Time and time again we see people glom onto irrational reasons to consider abortion reasonable. These often involve 3 prongs of arguments, none of which hold water under scrutiny.
The first and frankly stupidest is age and size. To start off there is no viable metric for the beginning of life aside from when a fertilized oocyte becomes a zygote. This is when actual development and growth of an individual human organism starts. Any argument to the contrary is redundant, especially claims like “it’s the size of a grain of rice”. By this logic, as a 6’1 man, I could treat everyone shorter or smaller than me as viable to kill. This logic is also malicious in its intent because it does not argue the life of the fetus but instead that it is okay to kill at that size because it isn’t as developed or as aged as another fetus. This argument, even at its base, is a disgusting metric meant to normalize killing the defenseless.
The second argument, “my body, my choice” is frankly hilarious if it wasn’t used as a legitimate defense to murder. To put it blankly women always vote against bodily autonomy except when they are the ones impacted. On top of this is the notion that simply because another being is physically dependent on you then you have the right to end its life. To completely close the argument of “my body, my choice”, every woman who engages in willing sexual intercourse has made a choice. That choice doesn’t get to be changed because you don’t agree with the outcome of your decisions. This argument, again is not about whether a fetus is alive, but if women are allowed to kill an independent life because it is reliant on them.
The third and final argument is that we should allow abortion because the unwanted child is more likely to grow up in a broken home, be adopted, or in general a strain on societal resources. In this argument the “quality of life” aspect is erroneously utilized to say that a living being should have no say in its existence. Again by this argument we should kill all ugly people, all poor people, and anyone with a lifelong health condition as their “quality of life” is going to be lesser than the average person. Notice how again the argument over whether the fetus is a living being is never mentioned, but instead that we should kill it because they could have an unhappy life.
No where in any of these arguments are a rational defense of the aborted fetus being 1. Not a separate organism from the parent or 2. The fetus actually being a living organism. When considering abortion these are the only metrics that should matter, as they are the only metrics that create a rational, well defined argument over what qualifies an individual being.
Just how many viable forms of birth control are there that people could have been using before it got to the piint of pregnancy?
Well we know that they don’t use the most viable form, which is not fucking and having any semblance of self discipline.
Some times with literal marching bands.
You never know when Chad might slip on a banana peel and accidentally fuck you in a toilet stall.
When you're smaller and weaker than the opposite sex, the evolutionary beneficial strategy is to submit. It's their nature.
I think this is all pretty clear to anyone with half a brain. The problem is that people who are pro-choice are also generally very 'bleeding heart' types. The only rationalization for abortion that would make a bit of sense is "we as a society do NOT hold all life as sacred, and therefore have decided to allow the termination of unwanted pregnancy to allow accidental would-be mothers to remove the burden of motherhood from their lives in the pursuit of their own interests." This notion goes against everything they allegedly stand for, so they can't say that. They can't call it what it is (baby murder) bc they are the party of 'compassion and tolerance' and form their identity around taking up the fight for the disenfranchised everywhere. It's pretty easy to see what's happening here.
So all they're left to do is come up with these bullshit strawman pseudoscientific arguments. I think the reason that they're all so willing to get behind these concepts so obviously riddled with holes is that they all kinda know that what they really mean is that women should be able to nix a pregnancy she doesn't want whether it's a life or not. If they were truly willing to be honest, and have some fucking dignity, they'd stand up and call it would it is and let the people fall where they will on the issue.
I’m pro-responsibility. You made choices, here are the consequences. You don’t murder to avo if consequences. Not only is that incredibly psychotic, it’s also very child-like. Which women are. Women are children. Women require men to survive. Women avoid responsibility in all things.
You made a mistake with your rebuttal: not their, mine quality of life will be lower if they are born and become another welfare queen at best and straight thug at worst, so the most humane thing i can do is to not obstruct them if they want to reduce my troubles. Maybe someone pretends to care, they lie. And from this point of view you can indeed extend this argument all the way to literal fedposting. As for whether it is a valid rebuttal... probably.
P. S. Besides, people who abort kids remove competition for your own, why do you want to obstruct their self destruction? You are not controlling their education after all, so every aborted child is one less brainwashed teenager 15 years later.
"I know, Sally, your daddy raped you and you're only 11, but that missed period means you are going to have to carry that baby to full term, you little whore. That's what you get for being little slut, I don't care that you can't take care of it. A life is a life." - You.
