Why no argument for abortion has ever worked.

[Senethro]

Forever searching for the tiniest nitpicks.

 

[Cutlass]

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.

Missed the point. Even if you make a legitimate moral argument, and a few actually do, wonder of wonders. It doesn't add up to a compelling public interest in depriving people of their rights in such a personal matter.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

Forever searching for the tiniest nitpicks.

Seriously?! You call that a tiny nitpick? You really think a statement like "only people who hate women or who are religious nutjobs have arguments against abortion" is something that is essentially correct apart from tiny nitpicky details?

 

[Manfred Belheim]

Missed the point. Even if you make a legitimate moral argument, and a few actually do, wonder of wonders. It doesn't add up to a compelling public interest in depriving people of their rights in such a personal matter.

That isn't what you said. And even if that was what you said, it's still wrong, just for different reasons. You don't get to personally decide what "legitimate moral arguments" constitute a "compelling public interest" and contribute to the shaping of legislation. And you certainly can't dismiss them out of hand without even saying what they are.

 

[Askthepizzaguy]

The argument for abortion:

No other person is allowed inside your body without your consent. And just like with sex, consent can be removed before the process has been carried through to completion. This is an issue that certain people, especially males, especially misogynistic and religious males, seem to struggle with.

You cannot force a woman to become a mother against her will. Sorry not sorry.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

Twaddle

 

[Cutlass]

That isn't what you said. And even if that was what you said, it's still wrong, just for different reasons. You don't get to personally decide what "legitimate moral arguments" constitute a "compelling public interest" and contribute to the shaping of legislation. And you certainly can't dismiss them out of hand without even saying what they are.

Move goalposts much?

Laws should be based on a legitimate public interest. That is, the society has to have a compelling reason to deny personal liberty before it has the right to do so. A minority of the anti-choice crowd even attempts to make the moral case. And in so doing, they demonstrate that they really don't mean it, because they also back so many anti-child and pro-abortion positions. Since the overwhelming majority of the anti-choice movement spends even more of their time and energy in trying to cause as many abortions as possible, and, failing that, to kill as many of the born children as possible, and, failing that, to destroy the lives of those children, so that the next generation is more desperate to have abortions as well, opposing abortion for moral reasons, or out of concern for the children, is clearly not believable. So you have this group which is not "pro-life", but calls itself that, and in fact is extremely hostile to life, claiming that they are doing so for moral reasons.

They do not have an argument that they have a compelling public interest, because they make it explicitly clear that they don't care if the child lives or dies. So since it's not about the child, it can only be about the choice. And if it's about the choice, there's no compelling public interest in making a law.

 

[El_Machinae]

There IS an incredible anti-choice and faith-based component to the prolife public discourse. But only attacking it isn't good discussion, if no one is presenting those arguments. It's not a good faith effort to move the conversation forwards.

 

[Lexicus]

There IS an incredible anti-choice and faith-based component to the prolife public discourse. But only attacking it isn't good discussion, if no one is presenting those arguments. It's not a good faith effort to move the conversation forwards.

On the contrary, ignoring all the stuff Cutlass is not 'good discussion.' The pretense that these arguments can be considered in a vacuum is not a 'good faith effort to move the conversation forwards.'

Just as one example, if you supported for the Iraq War, and voted for the people who carried it out, you have absolutely zero moral basis to say that abortion should be illegal.

The funny thing of course is that Manfred probably isn't even pro-life, he just couldn't miss an opportunity to deny the manifest truth that most of the anti-abortion public discourse (let alone laws restricting abortion) are motivated by misogyny and patriarchy. It's yet another front in the ongoing battle against SJWs.

 

[Cutlass]

Having not read all, or pretty much any, of the intervening arguments, my point is that the thread title is "Why no argument for abortion has ever worked." To which I counter, "no argument against abortion has ever worked, for it has no basis in legitimate public interests".

 

[Lexicus]

Having not read all, or pretty much any, of the intervening arguments, my point is that the thread title is "Why no argument for abortion has ever worked." To which I counter, "no argument against abortion has ever worked, for it has basis in legitimate public interests".

