The issue of abortion is one of rights. I have only once seen an argument against abortion that attacked the topic logically instead of emotionally, and the article in question was highly fallacious.
Anti-abortionists rarely form arguments from rights, which is why their position is so weak. Any argument for or against abortion that does not address the issue of rights is ignoring the issue of rights in favour (usually) of more emotional arguments.
The majority of arguments wielded on the topic of abortion are fallacious.
The issue of abortion goes as follows:
1) All human beings have the right to life
2) Either an embryo/foetus is a human being or it is not
3) If the embryo/foetus is a human being then it has the right to life and to kill it is a violation of its rights, and if it is not a human being then to force the woman to carry out her pregnancy is a violation of rights.
So the issue boils down to whether or not an embryo/foetus is a human being. I’m not going to comment on whether it is or not at this stage because that is not the point of this post. The point is to provide an outline on how to recognise which arguments are baloney and which address the issue.
Let’s take for example a common argument used by anti-abortionists; the argument that if abortion is legal women will get abortion for frivolous reasons. Now even if this argument were 100% correct it does not address the issue of rights. The issue of rights overrides the issue of the woman’s motivations- if the woman does not have the right to abortion then her motives for wanting one are inconsequential because she can’t have one, if the woman does have the right to abortion then regardless of her motives it is her right to take.
If I have the right to eat a banana then it doesn’t matter why I want to eat it, all that matters is that I have the right.
The issue of a woman’s motivations is irrelevant to abortion debate because it does not address rights, it is a red herring.
The titles “pro-life” and “pro-choice” should be discarded, for one I consider both of these titles to appeal to emotions, “pro-life” implies that if you do not agree with this side then you must be anti-life, and “pro-choice” implies that if you do not agree with this side you must be anti-rights. In this way both of these titles beg the question.
There is a further reason I reject these titles. As I have described above, the issue of abortion is one of rights, and the issue of rights is dependant on whether or not the embryo/foetus is a human being.
“Pro-life” is the title adopted by the group that is against abortion, if the embryo/foetus is a human being then it is true that anti-abortionists are on the side of human life, however if the embryo/foetus is not a human being then it is not true that the anti-abortionists are on the side of human life, because there is only one human life involved (the woman’s) and the anti-abortionist is against her rights.
“Pro-choice” is also a poorly selected title. If the embryo/foetus is a human being then the woman does not have the right to choose abortion, because this would be contradicting the right of another human being to life. If the embryo/foetus is not a human being then indeed she does have the right to choose, but she does not have the right to choose to kill another human being, she has the right to choose to abort a pregnancy.
I could write more, but that’s enough for now.