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”.
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”.