my point miss P is that the pro-choice argument usually boils down to: because it's inconvenient. while they make much of the plight of women who are raped or very sick, the vast majority of abortions carried out in this country come down to a simple decision about what is most expedient. this seems like a profoundly solipsistic position.
I'm afraid you're wrong. Further, as evidenced from the kinds of responses you're receiving here, you can see that this kind of caricature is not much of a conversation starter -- much like the stereotyping that you (however inaccurately) tried to pin on Piggy and the snide remarks on hunting about which you gave Sax such a hard time.
I try to understand how it would feel to believe that fetuses are actually very little people, and I do think abortion would seem depraved If I believed that. Now it's your turn to think about the difficult position women are in when they are faced with an unexpected or unwanted pregnancy -- and the consequences for children who may be born to parents (more often just mothers) who are ill-equipped to provide for them. More often than not, the choice to terminate a pregnancy is the product of a reasoned judgment about whether it is responsible for a (young/poor/uneducated/in school/single/unhealthy/etc.) woman to try to rear a child. Like you, the people who think women are in the best position to make that judgment also believe they are honoring life, by thinking about the kinds of lives they want for children, about the importance of nurturing and strong families, etc. When you claim that this important choice is a matter of mere convenience, you show how little you understand your opposition. You also demean mothers, as if the tremendous work they do to bring children into the world and nurture them to independence is a mere "inconvenience," and not a whole life-changing tangle of burden and loss. (Not that motherhood is only a burden, as I understand that it can be incredibly rewarding for women who are prepared for it.)
Also, while you are correct that rape and maternal death are extreme examples, your opposition of those "excusable abortions" on the one hand to "convenience abortions" on the other is facile. For one, leaving rape to the side, women -- even those in long-term relationships -- do not always have perfect control over the kind of birth control their partners use or when they have sex. I, for one, have never slept with a man who didn't at one point try to have intercourse without a condom, sometimes resorting to trickery to make it happen (and I am a leftist former AIDS activist who tends to date people a lot like myself). If you think that younger, less savvy and confident women always negotiate the terms of the sex they have to their complete satisfaction and knowledge, please send me your bank account number so I can deposit my Nigerian friend's treasure there. Moreover, while death of the mother is an extreme outcome for pregnancy, there are lots of pregnancy-related health problems (e.g., perinatal diabetes, pre-eclampsia) that make carrying a baby to term a very difficult choice for some women (e.g., those who are obese, older, hypertensive). Finally, a lot of women who may believe their partners are ready for parenthood (and act accordingly in the bedroom) find themselves alone when they learn they are pregnant.
I could say much more about all of this, but I don't really see the point of discussing abortion here in this thread. I think I'll stop here.
ETA: I agree with archival about the rest (and about what your rape exception means in particular).
as law students/lawyers we all know that in the unlikely event Roe v. Wade (which is built upon a really crappy argument, i think even rabidly pro-choice people concede this) is overturned, abortion will not suddenly become illegal in the U.S. this is 100% fear-mongering.
It certainly is not. We all know that abortion would become illegal almost immediately in some states. South Dakota, Nebraska, Utah . . .
P, if you do not think that fetuses are little people then why all the arguments? Why all the fuss about women being burdened, or left with the consequences of a mistake, or letting a baby suffer by being reared by unfit parents and so on?
If you believe it is not a human person, no argument is needed on you part.
Simply say that you do not believe it is a person and any belief to the contrary is mistaken and here is why it is not a person......
If you have a mole growing on you, or a cyst, or some other piece of unwanted tissue, you get it cut out or removed. No argument is needed and it would seem silly to offer one.
If someone were to tell you that the tumor is a really a little person and that you should keep it on your body- I hope you would respond with the fact that it is indeed just a tumor and that the guy is crazy.
But wouldn't it be odd if you actually tried to justify your decision to remove the tumor by appealing to arguments that tried to show how the tumor is a burden to you, or that "every mole should be a wanted mole" or something like this?
With Abortion there is only one question........What is it?If it is not a person no reason is needed.
If it is a person no reason is justified.
The fact that you say that you do not believe a fetus is a little person combined with the fact that you offer many reasons to justify the abortion of the fetus tells me that perhaps you yourself are unsure. You say it is not a person, but you feel the need to justify the abortion- giving details of hardship that the woman would face if forced to keep the pregnancy.
No justification is needed. Tell them it is not a person and why, and that all you need.