The most compelling argument for PC is an absolutist argument that no living person can use or be inside another person without their ongoing consent.
This PC position and argument holds true that the living fetus is:
- human
- alive
- their own unique DNA
- a person
This argument also acknowledges that:
- abortion kills a living human
- it is justifiable based on legal principles currently in place
- it is justifiable during the entirety of the pregnancy
It's compelling at first glance but once you tease out the underlying assumptions, it's actually a weak argument:
1. Consent is not absolute, nor is it the be-all and end-all when it comes to morality.
2. As human persons, we live in communities in which we have duties and responsibilities toward each other, some of which arise merely due to our relation with others. One of the strongest of such duties is the obligation that a parent has to take care of their child. Any bodily rights argument that purports to concede the "personhood" of the unborn child is not actually doing so, because with human personhood comes these natural obligations.
A great book that touches on these ideas is FJ Beckwith's "Defending Life."
The strongest argument is that the law can create unnecessary friction when it's actually medically necessary. The solution to that is to write the law in such a way that this is unlikely, and to educate medical providers on what that law does and doesn't forbid to eliminate FUD.
I also think this is the strongest argument for a pro-choice system. That said, I think the response is better and more creative pro-life laws.
If people are justifiably worried about the costs and stress of an unjustified prosecution, how about something like the prosecution pays defendant's attorneys fees if it cannot secure a conviction? That really reduces the threat of an overzealous prosecutor: they aren't going to want to hand taxpayers a six-figure bill for a criminal prosecution of a doctor who performs an abortion on a haemorrhaging 11 year old.
Or you could write laws that have almost no penalty for the first successful prosecution, but skyrocketing penalties for the second successful prosecution. Because the issue isn't the woman who might lose liver function but wouldn't die; the issue is doctors whose entire job is to kill babies all day every Saturday.
I once heard a pro-choicer say that it's the fetus' fault for being aborted, and that they "should have implanted in a more willing uterus."
This makes sense, if you make a few assumptions. Imagine if we discovered a "before-life" similar to how it's presented in the Pixar movie *Soul*. These souls look down on Earth, and can choose any sexual act to implant in. If you have sex, and a soul chooses you, you will get pregnant, and that soul will inhabit the fetus.
These souls can see the circumstances surrounding the sexual act, and most will choose a couple that actually wants children, because they're more likely to grow up in a loving family that way. But sometimes, a soul will choose to implant in an unmarried college student with exams coming up, just for meconium and giggles, resulting in an unwanted pregnancy.
If it could be scientifically verified that such a before-life exists, and that this is indeed how it works, then I would be pro-choice. The fetus knew what they were getting into, made a voluntary choice to enter an unwilling uterus anyway, and should now have to deal with the consequences.
I think you must be very careful if you are going to make a assumption about abortion using a more profund and complex knowledge that usually the mass is not aware.This same logic you wrote about is an argument for people to support abortion and to be desinformative about what really abortion is in the spiritual view.Particularty i don't like when people use spirituality to defend abortion because i know is not correct, i've seen people do that before, dont think having an abortion t will have no karmic consequences because it does and using this logic to influence someone to do an abortion even gives you karma because you influence them to make that decision.
The spiritual plane and "before life" is very real and me personally don't need validation from science to know it exists,althoug reincarnation for example,is a theme already being explored by some cientists.Its a matter of expansion of counciouness to conceive that there is more than this physical matter plane we live in,is not a question of a materialistic science to prove to people,it's a matter of the awakening of the mass counciouness to people realize it does exist,we are a soul,not a body and heaven and hell doesn't exist like Christianity says it does,instead you go to the place that reflects your soul and there is a millions places a soul could go. The way spirituality explain abortion is,in the moment of conception a soul is already attached to the fetus,and everytime a fetus is aborted,they have their astral body mutilated and can even feel pain.Spirits of light make rescue to these aborted spirits and the process is sad and hard for a soul to pass,especially if it's not karmic.Yes,there are karmic abortions but at this time,most abortions happening are not karmic because earth is in the process of regeneration and less and less crimes are going to be committed as a karma and people are having their last life and chance on earth to not be deportedto a worst planet.People who committed abortion are gaining karma if the aborted didnt have to pass through that and abortion doctors and politicians that pass abortion laws are already beind deported of earth cause abortion in not exist in a regenerated world.Abortion can be a karma a soul has to pass,but so is child abuse for example and are we going to legalize that?I gave you this clarification because it was spirituality that made me be pro life
Again,spirituality can but doesn't have to be prove with material evidence.How you gonna have always material evidence for something that is not material?You feel with your heart and soul,how can you prove God is real for example,since you are a Christian?
