It’s universality does not denote it’s merit. When its merits are called into question, people often revert to non-universal arguments.
State control over one's body
- Thread starter watu05
- Start date
This is kind of what I’m saying. You would prefer to focus on those people than to do the more difficult work of contending with the fact that atheists, agnostics, Muslims, Christians, and Jews alike have very straightforward secular arguments against abortion that are no less logical than your arguments in favor (I would argue more logical). The difference is I don’t pretend you don’t have a point. I can see the internal logic of your argument, I just disagree with it rather than pretending it doesn’t have any merit.
I won’t pretend that logic supports a point that I know it does not. This is based upon how we treat fetal deaths currently as a society (macroscopically), how other modern developed (legally agnostic) countries treat the issue, how OBGYN’s professional groups frame the issue, and how you would logically conclude that we address the complications associated with the presumption that human rights under the law begin at conception (cases of rape or danger to the pregnant). I can not make an educated analysis that the merits of an argument that a fetus should be a human citizen moments after conception and should protected by the law can be valid. There is no associated evidence for the logic beyond the fact that we occasionally charge people with crimes for the termination of a pregnancy without the woman’s consent.
On the other hand, the other side not only chooses to ignore the logical argument that a fetus should not be considered a legally protected party until some point during pregnancy or after delivery, but at the same time they don’t tend to support alternatives for abortions such as early sexual education and encouragement for the use of contraceptives / protection. (Mostly for religious reasons)
Instead, the only solution that we see being offered as an alternative to preventing the problems associated with undesired pregnancies is abstinence which is a proven futility in societies that aren’t extremely theocratic and repressive. Basically they just say “you can’t do that” and people ask for a realistic alternative and they’re given none. The only options are either be damned to raise the unwanted (or impoverished) child, or never have sex before marriage which is a fundamental imposition of religious belief. (One which we know is unrealistic)
You’re really struggling here to even understand what logic is. Pointing to how we treat other things, or how other countries treat something ain’t it. “Society or x country does x” is not actually an argument. At best it’s an appeal to authority in some cases. But this does not actually make an argument for why we should treat it that way. Clong actually did make an argument that addressed some of the core issues. “What other people think” doesn’t do it
I have stated my logic repeatedly, the fact that we and other authorities treat things the way we do just illustrates support for that logic.
Logically, a life form must exhibit some sort of characteristics that grant it the extraordinary protections we give to human lives above all others. Those characteristics are what fundamentally differentiate our treatment of other people from our treatment of plants and animals. The reason we don’t kill people is not because we simply value their existence as people. If that was true there would be no murder, no war, no death penalty. Moreover, we would care much more about HOW people are living than we actually do, because a life lived in pain and suffering can be worse than not having a life at all. (Hence suicides, DNR orders, and mercy killings)
I have seen no support from non theocratically influenced entities (which I would argue that the state legislative / judicial branches of Texas are) for defining protection under the law as beginning directly after conception. Even the Supreme Court declined to actually address the issue, instead deferring to the state. Texas of course defined it at an arbitrary 6 weeks which is when the first heartbeat occurs. It’s a dumb definition logically, but it still doesn’t concur with a ‘humanity begins at conception’ ideal.
Last edited:
You seem to think that attaching the words “logic” or “logically” magically imbeds a degree of logic into your argument that obviates the need to explain why any of the standards you use are the correct ones. I’m kind of getting the sense that you haven’t actually thought all that hard about this. And by that I mean you’ve never really challenged your own premises very hard. You’ve never actually sat there and picked apart the holes in your own argument, which is kind of prerequisite for understanding your opponents’ arguments.
Last edited:
Please, be my guest, argue that they are incorrect assertions. I think the real problem is that there are so many varying arguments AGAINST your viewpoint and very few defenses for it, none of which are particularly sound.
One thing to note is that there about 100 different ways in which we do not treat fetuses as persons with the same rights as actual human beings. For example, you couldn't arrest a mother as you would be holding the fetus without due process. You couldn't deport her if she was an alien who had conceived the child in America for the same reason. You can't claim the fetus on your taxes. You can't get it a social security number. You can not insure the fetus with life insurance. We do not count the fetuses in census estimates. We do not enforce laws on endangerment for a pregnant woman drinking caffeine or eating sushi during pregnancy (both of which can have adverse effects on the child).
Could a paternal partner theoretically bring a case against the mother on behalf of the infant because she wasn't eating the exact diet that the doctor suggested?
