Society is harmed when human beings are murdered, period. It might also make a lot of people’s lives easier to eliminate all prisoners, or mental patients, or the elderly, or the poor. But we don’t advocate any of those things, because the wrongness of the action outweighs any functional benefit to the rest of society. I realize that many people don’t consider abortion to be the murder of a human life, but I think that if you do, it is logically consistent to want it to be against the law.
Sorry to mischaracterize your position…I did not mean to.
This is exactly right. There are many burdens that society must bear, the solution is not to make the burdens go away by killing them.
This is a concept that people do not seem to be able to grasp. No one would ever say “if you are against slavery, then don’t own a slave” or “if you think against spousal abuse, then don’t abuse your spouse,” but pro-choicers think “if you are against abortion, then don’t have one” is perfectly logical.
I am not necessarily in favor of outlawing abortion for practical reasons based on our culture as it currently stands in the U.S., but I certainly agree that if you think abortion is murder, then wishing it to be illegal is certainly the most logical stance you can take.
How does it harm society? If anything it may help society by reducing crime (not to mention economic burdens on the state.
If you’re going to say it hurts society just because you think it’s immoral, then that’s a circular argument.
Tjhose are not valid comparisons because slavery and spousal abuse are violate the rights of other people while abortion does not. I think a better comparison would be masturbation – something that involves only one person’s rights and body and for which any percieved “immorality” by others is purely a religious belief.
I certainly think it’s a problematical situation, if that’s what you’re asking. I would not at all describe it as an, “Oh, well! No big deal” situation. But that’s what you asked. For those people where it is not at all a possibility that they’d let a pregnancy come to term, not any time, not for any reason, the moral choice (IMO) is abstinence.
They are perfectly valid comparisons. All three…abortion, slavery, and spousal abuse harm and violate the rights of other people.
I think the majority of pro-choice people probably have a more nuanced understanding, especially here on the SDMB, but yes, I’ve head this objection before too and it’s frustrating that people don’t realize it only makes sense if you already agree with the same assumptions they do.
Good point. Prohibition of abortion may be my best case scenario, but at this point I think it’s unlikely to ever be the case in the United States. I think working with the “safe, legal, and rare” camp is a good compromise for pro-lifers in the meantime (I like the safe part and the rare part).
Diogenes, come on now. I know your position, and I also firmly believe you know full well what the response to this is, though you don’t agree with it. Pro-lifers do not accept your premise, which is that only a single person is involved in the choice to abort. There are atheists who oppose abortion. There are perfectly secular arguments for them, whether or not you accept them.
I think you are right that many have a more nuanced understanding. All the same, this point was made in post #14 of this very thread:
.
Me too! (The safe & rare parts!) I personally feel it is a better use of my time & resources to help women who need it, not to work for legislation.
This is disingenuous for the reasons that Stratocaster gave above. As a pro-lifer I’m perfectly willing to accept that the pro-choice position is intellectually and morally consistent if you proceed from the premise that an unborn fetus is not a human life. It would be nice to be afforded the same courtesy by the other side.
Yes! Pro-lifers would have a much easier time changing hearts and minds if they put down the grotesque picket signs and started helping families who need it and/or facilitating adoption.
Except for abortion.
I’m perfectly happy to afford that courtesy only so far as it affects your own decisions. It would be ridiculous to accept it as a premise for legislating against other people’s decisions. If you want to grant legal rights of personhood to a fetus, then prove it’s a person. If you can’t prove it’s a person, you can’t give it rights. It’s just that simple. “I believe it, therefore it’s true” is not a valid argument.
Diogenes, come on, i’m pro-choice (and i’ve argued this issue with some of the pro-lifers in this thread) but the fact remains that from their point of view a fetus is a human life. Just saying “But it isn’t!” in increasinly petulant tones isn’t debating; it’s standing on the sidelines yelling.
When I say that the belief in the personhood of a fetus is a “religious belief,” I’m using the term somewhat figuratively and for lack of a better term for how I perceive it. What I really mean by is it is that it’s a non-empirical, subjective belief which (especially in the cases of very early pregnancy) involve a certain level of abstraction and mystification as to the definition of a “person.” What does a zygote have in common with “persons” as that term is commonly understood? Is it DNA (a fingernail has DNA)? Is it sentience (a zygote has no sentience and even more developed fetuses have less sentience than a dog or a pig)? Is it because it has a “soul” (that would be an undeniable religious belief)?
You say there are secular arguments against abortion but I’ve never heard one that still isn’t based on some kind of non-empirical abstraction as to the definition of a person.
If you don’t like “religious belief,” I’ll say “philosophical belief” instead, but i still think “religious” gets more to the core.
Well, you have to understand how **Diogenes **posts. Just pretend there is an “I think…” in front of every one of his posts. He thinks a fetus isn’t a person. Most pro-choicers don’t.
Now, in the case of abortion he does have the current state of the law on his side. Which is not to say that the law can’t change, but I’d say it’s pretty unlikely to do so.
From my own perspective, I can agree that a non-viable fetus is not a person, and even if a viable fetus isn’t considered a person we still recognize that it has > 0 rights. It needn’t be a binary choice. As the fetus devlops, we recognize that society has more and more interest in having it survive. Most people would think it absurd to allow a woman who has gone into labor to declare-- I don’t want this baby, kill it. Now back up a day, and it’s no more chilling. How about a week? Frankly, I can’t imagine that there would be a doctor who would agree to do the procedure. Which is why the current state of abortion law does make considerable sense-- it recognizes a gray area where, although we don’t call the fetus a person, it still is more than just a piece of unwanted tissue.
Whatever. My statement stands.
Perhaps not, but when the other side is yelling “Ya huh!” it can be hard to resist. And Sarahfeena’s repeated assertion about the equivalence of abortion, slavery and spousal abuse is essentially just yelling “ya huh!” If she were to understand that a pro-choice position would regard two of those examples as involving a person and the third not, she wouldn’t simply repeat it.
Why is it that, in these debates, if one side is to be castigated for failing to appreciate the other side, it seems so often that the pro-choice side is to be called out on that?
Also, I was going to write a post expressing the respect I had for Sarahfeena’s pro-choice position; that although she may feel abortion is murder, it isn’t her call to make in regards to others. However, in her exchanges since expressing that belief, she seems to be sidling up to the “it should be illegal” point of view. So, I express my respect for you Sarahfeena, if you are of the mindset that it should not be illegal. I’m not sure how much value qualified respect has, but there you go.
I see the problem as just the opposite. Nobody is trying to force pro-lifers to make decisions based on the premise (a default presumption really, rather than a premise which has to be proven) that a fetus is not a person. The other side is trying to make it ILLEGAL for other people not to accept their unproven and unprovable assertion to the contrary. That’s a huge difference. I’m not trying to put anyone in prison for their philosophical decisions.