Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

vermontaltaccount t1_isyzpfp wrote

Reply to comment by MortaLPortaL in Why I'm voting yes on Prop 2 & 5 by ButtonFactoryJoe

> Honestly as a man, who the fuck am I to tell a woman what to do with her body?

Minor nitpick, but I haven't been a big fan of this as the most focused on aspect of the debate; a lot of the pro-lifers use the argument that "it's murder of the baby", and I don't think saying "Well that's the woman's choice" is the proper counter-argument to that.

Anyway, as a man I also voted yes because I follow the scientific reasoning that life does not begin at conception.

Not saying you felt differently, just adding in my thoughts on the messaging of the issue that I see as a whole.

71

ginguegiskhan t1_isz0wpq wrote

That's the problem with this issue in politics in general. The sloganeering on both sides doesn't address any of the arguments face on. If you listen to a structured, nuanced, non-attacking debate about abortion it brings out the complexity of the topic. But its much easier to say "my body" or "murder"

46

1DollarOr1Million t1_isz50j7 wrote

Hey! Stop being reasonable and balanced in opinion! There’s no place for that here in American politics!

/s

28

Go_Cart_Mozart t1_isz6ya9 wrote

Yes. "Sloganeering" is a huge detriment to discussion.

I'm quite anti abortion. I'm also very pro choice. It's possible to be both. Try making a slogan out of that ; )

28

Eagle_Arm t1_isz9jld wrote

I don't support your decision, but I support your choice to make that decision.

I see it similar to, "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."

29

amoebashephard t1_iszktzc wrote

It's also possible to be anti abortion, and realize that all of the states that are enacting this legislation against abortion are having very drastic effects on women's health; both access to doctors and their ability to respond to emergencies during pregnancy.

17

Successful_Order_638 t1_it03zml wrote

It doesn’t matter what you realize; it only matters how you vote.

1

amoebashephard t1_it058nv wrote

Yes, let's encourage voting without critical thinking. /S

My point still stands-enshrining reproductive medical access in law is about much more than just abortion.l

1

vermontaltaccount t1_iszsild wrote

Absolutely. I think a lot of the issue is the desire to have something be "catchy" and "simple". Which is great in theory, but the problem is people often lean towards "catchy and simple" at the detriment of "accurate", and it leads to the alienation of some people who generally agree.

It's a lot easier to say "men shouldn't make a decision on women's bodies" than it is to say "Due to the scientific consensus that life does not begin at conception, this no longer becomes a debate about infringing upon the rights of others, including the unborn fetus; it becomes a body autonomy issue which only impacts women".

Not to mention all the people saying "Men shouldn't make decisions that only impact women" are inadvertently validating the opinions of Amy Coney Barrett; and I do not believe those opinions to be ethically right.

6

kraysys t1_it2cz9r wrote

> "Due to the scientific consensus that life does not begin at conception, this no longer becomes a debate about infringing upon the rights of others, including the unborn fetus; it becomes a body autonomy issue which only impacts women"

Source on your "scientific consensus"? Everything I've seen in biology 101 indicates that conception produces a distinct life -- the question is rather whether we ought to give that life moral equivalency to the mother and thus legal protection, and at what stage in its development.

0

airhogg t1_it56pmh wrote

Estimates run from 50 to 80 percent, and even some implanted embryos spontaneously abort. The woman might never know she was pregnant.

Assuming that fertilization and implantation all go perfectly, scientists can reasonably disagree about when personhood begins, says Gilbert. An embryologist might say gastrulation, which is when an embryo can no longer divide to form identical twins. A neuroscientist might say when one can measure brainwaves.

https://www.wired.com/2015/10/science-cant-say-babys-life-begins/

1

kraysys t1_it59tu7 wrote

Define “abort” as you use it — that’s just simple word obfuscation. A miscarriage (and its medical equivalents) are not the same as an abortion procedure.

Yes, I’ve said multiple times that the question of personhood is a different and much more relevant one. I’ve been specifically arguing about whether it’s a “life” here.

1

ChocolateDiligent t1_it2jfcp wrote

Look to other examples of bodily autonomy that we already use in the medical fields and you will find the counter argument. Specifically around autonomy and those in an induced coma and how decisions are made for the state of which the person in an unconscious state, which is always to assume that the person would rather be in the state they possessed prior to being placed into an induced coma.

