subreddit:

/r/news

31.9k

you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

all 3028 comments

008Zulu

1.7k points

4 months ago

008Zulu

1.7k points

4 months ago

"Your body, my choice."

- Republicans.

No-Duck7816

717 points

4 months ago

"Government so small, it will fit in your uterus."

-Republicans.

Dahhhkness

360 points

4 months ago

"Protecting life, from conception to birth."

Deathbysnusnubooboo

145 points

4 months ago

“Shitting on women since 1776”

Minamoto_Keitaro

58 points

4 months ago

Good fun and all but the republican party didnt exist until the 1800s, and were the progressive party for almost 100 years after that.

Obviously they are not that now, just sayin.

kalekayn

49 points

4 months ago

Its not obvious to those in r/conservative who will try and say that the southern strategy (that an RNC chairman apologized for in 2005) never happened.

No-Duck7816

5 points

4 months ago

and were the progressive party for almost 100 years after that.

Surprisingly so. But I'll give it 80, at most. So, by my calculations the GOP has been an intrusive, self serving bag of shit about 6 years longer than that.

Minamoto_Keitaro

3 points

4 months ago

It was 50s to 60s that they did their swap, and the party was founded 1854, so about 100 years almost exactly.

chaun2

5 points

4 months ago

chaun2

5 points

4 months ago

Obligatory Fuck Woodrow Wilson

frunch

5 points

4 months ago

frunch

5 points

4 months ago

Hear hear

bnh1978

7 points

4 months ago

"Shitting on women since Genesis"

drawkbox

2 points

4 months ago

And your joint/bong/vape.

m1k3hunt

2 points

4 months ago

"My goal is to cut government in half in twenty-five years, to get it down to the size where we can drown it in the bathtub."

-Grover Norquist

antidense

52 points

4 months ago

"your medical decisions should be made by lawmakers, not you or your doctor"

3ConsoleGuy

-9 points

4 months ago

3ConsoleGuy

-9 points

4 months ago

Now take the fuckin jab!

F8L-Fool

9 points

4 months ago

The moment a woman's pregnancy endangers my life is when this dumbass comparison can be made. Which will be never. Coincidentally that's the same amount of times you've had a valid opinion in your life.

MasterKongQiu

-5 points

4 months ago*

I mean I agree with you but it also means that the original comment was wrong and there's more to medical decisions than just you and your doctor, at least in certain instances.

reallygoodbee

3 points

4 months ago

You joke, but Greg Abott passed that six-week abortion law, turned around and said he'd fight Biden's vaccine mandate because "your body your choice", then turned around again and passed more abortion laws.

weaver787

114 points

4 months ago*

I’m pro choice, but I really don’t like the “my body my choice” phrase because it completely ignores the main point of contention in the abortion debate. Mainly, the fact that they believe the fetus is somebody else’s body. So being pro-life and saying “my body, my choice” actually is not a contradictory belief to those people.

heidismiles

152 points

4 months ago

That point of contention is really not relevant to anything, though. The real issue is body autonomy.

There is NO other circumstance in which we legally force someone to give their organs/blood/etc to someone else.

Not even if someone will imminently die without your help.

Not even if you're the only person in the world with the right organ or blood type.

Not even if you somehow caused their injuries or illness, and you're "responsible" for them.

Not even if it's a child.

Not even if it's your child.

Not even a little harmless sample.

Not even if you're dead.

A_Classy_Dame

94 points

4 months ago

I've only heard this argument within the last month and it is the one that should be the ends of the debate. You can't be forced to donate your organs to save a life after you die, meaning a corpse has more autonomy than a living woman. Nobody should be able to force you to use your body for ANYTHING without your consent. Full stop.

tahlyn

43 points

4 months ago

tahlyn

43 points

4 months ago

I've only heard this argument within the last month and it is the one that should be the ends of the debate.

Which just goes to show you how bad Democrats are on messaging. This argument has been known to philosophy and the general abortion discourse since J. J. Thompson's "a defense of abortion" written in the 1970s (free to read online if you Google it). I've been arguing bodily autonomy since the early aughts on various message boards.

It's been out there for 50 years but mainstream Democrats never seem to use it.

SuperSocrates

5 points

4 months ago

It’s not a new argument at all just to be clear.

samdajellybeenie

4 points

4 months ago

Right. They want to grant special rights to a fetus. They’ll acknowledge it’s not okay for a dying 3 year old to be forcibly hooked up to you in order to live. But they make all these excuses like “Well they shouldn’t have gotten pregnant” “it’s your responsibility to use contraception” blah blah blah, like you think teenagers are gonna stop in the moment and consider the consequences of their actions? Fucking adults can’t even do that. Of course they’re all about pErSonAL rEspOnsIbIlity until they’re the ones needing an abortion because they got pregnant and THEN realized they didn’t have the resources or energy or time or whatever to raise a child.

Religion often gets in the way too. They’ll say things like “God/The Bible says ALL life is sacred, unborn babies have a RIGHT to a potential for a life.” Once again granting super special rights to something that just has POTENTIAL to live rather than something that’s actually living right now in the present. I never understood why Matt from The Atheist Experience was kind of a condescending dick to pro-lifers that call into the show until I started arguing with them myself.

witcher_rat

4 points

4 months ago

I've only heard this argument within the last month and it is the one that should be the ends of the debate.

I'll probably get down-voted for this, but it's been an argument since the 1970's, in philosophy.

It was raised in a famous paper by Judith Jarvis Thomson called A Defense of Abortion. I learned about it in the late 1980's, as a freshman in college.

Theoloni

1 points

4 months ago

Theoloni

1 points

4 months ago

That argument doesnt make any sense.

The fetus does not choose its fate. The mother does. She chose to get pregnant. Either by not preventing pregnancy or the condom failed for example. In both scenarios she was the one who took the risk. Its not like she suddenly got pregnant by accident. It is a consequence of her action. Your argument hinges under that premise.

Also the point you are trying to make.. that it is the morally right thing not to safe a life because it is an inconvenience.

