7 ms·

Abortion is really a very simple issue, those who say it is about "regulating women" attack a straw man. Pro-lifers believe that abortion is murder of the baby.

Abortion is really a very simple issue, those who say it is about "regulating women" attack a straw man. Pro-lifers believe that abortion is murder of the baby. This trumps a woman's right for a medical procedure. So the question about whether it's a private medical choice or an issue of bodily autonomy doesn't even enter into the discussion. There are laws against murdering someone other ways that restrict bodily autonomy, but we aren't bothered by those; as the saying goes, your rights stop where your fist hits my nose. On the voting law I think it's reasonable in most places. Poll-watching isn't a problem, and ID requirements aren't a big issue. I disagree with the law in that people should be able to distribute mail-in ballots since the new ID requirements make them more resistant to fraud. Not sure what you mean about removing electoral rights. I am, however, bothered by the fact that it (and most other voting laws) are driven by "stolen election" lies, which is almost worse than people trying to hang onto power (which they've done with re-districting/gerrymandering for a long time already).

bambax 5y ago
> Abortion is really a very simple issue, those who say it is about "regulating women" attack a straw man. Pro-lifers believe that abortion is murder of the baby. Doubtful. So-called "pro-lifers" are also, generally, against other forms of birth-control, including pills and condoms. Also, even if they did believe that an embryo is a baby, that doesn't make it so. What they "believe" (or say they believe) shouldn't matter; what matters is what is.
- beaner 5y ago
  > So-called "pro-lifers" are also, generally, against other forms of birth-control, including pills and condoms. You might need a source on this one. This certainly applies to some religious types, but is it a "general" truth for people who would pass the heartbeat law? A law which still allows abortion but identifies a test for when life begins? I don't think so.
- amanaplanacanal 5y ago
  Last time I tried to find a pro-life organization that wasn't also anti birth control, I couldn't find one. I suspect that's because they were funded mostly by the catholic church.
- collegeburner 5y ago
  Well, maybe some do, but I don't see similar efforts to restrict access to pills and condoms. Mostly arguments on these involve access by youth, whether to give them away for free, and whether insurance should pay for them. Some nutty evangelicals may want them banned, I suppose. I should have been clearer. What we are really questioning is what counts as a human life. These days many babies that would have died from premature birth can be delivered early and survive; that line moves further back in pregnancy every year.
- moxzyros 5y ago
  Not true. My church and I have no beef with birth-control. It is the issue of whether the unborn are people in the eyes of God that drives conviction. And things aren't so simple. You cannot demonstrate the unborn are sentient anymore than animals. We cannot demonstrate that either. We choose to err on the side of the unborn out of fear if we're wrong.
  - beerandt 5y ago
    Even the Catholic view on birth control, which is essentially that it interferes with "putting your life in God's hands", isn't anywhere near it's stance on abortion, which is that life is sacred at the moment of conception.
  - orwin 5y ago
    Mmm, actually, are you saying that we should force people to be vegetarian by the law while preventing suffering from chicken and milk cows? Or should we let people to decide by themselves what to eat? I actually know a farmer who only eat his pigs when they die of old age (he use them to find mushrooms, expensive mushrooms), pigs being very successfull in front of the mirror test and definitely sentient and more self-aware than a 4-year old, i wonder if he took that into consideration. I for sure don't care, but if i was forced by the law, i would stop eating meat without protesting, so i guess win for the overall suffering and win for the climate? Maybe your church is onto something.
  - sevilo 5y ago
    You are basically saying because some of you believe in God you have the right to force your beliefs on everyone else which is the biggest issue I have with so called pro-lifers. Pushing their religion and worse yet mixing that into policy making.