The conversation of when life starts is irrelevant because there are is no analogous standing for this argument in the medical field. There are no medical standings where we prioritize a non-autonomous, non-decision making body over that of a mother who is exactly all of those things, it's rather simple logic and there is precedent for this argument. The counter argument cannot contest this with any real life examples.

5

draggar t1_it264i9 wrote

>Minor nitpick, but I haven't been a big fan of this as the most focused on aspect of the debate; a lot of the pro-lifers use the argument that "it's murder of the baby", and I don't think saying "Well that's the woman's choice" is the proper counter-argument to that.

It's about body autonomy.

I give this example:

Say someone has leukemia and they need a bone marrow transplant to survive. I am their only match as a donor. Should I have 100% say if I will or will not donate marrow?

If I decide not to, does the government have the right to force me to donate marrow? Does the government have the right to create a law to force everyone to donate marrow?

(I use a bone marrow transplant as an example since it is rather intrusive on the donor, can cause harm, and has a recovery period - it's the closest thing (medically) I can think of to pregnancy / birth (other than living organ donation).

It may not be a 100% perfect example and it may be flawed, but, again, it's the closest I can think of.

2

vermontaltaccount t1_it299vz wrote

But the issue is, people who believe "abortion is murder" think that the woman shouldn't have control over the fetus, as they believe it to be a separate person.

It's like how you can't force someone to give marrow to save your own life; the people who believe "abortion is murder" don't think you should force the fetus to die to save the mom.

Thats why I prefer to focus on the "abortion is NOT murder" part of the argument.

2

eye-brows t1_it2ropa wrote

No, I totally get what you're saying.

To be clear, I don't think abortion isn't murder and women should have the right to bodily autonomy, and I will also be voting Yes on both these propositions.

It's weird for me when Republicans ban abortion except for rape or incest. Because if they truly believed abortion was murder, the conception would be irrelevant. Like, if they really think a fetus is a baby, why would they make exceptions? We don't kill actual living, breathing, not-in-the-womb babies born out of rape.

Which tells me they're hypocrites who just want to control women.

3

kraysys t1_it2u0xc wrote

> It's weird for me when Republicans ban abortion except for rape or incest. Because if they truly believed abortion was murder, the conception would be irrelevant. Like, if they really think a fetus is a baby, why would they make exceptions? We don't kill actual living, breathing, not-in-the-womb babies born out of rape.

Pro-lifers generally promote this as a policy because it's very popular among Americans to have a 12-15 week ban with those few exceptions. I agree that it's intellectually inconsistent though. But isn't it also inconsistent for pro-choicers who talk about bodily autonomy and how the fetus isn't a human life to generally want abortion restrictions after 12-15 weeks?

> Which tells me they're hypocrites who just want to control women.

There are millions upon millions of pro-life women. The "controlling women" trope is so tired.

0

kraysys t1_it2rqaa wrote

This is one of the classic arguments in favor of abortion, but it really misses the mark for a number of reasons (as you concede at the end of your comment).

The relationship of a mother to a child is not at all equivalent to a person with leukemia. A child isn't a random disease that pops up, it's a new life that was created by the mother via having sex or IVF.

Additionally, an unborn baby can be removed for medical necessity to save the life of the mother without forcibly terminating it -- e.g. through a C-section or by early labor induction. There is no medically necessary reason when saving the mother to terminate the life instead of removing the unborn baby and trying to keep it alive as well. Etc. etc. etc.

0

Thor5858 t1_it127kc wrote

The counter argument is “any law restricting abortion causes further barriers in scenarios where abortion is necessary for the survival of the mother, or where a kid was raped and wishes to abort” nothing else matters. We’re also right about the rest of it, but unless someone can look you in the eye and say the believe a 13 year old who was raped should be forced to also give birth, there is no argument supporting abortion restriction. Every restriction is a barrier. Every barrier means someone will die or be fucked up forever.

0

vermontaltaccount t1_it28sbd wrote

>unless someone can look you in the eye and say the believe a 13 year old who was raped should be forced to also give birth, there is no argument supporting abortion restriction

That's the thing; pro-lifers who believe it is murder WILL say that.

3

Thor5858 t1_itcv63y wrote

Fortunately, a lot of them actually do agree in those cases. Another example is when the mothers life is threatened and the baby will be a stillbirth. As long as concrete situations where abortion is literally the only option are brought up, there is no counter argument.

