5. "Human life is intrinsically valuable." FALSE, because in actual fact there is no such thing as "intrinsic value". All valuations are associated with "desires" of one sort or another, and different sources of desire lead to different valuations. But an "intrinsic value" is something that would be recognized as such, and equally, by every different source of desire. As an example, a simple microbe might prefer to digest something organic, instead of something inorganic, and so, to the microbe, the organic thing is more valuable. If the inorganic thing had been a diamond, the microbe would still prefer the organic thing.
Meanwhile, unliving things like rocks have no desires at all, and most of the Universe appears to consist of unliving things (like stars). So, another reason there are no intrinsic valuations is simply that the Universe started out lifeless after the Big Bang, and therefore was desire-free.
Therefore, just because humans arbitrarily declare that diamonds are valuable, or human life is valuable, for various specific human purposes, that doesn't make it intrinsically true, not in the slightest. It is a statement of pure egotistical prejudice, nothing more. As another example, a hungry man-eating tiger doesn't care one whit what humans think about human life, or what deer think about deer life. Again, intrinsic value is something that should be intrinsically recognizable as such. Well, the only thing that tiger will recognize about a human is "fresh meat value", insignificantly different from a deer, not "life value"....
6. "Each human life is unique." IRRELEVANT, because the uniqueness of perhaps 50% of all human conceptions does not keep them from dying of perfectly Natural causes, before birth.
ucdavismagazine.ucdavis.edu/issues/su96/Feature/Feature-The_Facts_of_Life
While it might then be argued that that fact merely makes the other 50% even more precious, it can equally be argued that it is extremely easy for most sexually active adults to make more conceptions, each one just as unique. One result is, every time some employer says, "There's plenty more where you came from!", the individual uniqueness of even an adult human can easily be totally ignored. Which means that human uniqueness can also be ignored before birth, as happens whenever a woman seeks an abortion.
7. "Raping women into pregnancy, or tricking them into pregnancy, and then running away to continue to 'sow wild oats' far and wide, leaving lots of women with the task of raising offspring that carry the valuable and special and unique genes of the perpetrators, is a reason for said perpetrators to oppose abortion." BAD DATA, because as previously shown, concepts such as "specialness" and "value" and "unique" were examined and found wanting.
The present anti-abortion argument might be considered more evidence for why those concepts are inadequate reasons upon which to base an argument --they are based on opinion, not fact. But there is more material to cover here, than just that.
While never seen in formal Abortion Debates, the present argument does exist "in the wild", mostly in pornographic literature. Perhaps some male abortion opponents actually (and very silently!) do agree with it. Certainly it is known that many women have indeed suffered from men who ran away after tricking them into becoming pregnant, and it is also known a significant percentage of men are willing to commit rape if they thought they could get away with it:
uic.edu/depts/owa/sa_rape_support
Next, it is also widely known that pregnancy can be one of the consequences of rape. While rape is generally considered to be a crime of violence, that doesn't change the basic fact that it gives the rapist an opportunity to pass genes on to the next generation.
Consider the "Law of the Jungle", which is usually defined as, "Whatever works to promote survival is acceptable." It could also be simplified a bit, into "Might makes right" --provided the definition of "might" is broadened to include such things as "mental might" and "trickery might" and so on, not just/only "physical might".
Meanwhile, there is also a concept known as the "selfish gene":
edge.org/3rd_culture/selfish06/selfish06
According to that concept, the only purpose of human life is to pass genes on to future generations, and almost nothing else matters at all (well, survival, from zygote to breeding adult, is kind of important, too).
From the preceding information it may be possible to deduce that, since rape has long been a successful tactic for passing human genes on, there could be an actual gene-based tendency, predilection, or influence, toward committing rape --and also for accepting rape, else there would never have arisen the ancient maxim, "If rape is inevitable, relax and enjoy it."
scottlondon.com/interviews/eisler
Basically, per the Law of the Jungle, whatever works, for selfish genes to survive and to pass themselves on to the next generation, is acceptable to Nature. Well, Evolutionarily speaking, it is known that because sex is pleasurable it increases the chance that sexual activities will occur, and consequently reproduction can likewise have an increased chance of happening --passing on the genes that make sex pleasurable.
Logically, as indicated above, it makes sense that the success of rape as a reproductive tactic could be associated with certain genes that increase the chance that rape activities will occur, so that reproduction can likewise have an increased chance of happening. Equally logically, even the trick-her-and-run tactic may have some genetic influences behind it.
Modern human societies reject rape, and frown severely upon the trick-her-and-run tactic. Culprits are punished, but always only after they have at least had a chance to pass those influencing genes onto the next generation. If the human species really wants to eliminate those two reproductive tactics altogether, then the most logical way to do it is to never, ever allow either rape or trickery to be a successful reproductive tactic.
Unfortunately, that would entail two concepts that are socially repugnant, even to people who strongly support legalized abortion. First, mandatory abortions would be required, for every pregnancy preceded by rape or trickery. And second, this sort of thing falls under the general umbrella of "eugenics".
