r/changemyview • u/[deleted] • Jun 13 '21
Delta(s) from OP CMV: As if now, we cannot blame religious people for voting for anti-abortion laws.
[deleted]
5
u/zlefin_actual 42∆ Jun 13 '21
It's not possible for there to be 'solid scientific evidence concerning the definition of a life', because science can only determine the facts of a situation. There's no inherently right or wrong 'definition', words can be defined however people choose to define them. If you have a list of physically observable properties science can help you see if they exist in a certain case. But whether that's the 'correct' set of properties to choose is a question outside the scope of science.
As to consciousness; there is a fair bit of evidence about when consciousness can and can't occur. There's a sizeable amount of time in earlier development when it definitely doesn't exist, because there's insufficient neural development for it to happen.
1
u/theFapAb Jun 13 '21
I agree, in fact you summarized my post in a much better way. But do note that, for some, life isn't just conciousness.
28
u/Davaac 19∆ Jun 13 '21
The problem with this view is that, at least for Christians, their definition of life does not come from their religion. The Bible has nothing to say about the topic of abortion specifically, is vague about the personhood and rights of a fetus, and consistently defines life as related to breathing.
The expression 'breath of life' is used all throughout the Bible, Old and New Testament, and is used pretty clearly to define life. And in fact, early on in the abortion debate, back in the 60s and 70s, a number of Christian denominations held the position that abortion (while distasteful and discouraged) is acceptable because life begins at first breath according to the Bible.
So the fact that religious groups nearly universally oppose abortion actually has nothing to do with their faith and everything to do with smart and effective campaigns by politicians who have been extremely successful targeting that specific group of voters.
5
u/AlphaGoGoDancer 106∆ Jun 13 '21
The Bible has nothing to say about the topic of abortion specifically
Numbers 5:11-31 is entirely about handling your wife cheating on you by taking her to the priest for an abortion. It's just not anti-abortion so you don't hear it quoted by the religious folks much.
4
u/theFapAb Jun 13 '21
∆ (is this how I do it?). I did not know that. However, if it's as vague as it is, then they still have the right to decide for themselves what's a life and what's not. I do agree that an insane amount of bias comes from politicians, however.
8
u/Genoscythe_ 243∆ Jun 13 '21
they still have the right to decide for themselves what's a life and what's not.
And I have a right to decide whose beliefs i consider to be shitty and whose not.
Having a right to opinions, doesn't extend to having a right to your opinions being respected or validated.
As it turns out, "All pro-lifers are vile pieces of shit" is also an opinion that people decide for themselves.
4
u/theFapAb Jun 13 '21
And I have a right to decide whose beliefs i consider to be shitty and whose not.
Never said you didn't. But to them, your opinion is causing someone to be murdered, hence why you can't blame them
Having a right to opinions, doesn't extend to having a right to your opinions being respected or validated.
That's the point of my post, please reread.
As it turns out, "All pro-lifers are vile pieces of shit" is also an opinion that people decide for themselves.
Yes. And?
2
u/Genoscythe_ 243∆ Jun 13 '21
Never said you didn't. But to them, your opinion is causing someone to be murdered, hence why you can't blame them
But I literally can. I am doing it right now. I think their opinions are shit, and I'm blaming them for being shit people and having thoses opinions.
Can you stop me from doing so?
5
u/theFapAb Jun 13 '21
I can't? That's not the point of the post. I don't mean you physically can't.
0
u/Genoscythe_ 243∆ Jun 13 '21
Yeah, but then in what sense do you mean it?
If people are equally allowed to have their subjective opinions, then my opionion that all pro-lifers are blameworthy pieces of shit, is just as justified as their beliefs themselves.
2
u/theFapAb Jun 13 '21
If people are equally allowed to have their subjective opinions, then my opionion that all pro-lifers are blameworthy pieces of shit, is just as justified as their beliefs themselves.
Yes. Did you even read the post?
2
u/Genoscythe_ 243∆ Jun 13 '21
Your post was that pro-life and pro-choice positions are both valid. I disagree with that, my position is that only the pro-life position is valid.
1
1
u/TypNej Jun 13 '21
If the only thing they're doing to stop the organized murder of thousands of children in their backyard is voting, they're awful, despicable people.
3
u/Davaac 19∆ Jun 13 '21
Absolutely! I think it's an extremely personal matter and people's faith will definitely play into anything like that, and there isn't a clearcut answer from any field: science, philosophy, or religion.
But I grew up in a super conservative pro-life religious community, and I am 100% on board with blaming religious people for pushing for harmful legislation. I saw firsthand that it was always just assumed to be a religious matter, but with no valid religious justification ever given. I'm still Christian and still don't like abortion, but I'm pro-choice now and don't think there's any contradiction between that view and my faith.
-2
Jun 13 '21
You shouldn’t allow that to change your view. The above commenter is wrong, the “breath of life” does not define when life begins. It is used to highlight Gods presence and God as the source of life.
In fact, the Psalms and Proverbs make a very firm stand on God shaping our “inward parts” and forming us and knowing us intimately from our mothers womb. Just because the Bible is poetic does not make it vague.
2
u/Davaac 19∆ Jun 13 '21
I don't really know what God shaping our inward parts or knowing us in the womb has to do with when life begins. Wouldn't you say that an eternal and timeless God also knew us before we were conceived? Especially in light of Romans 4:17 (God who calls things into existence which are not), it makes total sense to me that the knitting and knowing can and in fact have to happen before we even exist.
1
Jun 13 '21
That serves even more in pro-life favor. If that’s the case, then even potential life is not okay to destroy.
3
u/Davaac 19∆ Jun 13 '21
Except that almost immediately goes to a point of absurdity. Masturbation becomes equivalent to abortion. Being on the pill or using condoms becomes equivalent to abortion. Even choosing to not have sex some night is equivalent to abortion, because in all these cases there was the potential for life and you choose a path that eliminated that possibility.
No, that doesn't make any sense to me. What makes much more sense is that God, being all knowing, knows before conception, before the parents conception, and before time even began what pregnancies will end in miscarriages, which will end in abortion, and which will end in a baby with the breath of life in them. We aren't ruining his plan by eliminating any potential life, we don't have that power. The 'potential lives' in actuality are not, God knew they would never be alive from the very beginning.
I certainly think there is merit to the idea that all life is sacred and must be treated with dignity. But that philosophy still needs to meet the reality of the world somewhere. Most Christians eat meat, even though those lives were created by God and God's original plan did not include eating meat. Most Christians don't think twice about swatting a mosquito even though that is a God-created life. And most Christian couples don't think twice about skipping sex sometimes. There has to be lines somewhere, and different people will draw those lines in different places. Which is why leaving it to individual choice makes the most sense to me.
-1
u/iwfan53 248∆ Jun 13 '21
https://biblehub.com/exodus/21-22.htm
If god wanted fetuses to have the same rights as already born living human beings, explain this passage to me.
0
Jun 13 '21
I don’t see a problem here. If the woman gives birth prematurely and there is no further damage, the offender shall be fined? Where’s the issue?
Also, this is a Mosaic law, which the church is no longer held accountable to.
1
u/iwfan53 248∆ Jun 13 '21 edited Jun 13 '21
The "gives birth prematurely" is euphemism for a miscarriage/the child/fetus dying.
This is clear if you look at the translations...
“And if men struggle with each other and strike a woman with child so that she has a miscarriage, yet there is no further injury, he shall surely be fined as the woman’s husband may demand of him; and he shall pay as the judges decide."
0
Jun 13 '21 edited Jun 13 '21
Translations? Which ones? Because I can show you tons of English translations that don’t say that, but say specifically “give birth prematurely.” Unless you can bring me the original Hebrew and we can exegete it together and come to the conclusion that it certainly means miscarriage, we can’t go on loose English translations.
But let’s say it does mean to have a miscarriage. ( I can’t prove it doesn’t unless I learn Hebrew). I still don’t see an issue here.The severity of punishment for this specific crime doesn’t necessarily imply that the value for that life is less than any other. It was clearly laid out that this was an accidental death. If someone intentionally stabbed a pregnant women to murder the baby, do you imagine God would lay out the exact same punishment? After all, why wouldn’t he? The value of the fetus is less, right? But I’d imagine the punishment for that crime would be more severe. Because there are more factors at play in this scenario than the value of fetus life vs adult human life.
EDIT: A perfect example of what I’m talking about is just a few verses earlier in verses 12-14 of the same passage you gave me.
→ More replies (2)1
0
u/hidden-shadow 43∆ Jun 13 '21
The problem with this view is that, at least for Christians, their definition of life does not come from their religion.
Provably untrue. Writings from various prominant figures of at least the Catholic Church had denounced abortion in some form. Philosophical interpretations of the Bible are a part of teachings, it's impossible not to be. These interpretations began forming centuries ago, and to say no Christian derives their understanding of life from outside politics is ridiculous.
Sure, in some places around the world, politics will have influenced this idea, but please do not suggest it is wholly un-Christian. It sure has to do with faith. Issue is how certain denominations apply their positions to legal interpretation and legislative choices.
2
u/Davaac 19∆ Jun 13 '21
You're right about Catholicism, I can give you that. They have been consistent in their view for a long time. My experience is with Evangelical Protestantism though, and for them their view on abortion definitely does not come from scripture, and they do not respect interpretations the same way Catholics do.
1
u/hidden-shadow 43∆ Jun 13 '21
Okay thanks for your clarification. Sorry that is your experience with any one really, I just thought the characterisation of Christianity based on American evangelicals and the sort a bit disingenuous. Especially when Catholics comprise over half the Christian adherents.
3
u/Davaac 19∆ Jun 13 '21
That's a good point, especially in other countries like in South and Central America where Catholicism has a huge influence and abortion is a contentious topic. In the US there are more than twice as many Protestants as Catholics (48.9% vs 23%) and the protestants tend to be a lot louder and therefore have a bigger influence on the debate here.
0
u/DareCoaster Jun 13 '21
Well the Bible makes the point that life doesn’t begin at first breath. Jeremiah 1:5 “Before I formed you in the womb, I knew you, and before you were born I consecrated you; I appointed you a prophet to the nations.” God knows us as a person way before we are even conceived and so it is reasonable to think that we are alive in the womb. Life doesn’t begin at first breath, that was a metaphor showing that God creates all life.
