I am going to probably regret this, but this kind of reductionist summary of the very real conflict of priorities does not help the situation. First let’s get my conclusion out of the way, I’m pro-choice. I am also an atheist-- I will immediately disregard any argument that invokes a magic spirit living inside a meat suit. However, even with “MaGiC” off the board, there is some argument to be made about doing harm to future people (and a zygote is a future person) and deserves a real discussion.
We already do things that restrict what people can do based on harm it might do in the future-- to people that aren’t even born yet. If being unborn really counted for nothing, we wouldn’t have any laws that restricted action based on long-term effect. (For example: laws to prevent climate change, to prevent cluster bombing, etc) So clearly, whether or not a person has been born yet doesn’t immediately disqualify them from protection under the law.
The abortion debate is one of those uncommon instances where two conflicting rights meet. The proverbial “your right to swing your arm stops at my nose” situation. We have done this every time there is such a conflict. Your right to life ends when you attempt to end the life of someone else (self defense), for example. We, as a society, get tomust decide whose rights are more important in the abortion scenario, but at no point are we saying that both parties don’t have rights. One just necessarily must supersede the other.
I personally believe that there is far more risk with giving the government the power to force a pregnant person to undergo a risky medical procedure against their will than in ending the life of a person who has not been born yet. There are some powers I think we would be foolish to grant the government, and “forced birth” is definitely one of them. However, it’s important to keep in mind that this decision isn’t a law of nature-- no more than “killing in self defense is allowed” is a law of nature; these are societal judgments. It’s plausible that a society could make a different judgement; one where even killing someone in self-defense was viewed as a criminal act. In fact, you probably believe this to a degree when it comes to “stand your ground” laws, as implementing in places like Florida or Texas.
It’s important to keep in mind that there is no objectively right or wrong answer; if there were, it wouldn’t be a conflict point. It necessitates a dialog to convince people to agree with you, and dismissing the argument as foolish doesn’t do that, which means it will remain an “undecided” conflict point for longer than it needs to.
Sorry about the unsolicited rant. Thanks for coming to my Ted Talk?
There is certainly a right answer, my body, my choice. Get out of here trying to reason with the pro life side. There is no discussion. There is no compromise, there is no trying to understand those fools. My body, my choice no more discussion. That’s all the discussion we need
If you think you can force your subjective will on billions of people by plugging your ears and shouting “I’m right” you’re going to be very disappointed by life.
There is no one Christian opinion now or any time history about abortion. But if you want to go with Augustine, Thomas Aquinas and Pope Innocent III early abortion before quickening was not a sin as per the two latter that is when the fetus is ensouled. That is around the middle of the second trimester. Popes Sixtus V and Stephen V both were against it at any point. Luther seems to be against it at any point.
They absolutely do. They absolutely absolutely do. And society gets to have a boundary that says we don’t want unvaccinated people in our society. So those people who want to choose to not be vaccinated can go somewhere else.
let’s start with you’re not getting prosecuted for not having a vaccination. These people are going into other states to track people down. It is their body. It is their choice. There is no debate. We’re not talking about masks. We’re talking about abortion. Try to focus on a single issue. What does Hunter Biden have to do with this? I’m sure you think something.
You are way off base, but I doubt telling you this will convince you. I am pro choice; I already said this. My point is that this is a debate. There is no objective right or wrong answer. You must convince people that your stance is the just and correct one; and I don’t know many people who were convinced by having their stance dismissed without debate.
You do, but you don’t get to send your infectious brat to public school, and you might not get to drag your infectious ass into somebody else’s private property, like for example the place where you work, or into a regulated public space such as a government office. But you will not be held down and vaccinated against your will. 'kay?
Setting up a Sophie’s Choice does not support what you think you’re saying. If I crafted some extreme consequence for choosing to have an abortion-- while still allowing it, would you support that?
The underlying presumption with “my body, my choice” is that there aren’t applied consequences for making the choice, no?
Clearly, even with the risk of death, people still have abortions, because they are a NECESSARY option. So, yeah it’s already supported. All of that aside, why do you feel a need to punish women for nothing?
We have all heard of the “coat hanger abortions” performed everywhere. There are PLENTY of complications, namely death that arise from them, and yet, there are plenty of them happening daily.
I am not, nor have I ever, been arguing against choice. Perhaps I confused you with some unclear wording somewhere. I’m arguing that “it’s just a clump of cells” doesn’t necessarily mean society, or the law, shouldn’t care what happens to it.
eh. I’d have to accept your assumption that a person is harmed by an abortion, as in a fetus is a person with rights. I don’t. Given that, as there is no other person harmed by an abortion there is no equivalence, unless of course you think that vaccines don’t work, are more risky than the disease they (don’t) prevent, or other anti-vac bullshit. Public policy cannot always accommodate idiotic beliefs alongside evidence based scientifically valid information when the idiotic beliefs can and almost certainly will cause harm to other people with rights. That is why it is acceptable to ban smoking where others will inhale your smoke, why it is acceptable to strictly enforce impaired driving laws, and why enforcing vaccination requirements is good public policy.
Sure, HOWEVER, not being vaccinated puts society as a whole at risk. So, there are two options, be part of society, and get vaccinated, OR, don’t get vaccinated, and don’t be part of society. It’s like wearing clothes in public. I sure as fuck don’t want to wear clothes, like ever, but I do, so I can be part of society.
An abortion affects the mother ONLY. Not an apples to apples comparison at all.
No, the “zygote” doesn’t have the ability to live without the life support from the mother. It isn’t sentient. It isn’t a fully developed being. It’s a clump of cells. It doesn’t get a say in the matter. Mostly because it can’t.
I see this sentiment pop up for often than I’d like. Are you implying that the only people worth protecting are people that can articulate that they need protection? Surely not (I sure hope not!) so what are you implying here? Silence is acceptance?
An anti-vaxxer does have a choice, but so does the society around them. If you do not vax you run the potential of carrying a larger load of a decease that can harm and/or kill me and/or my family simply for having been in the same space as you. I do not want that risk and if enough of society believe that risk to be too great, then you, the anti-vaxxer, must vacate the public space.
Abortion is explicitly different as, for one, it doesn’t physically effect any other human being except the mother. Now, beyond my feeling that this question is quite explicitly a smug attempt at a “got ya” question, in the case of an abortion, the Mother is the whole of society, and, like in the anti-vaxxer case, the society gets to determine what’s best for the whole… to be clear, that means the Mother has sole determination to whether to carry a pregnancy or to abort.
Physically? Not at all. The fetus is growing exclusively within the body of the mother. Nobody else is physically effected by that bodily relationship. If the Mother finds the fetus undesirable, or, far more likely, physically damaging to the mothers health and well being, they have sole determination to whether to continue physically caring for the fetus. Once the fetus is viable, the fetus, by definition, no longer requires the mother’s body and is it’s own separate entity.
The fetus is growing exclusively within the body of the mother.
Does being inside the pregnant person matter? If so, why? You’re trying to convince me that a zygote deserves no legal rights (remember, my stance is that this argument is nonsense and that pro-choice is 100% compatible with also giving a zygote rights). Corporations have rights, and they don’t even exist anywhere. So clearly society can give rights to whatever it decides to-- why should a zygote be one of those things?
It might depend on what you mean by forced, but I meant it more as a hypothetical. the “my body, my choice” argument doesn’t logically differentiate between the two things. Which is why it’s ineffective at convincing people to support choice.