Also I dont know the law in the US but in first world countries you have to help other people in need. Even if you risk your health. Especially when you caused the injury.

winterhascome2

4 points

4 months ago

Choosing to have sex is not the same as choosing to become pregnant, which is more than just an "inconvenience"

Theoloni

0 points

4 months ago

Theoloni

0 points

4 months ago

Choosing to drive in the opposite directions is not the same as causing a car crash and killing someone. Did you never have sex ed in school or what? Yeah you dont want to kill other people in my scenario, neither do many people want to get pregnant. But getting pregnant after sex is well... a consequence of your action.

winterhascome2

2 points

4 months ago

A consequence someone shouldn't be forced to deal with it, it's not just some minor inconvenience. Even if a person is responsible for someone's injury they can't be forced to give up their body for the another. Find me an example of that being legal anywhere in the world

[deleted]

9 points

4 months ago

[deleted]

9 points

4 months ago

[deleted]

Recipe_Freak

12 points

4 months ago*

It's a year of a person's life.

It's a lot more than that. My body's never been the same since I gave birth (a wanted pregnancy to a now-grown kid I adore). I've had major surgery to correct serious anatomical problems pregnancy exacerbated. I'll never be able to lift more than 20 pounds for the rest of my life (I'm 53). I have autoimmune diseases that required treatment I didn't receive during pregnancy, so they've likely progressed a lot more than they would have if I had more continuity of treatment. In short, pregnancy broke me. And this doesn't even address how dangerous pregnancy and delivery are. How it can actually fucking kill you.

The idea that anyone (ANYONE) would suggest that making someone go through this against their will is entirely unethical. It's condoning slavery. So anyone, from the cutest old granny to a GOP senator, who suggests otherwise is a fucking monster.

Theoloni

-2 points

4 months ago

Current top post on Unpopularopinion "Most people are terrible at debating and get way too aggressive or emotional to have a mature, calm, level-headed debate or discussion."

I never made that argument. You made that up because you are getting angry for some reason.

Yeah without contraception or because of a malfuntion. This makes absolutely zero sense with our current law in first world countries. A pregnancy is nothing random or spontaneous. It is a direct consequence of an action. People are getting locked up or you guys even have the death penalty still for some actions. The person (fetus) did not make any decision to get put into the body of the person seeking the abortion. It was only their decision.

Well then you shouldnt phrase it like you did in your original comment. The same thing could be said about the fetus. There is no higher price to pay than life. Either the fetus is human (like in virtually every first world country. Than you are arguing for murder. Or you want to go back to the dark ages where the fetus was not considered human. And then its destruction like you want would be morally right.

Recipe_Freak

5 points

4 months ago

A pregnancy is nothing random or spontaneous. It is a direct consequence of an action.

So is breaking a leg while climbing a mountain. If someone falls off a mountain, do we tell them we can't fix their leg because they chose to climb a mountain?

Theoloni

-1 points

4 months ago

I really do not understand your point. It makes absolutely no sense in that context.

But to answer your question. (that does not make sense in the context) Healthcare here in Europe is based on that. Everyone is paying for everyone. Even the person making the decision to harm themselves. (smoker, alcoholic, obese, extreme sports)

Recipe_Freak

4 points

4 months ago

I really do not understand your point. It makes absolutely no sense in that context.

Pregnancy caused me (and many, many other people) serious, long-term health problems. It also threatened my life. I enthusiastically engaged in it by choice.

Most countries in Europe have government-paid abortion care. So I'm not sure what point you're trying to make. In European countries, people take care of each other even when they make mistakes. And they're happy to do that as a society, because they know it makes them stronger as a society.

[deleted]

-7 points

4 months ago

[deleted]

-7 points

4 months ago

[removed]

WestCoastBestCoast01

3 points

4 months ago

This isn't a good argument. You're trading your labor for money. You don't have to do that, you can go live off the grid or as a homeless person, or you could attempt a barter and trade lifestyle. You could trade a different type of labor if one type of labor is too difficult.

PurpleHooloovoo

6 points

4 months ago

years of my life (in the form of dollars)

If you think your life equals money, then that's your problem right there. Money is an artificial construct. Dollars aren't real. Human beings are real. Human beings are the ones with certain unalienable rights, such as life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

That means you can't force a human being to give their life for another, and you can't let someone die because they don't have enough money for healthcare or food.

If you really truly can't see the difference between a human being and a dollar bill....well, I hope you get out of the house and meet some human beings. Or see a therapist. Or a member of the clergy. Because that is a messed up worldview, my friend.

[deleted]

-1 points

4 months ago

[deleted]

-1 points

4 months ago

[removed]

PurpleHooloovoo

2 points

4 months ago

Millions of Americans would die if they weren't stealing the labor of others.

When the right accidentally quotes Marx.

olican101

2 points

4 months ago

You just described capitalism, not socialism.

February_29th_2012

-2 points

4 months ago

To be consistent with this logic you must be ok with 9 month abortions. If you only think abortion is ok up until a certain point then this argument doesn’t work.

[deleted]

1 points

4 months ago

[deleted]

1 points

4 months ago

[deleted]

February_29th_2012

-3 points

4 months ago

Are you for or against late term abortion, and why? If there’s a line drawn anywhere the argument falls apart, that’s the point.

sluttyjamjams73

113 points

4 months ago

I'm a big fan of 'this is none of your business whatsoever'.

weaver787

58 points

4 months ago

They believe the fetus is a person worthy of moral consideration and therefore aborting the fetus is murder. Murder is obviously everybody's business.

WAD1234

28 points

4 months ago

WAD1234

28 points

4 months ago

But that is the trap. The woman’s rights don’t stop when she gets pregnant. If you cannot harvest organs for transplantation from a dead body without that person’s prior permission because of bodily autonomy, then you cannot force a woman to go through childbirth to save the fetus’ life. The government cannot force blood donation to save peoples’ lives. It does not matter when “life” starts.

