United States should downsize the population by ending all immigration and creating incentives for having fewer kids.

[Bofferbrauer2]

Jumpin said:

Anti-abortionism is generally a feature of primitive belief systems or corruptions of modern religion, and has no inherently ethical or moral foundation that's philosophically sound. The anti-abortionism popularized in Christianity, for example, is more of a corruption of the religious beliefs rather than a genuine feature. But either way, religious objections beg the question of whether we should have Sharia law or a Christian equivalent.

Anyway, I only skimmed the posts, but:

1. Does a man get a vote against abortion? Straightforward answer: from a legal perspective, no. Similarly, a woman cannot prevent a man from doing things to his own body.

2. Does life begin at the moment of conception? Debatable, but my personal belief is that life DOES begin at the moment of conception - which might confuse many people my stance on abortion.

3. Since human life begins at conception, then that could conceivably mean that conception begins the life of a person. For the sake of argument, since anti-abortionists argue unborn human = person anyway, lets say that a person begins at the conception. But the law isn't being applied to the unborn person, it's the pregnant woman; so, the relevant question is not about whether the unborn person has the right to not be aborted, but whether a pregnant woman has the right to abort it. In other words, it's not a question as to whether an embryo or fetus is a person with equal rights, but if a pregnant woman is.

4: Here are a few questions that get asked on this topic:
A. Is it ethical for the state's place to legally force a person to be pregnant?
B. Is it ethical for the state force a person to never fast, to force a person to abstain from certain forms of exercise and activities (like bungee jumping, or going on rides at a theme park), to force a legal in legal situations (i.e. not behind the wheel) to abstain from drinking alcohol, or to force a person to eat healthy? Or are these things a person's choice?
C. Is it ethical for the state to force a person to sustain another's life? Example: say they are the one who has the necessary bone marrow which, if transplanted, would prevent another person from dying.
D. Is it ethical for the state to ban a people from putting babies up for adoption?

If the answer is no for any of these questions, then in order to be in favour of abortion, you must then stand for the argument that a pregnant woman is not an equal person, and therefore, if you're American, disagree with fundamental values of the US constitution of all people being equals under the law. And if your answer is yes for any of these, then again, but you think that these things should be applied to pregnant woman but not anyone else, then same thing. And if your answer is no to all of these, even in the case of pregnant women, but that abortion should still be illegal then that's simple hypocrisy: for A-C because they can all involve forms of self-abortion, and D because a pregnant woman does not have the same right to give up a child as a new parent; and if you agree the state can step in and prevent self-abortion, then your answer really isn't "no" to all of these.

5. An objection to point C (under point 4 above) one might ponder is parent is obligated to look after their child; unless you agree that adoption should be illegal, then this is a distinct issue from carrying a child to term, and not a logically valid objection.

6. Embryos are human life and therefore people, then surely fertility clinics should be banned? Afterall, since human life begins at conception, fertility clinics kill more people each year than abortions via failed transplants and allowing embryos to expire.

E. Here's another question I just thought of (along the lines of A-D above). A man and a woman use IVF because they're having trouble conceiving. It turns out to be effective, and on the first treatment she becomes pregnant with triplets or quadruplets. They have 15 embryos left in storage. Is she obligated to have the other 15 babies since they're all people?

7. Consent to sex is not equal to consenting to pregnancy. In order to make that argument, you have to claim that sex purely for pleasure is not a thing; and if this is the argument for state enforcement against aborition, then you must argue that sexual activity for the purpose of pleasure is illegal (that includes, masturbation, blow jobs, handjobs, tit jobs, and birth control).

8. Even if consent to pregnancy occurs, this is separate from consenting to state forced pregnancy to be carried to term.

Anyway, none of my arguments are new, some of them have been around for 50+ years and are among the points made (although, far more thorough and eloquent than I've stated) as the basis for legalized abortion to this day. The anti-abortion contentions brought up in this thread are similarly, not new, and were defeated in courts of law in just about every country in the western world by points such as some of those I've made above. And "God wills it" is not a valid response, since we make our laws in legal courts, and not in churches or mosques.

Great arguments!

Just wanted to add one little thing to it:

There are some under the pro-choice who would never in their life do an abortion and personally are strongly against it. So why are they then Pro-choice, not pro-life? Because they feel that their personal beliefs should not be a hindrance to other people who don't share their opinion on the matter.