Does “My body, my choice” also apply to anti vaxxers? Do you support the stance that they should get to decide what to do with their body when it comes to vaccines, without any government punishment for making that choice?
If not, then what kind of defense is “my body, my choice”, really? A pretty weak one, right? Because it’s obviously not universally applied, so you need to defend why some instances it’s not “my body, my choice” and some instances it is. If you’re going to need to defend the defense, you might as well just drop the “my body, my choice” defense altogether and directly defend why it’s wrong.
And since it seems that if I don’t say it in every comment it will immediately be forgotten: I am pro choice. I do not believe the government should have the power to force people to undergo medical procedures against their will-- especially birth, but not limited to birth. I think even anti-choicers would be horrified if someone suggested that the government be allowed to force people to undergo organ donations to “save a life”; they just haven’t put 2 and 2 together. Which is my point-- that pro-choice people make bad choices when it comes to defending their position on abortion. It’s very often a complete dismissal without even an effort to explain.
I go on to elaborate on why you are mistaken. If you believe my explanation to be lacking, point out where. You still have questions pending that you should consider answering.
Is this how you think “my body, my choice” works? Can the “choice” come with negative consequences? Is that how you’d like to see it applied to abortion?
I agree with the result of your conclusion but I disagree with your central premise. We do have laws to protect rights in the future. Those laws, though, don’t protect individual rights, they protect the rights of the society as a whole.
I the case of the fetus, it is arguable as to when the fetus gains rights of its own, but I don’t think that a newly fertilized egg immediately gains rights. Something like the morning after pill, abortion at 6 weeks, or even abortion at 12 or 20 weeks doesn’t constitute “murder in self defense” in my mind. I think there is a line to be drawn somewhere before that even becomes a consideration.
Once you do cross that line, though, we do get to your argument and your logic holds I think.
my body, my choice is all the logic we need. Don’t try to argue or draw debates. It will only divide it will only give them some sort of sense that their argument holds water. There is nothing but ‘my body, my choice.’
I don’t think that your argument is going to win back women’s right to choose. “My body my choice” in the way that you are using it, with no gray area or caveats, implies that abortion should be legal up to the time of birth. That’s going to be a tough idea to get agreement on, even from many people who are pro-choice.
I am pro-choice but, if we want women to be able to choose for themselves, we do need to argue I good faith and make some reasonable compromises I think.
Who do you think is carrying a baby for nearly 9 months then saying “Well, I better get that abortion in now before it’s too late!”
This doesn’t happen the way you’ve implied. People who are aborting with no fault don’t wait till near full term. And when an abortion does happens that late term, as rare as it is, it’s always because of an unviable fetus or an at risk of death mother. We absolutely should help people in those situations, and any restrictions on abortion, any ambiguity or vagueness in terminology, even directed only at late term abortions, can and will be used to prevent care to those who really need it.
I actually thought about saying exactly what you’re saying but didn’t want to muddy my argument. My point is, even if it should be a choice between a mother and her doctor, that argument isn’t going to win the day. Too many people will point to later term abortions as an argument against full-on “my body my choice”. It is too easy to convince people that is allowing murder…
What is actually does is leave the choice of abortion up to birth between a pregnant person and their doctor, up until birth. I can’t go into a doctor and demand whatever treatment I want because it’s my body.
It really doesn’t matter because doctors are not going to abort after viability because of their oath to do no harm. The only abortions at that time are a threat to the mother or the birth would be closely followed by death from a severe disease or defect.
Laws that require a second opinion are the only logical compromise because anything else will negatively impact many, many women with no positive outcome for the potential future person. Even that is a compromise and will have a negative impact, but at least it would still be limited to a medical decision and not some legal criteria written in a way that doesn’t fit each pregnancy.
That said, very few doctors actually perform late term abortions anyways (even though these are almost universally due to complicating medical scenarios and not for funsies).
That is a little nitpicky. The article you linked says medical schools do have doctors take the hippocratic or similar oath. The relevant part from the hippocratic oath is pretty much what people think of when they think “do no harm”:
“I will follow that system of regimen which, according to my ability and judgment, I consider for the benefit of my patients, and abstain from whatever is deleterious and mischievous.”
Your stance is not incompatible with mine; my meta stance is solely that there is a discussion to have. As opposed to the person in this thread pretending like it’s an objective fact instead of a societal judgement.
I do not specifically carve out an exception for late term abortion because no one is actually waiting 6 months before deciding whether to carry to term. The people getting late term abortions are doing it because they must due to medical reasons.
I’m not sure how there’s a discussion when you’re pitting a real-life person against a hypothetical future person. Your other examples (eg climate change) affect society as a whole. There is no hypothetical about it.
If hypothetically speaking I bury a land mine in a field-- does it matter if the person who eventually dies because of my actions was born before or after I buried the mine? Is when they were born in relation to my actions relevant at all?
I don’t know if land mines are part of it, but there are munitions that are considered a war crime to be used because the are likely to harm someone in some unspecified future.
You’re cherry picking their argument to prove your point btw.
They compared the mother’s current life (and possible other children by proxy) with the value of a potential future person.
Your argument ignores the burden being placed on the mom and her family. Also, you’re conflating the gift of life a mom gives a child with the moral responsibility of not leaving weapons around.
Do you see the difference? You’re turning pregnancy into an obligation or a responsibility. Sound like any talking points you hear on the right?
I am not arguing against choice at all; I’m arguing that “it’s just a clump of cells” is not a rational argument for whether or not it deserves protection under the law.
Yes but a mine can kill a real life person who can be injured or die which has a real world negative effect on society. A person having an abortion has no impact on society outside of some lame thought experiment. Have you read this famous essay about the morality of requiring someone to continue a pregnancy?
I was only pointing out that we do care what happens to people even if they haven’t been born at the time the actions take place. Because many people believe, in error, that “the zygote hasn’t been born yet” is evidence that we should not care what happens to it.
There’s no real conflict of rights, unless you believe that people should be forced by the government to be live organ donors. That “future person” has no more rights to a woman’s uterus than I do as an adult to my mother’s blood & organs if I get into a car accident.
Notably, this is my exact conclusion-- but my point isn’t that a pregnant person should not be allowed to have a choice-- only that the argument could be logically made that the rights of the zygote are more important. A parent has to feed and care for their kids, even if they want to abandon them to go spend a week in vegas. We make judgement on whose rights matter more all the time, and abortion/choice is no different.
My point was that it doesn’t help anyone to dismiss that there is a judgement to be made. You and I have both obviously made judgments that the pregnant person’s right to bodily autonomy is of greater importance, but that doesn’t mean that this is objectively true, or that the zygote doesn’t have rights or should be considered a person for legal purposes.
No I get it, you’re playing devil’s advocate in 1,000 words, but it’s all for naught. That’s all it comes down to - if someone is “pro life”, their opinion is that people should be forced by the government to be live organ donors. And yes, their opinion can then absolutely be dismissed out of hand, because it is irrational and does not respect the rights of the human they are forcing into organ donor slavery.
I’m not even here to debate the personhood status of a fetus, an embryo, a zygote, etc… No human (or potential human) has the right to take blood and tissue from another human by government force.
I’m not playing devil’s advocate. I’m pointing out that this is not an objective truth-- that whether or not pregnant people should have (safe) access to abortions is up to society, and thus it is best for those of us who believe that society is better off when there is safe access to abortion (which the data supports!) should make an effort to convince those people that disagree.