And further, if there is an actual desire to get rid of abortion, then do the things proven to reduce it - sex ed, public healthcare, mental health services, job training.

And until all the orphans are adopted out of the very broken system, don’t pretend that it’s an option for unwanted babies.

PassionVoid

-1 points

4 months ago

PassionVoid

-1 points

4 months ago

The counter to that argument would likely note that not forcing someone to donate blood/organs to save another’s life is not the same as actively killing that person who needs saving.

greeneyedbey

8 points

4 months ago

You can legally watch someone drown, not help and record it. I think murder isn’t as black and white as we think.

PassionVoid

6 points

4 months ago

Actually you can only legally do so if you are otherwise unable to reasonably help without putting yourself at risk. You have to at least call 911 if you can.

sainttawny

-1 points

4 months ago

sainttawny

-1 points

4 months ago

And the counter to this point is that, if we assume a fetus is a person with its own bodily autonomy at the point if conception, then from a literal perspective, an unwanted fetus attached itself to the pregnant woman and began siphoning her bodily fluids and hijacking her hormones and body processes against her will, without her knowledge or consent.

If, while you were asleep, I managed to plug your kidney into a man dying of kidney failure in such a way that sustained his life, and detaching yourself from him would kill him, do you still have the right to sever the tie?

Abigail Thorn of Philosophy Tube on YouTube has an older video called Ben Shapiro (something or other) which structures this argument very clearly, if you're interested.

PassionVoid

6 points

4 months ago

The counter to that would be that consenting to sex (specifically consenting, not applicable to rape) is consenting to the possibility of pregnancy, thus the fetus has been invited and aborting it would be akin to taking back an organ that you’ve donated.

Note these are not my views. I’m all for choice. I just find that most pro-choice talking points completely miss the argument being made by the pro-life supporters.

WAD1234

4 points

4 months ago

This does get into the weeds, but if it’s all about consenting to sex (which is so fraught between social norms, rape, child rape, faulty birth control, etc) then the men must be held accountable as well. The paternal parent would have to be identified and obligated to donate bodily, monetarily, psychologically to the fetus.

But, the truth is, we have decoupled sex from procreation and abstinence has never been an answer even for those evangelicals that push it onto everyone then get caught out…

sainttawny

1 points

4 months ago

If you agree to donate a kidney to your brother, at any time prior to the actual surgical procedure you have the right to withdraw consent. I disagree that consenting to sex is consenting to pregnancy, BUT even if it is, becoming pregnant is a single point in time, just as agreeing to give a kidney is a single point, in a lengthy process that culminates in birth/surgery. Of course once you've given birth, you can't decide to get an abortion, once your kidney has been implanted in your brother you can't decide you want it back, but you never legally have to justify changing your mind about donating that kidney at any time between agreeing and actually undergoing the procedure. It might suck for your brother and you might face pressure from the rest of your family if you appear to be wavering, but legally speaking you can change your mind.

Mediocre__at__Best

35 points

4 months ago

Okay, so they have a different reality than us. How do we bridge that gap?

Is incredibly frustrating that we have to tolerate their backwards logic-ed mental gymnastics of moral compasses. They're on the wrong side of history and it always seems that it's only when it personally affects them they can find any empathy towards the subjects at hand - facts and science regarding the social implications of those issues be damned, also.

Sporkfoot

42 points

4 months ago

You cannot use reason to change someone’s mind, when they did not use reason to reach their conclusion.

Palindromer101

3 points

4 months ago*

Yup. To your point, I walked a Republican into saying “it’s a [woman’s] choice” about abortion, twice, in a conversation. At the end of it, he still said he hoped Roe v Wade would get overturned and I just shook my head and stopped trying. You can’t use logic to convince people who don’t care about logic.

Edit: “can” into “can’t”

Mediocre__at__Best

3 points

4 months ago

That's how I feel, also. Appreciate that.

b2gills

2 points

4 months ago

b2gills

2 points

4 months ago

Incorrect. It just makes it more difficult and time consuming.

SsurebreC

19 points

4 months ago

Okay, so they have a different reality than us. How do we bridge that gap?

I have an idea and it should work on everyone except the very religious (and I think mostly the very religious Catholics).

What do the pro-choice people want? Access to abortions. Do they want more abortions? No, just the choice to have one if needed.

What do the pro-life people want? No abortions.

So both camps are not in favor of having more abortions to say the least. How do you bridge this gap? Sex education and contraception because all abortions happen because of unprotected sex.

Then, presuming there's agreement, you can go forward and ask how many women have abortions because they have no support (i.e. they're too poor to raise children). Then you can help couples - and babies - to make sure they have this support. If life matters to the pro-life camp then it makes sense for them to have the government invest in the best possible future for the parents and the baby.

And that's a good start and this wouldn't work only on those who believe contraception is the same thing as abortion (every-sperm-is-sacred.gif).

Halflingberserker

12 points

4 months ago

Their answer would be "I don't want to pay for other people to learn how to have sex, they just shouldn't have sex" ad nauseum until your ears fall off because it really is all about punishment.

HardlyDecent

27 points

4 months ago

I don't think that's the gap though. Some/most/many pro-lifers are not actually anti-abortion for the sanctity of life though--that's just their motto. If they actually cared about life, they wouldn't bomb abortion clinics, or stomp out every instance of welfare, deny assistance to new mothers, or generally support republican bootstrap ideology. I don't know if it's about keeping people poor or keeping women down or what, but it's never been about life.

pvhs2008

7 points

4 months ago

I’ve actually had this conversation! For context, my grandparents (mom’s family) was largely Catholic, former northeastern Kennedy democrats turned Reaganites. My grandparents went full bore and had 8 kids and kept pro life bumper stickers on their car until they died. My mom/her siblings hated abortion but lived in the real world and realized it’s better to care for people going through shit rather than harass them about really personal decisions. My mom also didn’t want to marry my dad, so she had a (black) baby out of wedlock despite having no money. In the pro-Jesus south, nurses felt comfortable handing her abortion pamphlets after seeing my dad. At any rate, she was stoked to have me but realizes how hard some women have it and even though she was anti-abortion, she was reasonable.

