Strahcoin wrote: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.
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-quoqueThere 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.
Ayytaly wrote: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.
Still isn't murder though.
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?