As it happens, rape is already very often an acceptable reason, even to most opponents, for abortions to be done. Trickery might be another acceptable reason (more on this later; there is another side to this issue). And the purpose of this document is to expose the flaws in all anti-abortion arguments, not to actually promote abortion.
Meanwhile, unliving things like rocks have no desires at all, and most of the Universe appears to consist of unliving things (like stars). So, another reason there are no intrinsic valuations is simply that the Universe started out lifeless after the Big Bang, and therefore was desire-free.
Therefore, just because humans arbitrarily declare that diamonds are valuable, or human life is valuable, for various specific human purposes, that doesn't make it intrinsically true, not in the slightest. It is a statement of pure egotistical prejudice, nothing more. As another example, a hungry man-eating tiger doesn't care one whit what humans think about human life, or what deer think about deer life. Again, intrinsic value is something that should be intrinsically recognizable as such. Well, the only thing that tiger will recognize about a human is "fresh meat value", insignificantly different from a deer, not "life value"....
6. "Each human life is unique." IRRELEVANT, because the uniqueness of perhaps 50% of all human conceptions does not keep them from dying of perfectly Natural causes, before birth.
ucdavismagazine.ucdavis.edu/issues/su96/Feature/Feature-The_Facts_of_Life
While it might then be argued that that fact merely makes the other 50% even more precious, it can equally be argued that it is extremely easy for most sexually active adults to make more conceptions, each one just as unique. One result is, every time some employer says, "There's plenty more where you came from!", the individual uniqueness of even an adult human can easily be totally ignored. Which means that human uniqueness can also be ignored before birth, as happens whenever a woman seeks an abortion.
7. "Raping women into pregnancy, or tricking them into pregnancy, and then running away to continue to 'sow wild oats' far and wide, leaving lots of women with the task of raising offspring that carry the valuable and special and unique genes of the perpetrators, is a reason for said perpetrators to oppose abortion." BAD DATA, because as previously shown, concepts such as "specialness" and "value" and "unique" were examined and found wanting.
The present anti-abortion argument might be considered more evidence for why those concepts are inadequate reasons upon which to base an argument --they are based on opinion, not fact. But there is more material to cover here, than just that.
While never seen in formal Abortion Debates, the present argument does exist "in the wild", mostly in pornographic literature. Perhaps some male abortion opponents actually (and very silently!) do agree with it. Certainly it is known that many women have indeed suffered from men who ran away after tricking them into becoming pregnant, and it is also known a significant percentage of men are willing to commit rape if they thought they could get away with it:
uic.edu/depts/owa/sa_rape_support
Next, it is also widely known that pregnancy can be one of the consequences of rape. While rape is generally considered to be a crime of violence, that doesn't change the basic fact that it gives the rapist an opportunity to pass genes on to the next generation.
Consider the "Law of the Jungle", which is usually defined as, "Whatever works to promote survival is acceptable." It could also be simplified a bit, into "Might makes right" --provided the definition of "might" is broadened to include such things as "mental might" and "trickery might" and so on, not just/only "physical might".
Meanwhile, there is also a concept known as the "selfish gene":
edge.org/3rd_culture/selfish06/selfish06
According to that concept, the only purpose of human life is to pass genes on to future generations, and almost nothing else matters at all (well, survival, from zygote to breeding adult, is kind of important, too).
From the preceding information it may be possible to deduce that, since rape has long been a successful tactic for passing human genes on, there could be an actual gene-based tendency, predilection, or influence, toward committing rape --and also for accepting rape, else there would never have arisen the ancient maxim, "If rape is inevitable, relax and enjoy it."
scottlondon.com/interviews/eisler
Basically, per the Law of the Jungle, whatever works, for selfish genes to survive and to pass themselves on to the next generation, is acceptable to Nature. Well, Evolutionarily speaking, it is known that because sex is pleasurable it increases the chance that sexual activities will occur, and consequently reproduction can likewise have an increased chance of happening --passing on the genes that make sex pleasurable.
Logically, as indicated above, it makes sense that the success of rape as a reproductive tactic could be associated with certain genes that increase the chance that rape activities will occur, so that reproduction can likewise have an increased chance of happening. Equally logically, even the trick-her-and-run tactic may have some genetic influences behind it.
Modern human societies reject rape, and frown severely upon the trick-her-and-run tactic. Culprits are punished, but always only after they have at least had a chance to pass those influencing genes onto the next generation. If the human species really wants to eliminate those two reproductive tactics altogether, then the most logical way to do it is to never, ever allow either rape or trickery to be a successful reproductive tactic.
Unfortunately, that would entail two concepts that are socially repugnant, even to people who strongly support legalized abortion. First, mandatory abortions would be required, for every pregnancy preceded by rape or trickery. And second, this sort of thing falls under the general umbrella of "eugenics".
As it happens, rape is already very often an acceptable reason, even to most opponents, for abortions to be done. Trickery might be another acceptable reason (more on this later; there is another side to this issue). And the purpose of this document is to expose the flaws in all anti-abortion arguments, not to actually promote abortion.