Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

ginguegiskhan t1_isz0wpq wrote

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

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