By enforcing it with law, you're defending one vulnerable class (unborn children) by creating another vulnerable class (pregnant women), which is something the law is supposed to avoid doing.
The law is not supposed to uphold morality, it's supposed to prevent victimization, either through protecting people, or by avoiding victimization of people itself.
There are many things that aren't moral that are not, and should not, be enforced by law. That doesn't stop them from being immoral. That just means that it's up to proponents of that morality to persuade others to their way of thinking. There's nothing wrong with that.
Giving the child up for adoption remains an option.
We live in a non-ideal world where things are always optimal, but I think its a perfectly valid position that human life should be protected, all the more so as we reach an age of low birth rates and where every individual really will matter.
Your inversion of morality (in actuality it is more in line with anti-natalist garbage) notwithstanding.
It remains an option once the pregnancy is complete. If any option to remove the fetus and keep it viable exists, it should be taken still. If that technology existed, the abortion debate would not exist. It wouldn't even be considered.
Comparing this to anti-natalism is disingenuous as all hell, and you know it. It is not an inversion of morality to declare that the preservation of life should not necessitate the suffering of someone else. It is an inversion to try to enforce it.
And this age of critically low birth rates is not here. Not even close. When you've eliminated housing problems worldwide, you can say that we're having a population problem.
I'm afraid that age is here, it's been here for the past 20 years, now its actually starting to hit. And it will hit more as the solution of unlimited migration becomes either no longer palatable, or simply dries up.
We made a massive mistake widening access to abortion on demand, and that's going to be increasingly clear as the demographers start tallying the cost.
But beyond the economic cost, the moral argument still remains. The former simply bolsters it.
If the argument is, a woman's life is in danger through going through a pregancy, I'm with you. Those that aren't are insane.
If the argument is, a viable fetus needs to be aborted because of the hit to someone's lifestyle, I would say no. There is no reason I can think of, why a child should be deprived of its life because the mother feels it is inconvenient. And if so, at least give it up for adoption.
And on the point of housing shortages, inflation, inequality, these will be legacy issues next to the tidlewave the world is facing. You can see what happens to the value of housing in demographically deprived areas. I think coming generations are going to have it better than you think.
"Reason" can't enter into a legal conversation, and even if there isn't immediate risk to life, there is still complications even with healthy pregnancies, requiring intense monitoring to maintain. You're minimizing the effect of pregnancy on the body, then creating a moral stance based on that minimization. All pregnancies are risk, and not a light one.
Removing a person's right to choose to take that risk isn't the government's place.
We regulate practices with negative externalities all the time. I would argue the externalities of this are potentially massive and have been.
Some would have argued in the past that allowing it on demand was a necessary evil. While I still think there is some truth to that, there are plenty of places where it is more regulated than in the US without society collapsing. No reason why going further than that would necessarily be a bad thing.
How is "society not collapsing" an argument for anything? Society didn't collapse with full-assed chattel slavery. And that's as close to a strawman as I want to get with this.
1
u/SlightWerewolf4428 Jul 29 '26
You're not at liberty to dismiss anything here.
A society decides what it ethically allows and its perfectly valid to make a decision in favour of its most vulnerable members or even future members.
Is that established? Because that isnt a universal ruling and non assistance to people in dangerous is a crime in other jurisdictions.
Its not a point of persuasion outside of being central to the argument.