The fact that abortions are legal doesn't force you to do anything, you can choose to have the child. My main issue with pro-life is that your taking away a choice for people that don't share the same beliefs when having it the other way, everyone can do what they want. — Samlw

They believe that abortion is murder. Telling them that abortion should be a choice is, to them, telling them that murder should be a choice. Most of us don’t believe that murder should be a choice.

I have never heard a compelling argument for pro-life. All of them have been based on religion or personal feelings in which my answer is always to simply not have an abortion. — Samlw

Well, we could start with perhaps a premise that we all agree with:

P1. It is wrong to kill a baby the day after birth.

The argument would then be:

P2. If it is wrong to kill a baby the day after birth then it is wrong to kill a baby the day before birth.
C1. Therefore, it is wrong to kill a baby the day before birth.
P3. If it is wrong to kill a baby the day before birth then it is wrong to kill a baby two days before birth.
C2. Therefore, it is wrong to kill a baby two days before birth.
...
etc.

This line of reasoning will entail the conclusion that it is wrong to kill a baby from the moment of conception.

To rebut it one might have to argue either that P2 is false or that there is some n such that "it is wrong to kill a baby n days before birth" is true but "it is wrong to kill a baby n + 1 days before birth" is false.

They believe that abortion is murder. Telling them that abortion should be a choice is, to them, telling them that murder should be a choice. — Michael

Ok understandable. In which case it would have to be discussed on what do we class as a life. Consciousness is believed to start developing around 24-26 weeks into the pregnancy. So if it isn’t aware, awake or has any capability of choosing to do anything is it alive?

But this also brings me back to my first point. This is a belief, and to take away rights from people simply because of that I find disgusting. I mean some people are so pro-life that they would force a teenage girl/ a girl that has been raped to have the child simply because some people believe it’s murder.

Think about how many teenagers who don’t understand life have managed to have an abortion. Think, if they were forced to have that child would their quality of life decrease or increase? Obviously there would be cases of their life increasing but I believe the vast majority would have a decrease.

This line of reasoning will entail the conclusion that it is wrong to kill a baby from the moment of conception. — Michael

I understand where people would get that from, however my counter would be that it would be wrong to kill a foetus that is conscious, I think the logic of every foetus is a potential life is correct however, to call it murder would be dramatic aslong as the foetus isn’t conscious.

But this also brings me back to my first point. This is a belief, and to take away rights from people simply because of that I find disgusting. — Samlw

You've begged the question by assuming that we have the right to an abortion.

I understand where people would get that from, however my counter would be that it would be wrong to kill a foetus that is conscious, I think the logic of every foetus is a potential life is correct however, to call it murder would be dramatic aslong as the foetus isn’t conscious. — Samlw

Why is consciousness the measure of the right to life?

They believe that abortion is murder. Telling them that abortion should be a choice is, to them, telling them that murder should be a choice. — Michael

Additionally, it's seen as a road to euthanasia of the elderly, sick, or infirmed, which is in the same territory as readily-available state-sanctioned/assisted suicide if someone happens to convince themself (or, and this is the concern, becomes convinced by others) they should cease living, even for reasons as minimal and transient as a break-up, divorce, or loss of a job or having a bad year, month, week, or even day.

If all of the above becomes not only legal but commonplace in modern society, well, what respect for and purpose of our own life, let alone the lives of others, would be left?

There's a way to look at it not from abortion (nor religion) specifically but from a general cultural and societal standpoint: Unconditional respect for human life or not. Blood sports (gladiators/prisoners fighting to the death for public entertainment/their freedom) or televised executions/public hangings for example all contribute to this dynamic of a given society and have largely been phased out in most all civilized countries for reasons that they do not contribute to (have no place in) modern, intelligent, and advanced societies. Back in man's earlier days when the threat of a bloody invasion and having one's town/city/fiefdom/kingdom/empire sacked to the ground and every man, woman, and child killed or enslaved was a very real and looming possibility on the back of everyone's mind, it was probably of benefit for the average adult man and woman to realize, such things could occur and to be prepared. Now that war is largely technological/nuclear and traditional ground invasions of troops are becoming less and less likely, everyday exposure and thoughts of such have little to no utility only burden and detriment. So, why not instill the value of unconditional respect for human life in any form and at any stage to a populous? We can go forward or we can go backward. People scarcely know their own nature, despite their own self-assurance otherwise.

