Talk:Morality of abortion

	This Abortion related article has been awarded BRONZE status for quality. It's getting there, but could be better with improvement. See RationalWiki:Article rating for more information.
Editorial notes It contains unsourced statements Tagged since April 2016

Beginning of life

Ultimately, the argument is a strawman used to divert the debate from what it is really about - a woman's right to choose. It doesn't matter whether life begins at conception or at birth - "life" is a subjective term, and is based on opinion. If you think that a fetus is a human life, don't have an abortion. But don't try and force your views on other people who may require an abortion for personal reasons. That is why we should not be framing this debate into the fundamentalists' hands - this isn't about the beginning of life, this is about a woman's right to control her own body. Mr. Anon (talk) 19:39, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

While you make a great point that needs to be in their, the focus of this argument is, as i read it, a refutation of the primary arguments that are out there. So we aren't really "framing" it, we are reply to their frame. Also, and it kills me to say this, feminist that I am, it isn't "just about a woman's choice" for society. You can't take that frame away legitimately. I would love it if you could, cause for me, there is only one thing that matters, the women and her bodily autonomy. But it would be remiss to suggest that the views of the father, the views of society, the definition of life, the rights of government to protect kids, etc. And not simply because they are "part of the debate cause that's what the right makes it about", but because there is some legitimacy to a man saying "what about me, it was my sperm", and that must be addressed. If i say "too bad", i need to have a more logical and articulate argument than "so fuck yourself" (which is what i typically want to say -heh). --Godot 19:55, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

"It doesn't matter whether life begins at conception or at birth - "life" is a subjective term, and is based on opinion." I don't necessarily disagree with everything you're saying, but this is a bad argument. After all, Hitler had some pretty interesting opinions on life. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 20:13, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

I didn't quite word that well, but because there is medical and societal dispute over the matter, it is wrong to force your beliefs on others. Mr. Anon (talk) 20:17, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Once again, i can't believe I'm saying this, but... Not really. I mean, if i am from a society where we think that women are less than human, and should be held virtually captive, or covered all day, this is "ok", right? You can't force your opinion on me to force my wive to veil or stay home? Today, we say murder would be from day one after birth, but I would argue that any time after 6 months, you have to consider the life of the child, since it is - in some sense - "aware". (my own personal view is that I don't care of the child is writing shakespere, if it is living inside of me, its' my right to say "bleach, get out".) You cannot just hand wave these issues from the Abortion argument. they are central and critical because there really are two lives at issue. And even, possibly, the father's wishes. (I have strong opinion about how the law should see this, but I cannot dismiss the fact that "but it's a life" is a real, valid argument"). --Godot 20:23, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Essay?

I hate to say this, but shouldn't this be in essayspace? I don't think the wiki should be representing both sides of an argument this way (most of our side-by-sides are on actual texts, rather than our own summaries), I don't really agree with how either side is represented at several points, there really hasn't been much contribution by other users, and it starts out referring to another essay. Giving it a prominent link in the abortion article also seems a bit premature. ~ Kupochama^[1][2] 20:46, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

...Actually, now that I look at the abortion article's history, I guess this was ripped out of the main article? Still seems really weird, per the above. ~ Kupochama^[1][2] 20:52, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Dear gods, move this to essay, for all that we hold dear on this good Earth. Blue (is useful) 06:14, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

This isn't an essay, and it certainly isn't **my** essay. It was the collected work of many editors, just like every other article here. When it was moved, that history was lost, but it's not appropriate to call it an essay unless we have a catigory for essays that are more than one author. I'm not saying it's good or should be kept. I'm saying it's not an essay.--Godot 01:40, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

why would it be an essay?--il'Dictator Mikal 01:42, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Someone decided that instead of fixing what was wrong with it, they'd just dump it into essay space (under my name, no less), and be done with it. Bad way to handle what might well be a bad article. Godot 01:43, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Nobody said anything about using your name. I did assume it was written by you, since you're the one who originally moved it here (which wasn't exactly clear without a lot of history-digging), but I never declared you the author or anything. Regardless, this basically is an essay, and we do have several collaborative essays (and side-by-side essays, etc). I suggest essayspace instead of nuking because it's not bad, it's just not very good, and there're several intrinsic problems with how it's presented and written (which is probably why it's not in the abortion article anymore). ~ Kupochama^[1][2] 04:17, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Ah, somebody did assume you were the author...scratch that. ~ Kupochama^[1][2] 04:20, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

