The reason those who oppose abortion lack arguments is one or perhaps all of the below; 1. They are religious, but they know that referring to the Bible and mystic concepts such as a "soul" won't stand a chance against reason, so in a desperate attempt they try to justify their case with references to the very vaguely defined "obligation", "responsibility" or a wannabe-scientific argument like "muh, heartbeat". 2. They do not really have an opinion about it, they just know that they are Conservatives and therefore feel they have to oppose abortion bevause not doing so would be letting down "their team" and "becoming a liberal". 3. They are completely second-handed and have been pursuaded by their favourite Conservative YouTuber's arguments and now come here repeating them thinking it will be a KO only because they themselves have not looked at awful these arguments actually are or because they are too dumb to see that the arguments suck. 4. They are very religious and do not like the fact that people are enjoying sex because to them sex is for reproduction only and marriage is for the children only. But, this is - of course - a very weak case and one that is not really an argument. 5. The rarest kind (less than 0,1%) is those who are genuine misogynists who just hate women and want them to suffer, but saying "girls are icky and have cooties" is not an argument. Plenty of all in this thread.
Do you have any argument that is not based on a hypothetical what-if-scenario? I would be more than happy to, for once, be confronted with a tough one. The only ones I have seen so far are: i.) It will become a fully developed baby if left to grow. This is an argument that conflates the potential with the actual. ii.) It has a heartbeat. So do cattle, but only vegans believe cattle should be granted the same rights as humans. iii.) The woman gave permission to the fetus to enter her womb by consenting to the sex that lead to the pregnancy. Since permission can only be granted to that which exists, the fetus was in fact not given any permission to inhabit the woman's belly as it did not exist at the time she consented to sex. iv.) Why should the woman's rights outweigh the fetus' rights? Again, rights apply only to actuals and since the woman is the only actual life in the equation, only her rights matter. v.) The woman is holding the fetus as hostage. Not true. The scenario is actually more of the reverse since it is the fetus that is physically attached to the woman and live of her like a parasite, as crude as that may sound. vi.) What is the difference between a newborn one second before birth and one second after? (AKA (Ben Shapiro's favourite "KO-question"). Line-drawing fallacy. Completely invalid.
Yes, but potential is still somewhat relevant. Even pro-choicers recognize this, when they say an unborn baby will have no potential for future quality of life, or will not be able to survive long anyway. Yes, but it has a human brain, with human DNA. All pro-lifers are saying is why can't we apply the same standards of determining life to an unborn fetus that we do in a medical setting to determine if a comatose patient is no longer living? You are ignoring that matters of consent and permission can cross time. It's true that another party does not "exist" at the time the woman gives "effective consent", but that other party soon will exist. I applaud your effort, but I think that specific argument there relied on fallicious logic.
You accidentally left out the huge percentage who are simply not in favour of terminating an innocent human life, for the convenience of an adult who had many options to avoid conception, but couldn't be assed taking them. That doesn't require religion, conservatism, or any other convenient bugbear. It just requires child-advocacy. As for misogyny, well that belongs to those who insist women have no autonomy or control over their bodies. When you have to lie ('she had no choice .. she was forced to have an abortion') to cover your belief in female weakness, you're in no position to point fingers.
As for the ridiculous argument that an unborn child is not a life - until such time as the killing of a pregnant woman is no longer regarded as a DOUBLE homicide (and that will never happen), it will remain ridiculous.
The reason there is an obligation comes down to this: She made the choice that led to the situation, and if she wants to change that choice, someone will die. Her "happiness" and "freedom", is it worth more than another life? - an innocent life that never did anything wrong? (and the burden on the woman is only temporary, versus a very permanent effect on the fetus)
Okay, let me ask you, some of you think the woman's choice is worth more than one life - but is it worth more than two? If a woman gets one abortion after another, is that really the same as one? Now we've decided that the woman's life is worth more than TWO lives. Personally, I don't see how you can justify that. Unless you view the woman as SUPERIOR to her fetus.
The thing to remember is that what they claim and what drives those claims are two very different things. It's also worth remembering that there is often zero insight into the subtext. They don't realise they're doing it. The ones who do have a vague sense that something isn't quite right in their philosophy, are the ones who go nuts when you call them out. But on that subtext, it's a fundamental terror of waking into a world in which absolute self-indulgence is no longer supported. In other words, a world in which feeding the starving actually becomes more important than making self-indulgence easier for the richest and most privileged people on earth.
That's simply your That's for HER to decide, it's her body, not yours.... Oh , stop with the emotional crap....it sure shows you have no real case or facts or anything else The fetus never did anything wrong because it never did anything...DUH Oh, gosh, here's where you run aground on FACTS.....the effects of pregnancy and childbirth are NOT temporary...they last the woman throughout her life and can even kill her which is NOT TEMPORARY.......of course you could show scientific proof , not from your favorite LieNews, but from real science that shows women don't suffer permanent effects from pregnancy... got proof ?????? versus a very permanent effect on the fetus)[/QUOTE]
No, since abortion is a matter of individual rights, the potential life is completely irrelevant because rights do not apply to potentials. So does a human corpse. A person in a coma is still an actualised human being and thus have the same rights as you and me. A fetus is not a comatosed patient. How? Exactly, so the woman did not give it permission, thank you. And again you are conflating the potential with the actual by saying "it will soon exist". How cute. Saying something is what it is not does not make it that way. But, since you are an anti-abortionist, I did not expect you to know that.
Yes. Her life is indeed worth more than two non-lives. She can do it a trillion times and it would still not change anything. I do.
The woman has precedence over the embryo because she has been born. What is ridiculous is to claim that the embryo/zygote/fetus has life in a human sense of the word. Human life begins at birth. An abortion is not only about the woman's choice to terminate a pregnancy she does not want. It is about her (and perhaps her partner's) entire lives; parenthood is an enormous responsibility not everyone can, will or even should take on. Forced parenthood means she/they have to sacrifice their entire future(s) and become hopeless slave(s) to a child's physical and financial well-being. Of course, things get even worse when the woman is left alone by her lover. Abortion is a moral right.
Not someone, but rather something. Or rather a lot of things; when she and her sexual partner touch each other and lay down to start having sex, a ton of skin cells will have been killed, when they kiss, a ton of bacteria in their saliva will be killed and at conception, a million of sperms will be dead. By this logic of "all life forms matter equally", every sexual intercourse is a genocide. When she is unwillingly pregnant, the only choice she made was to have sex. She did not choose to be pregnant. By putting her in a situation she does not want to be in, it did actually do something wrong. If fetuses are to be given the same rights as human beings, they are not even innocent because no human being has the right to live in- and of another person against their will. I love that you put happiness and freedom in quotations as if they are just arbitrary and irrelevant concepts that have nothing to do with the topic. Abortion is a matter of individual happiness and individual freedom and if you think individual rights don't matter, you are in no position to discuss abortion. 9 months and, at least, 18 years to come. Very temporary indeed.
You forgot one type which I was recently reminded of: The type who is so insanely jealous of women who have all the fun (natural) sex they want and aren't forced to pay for it with a kid they don't want... This type thinks women who have unwanted pregnancies are irresponsible but they still want the kid to be born and raised by what they consider an irresponsible person so I guess they don't like children too much ...
A fetus is still in the womb, part of the woman....a comatose patient isn't in the womb ...didn't you know that ??!!!! A comatose patient is a separate individual...…..funny you thought they were in a womb attached to another human being!!
