Arguments in favor of legalizing abortion are often framed as supporting a woman's right to choose. In that case, why do the "pro-choice" arguments ultimately boil down to hypothetical scenarios like "What if she is raped?" or "What if she isn't financially able to support a baby?". Hypotheticals create a specific, narrowed down situation. For this reason, they don't argue whether or not a woman should have the choice. They argue that a woman should abort in some situations in which they have NO choice, which is totally different. I personally think there are a lot of other options in these scenarios besides abortion, but that's just me. My point being that hypothetical arguments to justify the "pro-choice" stance are automatically invalid, because they are strictly anti-choice. If these hypothetical arguments ceased, then I believe the abortion debate would be much more productive.
That's not a good way to phrase the argument. A better way would be the violinist thought experiment. Would you want to be strapped to a person, forced to take care of that person for 9 months in order to "save their life"?
I personally do not think what people would want should justify the existence of a law. I think the decency of what people are owed should. For example, on the pro-life side, you sacrifice the convenience of the mother, and on the abortion side, you sacrifice the life of the baby. I believe that people are owed both the right to live their lives, and the right to make their own decisions. In the case of abortion, however, you are stuck between the two in a case where they are opposed and you can't have both. Since we can't protect the convenience of the mother and the life of baby in this scenario, we must pick one. While I consider both the mother and the baby to have equal value, I consider life more valuable than convenience. If it was the other way around, the baby's convenience against the mother's life, then I would be in favor of a woman choosing whether or not to abort. Edit: Fixed an error in wording.
If you’re saying that morality has no bearing on the law, then why make this thread? This is a moral argument, not a legal one.
I did not say that morality should have no bearing on the law. I am saying that wants and desires should not have an impact on the law. It's possible for people to want something that is immoral, one can want something that is moral. I believe that morality, on a basis that follows logical thinking, not one that follows opinions, should determine the law.
The BASIS of Pro-Choice is that women have the same rights, including bodily autonomy, that everyone else has. And , if a woman is pregnant there are only two options or choices...there are NOT a "lot of other options"......and even if there were it's the pregnant ones choice.
I think you're misunderstanding or misrepresenting these arguments. Nobody is suggesting a woman in those hypothetical situations should be expected or forced to have an abortion. They're arguments against the idea that abortion should be banned in all circumstances because there can be no situation where abortion could be a legitimate option. These are attempts to suggest situations where it could be. That doesn't mean there aren't other options in any of those scenarios and each situation is unique and individual but that is essentially the point. There are lots of different options and none of them need to be unconditionally and unilaterally banned. For what it's worth, I don't like labels and thin the abortion question is much more complicated that the traditional binary rants suggest so please don't assume I'm taking any one side over another. I don't pretend to know the answer, which I feel gives me a somewhat unique viewpoint.
There has been a lot of legislation that would criminalize abortion with exceptions for things like rape, incest, the mother's life / health were at stake, etc.
You still are retreating back to the claim that it's about choice. I'm just saying that this isn't the way the argument is framed. Even outside of any hypothetical scenario, abortion, if it was legal, would always technically be an available option. Since that is the case, however, using hypotheticals to argue doesn't argue the idea of choice. Note that this isn't an argument in favor or against abortion, but rather a critique of a type of argument in favor, in hopes of pushing the debate to a more constructive place.
Opinion: A belief or conclusion held with confidence but not substantiated by positive knowledge or proof By definition, an opinion does not have to be based on logic, or even substantiated. Some people's opinions are logical, while other opinions are illogical. For example, if you believed that pirates stop global warming because as the number of pirates have gone down, global warming has increased, that would be your opinion, but it's not logical.
You're missing they key point. These aren't arguments in favour of abortion, they're counters to arguments in for a complete ban, especially when those arguments are based on moral principles or assertions about women using abortion as birth control. The result doesn't support abortion, it just takes it back to the starting point. None of the common arguments either way are very good, otherwise we'd have a clear conclusion. Only attacking arguments in one direction isn't going to help making the debate more constructive. The established sides need to be eliminated or ignored entirely.
