CONTEST: Arguments for/against abortion...?

Question

What is the best/most convincing/most interesting argument you've heard advocating either (or both) of the following positions:

(A) that a woman has the right to terminate her pregnancy, even if the fetus IS a human being from the moment of conception, or

(B) that a woman doesn't have the right to terminate her pregnancy, even if the fetus is NOT a human being from the moment of conception.

Judith Jarvis Thomson's argument is a notable example of (A)--the argument of Don Marquis a notable example of (B).

The condition to the argument is crucial. Posting "ABORTION IS MURDER, FETUS IS A PERSON, WHY DO LIBERALS HATE JESUS?" really doesn't answer the question and neither does "IT'S A WOMAN'S BODY, RIGHT TO CHOOSE, THE POPE'S A JERK."

Have fun. : )

OK, so no one's listening...big shock...so far only Lawrence Louis has actually answered the question asked (good job)...

The question is to prove that abortion is the woman's right EVEN IF THE FETUS IS A HUMAN BEING, or to prove that abortion is NOT morally acceptable even if the fetus IS NOT a human being.

Answer 1

Assuming that the fetus is a person, here are my arguments for keeping abortion legal: Women are "designed" (by God, if you like) to be the gate-keepers of life. A fetus is part of the woman's body until it is born, and the women herself is the authority that matters in this case. You might say it is her "natural right" to decide what life she brings into the world. The woman's intuitions, desires, and best judgments are the life-process of top priority in this situation. Each of us is thrown into the world without a real choice in the matter; let us at least be thrown into the world as a result of our mother's free choice, and not as a result of a legal system fueled by church-sponsored propaganda forcing her to go against her own best judgment and desire.

As a practical matter in real life, we do not always preserve human life at all costs. Thousands of people (actual children and adults – not fetuses) die every day simply because it is too expensive, too risky, or requires too much effort to keep them alive. Those who COULD make an effort to keep these people alive and/or help suffering people achieve a better life include millions of people who are morally opposed to abortion. If any one of these folks were to devote all of their time and worldly wealth to saving those who are starving to death, or dying because they are part of the collateral damage of a war, or dying because they don't have access to clean water or medicine – if even one person devoted all of their time and energy to saving them, then most likely they could single-handedly save the lives of dozens of people every year. But this is not what we do. The same people who oppose abortion typically own TV sets and spend a lot of time watching them. They own boats and go fishing. They spend a lot of time on golf courses. Obviously, saving lives is simply NOT the highest priority in most people's lives. It is a simple fact of life that most people do NOT do very much in the way of saving the lives of dying people. But these same people suddenly become politically aroused and morally righteous whenever the subject of abortion is brought up. Why? They could devote whatever energy and resources they use fighting abortion to fight poverty instead, but most of them do not. Why not?

The bottom line is that abortion is not REALLY about the rights of fetuses or the death of innocent beings. Abortion is actually a political struggle. I have no doubt that most anti-abortionists feel deeply about their cause, and genuinely mourn what they perceive to be the loss of human life through abortion. They are not just pretending to be saddened or angry over abortion rights. But none of this genuine emotion changes the fact that the battle over abortion is really and truly a political struggle. Most ordinary citizens on both sides of the debate are puppets whipped into frenzy at the whims of their leaders. Their beliefs and emotions are real, but they are the products of political manipulation. This is why they can donate money to anti-abortion campaigns and volunteer time to protest outside of abortion clinics, while in their own cities there are thousands of living children and adults struggling to survive. The dollars they donate to anti-abortion campaigns and the time they devote to protesting in front of women's clinics will have very little, if any, actual impact on real human suffering. Laws against abortion will do very little, if any, actual good when it comes to the welfare of actual, living people. What WOULD do some genuine good would be devoting this time, money, and human energy toward making sure that every child has good nutrition, education, and mentoring. What WOULD do some actual good is making sure that young mothers who want to give birth to healthy babies and raise them in nurturing, loving environments are able to do so. Basically, the fuss over abortion takes resources away from the sorts of activities that would really make a positive impact on the world.

In reality we do not struggle to preserve human life at all costs. In reality we mostly look out for ourselves and do our best to enjoy whatever comforts life has to offer. We let innumerable people die every day. We would let fetuses die too if our only option were to PERSONALLY devote OUR OWN time and resources to making sure that every pregnant woman has the support she needs not only up to the time of birth, but also for the years of child-raising that follow. If the only way to prevent abortions was to take on commitments of this sort, the vast majority of anti-abortion folks would not bother with the whole abortion issue. But in reality this is not our only option. In reality we can take on the abstract fight over abortion – write a few letters, donate a few spare dollars, then head for the couch to watch "Who Wants to Be a Millionaire." It's a prepackaged moral cause made easy by the political/religious puppeteers. And if abortion does become illegal, the resources used to enforce the laws (in order to save fetuses who don't really have the cognitive capacity to care one way or another anyway) will be drained from social programs that could be helping actual people (who, for the most part, do actually care about what becomes of their lives).

