Proponents of a complete legal prohibition on abortion might raise a fraction less ire if they argued for prohibition plus child-support and thereby manifested some recognition of the suffering that results from prohibition tout court.
(Rosalind Hursthouse, "Fallacies and Moral Dilemmas," Argumentation 9 [November 1995]: 617-32, at 626 [italics in original])
Note from KBJ: I've never understood this argument. Why does my saying "Stop killing your babies!" commit me to providing for those babies, should they not be killed? Doesn't that put the would-be murderer (i.e., the pregnant woman) in the position of telling the rest of us, "Either I (get to) kill my baby with impunity or the rest of you must support him or her." How is that not coercive? Why should this woman get to impose that choice on us? Why is she not responsible for her behavior? Looked at differently, the argument assumes that abortion is morally permissible and then presents the woman as offering the rest of us a choice (how very nice of her): either support my baby or I'll kill it. But this begs the question, which is whether abortion is morally permissible. Imagine a would-be murderer saying to society, "Unless you provide for me for the rest of my life, I'm going to kill people at will." Wouldn't we reply, "No, you're not going to kill people at will and we're not going to provide for you for the rest of your life, either"?
