This utilitarian argument is the only tenable one for pro-choicers. I suggest you guys start using it. Every other argument devolves into, "She doesn't want her kid so you should let her kill it." Which is weak and wholly immoral, and ignores the existence of the obvious ethical dilemma. We don't let people kill others on the basis of their whims. You need a good reason. The less desirable among us can not afford abortions. However, knocking off the children of those types before they are born can have a positive impact on society. This is the reason for government funded abortions. My theory is that all pro-choice arguments are ultimately derived from these utilitarian ideas. Those of you spouting utter nonsense about what is or isn't a person, or chasing around this imaginary "mind" to determine such a status are, frankly, duped. The reason someone worked backwards from a conclusion to invent those arguments was to get you on board with population control. The reason why government funded abortions exist is to institute a soft type of selective breeding to bend society towards a more genetically superior future. This is the goal behind the allowance of abortion. I can tell, because it is the only possible justification for abortion that makes any sense. You are duped into believing that only radical religious types oppose abortion. Much of modern Liberalism is based on "anti-Christian" sentiment. This is only a selling point to get you to adopt their own religion. And once you're in, you will believe anything they tell you. Like that government (who are skilled at giving speeches and looking decent on television) somehow possess the skills necessary to run a business or make decisions for an entire nation's economy. Or that some magical, abstract object, called a "mind", missing from fetuses makes it okay to murder them in the womb. The conservatives you hate so much, who have little use for the dregs of society, actually support their own destruction by seeking to stop government funded abortion. They know that those people and their kids will (9 times out of 10) amount to nothing and contribute nothing to society. It is MUCH CHEAPER to abort those pregnancies on the tax payer's dime then it will be to support their lazy butts for their entire lives. Nevermind the amount of crimes those kids will grow to commit with crappy parents who wanted them dead before birth. Conservatives oppose abortion, despite the obvious utilitarian advantages, because they are simply good people who think that killing other humans is wrong. Liberals support abortion because another Liberal told them they should and carried them through a convoluted process of justifying a preconceived notion, working backwards from a conclusion, putting the cart before the horse, etc., same with any other religion. But the real reason is population control. Government pay for it because we can stand to lose the offspring of broke, lazy trash. That's the real reason.
Nothing funnier than a pro-"life", conservative drooling and foaming over his own keyboard, hysterically thinking that liberalism has anything to do with abortion. It doesn't, you're just another brainwashed political partisan who has bought into the right vrs left mentality. Congrats on not thinking for yourself. Conservatism naturally support abortion, it always has. Unfortunately, you have confused yourself with social-conservatism, which is an ideology that embraces liberal social engineering to the fullest. The pro-"life" movement encourages big government, big spending and more of your beloved liberal social engineering. Oh, not to blow your mind too much, but I am a abortion rights supporting conservative. Deal with it.
Yada yada yada Liberals bad, conservatives good. Yawn. Guess what. I get to be in favor of abortion for whatever reasons I choose! My support has nothing to do with population control or what other liberals said. My position is born from....(maybe you should sit down for this as it might be a new concept)....thinking for myself!
You will actually have to follow through with an explanation of some of these points if you want to blow my mind. On what grounds do you support abortion rights, Mr. Conservative? If you read my post carefully, you see that I left the door wide open for conservatives to support abortion rights, even noting that by not supporting abortion, they are supporting their own destruction. So you can't expect me to be so shocked that you are one who does not want to be destroyed. Any conservative sees the benefit in offing the little boogers before they grow up to be criminals on welfare. The only thing stopping them is compassion for human life. - - - Updated - - - Please elaborate.
Elaborate on what? You're trying to tell pro-choicers why they are pro-choice instead of just asking them. You're also assuming that anyone who has reached this conclusion on this issue must have been manipulated or fooled or have hidden motives.
Since supply side economics is supposed to be supplying us with better governance at lower cost, it stands to reason that a doctrine resulting from that philosophy should subscribe to the maxim that an "ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure" as fixed Standard for our republic; and provide free IUDs for any women that want them.