Answer 2

That's a really touchy subject. The individuals right to decide what is done with and to their body is their exclusive right. No other person or government has the right to tell a person what they may or may not do to their body. I have seen no convincing argument showing the embryo is human and alive prior to birth any more than a cancer cell is so reject the argument about it being human. I do not like abortion and would have no part in it. However, I cannot tell another person what they can or cannot do. I don't have that right and neither does anybody else.

On the other side, what about the father and his rights? Since he helped create what could potentially become his child does he have any right to a say in the matter? Should he have a vote in whether to abort or not? I believe he does. Comsider this, a woman can choose to tie a man to her for the next 18 years by refusing an abortion. She can decide that she does not want the responsibility of a child. But the man has no rights whatsoever while having full responsibility? Something is very wrong here.

I also reject the religious arguments out of hand because I do not follow any religion. No religious group has the right to tell me or anybody else what to do. I do not hate religion of any sort. But I will fight against any that try to force me to follow their doctrine. I will take them a lot more seriously when they stop preaching and start caring for all these unwanted babies they want to foist onto society.

Answer 3

I think the most interesting argument "for" (even though it isn't really for it... It's more like for the right to choose) abortion would be involving the celebral cortex. Since it is impossible for the fetus to feel emotion or think without the celebral cortex, the fetus is basically a tumor until it grows one. While the tumor bit seems a bit cruel, it is a valid point. In addition, many fetuses spontaneously abort (a.k.a. a miscarriage) during a pregnancy, but I don't recall anyone petitioning against such a thing. Similarly, most of the eggs in a woman die, and, if the fetus is a child, why not the egg?

For me, it's the above fact and the health of the mother that keeps me from being anti-abortion. If the women in question was raped, in very bad health, or very likely to have a severely deformed baby, then I think that it would be for the best to have an abortion done, for the mother and child's sake. Similarly, if the women is emotionally and mentally unfit to have a child or go through childbirth, it would be better to have an abortion early in the pregnancy. Sure, there may be orphanages out there, but there are so many orphaned children already- is another one really needed? Plus, orphanages aren't really the best place for children to be raised if they're overcrowded and underfunded. Such an environment would just cripple the child emotionally and possibly even physically.

Meh. The second part's mostly my opinion, but I really through the celebral cortex bit was interesting.

(Personally, I'd like to have an abortion law where women could choose for personal reasons to abort a fetus between the first and third months, while second and third trimester abortions would require there to be health dangers to either the fetus or the mother, either physical or mental. While I wouldn't really want to get one myself and I don't like the idea of it, I still think women should be able to choose whether to have a baby or not.)

Oh, and isn't it ironic that cows are slaughtered alive, living through their throats being cut, just because of religious reasons, and yet abortion, which is over something that might not even feel emotion or be able to think, overshadows it on the list of morality? Just an interesting tidbit to know about.

(As for the additional information bit: I don't think it's the fault of the answerers that we didn't notice the "if they are considered humans" part. To me, I just assumed it was a bit of bias on the subject or that it was just a mistake, and I continued on. If you want that to be a major focus point in the answers you receive, be sure to show the importance, for not everyone can read your mind. It doesn't mean we're "not listening," for you never really explained it all in the first place- sure, you did mention the condition, but I, for one, just assumed that you meant that you wanted actual information backing up replies, since your examples seemed more like uninformed rantings to me.

To get better answers, I'd suggest you re-post this question with more emphasis on the necessary areas instead of just making it sound like a normal abortion debate, for that is what it sounds like from the "title" of the question. Even though I don't particularly see how someone could argue for such things, for they seem to destroy the normal basis of argument for both sides, it would definitely be interesting to see what responses you get.

Sorry for this random rant. ._.; I have a habit of typing way too much, and there might've been a slight bit of venting at the beginning, but, in case you were wondering, it was mostly at myself for jumping the gun from the title and only scanning the details beneath it.)

Answer 4

"An embryo has no rights. Rights do not pertain to a potential, only to an actual being. A child cannot acquire any rights until it is born. The living take precedence over the not-yet-living (or the unborn)."

"Abortion is a moral right - which should be left to the sole descretion of the woman involved; morally, nothing other than her wish in the matter is to be considered. Who can conceivably have the right to dictate to her what disposition she is to make the functions of her own body?"

"Never mind the vicious nonsense of claiming that an embryo has a "right to life." A piece of protoplasm has no rights - and no life in the human sense of the term. One may argue about the later stages of a pregnancy, but the essential issue concerns only the first three months. To equate a potential with an actual, is vicious; to advocate the sacrifice of the latter to the former, is unspeakable... Observe that by ascribing rights to the unborn, i.e., the nonliving, the anti-abortionists obliterate the rights of the living: the right of young people to set the course of their own lives. The task of raising a child is a tremendous, lifelong responsibility, which no one should undertake unwittingly or unwillingly."

