Anyone who knows me know I am very pro-life, so threads like this just piss me off :mad:

Liberals STILL suck at explaining why abortion should be legal.
You ready for a flamefest?

We're losing ground on the abortion issue, and that's in large part because when we speak about it we speak in dogmatic terms. There's no actual reasoning, only question-begging.

Why should abortion be legal? Because women have the right to choose.

That's not enough. You have to set out the reasoning for why women have abortion rights.


Take the Iraq War as an example. If someone asks you why we shouldn't have gone into Iraq, you can't just say "Because it was wrong." That's not a reason. It's begging the question. Instead, you say things like, "Because it's wrong to attack a country who hasn't attacked us, and we've killed hundreds of thousands of innocent people, distracted ourselves from rooting out Al Qaeda, wasted hundreds of billions, even trillions of dollars, destroyed the goodwill the world had for us after 9/11, etc." That's reasoning.

Now, believe it or not, you can reason your way to abortion rights. You don't have to limit yourself to yelling and shaking your fist and brute repetition of the desired conclusion itself. I'm not going to give reasoning here, lest I be accused of arrogance and chauvinism, but I will tell you that the way we've been going won't hold up and there is another way. Both sides of the issue have been relying on dogma to prop up their arguments for so long, and the religious side is winning due to their organization. Yes, if we're going to win we have to actually explain why we're right. And that's when we'll win, because dogma and the Bible is all the fascists have.
So I'm a facist for wanted an innocent child to have a chance at life? :mad:

BullGooseLoony (1000+ posts) Sat Jul-12-08 04:02 PM
Response to Reply #1
4. That's pretty much it if we elaborate a bit.
Edited on Sat Jul-12-08 04:03 PM by BullGooseLoony
The state can't force a person to allow a fetus to feed off of their body without violating their liberty interests. A woman has the right to stop that process at any time during pregnancy, for any reason. She doesn't even need a justification, at all- it's absolute.
You kind of have to attack the law itself, what would be done to stop abortion if they could get it passed. The state would be overstepping its authority.
What about violating the baby's liberty?

BullGooseLoony (1000+ posts) Sat Jul-12-08 04:16 PM
Response to Reply #2
15. The great thing about a proper pro-choice argument is that it takes personhood into account.
Whether the fetus is a person or not, it doesn't have the right to use someone else's body to sustain itself against that person's will.
Ridiculous! The baby has no say in the matter, why should they be deprived of life?

notadmblnd (1000+ posts) Sat Jul-12-08 04:54 PM
Response to Reply #26
28. as long as it lives and breaths out side of the womb, then IMO it has a right to live.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top

jody (1000+ posts) Sat Jul-12-08 04:57 PM
Response to Reply #28
29. "lives and breaths out side of the womb" with or without help? n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top

notadmblnd (1000+ posts) Sat Jul-12-08 05:02 PM
Response to Reply #29
31. without assistance. I would no more put a baby on life support than I would my aged mother.
WTF???

I couldn't even stomach reading the rest of the thread :mad:


http://www.democraticunderground.com...ss=389x3607209