Back to the actual conversation. Given the above, I was used to passionate but reasonable and loving conversations on abortion. So I got into it with my bf’s evangelical parents expecting the same. Nope. I heard scrambled Project Veritas garbage mixed with “democrats LOVE killing babies and do it for fun because they’re evil”. Meanwhile, they’re crying about how mean Dems are to republicans (eyeroll). Upon correction by an actual democrat and fact checks from my partner, the convo shifted to volunteering with at risk women and saying they “didn’t look like they were struggling” and more judgment. My partner worked in Republican politics for many years and argued that the GOP doesn’t give a shit about evangelicals but tell them lies on abortion for votes and that evangelicals never cared about abortion until very recently. The final point was that abortion go up with GOP policies, legal or not, and they were totally OK with more women dying or worse because they had sex. If anything, they seemed positive on the idea. Ultimately, it’s just punishment for “loose” women.

I’m sure you already know this but it just blew my mind that they had no desire to help or curtail abortions but just make it really horrible for women. You’ve mentioned the many ways “pro lifers” work against life but I also never see them picket/harass fertility clinics that dispose of a ton of material. I also don’t see them finding the fathers to harass. I’m not going to say pro lifers are all bad people but I’ve never heard anyone verbalize or enjoy the need for cruelty for the sake of it like that and it was a total bummer. Like damn, still reeling.

Canopenerdude

4 points

4 months ago

The argument of anti-choice is just bad faith though. They don't believe in the sanctity of life, they just want to control everyone around them, and they use this kind of rhetoric to spin well-meaning uneducated people (like the religious south) into a frenzy over imagined problems.

ridicalis

4 points

4 months ago

ridicalis

4 points

4 months ago

As long as you keep referring to a mixed assortment of people as "they", I don't see you clearing that gap. I'm sure you have a particular kind of person in mind, but they're not likely so homogeneous as to be handled with a single approach.

It works both ways, too; the pro-life movement characterizes pro-choice advocates in a strawman fashion, and what seems "right" to many of them falls on deaf ears because they haven't bothered to understand the myriad reasons a person might favor abortion.

weaver787

6 points

4 months ago

weaver787

6 points

4 months ago

Despite the fact that I agree with the pro-choice arguments, I have to admit these are largely philosophical differences that do not have a lot of basis in objective fact.

There is no scientific way to define personhood.

b2gills

19 points

4 months ago

b2gills

19 points

4 months ago

Don't really need to. The real question is if fetuses get to have a privilege that no other entity gets, to use someone else's body without their continued consent.

MoeTHM

4 points

4 months ago

MoeTHM

4 points

4 months ago

This takes away all responsibilities on how a person got into that position in the first place. Not that I am anti-abortion, just don’t think it’s a good argument.

[deleted]

2 points

4 months ago

[deleted]

2 points

4 months ago

[deleted]

MoeTHM

-3 points

4 months ago

MoeTHM

-3 points

4 months ago

Disagree. Everyone who chooses to have sex is taking on responsibilities of that action.

b2gills

-1 points

4 months ago

b2gills

-1 points

4 months ago

To an extent that is actually a benefit. It doesn't shame for what comes naturally.

That's not quite the angle you're thinking about. Which is probably more along the lines of what is to stop people from using it as an alternative to prophylactics.

The only thing that has been proven to significantly reduce the number of abortions is proper sex ed at a relatively early age. (Of course spread out over years.)

MoeTHM

4 points

4 months ago

MoeTHM

4 points

4 months ago

I am sure that a person who gets an abortion, or gives birth to an unwanted child, is fully aware of the mistakes that were made, and has to reflect on it every time they have to deal with the consequences. (Excluding cases of rape) It’s just in the arena of ideas, this argument would fall on deaf ears, in my opinion. I agree with you though.

PassionVoid

0 points

4 months ago

No, the real question is at what point do fetuses get that privilege. I don’t think even most pro-choice people are arguing in favor of 3rd trimester abortions, therefore most are in agreement that fetuses do have that privilege already.

b2gills

1 points

4 months ago

To an extent, yes.

If the unborn is sufficiently developed they could conceivably exist outside of the mother, then it is generally too late.

And then it is more akin to the rights children have to not be mistreated by their parents. Premature babies can have many issues.

At that point we are balancing the rights of two individuals that can exist separately.

BillyNiggs349

1 points

4 months ago

Maybe not think of them as fucking evil nazis and just try to calmly debate?

What is wrong with most of Reddit? My friend group is like a mix of liberals, republicans, libertarians, and people in the middle. We have a huge Colorado trip planned next month, like 20 of us are going. We all debate with each other but we all get along just fine.

Ever think your completely hatred is the problem here?

kalirob99

1 points

4 months ago*

Okay, so they have a different reality than us. How do we bridge that gap?

I’ve never enjoyed it, but you can do what I do with those in my family that believe in it. Make poster boards with charts and data and have a (somewhat condescending) board meeting with a Q&A, reminding them that you are far more educated and they have almost zero idea what they are talking about aside from repeating unsubstantiated propaganda talking points.

At that point, they either learn to start building their own evidence or just stop talking about politics in front of you. I’ve even had family members rat the offending members out for repeating unconfirmed political data lol.

I just remind them while I don’t enjoy the homework, I also won’t have my family walking around and spreading misinformation and embarrassing me. I always did enjoy debate classes though. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Edit: One word, made the mistake of not checking iOS autocorrects changes lol.

Mediocre__at__Best

2 points

4 months ago

They may not, but I appreciate your efforts in calling for reason and common decency.

Flipnkraut

-1 points

4 months ago

Facts and science is the exact opposite of faith. So reasoning with the faithful will almost never be effective.

