Most arguments for abortion kinda don't make sense if you're trying to convince someone who thinks life starts at conception. The only really argument I find compelling is that no one should be forced to be responsible for another person's life without agreeing to it. Big Joel's video about the movie unplanned explained this pretty well, people just say things about abortion that aren't really arguments for it if you really think that a human being with a soul is created once egg meets sperm. Yes I think abortion should be legal and free, but not because the same amount would happen were it illegal. If I told you the same amount of murders would happen if we legalized it, would you say we should? Probably not, because we made it illegal not necessarily as a deterrent but so those who violate the social rules against killing can be formally punished.
The arguments are unconvincing because they are unable to solve the contradiction between the objective social benefits of allowing abortion (correct), and that the fetus is ensouled or otherwise a person, and therefore should have the same rights as you and me (false). In my opinion, that contradiction is unsolvable.
Even "no one should be forced to be responsible for another person’s life without agreeing to it" concedes too much ground. You should be able to get an abortion for any reason even if you got pregnant on purpose, which would be considered agreeing to be responsible for another person's life. The only solution is to stop considering the fetus a person.
I really don't like the "no one should be forced to be responsible for another person’s life without agreeing to it" argument very much. It borders too much on reactionary notions of "fuck you I've got mine" rugged individualism. If I don't have a responsibility for the life of the "person" inside me, then why should I have a responsibility for the homeless guy, the refugee or anyone else?
Living in a society means we become responsible for eachother's wellbeing. This is a very good thing as it means we get to have civilization. Most of the time that responsibility can only be handled collectively but there are situations when that responsibility becomes personal. If I were a fit swimmer and saw a kid fall into the harbour, should it not be my moral, legal and social responsibility to jump in and save that kid from drowning, even if I never agreed to have that responsibility?
In my opinion the way forward is to argue that a fetus is not a person.
I would say that individuals generally don't have responsibility for other individuals so much as society has a whole has the responsibility for the well-being for individuals. Lots of grey area within that though.
and that the fetus is ensouled or otherwise a person, and therefore should have the same rights as you and me (false). In my opinion, that contradiction is unsolvable.
we don't coerce organ or blood donation, so why are we coercing someone's entire body for months?
the violinist argument is a longer version of that. I can deny you the use of my kidneys and pregnant folks should be able to deny the use of their uterus. no contradiction.
The violinist argument "solves" the contradiction by changing what rights are given to a person, namely that everyone (including the fetus) has the right to bodily autonomy, even above the right to life and sustenance. Even assuming the least problematic version of this right, the problem remains that no one is a bodily autonomy absolutist. Let me offer a counter-thought experiment:
You agree to help a friend in a surgical operation where your heart will be used to pump her blood while her heart is being operated on. Midway through the surgery, you get a craving for donuts and decide to leave to get some from the nearby donut shop, causing your friend to die. A bodily autonomy absolutist would think this is your right, and that the doctors have no right to make you stay, which is obviously absurd.
So then we could arrive at some limited bodily autonomy, and the argument becomes "should the mother's bodily autonomy matter more than the fetus' life?", which is equivalent to the starting position and nothing was gained. Or we could raise something else above bodily autonomy, like "the contract", but this weakens the argument to cover abortions only under some rare circumstances. Neither of these is a good outcome.
You agree to help a friend in a surgical operation where your heart will be used to pump her blood while her heart is being operated on. Midway through the surgery, you get a craving for donuts and decide to leave to get some from the nearby donut shop, causing your friend to die. A bodily autonomy absolutist would think this is your right, and that the doctors have no right to make you stay, which is obviously absurd
this is somehow more ridiculous than the standard violinist example. you'd be unconscious. if you somehow sleepwalked to get the donuts you wouldn't get tried for murder.
You get into a sort weird spot with the second one where at what point are you required to carr for your kids. I see the resolution being as long as the fetus can survive on its own sort of it should be removed and cared for until parents can be found for it, same as how if you really didn't want to care for your kids you could just leave them to the government or someone else who will raise them. As long as medicine is for profit this will be enormously expensive, and the backwards state of adoption means things will be rough from there. However, I honestly don't know where you can start calling it a person and have ut really be a sound argument.
