3 ms·

It’s strange to me that so many intellectuals talk about this position as if it’s something difficult to defend. Or the territory of religious fanatics. Perso

by Tycho 6y ago

It’s strange to me that so many intellectuals talk about this position as if it’s something difficult to defend. Or the territory of religious fanatics. Personal feelings aside, most of the pro-choice arguments seem like weak equivocation, and even some of the stronger ones don’t hold up very well because they would apply to babies as much as foetuses.

AstralStorm 6y ago
Pro-choice argument has merit, but only when it's applied carefully. When you can choose is critical, and stops reduction of abortion to euthanasia. E.g. simple definition like "until specific phase of development" closes this problem legally, ethically and for most people, morally. Much like with clinical human death, have definition of clinical human life. Pro-lifers then have a problem if they eat, esp. eat animals. Animals are raised and conceived therefore have a right to live according to this "tenancy" argument, but we kill them anyway. How therefore is killing specific not-yet-humans under some conditions not justified? (Buddhists need not apply.) Heck, killing people is allowed in many states under certain conditions. (Warfare, insurrection, criminal justice.) Argument ad sympathy is not a valid legal argument, therefore cannot be used to block anything legally. In the USA for example you're perfectly allowed to make cat meat or dog meat or horse meat products, as long as they're properly labeled and pass norms. It's a legal question not how you feel question. Ultimately, the pro-life arguments were used to rile and rule against contraception before, esp. emergency contraception. What is the difference? What makes conception special? If the answer is "potential to be human" then it is eugenic argument that could boil down to defining a human narrowly. What if humans become different species in the future? Are fetuses with immediately lethal flaws potential humans? (If not, abortion of fetuses with lethal flaws should be allowed.) What defines the potential to be human or being human? Bigger problem that few pro-choice partisans fail to bring up is that you cannot easily choose to no longer have a child - foster care is quite terrible, there's a big social stigma attached to the decision. Similar problem with mothers not carrying to term for any reason. There's a social reaction that most of the time is terrible.
hackeraccount 6y ago
I think the best pro-choice argument is something along Bill Clinton's "Safe, Legal and Rare." It's power lies in the idea that you wouldn't want people getting hurt. That you wouldn't want anyone going to jail over abortion. And that no one really likes it. Of course the argument tends to fall apart (for me at least) on the "rare" part. Why should it be rare? Well - to make the argument you need to concede that it's wrong and at base a large number of Pro-Choice people - even those who agree on some level that there's something wrong with abortion - won't concede that.

by Tycho 6y ago

AstralStorm 6y ago

Pro-choice argument has merit, but only when it's applied carefully. When you can choose is critical, and stops reduction of abortion to euthanasia. E.g. simple definition like "until specific phase of development" closes this problem legally, ethically and for most people, morally. Much like with clinical human death, have definition of clinical human life. Pro-lifers then have a problem if they eat, esp. eat animals. Animals are raised and conceived therefore have a right to live according to this "tenancy" argument, but we kill them anyway. How therefore is killing specific not-yet-humans under some conditions not justified? (Buddhists need not apply.) Heck, killing people is allowed in many states under certain conditions. (Warfare, insurrection, criminal justice.) Argument ad sympathy is not a valid legal argument, therefore cannot be used to block anything legally. In the USA for example you're perfectly allowed to make cat meat or dog meat or horse meat products, as long as they're properly labeled and pass norms. It's a legal question not how you feel question. Ultimately, the pro-life arguments were used to rile and rule against contraception before, esp. emergency contraception. What is the difference? What makes conception special? If the answer is "potential to be human" then it is eugenic argument that could boil down to defining a human narrowly. What if humans become different species in the future? Are fetuses with immediately lethal flaws potential humans? (If not, abortion of fetuses with lethal flaws should be allowed.) What defines the potential to be human or being human? Bigger problem that few pro-choice partisans fail to bring up is that you cannot easily choose to no longer have a child - foster care is quite terrible, there's a big social stigma attached to the decision. Similar problem with mothers not carrying to term for any reason. There's a social reaction that most of the time is terrible.

hackeraccount 6y ago

I think the best pro-choice argument is something along Bill Clinton's "Safe, Legal and Rare." It's power lies in the idea that you wouldn't want people getting hurt. That you wouldn't want anyone going to jail over abortion. And that no one really likes it. Of course the argument tends to fall apart (for me at least) on the "rare" part. Why should it be rare? Well - to make the argument you need to concede that it's wrong and at base a large number of Pro-Choice people - even those who agree on some level that there's something wrong with abortion - won't concede that.