15 ms·

It is frustrating. I am on one side of the abortion debate, but I understand the other side, yet I have no success in even explaining it to my side.

corrral 4y ago
I'm pro-choice, but from what I can tell, the pro-choicers who are eager to post about it on the Internet have no clue whatsoever about the actual positions of the people they're arguing against. They're also weirdly-big fans of very weak pro-choice arguments. It's really frustrating. Attempts to explain the other side, or to knock down bad arguments from "my" side so better ones can replace them, are indeed often met with unpleasantness.
- MockObject 4y ago
  This has been my experience as well. I found myself arguing against the awful logic of my own side, more than the other side at all.
  - aendruk 4y ago
    I’m interested to know if there’s a term for this phenomenon. I too find myself frequently engaging “against” my own side, out of a sincere desire to strengthen it and a sensitivity to how its weaker arguments reflect poorly on me.
- sjostrom7 4y ago
  I (100% pro-choice) think they just get bored with hammering on the bodily autonomy aspect, so they start making posts about what the bible "really" says about abortion and other weak, as you say, arguments. I really think they get tired of saying the same thing over and over, even though it's important. I know I do.
  - adastra22 4y ago
    Bodily autonomy is still ignoring the pro-lifer position though, who would argue “what about the baby’s rights?”
    - sjostrom7 4y ago
      Not ignoring it. Just refusing to accept that the rights of the pregnancy supersede the rights of the human carrying it.
      - MockObject 4y ago
        Perhaps "ignoring" means refusing to entertain it even for the sake of argument. Bodily autonomy is probably a weak argument, because it assumes that the fetus isn't a living human being deserving of the same protections against slaughter that you and I enjoy. If it is, bodily autonomy doesn't justify murder. If it's not, then protecting it from abortion is absurd. In neither case though, is bodily autonomy a compelling argument.
        sjostrom7 4y ago
        Disagree. You can turn up the personhood all the way and still, in a scenario where a child was dying and needed a kidney and their parent was the only available match, the parent could not be legally forced to donate it. Why? They own their body and can't be forced to put themselves through bodily harm to help someone else. You seem to be saying that "personhood" should be the deciding factor of abortion rights, but "personhood" is never going to be resolved to everyone's satisfaction. Bodily autonomy can and should be.
        adastra22 4y ago
        Great job. Now take it the other extreme: is it okay to kill a baby that had already been born, but was still attached by the umbilical cord? It’s still, technically, part of the mother’s body at that point.
        4y ago
- lazide 4y ago
  One thing I’ve come to realize over the years - words are rarely about what they seem on the surface or their contents, but almost always: 1) trying to convince or manipulate someone else or themselves to their benefit, either to agree with them (which feels good), or do something they want (which feels good) 2) self awareness, especially on self mental health, is in extremely short supply.
- adastra22 4y ago
  Thank you for sharing this. I used to be pro-choice. I think a lot of women (and men) are because of the fear they might be in a position of needing an abortion themselves, or other abstract/potential concerns. Framed as a right to body autonomy, pro-choice seemed the obvious position of any feminist, and how could you possibly believe otherwise? Then I was in the position of having to make the decision myself. Now, years removed, I still don't feel comfortable posting details online, even under a pseudonym. But suffice to say my partner and I were in a position of having to decide whether to terminate a pregnancy that we had really wanted, due to unexpected medical news. Suddenly all those clever pro-choice arguments seemed hollow, now that we were in the position of making the decision ourselves. This was a real thing. She had a heartbeat. We watched her move and react on the