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”.
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”.