Non-Conventional arguments for abortion.

[Alyrium Denryle]

Hello all. Now, because I am bored, I have decided to give everyone some evil and sneaky tips on arguing with people who are pro-life. These are the unconventional arguments. The ones that sidestep the usual questions of personhood, and human rights. They are also offered in a sem-numerous spirit and are more than a tad tongue in cheek, though I have tried to make the logic as sound as possible.

A little background. I am not pro-choice. I do not mince terms. I am pro-abortion. I should probably clarify this position so people do not think me an inhuman monster. Every child should be planned, and should only leave mothers Ovarian Bastille alive when she is ready to support the squirming worm-child. To do otherwise is to increase social costs from crime, and preventative disease/birth defects and also more than likely bring into the world a sentient being who will have an unpleasant childhood. So while I most certainly support the right of women to choose (unlike pro-lifer's I do not support enslaving women) I would prefer it if fewer children were actually born.

Now that this is clarified...

1. Miscarriages and God

Up to 20% of known pregnancies (that is pregnancies are detected before they miscarry) result in a miscarriage. An unknown percentage of undetected pregnancies miscarry. Now, most people who are pro-life are theists. Can you see where I am going with this? Most of these theists will probably worship Jesus/YHWH/Allah. Now, these miscarriages happen for any number of reasons. Genetic mutations nutritional problems, all of them can be cause. But what it essentially means is that God is aborting the embryos. This is millions and millions of little dead unborn babies. God is in fact the greatest abortionist of them all.

So lets us go through this.

If god is omnibenevolent, then everything god does is good.
God aborts embryos
Therefore abortion is good.

An objection to this might be that it is only good when god does it. However this brings about a theological quandary. The whole point behind the concept of sin is that the actions and thoughts are abominations. They are an affront to God that he cannot bear to have in his presence. Can you see where this contradicts the notion of things only being evil when humans do them? If god does them, they are obviously not an affront to him. Therefore the action is not sinful.

2.Afterlife Questions.

This argument is somewhat more inclusive. Variations of it can be used for essentially all world religions (religions that do not deal with salvation or afterlife issues need not apply)

In the case of Christians and Muslims, sins are thoughts and actions. An unborn child cannot by definition sin. Even for Catholics, original sin applies at birth, not conception. Now, when a person is born under these theologies they can start sinning and thus run the risk of spending eternity burning in hell being tortured by sexually repressed demons.

If you kill the embryo or fetus before birth, you sidestep that whole lifetime of sin thing. This means that the soul goes straight into the arms of Jesus (or Allah) in heaven. In effect, by aborting the fetus you are doing its soul a favor.

A similar logic can be applied to eastern religions such as Hinduism and Buddhism. These are orthoprax religions where souls are caught in a never ending cycle of death and rebirth. If the soul does everything right in one life, they get bumped up a step. If they screw up a little bit they stay the same, if they screw up a LOT they can be bumped down a step. This is done until they reach a state of Nirvana. After that they become one with the universe. Yay cosmic oneness.

Now what you have to do in order to be bumped up a step is to basically be a good and faithful...whatever you are. If a lizard is a good lizard he might get reincarnated as a mouse. Etc. Once a person reaches the priest class, they get to work on their actual cosmic enlightenment.

In the case of a fetus or embryo, all they have to do is be a good little embryo. You know, get fertilized, gastrulate, do all that fun stuff. If they get killed by a chemical abortificent, they might get reincarnated as a higher caste. Thus doing them a favor.

Buddhism is essentially a splinter group of Hindus with less adherence to the hindu caste system. They follow a specific path to enlightenment (which is actually rather complex and has itself spawned many children, some of which do not have reincarnation), and at the very least, abortion does not do the soul any harm. The worst thing that happens is that they get reincarnated.

3. Abortion as a means of Population Control.

Ok, so our population is too big, and growing. We are causing species extinctions at a rate so fast it justifies the term "mass extinction" and between climate change, peak oil, as well as peal metals, we are essentially heading toward a ecological and malthusian collapse. It will not be pleasant. Seeking to forestall or stop this, the only way to do it is to bring down our population. There are two routes we can take to do this.