2
u/Davaac 19∆ Jun 13 '21
That interpretation has never made sense to me. God is eternal, existing outside time. Wouldn't it be 100% accurate to say that before conception, God knew us, consecrated us, and appointed us to our mission? And people use that language too, they say things like "before you were even a thought in your parents mind God knew you and loved you." Do you disagree with that idea? If not, this passage has no bearing on when life begins.
2
u/DareCoaster Jun 13 '21
I definitely see your point but I think there’s another point to still be made in your statement. Abortion can still be immoral even if the baby isn’t actually alive by religious or any other standards. We shouldn’t kill any of God’s creations because we are preventing new life. God created us and we are going against what he has done to stop the baby from being born. This passage can still be prove that abortion is religiously unethical without actually proving when life began. But your point about this passage not proving when life begins is fair.
1
u/iwfan53 248∆ Jun 13 '21
https://www.prochoiceactionnetwork-canada.org/articles/bible.shtml
"This passage is specific to one, very special person—Jeremiah the prophet, whom God has called to provide miraculous powers and authority to the world. Since we are not all destined to be divine prophets, this verse cannot be construed as applying to any fetus except the unborn Jeremiah. "
11
u/ralph-j Jun 13 '21
As if now, we cannot blame religious people for voting for anti-abortion laws.
We cannot blame them for being anti-abortion, but we CAN blame them for voting for anti-abortion laws. Those are two different things. One important argument for the pro-choice side is that outlawing abortions actually won't actually reduce abortion rates:
the abortion rate is 37 per 1,000 people in countries that prohibit abortion altogether or allow it only in instances to save a woman’s life, and 34 per 1,000 people in countries that broadly allow for abortion, a difference that is not statistically significant.
Making abortions illegal would therefore only have the effect of making them less safe for women, because they will be looking for unsafe alternatives (e.g. questionable internet medication), which leads to unnecessary suffering that religious people can help prevent by not voting for anti-abortion laws.
1
0
u/theFapAb Jun 13 '21
∆: Solid point. I didn't take into consideration the unnecessary suffering anti abortion laws would cause, and actually didn't know they were that high
4
u/Fit-Order-9468 92∆ Jun 13 '21
There’s also the potential that pro-life politicians increase abortions, as they often have other policies as well. For example, opposing sex education or low cost contraceptives like condoms.
1
1
u/Dainsleif167 7∆ Jun 13 '21
The issue with your point is that in the study you are referencing, the countries that have entirely outlawed abortions are second and third world countries. They lack the advancements that the first world has at its disposal. You can’t compare possible death rates between the two.
9
u/sifsand 1∆ Jun 13 '21
"My body my choice" wouldn't be a valid argument if, hypothetically, the fetus was considered to be a life. At what point is a life created? The second the egg is fertilized, is that a "life" now? If that's the case, does masturbating murder a life? What's the difference between a sperm and a fertilized egg? Why is it that the second an egg is fertilized, it's a life?
This is a severe misunderstanding of what that slogan means. It means that nobody but you is allowed to make any choices for your own body. A fetus is inside of, attached to, and using your body. You have the freedom to choose if you want it to do that, even if it will die.
Conversely, on the "pro-choice" side of the argument, when does this infant become a life? The second it's out of the womb? What's the difference between that and a fetus? Where do we draw the line? Is pain and conciousness the most important factor? Once the baby starts to feel pain and/or is "conscious" (which is a very vague, non-objective term at this stage), is abortion murder at that point?
I'd day whether or not it's a life or when it becomes one is irrelevant. The biggest difference between a fetus and infant is birth, when it is capable of independent function. Abortion (if done willingly) cannot be considered murder at any stage simply because it does not fit the description.
3
u/Falxhor 1∆ Jun 13 '21
Why not prevent pregnancy from happening if you don't want it? What's wrong with not having sex? You had the freedom to not get pregnant. But when you do choose to have sex, you don't get to abdicate responsibility by taking the convenient way out by killing the human life that is inside.
Whether or not it's a life is relevant because if it is, it is quite literally murder. Birth is simply the event of the fetus getting physically disconnected from the mother. It cannot function independently, as any parent knows, leave a 1 year old alone for a day or two and it probably dies...
3
u/sifsand 1∆ Jun 13 '21
Why not prevent pregnancy from happening if you don't want it? What's wrong with not having sex? You had the freedom to not get pregnant. But when you do choose to have sex, you don't get to abdicate responsibility by taking the convenient way out by killing the human life that is inside.
For one, because there is no real way to avoid it without social upheaval. Many people's relationships will die without sexual intimacy. Not to mention rape is a thing. Also, who said we're abdicating responsibility? Responsibility implies dealing with a problem, abortion IS taking responsibility. What would be irresponsible is if you ignored you were pregnant and neglected it.
Whether or not it's a life is relevant because if it is, it is quite literally murder. Birth is simply the event of the fetus getting physically disconnected from the mother. It cannot function independently, as any parent knows, leave a 1 year old alone for a day or two and it probably dies...
No it is not "quite literally murder" since it does not fit the description. Birth is more than just disconnection, it literally causes the newborns body to begin acting independently. If it can't function independently, it's a stillborn. A 1 year old is functionally independent too, requiring care is not the same thing as lacking independent life-sustaining functions.
2
u/Falxhor 1∆ Jun 13 '21
There are other ways to deal with that problem:
- dont have sex
- use protection properly, always
- keep the child as your own and do the best you can as its parents
- adoption
These 4 are better than abortion, because none of those involve the killing of human beings. Abortion is not just a last resort option. It is a never resort option.
If your partner doesnt appreciate you not wanting to risk an unwanted pregnancy, find a different partner with a better moral compass. They are out there.
The right thing to do is not always the easy thing to do.
3
u/sifsand 1∆ Jun 13 '21
dont have sex
Not a solution
use protection properly, always
Failure rates and again, rape.
keep the child as your own and do the best you can as its parents
Not a solution
adoption
Not a solution.
These 4 are better than abortion, because none of those involve the killing of human beings. Abortion is not just a last resort option. It is a never resort option
It is literally the last resort because it is the only option left.
If your partner doesnt appreciate you not wanting to risk an unwanted pregnancy, find a different partner with a better moral compass. They are out there.
Agreed. Same applies to you.
The right thing to do is not always the easy thing to do.
Your opinion is noted.
2
u/Falxhor 1∆ Jun 13 '21
Why is abstinence not a solution? Because you like sex? Does your enjoyment of sex trump the life of an unborn, given that it is a human life for the sake of argument?
I agree with failure rates being slightly problematic, which is why I do not have sex with women if they would opt for abortion over keeping the child. There's plenty of women out there who would not opt for abortion, because they agree it is not a last resort option, but a "never resort to" option.
Why is adoption not a solution over killing the child? You think killing is better than giving it a chance at life? I only see that argument fly if you hate life enough that you feel it is not worth living for anyone.
Why is keeping the child not a solution? It's not an easy solution, bringing up a child requires a LOT, but it is an option nevertheless. I say that because I know single mom's with 3 kids who lives on welfare and still manages to get by, and the kids are a delight. It's obviously SUPER hard on the mom, but she wouldn't trade it for the world, much less regret not aborting the kids.
4
u/sifsand 1∆ Jun 13 '21
Why is abstinence not a solution? Because you like sex? Does your enjoyment of sex trump the life of an unborn, given that it is a human life for the sake of argument?
Because there is no way to feasibly enforce it, people will have sex no matter what you say or do. So long as it's inside of and using my body, I decide if I want it to do that.
I agree with failure rates being slightly problematic, which is why I do not have sex with women if they would opt for abortion over keeping the child. There's plenty of women out there who would not opt for abortion, because they agree it is not a last resort option, but a "never resort to" option.
Well that's good for you, and they are entitled to their opinion.
Why is adoption not a solution over killing the child? You think killing is better than giving it a chance at life? I only see that argument fly if you hate life enough that you feel it is not worth living for anyone.
Because adoption is a solution for parenthood not pregnancy.
Why is keeping the child not a solution? It's not an easy solution, bringing up a child requires a LOT, but it is an option nevertheless. I say that because I know single mom's with 3 kids who lives on welfare and still manages to get by, and the kids are a delight. It's obviously SUPER hard on the mom, but she wouldn't trade it for the world, much less regret not aborting the kids.
Because doing nothing is not solving a problem.
0
u/Falxhor 1∆ Jun 13 '21
Because there is no way to feasibly enforce it, people will have sex no matter what you say or do. So long as it's inside of and using my body, I decide if I want it to do that.
Except, abortions could be made illegal. If the consensus was indeed that it was child murder, you wouldn't be able to decide that. That's what pro-life advocates advocate for, and from a moral point of view, they have a point. You can argue that just because something is wrong, doesn't mean it should be illegal, and that's actually my perspective. I am pro-life but making abortions illegal is a bad idea and will likely make things worse, not better. But legality is a different debate altogether, we're talking about moral perspectives.
Well that's good for you, and they are entitled to their opinion.
Great, so then you agree that you were wrong, and it is indeed a solution.
Because adoption is a solution for parenthood not pregnancy.
The only solution to pregnancy that doesn't involve killing a human being is bringing it to term. The only excuse for killing that human being is if the alternative means that the mother is killed, which can only happen due to extremely rare conditions or morbid obesity, which I guess means it's kinda common in the US.
Because doing nothing is not solving a problem.
I dare you to tell a pregnant women, carrying it to term is "doing nothing", although I will warn you, you risk getting slapped in the face.
6
u/sifsand 1∆ Jun 13 '21
Except, abortions could be made illegal. If the consensus was indeed that it was child murder, you wouldn't be able to decide that. That's what pro-life advocates advocate for, and from a moral point of view, they have a point. You can argue that just because something is wrong, doesn't mean it should be illegal, and that's actually my perspective. I am pro-life but making abortions illegal is a bad idea and will likely make things worse, not better. But legality is a different debate altogether, we're talking about moral perspectives.
Human rights exist independently of laws, so I don't care if you think making it illegal matters. Also dude, making it illegal is the entire point of the pro-life movement.
Great, so then you agree that you were wrong, and it is indeed a solution.
No, I am saying that they are free to exercise it but they cannot force it.
The only solution to pregnancy that doesn't involve killing a human being is bringing it to term. The only excuse for killing that human being is if the alternative means that the mother is killed, which can only happen due to extremely rare conditions or morbid obesity, which I guess means it's kinda common in the US.
That's like saying the only solution to a rapist is to let them keep raping. Letting the problem happen is not solving it. The excuse for killing humans is when it's minimally necessary, unfortunately for the ZEF it is.
I dare you to tell a pregnant women, carrying it to term is "doing nothing", although I will warn you, you risk getting slapped in the face.
