A feminist girl says no: http://skepchick.org/2014/03/is-there-a ... -abortion/

I say she doesn't have a clue what she's talking about.

Another feminist says yes:
http://infidels.org/library/modern/deba ... /abortion/

While we don't need to agree with Roth, I see no glaring error in her argument that makes it not worth considering and debating. The sort of rigid and adversarial position of the first author can easily be flipped around on her. Someone can just declare that there are no secular arguments for abortion rooted in good logic, or some other nonsense.

There are secular arguments against abortion, but that doesn't mean there are any good ones. 'I don't like it because it's icky, therefore it should be banned' is a perfectly valid argument against abortion, but it's a shit one.

As for Roth's argument, it's pretty crap. Aside from the argumentum ad populum (which I only point out; I don't suggest her argument relies on it), she's attaching a magical significance to 'personhood', a term which she hasn't sufficiently constructed. I also disagree with her definition of it as it stands, and she'd have to do a lot more work to support it. As it is, though, it all rests on a blind assertion about what constitutes a person, and assumes that personhood should be the defining point, another blind assertion.

With a bit of work, it's possible that it could be knocked into shape as a reasonable secular argument against abortion, but it isn't it yet, and I'm not convinced a compelling argument can be made from this starting point, and that's all it is, at best.

hackenslash wrote:There are secular arguments against abortion, but that doesn't mean there are any good ones. 'I don't like it because it's icky, therefore it should be banned' is a perfectly valid argument against abortion, but it's a shit one.

As for Roth's argument, it's pretty crap. Aside from the argumentum ad populum (which I only point out; I don't suggest her argument relies on it), she's attaching a magical significance to 'personhood', a term which she hasn't sufficiently constructed. I also disagree with her definition of it as it stands, and she'd have to do a lot more work to support it. As it is, though, it all rests on a blind assertion about what constitutes a person, and assumes that personhood should be the defining point, another blind assertion.

With a bit of work, it's possible that it could be knocked into shape as a reasonable secular argument against abortion, but it isn't it yet, and I'm not convinced a compelling argument can be made from this starting point, and that's all it is, at best.

Personhood arguments fall to bodily autonomy arguments in any case.

Agreed. She does start an argument against that in the second section, but I was getting bored, and then she requested a brief semantic digression and tried to smuggle in a justification for using the term 'child', ostensibly 'to denote the human being in utero', a transparent tactic that somebody not used to dealing with the dishonesty of religious apologists might miss (which might explain why the mighty intellect of Mick didn't spot it, as he doesn't have to deal with it). It's exactly like the old 'I define god as the universe; here is a load of evidence that the universe exists, therefore god exists and, by the way, I'm a baptist' shite that gets erected all too often. She's sneaking in emotional language.

We already have a perfectly serviceable term for a human in utero, namely foetus.

Thin, Very thin.

Mick wrote:A feminist girl says no: http://skepchick.org/2014/03/is-there-a ... -abortion/

I say she doesn't have a clue what she's talking about.

Another feminist says yes:

Wow...

In 3 lines you answered your own question.

Yes.

/thread

I think the secular arguments against abortion, for the most part, hover around when abortion should become illegal rather than if. It's kinda hard to argue for the life of a clump of cells without deluding the fuck out of yourself first.

hackenslash wrote:There are secular arguments against abortion, but that doesn't mean there are any good ones. 'I don't like it because it's icky, therefore it should be banned' is a perfectly valid argument against abortion, but it's a shit one.

The pro-choice argument often boils down to "I think pregnancy is icky". Just listen to pro-choicers, and invariably, at some point, pregnancy will be presented as if it is some kind of disease, an injustice to women, or even a borderline cancer.

michael^3 wrote:

hackenslash wrote:There are secular arguments against abortion, but that doesn't mean there are any good ones. 'I don't like it because it's icky, therefore it should be banned' is a perfectly valid argument against abortion, but it's a shit one.

The pro-choice argument often boils down to "I think pregnancy is icky". Just listen to pro-choicers, and invariably, at some point, pregnancy will be presented as if it is some kind of disease, an injustice to women, or even a borderline cancer.

