow its death. It denies the existence of any middle state where a thing may be recognized to have some value, but that value may come second-best in a conflict with something of even greater value.

Animal cruelty laws make the opposite case. Clearly, animals are not recognized in our society to have as much value as humans ; we eat them and allow them to be property. Yet, clearly, they are recognized to have some value, since we feel the need to restrict the abilities of their owners to treat them inhumanely.

It seems pretty obvious that human society recognizes intermediary degrees of value, not just a binary choice between "valuable" and "not valuable". Things and beings in those intermediary degrees are often granted some measure of protection, but less than those recognized to have greater value.

Certainly, but something which has the capacity for sapience must be valued at the same level that a sapient entity (i.e. a human) is. This is the point of my analogy to adults which are unconscious. Or do you have a counterargument?

No that's not my argument at all. I'm just saying there is no nuance in your two options. You have:

1) Foetuses (Foeti?) have no more moral value than a rock, this is 100% certain.

2) Women have 100% right to do whatever they want with their bodies, regardless of the consequences to anyone or anything else.

While no doubt some people hold these views, these aren't the only views that can be held, nor do they need to be held with absolute 100% certainty in that way. It's possible to weigh competing ideas against each other, both of which are essentially "right", and make a decision based on reasoning of the grey areas. But you're denying grey areas even exist.

I'm not. But the only gray area that I can think of that applies to either of my arguments is the belief that the right to bodily integrity is strong enough to overcome the right to life. That's why I addressed it in particular. If you can think of any gray area that I've missed, I wouldn't hesitate to revise my position.

 

[Arwon]

Because unlike donating organs (not blood), carrying a baby to term does not have permanent and severe effects on the woman's body. In fact, her body is designed to carry out that precise function.

It is always amusing how clean and neat and easy and safe anti-abortion dudes think the whole pregnancy and birth process is. Awfully convenient for the ideology to imagine that anatomy works that way.

Kind of like how the "life begins at conception" crowd like to wish or imagine away big messy ambiguous chunks of the processes of conception, implantation, menstruation and spontaneous abortion.

 

[Lexicus]

It is always amusing how clean and neat and easy and safe anti-abortion dudes think the whole pregnancy and birth process is. Awfully convenient for the ideology to imagine that anatomy works that way.

Kind of like how the "life begins at conception" crowd like to wish or imagine away big messy ambiguous chunks of the processes of conception, implantation, menstruation and spontaneous abortion.

Like I said, it's clear he knows very little about pregnancy. I would guess he also knows very little about the biology of conception and fetal development but as we haven't gotten into that it's just a guess at this point.

 

[Vectors]

My real concern with abortion is that if you don't ban it at conception you are drawing arbitrary lines and if it is acceptable at 8 weeks, why not 12? 20? 30? Why not even allowing after birth abortions since scientifically there isn't much difference between a baby five minutes before birth and five minutes after birth other than location. Even after birth babies are still completely dependent on people for food, water, shelter, etc. and it is illegal to not provide it If you Are the caretaker.

Oh and Lexicus, if someone tried to end life support for someone who is expected to make a full recovery they would almost certainly be stripped of power of attorney.

 

[BvBPL]

I've never heard that argument made. Anyway, unless the obligation is to have as many children as possible, it suggests that abortion is justified if you intend to have other kids.

Regarding an obligation to have as many children as possible, that is the argument of the Catholic Church. Where the Church is one of the preeminent and most influential moral commentators of our time, ignoring arguments made by the Church is a significant oversight.

The usual 'argument' for having an abortion is that the person in question is financially or otherwise unable to raise a child (often, it's another child as most women who have abortions IIRC already have one or more child).

Certainly citing a person's inability to raise a child is a noteworthy argument for abortion rights. However, it does not reflect the circumstances if most abortions. For the most part, abortions occur because people are unwilling to raise the child, not because they are unable to do so.

 

[Mouthwash]

Fetuses and two year old babies are not the same thing. They're not the same to people or the law. That's enough. You don't need any further philosophical nonsense to justify the difference.
----------
It's perfectly acceptable to most people and can be unambiguously expressed in legislation.

