YoBuckStopsHereAbortions surge in Colorado amid 500% increase in patients from Texas
SpunkyBarnesThose are only the ones that could afford to get there; rafts of those who can’t, are being forced to give birth in a state that won’t support them.
But, but think about the clump of cells!!
I don't think anyone that's being honest thought anything different was going to happen.
joeBut, but think about the clump of cells!!
I am going to probably regret this, but this kind of reductionist summary of the very real conflict of priorities does not help the situation. First let’s get my conclusion out of the way, I’m pro-choice. I am also an atheist-- I will immediately disregard any argument that invokes a magic spirit living inside a meat suit. However, even with “MaGiC” off the board, there is some argument to be made about doing harm to future people (and a zygote is a future person) and deserves a real discussion.
We already do things that restrict what people can do based on harm it might do in the future-- to people that aren’t even born yet. If being unborn really counted for nothing, we wouldn’t have any laws that restricted action based on long-term effect. (For example: laws to prevent climate change, to prevent cluster bombing, etc) So clearly, whether or not a person has been born yet doesn’t immediately disqualify them from protection under the law.
The abortion debate is one of those uncommon instances where two conflicting rights meet. The proverbial “your right to swing your arm stops at my nose” situation. We have done this every time there is such a conflict. Your right to life ends when you attempt to end the life of someone else (self defense), for example. We, as a society, get to must decide whose rights are more important in the abortion scenario, but at no point are we saying that both parties don’t have rights. One just necessarily must supersede the other.
I personally believe that the is far more risk with giving the government the power to force a pregnant person to undergo a risky medical procedure against their will than in ending the life of a person who has not been born yet. There are some powers I think we would be foolish to grant the government, and “forced birth” is definitely one of them. However, it’s important to keep in mind that this decision isn’t a law of nature-- no more than “killing in self defense is allowed” is a law of nature; these are societal judgments. It’s plausible that a society could make a different judgement; one where even killing someone in self-defense was viewed as a criminal act. In fact, you probably believe this to a degree when it comes to “stand your ground” laws, as implementing in places like Florida or Texas.
It’s important to keep in mind that there is no objectively right or wrong answer; if there were, it wouldn’t be a conflict point. It necessitates a dialog to convince people to agree with you, and dismissing the argument as foolish doesn’t do that, which means it will remain an “undecided” conflict point for longer than it needs to.
Sorry about the unsolicited rant. Thanks for coming to my Ted Talk?
DarraignTheSaneThere’s no real conflict of rights, unless you believe that people should be forced by the government to be live organ donors. That “future person” has no more rights to a woman’s uterus than I do as an adult to my mother’s blood & organs if I get into a car accident.
Notably, this is my exact conclusion-- but my point isn’t that a pregnant person should not be allowed to have a choice-- only that the argument could be logically made that the rights of the zygote are more important. A parent has to feed and care for their kids, even if they want to abandon them to go spend a week in vegas. We make judgement on whose rights matter more all the time, and abortion/choice is no different.
My point was that it doesn’t help anyone to dismiss that there is a judgement to be made. You and I have both obviously made judgments that the pregnant person’s right to bodily autonomy is of greater importance, but that doesn’t mean that this is objectively true, or that the zygote doesn’t have rights or should be considered a person for legal purposes.
No I get it, you’re playing devil’s advocate in 1,000 words, but it’s all for naught. That’s all it comes down to - if someone is “pro life”, their opinion is that people should be forced by the government to be live organ donors.
And yes, their opinion can then absolutely be dismissed out of hand, because it is irrational and does not respect the rights of the human they are forcing into organ donor slavery.
I’m not playing devil’s advocate. I’m pointing out that this is not an objective truth-- that whether or not pregnant people should have (safe) access to abortions is up to society, and thus it is best for those of us who believe that society is better off when there is safe access to abortion (which the data supports!) should make an effort to convince those people that disagree.
This topic has a lot of parallels to the debate on capital punishment. Much of the support for capital punishment is based on incorrect assumptions, bad information, and feelings. Luckily, people seem easier to sway away from capital punishment, but it would be infinitely more difficult if the arguments for capital punishment were just laughed at or ignored.
Does this apply to vaccines? There are many (many) people in this thread that tell me that no one has to get vaccinated, they can just live in the woods on a mountain-- but I can’t help but wonder who enforces this, if not the government. (I do think people should be required to get vaccinated, btw-- but I also think “my body, my choice” is a weak argument.)
I’m not playing devil’s advocate
Yes, you are. If you don’t believe you are, here is the definition of the term:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Devil's_advocate
In common language, the phrase ‘playing devil’s advocate’ describes a situation where someone, given a certain point of view, takes a position they do not necessarily agree with (or simply an alternative position from the accepted norm), for the sake of debate or to explore the thought further using valid reasoning that both disagrees with the subject at hand and proves their own point valid.