- ta8902 5y ago
  >Doubtful. So-called "pro-lifers" are also, generally, against other forms of birth-control, including pills and condoms. Funny, that's the exact same strawman OP was talking about.
- HelloNurse 5y ago
  > Also, even if they did believe that an embryo is a baby, that doesn't make it so. What they "believe" (or say they believe) shouldn't matter; what matters is what is. I understand that the things you believe are facts, and the things others believe are opinions? Whether abortion is murder is a strictly philosophical question, not a scientific one: there are a lot of facts to consider (beyond religious principles and thinly veiled misogyny) but they are only as relevant and decisive as one considers them.
- andrewfong 5y ago
  Anec-data, but I've seen pro-lifers both for and against birth control, so perhaps this is some variance here. In any event, I don't think being against birth control suggests the belief that a fetus deserves the rights of a child is necessarily implies the belief is in bad faith. Or at least, no more so than believing that murder should be a crime but supporting policies that indirectly lead to more murders (e.g. supporting policies that increase poverty or gun violence). The more interesting gotcha for me is when pro-lifers concede an exception for rape. I don't think they believe a child born of rape is somehow less deserving of life than a broken condom. So that suggests the belief is less about simple life and death and more about a person's sexual choices.
  - josephcsible 5y ago
    > So that suggests the belief is less about simple life and death and more about a person's sexual choices. I don't think it's that, but rather a realpolitik reason: a new bill that contains such an exception is easier to pass into law.
gjsman-1000 5y ago
In which case it's very simple: Is a fetus/embryo a baby or not? And what is the logical conclusion of that?
- lenkite 5y ago
  More importantly, is a fetus 6 weeks after conception, after the development of the umbilical cord, a baby or not ? We can take the view that as long as the child is inside the mother, then the mother's choice trumps the right of the child to exist. After all, the mother's body is hosting the child. Or we can take the view that rights of life immediately after conception is sacred and must be upheld. Or we can take the view, that the fetus is considered a human being after some X amount of time in the mother's womb. Maybe until the umbilical cord is developed and nutrient-transfer, pseudo-breathing begins ? Or maybe only within the first trimester ? I actually don't know what is the right decision. Though I am personally more in the line of "My Body, My Choice", but that includes vaccination. (even if I am fully vaccinated). I wish humanity developed artificial wombs and full social support system from baby to adulthood so this question goes away.
  - beerandt 5y ago
    The mother's choice is made by partaking in the act that leads to conception. Courts have zero problems legally binding men to that act.
- beaner 5y ago
  It is an interesting question. Clearly by the end of the term the baby can be forced out and live. It cannot live independently - but neither can a baby that has been born naturally. It takes like, five years for that. So dependence on the mother is not part of the definition of life. So when does it start? When does it go from cells to alive inside the mother? No answer. Activists will shout "my body" all day but clearly there may be a second living entity that is not their body. Nobody is willing to come propose a rational concept of when a baby's life begins. I suspect, these days, because it would result in a determination similar to Texas'. Activists also say it's "men controlling women's bodies" but never acknowledge that half the voters are women. I'm not even pro-life. But none of the pro-choice takes are in good faith. If you want to be perceived as rational and therefore be more convincing, (1) acknowledge that it is not a men-vs-women topic, and (2) propose a sane test for when life begins. Seems so bizarre that so many people supposedly believe in "science" but cannot figure out (2).
colinmhayes 5y ago