ultrasound. We had, for weeks, imbued our hopes and dreams into this unborn child. We could terminate, but it'd be our call. We'd be pulling the trigger. In that moment I finally understood and emotionally connected with the pro-life position and "abortion is murder!" slogans. Now I recognize it is a much more complex, multi-faceted issue than I ever previously thought. Every now and then I look and my daughter and think: I almost killed you. How could I have possibly done that? I get the arguments on both sides of the issue, and I don't think that there is any simple solution. It now frustrates me to no end to see people being very loud and very vocal about what are essentially straw man versions of the opposing side's arguments, and vilifying anyone who thinks differently or has lived a different experience. Whatever happened to civil society?
  - sjostrom7 4y ago
    I understand you have strong feelings about whether you wanted an abortion, and that's totally understandable and I'm glad you are happy with the choice you made. But that's not at odds whatsoever with referring to yourself as "pro-choice". (Most folks that get abortions already have kids, so it's not like everyone has to pick "abortion" or "no abortion" for life.) I had an abortion back in the aughts, and never once regretted it, but that doesn't mean I think it was the right choice for you or anyone else that decided to continue their pregnancy. I'm glad we had the choice.
    - adastra22 4y ago
causi 4y ago
Same here. I find it very annoying that on most major issues, the sides argue at right angles to one another. They say the other side is wrong without saying what they believe is wrong. Anti-abortion activists don't address the issue of bodily autonomy and pro-abortion activists don't address the issue of the definition of personhood. If you're like me and settled on strictly-consistent stances on the topic you find yourself with some extraordinarily unpopular opinions, to both sides.
- tensor 4y ago
  If we were debating at what term we should allow abortions until then I think there is room for discussion. But the extreme position of "no abortions at all at any term" I'm simply uninterested in discussion. It's not that I don't understand their thinking. I simply do not agree and thus do not care to discuss or debate it. Here is the thing, the majority of people who actually reason and think about these topics have heard the same arguments now for 20 years or more. There is nothing new being said, there is no movement on the position of people on either side, and thus there is no more discussion. All you see is propaganda, which I don't care to engage with. So I vote and donate so that "my side" wins and that's that.
  - TimPC 4y ago
    I think a sizeable percentage of pro-lifers have not heard a coherent argument for Evictionism and have never worked their way through the violinist example. I’m not saying it will change their deeply held ideological beliefs but I highly doubt anyone has heard all arguments under the sun on this issue. I agree there is too much low-grade propaganda and a lack of good debate that makes it tempting to check out of the discourse entirely. I think we need to learn how to improve the discourse though as democracy ceases to function if people check out of nearly every issue and turn almost everything tribal.
  - causi 4y ago
    Well see that's the thing. What makes killing a human murder? I'm of the opinion that the human mind is what makes a human more valuable than a lower animal. Killing a cloned body with no cerebrum wouldn't be murder. I'm forced to concede, however, that that belief doesn't give me a reason that newborns should be more protected than fetuses as it takes months for infants to begin demonstrating consciousness and memory. If consciousness isn't the dividing line, then what is? You could say the ability to sustain life on one's own is the dividing line, but then that line is always moving. A one year old infant will die without care. A thousand years ago a six month old fetus would almost certainly die shortly after birth, but today the survival rate is nearly 100%. With today's technology a 24 week fetus has between a 60 and 70 percent chance of survival. Is killing a 24 week fetus murder? If murder is contingent on its ability to survive with modern technology, what happens as technology pushes that age smaller and smaller? Adopting a Least Convenient Possible World principle makes the questions even harder. If you could push a button to have a Star Trek style transporter instantly and painlessly teleport the fetus into an artificial womb, should you still be allowed to kill it instead?
