I will try to summarize the arguments I hear from the pro-choice side. Note that this is about abortion-at-will, not about abortion to save a life (when the mother is in an unhealthy pregnancy).
Undervalue
This is simply believing that human lives a mere biological instance and don't have intrinsic value. While it is a rare argument that is openly put forward by pro-choice, in my opinion it is the most consistent and powerful argument they have. And it lies underneath most of their common arguments.
The reason they don't make that argument is that they know it would invalidate all arguments about human rights (including the rights they claim to defend).
When it is put forward though, you would have to go beyond politics and enter the religious/moral world to discuss this. But ultimately, you cannot convince someone to value anything, and if they decide to reject the value of human lives, discussions are likely a lost cause. Only pray, preach, and vote. Always be peaceful.
Dehumanize
Many pro-choicers claim fetuses are either not humans at all, or not humans enough. It is an unfortunate feature of humanity - believing those who do not look like us are not as human as we are.
It can come in the form of acknowledging fetuses as humans but with no rights to exist in the womb, or simply denying that fetuses are humans. Obviously fetuses are biologically humans, so it should be easy to refute arguments that deny that - just point to a biology book. Here are some of the arguments I see often:
- "Fetuses aren't humans. They are just clumps of cells" - Not much to say about this one. If two humans reproduce, their offspring is by definition a human. And all humans are clumps of cells.
- "Fetuses are humans but parasites" - While not many pro-choicers like saying this, it is how the pro-choice ideology treats fetuses. This indicates that because a fetus is living inside its mother
- "Life starts at birth" - Birth doesn't add anything to the fetus' life... it just makes it independent. This goes back to believing only independent humans can be valued and considering other humans as parasites.
- "A fetus has no right to the uterus" - This can be a bit difficult to understand if a generation has lost its sense for rights and responsibilities. Yes, a fetus doesn't own the uterus. However has a right to remain alive in the uterus because it was brought into it by the contribution of two humans. They bear responsibility to keep it alive.
- "Exceptions for rape and incest" - I believe the only legitimate discussion in regards to abortion is the cases of rape. Even then we shouldn't question the humanity of the fetus, but we can discuss who should be held accountable for the rape, the pregnancy and the abortion (if it takes place). Incest isn't a valid reason to evade the responsibility of keeping the child alive.
- "Not a [person or other labels]" - The labels could be "person", "baby", "child", etc. This is more of a way to create a class of humans by using arbitrary label. Ok, if the definition of that specific work doesn't include fetuses, so be it. But arbitrary labels should not matter when we discuss about human rights.
In general, while there is a legitimate discussion in cases of rape, under no circumstance is the fetus not a human or less of a human. Therefore, a fetus has inalienable human rights, including the right to remain alive.
Manipulate
Where should I start? In my experience in debating/discussing abortion, the unfortunate reality was that far too many arguments settle for manipulation instead of logical reasoning.
Politics has always been full of lies, so it's not surprising to see so many bad arguments packaged nicely and influencing the public opinion. But most of it is not even difficult to refute.
Some of these arguments, I admit, take more work, patience and knowing the root of the narrative and the hidden agenda behind them. I have my own thoughts of why people argue a certain way and what the narratives they use can cause in the long term. But that's a separate topic.
It's difficult to list these arguments but here are a few:
- "Pro-lifers don't care about humans after they are born" - While this is obviously false, the proper response should be that it's irrelevant. The only group of humans who are currently legally killed while innocent are fetuses. Framing this as if pro-lifers care only about fetuses is one manipulation that pro-choicers use often.
- "Pro-lifers shouldn't support the death penalty" - The death penalty can be discussed, but the subtle fallacy here is false equivalence between killing someone while innocent vs. after conviction of crime. You will hear arguments about false convictions... as if pro-lifers are OK with killing humans who are falsely convicted. It takes patience to untangle all these fallacies and refute them.
- "Being pro-life should mean approving universal healthcare" - Again while healthcare, taxes and other financial policies can be a discussion, having an opinion on the economic policies does not imply what you think about actually killing a human while innocent.
- "Pro-lifers simply want to subjugate women" - This comes from the perspective of thinking natural feminine features like pregnancy and motherhood as inferior to masculinity. It is an important part of convincing girls and women that to be a fulfilled human, they should be able to call shots on the life of their unborn child. But simply, it's false. Holding people accountable for killing a life has nothing to do with subjugating them.
- "Pregnancy is a medical emergency" - Going back to considering natural femininity to be inferior, this argument often rears its head when discussing the exception a medical emergency. They say all pregnancy is a medical emergency in an effort to justify abortion.
- "It can't be murder if it's legal" - This is one disturbing argument I sometimes hear. Mentioning the Holocaust should suffice. If the debate goes beyond that it's probably a lost cause.
