The flaws in pro choice argumentation from a pro choice individual.
- Abortion laws are being made to restrict women’s rights.
Abortion is being restricted not out of hate for women, but because if you honestly believe that all innocent human life has moral worth then it is wrong to kill it (Abortion would be even more illegal to pro life individuals in a case where a man forces a woman to get an abortion, meaning the choice being from a woman isn’t the reason of pro-life policy).
- Consciousness dictates moral worth of humans.
We believe it isn’t wrong to kill brain dead individuals (which are defined as being unable to ever have consciousness again), which gives proof to the idea that fetuses are ok to kill because they have no consciousness. This implies moral worth comes from being a human with consciousness. This line of argumentation fails when we consider individuals in comas or people that are asleep. Individuals in comas aren‘t ok to kill and the thing that separates them from people that are brain dead is that they will be able to be conscious in the future. This shows that future conscious experience grants worth to humans which is a trait of fetuses.
- Sometimes women can die from childbirth.
The idea that in spectacularly rare scenarios an abortion could save the life of a mother, isn’t an argument that abortion is ok; the exception isn‘t the rule. If someone says killing innocent people Is wrong and then someone counters with the trolly problem, one cannot say that because killing one person to save others is moral then it is ok to kill people in general.
- If you care about children how come you don’t support (x policy related to poverty childcare).
If abortion is the murder of a human life then the abortion industry is murdering millions of people and supporting the stopping of the abortion industry would be necessary morally where a niche childcare policy isn’t a remotely similar issue. This pro choice argument is also utilizing the tu quoque fallacy, where it is making an argument from hypocrisy which doesn’t address why they don’t hold that position. Another example of tu quoque would be one person telling another that they shouldn’t eat hairspray because it is proven to cause cancer when ingested and the person responding that it isn’t unhealthy because the informant ingested hairspray the other day.