Those are absurd things to bring up, but they highlight the absurdity that considering a fetus to have the same rights as a human person can bring up.
I haven't been reading this much lately, so please excuse me for answering something way down the list.
Old White Men as a perjorative are supposed to be a major problem. I plead guilty to both. Everyone gets old or dies young. I will go with the former rather than the later.
I was not given a choice as to my race.
But since OWMs are a problem we should decide when too old is. 60, 53, 47., or 78 in our beloved President's case. I'm am double vaccentated and will be triple when it is available, but the OWM kicks in when people start talking about requiring someone to be given a shot against their will. (Maybe that is because it might help me get my third shot sooner.)
Not counting presidents or house speakers, retirement should be when you become an OWM or OWW. You aren't working or only minimally. You don't pay a lot of taxes unless you are rich, in which case you will beat the system anyway.
62 for OWM and 72 for OWW.
Old White Men as a perjorative are supposed to be a major problem. I plead guilty to both. Everyone gets old or dies young. I will go with the former rather than the later.
I was not given a choice as to my race.
But since OWMs are a problem we should decide when too old is. 60, 53, 47., or 78 in our beloved President's case. I'm am double vaccentated and will be triple when it is available, but the OWM kicks in when people start talking about requiring someone to be given a shot against their will. (Maybe that is because it might help me get my third shot sooner.)
Not counting presidents or house speakers, retirement should be when you become an OWM or OWW. You aren't working or only minimally. You don't pay a lot of taxes unless you are rich, in which case you will beat the system anyway.
62 for OWM and 72 for OWW.
I assume there’s also a vaccine mandate in order to receive welfare or other government aid and not just to be able to work?
I think part of the problem that people tend to overlook is that they see their “freedom” as having no effect on the people around them. Like they lived on a small farm somewhere along the Oregon Trail in the 1850’s. The truth of the matter is, even if all of these people don’t get covid and give it to someone else, their absence from society (because of extended hospital stays / quarantines) is causing supply chain disruptions, labor force shortages, production inefficiency and as a result it’s putting upward pressure on inflation that’s already being boosted by the same deficiencies in other countries that are dealing with the virus (and may or may not have vaccine access).
You believe labor shortages are being caused by people sick from Covid and not people not working due to the never ending government “free” money train?
Part of the problem is this isn’t an overall vaccine mandate. It’s a vaccine mandate for people who work. There is zero mandate for those who choose not to work despite the fact they are being paid by those who do work. Despite the fact that the largest unvaccinated income group is below $25k a year. If the true goal was to vaccinate the population there wouldn’t be exceptions of the group who needs vaccinated the most. We wouldn’t be placing the burden on private businesses. You cannot single out a group of people on a mandate and if you would why wouldn’t it be the poor and obese ? I understand this mandate will likely never go into affect in large portions of the country but the circumstances and exemptions are maddening not to mention the precedent we are setting.
Part of the problem is this isn’t an overall vaccine mandate. It’s a vaccine mandate for people who work. There is zero mandate for those who choose not to work despite the fact they are being paid by those who do work. Despite the fact that the largest unvaccinated income group is below $25k a year. If the true goal was to vaccinate the population there wouldn’t be exceptions of the group who needs vaccinated the most. We wouldn’t be placing the burden on private businesses. You cannot single out a group of people on a mandate and if you would why wouldn’t it be the poor and obese ? I understand this mandate will likely never go into affect in large portions of the country but the circumstances and exemptions are maddening not to mention the precedent we are setting.
I agreed with you that there should be a mandate for people who don’t work. I think the 100 people number was probably a compromise and a function of what the President is able to regulate using his powers at hand. Honestly, I expect it to get more forceful. And no, I don’t believe that inflation is being caused by unemployment benefits because many states ended those a significant time ago.
A more significant number for unlikeliness of getting a vaccine was education. Those without a college diploma had only been vaccinated at an 18% rate.
…but you believe it’s being cause by people sick with Covid?
100 is not a magic number. I assume they knew the response they would get from the very small business. Most of which are sole owners. They do have a hammer to require vaccinations for the over 100 million Americans receiving federal assistance. Hard to argue we’re in a crisis which requires mandatory vaccinations of working people when you exempt millions upon millions of unvaccinated.
Covid has killed over 650K in the US, yet many people resist doing their part in protecting themselves and others on the basis of personal choice. Yet those people are, at least by geography and political leanings the very people who say they have a right to dictate a woman's choices, choices that have major effects for decades. These two ideas take some serious moral gymnastics to square. Admittedly for some it's not necessarily choice, diminished trust from experiments run on blacks plays a part, but for those who claim choice and pro-life, it's an incoherent pairing.
