Why no argument for abortion has ever worked.

[Lexicus]

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

That is not a tiny nitpick. There is a vast practical difference between personally opposing abortion on moral grounds and taking the step of saying it should be illegal.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

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.

So what's the term for a man who tells a woman she's wrong about a view she holds, whilst simultaneously telling men who hold the same views that their opinion doesn't matter because they're men and shouldn't speak for women?

"Mansplaining hypocrite" perhaps?

 

[Vectors]

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.

I do believe abortion should be banned, but antiabortion efforts can't stop there as abortion is a pernicious symptom of a much larger systematic problem. I think we also need to address causes such as abysmal parental leave and other issues that cause women to have abortions because they would be impoverished or otherwise ruined.

 

[Cutlass]

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

What it makes you is an outlyer. Now in my not too careful shorthand, I'm dealing with the majority of people on the issue. And many of them are women. But many of the women against abortion are of the social conservative position that women really shouldn't have the same rights as men. Many women really do believe it's a man's world, and that is should stay that way. That's the way they were raised.

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?!

So in you first response to me, you tossed an insult at me first. And then continued on with:

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.

But the point to that is that a moral argument against abortion really isn't being made. Not by the anti-choice activists. While I have seen a moral argument, it's really not part of the political discussion. You'll get a few people on the internet, people with little to no actual voice in politics, occasionally make a good moral argument. And then you get the people who do have a voice in the national political arena, they can't be bothered to do that. For if they made a moral argument, then they might just be forced to acknowledging that it is really of no importance to them. And where they do pretend to a moral argument, "pro-life", overwhelmingly their other actions and politics demonstrate unequivocally that they truly don't care whether the child lives or does. And they truly don't care whether the abortion happens or doesn't happen. The only thing that they are demonstrating that they care about is that the woman not have a choice.

So maybe I don't take the time to spell out my case with any nuance. But the point of it is that in American politics, no one is bothering to actually make an actual moral argument against abortion.

And because no one is bothering to attempt to make a moral argument, then where does it leave us?

For a moral argument to matter in terms of public policy, there has to be a demonstration of a compelling public interest. After all, most of what has passed as "moral arguments for compelling public interests" in the past has been the opposite. Sodomy laws, blue laws, miscegenation laws, segregation, banning comprehensive sex education, many other things related to sex, all of these things used moral reasoning which was really no different from what the anti-choice people use now. And none of it holds up to scrutiny as actually moral reasons.

So my original statement in this thread:

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.

At which point you moved the goalposts to:

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.

Which moved the argument from a legal standpoint to a moral one. And a failed moral one at that. Then I try to put us back on track for the legal argument:

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.

So whether or not there is good moral argument out there, we aren't debating it. Because it's really not part of the public discourse. As the people who pretend to give lip-service to it make it clear by their actions that they don't mean it.

 

[Lexicus]

I do believe abortion should be banned, but antiabortion efforts can't stop there as abortion is a pernicious symptom of a much larger systematic problem. I think we also need to address causes such as abysmal parental leave and other issues that cause women to have abortions because they would be impoverished or otherwise ruined.

I disagree entirely that abortion should be banned, but I agree that measures such as these should be taken to (hopefully) reduce the number of abortions that happen. I think reducing abortion is a worthy goal. But it must be done the way you say, and not by implementing BS restrictions on abortion such as those recently struck down in Texas, and certainly not by making abortions illegal (no one has ever shown me evidence that making abortion illegal reduces abortions anyway).

 

[Vectors]

Cutlass, my beliefs are actually much more common than you think. I believe that most women who oppose abortion do not believe that as a result of indoctrination by patriarchy (I do believe some are). That is just my personal experience from pretty much every woman in my life, but of course lots of guys don't actually bother to find out why women oppose it. Believing abortion is murder isn't a patriarchal view.