I’m pointing out that this is not an objective truth
Then you’re a little hazy on the topic of government-mandated organ donation slavery. Okay.
This topic has a lot of parallels to the debate on capital punishment
I’m not going to debate for or against capital punishment, but the two situations are not comparable unless you believe that pregnancy is a capital crime deserving of the punishment of forced organ donation slavery.
Does this apply to vaccines?
Unfortunately, yes. While it would have been nice and would have saved many more lives if everyone had been forced to get vaccinated, the government cannot force that on anyone. They can require that government workers and military either get vaccinated or lose their jobs / be discharged from service, however.
Well, you mostly missed the point but you grazed it.
They can require that government workers and military either get vaccinated or lose their jobs / be discharged from service, however.
And should the government be able to do the same if a pregnant person gets an abortion? (Remember, my point is that “my body, my choice” is not a good argument). And to that point:
Yes, you are
I have not once defended anti-choice. I am pointing out that the arguments many people use to defend abortion-choice aren’t well thought out. Like “it’s just a clump of cells” or “my body, my choice”. Well, I’m trying to do that. YMMV on how successful I’ve been, haha.
You’re right, I made the mistake of engaging your falsehoods instead of immediately dismissing them out of hand. No, now that I come to think of it, vaccinations and abortions are not the same because vaccinations do not require you to remove blood and tissue from yourself and give them to another person. So, apologies that I gave your devil’s advocate argument an ounce of credence.
I am pointing out that the arguments many people use to defend abortion-choice aren’t well thought out
Yes, by using pro-life baseless arguments and assertions in a devil’s advocate fashion to point out why you believe we shouldn’t immediately dismiss them as the irrational drivel they are.
A hypothetical is not a falsehood. Seriously.
What pro-life baseless arguments are you referring to?
A “hypothetical” in this case is no different than JAQing off, which is itself a modern version of playing devil’s advocate, but in bad faith.
You began (as you said) with a losing premise, in that every argument you can put out there to try to lend any validity to pro-life views can and will be dismissed as baseless drivel that ignores the rights of the women that would be forced into organ donation slavery.
I will agree with the one premise that every argument that isn’t “the government can’t force people into organ donation slavery” can also be dismissed out of hand as being irrelevant to the only aspect of this topic that matters.
No, a hypothetical is just helping people see a logical inconsistency. If you agree that people should be free to refuse vaccinations with no negative consequences, then you are logically consistent when you leverage the “my body, my choice” stance. Is that your stance, for vaccines? Many people in this thread insist that there should be consequences to refusing a vaccine (no interaction with society, for example), but that is not really a choice then.
Dismissing points out of hand does not dispute those stances; it does not move to convince the people that hold those stances that the stances are flawed.
No, a hypothetical is just helping people see a logical inconsistency
Yes, just like JAQing off. That’s all that they want to do right? Just ask questions that point out logical inconsistencies? What’s so wrong about that? Who would possibly say that Tucker Carlson didn’t always have the best of intentions using this exact same method?
If you want to push the vaccine angle, then yes, sometimes, nuance exists in life. Government workers and military should absolutely be required to choose between vaccination and being let go. That does not mean that women should be forced into organ donation slavery by the government, and you continuing to try to link the two is absolutely JAQing yourself the fuck off.
No one who’s in favor of government-forced organ donation slavery is going to change their mind. The only way to fight fascism is to dismiss it out of hand. Giving any amount of validity is letting it win.
Who would possibly say that Tucker Carlson didn’t always have the best of intentions using this exact same method?
Tucker uses whataboutism. He would never strive for logical consistency; that would ruin his entire stance. You do want logical consistency, right? That is something you strive for? Or are you like Tucker?
Government workers and military should absolutely be required to choose between vaccination and being let go. That does not mean that women should be forced into organ donation slavery by the government, and you continuing to try to link the two is absolutely JAQing yourself the fuck off.
It means that “my body, my choice” isn’t the argument people pretend it is. Because in some situations, “my body, my choice” doesn’t apply. So now you need to defend why it applies to pregnant people and not anti-vaxxers. Logically. And you know what? I bet you could do it if you really tried-- but what’s the point? Why bother with the “my body, my choice” defense at all, if the defense itself needs a defense?
No one who’s in favor of government-forced organ donation slavery is going to change their mind.
This is untrue. After Roe was struck down, polls indicated rising support in nationally-available abortion. People can change their mind, but it’s very unlikely if no one bothers to try to change it.
