7 ms·

We need to drop the "my body my choice" cliche. The entire crux of the disagreement is whether it is really just your body, or whether it is two bodies.

anigbrowl 4y ago
I don't see why people who adhere to the first interpretation should stop articulating their position.
- cartesius13 4y ago
  If two parties are in disagreement, it's useless if they just keep yelling at each other forever and get nowhere. In any debate, people should at the very least be talking about the same thing
- phkahler 4y ago
  They shouldn't, but they need to stop acting like it's a rebuttal of the other position. This is a huge part of the "debate". The two sides aren't even talking about the same issue because they haven't agreed on common language defining what the issue even is.
  - anigbrowl 4y ago
    Why? Conservatives use the word 'life' in exactly the same way. It's not reasoned debate (which has been had ad nauseam) but argumentum ad baculum. Slogans exist for people to assert what they stand for in a recognizable way, without getting drawn into dead-end arguments by bad faith debaters. There isn't a 'correct' answer you can just reason your way to when conflicts of values are involved, because people with different value systems have different initial premises.
- googlryas 4y ago
  Fair enough - I guess my comment was based on my experience that I usually see it used as an attempt to convince others, not as an attempt to describe their own viewpoints.
- Closi 4y ago
  > I don't see why people who adhere to the first interpretation should stop articulating their position. I think OP's point was that they should articulate their position rather than rely on soundbites, particularly soundbites that can be interpreted in multiple ways. For instance, 'My Body, My Right' could also be a slogan for allowing very late-term abortions.
  - s1artibartfast 4y ago
    >For instance, 'My Body, My Right' could also be a slogan for allowing very late-term abortions. That's part of the challenge. A non trivial portion of the pro-choice camp do in fact support unrestricted late term abortions.
    - Closi 4y ago
      The slogans are sometimes a bit like barnum-statements too. i.e. They are designed so anyone can read them and fit their already held beliefs onto them. There is a some kind of interpretation of 'My Body, My Right' that can fit to almost any view on the whole political spectrum.
    - StillBored 4y ago
      And why shouldn't they. A common religious definition of life, is a birthed babies first breath. A fairly reasonable scientific take might be independent viability outside the womb. Largely because most late term abortions were the result of nonviable pregnancies. The laws in many of these states have already made that an uncomfortable proposition as women were given the choice of trying to bring obviously defective pregnancies to term, stillbirth is still a thing, and is particularly high in many of the sh$&thole states where women don't have good prenatal care. I personally saw what it did to a woman I knew personally a few years ago. Due to TX's incredibly stupid laws, when the ultrasounds came back that the baby basically didn't have 1/2 a brain, sever spina bifida, and a few other details I don't remember. The woman was given the choice of trying to carry it to term at risk to her life, or abort it. And due to the timing, literally had to decide that day, then had to listen to its heartbeat, and listen to a bunch state mandated christian propaganda, sit around for 24 hours and then was allowed to terminate. All this bullshit magnified her sorrow. Losing a child one wants is bad enough, having to put up with a bunch of state mandated bullshit designed to make you feel bad and f*&k with your head? Criminal. Without those laws, she probably would have waited at least a couple days to come to terms with the whole thing. I'm guessing some women in less clear cut circumstances might have waited to see how it develops until it was obviously nonviable resulting in a later term abortion. The real criminals here are the ones in the legislature, and should be held responsible for the pain and suffering they cause.
nkrisc 4y ago
If pregnant women have bodily autonomy, then it is their body and their choice. The argument is whether a fetus has the right to use another person’s body against their own will. Otherwise we’re saying that bodily autonomy is not absolute and it’s OK to use people’s body’s against their wishes. If a woman must use her body to give life to the baby inside her, then I really don’t think it’s that big of leap to a situation where someone is compelled to give a kidney to save a life. After all, we’ve conceded that people can be compelled to use their bodies in ways they don’t desire to.
- s1artibartfast 4y ago
  >After all, we’ve conceded that people can be compelled to use their bodies in ways they don’t desire to. We crossed that bridge a long time ago. It is criminal for a parent to starve their children, or abandon them in a hostile environment.
  - roflyear 4y ago
    That's not even remotely similar and you know it.
    - s1artibartfast 4y ago
      I think they are indeed similar and a framework would be needed to separate them. I'm open to the idea that they are similar but have meaningful differences. A significant portion of the US doesn't think there is a meaningful distinction.
      - roflyear 4y ago
        They are not similar. Primarily because having to take care of a kid doesn't mean you are forced to carry them inside you. Also at least in the US you can drop your baby off at any hospital no questions asked. So not similar at all. You're uneducated or trolling. If you need me to explain now these are different things you're the problem.
StillBored 4y ago
