[Abortion Thread] (YET ANOTHER POLL!) Taking measure.

[Wallenburg]

https://goodmenproject.com/newsroom/are-men-legally-required-to-ask-their-spouses-permission-for-a-vasectomy/

Tl;dr: legally men don't need the consent of the wife. But a lot of doctors do demand it.

Then change doctors. It's not their decision to make on a non-medical issue.

"Just find a different doctor" doesn't really work for most people, especially when most or all doctors in the area do the same thing.

[Wallenburg]

Now that I'm back, let me try and dismantle the "pro-choice" argument one by one. I doubt this would convince anybody, but at least it's worth a shot.

Cool.

1. "The fetus is not a human/person." or "Her body, her choice."
Let's see... the fetus has (usually) complete, unique DNA from his/her parents, a 30-week fetus has more in common with a newborn than a newborn has in common with a teenager, a fetus can move and suck his/her thumb, the fetus is a member of the Homo sapiens species, and 96% of biologists agree that life begins at conception...

Oh, you have a linked source? Cool! Wait, no, that's fucking Steven Crowder just saying what you want him to. Yes, Steven Crowder, renowned expert on biology and all-around honest guy. Certainly he wouldn't lie for political and monetary gain, would he?

Clearly, the science sides with the fetus. The fetus's body, the fetus's choice.

Nonsentient bodies are incapable of making choices and are not given the opportunity to make choices.

2. "The fetus is infringing upon the liberty of the woman; therefore, the woman has the right to destroy it."
Right... because anybody has the right to stab their own child if he/she is - not by his/her own will - stuck to them.
Plus, this could work the other way around: "by having an abortion, the mother is infringing upon the liberty of the fetus; therefore, the fetus has the right to destroy the mother." Obviously, this is ridiculous, so why is it suddenly okay when the roles are switched? Seems very unequal.

Ah, I see, so if a rape victim, in order to stop being raped, tries to fight their attacker, the rapist has the right to murder their victim. After all, the rape victim is infringing upon the right of the rapist to live, and therefore they have a right to "destroy" their victim.

All this, of course, assumes the fetus is equivalent to a person, which it is not.

3. "The fetus cannot survive without the mother; therefore, the mother has no obligation to support it."
Then why is it child abuse for parents to neglect children outside the womb? If there is no difference in humanity outside or inside the womb (as shown in explanation 1), then why is it morally unacceptable to refuse to feed a human yet perfectly okay to kill him/her?
The fetus is the child of the mother. It is the responsibility of the mother to care for her child. Therefore, it is the responsibility of the mother to care for the fetus.

There is a difference between a fetus in the womb and a born baby, so your argument rests on a false assumption. Also, it is widely considered morally acceptable to not feed a human, or to kill humans in certain circumstances. Again, false assumptions.

4. "The pro-lifers just want to control women's bodies." or another ad homenim.
Why? We are already born; we have no fear of being aborted. We want to save babies and stop immorality.
Besides, what about the pro-life women who were formerly pro-choice? There's Abby Johnson, former planned parenthood director. Oh, and how about Norma McCorvey, commonly known as the "Roe" in Roe v. Wade

Not all "pro-life" people just want to control women's bodies. Some have at least a marginally principled stance on abortion. Most do not.

5. "There's no benefit to societies that restrict/prohibit abortions."
Yes, there is. The children are the benefit. Also, (speculation here) less will feel entitled to abortion.
Besides, is a societal benefit really worth abandoning morality?

Benefit to society is literally the main basis on how we determine morality. And the mere existence of more people isn't inherently good. This argument is nonsense.

6. "It decreases the crime rate."
Not really - I have yet to see statistics that two decades after abortion is unrestricted, the crime rate considerably decreases (since it takes about that long for babies to grow into adults); correlation does not equate to causation; and you still don't have the right to kill the fetus.

I have never heard this argument from a pro-choice person. It's rather irrelevant to the matter of abortion itself.

7. "What about rape/incest/mother's life/health?"
First of all, in the U.S., such cases are very unlikely. Even in cases of rape and incest, the fetus is an innocent human being - just like a fetus resulting from consensual sex, which I have defended above (even without going into the "sex = consent to have a child" argument). And the suspicion that the mother may become ill does not permit her from killing her child - if her five-year-old child developed the bubonic plague (or other infectious disease), and for some reason she can't access a hospital or quarantine, she still has no right to kill the five-year-old, even if it will prevent her from contracting the disease.
As for the "life" argument, I do not think murder (either the "willful and premeditated killing of a human being" or the "immoral killing of a human being"; not necessarily the "illegal killing of a human being", since that is very inconsistent across different locations) is the right solution. I believe in innovation and developing new medical

Ah, I see, so you aren't pro-life. If you were, you'd at least support abortion if the mother's life was at risk (which it always is during pregnancy, but that's another matter). But no, you'd rather both the mother and the fetus die than see the pregnancy aborted so the mother could survive. Sounds a whole lot like just wanting to control women's bodies to me.

8. "Then why don't provide free contraceptives?"
Because 1) I think abstinence has a higher chance of success than contraceptives (100% > 90-something%), 2) providing free contraceptives is like saying "we are perfectly fine with you for irresponsibly performing sex; we'll even provide you free stuff if you decide to do so", and 3) who's going to pay for that?

You are factually wrong. Sorry to burst your bubble, but abstinence doesn't work. People fuck no matter how much you tell them not to. Your puritanical aversion to people freely and safely enjoying themselves won't change that.

If you actually were pro-life, you would support measures to reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies in the first place, which would include easy access to and education the use of contraceptives. But based on your derision of people using protection during sex, it seems to me that you just want to control women's sexual activity.

9. "What about welfare benefits for single-mother families?"
Basically the same argument as above, but switch "abstinence" with "charity" or "family values", "contraceptives" with "welfare benefits"; and the quote with "we are perfectly fine with you for denying your child a father; we'll even provide you free stuff if you decide to do so".

You don't care about the wellbeing of the child either, just that it comes out of the vagina breathing. How fucking pro-life to leave single mothers and their children to starve after forcing those same mothers to carry to term.