That's how pro-choice arguments sound to you? Wow, there's an insight into confirmation bias if there ever was one.

double post - ignore

CdesignProponentsist wrote:I think the secular arguments against abortion, for the most part, hover around when abortion should become illegal rather than if. It's kinda hard to argue for the life of a clump of cells without deluding the fuck out of yourself first.

Exactly. This isn't an absolute. There's a world of difference between an abortion in the first week of pregnancy, and an abortion in the ninth month of pregnancy. Roe v. Wade was limited to the first trimester, & later evolved into viability.

The difference between the secular and religious approach to abortion lies in the grounds used: secular ethics focuses on empirical things like the fetus' neural development; religion makes reference to 'em, but behind it lies the supernatural. To the devout, that clump of cells has a soul, so abortion is murder, end of debate. You can't reason with that position.

OlivierK wrote:That's how pro-choice arguments sound to you? Wow, there's an insight into confirmation bias if there ever was one.

the other pro-choice argument you can always read between the lines is that we are entitled to our 15 minutes of fun, and damn the consequences.

Oh my.

michael^3 wrote:

hackenslash wrote:There are secular arguments against abortion, but that doesn't mean there are any good ones. 'I don't like it because it's icky, therefore it should be banned' is a perfectly valid argument against abortion, but it's a shit one.

The pro-choice argument often boils down to "I think pregnancy is icky". Just listen to pro-choicers, and invariably, at some point, pregnancy will be presented as if it is some kind of disease, an injustice to women, or even a borderline cancer.

Yes of course. That is the major argument for pro-choice. Almost no pro-choicers make any argument for abortion on the basis of the physical or mental health of the enforced mother, her age, her educational status, her economic status, her marital or domestic situation, her earnings capability, the life chances of the enforced born, the statistics on single parents and poverty, and so on and so on and so on. No, all it boils down to is "pregnancy is icky". How silly of us not to have realised this. Thank you for that insightful and brilliantly reasoned contribution.

michael^3 wrote:The pro-choice argument often boils down to "I think pregnancy is icky". Just listen to pro-choicers, and invariably, at some point, pregnancy will be presented as if it is some kind of disease, an injustice to women, or even a borderline cancer.

What the fuck are you blathering about? I never came across a pro-choice argument that was even remotely like that. Sounds like something you pulled out of your arse.

michael^3 wrote:

OlivierK wrote:That's how pro-choice arguments sound to you? Wow, there's an insight into confirmation bias if there ever was one.

the other pro-choice argument you can always read between the lines is that we are entitled to our 15 minutes of fun, and damn the consequences.

And again.

michael^3 wrote:

OlivierK wrote:That's how pro-choice arguments sound to you? Wow, there's an insight into confirmation bias if there ever was one.

the other pro-choice argument you can always read between the lines is that we are entitled to our 15 minutes of fun, and damn the consequences.

What a revolting lie. If that is where christian morals lead, we are better off without.

Yeah, I love the admission that that's never in pro-choice arguments, but something read into them ("between the lines") by people with an agenda.

Just to remind people there are pro-abortion people out there ie me(not just pro choice). Main problem with abortion in society is there arent enough of them.

Abortion (at least relatively to having an unwanted kid) is a morally very good thing to do

The secular argument starts with the reason for aborting. It isn't a black white issue even then, and might end up as a decision the state will assist or the state will not assist with the costs and staff.

I kind of like the way I informed that Jewish law used to regard pregnancy. Until born the child was no more than a limb of the mother and had no more rights than an arm or leg. An interesting place to start from?

mrjonno wrote:Just to remind people there are pro-abortion people out there ie me(not just pro choice). Main problem with abortion in society is there arent enough of them.

Abortion (at least relatively to having an unwanted kid) is a morally very good thing to do

I wrote my post below with that in mind. So you get a woman/man wanting the abortion purely because the foetus will be a girl and they only want boys because of culture/religion. In my scenario the state will not fund that.