This topic has a lot of parallels to the debate on capital punishment. Much of the support for capital punishment is based on incorrect assumptions, bad information, and feelings. Luckily, people seem easier to sway away from capital punishment, but it would be infinitely more difficult if the arguments for capital punishment were just laughed at or ignored.
Does this apply to vaccines? There are many (many) people in this thread that tell me that no one has to get vaccinated, they can just live in the woods on a mountain-- but I can’t help but wonder who enforces this, if not the government. (I do think people should be required to get vaccinated, btw-- but I also think “my body, my choice” is a weak argument.)
In common language, the phrase ‘playing devil’s advocate’ describes a situation where someone, given a certain point of view, takes a position they do not necessarily agree with (or simply an alternative position from the accepted norm), for the sake of debate or to explore the thought further using valid reasoning that both disagrees with the subject at hand and proves their own point valid.
I’m pointing out that this is not an objective truth
Then you’re a little hazy on the topic of government-mandated organ donation slavery. Okay.
This topic has a lot of parallels to the debate on capital punishment
I’m not going to debate for or against capital punishment, but the two situations are not comparable unless you believe that pregnancy is a capital crime deserving of the punishment of forced organ donation slavery.
Does this apply to vaccines?
Unfortunately, yes. While it would have been nice and would have saved many more lives if everyone had been forced to get vaccinated, the government cannot force that on anyone. They can require that government workers and military either get vaccinated or lose their jobs / be discharged from service, however.
Now, is there anything else you’d like to throw out as devil’s advocate?
Well, you mostly missed the point but you grazed it.
They can require that government workers and military either get vaccinated or lose their jobs / be discharged from service, however.
And should the government be able to do the same if a pregnant person gets an abortion? (Remember, my point is that “my body, my choice” is not a good argument). And to that point:
Yes, you are
I have not once defended anti-choice. I am pointing out that the arguments many people use to defend abortion-choice aren’t well thought out. Like “it’s just a clump of cells” or “my body, my choice”. Well, I’m trying to do that. YMMV on how successful I’ve been, haha.
It’s not a Ted Talk, it’s a forced birth argument churlishly hiding under a false cloak of “pro-choice atheist.”
It doesn’t matter whether you believe in God or not, or in souls, there’s no actual valid argument for the “rights” of a zygote.
And you’re incredibly dismissive of the rights of the person hosting that zygote and having it feed off their life-force.
At least 1 in 4 of pregnancies abort all on their own. Until recently we didn’t attack people when they failed to prevent that. But now hospitals are telling women they have to wait until they’re dying of sepsis to end a pregnancy with a fetus that’s dying all on its own. That’s where your argument leads and we’re seeing it in real deaths.
You’re trying to get the camel’s nose under the tent of women’s bodily autonomy, and I’m calling you out on it.
I haven’t dismissed anything, except religious arguments to remove choice. I’m saying that “it’s just a bunch of cells” or “my body, my choice” are not sound arguments. A clump of cells can have rights. Rights are a human invention, not a natural thing that exists independent of humans; we can literally give anything we want legal rights, including a clump of cells. So, you can’t simply dismiss the entire concept of a zygote having rights; that is something you need to defend. The zygote certainly has rights if someone attacked a pregnant person and caused a miscarriage; they could be charged with murder. No?
However, as I go on to say, I think it’s entirely possible to grant a zygote rights, while also acknowledging that a pregnant person’s right to bodily autonomy supersedes those rights. Similar to how someone has a right to life until they try to kill someone else, in which case, we say the rights of the attacked take precedence over the rights of the attacker. Hopefully no one believes the attacker no longer has rights. Does that make sense?
this kind of reductionist summary of the very real conflict of priorities does not help the situation.
scientifically speaking, it’s 100% accurate. Just because imaginary sky daddy tells some people that it’s already a thinking, breathing, living person doesn’t matter.
If being unborn really counted for nothing, we wouldn’t have any laws that restricted action based on long-term effect. (For example: laws to prevent climate change, to prevent cluster bombing, etc)
We don’t really though. There are no real punishments for any of those actions, or anything to actually stop people from doing them. Yes, we do have laws saying you can go to jail if you do drugs while pregnant, BUT that’s because there is an INTENTION to carry to term, and have an actual human happen, that will be great affected by those drinking/drug uses during pregnancy. If you are so early on that you can/are aborting, SCIENTIFICALLY it’s a clump of cells, with no chance of being a human at that time.
The abortion debate is one of those uncommon instances where two conflicting rights meet.
yeah… not really. If I’m forced to carry the parasite, I have the only say in what happens to it. I’m a living breathing already existing human being. The cells are not, and they cannot live outside of my body, so please take them out, and let them do their thing. Please let’s see what happens.
However, it’s important to keep in mind that this decision isn’t a law of nature-- no more than “killing in self defense is allowed” is a law of nature; these are societal judgments.
nature is pretty indiscriminate in what it kills, but humans have added their own beliefs, which vary wildly from location to location. Regardless, the government and especially religion should have zero say. Abortion is a medical procedure, whether you, imaginary sky daddy, or some religious zealot thinks otherwise, and should be treated as such.
In fact, you probably believe this to a degree when it comes to “stand your ground” laws, as implementing in places like Florida or Texas.
Not related, so not really relevant to this topic, but generally, as far as I can tell, those laws are simply and excuse to kill for the sake of killing, and because the person already WANTED to.
It’s important to keep in mind that there is no objectively right or wrong answer; if there were, it wouldn’t be a conflict point.
Except scientifically, and objectively, there is a right answer. Certain people just don’t like it, but it doesn’t change the reality of it. That’s like saying I don’t like religion so no one can practice it. Doesn’t work, does it?
It necessitates a dialog to convince people to agree with you, and dismissing the argument as foolish doesn’t do that, which means it will remain an “undecided” conflict point for longer than it needs to.
I’m pretty sure, based on historical data, and observation, we all know that a respectful discourse isn’t going to happen, and if it did, it wouldn’t sway the party in the wrong. Also, at this point, I do not believe there are any “undecided” people left. Either you follow reality and science, or imaginary sky daddy. Those seem to be the only two options left in US society. Other countries see the value, and necessity, and treat abortion as such, but we aren’t one of those countries.
I really appreciate the effort you took to respond. You’ll shortly read that I disagree, but I appreciate it just the same.
scientifically speaking, it’s 100% accurate.
Scientifically speaking, we’re all just clumps of cells, are we not? The argument is not sound.
There are no real punishments for any of those actions
I don’t see how this matters. You do agree that we should concern ourselves with the well being of the people that haven’t been born yet, right? We should not perform actions today that can harm people in the future? If yes, then whether or not someone has been born is irrelevant to whether or not they deserve protection as a person under the law, or even morally speaking, if you care for moral arguments.
yeah… not really. If I’m forced to carry the parasite,
It’s not a parasite anymore than when anti-choicers call it a baby. It’s a… growth, but aren’t we all? haha This isn’t Hogwarts. You’re not going to convince anyone that you are correct by using a magic phrase like “baby” or “parasite” or “clump of cells”. And my point is that this is something you need to convince people of. So you should want to take actions are effective at that goal.
they cannot live outside of my body, so please take them out, and let them do their thing
This has always been an interesting thought experiment for me. Imagining a future time where a zygote could be removed from a pregnant person’s body without killing the zygote, the abortion debate would cease to exist-- because there is no longer a conflict between two people’s rights.
the government and especially religion should have zero say. Abortion is a medical procedure, whether you, imaginary sky daddy, or some religious zealot thinks otherwise, and should be treated as such.
