Why no argument for abortion has ever worked.

[Lexicus]

Not fundamentally.
[...]

I don't think the moral status of the fetus is necessarily more fundamental to the debate than the state telling women what they can do with their uteruses.

but it's not central to the narrow issue of whether or not abortion is or is not moral.

Well, okay, so phrased I agree, but the moral status of abortion is not the only issue at play in the real world.

Were you abused as a child? I feel like only someone who was abused as a child would see the world as you seem to see it. I mean hey, feel free to not answer the question and dismiss it as irrelevant if you like, but if you do I'll just draw my own conclusions anyway.

What if I was? How despicable of you to try to use child abuse as an insult. But then you're not concerned with hurting other people's feelings; you're so principled and heroic that you refused to be "language policed" by the likes of us.

 

[El_Machinae]

I don't think the moral status of the fetus is necessarily more fundamental to the debate than the state telling women what they can do with their uteruses.

It is interesting how tied it all is together. Within the discussion are whether we allow society to force abortions or to force sterility on people. One could easily be concomitantly pro-life and 'okay' with certain criminal behaviours triggering a court order to not have any further kids. Not so sure how well that fits within the pro-choice vibe.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

What if I was? How despicable of you to try to use child abuse as an insult. But then you're not concerned with hurting other people's feelings; you're so principled and heroic that you refused to be "language policed" by the likes of us.

I wasn't using it as an insult, I was drawing a comparison to your behaviour. Querying me as to whether or not I've "been through an abortion", and then when I refuse to answer your personal and irrelevant question, continuing to act as though you know the answer anyway and using that as an excuse to dismiss what I'm saying, as if I need to share my life story with you in order to justify an argument that's entirely about the meanings of words and not emotion. It doesn't surprise me that your response is couched exclusively in terms of insults and feelings and offence though, since your entire argument has relied on appeals to emotion thus far.

 

[El_Machinae]

In fairness, Manfred, it reads along the theme of an insult, or at least something one would want to be defensive of. You were making a point, and I hope Lexi caught it, but it was certainly an escalation.

How about not making this personal, 'k?

Sorry. Sometimes your tone gets to me.

 

[Traitorfish]

I don't think the moral status of the fetus is necessarily more fundamental to the debate than the state telling women what they can do with their uteruses.
...
Well, okay, so phrased I agree, but the moral status of abortion is not the only issue at play in the real world.

In practice, yes, bodily autonomy is an important part of the argument for abortions rights, but it's also generally accepted. The only significant group who dissent on the matter are the Christian hard right, the kind of people who think that contraceptives should also be banned, and they have very limited influence on a nationwide level. Most people in the West accept that a woman has a right to decide what happens in her own uterus so far as those decisions concern only herself: the question for most people is at what point between conception and birth "her" becomes "them".

If a person is stuck in the Deep South or out in one of those weird rectangle states, somwhere the Christian right have a lot of political clout, by all means, double down on the libertarian argument. It's a good one; most Americans, for all their faults, are naturally sympathetic to any line of argument that can be summarised as "don't tread on me". But CFC, thankfully, has a far more liberal climate, and that basic right to bodily autonomy isn't being directly challenged.

Were you abused as a child? I feel like only someone who was abused as a child would see the world as you seem to see it.

jesus christ dude.

 

[thecrazyscot]

How is it that people keep missing the word "SOME" in my posts? Just willful blindness?

How do you keep missing my point? My point is that your argument has been used by the pro-choice side to dismiss the ENTIRE pro-life argument as hypocritical based on the actions of a minority. I'm not saying YOU SPECIFICALLY do that.

I don't recall being the first to bring up charitable works. I'm just sick and tired of being told that people like me don't engage in charitable volunteering or give donations.

No need to make up an issue to get offended at. No one's arguing about who does more charitable works except, apparently, you.

Who harasses women is definitely NOT irrelevant. At least it's not as far as I'm concerned. How about instead of them waving signs at women entering and leaving health clinics (and keep in mind that they may be there for reasons entirely unrelated to pregnancy) and harassing them, they turn their energy toward improving conditions for young/teen/poor/single pregnant women so they'll have more incentive to keep the pregnancy going? Waving a flag and screaming at someone isn't going to help put food on her table, it's not going to help her get a job or an affordable place to live, it won't help her with affordable childcare, or the myriad other things women have trouble accessing.

Again, you seem to be deliberately misunderstanding my point. The pro-life crowd as a whole already does all of those things. There are always going to be an extremist minority who give the majority a bad name. So for my point, yes, it's irrelevant, because it distracts from the larger discussion and doesn't actually address any of the fundamental issues.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

In fairness, Manfred, it reads along the theme of an insult, or at least something one would want to be defensive of. You were making a point, and I hope Lexi caught it, but it was certainly an escalation.

Rhetorically asking him if he was abused as a child is no more insulting than him genuinely asking me for details of my personal experiences with abortion. Both are very personal enquiries with zero relevance to the topic at hand.