A friend of my wife's named Nancy played golf with a friend the other day. The golf course paired them with two women they didn't know. A couple of holes in, Nancy mentioned she was vaccinated and asked if the others were, thinking the answer would be, "yes". Instead one woman acted insulted and claimed she didn't have to tell anyone anything. The other woman was nicer and said she didn't think the testing was good enough nor was there enough information. Nancy and her friend left it at that, but decided to quietly split and play the back nine alone. NBD. But the ironic element for them was that both of the anti-vaxxers were very heavily made up.. If there is anything that one can injest orally or through the skin that are not tested and no-one knows the health effects of, it's cosmetics which some women apply daily for decades without a thought. The ingredients on the labels often read like Rx drugs. Another odd pairing.
It’s actually not hard at all to square the arguments. You just have to do a little deeper thinking than “durrr all choices are the same. Check mate cons” and then understand that different groups of people have different priorities and different moral hierarchies.
If I were to say that your arguments are incoherent because you believe women should be able to make any choice they want for their bodies in regard to abortion but not have the choice of whether or not to vaccinate that would be dumb. Because it’s understood that “pro-choice” doesn’t mean pro any choice. It means pro-choice in one specific circumstance that is a priority for you, because in your moral hierarchy the ability to end a pregnancy is near the top. A pro-life person saying “no I don’t want to allow people to intentionally end the life of an unborn human but I do want to allow that person to choose not to get vaccinated” isn’t any different than you saying “I don’t want to force a woman to take a pregnancy to term against her will, but I do want to force her to get vaccinated.” Just different framing of the issues and different moral priorities.
If I were to say that your arguments are incoherent because you believe women should be able to make any choice they want for their bodies in regard to abortion but not have the choice of whether or not to vaccinate that would be dumb. Because it’s understood that “pro-choice” doesn’t mean pro any choice. It means pro-choice in one specific circumstance that is a priority for you, because in your moral hierarchy the ability to end a pregnancy is near the top. A pro-life person saying “no I don’t want to allow people to intentionally end the life of an unborn human but I do want to allow that person to choose not to get vaccinated” isn’t any different than you saying “I don’t want to force a woman to take a pregnancy to term against her will, but I do want to force her to get vaccinated.” Just different framing of the issues and different moral priorities.
Last edited:
We’re now comparing a vaccine whose long term effects on the human body are not known to eye liner?
One of the things some of us are struggling with is the federal government requiring only those who have a job get vaccinated and requiring private individuals carry out that mandate. If public safety was truly the goal, there would be no way more effective to get millions vaccinated than to require proof of vaccination prior to receiving federal handouts in October. Along those same grounds, why don’t we require immigrants entering the country be vaccinated ? Yet we are mandating those who have a job…
One of the things some of us are struggling with is the federal government requiring only those who have a job get vaccinated and requiring private individuals carry out that mandate. If public safety was truly the goal, there would be no way more effective to get millions vaccinated than to require proof of vaccination prior to receiving federal handouts in October. Along those same grounds, why don’t we require immigrants entering the country be vaccinated ? Yet we are mandating those who have a job…
Last edited:
Interesting post. No, the "ability to end pregnancy is not near the top' of my 'moral hierarchy". I don't think abortion should be used for birth control but given there is legitimate scientific debate about when a fetus becomes a human being, I do think that there are circumstances when it is justified. Most of those decisions are best left to the woman and her family to make without fear of being punished or snitched on by a neighbor. A 20 week limit seems a reasonable balance as a law that balances both views. A much better approach is sex education, contraception and preventing unwanted pregnancies. Planned Parenthood which focused on those measures is also a target of the anti-vax/anti-abortion crowd.
The difference is a woman's decision is an individual one that doesn't threaten the entire community. The public health measures, including Covid immunizations, protect the entire community not just the person refusing to participate. The science is also much clearer here.
Last edited:
Lawpoke, to respond to your question. I do think that having 1.5% of your population ill and quarantining every 28 days (and that’s not to mention the other illnesses and maladies that the country normally gets) will have an effect on supply chains and service schedules. Also, that will be magnified as other trade companions are suffering similar issues.
I agree about more groups being mandated vaccines to make the mandates more effective and more equitable. I wish it hadn’t come to such a necessity as to recognize that over 30% of the country were just unwilling to cooperate for the common good.