Well, I agree with this. That’s my conclusion as well. That’s not a power the government should have over people.
those laws are simply and excuse to kill for the sake of killing, and because the person already WANTED to
Thus my point: even in the realm of “it’s okay to end someone’s life if you’re acting in self defense” is not an objective stance. You’ve rightly added in context and nuance. Why should abortion be different? Why shouldn’t abortion also be a debate, as opposed to claiming it’s an objective truth?
Except scientifically, and objectively, there is a right answer. Certain people just don’t like it, but it doesn’t change the reality of it. That’s like saying I don’t like religion so no one can practice it. Doesn’t work, does it?
We’ve already established that your “scientifically” aspect is flawed, but keep in mind that we are discussing a human social construct (the law). We have granted abstract objects (corporations) some rights of personhood-- there is nothing to say we couldn’t provide rights to a “clump of cells”. The question then becomes if we should, which just brings up back to the original problem. In fact, I’d say that it makes things worse to argue from this point. If you say that a “clump of cells” is not a person, then what happens if someone assaults a pregnant person which results in loss of the pregnancy? If you’ve decided that there are no rights, then I feel like the law becomes less just for edge cases. Whereas if you instead concede that there are rights, but when they come in conflict with the rights of the pregnant person, the “clump of cells” rights are the ones that become restricted and the law still makes sense otherwise.
Also, at this point, I do not believe there are any “undecided” people left.
This is provably untrue. Just because someone has made a decision doesn’t mean they can’t be convinced otherwise. After Roe was struck down, polling in favor of maintaining abortion rights went up. Polling wouldn’t change if no one could be swayed.
Again, I really appreciate the thought and effort you put into your reply. And do keep in mind that you and I are both pro-choice (and apparently atheist). My point is directly mostly towards how best to argue our case to people who disagree.
Edit: I don’t know what happened but a significant part of my comment seems… missing.
What’s your take on cancer then? Imo it all comes down to the woman’s intent to carry. We carve out exceptions for intent in society all the time. But we live in a world that really really doesn’t like women making choices for themselves and will use any crutch it can to deny equal rights.
I can’t take your blood without your consent to save my life can I? Even if you were a murderer on death row and I was a saint, it’d be a crime. People understand bodily rights when it’s a kidney, when it’s a uterus they lose their damn mind.
Right, but these are all judgments made by society. It’s not objectively true.
For what it’s worth, the most effective argument I’ve used to convince anti-choice people that they should support the choice to have an abortion is by crafting a hypothetical there they are forced by the government to undergo a liver transplant (which only takes half the liver, which will eventually grow back) to “save a life”, and then comparing it to forcing a pregnant person being forced to carry to term to “save a life”.
Don’t think about it as doing harm to a future person. Think about it as doing harm to a future dead corpse. Both have the exact same logical reasoning.
So having an abortion is just getting them to the corpse stage faster. And really what’s the harm in that? Certainly it’s much less harm than forcing someone to do something with their body that they don’t want to.
I just hate the “a zygote is a future person” argument, because by that logic my jizz is a future person and every time I jizz that doesn’t result in a pregnancy has the same weight an abortion carry’s. I have yet to hear a convincing argument for why we stop the abortion claim at when the jizz enters the uterus. I think there’s something to be said at making it illegal after a certain trimester, but I don’t know where I’d even put that line.
Yes when you’re talking about the formation of something. Like, you’re not gonna talk me into a corner with this kind of argument man. something not even having developed any kind of perception of reality, and that is actually just a clump of cells that might reproduce if left alone into a human is NOT the same as a person. It just isn’t, and it’s not an atrocity to stop that thing from becoming a human if it is going to damage the lives of others.
I think it prudent to examine the risks associated with being born to a person who would have chosen abortion had it been safe, free, and legal. The kids one chose to have deserve to grow up surrounded by wanted and cared for peers as much as the kids one would not choose to have deserve to be born into a loving and prepared family.
No one chooses to be born. It’s literally impossible to determine whether an unborn human would prefer to be born without knowing anything about the existence that awaits them. That is why we put the focus on the person who is already in this world, and their choice about their body.
Unfortunately, this is the fundamental “weakness” of the pro choice side of the argument: it’s nuanced.
And apparently ain’t nobody got time for nuance.
The anti-choice argument is quick and easy and requires no time to process, discuss, or work through. “Abortion == baby murder == bad.”
It’s not a surprise that the only voices you hear from the religious circles, at least the Christian ones, are Catholics and Evangelicals. Those groups often tend to deal with nuance by ignoring it altogether. Mainline Protestants, not so much. We – and I’m saying this as a Mainline Protestant – live and breathe nuance. Sometimes to the point where we seem to be drowning in it. There isn’t an army of Presbyterians, Lutherans, or Episcopalians taking to the streets in support of abortion rights because… Well, it’s complicated.
Obviously I can’t speak for everyone in those circles but the fact is that probably most Christians, even “liberal” (and I dislike that term for it’s inaccuracy) ones don’t love abortion. From my perspective it’s perceived as a medical procedure that is sometimes necessary even if it has potential for abuse. I would expect a lot of Mainline Protestants are pro-choice but the thoughts on abortion are probably so diverse and nuanced that it’s hard to distill down to a coherent message.
Thank you for speaking your truth. We need more of this and less careless disregard for the beliefs of others. Understanding is the only way to grow as a species. Calling a life a clump of cells may be true in some senses but not in all. If you think we’re all just clumps of cells that’s fine, but that’s not what the pro lifers see. Disregarding that fact only weakens your position and strengthens your “opposition’s”.
It is not really on topic but “pro life” is propaganda. It’s a debate between giving a pregnant person the choice to have an abortion, or not. You’re also doing the same thing I was complaining about. No one who is pro choice thinks “we’re all just clumps of cells”.
I know it’s a whataboutism, but I really can’t stand that we can’t have something like a gun registry because “MuH gUnz!?!!” and the government might take them or whatever, but we can’t buy or borrow books without government agencies being able to secretly procure that information. Now private medical records from the doctor’s office, not just like a person googling around, are being hoovered up for overtly political reasons against vulnerable people. Why are guns so much more sacred than people being able to live?
It is a violation until it goes to scotus who will say that it doesn’t apply just like with the precedent of Roe v Wade and that made up case about a website for a gay couple.
Those are only the ones that could afford to get there; rafts of those who can’t, are being forced to give birth in a state that won’t support them.
But, but think about the clump of cells!!
I don’t think anyone that’s being honest thought anything different was going to happen.
Ignore the walking, talking one that is considered just an incubator
These people would rather go to war to subjugate by force than compromise. So no I don’t think any of them actually thought it through.
I am going to probably regret this, but this kind of reductionist summary of the very real conflict of priorities does not help the situation. First let’s get my conclusion out of the way, I’m pro-choice. I am also an atheist-- I will immediately disregard any argument that invokes a magic spirit living inside a meat suit. However, even with “MaGiC” off the board, there is some argument to be made about doing harm to future people (and a zygote is a future person) and deserves a real discussion.
We already do things that restrict what people can do based on harm it might do in the future-- to people that aren’t even born yet. If being unborn really counted for nothing, we wouldn’t have any laws that restricted action based on long-term effect. (For example: laws to prevent climate change, to prevent cluster bombing, etc) So clearly, whether or not a person has been born yet doesn’t immediately disqualify them from protection under the law.