1

kraysys t1_it1ddme wrote

Please elaborate on this claim:

> I follow the scientific reasoning that life does not begin at conception.

In another comment you describe it as the “scientific consensus.” I am very curious to know what exactly you mean by this.

Edit: Downvotes (as can be expected, I suppose) yet no reply. This is a good-faith question. Everything I've seen, and my public VT high school education taking biology, indicates that science is pretty settled around the idea that a distinct human life forms when the sperm meets the egg and forms a zygote (i.e. fertilization).

Is there some perspective within the scientific community that I'm missing here? Typically the abortion question deals with when one ought technically consider the fetus a human and worthy of equal moral consideration to the mother -- a live debate for sure -- but I've never really seen anybody argue that science says the fetus isn't a distinct life.

−2

vermontaltaccount t1_it2erpu wrote

The neural tube doesn't fully close until 6 or 7 weeks after conception was what I was going with. Beyond that it does admittedly get trickier.

3

kraysys t1_it2gjqn wrote

Why the neural tube distinction? Surely the existence of a neural tube and its closure isn’t the defining characteristic of a new life according to biology.

0

vermontaltaccount t1_it2jva8 wrote

Brain death is considered death therefore we can derive something without a functional brain is not considered alive in a legal/ethical sense.

Plants are also "alive" in the same way a fetus is, and also cannot be murdered.

Also for clarity, I do still support abortion post-7 weeks, but the reasoning and my own personal thoughts on the matter are more complex.

2

kraysys t1_it2pxzu wrote

You're really getting more into ethics here than science.

The clear consensus in biology is that a distinct human life is formed at the point of conception with the formation of the zygote. You claimed multiple times that science says life does not begin at conception. That is simply a false claim.

> Also for clarity, I do still support abortion post-7 weeks, but the reasoning and my own personal thoughts on the matter are more complex.

That's interesting, since you said elsewhere that

> "I also voted yes because I follow the scientific reasoning that life does not begin at conception"

which implies that this is your primary reason.

As an aside, I appreciate your reflexive downvoting of my comments, really leads me to believe you're acting with intellectual honesty and in good faith here.

0

vermontaltaccount t1_it2u6dt wrote

>The clear consensus in biology is that a distinct human life is formed at the point of conception with the formation of the zygote.

Plant life also begins at a seed, and I also don't think it's unethical to pull an undeveloped seed out of the ground either, because it doesn't have a brain.

>You claimed multiple times that science says life does not begin at conception. That is simply a false claim.

I'll admit my wording in my original post is fairly simplified, but I think I've elaborated enough in subsequent posts to detail what I meant at a scientific level.

> which implies that this is your primary reason.

I've also talked in depth about how it's difficult to really elaborate on the full extent of the issue because of how complex it is. I have a job not related to politics so the amount of time I spend on reddit threads explaining minute details of my arguments is minimal. Ultimately, yes, it is my primary reason, and I do have other reasoning.

>As an aside, I appreciate your reflexive downvoting of my comments, really leads me to believe you're acting with intellectual honesty and in good faith here.

I am not downvoting you.

2

kraysys t1_it2uzta wrote

> Plant life also begins at a seed, and I also don't think it's unethical to pull an undeveloped seed out of the ground either, because it doesn't have a brain.

Sure, but you made an argument with regard to life generally. Most people can distinguish between moral claims around plant life and human life. I also don't think it's unethical to pull an undeveloped seed out of the ground early; not because of a brain or lack thereof but because it's not a human life -- and plants and humans are not morally equivalent.

> I'll admit my wording in my original post is fairly simplified, but I think I've elaborated enough in subsequent posts to detail what I meant.

Yes it was, and no I don't think you have anywhere actually. You made a clear claim multiple times around what the supposed scientific consensus was, and in fact the scientific consensus is the exact opposite of what you claimed.

> I have a job not related to politics so the amount of time I spend on reddit threads explaining minute details of my arguments is minimal. Ultimately, yes, it is my primary reason, and I do have other reasoning.

Haha same, I understand that. But as a primary point it seems to me to be deeply flawed insofar as you've only really made a moral argument because the science-life argument you led with is flatly false.

> I am not downvoting you.

Good to know, thanks. Happened a few times quickly after I made a comment responding to you so I assumed -- but you know what they say about assuming!

1