However, the notion that I was using the concept of being abused as a child as an insult in and of itself is a complete non-sequitur.

 

[Lexicus]

I wasn't using it as an insult, I was drawing a comparison to your behaviour.

I'm aware of what you were doing, I found it tasteless and offensive. And a poor comparison in any case because I'm not trying to insult you or suggest that your opinion is worth less because you haven't gone through an abortion (by which I mean, either had one yourself or impregnated someone who then decided or was medically obliged to have one).
What I am saying is that your stance on a specific issue (pro-choice=pro-abortion) suggests a level of (pun unintended) sterility, and a distance from real-life experience of what you're talking about.
Your refusal to answer the question, and your attempt to paint it as an insult, really tell me all I need to know about that anyway.

The only significant group who dissent on the matter are the Christian hard right, the kind of people who think that contraceptives should also be banned, and they have very limited influence on a nationwide level.

I would say that is probably true in the UK, but it's much less true over here. And it's why I've said what I said about the organized political component of the pro-life movement in the US.

But CFC, thankfully, has a far more liberal climate, and that basic right to bodily autonomy isn't being directly challenged.

Well, I would say it is a problem when that whole set of issues (feminist issues for lack of a better term) are erased from the conversation, which is what I think happens when we say the debate is 'fundamentally' about the moral status of the fetus.

The moral status of the fetus is, imo, not the only consideration. I actually disagree with many people who say the fetus and the sygote should not be considered to have any moral weight- but I believe it's an even greater immorality for the state to tell women they must finish pregnancy.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

I'm aware of what you were doing, I found it tasteless and offensive.

How you feel about it is also irrelevant.

And a poor comparison in any case because I'm not trying to insult you

I wasn't trying to insult you either, I was attempting to show you how flawed your approach was by mirroring it back at you. If you find that insulting that's your call.

or suggest that your opinion is worth less because you haven't gone through an abortion

I find this hard to believe. If your intention was not to use my response to demonstrate that my opinion was worth less, then why enquire in the first place? Why speculate about what my answer would have been and how you think this must explain what I'm saying? The only reasonable inference is so you could say "you haven't been through X so your opinion on X is less valid than that of someone's who has".

What I am saying is that your stance on a specific issue (pro-choice=pro-abortion) suggests a level of (pun unintended) sterility, and a distance from real-life experience of what you're talking about.

Well you didn't say say that it "suggests" that at all, you said you felt like it was "the only way...". But again, if you're not going to follow that up with "... and therefore your opinion is less valid than someone who has been closer to the issue?", then what's the point in making that observation in the first place?

 

[Traitorfish]

Well, I would say it is a problem when that whole set of issues (feminist issues for lack of a better term) are erased from the conversation, which is what I think happens when we say the debate is 'fundamentally' about the moral status of the fetus.

I don't think they're being erased, I think they're just not relevant when the conversation is narrowly concerned with the morality of abortion. The abortion is moral or immoral all by itself; we could live in a utopia which had never known gender inequality, and the same ruling would be true. There's a discussion that needs to be had around those other issues, sure, but this just isn't that discussion.

The moral status of the fetus is, imo, not the only consideration. I actually disagree with many people who say the fetus and the sygote should not be considered to have any moral weight- but I believe it's an even greater immorality for the state to tell women they must finish pregnancy.

Well, the majority of pro-choice advocates do not agree with you, so you're going to have to carve out the terrain for your own debate.

 

[Lexicus]

Well you didn't say say that it "suggests" that at all, you said you felt like it was "the only way...". But again, if you're not going to follow that up with "... and therefore your opinion is less valid than someone who has been closer to the issue?", then what's the point in making that observation in the first place?

If you must know, yes, I think your opinion on whether pro-choice means someone is pro-abortion is worth less because of your lack of real-world experience with the issue.

But your opinions on abortion in general? It would have to be a case-by-case basis. Obviously, if you had an opinion on, say, what going through an abortion is like, I think you'd agree with me that a lack of real-world experience with abortion would render that opinion more or less worthless. Whereas the worth of an opinion like "abortion is immoral" would be unaffected by personal experience.

Lastly, I can only hope that these two gems:

How you feel about it is also irrelevant.

If you find that insulting that's your call.

are not reflective of how you behave toward people from whom you aren't sheltered by the anonymity of the internet.

but this just isn't that discussion.

I think it is part of the discussion though. Because ultimately this isn't just about the morality of abortion in the abstract. It has a bearing on public policy and what happens in the real world. And in the real world there's more involved in the moral calculations than just the moral status of the unborn.

