We’re going to need some alternate data if we want to support this proposition.
As far as I can tell, your point is not really any different than mine - there is not really any good data to indicate what would happen if it were common for the sex to be known before any decision on abortion is made.
I have no idea what you on about with this.
Well getting back again to the original question in the post, many of those on the pro-choice side do not question the patriarchal - meaning men have more power - nature of our society. For the purposes of a the prolifers gaining gaining traction with the other side they probably not have to debate that point, it would be a given.
Also I think its worth noting that women live longer than men so if there are always an equal number of male an female births, there will always be a greater number of women in the population.
Given that you are completely wrong in that first post, I’m not surprised by the 2nd one.
Alrighty then. 
This is like telling conservatives they should support abortion because women have property rights over their own bodies and can evict any tenants not paying rent.
I’ve seen the OP’s logic used, sometimes phrased along the lines of, “you can’t be pro-woman if you’re support killing baby girls.”
A more popular liberal baiting tactic is to say that minorities have the most abortions, which is a feature not a bug and that liberals want to get rid of minorities. This is often combined with an effort to portray early leaders of the birth control and abortion movement as white supremacists and eugenicists. This is an easier case to make, though still not very successful. A problem with both tactics is further conservation will reveal the pro-lifer to have illiberal views on, say, feminism, or in the eugenics case a conservation about solutions to poverty might lead to the pro-lifer saying something like:
Fundamentally, the pro-life side is going to have a really hard time convincing pro-choicers that a million women a year should be forced to carry their pregnancy to term. Especially given how ugly this actually looks in real life, without appreciably lowering the number of abortions.
More generally, the moral logic that people use for abortion is often confused and doesn’t stand up to this sort of reverse engineering. If someone said, “I personally think abusing children is wrong, but I support the right for others to abuse their children,” or, “If you think slavery is so wrong then don’t own slaves, but don’t tell me I can’t have slaves” then most would have something to say. But when it comes to abortion that logic is considered a reasonable compromise.
I think Scott Alexander of Slate Star Codex made an interesting point when he said that there seems to be mostly two sides: pro-choice pro-libertines and pro-life anti-libertines, but there’s a missing third group: pro-life pro-libertines. They do exist, but not in substantial numbers.
My idea is not so much “you can’t be pro-woman if you’re support killing baby girls.” as abortion disproportionately effects baby girls - which of course is very nuanced but none the less a little different.
I think the second example probably speaks to my my question even better in a way. I am not all that well versed in the history of the abortion debate, so I was not aware that the arguments regarding minorities were ever used extensively. If that argument gained no traction, then I think the logic I proposed in my OP would have fairly low odds of success as well.
So, it is starting to seem to me that the current focus of the debate has been a process of evolution; at least to a certain extent.
The U.S. is not culturally a place where male children are preferred. In fact, given a choice in adoption, girls are preferred (which made China’s one child policy and Chinese adoption such a good match for U.S. parents).
The argument has been used in places where male children are preferred. Generally the feminist response to that is that there is usually a good economic reason why male children are preferred - its a survival thing - girls cost money. And addressing the root cause is necessary - there is a much bigger picture to be dealt with, one that isn’t addressed at all by outlawing abortion (which would frequently increase infanticide and child mortality in a subsistence culture. )
I asked this question on this board and the consensus from the pro-abortion people was that it was the woman’s choice and it did not matter what her reasoning was.
There are people in comas or who have suffered severe brain damage that are also “way less sentient than any number of animals we kill for food”. It’s generally not acceptable to kill them (barring some edge cases of removal-of-life-support-by-authorized-person).
All my female relatives tell me I’m against abortion, but it shouldn’t be illegal … good women everyone of them …
One thing has always bothered me about the Christian angle … The Bible teaches us to battle against extramarital sex (the leading cause of abortion) … and this battle is fought in the Halls of Power … Congress, the Oval Office, Versailles … so why do anti-abortionists gather in front of clinics and pick on young lower-class women?
Why do anti-abortionist women dress like sluts when they picket clinics?
And what is your opinion of this outcome, assuming you formed one.
Exactly. Why should a fetus have the right to use a woman’s body without her permission? Should other people have that right (i.e. husbands, rapists?). When I told an anti-abortion picketer that a friend of mine got pregnant after being beaten bloody and raped by her estranged, violent husband, she replied “A man can’t rape his wife.” Because HE has the right to use his wife’s body whenever he feels like it.
But comprehensive sex education combined with access to affordable (or free) birth control does. Which is what PP provide.
Not the vast majority of pro-life lawmakers, unfortunately.
Not actually true, particularly compared to the effects of “lack of welfare”.
The vast majority of “pro-life” people oppose the Pill (which makes the uterus hostile to a fertilized egg) and the IUD (ditto), two of the most effective contraceptives.
Comprehensive sex education does not reduce pregnancies or abortions and everyone in the US already has access to affordable birth control.
22 states have Republican control of the both legislatures and the governorship for the last 4 years none of them has attempted to make birth control illegal. In opinion polls only 8% of people think birth control should be illegal. Even if everyone of those people is pro-life (which is not true) then the overwhelming majority of pro-life people are not anti-birth control.
Welfare reform cut welfare and child poverty decreased.
Do you have a cite for that?
When you dig into the corner cases of morality and ethics like this, it’s hard to come up with a consistent set of principles that actually maps onto the way anyone actually feels about things.
The alt-right yahoos on my facebook feed keep repeating “no person has a right to another man’s labor.”
Unless its a woman nine months after conception, in which case society seems to think they have a right to her labor - and apparently, the medical staff that supports that labor. Unless we are going to some Dickensonian hell where women get pregnant, can’t do anything about it, give birth is squalid shacks, and die - with their babies - in childbirth - because while the fetus is entitled to the woman’s body and labor, neither of them are entitled to medical care.
Good times, good times