Additionally, it's seen as a road to euthanasia of the elderly, sick, or infirmed, which is in the same territory as readily-available state-sanctioned/assisted suicide if someone happens to convince themself (or, and this is the concern, becomes convinced by others) they should cease living, even for reasons as minimal and transient as a break-up, divorce, or loss of a job or having a bad year, month, week, or even day. — Outlander

Well that's a slippery slope fallacy.

In which case it would have to be discussed on what do we class as a life. Consciousness is believed to start developing around 24-26 weeks into the pregnancy. — Samlw

But we're not permitted to kill the unconscious, so that must not be the basis for deciding if someone is a person.

The US Supreme Court, prior to striking down Roe v. Wade, didn't rely upon consciousness either. It relied upon viability, meaning the ability of the fetus to survive on its own outside the womb.

Think about how many teenagers who don’t understand life have managed to have an abortion. Think, if they were forced to have that child would their quality of life decrease or increase? Obviously there would be cases of their life increasing but I believe the vast majority would have a decrease. — Samlw

Now you've arrived at a new criterion, which is to weigh the quality of life of the mother if she has the baby versus if she doesn't. Is this an objective evaluation I can perform for a woman, or do I just trust the woman when she tells me subjectively what she thinks will be a better life for her? Should married women of financial means be required to have the child where ill equipped teenagers should be allowed to abort? Do you use the "quality of life" criterion exclusively or do you also throw in a time period rule correlated to consciousnes of the fetus, where the woman has to decide before 24-26 weeks whether her life will be better or worse with the baby? If a woman says she thinks her life will be better with the baby and all objective analysis shows she's correct, but she feels social pressue to have the abortion, will she be forbidden to have the abortion, or is her choice supreme and unchallengable?

The point here is that this is not a simple question, which is why it is so hotly contested.

You've begged the question by assuming that we have the right to an abortion — Michael

Around 60% of the world’s population has the right to an abortion. And in the interest of freedom and not allowing a government to have control on what life choices you want to make with your personal body, I would argue it should be a basic right. (That’s not saying everyone should be having abortions, it’s saying everyone should have the choice).

Additionally, it's seen as a road to euthanasia of the elderly, sick, or infirmed, which is in the same territory as readily-available state-sanctioned/assisted suicide if someone happens to convince themself (or, and this is the concern, becomes convinced by others) they should cease living, even for reasons as minimal and transient as a break-up, divorce, or loss of a job or having a bad year, month, week, or even day. — Outlander

That isn’t how assisted suicide works. In anywhere it is Legal.

There's a way to look at it not from abortion (nor religion) specifically but from a general cultural and societal standpoint: Unconditional respect for human life or not. Blood sports (gladiators/prisoners fighting to the death for public entertainment/their freedom) or televised executions/public hangings for example all contribute to this dynamic of a given society and have largely been phased out in most all civilized countries for reasons that they do not contribute to (have no place in) modern, intelligent, and advanced societies. Back in man's earlier days when the threat of a bloody invasion and having one's town/city/fiefdom/kingdom/empire sacked to the ground and every man, woman, and child killed or enslaved was a very real and looming possibility on the back of everyone's mind, it was probably of benefit for the average adult man and woman to realize, such things could occur and to be prepared. Now that war is largely technological/nuclear and traditional ground invasions of troops are becoming less and less likely, everyday exposure and thoughts of such have little to no utility only burden and detriment. So, why not instill the value of unconditional respect for human life in any form and at any stage to a populous? We can go forward or we can go backward. People scarcely know their own nature, despite their own self-assurance otherwise. — Outlander

Let’s put this into context. This is abortion. And I would argue that it shows an actual advancement in civilisation where we can safely choose whether or not to have a kid. That allows for so much more freedom. And the abortion isn’t some mediaeval operation, it’s a pill or a simple operation that does no harm to the mother.

Around 60% of the world’s population has the right to an abortion. — Samlw

They have a legal right, sure, but the question is whether or not we have a moral right.

And in the interest of freedom and not allowing a government to have control on what life choices you want to make with your personal body, I would argue it should be a basic right. — Samlw

Do I have the basic (moral) right to kill you if you annoy me? Presumably you believe I don't. Some believe that I also don't have the basic (moral) right to kill a foetus.

So again you're just begging the question.

Do I have the basic (moral) right to kill you if you annoy me? Presumably you believe we don't. Some believe that we also don't have the basic (moral) right to kill a foetus.

So again you're just begging the question. — Michael

In my opinion that’s a weak counter because I can flip the same question and say, is it moral to take away the choice?

