• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Argument in favor of pro-choice/abortion

nobody1875

New member
Joined
Mar 13, 2019
Messages
19
Reaction score
1
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Liberal
Hello! I've been researching a lot about abortions and such recently, trying to formulate a coherent and consistent opinion on the matter, and I'd like to see how my current stance holds up to scrutiny. My opinions are:

A fetus in the womb is undeniably human.
It may mostly look like a baby, just really small.
It may have its own DNA, and be a separate entity from the mother.
It may have a heartbeat.
It is alive.
However, it does not, nor should it, have personhood and rights.
"Alive" should not automatically mean "person".
The capacity to suffer should be the determining factor of personhood.
Non-human animals are not considered a "person" because even though they are alive, they do not have the self-awareness and capacity to suffer as a human does.
My dog is alive, but is not a "person".
The cow that is on my dinner plate in the form of beef was alive, but never a person.
The tree outside is alive but is not a person.
Humans have the highest awareness and capacity to suffer, therefore we have the most rights and "personhood".
The potential for personhood does not equal current personhood.
Personhood should be granted to the things that suffer from the lack of it, such as self-aware creatures that can feel emotional and or physical pain.

Therefore, a fetus that is not developed enough to feel pain or suffering does not have personhood. Thus, abortion is not wrong.

Does this sound like a good argument?
 
The capacity to suffer should be the determining factor of personhood.

Why?

Humans have the highest awareness and capacity to suffer, therefore we have the most rights and "personhood".

Can you please source this?

Personhood should be granted to the things that suffer from the lack of it, such as self-aware creatures that can feel emotional and or physical pain.

Other animals are self aware and have emotions and are acutely aware of physical pain. Do they deserve personhood?
 
Last edited:
Clever arguments tend to go nowhere with abortion debates, mostly because it's a subjectively moral issue. The laws we have on the books are the best we can do under the circumstances. I consider abortion a necessary evil given the current rate of humanity's sociological maturity combined with the alternative of having unchecked, rampant unwanted childbirth on a global scale. It's an established fact at every level of government that the more reproductive control women have, the higher the standard of living increases in the surrounding society. We can't just ignore that. Filling the world with unwanted children leads to widespread deleterious effects on living conditions for everyone.

Like I said... necessary evil. Maybe at some point in an idyllic future, humans will never get pregnant unless they're in a perfect position to be parents. Until then, we have to look at the holistic good of society, and not cater to one group of individuals who have a very specific moral belief. The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.

But then... the people who are against abortion also tend to be against birth control because they also find recreational sex immoral. So, there's no real winning.
 
I am not pro choice. I do not care about "a woman's right to choose" to dispense with a nuisance pregnancy, caused probably by fornication.

I am in favor of abortion because it has eugenic benefits. Females most likely to have abortions are least likely to have anything beneficial to contribute to the gene pool.

Needless to say, I am not pro life either.
 
I am not pro choice. I do not care about "a woman's right to choose" to dispense with a nuisance pregnancy, caused probably by fornication.

I am in favor of abortion because it has eugenic benefits. Females most likely to have abortions are least likely to have anything beneficial to contribute to the gene pool.

Needless to say, I am not pro life either.

Why are you for eugenics?
 
Therefore, a fetus that is not developed enough to feel pain or suffering does not have personhood. Thus, abortion is not wrong.

Does this sound like a good argument?

As someone who is pro-choice, I'd say that is not a particularly good argument.

I would suggest you research the "Violinist Arguments" by Judith Jarvis Thompson.

The key is to understand the difference between what we would be willing to do, what we'd like someone to do, and what we can force someone to do against their will. Can you force someone against their will to donate blood to save a life? If you can't force someone to do something as simple as donating blood then you certainly can't force them to endure 9 months of pain, sickness bodily deformation, and potentially even risk death against their will either.