conorcleary 4y ago
Religion is like a firewall keeping logic out based on old rules and whitelists.
- alkaloid 4y ago
  You know followers of "religion" invented empiricism (and logic and rhetoric, etc.), right? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roger_Bacon https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roger_Bacon
  - riskable 4y ago
    You know followers of <insert any random thing> invented <any random thing>, right? There's no dots to connect between one thing and the other. Someone can be a hardcore Catholic and invent an abortion device or an atheist could come up with a fancy new way of manufacturing crosses. Their stance on religion is irrelevant.
    - alkaloid 4y ago
      In this case, there are lots of dots. There are a disproportionate amount of Catholic priests represented within the scientific sphere, including the vast majority of famous ones. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Catholic_clergy_scientists https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Catholic_clergy_scient... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_lay_Catholic_scientists https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_lay_Catholic_scientist...
      - riskable 4y ago
        Again, what are you trying to say here? Some scientists are Catholics? Some of them are even famous? What does that have to do with anything?
  - v-erne 4y ago
    And nazis literally invented rockets science that allowed us to explore solar system. So whats Your point? Because clearly you are not seeing that people are not rational but rather rationalizing. Which sometimes leads them to invent useful things like empiricism, and other times things that are not so useful (ideologies, religions etc)
alkaloid 4y ago
- evan_ 4y ago
  > the extremism from the abortion-supporting side meanwhile your "side" is harassing patients, bombing clinics, murdering doctors, etc.
  - alkaloid 4y ago
    Thanks for proving my point.
- riskable 4y ago
  > the extremism from the abortion-supporting side Can you post some examples? I know the anti-choice crowd has a history of assassination, arson, bombings, death threats, kidnappings, harassment/stalking, and vandalism... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-abortion_violence https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-abortion_violence Note that Wikipedia doesn't seem to have a "pro-choice violence" page and searching around I couldn't find much beyond some vandalism.
  - alkaloid 4y ago
    - wbsss4412 4y ago
      There are all kinds of abortion restrictions in the US. [0] Even roe allowed for restrictions after the second trimester. The operative case law now allows any restrictions that don’t impose an “undue burden”. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Types_of_abortion_restrictions_in_the_United_States?wprov=sfti1 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Types_of_abortion_restrictions...
    - riskable 4y ago
      First of all: What a terribly-made PDF... It's so compressed I can't even read the text at the top. Secondly, it's just from an awful source: The Family Research Council (FRC) is designated as a hate group (for good reason!) by the Southern Poverty Law Center: https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate/extremist-files/group/family-research-council https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate/extremist-files/grou... Even after all that it has yet another problem: It uses loaded terms like, "unborn children" to cover the entire gamut of zygote, embryo, fetus, etc. Is it really that impossible for the anti-choice movement to make a reasoned argument? To cite legitimate science? To present a clear (readable, haha) basis for this position that doesn't involve religion or tradition?