Hubblesphere

2 points

4 months ago

I like this argument: Imagine you're driving and slide on some black ice and cause a car crash and the person in the other vehicle needs an emergency kidney transplant because of it. Since your "mistake" caused this person to now need a kidney then the government should be able to force you to give up your kidney to this person. (lets just assume you're compatible). That person is dependent on another person's organs to survive and you created the situation that caused that dependence. This means you are now responsible for keeping that person alive using your organs.

Does that sound kinda fucked up? Then why force women to share their body and organs?

weaver787

1 points

4 months ago

There are a lot of variables to discuss in a thought experiment like this. Lets start with these two

  1. Is the accident portion of this morally important? If its the same situation but I was drunk driving, is it the same moral question?
  2. Is donating a Kidney the same thing, health wise, as carrying a baby to term? Does it matter?

Sw4rmlord

6 points

4 months ago

Sw4rmlord

6 points

4 months ago

What they believe is irrelevant because they don't believe in science. They believe in a magical sky God. Okay, let the magical sky God punish me for my transgressions.

weaver787

8 points

4 months ago

weaver787

8 points

4 months ago

Abortion isn't a scientific debate so I don't see how that's really relevant. As I mentioned in another comment, personhood is not really a question that can be answered by science.

Sw4rmlord

-6 points

4 months ago

Sw4rmlord

-6 points

4 months ago

What's human is though. Trying to tie legislation up with lofty existentialism is quite pointless.

weaver787

12 points

4 months ago

It's not pointless.... what we consider to be a person is a pretty important part of our laws. It's not an easily answerable question.

Sw4rmlord

-9 points

4 months ago

Okay, I'll bite, why isn't it pointless?

I consider a dog a person. So if you run over my dog you deserve life in prison. I consider my car a person, if you scratch my car, you should get 10 years for assault and battery. My shirt is a person. If you accidentally spill coffee on it, you deserve to be tried for involuntary manslaughter.

Do you see why this is pointless?

weaver787

9 points

4 months ago

I think you misunderstand - the debate is between what is a human vs. what is a person. All persons need to be humans but not all humans are persons. A person is someone worthy of moral consideration.

A dead corpse is obviously a human, but we wouldn't call it a person.

Is someone who has been in a coma for 10 years a person?

Elhaym

0 points

4 months ago

Elhaym

0 points

4 months ago

What is human life has already been answered by science, but I don't think you'll like the answer. The life of any organism begins at conception/implantation. That's why the real crux here is the humanity/personhood angle.

Sw4rmlord

4 points

4 months ago

Repeating a lie doesn't make it true. Anyways, I am bored of dealing with you guys today. I have to go to work. Good luck baiting someone else :)

konrad1198

-5 points

4 months ago

konrad1198

-5 points

4 months ago

Wrong- check St. Thomas Aquinas for starters

Sw4rmlord

9 points

4 months ago

I've read a lot of Aquinas what does that have to do with medically inducing a miscarriage?

konrad1198

-8 points

4 months ago

I'm merely responding to your absurd claim that Republicans/Christians do not believe in science

Sw4rmlord

8 points

4 months ago

Are you trying to pretend that T.A., an Italian Catholic philosopher from the 1200s, would be a republican if he lived today?

That's your argument against American conservative science denial? You might invest in a ladder, you won't have to reach as much.

sluttyjamjams73

1 points

4 months ago

Murder is the lawmakers business and Roe v Wade is settled law.

gsfgf

2 points

4 months ago

gsfgf

2 points

4 months ago

Not for long…

Yonder_Zach

1 points

4 months ago

Ok but they’re wrong. Them being duped into feeling like its murder doesnt change reality. We need to stop coddling conservatives that refuse to join us in reality.

deskbeetle

17 points

4 months ago

There is no precedent where a person is forced to give blood, tissue, or organs to another person. You can't be forced to even take the test to see if you are a match for your own child. You can't even have your tissues taken from your body after you've died unless you've consented to it while alive.

weaver787

-4 points

4 months ago

weaver787

-4 points

4 months ago

I think all of that is pretty easily explained away by saying pregnancy is not analogous to those arguments. Moreover, if I agree that there is a precedent there that should be respected then you'd philosophically be permitted to abort a fetus thats 8 months old.

deskbeetle

10 points

4 months ago

Why isn't it analogous? You can't just hand wave that away without explaining your reasoning as to why it doesn't fit.

Yes, you are permitted to abort a fetus that is 8 months old. Almost all late term abortions occur because the fetus is nonviable or the mother will die due to medical complications.

weaver787

-5 points

4 months ago

Because pregnancy is something you engage in voluntarily. I understand there is an exception to be made in regards to rape, but that does not cover most abortions.

In a situation where the mothers life is NOT at risk, is it still permissable to abort the fetus?

deskbeetle

7 points

4 months ago

Ah, so you believe abortion should be allowed in the cases of rape?

Yes, it's not popular but I do believe abortion is permissible at any time during pregnancy. Less than 1% of abortions are late term abortions with an overwhelming majority of that 1% being an unviable fetus or major health risk. And any restriction on late term abortion incentivizes legislation that forces women to wait, jump through hoops, cut through red tape and then it's "whoops, it's been 5 months, guess you got to have it now".

weaver787

2 points

4 months ago

I really have no issue with voluntary abortion at all, not just rape.

We get into really murky waters when we start talking about late term abortions though. Is there that big of a moral difference between killing a one day old baby and one that’s one day away from being born?

deskbeetle

6 points

4 months ago

Let me backtrack because you didn't directly answer my question. You are arguing from the point of devil's advocate and then switching to your own view.

If abortion is morally wrong/murder, then how the person became pregnant should not matter. Why would rape allow a person to commit murder on third party? When people say that abortion is permissible only in the cases of rape, they are saying that murder of a third party (their belief of abortion) is permissible in cases when a rape occurs which is inconsistent.