And I would argue that it shows an actual advancement in civilisation where we can safely choose whether or not to have a kid. — Samlw

The reason some allow for the exception for rape is because people should be given the right to choose to become pregnant. If the sex was consensual, the choice was made to expose yourself to the risk of pregnancy. That's how that works.

I'm not pro-life, by the way, largely because I rely upon a personhood definition when allowing for abortion. The problem is words lack essences, so we'll never figure out the specific moment when the fetus becomes a person. I don't believe though that the clear line distinction of personhood at conception is patently ridiculous. I just can't buy into a 1 day old conceptus being a person as we typically think of people, but I do get the other side's point.

In my opinion that’s a weak counter because I can flip the same question and say, is it moral to take away the choice? — Samlw

It is moral to take away your choice to kill a foetus for the same reason that it is moral to take away your choice to kill me; both the foetus and I have a right to life, and our right to life takes precedence over your choice to kill us.

It is moral to take away your choice to kill me for the same reason that it is moral to take away your choice to kill a foetus; both I and the foetus have a right to life, and our right to light is greater than your choice to kill us. — Michael

I would say to that, your conscious, the foetus isn’t. So in some way you can’t use human rights in the argument because an abortion would be the same as killing something else that isn’t conscious such as a blade of grass.

The reason some allow for the exception for rape is because people should be given the right to choose to become pregnant. If the sex was consensual, the choice was made to expose yourself to the risk of pregnancy. That's how that works. — Hanover

But with that logic you would be murdering something to cover up a rape. Do two wrongs make a right?

I would say to that, your conscious, the foetus isn’t. So in some way you can’t use human rights in the argument because an abortion would be the same as killing something else that isn’t conscious such as a blade of grass. — Samlw

As I asked you before, why is consciousness the measure of the right to life?

Hanover offered the example of killing an unconscious person. I'll add to that the example of killing animals for food.

The matter isn't as simplistic as your reasoning would like it to be.

As I asked you before, why is consciousness the measure of the right to life? — Michael

I would answer this question with a question. Why do we value human life over every other life?

Why do we value human life over every other life? — Samlw

That question has no bearing on the pro-life claim that abortion is wrong. A pro-life advocate could equally be a vegan and believe that killing animals is wrong.

As it stands you haven't justified your claim that it is acceptable to kill an unconscious foetus.

That question has no bearing on the pro-life claim that abortion is wrong. A pro-life advocate could equally be a vegan and believe that killing animals is wrong. — Michael

The question was towards the quote below. In which case it does have. You are right in saying that a person like you described would have an issue with that question. But I’m asking on your answer to that question. Further I would say. If you would be in a position to choose over a human life over a farm animal I would say 99.9% of the time, a human life would be chosen.

As I asked you before, why is consciousness the measure of the right to life? — Michael

You are the one who claimed that it is acceptable kill a foetus if it is unconscious and unacceptable to kill a foetus if it is conscious. You must explain why being conscious matters. Asking me the question "why do we value human life over other life?" does not provide an explanation or a justification of your claim.

I have never heard a compelling argument for pro-life. All of them have been based on religion or personal feelings in which my answer is always to simply not have an abortion. The fact that abortions are legal doesn't force you to do anything, you can choose to have the child. My main issue with pro-life is that your taking away a choice for people that don't share the same beliefs when having it the other way, everyone can do what they want. — Samlw

This is a weak argument. As for justifications for pro-life beliefs being based on religion or personal feelings 1) I don't see how pro-choice beliefs are any different and 2) Those seem like pretty good reasons to me. As others have noted, people who are against abortion generally consider it killing a child. Let's take the paragraph I quoted above and change "abortion" to "kill a child." I think that puts a different light on it.

As for my personal feelings on abortion - I am strongly pro-choice. At the same time, I recognize that abortion is a bad thing and shouldn't be used as a normal method of birth control. It has consequences for both potential parents and I think it has a negative impact on society as a whole. We should do what we can to reduce the number of abortions as much as we can with non-coercive means.

My main issue with pro-life is that your taking away a choice for people that don't share the same beliefs when having it the other way, everyone can do what they want.

Then why take away the choice whether to live or die from the child?

The most common reason for advocating for abortion bans is not acknowledging that this topic is one of competing interests (fetus va adult woman). Thus any argument that addresses only one side of the topic (such as "abortion is murder") is at minimum incomplete, but usually is intellectually dishonest.

