4 ms·

Most Americans support an abortion ban, but they also support exceptions for rape or incest. If the fetus is a human person with rights, there should be no exc

Most Americans support an abortion ban, but they also support exceptions for rape or incest. If the fetus is a human person with rights, there should be no exception. If the fetus is not a human person with rights, then restrictions of any kind are unjust. The provenance of the fetus has no effect on the moral liceity of killing it. It's a lazy opinion formed by appeals to emotion.

tomc1985 5y ago
> Most Americans support an abortion ban, but they also support exceptions for rape or incest. This is news to me, can you qualify this statement?
- slumdev 5y ago
  https://www.pewforum.org/fact-sheet/public-opinion-on-abortion/ https://www.pewforum.org/fact-sheet/public-opinion-on-aborti... > Fewer take the position that in all cases abortion should be [...] legal (25%) 75% of Americans support some kind of ban (with differing positions on what loopholes should be carved out.)
  - tomc1985 5y ago
    The link contradicts your statement > Most Americans support an abortion ban Doesn't imply the same thing as > Fewer take the position that in all cases abortion should be [...] legal (25%)
atq2119 5y ago
Technically, one could make arguments based on genetics for the "middle" position. Something like: allowing abortion following rape puts a damper on the spread of genes that tend to lead towards rape. That's probably not a good argument. I'm just playing devil's advocate for why that position isn't necessarily self-contradictory.
- KittenInABox 5y ago
  Allowing abortion for purposes of eugenics is self-contradictory with the notion that life should be inviolate.
  - atq2119 5y ago
    That's not self-contradictory though -- it's just good old contradiction with a different position. So a person who only holds one of those beliefs would potentially be fine, as far as self-contradiction is concerned. Besides, beliefs can be prioritized and in shades of gray. Somebody could value the life of an embryo very highly (going so far as to call it "inviolate" at times when they aren't carefully weighing their beliefs -- few people do that all the time, so we should allow for some lapses in precision), but still believe that certain other concerns trump it. After all, most pro-choice folks do value the life of an embryo highly, they just believe that the mother's rights over her body are even more important.
onethought 5y ago
As your example you use a weird right wing wedge issue. How about science based climate change where people think you can literally compromise on physics/math and make 2+2=5 because 4 is just too inconvenient. Edit: (I’ll clarify: Abortion is used as a kind of hack into the religious/cultural background of Americans. It is purposefully used to divide political debate in a non rational way).
- esyir 5y ago
  It's a weird left wing wedge issue too. The point of a wedge is that it cleanly divides. They're thus bipartisan, almost by definition.
  - onethought 5y ago
    No, because it requires religious conservatism. Which is very much in the right sphere of the political spectrum. Take a peak outside of the US and make note of how abortion is not a wedge issue, which if you were correct should not be possible.
    - esyir 5y ago
      The US left aligned view on this is also beyond that of most of the eu. They've basically come to differing consensi on what limits to engage, whether they be waiting periods or time periods.the US left would despise German abortion law for instance, which requires mandatory counselling about their decision. What I see from the US is an eternal war to drag it further, regardless of its current position. Its culture war for culture wars sake.
watwut 5y ago
> Most Americans support an abortion ban This is not true. They support restrictions that are way smaller then the "only rape" one.
hn_one_off 5y ago
Actually, this seems like a coherent position: they believe that fetuses are somewhat like a human person, but not entirely. They should generally be protected, but in exceptional cases might not be.
tjs8rj 5y ago
Very few people decide the value of a fetus on a binary. Some leftists say it’s always just a clump of cells, some rightists say it’s always a human life. Most people just don’t know. Immediately after conception it’s clearly just a clump of cells, immediately before birth it’s clearly a baby. Hence why most Americans are between lots of exceptions and few exceptions. In general, if lots of people feel a certain way, and your conclusion is completely contradictory, you should assume you’re wrong until strong evidence says otherwise. You’re essentially assuming you know better than everyone.
- slumdev 5y ago
  > In general, if lots of people feel a certain way, and your conclusion is completely contradictory, you should assume you’re wrong until strong evidence says otherwise. This is a useful heuristic for becoming popular but not for making moral decisions. It is the worst possible approach to forming one's conscience. > You’re essentially assuming you know better than everyone. You're assuming everyone else formed a reasoned opinion rather than following the loudest existing herd.
  - tjs8rj 5y ago
    In general, people are about as intelligent as you, and at least the same order of magnitude. People are prone to trends as much as the market is, but the market of ideas tends to be somewhat efficient (not least because all profits from financial to business to psychic stem from people and their expectations). So the conclusion that everyone is wrong requires serious burden of proof. Doesn’t mean you can’t be contradictory and correct, it just means that’s unlikely. You can beat the market, but usually you won’t without good evidence This is less true with morals, unless you’re a relativist.
    - dragonwriter 5y ago
      > In general, people are about as intelligent as you, and at least the same order of magnitude. > This is less true with morals, unless you’re a relativist. Even assuming moral absolutism is valid, that very much depends on what measure you choose to apply to values that, even if they are naturally quantifiable (which I doubt for morality, even one assumes it is absolute), clearly have no obvious natural ratio-level measure, making orders of magnitude and other ratio-dependent comparisons entirely arbitrary.