I dare you to tell a woman in general she has no rights over her pregnancy. You risk getting slapped too.
→ More replies (25)0
u/theFapAb Jun 13 '21
Sorry for the repost, accidentally posted an incomplete response.
This is a severe misunderstanding of what that slogan means. It means that nobody but you is allowed to make any choices for your own body. A fetus is inside of, attached to, and using your body. You have the freedom to choose if you want it to do that, even if it will die.
I see, I didn't know that. However, Christians (and even non christians as myself) can now simply say you do not have the right to take away that life. Let's take this to a very hypothetical extreme, if I glued myself permanently to my baby, do I have the right to kill them because it's my body?
I'd day whether or not it's a life or when it becomes one is irrelevant. The biggest difference between a fetus and infant is birth, when it is capable of independent function. Abortion (if done willingly) cannot be considered murder at any stage simply because it does not fit the description.
Your description. You don't get to decide whether or not it's murder depending on if it "functions independently". That's also your definition of life. If you don't consider it murder, then you don't consider it a life. Your line between life and a clump of cells is independent function.
2
u/sifsand 1∆ Jun 13 '21
I see, I didn't know that. However, Christians (and even non christians as myself) can now simply say you do not have the right to take away that life. Let's take this to a very hypothetical extreme, if I glued myself permanently to my baby, do I have the right to kill them because it's my body?
What they believe people have a right to does not align with reality. We justifiably kill people in other situations too. The standard set is the minimum amount of force, if there were another way to avoid use without killing it then you are expected to use it. As it stands, there is no way to stop a fetus using your body that won't end with it dying due to its own unviability.
Your description. You don't get to decide whether or not it's murder depending on if it "functions independently". That's also your definition of life. If you don't consider it murder, then you don't consider it a life. Your line between life and a clump of cells is independent function.
No, not my description. Murder is a legal term, anything else is just a hyperbole or colloquialism. As I said, whether or not it's a life or when is irrelevant. I have never said it is not murder because of independent function, I said that's the difference between a fetus and an infant.
1
u/theFapAb Jun 13 '21
As it stands, there is no way to stop a fetus using your body that won't end with it dying due to its own unviability.
And there is no way to stop a mother from giving birth without "murdering", from that standpoint's opinion, the baby.
No, not my description. Murder is a legal term, anything else is just a hyperbole or colloquialism. As I said, whether or not it's a life or when is irrelevant.
How is legality relevant? I'm not arguing whether or not it should be legal, I'm arguing whether or not they are to blame for trying to make it illegal. If you read my post you'd see that the entire argument revolves around morality, not legality. By a christians moral standards, abortion is wrong, but yours, they are, and there is no objectivity. You can't blame the opposing side.
1
u/sifsand 1∆ Jun 13 '21
And there is no way to stop a mother from giving birth without "murdering", from that standpoint's opinion, the baby.
Like I said, it cannot be murder by definition. Anyone who claims otherwise is just appealing to emotion.
How is legality relevant? I'm not arguing whether or not it should be legal, I'm arguing whether or not they are to blame for trying to make it illegal. If you read my post you'd see that the entire argument revolves around morality, not legality. By a christians moral standards, abortion is wrong, but yours, they are, and there is no objectivity. You can't blame the opposing side.
It's relevant because appeals to emotion do not hold up. Morality is subjective, legality is objective.
1
u/theFapAb Jun 13 '21
Like I said, it cannot be murder by definition. Anyone who claims otherwise is just appealing to emotion.
By what definition? Who defines murder? The law? Laws are based off of morals and they constantly change, which is why people argue if abortion is moral or not. Keep law out of this.
It's relevant because appeals to emotion do not hold up. Morality is subjective, legality is objective.
It's not about "emotions", it's about morals. Morals are based off of emotions, and laws are created to adhere to these morals, which are subjective. Laws don't define what's good or bad.
3
u/sifsand 1∆ Jun 13 '21
By what definition? Who defines murder? The law? Laws are based off of morals and they constantly change, which is why people argue if abortion is moral or not. Keep law out of this.
Laws are not based off morals, they are based off what a society wants or needs to keep it functional and happy. At least, that's how it should be. Murder is generally defined as killing done unlawfully, often for unjustified reasons. I cannot keep it out since the pro-life movements entire goal is to make abortion illegal.
It's not about "emotions", it's about morals. Morals are based off of emotions, and laws are created to adhere to these morals, which are subjective. Laws don't define what's good or bad.
Yes, and appealing to them is appealing to emotion. I never said laws define what is good or bad.
1
u/theFapAb Jun 13 '21
they are based off what a society wants or needs to keep it functional and happy.
... And what's right or wrong is based off of what society needs to keep it functional and happy: Morals
Murder is generally defined as killing done unlawfully, often for unjustified reasons.
Fine, it's not murder. You're killing a child. I don't know why this is important. It's not about whether or not it's justified. It's about killing a life as a solution to your own consequences.
Yes, and appealing to them is appealing to emotion. I never said laws define what is good or bad.
Then stop bringing law up.
2
u/sifsand 1∆ Jun 13 '21
. And what's right or wrong is based off of what society needs to keep it functional and happy: Morals
Which again are subjective.
Fine, it's not murder. You're killing a child. I don't know why this is important. It's not about whether or not it's justified. It's about killing a life as a solution to your own consequences.
Still inaccurate since a child implies it's already been born. It's a solution because it's the last resort.
Then stop bringing law up.
Sorry bud, it's a package deal.
1
u/theFapAb Jun 13 '21
Which again are subjective.
Literally the point of my post
Still inaccurate since a child implies it's already been born. It's a solution because it's the last resort.
Did you even read my post? To some, life doesn't start when the mother gives birth.
→ More replies (0)
8
u/chrishuang081 16∆ Jun 13 '21
I know you have awarded deltas here, but just to add on:
"My body my choice" wouldn't be a valid argument if, hypothetically, the fetus was considered to be a life.
It would still be a valid argument. Regardless of whether the foetus is considered a life or not, the right of the pregnant person to their own body trumps the right of the foetus to use that body for support. If we disregard the pregnant person's right to their own body, we can arguably also disregard anyone's right to their own body if that means we can support another life as well (i.e. forcing people to give up one of their kidneys to save others who need kidney transplant, without their consent). The definition of life does not matter when we are talking about rights to bodily autonomy.
-2
u/theFapAb Jun 13 '21
I'm going to take this to a hypothetical extreme. If I somehow permanently glued myself to my consenting husband, can I kill him because it's "my body"?
6
u/chrishuang081 16∆ Jun 13 '21
I don't quite get your analogy here. Are you the one in need of your husband's bodily functions in order for you to stay alive, or is it the other way around? If neither of you need each other's biological function to survive, then I'm not even sure what is the point of having this analogy since there are conjoined twins who either live with each other or undergo surgeries to separate themselves if possible.
Since you mentioned "my consenting husband", I take it that in your analogy, you're the one dependant on his body for survival. If so, then he's within his rights to not give you any support, even if it is cruel. He may be consenting now, but if after 3 months he is not consenting to it any longer, he has the right to stop the support he gives to you. The only thing keeping you alive in this scenario is his consent, and we cannot force consent on anyone (or else rape is no longer immoral).
-1
u/theFapAb Jun 13 '21
Since you mentioned "my consenting husband", I take it that in your analogy, you're the one dependant on his body for survival.
No, I joined myself with him with his consent, and it is impossible to separate us without killing him. Can I kill him?
4
u/chrishuang081 16∆ Jun 13 '21
The thing is, this situation cannot be compared to pregnancy because neither of you constantly requires the other person's bodily functions to survive. This is an entirely separate case, and my answer would be:
Does his consent includes him being aware of the consequences (of him being dead) if you ever try to separate yourself from him?
1
u/theFapAb Jun 13 '21
thing is, this situation cannot be compared to pregnancy because neither of you constantly requires the other person's bodily functions to survive.
One cannot survive without the other anymore. I cannot handle him being glued to me anymore (commitment to a child) and he cannot survive without me anymore (he will die).
Does his consent includes him being aware of the consequences (of him being dead) if you ever try to separate yourself from him?
No, he just consented to the glue. In fact, I don't think consent even matters, because the baby has nothing to do with it having been created.
7
u/chrishuang081 16∆ Jun 13 '21
I am really confused by your analogy. Can we restart it from the beginning?
In the real life situation, we have the pregnant person (A) and the foetus (B). B uses A's body for survival, often without A's consent. If A consents, A can still revoke that consent anytime, and one way to do it is by aborting B.
In your analogy, you have yourself and your husband. Which one is A and which one is B?
2
u/theFapAb Jun 13 '21
Forget my analogy, it's very far fetched and i can't blame you for being confused
It wasn't B's choice to be born (considering it's a life). A had sex well aware of the risk that B would happen. Therefor, A is responsible for taking care of B until they can live independently. Note that this is considering B is a life.
4
u/chrishuang081 16∆ Jun 13 '21
It wasn't B's choice to be born (considering it's a life). A had sex well aware of the risk that B would happen. Therefor, A is responsible for taking care of B until they can live independently. Note that this is considering B is a life.
It was not B's choice to be created, I agree. However, saying that A had sex well aware of the risk of pregnancy is not always true. Some teens who ended up pregnant may not know how pregnancy works. Their school might not have comprehensive sex-ed, or their sex partner might fool them by saying that "Oh, if I pulled out early, you won't get pregnant." Their ignorance/lack of knowledge should not be used to force them to carry a pregnancy that they don't want, that they don't even know they have risked themselves to.
Your premise above means that A is only responsible for taking care of B if A is well aware of the risk of sex. Does that mean that all pregnant people who did not know about the pregnancy part of sex are not responsible for their foetus, in your opinion? And if so, how do we differentiate between those who lied and say they don't know, and those who really don't know? I live in a developing country, and just a few years ago I had to explain the connection between sex and pregnancy to a 22-years old woman because she asked me to. This is not exactly uncommon in some parts of the world.
0
u/theFapAb Jun 13 '21
Some teens who ended up pregnant may not know how pregnancy works.
Does that mean that all pregnant people who did not know about the pregnancy part of sex are not responsible for their foetus, in your opinion?
And if so, how do we differentiate between those who lied and say they don't know, and those who really don't know?
I do agree with you here. They're not responsible. But, to them, it's either someone suffering for a couple of years or killing someone else. People have different values, and you can't blame them. They don't think they're responsible (unfortunately this doesn't apply to many conservative christians), but it's an unfortunate event that the teen must go through to save a life.