Increase in Death Rates: Otherwise known as starvation and/genocide. I would prefer not to use this option for the obvious reasons.

Decrease in Birth Rates: This can be done in two ways. A One Child Policy or equivalent, or by encouraging people through less aggressive means to not have kids.

I prefer the second method. This can be done by increasing the standard of living, and reducing crime rates. When this happens, birth rates drop, in some european countries below replacement levels, even with immigration. Abortion should be encouraged rather than adoption as a means of "getting rid" of unplanned pregnancies. All adoption does is pass the buck of an existing child, abortion removes the potential child from the population completely and is thus to be preferred.

The Death of Birth also has secondary side effects. It alters population structure, and as the population ages, will even out, and eventually invert the age distribution, and lead to a population collapse. This will rapidly drop the population, even with increased life expectancy. No one suffers save for an economic perturbation as the system adjusts for an aging population. The population just drops instead of climbs until an equilibrium is reached where deaths are equal to births.




So, does anyone have any suggestions, comments, refutations, or would care to add to the list?

[Samuel]

Abortion is utilized more by secular than religious individuals, thus, if legalized, it helps tip the balance towards the nut jobs... er, faithful.

[General Zod]

If you kill the embryo or fetus before birth, you sidestep that whole lifetime of sin thing. This means that the soul goes straight into the arms of Jesus (or Allah) in heaven. In effect, by aborting the fetus you are doing its soul a favor.

Iirc, depending on the religion an unborn fetus doesn't count as a person until they're born, as the soul has yet to enter the body. Although I'm sure this isn't a terribly popular line of thinking in some hardline fundamentalist beliefs.

[Surlethe]

If you kill the embryo or fetus before birth, you sidestep that whole lifetime of sin thing. This means that the soul goes straight into the arms of Jesus (or Allah) in heaven. In effect, by aborting the fetus you are doing its soul a favor.

Iirc, depending on the religion an unborn fetus doesn't count as a person until they're born, as the soul has yet to enter the body. Although I'm sure this isn't a terribly popular line of thinking in some hardline fundamentalist beliefs.

Depending on against whom you're arguing, pointing out that ensoulment does not necessarily occur at conception could be a strawman. For instance, Catholics have debated when ensoulment occurs (St. Augustine held that it occurred at quickening, e.g.), but that has no bearing on the Catholic teaching re. the morality of abortion.

[General Zod]

If you kill the embryo or fetus before birth, you sidestep that whole lifetime of sin thing. This means that the soul goes straight into the arms of Jesus (or Allah) in heaven. In effect, by aborting the fetus you are doing its soul a favor.

Iirc, depending on the religion an unborn fetus doesn't count as a person until they're born, as the soul has yet to enter the body. Although I'm sure this isn't a terribly popular line of thinking in some hardline fundamentalist beliefs.

Depending on against whom you're arguing, pointing out that ensoulment does not necessarily occur at conception could be a strawman. For instance, Catholics have debated when ensoulment occurs (St. Augustine held that it occurred at quickening, e.g.), but that has no bearing on the Catholic teaching re. the morality of abortion.

That was more to illustrate that it wasn't necessarily a very effective argument against abortion than to necessarily be used against people arguing against it.

[Alyrium Denryle]

If you kill the embryo or fetus before birth, you sidestep that whole lifetime of sin thing. This means that the soul goes straight into the arms of Jesus (or Allah) in heaven. In effect, by aborting the fetus you are doing its soul a favor.

Iirc, depending on the religion an unborn fetus doesn't count as a person until they're born, as the soul has yet to enter the body. Although I'm sure this isn't a terribly popular line of thinking in some hardline fundamentalist beliefs.

Depending on against whom you're arguing, pointing out that ensoulment does not necessarily occur at conception could be a strawman. For instance, Catholics have debated when ensoulment occurs (St. Augustine held that it occurred at quickening, e.g.), but that has no bearing on the Catholic teaching re. the morality of abortion.

Well, you certainly have to coax them into accepting the premises first. Lead them down the rabbit hole, so to speak

[Shroom Man 777]

Why should unborn babies go to heaven when you need to be baptized, and if everyone is stained with the Original Sin anyway?

