Hey all! Been stalking around here for a while, reading all the great posts. Finally have another one of my own.
I am pro choice all the way. My dad is a fanatical pro lifer. We were texting today about how Trump is trying to repeal Obama care and overturn Roe v Wade. My dad made some points against abortion that I really don't know how to counter. Here's what he said, verbatim.
"By the way...there's no such thing as free healthcare or any other kind of free benefit. It's just about who can muster the political clout to take one person's property to give it to another person or group. You know that and I know that. I'm getting ready to collect social security paid by you so I can sit around and loaf during my declining years. Us old folks vote consistently so there's really nothing you can do about that. That of course isn't fair to you but then we aren't really talking about fairness but power. As a side issue, the millions of children of your generation murdered in the abortion clinics since Roe v Wade are not voting with your generation to make the social security system more fair to you.Think about it...my generation of baby boomers have killed millions of your generation who would vote for your generation's welfare thus making the social safety net weaker and unsustainable. You should really hate us for "protecting our women's reproductive rights" during our child bearing years which makes your future uncertain at best."
In a way he has a point about reducing the number of voters in my generation, and thats where im stuck. How do I counter his points logically?
Subscription Note:
Choosing to subscribe to this topic will automatically register you for email notifications for comments and updates on this thread.
Email notifications will be sent out daily by default unless specified otherwise on your account which you can edit by going to your userpage here and clicking on the subscriptions tab.
That is what governments do. How does he think the police, fire department, and the military get funded? They are paid for by taking money from one person and giving it to another. The real argument is what is important enough for the government to do this (and that is where there is room for differences of opinion). The notion that this behavior is somehow fundamentally wrong is only spouted by lunatics, and perhaps cavemen.
As far as abortion goes; the most fundamental right, is the right to ownership of your own body. Without that right you are a slave.
Regarding abortion, it is very simple for me. It is the woman's body. She should be able to do whatever she damn well pleases with it.
California Girl, the idea of might makes right is - well - wrong. Right, is what makes right. To counter his arguments, just think of all the issues which were once held to be right, by the might of those who held the views. In the U.S. slavery was once a "normal" practice, at least it was accepted by a huge number of people. Nowadays, it is condemned. It should have been condemned before, but might seemed to make it right. By might, I mean that a majority of people were OK with it.
To engage with your Dad, pick an issue where he'd agree that PAST might-making-right, is NOW, and NEVER WAS valid.
The issue of abortion should be argued on much better grounds than might makes right, which seems to me to be a thuggish, bullying approach. Maybe your Dad simply doesn't like thinking too hard. It seems like you do think more carefully, Cal Gal, and I'd commend for it.
If the issue of anti-abortion is supposed to be helped by the idea of the number of people now not born, who might have been on your side, Cal Gal, it's a damnably pathetic line of argument. It simply stresses the might makes right aspect. Furthermore, what about the mass murderers, lunatics and so who were not born due to their being aborted ? Surely some such potential has been averted ? ? ? I hate such a kind of argument, it is so brutish.
Mutorc.
@Mutorc S'yriah
I thought it was a pretty interesting line of thought regarding the demographics. I remember reading somewhere, that part of the decline in crime over the last 20 years or so, can be explained by people in bad situations getting abortions instead of rising their kids in poverty, which would have lead to more crime, had they been born.
@California Girl
Your father's argument doesn't seem to be about abortion per se, but about how to get policy enacted. That is a seperate argument from whether or not abortion is morally permittable.
