This Slate Abortion Article is Full of Interesting

Slate Article

1. Abortion Generally.

quote:

---

fact any woman who’s reading this piece and has had an abortion, or any man who has supported one, should go in the comments section and do the same thing, until there are so many accounts that the statement loses its shock value.

---

since we can't win based on our ideas, we will just speak more loudly than others to "win" the argument

opposing viewpoints have no place in their version of society. you either get in line, get prosecuted, or get drowned out

quote:

---

The reason we’re not, according to Pollitt, is that we have all essentially been brainwashed by a small minority of pro-life activists. Only 7 to 20 percent of Americans tell pollsters they want to totally ban abortion, but that loud minority has beaten the rest of us into submission with their fetus posters and their absolutism and their infiltration of American politics.

---

oh so it's OK for you to do this, but if the other side does it, then there is a problem? that's fresh (and ironic considering the next arguments)

quote:

---

They are making a reasonable and even admirable decision that they can’t raise a child at the moment. Is that so hard to say?

---

at what point do these people have to bear responsibility for their actions? having and raising children is literally one of the most fundamental aspects of being human. and having and raising children is not some secret formula or magic. if you want to avoid children, then you should avoid having sexual intercourse.

i'm pro-choice in terms of government policy, but i believe abortion is clearly morally wrong. that's where the discussion should begin

we can ignore the biological-philosophical debate about when "life" begins (the murder debate) and establish that abortion = immoral

2. The "Hypocrisy" of the Conservative View.

people among a variety of related groups (liberals, progressives, SJWs, etc...we will call them...believers) love to point out how their views are correct because they are so nuanced. this, ironically, allows them to even shed generic labels.

so what happens when people on the opposing side display a nuanced view? it's hypocrisy

quote:

---

Pollitt spends significant energy dissecting the pro-life side’s contradictions. This largely involves explaining how the concept of personhood, when applied to a fetus, makes very little sense. She cites one poll for example showing that 38 percent of people say abortion is as “bad as killing a person already born.” But in the same poll 84 percent say it’s fine to save the life of a mother. If you really think about it, this position is untenable.

---

from a purely logic standpoint, this is true. i have called this something similar to the Akin problem, because this exact argument is what led him to make his fricktarded comments in 2012. however, the only true hypocrisy is that of the true believers rejecting a nuanced view. a "nuanced" view means you reject hard and fast rules to have a shifting set of policy preferences/decisions. those positions, too, are untenable.

similarly, this is exactly why, so many americans still believe in absolute rejection of abortion.

3. Feminist Argument that Ignores Biology.

the author, as well as most pro-abortionists, reject biology because it is inherently unfair. as the article states:

quote:

---

Pollitt tests the logic of this position in many ways. She uses the simple principle advocated by U.K. feminist writer Caitlin Moran: “And are the men doing this, as well?” The answer there is, of course not. We would never expect a man to drop everything and accept a life of “dimmed hope” because of a single ejaculation.

---

this is not expected, nor has it been expected of male humans since we first emerged on earth. this is a reason why we evolved. this is a biological fact and a fundamental backbone of why humans evolved the way we have. in terms of economics, sex is much more expensive to women than it is to men.

instead of molding behavior and policy to account for these biological differences, the true believers ignore science

quote:

---

If the pro-choice side wants to get some moral ground back, it could advocate for a more equal kind of family planning. Right now, college educated women have babies when they are ready. They wait until they have a degree and they are usually married. Poor women, meanwhile, are what Isabel Sawhill, in her new book Generation Unbound, calls “drifters,” meaning they drift into parenthood without thinking about it that much. The result, argues Sawhill, is a new generation of women who are struggling and children who are growing up in poverty.

---

again, we ignore reality. if you make poor/risy decisions, the effects of those decisions should be born by that person...again ignoring reality

quote:

---

Several years after I had the abortion, I had a third child. Part of me thinks the shadow aborted child stayed with me and created a space for the last one to be born.

---

i don't even need to comment on this nonsense. if the author is religious, then she will be going to an assorted hell for her behavior. if the author rejects religion for science (as i expect her to do), then she's just talking like a crazy person

in total, this article sums up the glaring hypocrisies and immorality of the stance of the modern liberal/progressive re: abortion

and before i get called "right wing", remember that i am pro choice in terms of government policy and, for the ignorant true believers reading this OP, this is a hotly debated topic in the libertarian movement.