[bigstrat2003]

> Is there a non-religious reason to be against the right to choose abortion up to 24 weeks of pregnancy?

Of course there is. It's not hard to construct an argument to that effect either. For example: let's agree for the sake of argument that a newborn has moral rights, and that gametes do not. It doesn't make much sense to give the fetus moral rights only based on its physical location, therefore at some point between conception and birth the fetus gains moral rights. No matter what point n we choose, the objection "why is one day earlier any better" seems pretty persuasive. Therefore, by induction, the only point for assigning rights which can't be argued against in that way is at conception. Thus, we should disallow abortion so we aren't depriving the fetus of its rights.

I'm not saying that's a bulletproof argument. Indeed the argument doesn't even need to be correct for my point. My point is that nothing about that argument requires any religious belief whatsoever. So it is possible. I'm also quite certain that a cleverer person than I could construct a better argument which still doesn't require any religious dogma. This is an ethical topic, not a religious one. Obviously religion has a lot to say on ethics, but that's no reason to believe that secular arguments against abortion can't exist.

[kaibee]

> Therefore, by induction,

One grain of sand is a small amount of sand. Two grains of sand is a small amount of sand. Therefore, by induction, any amount of grains of sand is a small amount of sand. The Sahara contains a small amount of sand.

This is fun.

[camgunz]

(necro a little)

> It doesn't make much sense to give the fetus moral rights only based on its physical location, therefore at some point between conception and birth the fetus gains moral rights.

A _lot_ more happens to a fetus during and immediately after birth than just moving a few feet. You're minimizing it here, but if you give it the significance it merits your induction thing falls apart.

[pazimzadeh]

cool, then sperm and eggs have moral rights

[kbelder]

"For example: let's agree for the sake of argument that a newborn has moral rights, and that gametes do not. It doesn't make much sense to give the fetus moral rights only based on its physical location, therefore at some point between conception and birth the fetus gains moral rights. No matter what point n we choose, the objection "why is one day earlier any better" seems pretty persuasive. Therefore, by induction, the only point for assigning rights which can't be argued against in that way is at conception. Thus, we should disallow abortion so we aren't depriving the fetus of its rights."

That's roughly my position, as an atheist libertarian. although I don't back it up all the way to conception, just to a point in early pregnancy where it seems overwhelmingly clear the fetus has no attributes which could reasonably demand respect for rights.

Abortion has been conflated with feminism, like how, say, tariffs are conflated with Republicans right now, but there's no ideological necessity for that. Just cultural trends.

[Dylan16807]

> although I don't back it up all the way to conception, just to a point in early pregnancy where it seems overwhelmingly clear the fetus has no attributes which could reasonably demand respect for rights.

Sounds like you're not actually using that deeply flawed argument then. You're making the distinction that not every day has the same effect.

And could you estimate how many weeks you put that point at?

[Dylan16807]

> No matter what point n we choose, the objection "why is one day earlier any better" seems pretty persuasive. Therefore, by induction

That's not persuasive at all. It's not just not "bulletproof", it's blatantly wrong. Also you can make the same argument in the other direction.

> Indeed the argument doesn't even need to be correct for my point. My point is that nothing about that argument requires any religious belief whatsoever.

They wanted someone to give a plausible argument that isn't religious.

> no reason to believe that secular arguments against abortion can't exist

I care about the merits of positions that people actually have, not theoretical positions.

And in the general case, if nobody can be found that has a simple position, that is a reason to believe it's not a coherent position.