The abortion debate is one of those uncommon instances where two conflicting rights meet. The proverbial “your right to swing your arm stops at my nose” situation. We have done this every time there is such a conflict. Your right to life ends when you attempt to end the life of someone else (self defense), for example. We, as a society,
get tomust decide whose rights are more important in the abortion scenario, but at no point are we saying that both parties don’t have rights. One just necessarily must supersede the other.I personally believe that there is far more risk with giving the government the power to force a pregnant person to undergo a risky medical procedure against their will than in ending the life of a person who has not been born yet. There are some powers I think we would be foolish to grant the government, and “forced birth” is definitely one of them. However, it’s important to keep in mind that this decision isn’t a law of nature-- no more than “killing in self defense is allowed” is a law of nature; these are societal judgments. It’s plausible that a society could make a different judgement; one where even killing someone in self-defense was viewed as a criminal act. In fact, you probably believe this to a degree when it comes to “stand your ground” laws, as implementing in places like Florida or Texas.
It’s important to keep in mind that there is no objectively right or wrong answer; if there were, it wouldn’t be a conflict point. It necessitates a dialog to convince people to agree with you, and dismissing the argument as foolish doesn’t do that, which means it will remain an “undecided” conflict point for longer than it needs to.
Sorry about the unsolicited rant. Thanks for coming to my Ted Talk?
There is certainly a right answer, my body, my choice. Get out of here trying to reason with the pro life side. There is no discussion. There is no compromise, there is no trying to understand those fools. My body, my choice no more discussion. That’s all the discussion we need
If you think you can force your subjective will on billions of people by plugging your ears and shouting “I’m right” you’re going to be very disappointed by life.
Nah, MY body MY choice. Choose for yourself. No debate bro
There is truth in all perspectives and denying that helps no one, including yourself.
“Your debating wrong” isn’t a good substitute to presenting actual argument.
The irony of saying this when being pro life is forcing an exclusively Christian belief on other people.
There is no one Christian opinion now or any time history about abortion. But if you want to go with Augustine, Thomas Aquinas and Pope Innocent III early abortion before quickening was not a sin as per the two latter that is when the fetus is ensouled. That is around the middle of the second trimester. Popes Sixtus V and Stephen V both were against it at any point. Luther seems to be against it at any point.
The people who think they can dictate what medical procedures another person can have should remember this.
People can dislike abortions all they want, but an abortion should strictly be between a woman and her doctor.
Ummm… they’re speaking for themselves. Not forcing shit on anyone. And excercising their right of body autonomy.
I think you have things backwards basically.
Do anti-vaxxers also get to use “my body, my choice”? Why or why not?
They absolutely do. They absolutely absolutely do. And society gets to have a boundary that says we don’t want unvaccinated people in our society. So those people who want to choose to not be vaccinated can go somewhere else.
Is this the same as “if you want to have an abortion, go somewhere else”? Why or why not?
let’s start with you’re not getting prosecuted for not having a vaccination. These people are going into other states to track people down. It is their body. It is their choice. There is no debate. We’re not talking about masks. We’re talking about abortion. Try to focus on a single issue. What does Hunter Biden have to do with this? I’m sure you think something.
You are way off base, but I doubt telling you this will convince you. I am pro choice; I already said this. My point is that this is a debate. There is no objective right or wrong answer. You must convince people that your stance is the just and correct one; and I don’t know many people who were convinced by having their stance dismissed without debate.
One affects other people, the other does not. Get out of here with your debate, my body, my choice.
This person has the right idea.
Rights are excercised not granted. Right to body autonomy too
What do you mean when you say “other people”?
You do, but you don’t get to send your infectious brat to public school, and you might not get to drag your infectious ass into somebody else’s private property, like for example the place where you work, or into a regulated public space such as a government office. But you will not be held down and vaccinated against your will. 'kay?
Setting up a Sophie’s Choice does not support what you think you’re saying. If I crafted some extreme consequence for choosing to have an abortion-- while still allowing it, would you support that?
The underlying presumption with “my body, my choice” is that there aren’t applied consequences for making the choice, no?
Clearly, even with the risk of death, people still have abortions, because they are a NECESSARY option. So, yeah it’s already supported. All of that aside, why do you feel a need to punish women for nothing?
We have all heard of the “coat hanger abortions” performed everywhere. There are PLENTY of complications, namely death that arise from them, and yet, there are plenty of them happening daily.
I am not, nor have I ever, been arguing against choice. Perhaps I confused you with some unclear wording somewhere. I’m arguing that “it’s just a clump of cells” doesn’t necessarily mean society, or the law, shouldn’t care what happens to it.
eh. I’d have to accept your assumption that a person is harmed by an abortion, as in a fetus is a person with rights. I don’t. Given that, as there is no other person harmed by an abortion there is no equivalence, unless of course you think that vaccines don’t work, are more risky than the disease they (don’t) prevent, or other anti-vac bullshit. Public policy cannot always accommodate idiotic beliefs alongside evidence based scientifically valid information when the idiotic beliefs can and almost certainly will cause harm to other people with rights. That is why it is acceptable to ban smoking where others will inhale your smoke, why it is acceptable to strictly enforce impaired driving laws, and why enforcing vaccination requirements is good public policy.
So if a pregnant person gets attacked and it causes a miscarriage, it shouldn’t be considered some form of murder or manslaughter?
Sure, HOWEVER, not being vaccinated puts society as a whole at risk. So, there are two options, be part of society, and get vaccinated, OR, don’t get vaccinated, and don’t be part of society. It’s like wearing clothes in public. I sure as fuck don’t want to wear clothes, like ever, but I do, so I can be part of society.
An abortion affects the mother ONLY. Not an apples to apples comparison at all.
You forgot the zygote.
No, the “zygote” doesn’t have the ability to live without the life support from the mother. It isn’t sentient. It isn’t a fully developed being. It’s a clump of cells. It doesn’t get a say in the matter. Mostly because it can’t.
I see this sentiment pop up for often than I’d like. Are you implying that the only people worth protecting are people that can articulate that they need protection? Surely not (I sure hope not!) so what are you implying here? Silence is acceptance?
An anti-vaxxer does have a choice, but so does the society around them. If you do not vax you run the potential of carrying a larger load of a decease that can harm and/or kill me and/or my family simply for having been in the same space as you. I do not want that risk and if enough of society believe that risk to be too great, then you, the anti-vaxxer, must vacate the public space.
Abortion is explicitly different as, for one, it doesn’t physically effect any other human being except the mother. Now, beyond my feeling that this question is quite explicitly a smug attempt at a “got ya” question, in the case of an abortion, the Mother is the whole of society, and, like in the anti-vaxxer case, the society gets to determine what’s best for the whole… to be clear, that means the Mother has sole determination to whether to carry a pregnancy or to abort.
Is this true? You can’t think of any other party that is involved?
Physically? Not at all. The fetus is growing exclusively within the body of the mother. Nobody else is physically effected by that bodily relationship. If the Mother finds the fetus undesirable, or, far more likely, physically damaging to the mothers health and well being, they have sole determination to whether to continue physically caring for the fetus. Once the fetus is viable, the fetus, by definition, no longer requires the mother’s body and is it’s own separate entity.
Does being inside the pregnant person matter? If so, why? You’re trying to convince me that a zygote deserves no legal rights (remember, my stance is that this argument is nonsense and that pro-choice is 100% compatible with also giving a zygote rights). Corporations have rights, and they don’t even exist anywhere. So clearly society can give rights to whatever it decides to-- why should a zygote be one of those things?
