6 ms·

Well and more important: all the rules that kick in when someone is born should kick in at day one of the personhood. Tax breaks, social support, etc. But it i

by atoav 4y ago

Well and more important: all the rules that kick in when someone is born should kick in at day one of the personhood. Tax breaks, social support, etc. But it is not about personhood, it is not about murder — this is about sex and giving the state the power to enforce prude religious ideas. Which is why there are open discussions about banning contraception as well. The idea: Sex should only be had for the purpose of generating offspring. It should never be enjoyed. This is the believe, and anyone has to follow it, so it needs to become law.

rayiner 4y ago
That doesn’t follow. The law applies differing treatment at different stages of life in many contexts. We have different social programs that kick in for young people versus old people, for example. And we do have social programs specifically for pregnant women. As to the sex argument, do you really find it persuasive? Because it makes no sense to me. Religious conservatives view babies as a blessing, not a punishment—for having sex or anything else. What they reject is the premise that destroying a human life must be legal to maintain the fiction that sex is without consequences. (Note that the vast majority of republicans support legalized contraception, at about the same rate as democrats: https://news.yahoo.com/poll-most-americans-will-balk-if-conservatives-challenge-contraception-and-gay-marriage-after-overturning-roe-202215040.html https://news.yahoo.com/poll-most-americans-will-balk-if-cons...)
- atoav 4y ago
  > As to the sex argument, do you really find it persuasive? The argument is of course completely bonkers, but this is the thinking behind it — and I grew up in a deeply catholic area: You just need to talk to those people and ask them "Why" a few times and you will end up there. The church seeing itself as a torch of morality in questions like: - when do people have sex? - what do women wear? This is nothing new and not limited to catholics. If they control your private life they control your life. IMO church should limit itself to questions of spirituality and be kept out of the state, law and private lives of the rest of us at all cost.
- mullingitover 4y ago
  > Religious conservatives view babies as a blessing, not a punishment—for having sex or anything else. They view it as both depending on what suits them. They view it as a punishment for promiscuous sex, and a reward for people trying to have children. More realistically, they view it as a blessing for the father, who gets the valuable possession of a child, without any of the pain or risk to life and limb of bearing a pregnancy to term. My favorite thought experiment is to follow the belief in the soul of the hypothetical person in the womb into the hypothetical afterlife to explore the consequences of abortion (and miscarriage, which is when the supreme deity performs the abortion). Do these hypothetical people go to heaven? If so, heaven is full of souls who never experienced life at all, they just woke up in heaven. There are millions upon millions of happy souls in heaven who never had to endure a single trial or make a conscious choice to get there. This seems like an amazing hack! Indeed, you could operate a fertility clinic and singlehandedly dominate the demographics of the afterlife. Furthermore, if hypothetical people who never become real automatically go to heaven, abortion would seem like the best thing you can do for them. There's no chance they'll ever be tempted into sin and end up in hell. However, some Calvinists will tell you that predestination means that the terminated pregnancy (which, remember, the divine hand has personally performed in majority of cases) has derailed the divine plan, and some of the hypothetical people were going to make choices that landed them in hell. So they arbitrarily come into existence and spend eternity in endless, vicious torment, placed there by the deity who allegedly is a being of pure love. This is even more dark and mind-twisting! It means that there are millions upon millions of souls in hell, suffering eternal torment and they have no idea why they're there.
