Why no argument for abortion has ever worked.

Is the "responsibility" for creating the dependence really that significant? Like if the woman had reasonable cause to believe she was infertile permanently or temporarily then are any pregnancies that result due to exceptional circumstances suddenly permissible to abort?

(Short answer: No more than usual, and responsibility is a dumb dead end)
 
Responsibility always matters. But you'll note I only really care at about week 25 or so. It has nothing to do with responsibility for pregnancy, but more about intentionally forcing an insentient into a sentient
 
El_Machinae said:
Sure. Like I said, the arguments are usually vacuous. See 'bodily autonomy' wrt my hacksaw example above

It's not a fair analogy. You already said a woman doesn't cede bodily autonomy by having sex. Having sex is not analogous to handcuffing a person to you and then leaping into the ocean.
edit: If you're only talking about 25 weeks and after, no woman suddenly decides to abort after 25 weeks. The only abortions that happen that late are done because either the fetus, the mother, or both are in danger of dying.
Actually, I would say the state does have a legitimate compelling interest in forbidding abortions done that late (obviously with exceptions, such as those above). It's fair to say if you're gonna make the decision, you've gotta make it earlier than that.
 
The proper argument has nothing to do with sapience or sentience.
It's about a parasite.
If something is living inside your body (even another human), go ahead and kill it if you want.
Pro Tip: Don't depend on the womb of someone else if you expect human rights.
 
Pro Tip: Don't depend on the womb of someone else if you expect human rights.

Yeah, those disgusting fetuses should've thought twice before invading someone else's body!
 
They should have been designed with a different purpose.
 
Just because something is not logical does not mean it is not rational. For example, my argument from state duties is from ethos and is rational. That is not to say that end results are not important. An argument from end results does not mandate a certain form of persuasion.

You need to grasp what the end results are first to know what you're choosing in the first place, regardless of ethos. It's not the kind of thing one would want to enforce in ignorance of the consequences.

Rather than mandating form of persuasion, it's a necessary step to have a viable basis for making a conclusion in either direction, or a different one entirely.

Is the fact of the matter that you're placing a burden on a living person (or large numbers depending) to keep something alive that, as of yet, doesn't have the ability to perceive pain or loss? Or is the fact of the matter something else? Even an argument from ethos isn't going to fly if you can't pin down facts.

Being forced to carry a pregnancy to term is a far greater violation of bodily autonomy than any organ donation.

No doubt, given the physical implications. But it doesn't stop there either, and ultimately the autonomy violated could extend past the mother as well depending on the circumstance.

Once you give yourself the 'right' to define the 'role' of things, then you can just win all the arguments by assuming the conclusion.

No joke. "Nature" doesn't care, either. There are no "roles", that's a contrived human conception of reality. Reality is still what actually happens, and there is nobody who "designed" nature to the best of our evidence-based knowledge. As such, arguments that hold for early-term fetuses should also hold for skin cells, cloning, and sperm/eggs...all examples of "potential sapience" that are missed, and in inconceivable quantities too!

But none of that inconvenience matters if one simply assumes the conclusion.
 
"If you don't want an abortion, don't have sex" is the most insulting line of reasoning I have heard this week. Who the hell is going to stop having sex? Look at how well abstinence works..

:mischief:
abstinence works just fine !

150625-news-bristolpalin.jpg
 
"If you don't want an abortion, don't have sex" is the most insulting line of reasoning I have heard this week.

Who the hell is going to stop having sex? Look at how well abstinence works..

Who is going to stop having sex? Maybe if people believed there were actual consequences to sex that they did not desire they wouldn't be having sex to begin with. This goes for guys too, if you don't want to be a biological father and responsible for providing for a child, don't impregnate someone.
 
Who is going to stop having sex? Maybe if people believed there were actual consequences to sex that they did not desire they wouldn't be having sex to begin with. This goes for guys too, if you don't want to be a biological father and responsible for providing for a child, don't impregnate someone.

Like I said, trying to stop people from having sex doesn't work. So why continue trying?
 
Like I said, trying to stop people from having sex doesn't work. So why continue trying?

I guess, so you can blame them afterwards and have what looks like a great excuse to make abortion illegal (which doesn't stop them having abortions either but who's counting?).
 
Like I said, trying to stop people from having sex doesn't work. So why continue trying?

Condoms aren't so great at reducing pregnancy rate because people are terrible at using them and they engage in more sex. Long acting birth control is however, of course IUDs can have horrific side effects in a some cases.
 
Mandatory chastity belts for all! To be unlocked only on the signature of a waiver stating you are willing to be the parent of a child!
 
No. Right now, I'd support a state-sponsored orphanage. I know it sounds hideous, and I know that our childcare system is screwed, but every single one of those kids would prefer it to dying.

Then explain. From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foster_care
Children in foster care are at a greater risk of suicide,[55] the increased risk of suicide is still prevalent after leaving foster care and occurs at a higher rate than the general population. In a small study of twenty-two Texan youths who aged out of the system, 23 percent had a history of suicide attempts.[56]

A Swedish study utilizing the data of almost one million people including 22,305 former foster children who had been in care prior to their teens, concluded:

Former child welfare clients were in year of birth and sex standardised risk ratios (RRs) four to five times more likely than peers in the general population to have been hospitalised for suicide attempts....Individuals who had been in long-term foster care tended to have the most dismal outcome...former child welfare/protection clients should be considered a high-risk group for suicide attempts and severe psychiatric morbidity.[57]

Not all would choose life.
This does not necessarily prove anything except that you shouldn't use such absolutes when you're pulling ideas out of your ass to support your opinion.
 
No. Right now, I'd support a state-sponsored orphanage. I know it sounds hideous, and I know that our childcare system is screwed, but every single one of those kids would prefer it to dying.

Tangential point, in essence comparing foster children to skin cells, to the extent that we've established potential vs present sapience as criteria. If that sounds ridiculous, then feel free to address the issues presented.
 
Then explain. From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foster_care


Not all would choose life.
This does not necessarily prove anything except that you shouldn't use such absolutes when you're pulling ideas out of your ass to support your opinion.

What percent were actually given up at birth and what percent were from broken homes where the parents were judged incapable of caring for them, but without stripping them of their parental rights? A lot of kids in the foster system were stuck because they still legally had parents who didn't want to let them go.
 
The argument for legal abortion is simple: You don't get to impose your misogyny and failed understanding of religion on other people. So you have no valid right to make a law against it.
 
The argument for legal abortion from a simpleton: You don't get to impose your misogyny and failed understanding of religion on other people. So you have no valid right to make a law against it.

Did you mean that?

Sorry, but if you really can't conceive (no pun intended) of any moral argument against abortion that doesn't stem from either hatred of women or from religion, then you really need to have another think and come back later.
 
Back
Top Bottom