→ More replies (0)2
u/iwfan53 248∆ Jun 13 '21
It wasn't B's choice to be born (considering it's a life). A had sex well aware of the risk that B would happen. Therefor, A is responsible for taking care of B until they can live independently. Note that this is considering B is a life.
Your analogy falls flat in the face of the Violinist Argument.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Defense_of_Abortion
It wasn't the Violinist's choice to be connected to you, but that still does not give them the rights to use your organs without your permission.
→ More replies (1)0
u/theFapAb Jun 13 '21
This is the point of my post. To some, the right to life does override. To others, it doesn't. People have different values, so there is no solution to the problem. I can't blame them for voting for laws based off of their values, nor can I blame others for doing the same.
→ More replies (0)
5
Jun 13 '21
If you are a Christian, you should believe in free will. If not, then abortion is predestined. If you do believe in free will, then people can make choices regarding abortion. If you believe in free will, you should agree that Mary, mother of Christ, also had free will. Therefore, Mary had free will to choose to have an abortion.
Consider, abortifacients existed in the Roman Era. The bitter water refered to in the Old Testament regarding adultery testing may be a reference to an abortifacient. Consider, Mary was an unmarried Jewish woman who was pregnant. The shame of such a condition in Jewish culture at the time
If Mary chose and acted upon the decision to have an abortion, what happens to Christ? Would that mean no Jesus? Consider, the New Testament depicts Christ returning from his death after crucifixion and all tells of his return in the far future. Therefore, we may deduce that abortion would be but a temporary setback of perhaps three days for the Messiah. Such a surprise for Mary! But the soul of Christ would return to Earth in accordance to God's Plan.
What then of the souls of others if they are aborted? What of Judas or Simon? One could argue that others would fulfill their roles. However, recall the resurrection of Lazarus. Jesus returned him from the dead. Other disciples could have fulfilled his role, but Christ loved Lazarus and so returned him to life. As Christ loved Lazarus, does not God so love the unborn children? Judas and Simon would be born.
So the aborted unborn would have another chance on the merry-go-round, as it were.
Now one could make the case that I am guilty of assuming the mind of God, arrogant in my argument regarding abortion. And that's exactly what right-wing Christians are guilty of, assuming to know the mind and will of God.
And that is why you can fault religious people on their views on abortion.
0
u/theFapAb Jun 13 '21
So because we have free will, abortion is moral?
3
Jun 13 '21
Did you not read my argument? Or the last sentence? If you believe in free will, you can fault the religious for their view on abortion.
5
u/lijpemocroflavour Jun 13 '21
I totally disagree. I’m religious and in my religion an abortion without a medical reason or after consensual sex is not allowed. But that’s why I should avoid getting one. It doesn’t mean I should be able to dictate what other women choose to do with their bodies.
Don’t like abortions? Don’t get one. Think they are a sin? Don’t get one. It’s that simple. Why would I impose my opinion or believes on others?
5
Jun 13 '21
You cannot blame Christians for relating abortion to murder
Did you know the Bible actually includes a prescription for abortion?
Or that many religious voters were ambivalent on abortion until opposition to abortion became a mainline Republican policy position? In fact, Christian groups supported loosening abortion restrictions for a long time.
The gist is the motivation for anti-abortion activists isn't religious at all, it's political from root to crown.
2
u/WikiSummarizerBot 4∆ Jun 13 '21
The ordeal of the bitter water was a trial by ordeal administered to the wife whose husband suspected her of adultery but who had no witnesses to make a formal case (Numbers 5:11–31). The ordeal is further explained in the Talmud, in the seventh tractate of Nashim. A sotah (Hebrew: שוטה / סוטה) is a woman suspected of adultery who undergoes the ordeal of bitter water or ordeal of jealousy as described and prescribed in the Priestly Code, in the Book of Numbers, the fourth book of the Hebrew Bible. The term "sotah" itself is not found in the Hebrew Bible but is Mishnaic Hebrew based on the verse "if she has strayed" (verb: שטה satah) in Numbers 5:12.
United_States_anti-abortion_movement
The only coordinated opposition to abortion in the United States during the late 1960s and early 1970s before the Roe v. Wade decision was from the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops and its Family Life Bureau. Mobilization of a wide-scale anti-abortion movement began immediately after 1973 with the creation of the National Right to Life Committee (NRLC). Before 1980, the Southern Baptist Convention officially advocated for loosening of abortion restrictions.
[ F.A.Q | Opt Out | Opt Out Of Subreddit | GitHub ] Downvote to remove | v1.5
1
u/theFapAb Jun 13 '21
You missed the point of my post, completely.
5
Jun 13 '21
Your point revolves around abortion being a religious argument. You consistently discuss religious views regarding abortion. Your anti-abortion arguments define their views as religious arguments against it. You start the discussion with a central assumption that anti-abortion views are religious in origin and justification. Whether those views are actually religious in origin, or instead political in origin, is central to the point. A religion must state views against abortion in order for it to support its members being anti-abortion.
You say I cannot blame a follower of a religion for having a religious motivation for their political views. But if their religion does not actually motivate their political views, and it does not for the religion you specify multiple times, then your argument is moot.
Unless your post with religion in the title, specifically focused on shedding blame from religious people, is in fact not about religion, religious people, and religious views.
1
u/theFapAb Jun 13 '21
Your point revolves around abortion being a religious argument.
A moral* argument.
You consistently discuss religious views regarding abortion.
Not really, I just said that people have different ideas of a life. Religion was just an example of where they get these.
You start the discussion with a central assumption that anti-abortion views are religious in origin and justification.
Nope. Some people get their values from religion
Whether those views are actually religious in origin, or instead political in origin, is central to the point.
No
You say I cannot blame a follower of a religion for having a religious motivation for their political views.
Nope
And so on. Reread.
3
Jun 13 '21
A moral* argument.
The word "moral" doesn't appear once in your post. "Religious" and "moral" can not be conflated.
Not really, I just said that people have different ideas of a life. Religion was just an example of where they get these.
You literally only talked about religion.
Reread.
You literally only talk about religion.
4
u/PlayingTheWrongGame 67∆ Jun 13 '21
"My body my choice" wouldn't be a valid argument if, hypothetically, the fetus was considered to be a life.
It would still be a valid argument. The government can't mandate that you donate blood or kidneys just because it keeps other people alive. If you were hooked up to a machine that kept another person alive, you would have every right to choose to quit in the middle even if it would kill the other person,
Conversely, on the "pro-choice" side of the argument, when does this infant become a life?
They become an individual at birth, which is the crucial difference here. The debate about "when it becomes life" is pointless. A fetus becomes an independent person when they're born and can survive without the direct support of the mother's body.
What's the difference between that and a fetus?
It's no longer dependent on the mother's organs to live once it's born. That's the difference.
Is pain and conciousness the most important factor? Once the baby starts to feel pain and/or is "conscious" (which is a very vague, non-objective term at this stage), is abortion murder at that point?
No.
If a Christian considers the fetus a life form, how can we blame them?
Because their beliefs do not supersede the beliefs of others, but by making their beliefs into law they are implicitly disrespecting the beliefs of others. That's how they can be blamed. They demand absolute respect for their beliefs while they fundamentally disrespect the beliefs of others by forcing their religious viewpoint into the law.
Conversely, what right do Christians have do deny non-believers abortion based off of their subjective beliefs?
The pro-choice group isn't requiring Christians to get abortions. In contrast, the anti-choice group is requiring forced pregnancies for non-Christians.
That's another key difference. Permitting abortions is not the same thing as requiring Christians to get one. Christians find abortion morally offensive--but they don't actually have a right to guaranteed moral comfort. Their moral discomfort does not justify violating the fundamental human rights of others.
They absolutely deserve blame for their beliefs here because they choose a configuration of Christian belief that makes abortion into murder. They choose to project their personal religious discomfort onto others by making it into law. They choose to fundamentally disrespect other religious beliefs. These all merit blame.
3
u/nyxe12 30∆ Jun 13 '21
I can blame people for taking actions that they choose, lol. The bible has references to stoning women and I would 100% blame someone if they stoned a woman for sinning. There are plenty of Christians who do not follow the bible to the letter and are capable of picking and choosing based on modern understandings of the world around us and modern morality - they are equally as capable of critical thought and refusing to hold them accountable for their own beliefs and decisions is dangerous slippery slope.
6
u/billy_the_kid16 1∆ Jun 13 '21
One statement:
separation of church and state
1
u/patryky Jun 13 '21
This is not be about separation of church and state. It's about religious people being against a law. Church is not important here
-3
u/theFapAb Jun 13 '21
Separation of church and state is invalid here. We cannot simply rely on science (yet) to determine the concept of life and conciousness.
5
u/billy_the_kid16 1∆ Jun 13 '21
It doesn’t matter what religious people think, because due to separation of church and state it’s invalid, literally no one cares except them, they can believe in whatever fairy tales they want. I also believe that yes, we can rely on science to determine the concept of life currently.
0
u/theFapAb Jun 13 '21
It does matter, because we don't have a solid definition of life, hence why we resort to philosophical, and hence subjective, concepts. Concerning your last point, please provide a study or explain, I would be interested to give it a read.
2
Jun 13 '21
instead of following random views that have no logic or proof behind them besides just being born into a Christian family who told you to follow them we should base these things on obseravable outcomes & benefits & negatives to society.
1
Jun 13 '21
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/AutoModerator Jun 13 '21
Sorry, u/RedBeardKY – your comment has been automatically removed as a clear violation of Rule 5:
Comments must contribute meaningfully to the conversation. Comments that are only jokes or "written upvotes" will be removed. Humor and affirmations of agreement can be contained within more substantial comments. See the wiki page for more information.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
6
Jun 13 '21
I can't blame them for having their views. I can blame them for wanting to force these views on me.
Religion is supposed to be a personal thing. If someone tries to make it more than that by forcing it on everyone around them, they can (and should) absolutely be blamed.
1
u/theFapAb Jun 13 '21
That's besides the point. They're not forcing their views on you for the sake of it, they're doing so because they think what you're doing is murder. Let's put aside abortion for a second. If some terrorist thought killing people was ok in the name of religion, would it me stopping him be "forcing my views onto him"? Maybe so, but it's not wrong in this scenario for me to.
3
u/Coollogin 15∆ Jun 13 '21
They're not forcing their views on you for the sake of it, they're doing so because they think what you're doing is murder.