When dealing with arguments, I find it is best to try to formalize it and explicate the implicit premises and conclusions of it, so you can see what you disagree with. For the sake of the following, I will assume you are a millenial. I guess you could construe your father's argument as:
Explicit premise 1. Abortion has killed millions of millenials
Explicit premise 2. Millenials want better universal healthcare
Implicit premise 3. Boomers don't want universal healthcare
Implicit premise 4. In a democracy numbers mean more political power for groups
Explicit premise 4.1. Millenials have less political power than boomers
Implicit conclusion C: Millenials should oppose abortion, in order to gain more numbers, to get universal healthcare in a democratic society
Not sure if that is totally in line with the principle of charity, but that's the best I could do. One way to tackle this would be to point out the non sequiter that I'd say exists in premise 1. The aborted millenials do not exist anymore, by virtue of being dead, so millenials being "pro choice" today doesn't change the fact that millions of millenials have been aborted previously, and because millenials couldn't affect abortion laws when they were children, being "pro choice" today doesn't affect the past to gain more political power to the millenials today. In fact you could argue, that as soon as the boomers are dead, abortion gives more political power to millenials as opposed to following generations, so opposing "pro life" policies today is in line with the millenial's political interests today. If they weren't "pro choice" today, coming generations would be larger in number than millenials, so the future generations would then have more political power. But that's pretty macabre.
Then you can of course say that abortion rights are more important than universal healthcare. You could point this out by swapping the variables and pointing out how the conclusion is not morally sound.
Premise 1. Cars have killed millions(?) of millenials
Premise 2. Millenials want better universal healthcare
Premise 3. Millenials have less political power than boomers, because of cars have killed so many millenials
Conclusion C: Millenials should oppose cars in order to get better healthcare
T. Edward Damer has a great book called Attacking Faulty Reasoning, I warmly recommend that to everyone. Hope that helps somehow!
OP, what was your arguments for pro-choice, do you even have one.
Also the Millennials argument is wrong because they are a big generation. Your logic applies to X gen, they are small and were licked out of power.
There are no good arguments for abortion only least worse ones like rape by AIDS carrier or direct threat to mothers life due to the pregnancy/birth.
Boomers are disappearing fast and Millennials will gain their assets for free. Millennials are echo boomers.
Love this input from everyone! Keep it coming, because I'm always interested in everyone's point of view.
@Peurii....that is exactly the kind of stance I was looking for, and makes total sense. I'm going to present that argument to my dad and see what he says. I'm usually pretty good at countering his numerous religious beliefs, but this argument of his really had me stumped.
@California Girl
Hope it goes well.
If you live under your father's roof you should not argue with him OP.
Approach it from a different angle. If the argument is being made that the majority gets to do what they want you can point out that this is not true.
The majority is limited by the Constitution. We are a Republic and if you get into the Latin basis this means 'the public thing', which means 'the law', so the final arbiter is not what the majority wants but what the law is, and in our country there is no higher law than the Constitution. While it is true that with enough support the Constitution can be changed it is extremely difficult to do and this avoids the issue.
We do not have purely 'majority rule' in this country because the Constitution allows one person to stand against an unlimited number and say "I am right and the law will protect me".
Having lost the basis of his argument he's left with trying to argue on personal opinion and his personal opinion is no more valid than yours.
@blinknight
An argument is never "just an opinion", if it is truly an argument, that is, it has premises, a logical connection and a conclusion. A simple claim is an opinion, if not supported by an argument. Buy then if it is supported by premises etc. that is then just another argument. If personal opinions, just claims, are not supported by arguments, they could be said to be equal, but if supported by premises, that is they are not mere opinions, but arguments, their value can be evaluated and thus not all "personal opinions" are as valid as others. I know that this is nit picking, but I see this kind of talk alot, and wanted to show how that is false, and there rarely are mere opinions at all. If that were true, no logical process could be made, and that is far too postmodern, atleast for me.
Ask your father if he should be forced to have a malignant tumor grow without the personal option of having it removed.
If he says yes, then drop him like a nasty habit. Someone like that does not need to be in your life.
As far as I am concerned, it is a woman's body. She has the absolute right of whether to be forced to have an unwanted pregnancy/child.
I am sure others have said something similar. I usually stay away from abortion discussions. But, I do have an opinion.
This nothing against the rest of you, my family, but I am not going to read the other posts. As said, pro-choice has always been my supported opinion and there ain't nothing gonna change that. I just do not want to read posts that I may not agree with because I tend to get very upset and would lead to me getting banished due to language usage.
Please forgive me. But abortion is one subject I usually lose it...
rmfr
EDIT: addenda: California Girl, I did read your OP. Your father does have a valid point, but the way he said it was reprehensible in my opinion.
Please, don't cut relationships because of political differences. That creates echo chambers.