Who was ever forced to get a vaccine?
It might depend on what you mean by forced, but I meant it more as a hypothetical. the “my body, my choice” argument doesn’t logically differentiate between the two things. Which is why it’s ineffective at convincing people to support choice.
What?
No one was forced to get a vaccine. People are being forced to carry a baby to term because they are being denied abortions that they want.
I do not see where I said anything that you are refuting.
Thanks for the lecture about decorum Joe now shut the fuck up and let the adults talk.
Which adults are you referring to?
no one forced you to wear a mask. women ae being forced to carry their rapists child. comparing yourself to them is pretty fucked up.
That isn’t what I said or what I did.
Does “My body, my choice” also apply to anti vaxxers? Do you support the stance that they should get to decide what to do with their body when it comes to vaccines, without any government punishment for making that choice?
If not, then what kind of defense is “my body, my choice”, really? A pretty weak one, right? Because it’s obviously not universally applied, so you need to defend why some instances it’s not “my body, my choice” and some instances it is. If you’re going to need to defend the defense, you might as well just drop the “my body, my choice” defense altogether and directly defend why it’s wrong.
And since it seems that if I don’t say it in every comment it will immediately be forgotten: I am pro choice. I do not believe the government should have the power to force people to undergo medical procedures against their will-- especially birth, but not limited to birth. I think even anti-choicers would be horrified if someone suggested that the government be allowed to force people to undergo organ donations to “save a life”; they just haven’t put 2 and 2 together. Which is my point-- that pro-choice people make bad choices when it comes to defending their position on abortion. It’s very often a complete dismissal without even an effort to explain.
false.
I go on to elaborate on why you are mistaken. If you believe my explanation to be lacking, point out where. You still have questions pending that you should consider answering.
Yes, from the comfort of their own home.
It’s also other people’s choice to not be sprayed with an anti-vaxxers disease.
Is this how you think “my body, my choice” works? Can the “choice” come with negative consequences? Is that how you’d like to see it applied to abortion?
I agree with the result of your conclusion but I disagree with your central premise. We do have laws to protect rights in the future. Those laws, though, don’t protect individual rights, they protect the rights of the society as a whole.
I the case of the fetus, it is arguable as to when the fetus gains rights of its own, but I don’t think that a newly fertilized egg immediately gains rights. Something like the morning after pill, abortion at 6 weeks, or even abortion at 12 or 20 weeks doesn’t constitute “murder in self defense” in my mind. I think there is a line to be drawn somewhere before that even becomes a consideration.
Once you do cross that line, though, we do get to your argument and your logic holds I think.
my body, my choice is all the logic we need. Don’t try to argue or draw debates. It will only divide it will only give them some sort of sense that their argument holds water. There is nothing but ‘my body, my choice.’
I don’t think that your argument is going to win back women’s right to choose. “My body my choice” in the way that you are using it, with no gray area or caveats, implies that abortion should be legal up to the time of birth. That’s going to be a tough idea to get agreement on, even from many people who are pro-choice.
I am pro-choice but, if we want women to be able to choose for themselves, we do need to argue I good faith and make some reasonable compromises I think.
Who do you think is carrying a baby for nearly 9 months then saying “Well, I better get that abortion in now before it’s too late!”
This doesn’t happen the way you’ve implied. People who are aborting with no fault don’t wait till near full term. And when an abortion does happens that late term, as rare as it is, it’s always because of an unviable fetus or an at risk of death mother. We absolutely should help people in those situations, and any restrictions on abortion, any ambiguity or vagueness in terminology, even directed only at late term abortions, can and will be used to prevent care to those who really need it.
I actually thought about saying exactly what you’re saying but didn’t want to muddy my argument. My point is, even if it should be a choice between a mother and her doctor, that argument isn’t going to win the day. Too many people will point to later term abortions as an argument against full-on “my body my choice”. It is too easy to convince people that is allowing murder…
What is actually does is leave the choice of abortion up to birth between a pregnant person and their doctor, up until birth. I can’t go into a doctor and demand whatever treatment I want because it’s my body.
It really doesn’t matter because doctors are not going to abort after viability because of their oath to do no harm. The only abortions at that time are a threat to the mother or the birth would be closely followed by death from a severe disease or defect.
Laws that require a second opinion are the only logical compromise because anything else will negatively impact many, many women with no positive outcome for the potential future person. Even that is a compromise and will have a negative impact, but at least it would still be limited to a medical decision and not some legal criteria written in a way that doesn’t fit each pregnancy.
Doctors do no take an oath not to do harm. That’s a myth:
https://www.health.harvard.edu/blog/first-do-no-harm-201510138421#:~:text=While some medical schools ask,the Hippocratic Oath at all.
That said, very few doctors actually perform late term abortions anyways (even though these are almost universally due to complicating medical scenarios and not for funsies).
That is a little nitpicky. The article you linked says medical schools do have doctors take the hippocratic or similar oath. The relevant part from the hippocratic oath is pretty much what people think of when they think “do no harm”:
“I will follow that system of regimen which, according to my ability and judgment, I consider for the benefit of my patients, and abstain from whatever is deleterious and mischievous.”
Your stance is not incompatible with mine; my meta stance is solely that there is a discussion to have. As opposed to the person in this thread pretending like it’s an objective fact instead of a societal judgement.
I do not specifically carve out an exception for late term abortion because no one is actually waiting 6 months before deciding whether to carry to term. The people getting late term abortions are doing it because they must due to medical reasons.
I’m not sure how there’s a discussion when you’re pitting a real-life person against a hypothetical future person. Your other examples (eg climate change) affect society as a whole. There is no hypothetical about it.
If hypothetically speaking I bury a land mine in a field-- does it matter if the person who eventually dies because of my actions was born before or after I buried the mine? Is when they were born in relation to my actions relevant at all?
We don’t retroactively go and punish soldiers for setting mines, nor their commanders. So, no, it doesn’t matter
I don’t know if land mines are part of it, but there are munitions that are considered a war crime to be used because the are likely to harm someone in some unspecified future.
You’re cherry picking their argument to prove your point btw.
They compared the mother’s current life (and possible other children by proxy) with the value of a potential future person.
Your argument ignores the burden being placed on the mom and her family. Also, you’re conflating the gift of life a mom gives a child with the moral responsibility of not leaving weapons around.
Do you see the difference? You’re turning pregnancy into an obligation or a responsibility. Sound like any talking points you hear on the right?
I am not arguing against choice at all; I’m arguing that “it’s just a clump of cells” is not a rational argument for whether or not it deserves protection under the law.
Is my semen the land mine in this metaphor? And a vagina is the field? Or am I missing something here?
Yes but a mine can kill a real life person who can be injured or die which has a real world negative effect on society. A person having an abortion has no impact on society outside of some lame thought experiment. Have you read this famous essay about the morality of requiring someone to continue a pregnancy?
https://spot.colorado.edu/~heathwoo/Phil160,Fall02/thomson.htm
I was only pointing out that we do care what happens to people even if they haven’t been born at the time the actions take place. Because many people believe, in error, that “the zygote hasn’t been born yet” is evidence that we should not care what happens to it.
There’s no real conflict of rights, unless you believe that people should be forced by the government to be live organ donors. That “future person” has no more rights to a woman’s uterus than I do as an adult to my mother’s blood & organs if I get into a car accident.
