[carlosjobim]

Which is worse: Being expelled from a foreign country or being killed because as a fetus you are considered subhuman? Historically newborns in Europe have also been considered subhuman, without any rights, and subject to the practice of "exposure" if the parents pleased.

Just as easily as upstanding citizens today consider the unborn to be subhuman, just as easy has it been in the past (and in the future) for upstanding citizens to consider certain groups of people as subhuman. It only depends on what the rulers consider convenient at the moment, and 90% of the population are ready to adopt any opinion at the drop of a hat if instructed so by their rulers. Especially intelligent people, who can take pleasure in mental games to justify following orders.

[n4r9]

I wouldn't say that a foetus is subhuman. I just think that a human's right to life does not extend to the right to use another's body for 9 months. Which is another reason why this doesn't compare to immigration.

[carlosjobim]

Then you're a step above, because many consider the fetus to be subhuman. You consider the fetus to be a human without the right to life. A newborn is also completely dependent on other people for survival – for a long time. In the past, the common opinion was that also the newborn and infants did not have the right to life if it was too inconvenient for the parents. Hence the practice of exposure, where they were put out to be killed by the elements or eaten by animals.

The fetus is not to blame for being within the womb. Yet the fetus should be without the right to life, because they are an inconvenience to the mother. What rights does the asylum seeker get, in comparison? They are quite extensive.

Within our life time, the practice of killing newborns and infants will return and will be celebrated by upstanding citizens as a natural and moral thing. People opposing it will be shunned as dangerous and ignorant brutes – a threat to society.

[n4r9]

> You consider the fetus to be a human without the right to life.

Not quite. I'm saying that the right to life does not imply the right to use another's body. The same reason we don't make organ or blood donation enforceable by law even if it would save a life.

> A newborn is also completely dependent on other people for survival.

True, but not any one specific person. The parents can put a newborn up for adoption. The difference with an early stage pregnancy is that there is no way for the foetus to survive when removed from the womb.

> Within our life time, the practice of killing newborns and infants will return and will be celebrated by upstanding citizens as a natural and moral thing.

Definitely don't think this will happen.

[carlosjobim]

If you take a higher perspective on your own arguments, you can sense what I meant earlier, that being pro-abortion (or pro-choice if you want to call it that), is attractive to intellectuals more for the thrills and challenges of finding arguments for something so wrong.

If a pregnant woman that you know in real life would come to you and say that she's deciding to abort her baby because she thinks it has no right to use her body to live, how would you feel in that situation? My guess is that your first instinct would be to think she's a psychopath or going through a nervous-psychotic breakdown.

But it is normalized, just with other arguments than are used in these online debates. The arguments are probably not even verbalized, because people doing abortions would rather not think about what they are truly doing and just get over with it.

Now think if a person you know in real life would come to you and say that they're going to start killing people of a certain group. My strong guess is that you would think they are a psychopath or going through psychosis. Probably you'd call the police.

Yet, this is also normalized whenever the rulers want war. Look at how both sides are dehumanizing each other in the Ukraine conflict, in the most disgusting ways imaginable.

[n4r9]

> If a pregnant woman that you know in real life would come to you and say that she's deciding to abort her baby because she thinks it has no right to use her body to live, how would you feel in that situation? My guess is that your first instinct would be to think she's a psychopath or going through a nervous-psychotic breakdown.

If that was the only reason she was aborting - and there were no mitigating factors such as early-stage accidental pregnancy or difficult life circumstances - then I might think that person selfish. But that's not what actually happens. Abortions by and large are wanted because a woman does not think they are in a good position to bring up a child in the world. Perhaps she had a one-night stand and the contraception failed. Perhaps there are abnormalities that will make the baby's life full of suffering and difficulty. The "no right to use her body" bit is not usually the sole reason for wanting the abortion, but it's the part that makes it ethically justifiable.

[carlosjobim]

> But that's not what actually happens.

Exactly, because that argument is so far-fetched and cruel, that it's rarely seen outside of online debates. Having an abortion is still cruel, but there are always ways for people to do shameful things while putting their consciousness aside. It's probably rather easy for most.

I think your argument on the health of the baby (or mother) is more ethical than any "no right to use her body" argument. She was the person who decided to put the fetus in that situation.

To make a comparison, there are people arguing that the fate of prisoners in the German death camps during WWII was not really the Germans' fault because they didn't have enough food to feed themselves, much less war prisoners and other detainees. Which is inching quite close to the abortion arguments, especially if you reduce the victim to subhuman status. Hoping to show that this way of reasoning is misguided.