I imagine Hell to have entire oceans of sulfur filled with the screaming and boiling forms of so many unborn children.

If Hell was real, anyway, and if it wasn't in space.

[Samuel]

Why should unborn babies go to heaven when you need to be baptized, and if everyone is stained with the Original Sin anyway?

I imagine Hell to have entire oceans of sulfur filled with the screaming and boiling forms of so many unborn children.

If Hell was real, anyway, and if it wasn't in space.

Then we will begin the baptism of fetuses! We will add holy water to people diet so when they have sex, the sperm are bathed in the baptismal waters

[Cairber]

I read a really interesting and sad story once about a woman whose fetus was literally being crushed by her organs. I do not remember the name of the condition she had. But she was faced with the prospect of letting the fetus continue to 'suffer' (it already had broken bones) or to have an abortion. She was pretty far along but not at the 27 week mark yet.

I find this makes for an interesting situation to present to prolifers which tends to trip them up a bit...not exactly what you are looking for but very useful to get people to think.

[Surlethe]

I find this makes for an interesting situation to present to prolifers which tends to trip them up a bit...not exactly what you are looking for but very useful to get people to think.

Someone once pointed out a "five embryos vs. a two-year-old" dilemma (which do you let die?). The sort of hardcore pro-lifers who insist that a human is a person from the instant of conception onward think about that sort of thing and come to the conclusion that they'd grab the five embryos. So someone like my father-in-law would answer "no abortion" without missing a beat. The sort of pro-lifer who that trips up is the sort of person who hasn't thought through the issue -- the "only in case of rape or incest" sort.

[Samuel]

I find this makes for an interesting situation to present to prolifers which tends to trip them up a bit...not exactly what you are looking for but very useful to get people to think.

Someone once pointed out a "five embryos vs. a two-year-old" dilemma (which do you let die?). The sort of hardcore pro-lifers who insist that a human is a person from the instant of conception onward think about that sort of thing and come to the conclusion that they'd grab the five embryos. So someone like my father-in-law would answer "no abortion" without missing a beat. The sort of pro-lifer who that trips up is the sort of person who hasn't thought through the issue -- the "only in case of rape or incest" sort.

Ah, the sort when you ask if the women should be punished for her crime and they stare at you blankly?

[CarsonPalmer]

[quote="Shroom Man 777"]Why should unborn babies go to heaven when you need to be baptized, and if everyone is stained with the Original Sin anyway?

I imagine Hell to have entire oceans of sulfur filled with the screaming and boiling forms of so many unborn children.

If Hell was real, anyway, and if it wasn't in space.[/quote]

I can only speak from the perspective of the Catholic Church here, but a Catholic priest or whoever will tell you that original sin does not apply until physical birth.

[Shroom Man 777]

Why not? So we can sleep better at night?

[Junghalli]

The sort of pro-lifer who that trips up is the sort of person who hasn't thought through the issue -- the "only in case of rape or incest" sort.

I love those idiots. You can tell they don't really believe a fetus is morally equivalent to an adult human. If they did they probably wouldn't make those exceptions. Can you imagine how they'd probably react if you proposed to a mother who committed infanticide committed no crime because the child was the result of rape or incest? Of course, they're probably mostly just too stupid to realize the contradiction.

I actually have considerably more respect for the ultra hard liners. At least their beliefs are self-consistent.

[Samuel]

The sort of pro-lifer who that trips up is the sort of person who hasn't thought through the issue -- the "only in case of rape or incest" sort.

I love those idiots. You can tell they don't really believe a fetus is morally equivalent to an adult human. If they did they probably wouldn't make those exceptions. Can you imagine how they'd probably react if you proposed to a mother who committed infanticide committed no crime because the child was the result of rape or incest? Of course, they're probably mostly just too stupid to realize the contradiction.

I actually have considerably more respect for the ultra hard liners. At least their beliefs are self-consistent.

I see this often "I have more respect for the hardliners- they are consistant". Well, you have to remember, they are consistant because they supress that little voice in their head that objects. That is NOT something admirable.

Why not? So we can sleep better at night?