Hi Cali Girl
Your Dad says he is a baby boomer? that's the generation born between 1946 and 1955. After '55 is Gen X. And a pack of selfish shits they are too. They are the eighties "greed is good" generation and really fucked up everything being the peer group leaders to the likes of the right wing think tanks and all those nasty little neo cons worldwide who wield the levers of power right now.
He cant blame the baby boomers as they are the generation that enjoyed and preserved, even expanded the rights and responsibilities of social democracy and worker rewards as well as health care, health management and so on. Baby Boomers were the drugged out peacenik free lovers of the 60's and 70s.Most of us cant or wont remember those days of heady freedoms and near revolution.
So if your Dad hasn't retired yet I am guessing he is of the nasty generation that followed us BBs. Spoilt, free, and determined to undermine anything good and replace dignity with worthless baubles. All us BBers did was to indulge and raise nasty generation of majority slimy asset strippers, bankers, real estate nags and job exporters.
To use the "all those aborted millenials who wont vote with you" is a fallacy. How does he know how any person who NEVER existed would vote? Doesnt make sense and an assertion without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
So if my guess is correct he is the wrong gen to make assertions, and his argument becomes worthless, his second argument is fallacious as he does not know and cannot evidence his claim.
I had many arguments with my racist bigot parents...but they were just echoing the norms of their generation as your Dad is parroting his generation. Be gentle, be wise, Millenials are much more aware and in my view much nicer people than their parents. Stay strong and in control of your body and destiny.
In fact the baby boomers generally concluded by everyone who is not a BB'er are basically the generation that ate the future of all subsequent generations.
Smug entitled bunch of power hungry hypocrites that had the easiest path to wealth and the least innovation in history.
They pretty much ruined the economy and gained the most while having the easiest life in human history.
Everyone is currently funding their bloated retirement funds they did the least work for.
Current generations have a lower living standard and locked out of the housing market because of BB'ers.
They refuse to give up power or wealth .
Worst and most expensive generation ever.
Their art and music was shit too.
Gavin, ok funny take, on this disgusting thilthy hippy generation where the majority were not even hippy's.
https://youtu.be/V9bVnQPaj48
@ Tedious Dictat
You really haven't a clue have you? Your nastiness and envy just hangs out of your psyche like pus from an open wound.
When you have done some actual research and produce economic and social citations instead of regurgitating prejudice from a failed politicians campaign speech I will happily engage you. Until then, do try and hide your unpleasantness. You seem to be exactly what I criticised in my earlier post, vain, egotistical, greedy, the 'me' generation. Ready to tear down all the good things that your grandfathers ( my parents gen) fought and died for, succeed, and then wear caps with 'Make America Great again" while driving your imported car, eating your imported food and wearing your imported child labor footwear. All the while scapegoating minorities, women, seniors for your failures as a generation and in particular your failure as a human.
Grow a brain and a heart.
Ha the BB'ers tore down all the institution built by every generation prior to them and spat on war vets, called them criminals and threw blood on them as they returned from front line combat you hypocrite.
Lmao at MAGA, trump is the ultimate baby boomer and he embodies the majority of your generation, no talent bullshit artist that inherited the fruits of his father's Labor and fucked his way thru the war and pretends to support vets. That greedy entitled fuck is the entire BB generation incarnate in one person.
@ TD
As I said if you want to produce some stats instead of prejudice and blame throwing I will engage with you.
Everything you say about Trump is only true of Drumpf and his despicable family...oh, no, wait its also true of our Australian Prime Minister...Fine tune your hate mister, you are an intelligent person. Don't waste it on straw targets.
Being opposed to choice in regards abortion means denying women the right to control over their own life, and giving it to unborn fetuses instead. If a pregnant woman was to kill herself, that would of course result in the death of herself and any unborn fetus. Why give a right to life to an unwanted fetus that cannot live independent of its mother, rather than consider the woman's right to life to be of primary importance?
In regards the argument that the younger generation deserved to be screwed over because abortion is legal...well, two wrongs do not make a right. That is no rational argument whatsoever.
