Would this be an apt analogy for an argument against abortion

Question

I've read on these posts when the abortion issue is brought up that many pro-choice people regard it as simply being a woman's right to choose what she wants. I've always felt that was an inappropriate argument because its no ones right to choose if someone lives or dies (unless its a means of self defense).

The analogy i like relates to a Demolition crew, its as follows: If a crew has been assigned to knock down a building but someone who could be deemed credible approaches and states "There may be someone alive inside the building". The reasonable response would be cease all demo work until this question is resolved And would be completely unethical/irresponsible to follow through and destroy the building without hesitation.

This applies to abortion in the sense as there is no consensus (that I'm aware of) in the medical community of WHEN life should be honored- so wouldn't it then make sense to put a stay on most abortions until that point is reached?

All thoughts welcome.

Answer 1

This has so many problems I am not sure where to begin...but I'll try...

1.  Comparing a woman's body to a building about to be demolished and a fetus is a human being cowering in said building is not accurate to pregnancy and life by any stretch of the imagination.

2.  It would be nice for us to say to a woman facing an unplanned pregnancy, "Um, we're not sure if this is ethical for you to do. SO please just wait until we find out for sure.  Yes, this may take several lifetimes, but just hold tight."  THere is a serious time issue in all instances where a woman needs (and yes, decides) to terminate a pregnancy and you can't just have her wait. (Wait, that is, until you are going to "demolish" her???  But wait, I am back on that ridiculousness again.)

3.  If we waited to come to a consensus on anything in this world, nothing would ever get done. We go with the best info. we have and move forward. THere will always be disagreement.

4.  "I've always felt that was an inappropriate argument because its no ones right to choose if someone lives or dies (unless its a means of self defense)."  Did you ever think that perhaps she is doing it as self-defense, in that she is trying to preserve her own life by choosing to terminate a pregnancy?  

P.S.) EDIT: Oh, but it IS about the "building" and you were the one who made that comparison, so stick with it.

Answer 2

The abortion argument hinges on when you believe it's a human that has rights.

What you are missing is that both sides have already looked in the building...one side says it's a person, the other side says it's not.  And millions of other people have been through there and made their own decisions on it.

Answer 3

No, it is not a good analogy.  Prior to the abortion issue medical science has said viability, 20-26 weeks gestation, is the point where life can exist on its own.  Secondly the point for abortion is whether government can interfere in what a woman and her doctor decide is the best medical advice for her.  

Answer 4

It's more a woman's right to choose whether she wants to go through eight months of h**l to birth a new life. Since the fetus can't exist outside the mother, it's still not really a 'human being' to me. The problem with putting a stay on abortions until people in the medical community decide when life should be honored is that they will NEVER be able to agree. It's like saying 'let's put a stay on limb amputation until we get every single doctor in the world to agree on exactly how it should be done.'

No one will ever completely agree on when life should be honored. It is a decision each person has to come to on their own terms, which is exactly why abortion should be legal - that way, if a woman decides that she does not want to have a child, she can go through with that decision and get an abortion. If a woman decides that the fetus inside her is something she wishes to honor as another human being, then that woman can go through with her decision and have the child. The point is, as you stated, personal choice and a personal decision - not one that should be made by legislators.

I always say, the second we no longer have any more children in foster care or available to adopt is the second I rethink my pro-choice stance. There are already far too many children in the world without good homes to start worrying about the ones who are not even yet born!  

Answer 5

Well for some people the issue of abortion is very much choosing who lives or dies. Some women are unable to safely carry a pregnancy to term and therefore must make the choice..me or my unborn child. And what would you say to them?

Answer 6

The building isn't a person.  It has no rights.  It can't be put in danger if it remains untouched while people search it.  A woman is a human being.  Pregnancy is dangerous.  Forcing a woman to carry a child against her will has severe repercussions on her physical, emotional and mental health.  A building can't suffer.  A woman can.

Answer 7

I'm pro-life myself, but I don't really think this analogy fits.  Pregnancy doesn't typically destroy a woman's body (it affects it, not destroys it in most cases).  Until a certain point, the baby (person inside the building) can't survive outside the mother (building).

Answer 8

Not a particularly good analogy, no. A sentient woman is more valuable than a non-sentient embryo/foetus, whereas a person is more valuable than a building.

Actually there is a kind of consensus in the medical/scientific community, which involves the point at which humans attain 'consciousness' or mental awareness. It is physiologically impossible for this to occur early in pregnancy as the embryo/foetus does not have the necessary brain connections.

This is the same criteria the medical community uses for establishing brain death in people on life support machines.

Answer 9

The only problem i have with the analogy is that if you drag the person in the building out they won't die from not being in the building.

Also, you don't destroy a women or a uterus from having an abortion (usually, sometimes they do)

Buildings also lack autonomy and consciousness

Its interesting though, something to think about

Answer 10

I completely agree. Yes it is an apt analogy.

Answer 11

To accept the "right to choose" argument, you have to believe that there are no absolutes in life.  No truth, no falsehood, no good, no evil.  This is the classical post-modern position.  The post-modernist will propose this argument:

1.  There is no consensus on when a "fetus" becomes a "human being".

2.  Therefore, each person can choose whichever time along the gestation timeline is convenient.

This argument is completely without logical merit.  It disregards issues such as, why is a consensus necessary or relevant?  Why would there be a magic moment of transformation from fetus to human at all, when the development period is continuous?

The next issue, that some children are better off not being born, is an idea so corrupt and without foundation that its flaws are obvious.  The very arrogance of the statement displays such deep racism and hatred of the poor, the disabled, and the disadvantaged, that only the empty pseudo-science of the eugenecists can support it.