3 ms·

I'll try to respond to your edit. People are arguing about your words because the ones you pick to make your argument DO matter. You've chosen the dichotomy g

I'll try to respond to your edit. People are arguing about your words because the ones you pick to make your argument DO matter. You've chosen the dichotomy generally pushed by the Right, rather than a discussion of health care or women's safety. Consider the difference in feel if you posted this as your two conditionals: If you believe that doctors should be given leeway to treat their patients as they best see fit even if sometimes you disagree with their rationale, you're going to believe abortion should be available. If you believe that moral rules should be followed and your moral rules are paramount regardless of any doctor's opinion on the ground, you're going to believe abortion should not be available. This gives a very different feel and perspective to the conversation. The words you pick matter.

PH95VuimJjqBqy 3y ago
the ideas matter, not the words. the art to disagreeing with someone without vilifying them is to recognize their beliefs come from their values. Even what you're trying to argue about healthcare. someone who believes in the word of God is going to argue an individual is less important than God's commandments, someone who does not will argue the individual is more important. And I don't want to hear any whiffle about a dichotomy here, consider it a spectrum between 0 and 1 if it makes you feel better. ------------ The point is that framing this as correct/incorrect is a very poor way to frame it, it leaves no room for understanding.
- dpkirchner 3y ago
  It isn't really a spectrum -- it's binary. The question ultimately is: should the government be able to force you at gunpoint/threat of imprisonment to carry a fetus for 9 months? If you say no, you're on the side that claims to be pro-choice. If you say yes, you're on the side that claims to be pro-life. Whether or not you believe that abortion is right or wrong isn't really relevant, except in so far as it informs your opinion about government coercion.
  - joelfried 3y ago
    That depends on what your "it" is, and I agree here that framing is really key. Consider the difference between your formulation: > should the government be able to force you at gunpoint/threat of imprisonment to carry a fetus for 9 months? and: When should the government be able to force you at gunpoint/threat of imprisonment to carry a fetus for 9 months? You can take my version and reduce it to yours with "always" and "never" responses, but the world is not digital, it is analog. My question allows for a lot more answers, a lot more debate, and compassion for one another. A binary response leads only to argumentation because we can't find the edges that we agree on, only the boundary we fight over.
    - PH95VuimJjqBqy 3y ago
      well said, this is what I was getting at when I said the ideas matter more than the words.
    - dpkirchner 3y ago
      > When should the government be able to force you at gunpoint/threat of imprisonment to carry a fetus for 9 months? If you get to the point where you're asking "when", you're already saying the government should be able to force you to carry a fetus. I'm not sure how else to interpret it. If it helps I guess you can twist my formulation to be "the government should be able to force you to carry a fetus under some circumstances that are evaluated by people on a case-by-case basis". All that "under" and beyond stuff is redundant, however. As soon as we say that a case requires evaluation we apply force. We coerce the person by threatening them with imprisonment if they don't stop seeking an abortion. Further, we open the door to imprisoning people in a system that is already slow and burdensome; we then give people in government power to wait 9 months for the question to become moot. > A binary response leads only to argumentation because we can't find the edges that we agree on, only the boundary we fight over. The debate is not nor has it ever been over circumstances or conditions -- that is a distraction from the pro-life crowd. For example, some propose exceptions for cases of rape. But can rape be proven in less than 9 months, including appeals? Obviously not. If an allegation or mere statement that a rape occurred is enough then we might as well not issue the threat. Others propose exceptions if the pregnancy threatens the pregnant person, which just means that some cases will be decided by the government, ultimately. The boundary is well-defined and fixed. You may just be uncomfortable with it, and that's your choice.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

PH95VuimJjqBqy 3y ago

the ideas matter, not the words. the art to disagreeing with someone without vilifying them is to recognize their beliefs come from their values. Even what you're trying to argue about healthcare. someone who believes in the word of God is going to argue an individual is less important than God's commandments, someone who does not will argue the individual is more important. And I don't want to hear any whiffle about a dichotomy here, consider it a spectrum between 0 and 1 if it makes you feel better. ------------ The point is that framing this as correct/incorrect is a very poor way to frame it, it leaves no room for understanding.

dpkirchner 3y ago
It isn't really a spectrum -- it's binary. The question ultimately is: should the government be able to force you at gunpoint/threat of imprisonment to carry a fetus for 9 months? If you say no, you're on the side that claims to be pro-choice. If you say yes, you're on the side that claims to be pro-life. Whether or not you believe that abortion is right or wrong isn't really relevant, except in so far as it informs your opinion about government coercion.
- joelfried 3y ago
  That depends on what your "it" is, and I agree here that framing is really key. Consider the difference between your formulation: > should the government be able to force you at gunpoint/threat of imprisonment to carry a fetus for 9 months? and: When should the government be able to force you at gunpoint/threat of imprisonment to carry a fetus for 9 months? You can take my version and reduce it to yours with "always" and "never" responses, but the world is not digital, it is analog. My question allows for a lot more answers, a lot more debate, and compassion for one another. A binary response leads only to argumentation because we can't find the edges that we agree on, only the boundary we fight over.
  - PH95VuimJjqBqy 3y ago
    well said, this is what I was getting at when I said the ideas matter more than the words.
  - dpkirchner 3y ago
    > When should the government be able to force you at gunpoint/threat of imprisonment to carry a fetus for 9 months? If you get to the point where you're asking "when", you're already saying the government should be able to force you to carry a fetus. I'm not sure how else to interpret it. If it helps I guess you can twist my formulation to be "the government should be able to force you to carry a fetus under some circumstances that are evaluated by people on a case-by-case basis". All that "under" and beyond stuff is redundant, however. As soon as we say that a case requires evaluation we apply force. We coerce the person by threatening them with imprisonment if they don't stop seeking an abortion. Further, we open the door to imprisoning people in a system that is already slow and burdensome; we then give people in government power to wait 9 months for the question to become moot. > A binary response leads only to argumentation because we can't find the edges that we agree on, only the boundary we fight over. The debate is not nor has it ever been over circumstances or conditions -- that is a distraction from the pro-life crowd. For example, some propose exceptions for cases of rape. But can rape be proven in less than 9 months, including appeals? Obviously not. If an allegation or mere statement that a rape occurred is enough then we might as well not issue the threat. Others propose exceptions if the pregnancy threatens the pregnant person, which just means that some cases will be decided by the government, ultimately. The boundary is well-defined and fixed. You may just be uncomfortable with it, and that's your choice.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]