• 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!

Abortion is a Political Issue

Gozaburo

Cultured Ruffian
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 16, 2024
Messages
4,267
Reaction score
2,906
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
I'm starting this thread because I've been in multiple debates with folks from both the Pro-Choice crowd and the Pro-Life crowd who believe the question of abortion can be solved with moral and logical arguments. I'm going to lay out a case for why that isn't the case, particularly in a liberal democracy where we have a legacy of sovereignty, natural rights, and individual autonomy.

So first, I'll present summarized version of both sides of the argument as they are popularly understood. I believe neither one of these arguments is illogical or immoral. Both are compelling and have explanatory power, but as you'll find, they start with irreconcilable foundational axioms.

Pro-Life:
  • Premise 1: Sovereignty of a nation implies legal authority over all human life within its borders.
  • Premise 2: Rights are inherently tied to being subject to a government’s jurisdiction.
  • Conclusion: Therefore, all human life within US borders should be subject to its jurisdiction and have rights.
Pro-Choice:
  • Premise 1: Individual bodily sovereignty implies authority over reproductive decisions. This is logically consistent with liberal principles of autonomy, where personal control over one’s body is paramount.
  • Premise 2: Rights are tied to autonomy within a jurisdiction. This holds in legal traditions that prioritize individual liberty (e.g., bodily integrity in medical consent laws).
  • Conclusion: A woman has the right to decide on her pregnancy.

As far as I can identify, neither argument is logically or morally unsound. Both are reasonable and consistent with liberal philosophy and a prioritization on individual autonomy for human life. Typically the conversation eventually breaks down into two extremely illiberal arguments in 1. some human life is more moral and valid than other human life and 2. individual autonomy can be circumstantially violated. Obviously if we were to follow either one of these assertions to their logical conclusions, it opens up a huge can of worms which most people are not willing to stick by.

And so here is the issue: there is no moral or logical argument to reconcile the issue of abortion. Abortion, much like the waging of war, is a purely political issue. The decision we make must be a pragmatic one based on national progress and development, not what is most "right" under a particular subjective moral paradigm. Fundamentally the issue of abortion is going to remain in its quagmire of rhetoric until this issue of irreconcilable axioms is recognized. It is only then that we can begin having pragmatic, intelligent, and informed discussions on the subject of abortion.
 

Abortion is both a moral and political issue. Religious people committed to living a strict moral life will probably reject abortion as an option no matter what the state says. But if abortion is a political issue for some they will have to abide by the laws of the state they live in.
 
If you have the conclusions...what is there to argue? (You are assuming debaters agree with your premises)

I like the pro-choice one...

Which position to you adhere to and why?
 

This isn't an argument. I've just laid out why the issue is necessarily not a moral issue because both sides of the argument have reasonable, moral, and logical reasons (within the liberal paradigm) as to why individual autonomy and human rights should be conserved. You cannot make a moral argument for or against abortion without invoking extremely illiberal reasoning.

But yes - as you say, rights fundamentally come from the state. At the end of the day, this is a political issue, which means the state must act pragmatically on behalf of the interests of the nation.
 
Lursa said:
If you have conclusions...what is there to argue?
Click to expand...

The argument would be what decision is most pragmatic for civilizational progress: preventing the abortion of millions of humans or giving women absolute autonomy over their bodies.

Lursa said:
Which position to you adhere to and why?
Click to expand...

I'm pro-choice for a number of reasons which are mostly eugenic in nature.
 

Yeah, I see you've laid out a position...and?

Fundamental rights do not come from the state. The state's role is nothing more than to protect rights, it cannot create rights.
 
Gozaburo said:
The argument would be what decision is most pragmatic for civilizational progress: preventing the abortion of millions of humans or giving women absolute autonomy over their bodies.
Click to expand...

Why isnt that stated clearly and foremost in your OP? And I like the question...it's not one that anti-abortites want to confront...they would ask something like, "would murdering teens be the most pragmatic for civilized progress?

I look forward to their responses...if they actually see your question. Perhaps you should post it more visibly.

Gozaburo said:
I'm pro-choice for a number of reasons which are mostly eugenic in nature.
Click to expand...

Well I meant in relation to your stated premises/conclusions?
 
Ganondagan said:
Yeah, I see you've laid out a position...and?
Click to expand...

It's not so much "my position" as it is a matter of logical fact. Any issue which has two moral, yet irreconcilable axioms, is necessarily a political issue.

I'm laying out the case for why this issue shouldn't be baby murderers vs. women haters because that's both insincere and morally inaccurate.
 
Ganondagan said:
Yeah, I see you've laid out a position...and?