10. "Pregnancy as punishment for sex! Everybody drink!"
It's called biology. Several other biological examples include but are not limited to:

• Starvation as punishment for not eating
• Dehydration as punishment for not drinking
• Withdrawal as punishment for narcotic usage
• Suffocation as punishment for choking oneself
• Drowning as punishment for staying underwater for too long

Several societal examples include but are not limited to:

• Demotion/dismissal from job as punishment for not working
• Condemnation from the public on social media as punishment for speaking/acting rudely in public
• Fines as punishment for speeding
• Incarceration as punishment for piracy/embezzlement/child abuse/enslavement/rape
• Death penalty (or incarceration, depending on location) as punishment for murder/treason/war crimes

1) This post makes absolutely no sense, beyond the admission that you want to punish women for daring to have sex for any purpose other than reproduction.
2) You support the death penalty but call yourself pro-life. Interesting.

11. "But men don't have to suffer through it!"
Yes, and guess what? There are some stuff men have to suffer:

• Greater risk of losing custody of children and home
• More accounts of violent crimes against them
• Negative portrayal in media

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/tu-quoque

There are biological and societal differences between men and women. So what? Besides, women who have abortions tend to feel worse than those who don't; if we want to bring betterment to women, why not prevent them from committing an action that makes them feel terrible?

You know what makes a woman feel pretty fucking terrible. Going through pregnancy. You know what feels even more terrible than that? Going through pregnancy when you didn't want to be pregnant at all.

12. "The pro-lifers want to make miscarriages illegal/sterilize all women."
First of all, that is far from the truth. Accidents happen, and sterilizing all women will only result in society being unable to grow.
Second of all, that isn't the point of the argument.

1) Oh, more Steven Crowder. Very fucking reliable. Buddy, I'm not putting myself through even 5 seconds more of his unbearable show.
2) You link to a post, claiming they think a "pro-life" person wants to sterilize all women, when 1) they don't make that claim, and 2) they are responding to a person who literally said pro-choice women should be forcibly sterilized.

Here's my proposal: Since abortion is somwhat mutually exclusive with population control, women who vote for abortion should also be submitted to mandatory hysterectomies, as young as age 16. That way the moral crusade of the religious fronts is quelled, and unwanted children are no longer an issue, thus relieving child protection service agents from overworking and less demand for pharmaceuticals. Ovarian extripation also allows women to age slowly (no more menopause), which means that the adult industry (if taxed) will benefit as well. Also, no ovarian cancer.

13. "It isn't 'murder' because it's legal."
(Even if we ignore the bill in Georgia meant to restrict abortions and therefore its illegality in similar locations...)
Doesn't make it okay. Slavery was legal for a long time.

Still isn't murder though.

"The definition of murder varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. While Merriam-Webster does use the definition "to kill (a human being) unlawfully and with premeditated malice", it also uses the definition "to slaughter wantonly". Moreover, Wordnik defines it as "the killing of another person without justification or excuse, especially the crime of killing a person with malice aforethought or with recklessness manifesting extreme indifference to the value of human life." There are other definitions...

I think it says something that the only definition that might give you a colorable argument for abortion being murder comes from an online dictionary I have never seen before.

14. "What about separation of church and state?"
I've used a secular argument throughout - as secular as the idea that people are endowed with the rights of "life, liberty, and property" and the government's role is to acknowledge and protect those rights.
Besides, restricting abortions and promoting responsibility is far from giving any church authority power in the federal government.

Your "secular argument" is worthless, considering I have managed to tear it apart with ease at 1 in the fucking morning. Don't take that too personally though. All secular arguments against abortion fall apart, because they are incapable of maintaining consistency with other policy matters, such as the death penalty, questions of bodily autonomy, the right to kill in self defense, and the reality that a fetus isn't a person.

15. "What about those with birth def-"
Still human, still deserving of life.

Something being human doesn't make it deserving of life, unless you want to label barbers, dentists, or chemotherapists mass murderers.

16. "What about global warm-"

No pro-choice person makes this argument. Global warming doesn't enter into the equation either.

Look, if you wish to not have children, that's perfectly fine. We are not forcing anyone to start families against their will.

You literally are though.

But even if we ignore the fact that "global warming" is exaggerated, or the fact that more people = more innovative minds = more technological advancements to protect the society/environment, it still does not give you the right to kill another human being.[/spoiler]

Ah, so not only do you actively refuse to recognize the futility of abstinence only education, but you don't recognize the reality of climate change. What odds are they that you think vaccines cause autism and that you can judge a person's disposition toward crime based on the bumps on their skull?

[Attempted Socialism]

Now that I'm back, let me try and dismantle the "pro-choice" argument one by one. I doubt this would convince anybody, but at least it's worth a shot.
(Note: these arguments assume that you agree with the premise that humans have the rights to life and liberty; and the government has the duty to protect those rights. It also assumes that you agree with the idea of personal/family responsibility.)

So you're here to virtue-signal, rather than argue or convince anyone. Got it.

It's also curious that your references are either to a professional being-wrong-but-loud-and-obnoxious-person, to dictionaries mostly arguing against your position or to a law that is unconstitutional in its own jurisdiction.
If you stopped trying to erect strawmen of your opponents arguments, you might get to understand what their arguments are and become able to actually engage with them.