corrral 4y ago

I'm pro-choice, but from what I can tell, the pro-choicers who are eager to post about it on the Internet have no clue whatsoever about the actual positions of the people they're arguing against. They're also weirdly-big fans of very weak pro-choice arguments. It's really frustrating. Attempts to explain the other side, or to knock down bad arguments from "my" side so better ones can replace them, are indeed often met with unpleasantness.

MockObject 4y ago
This has been my experience as well. I found myself arguing against the awful logic of my own side, more than the other side at all.
- aendruk 4y ago
  I’m interested to know if there’s a term for this phenomenon. I too find myself frequently engaging “against” my own side, out of a sincere desire to strengthen it and a sensitivity to how its weaker arguments reflect poorly on me.
sjostrom7 4y ago
I (100% pro-choice) think they just get bored with hammering on the bodily autonomy aspect, so they start making posts about what the bible "really" says about abortion and other weak, as you say, arguments. I really think they get tired of saying the same thing over and over, even though it's important. I know I do.
- adastra22 4y ago
  Bodily autonomy is still ignoring the pro-lifer position though, who would argue “what about the baby’s rights?”
  - sjostrom7 4y ago
    Not ignoring it. Just refusing to accept that the rights of the pregnancy supersede the rights of the human carrying it.
    - MockObject 4y ago
      Perhaps "ignoring" means refusing to entertain it even for the sake of argument. Bodily autonomy is probably a weak argument, because it assumes that the fetus isn't a living human being deserving of the same protections against slaughter that you and I enjoy. If it is, bodily autonomy doesn't justify murder. If it's not, then protecting it from abortion is absurd. In neither case though, is bodily autonomy a compelling argument.
      - sjostrom7 4y ago
        Disagree. You can turn up the personhood all the way and still, in a scenario where a child was dying and needed a kidney and their parent was the only available match, the parent could not be legally forced to donate it. Why? They own their body and can't be forced to put themselves through bodily harm to help someone else. You seem to be saying that "personhood" should be the deciding factor of abortion rights, but "personhood" is never going to be resolved to everyone's satisfaction. Bodily autonomy can and should be.
        adastra22 4y ago
        Great job. Now take it the other extreme: is it okay to kill a baby that had already been born, but was still attached by the umbilical cord? It’s still, technically, part of the mother’s body at that point.
        4y ago
lazide 4y ago
One thing I’ve come to realize over the years - words are rarely about what they seem on the surface or their contents, but almost always: 1) trying to convince or manipulate someone else or themselves to their benefit, either to agree with them (which feels good), or do something they want (which feels good) 2) self awareness, especially on self mental health, is in extremely short supply.
adastra22 4y ago
Thank you for sharing this. I used to be pro-choice. I think a lot of women (and men) are because of the fear they might be in a position of needing an abortion themselves, or other abstract/potential concerns. Framed as a right to body autonomy, pro-choice seemed the obvious position of any feminist, and how could you possibly believe otherwise? Then I was in the position of having to make the decision myself. Now, years removed, I still don't feel comfortable posting details online, even under a pseudonym. But suffice to say my partner and I were in a position of having to decide whether to terminate a pregnancy that we had really wanted, due to unexpected medical news. Suddenly all those clever pro-choice arguments seemed hollow, now that we were in the position of making the decision ourselves. This was a real thing. She had a heartbeat. We watched her move and react on the ultrasound. We had, for weeks, imbued our hopes and dreams into this unborn child. We could terminate, but it'd be our call. We'd be pulling the trigger. In that moment I finally understood and emotionally connected with the pro-life position and "abortion is murder!" slogans. Now I recognize it is a much more complex, multi-faceted issue than I ever previously thought. Every now and then I look and my daughter and think: I almost killed you. How could I have possibly done that? I get the arguments on both sides of the issue, and I don't think that there is any simple solution. It now frustrates me to no end to see people being very loud and very vocal about what are essentially straw man versions of the opposing side's arguments, and vilifying anyone who thinks differently or has lived a different experience. Whatever happened to civil society?
- sjostrom7 4y ago
  I understand you have strong feelings about whether you wanted an abortion, and that's totally understandable and I'm glad you are happy with the choice you made. But that's not at odds whatsoever with referring to yourself as "pro-choice". (Most folks that get abortions already have kids, so it's not like everyone has to pick "abortion" or "no abortion" for life.) I had an abortion back in the aughts, and never once regretted it, but that doesn't mean I think it was the right choice for you or anyone else that decided to continue their pregnancy. I'm glad we had the choice.
  - adastra22 4y ago

causi 4y ago

Same here. I find it very annoying that on most major issues, the sides argue at right angles to one another. They say the other side is wrong without saying what they believe is wrong. Anti-abortion activists don't address the issue of bodily autonomy and pro-abortion activists don't address the issue of the definition of personhood. If you're like me and settled on strictly-consistent stances on the topic you find yourself with some extraordinarily unpopular opinions, to both sides.