Well, the majority of pro-choice advocates do not agree with you,

I think when it comes down to it most pro-choice people will admit a zygote/fetus has more moral worth than a bunch of dead skin cells or something. Like, even the most ardently pro-choice person in the world is going to feel bad (edit for clarity: I don't mean guilty) about miscarrying a wanted pregnancy at 5 or 6 weeks.
My point would be that whatever your opinion of the moral status of the fetus, the consideration of bodily autonomy and women exercising control over their own reproduction doesn't go out the window.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

If you must know, yes, I think your opinion on whether pro-choice means someone is pro-abortion is worth less because of your lack of real-world experience with the issue.

You mean that lack of real-world experience that you're entirely assuming because I've not answered your question at any point? Again, feel free to do so, and I'll just assume your uncle used to touch you. Sound fair?

Also, although it comes as no surprise to me that you do indeed think my opinion is worth less because of that assumption, can I just point out that that directly contradicts what you said in the previous post.

Obviously, if you had an opinion on, say, what going through an abortion is like, I think you'd agree with me that a lack of real-world experience with abortion would render that opinion more or less worthless.

I'd entirely agree with that. Luckily, I've not expressed any opinion on anything like that at any point, so we don't have to worry about that.

Whereas the worth of an opinion like "abortion is immoral" would be unaffected by personal experience.

Again I'd agree, and again I haven't expressed an opinion on that either (well I probably have at some point, but not during this whole "pro-abortion" thing because, again, it's not relevant to that).

So yes, I'd have to ask why you then think that my understanding of what the prefix "pro-" means (or can mean) seemingly is affected by personal experience? As I've stated, by your own standards I would consider myself pro-amputation, pro-chemotherapy etc. I don't see how personal experience of any of this is relevant.

Lastly, I can only hope that these two gems:

are not reflective of how you behave toward people from whom you aren't sheltered by the anonymity of the internet.

You'd be sorely disappointed then. I don't have much time for people, on or off the internet, who think that constantly talking about how offended or insulted they are is some sort of substitute for actually addressing points.

 

[Lexicus]

You mean that lack of real-world experience that you're entirely assuming because I've not answered your question at any point? Again, feel free to do so, and I'll just assume your uncle used to touch you. Sound fair?

this is just...I don't even know what to say. It's like, how misanthropic can you get?

So yes, I'd have to ask why you then think that my understanding of what the prefix "pro-" means (or can mean) seemingly is affected by personal experience?

Already explained it, see no reason to go into it again.

You'd be sorely disappointed then.

I'm sorry for you

 

[Manfred Belheim]

this is just...I don't even know what to say. It's like, how misanthropic can you get?

I'll just note that you're acting all offended again, rather than making any sort of legitimate response to the fact that you keep making the same assumption about me over and over again.

Already explained it, see no reason to go into it again.

Actually you never have done. All you've done is assert that you can only think my word-usage stems from a lack of personal experience (and also alternately assert how that assumed lack of experience does, and then does not, and then does render my opinion less valid, seemingly depending on which way the wind is blowing.), but not said why. Which is unsurprising really as you'd have to explain how you come to have a unique insight into the working of the human mind that allows you to draw such concrete conclusions that most mere mortals would probably shy away from. Either that or you must just assume that everyone's minds work the way yours does, which would just be foolish.

I'm sorry for you

I continue to remain indifferent to your feelings, due to their complete lack of relevance to anything we've been talking about. For what it's worth, I'll say that I actually feel sorry for you if you think appeals to emotion are legitimate substitutes for reasoned argumentation.

 

[El_Machinae]

I believe it's an even greater immorality for the state to tell women they must finish pregnancy.

This contradicts what you said earlier, where you were more in favor of certain restrictions and exemptions for late-term pregnancies.

 

[Lexicus]

This contradicts what you said earlier, where you were more in favor of certain restrictions and exemptions for late-term pregnancies.

Those pregnancies are always wanted pregnancies, so that's not really the state telling women they must finish their pregnancies - those women have already decided to finish their pregnancies themselves.
No woman decides to get a late-term abortion for a lark.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

Those pregnancies are always wanted pregnancies, so that's not really the state telling women they must finish their pregnancies - those women have already decided to finish their pregnancies themselves.
No woman decides to get a late-term abortion for a lark.

But if they did, they wouldn't be allowed, and you're fine with that. That's the contradiction.

 

[tetley]

This contradicts what you said earlier, where you were more in favor of certain restrictions and exemptions for late-term pregnancies.

Lots of people believe the government should not be running family matters, but then believe Child Protective Services need to snatch kids from child abuse situations and support criminal penalties for child abuse and infanticide.

It does contradict, but I think people still sincerely believe them both, and believe they can co-exist.

 

[miaasma]

Were you abused as a child? I feel like only someone who was abused as a child would see the world as you seem to see it. I mean hey, feel free to not answer the question and dismiss it as irrelevant if you like, but if you do I'll just draw my own conclusions anyway.

who just writes this?

 

[Lexicus]

But if they did, they wouldn't be allowed, and you're fine with that. That's the contradiction.

Do I contradict myself? Very well, I contradict myself. (I am large, I contain multitudes.)

~Walt Whitman