Indeed, that is reasonable. It is our unreasonable compassion for human life which prevents it. Give the boogers a chance, I say, despite the statistics showing that almost all will grow up to be burdens to society at best, and violent criminals at worst. This entire thread is meant as an admission that the pro-choice position is the most reasonable, so long as we can violate those annoying morals and ethics. My question now is, which mechanism do you use to violate those annoying morals and ethics? Dehumanization is the ever popular method. Are there any others? - - - Updated - - - I've presented my theory. You are free and encouraged to poke holes in it to show me where I am wrong. I certainly didn't post it with the hopes that everyone would agree. How boring would that be?
Preventing Any need for the medical procedure of abortion in modern times should always be a worthy goal.
Sorry but the person who's body is being used and who's health is being put at risk for the sake of another gets to freely decide whether or not they would like another entity or person to use their body for that purpose. The fetus does not get to restrict someone else's freedom over their autonomy just to use her body for survival just like every person in need of some kind of organ or blood transplant does not get to take those parts from another person for their own sake.
There already is no need to kill the innocent booger. There never is. Not to put words into your mouth, but this sounds like the beginning to an argument that might be paraphrased as such, "Well, if you would only give me more of your hard earned money, I wouldn't have to do the evil things I do, so they are kinda your fault." No need to spoon feed these arguments, they are tired old cliches we have all heard before. Do what I did and just post everything you want to say in a single post. People don't have time to build up slowly to an argument that is absurd on its face. And no one will be fooled by your attempt to use subtlety in presenting it. We already know Liberals do not believe in personal responsibility.
The woman is the parent of the fetus! Parents should not be legally allowed to kill their own children just because they are an inconvenience.
Here is an argument which does not require dehumanization of the fetus to support abortion. And how fitting that it arises at the same point I was speaking to another about personal responsibility. Liberals do not believe in personal responsibility. So any response to this argument will be absurd to them, as they fully believe that innocent women wake up pregnant one morning through no fault of their own. OH, they know where babies come from. They simply can not follow any line of logic which demonstrates a person being responsible for his or her own condition. Poor people are poor often because they are lazy and refuse to become educated about a marketable skill. Pregnant women are pregnant often because they allow a man to have sex with and impregnate them. But to the Liberal, these people are all victims and it is society's job to fix their conditions, or to look the other way when they murder a booger that they didn't want. But that is just speculation as to how such an absurdity as Pasithea's post can even be formed by a human mind. To the point: the fetus is not like a person who willfully uses another's organs for its own. The fetus does nothing of the sort. Nothing at all even. Furthermore, no one would or should ever force a woman to carry a child to term or to have an unwanted pregnancy. Just like no one should ever force me to sneeze just because I suck pollen up my nose. In fact, those things all happen naturally as the human body behaves as it must according to the laws of physics. So no one is forcing the woman to do anything she doesn't want. All any laws against abortion would do is prevent her from taking the action of killing the booger. Oh sure, we know that the pregnancy will go on and that I will sneeze when the pollen gets in my nose. But no one makes it happen, certainly not any human law. So the analogies are invalid. No one forces her into anything. You just obviously can not kill something because you don't want it to live. Pasithea expects that because "we know" the pregnancy will continue if we don't allow her to kill the baby, that we are forcing her to continue the pregnancy. So why wouldn't it be a valid reason to call abortion "murder of a human" since "we know" the little booger fetus is going to grow into a human? Libs on the one hand, want to pretend like we are slaves to these fetuses popping up from nowhere and since they have no minds we can kill them, and ignore the fact that "we know" they are developing humans, and on the other, expect us to believe that we are forcing a pregnancy by not allowing the murder because "we know" the pregnancy will continue. So, should we only use what "we know" when it supports the Liberal agenda? Just crazy the mental gymnastics these people have to do to justify their goofy beliefs. Just say it's for utilitarianism. That's the truth after all. If you didn't know it before, you should now.