Because it is unnecesary for an evil God. Presumably life exists so that we are more fun to torment...

[Shroom Man 777]

Maybe its not respect, but fear. Who wouldn't be afraid of the hardliners?

[Junghalli]

For me it has to do with how incredibly messed up the "abortion is OK in cases of rape or incest" thing would be if you accept the premise of the people who make it (that abortion is wrong because it takes a human life). They're basically saying they think it's OK to murder people because of the way they were concieved. They're just too stupid to realize the logical conclusion of their beliefs. At least the ultra-hard liners actually approach it as if it's murder, instead of this "no, no, it's murder except in cases of rape or incest, then it's OK" mindless middle bullshit.

It nicely encapsulated everything that's wrong with mindless middle positions. It's grossly immoral no matter which end of the spectrum you look at it (let's infringe on people's freedoms, because abortion is murder, but it's OK to murder them anyway if they're the products of rape or incest, because forcing those mothers to bring their children to term would be just too squicky!). And the most aggrivating thing about it is the smiling idiots who believe it have no clue how messed up it actually is.

[Tolya]

For me it has to do with how incredibly messed up the "abortion is OK in cases of rape or incest" thing would be if you accept the premise of the people who make it (that abortion is wrong because it takes a human life). They're basically saying they think it's OK to murder people because of the way they were concieved. They're just too stupid to realize the logical conclusion of their beliefs. At least the ultra-hard liners actually approach it as if it's murder, instead of this "no, no, it's murder except in cases of rape or incest, then it's OK" mindless middle bullshit.

It nicely encapsulated everything that's wrong with mindless middle positions. It's grossly immoral no matter which end of the spectrum you look at it (let's infringe on people's freedoms, because abortion is murder, but it's OK to murder them anyway if they're the products of rape or incest, because forcing those mothers to bring their children to term would be just too squicky!). And the most aggrivating thing about it is the smiling idiots who believe it have no clue how messed up it actually is.

Strawman bullshit. People who believe that abortion is justified in case of rape (who is saying incest? I never heard such thing) don't actually mean the method of conceivement but the future perspective of thereof. Imagine being forced to raise a child that constantly reminds you of that one horrifying moment in your life. Many rape victims suffer PTSD like symptoms, adding another burden to their life if just plain torture. And yes, I do believe that mother's life comes first.

That said, nobody will ever force a woman who was raped to abort her child. Thats why it's called pro-choice. It's her decision.

You are considering the whole abortion thing solely from the angle of an unborn fetus. Has it ever occured to you, that a living breathing woman is much more important?

[Alyrium Denryle]

For me it has to do with how incredibly messed up the "abortion is OK in cases of rape or incest" thing would be if you accept the premise of the people who make it (that abortion is wrong because it takes a human life). They're basically saying they think it's OK to murder people because of the way they were concieved. They're just too stupid to realize the logical conclusion of their beliefs. At least the ultra-hard liners actually approach it as if it's murder, instead of this "no, no, it's murder except in cases of rape or incest, then it's OK" mindless middle bullshit.

It nicely encapsulated everything that's wrong with mindless middle positions. It's grossly immoral no matter which end of the spectrum you look at it (let's infringe on people's freedoms, because abortion is murder, but it's OK to murder them anyway if they're the products of rape or incest, because forcing those mothers to bring their children to term would be just too squicky!). And the most aggrivating thing about it is the smiling idiots who believe it have no clue how messed up it actually is.

Strawman bullshit. People who believe that abortion is justified in case of rape (who is saying incest? I never heard such thing) don't actually mean the method of conceivement but the future perspective of thereof. Imagine being forced to raise a child that constantly reminds you of that one horrifying moment in your life. Many rape victims suffer PTSD like symptoms, adding another burden to their life if just plain torture. And yes, I do believe that mother's life comes first.

That said, nobody will ever force a woman who was raped to abort her child. Thats why it's called pro-choice. It's her decision.

You are considering the whole abortion thing solely from the angle of an unborn fetus. Has it ever occured to you, that a living breathing woman is much more important?