Agreed. As with so many things, the solution is to restrict christo-fascist speech and put out pro-abortion propaganda, but we can't do that without power. For the moment, the best you can do is get them to shut up by exerting social pressure. Stuff like cutting anti-abortion family members from your life etc. A cousin really pissed off one of my aunts when she wasn't invited to his wedding.
Edit: Also obviously direct action to assist abortion seekers/providers etc, the above is specifically on the subject of convincing someone.
The only argument I know of that actually acknowledges that is that it’s about bodily autonomy.
If my brother was gonna die unless I gave him blood transfusions every day for a month (a much less invasive ask than a fetus growing in me for 9 months) it’s my right to say no. Maybe I’d be kind of a dick if I did so, but it is my right.
I've heard an old thought experiment for abortion which goes something like this:
You wake up and you find yourself attached to a world famous concert violinist. It turns out you and he are the only 2 compatible for this treatment, which is basically like dialysis but using your organs. He is completely unconscious and will remain so for the duration of your attachment. The doctor that sewed you together says that for the treatment to be successful you must remain attached for only 9 months. If the concert violinist is removed at any point before 9 months, he will die. Do you have the right to terminate the violinist? I don't know how many people it convinces but the few more antiabortion conservative people I've talked to about it at least agree they should be able to cut off the violinist lol.
I don't think this will convince people who believe in abstinence. The argument isn't perfect anyway, because if you have consensual PIV sex you know that pregnancy is a possible outcome whereas in your example it's completely random.
Even people who believe in abstinence can be raped/sewn to some dude without their consent. It's true, it isn't perfect because ultimately I do believe abortion should be provided without a reason needed. But this was for people who are total pro life absolutists, and in the end I don't think it actually convinced them to soften their stances anyway. They rarely have arrived to that belief by logic or whatever, so trying to convince them is kinda pointless.
I think a modification that would make sense is that you were at fault in a car accident with the violinist, so the state decided you will be forced to be hooked up to them for 9 months.
We don't even make people give away their blood which comes back to 100%, so I feel like it's at least the same legally. Giving blood is no where near as big a deal as pregnancy with all the ways that can go wrong.
Most arguments for abortion kinda don't make sense if you're trying to convince someone who thinks life starts at conception. The only really argument I find compelling is that no one should be forced to be responsible for another person's life without agreeing to it. Big Joel's video about the movie unplanned explained this pretty well, people just say things about abortion that aren't really arguments for it if you really think that a human being with a soul is created once egg meets sperm. Yes I think abortion should be legal and free, but not because the same amount would happen were it illegal. If I told you the same amount of murders would happen if we legalized it, would you say we should? Probably not, because we made it illegal not necessarily as a deterrent but so those who violate the social rules against killing can be formally punished.
The arguments are unconvincing because they are unable to solve the contradiction between the objective social benefits of allowing abortion (correct), and that the fetus is ensouled or otherwise a person, and therefore should have the same rights as you and me (false). In my opinion, that contradiction is unsolvable.
Even "no one should be forced to be responsible for another person’s life without agreeing to it" concedes too much ground. You should be able to get an abortion for any reason even if you got pregnant on purpose, which would be considered agreeing to be responsible for another person's life. The only solution is to stop considering the fetus a person.
I don't care how much soul you have, you have zero right to be inside me
I really don't like the "no one should be forced to be responsible for another person’s life without agreeing to it" argument very much. It borders too much on reactionary notions of "fuck you I've got mine" rugged individualism. If I don't have a responsibility for the life of the "person" inside me, then why should I have a responsibility for the homeless guy, the refugee or anyone else?
Living in a society means we become responsible for eachother's wellbeing. This is a very good thing as it means we get to have civilization. Most of the time that responsibility can only be handled collectively but there are situations when that responsibility becomes personal. If I were a fit swimmer and saw a kid fall into the harbour, should it not be my moral, legal and social responsibility to jump in and save that kid from drowning, even if I never agreed to have that responsibility?
In my opinion the way forward is to argue that a fetus is not a person.