Fine, then that other body can survive without the first, and be the ward of the state, paid for by tax dollars. The entire disagreement is a made up political wedge that is held by a minority of a particular religion which for the most part is actually against their very own holy book. A book that is full of actual "baby" killing and not just lumps of unborn cells which actually weren't recognized by any religions as a "baby" until someone decided to apply their "go forth and multiply" attitude which also bans all forms of birth control, as well as sex for any purpose other than reproduction. And in the end, its terrible policy, and will do nothing to reduce actual abortions. Given it only slightly inconveniences those with means, and likely results in an even worse maternal death rates as women are pushed to the point of mortal jeopardy before being provided health care (and if you don't think a large number of the terminations are due to either failures of fetus to develop properly/etc then your living in a larger fantasy) as is happening in TX now. A place where there are actual legislators suggesting that women having abortions should now be given the death penalty.
- Closi 4y ago
  OP isn't arguing for or against abortions, he is arguing about these soundbites that get banded around in lieu of more nuanced debate. Calling the anti-abortion croud a 'minority of a particular religion' I think is also an understatement - according to polling c40% of Americans would consider themselves 'Pro-Life' (https://news.gallup.com/poll/1576/abortion.aspx https://news.gallup.com/poll/1576/abortion.aspx). IMHO it's better to 'strong-man' the other sides arguments (I think you are over simplifying the pro-life viewpoint and are too quick to dismiss their views - let's remember that neither side has an absolute moral truth, and that it's possible to be educated, rational and pro-life). I personally absolutely support a woman's right to get an abortion, and am from the UK, but looking from afar at the debate in the USA it seems more like a war of slogans than a rational discussion.
  - StillBored 4y ago
    40% is a minority, and those are people who consider themselves "pro-life" which isn't exactly the same as the number that think abortions are bad, but should remain legal. I'm to lazy to look that up (and the numbers are nuanced) but its was a lot closer to 25% thought it should be illegal. AKA there are plenty of "conservatives" who are horrified by the decision.
oconnor663 4y ago
I don't think that's the entire crux. Thomson's violinist thought experiment is another big part of the debate, and "my body my choice" is a pretty fair way to describe one of the positions people take on that thought experiment.
AndrewGreen 4y ago
When, not whether. And when is a body a person.
chasing 4y ago
The actual disagreement is whether individuals should have the right to enjoy their own sexual freedom. The religious right says "no." The cases we're going to see the Supreme Court tear apart are about abortion, contraception, gay marriage, etc. Sexual rights. They believe: Marriage is between a man and a woman only. Sex is for procreation only between married couples. And the only reason someone would need an abortion is because she either had sex out of wedlock like a harlot, got herself raped, had an affair, or something else untoward. As such, she deserves punishment, not the baby (and definitely not the man). Contraception only helps women get away with this stuff. And if you think this stuff all weirdly leans towards giving the man in the relationship full control: Bingo. I'm sure these assholes will eventually get around to picking apart Title IX and women's suffrage if they get through their starter list, here. So, no, the crux of the argument isn't the number of bodies involved one or two — it's whether adult Americans, with the full fundamental freedoms of "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" should be allowed to have sex how they want and with whom they want. The abortion part is the only part that really gets traction, which is why that's what they focus on.
- tablespoon 4y ago
  > The actual disagreement is whether individuals should have the right to enjoy their own sexual freedom. That's a component of the disagreement, but it certainly isn't all of it or even most of it.
  - chasing 4y ago
    That's why the religious right cares about it and not the dozens of other things they could be focusing on to save lives — from gun control to universal healthcare to environmental conservation. They won't budge on that shit. But abortion, this one relatively narrow, highly-specific thing. That they're all over. Why?
    - tablespoon 4y ago
      > That's why the religious right cares about it and not the dozens of other things they could be focusing on to save lives — from gun control to universal healthcare to environmental conservation. They won't budge on that shit. 1. You're talking about a coalition like it was one person monomaniacally organized around one idea, which us unlikely to give true insight about that coalition. 2. It also feels that you likely have a distorted view (e.g. taking a oversimple slogan, interpreting it through your views, then misunderstanding the people who use it by imposing your interpretation on them). 3. Also, there are likely subsets of that coalition that actually believe very close to how you think they should (e.g. my impression is the Catholic Church is pretty close).
ppqqrr 4y ago
> whether it is really just your body, or whether it is two bodies Not really. That’s a pseudo-philosophical framing that anti-abortionists prefer, because it hides the real world consequence of their little thought experiment: forcing women to carry unwanted pregnancies, and to raise unwanted children. “One vs two body” is little more than semantics. Fact is, carrying pregnancies and raising the resulting child is the heaviest burden that a citizen can ever carry for the state. The state has no way to adequately compensate the citizen for such service, so instead they offer the freedom of choice. That’s the implicit social contract behind abortion policies; it’s got nothing to do with anyone’s metaphysical interpretation of a pregnant woman’s anatomy.
giantg2 4y ago
I've often asked, what defines a human life? It's a fairly difficult question when trying to be consistent with other areas of life. The viability standard before was pretty good. Even then you had inconsistent laws that punished someone for double murder prior to that date, and even if they couldn't possibly know of the pregnancy.