I don't see how it matters whether the fetus is alive or not. If it can't survive outside the mother then the mother has the right to kill it. If you caused a car accident which lead to the other person needing a kidney transplant that only you can provide should you be required to give up a kidney? I don't see how abortion is different. Either way you made a risky choice that you knew could cause someone's life to be dependent on you. That doesn't mean you're forced to save the person.
- garmaine 5y ago
  > I don't see how it matters whether the fetus is alive or not. If it can't survive outside the mother then the mother has the right to kill it. This is a valid position to hold, but hardly a non-controversial one. We have, as a society, agreed that the state’s role is to step in to defend the defenseless in cases of large power asymmetry, as would be the case here. Indeed this general principle is usually a leftist position. > Either way you made a risky choice that you knew could cause someone's life to be dependent on you. That doesn't mean you're forced to save the person. Actually it does (speaking generally, not to your specific example). Criminal or civil negligence is a thing.
- anonymouse008 5y ago
  > I don't see how it matters whether the fetus is alive or not. If it can't survive outside the mother then the mother has the right to kill it. I shuddered a bit reading this. By this logic, at any point where I am dependent on someone else for my survival in passage (say an airplane) the principle in the relationship (the pilot or airline) has a right to kill me? If that’s the logic, then we can squarely see that we have chosen to punish those who have any responsibility in that situation. Re: wrongful death
  - colinmhayes 5y ago
    Having sex is not agreeing to carry around another person for 9 months. Consent is important. I don't think society has agreed that we punish people who kill others in car accidents, but I'd love examples of when we have and the person at fault wasn't drunk.
thatcat 5y ago
They use that argument (that it is murder) to appeal to the emotions of others so they can justify controlling the lives of nonreligious people who have premarital sex. Unless they also support social programs for that fetus when it actually becomes a baby, and eventually a child, it seems pretty disingenuous.
tomjen3 5y ago
I have seen that argued a lot, but it doesn't hold up to any scrutiny for the general group that claim to hold these views[0]. If that was the case, they would be working to make condoms and BC, especially semi-permanent BC like IUDs, much more widely available and they would work hard (they are trying to save lives here) to ensure excellent sex education. There also wouldn't be exceptions for women who had been raped (terrible fate, but the kid shouldn't be killed for it). If on the other hand this is about punishing women for having sex, then they would try to prevent access to BC, as it removes the risk of pregnancy, and would have exemption for women who were raped because they didn't do anything worth punishing. Of course I haven't seen anybody who is against abortions arguing that we should make spare kidney donations mandatory, despite the fact that people (who are, without a doubt, people) die waiting for a transplant. If you are not willing to make that argument, I don't see how you can logically argue against abortion. [0]: I am not claiming that some individuals don't hold that belief.
hn_throwaway_99 5y ago
> Abortion is really a very simple issue, those who say it is about "regulating women" attack a straw man. Pro-lifers believe that abortion is murder of the baby. This trumps a woman's right for a medical procedure. That's a very weird take on the issue, specifically because I agree with you in many respects, but that is exactly why abortion is a very complex issue. The fundamental question is "when does individual human life begin?" Yes, pro-lifers believe that it begins at conception, but why should their beliefs take precedence? I don't believe at all that an early embryo/fetus at 6 weeks is "an individual" in the human sense, where abortion would equal murder. Of course, the problem is that when a fetus does become a full-fledged human is a gray line - pretty much everyone believes it occurs at some point between conception and birth, but where you draw that line is why this is a difficult, complex issue, not the "simple" one you seem to believe it is.