The choice to abortion is one where at most two citizens (possibly one depending on your reasoning) are effected. Moreover it doesn’t have a significant societal impact in terms of lost production or the loss of a well know family member / friend.
Covid is a contagion. One person’s choice to disregard it could potentially effect tens to hundreds of other people. Your freedom of choice stops when you begin to effect others’ freedoms with your choices.
Yes I understand you have a different opinion on it. The point was that it’s not hard at all to square the arguments if you make even just the lowest effort attempt to understand people you disagree with.
You keep making the assertion that we don't understand the people we disagree with or their opinions. We understand their opinions. We've all had this argument a million times for the last 40 years or so. You bring nothing new to the table... other than a host of inappropriately selected justices (chosen by hypocrites) in the Supreme Court, who will all continue to be hypocrites as it suites them, including on the issue of women having abortions.
That would be 5M people ill and quarantining in the US every 28 days. That number is nonsensical based on 40M total infected since the beginning of the pandemic.
Not sure how the working people mandate is going to help get the demographic group most lacking in vaccinations….the poor and minorities. The welfare requirement would seem to be much more effective . Hell…just an across the board mandate which is what is needed to be done of the admin was going to attempt the same
Last edited:
No you actually don’t understand. It’s not because you can’t or you’re not smart enough though. It’s just because you don’t want to
4.3 Million is the last 28 day average. I will grant that it’s not a number that has been that high for very long. Just saying that it’s certainly making things worse.
4.3 Million is the last 28 day average. I will grant that it’s not a number that has been that high for very long. Just saying that it’s certainly making things worse.
Considering the amount of times we’ve had these same arguments on this board, I would say that I’m pretty abreast of what those in opposition will say.
Being able to repeat words is not the same as understanding them, especially when it comes to arguments around morality. There’s also a difference between saying “I see your perspective, I just disagree because my moral frame is totally different” and “I understand what you’ve said but it’s invalid and illogical.” You simply do not have a desire to understand different perspectives from your own. In that sense you are very normal
This argument has nothing to do with morality when you break it down to "is this a human life or not" The moral implications come with everything surrounding the actual ending of the life. Everyone agrees on the moral implications of taking a human life. To frame my viewpoint as "having a different moral frame" is just asinine. You don't have some sort of moral high ground on this issue. There are few moral positives to forcing children to be born into lives that will, in all likelihood, be lives full of struggle just on the off chance that some of them could have the potential to work themselves out of said struggles. Moreover, to say that they have to be born into such situations and then support a system of society that would do next to nothing to assist them or their family in actually having a better life is purely evil. (Not saying that all pro-life people are of that persuasion but a majority are)
I imagine a young woman of 18 who gets pregnant during her first semester of college. She's not ready. The guy's not ready. Having a child at that point would likely mean one or both of them will drop out if they stay together at all. She's pretty much putting herself through school, so she can't count on help from her family. If she drops out to have a child now there's no guarantee she'll ever get back. That's a tough situation for everyone. Now, on the one hand she can choose to make a tough decision and end the life and the potential of the lifeform that is currently developing. But, she is doing it so that multiple lives in the future might thrive. She makes the hard decision. She goes through with the procedure and cries every night for a month. But ultimately the pain subsides. She graduates. She doesn't end up with the previous boy. He never knew. She does end up a man that she meets shortly after college and they go on to have 3 wonderful children who are well taken care of by both parents and are in a stable situation.
On the other hand, I can tell you of a sadder situation. A girl graduates high school. She's intelligent and promising, but she doesn't have the money to go straight to university so she starts out at junior college, she is upset with her financial situation (no cause of her own) and that makes her rebellious. She makes a bad decision. She gets pregnant with a local guy she knew from HS. She does not have access to a clinic so she goes through with the pregnancy. The guy turns out to be a sleaze. If she had known she might have given the child up for adoption, but alas she could not. He's drunk for most of the child's youth. He can't hold a job. She ends up fighting for child support for 10 years, never getting any support, and at the same time she's slowly working her way through school class by class as her and her child live in skeezy apartments on food stamps. By the time her child has reached 4-5 they find out that she has developmental issues. The little girl will never be able to hold a job that will sustain her. Despite all the setbacks, the mother graduates with a bachelors and a masters but, by now the kid is 14. At 16 the daughter gets pregnant for the first time, as the mother didn't have the time to devote to holding a job, going to school, and providing excellent parenting for a mentally impaired child. The new grandma now starts working a menial job to support 3 mouths, never being able to take full advantage of her degrees considering her age and the new emergency. The impaired girl has 3 more children with 3 different fathers, all slung on grandma who ruined her life one night 30 years ago. The family is located in a slum of a local city. The grandchildren all sleep in the same small living room on cots. There is little hope in site for any of them to break from this cycle. God help them when Grandma passes. Hopefully you're okay with them all living on that government dime.
