The silliest argument I heard fame from a leftist YouTuber by the name of Vaush who argued that while a fetus may be human life it is not a person. I thought it was the most bizarre argument I’ve ever heard to defend argument.
They’re all silly. None makes any sense at all. I leave it at that!
Oh I agree. It’s just that some are more silly than others. Like the dreadful violinist argument.
The arguments used in this thread
That thread was a painful read. The arguments I saw in that thread for abortion sounded a lot like the arguments legislators like John C. Calhoun made in favor of slavery: “it’s for the best of the slave.”
The most honest one I have heard is, “I know its a baby and I’m killing it anyway.”
Only one person in that threaad was pro-choice and they didn’t make arguments like that since they didn’t think the fetus was a person.
I know. I said they were similar.
Calhoun and others also made the argument that blacks were less than people so the constitution did not apply to them.
The world-is-overpopulated argument disturbs me a lot. Even if overpopulation were to be a real risk, how can you sacrifice someone’s life as a solution?
“My body, my choice”. I think that statement fails to address the arguments that pro-life people have against abortion.
“I am personally against abortion but cannot force my views on anyone else.”
The ultimate cop out.
This one is perhaps the most frustrating. I call this being pro-abortion 2.0.
Isn’t this called hypocrisy?
There’s the old hypothetical that’s often put forward at points such as this to determine the value that people put on the various stages of life: If there was a fire in a building and you could only save a young child or a frozen emryo, which one would you choose?
Which one would you rescue from the flames?
Also untrue. I have A NEXT DOOR NEIGHBOUR. As in, one, and I have a pretty big yard, and I can go out to the side of the road to pick fruit. It’s a really bad argument. You notice that those of us that live in rural areas don’t usually use it, right?
So, a young child who is warm or a young child who is cold IOW. It’s as silly as asking whether I’d save a five-year-old or a six-year-old. I’d save whichever I could. I’d try to save both.
Any argument that starts by framing the issue as “men vs. women” makes my eyes roll. Opinions on abortion actually break down about the same among both sexes. Also, any argument that frames the unborn as eggs or sperm. When I hear those, it just tells me that the speaker has no idea how reproduction happens.
Me too. But hypotheticals don’t work like that. It’s not two small children. It’s a frozen foetus OR the child.
You can answer another question instead if you like: Why do people who are pro choice almost always say they’d save the child and almost all people who don’t support abortion refuse to answer? As we might see.
It’s meant to trap the other person in an unwinnable situation. Save the embryos? You’re either lying or you’re an evil, heartless person. Save the kid? You’re finally revealing your “knowledge” that “fetuses aren’t people.” It’s our Kobayashi Maru.
I think one reasonable answer is that you’d save the child because their likelihood of survival is higher than the embryos. Similar to if that embryo was a comatose patient with only a few hours of portable power in their life support, frozen embryos may only survive in certain conditions and you need to fulfill them, fast. A kid can survive pretty easily once they’re away from the fire. It’s obviously a tough call, but that’s how I’d make my choice.
When did anyone refuse to answer? The frozen embryo or fetus is a small child. The difference between the post-due-date child and the pre-due-date child is one of temperature and age, not kind or value. I would save whichever I had the most chance of saving. Period.