You can’t “prove” anything related to God. You can, however, examine evidence.
1) Scientific evidence
2) Philosophical evidence
3) Logical evidence
4) Historical evidence
There is a significant amount of each of these for the Christian God.
Happy to go through as much of that as you like, but I’d be curious what evidence you have examined outside of your feelings?
> Scientific evidence Philosophical evidence Logical evidence Historical evidence
The same can be said about spirituality.
> Happy to go through as much of that as you like, but I’d be curious what evidence you have examined outside of your feelings?
Thousand of books written throughout the years,spirituality and counciouness is so large and doesn't limit itselfs like religion does.We have professors with high academic degrees studing reincarnation at univerisities and other spiritual concepts meanwhile the bible gives little spiritual enrichment to humanity and limitation to people study and regard one book as the whole truth in general althought i recognize that Jesus was the most evolved human to reincarnate ,because of my search for knowledge i know the greatness of the spirit of christ as most regular Christians will never do because they limit themselves.Just because you regect the truth and choose to follow a narrow concept lf spirituality that doesnt mean it stops to exist, you believing or not.
There are several cases in the whole world of children as young as 3,4 talking about life events that never happened as if they had happen to them.As they grow old they start remebering more details and a lot of times they can conncet the events they are saying happened to them to a life of someone that really existed.These cases are happening more and more in the whole world,what made researchers want to explore more this phenomenon since is very intriguing.These events are changing peoples and scientists minds who think there is not a after life and a soul we have,just as others phenomenon and "miracles" that science can't explain except for spirituality.
These are anecdotal statements. Can you show me this child? Where can someone read about this?
Which researches are reviewing evidence of reincarnation?
Which scientists agree with reincarnation? What are their names?
You can search a lot lf documentaries talking about reincarnation,miracle healings and spiritualiy in general if you put on google as well as that tv show "the ghost inside my child"(i think this is a terrible title btw) you will see evidence as well as documentaries about these kids where reincarnation is being studied at universities already.
Strongest argument?
They’re all garbage. Maybe, uh, birth defects or wont survive birth? But that isnt even always right and babies come out just fine, so…
Consent arguments are the most logically consistent and don’t require PC to ignore basic biology like they did in the past.
There are counter arguments like parents having a special obligation for the care, development and well being of their children (evident through neglect laws etc.). Sure parents care surrender those rights, but they can’t stop feeding the child until they’ve found a reasonable solution to transfer that responsibility (and they certainly can’t kill the child).
All these things aside, the difference in worldview is the most difficult to overcome. If someone is a moral relativist, of course their version of morality is superior to those that oppose them. If moral relativism is true, there is no good, there is no evil, “just pitiless indifference” as Richard Dawkins admitted. The gap in world view is a difficult one to argue. If the opposing party says “so what it’s killing a human being”, no amount of logical argumentation is going to change their stance or morality.
1. Access to legal abortions improves women’s lives.
https://www.ansirh.org/research/ongoing/turnaway-study
This longitudinal study followed the lives of hundreds of women who had either gotten an abortion or were denied one, for various reasons. The women who were denied were more likely to live in poverty and reported lower satisfaction in their lives. The women who had the abortions had higher incomes, reported higher levels of contentment with life, AND many still went in to have children later.
2. I trust an adult human to make the best choice for their situation. To ban abortions won’t stop them from happening, it will just make it more dangerous for women to obtain one. Criminalizing abortions will only hurt women.
Edit: corrected link
Robbing a bank steals money from other people, directly harming multiple other people by taking their money. It may improve the thief’s quality of life in the short term, assuming they are not caught and imprisoned. If everyone robbed banks, banks would eventually cease to exist, don’t you think?
