Opposition to abortion doesn't necessarily make someone a bigot.

[Deleted]

Well, the thread's about abortion rights.

And the issue, in this particular discussion, was when a new human being came into being.

The points made in this last exchange are that;

1> Life does not "begin", short of abiogenesis. Life carries on, through reproduction, but it is not created.

2> Uniqueness of a DNA strand does not create a new individual, and some individuals share DNA.

So if we're talking about when a new human being has emerged into being, neither of those are valid arguments to rely on. And the emergence of that human being is the emergence of what we recognize as "personhood".

The thread might be about abortion rights, the discussion you decided to engage however, was not.

- - - Updated - - -

And the requirement for distinct DNA does not stand either. Yet I see it being tossed about.

That's sort of the point though. These loose definitions allow for this absurd stance to be taken while remaining consistent with its proposal.

The problem lies with the definition that this side is giving for their reason of significance.

There is no loose definition in defining Zygote as a stage of human development.

[Endus]

There is no loose definition in defining Zygote as a stage of human development.

Nobody was disputing that it was. They were disputing that it was a stage at which a distinct human being had emerged.

[Leodok]

It's all about whether you think a woman's choice is more important than a child's life.
There's no "wrong" side, besides extremists of course (as always).

[May90]

And you know what is hilarious, I don't even argue originally that May90 is wrong per say, just that the "Life begins at conception," is equally valid, just politically inconvenient.

See, I don't think it really matters at all: the debate on abortions, IMO, should be pretty much closed as soon as the principle of bodily autonomy is mentioned. There is just no going around this principle without severe consequences of going down this slippery slope.

In other words, we don't need to establish anything about the growing organism itself to have a valid and complete pro-choice argument. We can debate these matters without trying to bend them to our narrative, because our narrative is already complete and conclusive.

[Jotaux]

See, I don't think it really matters at all: the debate on abortions, IMO, should be pretty much closed as soon as the principle of bodily autonomy is mentioned.

So are you saying that the child should have the right to bodily autonomy and you are now pro life?

[Deleted]

Posted this as a CMV on Reddit and nobody's presented a strong enough argument to counter it yet, at least in my eyes, so here goes nothing. I'm pretty pro-choice and recognize that access to abortion is better than the alternative from a personal liberty perspective, from a societal perspective and from a healthcare (of the mother) perspective.

With that being said, I think that the progressive left is wrong to assume that anyone who disagrees with them on this, including other women, are bigots or that they hate women. In a way it's in the progressive left's best interest to accuse any detractors of being bigoted misogynists, because it helps them control the national dialogue and shut down their opponents, rather than engaging in debate and dialogue. It's an effective, albeit nefarious means of berating and defeating one's opposition.

However, from a societal perspective, I think it would be best if pro-choice argued the merits of our position, instead of shouting down our opponents as terrible human beings. And I would go a step further argue that opposition to abortion doesn't necessarily make someone a terrible human being.

A few years ago I probably would have told you that these people were all just bigots. And while some of them probably do hold negative views of women, I don't think that's a fair representation of their beliefs. A couple of semesters ago I met a few conservative Christians who held some pretty strong 'pro-life' views. And while we never agreed on such topics, I don't think they were coming from a place of hatred or bigotry.

The most vocal member of the group was a female engineering student who was probably far better equipped to succeed in the workforce than the vast majority of people, regardless of gender. And these were the type of people who wouldn't stand for someone they associate with expressing bigoted or hateful views of women or minorities; they even worked with the Muslim club on campus. Most of them seem to legitimately believe that life begins at conception and aren't just trying to oppress women.

In closing, while I realize my experience is anecdotal, I think it speaks to a broader point. A point that opposition to abortion doesn't automatically make someone a bigot or a terrible person, it just makes them misguided. It would be best to argue why their ideas are wrong, rather than to demonize them.

TLDR: Some people regard all life precious on behalf of the floating cloud man.

My response to that is no raped women or abused child should be forced to keep their baby because other people believe in fairytales.

In other news: The heart develops after 18 days. Meaning someone has roughly 2 weeks to abort before aborting something thats alive.

[Halyon]

So are you saying that the child should have the right to bodily autonomy and you are now pro life?

No, because a child is born. And in the vast majority of places, no freely chosen abortion is done above 20 weeks, when that becomes vaguely relevant with the personhood argument.

[Karadros]

That analogy is incorrect though.

Your argument is incorrect.

[Jotaux]

No, because a child is born. And in the vast majority of places, no freely chosen abortion is done above 20 weeks, when that becomes vaguely relevant with the personhood argument.

But May09's argument was that the point it becomes a person doesn't matter. So whether it is born or not doesn't matter.

I am pro choice but I'm not going to pretend its not a moral conundrum. When does it have the right to bodily autonomy? To quote myself earlier "Is is at contraception? birth? When they are aware at 1-2 years old (yeah some sick person was advocating this)?"

[Santti]

In other news: The heart develops after 18 days. Meaning someone has roughly 2 weeks to abort before aborting something thats alive.

Yes, it's alive. That's not relevant however because sperm is alive. And nobody sheds a tear when one has masturbated millions of semen to death.

[Kraenen]

See, I don't think it really matters at all: the debate on abortions, IMO, should be pretty much closed as soon as the principle of bodily autonomy is mentioned. There is just no going around this principle without severe consequences of going down this slippery slope.

In other words, we don't need to establish anything about the growing organism itself to have a valid and complete pro-choice argument. We can debate these matters without trying to bend them to our narrative, because our narrative is already complete and conclusive.