This is a very useful side-by-side comparison of pro-life and pro-choice arguments. It is concise, and covers major points accurately for each side. It has every right to remain an article a) because of its usefulness b) because of its balance, each view accurately represented, and c) because it is needed. Rationalwiki has but two major articles on abortion--a) the abortion article, and b), this article, abortion arguments. Notice that on that abortion page, only arguments for safe, legal abortion are presented, and only a few pro-life arguments, like the "right to life", even gain passing mention. Only after intense fighting against revisionism were we even able to create a section for the flimsiest pro-life arguments, such as that abortion is categorically illegal in that neither it nor family planning appears in the constitution. This is what the religious would argue, that, since the bible says nothing against slavery, slavery must be moral, an argument common just a couple hundred years ago. "Abortion arguments", however, presents stronger, more nuanced and vastly better supported arguments and does so in a highly digestible form. The article, as it stands, pits pro-choice and pro-life arguments against each other on specific points, such as whether a fetus is a "person" or possesses a right to life. This presentation of arguments is vastly more efficient for readers and hugely sensible in that, in all other contexts, our responses would deal with a specific point or points, and we would comment or argue directly against our opponents positions. To rarefy this article into two would disrupt this highly conceptible flow of ideas, which, in its present form, retains each "idea" isolated into separate sections with the strongest, best-represented, and best-substantiated pro-life and pro-choice arguments on either side. Instead of mulling through the new bifurcated article many of you demand--since you claim that these side-by-side arguments simply "aren't the style of rationalwiki", despite the extreme usefulness of such configuration--to find specific retorts to pro-life or pro-choice arguments and claims, ka-ching, you have them right next to each other.--Animalian (talk) 16:54, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Back to my point that there are but two major articles on abortion on rationalwiki--a) the abortion page and b) the arguments abortion page. If you even briefly examine the abortion page--I have read the entire article--you will observe that there, until recently, was not even a section for pro-life arguments, and that now only the flimsiest arguments have been assimilated into a pathetic "arguments against abortion" section, for reasons already discussed. And yet the abortion page has a massive section on "framing the debate" and "arguments for safe, legal abortion". Where on that page do you find a single adequate representation or rehash of any pro-life position beyond arguably the flimsiest, beside "the bible said so!"? Nowhere, quite frankly. At best, pro-life arguments are referenced very indirectly in the span of no more than several words--and again, I may so claim since I have read the entire article, and find this statement evidently and verifiably true. The "framing the arguments" section marches noticeably toward heavy pro-choice leanings, but does so at the expense of not representing pro-life arguments in any recognizable and well-descript form--again, just passing references, nothing substantial whatsoever. Nevertheless, I still submit that there is something gravely wrong when the best pro-life arguments are tossed into the garbage bin, the abortion page remains saturated by pro-choice arguments (at the hands of unjust revisionists who want anything with pro-life arguments, such as this article, despite its usefulness, denigrated to an "essay"), and any attempt to contribute pro-life arguments is thwarted, despite clarity, relevance, and order, and moreover in despite of the fact that pro-choice advocates and revisionists may enjoy a "framing the arguments" and "arguments for safe, legal abortion" longer than any valid contribution I have suggested by creating a new section dedicated to pro-life arguments.--Animalian (talk) 17:10, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Animalian, I was thinking about merging this into the Abortion article. Does that seem reasonable? Mʀ. Wʜɪsᴋᴇʀs, Esϙᴜɪʀᴇ (talk/stalk) 17:18, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Merging what? Pro-life arguments onto the abortion page with no pro-life arguments, but with all the pro-choice postulation you wish subjected to much less stringent demands than pro-life arguments to the point of hypocrisy? I have already tried and failed--look at the abortion talk page. (I will be submitting much more content there--you can see this content under my contributions in the form of "essays", one of which is very pointed, the other of which begins with the right to life, and which is more appropriate for neutrality.)--Animalian (talk) 17:31, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Now let us examine the other two pages, beyond the abortion page and abortion arguments page, namely, the pro-choice and pro-life page. The pro-choice page is fine and dandy, even though it lacks substantial pro-choice arguments and serves more a recapitulation of basic pro-choice beliefs instead of a defense thereof, for these arguments are adequately represented on the abortion page and even more fruitfully here, on the abortion arguments page. However, the pro-life page lack any substantial pro-life arguments despite the fact that such arguments do not (and will not, given the unjust revision of unreasonable people) appear on the abortion page, the most anemic arguments which aren't even all that common or central excepted, and only appear here, on the abortion arguments page. To suggest that we denigrate this useful, well-organized, and eximiously balanced article to the status of an "essay" is tantamount to asking that the only substantive pro-life arguments between the four most essential pages to the present abortion debate be dismissed and all too conveniently hidden away in the drastically less accessible and less viewed essay purgatory. The vast majority of people who do visit rationalwiki probably know nothing of the essay section, and even members are inapt to visit this essay purgatory. After years of visiting rationalwiki on virtually every pseudoscience topic, never did I stumble onto the essay section, and even now, as an active, contributing rationalwiki member, I am less than tempted to read essays even on abortion, because I want better-written, better-balanced, and better-cited material, all of which this page, abortion arguments, offers. If you want to absolutely suppress pro-life arguments, which are not even allowed on the pro-life page, I have wincingly discovered, go ahead and keep deleting them and demanding, when people rightly rescind the unjust revisionism to which they are subjected, they move their "opinions" to the essay category, which virtually no one will visit or ever read, even active rationalwiki users. Can you yet see how unreasonable you are being by simply challenging valid content and demanding that it be denigrated to essay status, especially content so well-balanced, well-written, and well-cited, especially wherefore not a single substantive pro-life argument exists elsewhere on the foremost rationalwiki articles? "Abortion arguments" has every right and reason to remain precisely where it is, and demand the attention it precisely deserves.--Animalian (talk) 17:28, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Great work

Excellent work, SpecialFrog and others! You are actually editing! I am very happy this has finally happened! I am not evil--I just expect fairness and just critique, and that is EXACTLY what I am seeing now. Thank you all!--Animalian (talk) 17:13, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Why were my edits reverted?

