To understand why I have started two abortion discussions in one week, read this thread. You will then understand why I have started this thread, and the reason for the following preface:
Preface - Public apology.
Since some have found my first retraction insincere (because at the time it was) I feel I should post another. I want to apologise, publicly, to those I offended in my other thread. I stand by what I said but I realise now that how I said it was totally unacceptable. I didn’t lurk at all before I posted and as such didn’t get a general ‘feel’ for the forum and my rather umm, shall we say rabid style derailed debate, which was not my intention. In this thread I will proceed to explain my views in a more palatable manner.
P.S. I also apologise for any minor inconsistancies in tone as I am tired.
Arguments against Pro-life.
- Sperm & Ova
This argument states that since fetuses are ‘potential people’ as the DNA structure of a fetus is identical to a newborn, then the DNA held in the Sperm and Ova that created that person must be worth protecting too. Therefore, since pro-lifers do not protect Sperm and Ova with the same vigour that they protect fetuses with, they are hypocrites.
Obviously this is a ridiculous argument. Sperm and Ova aren’t people because the sperm & ova are separate and haven’t fused. However, the point of this argument is to show the fallacy in protecting fetuses while ignoring sperm and ova. Why is one sacred and not the other? Because sperm & ova haven’t joined? So what? Fetuses haven’t been born. Heck, before the end of the second trimester they haven’t even got a neocortex. The argument shows the fallacy of the argument of ‘potential’. The fetuses potential to grow into a human being is matched by the sperm and ova’s potential to fuse to create a fetus. The argument shows the point of ‘potentiality’ should either (a)be drawn earlier or (b) not be drawn at all. Of course protecting sperm is ridiculous. So is protecting non sentient parasitic entities at the expense of actual women.
- Slavery.
Having done a little research by looking back on past debates I see the same phrase popping up from time to time in the arguments of pro-lifers. That phrase is ‘If you don’t like slaves, don’t own one’ (in response to the pro-choice argument ‘If you don’t like abortion don’t have one’) . However, by illegalising abortion you will, in fact, be introducing what I like to term ‘Short term slavery’ on a vast amount of women. These women will have to carry the child and go through the pain of childbirth against their will. Now pro-lifers can talk about better adoption or better contraception but if abortion were made illegal tomorrow for every pregnant woman in America, what would they say to them? The only thing they could say. Tough. You’ll have to put up with the pregnancy, you’ll have to give birth to a child against your will, you’ll have to risk the chance of no-one wanting to adopt your child (a not unrealistic possibility, especially if your black), if you end up being forced to keep the child you will have to pay for its upkeep regardless of whether you can afford it or not. In short you have to alter your entire life around this event. Against your will.
Cite for my view on the problems blacks face on entering the adoption process.
http://www.pactadopt.org/press/articles/perceptions.html
If I were to force you, at gun point to…I dunno, give one of your kidneys, to save my sons life (assume there are no other donors available) would you be willing to put yourself out that much? If not then it’s my duty to tell you that you’re a hypocrite? Why is it justifiable to force a woman to go through a lot of trauma to save a fetus but not justifiable to force you to go through a lot of trauma to save my sons life?
- Legal definition of a birth.
This is not an argument so much as a simple statement of fact which will lead on to my next argument. The following definition of what constitutes a human being (and by that I mean a human being who merits protection under the law) is the one we are stuck with in this country.
The cite for the above is this:
http://www.mfhf.org/papers/new_99/abortion.html
In order to justify abortion in any possible way one needs to prove this definition to be false. I believe this is impossible for two reasons. The first is that both stances, pro-life and pro-choice are, and have to be, based on the same biological facts. The philosophical viewpoints of each, what we take away from the facts we are presented with, forms our belief. Pro-life is not faced with the challenge of finding out new facts to support it’s position but rather the challenge of persuading pro-choicers (and every single woman in this country who isn’t already pro-choice) to accept the superiority of their philosophy. Not an easy task by any means. The second reason why it is an impossibility is that abortion has become firmly entrenched in this country and is accepted by the majority of the populace. Cite:
http://www.norc.uchicago.edu/library/abortion.htm
The trend of acceptance shows little sign of even slowing down, let alone stopping altogether.
Since I have already presented 2 arguments as to why the pro-life philosophy is an inferior one (and I will provide more soon – I’m typing as I think) I felt it was also important to point out just how immeasurably difficult it would be for abortion to be illegalised in this countries current climate, what with the support the practise has and everything.
- Pro-choice, protecting children?
In the long run I am of the opinion that abortion is a procedure that is beneficial to all children (note: one has to be born before one can become a child). Let’s make a quick comparison:
Just a couple of quick facts which appear to make good backing for the case that pro-life is a less caring philosophy than it makes itself out to be. Of course, there is more beneath the surface. Pro-life states aren’t busying themselves with the task of making their citizens exceptionally uncomfortable for no good reason (except in the restriction of abortion rights which, to them, is justified). However, these states DO have to contend with more children. More children means more poor mothers, more poor children and more poor mothers create a strain on the public services for both groups and this effect is localised around the states that can be deemed to be pro-life. Coincidence? I think not.