anigbrowl 4y ago

I don't see why people who adhere to the first interpretation should stop articulating their position.

cartesius13 4y ago
If two parties are in disagreement, it's useless if they just keep yelling at each other forever and get nowhere. In any debate, people should at the very least be talking about the same thing
phkahler 4y ago
They shouldn't, but they need to stop acting like it's a rebuttal of the other position. This is a huge part of the "debate". The two sides aren't even talking about the same issue because they haven't agreed on common language defining what the issue even is.
- anigbrowl 4y ago
  Why? Conservatives use the word 'life' in exactly the same way. It's not reasoned debate (which has been had ad nauseam) but argumentum ad baculum. Slogans exist for people to assert what they stand for in a recognizable way, without getting drawn into dead-end arguments by bad faith debaters. There isn't a 'correct' answer you can just reason your way to when conflicts of values are involved, because people with different value systems have different initial premises.
googlryas 4y ago
Fair enough - I guess my comment was based on my experience that I usually see it used as an attempt to convince others, not as an attempt to describe their own viewpoints.
Closi 4y ago
> I don't see why people who adhere to the first interpretation should stop articulating their position. I think OP's point was that they should articulate their position rather than rely on soundbites, particularly soundbites that can be interpreted in multiple ways. For instance, 'My Body, My Right' could also be a slogan for allowing very late-term abortions.
- s1artibartfast 4y ago
  >For instance, 'My Body, My Right' could also be a slogan for allowing very late-term abortions. That's part of the challenge. A non trivial portion of the pro-choice camp do in fact support unrestricted late term abortions.
  - Closi 4y ago
    The slogans are sometimes a bit like barnum-statements too. i.e. They are designed so anyone can read them and fit their already held beliefs onto them. There is a some kind of interpretation of 'My Body, My Right' that can fit to almost any view on the whole political spectrum.
  - StillBored 4y ago
    And why shouldn't they. A common religious definition of life, is a birthed babies first breath. A fairly reasonable scientific take might be independent viability outside the womb. Largely because most late term abortions were the result of nonviable pregnancies. The laws in many of these states have already made that an uncomfortable proposition as women were given the choice of trying to bring obviously defective pregnancies to term, stillbirth is still a thing, and is particularly high in many of the sh$&thole states where women don't have good prenatal care. I personally saw what it did to a woman I knew personally a few years ago. Due to TX's incredibly stupid laws, when the ultrasounds came back that the baby basically didn't have 1/2 a brain, sever spina bifida, and a few other details I don't remember. The woman was given the choice of trying to carry it to term at risk to her life, or abort it. And due to the timing, literally had to decide that day, then had to listen to its heartbeat, and listen to a bunch state mandated christian propaganda, sit around for 24 hours and then was allowed to terminate. All this bullshit magnified her sorrow. Losing a child one wants is bad enough, having to put up with a bunch of state mandated bullshit designed to make you feel bad and f*&k with your head? Criminal. Without those laws, she probably would have waited at least a couple days to come to terms with the whole thing. I'm guessing some women in less clear cut circumstances might have waited to see how it develops until it was obviously nonviable resulting in a later term abortion. The real criminals here are the ones in the legislature, and should be held responsible for the pain and suffering they cause.