Fundamental rights do not come from the state. The state's role is nothing more than to protect rights, it cannot create rights.
Click to expand...

As we saw with Dodds, it can certainly take them away.
 
Pro fetus. Life isn't even in the equation.
 
Lursa said:
And I like the question...it's not one that anti-abortites want to confront...they would ask something like, "would murdering teens be the most pragmatic for civilized progress?
Click to expand...

And they very well could be right! Perhaps millions of abortions is bad for civilization. Perhaps making as many humans as possible is the correct decision for progress. I tend to disagree, but that disagreement is a pragmatic one, not a moral dispute.

Lursa said:
Well I meant in relation to your stated premises/conclusions?
Click to expand...

In the OP I laid out two moral arguments which I believe to be equally valid and robust. I did this to demonstrate that this debate cannot be reconciled with moral arguments about "rights" and "autonomy", but is fundamentally about what is best for civilization and human progress.
 
Sweden said:
Abortion may be a political issue in the USA. But in some other countries - for example Sweden - it is not.
Click to expand...

Abortion is a political issue no matter where you go, but this is particularly the case in liberal societies where natural rights and autonomy inform the lawmaking process.
 
Interesting observations. Having done away with Roe v Wade we have empowered citizens of the various states to develop an abortion platform in sync with the values and beliefs of individual states. What could be more democratic than that?
 
Hari Seldon said:
Pro fetus. Life isn't even in the equation.
Click to expand...

It most certainly is. Life begins at conception.


When Human Life Begins​

When Human Life Begins - American College of Pediatricians

American College of Pediatricians – March 2017 ABSTRACT: The predominance [...]
acpeds.org

ABSTRACT: The predominance of human biological research confirms that human life begins at conception—fertilization. At fertilization, the human being emerges as a whole, genetically distinct, individuated zygotic living human organism, a member of the species Homo sapiens, needing only the proper environment in order to grow and develop. The difference between the individual in its adult stage and in its zygotic stage is one of form, not nature. This statement focuses on the scientific evidence of when an individual human life begins.
 

My point was...you never framed that question...so why would they answer in that context?


Uh-huh. Those premise/conclusion lists were "moral" arguments?
 
To say that both sides have reasonable moral and logical reasons (correctly identified by you IMO) means it is virtually impossible to parse out the moral from the pragmatic from either direction. You can't separate the whey from the curds. They are forever trapped in the cottage cheese of this discussion. It's a familiar problem with all the 'social issues'.
 
j brown's body said:
If you don't have the right to control your own body, what other rights matter?
Click to expand...

You're missing the point. The other side could pose an equally valid argument and ask: what about the autonomy of the human life in the mother?

And if you were to respond with, "Well some human life is of a different kind than others.", then you're obviously opening up a massive can of worms with that extremely illiberal argument. This is why moral arguments on this subject aren't just logically pointless, they're also extremely dangerous.
 

?? Who says all human life has rights? The Const. (14th A) specifically indicates otherwise. Federal court decisions and laws all support that. See US Code 8 for details.

Homo sapiens is a biological classification, not a determinant of rights or value. Science doesnt value any species more than any other, it certainly doesnt confer rights.

Semantics tends to be a diversionary tactic on this issue.
 

My point is that whatever happens, the right which is enforced by the state is not a less moral or more moral decision. It is a pragmatic one based on economics, civilization, and human progress. Both sides busy themselves talking about autonomy and rights as if either side has a stronger moral argument - they don't. We need to take a sober look at the consequences of either policy and have the state decide which is best.
 
Bullseye said:
Interesting observations. Having done away with Roe v Wade we have empowered citizens of the various states to develop an abortion platform in sync with the values and beliefs of individual states. What could be more democratic than that?
Click to expand...

A majority of voters in Florida voted to make abortion legal, but by too small a majority. In Missouri they voted to make abortion legal but the legislature is fashioning another referendum to overturn it. And in Ohio they voted to make abortion legal and the legislature is trying to pass a law to make it illegal. Not sure democracy is the answer here.

Its kind of absurd to base a medical decision on the whims of the legislature.

How about this? People opposed to abortion don't get them and those who aren't do get them?
 
Lursa said:
My point was...you never framed that question...so why would they answer in that context?
Click to expand...

The point of this thread was to demonstrate the discourse is absurd so that hopefully it may change.

Lursa said:
Uh-huh. Those premise/conclusion lists were "moral" arguments?
Click to expand...

Yes they are. Both valid, both compelling, neither illogical - which is why we won't get anywhere by continuing to make a moral case for or against abortion.
 
Irrelevant. The pro fetus crowd don't give a shit after birth.
 
Exactly the way the system is intended to work; What defines a "too small majority" in Florida?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…