Notably, this is my exact conclusion-- but my point isn’t that a pregnant person should not be allowed to have a choice-- only that the argument could be logically made that the rights of the zygote are more important. A parent has to feed and care for their kids, even if they want to abandon them to go spend a week in vegas. We make judgement on whose rights matter more all the time, and abortion/choice is no different.
My point was that it doesn’t help anyone to dismiss that there is a judgement to be made. You and I have both obviously made judgments that the pregnant person’s right to bodily autonomy is of greater importance, but that doesn’t mean that this is objectively true, or that the zygote doesn’t have rights or should be considered a person for legal purposes.
No I get it, you’re playing devil’s advocate in 1,000 words, but it’s all for naught. That’s all it comes down to - if someone is “pro life”, their opinion is that people should be forced by the government to be live organ donors. And yes, their opinion can then absolutely be dismissed out of hand, because it is irrational and does not respect the rights of the human they are forcing into organ donor slavery.
I’m not even here to debate the personhood status of a fetus, an embryo, a zygote, etc… No human (or potential human) has the right to take blood and tissue from another human by government force.
I’m not playing devil’s advocate. I’m pointing out that this is not an objective truth-- that whether or not pregnant people should have (safe) access to abortions is up to society, and thus it is best for those of us who believe that society is better off when there is safe access to abortion (which the data supports!) should make an effort to convince those people that disagree.
This topic has a lot of parallels to the debate on capital punishment. Much of the support for capital punishment is based on incorrect assumptions, bad information, and feelings. Luckily, people seem easier to sway away from capital punishment, but it would be infinitely more difficult if the arguments for capital punishment were just laughed at or ignored.
Does this apply to vaccines? There are many (many) people in this thread that tell me that no one has to get vaccinated, they can just live in the woods on a mountain-- but I can’t help but wonder who enforces this, if not the government. (I do think people should be required to get vaccinated, btw-- but I also think “my body, my choice” is a weak argument.)
Yes, you are. If you don’t believe you are, you need to look up the definition of the term:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Devil's_advocate
Then you’re a little hazy on the topic of government-mandated organ donation slavery. Okay.
I’m not going to debate for or against capital punishment, but the two situations are not comparable unless you believe that pregnancy is a capital crime deserving of the punishment of forced organ donation slavery.
Unfortunately, yes. While it would have been nice and would have saved many more lives if everyone had been forced to get vaccinated, the government cannot force that on anyone. They can require that government workers and military either get vaccinated or lose their jobs / be discharged from service, however.
Now, is there anything else you’d like to throw out as devil’s advocate?
Well, you mostly missed the point but you grazed it.
And should the government be able to do the same if a pregnant person gets an abortion? (Remember, my point is that “my body, my choice” is not a good argument). And to that point:
I have not once defended anti-choice. I am pointing out that the arguments many people use to defend abortion-choice aren’t well thought out. Like “it’s just a clump of cells” or “my body, my choice”. Well, I’m trying to do that. YMMV on how successful I’ve been, haha.
It’s not a Ted Talk, it’s a forced birth argument churlishly hiding under a false cloak of “pro-choice atheist.”
It doesn’t matter whether you believe in God or not, or in souls, there’s no actual valid argument for the “rights” of a zygote.
And you’re incredibly dismissive of the rights of the person hosting that zygote and having it feed off their life-force.
At least 1 in 4 of pregnancies abort all on their own. Until recently we didn’t attack people when they failed to prevent that. But now hospitals are telling women they have to wait until they’re dying of sepsis to end a pregnancy with a fetus that’s dying all on its own. That’s where your argument leads and we’re seeing it in real deaths.
You’re trying to get the camel’s nose under the tent of women’s bodily autonomy, and I’m calling you out on it.
Same Old Bullshit. Same Old Misogyny.
I haven’t dismissed anything, except religious arguments to remove choice. I’m saying that “it’s just a bunch of cells” or “my body, my choice” are not sound arguments. A clump of cells can have rights. Rights are a human invention, not a natural thing that exists independent of humans; we can literally give anything we want legal rights, including a clump of cells. So, you can’t simply dismiss the entire concept of a zygote having rights; that is something you need to defend. The zygote certainly has rights if someone attacked a pregnant person and caused a miscarriage; they could be charged with murder. No?
However, as I go on to say, I think it’s entirely possible to grant a zygote rights, while also acknowledging that a pregnant person’s right to bodily autonomy supersedes those rights. Similar to how someone has a right to life until they try to kill someone else, in which case, we say the rights of the attacked take precedence over the rights of the attacker. Hopefully no one believes the attacker no longer has rights. Does that make sense?
A zygote is not a person. Full stop.
Where did I say that? FFS the reading comprehension levels here are in the dirt.
I respectfully disagree
scientifically speaking, it’s 100% accurate. Just because imaginary sky daddy tells some people that it’s already a thinking, breathing, living person doesn’t matter.
We don’t really though. There are no real punishments for any of those actions, or anything to actually stop people from doing them. Yes, we do have laws saying you can go to jail if you do drugs while pregnant, BUT that’s because there is an INTENTION to carry to term, and have an actual human happen, that will be great affected by those drinking/drug uses during pregnancy. If you are so early on that you can/are aborting, SCIENTIFICALLY it’s a clump of cells, with no chance of being a human at that time.
yeah… not really. If I’m forced to carry the parasite, I have the only say in what happens to it. I’m a living breathing already existing human being. The cells are not, and they cannot live outside of my body, so please take them out, and let them do their thing. Please let’s see what happens.
nature is pretty indiscriminate in what it kills, but humans have added their own beliefs, which vary wildly from location to location. Regardless, the government and especially religion should have zero say. Abortion is a medical procedure, whether you, imaginary sky daddy, or some religious zealot thinks otherwise, and should be treated as such.
Not related, so not really relevant to this topic, but generally, as far as I can tell, those laws are simply and excuse to kill for the sake of killing, and because the person already WANTED to.
Except scientifically, and objectively, there is a right answer. Certain people just don’t like it, but it doesn’t change the reality of it. That’s like saying I don’t like religion so no one can practice it. Doesn’t work, does it?
I’m pretty sure, based on historical data, and observation, we all know that a respectful discourse isn’t going to happen, and if it did, it wouldn’t sway the party in the wrong. Also, at this point, I do not believe there are any “undecided” people left. Either you follow reality and science, or imaginary sky daddy. Those seem to be the only two options left in US society. Other countries see the value, and necessity, and treat abortion as such, but we aren’t one of those countries.
I really appreciate the effort you took to respond. You’ll shortly read that I disagree, but I appreciate it just the same.
Scientifically speaking, we’re all just clumps of cells, are we not? The argument is not sound.
I don’t see how this matters. You do agree that we should concern ourselves with the well being of the people that haven’t been born yet, right? We should not perform actions today that can harm people in the future? If yes, then whether or not someone has been born is irrelevant to whether or not they deserve protection as a person under the law, or even morally speaking, if you care for moral arguments.
It’s not a parasite anymore than when anti-choicers call it a baby. It’s a… growth, but aren’t we all? haha This isn’t Hogwarts. You’re not going to convince anyone that you are correct by using a magic phrase like “baby” or “parasite” or “clump of cells”. And my point is that this is something you need to convince people of. So you should want to take actions are effective at that goal.
This has always been an interesting thought experiment for me. Imagining a future time where a zygote could be removed from a pregnant person’s body without killing the zygote, the abortion debate would cease to exist-- because there is no longer a conflict between two people’s rights.