Sorry, but law and morality are not the same thing. Your democratically elected government can declare Poles to be Untermenschen, but that doesn't make it the case.

This is potential humanity, not actual humanity. A nut can grow into a tree, but that doesn't make the nut a tree.

A human in a coma is still a human. He has lived and can continue to live as a human being.

We don't value humans because of their biological classification, we value them for their characteristics (sapience, sentience, natural agency, etc).

A fetus is not human. IT can become a human if the parents choose to have it, but you have to be born first to become a human.

We also don't value humans because of their online-forum-invented classification. Also, I'm being VERY charitable to avoid comparisons between this and certain other invented classifications...

I don't see how you need any further justification. It's common sense.

Philosophers can come to all kinds of odd conclusions, but I've never understood how someone's intuitions could find baby-killing A-OK.

You're going to have to put the arbitrary definition of a human beginning at some point; at conception is just as arbitrary after all, so you might as well put it where it's most palatable to people while being the most humane to women, which is at birth or somewhere along the pregnancy.

Since your view is (by admission) driven by convenience rather than morality, why stop there? Down Syndrome is a burden to society, after all.

 

[Lexicus]

Certainly citing a person's inability to raise a child is a noteworthy argument for abortion rights. However, it does not reflect the circumstances if most abortions. For the most part, abortions occur because people are unwilling to raise the child, not because they are unable to do so.

I think people themselves are probably the best judges of whether they are 'able' to raise a child or not.

Oh and Lexicus, if someone tried to end life support for someone who is expected to make a full recovery they would almost certainly be stripped of power of attorney.

There is never such an unambiguous "expectation" in the case of pregnancy. According to Google between 30 and 40% of all conceptions end in the loss of the pregnancy. Barring serious cases where there is an obvious defect or condition which will lead to miscarriage or other problems, I don't know how readily we can predict whether a given pregnancy will come to term 'normally.'

 

[Mouthwash]

It is always amusing how clean and neat and easy and safe anti-abortion dudes think the whole pregnancy and birth process is. Awfully convenient for the ideology to imagine that anatomy works that way.

Kind of like how the "life begins at conception" crowd like to wish or imagine away big messy ambiguous chunks of the processes of conception, implantation, menstruation and spontaneous abortion.

So is there an argument buried somewhere in here, or simply more about how I'm unqualified to even broach the subject?

Certainly citing a person's inability to raise a child is a noteworthy argument for abortion rights. However, it does not reflect the circumstances if most abortions. For the most part, abortions occur because people are unwilling to raise the child, not because they are unable to do so.

I don't care if the parents can't raise the kid. You don't put a bullet into a five-year old's skull because he doesn't have any parents, and therefore costs taxpayer money to keep alive. By the same token, you don't abort a fetus.

 

[Akka]

The reason no argument has worked, is because people's opinions are more grounded in what they want to be true, than in facts. And religious people have very strong willingness to go with what they want to be true.

 

[Arwon]

Latter is pretty much the former really matey.

 

[Lexicus]

I don't care if the parents can't raise the kid. You don't put a bullet into a five-year old's skull because he doesn't have any parents, and therefore costs taxpayer money to keep alive. By the same token, you don't abort a fetus.

So, force the mother to bring it to term so it can starve to death within a few years? How far are we willing to take this fixation with forcing women to give birth?

 

[Mouthwash]

The reason no argument has worked, is because people's opinions are more grounded in what they want to be true, than in facts. And religious people have very strong willingness to go with what they want to be true.

I wondered how long it would take to get to this.

(Still waiting on that rebuttal to the OP.)

So, force the mother to bring it to term so it can starve to death within a few years?

Why even bother to save anyone's life, if we're all going to die eventually?

 

[BvBPL]

I think people themselves are probably the best judges of whether they are 'able' to raise a child or not.'

A fine and dandy touchy feely approach that basically removes the ability to make generalized statements about abortion. It removes the logic from the conversation the same way as religion does.

Which illustrates the real reason why there is no logic argument for abortion. All of the persuasive arguments about abortion are made from ethos and pathos, not logos. Looking for a logical argument on either side is a fool's errand.