nkrisc 4y ago

If pregnant women have bodily autonomy, then it is their body and their choice. The argument is whether a fetus has the right to use another person’s body against their own will. Otherwise we’re saying that bodily autonomy is not absolute and it’s OK to use people’s body’s against their wishes. If a woman must use her body to give life to the baby inside her, then I really don’t think it’s that big of leap to a situation where someone is compelled to give a kidney to save a life. After all, we’ve conceded that people can be compelled to use their bodies in ways they don’t desire to.

s1artibartfast 4y ago
>After all, we’ve conceded that people can be compelled to use their bodies in ways they don’t desire to. We crossed that bridge a long time ago. It is criminal for a parent to starve their children, or abandon them in a hostile environment.
- roflyear 4y ago
  That's not even remotely similar and you know it.
  - s1artibartfast 4y ago
    I think they are indeed similar and a framework would be needed to separate them. I'm open to the idea that they are similar but have meaningful differences. A significant portion of the US doesn't think there is a meaningful distinction.
    - roflyear 4y ago
      They are not similar. Primarily because having to take care of a kid doesn't mean you are forced to carry them inside you. Also at least in the US you can drop your baby off at any hospital no questions asked. So not similar at all. You're uneducated or trolling. If you need me to explain now these are different things you're the problem.

StillBored 4y ago

Fine, then that other body can survive without the first, and be the ward of the state, paid for by tax dollars. The entire disagreement is a made up political wedge that is held by a minority of a particular religion which for the most part is actually against their very own holy book. A book that is full of actual "baby" killing and not just lumps of unborn cells which actually weren't recognized by any religions as a "baby" until someone decided to apply their "go forth and multiply" attitude which also bans all forms of birth control, as well as sex for any purpose other than reproduction. And in the end, its terrible policy, and will do nothing to reduce actual abortions. Given it only slightly inconveniences those with means, and likely results in an even worse maternal death rates as women are pushed to the point of mortal jeopardy before being provided health care (and if you don't think a large number of the terminations are due to either failures of fetus to develop properly/etc then your living in a larger fantasy) as is happening in TX now. A place where there are actual legislators suggesting that women having abortions should now be given the death penalty.

