• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

60 Anti-Abortion Arguments Refuted (part 10)

34. "A woman may have the right to decide what happens to her body, but it is not her body that gets aborted." IRRELEVANT, because the body that gets aborted is not a person, like a woman is a person. Only an animal gets aborted. Such removal is equivalent to medically removing any other type of unwanted assaulting animal, such as a guinea worm. It is sheer prejudice to think that the human-ness of an unwanted animal assailant makes a difference.

Not to mention, a cancer is another type of human-celled assailant, and almost no-one tries to prevent it from being medically removed. There is also something called a "hydatidiform mole", which is one of the ways defective DNA and/or Murphy's Law can cause a conception to go wrong.

It might even be noted that an unborn human is very similar to a cancer or a hydatidiform mole in certain respects: All three are human-celled growths, the woman's body has no control over the growth of any of them, and all three commit the assaults of taking resources from the woman's body, and dumping toxic biowaste products into her body.

35. "Because it is not permissible to refuse temporary accommodation for a guest, to protect him or her from physical harm (per, for example, an ice storm), it is not permissible to refuse the temporary accommodation which is a pregnancy." FALSE, because that argument is about protecting persons, and assumes an unborn human qualifies as a person --which it doesn't.

36. "Sex causes pregnancy, which forces responsibilities upon the participants." This has to be divided into two parts, of which the first, "Sex causes pregnancy", is FALSE. Sex is neither necessary for pregnancy --see "artificial insemination"-- nor sufficient for pregnancy --fertility clinics exist because of that. Even when all biological systems are "go", sex does not directly cause pregnancy.

The immediate result of sex is the possibility (not the certainty) for sperm to encounter an egg. These are living organisms independent from the participants in the sex act. Sex does not force those independent organisms to merge.
discovermagazine.com/1992/jun/theaggressiveegg --what if the egg rejects all its suitors?

Next, if sperm and egg do merge, the result is a "zygote", which is another independent organism. After 4 or 5 days it becomes a "blastocyst" that attempts to implant in a womb. Because it is an independent organism, the sex act does not force it to implant (and sometimes its attempt fails, anyway). If it succeeds, that is when it begins to be guilty of committing assault (smaller than mosquito-level is this assault; time is required for its assault to grow to vampire-level --and we still swat mosquitoes and other small bloodsuckers almost automatically).

As a result of two stages of "disconnect" via different organisms acting independently, between the sex act and pregnancy, there are no particular responsibilities forced upon the participants, if a pregnancy begins. They can deal with it however they choose.

37. "The primary purpose of sex is reproduction, so, whenever people have sex and pregnancy results, abortion must be prohibited." FALSE, because, for humans, the primary purpose of sex is most definitely not reproduction. The simplest proof involves the fact that while females of most other species tend to engage in sex only when they are fertile, human females can indulge in sex almost any time. Humanity would not have Evolved that significant distinction, from other species, if it wasn't important. So, for humans, the primary purpose of sex is actually something known as "pair bonding".
helium.com/ ... sex-is-for-bonding ... why-sex-is-not-for-making-babies

Basically, human infants are so helpless, compared to other newborns, that caring for one severely handicaps the mother. If she can attract long-term assistance, then the chances of survival, for both herself and her child, increase greatly. And it is well known that sex is a powerful attractant. If it happens to have the side-effect of also making more offspring, well, each attracted sex-participant is, theoretically, still right there, helping out, and still enjoying sex.

A participant who practices the trick-her-and-run tactic is taking the risk that his offspring won't survive due to lack-of-assistance, but he tries to compensate by having lots of offspring --"R-strategy" thinking, basically. As previously mentioned, if a society wants to rid itself of that tactic over the long run, then all it need do is ensure none of any practitioner's offspring survive, not even until birth! Overall, these things are very simple, very logical, very effective --and very destructive to that argument against abortion.

38. "The womb, and a woman's body, have natural features that specifically exist to accommodate an unborn human. Thus, each one that implants into a womb has a right to be there, and should not be aborted." BAD DATA, since that argument ignores the fact that equally-natural miscarriages do occur. Some of them happen so soon after implantation that they are called "late periods" instead of "miscarriages". Also, there is something known as "Rh-factor rejection", an incompatibility between the mother's immune system and the unborn human, that almost always causes a miscarriage, unless modern medical technology is employed to intervene. Such a thing would never happen if that argument was completely valid.

Also, there exists a completely different mechanism by which a mother's body might kill an unborn human, "fetal resorption". This phenomenon is fairly common in kangaroos; when the environment is poor in food, a pregnant kangaroo will literally suck out the life --and body-- of its womb-inhabitant, until nothing remains. Other mammals can accomplish fetal resorption as well, including humans (rarely).
ucv.ve/ ... /Vitamins_in_Animal_and_Human_Nutrition.pdf

The existence of fetal resorption means one thing that drives at the heart of a significant number of anti-abortion arguments: It is perfectly natural for the unborn to be killed if conditions aren't adequate for supporting it. And growing humans happen to need more support --especially after birth-- than any other species, by a wide margin. Who is best situated to determine whether or not a particular unborn human can be adequately supported? Certainly not the average abortion opponent!

Then there is the fact that a pregnancy is perfectly natural mindless biology in action. Do humans claim subservience to natural mindless biology, or do they claim superiority over natural mindless biology? If subservient, then why are medical procedures from immunizations to heart-bypass surgery tolerated? If subservient, then, whenever you happen to walk near a swamp, and a mosquito flies out to suck your blood, you have no right to swat it!

But if we humans claim superiority over natural mindless biology, then why should any woman be required or even be expected to carry a pregnancy to term? It is pure hypocrisy (and K-strategy prejudice) to think one should be able to take a pill or have an operation, to deal with some unwanted natural-mindless-biological aspect of the body, like cancer -- while also thinking that an unwanted/involuntary pregnancy is somehow different than natural/mindless/biological, and requires subservience even if unwanted.

39. "Since sex is voluntary, and is often accompanied with some risk that pregnancy will result, it follows that by choosing to take the risk and engage in sex, the participants are voluntarily accepting the consequences, regardless of how undesirable they might be. Therefore pregnancies should be carried to term, and not aborted." FALSE, because there are plenty of other situations in which humans choose to do things, and refuse to accept the consequences. In an earthquake zone or a flood plain, for example, people buy insurance so that someone else will have to deal with the consequences!

Also, humans will do things like build dikes in a flood plain, or irrigation canals in a desert, in response to (and refusing to accept) the consequences of having moved there. Then there are people who drink lots of alcohol and ruin their livers, but they can also obtain liver transplants. So, with all that precedent (and much more could be listed), why should sex-and-pregnancy be any different, especially when the unborn human is just an animal, and not a person? K-strategy prejudice, perhaps?
Top Bottom