A matter of perspective?
If you try to convince other people, it matters to consider their perspective and what, if anything, might convince them. As a recent example: If a poster claims that objective rights come from their deity, but they’ve consistently failed to show that deity to exist or those objective rights to exist, then arguing that there’s a deity-given objective right to life that can be voided (But not for foetuses) simply cannot be a convincing argument to anyone not already agreeing with them. Such an argument becomes virtue-signalling to people who hold the same opinions, but spam to the rest of us.
Instead of starting by assuming that people must agree with you, and then when they don’t, argue that they must and should in so many ways, take care to understand the argument of you opponent. Work it through from your own perspective, sure, but don’t just repeat the same moronic arguments ad nauseum. If, for example, you open your argument with “abortion is murder”, most people on Earth can counter with “no, since by definition a murder must be illegal, and abortion is legal under so-and-so circumstances”. This is not just a misunderstanding on A’s part (I.e. they don’t know the meaning and legal standing of the words they use), but also a failure of argument; “abortion is murder” cannot convince anyone because simply knowing what the words involved mean can counter it. Rather, an anti-choice advocate might say “abortion ought to be considered murder for reasons X, Y and Z.” Here, a pro-choice advocate cannot simply counter by “wrong, read a dictionary.” B has to engage in those three reasons.
Similarly, arguing that some deity is the reason why abortion must be illegal is generally a non-starter. First, because most “holy” books can be cherrypicked to find arguments for either position (The Bible, e.g., contains a specific mandate to perform abortions: Numbers 5:11-31), but more damningly because it assumes that the other poster is already in agreement with you. Why is your favourite book of fables an authority to them? Your deity doesn’t exist (Or at least, is just one out of infinitely many of Pascal’s Muggers), so why should they listen? You’ve failed to even consider what might convince someone, and instead you’re just spouting whatever words signal your “virtue”.
Getting to learn the other perspective well enough, however, enables you to engage with them. If someone doesn’t consider a foetus a person and knows that “foetus” and “baby” are different words with different meanings, then no appeal to “think of the babies” will impact them. Instead, engage with their ideas about personhood. What are their criteria? Do these run counter to some of their professed ideals? If, e.g., someone believes in personhood from the moment of viability (24th-30th week), yet thinks abortion should be legal until birth, those two ideas cannot be easily reconciled. Alternatively, if someone thinks that you have bodily sovereignty yet do support compulsive organ harvesting, those two ideas are clearly directly contradictory. If someone holds the ideal that human suffering should be minimised and human health and wellbeing should be maximised, “abortion increases suffering in both the woman and her immediate surroundings, based on X, Y and Z evidence” is a much better argument than “abortion ought to be illegal”.

Then change doctors. It's not their decision to make on a non-medical issue.

"Just find a different doctor" doesn't really work for most people, especially when most or all doctors in the area do the same thing.

I will never cease to be amazed at how shitty the US is for 99% of the people living there.

Also, congratulations Northern Ireland!
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-northern-ireland-50128860

[The New California Republic]

Now that I'm back, let me try and dismantle the "pro-choice" argument one by one. I doubt this would convince anybody, but at least it's worth a shot.
(Note: these arguments assume that you agree with the premise that humans have the rights to life and liberty; and the government has the duty to protect those rights. It also assumes that you agree with the idea of personal/family responsibility.)

1. "The fetus is not a human/person." or "Her body, her choice."
Let's see... the fetus has (usually) complete, unique DNA from his/her parents, a 30-week fetus has more in common with a newborn than a newborn has in common with a teenager, a fetus can move and suck his/her thumb, the fetus is a member of the Homo sapiens species, and 96% of biologists agree that life begins at conception...
Clearly, the science sides with the fetus. The fetus's body, the fetus's choice.
2. "The fetus is infringing upon the liberty of the woman; therefore, the woman has the right to destroy it."
Right... because anybody has the right to stab their own child if he/she is - not by his/her own will - stuck to them.
Plus, this could work the other way around: "by having an abortion, the mother is infringing upon the liberty of the fetus; therefore, the fetus has the right to destroy the mother." Obviously, this is ridiculous, so why is it suddenly okay when the roles are switched? Seems very unequal.
3. "The fetus cannot survive without the mother; therefore, the mother has no obligation to support it."
Then why is it child abuse for parents to neglect children outside the womb? If there is no difference in humanity outside or inside the womb (as shown in explanation 1), then why is it morally unacceptable to refuse to feed a human yet perfectly okay to kill him/her?
The fetus is the child of the mother. It is the responsibility of the mother to care for her child. Therefore, it is the responsibility of the mother to care for the fetus.
4. "The pro-lifers just want to control women's bodies." or another ad homenim.
Why? We are already born; we have no fear of being aborted. We want to save babies and stop immorality.
Besides, what about the pro-life women who were formerly pro-choice? There's Abby Johnson, former planned parenthood director. Oh, and how about Norma McCorvey, commonly known as the "Roe" in Roe v. Wade?
5. "There's no benefit to societies that restrict/prohibit abortions."
Yes, there is. The children are the benefit. Also, (speculation here) less will feel entitled to abortion.
Besides, is a societal benefit really worth abandoning morality?
6. "It decreases the crime rate."
Not really - I have yet to see statistics that two decades after abortion is unrestricted, the crime rate considerably decreases (since it takes about that long for babies to grow into adults); correlation does not equate to causation; and you still don't have the right to kill the fetus.
7. "What about rape/incest/mother's life/health?"
First of all, in the U.S., such cases are very unlikely. Even in cases of rape and incest, the fetus is an innocent human being - just like a fetus resulting from consensual sex, which I have defended above (even without going into the "sex = consent to have a child" argument). And the suspicion that the mother may become ill does not permit her from killing her child - if her five-year-old child developed the bubonic plague (or other infectious disease), and for some reason she can't access a hospital or quarantine, she still has no right to kill the five-year-old, even if it will prevent her from contracting the disease.
As for the "life" argument, I do not think murder (either the "willful and premeditated killing of a human being" or the "immoral killing of a human being"; not necessarily the "illegal killing of a human being", since that is very inconsistent across different locations) is the right solution. I believe in innovation and developing new medical
8. "Then why don't provide free contraceptives?"
Because 1) I think abstinence has a higher chance of success than contraceptives (100% > 90-something%), 2) providing free contraceptives is like saying "we are perfectly fine with you for irresponsibly performing sex; we'll even provide you free stuff if you decide to do so", and 3) who's going to pay for that?
9. "What about welfare benefits for single-mother families?"
Basically the same argument as above, but switch "abstinence" with "charity" or "family values", "contraceptives" with "welfare benefits"; and the quote with "we are perfectly fine with you for denying your child a father; we'll even provide you free stuff if you decide to do so".
10. "Pregnancy as punishment for sex! Everybody drink!"
It's called biology. Several other biological examples include but are not limited to:

• Starvation as punishment for not eating
• Dehydration as punishment for not drinking
• Withdrawal as punishment for narcotic usage
• Suffocation as punishment for choking oneself
• Drowning as punishment for staying underwater for too long

Several societal examples include but are not limited to:

• Demotion/dismissal from job as punishment for not working
• Condemnation from the public on social media as punishment for speaking/acting rudely in public
• Fines as punishment for speeding
• Incarceration as punishment for piracy/embezzlement/child abuse/enslavement/rape
• Death penalty (or incarceration, depending on location) as punishment for murder/treason/war crimes

11. "But men don't have to suffer through it!"
Yes, and guess what? There are some stuff men have to suffer:

• Greater risk of losing custody of children and home
• More accounts of violent crimes against them
• Negative portrayal in media

There are biological and societal differences between men and women. So what? Besides, women who have abortions tend to feel worse than those who don't; if we want to bring betterment to women, why not prevent them from committing an action that makes them feel terrible?
12. "The pro-lifers want to make miscarriages illegal/sterilize all women."
First of all, that is far from the truth. Accidents happen, and sterilizing all women will only result in society being unable to grow.
Second of all, that isn't the point of the argument.
13. "It isn't 'murder' because it's legal."
(Even if we ignore the bill in Georgia meant to restrict abortions and therefore its illegality in similar locations...)
Doesn't make it okay. Slavery was legal for a long time.
"The definition of murder varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. While Merriam-Webster does use the definition "to kill (a human being) unlawfully and with premeditated malice", it also uses the definition "to slaughter wantonly". Moreover, Wordnik defines it as "the killing of another person without justification or excuse, especially the crime of killing a person with malice aforethought or with recklessness manifesting extreme indifference to the value of human life." There are other definitions...
14. "What about separation of church and state?"
I've used a secular argument throughout - as secular as the idea that people are endowed with the rights of "life, liberty, and property" and the government's role is to acknowledge and protect those rights.
Besides, restricting abortions and promoting responsibility is far from giving any church authority power in the federal government.
15. "What about those with birth def-"
Still human, still deserving of life.
16. "What about global warm-"
Look, if you wish to not have children, that's perfectly fine. We are not forcing anyone to start families against their will. But even if we ignore the fact that "global warming" is exaggerated, or the fact that more people = more innovative minds = more technological advancements to protect the society/environment, it still does not give you the right to kill another human being.

What a fucking mess, that others have thoroughly refuted in the same manner as I would have, and hence saving me from needing to go through it myself. Thanks guys.

[Estanglia]

Right, time to dismantle some arguments.

1. "The fetus is not a human/person." or "Her body, her choice."
Let's see... the fetus has (usually) complete, unique DNA from his/her parents,

Nice. Doesn't make it a person.

a 30-week fetus has more in common with a newborn than a newborn has in common with a teenager, a fetus can move and suck his/her thumb,

Cool, doesn't make it a person.

the fetus is a member of the Homo sapiens species,

So it's a human.

As we have repeated since day one, human =/= person.

and 96% of biologists agree that life begins at conception...
Clearly, the science sides with the fetus. The fetus's body, the fetus's choice.

The fact that you see this as even touching the pro-choice argument shows you don't understand the pro-choice argument that you're trying to dismantle.

2. "The fetus is infringing upon the liberty of the woman; therefore, the woman has the right to destroy it."
Right... because anybody has the right to stab their own child if he/she is - not by his/her own will - stuck to them.

They do have the right to remove them, though. They have the right to stop supporting them. The fact that this right doesn't allow them to kill is because there are other ways to rectify the situation than with the child's death. The same unfortunately doesn't apply to fetuses.

Again, the fact that you see this as refuting the pro-choice argument is a sign that you don't understand the argument you're arguing against.

Plus, this could work the other way around: "by having an abortion, the mother is infringing upon the liberty of the fetus; therefore, the fetus has the right to destroy the mother." Obviously, this is ridiculous, so why is it suddenly okay when the roles are switched? Seems very unequal.

It's only unequal if you don't understand the pro-choice position on this. Which, time and again, you have demonstrated you do not.

3. "The fetus cannot survive without the mother; therefore, the mother has no obligation to support it."
Then why is it child abuse for parents to neglect children outside the womb?

Firstly, I've never seen this used as an argument in favour of the pro-choice position. If anything, it seems like a pro-life argument.

If there is no difference in humanity outside or inside the womb (as shown in explanation 1),

You're ignoring the blindingly obvious difference, the difference which our entire argument largely relies on.

Hint, it's the 'inside the womb' bit.

The fetus is the child of the mother. It is the responsibility of the mother to care for her child. Therefore, it is the responsibility of the mother to care for the fetus.

Except parents can give up their born children.

4. "The pro-lifers just want to control women's bodies." or another ad homenim.

We're agreed on this. I largely dislike this argument for that reason.

5. "There's no benefit to societies that restrict/prohibit abortions."
Yes, there is. The children are the benefit.

This only applies if you hold life to be valuable inherently, and also more valuable than the harm caused by this life.

Also, (speculation here) less will feel entitled to abortion.

I have no idea what you mean by this.

Besides, is a societal benefit really worth abandoning morality?

It's only abandoning morality if your moral code forbids abortion.

If not, the societal benefit definitely outweighs the nonexistent abandoning of morality.

6. "It decreases the crime rate."

Another argument I haven't seen.

7. "What about rape/incest/mother's life/health?"
First of all, in the U.S., such cases are very unlikely.

A lot of things are unlikely. That doesn't mean they don't occur and thus don't require consideration.

Even in cases of rape and incest, the fetus is an innocent human being

It's innocence changes absolutely nothing about the pro-choice argument.

As for the "life" argument, I do not think murder (either the "willful and premeditated killing of a human being" or the "immoral killing of a human being"; not necessarily the "illegal killing of a human being", since that is very inconsistent across different locations)

The fact that murder (a word that is defined by the laws in place in a country) is inconsistent from country to country (because, you know, different countries have different legal codes?) is not an argument against its definition.

