Pro-lifer argument: "what if your parents decided to abort you?!"

[Wvvtayy]

My response to that argument: what if I wish that they did?

[jackofwind]

I mean that's a bit edgy to say, but the fact remains that being aborted prior to having a consciousness would not have inconvenienced you in the slightest.

[Doctor Amadeus]

Hahahahahaha, I don't know I feel this topic is a hot potato loaded with all kinds of disingenuous arguments from both sides. I perfectly understand the reasonable arguments on both sides.

Most of this can be settled with biology.

[Has lost its way]

Hahahahahaha, I don't know I feel this topic is a hot potato loaded with all kinds of disingenuous arguments from both sides. I perfectly understand the reasonable arguments on both sides.

Most of this can be settled with biology.

You would think but humans are moved by passions not reason.

[Doctor Amadeus]

There are no pro-life arguments.

Seeing that this is still a topic of contention and discussion in the US is evidence in itself that the US socially is a few decades behind on the rest of the modern world.

Ok I'll bite I'll be the devils advocate.


But are you sure that a fetus up until a certain point isn't alive and a baby?

[Endus]

You would think but humans are moved by passions not reason.

Bragging that you can make fallacious appeals to emotion to avoid having to come up with a rational defense for your position isn't the strong argument you seem to think it is.

[Endus]

But are you sure that a fetus up until a certain point isn't alive and a baby?

Does it matter?

Name one other circumstance where one person's (the fetus' hypothetical, in this case) right to life argues that someone else's (the pregnant woman's) right to control the use of her body should be ignored?

Literally, just one.

If that principle's accepted for abortion, it should apply to other circumstances, no? And if not, why would abortion be a special case?

You can't even harvest organs from a dead person without the prior approval of said dead person, even if those organs would save multiple lives. Just to underscore how completely ridiculous the pro-life argument on this is.

[Has lost its way]

Bragging that you can make fallacious appeals to emotion to avoid having to come up with a rational defense for your position isn't the strong argument you seem to think it is.

I know right?

[Frogguh]

There are no pro-life arguments.

Seeing that this is still a topic of contention and discussion in the US is evidence in itself that the US socially is a few decades behind on the rest of the modern world.

Yeah only a few people left with any morals.

- - - Updated - - -

I just tell people that women have a right to control their body. It’s nobody else’s business, and certainly not the governments.

Really, though, pro-lifers don’t want to hear anything. They’re set in their ways.

Yeah because that really distinguishes them from pro-abortion people who delude themselves into believing an abortion doesn't end a life.

[Aurgjelme]

Ok I'll bite I'll be the devils advocate.


But are you sure that a fetus up until a certain point isn't alive and a baby?

I mean, If the fetus is a own person then let the woman abort it and let it make its own way through life.
It's just hilarious that right wingers who care the least for their fellow human beings are so sanctimonious about life (before its born mind you).

[Rozz]

My mother would probably be better off and would have lived the life she has now much sooner. Her future child would have also had a better life if it was raised when she had more financial stability and emotional maturity. And I wouldn't have had to go through life with all the disadvantages being raised by an ill prepared teen gave me. What kind of stupid question is this? I hate when people ask things like this...

[Stelio Kontos]

I'm pro-life myself. I'm not necessarily saying abortion should be banned though. It's a complicated issue. And the only reason I'd say to keep it legal is because women who want to kill their unborn children will do so whether it's legal or not, so this way it can at least be somewhat safe (well, for the mother at least, not for the baby in any case). I, however, do believe abortion should be limited to the first trimester, except in the case of non-viable pregnancies or risk to the mother.

A woman does have the right to do what she wants with her body, but I also would have my right to end a relationship or marriage with my wife/gf if she kills my unborn child for non-medical reasons as well. I wouldn't stay with a woman who'd do that.

[Has lost its way]

Does it matter?

Name one other circumstance where one person's (the fetus' hypothetical, in this case) right to life argues that someone else's (the pregnant woman's) right to control the use of her body should be ignored?

Literally, just one.

If that principle's accepted for abortion, it should apply to other circumstances, no? And if not, why would abortion be a special case?

You can't even harvest organs from a dead person without the prior approval of said dead person, even if those organs would save multiple lives. Just to underscore how completely ridiculous the pro-life argument on this is.