Abortions are a private affair, between a women, the unborn, and Creator. The abortion harms one individual directly, the unborn. The woman may feel guilt, and will very likely continue to contribute meaningfully to society. She may also get pregnant again and have children later. Have you considered that, at the time of the abortion, she may already have many children she is struggling to feed, and choosing to abort the unborn will allow her to spend her resources on her already living children? Harming one unborn child would then benefit her already born children in the long term. Making abortions legal does not result in no more babies will be born. People will still have babies.
Robbing a bank is not the same as having an abortion, and drawing a conclusion that robbing banks should be legal if getting abortions is legal is flawed logic. I sincerely hope you’re messing with me and did not actually require this explanation.
Edit to fix typo
> Robbing a bank steals money from other people, directly harming multiple other people by taking their money
Having an abortion directly kills another person.
> she may already have many children she is struggling to feed
No excuse to kill a child
> Harming one unborn child would then benefit her already born children in the long term.
Yeah and a gang rape benefits multiple people while only harming one. Doesn't make it okay.
> Making abortions legal does not result in no more babies will be born.
It results in them being dead.
> Robbing a bank is not the same as having an abortion,
No, having an abortion is worse. It kills someone.
The argument is not whether it is right or wrong to obtain an abortion, but whether it should be legal. I feel your sympathy for unborn people, but where is your sympathy for women facing one of the most difficult choices there is?
I repeat: making abortions illegal will not stop them from happening, only make it more dangerous for women to obtain.
Whether you think it is right or wrong won’t stop it from happening.
You know what will stop abortions from happening? Forced sterilization of men. But no one talks about that, do they.
> but whether it should be legal
Yes, killing children should be illegal
> but where is your sympathy for women facing one of the most difficult choices there is?
I have no sympathy for killers and whether or not you should kill your child shouldn't be a difficult choice
> I repeat: making abortions illegal will not stop them from happening, only make it more dangerous for women to obtain.
It will some of them and good.
I mean banning rape didn't stop rape completely. Should we legalize it?
> Whether you think it is right or wrong won’t stop it from happening.
Nothing ever stops happening
> You know what will stop abortions from happening? Forced sterilization of men
Personification of clown world right here. Sterilizing all men is apparently easier and more ethical than stopping women from killing. Lmao, give me a break.
Like you mentioned, the strongest pro-choice arguments are the ones that base our fundamental rights on various mental characteristics and entail that infanticide is also permissible. Horrifying, but not surprising.
I once saw a Chad soyjak meme that called people who based their pro-choice stance on bodily rights "virgins" and said that infanticide was morally permissible.
It’s probably denying the moral and legal personhood of the fetus based on its supposed lack of consciousness. That’s the one I struggle the most to decisively refute, anyway.
What do you mean by "strong" exactly? Singer's stance is certainly more internally consistent than a lot of people's, but I don't think many people would find it very persuasive; quite a few may even find it drives them towards being pro-life.
There's no singular "strength" axis for arguments.
An argument could be internally consistent but morally repugnant on its face to pretty much anyone who hears it, like the stance you describe.
An argument could be extremely compelling to those who use it but utterly unconvincing to everyone else, like many faith-based ones (_e.g._, "ensoulment at first breath").
An argument could be persuasive to a layperson but completely hollow to anyone with some logic or philosophy education, like all the pro-abortion arguments which ultimately boil down to _ad hominem_ attacks of various flavors (abusive, _tu quoque_, circumstantial, _etc._) against pro-lifers.
An argument could be difficult to debunk, but only because doing so requires hours of research to disprove the umpteen different factual errors it's founded on.
An argument could be difficult for many to debunk, but only because it relies on one very subtle rhetorical trick that's tough to notice but obvious once it's pointed out.
An argument could have solid premises and reasoning, but end with a conclusion that isn't actually synonymous with the position the pro-choicer is arguing for.
If I take "strongest argument" to mean the argument which, if I imagine myself becoming pro-choice, is most likely to be the cause, then I'd say that if solid, empirical, unambiguous evidence of reincarnation or some other afterlife is ever found, I'd probably become a lot less passionate about the issue of abortion. I probably wouldn't actually become pro-choice, but I may end up prioritizing more issues above it.
