If that's the case, then lets say a woman is pregnant and there is a 45% chance the woman dies without an abortion.Should she be allowed to get an abortion?I don't know how a pro lifer can answer no to that.
They should just change their name to, "Pro Zygote" if they are willing to give a woman a 45% chance at death to save a zygote. If someone is anti cancer, then we don't call them "Pro life", we call them, "anti cancer" because it's the type of life that matters (whether cancer patients or zygotes).
My girlfriend's daughter had a very difficult pregnancy with preeclampsia and hypertension. The doctors said she wouldn't survive a full term delivery. She delivered a preemie at around 7 months old. I held her last month, it was a beautiful little girl with wide eyes. So tiny, so incredible.Abortion isn't the only option.
Emotional story about a pregnancy that doesn't work on me because I don't care about emotions with legal policy; only logic and morality. This argument being used to justify abortion legalization due to fetal defects.Then making the, "Abortion isn't the only option" argument that everyone believes in; the left believes it should be an option whereas the right does not believe abortion should be any option.
They could use a pretty basic utilitarian framework for that. Assume that if the mother dies, the child will die as well. On utilitarianism, a 55% chance of two people surviving is preferable to a 100% chance of one person surviving.
"Pro-life" is referring to the lives of diploid human organisms, not human cells. Maybe that's a vague label, but so is "pro-choice."
And this belief would probably turn off virtually every pro life women from the pro life ideology
Raising a child or paying child support may have a 0.001% of causing one's death indirectly, but few people would say that child abandonment shouldn't be a crime.
Maybe some of them, but I think most pro-life women would have a cutoff somewhere above 0%.
There exists other options to save a mother's life that isn't abortion.
You can set an infant up for adoption; you can't do that with a fetus.
Wherever they draw the line (if it's not at 0%, 50%, or 100%) is totally arbitrary. Lets say they place it at 5%. Why there? Why not 6% or 4%?
There's also a non zero risk for a mother to survive working at a job to feed her children, yet the state mandates that every mother provide for their children, regardless.
Well you might have a 0.0001% chance of dying in a car accident on the way to the adoption agency. Plus child support is not optional.
Because having a line somewhere is necessary for feasibility. Why is the voting age 18? Why not 17 or 19?
What is needed is a common sense approach to the issue of abortion.
Abortion should be legal only for saving a mother's life.
How do you know?
Premise 1: Abortion should be legal at least if the pregnancy is a risk to the mother’s life.
Premise 2: Every single pregnancy is a risk to the mother’s life (even if the risk of death is .0001%).
Conclusion 1: Because every pregnancy is a risk to the mother’s life, abortion should be unconditionally legal all the way until the moment of birth.
Please tell me where my logic is wrong if you disagree with my conclusion.
Define common sense.