tensor 4y ago
If we were debating at what term we should allow abortions until then I think there is room for discussion. But the extreme position of "no abortions at all at any term" I'm simply uninterested in discussion. It's not that I don't understand their thinking. I simply do not agree and thus do not care to discuss or debate it. Here is the thing, the majority of people who actually reason and think about these topics have heard the same arguments now for 20 years or more. There is nothing new being said, there is no movement on the position of people on either side, and thus there is no more discussion. All you see is propaganda, which I don't care to engage with. So I vote and donate so that "my side" wins and that's that.
- TimPC 4y ago
  I think a sizeable percentage of pro-lifers have not heard a coherent argument for Evictionism and have never worked their way through the violinist example. I’m not saying it will change their deeply held ideological beliefs but I highly doubt anyone has heard all arguments under the sun on this issue. I agree there is too much low-grade propaganda and a lack of good debate that makes it tempting to check out of the discourse entirely. I think we need to learn how to improve the discourse though as democracy ceases to function if people check out of nearly every issue and turn almost everything tribal.
- causi 4y ago
  Well see that's the thing. What makes killing a human murder? I'm of the opinion that the human mind is what makes a human more valuable than a lower animal. Killing a cloned body with no cerebrum wouldn't be murder. I'm forced to concede, however, that that belief doesn't give me a reason that newborns should be more protected than fetuses as it takes months for infants to begin demonstrating consciousness and memory. If consciousness isn't the dividing line, then what is? You could say the ability to sustain life on one's own is the dividing line, but then that line is always moving. A one year old infant will die without care. A thousand years ago a six month old fetus would almost certainly die shortly after birth, but today the survival rate is nearly 100%. With today's technology a 24 week fetus has between a 60 and 70 percent chance of survival. Is killing a 24 week fetus murder? If murder is contingent on its ability to survive with modern technology, what happens as technology pushes that age smaller and smaller? Adopting a Least Convenient Possible World principle makes the questions even harder. If you could push a button to have a Star Trek style transporter instantly and painlessly teleport the fetus into an artificial womb, should you still be allowed to kill it instead?

conorcleary 4y ago

Religion is like a firewall keeping logic out based on old rules and whitelists.

alkaloid 4y ago
You know followers of "religion" invented empiricism (and logic and rhetoric, etc.), right? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roger_Bacon https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roger_Bacon
- riskable 4y ago
  You know followers of <insert any random thing> invented <any random thing>, right? There's no dots to connect between one thing and the other. Someone can be a hardcore Catholic and invent an abortion device or an atheist could come up with a fancy new way of manufacturing crosses. Their stance on religion is irrelevant.
  - alkaloid 4y ago
    In this case, there are lots of dots. There are a disproportionate amount of Catholic priests represented within the scientific sphere, including the vast majority of famous ones. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Catholic_clergy_scientists https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Catholic_clergy_scient... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_lay_Catholic_scientists https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_lay_Catholic_scientist...
    - riskable 4y ago
      Again, what are you trying to say here? Some scientists are Catholics? Some of them are even famous? What does that have to do with anything?
- v-erne 4y ago
  And nazis literally invented rockets science that allowed us to explore solar system. So whats Your point? Because clearly you are not seeing that people are not rational but rather rationalizing. Which sometimes leads them to invent useful things like empiricism, and other times things that are not so useful (ideologies, religions etc)

alkaloid 4y ago

evan_ 4y ago
> the extremism from the abortion-supporting side meanwhile your "side" is harassing patients, bombing clinics, murdering doctors, etc.
- alkaloid 4y ago
  Thanks for proving my point.
riskable 4y ago
> the extremism from the abortion-supporting side Can you post some examples? I know the anti-choice crowd has a history of assassination, arson, bombings, death threats, kidnappings, harassment/stalking, and vandalism... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-abortion_violence https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-abortion_violence Note that Wikipedia doesn't seem to have a "pro-choice violence" page and searching around I couldn't find much beyond some vandalism.
- alkaloid 4y ago
  - wbsss4412 4y ago
    There are all kinds of abortion restrictions in the US. [0] Even roe allowed for restrictions after the second trimester. The operative case law now allows any restrictions that don’t impose an “undue burden”. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Types_of_abortion_restrictions_in_the_United_States?wprov=sfti1 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Types_of_abortion_restrictions...
  - riskable 4y ago
    First of all: What a terribly-made PDF... It's so compressed I can't even read the text at the top. Secondly, it's just from an awful source: The Family Research Council (FRC) is designated as a hate group (for good reason!) by the Southern Poverty Law Center: https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate/extremist-files/group/family-research-council https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate/extremist-files/grou... Even after all that it has yet another problem: It uses loaded terms like, "unborn children" to cover the entire gamut of zygote, embryo, fetus, etc. Is it really that impossible for the anti-choice movement to make a reasoned argument? To cite legitimate science? To present a clear (readable, haha) basis for this position that doesn't involve religion or tradition?