The best pro-life abortion argument there is

[noname223]

I am completely pro-choice concerning abortion. But there seem to be two pretty popular arguments. One is abortion fosters racism and eugenics inter alia because many poor people use that right. Personally I don't know whether this is factually true but even if it was I don't find it convincing.

But the second one is more in my mind currently. A writer I like had a mixed opinion on abortion. I only paraphrase it I don't want to research the detailed words which were used. ( changed my opinion but it might be not perfect this quote though)
He said due to the fact science cannot give a precise definition of life we have have to be careful. Due to the fact we have no exact definition when life begins we should decide against abortion because we cannot say for sure whether something is a human being or not. ("There is irresolvable doubt on this question.
But when there is irresolvable doubt about something I have neither the legal nor the moral right to tell another person what to do about it epecially if that person feels he or she is not in doubt. ")

So it basically an argument anti-abortion but not putting it into law. It is up to the individual.

I was curious what science says when life begins. I found this interesting article. I recommend it.

When does life begin? As state laws define it, science, politics and religion clash

For decades, the U.S. medical system has adhered to a legally recognized standard for death, one embraced by most states. Why is a uniform standard for the start of human life proving so elusive?

www.npr.org

Here are some interesting quotes.

"Medical professionals and bioethicists caution that both the beginning and end of life are complicated biological processes that are not defined by a single identifiable moment — and are ill suited to the political arena.

"Unfortunately, biological occurrences are not events, they are processes," said David Magnus, director of the Stanford Center for Biomedical Ethics.

Moreover, asking doctors "What is life?" or "What is death?" may miss the point, said Magnus: "Medicine can answer the question 'When does a biological organism cease to exist?' But they can't answer the question 'When does a person begin or end?' because those are metaphysical issues."

Ben Sarbey, a doctoral candidate in Duke University's department of philosophy who studies medical ethics, echoed that perspective, recounting the Paradox of the Heap, a thought experiment that involves placing grains of sand one on top of the next. The philosophical quandary is this: At what point do those grains of sand become something more — a heap?

"We're going to have a rough time placing a dividing line that this counts as a person and this does not count as a person," he said. "Many things count as life — a sperm counts as life, a person in a persistent vegetative state counts as life — but does that constitute a person that we should be protecting?""


So I don't have very much sophisticated so say about it. But I don't agree with this argument in case there are doubts we should decide against abortion. It sounds ridiculous when we really take it literally. Is sperm already human life? I mean some insane people would probably argument in favor of that. The morning after pill would also have to be seen as murder.

Maybe I should add why I called it the best argument pro-life on abortion. Probably because I consider most of the other arguments as even less convincing.

 

[Maudlin]

I find it interesting that abortion is legal in some of the same places where a person will face a double murder case for killing a pregnant woman.

You would think one would set precedent for the other, but too often it does not. I wonder why.

 

[chloramine]

Honestly that's not addressing the problem I see with banning abortions. I believe people should not be required to have their body used by someone else. That's it. Full stop. For example if a child needed blood and someone was a match and the child would die without that blood then they still shouldn't be physically forced to give it. That's what abortion rights are about for me. Pregnancy is a huge stressor on the human body and it permanently changes the body of many women. Modern medicine has come a long way in reducing mortality rates from pregnancy, but that's still a risk.

People turn it into a question of does it count as a living being, but that's not the point. It's whether you can be forced to give up your bodily autonomy to support the life of someone else and I believe that the answer to that is no. It's clearly an agreed upon no in every other scenario or we'd have laws forcing people to give anything that wouldn't kill them.

 

[makethepainstop]

I say when a man can give birth, then he can have something to say about it. If a man cannot give birth, then I feel that his opinion in invalid. A woman knows her body!

 

[Pluto]

Just my opinion, this whole debate is used to manipulate people. It goes around in circles and wastes energy. Perhaps the powers that be would rather we be too distracted to discuss saving lives via improved health care, support for the impoverished, etc.