I disagree entirely that abortion should be banned, but I agree that measures such as these should be taken to (hopefully) reduce the number of abortions that happen. I think reducing abortion is a worthy goal. But it must be done the way you say, and not by implementing BS restrictions on abortion such as those recently struck down in Texas, and certainly not by making abortions illegal (no one has ever shown me evidence that making abortion illegal reduces abortions anyway).

If someone thinks abortion is murder there really isn't much room to compromise on the legality of abortion.

 

[Cutlass]

Cutlass, my beliefs are actually much more common than you think. I believe that most women who oppose abortion do not believe that as a result of indoctrination by patriarchy (I do believe some are). That is just my personal experience from pretty much every woman in my life, but of course lots of guys don't actually bother to find out why women oppose it. Believing abortion is murder isn't a patriarchal view.

But if you believe that abortion is murder, and I don't, then what can we use to rate or reconcile these views? You or I or anyone else can hold whatever moral views we want. The question is about what rights we have to act on them. And, further, are these actions we may take our own individual actions, or are we pressing for the government to act on our behalf, and make our actions universal?

So, if the latter, then the standard of proof should be the highest. I don't really care what you believe, or what you do, so long as you don't impact other people with it. But if you're arguing for government to impact a very large number of people with your view, that's something else entirely.

Now in the public realm in the US, the anti-abortion crowd has a very high overlap with the least moral and least ethical people in the country. And so these people certainly can't convince me using a moral argument. Because I know that moral arguments is something these people may use as a tool, but truly don't believe in.

 

[Vectors]

But if you believe that abortion is murder, and I don't, then what can we use to rate or reconcile these views? You or I or anyone else can hold whatever moral views we want. The question is about what rights we have to act on them. And, further, are these actions we may take our own individual actions, or are we pressing for the government to act on our behalf, and make our actions universal?

So, if the latter, then the standard of proof should be the highest. I don't really care what you believe, or what you do, so long as you don't impact other people with it. But if you're arguing for government to impact a very large number of people with your view, that's something else entirely.

Now in the public realm in the US, the anti-abortion crowd has a very high overlap with the least moral and least ethical people in the country. And so these people certainly can't convince me using a moral argument. Because I know that moral arguments is something these people may use as a tool, but truly don't believe in.

I've seen fairly good arguments in favour of legalising infanticide, if that became legal would you tell me I shouldn't try to advocate against it because "that's just your opinion"?

 

[Manfred Belheim]

That is not a tiny nitpick. There is a vast practical difference between personally opposing abortion on moral grounds and taking the step of saying it should be illegal.

I was going to ask why you think there is a vast difference, but then noticed you put the word "practical" in there. Is that a little semantic trick so that you can then twist this around to talk about the "practicalities" of changing the law? If not you'll have to forgive me for being so cynical.

However, if we're not going to go there then there's really no difference at all. If you're arguing that something is hugely and morally wrong then you're obviously arguing that it shouldn't happen. It's not much of a stretch for you to then say that you think the law should reflect that. In fact who would ever argue the opposite? "Rape is just the most morally repugnant and disgusting act I can think of, utterly indefensible, but I wouldn't want it to be illegal or anything, don't be ridiculous". So it's pretty much the same argument, never mind a vastly different one.

 

[El_Machinae]

I've seen fairly good arguments in favour of legalising infanticide, if that became legal would you tell me I shouldn't try to advocate against it because "that's just your opinion"?

This is a great counter-argument, and I think it shows how nuance really matters. Like, analogies only go so far. Rules-of-thumb in ethics for babies are going to be different than the ones for fetuses, or coma patients, or works of art, or pets, or whatever. The differences lie in the differences.

Abortion is an incredible morass of ethics. There are very good arguments on both sides of the aisle. That's the main issue. Strong and internally consistent arguments are really available (despite the hosts of really bad ones; we always look at the best reasons our political opponents have).

That's where the 'pro-choice' argument tends to have some traction. Only one group is telling the other group that their opinion matters more. "Sure, it's more complicated than I could ever understand, but I'm right" is the mantra in many political discussions, economic discussions, etc. And it's awfully hubristic.