It isn't weighted the same as there isn't to my knowledge any other applicable situation beyond perhaps Siamese twins. Arguing from a point of absurdity isn't arguing at all.

[Doctor Amadeus]

Does it matter?

Name one other circumstance where one person's (the fetus' hypothetical, in this case) right to life argues that someone else's (the pregnant woman's) right to control the use of her body should be ignored?

Literally, just one.

If that principle's accepted for abortion, it should apply to other circumstances, no? And if not, why would abortion be a special case?

To me? Yes

In fact while I consider myself Pro-Life leaning I vote Pro Choice, it's because as the science goes and my understanding is that abortions are already only allowed well before the gestation develops to the point where a fetus then becomes a child.

If it was a child, then I would say I would be hard lined against it. Unless it literally came down to the life of the child or the mother.


If it comes down to either that of the child or the mother, then yes again I would support the mothers right to choose not to die.


But that would be the only exception.


If I thought that the laws supported killing an actual child as I understand it, then I would for sure vote against it and support those that did as well.


However most people I know of that are reasonable who are already against abortion their contention is that it is already legal to abort a child, which to my understanding is not the case


Obviously there are some rare exceptions where a child is born with some kind of conditions that makes it look alive or developed but everything else doesn't work for any quality of life.

But I've always understood that as rare and having less to do with abortion than it does any other difficult decision of anyone who is alive, that simply has no ability to sustain or be sustained for life.

[Aurgjelme]

Yeah only a few people left with any morals.

- - - Updated - - -



Yeah because that really distinguishes them from pro-abortion people who delude themselves into believing an abortion doesn't end a life.

Is masturbation murder too then?

[Queen of Hamsters]

Pro-life arguments are all emotional, all they can do is tug at the heartstrings with hyperbole and blatant propaganda.
Anti-abortion is about controlling women more than anything else. If there was real concern for the baby, there'd be encouragement in the shape or maternity leave, support, healthcare etc.

[Unholyground]

Hahahahahaha, I don't know I feel this topic is a hot potato loaded with all kinds of disingenuous arguments from both sides. I perfectly understand the reasonable arguments on both sides.

Most of this can be settled with biology.

If the side against abortion is based from religious roots it is not relevant though that is the main issue.

That being said I only exist because my mother had a miscarriage, so thank you auto aborted brother or sister that never was.

[Symphonic]

Is masturbation murder too then?

You have a lacking of understanding fertilization if you need to ask that question.

[Hilhen7]

What if Hitler's mother decided to have an abortion?

1 abortion could have saved millions of lives!

See I can appeal to emotions to...

[lucred]

Does it matter?

Name one other circumstance where one person's (the fetus' hypothetical, in this case) right to life argues that someone else's (the pregnant woman's) right to control the use of her body should be ignored?

Literally, just one.

If that principle's accepted for abortion, it should apply to other circumstances, no? And if not, why would abortion be a special case?

You can't even harvest organs from a dead person without the prior approval of said dead person, even if those organs would save multiple lives. Just to underscore how completely ridiculous the pro-life argument on this is.

First, I DO support women's right to have an abortion.
Answering your question, the difference here from most circumstances is that the woman in question is the one CAUSING a life to be dependent on her.
For your corpse argument, it would be more like if the person had cut out one of someone's kidneys, then died and they found the deceased had a matching kidney. In that case I WOULD support a transplant even against the will of the deceased.

In the case of a rape victim, even this argument does not fit however as the woman was not complicit in the act that caused said life to be dependent upon her.

Before the fetus has a brain formed (not just a blob of cells that could form a brain or essentially a nerve cluster that would activate autonomic functions, but an actual brain capable of some thought) I see no good arguments against abortion.
Only once the pregnancy has reached that point would I even entertain thoughts about the morality of abortion. Once that point has been reached, in most cases the mother has been aware of it for some time already and has had a chance to make their decision, so they had already waited for there to be an actual life dependent upon them.
If something had PREVENTED them from doing something earlier (for example, the woman was rescued after being imprisoned by the father who did not want her to abort) then again, it was not the woman who decided to have a living being depend upon them so there is little to no argument against her getting the abortion.

In short, if it is not a being with the capacity for at least low level thought, or it was forced upon the woman one way or another, abortion should be an option for the woman. Only if it was not forced upon her, meaning she chose to get this far (lack of birth control + waiting a few months) should it even be questionable.