Abortion Argument Arguments 5

 https://www.facebook.com/share/p/1JF6HzmNYA/?mibextid=wwXIfr

" 

Abortion Arguments Series: Day 5 of 10

"It's between a woman and her doctor." / "If you don't like abortion, don't have one."

Today we address some of the easiest arguments to dismantle.

"Don't like it? Don't do it" falls apart immediately because we all recognize it only works when nobody else is harmed.

Try that logic anywhere else.

"If you don't like child neglect, don't neglect your kids."

"If you don't like domestic violence, just don't hit anyone."

“Don’t like slavery, don’t own one”

Nobody accepts that reasoning because we all understand that when another person can be harmed, "just don't participate" isn't an answer.

This argument isn't really about freedom. It's an argument that assumes there's nobody else affected. Which takes us right back to Days 1 and 2 of this series. If there's a second human being in the picture, this argument collapses. If there isn't, you don't need this argument at all.

Which is when they shift to the privacy argument:

"It's between a woman and her doctor."

If that means the government should never intervene in medical decisions, then you must also oppose opioid regulation.

After all, who are we to tell a doctor he can't prescribe drugs that are as addictive as heroin if the patient wants them? Doctors and patients both consented during the opioid crisis. Hundreds of thousands of people died. So clearly "trust the doctor" isn't the safeguard people think it is.

And it's not just opioids. The government already regulates medicine specifically to protect unborn children. I laid out the full case in my recent post on Accutane, and I'd encourage you to read it, but here’s the short version…

The government requires pregnancy tests, two forms of birth control, and monthly verification before a woman can get acne medication, all to protect a child from birth defects. Those rules apply at all stages of development, even before viability and even to women who aren't pregnant.

If you're fine with that regulation, you've already accepted that medical decisions between a woman and her doctor are not sacrosanct when another life can be harmed.

Now, to the person who says "I'm personally against abortion, but..."

A guy in my comments said exactly this. He's against abortion, doesn't like it, wouldn't want his partner to have one. But he votes for legal abortion because he believes bodily autonomy matters more.

I’d ask anyone who holds that view to ask themselves an honest question…

Why are you personally against it?

If it's because you think it ends a human life, then that's exactly the kind of thing law exists to address. During the civil rights movement, we didn’t accept "I'm personally against segregation, but who am I to impose my view on others" as a legitimate argument and we shouldn’t accept it here.

We say some things are wrong enough that a society shouldn't permit them.

The only reason abortion feels different is if you're not sure there's really someone there.

And if you're not sure, go back and read my Day 2 post. When you don't know if anyone's in the room, you don't throw a grenade.

"My body, my choice" sounds empowering. "Don't like it, don't have one" sounds like common sense. "It's between a woman and her doctor" sounds like privacy.

But all three assume the same thing: that there's nobody else affected. But there clearly is and that changes everything.

Tomorrow: "The exceptions don't work in practice, women have died""