"If any among you are confused or taken in by the argument that the cells of an embryo are living human cells, remember that so are all the cells of your body, including the cells of your skin, your tonsils, or your ruptured appendix - and that cutting them is murder, according to the notions of that proposed law. Remember also that a potentiality is not the equivalent of an actuality - and that a human being's life begins at birth."

Answer 5

Revolutionaries are born everyday. Those who lived a life worth reading about, and have given just as good as they have received.

What if each abortion haulted the introduction of the next Newton, Einstein, MLKJ, G. Washington, etc. Then, those who initiate the abortions will continue to stifle the development of other pregnancies. This will result in the expedition of aboritions...soon it will be 50% off abortsion clinics all over the nation. Opt for quick out patient procedure a few more years after that, and then we will be left with a society that believes that a parent has the right to terminate a 10 yearold for being bad. The argument in court would be..."I should of had an abortion."

Answer 6

What upsets me most is how people want it both ways. They want to believe that an abortion is not murder, but the murder of a pregnant woman is a double homicide. How can that be? I also cannot understand why a state will require that I wear a seat belt to save my life but gives me the "right" to abort a child because it happens to be forming in my womb. Abortion is nobody's right- it is a human-conceived activity (NOT the same as a miscarraige). Nothing that man has ever created is his right.

Answer 7

I have never been able to come up with a cogent all-encompassing argument on either side of this issue, but it seems absurd to me that we now have 22-week premature births surviving and thirty-something week fetuses aborted with the same legal implications as trimming one's toenails. The original decision in Roe v. Wade anticipated this problem, and suggested that later legislation might need to keep up with medical advances, but subsequent court decisions have pretty well universally ignored that part of the decision.
I might point out to my fellow posters that ova and spermatozoa are genetically incomplete, so those arguments fall out of the discussion. And no real thought has been placed on the difference between an embryo and a fetus. Plus, the spontaneous abortion arguments are weak, as they presuppose that those are viable. It's not knowable, but likely, that most spontaneous abortions are genetically defective to a degree not compatible with life.

Answer 8

It is a child's right to be wanted and loved.

If a mother cannot emotionally & psychologically provide these things - the child's right is being compromised and will suffer everything that all people suffer who suffer human rights abuses.

People who are stripped of their basic human rights, suffer a lifetime of torment and hell. Having babies just because it 'happened' does not naturally bestow the basic right of love onto that child. Look at the orphans in Romania - unwanted, mentally handicapped due to neglect, dying for lack of love.

On a more Western level a mother who does not want her child would only condemn a baby to hell-on-earth if she goes through with the pregnancy.

Children deserve to be brought into a world where they are cherished and wanted before they are even born. Not hated and resented, and probably abused or neglected. The world already has too many deranged souls. Why make more?

End of story.

Answer 9

From what I understand of the fundie's position that the fetus is a human at the point of conception, I ask: Does this fetus have a nervous system and can it experience pain and suffering? [obviously, the answer is NO.]

Then they state that it is not that the fetus is alive at that moment, but it is the very fact that the fetus has POTENTIAL for living a life that make abortion murder...to which I respond: If that is the case, we should jail every single male who has ever masturbated, as he is a serial killer - every one of those 200million sperms cells had POTENTIAL for becoming human...

Answer 10

It is actually quite simple. Everyone has a right to life and a right to their own individuality. Some people would say that this is untrue, but by saying so they are exercising a right that they themselves would not want to have taken away from them. So, everyone is a individual and has a right to do with their life and their property as they choose as long as it doesn't infringe on anyone else's right to their own life and property.

Now what is human life? What defines us as human beings? Consciousness! Our ability to think and reason using logic. Without consciousness, we are just hunks of water and tissue. So, is an unborn child a life? Is it conscious of reality? Does it even have a mind to be conscious with? A beating heart in a cluster of cells doesn't constitute life. Any fetus's that want to step up and use their conscious minds to defend themselves, please feel free to do so.

A woman is an individual, and has a right to do with her body as she pleases, even terminate a fetus that has the possibility to become life, but is not alive without a conscious, sentient mind.

Answer 11

I personally don't like the idea of abortion. But then, I'm not a woman either.
I can see legitimate reasons for abortion. A woman is raped and gets pregnant from it. Does she want to give birth to her rapists kid?

However, I see it like this. if a woman wants to abort her child, then let her. The child's death will be on her conscience and its blood is on her hands. Yes it is murder, but we as a society have no right to dictate what a woman does with her body or that which is growing in it.
If she chooses to abort it, she has to live with it.