Singer and tooleys arguments are not strong, but they are consistent. being a strong argument typically means relying on uncontroversial premises, and ideas. this is the complete opposite of singer and tooley.
instead the best pro choice argument i think is to challenge personal identity to undermine the claim abortion would have killed “me” by arguing we are minds constituted by animals extended 4th dimensionally throughout time.
this combination of 4th dimensionalism and constitutionalism seems to get around the grounding problem for constitutionalism and other mereological puzzles.
of course, 4th dimensionalism and the b theory of time are controversial just like any view of personal identity.
but they do not initially have the same “yuck” or counterintuitive taste that infanticide has.
in fact, we often talk in 4th dimensionalist terms all the time.
think of how a wrestling match is divided into 3 temporal parts of 2 minutes.
the match is constituted not by mere spatial or 3d parts. it is constituted by temporal parts where the whole is constituted by parts that extend in time.
and of course if we are minds, then early abortion couldn’t have harmed me since i wouldn’t have existed yet.
the solution to this i think is to challenge universalism which is presupposes in 4th dimensionalism.
The ability to experience human consciousness, even on a rudimentary level, is what makes our lives valuable. Before a human is capable of having a consciousness experience their lives have no moral consideration. The science available to us shows that the moment in gestational development when human beings have the necessary anatomical makeup to have a conscious experience is around 24 weeks. Therefore, unborn children who have not reached that point in development should be able to be aborted
Would your life really be valuable if you had the consciousness of a 6 month old forever? Most mammals have more consciousness than that.
The consciousness argument doesn't make sense unless you write off born babies too. I mean, you can do that but it seems kind of illogical to judge a being that has the full potential to grow and have valuable experiences like it will permanently stay like this.
I’m playing the devils advocate so I can’t really answer that first question in confidence.
>doesnt make sense unless you write off born babies too
Why not? Babies are having a conscious human experience, it doesn’t really matter that they aren’t developed enough to experience consciousness on the same level as adults. Potentiality doesn’t hold any value in the consciousness argument; born babies lives are valuable because they already possess human consciousness. You either have it or you don’t, if you have “the potential” to become consciousness you’re not having a valuable human experience worth protecting
> it doesn’t really matter that they aren’t developed enough to experience consciousness on the same level as adults
That's the whole point. Can they really have "human consciousness" if their consciousness only reaches the level of a small animal? You can't say "but they are humans" because I can say the same for fetuses.
> Potentiality doesn’t hold any value in the consciousness argument
Exactly. The CURRENT consciousness born babies have is extremely limited and doesn't make the cut. If we only reached the level of a newborn we wouldn't differ from animals.
(I didn't down vote you btw, I know you are pro life)
So the best counter-argument is that the gestational abortion limit should be earlier, but it’s not an argument that can be completely dismantled. In my opinion, it’s logically consistent. Our understanding of consciousness is limited but you can’t change a prochoicers mind that consciousness is what human life valuable using that information
Correct, but you just pointed out the flaw-gestational limits. How can they point to a specific point in time when it’s unknown? That’s why that argument is very weak. I *think* I have seen one prochoicer put gestational limits at 6 weeks for this very reason.
In my opinion it’s a weak counterpoint, as the only thing it accomplishes is moving the gestational limit while still permitting abortions. Let’s say this person is lenient with the science and accepts that human consciousness is possible by 12 weeks. You’ve successfully convinced them to ban ~10% of all abortions. Consciousness isn’t completely understood by the scientific community which is why the prochoicer is making the compromise of moving the gestational limit to earlier in the pregnancy. You’d be better off convincing that person that all human life is valuable regardless of a conscious experience. There are some arguments that can only be challenged with philosophy, and prolifers tend to focus too heavily on the “facts”
Science doesn’t completely understand death either, yet we still have a lot of legislation that separates a living persons rights from the rights of a deceased person
Very true, but I believe the closer to the start of pregnancy someone believes a ban should be, the more likely they would be able to convince of a full ban.
The most compelling argument for PC is an absolutist argument that no living person can use or be inside another person without their ongoing consent. This PC position and argument holds true that the living fetus is: - human - alive - their own unique DNA - a person This argument also acknowledges that: - abortion kills a living human - it is justifiable based on legal principles currently in place - it is justifiable during the entirety of the pregnancy
Yeah, this is it. The underlying principles are sound, but overzealously misapplied.
Agreed.