I think you are not understanding what he is saying. He is saying that those who are pro-life, except in the case or rape or incest, are either hypocrites or have not thought about their position. Their basic premise is that the fetus is a person. If the fetus is a person then how is killing if justified by the mother's suffering? It isn't.

What it reveals is that they either have not thought their position through or that there is something else at work. I would posit that their leaders (who have presumably thought it through) do not really care about the fetus at all. Rather they seek to punish women for being "sluts" who have sex out of wedlock. Essentially they seek to control/enslave women and demonize sex. That is why it is OK to abort in the case of rape. The woman didnt have a choice and thus did not sin against THE LORD

[Junghalli]

Strawman bullshit. People who believe that abortion is justified in case of rape (who is saying incest? I never heard such thing) don't actually mean the method of conceivement but the future perspective of thereof. Imagine being forced to raise a child that constantly reminds you of that one horrifying moment in your life. Many rape victims suffer PTSD like symptoms, adding another burden to their life if just plain torture.

Excuse me, I think you missed my point. I'm talking about the idiots who say abortion should be prohibited because it's unethical, but then turn around and say they'll make exceptions in cases like rape or incest. If they think abortion is so unethical it should be banned because it takes a human life, how do they get off making exceptions in cases like rape. If they truly believe that a fetus is ethically equivalent to a developed human, they they are saying emotional well-being of the mother > life of a person, in their minds. Logically, extrapolating from this, a mother who was raped, brought the child to term, and then killed it, is not guilty of a crime (remember, I'm talking about people who say they consider abortion so unethical it should be banned). I bet virtually all the time they'd recoil in horror if I pointed this out to them, and then make blubbering excuses to cover up the fact that their ethics are just hilariously inconsistent.

From the language of your post, I get the feeling you have the impression I'm some sort of anti-abortionist. I'm not. The only cases where I might support restrictions on abortions are very late term ones where you can make a rational argument the fetus is capable of suffering (one based on it having a more-or-less fully developed nervous system, not "but it has a soul!" type mystical bullshit). Trust me, you'll be hard pressed to find somebody who laughs harder at the idiots who scream "murder!" when some microscopic clump of cells is killed than me. I'm just pointing out that "I support banning abortions except in cases of rape or incest" is a hilariously broken position, that's all.

Alyrium clarified it pretty well for me, thanks Alyrium.

[General Zod]

Strawman bullshit. People who believe that abortion is justified in case of rape (who is saying incest? I never heard such thing) don't actually mean the method of conceivement but the future perspective of thereof. Imagine being forced to raise a child that constantly reminds you of that one horrifying moment in your life. Many rape victims suffer PTSD like symptoms, adding another burden to their life if just plain torture. And yes, I do believe that mother's life comes first.

That said, nobody will ever force a woman who was raped to abort her child. Thats why it's called pro-choice. It's her decision.

You are considering the whole abortion thing solely from the angle of an unborn fetus. Has it ever occured to you, that a living breathing woman is much more important?

Speaking of strawmen. . .the only thing Junghalli was commenting on is that anti-choicers use broken reasoning. Yet you think his post was suggesting that the woman's rights aren't important at all? Awesome reasoning there.

[Junghalli]

That is why it is OK to abort in the case of rape. The woman didnt have a choice and thus did not sin against THE LORD

Actually, when you put that way even this is a tremendous step up from their traditional way of approaching the matter (treating the woman as another criminal for having extramarital sex, consensual or not).

[Alyrium Denryle]

That is why it is OK to abort in the case of rape. The woman didnt have a choice and thus did not sin against THE LORD

Actually, when you put that way even this is a tremendous step up from their traditional way of approaching the matter (treating the woman as another criminal for having extramarital sex, consensual or not).

Yes. And that is why the american religious right is NOT an American Taliban.

[Tolya]

I think you are not understanding what he is saying. He is saying that those who are pro-life, except in the case or rape or incest, are either hypocrites or have not thought about their position. Their basic premise is that the fetus is a person. If the fetus is a person then how is killing if justified by the mother's suffering? It isn't.