@Oxyaena: Why did you revert my edit? This page is meant to compare arguments side-by-side. If you disagree with the content of my argument, I challenge you to state why. Rational Skull (talk) 17:14, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

Rebuttal to RW on Culture Of Life

This is what I'm responding to.

"to argue that something that has the potential to be human should be given the same right to life as a human is bad logic."

Even if a fetus does not deserve the same rights as a fully-fledged human being, one may still argue that it at least deserves the right not to be killed. It would be fallacious to state, "You are not yet a person. Therefore you absolutely cannot be given some rights that people already have." That would be a false dilemma. Rational Skull (talk) 17:58, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

The argument from potentiality

Weak section. Seems to overlap with the previous section. Needs a compelling argument too; otherwise, it doesn't seem really fair to offer lengthy explanations for abortion while offering stark nothing against abortion. But first, can someone look at the source? It's really long and rambly and hard to get something out of it. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 03:11, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

True, it sounds like a naturalistic fallacy to me.

1. The fetus has the potentiality to live.
2. Things have a potentiality get actualized.
3. Therefore, they ought to actualize that potential. Herr Doktor Enter into the rabbit hole 04:47, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

Side by side

The section of the side by side that discusses life beginning at conception seems like it was edited by a pro-life advocate with direct insults towards people with pro-life positions. Every other sections seems balanced except this one. Not only that, but this is also shown in the ridiculous number of (questionable) sources and Gish galloping about how basically every reputable person thinks a unique human life begins at conception. ^{— Unsigned, by: 2603:6010:11f0:3c0:90e0:6198:8304:75d3 / talk}

Why is a woman's personal success more important than the life of an unborn baby?

I mean, I get what RW is saying about how pregnancy can do serious harm to a woman's body in a few cases, however, saying that a woman should have a right to end an unborn baby's life so that they can pursue their own success? Like, what? How is being successful SO important that it's worth killing an unborn baby for? ^{— Unsigned, by: 149.19.32.102 / talk / contribs}

you have to sign your posts my guy - Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 06:29, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

Also to answer your question. A woman actually has a life. A unconscious clump of cells do not. Regardless no one is entitled to use another living person’s body to sustain themselves without that person’s consent. - Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 06:34, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

"Regardless no one is entitled to use another living person’s body to sustain themselves without that person’s consent" Regardless of what? regardless of whether the fetus is conscious? so it's okay to kill a conscious fetus? 149.19.33.82 (talk) 01:15, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

Regardless if the fetus itself is a person. I have the right to disconnect myself from a person who is using my body to support their life without my consent. If someone kidnapped you and forced you to use your kidneys to support them, it doesn’t matter if they die if you disconnect from them. Why would a fetus be any different? Especially when in the vast majority of cases the thing is terminated when it’s the size of a sea-monkey and not developed enough for sentience. If a man can kill another man for severely violating his bodily autonomy, then a woman can abort a clump of cells doing the same. The thing is not a baby, it’s barely distinct from a parasite or a tumour. - Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 04:06, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

Not a fan of the loaded language ("killing an unborn baby") but I'll ignore it. First and foremost, the person who is carrying the fetus has their health promoted first. They are an adult, they should have control, and they should be making the decision, and they should be trusted with that decision. A pregnancy has risks, the person who's carrying the fetus (be it a man, woman, nonbinary) undergoes through drastic changes in their body to try to sustain the thing, with some long-term consequences. An abortion, when done properly, is less risky than carrying to term. We also assume from this argument that the fetus is conscious and looks like the third-trimester things that anti-abortion people like to depict but, in most abortions, they're, in reality, barely-developed pile of cells which the only difference between that and a egg lost in a period is probably just the strands of information from the sperm. Oh and if you think abortions are the issue, I don't see anyone railing against how fertility clinics will just dump tons of fertilized embryos down the drain[1] and these so-called "pro-lifers" don't give a fuck; you don't see them picketing those clinics. I'll go on a limb and assume your body is incapable of becoming pregnant or you never had to personally deal with unwanted pregnancies where a lack of abortion access complicates the whole thing and is an extremely miserable experience for everyone involved, including that fetus that'll end up rotting in an adoption center. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 07:08, 8 December 2022 (UTC)