Around 60% of the world’s population has the right to an abortion. And in the interest of freedom and not allowing a government to have control on what life choices you want to make with your personal body, — Samlw

Some think a fetus is a stage in the life of a human being, so nobody should have the right to choose what to do with the fetus' body.

Some think it is wrong to abort even if only moments after conception, because conception is the beginning of unique human DNA. Again, that being a stage in a human being's life.

Some think that, if the fetus does not have rights, because it is not alive, or isn't human, or whatever the criteria, then destroying it without the pregnant woman's permission isn't any more of a crime than an abortion is. (Assuming no harm is done to the woman, obviously.)

Around 60% of the world’s population has the right to an abortion. — Samlw

If you want to baffle the world with statistics, you need to do better homework. About 49% of the world's population is male, and of the rest, there are many prepubescent, many post-menopausal, and some infertile for various reasons. Thus more than 50% are ineligible for any right to abortion. Perhaps you mean that around 60% of the world' population live in countries where abortion is legal and accessible for women who might want or need it?

I must say I find it odd that folk who get very exercised about the sacred value of a foetus, seem to have little to say about the children killed day after day in wars and famines and from poor sanitation and lack of clean water and of easily preventable diseases. It almost looks like the real agenda is the control of women's bodies and sexual expression, not saving precious innocent human lives. But of course I am an old cynic as well as a pedant.

This is a long message, if there is any punctuation or spelling issues I apologies

You are the one who claimed that it is acceptable kill a foetus if it is unconscious and unacceptable to kill a foetus if it is conscious. You must explain why being conscious matters. Asking me the question "why do we value human life over other life?" does not provide an explanation or a justification of your claim — Michael

I think it is acceptable to kill a foetus that is unconscious because it would be the most beneficial thing in every scenario that it is chosen. What I mean by that is, that there is a reason every single time an abortion is chosen. That decision affects real people who are living and conscious. There are millions of reasons to have an abortion:

You can’t afford a child

That child has early signs of a serious disability in foetus stage

That child was a result of rape

The parents are extremely young

You and your partner are splitting up

You are studying / working on your career and so many other reasons.

My point, is that normal people want abortions for so many reasons, it doesn’t have to be severe like a rape victim.

And if a child was to come into a lower quality of life just because their parents were forced to have them, that wouldn’t be fair. And that goes for the other side where, if two parents had a lower quality of life due to being forced to having a really disabled child or they couldn’t afford the child that would also be unfair. That is the pros of having the choice. I mean how do you even know the foetus even wants to be born? Can you ask an 8 week foetus? No, because it can’t even conceptualise being a thing.

You can say you are still preventing a human life and I agree, but the benefits out weigh the cons in my opinion.

This is a weak argument. As for justifications for pro-life beliefs being based on religion or personal feelings 1) I don't see how pro-choice beliefs are any different and 2) Those seem like pretty good reasons to me. People who are against abortion generally consider it killing a child. Let's take the paragraph I quoted above and change "abortion" to "kill a child." I think that puts a different light on it. — T Clark

I know it was a weak argument it was just a small paragraph to get the conversation going. I understand what you mean by 1). I would just say that there is more scientific evidence pointing to the fact that abortion isn’t “killing a child”.

What I would say to 2). If those people see it like that then they do not need to have an abortion. I just find it weird how people push their beliefs on to trying to take away someone else’s choice.

Then why take away the choice whether to live or die from the child? — NOS4A2

Sorry but I don’t understand what you mean by this. The child has no choice regardless of we choose. It has no cognitive function to make a choice.

If you want to baffle the world with statistics, you need to do better homework. About 49% of the world's population is male, and of the rest, there are many prepubescent, many post-menopausal, and some infertile for various reasons. Thus more than 50% are ineligible for any right to abortion. Perhaps you mean that around 60% of the world' population live in countries where abortion is legal and accessible for women who might want or need it? — unenlightened

Yes

I must say I find it odd that folk who get very exercised about the sacred value of a foetus, seem to have little to say about the children killed day after day in wars and famines and from poor sanitation and lack of clean water and of easily preventable diseases. It almost looks like the real agenda is the control of women's bodies and sexual expression, not saving precious innocent human lives. But of course I am an old cynic as well as a pedant. — unenlightened

I do agree with the “agenda” terminology. However I do not mention it because I think it can make you sound quite paranoid. I would say some people definitely have the agenda, but there will be a vast majority that is pro-life for their own reasons.

there will be a vast majority that is pro-life for their own reasons. — Samlw

Possibly. But I would turn it around, and ask what could possibly make a woman become unnaturally anti the new life within her? Whatever that is would certainly be a good target for legislation! Social stigma, isolation, lack of support, grinding poverty, responsibility for another without the means to fulfil the responsibility, homelessness, loss of the child, shaming, guilt, etc. Let's make laws against them during pregnancy and child-care, and then there will be little demand for abortions, except for tragic medical circumstances that cannot be avoided by legal fiat.