It's also important to understand that personhood doesn't particularly matter. In the United States, you can shoot a person for stepping on your land. Think about that. Just your land. If you can shoot a fully formed adult person just for stepping on your land then you can definately kill a debatable human that is invading and attempting to live for 9 months inside your body.
 
As someone who is pro-choice, I'd say that is not a particularly good argument.

I would suggest you research the "Violinist Arguments" by Judith Jarvis Thompson.

The key is to understand the difference between what we would be willing to do, what we'd like someone to do, and what we can force someone to do against their will. Can you force someone against their will to donate blood to save a life? If you can't force someone to do something as simple as donating blood then you certainly can't force them to endure 9 months of pain, sickness bodily deformation, and potentially even risk death against their will either.

It's also important to understand that personhood doesn't particularly matter. In the United States, you can shoot a person for stepping on your land. Think about that. Just your land. If you can shoot a fully formed adult person just for stepping on your land then you can definately kill a debatable human that is invading and attempting to live for 9 months inside your body.

The violinist and trespass arguments really only hold for cases of rape. If the sex was consensual it would be more like someone invited a person onto your land and then shot them, which would be murder.
 
The violinist and trespass arguments really only hold for cases of rape.
The violinist arguments are a good starting point, but they cover more than just rape. The point here is simply that there are many cases where a person can be definately alive and have full personhood, but it is still okay to let them die. It can turn out that when you signed up for something you thought it would go one way, and after 5 months you realized it was way different.

For example...
If the sex was consensual it would be more like someone invited a person onto your land and then shot them, which would be murder.

If you invited someone into your home...let's say a pushy Mormon or a Vaccum Salesman, but then decided that they were annoying and you didn't want them there any more you could tell them to leave. If they then refused to leave and you felt threatened you would still retain the right to protect your home. More often than not you'd just call the police and have them removed, but obviously in the case of a pregnancy that's not so simple.

Just because you invite someone into your home doesn't mean you're forced to let them stay as long as they want. If you grow tired of them, they annoy you, their presence is in any way more painful than you thought it would be you can kick them out. Even if it's 30 degrees below zero and they could potentially freeze to death they have no right to remain in your home any longer than you wish. If that's true of your home then it's certainly true of your body.
 
I am not pro choice. I do not care about "a woman's right to choose" to dispense with a nuisance pregnancy, caused probably by fornication.

I am in favor of abortion because it has eugenic benefits. Females most likely to have abortions are least likely to have anything beneficial to contribute to the gene pool.

Needless to say, I am not pro life either.

Maybe I'm wrong about abortion.This makes sense.If liberals were aloud to multiply like rabbits we would be doomed.
 
The violinist arguments are a good starting point, but they cover more than just rape. The point here is simply that there are many cases where a person can be definately alive and have full personhood, but it is still okay to let them die. It can turn out that when you signed up for something you thought it would go one way, and after 5 months you realized it was way different.

For example...


If you invited someone into your home...let's say a pushy Mormon or a Vaccum Salesman, but then decided that they were annoying and you didn't want them there any more you could tell them to leave. If they then refused to leave and you felt threatened you would still retain the right to protect your home. More often than not you'd just call the police and have them removed, but obviously in the case of a pregnancy that's not so simple.

Just because you invite someone into your home doesn't mean you're forced to let them stay as long as they want. If you grow tired of them, they annoy you, their presence is in any way more painful than you thought it would be you can kick them out. Even if it's 30 degrees below zero and they could potentially freeze to death they have no right to remain in your home any longer than you wish. If that's true of your home then it's certainly true of your body.

Following that logic through to it's end, there shouldn't be any laws against child neglect or child support. Why should the parents be forced to provide for the child should they deem it to be a nuisance later?
 
Following that logic through to its end, there shouldn't be any laws against child neglect or child support.