Morally and ethically, I agree. But rights and the purpose of law are important factors as well. In the US we value individual choice over the good of the collective. This means we don't force one human to sacrifice for another. For the same reason we can't and shouldn't force someone to sell their yacht to feed the poor, we can't and shouldn't force a mother to bear a child. As to the purpose of laws- I see them as protecting the stability of society, not protecting the morality of society. Murder and theft are illegal because society would not be able to function if they weren't. In the case of abortion, I see it as the immoral and unnecesarry killing of a human. But it isn't in a form that destabilizes the function of society, and thus not applicable to the laws that protect society. Restricting abortion is fundamentally a moral issue, and enforcing morality runs directly counter to individual liberty.
Close, you're right that it's a counter argument to abortion bans in general. But there's an unspoken premise that holds something like the violinist thought experiment together, this is a situation in which harm is permissible. It doesn't bring up the issue of what is life, it just brings up the idea of what is allowed to be harm (you can harm non living things has to be postulated first, but that's pretty much an accepted premise.) From there you can argue what kinds of harm are allowable, and it makes more sense than to say that you can't harm in general.
For me, its a matter of government abuse of power. Opinions and government power should never be allowed inside of uteri! Unfortunately, both sides support abuse of power: Cons want to tell you who you can marry while Dems want to take gun rights. The key to limiting government abuse of power starts with opposing power we agree with.
Here is the difference as I see it: The Right to keep and bear Arms is a God given, unalienable, natural, inherent, absolute, and irrevocable Right that preexisted before the government of the United States was ever thought of. Gun owners do not want permits, licenses, nor the government's permission Marriage is a privilege. For that reason, people want a license - permission. If we don't give that permission, then society does so as a right that the people voted for by way of elected leaders. If you want to get married to someone and you think it's some kind of "right," then get married. You don't need permission. You won't get government recognition (but WHY do you need it if the relationship is based on love?) Maybe you don't get the benefits of privileged marriages, but what is your objective??? To force yourself and an infamous lifestyle (whatever it is) on voters that told you they do not accept it is wrong.
I see the differences. The similarities are that each side thinks they know what is best and wants their opinions forced on you.
But, at the end of the day, do you want the government's permission? I seek it in neither set of circumstances. If the government has a vested interest in your marriage, it is nothing more than a civil contract... much like if you and get into a contract for you to build a porch for me. In the context of marriage, your kids aren't your kids; they are wards of the state; the terms of your marriage are not subject to the dictates of your conscience or religion, but to a corrupt government.
I understand the argument, but its her fetus/uterus. All opinions outside her uterus need to stay there.
That type of ownership mentality is the same type of mentality that went on during slavery. "It's my slave", "It's my fetus". As soon as we start applying property rights to other human beings, we run into some problems.
Pro-lifers argue that the life of the fetus trumps the woman's right to her body. But if this was taken to this logical conclusion, then why don't we force people to donate their kidneys to save lives? Many people die horrible deaths from Kidney issues every year, and there aren't enough kidney donations, which results in impossibly long waiting lists. This is easily preventable because we only really need one kidney and if we just forced a tiny percent of the population to donate a kidney, numerous lives would be saved. However we have a right to our bodies and can't be forced to donate our bodies for someone else's use, even if that use is life saving. Even if I volunteered to donate my Kidney and was on the operating table in the middle of the operation, I still have the right to exit that operation and retain my kidney. In the same way, women shouldn't be forced to donate their bodies to the lives of fetuses, even if they made choices that began their pregnancy. My second argument is that personhood is something that develops gradually over the pregnancy and you don't just have a human's right to life as a single cell attached to the uterus' wall. What your right are should have something to do with what human features you have, not simply being genetically human. The vast majority of abortions happen in the first trimester when the fetus is just a piece of tissue and is anything but a human person. I also believe in abortion rights in the second trimester. I do believe in banning abortion in the third trimester. This is because the fetus can be removed in such a way as to preserve its life. So it would be immoral to purposely kill the fetus when its life can be preserved. Also, the fetus is so well developed that prematurely removing it will be a major operation and quite dangerous. You gain nothing by early removal and only put your life and the fetus's at risk. Because of this, most states ban third trimester abortions, and these operations are extremely rare and most of them are done out of medical necessity.