Not really - if that organism is a human it could have rights, including that of bodily autonomy itself.

[Deleted]

Nobody was disputing that it was. They were disputing that it was a stage at which a distinct human being had emerged.

That is really not questionable.

In biological terms, human development entails growth from a one celled zygote to an adult human being.

- - - Updated - - -

Your argument is incorrect.

Please prove how Human embryogenesis is not a stage of human development.

[Halyon]

But May09's argument was that the point it becomes a person doesn't matter. So whether it is born or not doesn't matter.

I am pro choice but I'm not going to pretend its not a moral conundrum. When does it have the right to bodily autonomy? To quote myself earlier "Is is at contraception? birth? When they are aware at 1-2 years old (yeah some sick person was advocating this)?"

If you simplify it, yes. And I agree with it. If you really want to cut to the chase, then bodily autonomy ends the argument right then and there. I'd personally take a bit more into consideration over the subject.

[Jotaux]

Yes, it's alive. That's not relevant however because sperm is alive. And nobody sheds a tear when one has masturbated millions of semen to death.

Salt is made up of sodium and chlorine. sodium is not salt and neither is chlorine. Both are not good for you. A moderate amount of salt is good for you.

The point of that is that sperm is not a baby on its own.

[Endus]

But May09's argument was that the point it becomes a person doesn't matter. So whether it is born or not doesn't matter.

I am pro choice but I'm not going to pretend its not a moral conundrum. When does it have the right to bodily autonomy? To quote myself earlier "Is is at contraception? birth? When they are aware at 1-2 years old (yeah some sick person was advocating this)?"

At best, the argument for a fetus' bodily autonomy solely means that the abortion should remove it without direct harm to the fetus itself, not that abortions should be denied. Because one individual's right to life never trumps another's bodily autonomy. This is why you can't force someone to donate a kidney against their will, just because they're a match and it'll save the patient's life.

- - - Updated - - -

That is really not questionable.

What conclusion are you drawing from that? Literally nobody contested the human reproductive cycle.

[May90]

But May09's argument was that the point it becomes a person doesn't matter. So whether it is born or not doesn't matter.

I am pro choice but I'm not going to pretend its not a moral conundrum. When does it have the right to bodily autonomy? To quote myself earlier "Is is at contraception? birth? When they are aware at 1-2 years old (yeah some sick person was advocating this)?"

I see what you are saying, and I agree, that in this regard determining this point, indeed, matters. "Aborting" a zygote is not an issue, but, say, aborting the creature inhabiting a woman't body after 30 weeks can be questioned.

Not really - if that organism is a human it could have rights, including that of bodily autonomy itself.

I don't think a right can be given to an unborn person. If we go down this route, we will come to conclusions like, "eggs have rights, because they contain a proto-bird".

[Jotaux]

If you really want to cut to the chase, then bodily autonomy ends the argument right then and there.

If it ended the argument right there then which would it be? The bodily autonomy of the child or the mother? Thats why I think the point the child is considered a human being is important. I would say at birth but I would be extremely squeamish if an abortion was preformed days from the birth.

- - - Updated - - -

I don't think a right can be given to an unborn person. If we go down this route, we will come to conclusions like, "eggs have rights, because they contain a proto-bird".

We eat fully formed birds no problem so I don't think it would be an issue.

[spinner981]

Empathy is wider than just empathizing with what a person is feeling right now. I couldn't empathize with the person's feelings at the moment of killing, if they don't feel anything at this moment - but I can certainly empathize with their life plans crushed in a swift moment, with their relatives and friends mourning them, etc.

A fetus isn't a part of anyone's life, and it doesn't have its own life, its own consciousness. Can you empathize with a rock? I can't, nor can I really empathize with a fetus. Maybe I can to a small extent, but not to one that makes killing it somehow comparable to killing a living human being.

The only valid concern I can see is that of the partner of the person aborting the fetus. If the other person wants a child and their partner decides to instead abort it, I can imagine the pain of crushed hopes. Again, it doesn't make abortion any more wrong morally, since the principle of bodily autonomy is supreme - but, at the very least, it is an example of a negative effect of abortion.

Yet you can't empathize with the reality that another human being didn't even get a chance to live?

If you don't think a fetus is part of anyone's life, ask any pregnant woman who actually wants their child to live. Furthermore, a fetus is biologically alive, anyone claiming otherwise is simply incorrect. Concerning consciousness, where are you getting the idea that consciousness (whichever definition you choose to use at the moment) somehow equates to being a person and without it you are not a person? A rock is vastly different from a fetus. First off, no human alive was ever once a rock, but every human alive was once an unborn child in their mother's womb. An unborn child, a fetus, is literally a living human being. The question is whether or not you arbitrarily define it as a 'person' to allow us to legally be able to murder them.

No, bodily autonomy has absolutely nothing to do with abortion. You are a mother, you have a child. YOU made the decision to have sex which is nature's way of producing children. You should take responsibility for the decision that you already made. Bodily autonomy is just an excuse tossed around because pro-choice advocates can't come up with anything better to justify mass baby genocide.

[Kraenen]

I don't think a right can be given to an unborn person. If we go down this route, we will come to conclusions like, "eggs have rights, because they contain a proto-bird".

Well why would that be wrong? (if we find bird rights to be important)

[Jotaux]

At best, the argument for a fetus' bodily autonomy solely means that the abortion should remove it without direct harm to the fetus itself, not that abortions should be denied. Because one individual's right to life never trumps another's bodily autonomy.

Then why would the mother's rights trump the childs?