 

[Vectors]

This is a great counter-argument, and I think it shows how nuance really matters. Like, analogies only go so far. Rules-of-thumb in ethics for babies are going to be different than the ones for fetuses, or coma patients, or works of art, or pets, or whatever. The differences lie in the differences.

Abortion is an incredible morass of ethics. There are very good arguments on both sides of the aisle. That's the main issue. Strong and internally consistent arguments are really available (despite the hosts of really bad ones; we always look at the best reasons our political opponents have).

That's where the 'pro-choice' argument tends to have some traction. Only one group is telling the other group that their opinion matters more. "Sure, it's more complicated than I could ever understand, but I'm right" is the mantra in many political discussions, economic discussions, etc. And it's awfully hubristic.

The probably is that a pro choice argument in favour of unrestricted abortions cannot be logically consistent unless it also is in favour of infanticide. Why are sex selective abortions so rampant in China? Because before abortion was easy and safe they did female infanticide, being able to find the sex and terminate it earlier to them is just a more convenient form of infanticide. You see, China and India have not be successfully colonised by the Judeo-Christian idea that human life has intrinsic value as a child of God. The Romans permitted on the grounds that infants were incapable of reason and thus they were not afforded the same general protections as people because they were not people yet and that is entirely logically consistent.

 

[Askthepizzaguy]

It's a pretty radical step to tell someone they have no say as to what happens inside their body.

a) Not every person who gets pregnant does so willingly

b) Not every person who gets pregnant is of legal age to even have sex

c) Not every person who gets pregnant intends to do so, is free of disease and drugs, and can be a parent.

But, every person who gets pregnant by whatever means has a say over what happens inside their own body. They have to consent to being a mother. If they have been raped, they did not give consent. If they are underage, they are unable to give consent, but now that the choice has been forced upon them, they must be able to have the right to choose. Even if they were of age and able to give consent and they did, consent and choice do not cease to exist as concepts along the development from egg to zygote to embryo to fetus. If they are unable or unwilling to be a parent, they have a right to end their own pregnancy. If you make it illegal, they can and will seek more dangerous ways of terminating the process.

You can claim it is murder until you're blue in the face, that doesn't change the fact that a person has a right to say what happens inside their own body, and if they don't consent to it, whether it be sexual intercourse, or an unwanted medical procedure, or a pregnancy, you can't force that upon them.

If you do, you only care about enforced birth, you don't actually care about what happens to people after they're born, or their rights, or their freedom of choice.

 

[El_Machinae]

The probably is that a pro choice argument in favour of unrestricted abortions cannot be logically consistent unless it also is in favour of infanticide.

This isn't true if one doesn't equate fetuses with babies. And, given that they fundamentally have different characteristics, it's reasonable that people have slightly different paradigms between the two.

 

[Vectors]

This isn't true if one doesn't equate fetuses with babies. And, given that they fundamentally have different characteristics, it's reasonable that people have slightly different paradigms between the two.

What substantial differences are there five minutes before birth and five minutes after birth?

What makes babies people? What makes human life intrinsically worth something?

 

[Lexicus]

However, if we're not going to go there then there's really no difference at all. If you're arguing that something is hugely and morally wrong then you're obviously arguing that it shouldn't happen. It's not much of a stretch for you to then say that you think the law should reflect that. In fact who would ever argue the opposite? "Rape is just the most morally repugnant and disgusting act I can think of, utterly indefensible, but I wouldn't want it to be illegal or anything, don't be ridiculous". So it's pretty much the same argument, never mind a vastly different one.

I think many abortions take place that I would think are unethical, yet I think it would be even more unethical to ban them.
Many people use their freedom under the law to do things that are widely considered to be morally wrong, yet it is considered even more morally wrong to draw up laws that place the state in a position of minutely regulating people's conduct.

So of course one can personally oppose something without believing it should be illegal. There is a lot more that goes into a strong policy argument than just "x is wrong, it must be banned."

What substantial differences are there five minutes before birth and five minutes after birth?

