Again, I agree.
This is clearly false. Lots of women wake up, realize they are pregnant when they don’t want to be, and choose to have an abortion. It’s just not that big of a deal, especially when done early enough. Take a few pills, get your period early, and you’re done.
The idea that all abortions are tragedies and all women regret them is a pro-life talking point that I do not accept.
ETA: Here’s a cite that is mostly in line with my claim. It doesn’t address the decision process, but it does address the regret and tragedy part of it.
ETA2: I can’t find any good polling that asks whether it was a difficult choice to begin with. Once abstract said that “more than half” said it was not an easy decision, which argues that for some, it’s an easy choice. But, even if it’s not an easy decision, it’s still just a choice. And, once made, nearly all women don’t regret it.
Even if it were true that women regretted abortions, it would have to be established that more women regret abortions than placing a child for adoption or keeping the baby. I’d be willing to bet the regret rates are pretty high for those, too. The truth is, it’s kind of difficult to make reproductive decisions without some measure of regret about something. And just because you regret something, even if it rips your heart out, doesn’t mean it was the wrong choice.
Agreed, and if you look at my cite, 95% of women say it was the right decision. It’s not even a close call.
Anyway, the analogy is not too bad, but it’s an analogy. It’s similar to the violinist one – you wake up and someone has attached you to a world-renown violinist who will die if you disconnect yourself. Are you required to stay attached to the violinist for nine months?
As someone above mentioned, pregnancy is unique and no analogies will ever capture it, but they can provide a little clarity.
My husband used to be, shall we say, moderate on this issue. What brought him around was the dawning realization that pro-lifers lie about pretty much everything to do with abortion, to make it seem worse than it is.
I still think the analogy would be better if Fonda had to get incisions on his penis or something. And would be incontinent every time he sneezed, for the rest of his life. And had to get a bunch of dental work done. I really want to lean in hard to the reality of how grueling pregnancy and childbirth can be, even when nothing goes wrong, per se. Nine months doesn’t even cover it. My pregnancy had me out of commission for about a year and a half. While it’s true that even the most minor of inconveniences doesn’t justify forcing someone to sustain life, forcing someone to give birth is particularly cruel.
I think it makes the analogy more powerful in that it’s such a minor inconvenience for Fonda, and yet few would force him to travel across country to do it.
Then, you compare that to pregnancy, which, as you say, is far from a minor inconvenience, and yet we have people forcing women to go through it (even when it threatens a woman’s life, or physical or mental health).
I agree.
One flaw in the analogy is that most of us (regardless of our position on abortion) believe that parents have obligations to their children that go well beyond obligations that strangers have to each other.
I tend to make different analogies these days.
You get called up by your country because there’s a war on. You’re in battle and armed people of the opposing side are coming over yonder ridge and charging your location. Is it murder if you shoot them, kill them? We agree that no, it isn’t, even though they didn’t choose to be here attacking your position, they got drafted by their own country.
This mostly doesn’t have anything to do with abortion, because abortion isn’t like being in a war, nor is it like anything else, really. The point is, not all deliberate killing of a human life is murder. So we’ve established that much, yes?
I’m also not conceding the pro-life talking point that a fetus or blastocyst is a child.
I agree. I think that was the point. Making it more dangerous for Fonda would have made his refusal more understandable and made the analogy weaker (for its purpose).
True, and this is true of analogies in general; they always break down at some point and to expect otherwise is to misunderstand the typical purpose of analogies, which is to isolate one aspect of the question and consider it in a different but ideally somewhat parallel context.
The only question is whether they break down within the scope of the point framed by the person using the analogy - I don’t see that this one does break down in that scope (which appears to be solely whether a person can be obligated to act in a way defined as moral by someone else)
I have long felt that analogies don’t work very well for persuading someone in an argument for precisely this reason. All analogies are fatally flawed. If the other person is looking for a reason to reject the argument, it’s easy to focus on the flaws, the premises that are different, the extensions of the analogy that don’t work.
Also, there is no equivalent situation for a man that doesn’t involve some convoluted premise.
You’re probably right - analogies can be great if the person you’re talking to just doesn’t quite understand how you see the thing you’re talking about, and actually wants you to explain it in different way, but they are very bad at persuasion, for the exact reasons you state - not only do they invite nitpicking of the flaws, but that nitpicking just derails what might have been a more effective conversation.
I suppose it might be true that, if you can demonstrate a principle is sound in a smaller/lesser case, and also agree that increasing the size/severity of the case would only strengthen the principle, then analogies might work, for example (not related to abortion specifically) if we agreed that intrusion into privacy is undesirable, and a person’s body is usually held to be more private than their garden, then an analogy about people throwing litter into your garden might be a way to argue that people adulterating your food is even less desirable, because it’s similar, but also worse.
Of my friends who had abortions, the strongest emotion felt was relief.
I don’t think that all or even many women regret having an abortion and the only way I might agree that every abortion represents a tragedy is if “tragedy” includes someone being pregnant when they don’t want to be.
But I think when someone says
Nobody wakes up and chooses to have an abortion.
They mean something a little bit different than how I think you’re taking it. They sometimes mean that nobody would choose to have an abortion over not having become pregnant in the first place. They sometimes mean that people put more thought into choosing whether or not to have an abortion than whether to have Rice Krispies or cornflakes for breakfast - even if they did that thinking far in advance of becoming pregnant. As an example, had I become pregnant in high school, I wouldn’t have had to think about whether to have an abortion because I had already thought about and made that decision ( even though I somehow managed to avoid pregnancy for those 4 years.)
I guess if what they mean is that no one wakes up and tries to get pregnant in order to have an abortion, I agree with that. But, that’s a pretty bizarre take.
Maybe they mean that most people don’t think they will ever be in a position to have to choose abortion until they find themselves there.
That, I believe.
Oh, definitely. And, of course, their abortion is necessary, but those other people’s abortion should be illegal, or they should have to visit the doctor multiple times, with waiting periods, etc.
I hope anecdotes are accepted in this forum.
I had many problems trying to have a baby, and tried many fertility treatments (not IVF).
Luckily became pregnant with triplets, until over time all the fetal heartbeats ceased one by one.
Had to undergo a D&C to remove fetal tissue since I couldn’t expel them on my own.
If I lived in Texas now, would I even be allowed to to undergo this procedure? Not as of mid '23. Technically I had an abortion, since abortion can also cover removing fetal tissue, viable or not.
Would Henry Fonda soothe my weary brow for the many months it would take to expel these fetuses? During which time I would have probably developed terrible infections and possibly death while being forced to carry non viable fetal tissue.
This analogy does not hold up for me.
And just because it’s in the news now, what about that poor woman in Ohio who had a miscarriage while on the toilet, since the hospital wouldn’t perform a D&C to help rid her of a non viable fetus.
The authorities now want to charge her with “abuse of a corpse”, and faces a year in jail.
I’m so sorry to hear about your experience. I had a missed abortion in 2014… which means a miscarriage that isn’t expelled from the body for whatever reason. I had to carry the dead fetus around for about a week because of problems with insurance covering my D&C. Just what you need after a miscarriage.
These lunatics think everything with “abortion” in the title means a medically terminated pregnancy.