I'm pro-life: Change my mind

Give me your best arguments for being pro-choice in regards to abortion, and I promise I will think about them and respond to them.

We don’t kill each other because of morality, but abortion isn’t “killing” in the sense that a man killing a man is. The “unborn” is living inside the body of a woman, it is completely dependant on her. It doesn’t have a clue what’s going on, and though it is biologically alive it isn’t alive in the way a “born” person is.

But your definition of life means that we can kill people who are in comas or who are unconscious.

And I think regarding genetic code, you've offered a good counter to what I said, but I would respond by saying that genetic code, in an of itself is not intrinsically valuable. It is only when it is combined with the mother egg that it begins to independently and naturally form into a separate human being, left to its own natural process. My skin cells falling off maybe contain GC, but will they, left alone, produce 'life'? No. Will my blood? No. Will GC and an egg? Yes.

You can say the same about a newborn baby. Left to its own devices it would die. It is totally reliant on a woman's body to survive.

Do you belive in the concept of human rights?

Are you a vegetarian? If not why do you not place the rights of an underdeveloped human with that of say a fully developed pig? Eating bacon is morally worse than aborting a fetus. You can make a Peter Singer style utilitarian argument for abortion which is much easier than a utilitrian argument for eating an adult pig.

This isn't to say it is fine to abort a fetus. Rather we do things all the time that are horrible. Life is full of horrible stuff and we are a apart of that. Abortion is one of those things. Like most things we do it because we can, that and we are a product of evolution, which is a process that is amoral.

We don’t kill each other because of morality, but abortion isn’t “killing” in the sense that a man killing a man is. The “unborn” is living inside the body of a woman, it is completely dependant on her.

it's not killing them.Its just removing what's keeping them alive.

People in comas would die anyway if we weren't keeping them alive.You're only prolonging the inevitable.

The key word here is begins.

It begins to form a human being but its not a human being yet.

Its not a human anymore than a seed is a plant or frogspawn is a frog or a brick is a house.

It's not a human because it lacks the capacity to think or feel at least until its a few months old.

If you have a problem with abortion then you should also have a problem with eating meat but I bet you do.Even rats have much more intelligence and capacity for thought than a week old embryo.Yet we have no problems killing them off by the dozen.We have no problem killing far more intelligent animals as well such as pigs.Also you do realise that the egg is genetic code?It contains 23 of the mothers chromosomes.

Being pro-life means you are forcing women to have children. Women should not be forced to do something men aren’t. Then we are unequal.

Please point on this timeline where you think it's acceptable to kill this baby because it's the "woman's body".

I always love this part of pro-life debates when they bring this up, I immediately know people have done their research rather than just spouting religious bias.

Give me your best arguments for being pro-choice in regards to abortion, and I promise I will think about them and respond to them.

I thought we are trying to get people to be accepting of others' opinions. No, I won't try to change your mind. You're pro-life, cool.

Being pro-choice means you're allowing women to kill babies. Women should not be allowed to do something men aren't. Then we are unequal.
a
I can make ridiculous arguments also!

(Also, being pro-life has nothing to do with force. Simply prevention. The women have 4 options - abstinence, contraception, motherhood or adoption. Pro-choice people just want to give her a fifth.)

If you're not looking to change my mind, then maybe I can try and change yours? Or is that completely out of the question?

If you want to write a big argument go for it. It won't change anything and you're better off spending your time doing something else tbh.

That's a shame. I've seen you often resort to suggesting abortion to many threads on this forum. It's obvious that you lean towards the notion that abortions should be widely available, and it's a shame to hear that you're so narrow-minded to the extent of which you won't even question your own morals, beliefs or debate the subject. You must be some sort of human echo-chamber, with absolutely no original opinions that stray away from what's popular.

I don't think the situation is at all different. Inside or outside of the womb, the mother is responsible for her child. Everyone in this thread, I suspect, would agree that a mother leaving a baby alone in a room to die is horrific. What makes it so different inside of the womb? Does the responsibility vanish because the baby is merely co-existing with the mother in a close compacted environment? Why should it?

You can't send a cease and desist document to a baby, they cannot understand it. They don't know what they're doing, they're don't have the capacity to reason or do any harm to the mother. It's a baby for god's sake. Furthermore, consent to sex does in fact coincide with consent to pregnancy. You are making a decision, bearing in mind the possibility of conception, which you CANNOT stop because no form of contracetion is 100% successful.

Children Act 1989:
All mothers and most fathers have legal rights and responsibilities as a parent - known as ‘parental responsibility’.

"Where a professional is concerned that unborn child or other children in the family may be at risk of, or suffering harm they should seek advice from their manager and/or their named practitioner/lead for safeguarding without delay and together consider whether to consult with or refer to Children's Social Care. In the absence of a safeguarding lead the professional may consult with or refer directly to Children's Social Care."

Apparently the children act doesn't apply to the unborn, yet child services will immediately step in if they believe the unborn child is under significant threat. The legal system and moral consistency is astounding here, as if the value of a human inside of a womb is fully dependent on how much the mother wants him/her.

I thought we are trying to get people to be accepting of others' opinions. No, I won't try to change your mind. You're pro-life, cool.

The world is run on facts but shadowed by feelings, we all like to feel like we are correct when actually that is not the case. We can have opinions, sure. But we shouldn't think it's immediately valid because it's a personal opinion. That is wrong. If we are simply talking about likes and dislikes, sure! There is no right answer. But this isn't "likes or dislikes", this is an issue that needs to be discussed.

Next time someone talks about an issue such as economics, racism, trade, government, and politics, make sure people don't say "Well that's your opinion," because it's not JUST AN opinion, it's a reason and it's potential argument if backed up with appropriate and valid facts. It's a logical fallacy to disregard someone else's point based on the fact that it's not the same view as yours.
You have a right to have an opinion, but everyone also has a right to challenge that opinion too.