  - rayiner 4y ago
    > They view it as a punishment for promiscuous sex, and a reward for people trying to have children. Why don't you try to steel-man the opposing view? E.g. (a) children are a blessing; and (b) the desire to be free of the natural and predictable consequences of sex does not justify destroying a human life, especially given (a). This formulation explains the opposition to abortion, and is internally consistent. > More realistically, they view it as a blessing for the father, who gets the valuable possession of a child, without any of the pain or risk to life and limb of bearing a pregnancy to term. If you aren't aware that religious conservatives (like nearly everyone else) view children and motherhood as a blessing for women, I don't know what to tell you. Maybe spend some time in Africa or Asia and you might realize that it's not just something the GOP made up to piss off Democrats.
DeathArrow 4y ago
>But it is not about personhood, it is not about murder It's about taking an innocent life.
- csours 4y ago
  Let's say that I agree that abortion is wrong (which is true enough). Under what circumstances should a miscarriage be investigated as a criminal matter? In this question I include any involved parties. Prosecuting a woman's relatives or loved ones is tantamount to prosecuting her. Under what circumstances should a healthcare decision be investigated as a criminal matter? If it is about an innocent life, then which states added funding for healthcare and child care as a part of their abortion trigger laws? Which states restored planned parenthood funding? I don't think abortion is GOOD. I also don't think it's any of the government's business. Making abortion illegal does not make anyone any more moral. Making abortion illegal does not change anyone's mind about the morality of abortion. Making abortion illegal will not save anyone's soul from damnation. Making abortion illegal WILL increase the number of kids born to mothers in poverty.
  - josephcsible 4y ago
    > Under what circumstances should a miscarriage be investigated as a criminal matter? Under what circumstances do we investigate the death of a newborn as a criminal matter today? > If it is about an innocent life, then which states added funding for healthcare and child care as a part of their abortion trigger laws? Which states restored planned parenthood funding? I don't understand the line of thinking that says you can't care about stopping intentional killings unless you also want to give them a bunch of free stuff. Example: Able-bodied adults need food to live. I don't want murder of able-bodied adults to be legal. That doesn't mean that I should have to pay for every other able-bodied adult's food for them.
    - csours 4y ago
      > Under what circumstances do we investigate the death of a newborn as a criminal matter today? Are you absolutely sure you want to apply the same standard? Do you know how many pregnancies end in miscarriage? > I don't understand the line of thinking that says you can't care about stopping intentional killings unless you also want to give them a bunch of free stuff. It's not about the free stuff. When the power of the state stepped in to force the pregnancy to continue, they took responsibility for the life of the person. You care about "intentional killings of babies". I believe that. I believe that you can imagine the life of the potential person when you see a pregnancy. Do you believe that people should be able to have sex without getting pregnant? Is preventing the fertilization of the egg an acceptable way to prevent the "intentional killing of a baby"? Should the power of the state enforce your belief about contraception? Is preventing the fertilized egg from implanting in the uterine wall acceptable? Should the power of the state step in here? At what point in the act of intimacy should the power of the state be enforced?