Rape and incest comprise only 1.5% of all abortions, but, hey, impressive strawman.
It's not a strawman, it's a scenario that has occurred and would under the law and under anhaus667's rant.
Bro, it's not the childs fault. Why are you applying the death sentence to an innocent?
So people do bad things and we should kill their children for it? Tell me should we just off the entire family and be done with the hassle? Women have aborted more babies than war and homicide combined have killed, should I be able to execute women at choice because they have committed mass genocide?
I know what you're trying to say, but this is very stupid because you're using an exception. This doesn't happen a lot. You can't make laws based on exceptions, and things that rarely occur.
Following your "logic" we should make other immoral acts legal. Why not? Let's make robbery legal because some robbers are good people that are down on their luck, and they're trying to feed their starving kids.
The first argument is completely valid, as it is not based on mere size. You being whatever size you are, do not differ qualitatively from anyone who is shorter, as the shorter individual will still have... consciousness, among other markers of humanity. Which a fertilized egg certainly does not have.
Therefore, first-term abortions certainly are justified.
Try again, we are genetically hardwired to be conscious from conception, there is no “state of consciousness” that is magically applied. It is a designed state that is achieved.
How is it possible for brain cells to develop if you are not a conscious being?
Well, if you are going to claim every living being with brain cells is conscious...
Congratulations, you just made late term abortions look better than any abortion enthusiast ever did.
But consciousness requires cells developed in a predisposed fashion. Once again the argument is redundant, every human is conscious because they are designed to be so. To state that a being designed to be conscious can be killed because it is not conscious is the same as saying I could kill you after knocking you out. Consciousness is not a determination of life or death.
No it wouldn’t, you are arguing that consciousness dictates life, it does not. I am arguing we are designed by our genetics to be conscious beings, to argue that we can kill a human because it is not conscious is a redundant argument. You are not conscious when you are sleeping, should you be allowed to be murdered because you are not in a state to realize you are being killed? This is the argument you are making.
I am glad to know we are not allowed to criticise jihad anymore, because nobody should take our opinion on having post-mortem reward for blowing yourself up seriously.
Braincells start developing around the same time (a bit earlier) than heart cells, which about 6 weeks. Generally before most women know that they are pregnant. They, and the new nervous system, start firing as soon as they develop. A fetus is profoundly stupid, but not unaware. In fact, babies in utero will often respond to stimulus before they have "quickened" and playing with the baby is an important part of development, with many mothers playing "tag" and interacting with the child instinctively.
Choose another metric.
If something is designed to be a conscious being then it is redundant to argue it can be killed while in an unconscious state. You are not in a conscious state for a large portion of your life, this does not justify your murder while in this state. The argument is a subjective misnomer that is not valid. The simple fact is a zygote carries all of the genetic information to make a conscious human being, to state that we can kill it before brain cells form is the same as stating that I could kill anyone while they are asleep as they will not have a conscious reaction to their death.
How on earth can a fertilized egg be conscious of anything?
Does a fertilized human egg grow into a cat? Our genetics determine what we become. Your definition of “conscious” is already designed to take place once the zygote is formed. We don’t have some arbitrary choice in how we are formed, we are created to be conscious being. To state that something designed to be conscious is not conscious is a redundant argument.
No, and that does not matter for your claim that it has 'consciousness', which it most certainly does not possess.
Are you seriously arguing that a one-celled organism without even any theoretical possibility of consciousness, is in fact conscious?
Are you seriously arguing that zygotes don’t develop beyond one cell? We would not develop beyond that state if we were not intended to. To say something that is inherently designed to be conscious is somehow non-conscious is an illogical argument. We develop as we are designed to, which is to be a conscious being.
Once again, our genetics are aware of what we are supposed to become, our development follows that process. We would not develop into humans if that was not the case. To set a subjective standard like consciousness that is universal in humans means that every human is designed to achieve that state.
No, I am arguing that if you argue that they develop consciousness in the future, this necessarily implies that they do not have it at the moment.
Intended by what or whom?
I am not sure what your point here is supposed to be...
You are arguing that consciousness is an achieved state in human development, it is not, nor has it ever been classified as such. Every human is designed to be conscious, this is determined by our genetics. There is no switch to consciousness, our genetics determine consciousness, not growth. What you are arguing is that you can determine a living, developing organism based on your own preconception of what “conscious” is. Our development doesn’t magically stop short of being human. Once again, making a subjective argument over an objective rationale is illogical.