In the case of child neglect, the child could be cared for by anyone. The child could be put up for adoption. As I said in most cases like this you'd just call the police and have the trespasser removed. Well, in the case of a perfectly healthy fully developed child it can easily be put up for adoption. If you then choose to raise the child you're deciding to make yourself responsible for the child. If at any point you decide you don't want that responsibility you can pass that responsibility on to someone else. There is no reason the child must be neglected.

In the case of child support, there is a significant difference between requiring someone to be financially responsible for something and requiring them to be physically responsible. If you injure someone in a car accident, for example, the government cannot force you to donate blood or a kidney in order to save the life of the person whose care you hit. It can, however, force you to pay their medical bills.
 
Following that logic through to it's end, there shouldn't be any laws against child neglect or child support. Why should the parents be forced to provide for the child should they deem it to be a nuisance later?

They can hand the child over to the appropriate agency.
 
In the case of child neglect, the child could be cared for by anyone. The child could be put up for adoption. As I said in most cases like this you'd just call the police and have the trespasser removed. Well, in the case of a perfectly healthy fully developed child it can easily be put up for adoption. If you then choose to raise the child you're deciding to make yourself responsible for the child. If at any point you decide you don't want that responsibility you can pass that responsibility on to someone else. There is no reason the child must be neglected.

In the case of child support, there is a significant difference between requiring someone to be financially responsible for something and requiring them to be physically responsible. If you injure someone in a car accident, for example, the government cannot force you to donate blood or a kidney in order to save the life of the person whose care you hit. It can, however, force you to pay their medical bills.

So your position is that only after the child has exited the womb that one has a responsibility to it, rather than responsibility for it's original creation?

On child support, why does the man not get the same reproductive rights in regards to child support? For instance, if a woman wants to abdicate her responsibility of the child she can have an abortion. However should a man decide he does not want the child after conception then he is at the mercy of the women's decision regardless of his feelings on the matter. If a man would prefer she has an abortion then he should be able to let her know that should she decide to have the child he will not be responsible for it. (For the record, I would view him as a POS should he do this but a man should have the same reproductive rights as a woman).
 
I am not pro choice. I do not care about "a woman's right to choose" to dispense with a nuisance pregnancy, caused probably by fornication.

I am in favor of abortion because it has eugenic benefits. Females most likely to have abortions are least likely to have anything beneficial to contribute to the gene pool.

Needless to say, I am not pro life either.
This does have merit. They do display a lack of planning (rapes not withstanding)
 
As someone who is pro-choice, I'd say that is not a particularly good argument.

I would suggest you research the "Violinist Arguments" by Judith Jarvis Thompson.

The key is to understand the difference between what we would be willing to do, what we'd like someone to do, and what we can force someone to do against their will. Can you force someone against their will to donate blood to save a life? If you can't force someone to do something as simple as donating blood then you certainly can't force them to endure 9 months of pain, sickness bodily deformation, and potentially even risk death against their will either.

It's also important to understand that personhood doesn't particularly matter. In the United States, you can shoot a person for stepping on your land. Think about that. Just your land. If you can shoot a fully formed adult person just for stepping on your land then you can definately kill a debatable human that is invading and attempting to live for 9 months inside your body.
Please source the bolded. If you are referring to stand your ground, you cant shoot someone for a simple trespass. This claim is false.
 
So your position is that only after the child has exited the womb that one has a responsibility to it, rather than responsibility for its original creation?
That sounds about right.

On child support, why does the man not get the same reproductive rights in regards to child support? For instance, if a woman wants to abdicate her responsibility of the child she can have an abortion. However, should a man decide he does not want the child after conception then he is at the mercy of the women's decision regardless of his feelings on the matter? If a man would prefer she has an abortion then he should be able to let her know that should she decide to have the child he will not be responsible for it.

Again, the difference is in what type of responsibility are we talking about. Are we talking simply about financial responsibility or are we talking about physical? There are all kinds of instances where the government can force a person to financially re-reimburse another person for the harm they've done whether intentional or accidental. However, the government cannot subject you to cruel and unusual forms of punishment which would include physical torture under any circumstances.

