4 ms·

> It should be left to the states, who will enact varying policies according to what the consciences of the majority of their citizens tell them. That went wel

> It should be left to the states, who will enact varying policies according to what the consciences of the majority of their citizens tell them. That went well for Texas' abortion law, didn't it..? Majority is also not always right, not when it's used to tyrannise the minority.

pdonis 5y ago
> That went well for Texas' abortion law, didn't it..? That would depend on what your conscience says, wouldn't it? > Majority is also not always right, not when it's used to tyrannise the minority. If a person's conscience tells them that abortion is murder, how would enacting a law against it, for that person, be any different than enacting a law against murder? Nobody argues that laws against murder are "tyrannizing the minority" who want to commit murder. Or, to look at it the other way, if a person's conscience tells them that abortion is murder, but the majority in the state they live in think it isn't, and the laws of the state they live in, which are in accord with the wishes of the majority, permit abortions liberally, is that majority "tyrannizing" that person?
- matsemann 5y ago
  Why isn't then the anti-abortion laws similar to laws for murder? Can you sue strangers for murdering some other strangers? I don't buy the "my point is that it's murder"-arguments, as the behaviors from those people don't really align with that. Why not instead focus on stuff that science and experience tell will reduce the amount of abortions and human suffering? My guess: Because it's mostly about control of others, right?
  - native_samples 5y ago
    Isn't this whole thread about those people getting rid of an impediment to changing the laws (in some places) to make it be treated more like murder? You seem to be condemning the pro-life contingent for doing the very thing they're now being also condemned for.
  - pdonis 5y ago
    > Why not instead focus on stuff that science and experience tell will reduce the amount of abortions and human suffering? That kind of argument would not support the Roe and Casey viability standard for when states can ban abortions, since our current science and experience says that an abortion will cause suffering to the fetus well before viability. > Because it's mostly about control of others, right? A woman getting an abortion is controlling another: the fetus. She is determining the fate of that fetus without the fetus being able to defend itself. A big part of the problem with the "bodily autonomy" side of the abortion issue is that they only talk about the woman, never about the fetus. The hard truth is that once a woman is pregnant, it's no longer just about her. Any reasonable concept of personal responsibility will require the woman to take the fetus's interests into account and will not support a claim that a woman has a right to an abortion just because she has a right to "autonomy".
    - matsemann 5y ago
      My point was really that if you want to reduce the amount of abortions, do stuff that actually helps: promote sexual education, support free and available contraceptive, support government programs that help families so that having a kid is less of a financial burden, support longer maternity leave. Etc etc etc. All stuff that will reduce abortions. Isn't that the goal? So why are mist people against abortion also against most of this stuff? And we all know that outlawing abortions doesn't stop them. It just makes them more dangerous and lead to more suffering for everyone involved. So what is really your goal here? Tell me.
      - pdonis 5y ago
        > if you want to reduce the amount of abortions, do stuff that actually helps: promote sexual education, support free and available contraceptive, support government programs that help families so that having a kid is less of a financial burden, support longer maternity leave. Our society already does most of these things. One I would add is adoption. > All stuff that will reduce abortions. Isn't that the goal? I don't think reducing the number of abortions is the goal of many pro-abortion people, no. I think they just want a convenient way to not have to deal with a child they don't want by making it just go away. > why are mist people against abortion also against most of this stuff? Many people who are for abortion are also against much of this stuff. > we all know that outlawing abortions doesn't stop them. It just makes them more dangerous and lead to more suffering for everyone involved. This argument assumes that abortion is not inherently wrong. Many people who oppose abortion do believe that it is inherently wrong. If abortion is inherently wrong, it should not be legal even if some people will choose to do it knowing it is illegal, and having to do it by more dangerous means. If they choose to do it knowing it's illegal, that's their choice and they will have to bear the consequences. > what is really your goal here? As far as I my personal policy preference? I think the fact that there is such profound disagreement about whether abortion is wrong means that there should not be one single policy dictated to everyone. Different states should be able to have different policies.

pdonis 5y ago

> That went well for Texas' abortion law, didn't it..? That would depend on what your conscience says, wouldn't it? > Majority is also not always right, not when it's used to tyrannise the minority. If a person's conscience tells them that abortion is murder, how would enacting a law against it, for that person, be any different than enacting a law against murder? Nobody argues that laws against murder are "tyrannizing the minority" who want to commit murder. Or, to look at it the other way, if a person's conscience tells them that abortion is murder, but the majority in the state they live in think it isn't, and the laws of the state they live in, which are in accord with the wishes of the majority, permit abortions liberally, is that majority "tyrannizing" that person?

matsemann 5y ago
Why isn't then the anti-abortion laws similar to laws for murder? Can you sue strangers for murdering some other strangers? I don't buy the "my point is that it's murder"-arguments, as the behaviors from those people don't really align with that. Why not instead focus on stuff that science and experience tell will reduce the amount of abortions and human suffering? My guess: Because it's mostly about control of others, right?
- native_samples 5y ago
  Isn't this whole thread about those people getting rid of an impediment to changing the laws (in some places) to make it be treated more like murder? You seem to be condemning the pro-life contingent for doing the very thing they're now being also condemned for.
- pdonis 5y ago
  > Why not instead focus on stuff that science and experience tell will reduce the amount of abortions and human suffering? That kind of argument would not support the Roe and Casey viability standard for when states can ban abortions, since our current science and experience says that an abortion will cause suffering to the fetus well before viability. > Because it's mostly about control of others, right? A woman getting an abortion is controlling another: the fetus. She is determining the fate of that fetus without the fetus being able to defend itself. A big part of the problem with the "bodily autonomy" side of the abortion issue is that they only talk about the woman, never about the fetus. The hard truth is that once a woman is pregnant, it's no longer just about her. Any reasonable concept of personal responsibility will require the woman to take the fetus's interests into account and will not support a claim that a woman has a right to an abortion just because she has a right to "autonomy".
  - matsemann 5y ago
    My point was really that if you want to reduce the amount of abortions, do stuff that actually helps: promote sexual education, support free and available contraceptive, support government programs that help families so that having a kid is less of a financial burden, support longer maternity leave. Etc etc etc. All stuff that will reduce abortions. Isn't that the goal? So why are mist people against abortion also against most of this stuff? And we all know that outlawing abortions doesn't stop them. It just makes them more dangerous and lead to more suffering for everyone involved. So what is really your goal here? Tell me.
    - pdonis 5y ago
      > if you want to reduce the amount of abortions, do stuff that actually helps: promote sexual education, support free and available contraceptive, support government programs that help families so that having a kid is less of a financial burden, support longer maternity leave. Our society already does most of these things. One I would add is adoption. > All stuff that will reduce abortions. Isn't that the goal? I don't think reducing the number of abortions is the goal of many pro-abortion people, no. I think they just want a convenient way to not have to deal with a child they don't want by making it just go away. > why are mist people against abortion also against most of this stuff? Many people who are for abortion are also against much of this stuff. > we all know that outlawing abortions doesn't stop them. It just makes them more dangerous and lead to more suffering for everyone involved. This argument assumes that abortion is not inherently wrong. Many people who oppose abortion do believe that it is inherently wrong. If abortion is inherently wrong, it should not be legal even if some people will choose to do it knowing it is illegal, and having to do it by more dangerous means. If they choose to do it knowing it's illegal, that's their choice and they will have to bear the consequences. > what is really your goal here? As far as I my personal policy preference? I think the fact that there is such profound disagreement about whether abortion is wrong means that there should not be one single policy dictated to everyone. Different states should be able to have different policies.