…is that first part supposed to be a serious argument? The other side would say the exact same thing. It’s also an issue that inherently will never be black and white because children don’t develop in discrete stages, you can never point to a specific time and say “until here it’s ok”. Some of the arguments for abortion even still apply post-birth, such as the parents not being capable of caring for the child properly, making everyone including the child miserable. And the child a day before birth isn’t all that different from the child the day after.
I’d choose birth as the arbitrary cutoff point just because the child stops being part of the mother at that time and we have to put a limit somewhere, but I’d probably lose a lot of people with that (and I’d also still say that’s the right thing).
When there exist people unironically making the argument that factory farming is good actually because any life is better than no life, of course there will be a lot more wanting to just defend life for the sake of it even if it just makes everyone involved more miserable.
I feel like you’re not stating your arguement very well because I don’t actually understand the point you’re trying to make. There is the anti-abortion crowd and then that’s it, there is no other side to the arguement.
People who are pro-choice are all about enabling others to make their own determinations, people who are anti-abortion are against people being able to make their own determinations. The difference is the pro-choice crowd aren’t forcing abortions on people who don’t want them, which would be the antithesis viewpoint. You see how the are not equivalent?
This isn’t even a philosophical issue — as much as the Right wants it to be — but a legal one. The basic concept is a pregnant individual must have the right to abort the pregnancy at any moment during. Law shouldn’t say if it is feasible or moral to abort the pregnancy because there is only one legal entity here — the mother. That choice should lay with the one who is pregnant. The feasibility of the pregnancy/abortion should be determined by medical professionals because each individual case is different.
They’re not providing counter viewpoints They’re just being intransitive. There is no such thing as the force everyone to have abortions viewpoint so they are arguing in bad faith.
A lot of their comments are completely nonsensical as well, e.g.
When there exist people unironically making the argument that factory farming is good actually because any life is better than no life
I mean what the hell has that got to do with anything? We’re supposed to be talking about the morality of abortions and they throw in animal cruelty in there as if that’s some kind of counterpoint. Also I don’t think literally anyone thinks that factory farming is moral because otherwise the animals would never have existed, I’ve never heard of anyone espouse that view. Not that it would matter even if they did, because it’s got literally nothing to do with the topic at hand.
…is that first part supposed to be a serious argument? The other side would say the exact same thing. It’s also an issue that inherently will never be black and white because children don’t develop in discrete stages, you can never point to a specific time and say “until here it’s ok”. Some of the arguments for abortion even still apply post-birth, such as the parents not being capable of caring for the child properly, making everyone including the child miserable. And the child a day before birth isn’t all that different from the child the day after.
I’d choose birth as the arbitrary cutoff point just because the child stops being part of the mother at that time and we have to put a limit somewhere, but I’d probably lose a lot of people with that (and I’d also still say that’s the right thing).
When there exist people unironically making the argument that factory farming is good actually because any life is better than no life, of course there will be a lot more wanting to just defend life for the sake of it even if it just makes everyone involved more miserable.
I feel like you’re not stating your arguement very well because I don’t actually understand the point you’re trying to make. There is the anti-abortion crowd and then that’s it, there is no other side to the arguement.
People who are pro-choice are all about enabling others to make their own determinations, people who are anti-abortion are against people being able to make their own determinations. The difference is the pro-choice crowd aren’t forcing abortions on people who don’t want them, which would be the antithesis viewpoint. You see how the are not equivalent?
You only need one argument pro-choice and that is “Her body, her choice”.
And wtf are you talking about post-natal abortion? Literally no sane person is calling for that.
It’s really simple: Nobody has the right to use somebody else’s body without their consent. And that goes doubly if this is about a lump of cells.
This isn’t even a philosophical issue — as much as the Right wants it to be — but a legal one. The basic concept is a pregnant individual must have the right to abort the pregnancy at any moment during. Law shouldn’t say if it is feasible or moral to abort the pregnancy because there is only one legal entity here — the mother. That choice should lay with the one who is pregnant. The feasibility of the pregnancy/abortion should be determined by medical professionals because each individual case is different.
Just want to say I appreciate you having the courage to provide counterpoints in a very biased space.
They’re not providing counter viewpoints They’re just being intransitive. There is no such thing as the force everyone to have abortions viewpoint so they are arguing in bad faith.
A lot of their comments are completely nonsensical as well, e.g.
I mean what the hell has that got to do with anything? We’re supposed to be talking about the morality of abortions and they throw in animal cruelty in there as if that’s some kind of counterpoint. Also I don’t think literally anyone thinks that factory farming is moral because otherwise the animals would never have existed, I’ve never heard of anyone espouse that view. Not that it would matter even if they did, because it’s got literally nothing to do with the topic at hand.