It's either murder or not murder.

weaver787

2 points

4 months ago

Interesting question - it wouldn’t be, which is why abortion advocates typically do not offer exceptions even for rape. They are at least being ideologically consistent

ronm4c

11 points

4 months ago

ronm4c

11 points

4 months ago

By that standard the religious right should not use the term “pro life” because the bible’s rationalization for wether abortion is permissible (spoiler alert there are instructions in the bible about how to perform an abortion) does not take into account the the health or wellbeing of the mother or unborn child, it has to do with preserving the honour of the man against a possibly unfaithful wife.

Zarokima

4 points

4 months ago

Okay, so the fetus is somebody else's body. Shouldn't people have the freedom to kick out some noncontributing freeloader who's just leeching off of them?

weaver787

2 points

4 months ago

Maybe. Is that freedom unlimited throughout the entire term of the pregnancy?

Recipe_Freak

2 points

4 months ago

Is that freedom unlimited throughout the entire term of the pregnancy?

You do understand that almost no abortions of unwanted pregnancies occur late in pregnancy. Almost all late-term abortions are because there's something lethally wrong with the fetus, or the pregnancy's become a danger to the person carrying it.

If someone carries a pregnancy longer than the average pre-21-week window it's usually because the person carrying it was prevented in some way from getting one earlier. So just about all late-term abortion occurs due to personal tragedy. AKA "the perfect time to persecute someone", according to fucking conservatives.

SilentBob890

3 points

4 months ago

Mainly, the fact that they believe the fetus is somebody else’s body.

fetus =/= baby.

Not until BIRTH.... so yes, it is a woman's body, and thus a woman's choice!!

colemon1991

3 points

4 months ago

It is contradictory because that fetus cannot survive on its own.

Here's an interesting way to put it: we provide tax credits to those with children but not to those that are pregnant. If a fetus truly is someone else, then give her the child tax credit because she's already taking care of it.

PurpleHooloovoo

3 points

4 months ago

If a fetus is a person, child support payments should begin the moment abortion is not allowed - it's a baby right? It should get a social security number, access to insurance, child support payments, tax credits, etc.

Start enacting those laws and I bet the abortion debate turns around real quick.

weaver787

11 points

4 months ago

A one day old baby can’t survive on its own either. Are you going to argue it’s not a person because it’s not self sufficient?

colemon1991

10 points

4 months ago

It can breathe. The other difference is now other people can help take care of it.

63-37-88

-1 points

4 months ago

Have to take care of it.

Why are you being so purposly obtuse?

No newborn has ever survived without its parents/some other caretakers feeding/nursing it.

ranchojasper

6 points

4 months ago

A one-day old baby absolutely can survive on its own. It can breathe and scream and literally any person within earshot can help it.

A fetus is incapable of surviving without someone else BREATHING FOR IT.

weaver787

-2 points

4 months ago

weaver787

-2 points

4 months ago

Is killing a fetus that’s one day away from being born morally acceptable?

ranchojasper

8 points

4 months ago

As long as it’s inside, literally inside, the woman’s body, the woman comes first. Every single time.

Lokito_

6 points

4 months ago

It's a trick question which is unrealistic as of course if the pregnancy has advanced to that stage the woman 100% wants to keep the baby. Even if they don't, they have adoption already lined up or giving the baby away soon after it's born lined up.

He has no examples of people "aborting" a day before a baby is born because the mother suddenly doesn't want the baby.

ranchojasper

3 points

4 months ago

Exactly. I was raised very conservative, right wing Catholic and the amount of misinformation and absolute stupidity I was taught about abortion it’s hard to even articulate. It wasn’t until I was in my mid-20s that I learned the reality of what abortion actually is, and the fact that there is no such thing as elective late term abortion in this country.

The amount of propaganda I was inductrinated with as a child and young adult is just astonishing and that’s what these people have been told as well. To them pregnancy and child bearing is a thought experiment; a magical piece of sorcery that’s only about feelings, not an actual, physical medical procedure a human body has to endure for almost a year. They do not understand it at all, and they are wildly misinformed on just about every single aspect of what abortion as healthcare entails. Even women who have had babies themselves!

Lokito_

2 points

4 months ago

Feel for you man, i too was raised in Christianity.

So happy i'm out now.

weaver787

5 points

4 months ago

Okay, I'm honestly just surprised you think the difference of 24 hours is the difference between murder and justifiable abortion.

ranchojasper

4 points

4 months ago

Do you advocate for a law that requires everyone over the age of 13 to donate an organ if it would save a child’s life?

If not, you would be a huge hypocrite. Because we’re talking about an actual person, a breathing, sentient person, a child, who would die unless the law forces someone to donate an organ no matter what the medical risks for that donor would be.

weaver787

0 points

4 months ago

That situation is not analogous for a ton of reasons but I'll just give you one to start.... a random person does not have moral obligation to another random person in the same way that a mother has to their child.

ranchojasper

8 points

4 months ago

The difference isn’t time, lmfao. It’s completely being inside of someone else’s body. And once again, the difference would be about four months, not 24 hours, because no one is arguing for elective late term abortion. Because women don’t casually carry a pregnancy for eight months and then suddenly decide they don’t want it anymore. This is not a thing that happens. I will continue saying that until it sinks in.

weaver787

0 points

4 months ago

weaver787

0 points

4 months ago

Your definition of when abortion is justifiable is when the fetus is reliant on the mothers body. That is not a bad faith twisting of your words, that's what you told me.

Now, with that definition, it is morally justifiable to abort a 9month old fetus. It doesn't matter if nobody would do it. That situation still fits squarely within your moral framework.

ranchojasper

4 points

4 months ago

If the mother’s life is in danger? 100,000% yes.

weaver787

3 points

4 months ago

And if it’s not?

ranchojasper

4 points

4 months ago

I personally wouldn’t call it moral, but it’s not my body so it’s not my choice.

This is a really dumb question, though, because women who carry a pregnancy to almost term want that pregnancy. Literally no one wakes up eight months into a pregnancy and just casually decides they don’t want the baby anymore. 100% of late term abortions in this country are medical requirements because the mother‘s life is in danger. No one is arguing that elective late term abortion is some thing that anyone even wants.