I would say that individuals generally don't have responsibility for other individuals so much as society has a whole has the responsibility for the well-being for individuals. Lots of grey area within that though.
we don't coerce organ or blood donation, so why are we coercing someone's entire body for months?
the violinist argument is a longer version of that. I can deny you the use of my kidneys and pregnant folks should be able to deny the use of their uterus. no contradiction.
The violinist argument "solves" the contradiction by changing what rights are given to a person, namely that everyone (including the fetus) has the right to bodily autonomy, even above the right to life and sustenance. Even assuming the least problematic version of this right, the problem remains that no one is a bodily autonomy absolutist. Let me offer a counter-thought experiment:
You agree to help a friend in a surgical operation where your heart will be used to pump her blood while her heart is being operated on. Midway through the surgery, you get a craving for donuts and decide to leave to get some from the nearby donut shop, causing your friend to die. A bodily autonomy absolutist would think this is your right, and that the doctors have no right to make you stay, which is obviously absurd.
So then we could arrive at some limited bodily autonomy, and the argument becomes "should the mother's bodily autonomy matter more than the fetus' life?", which is equivalent to the starting position and nothing was gained. Or we could raise something else above bodily autonomy, like "the contract", but this weakens the argument to cover abortions only under some rare circumstances. Neither of these is a good outcome.
this is somehow more ridiculous than the standard violinist example. you'd be unconscious. if you somehow sleepwalked to get the donuts you wouldn't get tried for murder.
I was thinking they just connect some veins to your friends while keeping you conscious, it doesn't really matter if it is realistic.
deleted by creator
You get into a sort weird spot with the second one where at what point are you required to carr for your kids. I see the resolution being as long as the fetus can survive on its own sort of it should be removed and cared for until parents can be found for it, same as how if you really didn't want to care for your kids you could just leave them to the government or someone else who will raise them. As long as medicine is for profit this will be enormously expensive, and the backwards state of adoption means things will be rough from there. However, I honestly don't know where you can start calling it a person and have ut really be a sound argument.
Agreed. As with so many things, the solution is to restrict christo-fascist speech and put out pro-abortion propaganda, but we can't do that without power. For the moment, the best you can do is get them to shut up by exerting social pressure. Stuff like cutting anti-abortion family members from your life etc. A cousin really pissed off one of my aunts when she wasn't invited to his wedding.
Edit: Also obviously direct action to assist abortion seekers/providers etc, the above is specifically on the subject of convincing someone.
The only argument I know of that actually acknowledges that is that it’s about bodily autonomy.
If my brother was gonna die unless I gave him blood transfusions every day for a month (a much less invasive ask than a fetus growing in me for 9 months) it’s my right to say no. Maybe I’d be kind of a dick if I did so, but it is my right.
I've heard an old thought experiment for abortion which goes something like this:
You wake up and you find yourself attached to a world famous concert violinist. It turns out you and he are the only 2 compatible for this treatment, which is basically like dialysis but using your organs. He is completely unconscious and will remain so for the duration of your attachment. The doctor that sewed you together says that for the treatment to be successful you must remain attached for only 9 months. If the concert violinist is removed at any point before 9 months, he will die. Do you have the right to terminate the violinist? I don't know how many people it convinces but the few more antiabortion conservative people I've talked to about it at least agree they should be able to cut off the violinist lol.
I don't think this will convince people who believe in abstinence. The argument isn't perfect anyway, because if you have consensual PIV sex you know that pregnancy is a possible outcome whereas in your example it's completely random.
Even people who believe in abstinence can be raped/sewn to some dude without their consent. It's true, it isn't perfect because ultimately I do believe abortion should be provided without a reason needed. But this was for people who are total pro life absolutists, and in the end I don't think it actually convinced them to soften their stances anyway. They rarely have arrived to that belief by logic or whatever, so trying to convince them is kinda pointless.
True, this might convince absolutists to soften their position.
the violinist thing is way closer to rape than consensual sex
I think a modification that would make sense is that you were at fault in a car accident with the violinist, so the state decided you will be forced to be hooked up to them for 9 months.
We don't even make people give away their blood which comes back to 100%, so I feel like it's at least the same legally. Giving blood is no where near as big a deal as pregnancy with all the ways that can go wrong.
some weird anti-violinist vibes in this thought experiment