by atoav 4y ago

rayiner 4y ago

That doesn’t follow. The law applies differing treatment at different stages of life in many contexts. We have different social programs that kick in for young people versus old people, for example. And we do have social programs specifically for pregnant women. As to the sex argument, do you really find it persuasive? Because it makes no sense to me. Religious conservatives view babies as a blessing, not a punishment—for having sex or anything else. What they reject is the premise that destroying a human life must be legal to maintain the fiction that sex is without consequences. (Note that the vast majority of republicans support legalized contraception, at about the same rate as democrats: https://news.yahoo.com/poll-most-americans-will-balk-if-conservatives-challenge-contraception-and-gay-marriage-after-overturning-roe-202215040.html https://news.yahoo.com/poll-most-americans-will-balk-if-cons...)

atoav 4y ago
> As to the sex argument, do you really find it persuasive? The argument is of course completely bonkers, but this is the thinking behind it — and I grew up in a deeply catholic area: You just need to talk to those people and ask them "Why" a few times and you will end up there. The church seeing itself as a torch of morality in questions like: - when do people have sex? - what do women wear? This is nothing new and not limited to catholics. If they control your private life they control your life. IMO church should limit itself to questions of spirituality and be kept out of the state, law and private lives of the rest of us at all cost.
mullingitover 4y ago
> Religious conservatives view babies as a blessing, not a punishment—for having sex or anything else. They view it as both depending on what suits them. They view it as a punishment for promiscuous sex, and a reward for people trying to have children. More realistically, they view it as a blessing for the father, who gets the valuable possession of a child, without any of the pain or risk to life and limb of bearing a pregnancy to term. My favorite thought experiment is to follow the belief in the soul of the hypothetical person in the womb into the hypothetical afterlife to explore the consequences of abortion (and miscarriage, which is when the supreme deity performs the abortion). Do these hypothetical people go to heaven? If so, heaven is full of souls who never experienced life at all, they just woke up in heaven. There are millions upon millions of happy souls in heaven who never had to endure a single trial or make a conscious choice to get there. This seems like an amazing hack! Indeed, you could operate a fertility clinic and singlehandedly dominate the demographics of the afterlife. Furthermore, if hypothetical people who never become real automatically go to heaven, abortion would seem like the best thing you can do for them. There's no chance they'll ever be tempted into sin and end up in hell. However, some Calvinists will tell you that predestination means that the terminated pregnancy (which, remember, the divine hand has personally performed in majority of cases) has derailed the divine plan, and some of the hypothetical people were going to make choices that landed them in hell. So they arbitrarily come into existence and spend eternity in endless, vicious torment, placed there by the deity who allegedly is a being of pure love. This is even more dark and mind-twisting! It means that there are millions upon millions of souls in hell, suffering eternal torment and they have no idea why they're there.
- rayiner 4y ago
  > They view it as a punishment for promiscuous sex, and a reward for people trying to have children. Why don't you try to steel-man the opposing view? E.g. (a) children are a blessing; and (b) the desire to be free of the natural and predictable consequences of sex does not justify destroying a human life, especially given (a). This formulation explains the opposition to abortion, and is internally consistent. > More realistically, they view it as a blessing for the father, who gets the valuable possession of a child, without any of the pain or risk to life and limb of bearing a pregnancy to term. If you aren't aware that religious conservatives (like nearly everyone else) view children and motherhood as a blessing for women, I don't know what to tell you. Maybe spend some time in Africa or Asia and you might realize that it's not just something the GOP made up to piss off Democrats.

DeathArrow 4y ago

>But it is not about personhood, it is not about murder It's about taking an innocent life.

csours 4y ago
Let's say that I agree that abortion is wrong (which is true enough). Under what circumstances should a miscarriage be investigated as a criminal matter? In this question I include any involved parties. Prosecuting a woman's relatives or loved ones is tantamount to prosecuting her. Under what circumstances should a healthcare decision be investigated as a criminal matter? If it is about an innocent life, then which states added funding for healthcare and child care as a part of their abortion trigger laws? Which states restored planned parenthood funding? I don't think abortion is GOOD. I also don't think it's any of the government's business. Making abortion illegal does not make anyone any more moral. Making abortion illegal does not change anyone's mind about the morality of abortion. Making abortion illegal will not save anyone's soul from damnation. Making abortion illegal WILL increase the number of kids born to mothers in poverty.
- josephcsible 4y ago
  > Under what circumstances should a miscarriage be investigated as a criminal matter? Under what circumstances do we investigate the death of a newborn as a criminal matter today? > If it is about an innocent life, then which states added funding for healthcare and child care as a part of their abortion trigger laws? Which states restored planned parenthood funding? I don't understand the line of thinking that says you can't care about stopping intentional killings unless you also want to give them a bunch of free stuff. Example: Able-bodied adults need food to live. I don't want murder of able-bodied adults to be legal. That doesn't mean that I should have to pay for every other able-bodied adult's food for them.
  - csours 4y ago
    > Under what circumstances do we investigate the death of a newborn as a criminal matter today? Are you absolutely sure you want to apply the same standard? Do you know how many pregnancies end in miscarriage? > I don't understand the line of thinking that says you can't care about stopping intentional killings unless you also want to give them a bunch of free stuff. It's not about the free stuff. When the power of the state stepped in to force the pregnancy to continue, they took responsibility for the life of the person. You care about "intentional killings of babies". I believe that. I believe that you can imagine the life of the potential person when you see a pregnancy. Do you believe that people should be able to have sex without getting pregnant? Is preventing the fertilization of the egg an acceptable way to prevent the "intentional killing of a baby"? Should the power of the state enforce your belief about contraception? Is preventing the fertilized egg from implanting in the uterine wall acceptable? Should the power of the state step in here? At what point in the act of intimacy should the power of the state be enforced?