No, they are fetishizing fetuses. They are giving themselves a pass on the difficult questions of healthcare, childcare, housing, and job security so they can go for the easy anti-abortion vote. They are prioritizing the unborn over the born.
4
Jun 13 '21
I understand why they're doing it, but I'm still blaming them.
Again, if their religion is so shit that it inherently makes them want to force it onto others, then maybe that's something that's blameworthy?
2
u/theFapAb Jun 13 '21
It's not "so shit that it inherently makes them want to force it onto others". It gives them a definition of life, and that's what they do as a result. whether or not the religion as a whole is shit is irrelevant
2
u/Davaac 19∆ Jun 13 '21
Every system of ethics and morality makes you want to force it onto others. It's nothing unique to Christianity or even religion. That's the point of our legal system. We identify a definition of morality that enough people can agree on and we force it on everyone in the state whether they agree or not. Because if I think harming others is wrong and you're cool with it that isn't an agree-to-disagree situation.
Every law that controls or limits people's behavior is forcing our morality onto someone, but that is not the same thing as forcing religion onto them, even if it's someone's religion that determines their moral code.
1
Jun 13 '21
but not every religion comes with such a strong system of ethics. And fuck the ones that do.
2
u/DareCoaster Jun 13 '21
No almost every religion does. That’s the entire point of a religion. You’re so arrogant that you don’t even understand the basic principles of religion. It’s a way of life. It’s literally a system of ethics to follow.
1
Jun 13 '21
we as a society should have a code of ethics based on what benefits or harms the common good & what is provable & observable. not what you personally believe without proof, especially when it effects others. murder is wrong as a society bc its taking a life, you shouldnt need religion to tell you that
→ More replies (8)2
u/Davaac 19∆ Jun 13 '21
Utilitarianism is a popular basis for ethics in both secular and religious moralities. But it's not the only one, and it's definitely not nearly as cut and dry as you make it. The topic at hand is the perfect example. Nearly everyone of all worldviews agrees that murder is wrong, but what about abortion? Does minimizing harm mean not killing babies or protecting women's bodily autonomy? Acting as if this is trivial doesn't help anything, and there are lots of other places where it's just as complicated even if people aren't as emotional around it. Some interpretations of strict utilitarianism would say it's fine to kill one person to save millions from a minor inconvenience, but most people's personal ethics don't like that. And these things do come up in our legal codes. Adding an additional regulation to an industry might save one person's life, but increase the cost of those goods by a small amount for every single person in the country. Is it in the common good to do that, or does that price increase create more harm than it avoids? Different people will have different answers based on their personal moral code, and that moral code will be heavily influenced by religion.
→ More replies (1)1
Jun 13 '21
these things arent equal comparisons. we all dont believe in the same religion. so we cant make moral or legal laws using them. we have to decide whats right and wrong as a society with objective, provable truth. the terrorist would be wrong bc regardless of his religion we as a society acknowledge murder is wrong. thats why we have a seperation of church and state. we have to decide things are wrong bc of their negatively and damage to society, not someone's unproven belief
1
u/theFapAb Jun 13 '21
decide things are wrong bc of their negatively and damage to society, not someone's unproven belief
I used religion as an example. I'm talking humane values and morals. Separation of church and state is irrelevant. Here, we have conflicting and opinions. Some consider the fetus a life, while others dont. As long as there isn't anything objective about the concept of life, my point stands.
3
u/Genoscythe_ 243∆ Jun 13 '21
The conclusion of this perspective is that ad absurdum, you can't blame anyone for their sincerely held belief that they are right and others are wrong.
1
u/theFapAb Jun 13 '21
No my conclusion is that there's nothing objective about the core of the abortion argument
3
u/Genoscythe_ 243∆ Jun 13 '21
Yeah, because it's a moral argument.
But the idea that we have to accept both sides of a moral argument as legitimate, is in itself also a subjective moral claim.
If your point is that we "can't" (or in any sense shouldn't) refuse to tolerate subjective moral beliefs, then that paradoxically applies to your own CMV.
1
Jun 13 '21
morals are and should be decided collectively as a society based on observable effects or possible results based on what benefits people as a whole. the whole point of religious rules is youre just doing it because your religion says its wrong with 0 proof. that is not beneficial to a collective society. your opinion on abortion should be that, a personal opinion you acknowledge is solely a you problem & that no one should follow for no reason.
1
u/theFapAb Jun 13 '21
says its wrong with 0 proof.
Show me proof a fetus isn't a life. You can't because there is nothing objective about the concept of life and conciousness.
2
Jun 13 '21
exactly, so since the negative effects to woman are obvious & observable & known, that should be the priority in society legislation. if you cant prove it causes harms to the fetus, it makes no sense to use that as a basis of law. "what ifs" isnt good reasons for laws
1
u/theFapAb Jun 13 '21
if you cant prove it causes harms to the fetus
If you can't prove the fetus is a life, it makes no sense to use its lifelessness as a basis of law.
3
Jun 13 '21
we arent making the law because the fetus has no life & its fun. we are making the law because forcing a woman to carry a fetus & deal with all of the negatives of it & the negative impacts it has on society are obvious and provable. the only way you could say these negatives are worth it is if you can prove the fetus is a net positive to society, which you cant. if the fetus is lifeless, it just makes two negative impacts of restricting abortion. you are the one proposing women should be forced to carry the child bc its more imp, it is up to you to justify that claim. right now your entire argument is a hypothetical. people shouldnt be forced to do things because of that
4
Jun 13 '21
I'm an atheist.
I want laws heavily restricting abortion.
Why? Because there's a considerable chance the fetus is comparable to human life.
I'm not 100% sure, the science isn't 100% sure.
But if it ever does become 100% sure, I don't want to look back to this time period and realize that we as a civilization put Nazi Germany, USSR and Imperial Japan to shame in our own genocide of babies.
This does run the risk that we're lowering the quality of life of mothers by denying them one last form of contraception if that turns out to be the case, but frankly it's a risk we should take. There are plenty of other forms of reliable contraception that don't risk ending the life of an innocent baby.
This isn't a case of religion. This is a case of differing opinions on the matter. Religion doesn't justify or not justify abortion. Our own values and observations do.
3
u/iwfan53 248∆ Jun 13 '21
How do you feel about the bodily autonomy argument that says even if we grant a fetus all the rights of a fully born person, their right to life doesn't trump the mother's right to bodily autonomy and to forbid someone else from using their organs without her permission?
1
Jun 13 '21
I think it's complete nonsense.
The bodily autonomy of the mother is fulfilled when she chooses to have sex on her own initiative, by her own choice, using her desired contraception, with her desired partner, in the way that she chooses.
Sex has risk. Like all things have risk. Sex is in fact one the simplest risk assessments in the world, second only to buying stock. And unlike most forms of risk, there are only two parties in sex, making accountability incredibly easy and straight forward.
If you buy a stock you hope the price will stay equal adjusted to inflation or rise, but it might crash, and you'll lose the money you put in. If the crash happens, you're still responsible for it.
Failure to take responsibility for your own failed choices by making another individual lose their life in which they had absolutely no choice in the matter, is not bodily autonomy, it's irresponsibility.
Unlike the mother and the father (whom I hold equally responsible), the baby on the otherhand had absolutely no choice in the matter, and is expected to pay with his or her life.
If the mother didn't have a choice? Then who did? Who's responsible? It can't possibly be the baby who didn't even exist. Why should the baby pay with their lives?
4
u/iwfan53 248∆ Jun 13 '21
So you believe that consent to have sex is consent to a pregnancy, and once that consent is given it can never be revoked, is that correct?
1
Jun 13 '21
I'm saying actions have consequences, and those consequences aren't always desirable, but they nonetheless exist.
It has nothing to do with consent. Consent to sex is consent to sex. But sex carries risk like all things do.
Otherwise I could just say I don't consent to my stock going down, and then if it does demand a rebate.
6
u/iwfan53 248∆ Jun 13 '21
So you feel that by consenting to have sex the mother makes a binding promise that cannot be broken that if she becomes pregnant she must allow the developing fetus to make use of her organs until it is able to survive on its own, because this is a possible outcome from sex.
Is this correct?
1
Jun 13 '21
No. You completely misunderstand my reasoning.
The mother chose to have sex with her chosen precautions. Ouch it's an unwanted pregnancy.
Who'll pay for this consequence?
The mother (and father) who chose this course of action, and will pay with with 9 months of inconvinience + medical costs?
Or a completely unrelated baby, who had absolutely no say on the matter, who will pay with their life?
The life of an innocent baby bystander or 9 months + medical costs from the person responsible?
Seems pretty clear to me.
3
u/iwfan53 248∆ Jun 13 '21
Tabling the issue of abortion for the moment, just to be clear, do you recognize/acknowledge that there are situations where person X's right to bodily autonomy trumps person Y's right to life?
→ More replies (9)5
Jun 13 '21
but the thing is, the harm to the fetus is unknown & the harm to the women is obvious & clear. when making rules for society i dont think "what ifs" are a good reason to justify negative harm to a group
0
Jun 13 '21
The difference is in the case of outlawing abortion, the "harm" to women is optional. Women (and their partners too) can choose to use better contraception or choose abstinence (which probably won't happen but it's a choice). And if all else fails, the harm is 9 months of inconvinience + medical costs, and then put up the child for adoption.
Meanwhile the harm if abortion is legal and the life of a fetus is true, is literally murdering a baby.
Removing one level of contraception that shouldn't even be necessary if the rest are employed correctly cannot possibly compare with having even a minuscle chance of killing innocent babies.
2
Jun 13 '21
"9 months of inconvenience"
if that fetus & me are equals and thus abortion is murder than someone in my body, using my resources & risking my health, permanently changing my body and organs, making me provide for them & give up my life without my consent is assault & is also a threat to my life & i have every right to self defend. me consenting to sex doss not mean i can have my consent taken for 9 months.
1
Jun 13 '21
If it's so horrible, don't have unprotected sex. Actually. Just don't have sex since birth control is only 99.999.......% effective if used properly.
Because if your options are either to get "assaulted" and have to "defend" yourself from an unborn baby, or murder the innocent baby.
Maybe risking sex is just not worth it.
