5 ms·

The anti-abortion "argument" (everyone on all sides are really just asserting things because there doesn't appear to be anything to argue about) is that abortio

by roenxi 2y ago

The anti-abortion "argument" (everyone on all sides are really just asserting things because there doesn't appear to be anything to argue about) is that abortion is murdering a child. If someone accepts that frame, would you attempt to argue that there is no social contract to protect the lives of children? That seems like a tough argument to carry.

max__dev 2y ago
I think that framing makes the argument vacuous. If an action is framed as murder, how would OP defend in the first place? Any argument would be tough to carry. It would be arguing against a tautology. You are right to mention how the "debate" here is people asserting their arguments. What I find most tough to carry is the consequent: there are ~600,000 (rough number of abortions per year in USA) people "murdering" their own "children" every single year. I suppose in the process of putting their faith in god these people have removed all their faith in humanity...
therealpygon 2y ago
Unfortunately, that argument tends to break down almost immediately after birth, so “protecting the children” becomes a cheap catch-all excuse for selective engagement. Defunding education, defunding school food, defunding numerous programs that actually protect children in favor of cash in their pocket. Morality sold cheaply or abandoned for convenience, except when forcing their will on others, especially if it only affects someone else.
- poincaredisk 2y ago
  Did you narrow down that topic to American conservatives? I'm not familiar with your politics but that doesn't sound familiar in context of my country. Also, this is whataboutism. If someone cares about A but not enough about B, it doesn't mean that A is not a good thing.
  - therealpygon 2y ago
    It does if A always comes at the expense of another person C. Morality only via the sacrifice of others isn’t belief, it is control and punishment.
    - roenxi 2y ago
      > It does if A always comes at the expense of another person C. Morality only via the sacrifice of others isn’t belief, it is control and punishment. Hypothetically [0], if someone saved another person from being murdered by a close relative would that count as proving to you their morality system is based on freedom and forgiveness? [0] Imagine my poker face.
      - therealpygon 2y ago
        And if they are “saving” a terminally ill patient who wanted to go peacefully rather than continuing to endure pain and suffering? So if you are suggesting that walking in, saving someone, then walking away feeling good about yourself while not caring about the pain and suffering you may have inflicted on that person by your actions is justification of morality, I’d say that is just as equally a disgusting of a display of selfishness at the expense of others. Since we are making up hypotheticals, we might as well use this one that is more similar to what happens in reality.
  - Propelloni 2y ago
    Of course this predicates that there are differences between A and B. The GP is, I believe, making the point that claiming to protect unwanted unborn children (A) when campaigning for anti-abortion regulation is just a power-play to dictate a lifestyle choice, if it does not follow up with protecting the unwanted born children (B). I think, there is merit to this. Observations shows that most societies forbid woman to throw their unwanted born child into a garbage bin, so if you claim that women are or should be as free as men in their lifestyle choices, where does that leave the woman? Either you need birth control to prevent that situation, or a social security network that takes care of the unwanted child after the fact. In my simple, male mind this should be a given. Otherwise, if I were a woman, I would refuse sex. The ancient Greeks have a funny story about that [0]. Of course, you can also say that women aren't allowed to be as free as men in their lifestyle choices. And I think, I'm not going too far out on a limb when I say that's actually at the bottom of this issue. Some people think it is OK to make women less free than men in the service of their ideals, while others think it is not. Resolve this tension and you will make progress. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lysistrata https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lysistrata
Tireings 2y ago
It's not a child at the 3th month mark.
zamalek 2y ago
Again, vaccinations and pronouns directly affect more than a handful of people. Each abortion affects only the individuals involved. Furthermore, hypotheticals are all fine and good, but society exists the way it does right now. The argument is only difficult to carry in a society where unwanted children have a reasonable chance at basic outcomes. That is not the world that we live in: what you are actually arguing is against a mercy killing, or expecting the baby to pull themselves up by their nappy-straps (they almost universally can't/won't). "Mercy killing" is brutal, I know, but it's not my beliefs that have established a world (and continue to push the world further towards) such a place where dying in the womb is a more merciful outcome. Make hope more universally accessible and I'll have a much more difficult time with my argument. I am not carrying my argument, it is the broken state of society that is.