I've been thinking that the entire time. Abortion is legal throughout most of the developed world; I think the OP meant 'why no argument for abortion has ever convinced me'.

 

[Askthepizzaguy]

Twaddle

Consent may be 'twaddle' in the minds of certain people, but if it were their bodies being violated, the concept would suddenly become not twaddle. In which case, I posit the theory that it was never twaddle in the first place.

 

[Vectors]

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.

I am a woman who believes abortion is a grave affront against human life and dignity, does this to you make me a misogynist?

 

[TheMeInTeam]

That isn't what you said. And even if that was what you said, it's still wrong, just for different reasons. You don't get to personally decide what "legitimate moral arguments" constitute a "compelling public interest" and contribute to the shaping of legislation. And you certainly can't dismiss them out of hand without even saying what they are.

I don't know what differentiates "legitimate moral arguments" from illegitimate ones so I'll skip considering that for now.

However for legislation you do need something of compelling public interest in order to create and enforce law. For that, we need evidence, which is in short supply so far in this thread.

It's yet another front in the ongoing battle against SJWs.

I'd rather not give "SJW" (and I'd prefer not shoving people into group associations, too much bias) the time of day unless they're making a rational case for something, and if that's happening it will be valid no matter who makes it.

The consent stuff is a little tangential. We're looking for a self-consistent reason the procedure should be more strongly regulated than birth control, and to this point in the thread one has not been presented.

 

[Lexicus]

I am a woman who believes abortion is a grave affront against human life and dignity, does this to you make me a misogynist?

First of all, he's talking about people who believe abortion should be illegal so if you don't believe abortion should be illegal it doesn't concern you. Secondly, yeah women can be misogynists, absolutely. I don't think you've given us enough material to make that determination, but being a woman doesn't mean you can't be a misogynist.

 

[El_Machinae]

Just as one example, if you supported for the Iraq War, and voted for the people who carried it out, you have absolutely zero moral basis to say that abortion should be illegal.

It's interesting that you make such black and white declarations. Your way or the highway? Your insight is so objectively superior?

That phrasing is a conversation ender, not an opener. I read it, and if I don't agree, I realize there's no point commenting. Another young male thinks he knows better than everyone.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

Move goalposts much?

Okay so... you say there is no argument against abortion other than misogyny and religion. I call that out for being absurd. You then say I missed your point and that your point was actually to say that any legitimate moral argument against abortion doesn't constitue enough of a compelling public interest to change legislation, a statment which bears almost no relation to your original comment whatsoever. And you accuse ME of moving the goalposts?!

 

[Lexicus]

That phrasing is a conversation ender, not an opener.

*shrug* Not particularly interested in having conversations based on false premises, such as the premise that one can condemn abortion as murder while supporting actual murder and still claim the moral high ground (or even basic logical consistency).

Okay so... you say there is no argument against abortion other than misogyny and religion.

What he actually said was, no argument against abortion being legal. Arguing against abortion in the abstract is different from arguing that it shouldn't be legal.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

The funny thing of course is that Manfred probably isn't even pro-life, he just couldn't miss an opportunity to deny the manifest truth that most of the anti-abortion public discourse (let alone laws restricting abortion) are motivated by misogyny and patriarchy. It's yet another front in the ongoing battle against SJWs.

You're right, I'm not pro-life. But note your use of the word "most" there. Now go back and read what Cutlass said and what my response was. Whether or not I missed his point as he claims, it should be clear what my objection was and that it didn't revolve around anything like the word "most" being used.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

What he actually said was, no argument against abortion being legal. Arguing against abortion in the abstract is different from arguing that it shouldn't be legal.

And I get accused of making the tiniest of nitpicks...

How can anyone seriously claim that misogyny and religious bigotry are the only grounds upon which you could make an argument against abortion?

How can anyone seriously claim that misogyny and religious bigotry are the only grounds upon which you could make a legal argument against abortion?

Yeah... I'm not really seeing any fundamental difference between those two questions. Unless you're saying that your entire legal system is based on those two things and so therefore any legal challenges can only be permitted on those grounds? And yet simultaneously this also seems to be the reason why such arguments can be dismissed?