tomc1985 5y ago

> Most Americans support an abortion ban, but they also support exceptions for rape or incest. This is news to me, can you qualify this statement?

slumdev 5y ago
https://www.pewforum.org/fact-sheet/public-opinion-on-abortion/ https://www.pewforum.org/fact-sheet/public-opinion-on-aborti... > Fewer take the position that in all cases abortion should be [...] legal (25%) 75% of Americans support some kind of ban (with differing positions on what loopholes should be carved out.)
- tomc1985 5y ago
  The link contradicts your statement > Most Americans support an abortion ban Doesn't imply the same thing as > Fewer take the position that in all cases abortion should be [...] legal (25%)

atq2119 5y ago

Technically, one could make arguments based on genetics for the "middle" position. Something like: allowing abortion following rape puts a damper on the spread of genes that tend to lead towards rape. That's probably not a good argument. I'm just playing devil's advocate for why that position isn't necessarily self-contradictory.

KittenInABox 5y ago
Allowing abortion for purposes of eugenics is self-contradictory with the notion that life should be inviolate.
- atq2119 5y ago
  That's not self-contradictory though -- it's just good old contradiction with a different position. So a person who only holds one of those beliefs would potentially be fine, as far as self-contradiction is concerned. Besides, beliefs can be prioritized and in shades of gray. Somebody could value the life of an embryo very highly (going so far as to call it "inviolate" at times when they aren't carefully weighing their beliefs -- few people do that all the time, so we should allow for some lapses in precision), but still believe that certain other concerns trump it. After all, most pro-choice folks do value the life of an embryo highly, they just believe that the mother's rights over her body are even more important.

onethought 5y ago

As your example you use a weird right wing wedge issue. How about science based climate change where people think you can literally compromise on physics/math and make 2+2=5 because 4 is just too inconvenient. Edit: (I’ll clarify: Abortion is used as a kind of hack into the religious/cultural background of Americans. It is purposefully used to divide political debate in a non rational way).

esyir 5y ago
It's a weird left wing wedge issue too. The point of a wedge is that it cleanly divides. They're thus bipartisan, almost by definition.
- onethought 5y ago
  No, because it requires religious conservatism. Which is very much in the right sphere of the political spectrum. Take a peak outside of the US and make note of how abortion is not a wedge issue, which if you were correct should not be possible.
  - esyir 5y ago
    The US left aligned view on this is also beyond that of most of the eu. They've basically come to differing consensi on what limits to engage, whether they be waiting periods or time periods.the US left would despise German abortion law for instance, which requires mandatory counselling about their decision. What I see from the US is an eternal war to drag it further, regardless of its current position. Its culture war for culture wars sake.

watwut 5y ago

> Most Americans support an abortion ban This is not true. They support restrictions that are way smaller then the "only rape" one.

hn_one_off 5y ago

Actually, this seems like a coherent position: they believe that fetuses are somewhat like a human person, but not entirely. They should generally be protected, but in exceptional cases might not be.

tjs8rj 5y ago

Very few people decide the value of a fetus on a binary. Some leftists say it’s always just a clump of cells, some rightists say it’s always a human life. Most people just don’t know. Immediately after conception it’s clearly just a clump of cells, immediately before birth it’s clearly a baby. Hence why most Americans are between lots of exceptions and few exceptions. In general, if lots of people feel a certain way, and your conclusion is completely contradictory, you should assume you’re wrong until strong evidence says otherwise. You’re essentially assuming you know better than everyone.

slumdev 5y ago
> In general, if lots of people feel a certain way, and your conclusion is completely contradictory, you should assume you’re wrong until strong evidence says otherwise. This is a useful heuristic for becoming popular but not for making moral decisions. It is the worst possible approach to forming one's conscience. > You’re essentially assuming you know better than everyone. You're assuming everyone else formed a reasoned opinion rather than following the loudest existing herd.
- tjs8rj 5y ago
  In general, people are about as intelligent as you, and at least the same order of magnitude. People are prone to trends as much as the market is, but the market of ideas tends to be somewhat efficient (not least because all profits from financial to business to psychic stem from people and their expectations). So the conclusion that everyone is wrong requires serious burden of proof. Doesn’t mean you can’t be contradictory and correct, it just means that’s unlikely. You can beat the market, but usually you won’t without good evidence This is less true with morals, unless you’re a relativist.
  - dragonwriter 5y ago
    > In general, people are about as intelligent as you, and at least the same order of magnitude. > This is less true with morals, unless you’re a relativist. Even assuming moral absolutism is valid, that very much depends on what measure you choose to apply to values that, even if they are naturally quantifiable (which I doubt for morality, even one assumes it is absolute), clearly have no obvious natural ratio-level measure, making orders of magnitude and other ratio-dependent comparisons entirely arbitrary.