No one gets an abortion five minutes before birth unless the baby is going to die (or already dead) anyway.

 

[El_Machinae]

What substantial differences are there five minutes before birth and five minutes after birth?

The only thing I can think of that's different between five minutes before birth and five minutes after is that the health risk to the mother is non-zero while the baby is in the womb. It's a situation where the relative rights to health have to be decided

But I find this to be a disingenuous distinction, in that if you want to discuss late-term abortions you need to clarify that ahead of time. I couldn't tell from your initial points that you mean "35 week abortions" when you used the more generic term.

Yes, I can broadly see more similarities between infanticide and late term abortions than I can between the generic 'abortion' concept and infanticide.

 

[Lexicus]

The only thing I can think of that's different between five minutes before birth and five minutes after is that the health risk to the mother is non-zero while the baby is in the womb. It's a situation where the relative rights to health have to be decided

But I find this to be a disingenuous distinction, in that if you want to discuss late-term abortions you need to clarify that ahead of time. I couldn't tell from your initial points that you mean "35 week abortions" when you used the more generic term.

Yes, I can broadly see more similarities between infanticide and late term abortions than I can between the generic 'abortion' concept and infanticide.

I've already made the point several times in both these threads that late-term abortions are already effectively banned in the United States. People who say abortion should be illegal and then use "five minutes before birth" as the salient example are just spinning their wheels on ice.

 

[sophie]

No one gets an abortion five minutes before birth unless the baby is going to die (or already dead) anyway.

Hell, I would argue nobody (or virtually nobody) gets an abortion a month before birth unless the baby is going to die or is already dead anyway.

 

[metalhead]

The probably is that a pro choice argument in favour of unrestricted abortions cannot be logically consistent unless it also is in favour of infanticide.

I don't disagree with this, but there are only fringe advocates for the position that there shall be no restrictions on abortion whatsoever. That is problematic for a whole host of reasons, and tends to counter most of the good moral arguments as to why abortion ought to be permissible. So while you make a valid point, it doesn't really apply to mainstream pro-choice advocacy.

Also, to go back to the silly claim upthread that women's bodies are designed for childbearing - I would suggest you find a woman who had a grade 4 tear of her perineum during childbirth if she feels like her body was designed for childbirth and was able to simply go back to normal afterwards. I daresay that only an utter fool who doesn't know any women and has never witnessed a child being born could possibly think it's some ho-hum thing that women just go back to normal from. It changes a woman's body in many profound ways.

 

[Vectors]

The only thing I can think of that's different between five minutes before birth and five minutes after is that the health risk to the mother is non-zero while the baby is in the womb. It's a situation where the relative rights to health have to be decided

But I find this to be a disingenuous distinction, in that if you want to discuss late-term abortions you need to clarify that ahead of time. I couldn't tell from your initial points that you mean "35 week abortions" when you used the more generic term.

Yes, I can broadly see more similarities between infanticide and late term abortions than I can between the generic 'abortion' concept and infanticide.

Is it really any more a person five minutes after birth than five minutes after other than because the law says so? Does it become a person when it is viable? If so, what makes the fetus of a rich white woman in a maternity ward more of a person than that of a poor black woman in rural Mississippi or of a poor woman in the Third World? Also, if the point is viability what is the minimum likelihood of it surviving, is it 100%, 75%, 50%, 25% or even a mere 1%. If a fetus is viable, but birth has a chance of killing the mother should it be permissible to terminate? If viability determines personhood then what gives people the right to murder an innocent person, even in a situation where the life of the mother is at risk?

I said unrestricted abortions, there are people who genuinely believe there should be absolutely no restrictions on abortion and normally unrestricted means unrestricted.

I've already made the point several times in both these threads that late-term abortions are already effectively banned in the United States. People who say abortion should be illegal and then use "five minutes before birth" as the salient example are just spinning their wheels on ice.

The question isn't about the law, it is about the philosophical underpinnings of the abortion debate. What is the difference between five minutes before and after birth.