I'm genuinely undecided on this issue from both a political and moral standpoint.

1. Political: I think the "right to privacy" is nonsense, constitutionally speaking. Convince me I'm wrong in thinking that the constitution neither prohibits nor guarantees a right to abortion please.

2. Moral: To be honest, I haven't gone beyond the obvious arguments. Would love to see some intelligent debate.

All I have to say about this is that "right to privacy" is an incredibly disingenuous term when used in this context IMO>

I think this is more accurate a criticism than "right to privacy isn't in the Constitution". I have no problem with Roe's combination of several amendments to show it, but, I think the 4th and the 9th Amendments are more than enough to argue for a right to privacy being protected.


However, if a fetus is considered an alive human, abortion has nothing to do with privacy. That'd be like killing your wife in your house and then going "oh, no its fine, I have a right to privacy."

But, I don't know how I feel about a fetus being considered an alive human. V conflicted on this issue. I do believe, though, that believing abortion can be stopped is like believing drug usage can be stopped.

No ****ing idea, but I think an arbitrary line based on "when could a foetus survive outside the womb" is the best we can do at the moment. I'm ready to be swayed on this one by either side.

I agree with the arbitrary line idea..... prolly 5-6 mos preggo. The militant opinions on each side will likely never let this happen, as both sides think giving an inch will end up with them giving a mile.

Walter Block On Abortion

It's long but I think it's a very interesting and compelling argument from a pro-property rights perspective.

How about the pragmatic argument that having more unwanted babies around is worse for society at large?

listening now

Worse by what metric?

Freakanomics imo

A larger population.

How is a larger population worse for society?

why not just kill people randomly, then?

The US government does some of that too.

I can't think of one societal problem that is solved by a larger population. The environment is worse, crime is worse, accountability of democratically elected officials is worse, etc...

Are there any studies that show larger unplanned families lead to the same or more desirable results than smaller planned families?

the problem i have is that arguements like "its my body i can do what i want" aren't accepted in most other discussions (self mutilation, drug use, assisted suicide, etc). i dont believe a woman's right to not be inconvenienced trumps a right to life. i think a lot of this changed when my daughter was born however, i never really cared before. i dont really like telling other people what they can do, but when it comes to another human i think its time to step in.

For me - something isnt alive until its born. Maybe 3rd trimester counts too. But 1st and 2nd trimester babies certainly arent alive. Abortion allows someone who doesnt want to have a baby get rid of it, which I think is extremely valueble to society. I think too many unwanted babies are born as it is, and they usually live terrible, poverty-stricken lives. I hate encouraging overpopulation, the Earth has enough people as it is (id prefer if it had about half as many actually!).

Obv im not religious, so I dont have any qualms there. So yeh, im very pro-choice.

"Environment" is nebulous. Some environmental metrics are tied to population but there are other factors that are more important, for instance the overall wealth of a nation. Wealthier nations and their citizens naturally demand a cleaner environment and allocate more of their income to effecting this. More people leads to a stronger, wealthier economy.

Crime is worse? Sure, only if you mean overall rates but I'd like to see research that says per capita rates increase with population.

Accountability of democratically elected officials isn't a quantifiable variable.

Why is it valuable to get rid of these "unwanted" babies, specifically? Because your sentiment is far from self-evident.

In what specific ways does the Earth have too much people?

overpopulation is definitely bad for society. Less resources to go around for all and more pollution. Also people's standards of livings go down when they get more crowded (things like traffic and parking come to mind) Its a no-brainer in my opinon.

The "unwanted" babies are bad because they live a poor miserable life (which they would be better off never living) and because the rest of society has to pay for them since their mother cant. And I for one dont think society really has that obligation (I feel the mother does). If the mother cant raise a child she needs to get an abortion and not shoulder the burden on society to raise her child. Having religious convictions about not aborting is not an excuse. She REALLY shouldnt have taken the chance of getting pregnant then, if its against her religion.

If the world actually worked like this taxes would be much much lower because welfare wouldnt be neccessary. And society would be much better with no welfare system and people just being responsible about having kids.

How do you go from "not alive till born" to "maybe third trimester counts too"? It's either "not alive until born" and you can abort just before the baby pops out, or, you admit that its not as black and white as 'born' or not.



I'm not saying I disagree with "not alive until born", by the way.


tomdemaine et al, what does the baby being able to live outside the womb have to do with anything? I think you're basis is that if it can't live on its own, then its just a parasite in the womb. But really, baby's can't live on their own when they get out of the womb, so they'd still be parasites.

Also, you claim that unborn babies aren't alive. What transformation occurs to that entity to make it a human being when it crosses the threshold of the mother's womb? To take it a step further, would it be okay to kill a premature baby moments after it has been born?

Some random comments:

1. First, I'm surprised this thread started off even close to a pro-life direction. I expected a heavy pro-choice bias.

2. Roe v. Wade was hyper judicial activism. Legally, it was the wrong decision. (of course, I'm no lawyer)

3. Overpopulation is not an issue. The United States ranks 178 out of 239 countries in population density. We've got massive amounts of space for growth.

4. I think watching old news clips like this is interesting.
Roe v. Wade reported by Walter Cronkite on CBS Evening News (1/22/73)

5. I thought this pro-life commercial was awesome
Life: Imagine the Potential

You first have to answer the question: why is murder bad? This is not a trivial question.