It is the illegal act of killing someone, plain and simple.

8. "Then why don't provide free contraceptives?"
Because 1) I think abstinence has a higher chance of success than contraceptives (100% > 90-something%),

Abstinence also depends upon every person sticking to it. A ridiculous expectation.

2) providing free contraceptives is like saying "we are perfectly fine with you for irresponsibly performing sex; we'll even provide you free stuff if you decide to do so",

So? I really don't give a shit as long as it's preventing unnecessary abortions and STD's.

and 3) who's going to pay for that?

The government.

9. "What about welfare benefits for single-mother families?"
Basically the same argument as above, but switch "abstinence" with "charity" or "family values", "contraceptives" with "welfare benefits"; and the quote with "we are perfectly fine with you for denying your child a father; we'll even provide you free stuff if you decide to do so".

Then see literally all of my arguments relating to your arguments.

10. "Pregnancy as punishment for sex! Everybody drink!"
It's called biology. Several other biological examples include but are not limited to:

• Starvation as punishment for not eating
• Dehydration as punishment for not drinking
• Withdrawal as punishment for narcotic usage
• Suffocation as punishment for choking oneself
• Drowning as punishment for staying underwater for too long

Several societal examples include but are not limited to:

• Demotion/dismissal from job as punishment for not working
• Condemnation from the public on social media as punishment for speaking/acting rudely in public
• Fines as punishment for speeding
• Incarceration as punishment for piracy/embezzlement/child abuse/enslavement/rape
• Death penalty (or incarceration, depending on location) as punishment for murder/treason/war crimes

Every single one of which can be rectified by the person in question in some way, or by society or someone who has the power to rectify it.

For example, if I want to stop starving, I can eat. If we don't want the death penalty as a punishment, we can abolish it.

The only one where rectifying it isn't an option according to you is pregnancy. Letting pregnancy continue until you are no longer pregnant is not rectifying the situation. It is letting the problem continue until the problem solves itself. It's the equivalent of letting everyone drown because drowning must take its natural course. You're not allowed to rectify it, you just have to wait until the problem solves itself (in this case with your death).

if we want to bring betterment to women, why not prevent them from committing an action that makes them feel terrible?

Because it's their right to.

13. "It isn't 'murder' because it's legal."
(Even if we ignore the bill in Georgia meant to restrict abortions and therefore its illegality in similar locations...)

Then it would be murder in Georgia. Simple.

Doesn't make it okay. Slavery was legal for a long time.

It does mean it's not murder though, which is the entire point of the 'it's not murder!' argument.

"The definition of murder varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction.

Changes nothing.

While Merriam-Webster does use the definition "to kill (a human being) unlawfully and with premeditated malice", it also uses the definition "to slaughter wantonly".

Finally! After nearly 100 or so pages (at least for me) of asking for an actual dictionary definition that wasn't the one we constantly used, we found one.

Moreover, Wordnik defines it as "the killing of another person without justification or excuse, especially the crime of killing a person with malice aforethought or with recklessness manifesting extreme indifference to the value of human life." There are other definitions...

There's another!

Unfortunately, 'wantonly' and 'without justification' could both be argued to not apply here, particularly the 'without justification' bit, considering by that logic a fuckton of murders aren't murders because the murderer had a reason.

[Estanglia]

Now that I'm back, let me try and dismantle the "pro-choice" argument one by one. I doubt this would convince anybody, but at least it's worth a shot.
(Note: these arguments assume that you agree with the premise that humans have the rights to life and liberty; and the government has the duty to protect those rights. It also assumes that you agree with the idea of personal/family responsibility.)

1. "The fetus is not a human/person." or "Her body, her choice."
Let's see... the fetus has (usually) complete, unique DNA from his/her parents, a 30-week fetus has more in common with a newborn than a newborn has in common with a teenager, a fetus can move and suck his/her thumb, the fetus is a member of the Homo sapiens species, and 96% of biologists agree that life begins at conception...
Clearly, the science sides with the fetus. The fetus's body, the fetus's choice.
2. "The fetus is infringing upon the liberty of the woman; therefore, the woman has the right to destroy it."
Right... because anybody has the right to stab their own child if he/she is - not by his/her own will - stuck to them.
Plus, this could work the other way around: "by having an abortion, the mother is infringing upon the liberty of the fetus; therefore, the fetus has the right to destroy the mother." Obviously, this is ridiculous, so why is it suddenly okay when the roles are switched? Seems very unequal.
3. "The fetus cannot survive without the mother; therefore, the mother has no obligation to support it."
Then why is it child abuse for parents to neglect children outside the womb? If there is no difference in humanity outside or inside the womb (as shown in explanation 1), then why is it morally unacceptable to refuse to feed a human yet perfectly okay to kill him/her?
The fetus is the child of the mother. It is the responsibility of the mother to care for her child. Therefore, it is the responsibility of the mother to care for the fetus.
4. "The pro-lifers just want to control women's bodies." or another ad homenim.
Why? We are already born; we have no fear of being aborted. We want to save babies and stop immorality.
Besides, what about the pro-life women who were formerly pro-choice? There's Abby Johnson, former planned parenthood director. Oh, and how about Norma McCorvey, commonly known as the "Roe" in Roe v. Wade?
5. "There's no benefit to societies that restrict/prohibit abortions."
Yes, there is. The children are the benefit. Also, (speculation here) less will feel entitled to abortion.
Besides, is a societal benefit really worth abandoning morality?
6. "It decreases the crime rate."
Not really - I have yet to see statistics that two decades after abortion is unrestricted, the crime rate considerably decreases (since it takes about that long for babies to grow into adults); correlation does not equate to causation; and you still don't have the right to kill the fetus.
7. "What about rape/incest/mother's life/health?"
First of all, in the U.S., such cases are very unlikely. Even in cases of rape and incest, the fetus is an innocent human being - just like a fetus resulting from consensual sex, which I have defended above (even without going into the "sex = consent to have a child" argument). And the suspicion that the mother may become ill does not permit her from killing her child - if her five-year-old child developed the bubonic plague (or other infectious disease), and for some reason she can't access a hospital or quarantine, she still has no right to kill the five-year-old, even if it will prevent her from contracting the disease.
As for the "life" argument, I do not think murder (either the "willful and premeditated killing of a human being" or the "immoral killing of a human being"; not necessarily the "illegal killing of a human being", since that is very inconsistent across different locations) is the right solution. I believe in innovation and developing new medical
8. "Then why don't provide free contraceptives?"
Because 1) I think abstinence has a higher chance of success than contraceptives (100% > 90-something%), 2) providing free contraceptives is like saying "we are perfectly fine with you for irresponsibly performing sex; we'll even provide you free stuff if you decide to do so", and 3) who's going to pay for that?
9. "What about welfare benefits for single-mother families?"
Basically the same argument as above, but switch "abstinence" with "charity" or "family values", "contraceptives" with "welfare benefits"; and the quote with "we are perfectly fine with you for denying your child a father; we'll even provide you free stuff if you decide to do so".
10. "Pregnancy as punishment for sex! Everybody drink!"
It's called biology. Several other biological examples include but are not limited to:

• Starvation as punishment for not eating
• Dehydration as punishment for not drinking
• Withdrawal as punishment for narcotic usage
• Suffocation as punishment for choking oneself
• Drowning as punishment for staying underwater for too long

Several societal examples include but are not limited to:

• Demotion/dismissal from job as punishment for not working
• Condemnation from the public on social media as punishment for speaking/acting rudely in public
• Fines as punishment for speeding
• Incarceration as punishment for piracy/embezzlement/child abuse/enslavement/rape
• Death penalty (or incarceration, depending on location) as punishment for murder/treason/war crimes

11. "But men don't have to suffer through it!"
Yes, and guess what? There are some stuff men have to suffer:

• Greater risk of losing custody of children and home
• More accounts of violent crimes against them
• Negative portrayal in media

There are biological and societal differences between men and women. So what? Besides, women who have abortions tend to feel worse than those who don't; if we want to bring betterment to women, why not prevent them from committing an action that makes them feel terrible?
12. "The pro-lifers want to make miscarriages illegal/sterilize all women."
First of all, that is far from the truth. Accidents happen, and sterilizing all women will only result in society being unable to grow.
Second of all, that isn't the point of the argument.
13. "It isn't 'murder' because it's legal."
(Even if we ignore the bill in Georgia meant to restrict abortions and therefore its illegality in similar locations...)
Doesn't make it okay. Slavery was legal for a long time.
"The definition of murder varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. While Merriam-Webster does use the definition "to kill (a human being) unlawfully and with premeditated malice", it also uses the definition "to slaughter wantonly". Moreover, Wordnik defines it as "the killing of another person without justification or excuse, especially the crime of killing a person with malice aforethought or with recklessness manifesting extreme indifference to the value of human life." There are other definitions...
14. "What about separation of church and state?"
I've used a secular argument throughout - as secular as the idea that people are endowed with the rights of "life, liberty, and property" and the government's role is to acknowledge and protect those rights.
Besides, restricting abortions and promoting responsibility is far from giving any church authority power in the federal government.
15. "What about those with birth def-"
Still human, still deserving of life.
16. "What about global warm-"
Look, if you wish to not have children, that's perfectly fine. We are not forcing anyone to start families against their will. But even if we ignore the fact that "global warming" is exaggerated, or the fact that more people = more innovative minds = more technological advancements to protect the society/environment, it still does not give you the right to kill another human being.

Valiant,but sadly wasted effort. You came to the wrong thread to assume belief in "family" anything.

Ad hominem against the entire pro-choice side, noted, doused in gasoline, set on fire and thrown into the Grand Canyon.

Any actual arguments?

[Gormwood]

Then change doctors. It's not their decision to make on a non-medical issue.

"Just find a different doctor" doesn't really work for most people, especially when most or all doctors in the area do the same thing.

Aren't monopolies awesome?

[Wallenburg]

"Just find a different doctor" doesn't really work for most people, especially when most or all doctors in the area do the same thing.

Aren't monopolies awesome?

With doctors, it's less a problem of monopolies and more one of doctors widely embracing bad practices and people being unable to afford changing doctors.

[Alvecia]

Aren't monopolies awesome?

With doctors, it's less a problem of monopolies and more one of doctors widely embracing bad practices and people being unable to afford changing doctors.

Or the hospitals themselves.

As of about 2012, "14.5 percent of all acute care hospitals in [the US] country are now Catholic-owned or affiliated"

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa- ... SKCN0XW15L

Admittedly, wouldn't expect abortion to fall under "acute" care

[Katganistan]

"Just find a different doctor" doesn't really work for most people, especially when most or all doctors in the area do the same thing.

Aren't monopolies awesome?

Funny enough, I've changed doctors. What do you know.

[The Free Joy State]

[spoiler=This was longer than I expected]

10. "Pregnancy as punishment for sex! Everybody drink!"
It's called biology. Several other biological examples include but are not limited to:

• Starvation as punishment for not eating
• Dehydration as punishment for not drinking
• Withdrawal as punishment for narcotic usage
• Suffocation as punishment for choking oneself
• Drowning as punishment for staying underwater for too long

Several societal examples include but are not limited to:

• Demotion/dismissal from job as punishment for not working
• Condemnation from the public on social media as punishment for speaking/acting rudely in public
• Fines as punishment for speeding
• Incarceration as punishment for piracy/embezzlement/child abuse/enslavement/rape
• Death penalty (or incarceration, depending on location) as punishment for murder/treason/war crimes

Every single one of which can be rectified by the person in question in some way, or by society or someone who has the power to rectify it.

For example, if I want to stop starving, I can eat. If we don't want the death penalty as a punishment, we can abolish it.

The only one where rectifying it isn't an option according to you is pregnancy. Letting pregnancy continue until you are no longer pregnant is not rectifying the situation. It is letting the problem continue until the problem solves itself. It's the equivalent of letting everyone drown because drowning must take its natural course. You're not allowed to rectify it, you just have to wait until the problem solves itself (in this case with your death).

