Whats the nonreligious anti-abortion argument

[jgh7]

I understand the religious arguments against abortion. It's basically something along the lines of God deeming a human life as sacred and a human life comes into existence at the moment of conception.

But whats the nonreligious argument against abortion? Is it pretty much the same thing? Actually, I'm going to horrify people even more and ask what the nonreligious argument is against killing a new born infant if one doesn't want to keep it.

I don't intend to paint myself as a monster, but just to understand the logic behind it. I will argue the side of it being no big deal just for the sake of making some sense behind my stance.

----My argument----

Most people don't think it a big deal for a sperm to die. Nor do they think it a big deal for a bug to be squished.

It's because these are lower life-forms that cant really think or recognize their existence, they live merely as a sort of pre-programmed entity. But I think science has equated a newborn baby to be very similar in that it merely has reflexes and pre-progammed instincts. Assuming it was carried out painlessly, what is wrong with killing this kind of lifeform?

Is the only response an appeal to emotion and outer appearances? The baby looks like a human, so it's horrible to kill it. In the same way it's horrible to kill cute animals rather than ugly animals. In the same way we rationalize it's no big deal to abort the fetus so long as it doesn't look like a human, but once it starts looking like a human it becomes bad to abort it, even though its level of thought is no different.

Or is there a more logical counterargument?

[shnarkle]

[Replying to post 29 by shnarkle]

I'm not the one who thinks abortion should be used anyways so what's the point of this exercise of yours? To see if I can come up with a dozen reasons? I did that. Your turn.

haha...well I am not either, so why are we debating if we hold the same position? :p

Because you claimed that I couldn't come up with five reasons for each, remember?

I made the post first, and then you argued against me with claims of more reasons which I believe I have proved was NOT more reasons, defending my argument.

You claimed that abortion was about terminating life, and slavery was about money. I pointed out that abortion was just as much about money as slavery was. You then agreed that abortion was about money as well. I mentioned in passing, that you had changed your position.

I have also pointed out that both slavery and abortion can have other reasons such as status, reputation, career goals, none of which necessarily have to have anything to do with money. People can be loaded with more money than the gods, and want power, status, etc.

You have presented "prevention" as an argument, which if it worked would be great. The fact is that too many people, for whatever reasons, are unable to make prevention work. We can't hand them condoms when they're already pregnant. So while I would agree that prevention is the way to go, it is only the way to go if we can insure the results will not end with pregnancy.

Therefore, my argument against abortion would be sterilization, or at the very least vasectomies, and tubal ligations. These procedures aren't cheap, but they are cheaper than the revolving door of repeat offenders who seem to thrive on getting abortions. I recently saw a woman with a sign at a protest that read: "I love abortions". People with this mentality NEED to be sterilized BEFORE they ever reach the age of reproduction IF they are unprepared financially to pay for their own procedures. I would go so far as to include even those who can afford to pay, but aren't making more than a few million a year. The working class is disappearing as well, and being subsumed into poverty so we need to get rid of them as well.

We're already having great success with infertility. Fifty years ago, you couldn't find more than one infertility clinic in any metropolitan area; now there are dozens. Diet, lifestyle, and environment all contribute to infertility which are reducing the need for abortions already. While there are no statistics for people who engage in sexual intercourse with no intent of getting pregnant, we can safely assume that a similar number of people exist with those who are aggressively seeking to get pregnant, but failing.

So infertility through all the various means is already having an impact on the reduced need for abortions; sterilization as well as vasectomies and tubal ligations are also having an impact. These are proven to be effective means of preventing pregnancies and therefore should be continued to be implemented to lessen the need for pointless and costly abortions.

[shnarkle]

[Replying to post 29 by shnarkle]



My point was simply to defend my argument and I believe I have done so

Your point was the prevention was the argument against abortion. I pointed out that there are a few hundred thousand people who, for whatever reason; aren't able to use preventative measures effectively, or just simply don't use them in preference of abortion. So, why I agree we should have these measures available for those who do have enough sense to use them, this doesn't address the few hundred thousand abortions we still have to perform each year in the US alone, on your and my dime. Prevention doesn't negate the soon to be dead baby in its mothers belly.

So you need another argument; one that is effective in preventing the necessity for a few hundred thousand abortions. I've presented three already that are proven effective.