The truth is, when someone admits to being a selfish bastard, they are not being a selfish bastard because of Roe v Wade. They're being a selfish bastard and then after the fact trying to make it seem like they are justified it being a selfish bastard.
Most people in the West are in favor of abortion being legal, the support for which only increases with time. This is representative of a general shift in attitude over time against the people with deeply conservative views like your father. (Whether those views in general are valid or not is not really relevant to this thread). Saying that unborn fetuses would have voted in favor of policies advantageous to the youth if they had lived is a very tenuous argument...if such a society existed (where abortion was still illegal etc.), then we would still be living in the 1950s in terms of political outlook. The fact is, we don't, and the general direction is towards a more liberal society of which Roe v Wade was symptomatic.
Here's a different approach to the argument for pro choice, perhaps you can articulate it better than this (and so can I but I'm in a hurry),but this is basically it:
By saying that you care about the rights of a fetus to live but not the right of a woman to choose what happens to and within her body you are effectively granting more rights to an underdeveloped quasi human than you are to a fully developed and sentient human. That is not equality and saying that it is "equal rights to life" and to include the fetus in such a way is not thinking about it in the correct terms. One's rights end where another's begin. The fetus has a right to life so long as it doesn't impede on anyone else's rights: ie... the freedom of a woman to not have a thing growing inside her. ( the dehumanizing language was intentional).
OP please don't assume Pro choice is automatically an atheist position, it's not. In fact it has absolutely nothing to do with atheism.
Good on you for wanting a good argument but it appears you had no justification for your pro-choice position prior to you taking that position.
When your dad stops masturbating and throwing away his sperm cells, you can worry about your eggs. Until then, tell him to F Off. It's your body.
Top Ten Arguments for Pro Choice:
10. Backup plan for rhythm method or other birth control misadventures.
9. No one will ever know my little secret.
8. No unfashionable maternity clothes.
7. No morning sickness.
6. No stretch marks.
5. Frequent, vigorous unprotected sex with multiple partners.
4. Reckless long-term relationships.
3. Guilt free, drunken one night stands.
2. No concern about who might be the daddy.
And number one Pro Choice argument...
1. Don't have to drown them at birth.
Too much?
In the immortal words of the late Joan Rivers, "Oh please. Grow up."
Women have about a dozen birth control methods they can use. Maybe the pro-lifers don't like it because it's a visible sign of a person's method. If they can eliminate abortion then there's no real reason why they can't eliminate the pills and condoms. Once that happens then it's just another step to specify that every woman will have a minimum number of children, say 3 or maybe 4.
If you agree that abortion should be eliminated then what will be your next crusade once you have eliminated it? Will you get to the point where you monitor each sex act to ensure that it results in a pregnancy?
If you regard such issues as this to be one of personal freedom and responsibility then it's a major mistake to allow anyone to push to take it away.
Pro-Lifers want abortion outlawed. They don't mind sending that child to war to kill and be killed when it is of age though. They don't want it to have food or healthcare either,"Let the little slacker get a job!", is what they would say.
It is a typical conservative republican idealogy along with being gay and the flag. The three things they care about and the hell with jobs, the economy and healthcare.
Yes I am a liberal, a progressive one! I who would tell dear old dad that his religion say's free will and he since he wants to involve his religion in politics like most conservatives, then you choose pro-choice.
Other reasons for it being legal, rape, incest, deformed or the health of the child or mother. Most pro-lifers could care less about a mother who dies in child birth, as long as the child is born so it can grow up and become a pro life voter.
Your body, your choice! NOT dad's decision or the government!
With all the knowledge and methods of contraception makes me wonder if the pro choice crowd aren't a bit thick.
California Girl, ever heard of Rafael Nadal? He is a tennis professional and definitely the best player on clay. He has won the premier clay tournament, the French Open, 11 times. So if you were a competent tennis player, would you play him on clay? It is sheer madness to go up against someone when all the odds are stacked in his favor.
This is what your father has done, he has shifted the topic away from personal issues and rights towards retirement funds. You are playing in his court.
My suggestion is to gently remind your father that he has strayed from the topic of pro choice by introducing politics and economics. Stick to the topic, which is about a woman's ability to control her body and personal freedoms.