bambax 5y ago

> Abortion is really a very simple issue, those who say it is about "regulating women" attack a straw man. Pro-lifers believe that abortion is murder of the baby. Doubtful. So-called "pro-lifers" are also, generally, against other forms of birth-control, including pills and condoms. Also, even if they did believe that an embryo is a baby, that doesn't make it so. What they "believe" (or say they believe) shouldn't matter; what matters is what is.

beaner 5y ago
> So-called "pro-lifers" are also, generally, against other forms of birth-control, including pills and condoms. You might need a source on this one. This certainly applies to some religious types, but is it a "general" truth for people who would pass the heartbeat law? A law which still allows abortion but identifies a test for when life begins? I don't think so.
amanaplanacanal 5y ago
Last time I tried to find a pro-life organization that wasn't also anti birth control, I couldn't find one. I suspect that's because they were funded mostly by the catholic church.
collegeburner 5y ago
Well, maybe some do, but I don't see similar efforts to restrict access to pills and condoms. Mostly arguments on these involve access by youth, whether to give them away for free, and whether insurance should pay for them. Some nutty evangelicals may want them banned, I suppose. I should have been clearer. What we are really questioning is what counts as a human life. These days many babies that would have died from premature birth can be delivered early and survive; that line moves further back in pregnancy every year.
moxzyros 5y ago
Not true. My church and I have no beef with birth-control. It is the issue of whether the unborn are people in the eyes of God that drives conviction. And things aren't so simple. You cannot demonstrate the unborn are sentient anymore than animals. We cannot demonstrate that either. We choose to err on the side of the unborn out of fear if we're wrong.
- beerandt 5y ago
  Even the Catholic view on birth control, which is essentially that it interferes with "putting your life in God's hands", isn't anywhere near it's stance on abortion, which is that life is sacred at the moment of conception.
- orwin 5y ago
  Mmm, actually, are you saying that we should force people to be vegetarian by the law while preventing suffering from chicken and milk cows? Or should we let people to decide by themselves what to eat? I actually know a farmer who only eat his pigs when they die of old age (he use them to find mushrooms, expensive mushrooms), pigs being very successfull in front of the mirror test and definitely sentient and more self-aware than a 4-year old, i wonder if he took that into consideration. I for sure don't care, but if i was forced by the law, i would stop eating meat without protesting, so i guess win for the overall suffering and win for the climate? Maybe your church is onto something.
- sevilo 5y ago
  You are basically saying because some of you believe in God you have the right to force your beliefs on everyone else which is the biggest issue I have with so called pro-lifers. Pushing their religion and worse yet mixing that into policy making.
ta8902 5y ago
>Doubtful. So-called "pro-lifers" are also, generally, against other forms of birth-control, including pills and condoms. Funny, that's the exact same strawman OP was talking about.
HelloNurse 5y ago
> Also, even if they did believe that an embryo is a baby, that doesn't make it so. What they "believe" (or say they believe) shouldn't matter; what matters is what is. I understand that the things you believe are facts, and the things others believe are opinions? Whether abortion is murder is a strictly philosophical question, not a scientific one: there are a lot of facts to consider (beyond religious principles and thinly veiled misogyny) but they are only as relevant and decisive as one considers them.
andrewfong 5y ago
Anec-data, but I've seen pro-lifers both for and against birth control, so perhaps this is some variance here. In any event, I don't think being against birth control suggests the belief that a fetus deserves the rights of a child is necessarily implies the belief is in bad faith. Or at least, no more so than believing that murder should be a crime but supporting policies that indirectly lead to more murders (e.g. supporting policies that increase poverty or gun violence). The more interesting gotcha for me is when pro-lifers concede an exception for rape. I don't think they believe a child born of rape is somehow less deserving of life than a broken condom. So that suggests the belief is less about simple life and death and more about a person's sexual choices.
- josephcsible 5y ago
  > So that suggests the belief is less about simple life and death and more about a person's sexual choices. I don't think it's that, but rather a realpolitik reason: a new bill that contains such an exception is easier to pass into law.

gjsman-1000 5y ago

In which case it's very simple: Is a fetus/embryo a baby or not? And what is the logical conclusion of that?

lenkite 5y ago
More importantly, is a fetus 6 weeks after conception, after the development of the umbilical cord, a baby or not ? We can take the view that as long as the child is inside the mother, then the mother's choice trumps the right of the child to exist. After all, the mother's body is hosting the child. Or we can take the view that rights of life immediately after conception is sacred and must be upheld. Or we can take the view, that the fetus is considered a human being after some X amount of time in the mother's womb. Maybe until the umbilical cord is developed and nutrient-transfer, pseudo-breathing begins ? Or maybe only within the first trimester ? I actually don't know what is the right decision. Though I am personally more in the line of "My Body, My Choice", but that includes vaccination. (even if I am fully vaccinated). I wish humanity developed artificial wombs and full social support system from baby to adulthood so this question goes away.
- beerandt 5y ago
  The mother's choice is made by partaking in the act that leads to conception. Courts have zero problems legally binding men to that act.
beaner 5y ago
It is an interesting question. Clearly by the end of the term the baby can be forced out and live. It cannot live independently - but neither can a baby that has been born naturally. It takes like, five years for that. So dependence on the mother is not part of the definition of life. So when does it start? When does it go from cells to alive inside the mother? No answer. Activists will shout "my body" all day but clearly there may be a second living entity that is not their body. Nobody is willing to come propose a rational concept of when a baby's life begins. I suspect, these days, because it would result in a determination similar to Texas'. Activists also say it's "men controlling women's bodies" but never acknowledge that half the voters are women. I'm not even pro-life. But none of the pro-choice takes are in good faith. If you want to be perceived as rational and therefore be more convincing, (1) acknowledge that it is not a men-vs-women topic, and (2) propose a sane test for when life begins. Seems so bizarre that so many people supposedly believe in "science" but cannot figure out (2).

