I'm pro-choice but this does not follow from that logic, which is that choosing to take action that might result in another living thing temporarily being dependent on you to survive, does come with at least some level of obligation not to rip that support away such that they die. Your analogy doesn't address that at all.
Moreover, "living thing" is the key word here. A fetus IS a living thing. So is a cow, a cockroach, an intestinal parasite. We kill those, and we support industries that kill them, without thinking. And while there are extremists who support protecting a broader segment of "life," that is not what the pro-life movement is about. If I breed cows for a living, I have a legal and ethical right to kill those cows. And if I have a baby attached to my uterus, I should have the legal right to do what I want.
But if you instead put the baby in your uterus, of your own free will and choice, you are responsible for it.
Rape accounts for less than 0.5% of abortions. While it's important to consider, it doesn't remove the responsibility in the other 99.5%.
I am under no more ethical obligation to preserve the life of a fetus in me than I am to preserve the life of an intestinal parasite that I've ingested.
Yeah, obviously, but it barely matters for the overall argument. It's misdirection, not a substantive refutation. Is anyone on the pro-choice side happy with only allowing abortions in cases of rape and incest? I'm not. I'm pretty sure that falls under the pro-life umbrella, in fact. All this shows is that one part of the pro-life camp may have a better-reasoned position than another.
> Moreover, "living thing" is the key word here. A fetus IS a living thing. So is a cow, a cockroach, an intestinal parasite. We kill those, and we support industries that kill them, without thinking. And while there are extremists who support protecting a broader segment of "life," that is not what the pro-life movement is about. If I breed cows for a living, I have a legal and ethical right to kill those cows. And if I have a baby attached to my uterus, I should have the legal right to do what I want.
This still doesn't address the argument. In fact your keying in on "living thing" and trying to build on that as an argument is pure semantic mumbo-jumbo. Replace that phrase with "baby" (which I avoided so we wouldn't immediately have that other ridiculous, pointless discussion) and all that junk about cows is irrelevant, which it was anyway.
Again: I'm pro-choice, to be clear. I just find most arguments from "my side" totally fail to address the "other side"'s actual positions, which is frustrating if, like me, you hope for your position to gain support. Bad arguments just make us look like we're wrong.
2. Fetuses are not babies. Babies are people, from a legal and ethical perspective; fetuses are not. If it were otherwise, we wouldn't even be having this conversation, as abortion would already be considered murder. So yes, fetuses are living, but that does not afford them any rights, any more than cows have rights by virtue of being alive, and it certainly doesn't afford them rights that supersede those of an actual person.
In other words: in our society, we give rights to people, not to mere "living things."
It's not that that faction's negligible, it's that the argument isn't helpful for refuting "the mother does have some obligation to a life that was created and became dependent on her through her own actions" because someone who holds that position probably doesn't disagree with you that rape and incest are exceptions. It's a distraction not from the broader debate, but specifically from substantively addressing this particular position.
> 2. Fetuses are not babies. Babies are people, from a legal and ethical perspective; fetuses are not. If it were otherwise, we wouldn't even be having this conversation, as abortion would already be considered murder. So yes, fetuses are living, but that does not afford them any rights, any more than cows have rights by virtue of being alive, and it certainly doesn't afford them rights that supersede those of an actual person.
This is precisely the point of contention, and it is far from clear-cut even on the pro-choice side. That's why 3rd trimester abortion rights are far less popular than the rest—even to many pro-choicers, the is-/isn't-a-baby question is settled at some point before birth, but after the 1st trimester.
The argument that abortion is tolerable in cases where the women does not choose to have sex shows your hand: the pro-life movement was never about protecting life, it has always been about punishing women. You are okay killing fetuses as long as the woman didn't actually have the temerity to enjoy sex.
[0] https://worldpopulationreview.com/state-rankings/what-states...
[1] https://www.axios.com/2022/05/14/abortion-state-laws-bans-ro...
It's often exhausting trying to get people to think with their brains rather than with the tips of their tongues, and all the bad arguments muddy waters.
Just because you believe this doesn't make it true. I struggle to believe that a single pro-lifer would say this is the reason behind their beliefs. As a pro-lifer, I can attest that it has nothing to do with my beliefs. Believing it may "demonize" prolifers, and help you feel good about fighting for your stance on abortion. But the reality is, blind beliefs like this are the cause of division and hate that seems to be ever increasing.
Of course they wouldn't say it out loud: that would be giving the game away. Instead, judge them by their actions. The same crowd that wants to prevent abortions also wants to prohibit contraception, allow unrestricted gun ownership, and cut back on any social programs that support families.
These actions are consistent with a puritanical, anti-sex society; they are not consistent with a "commitment to life."
Stop listening to what prochoicers say prolifers believe, and start actually listening to what the prolifers are saying. I (and most prolifers I know) don't have some secret agenda.
When the cop beats you bloody while declaring that it's "For your own protection," you are justified in questioning his motives. When the right claims to care about "life," but their actions totally contradict the stated goal, I get to declare them at best hypocrites but more likely just fascists.
I see this kind of thought process all the time: when some people don't get traction with their arguments on a particular issue, they ascribe other beliefs to their opponent and call those into question. This is both ad hominem and whataboutism, and it doesn't win over anybody's heart or mind, it just "others" the opponent, further entrenching tribalism.
The "crowd" is diverse and contains multitudes. If you want to change minds, engage with the arguments, not with the arguers.
If you don't want to be judged as a tribe, you need to take a stand. If you support contraception and gay marriage, then support them. Right now, though, the right is supporting more and more extreme ideologues.
Is the intent behind child support laws "a desire to punish men for choosing to have sex"? If a man has a one-night-stand with a woman and a child is born, he could be on the hook for hundreds of thousands of dollars over the course of 18 years.
> By your logic, if a person drives a car and has a crash, the doctor should refuse to treat their injuries, because after all, it was their choice to drive.
If a person refuses to take a COVID-19 vaccine, and does not have COVID, should doctors / hospitals be allowed to give that person lower quality-of-service and/or refuse elective treatments? After all, the person made a choice not to get a COVID vaccine which is proven safe and effective.
Irrelevant comparison. There is no procedure to legally "undo" a child who has been born, in which case one should pursue the wellbeing of the child (which may or may not be well-served by child support laws). However, if a child has not yet been born, and the child is not wanted, abortion prevents health risks to the mother, while also preventing an unwanted child from a life of hardship. If there's a procedure that helps everyone involved, why not do it?
> If a person refuses to take a COVID-19 vaccine, and does not have COVID, should doctors
Bro this makes no sense at all. If the patient doesn't have COVID, then the decision to not take the vaccine has no bearing on their elective treatments. If a woman has sex, she has not surrendered the right to her body.
By your logic, if a person drives a car and has a crash, the doctor should refuse to treat their injuries, because after all, it was their choice to drive.