J.D. Vance, the junior U.S. senator from Ohio, zeroed in on this in a social media post on Wednesday: “We’ve spent so much time winning a legal argument on abortion that we’ve fallen behind on the moral argument,” he wrote.

Vance is right.

  • PeepinGoodArgs@reddthat.comOP
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    12
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    1 year ago

    What I love about this argument, that conservatives aren’t making the moral case for banning abortion, is that it’s just not true. The premiere anti-abortion think tank Family Research Council only makes the moral case for banning abortion. The real problem is that the moral case is made in terms of Christianity:

    God is the author of life, and the taking of life through abortion constitutes an assault on the image of God imprinted on every person (Psalm 139:13-16)

    Only problem is that Americans are decreasingly Christian. The Christian ideology doesn’t have the same pull it used to. Even when it did have greater pull in the 1970s, Roe v. Wade was decided. So, the Christian moral case for abortion probably isn’t that effective, even at its best.

    And a more secular moral case against abortion, that it’s harmful to women physically and psychologically, is scientifically wrong. The only way to really overcome this problem is to pull a page out of the Handbook of Tobacco and Fossil Fuels and create their own crappy scientific studies that work backwards from the conclusion to manufacture data, i.e: not science.

    • Historical_General
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      I’m pretty sure there’s a case in the Bible where abortion is basically recommended when the wife cheats on you? I remember something about a noxious potion being taken to kill the illegitimate offspring.

      • ImplyingImplications@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        You’re thinking of the Ordeal of the Bitter Water which is described as a way to judge if a pregnant woman has cheated on her husband. If accused by her husband, the woman would be forced to drink unclean water. If the baby died but the woman lived, it was deemed she was raped. If the baby and woman both die, then she purposefully cheated. If they both lived, the woman’s husband was the father. It was thought that God would save the woman/child if they were innocent and murder them if they weren’t.

        God is alright with killing unborn babies and pregnant women if certain conditions are met. Here’s a long list of bible verses where God deems children under a month old to be valueless, miscarriage as a form of punishment, and killing of pregnant women justifiable.

    • MomoTimeToDie@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      6
      ·
      1 year ago

      “scientifically wrong” is just a fundamentally bullshit claim. Questions of value, by their nature, are not resolvable by science.

      • PeepinGoodArgs@reddthat.comOP
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        7
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Whether abortions bans cause harm is well-within the scientific realm. You might disagree with what “harm” means, but that’s not what you’re arguing. And even if you were, I’m not sure how you’d argue that closing abortion clinics, which often offer other services than just abortions, is not harmful.

        But feel free to make the argument, I suppose.

      • PizzaMan
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        7
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        It seems you missed the first half of that sentence, which was not referring to a question of value:

        And a more secular moral case against abortion, that it’s harmful to women physically and psychologically

          • PizzaMan
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            “Is X safe?” isn’t a question of value. It is a scientifically verifiable question. You need to actually read.

            • MomoTimeToDie@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              3
              ·
              1 year ago

              “harm” is a question of value. The fact you pretend otherwise means your either too stupid or too dishonest to be worth talking to further.

              • PizzaMan
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                5
                arrow-down
                2
                ·
                edit-2
                1 year ago

                “harm” is a question of value

                No it isn’t, it’s objectively measurable. If you lose 3L of blood, the harms associated can be objectively measured. If you lose a limb, the harms are objectively measurable. If you smoke a pack a day, the decrease in your lifespan is objectively measurable.

                What the fuck are you talking about.

                  • PizzaMan
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    3
                    arrow-down
                    2
                    ·
                    edit-2
                    1 year ago

                    Clearly I thought to highly of a rat like you.

                    Jesus you’re a stupid sack of shit.

                    You need to take a look in the mirror if you can’t go two seconds without resorting to ad hominems.

                    If there is a stupid sack of shit rat among the two of us, it clearly isn’t me.

                    “harm” is fundamentally a subjective concept.

                    In the same way septic tanks “subjectively” smell bad. Get a grip and learn to care about something other than semantics.

          • ThrowawayM
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            5
            ·
            1 year ago

            Just a heads up, using the r-slur is against instance rules. Please edit your comment.