This argument of Strahcoin's is really an argument for legalising abortion, when you think about it, because it lists negative, painful and deadly "natural" consequences that can and should be ameliorated.

• Why would you let someone starve, when you could give them food?
• Why would you let someone dehydrate when you can give them water?
• Why would you leave someone to choke to death when you could give them the Heimlich and save their life?
• Why would you not save someone who is drowning?

We have lifeguards, we have doctors, we have charities setting up standpipes in villages without water. Are these bad things? Should people be left to die from "natural" consequences.

Cancer develops naturally; should we not treat it? We may break a leg if we are careless; should we not set it in plaster (just letting it set in a deformed manner)? We may burn ourselves if we don't take care when cooking; should we let our skin blister and peel and never take abortive action (or go to the hospital, if it's a severe one)? Should there even be hospitals -- for are illness and death not natural parts of life that we should welcome and embrace with good cheer?

Or -- if you would actually pull someone whose drowning from the water, save the life of someone choking, feed the starving child (and really, who wouldn't); not leave them to suffer and die from "natural consequences" -- why is ameliorating the undesirable "natural consequences" of sex through abortion so different?

[Dogmeat]

Now that I'm back, let me try and dismantle the "pro-choice" argument one by one. I doubt this would convince anybody, but at least it's worth a shot.
(Note: these arguments assume that you agree with the premise that humans have the rights to life and liberty; and the government has the duty to protect those rights. It also assumes that you agree with the idea of personal/family responsibility.)

1. "The fetus is not a human/person." or "Her body, her choice."
Let's see... the fetus has (usually) complete, unique DNA from his/her parents, a 30-week fetus has more in common with a newborn than a newborn has in common with a teenager, a fetus can move and suck his/her thumb, the fetus is a member of the Homo sapiens species, and 96% of biologists agree that life begins at conception...
Clearly, the science sides with the fetus. The fetus's body, the fetus's choice.
2. "The fetus is infringing upon the liberty of the woman; therefore, the woman has the right to destroy it."
Right... because anybody has the right to stab their own child if he/she is - not by his/her own will - stuck to them.
Plus, this could work the other way around: "by having an abortion, the mother is infringing upon the liberty of the fetus; therefore, the fetus has the right to destroy the mother." Obviously, this is ridiculous, so why is it suddenly okay when the roles are switched? Seems very unequal.
3. "The fetus cannot survive without the mother; therefore, the mother has no obligation to support it."
Then why is it child abuse for parents to neglect children outside the womb? If there is no difference in humanity outside or inside the womb (as shown in explanation 1), then why is it morally unacceptable to refuse to feed a human yet perfectly okay to kill him/her?
The fetus is the child of the mother. It is the responsibility of the mother to care for her child. Therefore, it is the responsibility of the mother to care for the fetus.
4. "The pro-lifers just want to control women's bodies." or another ad homenim.
Why? We are already born; we have no fear of being aborted. We want to save babies and stop immorality.
Besides, what about the pro-life women who were formerly pro-choice? There's Abby Johnson, former planned parenthood director. Oh, and how about Norma McCorvey, commonly known as the "Roe" in Roe v. Wade?
5. "There's no benefit to societies that restrict/prohibit abortions."
Yes, there is. The children are the benefit. Also, (speculation here) less will feel entitled to abortion.
Besides, is a societal benefit really worth abandoning morality?
6. "It decreases the crime rate."
Not really - I have yet to see statistics that two decades after abortion is unrestricted, the crime rate considerably decreases (since it takes about that long for babies to grow into adults); correlation does not equate to causation; and you still don't have the right to kill the fetus.
7. "What about rape/incest/mother's life/health?"
First of all, in the U.S., such cases are very unlikely. Even in cases of rape and incest, the fetus is an innocent human being - just like a fetus resulting from consensual sex, which I have defended above (even without going into the "sex = consent to have a child" argument). And the suspicion that the mother may become ill does not permit her from killing her child - if her five-year-old child developed the bubonic plague (or other infectious disease), and for some reason she can't access a hospital or quarantine, she still has no right to kill the five-year-old, even if it will prevent her from contracting the disease.
As for the "life" argument, I do not think murder (either the "willful and premeditated killing of a human being" or the "immoral killing of a human being"; not necessarily the "illegal killing of a human being", since that is very inconsistent across different locations) is the right solution. I believe in innovation and developing new medical
8. "Then why don't provide free contraceptives?"
Because 1) I think abstinence has a higher chance of success than contraceptives (100% > 90-something%), 2) providing free contraceptives is like saying "we are perfectly fine with you for irresponsibly performing sex; we'll even provide you free stuff if you decide to do so", and 3) who's going to pay for that?
9. "What about welfare benefits for single-mother families?"
Basically the same argument as above, but switch "abstinence" with "charity" or "family values", "contraceptives" with "welfare benefits"; and the quote with "we are perfectly fine with you for denying your child a father; we'll even provide you free stuff if you decide to do so".
10. "Pregnancy as punishment for sex! Everybody drink!"
It's called biology. Several other biological examples include but are not limited to:

• Starvation as punishment for not eating
• Dehydration as punishment for not drinking
• Withdrawal as punishment for narcotic usage
• Suffocation as punishment for choking oneself
• Drowning as punishment for staying underwater for too long

Several societal examples include but are not limited to:

• Demotion/dismissal from job as punishment for not working
• Condemnation from the public on social media as punishment for speaking/acting rudely in public
• Fines as punishment for speeding
• Incarceration as punishment for piracy/embezzlement/child abuse/enslavement/rape
• Death penalty (or incarceration, depending on location) as punishment for murder/treason/war crimes

11. "But men don't have to suffer through it!"
Yes, and guess what? There are some stuff men have to suffer:

• Greater risk of losing custody of children and home
• More accounts of violent crimes against them
• Negative portrayal in media

