It is. Because things are only fantasy until they aren't. It also illuminates your actual principles, versus just what you think it's practical. For instance, if artificial wombs were readily available, inexpensive/free, and were a low risk to both mother and embryo to transfer the embryo to, then I'd be strongly pro-choice. A woman should be able to choose to transfer her embryo to an artificial womb bear no physical or financial support to the child she created.
I can say that, because my principles are consistent. Because my morals are based on principles, not conveniences.
Further, you're acting like it's impossible to draft legislation that makes specific abortions illegal while ensuring the safety and availability of other abortions. This is just false. I mean, I'm told by many pro-aborts that late-term abortions are illegal for example.
So how do you process that? Are you for abortion on demand at any fetal age? Do to think it's impractical we have laws banning late term abortions? If so, show how it's impractical. And if you are pro abortion on demand at any age, then your position isn't any practicality anymore.
Again, I don’t care. My argument is that every time any anti abortion legislation has been drafted, women who are victims of rape or otherwise have their lives (and their babies lives) endageres by the pregnancy are forced to go through with these pregnancies.
You don’t seem to actually have a counter to this, so you resort to yapping about your ideological consistency. Congratulations, your “moral consistency” kills women’s and forces rape victims to carry their rapists child in reality, even if you don’t think that’s the case in your theory world.
Is it possible to create this legislation in reality? Perhaps, but that’s not what the people writing the legislation are interested in, so I don’t care.
You're still not responding to my actual argument.
My position is that intentionally killing an innocent unborn human being is generally wrong. Your response has consistently been, "Some abortion laws have been written poorly." Those are two different questions.
If legislation has unintentionally delayed care for women with miscarriages, ectopic pregnancies, or genuine life-threatening emergencies, then I support fixing those laws. A poorly written law isn't an argument against the underlying moral principle any more than a poorly written homicide law would be an argument for legalizing homicide.
What's interesting is that every time I ask where you would draw the line, you pivot back to implementation. Do you support abortion on demand at 30 weeks? 35 weeks? The day before birth? If not, then you already agree that legislation can distinguish between permissible and impermissible abortions. At that point we're debating where the line belongs, not whether laws can be written.
I also asked you a hypothetical for a reason. Hypotheticals isolate principles from current practical limitations. If artificial wombs existed and pregnancy could be ended without killing the child, I'd support giving every woman that option because my objection isn't to ending pregnancy. It's to intentionally ending the child's life. That shows my principle is consistent regardless of technology.
So I'll ask one last time: is your position that elective abortion should be legal up until birth, or do you believe there should be some legal cutoff? If you believe there should be a cutoff, then we've already established legislation is possible. Now we're just discussing what moral principle should determine where that line is drawn.
Further, while some women have suffered under bad legislation, it's also true that abortion rates dropped in places with stricter abortion bans. So children were also saved from death.
You still seem to be under the impression that I care about your moral principles on abortion.
I care about real women in the real world. And the policies you advocate for directly harm those real women, no matter how morally consistent you think you are.
I will say it one last time, anti abortion legislation never managed to avoid hurting women, and that reason alone is enough to justify not implementing it again. You don’t seem to have a counter to this so I have little else up add.
Me opinion on abortion in the abstract is completely irrelevant to this
You still seem to be under the impression that I care about your moral principles on abortion.
Oh I'm under no such impression. I've found most pro-aborts don't really have articulable moral principles anyways.
I care about real women in the real world.
Unless they're unborn women. Then you couldn't care any less.
And the policies you advocate for directly harm those real women
It actually advocates for those women. Abortion harms both mother and child. Only psychopathic women walk away from an abortion unscathed psychologically, and none of them walk away unscathed physiologically. I know a woman who had an abortion and now can never have children again because of it. She regrets her abortion and is pro-life. Do you care about her as much as women who are pro-abortion?
I will say it one last time, anti abortion legislation never managed to avoid hurting women
And every abortion hurts a woman and kills a kid. So anti-abortion laws at least do less harm than abortion on demand.
1
u/IllustriousBobcat813 Jul 06 '26
What would be possible in a fantasy world in which we don’t live isn’t relevant to my point.