- "No uterus, no opinion!" that's not how any system of governance works. It should be about merit, not which body parts you happen to have.
- "Banning abortion increases unsafe abortions" - This isn't false (while I am not sure about the numbers, I give it the benefit of the doubt). But it doesn't mean anything. All banning of crime is bound to increase risk for those who want to do it. People should be expected to follow the law, they shouldn't complain about bad things happening to them because they were obsessed with illegally killing their own child.
- "Banning abortions won't stop abortions" - Obviously. The law is in place to set a standard, and hold people accountable by that standard. All crimes that currently take place are not taking place because they are legal but because people refuse to adhere to the law.
- "Don't force your religion on me" - This isn't always manipulative, as some pro-lifers make the mistake of using their religious beliefs as the reason they oppose abortion legally. But mostly people are programmed with the narrative that Christians are the enemy (which is an important topic to address in the Western politics in general) and even when pro-lifers mention that religion is not the reason they oppose abortion, the response is emotionally directed towards the religion.
- "The Bible approves abortion" - This is tied to the narrative that Christians are always behind opposing abortion for religious reasons. The effort here is to manipulate them into becoming pro-abortion because the bible is supposedly cool with it. I won't go into whether the claim is true or false, but it's interesting that most people who say this are against using the bible as the foundation of legal discussions.
- "Don't want an abortion? Don't have one!" - This is like saying "don't want rape? Don't commit it!" trying to sway people away from legally banning a violation of human rights. No, some acts should be legally banned and are beyond personal preference.
- "Pro-lifers shouldn't eat meat" - This is simply a result of seeing human life as equally valuable as animals. Not many pro-choicers say this, but I believe they don't see a problem with the argument because devaluing human life without directly saying it is convenient for pro-choicers.
- "Pro-lifers should be against gun ownership" - This argument usually comes after some mass shooting tragedy. It's an emotional manipulation used by politicians to justify confiscation of guns, which is not only unconstitutional, but clearly against the human right of self defense. It's another version of trying to convince pro-lifers to support unrelated issues using the word "life".
There are many others obviously, and I might add as remember, but these are the usual horrible arguments I see repeatedly.
The pro-life response isn't alway good, unfortunately. Some pro-life politicians have said things that I think empower the pro-choice accusations. We should always remain logical (always check if your own logic is sound first),
Abortion is the heart and mind issue of our time so the responses should be focused, refined and patient as well. And, again, peaceful.
I will try to summarize the arguments I hear from the pro-choice side. Note that this is about abortion-at-will, not about abortion to save a life (when the mother is in an unhealthy pregnancy).
Undervalue
This is simply believing that human lives a mere biological instance and don't have intrinsic value. While it is a rare argument that is openly put forward by pro-choice, in my opinion it is the most consistent and powerful argument they have. And it lies underneath most of their common arguments.
The reason they don't make that argument is that they know it would invalidate all arguments about human rights (including the rights they claim to defend).
When it is put forward though, you would have to go beyond politics and enter the religious/moral world to discuss this. But ultimately, you cannot convince someone to value anything, and if they decide to reject the value of human lives, discussions are likely a lost cause. Only pray, preach, and vote. Always be peaceful.
Dehumanize
Many pro-choicers claim fetuses are either not humans at all, or not humans enough. It is an unfortunate feature of humanity - believing those who do not look like us are not as human as we are.
It can come in the form of acknowledging fetuses as humans but with no rights to exist in the womb, or simply denying that fetuses are humans. Obviously fetuses are biologically humans, so it should be easy to refute arguments that deny that - just point to a biology book. Here are some of the arguments I see often:
- "Fetuses aren't humans. They are just clumps of cells" - Not much to say about this one. If two humans reproduce, their offspring is by definition a human. And all humans are clumps of cells.
- "Fetuses are humans but parasites" - While not many pro-choicers like saying this, it is how the pro-choice ideology treats fetuses. This indicates that because a fetus is living inside its mother
- "Life starts at birth" - Birth doesn't add anything to the fetus' life... it just makes it independent. This goes back to believing only independent humans can be valued and considering other humans as parasites.
- "A fetus has no right to the uterus" - This can be a bit difficult to understand if a generation has lost its sense for rights and responsibilities. Yes, a fetus doesn't own the uterus. However has a right to remain alive in the uterus because it was brought into it by the contribution of two humans. They bear responsibility to keep it alive.
- "Exceptions for rape and incest" - I believe the only legitimate discussion in regards to abortion is the cases of rape. Even then we shouldn't question the humanity of the fetus, but we can discuss who should be held accountable for the rape, the pregnancy and the abortion (if it takes place). Incest isn't a valid reason to evade the responsibility of keeping the child alive.
- "Not a [person or other labels]" - The labels could be "person", "baby", "child", etc. This is more of a way to create a class of humans by using arbitrary label. Ok, if the definition of that specific work doesn't include fetuses, so be it. But arbitrary labels should not matter when we discuss about human rights.
