I answered this question a ways back and someone had posted their own “answer” full of questions; as my answer was too long to edit and reply to each point, I thought I’d put them down here:
1. Why is it that the very people who say the governments should stay out of abortion are the same ones who want the government to pay for them?
I believe government should not be able to restrict one’s access to abortion, and by purposefully not funding abortion (while funding other reproductive healthcare procedures), I believe the government is doing just that- restricting access to abortion.
2. Abortion advocates say they are in the business to help women. Other than offering to kill their children for them, what are they doing?
Abortion does the exact same thing that contraception does- it helps women to have children only if they want to, and let’s them decide when, how many, and how far apart they are- which in turn helps them achieve goals that might otherwise be thwarted or postponed, helps them stay out of or helps them from slipping further into poverty, and preserves their maternal health. Safe, legal abortion saves women’s lives, too, considering how many women die and suffer from unsafe, illegal abortion.
3. Pro-abortionists say that the unborn child is part of the mother’s body. If that is so, why does the child possess a completely different genetic code and often a different blood type? How do you explain the fact that it has its own immune system? Why is it male half the time?
I don’t believe that a fetus is part of the mother’s body- you can read my answer about that here (it’s the first one on the list, in fact!).
4. Pro-abortionists say that outlawing abortion would restrict a woman’s right to privacy. But is that right absolute? Does somebody’s right to privacy exceed another’s right to live?
Are you asking my personal opinion, or that of the courts? I personally do not believe in fetal personhood or a fetal right to life, ergo for me there is no competing set of rights when it comes to abortion. The courts stated in Roe v. Wade that the state could have a vested interest in protecting fetal right to life in the third trimester (post-viability), but that had to balanced with the right to respect a woman’s privacy prior to that point.
5. If what they say is true and the issue isn’t really abortion but a woman’s right to control her own body, why doesn’t your agenda include drugs and prostitution? Aren’t laws against those most restrictive to a woman’s right to choose what she will and will not do with her own body as laws against abortion are?
I am pro-decriminalization of sex work and I believe in decriminalization/legalization of marijuana and other drugs that have been shown to not have a deleterious effect on a community. That’s me, personally. But I also want to point out that those who are pro-choice and who argue against the legality of sex work or drugs are not necessarily hypocrites; it depends on what arguments they use. If you’re arguing on bodily autonomy, it can be hypocritical, although it depends on the topic of how much an action involves your own body and that of those outside your body- think, for instance, about how very dangerous drugs may cause its users to do more harm to others than they might otherwise. In that sense, one can ostensibly be against legalization of such drugs, while being for abortion rights, because they produce different results in terms of harm to others. Or you can take the argument of harm to the individual in question; if we ignore bodily autonomy, one can make an argument that drug use is dangerous to users in a way that abortion is not to the women who obtain them. It’s not an argument I would use, but it is a valid one.
6. We are now seeing the unborn being treated for disease, given blood transfusions and even operated on. When a doctor does one of these procedures, who is the patient?
A patient is any recipient of healthcare services, so depending on your view of fetal personhood, it’s either the fetus and the woman, or just the woman. Either way, the woman cannot be left out of the equation unless you believe in a lack of female personhood- she is the recipient of the services and she gives consent to have her body operated on.
7. Why is it that abortion advocates say they want women to have all their options, but they fight so hard against laws requiring totally informed consent?
In what other medical procedure does the government want to give doctors a script to read to a patient? “Informed consent” is a way for anti-choice/pro-life forces to try to sway women to not have abortions, simple as that. That’s why pro-choicers fight such laws; I am all for more information, but not sneaking in pro-life/anti-choice rhetoric (which also infantilizes women, by the way) by government decree.
8. If pro-abortionists are mainly concerned with the health and safety of women, why do they fight so hard against legislation requiring abortion providers to meet the same medical standard as legitimate outpatient surgery clinics?
Such as what? Requiring janitorial closets to be a certain size? Regulating the temperatures of the rooms? Requiring longer recovery time for patients of an elective pregnancy termination than patients having a D&C for a miscarriage, even though they’re the exact same procedure? Again, these regulations are not smart, sound, necessary regulations- they are actually more onerous than the standards for other outpatient surgical clinics, they serve no identifiable purpose, and they require compliance in impossible time frames- meaning that they’re thinly veiled ways for the anti-choice/pro-life side to try and shut down clinics.
9. Let’s look at a hypothetical situation. Two women become pregnant on the same day. Six months later woman A has a premature baby who is in need of some medical help, and the clinic workers are all trying hard to give the baby the medical attention necessary. Why would it be morally wrong to refuse such treatment to the premature born baby, but a “legal right” to kill the baby in woman B if she should choose to have an abortion? How can location (inside vs. outside the womb) make an essential difference? Besides, in partial-birth abortions, the baby is halfways outside the womb (oftentimes crying already).
Oh, Lordy … sounds like someone doesn’t know what they’re talking about! Let’s refresh our knowledge of “partial-birth abortion”, also known as “intact dilation and extraction”- it is a late-term abortion procedure that is currently illegal (thanks to the Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003), that was extremely rare prior to that (constituting only .17% of all abortions in 2000), and where fetal demise is required prior to the procedure (already practiced by most doctors, but specifically stipulated in Gonzalez v. Carhart, 2007). So no, my dear- no babies halfway outside the womb and crying … just doctors performing a procedure that allows them to remove the corpse intact (rather than in pieces of tissue) so that the parents are able to hold, name, grieve over, and hold baptism or memorial services for their wanted but doomed baby.
You do realize that the vast majority of states ban elective abortion after 24 weeks, right (you might want to refresh your knowledge of state laws here)? The scenario you paint makes no sense; six months later, both women are almost always restricted from getting an abortion unless there is a complication such as severe fetal anomaly or a threat to the life or health of the mother. Are you looking to discuss the minority of places where these laws aren’t in effect (and if so, why are you focusing on the minority here but chastising others for focusing on the minority in rape cases down below)?
10. If it is true that “men cannot talk about abortion” because it’s a “women’s issue,” how come pro-abortionists have no problem accepting the ruling Roe v. Wade, which was exclusively made by men?
I believe that men can talk about abortion- absolutely! The only thing that [cisgender, non-trans] men cannot do is restrict or advocate restricting a woman’s right to get an abortion, or judging her for doing so- because he will never be in that situation.
11. Oh and don’t give me the excuse what if they are raped because only 1% of cases of abortion are rape the other are 99% wanted sex.
Yeah, statistical minorities can go fuck themselves! Unless you are part of a significant number of cases, your pain and anguish mean nothing! (Please note the intentional sarcasm in those last two sentences). Look, I’ve written before how jumping to rape in an abortion discussion is a bad idea (see #10), but the statement you’ve written above seems to say that 1% of women who get abortions (which is no small number to sneeze at, considering that one in three women will get an abortion over the course of her life) ought be thrown under the bus. Is that really what you’re saying?
12. One more thing, Did you know that all the people who are Pro Choice are already born … 0.0
I’ve written before how that is a logical fallacy.