The woman has a right to choose what happens internally to her own body, but a person's wallet is a very different story.
 
Please source the bolded. If you are referring to stand your ground, you cant shoot someone for a simple trespass. This claim is false.

Stand-your-ground law - Wikipedia

A stand-your-ground law (sometimes called "line in the sand" or "no duty to retreat" law) establishes a right by which a person may defend one's self or others (right of self-defense) against threats or perceived threats, even to the point of applying lethal force, regardless of whether safely retreating from the situation might have been possible.

...

people can use deadly force in their home, car, or other form of abode but have to retreat in public.

For the record here's the list of states that grant the broadest usages of force...

Alabama,[5] Alaska,[6] Arizona,[7] Florida,[8] Georgia, Idaho,[9] Indiana, Iowa,[10] Kansas,[11] Kentucky, Louisiana,[7] Michigan,[7] Mississippi, Missouri,[12] Montana,[7] Nevada, New Hampshire,[7] North Carolina,[13] Oklahoma,[7] Pennsylvania,[14] South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee,[7] Texas,[15] Utah,[16] West Virginia[7] and Wyoming

Out of all these states, Nevada was the only one that didn't vote Trump. In other words, it's the most pro-life states that give the broadest discretion to someone that wants to kill another human being in "self-defense."
 
Stand-your-ground law - Wikipedia



For the record here's the list of states that grant the broadest usages of force...



Out of all these states, Nevada was the only one that didn't vote Trump. In other words, it's the most pro-life states that give the broadest discretion to someone that wants to kill another human being in "self-defense."

Did you read it? If so your claim is purposefully leaving out the little fact you must be in fear of great bodily harm or death. You dont get to shoot someone for a simple trespass. That is simply not true.

If you kill someone you had better have proof it was justified. "He stepped on my lawn" wont cut it.
 
That sounds about right.



Again, the difference is in what type of responsibility are we talking about. Are we talking simply about financial responsibility or are we talking about physical? There are all kinds of instances where the government can force a person to financially re-reimburse another person for the harm they've done whether intentional or accidental. However, the government cannot subject you to cruel and unusual forms of punishment which would include physical torture under any circumstances.

The woman has a right to choose what happens internally to her own body, but a person's wallet is a very different story.

If that is your position, shouldn't that be applied equally to both men and women? I understand the physical vs financial responsibility argument, but if women are able to escape their financial responsibility by way of abortion, should men not also have the option to opt out as the woman could have an abortion and both no longer be financially responsible?
 
If that is your position, shouldn't that be applied equally to both men and women? I understand the physical vs financial responsibility argument, but if women are able to escape their financial responsibility by way of abortion
First, women generally have to pay at least something for an abortion, and there are other tools that it can take upon them if they got that route.

should men not also have the option to opt out as the woman could have an abortion and both no longer be financially responsible?

But also in this particular case men and women have the same rights. Once a child is born healthy, both the man and the woman have the right to decide whether or not they want to keep it equally. If a woman says she wants to give the child up for adoption, but the man does not he has a right to keep the child as his own and force the woman to pay child support the same as a woman could choose to keep the child and force a man to pay child support.

Furthermore, in the case of a woman aborting to avoid child support... We can't read minds. If a man says he wants her to abort to avoid child support we know full well he's attempting to avoid a monetary responsibility. If a woman says she wants to abort because it hurts too much or whatever there's no reasonable way to determine if that's true or not. Even if she said she was aborting to avoid child support she could later change her mind and decide it became too painful.

Considering what women are going through under these circumstances compared to men it would be unethical to not give them the benefit of the doubt in this case.

Furthermore, men generally do have a bit more control over whether or not they want to shoot their load into a woman. There are a lot more men who put women into this situation against their will than there are women who force it on men.
 