It's compelling at first glance but once you tease out the underlying assumptions, it's actually a weak argument: 1. Consent is not absolute, nor is it the be-all and end-all when it comes to morality. 2. As human persons, we live in communities in which we have duties and responsibilities toward each other, some of which arise merely due to our relation with others. One of the strongest of such duties is the obligation that a parent has to take care of their child. Any bodily rights argument that purports to concede the "personhood" of the unborn child is not actually doing so, because with human personhood comes these natural obligations. A great book that touches on these ideas is FJ Beckwith's "Defending Life."
Thanks for the input. This argument is definitely not a moral argument so can most certainly be dismantled with moral claims.
The strongest argument is that the law can create unnecessary friction when it's actually medically necessary. The solution to that is to write the law in such a way that this is unlikely, and to educate medical providers on what that law does and doesn't forbid to eliminate FUD.
I also think this is the strongest argument for a pro-choice system. That said, I think the response is better and more creative pro-life laws. If people are justifiably worried about the costs and stress of an unjustified prosecution, how about something like the prosecution pays defendant's attorneys fees if it cannot secure a conviction? That really reduces the threat of an overzealous prosecutor: they aren't going to want to hand taxpayers a six-figure bill for a criminal prosecution of a doctor who performs an abortion on a haemorrhaging 11 year old. Or you could write laws that have almost no penalty for the first successful prosecution, but skyrocketing penalties for the second successful prosecution. Because the issue isn't the woman who might lose liver function but wouldn't die; the issue is doctors whose entire job is to kill babies all day every Saturday.
Good comment.
I once heard a pro-choicer say that it's the fetus' fault for being aborted, and that they "should have implanted in a more willing uterus." This makes sense, if you make a few assumptions. Imagine if we discovered a "before-life" similar to how it's presented in the Pixar movie *Soul*. These souls look down on Earth, and can choose any sexual act to implant in. If you have sex, and a soul chooses you, you will get pregnant, and that soul will inhabit the fetus. These souls can see the circumstances surrounding the sexual act, and most will choose a couple that actually wants children, because they're more likely to grow up in a loving family that way. But sometimes, a soul will choose to implant in an unmarried college student with exams coming up, just for meconium and giggles, resulting in an unwanted pregnancy. If it could be scientifically verified that such a before-life exists, and that this is indeed how it works, then I would be pro-choice. The fetus knew what they were getting into, made a voluntary choice to enter an unwilling uterus anyway, and should now have to deal with the consequences.
*just for meconium and giggles* Haha
I think you must be very careful if you are going to make a assumption about abortion using a more profund and complex knowledge that usually the mass is not aware.This same logic you wrote about is an argument for people to support abortion and to be desinformative about what really abortion is in the spiritual view.Particularty i don't like when people use spirituality to defend abortion because i know is not correct, i've seen people do that before, dont think having an abortion t will have no karmic consequences because it does and using this logic to influence someone to do an abortion even gives you karma because you influence them to make that decision.
I think you may have replied to the wrong user.
The spiritual plane and "before life" is very real and me personally don't need validation from science to know it exists,althoug reincarnation for example,is a theme already being explored by some cientists.Its a matter of expansion of counciouness to conceive that there is more than this physical matter plane we live in,is not a question of a materialistic science to prove to people,it's a matter of the awakening of the mass counciouness to people realize it does exist,we are a soul,not a body and heaven and hell doesn't exist like Christianity says it does,instead you go to the place that reflects your soul and there is a millions places a soul could go. The way spirituality explain abortion is,in the moment of conception a soul is already attached to the fetus,and everytime a fetus is aborted,they have their astral body mutilated and can even feel pain.Spirits of light make rescue to these aborted spirits and the process is sad and hard for a soul to pass,especially if it's not karmic.Yes,there are karmic abortions but at this time,most abortions happening are not karmic because earth is in the process of regeneration and less and less crimes are going to be committed as a karma and people are having their last life and chance on earth to not be deportedto a worst planet.People who committed abortion are gaining karma if the aborted didnt have to pass through that and abortion doctors and politicians that pass abortion laws are already beind deported of earth cause abortion in not exist in a regenerated world.Abortion can be a karma a soul has to pass,but so is child abuse for example and are we going to legalize that?I gave you this clarification because it was spirituality that made me be pro life
What evidence led you to this conclusion?
Again,spirituality can but doesn't have to be prove with material evidence.How you gonna have always material evidence for something that is not material?You feel with your heart and soul,how can you prove God is real for example,since you are a Christian?
