you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] -5 points 6 months ago (5 children)

...is that first part supposed to be a serious argument? The other side would say the exact same thing. It's also an issue that inherently will never be black and white because children don't develop in discrete stages, you can never point to a specific time and say "until here it's ok". Some of the arguments for abortion even still apply post-birth, such as the parents not being capable of caring for the child properly, making everyone including the child miserable. And the child a day before birth isn't all that different from the child the day after.

I'd choose birth as the arbitrary cutoff point just because the child stops being part of the mother at that time and we have to put a limit somewhere, but I'd probably lose a lot of people with that (and I'd also still say that's the right thing).

When there exist people unironically making the argument that factory farming is good actually because any life is better than no life, of course there will be a lot more wanting to just defend life for the sake of it even if it just makes everyone involved more miserable.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 6 months ago

    I feel like you're not stating your arguement very well because I don't actually understand the point you're trying to make. There is the anti-abortion crowd and then that's it, there is no other side to the arguement.

    People who are pro-choice are all about enabling others to make their own determinations, people who are anti-abortion are against people being able to make their own determinations. The difference is the pro-choice crowd aren't forcing abortions on people who don't want them, which would be the antithesis viewpoint. You see how the are not equivalent?

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] -3 points 6 months ago (2 children)

    Just want to say I appreciate you having the courage to provide counterpoints in a very biased space.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 6 months ago (1 child)

    They're not providing counter viewpoints They're just being intransitive. There is no such thing as the force everyone to have abortions viewpoint so they are arguing in bad faith.

    A lot of their comments are completely nonsensical as well, e.g.

    When there exist people unironically making the argument that factory farming is good actually because any life is better than no life

    I mean what the hell has that got to do with anything? We're supposed to be talking about the morality of abortions and they throw in animal cruelty in there as if that's some kind of counterpoint. Also I don't think literally anyone thinks that factory farming is moral because otherwise the animals would never have existed, I've never heard of anyone espouse that view. Not that it would matter even if they did, because it's got literally nothing to do with the topic at hand.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 5 months ago

    I actually have heard people espouse that view, but I haven’t gone further than that as it’s usually coming from people who don’t really want to debate animal ethics.

    It’s technically related since someone might believe that creating life and avoiding death is more important than any amount of suffering. It makes endorsing factory farming and anti-abortion logically consistent. But it’s a technicality because I don’t think people have really thought that hard about it, ergo I agree with you it’s nonsensical.

    I thought their first and even second paragraphs are reasonable. They were not advocating for forced abortions or post birth abortions. I’m not clear on your objection.

    Also just generally in this thread, I’m seeing the pro life camp being boiled down to “anti choice”. Sure, that isn’t untrue. To restrict abortion rights is to restrict the choices of women. And to put them at medical risk in some cases, and to potentially bring a child into a world of misery.

    But if you’re starting from the premise of “it’s hard to say when life starts, we have to pick an arbitrary point, and I pick conception” then it’s logically consistent to call it murder after that point, and it’s reasonable to weigh the abortive rights of women against the morality of murder in that context.

    To be clear, I don’t think life-worth-protecting starts at conception. I’m playing devil’s advocate here. I just wish that us in the pro-choice camp acknowledged the problem as not so simple.

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments (1 reply)