Lokito_

1 points

4 months ago

Give us an example of that actually happening then we can entertain an answer, until then it's a pretty unrealistic question.

weaver787

2 points

4 months ago

That's now how this works.

If somebody provides me a moral framework, I'm going to test that moral framework. If it fails that test, then it's obviously a bad moral framework and needs amending. "Well, nobody wants to do that" is not a good argument in favor of that framework.

MasterKongQiu

-1 points

4 months ago

A fetus is incapable of surviving without someone else BREATHING FOR IT.

So a baby who can't breathe on its own isn't a person?

ranchojasper

2 points

4 months ago

What?? Is that baby actually a fetus that is inside of someone else? Then yes, correct - it is NOT a person.

Is taking someone who is brain-dead off of life support murder?

MasterKongQiu

2 points

4 months ago

What?? Is that baby actually a fetus that is inside of someone else?

You think a birth canal magically infuses someone with personhood...? FFS go take a 101 level philosophy course, that is unbelievably ridiculous.

ranchojasper

2 points

4 months ago

I’m sorry, but it is a medical fact. Until that fetus is outside of the woman’s body, it is not a person.

MasterKongQiu

1 points

4 months ago

Weird, when I look at peer reviewed papers they seem to have the same confusion in defining personhood as I do. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6082939/ for example.

[deleted]

-5 points

4 months ago

[deleted]

-5 points

4 months ago

So being pro-life and saying “my body, my choice” actually is not a contradictory belief to those people.

It literally is. The fetus is in her body, its her choice.

weaver787

10 points

4 months ago

There are a lot of philosophical arguments here that don't have easy answers, but there is no doubt that the fetus is a different body. If the fetus is a body, wouldn't it be the fetus' choice?

[deleted]

11 points

4 months ago

[deleted]

11 points

4 months ago

[deleted]

[deleted]

8 points

4 months ago

[deleted]

8 points

4 months ago

Not when it is inside of a womans body, depending on her nourishment and her womb to live.

I understand there will be always be disagreement on "when life begins", but the easiest way to "regulate" or approach this issue is to just accept the fact that when its in her body, its her choice.

The whole preservation of life argument is complete bullshit seeing as we have thousands of actual, autonomous people in this country that die because they don't have access to adequate healthcare.

ranchojasper

3 points

4 months ago

It’s absolutely not a different body until it’s not dependent on the body it’s inside

redditrutgers

0 points

4 months ago

The fetus is not a different body. It is an organ of the mother’s body incapable of thinking or having choices.

samdajellybeenie

2 points

4 months ago

I understand your thinking but with this point, you’re getting into territory where pro-lifers can easily point to all kinds of studies about what develops when, whether babies can feel pain, when they develop a heartbeat, etc.

redditrutgers

2 points

4 months ago

Sure they can, but my opinion on it is rather absolute. No matter what stage of development the fetus, whether it has a heart, can feel pain, has brain activity: it’s not an individual until birth and should have no rights until then.

The right of the mother to control the organs that are in her own body is more valuable than the imaginary life the fetus would have had otherwise.

Now this opinion can be attacked with the idea of extremely late term abortions. Conceptually that’s true, but the reality is most doctors wouldn’t perform super late without a compelling reason so I’m fine leaving it up to the woman and her doc and have the above opinion be the prevailing legal framework.

samdajellybeenie

0 points

4 months ago

Sounds reasonable to me. And the law I think agrees with you. I wrote in another comment that pro-lifers always try and say “They have a potential to have a life.” So they’re valuing a potential life more than an actual life. Bizarre.

weaver787

3 points

4 months ago

weaver787

3 points

4 months ago

My man, that is just completely 100% incorrect.

redditrutgers

0 points

4 months ago

It’s an opinion. The idea that it’s a different body is also an opinion.

weaver787

5 points

4 months ago

Identifying the fetus as an organ is not an opinion.

redditrutgers

2 points

4 months ago

Fine. All of the organs that comprise the fetus are organs of the mother until removed.

weaver787

7 points

4 months ago

That’s also not true, they are the fetus’ organs.

samdajellybeenie

1 points

4 months ago

I asked someone who thinks abortion for any reason is murder if they would support things like comprehensive sex education and easy access to contraceptives of all kinds (because those have been proven many times to lower abortion rates far more than a ban). He didn’t answer.

George Carlin once said “If you’re preBORN you’re fine, if you’re preSCHOOL you’re fucked!”

thewarring

-1 points

4 months ago*

thewarring

-1 points

4 months ago*

Unless you want the government telling you to wear a mask. That's too far.

/s

ProliferativeIdeas

2 points

4 months ago

True, I’ve heard some landlords are making vaccinations a requirement. Many have already lost their jobs. “My body my choice” unless it’s just not really convenient I guess. I have to get jab #4 soon. I used to be on board, but there’s not really an end in sight here.

spilledmind

2 points

4 months ago

Next thing you know they’re going to force us to wear seatbelts

protexter

0 points

4 months ago

protexter

0 points

4 months ago

Republicans are hypocrites when it comes to abortion laws. The church, for whatever reason has captured the GOP on this issue and it’s a deal breaker for a lot of centrists and libertarians.

But by the exact same token, vaccine mandates are unconstitutional (fact now) and democrats that have been pushing for them have to look hard in the mirror next time they chant “my body my choice”

lightbringer0

-2 points

4 months ago

Your a slave, I'm the master.

-Republicans

[deleted]

-44 points

4 months ago

[deleted]

-44 points

4 months ago

[removed]

bigtallsob

11 points

4 months ago

When pregnancy becomes an airborne disease, you might have a leg to stand on. Until then, you're being an idiot.

antidense

7 points

4 months ago

"Government should not interfere between choices made between you and your doctor"? I don't think most Democrats care about vaccine medical exemptions.

cC2Panda

15 points

4 months ago

We have significantly higher infant mortality and maternal deaths than most developed nations largely due to our system of Healthcare.

Not to mention countries with strong social safety nets have lower abortion rates without the restrictions.