And that has to do with the price of ham how? Your elaborate display of verbal diarrhea is nothing more than a catalogue of straw men. Liberals believe this, conservative believe that. Not only is it unoriginal, but it is not very fascinating either. I support abortion rights on the grounds of preserving human life. It is only legal abortion which has been factually proven to preserve human life. There are no facts which shows opponents of abortion rights saving lives...in fact, their ideology demands that they do kill people. A few points... 1) Abortion has nothing to do with crime. You can legalize it, you can criminalize it, but it makes no difference to crime itself since the abortion rate is never affected by the law. The only thing the law can do is deliver the abortion procedure out of the hands of the criminal element. So proposing, "conservative sees the benefit in offing the little boogers before they grow up to be criminals on welfare" doesn't reflect the reality of their reason against abortion. 2) By what logical extension could conservatives be destroying themselves with abortion? If the only people who are having abortions are "liberals", than it is just liberals aborting their own future. Of course, we are assuming abortion to be something of a modern invention in this mindset. 3) Elective abortion has no affect on population. To over simplify it, people have abortions because they choose to, not because the law has determined them to do. Unless we are willing to adopt a one-child policy like China, which neither side is proposing, then it has no affect on overpopulation.
I stopped at 'Liberals' because I am not a liberal and I could seriously care less about your idiotic rant about them. My position does not dehumanize the fetus, in fact in my view even if the fetus were a person it still would have no right to use a woman's body against her will for survival just as a man cannot forcibly put his penis into a woman and use her body for pleasure, just as people who need organ transplants and blood transfusions cannot forcibly take them from another person, just as nobody can violate another person's autonomy and put their health and life at risk for their own sake. No human being, born or not has the right to use another person's body for anything without their ongoing consent. Anything else would be akin to slavery.
Pointless hyperbole. Nobody is a parent until there is a child born and please stop trivializing pregnancy and childbirth as a mere inconvenience. It is extremely disrespectful to all women who have chosen to put themselves through pregnancy and childbirth to bring humans into this world. Again, no human being born or not has the right to use another human beings body for anything without their ongoing consent. A woman may deny her uterus to be used since pregnancy and childbirth pose serious health risks to her.
The woman took the risk of getting pregnant when she had sex. Second of all, the vast majority of women that have abortions are not doing it for health or life reasons.
I had no idea how she was conceived was relevant. May I ask your stance on women who have been raped and impregnated? Should they be allowed abortions? It doesn't matter. It is a fact that pregnancy and childbirth directly affect a woman's health and put her at risk. No matter her reasons behind it because of this she still has a right to choose what she wants to do.
Okay. I disagree because none of the reasons you stated are why I am pro-choice. I believe it's the fundamental right of every person to control their own bodies and everything inside them, including a women and her womb. There, theory directly refuted.
Liberals dont care about that. They will tell you they only care about freedom and liberty of humans?! A fetus is something else to them other than a human life, but they cant explain it.
The fetus is not using anything. As I stated in my previous post, the fetus does nothing. Everything that happens during a pregnancy happens according to the laws of physics and biology. Since the fetus has committed no act of aggression, your reasons for allowing its killing are unjustified. Your analogy of "using a body without consent" is invalid. The fetus uses nothing. Please address, in your next response, the fact that all the analogies you have presented involve an aggressor and a victim, whereas the actual topic involves a fetus which did not act aggressively at all. Or act at all. This is deadly to your line of reasoning, so I don't expect a substantive response. Let's just be clear at this point that to justify abortion, you have been forced to construe the fetus as the one taking an aggressive action, even though the fetus literally does nothing but develop as it must according to the laws of physics. Having to state such absurdities to defend your position should give you a hint that you have been duped.
So obviously, I can pull my own finger backwards whenever I want? I control my own body? But I can't if a gun is in my hand, my finger on the trigger, and it is aimed at an adult human. Every single law in existence restricts the autonomy of the individual. Only in the abortion debate do we hear absurdities like, "Autonomy must be respected even if the person uses its body to kill another." Since your position is not, "There should be no laws about anything because autonomy should never be violated," your argument is invalid. But these are the absurd positions one has to take to be pro-choice in the abortion debate. Positions which sound downright silly when stated outside the context of this one debate.
It is more ethical to prevent any need for the medical procedure of abortion than to simply resort to the coercive use of force while reducing social spending on the least wealthy, ostensibly to lower our costs, for free. Only the Right seems to be that cognitively dissonant.