- Abortion is safer.
Abortion is far safer than giving birth. If you do not want to give birth, if you know the time is right and that you cannot support the child, if you know the event will change your life for the worst and if you know it’s far more dangerous than abortion. Why should you be forced to undertake it?
also
[/quote]
Almost half of the women having abortions beyond 15 weeks of gestation say they were delayed because of problems in affording, finding or getting to abortion services.
[/quote]
Cited reference for above:
http://www.agi-usa.org/pubs/fb_induced_abortion.html
So, if abortion is illegalised or restricted, the logical conclusion is that more women will die in childbirth, because they will be denied the beneficial remedy of abortion. All this in the process of giving birth to a child they don’t want at the behest of those who consider themselves to be pro-life 99.99999% whom they will never meet. I think this is ridiculous.
- Viability – support for the idea that a fetus is ‘parasitic’
First of all, here is the official definition of a parasite, just so we’re on the same page. From http://www.dictionary.com
Parasite:
An organism that grows, feeds, and is sheltered on or in a different organism while contributing nothing to the survival of its host.
A fetus grows, feeds and is sheltered by the mother and it contributes nothing to the survival of the mother. Therefore it is a parasite. Pro-lifers may try to refute this by saying that it is not a parasite since the mother introduced it of her own volition but that does not gel with the actual definition of a parasite. I might remind you that there are many forms of parasite in the animal kingdom that are warmly appreciated by their hosts – small birds (I forget their names) pick tics of the backs of rhino’s, without them they’d die. The rhino’s welcome these parasites as the tics are an annoyance. This goes to show that a parasite needs not be an organism that was introduced without the express permission of the host. However, sometimes, a woman may get pregnant by mistake and require that the situation be rectified so she may resume her normal life. In this instance she has as much right to rid herself of the fetus as the rhino does to shake it’s head and remove the birds. The fetus, after all, is not a human being with incumbent legal rights (as is established above) It grows, feeds, and is sheltered in the mother whilst contributing nothing to her survival. It is a parasite.
It stops becoming a parasite when it is born. After birth the newborn can survive without direct protection from the mother (here I am differentiating between direct in vitro protection and rearing the child).
It is at this point that it’s moral and legal rights attach. Since a newborn is not infringing on the mother in any immediate physical way it can now be considered to be an entity in its own right under the law. Before this point, however, it is a parasitic life form and as such its welfare should be secondary to that of the host – the mother.
- Pro-lifers say Abortion is morally wrong, but why?
Why is aborting morally wrong? What standards have been put in place to deduce this? Certainly I haven’t imposed any. I wouldn’t even consider it, seeing as how there is no uniformity in this issue same as there is no uniformity in any issue centered around human behaviour and morality. This “Morally Inconceivable” (so to speak 
) argument takes the absolutists approach, which does not take the individual situation or consequences into consideration. The abortion issue is more accurately described as many moral issues. For example, some of the more reasonable pro-lifers (and by that I mean those who do not want to impose their beliefs for religious reasons – I have more respect for secular argument) say that advocating birth control will reduce the need for abortions in this country and from then the next step is banning the practise altogether. However, no contraception is perfect. There are still cases of condoms tearing and pregnancies still happening despite contraception. What should happen then? In this instance the woman has had absolutely no choice in this issue whatsoever so what should she do? Obviously, in keeping with the pro-life philosophy, she must have the child. In this instance she is being forced to acquiesce to the will of pro-lifers even though she has literally no control whatsoever over her situation.
Morality is, in some respects, dependant on ones situation at the time. For example; it is morally wrong to steal. However, if I was a homeless man, with no money at all and a gnawing hunger, my moral duty to myself would prevail over my prior moral conditioning as regards theft. I would take that loaf of bread and be thankful for it without giving a nanoseconds thought to the vendor.
Likewise, murder. Murder is wrong. Right? Well, not if you were say… a member of the Italian Carbonari, fighting against Austrian Occupation. You’d be freeing you country by killing Austrians. Your patriotism would prevail, at least it did for them.
My point is that what constitutes morality is a fluid concept with many delicate and nebulous nuances, at least in some circumstances. We can quite clearly say that murder for profit is wrong, but killing for self defense is perfectly ok, because your moral right to yourself overrides your moral right not to kill another human being. As such, abstract definitions of what constitute morality are, in this particular debate, just as arbitrary as choosing conception as the starting point of a human life. Abstract declarations of the morality of abortion by theologians, philosophers or secular pro-lifers can be very different from the moral decision made by a pregnant woman. Her decision is specific to that pregnancy; her coordinates are the here and now.
That is all for this post. I feel it has gone on quite long enough. I could go on for much, much longer as there are far more reasons for being pro-choice than the ones I’ve listed here. More reasons will emerge as the debate progresses but these should suffice as a starting point. I hope I’ve done a better job of presenting my arguments in this case.