It means that “my body, my choice” isn’t the argument people pretend it is
On this I am in agreement with you, and have never used that argument. The only valid argument is “government can’t force people into organ donation slavery”.
but it’s very unlikely if no one bothers to try to change it
Those people who have “changed their mind” on abortion haven’t done so through rational discussion with those who know that forced organ donation slavery is wrong. Like any conservative, they had to see the results of their lack of concern for others have an impact on others that they care about, or at least others who look the same as they do.
Once white forced-birth mothers started dying, being forced to give still births, and crying on the witness stand, some of the “centrists” (i.e. conservatives who want to pretend they’re not) began to see the monsters they had become.
On this I am in agreement with you, and have never used that argument. The only valid argument is “government can’t force people into organ donation slavery”.
As I said elsewhere, I’ve had success by crafting a hypothetical wherein a person is forced by the government to provide a liver transplant to “save a life” and comparing it to forcing a pregnant person to give birth to “save a life”. I think many people don’t realize what power they’re granting the government.
You should probably dial it back a little with the slavery part. While I’m sure you could justify it being there, it’s not going to convince anyone that isn’t already in agreement with you. Makes you seem a little out there. Just a tip.
Those people who have “changed their mind” on abortion haven’t done so through rational discussion with those who know
While it’s entirely possible I was lied to, I have had people admit that I have changed their stance on abortion. Not a lot, but also not zero. You give up too easily.
Once white forced-birth mothers started dying, being forced to give still births, and crying on the witness stand
Undoubtedly, but wouldn’t it be worthwhile to try and mitigate this instead of cynically waiting to take advantage of it?
You’re right, I do give up on “conservatives” and fascists. I don’t hold it against you for trying, but I believe that the only way to win with fascists is to not play their game, and to simply oppose them wherever and whenever they crop up. No, ultimately I don’t believe that you or anyone else who claims to have swayed a few opinions have ultimately made any difference in people with no regard for others, so I will continue to have no regard for them.
How has “not playing their game” worked out so far?
You’re advocating for tolerating the intolerant. All you’re doing is being the Kaiser Wilhelm-looking character in this comic about the Paradox of Tolerance:
Karl Popper described this as a paradox, but it’s not even that.
Tolerance is a social contract that we all agree to participate in. By not tolerating others, conversatives/fascists have broken the contract, and are no longer bound by or protected by it. Therefore it is not wrong or paradoxical to not tolerate the intolerant.
You’re all over the place. I asked how “not playing their game” has worked out. Do you feel like your strategy is working?
Well I don’t tolerate fascists in my own life, so yes. I also don’t believe your strategy of tolerating them is worth a damn, either. If the fascists push too hard, we’ll continue to fall back to the four boxes.
And is your tactic making life better for the millions of women who can no longer get a safe abortion?
Do you believe yours is? Quite the job you’re doing.
Yes. I have been told (though they could have been lying, but I don’t see why they would) that I have convinced people to switch their stance.
Does surreptitiously threatening to shoot people change minds, you think?
Honestly come to think of it, I do blame you and people with your attitude for the rise of fascism in the U.S. “”“Centrists”“” kept tolerating them for decades, and they kept feeling more and more emboldened.
No one has ever called me a centrist before. I’m strongly support a UBI, universal healthcare, subsidized housing.
You’re just lashing out because you’re angry and frustrated and don’t know how to channel it.
I enjoyed reading your replies to this dolt. I think they try to exhaust you by muddying the water but all he’s done is make his position look utterly stupid and exhausting.
I think his goal is to make people afraid to engage and silence others from posting? Or maybe it’s simply to waste your time. Either way, I appreciate your attempt at engaging this bad faith “I’m on your side no really” actor.
KantiberlThat's a pretty dangerous game to play. It just strengthens their resolve and blinds you from the genuine understanding of your fellow humans. I think your stance harms society.
You make the mistake of thinking that their resolve isn’t already absolute. I think it’s the luxury of ignorance of people who don’t live in deep red states and don’t know just how deep-seeded their fear and hatred of others is.
And no, I will no longer strive for “understanding” of fascists who hate and harm others. Those who do are only enabling them, and are the people who have allowed the situation to get as bad as it has in the U.S.
But go ahead, keep tolerating the intolerant.
People digging deeply in to their ideals with no critical thought or empathy for others is what got us to this point. The only way out is opening your heart. I'm not saying you have to agree with anyone's beliefs, you just need to understand them. How do you fight something you don't understand? How do you know if you even need to fight it? When we give up on understanding others they become whatever evil amalgamation our imagination can come up with. We project all of your deepest shadow qualities on them and hate them fiercely. The strongest and most potent hate of all is self hate and it's where all of both sides anger comes from.
And for what it's worth, I currently live in Texas. I see first hand how much everyone is suffering. EVERYONE.
No, allowing fascists to continue being fascists is what got us here. I had sympathy and understanding for those people in the past, and now we have Nazis. I’m done with sympathy/understanding/tolerance of those who have none.