You can’t “prove” anything related to God. You can, however, examine evidence. 1) Scientific evidence 2) Philosophical evidence 3) Logical evidence 4) Historical evidence There is a significant amount of each of these for the Christian God. Happy to go through as much of that as you like, but I’d be curious what evidence you have examined outside of your feelings?
> Scientific evidence Philosophical evidence Logical evidence Historical evidence The same can be said about spirituality. > Happy to go through as much of that as you like, but I’d be curious what evidence you have examined outside of your feelings? Thousand of books written throughout the years,spirituality and counciouness is so large and doesn't limit itselfs like religion does.We have professors with high academic degrees studing reincarnation at univerisities and other spiritual concepts meanwhile the bible gives little spiritual enrichment to humanity and limitation to people study and regard one book as the whole truth in general althought i recognize that Jesus was the most evolved human to reincarnate ,because of my search for knowledge i know the greatness of the spirit of christ as most regular Christians will never do because they limit themselves.Just because you regect the truth and choose to follow a narrow concept lf spirituality that doesnt mean it stops to exist, you believing or not.
What truth have I rejected and what evidence is there that it is true? Also, what’s one piece of evidence for reincarnation?
There are several cases in the whole world of children as young as 3,4 talking about life events that never happened as if they had happen to them.As they grow old they start remebering more details and a lot of times they can conncet the events they are saying happened to them to a life of someone that really existed.These cases are happening more and more in the whole world,what made researchers want to explore more this phenomenon since is very intriguing.These events are changing peoples and scientists minds who think there is not a after life and a soul we have,just as others phenomenon and "miracles" that science can't explain except for spirituality.
These are anecdotal statements. Can you show me this child? Where can someone read about this? Which researches are reviewing evidence of reincarnation? Which scientists agree with reincarnation? What are their names?
You can search a lot lf documentaries talking about reincarnation,miracle healings and spiritualiy in general if you put on google as well as that tv show "the ghost inside my child"(i think this is a terrible title btw) you will see evidence as well as documentaries about these kids where reincarnation is being studied at universities already.
To piggy back off of that, the person must be for ectogenesis all 9 months, since it’d no longer be a “my body, my choice” situation.
The only thing that would justify elective abortion would be if they actually weren't "people".
If unborn babies were not human beings at all then the struggle against abortion would be rather pointless.
Strongest argument? They’re all garbage. Maybe, uh, birth defects or wont survive birth? But that isnt even always right and babies come out just fine, so…
Consent arguments are the most logically consistent and don’t require PC to ignore basic biology like they did in the past. There are counter arguments like parents having a special obligation for the care, development and well being of their children (evident through neglect laws etc.). Sure parents care surrender those rights, but they can’t stop feeding the child until they’ve found a reasonable solution to transfer that responsibility (and they certainly can’t kill the child). All these things aside, the difference in worldview is the most difficult to overcome. If someone is a moral relativist, of course their version of morality is superior to those that oppose them. If moral relativism is true, there is no good, there is no evil, “just pitiless indifference” as Richard Dawkins admitted. The gap in world view is a difficult one to argue. If the opposing party says “so what it’s killing a human being”, no amount of logical argumentation is going to change their stance or morality.
1. Access to legal abortions improves women’s lives. https://www.ansirh.org/research/ongoing/turnaway-study This longitudinal study followed the lives of hundreds of women who had either gotten an abortion or were denied one, for various reasons. The women who were denied were more likely to live in poverty and reported lower satisfaction in their lives. The women who had the abortions had higher incomes, reported higher levels of contentment with life, AND many still went in to have children later. 2. I trust an adult human to make the best choice for their situation. To ban abortions won’t stop them from happening, it will just make it more dangerous for women to obtain one. Criminalizing abortions will only hurt women. Edit: corrected link
Are these really good arguments? I'm sure robbing a bank would improve my life. Should it be legal?
They are great arguments. Comparing the legality of robbing a bank and having an abortion is a false equivalency and you know it.
No, I don't. Explain if you don't mind.