Imagine if the grandmother had been able to finish her education 10-14 years earlier, how the family tree might have been different.
Would I feel bad for the daughter and the grandchildren not being there? Sure, but in my mind their spiritual equivalents might have come at some later date, and not to the detriment of an actual original human life. I choose the better timeline instead of the worse one. It's a Wonderful Life be damned. I believe in maximizing overall prosperity while minimizing suffering and the best way to do that isn't throwing children into "families" that are unprepared to raise them with some legitimate chance for prosperity. To do so is immoral, and I will never take anyone seriously who believes alternatively. I guess those situations are just a bit too "normal" for your shining morals on a hill though.
Last edited:
The degree to which you can muster outrage on this vs idk…. sentencing millions of Afghan women to virtual slavery, rape, or death I think is pretty illustrative of where the holy sacrament of abortion ranks in your moral priorities.
Last edited:
I’ll be honest, there’s just too much here for me to respond to in detail. How about I pick the first paragraph because I think it gets at the heart of the misunderstanding.
“Is this a human life or not” is unfortunately not a purely scientific question. If it were I think I’d be on firmer ground than you, but that’s beside the point. I’m not going to argue about it because again, I just don’t have the patience to go round and round anymore. Unfortunately it is more of a metaphysical/philosophical question. The arguments around it and facts used like “unique human dna at conception”, “life form must exhibit some sort of characteristics to grant it extraordinary protections(yours)” , “viability”, “heartbeat” etc are scientific in nature, sure. But the framing and choosing which standards to use for what constitutes a unique human life(some would call it personhood) is philosophical and will ultimately come down to certain moral foundations that a person has. And that’s why there’s a debate on it.
Everything in the paragraph after the word asinine is irrelevant to what I said, but I’ll point out again that you state as fact things that are just opinions heavily influenced by your personal concept of morality. And that’s fine. Just don’t pretend it’s fact. For example “There are few moral positives to forcing children to be born into lives that will, in all likelihood, be full of struggle.” There are lots of people who would disagree with this. Indeed there are entire belief systems, religious and otherwise, that view discomfort and struggle as an essential part of life, and there are people born into tremendous hardship who are nonetheless happy they were born (the inverse is also true.) Up until very recent human history, virtually everyone was born into a life of hardship and struggle.
Last edited:
There is a difference in being born into a life where you will have normal levels of difficulty and one where you have excessive difficulty arbitrarily placed upon you. Your argument is that we should be happy that we were born at all which is just stupid. Completely and utterly stupid. It’s like telling a puppy mill puppy or a factory farm chicken to be happy that they were born at all despite the fact that they never get to leave their cage and were born into a situation that’s inhumane.
You have empathy for the potential of a person, but you refuse to consider or even acknowledge the existence you’re making them be born into.
You keep going back to religious ideals of the necessity for difficulty and struggle which is part of the problem. The religions you are referring to perpetuate strife by telling you that you should learn to live with it.
First, You are not able to define (or even provide any convincing argument for) the exact moment that human life begins. None of your arguments account for the nature of humanity that is necessary to separate it from other flora and fauna. Second, you refuse to actually acknowledge the ramifications that your opinion would tangibly have. You argue for a slippery slope of my opinion that will supposedly lead to the euthanization or sterilization of actual living humans (which is absurd) but you neglect the actual harm that mandating people be born into assured strife does to not only the people you’re making suffer, but also our society as a whole.
Stop looking at the scenario as though you are taking one human life and start looking at it as though your are (in the majority of cases) allowing for the possibility of two or three more prosperous human lives in the future.
It would be easier to give credence to the total anti-abortion view if those same groups would be more interested and supportive of children born in unwanted pregnancies. The effects on society, the family and the child are not good. Rather than state enforced euthanasia, leaving it to the woman results in more individual choice rather than less.
Or if they supported (as a majority) the widespread promotion of contraceptives and sexual education. Anything to actual help minimize the problem of children being born into bad situations. They don’t provide solutions to problems that they create by their flawed and hypocritical morality.
Agreed. Abstiinence is a quaint idea in today's hypersexualized, media-saturated society. I'm pretty old school, e.g., for me thongs look like torture!