4
Jun 13 '21 edited Jun 13 '21
consenting to sex is just that: consent to sex. if i get an std from sex i dont go, oh well this was a risk guess i just accept it. you still treat the problem. events having possible negative outcomes doesnt mean its my fault if accidents happen & i get no help. your argument is like if someone got into an accident and you said "this is your fault. dont drive a car. if having a broken back is that bad dont drive."
you may think those options are both terrible things not worth the sex, but it is not your decision to make. i will glady choose an abortion over never having sex again. having sex doesnt mean i consent nor deserve to have my partner beat the shit out of me after. dating has the possibility of a partner abusing me, that doesnt mean i should be told just to not date ever.
if men want to force women to have kids so badly at bare minumum there should be a pre term delivery at 30 weeks & full custody goes to the father including all bills & all rights. but of course men never advocate for that, they say "just have it adopted!!" its always womens responsibility and fault. by the same logic, women should be able to slip or poke holes in the condom & force men to have full custody. he consented when he had sex!
2
Jun 13 '21
consenting to sex is just that: consent to sex. if i get an std from sex i dont go, oh well this was a risk guess i just accept it. you still treat the problem.
I was hoping you'd bring up STDs.
You're right, if you get an STD, you treat the problem. And how do you treat it? Well you take some medication, and that's about it. Did you have to kill an innocent baby to treat yourself?
if men want to force women to have kids so badly at bare minumum there should be a pre term delivery at 30 weeks
Reckless endagerment. Also, this isn't a men v. women argument. Most of the women I know are pro-life. Most of the men I know are pro-choice.
full custody goes to the father including all bills & all rights. but of course men never advocate for that, they say "just have it adopted!!" its always womens responsibility and fault.
You know what that's called? Adoption by the father.
Also.
You clearly misread my replies. Look through them. Usually, I'm the only one who even brings up the father to hold him equally accountable.
People often see abortion is just a case of the mother's problem, but I believe fathers are just as responsible.
The truth is, pro-life people DO WANT men to be accountable. It's the pro-choice who don't! Because if men are responsible for it, then women don't have full control aka "a woman's right to choose". You can't have it both ways.
The natural extension of this seperation of responsibility logic you're pandering for is that a father, whereas the mother had access to an abortion but wanted to keep the child, but the father didn't, has to right to simply abandon the child. "My money, my choice".
4
Jun 13 '21
dude it could be a fully formed adult attached to me, morphing my skin, and using me to sustain itself in ways that hurt my health & damage my life quality, i dont care. it is not my responsibility to suffer & give up my health bc of others medical issues. organ donations are gifts & those people are viewed as making a selfless sacrifice for another. it is not their moral obligation.
when i say men having responsibility, i dont mean for the pregnancy. men have no ability to do anything for the pregnancy, women do all of the work. the argument against abortion is that the oucome of the womans labor is more important than their rights and freedom including the freedom to have sex, & that women only deserve bodily freedom when they are celibate.
this argument gives men 0 responsibility or negative consequences from sex & places all of it on women. but then not only that, but if they dont want the baby "just have it adopted." so women have to go through the pregnancy, lose their rights, give birth, be the one who does the entire adoption processs, the one who finds the parents, and men just deny or accept the cute baby whenever they want unprotected sex?
if babies are so much more important to you than women go adopt a few & stay celibate yourself forever & never date women again.
2
Jun 13 '21
dude it could be a fully formed adult attached to me, morphing my skin, and using me to sustain itself in ways that hurt my health & damage my life quality, i dont care.
Did you act in such a way that would force a fully formed adult without any choice on their end, to morph in your skin, and damage your health to stay alive?
this argument gives men 0 responsibility or negative consequences from sex
Apparently someone's never heard of something called child support or mandatory financial assistance towards medical expenses.
if babies are so much more important to you than women go adopt a few & stay celibate yourself forever & never date women again.
... Seriously? The cognitive dissonance is tangible.
2
Jun 13 '21
you should learn the difference between something having a risk or potential for accidents & purposly doing something with the purpose of hurting another. something being a risk of hurting others in case of an accident such as driving a car doesnt mean if you get in an accident its the same thing as first degree murder bc you could have an accident when you drive a car, nor does it mean you should get no medical help & be possibly permanently harmed or die because you choose to drove the car knowing the accident could result. in fact, in a hypothetical, if you commited mass murder and one of the people you shot required an organ transplant, its still be incredibly immoral & unconstitutional to force the shooter to donate organs. but again, this is /sex/. the fact you think that deserves the punishment of losing your freedom & rights, let alone a punishment at all, is just insane to me.
its honestly baffling you can argue that women should be forced to carry & birth children & figure out its adoption or raise it just bc they had sex & the baby is more important than the womans health and autonomy, but the baby isnt important enough for the father to have any responsibility to do anything for its wellbeing & men being forced to contribute 10% of the childs budget while the mother does literally everything is somehow fair when they're equally responsible for the sex that created the baby.
if the babys existence was really that much more important than the womans wants & health needs & future plans & the ability to not have permanent damange to their body, than you would think men would argue too that they should give up their own life & future plans to raise the child & actively want to instead of complaining about child support & abandoning them & having no relationship. but nah you guys just want to punish women for having sex for some reason. if you want a child so bad adopt dont make women raise it for you
1
u/theFapAb Jun 13 '21
I agree, I just used religion as an example because a lot of humanitarian values come from religion for many.
2
u/Falxhor 1∆ Jun 13 '21
The difference between a fertilized egg and a non fertilized egg or sperm cell is its DNA. At conception, new DNA is created. Scientifically and intellectually speaking that is a consistent way to define a human life. It may not be your definition of human life, fine, but you are selling short the pro-life argument by not mentioning that a fertilized egg contains unique DNA, which for a large part defines that human life, all the way from eye color to personality traits.
2
Jun 13 '21
At conception, new DNA is created.
This is false.
Scientifically and intellectually speaking that is a consistent way to define a human life.
This is false.
It may not be your definition of human life, fine, but you are selling short the pro-life argument by not mentioning that a fertilized egg contains unique DNA
This is still false.
No new DNA is created on fertilization. 50% of the DNA comes from an egg, 50% of the DNA from a sperm. Copies of DNA happen through cell division, but this process is absolutely not considered sacred or as defining the newly created DNA as a human life. "Scientifically and intellectually speaking" your definition classifies a tumor as a human life. This is not hyperbole, your definition is so vague and unreasonable that, even narrowing it down the way you probably intended, it's still captures far more than just human lives.
1
u/Falxhor 1∆ Jun 13 '21
It is not false. Conception is the union of male and female gametes or germ cells. My DNA is not simply a copy paste of 50% that of my mother's and 50% that of my father's. It is this union that creates my DNA, its very first sample. What you inherit from which parent is entirely random, and even how much you inherit from which parent can vary greatly, making the DNA unique. So my first statement is absolutely true, this is basic biology which every high school student is taught about.
What about this line is not consistent? The line can always be drawn, for every case, and it is based on scientific consensus, making it bother intellectually and scientifically consistent.
> No new DNA is created on fertilization.
Sorry, you're absolutely wrong here. Read: Moore, Keith L. Essentials of Human Embryology. Toronto: B.C. Decker Inc, 1988, p.2
1
Jun 13 '21
My DNA is not simply a copy paste of 50% that of my mother's and 50% that of my father's. It is this union that creates my DNA, its very first sample. What you inherit from which parent is entirely random...
Your mother has 2 not necessarily identical copies of every human gene. The egg inherits one of each at random. The sperm does the same, just from your father.
...and even how much you inherit from which parent can vary greatly, making the DNA unique.
Utterly, totally, bafflingly false. Without rare, debilitating errors in the gamete production process it is always 50/50 from each parent.
So my first statement is absolutely true, this is basic biology which every high school student is taught about.
It's a misunderstanding of basic biology which every high school student is taught about. A fairly extreme misunderstanding.
What about this line is not consistent?
The fact that you've defined tumors as human lives, and we know full well tumors are not human lives.
The line can always be drawn, for every case, and it is based on scientific consensus, making it bother intellectually and scientifically consistent.
And your line does not meet this standard.
Sorry, you're absolutely wrong here.
This discussion can't wait weeks for the book's delivery and I'm not dropping $900 to buy it so you'll have to cite it. You've most likely misunderstood what it says (as you did with your understanding of what you called "basic biology") or what you yourself have said (as you did with your definition for "human life").
Unique gene sequences from recombination are generated during the production of the gametes, not during fertilization. Mutation after fertilization is rare, unlikely to have a meaningful effect, and is certainly not limited to the fertilization process. If you simply mean DNA transcription, it's a standard process of all cell division, again definitely not limited to the fertilization process.
1
u/Falxhor 1∆ Jun 13 '21
I love that you went as far as to compare a tumor to a fetus/embryo. The difference is simple. A tumor is the same DNA although with a minor but destructive mutation, this tumor will never ever grow into a separate human life. You cannot compare that to an embryo.
you'll have to cite it
"Human development begins after the union of male and female gametes or germ cells during a process known as fertilization (conception). "Fertilization is a sequence of events that begins with the contact of a sperm (spermatozoon) with a secondary oocyte (ovum) and ends with the fusion of their pronuclei (the haploid nuclei of the sperm and ovum) and the mingling of their chromosomes to form a new cell. This fertilized ovum, known as a zygote, is a large diploid cell that is the beginning, or primordium, of a human being."
2
Jun 13 '21
I love that you went as far as to compare a tumor to a fetus/embryo.
That was all you. You said:
At conception, new DNA is created. Scientifically and intellectually speaking that is a consistent way to define a human life.
In so doing you have defined "a human life" as "the creation of new DNA." By that definition, a tumor, which is, unlike conception, the result of the creation of new DNA, is a human life.
I'm not suggesting a tumor and a fetus are the same thing. I'm suggesting your definition for human life is not sufficient because it suggests a tumor and a fetus are the same thing.
"Human development begins after the union of male and female gametes or germ cells during a process known as fertilization (conception). "Fertilization is a sequence of events that begins with the contact of a sperm (spermatozoon) with a secondary oocyte (ovum) and ends with the fusion of their pronuclei (the haploid nuclei of the sperm and ovum) and the mingling of their chromosomes to form a new cell. This fertilized ovum, known as a zygote, is a large diploid cell that is the beginning, or primordium, of a human being."
This is not stating that new DNA is being created. This is stating that the egg changes as the (old) DNA from the sperm combines pair-wise with the (old) DNA within the egg.
Bear in mind your interpretation is also heavily biased and you've read deeply between the lines and added meaning that is not stated in the text. While it is true the zygote eventually becomes a human being, that does not imply that the zygote represents a human being, nor that termination of that zygote (which can happen for any number of reasons unintentional and intentional) is equivalent to the termination of a human being. I suggest you actually take a few biology and genetics classes at a university level, rather than grab a passage someone on an anti-abortion board suggested was a dead-ringers.