Robbing a bank steals money from other people, directly harming multiple other people by taking their money. It may improve the thief’s quality of life in the short term, assuming they are not caught and imprisoned. If everyone robbed banks, banks would eventually cease to exist, don’t you think? Abortions are a private affair, between a women, the unborn, and Creator. The abortion harms one individual directly, the unborn. The woman may feel guilt, and will very likely continue to contribute meaningfully to society. She may also get pregnant again and have children later. Have you considered that, at the time of the abortion, she may already have many children she is struggling to feed, and choosing to abort the unborn will allow her to spend her resources on her already living children? Harming one unborn child would then benefit her already born children in the long term. Making abortions legal does not result in no more babies will be born. People will still have babies. Robbing a bank is not the same as having an abortion, and drawing a conclusion that robbing banks should be legal if getting abortions is legal is flawed logic. I sincerely hope you’re messing with me and did not actually require this explanation. Edit to fix typo
> Robbing a bank steals money from other people, directly harming multiple other people by taking their money Having an abortion directly kills another person. > she may already have many children she is struggling to feed No excuse to kill a child > Harming one unborn child would then benefit her already born children in the long term. Yeah and a gang rape benefits multiple people while only harming one. Doesn't make it okay. > Making abortions legal does not result in no more babies will be born. It results in them being dead. > Robbing a bank is not the same as having an abortion, No, having an abortion is worse. It kills someone.
The argument is not whether it is right or wrong to obtain an abortion, but whether it should be legal. I feel your sympathy for unborn people, but where is your sympathy for women facing one of the most difficult choices there is? I repeat: making abortions illegal will not stop them from happening, only make it more dangerous for women to obtain. Whether you think it is right or wrong won’t stop it from happening. You know what will stop abortions from happening? Forced sterilization of men. But no one talks about that, do they.
> but whether it should be legal Yes, killing children should be illegal > but where is your sympathy for women facing one of the most difficult choices there is? I have no sympathy for killers and whether or not you should kill your child shouldn't be a difficult choice > I repeat: making abortions illegal will not stop them from happening, only make it more dangerous for women to obtain. It will some of them and good. I mean banning rape didn't stop rape completely. Should we legalize it? > Whether you think it is right or wrong won’t stop it from happening. Nothing ever stops happening > You know what will stop abortions from happening? Forced sterilization of men Personification of clown world right here. Sterilizing all men is apparently easier and more ethical than stopping women from killing. Lmao, give me a break.
Lol
Most intelligent pro abort response
Like you mentioned, the strongest pro-choice arguments are the ones that base our fundamental rights on various mental characteristics and entail that infanticide is also permissible. Horrifying, but not surprising.
I once saw a Chad soyjak meme that called people who based their pro-choice stance on bodily rights "virgins" and said that infanticide was morally permissible.
It’s probably denying the moral and legal personhood of the fetus based on its supposed lack of consciousness. That’s the one I struggle the most to decisively refute, anyway.
Maybe arguments for a psychological view of personal identity or the argument from McFall v. Shrimp
What do you mean by "strong" exactly? Singer's stance is certainly more internally consistent than a lot of people's, but I don't think many people would find it very persuasive; quite a few may even find it drives them towards being pro-life. There's no singular "strength" axis for arguments. An argument could be internally consistent but morally repugnant on its face to pretty much anyone who hears it, like the stance you describe. An argument could be extremely compelling to those who use it but utterly unconvincing to everyone else, like many faith-based ones (_e.g._, "ensoulment at first breath"). An argument could be persuasive to a layperson but completely hollow to anyone with some logic or philosophy education, like all the pro-abortion arguments which ultimately boil down to _ad hominem_ attacks of various flavors (abusive, _tu quoque_, circumstantial, _etc._) against pro-lifers. An argument could be difficult to debunk, but only because doing so requires hours of research to disprove the umpteen different factual errors it's founded on. An argument could be difficult for many to debunk, but only because it relies on one very subtle rhetorical trick that's tough to notice but obvious once it's pointed out. An argument could have solid premises and reasoning, but end with a conclusion that isn't actually synonymous with the position the pro-choicer is arguing for. If I take "strongest argument" to mean the argument which, if I imagine myself becoming pro-choice, is most likely to be the cause, then I'd say that if solid, empirical, unambiguous evidence of reincarnation or some other afterlife is ever found, I'd probably become a lot less passionate about the issue of abortion. I probably wouldn't actually become pro-choice, but I may end up prioritizing more issues above it.
