LogFAQs > #963789220

sodium-chloride posted...

That's great but that didn't answer any of the questions I asked.

It kind of did? Pro-life people don't consider those questions relevant because the impact it has on them personally is not part of their issue with it. Bringing it around to 'personal impact' probably just makes it worse TBH because it's not only telling them that you think they should only care when it affects them personally, but they see themselves speaking up for those who can't.

Also, that's just a terrible argument to make in general. There's LOOOOOT of things that don't affect you personally that people still care about. Imagine if, in order to stand up for LGBT rights, you had to BE LGBT yourself. They're not going to make a distinction there.

Since you asked though... Each question one by one.

how would your life change if abortions were 100% legal?

For most people in general, not much at all. Of course there's a lot of people out there whose lives wouldn't change if it was 100% illegal either. And I don't mean in the 'they'll do back alley abortions' way Fa seems to think.

Would you actively go out and prevent women from obtaining them?

That can only be answered on an individual level. I personally suspect you'd see church-based initiatives to protest it that don't really go much of anywheres. I feel the vast majority would grumble and accept it but would also do everything they could to stop it from happening.

Would you go out on the streets and protest?

Can only be answered on an individual level.

How would your life be affected?

As I said before; for most people it wouldn't. Least not directly.

What happens if all of a sudden abortion is illegal across the country?

For many of them it would be a huge morale boost; but then they'd go back to living their daily lives while probably only caring whenever someone tried to make it legal again or some back-alley doctor got discovered. It's been illegal throughout the majority of modern history so it's not like there isn't a lot of examples here.

Is it preferable to live in a world with significantly more children growing up in bad/poor homes or in the foster system?

This is a very bad argument. It's basically implying that these things are all horrible. Net negatives. Especially to someone who sees human life as inherently sacred. You're pretty much saying it's better to be dead or to have never existed than to be poor or in the foster system and that the entire world would be a better place with less of these people because they'd be dead/never existing. You'll never win that argument and it's going to do nothing more than paint you as a horrifically elitist monster. It would be even worse given that a lot of the people who would advocate for such a point are seen as being upper-middle or flat-out upper-class coastal city elites while the pro-life people are seen as being a bunch of relatively rural/suburb, small-town, lower-middle/lower class people.

Where some women have to experience something that was forced upon them (rape)?

Thing is, abortion's not going to have an effect on the rate of this, just the number. Even if it could it's a lengthy discussion about socio-economics that I doubt anyone in this thread really understands. It's also pretty one-sided since you're only bringing up the women (and even then only those who get raped) and completely ignoring the problems boys in the same situation would have to deal with.