You can say you are still preventing a human life and I agree, but the benefits out weigh the cons in my opinion. — Samlw

The counter claim is that either:

a) the benefits of an abortion do not outweigh the loss of a foetus' life, or
b) moral value is not determined by benefits, i.e. deontology is correct and consequentialism is incorrect

But with that logic you would be murdering something to cover up a rape. Do two wrongs make a right? — Samlw

That wasn't my logic. You said that women should have a choice whether to have a child and I agreed. I then said that when a woman is raped, her right to decide whether to have a child has been violated (and she was violated in many other ways most certainly) and that is why many agree that in cases of rape abortion is permissible.

That is, one way women choose to have children is by having sex. It's the most common way actually. Women should have the right to choose to have children, but if they're raped and become pregnant, they were deprived that choice. For that reason, abortion might be argued to be permissible in that instance.

That wasn't my logic. You said that women should have a choice whether to have a child and I agreed. I then said that when a woman is raped, her right to decide whether to have a child has been violated (and she was violated in many other ways most certainly) and that is why many agree that in cases of rape abortion is permissible. — Hanover

I understand you are pro choice. I was more pointing out the hypocrisy of the fact they would allow an abortion under those circumstances. If they truly believe that abortion is murder and people should be banned from getting them, then that should apply to all foetus lives. And Infact they have made it worse on themselves because they have put so much emphasis on the “killing” of a child.

That is, one way women choose to have children is by having sex. It's the most common way actually. Women should have the right to choose to have children, but if they're raped and become pregnant, they were deprived that choice. For that reason, abortion might be argued to be permissible in that instance. — Hanover

It is often argued that incest, under-age sex (both of which are usually non-consensual in legal terms at least), non-viable foetus, risk to mother's own life are often included with rape. I think not to allow those exceptions is inhumane, even cruel. However, the cruelty to both mother and child of forcing a mother to go through an unwanted pregnancy and then expecting both mother and child to cope with a dysfunctional relationship is too often ignored. Children need love - for at least twenty years. You cannot create that by passing a law.

The most common reason for advocating for abortion bans is not acknowledging that this topic is one of competing interests (fetus vs adult woman). Thus any argument that addresses only one side of the topic (such as "abortion is murder") is at minimum incomplete, but usually is intellectually dishonest. — LuckyR

That's a very good point.

Let's make laws against them during pregnancy and child-care, and then there will be little demand for abortions, except for tragic medical circumstances that cannot be avoided by legal fiat. — unenlightened

Absolutely. It's the least you can do for a reluctant mother and for the child as well.

Some think a fetus is a stage in the life of a human being, so nobody should have the right to choose what to do with the fetus' body. — Patterner

That's absurd. Parents (biological or other) not only have the right, but the duty to make decisions about their children's lives. Why should there not be a similar right and duty to make decisions about a foetus? After all, we allow people to make decisions for their relatives when they are ill and unable to make the decisions themselves.

moral value is not determined by benefits, i.e. deontology is correct and consequentialism is incorrect — Michael

The last thing anyone should do is make a decision of this sort based on a philosophical theory - unless, by some miracle, all the theories deliver the same judgement.

Abortion is not a simple yes/no question. It's complicated. For example, there seems to be widespread agreement that late-stage abortions should not be permitted - roughly, at the point when the foetus becomes sentient (conscious). There seems also to be agreement that even those should be permitted when the mother's life is at risk (unless the mother consents to the risk). (I'm assuming that rape, incest, non-viable or damaged foetuses etc. can be dealt with at an early stage.) There is also widespread agreement that infanticide should not be permitted, though mothers should be treated sympathetically. Anything else seems to be hotly contested. Where there is consensus, laws are perfectly reasonable. Where there is not, laws preventing abortion are tyrannical and tolerance (on both sides) is the only option.

That's absurd. Parents (biological or other) not only have the right, but the duty to make decisions about their children's lives. Why should there not be a similar right and duty to make decisions about a foetus? After all, we allow people to make decisions for their relatives when they are ill and unable to make the decisions themselves. — Ludwig V

Parents don't have the right and duty to end their child's life.