Did you read it? If so your claim is purposefully leaving out the little fact you must be in fear of great bodily harm or death.
If you have something growing inside of you the size of a watermelon then you absolutely have a reasonable fear of bodily harm. I guarantee you there have been plenty of courts who have allowed the shooting of an innocent trespaser that posed no threat because the property owner claimed he thought they did. There have been cases of husbands who have gotten away with murdering their wives and children because they claimed they thought they were intruders criminally entering their homes. We are not minded readers and therefore we cannot know for certain what the person who fired the shot or had the abortion was thinking or feeling at the time they had it. The benefit of the doubt almost always goes to the homeowner.

You don't get to shoot someone for simple trespass. That is simply not true.

If you kill someone you had better have proof it was justified. "He stepped on my lawn" won't cut it.

Sorry, but you will find that is generally not the case. Courts almost always give the landowner benefit of the doubt. If you're going to give a landowner the benefit of the doubt then you must give a body-owner the same benefit.

This is were the irrational emotions of the right-wing come into play. When it's abortion they think about an innocent baby and think it's wrong to kill, but when it's a white property owner using a gun to defend their property from an invader they put complete faith in the gun owner. They know that as white gun owners themselves this is a real situation they could someday find themselves in and they don't want to set any kind of precedent that could come back to bite them.
 
First, women generally have to pay at least something for an abortion, and there are other tools that it can take upon them if they got that route.



But also in this particular case men and women have the same rights. Once a child is born healthy, both the man and the woman have the right to decide whether or not they want to keep it equally. If a woman says she wants to give the child up for adoption, but the man does not he has a right to keep the child as his own and force the woman to pay child support the same as a woman could choose to keep the child and force a man to pay child support.

Furthermore, in the case of a woman aborting to avoid child support... We can't read minds. If a man says he wants her to abort to avoid child support we know full well he's attempting to avoid a monetary responsibility. If a woman says she wants to abort because it hurts too much or whatever there's no reasonable way to determine if that's true or not. Even if she said she was aborting to avoid child support she could later change her mind and decide it became too painful.

Considering what women are going through under these circumstances compared to men it would be unethical to not give them the benefit of the doubt in this case.

Furthermore, men generally do have a bit more control over whether or not they want to shoot their load into a woman. There are a lot more men who put women into this situation against their will than there are women who force it on men.

The problem with your theory is that by far the most common cause for having an abortion is out of convenience rather than any medical reason.
 
If you have something growing inside of you the size of a watermelon then you absolutely have a reasonable fear of bodily harm. I guarantee you there have been plenty of courts who have allowed the shooting of an innocent trespaser that posed no threat because the property owner claimed he thought they did. There have been cases of husbands who have gotten away with murdering their wives and children because they claimed they thought they were intruders criminally entering their homes. We are not minded readers and therefore we cannot know for certain what the person who fired the shot or had the abortion was thinking or feeling at the time they had it. The benefit of the doubt almost always goes to the homeowner.



Sorry, but you will find that is generally not the case. Courts almost always give the landowner benefit of the doubt. If you're going to give a landowner the benefit of the doubt then you must give a body-owner the same benefit.

This is were the irrational emotions of the right-wing come into play. When it's abortion they think about an innocent baby and think it's wrong to kill, but when it's a white property owner using a gun to defend their property from an invader they put complete faith in the gun owner. They know that as white gun owners themselves this is a real situation they could someday find themselves in and they don't want to set any kind of precedent that could come back to bite them.

OMG, everything is NOT a race issue. So everyone involved in a court of law in a shooting case is white?

Once again, you must prove you had a reasonable fear. Not for stepping on some white guys lawn...:roll:
 
Why are you for eugenics?

Computer technology is eliminating the kinds of jobs that can be learned by those of below intelligence. Unfortunately, people with IQ's below 100 are having more children than people with IQ's above 100. If current trends continue a growing percentage of the world's population and the population of the United States will be incapable of doing anything useful for a living.
 
Back
Top Bottom