There are biological and societal differences between men and women. So what? Besides, women who have abortions tend to feel worse than those who don't; if we want to bring betterment to women, why not prevent them from committing an action that makes them feel terrible?
12. "The pro-lifers want to make miscarriages illegal/sterilize all women."
First of all, that is far from the truth. Accidents happen, and sterilizing all women will only result in society being unable to grow.
Second of all, that isn't the point of the argument.
13. "It isn't 'murder' because it's legal."
(Even if we ignore the bill in Georgia meant to restrict abortions and therefore its illegality in similar locations...)
Doesn't make it okay. Slavery was legal for a long time.
"The definition of murder varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. While Merriam-Webster does use the definition "to kill (a human being) unlawfully and with premeditated malice", it also uses the definition "to slaughter wantonly". Moreover, Wordnik defines it as "the killing of another person without justification or excuse, especially the crime of killing a person with malice aforethought or with recklessness manifesting extreme indifference to the value of human life." There are other definitions...
14. "What about separation of church and state?"
I've used a secular argument throughout - as secular as the idea that people are endowed with the rights of "life, liberty, and property" and the government's role is to acknowledge and protect those rights.
Besides, restricting abortions and promoting responsibility is far from giving any church authority power in the federal government.
15. "What about those with birth def-"
Still human, still deserving of life.
16. "What about global warm-"
Look, if you wish to not have children, that's perfectly fine. We are not forcing anyone to start families against their will. But even if we ignore the fact that "global warming" is exaggerated, or the fact that more people = more innovative minds = more technological advancements to protect the society/environment, it still does not give you the right to kill another human being.

Not your own work, I take it?

[Gormwood]

Aren't monopolies awesome?

Funny enough, I've changed doctors. What do you know.

That's nice being able to afford changing physicians.

[Gormwood]

Alabama Abortion Ban Is Blocked by a Federal Judge

Yay for Alabama.

[Necroghastia]

Alabama Abortion Ban Is Blocked by a Federal Judge

Yay for Alabama.

Finally some good news from here.

[Hakons]

With doctors, it's less a problem of monopolies and more one of doctors widely embracing bad practices and people being unable to afford changing doctors.

Or the hospitals themselves.

As of about 2012, "14.5 percent of all acute care hospitals in [the US] country are now Catholic-owned or affiliated"

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa- ... SKCN0XW15L

Admittedly, wouldn't expect abortion to fall under "acute" care

Those Catholics and their.... HOSPITALS!

EDIT: This is more in response to the tenor of the article. I don't know the context of the discussion.

[The New California Republic]

Alabama Abortion Ban Is Blocked by a Federal Judge

Yay for Alabama.

Good news.

[Marxist Germany]

Ah, I see, so you aren't pro-life. If you were, you'd at least support abortion if the mother's life was at risk (which it always is during pregnancy, but that's another matter

By that logic driving cars always risks someone's life, eating food risks food poisoning, and one is always at a risk of dying if they are alive.

[Necroghastia]

Ah, I see, so you aren't pro-life. If you were, you'd at least support abortion if the mother's life was at risk (which it always is during pregnancy, but that's another matter

By that logic driving cars always risks someone's life, eating food risks food poisoning, and one is always at a risk of dying if they are alive.

Indeed, which is why if someone gets injured or falls ill, we treat them.

[Estanglia]

Ah, I see, so you aren't pro-life. If you were, you'd at least support abortion if the mother's life was at risk (which it always is during pregnancy, but that's another matter

By that logic driving cars always risks someone's life, eating food risks food poisoning, and one is always at a risk of dying if they are alive.

You're right on all counts.

[Godular]

Ah, I see, so you aren't pro-life. If you were, you'd at least support abortion if the mother's life was at risk (which it always is during pregnancy, but that's another matter

By that logic driving cars always risks someone's life, eating food risks food poisoning, and one is always at a risk of dying if they are alive.

If a risk is willingly taken, such is all well and good. Forcing such a risk on another person, however, is thirty-one different flavors of douchebaggery.

Edited: Moreso if you don't allow them to get treatment for falling victim to the complications of whatever risks have borne through.

[Austria-Bohemia-Hungary]

By that logic driving cars always risks someone's life, eating food risks food poisoning, and one is always at a risk of dying if they are alive.

If a risk is willingly taken, such is all well and good. Forcing such a risk on another person, however, is thirty-one different flavors of douchebaggery.

Edited: Moreso if you don't allow them to get treatment for falling victim to the complications of whatever risks have borne through.

On the same note: Strapping somebody in a car against their will is probs kidnapping and knowingly force-feeding somebody poisoned food is probs GBH. <.>

[Antityranicals]

By that logic driving cars always risks someone's life, eating food risks food poisoning, and one is always at a risk of dying if they are alive.

If a risk is willingly taken, such is all well and good. Forcing such a risk on another person, however, is thirty-one different flavors of douchebaggery.

Edited: Moreso if you don't allow them to get treatment for falling victim to the complications of whatever risks have borne through.

Life is risk. Anyone who says otherwise is selling something. I say that means don't justify the ends, especially if those means are killing another human. Under the argument you make that you can't force risk on another person, one ought to ban cars, because driving can kill. Are you in support of banning cars to prevent risk? If not, why are you in support of legalizing intentional manslaughter to prevent risk?

[The New California Republic]

Under the argument you make that you can't force risk on another person, one ought to ban cars, because driving can kill.

Cars existing isn't forcing risk on anyone. One could feasibly move to the countryside where there are fewer cars. Since there are options to get away from the risk, the risk isn't being forced. If someone was forced to live on the freeway with no option of escape then you might have an argument, as that'd be a bit more equivalent to banning abortion.

Are you in support of banning cars to prevent risk? If not, why are you in support of legalizing intentional manslaughter to prevent risk?

Not equivalent, because of the aforementioned.

[Nuroblav]

In my opinion, abortion should be legal up to 24 weeks (like in my country).

Ah, I see, so you aren't pro-life. If you were, you'd at least support abortion if the mother's life was at risk (which it always is during pregnancy, but that's another matter

By that logic driving cars always risks someone's life, eating food risks food poisoning, and one is always at a risk of dying if they are alive.

Great idea!

On the proof that eating food could lead to food poisoning, eating has been banned. Amen.