August 29, 2005

Let's Make Abortion Simple

So many arguments are swirling around this controversial topic that I feel it's time to simplify things. So, here comes the Alex Zhao's why abortion should be legal up until the third trimester (with exceptions for the mother's health) in 300 words or less.

1. It's the woman's body and therefore choice, because up until the third trimester the fetus is not human life. It cannot survive on its own outside of the body. Thus, it's nothing more than an arm or limb of a woman. Now, if you assume all women are going to be aborted, think about chopping your arm off.

2. Banning it "in the interest of human life" contradicts the Republican platform because Republicans favor killing people too (See Guns and Death Penalty). Even more so, that would make as much sense as outlawing suicide or banning vasectomies.

3. Arguments like "it's the woman's own damn fault" are sexist. Furthermore, banning abortion assumes you know better about the woman's body and lifestyle than the woman in question. Therefore, you are being sexist and an idiot. Hooray!

Well, that's it. With these 3 arguments all reasons for banning abortion up until the third trimester go out the window. After that point, abortions should only happen for the safety of the woman, because then it actually is human life.

This lesson brought to you in part by Science. Learn more by talking to a science teacher today.

7 comments:

  1. There is a law against suicide idiot. see my post titled nick cannon and read all the comments agains't abortion. I was a third trimester supporter like you but now i'm not so sure.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Anonymous2:59 PM

    The only problem I have with abortion is that it is killing potential human life.

    ReplyDelete
  3. First post on your blog, I am totally against abortion not sure what political view that would be, though I would consider myself moderate I guess. I really don't think abortion is right, since your still killing something. And I know it's the girl's choice, but don't have sex without a condum in the first place.

    ReplyDelete
  4. I don't so much like your reasoning. In #1 you justify defining the fetus as less than human because it can't survive on its own. This can be shown to be fallacious via reductio ad absurdum. If the ability to survive on its own is the criteria for humanity then you must agree that people hooked up to life support are not humans. Neither are those on dialysis. Neither are those undergoing a surgical procedure. If these people are not human, then there should be no law against killing them.

    2. This is a logical fallacy too. I'm thinking it falls prey to some form of the genetic fallacy. Your argument seems to be thus: "If you do some thing morally wrong, you are not allowed to be an advocate of anything morally right". Or specifically in this case: "if you are for the death penalty then you are no longer allowed to be against abortion even if it's wrong".
    So the real question is whether abortion is right or wrong, not the person's opinion on the death penalty. Pointing out hypocrisy has its place, but this isn't it.

    3. Never heard that one coming from any pro-lifers. We all know pregnancies happen due to honest accidents and even rape.

    No pro-life argument relies on #3 and I've shown that #'s 1 and 2 are fallacious arguments. Would you care to continue refining your arguments in support of abortion?

    ReplyDelete
  5. 1. I agree with Jeff. The "dependency" justification is an awfully weak and dangerous way to define human rights. Pro-abortion philosophers don't tend to lean on this one too heavily. Also, if the child is just part of the "woman's body," then that means a woman can have two heads, four arms, and (if the child is a boy) a penis.

    2. I would add this angle. Pro-lifers are against killing innocent persons. Someone on death row is, by definition, not innocent; they have forfeigted their right to life.

    3. I agree with Jeff. This one, as you've framed it, is not really an argument used by pro-life philosophers. They are not so much concerned with how the child resulted. They only care that children are not killed.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Mac Calz11:45 PM

    In regard to the comment: "It's the woman's body and therefore choice".Didn't she already make her choice when she chose to have sex? Didn't she assume liability for the consequences of her actions when she chose to have sex? And if those consequences are a child, while drastic, they are still the result of her choice to have sex. Just some questions you may wish to ponder on before opening you mouth…

    And the ‘not alive until the third trimester ‘ idea…Pick up a copy of Biology by Cecie Starr. It’s the text I use for my freshman biology course. I've taught at the collegiate level for 15 years. The definition of life is not that simple. It may have been in Galen’s time, but we’ve moved well beyond that.

    Try thinking on your own a bit more about something before blindly following who ever is making the most noise. Choice is a method, not the ultimate goal. It seems that you persist in refusing to think beyond slogans and sound bites like pro-choice and wander from the goals I pretend you espouse and wind up giving support to results you might not support if those results were presented without disguise.
    Anyway, I was just passing through your blog and thought I’d add my two bits. Thanks for reading.

    ReplyDelete
  7. In response to Mac if he ever comes back.

    On 10/3/05, Mac Calz wrote:
    In regard to the comment: "It's the woman's body and therefore choice".Didn't she already make her choice when she chose to have sex? Didn't she assume liability for the consequences of her actions when she chose to have sex? And if those consequences are a child, while drastic, they are still the result of her choice to have sex. Just some questions you may wish to ponder on before opening you mouth…


    No, you ignore the possibilities of rape and forced sex. You're just pervading the atmosphere of Sexism in the Republican party.

    And the 'not alive until the third trimester ' idea…Pick up a copy of Biology by Cecie Starr. It's the text I use for my freshman biology course. I've taught at the collegiate level for 15 years. The definition of life is not that simple. It may have been in Galen's time, but we've moved well beyond that.


    Then what would you define as life?

    Try thinking on your own a bit more about something before blindly following who ever is making the most noise. Choice is a method, not the ultimate goal. It seems that you persist in refusing to think beyond slogans and sound bites like pro-choice and wander from the goals I pretend you espouse and wind up giving support to results you might not support if those results were presented without disguise.
    Anyway, I was just passing through your blog and thought I'd add my two bits. Thanks for reading.


    What justifies choice being only a method and not an ultimate goal? Isn't the only difference between a democratic system and a nondemocratic one that of choice? Don't we live under a democratic system? Furthermore, what are you saying in your 2nd sentence? I can't go beyond soundbites to the goals you pretend I'm for and give support to other results? Do you know my actual goals? How do you know I end up giving support to others, because my words can be spun? Are you unfamiliar with argumentation?

    And finally, a note to Garrett: You're just espousing sexism because you assume that females can't be raped or forced to have sex.

    ReplyDelete