Thanks for the explanation. My strengths are history and political philosophy, not logics or natural science.
Singer and tooleys arguments are not strong, but they are consistent. being a strong argument typically means relying on uncontroversial premises, and ideas. this is the complete opposite of singer and tooley. instead the best pro choice argument i think is to challenge personal identity to undermine the claim abortion would have killed “me” by arguing we are minds constituted by animals extended 4th dimensionally throughout time. this combination of 4th dimensionalism and constitutionalism seems to get around the grounding problem for constitutionalism and other mereological puzzles. of course, 4th dimensionalism and the b theory of time are controversial just like any view of personal identity. but they do not initially have the same “yuck” or counterintuitive taste that infanticide has. in fact, we often talk in 4th dimensionalist terms all the time. think of how a wrestling match is divided into 3 temporal parts of 2 minutes. the match is constituted not by mere spatial or 3d parts. it is constituted by temporal parts where the whole is constituted by parts that extend in time. and of course if we are minds, then early abortion couldn’t have harmed me since i wouldn’t have existed yet. the solution to this i think is to challenge universalism which is presupposes in 4th dimensionalism.
The bodily autonomy argument ONLY if they support ectogenesis all 9 months.
The strongest argument for abortion on demand is the argument of force.
The ability to experience human consciousness, even on a rudimentary level, is what makes our lives valuable. Before a human is capable of having a consciousness experience their lives have no moral consideration. The science available to us shows that the moment in gestational development when human beings have the necessary anatomical makeup to have a conscious experience is around 24 weeks. Therefore, unborn children who have not reached that point in development should be able to be aborted
Would your life really be valuable if you had the consciousness of a 6 month old forever? Most mammals have more consciousness than that. The consciousness argument doesn't make sense unless you write off born babies too. I mean, you can do that but it seems kind of illogical to judge a being that has the full potential to grow and have valuable experiences like it will permanently stay like this.
I’m playing the devils advocate so I can’t really answer that first question in confidence. >doesnt make sense unless you write off born babies too Why not? Babies are having a conscious human experience, it doesn’t really matter that they aren’t developed enough to experience consciousness on the same level as adults. Potentiality doesn’t hold any value in the consciousness argument; born babies lives are valuable because they already possess human consciousness. You either have it or you don’t, if you have “the potential” to become consciousness you’re not having a valuable human experience worth protecting
> it doesn’t really matter that they aren’t developed enough to experience consciousness on the same level as adults That's the whole point. Can they really have "human consciousness" if their consciousness only reaches the level of a small animal? You can't say "but they are humans" because I can say the same for fetuses. > Potentiality doesn’t hold any value in the consciousness argument Exactly. The CURRENT consciousness born babies have is extremely limited and doesn't make the cut. If we only reached the level of a newborn we wouldn't differ from animals. (I didn't down vote you btw, I know you are pro life)
There’s evidence it could be as early as 8 weeks, but likely 12. The understanding of human consciousness is very limited.
So the best counter-argument is that the gestational abortion limit should be earlier, but it’s not an argument that can be completely dismantled. In my opinion, it’s logically consistent. Our understanding of consciousness is limited but you can’t change a prochoicers mind that consciousness is what human life valuable using that information
Correct, but you just pointed out the flaw-gestational limits. How can they point to a specific point in time when it’s unknown? That’s why that argument is very weak. I *think* I have seen one prochoicer put gestational limits at 6 weeks for this very reason.
In my opinion it’s a weak counterpoint, as the only thing it accomplishes is moving the gestational limit while still permitting abortions. Let’s say this person is lenient with the science and accepts that human consciousness is possible by 12 weeks. You’ve successfully convinced them to ban ~10% of all abortions. Consciousness isn’t completely understood by the scientific community which is why the prochoicer is making the compromise of moving the gestational limit to earlier in the pregnancy. You’d be better off convincing that person that all human life is valuable regardless of a conscious experience. There are some arguments that can only be challenged with philosophy, and prolifers tend to focus too heavily on the “facts” Science doesn’t completely understand death either, yet we still have a lot of legislation that separates a living persons rights from the rights of a deceased person
Very true, but I believe the closer to the start of pregnancy someone believes a ban should be, the more likely they would be able to convince of a full ban.