What it reveals is that they either have not thought their position through or that there is something else at work. I would posit that their leaders (who have presumably thought it through) do not really care about the fetus at all. Rather they seek to punish women for being "sluts" who have sex out of wedlock. Essentially they seek to control/enslave women and demonize sex. That is why it is OK to abort in the case of rape. The woman didnt have a choice and thus did not sin against THE LORD

Maybe Poland is a bit different in this respect. I have NEVER met a person who is against abortion on moral grounds with the exception of rape and this country is full of wacky catholics. That's maybe the reason I misunderstood your post Jun, sorry about that

We even had a Sejm Marshall here who openly said that a woman who was raped MUST deliver the child and raise it. A faction in our previous government even tried to change the bloody constitution to make sure NO ABORTIONS were carried out. Ever. Period. That's why I am a bit touchy about this subject.

[TheKwas]

I once made a post on another board which I think I could repost here. It created quite an interesting discussion.

This thread may seem a bit weird at first, but bear with me and answer as honestly as you can.

Lets imagine that you lived in Germany during the rise of Hitler. Hitler has avoided invading Poland and starting a massive World War, but he has started the Holocaust within Germany itself. The government is systemically killing millions of people in cold-blood without a second thought. There are even death-camps located nearby your house and little prisons scattered throughout your home-city. You are naturally opposed to this policy of mass murder, and you have even taken part in some minor protests against these government policies. However, the government merely ignores you and these sort of protests have accomplished nothing despite years of trying. You know that roughly 50% of all the Germans living in Germany are also opposed to these policies of mass murder and genocide, and they too have taken part in these protests. It can also be stated that aside from these issues of mass murder, the average German, including you, live fairly well-off lives. You have two main ways you can approach the issue of ending the mass murder from this standpoint:

Option A
You try to get in contact with Germans also opposed to these policies and form a resistance front that opposes Hitler's regime of mass murder using whatever means needed. If you think it will help, you will kill and target Waffen SS soldiers that work in the death camps and who kill and torture the millions of innocent civilians. You will try to kill or physically stop Germany politicians that support Hitler's policy of killing millions every year. When you see soldiers entering a house to take away the innocent individuals inside of it, you resist the soldiers physically and try to save the individuals, even if it means using violence. Essentially, you try to start a country-wide revolution to end this barbaric practice of killing millions. Already you have 50% of the population opposing these policies, you only need to mobilize.

Option B
You continue to take part in the odd protest against the government, preaching the evils of death camps to people to talk to, and peacefully showing your opposition to the government's policies of mass murder. You don't even think about planting a bomb in a death-camps soldier's quarter's, or about violently breaking into the camp to save individuals. You voice your disapproval and then generally live your life as you would normally.


Well pick. Option A or Option B? Pick now and answer honestly.

Did you pick yet? If you haven't, don't read this!














Ok, you should have picked by now. Now, let me explain the purpose of this thread in case you haven't already guessed it. Most pro-lifers say they believe that abortion is murdering an individual, and that fetuses have the same right to life as everyone else. Now, if this is true, then the above scenario I outline above is probably applicable to your situation. As far as you are concerned, the government is conducting a systematic mass murder. It doesn't matter whether it's Hitler at the top or not, the results are the same. There are death camps (abortion clinics) scattered throughout your home city.

Now, according to Wikipedia, 26 million abortions are conducted in countries where it's legal every year. That's over 2 holocausts every year. If killing those fetuses really is murder, then we are talking about the greatest human tragedy man has every undertook. My above situation is actually understating the reality.

One thing I never understood is why so few people who claim to be pro-lifers ever actually try to do something about it using violent means. The ones who do try to do something about it--the abortion clinic bombers--are considered wackos by even most moderate pro-lifers. Personally, had I lived in the situation I just created above, I would have gladly grabbed a gun and tried to spark a rebellion against Hitler, and I find it hard to believe that most of you wouldn't have done the same. After all, we are all proud of our grandparents who did go and fight the Nazis and who did defeat Hitler's mass murdering regime. How can we say we are proud of them if we wouldn't do the same ourselves?

So, the question I pose to you can be simply put as this: How does one approach the issue of opposing abortion, considering it's such an important issue? How does one justify honouring those who fought mass murderers in the past, but refusing to fight modern-day mass murdering governments?

Adding a poll makes for even more giggles.