Closi 4y ago
OP isn't arguing for or against abortions, he is arguing about these soundbites that get banded around in lieu of more nuanced debate. Calling the anti-abortion croud a 'minority of a particular religion' I think is also an understatement - according to polling c40% of Americans would consider themselves 'Pro-Life' (https://news.gallup.com/poll/1576/abortion.aspx https://news.gallup.com/poll/1576/abortion.aspx). IMHO it's better to 'strong-man' the other sides arguments (I think you are over simplifying the pro-life viewpoint and are too quick to dismiss their views - let's remember that neither side has an absolute moral truth, and that it's possible to be educated, rational and pro-life). I personally absolutely support a woman's right to get an abortion, and am from the UK, but looking from afar at the debate in the USA it seems more like a war of slogans than a rational discussion.
- StillBored 4y ago
  40% is a minority, and those are people who consider themselves "pro-life" which isn't exactly the same as the number that think abortions are bad, but should remain legal. I'm to lazy to look that up (and the numbers are nuanced) but its was a lot closer to 25% thought it should be illegal. AKA there are plenty of "conservatives" who are horrified by the decision.

oconnor663 4y ago

I don't think that's the entire crux. Thomson's violinist thought experiment is another big part of the debate, and "my body my choice" is a pretty fair way to describe one of the positions people take on that thought experiment.

AndrewGreen 4y ago

When, not whether. And when is a body a person.

chasing 4y ago

The actual disagreement is whether individuals should have the right to enjoy their own sexual freedom. The religious right says "no." The cases we're going to see the Supreme Court tear apart are about abortion, contraception, gay marriage, etc. Sexual rights. They believe: Marriage is between a man and a woman only. Sex is for procreation only between married couples. And the only reason someone would need an abortion is because she either had sex out of wedlock like a harlot, got herself raped, had an affair, or something else untoward. As such, she deserves punishment, not the baby (and definitely not the man). Contraception only helps women get away with this stuff. And if you think this stuff all weirdly leans towards giving the man in the relationship full control: Bingo. I'm sure these assholes will eventually get around to picking apart Title IX and women's suffrage if they get through their starter list, here. So, no, the crux of the argument isn't the number of bodies involved one or two — it's whether adult Americans, with the full fundamental freedoms of "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" should be allowed to have sex how they want and with whom they want. The abortion part is the only part that really gets traction, which is why that's what they focus on.

tablespoon 4y ago
> The actual disagreement is whether individuals should have the right to enjoy their own sexual freedom. That's a component of the disagreement, but it certainly isn't all of it or even most of it.
- chasing 4y ago
  That's why the religious right cares about it and not the dozens of other things they could be focusing on to save lives — from gun control to universal healthcare to environmental conservation. They won't budge on that shit. But abortion, this one relatively narrow, highly-specific thing. That they're all over. Why?
  - tablespoon 4y ago
    > That's why the religious right cares about it and not the dozens of other things they could be focusing on to save lives — from gun control to universal healthcare to environmental conservation. They won't budge on that shit. 1. You're talking about a coalition like it was one person monomaniacally organized around one idea, which us unlikely to give true insight about that coalition. 2. It also feels that you likely have a distorted view (e.g. taking a oversimple slogan, interpreting it through your views, then misunderstanding the people who use it by imposing your interpretation on them). 3. Also, there are likely subsets of that coalition that actually believe very close to how you think they should (e.g. my impression is the Catholic Church is pretty close).

ppqqrr 4y ago

> whether it is really just your body, or whether it is two bodies Not really. That’s a pseudo-philosophical framing that anti-abortionists prefer, because it hides the real world consequence of their little thought experiment: forcing women to carry unwanted pregnancies, and to raise unwanted children. “One vs two body” is little more than semantics. Fact is, carrying pregnancies and raising the resulting child is the heaviest burden that a citizen can ever carry for the state. The state has no way to adequately compensate the citizen for such service, so instead they offer the freedom of choice. That’s the implicit social contract behind abortion policies; it’s got nothing to do with anyone’s metaphysical interpretation of a pregnant woman’s anatomy.

giantg2 4y ago

I've often asked, what defines a human life? It's a fairly difficult question when trying to be consistent with other areas of life. The viability standard before was pretty good. Even then you had inconsistent laws that punished someone for double murder prior to that date, and even if they couldn't possibly know of the pregnancy.