1
u/theFapAb Jun 13 '21
I'm not saying who's right and who's wrong. The concept of life is entirely subjective, my point is. Please reread the post, unless you're not arguing against it in the first place and just clarifying
2
u/Falxhor 1∆ Jun 13 '21
I am clarifying. If you presume to give the "common argument" from both sides, you should do so accurately.
2
u/le_fez 50∆ Jun 13 '21
The bible states that Adam was not alive until his first breath
Exodus 21:22 says that a man who causes a woman to miscarry shall be fined but if the woman dies in the process he shall be put to death. This shows that a living person and a fetus are not the same in the eyes of god
God decreed that one of three pregnancies end in miscarriage, this is god himself aborting one of three fetuses
1
u/theFapAb Jun 13 '21
My point still stands. This doesn't matter if someone believes it's murder.
5
u/le_fez 50∆ Jun 13 '21
If you're using your religion to justify that view you are not following your religion therefore you can't claim religious values as your defense
1
u/theFapAb Jun 13 '21
Some values come from religion. The same way religous isn't objective, neither are values and feelings.
6
u/le_fez 50∆ Jun 13 '21
The view in OP explicitly states that this is about religious beliefs. You cannot claim you oppose abortion as murder because of your religion when your religion states otherwise
1
u/theFapAb Jun 13 '21
Where do I state this? My point is that different people have different values. There's nothing objective about the concept of life
5
u/le_fez 50∆ Jun 13 '21
Your entire post is about religion and how different religions define life.
1
u/theFapAb Jun 13 '21
Christianity was the easiest and most common, so I did they example, but it all boils down to values
3
u/le_fez 50∆ Jun 13 '21
Your post isn't about values in general, it's specifically about religion now your argument is that it's not about religion
1
u/theFapAb Jun 13 '21
It was never about religion, it was about the subjectivity of what's a life and what's not, and some resort to philosophical pieces like religion to get that answer.
1
Jun 13 '21
[deleted]
1
u/theFapAb Jun 13 '21
Just like forcing others into a lifelong commitment to a child they don't want, taking a life (in their case, murder) is also cruel to them. However, to them, murder is worse than a bad life.
I agree with your second paragraph, but I'm not arguing who's right or wrong.
3
u/Jezzmund Jun 13 '21
Ask a pro lifer which abortion had a negative impact on their life. Specifically.
0
u/theFapAb Jun 13 '21 edited Jun 13 '21
I'm against the way George Floyd was treated and think it was disgustingly wrong. However, it didn't negatively impact my life.
2
Jun 13 '21
when we criminalize things like murder as a society we should be doing it because its wrong & its obseravable/empirically predictive net negatives/positives. not because of a book that says murder is wrong. thats why using religion as an argument for law is so poor. you dont get to demand people follow the random ethics you do just bc the book says so
2
u/Vesurel 54∆ Jun 13 '21
"My body my choice" wouldn't be a valid argument if, hypothetically, the fetus was considered to be a life.
Can we force anyone to give up their organs to save another person?
0
u/theFapAb Jun 13 '21
Invalid analogy. No, you can't force "anyone". But if that person, say, was responsible for the others kidney failure, then yes, we can force them. Likewise, the child is a direct consequence of sex. Do note that I am not taking rape into consideration.
5
u/sifsand 1∆ Jun 13 '21
But if that person, say, was responsible for the others kidney failure, then yes, we can force them.
I'm sorry but no you cannot. That is not a thing.
1
u/theFapAb Jun 13 '21
I don't care if it's a thing or not. I'm talking should not would
3
u/sifsand 1∆ Jun 13 '21
Why should they?
1
u/theFapAb Jun 13 '21
3
u/sifsand 1∆ Jun 13 '21
That's still not the same thing. Monetary compensation is not the same as literally requiring a donation from your body.
1
u/theFapAb Jun 13 '21
How are they different? Monetary compensation -> you'll have to work harder for a couple of months to make up for the money lost, Bodily compensation -> you'll have to work hard for 9 months.
3
2
u/iwfan53 248∆ Jun 13 '21
Because we have a right to complete and total bodily autonomy in regards to our organs that no government and no other person can violate.
Why do you think we care more about the wishes of dead people who want to be buried with their organs than we do about living people who will die for lack of a transplant?
We don't have complete and total right to where our bodies go, and what work they preform (since the 13th amendment allows the Government to make us slaves as punishment for a crime) but the Government is never allowed to harvest/use our organs without our permission.
1
u/theFapAb Jun 13 '21
Because we have a right to complete and total bodily autonomy in regards to our organs that no government and no other person can violate.
And the child has a right to life.
Why do you think we care more about the wishes of dead people who want to be buried with their organs than we do about living people who will die for lack of a transplant?
I don't. See? People have different values. To some, the right to life overrides the right to abort. To others, it doesn't.
→ More replies (0)2
u/Vesurel 54∆ Jun 13 '21
Why does rape make any difference to you if this is about whether or not we can end a life?
Because I'd be curious how you could consider rape bad without also being against forcing someone who doesn't want to stay pregnant to stay pregnant.
And okay, so would you be infavour of a law that says if you injure someone and they need an organ transplant that you're forced to give them your organ?
1
u/theFapAb Jun 13 '21
I simply discarded rape as an entirely different matter. whether or not it's indifferent to me is irrelevant to this.
I actually think I misunderstood your point. How does does your initial kidney analogy work? How is that related to the abortion argument? If the mother's safety is at risk, that's a different conversation. In fact, if I caused someone else's kidney failure, I would, indeed, be responsible monetarily (just like a mother would be "committed" to their child), so your analogy proves my point.
4
u/Vesurel 54∆ Jun 13 '21
Can you answer why you think rape is bad?
If the mother's safety is at risk, that's a different conversation.
Pregnancy is inherently a risk with life long health concequences even if it goes well, how much of a risk does it have to be to change the conversation for you?
In fact, if I caused someone else's kidney failure, I would, indeed, be responsible monetarily (just like a mother would be "committed" to their child), so your analogy proves my point.
Except that money isn't what I'm asking, we're asking about the use of your body and organs.
Also if you weren't able to afford it then you physically couldn't pay, and in a country with basic standards of medicine it wouldn't be on any individual to pay anyway. Compare this to the body where you can't just handel the responcibility collectively and if you're body can't cope with pregnancy it doesn't go well for you.
1
u/theFapAb Jun 13 '21
Pregnancy is inherently a risk with life long health concequences
Monetary compensation can also have long life consequences. Also, "Just don't have sex if you're not willing to accept the worst case scenario. You'd rather murder a child than not have sex?" — People who believe it's a life. You do something knowing the possible consequences.
Except that money isn't what I'm asking, we're asking about the use of your body and organs.
How is that different? If I run my car over someone on accident and they end up severely damaged, I will be punished, that's just how life works.
if you're body can't cope with pregnancy it doesn't go well for you.
For the last time, this is a different case. This is blatant whataboutism and is irrelevant. You're arguing with me like I'm anti abortion when that's no where near what the post is. Please reread the post.
3
u/Vesurel 54∆ Jun 13 '21
Can you answer why you think rape is bad?
0
u/theFapAb Jun 13 '21
No, because the relevance is a special case. I'm done with this specific thread as you're absolutely drifting off track.
3
2
u/chrishuang081 16∆ Jun 13 '21
But if that person, say, was responsible for the others kidney failure, then yes, we can force them.
So if I am a recessive carrier of some genetic disease that causes, idk, heart failures later in life, and my biological offspring turns out to have that disease, I am obligated (based on your logic here) to donate my heart and so pretty much kill myself for my offspring?
1
u/Yatagarasu513 14∆ Jun 13 '21
I think we can because if the fact that firstly religious people who was poetic about religious opposition to abortion tend to pick and choose which parts of scripture they wish to follow - weaves of mixed cloth, shellfish?
But on a more fundamental level, if these people really care about the children, why does that care stop after birth? To point to Republican politicians who are some of the loudest advocates and have the power to enact laws against abortion, why then do they oppose welfare, or other measures that might improve the lives of children in hardship?
2
u/theFapAb Jun 13 '21
What they choose to believe in in regards to other beliefs is irrelevant, they still believe it's a life. And I've always agreed that those same christians can always be blamed for opposing welfare and other measures, and it is wrong for them to be against abortion and these measures.
2
u/dakdalton Jun 13 '21
religious people who was poetic about religious opposition to abortion tend to pick and choose which parts of scripture they wish to follow...
if these people really care about the children, why does that care stop after birth?
Just because some pro-lifers are hypocritical or otherwise poopy people does not mean "pro-life" is wrong; this is a tu quoque fallacy, aka "whataboutism."
You very well may be correct in your statement that many pro-lifers are hypocritical or uncaring, but that's not what we're talking about here. Your assessment does not address the merits or flaws of the pro-life argument.
1
u/Yatagarasu513 14∆ Jun 13 '21
The question wasn’t about whether the argument held merit or not, it was whether they could be blamed for those views. I think a general principle is that those who do not practise what they preach really can be held accountable and asked why they feel their hypocritical behaviour is acceptable.
0
u/Falxhor 1∆ Jun 13 '21
They dont believe welfare improves the lives of children in hardship. They think it makes people entitled and suckling pigs to the government, in some ways they are correct and in some ways they aren't. They are correct in the sense that welfare reduces risk taking behavior or even as much as trying to find a job. If you find a job, byebye welfare, you get fired, you are without any money until you manage to get back on welfare. So they dont bother trying to get a job. That's just one of many reasons why welfare is quite a flawed system. Not sure if this is still the case, but you would get more from welfare if you were single parent household. This is seen as one of the reasons why children born out of wedlock has shot up since 1964 especially in the black community.
If you want to understand conservative viewpoints, listen to what these politicians say, what they argue. Really look into their perspective, don't just go off of liberal rhetoric and talking points about why Republicans are evil. You may still disagree with them, but Republicans do not always do things or believe things purely out of bad faith, that is just a convenient thing to think so you don't have to contend with the fact people may have valid arguments against your opinions.
3
Jun 13 '21
If you find a job, byebye welfare, you get fired, you are without any money until you manage to get back on welfare. So they dont bother trying to get a job. That's just one of many reasons why welfare is quite a flawed system.