Well, I agree with this. That’s my conclusion as well. That’s not a power the government should have over people.
Thus my point: even in the realm of “it’s okay to end someone’s life if you’re acting in self defense” is not an objective stance. You’ve rightly added in context and nuance. Why should abortion be different? Why shouldn’t abortion also be a debate, as opposed to claiming it’s an objective truth?
We’ve already established that your “scientifically” aspect is flawed, but keep in mind that we are discussing a human social construct (the law). We have granted abstract objects (corporations) some rights of personhood-- there is nothing to say we couldn’t provide rights to a “clump of cells”. The question then becomes if we should, which just brings up back to the original problem. In fact, I’d say that it makes things worse to argue from this point. If you say that a “clump of cells” is not a person, then what happens if someone assaults a pregnant person which results in loss of the pregnancy? If you’ve decided that there are no rights, then I feel like the law becomes less just for edge cases. Whereas if you instead concede that there are rights, but when they come in conflict with the rights of the pregnant person, the “clump of cells” rights are the ones that become restricted and the law still makes sense otherwise.
This is provably untrue. Just because someone has made a decision doesn’t mean they can’t be convinced otherwise. After Roe was struck down, polling in favor of maintaining abortion rights went up. Polling wouldn’t change if no one could be swayed.
Again, I really appreciate the thought and effort you put into your reply. And do keep in mind that you and I are both pro-choice (and apparently atheist). My point is directly mostly towards how best to argue our case to people who disagree.
Edit: I don’t know what happened but a significant part of my comment seems… missing.
Edit2: oh, formatting weirdness. Fixed.
What’s your take on cancer then? Imo it all comes down to the woman’s intent to carry. We carve out exceptions for intent in society all the time. But we live in a world that really really doesn’t like women making choices for themselves and will use any crutch it can to deny equal rights.
I can’t take your blood without your consent to save my life can I? Even if you were a murderer on death row and I was a saint, it’d be a crime. People understand bodily rights when it’s a kidney, when it’s a uterus they lose their damn mind.
Right, but these are all judgments made by society. It’s not objectively true.
For what it’s worth, the most effective argument I’ve used to convince anti-choice people that they should support the choice to have an abortion is by crafting a hypothetical there they are forced by the government to undergo a liver transplant (which only takes half the liver, which will eventually grow back) to “save a life”, and then comparing it to forcing a pregnant person being forced to carry to term to “save a life”.
Don’t think about it as doing harm to a future person. Think about it as doing harm to a future dead corpse. Both have the exact same logical reasoning.
So having an abortion is just getting them to the corpse stage faster. And really what’s the harm in that? Certainly it’s much less harm than forcing someone to do something with their body that they don’t want to.
I’m very confused. Are we all “future dead corpses”?
I just hate the “a zygote is a future person” argument, because by that logic my jizz is a future person and every time I jizz that doesn’t result in a pregnancy has the same weight an abortion carry’s. I have yet to hear a convincing argument for why we stop the abortion claim at when the jizz enters the uterus. I think there’s something to be said at making it illegal after a certain trimester, but I don’t know where I’d even put that line.
Do you not understand how the process works? A zygote is a future person. Sperm is only half the equation.
Which is irrelevant when we’re still just talking about things that wouldn’t be called “human” and have no consciousness to speak of.
Is consciousness a requirement for having rights?
Yes when you’re talking about the formation of something. Like, you’re not gonna talk me into a corner with this kind of argument man. something not even having developed any kind of perception of reality, and that is actually just a clump of cells that might reproduce if left alone into a human is NOT the same as a person. It just isn’t, and it’s not an atrocity to stop that thing from becoming a human if it is going to damage the lives of others.
I don’t recall saying it was a person. I said it had rights. You know that rights can be granted to anything, right? Including a clump of cells.
I think it prudent to examine the risks associated with being born to a person who would have chosen abortion had it been safe, free, and legal. The kids one chose to have deserve to grow up surrounded by wanted and cared for peers as much as the kids one would not choose to have deserve to be born into a loving and prepared family.
No one chooses to be born. It’s literally impossible to determine whether an unborn human would prefer to be born without knowing anything about the existence that awaits them. That is why we put the focus on the person who is already in this world, and their choice about their body.
Unfortunately, this is the fundamental “weakness” of the pro choice side of the argument: it’s nuanced. And apparently ain’t nobody got time for nuance. The anti-choice argument is quick and easy and requires no time to process, discuss, or work through. “Abortion == baby murder == bad.”
It’s not a surprise that the only voices you hear from the religious circles, at least the Christian ones, are Catholics and Evangelicals. Those groups often tend to deal with nuance by ignoring it altogether. Mainline Protestants, not so much. We – and I’m saying this as a Mainline Protestant – live and breathe nuance. Sometimes to the point where we seem to be drowning in it. There isn’t an army of Presbyterians, Lutherans, or Episcopalians taking to the streets in support of abortion rights because… Well, it’s complicated.
Obviously I can’t speak for everyone in those circles but the fact is that probably most Christians, even “liberal” (and I dislike that term for it’s inaccuracy) ones don’t love abortion. From my perspective it’s perceived as a medical procedure that is sometimes necessary even if it has potential for abuse. I would expect a lot of Mainline Protestants are pro-choice but the thoughts on abortion are probably so diverse and nuanced that it’s hard to distill down to a coherent message.
Thank you for speaking your truth. We need more of this and less careless disregard for the beliefs of others. Understanding is the only way to grow as a species. Calling a life a clump of cells may be true in some senses but not in all. If you think we’re all just clumps of cells that’s fine, but that’s not what the pro lifers see. Disregarding that fact only weakens your position and strengthens your “opposition’s”.
It is not really on topic but “pro life” is propaganda. It’s a debate between giving a pregnant person the choice to have an abortion, or not. You’re also doing the same thing I was complaining about. No one who is pro choice thinks “we’re all just clumps of cells”.
Colorado has the Cobalt Abortion Fund which will provide logistics within the region for those that require it.
It is one of the non-profits we donate to every year.
https://cobaltaf.org/
Wait until president DeathSantis sends FBI to Colorado and demands names and addresses of these women so they can be properly prosecuted
Not DeSantis, but red states are really getting records for out of state care their people seek.
I know it’s a whataboutism, but I really can’t stand that we can’t have something like a gun registry because “MuH gUnz!?!!” and the government might take them or whatever, but we can’t buy or borrow books without government agencies being able to secretly procure that information. Now private medical records from the doctor’s office, not just like a person googling around, are being hoovered up for overtly political reasons against vulnerable people. Why are guns so much more sacred than people being able to live?
I wouldn’t put it past them to make it illegal to travel to another US state to get an abortion.
That’s in violation of the commerce clause of the constitution
That’s why you can buy weed in Colorado and not be prosecuted in Texas, as an example.
So basically someone would have to appeal it to the SC if the feds came after them.
Considering the state of the court, I wouldn’t count on the commerce clause standing in regards to prosecuting abortions.
It is a violation until it goes to scotus who will say that it doesn’t apply just like with the precedent of Roe v Wade and that made up case about a website for a gay couple.
I definitely understand the sentiment, but this is literally written into the constitution - the others are reinterpretations of former decisions
They’re both bullshit, and one didn’t even have standing, but they’re much easier to “justify”
well,that’s definitely a good thing. Thanks for informing me
Lol. What constitution? Do republicans know or even care about it?
america has a constitution? repubs must have thought it was toilet paper.
Not that far outside the realm of possibility anymore, innit?