Top arguments against abortion?

[James R]

There are very good arguments in favor of abortion, but this is not the place for them. I'm interested in what you think of as the best case against abortion.

In my experience I find that one or two statements of fact followed by one or two moral questions make the best case. Here are my own nominations:

1. DNA tests prove that a human fetus is human. Biologists universally agree that a fetus is alive. Since abortion involves two living humans, why shouldn't they both get human rights?

2. Slavery was abolished by the constitution because it is wrong to consider one human the personal property of another. Do you consider a human fetus to be someone's personal property?

3. We consider a mother who does not provide and care for a baby after it is born to be negligent of human life. Why should this standard be dropped earlier in their life before they are born?

4. The dictionary difference between a baby and a fetus is simple location. In one location (outside the womb) you are a baby, and in another location (inside the womb) you are a fetus. Should the simple location of a human decide whether or not they get human rights, such a womb being a "zero-rights" boundary?

 

[TheDuke]

Top argument: why is it impossible for those liberal women to keep their legs closed?

 

[a_european]

1. The issue is: When does human life begins? Ron Paul says at conception, i say when the brainwaves set in. You could call Ron-Paul pro-life and i'm pro-choice, but what seperates us is three months.

 

[James R]

1. The issue is: When does human life begins? Ron Paul says at conception, i say when the brainwaves set in. You could call Ron-Paul pro-life and i'm pro-choice, but what seperates us is three months.

I do like brainwaves definition, because if you don't have a brain then it is impossible to actually care about anything or feel pain in any way.

 

[Colin]

For the purpose of getting them to support Ron Paul, I'd appeal to priorities. People usually have strong opinions on abortion so it's unlikely you'll be able to convert them and it's best not to spend a lot of time talking about issues on which they and Ron Paul disagree. Appealing to priorities is a quick way to get past the issue and talk about issues on which they agree.

 

[johngr]

He actually has an opinion on the topic that can be spun to appeal either way (but does slightly favor the anti-abortion side).

For pro-abortionists, you can say that he would not have the power or desire to make a blanket federal ban on abortions and favors no legislative or judicial action on the matter one way or the other. He only wants to leave it up to the states. Most states would leave the decision up to the mother and the remaining 5 or so would put some varying degree of restriction in place. But that wouldn't stop women living in such states from travelling to another state to have an abortion if they want to. Also, his views are sincerely held and motivated by his conviction that all people have rights. You have to take his views on this as part of the whole package. There are going to be some things that are important to you where you're going to disagree with any candidate and you have to decide if where he comes down on most issues (and weight those views further by how likely it is he will fulfill his promises) most closely matches your convictions.

For anti-abortionists, you can appeal to the constitution and sell them on the fact that at least their state would be able for the first time since 1973 to restrict or ban abortions if they wish or they could move to one that doesn't kill babies. Emphasize that his is a constitutional viewpoint and that allowing the fed gov to restrict such things implies that they might have other powers that can be abused.

 

[James R]

For the purpose of getting them to support Ron Paul, I'd appeal to priorities. People usually have strong opinions on abortion so it's unlikely you'll be able to convert them and it's best not to spend a lot of time talking about issues on which they and Ron Paul disagree. Appealing to priorities is a quick way to get past the issue and talk about issues on which they agree.

So, "Ron Paul believes that abortion is a complex moral issue, and he thinks all complex moral issues like gay marriage and abortion should be left up to the states." would be the best argument?

 

[jamesmadison]

So, "Ron Paul believes that abortion is a complex moral issue, and he thinks all complex moral issues like gay marriage and abortion should be left up to the states." would be the best argument?

Limiting gay marriage is infringing on the rights of gays, which is against liberty. On the other hand, the case with abortion is not a moral one but one of whether or not it is murder. When a fetus is created and cells are dividing a case can be made that it is murder because how else are we to define what a human is except one that has its own unique body(large or small) and genome?

 

[Original_Intent]

Back when I studied philosophy in college the argument that stuck with me was this:

Before fertilization you have potential. After fertilization you have a developing human being.

Any other criteria, be it brain activity, viability, or passing through the birth canal are all arbitrary.

 

[Zarxrax]

It pretty much boils down to:

Conservatives lean towards thinking that people should be responsible for their actions, thus tend to be pro-life. Don't have sex if you don't want a baby. Simple.

Liberals tend to support bailing people out of their problems.

These are not the primary reasons that people will tell you, but if you drill down into their political philosophy as a whole, it will usually come down to this.

 

[SwooshOU]

"What is it?" is the only question that need be answered. If it is a human being, there is no good reason to kill it. If it isn't, then there is no reason to debate it.

The reasons people use are:
Size: "It's just a blob of cells."
Level of Development: "It can't even [x] yet, it isn't alive."
Environment: "It's inside the womb."
Degree of Dependency: "It is completely dependent on the mom for survival."

All of those reasons are easily refuted.

The only other arguments are emotional ones. Poor, destitute, horrible life... However, those are easily refuted too. Because if an emotional argument works on the unborn, then they can work on the post born.

 

[fsk]

Ron Paul's position is the correct one, as far as a Presidential campaign goes.

"Regulating abortion is not one of the enumerated powers given to the Federal government by the Constitution. Therefore, each state should decide individually."

 

[Colin]

So, "Ron Paul believes that abortion is a complex moral issue, and he thinks all complex moral issues like gay marriage and abortion should be left up to the states." would be the best argument?

What I meant was that people who disagree with Ron Paul on abortion might still be able to support him because of his positions on more pressing issues, such as the war. So, if confronted with someone who says that they wouldn't vote for Ron Paul because they disagree with him on abortion, I'd say "I know a lot of pro-choice Paul supporters that support him because of his stances on other issues, like his strong opposition to the war. So, please don't immediately dismiss him from consideration because of one issue." Something to that effect anyway.

Mentioning his federalist position would help too, but federalism is often a refuge of scoundrels. Most politicians who advocate federalism in controversial issues aren't sincere, so it might be hard to convince people that Ron Paul is different. Be prepared to respond to "He's just saying it's the states' responsibility so he can get elected and ban abortion nationwide." To that, I'd say that it's part of his consistent philosophy of constitutionalism.