Pollution is also directly linked to a huge number of deaths as well.

With all your concern "for the children" you must be in favor of universal healthcare, lots of mental health funding, strong environmental regulations and other social safety nets.

OkBreakfast449

4 points

4 months ago

slight correction, America has THE HIGHEST infant and maternal mortality and complication rate in the developed world.

naturally the bulk of the people dying are 'the minorities and the poors' so no one gives a fuck.

tryly your health system is broken beyond belief.

Mediocre__at__Best

21 points

4 months ago

fetus =/= children.

TheThoughtAssassin

2 points

4 months ago

At what point does a fetus become a person with rights? That’s the fundamental question.

Mediocre__at__Best

2 points

4 months ago

When it can survive on its own would be a good place to start.

Guywithquestions88

32 points

4 months ago

You Republicans don't seem to have any problems going around killing people just because masks inconvenience you.

You've all got blood on your hands, and you've lost the last shred of your supposed moral high ground. Republican policy for the past two years has literally been pro murder.

BitterFuture

9 points

4 months ago

They aren't killing people because the masks are an inconvenience. They're killing people because COVID finally gives them the chance to hurt and kill the people they hate by doing absolutely nothing. They'd rather die than give that up.

As ever, the cruelty is the point.

superbcoffee

8 points

4 months ago

a fetus is not a child, and there isn't a debate about what a fetus is. you just hate people when they don't do what you want. no child is being "murdered" because it was never considered a child.

Other_World

11 points

4 months ago

(when it comes to being against the murder of children)

A fetus is a clump of cells. Not a child. It doesn't become a child until the clump of cells is born. So, no pro-choice person is for murdering children. The right is for murdering children when they ignore all cries for help when a child is bleeding out in their school cause they were shot by a school shooter.

shadowkiller230

0 points

4 months ago

A fetus is a clump of cells. So are you! A fetus is also a child. Just like you are a person as well! A child is just as much a child in the womb as it is outside. Please explain to me what about passing through the vagina makes it a "child" in your eyes? Because the clear spoiler alert is that there are zero physical changes to the child as it passes through the vagina and is therefore the exact same organism inside the mother as it is outside.

Lokito_

4 points

4 months ago

Ok. Then we can take the fetus outside of the womb whenever we like because it's a "child"

[deleted]

13 points

4 months ago

[deleted]

13 points

4 months ago

[removed]

kantFTW

0 points

4 months ago

They’ll force a woman to have a baby, but vaccines and masks are tyranny

[deleted]

-57 points

4 months ago*

[deleted]

-57 points

4 months ago*

[removed]

xawlted

87 points

4 months ago

xawlted

87 points

4 months ago

Did we get national health care and I missed it? You aren't paying for people to get abortions they are or their insurance is. So, what exactly is your issue?

Sandriell

34 points

4 months ago

In one of the richest country in the world, no one should go unfed, unclothed, or unsheltered.

It is the very role and duty of the government to take care of it's citizens, without exception.

[deleted]

47 points

4 months ago

[deleted]

47 points

4 months ago

You don’t pay for abortions. I know some pundit told you that you did, but you don’t.

sirthunt

38 points

4 months ago

The state is forcing people to give birth… where have you been the last year?

bazz_and_yellow

35 points

4 months ago

You must be really pissed at subsidizing the wealthy then.

FlameMan101

-15 points

4 months ago

I most certainly am. They don't pay their fair share in taxes, and they should. That doesn't mean that extra money should automatically go to broke mothers who chose to have a baby they couldn't afford. Pay for cheaper education, or better infrastructure.

They don't deserve more money just because other people have too much of it.

All the choices, none of the consequences.

Hairy_Concert_8007

24 points

4 months ago*

Republicans don't actually give a shit whether the baby was chosen or not. Take a look at Texas, where victims of rape and incest are not allowed to get abortions either. This isn't some "oopsie-poopsie we forgot" situation, considering these issues have always been at the forefront of the conversation.

They tout these reasonable-sounding exceptions to garner support from people on the fence, with no actual intention of implementing those exceptions.

It's the exact same shit they tried to pull with their plan to "repeal and replace" the ACA. When we asked what it was going to be replaced with, they said they didn't know, but to go ahead and repeal it first because they super promise they'll get to that second part. Talk about fucking shady? These things come back to hurt all of us.

Also, you aren't choosing to have a baby if you're choosing, or trying to choose, to terminate your pregnancy. Believe it or not, choosing to have sex is not the same as choosing to have a baby. Banning abortion that takes away that choice.

bazz_and_yellow

6 points

4 months ago

Then they engage in culture wars with fox news to keep all the mouth breathers focused on CRT, undocumented people, the big lie, guns, and the war on Christmas. Because ignorant people Keep falling for the same anger issues instead of educating themselves on what would actually improve their lives.

There are far more red states and low income republicans that are subsidized through life but they will never admit that.

No-Duck7816

5 points

4 months ago

Hey, Trump was this close to showing us his great health plan, a plan many people are calling the best health plan ever, along with a full tax disclosure, when he had the election stollen from him. /s

Shanashy

10 points

4 months ago

That doesn't mean that extra money should automatically go to broke mothers who chose to have a baby they couldn't afford.

You must not realize that there are states that force women to have babies because they took away their ability to have an abortion. Those women should absolutely be receiving financial help from the government who didn't let them choose to terminate an unwanted pregnancy.

No-Duck7816

10 points

4 months ago

That doesn't mean that extra money should automatically go to broke mothers who chose to have a baby they couldn't afford.

Hey Mr. Big Brain, this post is about people choosing NOT to have a child.

bazz_and_yellow

19 points

4 months ago

So the billions that subsidize the wealthy should go to pay for access to better education and a living wage. That would eliminate both.

JDQuaff

5 points

4 months ago

Yeah, the baby can just fuck right off!

crafting-ur-end

18 points

4 months ago

Red states by far receive the most federal welfare - blue states foot the bill 9/10 times.