colinmhayes 5y ago

I don't see how it matters whether the fetus is alive or not. If it can't survive outside the mother then the mother has the right to kill it. If you caused a car accident which lead to the other person needing a kidney transplant that only you can provide should you be required to give up a kidney? I don't see how abortion is different. Either way you made a risky choice that you knew could cause someone's life to be dependent on you. That doesn't mean you're forced to save the person.

garmaine 5y ago
> I don't see how it matters whether the fetus is alive or not. If it can't survive outside the mother then the mother has the right to kill it. This is a valid position to hold, but hardly a non-controversial one. We have, as a society, agreed that the state’s role is to step in to defend the defenseless in cases of large power asymmetry, as would be the case here. Indeed this general principle is usually a leftist position. > Either way you made a risky choice that you knew could cause someone's life to be dependent on you. That doesn't mean you're forced to save the person. Actually it does (speaking generally, not to your specific example). Criminal or civil negligence is a thing.
anonymouse008 5y ago
> I don't see how it matters whether the fetus is alive or not. If it can't survive outside the mother then the mother has the right to kill it. I shuddered a bit reading this. By this logic, at any point where I am dependent on someone else for my survival in passage (say an airplane) the principle in the relationship (the pilot or airline) has a right to kill me? If that’s the logic, then we can squarely see that we have chosen to punish those who have any responsibility in that situation. Re: wrongful death
- colinmhayes 5y ago
  Having sex is not agreeing to carry around another person for 9 months. Consent is important. I don't think society has agreed that we punish people who kill others in car accidents, but I'd love examples of when we have and the person at fault wasn't drunk.

thatcat 5y ago

They use that argument (that it is murder) to appeal to the emotions of others so they can justify controlling the lives of nonreligious people who have premarital sex. Unless they also support social programs for that fetus when it actually becomes a baby, and eventually a child, it seems pretty disingenuous.

tomjen3 5y ago

I have seen that argued a lot, but it doesn't hold up to any scrutiny for the general group that claim to hold these views[0]. If that was the case, they would be working to make condoms and BC, especially semi-permanent BC like IUDs, much more widely available and they would work hard (they are trying to save lives here) to ensure excellent sex education. There also wouldn't be exceptions for women who had been raped (terrible fate, but the kid shouldn't be killed for it). If on the other hand this is about punishing women for having sex, then they would try to prevent access to BC, as it removes the risk of pregnancy, and would have exemption for women who were raped because they didn't do anything worth punishing. Of course I haven't seen anybody who is against abortions arguing that we should make spare kidney donations mandatory, despite the fact that people (who are, without a doubt, people) die waiting for a transplant. If you are not willing to make that argument, I don't see how you can logically argue against abortion. [0]: I am not claiming that some individuals don't hold that belief.

hn_throwaway_99 5y ago

> Abortion is really a very simple issue, those who say it is about "regulating women" attack a straw man. Pro-lifers believe that abortion is murder of the baby. This trumps a woman's right for a medical procedure. That's a very weird take on the issue, specifically because I agree with you in many respects, but that is exactly why abortion is a very complex issue. The fundamental question is "when does individual human life begin?" Yes, pro-lifers believe that it begins at conception, but why should their beliefs take precedence? I don't believe at all that an early embryo/fetus at 6 weeks is "an individual" in the human sense, where abortion would equal murder. Of course, the problem is that when a fetus does become a full-fledged human is a gray line - pretty much everyone believes it occurs at some point between conception and birth, but where you draw that line is why this is a difficult, complex issue, not the "simple" one you seem to believe it is.