In general, while there is a legitimate discussion in cases of rape, under no circumstance is the fetus not a human or less of a human. Therefore, a fetus has inalienable human rights, including the right to remain alive.
Manipulate
Where should I start? In my experience in debating/discussing abortion, the unfortunate reality was that far too many arguments settle for manipulation instead of logical reasoning.
Politics has always been full of lies, so it's not surprising to see so many bad arguments packaged nicely and influencing the public opinion. But most of it is not even difficult to refute.
Some of these arguments, I admit, take more work, patience and knowing the root of the narrative and the hidden agenda behind them. I have my own thoughts of why people argue a certain way and what the narratives they use can cause in the long term. But that's a separate topic.
It's difficult to list these arguments but here are a few:
- "Pro-lifers don't care about humans after they are born" - While this is obviously false, the proper response should be that it's irrelevant. The only group of humans who are currently legally killed while innocent are fetuses. Framing this as if pro-lifers care only about fetuses is one manipulation that pro-choicers use often.
- "Pro-lifers shouldn't support the death penalty" - The death penalty can be discussed, but the subtle fallacy here is false equivalence between killing someone while innocent vs. after conviction of crime. You will hear arguments about false convictions... as if pro-lifers are OK with killing humans who are falsely convicted. It takes patience to untangle all these fallacies and refute them.
- "Being pro-life should mean approving universal healthcare" - Again while healthcare, taxes and other financial policies can be a discussion, having an opinion on the economic policies does not imply what you think about actually killing a human while innocent.
- "Pro-lifers simply want to subjugate women" - This comes from the perspective of thinking natural feminine features like pregnancy and motherhood as inferior to masculinity. It is an important part of convincing girls and women that to be a fulfilled human, they should be able to call shots on the life of their unborn child. But simply, it's false. Holding people accountable for killing a life has nothing to do with subjugating them.
- "Pregnancy is a medical emergency" - Going back to considering natural femininity to be inferior, this argument often rears its head when discussing the exception a medical emergency. They say all pregnancy is a medical emergency in an effort to justify abortion.
- "It can't be murder if it's legal" - This is one disturbing argument I sometimes hear. Mentioning the Holocaust should suffice. If the debate goes beyond that it's probably a lost cause.
- "No uterus, no opinion!" - An empty slogan. Not many pro-choicers say this though and most of them actually publicly oppose it.
- "Banning abortion increases unsafe abortions" - This isn't false (while I am not sure about the numbers, I give it the benefit of the doubt). But it doesn't mean anything. All banning of crime is bound to increase risk for those who want to do it. For example, sex with underage people is (and should be) illegal, but people find risky alternatives to do it. Hopefully no one argues to legalize it to make it safe.
- "Banning abortions won't stop abortions" - Obviously. The law is in place to set a standard, and hold people accountable by that standard. All crimes that currently take place are not taking place because they are legal but because people refuse to adhere to the law.
- "Don't force your religion on me" - This isn't always manipulative, as some pro-lifers make the mistake of using their religious beliefs as the reason they oppose abortion legally. But mostly people are programmed with the narrative that Christians are the enemy (which is an important topic to address in the Western politics in general) and even when pro-lifers mention that religion is not the reason they oppose abortion, the response is emotionally directed towards the religion.
- "The Bible approves abortion" - This is tied to the narrative that Christians are always behind opposing abortion for religious reasons. The effort here is to manipulate them into becoming pro-abortion because the bible is supposedly cool with it. I won't go into whether the claim is true or false, but it's interesting that most people who say this are against using the bible as the foundation of legal discussions.
- "Don't want an abortion? Don't have one!" - This is like saying "don't want rape? Don't commit it!" trying to sway people away from legally banning a violation of human rights. No, some acts should be legally banned and are beyond personal preference.
- "Pro-lifers shouldn't eat meat" - This is simply a result of seeing human life as equally valuable as animals. Not many pro-choicers say this, but I believe they don't see a problem with the argument because devaluing human life without directly saying it is convenient for pro-choicers.
- "Pro-lifers should be against gun ownership" - This argument usually comes after some mass shooting tragedy. It's an emotional manipulation used by politicians to justify confiscation of guns, which is not only unconstitutional, but clearly against the human right of self defense. It's another version of trying to convince pro-lifers to support unrelated issues using the word "life".
There are many others obviously, and I might add as remember, but these are the usual horrible arguments I see repeatedly.
The pro-life response isn't alway good, unfortunately. Some pro-life politicians have said things that I think empower the pro-choice accusations. We should always remain logical (always check if your own logic is sound first),
Abortion is the heart and mind issue of our time so the responses should be focused, refined and patient as well. And, again, peaceful.