by roenxi 2y ago

max__dev 2y ago

I think that framing makes the argument vacuous. If an action is framed as murder, how would OP defend in the first place? Any argument would be tough to carry. It would be arguing against a tautology. You are right to mention how the "debate" here is people asserting their arguments. What I find most tough to carry is the consequent: there are ~600,000 (rough number of abortions per year in USA) people "murdering" their own "children" every single year. I suppose in the process of putting their faith in god these people have removed all their faith in humanity...

therealpygon 2y ago

Unfortunately, that argument tends to break down almost immediately after birth, so “protecting the children” becomes a cheap catch-all excuse for selective engagement. Defunding education, defunding school food, defunding numerous programs that actually protect children in favor of cash in their pocket. Morality sold cheaply or abandoned for convenience, except when forcing their will on others, especially if it only affects someone else.

poincaredisk 2y ago
Did you narrow down that topic to American conservatives? I'm not familiar with your politics but that doesn't sound familiar in context of my country. Also, this is whataboutism. If someone cares about A but not enough about B, it doesn't mean that A is not a good thing.
- therealpygon 2y ago
  It does if A always comes at the expense of another person C. Morality only via the sacrifice of others isn’t belief, it is control and punishment.
  - roenxi 2y ago
    > It does if A always comes at the expense of another person C. Morality only via the sacrifice of others isn’t belief, it is control and punishment. Hypothetically [0], if someone saved another person from being murdered by a close relative would that count as proving to you their morality system is based on freedom and forgiveness? [0] Imagine my poker face.
    - therealpygon 2y ago
      And if they are “saving” a terminally ill patient who wanted to go peacefully rather than continuing to endure pain and suffering? So if you are suggesting that walking in, saving someone, then walking away feeling good about yourself while not caring about the pain and suffering you may have inflicted on that person by your actions is justification of morality, I’d say that is just as equally a disgusting of a display of selfishness at the expense of others. Since we are making up hypotheticals, we might as well use this one that is more similar to what happens in reality.
- Propelloni 2y ago
  Of course this predicates that there are differences between A and B. The GP is, I believe, making the point that claiming to protect unwanted unborn children (A) when campaigning for anti-abortion regulation is just a power-play to dictate a lifestyle choice, if it does not follow up with protecting the unwanted born children (B). I think, there is merit to this. Observations shows that most societies forbid woman to throw their unwanted born child into a garbage bin, so if you claim that women are or should be as free as men in their lifestyle choices, where does that leave the woman? Either you need birth control to prevent that situation, or a social security network that takes care of the unwanted child after the fact. In my simple, male mind this should be a given. Otherwise, if I were a woman, I would refuse sex. The ancient Greeks have a funny story about that [0]. Of course, you can also say that women aren't allowed to be as free as men in their lifestyle choices. And I think, I'm not going too far out on a limb when I say that's actually at the bottom of this issue. Some people think it is OK to make women less free than men in the service of their ideals, while others think it is not. Resolve this tension and you will make progress. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lysistrata https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lysistrata

Tireings 2y ago

It's not a child at the 3th month mark.

zamalek 2y ago

Again, vaccinations and pronouns directly affect more than a handful of people. Each abortion affects only the individuals involved. Furthermore, hypotheticals are all fine and good, but society exists the way it does right now. The argument is only difficult to carry in a society where unwanted children have a reasonable chance at basic outcomes. That is not the world that we live in: what you are actually arguing is against a mercy killing, or expecting the baby to pull themselves up by their nappy-straps (they almost universally can't/won't). "Mercy killing" is brutal, I know, but it's not my beliefs that have established a world (and continue to push the world further towards) such a place where dying in the womb is a more merciful outcome. Make hope more universally accessible and I'll have a much more difficult time with my argument. I am not carrying my argument, it is the broken state of society that is.