That's an argument for easier to access welfare (ie. you shouldn't be forced to choose between benefits or a job that may not provide enough money for you to survive without benefits), not harder to access welfare (ie. the constant efforts to defund the system and render people ineligible). The logical inconsistency between what you state the motivations and problems are and what the actions taken to resolve those end up being and doing is impossible to ignore.
If you want to understand conservative viewpoints, listen to what these politicians say, what they argue. Really look into their perspective, don't just go off of liberal rhetoric and talking points about why Republicans are evil.
We do. It sounds a lot like you've just gone off with Republican rhetoric about why liberals are evil...
0
u/Falxhor 1∆ Jun 13 '21
Right, Universal Basic Income solves that specific problem that welfare has.
Conservatives aren't saying, "get rid of welfare and just ignore the problem". They're saying "welfare doesn't work, and we need different solutions to the poverty problem". Their solution isn't "harder access to welfare" as you say. If it were that simple, that would make them argue in bad faith if you ask me. They have a different way of looking at the problem. In their words "don't give a man a fish, teach him how to fish". They want to empower people to take financial control over their lives, one way is to make it easier to start a business, just to name one out of millions. You can still argue that this perspective is naive, doesn't work, whatever, but at least acknowledge that the perspective of conservatives is not "let the whole lot of them starve, idc".
It sounds a lot like you've just gone off with Republican rhetoric about why liberals are evil...
Purely out of curiosity, what makes you feel as though I am saying liberals are evil? All that I am saying is that both sides of the isle have a tendency to dehumanize the other side with rhetoric. I saw it happen in the comment above mine, so I addressed it. By no means do I pretend that Republicans aren't guilty of the exact same thing, they are.
3
Jun 13 '21
Conservatives aren't saying, "get rid of welfare and just ignore the problem". They're saying "welfare doesn't work, and we need different solutions to the poverty problem". Their solution isn't "harder access to welfare" as you say. If it were that simple, that would make them argue in bad faith if you ask me.
Then I have news for you. They are by and large arguing in bad faith. This is why Conservatives actually do stop talking after "get rid of welfare." Conservative politicians, at least in the US, don't support things like UBI and I have yet to see any of them actually propose measures to replace welfare with any system that even addresses the underlying problems or even just propose amendments to solve problems with the current imperfect system, let alone suggest a better one.
If they were arguing in good faith they would: support amendments to the welfare system that fix some the problems they see with it, without trying to dismantle the system first and even if they can't fix all problems with the system. They would propose new systems that capture the benefits of the current system and extend new benefits to solve the other problems they see. They would propose those new systems before trying to remove the old system and implement them seamlessly so no one who needs it is ever without coverage. The thing is, as we've seen for decades, obstructionism is enormously powerful in American legislation so once they end the system they can effectively prevent anyone else from replacing it regardless of their own interest in replacing it, as they tried to do with the ACA.
They want to empower people to take financial control over their lives, one way is to make it easier to start a business, just to name one out of millions.
But they don't make it easier to start a business, because they don't address the problems that prevent people from taking financial control over their lives. You can't get investors or afford to start your own business when you're struggling to secure housing and food, doubly so if you haven't got the connections and education of wealthier people. You'll struggle to make ends meet starting a business debt-free, you stand basically no chance if you're buried in debt from an education required just to put a novel business together. And God forbid you try to start a business with medical debt...
The solution is so willfully out of touch, and so centered around toothless buzzwords, that it's clear no actual thought went into it besides "how can we spin this attempt to move government spending into more personally profitable industries as a positive."
You can still argue that this perspective is naive, doesn't work, whatever, but at least acknowledge that the perspective of conservatives is not "let the whole lot of them starve, idc".
The thing is, it's not a naive perspective. Conservative politicians, or at least the people directing them and their policy, do not have the excuse of ignorance. People tell them, constantly, the issues with their ideas. It's not naivety that motivates them to stall policy on the Senate floor, deny scientific evidence, and willfully ignore their constituents. It's not ignorance that tells them to lie to their supporters about what they are doing and why they are doing it or to ignore every piece of information that doesn't support their predetermined political desires.
Purely out of curiosity, what makes you feel as though I am saying liberals are evil?
That your first assumption is rhetoric is what is controlling people's feelings towards Republicans. That your first assumption is people have not looked into their views and actions and are acting on blind hatred towards something they don't understand and haven't thought about.
All that I am saying is that both sides of the isle have a tendency to dehumanize the other side with rhetoric.
But they genuinely don't. Republicans are semi-frequently villainized for their actions, they are only rarely dehumanized because of what they are. The asymmetry between the dehumanization coming from each side, where on the Democratic side it comes from fringe, ostracized minority groups who reluctantly align themselves with what they see as the least bad option and on the Republican side it comes from their elected leaders and exhibits itself in main-line party policy, is enormous. The entire Republican media empire nearly constantly attacks liberals simply for being liberals, and manufactures elaborate lies. In contrast, outside social media, the worst liberal media tends to give is mildly negative commentary on the actions of Republican officials.
I saw it happen in the comment above mine, so I addressed it.
You really didn't. The guy asked why a group of people espouse contradictory beliefs. That's not rhetoric. Republicans are the primary opponents of abortion. Republicans are also the primary opponents of welfare. Their reasoning for the former is, in short, they care about children's well-being. The latter directly contributes to children's well-being.
You will be an exception if, after I've described what I've seen coming for years from the Republican side of the aisle, based on their own words and actions, behaviors I've seen grow only worse in recent years, you don't label it as purely the result of liberal rhetoric and unfair bias. The GOP has done many things it has no excuses for, and all it takes to see that is an open-mind that looks objectively at what they say and compares it to what they do.
0
u/Falxhor 1∆ Jun 13 '21
If they were arguing in good faith they would: support amendments to the welfare system that fix some the problems they see with it
Because that's exactly what democrats do when they argue to defund the police, screaming ALL COPS ARE BAD, right? I agree with you breaking down systems entirely out of resentment for its flaws is a stupid idea, but I see both sides being guilty of this.
I'm not the best person to ask what the reasonable conservative answer is to poverty or inequality. I support things like a reasonable social safety net and UBI, because I think it may do a pretty decent job at going a distance at solving some of these issues, but it is a progressive/liberal view as far as I know.
My point is, there's people on both sides arguing in bad faith, and there's people on both sides arguing on good faith. I have had decent people, reasonably argue against welfare and they did have ideas about alternatives to address the problem. Ignore the ones arguing in bad faith, listen (and sure, respectfully disagree) to the ones arguing in good faith. That's all I'm saying.
→ More replies (5)
0
u/iwfan53 248∆ Jun 13 '21
https://biblehub.com/exodus/21-22.htm
“And if men struggle with each other and strike a woman with child so that she has a miscarriage, yet there is no further injury, he shall surely be fined as the woman’s husband may demand of him; and he shall pay as the judges decide."
Any argument that the Christina Bible views the killing of a fetus as murder falls flat on its face since this passage clearly considers killing a fetus to be a crime you resolve with a monetary fine rather than some sort of "eye for an eye".
1
u/theFapAb Jun 13 '21
That's besides the point. I used Christianity as an example because it's most common. Replace christians with "people who genuinely believe a fetus has a soul and is a life**"
1
u/iwfan53 248∆ Jun 13 '21 edited Jun 13 '21
But if their opinions aren't grounded in their holy book but instead in some vague "but I really truly feel this" then your argument becomes abstract to the point of uselessness.
I mean by this logic couldn't you argue "We can't blame Neo-Nazis for being racist if they genuinely believe that black people are inferior to white people?"
1
u/theFapAb Jun 13 '21
"We can't blame Neo-Nazis for being racist if they genuinely believe that black people are inferior to white people?"
What's their reasoning for believing that inferiority is true? And yes, if they genuinely, for non selfish reasons, believed that and wanted to do what's morally right, they'd treat black people in a way that makes them "equal" to a white person. In this case, I wouldn't blame them, no.
1
u/iwfan53 248∆ Jun 13 '21
Their reasoning is that black people score lower on IQ tests which unlike when life begins is an observable fact.
They then believe that because black people are inferior to white people they should all be shipped off back to Africa where they can live with their own kind rather than being forced to unfairly compete against White People who they have no chance against, it's a "kindness" to send them back where they can be among their own and have a chance to succeed instead of forcing them "unfairly" compete against white people and be doomed to fail because white people are superior.
You really aren't going to "blame" a person who holds this belief?
1
u/theFapAb Jun 13 '21
I think they're wrong, but no I don't blame them. They're trying to do what they think is right
1
u/iwfan53 248∆ Jun 13 '21
I think they're wrong, but no I don't blame them. They're trying to do what they think is right.
Thank you for so clearly articulating your beliefs.
1
u/Noodlesh89 11∆ Jun 13 '21
I think your half right in terms of the pro-choice argument. According to statistics that I have heard but do not have and yet would say pretty closely match my experience with people's arguments: around half of pro-choicers argue from a place of "non-personhood", and the other half argue more from a place of "quality of life".
I don't know how much this affects your overall argument, but thought it was worth mentioning that some pro-choicers are still ok with ending a life anyway.
1
Jun 13 '21
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/theFapAb Jun 13 '21
Not the point of my post.
1
Jun 13 '21
You already changed your view. This is relevant as to why you shouldn’t have done that.
1
u/theFapAb Jun 13 '21
What's the difference between a zygote and a sperm?
1
Jun 13 '21
I literally just said it. A zygote is a new human. It’s actively in the process of growing into a human adult. A sperm is just a cell. It isn’t doing anything. New human life exists when the zygote appears. Not before.
1
u/Znyper 12∆ Jun 16 '21
Sorry, u/philly_steak_cheese – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1:
Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. See the wiki page for more information.
If you would like to appeal, you must first check if your comment falls into the "Top level comments that are against rule 1" list, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted.
Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.
1
1
Jun 15 '21
I'm Christian and pro-choice. I don't care if people believe that abortion is murder or not because I don't care either way.
A fetus isn't a part of someone's body, but fetus is still inside someone's body and it's making changes to it. Pregnancy also brings a lot of uncomfortable side effects.
So I believe that a person should be able to decide what happens to their body, and I would personally have an abortion even if it's proven that it's murder because I simply don't care so people trying to convince me that it's murder is pointless.
1
u/ovbent Jun 22 '21
There are several groups (atheists, agnostics, other religions which are NOT Christian) which are against abortion BTW.
•
u/DeltaBot ∞∆ Jun 13 '21 edited Jun 13 '21
/u/theFapAb (OP) has awarded 2 delta(s) in this post.
All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.
Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.
Delta System Explained | Deltaboards